Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user What is energy? All of matter is just energy, we look at it closer and closer, and we get to something like quantum foam or the vacuum energy. Isn't this just a measurement of energy? It doesn't really tell us what energy is. So what exactly is energy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is a Big Question. Let me give a few different points of view, very roughly in order of historical development (but all of them are still valid today). Energy is a bookkeeping device. In Newtonian mechanics, given a particular starting point and particular interactions, not every outcome is possible! It turns out to be useful to keep track of certain quantities that don't change over time, so they must be the same at the beginning and the end of some process. One such quantity (for appropriate interactions) is energy. If you take one-half the mass of an object times the square of its speed, and add that number up for all objects, and also add a particular quantity called 'potential energy' that depends on the locations of all the objects, that number will always remain constant. The terms you add up will change, but their total will not. In this view, energy is simply this number that stays the same and is useful for deciding what can and can't happen. Energy is the conserved quantity associated with time-translation symmetry. Emmy Noether realized and proved a deep fact about those numbers that don't change in time ('conserved quantities'). They are associated with symmetries of the laws of physics. It sounds kind of woo-woo, but you can prove mathematically: because the laws of physics do not change over time, there is a particular number (which you can derive a formula for from the laws of physics) that is constant. That number is the same quantity, energy, from above. It works the other way, too---since we experimentally observe conservation of energy, it follows that the laws of physics are the same over time (within the precision we can measure). Noether's version of energy generalizes nicely beyond Newtonian mechanics, so you can extend the definition of energy to electromagnetic fields (it turns out electric and magnetic fields store energy) and relativistic mechanics (from whence we get E^2 = m^(2)c^(4) + p^(2)c^(2)). The full relativistic generalization leads nicely to the most modern view: energy is (a certain part of) the thing that bends spacetime. Just like we can think of electric charge as 'the thing that produces electric fields,' we can think of energy as 'the thing that bends spacetime.' More technically, energy is but one part of the stress-energy tensor, which provides the source of spacetime curvature. Indeed, in modern physics, even when ignoring the effects of gravity, you can answer the question 'how much energy is here' by asking how spacetime would bend if it could. Whatever stress-energy tensor you get out of the calculation will be conserved and equivalent to the first two definitions of energy. (Weirdly, this way of finding the conserved energy can be easier than finding it directly.) The first two formulations imply that energy is just a number we calculate---a convenience---and we could do without it if we just plugged along and calculated. The third implies that energy is a real thing that has real, gravitational effects on our world. And those aren't incompatible--they're equivalent!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Access to Safe Abortion Services is a Human Right My view is that absolute and unrestricted access to safe abortion services is a human right. This view includes access to comprehensive reproductive health services and access to preventative birth control methods. Any restrictions, limitations, stigmatization, or criminalization of these services is morally wrong and a violation of human rights. States have a positive obligation to provide these services as well as other comprehensive reproductive health services, access to preventative birth control methods, and evidence-based sexual and reproductive health information. Anything less than this is a violation of a person's human rights. This is my view because comprehensive reproductive health services, including abortion, are necessary to guarantee the right to life, health, privacy, and non-discrimination for women, girls, and other people with wombs. That these rights are violated when abortion is restricted is evident from the elevated rates of bodily harm, health complications, disability, and death experienced by women, girls, and other people with wombs. Forcing women, girls, and other people with wombs to give birth against their will is on its face a violation of bodily autonomy. Limitations on access, such as having to travel significant distances to receive care, are a massive waste of time and resources, having sharp and discriminatory economic repercussions for women, girls, and other people with wombs. I cannot fathom a justifiable reason for any restrictions or limitations to be imposed upon access to safe abortion services and I would like to better understand those points of view. Change my view. :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Why do your human rights begin after childbirth, and not a second before? Is passing through a vagina (or being cut out of the womb) an initiation ritual of some sort? If they begin before there is a contradiction of human rights (and arguably the right to live takes precedence).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can you buy glasses for Long-sightedness off a shop isle but not glasses for short-sightedness? Why is it that you always need a prescription for short-sightedness but can walk into any pharmacy or supermarket and buy glasses with Positive power?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The glasses you buy in a pharmacy (reading glasses) aren't actually for short-sightedness per se, but for an issue with similar symptoms called presbyopia. Short(near)sightedness and long(far)sightedness are both due to the outer portion of your eye being slightly misshapen causing items to focus on the back of your eye poorly. Think of it like holding a magnifying glass at a slightly off distance from what you are trying to look at. Presbyopia is the hardening of the lens inside your eye. The lens inside your eye is has a level of elasticity and can be stretched to fine tune focusing on small or very up close objects. As we get older the lens loses this elasticity and the reading glasses help compensate. Fun fact: Being nearsighted is almost like wearing reading glasses non-stop. Many people who have laser vision correction for nearsightedness notice afterwards that they need reading glasses where they did not before.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I am afraid that being politically active might harm my future I live right near DC. It's only a 30 minute drive and I'm always free to go any weekend. For some reason, I have this pathetic fear that being politically active might bite me in the arse someday. Like I'll somehow distance myself from the people around me by going to marches. In an age with no privacy(and as a person who heavily values privacy and anonymity), a simple picture taken by a stranger might bite me back. My family, church community, workplace, they might all view me differently if I decide to participate in a certain marches. This fear is so absurd, but it's exactly what's stopping me from trying to be a part of anything.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This can play out two ways in the future: 1. You keep the same political views. You are an early leader in that political movement and a hero. Bernie Sanders led all sorts of sit ins and marches when he was in college, and it has only helped his presidential run today. 2. You change your political views. You can always say you saw the light and will be a hero for admitting you were wrong. For example, the plaintiff in Roe V. Wade changed her mind about abortion, and is a hero in the pro-life movement today.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that men shouldn't get as much of a say as women in regards to abortion. CMV I'm pro-choice and believe that the choice to get an abortion is highly personal and that it's not fair to tell strangers what to do with their bodies. That said, I don't believe that men have the right to tell a woman whether to get one or not. I feel that ultimately whether or not the woman wants to get an abortion should be her own choice, yet a part of me feels like this isn't completely fair to the father. I'm kind of torn, and also feel like a hypocrite for holding this view, so CMV! Edit: Thanks for all the replies guys! I really liked reading your arguments, and they've helped me sort out my own view on this. :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If not the right to influence the mothers choice to keep the child, then maybe fathers should have the right to a 'financial abortion'- That the father forfeit any claims to the child, and in return not be held financially responsible for child support if the mother would choose to keep the child.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I jumped on the moon with the same force as I use when I jump on Earth, would I hit the ground just as hard? I'm not jumping off of anything, just up and back down on level ground.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ignoring air resistance and gravity effects while you are actively jumping: Your initial velocity at the moment you separate from the ground will be the same as the velocity you have when you hit the ground. The difference between Earth and Moon will be how long it takes gravity to decelerate you to a stop and then accelerate you back down. If you can apply the same force in both jumps you will hit the ground / moon-dust at the same speed. Same speed means you will experience the same impact.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is most of the gold in the world found in Africa?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant By total amount of gold mine reserves, North America comes out on top with about 30% of known gold mine reserves by weight. Africa has only 22%. The US and Canada combined have more gold than all of Africa. So the premise of the question is wrong since Africa does not have the most gold compared to other continents. Of the top 10 gold producing countries, only two are African (South Africa and Ghana). Although South Africa alone has over 50% of all of Africa’s gold and is #3 on the list (after the US and Canada). Of the top 20 largest gold mines by estimated weight, only 4 are in Africa (3 in South Africa and 1 in Ghana). South Africa, as a country, does have a lot more gold than other countries (especially considering its small area compared to Canada, US, Australia, etc.). This is mainly because of one massive formation known as the Witwatersrand Basin. The fact that this basin has so much gold may have been the result of a colossal accident: a major meteor impact 2 billion years ago crushed the whole basin downwards meaning that it was preserved and never eroded like the surrounding rocks.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What can someone do with your IP address? How does it work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The most common and easiest thing they can get is information about your physical location (city, state, ZIP code), which they can use in some cases to get even more information about you, especially if you're not careful about protecting yourself on social media websites. Besides that, they theoretically could access your computer remotely, but there are a lot of roadblocks there, such as your ISP's internet security configuration and firewalls, your own modem and router's security configuration and your computer itself (usually has some sort of basic firewall online by default). A dedicated and capable enough hacker might be able to find a way in but it's not going to be a super simple or easy task.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Even using Warp-speed, there are limits to how fast starships can travel, but they have no problems communicating at huge ranges. Why? So throughout Star Trek ships and stations frequently communicate with places that are weeks or months travel away instantaneously. Why is there no lag time? There are clearly limits to their range since in Voyager they use miniature short-lived worm holes to send messages from Star Fleet to Voyager when it's beyond the range of their communications, but there seems to be zero issues between say, Sisko on DS9 and his dad on Earth talking despite the huge range. How does this work? Why do there communications work seemingly instantly up till the point where it just turns off?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Interstellar communications are done through subspace, which allows the signal to travel faster than light. However the signal can only travel within subspace for so long before it eventually 'bleeds' back out into normal space and is once again reduced to 'only' moving at the speed of light. To get around this, most interstellar nations have constructed a network of subspace relays in and around their territory. These stations pick up a signal, amplify it, then send it on towards its intended destination. Thanks to extremely advanced computer systems, the entire process takes only tiny fractions of a second and so there is little to no lag noticeable, even over larger distances.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How come cows get protein and fats from only eating grass, and lions get vitamins and minerals from only eating flesh? What is so diffeent about their metabolism?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cows have special bacteria growing in their gut in order for them to be able to digest cellulose - the material that makes up plant cell walls. Th is bacteria has enzymes to allow the cow to digest and absorb max nutrients. Lions don’t have this<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek DS9] Garak's mannerisms and way to speak seems to differ from other Cardassians. Is he considered to be the equivalent of stereotypically gay/flamboyant by Cardassian standards?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Garak suggests that folks like him tend to tailor their outward personas to match their surroundings. Being a rare case of a Cardassian chiefly living among non-Cardassians and outside the conventional power structure, and his mannerisms and speech are optimised for dealing with that, to the best of his abilities as a trained espionage agent. Also, potentially significant spoiler >!he's also spending pretty much all day on the technological equivalent of a fistful of uppers. The Obsidian Order implanted a device in his brain that lets him stimulate the pleasure centers on command. While this was originally intended as an anti-torture device, he got in the habit of just leaving it on to help him power through the crippling ennui and depression of his fall from grace and exile.!<<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user "Unemployment alone explains 80% of the variation in Dutch suicide rates between 1960 and 2015" Is this a meaningful number? How do we determine causation? I got the number from page 21 of this report: http://www.dyingforchoice.com/docs/TheTenDeadlySinsOfJonesPatonAndKheriaty2017.pdf >Trends in Dutch suicide rates closely follow the unemployment rate. Unemployment alone explains 80% of the variation in Dutch suicide rates between 1960 and 2015. And from the year that the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) first issued structured guidelines for doctors to participate in assisted dying, 1984, there’s been a long-term downward trend in the suicide rate. As discussed in more detail elsewhere,48 the rate only increased from 2008 onwards when the Netherlands was particularly hardhit by the global financial crisis (GFC). What would a good social scientist due to determine if: (A) this 80% number is meaningful and (B) what the true affect of unemployment on suicides are?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's important to note that their explained variance comes from regressing a time series of suicide on a time series of unemployment. In many cases, regressing levels on levels in a time series will generate high correlations with high significance. Regressing a change on a change is often more meaningful and also often yields a lower R-squared. Basically, all the regression tells you is that there was a trend of increasing unemployment and increasing suicide up through 1980, a decreasing trend in both until about 2008, and another increasing trend thereafter. It could be caused by any number of things, such as changes in demographics (percent of the population above age 65) or broader societal changes. As an example, if you regressed the US crime rate on the number of US high schools that taught evolution, you would see a very strong positive correlation up through about 1990. So does teaching evolution cause crime? Well, no. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, just that there were two broad societal changes that coincided. Trends can last a long time. If two trends happened to start at around the same time, for completely unrelated reasons, then those trends will be highly correlated. If you look at the cross-sectional bivariate regression results on page 29, the state unemployment rate explains only 4 percent of the variation in state suicide rates, and is not statistically significant. It's hard to think that unemployment plays a large causal role if there is no significant cross-sectional relationship between unemployment and suicide.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user (Star Wars) What changes did Luke Skywalker implement to the Jedi doctrine when refounding the order? For example: According to legends, his Jedi were able to marry. Luke Skywalker himself was even said to have married Mara Jade, a turned assassin who became a Jedi herself. How did Luke justify these changes? Did he consult the Force Ghosts of Obi-Wan or Yoda and how did they feel about these changes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most of the new initiates were adults who had their own lives already, friends, family, children, spouses. They simply could not abandon them. The New Jedi Order was much greyer than the previous order, open to darker powers to a certain degree. Jedi Master Katarn openly used dark side powers, as did Luke Skywalker.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If deep water is colder than surface water, then why does the water at the bottom of a lake not freeze before the surface water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A few key things to keep in mind: - Nearly all heat transfer to/from a lake occurs at the surface - It takes increasingly more energy to mix water masses of increasingly different temperatures - The maximum density of water occurs at 4º C - Less dense masses float on top of more dense masses So, for a typical temperate, dimictic lake during warm summer months, the surface waters of the lake are much warmer and less dense than deep water. The difference is usually so extreme that lake water becomes stratified such that the surface waters ("epilimnion") do not mix at all with the bottom water ("hypolimnion"). Moving into autumn, the epilimnion water begins to cool until its temperature equals that of the hypolimion. When this happens, the lake water begins to fully mix and lake stratification disappears. As atmospheric temperature continues to fall, moving into winter, the surface water of the lake continues to cool. However, since water is most dense at 4º C, water at this temperature sinks to the bottom while colder water, which is less dense, floats to the top. Lake stratification becomes reestablished with the coldest water in the epilimnion and warmer (4º C) water in the hypolimnion. The surface of the lake eventually cools to below 0º C and freezes into a solid; however, water has a unique property in that its solid phase is less dense than its liquid phase. Thus, ice floats on liquid water. When the lake begins to warm throughout the spring, the epilimnion reaches 4º C and again mixes with the same-density water of the hypolimnion. Upon continued warming, the surface waters -- which are now less dense than the 4º bottom water -- become once again isolated by lake stratification throughout the summer. This is generally the case of most lakes, especially in temperate latitudes. These lakes are named "dimictic" because they mix twice during the year. There are many other mixing regimes for lakes and it all depends on their climatic setting and, sometimes, the chemical composition of their water. Some lakes mix once ("monomictic"), some mix many times ("polymictic"), and some don't mix at all ("meromictic").<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Throw a rock into a lake of an unknown liquid. How much can you learn about what the liquid is, just by measuring the way the lake reacts? Assuming you know the weight and speed of the rock. Can you figure out anything about what the lake is composed of? or are do you have to actually measure the liquid directly to see what it is?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some basic physical characteristics (viscosity, density, vapor pressure, surface tension) can probably be extrapolated from a high resolution/high frame rate video of the splash, but because thrown rock observation is not a currently established technique, it would take a lot of groundwork to get to a point to be able to reliably extract information about the lake. If you choose a heterogeneous rock with a lot of distinct domains that are specifically reactive with different types of liquids and solutes, you might be able to gain additional information.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The Concept of Men Having To Be the Pursuer In Relationships Is A Stupid Idea Meant to Control People Its forces men and women to form life and morals around a societal idea that is designed to force people into roles. If you want to be approached by anyone, you've got to play this Alpha Male Dance, and force people into being interested. I've talked to many a person, after being friends with them so long, who give the "If I knew you were interested, I would have given you a chance earlier." type talk. I'm a 6'2'', decently well built guy; called pretty boy and other slightly demeaning, if not just jokey or flirty things. I'm demi, and I've got to have a connection, and the only way to have that is if the person meets me at least halfway. Only thing I'd say I'm missing that others could provide is being well off financially; born into a poor family and poor state. Like walk towards me with intent, and you have my full attention. I want to know you, but society says I should leave that for last, and is total mind washing BS IMO In regards to dating apps, If I'm presenting myself in any fashion, clearly I'm looking for something, use your head. I'm not going to walk into a McDonald's looking for a steak; you know where we are. Taste is subjective, so I know others would want to be approached too. People are too afraid to be open and emotional. But I can accept that I'm wrong on this, so im listening for other perspectives. Not Validation please. Edit: Tfw you're downvoted without any discussion. Edit2: I'm realizing how far leaning some people are. Some comments are based strictly on emotionally personal growth; some are ITS SCIENCE. Can't the two be combined? Am sleep, answering back ASAP Edit3: I agree my view is brought upon by childhood raising, alot of the current day "be yourself, yadada", and a healthy dose of wanting to be more positive in general when it comes to humanity. Though hearing incel-lite is a bit harsh, you are entitled to your opinion. Edit4: My biggest issue with most reasonable responses is that humans constantly do things that go against that natural instinct. We've had social constructs and unspoken rules such as the "Golden Rule". If we were and are meant to be the pursuing role, whats with the influx of different sexual orientations? To play "The Game", we really either fully go into it, Alpha Boy Prime, or we dabble and ask why it doesn't work. Makes me feel as though I'm the broken one here; wanting to not as much be picky but interact with those who have the same mindset of I want to know the person. Edit5: Its not some evil Saturday morning cabal, its more along the lines of a mix of religion, media, and society, though things are changing. Like yes, its been proven from a scientific standpoint why we are like this, but saying that things are only because of that is naive and very narrow minded. This is not an Occams Razor topic; its not "That Simple" Edit6: By whom is difficult, potentially multifaceted (culture, tradition, religion), potentially extremely simple i.e. nature. Whom to control is easier; EVERYONE. Why can't you like both masculine and feminine traits? Isn't being "balanced" the end goal for human mental development? I have to chase because my and others biology apparently says I must according to science, while according to religion and many societies, I must take up the Mantle of Man. You can be more advanced than that. But what is a Man really? Being brave when I need to be? Sure, easy. Stand up for others in crisis situations? Always. Be some Omega Chad, slapping my dick on things to mark my territory; This is MINE? Fuck that. I am deeper than that; apparently most arent. Edit7: I have some id like to Delta, but I'm reddit incompetent, (on mobile at least). View isn't entirely changed but it has advanced. What I perceive as control is mostly circumstantial, and people just kind of naturally go into the flow when it comes to these types of issues. I am just weirdly different, its ok that I am, and those who lean into only (psuedo)science explanations, true or not, lack E.I. Embrace both and grow lol Edit8: Last one possibly, this entire paragraph blew me away and is eye opening. "I'd also like to reference someone who addressed the idea of other minds. You want people to approach you, despite their personal inclinations not to, for reasons they don't seem to associate with you, but you identify within yourself. How is anyone supposed to see who you are without seeing who you are? And if your the type to stay stush in a corner, angry with the lack of interest that your rendering, I suggest a different approach. If you're looking for it, it won't come. Go out with some friends for the purpose of hanging out with your friends, your energy will speak for itself and whoever finds it attractive will make their way over. Otherwise, you might have to do the talking. And if the conversation dies almost immediately, as you described somewhere in the thread, they're just not for you. Or...vice versa." It never ends lol. If there's anything that comes out of this, outside of my views, I hope someone reads this and some of the wonderful posts, and grows. I want people to be better and truer to themselves, rather than listen to what others say they should be. Final Takeaway: I need to stop using Reddit. That is true wisdom.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant From the perspective of an evolutionary psychologist these different behaviours from men and women with regard to finding sexual partners are cognitive biases and adaptive behaviours. They aren't rules created by humans that are unique in humans. Many other species have similar behaviours where the male pursues the female. In these species the cost of baring a child is disproportionately on the female because she has to undergo a gestation period and often raises the offspring. This means that the repercussions for poorly choosing a mate are more costly for the female than they are for the male. If a female makes a bad choice of mate, she is stuck with the responsibility of gestation and raising sub par genetics whereas if the male made a poor choice he just moves on to the next female. As a result of the disproportionate costs of poorly judging the quality of a mate, females tend to be more cautious and conservative whereas males will rarely pass up an opportunity for sex. In humans, specific cognitive biases have been identified. Women tend to underestimate a man's commitment and men tend to overestimate a woman's interest. By the way, monogamy or being lifelong partners is also an adaptive behaviour found in many species. The idea that it is purely a human social construct is ignorant. This is because while a male might pass on his genetics by sex alone, the survival rate of his offspring will continue to rise if he helps to raise them. The chances of his offspring having more offspring will also increase and that is the ultimate goal (perpetuating your genes).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why taste is subjective even though the structure of our taste buds and biology is generally similar or the same. I understand that we can link positive memories etc and other sensory inputs with certain tastes and so on, but why does something literally taste good to some people and not to others? Does every item taste the same for everyone but different people perceive them in different ways?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of how your specific taste buds work actually is controlled by your genes. For example, whether or not you like cilantro is genetic. Another example is broccoli and other similar vegetables. They have a compound in them which some people taste as bitter, while others don't, because some people have a gene which codes for a protein that interacts with this compound to make it taste bitter, while others don't. Some people are genetically predispositions to be more sensitive to salt, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why aren't bacterial pandemics as common as viral epidemics? It seems as though any modern epidemics or pandemics with importance are caused by viruses (like the Swine Flu, the Spanish Flu, HIV/AIDS, COVID), but the only bacterial epidemic I can think of is the Bubonic plague. Is there any reason for the lack of bacterial pandemics, or am I just forgetting some that have occurred?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bacteria can be easily killed with antibiotics in most people. The thing is, bacteria are living organisms with their own mechanisms of life that differ from humans, so making a medicine that kills the bacteria without the person is relatively easy. Viruses however aren’t exactly alive, they are protein envelopes with DNA in it. When they get in a cell they use the cell own enzymes to replicate and just provide enough DNA to build its envelope. That makes it a whole lot more difficult to make a medicine that kills the virus without killing the person Also bacteria are less tolerant to living in air droplets or on surfaces, they dry up and die. Viruses can dry up then rectivate easier. Some bacteria can form spores that can tolerate dryness so there are exceptions. Also immune system is much more capable of killing the bacteria without having to develop specific immunity, for viruses, you have to wait for the body to form specific antibodies. The plague never fully disappeared, it still shows up everywhere and gets treated with Antibiotics, so it is no longer a big problem.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does a symphonic orchestra work? Is there a standard set of instruments or does it vary? How is the amount of each instrument determined? What is the reasoning behind how every group of instruments is positioned? Can each musician hear the sound of their own instrument? Isn't it crazy loud when you're there in the middle? If someone makes a mistake, will the others spot it immediately? How do so many people manage to find time to rehearse together? (I'm guessing not all orchestra are full time pros?) How much do you need to know about other instruments than yours? And a gazillion other questions! Edit: thank you so much everyone for taking the time to reply and for the insight. This is amazing. I am reading every comment!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. it varies. there is a "classic" configuration for symphonic orchestras, baroque orchestras and so on. The symphony orchestra is most typically from about 75-90, but...actual results vary a lot because everyone is trying to be interesting (in that classical music "radical is having 100 members of your orchestra! kinda way). The quantity of each of the instruments varies within some general guidelines and in general the world of _classical_ symphonic is well aware when you're pushing the boundaries that are as much about tradition and norms as they are about composer-driven-rules. You'll almost never see anything but the 1st violins to the left of the conductor, but...you'll see lots of variation in the placement of the bass for example and percussion are virtually always in the back, etc. 2. the number of players in each instrument/section varies. You'll not have lots of timpani players, and you won't have more violas than violins, and you'd never have as many trumpet players as cellists and so on - this is about balancing the sound. There aren't rules, but volume levels drives much of this! You've got to have enough to have a "section" rather than a single voice (some parts call for a single-voice/solo of course) so you'll not see fewer than 3 of a a non-percussion instrument very often). 3. positioning is based on tradition and some practical matters. the first violin (principle of the orchestra) has a role that needs them at the front near the conductor, but beyond that the basic configuration is premised on getting section leads near the conductor and then distributing sound to get the right blend. 4. You can _usually_ hear your own instrument, yes. And...when you're playing "hearing" is a complex set of inputs that range from ear to touch and the physical aspects of engaging with the instrument - you have more cues to allow you to hear (a bit like how you can hear someone's words better when you can also see their lips). You certainly can't hear yourself as well as you can when no one is around!). 5. It's loud. Not crazy loud, but some instrumentalists do wear earplugs. 6. You can spot some mistakes and not others. If the oboe player fucks up during their solo, you hear it. If the fifth row back second violin player makes a boo-boo it may go unnoticed by someone in the bass section. 7. In professional orchestras it is a _job_. Their employment agreement (and union agreement in the U.S. anyway) dictates the amount of rehearsal time and often the time of day it occurs. If you're top-notch symphony (e.g. boston, SF, philly, NY) you make pretty good money such that you may not need to teach. Second tier orchestras don't pay as much and don't practice as much! 8. Being generally knowledgeable about instruments is a good sign of musicality. The reality however is that the musicianship demands of any single instrument in the orchestra are so intense at the levels of major symphony orchestras that specialization and mastery are far more important than general knowledge. (I find this to be a bummer, and one of the things that had me move from classical to jazz violin!).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's the difference between a hotel, motel, resort and inn?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are general categories that hopefully convey what one can expect from the establishment. A hotel would have full features, including indoor hallways, room service, laundary, and maid service (to name a few examples). The word motel derives from "motor" and "hotel" and were originally meant as a place for motorists to stop while driving places. They have sparser amenities and rooms that often open onto the parking lot. An Inn is meant to connote a more traditional, less corporate, but small-ish accommodation. Often an inn is in a setting that is itself a destination (unlike a motel) but doesn't offer the services or luxuries of a hotel. Anything that calls itself a resort is doing so because it wants to convey that you can enjoy your vacation largely at the resort itself. So you would expect it to have a pool, nice views, and other activities on or adjacent to the location.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does one actually make an API? Hi everyone! To clarify, I know what an API is. I use APIs. And maybe this is a super obvious question (because I can't find an answer on Google for this, only what an API is), but I for the life of me can't figure out how one would actually make an API. For example. I have a program called Program\_A. Program\_A is running. I have another program, Program\_B, that I want to be able to use a method in Program\_A. What would I do to Program\_A that would make calling it's function an API that Program\_B could use? If anyone could even give me a high level explanation that would be great, I don't really need an exact technical example (although I'm not opposed to that either). I'm just looking to understand how it works generally, because I really can't figure it out.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An API is essentially two things: * A list of what kinds of requests will be accepted. (A request is either a question you can ask, a command you can issue, or an informative hint to the receiver.) * A list of communications channels on which requests will be accepted. When someone says they offer a "web API", for example, they usually mean that the communications channel that will be accepted is over HTTP. The lists of requests that will be accepted is then typically documented somewhere. Similarly, a software library for image processing may expose an API. The communications channel is whatever the calling convention of the language is; you invoke the methods directly through your program, not over HTTP. The lists of requests that will be accepted are defined by what the library exposes or not. You make an API by deciding both of these features — what requests you want to service, and what communications channels you wish to transact on.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What exactly is radiation? Is radiation comprised of particles? We all know radiation is "bad," but I'm not sure what it actually does to make it so bad. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through some material or through space. Light, heat and sound are types of radiation. The kind of radiation discussed in this comment is called ionizing radiation because it can produce charged particles (ions) in matter. Ionizing radiation is produced by unstable atoms. Unstable atoms differ from stable atoms because they have an excess of energy or mass or both. Unstable atoms are said to be radioactive. In order to reach stability, these atoms give off, or emit, the excess energy or mass. These emissions are called radiation. The kinds of radiation are electromagnetic (like light) and particulate (i.e., mass given off with the energy of motion). Gamma radiation and X-rays are examples of electromagnetic radiation. Beta and alpha radiation are examples of particulate radiation. Ionizing radiation can also be produced by devices such as X-ray machines. Ionizing radiation absorbed by human tissue has enough energy to remove electrons from the atoms that make up molecules of the tissue. When the electron that was shared by the two atoms to form a molecular bond is dislodged by ionizing radiation, the bond is broken and thus, the molecule falls apart. This is a basic model for understanding radiation damage. When ionizing radiation interacts with cells, it may or may not strike a critical part of the cell. We consider the chromosomes to be the most critical part of the cell since they contain the genetic information and instructions required for the cell to perform its function and to make copies of itself for reproduction purposes. Also, there are very effective repair mechanisms at work constantly which repair cellular damage - including chromosome damage.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Based on the Voyager probe trajectories, is it possible to calculate where they will end up thousands or millions of years in the future?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Their trajectories out a few tens of thousand years are known, since they will remain in the Sun's gravitational sphere of influence for most of that time. Within a few hundred thousand years, the Sun will be an inconspicuous speck of light in the Voyagers' skies. Their future trajectory will be influenced by the masses they encounter: stars, gas clouds, etc. Since we don't knowing the mass, density, location, and velocity of all of these objects, it will not be possible to calculate anything better than a rough approximation of Voyagers' trajectories beyond this. And sometime in the next decade or so, the Voyager RTGs will finally weaken to the point that communication with Earth will cease, taking with it our only means of tracking them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is world population calculated? And how accurate is the number? Is it possible that the number can be entirely wrong?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In general, information about the world population is aggregated from information about each country's population. From there, each country usually either conducts regular censuses or has some form of national registration to track people (or both) as it's a very important part of running a government. These estimates are only updated so often though (IE, the US conduct it's census only every 10 years), so there is a little math done to the number to get the current estimate. There are three big factors that matter when creating that current estimate: Mortality rate, Birth rate, and Migration. The first obviously creates downward pressure on the number, the second upward, and the third can be either depending on if the new flow is out of or into the nation. How accurate is it? Well, the UN is one of the better sources, and they estimate their margin of error to within 1% or so for the entire world. It varies HIGHLY depending on the country though, with less developed nations and especially wartorn nations being incredibly difficult to estimate due to difficulties in conducting censuses, and highly developed nations being very accurate. Broadly speaking, you can trust the numbers though and there is very little to no chance that the number can be entirely wrong, unless you are getting a number from a shady source.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: For example, we have a bottle filled with water to the point when there’s no space left in that bottle, is the water still moving as we shake the bottle?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mechanical engineering PhD here with significant study in fluid mechanics. Yes the fluid will move around internally, mostly due to any rotation of the bottle. It you rotate the bottle at all (i.e. anything other than perfect linear motion) the inner walls of the bottle will cause drag against the water that’s closest to the edge. But the water in the middle of the bottle will be stationary due to inertia. The difference in momentum (edges are moving, center is stationary) will cause internal currents. Note that this can be due to even very small-scale rotations to the point that this will always happen in the real world. If you don’t believe me... put some food dye in a full water bottle then seal it. Shake it up and you’ll see the food coloring move around very quickly. If you’re more interested in this, two important concepts are “Laminar flow” and “viscous drag”.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to deal with detailed student emails that is partly outside the scope of the topic? I am teaching a topic that's mostly within my area but I do not know everything about it by heart. I cover the textbook, give extra readings I am familiar with and mark their assignments with enough feedback. Lately I have been getting demanding and sometimes rambling emails from the same 2-3 students who usually list 8-10 questions. My first instinct is to reply very quickly and some can be easily be found in the lecture recordings or readings. But some are deeper questions about things that are outside the scope. They almost get lost in the footnotes that refer to other footnotes or cases from decades ago, misinterpret them and claim the opposite in the scope of what we actually covered. It takes hours of my day to figure out find what they read, where they went wrong and got confused. I like that they are critical and want to know more about it but it's also taking all of my time and they come back with more questions almost immediately, i feel like a private tutor sometimes. How can I deal with this without looking incompetent or dismissive?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ask them to set an appointment to meet with you, or come to office hours. They shouldn't be expecting an email response to that many questions. Ask them to bring the book/article they are confused about to meeting. It is totally fine to say "this is a conversation better had in office hours. Please swing by so we can chat!"<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What's the point of imaginary numbers? I understand on a basic level how they work, but why bother having them in the first place?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, I'd like to make a point about the rather bothersome terminology: Imaginary or complex numbers are no less "real" or more abstract than any other naming system. One way to think of how we develop number systems is based on solving equations. Counting numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) are great and fundamental, but you could never solve an equation such as x + 5 = 0 using just counting numbers. That's why we have to add negatives (..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...) to get the integers. But with the integers, we still can't solve simple linear equations such as 2x - 1 = 0. This is why we have to add in fractions, getting the rational numbers - now it's possible to solve any linear equation. But what about more advanced things, such as quadratics? You can prove that there's no solution to x^(2) - 2 = 0 using just rational numbers - that is, the square root of 2 is not rational. This is why we need something bigger; somewhere that we can solve this equation is in the real number system. This contains everything that we'd normally refer to as a "number" without qualifications - things such as 0, 1, pi, sqrt(2), -5, and so on. But we still can't solve everything - x^(2) + 1 = 0 has no solutions in the real numbers, since the left side is always at least 1. This is why we attach a symbol called i such that i^(2) = -1, and define complex numbers to be numbers of the form a + bi with a, b real numbers. Then we can make up definitions for multiplication, addition, division, etc. that are consistent with their usual usages for real numbers. The nice thing is that now the set of complex numbers has a property called "algebraically closed." This means that any polynomial with complex coefficients has a root which is a complex number; that is, we can solve for zero given any polynomial. Some other nice properties that people have mentioned are Euler's identity, which says e^(ix) = cos(x) + i sin(x) This allows us to simplify some computations, as well as get some intuition on what multiplication means in the complex plane. More importantly, this gives us some powerful techniques regarding solving differential equations and representing physical systems in terms of such equations. There are also problems that become easier when stated in terms of complex numbers, instead of real numbers. Computing real integrals can become easy when using an appropriate contour integral in the complex plane - this is a result of the fact that the differentiability of complex functions implies some very strong properties (much stronger than the corresponding facts for real differentiable functions). Hopefully this makes a reasonable amount of sense and gives you some idea of why these are useful.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are there starving people in third world countries? I'm not trying to be insensitive or anything, I'm just completely oblivious to the socio-economic situation in third world countries. But why are there starving people in third world countries? Can they not grow food? Is the soil not firtile? Do they not have seeds? Are there too many people to feed? Do other people keep stealing their food? Can't they domesticate some sort of animal/livestock for food? If the land isn't fertile or doesn't have proper resources for growing food, why don't they relocate somewhere else? Instead of air dropping food, why don't we air drop seeds everywhere so food will grow all over the place?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A man named Amartya Sen studied what causes people to starve in 3rd world countries, and found that often the problem was a corrupt government. He stated that ''No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are faces the biggest factor in attractiveness? Is this consistent through cultures? through time? faces are the most important part of initial attraction, at least in the developed world. What does the face convey that drives sexual selection to favor facial features even more than muscle mass or height? Is this consistent through cultures and time? What about other primates? do they also value facial features more than the other typical selection markers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of genetic abnormalities express partially as craniofacial abnormalities, and these same abnormalities can indicate abnormalities with brain development or systemic abnormalities that reduce survival and general fitness.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of "national security". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than "good" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that ALL classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make "safe" or "nice" or "passive" decisions when sometimes "dangerous" or "mean" or "aggressive" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would still inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a "passive" decision rather than a "aggressive" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What if there is ongoing use? Say 200 years ago the British government made a secret intelligence-sharing deal with the Vatican, and that deal is still active and useful. Should the UK have to reveal its past relationship and thereby lose the benefits of future collaboration?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Final Fantasy VIII] Why is Esthar so much more technologically advanced than the rest of the world?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different cultures progress at different rates. Asking why they are so much more advanced is like asking why we (the West) are so much more advanced than central African hunter-gatherers. Availability of resources Fostering of particular attitudes Random dumb luck in the birth of technical genius The key factor, however, lies in the fact that Esthar is highly insular. To the point of xenophobia. They do not, under any circumstance, like to deal with outside powers. Their technology, their culture, their resources, everything in kept within their borders. This means they likely develop independently from the rest of the world, and due to the aforementioned factors, have progressed faster.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can we discover planets that are so far away? I always wondered how can we find those planets that are light years from Earth.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Usually exoplanets are discovered by looking for a characteristic wobble of stars in a telescope. Because gravity from planets will affect the spin of their star, stars with planets will appear to wobble back and forth compared to other, naked stars. Then, by calculating the expected size of the star and the size and frequency of the wobble, they can make an educated guess as to the size and distance of the exoplanet from their star, or even if there are multiple exoplanets.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Reading about Philosophy making me anxious, confused and depressed? I took a philosophy class in college and it captured my interest. Started from reading Kant to Spinoza and then to Leibniz. After reading their views on reality, it just started messing with my head. According to Leibniz, it is a pre-harmonized world where things may appear to be such but really they have been programmed to look that way. It just makes me question the whole reality and everything around me? Mondas don't interact with each other, so all the people around me, I have been looking at them differently as I feel we probably don't know each other, just programmed to feel towards others this way. I don't understand how monads are different from our body, do I even have control over my body? Do I really know everything around me the way it is. I can't stop thinking about Leibniz philosophy. I feel like I should never have gone that deep into it. I have been feeling sick and dizzy for over a month now, can't stop thinking about it. And the fact that monads are immortal substances, I can't even wrap my head around that concept. Can you please offer help on how to look at things differently. Please don't be judgmental as this is my first post and I sincerely feel like I'm in trouble and I need help. Thanks<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you feel as though you are in psychological distress, you should talk with someone who is trained in psychological therapy. Otherwise try to bear in mind that just 'thinking about stuff' rarely solves any real problems. You are an actual person with an actual life, irrespective of anything that someone may have written in a book. That life requires that you pay attention to it. The issue is not that you are thinking 'in the wrong way' it is that you are obsessing about academic minutiae at the exclusion of everything else. Your body has a lot of muscles that are being neglected while you agonize over Leibniz. Use them. Leibniz will always be there. And don't eat so much sugar, that probably isn't helping matters either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user why is Hilbert space useful in quantum mechanics? I believe I understand the mathematics of Hilbert spaces, but don't understand how their properties are useful for quantum mechanics in a visual sense. What is it about the dot product that applies to, say, probability amplitudes? I'm trying to understand [this smbc comic](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3) if that's helpful. Sorry if this question is too basic for this sub.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's useful in that QM is a (extended) normalized Hilbert space. You start by defining a basis of states. You define them to be orthogonal, meaning the dotproduct of any two different basis states is 0. The basis corresponds, physically, to physically possible measurements. For any other quantum state, its dot product with a basis gives the probability *amplitude of finding a particle in that state to have a specific value after measurement.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If Homosapiens survived the last mass extinction how is there almost 8 billions Humans now? Are we all related? Is every human related in some way?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Every human IS related to some extent. That extent tends to be very, very far back. Mitochondrial Eve (the most recent common female ancestor of all humans) is estimated to have lived 150k years ago, and Y-chromosome Adam (male version of the same thing) 200-300k years ago.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ELI5] Why do the fret spaces get smaller as you go down the neck of a guitar My high school physics professor asked me this and I just randomly remembered. I don't think she ever told me why.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To go up one octave requires doubling the pitch, which in turn means dividing the string in half. Each time you divide something in half, you move only half the distance you did last time to divide it in half again. Each fret represents a pitch change proportion of 1/12 of an octave, but the same principle holds. The math behind it involves logarithms, i.e. one half step is 2 to the 1/12 power.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] - Are the spoken incantations universal or do all countries and languages have their own versions of the same spells, said with different words? I'm thinking about Ron and Hermonie's exchange with regards to the spell; "Wingardium Leviosa". During that scene (and in the book) Hermonie is trying to teach Ron how to properly say the "leviosa" part of the spell. &#x200B; So it got me into thinking about a Japanese student trying to speak these same words in their own school, "Mahoutokoro". It's pretty established that "l's" and "r's" are difficult sounds to make if you're not a native speaker of the English language. So are they working on saying Leviosa properly there, or have they created their own levitation spell, to be spoke in Japanese? &#x200B; it was a pretty reoccurring theme in HPGoF that Fluer's accent was very thick in how she spoke throughout the book (ie: " What do I care how 'e looks? I am good-looking enough for both of us, I theenk! All these scars show is zat my husband is brave!") How well did the French Students perform at Hogwarts with their heavy French accents? &#x200B;<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant AFAIK, different cultures have different focuses on types of magic. For example, Native Americans were much more specialized potionmakers than European wizards. They also practiced wandless magic. I don't think Rowling has yet shed light on the question of whether spells can do the same thing in different languages, but I'd presume they can - namely for the reason that adept wizards can cast spells without saying them. Learning the words is important for beginner wizards because it helps them to focus on the idea of the spell and conceptualize it. To me, that makes it seem as though spells are more like ideas that wizards have put words to - ideas which a wizard in Asia or South America or so on could have conceived using a different language.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Would proving the existence of dark matter change the way we view the world or affect our physics equations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Whatever dark matter turns out to be, it will likely have some interaction with regular matter, or some process that leads to its production. That interaction will have to somehow fit into the standard model of particle physics or its replacement, for example as a term in the Lagrangian. The two main candidates are WIMPs, which interact weakly, and axions, which are related to the strong force and interact with magnetic fields. Somebody always asks about modified gravity as an alternative: if that's the case then we'd have to add additional terms to Einstein's equation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Grad Student struggling to understand the usefullness of a citation manager (i.e. Zotero) vs. Google Sheets I've been recommended Zotero many times, and have read posts on this subreddit as well as countless others praising citation management softward. However, I'm struggling to understand the utility, and could only find posts debating the usefulless of citation managers pitted against one another, versus my question: what's better about it than a Google Sheet? I'm in History, and my current set-up includes a Google Sheet that I keep in my Drive. Here, I'll add the author's last name and the book's title in two columns for quick reference; then I have a column for the citation, and one for assets, i.e. the PDF if applicable. I tried Zotero for a few days last semester, and found that almost every entry I'd have to do a lot of fixing up/adding manually, even using the Chrome extension. Now, this may be more of a "my subject" problem, since most of my resources are several hundred year old scans of books that I then can either download as a PDF (if I'm lucky and it's on Gallica France or Google Books) or that I need to grab a permanent link for (if it's on a site like Hahti Trust that I can't download the entire book from). I find this process to be very painless in my Google Sheet, and when I tried Zotero it felt like a lot of fiddling with data (i.e. often it'd try and put the author's name in the book title, and I'd have to go in and fix it). From my research, it seems as though the one major component I'm missing is that I can't easily change my Chicago citations to another format, but honestly this isn't something I foresee being a concern. Am I missing something else? I'm very aware that I could just be missing something obvious, and would love to hear input on my predicament here! Thanks! \--- Edit2: So as other commenters have helped me realize, I think this is a difference in how the humanities—specifically History—uses citations vs. stem or the social sciences. History uses footnotes or, occasionally, endnotes. Word processors, i.e. Google Docs, reorder my footnotes/endnotes for me if I insert new ones, move them around, &etc. Sounds like for in-text citations Zotero helps with that movement in a way that may not be possible in current word processors. Here is a screen capture of what I'm referencing the processor handles for me: [https://imgur.com/a/qZmheC5](https://imgur.com/a/qZmheC5)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Write a few page paper with 20+ citations. Then edit it and move passages around. Then update the citation style to submit to a different journal. You will answer your own question. Zotero does that all automatically.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do blind people often seem to have eye discoloration. I've noticed that they eyes of the blind are often white, or (for lack of a better word) strange in general. Why is this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It all depends on what's causing the blindness. If they're eyes are whitish, it's typically because something has caused the lense (the clear part where the light comes through) to become obscured or foggy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Please explain the benefits and purpose of a union to me. Dear Reddit, I understand that this could be a volatile ELI5, since unions and the NMB are kind of a polarizing topic. A little background about myself and the reason I am requesting this ELI5. I am a current employee of one of the largest airlines in the world. I have always been a pro-union guy and have enjoyed the security that having a union provided. Not too long ago we merged with (were acquired by) another airline and the union was voted out. This was due in part because we, the unionized workers of the acquired airlines, were out numbered almost 2:1 by the non-unionized employees at the other airlines. In the next couple of months we will be getting another vote to try and get a union back in, and I really need a way to explain to people, in simple, 5 year old terms, why this is good for them and their family, and is much more valueable than the $55 a month union fee that they seemingly can't afford to give up. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The primary benefit of a union is the collective bargaining aspect. If the entire workforce negotiates together you have far more leverage than you would negotiating one on one with HR, et al. What you have to weigh now is the value of the 55/mo versus the issues that you want to negotiate. The best way to help illustrate this in a roughly ELI5 way is to help them see the value that 55/mo brings. Would you pay 55/mo for an extra week of vacation? Would you pay 55/mo for a guaranteed limit on hours worked per week? Would you pay 55/mo for a guaranteed minimum on hours worked per week? Would you pay 55/mo to ensure adequate safety/precautions etc? And you go on and on, the main counter argument you have to overpower is whether or not the abuses (actual or merely perceived) warrant coming together and funding the union. If your employer generally treats you well, why would you unionize? The other counter issue you need to consider is mobility. If workers can't move around or replace the job, then they are less powerful and need bargaining assistance, if it's easy to move from job to job then the need to make THIS job better is reduced. I know this is not quite ELI5, but that's the argument you would have to make.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is the universe fundamentally incomprehensible for human minds? How could we know if so? So this is something I've wondered for a while, but have never really looked much into, so I'm not sure whether it counts as science vs philosophy, or if it's even a question which deserves much thinking/writing at all! As we know from every other species of animal on the planet, whilst many can be incredibly smart there's always a hard 'limit' to their comprehension of the world and how it works. You're never going to get a dolphin to fill out your taxes or explain atom theory to a dog. Is there any writing/thinking on applying similar issues to humans and the comprehensibility of the fundamental way the universe works? It seems entirely possible that human brains could simply be unable to handle some things. But how would we ever know that? Or is there some way in which cognition could be deemed 'complete' (like a mental version of a turing machine).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You might be interested in Kant. Considering his project was precisely about determining the limits of our mind and reason. According to him, reality-in-itself is incomprehensible by the virtue of our reality having to be shaped by our mind. He both establishes the thing-in-itself as necessary, while at the same time unknowable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does inbreeding produce genetically inferior organisms? A couple of follow-ups: In terms of dogs--if you have a German Shepard from one family of dogs and a German Shepard from another family of dogs, would it still be considered inbreeding if they mated? Are the mutts/crossbreeds of today going to be the purebreds of tomorrow and will the current purebreds eventually die out? (via natural selection because they are genetically inferior?) Tying into the above question, what exactly is a purebred? Aren't the purebreds of today mixtures of different dogs from the past? (so, crossbreeds of past "purebreds"?) I ask because it would seem that natural selection should have weeded out genetically inferior inbred's (or purebreds) of the past. Sorry if I seem all over the place with these questions...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If there is a detrimental inherited genetic flaw from one half of the DNA, it can be covered up by a dominant version from the other partner. However, if offspring interbreed too much it starts becoming more probable that an offspring will inherit the defect from both parents, resulting in the defect becoming apparent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I was an organism in a 2D world, would there be any experiment I could conduct, in order to prove whether there is a third dimension or not? I was just watching a documentary about space time and the fourth dimension. They said, that we cannot sense the 4th dimension, but it still exists. That's where i started to reason and came up with my question.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You could detect higher spatial dimensions by measuring the distance dependence of forces like electromagnetism and gravity. These, in our Universe, obey an inverse square law because as they propagate in one direction, they spread out in the other two. If they propagated in one direction and only had one other dimension to spread in (a 2D universe) they would obey a simple inverse law.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I think that everyone should use Adblock and if that puts companies out of business, good. And by companies, I don't mean websites and such, I mean the advertising services. As far as I know, Adblock doesn't block non-obtrusive ads and particularly doesn't have the capability of blocking actual product recommendations that are hand-coded (for instance, I can have a series of text/image blurbs that I write up for my site which use NO banner ad service and won't be blocked by Adblock). The banner ad industry is careless, abusive, and annoying and doesn't deserve my time, attention, or money. I don't feel in the slightest guilty for blocking them and recommending that others do the same. EDIT: When I said that adblock doesn't block unobtrusive ads, I meant they don't block ad services and methods that aren't known scum. Just because an ad service uses some ok ads and some shit ads doesn't mean that we should have to sift through them. There's nothing wrong with adblock blocking a service like that wholesale. _____ > 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 Ad services exist as a way for websites to get the revenue to run their sites. You can't run one out of business without the other. Do you think that if someone could afford to run their website on their own, they would he resorting to ads?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are things like drug tests and polygraphs not violations of the 5th Amendment?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The supreme court has also ruled that compelling urine tests from employees qualified as a "search" and thus the 4th amendment applied. Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) However, The Court also ruled that positive test results could not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions without the employee’s consent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: With the exception of a "I just don't like the taste of meat" argument, it is impossible to justify a non-vegan vegetarian lifestyle. First of all, everyone is afforded their food-taste preferences. So, people who have no ethical/health qualms about eating animal products, but simply do not enjoy the taste or texture of animal flesh are off the hook. It would make sense for a person like this to be a vegetarian, but still partake in eating things like eggs, dairy, honey, foods made with red dye, etc. However, vegetarians who want to make a claim that their lifestyle is significantly healthier and/or more ethical than that of the average meat-eater cannot justify that claim on either front. Ethics: Just because an industrial animal isn't being killed for its meat doesn't mean it hasn't led a miserable, hellish existence. Dairy cows and egg-producing hens that are part of the mainstream ag industry are injected with hormones that deform their bodies and exaggerate their production abilities. They are often kept in tiny enclosures standing ankle-deep in their own shit, in crowded conditions, and may literally never see the light of day once over the course of their short, painful existence. When they are too old to lay eggs or produce milk, they are killed, with their remains being used in products such as dog food. Honestly, I see less of an argument for honey being unethical, because I don't really think bees suffer during the honey-production process, even on a mass scale (mainly because they would be doing the same thing anyway in the wild). However, I am sorely undereducated on this subject and would like to learn more. If you have strict set of Jain-like beliefs and are a non-vegan vegetarian (which I suspect includes about 0% of the population), eating any product made with red dye (carmine) should be off-limits, since the cochineal bug is industrially bred and smushed to harvest their naturally occurring carminic acid stores. Health: This one is a little trickier, because it's true that while vegetarianism isn't NECESSARILY healthier than a meat-eating lifestyle, it can be easier to eat healthy as a vegetarian because produce typically becomes a much more central aspect of diet, as opposed to meat (often full of saturated fat, cholesterol, and excessive calories). However, while vegetarianism may sometimes be healthier than a meat-eating diet, I would argue that veganism is more often a better health choice than vegetarianism alone. To replace the calories/enjoyment lost in meat elimination, vegetarians often rely on a disproportionate use of other high-calorie foods that don't require as much expertise/research/adventurous palate to prepare and eat, like cheese and quick-burning carbohydrates. Like almost all foods, if eaten in appropriate proportion to other parts of the diet, these foods can have health benefits, but there are also many drawbacks since they are often high in fat and heavily processed. Vegans, however, can't eat many of these foods as well as part of their dietary limitations, and vegan substitutes are are nearly across the board lower in saturated fat and calories. In addition, these substitutes are often hard to find, so to supplement calories, many vegans simply add more produce or plant proteins to their diet, which are healthier and contrary to popular belief, CAN actually provide all the calories, protein (yes, grandma, I'm getting enough protein), and nutrients that a human requires. For these reasons, if you're going to be a vegetarian and justify it with an animal ethics argument or a health-based argument, you can't. You may as well either go back to eating meat, or go all the way and become vegan. _____ > 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 important point in being either an ethical vegan or vegetarian is to limit your impact on demand for animal products. To that extent, any way in which you reduce your consumption of animal products is a step in the right direction. While vegans are doing more than vegetarians to limit their consumption, any amount of self restraint is good, and certainly better than just not caring. Saying that it is impossible to justify ethical vegetarianism is making perfect the enemy of good.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does the cosmic microwave background persist? Why hasn't it been distorted and destroyed by new sources of energy pumping into space?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The universe is largely transparent. Sure, some parts of the radiation have been absorbed, and there is a bit of new emission at this wavelength range, but overall it is not a large effect and it can be taken into account.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Corporations should be forced to pay higher minimum wage than small businesses 1. They can afford to do so as they benefit from economies of scale, automation and even lobbying. 2. This would give more money to the people while preventing bankruptcy of small businesses. 3. Inflation would be controlled as corps still have to compete with small businesses. Walmart isn't going to hike prices, they would just eat the cost as reduced earnings. 4. This is going to be the easiest political sell ever. Who can possibly oppose this? And if they do they will be labeled as corp shills.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The most likely outcome of this is that the lawyers and accountants would make individual stores small businesses, allowing them to circumvent the policy. In Nova Scotia they said businesses over a certain size couldn’t open on Sunday so grocery stores just divided their store into smaller stores and were compliant.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is black light and how do we artificially produce it? I thought the colour black was absence of light, how can we produce a lamp which shines black light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Black light is light of a color that is outside of our visible color range (usually ultraviolet). We produce it just like we produce any other color of light...either make white light and pass thru a filter..or find something that produces, only ultraviolet when excited. Even though we can't directly see the light, it performs like light energy in other ways (converts to heat when it hits and object). And there are other animals that can see an extended range of colors<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that a person's natural intelligence defines only their minimum potential and that intelligence can be attained through hard work. CMV. The general consensus on this website seems to be that a person's intelligence can be likened to the RAM of a computer, representing the raw processing power the system is capable of, and that knowledge is like the data you'd store on the harddrive. In my own opinion, there seems to be somewhat of a bias though, as the majority of Reddit's community is relatively young and the 'smart but lazy' type (which would explain the relative importance placed on factors entirely outside of your control). The computer analogy makes a sound point, but I believe it's simply not right. There are no studies to my knowledge which prove this either way, however anecdotally, I have witnessed many people do a complete 180 even after having been condemned as unintelligent. All throughout school I was incredibly average at math (and I mean average). I quickly decided I just didnt have that natural gift that some did. Now, math is typically regarded as being one of those things you cant rote learn or memorize, which is entirely true. After doing copious textbook exercises and practice papers though, I finally found myself at the point where I was confident with my understanding of math and not only in the 'knowledge' sense. New concepts came to me more easily and I observed an overall increase in my problem solving and pattern recognition abilities (hey look, the two things most emphasised in an IQ test). If you walk into a gym, there will be skinny guys who can just 'never seem to put on muscle' and the 6'5 dudes natually built like fridges. However, time and again we see these skinny guys stick it out and eventually reap the rewards (even Arnold was small when he started out). If we were to apply the aforementioned logic to this scenario, we would witness the same defeated attitude with the skinny dude deciding he'd 'never get bigger', y'know, like how a computer's RAM stays fixed? Being from an Eastern background where a solid work ethic is valued above all other things, I think a person who is not as naturally gifted, but works incredibly hard to reach the same end goals certainly comes out a more satisfied, resilient, wiser and 'snarter' person than the naturally gifted person. This typical American high school SAT student attitude where studying is undervalued because you can still do well without it is extremely unhealthy and discourages students from reaching their full potential. But in the end, is intelligence really defined by the score you'd get on an IQ test anyway, or is it the way in which you use your knowledge to benefit society? TL;DR: Some westerners have some unhealthy and untrue misconceptions about education and intelligence which are holding back the 'less natually gifted' children.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A counter point might be that a persons natural intelligence represents their maximum potential, and hard work is what progress people towards achieving it. As evidence you can look to the highest achievers in science. Not everyone can become an Einstein, Hawking, Newton, Tesla etc. Some people are simply smarter/better than others in certain fields.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Preloading Okay. So a game is preloaded onto my system. How does the manufacturer ensure i cant play it before hand? How does the preloading work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally using a combination of two methods: 1. They download all of the game's assets (3D models, textures, videos, scripts etc.) and leave out the main executable, which is comparatively small. 2. Everything that is downloaded is encrypted, and the key is only provided on the release date. The game is then decrypted using the key.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it such a huge deal that scientists have taken a picture of molecular bonds? [See this imgur thread](http://imgur.com/gallery/c55TpKl). I'm aware that it's never been done before, but why is this *so exciting* to so many scientists/science fans? where does this ability lead us in practical terms, and what else needs to be achieved to get there?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Science involves taking data and building conceptual models to explain its behavior and to predict future events. Our models suggested how they would look, but now we can directly see it. In analogy we flipped to the back of the book and checked our answers, and they were right!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does having a CS degree mean nothing for a frontend developer? I am currently a CS student and will graduate soon. I realized that I am indeed interested in frontend developing rather than being a backend developer. I know having a CS degree must not hurt me, but does it mean nothing if I decided to work as a frontend / full stack developer? As I found that even a graduate from bootcamp can be a frontend developer and the employers may want to hire them because their salary can be cheaper. Frontend developing also normally requires less tech skills than backend developing, which mean you are easily to be replaced because the working experience doesn't really let you grasp with more skills. I've heard that it is kind of a waste for a CS graduate to work as a frontend developer and I am really struggled right now because even though I like frontend developing, I still need to make sure that my career is still having a bright and stable future.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A computer science bachelor's may include coursework in the psychology of user interactions, color theory, and other MMI topics that directly improve even technologically basic frontend work. But even though frontend development is _seen_ as less technologically sophisticated, that's often not the case. If more people with CS knowledge had been involved at the beginning, JavaScript wouldn't be such a dumpster fire (though it's improving). And there are plenty of frontend developers who will unknowingly introduce n^2 or 2^n behavior in the UI. Just knowing what _not_ to do is valuable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Paying a copay instead of full deductible. 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<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your policy will tell you when the copay applies, and when the deductible applies. You need to check there, as almost every policy is different. With that said, typically things like normal visits (annual physicals, OB/GYN visits, etc.) only require the copay, while unscheduled emergency count against your deductible.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: the problem with Monsanto and its rise to becoming such a prominent monopoly.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Farmers like to plant crops year after year and like to fight off the insects that attack their crops. Crops normally produce seeds that can be used to grow crops next year. Monsanto sells special seeds that can be activated to be resistant to insects. All you have to do is buy new seeds every years since these crops do not produce useful seeds. You also have to buy the chemical to activate the seeds. It is much more complicated than that, but the idea is that once they have you as a customer you can never leave. Every time you try to leave, they pull you back again.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does diabetes increase your risk of just about everything?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because it affects your blood flow, and proper blood flow is the key to maintaining your health aagainst viruses/infections and healing injuries. When your blood sugar becomes high, it is much harder for blood to travel around in your body. This is why the most delicate (eyes) and furthest away (feet + hands) parts are affected the most. For non-diabetics this is also true, but non-diabetics will rarely have a blood sugar high enough to cause damage. But diabetics cannot automatically control their sugar as well, and with years and years of very high sugar levels, damage slowly takes place.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the difference between an accent and a dialect?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant On a surface level, an accent is purely differences in pronunciation, while a dialect includes differences in grammar and vocabulary. In practice, much like the definition of species, the differences between accent, dialect, and language are just a matter of degree; i.e. accents are less different from each other than dialects are. It's a judgment call made by linguists and consensus, and whichever label is most useful to better understanding language.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the purpose of the tiny little hole on airplane windows? What is the point of [this](http://i.imgur.com/EP3WSBq.jpg) hole in the planes' windows? I am aware that this does not actually go through to the outside of the plane...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pressurized commercial aircraft have two or more layers of air-tight lexan to keep the aircraft pressurized, and have an additional layer on the inside to protect the lexan from damage. As the aircraft changes pressure, the small hole allows air to vent in and out for pressure equalization between the layers of window. The hole is between the outer layer and the aircraft cabin, but is not connected to the air outside the aircraft.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are semi truck engines diesel, while passenger cars' are gasoline? Why are there no gasoline big rigs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Diesel engines are also a lot more tolerant of extreme conditions such as running non-stop and idling for extended amounts of time. Gasoline engines tend to overheat when idling for a longer-than-reasonable amount of time, and a constant duty-cycle causes them to wear faster. A diesel engine can last 500,000 - 1,000,000 miles if properly cared for. Most gasoline engines are lucky to achieve half that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star wars] Why doesn't the Empire force Kamino to make clones for them for free? The war against the separatists ended, Palpatine saw the clones are good troops, able to hold their own against pre66 Jedis, and are able to be easily commanded by batch orders, the only problem seems to be that they are really expensive as says admiral Tarkin "why should the empire pay for an army when conscription is free" BUT why not just force Kamino? They built a deathstar, they were willing to destroy planets so i doubt forced labor/enslavement is above them. Obviously have Kamino under the surveillance of Vader or some Inquisitors or a lot of high ranking officers so that the Kaminoans don't try to rig the clones with an order 66 equivalent against the empire, but otherwise why not do it? Palpatine has a whole galaxy to take resources from and send to Kamino if the problem wasn't the money itself<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Palpatine had made effective use of an army with a built in backdoor that enabled them to turn on their masters without question or hesitation. He may have been concerned that forcing the Kaminoans to build an army against their will could have resulted in troops he could never rely on 100% due to other secret, backdoor orders.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Question about a professor withholding an exam I have a question regarding my professor and how I should approach talking to the dean. My professor has demonstrated favoritism and also violated FERPA. He won't let us students look at our exam without saying "I was lenient so if you want to go over your grade, I will start deducting points and you'll likely leave my office with a worse grade than you walked in with." Most of us got exactly a 65%. I know this because he pulled up Blackboard in class with all of our names and systems exam grades while in class. I talked to other students and all of us were annoyed and thought it was wrong and it wasn't until today that I remembered that students have a right to privacy concerning academics. When he had the grades up, he said we could go over the grades on his computer, at the front of the class. I was one of the three students who felt comfortable enough to basically go stand at the front of the class as he pointed out to me, while everyone was in class just starring, all the things I did wrong. I don't really care but I know this tactic deferred other students from approaching him about their grades. However, when he did this he was switching between windows on the computer between the rubric and the exam that I submitted so quickly, I couldn't actually gather what in the world I missed. I asked if it could be sent to me and that is when he said if he did he would deduct the points. He showed favoritism because myself and another girl went to see him for questions on our semester-long project, and when he finally showed up to office hours, basically told us to Google for any help that we needed. I later heard from another student (and the professor himself) that the professor spent two hours on the phone with him helping him rebuild his database over Thanksgiving break. It's nice that he cared about that student enough to help but it was a slap in the face to the girl and I who took the time to attend office hours (which he was an hour late for) and be told to use google. I plan on talking to the dean Monday. I am going to let him know that at an institution that values fairness alongside education, that this professor does not value either. He violated FERPA and I want to use that as leverage to have a different professor grade mine and my classmates' assignments through the semester. These were a handful of examples but he has been unfair throughout the whole semester. we are all on the verge of failing despite being otherwise good students and I think that having another professor, while labor intensive, grade our papers would be more preferred than me filing a FERPA complaint with the Department of Education. Any advice on how to ask for this or how to actually get my graded exams back? TL;DR Professor was a turd and won't let us see why basically the entire class was awarded a 65% without threatening to deduct more points. Is this against some teacher law, act, or code of ethics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you meet with the department chair or the dean, stick to the facts. Don't bring up the favoritism incident, don't bring up university "values," just say lay out what your professor did and why you believe it violates FERPA and/or school policy. If you can, recruit a classmate to back up your account. Your concern with your grade is a separate issue. Just proving a FERPA violation occurred doesn't entitle you to a better grade. You will need to inquire about the specific grievance procedure and be prepared to meet whatever (likely high) standard is required. This is typically difficult; absent human error or a significant deviation from the syllabus, you're generally left with proving bad faith, and this is generally difficult to do.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why small businesses are considered "good" I always hear about small businesses on the news and whatnot and they always say how we should put money into small businesses and support them. I've heard various reasons why they are good/important but I'd like a concise answer.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Keeping money flowing is what creates a good economy and the most direct way of doing that is by making sure the money you are giving out doesn't get stockpiled in some giant vault or sent out the country. If you spend $100 at a local butcher that money is probably going to get spent elsewhere in the area. Your butcher will go buy bread from the baker, who'll go buy milk from the farmer who pays his employees who buy meat at the butcher and so on. The money doesn't leave and the constant exchange is what keeps everything ticking. If you are that baker or butcher you are more likely to spend that $100 if you feel that the economy is flowing freely enough for someone else to come in and hand over their $100 to you. Like the current economic downturn. It's not really because suddenly a bunch of money has vanished. It's just that people and business' aren't sure if the money they pay out is going to get replaced any time soon, so there is a tendency to hold on to it. Which makes the problem worse. Which is why in times like this the Government steps in and injects a massive amount of money into the system to try and get it moving again, in the hopes that once it's all flowing freely we can take that money back without harming the system too much. (The flaw is we expect that flow of money to get faster and faster every year, but that is unsustainable. Eventually we reach a point where we think we are too free with our money and we slow down but we do it quicker than the system can react, it gets shocked and it crashes. The .com bubble was like that. Slowly over time more and more money was being pumped in. It got easier and easier to get investors and eventually business started relying on this easy money and were completely unprepared when that cash dried up.) If however you spend that $100 at Wal-Mart it goes into the till and gets siphoned off to their big single bank account somewhere else. They pay their employees who are local obviously, but they likely put a lot of that money back into Wal-Mart. Another problem is Wal-Mart are far more capable and far more likely of out-sourcing to other countries. Not just hoarding money inside the same country but shipping it out and greasing the gears of some other economy, from which it might never come back. As Deadcellplus mentioned though the downside is cost. Wal-Mart can buy a million times the amount of mince your local butcher can at once and that means they get it cheaper per pound and they pass that saving on to you. ----- 'Course it's all a bit of a phenomena because we don't have any real sense of control over it at a local level. You might be hyper-local in your spending but if your butcher takes your money and pays his VISA bill with it instead of using it locally.. all your hard work is pretty much done for. It can only really be measured at scale and it's not universal, Even in depressed economies you get pockets of 'boom', little bits that somehow thrive in the conditions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How can a plants roots survive in a cup of water (root cuttings, propagation), when the same plant planted in soil can be drown if you over water it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Overwatering your plants kill them (mainly) for two reasons: lack of oxygen and/or root rot. It's also important to mention that plants breath (absorve oxygen) through both their leaves and their roots, since they aren't very good moving the oxygen through out their bodies: they breath through "pores" and the oxygen only serves nearby cells. Water (usually) doesn't contain as many bacteria, fungi or small animals (nematodes) as soil does. Fungi loves moist soil, if the soil is damp it will multiply and cause root rot, killing your plant. Not only that, all those little animals and fungi also use oxygen and will compete with your plant for it. Damp soil means more animals and also less oxygen pockets. Plants breath easier in soil but in water there's not so much competition for the available oxygen, so the plant does not die, it grows more roots to take better advantage of the situation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Why do most Federation ships have a neck? The Star Trek Federation ship has an iconic look. A saucer, a long thin neck, a core, and two huge engines. I am not a professional engineer, but the neck connecting the saucer to the core seems like it would be a structural weak point. Especially when newer designs (Voyager) and some of the earliest designs (the First Enterprise) do NOT have this feature, AND when you also consider that no other civilization seems to have copied this design. So why would the Federation build their ships this way?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The hulls of most starships are reinforced with force fields called structural integrity fields. While its engines are running, no part of a ship is a structural weak point. The typical shape of a federation or Klingon ship is designed for optimal warp geometry. To put it another way it's "aerodynamic" for the fabric of space-time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don’t vaccines carry over genetically? Just curious with everything going on why vaccines don’t essentially pass down to our children genetically if we’ve been immunised. Is it purely because we didn’t genetically start with that or purely down to the synthetic (well atleast not made naturally by the body) nature of the vaccinations?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1) Vaccines do not alter your genetic information, i.e. those in the form of RNA (the new ones, because up until today they were protein based) do not integrate into the genome. 2) even if RNA vaccines could integrate into the DNA, you still wouldn't pass them on because vaccinations are injected into somatic cells, not into germ cells (inside testicules or oocytes, for instance...nobody would want that tbh). To pass genetic information on you need to alter the DNA of germ cells.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU/Age of Ultron] Tony Stark mentions how Ultron keeps taking to the human form despite its inefficiency; if not a reference to something, what IS an efficient physical form for an A.I. to take?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Whatever optimizes the form of locomotion relative to the mass and can also contain his intelligence. Likely it would be some sort of small orb with multiple legs, like a very large insect. Since Ultron can occupy multiple bodies at once, he could have a variety of forms, each with a particular specialty. Large bulldozer-types for moving earth/demolishing buildings, streamlined jet aircraft for transcontinental/inter-solar travel, pocket-sized infiltration units, humanoid bodies to utilize human tools, etc. He complains about humans having no imagination and then ends up making thousands of identical clones of himself.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do some near death experiences cause PTSD and some cause other people to live their best lives after.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Resiliency. There's the notion of "window of tolerance" in psychology. For someone with a large window of tolerance and good support, getting a ton of stress/fear and overwhelming the system for a short while can make them stronger, if they get back to their tolerance level soon after. Anti-fragility is another label. However, those with a crappy childhood (ie, many Adverse Childhood Experiences), the window of tolerance is small, self regulation is harder, and being thrown into a completely overwhelmed state is beyond their ability to get back to regulation. One theory is the overwhelm is stored in the body and dissociated from, but we're still understanding this. The first example is like testing steel and not bending it. The second is actually bending it so the steel is fundamentally weakened. What's unfortunate is that those with crappy childhoods usually get less support than those who have "good enough" childhoods, for a number of reasons. The Western culture also has more emphasis on roughing it out alone.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What constitutes a draw in chess? Why does it seem as though a draw happens when it looks like a normal game going on?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are several situations where a draw may occur, and while it may seem like a "normal" game is going on to the average person, a trained eye would identify them pretty easily usually: * One player requests a draw and it is accepted. This may happen if both players want to play it safe and secure half of a point, or if a forced draw will foreseeably happen in the future. * The same configuration of pieces comes up for 3 turns (a turn being both White and Black getting to move) ~~in a row~~. (Thank you /u/BallsAndAHalf for the correction) * No pieces are taken for a whole 50 turns [and no pawn is moved, corrected as pointed out below]. This is usually not tracked unless it becomes painfully obvious that nothing is happening anymore or if one of the players may get desperate and try to draw out the game until 50 turns have passed. * One player is caught in a situation where he cannot legitimately move any pieces, but is also not in check. When this happens, it usually comes to the dismay of the other side, as they would likely have a huge advantage over the opponent and got sloppy enough to let this situation happen. * Checkmate cannot be achieved. This may happen if neither player owns any extra pieces in addition of the below combinations: King, King + Knight, King + 2 Knights, King + Bishop. Contrary to what some may believe, King + Knight + Bishop is enough to checkmate, albeit only a skilled or trained player will accomplish this, since it will take ~30+ moves and making the wrong move at certain points will push you over the 50 move draw limit. Edit: Added another piece of info Edit2: Corrections<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How come there is such huge wealth inequality even in competitive markets? Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $166.4 billion. The CEO of McDonald's in the US earns 3000x what the median McDonald's worker earns. But both Amazon and McDonald's operate in a competitive market. The neoclassical doctrine on both perfect and imperfect competition states that economic profit is incompatible with competition (so in the case of monopolistic competition as in these examples, new competitors join the market until economic profit is down to zero). But both Amazon and McDonald's are subject to monopolistic competition and yet here we are. Obviously you could say that these huge incomes are just the salaries of the CEOs, not profit. But paying your CEO such a huge amount is not a true cost of doing business, the fact that these companies are able to do so flies in the face of the neoclassical view of competition that competing firms are only just able to stay in business. Exactly how reliable the "1% own 50% of the world's wealth" claim is aside, it's very telling. How are we supposed to reconcile this with the neoclassical doctrine on competition?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The modern neoclassical view is not that all firms are, in fact, perfectly competitive. While the firms you named have competition they do indeed (likely) have pricing power as a source of profitability. Another thing that’s important is that economic profits being zero doesn’t imply that accounting profits are zero. Economic profit includes opportunity costs: If many firms are profitable, “zero profits” just implies the equalization of accounting profits across markets/industries, not zero accounting profits in every industry per se. Finally, even in perfect competition, some firms can make profits in partial equilibrium if they enjoy a cost advantage over others. (Eg when you have upward sloping supply curves, some firm is making variable profit!)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any philosophers that write about the perceived conflict between a seemingly random universe and our causal and determinant perceived reality? This is a bit specific to a train of thought I've been nursing for a while so I might not be explaining it well enough for a third party. So I'll elaborate if you don't mind. I apologize for my BS background too. PRESUMPTION: that the universe's smallest structure, quantum interaction, is the 'original' $genesis definition$ and 'fundamental' $starting building block$ aspect of reality. OBSERVATION 1: Human experience and knowledge arises from classical interaction and obeys rules of determinism; cause leads to effect. OBSERVATION 2: Quantum interaction is potentially [non\-determinant](https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-mechanics-trumps-nonlocal-causality/) and [non\-local](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality), but like general thermodynamics obeys stochastic models. Question: How does one make sense of a completely probablistic/possibilistic 'fundamental' coexisting and laying the framework of a precise reality that is determinant? I'll give a shout out to a fellow redditor on this sub who pointed me in the direction of Leibniz and his theory of Monadology. But its a bit dated $1600s$ and relies heavily on a presumption in antithesis of mine. I really appreciate your time!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Not sure how specific you are looking for but Wilfrid Sellars' "Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man" seems close enough. If you're cool with swapping out quantum phenomena for the thing-in-itself, then Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are things measured in half lifes in science? Why not just use the whole amount of timethat something is expected to exist for? I don't see the point of a half life. Why not measure in a full life? If 100 atoms of X have a half life of 4 years, why not just say they have a life cycle of 8 years instead? I feel like I must be missing some sort of reasoning for this. Can anyone explain it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The most intuitive way to think of the half-life is to consider an initial sample of N atoms. After one half-life, the amount of atoms left is half of what it was: N/2. After two half-lives, the amount of atoms left is half of what it was at the beginning of the second half-life: N/4. After three half-lives, we have N/8 left, and so on. Radioactive decays are exponential, meaning that the amount left follows an exponential function of time: N(t) = N(0) exp(-t/T). As time goes on, the amount that is left exponentially decays towards zero, but (in the mathematical model) never reaches zero. Your previous understanding of the half-life assumed that the decays were linear.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do companies determine the ROI on advertising on Hulu, TV commercials, twitch.tv, youtube, etc? Like, if there's a papa johns commercial, how does papa johns know how effective their advertisement was?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Big companies with big advertising budgets often have a number of Key Performance Indicators that they try to reach. Not every advertising dollar must bring in two dollars of sales in return. Exposure and brand recognition can be important to a company, for the long time health of the brand. As such, the relative cheapness of broad online marketing (usually paid for in CPM, cost per thousand views) makes it a good fit. No ROI may be calculated, instead the marketing team will track how much exposure their ad received (and perhaps supplemental stats like how many facebook likes or how many twitter shares the advertisement received) to determine if it was effective or not.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I will never use any math in the future besides basic multiplication, division, and properties. I am in 8th grade Geometry and often find myself dosing off and asking myself when I will use any of this in the future. Just recently we learned how to find the area of sectors in circles and I couldn't think of a single way I could use this in the future. Math is my least favorite subject even though I'm quite a good student. Part of the reason is that I get bored so easily, and I think this could be prevented if someone could tell me how I will use this in the future. I have brought this up to my parents before and so far what I have noticed is that the only use multiplication, division, and occasionally slightly more complex problems that you can easily Google<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Math is not always so straight forward. In the adult world, a lot of math comes from coming up with the problems and the solutions yourself. You have an overall goal and you need to figure out how to solve it. But for that to happen you will eventually utilize a lot of math, whether it's algebra, advanced geometry, calculus, etc. 2. Most jobs require some degree of math. Every science degree requires a lot of math. Computer science too. Doctor? Math. Electrician? Math. Chemist? Math. 3. A lot of your math classes are teaching you how to think critically. In other words, they're testing to see if you're too dumb to use your brain logic. Even the jobs that don't need complex math, like business, need to weed the dummies out somehow!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What happens to a photon after it has been seen by our eyes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Our eyes "see a photon" through the response created in our visual system by the absorption of that photon (or more realistically a stream of such photons) by the biological dyes in our eyes. Since the photon is absorbed, its energy is transferred to the molecules that constitute those biological dyes, and the initial photon ceases to exist.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does listening to audio with one ear or watching something with one eye have an effect on how the information is processed/remembered?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Both visual and audio information is immediately crossed on secondary neurons in the brain. In the brain stem for hearing, and in the optic chiasm for vision. So immediately the information is spread to both cerebral hemispheres, and shouldn’t be processed any different with one-sided input than both. There are portions of the brain, however, that relate to specific visual fields. These neurons would be repurposed in an individual with vision loss. For someone with one-sided hearing loss, they would lose the ability to determine location of sounds, since the brain uses the minuscule time difference between the sound arriving in each ear to determine location.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any universities in Asia that compete with Harvard, Oxford, MIT, etc, for engineering? Looking for some lengthly answers hopefully. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant MIT is regarded as the world's best engineering school. Stanford is pretty close and then there are some R1 state universities (Berkeley, Michigan, Illinois, Georgia Tech, etc.) before it starts declining from there. Most people would rank American universities for 9 out of the top 10 engineering schools in the world (and possibly all 10). Harvard and Oxford both teach engineering, but they're not particularly well-regarded. In terms of Asian universities, it's a mixed bag. In American universities - at least at level we're talking about - emphasis is placed on understanding the material over rote learning. Professors don't want you to just repeat their words back to them - they want you to be able to creatively apply what you've learned. In contrast, most Asian education is very much by rote. Innovation and creativity are discouraged in favor of simply regurgitating exactly what the professor said. However, if you've got enough students (which you do with billions of people) and you stack all the best ones in a very small number of designated 'elite' schools, you'll end up with exceptional student bodies - the kind of students where you can hand them a library card, walk away and they'll be able to master the material even without your help. But there's not much value add to that sort of educational approach. You start with exceptional students and you're going to graduate some exceptional students. However, those students would have likely been better served by a different approach. You also end up losing what might be termed the 'misfit toys' - the people who have exceptional talents shackled to various limitations (autism spectrum would probably be the most obvious one, but there are all sorts of other problems students can have that conceal their brilliance in a purely rote learning structure). So: Are there any universities in Asia that compete with MIT? No - because there are no universities anywhere that compete with MIT (note: there are universities that are better in specific niches than MIT, but MIT is probably in the top 3 for any niche you care to name). Are there any universities in Asia that compete with other elite American universities? Singapore is probably your best bet here. It's not up to the elite U.S. state universities, but it's pretty close. But even in Singapore, the output of the universities tends to overstate the quality of the university because the students they're admitting are so strong.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 how are gps ETA’s calculated? Does every traffic light get the same amount of time? Do left turns get the same amount of time as right turns?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Navigation software that's internet-based such as Google Maps on a phone and some newer nav units in cars base their calculations on how long previous drivers using such a device have needed to travel along a certain stretch of road, so their information is very up-to-date. Offline GPS units that don't have an internet connection such as standalone nav units and older systems in cars just do a rough approximation based on what type of road it is. So they may figure that 1 mile on the highway takes on average 1 minute, 1 mile in the city takes say 4 minutes and so on. That's why they're a lot less accurate, and why some of them give you the same estimate at 3am as during rush hour, which is obviously not realistic.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do dogs enjoy fetching things? is there some biological reason that they get pleasure from bringing a tennis ball back only to go chase it down for long periods of time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many breeds of dog have been selected for use as hunting dogs. In these dogs there may be a genetic component that gives them a tendency or disposition such that they will probably enjoy 'fetch'. More generally, though, they like fetch because when you play humans do interesting things. Usually the human makes congratulatory noises and scratches their head, as well as yelling encouragement to get the ball and to bring it back.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How could I motivate myself to study philosophy without taking a class? I find that I am much more motivated to study philosophy when I am taking a class for it and have a paper due or have to prepare for a debate. I will give a couple of examples. When I was working on a final paper for my moral psychology class, I found that I learned a lot more than when I was merely reading the philosophers to understand them. I think the reason was that I had to respond to their arguments in detail given the tools I had at hand rather than just think about whether they were ultimately correct. The process was one of the most enjoyable parts of my college experience. Again, when I was preparing for a debate over whether or not we have free will for another class, I found myself going into more depth in the arguments than I otherwise would. I worked out a systematic defense of free will drawing on a variety of authors, rather than simply contemplating whether or not the initial arguments were good in the abstract. Again, this was very enjoyable. So, I'm wondering if there is some way to have these sorts of experiences without taking a philosophy class. I think the problem is that normally, when I study philosophy by myself, I get stuck on flaws that the initial arguments seem to have rather than simply taking the problems for granted and going into more detail on the arguments, because I'm trying to figure out what is ultimately true rather than simply make a plausible argument that I can defend against criticisms. If I had some kind of motivation that was external to the issue itself, like I had when there was a paper or a debate to prepare for, then I think I would learn a lot more philosophy.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Get a syllabus for a class and follow it. That way you can still get the material without the responsibility that a class will have. Write a couple papers over some of the material in the class, and ask one of the professors in the department if they would mind taking a look at it to see if you understood the material.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is water able to evaporate if it is below the boiling temperature?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The temperature of an object just relates to the average kinetic energy of its molecules. Some molecules have higher energy than the average and some molecules have lower energy than the average. Think of closing your eyes and giving little pushes to a child swinging on a swing at random moments in time. Sometimes, your push is at the right time so that is goes in the same direction as the swinging motion, thus adding to it and making the child gain energy and swing higher. Sometimes, your push will be at the wrong time and oppose the motion, causing the child to lose energy and swing lower. But if your pushes are truly random, there will be an equal amount of helpful pushes and hurtful pushes, so that on average, the child will have a constant energy/swing height over time. Randomness causes the individual energy values (i.e. the peak kinetic energy of the swinging child from one minute to the next) to be distributed widely about an average value. In a material, molecules are constantly colliding into each other randomly and exchanging momentum. Just like the case of randomly pushing the child on the swing, this causes the molecules of an object in thermal equilibrium to have a broad distribution of energies about an average value. Some of the molecules in a liquid get enough energy after a collision (like you pushing the swinging child at the exactly right moment) to break free of the chemical bonds that were holding it in the liquid and zip off into the air, thereby evaporating.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do scientists schedule time with the JWST Telescope? I’m assuming it’s an appointment thing, but I’m just curious if anyone knows how the process works?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Astronomer here. Almost all telescopes (JWST included) have a peer reviewed proposal process. We write proposals for using the telescope, explaining what scientific goals we have, how it impacts the rest of astronomy, why we really need JWST, and how it extends work we have already done. These are scrutinized by specialized panels of other astronomers and ranked in order of their merit. In most cases even if your proposal is good, you may not get time because the telescope is oversubscribed. The regular peer review process takes place about 6 months in advance and only once or twice a year. A small fraction of the time is kept as director's discretionary time, which is used for urgent new observations (e g. A new, unexpected supernova nearby). The director sends out the urgent proposal to senior astronomers in the field to do a quick peer review and decides on whether to grant the time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it so hard to port programs to a different instruction set? As I understand it, a program compiled for x86 for example can only run on x86. But if a compiler was ported to ARM, why can't the program just be compiled for ARM? Is there more to it than that? And if there isn't, why does it take so long for companies and projects to port their programs to a new platform? Isn't it just as easy as compiling, which in the worst case could take a couple of hours?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This mostly depends on if the program was originally written with portability in mind. There are plenty of assumptions to make and shortcuts to take if you only target a single architecture. Modern programming languages eliminate a lot of this, but for anything in the C-family, making assumptions about something as simple as endianess is very common. Different architectures may also have completely different performance profiles, meaning stuff that's fast on one architecture is slow on another and vice versa. This means you have to figure these differences out and do alternative implementations if performance is necessary for your program to function properly (think games).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: A life with religion is more meaningful and fulfilling than one without. I'm an atheist. Lately, I've been thinking about what it means to be human, and live life. I've come to the conclusion that a life without the idea of a higher power, and a greater meaning, is ultimately emptier, and less fulfilling in a sense. Without the idea of a god, or some sort of higher power, we are just coincidences of the development of the universe. Although we can give ourselves the illusion of meaning by developing relationships and keeping ourselves busy, we are no more than atoms and molecules that are the result of pure coincidence. There's more to the thought than that, but perhaps someone can shed a little more light on the matter. CMV. Edit: I'm really thrilled with all of the responses I've gotten. This entire concept is extremely hard for me to wrap my head around, to be honest. I need more time to think about it, but I think I may have been convinced that one can (and even with god, has to) create their own meaning behind life. However, I think I'm unconvinced that a life without god can be more fulfilling. It's actually pretty hard to understand even my own thoughts about the 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 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 Have you considered what it would be like if you were God? With no yet higher creator above Him, one would presume that His life is empty and unfulfilling. So God must somehow give Himself meaning, and the usual story is that He did this by creating the universe. If creativity is sufficient to have meaning and fulfillment in life, then you could do it for yourself. Creativity, learning, understanding, and solving problems can't be any less meaningful than the meaning God supposedly made when doing the same thing on a different scale.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The main reason that artists generally aren't paid as well as STEM positions is because artists produce something that is readily available in nature This is sort of a weird view of mine but it makes sense to me. This discussion is about artists in general, but to make things simpler I'll focus mostly on one of the classic forms of art - paintings. I am referring specifically to visual forms of art though. First, some context. I see this discussion all the time on Reddit. Artists vs. STEM, the "STEM circlejerk", etc. One of the most common arguments I see is - "Imagine how much the world would suck if we didn't have art". Generally, this is a response to the idea that STEM fields produce something practical which therefore has value. Art fields do not produce something practical, but something that is valuable purely for its aesthetic qualities. The second is a lot more subjective when determining something's actual value (i.e. the value of a car is a lot easier to see than the value of a painting, particularly a painting you may not like). Therefore, people who defend the value of artists commonly argue that living in a world without art would be absolutely miserable, and therefore art has value. I don't think this argument holds up. Art has value because it is something that people enjoy looking at. Generally speaking we consider a "good" piece of art to be one that is beautiful, and a "bad" piece of art to be one that is ugly. So the inherent feature of art that makes it valuable is its beauty. In other words, if you make ugly art, no one is going to consider it valuable. However, art is absolutely not the only source of beauty in the world. There is beauty in nature literally everywhere you look. Look at a waterfall, or a flower, or a tree, or a colorful bird, or an interesting rock formation, or the ocean, etc. The list is endless! There is so much beauty in nature everywhere you look, and the best part is that it's all free. Going outside costs nothing. So when people say "Imagine a world without art", I do imagine it.... and it doesn't sound all that bad. Sure, there are pieces of art that are pretty. But if I want to see something pretty, I can just go outside. Now, I'll admit that it isn't quite that simple for a lot of people. If you live in the middle of a big city, seeing nature might be difficult. However, I think that the number of people who have absolutely no access to nature whatsoever is very small. For these people, I will concede that art fills a void that they are unable to experience otherwise. But most people, especially in America, can go outside to see nature if they really want to. I also think it's very telling how prevalent nature is in art. Paintings of flowers, trees, landscapes, etc. are all extremely common in works of art. But, if you'll pardon my language, why the hell would I want to look at a painting of a flower instead of just going outside and looking at a flower itself? So the way I see it, art is just another "flavor" of beauty. And it's a flavor that costs a lot more and is much harder to access. Sure, maybe it's your preferred flavor. Maybe you really do think that a painting of a flower is prettier than a flower itself. But here is the difference, and this is the crux of my argument. If you prefer looking at paintings to looking at nature, you are not gaining anything new. You are only gaining some better version of something you already had. If you compare this to the things produced in STEM fields, it's quite obvious that STEM fields produce things you would not have had otherwise. Cars and smartphones don't grow on trees. Beauty literally does. So since artists produce beauty, they're having to "compete" with nature. And that's hard to do. Nature provides us with a free, diverse, healthy, readily available source of beauty. So for artists to even compete, a person has to reeeeeeeeally like a piece of artwork before they'll spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it. And that isn't going to happen very often for a person. So in summary, artists are paid less because they produce something that is already produced everywhere for free. It might be slightly better (in some peoples' opinions) than what is produced naturally, but it also costs significantly more, and is much less diverse (i.e. a walk through the park changes every time; a painting stays the same every time you look at it). So it makes a ton of sense why artists are paid less! CMV EDIT1: I am referring specifically to forms of visual art, such as paintings, sculptures, etc. Music and other art forms don't factor into my view here. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The next time you walk into a grocery store and walk down the aisles, really take a look at everything on the shelves. Even at things like rat poison. There's going to be one thing in common: all* of it will have art on it. All of it will have come from someone putting in their artistic labor for the benefit of that brand. Name brand companies will charge more for their product and have much better logos, graphics, type-setting, etc. Their products are perceived to be better, and their choice in graphic marketing is a huge part of that. None of that is available in nature. It does, though, have a massive impact on the corporate structure of our society. If you want to be successful in any kind of business, branding is going to need to be included. That includes hiring artists of varying caliber to complete that for you. Your profits are contingent on the skill of the artist you hire. The worth of art, at that point, is the worth that it would bring to your company. Which can, in a lot of cases, be quantified in a practical way. tl;dr: Art has practical purpose, even in a production-based, capitalist society. There are artists who successfully break into "commercial" art with a wide range of mediums and earn salaries equivalent to and exceeding STEM fields. Those who don't don't fail necessarily because of the purpose or presence of beauty in art, but because they failed at applying their art to commercial purposes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do modern graphing calculators have such a terrible resolution?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some of the graphing calculator models have basically remained unchanged for decades. This has two benefits: 1) it's all standardized so regardless of how old the calculator is, all the calculators of that model number will have the same features and functions and same sort of style/interface which makes it a lot easier to share calculators and teach groups of students how to use a graphing calculator. 2) Each calculator model is intentionally limited in its functionality. Even though the capability exists to make very powerful graphing calculators with amazing high-resolution 3D graphics and powerful mathematical functions without a significant increase in price, schools want students to be purposefully limited to certain functions found on specific calculator models. The primary reason for this is that it makes sure everyone is on the same page and that no student has an unfair advantage or the ability to use the calculator to 'cheat' and perform advanced functions/calculations that the school wants students to learn how to do manually. Edit: by the way, there are other more advanced graphing calculators out there that have color displays and higher resolution displays, it's just that the most popular models (the ones that schools usually require students to use) contain only the basic functionality and low-resolution monochrome display that has been around for ages.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are wires generally preferred over ACH when transferring larger amounts of money? Title. Noticed transfers of over $30k+ generally are done over wires and ACH isn't accepted, why so?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant ACH (actually EFTS specifically as wire can be done through an Automated Clearing House too) requires just routing and account number, and in a legal sense is recognized as similar to a personal check. Wire transfers require two numbers from the bank that aren't easily-accessed public knowledge that you can find on anyone's checkbook, and only a sender can authorize money moving unlike EFTS where the receiver can also make money move like with automatic bill payment. In this sense it's treated more like a cashier's check. If they use FedWire, that money can be moved in the same business day (or even instantly) also, which is pretty handy. Not sure if FedACH is set up the same way, but FedWire is served by a datacenter with on-site backup, with another "hot" backup a few hundred miles away with its own backup of the backup, and a third "warm" backup facility. Even though the process is very quick. This provides a lot of integrity and failsafe to those big amounts of money.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Comics] When it comes to punching power, shouldn't speed/quickness trump strength? I've been reading over this today, and I have seen some discussions stating the Flash should be up there for punching power -- but realistically, wouldn't big, slow characters not pack as much of a punch as fast ones? How would super strength relate to super speed with punching power? I'm not a scientist at all, but I'm thinking we're going with Force = Mass x Acceleration, and possibly Energy = Mass x Velocity (squarter) as the gauge for punching power. When I think about it, there seems to be three factors in punching power as it relates to these equations: a) Speed of the punch -- Since it's velocity (squared), the speed of the arm/fist upon impact will have a greater effect on the force of the punch than the strength. This would give the likes of Flash, Superman, Spider-Man, Quicksilver, Thor, Hulk an advantage here, as they all have super-human speed. b) the material/durability of the person throwing the punch -- This would affect the impact of the punch on the person throwing the punch, ie, whether their hand turns to jelly upon impact. This would help Superman, Hulk, Thor, Collosus, etc., as they could withstand the impact. Also, their bodies (I assume) are denser and harder than a human, so there wouldn't be as much "give" lessening the punch, which would make it stronger. Guys like Quicksilver are relatively human, as is Flash, when it comes to their actual physical prowess and makeup; even Spider-Man isn't as durable as the big guys, and his body is soft flesh, so the punch wouldn't pack as much force. c) Finally, strength. This somewhat overlaps point B. I think this has an effect in that it allows the person to be able to brace their arms and muscles to absorb the impact, which would increase the mass and therefore force of the puncher. The problem is, it seems to make sense that a person's strength would affect how hard they punch, I just can't wrap my head around why, completely. I think a good analogy is a hydraulic press -- if one is designed to life 20 tons, it's still not going to hurt you if you're standing above it and it starts to slowly rise and "hit" you on its way up. It wouldn't even feel like a punch. So here's something that can "lift" 20 tons, but which would have a very weak "punch." Can someone help explain to me why a super-strong hero would pack more of a punch than a super-fast one? EDIT: Corrected equations<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think the best way to think about strength in this case is density of muscles. So a super-strong person has more muscle density, and as we all know, force is equal to mass times acceleration. A super fast person can accelerate much quicker, but has much less mass, while a super strong person has much more mass, but accelerates slower. To compare, we would need to know the acceleration and mass of both people<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do eastern countries (e.g Philippines, Japan) focus on discipline, honor and excellent grades more than western countries (e.g America, Canada?)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because western countries focus more on creativity, individual achievement and social development? Many eastern schools produce children who can recite facts but not know how to use them. Many western schools have kids who are great at creative thinking but can't participate in a formal setting. Neither is strictly superior to the other.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do images of things on a microscopic level not have color?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You are probably referring to electron microscope images which are taken with electron bombardment rather that visible light; indeed some of the structures may be too small to image with visible light because the wavelength is too large. Under such circumstances there is no color in the resulting image because color has no meaning.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How does my iPhone Face ID still recognize me even after I grew a beard and wear sunglasses? How does it know I’m not an imposter in disguise?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant the ai measures the distances between features of your face e.g nose width, distances between brows, your brow ridges, forehead length, chin length all relative to other features. sunglasses and beard wont change any of that. try prosthetic makeup.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe children can be told about sex from the get go. I don't think there is anything wrong with children knowing what sex is at any age, even if they are too young to fully grasp it. Obviously I'm not saying that children should be exposed to sexual situations, I'm just saying that they can know: what sex is; that their parents have sex; that gay sex exists; and that sex is where babies come from, and that that doesn't rob them of their innocence or damage their perceptions in anyway (assuming the information being shared is accurate). I was raised this way and grew up knowing what sex was in the same way that I knew what pooping was. I never felt especially weird about sex and was bored in sex-ed because I knew it already. Those are the only differences i could perceive in my approach to sex in comparison to my peers and I think suddenly springing the knowledge of sex on a kid is far more likely to manifest a weird relationship to it. Edit: I am assuming this argument from a secular perspective, Ie; assuming consensual sex isnt immoral in and of itself.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do you mean that they should be told a plain but broad version when asked or that you should make a point of telling them as early as they can understand it? The former makes sense to me, in order to, as you say, prevent it from becoming weird or shameful, but the latter doesn't, because there's no reason to have a child think about the mechanics of something that will only become relevant to them in years, they have enough to worry about that's actually immediately pertinent to their lives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the difference between generalizations, stereotypes, and racist statements? What, exactly, makes a statement racist? Is a racist statement a particular type of untrue generalization based on physical characteristics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant - generalization: you assume that all black men like hiphop, or that all Asians are good at math, that all Christians are fundamentalists, or that all gay men speak with an effeminate accent. [you subconsciously ascribe a certain trait to a whole group of people] - stereotype: You subconsciously create a composite image, (or a group of traits) to a group of people. For example: The rich, Hassidic jew with the big nose and Jewish accent. The fat Southern American who votes republican and "what would jesus do?" bumper sticker. - Prejudice: conscious feelings of distrust, antipathy or loathing towards a person, based on stereotypes and generalizations of the group that person belongs to. For example: you see a guy with visible tattoos on the street, and you think he's probably violent, a gang member or an ex-con. Note that at this "stage", you don't act on those feelings yet. You just feel them. - Discrimination: When you act on your generalization, and commit an act or enforce an (unfair) rule aimed at a specific group. For example: Refusing to shake hands with a black person, yelling racist slurs when a Mexican cuts you off in traffic, or the laws that prevent gays from serving in the military. So basically, racism is a process that starts out as a subconscious idea in your head, and may or may not lead to overt, conscious racist behaviour. Most countries (with anti hate crime legislation) draw the line at overt discrimination.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does a laxative work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depend on which type of laxative. There are osmotic, stimulant, lubricant and bulk agent laxatives. Osmotic work by forcing water to stay inside the intestine. It also attract water from the surrounding tissues, therefore increasing the water content. Adding water increase the volume of the stool triggering a reflex. When nerves in the intestine sense that it's almost full, it trigger the need to go to the toilet. Bulk agent have a similar mechanism of action but, it use dietary fibers. Since we can't digest these fibers, they pass through our digestive system unchanged. They also absorb water which increase their volume. Adding more volume trigger the same mechanism described earlier. Stimulant laxatives are irritating to the intestinal walls. The intestine react by increasing its peristaltism as a way to get rid of the irritating agent as fast as possible. Peristaltism is the mechanism by which muscles along our digestive tract force food (and stool) down the tube until the undigested remnants are pushed through the anus. Lubricant laxatives act by coating the intestinal walls with an oily substance. Since it's oily, it's also slippery making it easier for the stool to go down the tube.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do people get allergies? Why do people get allergies even with 21 years for the first time like me. And is there already a cure with a high success rate?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One analogy for the immune system could be like the role of the police within a city. Just as a city is made up of many individual people, houses, and industries, our bodies are made up of many individual cells that work together to make us alive. Just like in our modern cities, the vast majority of citizens are good but there's always the shadowy threat of bad guys lurking out there. The police have many difficult but essential tasks including: To work out who is good and who is bad (surveillance) To actively hunt down the bad guys (enforcement) To always be prepared to rapidly mobilise a decisive response when something really serious happens (counter-terrorism) Each task requires a different approach. One branch of the immune system responds immediately to crimes in a simplistic fashion when they happen, like a security guard. Later on, a second branch shows up to crime scenes, collects evidence and creates a criminal profile, like a detective. Another branch monitors traffic in streets (or the blood vessels) for individuals who match these profiles, like a traffic cop. Yet another branch carefully scans the outside of each house to determine if there is suspicious activity occurring within, like the FBI. We know a lot about the "how" of your question, but the "why" is much less clear. What can be said is that allergies tend to be associated with a branch that acts like a warning siren. For some reason the detectives wrongly create a profile of a suspected criminal (Mr Peanut B. Sandwich) and send it to this alarm system which lies dormant until a match is made on the profile. When a match is made the response is very rapid and aggressive -- loud sirens go off all over the city and everyone starts to panic like there's some kind of terrorist attack. All available defense personnel are mobilised and start roaming the city. In the confusion, vital systems struggle. Traffic in the streets grinds to a halt (blood doesn't flow very well around the body) and the city stops functioning properly. Now, it turns out this is a false alarm -- we all know Mr P. B. Sandwich is innocent. But the police have no way of knowing this and continue to freak out and make you sick whenever he is detected. Why do we have this alarm system in the first place? Hard to say. One theory is that it was developed to deal with parasitic worms, compared to the individual police they are gigantic monsters like Godzilla. Another is that it helps to protect from poisons (bee venom) by provoking a huge reaction against a dire threat, like chemical or biological terrorist attack. You ask about a cure. One method of treatment that succeeds in some people is desensitisation. Medical personnel introduce the barest trace of Mr P. B. Sandwich into the body, say just a single hair from his head. This is identified but there's so little evidence of his presence that the reaction is small -- at most it might set off a couple of car alarms. When detectives investigate they find that no crime was committed. Exposing the body to tiny peanut fragments is repeated every couple of weeks and eventually the detectives start to put 2 and 2 together and realise that maybe Mr P. B. Sandwich has been falsely accused. With enough time larger and larger doses of peanut can be introduced without creating a huge panic (the medical word for this "panic" is anaphylaxis).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Video lists, video explanations, and long form informative media in general are inferior to concise written versions where applicable. Many people confuse length of media with quantity of content. There are many videos listing things, or explaining a list of things, or explaining a thing that take several, or tens of minutes to cover what could could be read as a summary in under a minute, or as an article in still, significantly less time. [This is the most recent example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYcHnrWy3rQ) There are 10 mistakes people make. Lets accept this. My problems with this video come from a number of sources. 1. I read faster than people talk. I can read the entire transcript in significantly less time than the video. The video slows down my consumption dramatically. 2. The video is not indexed, nor is a list presented, and so I have to spend the entire 11 minutes finding out what the ten things are, when a list or article could be read or skimmed in a fraction of the time. 3. The format of this is a straight 'piece to camera', and uses no visual elements. This makes seeking through difficult, and makes no use of the medias unique points. 4. The majority of people will find such videos by searching when looking for specific information, and the video takes a long time to consume before it can be judged helpful or not. Articles and lists can be evaluated significantly faster. I mention when applicable, as there are times when the interactive visual nature of a video is superior to an article, but often this is not the case. The majority of these videos are created, then shared around as if they are an effective means of disseminating information when a actual write-up would be much more effective.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different people learn and absorb information differently. You are a reader, which is fine. Lots of people are readers. But many people are not. Other people find that they can absorb information much better and more effectively when listening to someone talk about it, than they can while reading. For those people, a video, even if its just effectively reading something, can be more efficient in terms of information absorption and recall.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we usually put hills or foliage on roundabouts, obscuring the view of other vehicles? it just seems so much safer to have a flat roundabout so you can clearly see vehicles. idk if its just a UK thing but it seems like most roundabouts have a manmade hill or tons of big trees<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To clearly mark the boundaries of the roundabout. Imagine if it's dark, or you're impaired, and all you see in front of you is flat open space. One might be tempted to cross straight through a roundabout as if it were a normal 4-way intersection, endangering any vehicles likewise inside the roundabout. Plus, your attention should be focused immediately to your left (or right if you're in the UK) as that's the flow of traffic you'll be entering. You shouldn't be concerned with who is directly opposite you in an roundabout because you won't encounter their vehicle while merging into the intersection (unless they blow straight through like a 4-way intersection [which might happen if the middle is flat and unmarked])<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does a simple app such as iHeartRadio need access to my photos and call information? I figured I'd get the app in case I ever wanted to listen to proper radio on my phone but it says it needs access to so many different things. I'd understand needing wifi info, maybe even location info, but why does it need to access my photos and my call info? My photos have nothing to do with them.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We have a detailed explanation of the Android permissions we need and why we need them on our help site which you can find here: iHeartRadio.com/AndroidPermissions. (Mods, hope linking to the answer is okay).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:I Believe The Prosperity, Cohesiveness and Generous Spirit of Canadians is Because They Are Simply Americans Without the Enormous Costs Involved In Fighting the Cold War I love Canada and Canadians. I believe they manage to address their diversity, their health care, their economy and their education smartly and efficiently. I think they are brave and conscientious and when needed they have served militarily with distinction and honor. We share many of the same heritage and lineage. I have often wondered why the Canadians seem to do so much better with the long term big picture. I believe now the difference was the enormous costs associated with the Cold War. Not just economic costs but the focus of our research and scientific endeavors. So my view is that the current state of Canada and Canadians is America less the costs of the Cold War. Change my view!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think that you need to reach much further back in history to find the roots of Canada's identity. We didn't fight a war to cut ourselves off from Britain. We continued to aspire to be more like Britain and were always somewhat subordinate to Britian... look at the BNA, we didnt even really have control over our own country until after the second world war and well into the cold war.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: In Quantum Physics how can simply observing something change the way it reacts? I am not good with specifics but I have seen documentaries that comment how particles can move or do something different depending on if they are observed or not, how can that possibly influence them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A quantum object can exist in a superposition of states. Any INTERACTION with the object can collapse it to one or the other state. Note, the word interaction is extremely important. Many people think observation collapses the wavefunction, but that's not the case. It's interaction. Of course, you can't really observe a quantum object without interacting with it, but you can DEFINITELY interact with an object without "observing" it.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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