Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Workplace cafeterias should not make a profit. I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic, but worked in a hospital cafeteria in high school. The food they served to staff and guests was (and still is) extremely overpriced, and they always made moves to cut staff hours in favor of profit - even when those extra staff members were helpful. Don't companies already make enough money from other areas? I feel they should charge lower prices for food rather than making money from employees and guests. I may be convinced of the argument for making enough money for shipping supplies, paying cafeteria workers, etc. Even then, it seems those expenses could come from other areas instead of from the company's own staff. In my experience, however, most workplaces try to make a profit from selling their food, not just pay necessary expenses. CMV Reddit! Edit: Thanks everyone for your replies! I'll try to respond to you all as soon as I can. Edit2: Sorry for poor wording. I didn't mean to say say food should be free for employees in the post, just at a reduced price to not make a profit. Then, if food prices truly needed to be high to keep the cafeteria budget neutral, maybe it would be possible to pull profit from other areas in order to provide employees with lower priced food. These were my original thoughts, hope that's more clear now. Thanks for the great discussion.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In large corporate enterprises each division or group usually had their own budget. The people who run those are typically rewarded in bonuses for the profits they make and staying under budget. Also, these cafeterias are offered as a time saver IMO. It's like paying more to get something today locally than order. So the employees can eat sooner and enjoy a longer lunch basically. It's not like they are forced to eat there. You must also consider if it's owned and operated by said company too. Many times they hire another company. And that one is there to make a profit. It's something I've been watching due to being in IT. Where we're looked down upon as a cost and not a profit generators.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I cut a rope into 4 pieces and braid them together, how much stronger will the resulting rope be in relation to it's original specs? I understand there will be a lot of 'depends', but in general, will it be 4 times as strong? Just a little stronger? Weaker because of the twists? In the original rope, a knot will introduce a significant weak point knocking off, say, 40% of strength. In the resulting 4 strand rope, will the same knot reduce it's strength by a similar amount, or would it's effects be different? Say the resulting rope is only twice as strong, will the weakness introduced by the knot also have a calculable ratio? (By braid them together, i mean laying the lengths side by side and braiding them into a rope approximately 1/4 of the original length, not braiding/splicing it back into a rope of similar original length/thickness) Edit: So it seems that getting 4x or even more strength isn't outlandish, mostly due to distributing the weakness over 4 ropes, so you would get > than 4x the strength of the 'actual' rope strength, as opposed to getting 4x the stated rope strength. (if a 100lb rope has weaker and stronger points, cutting and braiding it will distribute those strengths and weaknesses instead of the entire length being vulnerable to the weakest point (say, 90 lbs) After that, you have to take the braid/twist/material into account and calculate an appropriate reduction in strength into account, which could be nominal, or significant.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What type of braid? Can you ensure that the strands don't twist when you braid them? You're right that there are a lot of "depends." If the braid is not twisted, then best-case, each strand supports an equal load, so you'd expect your new rope to be 4X stronger than the old rope. However, if you introduce any uneven load distribution when you make the braid, then the allowable load would be knocked down by some percentage. This depends on the material, diameter, twist, and construction type of the rope. For instance, with a 1" diameter, 12-strand, nylon rope, 5 twists (rotations of an individual strand) per meter results in a 20% knockdown as compared to full strength. The questions you're asking are all very specific to the type, size, and style of rope...sorry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Single payer healthcare With all this talk about healthcare in the US I'd like to understand what the single payer model actually is. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Currently, there are a bunch of different private insurance companies who provide health insurance -- BlueCross/BlueShield, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Permamente, and so on. We get these private insurance plans either through our employer, paying premiums through paycheck withholding, or by buying an individual plan. In addition to these private insurance plans, there are also government run plans like Medicare and Medicaid. In a single payer system, there is one insurance provider -- the government. Instead of paying premiums to the various companies, we'd pay a healthcare tax. Instead of doctors and hospitals having to deal with all these different insurance companies, and all the different plans they offer, there would be one SINGLE PAYER who pays all the claims. So the doctor is no longer submitting a bill to Cigna and getting $100 reimbursed, and $120 from BlueCross, and $75 from Medicare, and having to make sure claims are coded just-so based on each payers' requirements in order to get the reimbursement and so on. It's all the same requirements, all the same payouts. In theory, the efficiencies from reducing overhead on billing through this streamlining, along with the lack of profit margins of private companies, and the larger negotiating power of a single payer, mean that the costs could be the same or reduced and yet cover everybody. There are those who will counter with the "government is never as efficient as private business" but if you've ever dealt with health insurance companies, you know there are as bureaucratic as they come, and that they are not capitalistic businesses in the sense that they have to fight for our business -- typically our employer makes the choice and our options are take it or leave it, so they have no accountability to us as customers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What do the 'H's, 'N's, and numbers mean in bird/swine flu viruses? Eg; H1N1, H7N9, etc...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant H and N stand for the names of two proteins on the surface of virus cells (Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase). What they do is not particularly important, except that they have to be on the surface of every flu virus for it to survive, and antibodies are able to target them. Different versions of the different surface proteins mean new antibodies are needed, so a new vaccine is necessary for viruses with different versions of the surface proteins. So vaccines generally work for a specific H/N combination. TL;DR: Surface proteins on the flu that are important for antibody targeting. Edit: spelling.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe women have fully equal rights to men in modern western society<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >then you are talking about something completely different and should word it accordingly. This distinction is particular to you. Most people fairly think of "equal rights" as meaning something more than equal under the law. Many people who argue for "equal rights" are attempting to address implicit, unexamined societal bias that harms women (and pretty much other groups). In the civil rights area, there is a distinction between de jure and de facto discrimination. Everyone recognizes this, and legislation like the Civil Rights Acts of 1964/1968, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Housing Discrimination Act, are premised on the idea that discrimination isn't always open, notorious, and by the black letter of the law. Second of all, there are plenty legal hurdles that are particular to women. Women in the United States have unique obligations when it comes to parenthood, and they are one of the only group of women in the world who does not have paid maternity leave. They are uniquely impacted by access to abortion, and by other restrictions placed on birth control. Laws may be written with gender-neutral language, but the way they are enforced and legislated is steeped in bias.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Linux's 'configure', 'make', 'make install' I just finished up installing ruby on a CentOS system and I can't for the life of me understand why I had to do these three steps. I googled around and it seems that this is the build system that all linux applications use. How does it work? And why execute three steps, why not just do 'make install'? (I'm a java developer so I have very limited linux knowledge)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The real explanation is that 'configure' is a script that looks through your system, finds out where libraries, compiler(s) and everything else are, what special circumstances apply to your machine, etc., and writes a Makefile based on that. make, in turn, tells the compiler to perform the actual compilation as per instructions in the Makefile that were generated, and 'make install' just places the generated program in a standard folder and does associated installation steps (such as copies documentation or icons where needed). ELI5 explanation would be, imagine you are at your friend's house and want to bake a cake and treat your friend to it. You know how to bake a cake but you can't immediately start to do it. First you will go to the kitchen, check if it has all the necessary ingredients and equipment. You'll see if it's a gas oven or an electric oven, you'll also check for some ingredients like nuts that make the cake better but that you can still work without if they aren't present. That's the 'configure' step. Then you actually get to work making the cake. You use the ingredients that you previously found and the kitchen you familiarized yourself with. This is the longest part in the process, of course. That's exactly like the 'make' step. Finally, your cake is ready, but you probably don't want to eat it right there in the kitchen while it's still inside the baking pan. You can do it, but it's not polite and not so easy. Instead, you'll set the cake on a nice big plate, bring it to the table, and before you invite everyone to eat you'll also take care of niceties like having some napkins on the table. Now everyone can enjoy the cake like they're supposed to, and that's what 'make install' corresponds to.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Thing] How long would it take for animal cells to reproduce to a pound? I'm working on a The Thing game, and I was gonna have a biologist mention that a sample of Thing tissue has grown an abnormal amount since being brought back from Outpost 31. I was gonna say that it grew half a pound in four hours, but I didn't think that was actually abnormal. I then switched to a full pound, but still don't feel like it's good enough. The Thing has incredible cellular growth. What would be an abnormal(but small) amount of mass that could be gained in four hours?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on how much mass you started with and how abnormally fast a growth rate you want. Under proper conditions, E. coli can make around a lb of biomass in half a day from a tiny bit of cells. And e. coli doubles every 20-30 minutes, while human cells take much much longer, doubling maybe a couple times a day. So a lb in 4 hours is within the bounds of biological limits depending on how much you start with, but wildly fast for human tissue. But that's assuming every cell has all the nutrients it wants in optimum conditions, while a chunk of tissue in a petri dish, even if it's sitting in a pool of prime nutrients, would grow much slower (e. coli growing of agar in a petri dish might grow only a couple grams). So a lb of growth would be a wild amount of growth, or maybe reasonable, depending on exact conditions and what you define as 'abnormal'.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is a repetitive sound "annoying", but an irregular one isn't? Like how most people can sleep to music, with the TV on, or around people talking, but cannot if there's an alarm beeping or a clock ticking.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Neural /sensory adaptation. That is, your sensory neurons will actually stop firing after exposure to a prolonged, constant stimulus For example, when something is touching your skin for the first time, say, a new watch on your wrist, all your sensory nerves are firing. Neural adaptation is the process of your body getting used to the watch on your wrist and eventually no longer firing sensory neurons to let you know there's something there. Which is why you feel like your wrist is 'naked' when you don't wear a watch after a while of wearing one constantly. The stimulus has changed and the neurons are now firing at a different frequency they are used to. Not all sensory neurons adapt, and some (phasic) adapt fadter than others (tonic). Changes to the intensity of a stimulus (volume, pressure, light) will throw the balance again and cause you to notice the stimulus There's a really cool thing about the feeling you get when you're sleeping and you feel like you're falling that's to do with it too<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does sending troops help prevent the spread of ebola?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The military has medical professionals. As well they can help organize and distribute necessary aid, and are capable of mobilizing (relatively) quickly on a large scale to construct and supply treatment facilities.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user authorship- is this normal? I’m a data analyst in academia (bs in stats), so I get opportunities to help on manuscripts and earn authorship. A senior PI and student (MD) were working on a project together and asked for my assistance performing the analyses. For context, the study was basically just taking survey data someone else already collected and analyzing it. I guided them through/performed the analyses. Shortly after this the student graduated, started a residency and completely ghosted us. The student had started a draft of the manuscript, but had only gotten through the introduction. I took complete control over the project and in the process changed some of our analysis methodology. I proceeded to write the entire manuscript (didn’t end up using any of the intro the student wrote) with the analyses and visualizations that I generated. As I was in the weeds of taking control of the project, the senior PI said she was making me co-first author. I was fine with this as I have never been first author before. Now after finishing the paper, I asked if my name can be listed first (still co-first author with the student) rather than second. The PI acknowledged that I carried this study, but says she isn’t sure it’s appropriate since the student conceptualized the study and “attempted” the analyses, even if their work wasn’t utilized. Since the student didn’t collect the data, they pretty much just decided what the outcome variable would be (which I evolved over time). The student has been copied on all communication for the last 6 months and has not reached out once. To me it seems crazy for someone to be granted first authorship after completely abandoning a project, especially since most of their work wasn’t included anyway. As we are co first-authors, i’m not asking the student to give this up, I just wish to be listed first. Is this at all justified?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The problem is that the other person did a certain amount of work under the assumption of gaining a first authorship. Unless they specifically give up that position it can turn into a lot of drama should they want to fight for that spot. An unfortunate reality is that a lot of research remains unpublished because the original first author stops working on it and doesn't want to give up the spot either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [X Men Days of Future Past] How did the Sentinels take over the entire North American Continent without being stopped? I know Sentinels are good at what they do but there are too many way OPed mutants and heroes to allow this I feel. On top of this the Celestials want to foster the mutant population so the sentinels are a threat and would conceivably be wiped out. My final point would be that Dr. Doom would never allow anybody other than himself to kill the Fantastic Four, But give me your reasoning.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I will try to tackle this point by point. 1. Sentinels have bee shown to be incredibly efficient and adaptive. Master Mold constructs sentinels of varying sizes some of which can reassemble after being destroyed. Some are built for the sole purpose of hunting a particular mutant, such as nonmetallic ones to hunt Magneto. All of this, coupled with the death of Charles Xavier early on in the DoFP meant that there wasn't a well organized response mounted by mutants and the adaptive and powerful sentinels were able to take over. All other heroes would similarly be unable to tackle such a massive threat without the aid of the X-Men and their expertise in fighting Sentinels for so many years. 2. Celestials don't do jack. If they cared, they would be intervening all the time and they don't. They set up their little experiments, mess with out genetic code and step back and watch us run like rats through a maze. Assuming they are multiversal, the demise of one experiment in one universe would not likely warrant their intervention. 3. Doom would not be able to prevent the FF from being killed. He is incredibly powerful, but again, the Sentinels would overwhelm him. Perhaps he escaped to a pocket dimension and was planning a return, but he isn't omnipotent. Unless the FF killed Doom in this reality before the events of DoFP took place. Remember that in just about every universe we have seen in the multiverse, aside from Earth-616, Reed Richards ends up being evil/crazy. Maybe he was already on his downward spiral and killed Doom, and then fell victim to the Sentinels.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to Read Philosophy I was wondering about how to go about reading philosophy. I remember /u/wokeupabug saying that reading philosophy in a very slow and laborious manner is the way to go and I would like to do that. If /u/wokeupabug could possibly answer, I was wondering how you go about reading texts in a laborious way? Also how do you guys in general go about reading in this laborious manner? I want to master the text and be able to recall the content of the text. If I read a philosophy text and then just forget what it said, it looks like I just wasted my time, so I want to avoid that. Edit: Also I forgot to add that I specifically want to know how to read a philosophy book. This question is not focused on philosophy articles or essays. But your guys answers are still very helpful. Thank you.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You'll have to find out what method works for you, and also to ramp up or ramp down the laboriousness depending on the time/energy you want to invest in it and how difficult you're finding the text to synthesize spontaneously. But in general, start by pausing after every paragraph or few paragraphs (it depends how dense the text is) to reflect and take a note on paper or in a word file describing in one line what the text just did. Then, when you've done this for a chapter or so, go back and synthesize your line notes into chunks; like, lines 1-4 define terminology, 5-12 give a preliminary statement of the argument, etc. And as you build up more notes, you'll want to continue to synthesize line notes into chunks, chunks into super-chunks, and so forth, as applicable. When you're done the whole book, you want to be able to zoom in or zoom out your details, in the sense of being able ideally to describe in one sentence what the book does, or being able to analyze that one sentence into, e.g., the three steps the book uses to do this one thing, or be able to analyze each of those three steps into their four chunks, and so on all the way down to the details of your line notes. This will require different versions of notes and tables that look like different versions of tables of contents. But if you've synthesized the contents of the book in this way, it should stay in your memory, especially after you do this several times and train your mind to think this way. If you're spending more time/energy, it's also helpful to reread the sections of the text more casually, either as a first pass prior to reading laboriously and taking notes, and/or as a second pass after you've digested your notes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Graduation ceremonies should only be held for High School and College Over the past couple of weeks I have attended or seen pictures for family member graduation ceremonies for kindergarten, 6th grade, 8th grade, and my daughter's high school graduation. I'm not talking about a simple gathering, I mean full out cap and gown, commencement speaches, hours long, etc full on graduation ceremonies. I feel that celebrating all these minor milestones in the exact same way as the final goal completely diminishes that walk across the stage for the student when they earn their diploma or degree. Change my view<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Having graduation ceremonies for completing certain levels of schooling rewards children for doing so, when the alternative is that children are never really rewarded with a ceremony like this until they complete high school. Having a graduation ceremony after, say, middle school can show students that their education is important as the completion of certain stages of it results in a celebratory graduation ceremony.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the logical basis behind the multiverse theory? In other words, what does the multiverse theory attempt to prove or answer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is intended to explain some of the weird effects of quantum mechanics, most famously, the results of double-slit experiment. In the quantum version of this experiment, a single photon of light was sent at two slits and the scientists did not observe which slit it went through. After several photons were sent through one at a time, the scientists expected to see a projection of the slits on a screen behind the slits. However, they instead saw an interference pattern, the same that appears if many photons are sent through the slits together. Multiverse theory is one of two major proposed explanations for this. It suggests that in cases of probability such as which slit the photon travels through, the universe splits into two universes for each option. Furthermore, on very small scales such as those of single photons, the universes can interact with each other, and the photon can interfere with its counterpart in the other universe.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do you compensate for poor short term memory? I’m trying to study for school and I scored pretty low for working memory on an assessment. Are there ways I can study that compensate for this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do things that are memorable. Try new things you're curious about. Consider old things in different perspectives. Whatever you're observing externally, try to also be aware that it's a reflection of how you function internally. We have a difficult time remembering things that do not teach us anything new about our internal and external environments. You can actively chase nostalgia and you can incessantly reflect on nostalgic ways to consider old things. Your mind will rest when your body is actively chasing new things to remember and your body will rest when your mind is actively finding new ways to consider what you already remember. Also, get a healthy and sustainable, in quality and quantity, amount of sleep, nutrition, and information.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [D&D] I'm a Archmage and a scholar and I'm cataloging obscure planes of existence, what Do I need to catalogue?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Everything. Or at least everything that you reasonably can. Probably start with the 5 senses. What does it look like? Smell like? Feel like? Sound like? Ok, maybe not taste (unless you find some edible flora or fauna). How did you get there? Are there certain spells or rituals you need to cast? Any special requirements for travelling to that particular plane? Gravity, or the lack of gravity. Does effect follow cause, or is it the other way around? Do regular physics apply? Is movement a matter of physically moving your legs or just thinking about moving from one place to another? Are there any inhabitants?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Losing motivation to finish phD After countless job rejections from even the most entry-level/graduate positions in ANY area in industry (finance, banking, consulting, software, data science, research, etc.) as well as many rejections from postdocs (engineering, physics, math) that are closely related to my phD (theoretical physics), I am feeling really demotivated to finish this degree. Even though I only have 5 months left till I have to hand in my thesis, I actually can't see the value of my work whatsoever. It feels cheap, it feels worthless, and I honestly don't even care about it anymore. This PhD has put me through 60+ hours of work every week, weekends, public holidays, etc. for the past 3.5 years. Being on an extremely low salary with ZERO career prospects (I live in Australia and Covid essentially killed academia here) I just feel like all this work amounts to absolutely nothing in the end. I even got rejected from a graduate job that only asked for a bachelors degree in economics, no experience required. Sigh. I don't know what to do. Literally the only work experience is in tutoring physics and math. I didn't expect things to go this way. There were a lot of postdoc/research opportunities before covid, then it all vanished within 12 months and not even my supervisors know what to say about the whole thing, I can see in their faces how aware they are of the fact that I will have a very hard time landing a job, and that my scientific/academic career is 99% likely to be over by the end of my degree. I honestly regret this degree, this entire profession actually. I used to be really keen on learning physics and doing research in it. Now, I just wish I had stayed in engineering while I was still in my undergraduate degree. All my friends who didn't even do well in their bachelor's of business/IT/engineering/law have good jobs now and make at least 3 times what I make in a year, and they don't have to worry about career prospects because they already have 5+ years in the industry. Me? I am just a sad loser who made a bunch of very poor choices out of "following my passion" like an idiot. And to top it all off, I decided to invest in a bunch of cryptocurrencies this year and now all of the sudden the market is crashing, effectively wiping out around 60% in potential profits that I had just a few days ago. How can I get myself motivated to finish this thing when I can't even see the value in it? No employer sees the value in it either, so I guess it's objectively a useless qualification.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Problem 1: It sounds like you might want to check that your application materials are communicating what you think they are. If you're not getting interviews this can be a sign that your applications are falling short somewhere. Maybe get a trusted colleague or mentor to look over things for you. preferably someone who has sat on panels recently, not another PhD student. If you're getting systematically rejected at interview stages then you might need to dig more into how you're approaching questions etc. Problem 2: There's no magic trick to motication. There's no silver bullet. Target your goal, and push on until it's done. Break things out into small achievable tasks and just knock them out, one by one.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why aren't guitar frets evenly spaced?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because for a string instrument, notes have a multiplicative, not an additive relationship. For example lets take a string that's tuned to an E. In order to play an E one octave higher you have to place your finger in the middle of the string, effectively cutting its length in half. To go up to the next E, you put your finger at the middle point between the last octave and the end of the string, making it effectively one quarter of the length of the full string. So, if you were to put frets to mark three octaves, it would look something like this --------\|----\|--\|-- As you can see, they get progressively closer, just like the frets of a guitar. The difference there is that the guitar frets don't just mark octaves but the other notes in between.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does the training differ between a regular doctor/surgeon and an army doctor/ surgeon?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on what you mean. A “regular” doctor/surgeon and an army doctor/surgeon are trained the same. The difference is that that army one is in the military and is an officer upon completion of medical school. They all went to college, med school, residency, and +/- fellowship. The difference is where they did residency and fellowship. There are civilian programs and specific military programs (San Diego, San Antonio, Walter Reed, etc). If you mean a medic and not a doctor/surgeon, they get additional training after boot camp with the goal of being able to stabilize the wounded on the battlefield to take them back to the doctor or surgeon on the local base. The doctor/surgeon on the local base will then generally perform further stabilization to transfer the patient to a designated military hospital (e.g. Germany).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Are all atoms perfect? Are there imperfect atoms with defects? Inquisitive minds wonder<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What exactly do you mean by imperfect or defects? More or less protons? Those are different elements More or less neutrons? Those are different isotopes of the same element More or less electrons? Those are different ions of the same element. Some are natural (as in sodium missing one electron (Na^(+)) and chlorine with one extra electron (Cl^(-)) is what makes up table salt), some not so much -- you can actually get get a negative sodium ion Na^- but that is extremely unlikely to exist in nature.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: why does ̸̢̛̞̱͓Z̵̪͙͊̎̌ä̷̳͕̋̚l̵͉̙̓͘ͅg̴̫̠̑̈͜o̴̻͛ text look the way it does?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some letters can be changed with accents. For example: e can be è, é, ê, ë, etc. How do computers store letters with accents? There are two main ways. 1. Store a copy of every letter with every accent combination. Or 2. Store the letters and accents separately. Because there are lots of different letters and lots of different accents, it is easier for computers to store them separately. Think of letters as little Lego figures, and accents as their hats. You have a box of figures, a box of hats, and you can combine them however you like. What happens if you put too many hats on your Lego figure? It starts to look a bit silly. With computer text, you can take an English letter, and then add as many accents as you want to it. Some accents go at the top like É. Some go at the bottom like Ç. Just like a tower of Lego, it is possible to keep adding accents on to letters. And that gives you the "Zalgo" effect.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between advertising and marketing<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Marketing is a business role that analyzes and/or makes decisions about everything needed to bring a product to market: research, manufacturing, finance, packaging, advertising, sales…etc. Advertising is one piece of marketing: communicating a product to potential consumers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Abortion is taking a life, and that is ok. Edit: thought it was obvious but it wasn’t. I am talking about human life. I’m not interested in equating a human embryo to a tree. I see two lines that can be consistently drawn for assigning the legal status of being alive. Conception and birth. Pretty much everything in between becomes a situational moving target, and any law written drawing a line in the sand would be fairly arbitrary. Due to the natural fragility of pregnancy, it is not practical to assign rights before a certain point of development. I think it is generally agreed that after birth killing a baby is certainly murder. So in the middle we have this gray area. When the topic of abortion comes up, many people already use words which indicate they on some level recognize the fetus/zygote as a life. So I will take the position that at least semantically a pregnancy is a life. My world view is largely based on principles of non-aggression and self ownership. So how do I think it is acceptable for someone to unilaterally end what I just described as a life? I think no life has a right to harm any other life unless in defense. In the case of pregnancy, the zygote/fetus/living being does not have a right to harm a woman. I will qualify taking resources, dramatically changing her body etc as harm. Therefore an abortion falls into my definition of self defense. So there it is. Feel free to help me understand a different view of either statement: * Abortion is taking a life * that is ok<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Is the line arbitrary if we base it on science? What about the line, wherever it may be drawn, that humans rights start when the brain starts? Doesn't seem too arbitrary, can be objectively measured with MRIs. It is late enough term to allow for most abortion but earlier enough to stop aborting things that could survive on their own.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Where does new water go when it enters a container that already contains some water? While giving my daughter a bath, she asked if water sinks or floats and I wasn’t quite sure on how to answer. Where do the new water molecules end up when it joins with other water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can answer your daughters question through a simple experiment. Add dye to the water you will pour in then pour the coloured water into the other bottle filled with plain water. You’ll see some interesting patterns form as the water continues with the same momentum then eventually all the water will be the same colour.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does shampoo seem so much softer and well lathered after a second application? Every now and then I will accidentally go to shampoo my hair a second time while I am showering. I can always tell because the shampoo seems to lather much thicker and feels much softer in the hair. Why???<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Shampoo, and more generally soaps, contain surfactants. Surfactants are molecules containing one end that really loves water (hydrophilic) and one end that really loves dirt/oil/grease (hydrophobic). When a surfactant finds some dirt, the hydrophobic end will bind with the dirt and then hydrophilic end will interact with the water which allows the whole molecule+dirt to be washed away. Under circumstances where there is very little dirt, the hydrophobic ends don't have much to attach to. They also really don't want to be touched by water, so what they end up doing is grouping together in a sphere (micelle) where the hydrophobic ends are pointing inwards towards each other, and the hydrophilic ends are pointing outwards towards the water. This (along with a decrease in surface tension) is what causes a bubble to form. So, when your hair is really dirty, the surfactants will bind with the dirt and not need to come together to form micelles. On the second wash, where there should be considerably less dirt, the surfactant will form micelles and thus form soap bubbles. TLDR: dirt is the enemy of suds.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do search engines like Google search through so much data so quickly? Honestly, this isn't from a completely ignorant perspective when it comes to programming, so feel free to go into great detail (If you'd like!) with your explanation.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Suppose you have a very thick reference book that discusses gardening, and you wanted to find every page in the book that talks about roses. How do you do it? Well, in the worst case, you have to go through every page in the book, read it, and see if it talks about roses. But in the best case, the book has an index in the back, which makes it easy; you find "rose" in the index, and it tells you which of the pages in the book talk about roses. How did the book's index get made? Well, some people went through every page in the whole book and wrote down what topics are mentioned in which page. They might have used one index card for each topic; as they went through the book, when they found a page that talks about roses, they took the index card for "rose" and added that page number to it. Then at the end they wrote down the contents from all of the cards at the end of the book, and that's the index. So making an index is slow and takes a lot of work, but after that's done, using the index is easy and fast. Well, Google works basically just like that. Google has two parts: the "crawlers" or "robots" that visit all of the pages in the Internet and make an index of all the terms and phrases that appear in the Internet, and which pages each of them appears in. Then there's the search page that you see and use, which looks up your search terms in the index. The robots's work is slow and hard, but you don't normally see it unless you have an unpopular website that you update frequently—in which case you notice that it may take a day or a few before Google notices the changes to your website (it hasn't incorporated your latest changes into the index).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Mass Effect] What is the domestic Quarian economy like on the Migrant Fleet? We know the Quarians, as a government, has access to funds used to trade with the greater intergalactic community, but what is their internal, domestic economy like within the Migrant Fleet for day to day living amongst themselves? People need to eat, get clothes, have some entertainment and recreation. Young Quarians need at least some funds for food, lodging, and transportation when they start out on their Pilgrimage. How does the Quarian Domestic Market work? Do they all receive a salary while living in the Migrant Fleet? Is it a fully communal society? Are there discretionary funds available for Quarians to buy personal items if they are away from the Fleet for official or personal reasons? Do they have a Quarian currency or is it all barter?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant > Young Quarians need at least some funds for food, lodging, and transportation when they start out on their Pilgrimage. I remember Tali saying that each Quarian is given some money and resources for their pilgrimage. It seems to me that it's a mostly state-run economy where essentials like food would be distributed in a way to avoid some having excesses and others having too little. There has to be some way that they acquire their personal luxury items, but we're not shown it clearly. It might even vary from ship to ship, as each ship is like a micro-nation within the fleet's Federation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Alien vs Predator] What's an ideal hunt suppose to look like for the Predators? So Predators set up a hunt, or at the very least the conditions right? So what are the musts, minimums, and stuff completely forbidden when preparing a hunting ground? Because it seems like things very quickly got away from what the Predators were expecting. Are predators suppose to prepare to fight 2 to 1000 xenomorphs for example? Or does a Queen getting free something they need to prepare for? Are they suppose to only hunt mature Xenomorphs? Or do they just have to bag one with certain restrictions then it becomes a no holds barred purge or something?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Get on planet, hunt prey, succeed, collect trophies, get off world without (sentient, advanced) prey species knowing you were there or leaving evidence (predator weapons, tech, ships, bodies of fallen fellow yautja warriors) that show there is life among the stars. When the hunt goes sideways (human interference, more Xenomorphs than normal etc) its still considered a hunt until all threats are eliminated and trophies collected. Its just a hunt with extra steps that could go badly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If an Earthquake is an giant plate moving, why is the epicenter a single point and not the entire fault line?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, we need to make sure we know what an earthquake is: it’s the buildup and sudden release of energy causes by two tectonic plates interacting with each other in any direction. The boundaries between tectonic plates are not a clean, uniform “slice” like you would make in a cake. The boundaries are more like what you see if you dropped a dinner plate and it cracked in half. The edges will be random and have parts that go to one side or the other. Still, for the most part the plates interact smoothly, and areas that sit on top of them have multiple “micro quakes” on a daily basis, as the plates move. Sometimes, however, there is an interaction between the two at a point where neither side is able to move; this causes a buildup of (potential) energy. When one side finally gives way, there is a release of energy from that single, relatively small point, which is the “epicenter”. This release of energy causes shockwaves (for lack of a better term) to travel outward from the point of release, kind of like ripples in a pond; those waves are the actual earthquake<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:How does reflection of light on mirrors act on the atomic level? i don't actually know if it is a chem or physics question<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Physics rather than chem, and it's subatomic/wave rather than atomic. Light is a wave (or a particle, or both, but we'll stick to wave) of electromagnetic radiation which travels through a variety of media (air, vacuum, water etc.). Visible light is made up of several different wavelengths which we see as colours. The important thing here is that, as a wave, it is carrying energy. When light hits an object, it can be pass through, be absorbed, reflect or scatter, or any combination of these. When the light wave hits the mirror, the energy from the lightwave is absorbed by the atoms. This pushes electrons into higher energy states. This isn't a stable condition, and so the electrons release the energy. In a perfectly reflective surface, all of the absorbed energy is spat back out, perfectly mirroring the incoming energy. Across the entire surface of the mirror, this leads to the light being absorbed and then spat back out in a way that produces a "good" reflection.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:If two engines have the same horsepower but one has 20% more torque what is the practical difference? 20% is just a random number. I just mean, if you have two engines of the same family and one is smaller but turbocharged and theyre both rated at the same horsepower but different amounts of torque. Thank you. Edit: I appreciate the responses but what I'm really asking here is what the difference between the two vehicles would be. Say we have two totally normal cars with 140 horsepower, one of the cars has 140 ft·lb of torque and the other has 165. How do these two vehicles differ in performance?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Torque = force (measured in newton meters[dimensionally equivalent to joules]) Horsepower = energy (measured in joules per second[watts]) *Horsepower tells you how much work your engine can do over a time period, torque tells you how much work your engine can do at any given instant.* That is why torque is much more important at a standstill, where wheels are static one instant but moving the next. They are inherently related as Horsepower = Torque * Angular Speed. You can't increase torque or HP without increasing the other (while keeping RPMs constant). Fun Fact: Trains use electric motors to get their wheels turning from a standstill because they can produce more torque than combustion engines.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: My prejudice towards black people is useful Let’s start with some facts, I support BLM, think there’s systematic racism against non-whites in our society, and support progressive reforms. Ok, with that our of the way let’s get to my view. I’m a New Yorker, living in the city for almost twenty years. Recent events have made me re-examine race and my views on them. However, after doing some soul searching, I find my prejudices rather useful. For example, when I go to a theater, and I see a bunch of black people sitting together, I move to another section. That’s because 9 out of ten times, the group is incredibly loud and would talk during the movie. When I see a bunch of black and brown teens, especially boys, I tend to avoid them, as my experience tells me that they’re usually obnoxious and many times would try to start fights. (I’ve actually seen it happen before) When I’m on a darker street, or in a sketchier neighborhood, and I see a black man walk toward me, I’m instantly more cautious. That’s because the only experience I’ve had being robbed, and jumped in NY have been by black men. I don’t react this way to all black men, but I think I’ve developed this instinct almost subconsciously. To describe the type that gets me nervous, that’s be the younger black man who dress in a way that appears like they’re not at least middle class. Now, I don’t think this applies to all of black people or even most. I have plenty of black friends, and know it’s ridiculous to apply one thing to an entire race. I also don’t think a race is superior than another race. But being from NY, I think having my instincts and prejudices have helped me avoid danger, conflicts and general hassle. I believe my views are derived from social factors rather than race. I’m wondering if anyone can CMV that my prejudices are useful to have. To me, they’re harmless to people but helpful to me. Thanks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The way you describe it, it might be less about race and more about attire and attitude. People dress and behave in a way that is deliberately chosen to reflect their subculture and mindset. That’s part of why you can tell some people are gay just by looking at them, because they deliberately try to indicate it. It might be helpful not to think about it as a race thing though, because it’s not their race that you’re judging.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can you understand this question my C++ lecturer assigned cause it’s confusing me especially the pseudo code A chaotic, unpredictable behaviour sometime is caused by a surprisingly simple rule. Create two Boolean arrays of size 200, initialize every element of the first array as false except the element at index 100. Then implement the following steps: Print arr For every element in arr2 arr2[i] = (arr[i - 1] != (arr[i] \|\| arr[i + 1])) if arr[i – 1] or arr[i + 1] go out or range, use “false” as the value of the element Copy everything in arr2 to arr Repeat this process 100 times, and observe the output, you may need to zoom out (ctrl + mouse scroll) and adjust window size to see the entire picture. Note: use cout << char(219) to print a block<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So with what part are you confused? 1. Create two Boolean arrays of size 200 2. initialize every element of the first array as false except the element at index 100 4. print arr 3. For all 200 elements calculate ... arr2[i] = (arr[i - 1] != (arr[i] \|\| arr[i + 1])) if arr[i – 1] or arr[i + 1] go out or range (i.e. first and last element you need special rules) 5. Copy everything in arr2 to arr (dumb, one could just switch pointers, but whatever) 6. Repeat this process 100 times<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Dоes everything in the univеrsе еxpand unifоrmly? So we know that the univеrse is expanding at an incrеasing pace, and the gаlaxies are moving away from each other. My question is, does everything expаnd uniformly? For example, is the distance between me and the cоmputer in front of me expanding at the same rate as the distance between the neighboring galaxies? And if not, then is there a certain limit where - I would assume - the grаvitational pull between two objects gets below some threshold (I would assume it would get below some level of the dark matter expansion force) that distance between them starts expanding?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >For example, is the distance between me and the cоmputer in front of me expanding at the same rate as the distance between the neighboring galaxies? Attempting to expand, yes. Succeeding? No The underlying fabric of space seems to be expanding very slowly. In deep space it's about 2 um/second per kilometer of distance (70 km/s/Mpc in useful distances) This slow expansion isn't pulling that hard so within object the electromagnetic force greatly overwhelms it, and even across the width of a galaxy it's overwhelmed by the relatively weak gravity holding everything together Expansion has a far bigger impact on the distance between galactic clusters than anything you can hold<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Comics] Super Strength in general... should that equate to being able to jump miles at a time... So I’m thinking about Thing, from the Fantastic Four. According to some sources, he’s strong enough to lift close to 30,000 Tons... considering he weighs only the slightest of fractions of that, he should be able to leap as far as his strength can propel his weight, right? But super leaping is something that I only see associated with Hulk... Colossus... Juggernaut... Luke Cage Even some DC characters that aren’t blessed with flight with their strength like Aquaman and Hourman... Is this side effect of super strength ever explored or focused on in comics that maybe I just haven’t seen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant (Some ELI15 for you) There are, essentially, three types of muscle fibers in those "muscles" we think about when somoene brings up 'strong': Slow Oxidative, Fast Oxidative, and Fast Glycolitic. These are categorized mostly by the type of respiration they need to produce that power (aerobic or anaerobic), how relatively quickly they contract, and finally, how prone they are to fatigue. Most folks have simplified this to the following: Slow-Twitch/ST (Slow Oxidative): These muscle fibres take the longest to fatigue, and are usually the slowest to contract. These are the fibres that are used most in 'marathon' type activities, where endurance is key. Fast-Twitch I/FTI (Fast oxidative): Contract faster than SO fibers, are more prone to fatigue, and can change between aerobic or anaerobic respiration. Fast-Twitch II/FTI (Fast Glycolitic): Contract faster than the other two fibres, are the most prone to fatigue, and only use anaerobic (also called Glycolisis) respiration to work. But muscles aren't everything! Keep in mind that the muscles are also fighting against their own weight, and the weight of the body using them! Some superpowered individuals are, relatively speaking, much denser than similarly sized individuals. In other words, it takes a lot less power to throw an orange that weighs normally, versus one that ways two tons! So, depending on the superpowered individual, their own mass, and many times, how and where they get their particular powers from, it can mean that even though a single individual can lift a M1 Abrams tank, they may not have the right muscle fibres, or a low enough mass, to enable a jump that's higher than an average non-powered individual. In short, physiology and anatomy, combined with physics, will always be a limiting factor in how well a super-strong individual can actually use that strength. As an aside, this is also why some of our strongest individuals tend to have non-human, non-standard, or mechanically (via technology, magic, psionics, gengineering, et al.) augmented physiques. There is a natural limit to what nature can accomplish all on its own, even if some very skilled, gifted, or lucky humans have near-superhuman capabilities.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do moral realists hold that only one ethical system is true when math seems to accept multiple systems? For example, mathematicians seem to treat both Euclidean and non Euclidean systems as "true" or equally valid, same for sets like integers, reals, complex etc. Do I misunderstand moral realism in thinking that this is not analogously the case in their ethical systems? A tangential question, does mathematical realism help clarify this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant > For example, mathematicians seem to treat both Euclidean and non Euclidean systems as "true" or equally valid, same for sets like integers, reals, complex etc. Actual space is either Euclidean or non-Euclidean, but certainly not both.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does Kant believe that space and time are 'intuitions' and not 'concepts'? I'm currently making my way through the Transcendental Aesthetic in the first critique, and while I understand Kant's claims that space and time are a priori forms of intuition, I don't understand his arguments that claim that they are intuitions and not concepts. I'm thinking perhaps the misunderstanding is arising from not fully understanding what Kant means by a concept. If anyone can shed some light on this that'd be appreciated.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Kant argues for why he thinks space and time are a priori and are originally intuitions rather than concepts in the aesthetics. See around B38 where argument for space being an a priori intuition starts. For Kant, you can have concepts of space and time, but their "original representations" are intuitions. For Kant, intuitions (not to be confused with colloquial use of the term; Kant's intuition has almost no relation to the ordinary sense of the word today) are representations that directly (immediately) relate to its objects. For humans, intuitions are associated with sensibility that is the ability to recieve sense matter. "Roughly" speaking, intuitions are more "raw" ("unconceptualized") representations. Concepts, on the other hand, operates from the faculty of understanding at a discursive level through our intuition i.e it doesn't directly related to its objects but relate to them through our sensible intuitions. For Kant intuition are of particular/singular objects whereas a concept can be somewhat like a universal - it can denote some element which is possessed by multiple representations (for example, the concept "red" can be possessed by multiple colored objects). However, Kant believes concepts themselves cannot contain within itself an infinite representations; whereas intuitions can have a sort of infinity (or unboundness) in it. Kant believes space and time has this sort of infinity. As Kant argues space is singular (there is purpotedly only one space), and it can present an inifnity of spatial objects in it. Kant believes all these fit space being an intuition rather than a concept. There are similar arguments for time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe that basic firearm safety should be taught across schools in America. In America (limiting this post to the US, since that's where I am and have knowledge of), I think that if fire arm safety was taught in schools, we would have fewer gun related accidents. I would suggest age appropriate training, (say Eddie Eagle http://eddieeagle.nra.org/ or something similar if you don't like the NRA, for younger children, all the way up to the 4 basic gun safety rules, http://www.reddit.com/r/everymanshouldknow/comments/2986mx/emsk_the_four_firearm_safety_rules/ for high schoolers, and basic knowledge i.e. the difference between a single shot, semi auto, fully auto, calibers and different types of guns, possibly even promoting high school rifle teams ). This would, I think, demystify guns, and go a long way towards educating people. Ideally, this would be a yearly thing, maybe just a day or two a school year, to refresh on the basics for safety. I would say that parents would have the right to opt their children out of it (Hoplophobia, or 'an irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them' or more commonly a fear of firearms, is a real thing.), though I would make it the default to go through it. The quickest way to change my view would be to point out the unintended consequences of this. Knowledge, in my mind, is never as dangerous as ignorance. Apologies if this has been brought up before here, but the search didn't show it. I am willing to change any minor points in structure to the course (i.e. waiting until senior year for the class on the 4 basic rules instead of starting in freshman year), if given good reason, but would like to know what reasons this might not work. Thanks again. Edit: I'm heading home and crashing out. My view has been changed more than I was expecting. I still believe that gun safety and the basis of guns is something everyone should know, however several commenters have shown how this wouldn't be as practical as I originally thought, at least for high schoolers. For kid safety courses, I haven't found enough data to say it should be mandatory for them either. I would like to see it studied on a larger scale and more thoroughly to see if it is effective or not, and would make that a prerequisite before instituting that policy on a national scale. Thank you everyone for your responses, even if I didn't agree with all of them. I'll check back in about 8 hours or so. Good night all. _____ &gt; Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's possible to come up with hundreds of things that we might think it would be good for children to learn in school, but there is limited time in the school day to teach students, so you need to prioritize. Teaching students about safety with a device that many will never see or use seems like a lower priority to me. Especially when there are things like learning to manage finances or car maintenance that almost everyone could use and use often in their lives. In a case like this, it makes more sense to shift the burden onto the gun owner/user to take a safety course.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If an entire species is inbred, how could that be determined or is it not possible unless there's a baseline of the non-inbred version of a species?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Simplifying a bit - one can count how many genes have multiple variants, and compare that to the total number of genes for the species. Variation increases over time by random mutation, but if there is a population bottleneck or inbreeding, it's dictated simply by chance that many variants won't be carried forward. We know that humans had a big population bottleneck because, compared to species with a similar number of genes (chimps, e.g.), a smaller proportion of our genes have multiple variants.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does econometrics courses teach you anything that you couldn't gain from statistics courses? Just as the title implies, I'm trying to figure out if there's benefit to taking econometrics courses versus standard time series analysis and regressions courses. Ultimately, this will help drive my decision on a masters program.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends what you're trying to do. Econometrics courses will give you more experience in causal inference than a stats masters would. A stats masters will probably give you a bigger regression toolbox, though (I haven't seen GAM's covered much in econometrics courses, for example). I would try to track down the syllabi and textbooks used at a few programs you're considering to see what they cover.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Would a "government" run by an AI designed to allocate resources 100% efficiently to maximise net social utility (i.e.: a socially benevolent AI) be a desirable form of government? \*Ignoring/disregarding the [utility monster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster) argument (assume it is not possible/all agents' utility follow the law of diminishing returns)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant "Assuming you can maximize social welfare, should you" seems to have a pretty straightforward answer from an economics perspective. Yes. The problem of course is that this relies on wholly unrealistic assumptions, we barely can make vague guesses about social utility functions, and one might argue that it's not possible at all to model them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why isn't minimum wage tied to the consumer price index? Or inflation? Why is minimum wage adjusted so infrequently?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because if it was indexed, lowering it would require an active political decision, which would be politically costly. As it is, the real minimum wage can be lowered simply by doing nothing. This allows for more flexible fiscal policy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] how does Earth's post scarcity economy affect the way inherently scarce things like antiques are aquired? for example Sisko has "the best collection of ancient African antiques you'll ever see" but how did he get them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's no information on the civilian economy in Star Trek, but generally in post scarcity environments you have trade favors or other things that have scarcity. Maybe his dad's gumbo is the best gumbo on Earth. Maybe his blog about being a mediocre officer in starfleet is so amazing that he can charge people to look at it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Pokémon] What happens to the Pokémon in the PC when a trainer dies unexpectedly? Are they trapped forever? What happens to orphaned Pokémon anyway in this situation? Left in wills? Donated? Released? Given to the state?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant From the National Trainer Handbook, chapter 17, section 2: "In the event of a trainer's injury or incapacitation (see section 3, Blacking Out), the trainer's Pokedex notifies the nearest Pokemon Center, which is capable of teleporting the trainer to the Center for emergency care. "Use of this emergency system is not billed to the trainer's account, but excessive incidents may cause a safety meeting to be called on the trainer's behalf. Continued use may void the trainer's status as a legal Pokemon Trainer. "Since its implementation, there have been no confirmed trainer deaths in the field. However, it is impossible to accurately gauge the mortality rate of illegal trainers in the field, who refuse to maintain their legal status in exchange for the many programs offered by the Pokemon Center."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are the disincentive effects of the Green New Deal ? Will more people substitute their private sector jobs for higher paying public sector jobs + work less additional hours for leisure ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It’s pretty hard to determine the effects of something without a clear picture of what it is. The GND is notoriously amorphous—are you referring to AOC’s questionnaire, Sanders’s implementation, or something else? The job guarantee aspect?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do you die almost instantly when the level of CO2 in the air is above 10%?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The red blood cells serve the purpose of transporting O2 from the lungs to where it's needed, and transporting waste CO2 from where it's produced to the lungs. The mechanism is simple: It'll grab hold of dissolved oxygen or CO2 if there is much of it, and release it when there's little. Since there's a lot of oxygen and little CO2 in the lungs, it will release bound CO2 and grab oxygen. Now if there's a lot of CO2 in the air, instead of picking up oxygen in the lungs, many red blood cells will pick up CO2. This will massively reduce the amount of O2 you can breathe, which by itself is already dangerous. On top of that, the dissolved CO2 will make the blood acidic, which is dangerous because many functions of the body rely on the pH of the blood to be slightly basic. On top of all that, CO2 is usually not just added to the air, it's produced by burning oxygen. So the 10% CO2 air also has only 10% oxygen, half as much as air normally has. However, you're not going to die almost instantly. You will however quickly pass out and die if you keep breathing that air.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [the santa clause] Did charlie just say he wants to kill his father. In the first one he said he plans to go into the family business<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here is the language of the clause: >‘In putting on the suit and entering the sleigh, the wearer waives any and all rights to any previous identity, real or implied, and fully accepts the duties and responsibilities of Santa Claus in perpetuity until such time that wearer becomes unable to do so by either accident or design.’ by either accident or design If Scott, at some point, decides to retire and says to Charile, "Here's the suit, go get in the sleigh," that would be by design. Charlie is Santa.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a name for the phenomena of a person assigning 2 different values to the same asset? So I was speaking with my friend who recently just got tickets to a sporting event. I asked him what the current market price for the tickets were and he said they were hovering around the $100 / ticket point. I asked him if he there was a high enough price point where he would consider selling the tickets. He responded with "No" because he really wanted to go to this event. I then asked him if he would have been willing to buy these tickets at the market price of $100 / ticket and he also responded with "No" since he would not spend that much on these tickets. This seems to be a somewhat of a paradoxical economic situation: my friend would clearly rather have the ticket instead of selling it for $100. On the other hand, my friend would also rather have $100 dollars rather than spend them on the tickets. I definitely think there are be many different reasons for this situation, but I'm sort of interested in the following possible explanation: it seems that there is a "psychological inertial" when it comes to transactions where we sometimes prefer to "hang onto" the asset we currently own, even if the transaction occurs at a price point we deem as fair/favorable. My question: is there a term/name for such a phenomena? I believe this might be something studied in Behavioral Economics and I would love to learn more about it, if at all possible. Sorry for the longwinded post, but I would love any insight or resources anyone could share :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The specific effect you’re looking for is the endowment effect, which describes the tendency of people to assign greater value to something they already own than they would assign to the same thing if they did not own it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why do some fighter aircraft have a Weapons System Officer while others don't(?) (more in comments) This is inspired by seeing Top Gun: Maverick, where one fighter has a second person in the cockpit as a weapons system officer, while the other doesn't. Does the other aircraft only have a one-seat cockpit?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is advantages and disadvantages of having a crew of one or two in a fighter. The goal here is to divide the work load of combat with the plane. The more work load there is the more having a WSO is important. But having a WSO also come with drawbacks since the plane need to make room for him. This can mean less fuel, more weight, etc. It also cost you more in training, you double the number of people you need for combat, etc. So usually you want only one pilot unless it's necessary. In general, a fighter designed for air combat won't need a WSO. Most of the weapons are highly automated so the world load is usually manageable for just one pilot. That said there is some exceptions. For example, the F-14 Tomcat was mainly an interceptor/air superiority fighter, but it had two seats. The reason was that the Tomcat main weapon was the AIM-54 Phoenix which was a long range anti-air missile that used a semi-active radar guidance. The way it work was that the Phoenix missile needed the radar of the F-14 to guide itself to the target at Beyond-visual range. This mean that the WSO had to be concentrated on the weapon during the long flight while the pilot took care of the fighter. Needing the radar of the fighter to be on is like a big blinking arrow that show to everybody where the fighter is, so that's not ideal in combat. Modern radar guided missile are usually active now, meaning they have their own radar. For that reason, the work load is lower on modern fighter and they are usually single seat. A fighter designed more toward ground attack will tend to have a WSO. The reason is because targeting something on the ground is far harder to do than targeting something in the air. There is a lot more stuff to hide on the ground, there is a lot more possible target and it's harder to identify if it's a friend or a foe. For those reason, some weapons add enough work load that having a WSO make a big difference. Not all ground attack weapon need the same amount of work and the latest technology simplified a lot of task too. For example the F/A-18E is the single seat variant that is mostly used for air combat, while the F/A-18F is the two seat variant that is better equipped for ground attack. But the F-35 only have one seat variants because it have a lot of technology to help the pilot. The sensors, avionics, helmet-mounted display, and the targeting equipment like the EOTS. TLDR : It always depend on what weapons the aircraft will mainly carry. Some weapons give too much work load for a pilot alone. Rule of Thumb is Air combat need only a pilot, while ground attack need a WSO. But that's just a generic rule, it depend on the specific design of the aircraft and the technology.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are airplane windows never aligned with the seats? Surely it can't be that hard to line them up, right?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The windows are aligned with the structural spars of the aircraft fuselage, and the spacing of those is determined by safety considerations and cost - rather than seat width which is a variable which can change from airline to airline<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do certain cultures consistently own in certain chains and establishments? For example: Nail salons and dry cleaners often are staffed by asian individuals and Dunkin Donuts and 711 often have Indian staff. Not trying to be offensive when asking this question.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The reasoning behind it is mostly that people's families and friends help them get established when they move to a new country. Say you have an uncle with a couple convenience stores, maybe he'll give you a job in one. After a while maybe you save some money and buy a store of your own because you have lots of experience running one now, and an uncle who can help you find a good one to buy. A few years later you have a few stores, and your wife's cousin emigrates, so you set him up with a job managing one of your stores, and the cycle repeats.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, LTE, etc. I know GSM is what ATT/T-Mobile use and CDMA is Verizon/Sprint, but that's about the extent of my knowledge. I'd actually prefer an explanation like I'm 21 and not an engineer. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To things are needed for a cellular network: 1) How to get many people to share a piece of spectrum. 2) How to send data from cell towers to phones and vice-versa. GSM and CDMA are two different ways to accomplish the two things. LTE is newer. The way GSM solves (1) is by something called TDMA (time division multiple access). When you're in a phone call, you're phone is scheduled a bunch of time slots when your phone either sends or receives data. These exclusive to your phone and different from other phones in the cell so there's no interference. This way, multiple phones can talk to the cell tower (seemingly) at once (the bursts of time are super short so you don't notice them). CDMA deals with (1) in a completely different way. It breaks up the channel into codes/signals (Code division random access). This is a little hard to explain without some math, but there's a notion called orthogonality. If two signals are orthogonal you can pull one signal out without getting interference from the other. Every user is assigned a different code/signal and these are (approximately) orthogonal to each other. This is a more advanced technique and generally thought of as advantageous since there isn't as much waste (TDMA needs little bits of extra time between users to make sure there's no overlap, for example). The way (2) is accomplished is also very different. In fact there are many different ways it is done even within GSM or CDMA. The way data is sent along depends a lot on how good the quality of the radio signal and other factors. That's a whole other thing. But the options for GSM and CDMA differ. 3G and 4G are kind of marketing terms that come from "3rd generation" and "4th generation". They refer to families of standards, but not specific methods to accomplish (1) or (2). LTE is a 4G standard that uses OFDM to do (1). This is kind of like TDMA but instead of time, it's in frequency. But they do some clever trickery to make it work really without needing gaps between users' frequencies. I can explain more, if you'd like, but it gets really technical really quick.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes me to wake up minutes before my alarm goes off, even when I've barely slept? For example, I woke up at 5:45 am today, like I would normally do to go to work, except I had the day off. I went to bed at 2:30 am, so it's not like I was fully rested either. What causes this to happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is something in our body called a biological clock. If your body is used to doing some things at a certain time, be it waking up or maybe using the restroom. You will generally do these things at those times even when its pointless to do so otherwise. Since you work your body does this to help you not oversleep when its time for you to work. I hope this helps you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: an undergraduate degree should not be required before applying for a professional school ( such as medicine, dentistry, law, physiotherapy) In Canada and the United States, one must compete a 4-year bachelor undergraduate degree before applying for medical,veterinary, dental, or law school. But I do not think that is necessary, and if anything it's just a money-grab by the universities and a waste of time. In other countries, you can apply to medical, dental, or law school right out of high school. I'm gonna use Poland as an example. In Poland, you can apply to a 6-8 year medical school program (this does not count the time spent in residency, which varies based on specialty) and attend right after graduating high school. No undergrad needed. And their doctors as just as well prepared as north American doctors. Same thing for dental school. In Poland, you can just apply to a 6-year dentistry program right after high school. And their dentists are just as well prepared for the job as North American dentists. Meanwhile in the USA and Canada; one must compete an undergraduate degree before applying to medical school. Same thing for dentistry, veterinary medicine, law, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and pharmacy school. An undergraduate degree should not be a requirement, and Canada and the United States should adapt a model similair to Poland's for future doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc. Because: 1. People would be in less debt. A 6-year dental school vs. 8 years years of school (A 4-year bachelor's degree PLUS a 4 year dental school degree). More and more young people are drowning in school debt. 2. We would have professionals ready for the work force faster. This would especially benefit Canada, where there is a huge shortage of family doctors. 3. It takes away a little bit of stress from hopeful future professionals, as it takes away one hurdle. It's better to start a professional right out of high school than it is to have to waste your time in an unrelated degree program stressing over the next 4 years about whether you will get into the professional school of your choice or not.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One good aspect about requiring a bachelor's before advancing to a more specialized school is that it gives the students a checkpoint. When you get your bachelor's, you have to option to continue going right into grad school, or you can take some time off and work. You could pay off your grad school with the work you do with your bachelor's. If you take a six to eight year program to become a post-grad, then it will take no less than that time to profit from any education you received. Also, it gives students a chance to re-examine their goal and decide if they want to go further. Let's say person wants to be a doctor, but after barely getting through their first four years, they might realize that they don't have what it takes. In that case, at least they still have a degree, and can pursue other avenues related to medicine. If they go to medical school, but fail out after the first year, at least they still have something to fall back on. After the first four years, you realize that you would prefer to work the business end of medicine. Instead of going to med school, you could change course and take business courses instead. If you go for a six to eight year doctor school, you have nothing to fall back on. If you don't finish the full thing, you end up with nothing. If you run out of money on your sixth year, or if you have to quit school for whatever reason, you are no better than a high school graduate. If you realize half way through that you don't want to be a doctor, you either have to give up and lose the last four years of you life, or continue and get a degree you don't want.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does animal testing really work? I was thinking about it and realized that I’ve got a lot of preconceptions from my teen vegan years (Yeah, I used to be that guy). I still think we’re unnecessarily cruel to animals in many ways but definitely no longer trust PETA as a reliable source. So, does the US government really require new shampoo products to be poured over cute bunnies’ eyes before entering the market or is that just BS? Can anyone enlighten me on when and why animal testing is necessary leaving the moral discussion aside? Thanks in advance. Edit: Thanks for the responses, guys! I’m all for medical testing, which I understand covers the vast majority of animal experiments. I’m still against cosmetic testing, regardless of how the suffering is minimized, but it was nice to hear from people who work at the labs and learning that they do care about their animals. Also, for the record, I wouldn’t trust PETA to take care of a plant.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I don’t know the specifics for shampoo. But for animal research, before any experiment you need to write up a proposal that dictates why the animals needs to be tested, and the measures you will take to do it in the safest way possible, using the least number of animals. You also need to show why it is imperative animals need to be used, and the good that will come out of it. It is Incredibly regulated, and scientists take great care to do it the best way possible. At the end of the day animal testing saves lives by providing necessary medication and vaccines that would not be available without it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] How does the crew of Enterprise know who to beam up, with only the phrase "(number) to beam up"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Transportees tend to cluster together, apart from non-transportees, when calling for extraction. If you hear "five" and see that the guy who called it is standing next to four other guys you can probably just intuit who wants back up.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: With "unsolvable" math problems, how do people come up with the problem and why do they think the problem is worth solving?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I am assuming you are referring to math problems which have not been solved, but may be solved in the future like the and Riemann Hypothesis. These problems are usually conjectures (sort of like a hypothesis in science) meaning that they appear to be true for every number, but we have not been able to prove it. Testing every number is impossible since there are infinitely many numbers so mathematicians use mathematical rules to try to come up with a proof and show that the conjecture is true for for all numbers. An example of this is the famous Fermant's Last Theorem that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two. While it appeared to be true for all numbers it took mathematicians 400 years to prove that it is using some very complex mathematics.. These problems often do not have obvious real world applications, however the our understanding of the physical world tends to play catch up with mathematics meaning that they may very well be discovered to have physical meanings in the future. That being said there are math problems like the Continuum Hypothesis which appear to be truly unsolvable and they arise from the axioms of mathematics.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: why is cancer increasing in young people? Is it just because we dont die of other things first?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The largest reason why it's increasing for young people is that our techniques and technology for the detection of cancer have improved significantly thanks to all the money thats been going in to cancer research for the past few decades. So we're catching it earlier and more accurately. Even the non harmful benign cancers are being caught sooner. The other reason is an increased awareness of cancer. People have been educated on what skin cancer looks like and that any unusual lumps really should be looked at by a doctor and not dismissed as something you can ignore.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do some fruits have small seeds for their size (eg. Watermelons and pineapple) and some have big seeds for their size (eg. mangoes and cherries)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different fruited plants have different strategies for reproduction, and the seeds can be different in part for that. Some seeds are designed to be eaten, pass through an animal's digestive tract, and get deposited in a nice, nutrient rich, pile of poop. Some seeds are designed to fall to the ground and get some nutrition from the rotting fruit. And even two fruit with the same strategy can look different because they evolved separately. Different environments will lead to different ways of succeeding. Why are some plants taller than others? Because they each evolved to fill some niche in some way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist I have a feeling I know the difference on some levels, but I still get confused. Especially when I want to explain it to someone else, I can't find all the right words. edit: thanks everyone for your insightful answers!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A psychiatrist is a medical doctor, who went to medical school and chose to specialize in psychiatry (just like how other medical students choose to specialize in being heart doctors or lung doctors). A psychiatrist prescribes medicine and uses medicine to make you feel better. A psychologist does not use medicine. Instead psychologists use other methods for therapy such as counselling and making life and mentality alterations to make improve mental health. Some times psychiatrists don't think medicine is the fix for a patient so they refer them to a psychologist. Hope that helps.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why does it take us weeks (even months) to feel fit, but only a week of not exercising to feel like we're back at square one?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Our body is a multi-million year old machine that has evolved into being able to adapt to changing environments as we move around the planet and hasn't quite picked up on the massive changes to modern living the past century. You're emigrating, cool, don't need those upper body muscles just need strong legs and feet for moving. You're farming? Cool, need some strong arms to use tools. Your body gets stronger by muscles tearing and rebuilding stronger. You go and squat 100lbs 10 times four separate times in 10 minutes, your muscles tear. You do that a few times and your subconscious says to itself "Hey, we apparently squat 100lbs 10 times four separate times now. That's what the conscious is doing now so lets rebuild the muscles to be able to do that." You keep doing that and your body maintains it at that level. You add more weight your body responds by going to a higher level. You STOP doing that your subconscious quickly says "Hey, we apparently aren't squatting 100lbs anymore so redirect those resources to storage because we don't know the next time we'll get food." TL;DR Muscle takes quite a bit more calories to maintain than fat does so if you aren't using it your body believes it is doing itself a favor by getting rid of it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why people deny climate change? What are their arguments? With the GBR news on the front page currently, I learnt that Greg Hunt (Australian environment minister) is a climate-change denier. I'm currently 17 and have always accepted climate change and have never really thought about why people deny it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a very complex bit of science, that requires a background in climate science to truly grasp the studies that prove man made climate change. Basically, the Earth has been warming and cooling for its whole history, so it's not just enough to show that the world is warming up, as that could be completely natural. You have to show that it's heating up faster than it should be, which involves looking at hundreds of thousands of years worth of climate data, gathered from multiple partial sources, like tree rings, ice cores, and geologic samples. You also need to account for other man made events, such as the heat island effects of cites, and adjust the data accordingly. So you've got a very complex science, with plenty of places to manipulate the data, either accidentally or intentionally. Combine that with the idea that it's presumably easier to get funding for more research if your data proves climate change, and you can see why someone might be a little sceptical. Combine all of the above with a general distrust of the left, and you can see why someone might just discredit the entire argument for climate change on the idea that it's just a conspiracy cooked up by the left to shut down oil companies and the like.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is honey the only food item that does not spoil?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Spoilage of food is mainly due to infestation of microbes. Microbes in food, like almost every other living being, need water. Honey has almost zero water content. If there are microbes in honey, they would soon lose whatever water they have in their cells to the the surrounding honey, due to osmosis and perish. You can apply this same rule to oil as well. Edible Oil is a very good natural preservative for perishable foods (e.g. pickles from Indian sub-continent), due to the absence of water.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What's the point of having multiple hexagonal cells in the eyes of insects?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Compound eyes are good for detecting and tracking fast motion, and allow for a very wide field of view, as you can just keep adding more cells as you wrap the eye around the head. Simple eyes, like vertebrates have, only allow a relatively narrow field of view but allow much higher resolution, allowing the use of much smaller eyes and the ability to see things further away.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user For those of you in highly interdisciplinary fields, how do you appreciate the fundamentals of the fields you weren't actually trained in? As an example, my background is in psychology and behavioural neuroscience, and now I'm working in a field that combines clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology. But I also do cognitive work (tying in my psych/neuro background) and even some clinical chemistry. (For context, I'm a second-year PhD student.)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Interdisciplinary work requires a team approach. You have team members with the areas of expertise that you need. Aa a second year PhD student, you should be working in teams mostly, while your primary/thesis project should be in your own area.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Doctor Who] What makes the Time Lords so strong? Is it just their advanced technology & mastery of time? What gave them the power over time, like being able to know what moments are "fixed" points? Further, why is the doctor so special? Why don't the Daleks ever just shoot him?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Their bodies are technological marvels, each engineered cell as valuable as the starships of younger species. They have dwelled in the time vortex for ages, developing instincts necessary for survival as time travelers. The Doctor is a social and technical genius whose reputation for thwarting death and predating Daleks goes back centuries.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If carbon dioxide is only 0.0391 percent of the atmosphere, how does it have such a big impact on climate change? Hi everyone, I have a teacher who believes that humans are not to blame for climate change and that climate change is not a real thing due to the fact that carbon dioxide only makes up a very small part of the atmosphere. I have tried to research this, but found conflicting results. Can you please help me to find an answer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant People often mistakenly conflate abundance with importance (not just with climate science, but with a lot of things). Consider this: iron makes up only about 0.006% of the mass of an average human. Yet, it is completely essential for us to live (without it the hemoglobin in our red blood cells can't transport oxygen). So any argument that something is unimportant simply because it's not abundant is not valid.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Young Justice] How do the inhibitor collars work? They seem to work on anyone and don't have to be prepared specially on a case by case basis, but doesn't that mean every hero's weakness has been identified? If they work externally (ie they aren't injecting something into the wearer, couldn't that tech be scaled up to create suppression fields that could blanket entire areas to suppress villains or heroes within them? If they do work internally, couldn't that be made permanent somehow? Or at least implanted deep inside the target so it isn't just a case of someone ripping the collar off to escape?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They have to be prepared on a case by case basis, but there's wiggle room. For example, when Miss Martian was masquerading as Tuppence, her telepathy and shapeshifting werent blocked, but Superboy's super strength was blocked despite having a different origin than Tommy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does mimicry in plants work, how can a plant "tell" what an insect looks and feels like? Are those plants somehow able to recognize colors? Do they have some kind of sense analogous to sight?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The plants can't tell. The insects, however, can tell what the plants look like. So if a plant looks like a female bee, or whatever this is just a hypothetical example, then a male bee is more likely to try to mate with it and pick up pollen. Because those tricky plants who look the most like the bee are more likely to have pollen taken/given from them, they are more likely to reproduce. In the next generation, then, there will be some plants who look more and some who look less appealing to the bee. The ones who are more appealing are obviously more likely to reproduce than the ones who look less appealing. Therefore plants that look more like the bee are selected for and, very gradually over many generations, the mimicry will get more and more accurate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the Bose Einstein Condensate Reading the wikipedia article didn't really help me get the full picture. What is it, how do you get to temperatures that low?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bose–Einstein condensate is a state of matter, like solid or liquid, that happens when certain types of particles called bosons are made to have low energy. Basically this means "made really cold", close to absolute zero (0K or -273°C), which is the coldest temperature possible. A Bose–Einstein condensate has 0 viscosity, which means it is as slippery as you can possibly be. Because the particles have such low energy, instead of them bumping around randomly like in a liquid, the particles all move in an identical way. This is called a "giant matter wave". To get to this very cold state, scientists usually trap particles in strong magnetic fields to keep them from moving too much, then use lasers to push them around and slow them down even more.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] About the dead people after the snap >!In Avengers Endgame, did the dead know when they were brought back by Iron Man? And secondly, how did the other avengers know that a fight between Cpt. & Thanos taking place? Sorry if these are stupid questions.!<<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First of all, not a stupid question. Doctor strange seem to have been the driving force, he was the only one who knew what was going on. So he called his sorcerer cliq and told them to gather every warrior who wants revenge against Thanos and i believe thats it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does it take more energy to heat something up or cool something down, or does it take the same amount?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Just to make a top level comment with the answer. Cooling takes less energy than heating from a physics stand point. The specific heat of a material, energy per unit mass to raise it one degree, increases with temperature for most materials. So fundamentally it takes more energy to heat 10 degrees than cool 10 degrees. Practically heating is easier because heat pumps are not 100% efficient machines. They produce waste heat when running, when heating this can be used where when cooling you have to make sure to reject it away from what you are cooling. Edit: /u/AugustusFink-nottle is also right. Heating is more efficient because the work put in contributes to the heating where when cooling you only have the heat moved.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Chinese Politics; how does it work? I'm a Westerner who hears so many conflicting things about Chinese politics. I like to think I understand the US political system pretty well but the Chinese one I don't understand at all. Is it communist? Is it capitalist? Is it democratic? Maybe this is the wrong kind of question for ELI5. I don't think most five year olds even know what politics really is. But if someone could try and explain it to me that would be great.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Chinese government is probably best described as market-Leninism. The economy is fairly free market and capitalist with private citizens allowed to own property and even start their own businesses. The government however is still very similar to the original political system devised by early revolutionaries like Lenin. The government is completely controlled by the communist party from the village to the national level. The party has 3 main responsibilities: personnel, propaganda, and the PLA. Unlike the US where the US military is the military of the US, the PLA is not the military of China, but is rather the military of the party. As a result the military becomes very powerful politically within the party, something that would never happen in the US. Chinese leaders must have the full backing of the military in order to be effective. The party is also responsible for controlling the media. The Propaganda Department controls how much coverage should be given to certain topics. For example lots of press coverage was given to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands standoff with Japan while protests in Tibet are pretty much ignored. The party is also responsible for overseeing the appointment of all officials and positions of influence. All personnel decisions must be made with the approval of the Organization Department. In terms of policy making, the most powerful organ is the Politburo Standing Committee, which is made up of 5-9 party members each responsible for one thing, who then make decisions based on consensus. The National People's Congress (Chinese Congress) is theoretically the most powerful but mainly serves to simply approve everything the PSC does. Occasionally they will make mediate any sort of policy differences/conflicts between different parts of the party. The most powerful person within the PSC is the Paramount Leader (Xi JinPing) who also holds the office of President, General Secretary of the Party, and Head of the Central Military Commission. He's the most powerful person in China and the person who hold the most power and influence but his word is not the law (as it was back in the Mao era). He must cooperate with the rest of the PSC and party. Finally there is the State Council, which is headed by the Premier (Li YuanChao) which administrates everything by issuing directives/orders, drafting bills for the PSC/NPC, and balancing the budget. The State Council is where the party and the government fuse together. tl;dr there are 3 branches: The party, the government, and the military. The party's decisions are made by the PSC (headed by the President/Paramount Leader) with the approval of the NPC. The government is embodied by the State Council, led by the Premier, and is responsible for administrating everything and putting everything together. The military is the PLA, which is responsible for keeping order and its support is also needed by the rest of the party.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are there so few engineers and scientists in politics? According to this [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators), the vast majority of senators in the US seem to have either business or law positions. What is the explanation for the lack of people with science and math backgrounds in politics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because the skillsets required of the two jobs are different. Whenever this question comes up, it naively assumes politics works how we think it should work in a normative fashion. That everyone should sit down, present their facts, and the most rational decision is made based on the evidence. That's not politics. Mainly because we like to mask that in "because they're all inherently corrupt bastards!" which may have some truth to it, but because the decisions they're making do not have definitive answers. Politics like law involves persuasion and charisma because the answers aren't always distinct and some kind of "compromise" has to be made between all of the proposed solutions and ideologies. Immense amounts of scientific study and economic analysis goes into legislation. The difference is these think tanks and legislative studies are often motivated by their own political ideals and because the answers are not "easy", many of the projective analysis can be skewed to satisfy the agenda. But honestly the question you're asking is relatively uninformed because it assumes science isn't involved. Scientists, economists and financial experts are all very involved. The question is are the best and unbiased^^[1] scientists, economists and engineers involved. But to pretend that the fields are completely absent from the process is not only naive but also rejecting the fact that people that possess skills like charisma and the ability to compromise and negotiate are very necessary to the entire process. It's a damn shame we don't seem to have a lot of willing compromisers and negotiators anymore though. [1] This response is picking up some traction so it's necessary to clarify this. When people complain "the insurance companies wrote ACA!", it's not like the CEO's of UnitedHealth and Wellpoint and the politicians literally sat down to write the bill themselves while shunning scientists, financial advisers and economists. Very qualified financial experts, scientists and economists help write the bills with legal experts. The question people have is related to their motives and representation and whether these people are truly considering the proper factors in their research and writing of the bills not just related to their representative interests. The sciences are all very involved in the collaboration process, but it's a matter of is the field attracting the kind of experts that society agrees are most qualified and willing to take into account all interests and affected parties when crafting a bill. Finally, in the spirit of politics, there is no definitively "correct" answer here, but it's much more complex than "they're too good for the job!" and it's also just incorrect to claim science is completely uninvolved in the political process.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Capital gains tax What are the arguments for why it should or shouldn't be implemented, and what exactly is it? I checked the Wikipedia page, but my understanding is still pretty fuzzy.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If as a private individual you buy something, then later sell it at a profit, you have made a gain on that item. Your capital has increased. Many countries have laws that say if you make money in this way then there is tax payable on that profit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What's the difference between rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries? Why are the rechargeable batteries more expensive than normal batteries? Edit: thank you everybody for the answers!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many differences between rechargeable batteries (a group of secondary cells) and non-rechargeable batteries (a group of primary cells) the main differences being the materials used as cathode, anode and electrolyte in the battery as well as the shape, construction and purpose of the battery (pacemakers, emergency lighting, portable power tools all have different energy requirements and associated costs). A primary cell is a battery that is designed to be used once and discarded, and not recharged with electricity and reused like a secondary cell (rechargeable battery). In general, the electrochemical reaction occurring in a primary cell is not reversible, rendering the cell unrechargeable. As a primary cell is used, chemical reactions in the battery use up the chemicals that generate the power; when they are gone, the battery stops producing electricity and is useless. In contrast, in a secondary cell, the reaction can be reversed by running a current into the cell with a battery charger to recharge it, regenerating the chemical reactants. The processes and materials required to produce secondary cells are more expensive than those of primary cells so rechargeable batteries have a higher initial cost but tend to be more economical in the long run as you can usually recharge the battery up to 1000 times.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [the matrix] is technology allowed to advance within the matrix or is humanity just stuck in the 21st century? And if technology is stagnant within the matrix are all the scientists agents. Or if they are other people trapped in the simulation are they only allowed to make minor advancements?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Experimentation is required for technology to advance. Since The Matrix is a simulation, the machines can control the outcome of (almost) any experiment, and therefore guide technological development as much as they please.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What do philosophers means they call something metaphysical? I was told that metaphysical is any and all object that is not strictly physical. Words, numbers, algorithms. But the way some philosophers use it makes me think that the definition i was given was wrong. For example, 'La phenomenologie' by Jean-François Lyotard says that the vision of essence is not metaphysical. I am confused please help me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant While philosophers use the word "metaphysics" without any hassle, it is hard to pinpoint what exactly this word means to a person who has not observed its meaning in use. Well, think of our actual physical world. When describing the existing world, we utter sentences such as "magnetic field exists", "this object has eroded over time", "this building is red", "a memory has flashed in his mind" and so on. These utterences are strictly physical, but they are interesting to a metaphysian in that they invoke the most general categories within which the world is "carved at its joints". The magnetic field might exist, but what is this "existence" we are talking about? This object might erode over time, but what is this "temporality" we are talking about? The building might have a certain property, such as having red color, but that is this "property of an object" we are talking about? A memory might flash in his mind, but what is this "mind" we are talking about? So, when philosophers call something metaphysical, by that they typically mean that they are describing the most general features of our physical world, such as existence, predication, modality, mind, identity and so forth. The scientific language of physics makes no such demands, these categories are taken as self-evident there for methodological reasons.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are there so many Annular Lakes in Quebec? While doing just a quick fly over on Google Earth of the Canadian province of Quebec, it is quite easy to spot the preponderance of almost perfectly circular lakes dotted around. If they are named, like lake Manicougan, it says that it is an Annular lake that was formed by an asteroid impact at some point in the Triassic period. I am assuming asteroids throughout the history of Earth didn't have a bias to strike in areas that would become modern day Quebec, so I would guess the rest of the Earth has been bombarded to a similar degree as the preponderance of these lakes in Quebec. But why has Quebec in particular and maybe a few other places on Earth preserved these scars so well while they have vanished everywhere else?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two things may provide an explanation. First there are a lot of circular lakes in the area, because there are a lot of lakes in the area. Some of this is confirmation bias. Because there are around a million lakes in Quebec, it's no surprise that many happen to be nearly circular even if not all were created by impacts. That said, there are several impact craters and it would seem to be a disproportionately large number of them. This is likely due to the underlying geology of the Canadian Shield. It's composed of rather hard igneous and metamorphic rocks which resist erosion, and maintain the shape of craters which would likely erode away much faster in softer substrates. It's also a very old piece of earth's crust with portions being nearly four billion years old. This leaves a long time span for impact craters to be observed where in other locations, mountain building, volcanism, subduction, seafloor spreading, or other factors would erase the record of older craters leaving comparably few intact.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 what does overdrive or o/d do in cars?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Traditionally an automatic gearbox would select the gear based on the output speed so that the engine was turning at the speed at which it provided the maximum power output. This is good for acceleration and hauling heavy cargo. However when the car was light it was not needed and provided lower fuel mileage. An overdrive unit could be mounted after the gearbox and allow you to select an additional manual gear which brought the engine speed down to the optimal fuel consumption range. This saved a lot of fuel on the highway and wear of the engine. Overdrive units are not so common now as gearboxes have become a lot smarter and is able to select a higher gear itself when it detects that the power is not required. However you might find overdrive being marketed and even used to label a transmission profile suitable for low power highway use.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do large airplanes retract their landing gear after taking off? Recently there have been a handful of instances in which a plane had to be landed with landing gear that was stuck retracted. I am curious as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The landing gear cause a tremendous amount of aerodynamic drag at the high air speeds attained in commercial aviation. As a result, with gear down an aircraft can't fly as fast and burns significantly more fuel (for a large passenger jet, roughly twice as much fuel for the same distance traveled). Given that a jet might burn more than 100000 liters of fuel in a given flight, that does not represent a negligible cost.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do our nipples get hard when it's cold out<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is an interesting question, with an interesting answer. basically its to reduce surface area so its harder for them to cool down further, as to not get nerve damage, and keeping the body warmer. /u/penguinluvinman has a great answer. >When exposed to cold temperature skin reflexively contracts, causing the nipple to become smaller, wrinkled and "hard." The ultimate function of this reflex is to decrease the amount of surface area on the nipple that is exposed to the cold. This decreases the amount of body heat that is lost to the cold and ultimately the amount of energy it takes to sustain homestasis (keeping normal body temperature) in an organism. So decreasing surface area is the ultimate reason why nipples get hard in the cold. It's the same thing as goosebumps on other parts of your skin.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What does it mean to "be Bayesian" in terms of a way of thinking? I'm familiar with [Bayes' Theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem) and how it's used in problems, but I've heard people talking about having a Bayesian way of thinking in general, or statisticians subscribing to a Bayesian way of thinking. What exactly does this mean? Is there more to Bayesian reasoning than just solving probabilities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Frequentists, the usual sort of statistics, define probability as the long-run average of a lot of repetitions of an event. Bayesians define probability as the degree of belief; a subset of them argue that these beliefs are largely personal, and only asymptotically approach the same value with repeated observations. There are two sorts of Bayesian applications. First is a whole class of Bayesian statistics, which explicitly incorporate your prior beliefs in something and tell you how to change your beliefs. As an example why this is useful, suppose you want to know if a coin is fair. You strongly believe that the probability of a heads is .5, so if you flip the coin 100 times and get 47 heads, you are likely to believe it is still very close to 0.5, rather than the frequenist estimate of 0.47. There's a second kind of Bayesian thinking, however, which is probably what you're hearing about here. This is Bayes as a philosophy of science or model of reasoning. Bayes' theorem gives you a good model for how to change your beliefs given new evidence. Being Bayesian in this sense means looking for evidence which would radically change your viewpoint according to Bayes theorem, and valuing multiple lines of evidence appropriately.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 The difference between Libertarian Economics and Anarcho-Capitalism. I'm currently looking at various schools of though on economics. I'm confused on the difference between Libertarian Economics and Anarcho-Capitalism. Could someone please explain like I'm five.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Libertarians believe that a government should exist that supports property rights (e.g law enforcement (police), courts, etc) whereas, Anarcho-Capitalists believe that there does not have to be a government to protect property rights as everything associated with them (law enforcement, courts, etc) would exist without government funding, people would pay for their own security. So just as Libertarians believe that government doesn't have to fund some things as they would exist privately (e.g, healthcare, education, etc) Anarcho-Capitalists go one step further and believe the same of law enforcement, thus there is no need for a government whatsoever.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do out of season fruits taste less sweet? Is it that they have less sugar in them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Fruit usually starts producing sugar as it approaches peak ripeness. Out-of-season fruits are often grown in places where they are in season, and shipped to you. So in the American winter lots of apples and stuff come from New Zealand, for example, where it is summer. In order to ship them from far away and have them not rot on the way, growers will harvest fruit early before peak ripeness. This means they get harvested before they start producing their sugar.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When fasting to promote Autophagy; how does the body know that they should go for the damaged and senescent cells first instead of healthy cells?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Healthy human cells have a protein called MHC 1 on their outer surface. When they are damaged, they tend to lose this protein. Your immune system uses natural killer cells to destroy this type of cell, and activates when your body needs to reclaim materials. Ntcs are active always, but increase activity when called. They search for cells without the MHC 1 protein and kill those first. If there are no more unlabeled cells, the body enacts stricter measures that will target healthy cells as well. Hope this helps. Source: just studied this in school<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Islam is not a religion of peace or tolerance. The Koran speaks of women as property, Mohammed, Islam's prophet himself was a murderer and pedophile/polygamist who thought women had inherently deficient minds. Today, even moderate Muslim men in many parts of the world violently ensure their wives cover their faces and bodies or "adornments" while outside of the house or bedroom. ISIS/The IS/Taliban, etc. all follow the holy text of the Koran. Jihad has existed as long as Islam. Muslim evangelization has been by the sword as far back as the religion dates. What many explain to be Islamic Extremism is usually just Islamic fundamentalism. Liberal Muslim, LGBTQ Muslim, Muslim Feminist--these are all oxymorons. EDIT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For anyone saying that violence and intolerance are only a misinterpretation of subtext (though many who are educated on the Koran in the thread have explained that Allah's word is strictly set and not to be interpreted), I encourage you to read these passages. If the Koran is a text to be interpreted by it's followers, how do you spin these words to be peaceful or tolerant? I truly don't get it. >Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing..." >Quran (4:89) "...But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." >Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." >Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." >Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would _____ > 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!* EDIT 2: Any attempt to change my view in this thread has been a apologist answer citing false equivalency, or an appeal to emotion by trying to separate the wheat from the chaff (nice Muslims = peaceful Islam).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All you need to be a Muslim is to follow the 5 pillars of Islam, which are: -Believe that there is one God, and that Muhammad is a prophet of this God, and publically declare this regularly -Pray to that God 5 times a day -Give 2% of your income or more to charity -Fast during the day during the month of Ramadan -Go to Mecca at some point in your life Anything else is fluff. Maybe that fluff is intolerant or violent (really it's more nuanced than that, some of it is and some of it isn't), but it's still fluff. The religion itself isn't inherently violent or intolerant.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What predictions can the social sciences make with high certainty? Apologies if the question is overly broad. I know many people criticize the social sciences for being too "soft" or "fuzzy". Where it that entirely not the case?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One prediction we can safely make in the child/youth/family welfare space is: The earlier you provide a welfare intervention in the life of a person, and the life of the issues they are experiencing, the cheaper and more effective that intervention will be. For example - best way to reduce youth crime is to find the early warning signs (like skipping school, early drug use) and support the young person before they commit serious crimes. It's more effective and about 50 times cheaper.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Is all electromagnetic radiation "both a wave and a particle" or is only light considered this way? I always hear about "light acts like a wave and also a particle" but I never hear about other EM frequencies being described this way ("never" considering my limited exposure). Are light frequencies special? Or does all EM radiation behave both ways? Edit: thank you for your responses. I was already aware that light is EM radiation; I simply never hear folks talk about "photons" outside of reference to visible light, hence my question :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What we call "light" is simply the slice of EM radiation that our eyes can detect as color. As you make the waves longer, you get into WiFi and the various types of radio; as you make the waves shorter, you get X-rays and gamma rays. It's all EM radiation -- all photons -- so it's all the same from the perspective of acting like both a wave and a particle.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How exactly do vector graphics work? Here's what I know. Unlike bitmap images, vector images don't pixellate when you zoom in on them. I guess that's because they aren't made of pixels. A friend of mine tried to explain it to me, but it went right over my head.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically, a vector drawing files a list of instructions - draw a line from point a to point b, draw a line from point b to point c. Fill the enclosed area with a color, and so on. Then, when you 'zoom in', the computer - effectively - makes the line sharper to take advantage of the higher resolution.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is cannibalism detrimental to the body? What makes eating your own species's meat different than eating other species's?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your own species meat is infected with diseases that can also infect you, by definition. (Conversely with other animals, some but not all diseases can be spread by under-cooked meat.) There are also some degenerative diseases that are spread by mis-shaped proteins, which you can generally only get by eating a human brain.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that, in some cases, illegally obtained evidence should be admissible in court. CMV I'm not saying that there should be no repercussions. If a cop wiretaps my phone without a warrant and discovers proof that I'm committing a crime, he should be reprimanded or fired. However, that evidence should still be usable against me in court. Just because it was obtained unfairly doesn't automatically mean it's invalid. Similarly, the [fruit of the poisonous tree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree) concept is ridiculous to me. If I'm wiretapped and the cop hears me say that I left a murder weapon in a particular location, and they find a murder weapon in that location, that murder weapon should be admissible in court. The flip side of this, again, is that the cop who wiretapped me in the first place should be reprimanded or fired. But the evidence itself is still perfectly valid. In our current system, it is entirely possible for our government to knowingly allow a guilty person to go free because a piece of evidence is invalidated based on a technicality. The [exclusionary rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) seem to me to be nothing but a tool used to help lawyers game the system. It's hard to imagine a rule like this being used to exonerate an innocent suspect, or at least, it seems like it would preferentially exonerate guilty ones. This opinion only applies if the "truthfulness" of the evidence is not compromised. So, if the chain of custody on a piece of evidence is broken, and it's possible that the evidence was tampered with, that evidence should not be considered admissible. When a search warrant is issued, it should be issued to protect the officer from repercussions; its existence should have no bearing on the validity of the evidence. --- It's possible that my understanding of the way these rules are applied in practice is not accurate; I'm not in any way a lawyer, and most of my understanding of these rules comes from either TV or Wikipedia. If anyone has corrections in this area from the real world I'll be happy to accept them.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Allowing evidence obtained in an illegal manner to be admissible in court would give law enforcement officers an incentive to break the law in an attempt to gain evidence. Even if the cop is punished for the illegal search (or whatever illegal action generated the evidence) he will still think he did the right thing because the bad guy got caught because of the illegally obtained evidence. Do you really want to give incentive to that kind of behavior and thought train? (that breaking the law was good here because the ends justify the means)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user GMOs- engineered genes in crops don't spread into the wild, into other species, do they?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If the engineered plant or animal can interbreed with a native (or natively-cultivated) plant or animal, the engineered variants can be passed to offspring, just like any other gene. A genetically modified organism is just like the non-engineered organism plus a tiny bit of DNA added or changed in order to add, augment or change some function - they aren't fantastical beasts with lions and eagles spliced together. GMO corn is still corn, GMO soybeans are still soybeans and GMO salmon is still salmon. If no native species exists that the engineered plant/animal can breed with to produce viable offspring, or the engineered plant/animal is rendered infertile or otherwise isolated, no transfer into the environment will occur. As far as whether they'll take over wreak havoc on the local flora and fauna - that depends strongly on exactly what was engineered (genetic engineering is only a technique) and if there were any impacts on organismal fitness - not all modifications are made with evolutionary fitness in mind, and some variants may be less "competitive" against their wild relatives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do hostage negotiations work? When they make "deals" with the hostage taker how much do they honor those deals? When I watched Captain Phillips the negotiator made all of these false promises and I was wondering if this is common practice.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I have a few co-workers that have done HNT training. The way it works is like this, the HNT tells the hostage taker what she can offer and tries to work out a reasonable solution. All people have basic needs, and the HNT will try to take care of those first. The start of talking someone down may go like this: Are you hurt? Does anyone need medical attention? If you or anyone is hurt, we can get them out and get you the medical care you need. Can you bring the hurt people out? The next order of business would be safety and security. The HNT may ask: Is every one safe? Are the hostages safe right now? Believe it or not, most hostage takers are not about to go killing the hostages, or even beating on them badly. Most of the time, the hostage taker has a sense of empathy and won't want to hurt people. A lot of times, the hostages are secured somewhere safe. Ensuring the hostages and the hostage takers are safe builds a stronger relationship. Next, provide for basic needs. She may say: This could take awhile to resolve. Does anyone need food, water, or to use the bathroom? Finally, she will work to resolve the situation. She will not make promises. She will not overstate her abilities or the strength of the hostages. She will also not refuse anything or say "no" to anything. She can, however, redirect the conversation. For example, if the hostage taker asks for a fully fueled jet airplane, an acceptable response would be something along the lines of: Let's get back to seeing how many people are hurt. We were working on taking care of those with medical emergencies first. Skilled hostage negotiators don't have to make false promises because they don't have to make promises other than the ones they are prepared to honor.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] In TNG, could any of the bridge crew be speaking another language, and we wouldn't know it, due to the Universal Translator? I was just wondering this. Could Picard be speaking French through the whole show? Could Counsellor Troi be speaking Betazoid or whatever her home planet language might be? Or, do you think English became the universal language of Earth and diplomacy at that point?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Standard military protocol would call for all persons onboard to speak a single language while on duty. This will ensure that, in the event of an issue with the translator, communication will not be hampered.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can some watches be more accurate than others? I don't know much about watches, but I remember reading some watches only make a few seconds mistake each day, whilst others have larger error range. Isn't there a mechanical system that keeps the thing automatic? How can that create errors? Also some watches can remain accurate for decades, if one watch maker can do it, why can't other do it? I guess I'm just confused as to why there are errors and if there are errors, why some brands have larger margin of errors. Thank you in advance for your answers.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Quality control and tolerances. In any machining operation your parts have tolerances. A tolerance is how far out of the specified dimensions the part can be. Very exacting tolerances get rapidly more and more expensive, as they require much higher quality of both manufacturing equipment and labor, and a quality control system that is willing to throw away potentially very expensive parts for being a tiny bit too big or small. A mechanical watch with very tight tolerances will be very expensive to make, but it will be extremely accurate because you know to a very high degree of certainty exactly how all the parts interact. A watch with loose tolerance will be much cheaper to make, but won't keep time as accurately because bits and pieces are going to be a little bigger, or a little smaller, or a little heavier than they should be, and in unpredictable ways.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the difference between waiting for the tea to blend with the water and blending it by force? I know a lot of people let a tea bag subside in hot water and just wait a few minutes before drinking/sipping the tea. I myself just pull the bag up and down until the color of the water changes and sip away. Is there any difference, and where does this habit come from? Thanks in advance, and excuse me for any grammar or spelling mistakes. English is my 3rd language.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tea has a mix of different chemicals inside its leaves, and some tea types add others (bergamot is added to Earl Gray, for example). When you process it and put it in a teabag, it takes different lengths of water soaking to bring all of those chemicals out. Some add a pleasant flavour, some (like when you let green tea soak for too long) add bitterness and aren't as pleasant. By doing a quick dip and swishing around, you're only getting some of the right chemicals because the water hasn't had enough time to fully penetrate and rinse out the others. And depending on what type of tea you're making the extra force might help pull out some of the wrong, more bitter ones too, or create an imbalance in the taste (example: going too quickly produces too much "clove" flavour in a chai tea). People steep tea - let it rest - so that the hot water can fully soak in and extract all of the right flavouring chemicals in balance, instead of just pulling out the initial ones that change the liquid's colour and maybe some of the wrong ones too.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the reasoning behind a capital gains tax of 20% but income tax being >30%? US-based situation, and I know income tax varies from state to state, but let’s assume capital gains of assets held long-term are taxed at 20% and income from salary is taxed at roughly 1/3rd of your gross pay check. What is the argument for capital gains being significantly lower? Is it because this amount is already much bigger than income every year? To encourage investment instead of consumption? Belief that private allocation of capital is more socially optimal than govt spending?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As per the introduction to Chapter 9 - Investment, of Advanced Macroeconomics, Fifth Edition, by David Romer: >The combination of firms’ investment demand and households’ saving supply determines how much of an economy’s output is invested; as a result, investment demand is potentially important to the behavior of standards of living over the long run. Essentially, capital investment is the primary driver of economic growth. The view is that lower capital gains taxes provides incentive for higher levels of investment. That is an explanation of why a policy maker might want capital gains taxes to be lower. Is there a good reason for income taxes to be high? From the same textbook, Romer says >Both capital taxes and labor-income taxes distort individuals’ labor-leisure choice, since both reduce the overall attractiveness of working. But the capital income tax also distorts individuals’ intertemporal choices. Romer's contention is that capital gains taxes are more distortionary than income taxes, since investments are just savings vehicles, and savings is just deferred consumption, they distort choices across time.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the significance of Prime Numbers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mathematically speaking, you can define all other numbers purely by multiplying prime numbers. So we don't actually need any non-prime numbers, as we could simply define 4 for example as 2x2. Or 99 as 3x3x11. Obviously this would make daily life a lot harder, hence the other numbers having their own names and symbols.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What should i know before learning to code? I would like to learn how to code or how to program in general, but i don't know what are the most important things to have in mind before doing so.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Don't be ashamed of looking up "solutions" to problems. If you look at someone else's code and actually try to understand it, you'll learn a ton compared to someone who spends hours upon hours trying to figure out a solution on their own.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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