Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: We are on our way to completely destroy forests and wildlife To be honest i'm really making this post in hope that there's some optimism out there, but i don't see any. In my native country (romania) i always heard since i was little about the illegal and legal logging that is going on, and apparently it's much worse for the amazon rain forest, papua new guinea, north korea and many more places. My view on this is basically that our ecosystem is being destroyed by big corporations for profit and that the only way nature will recover is when humans go extinct.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wood can be and often is a renewable resource. In the EU considerably more trees are planted than are cut down, and forests are beginning to recover and expand. In the US virtually all paper and softwood comes from sustainable forests or tree farms planted exclusively for harvesting the wood once the trees are grown. Throughout the entire world, restrictions have been placed or are being considered on certain types of wood that are not sustainable and tend to be harvested through deforestation in places like the Amazon. All this to say, things have already gotten significantly better regarding our treatment of forests, and we are on a trajectory towards completely sustainable lumber and paper. There are certainly still plenty of challenges ahead and there are a huge number of ecosystems that are currently being damaged for profit, but there's no reason to assume that's the only way things can go because we are already making significant progress on both ending and reversing that damage.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are typically the first problems of a new society? Say a new city was built that was totally self sustainable. Over time what problems would inevitably come in to the picture eventually. For example big cities obviously struggle with homelessness, crime and the like. But what I'm curious about is are there certain things that unanimously happen first or is it just completely random historically speaking?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant property comes up a lot in hobbes, locke, and rousseau; specifically what right individuals have to land, how to earn that right, and how their right compares to that of the state over the land (Rousseau and Locke be loving labour, while Hobbes be all over the place on that sovereign power trip). Early sovereigns would usually be in place to protect individuals' rights to land...and in this statement many questions arise that are answered differently by the three theorists. edit: just remebered the city part....new societies don't really just pop up with self-sustaining cities, so it's hard to tell.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Can anyone explain why we have foods that start out on the shelf but than have to be refrigerated so they won't go bad? Foods like: Ranch Mayo Ketchup Etc..<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most foods with "refrigerate after opening" have been vacuum-sealed or canned in order to kill off harmful bacteria, or heated and the package filled with nitrogen (or inert gas) in the case of dry foods. As soon as the container or package is unsealed, it's exposed to oxygen and all the dirt, spores and bacteria contained in our atmosphere once more, and so the decay, fouling, molding and/or other such degeneration processes start back up immediately. At that point, you put it in the fridge or things like mayonnaise will do what they do best; go completely rancid overnight. Effectively, the packaging techniques allow us to temporarily pause the food's expiration, until we've opened it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What keeps the moon in orbit according to general relativity? As far as I know, gravity is not being treated as a force in GR, but is the curvature of space. I understand the concept of a black hole bending spacetime so much, that the straight path leads into the singularity, thus capturing photons. But how does the moon's orbit work? I know pictures like [this](http://i.space.com/images/i/1346/i02/051116_vortex_02.jpg?1292263821) draw an analogy to bent surfaces. In order for a sphere to stay in orbit, however, there has to be some force drawing said sphere towards the lowest point of the surface, doesn't it? The centrifugal force has to be equivalent to the force "downwards". But if gravity is not actually a force, how does the moon stay in orbit?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The mass of the Earth causes some curvature in space-time. Any mass causes curvature; for smaller masses the curvature is smaller, but it's still there. There is no gravitational "force" in general relativity, rather, things just keep moving on the "most straight curves" which are called "geodesics". This is the curved spacetime generalization of Newton's first law of motion; moving on a geodesic is the closest thing possible to moving in a straight line. Around a spherical mass like the earth, some geodesics are roughly closed cycles, meaning that a body which starts off on one of those cycles will end up at roughly the same place it started with approximately the same velocity but at a later time. These closed cycles correspond exactly to orbits. For large distances from well-behaved masses, GR is asymptotically the same as Newton's law of gravity in a fixed flat spacetime.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can someone define the age of something? (mummy, dinosaur's bone, etc) I just read an article "Baby bird discovered in 99-million-year-old amber"<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are various dating methods, and they can be checked against each other to make sure the results are consistent. The age of fossils is usually determined by radiometric dating. How it works basically is that there are a bunch of elements that occur on Earth naturally, and a bunch of elements, or different isotopes of certain elements, that only exist on Earth as a result of one element radioactively decaying to the other element. The decay always happens at a constant rate. Based on how much of the source element and the result element are present in the sample, we can evaluate how old it is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Can the teleporter be used to reconfigure the object being teleported? What are the limits? The food replicator in Star Trek is a sort of teleporter, and it has recipes on how to assemble the source material to fill an order. Therefore Star Trek teleporters can manipulate data used during the teleportation process. So what are the limits? Can I use the teleporter to perform surgery and remove a tumor? Can I use it to genetically combine two animals into a chimera? Can I use it to perform plastic surgery and give someone a face lift? Can I use it as a weapon during a war and teleport enemy soldiers, but reconfigure them into blocks of carbon? I'm not very familiar with the Star Trek universe, so examples in-universe are appreciated.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Allegedly, replicators are “molecular resolution,” while the personnel transporters are “quantum resolution.” The former are sufficient for rearranging feedstock into food and equipment or whatever, but the latter is necessary for living beings. Quantum resolution is so detailed that it’s not feasible to store the pattern for a complete person; they’re broken down and transmitted via a “pattern buffer” bit by bit. The idea is that you’re scanned, you’re beamed, and the pattern is never stored. However. The transporter also supposedly reads the pattern and filters out known contagions and (I think at least sometimes?) weapons. It seems like it would be conceivable to swap a body part or something, but maybe there are limits to inserting a new pattern with precision in the brief time it flits through the buffer. It’s not normally used for surgery. Transporter accidents have certainly done stuff like accidentally merge two characters or duplicate characters or even cross the boundary between universes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How is information and data stored in pieces of metal and green boards?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A bunch of 1s and 0s (that are specifically arranged to describe the information) are stored in the form of anything that can be in one of two states, like a light switch. It's either up or down, on or off, 1 or 0. So the easiest example to explain is CDs. The bottom of a CD is etched by a laser with tiny little dots, or, tiny little spaces with no tiny little dot. Then, an electronic device like a CD player is made so that it can see the arrangement of dots or no dots, and turn that information back into the form that humans can understand. Other forms of data storage work the same way, just with different methods of storing and retrieving the 1s and 0s. to go a little deeper and explain how something can be 1s and 0s... take the alphabet. If you were to say 00000001 is A, and 00000010 is B, etc, and you had a wall of light switches and lights that went on and on and on, you could write messages by having the right lights on or off. Modern flash memory does the same thing, except the wall of lightbulbs is actually an insane amount of tiny transistors that push electrons around to indicate 1 or 0.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Is intelligence entirely determined in the early stages of life or is it something that can change later on? Whenever I read about influential scientists and mathematicians, I notice how their upbringings had a similarity: their curiosity and intellects were all nurtured as children. Do people farther down the road of life still have the ability and potential to grow their minds to reach the same heights?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your genetic code mostly determines how your brain will form and develop, but environmental factors (nutrition, injury, etc) during the growing process play a big part in this. But most healthy brains end up similar to each other in most ways, so barring disabilities, that's not that important. Most people have the capacity to learn whatever they want, they just need to put effort into learning. Therefore, capability for knowledge is common among people, but actual knowledge is a consciously acquired thing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: We would have a more informed populace if schools prioritized statistics and probability over other areas of math Constraints First, my primary education in the US public school system in the pre-Common Core days. I took a quick glance at the [Common Core curricular content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_education_in_the_United_States), and it looks very similar to what I had to learn. My understanding is that before CC, curricula were more varied by state, but for the sake of keeping the discussion focused, I will be focusing on CC Standards in the US. Second, I majored in a STEM field that was fairly math-heavy, and while I don't believe that much of it is useful to me today, I'm not ready to make this claim for all majors. So I will focus on primary education and leave universities out of this. My View As per CC Standards in the US, basic math education consists of Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. College-bound students are also offered Pre-Calculus, Calculus, and "other optional mathematics courses \[...\] such as statistics or business math". One of the age-old questions that students ask is, "When are we ever going to use this?" While I'm not here to argue that these skills are useless in adulthood, I think they are vastly overrated. [This article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/12/06/when-am-i-ever-going-to-use-algebra-the-real-world-utility-of-classroom-learning/#36fe2bfd6bfc) has some examples of ways we use certain subjects every day, and some of them, like using algebra when calculating purchases, are very reasonable. However, to reference another one of its examples, I'am not convinced that one needs a solid understanding of calculus to pay off their debt, especially with the prevalence of apps and online calculators today. What I do believe, is that we benefit from a solid understanding of statistics everyday. Gaps in people's knowledge of statistics have long been exploited by advertisements, political campaigns, and unscrupulous con artists. Given the tumultuous current events right now, a fundamental grasp of statistics is necessary to make sense of two or more conflicting sources, particularly when they present conflicting interpretations of the same data. Without knowing how to determine statistical significance of the numbers we see in the news, or in commercials or opinion pieces, it is very easy to fall prey to someone's agenda, and this may result in wasting money, spreading misinformation, or making life decisions based on faulty, inconclusive, or erroneous data. If these decisions concern one's health, they may even be life or death decisions. At the very least, I think the emphases on statistics and calculus in the American school system should be swapped, and an leaning towards spreading it out over multiple years, de-emphasizing the importance of Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-calculus, and Calculus in favor of a more rigorous statistics education. I am not ready to say that it is more important than Algebra I. What would CMV A convincing argument as to why Algebra II, Geometry, Precalc, and/or Calculus are more important for day to day life than statistics, or an argument as to why statistics are not as important as I have claimed. What would not CMV Anything about standardized tests. I am operating under the assumption that tests should resemble education, and not the other way around (it doesn't always work that way, but that's a discussion for another time). Anything differentiating probability and statistics. While they are often bundled together, I realize I didn't state that clearly. But from here on out, let's lump them in together as being equally important. I also think that for the sake of "not getting duped" (to summarize what I wrote earlier), understanding the rules of logic and critical thinking are just as essential as statistics, if not more so. This should be taught alongside probability and statistics, but for now, I want to focus on the importance of prob/stat vs. algebra/geometry/precalc/calc.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The reason why Algebra II, Geometry, Precalc, and Calculus are more important to do first is that _they are prerequisites for Statistics_. You fundamentally can't do Statistics with any sort of continuous random variables without either Calculus or lying extensively to students about what terms mean. For example, the expected value, which is a central concept essential to basic statistics, literally _is an integral_ (in its simplest formulation) and can't be properly explained without integration.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does logarithm of negative numbers have any meaning? I know that there is no real solution to logarithm of negative numbers, but I understand one could define log of natural number using the Euler's identity, as exemplified by ln (-1) = (pi)*i. Does this kind of definition have any physical/mathematical meaning at all, or is it useful to solve certain problems? Thanks a lot<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Physicist here, we use complex exponentials when representing the amplitude and phase of a wave of light. It is based off Euler's formula and can help make solving problems involving light much easier to calculate. When finding the phase of the light we have to take the logarithm of a complex number. In the special case it is a real negative number the phase is simply pi +/- 2(pi)n as the phase is cyclic. In the more general case we use the Euler formula to find the phase given the wave state or vice versa.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does probability still exist if the results are already determined? Im sorry this is a slightly confusing title, but i will try to explain with an example: There are 2 boxes, one of them contains a prize, the other one is empty. You have to guess which one has a prize in it, this means you have a 50% chance of guessing it right every time. After you say "the box on the left", from an observer's point of view (who can see what's in the box), you either have chose right and have a 100% chance of guessing correctly, or you chose wrong, and have 0% choosing correctly. But from the player's point of view, you dont know if you got it right or not, do you still have a 50% chance to get it correct, even if the answer if already determined?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One way to consider this is that probability is a measure of the uncertainty that a person has in the outcome. From your point of view, you have no information and the chance is 50%, but from the point of view of someone who knows where the price is, there's no uncertainty. Or rather, the entropy of the results you expect is related to your uncertainty. You have 1 bit of uncertainty and the person who knows the answer has 0 bits.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - There are gases that destroy the ozone layer. Shouldn't there be a compound out there that had the opposite effect? The title's the question. I've thought about it for some time now, but I can't find an answer.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The fundamental issue is energy. There's more energy stored in 2 O₃ (ozone) molecules than in 3 O₂ (oxygen gas) molecules. So a chemical that can turn ozone into oxygen can do it over and over again, liberating energy as it goes. Kind of like how you can burn down a house using just a single match: a single chlorine atom, for example, can destroy a hundred thousand ozone molecules. On the other hand, turning oxygen into ozone requires depositing energy. Lightning and sunlight can do this, which is why we have an ozone layer to begin with, but any chemical that did it would have to be supplying the energy by destroying itself, and so could only do it once--not a hundred thousand times.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why my leg (or arm) can randomly twitch for no reason. Not just a small twitch but like when your leg randomly flinches upwards like an inch, then return back to relaxed position? Or am I the only person this happens to?...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The basics you probably know is that you are made of cells, tiny building blocks of life that are tiny bags full of chemicals. The cell walls have a bunch of tiny holes (channels), a lot of which only let certain kinds of chemicals pass through. Your body uses a whole lot of different chemicals to do a lot of different things, but many of them have very specific jobs. For muscles to move, they need to be signaled by your nervous system, which usually happens when signals are sent from the brain. A signal will travel from the brain to what's called a motor neuron - the last piece of nerve tissue before the signal is then passed to the muscle cells. Within a cell, there's some fancy equipment to make sure the right amount of any given chemical is on the inside of the cell compared to how much is outside. The nerve cells (neurons) work by waiting until they receive input, and then a chain reaction happens that allows a bunch of extra chemicals to flow through the cell wall, upsetting the normal balance. It returns to normal pretty quickly, though. This cycle is called an "action potential" or a "spike." (The chemicals that flow are all electrically charged, so we can read this as a change in local voltage if we stick an electrode right next to it.) Sometimes by happenstance the chemicals get unbalanced around one neuron or a group of neurons, enough to initiate an action potential. These neurons can activate neurons that they connect to, sending a small group of spikes to their neighbors. If the random impulse isn't close to muscle it just dies out, but if it's pretty close, it will hit the motor neuron (or maybe more than one), which will in turn send spikes to a set of muscle cells. Then those muscle cells go through some stuff and end up twitching! edit: added a couple words for clarification<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is the Mona Lisa considered to be such a masterpiece? Just visited the Louvre and was underwhelmed. It doesn't seem much different in quality to the paintings around it, to my untrained eye.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Along with special techniques with composition, The Mona Lisa gets a lot of its attention from its historical background, or more specficially, the lack thereof. - Most paintings at that time took several months at most to complete. The Mona Lisa took 10 years. Why did Leonardo da Vinci take so long? - It is said that da Vinci was working on it once, and he saw something in the painting that scared him and made him hide it for 10 years. If the story is true, what did he see? - At that time, paintings had elaborate reasoning behind them. So why did da Vinci paint Mona Lisa in the first place? And why is she smiling so smugly? - Continuing on that line of questioning, what is up with her background? - Why does she have extremely faint, if any, eyebrows? - And who is the woman painted, anyway?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Metroid] Why not just totally destroy planet SR388? So the Chozo created the Metroid species to hunt the X-Parasite. Why not just totally destroy the planet instead? Why create another highly dangerous life form? Surely they have the weapons technology to glass the planet. I think that would be the surest way to wipe out the parasite.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Chozo valued cosmic balance and harmony with nature. Destroying an entire ecosystem would be an atrocity. It's so much more elegant to introduce a single engineered species into the ecosystem to correct it. They probably viewed it as a work of art.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Came Across a Quote Today from Reagan "Inflation; That's the price we pay for those government benefits everybody thought were free." How much truth is there to this? Did the government know this was going to happen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Inflation has many contributing factors. Attributing it only to government spending (as implied here through issuing debt) is incomplete and inaccurate. There are many countries with small government benefit programs experiencing inflation today. As well there are many historical examples. Monetary policy, external price shocks (e.g. OPEC formation), supply disruptions (e.g. wars, disease), or other things have been the primary contributor to inflation shocks in the past. This is a quote with some seed of truth (government spending can contribute to inflation) but is misleading by implying that's the only cause.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How to know if someone produces good research? Ideally I'd have the skills to identify good research but I'm still in my undergrad so that's a skill I'm still developing. Is there a fast way of knowing someone produces good research in a certain field? Especially identifying a "rising star". I tried looking at number of citations on Google scholar but I don't think it's very accurate since older researcher are likely to get more citations. And some PIs produces 40+ publication a year so they're likely to get more citations. I could ask my mentors but they're likely going to suggest people that they know personally and/or only in their subfield of subfield. And using their schools seems very snobbish.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is a question that is hard to answer, because everyone has different metrics for "good" research, and you never know what direction research will take you. That being said: there are usually conferences in which you will see topics that generate great interest to the community. It is often hard to go for an undergraduate but they are certainly worth your time to get a "feel" for the community. Also, you can look at agencies that fund early career awards, like NSF CAREER (or even better, PECASE) or the NIH DP2 awards. These awards are considered for "rising stars" at least by their funding agencies. More important that any particular qualification of good research, perhaps it be best to take a deep look at the fields YOU'RE most interested in. A passion is a passion and you can usually find good problems if you're inquisitive and creative enough.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does water make some things more slippery(like condensation on glassware) and some things less slippery(like wet jeans)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It all depends on the material you are working with. Water is actually a very polar substance, it's why it's a terrible lubricant. Meaning it has a high likelihood of being attracted to and sticking to most other materials, including itself. The one big exception is non-polar materials, which includes most glass and plastics. In these cases the water is trying not to Interact with the surface to the point where it will bead up and roll off.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does the seatbelt know that it's being pulled fast (crash) and stop extending but still extends when pulled slowly?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant true eli5: imagine standing in a very small room. Relax your arms and turn slowly. Your arms will stay close to your body. Now turn fast. Your arms will move away from your body and hit the walls slowing you down.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is the human body capable of fighting both viruses and bacteria with the same effectiveness? So I can recall several times in which my GP has highlighted the fact that for a virus such as the flu or the common cold, you just need to let your defences take the wheel and fight it off. For cases in which the body has to fight a bacterial infection (pharyngitis - strep throat) and in which you typically are prescribed antibiotics...I wonder if you don't go through such treatment whether the immune system is capable to fight off the infection with the same effectiveness as when fighting a virus. Apologies if it's a silly question, I come from a culture and age in which antibiotics were prescribed too easily IMO. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends entirely on the particular virus or bacterium. Some are handled well by the immune system, some are not. I think the real difference here is the availability/relevance of antibiotics vs. antivirals for treating certain symptoms. There are some situations where you can use antiviral drugs, but in many cases it isn't considered worth it (or there simply isn't an effective drug available). But we're also coming around to the fact that antibiotics probably should not be prescribed as often/freely as they have been historically.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Waiting for a teenager to turn legal so you can subscribe to their Onlyfans is damn creepy. [Here's the link if you want to see the whole thing for yourself.](https://twitter.com/BhadBhabie/status/1377717608225460225). (Maybe by now some of them could have deleted their tweets, if that's the case I'll upload screenshots I took yesterday) The girl saying herself she was 'tired' of people asking is already setting off alarms, but then scroll down to replies and people are actually talking about waiting for 5 years for her to make an Onlyfans? When she's just now 18? and I don't know whether those people don't know what they sound like or they straight up don't care, but it's insanely creepy either way.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First of all: is this really a topic you want to change your opinion is? If the answer is yes: would you agree that maybe there's some specific cases where it's less creepy? because of course a 50yo seeing a 13yo and thinking '5 years to wait" is awfully creepy but if a 18yo follow on tiktok a 17yo girl posting dancing videos who said that when she is 18 she will start posting nudes and is pretty excited about the idea, isn't that way less creepy?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do sugary solutions get sticky as they dry but salty solutions don't Source: Have dropped a variety of IV solutions.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sugar will form hydrogen bonds with all sorts of compounds. This means it can be "sticky" and hold lightly to things while still being in solution. Salt, however, will simply dry as a crystal and just be either in solution or out of solution, and can't interact very strongly with ions already in solution. Thus, it is not terribly sticky and will just make your hands a little salty.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are work unions and how do they help employees? In the recent Activision/Blizzard controversy I've seen the word union being thrown around a lot. Whilst I understand it is beneficial for employees, I just dont understand how it works.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A union is basically a club workers join that negotiates on their behalf with the company they work for and provides benefits for members like help finding a job, professional advice, arbitrating disputes, running pension plans, or providing monetary support. Workers who are in a union can use their "collective bargaining" power to get better wages and conditions at work because all the workers negotiating as one unit has a lot more impact than a thousand people all trying to negotiate individually.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Dune] How would events have played out if Paul was born female? Lady Jessica was ordered to bear only girls to Duke Leto, with a view to future marriage into House Harkonnen. How would the events of Dune have gone if she had obeyed? Presumably the emperor would still have set his trap for House Atriedes on Arrakkis.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An interesting question. There are many possibilities: If the Reverend Mother was telling the truth that she wanted a marriage and alliance between Harkonnen and Atreides, then the Bene Gesserit may have "encouraged" the emperor not to go through with his trap. Alternatively, Lady Atreides may have been taken away from Caladan to a Bene Gesserit school, keeping her safe from the Arrakis trap. From there she could have been married to Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen as an offering to stop the slaughter of House Atreides. Or the Bene Gesserit could have let the slaughter continue and kept her theirs, house-less. She could then seduce Feyd-Rautha some time later. Marriage was not required to conceive the Kwisatz Haderach, only one night of drunken passion with a "nameless girl". Of course, it's entirely possible that Lady Atreides might have failed the test of the gom jabbar. Part of what allowed Paul Atreides to pass was the Mentat training he'd been given from Thufir Hawat. An Atreides daughter may not have recieved the same training. If Lady Atreides did go to Arrakis with her family and fall into the trap, her first interactions with the Fremen would have gone differently. She would likely have ended up a wife of Stilgar or even Jamis. From there she could possibly have led (either overtly or from the shadows) the rebellion against Beast Rabban. But without the same abilities of foresight that Paul had, it's unclear how successful that rebellion would have been. Still, the Baron Harkonnen was setting Beast Rabban up for failure against the rebellion, in order to be replaced by the savior of the people, Feyd-Rautha. So it's also possible that the Lady Atreides could have wed him, ending the Fremen rebellion and fulfilling both the Baron's and the Bene Gesserit's original plans.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The new theory about the beginnig of the Universe I read about this new theory about the beginning of the Universe and I can not wrap my head around it. Could someone please explain it in simplier terms. http://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We have recently been taking the idea of there being more than the 3 real and one temporal (time) dimensions seriously. Doing so has provided possible answers to some questions about the universe and matter, expressed in maths that uses multiple dimensions. The only problem is getting a human mind that has lived it's life in 3.1 dimensions to comprehend it. Whether these answers will stand up is one question, but, for the moment, it looks like there are more dimensions than length, breadth, depth and time. Now, think of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is a 2 dimensional shape. You can live most of your life thinking of directions on the spherical earth in two dimensions. You can go two miles east, two miles north, two west then south, and you'll end up in the same place. It all works. It happens to be wrapped around in a third dimension. So we have a two dimensional surface wrapped around in a third dimension. Now what if you had a 'universe' that had 5 dimensions - length, breadth, depth, time, and wibble. Imagine a black hole forming in that 'universe'. What, you can't? Well, to tell you the truth, neither can anyone else. But what we can do is create maths that models it, that acts like it would. The 'surface' of that black hole, the event horizon, would then be a 5 dimensional sphere - a 4-dimensional surface (or space) curved around in a 5th dimension. What does that maths tell you about that 4-D 'surface'? Turns out, it gives you something that is surprisingly like what we have detected about the start of our universe. This is really interesting. Is this what our universe really is? Possibly - probably not. But it is interesting.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes us to get bags/dark circles under our eyes when we are tired?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Dark circles are just the blood that is circulating around your eyes showing through the skin. The skin under the eye is very thin, so subtle changes can cause these circles to appear. In essence, there are three main reasons why this can happen: * your blood vessels dilating (low blood pressure). this can be because of inflammation such as with allergies or rubbing. when you have an inflammatory reaction, your body releases histamine, which causes a reaction to get as much of your immune cells to the area as possible. this will cause more blood flow, resulting in a lower blood pressure and dilated blood vessels. this means more of them show through the skin. it can also be because of heart medication or erectile dysfunction drugs which work by causing veins to expand. being tired will cause dryness and irritation around your eyes, which will lead to an inflammation similar to an allergic reaction, causing more of the darkness to appear, especially if you irritate the area more by also rubbing it. * your skin getting pale. if you are not getting enough sleep, anemic, or dehydrated, your skin will become paler and that will show more of your blood vessels through your eyes. * your skin getting thinner. this is mostly the cause of dark circles when you age. Bags are caused by areas under your eyes filling up with water or fat. This is essentially a secondary effect of inflammation. Expanded blood vessels will cause fluid to accumulate and pool, and leak out of your blood. This is normally beneficial because the fluid will have immune cells in it that will help fight an infection or irritant. This is why injured areas will be red, hot, and swollen, but in this case it will cause these bags. In addition, rubbing your skin (as is common when being irritated) will exacerbate this, essentially mechanically squeezing even more fluids out of the blood vessel.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What happens to electricity pushed onto a grid beyond that grid's capacity to use it? With the ascendancy of renewable or otherwise privately generated electricity, many electric companies allow electricity produced in excess of private use to be 'pushed' back onto the wider grid, even paying for that generated electricity in many cases. It makes sense to me that, most connected users being net-electricity-consumers, whatever electricity I push onto the grid is just used by someone else connected to the grid. My question is, what happens once private generation exceeds grid usage? Where does 'unused' electricity go? What method or mechanism is used to shed excess energy in an electrical grid?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The grid is composed by several sections that can be opened, closed and rerouted to match supply and demand without putting too much current in the grid. If you put too much current elements of the grid would fail (transformers, breakers, even cables that could melt). Depends on where the electricity is coming from you can disconnect that section not to overload the rest of the grid. The same can be done with demand (if an area is pulling too much current it could bring the rest of the grid down). Grid management will make sure that excess current is disconnected from sections that can't support it. With power companies those loads are negotiated every morning and planned carefully during the day. With home generation that production can also be predicted but contrary to the power plants, that current can't be disconnected easily, at least not without causing at least some local issues. So there are two methods, either you get power plants to reduce production (which is not that a fast thing to do and after the bidding is done in the morning prices are already set) or you disconnect other big renewable generators (wind, and solar farms). Those can be disconnected from the grid and the energy is just lost to heat.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are good podcasts for learning more about existentialism? I am still a beginner and I have loved reading about existentialism. I have read a little by Sartre, Camus, and Kierkegaard. I am looking for some podcasts to listen to for long drives and for when I bike that dig further, provide critique, or just quality analysis.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Philosophize this has very good intros to all philosophers including the existentialists Partially examined life also looks at some specific works but is more a conversation than an educational lecture<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If Mt Everest's peak is the highest point above sea level and Mt Chimborazo's peak is the fartherest from the Earth's centre, which has the thinnest atmosphere? Mount Chimborazo's peak is [2km farther away](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/highestpoint.html) from the Earth's core than Mount Everest, but Mount Everest's peak is the highest above sea level. Which peak has the thinnest atmosphere?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There might be some slight variation due to global air circulation, but in general the air pressure should be determined by height above sea level. The same centrifugal force that pushes sea level somewhat further out from the core near Chimborazo will also affect the atmosphere. So it should be everest.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why is Stephen hawking so important?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Steven is important because he has challenged the status quo with plausible theories that have encouraged deeper debate and a greater understanding of our universe. He has turned a generation of young people on to science. He is also very important in what he has been able to accomplish while his mind has been trapped inside a non-functioning body. He has defied the odds, living decades longer than his diagnosis suggested and his contributions to science are staggering. He's also changed a lot of people's thinking about the value of handicapped people in society.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Was Schopenhauer the first philosopher to consider predation as a moral issue? Jeff McMahan quotes Schopenhauer’s “[On the Sufferings of the World](https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter1.html)” in his paper “[The Moral Problem of Predation](http://jeffersonmcmahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/The-Moral-Problem-of-Predation.pdf)”: >This normally invisible carnage provided part of the basis for the philosophical pessimism of Schopenhauer, who suggested that “one simple test of the claim that the pleasure in the world outweighs the pain…is to compare the feelings of an animal that is devouring another with those of the animal being devoured.”<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I'd wager you can find it as a moral issue going back thousands of years, judging by texts found in Indian philosophy and religion and the Hebrew Bible. You have Augustine and various other Church Fathers and medieval Scholastic philosophers debating the issue as well, though in a Christian context.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are some great philosophical books (fiction or nonfiction) that can be read in a day or two? (fiction examples: Candide, The Stranger, Siddhartha, etc)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant On Liberty - Mill The Prince - Machiavelli Language and Myth - Cassirer On the Social Contract - Rousseau Oration on the Dignity of Man - Della Mirandola The Ethics of Authenticity - Taylor Pragmatism - Putnam The Roots of Romanticism - Berlin Rules for the Human Zoo - Sloterdijk Reason and Rationality - Elster<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can one realistically get a PhD in a field completely different than their undergrad? I was reading up on Sam Harris (love him or hate him his education is impressive) and he got his undergraduate degree in philosophy at Stanford then a PhD in Neuroscience at UCLA. How the hell can you do that? Is this out of the ordinary or is it pretty common? Edit: As a side question, I'm going to graduate with a degree in cognitive science with a focus on neuro, philosophy and artificial intelligence. What jobs, activities, etc. should I be aiming for to get into a good PhD program for Neuroscience?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ed Witten accomplished the same task, going from an undergraduate degree in Linguistics at Brandeis to a Physics PhD program at Princeton. His journey was quite special, as he bounced from career to career and even PhD program to PhD program before he finally decided on physics. Obviously, it's much easier to take the courses necessary in college by majoring in it, but if you have the skills, test scores, recommendations, etc., you can find yourself in a different subject for graduate school. It just requires a lot of independent work. However, depending on the situation, it's easier to change disciplines if you're going from, let's say, a mathematics undergrad to an economics PhD.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When you search for something on Google, the resulting URL is filled with several pieces of information. What do each of these mean? For example, when I do a Google image search for fruit, the resulting URL is https://www.google.com/search?q=fruit&safe=off&rlz=1C1TSNO_enUS566US566&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=K0r4U5TfPNLmsASaq4LQAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=775. If we parse this by separating it at the ampersands, we get the following: * search?q=fruit * safe=off * rlz=1C1TSNO_enUS566US566 * source=lnms * tbm=isch * sa=X * ei=K0r4U5TfPNLmsASaq4LQAw * ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ * biw=1600 * bih=775 What do each of these mean?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant search?q=fruit: your search query safe=off: safe search to exclude nsfw content etc. rlz=1C1TSNO_enUS566US566: language and encoding information source=lnms: origin of the search website, application, browser extension etc. tbm=isch: type of search image, video, news, web etc. sa=X: contains information about your search behavior. X means you clicked one of recommended searches. ei=K0r4U5TfPNLmsASaq4LQAw: identification information for Google probably containing time stamp and some other things. ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ: contains information about which search link you clicked but its encoded. biw=1600 and bih=775: your screen resolution<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is vaccination utilitarian? One of the arguments for vaccination is that it saves more lives than damages. There are rare cases when vaccination can cause health issues. The reason to support vaccination anyway is that it saves significantly more lives. I find it similar to trolley problem. So does it make vaccination same to solution of the trolley problem by utilitarians? My second question is: what are examples of non-utilitarian reasoning that support vaccination?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >what are examples of non-utilitarian reasoning that support vaccination? The reasoning you just gave appears sufficient. It's not like caring about lives is something uniquely utilitarian and that everyone who's ever cared about lives has been a utilitarian or anything like that. In any case, this is not very much like the trolley problem. For one reason why, the doing-allowing distinction you're calling attention to is not strong enough to make the sort of ratio here a dilemma. Per the CDC, severe side effects have an incidence rate of one in a million.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the difference between civil twilight, astronomical twilight, and nautical twilight?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sunset Civil twilight - sun is setting, artificial light is not needed Sun falls below horizon Nautical twilight - sun has set, but it is possible to navigate by the shape of the horizon Horizon is no longer visible Astronomical twilight - Bright stars and planets become visible Sky is fully dark, all stars can be observed And then in reverse in the morning.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the difference between Anthropology and Sociology? I've done a Google search, but in general they seem to say they are in fact quite similar, with the difference that Sociology prefers using statistical data, and Anthropology prefers fieldwork but that hardly seems to do much identify what seems to me very different methods, vocabulary, and key figures in the two fields. Was wondering if someone could elaborate further on the difference, or at the very least, on a university curriculum basis?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Look in the etymology of the words in order to get a better view of their meanings Anthropology=science of man; sociology=science of society. Anthropology studies cultures, religions, small-scale interactions (in tribes or collectives or small groups), and mainly uses ethnography (field work), narrative studies and qualitative methods. Sociology, on the other hand, studies politics, economics, macro-relationships, social interactions, the influence of concepts such as power, ideology, class, etc., forms of organization, etc. Sociology tends to rely more on "classic" theory (linguistics, philosophy, politic economy, marxism, etc.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What are the colors in space? I see pictures of outer space and I see all these vibrant colors. Can you explain this phenomena? Like I see a cluster of stars and like pink, green, purple, blue etc. Like what is that? How does that occur? I have no experience in astronomy if you couldn't already tell. Here's what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LH_95.jpg<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most of the color you see in pictures of distant galaxies and nebula is added in. The images are typically created using electromagnetic waves outside the visible spectrum of light, but this will vary picture to picture. If you posted an example picture of what you're talking about, you're more likely to get the exact explanation for that specific picture.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does bacteria on food survive stomach acid to the point of making you ill? for example, Chicken can make you ill, not being cooked properly. It was just a "shower question" that popped into my head.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bacteria that need to reach your gut to survive have a number of adaptations to survive the stomach. Of particular note are a polysaccharide capsule and active proton pumps to regulate their internal pH. These are known as virulence factors, also they will "hide away" in food, and you can need very few to make you sick, so if you eat 100000000 and 1% survive that's plenty.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If radiation exposure causes cancer, why do they use it to treat cancer patients? Won't it just guarantee they will develop more cancer in the future?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Radiation exposure damages cells, including their DNA. Cells with damaged DNA can become cancerous because the damage can cause them to replicate uncontrollably, which is what a cancer is. But enough radiation exposure will kill a cell outright, including those which are already cancerous. So doctors administer radiotherapy in a carefully targeted way such that it only attacks the cancerous cells of a tumour, killing them but leaving the surrounding cells mostly undamaged. Because of the requirement for careful targeting, not all cancers are able to be treated with radiotherapy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5: Why is english the world wide language of communication?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The era of the British Empire saw English being spread throughout Asia and Africa due to English colonies. They weren't, for the most part, going to learn the local languages, so they simply had the locals learn English. Then, the American era began after WWII and they sort of reinforced that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General] In scifi galactic maps there are often 'unknown' regions and uncharted territories within their own galaxy. What reason(s) would a highly advanced/futuristic galaxy have uncharted spaces within their own galaxy Bonus question what is ["wild space"](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3f/57/8d/3f578d9f49542899dfd6f68a0adeeddf.jpg) ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This is going to depend a lot on the particular setting, their means of FTL, their resource availability, the political divisions of the galaxy in question, and so on... In settings with restrictive means of travel (Phase Gates, Hyperlanes, Slip-Routes etc) it may simply be a product of how those lines of travel disperse. You may have to go hundreds, or thousands of lightyears out of your way to get a path into a particular area. Sometimes there are dead-zones created by political treaty, preventing travel to particular regions and limiting exploration of them. Speed of travel is also an issue. Just because you can travel faster than light doesn't mean everything is instantly within reach. Even in Star Trek, it takes decades to cross the galaxy. Regions can also be closed off due to stellar phenomenon interfering with travel. Warhamer's Warp Storms are probably the clearest example of this, closing off entire tracts of space for centuries, if not longer. Then there's simple volume. Space is a really, really, REALLY big place. It takes time to explore, survey and reliably chart it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why aren't urinals shaped better to prevent splashing? Somebody here has to be an engineer that can explain the physics of this to me. How has nobody invented a splash-free urinal yet? It seems to me that if you made the urinal deeper- that is to say, made a tube shape that angled downward into the floor of the urinal- a man could safely urinate downward into the tube-shape (should he so choose and if he is in a state of sobriety with good aim) and not have all sorts of urine splash back on him. It would be more sanitary for not splashing all over the floor too, wouldn't it? TL;DR: Why aren't urinals shaped better to prevent splashing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A couple factors go into the design of a toilet, most importantly for the business purchasing them is cost. If you purchased say, a funnel shaped toilet, you will also have a harder time cleaning it. If you are imagining a funnel that goes down into the ground, say, like an outhouse, there wouldn't be any splash back, but there would be more danger in someone slipping their foot into the hole, would be harder to clean, and would be more expensive if you needed to dig into existing foundation to put in this complicated toilet system. There is hope, however! You can extremely minimize the amount of splash back by following these simple steps. 1. Get as close as you can! 2. Point downward, so the downward angle with bring urine down, not outward. 3. Do your business! Where most people go wrong, is they tend to stay further back and just aim straight for the urinal. Urine isn't really a steady stream, and tends to break into many smaller drops. As they spread in random directions, liquid tends to bounce off and move to your shoes, which sucks.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The lower amounts of attention for New York protests in reaction to the Eric Garner Grand Jury decision in comparison to the Ferguson ones in reaction to the Michael Brown GJ show how riots continue to be an effective protest tool. So this is SUPER subjective, but I noticed how reddit is not really discussing the NYC protests on the same level as the Ferguson protests last week. Two days after the Darren Wilson No True Bill, it COVERED the front page, but here we are after similar protests from a similar case and there seems to be barely any mention. Obviously, a lot of the reaction to the Ferguson protests was extremely negative, but if the purpose of protests is to bring attention to an issue, doesn’t this suggest that the violent ones that erupted in St. Louis were more effective than the peaceful ones last night? I don't mean this post as a moral validation of violence, but merely a question of efficacy. I do not support the destruction of other people's property, whether it leads to awareness or not.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Michael Brown case had more national attention both in terms of breadth and intensity from the very beginning. It is not unusual its fallout would too, especially considering the time that has since passed in each case (Garner's proceeding being further removed from the incident.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What facts or propositions are mostly agreed on by philosophers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant "Tenure is a good institution," "professors should be paid more," "students don't study as hard as they could," "the sky is blue," "the Earth is round," "strawberries grow on strawberry plants," "most cars run on gasoline," and billions of other things.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 the Google v. Oracle case Specifically the whole debate over copywrite law regarding programming languages.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Oracle bought a company (Sun Microsystems) that had created the Java programming language. Now think of a programming language like a car. The concept of a vehicle with four wheels and some motor can't (currently) be copyrighted by any one company. A specific car has parts designed by a company (or companies) that are the property of the company (a motor by BMW, tires by Michelin, etc). Now Oracle creates the 'Java' car, using a motor, wheels, seats, all designed by Oracle (really Sun). Google came along and said, let's make our own 'Android' car, but we want it to still be usable by people who know how to use a 'Java' car. So Google (supposedly) went and created an 'Android' car from the ground up, not trying to figure out how the 'Java' car was created, but taking the concepts of a motor, wheels, steering wheel, etc. The 'Android' car can still be used by a person who knows how to operate a 'Java' car, although the motor is meant to run on a different fuel, the wheels are smaller, and the seats are shaped differently. Now, even though the 'Android' car is not the same as the 'Java' car under the hood, Oracle is claiming that the concept of a vehicle with four wheels, a steering wheel, and a motor is property of Oracle, and that the 'Android' car is just a "...cheap knockoff..." (actual quote) of the 'Java' car. The real danger of this case is that Oracle will lock down the concept of a 'car' as property of a company. A company could make a three-wheeled motor cycle, for example, and another company could come along and say, "no, we invented the tricycle 100 years ago, and we demand you pay us money for licensing our 'three-wheeled vehicle design'".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Modern Art Schools are Ugly and Dehumanizing A common theme with a great majority of pre-modern artistic classics is that they showcase talent and dedication to the craft, often via the glorification of human beauty, intelligence and exceptionalism, amoung other innately admirable qualities. Greco-Roman statues glorified the perfection of the human physique, renaissance art glorified the realization of enlightenment and a higher state of mind, Victorian orchestra glorified mastery, grace and refinement, etc. All of the great classics to come from these groups were produced by immensely experienced and dedicated masters of the craft, who spent their entire lives honing their skills and expanding their tenure. But now anything can be art, which means that everything IS art. The bar has been set so low that there's no demand for experience or talent. If anything can and is art, then anyone can produce art, and according to the modern schools of thought, it's of equal value to any other art. So why bother putting any effort into anything if it's just as good as a red strip down a white canvas some schmuck made in five minutes? Naturally, this attracts the kind of people who are averse to actual effort. The kind of people who think that "meaning" and metaphor are viable replacements for talent, aesthetics and other quantifiable metrics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzsGmdmhDTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1un4Mots4pk This is women screeching and stroking invisible penises. This is art. I'm not going to link it, but "Interior Semiotics" is the process by which a woman opens canned food, rubs it onto herself, babbles like an insane person, and then freebleeds all over the place. This is art. The simple fact of the matter is, when you have no standards, people will fail to meet them. Every time. When you don't hold art to the standard that it should glorify the most admirable qualities of humanity, it will default to showcasing humanity at it's most basic and depraved. What do you think about all of this? _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Why do you believe art should capture technical skill? Thanks to computers and cameras creating "perfect" depictions of reality can be done by anybody. Should art have stopped with the invention of the camera?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did currency exchange rates form in the very beginning? I was wondering how exchange rates formed in the beginning. As in, when the first two countries came together to exchange a monetary deal, how did they know how much of their money equated to the other countries money.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Countries often initially had their currencies locked to a precious metal (typically gold or silver). For example pound sterling (GBP) derives its name from when 20 shillings was literally a pound of sterling silver, under Anglo-saxon rule. These are pretty easily exchangeable because the international value of that coin is its metal content.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Sexual Reproduction and Race? When a mom or dad of two different races have sex (lets say white and black). Why is the product a "mixed" skin color, and not just black or white?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In order to have something like "black" or "white" only, it would mean that the genes for skin color, hair color, or other features you associate with "white" and "black" are specific to that race. They're not. Genes for skin color are more complicated, and they represent a whole range of possible tones and completions. Lets put it this way: genes aren't like on/off switches. Many are more like a volume knob, with many possible settings. Actually, more than one knob that all combine their settings to make up each person's unique genes. People from a specific part of the world might all have their "skin color gene knobs" turned towards the darker side or the lighter side. You mix the genes from someone with different settings and the kids will end up with something in between. There are also "dominant" genes. That is, genes that overpower other genes almost always. Brown eyes win over blue, usually, for example.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Could two sheets of aluminum foil insulate a house? Both sheets, not touching, in between the exterior walls: one to reflect heat back into the house and the other to reflect the cold outwardly?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Insulate to what extent? Insulation generally takes advantage of the fact that air doesn't conduct heat very well. This is why fluffy things are insulating, they trap air within the fluff resulting in a barrier for heat transfer. The trick here is trapping the air. Eventually heat will conduct through whatever barrier material you have and heat up the air. Hot air want to rise, and if you let it then convection starts. The hot air is replaced with cool, and the transfer proceeds all the quicker. Aluminum is somewhat reflective but it conducts heat well also. After all you don't wrap potatoes in foil to prevent them being cooked. So if you just had a hollow wall with foil on each sides the foil would conduct heat through and the hollow space would allow a flow of air to start making a terrible insulation.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do companies avoid tax using the Double Irish/Dutch Sandwich arrangement ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Key things are transfer payments. You could create iamkimi Brands that owns all your product's names and trademarks and charges iamkimi Europe and iamkimi America to use those names and trademarks. Doing this smartly lets you recognize the profits wherever iamkimi Brands is located rather than where your sales are. This gets your tax rate down to the level charged in a low corporate tax country (Ireland is the common example) at about 12.5%. However, you can go much further. Doing this uses some unintended consequences of EU and EU member nation laws, with the goal of creating income that no one calls earned in their nation. By setting up a Bermuda company that has an office in Ireland, Ireland doesn't consider it an Irish company, and Bermuda doesn't tax the income the company earned in Ireland. You can't just do that with the first firm, but by taking a series of steps (the original was to have the iamkimi Brands pay a royalty to a Dutch subsidiary (iamkimi Netherlands) and then pay another royalty to a second Bermuda/Irish company (iamkimi Brands2) you create income that neither country recognizes as corporate income. And the US allows foreign subsidiaries to earn income indefinitely without tax so long as it's reinvested overseas, and you report to your owners the consolidated financial statements which include the income and assets from all your subsidiaries (the US firm iamkimi Holdings owns all the above firms so reports their income as it's own).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Legacy admissions to colleges and any other preferential treatment due to being associated with someone famous or someone that works their is unfair I mean this is not a rant. I feel that legacy admissions are a bit unfair sometimes. Since oftentimes (if not always) the legacy admissions policy gives preferential treatment to the poor 2.0 student that didn't give a shit in high school over a straight A high school valedictorian all because the 2.0 student is a son of a alumni to the institution and the A student isn't. This is especially unfair when the admissions to the college is very competitive. It's said that 69% of students agree that legacy admissions is not fair, and 58% of legacy students say that legacy admissions are unfair. I mean I don't see how being the song or daughter of a alumnus makes your more deserving of admittance to top institutions. Also, some people have a higher chance to get admitted all because they have a relative or friend that works at the university. This is also not fair since it's anti-meritocratic in a situation that's supposed to be meritocratic.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Legacy admissions are a significant fundraising tool for the school. Many alumni donate to the school knowing that there’s an increased chance that their kids will go there. Without legacy admissions, there would be less money for financial aid, ironically making it harder to admit the most deserving students. If a few legacy admits each year fund a significant amount of financial aid, that seems like a good trade-off.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why we cant just put water on dry skins?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Aesthetician here...dry skin is not just the lacking of water, but natural oils your body naturally produces. Sudoriferous glands (sweat glands) excrete water. Internally, adding more water and clear fluids to your diet will help improve the hydration of your skin. Externally, wash with a softer water that is medium warm, and use a PH balanced cleanser. Sebaceous glands excrete oils. Internally, add foods with good oils to your diet- olive oils, coconut oil, avocado. Externally, when washing, do not use uber hot water. It strips the skin of the natural oils that moisturize your skin. When out of shower/bath, pat skin dry and immediately apply moisturizer or coconut oil to skin. Not only does it "trap" the water on your skin, it restores the natural oils. TL:DR...dry skin is lacking in both water and natural oils. Sorry the explanation isn't really ELI5.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:What exactly happens when we black out from drinking?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First of all, it is important to understand that your brain is communicates with itself using neurotransmitters, which relay (transmit) messages around the brain to neurons. There are two types of neurotransmitters: excitatory and inhibitory. Excitatory neurotransmitters increase brain activity (through the cascading release of other neurotransmitters, the creation of electrical impulses, etc.). Cocaine acts to increase the activity of dopamine and norepinephrine, two excitatory neurotransmitters. Inhibitory neurotransmitters have the opposite effect. They decrease activity. Alcohol potentiates the effect of GABA, which is the brain's primary inhibitory neurotransmitter. This means that every time your brain releases GABA (which it does all the time to regulate itself), alcohol makes the effects of GABA much stronger than normal. When you black out, your brain is prevented from forming lasting memories, as GABA is inhibiting (with heaps of help from all the alcohol, of course) every attempt to do so. That's all a black out is: a void where no lasting memories were able to be formed.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Western music has missed out on a ton of creative possibilities by restricting itself to a 12 tone system. The major and minor scales have a thorough basis in harmonics: the major scale is composed of the first and second harmonics of the fundamental tone (i, v, iii), the dominant (v, ii, vii), and the subdominant (iv, vii, i). The minor scale is just an inverted major scale, and so it may be similarly constructed (Schoenberg describes this beautifully in The Theory of Harmony). Thus, the major and minor scale have a foundation in physical phenomena, so it is reasonable that they should appear throughout a large portion of music. On the other hand, the twelve-tone system we see in Western music does not come (at least not canonically) from a physical phenomenon; instead, it comes from a numerical coincidence, namely that 2^(19) is approximately equal to 3^(12). Thanks to this coincidence, a 12-tone system allows us to play a good approximation to a major and minor scale in any key. This was a revolutionary discovery as prior to this realization, an instrument would have to be tuned to a particular key, but now, instruments could be tuned (within a small margin of error) to all keys simultaneously. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, a series of fugues that go through all 24 major and minor keys, famously demonstrates the power of this 12-tone system. Ever since this discovery, the vast majority of Western music has been composed in 12-tone equal temperament. But there are alternatives that have been ignored almost entirely. For instance, a 19-tone system actually gives a better approximation approximation to the major third and a much better approximation to the minor third, at the cost of a slightly worse approximation to the fifth. A 31-tone system also gives excellent approximations to the important intervals, though having so many notes is arguably a bit cumbersome from a notational standpoint. A 19-tone system, however, actually fits into the standard Western musical notation system; we just now distinguish sharps from flats of the key above. I am not arguing that 19-tone equal temperament is a better system than 12-tone, but I do think that by ignoring the alternatives, composers have neglected a massive amount of artistic possibilities that are unavailable in a 12-tone system. Many modern composers have experimented with microtones, creating pieces that do not fit into any equal-temperament system, but to my knowledge, very few have composed works that still fit into an equal-temperament system, but not the standard one. I think that doing so would open up a new world of possibilities in music composition, and that our society has missed out on an infinitude of beautiful music as a result.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Whatever tonal system you use, two factors limit its applicability: the ability to discern notes and produce pleasing scales. It was researched discerning quarter note intervals can be taught, but that doesn't mean the arabic scale can faithfully reproduce all western-scale songs. Furthermore, arabic and indian scales have a form of complexity to them that wouldnt reflect well in all types of feelings conceived through music. But id agree it be probably best if we taught music including quarter notes. Although we might've missed out in the past, electronic music certainly progressed far beyond this limitation. Every detune you add in a synthesizer could be used to convey even more complex emotions or any reproducible sound for that matter. So we missed out, but the lack of discerning skills in listeners could've dimished the popularity of such music in the first place. Right now its either a deliberate choice or a lack of musical education.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are we set up to not eat healthy? In America, there was an obesity scare in the 1970's-1980's that told Americans "fat is bad" and so they've removed the fat content from many foods. by doing that, they became less tasteful and so to replace that they added sugar. But also, we've been told every day to eat our grains and oats. But the thing is, most of the bread that we consume is actually really bad for us, even the whole-grain breads. It isn't the same oats and grains are grandparents consumed. Many companies too try really hard to make things seem healthy when they aren't. So how is a person in this society supposed to be able to eat healthy? Do you have any tips and tricks to make it simple? Can you point us to sources we as consumers should be able to trust?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If by "set up" you mean biologically it's because some nutrients were much rarer then others and over time we became hardwired to seek those particular nutrients more so over others since obtaining those nutrients required more effort. Now in modern times those nutrients are quite abundant but we still retain that need to seek those once rare nutrients which causes problems due to excess. Also those rare nutrients: salts, sugars, fats, etc. are not unhealthy.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does the human mind develop what is attractive to them and what is not? The other day i pointed out a really beautiful girl (in my opinion) to my friend. He replied "Yeah she's alright". This sparked a question in my thoughts on how people develop opinions on attractiveness.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are shared opinions of beauty, like symmetrical faces and such, but one of the biggest influences on what somebody finds attractive is the environment they grew up in. For example, say you had a very nice blonde teacher in elementary school and your closest family (mom, cousins, maybe even grandma) have blue eyes and have athletic bodies, chances are you're gonna be into swedish girls. Of course it's not this literal, but you get the idea.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do QR codes work, and why can my phone recognize one before I get the entire thing in view of the camera?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant QR codes work in quite a complicated way, but the short answer is that they're designed to continue working even if damaged. You can cover something like 1/3 of the code and it'll still read, which is how the QR codes with logos and things in the centre still work - they aren't cleveley generated, they're just slapping the image in there and trusting to maths that it'll still work. That's why the phone can read it before seeing the whole thing - it's using the redundancy built into the code.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do some companies create different brands even though they all operate in the same industry? example. Kroger owns kroger, ralph's, and food4less grocery stores. Even their individual phone apps are duplicates of each other (design wise). I understand some stores are only available in certain part of the country but wouldn't it make more sense for them to have one brand? esp if they all, essentially, offer same products. to have greater impact in terms of brand recognition?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For most products, the idea is that having multiple brands under your umbrella allows you to produce slightly different products with different advertising aimed at different customers. You can make a car that targets a middle-class buyer & one with some fancy options to target the luxury consumer. You can produce a makeup line for 18-25 women that emphasizes fun & freedom while your products for the 40+ crowd emphasize elegance & class. Grocery stores are a little different however. People are really weird about food & will often stick with names & brands they grew up with. Keeping a smaller local chain name reminds people of home cooked meals, growing up and the like. The brand itself has decades of goodwill built up that would be completely wasted if you bought them out & changed the names.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it so much more enjoyable to spend hours and hours doing repetitive tasks in a video game than it is at work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Usually video games have a reward system in place that you can easily track your progress and see a "real" reward for it in real time. If you grind more enemies, you get more points, new items, new stats, unlocks, etc. Numbers go up. Even on something like Minecraft, you may set out to simply dig a really big hole in the ground with no benefit other than having done it. However, you've set a goal and accomplished it, and that feels good. Work is often times you doing stuff you don't have a vested interest in. You also don't necessarily have incentive to do the work other than keeping your job and getting a paycheck.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why can both X-rays and radio waves penetrate things that visible light can't? Something about the energy being on the scale of eV so high adsorption there? Did we evolve to be able to see the energy range that is absorbed by everyday objects?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Light tends to interact with molecules whose size are either near its wavelength, or densely packed enough that an integer group is near the size of its wavelength. The visible spectrum covers a large range of molecule sizes, so its convenient for us to see in. Longer and shorter wavelengths only interact with high density or very large molecules. E.g. you'd want lead or thick HDPE between you and a gamma ray.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Please explain the meaning and reasoning behind this: "Anyways, never catch exceptions when not strictly required! It's always easier to introduce an error handling later, than remove it!" in Code. In one of the github repository: [Error-Handling-presentation - GitHub](https://github.com/4face-studi0/Error-Handling-presentation/blob/master/src/main/kotlin/stringUtils.kt) (Kotlin) There's the quote: >Anyways, never catch exceptions when not strictly required! It's always easier to introduce an error handling later, than remove it! What does it mean? In my understanding, it is saying we should avoid using `try catch` whenevery possible. If that is the case, what is the alternative way of handling error? I might have missed some obvious points but please explain with a code example and use case: 1. When NOT to use try catch and use something more "flexible" 2. When to use try catch 3. Why catching exception is not good at times.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are 2 ways that exceptions can happen: \- Programmer error (i.e. NullPointerException, IndexOutOfBoundsException) \- Faulty environment (i.e. FileNotFoundException) When you're handling exceptions, you only want to catch the ones related to faulty environments, since the causes for them are outside of your control. With programmer errors, you want the exception to end the program, so that you can fix it There is a risk with catching programmer errors that they become part of the program logic, which is not good, since you can't remove them without breaking some other parts of the program<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does hair come in just a few colors? And why these colors? As the title says - why can we only have different shades of a few specific colors of naural hair and why can hair only have one of these particular colors and not, say, green?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Layman. There are two major natural pigments found in hair. Eumelanin is black or brown. Pheomelanin yellow or red. Our hair colours are limited to what can be produced by mixing these two pigments in various quantities. I can't say why we never evolved to produce another pigment (like a green pigment).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Choosing an advisor who produces only professors when I’m not sold on academia I have a pretty incredible offer on the table for a top US PhD program in applied physics; I am currently a senior undergrad. I met with an incredible advisor there last week who expressed an interest in taking me as a student. For reference, he has an H-index > 150 while only taking a couple students annually, and is very renowned as a mentor. 14 of his last 15 students are either group leaders at national labs or professors at R1s, the last being in industry (you get the picture—I’m probably doxxable at this point), and while I think it would be an incredibly edifying experience for me and my best shot to do high impact work in grad school, I am not totally sold on academia as a career path. I value being geographically unconstrained + starting a family + being able to participate in startups ~mid career, though in principle I love the idea of pursuing an academic career. Based on this I am probably likely to look for industry group leader positions and the like post-PhD. Based only on this information, does it sound short sighted or self sabotaging of me to choose his group over one where I would do lower impact work, complete an industry internship, etc., but graduate as pretty objectively less of an expert in my discipline?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Mentorship and expertise are huge selling points regardless of where you end up. If his last mentee ended up industry, that's a good sign and also a potential contact for when you make that jump after grad school. Regardless, it's worth having another discussion with your mentor about your career goals - being transparent with them is your best strategy for making an informed decision.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I think the word "Pansexual" is a meaningless term for people who need to feel special. CMV. I am a very sexually open-minded person, so do not think I am a bigot here. I myself am bisexual, so I have experienced prejudice in the LGBT community and society at large, so I can understand the judgment non-heterosexual people face, so understand that. However, especially as someone who is bisexual and is attracted to males and females, I do not see the point of being "pansexual". I do not see the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. I know the definition of the word, as in gender not being a factor in your decision making process in finding a mate, but in practice that is literally no different from bisexuality. I am bisexual, and I do not actively seek a male or female partner specifically, I choose someone based on who they are, if we get along and if I am sexually attracted to them. I do not see how that is different from being "gender blind", as pansexual people claim to be. To me, it seems people who are "pansexual" simply need to feel special and different. It may be confirmation bias, but every person I have met who has identified as pansexual has fit this mold. For me, it just seems that pansexual is a term for when bisexual is too mainstream. I am an open-minded person and would like to hear different opinions and obviously have my views changed as I have many friends who identify as pansexual (even my significant other does) and I would like to understand it better. Thank you for your time.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The term pansexual is meant to be even more inclusive than bisexuality because it encompasses sexual attractions to trangendered and genderqueer people, thus going beyond the binary/dioecious model of sex phenotype.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If I live on a top story apartment, and leave my heat off, will it raise the heating bills of my downstairs neighbor significantly?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A basic principle of heat transfer is that the bigger the temperature difference is the faster heat will transfer between the two through conduction. This means that by keeping his apartment colder than he would with his heat on, he will be absorbing energy (heat) from his neighbors at a faster rate. Since they're maintaining the temperature in their apartment, this costs them more money. So yes, his decision does affect his neighbors. This also means that the warmer his apartment is the less money he is saving by "stealing" from his neighbors, until he eventually makes the temperature at his floor higher than their ceiling, and he starts giving them free heat. Most people already understand this principle without realizing it. Keeping your heat at 70 is going to be more expensive than keeping it at 50. In a perfectly insulated house (no heat transfer between outside and inside) they would cost the same once you got to that initial temperature. Obviously this isnt the case though, just going to show you how important insulation is to heating bills<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Magic School Bus] Does Ms. Frizzle have the parents’ permission to take their children on these bizarre field trips? Also, has there ever been a PTA meeting addressing Ms. Frizzle’s unusual teaching methods?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant She has permission to take them on field trips, but she's not specific on the details. She just says "taking kids to aquarium to learn about the life cycle of the clown fish" not "taking kids to aquarium and turning one into a sea anemone, one into a shark, and the rest into clown fish." none of the kids are narcs (not even Arnold) so so far no PTA meetings about it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Could a tree grow in zero-G? If so what would it look like?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The complication that needs to be overcome is that plants make use of gravity when planted to orient themselves (as they can't rely on being planted the right way up), so that their roots go down and their sprouts go up. Without gravity, they will tend to just stay at around the same depth and not sprout. One astronaut reported that this was simple enough to fix, however, just by plucking the ends out of the soil, pulling them to the surface, when they first sprout. From this point, the plant can orient itself using light and will continue to grow. Roots don't suffer as much, as they just grow away from the seed and avoid light (the surface), so develop relatively normally. After this, growth is mostly normal The resulting plants can look a little unusual because they don't have the usual drooping from gravity, so will tend to be more upright.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The cons of organized religion outnumber the pros To begin, I'd like to say that there are definitely merits to organized religion, such as fostering a sense of community. I'd love to hear any other merits as well, but I'd like to see arguments for how these merits can only be achieved by organized, and not disorganized, religion :) The biggest problem I see with organized religion is that it is too easily used to control other people. I have the most experience with Islam, but I believe Christianity is also used in that way. As far as other religions such as Judaism go, I don't know much about it so I won't comment but I'd love to hear your perspectives on it. I'll state a few examples of how religion is used for control here: - Abortions not being allowed as it goes against religious rules. - Not being able to convert out of a religion, and being bound by the rules of that religion. This is the case in muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia etc. In Malaysia in particular, if you're born muslim or convert at any point in your life, you can't convert to any other religion, and you can be held accountable by Sharia law. - Religion being used as a justification/loophole for unethical things such as child marriages - this occurs all around the world from my understanding. I feel like the scandal with the Catholic church regarding priests sexually preying on young children falls into this category too. - Religion being used to scare people into following practices they may not necessarily agree with, such as wearing burkas. I understand that there are women who wear it out of 100% choice, but we can't deny that there are women who are forced into it as well. This point also extends to things like sexuality (for example, gay people who live in fear of going to hell). - Religion being used to justify extremism and terrorism (of course, it's not justifiable to non-extremists but religion is what terrorist groups like ISIS use for control). - Religion being used to justify cults (ie. Scientology, I think the LDS church also falls under this category but I could be mistaken). - Religion being used to promote sexism. I feel like religion is something personal. Insofar as the ideals of being a good person etc go, I feel disorganized religion serves those ideals. With disorganized religion, you can use your own judgement to decide what aspects of the religion you believe are true and good, and you can follow those aspects while disregarding the ones you believe to be outdated, sexist, unethical etc. Thoughts? EDIT: Messed up the formatting. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >I'd love to hear any other merits as well, but I'd like to see arguments for how these merits can only be achieved by organized, and not disorganized, religion :) Organized religion provides a legitimate, but alternative power structure where minority opinions can take root and gain wider acceptance. In America for example, the abolitionist movement, the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement found a lot of their initial support and momentum in the church. Martin Luther King would have been a lot easier for the mainstream to dismiss if he had not been a reverend, and the church provided the movement with not only leaders, but with a network and an organizational structure. Organized religion has caused a lot of problems over the years, but it has also acted as a force for progressive, positive change. That is why autocratic regimes seek to either outlaw, suppress, or co-opt organized religion, and why freedom of religion is an important measure of a free society.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Superhero] I can make pocket dimensions by painting them. Who has jurisdiction over this "terra nullis" as the authority of the United Staes claims? They can't enter my painting without my specific permission and even if they destroy the painting while I'm inside, I can still paint my way out. Can a country really claim jurisdiction if they can't enforce their will on that territory?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Jurisdictions, borders, etc. are essentially diplomatic alternatives/complementary to shows of force to exert control. With you being the sole force-owner for that space, unless you yield that control, anything they claim is moot. They can enforce consequences on you otherwise in an attempt to coerce though.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are people dyslexic and how does it work? Obviously I understand dyslexia can cause words to look 'different', but how? And what causes people to be dyslexic? EDIT: Wow, thanks people! These are some really interesting answers :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The two most important contributers to dyslexia are an underutilized left-hemisphere, and an out-of-whack central bridge of tissue in the brain, called the corpus callosum. The left hemisphere of the brain can match a letter with its sound, handle information that comes into your brain in strings, like the sounds in a word - one letter after the other, rather than seeing a word as a single picture, separate a word into its individual sounds, and understand grammar and syntax. The right hemisphere is different. It deals in areas and space and patterns. It doesn't understand parts of speech, or keep track of letter-order in spelling. It "reads" a word as a line drawing that it has been taught has a meaning, -- a sketch, not a line up of sounds. If the left side leaves the reading to the right side, the result can come out scrambled eggs. As to the corpus callosum, it is a bridge of nerve cells over which information from one side of the brain gets to the other. Everything you see or hear goes to both sides, but each side has it own specialty. The corpus callosum not only transfers information, it helps decide which is the appropriate side, and sends it there. Obviously a wimpy CC may not deliver language tasks to the left where they belong. On top of that, it transmits slowly, so part of the information arrives out of sync with the rest. As if all that weren't enough, the language areas in the dyslectic brain tend to be smaller than they are in a standard brain. Now you take a wimpy corpus callosum, an over eager right-hemisphere, and an undersized left language area, and you have the recipe for trouble. Source: dyslexia.org<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In your opinion, is it possible for an autodidact person to obtain an undergraduate level of knowledge by reading textbooks? Hello, I am a graphic design student who's also interested in subjects like history and philosophy. If I wasn't majoring in graphic design, I'd be majoring in one of those. However, it also occurred to me that I could simply buy the textbooks used in the classes for those particular degrees and teach myself that way. There's also free and open courses from places like MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc. that could supplement my learning. I have no interest in credentialing myself in either of those fields; I just want to learn. Do you think that I could roughly obtain the same level of proficiency over the subject matter as an undergraduate through self-study alone? Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes and no. By reading textbooks and studying diligently with an eye to existing tests (maybe subject matter GREs?), you could probably memorize a fair bit of stuff. By using the bibliographies of the textbooks as direction, you could read a lot of key primary texts (which is crucial, because these are not textbook-driven fields). What you can't do solo is engage in the conversations, based on close reading of primary sources, that would shape you as a thinker. A university isn't the only way tl do that, of course, but it's one of the most efficient and reliable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Has anyone ever got to a certain point in reading philosophy where they are just completely confused Is there a way to get out of this without completely giving up? EDIT: Thanks a lot for all the replies!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you're talking about confusion as in not understanding what is meant by what is written, there's a possibility that the work you're reading is, for example, subtly referring to other major works. Reading works by philosophers can often feel daunting and it's important to try to orient oneself in the conceptual framework that they've partly adopted and are partly modifying. A good commentary can be really helpful in this regard. If you're speaking about an experience that your thinking has reached an impasse and some previously held beliefs have been thoroughly questioned, what you're asking about could be called "aporia". In the early dialogues of Plato the dialogues between Socrates and his interlocutors often end in impasses where the interlocutors who previously thought they knew something (what justice is, for example) now experience a profound sense of disorientation and lack of knowledge. This state can be considered very fruitful and philosophically important since it ideally engenders a desire to keep searching for knowledge. Aporia is thus a breaking point of philosophical thinking: giving up is possible (and understandable since philosophical thinking can heavily disturb important beliefs) but it's also possible to keep on searching.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why would the immune system attack the eyes, if it knew they were there?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are organs in our body that are immunologically isolated from the bloodstream: 1. The thyroid follicles contain thyroglobulin, a protein which never leaves the inside of the follicle (unless first transformed into thyroid hormones) and lymphocytes never enter the follicle. If such a follicle is broken and thyroglobulin enters the bloodstream, lymphocytes react towards it like a non self structure, resulting in Hashimoto or Basedow thyroiditis. 2. The ovarian follicles the same. This is actually because the female egg is haploid (has only one set of chromosomes) thus is different immunologically from the body; again, non-self reaction. 3. The sperm inside testicular ducts. Actually, in the seminiferous tubules, a specific cell type (Sertoli) is responsible to let the spermatogonic cells pass from the basal layer (towards the edge of the tubules, touching bloodstream) to the luminal layer (towards the center of the tubule, not touching bloodstream). This passage is done during the reductional meiotic division, when diploid cells pf the body become haploid (and start to change their immunological profile). 4. The eye liquids are not naturally in direct contact with the bloodstream. If one eye is traumatized, the bloodstream touches the eye liquids for the first time, and a non self reaction begins. Actually, a trauma of one eye can cause the destruction of the other eye (because antibodies can usually pass membranes that lymphocytes can't), disease called sympathetic ophthalmia. Why wouldn't lymphocytes react to everything in our body? Well, during childhood, T lymphocytes are trained in the thymus and are exposed to basically* all the self antigens that the blood touches. If no antigens specific to the eye are in the bloodstream at that moment, T lymphocytes won't be tested and rejected for a self-host reaction. Edit for *: /u/CD11cCD103 has a comment explaining better how all the self antigens reach the thymus. It's not that the blood carries bits and pieces of everything towards the thymus, but that some "nanny" cells of the thymus can express antigens of anything during the T lymphocytes maturation process.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Wouldn't it be cheaper/more efficient to pay people, rather than bail out companies? What I'm reading is that we need to bail out companies in order to maintain jobs. Wouldn't it be far more efficient just to pay a UBI-type thing? (Note: I'm not advocating UBI per se, rather as a stop-gap in the current crisis.) Arguments/my reasoning: * If businesses are failing because no one is using them (e.g. air travel), then they are going to continue to need bailouts. Thinking bailouts are a one-time thing vs. ongoing UBI-type payments is unrealistic. * We've already seen companies using the cash to buy back stock. OK, we can put in legislation to stop that, but paying people would be far more efficient. * Giving working people money maintains money flow - working people buy necessities, rather than investments. * Medium/long-term, we would realise either a) we don't need this/that industry or b) this industry needs to be more efficient. It would provide a huge opportunity for innovation and entrepreneurship as people try to fill the vacuum left by collapsed companies. I am a complete econ-novice and my reasoning is probably super-naive, so I'm def here to learn!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I'll address one point: >Medium/long-term, we would realise either a) we don't need this/that industry or b) this industry needs to be more efficient. It would provide a huge opportunity for innovation and entrepreneurship as people try to fill the vacuum left by collapsed companies. The problem is that whole industries are collapsing, not because they are badly run, but because they're faced with an extremely serious natural disaster disaster, an act of god. These companies would be essential to the coming recovery. Case in points is the airline industry. All airlines are going to have practically zero flights for the next few months, but they are still going to incur significant costs. Any business operating in such a situation will collapse- it isn't about efficiency. A random shock has fallen from the sky. It's like allowing all local businesses and companies to collapse after hurricane Katrina. When the virus eases up and we're trying to rebuild the economy, if the airlines are all out of business, it will take time- for new entrants to set up businesses etc- that will take months, even years. Do you think the American economy can function without airlines for a few months, and recover quickly? Probably not. The coronavirus isn't some terrible moral failing of capitalism, it's a very very very serious natural disaster that affects just about everyone- if you let the businesses collapse, your recovery is going to be very slow.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Women in western nations, specifically America, have more rights than men. I keep hearing about the "women's rights movement". Maybe some will just say it is semantics, but the movement should be "women's equality movement". This is not intended to be a debate on the wage gap, or other social and financial inequalities between men and women. Instead, I would like to gear the conversation towards our rights as human beings. There is no law that says women cannot receive the same pay as men. But there is a law that requires male conscription or eligibility for the military draft. Men also have no right to the life (or continuity of the biological processes that lead to life, depending on where you land on this other debate) of their offspring. Abortion is the sole right of the woman in America. Women also have the right to genital integrity upon birth in (I believe) ALL western nations. However, men are subject to circumcisions, specifically in America. I am not saying that women don't deserve these rights, or that there isn't valid reason behind them. I am saying that women have more rights than men. Please CMV! EDIT: I have conceded abortion on the grounds of biology and bodily autonomy. Although I do still think men should have the right to abandon parental duties such as child support so long as he does so in writing with ample time for the woman to perform an abortion. I have conceded conscription on the grounds that there if Congress passed a law tomorrow requiring women to enlist, there is no fundamental right that women could point to in order to prevent it. I am still looking for someone to CMV on circumcision which still holds up my overall thesis. People keep saying that it is the parental right to permit medical procedures on their children. However, these should all be medically necessary procedures. Male children currently have no right to prevent unnecessary medical procedures performed on them, while woman do (see : the FGM Act ) EDIT 2: I awarded my 3rd Delta for someone pointing out that circumcision isn't a male/female issue. Parents consent to it just like they consent to a daughter's ears being pierced which is another medically unnecessary procedure. I still would like circumcision outlawed similar to the FGM Act. But you got me Reddit! I changed my view ! Thank you to all who participated.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Everything you list here as a rights of women that are greater than men are part of much larger, more complex issues that have positives and negatives for both genders. > But there is a law that requires male conscription or eligibility for the military draft Sure, and this is certainly unequal. But this is all part of a system in which, until recently, women were unable to serve in certain capacities in the military. And a system in which women face gender discrimination within the ranks, sexual harassment, and sexual assault in much higher rates than men (speaking about the US here). Laws requiring male conscription are a direct result of sexist notions that women cannot and/or should not be "fighters." > Men also have no right to the life (or continuity of the biological processes that lead to life, depending on where you land on this other debate) of their offspring. Abortion is the sole right of the woman in America. Yeah, but honestly, what's the alternative? Are you suggesting we force women to carry to term and give birth against her will? Regardless, this is a given going into a sexual relationship and there are measures to easily avoid this scenario (e.g. condoms, discussing potentialities w/ significant other ahead of time, etc.). But again, this is a complex issue and highly correlated to the fact that women give birth and men don't. Also a result of that is the fact that childcare and home care disproportionately falls to women, even when both parents work equivalent hours. Also, because a man is only needed for conception and women actually carry and give birth, it's much easier for a man to skip out on any involvement or responsibility for offspring, leaving many women single mothers. > Women also have the right to genital integrity upon birth in (I believe) ALL western nations. However, men are subject to circumcisions, specifically in America. I hear you on this one. But female circumcision and male circumcision, while both involve "mutilating genitals," are very different procedures and have very different outcomes. Oftentimes female circumcision removes all of the external genitalia, including the clitoris, leaving the person with very little left to feel any pleasure and often lifelong pain or problems. For men, it's just the foreskin that's removed, a comparably small portion of the genitals, and the men go on to have overwhelmingly normal sex lives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Identity comes from both within and without. It’s not all about what you see yourself as. While self image or self identity is important, it serves a much smaller utility than how others perceive you. Functionally, identity occurs many orders of magnitude more often in the eyes of those who perceive you rather than yourself. The total sum of their perception of you is much more impactful to both them and yourself than whatever it is you may see yourself as. This cannot be undone. Self identification is not the entirety of identity. It’s not even a majority of identity. It exists, but it’s not the whole.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think it differs depending on what type of identity we're talking about. Racial identity, for example, is a very external identity. It has almost nothing to do with who you are on the inside, and has everything to do with how society treats you. This is why "transracial" can't be a thing. (Fun fact, transracial was a term used before the appearance of Rachel Dolezal types, and was used to refer to adoption situations where the parents and child are different races.) Gender identity and sexuality, on the other hand, are much more internal. Say you're a bisexual man, but have only ever dated women to avoid homophobia. The world might perceive you as a straight guy and treat you like one, but internally you still feel that attraction towards men. You're still, by definition, bisexual, and the way people treat you can't change that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are some good beginner books on philosophy? Touching on topics like the meaning of life itself, or anything similar. The Big Bad Wolf book sale is happening in my country in about a week or so, and I just finished playing a videogame called Nier: Automata. It touches on topics like the meaning(less) of life and even nihilism. I really very much enjoyed this part of the game, and it made me want to get into philosophy proper. What are good beginner philosophy books that touch on similar topics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A great place to start would be "The History of Modern Philosophy" by Josiah Royce. Take notes on texts mentioned in the book that you would like to explore further, and enjoy the trip down one of the most fulfilling rabbit holes ever.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If a movie production has $5,000,000 (estimated) Budget, must some of that money go to the actors? or only movie's production quality?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It has to include equipment, pay for employees (all cast, crew, and extras), fees, food on larger productions, constryucting sets, making costume,s all of the makeup artists, set design, sound guy, camera guy, lighting guy, dozens of other specific jobs, and yes, the actors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does someone get a PhD, and what does it mean? I don't exact get what a person does to get a PhD. What they do after their Masters? Do you apply to a university to "do a PhD"? Do you still get educated through higher-level course or something? What is a PhD thesis supposed to be?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >What they do after their Masters? They often enroll in some classes, teach other classes, and perform research which will make up their thesis. >Do you apply to a university to "do a PhD"? Yes. You need not just a university but an adviser with whom you will work closely. Another thing is that some programs have qualifier exams. Meaning, you enroll in the PhD program and have to pass a very difficult (usually written) exam by some deadline. If you don't pass by that time, you go home. > Do you still get educated through higher-level course or something? Usually there are some course requirements. You might also take courses that are essential to your research, for instance, stat courses for a psychology PhD student. >What is a PhD thesis supposed to be? It is an original work you must produce in order to be granted your degree. The idea is that a PhD is a research degree, so you must demonstrate your ability to contribute to the research in your field. A thesis is usually based on the work the student has done under guidance of their adviser. It is not uncommon for a thesis to take over 5 years of work, depending on the field.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do antidepressants take several months to build up proper levels but only a few days to metabolize out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Imagine your brain is a natural environment, like a field. The good chemicals in your brain (the ones that help you feel calm, happy, satisfied, etc) are like a small river flowing through. All around the river grow lots of plants and trees (or, that is to say, hobbies, things you enjoy, etc). Those can grow big and tall next to the river since they have lots of water flowing past. Now in someone who's depressed (due to lack of chemicals), their river is barely a trickle, barely enough to support some shrubs and small trees or grasses. What SSRIs (Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors) do is build a dam in the river. Over time, that small trickle of water adds up and forms a small pond. Now there's plenty of water, and once the pond is established, trees and bushes can grow along the banks and we've got a nice environment going. But what happens if you tear down that dam? All of the water in the pond rushes away, and you're left with a large, bare area where it used to be. The little trickle of water is still flowing, but it's not enough to fill the pond, let alone to keep the large trees alive. So you have to rebuild the dam and let that trickle of water slowly fill the pond back up, which will take a little while, depending on how much of the water flowed out, or leave it gone and let the small bushes and grasses go back to where the creek flows, which will probably take longer.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do former professors miss students the way we miss them? I had a really wonderful professor a few semesters ago that really changed my perspective about life. In private she taught us so many life lessons and I’m so grateful to have had her as my professor. I miss her. I’m just wondering if it is mutual. Edit: did not expect this post to blow up, it’s been lovely to hear your thoughts and personal experiences. Thank you so much!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depends on the professor. But for those of us that got into it because we actually enjoy teaching, it is the interactions with students and seeing that look of Revelation on their face when they understand something that is why we do it. Being online only has denied us for any meaningful dialogue, and the ability to connect with our students on some deeper level.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] Do Force users have to physically hold their lightsabers while dueling? Can't they just use the Force to control their lightsabers' movement hands-free?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant That degree of precise, continuous control takes a great deal of focus and concentration. At which point you don't see the saber or blaster bolt coming from your opponent who isn't showing off like an idiot.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it so difficult for NASA to take true-color pictures of planets? For the iconic [Pluto](http://i.imgur.com/H7vukHD.jpg) picture, NASA says they had to "combine four images with color data to create a global view of Pluto." Meanwhile they can easily take dozens of pictures of Pluto in [black and white](http://i.imgur.com/kwP78i4.png). Why is it so difficult to create a color image of a planet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The full-color or approximate full-color images you see are assembled from multiple exposures taken with different color filters. That minimizes the amount of camera equipment involved as it allows the optics and CCD to be reused for imaging at different wavelengths. Full-color images are not always "sufficiently interesting" to justify the weight and expense of additional equipment. For example, it was already known from telescopic images that Pluto had little green detail, so there was little point in sending up a camera with a green filter.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Light doesn't have any matter, yet it can be bent by gravity...I don't get that :-/ Can someone explain it please?! What the title says...It doesn't make sense to me:-/<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As Einstein showed us with general relativity, gravity is curved geometry. The presence of matter/energy results curves spacetime. Particles (both massive, and then massless) then follow the shortest paths in this curved spacetime, which results in what we think of as gravity.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Moving to a new city with better career potential without a job lined up is worth the risk. I'm a 27 year old mechanical engineer who thinks moving across the country to greener pastures (major cities such as Denver or Seattle, for example) but no job lined up is worth the risk. I've exhausted all of the decent jobs in my small southern town and feel the area is stifling my career prospects at this point. Why not just apply online you say? Well, I've tried but not much luck despite being, at least in my eyes, a 95% match for a lot of jobs. After seeing numerous job posts that blatantly state that only local candidates will be considered, I've come to the conclusion that the odds of me getting something across the country are slim to none at this point. I have enough money saved to last me over a year with some budgeting. And this includes moving expenses, increased COL (as best as I could estimate), and one time expenses like a deposit. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are major issues with blindly jumping into a new city. For starters, you will have zero* local connections or references within the job market. This automatically places you at a disadvantage relative to local candidates. You'll also need to juggle multiple other major decisions and processes at the same time as finding work. Where will you stay? Will you take a lower paying job in the interim? Do you have a way to reliably get back home in case of a family emergency? Are you sure your cost of living estimates are accurate? Finally, consider the opportunity cost of moving. Will you have to start at an entry level position(and thus lower salary) at your next job? Are you prepared to put your career on hold for up to a year just for the shot at some more money down the line? Will that money even be worth it when you consider the lost income associated with moving?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] What made Admiral Ozzel think he could get away with condescending to Darth Vader? "My lord, there are so many uncharted settlements..." Ozzel sounds straight up patronizing to Vader when he says this, as if Vader were some foppish visiting dignitary, and not the Emperor's personal cybernetic murder gargoyle. How could he possibly thought it was a good idea to talk down to Vader?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Empire works on strength. You get ahead by showing no fear and intimidating people (also getting shit done which was Ozzel's mistake). Being frank and questioning superiors has worked so far and gotten him in the Admiralty. Ozzel has seen guys like Tarkin or Thrawn directly challenge Vader and get away with it so he figures if he wants a Grand Admiralship he should do the same and prove himself not afraid of Vader. The thing is Guys like Tarkin and Thrawn have earned Vader's respect so he lets them talk to him as an equal. Ozzel being disrespectful just pisses Vader off. Ozzel is trying to play the game and sucks at it because he didn't realise the guys that are winning the game aren't playing a game they are just hyper competent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does YouTube.com (aka Google), manage it's storage and bandwidth costs when thousands of videos are uploaded and stored daily? Do the advertisers actually cover its costs?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Do advertisers actually cover the costs? Yes. That's the business model of google. That's how they set their prices. How does google do it? They have a lot of infrastructure, and a lot of smart people working for them who spend all their time at work coming up with ways to reduce the amount of bandwidth used, and the amount of computation required to produce results. They've built their whole company on this kind of technology, and they're among the best companies in the world for dealing with huge data sets, and storing them safely and efficiently. It's the reason that Google the search engine was able to out compete it's competitors in the early days. In most cases, it was better at finding related results, and faster too. Edit: A couple of people have pointed out that Youtube is loosing money, but that Google as a corporation is able to cover the loss.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] What makes someone a Jedi? No one would argue that Luke isn’t a Jedi Master but he doesn’t even remotely seem to follow the Jedi Code, either by Canon or Legend standards. So I’m legitimately curious now- what makes someone a “Jedi”? Luke feels emotions and has a family and all that stuff. By the old standards I don’t think they’d even let him train at the Temple. So how is he a Jedi? Is it merely enough to just use the Light side of the force? Is that it? I’m sure you can be an asshole and still use the Light side as a tool but that’s beside the point- is it merely “being good” that makes you a Jedi? How is that a quantifiable standard across the whole of galactic history? Is it just some self-identification or something?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Jedi is a philosophy, and one which can have different interpretations as time goes by. Some general points are: - Force user - Serenity, peace - Following the will of the Force But there are quite a few ways to interpret that. Do you fight to defend life? Do you act passively? Do you become a hermit and meditate? Do you forsake all attachment, because it might lead to clouded judgment? Do you forsake all passion, or do you use some of it, carefully controlled?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is Canada still technically a constitutional monarchy? Why hasn't Canada separated itself officially from the UK after years of independence?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Think of it like growing up with your parents. When you're young your parents tell you what to do, but as you get older you need them less and less. Now some people or countries in this case don't really like their parents so they decide they want to get emaciated (a fancy word for them not having any control over you) and they become republics. Canada on the other hand really didn't mind it's parents and as it got older decided it could be more and more independent without them. Canada basically got to the point where our parents don't really have any input on our decisions. Any time Canada makes a law we still ask our parents if it's ok but we're adults now so they really can't ever say no. So we operate as if our parents aren't in our lives. Every once in a while our parents come to visit and a lot of people really like having them here. The reason we haven't emancipated is because now there really isn't a point, it would just be a lot of work to separate from someone we really don't mind.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user eli5 What is equity?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Equity has several meanings when it comes to accounting, but generally it means value of ownership. Often you will hear people talk about how much equity they have in their house. If you have a $500k house and $300k mortgage, then you have $200k of equity. That means if you sell the house, that's how much money you'd get in your pocket. If you own shares of a company, that's called shareholders' equity. It's the value of the slice of the company that you own.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why would a landlord rent control an apartment? If a landlord owns an apartment in say New York, why would they offer rent control when they could just raise the price of rent year over year and make more money?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Rent control is a state mandated option for people who are qualified under welfare care laws and regulations to ensure that people can afford housing. Rent control and EHO homes are reserved pricing structures for what the tenant can afford to pay under what the laws deem appropriate.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Back to the Future] What would have happened if Doc sent Einstein back in time for one minute instead of forward in time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The arrival of Einstein could affect the experiment, such as by making Doc send the Delorian at a different time, risking the space-time continuum, or at least making things much more complicated than necessary.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What makes holding certain positions, e.g. while lying in bed, more or less comfortable, and why does the degree of comfort eventually change?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your body isn't a straight line, and at different times different parts of your body have more pressure on them than others. It takes a small amount of effort to endure that pressure on those points, and over time it adds up and becomes uncomfortable. Shifting positions is basically cycling out which parts of your body are enduring the pressure. More comfortable positions tend to spread out or decrease the pressure on your body, which is why soft things are more comfortable because they do this well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does hard exercise cause people to throw up? I just don't understand why you're body would react this way<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Exercise increases oxygen demand in the muscles being used. This causes the vessels supplying your skeletal muscles with blood to dilate, supplying a greater amount of blood. Conversely, areas of the body that are not essential for exercise (such as the digestive system and other inactive organs), experience a reduced blood supply. Essentially blood is rerouted from inactive organs to skeletal muscle. Exercise activates the sympathetic nervous system, known to most as the "fight or flight" response. This pours out hormones such as Epinepherine which increase heart rate, and cause dilation of the bonchioles in the lungs. Exercise also deactivates the Parasympathetic Nervous System known as the "rest and digest" response which shunts blood to the digestive tract, and stimulates salivation and digestion. Lack of parasympathetic output and decreased bloodflow to the digestive system during exercise results in a temporary slowing of digestion which can make the person feel nauseated or having a previously consumed meal sit "like a rock" in the stomach during exercise.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 why do people have Aphantasia? I recently got told that people are actually able to visualise images in their head, something which I cannot do, which brought me to the condition of Aphantasia. Why is this something that I cannot do?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First off, you have to narrow it down. There's actual aphantasia, and there's people who read a poor overly-romanticized description of what visualization is and conclude they must have aphantasia. The former is extremely rare, the overwhelming majority describe normal visualization as what they're able to do and assume everyone else has some sort of superpower that they're missing.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Jupiter Ascending] what is the long term effects of a protected world like earth? Secondary question is there any way to move away from their immortality economy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1) It depends on how the world will eventually be "used". Say it is protected long enough for them to develop Space faring technology they could eventually either join the galactic community and also start using the immortality technology. Or they could see themselves as endangered and start a war against the other humans (most likely the other humans wouldn't (want to) accept them anyways and see them as inferiors). So either you have a few billion more people on in this galactic community or you have a war (which humanity (Terranity?) would most likely lose). 2) No. Not unless the royals (influential people) want to give up their immortality which judging by how far they would go just to get a planet with a few billion citizens on it would most likely not be the case.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do plants never get cancer? All humans and most other animals are at risk of getting cancer during their lifetime.But why plants have the privilege of not getting this disease? &#x200B; I'm really impressed by most of your responses,but their is a question in my mind that is still bugging me. When a person gets really old,cancer cells would form in a certain part of his body since his DNA becomes "weaker"as he got older ,but let's say just in this case that the cancer cells can not move to other parts of his body(Metastasis )to make the situation similar to plants where cancer cells are locked in this position since they have cell walls that surround the cells. Cancer cells would still originate from different parts of his body as he gets older until tumor covers all of him and he dies. This case is theoretically possible for a human,but some trees live for thousands of years and it doesn't seem that tumors are covering all of their parts...Why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants have a decentralized anatomy. No organs that are explicitly vital to survival, and no circulatory system that allows cells from one place to another. They do get tumors from time to time, but since there's no means for them to metastasize they stay in one place and it's unbelievably unlikely for them to damage anything the plant actually needs to survive. Because of that, plants are much more tolerant of genetic weirdness than animals are.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why did evolution decide to require a male and female in order to reproduce, when single celled organisms successfully reproduced asexually? Trying to understand the evolutionary benefits of requiring a male and a female when a satisfactory option (perhaps even better?) was already in place... Wow... lots of responses quickly! Thanks guys... I dont know if I am breaking rules, but can i throw a curve ball out there? If multiple partners creates stronger/complex offspring... why hasn't (and can) evolution evolve to allow more than 2 involved... therefore further complicating and diversifying the offspring?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sexual reproduction gives more variation within the species in a shorter timeframe. Variation can be a good thing. Edit: to answer your second question, these sorts of things come about if the benefit outweighs the cost. So if it's beneficial to have a multi partnered relationship, outweighing the cost of complexity, it will eventually happen. The closest we have come that i know of are polyamory, polygamy, harems... You get the idea.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Humans apparently share 50% of their DNA with bananas. We can all see the genetic differences but how do the similarities manifest themselves?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All multicellular organisms need to do some basic things like divide cells, have all the parts of cells, have cells stick to each other, decide how each new cell will function. For example, we all have structures in our cells called ribosomes that help make new proteins. The ribosomes of humans and the ribosomes of bananas do pretty much the same thing (even using the same code instructions for how to make new proteins). The basic building blocks of cells are the same, with minor changes. So, the basic genetic code for these things is the same, with minor changes.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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