Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:If you are paralyzed from the neck down, why do your organs still work? shouldn't your heart, lungs, intestines etc... stop receiving signals from your brain?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Even though your lungs are organs the way they work is a little different as they require help. The process of breathing uses skeletal muscle (The diaphragm) and thus has no "Automatic" control. There are 2 nerves arise from up in the neck at C3-5 ( C3, C4 and C5 keep the diaphragm alive), there is one on either side called the phrenic nerves. If lets say a tumor on one side compresses the nerve this is reflected in one side of the diaphragm becoming paralysed. Someone mentioned the heart. The nerves that supply the heart are NOT all directly from the spinal cord they come partially from spinal cord but also from two cords that run parallel called the sympathetic trunk. The heart is a weird one. If you removed all the nerves from the heart it would beat at around 100 bpm. So it takes nerves (these ones from the spinal cord) to slow it down. This is called a parasympathetic tone and comes from the longest nerve in our body called the wonderer (Vagus X). Intestines are really weird. They are tricky to learn about and even harder to explain. Basically remember i mentioned the sympathetic trunk well that and the top and bottom of the spinal cord (Called the parasympathetic outflow) both help regulate a third nerve system called the enteric nervous system (ENS). The ENS is the one that regulates the movements of the intestines along with a few hormones e.g. motalin Interesting bonus points: Stomach acid can be released via a few mechanisms but one way is by the same nerve that slows the heart. Years ago when people had stomach ulcers one of the treatments used to be to remove the nervous supply to the stomach and thus reduce acid secretions. As for the Kidneys, Liver and Spleen the nervous supply is primarily to do with blood flow rather than function.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is smoke made out of that makes ham and fish taste better?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hardwoods (the type used for smoking ham, fish and other foods) are made up mostly of three materials: cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Cellulose and hemicellulose are sugar molecules which, when burnt effectively caramelize to produce carbonyls. These provide most of the color components and sweet, flowery, and fruity aromas. Lignin also produces a number of distinctive aromatic elements when burnt, including smoky, spicy, and pungent compounds such as guaiacol, phenol, and syringol, and sweeter scents such as the vanilla-scented vanillin and clove-like isoeugenol. Since different species of trees have different ratios of components, various types of wood impart a different flavor to food.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Instead of the Universe expanding, could matter actually be shrinking? Would the same characteristics of the universe not apply? Everything would be moving away from us rapidly, not because space is expanding, but because all matter is actually shrinking while the fabric of space stays the same?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can build a model where it's true (technically, it's just choosing new spatial coordinates) but then the speed of light changes... Imagine that you cut a stick at a length of 1 meter, using the definition of the meter (the distance light travels in roughly 1/30000000 second). You measure the distance to a distant galaxy and find that it's 10^23 times your stick (that's a long and impossible method, but that's not a problem with thought experiment). Then expansion happens. If you measure the distance to the same galaxy, you will find 2.10^23 times the stick. The first interpretation is to say: the stick is 1 meter, so the distance increased from 10^23 m to 2.10^23. Cosmological distances change but the matter is staying the same. Your interpretation would be: the distance used to be 10^23 sticks and now it is 2.10^23, if we assume space is not expanding, it means the stick is now half a meter long. Matter is shrinking! Up to now, both interpretations are good and you can prefer yours if you want to keep cosmological distances constant. But... We actually have a way to make a choice between these interpretations. We can get back to the definition of the meter, to see if the stick is now 1 or 0.5 m. So we measure the time light needs to go from one end to the other and we find it's still 1/30000000 s. So in the first interpretation the stick is always 1 m, the speed of light is always around 30000000 m/s but cosmological distances increase with expansion. In the second interpreation matter shrinks. The speed of light varied from 30000000 sticks/second to 60000000 sticks/second but cosmological distances stay the same. A varying speed of light is not very good but why not? Actually, cosmologists can use both interpretations. The second one is called "comoving coordinates" (because it moves with the expansion) while the first is "physical coordinates" (because they are the ones that really matter for physics, like for the speed of light).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: There is an harmful tradition of "graphing by hand" in American math curricula. This is not to say that understanding graphs, translations, and being able to visualize expressions visually are not important skills. They absolutely are and I would never dispute that. I also don't want to confuse graphs in math with graphs in science; science classes teach students how to create graphs from real-world data, label them, and extrapolate new data. I think that's a vital skill. However, I question the practice of having students make graphs by hand more than once or twice. It's a separate issue, it's inefficient, and it wastes time and mental energy that would be better spent on other topics. 1. The common rationale is that students need to understand how modifications to a formula will transform a graph, but this is actually circular reasoning. Why do students primarily need to be able to transform graphs quickly? Because it helps them draw them faster. True, it is useful for students to know that the 3 in y=x^2 -3 will shift the graph 3 places down. But you could cover that in one lesson using a graphing utility where you simply have the students change random elements in their equations. The point here is, practicing drawing graphs to allow students to draw graphs faster is not a proper reason. 2. Students have near universal access to graphing utilities, so it is no longer necessary to graph by hand. Almost every student at the high school level, and a majority at the middle school level, owns or has access to a smartphone or computer. There are countless apps and web apps that allow for graphing. 3. Graphing by hand is inherently inaccurate, time-consuming, limited in scope, and generally just clunky. You will never draw a perfect graph, you'll never do it quickly, and you won't be able to see very far in your graph if you want to finish within a minute or two. The only real advantage anyone can cite is that if you can draw a graph, you can use one without your phone. Sadly for apologists, there are very few cases in which people don't have phones and also need to graph something. In addition, you do need technology to draw a graph--you need pen and paper. So there are few cases, if any, where drawing is the only option. 4. Proponents claim that graphing by hand helps you visualize graphs when you look at equations, but I've never seen any evidence that you can't achieve that ability through playing with a graphing utility. There is no reason to suggest that extensive graphing by hand has any unique benefit to visualization. On the contrary, graphing utilities reduce the need for visualization in most people. 5. You can achieve more practice in less time by using graphing utilities. In fact, I've seen games that challenge students to design graphs that go through certain points or meet certain criteria, and because the graph is created instantly, a student can instantly determine whether he or she was successful. 6. It's actually a disadvantage to not be able to use a graphing utility. Imagine if all math classes refused to allow students to use calculators because "doing arithmetic by hand strengthens understanding." The students who leave would be vastly less capable in the real world than those who simply take a second to whip out their phone and use a calculator. If graphing is a vital skill to the average Joe, and I'm not sure it is, well you'd better teach Joe how to do it with a computer. 7. The time and effort spent on graphing could be better spent on other concepts which actually are incredibly useful to the average person, like algebraic thinking. Spend time on word problems or introduce students to applied mathematics in physics or computing. Spend time on geometry that they could use to build something, or explain how scientists can somehow magically know where all the stars are and how big they are from light years away. 8. The students don't care about the graphing by hand. They don't want to make tables to find points. They know what the curve should look like. They know where vertices are on parabola or ellipses. They understand the concept, and making a graph is frankly beating a dead horse to them. The students who were interested in the class or homework become less interested, grades fall, and for what? 9. This is less of a topical argument and more of a general critique, but mathematicians fail to understand one basic concept, and that is that they are biased to all hell. Mathematicians and math teachers enjoy math and math classrooms (which are not the same thing). But they fail to understand other points of view, and often think those people uneducated as to "what math really is," and with a knowing smirk they dismiss such pragmatic questions such as "When will I ever use this?" That question is a valid critique regardless of the fantastical, masturbatory sentiments of mathematicians. Please understand, I like math. Many students do. But I, and many students, hate math classrooms, because people apologize for old-fashioned traditions and the remnants of a classical education system which do not meet the needs of a modern society. I have yet to see ANY convincing proof that graphing by hand, which is but one of those traditions, is necessary or desirable in a modern classroom. Convince me otherwise, because I don't want to fight this fight. Being wrong means there's something wrong with me, not with the entire American education system. And I'd rather it just be me. DELTA EDIT: I gave one away to /u/catastematic for his comprehensive address of all my points, and for his understanding of my perspective. Most comments in this thread seemed to revolve around my lack of study, a concept of me as merely complaining and trying to weasel out of math class, or support for the status quo as some golden standard of education. [Here is the comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30vnnn/cmv_there_is_an_harmful_tradition_of_graphing_by/cpyogse) where I gave the delta and explain my new position, but you ought to read our whole exchange and the link that he put in his final comment. Also, remember that CMV threads are sort of a team effort thing. Even if you don't individually get a delta, your points may have contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way. Some of them certainly did. Some certainly didn't, but they were in the minority. Thank you all for taking the time to debate a serious issue.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a significant amount of evidence that in general (not specific to math), students who hand-write note tend to retain information better than those who type notes. A comparison can be drawn to the practice of drawing out graphs by hand: Students probably retain and understand the concepts of graphing better when they do it out longhand. Secondly, I'd say that the ability to draw graphs quickly using graphing calculators/programs could be a downside, as it encourages a sort of "guess and check" methodology to transform a graph, rather than developing any deeper intuition about what the equation actually means. And finally, concerning intuition: With graphing programs, it's easy to view the graph simply as "a picture". But when you graph something longhand, you physically have to count out distance in x and y, reinforcing the physical relationship that the equation represents. Graphing by hand gives this deep, intuitive sense of what the equation represents (a relationship between x and y), whereas graphing by a program does not force your brain to make the same connection.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What happen between Half-life and Half-life 2 ? I read somewhere that HL2 takes place 20 years after HL1, and I know there was some war going on Between the combine and the earth, but that's basically al I know. what's the purpose of City 17? Why is Freeman so important? what's the connection between all of this and the events of HL1? Sorry for my bad english.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a lot of good information about this that can be gleaned by examining Dr. Vance's office at Black Mesa East during HL2. Basically, the resonance cascade of HL1 got the attention of the Combine, who invaded earth shortly after Freeman was put in stasis. They defeated all of earth's military forces in 7 hours (hence, the 7 Hour War). They proceeded to subjugate humanity and begin draining earth of resources, most notably its oceans, the results of which are plainly obvious in City 17 and the surrounding coast. Cut ahead some unknown amount time (Generally agreed to be about 20 years) and Freeman returns. City 17 is the seat of the Combine's power on Earth. It doesn't hold any particular significance than that, and in fact there are many other citadels like the one at the center of City 17 across Earth. Gordon's importance isn't entirely clear yet. He's more of a symbol of human endurance against alien invaders to the rest than anything, though he's undeniably proficient with a wide variety of weapons. The G-Man's interest in him means that he probably has some other significance as well, but what that is has yet to be explained. (Though Valve has promised it will be explained more completely in the sequel) EDIT: changed HL2EP3 to "the sequel," as it isn't clear at this point how exactly the sequel will be named<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is an "Agile" environment?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Agile can be summarised very briefly: * Only work on the most important things at any given point in time * Break those things into small bite-sized tasks for individuals to work on autonymously * Catch up for about 10-20 minutes every morning on progress * Meet at the end of a set of 'things' to plan the next set of 'things' Edit: As someone pointed out the flavour of Agile here is Scrum. Agile broadly can be summarised by the first two bullets.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does it seem like some colors look good together and others clash?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As with most things dealing with human perception, there is probably an evolutionary basis for what colors look good together (for humans at least). Perhaps during hunter-gatherer times, certain color combinations in nature would indicate whether food was fresh or, if it was unsafe to eat. There are probably many factors, but it's important to remember that 'colors' are just the way our brain intereprets light wavelengths in our visual spectrum, and color combination preferences that look good to us might look very bad to other species based on how their perception of contrasting colors contributes to their evolutionary fitness.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA: We are scientists in the food and feed laboratories that test imported products for dangerous pathogens as well as illegal dyes, metals, antibiotics and more. Ask us anything! We are scientists at state food and feed laboratories. Among other things, we [test products imported into the US](http://www.aphlblog.org/2013/11/whats-hurting-the-dogs-ny-lab-searches-for-the-answer/) for dangerous pathogens as well as illegal dyes, metals, antibiotics and more. In addition, we work with the Association for Public Health Laboratories ([APHL](http://www.aphl.org/Pages/default.aspx)) to assist food and animal feed testing laboratories to achieve, enhance and/or maintain accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2005. This accreditation is key to creating a national integrated food safety system. [Accreditation Support for Food and Animal Feed Testing Laboratories](http://www.aphl.org/aphlprograms/food/laboratory-accrediation/pages/default.aspx) Want to hear more about our work and the fascinating things we’ve come across? We will be back at 10 am EST (7 am PST, 3 pm UTC) to answer your questions, Ask us anything! We are: Cynthia Mangione, BA Food Laboratory Specialist 2 – Microbiology QAO Food Laboratory Division [New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets](http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/) [Proof](https://www.linkedin.com/in/cynthia-mangione-a7a28375) Stephanie Brock, BS Radiation Health Supervisor Radiation/Environmental Monitoring Section [Radiation Health Branch](http://chfs.ky.gov/dph/radiation.htm) [Kentucky Department for Public Health](http://chfs.ky.gov/dph/) [Proof](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-brock-806b2131) Edit: Our colleagues had various emergencies and are unable to participate today. Yeah, we're disappointed too. We do have some others on speed-dial if we need to phone a friend! Hopefully we can still answer all the questions you have and/or point you in the right direction. Edit: And we're off! Thanks so much for having us!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant * Is there anything we should worry about when shopping on ethnic markets besides obvious things like expiration date? * If you could give one food advice to the world, what would it be? * Please complete the following sentence: DO NOT EVER EAT _______<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are CPUs/Processors so small? Couldn't we double our processing power / GPU by increasing the size of the chips? I wouldn't mind twice the CPU/GPU size for a gaming PC<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You can improve processing power by increasing the size of the chip, but there are some issues, and you won't necessarily get twice the processing for twice the size. The biggest issue is cost. Cost of a chip increases faster than the size (due to the higher chances of a defect). So a chip 2x the size costs more than 2x the $$$. Another issue is the I/O bottleneck. Processing speed can be limited by how fast information can be delivered to or sent from the processor. So to double the amount of processing power, you might need to increase the I/O speed or number of signals, both of which are going to have cost impacts and possibly impact the size of the package. If you're going to double the size of the chip to get more processing, you're probably going to add more cores (and cache memory). That means that what you are working on must be able to be split between multiple cores efficiently. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn't. Hot hot hot! Microprocessors get hot, and increasing the size of the chip increases the amount of heat you have to be able to dissipate. So the thermal solution used is going to have to be more capable, which usually means bigger and more expensive. Of course, along with the heat comes the power delivered. The power supply needs to be able to provide the required power, and the motherboard needs to be able to deliver it without causing noise or ground bounce issues. All of these things are problems that can be overcome. All you need is money.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is there a standard arrangement of the numbers on a game die?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Some arrangements of numbers keep the extremes from clumping up on one side of the die, which if the die is unbalanced, would mean significantly higher or lower averages if rolled a large number of times. Though with dicemaking techniques available today, most dice are going to be mostly fair for most practical purposes regardless of pip arrangements, so it's nowadays mostly due to tradition and symmetry/aesthetic.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does mold grow on overripe fruits and not while fruits are ripening? What stops the mold from forming at an earlier stage?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants defend themselves actively against molds and other pathogens by producing substances thet either kill or doesn't allow to grow the mold, but for this the fruit must be able to communicate with the plant to tell it "send help". Once the fruit falls from the tree or is so ripe that the communication paths do not work, pathogens win.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does Google have a searchable version of the internet that isn't the same size as the internet? I just what how can this machine even work what is this a school for ants?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the same way a book has a index which is much smaller then the size of the book but allows you to find which page something is on, Google has a index of Internet. First of all the Google Search Database does contain a large portion of the text of the internet but is less concerned with the video, and pictures which is where most of the actual size comes from. It then creates a index of the data allowing the search engine to quickly search the internet, and then compresses the crap out of the webpage making it small and manageable enough.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: All Political Campaigns in the United States should have EXTREMELY strict spending caps By extremely strict, I mean $500,000 for House and Senate campaigns and $10 million for presidential campaigns. Why so low? Because with how high campaign spending currently is, massive corporations are able to buy political influence. For instance, corporate campaign spending holds up subgovernments called [Iron Triangles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics)). Iron Triangles political structures that consist of an interest group or corporation, the Congressional subcommittee related to that group, and the executive branch agency that’s supposed to regulate said group. Corporations promise campaign donations for Congressmen in exchange for lax regulation. Congressmen promise increased funding for the federal agency in question in exchange for law enforcement that will benefit the corporation, and in turn the political campaigns of the congressmen. The federal agency promises the corporation lax enforcement of already lax regulation for corporate support of that agency via lobbying or higher paying jobs within the corporate world (known as the [revolving door](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)). An example of an iron triangle at work is the [fueling of the opioid epidemic](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fueled-by-drug-industry-and-congress/). Big pharma was able to coerce congress and top officials at the DEA to look the other way while the industry was flooding the country with pills. How? Because all parties benefited through this iron triangle. Corruption like this would be abated if campaign spending weren’t so high. With such strict spending caps, corporations wouldn’t be able to buy influence in politics. As evidenced by Bernie Sanders, who raised [$20 million](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/04/02/bernie-sanders-raises-18-million-in-first-quarter-of-2020-presidential-campaign.html) almost exclusively from small donors, corporate millions would simply not be needed to reach such strict spending caps. “But wait”, someone might say. “All that campaign money is spent for a reason. Ads and rallies cost a lot.” And to that I ask... why the fuck are constant ads and rallies needed in the first place? They’re literally just echo chambers. Any asshole with shitty views can sound good in an echo chamber. All that’s really needed in a campaign cycle are debates. Because if your ideology can’t hold when challenged, it’s flawed. Campaigns should consist of initial ads/rallies to get a certain amount of supporters to qualify for the debates. After the debates commence, no more ads or rallies should be needed. Winning a debate will be a candidate’s ad/rally. Instead of spending ridiculous amounts on TV ad space, candidates could take a fucking bus to the debate and project their ideologies to the nation for free. No more exorbitant spending on useless echo chambers. All you corporate lobbyists out there, change my view.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This would favor candidates with pre-existing name recognition: incumbents and celebrities. Why should the limit be on campaign spending, and not on campaign donations? Wouldn't it make just as much sense, if not more, to limit the amount that companies and individuals can donate to a campaign. That way, if 20 million private middle class Americans want to donate 5 dollars a piece to Candidate A they can, but if Exxon wants to donate the same hundred million to Candidate B they can't buy the same amount of influence?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Tunak Tunak Tun - Daler Mehndi] Who are the four magical men and what is their mission on Earth?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are the anthropomorphic embodiments of the Classical Elements, the avatars of Nature itself. Petty dichotomies like good and evil, or light and darkness, are irrelevant to them, as Nature is an impartial and ultimately amoral force. Their sole purpose is to keep the natural order of things upon Earth in balance. Tunak Tunak Tun is an incantation used by earthly priests to channel their energy in nature-magic ceremonies.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What exactly is Effective Altruism and why is it controversial? Looking for a basic rundown of the concept and the controversy around it, not really up to speed in this area. I get it has some relationship with longtermism, which I think I have a reasonable handle the basic concept of, but otherwise I’m out of the loop here.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Broadly speaking, Effective Altruism is an institutional movement concerned with encouraging people to commit to promoting the good, as the good is understood according to a broadly utilitarian account, and to using considered measures of efficacy -- by this standard -- to determine which charitable ends to commit themselves to. Partly this is controversial on the grounds that many people think utilitarian accounts are insufficient or just bad accounts of the good. Mostly, however, Effective Altruism has invited controversy by an increasing proportion of its members directing its aims toward unusual goals that are not normally regarded as meeting the aforementioned criteria as effective goods, but which its members feel intuitively are such important goods that they trump these considerations. For instance, Effective Altruism has often promoted GiveWell as a standard of measuring the efficacy of charities, but where GiveWell recommendations contradict the intuitions of Effective Altruism members, they've not hesitated to argue for simply disregarded these recommendations. This disparity is further underscored by the unusual culture which has become associated with many Effective Altruism members, where their intuitions favor particularly unusual projects as charitable priorities. For instance, GiveWell, and on this basis Effective Altruism, has traditionally argued for the efficacy of anti-malaria interventions as particularly effective forms of charity. But Effective Altruism, in these cases in opposition to GiveWell recommendations, has increasingly prioritized peculiar projects like concerns that an AI overlord will become the dictator of the human race and exercise near-supernatural powers over them, or concerns that perhaps electrons in the depths of space by sheer coincidence organize themselves into structures that through some currently unknown means experience unprecedented suffering, as being vastly more important than any concern we have with the health and wellbeing of living people. This is controversial in the sense that many people regard such priorities is wildly ill-considered, on the grounds that we have little reason to think that anything like these things are happening, and that even if they are happening none of the charities Effective Altruism supports give any indication of being able to do anything about it. In objection, proponents of these priorities use arbitrarily chosen figures to promote their decisions: for instance, they ask us to suppose that the unprecedented suffering of spontaneously organized electron systems in the depths of space is a trillion times worse than the worst suffering of all humans we could do anything about; in that case, they reason, even if there's only a one in a million chance that this could ever happen, and even if there's only in a one in a million chance that we could ever do anything about it even if it did happen, that still makes it as much a charitable priority as is addressing that human suffering. And on this basis, the reasoning goes, we have as much reason to give as much money to anyone even considering the problem of suffering electrons, as we have to give to people doing things like combating malaria. And many people regard this kind of reasoning as arbitrary and spurious.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Ghosts don't exist Science tells us that once we die, we cannot come back to life (excluding the exceptional cases of people coming back to life a couple minutes after their death). Our body decays and our brain too. Our "soul", i.e. memories, ideas, thoughts, knowledge, etc. disappear. And there is no scientifically rigorous way to assert that the mind somehow survives and continues to exist in the world. All alleged pictures and videos of ghosts can, I believe, be explained by logic, whether it is optical illusions/defects on the camera, stuff that looks like a ghost, smoke, combination of air and light in special ways. Moreover, to my knowledge, no one able has been able to photograph or record a ghost regularly; the only documents we have are 1-time shots. If ghosts existed and wanted to communicate with us, they would manifest themselves more often, and we would have ironclad proof of their existence. This is not the case (hence the CMV). If they existed but didn't want to communicate with us, why would they "scare" people and be in settings where people are likely to notice them? _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's start with your basic premise. "Science has proven that...". Science doesn't work that way. Science is ever changing and is not immutable. Science is a great way to explain things, but can be changed based on data as it is discovered. A "soul", for lack of a better term, is not something that science can either prove or disprove at this time. We do not have the technology or understanding to do so. Now onto your multi conversationalist ghosts. What makes you presume that they are trying to communicate with us? Could it not simply be that they exist like any other animal? The gorillas which were no more than folk tale until a century ago were much the same. People would bring photographs back and it was explained away. They couldn't exist, people would argue. Scientists would agree. Then they were discovered and their habitat founded. To state with absolute certainty that ghost don't exist, is anti-science. A better way to say is that you do not believe ghosts exist based on what little data we have. Take some other scientific truths and replace ghost for them. Aliens exist. We know this because science has concluded that they should based on the near infinite amount of universe that exists. Does this mean we can definitively state that Aliens exist? No, we have no evidence to show that they do. Nor do we have any that they don't. What about Bigfoot? Could a small tribe of human sized apes live on Earth without having been detected like the gorillas previously mentioned? A small tribe of 20-50 that have near human intelligence and avoid contact with humans? We have no evidence that disproves their existence but none that proves it either. The short answer here is that, if you believe in science, you should neither believe that ghosts exist nor believe they don't exist. You should believe that there is enough scientific evidence that they don't exist but remain open to the possibility of their existence if proven otherwise.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the psychology behind ruminating on negative thoughts? A common feature of depression or anxiety. Thinking about sad thoughts or worrying almost feels good or addicting. Why is that when it obviously is bad and makes us feel worse?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically, we are programmmed to solve problems (problems involve negative thoughts/worrying/stress), it may seem paradoxical, but we even like it, a lot, because it helps us function in our life, it's beneficial for our survival as a species. If we participate in the process and solve the problem (get the desired result), our brains produce hormones that make us feel good and make us want to solve more problems. That's why it feels addicting. We even have more negative thoughts than positive, and remember negative experiences more vividly, because of the reason above (with the exception of traumatic experiences, because it's too overwhelming for a person to handle it properly). The problem is (pun intended), when it is too much, it becomes anxiety/depression. Hope this helps to clarify it :)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do you need a NASA lens to record candle lit scenes on film, yet the human eye is as small as a mobile phone camera and can see low lit scenes just fine?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Our brain is incredibly powerful and can 'compute' the dynamic range and the white balance of everything we see. Even the the most expensive sensors on the best cameras available today can't recreate the wide dynamic range our eyes do for us, at least not without combining multiple images. Example. When driving through a tunnel as you approach the end your eyes see fantastic detail in the tunnel around you, AND in the bright outside the tunnel in front of you. Now try taking a photo of that (passenger!!) and see that you either get detail in the tunnel and super overexposed outside, or detail outside and underexposed inside. One day cameras may reach this level but not for a long while.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Sci-fi / Fantasy] Why do warrior societies tend to have a "whoever kills the leader becomes the leader" rule? Why not something more pragmatic, like "whoever kills the leader's killer becomes the leader"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One thing that's usually hidden is the 'unspoken social contract' of how and when you can challenge someone to become leader. It isn't just that the leader was killed, it was that someone was bold enough, confident enough, and strong enough to actually do the challenge.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Spirits What is the difference between popular spirits such as whiskey, scotch, bourbon, and rum? Also when a scotch or whiskey is 'single malt', what does this mean?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a few basic differences. To make a spirit in the first place, you have to start with a base product. This can be a grain, as is the case with whiskey, or can be a fruit, such as grapes in brandy, or can be molasses from sugar cane, such as in the case of rum. Where you are in the world is likely going to dictate what base product you would use to make your booze. The next thing to consider is the type of still you're using for distillation. Some people like to use traditional copper pot stills, which give spirits kike Scotch or Bourbon a nice heavy, rich flavor. Other people, like vodka producers or Canadian whisky makers, like to use special column stills that specifically strip out as much flavor as possible, leaving only ethanol. The last major thing to take into account with spirits is the aging process. Many spirits are put into barrels to take on rich flavors over time. If this barrel is brand new and heavily charred on the inside, it will affect the distillate differently than a barrel that has previously been used for aging something else, like Sherry. Where the barrel is aged also affects flavor. A barrel will age more aggressively in a climate that changes from extreme hot to extreme cold, like Kentucky. Scotland is more moderate in temperature, so barrels there age more gracefully over long periods of time. "Single Malt" simply means that all the whiskey in your bottle came from the distillery on the label, vs. a blended Scotch, which could come from multiple distilleries in Scotland.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is a small amount of inflation considered "good" for an economy? I mean, it's pretty obvious why large amounts of inflation are bad. But it's much less intuitive why some amount of inflation is considered "good." Does that help money move around somehow? Or are people more motivated to spend because the value of their savings diminish over time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Small amounts of inflation are good for the economy because it encourages investment. If you have a large sum of cash, it's losing value every day (slowly, but it's still happening). If you want to make the most out of your money, you'll recognize that you need to to put into an investment fund of some sort so your stored cash doesn't lose value. Or you'll want to buy something with it, since given more time, the same item will be more expensive. Investments and purchases are needed to keep the economy churning. If deflation is occurring, then it's a good idea for you to sit on your big pile of money Scrooge McDuck style since it's because it's worth more every day. If everyone does this, the economy stagnates.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Exams should utilize multiple choice less often I mean the issue is that multiple choice oftentimes encourage students to cram, memorize and regurgitate rather then learn. In certain subjects multiple choice is fine when you cannot just come to the correct answer by guessing or using process of elimination (or by memorizing everything before the test and regurgitating it on the test). I feel that multiple choice tests doesn't necessarily measure how well you're learning as well as how deep you're learning. It does not necessarily tell you how well you're able to apply the info or to seen connections between pieces of information. It does not tell you whether or not you have the skill set of applying the info or to figure things out. All because you score well on a multiple choice test doesn't necessarily mean that you understood the information or actually learned the info well. Learning involves the ability to apply and see connections, or to have a deep understanding over the issue or else you aren't actually learning (instead you're just memorizing). So to sum it all up, it does not necessarily provide students a way of demonstrating their knowledge and what they're learning. It does not measure understanding, instead it measures memorization. Another issue is theirs's a higher chance that a person would be able to guess things correct based on intuition and process of elimination. For example a lot of multiple choice tests has only a limited amount of answers and the person could easily eliminate some of them due to how silly they are. Because of the limited amount of answers their's a higher chance for a person to guess something correct. Multiple choice tests also doesn't necessarily even measure how well you retain info, as sometimes you can answer a question correct with only a vague memory of something and the answers provided that you have to choose from may provide a hint to the true answer of the question. I think tests should be more short answer and analysis and less multiple choice.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Multiple choice is so that teachers can grade all the scores without being biased. With multiple choice you are either right or wrong, but with word problems the teacher could be strict or not, or the teacher could even be wrong. It also takes more time for the teacher to mark.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What was it like preparing your first semester's worth of lectures? I'm considering becoming a lecturer in the future, was wondering what it's like. Do you normally have to start from scratch when preparing for lectures? Or did you have a contact from whom you received some help? How long did it take?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The first time you teach a lecture course it is a huge amount of work. Multiple hours of preparation for every hour of lecture. This is the case even if you have some kind of textbook or other materials (e.g., someone else's lectures) to base it on, assuming you aren't just doing a complete copy-paste job (which makes for bad teaching). It's a major endeavor. After that, though, the preparation for subsequent years is much less — looking over, making some changes to what worked/didn't work (keep notes!), adding new things, etc. But there's no way around the fact that the first run take a lot of work, as it probably should: you're figuring out for yourself how you want this class to be, and even with the help of others that's going to be a lot of work.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What's the biological advantage of metamorphosis/pupating if the process is so energy-consuming (destroying the entire body in the pupa and rebuilding it again, rather than simply growing up) and vulnerable? Not to mention leaving the pupa immobile and completely vulnerable for long stretches of time. Why do almost all flying insects start as grubs, then mature to have wings, rather than just mature to have wings without pupating (like birds)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The caterpillar has low mobility and can focus on eating plant food, while the butterfly can live on nectar and because of its high mobility the offspring can be spread in a wider area. So a single specoes can benefit from two different niches.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:Anyone over 70 shouldn’t be able to run to president no matter the party CMV:Anyone over 70 shouldn’t be able to run to president no matter the party Sure they have life experiences but those life experience where in a completely different time so those life experiences are not worth as much and being that old can have so many other problems such as ability to make rational decision.The reasoning behind this is that being over 70 you had most of your life experiences when you were younger and in ur 30s,40s,50s which was 20,30,40 years ago the world was completely different back then so those life experiences are not of much value to you trying to be a president in the current times. While I don’t think a super young person like 20,30 should be able to be president we need people in there mid 40s,50s because they are still in touch with what’s going on in current times and can relate to the current public<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Consider a few things: 1. The experience of "time of life" is just as significant as when in history your time of life occurred. The 40 year old has absolutely no experience being a 50 year old, a 60 year old and so on. The 70 year old has at least experienced the world the 40 year old knows, but the 40 year old has never experienced _being_ 50,60 or 70. 2. "the current public" includes 70 year olds, doesn't it? 3. Only a very young person would see right now as "completely different" than 40 years ago. The 70 year old has perspective where they are able to see the commonalities across the time, apply failures and successes from what would be multiples of experience of the young person. There is _certainly_ more in common across these years than there is difference, but I'd not expect a young person to have the experience to see that :) 4. If this is true and you're compelling the voters should determine this, not a declaration. 5. We should take great evidence in the fact that young people tend to vote less. It's the 65+ group that votes the most. This alone tells us something about age and wisdom, certainly wtih regards to politics. But...hey...I'd happily cede the argument here if you could get younger people to vote. Political participation increases with age, nearly uniformly, so...one way to create the change you want is TO GET OUT AND VOTE.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: How did the Romans do complex mathematical calculations with Roman numerals and without using zero?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Romans mostly used math for practical purposes...accounting, construction, engineering. And Roman numerals don't have place meaning...an M is 1000 no matter where it is. As a result, they didn't really need an explicit zero. And addition, subtraction, and multiplication in Roman numerals isn't hard. Somewhat tedious if you're doing large values, but once you're used to it not really any worse than memorizing times tables (which you don't have to do for multiplying Roman numbers). Division does suck...but they had abacuses. And abacuses inherently do place-based numbers. So if you needed to do "heavy" math you'd just use an abacus and that takes care of most of what makes it look like it would suck if done by hand. Uncoincidentally, the Romans didn't do much with pure mathematics. But that wasn't what they were trying to do either.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why do probiotic supplements need to be taken daily? Surely if you are adding 1 - 50 billion new bacteria to your gut you shouldn't need to do this daily. How fast are they dying? Is it due to factors like high amounts of sugar, yeast and stress in people's lives that make it advisable to take a daily probiotic? Edit: Thank you all for your answers. It seems it is a much more contentious subject than I first thought.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your gut is a class that has a session everyday. Your native flora are the students that show up to class each day.; they all have their preferred seats, and they won’t give them up without an argument. The probiotics are the new kid; in order for him to earn a spot he has to be consistent. He has to show up at the right time and sit in the right place, maybe taking a seat from someone who has been slacking on attendance. Your gut flora is well established, taking advantage of every niche. In order for a new species to take hold it has to ~~overpower~~ slide in next to the present bacteria, and that won’t happen with just one day’s dose of probiotic<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If plants are constantly exposed to the sun, why don't they develop cancer? Is there something special about plant cells that shields them radiation that is harmful to humans? It it possible for a plant to "develop cancer" or any sort of harmful mutation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plants do develop cancer. But their lack of a circulatory system makes cancer not very harmful to plants. Note that, in humans, cancer is usually only deadly when it is able to spread through the bloodstream and start growing in many sensitive areas of the body at once (such as the brain). In plants, cancer just manifests as a local growth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Being a 16th or 17th century style polymath is difficult to impossible, but interdisciplinary studies are basically required at this point. Where do you draw the line between compsci, biology, and chemistry in genetics? Where is the line between biology, chemistry, and psychology when you're working in neuroscience? Toss in some physics for flavoring when you're talking about acoustics, or fMRI, or...<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If science can now produce cuts of beef with a small tissue sample from a living cow, why can’t we also produce transplant organs from human tissue? Also, how far away from that technology are we, in your estimation?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Producing meat (basically growing muscle) is a much easier process than producing other functional organs due to complexities of the organs. But that area is being actively researched and developed. We are expected to be able to grow organs in forseeable future as well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do some species use copper to transport oxygen through their blood while most other species use iron? I'm under the impression that copper is less efficient at transporting oxygen, so why don't all animals use iron instead? Did some just never evolve to be able to use iron even though it would actually be better for them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So, this is a very abbreviated explanation, but you have to think of it in terms of evolutionary problem solving. Life finds new answers to new problems all the time in evolution, and this is a great example. Consider that the main disadvantage to hemocyanin is that it does not bind the oxygen as effectively or plentifully, so it's just not as effective as hemoglobin. Hemocyanin also performs better in colder, less oxygen-rich environments, like the oceans. The groupings of creatures that use molecules other than hemoglobin to transport oxygen through tissues are much more primitive, and their bodies are much smaller (which is a big part of it). Hemocyanin is less efficient, but in a small body that doesn't have far to transport stuff, it can work just as well as hemoglobin. They don't need to evolve using hemoglobin, hemocyanin works fine for their use case. Hemocyanin users are also cold-blooded, so they tend to just need less oxygen in general because they're not thermoregulating. They are not lacking anything by using hemocyanin because it works perfectly for their life history. Hemoglobin is something that evolved to solve two issues unique to vertebrates: thermoregulation and being big. Thermoregulation is a problem particularly in mammals; they expend energy and oxygen warming their bodies, therefore they need more oxygen to reliably reach their tissues. Hemoglobin is the answer to that problem. The other thing to consider is that a blue crab only needs the oxygen to make it a matter of inches, so the binding between the oxygen molecule and the metalloprotein does not need to be that strong. In a blue whale, the oxygen may need to reliably be transported hundreds of feet, so we need hemoglobin, to which oxygen bonds much more strongly, to make sure that happens. So yeah, animals using hemocyanin are not at any disadvantage because they don't NEED hemoglobin to meet their oxygen needs. For a smaller, cold-blooded creature hemocyanin is more than enough. Hemoglobin is necessary for animals that have a much higher oxygen demand and potentially a much farther oxygen transport distance. And just for fun, hemoglobin (red blood) and hemocyanin (blue blood) are not the only options out there. There's also Chlorocruorins, used in many annelids which makes the deoxygenated blood green, vanabins in sea squirts that use vanadium as the metal binder (it doesn't work very well), and coboglobins which appear yellow (there's a few more, but those are the fun-colored ones). There is also a group of fish called cod icefish which live in environments so cold and so-oxygen rich that they don't use any oxygen transport proteins at all, so their "blood" is clear. But yeah, everything evolves to solve a new problem, and hemocyanin users have no need for hemoglobin, and hemoglobin users could never survive using hemocyanin. One is not "better" than another, they're just different use cases.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When there has been no rain & all the plants you want to keep around are dying, why do weeds thrive? Could we not "breed" that hardiness into our flowers & such?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For the plants that matter, like ones we eat, that kind of hardiness usually works against large yields. We need plants to perform very well and grow quickly to feed all of us. Weeds survive because they don't grow juicy fruit, or large edible roots. They just devote their all to... weedlike growth.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come when you have an upset stomach, it’s looser or watery stool? You would think things are being digested less, leading to solid in, solid out. I’m sure there is a lot more too it. However, why would something spending less time in your stomach lead to it being more broken down? It also seems that the more upset your stomach, the more rapid and liquified your BM is.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A lot of water is added to the food you eat during the initial parts of digestion. Saliva, stomach acid, and the small intestine all add liquid to the food. The large intestine is where the water is absorbed back into the body, and that takes time. If you're sick, the body doesn't want whatever made you sick to stay in your system, so it gets sent out faster than normal, so there isn't time to absorb that fluid back.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How can anthropogenic climate change (global warming) cause the earth to dry up when more water becomes part of the hydrologic cycle as ice caps and glaciers melt? I thought that the earth was more dry than it is now during the last ice age when more water was trapped in ice caps and glaciers and wetter during times when there was no permanent ice. edit. I've seen predictions of the earth becoming drier with larger deserts due to climate change.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It would be easier to address the individual predictions- but while there may be a larger total amount of water in the surface oceans and greater surface area of water on the planet due to inundating low-lying coastal areas, the distribution of water may change in ways that greatly enlarge existing deserts and create more dry areas, especially in tropical and subtropical latitudes. Climate is a dynamic system- as we add heat and water, ocean current and wind patterns may shift, changing precipitation patterns, rainfall, and local climates. The Sahara, Kalahari, Taklamakan, Gobi, and other deserts would likely expand. The disruption of the monsoon could massively dry out much of southern Asia. Central Africa could dry out as well. However, other areas might see increased precipitation- while we can make predictions with some confidence, it is difficult to know exactly which effects will dominate in which areas, and how they will fully interact. Nevertheless, it is very easy to imagine a drier, more arid world with larger deserts despite a greater total volume of water in the water cycle- the problem is simply disruption of existing climate patterns causing the water to move elsewhere, destroying local biomes, agriculture, and making it much harder for people to live in those regions.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How are LED Bulbs of different Brightness/ Wattage made ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant An LED works by making electrons give up a certain amount of energy when they cross the diode. That determines the wavelength of light that is emitted. Every electron that passes through means that a photon will be emitted. If you want more photons, you need more electrons, for more electrons you need more power (higher wattage). Now you can't just take an LED and force more power through it, or else you'll burn it out, so if you want to make one rated for a higher wattage, you need it to be built to allow more electrons through. It's like a pipe, if you build it to hold more water, more water can pass through it, but if you over fill it, it will burst. A simple explanation, how "long" an LED is determines the color, and how wide it is determines the brightness.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: It would be benificial to start using the term 'GSM' instead of continually adding to the classic 'LGBT' EDIT: Thanks for the replies, everyone. My view isn't changed yet, because while there are some issues with the acronym GSM, I don't think they outweigh the growing problem of inclusiveness in the term LGBT+. Additionally, as I felt like I wasn't clear on this, but I feel that adding to LGBT+ makes it difficult to "advertise" because it alienates and makes it, admittedly, seem like every group is being pandered to individually. EDIT 2: I feel like I've been unclear with this, but the way I would very specifically proposer introducing this term is to sparingly use the full term to help provide context, and then use the acronym to refer to the idea. My goal wouldn't exactly to eclipse the usage of 'LGBT' in a short period of time, but rather push towards using an end-all term to group together people with common goals/who are commonly oppressed. A new acronym isn't simply used without context, it's used to shorten up an already established idea. I don't think of GSM as an acronym, I see it as a change in descriptor to point more directly to the goals. EDIT 3: As stated below, SGM (Sexual and Gender minorities) curbs the problem of GSM already being popularized through cell phones. So that's, in my mind, not really a valid reason anymore. Sorry :( EDIT 4: I awarded a delta to SanityInAnarchy for a post that immediately made it clear that I was already excluding a group in my proposed solution. While adding to LGBT might not be good, on it's own it seems effective right now. Good night! Hello denizens of CMV. I've been lurking around LGBT spaces online for a while now, being a trans woman and all. I've not been involved much in LGBT spaces in real life, but I've been planning to at the start of my current school year (now that I'm presenting female full-time). My main belief/view is that it is probably harmful to continue adding to the 'LGBT' acronym. For example, my university's pride office uses the term 'LGBTQPIA2+' to refer to GSMs (Gender and Sexual minorities). For those not in the know, that's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transexual, Queer/Questioning, Pansexual, Intersex, Ally/Asexual, Two-Spirited, and more. I think justice and awareness for all these groups is extremely important. Whether it's regarding bisexual erasure, anti-trans violence, coercive assignment of intersex people, and the media confusion (locally anyway, in northern Ontario) regarding two-spirited people. And obviously, that all goes far beyond gay marriage. But there's a big difference between LGBT and LGBTQPIA2+. One of these acronyms is extremely effective for communicating what you're talking about, and the other looks like a mess. And while constant usage of the latter will eventually make that problem go away, if another group needs to be included for awareness reasons, we're back at square one. However, using 'Gender and Sexual minorities' is automatically inclusive of anyone who might be a victim of the problems that LGBT people face. Additionally, it's much easier to include further groups. This is why I think the usage of GSM to refer to these groups is a much better way to communicate what any of these groups might be persecuted for, whether locally or worldwide. As a side note, some people claim that the term GSM might be too inclusive of people who are into BDSM and the like. What's the problem with this? Awareness for any group is a good thing if it's used to curb public opinion towards a more positive light. So anyway, Change my view! _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In addition to what others have said, GSM is an important acronym in another area. Particularly, it is the acronym used for the main cell phone technology in the world, the Global System for Mobile communications. Because GSM is a widely used acronym already, it will create confusion because people will think you're talking about cell phones.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why, when I have a cold, is my nose stuffy when I'm sitting down, but clears up when I'm walking?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It helps to explain the source of the stuffiness: blood capillaries that are leaky and cause the sinus tissues to swell and "stuff" your nose. When you become active (like walking), your sympathetic (fight or flight) nervous system becomes slightly activated and some epinephrine (adrenaline) is released into the blood stream. This epinephrine works to constrict blood vessels and raise your blood pressure. The blood vessel constriction in your nose stops the capillaries from leaking so much, and the swelling in your nasal tissues decreases. This also helps explain why your nose gets more stuffy when you lie down, because it increases the blood flow to your nose, and the capillaries leak. Leaky vessels + blood pooling there => nasal congestion. If you're congested, sleep sitting up to help clear your nose. Pseudoephedrine is a common medication that stimulates the blood vessels to constrict and stop being leaky, which explains why it works as a decongestant.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The concept of gender is irrelevant. I'll start by laying out my thoughts and please correct me anywhere I am wrong. I know I have a lot to learn about this topic and I would really appreciate if someone could show me why and where my thinking is wrong if it is. From what I understand: gender and sex are different. Sex is grouped into male, female, and sometimes intersex, and is determined entirely by biology. Chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, and the like. Gender on the other hand, exists on a spectrum and is determined by a person's internal relationship to their sex and the degree to which they conform to cultural stereotypes and expectations for their sex. I understand that gender dysphoria is a real thing and that it must suck to feel completely alienated from your body and society's expectations of how you should act because of your sex. I also am hugely in favor in transgender rights and I would never want to take away basic human dignity and liberty from anyone. That being said, it is not physically possible to change sexes. A woman has a uterus. A male has a Y chromosome. It is just not possible to physically change your sex. If that gets me downvotes or is a point of contention in any way, seriously people have lost their minds. That should not be controversial. This is not hate speech and I am tired of being labeled as a bigot for saying that. That is part of the reason I made this post. I really am trying to understand the other side but there are just some things I can't get down with like the outright denial of biological fact followed by accusations of bigotry. If you still reading, thank you, but the difficult part is not over yet. It's about to get worse. I know how terrible this may sound to people and I really want my mind changed so I can understand this topic, but as it is now I have just learned to shut my mouth when this comes up. Here it is: I believe that transgenderism is a delusional state of mind and it makes no sense whatsoever to me the degree to which it is accepted, respected, and encouraged. No matter how much a person who is a biological male wants to believe he is a female, he is not. No matter what modifications he makes to his body, he is not a female. I will call him/her their preferred pronoun, I will respect him/her, because that is the polite and kind thing to do. I will not judge him or her based off of this. But really I cannot understand how things got to this point where we openly accept and encourage a literal delusion. To me it is identical to a white person believing they are black and then trying to act like a black person and color their skin. That is horrifically unacceptable but somehow gender transformations have become mainstream. I would really appreciate an explanation of how transgenderism is OK but transracialism isn't. I fully accept transgender people and their rights. If that is what they have to do to be happy, I am all for it. I love them and respect them the same as I would anyone else. But really I just do not get it. Here's another thing I don't get which ties into the title of this post. Gender is a cultural construct, it exists on a spectrum, therefore there are a myriad of gender identities on this spectrum one can have. But you know what else is a cultural construct? Nearly everything humans do. I do not understand the hyperfocus that has been applied to this one aspect of human relations in our culture. Let's take an example. In some cultures, eating meat is forbidden. In others, it is a staple of the diet. You could now say that eating or not eating meat exists on a socially constructed spectrum. Another example: some societies encourage alcohol, music, and dancing, and others forbid these activities. If I enjoy these activities more or less than the cultural mainstream, am I now given an identity on a spectrum? Some cultures have tight familial connections and some do not, do these traits exist on a spectrum that is worth discussing the same way we discuss gender identity and the gender spectrum? In every culture there will be a mainstream expectation of behavior for a group of people and there will be people who conform to that expectation and people who do not. This is a huge concept and is not confined just to gender. That's not to say that the concept of gender isn't worth talking about, it definitely is, but I feel like when we do that we often are prone to forgetting that social constructs stretch way beyond gender. Gender expectations change across time in the very same cultures. I do not understand why gender has become such a paramount topic of conversation today. Thank you if you read this all the way through. I would appreciate any and all feedback someone can give me. I do not want to be interpreted as a bigot. If I am unconsciously a bigot, I would like to know about it. And I'll reiterate: someone please explain how transgenderism is different from transracialism. If I can get that then I can at least do away with the most offensive of my beliefs. Thank you.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Just like doctors assign your sex depending on your genitals at birth, so too do you get assigned a gender and socialized as such at birth. Gender dysphoria comes from a misalignment with the gender assignment, not the sex assignment. No one is trying to change their sex, a trans man will continue to have the chromosomes of a biological women. What they are trying to change is their gender. Yes, gender is a meaningless construct like race, but also like race, it determines a great deal about how people treat you and how you're expected to interact with others. It gets hyper-focus because it determines so much about your social interactions that you're probably blind to if you haven't experienced gender dysphoria. So by changing their physical appearance and taking hormones, they're going from one gender to another. Gender reassignment surgery (changing your genitals) is just another way that trans people can better fit the gender the feel more comfortable. You're conflating sex with gender.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How much (aesthetically) will a child from one sperm vary from another? In other words, of the millions (billions?) of sperm in the firehouse, how close in appearance would a child conceived between two sperm in the same.....load.....be if 1st and 2nd place to the egg were swapped. Got curious from the sperm over/underproduction ELI5.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a variety of factors that would effect the phenotype (physical traits) of a child from sperm to sperm. The most obvious one is of course that they could become either male or female. The next factor is the chromosomes they get from the father. There are 23 sets of chromosomes, two per set. This gives you 2^23 (~9 million) possible chromosome combinations that can be present in the sperm (including the variation of sex). Finally, there is a process called recombination, in which parts of chromosomes in a set will swap, leading to further variation. This gives huge variability to the inherited traits from a father from sperm to sperm.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Math as synthetic a priori I just had my first lecture on Kant. My teacher of course talked about the synthetic a priori, but only went on to talk about it in regard to Kant's description of space and time. I remember reading about Kant asserting that synthetic a priori knowledge also presents in the form of math, for example. My teacher stated during the lecture that math is analytic a priori, as David Hume claims. I stayed behind after the lesson and asked him about it, but he didn't seem to agree that math can be viewed as a synthetic a priori. Doesn't Kant indeed say that math IS synthetic a priori, and if so, is that view accepted in contemporary philosophy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For Kant, mathematical judgments have an intrinsic connection to space and time. He thinks of math as involving geometry and arithmetic, and the basis of geometry being the quantity we apprehend as extension in space while the basis of arithmetic is the quantity we apprehend as extension in time. Accordingly, for Kant the question about the nature of math's bases becomes the question about the nature of our apprehension of the quantities of spatial and temporal extension. So, on the basis of taking space and time to have an a priori source he infers that mathematics has an a priori source. But the nature of this a priori source, on his view, is not merely one of recognizing the content of concepts we already possess (like when we judge that a bachelor is unmarried), but rather has its basis in our capacity to synthesize spatial or temporal extension in order to arrive at propositions describing geometric or arithmetic quantities. So, by taking mathematical judgments to be acts of syntheses involved our apprehension of space and time, he takes them to be synthetic a priori. I don't think that there's any consensus about the foundations of mathematical judgments these days; it was a heated dispute in the early twentieth century. On one hand, there was definitely opposition to this Kantian account, which argued in favor of an analytic a priori basis for math, and this has had a wide influence on how philosophers think of mathematics. On the other hand, one of the major proposals during the crisis about math's foundations, which remains a significant though minority interest among people working in this area, was deliberately modeled after Kant's view, which was articulated in a systematic way as a basis for thinking about and doing (it had some consequences for how math is done) mathematics--this is Brouwer's "intuitionism."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA: Hi, I'm Stacy Konkiel, ex-librarian and expert on research metrics. Since 2008, I've worked at the intersection of Open Science, altmetrics, and academic library services with teams at Impactstory, Indiana University , PLOS, and now Altmetric. AMA! Hi, I am Stacy Konkiel, Outreach & Engagement Manager at Altmetric, and I’m here to talk about whether the metrics and indicators we like to rely upon in science (impact factor, altmetrics, citation counts, etc) to understand “broader impact” and “intellectual merit” are actually measuring what we purport they measure. I’m not sure they do. Instead, I think that right now we’re just using rough proxies to understand influence and attention, and that we’re in danger of abusing the metrics that are supposed to save us all--altmetrics--just like science has done with the journal impact factor. But altmetrics and other research metrics don’t have to be Taylorist tools of control. I love the promise they hold for scientists who want to truly understand how their research is truly changing the world. I especially appreciate the fact that newer metrics allow the “invisible work” that’s being done in science (the data curators, the software developers, etc) can be recognized on its standalone merits, rather than as a byproduct of the publication process. That’s been my favorite part of working for Altmetric and, previously, Impactstory--that I can help others to better value the work of grad students, librarians, data scientists, etc. Today, I want to talk about better measuring research impact, but I’m also open to taking other relevant questions. There will also be some live tweeting from @Altmetric and @digitalsci and questions using the #askstacyaltmetric hashtag. I will be back at 1 pm EDT (6 pm BST, 5 pm UTC, 10 am PDT) to answer questions, AMA! UPDATE: THAT WAS A WHIRLWIND OF DATA! THANKS FOR JOINING I'LL BE ANSWERING MORE OF YOUR QUESTIONS OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS! I'M OFF TO GET A DONUT! ...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >I especially appreciate the fact that newer metrics allow the “invisible work” that’s being done in science (the data curators, the software developers, etc) can be recognized on its standalone merits, rather than as a byproduct of the publication process. Could you please elaborate a bit here? In addition to publication counts, what are some other specific criteria/indicators that you use to quantify the impact of such work?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do buffets stay in business? It seems that people who eat a $5 buffet usually consume more than $5 of food. Why don't the buffets lose money?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the food service industry, most of the costs aren't food costs, but rather operational ones. Electricity, rent, and the big one: payroll. Buffets, being self service, are able to cut down on the cost of employees, as they don't have to hire servers. They can cut down (somewhat) on cooks because they're not cooking to order. In exchange is a minor increase in food costs. Further, most buffets will buy lower quality food (the ones that offer higher quality food tend to be more expensive than $5), which makes a difference, but not as much of one as most people think. Really, though, the big one is payroll. Not paying waiters makes a huge difference.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: More students should fail high school. - http://m.imgur.com/POAeQNS I put together this graph to illustrate a gap. Above you see a random sample of graduation rates. I just wiki'ed an alphabetical list of CA high schools. Graduation rates are high Below you see results from the states Early Assessment Program (EAP). The EAP tests Juniors on college readiness. You see those scores in the toilet. For instance, my school just got an award for our high graduation rate from the State's Superintendent. It's at 97%. However, our EAP result for math sits at 8%. 8% of students are proficient in algebra 2. - the argument not all kids should go to college. Okay...the first two years of college are high school level material; just faster, with a higher Lexile, and no high school supports. It's what high schoolers should know if there wasn't this culture of coddling supports. - direct kids to the trades....okay. We ignore that many trades are requiring greater levels of education. Auto shop works on internal combustion engines. They need to learn about electric motors and computer brain boxes. Plumbers use algebra, and you should see the number of kids who fail basic algebra as Juniors.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think it is important to talk about the signaling model of education in this context. Most employers don't care too too much about the specifics of what you learn in school. Some basics like literacy are certainly important, but a lot of stuff (European History) is not. A high school diploma doesn't just say whether you learned stuff; it is an important signal of conformism and willingness to jump through arbitrary hoops. Most jobs involve a lot of conformism and arbitrary hoops. Showing you graduated high school or college indicates you are willing to conform and jump through hoops, which is very important to a lot of employers. So in this sense, you're not really going through the process to learn specific knowledge or skills, but rather to demonstrate that you're the sort of person who will put up with this sort of stuff and still show up and put in enough effort to get a job done.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is happening when something gets "sun bleached"? For example, they say the flag the US planted on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission should be all white now due to "sun bleaching" what physics is happening here?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ultraviolet rays cause damage over time, leading to breaking down the actual molecules of ink/dye/paint/etc that give something it's colour. Eventually all of the colour molecules are broken into smaller pieces and all colour is lost.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why some south american plants produce curare alkaloids, if those alkaloids are not absorbed via GI route and are only effective via parenteral injection?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Alkaloids are most commonly produced to protect the plant from parasites or animals eating the plant, but can have other roles as well (it's not a well settled question, in part because there are a LOT of different alkaloids). It's not uncommon for alkaloids to have very different effects depending on what species ingests them - we see this with cocoa, for example, which is fine for human consumption but poison for cats and dogs. I don't know the original biological role of curare alkaloids, but it's possible the organisms they're protecting against do not have the same barrier we do in the GI tract preventing the poison from entering the body (into the blood or hemolymph or whatever is relevant for the organism). Or the plant may just be relying on the alkaloid tasting bad, even if it isn't actually poisonous for the animals.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I don't think being against gay marriage necessarily makes you a bigot. This is how Merriam Webster defines bigots: >a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group Over the past five years, gay marriage supporters have very successfully branded the opposition as bigots, intolerant and worse words. I support gay marriage (and am gay if that matters) but I don't believe that you're a bigot just because you're against gay marriage. True, they want to force their views on others, butt... Forcing you're point of view on large groups of people is what the democratic party is all about. I'm 25. I haven't needed to go to the doctor since I was 14. Do I have the legal right to simply not pay for health insurance that I never use? Nope. Because someone forced their view on me through legislation for the greater good. If you believe gay marriage should be outlawed for the greater good, that doesn't make you a bigot. Because just because you're against gay marriage doesn't mean you don't accept gay people. Don't get me wrong, if you're screaming "god hates fags" at funerals then you're a bigot, but that doesn't represent most people against gay marriage. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Find me a single reason to oppose gay marriage that is logically consistent, whose requirements the opposers of are equally adamant and determined to be applied to straight couples, and whose basis actually reflects reality. Do that and I'll admit that there are people who oppose gay marriage for reasons other than bigotry. At the core of the opposition to gay marriage is that we should not extend the same rights, responsibilities and privileges that we (straight folk) enjoy. In other words, a refusal to accept gays as full fledged citizens.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user None of my internship interviews ask technical questions... Is this a bad sign for me? On the internship hunt... and during interviews, I'm seemingly asked none, if not very small technical questions. I've had four different interviews, for positions such as Application Developer intern, Software Engineer intern, ect. and technical questions just don't come up. The only questions I've gotten was in one of them, I was asked what SQL does (Manipulates a database) and to write Hello World in Java (Glad my leetcode grind paid off here ya know) &#x200B; Just had another Software Engineering intern interview today, and again just no technical questions. Obviously some questions on some of the school projects and languages I'm familiar with, but other than that they've been purely behavior based. &#x200B; Is this the norm? I've been studying O-O concepts and leetcode grinding like crazy for every interview and I've never been asked anything like this<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For internship and new grad interviews, this is more common. Mainly because not every company does the leetcode-style type interviews since many companies use these moreso to filter out a huge pool of candidates. But also without much experience, candidates are usually screened by just measuring how well this person could be to work with and mentor at this stage in their career.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do seasonal changes in weather make everyone sick? I used to work in a pharmacy and every significant change in weather opened the floodgates of sickness: coughs, colds, runny noses, etc. Why? Also, what's the best thing to do to prevent or stop it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Certain viruses and bacteria spread and multiply better in different conditions. People haven't been exposed to these diseases in months and thus may not have a high level of resistance, although they will likely build up a resistance by the end of the season. Also, changing weather results in changes in human activity. People are more likely to go outside when it gets warm out, where they're exposed to pollen and other allergens (seasonal allergies are often mistaken for colds). When it gets cold out, people tend to stay inside in close contact with everyone else, which allows for easier spread of diseases. Another point is that heating and cooling systems are turned on, and if they haven't been cleaned they can have buildups of allergens like dust or mold growing in them. As far as prevention goes, the most reliable advice would be to practice good hand washing (including before meals whenever possible), get plenty of sleep (as a lack of sleep can weaken the immune system), and take allergy medication if you get any seasonal allergies.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do insurance rates go up after a car accident? Isn't that like casinos raising their house edge because you won? Having insurance is like paying early for damages you assume you will have, right? Like a bet. It's not like you stop paying insurance once your total payments exceed the coverage, so why do they get to ~~raisin~~ raise the cost? It's like you're betting, and when you happen to win the insurers just change the rules so they still win.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Insurance is priced based on risk. If you live in an area with lots of tornadoes, you obviously will need to pay higher rates for that home insurance against tornadoes because the company is more likely to have to pay out your claim than if you lived elsewhere. If you are involved in an accident, you become more of a risk. It's not just that they're trying to recover their costs, but also that you've identified yourself as someone more likely to be involved in an accident, for whatever reason (maybe you suck at driving, maybe you live in an area with lots of sucky drivers, maybe you drive only on days where everyone sucks at driving, etc etc). The company can't get so detailed as to identify the reason exactly, but it knows that drivers who are in an accident tend to also be in other accidents. It goes away after awhile, though. 3 years, usually. The price drops as you get older, because older drivers tend to be safer (well older in the context from 18 vs 30).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do lions live in prides if cats in general are solitary animals? EDIT: Wow, was not expecting so many responses! This is probably a separate question altogether, but every pride I've seen in a nature documentary has one male and a bunch of females. Does that mean that there a whole lot of single males roaming the savannah? Or do these males necessary get killed off by other dominant males? Seems like that would create a bit of a gene pool situation, no?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They are different species which have evolved different patterns of behavior. Those behaviors persist because they are successful. A pride of lions, for instance, can bring down prey that would be difficult or impossible for a single lion to bring down. Your house cat is not descended from a lion, or vice versa, though they share a common ancestor. I will note, however, that cats do congregate into groupings at times, so called feral cat colonies, depending upon the availability of food.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Volts, watts, amps, and how they work together<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you compare electricity to water, it works out like this: Voltage is pressure Amperage is amount of water per second Resistance is the size of the hose Wattage is the spraying power, which is the result of multiplying the pressure by the amount of water We can increase the voltage / water pressure one of two ways: 1) We can decrease the size of the hose (increase the resistance) and keep the same amount of water per second (amperage) 2) We can increase the amount of water per second (amperage) and keep the same sized hose (same resistance) We can increase the amperage / amount of water one of two ways: 1) We can increase the size of the hose (decrease the resistance) and keep the same amount of pressure (voltage) 2) We can increase the pressure (voltage) and keep the same sized hose. (same resistance) We can increase the wattage / spraying power by increasing pressure (voltage), water per second (amperage), or both.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [WH40K] So what was the plan after humanity took over the galaxy? What did the Emperor have planned once humans took over the entire galaxy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Guide the natural evolution of humanity to a point where they would all be as individually powerful as he was. The Primarchs and the Emperor are genetic blips that show humanity what its own future contains.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What use are coaches of top tier athletes like Federer or Tiger Woods? What can the coach say or do to improve their game?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You don't always need to be better than someone (do you think Coach K at Duke can beat any of his players 1 on 1) at a sport to coach them, you observe them to see flaws in their game (amateurs watching TV--especially with slow motion replays can usually spot areas that require improvement). Also, a coach can focus on competition reconnaissance and strategy, allowing the athlete to focus purely on practice.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does car insurance work and why it is mandatory to have it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The legal minimum is liability insurance. Since it's very easy to cause hundreds of thousands of dollars of harm to someone else, states usually require you have some way of paying any damages in such a situation. The preferred way is an insurance plan: you pay an insurer a monthly/annual amount and they agree to cover most of any claims you are responsible for paying in the event of an accident you cause.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:If humans were to ever come in contact with colours beyond our colour receptive cones, what will we see ? An ordinary human possesses 3 colour receptive cones, while a mantis shrimp has 16. If we, humans, were to ever come into contact with the remaining 13 colours that the shrimps have access to. Would we see those colours like how a colourblind individual would see certain colours ? otherwise, what would we see ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We come into contact with "colors" beyond our color receptive cones everyday. Your eyes are only able to pick up on certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, this is what we see as light. If the wavelengths are shorter (like x-rays) or longer (like radio waves) then you simply won't be able to see them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Continental Philosophy at an undergraduate level? I apologize if this is not really the focus of the sub, but I'm very curious about studying Philosophy at an undergraduate level and how all that works. I'm more interested in Continental Philosophy, but what I've heard is that undergraduate philosophy courses are more about logic and the basics. How possible is it to focus on Continental Philosophy at an undergraduate level? And is there a resource somewhere that details which schools lean Continental or Analytic? Or would that only talk about graduate programs? Thanks<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are lots of programs that are strong in Continental thought. This is particularly but not solely the case when it comes to Jesuit universities (anything called “Loyola” is likely to have a decent set of Continental faculty members). Also keep in mind that you can often find people doing Continental philosophy in other departments, particularly literature programs, Romance Studies, German departments, as well as cultural anthropology and sociology, Usually a school that is predominantly Analytic will also have at least one person who works on Continental thought, too.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why doesn't market competition drive down the cost of healthcare in the US?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is a bit disingenuous to answer that question without first acknowledging that there is not much of a functional market in healthcare provision in the United States. We wouldn't expect competition to be very robust.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] How do the Sith meditate? I know Darth Vader would meditate while in his Bacta tank, and Sidious and Plagueis both used Force meditation to offset the need for sleep, but what are they actually doing there? Meditation calms you down, and that’s pretty against the Sith philosophy.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sith meditate a little differently than Jedi. Generally there's two types of meditation: Mindfulness and Insight. The goal of mindfulness is to focus on one thing and let it fill your mind, removing any and all distractions. This is a very simplistic summary, but it's enough to explain the differences. Jedi love this one (eg let the force move through you and whatnot). The goal of insight is to reflect on your past and yourself, using it to help define your goals and shape who you are as a person. Again, simplistic, but helps illustrate the differences. Sith love insight meditation, instead of focusing on bettering themselves they focus on their hate. Of course, both the Jedi and Sith can and do use both types, but their own variations to help connect them to their preferred connection to the Force. But they do generally have a preference. Sith use their hatred to fuel and increase their connection to the dark side and insight meditation is a very useful tool in molding and reshaping your hatred and keeping you focused on your goal When Darth Vader is in the bacta, he's not clearing his mind, he's remembering the pain of betrayal from his order, the heat against his bare flesh as he lay dying on Mustafar, and the death of his wife and how powerless he was to stop it. He endlessly reignites his hatred for weakness and Jedi.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't natural anti-bacterial substances, eg. garlic, contribute to resistance like antibiotic drugs do? There is a lot of concern these days about the prevalence and over-use of chemical antibiotics causing resistant strains of bacteria. This is pretty easy to grasp, considering the reproduction rate of bacteria. However, many anti-bacterial substances have been around in nature for a long time - foods such as [garlic](http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/mdd/v05/i04/html/04news4.html) and materials like [copper](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_properties_of_copper). Why haven't these natural substances not caused bacterial resistance in the same way our drugs do, especially considering they've been out there killing bacteria for a very, very long time?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The answer to this question is actually a bit complex and has more to do with the different properties of an antibiotic (e.g. penicillin) vs a material with anti-microbial activities (i.e. copper, bleach, >50% ethanol, hydrogen peroxide). An antimicrobial substance kills bacterial because it has chemical properties that make it inhospitable to life. For instance, hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizing agent that will react with biological compounds to render them inert. Copper is a metal with a high redox potential that will complex with organic compounds in such a way as to disrupt their chemical activity. These compounds damage ANY life-form, not just bacteria. There is literally no way for a bacteria to become "resistant" to these compounds in the same sense as it would to an antibiotic. While there are some bacteria (dubbed extremophiles) that can live in harsh environments containing these normal anti-microbial substances, they have only accomplished this by completely altering their metabolism to cope, and sometimes utilize, the chemical activity of these compounds. Antibiotics by contrast are far more specific in their microbe-killing ability. Penicillin for instance disrupts the bacterial cell wall, making it less able to separate itself from its environment and defend itself from our immune system. Penicillin has no effect on humans, or any Eukaryotes for that matter (the biologic kingdom apart from all bacteria). Other antibiotics work by disrupting other vital systems specific to bacteria, for instance their mechanism of building proteins. Because antibiotics are so specific to disrupting one essential part of a bacterium's metabolism they work at far lower concentrations than an anti-microbial and can be safely given to infected people without fear that there will be too many side effects. On the other hand, it also means that all a bacterium has to do to become resistant to an antibiotics is mutate that key part of it's metabolism that the antibiotic disrupts, maybe just enough so the antibiotic can no longer chemically bind to it. Alternatively the bacteria can begin expressing an efflux pump that just pumps foreign toxins like antibiotics out of it's cytoplasm. It does not require a dramatic change in the way the pathogenic bacteria operates to become resistant to an antibiotic, whereas becoming resistant to an anti-microbial substance takes millions of years of careful evolution. tl;dr: Anti-microbials are like napalm, they destroy all biologic compounds and are not specific to bacteria. Antibiotics are like smart bombs that target certain pathways and can thus resistance develops when that pathway is altered or the toxin is neutralized.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the offbeat in music feel so good to snap to?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's two different ways we can answer this: historically and psychologically. In a bar of music, you usually have 4 beats: 1234. This repeats over and over to make a song. In most modern rock music, beats 1 and 3 feature a bass drum, or low heavy note, and a snare or cymbal on beats 2 and 4 to give us an idea of tempo. Historically, this pattern that makes up rock music has it's roots in the slave tradition. American rockabilly and boogie woogie beats (precursors to rock and roll) came from a mix of western instrumentation and African rhythms. That's why it feels "lame" to clap on beats 2 and 4 to a classical symphony which predates rock. Psychologically, the reason we like to snap on beats 2 and 4 is because we are participating in a "call and response" with the beat. Downbeat on 1, respond on 2, downbeat on 3, respond on 4. It's like a little minigame for your brain. There is some speculation that the reason we like this game so much is because it developed as a means for humans to work menial labor jobs together in rhythm. Whacking grain to make flour was hard work alone, so you need 2 people doing it at once. How do you alternate whacks to ensure you don't hit each other? Play a rhythm game!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In many models, dark matter WIMPs are their own anti-particles. How are they expected to generate photons on annihilation if they have no coupling to the EM field?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Via loop processes or intermediate particles. An example that we have observed is the Higgs decay to two photons. The Higgs doesn't couple to photons directly (they don't have mass and the Higgs doesn't have an electric charge) but both couple to top and W.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Prison is actually harmful to both the inmate and society. Most argue that we should lengthen prison sentences and go harder on crime as a way to protect society from rapists, muderers, drug dealers, ect. The reality is quite the contrary. Many don't realize how traumatic prison is. All freedoms stripped from inmates: removed from family, reputation and career destroyed, no respinsibilities, forced to eat only processed and packaged food, abused by officers authority, in constant fear of being assaulted by other inmates, unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, surrounded by drug abuse, violence and bad behavior... It will absolutely ruin a person's life and cause them to leave prison even more hateful towards society and authority than they might have been before they came. Your tax dollars support this. How do you imagine 5... 10... 20 years of prison will effect a person who has served their time and been released back into society? They may leave prison with a drug addiction they didn't previously have, be rejected by society, unable to find work and filled with rage from the abuse. They may never be able to reacclimate and they have a 76.6% chance of committing another crime and returning to prison. http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx Recitivism rates are extremely high due to this broken system. Prisons are incorrectly refered to as "rehabilitation centers" or "correction facilities," when they are actually causing unknown amounts of damage on the inmates and releasing heavily wounded people back into the world. Scandinavian prisons are essentially (actual) rehabilitation centers that heal, support, encourage and motivate inmates. This allows them finally lead healthy lives once released and this significantly benefits society by improving crime rates. Scandinavian prisons have proven extremely sucessful! Why shouldn't U.S. prisons do the same? I think it has a lot to do with how lucrative the industry is and a little to do with how punish-happy American voters and lobbyists are.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Purpose 1 of Prison: To remove a dangerous element from society to protect society from it. This is extremely beneficial to society. Purpose 2 of Prison: To act as a deterrent for future crimes in others. This is not always successful but many crimes are prevented due to fear of being caught and sent to prison. This is beneficial to society. Purpose 3 of Prison: Justice and vindication for the victim and their families. People have been wronged and action has to be taken to "balance the scales". This is extremely beneficial to society. Purpose 4 of Prison: Punishment for a crime. This is tied closely to purpose 3, but is actually separate from it. This is the only aspect that is negative and punishments are rarely a good thing. Purpose 5 of Prison: Rehabilitation. This is good for society, but not everyone is willing to rehabilitate. > Many don't realize how traumatic prison is. Actually most know exactly how traumatic it is. And it is suppose to be that way in most of our minds. You commit crimes and you forfeit your rights to comfort and freedom. Prisons are not only, or even primarily rehabilitation centers so you are correct that people erroneously call them that. As to the question of "Why shouldn't U.S. prisons do the same" as Scandinavian prison? We are not a Scandinavian country. We are a sovereign nation with our own laws, our own culture, and our own right to punish our criminals as we see fit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do we know anything about Neanderthal language capabilities?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is high evidence they were able to speak because we share a specific gene (FOXP2) that is responsible for language. And because of Neanderthal anatomy we can deduce they had a higher pitched voice than us Homo Sapiens!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do pigeons thrive so much better inside cities than any other bird? Every city I ever visited had an abundance of pigeons but rarely other kinds of birds and definitely not as many/openly running/flying around. Do pigeons just thrive better in cities than other kinds of birds, if so why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pigeons are common in cities because buildings more closely resemble their natural nesting sites. Rock doves nest on the side of cliffs. Not in trees or shrubs. Human buildings provide lots of ledges for nesting. Combine that with the fact that they're harmless, (so we don't kill them for being pests) not tasty (so we don't kill them for food) and their natural predators cannot hunt well in cities (falcons end up nose diving into walls using their usual tactics, larger predators avoid humans) and you've got the perfect combination for a species to cohabit our cities with. Seagulls are also very common in cities in the UK for the same reason.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why does my body tell me to scratch, when it basically worsens absolutely everything? (Scabs, rashes, bug bites, pox, poison ivy)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Typically it is due to a natural response by your immune system to foreign material. Say you had a tick or leech attached to your skin, scratching would make sense. However, your body doesn't immediately recognize the difference between a tick vs a mosquito, so in either case you get this immediate immune response that is very general referred to as inflammation. Inflammation involves an early stereotypical response, one of which includes the release of histamines which causes itching, particularly when released in the skin. Depending on the actual foreign material, it can take the body some time to realize exactly what is going on and for the correct immunological response to take over. In some case this the immune system never specializes enough to stop the itching and the foreign material must be completely removed first. In a worst case scenario, the immune system responds without stimuli and the itching never goes away.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] When Count Dooku or Darth Sidious jumped around and rolled over in mid air, was it their pure fitness strength or did they use the force? I.e. Dooku vs Anakin and Obi-Wan in Ep3, Dooku jumps in mid air to land on the the bottom floor.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Force users both light and dark can use the force to augment and enhance their physical abilities, though it does tire the user out quite a bit. In fact, form IV of lightsaber combat, Aataru, focuses on this, making the practitioner use the force to turn them into a lightsaber tornado at the cost of strain to their body.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When economists study black markets, how do they get their data if the trade is supposedly illegal? Is there any component of black market analysis which is especially reliable and if so, why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Data on illegal activities can come from a number of different sources. Satellite imagery has been used to estimate the extent of illegal fishing, for example. Other estimates include data on arrests or search and seizure, which can then be extrapolated to population levels. This happens for illegal wildlife trade. In short, there is a lot of administrative data that can be used to infer rates, and increasingly satellite imagery can be used to more accurately estimate illegal activities where they are recognizable from space. There are probably other ways as well, but those are the studies that I've come across.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do theaters determine how long movies are played? Do they decide on a percentage? Do they talk with distribution companies before hand? What if the movie doesn't meet its expectations in terms of occupancy/ticket sales?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Theaters make agreements with the distributors which lay out the percentages each will get, a guaranteed number of weeks played, and if there are theaters close together there can be some bidding on exclusivity. During that agreement phase they would have to agree on what happens if a movie tanks and how bad before they can back out on the guaranteed number of weeks.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is more effective at cooling the body, no clothing or one layer of moisture wicking clothing? Is a single layer moisture wicking t-shirt better than wearing no shirt at all?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Too many unknowns to answer. Scenario A - good airflow around your body -> convection is better -> no clothing Scenario B - poor airflow Evaporative cooling effect dominates -> bigger evaporative surface -> moist clothing<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do hot things like car engines and tabletop electric burners make ticking and clicking noises after you turn them off and they’re cooling down?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When most materials heat up, they expand. What you are hearing is the metal "shifting and popping" as it contracts once it starts cooling down again. I work in a storage facility constructed of metal and can hear the building doing the same thing once the sun comes up and it is heating up. It disturbs some of the customers because it can be quite loud sometimes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do things appear darker and more colorful (e.g. stones) when they are wet?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The surface of many objects is rough on a microscopic scale, which is in large part responsible for the bright diffuse reflectance. When the microscopic roughness forming the surface is coated with water, the water fills in the tiny gaps which are otherwise filled with air. Because the difference in refractive index between the water and the stone is much less than the difference between the air and the stone, the wet rough interface will scatter less. There is also a new interface created (air/water). However, because the new boundary between the air and the water (covering the stone) is fairly smooth, it will not scatter light very much.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do people assume that oxygen is needed on other planets to sustain life? The universe is so vast, isn't there a possibility that "life" on other planets could rely on a different element for survival other than oxygen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We don't really assume it, it's just a framework that gives us something to look for. Is it possible that there is life out there that is completely different than life as we know it (perhaps silicon based and sustained off methane)? Sure it's hypothetically possible ... but we'd have no idea what to look for, and might not even be aware of it if we saw it. So we look for life as WE know it, because it gives us criteria to look for rather than cluelessly fumbling around in the dark. Did that help?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Limitless / Various] In Limitless, NZT-48 gives you maximum potential cognitive power of the human brain, and perfect instant total eidetic memory recall of anything you've experienced or seen. How would a normal person on permanent NZT state fare in worlds with more advanced sciences? In Limitless, a normal person who gets the abilities instantly can access anything that's basically ever been encoded in their brain if it's still there, as fast as the brain can send the signals. If you read a page of a book when you were 11 years old, and you're 50, with the barest effort you can read and see that page verbatim, and even as you did back then. You can cross reference anything. You basically get total command of your brain's abilities. Everything you learn adds and compounds. If you were a basic person who hardly read in life, a high school dropout, working for the past 20 years as a grocery store bagger, and did nothing to expand your mind... the minute you get this, it's changed. You'll know everything you know, even if you didn't know you did. You'd instantly become the smartest person you know. If you did the reading of every piece of training material that a senior computer engineer had, when you were done at bare minimum you could do any of the work in the materials, and you'd know trivially how to find more to do more, cause you can synthesize all that together instantly. You can learn all the programming languages in a few weeks. You can learn fluency in any human language in days. Music instruments in weeks or less. Biochem. AI. Cooking of all sorts. Anything. Once you know it, you don't need to train it. It's all right there, building on and compounding on itself. All of it connected, all of it a stray thought away at your fingertips. Every single person in Limitless is set in an otherwise real world just like ours. What would happen if someone with permanent Limitless NZT abilities found themselves in the worlds of Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, DC, and similar, where the levels of what can be done vastly outstrip the real world? Or if someone, say, in those, a plain person, suddenly ended up like this? Here's some examples of what NZT can do to you--obviously major film and TV show spoilers: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-ZwmCPBAs&t=4s * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Krd0qYwnQ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X7I0RNGJps * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owsc2CbnqZQ * What even just a bit of the abilities can let you do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMU2Pk-SBs0<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Fold, by Peter Clines covers this subject extensively. The protagonist discovered at an early age that he can perfectly recall anything he's ever experienced... and how it has the potential to make him very unhappy during his lifetime. So he doesn't "feed" it, and instead works as a high school science teacher. Yadda yadda yadda. Gets pulled into events were "feeding" his ability is the only thing that can save a couple dozen universes from being consumed the Great Old Ones.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is weathering/erosion of rock by water more due to chemical or mechanical processes? I was reading this page: [https://opengeology.org/textbook/5-weathering-erosion-and-sedimentary-rocks/](https://opengeology.org/textbook/5-weathering-erosion-and-sedimentary-rocks/) &#x200B; And while they indicate here that "chemical" weathering is the primary mechanism, wouldn't "mechanical" be the most significant factor? As in, moving/falling water would cause more weathering than still water over the same time period? And wouldn't faster moving water cause more weathering than slower moving water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The answer will depend on the environment and the type of rock in question, so the things discussed in the text are simplifications (as you would sort of expect in an intro textbook). The first thing to establish is that there is a distinct difference between weathering and erosion, i.e., weathering is the break down of rocks in situ and erosion is the removal and transport of pieces/components of rock, so while we often discuss these at the same time, we need to be careful about lumping them together too much. In general, mechanical weathering will dominate in environments where chemical weathering rates are low (e.g., in cold or dry environments) and/or where rocks are more resistant to chemical weathering (e.g., they have low percentages of minerals that are susceptible to common chemical weathering processes). In contrast, chemical weathering will dominate in regions where chemical weathering is efficient (e.g., in warm, humid environments) and/or where rock types are very susceptible to chemical weathering (e.g., landscapes dominated by carbonates/limestones). Within this, there are going to be a lot of environment specific conditions that control the exact balance, e.g., how often does the region cycle through freeze thaw cycles (i.e., how important is freeze-thaw?) or how many shallow rooted trees exist (i.e., how important is tree-throw?). With reference to the speed of moving water, this is mostly relevant for erosion, not weathering, i.e., fast moving water can entrain, roll, and saltate more and larger grains than slower moving water. Things do get a little opaque in this regard as there is the potential for chemical weathering rates to be related to the speed at which solutes are fluxed away, i.e., generally chemical weathering rate will decrease as the concentration of the dissolved products of this weathering increase. Also in the opaque zone are mechanical processes like abrasion. These are typically considered erosional processes, not weathering, because while they do breakdown rocks, the breakdown isn't really in situ because (1) for abrasion to happen grains need to be moving within a fluid and (2) the products of abrasion essentially move as part of the process. This is different from mechanical weathering processes which may induce a small amount of fixed motion away from the source bedrock, but then any subsequent motion is typically thought of as erosion (and assigned to an erosive process in terms of a causative agent).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If gas prices go up on holiday weekends due to demand, how is that not considered price gouging?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They go up in a reasonable amount to account for supply and demand and the natural flow of the invisible hand. If they were to say bump prices up by $3/gallon on a weekend, then that would be price gouging. Adjusting prices based on natural fluctuation of supply and demand is basically a core component of how to run the economics of a business, which is totally fine.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If the speed of light is the maximum speed an object can move then isn't there a maximum temperature? From my limited experience I understand that heat comes from particles moving and bumping into each other. The faster the particles the higher the temperature. So since particles are moving arent they bound by the speed of light? And if that's true isn't there a maximum temperature since the particle speed is limited? Or maybe i'm just confused...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Temperature is technically defined as the amount of internal energy/entropy of the system. Now let's just ignore entropy for the moment, as that's a much larger discussion. In the non-relativistic picture you are correct in saying that energy and velocity appear to be linked in a simple manner. E=0.5 mv^2 . But as we get to higher velocities, E^2 -p^2 c^2 =m^2 c^4 becomes the equation of interest. Let's for the moment, throw out the m^2 c^4 since it's just a constant term that shifts the energy up uniformly for each particle. E=pc, this E being just kinetic energy alone. 'p' is the particle's momentum. p=(1-(v/c)^2 )^-1/2 mv. So as v->c the first term, called gamma, goes toward infinity. tl;dr, we can keep adding more energy even if the velocity doesn't continue to increase.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why sunscreen is so vital, when ancient humans did not wear it. I searched and found nothing really similar to what I am asking. So basically my question is, with all the sunscreen pushing we have now, what did people do in ancient times? It's like a crime to go out without sunscreen nowadays but what did early greeks, englishman, chinese, etc. Other melanin-lacking people do? Did they all just contract skin cancer and die or...? And why is sunscreen even necessary? Because it seems weird to me that the human body would react so negatively to the sun- something we naturally need.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We've been gaining longer and longer lifespans the longer time goes on. We're also diagnosing things a lot more often and efficiently. Back before sunscreen people still would have gotten skin cancer and died from it, but maybe it wasn't reported or they just attributed it as 'death by unknown causes'. In Australia at least we have a MASSIVE hole in our ozone layer. Us white Australians really aren't suited to this sort of environment, we belong where it's cold and there's no sun most of the time. We'd still get sun there, but not so much as to cause sunburn on a regular basis.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5 - how are western economies sustainable? I live in the uk, but the more I think about it, the more I realise that it just seems to be series of office workers propping up each others salaries. There’s no (or small) base that actually produces goods, the farmers or the labourers as such. Why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Modern and wealthy economies tend towards being service based (it is one of their defining characteristics. Think about a typical "wealthy" society - just the basics but it can be extrapolated 1) Food - how many times have you encountered dysentery? Food containing things that will kill you in days/weeks? How about malnutrition? Where does the infrastructure for food safety and distribution come from? 2) Healthcare - We expect specialist care, modern and available treatment. Something like COVID-19 spreading even 150 years ago would have multiple times more death. Few people die from treatable diseases and many more diseases have become temporary inconveniences rather than a death sentence. If we fall and break an arm or leg, we don't expect that there is much chance of amputation or death through sepsis - yet that wasn't the case just a few hundred years ago. 3) Education. Where does the infrastructure to support specialist training, the basic education needed, all those things we take for granted. Basic education and literacy being universal, etc are all fairly modern. Just go to less developed countries - this kind of thing doesn't come automatically. Scientific research, technological progress can only take place within a society that has the resources to foster education from the bottom up. 4) Safety - How many people die in factories and workplaces? How many have their health and lifespan destroyed by their working environment? Contrast this to poorer nations. How are these regulations enforced? How are these improvements put in place? The legal framework and enforcement mechanisms, inspections, licensing, etc are there for a reason. Entertainment, transportation, communication, finance etc etc. The modern economy is complex and delivers a standard of living for the average person that not even kings of 200 years ago could experience. If 80% of the people are working the land or engaged in primary production, there is zero chance that there would be enough leftover labor and resources to deliver these outcomes to the average person.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user how can oceanic dissolved oxygen decline if an increase in gas temperature usually means increase in dissolved oxygen?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically you assume oxygen has higher solubility in water as temperature increases but, unlike solids like salt or sugar, gases are much less soluble at higher temperatures. De-gassing water to prevent corrosion or make very clear ice is done by repeatedly boiling and cooling water. So yeah : higher temperatures = less oxygen in water.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are some people genius at chess, but completely normal in every other thing? Many world champions of chess immediately become grand master at the very young age, about 12-16. But they all seem totally normal in every other thing. Why aren't their intelligence show up in other things? What makes one's intelligence specific to chess? Note: English isn't my mother tongue, please keep it simple.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Chess is an extraordinarily simple game. You can learn everything there is to know about the game in a very short period of time. The issue is that it takes a great deal of intuition to become one of the greats, and intuition can't be taught. For example, you can very quickly learn how the pieces move, why it's best to keep your knights centralized or trade off bad bishops in closed positions, but seeing that abstract mate-in-four that requires you to sacrifice your queen, a rook, and a pawn is just something that you have to -see-, you can't be taught it. Chess strategy involves a lot of different aspects; it's not "seeing four moves ahead", it's understanding positions and tactics and making assumptions based on what you might do if you were your opponent. It's not even about studying the great games and trying to mimic them (it'll never happen). What grandmasters ARE good at is lateral thinking, or solving problems creatively and often indirectly using reasoning that isn't immediately obvious. This sort of approach to problem solving is very useful in a lot of different fields, but isn't the primary focus of very many.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does using a tootbrush how we do not make us sick? It is never sanitised and sit in your bathroom all day. Sorry about the terrible title I posted right before I went to sleep after I brushed my teeth.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Soap, your faucet, your tooth brush, the glass you drink water out of, all has bacteria on it. We don't live in a sterile environment and we ourselves are not sterile. You have more bacteria in your mouth, and fungal spores, than on your tooth brush. Having bacteria isn't the problem, it's having a place for bacteria to multiply and grow into a colony unopposed and for that you need food, water, shelter, and no competition. Your tooth brush has only one of those things. The job of a tooth brush is not to sterilize your mouth, it's to wash away the metabolic junk and plaque that eats away at your teeth. It denies the colonies in your mouth food and a medium to safely grow in (plaque).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Matrix] Why the inconsistent crew requirements for hovercrafts? In the first movie, Neo awakens to a fully crewed ship. 6-7 people minimum, all busy working with the ship. DUring the course of the movie, it drops to four (including Neo). Never again does the ship require more people than that. Also, Captain Naomi's ship only needs three (if you played the game that's tied into the movie sequel). In the sequel, Morpheus doesn't even bother replacing his crew other than Link as an Operator. So how many people does a ship require, anyway?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pilot, operator, mechanic is the bare minimum for a ship to operate normally (flight, maintenance, and Matrix access). Could get by with a pilot only (risky/suicide mission in the Real World). Could get by with a pilot &amp; operator if your mission requires jacking in. Other than that, smaller ships (scouts like the Logos) need smaller crews. The Hammer is a huge gunship and requires gunners and a medic to run smoothly. Nebuchadnezzar is somewhere in between. As the war went on, qualified replacements were not really available. Death/lack of training/etc. Had to get by with skeleton crews. Especially the Neb - who is going to willingly join up with that fanatic Morpheus??<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Does state of matter have an effect on the absorbtion spectrum of a material?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes. Absorption spectra change with phase. The spectra of a material depends on all the ways the system can be excited. In a solid, for example, you can have excitations of the atomic displacements in the regular crystal lattice, what are called phonons. You can also have excitations of magnetism (magnons), spin (spinons), electrons (plasmons) etc. Many of these excitations either don't exist or have a different character in difference phases. Thus, you can't excite a transverse phonon in a gas, for example. This means the absorption resonances or bands associated with them disappear. Spectra reflects all of this and thus changes with state.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Cyberpunk] How exactly have guns evolved? Tabletop and video game version. What makes a cyberpunk pistol any better than a Walmart Glock?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant All of the weaponry in the world by assumption needs to consider the advancements in technology. A highly cyberized and armed corporation solider can easily take small firearms like it’s nothing. Even someone with the fancy equipment against someone with high quality cybernetics like the woman in Cyberpunk 2077 announcement trailer was able to take military grade bullets just by their subdermal (armor plating grafted to the skin) protecting them. To avoid psychotic, criminal and/or violent cyborgs taking over. Weapons would need to advance to take on such threats. Of course lower grade weapons like the Walmart example exist. Even in the game you the player can buy a $1 gun. But it won’t do much against one with even below average armor and cybernetics. - Laser guns exist in the tabletop games and referenced in the video game - Some fitted with incendiary, electrical, chemical and energy rounds. - Some have built-in homing rounds. - Many guns can link to someone’s cybernetics, showing the user ammo count and charge level for the railgun variants. - As mention, railguns exist. Even for basic pistols and rifles. - This without mentioning built in weapons like wrist-mounted blades, grenades launchers and reinforced knuckles. Even at the base level, cyberpunk weapons are significantly more advanced than real world weapons.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [24] How did Jack Bauer go from a BA in English Lit. To a Master of Science in Criminology? Is this a normal study path that can lead to a career in counter-terrorism?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes. Because contrary to popular opinion, a degree in English lit doesn't just make students "smart in English", it also imparts analysis and reasoning skills that is applicable to all areas of employment.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does a spine have protrusions on it? What causes this and how are they evolutionarily useful?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The spinous processes that protrude from each vertebra in the spine have two main purposes. The longer ones are attachment points for ligaments and muscles, giving muscles more area to attach, and also acting like long levers to help the muscles bend, straighten, and rotate the spine. There are also smaller protrusions, called articular processes, that help each vertebra fit together with the vertebrae above and below it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How dogs are able to sense and know when something medically wrong is about to happen in a person before it actually happens?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This depends on the effect you mean. Some cancers can be smelled by dogs. There are 'cancer sniffing dogs' that have been trained to detect cancer and are better and cheaper than our imaging equipment. So they're using their superior senses to pick up on things that humans can't detect.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does diplomatic immunity exist? What's the benefit?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It exists because every country wants their own diplomats to feel safe when working in other countries with very different laws, and the only way to guarantee that is to give the same courtesy to others. Imagine a world without such immunity. Canada appoints a woman as deputy ambassador to Saudi Arabia. She gets arrested and sentenced to jail time for driving a car. Massive international incident ensues. This can all be avoided with immunity. Incidentally, it's not total immunity. A country can choose to waive it for a serious offence, or can bring their diplomat home for trial under their own laws. This happened some years ago here in Canada when a Russian official killed someone while driving drunk. Canada could not prosecute. We asked Russia for permission to do so, they said no, and then recalled him and jailed him in Russia.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - In very brief, simple terms, what is the postmodern? I suppose I mean from a sociological perspective. This is one concept that seems to pop up everywhere, but it always seems to mean something slightly different. Relationships with media, inter-textuality, that kind of stuff I believe, but I've never been too sure. Can any of you underpin exactly what postmodern means in simple terms for me?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant "Modernism" is the idea that things are getting better, or can get better. Try to improve technology, expand the methods of art, etc. Try to be the best you can be, destroy tradition, move society and the individual forwards. Write the great American novel, make the best movie ever. Art should be universal and stand alone. Post-modernism is the rejection of that idea. Maybe there /isn't/ such a thing as perfection. Maybe instead of trying to make the universal movie or novel, we should try to see things from different perspectives. In the social sciences, post-modern practice questions the idea of objective reality and the scientific method. Not necessarily discarding it, but taking an approach which allows for multiple perspectives to be reported.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is the way of making philosophy based on "first principles" dead? I read somewhere that Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" invalidated the pursuit of "first principles" from which truth could be determined and a system of philosophy could be constructed from. It is true? Are there philosophers still working in this way?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Systematic philosophy is alive and well, though it certainly is not as popular as in the early modern period. Just for a few names, in the analytic tradition there is Mario Bunge, and in the continental tradition you have Alain Badiou. Overall the continental traditions nowadays is much more amenable to systematic philosophy, in part because of authors like Quine and Russell in the analytic tradition arguing very forcefully against systematic philosophy. In some of the early sorts of battlecries for the analytic tradition you see their response to systematic philosophy, for instance Russell addresses it in the last chapter of A History of Western Philosophy. He describes a new vision for philosophy where we deal with individual problems instead of trying to solve everything all in one go.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When and why did a 5 day work week become the norm?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It stems from the 8 hour work day campaigns in the middle of the 1800s. 8 hours of rest, 8 hours of work, 8 hours of relaxation. These were fought for by the unions. The when and why also depends on the country in question. May Day or international workers day celebrates the fight for the 8 hour work day, it is also the martyrs of Haymarket in Chicago that were fighting for the 8 hour work day. The why is cause workers were working 10-16 hour work days 6 days a week, never having the time that their bosses had to enjoy time with family and have fun. Most of the 8 hour day enforcement came from the laws passed during the great depression and rise of labor unions at the same time to demand it and enforce it. Even though the US never enjoyed anything higher than 36% of the workforce being unionized, they unions had a powerful seat at the table from the 1940s to the 1960s instituting the 8 hour day nearly across the board, with exceptions of industries they did not have legal protection organize, i.e. agriculture and domestic workers. Sources for the above information Murolo, P. (2001). From the folks who brought you the weekend : a short, illustrated history of labor in the United States. New York: New Press  ;Distributed by W.W. Norton. Lichtenstein, N. (2003). State of the union : a century of American labor. Princeton, N.J.; Woodstock: Princeton University Press. Yates, M. (1998). Why Unions Matter. New York: Monthly Review Press.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is all the hype around 3D printers and why would it revolutionize the way we make things? I see all these articles about how 3D printers were used to build cheaper prosthetic limbs etc, and I wonder how this cannot be achieved with conventional manufacturing, which has been around forever now.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most traditional manufacturing processes require you to make specialized machines and molds to produce the various pieces of your product. That's fine if you are going to make a lot of something because the cost of those machines can be spread out over the thousands or millions of the product you are making, but if you only need to make a few of something, it is very cost prohibitive. With a 3D printer you can use one machine to make virtually anything you need without having to build a purpose built machine or mold that you won't be able to use to make anything else. This makes it a great alternative for making things that are one off purpose builds, like a prosthetic that is made to fit a single individual, and also for short run products and prototypes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why is there one section of the audience at Obama's State of the Union that never stands up or applauds when everyone else does? Edit: Thank you all for the quick responses! This was really puzzling me.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are three groups in the chamber: The democrats - they will rise in support of anything the president says, that they agree with (which is pretty much all of it) The republicans - they will rise once or twice when Obama is talking about something they agree with The supreme court - they will not rise for most of the speech, so as to remain impartial towards anything that could come before the court.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is implicit cost? Is implicit cost the opportunity cost of a resource to be used in some other way than being allocated in the factors of production for the producer?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The implicit cost of a resource is the opportunity cost of its expenditure that will not show up as a visible expense Let's say for example you are deciding whether to college. Let's say college costs $20,000 a month for 4 years. When you come out, you are going to take a job that makes $100,000 per year. People would be tempted to say that you're paying $80,000 for college, but that's not true. There is also the time cost of 4 years, which could have been put to the best alternative use. That's 4 years of time that you could have spent working at another job. Let's say that the best job w/o a bachelor's degree makes $80,000 (oversimplifying). Well then you're paying an explicit cost of $80k for the cost of college, AS WELL AS the implicit cost of also putting in time that could have been used to make $320k. It's implicit because you won't see a receipt during the college process that says you're $400k in the hole, but it's nevertheless true. And, that's not including interest rates on your loans and potential investments into indexes or other assets that you could have made during that time with your money So you think your $100k job is worth it when you pay off the loans, but really the degree pays itself off when your lifetime earnings with the degree outpace your potential lifetime earnings that you could have made if you put your time to the best alternative use.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Adding extra ingredients to a grilled cheese doesn't make it any less than a grilled cheese Inspired by /u/Fuck_Blue_Shells [post about grilled cheeses versus melts](http://np.reddit.com/r/grilledcheese/comments/2or1p3/you_people_make_me_sick/), I had to come to the defense of ingredients in grilled cheeses. Cheese elitists and provolone partisanship like this is what's tearing the country apart. > This entire subreddit consist of "melts". Almost every "grilled cheese" sandwich i see on here has other items added to it. Is my burger less than a burger if I add guacamole to it? Is my hotdog less hotdog when I add relish? No, of course not. We have food combinations that compliment each other, that take it to the next level. Mixing up the cheeses and breads are a great idea, I would encourage anyone to try that, but the thinking Fuck_Blue_Shells encourages keeps the grilled cheese decades in the past. > Adding cheese to your tuna sandwich? It's called a Tuna melt. Totally different. I agree with this. However, as with a lot of things, intent matters. Think of satire. Does Fuck_Blue_Shells watch The Colbert Report and think Stephen Colbert is a true neo-conservative? Intent is everything. I made blueberry pancakes this weekend. I didn't start calling them blueberry smoosh-breads. Chocolate chips, bananas, blueberries...put what you want in there, they are still called pancakes at the end of the day. If you make a tuna sandwich and just happened to put cheese on top, then yes, that's a melt. The cheese is an afterthought. A good grilled cheese sandwich can be constructed with intent and purpose to deliver the most mind-shattering mouth orgasm by knowing what tastes compliment each other. Gouda, apple and bacon on sourdough. It's no accident, it's no afterthought. The cheese (as well as every other ingredient) is on purpose. If I make pancakes and just throw blueberries on the top instead of in the mixture, that's not a blueberry pancake any more than a tuna melt is a grilled cheese, because intent matters. By Fuck_Blue_Shells' logic, using butter on your grilled cheese is a butter melt. Using a cooking spray to grease the pan is a cooking spray melt. > But as a bland white mid-western male I am honestly the most passionate person when it comes to grilled cheese and mac & cheese. As of this post, Fuck_Blue_Shells hasn't spread his culinary segregationist message to /r/macncheese. You'd better bet that's coming next. Beware you who adds bacon to their cheese and noodles! While I admire their passion, Fuck_Blue_Shells and his followers are merely propagating a backwards and anti-progressivism when it comes to what's on your plate. What am I eating, you ask? I am eating equality. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think you are focusing on intent when the issues are actually flavor and texture. It doesn't matter how artistic you are or what you mean to make. It only matters what's on the sandwich. And certain foods change the character of a grilled cheese. Add tuna and the sandwich tastes of tuna. The cheese takes a backstage to that powerful flavor. In contrast, when you butter your bread you never find the butter takes over the flavor. Unless you had some potent baconbutter or tuna butter or whatever. YourGouda/apple/bacon melt might be tasty. But it doesn't taste like grilled cheese. The cheese isn't up front and ccenter because bacon is a divA. Also apple changes the texture completely. You may have the best intentions in the world, but at some point a sandwich stops being a grilled cheese. That point is earlier than gGouda/apple/bacon. It is further than 'butter the bread with margarine instead of butter'. The margarine might be aka dumber idea, but it doesn't take over the sandwich.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how do they get water and sewer up to remote homes that are high in the mountains?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If location is really remote, you can provide water and sewer on-site. For water, drill a well, install pump and filter, and (ideally) monitor quality. For sewage, dig out a septic tank that slowly cleans water and releases it into soil, or have sewage truck come pump it out every once in a while. If water well is not an option (dry climate or polluted soil), you can set up a large water tank and refill it by water truck. If you really want connection to city water and sewers, it is possible but can get expensive. Water will flow uphill with enough pressure in the pipes, so you need a powerful pump, or even a pumping station every couple mile. Sewage flows downhill due to gravity, the issue is what to do if the house is low in the valley. Then you need a sewage pump that does not get clogged by poop and other semi-solids, and a pressurized sewage pipe<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I don't believe there is an overarching meaning to life. CMV I don't think there is some thing that humans were put on earth to do. All of the theories I've heard had to do with other people, religion, or egotistical 'we have to fix everything because only we can' stuff. I think that there is no reason for life, and that people should do what they want without worrying about whether or not they're doing what they are supposed to in order to fulfill some higher purpose. It just doesn't make sense to me for there to be some reason we're all here, or even a reason why each person is here. We're here because of evolution and a natural urge to procreate, and nothing else.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You could perhaps look into the philosophy of existentialism - Jean Paul Sartre et. al. His starting point was in agreement with yours: there is no intrinsic meaning to life. However, it is up to you to bring your own meaning to it. Say you see a mountain. Maybe you take it as a challenge to climb it. Maybe you want to study the rocks that form it. Maybe you want to take the perfect photo. This is the meaning you bring to it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can animals that eat spiders for sustenance not get bitten inside their mouth/throat sometimes? (Or do they?) (Disclaimer: I'm not talking about poison vs venom. I understand why the digestive system negates the toxin in the spider.) Surely things that routinely eat spiders such as birds, reptiles and rodents occasionally get bitten inside their mouths and throats just by chance? Is this death for those creatures or do they have some protection against this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a pretty broad question, but the answer is generally: If the animal is part of their normal diet, they likely have some sort of defense that they evolved (e.g. the grasshopper mouse's body makes venom act like pain killer instead, letting it prey on scorpions and such) So they'd have a way to deal with venom and such, up to and including just shrugging off the bites of the live prey<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do cross-eyed people see the world in double and learn to operate that way? Or does their brain learn to process the image correctly? I assume it's the latter because I doubt anyone's eyes are 100% straight/aligned, but in that case - when a baby is born cross-eyed, do they already know how to correctly interpret images, or do their neurons have to learn?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The first several years of a childs life is when the neurons are learning how to work properly. If it is severe enough, the child will essentially block out the image from one eye. They will see single, but it will be monocular. If it isn't fixed early enough in development, the eye that is ignored will never be able to see as clearly as the other eye.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I'm a nationalist. _____ First off: I'm from Sweden (very relevant), I'm 20 years young and male (slightly relevant). Growing up in what is today a multi-cultural society I early started to notice that in many aspects of society Sweden turned for the worse following the inflow of strangers and the multi-cultural policy of our governments. Immigrants have constituted perhaps as much as 25% of all the people that I've had contact with in my life. They've almost exclusively displayed great disrespect towards my own people and have constituted around 80% of all criminals that I've ever met. Befriending many of them I've gained insight in their mentality and way of life and have realised that they harbour a great deal of conscious hatred towards Swedes and wish to take advantage of us; they vote for the left in order to gain access to welfare but are in no way socialistic towards us. But so far it's only personal experience. So I started to do research and found out that immigrants are overrepresented in all forms of crime - and the more severe the type of crime, the greater the overrepresentation. They are by far more likely to make a living from welfare money than Swedes are. They are by far more likely to vote for the left. Their neighbourhoods are more dangerous and degenerated than the Swedish neighbourhoods. They are more likely to be religiously fundamental. They're more often involved in corruption scandals. And they are more likely to be racist, which gives the irony of multi-cultural Sweden being more racist than old homogenous Sweden - and in a sort of way kills the argument of nationalists being the racist side. My conclusions are that Swedes need a country where they constitute the vast majority and where the Swedish culture and the Swedish language predominate. I believe that patriotism is needed in order to contribute to the self-esteem of the people. I also believe that we should be open to a certain number of immigrants - regardless of background - who assimilate to our culture and wörk. In short, I want a nation state open only to natives, and to immigrants who adapt and show respect. EDIT: I have a very troublesome computer so I'm going to have to ask all of you to be patient, since it might take time for me to answer. EDIT2: Many have argued - falsely - that I claim that Swedes are superior to others. That is not true and I don't know how people get that idea. I might need to clarify myself and say that I argue that cultural homogenity is necessary for a stable society where people feel responsibilty to each other. EDIT3: Wow! 203 comments so far. I'm overwhelmed by the interest shown in this :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Socioeconomic status, not ethnic background, is the determining factor on most of the trends you are talking about. Immigrants to any country are switching countries for a reason, and thus are usually of lower socioeconomic status. It's not because of where they are from.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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