Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Emotionally proportional punishment is just punishment ### Proposition If someone stabs, they deserve to experience the totality of the emotional and physical pain involved with getting stabbed. If someone kills someone else, they deserve to experience in excruciating, visceral detail the emotion associated with entering the void for the rest of eternity - and then the emotional pain that all the loved ones that the deceased are going through. If someone robs someone else, they deserve to experience the sense of loss - both in monetary value and emotional/physical security - that their victim experienced. (Read: the sense of loss in monetary value, the "oh shit I lost x% of my income" feeling - not actual loss. The sense of loss of emotional/physical security.) Ideally, in some far-future society where we could force people to experience emotion, a just form of punishment would be to first have the criminal experience all negative emotion associated with their crime, and then go through a period of rehabilitation from which they are not released until their personality has changed (this far-future society would have the capability to determine if their personality has changed enough). Even if we had (and were willing to use) technology capable of "redeeming" a criminal and changing their personality for the better, it is still just for them to experience the magnitude of the crime they committed. ---- ### Thoughts The reason I ask this is that the concept of proportional punishment seems to be reviled and thought of as fundamentally wrong. Let's take torture, for example: if someone tortures someone else, in my mind, it is only fair and just for the criminal to experience the same (again, only the physical/emotional pain without any permanent effects other than emotional). However, most civilized people would say this is barbaric and wrong, and I don't understand why. I can even understand barbaric, but why would it be wrong? To me, it seems only fair. ---- ### Major Edits * There would be a system in place to reduce or eliminate punishment for mental retardation/insanity/etc. This is more for the 'I stabbed Jimmy for 5 bucks" or "ran over a kid while drunk driving" crimes. The idea is to force people to feel and understand the magnitude of their crime. * We don't want people to suffer, so we don't enforce reciprocal punishment in the real world. We want to minimize suffering wherever possible, and let people lead happy, fulfilling lives. My current point of view is that "minimizing suffering" ≠ "equality/fairness/justice". I need you to convince me that either (a) this is not true, or (b) this is alright, and enforcing complete justice is a bad idea. * Someone went through my history and downvoted everything. Congrats, I guess? I would still like to CMV however, so please let this be visible so people have a chance to CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The moral goal of most people is 'decrease the amount of suffering and increase that amount of happiness in the world.' Torturing people, even criminals, goes 100% against this common-sense morality. They are still humans, and you are therefore still adding to the total amount of human suffering. Human suffering is not 'bad' when it happens to 'good' people and 'good' when it happens to 'bad' people. Human suffering is just bad, full stop. 'Justice' is a funny, slippery word, which means different things to different people in different contexts. But most people would hope that it has at least some relationship to morality. At the very worst, justice should not be 100% anti-correlated with morality, which the system you describe actually is (again, assuming morality = reducing human suffering, which most people believe). This is why most people would be very reluctant to call your system 'justice'. A better term might be 'balance' or 'karma' or 'symmetry' or 'equal and opposite reactions'.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe the term "cisgender" doesn't need to be adopted by said "cisgendered" people. I liken it to diabetics creating a word for non-diabetics other than "healthy" or "normal." I love transgendered people, and I find this new (to me) topic interesting. But I don't think that normally gendered people need to use the term cisgender, or even know what it is. I also don't think it's wrong to refer to a cisgendered person as "normal," (edit: regarding their gender identity and not them as a whole person) rather than cisgendered. If the trans community want to have terms like this, which I obviously see the utility of, then great, call me that all you want. I just don't understand why suddenly I am not a normal male, and why it's offensive to refer to myself as a normal <gender>. I don't see why certain transsexual individuals have attacked me for simply refering to cisgender as normal, instead of this "designated male at birth" terminology I had never heard of before venturing over to /r/trans. I would compare this to anyone with an uncommon trait getting vocally offended by not being refered to by a specific terminology they feel more comfortable with. If autistic children, diabetics, people with parkinson's and paraplegics all wanted to be called something new, it would get incredibly confusing to talk to people without offending anyone. I completely understand that transsexuals have a hard life, huge suicide rate, etc., but I don't think that babying them by tiptoeing around words like "normal" when they simply are not normally gendered humans is the right approach. I don't believe masking or avoiding reality is ever a good thing, and we can easily push for equal rights and respect for all transsexuals, even if people reserve the word normal when it comes to gender for someone who is cisgendered. Edit: wow, I was not expecting this many responses, or for this to be something other people found interesting. I won't have time today to read everything!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is a word for non-diabetics other than "healthy" or "normal" - it's "nondiabetic". "Cisgender" could just have easily been "nontransgender", except that the prefix 'cis' is equivalent to the prefixes 'nontrans'. Additionally, calling oneself normal, implies calling everyone else abnormal, which has negative connotations. Besides, there's a question of what "normal" means - it's not merely numerical superiority.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How come some cheese spoil while others just "age"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Several protective techniques permit aging: - Mixing in a lot of salt - Drying the cheese - Coating the whole cheese with wax - Encouraging a beneficial mold to grow, which fights off other molds and bacteria.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can small businesses have the same name but I can't call my dildo shop Walmart?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two small business have very small chance of interacting with each other and most likely offer different services that would clearly differentiate them in the publics eye. Walmart is a multinational corporation whose name carries a certain expectation in the public eye. When someone goes to a store called "Walmart" they expect, well, Walmart haha. Branding a store with Walmart on the name creates the expectation that the Walmart corporation is actively involved with that business. Under the law Walmart, or any business, is able to prevent other stores from latching on to their name.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Cowboys and Aliens] Why do the aliens want gold?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Gold is a useful element. It is a great conductor of electricity, though ironically it makes a poor superconductor, which an advanced species would require. However gold can also be used as part of an alloy, in materials and applications we can't fathom yet. While gold may be able to be mined from asteroids, perhaps it's exposure to cosmic radiation makes it unviable for their purpose. Earth's magnetic fields protect our gold deposits, and makes it desireable to mine.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does a lazy eye affect vision? Can somebody with a severe lazy eye actually see out of that eye? Are they constantly looking in two places at once, or is it just the healthy eye that can see? If they are looking in two places, how does that affect their visual field?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you are referring to strabismus (as stuthulhu explained) combined with amblyopia, it directly impacts the perception of depth of field. Since the images from both eyes fuse thanks to the brain, and thus create "3D", the misalignment of one eye, and/or the fact that the brain takes only one eye into account upsets this balance. In Amblyopia, the subject would see perfectly fine, but miss the "third dimension", as in depth. There are a lot of variations within that. For example, if the person developed amblyopia in their first year, the brain effectively rewires itself to cope, and the person would have a sense of depth thanks to "motion parallax", or simply the motion of objects around him/her. (ex: "the ball gets bigger, so it must get closer") Another help in perceiving depth are shadows ("the darker the well, the deeper"), or simply the illusion of perspective ("the railroad tracks intersect far away") but all that is usually unconscious. As a matter of fact, a person may suffer from amblyopia and be completely oblivious to the fact that they lack the sense of depth. They may just feel they are "a little slow" in dodge-ball practice, or feel that cars are more unpredictable when they are driving. People who have lost an eye, or loose eyesight in one eye, or develop amblyopia later on are much more severely impaired as they may loose the complete field of vision for that eye, combined with the fact that they know what they are missing, and also the fact that the brain now needs to adapt to this new situation, which is uneasy.. Also, one can't assume that the amblyopic eye is "weaker" than the other, the brain, generally speaking, ignores the amblyopic eye, to concentrate on the signal sent by the other one. We are not quite sure why that is (is it that the eye is malformed? is it a "troubleshooting" problem in the neurons?). Generally, again, since the amblyopic eye hasn't had a lot of chance to "exercise", it tends to be weaker, but it may not have been the case at birth, or when the amblyopia was first detected. In some cases, the amblyopic eye is stronger than its counterpart, it simply remains latent, and can only work to its full extent when the other eye gets tired, or is covered up (which is why you may have seen amblyopic people wear patches, or use blurring drops). You also mentioned double vision, which can happen for various reasons: both eyes are taken into account by the brain but they are not aligned (this is not amblyopia generally, but "just" strabismus). An Amblyopic person can have double vision if their stronger eye gets weaker (when they are tired for example), in which case the other, amblyopic eye is "put on the line", therefore, the person will see double, but also may perceive both image with different strengths (one image clearer than the other). Double vision can also happen after an accident, if the brain has been affected and hasn't rewired properly. It is somewhat distressing to the person, and in most cases irreversible, but more people than you would suspect live with double vision. In fact, one can even have alternative vision (one eye for a while, then the other for a while)! In any case, it's never "lazy" :) EDIT: added some clarifications, + some formatting.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do language learning apps make you play the guessing game instead of teaching you? Is there some sort of science behind them doing it this way that allows you to learn faster?? I dont understand how you learn from guessing? Treat me like I'm 5, please.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Success and failure are good learning tools - this is the core idea behind "test and retest" as a way of learning. You're not "guessing", you're failing to get the right answer which you won't like and you'll then encouraged to remember and get it right the next time. But...mostly this is born from the recent idea of "gamification" - it's trying to created games as a way of learning to keep you engaged and to keep you "playing" because being in a "play" mindset is known to be good for learning. If it annoys it it's probably not working well for you!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Where do Space Stations get their oxygen from? Where do Space Stations like the iss get the oxygen for their workers from? Flying it all in from earth?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The primary source of oxygen is water electrolysis, followed by O2 in a pressurized storage tank. The process of electrolysis uses electricity from the ISS solar panels to split water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: “Trust the science” ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I’ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of probability and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I’m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I’m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I’ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don’t remember much on that so I’m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I’m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I’m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don’t think it’s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and “trusted institutions” betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn’t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the “newness” of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it’s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren’t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I’m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It’s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don’t know. I’m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The alternative to trusting science is trusting unfounded claims. Which isnmroe dangerous than science. Yes, science is evolving and it is not perfect and it may never be perfect. But it still represents the highest extent of human understanding so far.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe American society is wrong to think that people are ruining their image by drinking and partying. CMV When people judge other peoples' characters, it's common in America (or maybe just the Bible Belt, but this happens outside of Christianity as well) for someone to think less of another because they drink to get drunk or party hard. My views are shaped by my experiences in college (still in college, 22 y/o, and I haven't been affected by this issue in any serious way): In particular, there's a lot of pressure to remove party pics from your social media profiles. Businesses think less of those who show that they drink. There's also a lot of underage drinking going on in college, and a decent amount of students get fake ID's to get away with it. Public figures who are still in university (like a famous football player) get flack for making it known that they party. My point being, why should anyone care? If you take every person who's ever been in college and drank underage, done something stupid at a party, or gotten a fake ID, and fire them from their jobs or prevent them from promotion or throw them in jail for faking an ID; a lot of great, talented, and useful people in society would be taken down in the process. Nearly half the population in college right now would drop, too. To be clear: if we threw peoples' personal party/drinking lives into the public realm (in America), a great deal of them would receive a lot of flak for it. This, to me, is wrong because there are wonderful people who drink and party, so it's obvious that drinking and partying does not mean someone is a bad person. My opinion excludes those who drink while driving (which is terrible), or do horribly violent things while drunk (things that reshape a person's life for the noticeably worse; bar fights aren't always horribly violent in this respect--though they can be), but does not exclude people who made poor life decisions and ended up pregnant, charged with an MIP/other underage drinking charge, people who provide to minors, or people who end up in a hospital. Once again, the situations I mentioned after the bolded text are extremes to drinking that I don't feel should be judged too harshly by society (too harshly meaning that someone would lose a job or a promotion over it even if they qualified for the job or the promotion otherwise). These are not the situations I wish to discuss at first. I wish to discuss my point that "there are wonderful people who drink and party, so it's obvious that drinking and partying does not mean someone is a bad person." CMV<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you are hiring someone you are making a huge risk and investment in someone. You want to make the best and least risky choice you can. While plenty of people who drink and party are good and responsible people if you were to separate people into two groups, those who party and those who do not, you would find that more of the latter group are good workers. It's all about the odds. When hiring someone you take the people who have the best odds of being a good worker and those happen to be people who don't party. Or at least don't party so much that they have no problem with drunk photos of them on Facebook.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do businesses build skyscrapers in cities when it would be much cheaper to build their offices further out where land is cheaper? I understand that in some places, space really is a limitation, but where in live in Perth, Australia for instance, it makes no sense to me why all these giant buildings are grouped together when it would be much more cost efficient to build wider, shorter buildings in cheaper areas.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a lot of advantages to having an office in a central downtown area like this. 1) Free advertising 2) Good public transit/ease of access for employees 3) You can rent out unused floors and are likely to fill them as the space is in higher demand 4) Skyscrapers can be more efficient/more compact than wider, shorter buildings 5) It acts a "status" symbol for the company in a sort of industry dick measuring contest EDIT: Formatting<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If you reverse the Hubble telescope to be a microscope, how small could you see? I assume there would be focusing issues and whatnot. That said, if all necessary adjustments where made, what would you see? What could you see if you sat there looking for 1 million years?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant With a telescope, you can see at higher resolution just by making the telescope bigger. With a microscope though, you can't resolve below about half a wavelength (about 200 nm for visible light) no matter how good your optics are. There are some tricks to get below that, for example by chemically attaching localized light sources to the sample.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 How did planes in the 1940’s know their altitude? They didn’t have a sonar or something that would have helped them determine their altitude, right?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The easiest way to measure altitude is by measuring the air pressure. The higher you go the lower the pressure. It is a bit more complex then that. Moving air creates different presures over the hull then stationary air so you need a good place to measure the pressure at or compensate for it. Weather also affects the pressure so you need to calibrate for this, especially during landing. But in general a good barometer is the best way to measure altitude and is still used on airplanes today.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why the English language changes around the World. Dropping the "U" from colour as an example. Substituting a "Z" for an "S". Reversing the "E" and "R" in certain words. For example litre an liter. Why did these changes occur in various different English speaking countries?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most of these are just American/British English differences. There were no English dictionaries until the 19th century. By then, Americans had taken to spelling things a certain way and the British had their own opinion. By the time Oxford and Webster formalized the spellings with a dictionary, there were quite a number of differences. Popular attitudes in England at the time favored the more Frenchy spellings like colour, realise and litre. As for the rest of the world, it's largely about who was a greater influence. Former British colonies tend to be taught British English and places with greater American influence tend to be taught American English.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user "Real" classes vs "fake" ones In my short time programming, I've started separating in my head real classes from fake ones. This is probably sophomoric, but to me a real class is for something that makes sense in the classic OOP sense. A class describes a real thing. A noun. The classic example is "employee" or "car". In my work doing software for biology applications we often have "organ" "donor" "lab". All real things that make sense to look at in a classful way. But then there are "fake" classes. Situations where you're not really dealing with "things" or "objects" and it probably doesn't fit into the object oriented mindset but you do it because the class structure helps you somehow. Grouping similar methods, or class naming helps you do testing. Or in my case, you're writing libraries and it's easier if things are in classes for the sake of importing. Or if you're working with a language like Java where literally everything has to be a class. I'm a new python dev and I'm trying to write a client library to go with our api's. It's complicated because there's some stuff that just really doesn't fit an oop structure but I have to put it in a class. So far, for fake classes I've basically used static methods for everything. I'm trying to avoid making the user create an object (that has not semantic meaning) just to use a method in that class. Meanwhile doing non-static methods would be helpful for the sake of tracking tokens and stuff. My question is, should I stop worrying about making the user create dummy objects to use methods inside a class, or should I keep making static methods even if it is more complicated tracking certain attributes<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I usually refer to these types of objects as "services". E.g. a class that handles tokens might be TokenService. These services are isolated units that can be tested and mocked, which is quite useful (as opposed to static methods).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user (How) Can morals exist without religion? I've recently left Christianity, and this is the main question I'm grappling with. Take what are, at least in my opinion, the two basic "moral" standards most people hold: the golden rule and justice/fairness. From a religious perspective, actions in line with these principles are objectively good because they please god. But without religion, are there any real grounds for saying that a just act is somehow better than an unjust one? Or that serving others is better than serving self? Couldn't these principles be reduced to modes of behavior people tend to like? I am familiar with plato's argument in the republic that justice is beneficial to the individual and society as a whole, but I don't really find it all that convincing (as grounds for cleaning that justice is "good" and injustice is "bad"), so I am more interested in theories that don't rely on self-benefit (Or perhaps something more convincing than plato).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most philosophers believe that even if God exists, morality would not depend on God, because either morality is just what god wants, in which case it is arbitrary and so there is no reason to follow it, or God knows moral truth/the correct moral standard, so it exists external to him and we could presumably find it. The question of what this standard is though, and how it is justified, is the fundamental question of ethics, so there aren’t easy answers. Some philosophers appeal to intuition, or intuition refined by formulating principles by abstracting from (some of) our individual moral intuitions and then testing those same principles against (other) intuitions, ultimately bringing them into harmony (this is known as “reflective equilibrium”). Some (mostly Kantians) argue that morality is entailed by the standards of “practical reason”, or reasoning about our actions. Some try to analyze/reconstruct the logic of moral language or moral argumentation and develop moral theories based on that. There are many different theories.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do nearsighted people need to wear glasses when using VR? The screen in inches from one’s eyes, where their vision is ostensibly still good. Yet I see prescription lenses being sold to mount inside VR headsets, and general advice of “wear your contacts when using VR headsets. Please help me understand.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant VR headsets are calibrated to project an image that is "correctly" focused for someone with "normal" vision. But this image is a trick; it has to appear to be farther away, which makes the person try to focus like that for realistic graphics. Otherwise, anyone who used VR for any extended period would get eye strain as if they were reading a book inches from their face. Someone with nearsightedness doesn't have that ability, so even though the screen is inches away, it's projecting an image that is like it's farther away which makes it blurry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is glass transparent but other things are not? As in, why can you see through glass but not say a wall?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Light is not reduced to the light we, humans, can see. As a matter of fact X-rays, Ultraviolet, Infrared, Microwaves, Radio waves, Wifi are all different types of light and Visible light is just a portion of the whole spectrum. Transparency is not reduced to visible light. Your cells are transparent to X-rays but not your skeleton and that's how doctors can examine your bones. Walls are transparent to radio waves and wifi so that's why you can listen to radio without needing an antenna outside your home and connect to the wifi from any room of your house. It happens that glass is transparent to visible light so we can see through. Now, the reason why glass is transparent to visible light and walls are transparent to radio waves has to do with their atomic structure. It is kind of complicated for an Eli5 but it is a matter of interaction between atoms and light: if the atoms interact with a specific kind of light, it can't get through unscathed so it is not transparent to that particular kind of light. If there is no interaction then the light just goes through and the result is transparency.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user AskScience AMA Series: We're Chris Joyce, a science correspondent for NPR, and Rebecca Davis, a senior producer with NPR's science desk. Ask us anything about plastic pollution! We've been taking a [closer look at plastics and the plastic waste that's showing up all over the world](https://www.npr.org/series/684530164/the-plastic-tide). Global plastic production has grown to 420 million tons in 2015, and some plastics will last for centuries or even longer. NPR most recently published a story looking at [efforts in the Philippines to hold major brands accountable](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/01/15/683734379/an-island-crusader-takes-on-the-big-brands-behind-plastic-waste) for the plastic waste from their products and [another story profiling two teenage sisters from Indonesia](https://www.npr.org/688168838) who've been campaigning to ban plastic bags. [Here we are](https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1088962656399253504) ready to go at 1 PM (ET, 17 UT)! Follow [Chris](https://twitter.com/christophjoyce) and [Rebecca](https://twitter.com/Rebec) or the [NPR Science desk](https://twitter.com/nprscience) on Twitter, and ask us anything!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What alternatives to plastics can be mass produced on the scale plastics are produced? Can plastics be reverted into a previous compound more suitable to ethical standards? And what strides are being made to clean up plastic pollution?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user My employer has offered to pay for me to take a course to develop software skills. I’m leaning towards learning C++. Any advice as to which I should take? I hope that the title isn’t too vague or the question isn’t too overasked (I promised I searched the sub history before posting). I’m in my first potential career job so I’ve never really had an opportunity like this. We primarily use C++, and my programming knowledge and education in general has been very informal (mostly self-taught) so refining foundational computer architecture skills would be valuable too. Do you all have any recommendations for an online course that I could really get a lot out of? Cost is relevant of course, but I’m not on a super tight budget. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What's the end game? What is your employer looking to gain? Does he want web app? firmware for hardware? websites? data analysis? The answers to these questions should give you an idea of which languages you should consider.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What causes trees to grow rings and how are they exactly a year old?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a lot of good answers here, but the simple ELI5 answer is that the color of growth in the tree depends on how fast it is growing. In the winter, trees grow slowly, which creates the dark part of the ring. In the summer, trees grow more quickly which creates the light part of the ring. Because of this pattern, each ring marks the passing of the seasons, and thus a year.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why can't we produce synthetic gasoline ? We are able to make complex molecules in labs, so what's the reason for this ? Edit : I know it wouldn't be a leap toward ecology, just wondering if it has been done and how. There is surely a powerful lobby which could benefit from such a technology.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In addition to the cost involved, it's important to remember that gasoline is a molecule that can be burned to release energy. In order to create that molecule you have to put an equal amount of energy into it. That energy is stored in the form of chemical bonds. So burning the fuel breaks up the bonds and releases energy. But to create the fuel, you would have to put those bonds together, which means putting energy into it. If it's not biofuel then that energy would have to come from some other conventional source. Since our technology is not flawless, creating the conventional source of energy results in a net loss. Meaning that more energy is put into a power plant than comes out. So to create gasoline with a conventional power plant we would have net energy loss.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why doesn't glue harden while in the bottle?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Type of glue here is essential for the explanation; but I'll take a few examples. 1. Superglue; cyanoacrylic, actually initiates bond with water molecules. So being in an air-tight container extends the life significantly. So without the water molecules to bond to the glue won't react and create the bond. (This is why the stuff sticks to fingers so fast. 2. Wood glue, elmers glue, and the like use PVA. -- it works by forming a chain (polymerization) when it dries. The solution is usually water, so while in the container the un-evaporated water keeps the chain reaction from happening. 3. Rubber Cement -- works like the PVA, its dissolved in a solvent such as acetone. This solvent evaporates and creates the polymerization bond. So once again, a sealed container keeps it from evaporating.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If grass turns brown when it dies, why do grass stains stay green?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Plant leaves are basically made up two types of photosynthetic pigments: chlorophylls and carotenoids. Chlorophylls gives green color while corotenoids gives brown. In young leaves, the no. of chlorophylls is dominant, so it is green. As the plant gets old, chlorophylls degenarate and carotenoids become dominant. So it gets brown. However a grass stain is literally dead, so the chlorophylls dont degenate, and remain as it is.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Married and Divorced individuals, can you CMV of this article about marriage that has been widely shared through social media? As the title states, I see a lot of people sharing this article through various social media outlets. I personally feel a lot of this has to do with the "hive mind" and sugar coats things. To me this article says, "disregard your own feelings and concentrate only on your SO." Aren't you responsible for your own happiness? Isn't your SO just supposed to compliment your own happiness (and vice versa)? In short, I think this article ignores a lot of different variables that it takes to make a marriage work. I feel YOU have to be happy in the first place in order to make someone else happy. Just making someone smile and their life great can come at a sacrifice of your own happiness if you aren't careful. Article: http://sethadamsmith.com/2013/11/02/marriage-isnt-for-you/<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think there is a third option, which is focus on the team. Often when people say to only focus on the other person, this is really what they mean. Say there are 2 extremes - one will help you out but disadvantage your partner in some way, one will help your partner out, but disadvantage you in some way. Focusing on yourself 100% hurts your partner, and disadvantages the team as a whole. Focusing on your partner 100% hurts you, and disadvantages the team as a whole. The real option is to find a compromise that maybe doesn't help either of you out as much as the extremes would, but also doesn't hurt either one of you. When you go further with the team analogy, helping you is making your stats the best. Helping your partner is making their stats the best. Helping the team is doing what it takes to win the game, and not focusing on stats at all.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is behaviour innate? How can animals replicate behaviour that they have never observed? So, I know that some behaviour in animals is innate, I also understand why, but I don't understand how (except reflexes). Like, how do animals know mating rituals, or what to do when they see another animal, or how to hunt, or howl, etc.. And I know that there are instincts, but where do they come from? As in, what part of the brain, is it all subconscious? I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it well. I can't seem to find an answer on Google.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Those types of behaviors are similar to reflexes, they are “hard wired” and are initiated by an environmental cue. Often it is a series of behaviors that are initiated...an environmental cue initiated one behavior, and that behavior initiates a second behavior, and so on. Essentially, they are behavior patterns that do not need to be learned. Some texts that give a quick overview are Pierce and Cheney Behavior analysis and learning and Powell et al Learning and behavior.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is super-symmetry? I recently watched the documentary Particle Fever and this word was used often. Can someone explain to me what it is and why Super-symmetry would be supported by the Higgs Boson having a mass of 115 Gev. And since it has been found that that the Higgs Boson has a mass of 125 Gev what could that mean?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Basically it's the idea that for each particle with a given spin (electrons have a half, photons have one, etc), there is another particle with a spin that differs by one half. Some processes might occur differently if, for example, these particles were being created, but there hasn't been any evidence of that thus far in the LHC experiments.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is the Richter scale logarithmic? I wasn't able to find a good explanation online.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This speaks to many such scales, but logarithmic scales benefit from allowing you to catalog similar events of very different magnitudes in a very compact way. There is the added bonus if there is exponential behavior in the data, logarithmic plotting gives you a linear result.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why is it when your in a dark area and you stare into one space you begin to not be able to see? Like staring off into space your eyes begin to go black<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are 2 types of light sensing cells in your eyes: rods and cones. Most cone cells are at the spot right at the back of your eye (called the fovea), where the light reflecting off something you're looking straight at would hit. They give better visual acuity and can see colours, however they only work if there's a lot of light hitting them. Rod are cells are much more spread out across the back of your eye. They can't see colours and don't give great visual acuity but they work at much lower light levels than cone cells. When you look directly at something on a dark environment, the small amount of light reflecting off whatever you're looking at hits the cone cells, however the light isn't strong enough to activate them and you can't see in that spot. If you look slightly off to the side of whatever you're looking at the light will hit the rod cells instead, and that small amount of light wil be enough to activate them and you'll be able to see.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The difference between a director, producer, and executive producer<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The director is responsible for managing the creative aspects of the film: the overall vision from all departments, and the performances of the actors. The producer is responsible for the logistical and financial aspects of the film: budgets, hiring, and scheduling, while ensuring each department & department head accomplishes their job on time, under budget, and to the level of quality expected. Producer can also be an honorary title, given to friends of the producers, people who are involved in getting the project started, or by talent who have contractual clauses that they (or their managers or someone they know) get producer credit. Associate Producer is an almost fully meaningless title in this area. Executive Producers are of a couple of types that serve one major purpose: They represent the financial interests of the film. In a small independent film, EP may be an honorary title given to major donors or investors. In larger films, EPs are assigned by the investing group or production company to represent their interest in seeing the film succeed and getting a return on their investment. In this subsection, the two major types are hands-on and hands-off producers. Hands off simply watch to make sure that things are going as planned and maybe communicating that to the investors or producing studio. Hands on either help the producer, or creatively consult with the director, helping to guide the film. Executive producers can also be the individual in charge of moving a project through a distribution company. Or, the individual who has picked up a film and is bringing it to a new or expanded territory. Overall, these are just general guidelines, and the actual work done by any individual on any film shoot can be varied.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do high-impact journals discriminate against scientist from less prestigious universities? I have heard many stories in which different scientist described how their previously "unpublishable" article have been miraculously transformed to publishable without changing single word in the text, just by adding a better known author (or author from prestigous institution). Furthermore, I have met several people who were convinced that the top journals like Nature or Science won`t even seriously consider manuscript submission if it has no author from "prestigious" university. Do you think there is some truth to this opinions or is it only something what people tell themselves to fell better when they do not succeed?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a lot of "trust me" in any manuscript publication. We need to trust that: 1. No deliberate fraud has been conducted 2. Experiments were designed well by someone who has an expert knowledge in all of the subject areas and techniques relevant to this work (understanding necessary controls, limitations, etc) 3. Interpretation of the data as presented in the manuscript is truly justified by the data, and by taking into consideration all relevant limitations, alternatives, etc Peer-review is supposed to catch these issues when they are noticed, but not all peer reviewers are capable of expert-level, confident review of all aspects of a paper they may be handling. Or, to rigorously check each detail would require far more time than they are willing or able to expend. Peer review is best at catching things when something raises a "red flag" to them - not because they spend hours poring over the materials and methods to ensure your buffers and computational parameters are correct (unless the result contingent on these is highly unexpected). So, putting a reputation on the line for a given set of work (authorship) where that reputation actually matters (recognized field expertise, prestigious institution, other ways the field "vouches" for that person as reliable)... well, either a little, or a lot, more faith is put into the manuscript's publish-ability. You assume that people in positions of acknowledged and visible expertise will only put their name on work that they think is good. You don't know jack about what Dr. Jones from Unknown Rural College might put his/her name on. There's also a noticeable trend towards high profile publications presenting the cumulative result of a significant financial and resource investment - lots of samples, access to rare samples, flashy technology, consortium-level number of people providing their expertise, etc. Less prestigious scholars at low prestige universities may only have a few thousand bucks and some summer undergrads at their disposal. There's no way their output could compare. There's also a lot of importance to relationships in academia. A scholar at a well-funded, high profile institution is more likely to have had the opportunity to meet editors of high profile publications, attended conferences with people who may be more willing to act as their peer-reviewers, chances to present their work and receive feedback from other international experts, etc. High profile papers often are aided by a pre-submission inquiry to the editor from the author ("would you be interested in this?"), and a known person (even a second-degree "known") may have more goodwill than a total stranger.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why are untested medical treatments not allowed to be used when no known treatments work and the patient is sure to die? If a patient is suffering from an illness, all available treatments have failed, and death is imminent, why can't the patient consent to be treated with untested treatments or drugs that may save them? Are there laws against this, and if so, why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Terminal patients are allowed to take part in clinical trials using experimental medication. The catch is that these trials need half the patients to be secretly given placebos so there is a control group to compare against. Some states have passed "right to try laws" which allow terminal patients to have access to placebo free experimental medication. The problem is that the lack of placebos makes it much harder for doctors to develop effective therapies, so these laws probably cause more harm in the long run.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does salt "enhance the flavour" of other substances if the salty taste sensation is independent from other taste mechanisms?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant many foods are coloidal suspensions. the coloid stability depends on the electric double layer, this is, charges around it than keep it from sticking to each other again. when you add salt to the system you are adding charges, this has the effect is reducing the double layer thickness because there's more charge available and the double layer is more efficient. this has the effect of reducing the volume and maximize the area of coloid because they don't tend to aggregate anymore. more area means more contact with your receptors, and so more flavor on the food.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Warhammer 40k] What happens to the Chaos gods in a lighter universe? Say I have the power to increase the amount of "good" in the 40k verse. How far would I have to go in order for the Chaos gods to manifest their good sides instead of their bad sides, and what would the galaxy look like? Alternatively, how hard would it to un-fuck the Warp bak into the realm of souls?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Well, you would need to make it so that all the good things was more than the bad things, which is hard since the good things they represent arent as powerful, easy to do or as lasting as the bad things. khorne is god of war, but also of honor and martial pride. Honor is hard to do and hard to define, and to find situations where you really have a chance to be honorble is very rare in your day to day life. martial pride could be extended to sports. but its hard to get everyone spend so much time at sports it would be enough martial pride to get to khorne. you would also need to make sure war and bloodshead stopped. And its much easier to just grab a club and go beat some dudes to death then it is to go around being honorble or spend your life perfecting sports. rage can also be a very lasting feeling, and its much more powerful than pride or honor. (is honor even a feeling?) Rage can make you go mad, honor just makes you do what you are bound to do, and pride mostly just leads to rage. Same with nurgle. the fear of death is greater than the family love, and a lot of things that die aint reborn. there is a lot of despair. basicly, you would need to eliminate disease, and despair. despair and fear of death are stronger feelings, it can be very very lasting and will most likely trimuph over love for family. with enough despair and fear, you wont care what happens to your family. With Tzeentch, there are more people scheming for power and change in the galaxy, than there are people with hope. you would need to root out corrupting, and give people a reason to hope again. you would need to make it so that dreams for a better tomorrow are more than dreams for personal power. and its not easy to keep people hoping. And for Slaanesh, well, its harder to keep people seeking for perfection in all things, its much more likely that they will just go of the rails into excess. Also, orgasms or extreme pain are the most powerful emotions we have, and the taste of very fine food or the beauty of spectacular art kinda pails in comparision with that. So, it would be really bloody hard to get rid of the chaos gods. A good place to start is to remove all war, disease, dispair and corruption, which would basicly mean to nuke the galaxy at this point<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Econ] Why don't all companies set money aside during booms to compensate for busts? On the frontpage, someone mentioned a company that set aside money in booms so they don't fire people in busts. RBC is well-known in macroeconomics, so companies should expect a bust. Why don't they put money aside then? Seems in their interests, so they wont have to spend resources in rehiring after a bust ends<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hyman Minsky has a good explanation. Look for his paper on Financial Instability Hypothesis. The gist of it is during boom times euphoria takes hold and firms take on more debt to invest or speculate<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What causes pruney fingers? Whenever I go swimming, my fingers looks wrinkly after. What causes this? Is it pool water hypotonic, causing my fingers to absorb water or hypertonic, causing them to lose water. My scence teacher insists that the pool water is hypotonic and that my fingers take on water, but wouldn't that make them look bulbous and not shriveled?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two portions of your skin, the epidermis and dermis, are tied down to one another in certain areas. As you spend a lot of time in the pool, your skin absorbs water and expands. However, since the two layers are connected, your skin has nowhere to go, so it wrinkles. Once you're out of the pool, the water in your skin eventually evaporates and it returns to normal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Corporations almost never act in the interest of the public and would pursue extremely unethical and illegal practices to increase profits if not prevented from doing so by government regulations. My view: Corporations almost never act in the interests of the public, and often inflict great damage upon society and the environment in order to maximize profits, and must be regulated in order to protect the public. For instance, Volkswagen emission-testing controversy. Their recent vehicles have been found to be fitted with a mechanism that is able to detect that the vehicle is being emission tested and switch the engine to an ultra low emission, high efficiency mode to pass the tests. When the vehicle was not being tested, the engine switched back to a higher performance but also far dirtier fuel burning configuration. This is a prime example of a company knowingly harming the environment for the purpose of increasing profit. There are countless other examples of other corporations participating in unethical and often harmful behaviors to increase profits and please the shareholders. Update: my view has been changed. Not all corporations are monolithic embodiments of evil and it was foolish for me to generalize in the manner that I did. However, I still firmly believe that government regulations are the only thing that keep corporations from using heinous business practices for profit. If not regulated, businesses will devolve into profit producing machines that have no regard for ethics or the environment.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I want to take an indirect approach to this one by clarifying something: what do you mean when you say "the public interest?" It seems like you've defined it very narrowly to mean protecting the environment. While environmental concerns can certainly present a conflict of interest between money-making and public good, they represent only a tiny fraction of the net effect a major corporation can have on the globe. What about economic growth? Employment? Lowering the cost of goods and services you take for granted? Corporations are major drivers of prosperity, and with prosperity comes the luxury of caring about, say, the environment. You'll notice that the slumdog neighborhoods of India don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about pollution when they don't have the certainty of clean water. TL;DR: Corporations do a lot of good things that you're not considering, and often those good things can give people the luxury of addressing some of the bad things you are considering. (And a quick sidebar, because it's a pet peeve of mine: it looks like you're using the word "corporation" as a synonym for "large company," which is inaccurate. A corporation is defined by it's government-granted liability shield.)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If imaginary numbers like sqrt(-1) are in fact imaginary, how can they help solve actual Math problems?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant all numbers are imaginary, they are concepts that exist only in your mind. Numbers become useful when they can describe real world objects. The number i is a natural way to describe a 1/4 rotation. If you do it twice, i^2 you have done a 180 degree rotation, and in math, turning around is like multiplying by -1, so in terms of rotations, i^2 = -1. And if you do 4 rotations of a 1/4 turn, you have spun all the way around and are back where you started. It is like you have done nothing at all, in math, that is like multiplying by 1, so in terms of rotations i^4 = 1. So all numbers are imaginary and live in your mind, and they become useful when they represent something real. When you relate imaginary numbers to rotations they become very useful and solve many real problems.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it worth it reading "old" computer science-related books? Maybe some types of topics (eg. digital logic) are pretty much ageless but what about topics related to information security, artificial intelligence etc? I get the impression that knowledge in this field is always progressing and changing so quickly that reading a book from 10 years ago or something would only present outdated (and useless?) information. Does it ever matter? And if so, when should/shouldn't it matter? &#x200B; Ps. I'm still pretty new to this field so apologies if this is a noob question.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The more mathematical and theoretical it is, the more relevant it remains. The more application-oriented it is, the less relevant. Discrete math, computability and complexity theory, information theory, mathematics of cryptography, numerical methods, etc haven't aged so much. &#x200B; Application and implementation-related books age quickly. Even modern books need to be supplemented with current papers and survey articles.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV : Western cultures and values are superior Some cultures are better than other cultures. That being said, I truly believe Western values are much superior than that of the East. The Greeks started democracy, and in the modern day era, the Americans and French spread those democratic ideals all over the world. Moreover, unlike in the certain other parts of the world, we guarantee our women rights. When a woman is raped, she receives justice, not the death penalty. We allow our women to demonstrate, stand up for themselves and do whatever they wish to do. Our gay citizens have the right to marry and adopt, something that no Eastern country (except South Africa; tho South Africa is still a part of "the West") is privileged to have. Gay people are not killed and imprisoned here, unlike the seventy countries where they are. People are allowed to follow whatever religion they want. People are allowed to talk crap about the ones in power without facing repercussions. It is the West that is leading the world - from industrialization to fighting against climate change. Sure, we may have had our problems, from slavery to colonization, but we have moved on from all those things. We have understood our mistakes, and are taking steps to ensure a much brighter future where all our citizens are equal and free.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So western cultures made "mistakes" like colonization, slavery, couple of world wars. Now they have learned from those mistakes so they are better. BUT Cultures who were oppressed by western countries and are just now beginning to stand up on their own, that are beginning to understand their mistakes and rectifying them are worse? I'd admit you're right if western countries never committed any of those atrocities ever; but they did. Can't just brush that aside.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Matrix] Where did the people of Zion (Zionese?) get the hovercraft fleet? [Spoilers] I was just rewatching the Matrix a few days ago and saw the nameplate [here] (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hQ7V3jEodDM/UbjdtPxr-bI/AAAAAAAAICY/m-F0c0pv3PE/s1600/nebuchadnezzar.jpg) So the Nebuchadnezzar was built in 2069... but we know that we are in iteration 6 of the Matrix at this point... so has Zion been using ships that are several hundred years old? I don't care how well made the ships were, there is simply no way they could last that long. Do they find the wreckage of the ships and repair them or are they passed down from one iteration of Zion to the next? Also, this implies that Zion has the technical knowledge to effectively rebuild an entire hovercraft, but as stated in Reloaded they don't really understand the machines that clean the city's water, which seems like a very large technical gap. If someone could explain where the ships come from and whether or not they can build their own I'd really appreciate it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are a couple of factors at play. One, the inscription giving the date is on the ship's core, and also reads 'Mark III, no 11' which could indicate that the ship has be entirely refit either three or eleven times, and only the core is original equipment. Two, the residents of Zion don't know about the cycle of destruction, and thus don't really know what date it is. They could think they're salvaging from the machine war, and actually be picking up ships from the previous iteration of Zion. That could easily make the date on the plaque inaccurate. Best guess is they have the capability to assemble components, manufacture hulls and so forth, but may not understand the workings of higher tech bits like the core, or even maybe the pads. Likewise they'd clearly understand pipes and pumps, but the water system may have advanced reactors they do not understand.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How exactly does “losing” your voice work? What causes it/what is it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The body’s response to damage includes inflammation and swelling. Your vocal cords are thin membranes and are very easily damaged by overuse (either too much or too vigorously- screaming a few times or talking loudly all day long). When they get damaged they swell, and the swelling causes them to become thicker and less flexible, meaning the don’t vibrate as well or make contact with each other correctly, and you’ve “lost your voice.” Illnesses can also cause them to swell.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are UHF TV antennas (almost) always loop antennas, vs. VHF antennas which are usually whip antennas?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The length of an antenna is related to the wavelength of the signal it is meant to receive, typically some fraction (1/2 or 1/4). UHF wavelengths are less than a meter, so loop antennas (antennae?) work fine. VHF wavelengths are longer, 1m - 10m, so they need longer antennas. There is math involved, so someone else will have to get into that.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is not doing a bad thing good? The original premise for the question was vegetarianism, i.e. if killing animals for the pleasure of eating them is "wrong" and seen as a "bad" thing, is abstaining a "good" thing or simply neutral? If people think that they're doing a good thing by not eating animals, why don't they think that they're doing a good thing by not killing everyone they come across, or not stealing when they go into a store? My first reaction is that perhaps the difference between a good or neutral inaction comes from a social moral differing from an objective moral (i.e. most people think that murdering a human is bad, while most people think that murdering farm animals is fine). However, the question is intentionally vague because I'm interested in different interpretations. Feel free to ignore the premise.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It probably helps if you have a distinction between "praiseworthy" and "non-praiseworthy" actions, in addition to "good" and "bad" actions. Sometimes we do good things that are praiseworthy (because they involve a sacrifice, or a great risk, for example) but sometimes we don't deserve praise for doing what we ought to do (like not killing random people that we meet). So, there are some actions we might want to say are good actions, without necessarily saying we should praise a person for doing them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [40K] So our ship was blown off course in the Warp and we emerged in real space beyond the light of the Astronomican. How do we figure out where in the galaxy we are? How do we determine our real space location and how do we get back to the Emperor's light?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You triangulate you location based on any known stars you can detect and make a short jump towards Terra. Keep triangulating and making short jumps until you see the Astronomicon or (more likely) die. Alternatively, give up and land on the nearest habitable planet. Or maybe forsake the imperium and embrace chaos.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Best books about logic? I'm interested in critical thinking, skepticism (not philosophical), deductive reasoning (inductive and abductive too), constructing valid syllogisms, spotting fallacies and the like... Could anyone suggest some good books or resources?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most people seemed to be recommending books on formal deductive logic. These recommendations fit some of your request, but they seem narrower in focus than what you're looking for. Here's a recommendation that might better fit what you're looking for. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Ram Neta have a good (and free) *online course called Think Again* on Coursera*. It covers basic deductive arguments, inductive arguments, inference to the best explanation, fallacies, etc. A good companion book to this course is Understanding Arguments* by Sinnott-Armstrong and Fogelin (you can pick up a used 7th or 8th edition for relatively cheap).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there anywhere that models predict will get nicer to live because of climate change? Every time I read about the impacts of climate change, it's stories of ecological collapse, droughts, hurricanes, and so on. Is there anywhere that models predict the climate will get more moderate, the land more arable, and with more abundant fresh water? To put another way, what's the best place to move to minimize the negative impact on my family?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First off, "nicer to live" requires individual value judgements because not everyone is the same in what they like. By conventional metrics, most places are going to be losers in climate change but if the mean temperature was a bit warmer there will be some places which will generally be considered more pleasant places to live. Canada and Russian will be warmer but they will still have long dark winters. New York will get more like Miami and some people love Miami. It's known we are altering the climate but exact predictions of regional details are not as certain. It's not yet time to be homesteading new places based on predictions of climate 100 years in the future. Rainfall and precipitation are also important factors in quality-of-life. While rain is inconvenient for picnics it essential for agriculture. Climate change is going to alter rainfall patterns but it's not as predictable which places will get hotter and drier and which get hotter and wetter. Storminess is also expected to increase for most places in the mid-latitudes. Timing of rainfall is also important - does it all come in winter or is it spread out through the year? It is unfortunately those places which are already struggling (Africa, Southeast Asia) which are forecast to have some of the worst negative effects on agriculture.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Getting into research with low GPA Hi all, I am in my final year of undergrad (Biomedical Sciences). I want to get some opportunity to volunteer or work in a lab to get some lab experience before I graduate. But my low GPA stops me from approaching professors and I know I won't be chosen since I am not one of those exceptional students that professors look for when choosing from applicants. If I want to describe myself then I would say although I am not so super smart but I am quiet hard working. I would learn but take my own time. During high school my grades were 90+ which I achieved only because I sacrificed my sleep, social life and all other entertainment. I am not one of those people who can balance study and social life and the reason is because I learn slow and I review concepts till I feel satisfied enough to confidently say that I know this stuff now. My initial years of undergrad were amazing in that I was pushing myself consistently. Although not an exceptional GPA (had 3.3/4) but I was still considered as "good student". But after the pandemic hit, my mental health suffered a lot (really a lot) and my GPA fell down considerably (currently around 2.9/4). I struggled to get out of bed and was totally directionless and lost. There was this guilt of not doing what I need to do and at the same time I didn't bother about just anything! I did find support later and now somewhat better in terms of mental health but now I have other health issues which keeps me away from giving my best. To be honest, before pandemic the lowest grade I got was C+ and that too in just one course. During pandemic, when I was not at my best, I had a couple of D's too. At present my GPA isn't at its best that I could go and talk to my professors regarding a research position. I know myself well and I know that those D's that I see on my transcript is not me. But I guess when professor will see my GPA and especially those D's I will be pushed out. Anyone here can give me suggestion on how can I approach professors, how do I convince them that I can do better and more importantly what will make them choose me over others despite a bad GPA for lab position???<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think most professors understand that GPA is not a good indicator of research aptitude. Many of them probably had less-than-stellar GPAs when they were undergrads. What they're looking in undergrads is not book-smarts. They want to see passion, hard-work, ability to listen, and an overall good lab citizen. So start emailing professors to see if you can join their lab. You'll be pleasantly surprised.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why induce labor in pregnant women past their due date instead of just letting the baby come on its own?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. When the baby gets too big, it can require surgery to get it out. 2. You can make less of what the baby needs. 3. What the baby is using to live (placenta) can begin to fail. 4. Insurance reasons: Since is is now standard practice to induce if you are a bit late, any complications arising when they deviate from that norm leave doctors a target for law suits. 5. Business reasons: The doctor only takes on so many pregnant women at a time, with the assumption that most will deliver by their due date. It messes with the practice's schedule to have a bunch of ladies going late. This is not going to a primary reason, but if keeping the woman on her schedule can be justified medically, it is certainly a business perk as well. 6. Pregnancy is hard on the mother's body, so if she is having any significant health effects (high blood pressure, sugar level problems, etc), it might be safer for her to deliver sooner. I think it is important to mention that there are significant risks to inducing as well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Sins of a Solar Empire]What wiped out the Vasari empire? What was chasing them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Two hints: - The sole Vasari warship that returned from their initial campaign against the foe had its crew "driven mad" by fear of what they encountered. Not merely despairing or terrified, but insane. - The Vasari are by far the most advanced in Phase Space technology, including holding permanent portal-like stabilized nodes open for their ships to use. Conclusion: Something came in from phase space, perhaps attracted by the stabilized nodes the Vasari created. Something so alien to even the Vasari, perhaps even to reality itself, that it just broke whoever perceived it. They never even had a chance to fight - they were lost as soon as they saw it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What are the problems of Stoicism?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Classical Stoicism held that Nature was ultimately good, and that all actions in accordance with nature would bring about the good. Marcus Aurelius asserts in Book 2 of Meditations that “nothing natural is evil.” Stoicism then runs into the same trap as some religions that put faith in an omnipotent and benevolent deity - how do you explain horrible events? Alasdair MacIntyre summarizes the Nature problem in Stoicism quite succinctly: “Nature is conceived of as an actively benevolent agent; nature is a legislator for our good” (After Virtue 217).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: languages that use a Latin-script alphabet should move towards eliminating accent marks. My reasoning: I have some level of proficiency in five languages, using three alphabets between them. I have recently gotten more into language learning and am studying four more, all of which use Latin script (the alphabet used by Romance, Germanic, and Celtic languages among others). In doing so and using my phone for learning programs, I have realized just what a pain accent marks are - slowing everything down and not adding much to comprehension. Words are faster to type without accent marks, and text looks neater. To a fluent speaker, their exclusion should present no impediment to comprehension. The concerns: I am aware that there may be a few Latin script languages (Vietnamese comes to mind) that are so reliant on accent marks that losing them would seriously impede communication. These may be excluded. Further, I am aware that demo in accent marks makes pronunciation more ambiguous and may make the language more difficult for children or new learners. I have a proposed solution: Hebrew normally excludes vowels (a more important textual feature than accent marks) from professional/adult writing, including them only for children or new learners. There might therefore be, say, learners' French which includes ç,é,è,ï,ô, etc and professional French which excludes them.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I would counter that accent marks actually provide for less ambiguity, more possible phonemes, stress marking and ease in differentiation of homophones, while at the same time aiding the reader in inferring the correct pronunciation or meaning. Accent marks have a wide variety of uses that are ultimately beneficial. In many languages with more-or-less regular rules on stress placement, such as Spanish, accent marks can differentiate words, such as "esta" (this) vs "está" (he is); the former has stress placed on the first syllable, whereas the latter has it on the second. In Spanish, stress usually falls on the penultimate syllable when the word ends in a vowel, n or s, and on the last syllable otherwise. "Está" violates this and needs to be marked accordingly. Similarly, accents also allow for differentiation of interrogative and relative pronouns, cf. "¿quién?" (who?) vs "quien" (who). In other instances, they simply aid comprehension in terms homophones, such as "si" (if) and "sí" (yes). Even more, an accent mark can hold stress on a specific syllable for inflection purposes: the addition of "me" to "mira" in order to form a command would push stress one syllable over, but by writing "mírame," we're able to preserve the proper stress without ambiguity. In other languages, accent marks change the pronunciation of a vowel without resorting to using additional letters that complicate things. In French, the circumflex opens the vowel so that "hôpital" differentiates from "bonne." The "ô" signifies /o/, where as "o" in this case is "/ɔ̜/" in IPA terms. We can also look at accent marks as providing an avenue for more vowel pronunciations without the need to either guess or come up with convoluted spellings to achieve them. English has roughly 12 vowels depending on the dialect spoken with an additional eight diphthongs, but there are only five vowels and no accentuation possibilities. In comparison, Portuguese has around 16 vowels, but is much easier to deduce due to five of them being marked nasals with a tilde and the use of the acute accent and circumflex for specific sounds. Even more, Portuguese has a huge volume of diphthongs and triphthongs, but comprehension is easier since accented vowels provide clues on how to differentiate them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: The practices/beliefs of the Jewish religion.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Judaism is a monotheistic religion - i.e., we believe in "One God", indivisible. The foundation of Judaism is found within the Torah (a.k.a. the old testament) wherein you will find every law (halachah) that a Jew must follow. These are referred to as "mitzvot". There are 613 Mitzvot. These concern everything from dietary law, to dress, to marriage and death. A significant portion of mitzvot concern laws related to the Sabbath. The hebrew calender is neither lunar nor solar. Technically, it is a combination of both. There are 13 months but sometimes there is a leap month. Jews are huge on life cycle celebrations (birth, bar mitzvah, marriage, death) and have many, many holidays. There is only one Jewish month without a holiday. The most important holidays are pesach (passover) and yom kippur (the high holy days refer to the 10 day period before yom kippur). Passover commemorates the exodus from egypt (moses and the israelites) and Yom Kippur is the day of atonement - supposedly, when God writes in the book of life your fate for the following year (this is why you atone).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [In Time] How would a time based economy actually work? "In Time" money is replaced by well.. time. After there 25th birthday people stop aging but they have to earn time to actually continuing living . This is all supposedly to stop overpopulation but the economic actions shown doesn't make any sense, if it where truly to control overpopulation time would be distributed based on overall population density but prices are raised arbitrarily (sean especially after Will and Sylvia flood the system with stolen time) suggesting that the real purpose of time based economy is to work pour people to death and to keep them from uprising against the system because well they don't have the time to stage a rebellion. So how would a fair time-based economy look like?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There would be enormous pressure to conclude schooling before the age of 25. This would damage many professions with extended education/training periods. Doctors would be rushed through their training. In a world without age-related issues, they'd be less in demand - except to treat trauma victims as billions of people spend decades continuing to enjoy extreme sports. Scientific research would be damaged, and any other even slightly esoteric discipline (like engineering). Aside from the technologies and knowledge needed to maintain the anti-aging system, we'd see a plateau in human ingenuity and training. You would think a world where geniuses stay young and vital would eventually balance this out with sustained creativity (as opposed to exhaustion) - but there's a mental element, not just one of raw stamina. Replacing money with time will make inequality much more starkly clear. Today, the average CEO makes 204 times what the average worker makes. That won't last in a time-based economy. In the beginning, you'll see a surge of retirements as people at the top gain what seems to be practical immortality after a few years. "I'll come back to work in a century or two." You'll see riots as people die in the streets while the idle rich become practically godlike. People with vital or disgusting jobs will go on strike until their true worth is known. That first year will be utter chaos. But at the end of it, the soldier on the frontlines will earn more time than the general who commands him. A garbageman will earn more time than an interior designer. Anyone whose job is enjoyable will see their work hours expand - while those whose jobs are not will work less. There will be a flood out of low-paying jobs into those who promise life.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is schizophrenia still being used when you apply the epistemology behind the word? >Schizo = Split Phrenia = Mind The word schizophrenia translates as splitting of the mind, its use was intended to describe the separation of function between personality, thinking, memory, and perception. Japan changed this disorder's name to integration disorder in 2002, and South Korea changed it to attunement disorder in 2012. Does splitting of the mind describe the disorder appropriately enough to be used as the medical term, and how so? How would the aforementioned functions be separated in schizophrenics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One reason names for illness change is often due to treatment options changing. Another is to make it seem less terrifying so people suffering from them are more likely to get help (which is why they did it Korea).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we feel tired after having to process a lot of information input e.g. a long day of learning new things from lectures?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant We basically have different levels of relaxation or paying attention. When you pay close attention to things, your body increases its activity because something important is going on and you might have to fight or flee. Humans did not evolve to sit in lectures. So either your brain decides it is unimportant and you get bored and sleepy or it is important and your body prepares for action. In reality you probably cycle through those states throughout a day of lectures. Being in a heightened state of readiness is exhausting. So at the end of the day you are tired.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Do human babies 'imprint' on the first person they see like animals? Or do we 'choose' parents based on other things?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Newborn babies recognize their mother / parents by the voices when they are born, having heard them for months in advance. Within days they also recognize the smell of the people taking care of them.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: World's wealth is growing at 2.5% rate. How is this possible? Where does "new" money come from if "everybody" is wealthier now?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Money is one thing, which /u/K3zzeR covered, but actual, tangible wealth is another thing that can also increase. With every person born, the world's labour force increases, and more work can be done. New resources can be discovered and used, new goods and services can be invented, automation can allow less workers to generate more products, etcetera.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user is depression an illness? One of my friend claimed depression is not an illness according to new classification system and actually a symptom of other things Is he right ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Depression is a syndrome, that is, a collection of symptoms that tend to group together. The diagnosis doesn't say anything about what "caused" it, just what the symptoms should be. It depends on what definitions you use for "illness". But if you want to be strict about your definition, and say that an illness is some kind of disease process somewhere in the body, then depression is not an illness. This is one of the reasons why "disorder" is a preferable term to "illness" or "disease".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When applying Occam's Razor, how does one know what the "simplest solution" is? For example, regarding the Theory of Evolution (which I believe, but I just needed an example)... The idea that over eons animals have various mutations that over time slowly change the organism ever so slightly, generation after generation, weeding out those mutations that don't help an organism survive until it finally becomes the animal we see today.... or God created a creature that fits perfectly in its environment. When I word the two options that way, the God option seems the "simplest solution". I never really understood how someone decides what the simplest solution is.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The explanatory economy Occam's Razor aims at is about economy of assumption-making. It's not about which explanation can be articulated in the simplest terms, or most briefly. "God did it" is a very simple explanation, but Occam's Razor still favors the theory of evolution, by comparison, because it's more epistemically modest, if you will. It explains the phenomena it aims to explain (species differentiation, etc) in naturalistic terms. Its assumptions are humble, based merely on the biological evidence around us. Whereas with "God did it", that supernatural assumption is a mighty big one. It's simpler, yes, but it's not more economical in epistemic terms, because one would have colossal difficulty in establishing God's existence in the first place.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5, do we have any system of "direction" in outer space? With everything moving and no obvious cardinal directions, how do we tell which way is which? Is everything just relative to what it orbits? With the message on voyager giving our "address" would other planets even know which way to go?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's just talk about navigating within the solar system. First, you have an easy direction - towards or away from the sun. Second, you pick a couple of fixed points in the sky, really bright stars that you can easily identify. With those 3 points you can determine your position anywhere in 3D space around the sun. This is how spaceships beyond Earth navigate in deep space. Traveling between the earth and the moon, the Apollo astronauts used star sightings and known landmarks on earth (like Cuba, Hawaii, Baja California, Madagascar, etc.) to determine their location. Modern travelers will use the sun + stars system. If you travel beyond the solar system but within the local group of galaxies, the best way to navigate is probably using pulsars. Pulsars are all unique - they rotate at varying speeds, and those speeds can be detected. Finding 3 pulsars in the sky, and having a catalog of known pulsar speeds would allow you to ID the three pulsars and triangulate your position anywhere in the galaxy. Essentially any time you can get 3 fixed points of reference in the sky, you can determine your exact position.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is a quark? All I know is that it is very small... EDIT: This is what I saw that made me wonder about quarks. [Scale of the Universe](http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2usPnU/primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Matter (in the everyday sense) is made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of _particles_: protons, neutrons and electrons. That seemed to be the whole story, and that the component particles of atoms were "fundamental" — they weren't made of anything else, they were just kind of themselves. But then we found out that protons and neutrons are actually made of smaller particles, which are called "quarks". Quarks have some interesting properties. It turns out that quarks have six different "flavors" -- just intrinsically different varieties. There are only a handful of stable combinations of flavors that will last when they clump together. Other combos break down quickly or never form at all. And most importantly and weirdly, they can't be separated — they can only exist in these combos. Particles made of combinations of quarks are called, as a family, "hadrons". The protons and neutrons we know so well from our daily lives are the most stable combination of quarks, which are made of just two flavors called "up" and "down" quarks. These are also the most stable flavors of quarks — other flavors quickly decay into up and downs. But there are also more exotic combinations of quarks that show up as relatively short-lived particles in cosmic rays and stuff. These can involve combinations of the other four flavors of quark: "strange", "charm", "bottom", and "top". Quarks and hadrons have a lot of other interesting properties and important roles in particle physics. But to everyday human experience, the combos of up and down quarks that we know as protons and neutrons are the biggest part of the picture.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Would it be better to neutralize an acid spill with a weak base or a strong base?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How you neutralize depends on the acid. If you spilled concentrated sulfuric acid, you're best off avoiding water and using something like solid calcium carbonate. If it's hydrochloric acid, you should dilute before attempting neutralization because HCl produces vapors when it heats up. If you spill something like hydrofluoric or perchloric acid, you run. Either way, you will produce less heat if you neutralize with a weak base instead of a strong base.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why lifespans differ from animal to animal.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two kinds of lifespans, more or less. Lifespan in the wild, and lifespan in captivity. Usually, lifespan in captivity is higher. There are no predators, most of the time you have people care for animals that know what they are doing. Lifespan in the wild is, especially the average, is hindered by predators and the availability of food. Let's look at lifespan in captivity: You have massive animals, like elephants, who have comparatively huge organs. They are built to last. On the other hand, you have animals that are smaller, but they are living really slow, like turtles. Generally it means, the faster you live, the shorter your life will be. ELI5: The size of the animal is the candle, the way the animal lives is the flame. Imagine a small candle with a huge flame, it burns down really quickly. Imagine a Large candle with a huge flame, it burns down normally. Imagine a Large candle with a tiny flame, it burns (almost) forever. edit: comparison updated<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is your motivation/ inspiration behind Economics major you are pursuing? What are problem-solver aspects of Economics major? Can it be used to build something? Or will it about mostly abstract things? Please correct me if I am wrong and I am more than open to your advises. Maybe, you can enlighten nowadays' Economics students. Will try to less arrogant: I chose the major with the mindset that Economics is an interdisciplinary field and in the crossroad of Business and Technology. However, being sophomore undergraduate, I am somehow losing interest as I gradually feel that Economics teaches me the world as it is and kinda does not offer me tools to build something ( sounds egoistic i know but, I like to build, lead things). Building, creativity involving courses such as Microeconomics (Intermediate) fascinates me though. But courses such as Macroeconomics and Money, Banking& Financial Markets are so-so for me ( feel like retired grandpas watching economy news when I read them). once I& my friends thought about implementing startup idea, felt like useless major student and think that even Finance majors would be more useful in this case. When my uncle& dad suggest me to do research on some Economics topics (such as how can we improve our small nation in the Caucasus economically), felt like "what good will it offer me then?". I guess I kinda fond of science entrepreneurship. Fyi, I hear advises like thinking about ML, Data Science and Analytics. What is your perspective?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Economics is a science and, therefore, less directly applicable to generating profits than many other fields it gets grouped with. It is a way of thinking about the world as much as it is a toolkit of statistical tools to make informed arguments on almost any topic. It certainly can be helpful in business situations. Perhaps it's more helpful in policy decision making. It can certainly answer the questions you posed. Most people at the highest level of economics (as in people with Ph.D.'s) consider themselves scientists first and foremost. Most people at the top level of Finance or Accounting are probably C-suite level executives in large corporations. It is not likely to be as beneficial to someone with entrepreneurial aspirations as a more general business degree.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: I believe that political experience is necessary for impactful legislation and high profile political roles and that USA's idea that an outsider will bring change is completely wrong The 2 arguments behind my view are 1. Intuition - You need to understand how institutions work from the inside to use them to your advantage 2. Historical Precedent - For the last hundred years, the most lasting legislative impact has been cast by politicians who have had tons of experience Positive Examples Of Experience Being Useful 1. FDR - had 22 years of political experience and was able to make a lasting impact through Social Security and the New Deal. 2. LBJ - Had 36 years of experience and make a lasting impact through Medicare, Medicaid, and the great society. 3. Richard Nixon - had 2 terms as vice president in the Eisenhower administration ( Eisenhower was a political outsider and was getting old; thus, the vice president had more hands-on experience) and his policy on drugs ( whether we agree or not), China and the EPA has remained almost intact. 4. George H.W.Bush ( Slightly different example here) - Had over 25 years of domestic and foreign policy experience. Stabilized the world in a post Coldwar era i.e. avoiding any political vacuum that might have caused ISIS type instabilities in eastern Europe and successfully restored American Spirit in interventionism by winning the 1st war against Saddam Hussain Negative Examples Of Inexperience Failing * Robert Mcnamara ( Businessman, Veitnam) * John F Kennedy ( zero experience, bay of pigs) * Jimmy Carter(no experience, Iranian Hostage Crisis) * Bill Clinton (6 terms Governor and no Washington experience, inaction during Rwanda genocide) George W Bush (3 term Governor, Iraq war amongst so many other quagmires) Barack Obama( Junior Senator, political vacuum in Iraq leading to rise of ISIS) * Finally, Trump and Rex Tillerson(it may be too early but so far... Zero political Experience, not filling bureaucratic appointments leading to hollow and inefficient government and state department) Some background on myself to help you CMV * I am not an American but have been following American politics for a couple of years now, so there may be historical blindsights/ on the ground reality related blindsight in my perspective. * I happen to lean center of the left and may have confirmation biases here and there too. Edit - I seem to have changed my mind on quite a few issues from the scope of the presidency to the unknown achievements of many presidents. All in all, this was a good learning experience, thanks for keeping it civil.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It seems like your only metric for analyzing success and useful is "I can think of something good for these experienced people" and failure as "I can think of something bad for these inexperienced people". _Surely_ you have to have a basic understanding of confirmation bias such that you aren't actually really satisfied with that? How are you constructing your terms and analysis such that is Vietnam a hit against McNamara but _not_ LBJ?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Rock] Why did a civilian chemical weapons expert accompany the doomed Seal team during the raid on Alcatraz? Surely the military has people who know how to dispose of chemical/biological weapons. Why not send one of them? Why did General Kramer tell FBI Director Womack to find his "best chemical/biological man?"<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Chemical/biological weapons are extremely rare and the army concentrates its resources on the the most direct and applicable threats. Their research into chemical warfare extends to how they protect themselves. Any chemical weapons used on soldiers will be speeding towards them in rockets already. As was seen when weapons inspectors were sent into Iraq in the 1990s, the expertise lies in the civilian sector, scientists and people who devote their lives to understanding chemical and biological attacks and how to counter them. The FBI is more likely to be dealing with a chemical bomb, so it is more logical that they would have someone like Doctor Stanley Goodspeed on the payroll, who it should be noted had expertise across a wide field of topics. When the army needs someone that can get in and disarm VX gas–armed M55 rockets, they turn to the FBI as they have someone like Stanley on the payroll, he's likely studied that exact weapon and he's the person with the best chance of getting the job done.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Independence Day] which cities were wiped out in first assault, and which in the follow up?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Capitals, major population centres and important military facilities were the first targets chosen. Landmarks were typically chosen to be ground zero for the impact their destruction had. After that, it was mop up really - at least until we kicked the shit out of them up and stole all their tech. Now when humanity goes about exterminating a filthy alien species to strip mine their world, we make sure to get all the little fuckers in the first strike.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How would Ancient Stoics deal with people who did not think, even remotely, how they did, and how would they help them if in emotional need?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Epictetus' Enchiridion chapter 16 has the following advice: > When you see any one weeping for grief, either that his son has gone abroad, or that he has suffered in his affairs, take care not to be overcome by the apparent evil; but discriminate, and be ready to say, "What hurts this man is not this occurrence itself,- for another man might not be hurt by it, - but the view he chooses to take of it." As far as conversation goes, however, do not disdain to accommodate yourself to him, and if need be, to groan with him. Take heed, however, not to groan inwardly too. So the basic approach the ancient Stoics used when dealing with non-Stoics was to show outwardly that they were there for a person and to try and comfort them, but to internally remember the Stoic doctrine of the dichotomy of control, and that what was happening to the other person was not a true Evil, but only an apparent evil. It's also important to note that the Stoic doctrine of the four virtues: wisdom, temperance, courage and justice and the doctrine that virtue is the only true Good, would tend to have the Stoic do the virtuous thing in any situation. If that happens to be comforting a non-Stoic friend, then they would comfort that friend.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is the Asian last name 'Nguyen' spelled that way when it doesn't even remotely sound like that? If translating it from a Vietnamese character-set to a Latin character-set and pronouncing it the same way, why is it not just spelled 'W-I-N?'<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 400-500 years ago, Portuguese and French missionaries arrived in Vietnam. At the time, Vietnam was using a form of Chinese characters as the written language. In order to teach in Vietnamese, the missionaries wrote out the Vietnamese language using the Latin alphabet. From there, the Latin alphabet was used for the written Vietnamese language. As for the pronunciation of Nguyen, this is taken directly from the Vietnamese alphabet. Pronounce the following together: ng, as in sing uy, as in quick en, as in -en I adapted that from the Wikipedia entry, which isn't as ELI5-friendly.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are train tracks laid on crushed stones/pebbles? Wouldn't the heavy train vibration move them all around and make the tracks unstable?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In general, the gravel is laid in order to give the tracks a solid foundation. It also serves to help disperse water and to keep the train above sitting water, as well. One of the reasons that trains can be used effectively in certain regions is because the tracks are built using a simple but stable construction. Its very difficult to build roads in certain places due to the ground thawing in the spring and the road cracking or breaking apart because of the unstable foundation. This is why its difficult to build roads in parts of Russia and Alaska. The trains have an advantage, because the gravel is very stable, and much less is required to produce a fairly thin track. While roads are very wide and would require several times the gravel to be stable and to avoid cracking unacceptably. But to answer your question directly, train tracks actually a built with a machine that vibrates the ground and compacts the gravel. This helps guarantee that the tracks will not erode. The rubble is also inspected and any weak areas are fixed fairly easily by an automated machine. This isnt really possible with roads, which require a substantially larger amount of effort to fix defects with the foundation. Since the road itself needs to be torn up, but train tracks can be fixed without even lifting the tracks.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do radio stations or local cable channels come up with names like WBZ, WGBH, or KTZ? I never understood how they got their names<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The identifiers are assigned by the FCC when you are granted your license to broadcast. You can request any 3 letter call sign that is available, but if it is taken you get what you get. The K vs W distinction tells whether you are west (K) or east (W) of the Mississippi river (though their are a few exceptions. There is also N, but that is for military broadcasts.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How fast does something have to move from one point to another for a human to no longer see even the slightest blur in-between?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant That depends on how bright the object is, how much contrast it has, how large it is, and so on. There will always be light from that object hitting the eye from every place along its full path, but how much and how detectable that is depends on many parameters, not just the speed. Once the physics is fixed biologists can look at the response of the eye.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do people develop bad eyesight over the years? Edit: I understand old age, but why do some children as small as 5 years get specs while sometimes people in their 40s dont?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you mean why do people need reading glasses in middle age and the glasses need to get stronger and stronger as they age more then the answer is as follows ; The lens in your eye gets less flexible as people grow older because layers similar to an onion build up. This lack of flexibility makes focusing on nearby objects more difficult. By shining a bright light at the writing your pupil contracts which increases the focus so you can read small writing in daylight but not indoors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If we existed on the planet found orbiting Alpha Centauri, would we be able to detect the Sun's planets with our same technology? Obviously it would be too hot to exist on, I'm just trying to grasp what sorts of planets we are able to discover at this time.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two primary methods for detecting planets, the transit technique and the radial velocity technique. The transit technique looks for dimming of the parent star as the planet crosses in front of it. This technique works very well for large planets (e.g. Jupiter) but is sensitive enough to detect even Earth-size planets. However, it requires continuous monitoring of the star (otherwise you'll miss the short-lived transit event), it requires detecting at least 3 transits to be certain that you're seeing the same planet in orbit, and it requires that the alignment between the orbit and the line of sight to the star be within a narrow range. This last requirement is a big problem as it means that only a fraction of a percent of planets in Earth-like orbits would be detectable, all of the others would have orbits which don't pass in front of their parent star relative to our view. On the other hand, the technique works just fine if all you want to do is get a better handle on the statistical probability of planets of various types. So if we were looking at a clone of our own Solar System out in the galaxy we might be able to detect Venus and Earth but the chances of that would be about 1 in 300 or so. The radial velocity technique is a bit different, it looks at the "forward" and "backward" motion of the parent star relative to us over time. If a planet is orbiting the star it will tug on the star a slight amount and force it to move back and forth as the planet orbits around the star. The bigger and closer the planet the larger the amount of movement in the star. Right now we could detect Jupiter around a star, but we'd have to observe the star (not continuously fortunately, just intermittently) for at least an entire orbit: 12 years. Also, if the relative angle of the orbit is nearly perpendicular to our line of sight then the motions of the star will be up/down and left/right instead of back/forward so we won't be able to see them with the radial velocity technique, and with the current level of sensitivity of such instruments that translates into roughly 10-20% of the potential orbital inclinations. tl;dr There's about a 90% chance we'd be able to detect Jupiter, though it would take at least a decade of observations, and there's about a 0.3% chance we'd be able to detect Venus or Earth. Although the technology is improving fairly rapidly so what we'll be able to detect in another decade will likely be different.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] How do Inertial Dampeners work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Newton's first law of motion: An object at rest tends to stay at rest. Inertial dampers "trick" this phenomenon into making the area being dampened move almost as a unit. From a relative perspective, no movement occurs, thus no inertial effect. Relative to the observer, all of space moves around them. If you're asking how it accomplishes this feat... uhm. Gravitons or something.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The Green and Libertarian Parties are a waste, and people who want to advance those causes should work within the Republican and Democratic parties instead. The Green and Libertarian parties have completely failed to elect any significant officials, not presidents, Senators, governors, major city mayors, or even Congresspeople. They don't get their issues on the agenda in any meaningful way. The mainstream media just ignores them. The US' winner-take-all political system basically makes third parties futile. In many countries in Europe, if you get X% of the vote, you get X% of the seats in parliament, and that system enables alternative parties to have a voice and to have representation. In the US, you have to win your state or your district outright or you get nothing. A party with 10% support in every district nationwide wouldn't get anything for that, and the Greens and Libertarians aren't even close to that. The Christian Right, which represents at most 10% of the country, works within the Republican party, and has unfortunately been very effective at getting its agenda enacted...while libertarians and their separate party have been totally ignored by mainstream Republicans. It seems clear to me which strategy is more effective.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The strength third parties have is threefold: 1. They can bring new issues to the political table. 2. They can draw enough votes away from main parties to affect elections. 3. They can make a big enough deal about certain issues that the main parties pick them up. Historically, parties have had effects on both the political system and the laws it made: The Anti-Masonic party popularized nomination conventions and party platforms, which both the Republican Party and Democratic Party now do. The Prohibition Party got the 18th Amendment passed, prohibiting alcohol, which was a HUGE deal at the time. The Progressive Party helped popularize the ideas of recall, referendum, and initiative in regards to politics. They also brought attention to a lot of tax laws, social insurance, workman's comp, and woman's suffrage. Their candidate (Teddy Roosevelt) also got 27% of the vote in the 1912 election, which is pretty impressive for a third party. The Libertarian and Green parties have raised tons of awareness for their ideas, as well.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does drinking more water help people lose weight faster and increase metabolism? I've seen the whole "drink 8 glasses of water, you'll lose a ton of weight" article in a ton of places. But how does it exactly help the body burn fat?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Drinking more water can help reduce your food intake. A main reason why people gain weight/maintain a high body weight is because they snack a lot without thinking about it. Drinking water will help curb your appetite and reduce your urge to snack. If you can condition yourself to drink a glass of water instead eating a cookie, you save yourself 100-200 calories. If this happens three times a day, that's a total of around 500 calories. 500 calories is equal to doing a 5km run in 30mins. Eating 500 fewer calories per day will lead to one pound of weight loss per week.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Cubesort How does cubesort work? I was reading about other sorting algorithms when I came across Cubesort, and I can't wrap my head around it. I know how other sorting algorithms such as Quicksort, Radix sort and Mergesort work.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A standard balanced binary search tree (let’s say of numbers) has a root node (avalue at the very top of the tree that should be directly in the middle of our sorted data) with two branches. You compare your key to the root and go from there if it’s higher or lower. You keep comparing until you find your exact key or nothing. Each comparison cuts your search space in half. (O(log(n)) average time for non-ELI5) Cubesort is a two-dimensional array of arrays, so like a grid where each square is a hole you can put your numbers in. Say we use a 4x4 grid, or 16 holes. Your key is used on the x-axis to determine which column we can find it in. Then it is used on the y-axis to find the specific square. Within that slot (remember, grid of holes) is where we will find what we are looking for, if the value exists. In here is also approximately 4 sorted values to look at. Overall, 6 lookups for 64 spots (or O(log(n))) Why is this better than our binary search tree? We don’t need to keep pointers to the various branches all over the place. Some operations are also quicker (O(log(cube-root(n))) instead of O(log(n)) for a less ELI5).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How is it that radiation suits protect people? Maybe this is TV magic and I don't know what a real suit looks like but it seems like people become immune to radiation when they put on these thin plastic suits. How is it that radiation can be so dangerous and yet so easily dealt with.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The radiation suits you typically see don't block a lot of radiation. To understand their purpose, you first need to know what happens in a nuclear incident or any other situation where radiation exposure is a risk. Essentially, radiation is emitted by unstable particles that decay (the radioactive material). Normally, we like to keep these particles contained, but after, for example, an explosion, these particles can be spread all around or even be airborne for some time after the event. When you enter an affected area unprotected, the amount of radiation you'll take in during your presence is only a small part of the problem. The larger issue comes from particles that end up in your clothes, on your skin or even in your lungs after you breathe them in. These particles cause a continuous exposure to radiation even after you leave the affected area. Especially ingested particles are dangerous, as the radiation emitted by those can directly affect your internal bits, whereas radiation originating outside of your body still has to pass through your skin and muscle tissue (though it can already do damage there). So the main purpose of a radiation suit is to avoid taking too much radioactive material with you.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do doctors and nurses develop stronger immune systems from spending most of their time working in hospitals? Or do they become sick more often than the general population? Are there any other effects on ones health from working in a hospital setting long term?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a combination of things. 1) Vaccinations. Health care workers are always up to date on vaccinations (in theory). 2) Immunity. A lot of diseases (especially some common in kids) are one shot diseases-- you get it and then you're immune. HCWs get these once or twice. 3) Repeated exposure. The more you are exposed to a disease, the more of a response you build to it. It's like getting a booster shot. Whereas someone in the normal population may be exposed to disease x twice in their life, with the second being so long after the first that their immunity is quite weak and they show symptoms, a HCW may be exposed on a monthly basis, and thus strongly fights it off after the first exposure. That said, there are definitely a lot of older docs in fields like Infectious Disease with chronic, tropical diseases and so on. That's life. I have not seen any evidence that the immune system itself becomes stronger, in the sense that it can respond to a new threat better. Rather, it's just that the average HCW is seeing the same diseases over and over, and thus has some degree of immunity to them already.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user how do you explain what is "language theory" and automata for someone who has little knowledge about computers?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I've got a book "Introduction to Languages and the Theory of Computation". It mathematically defines a few models of computation without directly discussing actual computers. That seems like a reasonable way to do it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:Mr. Trump's comments in the video released last week disqualify him on the basis of character to hold the office of the President of the United States I believe Mr. Trump's comments, seen around the country and world this last weekend, disqualify him - or should - from holding the office of the President. I am a father of two daughters, so not without an emotional bias here. However, the reasons I think this are: 1. The President is a leader. How effective or inclusive a leader can he be having made these comments at 59 years old? 2. The President is a role model. How can we hold this office up as a role model to our children when we have to qualify his comments? I'd appreciate keeping the red herring, Argumento ad hominem out of the responses. I am not in this post espousing a vote for his opponent. Nor do responses of 'other Presidents have done...' qualify as a defense of Trump's comments, though I am probably open to that view being challenged. I'm sincerely interested in a non-partisan, rational discussion. Thank you. Edit: had to run to a doctors appointment and have a couple of job related tasks but will be back as soon as possible. Video source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/08/media/donald-trump-video-8-questions/ _____ > 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 Can you clarify what you mean by "disqualify"? Are you just saying there's no way you'd ever vote for someone who did this, or are you saying there should be some legal force behind that disqualification, or what?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does the foods industry measure the amount of calories in food? Or is it an estimation? For example, how do we know that a cheeseburger is 900 calories?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tl;dr: For many recipes they look it up in a special tables for common ingredients. For other recipes they do some chemical tests to count fat-proteins-carbohydrates and then calculate using other tables. Calorie is a metric unit of energy (symbol: cal). This is the amount of energy you need to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius (in normal conditions). Also, there is an American Calorie^tm, which is bigger, of course (symbol: Cal) - it is 1000 standart calories. The number of calories tells you what amount of energy you can get from the food. The method to measure this energy is known as direct calorimetry - you just dry food, burn it in a pure oxygen in a special device in a certain amount of water and measure the temperature change. But this method is not used nowadays on food labels, because humans will take less energy from food than there is (they do not digest fiber*, etc) Now they do some standardized chemical tests (or look in existing tables for common products) to count proteins-fat-carbohydrate-etc quantity - the things we actually take from food. The results are converted into an equivalent energy value. For example one gram of fat will give you 9 kcal = 9000 cal = 9 Cal, alcohol - 7 kcal, proteins - 4 kcal, carbohydrates - 4 kcal. Only fat, ethanol, proteins, carbohydrates, organic acids, polyols and fiber are caloric, so anything else is not counted.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does a vine searching for and object to climb “know” not to wrap around itself? I’ve seen a time laps video of a climbing vine and as it circles around searching for something to climb it seems to run into a chute from itself. Upon interacting with itself it simply disengages and continues its search for another object. How does it recognize itself?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are surface proteins which sense when the vine is touching something. When it does it sets off a signal cascade which causes growth/elongation on the opposite side of the vine. There are a number of processes at work, almost all of which are poorly understood and heavily researched. They also vary between organisms that exhibit the process. If you're interested in diving down the rabbit hole Google "circumnutation" or "helical growth in plants".<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [MCU] Did Wakanda ever intend to honor the Sokovia Accords The Sokovia Accords were, if not the invention of Wakanda, at least heavily lobbied for by Wakanda. At the opening meeting, King T'Chaka made a powerful statement about how their "stolen vibranium" was used to create devastation, and how super powered individuals were a threat to the peace of the world. But the Black Panther, who would clearly be covered by the Accords, operates in foreign nations all the time. One of T'Challa's first acts after the signing of the accords was to sneak into a foreign nation, attack a convoy, and retrieve one of his spies. Justified? Sure. Legal? Hell no. When T'Challa learns that Klaue was in ~~China~~ Korea, he immediately invades that country as well, and in a very public fashion. There is video of the Panther violating the Accords up on YouTube. So my question is: did Wakanda intend to honor the accords, but T'Challa had a change of heart after his father was killed, or were the accords designed by Wakanda to hinder the powered individuals of other nations, and thereby further secure Wakanda's secret advantages?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First, we need to clarify the intent of the Sokovia Accords. The purpose of the Accords was not to regulate superhumans/enhanced individuals, as Clint Barton and Sam Wilson would certainly not be on this list, and arguably neither would Tony Stark or James Rhodes. The purpose of the Accords was to create UN oversight of the Avengers as a specific entity given their history of causing damage and ignoring sovereign borders during their heroics. Ant-Man and Spider-Man, had they not responded to the calls to fight in Germany, would not have been covered under the Accords’ statement that the Avengers would be directed by the UN. The situation related to Bucky Barnes demonstrated the hypocrisy of Wakanda’s position. T’Challa, or any Black Panther, could claim diplomatic immunity in the eyes of the international community due to his status as a member of the Wakandan Royal Family - and that is assuming he was ever caught, which Wakanda’s advanced technology would make difficult. Bucky’s incarceration without trial demonstrated that the UN was taking a hard line on any enhanced individual they found, but T’Challa’s freedom after being apprehended in Budapest shows the preferential treatment he received as a diplomatic officer as well as a superhero. So, long story short, no. The Black Panther, as he is not a member of the Avengers, would not be subordinated to the UN under the Accords, nor would he be held without trial like Bucky due to his station as heir apparent and later King of Wakanda.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Existentialism<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant This question has been asked many times already, so search for more explanations. The basic principle is that "existence precedes essence." This means that you're a blank canvas when you're born. No values. No meaning. No sense of what's beautiful and not, or what's right or wrong. There's no inherent meaning to existence. Your actions and experiences in the world will help you paint your canvas and craft your own essence, i.e. your identity. You draw upon these experiences in the world around you. That's why everyone is different because everyone has different experiences. Some people are afraid of this process though. Realizing that there's no inherent meaning and that you have to create your own is scary. That's why some anxious people retreat to the morality outlined by religion or by some other figure. They don't actively create meaning; they just copy it. They aren't subjects; they objectify themselves. This self-objectification and inauthenticity is called bad faith.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Jobs with a purpose with an Economics degree? I have an internship for an investment bank but I realised I want something with purpose and not that fussed about money. But there doesnt really seem to be jobs that you can do with an economics degree that has a purpose.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Probably not the answer you're looking for... But going and earning enough money that you can afford to donate to charities and volunteer in your free time is a legitimate way to contribute to the world.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I think that the gender wage gap is due to the majority of women's decisions and not discrimination. CMV I know a lot of liberals are saying that women make 77 cents less than their male counterparts. However, I heard the libertarian's counter point and it's not that they are individually making less, it's just that women work less than men do as a whole. That being said, I want to say that I am not a misogynist, I believe women should be treated equally to men in what they do. So if a woman puts in as much hours, does as much work, and have as much education and experience she should be paid the same as a man with the same qualities. It's just that as a whole, women tend to be the care-takers. They also (as a whole) tend to chose lesser paying jobs. Ie; There's more men in engineering sciences. And there's more women in social sciences (Ie; psychology, etc). I believe that women are capable at doing whatever they want, however, women (as a whole) tend to have interests in jobs that pay less than some men do. And that is the reason why there is a gender gap. I believe we have evolved as a society to not discriminate against someone based on gender and race (for the most part at least).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You unduly separate "women's decisions" and "discrimination". A woman's career choices can be affected by the judgments she expects from people. Even a simple "I want to help people" thought can automatically and unconsciously lead to teaching or nursing for a woman and being a doctor for a man. This is because of the lack of stereotype-breaking role models in children's lives. Additionally you fail to ask why all those traditionally female roles are less well-paid. Teachers' pay is set centrally so it's not just the market (although if something is caused by the market that doesn't mean it's not caused by the patriarchy too). Why do we value things women want to do less than we value things men want to do?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How Much Information can the Observable Universe Contain? If we interpret the observable universe as some kind of data-storage operating at the smallest scale possible, how much information could it theoretically be able to store, assuming that we have infinitely much energy at our disposal to express information? Edit: English<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If the holographic principle applies, the observable Universe must be dual to a local theory defined on the cosmological horizon. This theory will have entropy scaling with its volume, which is the horizon's area, and in fact the maximum information you can have will be 1/4 the horizon area in Planck units (just like for a black hole) - and this will also be the maximum information inside. Just as an order of magnitude calculation: the information will be on the order of (Horizon area/Planck area ) ~ (Hubble radius / Planck length)^2 ~ (Universe age / Planck time)^2 ~ 10^(123) nats ~ 10^(123) bits. Note the information does not scale with the 3D volume, like you'd expect if our Universe was described by a local theory; this is because quantum gravity must be automatically non-local. Practically, if you tried to store bits in, say, a cubic grid, when the grid spacing tries to get around the Planck scale black holes pop up. In general gravity conspires against the storage of this information. Holography provides a possible explanation as our 3D Universe is actually dual a 2D local theory that can only store so much information. Without holography, who knows.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Why is it so easy yet used so rarely for Starfleet to use surgery to disguise personnel as Klingons or Cardassians or Bajorans or any other species? Shouldn't this be far more widespread in its use? Though, I also wonder if there's ever any complications from the surgery or the transition back to your normal body.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A) It's superficial, a basic medical scan will instantly be able to tell. B) It's only looks, the person has to be able to talk the talk (both language wise ad cultural wise) and that's not easy. C) Espionage can be considered an act of war, and the Federation is not in the habit of starting wars. That said, all of these things can be overcome, which shows why the technique is sometime used, but it's not used often.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why does rust not occur on stainless steel?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Lots of metals react with oxygen and moisture to form an oxide. Steel is just iron with a bit of carbon and various other elements to control its exact properties. The iron in steel also reacts with moisture and oxygen (its relatively passive to just oxygen, the moisture helps the reaction along.) Unfortunately iron oxide doesn't stick well to iron because metal expands as it turns in to iron oxide so it flakes off. In addition iron oxide is slightly porous and can adsorb additional moisture, so the rusting process progresses through the metal. Some metals react with oxygen and form a compound which doesn't undergo a significant volume change and doesn't flake off. One such metal is chromium. In addition chromium oxide is pretty stable and is relatively resistant to chemical attack. Stainless steel is steel where a significant quantity of chromium has been added - this chromium reacts rapidly with oxygen in the air and forms an incredibly thin but inert layer on the surface preventing oxidation of the iron. Other alloying elements can be added to further improve the resistance of stainless steel under particular conditions. (High temperature, salt water etc)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What did Stoicism evolve into? I’m not big into philosophy, but recently I’ve started reading some of the ancient stuff. Among that stuff I’ve taken a particular interest in Stoicism, specifically the writings from Marcus Aurelius. What did these ideas evolve into? Can anyone tell me who are the people that took ideas from Aurelius/Seneca etc. and built off of them? Also, is stoicism still something that’s practiced in the field of philosophy? By that I mean, are there a significant number of academics who refer to themselves as stoics?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Tons of things. cognitive behavioral therapy. Parts of christanity. Neostoicism. There are modern people who claim to be stoics, some even in academia, but the connotations of what it means to be one aren't entirely the same anymore. Philosophy schools in the classical sense aren't really how modern philosophy is done. If you want to learn about how to practice it in modern day there is a godo book called stoicism and the art of happiness that both details its classical beliefs as well as how to make it useful today. And it is written by a professional therapist.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] Can the replicators make decaf tea that actually tastes good? In TNG episode Lessons, the grad of stellar cartography gets on Captain Picard for drinking Earl Grey at 3 am and said that he shouldn't have stimulants so late. She then replicates "Daren herbal tea number 3," since it is caffeine free but Picard doesn't like it. Why can't they just make a caffeine free Earl Grey? I understand the decaffeination process of real tea destroys any flavor, but why not do a synthetic caffeine that imparts the flavor but not the energy, similar to synthahol that gives a slight buzz that goes away with a surge of adrenaline?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Replicated food most likely work by scanning an already existing food item, and depending on the amount of data stored and complexity of the food, some subtle flavors may also be lost in the digitization process. So if Federation, with its 24th century technology cannot decaffeinate real tea without destroying the flavor, replicator can't do it either. Or they can perfectly mimic the flavor, but without the kick of the caffeine, psychologically it just doesn't taste the same.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does salt make such a big difference in recipes or adding it to food? Adding a little makes such a big difference. Why? Edit: Thank you everyone for your responses! I’ve learned so much reading through them and I’m happy to have sparked an engaging discussion!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Salt is its own flavor, but it also acts to enhance other flavors by increasing the “polling rate” of the cells in our tongue which detect flavors. By the same token a lack of salt will make most foods taste bland or one-dimensional. Presumably this is an evolved response to encourage animals to seek out and consume salt, given how critical it is for us.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV:Rand Paul's Proposed "Flat Tax" Is The Most Effective Way At Creating a Fair and Effective Tax -By ensuring everyone has the same tax rate, it keeps it equal and fair for everyone. And technically, the wealthy will still be paying more- 14.5% of 1 million is more than 14.5% of $50,000. -By maintaining a flat tax rate, it incentives Americans to work harder or pursue higher paying jobs that are higher in demand, as they no longer would be burdened with massive taxes in the higher earning brackets. -The standardized deductions still help poor families and individuals survive. By allowing a $15,000 deduction per filer and $5,000 per family member, this helps low income families remain tax free, as they need every dollar they make. The $5,000 per family member also helps support larger families. -Setting a flat 14.5% flat tax on corporate income helps reduce the incentive for corporations to relocate outside of the U.S, as we have the highest corporate tax in the world. This will help the U.S collect more taxes overall, by discouraging the usage of tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes to the U.S, which will help pay for expensive social programs the U.S uses. -Taxing imported products encourages the employment of blue collar workers in America, helping the economy by creating more jobs.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Money is not a linear benefit; Earning 20k a year does not mean you are twice as better off than when you earn 10k a year. Without trying to make up numbers for it, you are _a lot_ better off than just twice. Earning a million a year does not mean you are 50 times better off than earning 20k a year, you are almost an infinite times better off. Money is taxed accordingly. When you earn 200k/year you could lose an additional 10% of your earning without any realistic hardship, if you earn 20k/year losing an additional 10% of your money can mean the difference between getting healthcare or not. Regardless of tax rate, higher earners always take home more money, even if they are 'bumped' to a higher tax rate; you are only taxed for the amount of money you make in the higher bracket, not the total amount. "The US has the highest corporate tax rate" is also not as clearly cut as you make it. It has the highest rate in _theory_, but in practice economics agree that nobody is actually taxed at this rate, and different experts put the real taxation rates anywhere from second in the developed world to below average.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What made the world population increase so drastically after 1900? Excuse me, if this is the wrong sub for this but I’m genuinly confused. According to [this graph](https://flic.kr/p/5T5hkE) I found by accident, the world population barely increased at all between 1300 and 1900. And then it suddenly took off like crazy. What caused this sudden fast increment of the world population?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Three factors contributed the most, but by no means are the only 3 factors. First one being a better understanding of medicine and disease, including the introduction of vaccines. People died less often from preventable disease, especially children, meaning more people made it to adulthood to themselves also breed. Fewer babies dying means both more adults,and more breeders. Second, mechanical farming and chemical farming - that is, artificial fertilizer. Between better fertilizer which improved crop yields, and farm equipment which allowed more to be harvested in less time meaning there was more food for even the new larger population. And third was a combination of the internal combustion engine and the plane. With transportation that made land, air, and sea travel much much faster, it was suddenly much easier to transport all of this food to where the people are. Obviously it's a lot more complicated and this is a really simple explanation<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do computers use binary code? I understand the basic layer of computation: computers work in binary signals (basically electricity/no electricity). But, what do they do with these signals? To what are they translated if so? What is the 'next layer'?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The basic structure of a computer is the transistor. It's basically a switch that when it's turned on, it allows current to flow from the input to the output. The real power of transistors comes when you start wiring them together. Now, the output of one transistor can go to the control of another. That means that when you turn on transistor 1, it turns on transistor 2. By combining multiple transistors in specific ways, you can build simple logic circuits. For example, an AND circuit has two or more inputs and will only turn on if all of the inputs are turned on. An OR circuit will turn on if any of the inputs are turned on. From basic logic gates you can build calculation circuits. These will take numbers (in the form of binary) and add, subtract, multiply or divide them. These are the basic building blocks of performing useful operations on a computer. From there it's just building more and more complex circuits that perform more specialized functions. But, since the inputs and outputs are either on or off, 1 or 0, everything works in binary.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Salt Sanitation for a swimming pool How does salt sanitize the water of a swimming pool?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Chlorine generator in the pump lines creates chlorine via electrolysis. A very small concentration of salt is required to make the process more efficient. People choose salt water pools for the “feel” but also to get around the negatives associated with adding liquid chlorine every day or from using powdered or puck chlorine. Chlorine is broken down by UV rays, so manufacturers add conditioners to the powdered or puck chlorine (cyanuric acid) which acts as a “sun screen” for the chlorine. Unfortunately, the acid builds up over time and reduces ability of the chlorine to do its job. Only way to remove this acid is to replace water, which is not ideal. Salt water pool negatives include damage to surrounding metal fixtures and/or certain types of rock, grout or tile used in the pool.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Kim Jong-Un probably doesn't like the DPRK regime very much [EDIT]: Although I've handed out a delta already, I'd still appreciate direct challenges to my relatively-unchanged point of view. One of the basic unquestioned assumptions most people seem to have about the North Korean government is that it is a personal paradise for Grand Marshal Kim Jong-Un. I believe that assumption is probably flawed. In fact, I believe that Kim Jong-Un probably dislikes the DPRK regime, and lives a very pained, unfortunate life. By all accounts, Jong-Un was a relatively normal child growing up in Switzerland. He attended Swiss schools, had Swiss playmates and friends, and possibly for a while at least was not even told that he was a Kim family member: those around him were all told he was simply the son of a diplomat. In terms of culture and values, he likely absorbed quite a bit of European sensibilities. In terms of his own outlook on his life growing up, he probably looked forward to a wealthy, private existence, as he was not first in line for succession, and probably had no choice in the matter when the time came. Certainly, as an adult, we can say that what he really wanted to do was hang out with Dennis Rodman and pretty girls on a yacht. Which brings me to the purges. Intelliigence sources in South Korea, the US, and elsewhere agree that Jong-Un's hold on power is not nearly as strong or stable as his father's was. In many ways, this is to be expected any time a young leader comes in to take over from the old king, especially in a more ageist society. Resentments unfold as long-important advisors lose out and shifts in preference occur, leading to internal division and strife. In the DPRK, the signs of this are all around. And the brutality with which Jong-Un's loyalists have carried out the purges is notable, even for North Korea. Generals and other high officials are not simply being executed, but for example strapped to the fronts of cannons, with the ensuing chunks ground into the dirt by tanks. To my view, this paints a picture of someone who wouldn't be innately at home in a society in which three generations of some dirt-poor peasant's family could be executed simply for watching a Hollywood movie. Think about how you'd feel in that situation! Peasants being murdered and brutalized and starved on the daily, just to keep them in line. Anyway, I'd like to hear other perspectives and try to change my view that Kim Jong-Un probably, deep down, feels a lot of guilt and disgust towards the DPRK regime, but has very little power to actually affect outcomes. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's a modern, western viewpoint that values individual life above that of the state. This viewpoint is far less common in the East. I personally think that you're underestimating just how pervasive Nationalism is on the psyche and how deeply a value of "loyalty" can be held and the consequences that brings not just for the victims, but for the user as well. He is absolutely convinced that this is what must be done, lest it would not be done.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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