Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What are the biological/natural reasons Humans have mental disorders like ADD, ADHD, Bi-Polar, Depression, etc - are there any purposes and/or functions outside a civilized society?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Evolutionary explanations for a human trait T need not take the form, "T is beneficial because..." Indeed, very often their form is, "T persists in the population despite..." What's generally going on there is that some combination of genes that do serve some very useful purposes also happen to have a side-effect that is not at all useful, but the benefits of the useful things outweigh the drawbacks of the nonuseful one, at least enough to cause that combination of genes to continue being handed down to successive generations of offspring.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do large and complex projects - e.g. the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) - keep pace with, and accommodate, technological changes over extended design and build periods? For example, JWST's control systems originally designed in 1992 would, I'm sure, look very different to control systems designed today. Will they have been updated multiple times along the way?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Systems might be updated during multiple rounds of the design process, but at some point the technology is locked in, which is essentially the same as a freeze in software engineering. At that point, no further changes or updates are made even if new technology becomes available unless it's to fix some problem that comes up in testing. Things that go into space are very expensive and once they're up there, there's no way to swap parts or change or fix things, so you want something that as reliable as possible, which pretty much always means something that's been around longer and has time to have been extensively tested and have had all the bugs worked out. Reliability is what's most important, not what's newest.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: You can be racist to white people Recently, my elementary school going brothers were learning about racism and anti-racism in their schools. I asked the question - can you be racist towards white people? My youngest brother (age 11), thought about it and said no. My other younger brother (age 15) said yes. Naturally, this led to a good discussion and we all agreed that on principle you can be racist towards white people. We spoke about how marginalization exists beyond skin color - such as class and socioeconomic status. We talked about how imitating “rednecks”, “hillbillies”, “white trash” is similar to imitating Chinese people or Indian people. Or saying - “no whites allowed” in your restaurant is at the same level as saying “no Blacks” allowed. Which is why in my view - you can be racist towards white people. I’m open to all perspectives, and want to see my viewpoint can be changed. I understand from grad school that people in power can always go back to their comfort of power and privilege and that allows any racist attitude to simply rub off their backs - but this is a viewpoint that I believe to be contrary to human experience. For context - I am brown, South Asian.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here are some tips that may save you a lot of time: &#x200B; 1. This question is incredibly common in CMV. If you want some insightful answers, just search "racist to white people" in the delta search. 2. The long QAs almost inevitably end up being a definition debate. The definition debate takes the following form: Person A: Defines "racism" as prejudice + power as many people do, and then argues that the places where white people hold the power are places you can't be racist to white people. Person B. Defines "racism" as prejudice based on race only, as many people do, and then argues you CAN be racist to white people.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does space have a temperature if it's just vacuum?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Remember that "temperature" is a pretty handwavey concept. We can't measure temperature directly. We can measure changes in temperature, by seeing how something metallic expands or contracts over time for example. Or we can measure the radiation coming off an object and make a guess as to its temperature based on how well or poorly that object approximates a perfect heat emitter. And so on. But to say that something has a temperature is always going to be slightly squidgy. In the case of outer space, when we say that it has a temperature and that its temperature is about three degrees absolute, what we mean is that a perfect black body in that environment will settle down to thermal equilibrium at that temperature. That temperature corresponds to the point where the object is emitting the same amount of thermal energy via radiation that it absorbs from its environment.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Our only "real" purpose is to survive, reproduce, and our-compete others for scarce resources. Ideals are fine, but we shouldn't let them obscure this underlying reality. CMV. We were taught to play nice as kids, with the golden rule and whatnot. As an adult, if your eyes are open at all to what's going on, you're likely to be disturbed by just how shitty people are to each other. Why all the killing, raping, exploiting, destroying the environment? On a less extreme level, in your workplace you see people trying to get ahead by any means necessary, even if it means pushing others under the bus. People are always trying to one up each other to gain social status, and reap the rewards that come with it (including better selection of mates etc). We let ourselves be disturbed by this: why can't everyone just play nice? But we humans are just animals after all, we are a product of evolution. While we have some freedom to try to act more highly evolved, we should acknowledge our roots, as ape like creatures, and before that, rodents, fish, and ultimately microorganisms. We aren't special. Life for all of these organism s is a daily struggle to survive and outdo your competition. Its the same for us, only in a less obvious way, because civilization tames and prevents our most outright aggression. If you acknowledge that life is fundamentally about survival and competition, you might find reality less disturbing. Also, you might take steps to make yourself more competitive, instead of complaining how life is so unfair. The danger of this, of course, is if we forget morality entirely and just all act like selfish brutes.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Purpose? We have an intrinsic purpose? News to me. Who assigned this purpose? >we should acknowledge our roots, as ape like creatures Yeah! Those stupid plants trying to photosynthesize. Don't they know that they come from one celled organisms, incapable of producing sustenance from the sun?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How/why do windows and doors not cave in under the pressure/weight of the water from a flood? [Like here](http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/woman-cleans-the-inside-window-of-her-wine-bar-as-the-floodwaters-picture-id502688966)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because often by the time the flood waters reach high enough to put sufficient pressure on the door or window, water has leaked into the house from other gaps, like the walls, subfloor, etc that the water pressure on both sides is equal. In that picture, that window might be thicker/stronger, and able to better resist the pressure.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can astronomers tell how 'old' light is? In other words, how can they tell if they are looking at an object 10 light years away or 1009 light years?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant for close objects you can use parallax, which is the same way you get depth perception from binocular vision. Only with stars, you take images about six months apart, so the distance between your "eyes" is about 2AU. Basically, how much do the foreground stars move in relation to the background stars. For more distant objects you can either estimate based on how fast the object is moving away from us(redshift), or you can calculate based on how how much light reaches us vs how much light an object of that type is supposed to make(standard candle). Once you know how far away something is, you know how long light took to get from there to here, because the speed of light is known.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is deductive logic a special case of inductive logic, or is inductive logic a special case of deductive logic? (Or is this entire disjunction false?) I was reflecting on inductive vs. deductive logic, and I feel like I'm hitting an infinite regress or something and my brain is short-circuiting. In favor of deductive being a special case of inductive: * Deductive logic is just inductive logic where the probabilities of the premises = 1. In favor of inductive being a special case of deductive: * Probable premises (i.e., premises with probability x, where 0 < x < 1) necessarily/certainly follow probably. That is, the inductive premises are nested in certainty—namely, being certainly probable. I think it's similar to having something be necessarily possible. Thanks. Maybe I'm just being silly.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Inductive and deductive arguments are distinct because each is characterized by a distinct relationship between the premises and the conclusion. The premises of a deductive argument purportedly entail the conclusion (if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true). The premises of an inductive argument purportedly support the conclusion, but do not entail the conclusion. Whether the premises are certainly true or probably true is irrelevant to the form of the argument, and it is the form of the argument that makes inductive and deductive arguments distinct. A deductive argument in which the premises do in fact entail the conclusion is valid, and if the premises are true, then that argument is sound. An inductive argument in which the premises do in fact support the conclusion is considered strong (depending on how well-supported), and if the premises are considered true then it is also considered cogent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Why is someone an asshole if they want to apologize to someone they bullied in the past? I don't see the logic here. I'm specifically referencing this recent post on /r/AmItheAsshole: https://np.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/d7gwgd/wibta_if_i_reached_out_to_a_girl_i_used_to_bully/ ...however, I've seen this same view shared by numerous people on Reddit. A lot of people seem to be calling OP an asshole for wanting to apologize to someone they bullied in the past, and I just don't see that logic. OP did something wrong, and she wants to apologize. How does that make her an asshole? One common thing I've seen is people saying she just wants to make herself feel better, but I don't see why that matters, especially since that's just how people feel about it. No indication from OP gives off that vibe, in my opinion. It seems like she's genuinely interested in apologizing to the person she wronged. But people still call her the asshole in that situation. Was she an asshole for bullying in the first place? Absolutely. But what's so wrong in wanting to apologize? I've always been raised in a way that if I do something wrong, I apologize and try to correct it. But now suddenly when someone like the OP of that post (and many other OP's of other posts I've seen in the past) wants to apologize, it makes them assholes? I'm just not seeing the logic there, but I really want to. Can someone please try to change my view here?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It depends on the situation. Generally its some person wants to apologize because they feel terrible about what they did and they want to feel better about it by apologizing. That has nothing to do with the person being wronged, they just want to make themselves feel better. The apology gives no closure to the victim, it does nothing for them. You can read the next to last sentence of the persons post to see why they want to apologize, and you can read the sentence before that about the victims life now to see why she should leave her alone.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [DC] Are the New Gods in each universe aware that they’re just a “lesser” piece of their real version? As I understand it, new gods “refract” through the multiverse like light does through a crystal. Their versions in each singular universe are just different wavelengths of their real, multiversal selves that exist in the sphere of the gods. So, are the versions in these universes aware that they’re not actually the real thing? Do they share a consciousness on any level? Or are they just limited to their histories in their own universes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So, basically, they're aware they're technically connected, but they're functionally independent. Like how your body is technically trillions of cells rather then one organism. There are situations where that distinction is relevant...but they're rare. Typically, outside of a doctor's office, you can treat everyone around you as one being. Same here, just in reverse. Just like you are all intents and purposes one creature, the guy shooting an omega sanction at you is to all intents and purposes the real Darksied. The New Gods are aware of the technicalities of that statement. but they can typically ignore them. Each New God is functionally a separate being and continue to think of themselves as one except when the theoretical details of their existence become relevant.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How can someone take a picture of a solar system 50 million light years away, but not a coin sized rock on the surface of the moon. I recently saw a photo somebody posted of a galaxy 50 million light years away. I have always wondered, why doesn’t he point it at the moon or even a planet 10 light years away and see the surface up close? We might see water or certain organisms. I have yet to see a picture like that in my lifetime. Thanks in advance for the answer.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant a) the star is actively sending out light, it is shining while the surface of a planet only reflects a tiny bit of light back out b) the star is several million times larger than a rock on a planet, so even if the planet is something "close" like one in Alpha Centauri, the size/distance ratio still favors the star. c) planets have atmospheres. hard to see through clouds from above (which is part of the reason we send those rovers to mars, to land there and take pics from there)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the significant of Nietzsche and Proust in the movie "Little Miss Sunshine"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is probably more to it but part of the reason Nietzsche is brought up a lot is because it is the kind of stuff covered in high school or intro courses that people really first start thinking about that kind of stuff. It is suppose to show that he is being "emo" or sort of a typical secluded teenager who hates the world kind of character. There might be more to it than that but it is primarily character building, regardless of his interpretation being correct.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I believe that prostitutes, porn stars, and other jobs which directly relate to selling the body SHOULD be treated as equals in society. CMV. I hold my view that a porn star, a prostitute, someone who designs sex toys, etc, all people of this manner (clarity: Someone who sells their body or spends their career directly in this business (e.g. a prostitute and 'procurer' (pimp) respectively)) should be treated just like any other job where it is legal, because I believe that the selling of their body is just equivalent to someone selling their mind or any other skill. A scientist is paid merely for his mental work. A footballer is primarily and sometimes only paid for their physical skill in their respective field. So why can't a porn star be treated to at least a relative level of societal respect for their sexual skill? Some of them work extremely hard at their jobs, and gain extreme prowess in sexual areas. E.G.: A prostitute is someone who you don't trust, don't go near (unless for the obvious), and someone who is generally looked upon as inferior and menial in society. The same applies for some porn stars: in Boogie Nights, a good example is when a retired porn star attempts to start a business, but is unable to because nobody will give loans with his history as 'a pornographer.' Nothing illegal, no robberies, just pornography. While I doubt today is not as strict as the world back then, some businesses are still this judgmental. Please Reddit, CMV.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Every profession has a certain image, not just sexworkers. Plumbers aren't as respected as brain surgeons. The reasons sexworkers are on the lower end of this spectrum are, for example, that they didn't have to get any degree and that they often have connections to criminality.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are absorption lines not lines? It seems that in every absorption spectrum you come across, you come across many as a physics undergrad, the spectral absorption 'lines' are not lines at all but sharp curves. What I mean by this is that they are finitely wide- (for example the solar spectrum - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png) - whilst the energy required to promote an electron in an atom is supposed to be only one exact value. Which would make you think that the absorption should be at one wavelength and have no uncertainty in it, ie infinitesimal thickness to the absorption line. Can anyone explain why this would be the case? I have been playing around with the idea that some dopler shift may be the involved but I can't resolve it. HELP ME SCIENCE!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many different sources of line broadening. The must fundamental limit is lifetime broadening: since an atom does not remain arbitrarily long in an excited state, the uncertainty principle, or if you prefer the Fourier relationship, guarantees that the line will have a finite width. Otherwise, any interaction may cause an increase in line width of the order of the transition frequency associated with the interaction. Examples for this are dipolar broadening, unresolved fine structure (Lamb shift and such), hyperfine structure, etc. You are also correct in that Doppler broadening can be important. Very stable transitions are actually hard to get and a lot of effort is expended into having as sharp as possible transitions for use in atomic clocks or laser systems. The eigenvalues of a composite quantum system are not "supposed to be" a single exact frequency. That is an approximation that is often made, but it's not how you should generally think about things.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Collaboration problems I have been collaborating with a colleague from another department for a little over a year, and now that we are in the writing/publishing stage of the study, there are some issues popping up that I could really use advice on... The biggest problem is that I am learning that my collaborator is somewhat intellectually lazy. This person is very enthusiastic (to say the least) about churning out as many papers as possible, without giving a lot of thought to the intellectual/academic merit of these papers. This often results in them producing work that (both I and reviewers believe) is sloppy, poorly researched, and often poorly written. I am left doing some much editing on each piece, that I might as well just write these papers on my own. The second (related) issue came up today, when this person sent me a paper they had been working on (on which they are first author and I am second). As I was reading the literature review this person "wrote", I realized that it was basically lifted word-for-word from multiple documents I wrote in the past...Basically my collaborator/co-author did not do any additional research or writing on his/her own. This person copied and pasted my paragraphs (from multiple sources) and sort of patched them together. In principle, I have no problem with this, because we are both authors on the paper and the ideas are similar. However, I also feel thrown off, because they sent me the paper saying they had been working on the literature review for weeks. It also raises some questions in my mind about order of authorship for this particular manuscript. I can't help but feel like I'm sort of being taken advantage of in a weird way. I don't know how to approach this person about their lack of academic rigor without ruining this relationship. Not only do we have several ongoing project together, but we also share grant money to collect more data. Also, there are some benefits to this collaboration, as this person has a lot of contacts in the field and has made much of our data collection efforts possible. ANY advice would be greatly appreciated..<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant best advice, imo, is to take this as an opportunity to improve your soft skills and learn from experience. I've been in a similar situation, and it is never easy to deal with it. The best outcome here is compromise, that almost by definition, probably none of you will particularly enjoy. You'll try to nudge him into doing more serious work, he'll probably resist some and you'll eventually have to pick up the slack, and decide if the end result is acceptable by your own standards. I definitely do not recommend sharing your opinion about the quality of his previous work, unless you are not at all interested in collaborating with him ever. If anything, learn your lesson, and run a background check before you decide to collaborate with anyone.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Man In The High Castle] Would the Reich have implemented rules straight away after they defeated the US. Or would there have been a grace period of letting the former Americans adjust to the Nazi way of life?.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It all depends on the conditions of the victory. Was it a calculated surrender by the US to save millions of lives before they laid waste to most of the continental united states? Or were there nazi troops in Kansas and Colorado and suddenly we were not at war one day anymore because we just happened to no longer have an army, because they were wiped out to the last man? In the former yea even a war tired populace wouldnt just like a light switch just take it. But with the latter example huge amounts of the nazi army is already on the ground and is there to police their way of life into them and kill any one who gives them problems.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user reading guide to Carnap and Quine? Looking for reading recommendations for Carnap and Quine. What are the best works (primary and secondary) for understanding their disagreements? In what order should I tackle these guys? Looking to understand logical positivism at its strongest and what is supposed to have contributed to its "extinction". I'm generally familiar with the big picture ideas of LP, but I want to get nitty gritty.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The short, classic papers are Carnap's Empiricism, Semantic, and Ontology and Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism. For a more extensive developments of their positions in general, Carnap's Logical Construction of the World and Quine's Word and Object. Neurath is the key figure mediating between them, and the crucial writings are mostly found in his Philosophical Papers. Uebel's Overcoming Logical Positivism from Within is an excellent secondary source covering the key developments.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Have any philosophers talked about turning human weakness into strength? Nietzsche is the obvious one of course, turning suffering into strength. Or more accurately maybe strength is born of suffering in his view But as somebody who has mostly read Schopenhauer, Pascal, and Buddhist thought, I think they make pretty strong cases about how the myriad imperfections in human existence makes it pretty damn miserable. We never stop desiring, we never stop fearing, we're hounded all our lives by the endless changes in ourselves and the world. But I know at least from just popular culture and media that some people interpret this as a positive. Man's restlessness drives us to great things and without desire or fear, we might have done nothing great at all. I would assume much smarter people have written on it though and was curious if anyone here could suggest some? Thank you in advance.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Judith Butler writes a lot about turning vulnerability and precarity into power by using them as a means of identifying with other vulnerable and precarious people to create mass movements. The argument is set out in her book, Precarious Life, and explored in practice in her edited volume, Vulnerability in Resistance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] How was a 14 year old Amidala elected Queen of Naboo? What did her political campaign look like? What campaign promises did she make, and why did the people of Naboo think that she was capable of accomplishing them?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The people of Naboo have the cultural notion that children are "pure" and unbiased, and therefore can make good decisions if presented all the information. That is why their Kings and Queens (which are just the terms for their head of state and is an elected position with strict term limits) are chosen from their young. Now that does not mean they are not without guidence. The children who are able to run for election have almost all universally have been trained from a young age in diplomatic schooling programs that teach them what is required of a politician, the minutiae of political dealings, diplomatic practices, and other vital information and training for a political life. They also have a council of seasoned and experienced councilors and cabinet members who have spent years in the civil service, some who have may even have served as King or Queen in their youth. They are able to provide the needed experience and advice to the head of state an can guide them in the decision making policies.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user I've read ~91% of the books on the /r/Economics reading list, how much do I know compared to the average undergrad? I've read almost all of the books on the /r/economics reading list (64 of 70). I've also read and studied Mankiw's Principles of Economics. Compared to a reasonably smart and accomplished undergrad at a state school, how much do I know and have yet to learn at the undergrad level? I ask because in the long run, I'm interested in maybe getting a masters or maybe even pursuing a doctorate (if I can get into a top 40 school) in Economics.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Math skills and familiarity with the intermediate micro/macro/metrics coursework are far more important for grad school admissions than the pop economics books on that reading list. \-Former PhD candidate<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can anyone explain how bone healing works after an amputation? I am doing a dissertation on the survival time post amputation of some sailors from 18th century Plymouth. I would like an explanation to how bone healing works after great scale trauma such as amputations.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Look up bone wax and bone hemostasis by means of tamponade. Note that it does not cause normal clotting. Bone can bleed very profusely and cannot be cauterised or compressed like tissue. Sailors softened a mixture of beeswax and salicylic in hot water (which also steralised it) and smeared it to block the bleeding edge of the bone (Its the marrow that hat bleeds). Ive not heard of it before 1890, but its basically still how its done, except they use new soluble putties.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do drugs like meth and crack change someone's appearance? Thank you all for your contribution! I will get to upvoting all of you... tomorrow.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Constriction of blood vessels decreases the amount of blood that reaches parts of the body, and parts that rely on the smallest vessels may not receive enough blood to remain healthy. Skin and the face are two examples, and the mouth is a special case because other regulating systems are also compromised, like saliva. Smoking complicates mouth problems, and injection further compromises the already-suffering skin with wounds, which the body struggles to heal. Not sure about hair, eyes, and nails and stuff.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is economies of scale?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you are producing a product there are fixed costs (something you pay once regardless of how many units you produce) and variable costs (costs per unit). Since fixed costs are fixed then their cost is divided across the total number of units produced, which means the total cost (fixed+variable) for a unit decreases with the number of units. So the more of something you make, the cheaper it is to make it (usually). For example, doing R&D to make a widget is something you have to pay whether you want to make 1 widget or 1 million widgets. If it costs you $100,000 to design a widget, and $5 to produce the widget, if you make 10,000 of them then your cost per widget is $15 ( (10,000 * $5 + $100,000) / 10,000), but if you make 100,000 widgets your cost per unit drops to $6.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What exactly was Prussia vs. Germany? What exactly was Bavaria in relation to both? I'm trying to get a handle but it's very convoluted with monarchies that covered different countries, and independent states that aren't really independent, but also had its own monarchy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Germany is a modern nation state that was created in 1871. It unified several of the German states, two of states included Prussia and Bavaria. In the middle ages, there was realm called the Holy Roman Empire. This empire has origins in the empire that Charlemagne created in France, the Benelux countries, and western Germany. However the HRE shifted more towards the Germany states, as well as other central European powers. Within the Holy Roman Empire was the kingdom of Germany, and many of the early HRE emperors were Germans (such as the Ottonians). In the early modern era, the Hapsburg family became the Holy Roman Emperors. This family comes what from what is now Austria. That is why Austria became the leading nation withing the HRE in its later history. During the Napoleonic Wars, the HRE collapsed and was essentially replaced by the Austrian Empire. Starting in the middle ages, the Hohenzollern family became powerful in North-East part of the HRE, which is Prussia. They basically replaced the rule of the Teutonic Order. First as a duchy then as a kingdom, the Prussian country grew real powerful real fast, and essentially became a competing power to the Hapsburgs rulers of the HRE. In the late 19th century, it was the Prussian that really pushed for German unification and were the driving force in that. The German Emperors were Hohenzollerns. I am not too familiar with the history of Bavaria, but they were a duchy and then kingdom that was a part of the HRE. They were mostly ruled by the Wittelsbach family. They joined the Prussians during the push to unify Germany.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the significance of the third law of thermodynamics? I found on the internet that the third law is defined as: “The entropy of a perfect crystal is zero when the temperature of the crystal is equal to absolute zero”. I know very little about physics, so if somebody could explain, in layman terms, what this means and why it is significant that would be great.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are multiple ways to state the third law (refer to the Wiki article on the third law to see them). But the important consequence of the third law is that the heat capacity of any system goes to zero as T approaches 0 K. This is what prevents any system from ever being cooled to absolute zero in practice.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: if honey is antimicrobial how is it also a botulism risk for infants? Am I just misunderstanding what people mean when they say it has anti microbial properties? Like, it’s hostile to most things but not all? I have no intention of feeding an infant honey, I was just wondering.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many bacteria can form spores that can't multiply but are also largely immune to the world around them. Honey doesn't have enough water for bacteria to multiply so it doesn't go bad but still has some limited number of bacteria especially in spore form. What makes you sick from spoiled food is generally the toxic bacteria waste not the bacteria In adults this isn't a problem. Botulism spores enter, reach your stomach, bloom, and are promptly killed by the acidic hellscape they tried to call home In young children their digestive tract isn't hostile yet so the spores are eaten, bloom, and then multiply and begin releasing botulinum toxin giving the child botulism<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Should Marginal Utility be equal across individuals? I think the answers definitely No, but would like someone to confirm it for me and also if possible give some reasons to support why not? This is for a Presentation of mine in my Economics Class.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Ask yourself: what is the equilibrium condition in the market relating prices to marginal utility? Review Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics, chapter 5. Does that equilibrium condition hold for all individuals? Don't want to give away the whole answer to what is essentially a homework problem.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does spinning around in a circle make us dizzy?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant IIRC, balance is sensed in the inner ear by a pocket of fluid. When you spin in a circle, the fluid starts to spin too (think whirlpool); when you stop spinning, the fluid doesn't. Ergo, although you've stopped, it continues to feel like you're spinning.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: why are there weight limits on suitcases but not the people on the plane?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It's worth noting there may be weight limits depending on the size of the plane. A large airliner doesn't really matter, but a small passenger plane has to know the weight of the passengers and make sure they're evenly distributed around the plane. You can't have a 500lb person in the right side and a 30lb person in the left, the balance of the plane will be too far off.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ELI5] The situation in Fukushima, nuclear meltdown and radiation. Just read an article about Fukushima in Japan and the scientists are saying "all of humanity will be threatened for thousands of years’ if the Fukushima unit 4 pool is not kept cool." What does this mean?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant To understand this you have to understand what is going on in a reactor. So let's start there: Everything is made up of atoms. An atom has 3 distinct components called protons, neutrons and electrons. The exact combination of these three things determine how an atom behaves and what element it is known as. Some combinations are unstable and will break down into smaller parts and in doing so release energy and the unused parts. This is nuclear fission. The energy released is of various types and some of it is what we feel as heat. We can use this heat to make steam from water and drive turbines which then generate electricity. This rate of decay is normally fairly slow (for more on this, look up 'half life'), but there is a way in which it speeds up. In some elements (a specific combination of protons, neutrons and electrons remember), the unused parts of a broken down, or decayed, atom trigger other atoms to break down. This is a chain reaction, as one atom sets off another. If uncontrolled, you have a reaction that keeps growing and growing and providing more and more energy, also known as an explosion. If you want to generate power, this is a very bad thing indeed! So what is done is another material is added that will absorb the unwanted parts of the broken down atoms and stop them from triggering another atom to decay, these are the control rods. This gives us a nuclear fission reaction which we can control and use to generate heat, which creates steam, which creates electricity. Now the situation at Fukushima: Fuskushima is a nuclear power station, which means it produces electricity using the method outlined above. In a large earthquake, the reactors of the nuclear power station were shut down by adding more of the control rods to absorb the unwanted parts of the reaction. This stops the chain reaction in part, but not entirely. The system is still very hot and radioactive (the breaking down and releasing of energy is still going on). Radiation being released into the environment is a very bad thing indeed, as it is very destructive and kills lots of things. The first thing to remember is that the reactor doesn't go from hot to cold in a few hours, it takes much longer than that. Also, it has to be cooled to stop the heat building up and destroying the part that shields the reactor and stops the radiation getting out. So long as this heat is managed, there will be no meltdown. This means that, under current conditions, Fukushima cannot have a meltdown and is pretty much not going to. The problem with Fukushima is that they are using water to cool the reactor (it's on the sea for a good reason!), but in the process of cooling the reactor the water becomes radioactive. Putting radioactive water back into the sea then affects the marine life and the food web in general. However, the amount of water required to cool the reactor is so much that storing it is proving impossible, not to mention the water flowing through the ground is also turning radioactive. The end result is that radioactive materials are being released into the world, which is a bad thing. TLDR: Nuclear fission is the breaking down of atoms into smaller atoms, bits of atoms, and energy. This energy is used to heat water to drive steam turbines to make electricity. The bits of atoms collide with other atoms, making them decay and forming a chain reaction. Fukushima is a power station that uses this to generate power, and was damaged in an earthquake. The chain reaction was mainly stopped by using control rods, though the reactor is still very hot. Water is being used to cool the reactor stopping it from melting down, but is being turned radioactive in the process. Other water flowing through the site is also becoming radioactive. This radioactive water is being deliberately and undeliberately released into the sea, where it will cause problems over the years.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can light waves interfere with sound waves? (or vice versa)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes. For example, a sound wave can cause a spatial variation in the refractive index of a material, which will cause light to change its path. This is called the acousto-optic effect. You can use a laser to heat things up so fast that they emit sound, and this is called the photo-acoustic effect. A basic interference pattern of sound waves and light waves won't exist in normal circumstances though.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does IQ test actually work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant it compares how well you do on a specific set of puzzles compared to the average of people the same age as you. these tests are constantly re-calibrated, for example kids these days are pretty good at some of those compared to kids a hundred years ago, so using the old tests kids would now score something like 110 or 120 on average. a score >100 means you're better at these puzzles than the average person from your generation, a score <100 means you're worse than them. but since the puzzles are often pretty similar between tests, you can actually practice this kind of sequence completion and increase your score this way<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What does "subject" mean in Continental Philosophy? The term "subject" or "subjectivity" seems to be fairly common in 20th-century Continental Philosophy, but I find it pretty confusing. What, exactly, is a "subject"? Here are a few examples of specific uses of "subject" or "subjectivity" that I am confused by and was hoping to have cleared up. Example 1: when [Althusser writes](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm) "there is no ideology except by the subject and for the subject," what is the "subject" he is referring to? Example 2: the [SEP article on Marcuse](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/#PhiAntRadSub) contains the following sentence: "radical subjectivity refers to the development of a form of self-consciousness that finds present social and economic conditions intolerable." What does "subjectivity" mean in this context?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In general, a subject is the human subject. An actor with agency and a conscious experience. Subjectivity is the prerequisite quality that you need to possess to be a subject. Some specifics: Example 1: To Althusser, specifically, there is also a distinction when compared to an individual: a subject is a subject in as much as they are also subjects acting in and subjected to the world and society, interpellated from individuals through ideological processes. Ideology is generated by us and for us, subjects. Example 2: Radical subjectivity, here, looks towards developing a mode of being another kind of subject. Through this development, one might better understand to seek freedom from the socioeconomic chains that (per Marcuse) bind them. You could implant something like a Marxist false consciousness inside a subjectivity as an example of that which would prevent one from understanding the basic coordinates of their own unfreedom. Critical theory might look at how to develop a sense of being a person that sees through this.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In a rehabilitative justice system, what should we do about people who cannot be rehabilitated? I consider myself a strong proponent of rehabilitation – strongly inspired by the success that Finland for example has had with their prisons. [Viral clip here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l554kV12Wuo) [And a similar video on Norway’s prisons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNpehw-Yjvs) Today people are locked up in what I essentially believe to be degrading, violent, and abusive human storage units, and while I may not be comfortable at the thought of these facilities existing, I can’t think of any reasonable non-violent alternative for people who are psychopaths, sociopaths, or the criminally insane(I'm aware that this last one is very broad). So what do we do about these groups in such – or a similar – system? Thank you.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are three basic justifications for prisons: rehabilitation (yay!), retribution, and keeping society/the inmate safe. You can combine these three justifications in your theory of just imprisonment. Presumably, keeping society safe is a reasonable justification for keeping an inmate who can't be rehabilitated locked up. Any theory that's purely any one of the options is probably going to run into serious problems for the kind of reason you've highlighted here.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In what situations are Tariffs good for an economy? I've been reading Tim Harford's The Undercover economist and he mentioned that tariffs are almost always bad for an economy. I am assuming there are situations in which they could be beneficial though - say the Govt. is trying to help a sector grow due to possible future gains. Am I wrong? Or have I missed something?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are two "textbook" situations where tariffs can benefit an economy: 1. If a country has a large domestic market for an imported good and the production technology for that good features increasing returns to scale (per-unit costs decrease as a firm gets larger), an import tariff could make it profitable for domestic start-ups to enter the market and grow to a level where per-unit costs are comparable to existing international firms, and would therefore be able to compete in the global market once the tariffs are lifted. The short run losses caused by the tariffs would be offset by the efficiency gains from the new domestic industry once the tariffs are lifted. Note that there is no aggregate benefit to the country if the tariffs are not eventually eliminated. Some models suggest that this outcome could also be accomplished more efficiently using quotas rather than tariffs. 2. If a country is the dominant importer of a particular good and that good is supplied inelastically (the quantity produced is not sensitive to the price), then a small tariff might increase aggregate welfare. The increase in domestic price that results from the tariff is partially offset by the decrease in the global price of the product driven by the decrease in demand (due to the tariff). This offset, combined with the government revenue from the tariff itself, could be large enough to entirely offset the "deadweight loss" associated with the tariff. Note that the tariff would have to be small and the country would need to have considerable market power for this to work. Neither scenario is likely to occur with any regularity in the real world.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why Do We Get Dark Circles Under Our Eyes I've been told its because of lack of sleep, but that seems like a falsity. What's the real reason?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant First we need to understand the physics before getting to the biological reason for it. The reason the area under your eyes are prone to darkening (be it dark circles or a punch to the face) is the skin under your eyes being thinner(0.5mm) compared to the rest of your body(average 2mm). Add to that the high density of blood vessels and capillaries in that region. And you have light reflecting off the back of the blood vessels sitting under that patch of incredibly thin skin, giving it a darkish appearance. Now the biological reasons for the darkness increasing are not one but many; with genetics playing the more important role than others. Some of the causes are: 1. Old age : As people age their skin loses elasticity and the ability to regenerate and as a result becomes thinner. This is the reason older people predominantly have very prominent dark circles. 2. Preorbital Hyperpigmentation is a genetic condition in which more melanin is produced in the skin below your eyes. 3. Another curable illness causes damaged blood vessels below your eyes to leak small amounts of blood. 4. Fatigue: Yes fatigue can indeed cause dark circles but they are by no means the predominant factor. When the body is tired, production of the chemical cortisol is dramatically increased to help give you the energy you need to stay awake. Among many other things, cortisol actually increases the volume of the blood in your body, which causes the blood vessels (including the ones below your eyes) to engorge to accommodate it. tl;dr: Yes fatigue can cause dark circles but genetics and ageing are the most likely cause of developing them. edit: improved the answer a little bit.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Wars] Does the Jedi Order have a "Bible" or equivalent religious text?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The Jedi have a holocrons, which contain the wisdom and lessons of past Jedi Masters. There is no specific 'Jedi bible', and instead they follow an mostly oral tradition. There are Jedi texts and scrolls, but no central unified document. Presumably this is due to the changing nature of both the force, and the Jedi order itself.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is the most common cause of big projects over running on their estimated budget? For example, I recently learned that the HS2 train line in the UK will be nearly £75bn over the estimated budget! How was the estimate so wrong?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When a job is bid and an estimate is given, that’s all it is, it is an estimate on material and labor and some wiggle room for profit and mishaps, not much though. The bigger the job the more problems can arise and bigger the problems can be, for example, you can look at a topographical map to plot the train line but maybe the map hasn’t been updated in awhile so you throw a good number at it and turns out someone threw a house right where you want your line, or what is more than likely the case as it happens most often here in the US, they plan on buying the owned property along where they want the line and the owners of said property refuse, so they keep offering more and more until either they sell or the company decides to just go around, both are very expensive as they cost both time and labor. I’ve had a $20,000 job that tanked to $500,000 job, and the company just had to eat that loss, it’s not often a big loss like that happens but it’s rough when it does.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is a 'gut feeling' and why is it usually right? I'd love to know the science/ psychology behind this<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your brain picks up on subtle clues and signals from the situation that you don't consciously notice. It then gives you the feeling of unease or whatever that you feel by releasing hormones or chemicals or something that it feels could be useful in such a situation. They may help you in the event that you need to flee or fight for example. They aren't always right For example, a girl goes on a date with a guy. The guy smells incredibly faintly like blood, he has slightly dilated pupils ect ect. These things are a sign of trouble for the girl and it makes her subconscious give her that 'gut feeling' that this guy is a creeper. It could be right? But the guy may have just scraped his knee earlier and took a painkiller or something.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do potholes form?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A roadway is placed on top of compacted soils. Those soils are usually only tested for proper compaction once per 100 linear feet. Usually the technician testing the soil chooses a relatively compacted ( dense) area to test so they get a passing number. After the soil’s are compacted they place rebar and concrete on top of the soils. Once cars are driving on the roadway they cause vibrations that carry through the concrete and into the soil beneath. Those vibratios, after a while, cause The soils to subside in some areas once subsidence occurs the weight of the concrete does the rest. Gravity pulls the concrete down to fill the hole left by the soil and voilà a pothole is created! To remedy this problem a contractor will usually remove a workable section around the pothole (usually 3 to 4 ft.² around the pothole) they will remove the soil and replace it. Have a technician tested for proper compaction and then they place the rebar and concrete back on top. Source: I’ve been a project manager for TxDoT Edit: removing apostrophes<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do wounds itch when healing, prompting us to scratch and potentially re-damage the area? Edit: To sum things up so far, in no particular order: * because evolution may not be 100% perfect * because it may help draw attention to the wound so you may tend to it * because it may help remove unwanted objects and / or remove parts of the scab and help the healing process * because nerves are slowly being rebuilt inside the wound * because histamine Thanks for the answers guys.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Part of the healing process is removing any potential pathogens that may have gotten into the wound, so there is an inflammatory response at the site of injury. More blood flows to the area and more white blood cells are recruited to kill stuff, and in the process release different chemicals that cause you to be itchy, like histamine.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [The Expanse] Why does it take 18 months to get to Ilus? It's said that it takes 18 months to get from Ceres Station to Ilus, but that doesn't make any sense to me. The Ring at Sol is described to be just outside the orbit of Uranus. For a ship continuously accelerating at 1 g (which is something Epstein Drive ships are perfectly capable of), it should take between 12 and 14 days to get from Ceres to Uranus, depending on orbital positions at the time, and taking into account flipping halfway through to decelerate. With a short layover at Medina Station and another two weeks at the other side, it should take about a month to get there. Maybe month and a half if the passengers are uncomfortable with 1 g, or the Ring is further out in Ilus' system. But I can't come up with any way it could take 18 months.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is a lot of relevant data to be extrapolated too. At what speed does the Sol gate orbit Sol? Does it match Uranus' speed. Does the 12-14 days include the 1G of deceleration burn? I don't recall them specifying where the distance from the Ilus gate, to Ilus itself. Bonus, Sol system is fully charted but Illus might not me, finding lanes and checking of debris et al, MIGHT be an important thing to do (which would lead to lots of burning and deceleration).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How common is it for postdocs or PhD holders to switch research interests? So I was just thinking, are all PhDs all set for life when they did their research back in their grad student days/post doc days? How rare is the switching of research interest after getting the degree. For example your research interest is environmental microbiology, then after some time you wanna delve in immunology or any of the likes?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Switching topics for post-docs is fairly common. Switching fields completely is less common but I've known people do it (e.g. astrophysics to climate change). You're not deciding on your entire research career just because that's your PhD topic.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user argument against a priori knowledge I was reading a paper that says the following: "According to one influential argument against the existence of a priori knowledge, there is no a priori knowledge because (i) no belief is immune to revision, and (ii) if there were a priori knowledge, at least some beliefs would be unrevisable." Please note I am not a philosopher. I am just interested in topics related to philosophy. I studied law. Now, I am thinking how can you explain the statement "every mother has a child" or 1+1=2 or "single men are not married" . How are those not unrevisable? Those are things that are accurate dead on their face and require no or minimal independant verification or observation. Thoughts would be appreciated I would like to learn more about this subject.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Kant responded to Hume’s argument for the existence of a priori knowledge by arguing that in addition to matters of fact, which Kant calls “analytic a priori” ( all bachelors are unmarried) — there are “synthetic a priori” statements which are derived from the combination of basic concepts; mathematics is synthetic a priori because “12” isn’t a concept that is already contained in “7+5” Quine is a modern philosopher who rejects the analytic-synthetic distinction altogether. Quine says that all “analytic” truths require synonymity with facts in the world. Synonymity requires synthetic propositions, so all analytic truths and be reduced to synthetic truth. This seems to be close the kind of argument against a priori that you presented, that we could could revise our previously held a priori truth because or scientific understanding of the world changes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How do we know the population of deep sea fish? People bring up that the bottom of the ocean is less known than the surface of the moon, and yet, when I go to the Wikipedia page for Frilled Sharks, I see that it's classified as 'near threatened'. How do we know the population of such a deep sea species well enough to term it 'near threatened'?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In biology, where a species is either widespread, or for some other reason, counting individuals exhaustively is too difficult, numbers are calculated from exhaustively surveying a set area of habitat then extrapolating based on area of known territory. E.g. A bird species has confirmed sightings in 10 different areas that correspond to its known habitat. The combined area of these 10 sites is 1000km^2. Biologists sample 10km^2 and find 20 individuals and so the population is estimated at 2000 individuals.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [40k] Difference in Imperial Guard fire power How does the Imperium deal with the massive difference in quality and available firepower of their Guard regiments? Say planet A is a backwater world operating at around Medieval levels of technology, how would the Imperium ensure guard they recieve are pitted against an appropriate enemy? Do they bother? Are you essentially screwed if you are from a low tech world?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Each Imperial Guard unit receives their equipment from the Departmento Munitorum. Imperial Guard units such as the Attilan Rough Riders hail from a Feudal world, are in fact much sought after across the Imperium for their maneuverability as a heavy patrol unit and able to operate behind enemy lines with little support. Imperial Guard training differs across each world. Some Hiveworlds round up their worst recidivists and simply throw them into regiments. Others, such as Feral and Feudal Worlders, would already have more combat experience than the average Imperial citizen and therefore require only minimal training to use more advanced equipment during the long haul in-between battlefields.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If we've created a drug "Gleevec" to stop a couple forms of cancer. Why can't we create more drugs like this? (My understanding is it has to do with this cancer's dependence on a particular kinase. Are there other cancers that have similar dependencies we could inhibit?)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You've basically touched on the problem in your question-every cancer is different, and they vary wildly in their dependence on different molecules. The other thing to consider is that Gleevec is used to treat a fusion protein. In CML, there is a translocation of two genes, and the chimeric protein BCR-Abl is formed that is totally dysregulated. What's convenient about treating it is that noncancerous cells don't express this fusion protein, so it can be targeted without affecting the normal healthy tissue. Many cancers aren't caused by these unique fusion proteins though, making their treatment very difficult.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does becoming a PhD change your academic life on the day to day basis? What must you more? What can you do less? Pros? Cons? What new academic freedoms you acquire after a successful defense? What are newfound drawbacks? Advice for future postdocs? I am on my third year our of four and want to make the best of it. I am actually majorly motivated to work on my PhD, but I also want to know what to expect. Thanks!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant They have to pay you more (but hope you don't know how much they should actually pay you). They expect you to know what you're doing more. You have to get your own permits. You have to find your own funding. You have to motivate yourself to write because you don't have deadlines to meet for someone. You have to fight your own battles (in the literature and in the department). Other than those (pros and cons as you take them, based on your own situation), not much changes. The science doesn't change, the expertise doesn't change. If you're in a prof position you have to do more busywork (committees, advising, uni service, etc) in addition to the teaching. Edit: And you can make undergrads call you Dr. You can make other postdocs/profs do it, too, but they'll think you're a douche.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does a company like Bethesda Game Studios program AI to be constantly changing? Thinking about it is blowing my mind a little right now. I understand that certain AI never move or do anything else. I don't really understand the Radiant AI system, I guess. Does the AI run on discrete time units? How can a PC make that many choices that fast for the AI for it to be constantly shifting and changing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the case of Skyrim, the chances are that while the NPCs are meant to appear to go about their lives in whatever fashion they want, keep in mind that they all behave according to a set of rules. For example, Ysolda runs a shop in Whiterun. Now, we can be pretty sure that she'll be on somewhat of a schedule and stay at the shop most of the day, but she still has to get there. She owns a home, so each morning she'll wake up and have a set of goals for the day. If the first goal is to go to work, Ysolda's AI will query the pathfinder to get a route from where she is to where she needs to be. If you decide to interupt her on the way, she'll stop and talk to you. Obviously this interupts her path to work and switches her goals to talking to you. After your conversation is complete, she'll switch back to the original goal of going to work, query the pathfinder for a route, and get moving. By having a set of goals with weighted priorities, you can sort goals by what is most important and execute them. We stopped Ysolda with a conversation, but if we had attacked a town guard nearby or if a dragon attacked, that would have had a ripple effect onto her and triggered a new priority (fight or flight) until the issue was resolved. NPCs could also trigger changes to priority with one another. If two characters cross paths share some sort of relationship (assigned to them on the back end), the goal may be to stop, speak with one another briefly, then carry on. Ysolda stops and talks to her daughter when she comes by the shop. With other characters, the set of goals might not follow a schedule, but goals may still carry some weight. A drunk would have a higher priority of visiting a tavern and would probably be found there at any point during the day whereas the shopkeepers would be more likely to be found there after work. So, basically, even though they appear to do anything they want and sort of live out their own lives, the do likely have discrete sets of goals to accomplish. Not every goal might need to happen every day, but if the AI picks a goal for them and sets them on the path via some subroutine, people appear to go about their lives.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: If clouds are water vapor, how are there clouds in the arctic? Wouldn't all clouds just freeze almost immediately?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A cloud is made of droplets which condense out from water that's "dissolved" in the air (water vapour) into a visible form of clouds. Clouds that are higher in the atmosphere or that are found in already-cold climates are made of ice crystals. Even on hot sunny days sometimes, and depending on where you live, if you look up and see "wispy" clouds, those ones are tiny ice crystals. In warmer climates you see them at the very top of massive thunderclouds as well, where water is pushed up into thinner and colder layers by the rising action within the growing cloud (which also explains hail). As to why clouds even form in the arctic when it's below freezing, that's because colder air can hold less invisible water than warmer air. When air that contains some water vapour chills down, such as if a wind moves moist air into a colder place or an updraft pushes warm moist air at the earth's surface upwards, it'll condense out just like other clouds do, forming ice crystals rather than water droplets.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What does "political asylum" mean, and how does it work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wikipedia puts it in terms that most people should be able to understand: Someone may ask for a political asylum when they are frightened to live in their own country. They will then go to another country. If they are allowed to live in the new country this is called political asylum. People who qualify for asylum are those who can show that they might be badly treated in their own country because of their: Race, Nationality, Religion, Political opinions or Membership of a particular social group or social activities.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: After a Certain Point You did not Earn that Wealth So as a general rule if you want to find out how wealthy someone is and how much money they make the three things you want to know are how educated someone is, how intelligent they are and how hard they work. In general most western nations which provide free education seem to follow this trend. However there comes a point at which outsized wealth becomes completely unjustified. Taking a relatively simple example of Jeff Bezos, a man whose services I use daily. Yes this man designed a good product and to an extent he should be rewarded. But that he is now a multi billionaire for helping code something in the late 90's which had multiple competitors is patently absurd. It is highly likely that if Jeff didn't make amazon someone else would have and they'd now be the multi billionaire. Especially considering most change in management and oversight has shifted away from Jeff and towards managers. There have also been studies done which show that if you already have a lot of money, chances are you will automatically just gain more. This gain is not merit based and you thus did not "earn" it. [https://sci-hub.se/10.1142/S0219525918500145](https://sci-hub.se/10.1142/S0219525918500145) Anyways, CMV! Edit: this post has garnered a lot of traffic. Please be patient while I get round to it.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you plant a tree, you can eat the first fruit from it. Then as the tree grows, you get more and more fruit. You don’t have to keep planting trees to earn more fruit. No one else planted that tree, it is yours. Eat from it as long as it provides.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Training in asking Socratic questions. How can I practice the skill of asking Socratic questions? How do I keep myself from bullshitting as I practice? I get the feeling that working with other people in the flesh is 100% required for both of these, and that the Internet is a waste of time for anything (curses!), is this true?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant If you are referring to the Socratic Method as it is practiced in the dialogues of Plato, then reading those dialogues (especially the early, so-called “Socratic” ones) is likely the best place to start. You might train yourself in the Socratic Method the same way the youths around Socrates did, by observing it in action. You may also find Gregory Vlastos’ work on the subject helpful. That said, the method generally works like this: an interlocutor makes a claim, then “Socrates” proceeds to elicit the interlocutor's agreement to premises that imply a conclusion that is inconsistent with that initial claim- either because the conclusion is the contradictory of the interlocutor’s initial claim, or because the conclusion is itself a contradiction, absurdity, or falsehood derived from the initial claim. You can try to put that into practice and annoy your friends and relatives. Have fun!<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How does any photon reach exactly the energy needed to excite a particular atom? I know that quantum mechanics states that some things, like bumping an electron to a higher energy level, requires something like a photon to have juuuuust the right energy for the electron to 'accept' that photon and then rise to the higher energy level. But it is always explained that it has to be exact. Like, EXACT exact. It must be, let's say, 10,854.7952 electron volts, which corresponds to a frequency of 12.795832 GHz (ignore the actual values, I just pulled some numbers out of my head). It is always explained that if it were even slightly higher or lower than that amount of energy, the electron wouldn't be excited by it. Well, what are the odds that a photon with that very very VERY exact energy level would come passing by in any reasonable amount of time? I know photons are a tiny amount of energy and there are a huge number of them all the time, but still, it seems like such a precise requirement would be very restrictive, and would result in almost no interactions between particles and the EM force. It seems like all my assumptions can't be right here. What am I missing?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's a relationship between the uncertainty in the energy of an excited state and the lifetime of that state. This creates the "natural linewidth" of a spectral line. The fundamental broadening of a spectroscopic line that cannot be narrowed by any sort of improved spectrometer design because it's just due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In essence the shorter the lifetime of a state, the less precise the energy of that state. But no matter what there is always some fundamental breadth to the energy spectrum.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Marvel] Are Marvel heroes that hated and feared that they mistake appreciation for oppression? In a DC/Marvel crossover, the Marvel heroes were getting autographs and praise for their heroics in the DC universe, and found out that DC's heroes were getting statues and museums in their name. Captain America apparently found it disgusting and believed that the DC heroes were forcing people to love them. Does that imply that the Marvel heroes are so used to being constantly hated and feared that they can't grasp the concept of people actually showing appreciation for their heroic deeds? Also, does Captain America presenting this belief imply that on that Marvel universe, the Avengers are public pariahs in a similar vein to Spider-Man or the X-Men?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There's appreciating you and then there's building multiple full-size museums for the specific purpose of teaching people how great you are. People don't just love the Justice League. They really love the Justice League. They have statues everywhere and regular parades and are allowed to supersede the sovereignty of nations based on sheer trust. A lot of people genuinely consider Superman literally flawless. If you only just found this out, you don't have to be a self-loathing paranoiac to suspect something is wrong here.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does Chik-Fil-A not struggle financially relative to other fast food franchises, considering they are open one day less than all the other businesses (They are closed on Sundays)?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant That also reduces their costs (not rent, but cleaning, upkeep, etc...). The key metric isn't just absolute amount of money they make, but amount of return on the money they spend, and they do quite well on that score.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do clear sunglasses work? Are clear sunglasses better or worse than traditional sunglasses?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The medical purpose off sunglasses is to protect your eyes from UV radiation. The secondary purpose is to give your eyes rest from bright light. While traditional sunglasses have dark glasses, this is not necessary to block UV light. The purpose of the dark glasses is to give your eyes some rest so you don't get bothered by reflecting surfaces or the bright light itself. The problem is that while some cheap sunglasses might give your eyes this comfort they do not always block the UV radiation. Thus still letting it damage and possibly burn your eyes. So to come back on your question: Clear sunglasses are healthier for your eyes than cheap normal sunglasses because they are specifically designed to block UV light. Though they will not give your eyes relief from the bright light so they're worse for tasks that need your focus and attention (like driving for example).<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why was cephalization an evolutionary advantage? Did quicker information processing between senses outweigh the chances that multiple nervous centers could be destroyed at once?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One key concept to remember in evolutionary biology: the search space for potential adaptations is effectively infinite, so you will almost never find the "best" solution for any problem. What you tend to find is the first serviceable solution, which is then improvised upon and gradually improved. Whether or not cephalization is "best", it probably has some evolutionary advantages of simplicity. Is it easier to make 5 separate brains, or is it easier to just have one brain grow much bigger? Probably the one-brain solution. Once you've got a single big brain, is it easier to make that one big brain smarter? Or is it easier to break it all and start over trying to develop a distributed brain? Almost certainly better to just improve on the already-existing brain. The advantages for processing speed for a centralized brain may be incidental, or they could be the driving force, it's pretty hard to say and might need some complicated modeling to see if one method is much better or not. Even if the distributed model were better, it would be starting at square one right now. It would be hopelessly un-evolved and would be badly outgunned when competing against smart and aggressive cephalized animals.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: if cancer is basically a clump of cells that dont want to die, why/how do things like cigarettes, asbestos, and the literal sun trigger it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Cancer cells result from mutations that disable the things that keep cell growth in check. Those mutations come from incorrect repairs to cell DNA, and those errors happen more frequently the more repairs take place. Therefore things that cause damage that requires repairs increase the chances of developing cancer, stuff like cigarettes, asbestos, and sun exposure.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Microsfot .NET framework and what it does I cant wrap my head around what Microsoft .net is and what it provides someone please help<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When a computer program is written, it is usually in a language that can be read and understood by humans. For the program to run, it must be translated into code that the machine (particularly the processor) must understand. If you want to run your program on a different type of processor, or a different environment (for example a different OS, or a mobile device, or the web) then it has to be compiled again, and usually substantially rewritten before that can happen. There have been attempts to solve his multiplatform issue, notably Java. A program written in Java is not compiled to machine code, but to "bytecode" that is then run by another program (a virtual machine) .NET is microsofts answer to this problem (and a competitor to Java), although it can use muliple languages (C#, VB, C++, etc). Programs written in a .NET language can be used in any platform that supports the .NET framework. Typically these are Microsoft platforms, like Windows Xp/7/8, or Windows Phone, or Microsofts web platform, ASP.NET. There is an open source implemenation of .NET however called Mono that allows .NET programs to run on Apple and android computers and devices.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any philosophers who deal extensively with themes of whether knowledge is valuable enough to justify suffering? Now for the context behind me having asked this question, I know some stuff that caused me to suffer immensely. However, as a result of the passage of time, I have come to be grateful for that which I know, even if I did suffer profoundly upon learning this information. So I am interested in whether or not any notable philosophers wrote/spoke about the value of knowledge as opposed to the value of ignorant happiness, either long or short term. I am especially but nowhere near exclusively interested in enlightenment and post-enlightenment philosophers for this post. And yes, I am aware of the allegory of the cave, I'm looking for some other examples.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant John Stuart Mill was a philosopher who has a famous quote: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” You can look into his work on utilitarianism and ranking of pleasures for more details.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Question about downvoting The downvoting guideline says: >downvote only those comments which detract from the discussion (distracting memes, off-topic jokes, pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, and anti-science rhetoric). What about wrong answers? If we are almost positive that an answer is false, should we downvote?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think a more objective and probably more effective way to handle wrong answers would be to provide a constructive answer in response to the wrong answer detailing why they are wrong but providing a more correct answer. Instead of down voting them, just don't vote at all.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: I keep seeing antioxidant foods portrayed as good and healthy, but what are oxidants and why is oxidation bad for the body? And are there any benefits to oxidants?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Many necessary biological processes create atoms or molecules called radicals. A radical is an atom or molecule that has an unbound valence electron. That electron wants to become bound. In doing so, it can cause damage to parts of our cells, including DNA (look up the free radical theory of aging). Oxidants are a type of radical, usually either a single oxygen atom or a hydroxyl radical. Anti-oxidants bind with these radicals and neutralize them<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Eye Color Genetics ELI5: My mom has green eyes, my dad (RIP) had blue eyes. I also have blue eyes, but my sister has brown eyes. I understand basic eye color genetics (blue and green eyes are recessive, brown are dominant) but how can two parents with recessive eye color traits have a kid (my sister) with a dominant eye color trait? No, she is not adopted, theres no scandal here. No milkmans baby or anything like that as far as I know. Is this possible? Please ELI5, thanks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Eye colors are a bit more complicated. There's a separate set of genes that controls how melanin (the protein making your eyes brown) is packaged. If this gene is mutated (double recessive), you will have light colored eyes even if you have the dominant brown eyes gene. For example, let's say P is dominant good packaging and p is mutated bad packaging. B is dominant brown eye and b is blue eyes. You need at least one capital P and capital B to have brown eyes. If your mom was Ppbb (blue eye due to two recessive color) and your dad is ppBb (blue eye due to mutated packaging), your sister with PbBb would have brown eyes with a 25% chance! The other 75% chance would have blue eyes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Cars 2]When Mater supposedly leaks oil, the other cars react as though he wet himself. Considering how important oil is to an engine, shouldn’t they be acting like he’s bleeding out?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Both gas and oil appear to be consumed as foodstuffs, as you can get both at "Flo's Gas and Go". (Lightning refills there during his stay, and Sheriff grabs some oil when he's "feeling a quart low".) As for the severity of oil loss, we regularly see junker cars being unable to run on their own, or even having their jaws completely rust off. Neither of these cases appear to disturb the cars themselves or others. It's unclear exactly what constitutes a car's death, like in the case of Doc Hudson, but breakdown and/or dismemberment don't appear to factor into it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What books should I read to learn how to take apart arguments better? I want to know to be better at finding my own biases and and assumptions and other people's too, but since I have no one that wants to engage in debates over beliefs that are outside politics I wanted to read something like Discourses or books that state a methodology to analyse and take apart ideas and arguments.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It also helps to learn by simply doing. Oftentimes, you don't increase critical thinking or reading comprehension by reading a book about critical thinking or reading comprehension. These skills simply "emerge" out of close engagement with good work. Try reading any good work of philosophy, and then working out what exactly the claims are. You can even post here, and more experienced philosophers will help guide you if and when you go wrong. (It may also be helpful to read papers that were written more recently.) For example, you can read something like Shelly Kagan's "What's wrong with speciesism?" to see if you can figure out what the thesis is. You can do the same with a paper like Susan Wolff's "Moral Saints". Try to see if you can distill the thesis down to a single proposition. Or, try Sharon Street's "In Defense of Future Tuesday Indifference". Really try to figure out what the essential claims and argumentative strategies are.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user At what size of a particle does classical physics stop being relevant and quantum physics starts being relevant? Why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Classical physics starts deviating significantly at the molecular level, so on the magnitude of ~10^-8 m. There is no clear boundary between classical and quantum mechanics, it's more of a continuous transition. With that said, quantum mechanics can be used to predict phenomena on a larger scale, it's just that classical physics approximates it so well that they're basically identical.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why does something soaked in water appear darker than it's dry counterpart. It just occurred to me yesterday, other than maybe "wet things absorb more light" that I really have no idea. Just a few examples: - Sweat patches on a grey t-shirt are dark grey. - Rain on the road, or bricks end up a darker colour. - (one that made me think of this) my old suede trainers which now appear lighter and washed out, look nearly new again once wet, causing the colour goes dark.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Wet objects aren't darker: they're more transparent. Put a spot of water on a piece of paper and look down on it: the wet spot looks darker than the rest of the paper. Now hold it up to the light: it looks brighter! See /u/Flavored_Teeth 's answer: when light strikes a fibrous or granular surface like cloth, paper, or dirt, it bounces off the surfaces of all those fibers or grains, ping-pongs around a bit, and eventually much of the light bounces back out to your eyes. As a result, these surfaces look light-colored. But if you add water, you reduce the reflection off the fibers or grains (because the difference in index of refraction between the material and water is less than the material and air). So the light penetrates deeper, is more likely to be absorbed or pass completely through rather than bouncing back out. Most of the time when we look at things, both we and the light source are above the material, so dry things look brighter, wet things look darker. But if the material is between us and the light source, it's the other way around.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do modern day 'hackers' learn to do what they do best? It seems everywhere I go you can see news clips about someone who has 'hacked' into a major system or found a new way past some firewall. I know it's not as it's depicted in movies, and programming language is an important pre-requisite, yet nowhere i look can you find a starting point or decent program for someone interested in doing it. EDIT: Thank you for all of the replies, i appreciate it. Now I've been surfing around some threads and what not, lo and behold i'm learning something bout programming.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How do they learn? Trial and error and spending a lot of time analyzing even the most asinine elements. Looking at what others have built and seeing "patterns" hacking is basically software engineering but in reverse. So really ANY software class/textbook is a good place to start.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Harry Potter] Why aren't snakes considered "beings"? In the Harry Potter universe, there are two categories of magical creatures-- "beasts" and "beings". "Beings", broadly speaking, are creatures that are intelligent enough to communicate with humans in some fashion, and can use their intelligence to participate meaningfully in Wizarding society. Such creatures include goblins, house-elves, hags, vampires, giants. Merpeople and centaurs are exceptions, as they do not wish to involve themselves in the affairs of other species and declined "being" status. So that brings us to the issue of parselmouths. In the world of Harry Potter, parselmouths are wizards who can speak to snakes. Obviously, in our world, snakes are not especially intelligent, so it would be difficult to speak with one even if you could understand their "language". But parselmouths are clearly able to have complex and meaningful conversations with snakes. This shows that snakes in the Harry Potter universe are much more intelligent than snakes in our world-- they have a language, and they can hold conversations with humans. So with all that in mind, why are snakes not classified as "beings"? They cannot speak normal human languages, but neither can mer-folk, and they were offered "being" status.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Sapience isn't enough to be considered a being, you need to be able to rise above your baser insticts to participate in society. The Textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to find them by Newt Scamander explicitly states this as the reason why Acromantulas Manticores and Sphinxes aren't considered beings, since despite their human like intelligence, they still would not be able to resist attacking humans in specific circumstances.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why I can memorize complicated formulas, but I struggle with knowing what letter comes next in the alphabet without singing it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The alphabet is stored inside your memory in a way similar to how you store complicated formulas. Have you ever tried to write down a formula backwards from memory without recalling the formula? Or have you tried rewriting the formula solving for one variable without writing out the original formula first? We've learned how to parse through these formulas a certain way so they stick. If we try and parse them differently, it's much more difficult. With training, it's much easier to recall the alphabet (imagine if you have to file things alphabetically all day). However, if you don't have to do it too often, your mind is not as trained to compare letters.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does dunking a hot metal in cold liquid make it harder?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Iron and steel can have a variety of different internal structures - the exact nature of the structure you get depends on a few things, but in iron and steel two of the things that have the biggest influence are carbon content and temperature. Carbon content is a relatively easy one to alter, as it doesn't change significantly as the metal cools, but what can you do if you've got a desirable internal structure that's present only at high temperatures? You can quench the metal... that's what. This rapid cooling means that the transition from the desirable structure to less desirable (i.e. softer) structures doesn't happen to the same extent, and so you end up locking in a structure that you'd normally only see at a much higher temperature in a metal that's now at room temperature.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Difference between character progression and character development. It would be great if you could provide some examples from well known fiction.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Character developement basically means that a character gets fleshed out, whereas character progression means that a character changes. I'll give examples from Harry Potter, since it's a fairly well-known story. Dumbledore doesn't have much character progression, his character is pretty much the same at the end of the story as it started out. However, he has a good amount of character developement, as we get to know his world view and his motivations, for example. Harry himself on the other hand gets more character progression than character developement - the story is more about him coming of age than it is about exploring his character. Not that he's undeveloped of course, but it's less of a focus for him. Essentially, characters progress, but they are developed. Note though that character progression is often wrongly used interchangably with character developement.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't substances like hydrogen occasionally combust at 'low' temperatures due to the long tail of fast moving molecules? If hydrogen starts to combust immediately at 900K why doesn't it eventually start to combust at lower temperatures, say 300K. Is it just incredibly unlikely that any molecule would be moving fast enough, or is there some other factor that determines when molecules react other than the kinetic energy with which they approach each other?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Chemical reactions have a minimum activation energy, i.e. the energy needed to result in a reaction. You may or may not have molecules which reach the kinetic energy required but it quickly gets redistributed - it's not a case where one molecule reaches the required energy and triggers a chain reaction. You need an appreciable number of molecules with energies equal to or higher than the activation energy for the reaction to occur.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why is cancer so hard to cure? Cancer research seems to get a ton of fundraising and support, but there is still no cure. And, how does one actually cure cancer? What would we need to discover?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. There are many different kinds of cancer. 2. There are many different causes of cancer. 3. Current treatments require killing the cancer cells. You can't "fix" a tumor. 4. Cancer is mutated human cells. Your body doesn't know they're harmful. 5. The cancer cells don't commit suicide like normal cells. 6. It grows uncontrollably. 7. It can break apart and grow more cancer elsewhere. 8. It can grow inside organs, causing them to malfunction. Think of the human body like a beautiful garden. There's a few weeds growing in the middle, though.(cancer cells) Your actions: A. Prevent more weed seeds from getting into the garden (Reducing cancer causes) B. Mulch the ground (Increase resistance to cell mutations) C. Prevent the weeds from spreading. D. Remove the weeds. (Cut out cancer cells) Saying "we have no cure" isn't exactly right. We have a cure for many of them, and prevention for others.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do we begin to pick up accents after only being somewhere new for a short period of time For example, my friends are from the North and went to Florida for Spring Break -- after only a couple days a couple of my buddies unknowingly began using a southern dialect with a few of their words. I've done this too when I was in Sweden.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant People naturally tend to do things to fit in with other people, even subconsciously. Accents make people stand out like sore thumbs, and you and your brain both know it. So, even after a short period of time, you just kind of start speaking like those in your environment.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When someone uses these brackets [] in journalism? Alright so lets say for example "[He] went to the corner store to get a chocolate bar, it wasn't much later until he realized he didn't have change in his pocket" Why do they always put a particular noun in those square brackets like that? I hope this makes sense, if not I can provide a link to an article using this...<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant When you quote someone, sometimes it may not be clear what is being talked about without including other parts of the quote that aren't otherwise needed. The brackets are used to clarify what is being talked about in a quote while making it clear that the words within are not actually the original speaker's words.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user When and why do social scientists use log scales I noticed that in some instances (the popular science talks on why we might not be doomed by Hans Rosling, stick out for me) data like global income distribution is represented using a log scale. Now I know that it makes sense to use log scale for doing stuff like plotting the progress of an exponential process. But what are other reasons to use one, like in the casw as above?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Log scales are useful for describing phenomena where changes occur mainly multiplicatively instead of additively. To construct a silly example, let's say we're playing a gambling game where everyone flips a coin and if they win, they gain $10, otherwise they lose $10. If you wanted to plot the final distribution of winnings, a linear scale is appropriate. If you played for 10 rounds, the largest possible value (if everyone starts at $0) is $100, so you can imagine a histogram with x-ticks for each $10. If instead, the gambling game had you double your money if you won, and halve your money if you lost, then with 10 rounds if you start with $1 then the largest possible winnings is 2^10. If you wanted to depict the actual winnings value, again a linear scale is appropriate, but if you wanted to depict the number of win events minus the number of loss events, then a log scale is appropriate, with base 2. In a log scale, the largest x-tick would be 10, representing 10 wins and 0 losses. Many real-world phenomena increase/decrease multiplicatively rather than linearly (ie, many real-world phenomena are described well by exponential functions), and log scale plots are useful for depicting multiplicatively changing phenomena when you care more about the number of "change events" rather than the actual value. It turns out this is often the case, so log-plots are quite useful.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do antigen rapid tests not work after 15 minutes? I've used two different types of antigen rapid tests. Both say that the results aren't valid if more than fifteen minutes have past since testing (dropping the solution onto the test kit.). Why is this so? Do the coloring/colored molecules that do the binding no longer work, or weaken, after 15 minutes? Or does a positive turn into a negative?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant These tests work by detecting the virus with manufactured antibodies that recognize some specific feature of the virus, like the infamous spike protein. There are two antibodies that together form a sandwich around the antigen (the feature the antibodies are looking for). The sandwich is formed when all the parts come together like a lock and key, or ball and cup. It’s very similar to an enzymatic reaction in that everything matches both physically (like the grooves in a key and the pins of the lock), but also electromagnetically - sometimes there are concentrations of positive charges that expect to meet negative charges (and vice versa) in these components that fit together. So the better the fit, the more obvious and fast the reaction. Where the fit is good, the test can be considered positive because all those antigen-antibody sandwiches are present in a high concentration (and therefore visible as a line on the test). However, over time, these sandwiches will still continue to form even in the absence of one of the components (even in the absence of the antigen), because positive and negative charges are so drawn to each other. They make a bad, but detectable, reaction. Because this isn’t an ideal sandwich, it happens slowly, very slowly, compared to a true positive. That’s why they give a cut-off time to the test - eventually it’s going to turn positive, but the speed at which it does is the telling part.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In my understanding of existentialism, man is meant to live authentically and adhere to his own moral code. Therefore is it justified for a man to kill another or commit some sort of crime because it is what he thinks is right?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The main work of Existentialist ethics is de Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity. She suggests that, no, one ought not to go around being a shithead, which includes not murdering people, because the freedom of others provides the basis for a moral system which rules out (among other things) murder. Sartre (another key Existentialist) agreed with de Beauvoir.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does tinting work where you can see out but people can’t see in?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's just look at normal transparent windows. They let light through but they also reflect light. Let's look at the windows of a house, during the day sunlight is very bright so the outside is bright. In the house even if you have a light on it s quite dark compared to the outside and as a result, when you look at a window it is very hard to see what is inside because the daylight the window reflect is a lot brighter light from the inside. It is also easy to see out of the house because the light coming through the window is brighter the reflected internal light No compare it to the night with the light on in the house by very dark outside. The condition is now reversed, it is easy to see in but from the inside, it is reflected internal light that is dominant so it is hard to see out. Lets look at a car tinted window will result in less light passing trough the window and alos reflect more light back. So the inside of the car is darker and more light is reflected and it is very hard to see in during the day. Even at night you usually do not have any significant amount of light source in the car so but there is light outside from streetlights, car headlights etc so the inside is still darker then the outside, If you have a car with a tinted window and someone has a bright light inside during the night it can be bright in the car and now you can see it but it is had to see out. If you want to see what is inside a parked car with tinted windows take a flashlight and push it against the window and try to block any light reflection with your hand around it. Now the inside is brighter than the outside and you can see it. This works for building too. You can see through them during the day too, put you heat close to the window and block light from reach the glass around you head with you hand or even better some pice of clothing, Not there you have create a darker area for you head and it is the inside that is brighter and you can see int This is also how one-way mirror works, You have a mirror that reflects some light and lets something. Then you can see from the darker room to the brighter room but not the other way. The flashlight trick and putting you head towards the mirror with blocked light woks here too<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Can you point me toward some sources that discuss the "normalization" of white experiences? (xpost from /r/askhistorians) I'm a high school teacher. A student of mine is writing a paper arguing that the "standard narrative" of women in the workplace -- that the labor needs of WWII brought women in and changed cultural mores about their participation -- overlooks the experiences of black women, who had been working outside the home in large numbers since Reconstruction. She'd like to talk about the problem of "normalizing" the experiences of white women, by which she means assuming that white experience is the "default" or "normal" experience, such that the story of white women becomes in popular understanding the story of women as a whole. I am trying to help her by locating sources that will discuss that issue, but I don't know where to look, and "normalize" doesn't seem to be the right term for this sort of discussion. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Nell Irvin Painter's The History of White People documents the history of the concept of whiteness from the early modern era to the present. The whole thing might be too big for one high school paper, but you can probably pick out useful chapters if you want to use it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General sci fi] Things like Xenomorphs or Cell are said to be perfect, in a biological sense. What would a structurally/biologically perfect creature actually look/behave/act like, and what sort of traits would it have? Title. A lot of sci-fi claims to have a "perfect lifeform" in it, but what would a perfect lifeform actually look like? How would it be structured? What biological abilities would it have? How would it act and behave? I get that "perfect" is subjective, so I'll leave the exact definition up to you, but I think ou get the general idea behind the "perfect lifeform" concept and question.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Perfect isn't really subjective, it's just highly variable based on the function that they need to perform. Every species alive can be said to be "perfect" for their existence in their biological niche. The Woodpecker is perfect for getting grubs out of trees in its habitat with its prey with its predators with its reproductive method with its... However, we look a lot more for versatility. Can it survive and thrive when those things are not there. With that, the perfect creature are the Star-Children from 2001: a Space Odysee. This is a species that rejected all the imperfections of biology and moved on to pure electromagnetism. They possess near infinite ability. We saw them with a flick of their physical manifestations, the monoliths, turn Jupiter into a star just to cradle the infant life on one of its moons. They gave us something many currently attribute to a god, the power to reason, the knowledge of good and evil. They did it by just dropping one of their monoliths nearby. They are the closest thing to perfection that can still be called a creature and not a God.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is Daylight Savings Time still a thing?? I've heard some explanations for why it started, which all made sense for back then, but why do we still do it?? Are there any present-day benefits that are worth the effort and confusion?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The main benefit is to be awake during more of the daylight. If it gets dark at 7 and the average person goes to bed at 11, that is 4 hours they are using electricity for lighting. If instead it gets dark at 8, then that is 25% less electricity they use for light.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How did the new island appear from the sea in Pakistan?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Earthquakes occur when there is sudden motion on a locked fault to relieve built up stresses. Here, slip on the fault strained (displaced relative to the natural position) the nearby seabed, causing it to rise 5-10 m. The now-exposed rocky body was formerly a shallow rock body (less than 5-10 m below the surface). It was simply elevated slightly by motion on the fault.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In a conflict, side B uses morally wrong tactics (slavery, firebombing, nukes). Side A condemns these practices yet justifies using the same tactics because they are used for the sake of defeating this "evil". In this scenario is Side A just as "evil" as side B for using the same "evil" tactics? Some historical examples that made me think of this question: In the US civil war, border states were allowed to keep their slaves and helped the Union war effort against the slave-owning Confederacy. This is assuming that slave labor helped in the war effort of the Union army. In WWII, war crimes were committed by both axis and allied forces. Do the evils of the Nazi war machine and imperialist Japan justify the use of firebombing and nuclear weapons? I understand that this question may be heavily context-dependent, but I would appreciate any feedback or other examples of this kind of situation. thx<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Both sides will claim their tactics are either moral, or necessary to achieve a greater good, and therefore morally acceptable. I follow Bertrand Russell here. Opposed to war in principle (jailed during ww1), still, in confronting Hitler he said "War is always a great evil, but in some particularly extreme circumstances, it becomes the lesser of two evils." With this, we are forced to look at the end result of not using necessary means to defeat an opponent: will the result of the war be moral, or immoral. If immoral, the weapons of war become a short term lesser evil to overcome a long-term greater evil.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do big companies/colleges maintain high internet speeds across hundreds of people's devices? It was a random thought that occurred to me. I've heard about how connecting a ton of active devices to a home network can cause congestion (and slow it down?). I'm a university student and I am always able to have a fast internet connection even when there's hundreds of people in the same building as me using the network.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Your building has lots and lots of access points all connected to many, many switches. Each switch is likely to be able to handle a Gbit of traffic on each port so for a 24 port switch that's a 24+ GBit back plane. Your college also has an industrial level internet connection. And if its a large research institution it likely is a node on Internet2 which is an all fiber network that connects lots of colleges and other institutions. When you data needs to get to one of those institutions, it gets automatically routed over the super fast fiber connection.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:Why do large companies advertise when they have nothing that can be purchased by normal consumers? (i.e. Boeing)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Primarily, to keep their name in the industry, and to attract employees. Boeing also manufacturers trains, likely a larger part of their business financially than the aeroplanes. By keeping their name up there, cities are more likely to buy Boeing trains for their subways. Simply: Just because they aren't on the "normal consumer" market doesn't mean that there isn't a "massive consumer" market looking for their products, and advertising doesn't know borders.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: If you say you need to be true to yourself, you're doomed for unhappiness when it comes to relationships. I have a good friend who lacks compassion. He insists he needs to be true to himself and do what he feels right, even if it means the woman he loves might be repeatedly unhappy with his actions and leave him. He is unable to see that in order for good relationships to prosper, each party needs to be heard and open to one another's perspectives, even if they might not agree. If he had compassion, he could weigh the needs of his girlfriend and his own, then try to incorporate them both into his actions. I get that it's important to act true to yourself when making solitary decisions. Once you're in a committed relationship, for someone to say they need to be true to themselves, it becomes a one-sided argument. This belief completely shuts down the lines of communication and shifts the dynamic between two people with valued opinions to that of just one perspective with no room for the other. The conversation is over. This behavior seems to be sabotaging the likelihood of any lasting relationships.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Being true to yourself means don't compromise your identity, your values, and don't be someone you're not to please other people. It does not mean, however, that you ought to do whatever the fuck you want. It doesn't mean your way or the highway. That's not being true to yourself. That's being an asshole.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:The Pyramid Scheme and how they trick you into it?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant A pyramid scheme is one in which a person or organization convinces their potential employees that in addition to selling a project and making money, they will get a portion of the profits from any new employees they recruit. It is called a "pyramid scheme" because a very small minority at the top are drawing profits from everyone they hired, everyone their employees hired, everyone that those people hired, etc, which can be modeled to look like a pyramid with many stones at the bottom and very few at the top. Were a pyramid scheme a legitimate business then there would have to be opportunity for UNLIMITED growth on an exponential scale. That's not the end of it though, because all employees have to purchase the product to sell from their superiors in the company. This way the employees have to pay to even have a chance at making profit. People get roped in because they don't understand the concept or because they don't realize that you shouldn't have to pay like they do to become employed with a company.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Why do we eat plants if we can't digest cellulose, ie, plant cell wall? Title says all. Plant cells are covered by cell wall made of cellulose. The human body doesn't have the enzyme cellulase to digest it, so why do we eat them? Do they just pass through us? If so, why are they 'healthy'?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Because we can get a variety of other vitamins and nutrients from them. There isn’t much in the cell wall for us to get, so it just passes through. Overall, plants are healthy for all the nutrients we get and the cellulose doesn’t hurt us.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Are there any harmful effects of school uniforms?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Influencing the perceptions of masculinity and femininity in developing children (so another process of gender socialisation that promotes traditional gender norms) as well promoting a binary gender classification. - Happel, A., 2013, Ritualized girling: School uniforms and the compulsory performance of gender, Journal of Gender Studies, 22(1): 92-96.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why doesn’t electric resonance imaging/ nuclear electric resonance exist/work? Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) are both powerful medical and biochemical tools. From what I understand both rely on the magnetic spin properties of particles, can a similar principle work with the electric charge inherent in particles? Why/why not?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >can a similar principle work with the electric charge inherent in particles? In principle you could do something similar with particles with electric dipole moments, but those are strongly suppressed by time-reversal symmetry. Magnetic dipole moments don't violate time-reversal, so they're very common in atoms and molecules, while electric dipole moments are somewhere between extremely small and zero.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user As oxygen is produced by photosynthesis, is the proportion of atmospheric oxygen lower in urban centers? If so, how much lower, and does it affect human health? It seems logical that it would be. I did some research myself using University of Google, but so much of what I found was from unreliable quack health sites that I thought I'd ask the experts. :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Yes it does, but if you measure it accurately, you will find that there will be more oxygen near water and on water compared to land, due to algae and photosynthesizing bacteria, and especially phytoplankton which produce quite a considerable sum of oxygen. However, the proportions of oxygen in cities to countryside vary so much as you have to take into account a whole range of factors, including, and not limited to: pollution by cars, industry, people, buildings, materials in the city, bodies of water, temperature, wind etc. and is the reason why you will never get a exact answer, because it is so variable.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Star Trek] How do officers from Starfleet and other races understand how to use foreign computer systems almost immediately? There are some exceptions, like when Data had to work out how to use a computer. And when the DS9 crew spent a while training to learn the Jem Ha'dar system. But for the most part they seem to be able to walk straight onto a ship of a species they've never encountered and know how to use a system they've never seen before, in a language they've never seen before. They must get training to be able to interpret systems, but even so, most of the time they seem to immediately pick it up.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant At the turn of the 21st century earth had already amassed dozens of computer programming languages, hardware schemas, database structures, and other complex computer systems. By the 23rd century, imagine how many more distinct systems that humanity alone must have designed. Starfleet has access to not just all of human computer science, but also the other worlds of the Federation, some of which have had spaceflight longer than humanity had civilization. At the end of even a basic introductory course at Starfleet Academy, a student would have exposure to hundreds of different programming languages, user interface schemes, data structure formats, and hardware designs. This would probably make them pretty darn good at mastering some random thing they happen to stumble upon. Also, it is not difficult to imagine that part of Starfleet engineering coursework is comparing and contrasting different approaches that the dozens of civilizations have used to solve essentially the same problem: how not to die in the hostile, unforgiving environment of space.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why is it so difficult to turn sea water in to drinkable water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It is not difficult, reverse osmosis works exceptionally well. But.... it takes a lot of energy to run the pumps, and it takes water to back-flush system. Energy = $$$$. Most desalination plants are conveniently located near power plants for this reason.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't mRNA vaccines require an adjuvant? Most other vaccine types, especially the inactivated virus/bacteria or subunit vaccines require the co-administration of an adjuvant to elicit a good immune response leading to immunity. Vector vaccines, to my knowledge, also contain an "adjuvant" in the form of the actual virus used to deliver the DNA to cells. mRNA vaccines do not seem to require an adjuvant, and in fact the most successful mRNA vaccines have modifications on the RNA portion to reduce immunogenicity. Why is this? Do the RNA and lipids used in the vaccine have properties that somehow allow the immune system to decisively react to them, or their translation products, as "foreign" antigens? ETA: I understand how general immunology and innate immunity works (I have been an MSc. structural biologist for ~10 years) with regards to MHC and TLR pathways, but I don't understand the molecular mechanism of why our immune systems seem to respond so effectively to 'intercellular' pathogens (eg. extracellularly expressed antigen subunits) as opposed to 'intracellular' antigens like protein/ protein subunits from vaccines without an adjuvant (although we do not seem to have this 'problem' during natural bacterial or fungal infections, presumably due to the abundance of immunogenic molecules present in bacterial cell membrane lipids etc)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant RNA itself has an adjuvant effect. Biontech mentions it in their presentation. It makes sense for the body to defend itself against foreign RNA, before they express any foreign proteins. There are so-called RNA sensors which are tightly regulated to prevent sensing of self-RNA. Toll-like receptors can sense RNA, there are also pattern recognition receptors in the cytosol.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [Astronomy] How do we determine where the edge of the sun is? When reporting the radius of the sun, how do we know where it ends?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Generally, something known as "optical depth" is used. Optical depth is (more or less) the ratio between how much light is incident upon a barrier vs how much light actually gets through. The "surface" of the star is defined as the radius where that optical density reaches a certain value, typically 2/3. Edit: numerical accuracy<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: The US court system is a horrible, illogical system. I don't know how anyone can defend the US court system. 1. The jury selection system ensures that a biased sample of the US population is chosen, because Americans are filtered out according to what Prosecutors/defenders believe are the "ideal" jurors. 2. The Jury size is always too small to be a statistically valid sample of the US population. The current system ensures the selected pool can be biased enough to meet whatever ends the prosecutor/defender desires. Why don't courts use a huge pool of jurors (say greater than 30) and then forget about jury selection? I think it's a right for all Americans to participate in our Court system, whether or not we are an "ideal jurist". If lawyers keep complaining about how biased jurors are.... why do we even use a jury system then??? I just don't understand how anyone can think a biased selection of 6-13 jurors (yes, only 6 people sometimes!!) can result in justice. 3. The obvious money imbalance in all Court cases ensures that every defendant and plaintiff will be treated better when they have more money. How the fuck can anyone support a system that lets people with better lawyers win more cases? How can anyone support a system that most obviously supports the rich against the poor? At least, why aren't there limits in place for how much money can be spent at the court house?? 4. "The US Court system sucks but is the best we got". I don't know, the Dutch and Germans and Norwegians all have different systems that people seem to be more happy with. Anyways, I think the US court system is a horrible travesty that is an insult to "Lady Justice" and the scales of balance. Then again, I'm an ignorant layman and not a lawyer and am not too familiar with the justice system anyways.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant You do realize that if both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have a say in jury selection, then the process of that selection isn't biased since both legal sides have the opportunity to choose favorable jurors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there a website to practise statistics methods like programmers do on leetcode?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I’ve always wished there was a website that was just tons of stats examples where you are given data, some background information, and a hypothesis and you have to run a test and report if the data support that hypothesis or not. And once you answer an example, it would share the correct answer along with an explanation/code of the best method for testing this specific example given the data.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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