Split (1)

train · 52.8k rows

text stringlengths 82 65.5k
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do words hurt? I've just been thinking about it, and I'm genuinely curious why people can be so affected by them, is there an actual reason our brains take a nasty insult worse than a punch? And also why some people can easily shrug off insults, where it can completely break others.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Human are a social species. How others perceive us is very important to our future success and well-being. So, discovering that someone disrespects you is a somewhat serious problem. It's not the words themselves, it's what they imply about your status.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What is "The Monster" in Group Theory? I've seen a few videos online describing how mysterious "The Monster" is, and how it was even described as "The voice as god" by its discoverers. I don't have any experience with Group Theory or e8 lattices or whatever, this topic sounds cool and I just want to understand it further.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Group theory in some sense studies types of symmetry. For example, an equilateral triangle has a three fold symmetry whereas a square has a four fold symmetry. These symmetries are objectively different. Mathematicians were interested in knowing all the types of symmetries. So they categorized tons of them. Thing of symmetries as chemical compounds. It turns out that some symmetries are really composites of two simpler symmetries. Like 6 fold symmetry may really be a composite of 2 fold symmetry and 3 fold symmetry. It turns out that all all finite symmetries are really just compounds of a set list of simple symmetries. Simple symmetries are symmetries that cannot be broken down. So simple symmetries are like chemical elements of symmetry. The monster is a huge simple symmetry. Normally simple symmetries are much smaller. It is very unusual that such a large symmetry has no constituent components. It would be like there was a random element of astronomical size compared to the other elements like Oxygen and Carbon.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 Correlation vs. Causation When looking at statistical data over a period of time, what does “correlation” mean? How is it different from “causation?”<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In this context, correlation would mean that two things track with each other. If X goes up, so does Y, and if X goes down, so does Y. Not necessarily at the same rate. There is another type of correlation, called inverse correlation, that is where when one thing goes up, the other goes down, not necessarily at the same rate. X goes up, Y goes down and X goes down, Y goes up. Correlation is different from causation because from the data you can't tell that X causes Y, although it might. This is obvious when you realize that if X correlates with Y, the reverse is true, Y correlates with X, yet very rarely does X cause Y and Y cause X. As an example, sales of ice cream rise in the summer, as would deaths from drowning (because more people swim in the summer). So ice cream sales and drownings are correlated. But that does not mean that drowning causes ice cream sales, or ice cream causes drowning. Edit: Added explanation of Inverse Correlation<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [General Cyber Punk] I am the benevolent president of a Megacorp in a world ruled by similar Megacorps. What can I do to to make the world a better place? Massive corporations rule the world. They are powerful enough to do whatever they want. They regularly commit atrocities and crimes because no one is able to stop them. Their hired goons regularly wage war in the streets, they have massive influence over AI and the Internet and they regularly exploit the poor, using them for cruel, inhumane experiments. Even worse, this all takes place on an Earth that has been seriously depleted of much of its resources, so hunger and disease are rampant among the lower classes. I recently became an uber-powerful leader of a similar corporation that I started myself years ago, specializing in medicine, AI and cybernetics, weaponry, vehicles and food. Unlike my competitors, I want to do good in the world, not just make a profit and secure luxury for myself. What should I do? How can I help? Even more pressing, is there any way I can stop the abuses of my fellow companies without risking being assassinated by one of their assassin-bots?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pour your energy into AI development and quantum computing. Have your researchers pour their expertise into developing an AI for administrating over a large organization, with emphasis on maintaining the happiness, relative freedom, and health of all citizens within that organization. Then set it loose. Either it forms a utopia, or kills us all. Either way, it's a lot better than eating cardboard under a megahighway while hiding from MegaCorp #4's rent enforcers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: how does lip balm work? Chapstick, Carmex, whatever. “Medicated lip balm”. It is a moisturizer for lips, and lips only, it says. Other moisturizers say keep away from lips (and eyes, obviously, but lips are specifically named as well). So what’s the story?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Most lip balms contain a humectant, which is something that helps to draw moisture from the air and creates a barrier to lock moisture in. This is great for lips because you use them all day. Lip skin is delicate and if your lips become too dry or cracked it might make it hard to talk and eat, which are two things that are pretty important for our survival. Using a lip balm on normal skin is a bad idea because the barrier doesn’t allow your skin to breathe properly. If you applied lip balm all over your face then started sweating the sweat would get stuck under the balm, rather than evaporating. When moisture and oils from your body mix under a barrier that stops oxygen from getting in, it creates an ideal environment for bacteria to grow. Too much bacteria and you can end up with pimples because your body produces white blood cells (pus) and inflammation (the redness of a pimple to try and prevent the bacteria from entering your body further. The strength of different types of moisturiser tends to relate to how often that part of the body is used. In order of use and strength: Lips are used a lot, so it’s okay to use a strong moisturiser on them because it’s unlikely to stay there for a whole day. We also use our hands a lot, wash them several times a day and we don’t normally cover them. Which means the skin loses moisture faster than the body can replace it. Hand creams tend to be quite thick and slimy so the protection lasts longer and has a better chance of getting into the tougher skin of your hands. Next, the skin on a face is almost always exposed. Our face moves and stretches a lot to allow us to make expressions, so a face moisturiser is like light but still fairly moisturising. Lastly, skin on the rest of your body like your back, legs and arms. These parts of you don’t get bent, stretched, washed or exposed to the sun and air as much. They are also covered by clothes a lot of the time. So they only need a light and thin moisturiser at most because your body can usually manage the moisture levels on its own under clothes.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How do NASA and other space agencies prevent all the satellites orbiting the earth from crashing into each other? How do we launch rockets without smashing into the satellites?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Here is a simplified explanation. The space agencies (not just NASA) keep a very close watch on orbits. The paths of each satellite are quite predictable and many of them can be steered to correct the orbit. With a bit of planning, there are plenty of gaps. Here's why. What we call space starts about 100 miles up. Most satellites are in a range of about 100 miles to 22,500 miles up. To compare with something more familiar, aircraft usually have to be a minimum of 1000 feet apart in altitude. Even a small range from 100 miles to 200 miles up gives over 500 layers 1000 feet apart. Now consider that the satellites could be anywhere over the earth's surface, which is roughly 200,000,000,000 square miles. That's a lot of room.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do humans take to music so well? Unlike good food, socializing, and so on, I can't really see the immediate biological links between humans and music. Just to clarify, I know some variations have been posted about 2 years ago, but none of the answers really satisfactory. New explanations would be great! Thank you so much in advance.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think it takes a scientific research to tell why we first get interested in music. However, after the deed is done, our need for more is probably psychological, because sounds will have the meaning we assign to them - and most of us like to revisit certain emotions which can only be brought about by these associations we have made.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Do fish get confused when a large current or flood displaces them somewhere far away?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There are many, many different species of fish and they all behave and react differently. There are territorial fish: Clown fish (of Finding Nemo fame) will go and find an anemone during adolescence, and then never leave the square metre around that again until they die. Being displaced would likely kill them, or they may move to a different anemone if they can find one quickly, but that is not the sort of experiment that people like to run. Lots other fish are on the move their entire life. Mackerel and tuna, many sharks, herring - a long list of fish that just follows the food, the currents and the temperature. They don't have a territory so displacing them would impact them less - though the impact would be nonzero because they would still notice a difference in the water quality.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: when you’re showering and the water suddenly turns icy cold or scalding hot for a few seconds before returning to its previous temperature, what’s happening?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Water temperature in the shower is determined by the mixing of cold water + hot water from the two different pipes in your house. If the water pressure suddenly changes, like for say someone flushes the toilet, the cold water pressure in the shower drops and the temperature increases. Most showers these days have valves designed to minimize this effect. Because suddenly having nothing but scalding water can be dangerous. The valve mechanically senses the drop in pressure and adjusts the pressure of the other pipe to compensate, but there's still a fluctuation in pressure and temperature change. It just isn't as bad as without the valve. Your valve might also be worn out.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How?/why?/is? United States Social Security program failing or going bankrupt?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In order to pay for all of its current liabilities, the social security trust fund must accumulate funds from payroll tax. Currently, the social security trust fund is spending more money than it is gaining in payroll tax revenues, and this trend is projected to continue. If nothing is done, then the trust fund will go insolvent.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: In survival/apocalyptic movies, people can survive by just eating insects alone. Is this true in real life?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant People eat insects, and they can provide some useful calories and protein. But no human society has survived using insects as a major source of its calories, and for a very good reason. The amount of calories you gain by eating an insect is very small in proportion to the effort it takes to capture or cultivate it. In many cases it will burn more calories to harvest and prepare an insect for food than it provides in calories. So if you are going to spend time gathering a food resource, it's a very poor choice. But if you are starving and see an insect as a target of opportunity, eat it.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Academic exams should either not be timed, or have far less tight time limits. Full disclosure, I may be biased on this topic as I have just been rejected from the university of my choice because my grade in one subject was not high enough, but this is an opinion I have virtually always held. I have always struggled with time in exams, during my GCSEs and A Levels (exams usually taken at 16 and 18 in the UK) I was deemed to require extra time, but I still struggled to finish exams within the time limits, mostly due to writing speed. All of my chosen subjects were essay-based, which made the time constraints seem bizarre to me. No historian would ever write an essay in an hour and half without access to sources, for example. Since high school and college level education is meant to be a stepping stone into university, it baffles me that such significant a constraint is applied with little to no relevance to actual academic practice. In one of my exams I had to write two essays as well as answers a few shorter questions. I was barely able to even start one of the essays simply because I couldn't write fast enough, which caused my overall grade to drop from a predicted A to a B. In essays I wrote for homework I almost always got an A or A, since I was not required to finish them in 45 minutes. Indeed, finishing an essay in a short time is not usually a sign of proper a proper intellectual process in actual academia, so the time constraints seem entirely arbitrary and unnecessarily punishing. I can sort of understand why STEM subjects might require timed exams, since answers are usually either correct or incorrect, and writing speed is far less of a factor, but why should written essays in which the quality of the argument is what is being assessed treated the same way? They are fundamentally different skills. Time management is important in academia, but this is not on such a micro scale as in exams. Time management is usually most important for the planning of research and such, and meeting deadlines, not banging out a thesis within an hour.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Usually, high school and even undergrad level courses don’t aim to give you anything more than knowledge and familiarity with the subject matter. They want you to know the basics off the top of your head. For this, it’s actually helpful to have a time limit because it ensures that whatever you wrote is something you do*, in fact, know off the top of your head, and can probably say during a casual conversation about the matter. You’re absolutely right that it doesn’t translate well towards actual academic work, but it’s not meant to. It’s meant to assess whether or not you have enough of a grasp on the material to recall it quickly and accurately when asked—like what you’d have to do if someone verbally asked about your thoughts.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why don't we use the computer resources for mining cryptocurrencies on useful tasks, instead of hashing In cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin a Block is created by "proof of work", meaning millions(perhaps more) of servers are wasting their resources on solving hashes. What if a Block was instead created by utilizing these resources to do tasks, such as Grid jobs in grid computing, or how we use cloud computing. One example is to use these resources to do protein folding for cancer research. Im not sure what metric would decide when a Block has been mined, but I just thought this might be an interesting concept, if at all even possible.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant One of the key points of a Proof of Work algorithm is that it's fairly difficult to complete, but takes much less work to verify. You'd have to find something useful to calculate that has both of those properties.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there any recorded evidence of ancient Indian philosophers interacting with the pre-Socratic Greek and Italian philosophers? Hi! I am from India and I started reading Anthony Kenny's The New History of Western Philosophy. I am reading about the pre-Socratic philosophers as of now and it seems that a few things are very similar to what we have in Indian mythology and philosophy. Like, the concept of atomism in Indian philosophy predates Democritus' atomism. Similarly, Pythagoras' theory of metempsychosis sounds similar to the idea of reincarnation of soul that we have in Hinduism. I know that it's entirely possible that two different civilizations might have come up with these ideas on their own but do we have any recorded evidence where the philosophers of these civilizations ever interacted with each other?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant > do we have any recorded evidence where the philosophers of these civilizations ever interacted with each other? Nope. The earliest record of such contact comes with the expeditions of Alexander the Great, some time later than the period you're asking about -- and the details of even this record are sketchy enough that scholars are divided on its significance. This isn't to say that there wasn't contact, of course. But assertions of such contact remain speculative.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Eristothenes measured the circumference of the earth by measuring the shadow of two poles, miles apart, at the exact same time. So how did he know the poles were being measured at exactly the same time in an era when people used the sun for timekeeping?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant By doing it at local apparent noon. This is, by definition, the time of day when the sun reaches its highest point in the sky. If 2 places are on the exact same line of longitude (i.e., directly north and south of each other), local apparent noon will occur at exactly the same time in both places. You can, of course, measure this with a sundial. It turns out that while close, Alexandria and Syene (modern day Aswan) are not directly north and south of each other, which introduced some error into his calculations. Still, they're close enough that his measurement was remarkably close to the correct value.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information, then how is this experiment (see description for link) possible? Been catching up on some reading, came across [this experiment](http://www.nature.com/news/entangled-photons-make-a-picture-from-a-paradox-1.15781) here. I've been told over and over again that entanglement can't be used to transmit information. So how the heck does this work? Aren't they extracting or inferring information about one photon's path from its entangled twin's behavior -- the exact sort of thing I've been told isn't possible?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light, but you can still do all sorts of things with it. There isn't anything in the article implying that they transmitted information faster.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do certain sounds sound appealing and others don't?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Three incomplete explanations: 1. A sound can be appealing because it is associated with a pleasant experience. If you grew up near the ocean, for example, a distant foghorn might be a pleasant sound. 2. As for the quality of sound, it might be that we are born appreciating certain sounds that are associated with well-being or survival, such as kind human voices or trickling water. Both could indicate safety and security. 3. In music, we tend to appreciate certain harmonies. These tend to feature a moderate amount of dissonance. Two tones played in unison (both the same tone) sounds nice but is uninteresting, as the frequencies (as measured in Hertz) have a simple 1:1 ratio. An octave has a 1:2 ratio and sound a little more colorful. Other harmonies have more complex ratios like 2:3, 3:5, etc. These are more colorful still. As the ratios get more complex they start to sound sad, and then eventually hideous. The most complex ratio within an octave on a piano keyboard is 45:32, known as a tritone. It sounds very "ugly". To hear a tritone, play the notes C and F# simultaneously.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Different outcomes do not imply discrimination I found out the other day about Disparate Impact in the United States and was kind of concerned. [Here](https://www.investopedia.com/disparate-impact-5114526) defines disparate impact as: \>Disparate impact refers to the result of the application of a standard, requirement, test or other screening tool used for selection that—though appearing neutral—has an adverse effect on individuals who belong to a legally protected class. Which basically means “If the outcome of a law looks racist/sexist/ageist/etc. then the law should be treated as if it is racist/sexist/ageist/etc. regardless of if there was any discriminatory intent.” At some level, I agree, you should focus on policies that actually help people to succeed, not just on policies that claim to help people succeed, and I agree with it insofar as I agree that you should try to have effective policies that make a difference. However, the idea of disparate impact (and a lot of current political discussions) seems to be premised on two ideas I disagree with. 1. In the absence of discrimination, different groups/people would have identical outcomes 2. If there are different outcomes between groups, it must be due to discrimination. (You could argue that disparate impact is saying we don’t care if it’s discrimination or not, but I’ll respond to that later.) Just to be clear, (and because a lot of debate is, I think, from not agreeing on definitions) I’m using the following definition of discrimination: \>The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. For instance, denying someone a job because they’re male is discrimination, because it’s unjust and prejudicial. Denying someone a job because they aren’t as qualified as the other applicants, regardless of their identities, is just and fair. If 9 unqualified men apply for a job, and one qualified female applies, picking the female isn’t discrimination, even if the hiring manager happens to be sexist against men. Now, in response to 1. I think it’s just absurd. Cultures and cultural values, families and family values, goals in life, social skills, and inborn ability seem to have a much larger impact in an individual’s success or failure than discrimination, especially in a day and age when racism/sexism/etc. are illegal in many ways. And yes, discrimination may have influenced some of these things, but arguing that present or past discrimination is a significant causal force in every significant aspect of a person’s life seems like a really, really big claim. Additionally, a world history of groups that never interacted with each other having very different outcomes clearly shows that other aspects impact success than one group discriminating against each other. As an example: If you pick a random white person in the US, chances are 7.3% that they are in poverty. If you do the same with a random black person, chances are 18.8% that they are in poverty ([source](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/poverty-rates-for-blacks-and-hispanics-reached-historic-lows-in-2019.html)). If you pick a different characteristic, though, you see even bigger differences than by race ([source](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/)): \>In 2014, 31% of children living in single-parent households were living below the poverty line, as were 21% of children living with two cohabiting parents. By contrast, only one-in-ten children living with two married parents were in this circumstance. In fact, more than half (57%) of those living with married parents were in households with incomes at least 200% above the poverty line, compared with just 21% of those living in single-parent households. So if you picked a random child in a single parent household, there is a 31% chance that they are in poverty. If you picked a random child in a two-parent household, there’s about a 10% chance they’re in poverty. If you had to pick a statistic to tell you if someone was in poverty, knowing if they’re in a single parent home or not is more reliable for prediction that than knowing their race. What I’m trying to get at is not the many issues of single parent families, but the fact that that there are many non-discriminatory things that contribute to inequality in the US. (If you’re interested in the interaction of the two, or how two-parent families affect black poverty, [this](https://www.aei.org/articles/the-power-of-the-two-parent-home-is-not-a-myth/) is an interesting article about that, though it’s not directly related to this issue) In response to 2. I think most people agree that this isn’t true, but that’s what I’m here to find out. For instance: A quick look at [the Wikipedia page on ethnic groups in the US by household income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income) shows that median income for Indian Americans is almost twice that of White Americans. Does this mean that White Americans discriminate for Indian Americans twice as much as themselves (however you quantify discrimination)? Or that Indian Americans discriminate against White Americans? Should we have protests against “Indian Power”? Or (as I think is more likely) that there are a host of factors involved in income, and Indian Americans tend to have more of those factors more of the time than White Americans. Even if, by chance, the overwhelming reason is discrimination, saying that there are different outcomes for two different groups isn’t enough to prove the existence or prevalence of that discrimination. You need more than a correlation to prove causation. Another data point I found interesting is this quote from [this study](http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_summary.pdf), under the heading “The black-white income gap \[in America\] is entirely driven by differences in men’s, not women’s, outcomes.” \>Among those who grow up in families with comparable incomes, black men grow up to earn substantially less than the white men. In contrast, black women earn slightly more than white women conditional on parent income. Moreover, there is little or no gap in wage rates or hours of work between black and white women. Does discrimination only exist against black men, and not black women? Or are there other significant factors (besides discrimination, if that is a significant factor at all) that affect outcomes? Now, a note on what I’m not saying: I’m not saying that there isn’t discrimination against all sorts of identities and that this discrimination doesn’t have real consequences on outcomes, just that seeing different outcomes isn’t enough to prove that discrimination exists. I’m not saying that policies that disparately affect different groups are necessarily good, just that they aren’t inherently discriminatory. Now, I imagine some people will say “It doesn’t matter if it shows discrimination or not, the fact that the outcomes are uneven are enough to make them bad.” To which I sort of agree, sort of disagree. That’s not the main opinion I’m stating here, but I think it’s worth addressing within the framework of my opinion: I hope I’ve established already that equality of outcome is not a self-evident good. Some people want to live simple lives, or prioritize family above work, and so their goals in life may lead them to choose less remunerative professions or turn down promotions. Some people want more material goods, so a higher income is exactly what they want in life, even if it comes at the expense of other things like family or spiritual things. You wouldn’t expect these people to have the same outcomes in life as measured by financial numbers, and that’s okay. They’re both pursuing their own goals and not hurting other people by doing it, I say let them do things their own way. Now, if you have a policy designed to help people, and it helps people of some groups more than others, I think that’s something worth looking at. However, assuming it’s discrimination, or assuming it’s automatically bad and should be scrapped, isn’t helpful. It may be that the groups have different cultural norms, so that result would be expected, and nothing is wrong with the policy. It may be that the groups have different needs. If the issue is that group X needs A and group Y needs B, and the policy is providing A, then you don’t need to scrap the policy. You need to add another policy that provides B (which policy would have the opposite disparities). The policy isn’t discrimination because it’s providing A justly and without prejudice to everyone, that’s just not what everyone needs. If there is actual discrimination, you should address that. In short: look at what’s actually causing the disparity, then address that. I think my opinion on this could be summed up by a quote by a guy about a disparate impact decision by the supreme court: \> "our members are strong advocates for fair lending and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. Disparate Impact theory, however, is not the right tool to achieve fairness and prevent discrimination in lending, This approach can have unintended consequences, such as causing financial institutions to shrink their operations rather than risk litigation, hurting the very groups it is intended to help." Anyways, my main point, and the main thing I’m looking to get other viewpoints on, is the falsity of the related ideas that 1. Without discrimination, people would have the same outcomes, and 2. If there are disparities among groups, it must be due to discrimination. Note: I know I used a lot of data, but I’m not using all the data to say “I’m right, you’re wrong”, I just think not enough people do their research and use real data in arguments, and I’m trying to be the change in that. I’m open to new perspectives and ways of looking at this issue, I just don’t like stating my position using unsubstantiated generalities. Edit: I'm going to bed now, thanks for all the great and helpful responses, especially in helping me understand Disparate Impact Theory and it's implementation in law. I'll respond to more of the comments tomorrow.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant How do you feel about the studies done on black children that were adopted into Asian families, suddenly losing their disadvantages and being statistically similar to other classes despite the historic thoughts that they were naturally predisposed to a lower economic outcome?<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Phi, or the Golden Ratio - Why is it so prolific? What about the number makes it so useful? And why do we observe it so often? I know that Phi is the approximate number you get if you divide each term of the fibonacci sequence by the previous one, and I know that the fibonacci sequence as well as the golden ratio can be observed in living organisms, music, architecture, aesthetics and mathematics. But why?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant There is a reason it applies in some biological organisms (eg. It allows for more sunlight when leaves on a stem are arranged in this manner), but the idea that this ratio is especially prevalent, or meaningful, really isn't true. Of course, you can see it everywhere - if you are looking for it, you can find it (particularly if you're not too concerned about the exactness of the ratio)<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [ATLA] Since Sozin and Roku were born on the same day, what would have happened if Sozin had been the Avatar instead? Would he still start the War? Would it even start sooner? Would he even be allowed to leave for the customary 12-year Avatar training?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The influence of the Avatar's reincarnated spirit, plus Raava being the spirit of light, means that all Avatars are compelled to be helpful and kind in pursuit of balance. (note that being kind doesn't always mean being nice to everyone. Kyoshi was a major example of that) Their world-travels and years of training means that they connect with people all around the world, and strip away any prejudices they might have had in their young lives. Avatar Sozin would have ended up almost exactly like Roku, though maybe a little more heavy-handed in his approach to things, much like Kyoshi had been. If Sozin was still born the heir of the Fire Nation on top of being Avatar, he would have relinquished his throne in favor of a sibling or close relative. Because being the Avatar is far more important than the leader of a single nation. And the sages/white lotus/other organizations would have impressed upon him that fact. We have no idea what Sozin's family was like, so they still might have had the same processes that Firelord Sozin had, and perhaps still started the war. It wasn't until after Sozin took the throne that he instituted many reforms that transformed the Fire Nation into its most well-known incarnation. Before that, many people in his nation were highly spiritual and would not have balked against the advice of the sages.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How does a queen ant come to be? From what I understand, queen ants are usually much larger than other ants in their colonies and they pretty much just sit there and wait for others to bring them food. However what I don't understand is how does an ant become a queen ant? Are some ants just born much bigger than others and they automatically become queen ants? If so, why are those certain ants born much bigger than others? Or are queen ants born normal and somehow become larger than others during their lifetime and then become queen ants? It's a massive mystery to me! Also, I guess same question applies to other species that has similar things to queen ants, like bees, etc. Please shed some light to me on this! :)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant It varies widely by species of ants, but most feed a few larva some special jelly and those larva will grow to become queen. Sometimes they'll make too many queens and the new queens have to fight to the death. Some ants will "promote" one sterile female, usually decided by fighting, into their new queen. In some species, the queen makes the decision whether to make another queen or not. Some ants don't have queens. Some Ants have lots of queens. Ants are interesting.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5:. How are we able to learn behavioral traits of species never documented while alive? How are we so certain about dinosaur knowledge when it's based solely on fossils?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant That question is similar to, "how is a forensic team investigating a crime able to know what happened if they never saw it?" They find evidence that was left behind that they can peice together to form a complete picture of what happened. Paleontologists do the same thing but with extinct animals. They use fossile records which can't be understated in usefulness. Some fossils are actually completely preserved in such a way that you can take it apart layer by layer and "disect" an ancient animal. You can see the remnants of the food they ate, the size and shape of internal organs, etc etc and in doing so use logical reasoning to figure out how those adaptations would have been used. Enviormental evidence helps too. A creature that builds a whole lot of nest in the same general area is most likely to be a group/pack/herd animal, for example. You also have the standard rules of evolution to help give you ideas as well. An animal that sticks out like a sore thumb or has an extreme adaptation is a clue that they specialize in some skill or trait because specializations are an evolutionary risk. (You better excel at it if you specialize or you've got nothing to fall back on.) Now, are they wrong sometimes? Definitely. Sometimes a hypothesis can look probable until someone finds evidence that conflicts with the idea. We saw dinosaurs as more reptilian for a long time, until people started find fossils that included examples of those dinos having feathers and other features that put them more inline with modern birds. Its a game of trial and error. The more evidence you can find, the more clear the picture can become.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5: Why do muscles work? Like how does a blob of meat let you be able to move your bones and more<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Muscles are basically bundles of fibers that can contract. A muscle fiber is a long chain of comb like structures that fit into each other, like when you interlock the fingers of both your hands. When you apply electricity to these fibers, the comb structures slide into each other, so the fiber as a whole gets shorter, and the muscle contracts. This is also why often people who get electrocuted can't just let go, their muscles are overloaded with electricity and they cramp up. The only way a muscle can 'un contract' is when another muscle pulls it in the other direction. So muscles come in pairs, one for each direction. The typical 'wiry' structure of meat is these muscle fibers.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What makes kosher dill pickles sour if they explicitly do not have added vinegar?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Traditional pickles are made by bacterial fermentation of natural sugars to produce organic acids such as the acetic acid of vinegar. The low pH of the resulting pickles acts as a preservative to prevent further spoilage. Many modern 'pickles' are simply fruit or vegetables soaked in vinegar and as such are not authentically pickled.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why can’t we build factories to just crank out tons of solar panels? Maybe I’ve been playing too much factorio, but if the main ingredient is silicon it seems like we should be easily able to turn out TW worth of solar panels every year.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In the real world there is more than just making sure there are enough belts and trains. Each process takes time, space, and capital to produce. Mining the silicon, smelting, crystalizing into wafers, forming it into panels, coating them to reduce reflection, and wiring them all take steps and labor. Eventually there will be a bottleneck. Theoretically, it's possible to do crazy things with manufacturing. It's been seen in war time economies like during WWII where factories standardized designs, setup their tools to make specific products as fast as possible, and focused all efforts into making ships, planes, rifles, etc. So if a powerful nation just really wanted to absolutely print them, and had the political will to point a bunch of resources at the problem it's technically possible. China often will "direct" its economy to produce things it wants. Command economies have their benefits and drawbacks which is an entire other economic discussion. It's not perfect though, like during WWII when factories retooled to make war materials, consumer good production fell and quality of life suffered, or if the central power makes an inefficient decision you end up producing a bunch of products that simply aren't needed. Plus factorio has the benefit of centralized command to vertically integrate the entire process. Factorio, not enough red science? Well just work on that copper production. You're in charge of it, you can work that problem. Real world, not enough circuit boards? Well... unless you make your own factory then you're kind of just waiting like everyone else. And making a new factory cost money and expertise. Not enough aluminum in real life? Well unless the solar company owns an aluminum mine, the rail company to transport the ore, and the smelter, they can't really do much besides ask nicely.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does a sunburn not hurt for several hours after actually being in the sun too long? Worked out in the yard yesterday in the blistering heat and got a sunburn on my neck. When I came in I knew I must have burned my neck but figured it would take a few hours to know if it was going to hurt or not, curious why the pain comes so many hours after the "damage"?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant As your body's response, capillaries open up, allowing more blood to the affected area. This aids in the healing process but also makes the area feel warmer and more tender. However, the response isn't immediate, taking the noticeable few hours before the inflammation sets in.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does dehydration make you think you're hungry, when in reality you need more water?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Pure liquid water is not the only source of hydration, fruits and vegetables can also be sources. During evolutionary history there were plenty of times where the liquid stuff was not available but food was still available. Increasing hunger can thus encourage getting other forms of water.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why does the U.S. have a debt ceiling if it just gets raised every few months? Isn't it redundant?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Before 1917 Congress specified the details of financing in every spending bill. A bill authorizing the Navy to spend $10 million on new ships would also specify the term and interest rate of the bonds that would be sold to raise the money. In 1917, Congress passed a bill that authorized the Treasury department to issue bonds as needed to fund the spending authorized by Congress. This bill included a limit on how much debt the Treasury department could issue. A practice that is still followed almost 100 years later. It is redundant in that Congress already controls spending via legislation. If our nation actually hits the debt ceiling, it would force a default on our obligations and most likely create an economic crisis. In a rational world, the debt ceiling would be eliminated.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Eli5. Cold welding. Im a highschool student and ive got welding experience but i just don’t understand how cold welding works like in space and even on earth. What exactly constitutes a cold weld and how is it achieved? (Unintentionally)<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Metal atoms really like to stick to each other. That's why metals are both flexible and strong. However, when metal atoms touch oxygen or water, they react easily to form an oxide. The surface of metal exposed to air is coated with the oxide which slows down metal atoms inside from reacting. Rust is one example of iron oxide. Cold welding occurs in an environment without anything in the air for the metal to react and form an oxide. Space is one such environment. When bare metal atoms touch other atoms in a cold weld, they stick together much like two water droplets fusing into one. For metal the cold weld causes two solids to combine into one larger one.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: If gay and interracial marriage is legal in a state, then polygamous marriage should also be legal in that state. A few things to note before a start: 1. I'm not arguing to the contrary against gay marriage. I am for gay marriage as I am for polygamous marriages. 2. I'm not arguing for forced marriage or arranged marriages where several women are forced to marry a single man, like in various religious sects, but the concept of a marriage containing multiple people as a whole. 3. I am as much for polyandrous marriages as I am for polygynous marriages. (i.e. women can have multiple husbands in addition to men having multiple wives. 4. Willing to discuss this legally and ethically in seperate spheres, but let's try not and mix the two together too much, unless absolutely necessary. It is assumed that gay marriage is both legal and ethical for the purpose of this discussion. If you believe gay marriage should be illegal or is unethical, then those arguments have merit towards polygamous marriage as well. Alrighty, now onto my main points. 1. Polyamarous people deserve the same right to equality, to marry who they love, just like homosexuals, and heterosexuals. Polyamarous relationships are no less moral than homosexual relationships, and relationships between consenting adults should be able to be consummated in marriage. 2. Marriage was not made legal by a popular vote in many places. The only country to legalize it via a popular vote was Ireland a week or so ago, everywhere else had it decided by judges or representatives. In the US, interracial marriage and gay marriage has been ruled as legal by courts, not voted in. Public opinion towards polygamous marriage is irrelevant. 3. When it comes to raising children, one can assume that since having a single parent results in worse-off children, then having a higher amount of parental figures and providers would make for a similar, if not better child-rearing than having one parent, two parents, or two parents of the same sex (all of which are legal). [Source] (http://archive.news-leader.com/article/20121125/NEWS01/311250054/single-parents-Ozarks-poverty) [Source 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_House) 4. When it comes to insurance, legal proceedings, etc. everything can be easily adjusted to treating additional spouses as additional dependents (as where such institutions are adjusted for additional children). Yes, it is true that the current system does not allow for it, but it can be adjusted. When it comes to division of property, divorce, etc. things will simply be divided by the amount of people participating in the marriage, i.e. if there are three people, everything gets split 33%, or if the other two remain married, it gets split 66%. Prenuptual agreements can take care of anything that may be complicated by this if spouses have different intentions for how things are split. There will be a cap where insurance coverage/tax benefits end, i.e. if you have more than 7 children you stop receiving benefits for any more. For taxes and insurance, children are treated similarly to spouses, and additional spouses shouldn't complicate things out of reason. The specifics as to what the cap will be, how things get split, life and death decisions, etc. can be hammered out by individual states and individual people participating in a marriage, just like in other marriages. 5. Sham marriages containing two people that don't love each other, of the same or different sex are currently legal. Chuck and Larry marriages are currently possible, the only difference in allowing polygamous marriages would be to not allow odd numbers of people to participate in such marriages, rather than being in pairs. The difference here is insignificant. 6. The idea that polyamarous people are treated "equal" because everyone is only allowed to marry one spouse is the same type of "equality" where everyone is only allowed to marry within their race or sex. This is nonsensical. Everyone being held to the same standard of law does not work when people love people outside of what is socially accepted. 7. Polyamarous relationships aren't any less stable than homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships. Even if they were, it shouldn't have any weight, as interracial relationships are much less stable than intraracial relationships. To argue that polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed because of a instability in relationships is also to argue against interracial marriage. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >When it comes to raising children, one can assume that having a higher amount of parental figures and providers would make for a similar, if not better child-rearing than having one parent, two parents, or two parents of the same sex (all of which are legal). Source When your source is the TV show full house, you don't have a source.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: When the U.S. Government says "You can't sell pot" the individual States can decide "Oh yes we can!", but when the Feds say "You must allow gay marriage" why aren't the States aren't allowed to say "No!" I'm pro gay marriage by the way, congratulations everyone!!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant So there are two things at play here. Federal laws superiority over state law, and the government utilizing its ability to prioritize where it spends its limited resources. So when the federal government says possession and sale of pot is illegal. It absolutely is illegal and if you were arrested for it, even in a state that legalized it, you would absolutely be found guilty and punished under federal law. But the thing is the only way that happens is if someone actually arrests you, and since the states decided they weren't going to participate in enforcing that particular federal law the federal government hasn't really bothered to put in the effort to do it themselves. Just because something is illegal on the federal level doesn't mean state officials must arrest people for it. ~~They're allowed to~~ (Edit: It looks like they're not normally allowed to, thanks for the correction!), but it's not required. On the other hand we have gay marriage. States already perform marriage, they're in the marrying people game. The supreme court effectively said you're not allowed to refuse marriages to people who want to marry someone just because of their sex. The difference here is that if the states don't enforce federal pot laws, there aren't any victims who can sue. Who is harmed by not being arrested? But the states must not discriminate in marriage anymore, if they do individuals would be able to sue and the courts would compel marriage officials to perform the act, or send them to jail. The main bit is, no one is a victim when states refuse to enforce federal drug laws. But there would be victims if states refused to follow the Supreme court ruling on same-sex marriages.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user How would you fund consumers in a post-jobs world? Imagine a future where robots and AI have surpassed humans in their ability to perform jobs. They're stronger, more precise, more creative, more empathetic, more flexible - name a skill, and the robot beats the human at it. Let's dodge for the moment the hairy question of whether owning a robot like that constitutes slavery (assume ownership works like today, humans and companies can own robots and AIs). Assume also that robots are long-lasting and power efficient so the marginal cost of running them is minuscule. Long story short, the market value of labor drops to near zero, as robot labor outperforms human labor on every metric (except for branding/excentricism, e.g. to show off your human butler). Historically, labor displaced by automation has found new jobs, that they could still perform better than machines - but imagine in our scenario, that we've finally run out of those, the robots now beat us at everything, there's no job we can come up with where the robot isn't already superior. How do you maintain the purchasing power of consumers in a scenario like that, in order to maintain a market economy? Most consumers get their money by selling their labor, but the market value of that has just tanked. Sure, goods are cheaper as well now that they are produced, transported and sold by robots (production costs are now basically energy + raw material costs), but as long as they are just cheap, rather than free, then that's no use to the majority of people who are now unemployable. If your answer is Universal Basic Income, then how do you fund it? Most of taxation currently comes from taxing labor, and in our scenario that has now mostly disappeared. We might increase VAT, but can that ever be enough to fund the "stipend" from which the VAT will be drawn when spent? (that doesn't seem to add up, some of the money flowing to the corporation would need to eventually make it's way back into the hands of a consumer, like it currently does via salaries). Since all these corporations that own all these robots are now massively profitable without employing anyone, maybe we can tax all this economic activity that is still going on there? But Amazon and others have shown that you can basically defer corporate taxation indefinitely by continuously reinvesting all your surplus cash and thus never actually making a profit. Do we start taxing them on revenue instead? Or do we tax the owners of the corporations? We've recently learned that stock owners can basically defer realization on their stock gains indefinitely too, by taking out loans instead of cashing in. So do we tax them on gains annually whether they sell or not? Or do we tax them on wealth instead of income? Could some combination of these actually be enough to fund a UBI in scenario like that? If yes, how would it affect the economy if all these things that are currently taxed relatively little compared to labor were taxed a lot more? If no, do we need to be thinking in some completely other direction, to still make a market economy work in a scenario like that? Edit 1: by using the phrase "market value" I seem to have implied that robots are already completely deployed everywhere in the market - I didn't mean to imply that (sorry, I'm an engineer, not an economist). I'm asking about the scenario where they exist, but might not have been made widely available yet (i.e. I don't want to assume everyone has a robot, because IMO that would be jumping the gun to assume that will come to pass). Edit 2: to clarify, minuscule power draw is compared to a human. Assume servos, batteries, cpus and such with a power draw similar to what we know today, not magic perpetual motion machines. So the cost of running these is small (especially compared to a human) but not non-trivial (at least no more trivial than the running of other well-made machines).<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant >How do you maintain the purchasing power of consumers in a scenario like that, in order to maintain a market economy? Purchasing power? You are describing post scarcity! If what you are saying is true then these machines can be created at no cost and run at no cost and perform duties better and more energy efficient than any human ever could. That is post scarcity and the only thing we would need is figure out how to distribute land and trade seasonal perishable foods.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Holocaust deniers, how and why do they deny it ?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant For some, the rationalization is that they see some sinister Jewish shadow conspiracy to control the world, and believe that all claims related to the Holocaust are falsified in order to further the aims of that Jewish conspiracy. The more "not stupid" version, is simply people who believe that the reports associated with the Holocaust, particularly the numbers of the slain, are inaccurate or exaggerated, or that reports of outright mass-execution and actual extermination were overblown. Some just don't want to or can't accept that such events happened, because it says very uncomfortable things about what humans will do or can be coerced to do under the right circumstances. Sadly, as horrible as it was, the Holocaust's reality was fairly well-documented.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Presenting at a Conference for the 1st time... So, I'll be presenting a paper at a conference and as time gets closer, I'm dreading it more and more. I get incredibly anxious with public speaking, and I'm pretty sure my anxiety is not only noticeable, but also distracting. I swear that sometimes it probably sounds like I'm not even speaking English. I haven't actually attended any conferences before, so I don't know how they play out. But, I assume that most participants will present their work in the same manner that they would present a lecture. I don't think I'm capable of doing that though, so I'm wondering if it's at all common (or at least acceptable) for a presenter to just read their paper verbatim? Also, there's probably not anything to do to ease my anxiety other than to just try and get over it... but if anyone has some tips that they think would be useful, I would appreciate hearing them.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Where is your lab/workgroup/advisor in all of this? You should definitely consider doing a practice talk in front of your lab group or close friends so you can get comments for improvement (or positive feed back!) and maybe a few questions that you might expect from the audience. Write a script if you need to, practice the talk until you're comfortable, and push through when the time comes. I have a colleague who is terrified of public speaking. She always sounds like she's on the verge of tears during her talks. No one in the audience makes fun of her, gives her a hard time, boos her off the stage, or anything that might worry you. Despite her poor delivery, she can easily and competently talk about her work in a one-on-one situation. If someone is interested in your work, they'll approach you in that way.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user [STAR WARS] Why was everyone in the senate so onboard with Palpatine creating the Galactic Empire?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Increased security measures. Like a standing military that was centralized instead of relying on local militias. Trade practices standardized and preferential treatment of the core worlds. Relaxed restrictions on exploiting worlds in the mid and outer rim. Streamlining the process of government. It took years of planning but palpatine made the Senate feel like they were suffering under republic rule and that he was the one to get things done instead of months of debating and dealing to find solutions. The republic had just seen a simple trade dispute turn into a massive rebellion that was put down thanks only to palpatine bringing the grand army out of hiding and waging a war against the separatists that publicly was credited to palpatine not the jedi. And it took nearly 19 years before the senate was losing power. All they saw at the time was removing the need to have an elected leader of the Senate and having an authority that could come in and decide any issues without need for a Senate debate if it was needing a speedy response.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is there logic, and has any theory been written around the idea that God, in the context of religion is a scapegoat or rather an excuse for the shortcomings of human behavior? When someone says, for example when a natural disaster occurs and people die that, "God has a plan," rather than, "We should have done a better job building that building or evacuating that population, and we knew this was vulnerable but we didn't want to spend the money needed to do it right." By convincing people that God did this for a reason we can't possibly understand, we place the blame elsewhere for what could have been preventable.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant In The Essence of Christianity, Ludwig Feuerbach advanced the view that God is an outward projection of a human's inward nature. > God is for man the commonplace book where he registers his highest feelings and thoughts, the genealogical album into which he enters the names of the things most dear and sacred to him. (pg. 66 of the Barnes & Noble version) So, in your example, God acts as the projection of man's own ideal of omniscience which man self-consciously recognizes is a limitation for man in general. Feuerbach also discusses how an individual can project their individual limitations to be limitations of man as a species, which ties into the kind of thought process you're thinking of, i.e. "We didn't anticipate this, and therefore no human could have anticipated this - only God could."<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If water conservation is so vital to mammals, why do we pee? Why not transfer toxins into stool and recycle the water? Are there any animals that have evolved to do this? Bizarre thought I had upon waking up that is now bothering me a great deal.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Safely excreting waste tends to be a balancing act between water and energy. Land animals in non-desert climates tend to urinate in the sense you are familiar with. However, animals in climates in which water is very precious or those which can't carry a lot of water due to weight (birds) use a different method of getting rid of waste. A large part of what we're getting rid of in urine is nitrogen waste so that we don't build up ammonia. We get rid of nitrogen by making a compound called urea in a cycle called the urea cycle. It uses some energy to make, and takes a lot of water to get rid of. In contrast, birds, reptiles, and some desert mammals get rid of nitrogen by making a different compound called uric acid. This takes more energy, but can be excreted as a paste with only a little water in it (this is the white part of bird poop). It's a balancing act as to whether the water or the energy is generally more important, and so different species have gone different ways.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How did primitive humans, with a top speed of 28 mph, hunt large mammals like deer, bears, wolves, etc, that can reach speeds of near 35 - 40 mph?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant 1. Tools: Primitive humans could sharpen a stick to make a throwing spear, and build sharp points from things like flint, wounding or killing an animal from a distance. Also: Slings, throwing rocks, building traps, and fire. There is a place in Alberta, Canada called (charmingly) "head smashed in buffalo jump" which is where ancient native americans would chase herds of buffalo off a cliff, where they would fall to their deaths. Then the natives could just walk around to the base and collect meat, hides, and all the other resources at their leisure. 2. Endurance: No other animal on earth can run as far a human. World champion race horses have to rest for days to recover from a single race. Humans can routinely run marathons, 42km, with training. There are several cultures that still exist that use endurance chases to corral prey animals into traps or kill zones. 3. Stealth: It's hard to imagine for a "civilized" person, but humans can be extremely stealthy in the wild with proper training. Getting close to an animal allows you to kill it before it has a chance to run. 4. Teamwork: Just as a pack of wolves or lions can bring down much larger prey, ancient humans could co-ordinate better than almost any other animal using perhaps our best tool: language. Surrounding an animal, tiring it out, and only when it's weak going for a kill allowed ancient peoples to bring down huge animals, like mammoths. I would like to add that hunting predators like bears and wolves is rare, because often they don't run AWAY but fight back. Also generally the meat of predators isn't great to eat anyways.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Is it wrong to take a walk in the woods, since it's almost inevitable that I will step on an insect? I'm aware that the question is a little ridiculous, but it's been stuck in my head for quite some time, I don't know the answer, and it's draining me. I enjoy taking a hike in the woods, but there's almost a guarantee that I will trample at least one insect to death unintentionally. Should I therefore not take a walk in the woods? Should I feel bad?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Jeffrey Lockwood, an Entomologist, argued for the following "minimum ethic" in his paper The Moral Standing of Insects and the Ethics of Extinction: >We ought to refrain from actions which may be reasonably expected to kill or cause nontrivial pain in insects when avoiding these actions has no, or only trivial, costs to our own welfare. By this definition, hiking may or may not be justifiable depending on how important it is to one's "welfare". Presumably, the justifiability of this action also increases if one acts to avoid killing insects while hiking, such as watching one's steps more carefully.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 - Why are animals much more stronger proportionally to humans.. eg. How are horses capable of running for hours on end and oxen can pull cars like it's nothing How come bears, tigers, even apes are naturally so powerful... And why are humans so weak in comparison<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Different species were naturally selected for different things. Tigers and lions are incredibly powerful, which is great for hunting, but not very active. Humans had natural selection two particular traits: endurance and intelligence. Unlike a lot of other animals that use speed or power in short, sudden bursts to hunt, humans are the marathon runners of the animal kingdom. Someone in good physical shape could chase prey for hours intermittently until their prey gave up from exhaustion. Intelligence, the other trait, allows humans to form long range weapons, such as bows and arrows or throwing spears to attack from afar. When combined, humans make incredibly effective hunters. Raw strength, while helpful, just isn't as important for humans to he effective in gathering food. In fact, lots of muscle mass burns extra calories that aren't strictly necessary and adds additional weight to the body that needs to be more lean for endurance.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Finally need to settle the score, is it the washing machine or the dryer that shrinks my shirts?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Dryer, usually. Think about what happens in each machine, versus how you would do it by hand. When you wash clothes by hand, you put them in water with some laundry soap and swish them around a lot and then rinse the soap off. That is exactly what a washing machine does, so if washing stuff by hand doesn't shrink it, a washing machine probably won't. When you dry clothes by hand, you put them on a rack or clothesline and wait. When you dry them in a dryer, it heats them very hot and tumbles them around quickly for about an hour. The heat is usually what shrinks stuff, so if you put things on the very hot cycle in the washing machine, they still might shrink. But if you put clothes on the normal or gentle cycle in the washing machine and then hang them up to dry, they will almost definitelynot shrink.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user What is the origin of spin, from the perspective of quantum field theory?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Spin arises directly from considering quantum mechanics with rotational symmetry, even without introducing field theory. In any quantum theory with a symmetry, you can arrange all states in irreducible projective unitary* representations of the mathematical group describing that symmetry. For rotations, these representations correspond to states which carry spin. Adding special relativity enlarges the symmetry group, introducing chirality and the fact that states carry a mass (and zero-mass particles have helicity instead of spin). These representations are naturally associated with/defined to be "particles." Nothing says that you have to have particles with a given spin. But our own universe does take advantage of the ability to have particles with nonzero spin. Relativistic quantum mechanics does end up leading you to introduce quantum fields and quantum field theory - you make all of the operators in your theory into operator-fields which transform in some (not necessarily unitary) representation of the Lorentz group. One usually matches fields with a certain representation with the particles which they create when acting on a state. But these are tools you use to describe spinfull particles, they're not really the "origin" of spin. \* Or anti-unitary, which usually concerns time-reversal symmetry.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user If a person loses their dominant hand, will their other hand ever gain the dexterity of the lost limb? On a related note, if somebody is born without the hand that would otherwise be dominant due to a birth defect, will their remaining hand be clumsier than normal? Does that question even make any sense? Thanks, experts!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant this is an empirical question, not a theoretical one, because dexterity is defined empirically. and because of the limited number of people to which it applies, anecdotal evidence is appropriate. a friend of mine had his right arm badly injured in a car accident when he was a kid. so he had to start doing almost everything left-handed. a decade later, he was very proficient, but you could still clearly tell that he wasn't as dexterous (even as, say, an 8 year old using their natural hand). writing, typing, eating, you name it. of course practice makes you much better. but to me this is explicit evidence that one does not fully gain the dexterity of their original dominant hand. no amount of other people who might have gotten slightly better can disprove this empirical observation. edit: to the mods: unless you understand why it's inappropriate to use a fixed effect statistical analysis on data of this nature, you shouldn't be removing this comment for being anecdotal.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: What makes blood a different "type"? What's the difference between blood in people that means we have different "types" and why are some incompatible?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Our blood contains antibodies and antigens. Different people have different antibodies/antigens. Antibodies attack antigens of the same type. Blood type O has no antigens and both A and B types of antibodies. Blood type A has antigen A and antibody B. Blood type B has antigen B and antibody A. Blood type AB has both antigens and neither antibodies. There is a final important antigen, known as D, which people are either positive for (they have it) or negative for (they don't have it). This means that someone whose blood type is A+ has antigens A and D, as well as antibody B.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why do manufacturer to consumer direct business models often fail? I work in an industry where manufacturers sell product to wholesale distributor at markup, then distributors sell to retailers, then retailers sell to consumers. The markup from wholesalers to retailers alone is 100%. Why don't manufacturers sell directly to consumers at a lower price, but higher profit?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Access to consumers directly requires a differentiating business model that most manufacturers don't have or want. Logistics and the ability to capitalize on choice is a speciality that many companies also don't want to focus on. They'd often rather focus on innovation and brand quality in their own space.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Either abortion is an act of homicide, or it is morally equivalent to contraception. There are no logical alternatives. To clarify, I'm not arguing that human life begins either at conception or at birth. Rather, my argument is that, for any given abortion, either the fetus is already a human life (making the abortion an act of homicide), or it's not yet (making the abortion equivalent to contraception). If, for example, you take the position that abortion is equivalent to contraception up until the moment of fetal viability, after which it becomes homicide, I regard that as a perfectly consistent position (at least for the sake of this post). The one position I find illogical is the idea that, despite the fetus not being a human life (meaning abortion isn't homicide), abortion is still a tragedy, and we need to do everything we can to minimize the number of abortions, whether that's through sex ed, better access to contraception, affordable healthcare for children, etc. Granted, those kinds of policies may be good in and of themselves, but I'm speaking of them in reference to their alleged necessity in preventing abortion. There are only two reasons I can think of as to why someone would express this position. Either they're secretly pro-life but in denial, or they actually don't care about preventing abortion and just want the pro-life movement to shut up about the issue and focus on these other, seemingly more important issues. I just don't understand why anyone would sincerely hold that position. If abortion isn't tragic due to the loss of human life, then what's tragic about it? Answer that question sufficiently, and you will have changed my view. Edit: To clarify, when I say "homicide", I'm referring to a deliberate action that causes another human being to die. [This is the definition Wikipedia uses](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide), and it's the one I intended. I've seen a few comments effectively arguing that abortion is a justifiable homicide akin to euthanasia, which is not what my argument is about. Edit 2: I've noticed two basic lines of argument that were deserving of deltas, and I'll mention them here so I don't have to see them over and over again. Argument 1: Abortion can be viewed as a cover-up of sexual immorality. Destroying the evidence of a crime is typically a crime in and of itself. If abortion is terminating a pregnancy and pregnancy is evidence of sexual immorality, then abortion is the destruction of evidence of immorality and is therefore immoral as well. Unfortunately, this view is often coupled with misogyny. Men are expected to be promiscuous, and women are expected to be chaste. If a sexual encounter was immoral for both partners, then a man who gets a woman pregnant would be culpable for abortion as well, since he's an accomplice. But if the sexual encounter was only immoral for the woman, only she would be culpable. This is one reason why women get much more blame for abortion than men. However, it also explains why some people make an exception in the case of rape. If she didn't consent to sex, then she's not destroying evidence of any immorality on her part. Argument 2: Abortion can be viewed as some sort of semi-homicide. Becoming a human is a process of development, and there's no "magical moment" when a fetus becomes a human being. As such, the fetus doesn't have the same right to life that a born human child has, but it still has more of a right to life than a clump of sperm cells. So, even though abortion would involve killing an organism with human DNA, it doesn't really fit nicely into the homicide/not homicide dichotomy. This explains why some people oppose abortion if it's done purely for convenience, but they'll tolerate it if the pregnancy poses an unexpectedly large burden on the mother.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant What about the possibility that life is less of a binary that snaps at a particular point, and more of a continuum? Or what about the argument that one can be unsure of where life begins, exactly, and thus choosing a point (based on whatever- some might argue arbitrary, some might say meaningful) at which moral sanction and/or legality should be revoked? As to you last question- abortion can be tragic for reasons that have nothing to do with a loss of human life.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user In Layman's terms, how do the new RTX graphics cards calculate the path of light rays?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant The maths behind raytracing isn't too complex. You work out where a beam of light hits a surface, and then you work what direction it bounces to etc. The problem is that you have a lot of rays of light to deal with, and that gets computationally expensive. So what you do is you run the calculations in parallel. That is, instead of having one processor chip doing one ray at a time, you have several chips running one ray each at the same time, and that speeds things a up a lot. Now, this is where you have a choice. You can either use a small number of expensive but fast chips with lots of features, or you can use a large number of cheap but slower chips with minimal features. Which is better depends on a lot of things, but mostly on how complex your problem is, and how easy it is to split up your problem into small chunks. If the chips have to do a lot of communication with each after to solve the equations, then it's usually better to have a small number of fast chips. But if the chips can solve the equations independently of each other, then it's usually better to have a large number of cheap chips. Raytracing is one the best examples of the second type. The maths for the rays can all be done independently, and the equations are actually pretty simple. So what you want is a large number of cheap chips. And that is what a graphics card is. Your computer might have 2-16 expensive "CPU" processor chips, but a GPU (a graphics card) might have hundreds or thousands of cheap "GPU" processor chips. So, for these particular problems, the GPU solves them much much faster. Additionally, because people use GPUs for problems like raytracing so often, they can actually hard-code some of the maths onto the chip to make it extra fast. So if you're doing something like matrix multiplication, which involves several steps of additional and multiplication, you'd normally have to do each of those steps one at a time, sending the results back and forth each time, storing things in memory along the way etc. A GPU might have a special section dedicated to matrix multiplication, so you send in a chunk of data and it spits out the result extremely fast without having to go through the intermediate steps. But the key thing is that a GPU is a big pile of cheap processors, and that's often a lot faster than a small pile of expensive processors.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: Why do different species have different life spans? For example we live to a maximum length of years, yet a giant tortoise can live to like 170 years old? What determines this?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Genetic programming, basically. First, take all other causes of death - accident, predation, suicide, and so on - out of the picture so you're only dealing with creatures dying "of old age". What happens as most creatures age (there are some exceptions) is their cells eventually can only replicate so often and repair or replace components within their body so many times. Eventually more and more of those cells run out of times that they can duplicate and replace themselves. They die, the organ or body part their in dies or becomes critically damaged when enough cells within them die, and of course so does the organism. Different animals duplicate their cells at different rates, and there's a decent correlation between size of the creature and length of its natural lifespan. Mice grow much faster (and breed much faster) than men, and run through their cells' "max refresh count" a lot faster as a result. So they live a shorter life. Galapagos tortoises run their counter a lot slower, however, and so they can live a lot longer. It's also correlated to how fast the animal goes (hummingbirds live a lot fewer years than giant pandas), but not perfectly so.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5: How the United States is operating as a nation while being trillions of dollars in debt<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant That is like asking how do you operate as a person if you have a mortgage? You can operate if you are in debt. Banks from all over the world have lent the US money. Should we ever default the world wide economic system will be fucked beyond belief.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user The Nobel Prize in Chemistry this year was awarded for super-resolution fluorescence microscopy. How does it work?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Normally, in samples you see a diffuse spread of thousands or millions of fluorescent molecules. You cannot resolve these individually because the light coming from each of these particles is "fuzzy" and gets blurred out because of the fundamental nature of photons. This fuzziness arises from a limit called the diffraction limit. It turns out that you can localize fluorescent particles better than this limit, but you need to do some tricks. One way of seeing below this limit is to image the particles one at a time. If you want to see below this limit, you need a way of only imaging samples such that the particles you see are not so close together. It turns out that you can localize them individually much better than you can when they are all together, so you just need a way of randomly localizing them one at a time. One technique is called PALM (photo-activated localization microscopy). Another way is to use some exotic properties of fluorescent materials that arise because of photophysical properties. These are properties that arise from the way the electrons transitions in these materials. If you are careful about the way you image, you can excite a super-small portion of the material, smaller than the diffraction limit mentioned above. If you do this and sweep over the entire sample, you can get resolution better than the diffraction limit. This is very simplified way of describing it, but this technique is called STED (stimulated emission depletion microscopy). This technique is also similar in principle to something called "near field microscopy," where you only illuminate your sample with a tiny probe that is smaller than the wavelength of light you would ordinarily illuminate with. This probe is like a nanoscale flashlight. If you sweep this tiny probe over your sample, it will fluoresce only when your tiny probe is in a place where it can generate fluorescence. This is another trick to "beat" the diffraction limit. Summary A lot of this work has been slowly developed over the last 20 or more years. The diffraction limit remains a fundamental limit of light resolution, but it turns out that if you do the experiment with certain tricks in just the right way, you can get around some of the limitations it imposes. Basically these guys won the Nobel for these tricks.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user My 12 yr old wants to know "what's the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates?" He said "it sounds like the difference between H2O and OH2 that it's just the same thing". I told him that it's the difference between gasoline and bread, but that's really a non answer.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Hydrocarbons are compounds that are composed only of hydrogens and carbons. Carbohydrates are compounds that are made up of Carbons, hydrogens AND oxygens. Carbohydrates usually have a specific formula as well where the number of Hydrogens are twice as much as number of oxygen. For example: CH4 is a hydrocarbon and C12H22O11 is a carbohydrate. TLDR: Hydrocarbons are C and H only. Carbohydrates have C,H and O with specific relationship between H and O<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Diversity statements for faculty positions I was wondering if anybody had any tips for writing those. While I am definitely in favor of diversity initiatives, I feel like writing about them can fall a bit flat, and worse yet, sound a bit white-saviory. I have gotten advice before to bring my own identity into the statement. I am a white woman of LGBTQ identity, but would like to leave that out of the statement if possible (feels weird to talk about this aspect of my identity in a job application, you never know who is reading). Anyways, if anybody has any advice, that would be really appreciated.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant I think there's a few important points to make in those kinds of statement: * You recognize that you will be teaching a diverse student body. * You value that diversity and what it adds to scholarship * You had an experience with someone different than yourself * Students are unique individuals with intersectional identities, and individual challenges and goals. Being a good educator means addressing those individual challenges to meet those individual goals. * First generation college students will struggle, so your experiences apply to helping them I wouldn't make it a white-savior thing, or go on and on about privilege or how you're going to uplift people or whatever. The diversity statement is meant to show that you've at least thought about issues of diversity, not that you personally have the solution to every social inequity<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user ELI5 What is stoicism?<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Stoicism is a way of approaching living with the aim of having a positive and tranquil life. It originated in ancient Rome with a philosopher named Seneca, who started a school to teach his approach to life, called Stoicism. The basic idea in stoicism is to seek out a tranquil and positive way of living by training oneself to appreciate the things one has. This training takes several forms, when people think of stoicism they often think of putting up with misfortune without complaint, or deliberately seeking out hardship. A simple example: Imagine your favourite toy, let's say it's a ball. Now imagine that your brother borrows your ball and loses it. This might make you sad and angry but if you think about it, there are plenty of ways for you to play without having a ball; you could run around in the park, or learn how to do cartwheels! The ball isn't really so important after all! Now because we were imagining this, you still actually have your ball - this is great because you haven't actually lost anything but hopefully have a new appreciation for your ball and how great it is to play with, but you also know that, should worst come to worst, you'll be ok without your ball and you'll still be able to have fun. So a stoic is calm and ok when bad things happen to her, she knows that she'll be fine because she's learned how well she can cope in rough situations as she has imagined (and sometimes put herself) in bad situations as practice so she really appreciates all the important things she does have. Hopefully, if the practice is successful, a stoic enjoys all moments fully: genuinely appreciating all good fortunes, and weathering bad fortunes with a calm joy and lack of regret.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user Why are most random number generators said to be "pseudo-random" rather than truly random? What is the difference between true randomness and pseudo-randomness? Reading a book on programming they mentioned that the Random function for C# didn't actually produce random numbers, it produced pseudo-random numbers, but that this is acceptable for almost all situations. I'm a bit confused as to what they actually mean. My understanding is as follows: My random number generator is designed to output either a 1, 2, 3 or 4. The random number generator will "designate" an equal probability for all possible outcomes (in this case it would be .25 for each number), but somehow the designation of the probably means that it is not truly random. But if this is not truly random, how can a number generator actually produce a truly random number? Wouldn't it always have to assign a probability for each number, thus always making it's decision pseudo-random? EDIT: Does this mean that randomness can only happen in an environment that we cannot completely control? So flipping a coin, since we can not actually force the coin to has a 50-50 chance of being heads or tails (in the same sense that a program can) mean that a coin flip is truly random. EDIT #2: So I looked up a bit more about this because I'm really curious about this and got the following situation If you had a program that "generated a random number" by creating a predetermined sequence of numbers in which each number had a 25% chance to occur and the only reason they have this probability is because the program put an equal number of occurrences for each number (So if it created a sequence of 100 numbers it would make sure that the number 1 occurs 25 times, the number 2 occurs 25 times etc...). If this random number generator was to be truly random then it can not create a table that has more than 1 number in the sequence. It would have to create a new table every time.<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Let's start with the definition of deterministic. A deterministic process or system has one future for each state. In phase-space, the trajectories don't cross. So you can usually predict the future state of a particle given the particles current state. Random processes/functions/systems (whatever) can have multiple futures for one state. On computers, random numbers typically are deterministically generated, but by a process so complex that each future state is not easily predictable (you can have determinism without predictability: see chaos for instance) and also such that their distribution obeys the statistics of the desired random process.<\|im_end\|>
<\|im_start\|>user CMV: Saying that we are in a computer simulation is a meaningless, nonsensical statement From time to time I come across a theory claiming that our universe is a computer simulation. [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)'s a Wikipedia article about it. I think it's a completely meaningless proposition. It's similar to claiming that there is a parallel universe, completely separated from ours, where Earth is populated by lizard-like creatures. Or that the universe is full of invisible dwarfs that can't interact in any way with the rest of the universe. They are nothing more than ideas in our heads – if we added them to our model of the world it wouldn't change its predictive power. Our model of the world (physics) is basically a tool to summarize past and predict future observations of the world. Adding a statement that the universe is a simulation wouldn't improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated. If the simulation theory claimed something tangible about the universe, for example that the universe is discrete, it wouldn't be meaningless. But why not simply claim "the universe is discrete"? Adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary. It's like explaining the gravitation force with invisible dwarfs pushing elementary particles. Hope it makes sense, I'll edit or comment if it doesn't :) _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!<\|im_end\|> <\|im_start\|>assistant Bostrom's argument that I've previously read suggests the following: Let's say we are in a computer simulation (which can be argued is actually quite likely). What is the purpose of this simulation? Is it to simulate a particular point in past history, or to determine certain particular outcomes to certain particular actions? If there is a purpose, then certain parts of the simulation might be more important than others. This is important. Let's say the simulators want to see how various actions affect the outcome of American History (just a random example). Let's say they care particularly about Obama's term in office, and it's effects. Then it could be suggested that Obama and his government, and his staff, and his staff's staff are quite relevant to the simulation. Some groundhog in Asia is probably not that relevant. Due to potential limits of the simulation, some aspects may have "shortcuts". Like the groundhog in Asia. Maybe it's not fully simulated. Only the most relevant parts of the simulation are simulated in great detail. Maybe the groundhog is just running very basic code. Maybe it's brain isn't even simulated. What about people? Perhaps only relevant and important people are simulated fully. The other people are basically empty shells that superficially appear human*, but aren't really. What does this mean? It means that if you want to continue living as a real person, and not be replaced by some superficial shell program, you might wanna be involved in important things, near important people. This is just one single example... but the idea would hold for all sorts of different considerations. The fact that we are probably in a simulation means that certain things might be more or less well-simulated. We haven't found any such cases yet - but that doesn't mean we won't in the future.<\|im_end\|>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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