Datasets:

eli5_category

like 9

{ "a_id": [ "h2vyao1", "h2vwaii", "h2vw0a7", "h2vxnc6", "h2vwbo1", "h2wbfb4" ], "text": [ "The point of a local cache is that it have a very low latency. You could have more cache in the CPU but this would probably give a higher latency. Imagine you are drinking lemonade and have a small glass of lemonade and a large mug on the table. You might ask yourself why you just don't drink straight from the mug, why bother with the glass. But that would be quite inconvenient as the jug is quite heavy so you would have to put it down all the time and it would be slower to take a sip of lemonatde. And it is no big incovenience to have to fille up the glass from time to time. It is the same thing with memory cache. The small fast cache is right there next to the CPU cores and responds very fast. If you spend money on a larger cache it would be further away and use more power so it would be slower. And there is not much slowdown in getting the data from the memory into the cache from time to time.", "Cache memory is much more expensive and hard to manufacture than RAM. Adding gigabytes of it can make the CPU cost, like, 50x more. While overall performance benefit from it would be tiny.", "The simple answer is it's expensive. If you look back to the AMD Athlon series you'll see 512k of L2 which technically could still run Windows 10 just fine. There's more cache now then there ever has been.", "Cache in a CPU is SRAM. SRAM is stupid fast but requires 6 transistors to hold each bit. Those 64 MB of L3 cache take 3.2 billion transistors. That's a sizable percentage of their 19 Billion transistors and overall die area We've steadily increased cache on the chips through the years. Chips didn't even have L3 caches until 2008. Even with the fast SRAM, it takes longer to find data in the cache the larger the cache is. Having a GB of L4 cache would take a while to search through and somewhat defeats the benefits of that cache eating up a huge die area. You have to keep it significantly faster than RAM or it's added cost isn't worth it", "Cache is very expensive memory. Think about it like this, a hard drive is pretty cheap. Ram costs a little more. If you could purchase cache on it's own it would cost even more. Basically the more performant the memory, the more expensive it is. So intel and AMD need to balance its cost and performance so that consumers will purchase them.", "The actual answer is the **diminishing returns** nature of caches. The **cache hit ratio** measures how successful our cache is in serving data quickly. E.g., a hit ratio of 90% means the cache is able to successfully speed up data requests to the CPU 90% of the time. But if we graph cache size vs. the cache hit ratio, the graph quickly hits a plateau. * For example, having 32mb cache might give us 80% cache hit ratio. * Doubling the cache to 64mb might improve the ratio to 92%, a 12% improvement. * Yet doubling it again to 128mb might only improve it further to 94%, just 2% more. * Worse, having a 256mb cache might only get the ratio to 95%. We've quadrupled the amount of expensive cache (from 64mb to 256mb) but only improved the hit ratio by 3%! This is diminishing returns. In this case, 64mb is the \"sweet spot\" because adding more cache beyond 64mb is practically wasteful. Why do caches exhibit diminishing returns? Because at any given instant of time, there's only a small amount of data the CPU will likely process next. * If you're watching a video, then the computer will likely process the next video frame, not 2000 frames ahead or behind. * If you're playing a game, the computer will likely next calculate the scene at your character's predicted position, not at some other random position in the game's world. * If you're doing a calculation in an Excel cell, the computer will likely need data in nearby rows or columns, not data in an entirely different spreadsheet. This is the effective \"**working set**\" of the computer's memory. And basically having a cache beyond some fraction of the working set will not yield much additional benefits. Further info: Example cache [diminishing returns graph]( URL_0 ). Wikipedia's description of [the working set]( URL_1 )." ], "score": [ 43, 10, 7, 6, 5, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/L1-L2Balance.png", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_set" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2w4brm", "h2w69f1" ], "text": [ "Relative differences. If there is also a 5'2\" person nearby, then he will not seem as short after all. Human perception of size isn't like a ruler. We pay a lot of attention to relative differences between people rather than absolute height.", "What do you consider to be the baseline areas you look for a pair of human eyes? If it's, let's say, five feet off the ground, then the area you're considering is everything five foot and above. In that situation, the 5'7\" guy is only taking up 58% of the space you're observing compared to the 6' guy. And 29% of the 7' guy." ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2w59w3", "h2w5hm0" ], "text": [ "For some illnesses it will be because they smell different. Dogs and bees have fantastic senses of smell that can pick up scents that humans cannot. For example, dogs can detect when someone is going to have an epileptic seizure upto 40 minutes beforehand because the person's ordour changes. The reason why a person's ordour changes is likely due to electrical activity changes going on in the brain. These changes will impact the ordour molecules in your sweat, breathe, and sometimes urine, which is what the dog is picking up.", "Smell. Unfortunately, first hand experience, even humans can (to a limited degree) smell the difference. Death, decay, sickness have certain kinds of smells. And more specifically, a smell is just chemicals released into the air from the body. So just like you can smell when a piece of old food has gone rotten, some animals can smell when there is something wrong with a person. A lot of it, though, is not necessarily evidence based. Like there are very specific illnesses that they've found dogs can smell and such. But a lot of the beliefs people have about animals are influenced by popular media, not necessarily what they can actually detect." ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2w949j" ], "text": [ "Animals tend to grow bigger in more competetive enviroments, beacuse the bigger an animal gets the smaller the volume to surface ratio becomes. That means less heat is lost to the enviroment. This can be seen in the deep sea ( giant Squids etc.) as well as islands where food is limited, i think this applies to Afrika as well. Being large also enables an animal to survive traveling long distances without food or water as they can can use stored water/ fat tissue to keep them selfs alive." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2wbohr", "h2wbnrz", "h2wj3px" ], "text": [ "We actually do know that perception of color varies individually. While the physiological structures of our eyes that sense incoming light are fairly uniform between humans, the electrical signals they generate must be decoded and interpreted by the brain, which can produce slightly different results in individual humans.", "Actually, we don't know this at all. We do know that people are capable of agreeing on categories of colors, but we've also demonstrated that different groups of people agree on different groups of colors. For example, one study found that Russians, who have separate words for blue and light blue (similar to how English separates red and pink) are faster than English speakers at determining whether two shades of blue were different when they are in different linguistic categories. As for attributing different shades to the same colors, this is also 100% possible though it would be difficult to demonstrate.", "What we \"see\" isn't just the light that strikes our eyes. The world that we experience is a combination of all of our senses, instincts and memory. We can't be sure that we experience anything as others do, only that we can agree on certain facts about our environment." ], "score": [ 14, 7, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2we9o3" ], "text": [ "In this case, they started with what they knew: Jupiter has a magnetic field that encompasses Ganymede. Because we have a very good body of research on auroras, we can understand the relationship between Jupiter's magnetic field and the auroras such fields cause in Ganymede's atmosphere. So, now that we know how that aurora *should* behave, we can observe that its actual behavior differs from this prediction. Why? We also know that massive bodies of saltwater create magnetic fields, something we can observe here on earth. By observing Ganymede, we can see that something *massive* on Ganymede is generating a magnetic field that counteracts Jupiter's, which is influencing the aurora in a particular way. The conclusion this is the influence of a subsurface saltwater ocean fits well with the experimental data." ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2we56o", "h2wgfsu", "h2weair" ], "text": [ "Both and neither… The cold and warm air are moving. Warm air leaves the top and cold air rushes in on the bottom to fill the vacuum created by the leaving air. Similar to waves of water heading towards the shore while the current underneath heads in the opposite direction.", "Thermodynamics, physics, blah blah, but here's the deal. If you're cold and you have a fire, you hold your hands out to warm them up. If you're hot and have a bowl of ice, holding your hands out doesn't cool them down. Heat always moves towards cold.", "Scientifically, there isn't such a thing as \"cold\". Substances of higher temperature will give off heat to substances of lower temperatures until an equilibrium is reached. When you open the door, you create more ways for the heat in your home to give off heat to the outside air that is lower temperature." ], "score": [ 9, 7, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2wg4cb", "h2wg9bc", "h2wgubt" ], "text": [ "It has less to do with their biology and more to do with the air they breathe. The bends is almost always a result of breathing **compressed** air at depth. I don't want to get too complicated for an ELI5, but it has to do with partial pressures of nitrogen at depth - when you take a lung full of air at 33 ft, there is twice as much nitrogen in it as a similar lung full of air at sea level (because it is compressed an additional atmosphere) - specifically a ppN of 1.56 vs. 0.78. This increased concentration of nitrogen causes it to dissolve in your blood stream (and other tissues) at a higher rate, which can cause the bends when it leaves those tissues when you get back to the surface. Other animals don't generally have this issue because they only breathe on the surface. A lung full of surface air will always have the same partial pressure of nitrogen at any depth, so it is very unlikley cause decompression issues. It can happen, as is pointed out [here]( URL_0 ) but it requires those animals going to fairly extreme depths.", "You get it from breathing compressed air, which increases the levels of Nitrogen in solution in your blood, and then rising from depths too quickly. This causes the Nitrogen to bubble into gas while still in your blood stream instead of crossing your lung tissues and being exhaled comfortably. Mammals that dive do so on a single breath, meaning they aren't breathing in compressed air and don't have that problem.", "Divers breathe compressed air at depth, increasing the dissolved gas pressure in their blood that will cause the bends if they resurface too quickly. Diving mammals don’t breathe while underwater, and typically don’t even hold air in their lungs while diving. They *empty* their lungs before going down and rely solely on dissolved oxygen in their blood for the duration of the dive. When they resurface the gas pressure in their blood is always below equilibrium, not above." ], "score": [ 14, 5, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o74a5j/eli5_how_do_other_mammals_avoid_the_bends_when/h2y4wjp/" ], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2wonse" ], "text": [ "There are quite a few different ways to do it, with various tradeoffs. A couple common ones: * Props + editing. Use wires or other rigging to suspend the actor. Edit the rigging out of the shot. Fairly easy, lots of different ways to actually do the rigging. You can also do clever camera angles to make it look like they're floating without actually having the whole body in the shot, simplifying the difficulty of rigging/editing. * Actual freefall. The most well-known variant on this is taking a specially designed plane up and entering a parabolic arc. You're in freefall for a short time, 20-30 seconds. This is very expensive, but might be used when you have a lot of budget - or you might use it to get a few shots to see how the actor's movements \"should\" look, then do the normal prop/editing work to match that." ], "score": [ 9 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2wpwwx", "h2wq5zu", "h2xcklo", "h2wrslu", "h2x0www" ], "text": [ "Orange juice manufacturers use coloring and flavor packets to get consistent color and flavor. It's still juice pressed from oranges, it just has color and flavor added to it, which do not even need to be listed as ingredients.", "Basically every orange juice plant mulches many thousands of oranges together so despite the varying flavors and sweetness they all end up about the same. Also during processing the juice ends up not tasting like orange juice so they add stuff to make it taste like orange juice again and then bottle it(I don't remember exactly what they have to add i.e. sugar for sweetness or acids for the acidity.)", "Basically, all the flavor is sucked out of the orange juice, and it's deoxygenated (to prevent spoilage) and stored in large tanks. Then when it comes time to bottle, they pour out a batch and add flavor packets derived from the original extraction. Every batch is consistent. This is also why orange juice from the same maker may taste different in different regions or countries. They tailor the flavor packets to the local tastes.", "Individual oranges can be quite different Pallets of oranges will average out a lot of that difference Trucks full of pallets of oranges means the individual variation of oranges averages out and you get very consistent orange pulp to work with They'll also take orders of oranges over months and have them all blended into the same batch There likely are subtle differences between batches but as long as the average consumer can't tell it's good enough", "A lot of other folks are right about averaging out flavors and adjusting with additives, but I think it's important to mention that all of these adjustments are made by orange juice taste experts who will sample different batches of squeezed juice and mix them together to get as close to their desired taste profiles as possible. So one batch of 10,000 gallons is a bit too sweet and another batch is not quite sweet enough, they'll have the batches mixed in some proportion to even them out." ], "score": [ 10, 9, 4, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2wvz2e", "h2ww2wg" ], "text": [ "* To be more correct, you're not supposed to pop them before they are ready. * Most people pop them by squeezing in which can scar the skin because you are forcing it to tear itself. * Instead if they pop or release when you pull the skin around them in opposite directions, they tend not to scar because the skin has thinned out enough. * The trade off is that it takes a lot longer for the second scenario to work and most people are too impatient when it comes to something looking like that on their body.", "Squeezing can push bacteria deeper and in some cases even leave a scar. If you have a strong stomach, head over to r/popping Intermixed with things you never wanted to see are posts about dermatologists \"popping\" the right way." ], "score": [ 14, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2wzc23" ], "text": [ "Moving water has a source. That source may be something like snowmelt or glacier runoff, or a natural underground spring/aquifer. All of these are clean or at least generally safe to drink. When water is moving, bacteria and contaminants are constantly being flushed downstream to the discharge point and usually don't have a chance to build up to dangerous levels. Stagnant water bodies are the opposite. They *collect* water from other sources like rivers, streams, stormwater, etc. Here, the water lingers along with whatever nutrients and contaminants it collected along the way. This provides an ideal breeding ground for microbes and other organisms and makes the water unsafe for humans to drink." ], "score": [ 13 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2wzgbk", "h2x14lh", "h2wyn4h" ], "text": [ "Back in the days when soldiers marched in rigid formations, they would form ranks. The first would kneel, the 2nd would kneel in between the people in the 1st and the 3rd would stand behind and fire over the heads of 1 and 2, and maybe a 4th rank would stand and fire between the ones in 3 and so on. Now in terms of artillary/cannon fire, usually, the cannon fire is directed so its landing out in front of their advancing cavalry or infantry. But if the enemy routs or your guys advance too fast and your artillery fails to speed up the range increments, then yeah you could shoot your own guys. But again, this is where having well trained artillery comes in. In general though, solders in all roles are thought about zones of fire and making sure you don't shoot your own guys in the process of shooting the other guys. As far as \"how do you tell?\" . Ok, so the infantry formation has reached the enemy lines. The majority of the casualties are going to be from the bad guys - they'll be shot in the face or the front and they'll be marching or running/charging - so they'll tend to fall on their fronts or sides. The ones hit by friendly fire from the rear will be shot in the back. But you wouldn't be able to tell who fired the shot.", "It depends on the era. During ancient warfare up until the prevalence of gunpowder weapons ranges weapons were fired in an arc. This lets large groups of archers to fire simultaneously, because they could fire over the heads of the troops ahead of them. Once you get to early gunpowder weapons, they were so slow to reload that only a portion of your forces were firing at any given moment. You can either have the front lines fire, then kneel for the forces behind them to fire, or the front lines can move to the back row after firing, which allows for any amount of depth to fire in sequence. How deep you set your forces depends on how fast you can reliably reload versus the time it takes to aim and fire. Napoleon used 3 ranks deep. Once you got to modern semi-automatic weapons you no longer used multiple rows of soldiers, because you don't have the long reload times, and because the weapons were accurate enough you could no longer stand in open ground without getting destroyed.", "Do you mean like civil war style battles? The first line shoots, then kneel to reload while the second row shoots" ], "score": [ 12, 5, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2x9tr2" ], "text": [ "This is a super complex question to answer. Hit up subs like /r/wheresthebeef for additional info. To the first : like most new technology, it begins exorbitantly expense and then drastically reduces in cost over and over. Books were a supreme luxury, now they are basically scrap. So while the cost right now is quite a lot, as we improve the technology and logistics, it will be cheaper by large margins. Secondly, there are a lot of other reasons we may want to pursue it even at higher cost then traditional meat. The meat industry takes up vast, vast, vast amounts of land, especially if you consider the crops grown to feed them. There are also ethical considerations around growing sentient species for the express purpose to die, often in terrible conditions. It also contributes a bit insignificant amount to global warming, which may (strong emphasis on may) be somewhat lessened with lab grown meat. To your second point, at this stage there is no reason to expect there to be any others than those already associated with eating meat. It is, for functional purposes, just like animal meat." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2x20dj" ], "text": [ "Bulletproof glass is all about catching the bullet and not letting it through. This often hurts the appearance of the glass, but not it's function. Anti-scratch glass is all about maintaining the appearance, you can still break it." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2xbkev", "h2xay2j" ], "text": [ "They can, in theory, still interbreed. In reality a “species” can sometimes be fairly ill-defined. There are many cases of diverging populations that are still technically able to interbreed but don’t for various reasons. Given enough time and sustained selective pressure they’d eventually fully diverge. The classic textbook example is Arctic seabirds. There are Canadian subspecies that can interbreed with European and Alaskan subspecies, but not their more remote Russian subspecies. The Russian subspecies can *also* interbreed with the European and Alaskan variants. You’re left with a “ring” species that circles the impassable arctic - each population can breed with its neighbors, but not the more distant ones. Dogs are in a similar situation enforced by humans and logistics - they can breed with all of their their genetic “neighbors” but not with the most distant corners of the species.", "Simple answer: biological species definition are organisms that can produce viable offspring who can also reproduce. That’s how we’ve set the standard. Dogs are a good case of how it could need some tweaking." ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2xjbvn", "h2xlxit" ], "text": [ "Salt chemically reacts to make other things taste better in our mouth, Salt blocks bitterness and enhances sweetness.", "If you need to put salt in every single recipe, then you’re probably used to adding too much salt. If you start using less salt, you will get used to it. Adding very little salt will then make foods taste just as salty as they do now with a lot of salt. The same applies to sugar. If you consume a lot of sugar, naturally sweet foods will not really taste that sweet to you. But if you cut back on sugar, those same foods (like fruits) will start tasting much richer without adding any sugar." ], "score": [ 7, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2xw55b", "h2xmroi" ], "text": [ "Chemicals are usually made out of other chemicals. The base form of chemicals usually come from things in the natural world. Let's talk about the household chemical 'bleach', it's Sodium Hydrochlorite. It' the combination of three pretty common atoms, Sodium (Na), Oxygen and Chlorine (Cl). When you combine those atoms, you can get all sorts of different chemicals, depending on how they are attached to each other. So to make bleach, you just need to find stuff with Na, O, and Cl inside of them, use some sort of process to break those chemical bonds down, and rebuild them the way you want. That process of breaking down the bonds between atoms and rebuilding them can be as simple as 'heating the chemical', or 'mixing the chemical with another chemical'. Let's stick with making bleach. Where can we get a good, cheap, natural source of Sodium and Chlorine? Salt! Salt is a Sodium atom and a Chlorine atom stuck together. Where can we get oxygen from? If you said 'the air', you would be right, but we can also get it from water. Water is two hydrogen atoms stuck to an oxygen atom. So you just mix salt and water together to get 'Brine', which is a fancy way of saying salt water. Once you have brine, you can pass electricity through it. That will cause the hydrogen to seperate from the oxygen, and with a couple more steps, you can get the oxygen, sodium, and chlorine lined up in the order you want them to make Sodium Hydrochlorite, or 'bleach'. You mentioned 'toxic wastes', so i'll touch on that here as well. Remember how I said we got the oxygen for bleach by taking it from water? Well that leaves behind the hydrogen. That's what we call a 'byproduct'. The more complicated and drawn out a chemical's production is, the most often it'll have byproducts. Now hydrogen on it's own is pretty useful, so there are plenty of things a chemical company can do with it. But if the byproduct is less useful, then the company has 'waste'. Sometimes the waste is a chemical that isn't all that dangerous. If a chemical company ended up with a bunch of extra oxygen atoms, they could just release them into the atmosphere. But sometimes the waste product is toxic. At which point, yeah, 'what do we do with this' becomes a big problem. But in general, there are a bunch of different ways to create a chemical, and companies like to choose the 'cheapest' option. As long as dealing with toxic waste is expensive, companies will usually choose a process with as little toxic waste as possible.", "> I would assume if most are manufactured artificially, they would create an insane amount of toxic waste, no? Production of chemicals, and many things produce a lot of nasty stuff. There have been environmental issues with it for a very very long time and companies in the past have tried to hide their waste or dump it. There's like a whole genre of journalistic investigation for this type of stuff its so prevalent. The US is getting far better at managing it and enforcing regulations. The developing world, not so much. The reality is that even with better processes that produce and manage waste better-- at least some nasty stuff will be produced its just the nature of the product." ], "score": [ 24, 7 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2xw3z7", "h2xu5yf" ], "text": [ "Brain freeze occurs when something extremely cold touches the upper palate (roof of the mouth), when your body senses sudden, extreme cold in the mouth or throat, it tries to react and warm up. Blood vessels throughout the head expand to let extra blood into the area for warmth. **That quick change in blood vessel size causes sudden pain**.", "It only happens if the cold thing touches the roof of your mouth. There are blood vessels there which will contract in reaction to the cold and that is what you're feeling." ], "score": [ 11, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2xz7zq", "h2y1969" ], "text": [ "As your breath flows over the open mouth of the bottle, it sucks some air along with it, out of the bottle. You might think, cool, so the pressure in the bottle drops a little bit, how does that make a noise? Well, the flow of air out of the bottle builds up some momentum, and it keeps flowing out, even after the pressure in the bottle reaches drops low enough to balance the air-getting-sucked-out effect. So, after a brief moment, air starts getting sucked back in. But this air movement has momentum, too, so the pressure overshoots in the other direction. This cycle happens continuously, maybe a couple hundred times per second— it depends on the bottle— and, well, changes in pressure that cycle back and forth anywhere between about 50 and 2000 times a second is basically what sound *is.*", "The other guy has the explanation very nicely. The only thing I would add is that it is called a 'helmholtz resonanator' so you can search more if you like." ], "score": [ 49, 17 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2ybs0n", "h2y9xt9" ], "text": [ "A city-state is a state whose territory only covers a single city. Historically they were quite common but today the only real examples are Monaco, Singapore, and Vatican City. A nation-state is a state that is also a nation. A nation is a community of people usually based on a shared language, history, culture, and territory; the meaning is very similar to an ethnic group. A nation-state exists in contrast to a multinational state, where one state comprises one or more nations of people. India is an example of a multinational state comprising dozens or hundreds of nations, while Canada has two (English Canada and French Canada). Japan is an example of a nation-state, since almost all of its people are ethnically Japanese.", "A city-state is one city, which is sovereign and maybe has political dominance over an area around it that can include smaller towns. A nation state encompasses a nation, which is generally defined as a group with shared language, history, ethnicity and culture. While it's possible for a nation of people to exist in and around a single city, making a city-state also a nation-state, generally nations encompass a much larger area and many cities." ], "score": [ 26, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2ye71u", "h2yb7e3", "h2zaw0u", "h2y9nj4", "h2yyen4", "h2zish3", "h2y95p8", "h2zi8ro", "h2zner8", "h303y04" ], "text": [ "In general, modern pesticides are designed to target specific things that the insect has and mammals (like humans) don’t. Since we are pretty distant from insects genetically, there are numerous proteins in insects that either do not exist in, or are substantially different from ones, in humans.", "Here’s my ELI5: Bugs are a lot smaller than a human so a little bit of bug spray for a person is a giant amount for a bug. The difference between medicine and poison is dosage. Consider this: caffeine is a chemical plants create as a pesticide yet humans drink it. There is an amount of caffeine a human could eat and die, but for a bug that amount is much much less.", "Overall, it's not totally safe. It depends on the type of insect, some spray are made to be effective just by sticking on the bug, others are made to be ingested. Most spray focus on the nervous system, but there's tons of others that focus on muscle, breathing, breading, etc ... 90% of spray are neurotoxic, affecting synapse. Synapse is where two neurons connect, or one neurons with anothers cells. We can affect lots of things from there : Gabe receiver, acétylcholinestérase, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, for all those enzyme or receptors we have different product that can affect them, with different reactions. We humans basically have the same stuff, we just have much more neurons and synapse than the insect, requiring much much more to totally stop the communication, and dying from it. I got a spray in my hand, and they told to spray it, leave and close the room, wait 15 mins, and then aerate the room. It is harmful to humans. URL_0 This dude would be the most ridiculous extreme example, but he died spraying insecticide in his mouth. As others pointed out dosage/concentration most of the times makes all the difference.", "Concentration is the short answer. There is an ongoing debate (pretty obvious these days) that many can increase cancer rates.", "Modern pesticides are selective, so they only harm what they were meant to, unlike some older nonselective pesticides, such as DDT", "Other than the difference in the concentrations necessary to cause you any harm, the simplest explanation is that you are not an insect.", "You can’t drink it. The quantity matters, and also the type of stuff has an effect on body parts (say their wings) that you don’t have.", "My husband and I came home from a weekend away to find our flat swarming with fruit flies. We sprayed a lot (and I mean a lot) of fly killer. We noticed our lips and tongue going a bit numb and feeling funny, plus I felt quite wheezy in the chest. Looked up the spray and it said it was a mild nerve agent! We survived obviously, but the numbness and wheezing was there for a day or two. So I think it probably is harmful in large, regular quantities.", "Some things are poisonous to some animals but not to others. Chocolate is a delicious treat for you, but it will kill your dog. So will onions. Permethrin will make your throat a bit tickly but it will kill a fly.", "ELI5: Most bug killers are poisons that people are able to neutralize, but most insects are not. Some of our pets (like dogs) can neutralize these poisons too, but others (like cats) can't, so we have to be careful when we use these poisons. Details: Permethrin is a commonly used pesticide. It's a neurotoxin, but most mammals are able to neutralize it in their liver, while most insects are not. Cats have a defect in glucuronosyltransferase, the enzyme that breaks permethrin down, so they are unable to break it down and are thus intolerant of permethrin." ], "score": [ 151, 65, 45, 8, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "https://www.latintimes.com/man-viral-video-who-sprayed-insecticide-himself-passes-away-due-heart-attack-470568" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2y9bh2" ], "text": [ "Is your confusion about conservatorship in general, or specifically Britney’s situation?" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2yhl63", "h2yhmvw", "h2yihk7" ], "text": [ "This question was asked before, and had the correct answers posted at those times: At slower speeds, the stability comes from the clever engineering of the bike's steering axis, so the front wheel naturally tends to steer toward the direction of tipping, keeping the bicycle upright. That steering can't happen when the bike isn't even moving. Only at higher speeds would the gyroscopic stabilizing effect of the spinning wheels be important. At slow speeds, the gyroscopic effect is too weak to matter.", "When you're rolling forward you can steer to the left or right to move the bike underneath you. That doesn't work if the bike is stationary. The gyroscopic effect mentioned by others is relatively unimportant. People have built special bikes with no gyroscopic effect and they were just as easy to ride as ordinary bikes.", "You're about to get a lot of wrong answers to this question. The ELI5 answer is that this is a surprisingly complicated problem, and even though we can build and ride bicycles, being able to explain how they work is an area of active research. Gyroscope forces, the trail shape of the bike all help but are not necessary. URL_0" ], "score": [ 7, 6, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6027/339" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2yhfe2", "h2yjtb8", "h2yie9y", "h2z9xpw" ], "text": [ "Time. An almost infinite amount of time. You and I think about spare time as an hour or two a day. Inmates have nothing but spare time. E.g., here is how they used to measure a shiv: Get a filament from a light bulb. Use the filament to cut off a small part of your bed frame. When you get it cut off, place it between the handles of two tooth brushes. Tape toothbrushes together. How long to cut off a piece of your frame? Months...but, so what? They've got years. Another example: You know metal handrails that you see in industrial settings? Inmates cut one of those off with shivs. They did this over a period *years*...a little at a time, whenever they got a chance. To be honest, the Shawshank Redemption piece about digging through a wall over 20 years isn't impossible. It is simply a matter of persistence and time.", "Why do you assume the guards aren't smuggling contraband in? There are. Tons of it. Along with visitors, delivery people, lawyers etc. There is a whole economy built around this system.", "There’s a lot of ways. One is just a bad enough beating or even a fight gone horribly wrong (like if someone gets knocked down but hits their head on concrete). There are makeshift weapons made of everyday things. A place could be understaffed so the guards can’t get to a fight in time to prevent anything. Guards also just might not be able to stop a big enough fight. Also, there are also a lot of corrupt guards. Just last month, there was this article about 9 guards who got arrested for taking bribes to bring in weapons, drugs, and cell phones. URL_0", "I worked in a maximum security prison for a number of years. There are a host of ways to get contraband into a prison. And assaulting another inmate does not require a weapon, but if you want one, it is not all that difficult to get one. Television gives a generally incorrect idea of what prison is actually like, at least the one I worked at. As far as getting contraband in; You have visits with family. There are \"non-contact\" visits, which would be through video or glass, but most visits are in a communal visiting room. The worst thing I ever heard of is a parent using children to smuggle drugs or other things in. Corrections staff have been found bringing in contraband countless time. Someone I knew was bringing in drugs for inmates in exchange for the use of a prostitute. At least one max security prison had a problem with people throwing contraband over the wall in softballs that were the same as the softballs the inmates had access to. As far as assaults go, depending on the security level of the prison, the correctional officers are either very outnumbered or massively outnumbered. The prison I worked at was the highest security level in a state that does not really have a large prison system. Guards were outnumbered about 15-1. In a large prison that gap would be much higher. Finally, the fact that prisons in America at least are not designed to rehabilitate but rather punish inmates, it makes for a dangerous system." ], "score": [ 12, 8, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/nyregion/nyc-jails-guards-smuggling.html" ], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2yj00c" ], "text": [ "Originally they were hand wired/soldered. Then there was a technique called \"wire wrapping\" that didn't require soldering, but it wasn't very reliable. Connections were made by wrapping thin wires around small metal posts, which was first done by hand and then by machines. Then simple one-sided printed circuit boards were made, then two-sided, then multi-layer, etc. like we have today." ], "score": [ 7 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2ys5gm", "h2ypjli", "h2z1iwh" ], "text": [ "First, it may be helpful to not think of black holes as holes at all and certainly it should help to not imagine the interaction as sucking. Gravity is the deformation of space and time. What does that mean? Well, a great way to visualize this is to imagine a trampoline with someone standing in the middle. Notice how the trampoline sort of curves towards the person and is at its lowest where the person is standing. Gravity works similarly, except it deforms space in all directions, not just the one direction like the trampoline does. So black holes don’t suck, they cause mass around them to fall towards them. As for why they occur, a simple explanation would need to return to the trampoline. Imagine instead of standing, the person is curled up in a ball and laying in the middle. First, imagine that the person is an adult who is quite overweight. There’s gonna be a large space which is deformed quite a lot. Now, imagine the person is an under weight baby. The trampoline is barely going to deform at all. But, hypothetically imagine that you can make the baby the weight of the overweight adult making it much more dense. When there’s all of that weight concentrated in such a small area, the deformation of the trampoline will be even larger than with the normal adult sized body. So now we arrive at the second important idea: The higher the density of an object is, the more it deforms space time and the more it deforms space time, the more gravity it has. Thus, a higher density object has stronger gravity. Basically, in order to make a black hole, you have to take some amount of mass and compress it into so tiny a space (increase its density) that it has such high gravity that not even light can possibly escape its pull. Of course, scientists are still studying black holes and we may never know their true nature. This is the leading theory (to my knowledge), or is at least the one we’re taught in early physics. As for where the mass goes, according to this theory of how black holes work, the mass doesn’t necessarily *go* anywhere except towards the center of the black hole, which is where it will stay until the end of time having been thoroughly ripped apart and forced into place by one of the strongest things we know of.", "They absolutely know how they occur. When a large star burns though a large amount of fuel the reaction can no longer overcome the gravity of the massive star. This causes the remnants to compress smaller, and smaller. The leftovers of the start are all still there. There is no loss of mass. Just a point in space that's collapsing at an ever increasing rate.", "here's my layman's understanding: we're pretty certain that gravity exists and that objects with mass attract other objects with mass. we're also pretty certain that the amount of mass an object has will affect how much it attracts other masses. And we're also pretty certain that the strength of this attraction decreases exponentially the further you get from it (inverse square????). really big stars might have a ton of mass, but the fusion inside is always providing outward force, counteracting the gravity. but eventually the \"fuel\" of a star is exhausted, leaving just really heavy, dense material (iron???). this dense material is so tightly packed and has so much mass, its gravity is so strong that it overwhelms all other repelling nuclear forces, collapsing the space between atoms and the space inside atoms. this just makes everything denser and increases gravity even more, creating a chain reaction that continues... forever, creating a singularity. like others have said, a black hole doesn't really suck. like, a black hole is just another object with massive mass; stay outside of its event horizon and you'll just orbit it like any other star. it's just that, within that event horizon, the gravity is just so strong that there is literally no possible way in the universe to escape its orbit. again, i'm a dummy who just thinks this stuff is interesting, so let me know where my understanding goes wrong, i'd love to hear!" ], "score": [ 11, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2yrd0t", "h2ys97z" ], "text": [ "So, when you shoot a movie, you’re taking a series of pictures, basically. And when the playback frame rate is 24fps, the shutter of the camera is open long enough to capture a tiny bit of motion blur in the frame. If you look frame by frame at a 24fps movie, you’ll notice that very few frames are 100% sharp. They almost all have just a little bit of blur from the movement of the camera or the subjects. This sort of tricks our eyes into seeing the motion in the series of images. Video games are entirely computer generated and rendered worlds that are designed to be shown at high frame rates. You can capture a still frame from a video game and it looks like a perfect snapshot. The shutter speed/motion blur situation is entirely programmatic and not a result of that little photographic oddity. When a movie is shot at a higher frame rate, the shutter speed (in cinema it’s the shutter angle, but same general difference) is faster, which eliminates some of that subtle blur, and lends a sort of odd hyper realistic quality to the film that some find to be uncanny or strange. That’s what sort of differentiates the traditional cinema feel (24fps) from the look and feel of a TV sitcom or soap opera (30fps), and why movies like The Hobbit looked so strange to people (60fps, if I remember correctly). It’s also why your video games seem sluggish and jittery at lower frame rates.", "[Motion Blur]( URL_0 ). Cameras don't capture perfect pictures per frame. The faster something is moving, the more motion blur you'll see, and that's *really* important for selling the illusion of movement. CG scenes could be rendered like a game, with no motion blur, but they add it anyways because it's so important. And like the video I linked above mentions, bad motion blur can make a CG scene look noticeably fake. Games nowadays have an option for motion blur, but that just adds extra work that your GPU has to do, so turning it on to compensate for low FPS just lowers FPS more. And like others have pointed out, you interact with video games. Higher FPS means what you're seeing is more recent and allows you to react more quickly. [Here's a video from Linus Tech Tips.]( URL_1 ) It's about monitor refresh rate, but it's relevant for FPS too." ], "score": [ 26, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://youtu.be/HWnRuPZ1Exg?t=288", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8P6T5tTYs" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2ytlj4", "h2yy0oz" ], "text": [ "Do you mean blood or copper? Because this is usually caused by your sinuses bleeding and it running down the back of your throat.", "Op I feel you, it’s like when you get hit with a dodge ball or something, you’re definitely not bleeding cause it’s just on impact & almost immediately goes away, but it’s not quite copper/metal taste." ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2yv4w5", "h2zcc72", "h2zfjih", "h2zdypt", "h31ptmu", "h2zhwqe" ], "text": [ "There is a large body of study including statistics about survival rates of other patients, separated into groups by things like age, general health, and severity of the illness. This is why you will hear things like \"stage 4 cancer\", the stage is a classification of how severe the cancer is. By looking at the statistics for the group their patient falls into the doctors can predict the chances of survival as well as how quickly they are likely to deteriorate if it is terminal.", "They make an educated guess, based on their experience. When my wife was discharged from the hospital into home hospice, her oncologist said she had two to four months to live. She died exactly 30 days later.", "Not quite the same as what you're asking, but when I worked in an old peoples home, one of the nurses said you can often predict how long someone has when they're on the way out, based on how fast they deteriorate. I.e. if they are deteriorating over weeks, they have weeks to live, days- they have days to live, and if they are going downhill within hours, unfortunately this usually means they only have hours. Edit: words", "Certain indicators usually only show up in the last hours or days of life. Like Cheyne-Stokes breathing. Mind you, not everyone with CSB dies, but it's a good indicator. Beyond that, there are indicators like heart rate and oxygen levels that look like gibberish on a screen of you're not a medical professional. But combining that info with detailed knowledge of the patients condition and the illness/injury gives you a good guess. Other times like cancer it's a known rate of progression for the cancer. A lot of record keeping means we know how long people typically live after the onset of symptoms. So if you have glioblastoma and are old or otherwise in bad health, they know you're not likely to beat the 2 year average. Especially if there's no access to specialized/experimental treatments.", "From a doctor: We guess. But that guess is grounded in years of personal experience, hundreds (or thousands) of patients we have treated with similar diseases, and hundreds of thousands (or more) patient outcomes which have been gathered and assessed in research studies, depending on the disease. Cancer is by far the best studied, and the more common the cancer the more accurate and robust the data is. How medicine has decided a cancer is a specific stage is, in fact, based on the expected mortality of how big the tumor is and how far it has spread at the time of diagnosis. The limitation of this data is that it is generally, almost always, \"all comers\". Meaning it includes 20 year old patients that could run a marathon with no medical history who almost NEVER get diagnosed with this cancer but had really bad luck, as well as 95 year old patients who are on home oxygen, thirty medications, and bed or wheel-chair bound in a nursing home. This is where the experience of the physician comes in. If you're 20 and have a Stage III colon cancer the odds of you living > 5 years are without a doubt exceptionally longer than the 95 year old in this example. The 95 year old will likely die in the next couple months. The 20 year old will be able to tolerate multiple lines of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation if indicated and while we may never cure this cancer (we might, we might not), we can still prolong life for a great deal of time these days. Maybe a few years to decades. That said, the generic \"how long do you have left\" question that IS answered by the data we have averages out all of those patients into one pot. Its why we tend to give ranges as well. For surgery I quote mortality of a whipple operation as 1-5%. If you're 30 and need a whipple its honestly probably < 1%. If you're 90 and need a whipple its probably > 10%. Even in the face of that, again for cancer specifically, sometimes we're totally wrong. Some people have weird biology and their cancers can just grow super slow (or not at all) for many years. Others will die in the next 2-4 weeks when we estimated they would have 6 months. Those are weird cases and extreme outliers, but they happen. Hence, \\~tldr: We guess. Cheers.", "Not that I can answer your entire question, I can provide some insight. My dad just passed away from pancreatic cancer on June 12th. The Tuesday before he died the doctor said he only had hours left to live because his feet and legs were turning blue, which is indicative of his circulatory system failing and it would soon affect his entire body. Certain indicators like what I mentioned above help tighten the estimate. In this case they were wrong, though. The hours predicted left to live turned into 5 days." ], "score": [ 111, 21, 10, 6, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2yxeon", "h2yxf6w", "h2z0k1u", "h2z1zmq" ], "text": [ "As I understand it, it could he classed as a form of false advertising but is unlikely to be punished in any meaningful way - maybe a fine based on a portion of the profits. Companies fake scarcity all the time though, think of any seasonal product. It would be \"bad\" and mire likely to be punished severely if they increased the cost because of scarcity / limitited stock, but then just made more anyway.", "In America at least, it's totally legal to have a \"two day sale\" (for example) that is actually permanent. A great example of this is big-budget Minecraft servers with memberships n stuff. I just recently joined a server that's had a \"90% off two-day sale\" that's been advertised for at least 3 months now lol", "Heinz have definitely done this in the UK. They did it with salad cream for sure and I am certain there was another product as well. They'll claim they changed their mind because of the passion customers have shown for the product or some such bollocks. In truth it's just a way of getting lots of free exposure. When companies really discontinue lines they rarely announce it.", "A carpet store in my city has been having a going out of business sale for the last 20 years." ], "score": [ 25, 17, 9, 7 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2yv8vv", "h2zr5g3", "h2z7wry", "h2zudvs", "h30ek0t", "h2zw9dg" ], "text": [ "Warm air slides below cool air. Warm air naturally wants to rise, cool air naturally wants to sink. A tornado can be the result.", "A lot of comments didn’t do that great a job at explaining it so I’ll take a crack at it. When a large moving body of warm air meets a large moving body of cold air and the warm air happens to slide below the cold air, the warm air wants to rise. Similarly to how hot air balloons work, warm air wants to go up and called her ear naturally wants to go down. When air moves up rapidly on one side and down on one side then the air can start to form a vortex. For a more intuitive understanding of how this happens you can try sliding your hands past each other while leaving a small gap in between them in a container filled with water. If these forces are strong enough than the vortex may spiral into a tornado and right itself to that the axis of rotation is vertical because an updraft (wind moving straight up) can cause them to.", "In America it is usually the collision of cool dry air and warm wet air. As the warm air rises and the cool air falls the winds create convection and circulation, if nothing interrupts these forces they can turn into a storm cell that can produce a tornado.", "A normal thunderstorm requires an instability (e.g. cool air at high altitudes, warm air at the surface), moisture, and lift (something to trigger the instability). This kind of storm gets big, rains vigorously and creates a pool of cool air at the surface that prevents air from flowing into the storm and the storm dies. This won't make a tornado. Now take the same storm setup (instability, moisture, lift) and have a strong wind that changes direction throughout the lowest kilometer of the atmosphere (wind shear). When the storm initiates in this environment it will be rotating and called a \"supercell\" thunderstorm. One of the big features of these storms are near surface rotation and the rain falls away from the updraft allowing these to be long lived storms. This isn't enough to guarantee a tornado and I'm not sure we know exactly what is the sufficient process but I am about a decade behind the literature on the subject. That aside, the thinking is that the environment the storm is ingesting into it's updraft needs to have horizontal vorticity. Additionaly the rear flank downdraft may play a role in helping turn that horizontal vorticity into vertical, bringing it down to the surface before it turns upward (as inflow enters the updraft) and is vertically stretched in the updraft. This gets into conservation of angular momentum, put picture a figure skater spinning. When they hold the arms wide they are slow, and when they pull thier arms close to thier body the spin faster. Same thing with rotating air in the inflow, it gets pulled tighter and rotates faster. This near surface rotation can manifest as a tornado. This is the type of tornado that would have caused the damage in the article. There are other kinds of tornadoes (landspouts and waterspouts) but they are not typically things that cause damage and are not associated with storms. I know this got a bit away from ELI5, but the processes at work are fairly complicated and I have grossly simplified it.", "Since others have already posted pretty detailed explanations, I'll go more along the ELI5 route and do some simplifying. Warm air is lighter (less dense) than cold air. Think of a hot air balloon - the air in the balloon is warmer than the surrounding air, so the hot air balloon rises. A good environment for tornadoes has very warm air near the ground and cold air up in the atmosphere. That warm air wants to rise. It's usually held down by a very warm layer of air called the \"cap\". At some point, the cap \"breaks\", and that warm air rushes up into the atmosphere really fast and with great force - that's an updraft. That's what causes thunderstorms. But where does the rotation come from? Sometimes, there's a big difference in wind speed and direction between the air near the ground and the air up in the atmosphere. That difference causes rotation along the horizontal axis. When that horizontal rotation gets caught in our updraft, it turns into rotation along the vertical axis, so we get a rotating updraft. And when that rotating updraft reaches all the way to the ground, that's our tornado! I know I skimmed over things but I tried to keep it simple.", "I think the key thing missing from the other explanations is the *convection cap*, which is a layer of warm, dry air that gets between the other two layers. Cool air is more dense and will tend to drop down. Warm air and humid air are less dense and will tend to rise up. When a cool weather front collides with a warm, humid front, the cool front will shove the warm front up and over. The humidity rapidly condenses and forms rain. Tornadoes happen when there's another weather front that is warm and dry gets between the other two. It prevents the other fronts from mixing, forming a \"cap\" or lid over the warm, humid front that's near the ground. The cool air above continues to cool off and get more and more dense, and heavier, and squeezes down on the air near the ground. The warm, humid air near the ground has nowhere to go. The convection cap is trapping it so it can't go up, and cool air will \"spill\" around the convection cap so the humid air can't escape outward. Pressure keeps building and building as the cold air squishes the humid air, until a hole forms in the convection cap. Suddenly, the humid air has a place to escape the increasing pressure. It's like pulling the plug in a sink or drain, except upside down. The air is already moving around, and that momentum gets conserved so the air around the hole swirls around rapidly, just like around a drain. With the humid air *finally* moving out of the way of the cold air, the cold air will spill in from around the convection cap, pushing the humid air in towards the hole, making the humid air \"drain\" through the hole even faster. The force of the humid air moving through the convection cap can widen the hole, allowing the humid air to move even faster, creating a stronger force and stronger rotation, making a stronger tornado. The force of the tornado depends on how big the weather fronts are and a whole bunch of other chaotic factors. Tornadoes are common in the United States because of the unique geography. Cold, dry air sweeps down from Canada, guided by the Rocky Mountains to the west so that the weather front moves more towards the Gulf of Mexico. Hot, dry air comes from the Mojave desert around Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. Warm, humid air comes up from the Gulf, somewhat guided by the Appalachian Mountains. These three weather fronts collide throughout the American midwest in what is commonly called Tornado Alley. Although tornadoes are *possible* all over the world, the geography around the world just doesn't create the same conditions that make them common in the United States. That geography doesn't exist at the same large scales that it does in the US." ], "score": [ 40, 23, 7, 4, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zhvcz", "h2zmjgp" ], "text": [ "They basically divided galactic filaments (megastructures formed by thousands of galaxies) in half along its axis and measured the redshift of each half. What they found with statistical methods is that one half is moving towards us while the other is receding at the same rate, meaning the structure is spinning. This is also supported by the fact that when the filament is viewed parallel to its axis they found no such correlations, as you would expect from a rotating cilinder. Another very interesting thing they found is that the rate of spinning is directly correlated with the mass of the bulges at the end of each side of the filament. The more massive this bulge of galaxies the faster the spin of the filament. We currently have no idea how this is even possible. We're talking about immensely huge structures that light takes million of years to cross. It's hard to imagine a mechanism by which angular momentum can be formed the way we see it. Now for pure speculation on my part: i think this hints at the universe as a whole that is spinning (A spin in this sense can be intended in any of the 4 dimensions of spacetime btw) and megastructures of the universe are simply conserving the primordial angular momentum while forming. This could be confirmed or ruled out by measuring the rotational distribution (i.e. if there is any excess of spinning in one direction over the others) of these filaments. This conclusion doesn't come from nowhere: we've known for a while about CMB anisotropies that suggest a preferred rotation of some kind (look up Axis of evil(cosmology)), also corroborated by direct observation of galaxy clusters spin anomalies: it was found that if you look in one direction you'll find a ~1% excess of right spinning galaxies, while looking at the opposite side of the sky you'll find the same excess of left spinning galaxies. 1% might sound low, but we're talking about BILLIONS of galaxies. Such an excess is basically impossible to form by chance. What would a spinning universe entail? Well for one it would imply a preferred frame of reference in the universe, the one conformal to the overall spin. While this doesn't really matter in special relativity, one of the principles of GENERAL relativity is that there doesn't exist a preferred frame of reference. Now you could salvage the theory by assuming that what is constant about the speed of light is not c itself but its 2-way average speed (meaning c would be bigger in one direction and comparatively smaller on the other, so that the average speed is still c for every observer). That comes with a handful of consequences I'm not sure I understand fully. Current cosmological models assume an homogeneous and isotropic universe (it looks the same everywhere you look): this result would clearly destroy this notion. I like to believe this is just the beginning of a radical shift of view in the astrophysics community.", "You've got a good in-depth explanation from u/Leureka, but speaking more generally there is a phenomenon in our universe called \"conservation of angular momentum\". This basically means that there is a certain amount of spinning that exists. This spinning can be transferred from place to place and it can be diluted or concentrated, but you can't create or destroy it overall. For example, an ice skater who pulls their arms in to spin faster isn't changing their total angular momentum, their \"spinningness\", but rather concentrating it into a smaller volume of space by pulling their arms in. When they stop themselves on the ice, they don't get rid of the \"spinningness\"; they just give the extra to the earth. The sum total remains the same. Planets spin on their axes and around their stars and stars spin and orbit their galaxies and galaxies spin and such due to their angular momentum. There is a question that the people who conducted this study seek to shed light upon which is \"Where did this angular momentum initially come from?\" You can generate angular momentum using energy, but you have to create equal amounts of clockwise and counter-clockwise spinning (so that the overall is still zero - this is why a power drill will \"kick\" in the opposite direction of the spin of its bit and helicopters require tail rotors). By looking at some of the largest structures of the universe and seeing whether they spin (apparently yes) and how they are spinning, we can better verify/modify our models of how the universe has grown and evolved over time." ], "score": [ 12, 9 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2z1iz5", "h2z1kee", "h2z2rpz" ], "text": [ "There is, music is social. Sharing stories and singing connects us, humans in the past that kept to themselves and avoided social events like these would have been isolated from the group, and have a lower chance of survival and therefor also less chance of passing on their genes.", "1) the evolution of a trait for survival purposes doesn't mean those traits can't be used for other things. E.g., being creative is helpful when trying to consider strategies to hunt. You can use the same basic skill to draw instead. 2) also \"survival and reproduction\" are much more abstract than you may imagine. Because we are a social species, anything that facilitates social cohesiveness and social learning and cultural knowledge is also relevant. Some Birdsongs are specific to certain members of a group of birds. The birds themselves probably don't consider it music, but the way human brains evolved, we can appreciate very abstract things like the idea of beauty and art. 3) not every behavior/trait is directly relevant to survival. If a trait isn't harmful, it can also persist by accident. 4) there are other mechanisms of evolution besides natural selection. URL_0", "From my own experiences as a musician, making music with an instrument uses similar parts of the brain as talking. While playing, I lose the ability to speak. I can formulate what I want to say, but cannot utter it. I have to stop playing briefly to get the words out. Music and speech seem to be closely related forms of expression." ], "score": [ 13, 6, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu/module-1-evolution/neutral-mechanisms-of-evolution/" ], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2z66rg", "h2z596a", "h2z5co8" ], "text": [ "As others have said but also eating sugar doesn't =/= acne. If your insulin resistant or at risk of pcos or already have adult acne then a high sugar diet can make acne worse. But just a tsp of sugar doesn't instantly give you pimples and cutting out all sugar might not get rid of acne.", "Just think about this: putting alcohol on your skin as a disinfectant, versus drinking it. Really different effect, right? Without overcomplicating things, when you put sugar on your skin it doesn't get into your body, that's basically it.", "Eating sugar causes particular responses throughout our bodies, including a strong endocrine system response (the \"hormone system\"), and in certain people, these responses lead to breakouts. It's not as if the sugar itself is transported from the digestive system to the skin follicles (where breakouts originate) - the sugar is digested, and insulin and other hormones are produced in the process. These hormones travel throughout the body and prompt different cells to do different things, including in some people, ramping up production of oils in hair follicles. Applying sugar scrubs to the skin does not trigger an endocrine system response because the sugar doesn't get digested - it's just used as an exfoliant (something a bit rough to help scrub off dead skin cells), and then washed off. It's like the difference between drinking vodka (you'll get a buzz) or pouring it on your skin, where it will do nothing (well, it may sting if you have open cuts or may dry your skin a bit, but it won't get you the slightest bit drunk)." ], "score": [ 8, 7, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2z6kd4" ], "text": [ "Not usually but some animals have figured out how to make it work anyway. There are some sea slugs who have evolved to be able to steal chloroplasts from algae they eat and make those organelles work for them temporarily. It is not a very common thing since it requires all sorts of adaptations to work right and would only be of extremely limited benefit to most animals. If a human eats algae all the algae end up in the stomach where there isn't much sunlight, humans also don't have the necessary biochemistry to take advantage of working chloroplasts if they found themselves with some in areas where the sun does reach and humans also require much more energy to function normally than photosynthesis can provide. Big complicated animals like us or other vertebrate don't really have much to gain from photosynthesis and would require lots of random mutations to get to the point where gains could be made. So evolution hasn't opened that path up for us." ], "score": [ 12 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2z8ls3" ], "text": [ "Anaphylaxis is caused by an antibody called immunoglobulin E overreacting to what it thinks are infections and causing excess histamine to be released which in turn can cause severe reactions possibly leading to anaphylaxis. - URL_0" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://youtu.be/zk_oUk0bwxs" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2z9r1c" ], "text": [ "Plane wing makes lift. Turn it upside down it makes down force/ down lift. When you don’t move the wing makes no lift. When you move fast through air it makes lots of down force. Upside down plane." ], "score": [ 13 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2za4nc", "h2zc009", "h2zbxwe", "h2za9ak" ], "text": [ "One or both of two things. 1. Men explaining something to women like they’re explaining something to a child, in a patronising way 2. Men trying to correct or tell women something about women.", "It is when a man - unasked for - explains a thing to a woman, assuming she doesn't know or that he knows better, or when he corrects/extends/repeats an explanation given by a woman, also unasked for. These 'explanations' are often given in a condescending, patronizing and overconfident way, and moreover they are often also incomplete or incorrect. It's literally just blurting out words to appear more intelligent or educated than the woman in question. Especially in situations when the topic is a) something women experience more often than men (sexism, menstrual cramps, pregnancy, you name it) b) something within the woman's field of expertise (her study subject, her job, etc.)", "When people, stereotypically men, underestimate the intelligence of someone else, usually women, and try to explain something to them in a manner that generally is patronizing, arrogant, or otherwise demeaning. Such as a man unprompted trying to explain human anatomy to a doctor as if said doctor somehow knew nothing about how the human body works.", "Mansplaining refers to a way in which men will try to explain things to women and non-men simply assuming they don't know that. Even if the woman in question is an expert in the field, the mansplainer isn't, and woman didn't ask for an explanation. It should be distinguished from when a woman actually asks for an explanation from someone more knowledgeable, or from neurodivergent people infodumping." ], "score": [ 17, 7, 5, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zbosr", "h2zhs4i" ], "text": [ "A screenplay is the script to a film or tv show. The story is, well, the story: what roughly happens over the course of the film. There is nothing preventing someone from writing the story, either in broad beats or in great detail (such as when adapting a novel), and then someone else coming in to adapt that story to the structure of a screenplay which is often of quite specific format and is more aware of the fact it is a film script. A harry potter novel makes for a terrible screenplay, but a good story. Someone has to come in, take that harry potter novel, and adapt it to a script that a movie can be shot around.", "Story: \"Anna was in a bad mood when she went to the store. On her way, a beggar stopped her and asked for some food, but Anna just told him to bugger off and leave her alone\" Screenplay: Anna walks on a busy street. She is not smiling but walks almost aggressively. Beggar, making a step towards her: \"Lady, can I please have some money to buy food?\". Anna, disgruntled: \"No! Bugger off and leave me alone!\" The story describes what's happening. It could be a book, for example. It can contain dialogue and also inner monologues (when a person talks to themselves inside their head), or narration (the writer explaining things we wouldn't otherwise know, for example that Anna was in a bad mood). The screenplay more or less contains the lines the Actors/Actresses need to learn, and describes how the people need to act out a scene." ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zf395", "h2zg86g", "h2zcyog", "h2zjm0y", "h2zo4c2" ], "text": [ "There is nothing stopping a game (or any application) from deciding to load everything into RAM from storage when its first run and then to just sit there holding onto RAM until you close it. (Apart from obviously physical amount of RAM). I work on warehouse management software and we design our application to run entirely in RAM and it uses over 100GB of it in some situations. You already mentioned why old games don't do this, because they ran on much older systems that did not have ridiculous amounts of RAM. They had to manage loading things into and out of RAM and nobody thought it worthwhile to design it in a way where the game could decide to load more or less depending on the amount of RAM available, because it's really not worth the extra trouble. It's far easier to just design a loading system that loads everything in chunks required for a level, for example, than coming up a complicated system that's loads as much as it can from all possible future levels The same problem still exists today, sure you may have 32GB of RAM, but someone else only has 4GB. In 10 years time some else is going to write a Reddit question asking why old games like ark survival evolved (over 200GB!?) Can't load everything into their 2TB of RAM. Eventually game engine improvements might provide an easy way of loading as much as you can not tied into any specific event in the game, but it's simply not worth it for each individual developer to consider. Especially when NVME SSDs are becoming more accessible and technologies like DirectStorage and similar start to appear which will (probably) drastically reduce load times anyway. Edit: I said \"there is nothing stopping...\" when I should have said \"there is nothing technologically stopping...\".", "You should note that \"load a file\" in most cases doesn't just mean \"copy the contents of the file into RAM\", but it means to perform more or less complex operations on the contents of the file to transform them into the data structure that the program uses. That data structure might take up significantly more space on RAM than the file does on disk, so just because all the textures (and other stuff) of Dark Souls 1 take up less than 9GB on disk doesn't mean you could load them all at once. These operations are also the reason why installing the game on a Ramdisk doesn't fully remove loading times.", "So, you touched on something in your first paragraph that holds the answer. > In some niche cases you'd see things like Vib Ribbon where the 'game' itself is held entirely in RAM leaving the PS1 disc tray free to use a music CD to generate levels. The reason I say this is the key is because Vib Ribbon was *specifically designed* to be loaded into RAM and hang out. Most games are not; they expect to be installed to a hard drive, and they have no way to install themselves to RAM (and Windows can't even directly manipulate RAM in that way); even if they did, Windows would have to be told \"Hey, don't mess with this portion.\" What you're asking for is called a [RAM disk or a RAM drive]( URL_0 ); certain software can designate a portion of your memory that Windows then sees as a regular hard drive. Once you do that, then you can install software to it.", "I am no expert on game design, but I am a software developer and can think of one reason why this might not be possible in the way you think: loading stuff into memory isn't \\*all\\* that happens. Let's say you're building a video game on a fairly limited system and you know that for the target system, the biggest bottleneck is going to be loading the level from the hard disk into memory. Once it's in memory, everything will be quick and easy, no problemo, but getting it there will take a while. So you get clever. Instead of having the entire level usable on the hard drive, you store a compressed version. As \\*small\\* as you can get it. This means that when it gets into memory, you're going to need to spend some time decompressing it, but that's not as much time as loading the entire level from the hard disk would have taken! CPUs are fast and hard drives are slow. Compression doesn't need to (only) be literal \"put the level in a zip file\" kind of compression. It might be things like \"instead of storing all 600 characters with stats, randomly generate them from this function and this specific random seed\". It could be \"these 20 textures are actually all the same 1 texture file, but with filtering/changes applied\". Take a room of clever people and ask each of them to optimize something, you'll find a lot of neat tricks get developed. Of course, I'm mostly bullshitting here- but you can prove me right or wrong. Find your favourite game that takes a while to load, and in another window open up the Task Manager, on the \"Performance\" tab. During level loading, watch what your computer is doing. What's hitting 100% at each moment in time? I'll bet at some points it's Disk, but at a lot of others it's CPU- processing stuff. Which is all to say: putting the entire game into a RAM drive would solve the bottleneck on loading things into memory, but it won't help you for all the other stuff that needs to happen.", "You can create a ramdisk, copy files from disk/cd to there and launch game from there. While your loading times will get better, they will not be zero. Loading is not just loading file into memory but parsing file and making sense of it. A counter strike level is about the geometry of the place what textures it also needs to load etc, then you need to load other models and textures. Then you build a 3d model and cover it textures. It takes time, mostly cpu time." ], "score": [ 27, 19, 10, 9, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "https://www.maketecheasier.com/setup-ram-disk-windows/" ], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zmv4c", "h2zmccp", "h2zn5gb", "h2zmggy", "h2znpd7", "h2zo6bm", "h2zmuvy" ], "text": [ "When you fuse small atoms, like hydrogen, it releases energy. This is how the sun works for example. But doing it in reverse (splitting helium to hydrogen) takes energy. When you split big atoms, like uranium, it releases energy. This is how nuclear reactors work. But again, doing it in reverse (combining xenon and strontium into uranium) takes energy. Iron is the crossover point between the two, where fusing it goes from producing energy, to consuming energy. So most stars stop there.", "For elements lighter then iron fusion produces energy. Once you get to iron you need to put more energy in then you get out to fuse nuclei", "When attempting to fuse two atomic nuclei, there are two competing forces at play: The electromagnetic force, provided by the protons, which provides a repelling force that attempts to keep the atomic nuclei apart. The strong force, provided by both protons and neutrons, which provides an attractive force that attempts to combine the two nuclei into one. The strong force is, as its name suggests, very strong, much stronger than the electromagnetic force, but it drops off much more quickly over longer distances. This means, farther away, the EM force is dominant but the Strong force will take over *if you can get the two nuclei close enough*. The problem is, the closer the nuclei get, the stronger the repelling EM force becomes. If you can over come this repulsion, the strong force takes over. It is analogous to rolling a ball up a hill, overcoming gravity, only to reach the peak and allowing the ball to roll down the other side. The push up represents the work done against the EM force and the rolling down the other side represents Strong force taking over. Atomic nuclei getting larger affects both of these. Larger nuclei have more protons and therefore provide more EM force to overcome. They are also physically larger meaning higher average distance between the individual protons and neutrons in each nucleus which caps how much the Strong force can counteract the EM force. To apply this to the hill analogy, the \"up\" side of the hill gets steeper and steeper while the \"down\" side of the hill gets shallower and shallower. The tipping point is Iron, where the Strong force cannot overcome the EM force and fusion becomes a losing game.", "Fusion doesn't stop with iron but iron absorbs energy in the process so it throws off the equilibrium between the competing forces of fusion and gravity within a star that keeps it stable. This results in the star going supernova creating the heavier elements in the universe.", "Every atomic nucleus is a set of \"bound\" protons and neutrons that act on each other in ways both attractive and repulsive. The exact combination of these pieces influences how \"tightly bound\" the nucleus is. If you start on the low end of the periodic table (hydrogen, helium, etc.) you find they aren't that tightly bound at all. Similarly if you go to the very high end of the periodic table, uranium and plutonium and them, you find that they are too large to be tightly bound (one way to think about it is: the larger the nucleus, the harder it gets to keep all of the little pieces working together as one — nuclear fission is when you sort of nudge a very fat nucleus over the edge and it starts to act like two nuclei). If you work from both ends, the \"tightness\" of those bindings increases bit by bit. Near the peak of that is Iron, which is just so tightly bound together that it's very hard to break apart (fission) or fuse with anything else (fusion). The [curve of binding energy]( URL_0 ) is sort of a graph of the tightness of those bonds, more or less. Iron is not the only isotope that is tightly bound (it's not magical or anything; Nickel is actually more tightly bound). But it is the one that you are going to reach first in stellar fusion, hence it comes up in these discussions as the end of the trail for stars.", "Fusion is a reaction that requires energy to start. But fusion also releases energy. This energy release is what fuels and enhance further fusion reactions in the stars. For lighter atoms, like Hydrogen or Helium, the process releases more energy than it takes to start it. So (given a steady supply of light nucleuses) the process is self-sustaining, and it is exothermic (it releases heat). The fusion remove the light nucleuses and replaces them with heavier ones. For example, two atoms of hydrogen can fuse into a single atom of helium (with various combination of isotopes possible) The heavier the atom, the more energy it needs to start a fusion. On the periodic table, iron is about the threshold at which fusion starts consuming more energy than it releases and becomes endothermic (it consumes heat). To sustain fusion reactions beyond iron, the star would need a sufficient outside source of energy, which it doesn't have. Conversely, the reverse is true for nuclear fission. The heavier the atom, the less energy it needs to start fission. Which is why we use heavy atoms like Uranium and Plutonium as fissile fuel in nuclear fission reactors.", "For all elements lighter than Fe, nuclear fusion releases energy, for Fe and for all the heavier elements, nuclear fusion consumes energy. This is because of the nuclear binding energy used to keep the elements together. Iron represents the peak of nuclear binding energy because it is the point in atomic “size” (size being a sort of catch all for the modus of mass, diameter, and degree of packing) where the nuclear forces no longer extend completely or evenly across the nucleus. Each nucleon in the nucleus attracts each other nucleon, but at the point where the furthest apart nucleons no longer exhibit sufficient attraction to each other to create a strong nuclear force, there is a saturation point where the attractant forces of the nucleons and repellant forces of the electrons balance out and create a relatively stable structure, and in this zone, or which Fe is the peak, fusion requires energy as opposed to releasing it as in the lighter elements." ], "score": [ 56, 35, 14, 13, 7, 6, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [ "https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/8TsK9whmD20tXPLKmZZ-9GU3eZMT4Vcn_77uJbep0SXRQOKv3Xi_XFimp42t0GSUgwpf1RX94YjwCX8aPl36cE-x5IwQgnWQtDYDOowwA6RV-F4of7rC5zjU" ], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zri9x", "h2zqcly", "h2zpubd", "h303s89", "h2zuc7g" ], "text": [ "1) confirmation bias: you take something and you are convinced it will help you. You start to notice little signs of feeling better. You assume it's due to what you took. You also selectively start to look for information confirming your assumptions - while at the same time denying evidence for the opposite. (\"uh my headache is getting worse despite of the pill I took. Imagine how bad it would be if i wouldn't have taken that pill!\") 2) it reduces stress: You did something to feel better, you are convinced it will help - this immediately reduces stress and makes you feel better emotionally. The fact that you are now also relaxing can have a beneficial effect on your health and wellbeing, and it can even reduce the actual symptoms. However, a placebo doesn't heal you. Most things we take pills for in our everyday life (and also most things people take literal sugar pills for) are minor things that will pass by themselves, no matter what. Headache, upset stomach, a cold etc would all go away in hours or days anyways. Placebos trick your brain into thinking you are going to feel better anytime soon - and you do, due to stress relief. Placebos are also used in actual medicine, by the way. Lots of research for example goes into the design of pills, for example (size, color, taste), because if a pill also *looks* like it will have a big effect, people usually are more satisfied by the outcome. Sadly, people also ascribe better effects to more expensive pills...", "In general, the placebo pill doesn't \"trick\" your brain, YOU trick your brain. Bottom line, a lot of the current medication *helps your immune system* deal with a disease, rather than the medication directly dealing with the disease. Not all of the medication, of course, but quite a bit of it, your immune system does all the heavy work, with the medication \"helping\". So if you read [this article]( URL_0 ), you'll see that placebo pills sometimes have an effect but it's generally for conditions where your state of mind has an effect, such as depression for example.", "It does not work that way... Placebos do nothing. They do not heal, the body just heals itself in the same way it would have healed if the placebo was not taken. If the body cannot recover by itself, a placebo will do nothing, it will not heal. & #x200B; Note there is a kind of opposite effect, called nocebo, were people manage to feel ill on imaginary symptoms. The prime example of this is people who claim radio waves from a brand new cell tower made them unhealthy, when the cell tower has not even been turned on, or claim they can detect radio electric fields from appliances turned on when studies in double blind show both their group and a reference group have a 50% rate of find.", "Placebos generally help with subjective symptoms such as pain or feeling sad. The cool part is that a placebo will work even if you know it's a placebo. So, say you tell yourself that eating a square of chocolate a day will make you feel less depressed chance are it will. URL_0", "Our moods, emotions, and feelings can have a very strong influence over how our bodies function. This influence can manifest as visible symptoms and even manifest as physical pain within the body. Basically if you believe something strong enough, your brain will start to act like it's true and start to stimulate the body to behave like it's true. For example if you really think you hurt your back, your brain will start to simulate pain in your back despite it not actually being damaged. Placebo pills can influence this by making you think you're taking a treatment, which will make your brain respond accordingly. If the injury was not real then the brain will think it got treated and stop stimulated pain. Coincidentally this can actually work on real injuries as well where you will think a placebo is working and your brain starts masking real injuries or symptoms. Note a placebo is not limited to just a pill. Things like faith healers, reiki energy manipulation, and whatever woowoo alternative medicine you can think of frequently act as placebos (although sometimes going in for the treatment and relaxing for a bit can help someone feel better, not because of the treatment, but because they relaxed for a bit)." ], "score": [ 77, 25, 6, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-the-placebo-effect" ], [], [ "https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect" ], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zqbyd", "h2zql66" ], "text": [ "Today being single/not married isn't really looked down on. Back then it was, so people would date anyone they could. This often led to more shitty relationships. I think society as a whole also understands toxic behavior a little better so people are more hesitant to commit to people.", "There are a lot of theories on this. I think it’s because we interact with the world differently than prior generations. We spend less time in third spaces, have alternative means of meeting people for the purpose of dating, and are generally less inclined to approach strangers. That being said, my husband and I are 90s babies. We met at work, as high schoolers. It just depends." ], "score": [ 9, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zr0pi" ], "text": [ "Well it’s a marketing slogan first and foremost, although diamonds are exceptionally hard even by rock standards and will survive years of scuffing and handling in a way that many other jewelry components will not. They’re not actually eternal though. The diamond structure is not the most chemically stable form of carbon and it does degrade over very long timescales. Much longer than any human would have to worry about." ], "score": [ 16 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h2zu0as" ], "text": [ "URL_0 Tiny diagram, but most of the red blood cells are made in the vertebra (spine bones) and flat bones (like the ribcage, hips and skull). The long bones in your leg and arms do make red blood cells, but slow down as you age and contribute a very small amount." ], "score": [ 9 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_E4vSULVjn3jRRsjeJ_7LuT2NkarjnRmI1w&amp;usqp=CAU" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h301jok", "h2zzdgk", "h3002bt", "h2zzvgn" ], "text": [ "Depends on the battle. For more recent conflicts like the colonial wars of the 18th century and later there is often meticulous note-keeping by commanders on both sides. During the imperial age nations understood the immense value of detailed understanding of your army, your opponents army, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. Military leadership tasked officers with this specifically, and commanders filed post-combat reports detailing their actions and thoughts. As a result, we have *extremely* detailed records of battles in conflicts like the US Civil War and WWI, right down to the exact number of men and what time of day things occurred. Once you get into pre-industrial conflicts the record quickly gets a lot spottier. Records are sparse, lost, incomplete, and/or heavily embellished. Many medieval and classical battles are known only from a single secondary source and some archaeological evidence, and the numbers and details some guy wrote about 45 years after the fact are deeply suspect.", "> How do we know the details of a battle so thoroughly that we can make a video and present it? Like what flank collapsed, what flank held on. People were there... they wrote stuff down. > I understand primary sources, secondary sources etc. but how would someone know. Was there a guy just interviewing the survivors after the battle, sitting on the hill watching and noting the battle? Exactly. People were there, they told their story. Other people were nearby and observed. Those records survived to the present day. Of course, it's worth noting that until relatively recently we ONLY have these sources which may be full of inaccuracies. For example, for any battle prior to like the Middle Ages you should assume that every single number is bullshit. People did NOT count the number of soldiers, they just said what sounded good. The Persian Army that killed the Spartans (and allied Greeks) at Thermopylae was not numbered in the millions. It was probably like 40 or 50 thousand.", "Depends on the era and the country For a lot of Roman stuff there were post battle writeups, often as part of propaganda campaigns but they give us good details. Caesar wrote extensively about his campaigns in Gaul, probably inflated the numbers a bit with the Battle of Alesia currently estimated as 50k vs ~70k rather than 50k vs 300k. Vespasian had Josepheus traveling with his army, likely writing quite favorably of his Emperor for obvious reasons There are other battles further back and in more remote regions where no contiguous empire reigned that are a bit harder to track down, but 200 BC onwards there tends to be records from at least one side of a battle either from the general, a writer traveling with them (aka PR rep), the soldiers, or even the civilians who traveled with the extensive baggage trains of much of history. Half the point of winning a battle is to demoralize your enemy, gotta publish how badly you kicked their butt and published bragging tends to survive at least in pieces and future references", "Army commanders typically have bosses, who want to know things like, for instance, how four thousand of their dudes got merc'd and a pile of money vanished. So generals— and subordinate officers down the line— routinely write detailed reports of what the army is doing, even in uneventful times. After a battle, the reporting goes into overdrive. Those reports aren't completely reliable, of course. There are lots of cases where two commanders disagree about why things went so wrong (typically, it was the other guy's fault). But sifting out facts from conflicting reports is nothing new for historians." ], "score": [ 17, 10, 4, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h3050bc", "h308jcl", "h3098n0", "h307dkc", "h305k9o", "h314b3o" ], "text": [ "A little bit of inflation keeps money moving. If keeping money in your mattress means it will slowly degrade in value, then you are inclined to spend or invest it. That is good for the economy.", "Say you have $20 right now, and want to buy a toy truck. The toy truck costs $10. Next year, due to inflation, the truck will cost $12. You'll purchase the toy truck now, since it will be cheaper than purchasing the truck next year. This is how governments make it worth it for people to buy more things now, rather than wait for the future. When people spend more money, there needs to be more companies to buy things from. Those companies then need to hire more workers to sell the things people spend money on. And then, to complete the cycle, those workers have more money to spend on things, which they need to spend now because of inflation. That is one argument for how an economy grows over time. There are other arguments, but economics is a debate space at that level. Keep in mind that this is an extreme simplification of many forces acting on a market.", "These answers are all great, but I'll add one thing - a small bit of targeted inflation serves as a hedge against _deflation_. It cannot be understated how **bad** deflation is for an economy; if money gets more valuable just be sitting in a coffee can, then people are incentivized to delay purchases as long as possible and debt becomes more difficult to service year over year. Both of these will put an economy into a death spiral. Even if inflation had zero benefits (and it does) it would still be worth having a touch of inflation to ensure deflation does not happen.", "As people's wealth increases it essentially pushes prices up - if more people are able to buy boots, and the supply of boots stays the same, then the seller will be able to charge more because their boots have become more scarce. Have a low inflation target means that the reserve bank also encourages sellers to make more stuff to sell. More stuff = less scarcity = prices lower. So a bit of inflation tells sellers to carefully grow their supply, so that the demand and supply grow together. This makes the economy grow, which brings more wealth, and the cycle continues. Inflation that is too high makes people poorer, and inflation that is too low makes economies shrink, which also makes people poorer. So there's a sweet spot where it make people grow in wealth.", "Inflation means the same amount of money becomes worth less. Therefore, no inflation would incentivize hoarding money, since it would always be worth the same amount. Money being hoarded isn't good for the economy, since it's essentially dead value.", "Economists st here- Government can only influence to an extent. It's always moving up and down due to forces in society on its own. Inflation had to be *very* high to have strong economic effects, more than 100% a year. Deflation has strong economic effects even at low levels. Governments need to avoid that like the plague. So because inflation can drop unexpectedly governments set inflation targets as low as they can but still high enough so that random fluctuation will not take them negative." ], "score": [ 76, 21, 11, 5, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h308365" ], "text": [ "Natural magnets do not generate energy, just like gravity doesn't. Everything outside the magnetic field has a some potential energy, which is converted into usable work when the thing gets closer to the magnet. This isn't \"free\" energy, since once the thing has fallen onto the magnet, you need to input energy to get it back. You can see it as a trade: you give something to the magnet and it gives you a small bit of energy, but if you want your magnet or thing back you need to give this energy back to the system." ], "score": [ 22 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h309tme", "h309w0o", "h30a07b", "h30q0vh" ], "text": [ "Explored isn't binary - we have already done very detailed topographical studies of the ocean floor and have a [complete map]( URL_0 ) of the ocean floor thanks to satellite altimetry and sonar. What we haven't done is sent research vessels to all of those parts of the ocean to examine the flora and fauna.", "“Unexplored” doesn’t mean “unmapped” The entire seabed has been mapped by satellites and water-penetrating radar/sonar. There’s no hidden mountains or trenches down there. We haven’t physically laid eyes on most of it because that’s very expensive and most of it is barren “desert” with a sparse ecosystem dependent on whatever trash sinks from above.", "Just because we haven’t personally witnessed most of the seabed with our eyeballs doesn’t mean we don’t know how deep it is. We have mapped the depths of the entire ocean using sonar, although the resolution of this mapping varies based on distance from the coast and prevalence of interesting features. There are no completely unknown regions where a deeper trench could be waiting undiscovered.", "Like seeing mountains in the distance. We know they are there, but until someone actually hikes through them, we don't know what kind of creatures or plants might live there or what interesting geological formations we may find. It's unexplored in that we haven't been there and seen what life or interesting things might be there, but we have mapped it all with satalites." ], "score": [ 44, 43, 7, 6 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/seeing-seafloor-high-definition-modern-mapping-offers-increasing-clarity-earths-vast/" ], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h30d38x", "h30dodl", "h30dbne", "h30g61h", "h30taut", "h317ytd", "h32j2xm" ], "text": [ "Mostly scavengers, if you know what your looking for you absolutely will see body remnants in these areas. But they are also covered pretty quickly by foliage and sands. I make good money picking up skulls/sheds in high school from nature parks around me.", "Scavengers have an incredible sense of smell and can sniff out a dead body from a mile away. They close in immediately and “dispose” of most small corpses pretty quickly. Vultures and crows are the eyes in the sky watching for death at all times, and other predators and scavengers will follow them to a fresh scene too. That said, I’ve definitely seen my share of waterlogged possum corpses. Seems like predators have a tough time retrieving (or don’t want) bodies that end up in stagnant water - and this area is kinda swampy.", "I've seen a few corpses, but mainly bones. Then those bones find themselves under the soil, or if they are small rodent's bones, then in a nest because birds of prey sometimes eat their bones. Besides this, nature has a way of cleaning things up.", "Between scavengers, insects, and weather…nature is really efficient at breaking down animal remains until all that is left is bones. And by then, scavengers usually scatter the bones about so there are random bits scattered about which makes it less noticeable to the casual hiker", "The number cause of animal deaths in the wild is predation. Most animals don't get to die peacefully while asleep, etc. They are killed by predators. The predators then eat them. Any leftovers are eaten by scavengers, maggots, etc.", "I had a tree frog outside my window when I was living in Florida for a couple of days. During the third night of not being able to sleep, I decided this thing had to go. Fast forward to me doing concentric circles around my yard with a flashlight in one had and a Cold Steel Recon Tanto in the other (it was pouring rain, by the way) at 2am. I finally found the little fucker and literally chopped him in half. All fear the mighty warrior. Felt like shit afterwards. The next morning I walked outside to clean up the body, only to find it *covered* in ants. By the time I got home from work, there was nothing but bones. The ants had picked it *clean* of everything, and the bones were gone a couple of days later.", "I’ve conducted a study on this in my back yard for several years. A dead deer from a car accident ends up on our land almost every Fall. It is difficult to get the deer removed, so we are required to bury it. One year, the ground was frozen, so I dragged the poor deer into a field and put a trailcam on it. Coyotes, foxes, owls, vultures, raccoons, opossums, and other deer visited the corpse. By Spring, the only thing visible was a patch of taller, greener grass. I did the same experiment the next year and got the same results. Gone by Spring. I found a deer skeleton in the woods this Spring and I was really surprised. I studied the beetles on it and it was about 6 months old. It was in a strange position and the head was missing. My neighbor threw the skeleton of the deer he butchered in the woods. When you don’t give the scavengers meat, the bones don’t disappear." ], "score": [ 66, 64, 8, 8, 7, 5, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h30femy" ], "text": [ "its legs are really long. So, one stride from a galloping horse takes longer and covers much more ground than a horse. A horse, in turn, moves its legs slower than a dachshund, which moves its legs slower than a mouse, which moves its legs slower than a bug. Its all about scale." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h30qgn1", "h30qd0n" ], "text": [ "Sanitary sewers (human waste), not so much. But storm sewers (rainwater runoff), you can definitely move through them. It would be dark mostly, and there is a danger of getting lost, but they also, generally, open to a Creek or drainage ditch. Just always go downhill and you should be fine.", "Yes, the sewers were used in WW2 to smuggle people out of the Warsaw Ghetto in Paris the sewers even follow the lines of the streets above." ], "score": [ 7, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h30tzvv", "h30x03q" ], "text": [ "It is a thing in games where they say they’re using “movie quality assets” but that doesn’t really mean much, more of a buzz word. The problem with games is you have to render them in real time, so there’s constraints there movies don’t have. Pixar can take a whole day to render every little detail they want in a frame if they felt like. They can trace every ray of light as it bounces a hundred times, calculate how every strand of hair moves, the exact way something squishes when it bounces, etc, over the course of hours and then just save the final result and put it all together when it’s done. Obviously there’s practical limits, but because they can take much longer with each frame and then just save the result when it’s done they can add lots and lots of detail. Games have to do all that in real time. They have milliseconds to do as much of what Dreamworks or something can do over minutes or hours as they can. So they have to take shortcuts to get as close as possible with as little work as possible. Even if they import the actual movie model, they’d usually have to trim off some of the finer detail so that it’s not quite as much work on your GPU. To my understanding, the models that are originally created for games (even ones not based on animated movies) are typically a lot more detailed than the ones that actually wind up in the final product. They just scale them down afterwards (or the game does it automatically) to meet performance requirements.", "shortest answer. ploygons. the character models used in movies are so highly detailed that it would be wasted potential to render them on gaming devices. that doesn't account for other effects such as shadows, lights, reflections, or animation." ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h30ud3p", "h30uk2o" ], "text": [ "Bird poop. Seeds can land via wind, poop, travel over the ocean, etc. Many different ways.", "Seeds have to get there somehow. Float in on the wind like a cottonwood. Sail over on the high seas like a coconut. Hitch a ride stuck to a bird like a burr - or in a bird’s stomach like an apple seed. Different plants have come up with different methods to send their seeds long distances. New-ish islands very far from the mainland often don’t have much plant biodiversity because only a few seeds are tough enough to ride the waves or the birds that far." ], "score": [ 15, 6 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h30wvyd", "h30wkta" ], "text": [ "An explanation I heard is that commercials can be as loud as the loudest part of the show you're watching. So if you're watching a show where the volume fluctuates all over the place, occasionally punctuated by exceptionally loud noises like gunshots or car crashes, then the commercials are allowed to play as loud as the loudest part of the show. Since the show isn't normally that loud, it creates an imbalance between the spoken dialogue and the commercials' audio level.", "Long story short, they are mixed to seem that way. All stations will put the audio for both TV and commercials through what is called a limiter - a device that will set a ceiling for the absolute loudest the sound can be. This means that at any moment, the sound will never exceed that ceiling - commercial or not. However, that is just the absolute volume. You can increase the relative volume across the entire audio by using a compressor (works like a limiter, but more gentile). You set a max volume in the compressor, then run your audio through it and push the volume as high as you can. There will be less dynamic range (loud and soft parts) but the max volume limits will still be respected. This will make the entire audio seem louder, even though the absolute volume is still below the limit." ], "score": [ 9, 6 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h316y4s", "h30x8ll" ], "text": [ "So \"silhouette\" results from 1) posture and 2) age-related shrinking. Posture is simple enough you bend a certain way, stick your neck out you eventually do get \"stuck\". Maintaining proper posture and certain exercises can fix this pretty well. Shrinking is a result of 1) water loss- you hear that humans are 70% water, that percentage decreases as you age for not entirely clear reasons. 2) bone loss, old people are also more fragile because after your mid-20s you lose more bone than you make. 3) your joints have less \"cushion\" as they slowly get worn away its why people get joint replacement. This can all be mitigated but not completely stopped with a healthy diet and exercise.", "You lose fluids out of your spine so it isnt that straight anyore and you become a little smaller" ], "score": [ 6, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h30y6p0", "h30yr6m", "h32n8cx" ], "text": [ "It might only appear they have an easier time getting in rather than out since you are only analyzing the few that found their way in making it appear to have a 100% success rate. Judging by the handful of birds that have died trying to fly into my large living room window, and the fact I have only had a single live bird make it into my house, I think they have just as much trouble coming in as they do going out.", "It probably takes a lot of time for such a lucky thing to enter through the window. After all, the panic caused after facing a human will confuse the poor thing.", "If there's thousands of insects flying by your window on a given day and one happens to find its way in, it might have a similar chance of finding its way out. That is, very low." ], "score": [ 51, 5, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h3125g3" ], "text": [ "A big one is datums, or standard reference points. For example, a vertical datum that everyone is familiar with is “sea level” lots and lots of things are measured based on how high they are “above sea level”. But what exactly is sea level? Seas are constantly changing and shifting all over the earth and changing at the same location everyday with tides. So, to answer that(At least one North America), back in the early 1900s the US Government ran a program to find this standard, and they originally based it on the average sea level across a bunch of different tide stations to find a good average. Which was good enough for their time and technology. They also did the same thing horizontally, they picked a reference point, a place in Kansas, (cuz it’s near the center of the country. gave that its Official latitude and longitude measurements and put a metal disk in the ground with that information on it as well as a number you could reference in a giant chart. Because they then went around the entire Country and installed millions of these reference disks to act as official latitude and longitude marks for the surrounding area to base itself of off. And again that worked well enough for their time and technology. Well, as technology progressed, we did it again in the 80s to make it even more accurate. And nowadays, this process has actually been underway for the past couple years, and a new North American Datum is expected to be put into place in the mid 2020s that is even more accurate than before because again, we have new technology. Traditional cartographers still exist as well, because even though we can pull up satellite images of most of the world, putting a big picture up on the wall is difficult to use as an actual map, so towns and cities and states still hire cartographers to make these maps, though they aren’t necessarily charting new area, a lot of work goes into improving how maps are designed." ], "score": [ 18 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h313iao" ], "text": [ "Nails and hair are made of *alpha-keratin*, which is keratin protein folded up in a particular way. Horns¹ are made of the same kind of keratin. There is another, harder kind of keratin that is in turtle shells, bird beaks, and snake scales; it's called beta-keratin. Keratin does not dissolve in water. But it is not perfectly waterproof, either. Alpha-keratin can slowly soak up water like a sponge. It loses strength and stiffness as water gets into it. Basically, even though they seem hard when dry, nails are not waterproof; they can soak up water and become softer, much as wood or many other natural materials do. ---- ¹ Rhino horns are all keratin. The horns of cows, sheep, goats, and antelopes are keratin over bone. Deer antlers, on the other hand, are fast-growing, living bone tissue; and may basically be a [tame form of bone cancer]( URL_0 )." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/cancer-genes-help-deer-antlers-grow" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h31dtl9", "h319954" ], "text": [ "There is a middle ground, the pain tells you something **might be wrong**. Like a fever is a symptom of many different problems, a headache tells you that there is something not quite right. Figuring out what it is that's wrong, well, that's left as an exercise for the student.", "Or just a side effect of the body's pain-for-finding-a-fault mechanism?" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h31hzz6", "h31lf20" ], "text": [ "Firstly something doesn't have to be like a mirror to reflect a lot of light, white paper for example won't show your reflection but it will reflect most incident light. Secondly the moon's surface doesn't really reflect that much light, its dark grey rock so it reflects a similar amount as dark grey rock does on Earth. However when you see the moon it is against the backdrop of the night sky, in contrast it is incredibly bright so it appears like it is reflecting a large amount of light.", "It is called [albedo]( URL_0 ) or diffuse reflectivity. In other words, the reflection is scattered unlike a mirror that reflects directly. The moon has an approximate albedo of 14%. Most similar object on earth is worn asphalt at 12%. Fresh asphalt is at 4% where as fresh snow can be as high as 90%. The moon isnt really that reflective even when compared to other celestial bodies. But when compared to a dark backdrop, the relative size and distance of the moon to the earth, and most importantly how freaking bright the sun is, then the moons surface because easily visible." ], "score": [ 23, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h31jp2e" ], "text": [ "URL_0 Truth is, we don't really know. Lots of theories and we can observe the visible effects of drugs, but our knowledge of exactly what is going on isn't totally clear." ], "score": [ 7 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/one-big-myth-about-medicine-we-know-how-drugs-work/?outputType=amp" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h31kuqx" ], "text": [ "Because it’s not a bond which involves transfer/sharing of electrons, so since no electrons are shared between hydrogen and the other atom it’s not a covalent bond. Im reality a hydrogen bond is just a strong type of intermolecular force (force of attraction) between hydrogen with either oxygen (or fluorine or nitrogen) due to the large difference In electronegativity. So it’s not a literal bond but only a bond by name." ], "score": [ 11 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h31zp43", "h31yq6o", "h32bp3z" ], "text": [ "Food you like make your dopamine levels go brrrr Brain remembers what gives you dopamine and in moments of stress, it reminds you of a source of insta gratification. This can happen also when your brain is bored and needs a fast hit of something good.", "Previously, when we ate something, our body broke that food down into constituent parts: x amount of salt, y amount of sugar, z amount of fat, etc. When we get a craving, it's basically our body crying out for a specific food item that it feels is lacking in the system. The way it conveys this to our brain is; \"Hey, remember when you had that chocolate bar last week? I could do with X ingredient from that thing. Go get it!\" It could have been a number of foods that contained that specific protein/fat/carb/whatever, but our brain translated it into something we remember. So all of a sudden, you may need a specific sugar from fruit, but your head says: \"Dude! Get me a raisin bran bar! Now!\"", "Our bodies are smart enough to give us positive and negative feedback when we do things. For example, stretching feels good when you need it, otherwise it just sort of hurts a little. A good example of this feedback mechanism is salt. Salt is delicious if you need it and gross if you don't. We have this idea that people will naturally consume too much salt because salt is delicious, but that isn't actually true. For instance, livestock need salt licks to stay healthy, but even though a cow cannot think \"I better lay off the salt lick, I might develop high blood pressure later\", cows self regulate their use of the salt lick. Your brain does the rest - you remember the times that salt made you feel good, and correlates the bad feelings due to salt deficiency being fixed by salt with salt. The same is true for other nutrients." ], "score": [ 21, 7, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h320g8i" ], "text": [ "Each propellor as it spins imparts a torque, or twisting moment to the drone. Same as on a helicopter. Except a helicopter has either a tail rotor that pushes sideways to keep it from spinning, or a contra-rotating second propellor (err blades, whatever) that go in the opposite direction to counteract the spin. On a drone, the twisting of each prop is cancelled out by the twist from the others. But by varying the speed of one or more prop in relation to the others, you can use the torque differential to spin the drone around. Actually each corner or \"pod\" on a drone typically has two contra-rotating props to cancel the torque of one another, but the idea for the whole system is the same. By varying the relative speeds of different props you can muck with the balance of torque between them and twist the drone about." ], "score": [ 22 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h321eu5", "h324hy9", "h326ten" ], "text": [ "There's no definite line between species. Scientists have to make a judgment call to decide when one species becomes another.", "I like this image, which gives a good explanation of the concept: URL_0", "To distinguish between species there's one basic rule biologists follow: reproductivity. In simple terms if they mate AND produce fertile offspring, they're the same species. If they won't mate, cannot make, OR mate and produce sterile offspring then they are two separate species. Now you can see how that can cause problems with finding fossil remains of species since extinct. We don't know if they could, would, or did mate with each other so to be clear they don't know when they find a new species vs a variation of the same. Then it comes down to just number of differences. Basically they analyze what they can and see if there are enough differences to argue that its a new species. They might be right or they might be wrong. Later someone might even prove them right or wrong. Sometimes you'll hear in the news about a \"new\" dinosaur that ended up being the bones of another, or someone who thought they had a certain dinosaur and it turns out to be something entirely different. It's the same with proto-human species. You don't always know when they're close, but usually you can find some that are different enough to say for sure that they are. That's when they compare differences to see how they change to place them in chronological order." ], "score": [ 7, 6, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://i.imgur.com/oAnfA.jpeg" ], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h32gbxh" ], "text": [ "To be clear, mixing soap and water with oils and grease “dissolves” the grease. In many of your examples, you are missing an important part - mixing energy. We all know how much better we can mix when we can put it into a bottle and shake it well. Well, running soapy water over grease has almost no mixing energy. Plus, the water goes down the pipe and you had like only 10 seconds of contact . Nothing happens." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h32auxm" ], "text": [ "Movement draws attention. They have no way of knowing that scream is a reaction to them so holding still is the best (non)move until they feel threatened or believe they can move safely again. I have seen them hunker down, but if you're expecting them to bolt, they don't know that they've been seen and moving now would make them stand out. Remember that their natural habitat isn't normally a big, flat, white wall, so holding still is usually the right thing to do." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h324elb" ], "text": [ "The short answer is that when you \"see\" something what you're really seeing is tiny packets of light, called photons, bouncing off something and returning to you, and hitting receptors in your eyes. Your brain then interprets those little packets of light and you see them. So some surfaces are not 100% reflective, nor 100% transparent, but some combination in between. So let's say you're standing at a window, looking a pretty rose bush in your garden. What's really happening is some light (the sun perhaps) is striking those rose bushes, and bouncing off those rose bushes in all directions, some coming through your window, hitting your eyes, and now you see the bushes. But that glass isn't completely clear. Some photons are also coming off YOU, striking the window. Now most pass through. That's why people on the other side of your window in your garden can see you. But not all do. Some hit the window and bounce back, causing a reflection. & #x200B; So if you're looking through a window and seeing a reflection of you AND seeing the rose bush at the same time that's because what you're seeing is really a mixture of both of those sources, some of the photons bouncing off your side of the window, showing your reflection, and some coming through." ], "score": [ 13 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h325808" ], "text": [ "TV screens, especially LED and LCD screens, have a thin layer between the screen and the LEDs/LCDs designed to absorb external light to minimize glare. Monitors and TVs are designed to be non reflective, which has the effect of also absorbing the laser pointer. The only way you could see a laser pointer is if the surface reflects a portion of the laser point back to your eyes." ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h3255oe", "h32s6oq" ], "text": [ "The blood vessels inside the fleshy lining of your nose can expand or contract. Literally the flesh inside your nose can get more full (blocking the airway) or pretty empty (opening the airway). That's why your nose can pretty suddenly go clear with like nothing happening.", "Inflammation! The sinus passages themselves are inflamed and swollen, expanding in a way that partially or fully plugs the tubes from airflow. That's why you get the infuriating situation where you blow your nose forever and it feels like \"nothing more is there to come out why can't I breathe!?\". The tubes are clear but swollen shut. Blowing more and more even makes it worse! That's also why steroid nasal sprays like Otrivin can work so well and so amazingly fast to clear up \"congestion\" of this type. There is no physical plug or blockage that has to be cleared. The steroid is anti-inflammatory. Swelling goes down on contacyt, tubes open up." ], "score": [ 15, 7 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h32k0q7", "h32t8s4", "h32oofq", "h32y84w", "h32kw9e", "h32rnoq" ], "text": [ "It's a concept saying that what is right or wrong is a human concept. Basically, you shouldn't do something because it will hurt someone else or because society thinks it's wrong. A lot of people think good and evil come from God but humanism says \"Hey no way. Humans make their own values independent of religion\".", "Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. It doesn't, however, assume that humans are either inherently good or evil, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature.", "Renaissance Humanism was a theory of what it is to be an ideal human being. A person ought to be educated in history and philosophy, in the fine arts, like painting, music and poetry and be practiced in rhetoric. In studying history and rhetoric, they came to practice a form of rhetoric common to ancient Rome called the panegyric. The panegyric is a piece of writing or speech in praise of someone or something, but usually the emperor or Rome. So humanists would write these long poetic speeches praising their country or their ruler or patron. The panegyric cannot be critical, only full of praise which meant that they were often full of shit. Once you are prepared to make stuff up in a panegyric, you inevitably start to get philosophical about it. You want to say that your nation is the best nation possible and the truth doesn't matter. So really what you say becomes a theory about what the best possible nation would look like. General themes start to appear, like freedom from war, and poverty; fair laws that protect us but also give us opportunity and things like that. So then some of the humanists, start to ask why don't we have all these things and what would it take for things to be like this. Now at that time the prevailing theory about why the world is as it is was the one that boils down to God likes it that way. But being learned in philosophy, these humanists were aware of alternative theories on such things and some of them rejected that view saying instead that it is entirely possible for humanity to create the best possible kind of world. That last idea, that humans can, through their choices, create an ideal society or world without needing God or aliens or anyone else became the core belief of modern Humanism.", "The first reference to humanism I ever got was from Kurt Vonnegut Jr, which I'll paraphrase as \"being decent to each other with no expectation of reward.\" I like that a lot, and I just remembered it when I saw this post. It's not a complete answer to your question, but I wanted to add that in here.", "An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.", "God is fake, humanity is great (as a collective, not as individuals), and through the ingenuity and brotherhood of mankind good things will come" ], "score": [ 42, 22, 20, 13, 11, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h32nusn" ], "text": [ "When you sleep your eyes produce an oily/fatty liquid that coats your whole eyeballs. It is meant to protect your eyes from drying out because when sleeping your eyes tend to not shut entirely. So I believe that we run our eyes because we’re trying to rub away the sleepiness that’s taking over. You rub your eyes in the morning/when you wake up to help clear away the residual layer, helping you wake up! Edit: I am a little high and not an expert, but I believe this is what I have learned along the way" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h32o3wd", "h32n38n", "h32noze" ], "text": [ "It doesn't directly. You being cold has no effect, but the follow on effects of winter can make colds and flu spread easier. When the weather is cold, the biggest effect is that people don't like being outside in the cold and cluster together indoors. This makes it easier for the viruses that cause the cold and flu to spread from person to person since it's a shorter trip. There are other minor effects like cold air drying out your nasal passages more and slowing mucus flow, the virus staying viable on cold surfaces longer, and cold weather & shorter periods of daylight being a general stress on the body. Those are all waaaay less of an effect than avoiding other people. The 2020-2021 flu season effectively didn't exist. It wasn't particularly hotter or colder than 2019-2020, so it couldn't be due to temperature. It was due to the COVID restrictions in place that kept it from spreading.", "It doesnt. The weather is not directly responsible for making people sick, however the viruses that cause colds may spread more easily in lower temperatures, and exposure to cold and dry air can adversely impact the body’s immune system.", "Also people tend to gather indoors more often when it’s cold, so there’s more chance to transmit viruses." ], "score": [ 36, 15, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h32v1jn" ], "text": [ "This worked better back in the days of analog TV and tubes. Over time corrosion would build up on the contacts. Hitting the TV would shake it enough to knock some of the corrosion off, giving a better contact and fixing the problem. This is the same effect of hitting your TV remote to get it to work. In that case, the corrosion is on the battery contacts." ], "score": [ 14 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h330y0i" ], "text": [ "The lymphatic system is a network of vessels and organs that (among other things) help maintain your body’s fluid levels and serves as part of our immune system. As our blood circulates through our bodies, most of the plasma and other fluids it contains remains in the blood vessels but some of it seeps into our tissues. The lymphatic system collects this fluid, now called lymph, and ultimately gets it back into our bloodstream. The lymphatic system is also responsible for creating and transporting lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell, and other immune cells. When bacteria, viruses or other foreign bodies pass through the lymphatic system, they get sort of filtered out and collected at the lymph nodes; when we have an infection, more of those germs are collected in the nodes and more blood goes to the area to try to eliminate the infection, causing the nodes to swell up." ], "score": [ 4 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h331z2k" ], "text": [ "Imagine you own a piece of land. How do you sell that land to someone else? You can't take the land and put it in a bag and give it to someone. Instead, you write on a piece of paper: I sells this land to Susan. If Susan needs to sell the land, she shows the paper to the buyer, then adds another sheet of paper that says Susan sells the land to the new buyer. Now, the problem with this setup is that Tommy can show up with a sheet of paper that says Susan sold the land to him already and he owns the land! So, you and Susan register the land sales with a trusted third party which keeps a ledger of land sales. If Tommy shows up saying he owns the land, just look in the ledger and see who owns the land. An NFT is just a digital way of doing the transfer documents and ledgers using computers. It uses Blockchain tech which is basically a digital ledger that is nearly impossible to fake (as in Tommy can't break into the ledger and insert his name in there.) So, an NFT for a meme is just the same idea of transferring ownership of something that can't be physically owned like land or the rights to a video or picture that can be copied easily on a computer. The NFT just takes care of the ledger and records of transfers. A similar thing could be done without technology with lawyers and a contract saying the rights to the meme are being sold. How do you make money? You can make money selling whatever people will buy. I can sell you air, if you are willing to pay for it. I can sell you my soul if you are willing to pay for it. A meme creator can sell someone an NFT to the rights of the meme if someone will pay for it. Of course, someone needs to confirm that the meme creator is who they say they are and that the NFT being sold can be traced to the original creator or rights holder. But after that, every transfer of the NFT can be digitally confirmed and traced." ], "score": [ 15 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33ysdo" ], "text": [ "Cuba is/was a special case in the asylum process. Up until 2017-ish the US had a process on the books where any Cuban who was opposed to their government could legally immigrate to the US if they could physically make it here." ], "score": [ 5 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h339bpw", "h339oen" ], "text": [ "Yes, depending on the amount of muscle that is lost, humans would need less food. It pretty much comes down to gender, bodyweight and other factors, like reduced mobility. If someone loses their legs, they'd also become wheelchair bound, they would probably also move around less in general (not necessarily, I've known a person who lost his legs in a motorcycle accident who worked out a lot to maintain a very fit upper body) and therefore need less food as well. But yes, it could be a pretty significant difference in caloric intake.", "Yes , if you are amputated you need less calories because muscles burn calories even at rest but it still not a big difference cuz you brain and organs burn most of your calories" ], "score": [ 13, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33bcg9", "h33arw2" ], "text": [ "Waves travel through homogenous materials relatively unimpeded - they loose some strength over time, buy for small distances like this its practically irrelevant. However, when a wave travels from one material into an other one, the following happens: - only a part of the wave travels on into the second material - another part of the wave is reflected back at the boundary - the more \"different\" the two materials are, the more of the wave is reflected. I.e. a wave encountering two slightly different layers of air will mostly be transmitted. A wave travelling from air into solid wood will mostly be reflected. (The property that has to be different is called (acoustic) \"Impedance\" if you want to read further. In short, what happens is that part of the wave is reflected at the air-door boundary, and then again at the door-air boundary.", "Because the speaker isn't put on the door itself. The waves have to travel through the air and find a blockade so they can not travel much further. If you'd put the speaker on the door, the sound would really travel through the solid and it would vibrate and sound louder than before." ], "score": [ 16, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33qdjs", "h33im5f", "h33guf5", "h33h3r4", "h33fw10" ], "text": [ "Thoughts can produce chemicals as much as chemicals can produce thoughts. If you thought there was a tiger behind you, I bet that thought would produce a lot of chemicals, right? Specifically, it would produce some adrenaline. CBT works by creating habits that interrupt thoughts that produce more sad chemicals. One theory is that depression is a feedback loop of chemicals and thoughts. Sad thought lead to **sad self talk** which leads to sad beliefs which lead to sad chemicals which lead to more sad thoughts. CBT helps us build a habit of recognizing and predicting the **sad self talk** step and interrupt this feedback loop by replacing sad self talk with something else — or to challenge our sad self talk. This breaks the cycle. Evidence seems to show that this works pretty well.", "OK let me try to do a true eli5 explanation - depression might or might not be caused by a chemical imbalance (no one is actually sure) but we shouldn't let that distract us because, there will surely be some physical explanation of it. - cognitive behavioural therapy is a therapy which aims to change your beliefs, and it is effective against depression - the reason this works is, exactly as you say, because our thoughts and actions affect the chemicals in our brains - some people would say our thoughts and our brain's biology are really the same thing, at different levels of zoom. From space, the earth looks one way, but from your front porch the ground looks completely different. If you zoom in again with a microscope to look at the ground in more detail, you'll see more again. Some people think the mind is like that too. Beliefs are a very zoomed out way of looking at minds, and when we think in terms of beliefs, we can easily look at the whole person. When we talk in terms of cells, chemicals and synapses, we've zoomed in, and although the words we use to describe things are now completely different, we're describing the same piece of ground as when we were talking about beliefs.", "Your thoughts *can* affect the chemicals in your brain. Ever read something that made you really really angry? Ever hear a funny joke and then you’re in a better mood? Ever see a naked picture of a very attractive person? Your thoughts put you in a particular mood. Your brain is producing chemicals in response to the subjects you choose to think about.", "The chemical imbalance theory is not well proven. But there can be observable changes in the brains of depressed people vs those who are mentally healthy. CBT is based on the principal that our feelings are a result of our thoughts. Its efficacy is generally comparable to that of antidepressants for mild - moderate depression. It works by having the patient modify thought patterns and behaviours, with the hope that blocking a vicious cycle of negative thoughts and reinforcing behaviour will help the person return to baseline emotional health. As for your question about our thoughts affecting the chemicals in our brains, basically... Yeah they do. I'm no neuroscientist, but as a basic example, when we are anxious we release stress hormones into our bodies. Even though the lack of seretonin theory is no longer widely accepted, it's known that neuroplasticity is a large factor in recovery from depression, CBT can be used to basically train your brain. It's not a cure all but it's an evidence based approach that most of the time will be helpful to some degree. \"Every time the logical brain overrides the emotional brain, the logical brain “muscle” becomes stronger and stronger. In other words, through CBT training the brain actually reinforces the neural pathways, so it becomes easier and easier to deal with future stressful situations\" You can read about all of this on URL_0 and I also happen to be in CBT for depression and anxiety Interesting reading about brain imaging: URL_1", "The biological model for depression is just a theory and not a well proven one at that. Psychiatrists wouldn't know the scientific method if it slapped its beautiful science titties in their faces. Ok maybe I'm biased lol So the biological basis of depression generally goes that because anti depressants called serotonin reuptake inhibitors work, depression must be a lack of serotonin. That's a bad way to start a theory. Most depressions are environmental eg, grief, lost a job, end of relationships etc. And never require intervention, they only last 6 months ish and are appropriate. Clinical depressions is when it lasts longer that 6 months or is inappropriate eg, no environmental cause. There's also post partum depression but that's a whole other kettle of fish because that's lots of different hormones and environmental changes. what do you mean by effective? Is CBT effective? I'd say its not. Not very anyway. Efficacy rates are varied and depend on the individual. It can be useful at creating coping skills and resilience to symptoms, not curing them. For more info, this isn't behind a paywall: URL_0" ], "score": [ 33, 26, 19, 10, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [ "pubmed.gov", "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19622682/" ], [ "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/?_escaped_fragment_=po" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33eez8" ], "text": [ "Seeding means that you are hosting the torrent for others to download A torrent is a peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing mechanism where people host files on their own computer and other people who need those files connect to the host computer to download them The computers downloading the files are called leechers, while those hosting are called seeders. Often while downloading the files, you are also uploading the content that has been downloaded to other leechers" ], "score": [ 19 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33m1w7" ], "text": [ "Clothes are made from thousands of fibers - usually taken from animal hair or plants. The fibers are harvested by sheeting sheep (wool) or picked from the fiberous flowers of the cotton plant. Now, those curly ringlets of raw material have to be combed out and straightened so that people can weave them into cloth. All those little strands are pulled and combed just like your hair, but with special brushes in a factory. All that combing and straightening causes the natural curl to get straightened. Once your clothes go loosely into a dryer, and not stretched on the special combs, they return to that curly state and 'shrink'. The clothes weigh the same, but you can't fit in them any more because the fibers are curly and locked up in the weave of the cloth. So why does the fiber get stuck curly or straight? The fiber is just a long group of proteins, the building blocks of our bodies. These little tiny chain-links lock together end to end to end. Some of the proteins have an angle built in, they kink just a bit. So after millions and millions of links, that protein chain isn't a straight line. It curves and curls. Adding heat can straighten the proteins, and that makes it easier for the clothing manufacturer to work with. Imagine ironing a shirt to get the wrinkles out. This is the at-home version of straightening those protein chains. Throwing a delicate material just loose in the dryer resets their work, so they put a label on saying \"do not dry\" or \"may shrink\". Now plastics, like polyester or nylon, also work in a similar way. The synthetic materials are man made out of carbon chains, just like a protein, but made in a chemical plant. These materials are much less likely to shrink, but it is still possible in some cases. The carbon chains looks like this: C-C-C-C-C- and on and on. Sometimes the C- chain gets stuck to itself, especially when hot, and can be forced to curl up. If you have ever had a long piece of string or hair get something sticky in it, and it starts to wad up as it sticks together, this is close to what happens in synthetic clothes. Most of the time these man-made fibers will melt or burn before they shrink, so don't get them too hot!" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33jqd2", "h33mxzd" ], "text": [ "The same way light passes through glass. Lots of things are transparent on different wave spectrums. In the wave of x-rays, the skin is transparent but the bones are not. Coke is actualy transparent in the UV spectrum but oil distorts uv rays. Radiation goes through most things but is blocked by lead and other dence materials Wireless transmission is just a part of the eletro magnetic spectrum and all things act differently there", "How deep into a forest could you throw a ball? It probably depends on how dense the forest is and what size the ball is right? You’re thinking of walls as solid. But they’re really just a dense forest of particles. Think of it like a forest with only inches between each tree. Your hand doesn’t pass through the wall because it’s like a big giant beach ball — it will definitely hit a tree. But something smaller like a tennis ball, might pass through. A photon is small and moves fast. It’s like a bullet. There’s a good chance it gets through." ], "score": [ 9, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33mcn7", "h33kfl2", "h33khki" ], "text": [ "The \"oily things\" are your fingers. The film that stays on your phone is that oil from your fingers. This is why phone screens and fingerprint readers are coated with an oleophobic substance, but that substance wears out over time.", "The oily substance on your phone screen is the literal skin oil from your fingers leaving a streak on the surface. Wash your hands more often and clean your phone screen.", "Fingers produce oil 24/7. So when you touch a phone screen or anything else, it causes buildup." ], "score": [ 25, 14, 11 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33ncxe", "h33nyl1" ], "text": [ "Two factors, one - humans don't have particularly good night vision as far as the animal kingdom goes so we can't see clearly enough to even diffentiate clearly between a faint shadow or a a solid object. Two, our brains have evolved to be *really* good at pattern recognition - even when there isn't one - especially in terms of threat detection. At night, the quality of your visual input is diminished so your brain works overtime trying to identify everything.", "Brains are *really* good at noticing patterns. Being able to pick out, say, the eyes of a predator staring at you in the darkness through the vegetation means surviving when others die. The conscious picture you have isn't objective reality, it's what your brain has filtered and processed to search for those crucial signs of danger, or food, or shelter, or anything else you need to survive. At night, your eyes can't collect as much light so what you're seeing is less clear. Despite that, your brain is still trying very hard to look for patterns. It's looking *so* hard that it sees patterns where there aren't any." ], "score": [ 8, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33qmwu", "h33qpi7", "h33v5dg", "h33ufjb", "h33umqn" ], "text": [ "To make more money off of you. To be able to have ads, tracking and in game purchases. There’s the other side of making games better with multiplayer and patches and updates to a game. But mostly it’s to make more money.", "To collect analytics and data/most games have online stores and encourage online microtransactions anyway.", "Single player games are significantly more expensive to develop because on top of the game systems and level design you need to make convincing AI, NPCs, story, scriptwriters, voice actors, quest developers and a myriad of other elements that i am forgetting. For all this extra work you get a single payment of about 60USD with a bit more from special editions and DLC. Online games require significantly less development and can be maintained by smaller, dedicated teams, all the while raking in money from microtransactions and subscription services. As several game studios are now more interested in making all of the money, it \"makes financial sense\".", "It’s part of the drive to get more subscription based services that they can patch instead of developing brand new games. It also strips you of true ownership.", "On the non-cynical side of things (although many cynical points are also correct).. Some games aren't fun online if there aren't other people playing. So if they want to sell to people who prefer to play online, then it makes sense that encouraging people to play there would be part of the strategy all along." ], "score": [ 67, 20, 14, 12, 5 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33szaj", "h33scyp", "h33xifw" ], "text": [ "When chemists name chemicals it is not as much a name as a description of it using Greek words. This is also why some chemicals can have multiple names as there are multiple ways of describing a chemical. The problem with these names is that they can not be trademarked because it is just a description of the chemical. They might also not be as easy to market. So drug companies go to their marketing department and ask them to come up with a better name. It may sometimes be similar to the chemical name but does not have to be. The designers in the marketing department need to come up with a name which sound good and distinctive to the group of people they try to market towards.", "Generic names are sometimes based on their chemical structure or similarities. The medicine pseudofed is very much like the drug ephedrine but it's not exactly the the same. So its Psudo \"not real\" ephedrine. You may see it as Sudafed.", "The \"retail\" names of the medications are decided largely by the marketing department. Few of the aspects (amongst many others) they consider while \"designing\" the name are - a. Active Ingredient / Chemical name b. Ailment applicable for c. Marketability of the name (ease of usage by the target audience) d. Meaning of the word being used to signify some advantage / benefit to the consumer e. Violation of existing trademarks / tradenames f. Company's naming practice (some standard way of naming the drugs by that company which creates some sort of a recognition / trademark). So the marketing department may end up naming a simple painkiller / anti-inflammatory drug like Paracetamol or Acetaminophen using any one or many aspects of the above. Check out this link - [ URL_1 ]( URL_0 ) and you will be surprised that some names sound quite \"out of the box\" and some are easily traceable to above rules." ], "score": [ 21, 5, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol_brand_names", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol\\_brand\\_names" ] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h33wyic", "h33tjxq", "h341tmn" ], "text": [ "Welcome to chemistry! Long ago people had similar questions and it was often \"why is this not gold\" and \"can we make it gold\". This was called alchemy. Eventually we learned lots, and this was the foundation for chemistry. Stuff is made of atoms linked up together. There are about 100ish kinds of atoms. When you have stuff made of only one kind of atom, this is an element. Oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, silver, copper, gold, and platinum are examples of elements. You can't make one into another at home. You can think of them as basic stuff. Elements combined make molecules. H2O is water because it has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. You can, with energy, separate them. Elements are made with EXTREME pressure and heat. Like the kind at the core of stars. They can make elements only as heavy as iron... and then heavier of they explode in a supernova. So every bit of gold, silver, uranium, etc in the world is there because it was made in the core of a star going supernova.", "Minerals form when rocks are heated enough that atoms of different elements can move around and join into different molecules. Minerals are deposited from salty water solutions on Earth's surface and underground. Gold minerals form in hot rocks in and around volcanoes. Low sulfur, gold-bearing hydrothermal fluids form when hot rocks heat ground water. An example of these low-sulfur fluids are hot springs like those at Yellowstone National Park.", "Answering this question is basically trying to condense a degree in chemistry into an ELI5, hang on! Iron, gold and silver are examples of elements, not examples of minerals. In this case, all of the atoms in a piece of iron are identical (excluding contaminates or alloys.) Those three elements can occur naturally in a pure state (as a ‘mineral’) but this is generally the exception rather than the rule, at least on earth. Minerals generally are chemical compounds, meaning they are atoms of different elements chemically bonded together. There are about 90 elements that occur naturally but about half of them are pretty rare. Each of these elements have atoms which have a set of characteristics such as size, bonding ability and chemical reactivity that are more or less unique. Because of this, when different elements react to form compounds, the length and orientation in space of those bonds is generally unique, so the geometry of those bonds is more or less unique. Because the geometry of the bonds in 3-dimensional space is unique, the molecules generally have a preferred way to stack together when forming a solid, so the crystal solids are also unique. It’s fairly rare that two different compounds precipitate together for form a single crystal. Some minerals are generally ‘pure’ crystals like quartz crystals (SiO2). Other minerals are physical conglomerates of many different type of compounds, formed by physical processes such as grinding or precipitation. This ELI5 is basically a BS degree in chemistry or geology condensed into a few hundred words. The real world is vastly more complicated, and interesting." ], "score": [ 16, 6, 6 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h342f1z", "h3430lf", "h342494" ], "text": [ "Tasers use circuits to * increase the voltage (some models go to 50 000 volts) * store the electricity from the battery in capacitors that can build up a charge over time and release it all very quickly There are DIY taser type circuits on line if you want to see what the circuits can look like", "The difference between a taser and a bare 9V is the voltage or potential being put across the contacts. Broad electrical lesson: Voltage (V) - potential or how much the electricity wants to move. Low voltage = lazy electricity, high voltage = Freight train coming from contact 1 to contact 2. Basically the higher the V number, the easier it is for electricity to move or \"flow\". Resistance (R or Omega) - The size of the pipe the electricity flows through. Copper wire = very low resistance or water main, Rubber glove = very high resistance aka brick wall. This resistance can be overcome by higher voltage. Side note: resistance creates heat which is what causes electrical burns/how a toaster works. There's also Amperage (A) - ^broad ^strokes how much electricity is flowing. Not really relevant to tasers. Tasers work by applying several thousand volts across the contacts where a 9V applies...well, 9 volts.", "Most batteries discharge their energy at a fairly slow rate. The battery might technically have the power to knock you out, but by itself it will only supply enough of that power to give you a little tickle. A taser has capacitors in it, which are like short term batteries, they can store energy and release it a lot faster than a battery. So a taser basically takes all the power from the battery and puts it in a capacitor, and that capacitor releases all the energy at once, which is enough to hurt someone. Edit: paper to power, lol." ], "score": [ 15, 8, 7 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h342pq9" ], "text": [ "They don't know what they're crawling on. They just wander around looking for food and if you happen to be in their path they're going to walk on you." ], "score": [ 7 ], "text_urls": [ [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h34d0ee", "h34y16s" ], "text": [ "Some manufacturers will add an optical brightener to the formula. These basically glow under UV/sunlight just like some paints do under black lights. The effect is subtle when you have normal light levels, and it just looks.. \"brighter\". URL_0 There are also detergents marketed for black clothes. The trick there is just to avoid all of the brightening and bleaching, and maybe even weaken the detergent a bit so that it fades less.", "I can't recall what class it was in but my prof got into a bit of a side discussion which involved telling us about old detergents that were designed to make whites look whiter by adding a tint of blue because it actually looks more clean and vibrantly white than an actually pure-white shirt. He explained the reasoning but I can't remember it fully other than having something to do with natural light and our perception of colour." ], "score": [ 24, 7 ], "text_urls": [ [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener" ], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h34fsi1", "h34euet", "h344cks", "h348rwy", "h34etfr", "h347vjg", "h34txei", "h34i88x", "h34i0ap", "h34pskn", "h34wydg", "h35c5ei", "h363d7r", "h366jtm", "h3504h0" ], "text": [ "Same reason we eat the potato and the apple. Even though one is a root and one is a fruit. It is the 'good' part of the plant. Edit: thanks for all the up votes and awards. Also, many people saying a potato is not a root. In reply I would say that to a 5 year old they are. Edit 2: Maybe people missed the 'GOOD PART OF THE PLANT' part? Plants have many parts, some are good for humans, some are not. Some cactus is amazing, but don't eat the spines.", "you CAN drink the tea made by extracting the dried cherry flesh. it's called Cascara. it's .. erm. it is. it's like drinking the most tannic tea you've ever tried, tastes somewhat like cherry, and has a mild caffeine buzz to it. the Seed however is what was initially drunk, because if you leave coffee cherries out in the sun for a few days, you'll end up with a pile of dried coffee beans (or, more correctly, a pile of green coffee beans.). the thing is though, they dont really keep all that well, unless you wash the cherry flesh off first. it's not too difficult to see that someone, in an attempt to speed up the drying process accidentally dry roasted a pile of beans..", "Well, it's part the best, part the only way. It's the characteristic of the plant. Coffee beans simply contain the highest amount of ccaffeine, but also burning the beans give them specific aromas. The same with tea. Yu could potentially put roots in hot water, but it would not have the same taste...", "Tea camellias don't have berries to speak of. Their seeds are in a husk with no real flesh or body. I don't think there's any caffeine in the seeds themselves either, but I'm not sure about that.", "\"Tea\" is technically leaves from the tea plant infused into hot water. \"Herbal tea\" is basically the same thing made from any plant other than tea plants. You *can* indeed prepare leaves from coffee plants in the exact same way and steep them, which gives you \"coffee tea\". It tastes much more like tea than anything like coffee. The oils and flavorful compounds that make coffee taste like coffee just aren't in the leaves.", "I need a biologist! Other plants, like hot peppers, have gotten hot to dissuade some animals from ingesting them and to encourage others. The \"heat\" is packed into the fruit as it's the most appealing part. Is caffeine along the same lines? It either protects the leaves or fruit from getting ingested or to encourage it? My reasoning is that this is why it is \"located\" heavily in some parts of the plant.", "Well I think you would have a pretty bad time if you were consuming coffee berry's, which are actually called coffee cherry's and they taste like asshole, we do roast the seed inside of it though. Some plants have narcotic flowers, like cannabis, others have narcotic leaves like coca, others have narcotic seeds, also coca but coffee is a more practiced example, some its the sap, like opium and maple syrup. Other plants would just straight up kill you, it's the fun parts about plants, they do a whole lot of wild shit for pretty much no reason other than living and evolving.", "In French dandelion is called pis-en-lit, i.e. wet-the-bed, precisely because of that effect.", "Different parts of plants have more pleasing aromas and tastes. Coffee leaves do have caffeine in them but they taste VERY bitter even when roasted so we just don't use them; they don't appeal to most of us. Every plant has some parts we like and some we don't, some plants have several parts we like and use (stems, stamens, flowers, fruits, leaves, berries, roots etc.), some, like dandelions, we use all the parts, others we do not.", "Same with citrus flowers, they contain caffine but the fruit does not. That's geared towards pollinators and keep them coming back for more.", "In my country we also make tea from the flower of the coffee plant and from the pulp of the fruit.", "We do use coffee leaves to make tea. Some tea sellers (like Adagio) call it Arabica. I.E. URL_1 if you want to try it. Tea seed oil is used, as well. URL_0 Plants have different chemicals in different parts of the plant, so caffeine distribution will be different, but for tea and coffee, most parts of the plant are used!", "The actual fruit of coffee can be fantastic but it has been cultivated for seed production, not fruit production. Those seeds are definitely not food before they get roasted. They taste great after roasting because they contain the right precursors for browning reactions (maillard) which humans love. See steak, bread crust, etc. Not all seeds have this. Brewed pre roast? Grass+plasticine is a close enough description. They also happen to be pretty bad eaten straight roasted. A lot of that bad stays behind in the grounds when you brew the coffee. Only about a quarter of the bean goes into making a good brew. I think if when you say historical you actually mean cultivation history you're probably nearest to the truth.", "Trial and error, some dude one day came across it, and tried eating, cooking, boiling most of the plant to see what worked", "We use the part of the plant where the highest concentration of caffeine is stored. For Tea it's in the leaves, for coffee it's in the fruit. Also coffee plant leaves are toxic to humans." ], "score": [ 12248, 1349, 252, 205, 122, 53, 23, 21, 15, 11, 7, 6, 6, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_seed_oil", "https://www.adagio.com/gifts/arabica_teas_gift_sampler.html" ], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h344cp8", "h344wen", "h3483uj", "h344gpd", "h34zyt5", "h35iaw6" ], "text": [ "No, the interior of the bell would be similarly pressurized. If it's an open bell you wouldn't be able to go super deep before the pressure crushed you, unless you had equal air pressure on the inside.", "No, the air pressure in the diving bell is equal to the pressure of the water, so to you it will feel like it's just regular water. However, at their high air pressures they can't actually fill the bell with air, as that would kill you (nitrogen becomes toxic), so they'd fill it with helium and oxygen...and then you [sound like a chipmunk]( URL_0 ).", "On top of what others have already addressed regarding the pressure in the bell being equal to the water pressure, your foot wouldn't really be crushed anyways. There aren't any hollow spaces to be compressed. The main areas of your body that are susceptible to be crushed by pressure like that are the air cavities: your lungs, air ways, sinuses, etc. There are some limits to this, mainly once you get to pressures that are able to compress water a meaningful amount. This old reddit post covers the compression of water: URL_0", "No. The pressure inside the diving bell is the same as the pressure of the water around it - IF the bottom is open. If your inside a closed structure, the pressure inside could be lower, but it would increase to the surrounding pressure as soon as an opening was created", "While this wasn’t super deep, this chef rescued from a sunken ship shows what it’s like being in the water in a sunken space: URL_0", "In the actual bell/moon pool room, the pressure will be equal, with all the problems that come with it as others have explained. Some bigger setups have separate compartments that can be at a different pressure, but these have to be separated from the water with a pressure tight door. If you open these doors without slowly equalizing the pressure first, you get the infamous Byford Dolphin incident. Quotes (NSFL): > !Medical investigations were carried out on the remains of the four divers and of one of the tenders. The most notable finding was the presence of large amounts of fat in large arteries and veins and in the cardiac chambers, as well as intravascular fat in organs, especially the liver. ... The autopsy suggested that rapid bubble formation in the blood denatured the lipoprotein complexes, rendering the lipids insoluble. The blood of the three divers left intact inside the chambers likely boiled instantly, stopping their circulation. The fourth diver was dismembered and mutilated by the blast forcing him out through the partially blocked doorway and would have died instantly.! < > !... forced through the crescent-shaped opening measuring 60 centimetres (24 in) long created by the jammed interior trunk door. With the escaping air and pressure, it included bisection of his thoracoabdominal cavity, which resulted in fragmentation of his body, followed by expulsion of all of the internal organs of his chest and abdomen, except the trachea and a section of small intestine, and of the thoracic spine. These were projected some distance, one section being found 10 metres (30 ft) vertically above the exterior pressure door.! <" ], "score": [ 273, 99, 32, 5, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [ "https://youtu.be/ACXlVEomWZY?t=94" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4xeaiv/how\\_much\\_pressure\\_is\\_needed\\_to\\_compress\\_water/" ], [], [ "https://youtu.be/LrvRwNaE7Eo" ], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h347bww", "h347ju2" ], "text": [ "Other than legal terms being legal terms because everyone agreed that's what it means: \"not guilty\" accommodates the situation where something non-innocent happened, but it was determined to not be illegal. \"innocent\" implies that the thing accused of never happened, but a lot of court defenses are 'yes it happened, but it was ok'.", "Because we presume innocence until proven guilty, the purpose of a trial is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty. When the jury reaches a verdict, all they're doing is stating whether the prosecution did their job. It is *guilty* -- \"yes, you've convinced us, he's guilty\" -- or *not guilty* -- \"you didn't convince us of his guilt.\"" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h34c0ch", "h34cj6q" ], "text": [ "Humans are constantly generating heat. We have to shed heat so we don't get too hot. If we are in an environment where our normal cooling mechanisms (sweat evaporation) don't work as well, we will feel hotter. Example: 35C and 5% relative humidity feels cooler than 35C and 90% relative humidity. When the humidity is very high, we sweat, but it doesn't evaporate (sweat evaporation makes us cooler, it takes the heat from our body to evaporate). So a thermometer will show 35C in both situations, but they will feel different to you as a human.", "It’s based on the actual temperature, how much moisture is in the air, and how much wind there is. A lot of moisture (think summer in humid places like Florida) makes it feel warmer. Combine that with no wind, it feels even hotter out. That would give a higher “feels like” temperature than the actual temperature. Then think about winter somewhere cold and windy. It could be 30F out and if the air is very dry and there’s a lot of wind, you feel REALLY cold. That would make the feels like temperature a lot lower than the actual temperature." ], "score": [ 42, 10 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h34dmb2", "h34sxq4", "h34fbdm", "h365o1q", "h34hd0l", "h34dtux", "h34fb29" ], "text": [ "A flame is the light released by flammable gases reacting with oxygen. When you burn something, the first thing that happens is the heat causes large carbon-based molecules, like the cellulose in wood, to break down into smaller molecules, molecules small enough to be gaseous at those temperatures. These rise, because they're hotter than the air, forming that iconic flame shape as they do so. Then, because these are both hot and flammable, they react with oxygen in the air, which causes the release of light and even more heat.", "Think about what happens when you heat up a piece of iron. If it gets hot enough it starts glowing. This is basically what is happening to the gas that has been heated up by the oxygen fusing with whatever you’re burning. In most cases, it’s soot. Fire is just a stream of very hot gases quickly cooling down into something invisible again.", "the bright yellow part is hot soot. that means the fuel is not burning cleanly. the dim blue part is emitted by the electrons getting excited as the bonds get rearranged. different elements emit different colors.", "Combustion is a chemical reaction between a fuel and an oxidizer. This usually happens only when the fuel and oxidizer are gases. A flame is the region where that reaction is happening - the interface between the stuff that's burning and the stuff that's not burning. When you have a methane stove, methane gas exits the burners, and they're shaped to mix with air. When you light it with a spark or other flame, the methane reacts with oxygen in air and creates a flame. When you have an oil lamp, the liquid fuel is pulled up the wick, the heat of the flame vaporizes the liquid off the top of the wick, and burns. When you have a candle, the heat of the flame melts the wax, the liquid wax is pulled up the wick, and the heat of the flame vaporizes the liquid off the top of the wick, and burns. That's why, when you light a candle, it takes a second or two to get the flame going - you need to give the wax time to melt and then vaporize. When you have a wood fire, the heat of the flame breaks down the lignin and vaporizes volatile organic compounds, and those gaseous compounds burn. That's why you have to build up a campfire instead of just putting a match to a big chunk of wood - the match will scorch the wood a bit, but it can't heat the wood up enough to cause it to disintegrate and offgass stuff that burns. In every case - gas fuel, liquid fuel, solid fuel - the actual combustion reaction is happening in gas. So, the reaction itself. You have a flame that contains fuel, air, and combustion products. It's very hot, because of the energy created in the reaction. The heat causes the teardrop shape - the burning gases are less dense than cold air, so they rise. So, why does the flame create light? Several reasons! First, blackbody radiation. Blackbody radiation is a characteristic of solids and liquids - or more specifically, large amounts of atoms or molecules in contact with each other. (Gases under extremely high pressure, like on the Sun, are also good blackbody radiators.) Materials with temperatures more than absolute zero radiate energy - that is, they start flinging photons off their surfaces, and the energy they radiate has a wavelength distribution, or range of colors related to their temperature. In a flame, the temperature is usually around the region where solids emit red, orange, or yellow. If there is soot present, it will be heated to the point it gives off a red, orange, or yellow flame. Naturally ventilated fires on Earth don't really get hot enough to produce blackbody radiation in green or blue colors. Second, electronic transitions. You understand the basic idea of atoms? You have a nucleus surrounded by electrons. Those electrons can't go just anywhere - they're in specific rings* around the electron. Those electrons can transition (jump) from one ring to another, and in doing so, absorb or release light of a wavelength specific to that transition. Low-density gases like in a flame aren't very good blackbody radiators, but they'll produce a decent amount of photons due to electrons jumping up and down in the high temperature of the flame. These colors are typically blue or ultraviolet. This photon emission is typically way less active than the blackbody type, and our eyes aren't as good at seeing colors in this range, so flames from non-sooty fires can be really hard to see. So, in a flame, you have a chemical reaction, and photons generated by the hot gases and particles in that reaction. Sooty flames produce yellow light due to the soot particles acting as blackbody radiators. Extremely dirty flames are orange or red, because the blackbody radiators are cooler. If the flame is hotter but still has the same amount of soot, the yellow gets more pale but remains bright. If the flame burns cleaner and produces less soot, the flame gets darker, and the blue of the electronic transitions is more visible. For the same flame, less soot means more complete burning, so blue flames are hotter than yellow. Low-soot flames such as pure hydrogen, pure methanol, and pure methane, can be really hard to see. But they don't burn particularly hotter or cooler than sooty flames - they just lack the soot to \"take their temperature\" and give you a color indicator as to how hot they are. Methanol fires are kind of notorious for being just about invisible in daylight, but they burn at around the same temperature of more visible gases - they just lack \"color indicating\" soot.", "You already got it, it's the release of energy. Light and heat are just forms of energy, so the process of burning releases energy in the form of light and heat which you can see and feel, and which can set more stuff on fire.", "Someone will answer this better but here is what I can say for now. Energy comes in many forms. Straight heat is infrared on the electromagnetic spectrum and is invisible to our eyes. If you add a bit more energy you can get red, then orange, then yellow, even blue eventually. So the colour aspect is just photons in the visible spectrum. You would also be heating up the air around the wick creating different densities of air. This would lead to a mirage like effect. This would influence how we see the shape of the flame. I am sure a chemist can elaborate more on the actual gas output of the flame, which again would tie into the mirage factor.", "There is no effective ELI5 for this, especially considering the typical mental abilities of a 5-year old, but I can try. Everything in the world is made up smaller and smaller particles. Every physical thing we can see can be looked at under a special magnifying glass we call a microscope and see that it is made of smaller things. Like how my hand is made up of five smaller fingers, you can have a finger without a hand, (pulls thumb off, you are shocked), but you can't have a hand without fingers. Your head is made of smaller things like a nose and eyes and mouth, and the mouth is made of a tongue and teeth. You eventually go so small that you reach things called atoms and molecules. Atoms are like little balls that attach to each other and make up what we call molecules. When you heat something up, the molecules start to break from each other, and they melt. If you heat it up enough, they will break into even smaller molecules and even individual atoms. They are so small, that they float up in the air. This is invisible to us, but from our eyes as humans, we see the flame - a colorful (and hot) little slice of light that is blue, yellow, orange, and red. When these molecules are falling apart and turning into new ones, they move super fast and glow in different colors. There are inaccuracies, but for a 5-year old it would be the same that atoms aren't balls and heat isn't some magical force on its own." ], "score": [ 57, 9, 7, 4, 3, 3, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h34gjln", "h35spcv" ], "text": [ "Ultimately, it's because true A.I. doesn't yet exist. The technology that people now call \"Artificial Intelligence\" is mostly just super-fast computers with access to a lot of data. They lack individual creativity. In essence, you'd still have to provide the data to the A.I., which means that the A.I. wouldn't actually be developing the data, itself.", "I think the reason is pretty simple: time. You could use A.I. to learn new techniques or even invent new things, but, and that's a big but, current A.I. doesn't really reason the way we do. For example, if you set up an A.I. to play a game it will, after enough sessions, learn proper techniques and even some techniques humans may never have thought of. In fact this is what happens all the time and is a serious problem when it comes to A.I. safety. (If an A.I. ever encounters a weakness in the system it's deployed in which helps to reach their terminal goals, it - will - exploit them it. Be it a bug in a game, a flaw in a security system or even the naive humans who interact with it) But that's not the key part in this discussion, the key part is - after enough sessions. You see, a game can be simulated millions of times in a short amount of time. You can even run them in parallel on several computer clusters. But how would you do that with physical processes? Randomly throwing an A.I. at batteries would produce a lot of attempts humans wouldn't even consider. While that is the whole goal behind this, to find new approaches, most of these approaches would simply end in failure. On top of that the A.I. would have to alter the machinery used as well, because otherwise you would have to build a battery building facility that's capable of building and trying new stuff - fast - at the same time. So you may think \"can't we just simulate it?\". Well yes and no. Of course we could simulate it, but the simulation is based on our knowledge of the universe, not the universe itself. Thus the A.I. would be bounded by what is known to us in some sense. And even then. Maybe a completely different approach is necessary instead of a slight deviation. The probability of these major changes would have to be small though, otherwise the A.I. wouldn't be better than pure randomness. (Basically the mutation rate can't be too high or it wouldn't find consistent patterns. Just like in evolution, if every generation would be dramatically different then we wouldn't be able to build out lasting structures over generations and this can't optimize) Lower probability means more time is necessarily to eventually reach these \"mutations\". So in the end, I think it all boils down to time and practicality. It would take too long and cost too much to just randomly throw some A.I. at a task." ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]

{ "a_id": [ "h34k8ux", "h34gmyf" ], "text": [ "It's not enough to just reverse all the colours. Companies have brands and reputations on the line. The new look has to still get the OK from the people who deal with that sort of thing. It has to look good, the company logo has to work with the new colour scheme, etc, and every inch of the user interface must be scrutinized for any errors. If there is any black-on-black text that can't be seen any more due to an error it must be fixed. Yeah it's more of a pain than it seems like it would be, but you're basically designing the user interface all over again including the troubleshooting and debugging.", "It really all depends on how you set it up initially and that's gonna be different for every app. Actually creating the assets for a dark theme isn't *that* difficult if you have them from your light mode already, but going through and changing everything to check which asset it's supposed to display can take a while." ], "score": [ 12, 4 ], "text_urls": [ [], [] ] }

[ "url" ]

[ "url" ]