Datasets:

euclaise

/

reddit-instruct-curated

like 14

Having a bit of a problem with feminist epistemology (not what you think)

Recently I picked up "Feminist Epistemology" aggregated by by Alcoff and Potter. It's an interesting discussion and I'm always willing to look at something that questions my worldview. I'm kind of lost on what article within it though. In Helen Longino's essay "Subjects, Power and knowledge" she goes at such a length to say something that it gets a bit convoluted. >One way to articulate the distinctions I am urging is to treat analysis of the context of discovery as a primarily descriptive process of how hypotheses are generated and to treat analysis in the context of justification as involving the normative or prescriptive analysis regarding the appropriate criteria for the acceptance of hypotheses. Is she suggesting a more holistic approach to forming a hypothesis? Is she perhaps suggesting much more weight in the qualitative data than of the quantitative? Please help. I feel a bit overwhelmed.

Longino is arguing that there is a big difference between the "context of discovery"--what scientists do in the lab and the "context of justification" what scientists write about what they did in the lab (journal articles, etc). This part of a broader feminist critique of traditional philosophy of science, specifically normative theories about what makes good science good science. Such normative theories (e.g. logical positivism, falsification) are built on what happens in the regime of justification. That is, scientists write that they have a hypothesis that they did such and such to test it and it produced such and such results. But if you ask any scientist about how well the write-up reflects what actually happened in the lab, they laugh. The lab is a messy, messy place and the context of justification pretends that its clean. The end of all this is that Longino and others are arguing that philosophies of science built on the context of justification are built on fictionalized accounts of how science happens and, as such, not appropriate to the reality of scientific practice. And this is only the beginning. If all context of justification is fictionalized then it doesn't make any sense to talk about the "accuracy" of findings. And if it doesn't make any sense to talk about the accuracy of findings, then it doesn't make any sense to develop a normative philosophy of science based on accuracy.

Why is vision grainy at night or in dark areas?

At night time why does human vision appear grainy?

Because your central vision (where you have color perception) is high resolution (higher density of light-sensing cells) but low-sensitivity (requires more light to detect) whereas your peripheral vision is low resolution and high sensitivity (and so works better in low light than color vision). From an evolutionary perspective, because the color of the bear that is going to kill you is irrelevant, whereas the color of the fruit you are about to eat is important.

ELI5:How did people used to wake up early before alarm clocks?

1) **Drinking water** - It used to be a common plan that when someone needed to wake up before sunrise they would just drink a great deal of water. Full bladder would mean you'd wake up having to urinate. History is full of pre-dawn raids and military attacks that used this method. 2) **Clepsydra** - Water clocks have been used for thousands of years. They weren't clocks so much as timers. You'd have a container that would leak a small amount of water, and then a floating bob would strike an alarm when the water lowered to a certain point. 3) **Knocker-Up** You could pay someone to stay up all night and then wake you in the morning. Large factories often employed Knocker Ups for their employees. And you could be guaranteed they wouldn't stop knocking until you were up.

What would you characterize as must-read papers for economics students?

I will be starting my masters degree in economics and am looking to further my knowledge of economics as well as delve into how papers are written and research is done. Since I will be writing essays, papers and such I'd like to learn from these. So, what would you recommend as must-read papers?

The use of knowledge in society - F.A. Hayek The nature of the firm - Coase The role of monetary policy - Milton Friedman The methodology of positive economics - Milton Friedman On the definition and method of Political Economy - John Stuart Mill Economic Growth and Income inequality - Kuznets

Best way to make a quick, simple GUI app?

Just went to make a simple utility desktop app an decided I want a GUI for it. But I've never really done this before (mostly done web and mobile), so what are your favorite tools to make a simple desktop GUI quickly? **What I need to be able to do:** Show Text, Buttons, Inputs, Images, other basic things and easily position and align them Easily update the screen with new information ​ I'm on Windows 11 rn Don't really care which language, I'm flexible. Thanks!

C#. Visual Studio Community is free and gives you everything you need. WinForms has been around forever, so there's a vast amount of resources available to help you out. There are lots of other options for building a UI (WPF, WinUI, MAUI, etc), but WinForms may be more approachable (lower learning curve to get up and running). If cross platform matters at all, Xamarin or Uno are options, still with C#.

Why does orbital radius increase with increased velocity?

So apparently our teacher said that if a spaceship increases its velocity for a short amount of time its orbital radius increases, and as a result it takes longer for the spaceship to finish a circle. But according to V^2 = GM/R if the velocity increases, r has to decrease. So mathematically it doesn't out and it's bugging me.

The easiest way to see why the size of your orbit will increase is to think about energy. The total energy is the sum of two terms, kinetic energy (which depends only on your velocity), and potential energy, which depends only on your current location, and which grows with distance. For example, the potential energy outside a mass M is PE = -GM/R, which *increases* as R increases. If you suddenly increase your velocity, you have increased your kinetic energy, which means you've increased your total orbital energy. This means you have more energy to climb higher up in the gravitational potential, i.e. your orbit can travel to larger distance. The expression you wrote, v^2 = GM/R, is only true for circular orbits. If you are on an initially circular orbit and suddenly change your orbital velocity, your orbit will change, becoming non-circular. In general, orbits around isolated masses are elliptical; circular orbits are only possible when your velocity has a magnitude equal to the expression above, and points exactly 90 degrees away from the radial direction. You should not use that expression for orbits that are not circular.

ELI5: The differences between karate, judo, kung fu, ninjitsu, jiu jitsu, tae kwan do, and aikido?

All of them have different origins and all have different focuses. Karate is about strikes with hands, feet, elbows and knees (as well as some grapples). Judo is mostly about throws and takedowns. Kung Fu is an umbrella term for any Chinese Martial art. Ninjitsu is about striking pressure points and sensitive areas. Jiu Jitsu is about trapping, locking, takedowns, etc. Tae Kwan Do is about striking and kicking. Aikido is about turning the momentum of the attacks of your opponent.

[Legend of Zelda] What did the pieces of the triforce actually do?

I know they make you wise/courageous/powerful but is that all they do? All three wielder seem to abilities besides that.

The triforce of courage is believed to grant some degree of protection against dark magic and mind enchantments. Ganondorf's darkness attack failed against Link. In the twilight he managed to resist being transformed into a mindless beast. It's believed that the triforce of wisdom grants some degree of magical ability. Zelda regularly uses spells and telekinesis, so this one grants knowledge of how the universe really works. The triforce of strength is believed to grant physical and mental enhancements, boosting a person's strength, durability, and magical power. They have some degree of sentience, allowing them to speak to their users or move to rejoin. Their precise powers depend somewhat on the user. It enhances your existing attributes, as well as having power independent of that. They can of course also combine to grant wishes.

I believe individuals are smart, but organizations and groups of people generally only cause problems. CMV

**edit**: I think, thus far, my opinion has altered a bit but not totally. I still think innovation and new, fresh ideas comes from individuals. But organizations and groups (while I still feel that they have many, many negative sides) are the only ways to deal with certain things. I.E., political parties will always exist in this form of government. Basically, individuals work better for some things, groups work better for others. I don't know how much sense this will make. .. I think individuals are smart. They have their own drives, goals, and motivations. But once people form into groups, big or small, more shit than good happens. The individual's opinions and thoughts are exchanged for broad and vague mission or group statements that can be easily manipulated by a corrupt leader. Basically, I believe the more variety in beliefs and ideas, the better. But unique ideas come from individuals, while groups tend to not branch out into new ideas, but remain the same mass of vague beliefs and ideas. Groups fight for things to stay the same while individuals bring change. Examples: - the group of kids that succumb to peer pressure to be involved in dangerous or illegal stuff, like under age drinking or bullying. - religious organizations often espouse beliefs that its constituents don't always agree with, so it doesn't accurately reflect that body of people. In some cases, the belief of the religion causes many societal problems. The best example I can think of is the Mormon church. Pro lgbt groups are growing within the church, yet the leadership of the church has been extremely anti gay, both socially and politically in the last ten years. Many kids who grow up in a religion never really develop their unique personality because their entire lives are defined by the religion. - in the us, we only have two "main" political groups. But I doubt anyone says their political party truly represents their individual beliefs. Instead, they sacrifice some of their individual beliefs just so they can be a member of a main party. - these main parties are so convoluted with power that they actually try to stop smaller parties from gaining any political ground. These parties are in power and want to stay that way. - even in groups of friends, people feel pressured to fit in and say anything just to be part of the crowd, ultimately losing their individual voice and unique ideas. - protests. Like in the zimmernan protests happening. The situation gets dumbed down to "its just a racist man gettin away with a crime" and it really isn't that simple. I have friends who are joining the protests without knowing much about the case, only going off of hearing its racist. There is no real cause, no solution. Only a confused message designed to make anyone who doesn't support it look racist. I'm not sure how clearly I'm making my point. ... ask any questions that could help clarify.

Society. Mankind only gets out of the caves and builds cities by forming organizations. Heck, most higher apes can't survive without organizations. As far as your examples: * There is also plenty of positive peer pressure. * Just look around an you'll see plenty of religious nuts and conspiracy theorists without an organization to hail from. * Political parties are more of a consequence of government. Yes, if we want to live in a society where we have an organization that can tax, go to war, arrest people, etc. then we need to make compromises because ultimately we can only have one policy made. * Don't know of any case of this. They really don't need to as the first past the post system makes any third party doomed to fail in the US. * Yes, but they can also generate more complex ideas than they would alone (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). "Man is a political animal" -Aristotle

why are images seen through night vision devices, tinted green?

Image intensifiers work by having the incoming infrared light strike a photocathode, which releases electrons when it is struck. These electrons are accelerated via a high voltage field, causing them to travel to a second plate and slam into it at high speed. This second plate is coated with a phosphor which glows green in response to the electron strikes, both (in effect) converting infrared photons into visible-light photons and increasing the number of photons (because the fast-moving electrons can spawn many photons). As for "why green", human eyes are significantly more sensitive to green than any other color, and since the goal is to see dim illumination, green is the obvious choice.

[Time Travel] How to prove I'm from the future

I've been sent back in time (Terminator-style) to America during the creation of the U.S. Constitution to explain to the founding fathers all the gray areas that have arisen in the past 200 years. How do I convince them that I'm from the future? Added question: What gray areas do I warn them about?

Research the time of your arrival before you leave. Write down places and dates for important events. When you arrive make a bunch of predictions and hope they find time travel a more likely explanation than demon possession.

[General Sci-fi]What is the science behind "scanning for lifesigns"?

Besides heat and movement, what other lifesigns could be noticed from outer space or in a vacuum?

Usually the kind of lifeforms that humans deal with have a dependancy on a type of carrier that regenerates the body. For humans this would be oxygen. A method may be to search for oxygen pockets (or carbon dioxide pockets for those who arrive too late).

ELI5: If looking through a periscope, would a short-sighted person be able to see less far than a normal person?

In a simple, mirrors-only periscope a near-sighted person would need their glasses otherwise everything would appear blurry. However, more modern periscopes use lenses for focus and/or magnification, so they can be individually focused based on your eyesight like binoculars or a telescope.

ELI5: Why are the gas prices dropping so rapidly after being to high for so long?

- The cost of producing oil mostly depends on its accessibility. - OPEC is a group of oil producing countries who make up 45% of the world supply. - OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia have huge relatively easy to access oil deposits, meaning they could produce lots of cheap oil whenever they want. - Most of the cheap & easy to access oil fields in the US have largely been exhausted or are nearing some limit of production. - The US has the largest Shale oil deposits on earth, but shale is a lot more expensive to extract so oil has to be above a certain price to make it cost effective to extract from shale. - Over the last few years oil prices have risen high enough that extracting shale oil became economically viable. - The viability of shale oil led to a oil boom in the US that was causing us to consume less OPEC oil and more of our own. - OPEC didn't want their market share eroded by US shale oil. - So OPEC increased production effectively lowering their own prices and the price of oil in general. - OPEC hopes to make oil cheap enough that it would make US shale production more expensive. - As long as OPEC is exporting large amounts of relatively cheap oil, the companies in the US will have to work with lower margins or no profit at all which means less oil production in the US and more consumption of OPEC oil. - This wont last forever, eventually OPEC will lower their production and prices will go up again.

Why does the Human body reject transplanted organs /tissue and proceed to destroy them but it doesn't kill parasites like worms ?

Every defense mechanism has false positives (for example, when you body attacks itself, like in an auto-immune disorder) and false negatives (for example, when your body doesn't attack a pathogen). Various parasites have the advantage of having had millions of years to evolve their evasive mechanisms and their defense mechanisms to avoid detection or mitigate attacks by human immune systems.

CMV: I believe that most (NOT ALL) stop signs could, (and to some extent, should) be replaced by yield signs

**1: Stop signs could be replaced by yield signs** Stop signs instruct drivers to stop at an intersection no matter what. Yield signs instruct drivers that they need not stop, but that they must give the right-of-way to opposing traffic. In essence, in the presence of other cars, a yield sign functions as a stop sign. However, when there is no other traffic, they speed up driving by allowing drivers to merely slow down, instead of coming to a complete stop, as they approach an intersection. In this sense, replacing a stop sign with a yield sign is like causing traffic lights go into flashing red (i.e., 4-way stop) mode at night. However, some stop signs should not be replaced with yield signs. In particular, at a blind intersection, a driver would not be able to assess the flow of traffic before they got to the intersection, and thus should be forced to stop in all cases *How to CMV: convince me that from a mechanical, traffic rules perspective, yield signs do not sufficiently emulate stop signs* **2: Stop signs *should* be replaced by yield signs** It is already quite common for drivers to fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. This is generally because a driver slows down towards a stop, and then continues on once they see there is no other traffic -- essentially, they treat the stop sign as a yield sign. There is no reason to think that drivers would "run" a yield sign (i.e., fail to yield to opposing traffic) with any greater frequency than drivers run red lights or stop signs. Stop signs also negatively impact the quality of late-night driving. It is annoying to have to stop at minor intersections when I'm the only car on the road. Stop signs, like other traffic signs and signals, are there for the safety of pedestrians and drivers, and stop signs become extraneous to this purpose when I am the only driver for blocks. Yield signs address this issue by functioning as stop signs during periods of heavy traffic and as a lack of sign during periods of no traffic. *How to CMV: convince me that drivers would run yield signs more than they run stop signs or red lights, or that traffic signs/signals serve a purpose even when you're the only car on the road* **3: Logistics** When I say we should replace stop signs with yield signs, I mean that in the sense that I believe it would be a benefit to society if all applicable stop signs magically turned into yield signs, with all drivers properly informed as they would be if they had passed a law to make the switch. I realize that it would be expensive and difficult to actually make the replacement, but I'm not really interested in logistical arguments, and they won't change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

I REALLY dont think this would work, in many places with stop signs the corners are 100% blind until you are 2m from the intersection. With only a yeild sign in front of drivers, no one will stop, or even slow down that much. So now you have people jsut blowing through intersections at 40+km/h because theres no stop sign. This also poses a big problem for pedestrians. Regardless of traffic, pedestrians need a way to safely cross a street. If its 2 am, it might be tough to stop in time before mowing down some guy who is walking home. In an ideal world, this would work. But currently, people almost flat out ignore yeild signs as is. There would be pandemonium.

ELI5: If radio waves and visible light are just different wavelengths of light, why do we use antennas for radios and photo sensors for light?Why can’t we just use antennas for everything?

You can use antennae for visible light, they just have to be tiny due to the short wavelength of light vs radio. The issue is what you then do with it. If you want to produce a recognisable image with that light, you need an array of sensors, which is essentially what we have in our eye, or in ccd arrays in cameras. If you just want to detect a signal of light in the same way we do with radio, a lone antenna is fine, but we rarely want to do that.

ELI5: Competitive eating. How can people eat so much in one sitting? What happens to their stomachs and bodies after eating so much? And why does it seem that so many competitive eaters are very skinny?

They are able to eat so much because they prepare. They stretch their stomachs, they practice techniques for speed, etc. After a competition, it's not unlike how you feel after Thanksgiving. Full, sluggish, tired, maybe even a little nauseous. Just to a greater degree. Most of these people don't vomit after competition. Other than that, you recover pretty easily within a day. It isn't necessarily that most competitive eaters are skinny so much that the successful ones tend to be. This is for several reasons. First, your stomach is (supposedly) better able to expand when you don't have shit tons of fat around it. Second, people who are fit burn more calories, so if you do a lot of competitions it benefits you to stay in shape for your health. Third, competitions are exhausting. It may seem like just aggressive eating, but it's tiring and if you aren't in shape it is hard to keep up aggressive activity for 10-12 minutes non-stop. Source: Former low level competitive eater.

CMV: People who die because they can't afford food or housing are direct victims of capitalism

Neo-McCarthyites like to use "MiLlIoNs Of PeOpLe DiEd BeCaUsE oF cOmMuNiSm" as a carte blanche dismissal of any and all left-of-centre ideas. It is only fair to point out that deaths due to lack of means are directly a result of capitalism. The idea of "not being able to afford something" *is* entirely capitalist. Whether complete anarcho-capitalism, or the heavily regulated type of Scandinavia, capitalism is pay-to-play. If it happens to be food or shelter you are priced out of, and you die, then it is because of capitalism. Food banks and homeless shelters are *anti*-capitalist. They are about the redistribution of resources to those who need it most, not those who can afford it. They are an indictment of capitalism. Going back over just the last 250 years, slaves who died en route to America in overcrowded ships were victims of capitalism. Conditions were poor, and they weren't looked after because their economic value wasn't deemed high enough. Slaves who died while working were victims of capitalism, because their welfare wasn't deemed economically valuable. Children who died in the mills, or up chimneys were victims of capitalism because their safety wasn't economically worthwhile. I'd even say that US soldiers in Vietnam died because of capitalism. There were sent to "stop the spread of communism". How is that anything but people dying on behalf/because of capitalism? Exact numbers of "death by capitalism" are going to be difficult to get, beyond the direct individuals assassinated for promoting socialism (e.g. Che Guevara). But, given that: * In 2017 the UK had an avoidable mortality rate of [over 200 per 100,000](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44853482) (>0.2%) * Social security is relatively novel, and growing, concept, meaning deaths due to poverty are likely at an all-time low * Early death caused by stress from overworking, among many other metrics, isn't quantifiable I reckon that, In the last 300 years, 300 million deaths due to capitalism is a *low* estimate. That would be ~1 million a year, which, seems conservative to say the least. One response might be "how many lives has capitalism saved?". But, since capitalism at it's core, is about individual financial progress - social programmes are very much, not capitalist, neither are charities - I'd be tempted to say none. There may have been people who escaped poverty, but the chances are that was because of available social programmes, whether that be food stamps, or state education. That would suggest that redistribution of wealth and resources (i.e. socialism) has in fact *saved* lives as well cost lives. EDIT: I'm not going to reply to any new top level comments because I'm barely keeping up with the threads I'm already replying to. The chances are you'll be able to relevantly add your comment to an already existing thread. EDIT II: (*FAO: mods*) I'm taking a break to Skype/Zoom my family and have dinner. I will be ack to continue and award deltas. I just need a break. It's been 6 hours at the symposium without break. EDIT III: OK so I am back, and have *43* comment replies to go through. I will respond to *some* now, but it is also midnight where I am, so more replies will have to come in the morning. I apologise if you've been waiting ages for a response, but, Family \>\>\> Reddit EDIT IV: Having slept on it. I've realised that I don't think I properly separated action driven by capitalist philosophy, and a society with broadly capitalist principles. Not only did this cause confusion, but I think it made it hard to properly unpick my perspective. I few redditors made me realise this, so I'll give out deltas where appropriate.

Food banks can exist in capitalism (as evidenced by them... existing). Capitalism - "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." As it turns out fewer people die in capitalism, than in other regimes. That being said, there are places where the complete free market is not efficient. What you're conflating is the pure libertarian version of free markets with capitalism as a whole. We obviously don't do the former, because that leads to bad outcomes. If you want to criticize capitalism you need to isolate it from other social aspects - like to point to slaver labor you'd need to compare it apples to apples as an economic system to slave labor in like NK or something. But capitalism doesn't imply that we shouldn't have rules - the argument for capitalism is that its effective when it properly is accounting for all costs (including social ones). This is where the government as a regulating authority is useful - where they can help set ground rules to make the system more efficient. In the 1920s (I think that's when it was) when Upton Sinclair exposed the meat industry, we realized that we need to add regulations, because adding rules to the complete free market libertarianism ends up being more efficient for capitalism (and accounts for externalities that aren't captured properly with imperfect information). Or take the SEC - people feel safe trading with regulated companies, because there are certain disclosures that ensure you get true information from company executives, and if the executives lie theres legal recourse that can be taken.

I believe that high school is a terribly designed system that works against peoples learning and doesn't let people get to their full potential. CMV

* you aren't streamed from the start. Most people are in classes that either move too fast for them and they can't get good grades, or too slow and they lose interest. * You're punished if you don't go to class. If classes were optional then the people who don't enjoy it wouldn't be there distracting the people who want to actually learn something. * Teachers have shit students and classes that are too big. If classes were much smaller then the teachers could help individual students much more, and if they had the option to kick a student out of their class who just isn't worth their time, they could again focus on people who actually want to learn. I'll add more later. EDIT:Some of these problems are non existent in some places.

Going point by point: * Schools offer extracurriculum to bright students in physics, math, chemistry and biology. Also schools have classifications and specializations - there are schools of physics, math, linguistics, sports, etc. Students get basic package there + additional 4-6 hours of advanced classes. It's already there, just gotta go get it. * Kids are not old and smart enough to make the decision whether to go to class or not. Besides, doing stuff you don't like trains self-sufficiency, self-control and discipline, which are very essential in everyday life. * Every kid deserves attention and education, and there are no shit kids, there are shit parents. Sociologists and psychologists have long observed strong correlation between family involvment and student's academic success. If shitty ghetto parents don't get involved with the kids and don't push for their grades - no public system will suceed on any meaningful scales (although there are plenty of individual examples).

CMV: All vegetarians will either eventually become vegans or they are lying about how much they truly care for animals' welfare.

Preface 1: I'm a vegetarian in the UK. I have been since I was 10. My family eat meat. My girlfriend is a vegan. I care deeply about animal welfare, it is one of the most important things in my life. Preface 2: There are some people that cannot live a vegan diet, through medical requirements, societal pressure or otherwise. These people are not the ones I am talking about. I strictly mean the vegetarians that choose to not eat meat as they view it as cruel/inhumane/unjust. --- I am slowly transitioning to be a vegan. I have cut out most milk products, have cut out all egg products (unless I make them myself from personally purchased eggs (I have an advantage as I can choose to pick eggs from healthy local farms) or come from a trusted source (such as Quorn)), and plan on further cutting this back in the future. --- So many people are "vegetarian", my definition of "vegetarian" from here on in is that they do not eat meat, fish, gelatin, blood products, fish oils. They may and most probably do eat cheese and eggs, drink milk, and consume honey. They may also wear leather products and use products tested on animals. "Vegans" do not consume any product made by animals; meats/fish, dairy, eggs, honey, feather pillows, leather, products tested on animals, any other animal based product or other exploitation of animals for human benefit. --- I believe that being a vegetarian is about valuing life over comfort or pleasure. It is about recognising that the small increase in comfort, pleasure, taste, lifestyle, that animal death can provide is not worth it for the amount of lives lost. As a global propulation we kill in the billions of animals every year to support our small 7 billion humans. Vegetarians see that as unnecessary and choose to take no role in the death. The vast majority argue that the rights of the animal outweigh any benefits to us as humans. So we can safely say these vegetarians (myself included) support the rights of animals and would take action to cut down on animal suffering. I would say the vast majority care about the suffering of animals. However, I would argue that this vast majority are on a transitional period from eating meat to being a vegan. Animals are exploited in industries that do not have to kill these animals. Dairy cows are artificially raped and inseminated, their young are ripped from them at a young age, they live very deprived lives. Chickens can live in cages or barns and only a minority have access to the outside. Huge numbers or chickens never have enough space to fully open their wings. They just sit, slowly move around, and lay eggs. The way I see it, there is simply only one argument any vegetarian can make as to why they are not transitioning to become a vegan, or do not plan to transition to become a vegan: I simply do not care enough about the quality of life of these animals to stop partaking in any exploitation of them. CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Animal products such as eggs and milk can be potentially obtained in a more humane way (especially eggs, which chickens just lay naturally and really require no interference to obtain ideally). They are often not, but they can be. Meat, on the other hand, will always be made by killing animals. That's a very significant difference for a lot of people.

Would it be possible for humans to see new colors?

I read an article the other day on The Oatmeal, about mantis shrimp, and it got me curious. Mantis shrimp have sixteen types of color receptors, as opposed to our measly three, which allows them to see colors we are literally unable to imagine. I was wondering if it would even be possible to find a way for us to see new colors using those extra eleven receptors, either through recombinant DNA or something else.

Assuming we had an extra color receptor, for example for yellow we might be able to see more colors: Currently we have no way to distinguish between yellow (i.e. wavelength ~580nm) and red-green. To our eyes both look yellow and the response of the eye is the same. With a yellow receptor we might have a different response (depends how narrow the "band-pass-filter" is). This means that the eye would react differently to yellow and red-green. However, while in this hypothetical scenario the eye has the capability to distinguish yellow from red-green it is entirely possible that our brain would still tell us that both are yellow as there is a lot of processing (even before the signal reaches the brain) going on before we "see".

Is Mathematics invented or discovered?

Math and nature stand apart. There are obvious connections as we use math to describe nature, but the catch is that all mathematics is based on a foundation of assumptions called axioms. What you cannot say for certain is that any set of axioms absolutely applies to nature. You can trivially come up with a set of axioms that does not correspond to nature and still do real mathematics work. There are huge swaths of math that do not apply to nature or natural phenomenons in any way (but may or may not in the future as physics evolves). The invented/discovered question is largely just semantics, and deciding which it is is not a particularly important distinction. Given a set of axioms, every possible theorem is already true or not regardless if anybody has bothered to write down the proof, but the path to finding a proof isn't anywhere as obvious as sailing to a new island or spotting a brand new bird.

CMV: Religions answering man's questions only slow down the progress towards the actual answers(or solutions)

I've been an atheist for 3 years, and recently I'm starting to become anti-theist(which means that I don't hate religious people, but I think that religion is hurtful for humanity). The question that started this transition is the following: "If 500 years ago we acknowledged that there's no God-granted afterlife, would health research funding have increased the life expectancy, maybe even reaching immortality?", followed by "If the Genesis book didn't exist, would we have started studying the universe earlier?" and "If religions didn't promise afterlife happiness, would social policies be better?". I wonder if anyone can provide counterarguments. Thank you in advance and sorry for my bad English. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Religious institutions have played a critical role in the development of Western civilization, particularly surrounding some of the areas you mentioned. Acting as the world's first NGO, the Vatican has long played a role in stabilizing and improving human conditions throughout the Medieval world. The most obvious and prominent of these is in health care. Rather than having a belief in the afterlife act against the rise of health care, the reverse has been the true trend of history, with various religious orders being the sole source of affordable health care even as late as the 20th century in some areas. These were financed through donations, but largely through tithes, the religious taxes having been the first form of social welfare taxation in most of Europe. Education was also broadly spread by religious authorities. While it's true that they have not always been kind to scientists, the idea that the common man should be able to read and write dates back to religious movements in protestant Europe, which believed that everyone needed to be able to read the Bible for themselves. The first state-sponsored schools were made in an effort to promote religious uniformity, but also brought literacy, numeracy, and a knowledge of history to people who might otherwise have never been taught to read. Many of our values that we take for granted today as a part of secular humanism are the result of religious ideas and institutions trying to reshape society, transforming us from a group of Slaves and Conquerors (the Roman model) to a more egalitarian and well-educated population with institutions to help others. These institutions have not been weakened by secularization, but their birth is religious in origin.

ELI5: Why do emotions feel like they're coming from the heart/chest area, instead of the brain?

Strong emotions generally are accompanied by an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate, which are felt most strongly in the chest. But that's just the European way of viewing emotions. In Japan, for example, the emotional center of the human body is the stomach. This was why Samurai in feudal Japan who committed harakiri (ritual suicide through disemboweling) would cut open their bellies, to show they don't have a "black belly" (in European/Western terms, an evil heart).

Why does sunlight cause the colors of objects to fade over time?

I've always accepted the simple explanation that the sun's radiation damages paint, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that I don't know what's actually going on there. Can anyone help me out?

Most of the pigments we use to give colour to objects are organic pigments. Organic pigments happen to have lots of chemical bonds in them that can be broken by exposure to visible and ultraviolet light. So put enough light into them for a long enough time and the compounds that give the object its colour in the first place will be destroyed. So the colour fades.

ELI5: What actually happens when soap meets bacteria?

As others have mentioned, bacteria has lipids (basically oil) on the outer layer of their cells, your hands also have oils, and bacteria can deposit on your hands with ease... The main issue is the fact that oil and water don't mix (you can try that at home, put oil in water, and they will be separate. You can mix that, and for a moment they will seem mixed, but leave them and they will separate). So, passing water over your hands to clean them won't do much. That's where soap comes in play! The structure of soap is basically a long chain (think like a beads necklace you can wear but open it up and lay it down) with atoms on one end which like water (hydrophilic) and atoms on the other hand that dislike water (hydrophobic). When you mix the soap on your hand, the end of the soap that dislike water (hence likes oils) tends to mingle and stick to the oils/bacteria on your hand. Then, when you pass water on them, the end of the soap that likes water, tends to stick to water, and since water is moving, it will drag the soap with it and the soap will drag the bacterial/oils away from your hand as you rinse.

ELI5: Why are animals with slightly different genetic traits considered separate species but humans with slightly different genetic traits are not?

Definitely not implying that any group of people are more human than any other.

The general test is do they normally interbreed in the wild in a way that results in offspring that are health enough to breed in turn. If they do, species, if not 2 species. Human can all interbreed, so all the same species. And our genetic diversity is shockingly small compared to most species dues or a fairly recent evolutionary bottleneck. ONe of the reasons racism is stupid. An average family group of chimps had more generic diversity than all of the human race.

LUNCH with a Professor?

I have a question and need some guidance. I have been invited before by my mentor to go out and have beer with her and other students—no problem there. But, today I was talking to a program director, and I found out some professor from the US was coming to visit and guest lecture at our university. Now, the issue is that, the director said that if I wanted, I could have lunch with said professor (I don’t know him, other than finding him online). My question is, if I do have this private lunch with him—should I pay? Or does he pay? Or what happens? Like I’m genuinely confused since it was the director that insinuated the lunch but I don’t know who is going to pay for it. Any guidance? I don’t want to ask the director

Usually you get a department credit card and pay with that, especially as a grad student (not sure what level you are). Professors sometimes pay for dinners themselves, but they also make a lot more.

ELI5: How are betting odds calculated?

Is it genuine insider knowledge from the betting companies, a fancy algorithm or something else?

1: From historical trends and past performance, take the population of contenders and figure out the likeliest performance of each against the other. This is easy in a sports team oriented game or boxing match where there's a published record and only two contending teams/players. It's more complex when you have a field of racing horses. 2: Convert the results into a percentage. So for horse X, it 20% chance they'll take the prize; for horse Y, it's a long shot that's likely a 2% chance. Divide each number into one. 1 divided by 20% = 5, so the odds on that horse are "5 to 1" if a perfect payout is desired. And it would be 50 to 1 for horse Y. 3: Now mark up your payout so you are going to earn something out of it. Instead of paying 5 to 1, you make your payout 3 to 1, meaning if that horse wins you keep 40% of the overall bet pool. The more illegitimate your betting business, the greater the markup you'll put on it. 4: Next, for each contender, estimate how many people are going to bet on it compared to the others. In a race where one horse is clearly clearly superior, most people will bet on that one. So adjust the winnings on that one way, way down (1.2 to one, for example) to encourage people not to bet on that sure thing. 5: Finally, if you can, repeat 4 by analyzing how many people are betting on each horse or team as the bets come in. Almost everyone is betting on horse #3? Cut its odds from 4 to 1 down to 3 to 1. (This is why bet payouts shift at racetracks).

ELI5: Why do bugs all have more than four legs, while basically every other terrestrial animal has four or less?

Insects' evolutionary journey favored 6 legs. Ants can carry items with the front legs and still have 4 legs for balance and weight distribution. A beetle with a big ass has 6 legs to stabilize all that rear weight. Climbing walls with 6 feet means more contact with the wall at any given time. Think of ants digging out s tunnel or bees finding pollen or s dung beetle rolling up poop. Think of a butterfly emerging from a cocoon or a moth landing on a vertical surface. Every action is easier because of the multiple points of contact. Even flipping over if they're upside down is easier with 6 long, multiple-jointed, centrally-anchored legs.

CMV: Prosecutors/law enforcement involved in miscarriages of justice should be imprisoned

My idea is simple: if prosecutors/law enforcement officers knowingly help convict an innocent person of a crime, these same prosecutors/law enforcement officers should serve the prison sentence intended for that crime. For example, if a prosecutor withholds evidence showing that a defendant is not guilty of capital murder but willingly fails to present this evidence to the court, that prosecutor should serve life without parole. There are far too many cases of prosecutorial misconduct that lead to innocent men (most often young black men here in the USA) losing decades of their lives to an incompetent and corrupt justice system. Why should a corrupt public official enjoy freedom if their actions result in a completely innocent person losing their liberty? *Update:* After reading through comments, I concede that this idea has flaws. I think perhaps having the corrupt prosecutor in question face a charge of kidnapping (considering an innocent person was deprived of their liberty without just cause), perjury, or "perverting the course of justice" would be a better approach. The sentence should still be 25 years to life. Either way, I don't agree that a public official should go free if their misconduct led to an innocent person serving decades behind bars. Also, don't think that prosecutorial misconduct is a rare occurrence; it is far, far more commonplace than people would like to believe.

How do you differentiate between miscarriage of justice and honest mistakes, incompetence and hard decisions? It’ll take more resources to try prosecutors for something that’s difficult to prove and ultimately rests on the subjective execution of their job as a professional It could have a chilling effect if you’re too stringent, as prosecutors could very easily let dangerous criminals go if they think there’s a chance they’ll be punished. Some prosecutors legitimately have for heinous stuff, but how many of them are actually out there to justify throwing a wrench in the whole system

[MCU] It's been 8 years since the Invasion of New York. Why doesn't the Earth have a proper early warning and interception Space Force in case of future invasions?

It's clear that we have the technology to set one up, why hasn't that been a priority? Even a few satellites in orbit around Pluto or further.

How would an array of satellites help? The invasion came through a portal a few thousand feet above Manhattan. Some around Earth could certainly help to detect energy anomalies and are likely in place, but when dealing with ships capable of traveling intergalactic distances within hours or days, an early warning system out by Saturn or by Earth makes no difference

Does people quitting jobs not add to unemployment rates?

I've just seen on the news that Biden is touting a low of 3.9% unemployment. This seems odd to me considering we are going through a great resignation, while there are not many new job openings. Does people intentionally choosing to quit and resign from their positions not add to the unemployment rate? Admittedly in my lazy Google search all I was getting was articles talking about quitting making you ineligible for unemployment benefits. But I'm wondering about the unemployment rates counted in the labor market

By definition, that 3.9% refers to U3, which is: >U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force ​ And the Civilian labor force is defined as: >The labor force includes all people age 16 and older who are classified as either employed and unemployed, as defined below. Conceptually, the labor force level is the number of people who are either working or actively looking for work. ​ Note that using the BLS, the "unemployed" part of the labor force is defined as: >In the Current Population Survey, people are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They were not employed during the survey reference week. They were available for work during the survey reference week, except for temporary illness. They made at least one specific, active effort to find a job during the 4-week period ending with the survey reference week (see active job search methods) OR they were temporarily laid off and expecting to be recalled to their job. ​ Essentially U3 is people who are looking for jobs/(people with jobs + people looking for jobs) ​ If you quit a job and you have one immediately lined up, you don't count. If you quit a job and retire, you are no longer part of the work force. If you quit a job and go to grad school, you are no longer part of the work force. ​ People quitting jobs to hunt for jobs is a rare thing.

Are there reasons/guidelines to how pills have to be shaped?

Do pills made of the same stuff have to have a different form if they're being sold by a different company? Do certain pills have to have an easily recognizable form that's the same internationally?

Different companies use different shapes for marketing purposes, but a depending on the pill press design, most shapes are fairly easy to achieve. However, for flexibility, round with slightly convex top and bottom is an optimum shape for the common high speed rotary press, with typical speeds of 10,000 hour for small pills with a small, slippery particle size and a heat sensitive binder. That would be about 3 a second, with roughy 20 stations on the press and a pneumatic feed to the hopper

ELI5: When Europeans came to Africa and The Americas, how did they communicate with the locals?

Considering that no one knows the other's language.

"Immersion" is a great way to learn a language fast. Move to another country, and refuse to speak in anything but the local language. Within a month or two, you'll be good enough at it to get by. So if the first group people to meet stayed together long enough, some people on each side would relatively quickly be able to communicate to some extent.

[Star Trek] Why are the Borg so bad at multi-tasking?

This is something I always wondered. I would think that the strength of the Borg Collective is that you have the processing power of millions of minds working on multiple tasks all being directed from a single source. But every time we see the Borg, they really only seem to be good at doing one thing at a time. In the very first encounter between the Federation and the Borg, they only do one task at a time. They send a single drone to scout the Enterprise. He barely defends himself, and when he is shot down they immedietly send another one in his place. They then begin the aim of capturing the Enterprise, but as soon as the Enterprise fights back and does some damage, they stop attacking and focus solely on repairing, even to the point of ignoring intruders from the Enterprise on board. We see this again following the battle of Wolf 359. As soon as Picard issues the "sleep" command, it overrides all other commands and they stop their attack immedietly. Again during the First Contact encounter, the Borg completely ignore the Starfleet strike teams, armed to the hilt with modulating phaser rifles, until they are in a position to interfere with their current goal. A 20th century PC is better at multitasking than these guys. How come?

Imagine people as computers. Each one has a different lineage of manufacturers and vintages; and consequently has different firmware, OS with a long history and different quirks that evolve because of variation in installed software. The differences mean that when faced with a problem there can be a variety of solutions. There may be 16 different word processors each with different strengths and weaknesses and 9 different browsers and 99 different spreadsheet programs and various permutations and which ones. Any exploit will only affect some of the machines and the rest live on. The Borg Collective would be forcefully overwriting the firmware with the same one for all machines and putting a OS image on that wipes every night and re-images. There is no variation except in the base hardware and even then the sys-admin tries very hard to make that consistent. The hive mind may have billions of entities in it but they are all essentially the same person that reacts the same to the same stimuli. There is 1 word processor, 1 browser and 1 spreadsheet program. Find a exploit in 1 and you can compromise every machine. They suffer the further problem of being uncreative. They don't seem to discover technology for themselves; they only steal it. Their 'adaptation' is more scanning their impressive memory of stolen technologies to find one that might be appropriate and apply it to the current problem. They don't seem to actually think ahead or innovate. In a way it separates the Borg from natural selection because of the homogeneity of thought and structure. While they 'adapt' to problems they've already experience they've destroyed their own ability to adapt to things they haven't seen severely limiting their ability to deal with the universe. So basically they don't really learn; they do the same thing over and over and if doesn't work they don't ever come up with new idea's. Single file drone zerging is the only strategy they know and they won't ever get any new ideas because of the weakness of their systems; they forcefully homogenize new members and remove non technical knowledge that way. As soon as a civilization exceeds them in key technologies they will likely dismantle the collective and the collective will just send drones in single file to address the problem. **Addendum/TLDR**: Essentially the Borg are billions of the same person; thus they uni-task because it's really just one person who isn't too smart and is fixated on stealing technology. They can't think outside that box.

why "Steam" is the driving force of most of the power plants for more than 150 years? Does no other fluid has capability to replace it?

Don't underestimate the benefit of it being cheap, clean, readily available and well understood. Another fluid would have to have significant technical advantages over it before making the switch would be worthwhile.

[Dr. Seuss] Are Whos anthropomorphic bacteria?

I ask because they live on a speck of dust/snowflake.

The Who are the Who, it's plain to see. Their characteristics are import to notice, that's the key. A Who has arms and legs and a head full of dreams. Bacteria has none of these, at least, so far as it seems. The world of Seuss is silly and unknown. Full of Yooks and Zooks and Wockets a'plenty. Dwelling on the what's, why's or Who's would be like trying to count wet spaghetti.

CMV: I think we should replace marriage with life partnership, and make marriage nothing but an inofficial tradition/ritual without any power.

Marriage is already the secular institution. Religions have their own words for the religious rite one example would be holy matrimony. Religious people can keep anyone one they want from taking part in their rites. >Why should we allow any religion to continue dictating who is allowed to live together and who isn't? They already cant.

I believe that prices in stores should included the tax already. CMV.

It makes complete sense to me that listed prices should be the price you actually pay. I know that companies love to have prices that end in 99 cents, but they could just calculate that in when pricing. This isn't a huge deal, but this is how they do it in Australia and some other places, and I liked it better because you knew how much stuff would actually cost. Is pricing done like this just to make this seem cheaper, because it seems like the less intuitive way to do things. It seems unlikely that the way pricing is done would change, because companies are would not like it and change is tough, but I would make it so that it was mandatory to include tax and any other extra fee such as handling in the price instead of separate.

This is easy to do in other countries that have a uniform sales tax or VAT etc. In the USA sales tax isn't set by the federal government. Different states have different tax rates, and this can vary based on county, city or even locality. Requiring pricing items after tax would make it a nightmare for companies that advertise and operate in several cities or states. In fact, in some states advertising a price after tax is downright illegal. This is because sales tax isn't supposed to be paid by the company/store that is selling the product, but rather you, the consumer. The companies aren't actually passing on the tax to you by increasing the product price. You're the one supposed to be paying for it in the first place. The government has simply authorized the store to collect the tax for them on your behalf. So you have the right to know exactly how much you are paying the store for the product and how much the government. Think of it like your employer telling you that you make $X while they only give you $X - taxes on your paycheck.

Are aerodynamics important for space travel?

Absolutely. There are several ways in which it is important: 1) When launching into space, rocket designers must be careful about dynamic pressure. Usually launchers have a fairing to protect the satellite, which is dropped right after leaving the atmosphere. Also they try not to travel too fast before reaching a (near) vacuum because drag would be too high. 2) Space is not a perfect vacuum. Some residual atmosphere in the proximity of a planet may produce drag, causing orbits to decay and inducing torques on the spacecraft if not appropriately taken into account. Orbital decay is usually compensated with propulsion, torques to some extent can be compensated by the attitude control system but it's always better to make the spacecraft symmetric or passively stabilized (to avoid saturating reaction wheels or to save propellant). 3) Atmospheric entry at speeds much faster than Mach 5, usually called *hypersonic*, causing spacecrafts to burn up if they don't have a good heat shield.

ELI5: Why does Facebook change their look so much, and why are they forcing people to switch to timeline, AND when they make these changes why does it sometimes make your privacy settings go back to the default ones?

I mean, I know these changes are things you get used to...but I HATE timeline. I'd like Facebook to stay the same or at least similar. The changes never seem to make things better, more efficient, or even more appealing to the eye. They're just a bother. What the hell, Facebook?

Mainly to increase the presence of ads, likelihood to click ads, and availability of ads. Also to provide value so people will keep using facebook. More shared information increases likelihood of others using facebook and data available to advertisers.

[Marvel] How powerful is magic? And what can i do with it?

So last night on the news i heard about some dude named Juggernaut who, through magic, could seemingly never be stopped once he gained sufficient speed. And my cousin Vinny got a tip from some huge dude in space that Doctor Strange is "more powerful by far than any of your fellow humanoids" simply by being a magician. To what extent can i use this magic myself? Can i enchant myself to be indestructible or all-powerful, even on a universal scale?

Unless you're predisposed to it genetically (such as having a certain X-gene configuration), learning pretty much any form of sorcery will be an arduous process. But, the potential power you can obtain from it can be nigh-limitless if you apply yourself correctly. You can also obtain magical power through a Faustian pact or by possessing a magical artifact, but both of these can have serious consequences and drawbacks. Just know that there are powers which dwell beyond the veil, and be aware that everything has a price that must be paid.

Why do people become more awake after a certain point in the night?

I've talked it over with a few people, and everyone's agreed that there's a certain time of night (it varies between people) after which people aren't really tired and become more awake and aware again. After that point, it's much harder to get to sleep. Why does this happen?

You have two systems that drive you to sleep (1) the homeostatic system that tallies your sleep debt and (2) the circadian system that makes sure you sleep at the right time by regulating both sleep drive and arousal (making sure you stay awake). If you wait long enough during the night the circadian drive to put you to sleep will lighten up and it will begin to promote wakefulness. The problem is that eventually your sleep debt will mount and you won't be able to stay awake during the day even if your circadian system is promoting arousal.

Why is the verb for 'to be' so irregular in so many languages?

This is true of every language that I have more than a fleeting knowledge of: English, Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, and German. Some of these languages (German and English) are very similar, but some (Hebrew and Spanish) are very different. Yet all of them have highly irregular conjugations of their being verbs. Why is this? Edit: Maybe it's unfair to call the Hebrew word for 'to be' (היה) irregular, but it is triply weak, which makes it nigh impossible to conjugate based on its form.

In language, common words are more likely to be irregular. This is mostly because these words aren't likely to undergo "analogy", which is effectively people applying common patterns where they otherwise wouldn't be The past of "Dare" used to be "durst", but through analogy, people just gave it the "-ed" treatment Same with "Help", past used to be "Holp" "I holp him" became "I helped him", because people subconsciously couldn't be bothered to remember the irregularity. In otherwords, they found analogous patterns and applied them Given "to be" is the most common verb you'll ever use (in languages that have it), and you'll use it extremely often, speakers aren't gonna forget irregularities, or make the word conform. So "To Be" is gonna keep a lot of irregularities that could have otherwise been lost. Another thing that brings up irregularity is different words being reanalyzed as different forms of the same word You know how "be", "was", and "are" are all forms of the same word? They weren't originally. They were different words. "To Become", "To Reside", "To Be". But people just started using each in different circumstances. Same with "Go" and "Went". Two different verbs becoming one. This happened in some romance languages as well. French "Être" becomes "Serai" in the simple future. Why? Because it's a combination of Latin "Esse" and "Stare". People just used different words in different circumstances, but they eventually gained the same meaning. Esse became The Future, & Subjunctive "To Be" Stare became The Present and Past "To Be". This kinda thing just doesn't hold as well for uncommon words, because we just use the regular patterns. But with extremely common words, it sticks EDIT: Thanks for the silver :3 EDIT2: Getting all the awards lol

How are we able to measure the temperature of inaccessible objects such as the surface and core of the sun or the earth's core?

For the surface of the Sun: Measure the radiation spectrum. It depends on the temperature in a quite simple way. For the core of Earth or Sun you need models of the interior of Earth/Sun, then you see what these models predict for things we can measure (like the surface conditions, the overall mass, how earthquakes propagate through the interior of Earth and so on) and get the temperature from that. As a more direct way: Fusion reactions in the core of the Sun release neutrinos. The relative frequencies of different fusion reactions depend on the temperature (among other things) and different fusion reactions lead to different energy spectra for neutrinos. By measuring that precisely enough on Earth we can check that we understand the core of the Sun. The Earth's interior also releases neutrinos (from radioactive decay), but they don't depend on the temperature. Measuring these still tells us something about the heat released from radioactivity, which helps refining models mentioned before.

Why does the physical size of computer parts in desktops stay roughly the same?

So I've been building my own pc's since around the late 90s. Since then we've had single cores, dual cores, quad cores, 6 cores and now 8 cores each with varying transistor densities. Why has the actual physical size (the piece of metal you hold in your hand) roughly stayed the same (2cm-2.5cm^2). Why did we land on that size in the first place? Even in servers I've seen, they are around the physical size of a desktop cpu just with multiple on one board. Is there a reason they don't make for example, a 10cm^2 cpu and cram like 16 cores into it instead of 4 quad core cpus? RAM has also stayed roughly the same size. TL;DR: What is determining the physical size of computer parts.

Firstly, there's the fact that there are standards according to which your computer parts are built (see, for instance, ATX). Diverging from those is a very big deal, and incurs massive costs. Processors don't directly fit in those standards, and their slots change every few months (usually with pin count) - i'm sure you've experienced some amount of discontent when you've had to upgrade a m/b together with a CPU. Secondly, there's the problem of heat dissipation. Assuming constant physical dimensions of, for instance a CPU, the amount of heat it emits will be greater as its fabrication process gets better (i.e. more transistors & memory fit in the same space). _EDIT_: Although this is a general rule of thumb, it might not always apply; some newer processors, for instance, are clocked at a lower frequency while packing more cores than their predecessors, leading to less heat emissions. At any rate, the greater dimensions allow for better heat dissipation through cooling fans, liquid, and so forth. Thirdly, we've only recently had a serious incentive for reducing physical size of components, namely _smartphones_. As you can see, engineers have been very successful in tackling that issue, but this comes with certain tradeoffs (battery life, limited processing capacity, etc).

ELI5: Social security numbers represent everyone in America with only 9 digits, yet every single account I have - cable, phone, gas, etc. - has at least 12 digits. What purpose do the extra digits serve?

Ability to parse data specific to a region, segment, type, etc. Utility for instance might want to segregate commercial from residential, service areas and other business needs. Having these identifiers in the account number allows data to be sorted quickly and accurately.

Eli5 how did countries get categorised into east and west when the world is round

Real answers pls hahah no trolling from flat earth people

The categorization came from the middle ages and dealt mostly with Eurasia. Europe was the west, Asia was the east. Nowadays the "west" is Europe and places that were settled by Europeans (North and South America, Australia...)

Why is the ozone hole only over Antarctica?

It seems like that is a weird spot for it because not a lot of people live near Antarctica to pollute it

In short it's that the conditions there are most suitable for ozone depletion. The polar vortex isolates the Antarctic atmosphere in winter, and the extreme cold allows the formation of high altitude ice clouds, and the ice provides a platform for the damaging chlorine molecules to deplete ozone. An atmospheric scientist could provide a more comprehensive answer, but that's the basics of it.

Can someone explain in detail what happens in our bodies during a cold?

There're multiple levels of detail that can be used to explain what happened. In the broadest sense, the foreign pathogen that causes a cold was unable to penetrate through your hardened, protective skin. But, after you perhaps touched a doorknob with the pathogen, and then subsequently rubbed your nose, the pathogen was able to find passage into your tissue through the "soft" epithelial layers of the mucous membrane insides your nose. Finding the healthy cells in your nose/throat the virus starts infecting them - turning your cells into little virus factories. As a last ditch effort your cells start releasing molecules that alert nearby cells - it starts your bodies first, and most broad line of defense - the innate immune response. Immediately the surrounding cells release chemicals that promote inflammation, which will in turn dilate capillaries allowing white blood cells and enzymes to get to the infected tissue more easily. Now a protein called COMPLEMENT FACTOR 3 (C3) is released in bulk around the infected area. C3 then binds with a protein called factor B. Factor B is then cut by something called a protease. With B cut and docked, the whole compound is now called C3Bb. C3Bb will then cut a C3 factor, and half of it (C3b) will stick to the surface of a pathogen. C3b can then accept a B factor, and it will be cut by a protease. This C3bBb molecule will then, on the pathogen, start converting C3 to C3b, and they too will stick to the surface. This leads to exponential growth of C3b "tags" on the pathogen. These other pieces of C3, C3a, have already gone to recruit white blood cells, and bring them to the pathogen. Once the leukocyte (white blood cell), is there it will recognize the C3b tags and engulf the pathogen. This is called phagocytosis, and it leads to the destruction of the pathogens by enzymes and caustic chemicals within the leukocyte. This is merely a PIECE of the activity that occurs when you are infected. This explanation covers only a portion of the innate immune system, and doesn't even touch on your adaptive immune response.

Why does high inflation cause less export

In my head it would be the other way around. Could someome please explain why this is the case?

It depends on elasticity but the usual logic is that higher prices (i.e. inflation) means less volume sold which more than reverses the gain from higher prices. There may be other secondary effects such as a devaluing currency that could affect it too.

What are the current limitations of desalination plants globally?

A quick google search shows that the cost of desalination plants is huge. A brief post here explaining cost [https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-water-desalination-plant-cost](https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-water-desalination-plant-cost) With current temperatures at record heights and droughts effecting farming crops and livestock where I'm from (Ireland) other than cost, what other limitations are there with desalination? Or Has the technology for it improved in recent years to make it more viable? Edit: grammer

The island of Curacao has been using reverse osmosis for seawater desalination for years and has been making the process more and more effecient over time. Its not as large scale as an amarican city would need, but they produce all the drinking water for two Caribbean islands.

[General] When you sell your soul to the Devil, what are you really giving away?

Something that has been nagging me lately is the fact that many stories feature deals with the Devil or analogous (selling one's soul for disastrous consequences), yet literally no one ever (from stories with which I'm familiar) asks what they're really giving away; everyone just assumes they know exactly what their soul is, whether or not they believe in such things. There are wildly varied definitions of soul throughout fiction--e.g. souls in Egyptian mythology are very different from those in Harry Potter--and in some cases you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) remain alive without a soul. Is there a non-vague definition (the dictionary definition is uselessly vague here, IMO) or list of properties that could describe the soul? To reconcile the notion of different franchises having disparate souls, let's ground this in the context of deals with the Devil. I have two auxiliary questions to accompany this discussion: how would the negotiation table change if the definition of the soul was clearly and accurately given? What sort of deal would be worth selling one's soul for, based on what the soul is decided to be? [[ Also, inb4 https://youtu.be/0Vr7p5CYWBM?t=2m19s ]]

Although in some settings the lack of a soul can affect a person during life, in some cases "selling your soul" is merely shorthand for agreeing that one's soul--the consciousness that remains when the body dies--will be subject to the devil's rule after one dies. In these settings, the soul is not removed from the body before then.

ELI5: What causes some people to throw up or retch if they smell something disgusting like a rotting animal, or experience something very traumatic like witness someone getting badly injured or receive a phone call with highly emotional news?

This seems to happen a lot in the movies - particularly when someone is witnessing a death or an injury, or receiving a shocking phone call - does it really happen that frequently and if so, why?

Essentially you have a few different mechanics happening here. Smells can cause nausea and vomiting in individuals because the smell causes your brain to assume that you have been exposed to something that is poisonous to you. Horrible smells cause a gag type reflex which suppresses the feeling of hunger, aiding us in avoiding bacteria ridden organic material. In the event of a traumatic experience or stressful situations, the need to vomit is more attributed to the "fight or flight" response. The response your body has in a stressful situation causes the release of adrenaline which heightens your sense of awareness, speeds up heart rate, and also can cause temporary boosts in strength or ability. The backside of this is that spikes in this body mechanic causes vomiting because your body works better without being weighed down by a full stomach.

Wikipedia explains that String Field Theory is a part a of Quantum Field Theory while regular String Theory is not. What exactly is the difference between String Field Theory and String Theory?

The difference between String Field Theory and String theory is, in the broadest of sense, the same as the difference between Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Mechanics. QFT supercedes Quantum Mechanics in that it allows particle creation and annihilation dynamically. QM's basic building block is the Schrodinger equation, you're finding how a particle that you suppose already exists evolves when inside a potential that already exists, and never worry about how both of those things are generated. You can infer from that a whole lot more, but you will run into difficulties describing more complicated problems. In QFT, these things are not always fundamental, it allows us to derive a more microscopic view of e.g. the electromagnetic potential of a charged object, you can derive the famous 1/r^2 law. String Theory is much the same, its basic building block is the action for one string as it moves through space. Again, from knowing that you can infer a whole load of stuff (particle states, anomalies, dimensions of space, existence of branes, etc.) but centrally String theory does not have a proper way of treating strings being created and annihilated dynamically out of the vacuum. We assume they can, and we can figure out many properties of what happens when it does, but the formalism is somewhat lacking. String Field theory exists to re-employ the techniques that made QFT an improvement over QM in this circumstance to solve what seems like a similar obstacle.

ELI5: Fibonacci's golden spiral and the golden ratio

First, it is very important to understand what Fibonacci's sequence is. Fibonacci's sequence is the sequence wherein the last two numbers are added to form the next one. The first few digits are 1,1,2,3,5,8,13. The RATIO comes from what happens when you divide a number by the last one in the sequence. The answer usually is quite close to 1.618. What's really interesting is that the ratio of 1.618 shows up a lot in nature. As such, things with ration properties of 1.618 are extremely visually pleasing. This includes the golden spiral, which gets wider by a factor of 1.618 every quarter turn.

ELI5: How are the heights of mountains measured?

Before people had satellites and electronic methods.

It's called surveying. You stand in a spot, measure the angle of inclination when looking at the top of the mountain, the angle of decline looking at the base, and know the distance from it. Using trigonometry, you can calculate the approximate height. If you are far enough away you can use the curvature of the Earth when you cannot see the base (for explorers sighting things in the distance).

Eli5 how thousands of bats can live together without getting confused from other bats echolocation noises?

Afaik the answer to this is not fully known, but we know that a combination of factors are involved: 1. Bats are capable of distinguishing between their own 'voice' and that of others, similar to how we can. Hearing their own voice is far more disorienting than hearing others' voices. 2. The brain is capable of rejecting information from sources that wildly contradicts its current world model. Even if you play them back their own voice, if the information contained in those echoes does not even remotely correspond to reality, the bat is capable of filtering it out as irrelevant noise. The best way by far to disorient a bat is to play it back a recording of itself, slightly delayed. (This is also one of the best ways to shut up a human, incidentally)

How would I go about becoming a public policy economist, or go into economic research?

Besides just working for whatever university I graduated from.

Probably depends on what exactly you want to do? Original research? Probably a PhD. Work at a think tank or local government? Masters would suffice. You can probably get an entry level position with a bachelors at a Federal Reserve, think tank, or government org, but your career progression will be limited without a graduate degree.

CMV: Extra accommodations in college are a hinderance to preparing proficiency in the workforce

Throwaway account as I teach at a US university. I teach both introductory and upper level science courses. I have students with written documentation from student services that require accommodations. I'm talking about special accommodations - 1.5-2x time on exams, separate testing rooms for exams, access to electronic devices in exams, up to 2x extensions on assignments, a copy of someone else's notes (even though I provide the PPT to all lectures), and in some cases, the ability to retake a quiz or exam with no repercussions on the initial grade. This is frustrating. How does this prepare anyone for "real world" demands? If I went to a boss in a previous job and stated I need double time to complete a project, I would be laughed out of my job. What is the point of having competencies for a course when you can get a note that disregards much of this? Why is my degree and GPA valued the same those who are not held to the same standard? I understand that what you learn in college rarely translates to what happens in the working world. But some of these students are pre-med and are going to be placed in much more stressful situations that won't have accommodations available.... Also, why does it have to be an “accommodation” to receive someone else’s notes? Shouldn’t that be the student responsibility to contact a classmate and perhaps suggest a note swap? ​

In the US, you have the right to reasonable accommodations assistance or changes to a position or workplace - that enable you to do your job despite having a disability. In general, the American Disabilities Act has the employee's back whenever the accommodation is free, such as extra time on tests or training material or changing their work schedule from a 5/2 schedule to a 4/3. Some of the issues your students have would never apply to a "real world" situation. For example, poor eyesight or dyslexia may prevent them from understanding your PPTs, but in real world situations these are easily corrected with extra time or dyslexia-friendly fonts. It's true that some your students' disabilities will prevent them from procuring certain jobs. One of your premed students may find they are incapable of being a doctor (although there are many types of doctors, so someone with a bad speech impediment might be fine as a pathologist or surgeon, for example). But they can apply their degree to many different types of jobs that they *are* capable of. That's no different than a nondisabled student figuring out they don't have the right temperament for their initial career choice and switching to something better suited to their talents.

ELI5 Why do some dishes get so hot, sometimes even hotter than the food, after microwaving?

The microwaves generated are absorbed well by water and fat in food. However, some other materials also absorb the same microwaves, often better than food. Metal is the obvious one. It can absorb microwaves so well it catches fire and/or ruins the appliance. Some bowls and plates made of certain ceramic also can absorb microwaves well. Sometimes it's due to trace metals in the ceramic or glaze. Other times it's just what the ceramics are made out of.

CMV: The system of Significant Figures that we use in most sciences is an inherently flawed system.

As we learn in science classes, it is important to know the precision of our measurements, and it is important to know the difference between exact numbers and measured numbers. The scientific world keeps track of numerical precision through a system called "significant figures". Some classes beat students senseless with this system. I was in one such class. My school recently adopted a policy that the first unit of every science course has to be about metrics and significant figures. If you're not familiar with Significant Figures, here's a basic summary: * All non-zero digits are significant. * Trailing zeros in an integer (no decimal place) measurement are just place holders and are not significant. * Leading zeros are also place holders and aren't significant. * Trailing zeros following the decimal point and zeros between digits are significant. * In scientific notation, all digits before the multiplication sign are significant. All measured numbers have a certain number of "significant" digits. Numbers with more "significant" digits are said to be more precise. This seems idiotic to me. I understand that precision itself is an extremely thing to keep track of, but as far as I can tell, this system is flawed. I will try to articulate why I believe this through a typical use case. A student takes out a yardstick that is equally precise with all numbers. That is, any measurement taken with this stick is exactly as precise as any other measurement. This student measures a 1-inch long paper clip. Then, he or she measures a 12-inch long textbook. It seems obvious to me that since these two measurements were done with the same yardstick, they are equally precise. But according to Significant Figures, the textbook measurement is more precise than the paperclip measurement! It baffles my mind that this is the case. No one has explained to me how it is fair that a double-digit number is nearly always inherently more precise than single-digit number. It's totally possible that this is a problem with my scientific education, and if that's the case, please enlighten me. EDIT: View has been changed. Thanks everyone. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

There's two relevant factors you want to look at. One is the percent that a measurement is off by, the other is the absolute amount. If the measurement is 1.1 mm, it can be off by as much as 0.1 mm, or 10% of the length. On the other hand, if it is 1000.1 mm, it can only be off by 0.01%, even if the absolute error is the same at 0.1 mm. Both are important, but significant figures deals with the percent error, not the absolute.

Eli5 how could an electromagnetic impulse, say from the sun for example, disable a whole power grid?

Lets say you have a high voltage transmission line going between a power station and a city. These can be hundreds and even thousands of miles long. So if you get a powerful electromagnetic wave hitting it then it will act as an antenna and the wave will create a current in the line. Since the line is so long you can get a huge current in it from this electromagnetic wave and more then likely some part of the line will not handle the current and melt. The power grid is made up of these transmission lines all connected together. But even if these transmission lines will fail, hopefully it will just blow all the fuses, it will be an easy fix that would take no more then a few days for linesmen to go around fixing all the issues. The real problem is with the more sensitive equipment like switches, transformers and generators. In addition to being much more complex and therefore much harder to fix they also tend to be enclosed in an oil bath to prevent short circuits in the extremely high voltages they operate in and also to cool the equipment better then air. So not only do you need to unwind a huge coil to get to the part of the wire that failed and then wind the coil again but most of the coil will not be there any more as the oil have burned it away. If you get any of these high current events in just a fraction of the transformers it will cause huge issues for the grid as you can not transfer power from the power stations to the cities any more. And it is not like you can just order a new transformer station to be delivered the next month because there are very few factories making them in the world as the demand for new power grids is relatively low. The current plan for dealing with such an event is to be able to detect it early using space probes that have been installed between the Sun and Earth. When we have detected a wave of charged particles from the Sun strong enough to damage our power grids we will shut it all down. Turn off all the power stations and disconnect all the switches. It will probably require linesmen going out and manually disconnect huge disconnected or even cutting some of the lines intentionally. This means that when the electromagnetic pulse arrives we will not have one huge grid but only small pieces of lose wires around and these will not build up as much current as the longer lines would. Most importantly sensitive equipment like power stations and transformers will not be connected to the grid.

Would someone with an economics degree from the U.S.S.R. be employable in the United States as an economist?

Depends almost entirely on work experience. Someone with an econ degree, even from a US school, from the 1980s would not, in general, be employable as an economist. However, if they had been working as an economist for the last 40 years, they definitely would be.

[MCU] Why Not A Left-Handed Infinity Nano-gauntlet?

Statistically, more people are right-handed than left. They saw that Thanos' gauntlet hand was seriously f'd up from his Snap, don't you think that Tony or Rocket or Professor Hulk would have planned and instead made a left-handed nano-gauntlet to not permanently disable Hulk's dominant hand/arm?

Between going for another gauntlet, going for another snap, following Thanos' theatrics near-exactly, it's hard to know how much of the mechanics of the Infinity Stones they really understood. With such broad unknowns, it's probably safest to go with what you know works, and stick to what Thanos did as closely as possible.

ELI5: If salt is deadly to snails, how are there sea snails? Also, why is salt deadly to snails?

​

In nature, things will always move from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. When this happens through a permeable membrane (skin which is not water-tight), we call this Osmosis. If the % of salt in a sea-snail's body is equal to the saltiness of the water it lives in, he will not lose moisture, but if we took him out of the sea and put him in a bucket of water which has extra salt dissolved in it, the sea snail would suffer the same fate as a land-snail covered in salt.

ELI5: How do people create these amazingly looking space/Milky Way photos? I can barely see a few stars in the nights sky.

Long exposure is one way to do it, yes, but astrophotographers also use a technique called "stacking", where they stack multiple layers of shorter exposure pictures over one another. Some people prefer to use this method over taking a single long exposure because it's usually easier to fine tune your picture. For example, if your camera runs out of battery, or something moves in shot that shouldn't be there, or you accidentally bump the camera, it's a lot easier to edit that in post processing and simply remove those frames rather than have your whole long exposure ruined. Also, this method might cut your shooting time in half. But stacking isn't better than long exposure or vice versa and it's really all up to the person taking the picture to decide.

How long after publishing a paper is it still ok to present it at a conference?

Lets say you haven't published anything new for X months and you have no new results to present since that last paper. Would you still present the results of that paper if X=6? X=9? What about after a year? When would people start to get irritated? Obviously this question is relevant for a field where people primarily publish in journals and just give talks at conferences, not for fields where conference proceedings are written.

In the biological sciences, it’s generally considered inappropriate to present posters or talks of your already published work unless it was purposefully invited. Conference talks/posters are for new things—it can be an extension of the previously published stuff, it just can’t literally be the content of your last published paper.

What are some arguments refuting the notion that empirical evidence is the only source of truth or facts?

A popular line of argumentation on reddit is that empirical evidence is the *only* source of truth or facts. Or that it *should or ought* be only source of truth or facts. Or that it is significantly "better"/more reliable than non-empirical evidence. Then, based on these arguments, of course, they tend to lead to unremitting scientism. E.g. if the only worthy truth seeking is empirical in nature (which is the domain of science) and thus everything not science is not worthy. What are some arguments against this line of thought?

>it should or ought be only source of truth or facts. What is the source of *that* truth? Also, mathematics is a good counter-example. It is clearly *a priori*. Scientistic types will then have to appeal to formalist or analytic theories of mathematics in order to account for mathematical knowledge. But we know, after the foundational crisis in mathematics, that they are false. Things that don't seem to be susceptible to empirical investigation, but we still think are factual, include: 1. Normative truths: moral obligations, epistemic obligations, etc. (E.g., "You ought to believe what you have net evidence for" or, "If you believe X, and you believe X --> Y, then you ought to believe Y." Indeed, if you are a defender of reason, logic, etc., as scientistic types take it that they are, then this essentially commits you to the objectivity of these kinds of normative facts which, incidentally, cannot be known on the basis of empirical observation or measurement.) 2. Modal truths 3. Mathematical truths ________________ See: * BonJour, *In Defense of Pure Reason* (1998). (This is one of the most rigorous and comprehensive defenses of rationalism.) For a brief primer and easier discussion, you can also take a look at Huemer's *Approaching Infinity* (2016), particularly *Ch. 7, 7.3 Synthetic a priori knowledge*, ... and relevant sections after that.

ELI5: Why do many cultures see/teach sexuality as being immoral?

I've seen some people answer this question by saying "because of religion," but that doesn't answer the question, because religion is a human construct, so why would religion teach sexuality as immoral in the first place?

Keep in mind most modern religions were founded thousands of years ago. During this time sex and other related acts were very unsafe. You could easily contract a venereal disease or get your (or your partner) pregnant. Some forms of venereal disease, were pretty much a death sentence, and women quite frequently died in the process of child birth. By having an authority figure (religion in this case) tell people to restrict these acts or anything similar, they were keeping their followers alive.

ELI5: Why do the same species of freshwater fish (like pike, musky, perch) show up in non-contiguous freshwater bodies- especially in the Wisconsin-Minnesota-boundary waters area?

Wouldn’t the separation create different species? Are they all different species with differences we can’t observe? Were efforts by humans to repopulate a factor?

* most of those lakes are contiguous, connected by small streams and wetlands not shown on maps * those areas are subject to flooding, enough to mix things up every few decades * speciation requires thousands of years of separation, enough for lakes and rivers to shift around and reconnect

ELI5: why is it that all humans have ten fingers and ten toes (and other common features) yet genetics allows random mutations for skin color hair color , height, weight, etc? why don't we see random three arms on some people, twelve toes, or three ears ?

Better answer, biology allows (and encourages) variation, above mutation. If your parents have different shades of skin, you are likely to inherent a shade similar, but different than either of them. If your parents have the same hair color, you are likely to as well, but if they have different color or shade, you are likely to inherit a shade with a slight variation from either of them. This isn't a mutation, it's a variation. If your parents come from populations of people that have different number of fingers from one another, you could inherit the traits of one, the other, or a variation of both. As it stands, your parents (absent a genetic, inheritable mutation) have the same number of fingers, so that's the number of fingers you are likely to inherit.

ELI5: If "black" is the absence of all colour, why is the outcome colour "black" when I mix a bunch of colours of paint together?

Paints color is based on what light they absorb. So red paint absorbs all colors but red, the red light bounces away from the paint and hits your eyes. So mix a bunch of paint together and you end up with a mix that absorbs a little bit of everything, and the result is black.

[Star Wars]What were the different roles of the ARC Troopers vs. the Clone Commandos? What were the differences in training, doctrine, units sizes, tactics, etc?

I know that real-life countries can sometimes have different special forces, but none of the typical kinds of divisions seem to apply to the ARC vs. Commando distinction. I.e. this isn't like a service division (DELTA Force in the US Army vs SEALs in the US Navy) or a role division (Green Berets being unconventional warfare, Rangers being more of a highly elite conventional unit, and Marine Force Recon focusing on intelligence collection).

So Arc troopers and commandos mainly differ in when they were chosen for their roles, and how they where trained which leads to their different roles and uses on the battlefield. Arcs are chosen from fully grown clones that show exceptional skill, creativity, and leadership. They get additional training in spec ops work and advanced battle tactics and strategy. However they are generally work with and are in command of regular troopers or small platoons for special missions like the rescue mission of master Peile. They still fall Under the general army command structure. Clone commandos on the other hand are for lack of a better term born for their role, they are chosen and bread from the embryo to be commandos. They grow up in groups of 4, and were trained by about a dozen or so bounty hunters hand picked by Jango Fett. Unit cohesion and stealth tactics are their big focus. And each individual in a unit will specialize in a single task. All will be able to do each other’s tasks sufficiently but the demo experts will be better at setting charges, you tech specialist will be better at splicing and your marksman will be able to make harder shots than the rest. Because of this unit cohesion and fast, stealthy skill set they are deployed on extremely special usually deep penetration missions far behind the front line battlefields, such as to retrieve the body of the Jedi master killed by Savage Opress, or destroy a secret CIS science facility developing a virus specifically designed to target clone troopers’ specific DNA sequences. You will almost never see deployed with regular clone troopers and the outside of the typical chain of command reporting to Jedi master Arligan Zey who headed the special forces division of the grand army. While an Arc trooper may be able to go toe to toe with a commando and hold their own, a commando is never alone.

ELI5: How do people "blackout" from drinking too many alcoholic beverages but remain conscious with no recollection?

This happens to me way too often so I might as well understand what is happening.

Your brain has to keep track of a lot of different things at the same time. Part of the brain deals with this "what's going on right now" information. It's way too much information to store long term though. So your brain makes decisions on what gets moved into "I should remember this later" parts of the brain and what just gets thrown away to make room for what's continuing to happen right now. Alcohol messes with the brains ability to move stuff into longer term memory. You drink enough of it and it pretty much shuts down the process all together, which means by the time you recover from your drunken stupor, you brain didn't save any of that information.

Is human intelligence limited?

It depends on what kind of threshold you mean. It's very unlikely that any human being will be able to keep the whole of science and mathematics in his or her mind at once, for example. But if you're talking about the kind of intelligence where we can comprehend concepts if we put our minds to a particular concept, then no, there is no limit to intelligence in that regard because complex things get broken down into manageable levels. The motion of particles, for example, is *immensely* complex, so we break it down and name each and every one of the different things going on.

ELI5: is it necessary to use hydrocarbons as accelerants in compressed goods, like deodorants? Why can't nitrogen be used?

Light aromatic Hydrocarbons are convenient because they turn into liquids when compressed by moderate amounts (a few bar). The mixture inside the aerosol canister will be part-gas and part-liquid, with the exact composition depending on the temperature and pressure. When some pressure is released (by spraying the aerosol), some of the liquid will turn to gas, absorbing heat energy from outside the can to do so, until the liquid-gas equilibrium is restored but now with less liquid. The pressure the gas is under will remain approximately the same, so the aerosol sprays almost as powerfully at 25% remaining as when it was full. Nitrogen only liquifies at much greater pressures and much lower temperatures. An aerosol propelled by gaseous nitrogen would need to be much stronger and heavier making it uneconomical. It would also have a very linear usage curve - when 25% of the nitrogen is used it would only spray 25% as powerfully. Finally, the things you want to spray from an aerosol (perfumes, glues, hairspray, paint) tend to be organic molecules and therefore hydrocarbons are also the solvent in the aerosol. A nitrogen aerosol would need some mechanism to push the liquid perfume/paint/whatever out while isolating it from the liquid.

ELI5: Classes, classism, and social mobility in the UK as opposed to the USA

.

In the UK we have the generally accepted classes of working, middle and upper. The place you are put has very little to do with the money you earn and more to do with who you are and who your parents are. For example, most high earning footballers would be considered 'working class' by themselves and others, it is a badge of honour for an actor to speak about their 'working class roots' despite earning millions of pounds. Working class is salt of the earth poor but honest kind of thing, but comprises everything from the unemployed to the plumbers that can earn a hundred or so an hour, so you can have very well off working class, they have big TVs and comfy sofas. Upper class can be seen as royalty, aristocracy, and people along those lines, they send their children to Eton and Harrow and have large homes that have been passed through family, but don't always have a large amount of money, there are a lot of stately homes in this country that are open to the public as the residents can't afford to run the homes on their own income any more. They furnish their houses with antique furniture and heirlooms which often don't match but are probably worth more than your organs. Middle class is more complex, they are often categorised as 'strivers', basically people who in the past were working class but seek to be upper class, this category is often massively divided up as it is fairly diverse, and can include anything from a manager of a bank branch to a doctor or above. These are the people who can become massively obsessed with cutlery order or the minutiae of etiquette. The working class don't care because it doesn't matter, the upper class know it, but don't really care if anyone else does. They buy their furniture new from designer stores and their homes look like show homes. The US system is almost entirely money based and is very different If you're interested in learning more I'd recommend "Watching the English" by Kate Fox, it is a wonderful break down of british culture and sums up the class system really well.

Open relationships/non-monogamous as an academic - need to keep secret?

Throwaway account. I am curious how common this is in the academy. Given the unpredictable nature of the jobs market and the need to travel often for field research, and the two-body problem, this arrangement makes the most sense for me. Another question I have is whether I need to keep this aspect of my life on the down low in the time before getting tenure, even from colleagues, in order to not create any fuss over one's personal life? I'm already pretty low key and reticent in discussing my personal life so this is more of a question of whether I should intentionally keep it a secret, aside from a few trusted friends. For what it's worth, non-monogamy/polyamory is not a protected class like LGBTQ from the perspective of anti-discrimination laws. A third question is whether embracing this kind of lifestyle would preclude me from jobs in religiously-affiliated institutions (BYU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, to name a few that lie on different points in the spectrum of religiosity and strictness), under some morality clash with campus culture clause or preventing any kind of uproars from parents etc.

Generally, it depends on your colleagues, really, however: > A third question is whether embracing this kind of lifestyle would preclude me from jobs in religiously-affiliated institutions (**BYU** Yes.

Serious question: when did pooping become taboo?

Yes, some may consider this puerile, but I'm genuinely curious. Animals poop all the time with no regard for decorum. Yet we, as a species, have developed huge, special boxes so that we may poop privately. There are unspoken rules in bathrooms (avoid eye contact, etc) that reinforce the notion that pooping should be a very private function. We avoid talking about it in 'proper' settings and yet many of us joke about it in more informal settings. It's considered an offensive (or at least inappropriate) topic by many and yet it's one of the very few things that literally every human on the planet has in common with one another. I believe every (or nearly every, at least) culture has the same basic privacy standards around pooping, so it doesn't appear to be culturally influenced, but rather something more endemic to human nature. So -- why are we so uptight about pooping when all other living organisms on the planet seem to not give a rip? Were we always this way?

I Could point you towards Norbert Elias's *The History of Manners (The Civilizing Process, Vol. 1)* in wich he does, on a typical eliasian faishon, a sociogenetic analysis of the Manners on French and German society. Tracing black to the development of the idea of *kultur* and *civilizacion* right at the begginning of the modern era, he also finds where our actual "good manners" come from. By developing a society where the bonds of interdependence are much tighter and because of that, the levels of scrutiny the higher strata of society puts between themselves are much higher, starting by their manners, shitting included, of course. He explicitly says in the book that the reacionário of disgust these societies developed to shitting comes from that era where "the civilizing process" was pressed against the top layer of society, and adopted by the classes below them in an effort to emulate their practices, hence their power.

Why do bats make such good reservoirs for zoonotic viruses?

The main factor is that they are extremely social, living in colonies with millions of individuals while also traveling long distances and interacting with other colonies. They move back forth between colonies picking up and passing around diseases giving them a lot of opportunity to evolve. Pig pathogens are far more likely to be able to infect people but pigs don't get around nearly as much as bats, if a new pathogen infects one pig farm it will take a lot less time for it burn through the population.

What's the smallest object you could 'stand on' that would have the same gravitational pull as earth, but you wouldn't have to worry about getting sucked/collapsing/spaghetification ?

Just something I was thinking about...

You have two constraints to deal with: 1. The gravitational field g=GM/r^2 = 9.8 N/kg 2. The tidal field f=2GMh/r^3 where h is your height. You can combine these into a restriction on r, independent of mass: r=2hg/f. If you're 6 feet tall and you want a tidal force less than 0.01 g (let's say), then this gives you a radius of 1200 feet.

What kind of philosophy is useful for self improvement/life in general?

Would something like stoicism be a good place to start? Basically looking for philosophers or "genres" of philosophy that look at the way we live our lives.

This depends on how you define "improvement". Do you wish to find meaning in a seemingly meaningless world? Look at existentialism. Do you feel conflicted internally and wish for balance? Look to Plato and the allegory of the chariot. Do you want to overcome desire? Buddhism might be interesting.

When colors on fabric or paper fade from sunlight, where does the color go?

Does it just float away?

When a fabric has colour it is caused by a dye or pigmentation. Colour is caused by deflecting or absorbing certain wavelengths of light. Dyes are chemical species which absorb light to provide a specific colour due to their particular structure. When exposed to chemical reactions like photodegredation (light breaking down the chemicals) or bleaching it will cause the chemical dyes to break apart and lose their shape, stopping them from absorbing that light.

ELI5: How come my hands get slipperier when they're wet with water, yet laytex/nitrile/rubber/whatever gloves are such a pain to put on wet hands?

Presence of adhesive forces between skin, water and those materials? Basically, in plain terms, water is "sticky" for those materials, so when there's a touch surface between those materials and wet hands, due to the adhesive forces there's *increased friction* as you try to slide the material over your skin. Increased friction = more resistance = harder to put on gloves.

Why is a frozen and thawed banana so much sweeter, and how does this change its nutritional value?

Putting together the information here One of the main processes in bananas (and all fruit) ripening is the amylase dependent conversion of savoury or flavourless starches in to sugar (specifically glucose). Amylase is a common enzyme (also present in your saliva) which converts starch to sugar and is an important part of your digestion. There are essentially 2 ways something will taste sweeter. 1) There is more sugar present or 2) Your tastebuds can access the sugar more rapidly Freezing and then defrosting fruit essentially lets both of these things happen. Freezing causes water in the fruit cells to crystallise and expand. This destroys the cell walls and is the principal reason defrosted fruit is soggy and limp. However it also means that the cell contents (all those sugars) are now in the juices that are running off the fruit and if you taste the juice you'll find it is very sweet. You can experience this at the most extreme if compare the difference in sensation between holding a mouthful of orange juice in your mouth or holding a slice of orange (without chewing). In the case of a banana there isn't much excess of liquid to run off so those exposed cell contents will largely stay within the fruit pulp/body rather than running off. The other thing that happens while the fruit is defrosting is that all the amylase and starches in the cells are now able to diffuse (a little) through the defrosting fruit pulp. The amylase is no longer confined to the cell it started in, where it may have completed its starch converting job, and is free to find any remaining starch that may have come out of other nearby cells. This means that some of the remain starches will be converted to some extra sugars.

ELI5:How come blowing on fire sometimes helps it burn (such as when kindling), but other times puts it out (such as candles)?

Any time a question about fire pops up, it’s useful to start with the fact that combustion needs three things to happen: fuel, oxygen, heat. If any of those is removed or lowered to a certain point, things won’t combust. Now, if combustion of a fuel releases enough heat to keep the reaction going, and that heat is being released upon more fuel and oxygen, things will keep combusting. To create a fire, you need vaporized (gaseous) fuel to combust, that’s how you get a coloured gas above your pool of solid or liquid fuel. This means the combustion needs to be hot enough to vaporize whatever fuel it’s burning and keep this vaporized fuel particles hot until they contact oxygen. This means that as long as a fire has a steady amount of fuel and oxygen coming in, it’ll be sustained. The moment you take away either the fuel, the oxygen, or the heat, you’ll quench the fire. Now, when you blow on a lit candle, you’re doing a couple things: 1. You increase the replenishment of oxygen; 2. You blow away the fuel (vaporized candle wax); 3. You cool down the reaction location (gas bubble around the wick). You can see that because a candle is not burning the wick as its main fuel, but burning the wax, you can quench a candle fire by blowing on it. Now, things like kindling are a different story. Kindling is the fuel in this case, and that makes the situation the following when You blow: 1. You add more oxygen; 2. You cool down the zone around the fire. Now, because the fuel itself is very, very close to the combustion (solid instead of a gas), the temperature of the fuel can stay high even if the gas bubble around it is colder due to your blowing. This allows the kindling to become hot enough to vaporize and turn into a fire. You’ll notice that usually the fire only appears after you stop blowing on the kindling, because it’s only then that the vaporized fuel keeps hot enough to combust once it’s released (the gas bubble around the fuel isn’t being cooled down by your blowing anymore)

[MCU/TFAWS] Zemo is a smart and resourceful individual. Why doesn't he (try to) learn magic?

Zemo is cunning, resourceful, and wicked smart. He also has a hatred towards super-soldiers; whether that extends to other types of super-beings isn't clear. So, given his mental acuity, why hasn't he tried to learn magic? Not only would it suit his mental abilities, it would even the playing field against super-soldiers. Although not quite Doctor Strange, Zemo would make one hell of a sorcerer.

With what time? With what opportunity? Zemo was a black-ops Sokovian soldier that had a single-minded purpose following his nation’s destruction at the hands of the Avengers. Immediately after that he was in a holding cell for what had to be the remainder of his life. How would he have even heard of Kamar Taj? And even if he did, how would he justify making that journey on little more than hearsay and fairy tales? And even then, you think Zemo has it in him to “surrender control” to the point where magic is possible? Signs point to no.

Why are philosophers so quick to distinguish themselves from "common" people?

I've noticed recently there's a habit for philosophers or for people who study philosophy to talk about "common" or "normal" people, and assume that common people don't think about the world. It's often happened in philosophy classes I've been in where people will say things like, "Most people don't think about the world; they only believe what's convenient for them and don't question their beliefs. But, it's important for all of us to pursue the truth. That is why philosophy is important, because knowing the truth is important." One of my old philosophy teachers from my community college told me something like this when I was applying to university. She said, "You know, being people who think about the world, sometimes we can feel out of place. But, going to college is good because you'll be around people who are more like yourself." I've heard lots of things like that. Maybe it's just been my experience (if it hasn't been yours, let me know), but it seems there's always this idea that philosophers are somehow different from normal, everyday people, and the people on the side of philosophy are obviously superior. There are texts I can think of too that give me this impression; for example, in *Nicomachean Ethics*, in the first book, Aristotle talks what the "many" believe happiness is as opposed to what "cultivated people" believe it is. And, with Socrates, it doesn't seem like he had a high opinion of the masses; the allegory of the cave, for example, doesn't seem to show a high opinion of them. I just never understood this notion; it sounds pretentious and elitist to me. Why is everyone so certain that common people don't think about the world? Why is everyone so certain that they're not part of the common people? Who are they even talking about? I don't have faith that this is a good distinction, and that aside, that's millions of people; I don't have faith we can make any serious generalizations about them. It just never made sense to me. But maybe I'm just one of the stupid sheeple who knows

One reason may be to distinguish themselves from laymen. "Layman" may sound like a demeaning term, but it really is only descriptive of a person who does not have specialized knowledge on a particular topic. People are less likely to think of themselves as scientists or mathematicians if they do not have professional or academic training, but philosophy is a field where people may think they are of significant proficiency when they are not. It is *because* such normal people *do* think about the world that a philosopher may want to distinguish themself. It is not a trivial thing to learn how to think clearly, and it takes a lot of time to become informed on the massive amounts (sometimes thousands of years worth!) of literature available on even a single topic or question. That "the masses" may have very uninformed and unrefined ideas on a topic can reasonably be very frustrating for a philosopher, especially if they have good reason to think that the masses are *wrong* about their misguided beliefs.

I’ve heard that nuclear fission and/or fusion only convert not even 1% of all the energy stored in an atom. How much energy is actually stored in an atom and is it technically possible to “extract” all of it?

The energy stored in an atom would be the mass-energy of the atom, found by E=mc^(2). If you annihilate the atom with an antimatter atom, you could convert it all into energy in the form of EM radiation. It's technically possible, but you're more likely to get a whole bunch of other particles too.

ELI5: that sentence that only uses buffalo

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. I've tried reading about how it works but I always get confused.

What helps is replacing the words with near synonyms. * Buffalo 1 - a type of **bison** * Buffalo 2 - a city in **New York** * Buffalo 3 - a verb meaning to **intimidate** And now we can make the sentence New York bison New York bison intimidate intimidate New York Bison. And if we add a few commas and a few words for clarity, we can say: **New York bison, who are intimidated by New York bison, themselves also intimidate other New York bison.**

CMV: Black Lives Matter, the left and left-leaning media are too focused on homicides caused by police and there should be more focus on general homicides

I consider myself to be liberal, and definitely opposed to police violence and force in general. I think Derek Chauvin should be, at the very least convicted of manslaughter. I think we should rethink and restructure our criminal justice system, and end the war on drugs ASAP. I think no knock warrants appear to be unconstitunional, and that the language for qualified immunity should be changed so that even unknowing violations of constitutional rights open the police to civil liability. i think police are doing way more than they are qualified to do. I think that BLM is right that cops should not be killing many of the men we have seen in videos but this is where I begin to disagree with the movement and the left in general. When considering the totality of the statistics, I believe that blacks are not particularly at risk of homicide by police and furthermore, the overwhelming risk of life is at the hands of civilians and not police. I think that if Black Lives Matter is about protecting black lives then it ought to rank-order the risks to black lives and give proportional consideration to those risks. Finally, the data exposes a different story than what I've heard from the left and left-leaning media, and I am disturbed at how much focus has been given to this story, and of the scale of the protests. My rough conclusions are as follows: 12.7% of the population is Black, and 73% is white. In 2018, 7400 black people died from homicide , and made up ~52% of homicides that year. ~42% were white. Comparing that to homicide by police in 2018, white people make up ~40% of the total, while black people made up ~21%. 399 and 209. In both instances, blacks are overrepresented based on population, but the general homicide rate had them at a rate more than 30% higher than death by police, and caused ~7200 more deaths. So, by population, blacks are overrepresented in police killings by 65%, while the general homicide they are at a staggering amount of 309%! It's worthy of note that the proportion of whites killed are roughly consistent. It would seem fair to me that the general homicide rate in the black community provides some basis for the greater representation of police involved homicides. This is little to say about killings that were justified, but those need to be looked at on a case by case basis. On the other hand here are some police comparisons. In the UK, the police killed 3 people in 2018 and 2019. In the US, the police killed 2000 in the same amount of time. Considering that the UK has 20% of the population and 25% of the homicide rate (using the second to give some idea as to the reasonableness of the cops responding with deadly force). That means that they kill at roughly 3% of the rate our cops do. Okay, that looks bad for our police, but wait. In the UK, 1 police officer died by homicide in 2018-2019, while 103 died by homicide in the US. Meaning they are killed at .97% of the rate. This means that a cop is 10300% more likely to be killed in the US while citizens of any color are 3300% more likely to be killed by a cop in the US. So on both sides of the equation we have people who should have a greater fear for their lives. Fear causes mistakes, and police are just human. Nothing more, nothing less. In summary, It's clear that we live in a more dangerous country than other developed countries and we have much more work ahead of us. We ought not recklessly cast a group of people as villians, but instead we should try to sympathize with all sides of any problem we face as a society. Foremost, we need to keep the facts in order and focus on what's most important. I gathered data from: Population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1 General Homicide stats - https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/ Police Homicide Stats- https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ 2018 police death stats- https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2018-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty#:~:text=According%20to%20statistics%20reported%20to,51%20officers%20died%20in%20accidents. 2019 police death stats-https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty UK Police Deaths- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom?wprov=sfla1 Two notes: -A lot of the conclusions that I have come to are based on the correlation between homicides and police homicides. I get that it's not a perfect link. I would think general crime stats would've worked but I've read that over-policing is the cause of this. With that in mind, is there a better controlling factor when comparing stats? -I assume some are going to say that they don't trust stats. Well, I ask, what else can be used to determine the severity of a problem? Please let me know if any of my methodologies are incorrect. I look forward to the conversation. Edit: I had a thought about this that I think is reasonable. My own proposed Delta, I suppose.The important correlation that I'm missing is, how effective is "focusing" on a particular issue at alleviating said issue? We had intense focus on crime as a society when you look at history. has it helped those rates move down? Certainly it has led us toward over-policing. So maybe it hasn't.

>I think that if Black Lives Matter is about protecting black lives then it ought to rank-order the risks to black lives and give proportional consideration to those risks. Do you use this reasoning for other policy and conversation as well? Like, whenever someone brings up an issue, do you mention another issue in the world that you think inflicts greater harm and needs to be fixed first?

ELI5: Gonzo journalism

It is essentially learning about your subject by becoming part of it and often taking a side or stance from ones own perspective. Hunter S. Thompson was essentially the king of this method in his time. He would involve himself fully in whatever story he was covering and then tell it all from his perspective and in his own words.

How do I learn scripting languages?

The title pretty much says it but for some context.. I'm relatively proficient in Java and have a decent understand of OOP in general but when it come to scripting languages such as JS and python it seems to be a completely different paradigm that I just can't wrap my head around. When it's simple scripts like FizzBuzz I don't have any issues but as soon as I start to work on more complex applications I start to get lost or don't even know where to begin for individual tasks. Recently, I've been trying to develop a React app and I find as soon as I start to write some code I'll just get lost in a mess of my own spaghetti code. Any ideas or suggestions as to how I can get better at this style of programming would be greatly appreciated.

What you're really asking is how to structure an application. This is more about understanding and incorporating different design methodologies than understanding the nuts and bolts of a language (though there is considerable overlap.) This is actually where things get tricky, because there is no exact right answer for how you should make an application. If we think functionally and imagine our application as taking some input, doing something with it and producing a desired output, that "doing something with it" part could be done in a bunch of different ways. Some of these will be efficient, some of them will not be efficient, some of them will be following "best practices" and some of them won't. To be sure, if you would ask someone on the internet what the best way to it do was, you would get about 30 different opinions each one claiming to be correct. Ok, that's depressing to think about, at least it is for me, sometimes it's nice to have a clear cut, easy to follow path! However, this is essentially what makes computation non-trivial. Learning a language is not difficult in the grand scheme of things, it's using that language to solve problems and furthermore developing a skill set to understand the concepts of computation and computer organization so that you can do it efficiently that is difficult. This is a process you will be refining and perfecting your whole career. So where to start? As they they say, imitation is the best form of flattery, and a good place to start it's reading other people's code seeing how they structure it. The cliche is true, you will spend far more time reading code then writting it. There are also countless books and tutorials about this very topic, some with a much more general flavor and others that are more specific towards particular languages like JavaScript or Python as you mentioned those are the languages that were giving you trouble. One thing to keep in mind when you're beginning is that it's okay if your code is spaghetti and a mess. Obviously you want clean, efficient and readable code, but that's a skill and it takes time to develop how to write that way. Just getting the stupid thing to work and produce the correct output is a fantastic first step. However, don't get lazy and just stop there! Refactoring your code is really important for developing good habits. You got it working, fantastic! Now go back and start cutting out the fat, un-spaghettifi it so to speak. As you learn new methodologies and design principles, go back again and try to incorporate them in your old code. It's a long process, with many pitfalls and suggestions of what it the best way forward, but if you keep at it you will find success.

ELI5: What is an abstract data type (ADT)?

Is a ADT just: int x = 5; and why is a Linked List not a ADT?

An abstract datatype is like a machine that has a control panel. The user(programmer) can put an item in, take items out, ask questions about the number of items, things like that. But the user(programmer) has no idea, and shouldn't know, how the machine is keeping track of the items. For a real example there is a list type in c#. It doesn't matter if it is stores items as a linked list, an array, or whatever. All you(the programmer) care about is that it is a list. An ADT is just like an interface but non-language specific. So no matter what language you're working in if you are writing a List datatype it should have the same handles/methods and they should work the same. But the inner workings of HOW they do this can be different.

What are some ethical issues/dilemmas in computer science?

I’m trying real hard to find a topic for a paper I have to write for an International Baccalaureate (IB) class. The topic has to be about an ethical issue or dilemma that is occurring in computer science. Two topics I’ve found so far are ‘How much protection is enough for web users’ and ‘Are victimless crime better received than crime with human victims’ (for example is hacking someone as bad as physical assaulting them). Thank you to anyone who helps!

Some obvious ones: * Is mass surveillance for counterterrorism ethical? * Are you obligated to falisfy data when not doing so causes an unethical outcome in machine learning? Consider a simple machine that decides whether or not to approve a loan - it works well, but looking at the weights of the net tells you it only really considers ethnicity. Removing this from the data results in noticeably worse predictions. Are you obligated to remove/falisfy the data? What if the net is so big and complicated that you can't tell exactly how it makes its decisions? What if, instead of removing the data, you just increase the size of the net massively and retrain it (starting with random weights again)? * A machine learning based industrial machine fails in software and kills a worker. To what extent are the developers of the machine to blame for the death? Inverted: you use machine learning to build an industrial machine. It's much better than the standard, but, unlike the competition, it has an error rate, and this could result in deaths. Is it ethical to release/sell the machine? * Related to the above: should machines be able to own copyright? Consider a machine that reads all the novels in the world and learns to write novels, and ends up successfully publishing, with the programmer only acting as its agent. Does the machine own copyright? Is the programmer stealing from the machine if they claim the book is their own? * Is mass-publishing/social media ethical? Consider the Arab Spring, organised via Facebook, and the recent phenomenon of 'fake news'.

ELI5: How did we figure out we can only see 3 different colors with our eyes?

I imagine there was a gradual process of discovery and little by little we learned more about the way we process light and send it to our brains. But I'm still having a really hard time understanding how we even started to question how many colors we see in the first place. Would really appreciate an explanation.

First we discovered that we have two different types of light receptors, rods and cones, by dissecting retinas and examining them under the microscope. we were able to figure out that rods were responsible for low light, black and white sharp details and cones responsible for color vision by analyzing which parts of the eye are more sensitive to different types of vision, and comparing them to wear cones and rods are most dominant. And after that, to answer your question, we found out that we have three different primary colors that we see because we we're studying rods and compare chemistry and we realized they have three different chemical receptors in them, each of which response to a different frequency range of light. there actually are a very rare number of people that have four rather than three different photoreceptors, and those people can see a wider variety of colors as a result. they don't have a wider range of colors, but are able to distinguish between two different colors that look basically the same two people with just three photoreceptor colors.

[Harry Potter] Why didn't Harry, Hermione and Ron use apparition to escape more often?

Watching the Harry Potter marathon on ABC family this weekend, this question occurred to me. Namely in Deathly Hallows, they use apparition to escape the wedding and also the Lovegood home. Why not apparate out of the Ministry..maybe that isn't possible due to an enchantment or something..but all of the other danger (namely when they are caught by snatchers in the forest) they could use this method.

There exist spells that can be cast over an area to prevent people from Apparating. Dumbledore used one such spell to prevent Death Eaters from escaping during the final battle in the ministry in Order of the Phoenix. It's quite possible that, to prevent people from escaping the ministry like Ron/Hermione/Harry would have, they would have placed anti-Apparition charms over the ministry, forcing people to go in and out via the Floo network.