Datasets:

euclaise

/

reddit-instruct-curated

like 15

ELI5: Why does alcohol get processed at a set rate but caffeine decays 50% every 5 hours

Metabolizing different things in your body requires the necessary enzymes to physically come in contact with whatever is being metabolized. Usually this means that if you have more (for example) drug in your body, that means you'll have drug bumping into enzymes at a higher rate. In the same way, after a while and a lot of the drug has already been metabolized by your body, it takes more time for your enzymes to randomly bump into the drug because theres less of it floating around. Whats different about alcohol is that when you drink, all the enzymes for metabolizing alcohol are WILDLY outnumbered by the alcohol molecules. Theres so much more alcohol than there are enzymes that pretty much every single enzyme is working maxed out. This rate remains constantly at full speed until alcohol levels drop low enough that the enzymes arent completely saturated, which i think is in a range considered sober.

The stock market does more harm than good and shouldn't exist. CMV

1. It pressures companies to increase profits every year, which should not be a motivation for many sectors (healthcare and private prison industry, for example) and also isn't typically feasible for many companies without cutting some corners and/or making shady business decisions. 2. Price isn't directly tied to performance, but *stockholders' views of the performance*. In this sense it isn't a valuable investing tool, it's literally like going to the casino. Oh, the company is doing phenomenal but some country in Europe hit a recession? Guess all stocks have to go down. And more importantly, the stocks are mainly influenced by the huge market movers at the top. A few ultra rich individuals move their money around and they are the main influencer of stock price. They are essentially printing money for them and their friends. These people are the "house", and we are the customers. The house always wins. I realize that being responsible to shareholders pressures companies to be innovative, but at too high of a cost in my opinion. I think the profit motive alone without the stock market is enough pressure to innovate and be competitive. CMV.

The prime motivation for any private sector enterprise is going to be profit, whether they are publicly traded or not. The reason stocks go down when seemingly unrelated events occur far away is that markets are interdependent. If Britain were to have a massive depression tomorrow, stocks would go down in the US because we have trade interdependencies that would exist whether the stock market was there or not. There are serious problems with small numbers of very wealthy people influencing the market disproportionately, but to say they "control" the market is not wholly accurate. Hedge fund managers might be a different story (they essentially treat the stock market like a casino), but again, they cause problems and don't control the whole thing. In short, the mechanism of the stock market may need reform, but abolishing it wouldn't be practical or helpful.

What is Quantum Computer? How do they work? What are the differences between that at the computer I'm asking this question from?

And anything else interesting about the field. Thanks in advance! (Just noticed the small derp in my first question and the larger derp in my last. I'm a tired man.)

A quantum computer uses the key concepts of quantum mechanics—superposition and entanglement—to solve some problems more efficiently than a classical computer. At the heart of it, you have quantum (as opposed to classical) bits, which can be realized in many different physical architectures, such as photons, trapped ions, neutral atoms, spins in solid states and superconducting circuits. The difference between these quantum bits and the classical bits in your computer is that they don't just assume two discrete logical states—'0' or '1'—but arbitrary superpositions of those (e.g. a qubit can simultaneously be in a state "'0' and '1'"). If you have many qubits in collective superpositions you get entanglement. These quantum bits are the quantum information carriers and they have to interact with each other to realize quantum logic gates and eventually an algorithm. The best known quantum algorithm is Shor's; it factors large numbers into its constituents in polynomial time, while the best known classical algorithm scales exponentially. We haven't got many interesting algorithms yet where quantum computers will really shine, but one area we're really interested in is to use them to simulate other quantum systems. Say you've got a quantum systems that's hard to understand and even harder to control, like a big molecule, or even a protein. So instead of trying to use that thing directly, we can simulate it's Hamiltonian (that best describes the system according to our understanding) on a quantum computer which is easier to set up. These simulations than help us figure out how the system behaves in reality. --- EDIT, you may also be interested in the technological status quo: single photons have achieved up to 8-qubit entanglement, but at terrible quality and really low rates. They do not currently constitute a very scalable approach to quantum computing. Trapped ions are doing much better: up to 14 entangled qubits have been realized, and they have done nice quantum simulations with 6 and more qubits. The quality is quite good and their immediate future in terms of scaling this to higher numbers is looking quite good. Superconducting circuits are catching up very quickly, they're currently playing with three-qubit gates, teleportation, error correction and so on—the usual first steps which are necessary to demonstrate the level of coherent quantum control you need for quantum computation. Solid-state qubits have long looked too hard to realize but all of a sudden they're also addressing and reading out single qubits, and the first entangling gates are in the pipeline. Once they've got that sorted, they could overtake the other technologies really quickly because their technology is based on a multi-billion dollar device fabrication industry. Unfortunately though, *all* of these technologies will have a really hard time to move beyond a few tens of qubits. It's not even quantum coherence or other fundamental physics that's holding us back, it's things as profane as you can't get enough lasers into a single room to set up, manipulate, and read out 20000 ions. Or, alternatively, a few tens of thousands of superconducting qubits would need a whole power plant to stay cool.

What is the difference between "social science" and "hard science?"

Isn't all science the same or am I missing something?

Science is a method, but social science deals with dynamic units of observation. You can reliably repeat a chemistry or physics experiment, because the behaviours of the fundamental units do not change over time. Social scientists study people, and people change. We still use the scientific method, but it's more of a framework to deal with bias and the challenges of causal inference than in the hard sciences. Hence few "iron laws" of social science.

Circles as infinite-sided polygons

I recently came across a TikTok video for the equation of any n-sided polygon (can't find the video but please share if you happen to know it). For example, if n = 3, you'd get a triangle, n = 4 a square, n = 5 a pentagon, etc. You also get other interesting shapes: e.g., n = 2.5 gives you a pentagram. As one increases n, the shape begins to resemble a circle. This makes sense since taking n to infinity would make 2pi/n and pi/n approach zero, and r = sec(0) = 1, which produces a unit circle. Now, I've read arguments for and against that circles are infinite-sided polygons; Ravi Shankar also [posted an interesting argument in favor](https://www.quora.com/Can-we-see-a-circle-as-a-regular-polygon-with-an-infinite-number-of-sides-Why#:~:text=A%20Circle%20can%20indeed%20be,and%20then%20taking%20the%20limits). With all this said, whether you think of a circle as a polygon whose interior angles (between one edge and the center) approach zero (as Shankar put it), or as expressed below, wouldn't this make the argument that circles are, in fact, infinitely-sided polygons? If not, why? ​ Thanks! ​ [n = 2.5](https://preview.redd.it/8ds2erme2ul81.png?width=1020&format=png&auto=webp&s=ab491df177843bae0c31567b56b41330028ca498) ​ [n = 3](https://preview.redd.it/xfr3ozjh2ul81.png?width=834&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a46f1ddb3bce6ef29d4af65333419f7c05b8bba) ​ [n = 5](https://preview.redd.it/zcohzuqj2ul81.png?width=771&format=png&auto=webp&s=08f607682320698b6e14f1401755482409114db9) ​ [n = 50](https://preview.redd.it/98d7m85o2ul81.png?width=738&format=png&auto=webp&s=511ae92e352f17a6f156c605d88940b28d59ba6b)

I suggest you research the concept of limits. Infinite anything in math tends to break down whatever is being analyzed. Instead of saying that a circle IS an infinite sided polygon we can say that the LIMIT as the number of sides of a polygon APPROACHES infinity is a circle. Limits are the foundation of a lot of math, such as calculus.

Finished my PhD, then ruined my life. Former advisor's advice is awkward, but it couldn't hurt, could it?

I finished my PhD three years ago, left academia for an industry career. Realized I hated it, left it, now I’m scraping by with part-time teaching gigs. Sat down with my old advisor to talk about where / how to publish my dissertation, and she said, in a concerned way, that if I wanted to get back into research, I should start asking mutual contacts at my alma mater for admin-type jobs while I publish more. Is this a thing people do? How does this email go? Do I include my CV? Do I sound apologetic? I’m not too proud, I’m just surprised by her suggestion.

What is your degree in, because this seems like odd advice to me. I would suggest leveraging your industry experience to sell yourself as a great manager and start talking to professors looking for postdoc or bench professor jobs. You can help run the research and begin to bolster your publications.

Since gender is a social construct, does that mean if the construct didn't exist, gender dysphoria wouldn't exist?

Hey guys, there's a lot of confusing terminology for a lay person flying around lately, and I'm trying to piece together everything I've been hearing about gender and related issues. I've heard that gender is a social construct, like race, meaning that the category distinction (male/female/etc) is socially constructed and maintained and separable from physiological facts. And that category membership transcends physiological facts by informing behavior and societal treatment and things. Does this mean that if our culture lacked these categories and the social structure that surrounds them that gender dysphoria wouldn't exist? Or would there still be issues stemming from brain-body mapping (as I have heard that gender dysphoria is predicated on)?

Something being a social construct does not stop it from being loaded with meaning both to others and to the individual who operates within that category. That meaning could be a positive attachment or a source of stress if the label does not quite fit. In Judith Butler's book "Gender Trouble" the author makes the argument that if we detach the symbols from a shared coherent meaning we would be freer to act as we wish without the constraints that those categories impose on us. So if there was no male or female these categories wouldn't mean anything. So an individual with gender dysphoria would be free to behave in a way more closely aligned to their own preferences rather than in a way that follows a set of norms. To illustrate: Alex has gender dysphoria. Alex was labeled male at birth. Alex likes to bake cupcakes, wear mascara, and read to children. As it stands Alex faces social sanctions for engaging in those behaviors because of the label. Taking away the label of male should then take away the norm and the sanctions for violating that norm.

[General Comics] Wha separates gods from really advanced aliens?

Gods are generally able to perceive, benefit from, and be changed by worship. Aliens in general cannot. Thor ha shown to know when someone is praying to him. Loki stated in his presidential campaign that yes, he is a GOd, he has worshipers and they're not perfect and a little misguided but lay off cause they are still, His worshipers and their freedom of religion is not to e impinged upon. One interesting example are the Skrulls, natives of the Andromeda galaxy. In times long past they were a peaceful people. Until they met the expanding Kree empire. It is postulated that the Kree were, in their collective sub-conscious, seeking an enemy to challenge them. The telepathically sensitive Skrulls, without even realizing it, became what the Kree wanted. An Aggressive and military species. Thor's comics make it clear each planet has its own population of gods and they all seem to share the same quality of being influenced by and in some manner responsible for their peoples.

I've heard it said many, many times that modern economics lumps land and capital together when considering the factors of production. Is this true? Are the considered the same?

In some introductory economics courses maybe but for the general field that hasn't been true since the second edition of Wealth of Nations. Even Adam Smith decided to separate them really quickly. The factors of production are Land, Labor, Capital. Then entrepreneurship/knowledge/informed willingness to take risks is the fourth factor but this definition is not very well accepted. But to answer your question, no economics does not lump land and capital together.

ELI5: How do countries increase their currency value?

Like do they have to have alot of money to make their currency high in value? Like why is a euro 14 cents higher than a us dollar?

Currency values mostly don't matter, in terms of which one is worth more, at any given moment. You use them to exchange things. If you paid in units of ten dollars, one would be worth more than a Euro. The extremes, however, are more important - currencies which lose all their value and get exchanged in enormous amounts (millions, billions, trillions) for everyday goods are the result of inflation - the government has the ability to print more money, so they do so in order to pay for debts etc, but by diluting the value of money each one is worth less. At the opposite end are currencies like CHF and USD have gradually become more valuable compared to others. 200 years ago, 1 GBP was worth 5 USD, now it is only 1.20 or so. The strength of a currency generally reflects the long term stability and expenditure of its government - bonds (debts) are issued in that currency, so it is in the interests of a government for people buying those bonds (lending money to the government) to believe that the value of the currency will stay high. Governments sometimes default (fail to pay) on their debts - this has been a problem in some regions, and also reduces the value investors place on the loans. A government that wanted to increase the value of its currency relative to others in the long run would be well placed to create an independent central bank and give it a target interest rate, usually around 2%. This starts to offer investors hope that the government will stop just printing money. However, it also relies on a strong economy; when governments have good tax income, they need less borrowing and can sustain debt payments. For this reason, a common theme has been for currencies which have lost a lot of value to be replaced by a new currency by a new government. When they do so, they are free to choose what the starting value would be, which is why the exact current value is far less important than the rate at which it is changing vs other currencies. Some currencies are locked to others, either by the government guaranteeing an exchange rate or by entering a currency union (e.g. the EU projects of the ECU and the Euro).

ELI5: Now that we know that "spooky action at a distance" is a confirmed phenomena of the quantum world, what does it mean?

I know whatever the average internet surfing Joe would know about Quantum mechanics. Mostly nothing. What does this mean for general physics? I saw in the comments that this means we are all connected. Does that mean I am somehow connected to my plate of oreos? Or does this 'connection' work only from like to like, humans to humans, oreos to oreos.

Quantum entanglement, or 'spooky action at a distance', is a phenomenon that can occur when two particles are created. I'll use spin as an example of a property that can be entangled. If two particles are created that are entangled, their spins will have opposite values. You can only know the probability that a particle's spin will be in a particular direction. There's no way to be sure ahead of time. Say you measure the spin of one entangled particle to be clockwise. You now instantly know that the particle it is entangled with has a counterclockwise spin. Even though it's impossible to describe spin as anything other than a probability, the spin of the second particle is determined by the measurement of the first particle. Whatever measurement you get, the other entangled particle will measure the opposite way. The second particle 'knowing' which spin to have based on the first particle's measurement happens instantaneously, and this bothered Einstein, the man who first referred to it as "spooky". According to relativity, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Yet, the second particle's spin is determined instantly. Theoretically, the particles could be separated by light years, and measuring clockwise on the first particle's spin would guarantee that the second particle's spin would be counterclockwise. This doesn't violate relativity, however, because there is no way to transmit information via entanglement. The second particle's measured quantity will always be determined by the measurement of the first particle, but what that measurement yields is inherently probabilistic. It's random, and the qualities of the second particle will be random too, just in the opposite way. So no physical laws are broken. You can't use quantum entanglement to send a message or intentionally make anything at all happen. And it's something that only really matters on the scale of individual particles. The chances of your left big toe being entangled with your right are about as likely as Jupiter spontaneously appearing in the Andromeda galaxy. It's technically possible, but the odds are so small that they're barely quantifiable. What does this mean for general physics? Nothing, because we've been aware of entanglement for quite some time now. All that has happened is that yet another rigorous experiment has upheld it to be true. As an aside, Einstein's resolution to the problem was to say that the two particles contained hidden variables that determined what state they'd be in when measured. He had no evidence, but he imagined that there were some things that we just didn't yet know about the particles that would cause them to measure in opposite ways. The measurement of the first didn't determine the second because, to him, the information about what the measurements would be was contained within the particles all along, unknown to us. Many experiments have shown this to be false; quantum entanglement has withstood all experiments to date. Look up Bell's Inequalities if you want to know how we can prove that there are no hidden variables.

CMV: All social justice movements (feminism, BLM, LGBTQA equality, etc) should abandon their individual "labels" and unify under a single Egalitarian movement.

My belief is that having separate terms for each of these equality movements just muddies the waters and makes the already somewhat vague principles of each movement more difficult to nail down. There is power in numbers and having all these groups come together under a single title that is all encompassing would benefit everyone involved. Anyone who is fighting for equal rights for their respective movement is extremely likely to believe in equal rights for other groups too. I believe it would be extremely difficult to find a feminist who doesn't believe blacks should have equal rights as whites, for example. A potential way of changing my view would be to prove this assumption false, FYI. There's also the added benefit of increased social pressure to identify as an egalitarian. Imagine if a politician, who didn't support marriage equality, refused to identify as egalitarian. That would immediately imply he does not want equal rights for everyone which sounds a lot more insane opposing individual beliefs, such as marriage equality for the gays/lesbians. In effect, it would be much easier to "single out" individuals who weren't supportive because the term egalitarian is so broad. This would help push the movement's message across the political and social spectrum. Did I explain that well? I don't feel like I did haha. Ultimately I think the biggest benefit is the simplicity of an egalitarian message. Equal rights for all people regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

There is a clear argument against this. A movement can be focused and it can be inclusive. More focus comes at the expense of less inclusivity and vice versa. The more people involved in your movement, the less it can effectively advocate for a position. And the more focused a position becomes, the more alienating the movement becomes as well. Some advocacy groups are mutually exclusive. Some of the demands of MRAs are irreconcilable with some of the demands of feminists; there is no ideal "egalitarianism" that either group is (necessarily) working towards. If your focus is too wide, you end up getting nothing accomplished. For instance, first wave feminism is often criticized for focusing exclusively on white women while third wave feminism attempts to be *so* inclusive that it ends up getting criticized for lacking a clear direction. There is a balance to maintain

ELI5: How does a group of animators split the load to produce a uniform film when each one of them draws differently?

For non-digital works they typically use templates and strict divisions of labor. One person (or small group) draws the outlines, another group fills it in, another group does the shading etc. For digital works different animators are responsible for very specific items and then share their work. One person (or small team) will collectively create clothing or hair or skin textures. Another group works on the skeleton that you then put the textures on. Another group then works specifically on the motion and movement. Another group on lighting and shading. They're using the same items (assets is what they're typically called). Skeleton team saves a model and all the other ones can download it for their use. Texture team saves clothing or skin or what not and every other team can download it and use it so that the digital assets are the same across everyone's department. FINALLY there is editing that happens, just like a movie. Just like in live-action there are editors to make sure everything makes sense and that people look the same between shots, there are the editors for animation that ensure that there isn't noticeable deviation between frames.

AskScience: What are the best science documentaries?

For biology and nature, you cannot beat the David Attenborough series. I recommend Blue Planet, Planet Earth, and his "Life" series: - Life on Earth - The Living Planet - The Trials of Life - Life in the Freezer - The Private Life of Plants - The Life of Birds - The Life of Mammals - Life in the Undergrowth - Life in Cold Blood - First Life They are without a doubt the greatest nature documentaries in history, by one of the greatest narrators.

CMV: There is such a thing as having 'better taste'

I'll start by making one thing clear: taste is subjective, by definition. Nobody's taste is 'right' and the idea of a taste being 'right' or 'wrong' is nonsensical. With that said, I wish to argue that it is possible for someone's taste in something to be *better* or *worse* than another person's taste in something, and I believe there is a way of justifying it in a way that is completely detached from snobbishness. I'm going to come out and say something that will seem tremendously snobby unless you finish reading this post. I think that, as a cinephile, I have a greater capacity for enjoying the medium of film than a non-cinephile does. For the sake of this argument, I'm going to define a 'cinephile' as someone who a) frequently watches a broad range of films b) enjoys discussing film c) would recoil at the very idea of browsing Reddit while 'watching' a film. It's not necessarily that when I watch my favourite film I'm having a *better time* than when a non-cinephile watches their favourite film. It's hypothetically possible that someone out there may actually actually enjoy watching Transformers as much as I enjoy watching Blade Runner. But what makes my taste in film 'better' than that of a non-cinephile is the options available to me: it's not that my enjoyment is deeper, it's that it's broader. There is more stuff out there than I *can* enjoy. I contend that the more films you watch, the broader your taste in film gets. If you only watch films every few months, and you don't stray outside of certain comfort zones, your taste will be very narrow. Put 10 cinephiles in a room and ask them all what their favourite film is, and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask them what their favourite animated film is and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask them what their favourite film of 2017 is and you'll get 10 different answers. Put 10 non-cinephiles in a room and ask them the same questions, and you'll get lots of repeat answers. And why is that? It's because there are aspects of film that you have to 'learn to like'. I don't think this phrase is quite right, because it's not 'learning' so much as it is getting used to something. I think anyone can 'get used to' anything, but it does take time. We all start with a taste that finds pleasure in certain formulas: the three act structure, the hero's journey, archetypal characters, adherence to genre convention, etc. and then the more we watch, the less rigidity we need in these structures and the more we come to appreciate films that subvert or bypass these conventions. It's not that we lose an appreciation for conventions. You can have a completely eclectic taste and still enjoy Star Wars or Pixar films. But you can also see convention for what it is and you are not a slave to it. Those who are a slave to it are those who will watch something unconventional yet still mainstream, like a Coen Brothers or Wes Anderson film for example, and dislike it because 'it's a bit weird'. They're not 'wrong' to dislike it. It's just that they would probably have a greater chance at appreciating it if they had watched more films and so broadened their taste. So essentially my view is that broader taste = better taste, and that anyone can expand the breadth of their taste if they give it the time. It's an intrinsically good thing to have the capacity to appreciate a broader range of things simply because there is a greater amount of pleasure out there for you to experience. But let me get this straight: I'm not claiming that everyone needs to be a cinephile. I use film as an example because it is the area of my own taste that is broader (though still not yet as broad as I'd like it to be). I think everyone has taste that is broad in some areas and narrow in others. An area in which I have very narrow taste in is food. Food, for me, is a small pleasant thing that I enjoy on a superficial level, but I would never discuss it in any depth and it doesn't make me cry or re-evaluate my position in this universe. I cook myself the same meals over and again, and my capacity to enjoy food from different cultures is very limited. There are some big types of food that I never touch (fish for example), because I don't like them. If I were more adventurous, and cared more about expanding my taste, I have no doubt I could broaden the amount of foodstuffs out there I could enjoy. But I haven't sent myself on that journey and so I remain a food philistine. People with a broader palette have 'better' taste in food than me because there's more out there that they can enjoy. To sum up, my view is that you can cultivate what we could call 'good taste' (which really means 'broad taste'), in whatever it is: film, food, poetry, music, etc. Whether or not you *should* seek to broaden your taste in any or all of these things is another argument for another day. My only contention here is that you *can*. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

For your assertion that taste can be better or worse (or good or bad) to be true, you must prove that assertion using a pragmatic measurement. Measuring it by enjoyment only, be that the quantity of X you’re capable of enjoying, or by the quality of your enjoyment of X, is purely subjective. However, if your taste proves to be pragmatically useful in a given context, then it could be considered good. For instance, your taste in film may give you more prestige in a certain social circle, which could perhaps lead to employment, favors, friendships, etc. Without a context to give it value, your taste is just enjoyment. Edit: spelling

CMV: Islam needs a reform similar to how Christianity had the New Testament, or it needs to be eradicated.

I used to think that people who were worried about Muslim Immigration were simply irrational, intolerant Islamophobes. I used to think that we only had to worry about a small portion of extremist Muslims who were hiding somewhere in caves in the desert. In light of the research I've done recently, I have changed my view 180 degrees. The fact of the matter is that the core tenant of Islams as it is today, are not compatible with contemporary democratic ideals such as freedom of speech, gender equality, and freedom of religion. The existence of ISIS, The results of the pew research polls on the opinions of Muslims in various countries, the amount of rapes being committed by Muslim "refugees" in Europe(at this point I think the term "invaders" would be more accurate), and the existence of no-go zones in Sweden and France, are facts that are impossible to ignore. I've gotten to the point where I'm really starting to worry about the safety of people in Europe, and it seems like the response to this isn't sufficient enough. I believe that the leaders of Islam, need to be forced to reform their texts, convert, or be eradicated in-order to prevent the spread of this disgusting ideology. EDIT:: OK forget that I even mentioned Christianity, people seem to be tunnel visioning on Christianity when that is not even the point of this CMV. The point of this CMV is that a large portion of today's self identified adherents of Islam seem to use it's texts to justify horrendous acts, and that it needs some sort of reformation, or to be completely scrapped. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

The Muslim scripture is the equivalent of Christianity's New Testament. Islam is based on Judaism the same way that Christianity is. The reforms seen in Christianity as far as becoming less militant were not from creating new scripture. It was from focusing on different parts of scripture and interpreting it differently.

ELI5: What happens to food when we are cooking it that makes it edible?

Cooking is the application of heat to a food. Heat does a lot of things, depending on the food: * Meat/fish - heat kills organisms in the meat, changes the protein structure to make it more digestible, and (eventually) breaks down tough connective tissue made of collagen into soft gelatin (which is jelly-like) * Starches (rice, pasta, etc) - heat allows dry starches to re-hydrate by increasing the speed at which water can enter, and gelatinises (breaks up) the starch to make it softer and more digestible * Baked goods (breads, cookies, cakes) - heat dehydrates the dough to make it crunchy or dry on the outside, and causes any trapped air inside to expand making the dough rise and giving the bread or cake its texture * Fruits and vegetables - heat breaks down the cell walls of the plants, making them softer and allowing them to give up their nutrients more easily. To any starchy vegetables, like potatoes, cooking gelatinises the starch like with rice or pasta

CMV: Anti-Victim-blaming culture is suppressing the spread of helpful information that can prevent rape.

I often see any talk about rape go hand in hand with two sides: people advocating increased safety of all people, and people defending victims of rape by saying that information triggers victims, and therefore the information ends up at ends. This includes language such as "Pepper spray can deter attackers of any kind, and therefore it is strongly recommended that ANYBODY carries it with them at all times." or "Hot zones for crime include times after dusk and before dawn, so it is advised to travel in groups at this time to deter attackers." People rage at this information saying that I should not ask anything of the victim, and that this information is useless. People often use the argument "We should teach people NOT TO RAPE" My issue here is that the suppression of this information in lieu of pursuing an idealistic rape-free culture neglects the current standing of our surroundings, and that dangerous people still exist, and will exist for the foreseeable future. I see no harm in telling anyone that safety is important, and that there are very cogent steps to significantly lower your risk of being attacked and/or raped. The only instance I would excuse my previous statement would be people telling actual victims of rape what they COULD have done. This does nothing to change what happened, and is a slimey thing to do. Maybe this is just an Anti-SJW rant that I didn't even know I was making, or maybe I have an actual argument here. If I am not clear on this classic argument, I would appreciate some clarity, and am always open to thoughtful and courteous discussion. Please no flaming, arguing, or fighting. Thank you! _____ > *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!*

The information that you describe, tips like "travel in well-lit, well trafficed areas," "be aware of your surroundings," "don't travel alone," etc, are helpful for preventing other crimes like mugging, which is more likely to occur. This advice as a way to prevent rape is not practical. When you give these tips to women as ways to prevent rape, you are giving useful information to half of your population for a situation that is not very common. (Also, the advice is really obvious. People are naturally uneasy when alone in the dark.) You are better off presenting the advice to everybody as a way to prevent mugging or other more common crimes. Rape is overwhelmingly committed by someone the victim knows. The "jumping out of the dark" type rape is rare compared to "date" rape. When people talk about teaching others not to rape, what they mean is "one should know that having sex with an inebrieted person is wrong; having sex when someone is uncomfortable is wrong, etc." Rape cannot be a crime of need, which is why there are no "teach people not to steal" campaigns. You can't give tips on how not to be murdered, you can only teach people to think murder is wrong. Likewise, in order to prevent rape, you should teach people who have sex to be considerate of their partners' consent.

If entropy always increases then why/how did the universe produce complex life?

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say entropy always has to increase everywhere all the time, it says than in an isolated system, entropy must increase. We'll first look at a simple system, a bunch of blocks in a box. The blocks in a box will never spontaneously stack themselves, but over time, with any vibrations, movements, etc, a stack of blocks will eventually fall over. But, if you reach into the box, you can stack the blocks into a neat stack. Sure, entropy may have decreased in the box, but that's allowed- the box was not isolated. So now, looking at the Earth, for example, it is far from isolated. Earth has a bunch of energy coming to it, mainly from the Sun. So, the entropy on Earth is allowed to decrease, because there is energy supplied from the Sun. Now, let's go back to the stacking blocks system. If instead of the box being your system, you and the box are the system, you have to look not just at the entropy of the box, but the entropy of you plus the box. That entropy has went up, even if the entropy in the box has went down, because your motion and thinking to stack the box has created waste heat, which is an entropy increase. So, even in an "isolated system" a small part of that system can have a decrease in entropy, as long as the rest of the system has an equal or larger increase in entropy. So, going back to to the Earth. If you make the Earth and Sun your "system" then you can't say that energy is supplied to the system from the Sun, but you're still OK. The entropy of the Sun is increasing as it undergoes fusion, so the entropy of the Earth/Sun system is still increasing.

[Warhammer 40k] What is the least Grimdark part of 40k currently?

In the grim future where there is only war, what is the least grimdark part of the universe in the modern age of 40k? I do not mean what was once not so dark, I mean currently what is the least not dark. This can be a person, group, planet, item, food, city, animal anything. As long as it is the least grimdark, it does not have to be bright and happy, just not as soul crushingly awful as most of the galaxy in current 40k.

Specific example: The Orders Hospitaller is a division of the Adeptus Sororitas that is dedicated to providing medical services to all (loyal and human) who need it. They're often attached to armies, where they're the most compassion a soldier can receive, and deploy to disaster areas or war zones to provide emergency care and relief. On the big scale, the galaxy and Imperium are *systematically* awful; the constant war, oppressive rule, ceaseless threats, massive tithe burdens, and uncaring bureaucracy are terrible. No doubt about that. Genocide, oppression, a universal mindset of superstition and xenophobia, billions dying a day as armies of billions more are raised, and - worst of all - it may all be necessary. But lots of people don't live that day to day. Most don't even know that space travel is possible, let alone keep up with the horror of current events. Their lives are much, much smaller than that. Little moments and little people are where you find the least grimdarkness. Shopkeepers who believe in an honest deal and are looking forward to closing up for the night so they can play with their kids. A squad of guardsmen wordlessly pass around a bottle of hooch they found in a ruined building. A hive dweller surprises his wife with a special meal he's been saving up for - real meat and vegetables. Old friends run into each other on the street and grab a caff to catch up. Void dwellers solemnly paint wards on their skin in preparation for a funeral. A battle-hardened ganger in the underhive, who's never seen sunlight and has fought to stay alive every day since birth, cracks dirty jokes with their gang buddies. Clergy in the Imperial Cult - between litanies of hate for the xenos, mutant, and witch - work in soup kitchens and alms houses. A Company of Space Marines give their lives guarding an evacuation of a strategically useless civilian city. A merchant captain sells his shipment of wheat well below cost to alleviate a famine. A planetary governor tirelessly pushes through reforms to provide for the most destitute of her people. Even the most paranoid, hateful, overburdened (even if justifiably so) Inquisitors occasionally have to take a day to just lock the door, turn off the vox, soak in a hot bath, read a book, and go to bed early. The Imperium is inhumane, but it's still a *human* empire, and in between all of the hate and fear and death and poverty are human beings doing all the other things humans do: making friends, building families, having sex, trying to grab the bar tab from each other, putting little kids on their shoulders, gossiping about neighbors, and just sitting quietly together for a few minutes.

Help with Feeling Incompetent over Homework Assignments, and How to Approach Challenging Coding Tasks

Hey all, I’m a Computer Science student at my university, and I’m struggling with homework assignments, specifically for object-oriented Programming, and computer organization. The first assignments for these classes were relatively easy, to the point where I could wait a couple days before it was due to start if I wanted to. However, the learning curve has spiked, as we have moved on to pointers and heterogeneous lists in OOP, and working with complex assembly programs in CO. I’m sure I’ve gotten dismal grades on my last few assignments, and this loss of confidence makes me scared to start these assignments now. The current assignment I have for OOP asks is to make a heterogeneous list using file I/O, and there are so many intricate parts that it makes me feel panicked. This assignment is due Wednesday, and I have no idea where to start from. Thus, I arrive at my point: I don’t want advice for how to complete the assignment at all, but instead I want general advice on how to approach a coding task when you don’t necessarily know what to do, especially if that coding task is so interconnected that it’s hard to know where exactly to start. Additionally, how do you come back from defeat over making a couple of bad programs and regain confidence and feelings of competence? Edit: I’m pretty bad at saying thanks to people individually, especially because I feel like it feels fake when I do it repeatedly, so I’m editing the original post to say thank you to everyone who commented. I appreciate all the advice you’ve given me, and have implemented it as I’ve been working on my current assignment. It’s still rough, but it’s easier after breaking it down further into laughably small parts. Thank you again for all the advice, it’s really helping :)

The biggest skill you can learn is how to break the problem into small tasks. Then break those into smaller ones, etc. until you’re at a point where you can complete each relatively easily. Code is built, not born, and every part relies on another part. Start small, make a list of tasks if you need to (Trello, Notion or physical sticky notes help here) and just go step by step.

[WH40k] I wish to become an Inquisitor in service of the God Emperor. How do I accomplish this?

The first thing you need to do is enter the service of an Inquisitor. The best way to do this is probably to get yourself caught up in some vile and horrifying situation involving aliens, witches, or daemons, and not only survive, but show exceptional courage, fortitude, and faith in the Emperor. Then, if you're lucky, an Inquisitor will eventually turn up to investigate the incident; if you're really lucky, he'll recognise your purity and refrain from ordering your immediate execution for knowing too much ("too much", in many cases, means simply "that aliens/witches/daemons exist"), and if you're extra super double lucky he'll recognise your exceptional talents and add you to his retinue. After that it's a matter of working hard, obeying every order you are given, showing intelligence, initiative, fearlessness and ruthlessness, and never giving your new master the slightest reason to doubt you. Fight hard, pray harder. Purge the heretic; slaughter the alien; smite the daemon. Accept that, sooner or later, you are going to lose one or more body part, and make sure you get good quality cybernetic replacements. Try not to go too insane (this will be difficult). Try not to be corrupted by the horrors you encounter (this will be even more difficult). Outlive your colleagues. And if you can keep this up for long enough - and we're probably talking a minimum of ten or twenty years here - your Inquisitor may promote you to his inner circle, and name you an Interrogator. At this point you are effectively a trainee Inquisitor; you will be given vast power and responsibility, and all you need to do is to survive (and to avoid failure, but under the circumstances any failure will almost certainly be fatal), and eventually he's bound to grant you the rosette. That, or sacrifice you in some horrifying heretic ritual as he finally jumps off the slippery slope to radicalism. Try not to let that happen.

ELI5: what is the purpose of the horizontal shutters on green traffic lights?

So you don't mistake a nearby traffic light that's green for the light that applies to you when there is one closer that's red. Around here they are common when there is a fire station just a few hundred feet from an intersection, the light in front of the fire station is [almost] always green, but there is a light at the corner of the fire station as well for an intersection. The blinds cover up the green light before you enter the intersection, so you can only see the light for the intersection when approaching it, when you enter the intersection and get near the fire station you can then see the green in front of the fire station. The red and yellow never has blinds so you can always see if the light is red. Also sometimes they use lenses on the green instead of blinds (they have the same effect)

ELI5: Why can we regenerate skin for minor abrasions, but we cannot grow back limbs we lose?

Your skin has cells, deep down, that are responsible for growing new cells and pushing them toward the surface. If you cut down into these cells, you can get scars. If you cut them off entirely (major abrasions) they have a very hard time healing themselves effectively. Bones are a different matter entirely, and are much more material/time consuming to heal or grow (months to fully heal hairline fractures), and your body isn't equipped for the mass/materials required to regrow them. Edit: tl;dr Skin is spongy and light and easily patched. Bones are dense and heavy and much harder to make. Cost/benefit analysis over time.

[Eli5] What is non-Euclidean geometry, and what would it look like in the real world?

This term seems to come up in science fiction every so often, and the layman description is that it’s just 2d geometry on a curved surface?

Euclidean geometry is based on a set of assumptions. Non-euclidean geometry is anything that doesn't use those assumptions. Most of the assumptions are about triangles. So think about drawing triangles on a paper. There are certain things that are true like the sum of angles and intersections and so forth. Most people take a whole semister in high school about triangles on paper. This is within Euclidean geometry. Now imagine drawing triangles on an orange. You could have a normal triangle with three 90 degree corners so some of the rules change. There would be another set of rules for this space. Now imagine drawing triangles on a toilet paper roll. There would be yet another set of rules different than the first two cases here. None of the three are wrong or incorrect, just different rules based on different initial assumptions. And you don't have to use "curved space", but curving space is an easy way to break the Euclidean assumptions. Scifi usually points to non-Euclidean geometry as a way to work outside of normal logic. Similar to multiverse or some quantum phenomena. And by saying 'non-euclidean' they don't ever have to actually specify. It's a nice way out of the many paradoxes that scifi gets itself into.

Why did/do East & South Asian nations have such higher population density?

Is it that rice cultivation was that much more calorie producing per acre compared with the staples of other parts of the world of the time or...? Just curious - rice is a staple = high population density, seems to be a correlation, and I'm thinking it's a causation. Not my field though. Actually, I don't know exactly what field such a question belongs in.

Water is in general the answer. If you look at a population map for any human populations, they will be highly clustered around available water sources. Look at a density map of India, it will be concentrated in the front of the Himalayas. Why? Because the mountain range 'captures' the monsoons and funnels them down into the flood-lands bellow. That area has an absolutely ungodly amount of water available. The other areas of high density are in Bangladesh, which in many ways functions as essentially a delta for the Ganges. So, mostly water. Those places also have the advantage of being largely flat, which makes it easy for people to live and helps retain soil quality, and they tend to have very long growing seasons. Humans ain't that special, they live on the same restrictions as other organisms. The population maximum will largely be determined by how much food is available for the population. Modern technology may expand how much we can produce and where we can send it, but it does not essentially change the calculation.

ELI5: How can scientists determine scientific constants (like the speed if ligh, specific heat capacity of water, and the size if a proton) with such accuracy and without much experimental error?

Each of those things involves lots of careful experiments, repeated independently, with equipment designed explicitly for the purpose. It's a fundamental part of the process of science to determine those constants as accurately as possible.

ELI5:Why do muscles look like they're permanently in a flexed position after working them out?

I've noticed this especially with my biceps, where after giving the a good work out, they look like they're perpetually flexed, and when I actually try to flex then, here isn't much difference.

When muscles are being used or anticipate being used, they fill up and engorge with blood. Same principle as a penis filling up with blood for an erection, after you work out your muscles fill up with blood to stay full.

How far away from Earth would you be able to detect human presence?

So this Yahoo article on a newly discovered planet got me thinking... http://news.yahoo.com/type-alien-planet-steamy-waterworld-162802250.html How far away from Earth can you detect humans? For example, this newly discovered guy is 40 light years away, if we were on that planet, looking at Earth, would we be able to detect that there are humans (or any animals) on Earth?

This depends on quite a few things, namely the technology you are using to detect. We first started sending out massive radio signals around the late 30s, early 40s, so call it 70 light years away. If you had a big enough telescope though, you would be able to see human activity from a tremendous distance. if.

ELI5: Why is it that bright colours in plants are an invitation, but bright colours in insects and animals can be a warning?

Bright colors in plants are to attract bees and insects for pollination. Bright colors in animals/insects make them easily spotted by predators, so these bright colored animals/insects die out - except for the very venomous/dangerous ones, i.e poison dart frog or those with low selective pressures, i.e birds where camouflage doesn't matter as much.

I am just finishing "Consiousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. What are the books that represent the current state of concsiousness theory and approach the issue from both a philosophical and scientific perspective? If there are works specific to the mind/body issue, that would be appreciated.

In reading the Dennett work I imagine there must be advances with respect to fMRI and related technologies and clear advances in AI and computing power. I'd like to find a work, or perhaps several works, that tackle this issue from a more current perspective. Thanks in advance.

In terms of the scientific perspectives, there are two leading, competing theories right now: Global Neuronal Workspace (you can read Dehaene’s “Consciousness and the Brain” from 2014) and Integrated Information Theory (you can read Tononi’s “Phi” from 2012). These books are more recent, written by the original proponents of those theories, and address some of the large amount of research that’s been done in the last 20 years. Another interesting thing to look into (albeit written less for a lay audience) would be select chapters in Engel, Friston, and Kragic’s “The Pragmatic Turn”, which considers how thinking about the brain as a controller of actions might influence theories of cognition and consciousness.

Uncertainty principle - why is the ability to measure the location and movement simultaneously a violation of the laws of physics instead of insufficiently advanced measuring tools?

An ELI5 explanation would be that the uncertainty principle is a statement about the structure of waves. Position uncertainty basically corresponds to how spread-out a wave is, and momentum uncertainty corresponds to how spread-out the wave's frequency spectrum is. These two things are inversely related to each other. It may be helpful to consider the two extreme cases. On one hand, you can have a sine wave that repeats infinitely in both directions. That has the maximum possible spread, but contains only a single frequency. On the other hand, you can have a spike at one point, which has the minimum possible spread, but contains _all_ frequencies. This should at least make it seem plausible that the spread in position space and the spread in frequency space are inversely related, though of course you need to get into some math to actually prove it.

ELI5: How does light have energy? How can light exert force?

Here is what I know: Photons have no mass. Force is change in momentum over change in time. Momentum is mass times velocity. E=mc² SO HOW DOES LIGHT HAVE ENERGY AAAA I also read that massless particles can have momentum and I do not understand that at all. Please explain how all of this is connected and how light has energy and exerts force. Thank you!

The full formula is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 E=mc^2 is a simplification for particles with mass at rest. Photons carry momentum (p) and thus have energy. Note that force is change in momentum over time, but it doesn't really apply to individual photons. A single photon transfers it's momentum instantaneously. Though if you have a steady stream of photons you can calculate a force based on the average rate of momentum transfer. Yes it's weird.

ELI5: What makes things transparent (glass, water, nylon, etc.)?

Light comes in packets of energy of certain sizes, and when a packet hits an atom if it is of the same 'size' as that particular atom the light packet gets absorbed. If it is not the same 'size' (the atom is too 'big', for example) then the packet is allowed to carry on unhindered and pass out the other side. Non-EL15: Energy is quantized, meaning it only comes in discrete quantities. When a photon strikes an atom if it has exactly enough energy to make an electron 'jump' up to the next energy level then the photon will be absorbed to do exactly this. In transparent materials like glass, the 'band gap' of the electrons in the material is simply too big for the photon to provide the energy to make an electron jump, so the light carries on straight through.

[ATLA] Why doesn't Azula break out of the ice when she's trapped by Katara?

In the finale, Katara encases both Azula and herself in ice, then melts it partially so she can chain up Azula. However, it should have been easy for her to escape. Zuko was able to blast apart the ice ball Katara trapped him in and even melted through a thick sheet of ice when he was underwater. And this was all done in a cold environment detrimental to firebending. So why couldn't Azula break out when she was in the Fire Nation and had a massive power boost from Sozin's Comet? I would have expected her to blast apart the ice in an orb of blue fire, not be helplessly trapped and chained up.

Reason 1: the instance you mention of Zuko being trapped by Katara didn't include Zuko being completely enclosed in ice, but just being inside of a big hollow ball of ice. We know this because Zuko has both the space and air to taunt Katara while being inside of the ball. This is very important since we know that both movement and breathing is very important in firebending, not being able to move at all or even breathe (like Azula when trapped by Katara) is a big problem for a firebender. Reason 2: already mentioned by another user, Zuko spent more time dealing with firebending in cold weather, Iroh even reminds Zuko to rely on his breathing for heat before he goes to capture Aang in that episode, suggesting that Iroh also probably trained Zuko in cold weather firebending techniques. We know Azula is a prodigy but for all we know she never even went to the water tribes in her life, cold weather techniques may be unkown for her. Reason 3: Azula wasn't in her prime at the moment, maybe she knew a way out of the situation but her state of mind didn't allow her to think of that.

CMV: The overwhelming majority of people against Marijuana legalization tend to be ignorant about the topic.

I continually have these thoughts about something that appears to be such a common sense thing to me, but I also realize it's not really fair to call so many people ignorant. I don't even smoke weed but this just seems like such an obvious thing to me, that if you are against it you probably have not educated yourself about the topic. I have not really heard any good argument against Marijuana legalization and the data shows that it could help people in society by helping them get off of opoids. This next point is just from my personal experience but my friends who smoke weed often drink significantly less alcohol because they are satisfied being high, which is much better for your health then excessive drinking. Basically I am just looking to hear good arguments against legalization that could help change my opinion of people against legalization.

Many oponents to marijuana legalization are very educsted on the matter. They point to studies that prove the drug has negative short and long term effects on your health, especially on young, developing brains. They point to the risk of addiction, or of developing cancer, or diseases such as dementia and alzheimers, and and loss of cognitive brain function after long term use. They point to the risk of impaired driving, or the dangers of second hand smoke. They point to the lack of long-term medical studies, and severe biases and gaps in the scientific knowledge of the drug and its effects on the body and mind. For every anecdotal piece of evidence you provide of a friend who reduced drinking, or got off opioids, or for whatever reason is better off for having smoked marijuana, they can point to anecdotal evidence of a friend who became a burnout and droppoed out of school, or who turned to heavier drugs after getting hooked on marijuana, or for whatever reason is *worse* off. Overall, these people see the *other* viewpoint as ignorant to the potential harm that this drug can cause. They have strong reason to believe that recreational use of marijuana will increase sigficantly if made legal, and that this would have a negative effect on our society. And sure, maybe alcohol and cigarettes are worse for certain reasons. But thay doesnt automatically make marijuana perfectly okay.

Why does it take at least 15 minutes to fill a prescription? What's going on back there?

I can understand when bottles need to be filled, but my medication comes pre-packaged in a box. The quickest I can get it filled is in 15 minutes (If there's no one in the store). What exactly is the pharmacist doing? *Note: this isn't any kind of complaint against pharmacists. I know they have a serious job to do. I just genuinely want to know what it is they do when they're filling a script.*

The pharmacist is ensuring that the prescribed medication is appropriate and safe before it is handed to you. Is it the right drug for the condition? Is the strength and regimen appropriate? Are there interactions with the patient's other medications to be aware of? Physicians also do make prescribing errors from time to time (they are humans too), and a large part of a pharmacist's role is to catch those mistakes before it reaches the patient. Also note that while your particular prescription may be relatively straight forward to check, it is likely that there are others which aren't, causing a wait time of 15-20 minutes.

I've heard that PI do more administration than research. Does this mean they stop having first author papers?

Just curious. Most people I've asked (grad students and PIs alike) say that PIs do far more administration and overseeing than actual research. So do they stop having first author papers?

Correct, most of the time. It depends a bit on the type of research. If they're a pure theorist or mathematics, they may still have the time to do the work for first author papers. But the job of most PIs is to train their students in research, guide the process, and secure funding to keep it going. So it's more research management and advising than hands-on research.

Is terraforming a real possibility?

Is terraforming something being worked on to not only clean up earth but also make places like mars hospitable for human life?

Yes. It may only take about 100 years to increase the temperature and pressure enough to support plant life. It would take much much longer to get enough oxygen in the air for us to breathe, but we could walk the surface with just a mask for o2. Edit: added a source below.

ELI5: What's the point of concept cars that are made but never sold to the public?

Concept cars are a good way for automobile manufactures to "test the waters" with new vehicle designs and technologies. They can show the concepts at Auto shows and get useful feedback from critics and the general public. This helps them to guide their future designs, and focus on the the things that got the most positive feedback, while fixing things people didn't like so much. Also, it's a good way to show off some of the cool shit their company has been working on :)

If darker skin colors absorb more heat energy and have a higher resistance to cancer then why did humans who live in snowy/colder climates develop fare skin?

Better translucency to UV rays, that are important for Vitamin D Production, that are significantly less frequent in colder regions because of the rotation of the earth to its axis. That's one possible reason. To maximize your vitamin D Production you need more UV rays-> lighter skin

CMV: Female-only gyms and women's shelters are not discriminatory… or are they?

Well, while I was discussing the effects of feminism on another CMV post, a reddit user made a very good point in saying that female-only gyms and shelters are discriminatory. That was something I never thought about! I could honestly see how it could be discriminatory (men might like to have their own private workout areas, too, and they also can be victims of abuse). I can't refute that it's discriminatory, of course, because it is (or at least, I think it is). But I also believe it's important for women to be and feel safe. As I mentioned to this particular reddit user, my sister was harassed by her gym so badly that she ended up having to quit, so obviously I'm conflicted in my opinions! Now, while I consider myself a feminist, I consider myself more so an egalitarian and I believe that all people should be treated equally. So I would like to CMV to better my practice of that philosophy. As it stands, I would say that I still do think that female-only gyms and shelters are good things, but if someone can CMV and help make the issue a little clearer, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you! _____ > *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!*

They are discriminatory according to the definition of the word. But discrimination is not always a bad thing. What is a bad thing is wanting a women's only _____ but throwing a fit when men have the equivalent (such as the posts raging at the mens only Barber shop a few months back), or in the case of things like shelters establishing the women's only without the male equivalent. Men make up 40% of domestic abuse victims but have far fewer resources to get help. Most shelters will not assist them and many other issues.

CMV: A sustainable and healthy vegan diet would have been only been enjoyed by a few people before 1800 AD

Contrary to popular belief, fat is a fairly important nutrient in human life and one of the main sources of getting it before factory processing was through animals, whether it was through dairy or animal fat. A lot of food we eat nowadays comes out of season... Bostonians in 1800 weren't eating fresh fruit salad in the winter... Olive oil and avocados are some of the vegan oils that I can think of that might have been enjoyed before the industrial revolution... and not every climate can support those plants. Sure, you might be able to go vegan in Reinissance Italy where you can grow olive trees but not in Scotland or colonial Boston. I find it funny how contrasting the keto and vegan diets are. Keto is a more primitive diet that could be eaten in the ancient times while vegan is a modern diet that often relies on modern invention and convenience to be healthy and sustainable

Religions like Jainism practiced vegetarianism more than 2000 years ago. Beyond that it depends on whether they ate eggs or had access to milk, so probably plenty of people that were mostly vegan over time.

[Mass Effect] I live on an isolated planet with no outside contact with the galaxy, am I safe from the Reaper threat?

(Note: I've actually not yet gotten to playing ME3, so this is more of just a theoretical question, they probably answer it in the game so me asking is stupid but... I'm just curious) A group of colonists set off into uncharted space, luckily found a planet that was perfectly suited for life, created a self-sustaining colony through hardwork but also have been completely disconnected from the outside galaxy. No external communications, no spaceflight, no nothing. Will the Reapers come for our planet, or are they unaware of us?

depends on how big your colony is and how well your spaceships work. if the reapers find records of your existence, which they probably will, they’ll most likely wipe you out once they’re done with the main civilizations.

[Astronomy] If the International Space Station were to be completely abandoned, how long would it take before the station would be uninhabitable?

Let me clarify. Uninhabitable does not mean not operational. The station can still be functioning, it just cannot support life natively—as in, you would need a spacesuit to stay alive.

Life support systems are quite automated. The station needs supplies because it cannot recycle 100% of oxygen and water, but if you assume it is abandoned, these resources are not consumed. Oxygen levels would be pretty much constant, and temperature is regulated using solar power. After a few years the solar panels would degrade, producing less power, and batteries that power it during eclipse would degrade as they have gone through too many charge/discharge cycles. Mechanical parts (fans, pumps, etc) wear out and become more likely to fail randomly. Electronics are damaged by cosmic radiation. Atmospheric containment is not perfect, so some air slowly leaks into the near-vacuum of space. After a decade or a few decades it may no longer be able to support a pressurized environment with a controlled temperature. But in practice the station's orbit would decay due to atmospheric drag and it would burn up in the atmosphere long before any of that happens. We're comparing decades against months/weeks.

ELI5 - Why is microwaving metal objects dangerous?

Microwaves can induce electric current in metallic (or any conductive) objects. They are, quite literally, antennas. And while normally antennas receive signals of low power, these are high power signals meant for transferring energy. The effect of these currents depends alot on the object's makeup. "Pure" metal in a smooth shape tends to disperse the current pretty easily. If, however, the metal is mixed with other things, or has sharp edges, or air gaps, this makes it much harder for all the electric forces to equalize and you can get sparking which becomes a fire hazard. The classic example here is that usually forks cause sparking, but spoons do not.

ELI5: How does higher quality microphones filter out most of the background noises?

There are a few things that you should probably look at. Some microphones have different recording patterns. You can choose an optimal recording pattern depending on the setting. Cardioid mode records what is directly in front of the receiver versus say an omni\-directional mic that will pick up in a 360 degree pattern. You can also apply what is called a pop filter. Pop filters work by reducing air flow towards the mic which effectively removes the popping and white noises often heard.

ELI5:They say an object is of a particular color because it absorbs all colors but that particular color that is reflected back but what is that "absorption" exactly. What is going on in terms of atomic level to make an object absorb or reflect a particular color?

It all comes down to electrons. Electrons exist in certain energy levels around the atom. At rest, they're in the lowest energy state, but they can absorb energy to become excited - and move up to higher energy states. However, they can only absorb energy in precise amounts - exactly the amount needed to increase their energy state to a whole integer multiple. This means they can go from ground to 1st excited, or ground to 2nd excited, but they can't go from ground to 1.5. Now for light, the amount of energy that a photon contains is a function of its frequency, which itself can be determined from the wavelength - and its wavelength that determines color. This means certain energies are associated with certain colors of light. And electrons need to absorb certain energy to increase their energy level. If this amount they can absorb is equal to the amount in photons of a particular color, they'll absorb light of that color. Now, photons can also decay back to the ground state, and they do this by releasing photons. They don't always go from their excited state straight to the ground state, they can fall through intermediary states and release photons equal to the difference in energy of these intermediate steps. If that energy corresponds to light of a certain color, they emit light of that color. Put this together and it means that substances can absorb light of one color and emit light of another color or mixture of colors. Or they can absorb light outside the visible spectrum and emit light in the visible spectrum, or absorb light in the visible spectrum and emit light outside the visible spectrum.

CMV:Companies should not be able to hold patents unless they are using them

The purpose of patents is to help promote innovation by protecting the innovators from having their work stolen, however in modern times they aren't always used for that. Today many large companies buy up patents for competing products just to keep them off the market, even worse patent trolls produce nothing and suck massive amounts of money from the system by suing or threatening to sue anyone they can find who comes any where close to a patent they hold. I think patents are good and I want them to keep existing but I think patent law needs to be changed to make sure that the patent system continues to promote innovation not stifle it. _____ > *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!*

Universities often develop patentable research but do not have the money to commercialise the invention and turn it into an industrial product. Instead, they convert their efforts into revenue by licensing other people to use the invention for a royalty fee. If people aren't willing to pay what the invention is worth, then it is quite possible that the patent will remain on the university's books without being used. The same can happen for small start-up companies that cannot secure investment capital to put their invention into production. Should such organisations be denied intellectual property protection merely because they don't use their patents themselves? Further, what inventive is there for people to pay the license fees if they can get the patent abolished by refusing and letting the owner lose it for lack of use? And further still, how can the patent office know at the time they grant the patent whether or not the patent is or isn't in use or impending use? They don't have the capacity to determine that, especially not without revealing lots of commercially confidential information.

Is it “epistemologically” or “epistemically?”

Or are they just fungible synonyms, like the fungible spelling of “zeros” and “zeroes?” When I brought up the epistemically/epistemologically thing to my professor, she didn’t correct me and was just really nice about it, so, from that point onward, I’ve been using them interchangeably, as I really don’t know why both words exist and what the linguistic difference is between the two of them. I don’t want to appropriate and/or misuse technical terms; which is correct and what are the words’ exact uses, as individual entities?

Sometimes people use epistemic/epistemically to refer to things that have to do with knowledge, its justification, and so on, and epistemological(ly) to refer to things that have to do with the academic study thereof - the discipline of epistemology. We might reflect on what epistemic and non-epistemic factors play into the development of a theory in some other discipline, maybe science, meaning factors that primarily have to do with knowledge about something, and others that don't (e.g. sociological factors, funding, ...). By comparison, someone might tell us something about knowledge, e.g. 'knowledge comes in degrees', and we might say something like 'epistemologically, that's difficult to make precise...' basically meaning when doing epistemology (or reflecting on knowledge etc), it's difficult to make this precise in the sense of developing a theory and writing a precise paper about it or something like that. But I've also seen many people use it more or less interchangeably, and of course the two uses above are closely related anyway.

ELI5: why do some pictures online load top to bottom (line of pixels line by line) and other go from blurry to clear?

Because these are two different strategies to load images. In strategy A you break down the image data into small pieces and send each piece one by one. As soon as a piece is received it shows up on your screen. Typically the pieces are sent such that the top most part of the image is sent first. In strategy B you keep multiple copies of the image in different "resolutions" or "quality". The lower the resolution the more pixelated or blurry the image. In this case, the website is smart enough to detect your internet speed and send images of the appropriate quality. Initially it sends the worst quality image and slowly the better quality image is loaded. This is seen on the screen as going from blurry to clear. PS: This is highly ELI5'd. The actuals may be slightly different

ELI5: Being such a vast country, how come the US does not have high speed trains to connect major cities?

Cost and distance. Building rail infrastructure requires a large investment, and the distance between population centers is huge. Outside of the North-East, the population density is very low across the US. In addition, we have a somewhat-decent network or roads and airlines which cover the majority of transit needs.

ELI5: Why do so many loading screens go to 90% really quick, then take just as long or longer to finish the last 90%?

Here is one example: A progress bar shows the total progress of all tasks being done. Each individual task might be different and it may not be easy to determine how long it will take (some recursive functions). So instead of calculating the progress of each task, it will just move the progress bar forward each time one is completed. So say there are 10 tasks to do: Task 1 of 10 complete, move the bar to 10%. Task 2 of 10 complete, move the bar to 20%. Task 3 of 10 complete, move the bar to 30%. And so on. Each of those tasks can take longer than the other so the progress bar can appear to jump in some places and stop in others, instead of a smooth transition from 0% to 100%.

ELI5...if the ingredients for all different kinds of cheese are pretty much the same, how do they make different flavor cheeses?

There are a bunch of different factors, but here's a rough list: Type of milk.... cow? Goat? Sheep? A mix? Does the animal eat mostly green grass? Hay? All of these change the flavor, fat and protein content of the final cheese. How hot you get the milk during the initial stages, before you add the rennet (curdling enzyme). Water content: Do you loosely pack the curds and let them drain? Do you "cheddar" them by heavily salting them and pressing as much of the whey out as you can? Again, this has a profound effect on the final cheese. Inoculation: The bacteria, molds, etc used to ferment the cheese. This can be a function of the temperature and humidity you choose, the location, the salt content, and of course you can *literally* swab it on the cheese, add it in, etc. "Other": So... some cheese have spices or seeds added, or they're packed in straw, or aged in a dry cave for years, or swabbed with bacterial sponges every few days (muenster, yum). Is it aged for a few weeks, eaten fresh (like haloumi), or aged so that the original cheese has been almost completely converted? Cheese mites also can play a role, and many other fun organisms. Finally... in the high end you have "post-production" known as "Affinage". This is a matter of taking your cheese to a master cheese "ager", who probably has a little cellar with ideal conditions, and a ton of expertise.

ELI5: How does a doctor differentiate walking pneumonia from bronchitis, the flu, or MONO?

Bacterial pneumonia (both typical and walking) is diagnosed through a sputum culture. The patient coughs up fluid from the airways, and the sample is incubated. If there's bacteria in the sample, they will grow and form cultures. The bacterium can be identified using microscopy or special biochemical tests. Viral pneumonia (including influenza) is diagnosed through PCR, a type of genetic test. It detects viral DNA. Bronchitis is diagnosed through a spirometry, a type of breathing test. It tests how much air the patient can exhale in 1 second. This number is reduced in bronchitis, COPD and asthma.

ELI5: How do combustion engines (for example all 4 cylinder unleaded gasoline car engines) have varying levels of efficiency if the concept and design is relatively the same? What improves the efficiency?

Gasoline engines control power by restricting the amount of air that can enter the engine. This reduces efficiency because you’re wasting some energy to pull air in past the restriction, as well as reducing peak temperature/pressure and other factors that would allow the engine to work at its peak efficiency. So an oversized engine run at a small fraction of its possible power is often less efficient than a small engine run near its full power. Gasoline engines also have limits on how much they can compress the air/fuel mixture (compression ratio) as well as the use of turbo pressure, and limits on the ratio of air to fuel. These are *all* related to the issue of fuel burning before it is supposed to (preignition or detonation) or failing to burn. Modern direct-injection systems (which share some of these benefits with Diesel engines) get around these limitations by waiting to inject fuel until the moment it’s supposed to burn, and combined with advanced spark systems make sure it burns even in less than ideal conditions. Fuel injection itself was already an improvement over carburetors, with the advantages of simply making sure all the fuel was mixed with air so that it could burn, and allowing more precise control over air/fuel mixture in different cases.

Where do photons come from?

For example, if you were in a dark room and you lit a match, where do the photons come from? Were they dormant in the room, or stored somehow in the chemicals of the match?

Photons are created/emitted when charged particles lose some energy. In the case of visible photons, the charged particle is usually an electron. When you light a match, an exothermic chemical reaction takes place. Through multiple mechanisms, some of this energy leads to electrons in molecular orbitals being placed into excited states. As the electrons relax back down to their lowest energy state, they emit photons. The photons were not dormant - they didn't exist at all until the match was lit. Eventually they are absorbed by another electron - probably one attached to a molecule on the wall of the room. This electron gets excited. Now, this could lead to another photon being emitted through reflection (think of the sunlight that reflects off of the moon to reach you at night), but the energy from the excited electron can also be transferred into vibrational or rotational motion of the molecules nearby and be dissipated as heat.

Philosophy on the existence of logic

I was wondering if there is philosophy on the existence of logic. Thought experiments on how a world with no logic would look like or "proofs" that some kind of logic must exist. Or thought experiments on how a world with different logical rules would be able to function.

A classic paper on this is James Conant's "The Search for Logically Alien Thought", which chronicles the shifting positions Hilary Putnam held on this topic over the course of his career (and finds sources for each position in the history of philosophy). It's a great way to get a bearing on some of the different possible views here and a get a sense of where some influential figures (Descartes, Kant, Aquinas) came down on this.

[Star Wars] How do you quantify the durability of Star Wars spaceships?

I've recently noticed a pretty big inconsistency when it comes to the durability of star ships in the Star Wars franchise. See, there have been many, many times when these ships have crash landed on planets and survived relatively intact. This is all well and good until you realize that they would need to be withstanding several kilotons of force to survive such an impact, when only moments before they had likely been shot down by a laser or missile that obviously does not pack that kind of punch. So, what gives? How durable are these ships?

Really depends on the size, outfitting, construction and type of ship. Stuff like TIEs are paper flimsy, they have no shields and little to no armor-rock collisions or heavy man portable weaponry can be take one out in one hit. More advanced TIEs (like the TIE Advanced or Defender or First Order TIEs) have both shielding and slightly heavier armor. The Advanced can survive being struck by another TIE without destroying the ship, but first order TIEs are still weak to collision damage. Something like an X-Wing or B-Wing packs beefier shields, more armor and is a bit more survivable. A T-65 X-Wing can survive a crash landing into a swamp without much damage (likely with shields up) but a T-70 can be disabled and destroyed with heavy arms fire. Going up a class or two is when you get the tankier ships. We’ve seen ships like the Millennium Falcon and the Ghost take on damage that would obliterate smaller ships. The Falcon is presumably still eventually flight worthy after a crash landing, and can take a fair amount of small arms fire without much issue (but things like E-WEB blasters do seem to pose a threat). Hits that would likely destroy a TIE (such as losing the radar dish in RotJ) are survivable, and we can see in VII that it can handle a rough takeoff and crash landing without much issue now-the upgrades Han made to the Falcon seem to have helped a ton. At the higher scale we have capital ships, which are much much much stronger. Invisible Hand is able to still function to an extent with half a ship, and even manages a survivable atmospheric landing. A Star Destroyer can shrug off the impact of a Hammerhead corvette(?) colliding into it even with shields down, but of course can’t survive a collision with another destroyer. Other ISDs are shown to be able to shrug off the impact of a few asteroids near Hoth, but one is taken out by a large enough impact. The Executor is even more resistant. Although the kamikaze A-Wing took out the primary bridge when shields were down, the rest of the ship was fine-it was just very close to a large body, and the time it took to get the backup bridge up and running wasn’t enough to stop it from colliding with the Death Star. And at the extreme edge, you have the First Order Mega Class Star Destroyer. Although it was split in half by another capital ship accelerating at light speed, a large portion of the ship was still partially functional. TL;DR, bigger ships more likely to have better armor and shielding.

ELI5: how did jazz go from being considered the "devil's music" to becoming very high brow, often considered nearly equally as high brow as classical?

Changing cultural perceptions of black people and their cultural music. Jazz was heavily spread through some segments of African Americans in it's formative years and it became associated with them. Many of the best Jazz musicians were AAs. And during these years most (white, christian) Americans looked down on blacks and so denigrated their music as well. In our current era highbrow liberals are now embracing black culture, and it's a sign of sophistication to love black culture, and the easiest way to do that (at least without being accused of cultural appropriation) is to love Jazz.

Do gravitational fields travel through Portals?

If I were to place a portal on my kitchen floor and another on a neutron star, how would this affect the planet? Can you use the portal gun on Black Holes?

If you place a portal on a wall, another one on a ceiling and you stand near the one on the wall, you won't be "attracted" by the gravitation of the ceiling one so i tend to think that gravitational force doesn't travel through portals. However, pressure difference can travel through portal (like the scene when Chell put one on the moon) so if you put a portal on a neutron star this may not be good for your kitchen..

Assistant Prof Application Materials: Passion vs Pragmatism?

I have been using Karen Kelsky's *The Professor is In* as my guide to preparing my application materials. However, my advisor has given me some feedback which conflicts pretty strongly with Kelsky's advice. Namely, whereas she says, > "Desperate job seekers write bad materials because these materials consistently substitute emotion for facts. 'I am sincere in my commitment to'; 'I am excited to be a part of'; and my pet peeve: 'I am passionate about.' This language is painfully overused and hackneyed. It doesn't communicate anything original or compelling. It's also bad because it's just plain ineffective. What academic makes a scholarly deliberation based on the level of emotionalism with which it is presented?" my advisor is arguing that this makes my writing come off as bland and forgettable. He wants me to include more "emotion, excitement, and passion." Thoughts on either of these philosophies? Do you have any advice about how to balance excitement and passion about the position and my work with "fact-based" presentation?

Adverbs and verbs and active voice Rather than say “I am passionate about researching pollution and its effects on birds” describe your research more actively: “seeing the plight of seabirds has led me to research how pollution affects their habitat and migrations” etc

What should I read of Heidegger & Husserl to help me understand Being and Nothingness?

I know nothing about philosophy. I've read *The Stranger* & *The Plague* and really liked them. When I Googled Camus to learn more about him, it said "People also search for Jean-Paul Sartre" and *Being and Nothingness* came up when I clicked on it so I ordered it. Now I've started trying to reading it and it's difficult to understand. From searching around on this sub I've figured out that some things I could read first to help would be: * *Existentialism Is a Humanism* - Sartre * *The Transcendence of the Ego* - Sartre * *Meditations on First Philosophy* - Descartes And then I saw several suggestions to read Heidegger & Husserl, but there weren't many specific suggestions. I wrote down *Being and Time* and *The Paris Lectures*, but I'm not sure if those are the right ones to read. Any suggestions?

Trying to read Hiedegger to understand Satre as an amauter is like learning to be a helicopter pilot in order to get to the grocery store faster. Incredibly difficult and unlikely to help you very much. *Being and Time* is probably one of the most difficult Philosophy books out there, and Husserl isn't know for being an easy read. Just read Satre.

ELI5: iTunes filing system on the iPod Classic

Why are all of my music files given a 4 letter name, and then put into folders called F00 and so on? Please help me understand this phenomenon of Apple's doing like I'm 5.

Imagine you work in a library which holds millions of books not stored in alphabetical order. One day John, Mary and Bob walk into your library and line up to ask you about the books. John asks for a specific book by it's title, Mary asks for all books by a certain author and Bob doesn't know what book he wants, but he knows he likes the types of books he has been reading, and so he asks for a recommendation. To deal with John's request you write down his title and then walk around, searching through each book in the library until you find it. This happens again for Mary's request except this time you search through each book by her requested author. For John's request you have to use your intuition on the type of books he has read and the book he is currently reading then, once again, search each book in the library for any matches. Not only is this slow but you're going to wear out the carpet in your library from walking on it so much! We need to think of something else. A much better approach would be to have an ordered list of all the books and their locations. This list is easy to search and you don't even have to move off of your seat. However, there is a problem, how do you determine between different books with the same title? We need to give each book a unique identifier for this list to work. So, now when John, Mary or Bob ask their questions you can very quickly look up the requested titles in your list and grab the book straight away without touching (and therefore damaging) anything else. Similarly, the iPods (and phones) store all of the song metadata in a database (searchable list) which is updated on every sync. This is much faster than constantly trying to search for song metadata on the fly. Since each entry in the database much be identifiable uniquely, each song must be labelled as such. iTunes ensures that each song file name is unique so that it can be identified uniquely from the database even if all of it's meta data is the same as another song. This is also why iPods/iPhones have to connect to iTunes to sync, because of the song information database. In exchange for drag and drop you get lightning fast search, snappy user interface, song recommendations and automatic playlist compilation.

Why do companies put an emphasis on whether or not your Hispanic on job applications.

Being half Hispanic and half Caucasian, I've always been curious on why I can never check the two races box. Example here: http://imgur.com/ZzOv4bS

Companies are ranked on how diverse they are, and if a company is not very diverse ethnically it will give the company a bad image and accusations of favoritism based on race. To combat this there are occasions when a company will make a conscious effort to employ more blacks/latino/Hispanics.

[The Matrix] Why do people in the Matrix that get injured show signs of damage in real life?

For example when Neo gets unplugged from the jump program and he finds blood on his mouth. How could the Matrix create such a strong suggestive placebo effect, that it could actually tear skin? Or an more confusing example, when Neo brings Trinity back to life by literally restarting her heart within the Matrix. How could that transfer into real life. If her brain was tricked into dying, and the monitor still reads that her brain is dead, how could she restart her heart independently, since nothing happened to her in the real world?

Many of the signs of injury are actually caused by your body. Inflammation is a major contributor to what we think of as "injury". Inflammation is your body's response to damage. It is telling you "this part hurts. Don't move it." Unfortunately, large amounts of inflammation can actually damage your body. When your brain believes that your body has been seriously damaged, it attempts normal damage response. It causes inflammation and blood coagulants to flow, various hormones are release, etc. This can cause physiological effects similar to real injury.

[Harry Potter] Are wizards like Dumbledore/Grindelwald/Voldemort so powerful because they studied more magic than the average wizards?

So my understanding is that, to an average wizard, there really is no point in going above and beyond when learning magic. They might go to school, get an education and then get a job. Sprinkle and spells and magic here and there and you really don't need to be the "best", just "good enough". So my question is, is that how majority of the wizarding world mindset is, and exactly why people who go above and beyond, such as Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are seen as godly wizards? They never stop learning, they always want more and more knowledge and power. I mean, even if you are an auror, just how much spells do you need? A couple of stunning spells? Defense spells? It seems any wizard can be like the caliber of Dumbledore if they just learnt more or tried. Is the wizarding world just poorly educated and no drive to learn beyond what they do in school? It seems the lack of ambition is why most wizards aren't so powerful. After all, everyone can equally cast a spell, so what makes Voldemort casting a spell any different than some Joe schmoe off the streets? The spell would come out the same from the wand, no?

It's not just wrist work, and or not just intelligence, you need a fair amount of cognitive flexibility and resilience to perform some spells. Expecto Patronum required you to think of something happy. Ridikulous required you to think up, on the spot, something funny about a boggart (your worst fear) It's like most other abilities, training will make you better, but some people are simply more talented.

ELIF: When a video game is in development for 4-5 years (like the Elder Scrolls series), how do they keep up with technological growth?

I read that Bethesda has been working on Fallout 4 since before Fallout: New Vegas was released.

1. You anticipate developments and design a game for hardware that doesn't yet exist. A big developer will also get engineering samples prior to their sale to the general public. 2. You don't release for hardware that is brand new, but release for hardware that is a couple years old. So in the early stages of development your game is targeted at graphics cards that won't come out for another two or three years, but in the later stages of development your minimum hardware requirements are the current state of the art/most expensive hardware, and by the time you actually release your minimum requirements are now common hardware.

CMV: Religious exemptions should not exist in US law or government regulation.

My argument boils down to a few simple points: * Unless any religion can be claimed, including ones as outlandish as Scientology and Pastafarianism, or as rare as Zoroastrianism, then it is respecting an establishment of religion, ie only the religions the government recognizes as legitimate. * It establishes religion over irreligion. An atheist person or a secular organization cannot make use of these exceptions. * It devalues the laws or regulations religions are excempt from. Either something is necessary or it is not. * It causes more harm than good. Several states allow for parents to kill their kids through neglect, as long as that neglect is rooted in religion. This isn't the most well thought out post, but I can't think of any benefit of religious exemption that promotes the general welfare or equality.

1) Freedom of Religion is literally part of the Bill of Rights. The Government has a duty to protect the right of the citizens to practice religion freely - though also a duty to not endorse any particular religion. 2) Almost all religious exceptions, also include Philosophical objections. Atheists can often also hop on the "religious exemption bandwagon" if they want to. These laws often don't exclude atheism. 3) The government cannot promote or endorse any particular religion, but it can acknowledge that religions exist. "Christianity exists" is not a statement which violates the separation of church and state.

ELI5: Why are Jews classified as their own race?

I do not mean offense to any one, let me preface with that. My question is because when i think of racism, i think of it being discriminatory or hateful things done to someone of a different skin color, thus a different "race" of humans. Jews are, at first glance, no different looking than anyone else from that part of the world. So why then, is being "racist" against a Jew, different than being "racist" against a black person.

Jews are an ethnoreligious group. People often use ethnic groups and races interchangeably. Jews are particularly confusing because they are an ethnic group that practices a specific religion and there was a diaspora, meaning that they don't all come from the same place unless you go very far back. Think of Jews just like you would think of Druze or Roma or Kurds.

Is the mass of the earth constantly changing?

I mean everyday we're increasing in numbers human, animals etc. The mass probably won't change by a significant amount. But is it theoretically possible that the mass of the earth (without any mass from the cosmos, like asteroids) changes that much that the "elliptical path" the earth has around the sun changes by a significant amount?

You have to remember that the mass of animals comes from the air they breath and the food and water they consume. It doesn't just magically appear. The only real change in mass comes from asteroid activity, and loss of atmosphere to space. But even that is basically insignificant when compared to the mass of the body as a whole.

What are the best papers on the subject of transgenderism?

I'm more interested in metaphysical perspectives, i.e., arguments on the question of whether trans individuals are or aren't the gender they identify as. Not really looking for ethical/political perspectives. Thanks!

> the question of whether trans individuals are or aren't the gender they identify as Not a direct answer but might be worth mentioning. When the question is posed like this, I'd be careful in posing it as a question of metaphysics or only metaphysics, because there is also an epistemological question there that is very important for both metaphysical and political implications of gender; i.e., the question of whether a person can be mistaken about their gender, and how important a person's geniune word is to the epistemological justification of gender-claims about said person.

ELI5: How do plants and trees know when to start blooming during the beginning of the spring through summer?

They have a bunch of signalling molecules and structure, it's also somewhat genetically programmed. The entire thing isn't figured out yet. They can sense a change in temperature, rainfall, humidity and sunshine hours. All these signals trigger a cascade (of reproductive hormones) that tells them to start blooming

ELI5: Why aren’t cars shaped like teardrops?

If teardrops are an extremely aerodynamic shape, why aren’t cars shaped like them? Are modern car designs the most aerodynamically efficient they could possibly get? Or is there another reason why cars aren’t seeming to get more tear-shaped?

Cars need to balance aerodynamics with other considerations such as ease of manufacturing, cargo space, passenger space, curb appeal, etc. Modern car designs are certainly not the most aerodynamically efficient they could get. Ever seen a Toyota FJ Cruiser? Or basically any Jeep?

[Harry Potter] If I'm a wizard and I want some object, am I better off conjuring it from nothing, or transfiguring a useless object into what I want?

Is one easier than the other? Is either permanent?

It depends on what you’re more skilled in. Generally speaking no branch of magic is easier for every wizard than another branch. Some wizards are more skilled at conjuration, some are more skilled at transfiguration. That said, there are certain objects that can’t be conjured from nothing and other objects which can’t be transfigured or have something transfigured into them, so it also depends on the type of object you’re wanting.

Would it be unethical to establish an "authorship ring" if everyone actually contributed intellectually?

Suppose 3 friends who work in the same field (Avery, Billie, and Charlie) come to a mutual agreement: They agree to always include each other on papers related to their shared work. They discuss the projects, make suggestions regarding analysis and interpretation, and help each other write the discussion and introduction sections. Would this be considered unethical for any reason? It seems to me like a great way to boost publication count, strengthen networks, and the "many hands make light work" principle.

If all three authors contribute enough intellectually to the papers to merit authorship, then its not an "authorship ring", its a collaboration. That said, there's a reason why (field dependent of course), people tend to value first-authorships (for grad students) and last authorships (for senior authors) over middle authorships.

ELI5: How does the machine measure oxygenation through the skin of your finger?

I was at the doctors with my kid and the nurse put a clip over his finger wich was hooked to a monitor. How can it measure pulse and oxygenation? PS: I am a first time poster and english is not my native tongue. Be gentle:)

The process is called "Pulse oximetry". To simplify the way it works, the device which is placed somewhere on the body where the skin is thin, in your case the finger, and it emits specific light wave lengths, and its sensors detects what waves are being absorbed through the blood, giving them a fairly accurate approximation of the oxygenation of your blood.

How do I know what to read first?

Before you read Hegel you should read Kant. Before you read Kant you should read Hume. Before anyone, Aristotle. Or should you? What I want to do is read Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Hobbes, Hume, Wittgenstein: I want to understand modern social political and philosophical ideas. But how do you know when you have to read someone before you read someone? I ended up going all the way back to Aristotle and giving myself a year's worth of reading before I even got to what I wanted! Help! EDIT: thanks for the responses, I should just note that I'm about to start a masters in social anthropology. I'm not a 'beginner' in philosophical reading in the sense I've been doing it solo for some years, but I am a beginner in the sense I've never had training in the area, and never had a foundation of knowledge laid, I just picked up books and read them, almost at random, hence why I'm looking for an essential foundation now, or if it is necessary at all.

You could start wherever you'd like, and if you find yourself confused, go one step earlier, and repeat the process. If you end up confused at Aristotle, you could try Plato, at which point social and political philosophy in the West more or less bottoms out, so hopefully you aren't confused by Plato.

ELI5: Why does music “make sense”, why can we predict/expect the next musical notes having never heard the melody/song before?

I get the idea of certain melodies being used in different songs, but it happens sometimes even with unfamiliar melodies/songs. Is this a known phenomena? how do you explain this?

Western music follows lots of established patterns, and melodies and chord progressions often “resolve” in similar ways—for example, by ending on the same note they started on. Since we’re inundated by music all the time, our brains learn to recognize and predict patterns the same way they do for everything else. A songwriter or composer can create tension by subverting expectations.

ELI5: How Middle East terrorists groups makes money?

I've heard that that central american terrorists groups make money throughout drugs, but I've never heard how middle east terrorists groups make money and sustain themselves.

Depends on the groups. - Donations from countries like Iran, Saudi arabia, UAE, - Extorsion and protection money - small and medium businesses (hezbullah was found to even been peddling used cars) - Investment banking. - Drugs and weapons, While they do prohibit their consumption, selling them to non muslims seem to be ok.

ELI5: How are bees attracted to a beekeeper's artificial hive? Do they find the space accidentally? Or do you use something to attract them?

Bee hives are generally started by purchasing or otherwise obtaining a queen bee and then splitting a hive, with some portion of the bees now serving the new queen and her hive. This simulates the natural process of a hive reaching a critical size where new queens will develop wings, a swarm of bees travels some distance, and finally settles in a new location. Beekeepers don't just construct hives and put them out in a field hoping that bees will just magically appear. That would be like a cattle farmer fencing off a pasture and crossing their fingers that cows showed up.

Why does still water breed more bacteria than flowing water?

Also if still water is exposed to only air in a setting where nothing else can get in, will it still get bacteria?

It’s likely that there will be bacteria in almost all water, whether it’s flowing, or not However, there will likely be more in slow-moving or stagnant water because it’s easier for bacteria to find their food source. And the food source probably won’t be moving. Also, mechanical action (scrubbing) from living water could break cell membranes, destroying the bacteria

ELI5: What is the difference between moral and ethics?

While both morals and ethics are ways to categorize both "Right" and "Wrong"- the difference is the perspective from which the judgement is being made. In short, morals are beliefs from an internal or personal perspective- while ethics are beliefs from an external (community, culture, religion, etc) perspective. A good way to tell the difference is by looking at moral dilemmas vs ethical dilemmas and which parties are commonly involved. A moral dillema is most commonly an internally driven conflict- where the individual must make a decision based on their own contradicting views. An ethical dilemma in contrast generally involves two separate parties disagreeing on what would be the correct moral choice. Ethics will generally encapsulate the agreed morals of a particular group- while morals themselves are the individual beliefs that make up those groups.

How are toll roads legal? I thought that taxes payed for roads?

Question in the title plus a bonus: can you get a ticket for using the fast pass or pike pass lane without having the pass?

You pay a premium on certain frequently used roads/bridges/tunnels in order to supplement the general taxes. This keeps people who use the road more (though not entirely) financially responsible for contributing to upkeep. As opposed to raising taxes on everyone all the time. LY5? Every person in your neighborhood has access to dial-up Internet because they live there. If people want faster Internet, they can pay a "boost fee" for a speed boost. This speed boost makes things faster, but maintenance on the boosters costs a lot of money. The internet company uses the "boost fee" to make the boost lines all better without making everyone in the neighborhoods pay for all the repairs.

Eli5 what is economy of scale and what is economy of scope?

Its 3 am and i dont have the brain activity to understand anything anymore. Please be as patronising as possible.

The word "economy" in these phrases means "savings." Economy of scale: it costs less to make something in bulk (and then divide it into small packages for sale) than to make many (small) quantities. A cookie-making factory will have less costs per cookie than, say, the sum of all the pastry chefs in NY working separately at their bakeries to make cookies. Economy of scope: it costs less to make related items in a factory than to have separate factories for each item. The cookie factory could easily be expanded to also make waffles, pancakes, donuts, etc., and it would cost less than building separate factories for each of these related products.

Why are many philosophers politically rather left oriented?

In the past year I really started to enjoy philosophy a lot. A few weeks ago then I stumbled across the the youtube channel "the school of life" which is quite cool because it give me a quick peek into a lot of the theories from different philosophers I often heard about but never knew their work. I noticed that a lot of the important philosophers of the last two centuries seem to be politically rather left wing oriented and tend to criticize capitalism a lot. What is the reason behind this? Is it, that capitalism after all is the dominant form of economy in the west and since it sometimes seems that philosophers suffer in our society and thus tend to think about it more deeply it is only inevitable that they criticize this very defining part of our society?

There are two very different questions you could be asking here: 1. What are the sociological reasons driving political philosophy to be mostly made up of leftists? 2. On what grounds do many political philosophers hold (i.e. justify) their left-leaning opinions? Which of these are you interested in?

ELI5: Why do we feel so much better when we hit the "perfect" temperature in a shower even though it is such a small change in temperature?

Some points about showering and temperature: Water is quite conductive of heat. It will absorb heat from you quickly if it's cold, and warm you up quickly if it's warm. Water in the shower is moving which makes it even better at changing your body temperature. When you are swimming and not moving around much, for instance, there will be a layer of warmer water near your skin which means heat is getting pulled out of you slower than it might otherwise. In the shower, that layer is constantly getting washed away, so you are in constant contact with the water close to the temperature that's coming out of the shower head. Water has a huge heat capacity compared to anything else with very few exceptions. Add this all together, and you have a very good way of changing your body temperature in a hurry. I'll make no comment on why it feels so much better, but these are some of the reasons why a small change in water temperature makes it feel like a large change.

What do Postmodernists mean by “Skepticism towards Metanarratives” mean in simple terms?

One aspect of modern, post-Enlightenment thinking has been the view that history has a direction. “We” through history are heading towards a liberal democracy or a communist utopia, or some other endpoint. The postmodern critique of this modern notion is that this overarching story of a direction to history is a fabrication. History and humans may have no overarching direction as told in the older big stories or metanarratives we used to tell ourselves.

ELI5: why do canals not freeze under bridges when they freeze elsewhere?

Bridges are often pinch points where the water is compressed and the increased current makes it harder to freeze. They're expensive to build so they're often built across narrow points in the water. They often also have supporting posts in the middle. Both the increased flow as the banks close in and the deflection in flow caused by the supporting posts cause increased turbulence and motion in the water, and calm water freezes much more easily than water in motion. So as a result the ice in that area takes longer to freeze and less time to melt because it's thinner.

Are there any "living clades" (2 or more species whose last common ancestor is not extinct)?

I can't think of any... it could happen, right? Oh and "living clade" is apparently a meaninglyes term that I've just made up, which is probably why I can't google it! And maybe I'm using it wrong anyway, unless I'm also going to insist that ALL the descendents of the last common ancestor are still with us. I would settle for any pair of distinct species who share a common ancestor that is not extinct.

This can get a little tricky with definitions: what you want is two separate populations, which are different species, both of whom have a common ancestor which was a member of a third species, which is still extant, right? The problem may be in how much you variation you'll accept in that ancestral species, compared to its modern populations. The African bush elephant and the African forest elephant are both still around, of course, and they diverged about 2 million years ago. That last common ancestor, though, was probably a bush elephant.

Bell's Inequality (and related experiments) shows realness and locality can't both be true. Most of the discussions I see prefer to keep locality and forego with realism. Why? Are we just being deferential to Einstein's aversion to spooky action at a distance?

Special relativity would force locality at a conceptual level. It's not merely that causation can't move too fast, it's that literally different inertial frame of reference would register 2 events in different time order, so if you claim that something is a "cause", in certain frame of reference the effect happen before the cause. We have theories that accept realism and forgo locality: de Broglie-Bohm's pilot wave theory. It does have some supports. However, the issue with such theories is that it's hard to incorporate that with special relativity into an overarching theory that can handle particles moving at relativistic speed. Physicists were able to combine both quantum mechanics and special relativity together and it had been extremely successful at making predictions, so until we have evidences otherwise, we should accept that special relativity is correct and can be combined with quantum mechanic.

How do cells stick together?

We are formed of tissues that can be fairly strong! We can't for example take a handfull of our cells easily. How do they stick so well together?

Cells produce something called an extracellular matrix, which is a dense, complex network of very large proteins which stick to each other. The matrix surrounds the cells, and the cells produce proteins which attach them to the matrix. All cells do this, and in reality the body isn't just composed of cells holding on to each other - it's better to think of it as a large, resilient protein matrix which cells live inside. If you wanted to reach in and grab some cells, you have to also rip away the surrounding matrix, because they hold on so tightly with their adhesive proteins.

ELI5: Why are groceries more expensive in poorer neighborhoods?

I just moved from an apartment that borders a pretty wealthy area with high line and chain grocery stores. I have shopped at these stores for years and have a pretty good mental note of how expensive items are. The house I moved into borders "the hood" and is in an older part of town. After grocery shopping at two major grocery store chains here, I noticed everything is fucking 10-30% more expensive for the exact same stuff. In the rich neighborhood, there are huge amounts of specials, by one get one free, sale tags everywhere for lower prices on things. Meats, dairy, produce, toiletries, kitchen disposables and so on are all way more expensive in the poor neighborhood. My theory is it's a fleecing of the EBT programs. The population has a higher concentration of food stamps so stores jack prices and never put anything on sale because EBT users don't give a shit. Am I wrong? Why so much more expensive in an area where people have a whole lot less money than the neighborhood I moved from? Pisses me off because I pay for my food and have to travel to a rich neighborhood to get better prices.

Let's look at what makes a rich neighborhood grocery store work (we'll use Safeway which is a large public grocery chain): * *They are large.* Their 2013 sales were $36.139 billion. So volume is important. * *The stores are large* Their average store size is 47,500 square feet. This is necessary to get the volume and keep inventory turns high. * *But their profit is slim.* Their 2013 operating profit was $635 million (1.8% of sales). This tells us they don't have much wiggle room to absorb costs with the prices they charge. * Looking deeper, they have 1326 stores. * However they have 137,000 full and part time employees (103 per store). Most stores are open 24 hours a day, which is 21 standard 8 hour shifts per week that must be covered. If we presume all employees work in stores, all employees are full time, and all shifts are equally staffed that means of the store only has 24-25 people working on a shift! * Combining the employees with the square footage data, each person is responsible for about 1,800 square feet (including specialists like cashiers and butchers who are really only covering a fraction of that). * Their 2013 inventory was $2.089 billion (or $1.575 million per store). That means there's 1.5 million dollars worth of stuff sitting around not well watched. Combining the keys, a cheap grocery only works if they can have a huge store with a lot of inventory (to keep stocking fees from climbing), at low margin (to keep prices low), with few employees (low margin), and maintain controlled theft losses. They can't do that in the poor neighborhoods. So prices become the thing that gives.

ELI5: How does radiation cause cancer?

The kind of radiation that can cause cancer is called ionizing radiation. This is radiation that has enough energy to break the bonds between DNA bases. When the bases are broken, our cells have mechanisms that can repair them. But, these mechanisms are not 100% accurate. They're good, but they're not perfect. So, if enough bonds get broken and have to be repaired, eventually there's a mistake. Or, realistically, a bunch of mistakes. If it's the right kind of mistake (or wrong kind, depending on your view), it will cause the cell it occurs in to begin dividing indefinitely, without regard to the other cells around it. This mass of indefinitely dividing cells is a tumor.

ELI5: Why do we have two distinct genders as opposed to all being hermaphrodites.

It seems to me that it would be easier from an evolutionary standpoint if any two people could breed. What's the advantage of having a male and a female?

First of all, get it out of your head that evolution tends toward the "most advantage." Evolution is a compounding process in which traits from billions of years of biological change pile up on each other one on top of another. Of course, some information is lost through the ages, but at no point does DNA take stock of itself and make the most advantageous choice. The division between asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction took place a long time ago and, for whatever reason, it worked for the organisms that developed it. Most likely, they were very simple organisms compared to us, so they faced much different survival pressures. How can we begin to justify sexual production in terms of what we go through? We simply can't. Sexual reproduction is a relic of times long past. There is no "why" to it. One thing is for sure - we're not going back.

Would heavy unstable elements at the core of a star have a significantly extended half-life due to gravity?

If you think of gravitational time dilation: No. It's a tiny effect for stars, just a few parts in a million. Instead of 1 second the lifetime (as seen from far away) is now 1.000005 seconds or something like that (with the exact number depending on the star) - not a big deal.

CMV: Banning the Islamic Face Veil is about Islamaphobia, not women's rights.

My argument relies on Nuns. How can we ban the Face Veil but find the uniforms Nuns wear completely okay? Nuns are not allowed to have sex, and often required to wear a specific outfit. Yet women do this by choice. Is it okay for women to choose to be nuns but not to wear a face veil? The context hear relies on modern Islam in the United States. Where many women are practicing Muslims but do not wear the Face Veil, and those who do *usually* do it by choice. What about those who are forced to? What about an all girls Catholic school forced to wear a uniform? What about someone forced to be a nun? What about an abusive husband forcing his wife to wear *anything*? If we have proof it is against people's will we can stop it, but without that we cant tell people what to wear.

How do you know they choose to? How many "choose" to, yet if they didn't "choose" to would be ostracized, divorced, abused, or worse? Sure, there may be/ have been women who were forced into becoming a nun, but that is not the norm. Women who have to wear a veil do it because it is expected, not because it is a life choice. Women should be free to choose what they wear, and how they interact with men. Islam, at least outside of the *most* liberal practitioners, does not allow these freedoms or choices . The whole concept of the hijab is that men cannot control themselves and will abuse women if they do not cover up. This kind of mentality is harmful to both women and men. The world should not cater to these kinds of paranoid delusions. Women deserve more respect than to be told that from a young age.

Are sensory organs like eyes, ears, nose etc. in all or almost all animals close to the brain?

I have wondered because in all animals I can think of, these organs are as close as possible to the brain. The most obvious reason seems to be that this way the sensory input reaches the brain a few milliseconds faster, but I somehow find it hard to believe that the evolutionary pressure has been so high for all animals that those with diverging organs had no way to reproduce in large enough quantities.

The concept of most sensory organs located directly near the brain is mostly vertebrate-centric. Arthropods can diverge from this rule in their extreme diversity, as there are several groups that evolved accessory organs related to functions specifically needed for tasks in their group. A few examples: * Crickets and grasshoppers being one of the few with a communication system through sound, developed ears on their legs. * Butterflys and moths appear to have ear-like structures at the base of their wings, with their wing veins directing sounds towards it. Very useful for detecting predators. * For another butterfly example, some species are able to taste with their legs. This is to find the right host plant for egg deposition. * Spiders have several families with very poor eyesight, which effectively have turned vibration sensing in their extremities into a substitute for ears and eyes.

How does being a grad student compare to tenure-track positions at teaching and research universities?

I'm a 3rd year PhD student in CS. Two years ago, if you asked me what I wanted to do after I graduate, I would have said "be a professor" without hesitation. Now, I'm not so sure. The main reason is that I feel like I'm always just barely keeping my head above water. I'm never early on deadlines and I can never spend more than 4 hours working on a single thing. I feel that I never have enough time to be extraordinary at any one thing - I can only maintain being just-good-enough or above-average at many things (I prefer the former). It seems like that is pretty normal for my advisor as well, which has made me second guess my future goals. However, based on what I've read, there is a big difference between being a professor at a teaching university rather than a research university. So I'm wondering how my current workload as a PhD student compares to those. Is a tenure-track job at a research school very similar to being a grad student? What about a tenure-track job at a teaching school? I'd like to hear some personal experiences on this so that I'm not basing my future decisions off my own predictions. Currently I have this work load: 1) Continue to progress in research, 2) Teaching a new class (which means all new material), 3) Service work (I'm president of a student org), 4) Prepare for qualifying exams (have to write a survey paper and give an oral defense by next Fall), 5) taking 1 class This workload seems to be pretty standard. Not everyone is teaching a class, but most are TA's so they still have teaching responsibilities. Not all students are involved in service so they might not have that. I'm wondering how similar this workload is to the workload of a tenure-track position at a teaching or a research university?

The workload of a junior faculty member is more than that of a grad student. This doesn't make it worse, but it does mean for the first 4-6 years, you are working your ass off more than in grad school. The advantage is that its your work, your field and research interests, and there aren't any exams.

ELI5: Why do men go bald as they get older but women don't?

Genes code for proteins. Baldness is caused by a missing or malformed protein, caused by what we'll call the baldness allele. The version of the gene that makes the protein for hairiness can be the hairy allele. If there's one copy of the hairy allele present, the recipe is there so the protein can be made properly and nobody goes bald. If there's no copy of the hairy allele, only the baldness one, you go bald. Men have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes. Each chromosome is made of multiple genes, each coding for different characteristics. The primary gene for pattern baldness is on the X chromosome. Since the Y chromosome lacks an opposing gene (being significantly shorter), there's no way for the hairy allele to be on the Y chromosome. One copy of the baldness allele is enough to cause male pattern baldness. Women *can* go bald, but they need two of the baldness allele (one on each X chromosome), so it's much rarer.