Datasets:

ibragim-bad

/

reddit_qa

like 0

Do pharmaceutical companies really want to stop the legalization of marijuana? With marijuana legal, the sales of the follow medications would drop tremendously because marijuana is cheap and will get cheaper the longer it is legal. Muscle relaxers anti nausea pain killers appetite increases mood suppressants anxiety meds many more, but the above alone account for about billion dollars a year in the US

What is the argument behind not imposing term limits on United States congress members? The argument is that we have regular elections where their seats come up. This means that they have to earn re-election each time and if their States want them to represent them then why should that be denied them. There is also the argument that experience in lawmaking is very important so the longer someone can be in congress the better.

Why aren't you supposed to use a phone in petrol stations? I've always been told it's because they'll blow up; but is this the real reason? In the early days of cell phones, people were concerned that a ringing cell phone could cause a spark that could ignite fumes and cause a fire. There have been many stories circulated about it happening, but none of them have ever been confirmed. Cellphone manufacturers have stated that there is a tiny possibility that a cellphone could cause a spark, but no actual incidents have ever been documented. Snopes has an article about it here .

Why does a Chinese company such as ZTE feel obliged to pay a $829m fine for infringing US-imposed sanctions against Iran and N Korea? The reason they were fined is because they sold US made/designed goods to Iran and North Korea, among other permitted countries. They want to continue to sell those goods to the "other permitted countries" but would be prevented from doing so if they didn't pay the fine. They have tangible assets in the US, if they refuse to pay the fine the US could seize those assets. Like most companies engaged in international trade they use the US banking system. If they refused to pay the fine they would be prevented from using the US banking system, which could destroy their ability to do business in much of the world.

What would happen if someone guilty admitted their crime after being found innocent? Double jeopardy prevents someone from being re-charged with a crime after having been acquitted of same. So if, for example, you reside in the state of California, and you are validly tried for the murder of John Doe and acquitted, you may never be re-tried for the murder of John Doe, whether by California, another state, or the federal government. This is true even if you hold a press conference the next day to say "Guess what? I did it!" Post-acquittal confessions are not common--most people who get away with crimes are smart enough not to draw attention to this fact--but it's not unknown. In most cases, those people do not face additional criminal charges due to double jeopardy. But of course, no legal answer can be that simple. As other responses have noted, the doctrine of dual sovereignty means that the federal government and individual states are treated as distinct from each other, each with their own law, and each with the authority to bring prosecutions for the violation of their law. It is therefore possible that a single set of actions can constitute crimes in multiple jurisdictions, and while a failed prosecution for one charge eliminates the ability to bring the same charge (or a reasonably similar charge) a second time, this does not mean that sufficiently distinct charges are barred, as well. Bottom line, under certain limited circumstances, the federal government may bring a prosecution concerning the same events (though not the same charges) as a failed state prosecution, and vice versa. In the case of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court announced a rule that still applies regarding the scope of double jeopardy: following acquittal, the government may bring a second prosecution on additional charges arising out of the same underlying events as the first prosecution so long as both the new crime charged and the prior crime each contain an element of proof that the other does not. Let's go back to the California example, where the defendant has beaten a murder charge for killing John Doe, let's call it second-degree murder. After the state acquittal, the federal government cannot come in and bring a first-degree murder charge: this is because while first-degree murder contains elements not present in second-degree murder, there are no elements of second-degree murder not present in first-degree murder, so the later prosecution would fail the Blockburger test. Going in the other direction, the federal government cannot charge with a less severe offense such as battery, since battery is a lesser-included offense (i.e., it is subsumed) in murder. However, if the federal government wanted to charge the defendant with a violation of the victim's civil rights, 18 U.S.C. 242, that would potentially be possible, because there, the crimes have substantially different elements. Therefore, in a situation where a criminal confessed guilt after acquittal, there might still exist other crimes in other jurisdictions that pass the Blockburger test and allow for a second prosecution. Further, as Jennifer Huber-Julie has rightly pointed out, double jeopardy has nothing to do with the civil system, so a failed criminal prosecution does not impact one's ability to bring a civil suit. (Note that there are protections against civil retrial, e.g., res judicata and collateral estoppel, but a failed civil suit would not preclude criminal charges, either.) So confessing to a crime would open the door for a possible civil lawsuit--in the case of murder, the tort of wrongful death would apply.

In the Christian context, what is the "Holy Spirit?" To make a modern analogy: God is the Developer of an MMO. He notices his players are misbehaving, and logs into the game as Jesus. He travels around as Jesus talking to people and preaching. He then gets lynched and killed by trolls. God resurrects Jesus and walks around talking a bit more, then ascends him out of the game. God keeps sending messages and buffs to players using "The Holy Spirit" special account, which isn't his Jesus player account, but a fundamentally different sort of thing. This account doesn't have an Avatar in the game world, but acts more like a GM account.

How is the global warming situation so dire that humans may die out in the next couple hundred years? I apologise for my ignorance- I've actually never researched global warming at all and I know very little about it. I keep hearing that if warming continues as it currently is, we're toast. Can someone explain to me in general what is happening in regards to global warming, and why it is such a crisis at this point? Time and spatial scales are important here. People who think humans are not at all at risk of going extinct due to climate change do not understand the ramifications of our civilization's environmental impact, how these will change the political behavior between nations, and how reliant we are on this careful stability. They also do not seem to understand the scales involved in the statement of "humans becoming extinct". They are severely underestimating just how much we rely on natural balance of ecosystems in order to survive as a species, from a natural and geopolitical perspective, and they certainly don't seem to make the distinction between "human species" and "human civilization". The truth is that our civilization is very fragile, and most modern humans do not have enough knowledge to survive on their own even on smaller groups. A large-scale destabilization of our civilization can plausibly be significant enough to render us unable to survive on the scale of a few centuries. With climate change, the oceans become warmer, more acidic and less oxygenated. This destroys coral reefs and other delicate basal ecosystems which support thousands upon thousands of species. This severely disrupts macroscopic ocean life. The increase in water temperatures and atmospheric temperatures disrupts water and atmospheric currents that are responsible for creating some stable matter exchange cycles between different regions. For instance, there are several barren patches of very high salinity water in the oceans that are being disrupted because of this, which means the ocean's salinity will likely increase and damage more ecosystems. The change in currents prevents distribution of nutrients in one region to others, which in turn also destroys animal life due to a sudden lack of nutrients, which in turn disrupts other animals higher in those food chains. All of this means climate change can and likely will collapse ocean life in a very short time. You'd instead have a huge increase in microscopic life like algae and bacteria, which are potentially toxic, which could pose a serious threat to other life forms, including us. After all, we still rely on fishing to sustain a large number of our population. On ground, climate change also disrupts life. If birds start going extinct due to deforestation and loss of vegetation (due to many reasons) you may expect a huge increase in insect population, which can attack our crops and will require aggressive use of pesticides. This could disrupt insect populations we rely on, like what's happened with bees. Without bees and other species, pollination of plants becomes a huge problem, and not just OUR crops, but all other plants that sustain the ecosystem we rely on to survive. (And for a sense of scale: right now, farmers hire beekeepers who come in with big trucks, just to help with this because of the sheer scale of the farming industry necessary to sustain us.) We can't simply pack up and move our crops to higher latitudes either, as some people seem to think, as the soil is not as fertile due to the lack of historical ecosystems to enrich the soil with nutrients, and to maintain it. Soil is not just dirt, there's billions of things that make soil good for plant life. We do not have anywhere near the technology to render so much soil fertile in a short time. Climate change will also increase the severity and length of large-scale climate disasters like droughts, snowstorms, blizzards, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes, and change the seasonal cycles of plants and animals which took thousands of years to stabilize. All of these can severely disrupt the lives and existence of millions of species of plant and animal life, and billions of people throughout the world. Such shortages and disruptions in food production (among other industries) and mass re-allocation of populations can severely disrupt our social and political structures. Worse, our civilization works because of a very careful social and cultural structure, which is also based on specialized knowledge of a few individuals (do you know how to plant crops? how to treat diseases? how to run a power plant? how to refine oil? how to forge steel?), and large scale scarcity can quickly deteriorate that structure. It doesn't even have to be global, as we rely on international stability. (What happens if China collapses?) Tension inside countries, the distrust of governments and authorities to handle these situations and the lack of cooperation between countries can quickly get out of control. Our reliance on capitalist economics to act on these issues and its economic inequality will certainly play a role in this tension and general distrust of the system. This leads to large scale conflicts, disease, violence and wars, all which cause immense loss of human life. Once the farmers, the doctors or the power plant engineers are gone, how are we supposed to pick up ourselves in time? How are other countries who relied on some other country's infrastructure supposed to adapt in time? Because a person's knowledge of Excel spreadsheets quickly becomes meaningless when things start to go bad. How long can most modern humans survive in the wild without reliance on the luxuries of our large scale civilization? But the takeaway from this is that you must not be anthropocentric when viewing this situation, like everyone always is. "Humans can adapt to anything!" is an anthropocentric view of nature, which pretends that humans are outside of it. People always talk about what climate change will do to our crops and how we'll adapt, to our cities and to our populations and how we'll adapt, but they do not understand these things all rely on an entire natural ecosystem beyond our civilization in order to survive and to exist. Without these natural ecosystems in balance, humans cannot exist, and certainly not our civilization. So if you want to see the impact of climate change in our civilization, you must look at the ecosystem and the natural world first, not humans. So no, humans will not go "extinct" overnight, if that's what you think that word means here, but climate change certainly puts us into a path where our chances to survive as a civilization for thousands of years more is reduced. Civilization as we know it is certainly at a huge risk, and the humans remaining may not last long enough in that post-civilization post-climate change world depending on the severity of the situation. Like I said, it doesn't take many humans to die before you lose the foundation of our civilization's survival, and most of us do not have the knowledge to restart things. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where we go extinct after a few centuries. Regardless, the planet will likely recover, but that will happen over tens of thousands to millions of years. Here are some sources: https://ocean.si.edu/climate-change http://e360.yale.edu/features/will_climate_change_jam_the_global_ocean_conveyor_belt http://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-deoxygenation https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-s-oxygen-starts-running-low/ https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-could-alter-key-ocean-bacteria-study/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/increase-in-harmful-algal-blooms-possible/ http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/pestsdiseases/ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.files/fileID/7490 Some recent examples of how climate impacts large scale conflicts: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/

Why does the US struggles to have a proper health care system, even though the premiums paid by the patients are much higher than most of the countries, where there is a working health care system (e.g. most of the European countries)? Health insurance is the single ELI5 answer to this question. We have a multi-billion dollar industry standing between ourselves and our health care. The insurance industry making more money for everyone except the person who is sick and the millions that will never get sick. With insurance, there became a financial disconnect between the doctor and the patient. Health care providers were able to charge the insurance companies a higher rate then the individual patient could afford. And of course, the patient seeing nothing but the benefit of not having to pay that high bill basically became a product to be bought and sold by these two entities. The absolute best thing we could do as a country is dismantle the health insurance industry and return to patient/doctor relationships. The next best thing we could do is close down the VA and expand Medicaid to every single American by default funded by a large increase in the SS tax and allow those with the money to augment their coverage with those golden plans everyone wants. Thanks for the gold stranger. I'm going to trade it for some health care.

ELI5:Why are waterbeds no longer popular? Because it was a fad. They were cold, very uncomfortable, hard to get out of without waking your SO. MOST importantly....lord help you if that thing popped.

Earlier today I went into some deep, existential thought about life and how it works and didn't feel like myself. Now I feel normal again. What happened earlier? Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV.

Why did the Nazis call themselves Socialist if they hated communism? In theory, "National Socialism" meant "socialist (not Marxist) principles applied to a nation, rather than internationally". Fascist movements in the 20th Century developed not necessarily out of, but alongside leftist movements. For example, the first Fascist manifesto in Italy had some rather progressive goals in labor rights and wanted to redistribute wealth generally. However, they were emphatically Marxists or communists - they rejected both historical materialism (the foundation of the Marxist left) and proletarian internationalism, in favor of "racial science" and nationalism. Nonetheless, they professed to stand for worker's rights, hence the "Socialism". In reality, however, this was never more than a neat trick to get workers on their side. Hitler liquidated the left of his party (led by the Strasser brothers) and privatized a great deal of German industry, as well as reining in trade unions.

Why do they still make complicated stop-motion movies if there is more-efficient animation software available? Why do they still make complicated stop-motion movies, like Kubo and the Two Strings, if there is more-efficient animation software available? Because it has a very particular style. It's like why do people still paint with paint and brushes when they could do it on a computer, or why do people buy records when they can just get an mp4. New and efficient doesn't mean better in every way.

How can we distinguish something that is real news and fake news? First, look at the reputability of the source. The source may be a source (every source is biased in its own way), but if it's reputable, then you can typically trust the facts. If the source has a print edition or was around 30 years ago, its reputability increases. If the source's headlines are typically sensationalized or "click-bait", its reputability decreases. If the headlines are written in a way such as to make you feel angry, jubilant, or prideful, its reputability decreases. Also, look for multiple reputable sources reporting the same facts. If nobody else is reporting it, wait a day and see. You don't always have to be up-to-the-second with whatever the news cycle is telling you.

How exactly was Russia allegedly involved with the Presidential election and what did they do? The allegations claim that hackers working for two Russian intelligence agencies broke into email systems belonging to the Democratic National Committee as well as email accounts of other Democratic figures, such as Hilary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. The emails they found were then released through Wikileaks, an organization that specializes in sharing secret information. The release of information was carefully managed, both in terms of timing and content, in order to create a series of news stories that presented Hilary Clinton and the Democrats as dishonest and untrustworthy. By calling attention to insecurities in Democratic email systems, they also supported one of the key talking points of the Trump campaign, which was that Hilary Clinton had compromised national security by running her own email server while she was Secretary of State. I think that's a neutral summary. It is a fact that some emails were stolen and then released to the media in such a way as to hurt the Clinton campaign. It has also been that this was done by agents of the Russian government. So that's what people mean when they say 'Russia was involved'. But wait, there's more. There are also allegations that Donald Trump and key figures in his campaign are sympathetic to the Russians, or are being or could be manipulated by Russia (which is to say by Russian president Vladimir Putin). It's also claimed that Trump or members of his campaign were in contact with the alleged Russian agents responsible for stealing and leaking the information. Going into all the details would take a long time. What is certain is that some key members of Donald Trump's campaign, such as campaign manager Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page, had strong links to Russia. Manafort worked for the former president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of president Putin. Manafort also apparently arranged to change parts of the Republican party's official policy in a way that benefited Russia. Both Manafort and Page resigned from the campaign because of concern over their ties to Russia. More recently, other people close to Trump, such as his appointee for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and attorney general Jeff Sessions, have been revealed to have had contact with key figures in Russian intelligence. In Flynn's case, he was obliged to step down as a result of this. There are also allegations that Trump himself may be compromised by Russia in some way.

Why do so many people recommend "no-kill" shelters for adopting a pet? Isn't it better to adopt from a "kill" shelter - you're actually saving a life? Because if I went to a kill shelter with the wife, she'd realize all of the animals would die if not adopted, and my house would become a zoo...

Why are all of Uber and Lyft's commercials aimed at getting people to work for them instead of use their ride sharing apps? From what I've heard they've had a hard time keeping drivers. No insurance or benefits and the pay isn't that great. So they advertise to get new drivers because the ones they have don't do it for that long or consistently. Basically they have more people requesting rides or wanting to request a ride than there are drivers. So they are missing out on a bunch of money. It's like if a store only has 10 gallons of milk but 50 people that want to buy the milk, the store is gonna go get more milk before they tell people to buy more milk

How can 3rd-party sellers on Amazon sell their products cheaper than their standard retail price? I'm talking about how some sneakers are cheaper off Amazon than if you go to the physical stores or how Ralph Lauren polos are cheaper on Amazon than in Macy's. Do the sellers get the products straight from the source or are these counterfeit? And if they are, why isn't Amazon doing anything about it. Places like Macy's or JC Penny have a set profit they are trying to achieve with the products they sell. They buy shirts from Ralph Lauren for $10 (probably a lot less than this) and sell them for $25, making sure they get maximum profit to pay their employees, brick and mortar locations, etc. Places on Amazon don't have as many expenses and usually don't have a set profit margin they want to make on every product. This means they can charge whatever they want for the product. Amazon doesn't do anything about it because they get a set % of what these sellers are getting, and these sellers are doing well because they are undercutting the competition.

Those that don't speak English but can sing English songs perfectly, what is it about singing that allows them to form the correct structure of the words? If you're talking about non-native English speakers being able to sing songs in English, take as an example the song "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". You can probably sing that word to the correct melody, right? Even though the word is nonsense. To someone who doesn't speak English, the words may be nonsense, but they can still memorize the correct sounds. It just takes repetition.

How do the Stormtroopers in Disney World talk? I have been to Hollywood Studios/MGM Studios in Disney World (FL) many times, but have always walked away trying to figure out how the Stormtroopers/Darth Vader/Kylo Ren etc speak. All of the troopers over the years have communicated with me in the same voice from the films and I do not know how this is done. I assume it is with some sort of voice changer or soundboard, but they have addressed me by hat and shirt color before as well. Any information and explanations on how this is done is appreciated, as I simply do not understand how. Thanks! Voice actors. I was so shocked every time I saw "turtle talk with crush" I went there multiple times just because of how amazing it was thinking there was some massive soundboard. BUT then one time I went and there was a guy that was not as good as the previous actors and it became totally oblivious. Storm troopers, Vader, and Ren all probably have voice modifiers too that makes it easier to sound just like the movie. Any of the scripted shows mostly use pre-recorded lines that are played back.

ELI5:How humans didn't get eaten by predators who heard babies screaming when humans lived in the wild. Predators (at least modern ones anyway) look for easy meals. It's not worth risking injury. If you find a human child ? Snacktime. If you hear a crying child, go to the noise, and find several adult humans with pointy sticks and fire? Not worth the risk.

Why is reverse-racism/reverse-sexism not the same as regular racism/sexism? Most people think of racism as synonymous with discrimination or prejudice based on race. This will match up with the definition you find in most dictionaries. Some Sociology-related courses in college define racism and sexism as a political or societal system designed to hold back disadvantaged groups so that the prevailing group will stay in power. With this definition of racism/sexism, black people and women cannot be racist or sexist in America because they are not the ones with the position of power. Your professor would probably agree that black people and women can be , but is probably using a different definition of racism and sexism than the colloquial definition.

why does eating human flesh lead to "the shakes"? For the record - I'm not planning on any crazy dietary changes. I just watched The Book of Eli and it's mentioned repeatedly, I'm curious as to what the correlation is. Kuru is a real life disease caused by a prion transmitted through consumption of infectious brain matter. It was first noted in Papua New Guinea in the 1950s and 60s and has largely remained only in that area due to endocannibalistic practices. They eat their dead. Eating the flesh of a person who wasn't infected with the disease isn't harmful. At least no more harmful than eating most other meats.

ELI5:How do hallucinations work? When you take drugs or however a person hallucinates, it tricks the mind into thinking it's in REM sleep and it starts creating dreams in real life.

ELI5:How to tell if a movie is either well directed, well acted or well written? What is the difference among them? Just examples, but: - a really good actor can communicate a character's thoughts, personality and emotions with very little. The way their voice trembles when they say "I love you." The way they stand when in the background of a shot. The way their eyes seem to flare with rage when the villian is talking and they're not. All little details that can make a big different. - You can write whole novels on how to write moves. But typically, a well written script delivers a plot that builds at a good pace without overwhelming or boring the audience, characters who say things that are interesting and novel and explain their personality being believable enough to not break the sense of immersion. - directors have a lot of control over the "feel" of a movie, and usually set the direction other crews act on. The original script specified this scene to be a dark and stormy night in a city... is it almost cartoony scene, with the buildings illuminated blue and convienently-placed streetlamps highlighting the intense makeup of the actors? Or is it gritty, covered in shadow and drained of color, looking like at any moment someone could get murdered? While the staging/lighting/makeup crew are going to put this together, the concepts and what direction they go in are ultimately the director's call. And that's just one tiny facet of the show! Directors also get say in how ridiculous we're going with action scenes (Jason Bourne or Fast and Furious) the soundtrack (orchestra? electronic? tie-in soundtrack by a big-name artist?) and many other bits that are usually someone else's job to actually but they need the creative direction and vision to see all those different bits congeal into one effective whole movie.

why is it generally taboo to ask someone how much they get paid even when you guys are friends? Generally because it can cause tension, if you work with that friend on they work in similar roles and you earn considerably more - while you might expect them to be happy for you - many people are simply annoyed by it.

ELI5:Why do small animals and birds seem compelled to dart right in front of moving vehicles at the last possible moment, barely avoiding impact (if at all)? Animals respond instinctively to dart in any random direction that of danger. For 99.99% of evolution's time to hone an animal's instinct, "danger" was a predator stalking directly towards prey. Now consider this. An animal sees a car, registers it as danger, assumes it's a predator, and would then assume it's coming right for them where they currently are (off the road). Its response would be to dart in a random direction, but the animal doesn't know our trajectory isn't towards it, but perpendicular, and so if the animal also chooses to escape perpendicular to your current position on the road, then that could very well put the animal right onto the road you're traveling down. It isn't that the animal is attracted to your car, it's that it doesn't have the mental capacity to judge your actual trajectory, and is only responding out of fear and instinct to escape

What is the difference between a president, a Chancellor, and a prime minister? It varies from nation to nation. In general, many nations have both a head of government and a head of state. In the Westminster system (UK, Canada, Australia), the Prime Minister is the head of the government and is in charge of all executive policy. The prime minister and other government ministers are also often, but not always, sitting members of the legislature. The head of state is largely a cerimonial role, often filled by a king, queen, or governor general. In the United States of America, the president is the head of state and the head of the government's executive branch. However, the USA observes strict separation between the executive branch and the legislature. The president does not sit in the house, cannot vote on legislation (although he or she must either veto it or sign it into law), and cannot whip his or her party. However, the Vice President does have a tie-breaking role in the Senate. In countries that have both a President and a Prime Minister, the President is the head of state and the Prime Minister is the head of government. What duties belong to whom varies from country to country however it is common for the President to handle foreign affairs, non-political affairs, and exercise discretionary reserve powers. Chancellor is a title in Germany that is equivalent to Prime Minister.

In light of the article about the 19 year old female lifting the truck off of her dad to save his life, how is it physically possible for a human to do that even with the high amount of adrenaline that is present? The human body is incredibly durable and much stronger than we normally assume, this is because when we're calmly exerting ourselves (like in the gym) we're aware of the stress the load puts on our body, and as such we are cautious to avoid injury. With massive amounts of adrenaline that awareness fades to the background. It allows a person to use the upper limit of their capabilities, possibly damaging themselves in the process. Another factor is just how much was needed. Most people picture superman lifting the car over his head, when in reality even a fraction of an inch can give the needed escape room to survive.

What prevents online test takers from just googling the answer? Google won't help you much with a well made test. Properly made tests test if you understand the topic, they don't ask you to regurgitate memorized definitions, or if they do, such questions don't have a big impact on the final score.

What is the difference between fantasy and science-fiction? It can be something of a spectrum with significant overlap, but principally, Science Fiction takes an existing scientific principal and expands on it in to explore the consequences, possibly hand-waving the specifics of the egineering, but generally holding to the accepted laws of the universe with specific scientifically justified exceptions. Fantasy includes clear impossibilties that are not even attempted to be justified by modern, real science, but instead are justified internally by "Magic", where "Magic" is an aspect of the in-story universal laws are fundamentally different than our scientific understanding of the real world.

What is the point of in-store gift cards? What makes them better than just giving somebody the money? It's a bit more personal and shows they put more thought into it. Say I have a friend who I know likes camping, but I don't know what exact thing they need. I'll get them a gift card for a store that sells camping supplies as a way to say "I don't know what you need, but I know what you like, so here's a compromise." It also forces the person to use it in a gift like way. If someone gives me money I'll feel like I should just put it into savings. More financially prudent, perhaps, but less exciting than spending it on something fun like you might get with a gift card.

Why does smoke from cooking always set off the fire alarm, but recreational smoking does not? There has been parties where our house has gotten sufficiently boxed, mainly weed smoke, but the alarms never go off. Yet, if I burn one piece of toast, boom. Edit: spelling Okay, so basically a fire alarm is triggered by a smoke detector. There's two types- ionisation and photoelectric. Ionisation smoke alarm works as a complete circuit uninterrupted in default form. Any smoke particles interrupt the flow of current and results in an alarm ringing. Photoelectric smoke alarm works with a constant glowing light (transmitter) and a receiver. The presence of a particle of smoke can be detected by the receiver if the light is blurred over by the smoke, and this triggers the alarm. The main difference in these detectors aside from construction is that they are triggered by different sizes of particles of smoke. Cigarette smoke has the particle size of 0.3-0.5 microns which cannot be detected by the ionisation smoke detector whereas the smoke from cooking is denser and sets of the alarm easier. Hope this answers your question.

What are the symbols in the Lenny face, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° ) supposed to be used for? The following table shows, in order, which characters are used in ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°): Code Name 28 left parenthesis (Basic Latin (ASCII)) 20 space (Basic Latin (ASCII)) 361 combining double inverted breve (Combining Diacritical Marks) B0 degree sign (Latin-1 Supplement) 20 space (Basic Latin (ASCII)) 35C combining double breve below (Combining Diacritical Marks) 296 Latin letter inverted glottal stop (IPA Extensions) 20 space (Basic Latin (ASCII)) 361 combining double inverted breve (Combining Diacritical Marks) B0 degree sign (Latin-1 Extensions) 29 right parenthesis (Basic Latin (ASCII)) From http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lenny-face

How did climate change, a natural, scientific issue, become a political issue? Furthermore, how does acceptance of it support the liberal agenda and go against the conservative agenda? The fact of climate change is a scientific issue. about climate change automatically becomes a political issue. The Liberal/Conservative divide generally comes about due to the different ideas about the role of the Federal government in dictating people's behavior. The US as a country was set up as a true union of States with their own individual governments. The Federal government was set up with a specific set of responsibilities and powers, and it was later clarified in the Tenth Amendment that those powers not specifically deligated to the Federal government are reserved to the States or People. In other words the Fed is capable of doing what the Constitution says it can do . Conservatives generally pay a lot of attention to this structure and figure that nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Earth, fire, wind, water, heart! By your powers combined, the Federal Government is Captain Planet!" Dealing with the threat of climate change is clearly reserved to the States or People so any climate-justified regulation, grants, etc. on the Federal level is a bad thing. Liberals on the other hand tend to be much more group-oriented and concerned about collective action, and climate change responses are really only effective if everyone acts together. The Federal government has its fingers in everyone's pie so it is an obvious one-stop-shop for instituting climate change plans. They are less concerned about following the specific allocation of powers and figure the legitimacy of the need (and a dose of "Heart!") justifies the Federal government becoming Captain Planet regardless.

What exactly are we smelling when we smell that its going to snow? I know i cant be alone in saying that i can always smell when its going to snow, especially the first snow/frost of the season. There's a distinct smell in the air that's just impossible to ignore. i was just wondering if anyone knew what exactly it is that causes that oh-so-nostalgic scent every winter. Cold air holds less moisture. It's hard to smell things in cold, dry air. When the humidity rises, you feel it on your skin, and your nose can smell things better. The "smell of snow" is your heightened smell sensitivity thanks to humidity, despite the cold.

is being a morning person genetic or a choice? I have long been a night owl, and I can't for the life of me get used to being a morning person, in my culture sleeping early at night and waking up early in the morning is a must, but as I said I just can't get used to that, so my question is, can a person get accustomed to being a regular morning person with no issues if he chooses to, or is it something that one needs to be born with? I am new to this sub and reddit in general, so please let me know if I need to fix anything. People can adjust to living in a different time zone, and we can switch from working days to working nights with varying degrees of difficulty per person (but it is possible). To make yourself more like a morning person, you should go to bed sooner which will directly help you to wake up sooner as well. Do not train yourself to rely on coffee or other stimulants because this will just make it harder for you to stay awake in the mornings naturally. Alternatively, screw what your culture says. Somebody has to watch over the city at night.

Why shouldn't you eat raw oats? "All grains contain phytic acid (an organic acid in which phosphorous is bound) in the outer layer or bran. Untreated phytic acid can combine with calcium, magnesium, copper, iron especially zinc in the intestinal track and block their absorption. This is why a diet high in unfermented whole grains may lead to serious mineral deficiencies and bone loss. The modern misguided practice of consuming large amounts of unprocessed bran often improves colon transit time at first but may lead to irritable bowel syndrome and, in the long term, many other adverse effects. Soaking allows enzyme, lactobacilli and other helpful organisms to break down and neutralize phytic acid. As little as seven hours of soaking in warm acidulated water will neutralize a large portion of phytic acid in grains. The simple practice of soaking cracked or rolled cereal grains overnight will vastly improve their nutritional benefits." From here: http://claireobeid.com/why-you-should-never-eat-raw-oats/ Tl;dr, phytic acid which is found in most grains can prevent minerals from absorbing, leading to a deficiency when consumed regularly. It can also cause irritable bowel syndrome. Soaking oats allows enzymes and bacteria to break down the phytic acid.

In McDonald's, what are all the beeping noises that can be heard from the kitchen? To make sure that the food at McDonald's is identical every time, there is nothing left to chance. A bag of frozen French fries will be opened and poured into a wire basket. The basket gets lowered into the hot oil and the staff member presses a timer button. Once the fries have been cooked for the correct amount of time, a buzzer or beeper will sound repeatedly to ensure someone removes them from the oil. When they make a burger, a similar process is followed. The frozen burger patty is put onto the hotplate and the timer button is started. After a couple of minutes the timer will beep to tell the cook to flip the burger over, at which point he resets the timer. A couple of minutes further it beeps to say that the burger is cooked. Multiply all of the above by maybe half a dozen frying and grilling areas all working simultaneously, and you get the near-constant array of beeping sounds.

Why was the American Mafia interested in vending machines? I have seen this referenced in a few gangster movies, Goodfellas, Black Mass, etc. But I don't understand why they were so interested in vending machines/coin-op machines specifically. Am I not realizing just how much money one can legitimately make from selling soda? If that were the case wouldn't a legit business be more efficient and better suited than the Mafia? It's a cash business. The mob makes a huge amount of money through illicit dealings, but to spend that money later they need to "launder" it by finding a way to claim it as legitimate business income. Enter the all cash business. Since there's no real record of what the machine sold or for how much, you can report the illegal cash as vending machine income. That makes the money safe to use without attracting the attention of the IRS.

Why is Scientology so frowned upon as a religion? Is it more from the beliefs or the practices? So there's two things at play. First, the beliefs are ridiculous by anyone's standards, since the religion was created by a science fiction writer. When a religion has to hide its secret truths from believers until they spend years invested in the organization, there's a problem there. The belief that human emotional problems are caused by the remnants of alien souls that were scattered across the world after a nuclear bomb exploded in a volcano, and that Scientology has the special techniques needed to clear your mind of the alien's evil influence is well... a thing. Likewise, Scientology's practices of blackmailing people, keeping a ship in international waters where they keep slaves, and scheming to avoid having to pay the IRS money, as well as their stance of being anti-psychiatry and a lot of other horrifying behavior make them seem more like a supervillain group than a religion.

Why every time I look at my bathroom mirror I think I look pretty good but every time I take a picture I think that I look horrible? When you see yourself in the mirror every day, you're actually seeing a version of you that's backwards. So when you see what you actually look like to others, rather than the backwards you that you're used to, it looks completely strange.

Why Skype and Facetime have different video quality although they both use same camera? I guess it all depends on the bandwidth each app "requires". The lower the quality the more fluid the communication will be on low reception environments.

How did so many different currencies all come to use the dollar sign ($)? A lot of other currencies seem to have symbols specific only to themselves (€, £), so I have been wondering how it is that the dollar sign is common to so many different currencies worldwide. Off the top of my head, I can think of pesos, USD, CAD, and AUD. I'm also interested in why more than one country calls their currency "dollars" even though USD, CAD, and AUD are very different and have different values in the international exchange. It wasn't really until the 1648 and the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia that the modern concept of a nation state with fixed borders really started. Before then unless you were an island like the UK then your borders shifted as kings died and neighbouring countries extorted taxes from whatever territories they could. So without different countries money was just some token of value that people only trusted to some extent. If it was a gold or silver coin then it didn't really matter which king's face was on it, it still had value. The town of Jáchymov in Czechia had a silver mine and for centuries minted a coin from this silver, the German name for Jachvmov is Joachimsthal (Saint Joachim's Valley), the coins were known as Joachimsthallers, or thallers for short which would be roughly pronounced as 'dollar'. For four hundred years the thaller or dollar was a popular coin who's value was trusted all over Europe and the known (western) world. When nation states became established, they created their own coins and would name them similarly, the American dollar, the Canadian dollar, etc.

How do animals know to look into our eyes? Picture a bunch of alien jellyfish swimming around in an alien ocean on an alien planet. They've all evolved to have these reflective organic disks on one side that lets them detect other jellyfish (or obstacles) in that direction. Some of these jellyfish are carnivorous and will try to eat others. There is suddenly a distinct evolutionary advantage to knowing when the reflective disks of another jellyfish are facing you. And therefore know that you've been detected. So you can take evasive action, etc. Therefore there's a selective pressure, ensuring that those aware of the disk's function survive to sexuality maturity. The clueless often get eaten and do not get a chance to breed. The same is basically true of eyes in most animals that possess them. And it's been true for so long, that many animals have it hardwired into them. Big cats for example have it drilled into them instinctually. So that when a prey's eyes are facing away their hunting instincts tell them to . In this video for example, the big cat hasn't decided to be a dick all of a sudden. It simply can't help itself. It's instincts are telling it Villagers in Bangladesh, in response to frequent tiger attacks, even exploited this by wearing masks on the backs of their heads . Keeping tigers permanently stuck in the "wait for it, I'm being watched" mode. In another example (if you can forgive the cringe-worthy narration and editing), these Stoats have learnt that if they move in a certain way they can exploit the rabbit's instinctual desire to track incoming threats with it's eyes. And by twisting wildly, the rabbit can't tell it's being snuck up on. A 'bug' of sorts, in the rabbit's wetware. At any point...the rabbit could just stop watching and bugger off. But so overwhelming is the urge to use it's eyes, it can't help but be transfixed. - There's a strong instinctual drive to use your eyes to watch others (and especially the eyes of others). And in understand what the eyes actually do. The animals that watched the mouth, or nose, or earlobe instead, got eaten.

What can Obama do before he leaves the presidency? I mean, what can he do (within his power) before leaving and have that decision to stick even with incoming President, Senate, House or Supreme Court? What are his extend of powers? Nothing beyond his current Article 2 authorities. And that's the point. Imagine 4 or 8 years from now... would you want the outgoing president to have unlimited, autocratic power? Peaceful transitions of power are essential to our nation. Those unhappy with the result of the election get another chance to vote for a president in 4 years. And, get another crack at shaping Congress in 2 years. Maybe it's going to be a wild ride. Or, maybe nothing of consequence will happen. Who knows. Edit: Other posters mention Executive Order. They do have the force of law, but only after they are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. That takes a lot longer than 60 days.

Why is it illegal to send me spam email but not illegal to send me spam physical mail? If I send you anything via regular mail I bear 100% of the cost. We call this "postage". If I send you SPAM then I am using other people's money. There is a non-zero cost for data transit across the various networks you, the final recipient, may have some sort of metered service (like data limits on your cell phone); so if I spam you I am wasting money instead of , without your permission no-less. Many people justify their "business" because "hey, email! It's free" but it's really just not costing anything they recognize. So with a zero-dollar barrier to entry, the natural cost was hidden from the initiator... they felt no pain from their act so they acted without restraint. At that point an explicit law became necessary because, as always, the much lionized "free market effects" did nothing to curb abuse. (Systematic rant on how, when I was a child, rivers were on fire and and the sky was smog-dark because "the free market" does nothing to curb misdeeds ... skipped for now.)

Why can't we average out our sleep? Like, if we sleep for 10 hours one day and 6 the next, why do we still feel we didn't get enough sleep even though on an average we slept for 8 hours? It's not so much that we can't average it, it's that we can't store it. Sleeping 10 hours, when you only need 8 hours, doesn't make you more well-rested than the 8 hours (and in fact may make you feel worse). Think of it like a bucket of water; if you need 8 gallons to fill it put but you put in 10, the extra 2 just overflow and are wasted. If you sleep 10 hours then 6, you'll be tired. However, you can sometimes sleep 6 hours then 10 and feel good; you incurred more a deficit with the 6, but made up for it the next night so you're back to normal.

Why are jurors not allowed to ask questions during a trial, even if asked anonymously? Juror's are allowed to ask questions, at the discretion of the Judge presiding over the case. There are a number of reasons why this is not commonly practiced: Juries aren't supposed to be "involved" in the case. They are supposed to be impartial third parties evaluating a case based on the evidence provided to them. It increases the length and complexity of the trial. Jurors are lay people, so may ask questions that are inappropriate or irrelevant. It can emphasize or highlight bias on behalf of the juror asking the questions.

Say I am a 20-something year old with absolutely zero connections to the political sphere. How would I get started on my track to be my state's next governor? What is the path up the political ladder like, and how possible is it for an every-man/woman to climb? If you identify with a political party, volunteer with them. Find the local county meetings and start attending them. You'll make connections there and find opportunities. Consider volunteering for municipal boards. Sometimes cities and towns have problems finding people for boards, or are happy to see someone other than the same few people volunteering to work. That's how I became a housing commissioner.

Why when recording a song in a studio do they use a screen in front of the mic? It's called a pop filter, and it is used to break up "plosives" which are your Bs and Ps. When these sounds are produced they release a blast of air, and the microphone picks these up as bass rumbles under the fundamental frequency of the voice. The mesh of the pop filter diffuses the air passing through so everything useful goes through while the rumble is reduced.

Why do we send millions of dollars of aid to Saudi Arabia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world? The US provides about $1.5 million in the form of International Military Education and Training (IMET), which is joint military training in order to advance our common interests in bilateral security operations. Basically it is training Saudi military officers to work with US military forces in the event that is required. This is pays off in other ways such as the Saudis purchase things like $30 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets.

What happens on the new president's first day, does he undergo a training day? I just pictured Obama describing how precisely to bang on the vending machine to get the candy to fall out.

Why isn't the U.S. Supreme Court required to be politically balanced? 3 liberals, 3 conservatives, 3 moderates? Considering they are appointed with life tenure by the president, shouldn't it be representative of many sides? Ideally the supreme court should not be political at all. This is part of the reason why congress have to approve the supreme justices. The justices are appointed to make sure the will of the congress is followed and not their own will. If you were to make sure they were aligned politically you would open up another can of worms entirely. How do you make sure they are not extremists in each camp? How do you define the political sides as there are a lot of different opinions?

ELI5:Why does soup make you feel better when you're sick? It's easily digested and generally warm which needs less energy to absorb. It provides fluids, nutrients, and calories very easily. On to of that, the placebo effect from having been told your whole life that it works.

Why does America have such a weird voting system? The answer is rooted in history. When America was founded, there were no political parties. At least, not in the sense that we think of them. It was believed that there would be many candidates running on different platform. Further complicated matters, the 13 states had very different population sizes; the populated states thought that they should have the most voting power, but there were concerned that more sparsely populated areas would essentially be overlooked. To solve this problem, they set up the American system of voting. Any candidates that meet the qualifications may run, and state receive a set of electors equal to the number of Congressional representatives they have. States have, at a minimum, 3 representatives: exactly 2 in the Senate, and 1 or more in the House of Representatives based on their population from the last Senate. Electors tend to vote for the candidate that wins their state (some states legally require this, but this is not true over the entire nation), and in Maine and Nebraska, the electors split their votes according to state laws, in which not all votes go to the winner of the state. Whoever has at least half the electors voting for them wins. Further, in the original system, the runner-up becomes the Vice President. Because the Vice President has only 2 official duties (to carry out the President's duties if the President can't, and to break ties and preside over the Senate), it was thought that this wouldn't be a problem. The 12th amendment changed that (I won't get into all the reasons here; Google if you're interested). Under the 12th amendment, electors vote separately for a President and a Vice President, and it is very strongly expected that the electors will elect the VP of the Presidential candidate's choice. Further, because they expected more than 2 candidates, they had a solution if nobody get a majority of electors: the take the top 3 candidates and the House of Representatives votes, with 1 vote for each state cast. This happened only 1 time in U.S. history (1824; interestingly enough, all the candidates that year were from the same party). Today, we have 2 overwhelmingly dominant political parties that are extremely bitter rivals. They didn't see that one coming. There are measures that could be taken to soften this, and some states and cities use slightly different voting schemes. Today is more than just a national election: lots of issues are going to be on the ballots, the people of Maine are voting on whether or not they wish to use one scheme, known as ranked choice voting, in their elections, which allows people to vote for 3rd party candidates and still support the party they really want (Google for details). Some states also have non-partisan, independent commissions to determine voting districts to prevent gerrymandering, which would favor certain candidates by making their seats safe from challengers. However, to change US politics at the national level, that would require an amendment to the US Constitution. That document is inordinately difficult to amend, and that was done deliberately, as any Amendment can threaten the balance of power in the government or scale back the rights of the citizens. I won't go into the whole process, but suffice it to say that any attempt at electoral reform would not favor the politicians who got into office, so they have no advantage in proposing reforms. The best the states can do is to call for a new Constitutional convention...but that has its own sets of risks, as the process of writing a new Constitution from scratch threatens issues such as individual rights, state sovereignty levels, the scope of the federal government, how grievances could be addressed, etc. tl;dr: it was set up this way, it's hard to change, and the people who could change it have everything to lose and nothing to gain by trynig.

ELI5; Why is it impossible for me to imagine a completely original human face I've never seen before? Because our own definition for a face is based on previous examples. It's like saying "think of a color you've never seen before." How could you? Our experiences dictate the possible configurations. Of course, if you really wanted to be creative, you could still come up with something new; a person whose nose droops to their belly button, or a mouth that opens in the wrong direction. These are, however, impossible (as far as we know), so they become ridiculous and grotesque. The only way to know a possible face ridiculous is to it in real life.

Why do third party candidates even run? Do they honestly think they have a chance, or is it more of a strategic move to take votes away from a major party's candidate? Like soccer, national politics is something that the majority of Americans only pay attention to every four years. Launching a 3rd party bid gets exposure for them and their parties that they may be able to translate into more support, votes, donations, etc. They may never win the presidency, but it's not unimaginable for the Libertarians or Greens to translate the name recognition they get this cycle to pick up some House seats or seats in state legislatures.

How do the toasters at subway melt the cheese & make the meat warm without making the bun too crispy? Start a small fire inside your microwave before you use it.

What types of research bias are the most difficult to eliminate from studies? I imagine that scientific rigor during peer review would reveal more obvious biases and flaws in a study, but which ones are the hardest to catch? What are some of the more surprising types of flaws to appear in studies? I think the hardest to catch are the "reference circle jerks". A work which references another work, which in turn references a third work and so on, and when you start looking closer at it, you'll find either: that the references just back each other up, with no connection to actual data; that the references, which might have looked impressive with their bulk, when you dig all the way to the bottom, all goes back to the same shady study. For example (and I don't know if this example is true or not, I'm just retelling what I've heard to illustrate), for a very long time, it was accepted as a fact that cholesterol was bad for us, and much research said this. However, someone dug into it, and found that it was just reference to reference to reference, and the trail for all of it ended at a single study, comparing a group who had more cholesterol in their diet with a group that had less, and found more heart problems in the group with more cholesterol. The hitch? The cholesterol rich group where "fat American couch potatoes", the other group where African Masai warriors. Hardly comparable groups. Yet, it took a long time, because that single study was hidden under many, many layers of reference circle jerking.

Why do humans find eyeless or pitch black eyes scary/unsettling? I've never been able to find an explanation for it, but it's extremely common for movies, games, shows, etc. to use pitch black eyes to cause discomfort. Why is this so effective? Why do we find it so eerie? (Apologies if I didn't do something right while posting, the rules wouldn't load on mobile.) It's called The Uncanny Valley , and it's not limited to eyes. Basically, the closer something gets to looking human, the more we can sympathise with it - until it gets to be about 95%-99% human. Then it . Basically if something is just a bit... off. Eyes may have the additional trigger of us being A. Very attuned to identifying Human faces, B. Vision being our primary sense, and C. Knowing how sensitive eyes are.

What exactly happens when someone regains consciousness? In particular, what happens in the brain? Does something realign? Doctor (with anaesthetic/ICU training) here. We don't really know what consciousness is, therefore it's pretty difficult to answer this. The best explanation we have is that neurons in the brain either work or don't. The more that aren't working, the more likely you are to be unconscious. Conversely anything that increases the amount of nerves firing will result in agitation and hyperactivity. The most common reason for bothering of these is drugs, both therapeutic and illicit. "Uppers" make you hyperactive, whereas "downers" calm you down. Most general anaesthetics, for example, work by reducing the number of nerves firing and making you unconscious. We don't even really know how general anaesthetics work at the molecular level. The other main reasons for unconsciousness are sleep and brain injury. Regaining consciousness therefore is the number of neurons firing (properly) increasing to a point where you can process to the point of consciousness. The Glasgow coma score ranks 3 different domains giving a total from 3 (totally unconscious) to 15 (totally conscious) which demonstrates that consciousness isn't black or white but a spectrum between one and the other.