Datasets:

pinecone

/

reddit-qa

like 1

uk8gk1

So GPUs have VRAM. Is there something similar CPUs have? I know they have a cache, but anything more like proper RAM? ​ EDIT: I just want to say, I'm just a guy. I'm not a student studying computer science, I just was curious. I'm a layman and I thought this question would be okay here. Didn't expect to anger so many people, it was certainly not my intent. I don't know much about computers and I don't claim to. I understand people can get offended if you don't have some basic knowledge but I figure better to ask a stupid question than never know. Nothing on the internet I could find could answer my question, but I understand now that it was probably because the way my question was phrased and that RAM itself being the CPUs RAM would be something you would know naturally if you studied computers. Again, I'm not a computer person or student, and I thought this question was okay, I didn't mean to anger anyone.

For the record I don't think you're wrong to ask this question. :)

AskComputerScience

uk8gk1

So GPUs have VRAM. Is there something similar CPUs have? I know they have a cache, but anything more like proper RAM? ​ EDIT: I just want to say, I'm just a guy. I'm not a student studying computer science, I just was curious. I'm a layman and I thought this question would be okay here. Didn't expect to anger so many people, it was certainly not my intent. I don't know much about computers and I don't claim to. I understand people can get offended if you don't have some basic knowledge but I figure better to ask a stupid question than never know. Nothing on the internet I could find could answer my question, but I understand now that it was probably because the way my question was phrased and that RAM itself being the CPUs RAM would be something you would know naturally if you studied computers. Again, I'm not a computer person or student, and I thought this question was okay, I didn't mean to anger anyone.

Not really. Computer memory is organized into hierarchies of speed and locality (distance from) to the processor pipelines. There are generally speaking 6-levels: Harddrive, RAM\*, L3 cache, L2 cache, L1 cache, registers. Data moves through this chain as it is needed. GPU's can have more localized memory to speed things up due to the volume of data they work with, but this is more of GPU's emulating CPU's than the converse. ​ \*RAM is technically a memory model that allows reading from a selected point, instead of reading all the memory sequentially until that point. Nowadays it refers to a smaller faster (usually amnesiac) memory chip than the harddrive, as pretty much all memory follows the RAM model, including harddrives.

AskComputerScience

uk8gk1

So GPUs have VRAM. Is there something similar CPUs have? I know they have a cache, but anything more like proper RAM? ​ EDIT: I just want to say, I'm just a guy. I'm not a student studying computer science, I just was curious. I'm a layman and I thought this question would be okay here. Didn't expect to anger so many people, it was certainly not my intent. I don't know much about computers and I don't claim to. I understand people can get offended if you don't have some basic knowledge but I figure better to ask a stupid question than never know. Nothing on the internet I could find could answer my question, but I understand now that it was probably because the way my question was phrased and that RAM itself being the CPUs RAM would be something you would know naturally if you studied computers. Again, I'm not a computer person or student, and I thought this question was okay, I didn't mean to anger anyone.

The [main memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storage#Primary_storage) of the computer, often just called RAM in computer specs, is the RAM the CPU uses. The CPU also has caches, as you said, and small but very fast internal memory slots called registers that can temporarily hold individual numbers or values that the CPU is operating on. Some people probably got tripped off by the question because, to most people, video RAM and caches would seem more specific and more advanced knowledge than the fact that the CPU uses the main memory. It's not a wrong question to ask, just a bit weird and surprising to some people.

AskComputerScience

ukb9s4

Finding Radius of Graph - is this a correct algorithm? Can someone help me analyse its runtime?

You're calling `runBFS` many times, and often you will call it for a path that has a subpath you have already analyzed. So your runtime will be way too long. I suggest you run an all-pairs-shortest-path algorith. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're computing.

AskComputerScience

ukc5ou

Edit: I understand that many antivirals affect the viral polymerase, but I’m most interested in nucleoside analogs like molnupiravir… how do they affect only viral RNA and not host RNA?

The drugs don’t target RNA per se, but the enzymes that make the RNA. since the viral enzymes are different than human enzymes, it is possible to find drugs that inhibit viral RNA synthesis but don’t inhibit RNA synthesis by our cells.

AskScience

ukc5ou

Edit: I understand that many antivirals affect the viral polymerase, but I’m most interested in nucleoside analogs like molnupiravir… how do they affect only viral RNA and not host RNA?

They don’t target RNA. However they can target RNA dependent RNA polymerases though since humans don’t have them. RNA viruses have to be able to copy RNA to RNA, something humans never do (we go DNA -> RNA only) or in the case of retroviruses reverse transcriptase (RNA -> DNA) which again humans dont do so targeting it doesn’t affect your cells. There are ways to target RNA sequences directly and they are used in research but not as antiviral treatments (at least for now).

AskScience

ukc5ou

Edit: I understand that many antivirals affect the viral polymerase, but I’m most interested in nucleoside analogs like molnupiravir… how do they affect only viral RNA and not host RNA?

A common class of antivirals are nucleoside analogs, molecules that are very similar to the building blocks of RNA, but that screw up replication when they get incorporated into a new RNA strand, keeping the virus from being able to effectively reproduce or massively slowing it down. Viruses rely on their own enzymes to replicate their genomes , different from the ones our cells use for replication and transcription. Because of this, we can look for nucleoside analogs that will "trick" viral enzymes from a specific virus into trying to incorporate them into new RNA, but that won't interfere with our own cellular functioning.

AskScience

uke6bp

Is Western society the most physically comfortable and least mentally fulfilling it has ever been?

Most physically comfortable, probably. A middle class American has luxuries Cleopatra couldn't have dreamed of. Mental fulfillment is a trickier beast. If you want it, it's out there, affordable to all but the poorest. Want to learn Chinese? Want to study French literature? Want to learn physics or calculus? Do you want to make friends with people from all over the world? There has never been a better time for that. But we suffer from overload, I think. People seem to do best when they can choose from a small array of options. Too many choices makes most people's brains shut down. Then they just heat up a Hot Pocket, turn on the TV and watch the latest superhero movie.

AskOldPeople

uke6bp

Is Western society the most physically comfortable and least mentally fulfilling it has ever been?

*Physically comfortable?* \- Very much is physically more comfortable. Example: Living conditions in the entire South of the United States have been revolutionized by air conditioning. Not everybody has it, of course, but for those who do - and in public spaces like schools - it makes all the difference. Trade allows us to eat fresh vegetables and fruit year-round. Labor-saving inventions really do save a lot labor that modern generations may not even know about, like boiling clothes over a fire in the back yard to get them clean. Cars are safer by far than in the past - seat belts, safety glass, airbags, and the futuristic accouterments of new cars. They are, however, way less roomy and more like fitting into an early space capsule. To the extent you "believe in" vaccines, you can be free from everything from chicken pox to shingles, and smallpox is literally gone (unless somebody breaks into a freezer somewhere). *Mentally fulfilling?* \- There's much more access to information. I personally find this liberating, like having the world's libraries in your own house. Entertainment has reached a strange plateau, which makes it less stimulating. Note all the reboot movies, for example. That's stultifying. Education - well, we all know what's going on with education in the U.S. I can't speak for other countries. I would put this in the less fulfilling column. Stress - Yeah, there's a ton of stress right now, but there was in the past, too. No decade has been without its awfulness. So this is on the fence. We have terrorism now; there was domestic terrorism and a lot more of it around 1900; there was the Cold War, there were several real wars. The political scene now is wildly chaotic and filled with rancor like I've never seen before. To the extent that cooperation is fulfilling, we're worse off. Personal happiness - That's hard to say. The pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into everybody's lives, separated families, prevented travel and so on. But the basics are mostly still there. The curious case of fraternal societies is puzzling and I'd say means less mental fulfillment. The Masons, Lions, Elks, Moose, Rotary, Sons of Hermann, Knights of Columbus, Woodmen of the World, and all the rest are slowly (no, rapidly) dying out. As are churches. Where are people getting their need for group social activity from? *Reddit?* Good lord, what does that say about us?

AskOldPeople

uke6bp

Is Western society the most physically comfortable and least mentally fulfilling it has ever been?

No, I don't feel like that at all. Physically comfortable yes. Mentally fulfilling too. Humans are very bad at absolutes, we just perceive relatives. And we're bad at seeing constants, we only see change. So when things are going from bad to worse and back, we think it's good. If things are good and stay good, we think it's bad. And when things go up a lot and down a bit, we think it's very bad. In my mother's time, it was exceptional for her to get a higher education. When she started working it was expected from her to stop when she got pregnant. People were forced into marriage, into jobs. There was illiteracy, lack of information, abuse. All that is still there, but if you compare life now with life fifty years ago, it has improved a lot for the large majority of people. Especially mentally, if you take into account freedom of life choices, education, information. And yes, there are problems in the world and younger generations have real problems to deal with. Just as every younger generation before them. But I feel that saying things are worse than in the past is quite a stretch. At least in my country and with a middle class background.

AskOldPeople

ukes5d

I know there are some examples of viruses jumping host kingdoms, but they seem relatively rare compared to how often they jump between host species. Of the examples we do have, many of them we don't have direct evidence for, the jump is inferred from evolutionary evidence because it happened too far in the past. Is the jump between kingdoms 'harder', and if so, why?

Hierarchy of life taxa is: Domain > kingdom > phylum > class > order > family > genus > species Species that share a common genus (ex. Wolf vs coyote) are much, much more similar than two species that only share a common kingdom (ex. Wolf vs lobster). Similarity (or difference) of physiological niche, likelihood of encounter, cellular microenvironment, and presence of similar host cellular receptors roughly correlate with taxonomy.

AskScience

ukey9p

Correct any assumptions I may have made, but I have read about how allergies can come from repeated exposures to something. For example, I've read the story about how cockroach researchers eventually become allergic to them, and in turn have an allergy to instant coffee. How come we aren't allergic to things we experience everyday in our lives? I eat wheat almost everyday, will I eventually get to the point where I die if I walk past a bakery? Will all pet owners become allergic to their pets? Will youngsters all develop an allergy to AXE bodyspray? Will someone eventually become allergic to a medication that they take chronically?

Allergies are due to your immune system misidentifying one protein as a similar protein. So repeat exposure increases the risk of this part happening. Once this happens, your body creates antibodies that will flag those proteins for histamine attack the next time they’re seen. Usually our immune systems are good at proper identification, but some genetic traits as well as look a like proteins make certain allergies more likely.

AskScience

ukey9p

Correct any assumptions I may have made, but I have read about how allergies can come from repeated exposures to something. For example, I've read the story about how cockroach researchers eventually become allergic to them, and in turn have an allergy to instant coffee. How come we aren't allergic to things we experience everyday in our lives? I eat wheat almost everyday, will I eventually get to the point where I die if I walk past a bakery? Will all pet owners become allergic to their pets? Will youngsters all develop an allergy to AXE bodyspray? Will someone eventually become allergic to a medication that they take chronically?

While it is true that repeated exposure can cause allergies, it is also true that repeated exposures can cause immune tolerance. It depends on the context of the exposure. That is why vaccines contain an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance that stimulates an immune response. Because of the ensuing immune response against the adjuvant, anything mixed in with the adjuvant also get mixed into the immune response. If a "clean" protein is given without adjuvant, it often fails to illicit an immune response. This is something called the "immunologist's dirty little secret." In other words, context and dose matter. Large doses of a "clean" protein can be used to induce tolerance or anergy which is the theory behind "allergy shots."

AskScience

ukey9p

Correct any assumptions I may have made, but I have read about how allergies can come from repeated exposures to something. For example, I've read the story about how cockroach researchers eventually become allergic to them, and in turn have an allergy to instant coffee. How come we aren't allergic to things we experience everyday in our lives? I eat wheat almost everyday, will I eventually get to the point where I die if I walk past a bakery? Will all pet owners become allergic to their pets? Will youngsters all develop an allergy to AXE bodyspray? Will someone eventually become allergic to a medication that they take chronically?

Allergies come from your immune system mistaking something harmless for another thing that is actually bad, and attacking it scorched-earth style with the rest of you as collateral damage. There's a few ways this can happen. You can have a genetic abnormality that causes your immune system to make the mistake the first time it sees something that should be harmless, and keep making that mistake forever. Or, your immune system can be just fine with that thing for awhile, but then it makes a mistake when it encounters that thing again years later and starts identifying it as the bad thing instead. And to make matters more complicated, sometimes your body can mistake something as bad, but through encountering it enough times and realizing it didn't actually kill you, learn that it made a mistake and stop doing it. There's a reason that immunologists need so many years of school and get paid so much. Stuff's complicated.

AskScience

ukg99v

How prevalent were harder drugs (Cocaine, heroin etc.) back in your day?

Had my first taste of coke in ‘72 and loved it and by ‘74 I was buying ozs of it, @$2K per, from a NJ State cop who stole it from the evidence locker and it was awesome stuff but by ‘75 I realized I had a massive coke problem and stopped using it for good. Heroin was everywhere then too, but luckily I never used it.

AskOldPeople

ukg99v

How prevalent were harder drugs (Cocaine, heroin etc.) back in your day?

If you worked in the restaurant business in the '80s, you could count on some of your coworkers being dealers. Usually it was just to pay for their own stuff, which was kind of reassuring since it meant they had already tried out any batch they were selling. The coke-addict restaurant manager who screamed at the staff wasn't just a trope, it was truth. I worked at one place where the manager liked to do lines on the framed liquor license with his buddies after closing. I would find the license lying on the bar in the morning with residue still on it. It wouldn't surprise me if restaurants are still that way today.

AskOldPeople

ukg99v

How prevalent were harder drugs (Cocaine, heroin etc.) back in your day?

Coke was very common in the 80s. This was before people understood how addictive it was. I did it for a little while when it was around, but then swore off of it. Someone was always coming up to you with a little spoon in their hand. Personally, I hated it. It turned people into assholes pretty quickly. Heroin was not nearly as common. I don't personally know anyone that used it.

AskOldPeople

ukgudl

Evushield: how does it work and why isn't it called a vaccine?

Evushield is a combination of two different antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19. These antibodies stem from people who were recovering from COVID - that is, they were infected and their immune systems produced these antibodies. These antibodies, once identified, are replicated as “monoclonal antibodies”. (Vastly simplified, white blood cells that produce the specific antibody are cloned and used to produce lots of the specific antibody which can then be purified and given to people.) Once administered to someone, these antibodies behave as though the patient’s own immune system produced them, and provide a defense against the infection. Vaccines are quite different - they are not antibodies, but are a means of convincing the patient’s immune system that an infection has occurred, so that the immune system will produce antibodies. Patients with compromised immune systems often cannot generate enough of their own antibodies and so vaccines are much less effective for them — but giving them actual antibodies can work well for a certain timespan.

AskScience

ukgudl

Evushield: how does it work and why isn't it called a vaccine?

Evusheld is a pair of long-acting monoclonal antibodies (meaning roughly, antibodies mass produced by a line of cloned cells in a lab). Monoclonal antibodies can be sourced from various types of cells; these two are produced in clones of human cells donated by people who had previously had COVID-19. Therefore they are very similar to the ones your body WOULD make after being vaccinated. They work by binding to the distinctive "spike protein" on the SARS-Cov-2 , marking it as a dangerous intruder and prompting your immune system to attack it. It is very similar to the antibody response your body WOULD make after being vaccinated, thereby assisting your immune system in fighting off the virus even if your immune system didn't respond well to the vaccine or if you were unable to be vaccinated for whatever reason. It is not considered a vaccine because it does not prompt your body to produce its own antibodies. It is a timed-release drug: you get an injection of a large amount of medicine into tissue where it will take several weeks for all of it to be distributed from that location throughout the body. But when they run out, they are gone, and your immune system has not learned to make them on its own. Think of Evusheld as being more like buying oranges from the grocery store, while getting a vaccine is more like planting an orange tree at your house. For a much more technical and detailed explanation, [click here](https://www.evusheld.com/en/hcp) and say "yes" that you are a healthcare provider (nobody checks)

AskScience

ukhxs7

So while we haven't discovered any life native to Mars, are there microorganisms that live on our planet that could survive on Mars?

NASA did some studies where they sent stuff up into the upper atmosphere and simulated the conditions on Mars, and some of the spores survived. So they believe that there are some microbes on earth that could survive at least temporarily on Mars. However, we haven't found any living organisms on earth that would probably thrive and reproduce successfully on Mars. There are a few issues such a lifeform would have to deal with: Higher radiation, cold temperatures, very low pressure and oxygen, and a good bit less sunlight.

AskScience

ukj9av

Trying to understand the societal stigma

Here in the US, the original impetus was fashion driven. It began in the 1920's when sleeveless dresses first came into vogue. The hippy movement in the 1960's essentially rejected the notion that leg and armpit shaving was a necessity for women. It's my understanding that many European women do not shave their pits or legs nor was it ever commonplace for them to do so. It's essentially an artificial social construct. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ I know you didn't ask but one of the interesting aspects of aging for my 68 year old wife (which I assume may be hormonal) has been that the hairs on her legs and armpits has grown much thinner and less apparent over time. She's got much less to shave these days than she once did.

AskOldPeople

ukj9av

Trying to understand the societal stigma

Most of the body hair shaming came out of the razor industry. Gotta sell more blades!

AskOldPeople

ukj9av

Trying to understand the societal stigma

Lol - a lot of women don’t shave in Europe and the rest of the world. Why should they?

AskOldPeople

ukl0no

Throughout random readings I’ve found that the Appalachians used to be larger than the Himalayas. Are there any new ranges currently forming and will any range formed ever be as large as the Appalachians considering tectonic plate movement is gradually slowing?

The Himalaya are still forming as the Indian subcontinent continues to move north in collision with the Eurasian plate. There is (relatively recently initiated) subduction in Southeast Asia as well, as part of the same collision currently building the Himalayas.

AskScience

ukl0no

Throughout random readings I’ve found that the Appalachians used to be larger than the Himalayas. Are there any new ranges currently forming and will any range formed ever be as large as the Appalachians considering tectonic plate movement is gradually slowing?

There are several competing models for the future motion of continents. We're pretty confident Africa is going to continue North into Europe, which will probably close the Mediterranean and form a more continuous range across it. If East Africa rifts away from the rest of Africa, it may swing up to the north and collide with India, forming a long mountain range there, but geologists disagree on whether it will ultimately rift away. In the far future, we generally expect a new supercontinent to form in something like 2-300 million years, but there's a handful of different models for what that will ultimately look like. > tectonic plate movement is gradually slowing That's not clear. Some studies seem to suggest it's actually been speeding up; the data is too patchy to be sure. But either way it won't change significantly on these timescales. We also can't really be sure exactly how high any past mountain ranges are, so we can't really make these sorts of direct comparisons.

AskScience

ukl0no

Throughout random readings I’ve found that the Appalachians used to be larger than the Himalayas. Are there any new ranges currently forming and will any range formed ever be as large as the Appalachians considering tectonic plate movement is gradually slowing?

I've peppered the other responses that were here with this, but for the sake of completeness, **this question is fundamentally unanswerable beyond vague generalization**. As touched on by /u/loki130 in their answer (and discussed in some detail in one of our [FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/wiki/planetary_sciences/future_continents)), projections of future plate configurations are uncertain, so even defining *where* there might be new mountains forming in the geologic future is problematic. Even if we did know where, i.e., the plate configurations were certain, we would not have any basis with which to accurately project the rate of plate motion (which controls the rate of convergence between the plates and influences the rates of rock uplift and topographic growth), the geometry of main structures that would develop (which control how a given rate of horizontal convergence is translated into vertical motion growing topography), or the climatic context of the range that would form (which controls the details of erosional process and will ultimately dictate what the *equilibrium* height of the range is, i.e., how steep and tall does the topography need to be to balance rock uplift). And those are the main things that we might be able to make vague generalizations about, there a whole host of "what ifs" that could dramatically influence the topographic evolution that we would have basically zero way of predicting for a hypothetical future collision, e.g., will there be slab detachment? will there be crustal delamination? when might these occur in the lifespan of the range? etc etc. The extreme challenge of all of these pieces working together and reconstructing enough of them to work out details of past mountain range geometry/topography is bad enough (and well described by [van Hinsbergen & Boschman, 2019](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7705)), but the problem is compounded for future projections (where by definition, we have no records, only extrapolation).

AskScience

ukledy

Why does the cost of left and right move is 1 but the the cost of up and down moves is 2. [https://imgur.com/a/oQV9AII](https://imgur.com/a/oQV9AII)

I don't know, at a glance, what heuristic they're using. There are a few popular ones. Eg: [Solving the 8-Puzzle using A* Heuristic Search](https://cse.iitk.ac.in/users/cs365/2009/ppt/13jan_Aman.pdf). The "1" and "2" numbers might be talking about the relative scores between choices, not the overal "score of the board", which is the usual scoring used.

AskComputerScience

ukllyj

As a young person, the world seems so heavy anymore and the future looks so dark. I know we’re not the first group of people to live through difficult times, but I can’t ever recall feeling so hopeless. I keep seeing suicides increasing around me and yesterday I had multiple conversations with my friends where we were all crying. 🥲 Is there hope? What advice do you have?

Public Policy Analysis is my profession. I have a hard truth you need to learn to accept... The world is fine. The future is very bright. Fear mongers sell fear because people buy it, that's all. Is there shit going on? Sure. There's always shit going on. Same old same old.

AskOldPeople

ukllyj

As a young person, the world seems so heavy anymore and the future looks so dark. I know we’re not the first group of people to live through difficult times, but I can’t ever recall feeling so hopeless. I keep seeing suicides increasing around me and yesterday I had multiple conversations with my friends where we were all crying. 🥲 Is there hope? What advice do you have?

There's always hope. Things do seem totally f-ed. I never thought that my generation (X) would have to step up. We were promised 'the end of history' - like in a good way. That hasn't panned out. Things will be different than what we wished, how could it be otherwise? No one knows the future. I think that it helps to take action of some kind, whether that's doing something kind for yourself (therapy or self care) or political, or in your community or family. Foster personal connection. Lean on your friends and let them lean on you. Also have things to look forward to: small or big trips, events, people you'll see, chances to play or do good work. Get perspective. Most of history was deeply horrible for many people. It's being not-horrible that's odd. Black death, anyone? It may not be what you thought it would be, but you can only start from where you are. Get your self-talk turned around. You can do it. Today can be good. Nothing is promised, do it now. (Btw, I don't have it together. These are just the things I tell myself when I'm down.)

AskOldPeople

ukllyj

As a young person, the world seems so heavy anymore and the future looks so dark. I know we’re not the first group of people to live through difficult times, but I can’t ever recall feeling so hopeless. I keep seeing suicides increasing around me and yesterday I had multiple conversations with my friends where we were all crying. 🥲 Is there hope? What advice do you have?

There is always horror and there is always hope. Imagine the Jewish people who lived through the Holocaust- there must have been many who chose suicide, or simply gave up.But there were many more who insisted on living despite the best efforts to kill them all. That was a dark time. This is a dark time too, but for different reasons. It might seem that there is no hope for the world. But that’s a dark lens to be looking through and it robs you of the will to fight. Look for even the small things that give you hope or comfort and find ways to amplify them. Horror and hope, it’s there all around us. We get to choose which we grasp.

AskOldPeople

ukoeuy

Hi all. I really struggle understanding programming, because there's so much vocabulary, and I get really frustrated with how redundant and contrived some of it seems to me. I'm a smart guy, but I have no patience when someone starts "speaking" a programming language to explain a programming concept. Right now, I'm trying to understand why a string literal, literally the string of characters, is not just called a "string". So far, the answers I've found are "it's Java" and "it's the data in the variable", and it's "the initialized variable"... Which to me, just sounds like "it's the string", "it's THIS string" and "it's irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it" Is there any actual reason to call something a literal, specifically in the context of python? Or is it just a synonym for the actual string/integer/whatever in question? Is the string literal, literally the string, and if so, who decided that? Does Merriam Webster know about this?

If you were to write: String A = "my string"; That's using a literal to assign to A If you then wrote: String B = A; You are no longer using any string literals. A string literal is a piece of syntax. You would never refer to a variable as a string *literal*, only text enclosed in quotation marks is a string literal.

AskComputerScience

ukoeuy

Hi all. I really struggle understanding programming, because there's so much vocabulary, and I get really frustrated with how redundant and contrived some of it seems to me. I'm a smart guy, but I have no patience when someone starts "speaking" a programming language to explain a programming concept. Right now, I'm trying to understand why a string literal, literally the string of characters, is not just called a "string". So far, the answers I've found are "it's Java" and "it's the data in the variable", and it's "the initialized variable"... Which to me, just sounds like "it's the string", "it's THIS string" and "it's irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it" Is there any actual reason to call something a literal, specifically in the context of python? Or is it just a synonym for the actual string/integer/whatever in question? Is the string literal, literally the string, and if so, who decided that? Does Merriam Webster know about this?

A "string literal" is something that occurs in your *source code*, marked by quotation marks. It's distinct from the string *object* that exists when your program is running. String literals are one way to create strings, but not the only way. If you say: s = "abc" then the string literal `"abc"` in your source code tells the Python runtime environment to create a string object whose data consists of the characters `a`, `b` and `c`. And the variable *s* refers to that string object. But if you do this: s = str(5*5) you will get a string whose data contains the characters `2` and `5`, even though there is no string literal `"25"` in your program. There are other kinds of literals, too. For instance, when you write an integer value in your code, you're actually writing an integer literal. But the decimal literal `25`, the hexadecimal literal `0x19` and the binary literal `0b11001` are all ways to describe the same integer value. (Or to put it differently, they all *evaluate to* integer objects with the same value.)

AskComputerScience

ukoeuy

Hi all. I really struggle understanding programming, because there's so much vocabulary, and I get really frustrated with how redundant and contrived some of it seems to me. I'm a smart guy, but I have no patience when someone starts "speaking" a programming language to explain a programming concept. Right now, I'm trying to understand why a string literal, literally the string of characters, is not just called a "string". So far, the answers I've found are "it's Java" and "it's the data in the variable", and it's "the initialized variable"... Which to me, just sounds like "it's the string", "it's THIS string" and "it's irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it" Is there any actual reason to call something a literal, specifically in the context of python? Or is it just a synonym for the actual string/integer/whatever in question? Is the string literal, literally the string, and if so, who decided that? Does Merriam Webster know about this?

I share your frustration with things that seem redundant and contrived. A lot of things in CS seem that way at first, but very few actually are. The vast majority of CS was codified by quite thoughtful, clever people, many of whom had a formal math background. This means they were used to defining things very narrowly and carefully. In your case, a string is a complex data type, an object, which holds an ordered list of characters along with some metadata and associated functions. If you define that list of characters in the source code literally, i.e. if you write "this is a string", that is the contents of the string object at runtime too, and it doesn't change. If you reserve a variable name for a string whose contents is unknown at the time of writing but will be determined at runtime (i.e. user input, network data, etc), you can use the contents of said variable as a string in your code even though you do not know the value it will eventually hold - it is a string but not a literal.

AskComputerScience

ukp3eb

What is the difference between these waves that allows something like a camera to work or not work?

[removed]

AskScience

ukp3eb

What is the difference between these waves that allows something like a camera to work or not work?

Some pretty poor answers, so I'm obliged to post a reply. Theoretically, there is no reason why we cannot build antenna for optical wavelengths and camera for radio wavelengths, and there are examples Also, note that antenna and camera are devices that are designed to do different things - so you are not exactly comparing 2 equivalent devices. A camera is designed to do imaging - the output is a map of intensities vs. angular positions (or a 'movie' if you take data over time). In a camera, there is usually an 'optical element', such as a lens (or a system of lenses), a curved mirror (or a set of mirrors and lenses), or a simple aperture, that maps incoming light wave from 1 direction to excite only 1 detector element among an array of detector elements. This array of detector element can be either an array of solid state detectors - analog pin diodes, CCD (Charge Coupled Devices), CMOS detectors - or a thin film of photo-sensitive emulsion layer (aka photographic film). An antenna is designed to detect intensity from all directions combined (although not all directions are given the same weight, depending on the antenna geometry) over time. An antenna is basically a detector sitting out in the open without any optical element. Optical antenna does exist. When you push a button on an IR remote control for you flat panel TV, the signal is picked up by an optical 'antenna'. The closest thing to a radio camera is a radio telescope. Here, an optical element 'high gain antenna' which is a curved reflector that selects radio wave incoming from 1 angular direction, and feeds it to an antenna, and then you swing around the entire assembly to generate a map of intensities vs. angular position. Think of this as a one pixel camera. Source: PhD in optoelectronics

AskScience

ukp3eb

What is the difference between these waves that allows something like a camera to work or not work?

The energy they contain is the difference. Radio waves are very weak when compared to visible light or UV. The antenna gives a bigger surface area and also is useful because the wave length of the radio waves is very big for a small receiver like a camera to capture. In simple words its due to the wave length that we need a different kind of setups for every other form of radiation IR needs a specific set of lasers and UV needs a filter to differentiate it from the visible light etc. The longer the wavelength the bigger your sensors have to be. Radio waves has the biggest wavelength so we need a highly sensitive antenna which is at least one quarter wavelength wide or high. Edit : someone in comments corrected a error. Edit 2: I had another error corrected by someone.

AskScience

ukpc15

I'm studying ichthyosaur fins for my university dissertation, and I'm looking at polyphalangy (defined as phalanges branching from digits) and hyperphalangy (additional phalanges added linearly onto digits) (see this image from Fedak and Hall, 2004 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571266/figure/fig01/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571266/figure/fig01/)). Obviously there's polydactyly in humans, with extra fingers, but I was wondering if there's 'hyperdactyly', with more than 3 phalanges in a finger? I'd imagine that if both conditions occur in ancient organisms then they could also occur in humans? edit: terminology

Yes! [There have been rare cases of hyperphalangy in humans ](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajmg.1320460215), also sometimes referred to as having “supernumerary phalanges”. [In hyperphalangy associated with Brachydactyly Type C,](https://rarediseases.org/gard-rare-disease/brachydactyly-type-c/) the bones of the index and/or middle finger are shorter, but sometimes one is duplicated. In cases of Catel-Manzke syndrome, there can be a host of other skeletal defects, but also sometimes a single extra duplicated phalange in the index finger. And there is a condition called [triphalangial thumb](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6297898/) where the thumb has three phalanges instead of two. None of these have much in common with the hyperphalangy of whales, ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs…where there are many, many extra phalanges. (Actually whales are a little more constrained than the reptiles but still.) Human hyperphalangy is nearly always limited to a single extra phalange in one or two digits.

AskScience

ukpoiq

Are there any examples of a species disappearing from the fossil record because of a predator species being so successful in hunting it? (Other than extinctions humans have caused?)

Fossilization is actually a pretty rare phenomenon. Only a tiny fraction of all living beings get trapped as fossils. That make it pretty difficult to make the types of conclusions you are asking about using the fossil record.

AskScience

ukpoiq

Are there any examples of a species disappearing from the fossil record because of a predator species being so successful in hunting it? (Other than extinctions humans have caused?)

Here’s a paper suggesting that gnathostomes (jawed fish) heavily predated on agnathostomes (jawless fish), contributing to extinction of ostracoderms (armoured jawless fish) in the Upper Devonian (around 372MYA) Bite marks and predation of fossil jawless fish during the rise of jawed vertebrates https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1596

AskScience

ukpoiq

Are there any examples of a species disappearing from the fossil record because of a predator species being so successful in hunting it? (Other than extinctions humans have caused?)

this indubitably happens often, if a generalist predator hunts 2 prey animals, one that can cope with the hunting and another that cannot, the one that cannot will go extinct/disappear from the area because even if their numbers decrease the predators won't become more rare. the smaller the area and the lower the population the more likely this would be. any animals that develop on islands usually meet this fate when introduced to species from the mainland. I can't recall exactly where but certain giant bugs that evolved on island cannot handle rats that were introduced there for example, so they are probably going to go extinct once we stop protecting them. species that co-evolved as the hunter and the prey are much less likely to have this happen to them, for example when there are many lynx the number of rabbits decreases dramatically, but when they run out of food the lynx start dying en-masse allowing rabbit populations to skyrocket, making the lynx population rise back up soon after over and over again.

AskScience

ukqpkp

For example, dogs experience nausea and it is often indicated by drooling and excessive swallowing, and anti-emetic medications work for dogs. But outside of observed behaviors, do scientists have other ways of knowing whether nausea is something that all mammals experience? Could it be determined by studying mammalian brains?

Nausea is a subjective experience of a physiological phenomenon. It's qualia rather than an objective, measurable state. We can definitely say that animals experience the physiological indicators of nausea but whether they experience nausea as a subjective, conscious thing is an extremely difficult and perhaps impossible question to answer. It's like pain vs nociception.

AskScience

ukqti1

Are there foods that actually are superfoods? I mean, are there any foods out there that extremely effect your body from just one eat?

Superfood : >The term has no official definition by regulatory authorities in major consumer markets, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture or the European Food Safety Authority. It appears to have been first used in a Canadian newspaper in 1949 when referring to the supposed nutritional qualities of a muffin. also: >According to Cancer Research UK, "the term 'superfood' is really just a marketing tool, with little scientific basis to it". It is generally accepted that diet and dietetics should be approached in the form of a nutrition plan and not a list of foods. It is important to favour a varied diet and to cook unprocessed food, stuffing yourself with "super food" will only have an effect on your wallet.

AskScience

ukqti1

Are there foods that actually are superfoods? I mean, are there any foods out there that extremely effect your body from just one eat?

[removed]

AskScience

ukqti1

Are there foods that actually are superfoods? I mean, are there any foods out there that extremely effect your body from just one eat?

> Are there foods that actually are superfoods? No, "superfood" is a marketing term, it has no unofficial or official definition and is just being used to try to sell things to you. The term 'superfood" is being applied to foods that are claimed to be better for you and healthier if consumed in moderate amounts over a lifetime. Problem is, almost ALL natural foods (excluding highly processed products) can be superfoods in a way, a widely varied diet that's made up mostly (but not exclusively) of good quality vegetables and fruits (of all colors), lower glycemic index starches like whole grains and beans, oily fish, nuts, eggs, fermented foods, and small amounts of lean meats, definitely has health benefits. However, no food is a "superfood" in the sense that if you ate just that one food, or ate large amounts of it every day to the exclusion of other types of food, you would be healthier or live longer than someone with a more moderate, varied diet. >I mean, are there any foods out there that extremely effect your body from just one eat? Water. Otherwise, no, not really.... unless your body is extremely deficient in one nutrient or another because of a lack of intake. Even then, it takes more than one serving, and more than a day or two, for your body to repair damage from a deficiency disorder. Scurvy or vitamin C deficiency for instance, takes a couple days of treatment to see any improvement at all, and takes weeks or months to cure.

AskScience

ukr4cx

How was your sex life in the 60s and the 70s?

Non-existent. The 80s, however, are a different story.

AskOldPeople

uksg30

Curious if this is something not talked about as much when you’re young — how many of you and your friends have virgin teeth? As opposed to dentures, veneers, crowns etc.

My husband is 13 years younger than me and and he ended up with a complete set of false teeth last year at 45. I'm coming up on 59 this year and it looks like I'll be in the same boat in a few years. We really both lost the genetics lotteries in both of our families. It's not just that though. Speaking for myself, I had years of jobs with no health care where I thought just brushing my teeth was enough. Each time I'd end up with good Dental Care, we'd play catch up with deep cleanings, more fillings and crowns over that were covered in my plans each year and so on. But eventually, you can't catch up any more and I wasn't able to make up for years of brushing but not flossing + genetics. Depression had it's hand in there as well. What ever age you are, but especially if you are young, make a commitment to start taking better care of your teeth. If you already do, keep it up!

AskOldPeople

uksg30

Curious if this is something not talked about as much when you’re young — how many of you and your friends have virgin teeth? As opposed to dentures, veneers, crowns etc.

I won't tell you the story of my soft teeth and bad gums. It's been a horrible struggle, but at 78 I have full dentures that snap in for strength. At least the pain is finally gone.

AskOldPeople

uksg30

Curious if this is something not talked about as much when you’re young — how many of you and your friends have virgin teeth? As opposed to dentures, veneers, crowns etc.

I had my first 2 crowns in my 20s. It's not just an age thing.

AskOldPeople

ukt5rb

This is mostly regarding psychoactive substances, but it seems for most substances, the half-life is much longer than the duration you actually feel the drug's effects. Take ativan for example. It's half life seems to be around 12 hours, although apparently a better estimate is between 10 and 12 hours. Yet it does not seem to ease anxiety for nearly that long. Another example would be adderall. It's half life is over 12 hours, yet its effects last for around 6 hours. Even alcohol seems to be weird in this regard. It's half-life is 4-5 hours, but you're also able to process a drink in around an hour. If I had a drink and then waited an hour, I would blow a 0.0 BAC, but it would still be in my system? Can anyone clear this up for me? Is it that the drugs still have a psychoactive affect, but it is just no longer noticeable or what?

The answer is that the processes involved are complicated. For oral drugs, absorption peaks some time after digestion, so there is not a simple decay, more of a peak followed by a drop off. In addition, the effect of most drugs are not linearly dependent on the concentration in the target tissue, because of saturation effects, among other complications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioavailability

AskScience

ukt5rb

This is mostly regarding psychoactive substances, but it seems for most substances, the half-life is much longer than the duration you actually feel the drug's effects. Take ativan for example. It's half life seems to be around 12 hours, although apparently a better estimate is between 10 and 12 hours. Yet it does not seem to ease anxiety for nearly that long. Another example would be adderall. It's half life is over 12 hours, yet its effects last for around 6 hours. Even alcohol seems to be weird in this regard. It's half-life is 4-5 hours, but you're also able to process a drink in around an hour. If I had a drink and then waited an hour, I would blow a 0.0 BAC, but it would still be in my system? Can anyone clear this up for me? Is it that the drugs still have a psychoactive affect, but it is just no longer noticeable or what?

There's a threshold concentration in the body needed for an effect to be observed. Whether or not that threshold is achieved, and for how long, depends on the size of the dose, the number of doses and the time between doses. The half-life is just the amount of time it takes for half the drug to be cleared (assuming the kinetics meets certain conditions). It has no direct relationship to the effect of the drug. A well-designed dosing regimen ensures that the concentration of the drug stays above the required levels necessary to have an effect, even taking account the half-life. [This is a good illustration](https://www.cambridgemedchemconsulting.com/resources/ADME/halflife_files/repeated.png).

AskScience

ukt5rb

This is mostly regarding psychoactive substances, but it seems for most substances, the half-life is much longer than the duration you actually feel the drug's effects. Take ativan for example. It's half life seems to be around 12 hours, although apparently a better estimate is between 10 and 12 hours. Yet it does not seem to ease anxiety for nearly that long. Another example would be adderall. It's half life is over 12 hours, yet its effects last for around 6 hours. Even alcohol seems to be weird in this regard. It's half-life is 4-5 hours, but you're also able to process a drink in around an hour. If I had a drink and then waited an hour, I would blow a 0.0 BAC, but it would still be in my system? Can anyone clear this up for me? Is it that the drugs still have a psychoactive affect, but it is just no longer noticeable or what?

On my opinion, the key is distribution. Usually half life is expressed in a certain media (eg plasma, brain, whole organism, etc). That localization though may not be relevant to the effect the drug is supposed to do. Without specific knowledge about it, and taking your example (all data is not validated and given to exemplify the case) for alcohol: 1. Ingestion. Assuming no metabolism yet. 2. Absorption through GI tract. Assuming 100% bioavailability within 30 min. There will be a peak after 15 min. 3. All the alcohol is in blood but it starts to distribute from t0 to brain, liver, etc. 4. Brain is no good processing alcohol, so whatever fraction makes it, causes the effect to your conduct. What you really experience. After 1h, the effect is gone as either your receptors saturate (you'll only feel pressure in your arm for a couple of minutes, after that, you don't feel it anymore) or otherwise there is no more input from other sources. Keep drinking and you'll keep feeling drunk. 5. Liver instead, keeps working hard at metabolizing alcohol, into substances such as fat, sugars, or other substances that will be excreted from the body. 6. Some other tissues may accumulate more or less alcohol or their metabolites. 7. Eventually, all alcohol is eliminated from the body. In this case, half life could refer to the amount of time alcohol would be showing up in a blood test, or accumulation in the whole body (all organs). Both cases are very different and can clearly illustrate how half life doesn't always correlate with effect. Hope this helps.

AskScience

uktxrb

I'm pretty new to programming. I've learned only Python yet and some Django too. I was thinking about starting to learn Rust but I don't know anything about... So can anyone tell me if I should learn it or not.. if yes, what type of things can I do with this language?..

As you can imagine, this is a pretty common question. If you Google it, you'll probably get some reasonable stuff in the first page of results. I'll highlight an interesting posts taking the opposite angle, why you might _not_ want to learn Rust, written a well-known Rustacean: https://matklad.github.io/2020/09/20/why-not-rust.html

LearnRust

uktxrb

I'm pretty new to programming. I've learned only Python yet and some Django too. I was thinking about starting to learn Rust but I don't know anything about... So can anyone tell me if I should learn it or not.. if yes, what type of things can I do with this language?..

\>> what type of things can I do with this language In a nutshell: Rust tries to solve a problem that other languages tend to solve in a different way, but with downsides. Which is that its difficult to manage memory. Other languages like JS and Python solve this by completely taking this problem off your hands by using a garbage collector. the downside is that those languages have a tendency to be slower. But note that this downside is not always a problem. Usually it isn't. So if you're looking for a language that can be very fast, and also helps you to avoid very complicated bugs, then rust is great. Do note that it really helps if you know other languages first. So maybe dont start out with Rust. Its also a nice language in general, albeit with a steep learning curve. But once you get it, it kinda clicks very nicely.

LearnRust

uktxrb

I'm pretty new to programming. I've learned only Python yet and some Django too. I was thinking about starting to learn Rust but I don't know anything about... So can anyone tell me if I should learn it or not.. if yes, what type of things can I do with this language?..

I wouldn’t recommend learning rust for a beginner. I recommend keep going with more mature and higher-level languages such as python or JavaScript

LearnRust

ukv31g

Can a region anywhere on earth possibly experience the worst climate in the next 5 or 10 years rather than in 50-70 years in this century? Or will climate change make it certain that the worst is going to happen only after 50 or so years?

This is hard to answer with certainty. To understand why, we can do a little thought experiment, but it first requires that we think a bit about how we describe the statistics of "extreme weather". For our "extreme weather", let's specifically focus on rainfall. We generally expect rainfall (i.e., storm) events for a particular region to be characterized by a probability distribution. There are a few different distributions that have been used for rainfall, and specifically to describe the frequency of large events, but for this, we'll follow [Wilson & Toumi, 2005](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL022465) and consider the [Weibull distribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weibull_distribution) (note that Wilson & Toumi discuss this as the stretched exponential, which is just the name given to the complementary cumulative distribution function of the Weibull distribution). In the context of the Weibull, there are two parameters that define a probability of an event, a scale parameter (which relates to the mean storm depth, i.e., the mean magnitude of rainfall events, typically considered in terms of daily means) and a shape parameter (which relates to the frequency of storms). Together, these define the probability of a particular magnitude of storm event occurring. Also of relevance is that largely we can consider the probability of rainfall events as time independent, meaning that the probability of a given magnitude event does not change as a function of the past history (i.e., if there is a 1% chance of a storm that produces 15 mm of rain in day and such a storm occurs, the probability of another storm producing 15 mm of rain is still 1% the next day). Now, bringing in climate change, generally for a given region, Wilson & Toumi argue that the variability of events (i.e., the shape parameter) for rainfall distributions are not likely to change, but that the mean depth (i.e., the scale parameter) will change. If we assume this is correct, because the scale changes though time, the magnitude of a given probability event will change, e.g., if the scale increases the magnitude of what was a rainfall event with a 2 year return period will increase. Why does all this matter? If we think about assembling a hypothetical time series for the next 50 years assuming we knew how the scale parameter for a particular place would change, e.g., we knew in 50 years the scale parameter would go from 5 to 10 so we broke our future record into 5, 10 year long steps and at each step drew 10 years worth of random daily means based on the current shape parameter and future scale parameters and then assembled that into our "record". Now, over time, larger events (with respect to the modern) would become more common as the underlying distribution shifted to the right, but statistically within particular decade you were in with a fixed shape and scale the probability of extreme events would not be changing. Looking over the whole 50 year record though, the most likely outcome would be that you would see larger (i.e., more extreme) events further in the future specifically if you're considering them with reference to what constituted "extreme" at the beginning of the record. This would broadly suggest that the scenario you laid out (that there is more extreme weather in the next 10 years than in the following 40) would be unlikely. However, because we're considering these as time independent probabilities, there's nothing theoretically to preclude a scenario where an extremely low probability event (i.e., a very large event) occurs early in the record, which is not exceeded in the remainder of the 50 year record even with the shift in the mean. Importantly, this is focused just on rainfall (where the other types of events may have different changes in their probabilities), is ignoring a lot of complications (changes in seasonality, etc), and assuming that Wilson & Toumi's arguments about global trends hold locally (i.e., there might be areas where both the scale and shape parameter will change, which would complicate our thought experiment a bit), but highlights that dealing with stochastic processes like storms and making definitive statements about very detailed future trends is problematic (and also why tying a single, low probability event to climate change is challenging, but defining trends in changes in extreme events more broadly is possible).

AskScience

ukvh8x

I recently learned how avocados are not true to seed plants and by that meaning planting them doesn't give you the same fruit. This is very intriguing and strange. Aren't we all the product of our DNA. And isnt that DNA embedded within the seed?

some species have male/female plants. there you get a mix of genes from each parent, and so the offspring will be mixed. other plants can be hermaphraditic, or self-fertilizing (all the genes come from the same single parent.) So their offspring are more like clones (true to seed). im pretty sure thats pretty close to the deal....

AskScience

ukwuee

There's likely to be a major interaction between our galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy at some point. There are models showing what we expect to happen. Have we imaged anything that looks like galaxies interacting, or the remnants of that interaction? How closely do they resemble the models?

We've seen plenty of interacting and merging galaxies - it happens quite frequently in the universe between all different shapes and sizes of galaxies - and they tend to somewhat resemble merging models (within reason) because the models tend to be based on observing these galaxies and trying to model how they behave: if the models didn't resemble the galaxies, they wouldn't be very good models.. Some rather famous examples of merging galaxies include the whirlpool galaxy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool\_Galaxy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_Galaxy) The antennae galaxies: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennae\_Galaxies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennae_Galaxies) And quite a few others: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Interacting\_galaxies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Interacting_galaxies) Nearly every galaxy in the universe has undergone quite a few large mergers at some point in its history, and we believe elliptical galaxies tend to be the end result of tons and tons of mergers over billions of years. Elliptical galaxies lack any clear structure, instead being a hazy roughly-ellipsoid cloud of stars on random, chaotic orbits. They also tend to lose most or all of their gas & dust, stunting new star formation and leaving mostly older, smaller stars. We don't really have any exceptional ellipticals as close to us as Andromeda to reference, but many nearby galaxy groups do have massive elliptical galaxies in them, such as Messier 87 in the Virgo cluster: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier\_87](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87) Although this galaxy is way more massive than anything the Milky Way and Andromeda could form, it is a rough idea of what such a combined galaxy may end up looking like in the distant future, after the initial chaos of the merging galaxies settles down.

AskScience

ukxkgu

And would this also increase volcanic activity on the side facing away from the star?

If the planet is tidally locked then we are in a one sided equilibrium. The tidal force still exists but there is no spatio-temproal variation, that is, given a point in space on the planet the tidal force remains constant in time. So all that tides then do is act to adjust the equilibrium shape of the body. You can be tidally locked and still have some tidal effects such as from precession due to a slight departure from a perfectly circular orbit (like occur for the Moon). However, these are negligibly small.

AskScience

ukxkgu

And would this also increase volcanic activity on the side facing away from the star?

What habitable zone do you think has to do with volcanic activity? Anyway, /u/dukesdj already answered to your question. If you was thinking something about habitability, then I could add to that that tidally locked planets aren't best candidates, they probably don't have much water on the hot size, and they probably would have frozen oceans on the cold side, with only a small barely habitable strip of land along terminator line, but it probably would experience immense winds. I could speculate that it would probably be a cold winds, as denser cold air would travel closer to the ground from cold to hot side, heat up there, uprise and then travel back to the cold side at top of the troposphere.

AskScience

ukxqb1

7/45 of the worlds biggest caves are in Georgia, including the top 4. Why is this? What is so special about the geology of such a small country that in contains such deep caves?

Georgia has a lot of conditions that favor cave (karst) formation, mostly related to aspects of the formation of the Greater Caucasus mountains which dominate much of geography of the country. Specifically, there's a lot of limestone (because the rocks of the Greater Caucasus reflect a marine basin that was closed and deformed), it's very wet (in part because the Caucasus interact with the Westerlies to concentrate a significant amount of precipitation to fall on their southwestern side, i.e., Georgia), there's a lot of groundwater (again, likely in part related to the humid conditions, plus a lot of conduits for fluid flow via faults related to the formation of the Greater Caucasus), there's active magmatism which provides a lot of dissolved gases which can help react with carbonates plus active hydrothermal systems (again likely related to the Greater Caucasus, but the exact origin of the magmatism in this region remains a bit elusive), and their is a lot of relief (where the "erosional base level" and changes in it can influence the depth of cave systems that develop). Karst geology is not my specialty (the geology of the Caucasus is though), but based on a basic understanding of karst processes (e.g., [Ford & Williams, 2007](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118684986)), all of the factors above would contribute (at least in part) to making Georgia an ideal environment for making large karst systems. Maybe someone with more expertise in karst processes specifically can fill in some additional details. **EDIT:** For the variety of people responding with things about the US state of Georgia, both OP and I are talking about the country of [Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28country%29).

AskScience

ukxqb1

7/45 of the worlds biggest caves are in Georgia, including the top 4. Why is this? What is so special about the geology of such a small country that in contains such deep caves?

I remember a story of cavers exploring a previously unexplored cave in Georgia. As they were deep in the cave, they came across a chasm that seemed to go down forever. And what was even more surprising was that somebody had tied a rope that went to the chasm. As far as they knew, they were the first people there. So they started going down the chasm, and found a dead body hanging from the rope 1 kilometre down. There was about 1 more kilometre to go to the bottom. Previously, on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/qjjp3s/til\_about\_the\_veryovkina\_cave\_the\_worlds\_deepest/

AskScience

ukxtkg

“The first article that I wrote for the elementary school newspaper was on the fall of Barcelona \[in 1939\],” “I haven’t changed my opinion since, it’s just gotten worse,” “we’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history… We are now facing the prospect of destruction of organised human life on Earth.” “Because of Trump’s fanaticism, the worshipful base of the Republican Party barely regards climate change as a serious problem. That’s a death warrant to the species.”  “There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.” More here: [https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/04/noam-chomsky-were-approaching-the-most-dangerous-point-in-human-history](https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/04/noam-chomsky-were-approaching-the-most-dangerous-point-in-human-history)

> There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation That could have been written in 1968 about the hippies (who are now the older generation). Nothing new here.

AskOldPeople

ukxtkg

“The first article that I wrote for the elementary school newspaper was on the fall of Barcelona \[in 1939\],” “I haven’t changed my opinion since, it’s just gotten worse,” “we’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history… We are now facing the prospect of destruction of organised human life on Earth.” “Because of Trump’s fanaticism, the worshipful base of the Republican Party barely regards climate change as a serious problem. That’s a death warrant to the species.”  “There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.” More here: [https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/04/noam-chomsky-were-approaching-the-most-dangerous-point-in-human-history](https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/04/noam-chomsky-were-approaching-the-most-dangerous-point-in-human-history)

I mean yeah he’s been saying this type shit forever so is this new or something?

AskOldPeople

ukxtkg

“The first article that I wrote for the elementary school newspaper was on the fall of Barcelona \[in 1939\],” “I haven’t changed my opinion since, it’s just gotten worse,” “we’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history… We are now facing the prospect of destruction of organised human life on Earth.” “Because of Trump’s fanaticism, the worshipful base of the Republican Party barely regards climate change as a serious problem. That’s a death warrant to the species.”  “There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.” More here: [https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/04/noam-chomsky-were-approaching-the-most-dangerous-point-in-human-history](https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/04/noam-chomsky-were-approaching-the-most-dangerous-point-in-human-history)

i do not think humans are able to solve all the problems that do arise. And I do not think Chomsky is the one who knows the best answers.

AskOldPeople

uky99r

I studied that in Linux, user level threads are mapped 1:1 to kernel level threads, and threads have the same type of PCB that we are for processes. About Windows, what's the difference with Linux? I studied that Windows threads are mapped m:n with pools of worker threads. So: * Are the created threads just shown in the system process table (the table that contains all the pid and the pointers to the relative PCB in memory) like all the processes, or they aren't? If not, where are they stored? How can the scheduler decide if they are not in the system process table? * Since when I start a simple process, it is itself a thread (I can check it via ps command, and on Windows it should be the same), what's the difference between them? Is there a difference on how the system (Linux or Windows) *see* them? Or are they the same thing but the the "non-main" threads(the ones created within the process) share the same virtual address space with the main-thread(the process that created them)? * How are threads told to access only certain things, if they have the same "block map table" in the PCB since they have the same virtual address space (and thus could in theory access everything)? Who sets and sees the constraints? Where are these constraints written? * Does pthread library simply provides API that will create a kernel level thread starting from a user level thread(so 1:1 mapping), setting the relative priority(I can do it via pthread, but I don't know how this scheduling priority is handled) of the kernel level thread that will be seen by the kernel in scheduling act? Or maybe EVERY time the kernel level thread corresponding to one of my user level threads is scheduled, pthread MUST act as middleman and then there is this forced "bridge" and this overhead maybe because pthread library can manage scheduling things (again like I said before, when I start a thread with pthread, I can set some scheduling priority in my threads) so maybe it can *dynamically* choose which of its (pthread's) user level thread to run, when any of the kernel level thread of its (pthread's) is scheduled?

I don't know the details of how it works in Windows, but on Linux: Because of the way threads were "retrofitted" onto the Linux kernel after it was originally designed, there's a bit of a mismatch in terminology between the way user-space tools talk about threads and the kernel's view. From the kernel's perspective, each thread has its own thread ID (TID), and also a TGID (thread group ID). For a single-threaded program, the TID and TGID are the same; for a multithreaded program, each thread has its own TID, and each thread's TGID is set to the TID of the main thread. From the perspective of userspace tools like `ps` and system calls like `getpid`, when they refer to a PID, they're usually actually talking about a TGID. For clarity, I'll use the kernel's terminology in the rest of this comment. > Are the created threads just shown in the system process table (the table that contains all the pid and the pointers to the relative PCB in memory) like all the processes, or they aren't? Yes, from the scheduler's perspective, threads are just processes that happen to have the same TGID. > Is there a difference on how the system (Linux or Windows) see them? Depends on the context. In some cases, threads are independent; for instance, when the scheduler is choosing a thread to run, it doesn't need to care if it's a single-threaded process, or one thread among many with the same TGID. But in other contexts, threads are treated as a group. As you mentioned, they share an address space, so that e.g. calling `mmap` in one thread is visible to the others. They also share a single file descriptor, and if one thread performs an action that would terminate the "process" (e.g. calling `exit`, `execve`, or receiving an unhandled signal) then all other threads are terminated as well. > How are threads told to access only certain things, if they have the same "block map table" in the PCB since they have the same virtual address space (and thus could in theory access everything)? Who sets and sees the constraints? From the kernel's perspective, there are no "constraints". Threads share the same virtual address space, so in principle nothing stops them from clobbering each other's memory. Within a program, you can "tell" a thread to only access certain things in the same way you would "tell" a function what to do: by passing it arguments. Each thread has its own stack pointer register, so when you create a new thread you also allocate a region of memory to serve as its stack. And you can push arguments onto that stack, which the thread's main function will be able to access just as if it were called within the same thread. Once the threads are running, they can also access each others' memory or global shared objects via pointers. Obviously, this has to be done very carefully if you don't want to end up with race conditions or other bugs. > Or maybe EVERY time the kernel level thread corresponding to one of my user level threads is scheduled, pthread MUST act as middleman No, the pthread library doesn't do its own scheduling. Each user-level thread is its own kernel thread, and the kernel is responsible for scheduling them.

AskComputerScience

ukynrg

I've read IMMUNE from Kurzgesagt, and now I'm watching Breaking Bad. So I want to know how cancer can spread into your lymph node. Thanks!!

The “how” is cancer is cells that have broken outside the control of the cell cycle, they have signals to make them grow/proliferate turned on and signals to stop growth turned off. Under ordinary circumstances cells from one part of your body would die in another part, but cancer cells can adapt to new conditions because they have turned off the things that would stop them. As for the “why” lymph nodes you have to understand one of the jobs of the lymphatic system is to collect fluid/debris that have leaked into tissues, “filter” it at the lymph nodes and release it back into the subclavian vein for recirculation. As cancer cells metastasize out from the tumor they can often end up in this “drainage system” only unlike most pathogens they are your cells so the immune system doesn’t destroy them as readily (although it can destroy them). From there the cancer will continue branching out and metastasizing until you get noticeable symptoms and go to the doctor.

AskScience

ukzc2c

If in some species males also can be pregnant then what tell scientists that this one should be called male and other one female?

Whichever one makes the bigger gamete (sex cell) is the female. Easy example is egg (big) vs sperm (small), but it's not always so clear. As you point out, it doesn't always correlate with pregnancy or dedication to the young.

AskScience

ukzfir

I've recently reading about new advances in rocket propulsion technology. Leaving aside other considerations like ionizability, chemical stability, etc., why does either propulsion system prefer the "opposite" extreme of propellant molecular weight? From what I gather online, ion engines tend towards xenon, while the proposed nuclear thermal rockets in development generally adopt hydrogen. Am an engineer myself, so feel free to explain in depth. Thanks!

The short answer is that lower molecular weight result in higher Isp but lower thrust. For ion engines you can easily get too much Isp and too little thrust. I am going to assume you know what specific impulse means (Isp). Let me know if it's not the case. In a rocket engine the power in the jet is something like: P = n * 1/2*m_dot*V^2 with n the efficiency of the engine, m\_dot the propellant mass flow rate and V the exhaust velocity. You can also rewrite this as P= 1/2*T*Isp/g with `T` being the thrust (`=m_dot*V` from momentum), `Isp` the specific impulse and `g` gravitational acceleration on Earth (`Isp=V*g` from the definition). So for a fixed power (which is usually what you have) you get to trade between the thrust you get and how efficient you are with your propellant. In most rocket engines you want to maximize your Isp to get the most efficient use of your propellant. You can rewrite the Isp as follow by introducing `M` the molar mass, `q_dot` the molar flux (mol/s) and `E` the energy per mol of propellant. P = 1/2 *M *q_dot * Isp^2 *g^2 E = 1/2 *M * Isp^2 *g^2 Isp= 1/g * sqrt(2*E/(M)) For thermal rockets (chemical or nuclear) the energy per mol is going to be limited by the temperature of your hot source. For an ideal gas you get the famous `E~3/2*k_b*T` and it's more or less always proportional to the temperature. So if you want to increase your Isp you either increase the temperature or decrease the molecular weight `M`. Even you take very low molecular weight propellant like hydrogen and the highest melting point materials (\~2500K) you still end up with a max Isp in the order of 1000 to 2000s before the nuclear fuel starts to become too fragile and melt. For electrostatic ion thrusters the energy in each particles is just the potential energy from the voltage difference `V` between electrodes. So E= e*V*N_A Assuming that each particles as a single elementary charge `e`. So you end up with Isp= 1/g * sqrt(2*e*V*N_A/M) So in this you have two things you can tweak, the acceleration voltage `V` and the molecular weight. At a fixed voltage going from Xenon (131.29 AMU) to hydrogen (1 AMU) would let you increase your Isp by a factor 11. That sounds amazing in principle. You would need so much less propellant! But if you look at the 2nd equation in the post you also end up having to either increase your power by 11 (which means a lot of mass) or decrease your thrust by that much. The issue is that the less thrust you get the more time if take to get to destination and you also have to use less optimal thrust windows. Plugging rough numbers: For a lot of reasons, some of them related to plasma stability and general efficiency you usually need the acceleration potential 200V or above. So your Isp end up with something in the order of 2000s for xenon. The system efficiency is around 50% so you end up with about 50 to 60 mN/kW. The big geostationary spacecraft have something like 15 to 20kW of solar panel installed and still take 4 months to get from GTO to GEO orbit. To give you an idea that is equivalent to 0 to 100km/h in about 3 days. Of course you can increase the size of the panels, but that adds mass and you end up with less mass available for your payload. Turns out that the sweet spot for most mission in terms of transit time and payload mass is for Isp around 1500 to 3000s. You can actually write a modified "rocket equation" that includes mass of your power supply and `C` weight to power ratio of your power system. [It looks something like this](https://i.imgur.com/VoBgN2F.png). `V_e` is the exhaust velocity (`Isp*g`) and delta-T the transfer time. If we found ways to make drastically lighter power source the balance would change and higher Isp would be interesting. In that case we could choose to go with lighter propellants. In theory there is nothing stopping use from making ion engines with Isp of 10,000 to 20,000s but they would have too low of a thrust to be really useful for much.

AskScience

ul019c

There was a problem in which we were asked to compute the throughput of various window sizes. I noticed that, as we increase the window size, we get better throughput (because we have less and less idle time). My question is, then why can't we have an arbitrarily large window size? What is the disadvantage? The question I'm referring to is this: >Consider an error-free 64-kbps satellite channel used to send 512-byte data frames in one direction, with very short acknowledgments coming back the other way. We know that the round trip time from earth to satellite is 540 msec. Find the throughput for window sizes 1, 7, 15, and 127. (Assume the processing time at the receiver side can be neglected.)

A larger window size requires more memory on both participants in the connection, and implies a longer delay before the application sees any data. The memory is self explanatory. If we blow the window size up to something preposterous like 1 GB, both participants need to store the last gigabyte of packets they’ve sent, so if they get a re-send request they’ll have that data cached and ready to go. Similarly, if the window is 1 GB then we may wait to receive an entire gigabyte of packets before letting the other end know “hey we missed one”, receiving the missing packet and re-ordering our buffer, and then delivering to the application. The network throughput is technically quite high, but the data observed by the application is extremely bursty.

AskComputerScience

ul0bah

How do you view a 25 year old?

Depends on their personality and interactions with society....that should be how a person is viewed....being a good human or a raging ass has no age limits or age ranges

AskOldPeople

ul0bah

How do you view a 25 year old?

[deleted]

AskOldPeople

ul0bah

How do you view a 25 year old?

Binoculars?

AskOldPeople

ul3x3m

the title. I want to design a messaging system where the server rejects messages unless they are encrypted. but if they are, then the server passes the message to the client who then decrypts it privately. I'm pretty sure I remember reading that real cipher text should not be distinguishable from random data. But it wouldnt hurt to ask, perhaps someone has developed something like this recently, where a data payload is "signed" but instead of from a sender its signed as proof it is indeed encrypted if you knew the key. TIA

Do you want to prove to the server that the sender knows a key and plaintext that encrypt into the ciphertext they have in front of them, or would it be enough for the sender to just tell the server "I want to send this on to the recipient, and here's a piece of evidence you can use to prove to the recipient that I'm really the one who sent this thing in case the recipient complains you forwarded them garbage."

AskComputerScience

ul525j

I took a Java beginners course my last semester, and have decided to major in computer science. But I felt so behind because I did not have any prior experience with programming. So I wanted to learn some Java over the summer break and familiarize myself. What website would you recommend for someone like me?

Hackerrank.com is great for learning Java, as well as general problem solving, algorithms, and data structures in many different languages. In general, what you are looking for are code challenges or coding competition websites. I think the UVA online judge is still online. One of the benefits of practicing your coding with these is that companies base their tech interview questions on these problems almost all the time. For better or worse, this will help you with half of your code interview.

AskComputerScience

ul525j

I took a Java beginners course my last semester, and have decided to major in computer science. But I felt so behind because I did not have any prior experience with programming. So I wanted to learn some Java over the summer break and familiarize myself. What website would you recommend for someone like me?

https://java-programming.mooc.fi/ This is often brought up as one of the best online courses for Java. It's free, through the University of Helsinki. I finished both of their Java courses and I found them pretty helpful, covering basic to advance topics, with good explanations and a ton of programming challenges.

AskComputerScience

ul525j

I took a Java beginners course my last semester, and have decided to major in computer science. But I felt so behind because I did not have any prior experience with programming. So I wanted to learn some Java over the summer break and familiarize myself. What website would you recommend for someone like me?

[codingbat.com](https://codingbat.com) has slowly graduated. Java exercises for beginners, I think it's a great place to start/refresh basic programming skills. Then move on to something more project based.

AskComputerScience

ul66lu

Does this mean that π is Turing complete? If you picked the correct spot to start reading the "tape", π may be functional code. Is the answer only "no" until that spot is found?

It's actually a common misconception that pi contains all possible strings of numbers 0-9. Some people suspect it, but this property hasn't been proven. You can read [this](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/216343/does-pi-contain-all-possible-number-combinations) for more information. Even if it were true, you couldn't consider pi itself Turing complete, it would just be a storage device. In other words, it could be used as tape that a Turing machine could use, but that wouldn't make it the Turing machine or Turing complete in itself.

AskComputerScience

ul66lu

Does this mean that π is Turing complete? If you picked the correct spot to start reading the "tape", π may be functional code. Is the answer only "no" until that spot is found?

Pi (at some offset and numerical base) would be an input for some kind of computing device. i.e. you'd have to apply some model of computation to the data. Pi itself is just data.

AskComputerScience

ul6okz

What were your thoughts?

It seemed like such a huge deal at the time. Ken Starr. Republicans losing their minds. The moral outrage!!! I was a Republican at the time, didn’t like the Clintons, and couldn’t have cared less about it. Now? Well, now we have a sitting representative who trafficked minors, paid them by Venmo, and had his partner in the deal flip on him…and he still has his parking spot and no one seems to be doing anything about it.

AskOldPeople

ul6okz

What were your thoughts?

i remember. i hated the hate that lewinsky dealt with.

AskOldPeople

ul6okz

What were your thoughts?

Consensual sex between 2 adults, not that big a deal. Cheating on your wife with someone half your age, amoral. Lying about it under oath, criminal. But we know JFK screwed anything that moved, and other presidents have had affairs (FDR, LBJ). So why it became a big concern with Clinton one can only speculate. My parents were lifelong die hard Republicans and the Clinton scandal turned them into Democrats. They thought it was disgusting that the president's sex life was being aired in public and that the Republicans should mind their own business and be less sex obsessed.

AskOldPeople

ul6xki

As title. Both have the function of waiting for an async function to complete. Additionally why can’t I run an async function with an await from a synchronous function? What could go wrong if that was allowed?

Well, there is a bit of confusion about what an async function does, so lets start from the problem it solves. Imagine that you are writing a piece of software that needs to listen for incoming connections, so what you do is you call `.listen` and wait, this is called blocking behaviour, but what if you wanted to do other things while you wait? Well, you could use threads, but what if you didn't want to? What if we had a function, that when it needs to wait it just returns to the caller, lets you do something else, notifies you when it has finished waiting, and automatically resumes back where it left off? That's exactly what `Future` is, which is a generalization of an async function (async fn **are** `Future`'s). So what is `await` doing? Well it's a way of saying "pass the wait along". It doesn't block, it just "propagates the wait", so you can still do other things. What about `block_on`? `block_on` is different because it doesn't "propagate the wait" it just block until the future is finished, it doesn't return to the caller of the future. It doesn't allow you to do other things, it waits until the future has finished. So the main difference between `await` and `block_on` is how the handle a future which needs to wait. `await` passes the wait along, allowing you to return and do other stuff, but only works in async contexts, while `block_on` actually blocks until the future has finished, and while you could use it in an async context, it's a **terrible** idea (`Future`'s **must** not block). And finally, nothing could go wrong if you run async functions in sync ones, it's just not possible. The problem is that async is not magic, it needs a bunch of logic to control which futures are ready, which are waiting, and in general a whole lot of keeping track of things. That's not something you want to keep around even if you are not using it. So in order to use that extra stuff you need to create a special thing called a runtime, which does the book keeping. In a sense, `block_on` is a runtime, it only allows one future and runs on the current thread, blocking until it has finished, but it's still a runtime.

LearnRust

ul6xki

As title. Both have the function of waiting for an async function to complete. Additionally why can’t I run an async function with an await from a synchronous function? What could go wrong if that was allowed?

Look into how the `Future` trait works, the base idea is rather simple. Omitting all detais `async` blocks are just futures that the compiler generates for you. You can think of it roughly something like this: ``` async { foo_future.await; 1_usize } ``` turns into something like: ``` impl Future for SomeGeneratedType { type Output = usize; fn poll(self: ...) -> Poll<...> { match self.foo_future.poll(...) { Poll::Ready(_) => {}, Poll::Pending => return Poll::Pending }; Poll::Ready(1_usize) } } ``` This transformation does not make a lot of sense outside futures, what would the compiler generate for `.await` in a function? `block_on` is _simply_ a function that repeatedly calls (again, omitting details) `poll` of the given future and returns the result whenever it returns `Poll::Ready`.

LearnRust

ul8bzb

I've heard that Dazed and Confused (released in 1993) depicts the late '70s really well. Any other movies that came out years after the era they depict that represent that era very accurately?

I love coming of age-type era movies. I just watched Summer days, summer nights (2018) playing in 1982. Music, cloths, cars all from the "groovy" 80s. It really was a bit of a blast of the past. I think there are a few more like that but American Graffiti (1973) playing in 1962 is the original for me and my all-time favorite! ​ EDIT Just added "Not Fade Away" (2012) "Set in suburban New Jersey the 1960s, a group of friends form a rock band and try to make it big in this music-driven coming of age story." The period details are spot-on and the soundtrack is great.

AskOldPeople

ul8bzb

I've heard that Dazed and Confused (released in 1993) depicts the late '70s really well. Any other movies that came out years after the era they depict that represent that era very accurately?

Boogie Nights

AskOldPeople

ul8bzb

I've heard that Dazed and Confused (released in 1993) depicts the late '70s really well. Any other movies that came out years after the era they depict that represent that era very accurately?

Not a movie but Stranger Things was right on with most things. I was a kid around the age of the characters at that time and all the cars and furnishings and stuff are spot on. Except for a very noticeable inappropriate power strip that showed up in a shed, I think it was in Season 2. Very off-putting. Otherwise the props people and set dressers did a great job. In fact I got so obsessed with that inappropriate power strip that a friend who works in props helped me trace it to a model that would have first been sold in the 1990s. I think it only really bothered me because the show was so good otherwise (in the period appropriateness).

AskOldPeople

ul8g9w

That movie makes 1970s New York seem like a dystopian hell. Was New York as bad as that movie makes it seem like?

Absolutely depended on the neighborhood street. Neighborhoods that were stable and had either homeowners or people in rent-controlled apartments tended to stay long term, cared about their street and kept an eye out for others. But this was literally street by street. It wasn't an area that was good or bad. It was a single block on a single street. Neighborhoods with apartment complexes that cycled people through constantly, were half empty, or had drugs/prostitution going on were completely shady. Needles. Condoms. Ick. Times Square was awful. As teens, we were always in a pack. I never walked alone in that area at night. In the 80s, the gentrification started. Yuppies moved in, took over lofts and the run down buildings. The City hopped on the gentrification train in the 90s. NYC became much more aware of tourism dollars. But if you watch NYC news, it's still bad at night, especially in some areas. There was just a murder in Times Square a couple days ago.

AskOldPeople

ul8g9w

That movie makes 1970s New York seem like a dystopian hell. Was New York as bad as that movie makes it seem like?

NYC almost declared bankruptcy in 1975. The state took control of the city’s finances and made drastic cuts in municipal services and spending, cut city employment, froze salaries and raised bus and subway fares. The New York City blackout of 1977 struck on July 13 of that year and lasted for 25 hours, during which black and Hispanic neighborhoods fell prey to destruction and looting. By the end of the 1970s, nearly a million people had left NYC, a population loss that would not be made up for another twenty years. That said, there were still nice neighborhoods in NYC, just not as many of them. Crime movies focused on the worst neighborhoods, but comedies and romances focused on the nicer neighborhood. The TV show *All in the Family* was set in a middle class neighborhood in Queens. The spin off *The Jeffersons* was set in an upper class neighborhood on the East Side. The Woody Allen movies *Annie Hall* and *Manhattan* made NYC look great. So it was not all bad. But it was pretty bad, especially compared to today.

AskOldPeople

ul8g9w

That movie makes 1970s New York seem like a dystopian hell. Was New York as bad as that movie makes it seem like?

To me, yes. I was born and raised in Manhattan in a not-great neighborhood. I left in 1972 and felt reborn. Frequent visits home during the 70s reinforced this feeling. Dystopian hell is exactly what it felt like. On the other hand, my family and oldest friends did not feel the same way I did. They stayed and continued to love it. My mother lived there her entire life and would not have lived anywhere else. In the late 80s and 90s my family moved to much nicer neighborhoods than the one I grew up in, the city got safer and cleaner and I started to enjoy visiting a lot.

AskOldPeople

ul92gk

How did your parents react to the music?

My dad’s priest counseled him to talk to me about my heavy metal problem. Mid-1980s, loads of devil imagery. I’d moved on to punk and we laughed over some of the album covers. The priest was later accused of molesting altar boys and I still like metal.

AskOldPeople

ul92gk

How did your parents react to the music?

Metal....hair metal, glam metal, hard metal, punk...geezus I had a lot of fun. Anyway, my mother hated it ALL. She thought I was going to end up like Nancy Spungen. The day Sid Vicious died, I was coming in the door from school and she said "that asshole from that band you like so much is dead." She thought the New York Dolls were all (non pc term redacted); The Ramones were dirty bums; Marc Bolan was a "sissy"; and Steven Tyler was a "screaming lunatic"....Happy Mother's Day ma...RIP.

AskOldPeople

ul92gk

How did your parents react to the music?

My parents were born in the early 1920s. When rock was new, I was a small child. However, I suspect my parents weren't big fans of Elvis, Chuck Berry or Little Richard. Mom loved Sinatra, Perry Como, Patty Page, etc. Dad loved Hank Williams, Ernest Tubb, Lefty Frizzell, etc. I guess I would call Led Zeppelin one of the first bands that could be referred to as metal. Mom and dad didn't like them either.

AskOldPeople

ula8he

Thirty Seconds Over Winterland and Bless Its Pointed Little Head (Jefferson Airplane) come to mind. Coincidentally both are live albums.

[Weasels Ripped My Flesh](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasels_Ripped_My_Flesh)

AskOldPeople

ula8he

Thirty Seconds Over Winterland and Bless Its Pointed Little Head (Jefferson Airplane) come to mind. Coincidentally both are live albums.

You Can Tune a Piano But You Can't Tuna Fish by REO Speedwagon.

AskOldPeople

ula8he

Thirty Seconds Over Winterland and Bless Its Pointed Little Head (Jefferson Airplane) come to mind. Coincidentally both are live albums.

nothing implied about the actual music, but here are some titles that i like: \- the smoker you drink, the player you get - joe walsh \- sunday morning coming down - kristofferson? cash? \- dancing in the dragon's jaws, bruce cockburn

AskOldPeople

ulbj4n

What is a strong belief that has been consistent throughout your life?

That animals deserve our kindness and compassion.

AskOldPeople

ulbj4n

What is a strong belief that has been consistent throughout your life?

That I don’t want children.

AskOldPeople

ulbj4n

What is a strong belief that has been consistent throughout your life?

Religion does more harm than good.

AskOldPeople

ulcg1r

What was the harshest you punished your kids and why?

I sent them to bed without dinner once. I swear the way they were crying you would think I was killing them. After about an hour I sent my husband in with sandwiches for them. We were at a family members house and they would not stop fighting, constant bickering and I had it up to my chin. I told them, if they did not get along or at least separate into different places, they would be sent to their rooms with no dinner. They did not learn their lesson I just learned different ways to handle three young mischievous children. Like, not taking them places that are so boring that they have nothing better to do than fight. I don't care what my mother said, small kids are not built for being still for very long.

AskOldPeople

ulcg1r

What was the harshest you punished your kids and why?

had a bad habit of screwing around in the morning getting ready for school making her mom late for work way to often. Mom was a pushover. The delay was often debates about what to wear and getting dressed. 3nd grade. I took a morning off work and decided i was fixing this. She fucked around and found out. I took her to wal mart and got her 3 kids golf shirts (red) and three khaki shorts that day. she wore her "uniform" the next 4 months. Her school didnt have uniforms. She did. She hated it for a week then started to like it once she figured out nobody cared and mornings went much better.

AskOldPeople