Datasets:

tomekkorbak

/

shp_with_features

like 0

qqei98

asksciencefiction_train

[Star Wars] I found a perfectly preserved capital ship in excellent working order. Only problem is it's like 3000 years old How effective would it be during the time right after the empire.

hk20wep

hk1zp47

In the Zahn trilogy set ~5 years after Jedi, Thrawn found and used a ghost fleet, so its certainly not worthless.

Star Wars is a bit odd as they had hyperdrives, megastructures, energy weapons, shields and planet destroying weapons for 25,000 years and progression since must have been glacially slow because the current setting has the same weapons but only slightly better. Other settings tend to have tech cycles, i.e a golden age of high tech, then regression, then tech rises again but caches of archeotech are always best.

lz1rcm

changemyview_train

CMV: Nuclear Power is the only means of producing energy that is reasonable to pursue in developed countries, until we have 100% clean fusion power. I live in Sweden, a country where fossil fuels stand for less than a percent of the total electricity production. In order for the world to turn green, every country must follow this example and minimise their usage of fossil fuels. Sweden is currently phasing out all of its Nuclear Reactors and investing in what the government believes are safer options, Solar, Hydroelectric and Wind energy. The problem that we have faced just this winter and many winters before is that it is rarely sunny, there isn't always wind and sometimes there isn't even enough water to go around. This creates an unstable effect in the energy grid and to compensate for that, the government are making multi million investments in infrastructure to make the grid more tolerant to these changes. Not only would it be cheaper to continue operating existing nuclear power plants but it would also provide more reliable electricity and more of it when it is required. Because thats the thing with nuclear energy, as long as you have fuel you can get A LOT of electricity out of it. When the grid demands more electricity, simply pull out the control rods and produce more. When the grid requires less electricity, put in the control rods and slow the reaction. Nuclear energy as it exists right now and with the second and third generation reactors that are most commonly in usage around the world are the most reliable, the most powerful and the most cost effective alternative to fossil fuels.

gpyzl6l

gpyi1rm

I would love to try to change your view here, because I used to hold almost exactly the same view myself. It wasn’t until I spoke with a friend who had some expertise in the field that I was able to see why this strategy wouldn’t work. Now that’s not to say I’m anti-nuclear power, it absolutely has a place in our networks, but it’s not as practical a solution as it might seem. The reason for this, which conversely is the reason why we should invest more into renewables, comes down to two main factors: flexibility and cost. A nuclear plant can produce massive amounts of fairly clean energy, but they also are hindered by many restrictions inherently to their design. First of all, given the extremely high cost of building a reactor, they only really make sense for serving areas of relatively high population density. Cities are great candidates for nuclear power, but for more sparsely populated rural areas, which are common in the US, this simply isn’t a practical choice. Secondly, nuclear power plants have geographic and environmental requirements that aren’t always easy to meet. They need access to a source of fresh water for coolant, but that water needs to refresh enough that the power plant won’t cause it to warm excessively, which can be catastrophic for the aquatic environment. You also need to either build on land where waste will not pose a risk of seeping into groundwater, or you need to essentially seal the foundation off, which can be prohibitively expensive. Compounding matters further, you have to take weather and seismic events into consideration, which means more money spent protecting your reactor from unlikely, but potentially devastating, natural disasters. When combined, this actually significantly shrinks the number of areas where nuclear power would be appropriate in many nations. Conversely, while less efficient in producing energy, renewables face extremely few limitation. They’re incredibly cheap when compared to other ways of producing electricity, and can easily be scaled to accommodate different population densities. Renewable energy sources, and in particular solar energy, also tend to be very cost effective to upgrade as technology improves, thus increasing their flexibility. Redesigning a reactor might cost billions, upgrading a solar farm is literally just a manner of swapping out panels. Renewables also tend to be much less constrained by geographic prerequisites. Anywhere that has adequate sunlight is a candidate for solar, and anywhere that gets a decent amount of wind is good for wind power. The need to spend large amounts of money preparing for averse weather or seismic events is also lower, as the loss of any individual solar array or wind turbine has a far lower impact on the grid than an even partial output reduction from a nuclear plant. Given how easy they are to implement into power infrastructure, their cost effectiveness, and their capacity to be regularly upgraded, renewable power sources are something of a win-win for many nations, even if they aren’t able to completely eliminate need for other forms of power generation. To make a long story short, power generation is dependent on the population it serves and the geographic context in which it operates, with no one size fits all solution. Sweden, with relatively high population density in the south of the country, plentiful water sources for coolant, and few local extreme weather or seismic concerns is an unusually good candidate for nuclear power generation. Using renewables to supplement the grid, and perhaps even switching fully to renewables when that technology outpaces nuclear, is a good idea, but for now it makes sense for you guys to keep investing into nuclear power. For us Americans, nuclear power is a far less consistent solution. It might be a good option for replacing coal or natural gas plants in certain parts of the country, but in many areas it simply wouldn’t be practical. Instead, using quick and cheap to build renewable energy solutions is often a much better fit, even if this means some degree of fossil fuel generation is still needed. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s one that’s affordable enough to actually be implemented, and flexible enough that it can easily accommodate further improvement.

Nuclear power just simply is not cost effective compared to renewables. Solar and Wind are too cheap and too easy to install, with such a low barrier of entry that Nuclear will never be feasible. There is absolutely no reason to decommission working nuclear plants yet, until we have reached full renewable energy otherwise.

t11ojc

askengineers_train

If you had to make a list of wonders of modern engineering what would you put on? The Apollo program, the channel tunnel and the panama canal all come to mind, but what do you think?

hye31n5

hye3knl

The Panama Canal is a wonder of 19th Century engineering, not what I would consider modern. Wind turbines and electric cars should be on the list, and the JWST of course. I would like to go slightly out on a limb and propose some sort of FMCG; precision engineering en masse. Perhaps my favourite example is the insulin injector pen.

Chem eng always gets left out. The haber bosch process that has fed the world. Wastewater treatment and recycling. The internal combustion engine and the electric engine both. No mobility at all without those. Plastics are a problem but have also been an incredible advancement on heavy glass materials. Also ice cream.

ytl36r

changemyview_train

CMV: The Size Of A Flaccid Penis Is Completely Irrelevant. It Simply Doesn't Matter. The size of a flaccid penis isn't important in any way. It doesn’t matter at all. The size of a flaccid penis has no impact on a man’s sexual prowess or his ability to please a woman in bed. It’s not inside a pussy when it’s flaccid. It’s not trying to pleasure a woman when it’s flaccid. You don’t try to make a woman cum with a flaccid penis. A flaccid penis plays no role in providing a woman sexual pleasure. No woman picks a man based on the size of his flaccid penis. OK, yes, a large flaccid penis may provide some occasional, brief, mild visual stimulation. A woman might feel a thrill when she takes a peak at a big bulge in a man’s pants. She might feel a flush of excitement when a man pulls down his pants, and he has a big dick dangling between his legs. But those feelings are transitory, and, ultimately, have no effect on her sexual pleasure. Or her orgasm. STOP WORRYING ABOUT THE DAMN SIZE OF YOUR FLACCID PENIS! IT SIMPLY DOESN’T MATTER!

iw4p67z

iw4r153

*Jon Hamm and his massive meat log have entered the chat*

When I was a gay go-go dancer my entire job was to stay semi-flaccid, and sling it around while dancing in boxer briefs. Its literally an entire industry. While I would agree that most dudes would be better off fixing their problems with intimacy and sexuality than worrying about their dick size, you can't ignore that there are some people that are into bigger flaccid dicks.

ab83l9

askengineers_train

Electrical engineers, what are the skills and things they don’t teach you at the university that come in handy while working in the industry A third year undergraduate here, just wondering what skills and things they don’t teach you at the university that you require while working in the industry

ecyftf5

ecyj3my

There is a high probability you'll freelance during your career, so knowing basics of accounting and business law is useful.

Automative/off-highway EE: Learn how a relay works, SPST, DPDT, etc. Learn how to read a wiring schematic and harness diagram. Learn how your cars electrical system works, ECM, CANbus, ect.

lgu26g

asksciencefiction_train

[Star Trek] Can I modify a transporter to create an army of clone soldiers? So transporter duplicates are a thing, like when Cmdr Riker accidentally got a copy of himself. Is there anything stopping me from modifying a transporter to do it intentionally and creating an army of clones? Also did I just uncover where all the expendable red shirts come from?

gmti87l

gmtem7l

Star Trek is a universe in which dualism is true. That is, living beings are not merely the sum of their physical components, they have some non-physical, energy-based component. We see this when Picard's energy component is separated from his physical self. They are able to "clone" his physical part by accessing transporter records, but this is useless without uniting it with the non-physical part. Additionally, when a transporter accident befalls the DS9 command crew, the holodeck can easily store and make use of their physical patterns but their "neural energy" requires the entire resources of the space station's computer systems to hold on to. And getting to Riker. We have to remember that this was a fluke whose underlying cause is unknown. Geordi and Data have a hypothesis, but that is about it. While it was trivial to create a second physical pattern, the question arises where the energy came to duplicate the neural energy. While this is an unasked and unanswered question in the show, directly, we can infer that the energy came from then planet itself, as there was a massive energy surge which caused the whole problem in the first place. In short, duplicating physical bodies is trivial. But you are going to run into issues when you try and make them anything more than physical husks. The neural component comprises a massive amount of energy and the storing and duplication of which has only happened in flukes which have yet to be replicated.

Technically yes. Ethically ? No. Because if they have family / friends /wife and one of them dies then then what will you do ? If none of them die then what will you do ?

nysi59

askcarguys_train

How to pick the right year for a used car? I'm eyeing on a certain model but I'm uncertain which year is the "best" year for a car. Anyone give examples on how I can find the right year for that car?

h1lvzoo

h1md655

Here's my cheat. Consumer reports used car report magazine. I don't know where you live obviously or how accessible these are to you, but my local bookstore like chapters, coles, or indigo usually have them in stock and I believe they're sold biannually or annually. Not sure if they're available online but you can definitely Google it. Essentially this magazine breaks down almost every car that's available for sale as well as giving detailed reviews of the last let's say 10 or 15 years for that model. So say you're looking for a Toyota corolla, you find it alphabetically and then you can read a big write-up on it and all the improvements and different design features, as well as seeing a chart listing the pros and cons and the ratings for each year with what is good and what is bad about each year

I'd look to avoid the first model year of a car for each progressive generation. If they made new changes from the last gen to the new gen, the changes that have problems will probably expose themselves in that first year and then the second year will get a correction. Ex: my car jumped generations from 2012 to 2013 and the 2013 models had a shit transmission that was gone by the 2014 model

1uuuef

changemyview_train

I believe that if you are not an expert in a field, you should form your beliefs based on the consensus and common beliefs of experts in that field. This applies to global warming, GMOs, and even social ideas like institutional oppression, patriarchy and privilege. CMV. This seems like a pretty agreeable belief, but I will be applying it to a few things. Since experts dedicate years of their lives to understanding and researching topics within a field, it's a type of hubris to think that we can form oppositionary viewpoints that contradict scientific consensus. People who deny human's role in climate change are contradicting the overwhelming scientific consensus that agree that climate trends can be attributed to anthropogenic activities. People who believe vaccines cause autism, cancer, etc, are foolishly contradicting the science and the major medical organizations that agree that there is no such link. People who believe genetically modified foods are unhealthy or dangerous are similarly going against the broad scientific consensus regarding the safety of current GMOs. My final point, which I suspect will be most controversial, simply applies the previous logic that I have used, but in the context of sociological fields. The majority of sociologists agree that 'white privilege' exists (1). Furthermore, ideas of patriarchy and systematic oppression are the theoretical bread and butter of sociological thinking. The fact that there is no scholarly support for movements and ideas purported by the men's rights movements is akin to the lack of valid peer-reviewed evidence by people opposing human influenced climate change, vaccines, or GMOs. CMV why people should either not form their opinions based on scientific consensus, or why scientific consensus in sociological fields should be dismissed or ignored.

celxzyp

celwv7r

I agree with you up until your last point, simply because sociology is not a science. This same argument applies to economics. When it comes to subjects like sociology and economics the experts cannot do experiments and cannot know for certain, but they continue to frame their arguments as if they do know. While all of the other parts of your post cite scientists the last one does not. And therefore their claims can be challenged by the laymen far more easily. Also there are many conflicting reports among the fields of study when it comes to subjects like economics and sociology. Both generally claim to study similar things, but economics finds that Black people are poor not because they are oppressed or because they are less efficient but because they started off poor and tend to remain poor, while sociology concludes that they must be oppressed at some point. Sociology claims there is a patriarchy, while economics explains the wage gap as barely having anything to do with sexism and more to do with individualistic choices. How can we both believe the experts of both of these fields when they come to opposite conclusions? Although economics most certainly does not support MRA's either.

I don't agree with this, especially for non-concrete ideas. Whether climate change is happening is a pretty concrete thing - it's measurable by temperature differences and such, it's a prediction that will definitely come true or not come true. But for something like "white privilege", it's more vague concept, and much more so for other "systematic oppression" ideas. You can't prove "rape culture exists" the same way you can prove the mass of an electron, or whether vaccines cause autism. I also wonder who is making all of these sociological claims. I bet most of the people going into that field agree with that stuff before coming in - don't you think this could lead to a systematic bias? Scientists have been systematically biased in favor of certain things before, and it's come back to bite them. Like believing in an infinitely old, static Universe, and making the cosmological constant. And if you see what seems like a clear error in their reasoning, are you supposed to just ignore it? I hear a lot about the "feminization of poverty", that women are the primary poor people in America. The difference in poverty rates is small between the genders, like 2%, and it doesn't take into account people in prison (more than 1% of adults are incarcerated, since most are men, this probably means about 2% of men...). And I've never heard anyone address this. Should I just say "oh well they must be right"? And what about when scientific data and sociology conflict? I've heard all sorts of sociological theories about the crime wave of the 80s and 90s, and also evidence that it was caused by leaded gasoline. How do I decide which expert evidence is better? I'd have to evaluate the arguments - and if I do, and find the sociologists' arguments weak, should I forget that fact when it comes to other issues? > The fact that there is no scholarly support for movements and ideas purported by the men's rights movements is akin to the lack of valid peer-reviewed evidence by people opposing human influenced climate change, vaccines, or GMOs. It's more likely due to men's rights movements having no support, or even attention, in academia. There aren't peer-reviewed articles straight-up saying "MRAs are wrong" either. But I see MRAs say things supported by studies commonly. Like that men get longer sentences than women for the same crime.

50s4yj

askphilosophy_train

An introduction of analytic philosophy to a continental? Hi, so some basic background. I'm currently doing my Ph.D in critical theory focusing on engaging Queer Theory with Critical Race Theory and basically my MA was in Sociology but also focused on Queer Theory so my whole background in philosophy is basically Continental (think Husserl, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Heidegger, the Frankfurt School, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, Delueze, Guattari, Butler, the whole deal). Basically coming from a Women's/Genders studies undergrad to a sociology MA to a Critical Theory Ph.D I've never really stepped out of the Continental tradition and recently while talking to a professor who's opinions I hold in high regard they strongly recommended I study analytic philosophy even if I didn't think I would ever use it. As it's not the first time I've heard that I might benefit from studying analytic philosophy, whether it be for clarity of writing or just to examine the tools the tradition offers to see if I might want to use any of them (someone once told me I kind of write like an analytic and there's a market for explaining continental philosophy in analytic terms and if I ever fail at breaking into academia that that was always an option...), I figured I'd give analytic philosophy a shot. That being said everybody around me basically only engages in Continental so asking around kind of led me here. Basically I was wondering if I can get some book recommendations for getting into analytic philosophy! Thanks

d76ot2y

d76k5ln

You may find Scott Soames' volumes on the history of analytic philosophy useful.

First off I think a good place to start is to try to isolate atleast some questions that strike you as particularly interesting. Simply starting at random in the midst of the endless mounds of philosophy done in the analytic style is a horrible and frustrating endeavour(speaking from experience). That being said, two really good introductury anthologies that helped me alot are: Chalmer's The Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. It contains key essays by key thinkers in the field as well as some really helpful considerations by Chalmers who attempts to tie the different schools together and show similarities and differences. And Martinich's The Philosophy of Language which contains a big chunk of classical and semi-contemporary essays in the subject. Both are a great place to start if you want to go directly to the source and read the actual essays as opposed to secondary litterature. Seeing as you are already familiar with Husserl and the earlier phenomenology I think going through philosophy of language can be a good idea. As Frege was a central character in Husserls earlier writings, it sets an interesting background to some of the differences in interpretation we find in the early analytic philosophers who were, like Husserl, inspired by Frege but came to radically different conclusions and interpretations. Morris has written a really neat introductory book called An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language that goes well with Martinich's anthology. Hope this helps! edit: spelling, links

mywzq1

askhr_train

[NY] My manager sent me an email over the weekend asking me if I was interviewing. Trying to figure out the best way to respond I'm currently not very happy in my role or with the organization I work for, so I am interviewing. I took a couple of vacation days last week to have interviews, so I'm not doing them on company time. However, my manager sent me an email over the weekend, which I haven't responded to yet; here is the email. "Pof\_no, I hope you had a nice few days off. I want to make sure you know that I value you and your work. As well as does \[insert SVP's name\], and all of your efforts this year haven't gone unnoticed. We will submit you for a \[insert company name\] achiever award, which, as you know, has not only recognition but also a cash award tied to it. I did want to check on one item- I want you to confirm that you are not currently interviewing and thinking about leaving the company. We have our one-to-one scheduled on Tuesday and would like an answer before then. Thanks, \[insert manager name\]" I've worked for this person for a while, and never once have they recognized any of my work or even appreciated me. It's nice that they want to nominate me, but at this point, I'd take the money and run. I'm not sure if I should be honest (since I already have one verbal offer anyway) and state that I am looking to leave the company, and here are the reasons why. Or if I should lie or not answer. Any advice is appreciated.

gvxff4l

gvxbfvy

I would not provide a response in writing. If you feel an email response is necessary, simply respond back and say “happy to discuss further in our one on one on Tuesday.“ then, during your meeting I would not explicitly state that you are interviewing elsewhere but perhaps redirect and discuss broadly. For example: how your contributions at the organization have been overlooked and the duties in which you perform have increased. So, although you are not interviewing, you continue to have discussions within your network. There is nothing illegal with you moonlighting or even interviewing for another job. But like others are saying in this thread, the business will protect itself first.

Talk to a lawyer if lying about this is illegal and then lie about it. There is literally nothing good that can come out of this for you. If your boss asks you this they have already sensed your dissatisfaction and they are already on the lookout to replace you in any case. So lie and get the fuck out of there immediately.

pqsbvi

changemyview_train

CMV: There is nothing wrong with American gun policy, and gun crime is primarily a social issue. I am a Marxist, and Marx himself said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary". I believe that most of the shootings that take place in America are due to the social conditions surrounding them; schools are extremely oppressive environments that encourage antisocial behavior. Most other gun crime (and violent crime in general) is caused directly by poverty conditions. By solving these issues directly, I believe restricting ownership of firearms would be largely unnecessary.

hdfl6ep

hdda6jo

According to this study01030-X/pdf), the U.S. gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than in other affluent countries. They have shitty schools. They have poor people. The only difference is that 18 year-olds in the US can't legally drink, but they can dual wield P90s in their backyard. You claim in a response to another commenter that without guns, homicides would still occur with different weapons. Yet the previously mentioned study finds that the US has 7 times the rate of homicides of other wealthy countries. That's because it is far easier to commit a homicide once you have your hands on a gun. If you give a man an army, he will be much more likely to commit mass genocide than if he didn't have one. The same goes for guns and shooting people. I'm not saying that mental health issues have nothing to do with it. I've been in the American education system my whole life and it is often a place where adults care more about their paycheck than their students. But to say that gun violence can be eradicated means you have to tone down both parts of that equation: guns AND violence. Besides, you can't snap your fingers and magically make every school a thriving hub of positivity. I don't see how you expect to solve the problem when you see it as the sole responsibility of a corrupt system. Yes, countries without guns also have homicidal psychos, but at least they're not armed with assault rifles.

The problem is that guns inherently makes it easier to kill and maim people than any other tool. That and the danger they pose in form of accidents or negligence results in far more deaths than necessary, compared to the rest of the world. There is something wrong with american gun policy, if we promote it in the name of safety. Since you are more likely to die from your own firearm than use it in actual defence then it has failed. If we are talking about it from a "overthrow the tyranny" perspective, then it pretty ineffective, since every successful revolution has been provided weapons by a third party, or the countrys own armouries. None has ever made it on the armerment of the private citizens. Not even the american revolution.

o5if1t

askvet_train

Just moved and my cat is NOT taking it well My husband and I bought a house and moved in less than 9 hours ago with our two 12 year old cats. They’ve never lived anywhere but our previous house. I know some will say it’s too soon to be concerned but one cat is not taking it well. He hid behind a toilet for hours, even wedged his head under a pipe. I Finally brought him to our bedroom and he hid under the covers for a few hours (he’s always hated being under blankets). And now for the last hour he has wedged himself between the litter box and the wall and is just crying nonstop. He won’t eat or drink or even have some catnip. I don’t think he’s used the litter box either. Can someone give me some advice on what I can do for him? We tried really hard to make sure it was a calm happy experience for them but it didn’t work and I feel awful that he’s so upset.

h2pevbp

h2p898s

He’ll figure it out - he’s just freaked out by his new surroundings and may not realize that it’s a new home for all of you, not just him. Just be patient - little guy will come around in a few days, we promise!

Just keep giving him catly loves and space at the same time, make some nice cat spots where he can have a protected shelter and feel comfortable, especially if you can still come give the occasional rub of encouragement

wgu46r

askscience_train

Is there any evidence that cities with high electric vehicle adoption have had increased air quality? Visited LA and noticed all the Teslas. I’m sure EVs are still less than 10% of all cars there but just curious about local emissions/smog

ij2sgyr

ij4k8gg

I work in air quality monitoring and I can tell you that most actual monitors collecting air data are located in areas further away from pollution sources. Monitors are put in places that skew healthy so impacts of EV adoption will likely never be recorded. Also, not all monitors look for every kind of particle. PM 2.5 and PM 10 encompasses different particulates in one category. Ozone, SO2, PM2.5, and PM 10 are the usual monitors. It gets really hairy in the details so I won’t bog you down, but the short answer is that the data will likely not catch these changes. AQI is real and the data helps, but air quality varies from different parts of town and the monitors are possibly 20 miles away. It can get a lot better. Right now we are able to catch poor air quality and good air quality for the average person, and there are ways to look up records through the EPA, but the data sampling and gathering could be a lot better. It’s just a system that grew from the Clean Air Act so some of the infrastructure is 40 years old. :/

I was just in Amsterdam and it was unreal. The city was busy but quiet, Like walking on a forest trail. I could hear people casually talking, bird’s singing in the trees, the leaves rustling in the breeze. The air was fresh and clean. It was really crazy coming from Toronto with all the noise, construction, trucks and dust. I didn’t think it was possible for a city to be like that. It makes a significant difference if the city is committed to the people who lived there, I loved it.

tjn0qc

changemyview_train

CMV: Canned food is perfectly fine and healthy I feel like everyone is going after canned food these days. If its famous celeb chiefs telling you how evil they are or hippy idiots saying its literally poisoning you or soccer mums saying its child abuse. Canned foods allows people to store a lot of food for a long amount of time without worrying about it going off or having to spend time planning out meals. It reduces food waste. It increases meal variety. It is far better value for money. It is more efficient transport wise. Its better for the environment and uses less plastic waste. Worries about poisoning are massively overblown Source. Even if BPA from canned food was as dangerous as people say we already have the technology to have BPA free cans. Oh no some nutrients are lost in the canning process? That could be important if the alternative was eating a fresh nutritious meal but in most cases its either canned food or microwave food which also has issues but is much more expensive. I feel like most of the people bashing canned food have zero idea of the real lived experiences of most people. Yeah after working 10 hours in your second job and just barely making enough to keep a roof above your head you could go and cook a cheap and healthy meal but that is not going to happen. To be clear when I say healthy in the title I don't mean like the pinnacle of health. What is mean is it won't be the reason that you are unhealthy. Its far better to eat well on cheap canned food than not eat properly on fresh food. Baked beans are the best canned food. Hands down

i1l6q1p

i1l2dc1

> Worries about poisoning are massively overblown Source. Even if BPA from canned food was as dangerous as people say we already have the technology to have BPA free cans Most of your points are on the mark, but here's where your wrong. BPA free cans use similar-to-BPA molecules that have the same risk profile. The whole BPA-free thing is largely just a marketing gimmick. BPA and it's analogs are not the most deleterious thing for your health by far, but it's definitely not good for you. Androgenic chemicals wont kill you but they may negatively impact fertility and can cause the odd cancer (especially for young girls who are exposed before puberty) down the road. In the grand scheme of things, it's not the biggest health threat but I would try to limit my exposure.

Canned food tends to be really high in sodium. You really have to watch that if you get high blood pressure.

qjj4sj

askengineers_train

How many of your are actually passionate about engineering? How many of your are actually passionate about engineering like you always wanted to be one or started wanting to become one from high school or college.

hirnxs4

hirbf1u

I knew from a very young age that I always wanted to be a guy who made good money. If that means being an engineer then sure, whatever.

I like engineering. I like rolling around in the math and physics. I ain't touching quality engineering though. Ain't nobody got passion for quality engineering, where engineers go to die slow miserable deaths.

psm365

changemyview_train

CMV: There is no reason why we need to give a fair hearing to people/cultures with moral ideas that are clearly reprehensible when it comes to policy decisions At no astrophysics conference would you ever expect to see someone honestly arguing for a flat-earth as it is a scientifically outdated and baseless concept. More specifically that person would not even be consided for a spot at the table because they are clearly incompetent in the field they are trying to enter. If we accept this is a reasonable position for scientists to take, why can we not apply a similar gatekeeping approach to philosophical issues? If an individual/culture believes things such as it is acceptable to stone women for having premarital sex, homosexuals should be killed, women can be treated as property, etc. I don't see any reason to treat their position with any sort of validity. In science we work top down historically speaking (we know the consequences of the laws of physics but we do not know to origins for example) , but in philosophy there seems to be this obsession with working bottom up. It seems there are a lot of people who in the name of tolerance take up a relativistic standpoint and in doing so give a pass to behaviors and ideas that are clearly abhorrent with the justification that "they just have a different world view."

hdql0rt

hdqh95x

Astrophysics and sociology are two very different sciences. If our culture were destroyed today and humans had to recreate everything in some thousand years they will develop the same math we have today, and their astrophysics will be really similar. I would not bet their societies will be similar to ours tho.

You do need to give them a "fair hearing". Its only upon having that hearing, and realizing said ideas don't work that it makes sense to apply policy decisions to them. "Flat earth" isn't derided because its a different theory from a different culture, Its derided because its already had a "fair hearing" and has been completely disproved.

mfq3dp

askculinary_train

Weekly discussion: No stupid questions here! Hi everybody! Have a question but don't quite want to make a new thread for it? Not sure if it quite fits our standards? Ask it here. Remember though: rule one remains fully in effect: politeness is not optional! And remember too, food safety questions are subject to special rules: we can talk about best practices, but not 'is \[this thing\] safe to eat.

gspjd4x

gsq079j

How do I take my cooking to the next level? Is it just learning more cuisine and how to handle more ingredients? It sounds so simple but I cannot think of anything else. Feel free to look at my profile to provide feedback. Thank you.

Sometimes when I make cacio e pepe the cheese clumps up when mixing with the pasta and pasta water. Any ideas why? I've tried different things but can't seem to zero in on why. I suspect that maybe I'm adding too much cheese at once. Or maybe my pan is too hot, but I've tried using a bowl and the same thing has happened.

6tt88x

changemyview_train

Change my view thatThe democrat party's use of identity politics is damaging to our country and one of the root causes of the organized violence we are seeing. The democrat party has gone all in on identity politics as a means to secure power for their party in our country. By promoting the idea of black people, hispanic people, women, homosexuals, transgender, and other various minority groups are victims, and that they alone are the party that can save and protect their rights, they have further divided the country in an effort to build a coalition to win elections. The danger in this is subtle and nuanced, because it provides a moral framework from which to attack their opponents, and this "morality" is being increasingly used to justify violence in the name of justice. It leads to shutting down dialogue, perpetuates itself in the mainstream and social media platforms, and is counter-productive to having truth and reality based discussion on issues. We see this manifest as conservatives are often labeled bigots, racists, and evil, and counter-protest to ideas that are disagreeable are met with violence. Th democrat party is using identity politics as a tactic in order to create a coalition that will deliver them power in elections. Final disclaimer, this is about the party and power. I understand that individuals support the democrat party for their own reasons, and many of those reasons are altruistic and noble. That does not mean that their opinions are always right or that they are morally superior to non-democrats. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

dlogwog

dlnn2j9

I wouldn't change your mind. You are correct.

Your statement lays out probably thirty different debatable topics, so I'll just ask one question. > conservatives are often labeled bigots, racists, and evil, and counter-protest to ideas that are disagreeable are met with violence. Are you saying conservatives are victims of false accusations? It sounds like you're saying that a minority group is being victimized here.

ism72h

askbaking_train

Could anyone recommend something easy to bake? Just something easy to bake as I'm still a beginner and still haven't yet mastered muffins without them looking like cupcakes.

g5acaow

g58lgn6

This is my go to brownies . Absolutely yummy. Add in chocolate chips or anything else and you can think of. Also...Rice Krispie Treats. Recipe is on the marshmallow bag. For inspiration I have been watching Natasha's Kitchen . Absolute gem!! So easy to follow and picky family have loved everything I have made so far. Cheers!@

If you’d like to try your hand at bread, this recipe is great. It’s easy and I’ve made it several times with successful results each time. https://www.melskitchencafe.com/french-bread/ When blooming your yeast, try to make the water between 90 and 110 degrees.

phrgw2

askphysics_train

I just got interested to physics What books do you recommend for a newbie like me. I need something that will teach me the basics first that's easy to understand, because I'll just teach myself. Thanks in advance! 😅😊😊

hblbvla

hbmo6ur

Learn to code.

When I entered college the basic physics courses were given with the Halliday's Fundamentals of Physics, I really liked the books and they explain it really well

w53tbu

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old why is it a problem that it takes so much water to produce 1kg of beef - something like 15,000 liters - if the cows just pee it all back out anyway?

ih60vlz

ih5rcyj

Most of the water isn't drunk by the cow, it's used to grow the cow's food. But you're right: it doesn't just disappear and will eventually re-enter the water system. Suppose you are given one large bucket of fresh water a day to use for everything. It's enough for you to drink, wash, and grow a few plants to eat. Now you decide to raise a cow - that cow needs a *huge* amount of grass that you need to use your bucket of water to grow - by the time you eat the cow it has cost you much more of your water for every meal you get from it than the plants you were growing and eating. That's not a problem if you can refill your bucket as much as you like. However, if your access to fresh water is limited then you'll end up going thirsty and your crops will start to wilt, because you're investing so much of your one bucket of water in raising the cow. That's the problem: not that the water is vanishing from earth, but that you're using up the limited amount of fresh water available to you where you are right now. Edit: Nearly one quarter of America's water supply is used to to grow crops just to feed to cows. That's a lot of water. (Non-Explain like I'm five years old source)

The pee either goes into the ground or into a sewer. If a sewer, it ultimately ends up in the ocean. Oceanwater and groundwater are not usable by humans unless we operate wells, desalinization plants, or wait for the water to evaporate and be rained into freshwater lakes and rivers. When 15,000 L of clean water are diverted to water a cow, that's 15,000 L that are not available to a city downstream that needs drinking water. Or to a hydroelectric plant that needs the water to generate electricity. Or we have to burn more fossil fuels to power the wells and desalinization to obtain water. So you're right, there's no change in how much water is actually on Earth. But the cows are changing where the water is and how much of it is available today for people's needs.

f40dqk

legaladvice_train

Bought a house six months ago, old homeowners are still having packages delivered here and are now demanding that I contact them immediately when it happens. What are my legal rights if they get nasty? Hello! Buckle up, this one’s kinda long. A little background, my boyfriend and I purchased our home in September of 2019. Our experience with the sellers was tense, as they accepted our offer during negotiation and then tried to pass off shoddy repairs that did not pass inspection. Everything was eventually repaired successfully, but we’ve since discovered more things that they falsely represented or outright lied about (i.e. not only was the pool not winterized, it also has a huge leak). Overall our home buying experience was pretty rocky, but we really love the property so we accepted its flaws and moved on. Since we moved in, we have continued to receive mail and packages for the old homeowners, both personal and for a marketing business that the husband ran out of the garage. We have been marking all mail “Return to Sender, No Longer Here” and putting it back in the mailbox, but packages tend to be trickier because we have received them both through USPS and FedEx. At first I scheduled return to sender pick ups, but it started to get extremely irritating, so a few packages ended up sitting in our foyer for awhile. In December, the old homeowners reached out to us through our realtor to say that there would be a large shipment of FOOD arriving at our doorstep within the next few days, and requesting that we text the husband directly as soon as it arrived to come pick it up. My boyfriend and I both work full time jobs, and certainly weren’t going to stay home to watch for this shipment. We do have a Ring doorbell, but aren’t comfortable with the old owners just showing up to wander our property and pick things up off of our porch. We reluctantly agreed that I would text the owner once we put the packages at the end of our driveway, but made it clear that they were not to visit the property without our permission. The shipment turned out to be several HUGE boxes, and we put them all at the end of the driveway (along with the other packages that had accrued). I texted the former owner, he came and picked them up, and we hoped that that was it and we could go on living our happy lives. Since then, the former owner has texted me every so often to inquire about packages arriving. We have only received one package since December, and I did place it at the end of the driveway when he asked. We still receive A LOT of his business mail, including tax documents, but have marked all of them return to sender, and he has never asked about non-package mail before. This morning, he texted me saying that he has attempted to “get his companies to update the address on file,” but that important mail for his business will likely continue to arrive at our home, and that I need to text him and let him know immediately if we receive any so he can come pick it up. I have not responded, as I find his request fucking ridiculous considering that we have lived here for SIX MONTHS on top of how courteous both of us have been to him through this entire situation. I have zero desire to continue to have contact with this man, especially considering what a negative experience we had while buying our home from him. My question is, what legal rights do we have if he continues to have packages delivered to our house? I would really rather not have to schedule FedEx return pick ups for the rest of my life. We are located in a Southeastern Virginia county if that helps. Thank you for any and all advice! TL;DR: bought a house six months ago, old homeowner owns a business and keeps getting packages delivered here, contacted us through our realtor to ask if he could come pick them up. It has since escalated to him demanding that I text him whenever packages or mail arrive. What are my rights?

fhn4wla

fhnfxlw

it’s been six months and he needs to do whatever it is to update His correct address but your are not responsibility for his packages & to no longer Contact you and block his number

Your rights are to block his number and let him do all the calling to USPS, FedEx, UPS, whatever, to solve his own problem. This may involve him showing up unannounced on your property at which point you have the right to call the police.

ixj1ud

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old: when a domain is bought through a site like domain.com or GoDaddy, who is selling it? And if it is a name that has not been registered before, on what basis are they allowed to to charge for it?

g6725f8

g671zdy

You may notice that domains end in stuff like .com or .uk or something like that. Each different way of ending is called a top-level domain (TLD). TLDs are usually run by an organization. Often it's run by a government or a government owned corporation for something like a .uk domain. Or a company that manages internet stuff like Verisign (they own .com and .net and a whole lot of other very common internet things) These companies almost always made a deal with several companies like GoDaddy so they do a lot of the grunt work with managing who gets what name, while they act as the authority to confirm that there isn't any conflict and do the work to get it online. So you pay GoDaddy, GoDaddy does a lot of the work sorting it out and pays that TLD, TLD does a lot of other work behind the scene. All of them made an agreement that if there was a real big dispute, they would let the courts handle it.

There is an agency that oversees the naming and records if names for the internet (icons or iana). When you initially pay, you are paying to establish your domain. If someone else owns the name, you need to work out the sale with them, then the database can be updated to show you as the owner, like registering your motor vehicle. Beyond that, when you pay your host, you are paying them for the space your sites takes on their servers (like cloud storage) there are fees that also cover the annual or bi annual fee to maintain your ownership, again like registering your motor vehicle. The agencies that oversees the naming are nonprofit so there are no crazy fees for it. If you want to start a website, shop for your host or registar.

9mqial

askacademia_train

What is your field's version of "...this has potential applications in cancer..." for grants?

e7gooxt

e7gprib

'reduce energy inputs and valorize waste streams' -process Chemistry

Climate change, but it doesn't seem to be working as much anymore... Still better than most though (low funding field).

il5iwi

askengineers_train

I’ve been working for 3 months and my job is treating me like I’ve worked there for 3 years. Can I leave? Hi all, I’m on mobile so I apologize if the formatting is weird. This is also a throwaway account. I started at my job back in June. I interned there last summer and everyone told me how they enjoyed the work, and i really enjoyed what i was doing too. I accepted their return offer and was excited to start! Until... they did a complete 180 and I come to find that so many of my work friends have left and those who are still there are planning to leave in the next year. I figured “eh, everyone has to move on I guess.” But that was until the day after I got there, I was immediately thrown into tasks that were way out of my league. Now typically people usually are deemed useless for the first few months of work and are given hand holding tasks and lots of training. NOT HERE. I have been given so many tasks that require years of experience and I have told my manager this, instead they give me a mentor and they just give me an example to copy, but I feel I still miss information. Everyone is so overworked that they quickly glance over things and I worry that something bad will happen down the line and I’ll get in trouble even though my manager was telling me to do it. It’s gotten to the point where I’ve asked my manager “Are you sure my capabilities allow me to successfully complete this work?” And he says “Well, we need someone’s name on the signature line.” At this point, I’m just at a loss for words. I feel like most people my age are complaining that they don’t have enough work, meanwhile I’m drowning in it. I enjoy the people I work with, but the work itself makes me miserable and I feel awful every time I go to work. But with my lack of experience, I feel I’m stuck here for 2 years or at least until I get promoted from a new engineer. Is there any hope for me getting out sooner? Has anyone left their first job with little experience and found a new one? How do they explain that they left so early without badmouthing their previous company in an interview? Any advice would be thoroughly appreciated.

g3prfde

g3rmxxw

This is almost exactly what has happened to me. I interned here for a few summers, the pay was stupid high and I needed the money. They offered me a position and the day I started I realized that most of the younger engineers had moved on to other roles. As a matter of fact, all the new engineers that were here only stayed about 5 years and then left. I sat in the engineering managers office still not knowing what my actual role was within the company. I was handed a lap top and told " here you go, you are now our new blah blah blah engineer". My whole time as an intern I did nothing like this but figured why the hell not. I was expected to just jump into the role and not have any problems. I had a two other guys here that had that position before but one barely showed up to work and the other had to leave for an extended period of time a month into my employment. I didn't get much help and when I would ask questions I would get answered in a tone of " How did you not know that?". That was 2 years ago and I managed to figure shit out, there is still a lot I don't know but I manage. I guess I did something right because with everything going on right now I am one of the only engineers here that is safe from layoffs. If you really like it stay in there and just try to figure it out, I know it can be stressful. Good Luck!

There's a support group for this. We meet at the bar across the street.

1ngcti

asksciencefiction_train

[Halo]Are UNSC Marines and personnel (not including Spartans) really that incapable of dealing with Alien military threats? I'm going off the games. I haven't read the books, so I'll gladly welcome that information. The Covenant and the Flood have some frightening advantages - be they biological, physical, or technological. I can see how humanity is fighting a losing battle. However, at their best, I've seen marines barely manage to survive a coordinated attack with the help of John-117. Additionally, they don't seem to have any actual victories over the Covenant outside of the Halo game canon - certainly none without Spartan help. The dichotomy between their ineffectiveness as military units and the Spartan's overwhelming power is also strange to me. I know that Spartans are supersoldiers with powerful armor, yet most marines can barely go toe - toe with an Elite while one Spartan almost single-handedly won the human-covenant war. Side note: Maybe marines are more competent in the books?

ccihoez

ccitfig

Yes. As I go through this, it's important to keep in mind that the games are not entirely accurate, both for gameplay and technical reasons. For example, in the game, shooting a plasma rifle at a polycrete wall will scorch it. Every canon source that isn't the game would tell you that a large chunk of that wall would simply be destroyed - melted, vaporized, and shattered, all at once (due to varying heat concentration). The Covenant military force is superior in almost every way fathomable. For one, their personnel are much more fearsome. Your average marine is not equivalent even to a Sangheili (Elite) Minor, but more to a mid-rank Kig-Yar (Jackal). Their numbers are much greater, and this shows - almost the entire military strategy behind deploying Unggoy (Grunts) in combat is "*Get out there and drown them in your own blood!*" But their technology really is the point. It's superiour on just about every front, and this is because it's a literal copying of the systems used by the Forerunners. The backbone of their military is on par with the most elite, prototype, superhuman special forces unit every conceieved. When Admiral Cole led a campaign fleet against the covenant, three-to-one losses were considered a significant victory. Very few ground battles have actually been *won* by the UNSC, and even fewer without SPARTAN help. For example, Harvest - the first colony to fall to the Covenant - was taken after a bloody five year war. The Covenant promptly re-took the planet, and glassed it. No colony to fall after was ever regained. There are perhaps three categories in which humans win. The first is strategy. This is in part because the entire war has been a backpedal on Human turf, and they've been very, very good at not giving away their secrets. Because of the difference in materiel and personnel, Humans have to be selective where the Covenant can take a brute force approach. The second is innovation. It's said that Humanity innovates, while the Covenant imitates. Literally all the technology that the member races hadn't already developed before assimilation into the Covenant (which is to say, everything that gives them an advantage) is directly copied from the Forerunners, without any understanding of the underlying principle. Meanwhile the Office of Naval Intelligence has spent thirty years reverse-engineering this technology as best they can. Remember when I said SPARTANS were on par with Elites? They're not. The MJOLNIR system is a vast improvement. The last is motivation. Or perhaps desperation. Humanity has their backs against the wall. The average individual doesn't know how bad it is because the UNSC isn't giving them the facts of every loss - and even still they're having to fight to keep morale up. The Covenant want the Humans extinguished, and the Humans are fighting tooth and nail for survival. Their situation is unique in that there is no "*Join the Covenant and be spared*" at the end of their tunnel, and a lot of Sangheili have wondered why - it's not particularly uncommon to think the Humans are commendable, even *honourable* (which is a big fucking deal to them) in combat. Meanwhile Elites are known to die within arms reach of a fully loaded MA5B assault rifle, having too much pride to pick up their enemy's primitive weapons. So when you ask "is the UNSC really *that* incapable of dealing with an alien military threat", the answer is yes. They're outgunned and outnumbered and outmanouvred on literally every front, and they've *still* managed to prolong their extinction for *thirty years*.

Wow... people have really low opinions of the Marines around here... Which is hardly deserved. In the literature, the Spartans were a highly specialised, extremely small group of super soldiers. They became figureheads and drew the most dangerous details, yes, but they were NOT the ones holding the line. Throughout *Fall of Reach*, *Halo* and *First Contact* there are numerous instances of John 117, Cpt. Keyes, Sgt. Mendez and Dr. Halsey making note that, on the ground, UNSC forces hold their own quite well, securing more victories than defeats. With Spartans, they almost always won. The main reason humanity was losing was because of the space battles. Rarely would the Covenant even bother landing, they'd just glass a planet from orbit. Because of this, Marines saw very little action in comparison to naval crews. In terms of the navy, the Covenant were not only considerably more advanced, but outnumbered the UNSC 10:1. The point is, Marines (while often portrayed as useless) are far from it. Their portrayal as bad at combat comes from a comparison with the Spartans, who were so absurdly bad ass they are actually war criminals. Sorry about the 4th wall, but the Marines don't deserve what's been sad about them.

nonkys

askengineers_train

Pros and cons of staying in the defense industry? I've been working as a mechanical engineer at a large defense company for 2.5 years now since college and feel like I'm at a crossroads. I generally enjoy my work, coworkers, company policies, and the stability but by no means am I in love with the job or industry. I mostly don't enjoy the slow/very structured career/salary progression - no promotions yet despite good performance reviews. I've heard that's a common trait in this industry and I should look into switching companies (especially if I want to have options outside of defense in the future). However many of my coworkers, some now in their 40's, have been with the company since they were a college interns. So it gives me the impression there is something worth staying for but I feel like they have just become comfortable which I am starting to feel but trying to avoid. I was recently accepted into a graduate program the company will reimburse if I stay 2 years after completing the program, so I would have to commit 4-5 more years at my current company. What are the benefits of staying at the same defense company long term? Should I switch companies or look into internal transfers in the future to accelerate career/salary growth?

h01yz36

h01tva5

Former lockheed SWE, Pro: Cool work, every friday off. Con: Working in a SCIF is misery

No promotions is a red flag on your manager, not on defense. Once you get to level 4 it does require additional approval if you report to middle management or lower. Anything else is basically just fill out the paperwork. Especially for a level 2, this should come after 12 months or less. Fill out your salary grade guide and email it to your manager with a meeting request to discuss pay. Show how you are exceeding level 1. It will take two weeks max to push through and this can be done out of cycle. Don’t let them lie to you or say it’s complicated.

mgg7qw

askengineers_train

Do you regret studying engineering?

gstn9r6

gstovys

I enjoyed studying engineering, as stressful as it often was. I regret that I have to do this to pay the bills now though sometimes. I love engineering but after you leave college it just becomes a job and some of the spark dies unless you're in your absolute dream job at a small company or something. I look forward to the day when I can retire into my own consulting firm or something, set my own hours, only take jobs I find interesting, etc. I could picture being a teacher or something eventually and letting engineering become more of a fascination and a hobby again.

Contrary to the consensus in here, yes. I actively dislike engineering and always have. I followed this career path because it was the safest bet for success, but I can only force myself to work so much at a career I hate. I believe if I would have followed a path I enjoyed more, my life would be exponentially better. With that said, I’m young enough to change still and haven’t. So I guess that says something too

yrsk4h

askculinary_train

Chicken Noodle Soup… I’m planning to make chicken noodle soup, but I’m unsure how to proceed in one area… Most recipes I find online require chicken stock. The homemade version requires making it from bones alone, no meat. However, my grandmother (whose soup is delicious!) taught me how she basically just boils a whole chicken with some carrots, onion and parsley. Then uses that broth and that chicken to make soup. I understand the difference is basically a question of using stock vs broth. But I’m not quite sure what the difference would be. Also, if I go with the second option, could I then reuse the bones from that boiled chicken to make stock? I assume the answer is yes, but I wanted to make sure that would work. Thanks!

ivvbl8p

ivvhzlk

Made it last night from left over chicken. I remove most of the meat from the chicken bones first (not all, but most of the nice pieces) and put that in the fridge. I then dump water, the bones, onions, celery, and carrots into a pot, add salt/pepper and bay leaves and bring it to a boil then simmer it until the bones have separated and any meat has separated. I then cool it, and strain it. I throw away the chicken tidbits as they are way over cooked and too chewy at this stage. When it's dinner time, I add fresh carrot/celery to the pot, bright it to a boil, and add the reserved chicken meat. Meanwhile I boil up the noodles and once it's all ready I add the noodles to the soup. I would NOT boil the whole chicken - in my opinion boiled chicken is dry and tasteless.

There's a good chicken in a pot video from Jacques Pepin that is indeed the "boil a whole chicken" method. If you look at about 1:45 you'll see that when he says "boil" it's really more like a feisty simmer: it's definitely bubbling, but not a rolling boil. It gets more rapid later on. IMO people get too wrapped up in "stock vs broth" and the terms aren't used consistently anyway. Very generally stock is used as the basis for making other things (hence it was stocked in the kitchen) while broth is its own finished product, but either can be the basis for a soup, and what you want is good soup so why do you care what you call it? Pepin's initial poach on the whole chicken he says is 35 minutes. That's not enough time to extract all the collagen and good flavor from the chicken, so I think yes you could absolutely use the bones & carcass for a second stock. Incidentally, if you want the full "grandma's chicken soup experience" this is worth a watch (but trigger warning, the chickens start alive and end up soup, so if you're squeamish about the slaughter I'd give it a skip).

z2trzw

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old- Are lithium batteries in electric cars more dangerous or hazardous than a gasoline car? If so, why or why not?

ixi6ddx

ixi9dj1

Initial evidence from a study a few years ago says not. https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/proceedings/24/files/24ESV-000210.PDF The IIHS (insurance companies) also report better results with EVs https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/with-more-electric-vehicles-comes-more-proof-of-safety But there are those who are opposed to EVs that will deny facts and push their theories of how EVs are more dangerous. EDIT: To be clear though, there are reports that they are subject to more claims and accidents. (and much more expensive to repair) https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/26/high-performance-electric-cars-have-higher-accident-rates-finds-axa/ But if you're talking "more dangerous" in the sense of fatalities and injuries, then the answer is likely no.

Lithium battery powered cars are probably safer but it's kind of an unfair comparison. 1. Yes, a lithium battery fire is much harder to put out than a gas fire. But a lot of effort and decades upon decades of engineering has gone into making sure car gas tanks are safe. Lithium batteries for cars are still in their early years and we can expect that in twenty, thirty, fifty, years lithium battery engineers will look back on what we do today and shudder at how dangerous it was. So you're comparing a mature technology to a new one. 2. We're ignoring other dangers of gas cars. There are plenty of people who asphyxiated from gas fumes (intentionally or accidentally) and I don't think it is entirely fair to limit our examination to just the "will it burst into flames" risk. 3. We're ignoring other parts of the distribution system. A few months back I was down in Florida and someone crashed into a gas station. Innocent bystandard, just fuelling up their car, ended up burned to death. Electric charging is significantly safer for everyone than the dangers of transporting and storing massive quantities of flammable fuel. So, if you're driving down the road, today, in a fully charged electric car and crash, then compare the risks of the same accident with a gas powered vehicle, it could well be that the electric car is a bit more dangerous. But if you look at total risks, then electric is better. If you want to ask conceptually which is safer, then electric wins again.

uqcr9l

askacademia_train

Do professors check emails during the summer months when school is over? Title!

i8q8t6p

i8qssto

yes all professors do the exact same thing at the same time! there are global rules you have to adhere to when you become a professor! sort of like hippocrates oath but for academics

Yes we do. Replying to those emails is a different story.

jflqcw

askvet_train

An interesting question for all y'all veterinarians So, in AMC's the Waling Dead, Rick's son Carl gets shot in a hunting accident. The bullet didn't go too deep because a deer absorbed the majority of the energy, but Carl was dying. Also, the bullet fragmented into several pieces in his abdomen. Herschel, a veterinarian had some basic surgical supplies and drugs. So my question is do you think you could remove the bullet and save Carl if it was the last resort and there were no hospitals & doctors left in existence?

g9m0gfu

g9lqs12

Not a real answer but I just want to commend OP for the awesome question.

Ya I could do some back alley surgery. Also, finding the bullet isn’t always necessary, it’s about controlling bleeding, which we do all the time

rud14e

askengineers_train

Why did you leave your last job?

hqybgw4

hqybol5

Was in a salary position and given an offer for 40% more, hourly, and with overtime doubled my pay, and took me up from being a draftsman and swing person for a small design/build contractor up to a full fledged consultant at proper engineering firm. There were many reasons I left and that’s only the short version, but essentially my last job was one where I interned at during college, graduated, and then they took me full time. A couple people knew I was being significantly underpaid, but the people who mattered were always going to see me as the green intern no matter how many years I spent there and regardless of how much additional responsibility I took on. I like to joke that I’m their Most Expensive Former Employee, because I paid $200 for an industry compensation report and then sent it to a bunch of my old coworkers. That’s when *everyone* realized how much they were being exploited and the next round of performance reviews was probably the most expensive wave of raises they’ve ever had to give to stave off a mutiny. Also a big consideration was wanting to work on higher profile projects, which necessitated moving out of a 20-person firm in a flyover state to a 450-person nation-wide firm in higher population area. Both the nature of the projects is better as well as the business and project management experience. Ultimately you have to take control of your career growth, accept that nobody’s going to look out for your own interests but you, and take whatever leaps you need to take to position yourself for the growth you want, lest you spend multiple decades stagnating in isolation.

My boss was an utter dick hole.

wltl8x

explainlikeimfive_train

Eli5: If a compiler is a program that converts your code into binary form for the computer, unless my understanding is incorrect and it isn't just a program, wouldn't the compiler also need a compiler to run it since how do you run a program without a compiler?

ijwlegh

ijv7ec3

The information you are looking for, is how was the first compiler created ? Well it was developed in binary, to translate code into binary In the beginning, adding 3 and 5 together looks something like this 0101 1010 0000 0011 0000 0101. After the first compiler, we could write ADD 3, 5 and it will be translated into the binary string written above. Now, the program that translates "ADD 3, 5" into "0101 1010 0000 0011 0000 0101" had to be written with 0s and 1s. That program would be something like "If the first character is A and the second is D and the third is D, output 0101 1010" If a character is 1, output 0000 0001 If a character is 2, output 0000 0010 ... Of course this paragraph could be hundreds of segments of binary code, but it is achievable. And once you are able to write the addition (ADD), the substraction (SUB), division (DIV), multiplication (MUL), ... You can then use this code to write a new compiler in code that translates code to binary, instead of using the compiler written in binary

I think your question is basically the compiler version of the "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. The simplified answer is that the first compliers were written directly in binary (hexadecimal to be precise). Then 2nd generation compilers were written using the 1st etc.

hwkncf

askculinary_train

Why does my meat always turn gray instead of brown when cooking? Hello I’m a beginning home cook and I have always had trouble with cooking any red meat instead of turn a nice deep brown it turns just an ugly gray. I was wondering if this was me under seasoning or if it was that I didn’t have my pan hot enough. Any advice would be very appreciated!!

fz082oz

fz06nnd

Could be a few reasons why: - Make sure to preheat your pan and then add an oil with a high smoke point before adding the meat. If you’re using cast iron pan bring it up to temp slowly to ensure it’s properly heated through. Canola/ grape seed/ avocado/ rice bran oil all work great for this purpose. Typically for a steak or similar protein you want to see the oil just beginning to smoke before you add the meat. With that said, be sure not to burn the oil or you’ll get a bad flavor. - Make sure to avoid overcrowding your pan. Too many things crammed into a small pan will end up steaming rather than browning because the juices that are released during the cooking process don’t get a chance to evaporate quick enough. Moisture in the pan = steam = grey meat. - Avoid salting your protein too early before cooking. Salting meat and letting it sit for awhile will draw moisture to the surface. This is fine but make sure you’re patting in down with a paper towel before you add it to the pan. Too much moisture on the surface will steam the meat rather than brown. Hope this helps!

The temperature needs to be high to bring about the Maillard reaction (about 280 F to 340 F) , but as long as the food is very wet, its temperature won’t climb above the boiling point of water- 212 F This is why it is good to pat your meat dry with towels before you cook it. The high temperature of the cooking is key to the Maillard reaction. The high heat will increase the rate at which the chemical reaction takes place and will also accelerate the speed of water evaporation. It’s one of the reasons why I always sear meat before adding it to a slow cooker, because the moist heat cooking in a Crock-pot never gets above 212ºF (100ºC) for Maillard browning to occur.

otycdl

askacademia_train

Being excluded/included from authorship Hi, I was watching one online conference yesterday, and my supervisor made a presentation about the research I was working on. I was not invited in the presentation, nor any other verbal mention of me was present. No one said a word about this presentation... More interesting there were used photos I made during the research (without any credit), and even photo of me working on it! Another interesting thing was that one colleague called me, that the very same supervisor added her as an coauthor to another presentation, without her knowledge. She found out when she watched the conference... Is this normal? If it is not, what should I do?

h6ykukd

h6yz3kt

It is not okay for your supervisor to present a project you have contributed to without your knowledge and without crediting you for your work! It sounds like this is a pattern for her, too. It's unclear to me what your position is here—grad student?—or what role the supervisor occupies, so I am not quite sure who you should talk to in your institution about it. But you are right to think this isn't cool!

Was it a presentation of a publication, or just a talk? If it was just a talk, it was unethical but probably not actionable. If it was a publication, then it may be plagiarism. It's best to just talk with your supervisor about it, but if you cannot for some reason, then if you are in the US, you can report it to your campus Research Integrity Office (RIO) and ask them to investigate.

npm8sd

changemyview_train

CMV: Not tipping your delivery driver or server is a dick move and "they should be paid a living wage" isn't a good reason not to. There's a post on r/all right now about Dominos having a blurb on their box asking you to tip higher for good service. Which is a shitty thing for the corporation to do when they could just pay their drivers a higher hourly rate. Literally everyone agrees on that. But if you use that as a reason to 'go against the company' and not tip, you're not doing anything to the company you're just hurting some 17 year olds income, and you as a consumer should be doing all you can to help the people providing you that service. I currently work in a restaurant as both a cook and a waiter, depending on what they need me as, and was a delivery driver for the Hut before this job. So often Ill engage in conversation with one of the other servers and they will be saying how their tables didn't tip and how just one big party not tipping can absolutely destroy their night. We're already working for a very unstable income so you as a consumer of our services should be doing what you can to support us, until the company decides to do so itself. Not tipping us and killing our income isn't the way to do it, protest it by supporting a higher minimum wage or better work laws regarding tip culture. TL;DR not tipping because companies should pay their workers more does nothing but hurt the individual employee.

h068kmt

h05x3sd

I don't tip the person who drops off my mail or various packages, why would I tip someone who drops off a pizza? Functionally, what difference is there that warrants tips for one group but not the other?

Tip= to insure promptness.

ndbo9n

askengineers_train

Engineers who graduated without internships or research experience, how long did it take you to find a job? I'm a rising senior EE, and despite dozens upon dozens of applications, I didn't get an internship this summer. There's a research project I'm doing under a professor, but I despise working on it and I'm probably going to drop it soon. After graduation, how long did it take ya'll in a similar boat to get a job? I've been so stressed about this the past couple weeks that I've almost been unable to move. For context, I have a 3.60 GPA, so I don't know if COVID just has the job market moving slow or if I'm doing something wrong.

gyaak5a

gy9w1p9

I graduated back in 2019 with a BSME and a 3.2 GPA. I tried every year to get an internship for the summer, but no dice. After graduating, I applied for countless positions requiring various levels of skills and experience, just hoping to score on something. It took about a year to get my first engineering gig; I was lucky enough to get it a few weeks before lockdown in NY. I ended up going through a temp agency (Aerotek if you're curious) because I was desperate and knew that I'd at least be able to get my foot in the door somewhere. Ended up getting a job as a CAD designer. Not the most exciting job, but it led to a far better position a year later at a different company. Once you get actual experience, the job hunting process becomes much easier. Connections are a big help too. Use whatever connection you can think of. Majority of my peers that I graduated with got their internships and current positions by knowing someone at a company; family, friends, friends of friends, whatever. Part of the reason why I got my first technical job despite no experience is because my girlfriend's dad actually worked at the company years ago and knew the manager pretty well; he was kind enough to call him and put in a good word. It can be an exhausting and demotivating experience looking for a job, but just keep at it and don't have your standards too high. I made that mistake at the beginning. I was hoping I'd land a really good job first, but sometimes you have to do shit work to get where you want to go. Good luck, and happy hunting!

Took me about a year and a half. To be fair tho, when I graduated the country was only just starting to recover from Bush, so there weren't a whole lot of jobs available.

okenlj

askengineers_train

I am getting promoted to Senior Engineer, and will get 2 engineers to manage as part of my team. I want to try to be the best manager these 2 ever had. What makes a good manager to you? I am in the automotive industry, if it matters.

h58206u

h57v198

A great supervisor I had in the Navy had 2 sayings: A good boss is like an umbrella, keeps the shit from above from hitting the guys doing real work. And - Nothing new after 2, no more after 4. My current manager is also excellent. He treats us like human beings, no BS, admits when he doesn't know something, asks our viewpoints, and empowers us to get our work done...

Don’t let your desire to be my friend get in the way of my career.

ma819g

askbaking_train

What is your ALL TIME favorite American dessert? Hope this is the right sub for this but I'm curious what the general public opinion is on desserts. Since I'm from America what is your favorite American dessert. Feel free to comment what your fav is if it's not listed! 🍨🍰🍪 I tried to list what my impression is the most popular. View Poll

grsyixc

grsosi7

A slice of chocolate cake with vanilla icing.

Red velvet is underrated

ganpon

askculinary_train

Do I need a stainless steel sauce pan? Is a sauce pan or chef pan better? My wife and I recently had to throw out a couple of nonstick sauce pans because the lining was scratching and chipping off. We were considering replacing them with the same pans because they lasted a decent amount of time but I starting wondering if switching our main 3ish quart sauce pan to a stainless steel would provide a longer lasting and potentially better pan. We both like to cook but aren’t extremely technical in our cooking. We both have interest in becoming better cooks but don’t want to break the bank either. Are stainless steel pans worth the extra cost? Are there advantages to using them over nonstick pans in typical kitchen use? I’m taking cooking rice, boiling eggs, cooking’s veggies, etc. Lastly, are there specific advantages to a 3 quart sauce pan vs a 3 quart chef pan?

fp0t9om

fp10f2u

It's always good to have a non-stick or two. I prefer a non-stick for making eggs as well as finishing pasta. The rest of my cooking I do in a cast iron and an aluminum dutch oven that gives me some good fond. Stainless steel is good but personally I don't think it's necessary for your main cooking. It is certainly not as non-stick as non-stick. However I do have two stainless steel saucepans that are heavy bottomed and essential in my kitchen.

I've been slowly buying stainless pots and pans for the past few years and I do pretty much 100% of my cooking in either stainless or cast iron. I would highly recommend a stainless sauce pan if you're considering it, though I think a frying pan will teach you more about how to cook in stainless. It took a few weeks to get used to it. Your heat, time, and how much fat you have will really control if food sticks or not. Too little heat, too little time, or too much fat and it'll seize up, but once you get used to it you barely notice. Moving away from non-stick gives you a lot of advantages, you can preheat to your heart's content, if you want you can use metal tongs (I don't), things brown and sear much better, and the pans will last decades. Even the cheap stainless sauce pan I got maybe 12 years ago is still just as useful as ever. I typically avoid metal utensils in stainless. I found when I used metal and something got stuck, I had a tendency to want to scrape it out which just puts all these nasty scratches in the surface and probably makes it worse. Better to control the heat/wait and get food to release naturally. If something's well and truly stuck I'll pull out what I can with a spatula and just boil batches of water in the pan. It always manages to release after a batch or two (it's like deglazing but less delicious). Cast iron is another good option as a first venture away from non-stick. It's pretty cheap and virtually indestructible. But that's a whole other show. For the specific scenarios you mentioned... I don't know why you'd go non-stick for any of that. For that stuff use a pan that appreciates your abuse.

hbnl2h

askculinary_train

Looking for food science writers I'm not sure if this is allowed here, so if it's not, I apologize in advance. ​ My friend Priya Krishna (you may know here from the New York Times or the Bon Appetit Youtube channel) is looking for some aspiring food writers with a specific interest in food science to work on a new book that she is putting together with David Chang. If you are interested in home cooking and food science, and think you have the writing skills to explain the science behind everyday things like microwaving, cooking with frozen vegetables, browning, etc, let me know. This is obviously a paid opportunity, and we are specifically looking for black, indigenous, and people of color (though it is open to all). ​ Feel free to DM me and I'll forward you to Priya. Thanks!

fvacq6w

fvaaj6t

The real news is that Priya Krishna and David Chang are working on a book! With Kenji-style food science!!

Oh Kenji, you vicarious name dropper! I have been enjoying using my microwave oven to preheat steaks before searing on a hot skillet. Newer microwave ovens with invertor power controls are far superior to the old on/off duty cycle ovens because you can actually hit a steak at a more or less continuous 20% power instead of full power for 2 seconds and off for 8. I can warm up a steak interior to a warm 35C before searing it. It's like letting a steak warm up for 90min at room temp before searing it except you can exceed room temp and do it in 6min instead of over an hour. My microwave oven is starting to replace sous vide for some applications because of the newer power control. I tend to think of cooking in terms of heat transfer and temperature gradients which unfortunately can get the way of artistry but watching Pepin helps me out of that rut. I have an engineering backround and write good. I might have a few tricks for you to try out even if your consortium ends up not liking my writing and I'd be happy to see them out in the world. It occurs to me that there is not a lot of specific discussion between the tradeoffs of various types of stove and I think that it's a worthwhile discussion to have because there are different concerns between cooking in a professional setting and a home kitchen.

w5axir

askculinary_train

Will a NY Strip Steak stay good on wire rack in fridge for 24+ hours? I have 2 thick cut NY Strip steaks i bought 2 days ago. Yesterday afternoon I salted them and put them on a wire rack in the bottom of the fridge expecting to eat them last night, but something came up. If I wait to eat them tonight(Roughly 27 hours later) is that too long for them to be sitting on the wire rack exposed like that? If so I could just cook them at lunch.

ih71ayf

ih7540a

That's the best way to cook a steak, helps develop a phenomenal crust as you don't need to boil off as much liquid close to the surface.

*Stay* good? Ain't good until, in my opinion.

5oisl5

askengineers_train

What´s your biggest mistake/fail and what did you learn from it? As Engineer or student.

dckpkpl

dck0dy2

Where do I begin. I've made a few doozies. The hot sinking feeling, like time has stopped and panic is pulling you through the back of your skull makes you humble real quick. It also makes you better. When you're wrong, own it. Let the shame and anguish wash over you. Then make sure it never ever happens again.

Accepting a standard employee contract after starting on milestones that my manager spiked for busywork because someone other than him originally hired me and he was opposed to the entire project. Edited to add: What I learned: always keep project milestone deliverable payments in a project contract, even if they want to hire you as a regular employee.

p3f084

askculinary_train

Is it rude to ask small businesses for their recipes? (Cakes) I run a business and it’s growing pretty well, but still considered a small business. We’re the first one to make it on our country (as far as we know) and we’d love to keep that edge. But at the same time, recipes of our product is posted all over online, not really hard to find. But the process of recipe testing the product was such a pain for us. It took us so much time and trial and error to get to this point, and we’re so proud that we finally got it down. Problem is, people have now started asking if we can share our recipe because “i want to start a business like this too”. I find it rude and odd, and idk if it’s okay that I feel this way. Other than baking, I cook a lot, and I wouldn’t mind sharing my chicken korma or garlic creamy pasta recipe to other people. But the recipe for our business? I kinda feel weird about it…. What do you guys think? :/ especially because the recipe is online, they can easily reference from that :(

h8qq2iq

h8r29dx

I cook a lot. I make great food. And I can reverse engineer a recipe from a restaurant most of the time. Problem is the prep. Don’t have time for that. That’s why I like to go out to talk to my family instead sweat at the stove. But my friends always ask me for a recipe. No matter how detailed I am. They fuck it up so bad. Every time! But, if you think about it. Why would they have asked you in the first place? They suck at cooks and have knives from target - the cheap ones! Imagine if you don’t give any details? They would be lost.

Asking for the recipe isn't rude but I take issue with the ".. so i can start a competing business part ". In my mind it's rude af to ask someone for help with an edge in competing with them in a very niche market. And no it isn't rude normally to ask for the recipe but also not the least bit rude of you choose not to share it. Good luck with your business. Have you considered donating cookies to the dark side? We're running low during the pandemic.

lsprin

askbaking_train

Has anyone here used the milk and vinegar combo as a substitute for buttermilk? I want to make some buttermilk biscuits but buttermilk is really difficult to come by where I am. I looked around online a bit and found that if you combine milk with some vinegar it creates a buttermilk substitute. Has anyone tried this? If so, how were the results? Any better substitute suggestions? Thanks!

goui9uq

gouhu0f

Yes, works well, you just have to let it sit a couples of minutes

Many many times yes. Never had an issue.

y60lx0

legaladvice_train

Someone has chained up my bicycle with a bike-lock, in my own yard. What can I do? (San Francisco, CA) As the title says, I just got home and someone has put a bike-lock on my bike and I have no idea what I can do about it or frankly what's going on. For context, I rent an apartment in a fourplex in San Francisco. We have a small communal yard space, which is gated but not locked. Because we're not in a particularly busy neighborhood, I just leave my bike in the yard unlocked and only store it inside when I go away for the weekend etc. I have good relations with all the other neighbors in the fourplex, and they know it's my bike. (Another neighbor has a bike that they do the same with, and theirs hasn't been touched.) I got home about an hour ago (7PM) and found someone had put a seemingly new bike chain and lock on my bike, locking it to the pillar where it normally sits. It's otherwise untouched and unmoved, so far as I can see. No idea who's done this — I've seen one neighbor so far who says it wasn't them, and the residents of the other two units appear to be out. I don't know if it's someone trying to secure it for me, or a prank, or a precursor to it being stolen. I need to use the bike tomorrow AM, and even if I didn't, I wouldn't really want to leave it out of my control overnight. So, can I legally try to cut the lock? It's not my chain, and I worry it could be considered criminal damage if I cut it off with bolt cutters or whatever. Any advice appreciated. (Flaired as "Other Civil Matters" but I'm not really sure what category this falls under.)

isrh38o

ispzfcj

They are locking it to steal at a later time. They are “saving” it for later and will come back with the proper tools to cut your lock off. Cut their lock, and keep your bike in your house. It sucks if you dont have the space to store it inside, but probably suck more to lose your bike.

If it’s your bike and you have proof cut the lock, it’s simple.

z4bjpb

askscience_train

Why does IQ change during adolescence? I've read about studies showing that during adolescence a child's IQ can increase or decrease by up to 15 points. What causes this? And why is it set in stone when they become adults? Is it possible for a child that lost or gained intelligence when they were teenagers to revert to their base levels? Is it caused by epigenetics affecting the genes that placed them at their base level of intelligence?

ixqo4db

ixrue7o

Plasticity and maturity. Fastest reaction time by age 17. Highest gF by age 25-30. Can learn language like it's nothing when age 0. Can solve extremely hard problems by age 45+ despite drop in gF relative to younger ages. Also the post about IQs being hard to measure is right but intelligence can definitely change. We can increase white matter just by learning different difficult material constantly. We develop regions that are used and diminish unused ones. If intelligence can drop, it can definitely increase. The only question is if they increased to their genetic limit, as in they would have started out higher with better upbringing but we would need twins. Some proven ways to increase grey matter or gain more folds to the brain: Learn instrument Learn second language Fasting Exercise (weightlifting)

IQ is not a fixed value. One study found sugar cane farmers (who receive almost all their annual income in one payment) test 13 points lower when they are short on money than when they have plenty. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24128-poverty-can-sap-peoples-ability-to-think-clearly/

b7p5sy

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter]I was raised among Muggles and recently graduated Hogwarts. To what degree can I use my God like magical powers to gain wealth and power in the Muggle world before the ministry steps in, if I prevent Muggles from finding out about magic and are not flaying or mind controlling people? The Ministry seems to have a terrible understanding of the Muggle world. If you don't flay people with magic or mind control or mug them, would the Ministry notice or care? There are countless ways you could use magic to seemingly make an "honest" dollar without actually robbing or hurting anyone. **BONUS QUESTION!** What are some great ways to use magic to accrue create wealth without robbing anyone or getting caught?

ejtjpq7

ejtyqh4

> BONUS QUESTION! What are some great ways to use magic to accrue create wealth without robbing anyone or getting caught? Gold/Silver exchange rates. Silver is currently $15.19/oz Gold is currently $1,292.95/oz A Knut is > 0.0125 the mass of a Galleon.

I know this is not really answering your question but what would the point of being rich in the Muggle world be if you were a Wizard? All your peers will be wizards so it's not like they will be impressed with the latest Muggle gadgets. You could buy a fast car but I'd rather a broomstick any day for the thrill factor. For actual transport learn Apparation. Most household tasks can be automated with magic or you could get a House Elf if you are morally okay with that, so it's not like being rich would make your life easier in any way. The only useful thing would be property but it seems the Wizards have their own property market with all the magical houses they live in. You probably wouldn't even want a house that isn't slightly enchanted in some way. If you can meet your needs easily and wealth isn't going to make your life any easier/better the only reason left is for the impression factor and as we've seen, most Wizards couldn't care less what Muggles think of them. In the end I could see a wizard who focused on becoming Muggle rich would end up very disenchanted with their life... sure they would have the respect and awe of Muggles if they flaunt their wealth but it isn't anything special in the Wizarding world and may even be viewed as pretty weird. Better an average Wizard, than the richest Muggle.

y9mp3e

askengineers_train

Engineering contest/team building activity ideas I've been tasked with coming up with a team building activity. We're already a close knit group, and we're all very creative, practical and problem solving engineers within electronics and product development. I'm thinking a contest. Something like building a bridge out of popsicle sticks, but **extra.** It should take <1 hour or so, and I'm thinking teams of 2 or 3 people. It'll be done inbetween our planning sessions, so nothing that requires going anywhere like gokarts or whatever. The crazier and more out of the box, the better imo. Any ideas?

it6l1hp

it6w6f8

Rather than use popsicle, use marshmallows and spaghetti. You can do the marble challenge. Each team has to make a marble device form card attached to a board that has the ball roll down it and hit a specific timing e.g. 45seconds. You could have a series of tasks. E. G. How many smarties/m&ms does it take to fill a room and then have a panel judge the efficacy of each group. Personal favourite, how many ice creams would you need to eat before you had enough Popsicles to build a 1:100 model on the golden Gate suspension bridge. You could have them design and build trebuchet or crossbows out of Popsicles and rubber bands. Then field test them. Extra points if the math works. Have them design the best dnd dunguon on a piece of A1 plan paper. Extra points for style and engineering merit. You could even do a cpd where you all just chill out and watch a practical engineering video together on YouTube or look at a failed project and try and analysing bits of it. A tip though, have the intrusion ready on sheets of paper for when people walk in. Make sure they are concise enough that someone can understand the just of the task within about thirty seconds. Encourage people to interpret the task differently and if your really good, allow the task some vagueness so it could be interpreted in differing ways. And be enthusiastic, having an enthusiastic person leading a workshop can be quite infectious.

Pinewood Derby. It's amazing how much engineering goes into a little block of wood.

fztplj

askculinary_train

Need help with this Soy Sauce Hey guys, I was in Japan last year and it totally blew my mind how good the food is. While tasting all different kinds of dishes I also did a bit of shopping and for me it was fascinating how many kinds of soy sauce there are. So I found this little soy sauce shop in Kyoto and while the owner didn't speak any English he just had my try all the soy sauces. In the end I bought a few of them and one is absolutely incredible it has kind of a fishy flavor and is just really rich and umami. Unfortunately I am running low now and I have no idea how to get my hand on a similar one as the label on the sauce is Japanese. That's why try my luck here, maybe someone can tell me what kind of soy sauce I bought. Pictures: https://imgur.com/a/mJ5YTPO Thanks!

fn6a5gp

fn6dp3a

ok the phone number links to a ? restaurant look here https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.san-miyajima.shop/&prev=search

This product seems to come from a shop called 参匠 醤油屋 (Sansho shoyu-ya) that doesn't have any online sales on their website. It does have a Facebook page if you wanted to try and contact them. The type of soy sauce is あなご飯炊き込み醤油 (anago meshi takikomi shoyu) meaning soy sauce for eel served over rice. If you wanted to try to recreate it or at least find something with similar ingredients I'll translate the ingredient list. Soy sauce (honjozo), sugar, salt, conger eel extract, kombu extract, flavorings (amino acid, etc.), alcohol, caramel coloring, sweeteners (licorice, stevia), thickening agent (xanthan) (some wheat may be present from raw materials.) I hope you can find something similar. Japan does a good job at keeping some of its culinary treasures secret sometimes.

4gfad3

askphilosophy_train

How did the most famous philosophers view sex and indulging in erotic activities? As far as I know (I'm merely beginning to dabble in philosophy) many viewed it as a distracting and hedonistic activity. Whose view was different? Also, I have another question for you. What do you think about social isolation as a mean of focusing on studying, art and thinking? In modern times, of course.

d2hatpq

d2h9m27

One of the most famous love affairs of philosophy was between the writer and scholar Héloïse d'Argenteuil) and scholastic philosopher Peter Abelard. Heloise's uncle Fulbert was a powerful man, who found out about their love affair and disapproved. He separated the lovebirds, but they kept sneaking to meet, eventually resulting in Heloise's pregnancy. In response, Fulbert sent men to break into Abelard's quarters and castrate him. The castrated philosopher retreated to become a monk at the monastery of St Denis, and pressed Heloise into becoming a nun at the convent in Argenteuil. The former lovers remained in touch with stirring philosophical correspondence that survives to this day. It is left as an exercise to the reader to formulate Peter's and Heloise's views on sex and indulging in erotic activities.

>What do you think about social isolation as a mean of focusing on studying, art and thinking? In modern times, of course. Depends on how far you take it. A good amount of social isolation can really good for focusing on those things. But if you get depressed from too much isolation, that can make it harder. I think that different individuals have different levels of social isolation which they can tolerate. For me personally, what works really well is having a dog. He provides enough emotional comfort to enable me to endure a lot of solitude away from other humans-but he doesn't distract me from thought in the way that humans do. In fact, most of my ideas for my papers come while walking him.

7befi4

asksocialscience_train

Is there any evidence of income/wealth differences being a) necessary or b) beneficial for society? Is there any actual evidence, theoretical or empirical, that shows that differences in wealth and/or income are necessary for a society to function? What about evidence of their positive effects for society? Spirit Level and a lot of other research tends to show that larger income and wealth inequalities tend to lead to negative societal outcomes such as obesity, teenage pregnancies, mental health problems, lower life expectancy and so forth, even for less patents and lower economic growth compared to more equal countries. Other research, such as Oxfam's reports, show that countries with more income inequality have more environmental problems as well. So what's the evidence for the benefits of large inequalities? Is there any?

dphxhta

dpi90q4

Could you post your sources for equality leading to economic growth? I know there have been a handful of papers that have found this, but there are quite a few more that have found inequality leading to investment which in turn leads to higher economic growth. From a strictly correlation standpoint the most developed countries are often the most equal, however they often become equal after they have developed. I would like to appropriately address your statements, but I need to see what you are working off of to do so.

If you’re talking up to date research there really aren’t any strong arguments for inequality. If you want a theoretical argument, Durkheim’ s functionalist perspective would say that society pays higher valued careers more money because of the valuable things they provide to that society. So doctors and lawyers provide a “good” that our society places a high value on and they are compensated highly for it. If they were not, functionalism says that no one (or significantly less people) would want to be a doctor or a lawyer because their contribution to society would not be valued or rewarded as much. So the inequality in this perspective basically creates a value for those careers and creates motivation for people to want to have those careers and want to provide those goods/services to society

rscld9

askphilosophy_train

Has there ever been a philosopher X philosopher beef ? I mean, just a philosopher that disagreed with some other philosopher's opinions and views so much that he just went on Muhammad Ali on him, the only one that I know is ibn rushd's criticism of imam al ghazali's "tahafut al falasifa"

hqlnd6b

hqlnws7

I mean there have been plenty of instances of philosophers disliking each other, either for their views or personal reasons. It usually just amounts to written barbs back and forth though. In the venerable tradition of medieval Christian philosophy I'm sure there were some groups who wanted to kill each other over obscure differences in doctrine (I vaguely recall all sorts of controversies over trinitarianism and similar doctrines). But are those philosophical or religious issues? And were the theological disputes window dressing for deeper geographic or political differences or whatever? I don't know. Recently there have been some examples of philosophers trying to cancel philosophers for expressing verboten views. I'm not referring to strong, even personal criticisms of people's views, which is not "cancelling", but trying to get talks cancelled or jobs lost etc. These are not super common and they're usually just philosophers posturing on social media for status points, but they're out there.

I'm sure there are many many cases of this, but two that come to mind are Karl Popper's remarks on Adorno, and Noam Chomsky on a broad swathe of "postmodernists".

jiffvv

askengineers_train

Have you met with a Mentor? The company is big on the mentor/ mentee relationship. I’ve been given the opportunity to meet weekly with a highly regarded, director level employee who worked their way up from the shop floor. What sort of questions, activities or discussions would you engage in with your mentor or mentee? Have you had a similar relationship before, and was it beneficial for you? What would you do differently?

ga6m34i

ga6f4uh

Don’t worry about what to ask yet, get yo know each other. Enjoy the relationship. I’m 62 and still working. My mentor is retired and turning 79 this year. He still calls and checks up on me. We’re working on a retirement plan for me. We stopped working for the same company in 1995!

Do lunch weekly. Just get to know each other. Just build a report at this time. When you have specific questions take them to them.

l3kvdr

askbaking_train

Did Ghirardelli change their baking chips? Specifically their 60% chips. I honestly might not have noticed anything if I didn't buy them all the time to snack. The last bag I got today doesn't have the same sharpness of the dark chocolate taste that I'm used to from them. More just wondering if anyone noticed the same, or if I got a bag from an off batch or my kitchen is just a few degrees colder than normal and I eat them too damn much lol. They're my go to because I love that sharpness and I don't wanna have to start looking for a new brand. No indication on the bag- ingredients and nutrition facts are identical.

gkh8hms

gkgyzaj

Honestly I've been a little disappointed with Ghirardelli for a long time now. I assumed it was because I was used to using high quality chips at work but they just don't melt or taste right anymore. Not sure what else to use, because my other options are Nestlé and Hershey and neither of those are right either...

Interesting. I ordered a bulk box (25lb) of them last month and they are dryer. I have to add a little water to melt then or the chocolate seizes up. Every time. Never happened in the small bags.

z1btko

askculinary_train

Coq au Vin or Beef Bourgoignon? Need help deciding the main course for my Friendsgiving. I will be hosting 5 people (which includes myself) and believe that a turkey isn’t really necessary for the amount of guests.

ixa6y8h

ixadoym

You don’t have to make turkey. You are throwing a dinner party for friends and have told them you aren’t making turkey. So don’t make a turkey. These are both great options. Might I also suggest oxtails? They are so easy as long as you get them in the oven in time. Very delicious with mashed potatoes, and it’s easy to make gravy or sauce with what’s left in the Dutch oven. Wanna be a little more seasonal? Throw in some red wine and rosemary to give it a wintry profile. I’ve been making these a lot and they are a never fail hit amongst dinner guests.

Bourguignon is tastier, but coq au vin with turkey could be a fun twist on thanksgiving.

5wvocj

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old: Why is W called "double U" when it is clearly "double V"?

dedae6i

dedb0e2

I'd rather want to know why English went with "double-u" instead of something like "Wee". It works perfectly fine that way in other languages.

When Old English was written, it used a mixture of Latin letters and older runes. One of these runes was Wynn, which was used to represent the wound that w gives today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynn That runes was sometimes replaced by the combination uu - a double u - for the same sound. In german, the letter v changed in sound to be pronounced as f in most cases (it still is). In a few cases the v-sound was retained. To distinguish these cases, scribes began to write vv for these. When printing was developed in what is today Germany (and to some extent Italy, but that is less relevant here), the printing press manufacturers made types for the letters that they had. Since the combination vv was very common, they made a letter for it - w. In most languages letter is called "double-v". These printing presses and the letters for them were exported everywhere, including to England. The English quickly realized that they didn't have types for all their letters, so they made do with what they had. Since English didn't have the w before printing, they simply reused that letter for the Wynn rune, which was missing. It is called "double-u" because it was also sometimes written as "uu" Similar story for the letter Thorn, which was also missing when printing and became the "th" combination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)

w6d5qq

changemyview_train

CMV: The WNBA would be a better product if the players accepted their limitations and lowered their rims to allow for more exciting plays. The WNBA players complain that they aren’t paid like the men and claim misogyny but the truth of the matter is their game lacks the excitement and flair of their male counterparts. If the women agreed to lower their rims to 9ft and decrease the size of the game ball it would open up their league to more exciting plays. Players taking it to the hole to dunk on someone, alley-oops, and 1 dunks, put backs etc…these are integral parts of the men’s league that make the highlights every night on the sports shows and could easily make the women’s league more watchable for casual fans and increase ticket sales. The game of basketball has evolved so much that the women’s game seems bland compared to the men…so ChangemyView, why shouldn’t the women use a smaller ball and lower their rims?

ihdc40q

ihd4tjm

I have a bias because I am a fan of an NBA team that is notably small. Their "center" would be a power forward on most other teams. They've also been very successful including winning a championship this year. They rarely dunk. Their dunks aren't what makes the team fun to watch for me. Their absolute lethality with long range shooting is a ton of fun to watch. Their underrated but very good defense is also fun as it creates offense in transition. All of that exists in the WNBA.

Women tennis plays with the same rule as Men tennis except BO3 instead of BO5 at Slams. I believe they are commercially successful. So lowering the rim is not necessary for WNBA to be successful.

ycz8ho

asksciencefiction_train

[LOTR] If an orc decided that he wants to be a good guy, could he run away from Mordor, build a house, start a family, farm the field and live happily ever after in Middle-Earth?

itp5pc6

itpcwdg

Absolutely. The only thing holding him back is that he's only ever known a life of conflict hatred and aggression. Something like family and farming are as alien to him as quantum mechanics are to you. He recognizes the words and that they're something he isn't but it's not like there's anything in his nature or upbringing that'll drive him to seek it out. At best he'll be a coward trying to avoid being killed by other orcs and scavenging for survival far away from others while raiding farms for food until he's caught.

Yes. Orcs are good enough farmers to create food out of Mordor's soil. They are also very good engineers who build spectacular siege engines, giant gates and deep underground kingdoms, so building a house is easy. They are also extremely hard working when they are motivated. The main problem is, there is no such thing as a singular Orc, or an Orc nuclear family. Despite their vilolent infighting, Orcs are extremely social creatures, and naturally gravitate towards living in tribes, or at least big packs. So the idea of just one or two Orcs leaving is unlikely, it would have to be a whole tribe of 30-50 Orcs under one particularily charismatic pseudo-libertarian Orc chieftain to run away, and start a village somewhere. In fact, this is more or less what they had been doing before Sauron returned. THe problem is, Orcs breed fast, and once they become numerous enough their infighting and internal violence boils over, and they either kill each other or feel an urge to become an army. So, yes, it is possible, but it would take a tribe of likeminded rebelious Orcs, who somehow internalised the idea of Family Planning.

m4ydc7

askacademia_train

[STEM] What's the most exciting research being done in your field? I just received my bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, and I'm thinking about going back to pursue a PhD at some point. I'm curious to hear from you: what are the most exciting areas of research in your field right now, and what technologies could it enable in the future? How could someone learn more about this research if they were interested? Thanks!

gqxrs1d

gqxcifz

Social/Political Sciences Fake news. Who's into them? How does the spread of false and manipulative information through social media influence democratic systems, political processes, stability and our health? How can we prevent damaging propaganda like that from spreading?

In (magnetic confinement) fusion: I think most people would say something like the completion of ITER, liquid lithium plans for the resurrected NSTX-U, (potential) construction of the FNSF in the US, Commonwealth Fusion System's pilot power plant in Massachusetts, the much-better-than-expected performance of W7-X, the wild, throw stuff against the wall experiments at EAST, or neutral beam technology, etc. But! I'm a computational person so I'm really excited that we are on the cusp of some really high-fidelity whole-device computer models of fusion experiments - kind of the holy grail of computational plasma physics, that simulate everything from atomic processes at the wall to the micron-scale effects such as ionization and redeposition in the near-surface plasma, to impurity transport in the meters-long scrape-off-layer, to the hotter than the center of the sun core - it's an exciting time for fusion computation. To learn more about fusion, there's no replacement for graduate classes, but Chen's Plasma Physics text is a great, advanced undergraduate-level starting point.