Datasets:

vblagoje

/

lfqa

like 16

{ "a_id": [ "emb7xx3", "embai0k", "emcn75q" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes, Jupiter might even be one. Even if it is not then other gas giants could be formed by gravitational instability in which there is no solid core (at least at the early stages but there are processes which may form one later).", "I would say unlikely, but not necessarily impossible. Depending on the size of the planet, the pressure on the core is likely to cause it to solidify, even at high internal temperatures. Equally, the surface is likely to cool to a solid, and in order to remain liquid would need a gaseous atmosphere to insulate it. Even solar system moons like Europa and Enceladus that are considered to have large quantities of subsurface liquid water have ice surfaces and solid cores.\n\nExtrasolar planets, however, could be different. I could imagine a planet primarily composed of, say, helium II, which could potentially remain liquid even near absolute zero. Because it’s more or less impossible for helium to solidify, it might remain liquid even at the core. The surface, however, might still evaporate to a gas from solar exposure, etc.", "I think it would be difficult, because liquids are only stable in a limited pressure range.\n\nAt low pressures, ie on a planetary surface exposed to vacuum, liquids are not stable. A liquid surface will either boil and surround itself with an atmosphere, or else will freeze solid.\n\nBut maybe you ignore the atmosphere? Well the other problem is that at high enough pressure and temperature, there is no distinction between liquid and gas! Basically as the pressure rises the molecules in a gas get compressed together, and as the temperature rises the molecules in a liquid push further apart, and at the *critical point* gas and liquid become one and the same, and the result is called a *supercritical fluid*.\n\nThen there's also the issue that at high enough pressure a liquid or a supercritical fluid will become solid.\n\nThat said there are a vast range of liquids. Maybe there is one that, in a certain size planet (big enough to *be* a planet) with a certain amount of solar heating, would be able to stay liquid all the way through, avoiding becoming either a supercritical fluid or a solid. I doubt it would occur naturally, but sufficiently advanced aliens could build it.\n\n(Come to think of it, maybe a ball of molten iron somewhat smaller than the Earth would do the trick?)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eak3exs", "eak3xn0" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Forging involved hammering soft heated metal into the shape you want. Casting is pouring liquid metal into a mould and letting it cool.", "Casting doesn’t have grain structure, which makes it weaker than something that is forged. _URL_0_:" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.google.co.in/search?q=casting+vs+forging+diagram&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS668US668&oq=casting+vs+forging+diagram&aqs=chrome..69i57.9462j0j9&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=r2WmrYqINwi1SM" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfbl2vn" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I wouldn't say that, even by the High Renaissance, artists had that much freedom over their subject matter. It was still very much a matter of the patron's (whether it be royalty, church, or private) will. The more well-known artists had a bit more input (I'm thinking, for example, of Titian and his portraits for the Spanish kings), and certainly more freedom to choose and be exposed to a wider range of possible patrons, but they weren't truly able to just paint for the sake of it - that shift was still another couple of hundred years away. Everything had to be created for a purpose. \n\nIn terms of patronage, the addition of private citizens (usually middle and upper class) as patrons to the standard patronage of church and royalty coincided with the rise and growing wealth of those classes. You have to remember that at this point, art museums - and publicly accessible art in general - weren't concepts. Art, for a private citizen, was a status symbol: something that the church and royals had had for centuries, that now they could too. The growth of private collecting & commissions also benefitted the artist because citizens tended to have more wide-ranging tastes than the royals or especially the church, based both on personal taste and current fashion, thus giving the artist a bigger scope in which to work, as well as another means of making money.\n\nThe financial aspect of private patronage is one reason that it really flourished in Italy and the North - in a country like Spain, for instance, the financial gap between the royals and their subjects was so wide that there was barely a middle class, let alone one with the disposable income to spend on art. \n\nSo I'd argue that it wasn't really that the role of the artist changed all that much; rather, the *perception* of the artist in society, and the function and purpose of art itself, that benefited most from Renaissance ideals during the period - he was gradually elevated from a craftsman to a serious and in-demand professional, who had access to an ever-growing pool of patrons and ideas than his predecessors. \n\nI really recommend Jay Levenson's *Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration* as a starting point if you're interested in this subject / period. Ann Harris also has a really interesting text on the same topic, but it deals with the period just after the Renaissance. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ciajptg", "ciajqlj" ], "score": [ 6, 2 ], "text": [ "They hold the rails at a fixed distance - without them, the trains would push them apart. If the railroad is built on concrete or other solid material (e.g. a railway crossing, or railroads in cities) then they're not needed because the ground provides enough stability.\n\nIf the ground is soft, they also keep the rails from sinking in because they have more surface than the rails.", "They're railroad ties. They keep the tracks level and from sinking. They also make sure the tracks stay a uniform distance apart from one another." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dohbkyd" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "This is just speculation tbh.\n\n\nOver time, the same applications on your phone consume more resources. This is because the rate technology improves is swift, and application devs are constantly keeping up. So say an app is currently built to run well on a phone with 1GB RAM. When phones with 2GB RAM become the norm, app devs feel comfortable giving their app a larger footprint on available resources.\n\n\nBut your phone still has 1GB. And the app and the OS both have progressed to being comfortable using more resources than before. Hence the difference in performance.\n\n\nEdit: Apparently this has been asked before and the answer is flash memory degradation" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fhnpukd" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "One other thing is repair tools are designed to implement a set of fixed “scripts/instructions” known to solve common problems. You can consider the scan and repair program to be a collection of known fixes that attempt to run and repair your system. Sometimes these tools can be helpful, sometimes they are not able to resolve the issue as it is dependent on the people writing the program to include the necessary bug fixes or configuration fixes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cegcugd", "cege4py", "cegg9g7" ], "score": [ 8, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Alright, I'll try my best to explain it. \n\nFirst of all, law is a murky subject. There are many ways the same piece of law could be read by different people. Often the judge who has his opinion overturned read the law different than an appellate judge, but once the appellate court rules on it, the trial judge now has a framework for how to handle similar cases. \n\nCases are not overturned that often. The vast majority are not, because most topics in our legal system have been ruled on by appellate courts or set forth in clear terms by legislatures. \n\nThere are review boards in most states, but they only step in when Judges do off the wall things, that have ZERO basis in law. Most of the \"bad\" rulings you describe actually have some merit in the law as written, but lay people don't know the law like people trained to do so. \n\nJudges who make \"wacky\" rulings can be impeached. I recall a case of one judge in Georgia with no prior legal training who made rulings based on his judgment instead of the law. He was impeached, and I believe sent to jail for a few days. EDIT: I looked it back up. He did have prior legal training, but apparently had forgotten all of it when he became judge. He had no handle on basic legal concepts. For instance, he offered in Court to let a woman off a parking ticket if she paid him. \n\nThe thing to remember is this: Judges in appointed positions are trained legal professionals with years of experience (in most cases) and their judgments are based on law, whether you like them or not. Most \"bad\" rulings come from areas with elected judges, because anyone can register for the ballot without any training(varies by locale). This usually happens in uneducated, conservative areas, where people vote a party ticket.", "Some jurisdictions (as in Florida) have elected judges who have to run for re-election. If they have \"performance problems\" (such as an inordinate number of cases being overturned), you can count on their opponents to trot them out prior to the election.", "Judges have a career track that involves them getting appointed to increasingly higher courts. A judge whose rulings get overturned a lot isn't going to get better appointments.\n\nIf a judge is too bad, then can get appointed to courts where they have less influence, like traffic court. They can also be impeached. And many judged are elected, and can be voted out. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn89kpe", "cn8bf6n", "cn8g2j1" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It does, yes, and for the exact reasons you mentioned too. The problem is, that the best alternative to salt is to use sand instead, but that doesn't get rid of the ice and also has to swept away again once the weather got warmer, which in turn makes it more expensive.", "As well as being bad for the natural environment, it plays havoc with any metal reinforcing in the road or bridge structure. Many of the 'elevated' sections of roads in London are now rotting because no-one realised putting loads of salt on them every winter was a bad idea. ", "It's actually funny that you say that. Here in wisconsin, we use a shit ton of salt, and it actually can help some plants like celery grow. Apparently there are people here that drive around in spring and get some road celery to eat? Idk why but I've seen it happen. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4p2cr1", "c4p40zy" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "i used to play guitar when i was younger, and my dog would sit in front of me like she was listening.\n\nnot sure why though...", "Animal's ears are very different to our own, music simply probably sounds completely different to them than it does to us, and probably doesn't sound like music at all." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ecnsfx9", "eco6mp6" ], "score": [ 20, 8 ], "text": [ "Yes. This is mainly a thing for spinning black holes, although the gravitational effects of the Earth's rotation has been measured by a very precise satellite experiment called [Gravity Probe B](_URL_0_). However, this isn't the reason for prograde orbits, that more has to do with angular momentum conservation and the initial conditions of planetary systems.", "Yes, the effect as know as [frame dragging.](_URL_0_) In fact, it behaves very similar to magnetism and can be explained with the same equations as electromagnetics in some situations, so is referred to as [gravitomagnetism.](_URL_1_) In magnetism, moving or rotating electric charges create a second field to the electric field that impacts different effects on electrical charges. It's the same thing with moving and rotating mass and gravity. It's really only noticable on the astronomical scale, but we have observed it. \n\n\nGeneral relativity can't fully be explained with Maxwell electromagnetic equation analogs, but in certain scenarios it's a quite close approximation. Similar to how in some scenarios a very good approximation of general relativity is Newtonian gravity, which is completely analogous to Coulomb's law for electricity. \n\n\nNo, this is not responsible for prograde orbits, the effect is far too small. That's simply due to conservation of momentum and star systems forming from the same collapsing cloud of gas. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B" ], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging", "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cw15plt" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Qin was more effective from the middle Warring States onwards. They weren't always more effective.\n\nThat being said I would say the reasons are: \n1) Qin's land was fertile. It wasn't (originally) as populous, but Qin took over the heartland of the Zhou when the Zhou moved east (the event that ushered in the Spring and Autumn period). The Wei river valley was fertile and not hemmed in all sides by hostile states but had places they could expand into. When they go campaigning on their Eastern borders, they don't have to worry about another state taking advantage and attacking from their west (something other states had to put up with all the time) because there was no state on their west. I also read (but for the life of me can't remember where I read it from, might have been Cambridge's History of China) that they also embarked on huge irrigation projects of dikes and canals to make their lands even better and efficiently transfer goods.\n\n2) Legalist reforms. Throughout the Warring States period, all the major players tried to concentrate power in the hand of the state/ruler and take it away from the aristocrats that made up the charioteers of the Spring and Autumn period. The Qin, on advice of Shang Yang, did this most completely. They adapted a very regimented society of five/ten mutually-responsible households (if one commits a crime, all are punished). All middle-men and aristocratic standings were (in theory) abolished. There was (in theory) no hereditary titles except that of the King, and everything was to be done by officers on the state's payroll. Society was to be structured around nuclear families of farmer-soldiers. There was to be no large family groups, and the entire population was to be available for military service. This allowed the Qin to mobilize its resources for war more efficiently than any other state. \nFun fact. If you go read legalist writings by Lord Shang and especially Hanfeizi, it reads like a checklist of what Big Brother is like from Orwell's 1984. The difference is Orwell says this is bad for the people, while Hanfeizi says it's good for the state/ruler.\n\n3) Qin's successful conquest/colonization of the Sichuan basin really tipped the scale towards their favour with the addition of the vast and incredibly fertile Sichuan basin into their realm for the state to exploit, population to expand into, and to farm." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "da2cp2h", "da2cqku" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "If its a small station call just before the end of the announcement, if its a large station call as soon as possible. \n\nAt a small station the announcer answers their own calls, at a large station a producer or panelist will answer the phone. \n\nSource I work in Radio.", "Used to be a dj, always call as soon as it starts. At the one I worked at we had 6 phone lines to where as soon as I was off air I would answer the phone as such: \n\"Caller number 1 thanks for trying\" click etc. really it's just luck, but being those first few calls helps. Also listen at certain times, we always have our tickets at certain times of the day, so keep track of that to up your chances. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dk88c7l" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "the fibrous cell structures within the plants become more rigid when they are cold. that rigidity gives them additional \"crispyness.\"\n\nit is similar to if you were to take a foam bed and turn the heat off in the room. the bed becomes much firmer. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5cdrxg", "c5cds2j", "c5cm03m" ], "score": [ 14, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The jagged and irregular shape of a lightning bolt is one thing that causes thunder to rumble. Different points all along the lightning bolt are different distances from your ears and thus the sounds arrives at slightly different times. If a lightning bolt were perfectly straight, for example, you'd hear a big boom but it would be uniform in intensity for its duration (discounting effects of distance on sound intensity). \n\nA forked bolt would make a sort of ka-boom sound as the two separate forks of the bolt create sound waves that arrive close to each other but not at the exact same time (at least in most cases, you could prove mathematically that at a point equally spaced from each fork, the sounds would constructively interfere to create a louder boom, however it's pretty unlikely that you'd happen to be in the exact spot where this happens).", "[Resoning](_URL_0_) \nFork lightning is the actual lightning. Sheet lightning is actually layers of clouds illuminated by hidden fork lightning. \n\nThis is the closest I could get between the difference between the sound of forked and sheet lightning. I think they maybe a muffling effect due to the clouds, however, there isn't a significant difference.", "Think about it this way. The sound you are hearing is the rapid expansion of air as it is superheated by the charge flow through the lightning path. Sound waves travel at a finite speed in the atmosphere. The longer the lightning bolt, the more thunder will be produced. The more area covered, the more the sound will rumble due to sound reflections from the ground and clouds, dispersion of the sound waves, and general mischief of the smaller forked leaders, etc. \n\nThe loud crack sound usually indicates close proximity of the lighting bolt, often strinking an object within a few hundred yards. It is estimated, according to Wallace and Hobbs, that theres about a 50 yard seeking radius for dart leaders as they try to find a conducting path. This is why you will be relatively safe surrounded by very tall trees, while you stand about 50 yards away. It is also why you dont go golfing during a thunderstorm, you're likely to be the tallest thing in an open space, wearing metal spiked shoes -- this allows the ground charge to easily flow through your body and attract the dart leaders more effectively. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/336095" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddk4kpt", "ddk4zsj", "ddkf8dm" ], "score": [ 5, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "A bit is a binary digit. A byte is an 8 digit number, in binary.\n\nIn decimal, a ten digit number could represent a high count of something, or each digit could have it's own significance. For example, in a telephone number, where it really just represents what button to press. It's conceivable that every two digits could combine to represent something. Kind of like the first three in an American phone number represent a region.\n\nDNA is made up a discreet number of pairs of bases, no? The are four bases that bind in two different pairs. Even if it matters which is left and which is right, relative to something arbitrary (for instance the pairs of the entire preliminary length of the strand), it's all powers of two.\n\nSo in the case of DNA it would be pretty simple to convert to bits and bytes. Without even knowing specifically how many kinds of bases there are, or whether the chirality matters, as long as everything must pair up, each pair is represented by a strict number of bits, with no waste.\n\nI.e., if there are 4 bases I'll call a b c and d, but the pairs only form like ab and cd, then that's either 0 or 1 in binary. One digit covers all those possibilities. If chirality confess into play, so that relative to the first ab or cd, you can have ab ba cd or dc, then there are 4 possibilities, which are entirely grasped by two digits with no wasted digit.\n\nBy waste I mean, imagine if you had 5 possibilities. That would require 3 digits, but wouldn't use all the combinations of those 3.\n\nAlthough, even if the third digit is used, and a little bit a waste, it would still factor correctly into an amount of dat a, so that's somewhat moot.", "Well, with only one of four nucleotides possible at any position on the strand (A, C, T, G), the nucleotide could be represented by a number 0, 1, 2 or 3, or the binary equivalent 00, 01, 10 or 11 (two bits per nucleotide). From there, it's just a matter of multiplying by the number of positions on the DNA strand for the total number of bits, and then dividing by eight to get bytes. The number still seems a bit off though, so perhaps I'm missing something.", "Depends on what you mean by \"information\".\n\nIf we just say how much a *single* strand of DNA *could possibly encode*, it's ~750 MB. I agree with [this blogger's take](_URL_0_), and really reading that is better than an ELI5 here, probably, but...\n\n- The DNA code uses 4 \"code pieces\": A, T, C, and G. (They are teeny little bunches of specific atoms, such bunches are called \"bases\", and those letters stand for their names: adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine).\n\n- To use binary code--just 0 and 1--to distinguish between four things, you have to do it like so: 00, 01, 10, 11. So say \"00\" = A, \"01\" = T, and so on. A single digit is one \"bit\", in binary code.\n\n- So therefore you use 2 bits for each letter. \n\n- There are 3 billion such letters in a *single* strand of DNA. (though the blogger talks about 2 strands, one each from mom and dad...that's why the answer there is twice as big).\n\n- 3 billion x 2 bits = 6 billion bits / 8 bits per byte = 750 million bytes = 750 Megabytes also called 750 MB.\n\nSo where does the 4MB come from? \n\nInformation is defined in information theory as basically \"that which we don't know\"--in the sense that if you tell me \"the sun will rise tomorrow\", you haven't told me any information, since I already know that. \n\nSome estimates state that all human DNA is 99.5% the same as everyone else's. So, under this interpretation of information, if I got a sample of your specific DNA, I'd only learn 0.5% new information compared to \"Joe Human's\" DNA.\n\nAnd 0.5% of 750 MB = 3.75 MB ≈ 4MB." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://bitesizebio.com/8378/how-much-information-is-stored-in-the-human-genome/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnoncaa", "cnonktd", "cnononk", "cnooksi", "cnopt59", "cnowmtz" ], "score": [ 16, 16, 8, 3, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "In theory if you keep cutting the distance between two objects in half, they will not meet. I'm not sure what you are asking about though.\n\nHere's a little joke that is very relevant: \nA mathematician and an engineer are both told they can half the distance between themselves and a beautiful woman as many times as they want. The mathematician responds: \"I'll never get to her.\" The engineer says: \"I'll get close enough...\"", "Two answers:\n\n1. You can't keep cutting matter in half. There are particles which are indivisible.\n2. Your idea of what it means to \"touch\" something only applies at the macro scale. On the quantum level, \"touching\" isn't a binary state in which two atoms are either touching or they're not. What's actually happening is that the closer two atoms get, the stronger the electromagnetic forces between the electrons and the protons in the atoms are felt. It's like trying to push together two repelling magnets that can never be touched together.", "Because we don't move in half-distances, we move in whole ones. My steps are, say, 1 meter apiece, not 50% of the distance between me and my object. I'm not subdividing the distance, I'm subtracting it. Dividing the distance between me and the object is a model of movement that breaks down at very small distances.", "Well if you want to get REAL technical about it, no two objects EVER actually touch due to the way electron clouds work. Even solids are made up of tightly packed, but essentially free floating atoms that never touch. Nuclei of atoms never touch, but reactions can take place that swap electrons and protons", "None of these answers would appeal to a 5 year old. Let's get an answer in simple elementary English!", "The answer is: calculus. You use calculus (specifically: limits) to determine that ½ + ¼ + ⅛ + ... is equal to 1. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cz15z38" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "My guess is since the password never changes anymore some bot brute forces the password and takes over the account." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f3flp5g", "f3fnv84", "f3fq256", "f3fq3zg", "f3fu7fv" ], "score": [ 7, 3, 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Propeller aircraft are usually less expensive for the same size and slightly more fuel efficient, although slower. Makes for a compelling argument for shorter routes without high demand, and some airlines such as Silver run almost exclusively propeller aircraft.", "Not sure how modern is modern, but the Seattle-Portland route that Alaska flies is frequently serviced by Dash-8s or Q-400s, I believe. It was designed in 84, with the upgraded Q-400s coming out in the 90s.\n\nEdit: they are more fuel efficient and require a lot less runway to take off.", "One thing to keep in mind is these are still jet engines, and not piston engines. They just don't use the jet stream for propulsion, but propellers connected to the engine via a shaft.\n\nThe reason is that propellers are more fuel efficient at speeds they operate at. Regular turbo-fan engines really need to be bigger to be efficient (thats why you see companies like Boeing trying to use the biggest engine possible in latest 737 models). They are also cheaper to produce and mantain.\n\nOne nice \"safety\" feature of using turbo-props (thats how their are named) is that you have very little power-lag in case of aborted approach. Because they regulate thrust by propeller angles, the engines are allways runnig at speeds, so there is no spool-up if you require thrust, you just need to change the angles.", "TLDR: The aircraft are cheaper to operate and more efficient for short-haul flights.\n\nDisclaimer: I used to work for a commuter airline that operated only propeller driven aircraft.\n\nModern commuter aircraft use Turbo-props which are effectively small jet engines with a propeller attached to the front via a gearbox.\n\nTurboprops are considerably more expensive to build and maintain vs traditional piston engines but they are more powerful and much lighter. For aircraft weight is everything, as each pound you can potentially carry directly translates to profits.\n\nBut why turboprops instead of Turbofans (jets)?\n\nTurboprops use less fuel than Turbofans but consequently they also fly slower. What airlines discovered in the late 80's, early 90's is that passengers on commuter (short) flights were willing to take slightly longer flights if it meant paying less per ticket.\n\nTurboprop aircraft are more efficient for short haul flights. They are also less noisy which means they operate under less restrictions than jets.\n\nThey can also land in shorter distances, and even operate on gravel with fewer modifications making them better suited for operating out of smaller airports. Particularly in the far north where airstrips are mostly chip-stone/gravel.\n\nAll aircraft are very safe (statistically speaking you are hundreds of times more likely to die in the cab on the way to the airport) but *arguably* turbo-props are safer than jets because they can land in shorter distances, propellers are more responsive (less throttle lag than jets) and can fly at much slower speeds making them easier to handle in the case of an emergency.", "Except for a few military planes, there are no jet planes. All the planes you name are turbofan or turboprop. A small jet core turns an air mover and that air thrust makes the plane go. The bigger the air mover, the more efficient. But, really big air movers are speed limited, you don't want the tips to break the speed of sound.\n\nIf you're willing to go slower, turboprop saves gas. If you want to go faster you enclose the propeller in a duct to make a turbofan. It costs more and needs more gas, but it's faster." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fiexgqy" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "EDIT : u/sunagainstgold's answer on [homosexuality and its perception in medieval Scandinavia](_URL_0_) is certainly interest you on the other part of your question.\n\nWe have litterary evidence that ancient Celts (i.e. more or less people we would call Gauls) practiced homosexuality, to the point it was considered one of their positive qualities by Aristotle.\n\n > \\[...\\] *and yet among the barbarians, a female and a slave are upon a level in the community, the reason for which is, that amongst them there are none qualified by nature to govern, therefore their society can be nothing but between slaves of different sexes. For which reason the poets say, it is proper for the Greeks to govern the barbarians, as if a barbarian and a slave were by nature one.* (Politics, I, \n > \n > *So that in such a state riches will necessarily be in general esteem, particularly if the men are governed by their wives, which has been the case with many a brave and warlike people except the Celts, and those other nations, if there are any such, who openly practise pederasty* (Politics II, 9)\n\nu/cleopatra_philopater wrote [an answer that is necessary](_URL_1_) to understand what Greeks saw in participating to homosexual and pederastic activities : an initiation of the youngest, wild and \"desiring\" members of the upper society by older, experienced and guiding mentors. For Aristotle, it was the marking of a comparatively well-regulated and \"not that Barbaric\" society.\n\nAncient Celts, however, seems to have overdone it in the eyes of the Greeks as Diodorus Siculus\n\n > *Although their wives are comely, they have very little to do with them, but rage with lust, in outlandish fashion, for the embraces of males. It is their practice to sleep upon the ground on the skins of wild beasts and to tumble with a catamite on each side. And the most astonishing thing of all is that they feel no concern for their proper dignity, but prostitute to others without a qualm the flower of their bodies; nor do they consider this a disgraceful thing to do, but rather when anyone of them is thus approached and refuses the favour offered him, this they consider an act of dishonour.*\n\nActually revealing in penetration? Boys serching actively for partners? Lack of a natural desire for women as a \"settled\" man should have? *Threesomes*? That won't do at all : for Diodorus, regardless of their qualities, these are the displays of a deeply disordered people just as human sacrifices are.\n\nThis reputation of Gauls is echoed by Strabo as common knowledge.\n\n > \\[...\\] *one of the things that are repeated over and over again, namely, that not only are all Celts fond of strife, but among them it is considered no disgrace for the young men to be prodigal of their youthful charms*. (Geography, V, 4)\n\nEvidently, Gauls had a different approach on sexual practices among men than Greeks, even if it was still marked by intercourse between older mentors and wild youth. Unfortunately, there are no Celtic sources on this; obviously the lack of written litterature in ancient Gaul prevents a direct understanding, but the lack of pictural sources that we could interpret are an additional problems : Gauls didn't represent themselves, except relatively uncommon hieratic fashion, and sexual depictions are usually subtle.\n\nStill, we can draw something more than their immediatly descriptive meaning from Greek texts : at the partial exception of Strabo (who might have borrowed elements from Poseidonios as much from other authors), their perception of Celts was importantly drawn from the form of contacts Greek had with them. In the IVth to IInd centuries it was often as warring bands, either raiders or mercenaries, whom practices including sexual were thus displayed and known to Greeks (earlier mentions of Celts, from the VIth to the IVth centuries are silent on this topic).\n\nWe'd be thus allowed to preserve a strong association with pedagogic practices comparable to Greek pederasty, as Aristotle understood it.\n\nWe know that warfare was central in Gaulish public life : the social class Caesar describes as equites are determinated by their capacity to wage war as part of the mobilised troop and thus taking an active part into religious rites, political activity and social status among their peers on which personal prestige played the main part until the Ist century BCE. The importance of clientelization and personal relations in the make-up of the *pagus* (the supra-tribal entity from which troops were gathered and mobilised) would have impressed the pedagogic initiation including warring but also social mentorship and sponsorship that would have included gifts, equipment and sexual intercourse; making fully realized men out of \"boys\" able to participate to public life as peers; something that could be part of a larger set of practices in Indo-European peoples (altough certainly not limited to them).\n\nIn Gaul, it appears from sources that young children weren't fully considered part of the overall social sphere : Caesar inform us that it is innappropriate for a Gaul to bring his child with him, and young children aren't properly buried but cast away in some ditch except in the context of important lineage where they were groomed into a future social role. As such, a pubescent male is immediatly taken from childhood to active initiation, instead of it being a \"gateway\" of sorts as in Greece;which might have added to the confusion and reprobation from Greeks, but also something that might have well blurred the distinction between \"sexually-ehanced\" initiation and sexual intercourse among peers, both probably participating from the same set of practices, eventually removing these from strict pederasty and associating virile and social binding among warriors.\n\nThe active part taken by the youngers is interesting as it is uncommon and a shocking behavious for Greeks : it might be interpretable as understanding warfare itself as both central for Gauls but as a \"special\" sphere too. War and mobilisation were made under the auspices of standards taken from sanctuaries, among them the boar-standard or the beastly carnyxes, which had a military and religious meaning : the boar in particular is particularily present in this context while rare in coinage or other displays (where horse are far more common along with cervids).Likewise, Cernunnos as the torque-bearing god and association to cervids could be less a master of nature (and even less a \"god of nature\") than master of the wild whom initiated warriors (the representation of Cernunnos on the Gundestrup Cauldron being associated with a possible symbolical representation of initiation) could drawn from altough being \"harnassed\" by the god trough torque-giving.\n\nThere's an impression that warfare, decidely distinct from the \"normal\" sphere (which, incidentally, is governed by women in time of wars, at least for what matter the political management, as accounted by Plutarch), where the wilderness of young men could find an outlet in aggressive warfare and sexuality along older patrons, or as part of a \"troop of young men\" (or *männerbund).*\n\nWould these practices have been maintained outside warfare? That's possible but sources are lacking and interpretation of what is at disposal is limited. Warfare being the natural and recurring lifestyle of warriors, we can speculate that there were more than enough occasions to practice something that might have been situated between accepted bisexuality and ritualized pederasty.\n\nWere these practices accepted outside warriors? Opposite stances had been supported and argued, from these being limited to a ritual and \"special\" context, to Gaulish culture being essentially accepting of bisexuality. Absence of sources (either positively or negatively pointing this) prevent any form of certainty in spite of enthusiastic support for the latter, such as Celts being considered as \"sin-free\" and \"taboo-free\" (e.g. Pierre Godard)\n\n\\[EDIT : We have nothing, on the other hand, on feminine homosexual intercourse or relationships. It was pretty much a non-topic for ancient authors, who focused on a warring elite they were more likely to met with in Gaul or elsewhere in the Mediterranean basin.Altough Gaulish women in particular, and Celtic women in general, seems to have beneficed from a higher status and more agency in public life than in Greece or Rome, we're badly informed on their everyday or public life itself and it is often in relation with how it differed or completed masculine spheres. Even comparatism with other mythological or historical sources (notably medieval Irish and Welsh ones) doesn't give much which could be the sign lesbianism wasn't acknowledged in ancient Gaul either\\]\n\nWhat we can say, however, is that Gauls were apparently less uptight than Greeks in their sexual approach (some Gaulish names or surnames have possible explicit translations, such as Tarcondimotus, litterally \"his head is like a d\\*\\*g\"), and seems to have, in a context of social upbringing and perpetuation of a male elite, not only tolerated but actively practiced it.\n\n* *Dictionnaire de langue gauloise - Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental*; Xavier Delmarre; éditions Errance; 2003\n* *Homosexualité et initiation chez les peuples indo-européens*; Bernard Sergent; Payot & Rivages, 1996." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5vb166/how_did_pagan_vikings_in_the_813th_centuries_view/de1bo9q/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7lnrh5/how_common_was_homosexuality_or_what_wed_now_see/drptkm5/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvli4am", "cvljavj", "cvlk3zu", "cvlkqc0", "cvlkvoi", "cvlkzeb", "cvll5sh", "cvllmcw", "cvllq27", "cvllvof", "cvlm0hx", "cvlm3ny", "cvlmgmj", "cvlmoqd", "cvlndm0", "cvlooou", "cvlpypl", "cvlr4du", "cvls3ti", "cvluzgn", "cvlwifg", "cvlz5j0", "cvlzqws", "cvm21ng", "cvm2vz2", "cvm4m87", "cvm6oqn", "cvm72nh", "cvm7vfm", "cvmd0us" ], "score": [ 2512, 15, 15, 308, 100, 35, 3, 84, 4, 2, 4, 14, 7, 9, 10, 7, 2, 5, 2, 6, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 7, 2, 7, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes, we got better at grunting.\n\nBut to say \"developed independently all over the world\" is a bit misleading.\n\nA group of people that speak A all lived together, but then some moved away and over time the languages changed, and now you have two different languages, A and B because they were so far apart geographically they couldn't keep eachother up to date.\n\nFrench, english, spanish, german, all have similar origins, so they were not independent in the beginning. It is not like different languages spontaneously happened.\n\nThe language's change is very much like evolution of the species, and in essence there was no \"creation\" for languages either. Radical changes take a LOT of time.", "More like a big \"chicken and egg\" thing going on as our brains developed, I think. Getting better at grunting helped us make more sounds. More sounds mean the ability to convey more information. Passing information is really useful if you're a social, cultural species with a brain that can make use of it; it means you can do much more complex things as a group, and more efficiently. So developing a vocal system that can make lots of different sounds is really useful. So you get better at grunting. And round it goes.\n\nIf you're really interested in how language might have developed, though, you could do worse than go read about Nicaraguan Sign Language. In a nutshell, NSL is the nearest we have to an real example of a language emerging spontaneously from next to nothing (among a group of deaf school children in Nicaragua in the 1970s onwards). What's fascinating is the way in which succeeding \"generations\" of children passing through the school rapidly deepened the complexity and subtlety of their signing, from a very basic pidgin into a full-blown language with all the sorts of grammar subtleties you'd expect to see in one. However language started out, it's clearly something we're very strongly adapted to make use of.", "At first I thought the post said \"Did we just get better at hunting?\" and I thought, hey that's probably right. We would of started making different noises to mean different things in hunting situations. Maybe that is a cause for its beginnings?", "A lot of people are claiming much more certainty than we have on the topic. We'll never really know how language developed initially - there are a huge range of theories, which you can find a summary of [here](_URL_0_).\n\nOnce the first language(s) developed, basically people would speak a language, get separated from other people, and their languages would naturally diverge. \n\nOne of the most prominent language families is Indo-European. A group of people, the Proto-Indo Europeans (PIE), seemed to have some advantage (possibly horsemanship) that allowed them to spread from their original homeland somewhere on the border of Asia and Europe to inhabit almost everything from Portugal to northern India, excepting some parts of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe which speak Finno-Urgic Languages (thanks /u/tarvaina for the correction!). The only non-Indo European language in South Western Europe is Basque, which is the last remnant of a now mostly extinct language family. People were either displaced or (more likely) learned the new language of a conquering people. PIE language then diverged as separate pockets stopped speaking to each other. One of those pockets, for instance, became Latin. Latin spread over Europe with the conquests of the Roman empire, but then when the Empire collapsed, people stopped speaking to people from other regions, so Latin became French, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish etc.\n\nEdit: added Finno-Urgic Languages as per /u/tarvaina", "One interesting theory is that the first languages actually used gestures rather than sounds. The idea is that complex communication started as pantomime - you would act out a story to tell others about some event. Over time these acts were reduced to hand gestures, while vocalisations and facial expressions started to convey more and more of the message. According to this theory, the way modern humans use their hands during speech is a remnant of ancient gestural communication.\n\nHere's an article which makes the argument more fully: _URL_0_", "You see, following the Great Flood, a united humanity all lived together in the Tower of Babel and spoke the same language. Then God scattered us and confounded our speech.", "Yup.\n\nExcept French. French was formed from hate and bad Italian cheese over a three day bender.", "Watching a toddler grow from grunting noises to almost-complete sentences over the last year has been absolutely fascinating for me.\n\nIt's not a direct parallel for the development of our species into one that could communicate with more and more complexity, but it's definitely an insight.\n\nIt begins with nouns. You can point at a thing and then at your mouth to signify that you want to eat it, but if you can't see the thing, you need to be able to metaphorically point at it. That's what words are for.\n\n\"Biscuit!\" said while pointing at the mouth is a much more flexible form of communication.\n\nBeyond nouns lie more abstract concepts. It's just fascinating to watch a toddler grasp \"outside\" or \"raining\" or \"hot\", and then start to combine them. There is a definite pause between them still, but my toddler can now say \"Cat! Downstairs!\" or \"Shoes on! Outside!\" to make himself understood.\n\nOnce the basic building blocks are in place, you can then start stitching them together in more nuanced ways. \"What's catty doing?\" is a complete sentence. \"Where's mummy?\" displays a grasp of concepts like the existence of places and people beyond current sight. \n\nI guess what I'm trying to say is that there is real continuity in the development of his language. There is no sudden leap of intuition where one day he's not talking and the next he is. It's a distinctly gradual process of knitting together simple concepts into more complex ones as his brain develops, and I imagine humanity has done something similar on a much larger scale.\n\nI don't know that that's a very scientific answer to your question, but perhaps it's one that's still appropriate for ELI5!", " > From what I understand, languages developed all over the world independently from one another. \n\nThis is wrong: _URL_0_\n\nAnd it is likely that those different language families are also related to each other. It is just extremely hard to trace back more than 5,000 years.\n\nModern humans exist for 100,000-200,000 years. Meaning that for at least 100,000 years, humans have the same cognitive abilities as we have today. And humans most likely even spoke more than 200.000 years ago.\n\nIt is quite likely that all languages are derivatives of a very old (way older than 10,000 years) language. Note that languages changed very fast back then. For example, German and English are about 1500 years apart. And English and German are still very similar. That is because there were many many thousand of Germans and English people who carried their language to the next generation with only little changes. In pre-historic times, people lived in small tribes. Meaning, langues change fast because smaller groups are more \"dynamic\". After just 200 years of a tribe splitting up in two tribes, their languages would probably already be more different than German and English. And after 1000 years, even linguists would have a hard time to see that those tribes spoke the same language 1000 years ago.\n\n > How rapidly did this happen,\n\nIt happened kinda fast in terms of evolutionary times. From a chimpanzee-like grunting creature to modern humans in just 6 mio years is fast.\n\nBut it was definitively not like that we all grunted, and suddenly one smart ape invented words and thousand years later we had a language like today. It took many ten or even hundred thousands of years.\n\n > and was it just a result of us learning to make complex sounds with our mouths?\n\nIt was a result of brain development. You can be sure that as soon as our brain was capable of speaking a language, that we also did. Nature does not waste resources. Having a brain that is able to speak, but does not, is a wast of energy. Maybe it was even the need to communicate that caused our brain to develop.\n\nPoint is: The important part was the brain, not the mouth. Of course you need both, but developing the brain was the \"hard\" part.\n\nAnd this all happened way before humans left Africa.", "When we talk about language change, we are talking about how individual languages change, rather than the mental faculty itself. Latin became Spanish and French because pronunciation changed and meanings shifted while those groups were isolated from each other. \n\nThe evolution of language occurred on a far longer time scale. No doubt it involved a lot of language change, but to go from grunting to Latin, you need a lot of evolution reshaping your species' brains.\n\nAll languages may or may not have descended from a common super ancient language, which would in turn have developed from something simpler which we would not a call language. The important thing is to understand that all this can happen without conscious creation. Languages don't need to get invented: mistakes, changes in pronunciation, compounds, and intuitions reshape language naturally. ", "It all started with sweat glands! Sweat glands allowed humans to run further than any other animal. To day humans are still the fastest long distance runners on the plannet. We weren't able to, outrun a deer in 100 feet, but if we kept chasing it we would eventually exhaust and overheat it and thus be able to eat it. This hunting style relied on multiple people chasing after the animal. So societies that could find a way to organize and communicate quickly were able to eat more as they were able to make more effective strategies for outrunning the prey. A society with different grunts meaning different things was able to make better plans and thus they got to eat more. After a while this turned into language!", "The origin of human language remains a scientific mystery, but OP makes a reasonable guess that the ability to articulate more sounds over time was what marks a change from primitive language to complex language, and that the earliest behaviors that we would recognize as language-like probably occurred in more than one community, and that both the separation of nomadic groups and their occasional contact sped up the cultural evolution that is concomitant with the rise of language.\n\nA great deal of the question depends on how smooth the evolutionary process occurs. If you are a Daniel Dennett, you think it was very smooth, and view the \"language organ\" the same as you view an eye or a wing, e.g. incrementally developing from a succession of barely useful adaptations/mutations that still granted a smidgen of survival/reproductive success. If you are a Steven Jay Gould, you see infrequent, but often profound hiccups in the evolutionary process, and a more complex organ develops more rapidly.\n\nI actually posed a similar question to Gould when he came for a lecture at my university (just a few months before he died), and his answer was a little cryptic: he referred to the \"evolution of computational propensities\", which I took to mean that language evolved somewhat parasitically on the back of the rise of human intelligence generally.\n\nMost people believe that language-as-we-know-it developed fairly rapidly (compared to eyes, wings, etc.), and that the critical period corresponds to the end of the last ice age, and the changes in proto-human social behavior that were required for survival. Hunting, tool-making, primitive agriculture, must have required a lot of coordination, with hierarchical social structures developing. Primitive religious practice - animism - helps account for abstraction in language.\n\nSince the earliest proto-humans are so close genetically, and the earliest homo sapiens essentially our genetic equal, it's logical to assume that all the hardware for modern language was in place, and so it simply took the rise of complex culture and early civilization to cause larger areas of our cognitive capacities to be concerned with expression.\n\nA favorite quasi-theory about language origins - which perhaps could ascribed to Steven Pinker - holds that some language behavior is truly innate (e.g. calling mom \"mama\" has something to do the pursing of lips related to breast-feeding), some language is based on mimicry of nature (e.g. onomatopoeia), and some language is purely a human invention, a tool in the strictest sense (e.g. religious utterances like \"Amen!\" or \"Om...\" - which originate in ritualized breathing). Though not Pinker's idea, it is sometimes speculated that discovering edible psychotropic substances ('shrooms, marijuana, fermented mold on wheat, etc.) was instrumental in the genesis of religion and language alike.\n\nAnother point to make is that there were specific changes in proto-human physiology which are directly implicated in the origin of language. Walking upright, and eating upright, required a different kind of throat, which just happens to correspond to the period when grunts gave way to a wider selection of vocal articulations. Also, the human diet becoming more iodine-rich (e.g. with organized hunting) and diversified (with agriculture) allowed us to use the brains we had more efficiently - and obviously increased life-spans, so that when you have old tribal elders, you've effectively increased the cultural heritage, and have the origination of history.\n\n(Sorry for wall of text - diachronic linguistics was my specialty before going into philosophy. But I have one more point.)\n\nAll of the above is fine and good until you take Darwin to a logical end-point. There is language-like behavior all across the biospheres. Birds, bees, ants, dolphins, whales, even flowers - and maybe even velociraptors according to Jurassic Park. The way Dennett approaches this observation is basically to grok \"meaning\" in language-like behavior to be akin to the way a thermometer \"tells\" us the temperature. It's an interpretative stance, that we made up by painting the lines on the thermometer. ", "English is not only becoming global but also intergalactic. Heaps of science programs I've seen have alien life forms speaking in English or f not they have an alien that can translate and create English subtitles at least. \n", "Just had a lecture about this in my Anthropology class, from what I understand there was a mutation in the FOXP2 gene in humans that allowed for us to have advanced tongue and mouth movements-- something that is pretty much exclusive in nature to humans. ", "Noam Chomsky has a lot to say on the subject of the formation of language. He kind of blew my mind by suggesting that the purpose language isn't for communication. It is actually a \"mode of creating and interpreting thought\". You can see him talking about it here: _URL_0_\n\nIn this context the question becomes more of at what point did our brains advance to where we required language to organize our thoughts?", "Parasites that attach to the vocal cords needed nutrients from a host and these particular parasites chose humans as a viable host to receive sustenance. In return the vocal cord parasites allowed our speech patterns to evolve until we no longer needed them to learn. Skull face plans on using these parasites to wipe out all language. Causing a kind of cleansing of sorts.", "Here's a really great recent review of the status of research into the origins of human language: _URL_0_", "A man named Code Talker once told me about these vocal cord parasites that caused the human larynx to evolve...", "Languages evolve like species. Like species, isolation is important in allowing them to split off from one another. But the rate at which language changes is much faster than the rate of change due to mutation in organisms, so you end up with tens of thousands of different languages spoken by members of the same species that have spread out across the globe.\n\nAs of relatively recently, we have globalization. Languages aren't isolated. That's why most of the world's languages are now dying out. There are something like 60,000 languages still living, but like 90% of people on earth speak one of the most common 20.", "I remember asking this same question in primary school, the teacher plus all the students laughed at me, I'll never forget that shitbag teacher.", "A simple question with an incredibly complex answer. If you read Richard Dawkins' *The Selfish Gene*, it explains in a way how languages formed. \n\nI don't remember if it actually talked about languages, but it does talk about memes. Yes, memes. In fact, it was Richard who coined the term meme, derived from the word mimeme, which means 'self replicating thing' \n\nQuite literally, everything that is not is not a gene/biological, that self replicates (ideas, stories, tales, religions, *languages*), IS a meme. Memes self replicate in the same way genes do. The stronger memes persist. Some live longer than others, like Success Child or the boogyman. Some live short, but have huge impact, like Gangnam Style or Woodstock. \n\nLanguages are no exception, and, other than religions, are probably one of the 'longest living' memes in human history. Memes can even evolve in a same way biological life forms do. In fact, if you compare languages to evolving beings, you will see some very similar things, and you can probably understand just exactly how they formed. \n\nThe way I think of it is that, yes, it started out as sounds. There was some point in our evolution that we adopted the ability to recognize perhaps tones or intents in grunts. Kind of like how your dog might not know *what* you're saying, but understands your intent based on your tone (you could call your dog all kinds of nasty names in the nicest tone ever, and he will just wag his tail and get excited). \n\nIf you think back when primates were adapting the ability to use tools and hunting spears, certain sounds and yells were better at warning others than other sounds. It also depended on the region. Certain sounds and yells might travel better in a mountainous area than a flat desert, for example. Since certain language traits were better at certain things, and in certain regions, we got different languages based on region, and even different dialects of the same language. \n\nEarly on, communication was simply a primary means of just that - communicating. Perhaps not speaking exact words, but rather shouting certain sounds to convey certain meanings to other primates. A cry for help would be different than a cry from fear, or a shout to get another's attention.", "Languages R own Lee words oar noises. \n\nAh brains yous passed eggs-peer-eons two under stand the me-nin.\n\nTheir moor Weir ewe sing it the moor we our understanding it.\n\nIt's the same way children learn.\n\nRepetition.", "We did get better at grunting, *so to speak.* Essentially, we experimented in many of the same ways babies do, but not as fast. And we only had each other to learn off. Remember the sounds. We required labels for things. Grunting and gestures were not sufficient to encapsulate all the idea's and things. It took thousands and thousands and thousands of years to develop, because it took the human brain many thousands and millions of years to develop too.\n\nLanguage is evolving even now. Look at all the additional nouns and adjectives we're creating. Yes, many of these are not technically 'dictionary' level but, given enough usage and it becomes part of the corpus. \n\nIt's quite exciting really, not just to see where we started and how long it took to progress from basic plosive, glottal sounds, to much more complex sounds where a label for something requires a string of syllables. \n\nAnother thing with developing language is also perception. To be aware of third person, and gender and time and so on. To be able to categorise these concepts through voice and then to further capture this in written/drawing form. \n\nLanguage truly is humanities greatest achievement. The more advanced our brain becomes, so shall our language. It's one of the many reasons I hold high regard for languages such as Japanese and Chinese.\n\n((Kept it simple. Studied linguistics so didn't want to ramble on about the technicals!))", "There was these guys who got help from satan to build a portal into heaven, in the process God made languages so they couldn't understand each other.", "From what I remember of my western Civ class we started to get more rules for language after we started building villages and living in one spot instead of roaming around. It started with symbols for certain objects and then grew more complex as their technology did. Language I believe was similar, in that it started with people using verbal sounds to communicate certain things. Much like animals might do for predators or mating. Over time that would've grown more complex, especially when written language came into play", "This is important, because many smart folks have noticed that there are three important time periods for mankind's evolution. The first, was 250 thousand years ago, or around then. This is when our bodies stopped evolving. We became fit for our niche. Skeletons from this time period are more or less indistinguishable to us today.\n\nThen, again, 50 thousand years ago, another event occurred. The Toba catastrophe. This event proves my previous statement, because despite enormous natural selection pressures which drove our species down to as few as a thousand or so people, we did not have any major changes in our physiology. In a sense, our fit status proved itself by not changing through this event. However, even though our bodies didn't change, our minds did. For one reason or another, the Toba catastrophe gave us a spark that made us the intelligent, sapient, sentient beings we are today. Prior to the Toba catastrophe, mankind's greatest achievement was fire and rock cutting tools. Things that even our ape cousins can pull off from time to time. After the Toba catastrophe, we were making art, stories, sculpture, farms, homes, villages, governments, and everything we have today. The academic term for this event, is Behavioral Modernity. It is thought that language first began being experimented with at this time. Limited to mostly just symbols on rock.\n\nHowever, research into when exactly language, spoken that is, began, is a bit difficult to locate. We know that the FOXP2 gene is partially responsible, and some research indicates it became widespread around 50k-20k years ago. The gene itself seems to have begun in Africa or India, and spread throughout the human species over the subsequent tens of thousands of years.\n\nIt is important to realize that humans are not as isolated as we like to think. In fact, an Englander is more genetically related to an isolated pacific islander on Easter Island, than two ape communities in the same forest are. Human migration has never truly stopped. If you are white, you have indian dna in you from a migration wave a few thousand years ago. if you are Chinese, you have Polynesian dna in you from a wave a few thousand years ago, etc etc.\n\nWith each wave, comes the genes from the host population. FOXP2 probably spread throughout the human species about 20k years ago.\n\nFor this reason, you are not wrong to state languages developed all over the world independently, but you are not right, in the sense that primitive language spread through these migration waves many eons before those current languages developed. In fact, there is even a little evidence that Neanderthals learned a word or two from us.\n\nIn order to make this super easy, here's a diagram:\n\n100k-50-k: Hominid populations spread out of Africa\n\n50k: true humans leave Africa, subsequently likely contributing to the extinction of all other hominid groups in their way.\n\n30k-20k: FOXP2 mutations begin to exit Africa on later human waves, bleeding into the local populations.\n\n20k-10k: Environmental changes somewhat cause a cold restart of human development. Subsequent migration waves carry advanced languages with them. Languages as they are today, can be broken up into basically a handful of families, suggesting that they all came from a primitive master-tongue that humans were speaking before the environmental changes.\n\n10k-5k: Languages start to form local identities from the previous language families. Environmental stability leads to human societies being established all across the world. simultaneously. Any river valley with some fertile lands leads to a civilization.\n\n5k-1k: Cyclical rise and falls of societies cause \"hubs\" to develop where languages firmly root themselves. \"Latin\", \"Germanic\", \"Sino\", etc etc. These language groups form out of the cultural primordial soup of the last couple thousand years.\n\n1K-present: Unusual stability leads to the formal establishment and codification of language groups into formal grammatical societies and dictionaries. Language development is frozen, other than a few dank memes.", "It's probably wrong or there is a lot more to it but this theory always interested me. People learning to talk from mushroom tripping ancestors.\n\n[Stoned Ape Theory](_URL_0_)", "Might be too late for you to see this, but to piggyback off the top post... We got better at grunting because we had to. Imagine being a group trying to hunt a large animal and having to work as a team. Language (probably) developed as a means to coordinate hunts, and then slowly evolved and improved from there.", "Yeah, it is interesting to know as well. My old man can be quite lazy at home in front of the tv at times and just grunt and point to make his point across. Growing up with him meant that we had to learn which grunt meant, \"Go out and buy me some snacks. The money is on the table.\", or \"Make me some snacks\" or \"Pass me that pillow\" or \"Quietly, go out and buy some snacks and dont tell mom\" or \"Move over, I want to lie down and pass me that remote\" or \"Let's order pizza. And dont tell mom\".\n\nAh, I miss my dad.", "What I'm more curious about is when we developed the *ability* to speak languages.\n\nIf we magically took an infant born 200,000 years ago and brought him into the present, would he be able to speak like us?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language" ], [ "http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/1999/2/the-gestural-origins-of-language/1" ], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmpRtj34xg" ], [], [ "http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00401/full" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnEKoFrx1rI" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "efd6bdr", "efd7bpc", "efd7qkk", "efdgq8m" ], "score": [ 17, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Probably just because professionals do it way more often and probably way more intensely than you. Lots of high school sports players get injured frequently.", "Your average sports player does not have the strength and speed of a professional sports player nor are they competing against other professional sports player. Force equals mass times acceleration. The faster you're going and the more mass you have, the more strain it puts on you when you suddenly stop or say, plant on a foot and try to turn.", "People still do, but what people also don't realize is that the movements that cause some ACL tears require a great deal of athleticism. You aren't running, cutting, planting, and spinning with nearly the same force, speed, and quickness that professional athletes do. It's those weird movements that lead to injuries.", "People are talking about intensity but frequency is just as important. You play a couple hours once/week. Professional athletes are playing their sport 40+ hours/week. They may get injured at a higher rate (ie one ACL injury per 500 hours of training for an athlete vs. one per 1000 hours for you and you never hit the threshold) and as noted below, nobody is writing a news story about how /u/itravelforchurros/ knee injury is going to affect his team's chances, so there's recall bias at play too." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch3pwx4" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "heavy rain (heavy water) adsorbs sound energy a at a rate √3 x F greater than light water (deuterium). thunder is mostly in the 20-50hz range, so at 100% relative humidity\n, we might expect thunder to be heard at about twice the range in light rain" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc697at", "cc6bucj", "cc6dboc", "cc6e47u" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 8, 7 ], "text": [ "There have been a number of \"Ice Ages\" of varying severity. \n\n > probably the most severe [\"Ice Age\"] of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) [before there was complex multicellular life or life on land] and may have produced a [Snowball Earth](_URL_1_) in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator\n\n_URL_0_ \n\nDuring the recent \"Ice Age\" (with mammoths and people hunting them with spears, etc), the areas covered with snow and ice were very roughly similar to the areas that get snow and ice now, but it accumulated to great depths rather than melting off every spring and summer. \n\n\n > The ice on both North America and Europe was about 3,000 m (9,800 ft) thick near the centers of maximum accumulation [close to two miles, or higher than the Appalachian Mountains, though not as high as the Rockies], but it tapered toward the glacier margins.\n\n_URL_2_", "The drop in global temperature was about 4°C. It was not uniform but pretty much everywhere got colder. [Here's a map](_URL_1_) of the temperature decrease based on proxy data from the last glacial maximum. \n\nSource: _URL_0_", "Aren't we still technically on an ice age by some definitions?", "There is a distinction to be made between global or near global glaciations in the deep geological past vs. periods of permanent ice at the poles vs. the advance of said polar ice due to orbital variation. \n\n**Snowball/Slushball Earths**: In the past there have been instances (Sturtian, Marinoan, and possibly Ediacaran) of near-global glaciation which are popularly referred to as Snowball Earth states. Although the initial hypothesized state of the planet was that of a \"hard\" freeze (i.e. total glaciation encompassing the global ocean), this has been IMO fairly conclusively refuted in favor of a \"soft\" freeze or \"Slushball\" state with open ocean near the equator (see e.g. [Rieu et al., 2007](_URL_9_); [Allen and Etienne, 2008](_URL_6_); [Le Heron, 2011](_URL_7_)). Solar luminosity, continental configurations, GHG concentrations, and a number of factors were vastly different then compared to the present. Using modern topography, a Snowball state can be reached with a 10-15% reduction in solar irradiance and preindustrial GHG levels ([Yang e tal., 2012](_URL_5_)). The average global temperature would be several tens of °C colder, but a precise value would depend a lot on your assumptions. \n\n**Presence of Polar Ice**: Some people argue that technically, any time during which there exists substantial ice at the poles can be referred to as an \"ice age\" or \"ice house\". I don't have a source handy but this was something that could be found in museums like the National Museum of Natural History, as an example. \n\nHowever, this is not what most people think of when they hear \"ice age\". If you use this definition, we are currently in an \"ice age\". \n\n**Glacial Maxima**: Periodic variations in the Earth's position relative to the sun results in changes in the intensity, duration, and distribution of insolation, which drives climatic variation on millennial timescales. These orbitally-driven changes cause increases and decreases of glaciation but stop well short of Snowball states. The Last Glacial Maximum is what people commonly think of when they think of the \"ice age\". This is simply the most recent maximum, [which occur ~100 ka during the Pleistocene](_URL_3_). Orbital increases in glacial extent can be seen throughout many periods in the geologic/paleoclimatic record, although not always in the eccentricity/100ka spectrum. \n\nThe Last Glacial Maximum is believed to have been ~4-7°C colder than present, depending on the proxies and modeling assumptions used ([IPCC AR4](_URL_1_); [Schneider von Deimling et al., 2006](_URL_2_); [Annan and Hargreaves, 2013](_URL_0_)). \n\nIn terms of maximum ice sheet extent, the LGM reached its fullest extent ~26 kya, with significant latitudinal variation ([Clark et al., 2009](_URL_8_)).\n\nThe ice sheet and alpine glacial advance was extensive but was nowhere near global, reaching down to the upper portion of the present US, but certainly not the subtropics or equator: \n\n_URL_4_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation" ], [ "www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/LGM_temp.pdf‎", "http://i.imgur.com/4D1bnDE.png" ], [], [ "http://www.clim-past.net/9/367/2013/cp-9-367-2013.html", "http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4-1-2.html", "http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026484/abstract", "http://i.imgur.com/QyB9qF7.jpg", "http://i.imgur.com/Tbh6yNK.jpg", "http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00189.1", "http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n12/full/ngeo355.html", "http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/1/31.abstract", "http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5941/710.abstract", "http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/4/299.short" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddlidkd" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Improvements in various things. For example in HDMI the speed increase is associated with a higher clock rate. Much like faster processors increased in Mhz, and into Ghz.\n\nHDMI Max Clock frequency to Data throughput\n\n - HDMI 1.0 - 1.2: 165mhz = 4.95Gbps\n\n - HDMI 1.3 - 1.4: 300mhz = 10.2Gbps\n\n - HDMI 2.0: 600mhz = 18Gbps\n\n - HDMI 2.1: ?? Spec not out to public or vendors yet, [here is some speculation though](_URL_0_).\n\nThis increase in clock speed is kind of like increasing the speed limit on the road. If the speed limit goes up from 25mph to 50mph, twice as many cars can go down that road.\n\nThere are various reasons that increasing the frequency of the signal is difficult, and just gets harder the higher the frequency gets.\n\nSometimes bandwidth increases come from adding pins/wires. This is like adding another set of lanes to that 25mph road. More lanes, more cars.\n\n" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lgbas/how_were_they_able_to_increase_the_speed_of_usb/" ]

[ [ "http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/hdmi-2-1-cable-48g.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwjd40d", "cwjd6w5", "cwjj6o7", "cwjjksq" ], "score": [ 2, 10, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because of the cheaper prices. If a company can pay people less, then the price of their product can be reduced. That's not to say there is no outrage - it's just limited to the workers in that particular industry. For the average customer, they just are happy to have the cheaper price and don't really think about why it's cheaper. Especially if their job is not affected by it.", "I grew up in northern Indiana. Many people were upset when the steel industry started moving jobs over seas. The thing is it was a slow process. They did not do it all at once so it was not as noticeable. Also a lot of people did receive compensation for losing there job. An example would be being able to retire earlier with full benefits. ", "Politicians deflect the outrage to illegal immigrants while their corporate owners continue outsourcing jobs and maximizing profits. ", "One thing to remember is that just because some jobs/industries are lost, doesn't mean others aren't gained. The US has a much larger service industry now than manufacturing. So people may have been laid off from their textile job, but there isn't much outrage if they can go and find another job without much difficulty" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccecsec", "ccedn6s" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I'm not sure if I understood correctly. But you can find [degenerated matter](_URL_0_) - or fermion gas - in white dwarfs for example. And of course there are processes happening inside these stars that may create/change/destroy this fermion gas.", "From what I understand of a Fermi gas (which is mostly based on wikipedia articles) it is not simply a nucleus/electron configuration which has gone awry but rather a fundamentally different system where an area is occupied by fermions and it satisfies the conditions that define the Fermi gas state.\n\nTo me this question seems like you're asking if finely crushed-up Lego can still be used build a tower of blocks. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7aejn7" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "**TL;DR - I freaking love biochemistry and explaining things**\n********\n\n**Explained Simply** \n\nYou have DNA, which is a mixture of 4 chemical \"bases\", known as Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), Thymine (T) and Adenine (A). DNA itself is made of two long strands (*double stranded*) with Cytosine binding to Guanine, and Thymine binding to Adenine. Thus DNA is a long length of C-G and T-A links. Because of this, we only need to look at one strand of DNA to know what the other strand looks like. \n\nWhen we map a gene, we break down the gene into the DNA strands and try to determine the \"sequence\" of one of them - that is, which bases are present, and in what order? Each base can bind a specific chemical, which usually fluoresces when a specific light is shone on it. In the end, we have a large length of DNA to which we can work out it's complimentary second strand. \n\nWhen you have a lot of genes together, they can form a chromsome. They need some help from other chemicals, such as histones, but basically a chromosome is a large number of genes together. Most people have 23 copies - or 46 chromosomes. The reason you have copies, is that you have one set from your mum, and the other from dad. As well as this, one set of them are your sex chromosomes - which are known as either X or Y. If you get two X - you're a girl. If you get an X and Y - you're a guy! You can't get two Y's - but you're clever for thinking that. \n\nThe Human Genome Project was an idea set forth in the 1990's which had the aim of characterising and sequencing every gene in the human body. That meant taking all the DNA from a person, and using the process described above to work out the sequences. In the end, about 20,000 to 25,000 genes were discovered, but we don't know what half of them do! It's like knowing that one gene can contribute to the colour of your hair, but if you have that gene and it's identical to your friend's gene, it doesn't mean you'll have the same hair colour. \n\nOther methods of gene mapping depend upon your knowledge of biochemistry. Essentially you can do what's called a \"shotgun\" sequence approach, where you take a gene, isolate the DNA within it and then copy it a lot. It has recently gotten a LOT easier to copy DNA (look up a process called Polymerase Chain Reaction). Then you break all those DNA copies up in different places, and then see where each bit of the DNA matches up with other parts - kinda like break 3 or 4 rulers into pieces and then matching up based on the number of centimetres they have. Once you've determined the overlapping, you can \"walk\" your way from one end to the other, working out the bases as you go, using chemicals.\n\n\n********\n**ELI5**\n\nWhat colour hair do you have? Is it the same as your mothers? Does your dad have the same colour eyes as you? What about your best friend? All of these are because of your \"genes\". Genes are the little things inside of you that make you different from everyone else. Genes themselves are made up of DNA. \n\nA while ago, a couple of clever fellows made a model of DNA. Their model used four letters: C, G, T and A. DNA is a whole bunch of those letters mixed up in a long, long row - and if you have enough of them, you can make a gene! \n\nWhen we want to \"map\" a gene, we have to work out the long sequence of letters (What were they again? C, G, T and A!), which is very specific! First, we have to take out the DNA from you. Don't worry - you have a lot of it! Then we cut it up and add some colours. Each colour will find a letter (C, G, T and A) and stick to it! Then we work out which letters are next to each other, until we reach the end of the gene. \n\nIn the 1990's, long before you were born, some people decided to work out the DNA sequence of every gene in everyone's body! They took some DNA from a lot of people, and did exactly what you just learned. Guess how many genes there were? OVER 20,000! Some of these genes will decide what colour hair you have, or your eye colour. Some may actually help you be tall, or short, or big, or small. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdowpk6" ], "score": [ 22 ], "text": [ "1/2\n\n**Luxembourg, First World War**\n\n\nLuxembourg was [invaded and occupied by Germany](_URL_0_) during the First World War.\n\nBeing able to move their army through Luxembourg, as well as Belgium, was a key part of the Moltke-Schlieffen Plan. On 1st August 1914 the Germans violated Luxembourgish neutrality by using Troisvierges Station in the north of the country and taking control of the telegraph posts there. The Luxembourgish prime minister, Paul Eyschen, telegraphed Berlin, asking what was happening. The German State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Gottlieb von Jagow, responded that there must have been a mistake, and that Germany would respect Luxembourgish neutrality, as had been affirmed at the 1867 Second Treaty of London, providing that France did the same.\n\nOn 2nd August 1914 Germany launched its invasion of Luxembourg, crossing the Moselle (which the border between Germany and Luxembourg follows, excluding a little bit of Luxembourg near Vianden which is east of the river) at Remich and Wasserbillig, and moved on the capital, Luxembourg City. The Luxembourg Army, consisting of 400 mostly ceremonial troops, were ordered by the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Marie-Adélaïde, not to resist the Germans. At 17:00 a telegram was sent to the Luxembourgish prime minister in which the German government apologised for the invasion, which they said was necessary to protect German military and railway interests, and that Luxembourg would be fully compensated by the Germans for any damage. At the end of the day a fight between German and French troops broke out at Petit-Croix, on the western border of Luxembourg.\n\nOn 3rd August a further telegram was sent, claiming the occupation to be temporary, that the rights of Luxembourgers would be respected, and that France had caused the invasion by sending 650 troops on bicycle into Luxembourg before the invasion. This claim seems unlikely, though possible, and was denied by the government of Luxembourg.\n\n3200 Luxembourgers had left the country before the invasion, and most of these volunteered within the French army. 2800 of these were killed in the course of the war.\n\nDuring the occupation, trees were pulled down in Luxembourg City in order to improve the line of sight for using machine guns, should the Germans have needed to defend Luxembourg. Orchards and farmland were dug up to locate bunkers and gun emplacements. Luxembourgish workers were made to work for the German war effort. In order to prevent trouble brewing among the local population, 'preventive arrests' of possible dissenters were made - it seems that the German secret police had been active in Luxembourg before the war. Most of these prisoners were taken to Trier, just across the border into Germany. Luxembourg was kept under martial law, and there were restrictions on travel, free speech/press and rationing. The country was used by the Germans as a logistical support centre for the German army, and Crown Prince Wilhelm, who was a general in the army, had his headquarters at Luxembourg's second city, Esch-sur-Alzette.\n\nOne of the major events during the occupation was a strike by iron miners on 31st May 1917. As a result of the British naval blockade on Germany, Luxembourg had become very important to German iron production, and contributed one-seventh of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire's pig iron. Generalmajor Richard Karl von Tessmar put down the strike, and arrested the ringleaders, who were sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.\n\nHad Germany won the war, it has been argued that she intended to annex Luxembourg. There is some evidence to support this. The Septemberprogramm, a draft of German war aims, stated that Luxembourg was to become a member of the German Empire, and this has been used by historian Fritz Fischer in *Germany's Aims in the First World War* to claim that it was German policy to annex Luxembourg. General Friedrich Bronsart von Schellendorf, Chief of General Staff of the Ottoman Army, also talked of annexing Luxembourg. The Septemerprogramm was never official policy, however, and Bronsart von Schellendorf's statements should not be seen as representative of German policy makers' opinion. As it is, no serious attempts were made to annex Luxembourg during occupation.\n\nOn 6th November 1918, Richard von Tessmar announced the withdrawal of German troops from Luxembourg. After the armistice, on 18th November 1918 it was decided that General John Pershing's US Third Army would move through Luxembourg to take up their occupation of the Rhineland, which they did the following day. The American troops were greeted by the Luxembourgers as liberators, and on 22nd November the German army completed its withdrawal from Luxembourg.\n\n\n**Liechtenstein, First World War**\n\nOfficially Liechtenstein was neutral during the First World War, and did not have a standing army. Unlike Luxembourg, its neutrality was largely respected. Liechtenstein was closely tied to Austria-Hungary, however: since 1852 Austrian customs officials were in charge of collecting duties at border crossings; since 1872 the Vienna-Zürich train line which passed through the country had been under the control of the Imperial Austrian State Railway; since 1880 Austrian diplomats were able to represent Liechtensteiner interests abroad. As a result, the Allies saw Liechtenstein as being so closely integrated into the Austro-Hungarian economy that it too was subjected to embargo by the Allies. This caused hardships in Liechtenstein, and the Allies even denied the Swiss their requests to send food to the principality. As a result, after the armistice and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Liechtenstein concluded much the same treaties (customs, consular etc.) with Switzerland in the place of Austria, and adopted the Swiss Franc, which is still the currency today." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Luxembourg_in_World_War_I" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbcseb9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Moisture in the atmosphere is water vapor. When the temperature is low enough, the molecules of water condense but also freeze simultaneously in ice crystal structures rather than forming together into a water droplet THEN freezing (which would obviously result in hail). These ice structures are much less dense than actual chunks of ice, and when they fall to the ground, they stick to each other rather than compress and merge (that is, until they're compacted forcibly together, or melt is warmer surface temperatures)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chzk2u4" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The German occupation was significantly more brutal, considering Germany suffered some million or so civilian casualties from all military actions (including those of the western allies,) compared to the 8-12 million inflicted in the Soviet Union.\n\nThe Russian occupation is, I feel, often played up due to the political concerns of the time. Yes, there are accounts of rapes by Russian soldiers, but there are also accounts of Soviet troops handing out food to orphans.\n\nThe thing is, the Russian plan wasn't to murder 2/3 of the German population. The Nazi plan for Russia was to do just that. The Soviet high command issued orders against rape and murder, although depending on commander this was sometimes not enforced (as in all the allied armies.) It may have been more of a problem for Soviet forces, but then, virtually every Russian soldier would have personally known somebody who had been killed by the Germans.\n\nThe difficulty in finding good sources on this issue is that it has become highly politicized. It's difficult to find a middle ground between \"the Russians were barbecuing babies in the street\" and \"glorious Soviet soldiers were all angels and did nothing but help the German civilians.\" The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.\n\nHowever, I do firmly believe that the \"Stalin's army of rapists\" line can be firmly dismissed as Cold War era propaganda. This is not to say that the Soviet occupation was not brutal and that rape did not happen, but the scale which is hinted at (but seldom given a hard number,) in English sources is probably exaggerated. Sadly, it would be difficult to exaggerate the horror of the holocaust in Russia." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyovgb6", "cyow7ea", "cyp0jcc", "cyp3p9l", "cyp5bo6", "cypiwfz" ], "score": [ 97, 42, 3, 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Small parts can move faster, and motorcycle engines usually have a short stroke. They are generally optimized for maximum horsepower, while car and truck engines place a greater importance on torque at low RPMs for moving heavy loads from a standstill. Modern sportbike engines are also significantly more advanced that automotive engines, due to looser regulations and a horsepower war that's been going on for decades.\n\nHardley-Davidsons only rev to 6,000, by the way, but their V-twin is based on an engine design that was obsolete in the 1940's. They ride like a truck on two wheels though...instant torque.", "I'm going to assume you know how a 4 stroke engine works in this post,if not there's thousands of youtube videos that explain it\n\nBecause you don't want a car that redlines at 14,000 RPMs. Motorcycles are lightweight and don't require much power to accelerate; cars on the other hand have lots of inertia and are meant to be driven around in stop and go traffic so you need to be able to make enough power to safely accelerate from low RPMs.\n\nComponents on a motorcycle engine are much smaller and therefore have much less inertia so you can go from 2,500 RPMs to 10,000 RPMs with a blip of the throttle. The valvetrain of a motorcycle is also designed to withstand high RPMs. If you overspeed a car's engine (drop it into too low of a gear at too high of a speed and release the clutch) the biggest danger is something called valve float. This occurs when the valve springs don't shut the valves quick enough and the pistons strike the open valves damaging them. Motorcycles, which have to cope with much higher RPMs have stiffer valve springs. Since the valve springs are stiffer it makes it harder to turn, you increase parasitic loss from the valvetrain and increase wear and tear. That's why you don't necessarily want stiffer valve springs on a car.\n\nHowever, if you did for whatever reason decide to upgrade your valve springs to stiffer ones, the other problem you run into is volumetric efficiency. When engineers design an engine for a street driven car, they want an engine with a flat torque curve. That is, when you floor it at 3,000 RPMs you accelerate roughly the same as you would when you hold it at 5,000 RPMs. This makes the car driveable on normal road conditions since you don't want to constantly be shifting gears. If valve float were not an issue, volumetric efficiency becomes one. At too high of an engine speed the airflow into the cylinders gets less and less efficient. That is, when you floor it at 3,000 RPMs when the piston moves down during the intake stroke it draws in more air than it would at 7,500 RPMs. Cars rely on something called the scavenging effect to maximize the air drawn in during each stroke; when exhaust gasses leave the cylinder they leave in 3 pulses:\n\n1. The first pulse occurs when the valve begins to open and the cylinder pressure equalizes with the pressure in the exhaust manifold\n2. The majority of the gasses come out in this pulse when the piston rises to expel the gasses out the cylinders\n3. This is where that extra umf comes in, scavenging. The exhaust valve stays open while the piston moves down during the intake stroke and while the intake valve is slightly open. The exhaust gasses inside the exhaust system have inertia and want to move towards the muffler, while both valves are still open the exhaust gasses scavenge some of the air inside the cylinder out that would otherwise remain trapped if the exhaust valve closed the instant the intake valve opens\n\nThe amount of time both the intake valve and exhaust valve remain open is called overlap, the more overlap you have the harder it is for the engine to operate at low RPMs but the more power you make at high RPMs. This is what gives old muscle cars the distinctive rumbling sound at idle. Motorcycles tend to have slightly more overlap than street cars. Motorcycles also tend to have shorter intake runners which also contribute to a higher revving engine.", "Try this - hold something - say, an orange - in your hand. Swing it back and forth through about 12 inches, as fast as you can. You can definitely feel the resistance to changing direction. OK. A piston in an engine running at 6,000 rpm is reversing direction 100 times PER SECOND! It really, really doesn't \"want\" to do that. It's yanking and pushing on that connecting rod with all the \"First Law of Motion\" it can muster. Those \"forces\" increase with mass (size?) and increase exponentially with speed. So, given that they are made of similar materials, smaller parts can do it faster than bigger parts, before they destroy themselves.", "Long stroke engines generate more torque, torque being raw twisting power. In order for the piston to move up and down really far (stroke), the crank pins need to be further away from the center of the crank shaft (crank pins are where the connecting rods connect to the crank shaft, then the other end of the connecting rods connect to the piston). The crank arms offset the crank pins from the center of the crankshaft. So ultimately, the longer the crank arms the are the longer the stroke is. \n\nOkay, now that that's out of the way, I shall use a little analogy. Imagine you are working on your car and have to remove a few bolts. One of them has corroded and rusted and you're having a really hard time removing it, no matter how hard you push on the wrench. You decide to grab a way longer wrench and with that you're finally able to break it loose and remove the bolt. This is because of leverage, you were able to apply way more twisting power on the bolt with a longer wrench. So just imagine instead of a longer wrench you have longer crank arms, and when the piston is forced down from the gas exploding it applies more twisting power on the crank shaft. This means more torque is generated.\n\nThis has turned out to be rather long winded, I hope you're following me so far! Cars are pretty heavy compared to motorcycles and need a lot more torque to get them to start moving. So car engines need to have longer strokes compared to motorcycle engines. Unfortunately this means the pistons need to travel a lot faster in order to complete the stroke, and faster moving parts mean more friction, and more friction means more heat and wear. This is bad and is why long stroke engines can't rev up as high as a motorcycle engines can.\n\nHigh revving motorcycle engines have very short strokes. Those bikes only weigh 400 pounds, so they don't need much torque to get them to start moving. But if you were to take that same engine and put it in a heavy car you would have a hard time just getting off the line, there's just not much power at low RPM. But because these engines can rev up super high they are able to generate a crap ton of horsepower at high RPM, especially for their small size, which makes them awesome for racing. The draw back here is that they are dog slow until you hit the 9,000 mark. \n\nDoes this help at all?", "Short version:\n\nAn engine contains parts which need to change the direction they are moving in frequently. A small engine (such as an MC) has smaller parts. Smaller parts can change direction quicker without the forces becoming too large. If the forces becomes too large, you'll get vibrations and possibly failure.", "Jesus...I googled this, and the first response was this same fucking question asked and answered over a year ago on this very same shitty site. _URL_0_\n\nHere you go you lazy liberal fuck." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/comments/2np6hc/whyhow_do_motorcycle_engines_run_at_much_higher/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3047pv", "c3047pv" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "I realize this shouldn't be a top-level comment, but since no one's posted I will. I went to the wiki page for rabbit starvation syndrome, and it said it was from a lack of fat in your diet. Humans are pretty fatty, so it shouldn't be a problem.", "I realize this shouldn't be a top-level comment, but since no one's posted I will. I went to the wiki page for rabbit starvation syndrome, and it said it was from a lack of fat in your diet. Humans are pretty fatty, so it shouldn't be a problem." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eyh83yn", "eyh8koo", "eyh90b5", "eyhbkbw", "eyhcs0q" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 3, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Ya, it's just for flavor, and you could use non alcoholic substitutes, but it wouldnt taste the same, and If you just make sure you cook off the alcohol it wont affects you like that.\nIt can if it hasent all been cooked off", "One thing to note about cooking it off properly is that alcohol (specifically ethanol, for context) has a much lower boiling point than water. Thus, the ethanol boils and evaporates off earlier and more completely than water. So if your food is cooked properly, it would be highly unlikely that any ethanol would remain.", "Pretty much just for flavour. Could definitely use a substitute if you can find a good one but I’ve yet to find a decent alcohol free wine (suggestions welcome, UK only pls). I read somewhere that alcohol doesn’t always evaporate during cooking, can’t remember the exact details though! \n\nFor things like tiramisu though, I’m not sure what a good substitute would be, plus you don’t cook it. I’m sure google could suggest a substitute but then it wouldn’t reeeeeaally be tiramisu IMO.", "For some things, alcohol can be pretty important. \n\nAlcohol is a great solvent for aromatic compounds. It’s also volatile and evaporates easily, so as its particles drift into the air, they carry those aromas with them. As you chew, that translates into more flavors that reach the back of your mouth, creating a heightened sense of complexity. At high concentrations, alcohol’s sting can overwhelm these flavors, but in small volumes, that sensation is balanced and pleasant.\n\nAdditionally, alcohol has an emulsifying ability, bonding with both water and fat, encouraging the two to coexist smoothly. In recipes like penne alla vodka, it helps the sauce become a creamier, tomato-ier, more cohesive whole.", "It is just for flavor, but that doesn't mean you could necessarily use a non-alcoholic substitute. Some flavors are alcohol soluble, but not water soluble.\n\nAlso, since alcohol has a lower evaporation point, foods with alcohol in them will evaporate more and thus have more \"smell,\" which changes how we taste.\n\nAnd when frying things, the evaporation point can effect how things fry. This is why we have \"beer battered\" fish and chicken and onion rings... the alcohol in the beef changes the way the outside of the food cooks (compared to water)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d185gyt" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Final Cut X is actually not Final Cut 10, just \"X\". It is a dumbed down, consumer version of the glorious Final Cut 7 which Apple abandoned years ago, which was used on many feature films. \n\nThe old standard, Avid, is still a big one. However, Adobe Premiere is taking its cut of the cake as it has improved considerably over the past few years and its excellent integration with After Effects and other Adobe software makes it a pick of choice.\n\nEdit: _URL_0_\n\nAccording to this interview Harry Potter movies are edited in Avid." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://filmship.net/2013/11/19/the-craft-of-editing-interview-with-mark-day-editor-for-the-bbc-and-feature-films-incl-harry-potter-and-about-time/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chymi3k", "chyn3kg" ], "score": [ 8, 18 ], "text": [ "You \"hear\" your own voice through vibrations in your jaw bone and skull as well as external soundwaves, which creates a different sound than if it was exclusively soundwaves (which is what you hear from a recording). That's why you hear your voice differently.", "As a Singer (opera, rock, pop, choral) I love answering this because It's a struggle I have had constantly. Nobody can be actually tone deaf or you wouldn't be able to ever hear a tune or inflection in peoples voices, But when you are singing along with a track or with an instrument you are also hearing the instrument or track you're singing with. \n\nThis is why you often see singers plugging one ear so they have a register of what they actually sound like listening with their inner ear as well as the perception of how their voice bounces around and mixes. If you cover your ears and sing you will have a more accurate Idea of what you sound like (I'm sorry for shattering the illusion). \n\nTo improve your singing you can probably take lessons that teach you how to match pitch without the aid of covering your ear as you learn what your own voice truly sounds like and have outside input as to when you are singing correctly. \nHope this helps!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cl0uwlg", "cl0uzca" ], "score": [ 47, 2 ], "text": [ "It is difficult to say specifically for ebolavirus. To know precisely which mutation would be necessary to confer airborne transmission would require gain-of-function experiments such as those conducted on the H5N1 avian flu. ([source](_URL_1_)) This kind of study is basically forced lab evolution: site-directed mutagenesis is used on the virus followed by multiple passages of virus in hosts with desired traits selected, in this case airborne transmission. Such experiments are controversial and quite dangerous as we would be making a virus *more* transmissible. There was a [recent AMA](_URL_0_) in /r/science about this issue.\n\n The H5N1 flu study showed that 4 different point mutations in the H5N1 genome were seen in all the successfully transformed mammal airborne flu viruses. These four mutations affected receptor binding (virus binds to upper airway epithelium), replication, and glycosylation (the attachment of sugar chains to surface protein that may change the virion's ability to get into water droplets). ([source](_URL_1_)) Whether these changes are applicable to ebolavirus is not known.\n\nThe thing is: there is little selective pressure for ebola to develop such mutations; ebola is spreading just fine in the populations of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, with basic replication numbers (average number of secondary cases an infected individual can cause) of 1.71, 1.83, and 2.02 respectively. ([source](_URL_2_)) Anything over 1 is enough to cause an epidemic. And ebola is primarily a blood/fluid-borne pathogen, so most favorable (for the virus) mutations that ebola would undergo would likely be within that existing transmission framework rather than toward developing a novel transmission route.\n\nThat is not to say that these fears airborne ebola are totally without basis. Viruses mutate very quickly even within one host. An epidemic with exponential growth like the one going on in W. Africa right now has the virus passaging through thousands of hosts, increasing the probability of novel mutations/adaptations being selected and further passaged. If the response/containment situation does not improve over there thousands of hosts will become tens of thousands very quickly. ([source](_URL_2_)) ", "\"Fear mongering\"? That is a very, very, very poor choice of words. Given the rate of transmission I would say it is being under reported. We likely don't have the real figures of the amount of infected which are likely to be substantially more than the official figures." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2hvslq/science_ama_series_hello_i_am_prof_marc_lipsitch/", "http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6088/1534.full", "http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100?query=featured_ebola#t=abstract" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqxib3a", "cqxihkn" ], "score": [ 6, 4 ], "text": [ "I think you're confused. Nasa's newest piece of technology is the EMDrive. It doesn't create warp bubbles but years ago some guy in a garage said \"hey, I can accelerate this thing without using propellant!\" but was treated as some crazy dude in a garage. Not too long after China, I believe, verified and ran their own tests, and came to the same conclusion as garage dude. Eventually NASA took notice and lo and behold, it worked for them too but they do not know why. It is now undergoing more rigorous testing. \n\nSo in short the EM drive accelerates without using fuel, just electricity, which is huge for space travel. \n\nThere is a theoretical warp drive though but it requires negative mass and is still very theoretical. ", "Actually, the EmDrive *may* warp space **inside** of the metal cavity. It is not a warp drive, nor does it make itself move faster than light. If it does, in fact, warp space inside of the metal cavity, that shows that it is possible to warp space without a large mass or negative energy, so that may open up a path to a warp drive in the future." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnypo47" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I did research on this in college for psychology. Turns out the more invested in outside events, especially sports the lower the self esteem of the individual. Now having a healthy relationship with a sports team is ok and being happy or disappointed when your team wins and loses is ok, but the people that get truly upset and it ruins their day or week, those are the ones who have the lowest self esteem. They are not happy within themselves and invest part of their identity in the team. As in their teams success also reflects on who they are as individuals. Basically they don't have anything good per say going in their lives and their team is the only thing that makes them feel like they are a success. You will see this pattern in every ethnicity, age and economic range, although it tends to be more pronounced in lower income and blue collar workers. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkwgxza", "dkwimuu", "dkwj6ga" ], "score": [ 6, 5, 2 ], "text": [ " > Surely if something is in HD, it was recorded that way originally. \n\nCorrect.\n\n > If its just a rip off thing\n\nIt's not a \"rip-off\" thing. It's a \"people are willing to pay less for standard definition, and more for high definition\" thing.\n\n > wouldnt it be a good idea to make laws banning this practice?\n\nNo. Telling a company \"you can't charge different amounts for different products\" is generally an ill-conceived way of writing laws. It limits consumer options. The result would be \"well, I guess the cheaper version is going away then, and we're only going to charge the higher price for HD channels\".", "Just because you don't know anyone with an old tv doesn't mean there aren't people out there with old tvs willing to pay for standard programming. As for banning, it isn't the government's business to get involved at that level. The practice is not harming anyone, so they shouldn't be interfering. ", " > Surely if something is in HD, it was recorded that way originally\n\nNo, it could have been upconverted. \n\n > I'm not aware of anyone that has a TV incapable of HD now.\n\nYou can't say that anymore. I have a SDTV in addition to a big HDTV. It makes no sense to throw away something that works fine.\n\n > make laws banning this practice?\n\nMake laws banning things which harm people. Nobody is harmed by SDTV. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvob14t", "cvoia5o" ], "score": [ 4, 5 ], "text": [ "Your*, my bad.", "Have you noticed that you *feel* cold when your running a fever? It's sometimes called \"the chills\".\n\nPart of the sensation of temperature is the *difference* between the room's temperature and your body temperature. When your body is hot (without clear causes such as exertion), the room feels colder.\n\nThe term cold describes how the patient *feels*. They feel like the room's cold and they want a blanket even though they are running a fever." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb5oq15", "cb5orgk" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "You're counting how many ways you can arrange things.\n\nSay you have 4 cards. How many possible ways can you order those cards?\n\nThere are 4 possibilities for the first card, 3 for the second, 2 for the third, and one for the last (whichever one is left). 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 4!.", "You take the number and multiply it by all the whole numbers preceding it. \n For example: 4! = 4\\*3\\*2\\*1 \n If you are wondering why factorials exist, it is just a simpler way of saying 4*3*2*1 which is useful since you need to do that more often than you might think. \n Edit: I done formatted wrong." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxhijw8", "cxhikhs", "cxhiotl", "cxhircz" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Well, volume or loudness is the amplitude of the sound wave and if its bigger the sound will be louder. But in terms of hearing things in your apartment certain sounds are more likely to penetrate concrete and wood and get to your ears. Bass-ier sounds have much more penetrating power generally speaking so you can hear low-end sounds through your walls much better than high end. High pitched whistles are used if you are lost in the woods for instance because it will echo a lot more and it is much more distinct from ambient sounds. ", "You are probably experiencing the effect that things sound louder when there is a drastic change in volume level from before to during the sound. Bangs of doors tend to go from quiet to loud really fast, while shouting is consistent.", "Different frequencies travel through materials differently. you'll find that bass sounds with frequencies below sort of 500Hz (500 vibrations a second) will travel through walls really easily because its closer to the natural Resonance frequency (the frequency the material naturally vibrates) of wood or concrete.", "I think this is also a consequence of 5.1 audio being played on a 2.1 speaker system. The surround-sound tracks get ignominiously plopped right on top of the front stereo tracks, neatly making them twice as loud to the detriment of the center 'voice' channel." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqxljf6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because there's a chemical reaction going on all the time inside the battery, it can burn itself out if not used for a certain length of time." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caizxi2", "caj0bjo", "caj24sf", "caj2uk5", "caj3vaw", "caj412f", "caj4hvm", "caj4mwp", "caj4u3r", "caj54u1", "caj6chu", "caj6hkv", "caj6zfn", "caj70an", "caj7aef", "caj7e15", "caj8cwf", "caj951i", "caj97kt", "caj9bu8", "caj9mxg", "cajbadl", "cajduom", "caje3i6" ], "score": [ 954, 293, 25, 48, 3, 40, 11, 6, 13, 9, 8, 4, 3, 8, 3, 2, 14, 2, 11, 3, 9, 7, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "Jimi Hendrix is considered a great guitar player because he reinvented how the guitar was played. He invented a style that influenced just about every rock, blues and jazz guitarist that came after him. His technical skill wasn't the greatest, but his creativity and style has proven to be extremely influential--even nearly 50 years after he got his start! For example, he was known to use hammer-ons and pull-offs: a style that made Eddie Van Halen famous. He played loud and distorted, which was influential to the hard rock and heavy metal bands that came in the 70's. His wah-wah sound went on to influence guys like Steve Vai. He even had a session with Miles Davis, making him popular with fusion guitarists such as Al DiMeola. In short, he was highly original and influential.", "He was one of the first to use distortion (the heavy rock guitar sound) and other sorts of audio effects in a truly effective way. He wasn't the *only* person doing it, but he's considered the best of his time at it, and generally everybody after started trying to copy him.\n\nFrom a purely technical perspective, he wasn't necessarily unique, though he could certainly keep up with the other top guys of his time when it came to \"shredding.\" He did pioneer (or, really, popularize) a few techniques like using the thumb of the fretting hand, which not many other guitarists of the time were doing, but is now pretty much standard (the guitarist from RHCP and John Mayer do it a lot, off the top of my head).\n\nIt was really in terms of raw overall musical ability and sensibility where Hendrix outclassed other guitarists. There isn't one thing you can necessarily point to that he did better than absolutely everybody else, it's more that he could do *everything* you would ask of a guitarist at a world-class level. Because he was so versatile and so *damn good at everything*, he was able to play in a way that other guys couldn't. A really good soloist like Clapton, for example, can impress you during the lead passages, but their rhythm sections are less inspired. Hendrix's leads might not have been as perfect as Clapton's, but he could drop into a rhythm section and blow Clapton out of the water.\n\nBasically, with most guitarists, I could give you a two-minute clip of them playing, and you'd pretty much know what they're about. With Hendrix, you have to listen to nearly his entire body of work to really appreciate how complete his mastery over the instrument was.", "IMHO, anyone wanting to learn how to be a \"good\" rock and roll guitarist (more than strumming chords around a campfire) could study Hendrix's techniques and learn far more than you would from any other guitarist. \n\nClapton could show you tasty blues leads, Van Halen could show you two-handed tapping, Iommi could show you heavy riffage, Gilmour could show you melodic phrasing, etc.\n\nHendrix did all of this and better IMO. He also did it first, which means that he was inventing these techniques and playing them better than the folks who copied him. I could go on, but this is already too long.", "[This is why.](_URL_0_)", "He's considered one of the best because of his attitude. He is actually just a very good and original guitar player, it's his humble down to earth nature that sets him apart and makes people remember him fondly. Here is a link to a video where he's being told that he's the greatest guitar player in the world, he responds that he [\"might be the greatest guitar player sitting in his chair.\"](_URL_0_)", "Aside from what everyone is saying here (First to utilize distortion as a lead tone, first to hammer, pull off, ect.) I think the real thing that defines him as a player is a bit more musical. His technical ability (what he does with his hands) is off the charts, though there are lots that are better than him even now in that regard.\n\nWhat Jimi did well however, and I mean that as a litote, was phrase his solos and riffs. Like Keith Moon played drums as a melodic instrument rather than just keeping a back-beat, or Les Claypool plays bass like drum kit with a synthesizer attached, Jimi was able to sing with the guitar. His lyrics were insipid and pointless to most of his songs, in my opinion, but how he was able to warp and change his tone and his playstyle constantly was something guitar players even now haven't mastered. He not only *knew* his way around the neck, he spoke through it. His playing was not just giant shredtastic \"MEEDLY MEEDLY MEEDLY MEEEEEEEE\" stuff, it was soulful, quiet, loud explosive, reserved, all over the place. He had an enormous range with his phrasing, and always knew exactly where to take songs, (having one of the worlds tightest rythm sections ever didn't hurt). \n\nI don't like Jimi Hendrix's songs, but as a musician I have an immense respect for someone who can speak so fluidly and effortlessly through their instrument. Every idea, every piece he played was a perfect translation from his brain to his hands, without falling into the common phrases. Think of it as all of us being in a language class, trying to translate complex ideas through a non-written language. We struggle, some of us get better with practice, but we have tricks we fall into in order to be reliable (in our playstyle). Jimi didn't really do that a lot, he was able to communicate without that struggle. It's some hardcore shit you don't see outside of the really really great musicians. This guy not only knew how to use his hands, he could say anything he wanted with a single guitar.\n\nEdit: Formatting", "According to Bill Hicks, Jimi was an alien who strung up his cock and played it. Enough said. ", "Same reason the Beatles are considered one of the best bands ever; he did it first. He defined a style that influenced hundreds of thousands of others, and although by todays standards he's not the greatest guitar player around, you can almost guarantee the best modern day rock guitarist was heavily influenced by jimi.", "Because there was guitar before Jimi, and guitar after Jimi. He single-handedly changed how people (and when I say people, I mean everyone, not just guitar nerds) approach the electric guitar. You can't really claim that about anyone else, except MAYBE Eddie Van Halen (and I would argue that his impact wasn't nearly as big as Jimi's, people were already shredding before him, though he was on a different level than everyone else at that point).\n\nNeil Young said it best: \"That guy wasn't just on another level, he was in a whole other building from the rest of us.\"", "I hereby sentence you to listen to listen to *Electric Ladyland* on repeat until you are ashamed to have asked.", "Here is a list of video links collected from comments that redditors have made in response to this submission:\n\n|Source Comment|Score|Video Link|\n|:-------|:-------|:-------|\n|[IveGotAHadron](_URL_39_)|104|[When Eric Clapton met Jimi Hendrix](_URL_54_)|\n|[griffsterb](_URL_12_)|45|[Michael Jackson - Beat It Digitally Restored Version](_URL_16_)|\n|[roocketfish](_URL_50_)|43|[Jimi Hendrix - Pali Gap Voodoo Soup version](_URL_65_)|\n|[BatmanSadMobile](_URL_0_)|25|[Yngwie J. Malmsteen - Purple Haze - Tribute to Fender](_URL_25_)|\n|[BatmanSadMobile](_URL_0_)|25|[Rainbow - Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow - FULL ALBUM HD](_URL_61_)|\n|[cc132](_URL_34_)|24|[ETTA BAKER - Carolina Breakdown Ragtime Guitar Legend](_URL_43_)|\n|[bonyhawk](_URL_2_)|19|[Eddie Van Halen CNN Interview 5/3/13](_URL_59_)|\n|[robbiestafford](_URL_56_)|12|[Dread Zeppelin - Black Dog.mpg](_URL_19_)|\n|[aoiao](_URL_51_)|10|[Return To Forever - Duel Of The Jester And The Tyrant Parts I & II](_URL_49_)|\n|[aoiao](_URL_51_)|10|[Mediterranean Sundance - Al Di Meola](_URL_41_)|\n|[aoiao](_URL_51_)|10|[Mahavishnu Orchestra - Meeting Of The Spirits](_URL_64_)|\n|[aoiao](_URL_51_)|10|[Noonward Race by the Mahavishnu Orchestra](_URL_8_)|\n|[j_po](_URL_40_)|6|[Jimi Hendrix Sgt peppers Lonely Hearts Club](_URL_52_)|\n|[daddytwofoot](_URL_4_)|5|[Steve Vai - For the Love of God](_URL_30_)|\n|[daddytwofoot](_URL_4_)|5|[Guthrie Govan - Fives at _URL_60_](_URL_1_)|\n|[daddytwofoot](_URL_4_)|5|[Selkies Solo - Paul Waggoner](_URL_31_)|\n|[untaken-username](_URL_32_)|5|[Jimi Hendrix - :blues - Born Under A Bad Sign](_URL_37_)|\n|[polarityinverted](_URL_55_)|4|[Josh Homme - Guitar Moves - Episode 3](_URL_18_)|\n|[rychild](_URL_26_)|3|[Hendrix Interview - \"I'm not the greatest guitar player\"](_URL_9_)|\n|[DeathFromWithin](_URL_13_)|2|[Django Reinhardt](_URL_23_)|\n|[jumpstartation](_URL_42_)|2|[The WHO - Water Live at Isle of Wight 1970](_URL_22_)|\n|[untaken-username](_URL_67_)|2|[Albert King - As The Years Go Passing By live in Montreux with Rory Gallagher](_URL_7_)|\n|[Chunga_the_Great](_URL_38_)|2|[Bold As Love - Jimi Hendrix](_URL_48_)|\n|[Chunga_the_Great](_URL_38_)|2|[Jimi Hendrix - Spanish Castle Magic / Long Version Audio Only 1969](_URL_27_)|\n|[OrangeEyedPs](_URL_58_)|2|[Cream - White Room](_URL_44_)|\n|[OrangeEyedPs](_URL_58_)|2|[Jim Dunlop GCB-95 Cry Baby Wah](_URL_17_)|\n|[OrangeEyedPs](_URL_58_)|2|[The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Voodoo Child Slight Return](_URL_68_)|\n|[wantonballbag](_URL_33_)|2|[Jimi Hendrix- Little Wing Studio](_URL_29_)|\n|[Mr-Yuck](_URL_69_)|2|[Prince, Tom Petty, Steve Winwood, Jeff Lynne and others -- \"While My Guitar Gently Weeps\"](_URL_35_)|\n|[jumpstartation](_URL_42_)|2|[The Who - Heaven and Hell - Isle Of Wight](_URL_3_)|\n|[khfreek](_URL_6_)|1|[John Mayer - Out Of My Mind Live in LA High Def!](_URL_24_)|\n|[seanziewonzie](_URL_5_)|1|[Steve Vai Solo - Zomby Woof - Zappa plays Zappa](_URL_11_)|\n|[bumwine](_URL_47_)|1|[Jimi Hendrix - Pali Gap](_URL_53_)|\n|[FCBSean](_URL_62_)|1|[Beatles Anthology 2/7 - Part 4](_URL_45_)|\n|[andrewhy](_URL_28_)|0|[None](_URL_66_)|\n|[Kibekt](_URL_36_)|0|[FOUR TET - My angel rocks back and forth](_URL_57_)|\n|[andrewhy](_URL_28_)|0|[None](_URL_14_)|\n|[andrewhy](_URL_28_)|0|[None](_URL_15_)|\n|[saynotoneckbeards](_URL_63_)|-1|[The oOohh Baby Gimme Mores - Beat Up Kidz](_URL_21_)|\n\n* [VideoLinkBot FAQ](_URL_20_)\n* [Feedback](_URL_10_)\n* [Playlist of videos in this comment](_URL_46_)", "Listen to Villanova Junction at Woodstock.", "He was innovative. He changed the scene with a whole new sound. Add to that, his personal skill; he was left-handed, and taught himself to play a guitar for right-handed people backwards. He could play it with his feet, or behind his head, and managed an impressive sound playing it with his teeth. His sound holds a great appeal for many millions of people across several generations, entirely distinct from any other source of appeal (take away the girls who want to cuddle with Justin Bieber, because they find him cute and they're too young to really get what sex is all about, and he'd have 27 fans left). ", "Nobody is mentioning that Jimi also SANG. Obviously legendary musicians can play and sing, but it's another level when you play like he did.\n\nHe obviously wasn't a great singer but it didn't matter.\n\nFurther, he played a right handed guitar left handed, and reversed the strings. (I get that this is kind of meaningless, but I heard he actually learned with the strings in their normal position. If nothing else, it's just strange and adds to his mystique)\n\nOn a side note, his drummer is one of the most underrated of all time.", "This isn't as in-depth an answer as others, but Josh Homme from Queens of the Stone Age [recently did an interview](_URL_0_) for Guitar Moves and goes over the different styles he's learned and how he's taught himself how other guitarists play, Hendrix included. It pans in super close when he is showing/describing how others play, so you can get a real grasp for what's going on.\n\nIt's 14 minutes long but it's really interesting, inspiring and quite funny. ", "Ever notice the guy on the far right of Zappa's 'We're only in it for the Money'? [Inside Cover](_URL_0_)", "Basically, when you hear Jimi Hendrix, you know without question that it is Jimi. No one else sounds like him, yet he influenced so many that followed. It's a remarkable dialectic in the realm of popular music, particularly rock, blues and jazz fusion.", "Quite simply he had more natural playing ability than anyone.\nThe amount of emotion that he could project through the guitar..a tear comes to my eye.", "ITT: people saying Jimi Hendrix **wasn't technically skilled**\n\nSMH. FSMH.", "He was left handed but played a right handed guitar backwards. As a right handed guitarist who has tried to play a left handed guitar backwards...wow, this guy is amazing. Also, he set fire to his guitar mid-song and that was super artistic. ", "One thing you have to know about guitarists is after a certain point, it becomes less about skill level and technical prowess, and more about creativity and originality. So, yes, Jimi created all these different ways of playing and was extremely influential for a prolonged amount of time, which has been said by many people in this thread already. \n\n\nHowever, one of the biggest reasons why Jimi is considered the greatest guitarist of all time is the same reason people like Clapton, Page, and Richards are: they're songs are all extremely unique from one another. Take a look at how a song like Hey Joe sounds very unlike Voodoo Chile and how they are both dissimilar from Electric Church Red House. \n\n\nWhile Jimi's style is still his own (wah pedal, excessive extraneous noise, high distortion, lots of vibrato) the notes themselves that he picked for each song were chosen carefully. During his solos he was able to create a sound and feel that would match that of the song he was playing. So what it really comes down to is how well a guitarist can evoke emotion and create a compelling guitar track. ", "-He was one of the first to harness the musicality of feedback, which is like trying to contain a forest fire.\n\n-He use of ugly noises contrasted against his melodies to make them even sweeter sounding, and barely anyone was doing that at the time.\n\n-His use of metaphor in music was original, controversial and mind-blowingly psychedelic. How does he make those noises?!?! Think \"Machine Gun\" or his national anthem. His ability in metaphor inspired countless artists across different mediums, for example Bill Hicks' stand-up act.\n\n-His tone was un-fucking-real, and came out of only (usually) his Strat, a wah pedal, and his Marshall stack. People use gobs of pedals to try to get original tones out of what he made with a very simple set-up.\n\nHe was JIMI HENDRIX! That dude WAS music. Sure, he played guitar, but he punctured the sphere of all music.", "Just listen. It's like jazz: If you have to ask, you'll never know.", "Are you deaf? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T59qVSCy02A" ], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gwLQAuHJv8" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajca28", "http://youtu.be/-yPEewaalik", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj7juh", "http://youtu.be/ebq5yEQAFH4", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj8afk", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajjft2", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajhq50", "http://youtu.be/kQrTdPTQPxw", "http://youtu.be/GSv6SEN3SKo", "http://youtu.be/6gwLQAuHJv8", "http://www.reddit.com/r/VideoLinkBot/submit", "http://youtu.be/cpf2IoJZhqI", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj4pfs", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajff45", "http://youtu.be/5KMCLSr_yVY", "http://youtu.be/i14F1hCnEdo", "http://youtu.be/oRdxUFDoQe0", "http://youtu.be/kMqGuF8VoRo", "http://youtu.be/AJDUHq2mJx0", "http://youtu.be/CZHWy6W00oM", "http://www.reddit.com/r/VideoLinkBot/wiki/faq", "http://vimeo.com/65254416", "http://youtu.be/SbrU7Ea_bkY", "http://youtu.be/uwfhoI2JrOA", "http://youtu.be/GQkO3SGB3So", "http://youtu.be/fNbaj8UAzaU", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj3vaw", "http://youtu.be/yHLprD8UUVs", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj6bki", "http://youtu.be/a9-2vjzhwrs", "http://youtu.be/okLDkcexiVg", "http://youtu.be/L4OWnVS1-Wo", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj8r6h", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajda1d", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj7lz5", "http://youtu.be/6SFNW5F8K9Y", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cak2c9p", "http://youtu.be/mxqLHeDAorg", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajak6p", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj5ihc", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj84oe", "http://youtu.be/hhccIfevjCU", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj8ykf", "http://youtu.be/LG_egIiiksA", "http://youtu.be/pkae0-TgrRU", "http://youtu.be/0394mB1P1ww", "http://radd.it/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj6chu?only=videos&start=1", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajkoif", "http://youtu.be/hDlF5SAatyk", "http://youtu.be/Uj0k6eE-c3U", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj2uk5", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj95vf", "http://youtu.be/CRYearwualA", "http://youtu.be/BQGIv6DaWP4", "http://youtu.be/KPJgtQwtVVA", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj7aef", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caja5ui", "http://youtu.be/Ue7f8KMPKB4", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajjfgn", "http://youtu.be/tKxKtqB6zAM", "Jamtrackcentral.com", "http://youtu.be/HQSxFVmRv9c", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/can0hcm", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajaiyc", "http://youtu.be/DQG7XpCiSVA", "http://youtu.be/T59qVSCy02A", "http://youtu.be/PWNPi0ZAhxw", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/caj98vu", "http://youtu.be/cHQkC7vcvmg", "http://reddit.com/comments/1gcvq7/_/cajdhnw" ], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJDUHq2mJx0" ], [ "http://i.imgur.com/UGPUQko.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fimantn" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "In a operating room, slowly so as not to cause bursting of capalaries(sp?). Up to 6 hours from initial application of the tourniquet the limb can be mostly saved (depends on the damage done) this is from memory from military training." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czm91h1" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Cameron told the EU he would stop promoting a \"Brexit\" if they made reforms in 4 certain areas. Yesterday Donald Tusk (president of the European Council) released a draft trying to find a compromise between Cameron and the EU. Here's what these 4 demands are, and the EU's response to them:\n\n**1. Demand**: Citizens of the EU coming to work in the UK shouldn't be able to apply for important social advantages to accompany their wage for their first 4 years. Also, those workers should no longer be able to send child support to their overseas families.\n\n**EU response**: London will be allowed to pull an \"emergency brake\" if it experiences an extraordinarily large influx of workers from other EU-countries. To do so, they'll have to alert the European Commission to their social security, labour market or social services being under pressure. With a majority vote, the other EU-members can then allow the UK to limit these services for up to 4 years. However, during those 4 years the emergency brake has to be gradually loosened, and the new system only applies to newcomers. Also, an EU-citizen working in London will still receive child support if their child is staying in their home country. In calculating the exact amount of child support, the standard of living in the country in question must be considered.\n\n**2. Demand**: Cameron wanted black-on-white that the principle of an *ever-closer union* would not apply to the UK. He also demanded that national parliaments could draw a 'red card' for European legislation they feel is best decided nationally. \n\n**Eu response**: According to Tusk, the 'ever-closer union' is about improving trust and understanding between the European peoples, not about political integration. Because of this, it can't be the basis for expanding EU legislation. The draft also states the UK doesn't need to strive for further political integration, which is legally binding. Also, if 55% of national parliaments protest against an EU law within 12 weeks, it will be put up for discussion by the national leaders. \n\n**3. Demand**: Cameron wants the EU to recognize itself as multi-currency, and that centralisation for the Euro should never apply to non-euro countries. Also, taxpayers from non-euro countries should never financially support operations within the eurozone.\n\n**EU response**: Laws concerning the monetary union will not be binding for non-euro countries, and they won't have to support operations within the eurozone. However, the EU will not be explicitly multi-currency. Also, non-euro countries can't form an obstacle for integration within the eurozone.\n\n**4. Demand**: Cameron wants the EU to be more competitive, which would lead to more jobs and growth.\n\n**Eu response**: Tusk says he'll be committed increasing competitiveness, and the burden on companies (especially gmo's) will be lessened, but no detailed policies have been mentioned.\n\nAnd that's about the gist of it. Cameron mostly loses out on the first demand, which it what the papers comment on the most. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhyuoah" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I recommend the following five works as the rock on which to build your understanding of medieval warfare. They are not all easy to read, *Warfare in Medieval Europe 400-1453* is particularly dense, but they will all add to your understanding of the subject. In general, the newer works supersede the older works when it comes to facts, so when there is a contradiction, then the newer work is usually the correct one. I don't believe that this is always the case, but this usually comes down to differences of opinion, not fact. If you only read one of the books, then *Medieval Warfare* will provide the best overview, though I disagree entirely with Timothy Reuter's section of the book.\n\n* *History of the Art of War, Volumes 1-3*, by Hans Delbrück, for insight into infantry and cavalry dynamics, how to use topography and logistics to examine the veracity of battle accounts and various useful miscellaneous pieces of information and primary source quotations.\n\n* *The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages*, by J.F. Verbruggen for detail on the psychology of medieval warriors.\n\n* *War in the Middle Ages*, by Philippe Contamine for some of the societal aspects of warfare.\n\n* *Medieval Warfare*, edited by Maurice Keen for early medieval Scandinavian warfare, warfare in the High and Late Middle Ages, equipment, sieges, naval warfare, use of mercenaries and the effects of warfare on civilians.\n\n* *Warfare in Medieval Europe 400-1453*, by Bernard and David Bachrach for how to use primary sources, logistics, finance and Carolingian and Ottonian warfare.\n\nIf you want a look at the mind of the medieval warrior, the primary sources are excellent for this. Jean de Joinville's *The Life of Saint Louis* and Geoffrey of Villehardouin's​ *On the Conquest of Constantinople* are two valuable looks into the mind of a medieval knight.\n\nFor a look at the kinds of questions and moral dilemmas medieval warriors had, then Christine de Pizan's *The Book of Deeds of Arms and Chivalry* has a large section devoted to both the questions and answers of this nature, as well as being an important source on early 15th century warfare.\n\n**Edit:** I've just now been reading *Bloodied Banners: Martial Display on the Medieval Battlefield*, by Robert W Jones, and I think this would also suit your needs, as it delves quite deeply into the psychology surrounding arms and armour and their effect on opponents." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce4d5z6", "ce4odj1" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "On X-ray, things that are not dense (like air) are dark. The radiation passes right through air and none of it is \"blocked\" on the way to the film. When no X-rays get blocked, the film is black. Things that are white on X-ray are white because they \"intercepted\" all of the radiation. As an example, check out the first film in catdoctor's post. Metal (the pacemaker) is extremely dense, and as such it \"blocks\" the radiation from reaching the film. This leads to a negative space on the film in the shape of the dense object. An object's relative white/black-ness on X-ray tells you relatively how dense it is. \n \nPneumonia is a manifestation of infection in the lungs. Your body deals with infections by \"cordoning off\" the area via positive pressure (fluid) and antimicrobial cells (like white blood cells). This dense area of cells and fluid creates what is known as a consolidation. Because consolidations are dense and confined to one part of the lung, they show up \"whiter\" than normal lung tissue on X-ray. \n \nIncidentally, consolidations are one of the things a doctor is checking for when they are doing that tapping thing (percussion) on your back and chest. Normal lungs are full of air (black on X-ray) so they have a reverberation to them like a drum. A consolidation caused by pneumonia would cause a dullness on percussion that you can hear and feel (and subsequently see on X-ray).", "I work as a scribe here (I do charting for doctors on a daily basis)\n\nPneumonia is NOT diagnosed with an X-Ray. It is acutally correlated with an x-ray. \nThe summery by a radiolist would often appear a lot like this: \"consolidations are noted in the X-Ray please correlate with clinical findings.\"\n\nThose findings would then be taken into account during a physical exam i.e wheezing or crackles. That being said you should also look at labs for an elevated white blood count. \n\nOn a seperate note for the actualy X-ray refer to the explination by Shmalpin. I would also note that atelectasis and pneumonia are difficult to seperate from a chest x-ray. So if they dont have any clinical evidence for pneumonia (fever, leukocytosis [elevated white blood count], wheezing, or crackles) then they likely have atelectasis. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3z2nnb" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You lose a lot of nutrients when you have 'the runs' mainly because bacterial infections which cause the symptom of 'the runs' alter cellular pathways such as the cAMP pathway in gut epithelia, which in the short form, leads to efflux of water out of your cells and into the lumen (hole) of your gut. \nThis 'washing out' effect aids in the movement of bacteria out of the host and also moves nutrients along with it. Mainly though your body loses electrolytes and water. So drink plenty of isotonic drinks and water." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "enhmn7e", "enhy7h1", "enji0g6" ], "score": [ 11, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "It depends on the frame of reference. A charge at rest on the Earth does not appear to radiate as seen by other at-rest observers on the Earth, but a freefalling observer would see a charge-at-rest radiate.", "I can't sufficiently explain it myself, but [PDF WARNING] [this paper](_URL_0_) (the first sentence of which is \"unfortunately, laboratory experiments are not usually performed in falling elevators\") goes in depth to resolve this apparent paradox, which dates back to the early days of relativity, particularly in section VII.\n\nThe complications come from the fact that these are non-inertial reference frames and that Maxwell's equations are defined in flat spacetime.\n\nEdit: as a side note, the standard model does not describe gravity at all. \"Gravitons\" are not actually a part of the standard model, but a kind of placeholder name for where gravity would go in the standard model if we knew how to fit it in.", "_URL_0_\n\nNB this article used to be wrong a few months ago, but now its right." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/92f4/497561d3ba67a3027a19a28f1010fcbb12d4.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjtpbzqz5viAhVQQ6wKHXpZD5kQFjABegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw03bgYajDKMUAwA5fPx369T&cshid=1557857644180" ], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cagwc3r" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "Steam, unburnt gases, particles of ash." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5i032m" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "No, photons are massless.\n\nHowever, massless particles can still have momentum and exert a force. In the case of the sun and the earth, this pressure is between 4.5 and 9 micro-Newtons per square meter (4.5 if photons are absorbed entirely, 9 if all photons are reflected, in reality the value will be somewhere in between). That is approximately equivalent to the gravitational force of 0.5 to 1 microgram of mass spread out over a square meter.\n\nFor the entire earth, this adds up to anywhere between about 5.5 * 10^8 (550 milion) and 1.1 * 10^9 Newton, which, according to Wolfram Alpha, is about one tenth to one fifth of the total force exerted by the water on the walls of the Hoover dam." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c84hc0g" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "AM stands for ante meridiem and PM stands for post meridiem - before noon and after noon. Noon is the point at which the sun is highest in the sky. In the AM, the sun is rising. In the PM, it is setting." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dt1ux8j", "dt27wct", "dt2dd0t" ], "score": [ 213, 714, 72 ], "text": [ "Hi there! \n\nIf you've come to the thread and are wondering why there's no answer yet, please be patient: [we have found](_URL_4_) that it takes an average of 9 hours for a good answer to appear on a popular thread - properly researching and writing an answer takes time. Additionally, it's currently well past midnight on the East Coast of the US right now, which means that plenty of the historians interested in this topic might already be asleep. Please be patient! If you want to be reminded of this thread in 24 hours, [please see here for information on how to send a private message to RemindMeBot](_URL_1_) to remind you about this thread.\n\nIf you're wondering what's in the 14 removed comments at the time of writing, there are four separate smartarses who've posted a one word reply ('Yes') or a variant ('I guess so'). One other clever chap made a joke imitating the English accent. There is also already a complaint about removed comments. Some of these attracted replies saying \"in before this gets deleted\" and the like. There is also one attempt at an answer which was too vague and short to reach our standards. You're not missing anything great, we promise.\n\nAll of these comments get removed on /r/AskHistorians because the huge majority of our subscribers really do want accurate, comprehensive, in-depth historical answers based on good historical practice and high-quality sources. It's amazing how many downvotes and reports an obvious shitpost can attract on a popular thread on /r/AskHistorians within minutes, thanks to our readers (if you see it, report it!) \n\nPlease see [our subreddit rules](_URL_6_) for more information on how to write an answer up to our standards. On /r/AskHistorians, we want people answering questions to be able to explain not just what the basic facts are, [but why we know that these basic facts are right, and to put those basic facts into context](_URL_5_). This is why we encourage [the use of primary and secondary sources in answering questions](_URL_2_), rather than tertiary sources like Wikipedia, podcasts and textbooks.\n\nIn other words, on /r/AskHistorians, we'd rather have no answer than bad attempts at answers. By removing the short, quick, bad answers that would otherwise crowd them out, the well-researched in-depth answers (that take people time to research and write) are more likely to be seen ([see this graph for more detail](_URL_0_)). The downside to this is that we have to remove a lot of shitposts and comments wondering what happened to the removed comments. The upside is that our contributors consistently post amazing stuff to /r/AskHistorians (which we collate the best of every week in our [Sunday Digest](_URL_3_)). Alternatively, if you want to discuss history without these constraints, /r/history or /r/askhistory might be more appropriate subreddits for you than /r/AskHistorians. \n", "This is an interesting question and something that people have been wondering about for a long time. Before I can answer it, I feel like it is worth disclaiming that I am not British, in terms of national origin. I am American, was educated from elementary school through my graduate program entirely in America, so when I speak here, I am talking about what academic historians say about the American Revolution on the university level stage. I have no knowledge what schools, books, or teachers say for students beneath college level. Fortunately, since the American Revolution is something studied globally, I’ve studied historiographical debates of modern and previous historians in Britain, and I will be happy to discuss that here.\n\nOverall, the majority of historians who studied and reported on the American Revolution currently have no major conflicts with American historians who study the same time period, but this is not true for all of the last two centuries. The first person to tackle this question was British historian Richard Middleton, who conducted research and wrote about it in his article, [“British Historians and the American Revolution”](_URL_0_) . His article mainly seeks to study what early British historians said and reported on the American Revolution. I feel obligated to point out that in these early days of the discipline of academic history scholarship, being objective was not something that was desired. \n\nEarly historians, generally speaking had very little problem with letting their biases show. This drastically changed during the middle of the 20th century, as historians sought to become more objective in their study and reporting of history. It’s also worth noting that the vast majority of British scholarship in the first century and a half after the American Revolution took place was mainly focused on British perspectives; such as British politics and economics during that period. Americans, especially during the 19th century conducted a lot of history related to the biographies of the \"Founding Fathers\" and also many sub-topics within the war itself (like military history of the Continental Army). Far fewer British historians studied American perspectives on the war, such as the Continental Congress, the Founding Fathers, or the Contiental Army. \n\nMiddleton noted that many British historians were British apologists, who did side more favorably with the British Crown's decisions during the war and were very critical of the rebelling colonists. This article does a few interesting things, first it accounts for a history of early British Historians who studied the American Revolution and notes that some of the early historians from the late 18th century were in fact more favorable in their views of the rebelling colonists, but they were the minority. Historians tended to be torn between two radical positions in the U.K. One historian, Sir George Otto Trevelyan created a three-volumne account of the American Revolutionary War between 1874 and 1880. Trevelyan, a liberal, reported that the first twenty years of King George III’s reign was a period of regression for English laws and and rights. His writing reflects that the Americans were justified in overthrowing the British government, calling the Americans “law respecting people, who did not care to encroach on the privileges of others and liked still less to have their own rights invaded.’ [Middleton, 50]. This created one of the first historiographical debates in this particular field, with other men, like William Massey and William Lecky arguing for the traditional “Tory” view of the war. Where Trevelyan came down hard on royal governors and British officials in America, historians like Lecky was much more gentle on them, saying that they were just loyal men trying to fulfil their duties to the King. [Middleton 51]. Ultimtely, Middleton noted a few key differences between these earlier types of scholarship between American and British scholarship on the war:\n\n > From this study of British historians and the American Revolution, one or ore general conclusions can be drawn. In the first place, there has bee na curious dichotomy between scholars on both sides of the Atlantic as to what actually constituted the Revolution. Most British writers do not appear to consider it to be properly underway until the fateful year of 1775, while for most American writers, it was then merely a matter of dotting the ‘i’s’ and crossing the ‘t’s’ on the declaration of independence [sic]. There has also been little attempt to understand the revolt of the thirteen colonies by analysis of their social, economic, or politiocal development, lines of approach for so long popular with the American historians. [Middleton, 58]\n\nHistorians during the 20th century, especially in the post World War II era appeared to settle more soundly into the more objective approach to history. Middleton spoke also of, at the time of the publication of that article in 1971, how there was a revival of the British study of the American Revolution during his present because of the infusion of American culture, history, and politics that exploded in those preceding decades. [Middleton, 56]\nIn recent history, the vast majority of historical scholarship that has come out (at least as what I’ve seen and studied] has not conflicted with the current consensus of scholarship coming out of the United States. Some British historians, like Stanley Weintraub’s *Iron Tears* has [pointed out some differences that he sees in views of the American Revolution](_URL_1_), but nothing really seems too far out that it would conflict with what other historians would say. For instance, he shows that from the British perspective, the “taxation without representation” rallying cry of the colonists was a bit weak of an argument from the British perspective because many of the Englishmen living in England were not represented in Parliament either. (His book though more-so focuses on how the Average person in Britain felt about the war, rather than focusing on Historians studying that period).\n\nOverall, modern scholarship between historians of the United States and Britain tends to add to the historical conversation in general on this topic, rather than causing conflict between them. Historians will disagree in every field, it's why consensus does not have the same power as a fact, but there isn't anything fundamentally different between scholarship coming out of the U.K. versus what is coming out of the United States or other countries. \n\nEdit: fixed typos", "Quick preface: I see uncovered-history wrote a response while I was typing up mine. I think they complement each other nicely. \n\nWhile there are certainly still major disagreements about the American Revolution, I cannot think of any that break down primarily along those geographic/national lines. The context in which we live and our backgrounds do shape the kinds of questions we ask about history, though especially in our globalized world today, I don't see any areas in which we are talking past one another. \n\nI do think the differences in our approaches used to be more distinctive. In the mid-twentieth century, the major schools explaining the origins of the American Revolution were generally aligned with one's political sentiments. A conservative approach emerged after WWII aligning with Cold War-era thinking. Historians (for example, Richard Hofstader) argued that the Revolution was fundamentally not as a radical overthrow of the social order but instead an attempt by Americans to preserve their rights and liberties. They emphasize the democratic, literate, informed nature of Revolutionary-era Americans. \n\nHistorians in the neo-whig school disagreed and argued that the American Revolution was fundamentally a political and social upheaval generated by political ideas. The paradigmatic work in this vein would be Bernard Bailyn's *The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.* Other historians in this vein include Pauline Maier (a Bailyn student) and Gordon Wood (though I personally think Wood is a bit more liberal and writes a bit more toward consensus than the other historians in this school). \n\nThe neo-Whig approach, which focused on the political and intellectual worlds of middling and upper-class people, was challenged as the academy itself expanded and diversified in the 1970s. Historians on the left have emphasized the role of ordinary people and devoted more attention to aspects of race, class, and gender. These historians focus on economic and social explanations for the Revolution and often regard ideological or political rhetoric of the period as hollow. Instead of seeing the Revolution as a contest for independence (home rule), they see it as a question of power on the ground in America (who would rule at home). Historians in this vein include people like Jesse Lemisch, Gary Nash, Woody Holton, and Tim Breen. \n\nWhile Britain had some parallel experiences in the twentieth century, the above examples are of American scholars writing in the context of American debates and issues. (By contrast, during the mid-twentieth century, British attention on the period surrounding the American Revolution was centered around the work of Lewis Namier, a Polish-Jewish emigrant to Britain. His approach was heavily influenced by the context of the world wars, and in particular, he saw the British state as one that would never fall to absolutism. He focused on the personal biographies of individual politicians, showing how alliances shifted and how the party system was based on personal animosities, loyalties, and local issues, rather than any larger ideological positioning.)\n\nConstitutional explanations for the Revolution seem to have maintained more popularity among historians in the U.K. I don't think it's unfair for us to say that British scholars probably inherently care more about the British constitution and probably understood it better, especially in the days when early Americanists were trained solely in colonial American history. The constitutional approach was in fact an old way of explaining the conflict. (The work of Charles McIlwain in the 1920s is probably the best-known example). However, Harry Dickinson, an English historian working in Edinburgh, has been explaining the constitutional origins of the crisis since the 1970s. More recently though, prominent U.S. historians (including Jack Greene, Patrick Griffin, and Brendan McConville) have picked up on this line of thought. \n\nOne of the current trends in scholarship about the American Revolution is placing the conflict within the imperial context. Scholars on/from both sides of the Atlantic are doing this work (e.g. Stephen Conway, Andrew O'Shaughnessy, Eric Nelson, Justin Du Rivage). Advances in technology, I would argue, both in ease of travel to archives and digitization of records, have made this approach more doable in recent years. \n\nI would argue, perhaps, that perhaps one way the American and British views of the war had differed was in valuing the competence of British military strategy during the conflict. The book *The Men who Lost America* by Andrew O'Shaughnessy (a British-born scholar who's now based in the U.S.) demonstrated that we have drastically underestimated the skill of British politicians and officers in addressing the complexities of the war. I mention it as an example of how our backgrounds do influence what we see and how we approach this very well-trodden historical ground. For instance, scholarship on the place of Native people in the Revolution has been led almost entirely by scholars from the U.S. (e.g. Peter Silver, Greg Dowd), though historians working on the American Revolution in the U.K. would not deny the importance of that work. Ultimately, we are all reading one another's work, as well working, traveling, and conversing across the Atlantic. \n\n(Edit for a few typos.)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/64y44g/the_mostupvoted_comments_in_reddit_threads_arent/#", "https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6a5duv/a_statistical_analysis_of_10000_raskhistorians/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules" ], [ "http://www.jstor.org/stable/2767062", "https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4727956" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eccat7f", "ece2los" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Cells like neutrophils can leave the bloodstream to fight infections like that. Mucosal sites can also fight infection with a special antibody called IgA.", "When foreign cells like viruses are detected by local immune cells that happen to be in the area they essentially sound an alarm attracting more immune cells. At the same time they dump a bunch of substances into the local area that cause inflammation of the area. Part of this inflammatory response is that blood vessels around the site dilate and become leaky, allowing fluid through (leading to swelling) as well as immune cells from the blood into the site of the infection to get at the foreign invader.\n\nThis is just a small part of the inflammatory response your body uses to deal with invaders. In addition to a general inflammatory response, lungs in particular have their own local immune components (e.g. Immunoglobulin A) in their secretions, and other sites of the body which have a high exposure to antigens (like the gut) have their own different mechanisms of picking up and detecting as many foreign invaders as possible so as to alert the immune system when needed (e.g. Peyer's Patches)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnxubj0", "cnxuivz", "cnxvnza", "cnxwhf6", "cnxwj2c", "cnxxoml", "cnxyr1j", "cnxz6vk", "cnxzg80", "cny0508", "cny15q8", "cny27n1", "cny2myy", "cny3ed3", "cny3qqj", "cny3vb2", "cny4x48", "cny7ach" ], "score": [ 28, 13, 506, 62, 2, 10, 36, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 2, 6, 2, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "there IS a machine or procedure for replicating the experience of muscle growth, they are called \"work out equipment\" and \"gyms\". \n\nIn these places, and using these machines, you are able to artificially tear your muscles in a controlled and measured setting, specifically targeting certain muscle groups with ease. This allows you to change your physique much faster then the unorganized and un-directed muscle exertion experienced in day to day life.", "I heard a rumor that Bruce Lee used such a device. By electric induction you can force the neves that control the muscle to contract (thus causing the tears). By using paddles like a defibrillator, you can place them on your body to force a contraction of a muscle. This device I know is used by physical therapist because my cousin who is studying to be one tried it. As he explained it, the muscle created, although has mass, is not \"usable\". (Paraphrasing) This is because the neves used to contract the muscle were not done naturally, and thus the new muscle does not have a nervous system response. ", "[We have.](_URL_0_) It's very painful to have your muscles electrically stimulated to build them up though so it's not wide-spread.", "There is a gene that prevents muscles from growing too fast, this gene was turned of in belgian blue cows, and they got totally jacked._URL_0_", "Layperson here. weightlifting is exercise, you burn a ton of calories and get some cardio, just stimulating muscles wouldn't raise your heart rate much. Most importantly it's our compound and use several muscle groups, I don't see how you could simulate that with electrical therapy. Plus you get a nice dopamine rush afterwards different from most exercises. I don't see how electrostimulation or other means could make you feel so good relaxed after. Then there's practical reasons, if you were able to get a good \"workout\" from electrical stimulation or other means you wouldn't get the benefit of stronger bones and connective tissue. Lifting weights, especially heavy weights puts a load on your skeletal structure which causes it to improve bone density. I could only imagine the horror of adding 50 pounds of muscle to an average person's frame and watching their bones shatter when they try to show off. You wouldn't get the benefits in balance because you're not training stabilizer muscles, and even if you're 250 pounds of raw muscle you have the grip strength of a 90 pound middle schooler. It's a terrible idea. ", "Basic reason is because building real muscle requires the nervous system to be on board. Lifters grow muscle mass not just because of the muscle tearing, but because the CNS is training to work with and support those muscles.\n\nIf you just put on artificial muscle mass without loading your CNS, I'd imagine it's likely you'd just lose excess mass fairly quickly after you stopped (as your body wouldn't feel that it needed it).\n\nMaybe if you could stimulate the CNS - if you could force your body to contract opposing muscles (isometric exercises, perhaps) you might be able to get usable muscle along with the CNS benefits. I don't know, though, I'm no scientist.", "I'm marking this as explained. It seems, for those of you who don't wanna read every comment, that it is possible with electrical stimulation but your body would be unable to handle it for multiple reasons (nerve receptivity, bone strength, etc.) Thanks, everyone!", "You remember those electric shock things people stuck on that made their muscles flex? I'm feeling like this is what you're asking for. ", "it would be more insanely dangerous the more effective it got. powerful muscular contractions are very dangerous - they put a lot of stress on tendons, connective tissue, and bone. the body has a variety of adaptations that down-regulate your strength under conditions that might otherwise cause injury - ie poor mobility, lack of strength in antagonist muscles, etc.\n\nif you could bypass this and increase muscle strength directly, the next thing to happen would probably be 1) tearing connective tissue and/or 2) splintering off bone where the muscle connects. you would go straight to the hospital and cross your fingers that you ever regained full functionality.", "Its not true. Its bro science. Its better to stimulate the muscle without the damage because the repair is expensive. \n\n_URL_0_", "There are machines, and muscle stimulators that supposedly cause muscle growth, but none of them have shown to be as effective as actual exercise. Exercise not only causes tearing in the muscles, but also works with your nervous system and cardiovascular system, so you would need it to activate all these things without physically harming you, as those electrical stimulators do (there's only so much your nerves can take)\n\nThe real question you should be asking, is if there is a way to chemically replicate exercise, and this we actually do have. A couple of pharmaceutical companies have come up with some very promising chemicals that can do this. Since diabetes is so prevalent nowadays, it only makes sense this is where their research is directed towards. I implore you to look-up chemicals such as GW501516.", "You have to understand the benefit of working out is multifactorial. Remember the first time you lifted weights how heavy they were? But remember a wek from then you were lifting significantly more? Thats not because you got stronger, but rather you were able to tune your neural synapses into understanding how much potential is needed to lift a certain weight. This is \"muscle memory.\" Your neurons innervate your muscles, and essentially the more you work out, the stronger you build that signal. The signal will eventually max out and at this point you are actually lifting at your body's maximal potential. After this point, tearing/rebuilding is what continues to build muscle. So if you created a machine that tore muscle, it wouldn't necessarily make you stronger/faster/more agile (because the neural signal will never know how much it can truly deliver), though it might make you look beefed out (which is silly, but you can definitely get chicks). While there are muscle stimulators out there, they do not work as efficiently as a rep done by yourself. Remember that working out also increases the blood/oxygen demand, thus causing a faster heart rate which helps build good cardiovascular health. ", "For starters, we simply don't understand all the mechanisms behind muscle growth, and the one you've mentioned isn't even necessarily the most important.", "Actually Bruce Lee was quite into this idea - through electric charge stimulation. He invented his own machines to do this while he was asleep, at rest, et cetera.... ", "It's because it's a full body thing, not just the muscle. The central nervous system, the body's nutritional needs/efficiency, and testosterone levels all come into play. \n\nAnd besides, it will always be a matter of the mind. You don't get something out of nothing; thermodynamics and all that. That's just how our physical universe works. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. \n\nThe things we desire must pass through our force of will for them to manifest. ", "**First lets redefine how muscles grow.**\n\nMuscle fibers do not tear, they are more like balloons that can be inflated. Your nervous system and individual muscle fibers dictate how much they will be inflated or deflated. \n\n**Conventional muscle growth:** Muscle fibers stimulated on a regular basis will inflate with nutrients/energy. The amount they increase depends on the hormones and how well the fibers react to them. If they are not stimulated on a regular basis the fibers release the nutrients/energy and transform it into something else like fat.\n\n**Artificial muscle growth for size:** To simulate these conditions without actually putting in effort would be difficult because the mechanical movement and energy used are what drives the growth to start with.\n\nUsing an EMS (Electronic Muscle Stimulation) unit does a very specific type of exercise that is like flexing a muscle and staying still. This does help strengthen muscles for physical therapy patients that goals are for stabilization and recovery. \n\nEDIT: clarity \n\n", "Short answer we don't know how most things actually work there's always a lot of little nuances that we don't know yet little interactions are actually quite vital are simplistic version would probably fail merely because we actually don't know some of the more detailed mechanisms yet", "It's called a smith machine, and it's totally out there! " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_muscle_stimulation" ], [ "http://depletedcranium.com/belgianblue.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://daily.barbellshrugged.com/3-things-you-dont-know-about-muscle/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvycrfp", "cvyd7wn", "cvyeeat" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It depends on the species but they use one or more of three strategies to survive the winter:\n\n*Hibernation as an Adult - Females will drop their metabolic rate and survive off stored fat, usually hiding in a hole or something.\n\n*Hibernation as a Larvae - Larvae can also go into hibernation, but need to do so in water.\n\n*Winter hardy eggs - Adult females can lay winter hardy eggs in moist soil and wait for temperatures to increase and hope water arrives where the eggs were laid.\n \nELI5: they hibernate ", "Many of them die. Some hibernate, but it is mostly their eggs which survive the winter and hatch into millions of hellions. \n", "Yarr, ye forgot yer searchin' duties, for ['twas asked by those what came before ye!](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all&q=mosquitoes%20winter" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csfr5in", "csfr6kf", "csfrkuo", "csfspni" ], "score": [ 114, 21, 46, 6 ], "text": [ "I can't tell you much about the numerological implications of the number and the interpretation of Johannes, but I'm going to say something about Roman numbers that might be helpful: \n\nRoman numerals don't use positional notation, but they still represent base-10 - there are symbols for the decimal powers: I, X, C, CD (= later M) and so on, combined with symbols for half of them: V, L, D. Fun fact: the symbols for the half of the decimal powers are simply the letters chopped in half: X > V; C > L; CD > D. DCLXVI (or ΧΞϚ in Greek numerals) when spoken or written out it is *sexcentos sexaginta sex*, *hexakosioi hexekonta hex* in Ancient Greek, (sixhundred sixty six), so it loses none of that remarkableness and in fact has much to do with the number 6. In fact, it allows additional interpretations when written that way, since numbers are written with the same symbols as names are - Johannes remarks that:\n\n > ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστί, καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ\n\n\"for it is the number of a human, and his number is sixhundredsixtysix\", one interpretation being that you can reconstruct it into the name of a human.\n\nSee also /u/talondearg's answer on Greek numbers and the numerological implications. \n", "The number of the beast appears in our earliest fragment of Revelation, [the Oxyrhynchus Papyri](_URL_0_), as 616, not 666 and both numbers were used by the early church. \n\nIt is thought the numbers are derived from giving numerical values to letters, as a code, and the two different values come from the different Greek and Latin spellings of the name and title \"Nero Caesar\". \n\nAcccording to Bruce M. Metzger in *\"A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament\"*: \n\"Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616.\" \n", "To build and complement two quite good answers:\n\nThe text this is derived from is Revelation 13:18, I quote below the Greek and an English translation:\n18 ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν· ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου, ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν· καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ. \n\nHere is wisdom: let the one that has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for is a human number: and its number is 666.\n\nGreek numbers can be represented by words, as in this edition, but it was more common to use letters to symbolise them. P47 reads χ̅ξ̅ϛ̅ whereas a manuscript such as P115 reads χ̅ι̅ϛ̅. The former works out to 666, the latter to 616. Overall the textual tradition for 666 is relatively stronger than that for 616. \nMost attempts to explain the number centre on three methods: (1) That it is purely symbolic, and so should be taken just ‘as is’; (2) that it is chronological, indicating some kind of duration of the beast’s reign, (3) some use of Gematria, in which the correspondence of letters and numbers is used to represent words by the sum of their numerical equivalents.\n\nIn the case of 666, the most common attempt is to identify 666 with Nero. But this depends upon transliterating the Greek form of Nero Caesar into Hebrew and then performing the calculation with this spelling, nrôn qsr. And even this spelling is generally considered a defective form of nrôn qysr, with the letter yodh missing (which is permissible, but not well attested in Hebrew texts with the name of Caesar in them.\nYou can see that this is getting problematic: it assumes that readers, at least some readers, have knowledge of Hebrew not only Greek, and would choose both the right name to transliterate and the appropriate way to transliterate. A lot of contingencies.\n\nA host of other name possibilities, generally in Greek, have also been suggested. \n\nAnyway, I am getting a little beyond your question. In short, there was a base-10 system in use, the number would have been represented with Greek letters (and is in the earliest manuscripts), and 666 is a superior textual tradition.\n\n", "As a follow up, have humans generally used base 10? and is it for the obvious reason that we have 10 fingers?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cehjkh3", "cehjzdm" ], "score": [ 3, 5 ], "text": [ "I too am a big fan of neutrinos. Neutrinos can interact with many subatomic particles. Most of the interactions would be wither a scatter or possibly an absorption. The probability of these events happening are very small due to the small cross section. However, since there are so many neutrinos they do happen daily in our body. You would not be able to fell them. These events typically are very low energy.\n\nI have heard our eyes are able to see single photons. I don't know if that is true, but if an event were to happen in your eye and you were in a dark place like a cave, you could see the light from that reaction. Although that scenario seems unlikely. ", "When a neutrino interacts with a part of our body, it scatters off a proton or neutron in the nucleus of an atom. It will sometimes scatter elastically, causing the nucleus of the atom to recoil and the atom to become ionized. It can also scatter inelastically, producing secondary particles, such as pions, which decay to photons and muons and so on, which themselves can ionize atoms in your body. Ionizing radiation is not good for your body in large doses, but in small doses there is no danger. This very second atoms in your body are being ionized from cosmic rays and various trace radioactive elements, to a degree much larger than due to neutrinos. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cks4n6n" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Sometimes leaked but you can usually get them through the freedom of information act unless it is pending investigation or prosecution." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eo7z6m9", "eo8046t" ], "score": [ 16, 3 ], "text": [ "I hope no one minds an Eastern Orthodox deacon commenting? \n\n\nThe Churches you mention are known as the Oriental Orthodox churches, and are not, in fact, older than the Byzantine and Latin churches. In fact, they split off from the Latin and Byzantine Church during the \u0014[Council of Chalcedon](_URL_0_) over what today is considered simply a gross misunderstanding. As such, both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are working very hard to restore communion with the Orientals.\u0014 \n\n\nAs far as the theological split goes,it was about the nature of Christ.\n\n\u0014The Chalcedonian orthodox position on Christ, that both Eastern Orthodox and Latin Catholics hold, is that Christ has a human nature and a divine nature. That is to say, he is fully man, and also fully God.\n\nThink of it this way: He's not some specially anointed human, a super-prophet if you will, that just happens to be good at following God's will. He's also not just God walking among mortals, being shielded from the human experiences of temptation or suffering, overpowering evil with his mere presence. No, he's fully man - experiencing all the hardships and sorrows and doubts of human life and death. But also fully God, divine and just and merciful and all that.\n\nThe Orientals insisted that Christ has ONE nature. But, then, which one? Was he man? Or was he God? If we was man, then it makes no sense to worship him. It invalidates everything from the Nicene creed onwards. But, if he was God, then he knows nothing of what humanity is like. How could He, then, have suffered? What meaning does His passion have, and also his resurrection? It also invalidates everything, from the Nicene creed onwards.\n\nIt turns out, after so long, that the Orientals have (ahem) clarified their position. Christ is fully man and fully God. It's just that they didn't think these two aspects of him were ever in conflict. That is to say, he was never divided in opinion, the God side wanting to do one thing, and the Man side wanting to do another. So, it's not *really* one nature, it's just that t*he two natures of mankind and divinity are blended into one perfectly* (miaphysite position).\n\nThe official position today is that the old problem was really just a mistranslation and misunderstanding. Who knows, that might be true - or it may be the greatest retcon in history. I don't know. But, it has allowed both sides of the conflict to make great strides towards unity, at least on the parish level. Many of our priests will now follow a *don't ask, don't tell* policy on receiving orientals into communion because of it, and so will theirs.", "Your question is based on an incorrect premise and Diarmaid Macolluch's claim (as stated in your post) is incorrect. There oldest church is the One-Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, today with two branches (both claiming to be the original): the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church (aka the Eastern Orthodox Church). \n\nThere have been dozens of schisms and heresies in Christian history, such as Donatists and Arians, but these never became their own churches and all eventually faded or healed their schism. The only ones to do that have been the Protestants and the Oriental Orthodox, both of which are far younger than the original Catholic Churches. \n\nEthiopian Christians are most commonly Orthodox, and some would adhere to a splinter of the Orthodox Church called the Oriental Orthodox Church. /u/codesharp answered the Theological differences of the Oriental Orthodox plenty. As far as interaction, there was very little and this is part of why they remained split. The spread of the Caliphates strangled communication between Eastern Christianity and at some point the Orthodox churches were completely cut off from one another." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://books.google.nl/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=council+of+chalcedon+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq5MD3gqriAhWHDewKHWAVBZ4Q6AEIKDAA" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ciw8z2l", "ciwardw" ], "score": [ 807, 12 ], "text": [ "I'd like to point to [this post I made a few days ago](_URL_0_) for reference.\n\nNotably this bit: \n\n > All men between the ages of 18 and 25 were to be forcibly conscripted for military service -- all men. Men into their 30's would also regularly volunteer or be called upon as well though. If you were fighting your first few years in the military would be one of utter disorganization and panic. Revolutionary hype would be ripe and you and your comrades would feel it. Any officers living a little too luxuriously? Mob them and send them to the guillotine. Your NCO being a little too harsh on you and your mates? That doesn't sound like liberty or fraternity, I don't like being drilled! You'd probably be part of a mob that killed him or stripped him of his power. It is very likely you would be witness or a participant in the murder of an individual whose only crime was being a bit rich, an aristocratic heritage, or was being a bit too strict with you. \n\n > Where you fought doesn't really matter, your life would be hell. Supply issues were rampant as the Royal Armies rather sophisticated supply system would be sacked entirely for being part of the old system. A new administrative service would be created which had a semi-independent status, its *commissaires-ordonnateurs* only responsible to the Republic itself and not the commanders it served. These men, responsible for collecting, storing, preparing, and issuing foodstuffs and clothing along with disbursing money were filled with endless opportunities of larceny. Supplies and cash would frequently vanish before reaching the troops going into the pockets of Revolutionary leaders in Paris. Vincentius Zahn, a pastor in Hinterzarten, watched a French army pass through in 1796 which would be about when the supply issue began to stabilize. So this is the best case scenario you're about to read:\n\n > > One did not see [compared to the Austrian army] so many wagons or so much baggage, such elegant cavalry, or any infantry officers on horseback below the grade of major. [Austrian infantry lieutenants had their own mounts] Everything about these Frenchman was supple and light -- movements, clothing, arms, and baggage, In their ranks marched boys of fourteen and fifteen; the greater part of their infantry was without uniforms, shoes, money, and apparently lacking all organization, if one were to judge by appearances alone. . . These French resembled a savage horde [but] they kept good order, only some marauders who followed the army at a distance . . . terrified the inhabitants.\n\n > You had no shoes most certainly. The Directory in '95 had to pass a special order just to give all the Officers their own shoes and even that wasn't filled out entirely. Your uniform was nonexistent as is mentioned but just a loose collection of tattered blue or white with the French tricolor somewhere on it if you could manage. You had no regular supply of food from the country itself but had to survive off of war. Most early campaigns you would fight in would not be explicit offensives but 'liberating' nearby towns across the Rhine or in North Italy for supplies. Soldiers had no issue foraging on their own French lands as well. If you were a conscript you would most likely abandon your men while marching through familiar land. Many Divisions would lose half their men on extended marches through attrition and desertion alone. \n\n > Artillery and cavalry was restricted mostly to pre-war soldiers who had the training and knowledge to perform those duties. If you were conscripted you were almost certainly put into one of two areas -- light infantry or regular infantry. *Tirailleur* and *Fusilier* respectively. Assuming you did not desert after being thrown into one of these two sections you would get two very separate combat experiences. The post-Revolutionary army was very fond of skirmisher forces for some inexplicable reason. I say that mainly because inexperienced troops are very poor skirmishers. They generally aren't crack shots and flee at the slightest sign of trouble. Yet whole battalions were frequently deployed as entirely skirmishers, a tactic dubbed *\"tirailleur en grandes bandes.\"* If you were part of a skirmisher force you would likely not be thrown directly into the fray. You would be sent on small scale raiding 'missions' with a small number of other skirmisher comrades and an officer as a sort of training exercise. You would raid storage caches or small villages so that you would get used to being under fire in a more controlled environment for your officer to control you. As you would go into battle against a formal Austrian, British, Italian or Prussian army your duty would be constant harassment. \n\n > If you were thrown into the fusiliers you would be heavily drilled about formation. The common trope about Napoleonic warfare are two sides standing in line formation staring each other down 50-100 yards apart and shooting at each other. This is a shitty strategy for the French, pardon my French. Line formation is inefficient for untrained conscripts because, like a phalanx, it requires holding formation and firing in concert -- two things conscripts will not be capable of doing on a few weeks of training under heavy fire. The French military doctrine of this time was one of constant attack -- always being on the offensive. It was the only way they would abuse their manpower advantage. You would be organized into a column of just a few men wide and dozens of men deep. You likely would not fire your weapon once or just once in a battle, as you were charging at full sprint into the enemy line. That is what the column provided -- it gave depth to the line, did not require a lot of organization, and was only used as a formality to charge into shattered and notably *thin* lines of the enemy. British, Austrian, Italian and Prussian troops were professional armies and would fight in that line formation. It would not stand up to constant column charges. \n\n > How would a normal battle go? Well, again, it depended on your position in the army. Again you were most certainly in the infantry if you were just a farmer. Let's imagine it from the enemies shoes. Swarms of skirmishers would begin to envelop your tight, strictly dressed formations firing from cover in completely disorderly formations. When I say swarm, we're talking 2:1 or 3:1 ratios at times. If you stand still, you will be continuously picked off. If you try to fire on them, you will only hit a few as they were extremely scattered. If you tried to charge them they would drift away, still shooting, and follow you when you try to fall back into your strictly disciplined line. \n\n > Eventually your line would be in tatters you, a Brit or Austrian alike, would look up across the horizon. Out of the smoke comes a howling, trampling, massive rush of thousands of men with bayonets extended with the weight of 12 men against every yard of your exhausted line (which were only 3 deep when it all began). Your professional, organized, and chivalrous armies would try their best but they would keep running into issues. A French NCO who was completely outnumbered and outmaneuvered that just failed to recognize his hopeless situation and charged anyway, killing thousands in a last stand. Inexperienced French officers who would show a shocking disregard of accepted military strategy and turn every engagement into a mindless, all out slugfest where fancy tactics and strategy of the non-Revolutionary sides meant nothing and would buckle under the weight of thousands of Frenchmen bearing down on them.\n\n > Back to the French perspective. Let's say, somehow, you survive all of this. It's not unreasonable, many did. You did not get poked with a bayonet or shot in a charge or desert your men or didn't get caught hoarding anything. You survived the '90's into 1799 when the Directory would fall. A hundred battles would harrow you. You would time and time again throw the English and Austrians back in particular. What many tens of thousands died of combat many more would die of your governments incompetence. The patriotic enthusiasm you held in '91 seemed immature and stupid to the ragged veterans of 1799. The bands would play the patriotic airs of those first years of revolution -- *Chant du Départ*, *Ah ça Ira*, and the *Marseillaise*. \n\n > The bands would play and you would sing, but they would mean nothing to you. You were a professional soldier in a professional army now. You, who fought out of pride and comradeship in '91 had spent the last decade learning to loot and murder to survive and would hold little reverence for any person or any idea and especially for that damn Revolution. Your Generals would be a wolf-breed, disrespectful of authority and independent minded. All of you, officers and men together, were survivors. Men of steel, toughened to all the hardship and conditions of the worst wars in history up to that point, thoroughly fed up with the *gros-ventres* -- big bellies -- of the Revolutionary government in Paris who had used and abused you. You had won dozens of victories and thrown the entirety of Europe onto its backfoot but you had no peace, no shoes, and not a square meal in nearly 10 years. It was this army that would make Napoleon Bonaparte First Consul at the beginning of the 19th century. And this army was comprised of you, dangerous metal which would be forged into the Grand Armée -- the greatest military force the world would ever see.\n\nBasically, if I had to make a **tl;dr** of it all? The Revolutionary Armies early on would conscript basically everyone and the more professional, more 'efficient' European armies would simply be overwhelmed. Maneuver and tactics went out the window when you have 3x as many people swarming down on you all shooting wildly into your formation and charging into you, disregarding all casualties. Sheer force of numbers would push the primarily Austrians and British back and allow the French to get early territorial gains in the 1792-1797 First Coalition War. \n\nBy the time of the Second Coalition War between 1798-1802, the goal was not to reinstate the Monarchy but to just at least contain the French from taking more land and at best taking back some of what they gained. Despite getting many early victories with the help of the Russians, they would eventually back out and the British and Austrians primarily would face the reality -- Napoleon was now in charge and was the military genius he is. At his feet lay a military which had been fighting for a decade straight, easily the most experienced and battle hardened group in Europe. As the rest of Europe was playing catch up with the idea of mass conscripted armies, France had perfected it over the past decade of failure and death and had a horrifying combination -- an experienced conscript army led by arguably the most talented general in history. This would allow them to wage multiple wars of aggression throughout the early 19th century and convincingly win them and conquer most of Europe.\n\n----\n\nNotes:\n\nElting, John, *\"Swords Around a Throne: Napoleons Grand Armee\"*\n\nRothenberg, Gunther, *\"The Napoleonic Wars\"*", "If all men into their 30's were fighting, wouldn't that cause a catastrophic drop in births?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29tqot/say_im_a_farmer_in_1791_france_and_the_revolution/ciolxd6?context=3" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlfy35n" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It might just be regional, because I only know a couple of people who *don't* use Facebook. Facebook chat seems like the primary method of communication for a lot of people, or is at least tied with texting. I also see a lot of people and organizations using Facebook for planning events. I work in advertising and a lot of my clients also have Facebook pages for promoting their brands.\n\nGranted, I don't have any hard numbers to back that up so my experience is equally anecdotal, but it doesn't seem like Facebook is in any trouble." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cingjud", "cinhefg", "cinip8u" ], "score": [ 16, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "You start storing waste underground and you need to be damn sure there's no groundwater movement that can leach waste into drinking water. That is not possible in the vast majority of mine systems as the geology which accompanies coal formation trends to be fractured and porous. ", "On top of the good answer provided by /u/OrbitalPete, much of our rubbish comprises organic materials, such as waste food. Over time, as it decays, organic material releases a number of gases including methane. If this were to happen in a deep underground chamber the methane could build up to high concentrations, and then if a stray spark were to happen (say when someone threw the next load of rubbish down the pit) a huge and potentially devastating explosion could occur.", "Yes, the water thing.\n\nBut you're not replacing one pollutant with another. Coal itself is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, sulfur, etc is the pollutant that's in the smoke of coal when burned.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci2mqvz" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and velocity are relative to an observers point of view, or reference frame. His special theory is called such because it deals only with inertia reference frames which are reference frames that have no acceleration or change in gravitational potential. His general theory takes into account acceleration and gravity.\n\nSpecial relativity is fairly easy to understand as the highest level math you need is Pythagoras's theorem. General relativity is a lot more complex math and not ELI5 friendly.\n\nSpecial relativity has two postulates, that the speed of light is constant and that the laws of physics don't change between reference frames. Both of these have been proven true. Using this, Einstein showed that moving observers actually have their time dilation and their length in the direction of motion contracted.\n\nSo lets talk about time dilation first. Imagine a clock that works by bouncing a photon between two mirrors. We the know the speed of light and we can measure the distance between the mirrors, this means the time it takes for the photon to bounce is easily calculated. Now what if we have that clock moving at a constant speed? Well the path we see the light take is not longer straight up and down, it's [slanted](_URL_2_). Since the light takes a longer path and the speed of the light is unchanged, this means that it takes a longer amount of time to bounce between the two mirrors. Viola, moving objects experience slower time. An important thing to note, because every observe is stationary in their own reference frame, every observer will see everything else as being dilated instead of themselves.\nSo if you're moving, you only experience slower time from someone else's point of view. However, you also see them as experiencing slower time, because to you they appear to be moving.\n\nNow lets move on to length contraction. This one is a tricky one to explain. It relies on how length is measured correctly. Basically, in order to correctly measure the length of an object, you have to know the position of both its ends at the same time. This isn't too hard to do, but if an observer moving past you saw you do this they would think you messed up. Imagine you have a rod, and you have two friends at either end. You walk to a point equidistant to them and tell them to record their position at the moment they see you flash a light. Since you're equidistant, the light will reach them at the same time. However, to the moving observer the light won't reach your friends at the same time. They won't be synchronized and they'll see you as getting an incorrect measurement.\n\nThis leads to one of the last consequences of special relativity, the simultaneity of relativity. Because moving observers disagree on the timing and lengths of things, no two clocks can be synchronized in different reference frames.\n\n[Minute Physics](_URL_1_) gives a **very** basic overview.\n\n[Doc Physics](_URL_5_) gives a lengthy intro to SR.\n\n[Sixty Symbols](_URL_0_) on length contraction.\n\nGeneral Relativity is a lot more complex. You need a very good understanding of Calculus, Differential Equations, and Multilinear Algebra to actually do the math behind it. But the gist of it is that a change in gravitational potential and acceleration are essentially the same thing and have the same effects. It also states that objects with mass curve space-time around them. This means that the force of gravity objects feel is actually them just following the curvature of space-time around them. This can lead to a whole bunch of wacky effects like gravitational time dilation, gravitational redshirting, and black holes.\n\n[Gravity Visualized](_URL_4_)\n\n[Sixty Symbols](_URL_3_) on Special and General Relativity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGsbBw1I0Rg", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajhFNcUTJI0", "http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/figures/light_clock_anim_2.gif", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScAeYKWf3qU", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVVFlWD2LHk" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dej0rcg", "dej1jri", "dej1ufx" ], "score": [ 16, 4, 7 ], "text": [ "A lot has to do with where and when your injured.\n\nActive duty and in combat: If it's sever enough you'll go to Walter Reed, otherwise you'll be in a different military hospital, some excellent, some okay, and some barely passable (just like any large dispersed group). \n\nNo longer active duty but with service related injuries, you go to the VA.\n\nNow imagine the differences in both numbers of patients and age/health of those patients. Military hospitals will generally see younger people with acute issues (broken leg, arm blown off, a cough, etc.) Where as VA hospitals will see older parents with chronic conditions. Plus there are millions more veterans then active duty service members. It's not a surprise the VA has issues since they are almost always underfunded and over worked.", "It also may have to do with the fact that Walter Reed is where the Senators/Representatives go for care, so of course the standard of care is going to be higher based on who the patient base is. ", " > awful horrible care a VA hospitals\n\nThe VA provides comparable or superior care compared to non-VA entities in most domains.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nIf you google \"outcomes of VA care\" you can find other articles and studies about the topic. This idea that VA hospitals are shitty and provide poor care is largely a myth. Many of them are old and look like shit, but the care they provide is usually comparable to non-VA care." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160209121532.htm", "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838151/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7ez9mz", "c7f38pb" ], "score": [ 29, 14 ], "text": [ "It's cold enough, but there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. You can't look at the sublimination point at 1 atm because the partial pressure of CO2 is much lower. The low partial pressure of carbon dioxide would cause it to subliminate in this environment--some molecules are freezing out, but at the same time others are sublimating and there is no accumulation.", "atomfullerene covered your main question, but I'll add that phase transitions are pressure dependent, and carbon dioxide can't exist as a liquid at atmospheric pressure.\n\n[Phase diagram](_URL_0_)\n\nNote that the liquid area is entirely above 5.11 atmospheres. At 1 atmosphere, it transitions directly from solid to gas... This is why it's called dry ice." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/co2_phase_diagram.gif" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv2w0r6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "An API is a defined way for one person's code to interact with another person's code. \"Web API\" means an API that uses the standard systems of the world wide web to interact with each other. For example, you can see reddit's API documentation [here](_URL_0_). It's a list of web addresses you can go to and give certain information, and reddit will respond with the information you're asking about." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/dev/api" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ewr7j3d" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Quite a lot has been published and I'll list some papers below which will be of interest to you but essentially, everything comes down to a chemical equilibrium between carbonate and calcium^i ions on one side, and calcium carbonate (limestone), water, and CO2 on the other (e.g. see [here](_URL_0_)). What this means is that to maximise the rate at which we're producing limestone, you want to maximise the concentration of the reactants (carbonate and calcium ions) in your water, and minimise the amount of carbon dioxide (by increasing the rate at which it degasses).\n\nThis last point is important - you do not want to be using an airtight container because this will allow CO2 to accumulate within the chamber. The rate at which CO2 outgasses from your water depends on the CO2 concentration in the air, which means if CO2 is allowed to build up within the chamber, you are throttling the rate at which CO2 can outgas and hence your speleothem (the technical term for a carbonate structure that grows in a cave) growth rate. \n\nWhen you are preparing the water the speleothem will precipitate from however, you want the opposite to be true - rather than getting CO2 to outgas, you want to get as much CO2 in it as possible. We can use this information to understand why natural speleothems grow in caves (as opposed to random voids in rock^(ii)) in the first place. Respiring organisms in soil release lots of CO2, which dissolves in groundwater to form water high in CO2 (which reacts with the water in further equilibrium reactions to form carbonate and bicarbonate ions). This water is acidic, and is therefore able to dissolve calcium^i containing rocks, providing the source of calcium ions for carbonate precipitation. However, because the CO2 concentration within the soil is so high, rapid carbonate precipitation does not occur. It is only when this water finds its way into a cave, which is ventilated by air from outside so is able to maintain a comparatively low CO2 concentration, that CO2 is able to outgas from the groundwater. This triggers CO2 concentration. \n\nIn terms of how to maximise your artificial speleothem growth rate therefore, you want to get as much carbonate and calcium ions in your source water (for instance by dissolving calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide under high CO2 conditions). You then probably want to maintain a relatively high drip rate (to maximise the ion delivery to your 'cave') but maintain a low CO2 concentration within the 'cave' to encourage carbonate precipitation. \n\nThere are also a number of other factors that affect speleothem growth rate, for which I would suggest you have a read through some of the following papers:\n\nGenty _et al.,_ 2001. _ Intra- and inter-annual growth rate of modern stalagmites_\n\nDreybrodt 1999. _Chemical kinetics, speleothem growth and climate_\n\nBanner _et al.,_ 2007. _Seasonal Variations in Modern Speleothem Calcite Growth in Central Texas, U.S.A._\n\n^i This works for certain other elements as well such as magnesium, but here I'll stick to calcium for simplicity.\n\n^ii Although this also happens." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speleothem" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5x8pgl", "c5xey56" ], "score": [ 3, 6 ], "text": [ "Soldier and amateur military historian here. \n\nFirst we need to talk about load type. Depending on the time frame of resupply and mission. They break down in the following:\n\nFighting Load- Everything a soldier needs as mission essential to enter combat. It is the bare minimum of gear including personal protective equipment, first aid kit, weapon, ammo, water, web gear, and worn clothing. \n\nCombat Load- includes other mission essential gear that can be dropped upon contact with the enemy. This includes extra water, food, and ammo along with some cold and wet weather gear.\n\nThen there is a Sustainment Load, which is what you'd expect to carry long term (3-5 days) on expended ops. Things like portable shelter, change of clothing, personal effects and so forth. \n\nTo do a real basic comparison it might be best to compare what was carried in the fighting load in Normandy vs my experience in Iraq 2003 vs Afghanistan 2011. \n\nA soldier's fighting load at Normandy might include:\n\nM1 Rifle, 80 rounds of .30-06 ball, 2 hand grenades, 1 mine, cartridge belt, bayonet, canteen w/ carrier, helmet, gas mask w/carrier, first aid kit.\n\nIn the invasion of Iraq I carried the following: M16A2 Rifle, 210 rounds of 5.56mm ball and tracer, 7 magazines, Interceptor body armor, fighting load carrier (harness that carries magazine, grenade, and canteen pouches), 2 canteens, 1 grenade, gas mask with carrier, first aid kit, night vision goggles, dust goggles, neck gaiter, ear plugs, camel back, kevlar helmet, and uniform (boots, socks, underwear, undershirt, shirt, trousers). \n\nThis is a fairly straight forward evolution, with the biggest changes being the materials of the equipment becoming more advance, the kevlar vest and helmet, and the night vision equipment. Sometime in the intervening 8 years since I went to Iraq the Defense Department and American public began placing a premium on the protect of our personnel. Most of the equipment I took outside the wire in Afghanistan was to keep me safe. In addition material advances were considerable in the nearly complete decade. Things were made of even more advance materials, and things began to interface as complete systems. It breaks down as follows:\n\nM4A1 rifle (with rail mounting system), 210 rounds of M855A1 enhanced performance round, 7 advance M4/16 magazines, a close combat optic attached to rifle, Improved Outer Tactical Vest (body armor), E-SAPI plates (ceramic protective plates to cover front, back and sides), Advance Combat Helmet w/ protect neck nape and night vision mount, eye protection (ballistic sun glasses), individual first aid kit, tornequet, combat gloves, ammo pouches, theater specific fire retardant uniform (boots, socks, undergarments, trousers, combat shirt), night vision equipment, camel back and squad radio.\n\nedit: Basically the modern soldier still carries all the equivalent equipment as our WW2 counterparts. Those pieces of equipment have evolved to be made of more advance materials that are either tougher, water or fire resistant, lighter, or modular. A smaller portion of equipment would have been too bulky to carry back then (eg pushing radios down to the lowest echelons, rifle optics, and night vision equipment). Most of the new stuff that we carry now is related to personnel protective equipment because who wants to die? This equipment is the heaviest and most expensive portion of individual equipment, excluding weapons. I know of hand that the list price of the IOTV with plates is around $2,500. The ballistic sun glasses are around a hundred. All this protection is expensive, but pays off.\n ", "Right...a lot of this has been covered already in this thread, but I'll add what I know.\n\nBy \"average infantry[man]\" I'm going to guess that you're referring to a standard enlisted rifleman. Since the American aspect has been dealt with, I'm going to talk about the evolution of arms and equipment for the two most influential military bodies post-World War II: NATO and the Warsaw Pact.\n\nA caveat before I begin: I know the graphic of which you speak, and the one thing it doesn't account for is inflation. That's the important thing here - even though the cost seems to have gone up dramatically in the last 70 years, in adjusted dollar amounts the growth isn't nearly so dramatic.\n\nNow, to understand the ballooning expenses of equipping the average rifleman in modern militaries, we have to examine the reasons for which their equipment was changed in the first place. So let's go back to World War II, or specifically 1942. This year is critical for the way modern infantry is equipped, for two reasons: the M1 Garand becomes standardized as the US primary infantry weapon, and the MG42 is put into production. On the surface these don't seem like big events, but looks can be deceiving.\n\nThe M1 Garand, built by Mr. John Garand of Quebec, Canada, was actually adopted by the US Army in 1936 as their standard weapon, but American isolationism meant that many units hadn't actually been equipped with this rifle by the outbreak of war in 1941. The branch who got the shortest end of this stick was, as ever, the Marines, who were fighting as late as the summer of 1942 on Guadalcanal with M1903 Springfield rifles which, while excellent, were still slow-firing bolt-action rifles, just like those of the rest of the world.\n\nNow, hold on, if the rest of the world was using these, what's the importance of changing to a new type of firearm?\n\nThe truth is, the M1 Garand was a kind of rifle unseen by the rest of the world: it was *semi-automatic*, which meant that every time you pulled the trigger a round would come out the end, and you could pull that trigger up to eight times before ever having to move either hand to reload. This was a huge advantage over the pull-trigger-grab-bolt-handle-work-bolt-close-bolt-replace-hand-pull-trigger tedium of a bolt action rifle. George S. Patton himself called the M1 Garand \"the greatest battle implement ever devised by man\". To get a sense of how much of an advantage this rifle provided, go watch the ultimate battle of *Saving Private Ryan*. You'll notice that Captain Miller's troops are able to fire a relatively huge amount of rounds as opposed to the Germans, an advantage not to be taken lightly. In fact, the other Great Powers of the war saw this, and by 1943/44 the Soviets and Germans had semi-auto rifles of their own (the G43 and SVT-40). This race for firing speed becomes important in a moment.\n\nThe MG42, on the other hand, is widely considered to be the first \"general purpose machine gun\", or GPMG. These weapons form the backbone of modern infantry formations, but in 1942 they were unheard of. Many nations still relied on water cooled machine guns, which required a team of anywhere from 3-5 men to move and set up, and generally they were pretty unwieldy. Some nations had air cooled machine guns, but these tended to overheat or jam a lot. And then the Germans developed a reliable, but more complicated roller-lock mechanism. This system still forms the basis of many modern weapons, but, as you might guess, it's a hell of a lot more precise and involved than your average bolt-action of the period.\n\nBack to the race in weapons. At the end of World War II, there were really only three nations left in the arms manufacturing business: Britain, the US, and the USSR. And all of them had captured obscene quantities of German technology, and with that came the brass of each nation dreaming of what kind of applications these crazy-Nazi-science prototypes could have. In particular, two weapons were of keen interest to these men: the Fallschirmjagergewehr 42 (FG42) and Sturmtruppengewehr 44 (StG 44). The former was complicated to the point of ostentation, but the latter was quite interesting, primarily because the Germans had, towards the end, cracked the secret of the modern assault rifle: a medium-sized round fed by detachable magazine into a select-fire receiver.\n\nExplaining how far ahead of its time this weapon was is kind of like comparing a Walkman to an iPod: they serve the same basic function, but one is so much more compact and so much more efficient and just so much *better* that nobody ever wants to go back to the old one (hipsters excluded). And this is precisely what happens. By the late 1940s both sides have experimented with the old style of battle rifles with new models: Britain tries one last update in the hopes of reviving its venerable Lee-Enfield, the USSR adopts the SKS, and the US continues with the M1. But this just isn't enough, and in 1947 the Soviets change the game with the AK-47. NATO panics and rushes their new rifle into service; a roughly similar weapon to the Kalashnikov, the FN FAL. Both these rifles are developed fully by 1950, but both take as long as 1955 to be adopted by their developer nations and as long as the 60s for everyone else in their respective spheres of influence to catch on. Only the US resists the trend, sticking with the M14 - essentially an upgraded M1 - until the height of the Vietnam War in the late 60s.\n\nBut even though expenses rack up on these new rifles, the cost isn't actually drastically higher than it was for the World War II era versions. Where equipment gets expensive is in the new essential equipment for Western infantrymen: body armor.\n\nIt's good to note that the Soviets never really liked the idea of body armor. They continued to equip their troops with basically a WWII-style loadout: helmet, rifle, clothes, pack, shovel, etc. Their per-head cost for the infantry was never that much, but then again they had so many people to throw headlong into a war that they didn't really care about survivability of single combatants. NATO did *not* have this luxury: it was pretty well realized by the 70s and 80s that if war ever broke out with the USSR, the Red Army was going to come down on East Germany like a steam roller, and that stopping them would require Allied forces on the ground to hold together longer than seemed humanly possible on an equal playing field. So NATO changed the odds and began relying on what we now call the \"force-multiplier\". This involved increasing both the survivability of individual men and giving them access to ungodly amounts of firepower, namely in the form of fire support.\n\nBy the time of the Vietnam War, the US Army was investing huge amounts of money into developing technologies like Kevlar and in giving radios to units as small as squads and platoons. It's a small wonder that one of the symbols of the Vietnam War is the napalm strike: units as small as a dozen men now had thousands of pounds of high explosives on call, along with their own personal claymore mines, rifles, sidearms (which is a fancy term for pistols or submachine guns), and assorted other items. Special forces were just starting to get access to early forms of night vision. This trend of giving infantrymen eyes and fists in the sky much larger than his own has been steadily increasing for many years, and coupled with the modern necessities that are protective gear like kevlar helmets and body armor, it is probably one of the largest contributions to increased spending per capita for our riflemen.\n\nNow, all that being said, it's probably good to note that you shouldn't trust everything you see on the internet. Even though we do spend more on infantry today than we did three-quarters of a century ago, the real costs in our military are in tanks and aircraft and helicopters and ships and, most of all, maintenance. Good God, most people have no idea how much time and money this last bit really takes. But because military balance sheets aren't public knowledge, we tend to misallocate costs into areas where we only suspect money is going, and this leads to the wildly discrepant figures one finds from a wide variety of sources regarding current military spending. Perhaps we shouldn't try speculating on things on which our frame of reference is quite limited, hmm?\n\nThis is a very Coles notes version, and I've mostly covered rifles, but feel free to ask about anything else regarding this subject you might be inquiring about.\n\nSources: Far too much time reading about the development of modern military equipment." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "egj8yfd", "egk1dl6" ], "score": [ 6, 8 ], "text": [ "The expanding Earth or growing Earth hypothesis asserts that the position and relative movement of continents is at least partially due to the volume of Earth increasing. Conversely, geophysical global cooling was the hypothesis that various features could be explained by Earth contracting.\n\nAlthough it was suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any significant expansion or contraction of Earth.", "The idea that the Earth was expanding (or contracting) as an explanation for common geologic features (e.g. mountain ranges, ocean basins, etc) was abandoned once plate tectonics was developed and provided a more consistent set of explanations that were better supported by data. In the modern, with a variety of tools like GPS, very long baseline interferometry and others, we can directly measure the shape of the Earth and [say with relative certainty that it is neither expanding or contracting](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL047450" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crb8z2s" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Well, to quote Kipling: \"There is no discharge in the war!\"\nYou didn't go on deployment in the Wehrmacht, you were entitled to, under the best of circumstances, two weeks of leave twice a year (for the Field Army/ combat troops) or once a year (for the Replacement Army/reserves, garrison personnel and other non-combat elements) respectively. Other than that, you served until you were either dead or physically/mentally incapable of performing both, front line(KV) and garrison(GV) duties.\n\nThere were, however, a lot of caveats:\nThere was a certain amount of travel time calculated and added (two days from Russia to western Germany in 1941), but depending on the unpredictable nature of reasons for transportation delays, that time wasn't always enough. So depending on where you were from (leave was always to your home region where you had to \"report in\" once you arrived), where your unit was deployed, and how the transport situation was (overcrowded trains [transportation towards the front had priority over anything going in the other direction], no available ships, delays due to partisan activity and air raids), you might have considerably less time at home. you could also be recalled early, though that was a measure the regime tried to avoid at pretty much all costs, as it was seen as potentially damaging morale not only of the soldiers, but also on the \"homefront\".\n\nextra vacation time of varying length was given for a host of reasons, among them: \n\n* aditional recuperation time from injury/sickness/wounds\n* getting promoted/ receiving an award/ exceptionally good conduct\n* family emergency at home (mostly the really bad stuff - deaths, family bombed out, etc.)\n* reassignment to a new unit/billet\n\nall this, of course, operational situation permitting and at the discretion of you superiors - usually your company command.\n\nas there was extra vacation time, there were also, of course, blanket cancellations of leave for all units for a fixed time (Urlaubssperre). Almost exclusively for operational reasons, this could result in entire army groups/corps' not getting any leave for well over a year. Oftentimes, this coincided with a general news blackout (Nachrichtensperre), which meant that on top of your leave and rest time being cancelled, there was also no mail to be sent or received.\n\nThat covers actual leave (Fronturlaub/Heimaturlaub). A different beast entirely was the time spent away from front line duty, either with the unit (refreshment/refitting/training/deployment to a different theater of operations etc.) or individually (assignment to a different unit, hospital and recuperation time, time-limited teaching assignments and so on). \n\nGenerally, leave was granted liberally and fairly (those who had been without leave the longest would be the next to go on leave), whenever the operational situation permitted it, chiefly for reasons of morale both at home and among the troops. If you didn't fall afoul of the system (revokation of leave was a popular form of non-judicial punishment), and were exceptionally unlucky with your unit/travel situation, you'd seldomly see less than three weeks of accumulated leave time per year, at least until the war started truly turning for Germany - around, say, 1942 or so. Please note that this last number is an educated guess - I've never come across a definitive number, it is my best estimate deduced from a knowledge of the various variables mentioned above and a lot of reading. In the end, it all very much depends on the unit and individual soldier in question. The 4th Panzer Division, just to provide an example, only saw 5 1/2 official rest days on the Eastern Front between June 1941 and March 1942, and the majority of their personnell hadn't been on leave since fall/winter of 1940. At times severe performance issues due to simple burn-out of even the most tried and tested troops were a common theme for combat commanders, especially on the Eastern Front.\n\nSources:\n\nLots of bits and pieces from all kinds of primary and secondary sources, but especially:\n\nC. Hartmann: *Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg*\nK. Richer: *Kavallerie der Wehrmacht*\nM. van Creveld: *Kampfkraft*" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1883092/" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "esy8069", "esy8d75", "esycwsz" ], "score": [ 16, 6, 13 ], "text": [ "Because there are still secret aspects of the file that cannot be revealed to the public. A file doesn't have to be 100% declassified to be \"declassified\", if that makes sense - it just means that it has to go through the process of being cleared for public release.", "They want you to know about it, but not some of the details. Most are under the reason of national security.\n\nThat's like \"we have nukes, the secret code is > !0000! < .\"", "When a document is \"declassified,\" it means, \"we've taken everything out of it that is still classified as secret.\" When a document is declared \"unclassified,\" it means, \"nothing in here is classified as secret.\"\n\nClassification isn't always \"yes/no\" thing in the US; there are many grades of it, and an individual document can contain many pieces of information that are classified different ways. The Freedom of Information Act, which governs a lot of declassification activity, basically says that, in principle, government agencies should release as much information as possible, so in a document where there are things that can be released, they ought to be released even if other parts have to be held back. In practice this is often left to the discretion of individual agencies or reviewers." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dj4ekpx", "dj4j05t" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "This is going to get removed but here it is:\n\nFiber is the key. Fiber and water. You have to poop a lot. That's it.", "Its a cumulative effect. Testosterone loss is a huge cause of weight gain and the ability to lose weight. \r\rHowever old age in general is also a cause. Your metabolism slows down, hormones drop, life habits (like constant stress) begin hitting you harder than ever, and if you didn't have established muscle (aka old man muscle) its extremely hard to get it set in due to the slower processes. In essence, you have to work twice as hard to get half the effect. Things to help are hormone boosters, specialized diets, and *constant* work." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxkaafx" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "_URL_0_\n\n > Despite seeming to converge at a point, the rays are in fact near-parallel shafts of sunlight, and their apparent convergence is a perspective effect (similar, for example, to the way that parallel railway lines seem to converge at a point in the distance)." ] }

[]

[ "https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5482/11801850965_05aa00e2a5_b.jpg", "http://www.carpelux.net/sites/www.carpelux.net/files/images/_IGP9942.jpg", "http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/25/17/enhanced-buzz-24705-1303768458-0.jpg" ]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8hbzwa", "c8hcfgy", "c8hcgj8", "c8hckqt" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 4, 6 ], "text": [ "They sell it to people who don't know it is in public domain or don't know where to find it for free.", " > Does making something into an e-book cost a lot of money even though it is already available online?\n\nYes, is the short answer.\n\nIt's kind of like asking why you get charged for the water that comes out of your tap when it literally falls freely from the sky. The answer in both cases is that getting it into the form you want and delivering it to you in a convenient way takes *work.*", "If somebody is willing to pay for something, someone else is willing to sell it. Often publishers will take books that have passed into the public domain and reformat it with a nice font (or digitize it into an ebook), add an introduction into the front by someone other than the author and then sell it.\nI imagine most people who purchase these classics don't know about project gutenberg, but I'm also sure there is a number of people who don't care and would rather spend the $4.00 than go through the small hassle of downloading through Gutenberg. People will pay premiums for speed and convenience. ", "If a work is public domain, anyone can take it and charge money for it. Night of the Living Dead is a good example. It's public domain work now, anyone can make a DVD of it and sell it in stores. \n\nMost free public domain ebooks are actually scanned and distrusted by volunteers who feel the work should accessible for free for everyone. A larger company may see the same book and charge for it because of a variety of reasons. Maybe their edition has some editorials. Maybe it's got pictures and diagrams. Or maybe they just figure that if they charge for it, someone will buy it even if there's a free version.\n\nThe interesting thing about public domain work is that you can buy a copy and then distribute it yourself. Completely legal." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1695", "https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=-Y9q3j81KcUC" ]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cltocel" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Snakes share a common ancestor with modern lizards, which was a legged lizard. Apparently some species actually benefitted from losing their legs, which is where natural selection comes in.\n\n[Certain modern lizards](_URL_0_) provide good example of what the intermediates must've looked like. These species have already switched to \"snake locomotion\" while still retaining tiny vestigial legs\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://imgur.com/Jw8xDNH" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci6afqu", "ci6btpu", "ci6cwg2", "ci6d17i", "ci6ddiq", "ci6dows", "ci6erwy", "ci6fahe", "ci6gk6v", "ci6i10i", "ci6j475", "ci6jdsg", "ci6kkk5", "ci6mzxq", "ci6o25v", "ci6oamj", "ci6pixb", "ci75osy" ], "score": [ 465, 10, 6, 10, 300, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 2, 3, 8, 4 ], "text": [ "A popular model of motivation requires two things: an incentive (something of value), and the belief that you will get that thing. So, what is going on in your brain is an appraisal of value (I want that thing) and an assessment of your ability to do what is needed to get that thing.\n\nGoal-setting plays a large role. You don't just \"have motivation\". You have to have motivation to do something. Motivation has a direction, it's not a state-of-being.", "Motivation has two types. Extrinsic, where something outside the person is the motivator, such as grades, a job, status, money, or physical incentive. It's a temporary motivator because once the incentive is achieved, you have to find a new incentive. The other type is intrinsic motivation, which is something a person has internally for motivation. This would be like having a desire to do something, or enjoying it and wanting to do more. It's a longer lasting motivator, because it comes from within.", "I can't speak about what's happening at a biological level, but on a practical level, you can predict motivation by answering 3 questions.\n \n1. If I put in effort will I perform? (self confidence) \n2. If I perform will I get the desired outcomes? (confidence in surroundings) \n3. Do I care? \n \nTo get a quantifiable estimate of motivation, you can rate each question from 0 to 1 then multiply them together. If you're experiencing a lack of motivation, it's because one or more of these questions has a 0 (or close to it) rating. \n \nBasically, if you want to be motivated, you need to care about it, believe in yourself, and trust your environment.", "What one calls motivation will depend heavily on the context in which it's being used (academic, psychology, neuroscience, etc). We can talk about motivation in terms of the lack thereof - in other words, from a behavioral point of view, what would happen if motivation wasn't present? BJ Fogg, a behavior design researcher out of Stanford, says 3 things need to be present for someone to perform a behavior: motivation to perform a behavior, the ability to perform a behavior, and a \"trigger\" that sets the behavior off. So motivation is the thing that's missing if, despite the person having the ability and a salient trigger being present, the behavior is not performed. More on Fogg and his model [here] (_URL_0_)\n\nAt the neuroscience level, there's a whole lot of stuff that need to come together and I will not pretend to understand it all. If you explore the intarwebz to discover what happens in the brain when people feel motivated, you'll likely come across a neurotransmitter called dopamine. Often people will say things like \"dopamine is the happiness chemical\" or \"dopamine is the motivation chemical.\" These may be partially true, but nothing in the brain is quite that simple.\n\n[Here's a great article on what dopamine probably does around motivation.](_URL_1_) The idea is that dopamine is present in your brain right about when you're about to get a reward. A few common models of why this is: dopamine is around when you like stuff - This is disproven in mice; dopamine is present when you're learning how to get a reward - this is also disproven. He settles on the theory that dopamine is present when you really want to get something, more specifically when you want to perform a behavior to get the reward (note that the interesting thing here is that this is independent of whether you actually *like* the reward or even know how to get it). \n\n**TL;DR Motivation is required for someone to perform a behavior, so you can think of it as what's missing when everything else required for a behavior is present (Ability, Trigger). What happens in our brains is super complicated and we're only just starting to get a good idea, dopamine probably plays a central role, but be very very skeptical when you read stuff about neuroscience in anything but a scientific journal (including this post).**", "The short answer: Dopamine. \n\"Whats going on in the brain\" biologically when we feel motivated is that the brain is releasing dopamine which signals for us to go do things that feel good. Researchers used to think that dopamine was just what made us feel the pleasure itself, but more recently they've found that the brain releases dopamine to motivate us to go seek out pleasure and to avoid pain. For example, when you feel compelled to eat a pint of ice cream, thats dopamine saying \"It'll feel so good... do it\" and when you feel compelled to avoid an unpleasant conversation, thats dopamine again saying \"that's not going to be pleasurable, let's steer clear of that.\" \nIt helps to explain why some people feel \"compelled\" to do things that they really know they shouldn't. Teenagers, for example have more extreme levels of dopamine that make them do all sorts of things that feel good that they know they shouldn't do. \nOf course, when you start talking about serious, long-term motivation, it gets more complex, but the big idea is still the same. When you are motivated to go work out (even though you don't want to, and it sucks) that comes from a domaine signal based on the reward you give yourself for doing it (I went to the gym, I deserve a pat on the back). You'll feel good about yourself if you go, and berate yourself if you don't, so dopamine motivates you put on your gym shoes to get the reward. ", "Okay, so [your brain has a bunch of parts right?](_URL_0_) One part is your Cingulate Gyrus, which is a loop shaped part of your brain in the middle. This part is part of the Limbic System, which is the area where emotion and memory is processed.\n\nSo all of this brain area is getting signals from other places in your brain (your senses and thoughts) all the time. Like a computer with a bunch of input, it makes a bunch of outputs. It sends all this info to the Basal Ganglia. The Basal Ganglia funnels this info into the Thalamus, the relay center of your brain, which then relays it back to specific areas in the Limbic System. This *Reward Loop* goes on all the time, and in parallel with other loops like Cognition(thinking), and Motor(voluntary movement).\n\nHow motivation works. You do a task, and other cortical areas send info to the Limbic System which sends that info through the Basal Ganglia. When you finish a task, the reward loop is set off, which releases neurotransmitters like Serotonin and Dopamine into pleasure centers of your brain (mainly Amygdala). These make you feel good. This also gets sent to the Hippocampus, which is where memory gets processed, so you *remember* feeling good for finishing something.\n\nWhen you feel good for finishing something, you're more likely to do it again. This is how addiction works. Motivation is essentially addiction to finishing tasks. \n\n", "There were 69 comments when I [came](_URL_0_) here.", "Wow. lol.\n\n > CSS IN ELI5 ADDS MANY FEATURES! There are many features, both form and function, that are embedded in ELI5's CSS. Disabling CSS will not allow you to circumvent locked threads or enable any hidden functionalities. The CSS implemented exclusively adds functionality and extra features. If there is something wrong with the CSS that you would like us to fix, let us know, please! We may be able to help. Thanks! If you're unable to change CSS on your browser, we’re sorry for this intrusive message!", "How ironic that i have an exam in 3 hours from now, and my textbook is ooen in front of me while i browse reddit.", "The truth is no one knows, motivation is the most mysterious area in psychology/neuroscience.", "Dopamine, but consider this as well. Everything you do in your life is based on probabilities. The reason your brain confidently reaches for a doorknob to open a door is because it knows at a subconscious level that turning the knob will remove the door as an obstacle at a very high percentage. This data is used as proof that turning the door knob will yield the desired result. In the same sense, doing things that require more motivation, increases your motivation. As you accomplish task that were labelled as having a low probability of success, they serve as proof that task with a low probability of success are actually possible and it makes the subject more comfortable with the concept and thus more likely to go through with the task.", "The desire for recognition from your learned reference group. ", "The hard part is that sometimes when you do all those things you still get depressed.\n\nFor example, I was training for a marathon, running and lifting daily. I ate relatively healthy, worked 40 hours a week and kept socializing with people. I also went on a few dates here and there. Believe it or not I was also smoking a few cigarettes a day.\n\nNo drugs though since I'm an alcoholic and addict. \n\nAnd then suddenly I lost all motivation. One day I decided not to run and go easy on myself. \n\nMy motivation slowly leached away. While I didn't completely lose it and slide into a depressive abyss, I can relate to people that say that some days you just can't for some reason even though you know you should or have to.\n\nI missed the marathon but still work out regularly. I'm anti getting prescribed drugs so I try to handle my depression holistically.\n\nHonestly, post heavy drug use the lows aren't as low but they still come just as suddenly.\n\nThe highs, well, are never as high as they used to be ; )", "I just finished writing my thesis paper on procrastination (I procrastinated massively during its conception), and am now 3 days away from my undergrad exam (and still procrastinating). While I am somewhat versed in the workings of procrastination I have a general understanding of motivation. The central problem of motivation is that it is not a well-defined monolithic construct, it is nuanced, its borders are fuzzy, not all motivation is made equal. We do not posses one big motivation, we are filled by hundreds of mini-motivations, each battling it out, one carriage pulled by tens of rowdy bulls, each vying for its own different path. For example, motivation is intertwined with emotion: this is somehow foreshadowed in its latin roots, motivation comes from *movere*, to move, sharing roots with emotion, *e - movere*, \"moving outward\". We move things and we are moved by things.\n\n1) The antiquated and flabby **instinct theory** simply proposes that what we do is a function of some inner instinct that we are born with. Killers have an instinct for violence, gluttons have an instinct for eating, and so on. It explains virtually nothing besides \"it's in my nature to do so\", but it gets one thing right:\n\n*I. We engage in certain behaviours because of inner drives.*\n\n > Instinct theory comes from the works of William James and William McDougall, I do not have definitive direct sources, except sloppily cobbled together first year courses.\n\n2) Behaviorist's **drive theory** follows this train of thought, arguing we have ten to twenty inner drives that influence our behaviour profoundly. If you're smelling bagels and your stomach's rumbling inner peace can go take a hike. A drive is basically a disturbance in the bodys homeostatis, the longer it exists the harder it pulls you towards its satisfaction: hunger, thirst, adequate nutrition, absence of pain, are all drives. Parapharisng Hull and Hebb, almost all drives are \"tissue needs\". The literal tissue in you needs stuff in the environment to survive: fluids, nutrients and vitamins, oxigen, salts, all the \"good stuff\" of existence. The theory is right in a certain aspect:\n\n*II. On one hand, we are strongly influenced by these viscerogenic needs.*\n\nHowever, it also states that sex is one of these basal \"tissue need\", and what you told yourself during adolescence notwithstanding, no one ever died from lack of sex. While it is a need of general individual well-being, it is not a need of well-being in the pure physiological sense. When you frustrate a basic biological need for long enough you die (the definition of basic), they are the *sine qua non* conditions of biological persistence. Thusly, we may derive another idea:\n\n*III. On the other hand, we strive for things beyond simple biological existence, we have psychological needs.*\n\nHow else would we want to see a scary movie, or ride a roller-coaster, or engage in other such bizarre activity that brings nothing to our biological homeostasis?\n\n > Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62, 243-254.\n\n > Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.\n\n3) Maslow compounds this in his **hierarchy of needs**: we have 5 levels of needs from the most basic to the most sophisticated: Physiological, Safety, Love/Belonging, Esteem and Self-Actualization. In order to have needs of a certain level we must first adequately satisfy all the needs below it. For example, the need for Esteem, be it self-esteem by mastering some human endeavour, of esteem from others, from recognition, will not be so strong if you don't have a stable place to live, or the certainty of tomorrow's meal, or the belonging to a group, or a significant other. The theory doesn't have strong validity as individuals are unique and tend to jump around this pyramid. However a new idea we may derive is that:\n\n*IV. Humans are perpetually wanting animals.*\n\nThere is no end-game condition to human wanting and motivation. That's why quintillionaires don't soak their behinds in their diamond studded pools all day and still want more. That is, there is no end-game final satisfaction for these psychological needs, the biological ones can be temporarily fully dealt with, and most often are.\n\n > Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–96.\n\n > Maslow, A. H., Frager, R., & Cox, R. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.\n\n4) Coming from economics is the **hyperbolic reduction model** ambitiously trying to answer the basic question: \"Why do we want what we want when we want it?\". Technically we would derive maximum utility from those Larger Later (LL) goals we so often postpone in order to pursue Sooner Smaller (SS) pleasures, like writing on the interwebs instead of studying. The answer is that we weigh the *perceived* value of a goal, and not its true there-you-go-it's-yours-now value. The fact that we have to wait for something will discount its value, hyperbolicly so. It's one thing to choose an apple today instead of two apples tomorrow, than to choose an apple after a year instead of two apples after a year and a day. As in page 6 of this [paper](_URL_1_). What you see there is a modelling of motivation, we work for the LL goal and not the SS ones because temporal disconting is acting uniformly. That is, until the hyperbolic curve of SS pops over that of LL (the point where the two curves intersect), now in this point of *preference reversal* we are more likely to pursue SS goals, they are more nearer, like in the apple example above.\nThe hyperbolic model has its faults, however the basic idea is:\n\n*V. We have time-inconsistent wantings. What today-me wants might not be what a-month-later-me wants, sometimes even at the cost of a months work of today-me.*\n\n > Ainslie, G. (2010). Procrastination, the basic impulse. The thief of time: Philosophical essays on procrastination, 11-27.\n\n > Ainslie, G. (2012). Pure hyperbolic discount curves predict “eyes open” selfcontrol. Theory and Decision, 73(1), 3-34.\n\n > Ainslie, G. W. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. New York: Cambridge University Press.\n\n > Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons & J. E. Mazur (Eds.), The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value: Quantitative analyses of behavior, vol. 5: 55–73. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\n\n5) Going into organisational psychology, Vroom's **VIE model**, Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy sheds new light on how we would select our new endeavours. We have an *expectancy* that our attributes might be good enough to secure a goal, we have an *instrumentality* that our employer will notice this and will reward us. The reward has a certain *valence*, how well we perceive it, how valuable it is to us. Expectancy and instrumentality are probabilities ranging from 0 to 1, valence ranges from -1 to +1, 0 being a neutral, \"I don't care\" stance on the reward. The probability of engaging in such a responsibility is calculated like so for each possible action:\n\n*Utility = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence*\n\nThe action with the most utility (as above described) being the one selected.\nOutside the organisational sphere we may dispense with instrumentality, absorbing it into expectancy, and shaping Valence into Value (perceived value, mind you) we have:\n\n*Utility = Expectancy x Value*\n\n*VI. The expected chance of fulfilling a goal and the perceived value of that goal play a major part in selecting it as our course of action. \"Never give up, never surrender\" only works in conjunction with high vale and expectancy*\n\n > Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and workrelated criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 81(5), 575.\n\n > Lawler III, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(3), 482-503.\n\n > Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation.\n\n6) Finally, **cumulative prospect theory** (Tversky and Kahneman) nuances this. We are more sensible to losing than to winning (loss aversion), and we are more likely to overweigh low odds and underweigh medium to high odds. In other words, expectancy does not influence us [liniarly](_URL_0_), neither does value.\n\n*VII. We are more moved by loss than by gain, and more probable to overestimate our low chances and overestimate our medium to high chances.*\n\n > Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of business, S251-S278.\n\n > Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.\n\n7) Drawing on all of the above points, Steel and König devise the **temporal motivation theory** where:\n\n*Utility = (Expectancy x Value)/(Impulsivity x Delay)*\n\nThey integrate the last 3 of the above theories and drive theory, adding also that impulsivity may interact with delay, increasing its discounting effects.\n\n*VIII. We are impulsive animals, our prefrontal cortices, coupled with our propensity for language usually inhibit these tendencies... usually.*\n\n > Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 889-913.\n\n > Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological bulletin, 133(1), 65.\n\nA note, I am not an expert on the field, I am a mere dilettante that sifted through some scientific sources. The literature on the subject is vast, absolutely massive, the above being feint highlights of the most popular theories and models.\n\nEdit: formatting\n\nEdit2: some major sources", "I have heard that one of the defining traits of depression is that your brain either isn't producing dopamine to allow you to make dopamine related decisions or isn't recognizing whatever you do produce. \n \nAnd when someone is depressed but takes a drug that suddenly motivates them (like adderall) it sometimes reverse-triggers happiness even though it's not an anti-depression drug. \n \nWould be interested if someone could speak a little more in depth about this.", "There's some evidence to suggest that dopamine is responsible in part for motivation, not just pleasure and reward. The spike in dopamine from drug use creates intense motivation to get more of the drug. When someone with PTSD is exposed to a trigger stimulus, the person experiences a dopamine spike and has a tendency to treat the stimulus like a real threat. Schizophrenia is a thought disorder characterized by high dopamine levels and command hallucinations (a voice commanding you to do something and an intense urge to do it). Thoughts a typical person might dismiss become truth because of the flood of neurotransmitters in the brain. For example: my heart is pounding and my palms are sweaty and I feel really afraid. I see someone frowning in my direction, so they must want to hurt me. My body is telling me that I'm in danger, so I need to identify the danger and get away from it.\n\nConversely, a person with depression tends to have low dopamine and can't find a reason to do anything because their body isn't responding to stimuli that would normally trigger dopamine production.", "Motivation is \n\n\n1) Imagination and Visualization \n\n2) Assigning Value and Creating a Reward \n\n3) Perseverance, using your emotional side of your brain to create Willpower \n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n-----\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n**TLDR:** [Quick summary by yaminokaabii](_URL_0_)\n > First, you imagine a future possibility and make that real to yourself. \n > Second, you analyze the costs of getting to that reward/possibility, and your brain tricks itself into assigning lots of positive feelings towards it. \n > Third, while in the process of getting to that reward, the brain eventually wears itself out - but keeping at it for as long as you can, that is perseverance.\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n**In the post below I am now going to try to explain simply what I mean by these terms, I used right above this TLDR. There is not going to be any new ideas just an explanation of those ideas. It will be long but I will try to keep it simple. I will try to explain in English and everyday language but after doing so I may put down some brain jargon which you really don’t need to know or remember. I do so for some people may want to learn more about it. I will try to give you a warning when I use brain jargon so you understand this is not really important to understanding the bigger concept.**\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\nYou use 3 different techniques of your brain to create motivation. These techniques use very different parts of your brain and a failure of one will lead to no motivation or low motivation. Some people such as ADHD people can have a failure of all 3 techniques. (More on ADHD later in a response to this post).\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n----\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n1) The first part is **Imagination and Visualization.** With this part you imagine the future benefit, such as something good or something bad. You imagine it, and you use your brain to make this future benefit very real in your mind. So real that you can see it, you can touch it, you can feel it, you can smell it, you can taste it. The more senses you use imagination and visualization, the more real it seems to your brain. By using the imagination and sensory parts of your brain together as a team, your body can overrule the part of the brain that deals with the present, the now, what is happening right this very second part with you and your environment.\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n---\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n2) The second part is **Assigning Value and Creating Rewards**, this is done by the computer part of your brain, the analytical part, the part that is in the very front part of your brain. This is the part of the brain that humans have but animals do not or they just have a very basic form. This part of the brain is called the cerebral cortex. Your brain assigns a value of how useful or good this future task brings to you. It assigns a number on how good this task is. It also assigns a cost (a guess) to the amount of effort or work you will probably have to expend in the present and near future to get the reward, in other words how much work you have to do. In effect your brain is doing a math problem on how much work to how much reward you can get.\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\nOnce your brain has this number of how much gain you are going to get vs how much work you will have to expend, the thought now goes to the emotional side of your brain. Your brain creates positive emotions / compulsions about this future goal to counteract the negative emotions / compulsions. You use your emotional and instinctual parts of your brain to do things like hunger, thirst, heat regulation (sweating), heart rate, ability to block out pain/feel pain, etc. In effect your rational frontal part of the brain the cerebral cortex tricks your body into making and feeling the good feelings right now so you don’t let the bad feelings win out. Thus you are able to do something that make cause a short term loss but allows you to do a long term gain.\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n*Brain Jargon for this section, you do not need to remember this.* There is a reason why dopamine receptors are extremely prominent in the front part of your brain (cerebral cortex) and your emotional center (with dopamine specifically a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, there are other parts of the brain that are considered emotional but dopamine does not have many receptors there).\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n----\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n3) The last part of motivation is **Perseverance or what some people call willpower**. This is controlled by your emotional part of your brain. What happens is your emotional part of your brain is feeling the deprivation of resources such as the loss of energy, you feeling tired, you feeling hot and sweaty, etc. Your body is trying to conserve resources, your body is trying to not die right now and save resources for the future so you do not die later due to lack of planning. You have perseverance or willpower, how much your body can take *before it has to bail* for continuing to do this long term action will actually hurt you not help you. In effect perseverance is pushing your limits to the max, going at it till you can’t take anymore. \n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n*Once you surpass your perseverance limit your body instantly snaps and activates your mind again going back to number 1.* When you have no more perseverance energy, when you have no more willpower your body snaps and reformulates. It activates adrenaline which creates focus but focus that is prioritized the short term, your brain can't think long term anymore, it deals only with the present. Your brain goes back to step number 1 and does a recalculation but this calculation great empathizes short term gains and losses and has an aversion to long term gains and losses. **If your body activates adrenaline it is game over for long term planning and motivation, nothing you can do can change this.** The only way you can regain motivation is to wait for the adrenaline to wear off, reimagine the positive benefits, make those positive benefits real and start over with number 1. \n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n*Brain Jargon for this section, you do not need to remember this.* Perseverance is controlled slightly by dopamine but more so by a neurotransmitter called norepinephrine. Norepinephrine is very similar to Adrenaline chemically but how it affects your body is radically different. In effect **Norepinephrine is the anti-adrenaline.** Adrenaline gives you your ability to focus right now in the present. Norepinephrine gives you the ability to have persistence in doing the long term action the long term goal that may deplete short term resources. Once your perseverance ends, your body releases adrenaline to give you focus that prioritizes the short term the here and now, and you break and do the opposite of what you were doing before. In effect Norepinephrine and Adrenaline have a feedback loop, they regulate each other.\n", "Usually they're out to kill their half-demon younger brother." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.bjfogg.com/", "http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BenLewisEvans/20130827/198975/Dopamine_and_games__Liking_learning_or_wanting_to_play.php" ], [], [ "http://faculty.sdmiramar.edu/faculty/sdccd/kpetti/bio160/MiscImages/SagittalFar.jpg" ], [ "http://i.imgur.com/wpjAk.gif" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_prospect_theory", "http://picoeconomics.org/PDFarticles/OpenEyes.pdf" ], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/280pvf/eli5_what_is_motivation_i_mean_what_is_going_on/ci6w3hw" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4fn9g8", "c4fnag9", "c4fnnq2", "c4fotl3", "c4fvcon" ], "score": [ 13, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "A quantum mechanical understanding of materials was necessary to develop the transistor and the entire computer revolution that came from it.", "The most obvious thing I can think of right now is that GPS would either not exist at all, or work very differently from the system we have now. The positioning calculations must account for relativistic effects.\n\nNuclear fission might be affected too, although there are quite a few naturally-occuring fission reactors, so it might just have been discovered by accident.\n\nParticle physics would be mostly non-existent (or based almost completely on trial and error), without respecting relativistic effects.", "I'm fairly sure that someone else would've discovered what he did if he hadn't.", "philosophical answer is daily life would've moved on as the days before Einstein. From a technology and scientific point of view, we will be missing a tool that would help us to understand stuff like chemistry, and gravity. I am sure we can still try to figure out how it works, but there would not be one seemingly general theory that would answer them all (I know his theory doesn't explain everything such as quantum behavior). The way I look at it is, what if hammer was never invented? We just try to work around the problem and come up other tools to solve the problem", "Special and general relativity still don't really affect our daily lives since very few things require either super-time precision, travel at speeds near light, or are near very very heavy objects. I'm sure there's a few things, (and there's a HELL of lot of physics we wouldn't understand), but I can't think of much in everyday life that'd be affected.\n\nI think the more applicable discovery of Einstein to our everyday life is probably his lesser known discovery of the photo-electric effect. The discovery that light is divided into discrete packets called photons is absolutely essential to create a lot of modern day technology. The laser certainly comes to mind. Without the laser, we'd have much slower worldwide communications, and likely be limited to slower and more expensive copper circuits." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "djg3k3v" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The bubbles have something to do with the oxygen being gassed out especially if the water is cold, since cold water holds more oxygen. And the taste is CO2 being dissolved in the water over the period of time which creates a chemical compound H₂CO₃ - carbonic acid. So the increase of the acid changed the taste of the water. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dfglq69" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Smartphones are very small. They are built with components that have to fit very tightly together, otherwise there either won't be room inside the case, or the components might interfere with each other, or the heat dispersal won't be effective and the phone will overheat. The same problem applies to laptops too, which usually only let you replace a few components such as the RAM and peripherals.\n\nThe concept of a [modular smartphone](_URL_0_) is in development, but so far there have been very few practical implementations." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_smartphone" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5scsyw", "c5seuva" ], "score": [ 52, 2 ], "text": [ "The effects of sleep are primarily related to brain function, and that recuperation does not happen from just laying down all night. If you actually needed a physical break then that would help (but chances are you probably didn't).", "I'm not sure about just laying there resting, but [Hypnagogia](_URL_0_) is similar to that but you are actually dreaming and will feel rested afterwards. You end up being fully conscious but will hallucinate and sometimes you will be paralyzed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dpp9ndh", "dppaaoe" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ " > How does the computer decide what to delete first?\n\nTypically the delete command will assume that the sequence does not matter, so it just uses the most easily or quickly available one. Most likely, it will just call a routine to list the contents and delete them in that order, and that routine by default lists them simply in the order the filesystem returns them. Probably in the order in which they were added to the directory, but it really depends on the implementation details of the filesystem.\n\n > what gives the computer the ability to delete one file but not touch everything else?\n\nThat's not an ability but a side-effect of the fact that it has to do something for each file, and can only do one (or a few) things at a time.", "A folder is just a special kind of file that contains a list of other files. When you delete the folder, it will go down that list and delete files one by one, then delete the folder at the end.\n\nNote that the list is not in any particular order. Your file browser will take that list and sort it in whatever order you choose. That means it won't be obvious which file will be first, they could be deleted in just about any order." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu4ecc8", "cu4edt5", "cu4fr6o" ], "score": [ 6, 7, 8 ], "text": [ "The integrity of the materials used in the high-end glasses is much higher compared with the low-end. If you just try on a pair of high-end sunglasses at the store the difference is very noticeable.", "Quality of construction and materials, quality of design, polarization, anti reflective, longevity, and of course branding. ", "When you're 106 miles from Chicago, you have a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, and it's dark, cheap Wal-Mart sunglasses just won't do." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dj81hv9" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The manmade satelites that aren't in a graveyard orbit will eventually reenter the atmosphere and burn up. Eventually the ones in the graveyard orbit will too but that will be quite a while. There isn't enough matter currently orbiting the earth to form rings comparable to our solar neighbours, save for the moon. #notascientist" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ev3r5ig", "ev3r7hs", "ev3x6l6" ], "score": [ 11, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "\"Relatively thin\" is still 20-30 miles of rock on average for continental crust. That's a lot of padding between us and the heat.", "We do.\n\nHowever, the minor constant heat exuding from the core of the earth generally pales in comparison to the daily fluctuations and temperature differences on the surface. However, if you get below the surface of the earth (deep caves for instance), then the daily and seasonal fluctuations go away and you get a constant temperature.", "Solid rock is an excellent insulator. [Take a look at this bit of lava here](_URL_2_). The interior is somewhere around 1,200°C. The air is much, much colder than that, so almost immediately on contact with the air, the surface of the lava cools to below 800°C. It becomes solid and black. But this only happens to the outer few millimeters of the lava. Inside, it's still 1,200°C, which can be seen when the frozen skin is punctured.\n\n[If you look at where a volcanologist digs into lava with a hammer, you can see that just inside the \"skin\", it's still very hot, even though the outside froze very quickly](_URL_1_). That means that the interior of the flow only loses a lot of heat to the outside when the skin is broken. The volcanologist also only really feels the worst of the heat when the interior is exposed; they can't stay close to it for very long once it's broken. It also means that blockier flows [like this](_URL_0_) can be more uncomfortable to stand next to even though they might be cooler on average.\n\nBecause of how good an insulator rock is, the interior of a lava flow can remain molten for days, months, or even years if it's thick enough, even though it looks completely solid on the outside. I've walked on 11 month old flows that would burn your feet if you stood still too long.\n\nThe crust does something similar for the earth; heat escapes through it very, very slowly in most places, so near the surface, the loss of heat to the atmosphere vastly overwhelms the supply of heat from below." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWswq8PmRII", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF_J3vCcbBA", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Pahoehoe_toe.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dka5r21", "dkbs1ox" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "In short, yes. [This section] (_URL_0_) of the FAQ may be helpful.", "Never heard of accidental genocides. Do they exist? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_the_armenian_genocide" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cf5643d" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "What books or what were you reading that said that? There were definitely soldiers who served the Abraham Lincoln Brigade who then served in WW2 for America. \n\nHere's one example: _URL_0_\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://hermannbottcher.org/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7uipak" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "If by smaller scales you are talking about superclusters of galaxies then yes, there is a small measurable effect. However even the short distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda is too short for the expansion of the universe to be measurable. The gravity between the galaxies is much stronger and drowns out any expansion of space." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clcijuo", "clcijxe", "clcilg2", "clcjcsw", "clcjenq" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Because some therapies don't work on the cancer, just like some drugs don't work. For example, my mom also has Pancan (stage IV - was given six months to live THREE YEARS AGO and is in complete remission). They did a number of procedures on her but she always did a chemo combo of tarceva and gemzar. They did very targeted radiation but only on a very small area. They also resected a couple tumors out of her belly fat.\n\nI asked the oncologist about proton therapy and they said flat out there's no evidence proton therapy works on her type of cancer. So it was quickly ruled out.", "There's a VERY LONG path from curing cancer in a petri dish to an animal to human testing to widely available treatments to the public.\n\nSomewhere along the way, they may discover that you can kill cancer cells with Chemical X, but when they did further testing, it also killed the host, which is not something that they want.\n\n[Science reporters want big headlines that get attention and \"Cancer cured\" gets more readers than \"Science continues slow methodical progress toward small but palpable improvement as the following 40 pages will show in mind-numbing detail with needlessly obtuse prose and confusing graphs.\"](_URL_0_)", "Because surgeries, chemo and radiation *work*.\n\nThe breakthroughs you've read about are usually just clickbait. Cancer doesn't have a singular cure.", "Many of the breakthroughs are new versions of surgery, chemo, or radiation that are more effective or have fewer side effects...", "Those new treatments are chemo...\n\nNot all chemo is the same. We have much better drugs than we did 30 years ago. For example, in 1975, a patient diagnosed with breast cancer had a 75% chance of being alive after 5 years. Today, that's over 90%. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1623" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f0xmmzp" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I touch on the fallout some in [this broader answer](_URL_0_) which may be of interest." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/achn2i/how_were_native_americans_impacted_during_the/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cear586", "cearbqf" ], "score": [ 2, 4 ], "text": [ "It's because making some of those special authenticating things require very specific materials and tools which are not commercially available. That means that when a person tries to make a counterfeit bill, he/she needs to inspect all the materials very thoroughly if the bill needs to look complitely authentic. It requires a lot of knowledge for example to be able to determine the composition of the bill paper and then making it yourself.\n\nIt is not exacly about the cost of making those features, but more like not knowing how to make them and not being able to get the proper tools.", "Money is like a cake. You have slices of it, and it's delicious. But what's it made out of? Well, there's a tricky question. Eat the cake and find out? You can try. Hell, let's say you do it. You somehow know every single ingredient in the cake. More still, you somehow know the exact measurments.\n\n But if you put that all in a bowl, would it make a cake? Well no, there is stirring and preheating and the perfect cook time. Then, getting beyond the basic cooking process, you have butt loads of frosting. And the cake decorator is that guy who can make like, castles out of frosting.\n\nHappy baking" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbxupdo", "dbxupjt", "dbxur9i" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The simple answer: There's a demand for said products.\n\nThere's a demand for those products, even if there is no proof that the products actually work.\n\nThere are tons of people using treatments that science hasn't prooved to be working (e.g. homeopathy). \n\nThe other side of the simple answer: Legal obligations. If you sell a non-approved product, you are legally obliged to say so on the label.", "They are believed to have beneficial effects but haven't gone through the testing needed to prove it, or haven't conclusively showed any benefits during testing. It can also mean that the company selling the product just doesn't have permission to say it does have approved therapeutic properties. As for why stores are selling them, that's because they still make money off the product. Lots of people still believe there are benefits to supplements and such, despite labels like that, and many supplements do have a legitamate effect", "Because they sell.\n\nThere is no better explanation. Drug stores have the right to sell anything that is legal, and that disclaimer just means it doesn't claim to be medicine; this means it doesn't go through incredibly stringent (and costly) testing regimens. And a lot of people are after \"alternative medicine\" and other bullshit, so that stuff sells." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqmb0b5", "dqngnsq" ], "score": [ 30, 3 ], "text": [ "Simple explanation given to me I'm on a heart medication and diuretic (increased peeing = water and sodium levels decreased in blood) \n\nSodium is a known to cause fluid retention aka the more sodium you take in the more water stays in the body and not filtered out. \n\nso high salt = high amount of water in blood.\n\nlets say that water changes to 1 gallon of blood will be 1 gallon + water content so lets say 1 gallon of water.\n\nWell now your 1 Gallon volume circulatory system now has 2 gallons in it causing increased pressure on veins and making your heart work twice if not three times as hard to pump double the fluid content through your body.", "People with hypertension benefit from a low salt diet, although it's not clear that salt causes hypertension." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4qu2c0", "c4qucb9" ], "score": [ 3, 17 ], "text": [ "Wittgenstein's [private language argument](_URL_0_) might be interesting to you. That, and of course the vast literature following it.\n\n**Edit:** Better link.", "Actually, there is very good reason to believe that while there may be some differences in perception from person to person, and large differences when dichromacy or other forms of color blindness is considered, people do NOT see colors very differently from one another. That is, as long as neither one of us is colorblind, I do NOT see red where you see blue or purple where you see green.\n\n\nHow can this ever be proven? Lets drop the philosophy 101 crap about there being no way to \"know\" what's going on in somebody else's head. If you hand out samples of Phenylthiocarbamide to 30 people, and half of them say they taste nothing and half run to the sink to wash out their mouths, I can say say that I *do* know something about what it's like to be the person who just tasted the stuff. Yeah, they could be putting on a show, or I could be a brain in a jar, but that doesn't mean we don't have hard evidence that the people who tasted the chemical felt pretty much the same thing, on the inside, because everything about their behavior and their description of what they tasted matches. That's considered evidence, and for science, that's the best we can ever get. \n\nNext, let's consider sound.\n\nIs it possible that I could be walking around hearing high notes where you hear low notes? Could my sound spectrum be inversed from yours?\n\nNo. because there's a smooth transition from beats so low you can tell that it's made of vibrations in the air to a high sharp pitch. It would be impossible to invert it without losing that smooth transition. \n\nColors! As long as your wiring is standard, green acts as opponent to red, red and green combine to make yellow, which acts as opponent* to blue, black is opponent to white, which is hard to distinguish from yellow. There is a structure behind how colors are related to each other, it's based on how neurons are physically connected to each other, and switching any colors would screw up the map. When the map does get screwed up, you can tell scientifically- color blindness tests, for example. \n\n(* opponent= stare at one color, look away and see the other) \n\nSo could I see blue where you see green? Sure, if it's just a change on the margin, and maybe if we did we'd draw the lines this chart a little differently: _URL_0_ . It's a change, but it's observable, not part of the higher mysteries. \n\nWe'd also draw different charts based on what language we speak. Or what system we were asked to use. In one of my favorite psych experiments, which I learned about in school but can't recall the name of, first one researcher showed that people from an area in Iran whose language described colors differently labeled colors in a completely different way, and therefore must be perceiving differently. Years later, the theory was destroyed when it was shown that anyone could label colors in this unusual way if they were told about the other naming system and asked to use it. oops. \n\nBut back to your proposition. Could we look at that same chart and see something completely different? Not without being able to to tell. What if your blue was my green and vice versa? We agree there's a big area called blue. It's opponent to the upper left area is called yellow. Now when these two colors are placed next to each other in a gradient, what do we see? With blue and yellow, we see gray, the color of rocks and halfway between black and white. With green and yellow, it's yellow-green, and we do not stop in gray along the way. \nThat's an observable, scientifically recordable difference that would occur if blue and green were switched. Therefore, we can know! " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/" ], [ "http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/satfaces_map_1024.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ca2z8qw" ], "score": [ 18 ], "text": [ "Pixels turn completely white (transparent) when you switch them off. When your screen cracks a conductor that is wired in series is severed, thus pixels are powered off while background light keeps running. The black blotch is the result of messed up polarizing filter and/or pixels cracking and leaking (thus the name liquid crystal display)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d33ktjv", "d33r5gw" ], "score": [ 5, 5 ], "text": [ "It's easy to look back and wonder what they were thinking, I agree. Temperance advocates had various advantages. There does seem to have been enormous enthusiasm, a deep conviction among the Temperance forces that banning alcohol would save most families from destruction, enable men to lead productive, long lives, and save huge mounts of money ( at a time when most manufacturing jobs were pretty harsh and life pretty hard, it was also easier to point a finger at alcoholism being a cause of so much misery, instead of questioning if perhaps working hours were too long and wages too low). The movement itself was also tied to Christianity ( ergo, The Women's Christian Temperance Union) at a time when perhaps most Americans' social lives, friends, were tied to belonging to a church ( though some churches, like the Lutherans and Episcopalians, were not keen on the idea). But maybe one of the key political reasons was the strategy developed by Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League to campaign against any politician who did not toe the line and sign onto the Temperance movement. Once political leaders learned that a stellar record of public service didn't matter to the ASL, that they would try ( and often would succeed) in turning out of office any senator, congressman, governor, etc. who did not vote their way, they were immensely powerful. It was the first single-issue advocacy group: decades later Gun Rights and Anti-abortion groups would use the same technique.\n\nThere was also not a very unified, strong opposition.The brewers and distillers didn't really mount an effective counter-campaign, and people who simply liked to drink did not form into cohesive advocacy groups, either.\n\nOkrent: Last Call\n", "Just as a general comment, there are lots of events in history that seem \"crazy\" to a contemporary observer. One of the lessons of history that for some reason is difficult to stick is that people in different cultures and times had wildly different values from the ones you or I may have. To project our values back on them is a common fallacy and leads to second-hand interpretations that are at odds with the primary sources of the time.\n\nSo while the passing of Prohibition might seem incredible to you today, and sparks a natural curiousity to be encouraged, it should also be a good reminder that your answer lies in realizing first that what those people thought and believed and valued was probably just completely different from you, and your answer will be partially in finding out just what those differences are." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cecjzww" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Almost every wild animal will host a wide variety of parasites for its entire life. Some of these are relatively innocuous - for example [eyelash mites](_URL_3_) in humans. Some are much [less pleasant](_URL_2_).\n\nIntestinal worms are very common - almost universal - in most species of wild mammals.\n\nFleas are the same. In your example of wolves, a pup is likely to catch them from other pack members soon after birth. They will live with these for their whole lives.\n\n[Parasitology](_URL_1_) is absolutely fascinating and utterly gross. The deepest truth is that you can't understand any organism on its own - you have to look at the whole environment it lives in, and you will always find parasites. In fact, [there are more parasite species than host species.](_URL_0_)\n\nWhat are you hosting today?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://parasitology.com/", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitology", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_castration", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodex" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddnt1gd" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ " > **Why didnt the civil war have armor?**\n\nThe American Civil War did see many experiments in body armor; Bashford Dean in [Helmets and Armor in Modern Warfare](_URL_1_) 58-59 notes:\n\n > It is known that breastplates were worn more or less frequently during the American Civil War. In the museum in Richmond, there is preserved such a \"suit\" of armor, Fig. 15, which at the time of the siege was taken from a dead soldier in one of the trenches. He was shot in the side or back, for the breastplate, it appears, was not penetrated. This armor was of northern origin. Further inquiry shows that a factory for the making of such defenses was established at New Haven about 1862. The metal employed was a mild steel, .057 inch thick, and the \"suit\" weighed about seven and one half pounds. While no tests of this armor are available, we estimate from the thickness of its metal, assuming that it is a \"mild\" steel, that it would have stopped a 230-grain pistol ball traveling at the rate of 500 foot seconds.\n\nWhat the American Civil War did not see was formal adoption and issuing of such armor to all troops; and with good reason. The South faced shortages of metal and material throughout the war, and couldn't afford it; the North probably could have afforded it, but it wasn't worth it. To quote [Sarah Weicksel](_URL_0_):\n\n > In theory, the vests were appealing. As one soldier wrote: \"To be 'iron clad' when the bullets should fly as thick as hail! What more could a soldier ask?\" (Walker, History of the Eighteenth Regiment Conn. Volunteers, 21). In actuality, however, the vests proved to be failed objects on multiple levels, ranging from ease of use to their effectiveness. Although advertisers claimed that the vests were \"simple\" and \"light,\" soldiers found them extremely cumbersome due to their inflexibility and weight. Colonel Charles F. Johnson of New Jersey explained to his wife: \"the only objection that I have to them is that they are so confounded heavy for this season of the year\" (quoted in Pelka, ed., The Civil War Letters of Colonel Charles F. Johnson, 112). Many soldiers' letters and memoirs recounted the abandonment of bullet proof vests along the march, where they littered the side of the road along with other unwanted gear. [...] The vests did provide some degree of protection, judging from the bullet-shaped dents in surviving vests. But they were ineffective in close combat, and, as Johnson rightly pointed out, wearing a vest could have resulted in an even more deadly wound if a man was shot at close range, whether from immediate impact, or an infection festering around the bits of cloth and metal that the bullet pushed into his body.\n\nThese are more or less the same issues Dean noted that soldiers and military armorers faced in WWI (and why, he also says, armor was generally abandoned in the first place): against firearms, any kind of body armor that was thick enough to be of any protective value was, generally, too heavy and cumbersome to be born for long, and probably too expensive to equip troops with.\n\n > **Wasn't close quarters fighting common?**\n\nNot really. While it is true that some fighting did undoubtedly come down to hand-to-hand and bayonet fencing, there were very few bayonet wounds during the Civil War, and fewer wounds from swords, the troops just rarely came in to that kind of contact. Robert L. O'Connell in [Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression](_URL_2_) wrote:\n\n > Despite frequent expressions of confidence by commanders on both sides, the bayonet played a minuscule role in the killing during the Civil War. Not only were most bayonet charges turned aside by rifle fire, but even when they did succeed, the defending troops almost invariably ran away before these weapons could be employed.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2013/04/failed-objects-bullet-proof-vests-and-design-in-the-american-civil-war.html", "https://archive.org/details/helmetsbodyarmor00deanuoft", "http://www.worldcat.org/title/of-arms-and-men-a-history-of-war-weapons-and-aggression/oclc/476010542" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c742edw" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A very similar question was just asked a few days ago, you may want to search for answers here:\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13ebo4/how_have_the_microsmall_states_of_europe_andorra/" ] ]