post_title
stringlengths 9
303
| post_text
stringlengths 0
37.5k
| comment_text
stringlengths 200
7.65k
| comment_score
int64 10
32.7k
| post_score
int64 15
83.1k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
What should I read to learn more about philosophy by African authors? | I can't find a good list of works for someone who's read any philosophy by African authors. Which writings make up a good starting point for new readers? | Depending on your philosophical bent, Frantz Fanon can be indispensable: born in Martinique and educated in Paris, he joined the Algerian revolution and wrote (after *Black Skin, White Masks*) *A Dying Colonialism* and *Wretched of the Earth*. The former is entirely focused on the colonial situation during the war while the second is a Hegelian treatment of the process of decolonization as a whole. His oeuvre as a whole is critical to understanding the development of pan-Africanism. | 21 | 25 |
ELI5: Why don't any larger animals have compound/multiple eyes like bugs do? | Depth perception, visual acuity, and distance. Compound eyes don't fair very well on any of those factors, all of which are far more favorable than having a large cone of view, especially in light of possessing other senses (namely hearing and scent) and ocular muscles. | 11 | 33 |
|
ELI5: How does the body know when to wake up from sleeping? | We are all subject to a circadian rhythm which dictates our sleep timings. A couple of factors include exposure to light and our body's release of supplement called melatonin.
Many babies, for example, are naturally nocturnal. That is why parents have to sleep train them. After that, they will typically get tired and wake up around the same times each day.
Of course, this circadian rhythm varies depending on the person.
This is also why when you wake up naturally, (as opposed to alarms or other noises) you often feel more rested, no matter how much or little sleep you got. | 10 | 23 |
|
ELI5: Why do science labs always so often use composition notebooks and not, for example, a spiral notebook? | One of the primary rules for science labs and GLP (good laboratory practice) is to NOT destroy data.
If there's an error, you can't use an eraser, pencils are not allowed, white-out is not allowed; a correction must be made by crossing out the error (with a single line so that what was written is still visible), and then initialing and dating the correction.
Also part of "not destroying data" is that the official lab notebook has pages that are numbered (from factory), and the QA department and other auditors (FDA for example) will definitely question, and possibly invalidate the lab work performed or even close the lab, if there are pages that are missing. | 19,245 | 15,894 |
|
CMV: The media shouldn't always pretend that "both sides" of an issue are equal | Recently a former Republican operative called Sarah Isgur was hired by CNN to coordinate coverage of the 2020 election. This is presumably down to a desire to disprove claims that CNN is biased towards liberals. Imo, this is a false equivalency. Isgur has no actual experience in real journalism and has worked to provide a specific political view regardless of the facts. This is similar to claims that people who work in higher education have a liberal bias even though educated people are more likely to be liberals regardless of their profession.
Groups that complain of unfair coverage in media normally demand that some of their own get influence in media. The correct response to accusations of bias is to ignore the criticism and stay committed to uncovering the facts. If the facts consistently anger one side (whether it's republicans, anti-vaxxers, anti-semites, flat earthers or climate change denialists) the public should be informed of that. They shouldn't be able to interfere in the process to distort reality to their benefit. These groups have track records of promoting misleading information and can't be trusted with this responsibility.
Imo, there's no benefit to including groups like republicans, anti-vaxxers, anti-semites, flat earthers or climate change denialists in media coverage and journalism because their battle is with facts and evidence, not with any supposed liberal bias and this means the contribution they'd make would be negative. CMV.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | What your basically saying is the majority or the cultural consensus should be able to define who can considered a trusted source in discussions.
Which is sort of like saying your for prejudice when it’s against people you don’t agree with. | 15 | 35 |
ELI5:Elon Musk wants to build a colony on Mars, what can I, as an ordinary guy with no multi-billion dollar fortune or degree in engineering, do to get involved with the SpaceX project, and others like it and be a part of humanity's first steps in living on another world? | I'd start by researching the hell out of Elon Musk and the project with an eye to understanding the business and political communities that will affect and drive it. Look at its supporters and its critics to get a well-rounded perspective. Most responses to your ELI5 question will likely not know the guts of it beyond what has been publicly announced, and that's not enough to base a decision on. Dive in, learn more, and understand what you're on about as much as possible.
The next step is to measure yourself against your own potential involvement level, which could range from "directly involved" (i.e. actually employed in the cause) to "interested and not really committed" (i.e. tweeting about it once in a while).
If the former, are you brilliant, healthy, a workaholic, the right nationality? Are you willing to surrender your existence on Earth and even gamble with your life itself? Then perhaps, just perhaps, you could actually be a colonist. But instead are you more one-dimensional in your skills and would make a high-quality parts manufacturing worker, an astounding accountant, or an efficient janitor? Then perhaps you could help indirectly by building the parts or doing the books or sweeping the floors (do not trivialize the importance of this role!) at either Musk's company or one of its principal suppliers.
If the latter, then join the other millions and support the concept where you can in the natural dialogue you have with your internet and real-life communities. If you live in the right areas, attend promotional events and even help to organize them if there's a way to (e.g. will Musk be at an SF convention, and do they accept volunteers?).
It's really about how firmly you believe and support, and how much you're capable and willing to do to yourself for the cause. | 10 | 34 |
|
CMV: It's not natural talent, just practise. | Firstly, there are people who naturally have incredible ability in one particular area, like savants and such; I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the average person who has done something well and is congratulated at being 'talented'.
People aren't naturally talented at anything; the people that excel in music/art/whatever are the ones who have been practising for years, not because they were born with some extra ability that other's haven't got. It may be true that they started learning from a young age and therefore it *seems* like they are 'talented' but that is just that they started early.
I think it is somewhat different with sport, since genes do influence someone's strength and agility, but I am focusing on more mental sorts of skill, like music, acting, art...
Anyway I think you get the point. Skills in certain areas are ones you accumulate, not ones you are born with. CMV.
EDIT: Ok so my view has been somewhat changed, there may be some genetic variation between people, but I think that is is more down to hard work/enviromental factors/upbringing.
In actual fact the point I wanted to make is that when a friend does something well like play the piano, they shouldn't be congratulated for having 'talent', since that assumes too much. Saying that they have talent assumes that they were born above everyone else and are especially cut out for this activity. Rather we should congratulate them for hard work, not assuming that they are special. If I then find out that they had only heard the piece they had just played once and then did a stunning performance, *that* is when they should be told they have talent. However we should not just through the work 'talent' around as if it is at the root of everything.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | You're referencing a classic argument called "nature vs nurture" meaning, ultimately, how much of who each person/organism is the result of their DNA and how much is the result of their experiences/training/etc.
The scientific rationale is, quite simply, it's usually some combination of both. | 20 | 17 |
How are natural instincts explained on a fundamental level? Where do they originate and how are they inheritable? | How are instinctual behaviors inherited? Would they survive in an animal raised in isolation from others of its same species? I find complex behaviors like intricate web, hive, and nest creation particularly fascinating. | you can think of instincts as neurological patterns that have been selected for and evolved over millions of years. The ones that adapt to react to certain stimuli caused them to survive better in certain situations. very gradual. | 51 | 100 |
ELI5: what's the difference between fiberglass, kevlar, and carbon fiber and what makes them so strong? | they all have the same basic idea, which is bonding lots of fibres together with some form of plastic to create a material which is much stronger than the individual components. Fibreglass is one of many different types of GRP (glass reinforced plastic). Take a fibreglass canoe. If it was just the plastic 'matrix' material, it would be quite weak and would break easily, but is great for moulding and will take impacts much better than glass, which tends to shatter. By incorporating glass fibres, the material is made much stronger, but because the plastic is holding all the fibres together, the mixture doesn't shatter as easily as glass.
It works with pretty much any fibre and plastic-like material. You even see the basic principle in steel reinforced concrete, where steel bars are incorporated into concrete to enhance its strength. | 2,079 | 3,615 |
|
CMV: Internet access should be a nationalized utility in the US. | I don't have much to say about this other than the following:
1) Internet being privatized is *why* the world is so entangled in it. ISPs and the PC hardware industry, in at least a few ways, have pushed the world towards digitalization, specifically so they could get us dependent on it, and eventually have a scenario where we don't have a choice but to pay $150 a month for 25mbps connections (an exaggeration, maybe, but not that large in my experience). If we nationalize, and take the profit motive out of it, maybe we'll see people start to revert away from being so tech crazed.
2) The only way that the Progressive movement America so desperately needs is going to properly gain traction in this country, is for their voices to be protected by constitutional law. Right now companies have *allowed* us to push for certain ideals, so they don't reveal their true extent of control too much. If they just outright squashed the Progressive movement in every regard, it'd be the tipping point for massive outrage. ***But make no mistake***, that eventually, they ***WILL*** start pushing back. By nationalizing the internet, taking control of any and all current web infrastructure, and writing the law such that anyone who maintains a website is an extension of the government, the First Amendment will apply. And no, I don't think Uncle Cletus being allowed to say the n-word without repercussions is a good enough deterrent against this.
3) Tying into point 1, taking the profit motive out of the industry will make it more accessible to people. Sure, we'd still need to pay for it, so that it's not entirely reliant on tax revenue (because leaving it as such is a surefire way to leave it open for exorbitant underfunding), but $40 a month for gigabit fiber sounds a lot better than the $100 I currently pay for 100mbps down, 10mbps up. And having a cheap way for the world to be so interconnected will only improve the benefits the internet has already displayed (such as showing Americans that other countries have long since solved bullshit we ***still*** can't seem to take care of). | If internet service is nationalized would it follow that access would have to be equal for all Americans? Would one living in the middle of WY be able to expect the same service as one living in NYC? Where is the money going to come from to extend fiber lines or other high speed access to remote areas with very few people? | 24 | 53 |
eli5: How does radiation both cause and cure cancer? I know it can be targeted, but I still don't understand how it's not causing cancer at it's target? How does chemo work? And how does chemo and radiation work together? | Sorry if the flair is wrong. Biology or chemistry? | Radiation damages the DNA in cells. At smaller doses this causes mutations, which can lead to cancer. At high doses it flat out kills cells, especially cells that are in the middle of reproductions. This is why radiation poisoning causes hair loss and nausea, it killed the fast-growing cells in your hair follicles and stomach.
When used for cancer treatment, you're using targeted high doses to kill cells that are already cancerous and dividing rapidly. It's a way of killing off cancer cells that can't be removed via surgery. Nearby cells can theoretically mutate and spawn their own cancers but that's a relatively low risk compared to the risk of having an active tumour right now.
Chemo also targets cells that are in the midst of dividing/replicating...this tends to be cancer, so it preferentially targets cancer and other fast-growing cells. Hence why chemo has similar side effects to radiation.
Together, they're two different mechanisms to kill fast-multiplying cells that can be more effective than either method alone. | 22 | 21 |
What would the Fed need to do to reach 4% inflation | I've read a few papers, specifically former IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard, and even some people here claiming the FED and ECB should be targeting 4% inflation.
How could that be accomplished? | Step 1: announce the target. That step alone will change inflation expectations and effect economic activity today even if the Fed doesn't actually do anything today
Step 2: increase the money supply until the Fed (or markets if you prefer) forecasts 4% inflation | 32 | 25 |
ELI5: What happens in our brain, when we forget what we wanted to do while starting to do the action? | Our brain reinforces pathways we take more than once. Often what happens when we forget what we wanted to do while starting to do something is that a more reinforced brain pathway is triggered when we start the action, causing us to forget the rest once it leaves short term memory.
Sort of like the challenge of patting your head while rubbing your stomach. | 111 | 235 |
|
CMV: Ignoring the fairness of it, stereotyping would reduce crime. | First I will say that it pretty much already happens, despite being not politcally correct... it's just done with a pre meditated "cover reason"
But feelings aside, if X type of person is Y percent more likely to commit Z crime (regardless of other factors) then giving them more attention than other types would have a higher chance of reducing crime.
compare it to a video game. If a kobold has a 3% drop rate of an item but a troll has an 8% drop rate, and I can only pick 10 enemies total to hit looking for the drop, logically I'm going to mostly go after the trolls.
It really doesn't matter that the trolls have a higher drop rate because they can't afford fancy backpacks that keep the loot from falling out, or that because of their religion they wear the item on their head so it's easier to find.... the fact is you have a higher chance of getting the item from them than you do the other enemies.
It sucks for the vast majority of people who are innocent and meet that criteria but it's not like we're permanently impacting them, they're facing a minor inconvenience at the airport or during a traffic stop.
I think people get offended by it because they feel it somehow means they're a lower class of person because they get picked on... it doesn't.... it just means the team you play for has higher bad statistics and you should work to help change that if you don't like being picked on. Life is not fair but looking at it black and white and ignoring feelings, I believe this would reduce crime.
Maybe if one group got sick of being picked on and worked together to reduce their stats, the runner up group would start getting targeted as they would replace first place for most likely to do X.
Now do I think they actually should profile? No I'm not arguing this should happen, I'm simply arguing that if it *did* happen we would reduce crime.
And before you accuse me of subtley targeting one group behind algebra....this could be applied to anything:
1. Men are more likely to rape
2. Women are more likely to shoplift clothing
3. Teenagers are more likely to be the one at fault in an accident
4. A poor person driving away from a 711 in a beater is more likely to be the robber that just hit the liquor store than a wealthy grandpa leaving in his caddy.
Etc
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | >But feelings aside, if X type of person is Y percent more likely to commit Z crime (regardless of other factors) then giving them more attention than other types would have a higher chance of reducing crime.
No, you have a higher chance of catching crime. That's a big difference. If you treat one group like criminals all the time you might even increase crime in that area. To use your analogy, if by going after the trolls you increase their drop rate from 8% to 10%, you are causing the very problem you are hoping to solve.
Additionally, you have to remember that real life can be adaptive. If a gang, for example, has one white member and they need to transport something of huge value to them, they will use your profiling against you. That white member can slip by unnoticed because he doesn't fit the profile. Remember, there are lots of white people in ISIS and Al Quaeda too.
And lastly, remember, profiling creates confirmation bias. You think you know a pattern, so you follow that pattern, and you only get evidence that corroborates your previous point of view, making you much less adaptive to changing situations as well as much less open to the possibility of having been wrong. Statistics can be funny in other ways too. For example, if 90% of white people live in good areas and 90% of black people live in bad areas, but white people and black people commit the same percentage of crimes relative to the areas they live, black people will look much more criminal.
Instead, why not focus on high crime areas and focus on security weak points. If more black people live in a high crime area they will be looked at more than the average white person in the country, but not more than the average white person in the area. You can put security on major checkpoints (such as airports) and you can attack the social factors that cause crime (such as lack of education and low employment). | 488 | 394 |
What do you consider the 3-5 pillars that make a good programmer, when it comes to code? | I’d love to hear your 3-5 pillars which constitute a programmer that writes good code.
Not looking for personality traits...
Thank you for your feedback!!! | * Optimizes their code for readability (being easily understood by others) above all else.
* Understands the right level of abstraction for a given problem and appropriately modularizes their code.
* Stictly and relentlessly separates concerns within their software.
* Sticks to a single design idea per project rather than mixing architectural paradigms and styles.
* Understands the highest ROI for their work is not always solving the hardest/most pressing problem and sometimes doesn't involve writing code. | 53 | 29 |
CMV:I think America's political parties are lobbies and should instead write and advise on laws that are democratically voted on by the public. | Speaking as an American, I think that the United States Congress should be disbanded and replaced with the popular vote of the nation. I believe that online voting with biometrics would be a suitable way to do this as well as local voting locations. We can transfer the cost of maintaining Congress to fund this program and if need be I think the nation would overwhelmingly approve of finding extra funding in order to give the finger to D.C.
We could still have a President and still have political parties in America but instead of having that party decide the course of our democracy while listening to our humble suggestions of what we want, we could have political parties suggesting to us what to choose. Parties, and individuals/small teams, could write up laws, advertise, and nationally debate them. When citizens go to vote they can select a Democrat, Republican, or a Third party vote package which would come with the option of personally editing and customizing to your political interest.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | One of the problems you run into is the issue of tyranny of the majority wherein those in the majority will always see their rights put above others regardless of the fairness of the laws in question. While the current system isn't perfect, it allows representatives the ability to voice the views of minorities where their voices would normally be lost in the discourse.
One of the other major issues is the fact that it would put far too much political responsibility on the shoulders of the average citizen. Under the current system we're able to elect a representative whose sole job it is to keep up with current bills, propositions, and changes on the horizon and we can trust that they'll represent our interests when it comes to voting on the issues because we elected them to do it.
Under your proposed system, it would require every citizen to be independently aware of the nuances of all bills and important legal information related to them both locally and nationally, which is too much for the average person with a 9-5 to handle. All their free time would be spent researching. | 20 | 53 |
Interested in teaching, less interested in research | Currently pursuing a master's degree in media that is heavily research-focused. I have no problem with my research or the field I'm in, but I prefer plain old teaching over teaching and research. I was contemplating applying to schools for a PhD once I graduate, but I'm wondering if I need to. Can I teach at the university level without one? I understand PhD programs are heavily rooted in research, which again I have no problem with doing, but I'm wondering if this path is necessary if I'm interested more in teaching. | Technically you can teach intro classes with an MA. You will almost certainly not be hired though because everyone else applying for those positions will have a PhD.
You may have some luck at a Community College.
Realistically, if you even get classes, they will only be adjunct level so you will need other income unless you can get a ton of classes. | 115 | 144 |
Why does the pressure drop when the vessels contract? | I am currently studying hemodynamics and am very very confused. I couldn't find the answer in the physiology textbook nor I wasn't sure if the conclusion I came up with was right.
Although the blood is not Newtonian, I will just assume it is. (I believe whether the fluid is Newtonian or not, it doesn't change the basic "relationship" between the variables)
Eq1. P= Q*R (Ohm's Law)
Eq2. Q= π * (Po-Pi) * r^4 / 8μl
So from the textbook and lectures, it was pretty clear when vessels constrict the blood pressure drops.
How can I come up with that conclusion with those two equations? Can I say Q (at one certain point of the vessel) is constant?
Sorry for asking you an easy question. I wish I could post a picture with the figures (from the book) I am confused with but unfortunately I can only type.
Hope someone can resolve my confusion | We need to be clear here about what you mean when you say "vessels contract" because there are many different things that you *could* mean, and depending on what you *do* mean, what you think is true may or may not be accurate.
1) "Vessels contract/constrict" == a specific region of a blood vessel narrows, with no branching etc. and we look at the blood pressure in this region
In this case, blood pressure in the vessel *does* drop. As you note, the flow rate through this vessel is constant (because we have narrowed the scope to a tiny section of blood vessel). The constriction in the region means that, to maintain the same flow rate, the blood must flow faster, which leads to a lower static pressure via Bernoulli's principle (1/2 u^2 + gz + P/ρ = constant; if we assume change in z is negligible or zero, if u goes up, P must go down).
2) "Vessels contract/constrict" == *general* vasoconstriction; all the blood vessels constrict
In this case, blood pressure *increases*; it does not decrease. The total cardiac output (flow rate in liters per minute) is dictated by the oxygen demands of the body; if nothing changes other than general vasoconstriction, the blood pressure must rise because the total resistance to flow increases rapidly with a decrease in blood vessel radius.
You can see this in the Hagen-Poiseuille equation you listed, ΔP = 8μLQ / πR^4 (n.b. you appear to have copied the equation down incorrectly).
If we keep Q constant, and L (length of the blood vessel) doesn't change, then as R gets smaller, ΔP must increase. This is true for both small sections of blood vessels as well as the circulatory system as a whole - the pressure everywhere in the blood vessels rises, because the flow resistance increases everywhere. | 18 | 21 |
Do ants selectively breed aphids or fungi the same way humans do with cattle or crops? | I've read that certain species of ants will cultivate food either by [farming fungus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant-fungus_mutualism) or [keeping aphids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphid#Ant_mutualism).
Is there any evidence that the ants selectively breed either the aphids or the fungi in order to produce more desirable results?
I'm wondering if there are any parallels to say the different breeds of cattle (Holstein vs. Angus)? Or if they somehow affect the fungus to produce higher yields (similar to farmers using different strains of corn)?
If there is evidence of this type of phenomena, is it an indirect result of slow evolution, where the best-suited species naturally became more prominent, or is it a direct result of the ants intervening to produce better immediate results? | No. Selective breeding or artificial selection is a very different process. We actively look for individuals with traits we are interested in and pair them with other individuals. We screen offspring for the traits we like and apply very strong selective forces by only breeding a very few individuals in each generation. This does two things. First we generate a lot of variation in the process of selectively breeding certain individuals. Second we remove a lot of unwanted variation in subsequent generations. This produces rapid and dramatic shifts in the traits of interest. Ants are certainly not capable of this.
That is not to say ants don't exert selection on their fungus or aphids. they most certainly do. It just happens in a different way. Much slower, with less direction and intent. They are coevolving with these organisms, but not consciously directing their evolution.
BTW, Fantastically interesting question! | 584 | 1,548 |
ELI5: Why does there have to be poor and rich in an economy? Will it ever be possible for everyone to be considered well off? | * Some people will always be stronger, faster, smarter, better looking, or luckier than others, and will be able to use those to their economic advantage.
* Rich and poor are relative...the poor in the US generally have enough food, shelter, and protection...this makes them among the richest people in human history. | 19 | 15 |
|
Eli5: why do humans become so "stiff" as they get older? | One of the main factors causing stiffness is the increase in fibrous tissue that restricts movement of muscles and joints.
Whenever we exercise vigorously at any age we produce microscopic tears in muscle and the connective tissues such as tendons, ligaments and fascia that keep our bodies in one piece. The tearing of tissue triggers inflammation. This is the process by which the body repairs itself. Part of the repair process involves laying down a scaffolding of collagen fibres, usually in a random disorganized manner rather than well aligned with the usual direction of pull on that part of the body. The matted fibres are what is called scar tissue. If we subject the newly deposited fibres to gentle movement, the misdirected fibres get either removed or re-aligned and we are left with correctly oriented fibres that allow our joints and muscle to function smoothly. However if we move too vigorously or erratically, we simply tear more fibres and re-commence the cycle of inflammation and repair.
Although the damage starts with vigorous movement, being sedentary does not help because collagen fibres also get laid down between adjacent tissues that are not moving, binding them together, so we would become completely moribund. If we then move forcefully the fibres will tear and we commence a cycle of inflammation and fibre deposition.
With age, there is an almost inevitable build-up of excessive collagen fibres and other debris left behind after multiple cycles of the repair process, and our muscle and joints become stiff.
The way to minimise this is to keep active in a manner that minimises tearing of tissues and promotes optimal repair of those tissues that do get torn. The strategies for achieving this are:
1) Build up exercise gradually ensuring that tissues are strong enough to resist tearing. Strength building exercises (either body weight or in the gym) are a useful adjunct to aerobic exercise such as running
2) Warm up at the beginning of exercise so that any poorly aligned fibres are gently re-aligned rather than abruptly torn apart creating a new cycle of inflammation.
3) Avoid erratic movements, especially movements that require strength near the limit or your current strength;
4) Massage, foam rolling or gentle stretching to remove knotted fibres can be helpful. | 630 | 638 |
|
Suppose we (were) visit(ed) (by) an intelligent race of aliens. How could we possibly communicate with them? | I think this is comparable to explorers encountering an indegioness people, but it couldn't be that simple, could it? | Richard Feynman covers this in a book. Basically, start with math, because math should be universal.
Say 'tick one', 'tick tick two', 'tick tick tick three', etc. They'll probably figure out the pattern if they're intelligent and sense sound.
From there you have building blocks to map mathematical constructs between your language and the aliens' language (one plus two equals three).
Once you have that common ground in place it should be easy to extend it in every direction with a little cleverness. It may seem trivial but you could teach a lot by extending math into other subjects, like physics and logic, and with those you could turn around and teach things that abstract those concepts, like chemistry and philosophy and so on and so forth up the ladders of abstraction.
You wouldn't so much be teaching each other these concepts so much as teaching words for them, and with that comes a lot of cultural and biological framing for how the other experiences reality.
Some stuff could be hopelessly tricky. You could explain color with wavelengths but something as simple as 'left' vs 'right' is pretty hard to explain without presence and a common celestial reference, for example. | 24 | 31 |
[The Matrix] What happens when a person uses drugs? | Drugs; ranging from marijuana and alcohol, to heroin and pcp, affect the human mind itself, not how it perceives the world (excluding hallucinogenic effects). How does the matrix deal with that? Does it keep a supply of heroin and pcp around in each pod in order to dose the humans who decide to partake, or can it synthesize the effect somehow? What would happen if a human who had been freed took something? | The Matrix is simply a perception field for the mind. Any drug a human within the matrix could find, would be a manifestation of a computer program within the matrix... the program would simply run its course, making the user feel as if he/she had taken a drug.
The greater question is this: when you take drugs, how do you know if the effect they give you within the matrix has any correlation with the effect they would give you in the waking world? There is no way to know, unless you are fortunate enough to be pulled from the matrix, and then stupid enough to take drugs in the waking world (if they even exist IRL). This is fairly unlikely to happen because, remember: the matrix has you. | 22 | 26 |
How to get better at Asking Questions? | I am a PhD student in the computer science field. And I've just been wondering... What's a good way at getting better at asking questions? Or better at formulating them?
I've noticed one thing that really sets apart an academic is the questions and type of questions they ask during a guest lecturer or seminar.
I can't help but marvel at the eloquence, structure, and delivery from some of the senior profs.
It's one thing to ask insightful questions, but another on the delivery of it.
Sometimes I find myself having the same questions for a speaker, but the way I formulated it might be off or I am not quite getting the response I was looking for.. and someone else asks it and immediately I recognize it to be much better...
Others with thoughts on this? | Practice and experience. Usually, the people who sound "eloquent" are just using the precise terminology for their field, which is something that comes from spending a lot of time working in that field and becoming very familiar with it. Once you have a strong working vocabulary it becomes much easier to be more concise and precise with your questions.
Also... don't worry about it too much. Focus on asking good questions that help you learn something about the subject at hand, and don't worry about how it comes out. If you're lucky, you can get the real prize which is a topic for a follow-up discussion with that presenter after their talk, in other words a networking opportunity. | 56 | 81 |
ELI5: Why can we make machinery with extremely precise movements, but not robots that walk realistically? | Was browsing /r/mechanical_gifs and this occurred to me.
Factory line machines seem capable of insanely accurate and exact movements - surely achieving believable and organic looking walking in a robot would simply require the correct combination of well timed movements. | The difficult part of walking isn't the precision of the movements, it's knowing what movements to make.
Assembly line robots have the advantage of knowing exactly where the thing they are supposed to cut/bend/move/rivet is going to be, exactly where the screw holes are, and so on. Most of them don't even have any sensors, they just know that the work piece is going to be in position X, because the system holds it there. And the ones that DO have sensors (for example, a robot that picks up objects from a moving conveyor belt and puts them in a box) still have it easy because the things they are picking up all look alike, and they are on a background that makes them stand out.
In other words, assembly line robots can do what they do with great precision because every part of the process has been designed around them, to make it easy for them.
For a robot, walking around in an un-controlled environment is much more difficult. There are a million different floor patterns, and some of them might confuse the robot into thinking that there's an obstacle there. Balancing is hard, because the robot has to figure out exactly how to balance right *in that moment*. An assembly line robot has had its movements planned out for it ahead of time, because those are the only movements it will ever need to make. A walking robot needs to be able to balance itself correctly under a huge variety of different circumstances.
The bottom line is that assembly line robots are barely even really robots. Everything they do is planned out carefully by engineers. If you had a team of engineers to plan out a robot's every single step, then sure, it could probably walk great. But figuring out how to do those motions on the fly is WAY harder. Walking may not seem like a challenging task, because you do it without thinking about it, but actually, that's just an indication of how fucking amazing your brain is. Your brain does a lot of work behind the scenes to let you walk without thinking about it. | 661 | 801 |
CMV:Bodybuilding isn't a real sport the same as custom car or motorbike or PC building isn't a real sport. | As painful as this might be for some please follow my logic before downvoting.
Bodybuilding has a few objective goals which as easy as they are to state will always be judged subjectively by judges, participants and fans.
These goals include
-building muscle mass on the participants body to be larger than genetics would ordinarily dictate without training.
-this growth should be full throughout the body and propotional to typical anatomical models
-For competition purposes the competitor should be the lowest body fat possible for the sake of muscle definition and perceived "hardness".
-competition showcase would be inclusive of posing on stage to give the competitor the maximum advantage.
These are the fundamentals and you'll notice everything is quite subjective. The judges score what they see, that is all. They probably could be more objective and include dexa scans, blood tests but as bodybuilding is a showcase, not a sport they don't.
This is similar to other showcase events including automotive, computer and fashion/ beauty because competitors although required to meet internal standards such as drug testing or( sometimes not) are generally not constrained as to HOW they achieve their specific look where as looking at something like weightlifting, you have specific criteria to meet in each movement as you perform and failure to meet these criteria even with a broomstick is a failed lift.
Futher proof of bodybuildings showcase classification is the contention and debate that every Olympia or any other major competion brings about unless conclusively won in indisputable fashion. The best example is the 1980 Mr. Olympia competion held in Sydney Australia.
No other sport has such an open ended conversation regarding the result.
There it is. Change my veiw. | I challenge your view that judge decided competitions are not sports. Many classical sports are decided by a panel of judges. Gymnastics, synchronized swimming, and diving, are all Olympic sports that are decided by judges.
From the outside, the layman can't really tell what the difference between at 9.8 or 10.0 vault is, but the judges can. The same can be said for bodybuilding. There are certain muscles that can be difficult to develop and these are noticed by the judges. These small details separate the losers and the winners.
Bodybuilders are also in a league with other athletes in their commitment to their competition. World champions spend every day at the gym and eat a specialized diet. This is not unlike Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps or basically any other world class athletes.
I will concede that bodybuilders are not competing in the sense that they perform some incredible feat. However, having physiques like they do is an incredible achievement and could be considered an incredible achievement.
| 26 | 21 |
ELI5: How do credit scores work? | Hi everyone! I am woefully deficient in knowledge about credit scores. While I have good credit, it all seems highly illogical to me especially as I prefer to use my debit card over my credit card.
Could someone please explain what a credit score is? Why is it important? How it is calculated? And why certain aspects (such as length of time using and amount of use for credit cards) matter? Thank you! | There's 4 main companies which compile credit data provided by peoples creditors and also companies which harvest public record information like LexisNexis. This data is compiled into a credit file and then provided a mathematical score based on things like credit payment history, revolving usage, and length of credit history. The most important mathematical score is called a FICO and provided by Fair Isaac and not by the credit data repositories themselves.
The formula Fair Isaac uses is not public knowledge but the number is far from arbitrary and ranges from 350 to 850. The credit repositories have also made their own "credit scores" but no lenders use them and their general purpose seems to be to confuse consumers. | 15 | 61 |
[ATLA/TLOK] How long does it take for a bender to achieve full mastery of their element? | It can vary according to their affinity and resources. A prodigy like Katara can master waterbending in a few months with a great teacher like Pakku and some practical experience from traveling with the Avatar. A typical bender with typical means can take a few years. | 36 | 35 |
|
ELI5: How do genetic variations work? Why are chimpanzees and apes remarkably different than us although we do share 95-99% DNA? | What most people don't realize is how much of the genetic code is required just for the most basic functions of life. It's like using libraries when writing an app - you can make very different apps just by shuffling around what you use from which library, while adding minimal code yourself.
Think stuff like making proteins, reading and copying DNA, reacting to the availability or absence of food, scheduling cells for division,....
All of that takes *a lot* of code and is basically the same everywhere. | 72 | 46 |
|
ELI5: How are medicines made? | I'm assuming, for medicines which originated from plants, it's not a case of 'squeeze the juice out of a load of foxgloves and get digitalis' any more. I'm vaguely aware of 'synthesising' drugs. How does this work? What about drugs that don't originate from plants?
EDIT: explained! Thanks all :) | Synthetic organic chemistry. The more complex the molecule, the longer the synthesis. It's hard as fuck. Not only is it hard to actually make (and with the correct stereochemistry), then you have to make it economically viable on a production scale. Pharmaceuticals are expensive for a reason. | 12 | 40 |
ELI5: What's is IFRS and what is its purpose ? | (International financial reporting standards) | The idea is that a company doing business in Germany might have a different way of accounting for its expenses and revenue and assets and everything than a company in Canada. But by having a standard, agreed upon set of practices for accounting, now that company in Germany can expand to Canada and the company in Canada can expand to Germany without having to learn a completely new way of accounting and then figuring out how to adopt that into its own country's system. | 30 | 20 |
ELI5: Why are India and China so densely populated? | Both areas have stable climates, good soil, plenty of water and of course, rice. Per square mile rice has a very high yield and can be grown in many places, as long as you have enough water for it. Rice is also very labour intensive, which would incentivize rice farmers to have very large families, which they also had no trouble feeding thanks to their amazing rice. | 19 | 23 |
|
Professor overstepping personal boundaries? | I hope this is okay to post here. I’m a female grad student in a class with a male professor who is also on my thesis committee. This is my second class with this professor and he has always been extremely nice, professional, and encouraging. However, recently I’ve picked up on certain behaviors that give me some pause.
A few weeks ago he began to text me on my cellphone on the weekends. I did not give him my number - he presumably got it from my email signature. He has kept it mostly school related but did call my cellphone and ended the conversation with random personal questions. He has also recently added me on Facebook. Additionally a male classmate and I had to have similar one-on-one meetings to discuss our final projects and I told the male classmate to expect to field lots of personal questions from this professor (since that was my experience in our meeting). My classmate came back saying that did not happen at all. However a female classmate of mine also experienced the same treatment as I did with lots of questions and compliments in the second half of the meeting that were off topic from the project.
The attention does not feel sexual in anyway but does feel excessive and gender specific. Should I say something to someone in the hopes that it doesn’t progress or should I just stay observant and not make a big deal? Has anyone experienced this?
I received another text from him today asking why I wasn’t at an on campus event I had registered for. It all seems fairly innocuous but I feel sensitive to it.
UPDATE: Thank you all for your feedback, it’s very helpful. I am removing my cellphone from my email signature, I completely agree that if I don’t want people to contact me I shouldn’t provide it. I’ve had my cellphone on my email signature for years without issue so this is new territory.
I also want to clarify that personal questions varied from, “Do you have siblings? What do your parents do?” to “How did you pay for your undergraduate degree?” to “Why are you wanting to live in that city after graduation, do you have family or a boyfriend there?” What made them more unnerving is that they came out of nowhere with no prompting. We would be talking about something related to work and then he would jump to asking me a fairly specific question about my personal life. When we talked on the phone he asked me if I was going to a music festival and if I knew how he could get tickets. It seemed more like a question for Google than for me. The conversation also had no urgency at all and I was going to see him in class the next day. Like I said, they are fairly innocuous but I do not have a strong personal relationship with him and this strikes me as a strange way to build one. I have had good friendships with colleagues and professionals before but this is not how I experienced forming those relationships.
As for the small sample size, I understand that not a lot can be gleaned from the experience of three people. However, I can say that the other female independently arrived at a feeling of discomfort in her interactions with him as well. I would say the three of us are equally engaged and ambitious, so there’s no reason I can see that the professor would have to not offer the same treatment to my male classmate. | Document, document, document, but also be clear about boundaries you would like to have. If you don't want to get texts about academic stuff on the weekends, say that. You can frame it as "work-life balance" or whatever you want, but make it crystal clear. | 116 | 95 |
ELI5: Why airplane windows have a small hole in it? | Airplane windows are composed of multiple layers, and the small hole allows the air pressure to equalize between some of the inner layers. It also prevents moisture buildup that could result in condensation that fogs up the view.
Air pressure within airliners varies quite a bit, they are pressurized above ambient pressure during flight but below ground level pressure. Without a hole the layers of the windows would have significant pressure one way or another, imposing undue material stresses. | 92 | 69 |
|
Why do people always blame presidents for prices going up? Do the presidents have anything to do with it? | People are hardwired to look for explanations. Every event must have a specific cause. If they can't find a cause, they choose someone to be responsible. In the US, the obvious individual with the greatest personal power is the President, therefore he must be the cause.
That result is magnified by the drive of the opposition party to shift as much responsibility possible to enemy and the tendency of most people to believe what they are told by the voice of authority they recognize | 198 | 217 |
|
What actually is "conservatism"? | Can someone for the love of God please tell me what conservatism is? I understand there's different flavors of it just like socialism, but atleast I could give you a solid umbrella definition of it. All I know about it, is Burke. I've heard about realism and such, but every single conservative has a different take or different values. Is there any cohesion between the different conservative ideologies? Or is it just an umbrella term for center right to far right ideologies? | Here are some general headings, themes, or dispositions characteristic of philosophical conservatism. It is not meant to be a list of necessary and sufficient conditions. There is *much* to unpack here, and each of these bulletpoints is not strictly orthogonal to the others.
* ***Emphasis on experience over abstract reason, systemization, and theory***
* The thesis that there are certain kinds of knowledge that can only be gleaned through experience and practice, and cannot be learned from or codified in a book, and that moral and political knowledge is primarily of this kind. See Michael Oakeshott's *Rationalism in Politics.*
* ***Emphasis on historical embeddedness, contextualism, and particularism***
* The thesis that there are few, if any, universal rules or principles, and that many things can only be judged on a case-by-case basis with reference to factors that obtain only within a particular context, time, or place.
* ***A general skepticism toward sudden change***
* The idea that it is easier to destroy than to build, and that there is value in merely existing as is, or in such existential inertia. (See G.A. Cohen's "Rescuing Conservatism" for a good statement of this impulse.)
* Belief in the accretion of wisdom, knowledge, or value in things that exist over time—such as traditions, institutions, elders, etc.—which underwrites a defeasible presumption in favor of continuity with the status quo.
* ***Sentimentalism*** **and** ***romanticism***
* The view that aesthetic or spiritual considerations can or should be weighty in public deliberation.
* The thesis that emotions are essential to morality, and to moral, social, and political life in general (cf. moral sentimentalism).
* ***A generally positive evaluation of hierarchies***
* The thesis that hierarchies (unequal social arrangements) can and often are morally good and valuable.
* ***Emphasis on embodiment, natural essences, and teleology***
* The thesis that things have intrinsic purposes, essences, or functions, against which "goodness" for those things can be defined.
* An emphasis or embrace of facts about human beings qua human beings, and skepticism toward attempts to abstract, "perfect", or idealize away from such facts (e.g., abstract "persons" with free-floating preferences behind a veil of ignorance).
* ***Pluralistic axiology and "thick" moral concepts***
* Appeals to a wide range of moral values and sentiments, including "thick" moral concepts such as honor, courage, etc. | 104 | 60 |
[The Matrix] what do freedom fighters do inside the matrix besides redpilling teenagers and one-hunting? | Is that it? It feels like they put a lot of manpower and resources into in-matrix operations, and spend a lot of time in dangerous enemy territory, especially considering that not everyone believes in the one, and that they can contact people in the matrix from outside the matrix. Do they just spend a lot of time in there because they like it there?
I know in Final Flight of the Osiris they use it to deliver a message, but it seems like it would be dumb to make that their primary comm network. | Mapping exits and updating those maps, installing tracers, looking for people who are starting to break free on their own, probing chinks in the armor.
It's a full-time job, without which the operators wouldn't have as full of a picture as to what's going on, endangering everyone. | 40 | 36 |
Can a single, massive-scale epidemic such as bubonic plague or smallpox have a positive effect on the 'gene pool' for humanity as a whole? | I'm posing this question under the asusmption that those at an initial advantage to survive, for example, a bout of plague were at such an advantage because of a 'generally strong immune system'. Is this a moderately accurate assumption, or would one's chances of surviving the plague be more attributable to a genetic advantage unrelated to one's ability to fight off infection in general. (If the latter, then I would assume the answer to my initial query is 'no', other than the benefit of resistance to the plague itself).
edit - doh, title typo. | >Can a single, massive-scale epidemic such as bubonic plague or smallpox have a positive effect on the 'gene pool' for humanity as a whole?
There's no positive or negative; value judgments are not for genes, genomes, or natural history. But they do exert their effects. Multiple genetic traits are found in the population as a result of infectious diseases: Sickle cell anemia and thalassemia from malaria (definitely), CF from infectious diarrhea (probably), CCR5 deficiency from plague (probably). | 16 | 25 |
Why do people spend up to 6-7 years to finish a PhD in the US, compared 4 years in the UK? | Not to knock anyone down, just an honest question. Is the standard in the US higher? Which is ironic considering the opposite is true for undergrad. | Other commentators point out the practical differences but should add specialisation occurs much earlier in the UK. Consider that you narrow to 3 to 4 subjects age 16-18, then to one at degree, plus a master's. | 209 | 150 |
ELI5: Why is it that one of the main compounds in bee venom, melittin, can be used as an anti-inflammatory when it causes the area that is stung to become swollen? | Bee venom contains many components. It causes a reaction in some ways, but stifles certain other immune responses that would diminish the venoms effects.
This makes it good for *some* types of inflammation. There are many kinds of receptors and chemical messagers that are in control of inflammation, this protein in bee venom specificly works for receptor/pathways called NF-kB and JAK-2.
These control responses to some specific inflammatory triggers. The protein (melittin) in bee venom inhibits them, meaning it blocks them from working. By doing so, it stops the body from responding to those inflammation triggers. That stops or reduces the inflammation before it happens.
So basically, melittin blocks the things that cause inflammation to protect the venom so it can do its job better. Otherwise, these reactions could help to stop the venom. We use this to benifit us by using the protein by itself without the other things in venom that cause inflammation in other ways. | 54 | 105 |
|
ELI5: With variables such as tides and waves, how do scientists measure sea level changes of just millimeters in height? | Hundreds of measurements taken at hundreds of locations, averaged out over time and compensating for seasonal shifts. With all of that taken together, you can get a pretty good estimate of average increases. | 11 | 47 |
|
CMV: Even if I'm a pro - DIY stands for "Do-It-Yourself" so as long as I did it myself, it's a DIY. | The title basically, I was joking with my friends about a new car I bought. It happened to be from my company and a model I actually worked on. So I called it a DIY jokingly. My friend got all prickly and said that it's not a DIY since I am a professional.
Obviously, it's NOT a DIY in that particular scenario since I didn't build the entire car myself, but the "pro" argument is what stuck with me. ~~That makes no sense. DIY stands for "Do It Yourself", how does professional experience have anything to do with it? If I'm a general contractor and I decide to build my own patio... well nothing about that sentence changes the fact that I did it myself which is what the word means literally. I mean it's in the name...~~
Update: One of the commenters below has tweaked my view a bit - would love to keep the conversation going on this adjusted premise.
*How you execute the project and with what tools determines DIY-ness.. not my status as a professional?*
IE :
||Professional|Amateur|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Professional Equipment|Not DIY|DIY|
|Amateur Equipment|DIY|DIY|
​ | Words and terms are rarely literal and rarely match an exact dictionary definition.
"DIY" stands for "Do-it-yourself", but it also implies a sort of amateurism and custom/impromptu workmanship to it. A totally standard job, done to professional standards, that just happens to have been done at the contractor's own patio rather than a client's, does not necessarily meet the spirit of DIY even if that person literally Did It Themselves. Similarly, if you had bought a kit car and built it in your professional shop, it'd be kind of odd to call that a DIY, but if some rando bought a kit car and assembled it in their garage it'd be a lot closer to the spirit of DIY. | 61 | 75 |
ELI5 Why didn't Italy ever colonise the New World? | With all the important early expeditions organised by Italian explorers (Columbus, John Cabot, Vespucci, Giovanni da Verrazano etc.), how come Italy itself never established a single long-term colony in basically a whole planetary hemisphere named for an Italian? Even the Dutch had an American empire. | During the Age of Discovery, Italy was not a country, but rather a collection of city states. England, Portugal, France, Spain, and the Netherlands were large strong nations that could pay for, and support exploration and then the subsequent colonization. During this time, the Italian states were fighting one another quite heavily and were not in a real position to explore and colonize. That's why all the Italian explorers went to foreign powers to support their journeys. | 31 | 15 |
CMV: More coding classes should be added, but better. | Ok, so the whole education system is flawed. They were made for the 19th-century factory workers, and hasn't changed much since then. It's all about memorization and listening to directions. The most important part of being a good worker is to listen to directions from the boss. But now we have much more freedom over jobs, and therefore the education system must be changed. One way to modernize the school system is to add coding classes. There already is some coding implemented, but we need more. A full class, not as an after school or extraneous program. I also strongly disagree with what they are doing with "Hour Of Code" ([https://hourofcode.com/us/learn](https://hourofcode.com/us/learn), try one, and you might see what I mean). 1: It's only an hour. 2: Stacking blocks is not coding. Also the program Scratch ([scratch.mit.edu](https://scratch.mit.edu)) is the same thing. I mean real, actual, coding introduced to grades 4+. JavaScript, Java, C#. I would prefer p5 ([p5js.org](https://p5js.org)) then Hour Of Code. The thing is, what to get rid of then? Surely people don't want kids to go to school an extra couple hours. After thinking about it, I would say foreign language classes. This is hypothetical, so please don't get mad if you are a foreign language teacher. I realize that foreign language learning is beneficial in many ways, I'm just saying that if coding classes were to be added, language classes would be the one to rid. | You can’t really code well until you learn a bit about Computer Science (CS), which teaches you what your code actually means and does. CS is a tricky subject and it doesn’t really make sense to teach it before high school, especially because you need high school math to understand a lot of concepts.
You should definitely learn how to use a computer in lower grades but it would be really hard to effectively teach big CS concepts to kids who haven’t even done Algebra 1 yet.
Also whoever teaches JavaScript to kids as their first coding language should be imprisoned. | 12 | 18 |
ElI5: how do they know what other planets are made off, how can the be so sure? Jupiter could be made of a completely unknown gas? | Each atom absorbs specific wavelengths of light dependent on the element. So if we look at Jupiter’s spectrum, we will see dark lines where Jupiter’s atoms absorb light. By analyzing what wavelengths are these lines we can tell which atoms Jupiter is made of, or at least which atoms can be seen near its surface.
We can also deduce the mass of celestial objects from their gravity interactions. Knowing the mass and size of planets allows to calculate their average density, which helps to deduce what they are made of.
Also we have already landed spacecraft on at least some of the planets and drilled some holes into them. | 158 | 174 |
|
Why do people die of starvation without using up all their bodies' fat reserves first? | I've read that the human body starts breaking down proteins for energy after some time during starvation even when there is still fat left that the body could have utilized to make energy. Why is that so?
Also, is it possible for a person to survive on just his fat reserves for a long period of time if he can't find anything to eat? | Your body requires more than just fat and protein to survive, and this long list includes your vitamins and minerals that keep your inner machinery working. Not enough vitamin C? Scurvy! No vitamin A in your diet? Keratomalacia!Lacking vitamin B12? Say hello to atrophic gastritis.
Again, you can't survive on just fat alone. | 53 | 142 |
Eli5 how do faraday cages block electromagnetic waves? | The waves we use to transmit information are typically quite large, usually from a few centimetres to a few metres. These are called microwaves or radio waves.
Metals pick up these waves and conduct them, that’s how antennas work.
Whilst you could block these signals with a metal box, a cage would be just as effective as you’re dealing with large waves that can’t get through the gaps.
For example, your microwave glass is just ordinary glass, the metal grid embedded in the glass is what stops the microwaves getting out and cooking your face off as you watch your food heat up.
However, if you’re dealing with high energy waves like UV, X-Rays and Gamma Rays, a Faraday cage won’t suffice as these have very tiny wavelengths, you need thick sheets of a very dense metal, like lead, to protect from these. | 65 | 57 |
|
Are there some direct descendants from dinosaur ages in plant world? | We are often talking about dinosaurs, what they looked like and have become, but are there plants that have lived from those times up until today? | Several plant lineages have survived through the Cretaceous extinction, although the relative abundance of each has varied greatly since.
The first flowering plants emerged during that time, but were relatively less abundant than in modern floras. Magnolias in particular are one of the oldest lineages of flowering plants.
More abundant were conifers (pine and spruce for instance) and ferns (including tree ferns), as well as ginkos and cycads. | 17 | 16 |
Why isn't forced copulation the norm in the Animal Kingdom? | Wikipedia has a brief section on it, citing several examples of forced copulation but it appears from there that it is not the norm across the Animal kingdom. This seems puzzling to me since it would seem to carry a massive evolutionary benefit to those males who could copulate with females regardless of cooperation.
I would speculate that the reason is because females have generally evolved methods for preventing it (I believe this is true in ducks, with the shape of the vagina). But is this true in other species?
Edit: Thinking some more, I woud imagine that if 'rape prevention' in females has evolved, then sexual attractiveness from a male standpoint, should include this ability. Has this been established? | Females evolving methods to prevent forced copulation is part of the story - there is strong selection on males to mate with as many females as possible (whether or not the female wants to cooperate), but there is also strong selection on females to be picky. Another part of the story is cryptic female choice, in which females in many groups have control over whether to fertilize their eggs with a male's sperm after mating with him. This means that even if a male was successful in forcing a copulation, he may not end up producing any offspring, and selection would thus favour the male who can convince females to willingly use his sperm. | 12 | 18 |
CMV: Bureaucracies suck the life out of their employees, kill creativity and innovation, instill fear of change, and end up becoming self-filling machines with no outer purpose than to prevail and maintain the status quo. | I have worked in a large bureaucracy for more than 20 years. I’m a creative and innovative person but I have refused to admit up until now that creatives and innovators do not have an place in such a setting. After many years of struggling to change things for the better - streamline processes, challenge prevailing thinking, without much success, I have decided to give up. The little success I have achieved seems not worth all the energy and enthusiasm put in by me and others.
Bureaucracy and bureaucratic thinking seem to win every time. Trouble is, we have not found an organising principle that can debunk bureaucracies from their 2,000+ year reign of terror so until we do, we are stuck with this.
I don’t think there is really that much difference either between public and private sector bureaucracies. Mine is a large public sector one. I have won every medal and award for innovation, but it still feels like I have achieved little.
I’d be happy for someone to prove me wrong either by convincing me that bureaucracies are a force for good, or they can in fact be changed, that attitudes and culture can be changed.
Or perhaps you can convince me there is hope by showing me validated and working alternative organisational principles to silo’ed and hierarchical thinking, knowledge is power syndromes, assymetric information exchange, fear, etc typical of bureaucracies.
Happy to be proved wrong since I believe that what the world needs most right now is change, but bureaucracies just cannot deliver.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: Since it looks like the conversation has now ended, and in the spirit of CMV, I would like to come back now and sum up (a) any new things I learned or new perspectives I gained and (b) where, if anywhere, my view was changed.
I'll start with s_wipe. I disagree that bureaucracies basically give jobs to mediocre people who were not born creative and smart. Around me there are many talented people, and even more people whose talent is wasted since there is nowhere for their ideas to go. But I do see his/her point that preventing change is not necessarily a bad thing. Using the Trump case to illustrate that drove home the point. It got me thinking that one of the problems of control systems is that they are not even aware of what is being killed in the name of control. On a number of occasions, having sufficient checks and balances can be a good thing, but if this prevents any real and lasting change from occurring at other times then that really cannot be good for social progress. Going slow is a recipe for disaster in a fast changing world.
The point about going slow enabling learning, I don't really get it. When you go fast, and fail fast, perhaps you learn more of value? I guess it depends on the context. I can accept that some institutional setups need more compliance than others - banks, social security networks were mentioned. I guess a few eyebrows would be raised when the newcomer suggests organising an innovation party at a nuclear power station or facility. I guess I can see that setups are different and one innovation pattern does not fit all.
DBDude introduce also that the slowness of change in bureaucracy can be a good thing and the value of continuity.
hillthebilly introduced the concern, with the onslaught of technology, of the future employability of pen pushers. I guess it is indeed a problem although it is slightly off subject. It made me wonder if organisations run by robots and algorithms would be any easier to change that those run by humans. Change in human settings is notoriously difficult. Robots are not going to complain (or not yet at least :-)) when their software is upgraded... There are any number of experts out there calling for a radical overhaul of education, be it towards STEAM, HECI or other models, and that will surely build resilience in the next generation and a perhaps more aligned with the times set of expectations about work for life.
The point raised about universal basic income, again by s_wipe is of course in the air, but again, to follow the general thread of this discussion, I find progress on such things just too damn slow.
I share poo-et's point about bureaucracy being a sliding scale... startups will tend to consider themselves unbureaucratic until one day they wake up and realise that they succombed to the fate of all (most?) large organisations. I can also see the point that bureaucracies may not be an "intended management structure" but may just come into existence despite the good will and good faith of many concerned. Poo-et also suggests that the harder it is to change a well designed bureaucracy the better, since this prevents hijack by malicious actors. I guess my world view is perhaps rather towards trusting others to do the right thing, but I can accept that this is not always the case in practice. I was interested in the point that in organisations with high levels of trust through, say, competence vetting, bureaucracy tends to be less intrusive. That made me think about the (perhaps absurd) case of, say, a family unit. Family members don't usually fill in time sheets or complete annual objectives, as a matter of course, and they only get "audited" I guess when something serious is wrong, e.g. in couple counselling. But I diverge...
illuminator007 and tshadley suggest that my dilemma (i.e. being a frustrated creative in a bureaucracy) is to some extent due to my unwillingness to make a perhaps more reasonable tradeoff between the autonomy and creativity one can display in a small organisation (and its long hours and need for total dedication, risk of failure) and the freedom one can achieve in larger organisations through specialisation, or, as he/she states the tradeoff between autonomy and getting your life back. I can see this is a valid point. We are all responsible for the choices we make to a large extent... But I disagree on this division... within public sector organisations there is a tremendous untapped potential to set standards, and to change the world...
NetRunnerCardAccount cast doubt on whether the lack of willingness to change was not due to change agents not making the case effectively, in a way the organisation would understand (show that something is inefficient, design a fix and show why it is better, call out those opposing change). I can see that something ideas for change are a bit "new age" because they are not grounded in the daily reality of staff, who are just to busy to spend the time making them fit.
ItsPandatory introduced the til then undiscussed idea of whether all are born with equal artistic or creative talents, and that organisations need a mix of idea creators, and doers. I don't believe in the myth of the creative being a lone genius, but I can see the point that a mix of skills is necessary. If a bunch of creatives are on a boat together they'll probably spend all the time reimagining the boat rather than trying to get to any particular destination. I can see that.
I think that -fireeye- was spot on in the need to ringfence innovation by means of a slush fund... i.e. let the organisation do what it does, but protect/fund projects that experiment with taking it out of its comfort zone, in controlled experiments. The other option is to wait for others to innovate and copy or acquire. I have noticed that one of the most compelling arguments public sector bosses are open to is that so-and-so other public sector organisation has done this and it works.
blueelffishy suggest that one of the values of bureaucracies is that they can achieve more than a smaller number of people can achieve, and this makes then "not pointless".
thanks to others who commented too.
Re-reading the above made me realise a bit more my motivation for working creatively in such a challenging environment. There are so many challenges to be tackled in the world, and public sector organisations hold the key to enabling resources to be applied where needed to get this done. They have a wider view than businesses (who necessarily have a more limited financial imperative). This is why I believe we need to look long and hard at public sector innovation if we are going to see the change that we and our children need in our lifetimes.
So for me it is not enough to say "go elsewhere if you want to innovate" or "you cannot expect civil servants to be innovative". I believe we have to expect that, despite how hard it is to effect change.
Moderators, please note that I would like to award deltas to blueelffishy, DBDude and s_wipe for trying to show that the slow progress achieved by bureaucracy has its place, and is indeed not pointless, although some further examples may have helped.
Ultimately, it does not take much to change things, but we have to want to change... So many people complain and expect others to fix things/ Perhaps after all is said and done, my gripe is more with the conservatism of individuals than with the inherent conservatism of the organisations they create. | Bureaucracies are good for 2 things, and i think these are 2 really important things:
1) give jobs to mediocre people. The sad truth is that not everyone was born creative and smart, there are countless of average people that need to be employed, and bureaucracy allows them to do something without having to be innovative and creative, just following pre-written instructions and forms.
2) prevent chaos caused by too much change. Bureaucracy inhibits change, you said so yourself, but thats not necessarily a bad thing.
Imagine a world where every 4 years, a president would change and with him, the entire way things are regulated.
Every 4 years it will be new forms, new laws, new regulation. It will be pure chaos.
Bureaucracy prevents the system from oscillating uncontrollably.
Look at trump... Just think what would happen if he wasnt restricted by the bureaucratic process | 17 | 17 |
What would be the best argument for transgender athletes to be allowed to compete in sports, within the gender-division they identify as? | i.e. a trans-woman competing in the female division and a trans-man competing in the male division.
​
Edit: This post is concerned with admission into the competitive and professional levels of sport. | Overwhelmingly, focus is placed on trans women competing with other women, and those calling for a ban on trans women competing in womens sports overwhelmingly focus on fairness as the primary reason. So, we might look at actual case studies of trans women competing in womens divisions in sports. And if we did that, we'd find that trans women tend to *under* perform compared to cis women (in that, cis women overwhelmingly represent the top of womens sports). Renee Richards is probably the most famous example; she competed in mens tennis before her transition, and kept competing in womens tennis following it, and her record was hardly astounding (not a diss to her, she was probably better at tennis than I'll ever be).
On the flip side, trans men, tending to be frequently and callously ignored in these discussions, also seem to be pretty average when competing in mens divisions. When forced to compete in *womens* divisions, however, well, look at Mack Beggs. He had to wrestle in the Texas womens division despite actively undergoing hormone treatment and explicitly expressing the desire to compete with other men. He won the girls championship in 2017 with a 52-0 record, and in 2018 with a 32-0 record.
If fairness is the goal (though, the goalposts seem to be moving all the time), then forcing trans athletes to compete in the division of their birth gender is plainly counterproductive to this end. | 75 | 55 |
How does the d(x^2-y^2) orbitals not interfere with the px and py orbitals, since they are on the same planes? | I am unsure what you mean by "interfere".
The electrons in the atoms are also all interchangeable. I.e., the wave function is symmetric for the exchange of electrons. So in a sense there is interactions there. This is due to the fact that all the orbitals overlap with each other. Orbitals are probability functions defined over all of space, they all "interfere" with each other at all time.
Finally, let's keep in mind the basic orbitals you learn are simplified in that they look at interactions of the nucleus with a single electron. To calculate more refined orbitals (albeit we do not necessarily change the quamtum numbers associated with those), you have to take into considerations electron-electron interactions, so that is another form of interference you could think about. (But the results of those calculations, and of experimentations is still that electrons lie in orbitals whose wave functions are overlapping, just the shapes are changed somewhat) | 10 | 49 |
|
ELI5: Why do counties in the U.S. gradually get larger the farther west you are? | http://i.imgur.com/6Cw5c9b.jpg | In the eastern states, county borders follow settlement patterns. The cities and towns were grouped into counties, with each important city getting its own. Out west, county maps were planned out long before many cities got going, so that many are fairly regular divisions of the states. There are still large swathes of undeveloped land in the western states that are placed in one county or another, and have no administrative need for finer division. | 35 | 27 |
ELI5: Scientific notation and why it’s necessary | Because every science course I’ve taken so far has left me even more confused than ever. | Scientific notation is used to represent really small or large numbers, or number in cases where how many digits you can be sure are accurate really matters.
To make scientific notation, you take the number - let's say 1867 - and write it with the first digit in the ones column, and the rest after the decimal point. In this case, 1.867. Then, you multiply it by the power of ten that would give you that number - this is the number of places you had to move the decimal. In this case, you moved the decimal three places to the left - x10\^3.
To give some examples of where this is useful, writing 0.0000000000782g requires counting zeroes, and leaves a lot of room for error. With a number that small, doing math with it is pretty unintuitive anyway, so changing it into the harder to visualize 7.82x10\^-11 makes it a lot easier to work with without making it particularly harder to imagine. \*Note - most places in the world don't use commas in their large or small numbers, so all the zeros blur together like that
It can also be helpful in places where significant figures, or how many digits you know from data and how many just showed up in the math, matters. If you measure that you have 10.0 grams of something, and you know that 1/3 of that by weight is green, then the answer that you'd get is 3.33333333333333333...g of green. However, your scale's only so accurate. Maybe you have 10.00478083984g total grams. You have no way of knowing that anything past 3.33 is actually correct, so you don't write this.
In a case where you end up with a very large number, like 1 888 967, and you only know that the first three digits are accurate, how do you write that? If you write 1 890 000, it still kind of implies that you're sure of those zeroes. The best way to do it is 1.89x10\^6 | 50 | 17 |
What is the evolutionary advantage of primates losing endogenous Vitamin C production? And are there nowadays humans who are able to produce their own Vitamin C? | I am wondering because it seems plausible to me that due to illnesses spreading more rapidly in human societies as opposed to hunter gatherers, it could be that the immune system advantage of producing Vitamin C could outperform whatever advantage the loss of Vitamin C production had. | Evolution does not necessarily have to be an advantage, it can be enough that it is not a disadvantage.
If food supplements the Vitamin C intake, there are no negative consequences of no longer producing it.
If those with the gene variation that no longer produces Vitamin C do not have any disadvantages because of it, the gene can spread. Which is likely what happened. | 73 | 31 |
ELI5 Why once you start a course of antibiotics you have to finish it? | I understand it has to do with resistance to antibiotics, but why is it not true that the longer you are on the meds, the more resistant some of the bacteria get? | Every infection has bacteria that have mutations. Some of these mutations provide resistance to a specific antibiotic.
When you take antibiotics to completion the majority of the bacteria are wiped out by the antibiotic and your immune system remove the remaining resistant ones.
If you take a partial course then only some of the bacteria are killed. If your body can’t finish of the job then they’ll start to build up again. But now the resistant bacteria get to multiply with lots of available resources rather than needing to compete. This is because lots of the non-resistant bacteria have been killed.
Once the bacteria have repopulated you can have a large proportion that are resistant so now the antibiotic doesn’t work.
Once this happens a few times you get bacterial strains with lots of resistances. This is a big problem in hospitals. | 116 | 51 |
What is gauge symmetry? I’ve come across the term a few times in the past few weeks. I don’t quite understand it and I’d like to know more. | Gauge symmetry is the ability to make a gauge transformation on some physical system, and have the system remain invariant under that transformation.
Classical electrodynamics is a theory of electric (**E**) and magnetic (**B**) fields. The behavior of the fields is encoded in Maxwell's equations.
You can define a set of potentials (φ and **A**) by **B** = curl(**A**) and **E** = - grad(φ) - d**A**/dt.
Since the electric and magnetic fields only depends on *derivatives* of the potentials, you can obviously shift any potential by a constant and the **E** and **B** fields remain exactly the same. This is the simplest example of a gauge transformation. In fact, there is an infinite family of potentials which will lead to the exact same fields, for *any* set of fields you can come up with.
Classical electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations) are invariant under all of these gauge transformations, so the theory has gauge symmetry.
Gauge transformations take on a slightly different meaning in quantum field theory, but quantum electrodynamics (a QFT describing charged particles and their interactions with the electromagnetic field) is a gauge theory.
Gauge transformations can be divided up into global gauge transformations, and the more restrictive class of *local* gauge invariance.
Global gauge invariance is the symmetry leading to conservation of electric charge in QED. Enforcing local gauge invariance is the motivation for the theory to have exactly massless photons. Experimentally, the upper bound on the photon mass is extremely small, so it appears that this assumption in the theory is indeed justified. | 83 | 331 |
|
If entropy increases with time in the universe, then how come the stars and the planets have formed? | As time progresses, entropy of the universe increases. But the stars and the planets have condensed from the primordial gaseous soup(of high entropy) to a state of low entropy(now). How? | The formation of structures such as stars and planets, primarily due to the influence of gravity, adheres to the laws of thermodynamics just as every other physical process in the universe does. These "pockets of order" are offset by the heat and radiation that was necessarily emitted back into the universe during their formation.
In turn, we as "life" are actually, in a way, "feeding" off the lower entropy in these pockets. Life creates order out of chaos, but it can only do this by emitting back a greater amount of disordered heat back into the cosmos (more entropy out than was put in).
As you are reading this sentence, your brain is forming memories (ordered), and therefore is necessarily warming up a little bit and adding a little bit of heat (disorder) to the universe. That's why your brain is stuck out on your neck in a hard almost spherical skull -- to dissipate the heat, rather than stuck in your belly in a hard casing for protection.
The same thing is going on in the CPU of the device you are using to read this sentence. It's why it needs cooling and consumes energy from the battery/power, and the whole thing constantly gets hot, and runs down.
| 37 | 15 |
Why did philosophy never become as dominant as religion and science? | I understand that the lines between these three are often blurred, but even so, it's hard to miss that philosophy isn't as mainstream as religion and science. 84% of the human population identifies with a religion. But if you ask a random person whether they identify as a utilitarian or deontologist, you'll probably get a confused look or a vague, middling answer. Each year, governments invest billions of dollars in scientific research: much of it theoretical and with little application. How much funding does philosophical research get?
I see philosophy as having the same goal as religion and science: to find the truth, and to use it to explain the world. But it hasn't been popularized the same way. Why? | But philosophy in one sense is an institutional and academic discipline, and in the other sense it is just everyday thinking about the same subject-matters that the academic philosophy is also interested in.
> But if you ask a random person whether they identify as a utilitarian or deontologist.
If you ask a random person whether the consequences of an action or the intentions behind the action are more important in determining whether it's moral or not, then they will have answers. You can simplify it much much more. While "84% of the human population identifies with a religion", only a small portion of them are knowledgeable about actual theological discussions. The same goes for science as well. You can ask a person whether he think evolution is true or not, and you will get an answer. But you won't likely to get an answer if you ask him whether sociobiology can help evolutionary biology.
Also "finding the truth" is rather an unpopular opinion in metaphilosophy these days, understood as the Platonic ideal of philosophy.
As for fundings, thought experiments don't cost nearly as much as hadron colliders. | 48 | 26 |
What should you know coming out of college with a computer science major? | I've been in college 2 and half years and I don't really know anything. I can program basic stuff and I'm mainly good at making websites. To be honest I don't really understand any of theories and I can't really program any data structures. What should I know? Today I just realized I don't really care or take any of my classes serious. I'm not doing the best, but I'm not failing either. I want to be more involved in what we are learning. Many of the classes I'm in are based on previous information, but I never understood it. So I would like to improve to actually be a computer scientist instead of just getting a degree and not knowing anything. | IMO, you should have a decent grasp of:
* Data structures
* Algorithms & computational complexity
* Discrete math
* Computer architecture
* Digital circuits
* Logic/Boolean algebra
* Programming languages & paradigms
* Compilers
* Operating Systems
* Networking
* Parallel/distributed computing
* Cryptography
* Software Engineering | 15 | 21 |
ELI5: What is a major key and a minor key? | My musical background is required elementary school recorder-playing music class.
I can read basic sheet music ("Every Good Boy Does Fine" and "FACE") and know quarter, half and whole notes. And what a treble and bass clef are and that the treble clef indicates that C is the baseline...and that's about it.
What is a "major" key and a "minor" key, exactly? | When learning a song by ear, usually a good start is to ask "is this a major or a minor key?"
If a song is "happy" sounding its in a major key. If its "sad" then its in a minor key... then from there you can figure out what exact key the song is in by playing a lead of sorts over it. | 122 | 310 |
If time dilation increases exponentially as an object approaches a black hole's event horizon, how does anything ever reach the singularity? | I've read that time dilation tends toward infinite as an object approaches the event horizon of a black hole. Time passes normally for the object itself, but to an outside observer they would see the object move slower and slower, until eventually it red-shifted out of the visible spectrum.
However, for outside observers not under the influence of the black hole's time dilation, wouldn't that mean that any object falling into the black hole takes billions of years to actually cross the event horizon? If so, how does matter actually reach the singularity? Wouldn't the majority of every black hole's mass be currently in the process of still crossing the event horizon, given the age of the universe? | Well, the key point is that time passes differently for different observers. So yes, someone looking from far away would see everything quickly redshift and essentially become frozen and dark right on the surface of the black hole (at least until it evaporates).
But from the perspective of whatever is falling into the black hole, time passes normally, and things take a finite amount of proper time (that is, time as measured by them) to reach the singularity. | 12 | 34 |
CMV: Math after a middle school level (In high school U.S) isn't helpful for most students | I'm a student and I am not that bad at math actually. Ive never failed a course and have a B- avg. I just don't like how some students flounder in school and in their future because they aren't/wearnt good at math that they never use in life. Even though they have skills in other areas that would benefit them in future careers.
I feel that unless your going to study or are studying a topic that involves high level algebra calculus and all that you shouldn't have to take those courses (or at least not 4 years of them). More time should be spent teaching life skills that involve numbers (how to pay taxes,mortgage,set up a direct deposit,fill out job applications ect.) Because I also see students going into the world and not having these basic skills.
I could be wrong tho (I'm going to art school)
Edit:read the bio I'm not against math as a concept but I think it shouldn't be mandatory(after a certain point)/hurt someone's post 12th grade education | Many have chimed in but here are core issues
1) Many of the 'topics' typical in high school education very clearly require math. Physics and Chemistry require Algebra
2) Many trades rely on math. You may not realize it but when you start estimating roofing, flooring or materials like concrete and mulch, you are using math. Things like roof pitch and stairs require geometry and algebra. Even HVAC requires math for things like duct work flow rates, turnover rates, etc.
3) You will use math on a regular basis in your life in simplistic ways. For instance, how far can you get on a 1/2 tank of gas in your car? What is the effective price after coupons and tax for an item? How much interest will you pay on credit cards? What is the total cost of a loan?
4) You *really* need to understand statistics. The world, especially politics and policy proposals are all argued with statistics and you should have a really good grasp on this to understand what the claim is, what the data they are using says, and whether the data can really back the claim.
In all of these, you may not need to sit down and do the 'absolute' calculations but you really need to know and understand the methods behind them so you can make good estimations. | 30 | 19 |
ELI5: without ever looking in a mirror, how do animals know what species they belong to and not mistake themselves as for another one? | It depends on the animal.
More complex creatures like mammals and birds learn it. Birds imprint on the creature that raises them. Mammals have a childhood and exposure to their parents and possibly siblings. From then on, anything that looks/smells kinda like that animal and acts about the same way gets treated like one of its own kind.
Note that many animals don't have a distinct recognition of their precise species. Many species can interbreed and will readily, but simply don't because they are geographically separated. These are cases of seeing a different species, but it being close enough.
Some animals don't have this recognition ability. Most insects treat those of their own species like they would most any other insect (whether that happens to be). When mating season comes around, it's a combination of smell and "playing along" (if you're a male doing your male courtship thing, and another creature about your size comes along and starts doing the female thing, it's probably your species, and probably a female). | 52 | 56 |
|
ELI5: Is a fruit or vegetable 'Ripe' when humans deem it fit for consumption, or is it a biological state for the plant? | We eat most fruits when they're biologically ripe. We eat most vegetables early. Broccoli and cauliflower we eat the unopened buds of their flowers; cabbages, lettuces and mustards we eat the leaves before the plant buds. We eat peas young, but most beans we let mature. | 20 | 22 |
|
If we built a more powerful telescope, could we eventually see the Big Bang? | I know the Hubble can see into deep space, where we can already see these blurred formations at it's farthest reach. Would it be possible, with a powerful enough telescope, to see far enough back in time and space and prove the big bang? | The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) is the earliest light we can detect. The CMB was about 370,000 years after the Big Bang.
Prior to the CMB the temperatures and density of the universe was too great to allow photons to persist. Once the universe cooled and inflated enough, photons could persist and that is what we see in the CMB (now red-shifted into the microwave spectrum).
It might be possible to probe prior to the CMB using non-photon based techniques. | 30 | 23 |
Why are Saturns rings all on the same plane? | You'll find that the answer to this question is similar to the answers you'll receive for questions like "Why do all the planets orbit in the same plane?" Planetary rings fundamentally follow the same principles and the consequence is that the chunks of the ring orbit the planet in a coplanar fashion, but let's get down to actually why:
Stars form as a consequence of the contraction of interstellar clouds of gas and dust that collapse under their own gravity and begin to heat at their centers as the pressure in the inner parts of the cloud begin to increase. The material within the plane of rotation (Basically the approximate net rotational direction of the entirety of the cloud, which cannot be zero just from a statistical perspective) will remain distributed around the protostar in the center with enough velocity to maintain stable orbits.
The cloud shrinks, angular momentum must be conserved, and so you end up with an increased angular velocity that allows them to stay in that plane of rotation, moving fast enough not to fall into the star. The remainder of this material, that above and below this plane, freely collapse inward as there's no force preventing them from continuing to fall into the center of the protostellar nebula.
When the planets began to form, they did pretty much the same thing, but on smaller, obviously planetary scales. Rocky material would accrete into bodies orbiting the star with the same direction, and the material would come to rotate in the same direction as the cloud was rotating, which makes sense because the material would always have that initial velocity in that direction and it would simply compound to induce a rotation in that same direction. As a result of this, the various moons that orbit Saturn would come to orbit it in the same rotational orientation.
There isn't a conclusive explanation to where exactly Saturn's rings came from, but the two prevailing theories are that they are either debris from a moon whose orbit decayed to below the Roche limit and was disintegrated by tidal forces, or they are simply leftover material from the formation of the planet billions of years ago. Either way, they still would ultimately orbit the planet in a single plane of rotation- Everything else fell into the center of gravity to ultimately make Saturn, material orbiting within the rotational plane moving quick enough maintained stable orbits and so we see that the moons and rings of Saturn exist in a roughly coplanar orientation.
| 87 | 237 |
|
Is it worth taking a formal education? | My question is pretty straightforward... Is it worth taking a formal education in philosophy?
I have done my bachelor's in computer engineering but was very much interested in philosophy from very young. My family don't approve of any field other than science as worthy pursuing. But now i earn my own my money so I don't have to play by their rules.
Is it worth taking a formal education in philosophy from some University? I'm talking about part time studies or just keep exploring everything by my own? | i’m majoring in philosophy right now. i think it depends on the person, but if you are interested in philosophy, studying it in an academic setting is great. a lot of times, when you study on your own, it’s easy to misunderstand what philosophers are saying, or to misread a text. having a professor guide you along, and having fellow students to discuss with, really helps. also, going to school exposes you to so much more philosophy than you would find on your own, both through classes and through interactions with peers. so i would definitely recommend it, given that you can afford it and given that you have a passion for it. | 35 | 61 |
What purpose does inflammation serve in immune response | Inflammation does many different things. On the one hand, it directly drives anti-pathogen measures. On the other, it is the connector between innate immunity and adaptive. Both aspects are about equally important.
Inflammation happens when there’s tissue damage, or when cells detect common features associated with pathogens. The local cells start releasing soluble substances including cytokines and chemokines, which drive the effects of inflammation. There are both positive and negative feedback pathways involved, leading to a rapid ramp up and (when the problem is resolved) rapid ramp back down.
The obvious things we see (redness, swelling, fever, pain) include the direct anti-pathogen measures. Cells in the neighborhood become resistant to viral infection. Cells like neutrophils, that can attack bacteria directly, move in. There’s more blood flow, bringing in more such cells. The cytokines diffuse through the body, leading to systemic effects like fever. All these things act very quickly (seconds, minutes, hours) and hopefully limit the immediate infection.
The other thing inflammation does is recruit B and T cells and their drivers like dendritic cells and macrophages. B and T cells are adaptive immune components and are more effective and longer lasting at recognizing and destroying pathogens. They take days to ramp up (less, if they’ve seen the pathogen before) and the details and precise nature of the inflammation (that is, the exact mix of cytokines and chemokines) helps control the precise nature and extent of the B and (especially) T cell response.
This is wildly, wildly simplified. Inflammation isn’t even a single college course, it’s a career. | 263 | 343 |
|
CMV: Disability wage gap is a more serious and less mentioned topic than gender wage gap. | Disclaimer: I am not downplaying the importance of gender wage gap, I am merely stating that disability wage gap seems to be more serious --- if anything intersectionality would imply that different sorts of identities compound onto its social impacts.
​
I am a person with multiple chronic issues and have been struggling really hard in finding higher education / jobs. As a person who has long been following gender wage gap, it has only recently hit me that disability wage gap is probably a thing. And indeed, after searching a bit, there has been researchs made which outlines and states the figures of how disabled people are paid less in the workforce.
So cmv: are disabled wage gap actually less severe than gender wage gap? or cmv: are disabled wage gap actually discussed or promoted often in media? or cmv: whatever you see fit
Edit: Thank you all for your comments! I am trying my best to get to them one-by-one! | Any studies on that topic would need to find and correct for some factor for the reasonability of "reasonable accomodations". Because disabled people not getting jobs that they just can't reasonably do isn't an serious failing of employment practices, just reality.
Did those studies you find do that? It seems like that would need to be done for each kind and severity of disability separately, so that would be kinda hard to get an overall number. | 33 | 24 |
ELI5: How is it that some people are born with natural talents for things and others must learn them? | Some people are born with the ability to draw well or pick up musical instruments, while others must spend double the hours of practice to learn them. Why/how does this happen? | "Born with it" is usually a misconception. The general philosophy is that it takes 10,000hrs of practice with the aim to get better to master something.
The key to that is making the most of your time spent "practicing". For example, professional hockey players almost exclusively are born in January/February. It's not because the hockey gods decreed it so, but has to do with little league rules.
Most pro players got their hockey start in grade school where leagues are usually broken into age groups. Anyone who was 7 on Jan 1 plays in the 7yr old League. The difference between 7 and 7.8 years old is huge, so oldest kids on the team are usually the best just due to size.
Now they look objectively better than their peers when going out for select teams and coaches. This access gives them better training opportunities and tougher competition to grow their skills against.
It's not that they were born with it. They just were able to make better use of their time practicing.
If you aren't genuinely interested in what you are studying, don't have the best teachers, or simply don't challenge yourself, you aren't making the most of your time, and extend your learning curve.
Some *are* literally born with physical advantages, but like the hockey players this usually gives them an early advantage and early access to elite-tier training and competition. An example of this would be Michael Phelps and his freakishly long arms & legs attached to his extra-wide hands & feet. That man's body is just about perfectly evolved for lap swimming. | 75 | 86 |
ELI5:How does aging meats and things like cheese work and not just make them rot and gross? | The facilities used for aging meat are kept at very certain temperatures, humidities and so forth to discourage the growth of unwanted cultures, bacterias, molds while optimizing the growth of preferential cultures, molds, and bacterias.
Many kinds of cheese are sealed in a combination of cheese cloth and wax, which of course serve as a skin keeping unfriendly bacteria out. | 21 | 48 |
|
ELI5: Why does it matter which way your ceiling fan is spinning? Is pushing the air down from the ceiling really actually different than pulling the air up from the floor? | I think I'm supposed to switch the direction of my ceiling fans, but I really can't see how that really matters - isn't it basically the same end result either way the fan is spinning? | A ceiling fan has two effects:
1. Mixing the air in the room to even out the temperature
2. Moving the air to create a windchill effect when it moves over your skin
Either fan direction will have a similar mixing effect, but the windchill effect is biggest when you are on the blowing side of the fan. You can try this with a standing fan: put your hand in front and behind and notice how much cooler it feels in front.
In summer you don't really care about the mixing effect and just want windchill, so you set it to blow down. In winter you want mixing to spread the heat from your heater around but don't want windchill so you set it to blow up. | 168 | 118 |
CMV: Being great at Chess doesn't make you a genius or an amazing strategist in other pursuits. | There has long been this sense of awe over the board game Chess. This idea where succeeding at the game is proof that a person has a really high IQ and that people like coaches and military generals could benefit by learning the game.
But I fail to see why that is the case. Chess is a very formulaic and deterministic game where all of the pieces are laid out plainly, both sides move at a turn-based fashion and you win/lose/stalemate purely based on king position. Chess is mapped out well enough and is so algorithmic that computers have been beating top Chess grandmasters for decades. I do not see why being able to regularly beat opponents by moving pieces in the right place requires a very intelligent brain. And I also don't see how strategists in real life like military commanders or sports coaches can learn from a board game that doesn't really mirror any real life scenario or even other real-time strategy games like **Starcraft** or even turn-based games like **Civilization**. Heck, Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the greatest military generals in European history and he sucked at Chess. The only thing being good at Chess really applies to is being good at similar board games like Checkers. To quote **Witcher 3**: "They say it's the game of kings. That **Chess** teaches one to think strategically. What a load of rubbish! Both sides have identical pieces, the rules stay invariably the same. How does this mirror real life? "
So to change my view, explain to me why being good at Chess makes you good at other strategic or intellectual pursuits not related to board games. | It’s pretty simple really, in order to actually be good at chess you need to be able to plan ahead extensively and use what’s commonly referred to as “game theory”.
Although they might not know it as that, any chess grandmaster is effectively using that theory to great effect.
It’s essentially knowing the rules of the game and the limits it imposes on players, then calculating your opponent’s most logical reactions to any move you can make. From that information you can then theorise which of your moves is best at that moment, as it will be the one with the least beneficial counter-move from your opponent.
Then you take this to the next level and think several moves ahead, so one move right now could lead to checkmate in 10 turns whereas the exact same move in a different direction could lead to you losing the match.
This ability to think moves ahead has always been greatly beneficial in warfare, where something as simple as initial troop positioning could be what decides the victor in the end.
We actually use game theory in all aspects of life currently. Anything like economics, board games, combat sports, team sports and computer science.
That’s why computers tend to beat human beings at chess, because they can calculate the exact percentage-chances of you making every possible reaction to every possible move, thinking of the end-goal from the very start. We simply don’t have the computational power that computers do, that doesn’t mean chess or it’s usage of game theory isn’t important to virtually all aspects of life. | 91 | 206 |
ELI5: From a cryptography POV, why were the Navajo code talkers so difficult to decipher? | I had always just believed it was because they were isolated, but I'd been thinking about it lately and that just doesn't hold up. Can someone familiar with code breaking and encryption help me understand why they were nearly impossible to understand, while almost every other cipher was eventually cracked? Thank you! | First; the Navajo language wasn't widely known or cataloged, even within North America, let alone outside of the United States.
Second; it wasn't just that the code talkers were speaking Navajo, it's that they were also using Navajo words as replacements for the 26 letter military alphabet. The problem for the Japanese is that the code talkers switched very easily between having direct unciphered conversations in Navajo and ciphered conversations relying on Navajo words, thus there was (seemingly) no rhyme or reason behind the messages from the perspective of the Japanese.
Third, and as an extension of the above; many codes were essentially mechanical (i.e. Enigma), meaning that a codebreaker could expect the coded language to follow a rigorous and strictly-defined set of "rules." The code talkers were using a much more organically-derived language for their code, which meant that rules were much harder to follow, and the code talkers were free to break those rules as they see fit because of how human language works. | 689 | 419 |
CMV: There's no good argument for gay marriage that doesn't also include polyamourous marriage. | From the opening remarks at the Supreme Court today:
*Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: The intimate and committed relationships of samesex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.*
Are we willing to declare that polyamourous relationships cannot be intimate or committed? Do they not provide mutual support? Are such people supposed to not feel like second-class citizens if there love is not OK but everyone else's is? Do we not worry about their feeling a similar 'stain of unworthiness'?
Some arguments I've heard from another thread are: "Well, that would really complicate the tax code." I kinda think that's the tax code's fault. We don't need to have a tax code that treats people different according to their marital status.
"This would make pre-nups and inheritance more complicated." Again, this seems like a side thing, not an argument for denying people rights, if such rights exist.
"One fails rational basis review, and the other doesn't." I'm not a lawyer, but I do find this the technically best argument, but it still seems thin to me. You can easily say the Government has as compelling interest in keeping marriage between man and woman as you can say it has interest in keeping it between only 2 people. Fundamentally, man + woman = child, which is on of the main things about marriage. If anything, polyamorous relationships that contain at least one man and one woman pass that test easier than homosexual relationships do.
Does anyone have anything else? Or can you expand one of the previous arguments to something more convincing? | Marriage is a unique form of contract law that allows people to share finances, property ownership, tax burden, insurance benefits, and more.
Allowing an unlimited number of people to join into such an arrangement would be a recipe for abuse. For example:
1. An entire corporation of 150 people avoid almost all labor and tax laws by becoming a marriage union. The corporation may even coerce employees to join.
2. A single soldier or retiree supports 200 woman from his hometown with spousal benefits.
3. A criminal organization makes all their communications protected by spousal privilege.
| 103 | 97 |
How do foreign parasites (like tape worms) block the body's immune system from registering it as a foreign object and why can't we mimic it for medical purposes? | There are as many ways to block the host immune response as there are parasites. Actually, there are more. Every successful parasite has developed their own successful strategies of immune evasion which vary depending on their life cycle.
They can hide in places the immune system doesn't pay much attention to (immune-privileged sites). They can shield their surfaces with substances that are not immunogenic. They can change their antigens to escape adaptive immune responses - either by mutation, by encoding multiple variants of the antigen (like trypanosomes are famous for doing with their VSGs), or by having multiple morphological forms with different protein expressions (like malaria). They can infect cells that don't express MHC-I (malaria and RBCs), prevent MHC-I from getting to the cell surface, or enter a quiescent phase where they downregulate the production of their own proteins that would be expressed on MHC-I. They can produce compounds that directly dampen immune responses (for example, analogues of our own immunosuppressive cytokines). They can express Fc receptors to capture antibodies (so the antibodies will bind to them in the wrong direction) and render them harmless. They can block infected cells from producing interferons or other cytokines that would help kill them. They can be too big or too numerous in ways that induce T-cell anergy or exhaustion.
I have barely started to scratch the surface of these mechanisms.
Many mechanisms of pathogens *have been* used for medical purposes.
But what specific response do you have in mind and how would it be utilized? | 38 | 44 |
|
[WH40k] Who actually matters? | Which of the factions / gods / demons actually matter in the grim darkness of the far future? The WH40k universe is fairly static but who would prevail looking at a FFW version of the next 10,000 years? (And who would matter if we removed the Tyranids?) | They all MATTER but it depends in what context. In the scope of the greater conflict between Order and Chaos? The Imperium, Chaos, and the Eldar are the most important. In terms of whose gonna win in the long run, probably the 'nids or the Orks given that, for all intents and purposes, they already have won. Their continued existence is winning, they have no long term goals other than to keep doing their thing and there is no immediately practical way to make them go away.
The only factions that don't really matter are the Tau, thanks to their small sphere of influence, and the Dark Eldar (who are more or less removed from the galactic conflict on the large scale.). | 31 | 39 |
How does being a soldier effect criminals? | I was wondering if there have been any studies about criminals that have gone to war.
At the moment the media in Denmark is in an uproar, because gang members are going to Syria, to join the civil war. The media seems to believe that it will escalate their crime when they get back. So I'd like to know if there is any foundation for this concern. | Effects of war may vary. Definitions of the word Soldier may vary too. Are they joining well regulated, regimented, paid modern military forces to perform the services of a Soldier or are they mobbing up into undisciplined militias to wage guerilla warfare? Does the returning criminal return to a country with veterans benefits and programs to help integrate them back into society or will he be returning to the same criminality and low-opportunity he left to enter the war?
Military life has turned MANY teenage delinquents into upstanding citizens, but it has a lot to do with learning a regimented lifestyle and access to resources upon reintegration into society. People waging a guerilla campaign with loosely affiliated militias in a region of anarchy will likely not benefit from those aspects of the soldier experience. | 11 | 17 |
ELI5 how did water appear in Earth and how did we end up with such vast amount of it? | Water is Hydrogen + Oxygen, two of the most abundant things on Earth.
Much of the Earths crust is made up of Oxygen, bonded to other things like Iron to make minerals.
Since a lot of Oxygen existed on the primeval Earth, and Hydrogen is the most abundant thing in the Universe, having water was inevitable.
So where did it come from? Either the Earth was formed from material that contained a lot of Oxygen and Water, or the early Earth was bombarded with Comets and Asteroids that contained Oxygen and Water. | 28 | 43 |
|
[STAR-WARS] What is Civilian life under the Galactic Empire like? What are the opinions of the average Imperial Citizen? | In the Star Wars franchise, we see plenty of the Empire, we see it's Twin Ion-Engine Fighters, It's DS-01 and 02 Battle Stations, it's Star Destroyers, and it's countless Stormtroopers...but we never get that much of an idea of what life under the Empire is like outside of two Stormtroopers asking for some identification in Rogue One and a Military Checkpoint in a New Hope. This makes me ask, what is life like under the Empire and how does the average person living under the Empire feel about it all? Is support of the Rebel Alliance widespread or are the majority of Imperial citizens loyalists? | This depends entirely on two factors - species, and the planet's location.
Core worlds, which were majority human, saw daily life mostly the same as it was under the Republic, except more taxes and more military patrols.
Mid and Outer Rim worlds, and especially worlds that were predominantly non-human, didn't fare so well. Planets were mined to exhaustion, their people forced to work longer and longer hours for less pay, a large number of species were enslaved and several were wiped out.
The only real actually good thing that the Empire did for the Outer Rim was crack down on pirates and similar criminals. | 43 | 37 |
How do mRNA vaccines work? | What I read about mRNA vaccines says that they program your cells to produce antigens. This sounds horrifying, but I'll admit there's a lot I don't understand, and my background isn't in biology. Is this just a temporary change or will the cells be producing antigens for the rest of your life? | mRNA are like blueprints for building proteins. The machinery inside cells will take them, build what is told (translation), and then recycle the mRNA. It is not stable, it’s very volatile. RNases easily break them down, that’s why they’re not used much since it’s difficult to keep them intact until injected.
So your cells will only produce the proteins for a moment and then stop. They will hopefully produce enough to cause an immune reaction to form, nothing more. | 14 | 18 |
In the DSM, what marks mental illness as a spectrum (Aspergers, etc. changing to Autism Spectrum Disorder) compared to a mental illness classified in distinct categories (ADHD, Inattentive and Impulsive)? Likewise, how are mental illness seperated when there’s overlap in symptoms and comorbidities? | I’ve worked with children with developmental disabilities, and to say that autism spectrum disorder is a spectrum would be rather an understatement, as so many children so were so differently effected, they might as well have had completely different conditions. But similarly, with illnesses such as Histrionic and Borderline, and likewise with ADHD w/ Conduct Disorder and Antisocial Personality disorder, there is so much overlap between symptoms and circumstances that it’s difficult to really say where the line is. So how is this classification either helpful or conducive to anything?
Likewise, within many mental illnesses such as ADHD and Depression, the number of requirements to fill a given number of symptoms are less than the listed symptoms, so two individuals could not have any overlap in symptoms, and have the same diagnosis. How is this explained by psychologists and the DSM? | It's not about representing reality, it's about making it easier to apply a managerial structure or bureaucratic structure to the mind.
Without some quantification, insurance won't cover it. Even with quantification, often insurance won't cover it, arbitrarily.
It's ridiculous to apply numbers or quantification to a constantly changing dynamic system that is irrevocably enmeshed with its environment. The states of the stream of consciousness defy categorization.
Rather than honestly reflect this reality and engage with it, the paradigm of the past century is that man has conformed nature to the will of man, and the mind is no different. There has been a series of popular movements predicated on atomized individualism and superficial beliefs in control. Scientific management, behaviorism, and various expressions of determinism like genetic determinism, and social determinism. Currently, this is all getting re-examined.
The recent data over years of studies debunking the chemical imbalance theory of depression, accumulating data debunking the efficacy of CBT, and the overall replicability crisis of the past decade have illustrated that the ideologies guiding mental health are more about economics than our health.
Man hasn't conquered nature. Everything we've done has been allowed by nature. All of our theories are provisional. None of them are accurate to reality, they are models. The DSM, in particular, reflects the excesses of managerial bureaucracy and its destructive effect on our understanding of reality. Much of the DSM is about deflecting focus on how managerial and neoliberal policies have had a negative impact on our mental health. For example, there was a lot of resistance to incorporating PTSD, because the patients who brought it to the attention were Vietnam veterans. It was a big fight to get it recognized because of the resistance to attribute any negative impact to the decisions of the people in power. The whole thing is an artifice that serves the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. | 16 | 38 |
How does the immune system work outside the bloodstream? | I know we have white blood cells and other immune cells floating around in our bloodstream that attack pathogens, but how do our bodies fight infections that occur outside the blood vessels? | Cells from the immune system inhabit every single tissue in your body, not just the blood stream. They can move around as well.
In addition to this, the local blood vessels can open up to allow liquid and immune cells (and supporting proteins) to invade the infected tissue, to help with the immune response.
This mostly happens in response to cells giving off chemical signals when they detect an infection. | 86 | 137 |
If electrons behave as waves when they’re not observed and behave as particles when observed at microscopic scale, how can they behave as waves observed at eye scale? (Young experiment) | The concepts of particles and waves evolved in classical physics, however as quantum physics was developed, we discovered that those ideas were simply approximations. An electron isn't a particle; it isn't a wave. What is it?
We can understand electrons only in terms of a new construct, something we might call a particle-wave or a wave-particle. It isn't a wave; it isn't a particle; it has some properties of each, however, the mixture is awfully bizarre. It moves through space like a wave; it responds to measurement like a particle; it's a wave that can carry mass and electric charge. It can spread, reflect and cancel itself, just as noise-cancelling headphones cancel sound waves. However, when you detect it, the event is generally sudden, abrupt. The detected electron continues to exist, however, the wave function has been decisively altered. If you detect it with a small instrument, the previously large wave function instantly becomes small.
The ”duality” of wave-particle duality reflects the fact that if you persist in understanding the true nature of the electron in terms of particle and waves, then you have to consider it to be both. However, in reality, it's neither, it's something that is new (if you can apply that word to an over 100 years old idea). | 1,837 | 3,375 |
|
ELI5: Why doesn't Ticketmaster have any real competition and why isn't it considered an illegal monopoly? | Ticketmaster has the name recognition to reach many ticket-buyers, and the computer systems to handle many, many ticket orders at once. Because of this, promoters of events often turn to them to sell tickets to their events instead of writing their own software and running their own web servers. This saves the promoters time and money, and in exchange Ticketmaster gets to promote themselves as the exclusive source of (your favorite band)'s tour tickets. By being exclusive they can charge you for such ridiculous fees as printing your own ticket. The arrangement is profitable for everyone except the consumer.
The reason Ticketmaster hasn't been called an illegal monopoly is because they haven't done anything to illegally restrict the rise of a competitor. They (probably) haven't inserted penalty clauses into their contracts with event venues punishing them for going with alternative services or selling tickets themselves, which would be actions punishable under antitrust law. In addition, event tickets are considered a luxury, and there aren't very many laws punishing price hikes on luxury goods, as opposed to price-gouging laws on food after major natural disasters.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer | 84 | 174 |
|
ELI5: How has acting (especially in movies) changed over the last 50 or so years? | There is a noticeable difference between the acting style in classic and modern cinema. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it seems obvious enough that most people would be aware of it.
What changed? Was this a conscious change, or did it happen gradually? | Well, screen acting originated from theatre. Early screen acting was very much influenced by stage acting, but also limited by technical difficulties (like silent films). So actors exaggerated emotions and acted in specific ways because they were trained to do that as stage actors. Recently, though, filmmakers have become more and more interested in treating films and screen acting as an entirely different medium than theatre and stage acting. They realized that a film can be produced much differently than a play because of camera techniques, sound, editing, etc. So now there's a division between screen acting and stage acting, based on the differences between film and theatre. | 16 | 22 |
I believe that, besides basic biological differences, such as reproduction, there isn't really any need for a gender definitions such as 'Masculinity/Femininity' CMV | To be more specific, I understand why we would need to list other human beings as 'Male' and 'Female' when it comes to reproduction, or accepted biological differences such as increased testosterone and estrogen. My main problem lies in this idea that there are a correct 'Feminine' and 'Masculine' behaviours that we should or shouldn't exhibit; especially considering how much we've progressed in society now. As an example, there are many stereotypes that are often attributed to different genders, such as Men are not in touch with their feelings, or women don't play computer games.
Personally I think any such things are mainly determined by our society and, therefore, are archaic and outdated. I think it is possible for a man to be far more intouch with his emotions than some women. So we shouldn't define characteristics in this way.
**EDIT** Well I didn't expect this many responses, I want to thank everyone for the effort in getting back to me. I believe my question should maybe have been phrased a little differently but, if I was to do so, I'd have a pretty obvious answer. Special thanks to Dr_Wreck and NefariousMagpie, I enjoyed their conversation a lot | So long as physiological and psychological differences exist between men and women, the usage of masculine and feminine as descriptions of attributes and behaviors will retain meaning.
Sure it's not meaningful or productive to *idealize* men or women a certain way, but acknowledging real differences between men and women is important if one values intellectual honesty.
| 25 | 26 |
How long can bacteria survive on everyday household items without nutrients and water? | Depends on the strain and species. If it's a spore forming bacteria, it can survive for almost forever.
Normal households won't be free of water or nutrients, as there are naturally in the air. But in ideal conditions, as to your question, a few days to a few weeks. | 30 | 40 |
|
ELI5 “ What is happening when your eyes get heavy from lack of sleep “? | Muscles you use the most tend to get tired first, like for example, if you walk all day your legs will become fatigued. This also applies to the muscles around your eyes - your ocular and brow muscles become tired because you’re using them for most of your waking hours. Looking at a computer screen for a long time or having chronic allergies can compound the heaviness feeling in your eyes. | 15 | 46 |
|
ELI5: How is it that very complex 10-hour seasons of TV shows can be produced in a year's time, yet 2-hour movies so often take years to produce? | A lot of it is setup that takes place before any production begins - hiring people, finding actors, locations, etc. A tv show has to do that just once - just like in movies, except they get to reuse all of those resources in every episode. | 109 | 278 |
|
If I have two identical rare earth magnets and put them together, is the power of the combined magnets doubled? What about 3 or 4 magnets (tripled? quadrupled?)? | yep : magnetic field oriented in the same direction adds their individual effects. it appears clearly if you think about permanent magnet as an arrow: axis of the arrow show you the direction of the field and imagine its lenght represents the strenght.
Arrows in same direction sum their own effect, and arrows in opposite direction will nullify the magnetic field.
keep in mind permanent magnets have a max strenght (related To their composition and production process) and magnetic effect lowers very quickly with the distance. | 17 | 28 |
|
can we perceive without interpreting? | Jacob Bronowsky discusses this a bit in *The Origins of Knowledge and Interpretation*. The illustration he gives is the way that the eye converts light into the electrical signals that transmit it to the brain where it's reconstructed as images. The general implication of all this is that perception is, itself, an act of interpretation. Take away that interpretation of light into synaptic signals, and we're no more perceptive than a stone. | 10 | 22 |
|
CMV: Professors who can't teach shouldn't be able to teach to begin with | I understand that colleges also function as a research institution, but they arguably function as a center of learning first and foremost. Professors are getting paid, on average, 70k/year according to Glassdoor. That isn't necessarily the highest, but other sources list the average as even higher, so I'll give it benefit of doubt. Assuming that they make that much or higher on average, they are getting paid enough to do their job. So by not doing their job, not only are they slacking, but they are potentially lowering the future of the students who have taken the class(es) by that professor as well. In some cases, professors who can't teach can't even be avoided, because it is a required class and that professor is the only one who teaches it. Basically, if I'm paying 50k/year to go to college, I should at least be taught instead of having to pay 50k/year to watch youtube tutorials in my own time. | Professors are there to teach you yes, but that’s not their only job, and it’s presumed by the time you reach college level education that you have some ability to not be spoonfed every bit of information and are capable of proactive inquiry (This is not me accusing you of that of course)
If you’ve got a problem with the way the faculty member conducts their class, you should be able to go to the dean of students or other specific process your university has in place to deal with situations like that. Often times faculty members do get pressured to focus on research by executive leader ship because that grant money brings in for more money than your tuition. By the way is that 50K in tuition alone? | 12 | 42 |
Losing my logins and access to my institution’s library which means I can’t access any literature without paywalls after I graduate. Besides SciHub, are there any ways to gain access to academic/medical literature that don’t require a paywall? Maybe a public library somehow? | Thank you | Many Universities will provide you with alumni accounts (this includes your Undergrad uni). Also many of the places I've worked are happy to extend your email/account (in a restricted fashion) after you leave to provide your access to library resources.
Chat to your IT dept or librarian. | 28 | 24 |
ELI5: How do they make white gold? Can it be melted down and reused like yellow gold? | I've been wearing a white gold chain for a few years without taking it off, it's a part of me. I got to thinking about the differences between yellow and white gold, and if per ounce they are worth the same. | Gold jewelry is (almost) always an alloy of gold and some other metals. Gold is too soft to use in its pure form for jewelry (it will scratch or deform too easily).
White gold merely uses other metals in its alloy which give it a white color instead of yellow (often nickel but other metals may be used).
White gold is measured in karats which means a white gold ring of 14 karats has the same amount of gold in it as a yellow gold ring of 14 karats. This will make them about equal in price all other things being equal.
| 35 | 53 |
ELI5: Why does the military still use bolt/pump action weaponry? | I don't know a whole lot about firearms, but wouldn't it be beneficial to use something that is semi-automatic rather than bolt/pump operated? | They use the right tool for the right situation. Regular infantry would use a semi-auto rifle, such as an m4, m16, m249.
Snipers might use a bolt-action because it doesn't have moving parts when being fired. That helps improve accuracy. Occasionally there are situations where they might use a pump action shotgun as well. | 15 | 22 |
ELI5: How do DNA or cells grow a body? If all DNA or cells are "identical" then how to they know to grow a lung or a brain at the right time? | I have very limited knowledge of DNA and/or cells, and this question came from my father in law.
I tried googling it but everything came up extremely convulated and I wasn't sure if I got an answer.
If all cells are identical, how to they know what to "grow"? Can they sense what's around them?
Edit: thanks for the clarification everyone, my issue was thinking all the cells were identical and not realizing they take cues from their environment to know what to "be". Everything else - amazing info - was icing on the cake :) | Sensing what is around them is actually a crucial part of that, yes. That's especially true for a newly-forming baby in the womb.
To simplify a bit, cells start out in a fetus as essentially blank cells called stem cells. They are pre-programmed by evolution to undergo a process called differentiation which makes them take on a particular type of cell, like a skin cell, or a liver cell. Then, those first few liver cells begin to multiply so your liver forms. Cells have all kinds of intricate coding in their DNA to tell them what kind of cell they should differentiate into.
As for DNA, every cell in your body contains essentially the same copy of the DNA. But they don't use the entire thing - not even close! So, a liver cell only "reads" the parts of DNA that a liver cell needs to.
You've probably heard of stem-cells, those are these so-called "blanks". Getting stem cells from non-fetus sources is kind of a huge deal, mostly because getting them from fetuses is highly controversial, and technology is rapidly improving in this regard. If you treat them right, they can become any kind of cell, really. | 18 | 19 |
Student asking for a job reference on IG? | I had a former student reach out to me on Instagram for a reference for a job (consent to provide my contact info to the position, not a letter of reference).
I taught this student in two labs, and I have a good idea of their work ethic and skills. If they had emailed, I would’ve provided a reference happily. But the way they reached out - on a social media site that I have more personal things on - and the fact they didn’t spell-check their message before they sent it off (my name was incorrect despite being right there) has put a bad taste in my mouth. It feels unprofessional of the student.
Any advice for how to handle this? Any experience with this yourself? Thanks! | Send them a reply and ask them to send a formal request via your work email, and then private your ig if you don't want students prying. If it bothers you, gently suggest that you do not want to be contacted on personal social media.
And then write them the reference letter you would have written them in the first place. We all make social faux pas' once in a while. It's no big deal, and punishing the student with a lesser or no reference letter is petty and unnecessary, so don't do it! We're all out here just trying to do our best! | 129 | 25 |
What happens if we shoot an antiproton at a heavy element atom? | Would we create an atom of the element below it in the periodic table or would the energy of the annihilation be enough to blow the nucleus into smaller bits? | There are a lot of possible outcomes, depending on the center-of-mass energy. It could annihilate with a proton, it could scatter off of the nucleus (elastically or inelastically), it could create new particles like mesons or other baryons, etc. | 30 | 64 |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.