post_title
stringlengths 5
304
| post_text
stringlengths 0
37.5k
| post_scores
int64 15
83.1k
| comment_text
stringlengths 200
9.61k
| comment_score
int64 10
43.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
ELI5: What does it mean to an everyday person that we found water on Mars? | This was at the top of /r/all when I got on tonight
[The Curiosity Rover just found water on Mars](http://gizmodo.com/nasas-curiosity-rover-just-found-water-in-martian-soil-1403908591) | 28 | It means nothing, really, in the short term. Scientists have known for many years that Mars has ice on it (on the poles) and have guessed for a long time that there was water ice on the ground during the winter. And the Curiosity rover made some confirmatory discoveries in the last year or so with finding particular types of clays, flowstones, and river pebbles that prove that running water was once common on Mars.
But in the long term, it actually means a great deal. People as a rule get thirsty every so often. We like to drink water. So travel to Mars could mean, at some point, having to drink something once you arrive. And water is very, very heavy. So packing enough water for the 500-day flight to Mars would require a lot of fuel, which would make trips that much harder.
Having water on Mars, in an easily accessible form, means that future travelers to Mars will be able to drink something, and won't have to take a lot of extra water with them.
Water can also be edit: electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen, through the application of electricity. Burning hydrogen, in the presence of oxygen, releases a lot of energy. So the presence of easily-accessible water ALSO means that a power source that generates electricity - like, say, solar panels - could be used to make rocket fuel to get people back FROM Mars.
tl;dr: Today, it means nothing. In 30 years, this will be a big deal. | 21 |
[Fallout] If I tell someone I'm going to sell them 100 head of cattle, how many will they expect me to show up with? | 112 | 50 Brahmin, but honestly I'd be more worried about the fact that you're about to get ambushed like crazy. That kinda herd is gonna draw mad amounts of what ever local vermin and raider variant ya got.
I'd hire some guns for the cattle drive. | 117 |
|
Is a degree in philosophy absolutely necessary to be taken seriously as a philosopher? | So this question came from reading this reddit thread after the comments were locked: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/bez8no/how_is_a_layman_supposed_to_tell_the_difference/
The question that came up was whether or not to call Peterson a philosopher. Some argued that he didn't have an academic background in philosophy, which is true, and some said that none of his work has been necessarily relevant to any philosophical dialogue, which many would agree with. (Although, I have come across a few of his acolytes that describe him as the 21st century's greatest philosophers. It's not particularly hard to find on his devoted subreddit.)
So I understand the importance of a formal, focused training in philosophy via an accredited institution, but certainly there have been philosophers that have made great strides in their respective fields while forgoing that requisite. Karl Popper, for one, made some of the most important contributions to the philosophy of science while holding only a doctorate in psychology and studying mainly math, physics, and education.
Now, I'm not a big fan of JBP; I'm merely familiar with his work, but I think if he put out some significantly profound thesis that caused some commotion amongst philosophers, I don't think anyone could argue with labeling him a philosopher. A very interesting (and maybe unsettling to some) sort of philosophical notion that he has espoused is something to the effect of extreme pragmatism. Where empirical evidence is equivalent to what he calls "beneficial evidence" or something like that where if it is beneficial to believe it, then it is unequivocally, factually true. You can see that embodied in his talks with Sam Harris on his podcasts and in their debate series and even in his debate(s?) with Matt Dillahunty.
So my question remains: does the degree make the philosopher? Or do the arguments rise and fall on their own merits? | 15 | "absolutely necessary"? No. If you have some great idea, philosophers will be interested in hearing it. The problem, of course, is that most people without the background don't have such great ideas that philosophers are unaware of. Do you need a degree in math to be taken seriously as a mathematician? No, of course not. Provide a proof, and mathematicians will be interested. But, this is not how things work, almost ever. The cases that go against this are the utmost exception. | 40 |
ELI5:how do the chips on credit cards provide extra security? | That is their purpose right, to be more secure than before. Additionally, how come sometimes a pin is not required? Without a pin, anyone can use it. | 18 | Magnetic stripes are easily duplicated. The information on them is unencrypted and the machines to duplicate them quite cheap.
A chip on card is basically a unique encryption key. The reader has an active conversation with the chip to verify the authenticity of the card. Pin not being required has been done largely to reduce the resistance to adoption. It is an additional layer of security that should be used but its absence does not lower it to the simple pinless magstripe transaction as the difficulty of reproducing or emulating an individual cards chip is prohibitive. | 16 |
CMV: Implying that breastfeeding promotion shames formula feeding is the equivalent of saying daily exercise and healthy eating promotion shames those who don't do so. | We are allowed to promote and encourage choices that can lead us to live healthier lives. If you choose not to do these things, it is fine, that's your choice to make. This doesn't mean that information regarding these things is an attack on your right to choose whether or not to partake in them. It is allowing other people to make informed decisions for themselves, the way that you did.
And those who say that promoting and encouraging breastfeeding is detrimental to the mental health of mothers who *can't* breastfeed for one reason or another, the answer to this isn't to avoid the topic of breastfeeding, the answer is to provide more easily accessible mental health support for these women to help them through their struggles.
Health professionals advocate for breastfeeding because it is scientifically proven to be better for both a mothers and baby's health, generally speaking (ie. not taking individual circumstances that may arise into consideration). This is the same way that health professionals also advocate for daily exercise, healthy eating, drinking X amount of water per day, they do this because it is good for your health and that is what they are around to encourage and help with, if you choose not to, that's *fine*.
Health professionals are also more vocal about breastfeeding whilst mothers and babies are still in hospital due to the fact that if mothers need help with anything like latch, positioning etc... they are there to provide it. There isn't *really* much they can do to offer physical support with formula feeding, other than feeding the baby themselves, which they often do if they are asked and are able to dedicate the time to do so. | 113 | Like most other promotion, it simply depends on how it's expressed. For example, if your promotion of breastfeeding hinges on the negation of benefits associated with formula feeding/is intertwined with shaming formula feeding as a way to promote breastfeeding as a better option, then it is a approaching formula feeding vis shaming. Now of course, individual can get into an argument regarding whether that shaming equates to bad or not, but it would still be shaming.
Overalls, it's highly contextual on what you consider promotion to be and the expression of promotion being presented. | 35 |
[Avatar: Legend of Korra] I’m an Equalist. Amon just took away the bending of the last airbenders and also captured the Avatar. I’m disgusted by his actions. What can I do? | Yes, I made a horrible mistake. I joined the Equalist hoping that we can bring change to the United Republic. I thought that Amon and the Equalists would make our cries louder and that we can have a seat at the big table, making life better for us nonbenders.
But I didn’t sign up to see benders become persecuted at the boot of Amon’s new anti-bending government. I didn’t sign up to see my friend and neighbor get their bending forcibly taken away. They were good people who were just living an honest, humble life. They didn’t try to hurt me or my family and they didn’t try to use their bending to exploit any nonbender. My friend is a firebender and he is a hardworking man who teaches firebending classes to the lower-income kids around here. My earth/metalbending neighbor is (or at this point, was) a cop and he personally took down some Agni Kai goons when they tried to invade my apartment one night (he even got severely burned in the arm when he took a fire blast for me). My coworker is a waterbender and she volunteers at the local clinic whenever she’s free and she seeks no recognition for her selfless work.
I didn’t say anything when Amon started militarizing the Equalist since I rationalized it as “he’s just doing this as a show of force” and “this is meant for our protection”. Then when gangs of chi-blockers started running around attacking benders, I continued to rationalize these actions by telling myself “they were just chi-blocking criminals”. But when we started committing acts of terrorism in Republic City, I knew that I made a terrible mistake. I didn’t sign up to become a *terrorist*. I didn’t sign up to bomb government buildings from an airship. I didn’t sign up to see my friends, neighbors, and innocent benders lose their bending.
And now that Amon has just successfully taken away the bending of *the last airbenders* as well as *capturing Avatar Korra*, I feel like I no longer consider myself an Equalist. I’m sorry, but I can now no longer support the Equalists when they’ve decided to do such a cruel and unspeakable act like taking the **last surviving airbenders’** bending away as well as **capturing and imprisoning the Avatar**. This is going too far. I’m done. Me and some fellow finer Equalists feel the same way about this whole disturbing ordeal and I want to find a way to put a stop to this. What can we do? Who do we even contact at this point? | 37 | You made a mistake. A mistake of judgement. Amon and the Equalists were not what you thought they were, and they exploited your trust and naivete to win your support. What they've done is on you, as much as it's on them. If you want to make this right, you've got a lot of work ahead of you.
You should resist Amon and his government directly. Fight, with word, deed, and blood, or face the same date as those that Amon has preyed on.
You should work to help former benders reintegrate into society - they've not only lost their jobs, but many will be feeling a terrible, terrible loss of identity and spiritual connection that was at the core of their very selves. They need you now.
And do everything you can to rally others to do the same. It requires bravery, but it's the only in justice that you can find peace. | 18 |
Explain Like I'm Not a Football Fan: Tim Tebow's career and why it seems to have suddenly soured. | I know the basic *basics* of football, but certainly not enough to really recognize many pro players and I haven't been following the game for years now.
From my perspective, there seemed to be this Tebow guy that was a pretty good quarter back but had a certain religious controversy to him. Nowadays, there seems to be jokes surfacing everywhere on how he is out of the job and nobody wants him anymore.
Was this due to his controversial beliefs? Was he ever really that good of a player? Did he have a single winning streak but never got that good again? I honestly have no idea and was hoping someone had a good rundown of his NFL career. | 61 | He took his college team to a national championship and won, get won the heisman trophy as a sophomore (both of these are a pretty big deal). Throw in the fact that the gators (his college team) have a huge nation wide fan base, he's very open about being a Christian, and a good win steak (against bad teams) and all the sudden this guy has millions of fans. After these fans saw he couldn't live up to the hype, he became America's punch line. | 21 |
ELI5: Where does a specific person's "Musical taste" come from? And why do we grow bored of songs? | 42 | Big question, but here is one part of it:
Music is kind of a language, and kind of a game.
It's a language, in that there are a set of sounds that communicate information----you know that the dissonant violins in the Psycho scene scene aren't happy, for example. That's because that's a first grade level of communication in our culture. Things like the tempo, key, and chord progression all communicate information and make a song happy or sad or whatever. By the time you're a teenager, you're familiar with the idioms of music in our culture, and you would know that the lion king song "the circle of life" is positive, while the song "The Beautiful people" by Marilyn Manson is not, EVEN IF YOU'D NEVER HEARD EITHER.
But music is also a game, or a competition. Music is used to alter out enhance mood, and just like most mood altering substances, you develop a tolerance. This means that no matter how much you loved Eminem's "Lose Yourself", it begins to lose the power to move you as it once did.
This is where the competition lies---people are effectively competing to create the most effectively resonant new songs, by combining familiar idioms in new ways, and slightly altering existing idioms, in such a way that it still effectively communicates the intended feeling, while incorporating enough novelty to be maximally stimulating.
This is why people have genre favorites---the language you understand best, which therefore works best on you.
And This is why people lose interest in songs they like----the sings can no longer conjure the same feelings.
Older people seem to lose the ability to learn a new musical language that strays farther from the ones they adopted in childhood, hence growing musical tastes seem to stop for almost everybody by 30.
None of this really touched on how music is a component of a person's identity (example: you expect heavy metal fans to wear black, but don't expect strawberry ice cream fans to have, say, short hair cuts. Why?), but this is a major component of the why in this case. | 18 |
|
[Terminator] Do we know exactly how future John Connor defeats Skynet? | 48 | Generally, yes. Before the recent *Genesys* incarnation, it usually involved the Resistance assaulting Skynet's physical central mainframe at Cheyenne Mountain. Certain depictions indicate that Skynet had completely dismantled or converted that mountain as its physical form expanded. | 36 |
|
What kind modern day weaponry would be needed to take down a Dragon/Drake/Wyvern? | I work at an Air Force base and one day my girlfriend told me about a nightmare that she had in that a dragon attacked the base. I got to thinking, what kind of modern-day weaponry would be needed to take down a dragon? Feel free to post about various sizes and power levels of dragons and different attack methods (assuming ground sea and air vehicles). To start, I think a 22lb/10kg (M829A3) APFSDS round from the 120mm gun of an M1 Abrams would be sufficient to take down something the size of Smuag, but I am curious about what others may think as I am lacking in dragon lore/knowledge.
Edit: Thanks for all the responses! | 52 | Dragon scales are made of Beta-keratin, the same substance avian and reptilian beaks, scales, and claws are made of. The difference is that dragon scales are up to 3-4 inches thick. The scale layout is very efficient at dispersing kinetic energy, making dragon scales extremely effective against pre-modern weapons.
Typical anti-personnel fire would likely not get you very far. Hollow point rounds would just bounce off, while AP rounds would get lodged in the scales. Enough AP rounds would cause the scales to ablate, disintegrating the scales before eventually causing them to fail and allow further rounds to penetrate. Once they've penetrated the dragon's hide, you'll start doing actual damage to the dragon, but with such small rounds, it will still take sustained and concentrated fire to bring it down.
Anti-materiel rounds (anything 12.7mm and up) would get you a lot further against a dragon. Kinetic rounds would function much the same as AP anti-personnel rounds, but would disintegrate an impacted scale with just one or two shots, and would do significantly more damage once it gets inside the dragon. Explosive or incendiary rounds (particularly if they penetrate before detonating) would be even more effective.
TL;DR: If it can take out a vehicle, it can take out a dragon. | 51 |
CMV: If people don't believe in God, it's His fault. | If God does exist, it seems like He is rather hidden. While some claim to have received revelation, are able to communicate, and know His will, many feel left out of any type of relationship with Him that would make God "real" to them. Moreover, when one observes nature and the larger universe, it is hard to see any immediately discernible divine fingerprints that would necessarily point to God. If God exists, it's as if God purposefully hid Himself from His creation, yet, in religions like Christianity and Islam, the non-believer is met with eternal torment for not believing. Because God made it so hard to believe, it's His fault if people don't acknowledge Him, not our's.
_____
> *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!* | 395 | I've seen this discussion plenty of times, most of the time it ends with a circle discussion about how God made his existence seem very incredible because you shouldn't need proof to have faith in him etc etc. | 78 |
ELI5: Why do middlemen exist? | If we, as consumers, can buy directly from the source, why would we pay the markup that a middleman charges? I think this is more relevant today because people can easily sell their merchandise directly by opening up a store online, instead of going through a retailer like Amazon. | 25 | Because running a store takes a lot of work and effort.
Some suppliers do this, but many don't. In a nutshell, they would have to start shouldering responsibilities like inventory management, website management, store front management, shipping orders, customer service (to a larger degree), etc.
By selling to a middleman to resell, they can avoid the hassles that come with selling direct to customers. | 32 |
Why could dinosaur's grow to much larger sizes than modern day animals? | The post about the world's largest ancient snake inspired this question. Why are there no animals today that come close to the size of the largest dinosaurs? | 35 | The blue whale, a current living mammal, is the largest animal that has ever lived. It is substantially larger than any dinosaur we know of.
As to the thrust of your question, why are terrestrial animals smaller today (I assume). Well, that question has a lot of suppositions. I've seen everything from increased availability of plant material (the climate/atmosphere of the time supporting greater growth), less effective defensive strategies from plants, greater need for size to compete against larger predators/prey. It's not necessarily a cut and dry question, unfortunately. | 26 |
What lifeform has the shortest genetic sequence? | 941 | It depends.
The organism with the smallest genome for naturally occurring cellular organisms is probably *Mycoplasma genitalium*.
There are synthetic cells that have a smaller genome, but these are lab-made, not free-living.
Then there are viruses; are they life forms ? That’s another debate. If you include viruses, then *Circovirus* probably has the smallest genome.
Pushing it to the extreme, you’d have viroid “genomes”, which are only a couple hundreds nucleotides, but that might be really pushing the definition of what a life form is. | 832 |
|
ELI5: How do some people simply switch off and fall right asleep where others it takes a longer time? | 31 | There are a lot of factors to the body falling asleep. First off its related to natural sleep patterns. If one is more of a night owl then they will have a hard trouble falling asleep at night as they naturally want to be awake at that time. The technical term for this is social jet-lag if you want to search it up.
Then there is how tired a person feels. If one has been in bed all day and not been doing much activity then they won't be tiered and so wont go to sleep as fast. If one has been really active all day they will happily go to sleep on rocky ground.
There is also how active one's mind is. Your brain being very active will lead to going to sleep later as you are kept awake by thoughts, your brain feels as if its solving a problem and so keeps itself awake. People who have mastered the art of clearing the mind get to sleep far quicker as the brain has nothing to solve so goes straight to sleep.
There are various other things that are put of one's control entirely like the secretion of hormones and how good the body is at doing that/how sensitive the receptors are. High cortisol levels causes one not to sleep as well. However high dopamine or serotonin levels will cause one to go to sleep faster | 15 |
|
ELI5: Canadian government | I promise I'm not dumb as shit but I've never been taught or I clearly didn't retain anything about Canadian government. So please explain like I'm 5 how the Canadian government works and whats the difference between liberal, NDP, and Conservative. So that If I'm ever in a situation where I had to talk about it I'm not completely clueless! | 17 | The head of state of Canada is the Queen of England, although nominally it's the Governor General her appointed representative in Canada. However this position is almost 100% ceremonial.
The higher house is known as the Senate. Intended to be a mirror of the House of Lords in England it's purpose is to be a 'Sober Second Thought' on laws and legislation. The senate is made up of appointed officials, mostly affiliated to the parties. It's purpose is nominally to be a retirement plan for party officials and supporters.
The real power is the Parliament. Parliament is made up of elected officials each representing a riding (A defined geographic area, like part of a city).
Members of parliament can be independents, but almost all belong to a political party. Since the largest party is the dominant one in the house, being a member of a party is essentially a requirement to get any kind of significant power.
The leader of the political party in power is the Prime Minister, the most powerful political person in Canada. The Prime Minister appoints a cabinet, made up of party members (who are almost always sitting members of the house) each with a portfolio which dictates their responsibilities in running the government. Such as Minister of Finance, Health, Defense, National Parks, etc
Canada has numerous political parties but in it's history only 2 have ever had enough seats to form a government, the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The Liberals have had more years in power than any other party. The are generally middle of road politically, but leaning left. This means they support the rights of workers, government run programs, unions, same sex marriage, etc.
The Conservatives are Canada's primary Right Wing party. Although conservative and right wing they are far more left leaning than the equivalent right-leaning parties in say the US. Conservatives believe in supporting big business, fiscally responsible government, religions and traditional values.
The NDP were founded in the 1960's. They are far more left leaning than the Liberals and therefore push more so for things like healthcare, child care, unions, and workers rights. The NDP didn't implement Canada's healthcare plan (that was the liberals) but the leader of the NDP Tommy Douglas came up with the idea.
The Block Quebecois is Quebec's nationalist and separatist party. They are right-leaning and put forward an agenda that supports French Canadians and the province of Quebec first. They have declined in power significantly since the 90's.
The Green Party is Left-leaning and supports Ecofriendly policies. They are a fringe party that is gaining popularity and maintains 1 seat in Parliament.
The People's party is a growing movement right-wing party started by offshoots of the Conservative party. They currently have 1 seat. | 21 |
When a computer screen is cracked at one spot, why does the entire screen no longer work? | From what I've seen, when a computer's LCD screen cracks, all the pixels around the cracks turn completely black while everything else goes completely white. Why does that happen? Under what circumstances will a part of the screen not be effected? | 34 | Pixels turn completely white (transparent) when you switch them off. When your screen cracks a conductor that is wired in series is severed, thus pixels are powered off while background light keeps running. The black blotch is the result of messed up polarizing filter and/or pixels cracking and leaking (thus the name liquid crystal display). | 18 |
[ATLA] Since bending is based on martial arts, would a bender still be a good fighter even without their element? | If they don't have their elements available, would the techniques they've learned be useful in combat, or would they be too used to not actually be in physical contact with their opponent to fight? | 75 | They would know the movements, but they possibly wouldn’t have the strength behind them and knowledge of how to leverage that into actual attacks. Look at how Zuko trained himself not only in firebending but martial skills as well to ensure he could fight without bending. | 98 |
ELI5: How did herbivorous dinosaurs get so large while have so little protein in their diet? | I get that they would have a surplus of vitamins but I don't understand how something as big as the [apatosaurus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatosaurus) could get as big as it is with so little protein. | 23 | Part of what allows Herbivores to grow as large as they do is that the Digestive Systems in Herbivores are optimized for extracting every bit of protein available from the food they eat. Their digestive tracts can also make some proteins from food that lack proteins. A good example is a a cow's Digestive Tract: It has four stomachs, all for getting the most nutrient possible out of every bite.
Also, plants aren't necessarily devoid of protein. Plants have Keratin, which most predators, and humans, can't digest. Herbivores however, usually can digest it. This greater diversity to what a Herbivore can eat allows them to have access to a surprising amount of protein and nutrients. | 21 |
Should I Avoid Zizek? | According to some people, Zizek is not a proper philosopher and is rather a "pop" philosopher. Is this true? Is Zizek the equivalent of someone like Sam Harris in the eyes of mainstream philosophy? | 28 | If one takes a proper philosopher to be one who publishes books and articles which engage and innovate upon philosophical theories which are then cited by other philosophers, then Zizek is by all means a "proper philosopher." Zizek is also a "pop" philosopher in dual senses: he engages routinely with the public in non-academia contexts, and he analyzes pop culture and current events using his philosophical framework.
Should you avoid him? While it does appear like he's perpetually afflicted with some sort of cold, his sniffling isn't contagious — don't worry. However, I've heard from people who have attended his talks that you shouldn't sit in the front row unless you're ready to get quite intimate with his saliva. | 65 |
World War I and World War II | 24 | If World War 1 was a bar fight
Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria’s pint.
Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg.
Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view.
Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.
Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria’s trousers.
Russia and Serbia look at Austria.
Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at.
Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.
Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.
Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.
Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?
Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.
Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.
Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.
Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.
France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.
Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.
Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it.
France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.
Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.
America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.
By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends. | 36 |
|
CMV: Unskilled labor doesn’t exist | I absolutely hate the notion that jobs that people deem as lower in society are considered unskilled for a multitude of reasons. This is generally one of the largest excuses for why individuals pay should not be raised, however ultimately I think it all comes down to the fact that society survives off of a hierarchy and people like being able to feel superior and look down upon someone. It’s easier to say “well I have a ‘real’ job unlike that McDonald’s worker so I’m doing good in life.
Also, how can unskilled work even exist? A skill is defined as the ability to do something well or having a particular ability. In that case, people who work at fast food do have skills. In fact; they have the skills of cooking, cleaning, doing customer service, speed, memorization & more. If a job is truly unskilled, the customers should be able to get back there during a rush and know exactly what to do. If it’s unskilled there shouldn’t be much training required at all. Cooking, dealing with customers and doing all of this at a quick speed is a a skill and ones that our society in fact thrives off of. I truly believe “unskilled work” is just a term to feel superior and not pay people what they are worth.
edit: just because I know this will come up and it already is in a way; I think everybody should be paid more, not just minimum wage workers. Upping minimum wage workers pay would have to make other jobs wages more competitive as well because then they would have to actually compete w/ the previously minimum wage jobs.
People will say, we’ll why would anyone want to be a doctor/lawyer/whatever when they could just survive “flipping burgers”.. isn’t that kind of the point, it would drive more people into those career fields who really want to be there & would cause wages to have to be more competitive | 16 | Unskilled labour means labour that doesn't require much specialist training, qualifications, or education. Not labour that requires nothing that can conceivably be called a skill.
I can agree that maybe it's a poor term in that it implies that some very hard jobs are easy, but for the purposes of employment, you do need to distinguish between jobs like that and jobs with more specific requirements.
I also heavily agree with the notion that unskilled labour isn't valued highly enough, given how many essential jobs are deemed "unskilled labour", and that every full-time job should be able to provide a living for someone regardless of the requirements. | 54 |
CMV: a practical way to reduce gun violence is requiring insurance | ***UPDATE:***
*I was convinced by several different commenters that using insurance to enforce safe storage and handling rules is overly complex. If the SCOTUS were to allow my insurance idea, they would probably also allow a simpler scheme like a permitting system where the state or country requires proof of secure storage before issuing the permit.*
*Ultimately, I think the best ideas for safe gun policies would include (in no particular order):*
* *Expanded background checks with a 10-day waiting period.*
* *Red-flag laws with a lower threshold than full involuntary commitment. Friends and family should be able to get guns out of the hands of their suicidal or homicidal loved ones.*
* *Those convicted of violent crimes (felonies and misdemeanors) should be prohibited from possessing guns. Many domestic violence convictions are misdemeanors. Also those with active restraining orders.*
* *Raising the age limit for purchasing guns.*
* *Banning the sale of high-capacity magazines.*
* *Policing practices that get more illegal guns off the streets (preferably without putting more people in jail).*
* *Requiring proof of safe gun storage in order to get a concealed- or open-carry permit, a hunting license, etc. Ideally, I'd like states to require to even purchase a gun or ammunition.*
* *Possibly requiring gun owners to belong to a local or county militia, who would vet new permit applicants and store high-capacity magazines etc.*
​
I think that gun owners should be required to get \[edit: liability\] insurance to cover the harms that their guns could cause to others. Insurance coverage would require proof of secure gun storage and responsible gun ownership. High-capacity magazines and guns that have high potential to kill many people in a very short time could be uninsurable unless stored securely at a gun range or gun club ("a well regulated militia").
I think this would reduce gun deaths by encouraging safer storage and use of guns. Owners would have no excuse to not secure their guns. It would also get expensive to own many many guns unless stored in a very secure manner or at a gun club. By reducing the number of guns it is practical to own and pushing to have those guns in a manner that a depressed or angry family member can just walk out of the house with them or use them on themselves, requiring insurance would add friction to the process, hopefully reducing gun deaths. And when people are killed, their family members can get compensation.
Most NRA members and gun enthusiasts support responsible gun ownership and are often obsessed with safe gun handling. They would be able to obtain insurance easily. I could imagine a scenario where they would support this approach over heavy-handed government bans.
Caveats:
* *Eliminating* gun violence or banning guns in this country is not possible. But reducing gun deaths is still a reasonable goal. Reigning in things on the edges would help. This could be in addition to universal background checks and other approaches.
* I understand that most gun deaths are from suicide or non-mass-shooting homicides. Still, safer gun storage could help. The Sandy Hook shooter stole his mother's guns. How many suicides are committed using unsecured guns?
* Yes, criminals would still illegally own guns. We also need to make a bigger effort get illegal guns off the streets.
* The insurance could be government-run if you don't like the idea of private insurance companies getting involved. Or they could be required to be run in a not-for-profit manner.
* The government could subsidize the insurance so that the the coverage for the first gun is affordable for all. \[Edit: the insurance could be *free* as far as I care, as long as people need to show proof of insurance before purchasing guns, applying for concealed- or open-carry permits, go to a shooting range, or get hunting licenses. But if you fail to secure your guns and your insurance is revoked, you lose your guns.\]
* I understand that it is not currently possible to insure against deliberate illegal acts, but Congress and state legislatures have the power to change that for this instance.
* We already acknowledge that "to bear arms" in the Constitution is not sweeping and absolute. It is generally illegal to purchase machine guns, mines, shoulder-fired rockets, drones with munitions, or nuclear weapons. Local ordinances limit hunting to shotgun only. I don't buy the argument that requiring proof of secure gun storage would be unconstitutional. But I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.
​
**UPDATE:**
Not all these were awarded deltas, because my view hasn't fully changed. But the most compelling counterarguments I heard are:
* It's simply impractical because the (current) Supreme Court would overturn it.
* It's too complex a solution. Instead, just enact laws that require secure gun storage instead of going through the insurance. (This got a delta.)
* Reducing the number of unsecured guns wouldn't actually prevent many gun deaths. (I'd need to see statistics on this claim for it to get a delta.)
* The vast majority (99%) of gun deaths are with illegally obtained guns. So adding more restrictions on legal guns wouldn't help. (Again, I'd need to see real stats on this. I don't believe the 99% claim.)
* It's unenforcible without heavy-handed searches and monitoring by the insurance company.
* Outsourcing enforcement of gun safety to private companies is icky. | 1,477 | A HUGE problem with this is it will ensure only the rich or at least middle/upper middle own guns. As poorer people will be priced out of ownership.
It will almost immediately be called racist/Jim Crow esque.
"You're preventing poor black people from legally owning guns but ensuring rich white people can." (I don't agree with that statement, but it would get said)
​
>The government could subsidize the insurance so that the the coverage for the first gun is affordable for all.
This essentially renders the entire idea moot, its just the government spending more money. Also "affordable" means different things to different people. | 700 |
ELI5: What is Happening in Your body During a Hangover? | It can't just be dehydration. I've seen hungover people drink water and still look sick. What exactly is "wrong" during a hangover? Thanks! | 97 | Basically alcohol is metabolized by the body by something called zero order kinetics. This is a fancy way of saying the body can only metabolize a certain amount of alcohol per unit time. When alcohol (ethanol, really) is broken down, it is turned into acetaldehyde and then to acetate. Acetaldehyde is what actually causes the hangover, and because alcohol is only metabolized at a certain rate, when you drink enough you get a build up of the bad stuff that takes a while to go away, thus the hangover.
There are medications (disulfiram, classically) used to treat alcoholism. It blocks the last step of metabolism (acetaldehyde to acetate), causing bad hangover symptoms and making you not want to drink. Of course you need to get the alcoholic to take the medication for this to be effective. But other drugs, such as certain antibiotics (like metrinidazole) have a disulfiram-like effect and can make you sick if you drink too much while taking them.
Another fun fact is methanol (from bad moonshine) is metabolized by the same enzymes. You can treat methanol poisoning by giving someone ethanol, which competes for the enzyme and reduces the breakdown of methanol into formic acid, which is what is toxic. Some rural ERs will actually use liquor to cure methanol poisoning, because the other antidote (fomepizole) is not always available. | 37 |
Is deductive logic a special case of inductive logic, or is inductive logic a special case of deductive logic? (Or is this entire disjunction false?) | I was reflecting on inductive vs. deductive logic, and I feel like I'm hitting an infinite regress or something and my brain is short-circuiting.
**In favor of deductive being a special case of inductive:**
* Deductive logic is just inductive logic where the probabilities of the premises = 1.
**In favor of inductive being a special case of deductive:**
* Probable premises (i.e., premises with probability x, where 0 < x < 1) necessarily/certainly follow probably. That is, the inductive premises are nested in certainty—namely, being *certainly probable.*
I think it's similar to having something be necessarily possible.
Thanks. Maybe I'm just being silly. | 15 | Inductive and deductive arguments are distinct because each is characterized by a distinct relationship between the premises and the conclusion. The premises of a deductive argument *purportedly* entail the conclusion (if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true). The premises of an inductive argument *purportedly* support the conclusion, but do not entail the conclusion.
Whether the premises are certainly true or probably true is irrelevant to the form of the argument, and it is the form of the argument that makes inductive and deductive arguments distinct. A deductive argument in which the premises do in fact entail the conclusion is valid, and if the premises are true, then that argument is sound. An inductive argument in which the premises do in fact support the conclusion is considered strong (depending on how well-supported), and if the premises are considered true then it is also considered cogent. | 15 |
ELI5: When we look into deep space we see the light of stars from deep into the past. Will we, at some point when we can see far enough, be able to “see” the Big Bang? | 19 | We'll never be able to see the Big Bang, but we can already see the next best thing.
First thing to point out is that the Big Bang didn't happen at a specific point in space—it happened *everywhere,* so there's no waiting around for a specific moment when light from the Big Bang finishes crossing the distance between its origin and the Earth.
Second thing is that for the first ~370,000 years, the entire universe was still so dense and hot that it was completely opaque, like being filled with a thick dense fog. We can't see anything from before the fog cleared, but we can see the last light from the fog itself, emitted in every direction from every point in space. It's called the Cosmic Microwave Background, and it's visible throughout the entire sky if you have a sensitive wide-field radio telescope. | 35 |
|
ELI5: How do people on the internet find out another person's identity and address, and how can I avoid this happening to me? | Edit: I mean more in terms of finding IP addresses rather than accidentally revealing personal information. What kind of information does an IP address give somebody? How do people find it and is it a good idea to try to prevent that or does it not really matter? | 16 | Never ever give out information that lets people figure out who you are.
Remember that someone who is obsessed with finding you is going to go through your entire public history. So if in some comment you posted that you were born in Detroit, and in another one a year earlier you posted your birthdate, that really narrows down who you are.
Don't post license plate numbers, there are too many people who have friends at the DMV who can look that up. Be on the lookout for any other kind of info leaks like that.
| 14 |
ELI5: Why does Japan drive on the left, even though they have never been a part of the British Empire? | 9,705 | The Japanese are actually kind of...adopted children of the British Empire, in that the Brits were actually a really big influence on the Japanese during the Meiji Restoration and the rapid industrialization of the country. The Brits also were a major ally of the Japanese during their formative Imperial years (particularly during WW1), to the point that the war planners in Washington assumed that WW2 would pit the United States against both the British and Japanese empires at once for control of the Atlantic and Pacific.
Point being; the Japanese got a lot of influence from the Brits, so it's not unexpected for them to have picked up some British customs along the way. | 6,139 |
|
ELI5: Some questions about electricity and electrical power. | I know electricity is technically both positively and negatively charged particles, however the electricity that is commonly used, that is the electricity in our power nets, is only electrons, which are negativly charged. Right?
Electricity is difference between positivly charged areas and negativly charged areas, and electrical power is negative or positive charges moving to balance out the voltage in different areas. Right?
So in for example a house electricity moves in one direction, so how do they maintain a potential transfer of electrons through the house? Does the power go from the power plant to the house, through whatever electronic devices are on at the time and then move back to the power plant? How does this work?
If you want something to have a negative charge you would simply need to make ordinary power go through it, as ordinary power is negative (as in the electrons are negatively charged).
If you want something to have a positive charge using electrical power, what do you do? There aren't any protons in normal electrical power, no (exluding batteries)?
Or am I thinking about this wrong? Is a positive charge actually just somewhere where there are electrons, instead of somewhere with ions? If so, what is a negative charge? How is it created?
If it helps explain the problem I was originally trying to understand how a electrostatic speaker worked, which I sort of figured out (I think). It works by having two stationary metal plates with a membrane/diaphgram between them. The diaphgram is negatively charged and the plates change their charge from positive to negative (or i guess have the two stationary plates be of oppsite charges and have the membrane change). This causes the diaphgram in the middle to move back and forth because it will be attracted to whichever plate is positively charged at the moment, because the negative charge "wants" to equal out with the positive charge (either through establishing a current or through a electrical discharge). How do they change their charge, and also have I actually understood how it works?
Here is an image of this I found: http://www.justrealmusic.com/images/esl_inside/esl_animation.gif
Here is an explaination for that ^ that I read before I posted this, so I still don't understand how the plates change charge: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/loudspeakers.html (at the bottom of the page in the section on electrostatic speakers). Is it just that when they send electricity through a plate it is currently negative, but when they stop sending electricity through it it becomes positive?
How does a transformer work?
How does a transistor work?
I've tried googling many of these things, however I've had trouble understanding the explainations, which is why I'm here. Also, please forgive spelling mistakes as English isn't my mother tounge.
EDIT: Thanks to everyone who has answered I think I understand most of the things I've asked, but I'm still unsure about two things: The things I asked about the electrostatic speaker and another new question: How does current work/is estabilshed in DC (except batteries)? Also how do you make AC into DC? Also does an electrostatic speaker use AC or DC or both or either? | 42 | Electrons have a negative charge. When something is said to have a positive charge, it means that the material is missing electrons from the outer shell of its atoms- or it has electron "holes", which mean that it wants to fill those holes with electrons to reach a neutral charge.
Electricity means the flow of electrons from negative to positive. We usually think of things flowing from positive to negative, like from a full container to an empty one. This is mostly a historical accident, but we stick with it.
When power is generated, you're creating a difference in *potential* between the generation system and the "ground" state. Electrons will flow as long as the potential difference exists, and as long as there is a path for them to do so- a wire, switch, light bulb filament, stove heating element, motor component, and so forth.
Transformers work by using magnetic fields. (this is a VERY simplified explanation) A magnetic field moving across a wire will create a current. A current passing through a wire creates a magnetic field. In very simple terms, if you take a big chunk of iron and wrap it with wire, then put it next to a small piece of iron with wire around it and pass electricity through the big one, you'll get a smaller voltage out, and if you pass a current through the small one, you'll get a higher voltage on the other side. Usually transformers are used to take a big current and make a smaller one- like when you have very high power lines carrying current to a city, or high-current lines going down your street, transformers are used to reduce it to a voltage safe for your appliances.
Transistors are a sort of electronic "switch". They have 3 wires- called the collector, the emitter, and the gate. Current applied to the collector and the emitter cannot flow- unless you also apply a current to the gate. This lets the transistor function like a switch or valve. It can also be used in amplification- if you have a high current going through the collector and gate, you can use a tiny current to pass a large, but proportional, current through. So if you have a current generated by, say- a record needle or a microphone, which is tiny, you can use a transistor to amplify it so it can be heard in a speaker.
| 12 |
Why don't we always get immunity to diseases that we have had once before? | 19 | Lots of infectious diseases you can get multiple times because different strains exist, or mutate into different strains that is immune to the antibodies that worked on the earlier strain. Also some diseases like the common cold are actually caused by a bunch of different viruses that all prompt the same symptoms. | 15 |
|
eli5 How did the telephone in the 1955 Cadillac Westchester work? | ELI5
Knowing cell phones weren't invented tyet, how did the telephone in the 1955 Cadillac Westchester operate? | 15 | It was most likely using something called MTS.
In 1949, a service called "Mobile Telephone Service" (MTS) was launched by the Bell System. It provided a way for a radio to connect to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).
The method was basically to use VHF radio, like a ham radio or CB, to communicate with an operator who would then place the call. It was not available in most areas, but it did have coverage in some major metropolitan areas like Chicago.
It was limited in its utility by things like range, congestion and the fact that the equipment to use it was both heavy (80 pounds) and expensive. | 23 |
[Blade Runner] How could someone determine if they are a replicant by themselves? | Surely by the end of the film. Deckard must have some suspicions about being a replicant, is there anyway he could find out without getting the test administered?
| 27 | Are you asking "for a friend?"
The following is assuming a Nexus 6 model living freely and independently in the world:
With a properly established personal history and isolated from any outside corroboration, not really.
If you run into other people and notice suspiciously identical personal experiences among you or if someone has details of your private thoughts, then you might reasonably assume you have a manufactured life. It would be hard to prove either way. Even Deckard is no certainty, depending on which version of his story you heard.
If you die for no apparent reason in your prime, that is also an indicator. At which point it's not terribly important. What's it matter anyway. If your life is so human that no one including yourself knows, who cares? Even with a manufactured past you still live in the now. You feel things, make choices and experience life as it is happening - just like a human. | 27 |
[Mortal Kombat] Is death really that big of a deal? | So we've seen sorcery like Quan Chi's and we know Raiden has some sort of say on how he can bring back people but is death really permanent? Could characters like Noob Saibot, Shang Tsung, and others be brought back? | 18 | If the religions are right and you go to heaven / paradise / nirvana when you die, death isn't a big deal at all. Even reincarnation with a chance to advance to one of the above softens death's sting.
But in Mortal Kombat, you aren't guaranteed one of these fates. You might get stuck in purgatory as a shade, sent to hell as a spectre, or yanked out of the ground as a zombie. All of these are less-than-idea states.
And worse, even if you *do* get sent to heaven, if one of the less-noble Kombatants wins the tournament, what do you think is going to happen? You'll be sitting on a cloud, strumming a harp and wondering why you didn't go to more toga parties in your mortal incarnation, when suddenly a giant bodybuilder with a skull mask kicks in the door, smashes an angel in the face with a sledgehammer, and shouts "You weak pathetic fools, I've come for your souls!"
Yeah, it's probably for the best that we deal with this whole Tournament thing here and now. | 28 |
[Marvel and DC universes] What could cause Wayne Enterprises or Stark Industries to go bankrupt? | Both companies have seemingly limitless amounts of cash. What could possibly cause it all to dry up? | 433 | Wayne Enterprises could, in most circumstances, outright buy most iterations of Stark's companies without much (if any) fuss. Between Wayne Enterprises and LexCorp, the two holding companies make an absurd amount of the GDP of the US - upwards of *half* if some claims are to be believed. Remember that WayneTech is only one small part of what Wayne Enterprises encompasses.
Stark, meanwhile, has gone bankrupt or been bought out multiple times. His current company (Stark Unlimited) is something like the sixth company he's had and built up. It wouldn't take nearly as much for his companies to go bankrupt. | 326 |
[Star Wars] In Legends, they name a ship after the A-Wing pilot who brought down the Super Star Destroyer in the Battle of Endor. How did they know who he was? | 27 | Prior to the Battle of Yavin, the Rebel Alliance was a collection of scattered rebel cells that acted primarily independently. Thus, there wasn't much of an organized central command. The destruction of the first Death Star changed things - the Rebel Alliance was now seen as an actual movement that might actually take down the Empire. More and more people flooded to the fight against the Empire and the Alliance solidified into an actual fighting force and by the time of Endor it had a central command and a degree of centralized organization. With that came record-keeping and personnel files and all that.
Games like *TIE Fighter* suggest that Star Destroyers had some kind of tactical oversight ability over the fighters that sortied from their bays. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to learn that the Rebels had the same - they could simply look through their logs and see which A-wing crashed into the SSD. After-action reports from the wingmates of the A-wing pilot who didn't return would report the same and corroborate the records of the capital ships' computers. | 35 |
|
ELI5: What is economic left and right? I don't understand. | 32 | I am seeing many replies that are only valid if you accept the commenter's definition of "left" and "right". In order to answer this question, we have to first look at what those terms mean. In reality, these terms are extremely versatile and their definitions have changed over time.
First of all, the term "left" and "right" simply refer to an event in French history during the French Revolution where the French National Assembly took an oath on a tennis court to agree to meet as one entity until the constitution replaced the monarchy. The more liberal minded attendees assembled on the left, the more conservative ones on the right. The context of this meeting was that King XVI was increasingly hostile against the Republicans, and was taxing citizens up to an effective rate of 97%. The oath represented a commitment to formally abandon the monarchist style of rule in order to institute a republic. This historical context has been lost on many people in the modern age, often times resulting in people believing that the terms "left" and "right" have a lot of weight and believe them to be much more descriptive than they actually are.
Therefore, the historical context of "left" and "right" is and has always been a loose term to denote a relative measure of where an individual leans from a centrist point of view. Note that the political center for each country is different. The "left" in the US is not the same as the "left" in Germany. With that being said, there are some generalized similarities and differences between "left" and "right" especially when it comes to the economy.
To better understand this dynamic, a default political plot was created which plots the authoritarianism of a government on the vertical axis and the economic doctrine on the horizontal axis. For example, an extreme laissez faire position would be far right on the economic axis and far below on the authoritarian axis (libertarian). A true communist state would be far left on the economic axis and far above on the authoritarian one. While this plot has its inherent flaws and is not perfectly descriptive of the wide spectrum of political doctrine, it works far better than the single axis slider that to which many people are accustomed.
Keep in mind that in politics, particularly American politics due to its two-party state, it is extremely difficult if not an impossible endeavor to weave a narrative of the "left" and "right" that fits in 100% of scenarios. You can look at the platforms of the major political parties in the US, they are a patchwork of liberal, conservative, authoritarian, and libertarian ideas just to name a few. Individuals also can have special interests. A multi-billionaire who has made his money who was buoyed by economic conservatism may express his desire to preserve nature by donating massive amounts of his money towards public parks and wildlife refuges. To classify his action as either "left" or "right" economically is only part of the story within the context of how such a decision was made.
Characteristics that *usually* describe the economic left:
* Increased government responsibility for citizens and workers - state welfare, health and safety regulations, corporate regulations
* Higher earners are taxed progressively
* Increased spending on social programs
Characteristics that *usually* describe the economic right:
* Less regulations for businesses and professional entities
* Cutting budgets, particularly of social programs
* Tax cuts for the wealthy
All countries employ a mixture of "left" and "right" economic doctrine because they serve different purposes. Without social programs, modern society would suffer immensely as a whole. If corporations were all centrally controlled, they would suffer in terms of efficiency and performance in the global market. Failed states and the difference between Germany and Japan's post-WWII recovery are examples of why the former and latter are both important. At the end of the day, these terms are simply used as a quick point of reference to determine generally how a person leans.
| 60 |
|
ELI5: Why have I heard older conservatives tell younger liberals to wait until they're older, then they'll change their mind? | I'm a college student, technically leaning to the left politically. My dad says wait until I'm older, then I'll change my mind. Something like I have to learn the value of income. He's not the only conservative I've heard say that. Is there a valid argument behind this saying? | 40 | I wouldn't call it a valid argument, but he does have a point.
At the moment, you were a child, then in school, then in college - so you have never had to pay any real taxes.
Therefore it's very easy to believe taxes should be raised to pay for social programs/education etc.
However assuming you graduate college and get a decent paying job, you may be more reluctant to support these policies - since you will have worked hard your whole life, finally get a house/car etc. and now you're expected to give away 20% of your hard work to help other people who you may think don't deserve it.
It's easy to support liberal policies when you're receiving the benefits of them and not paying the costs, but it's harder when you are the one paying the costs without receiving the benefits.
This doesn't mean that he is correct totally, but he is correct in the sense that you have only experienced one side of the coin, and it is definitely possible that you will change your mind as you get older.
NB. This only touches on economic policy, not social. | 83 |
[MCU] as captain America is captain a proper rank or just a title for who ever is captain America at the time? | 40 | Title. Even though Steve was promoted to the actual rank of Captain, "Captain America" was originally a character created by the US Army as part of a campaign designed to promote the war effort based on the publicity created by Steve's public pursuit of the nazi spy | 39 |
|
[DC] Amanda Waller loves to be in control and dislikes/hates the Justice League. Why hasn't she ever tried to turn them into her Suicide Squad? | Waller is cunning and ruthless, with a severe dislike of the Justice League. She knows their vulnerabilities and weaknesses, and she has plenty of resources.
Why hasn't she tried to use this knowledge to turn them into her Suicide Squad; i.e. blackmail them, put bombs in their neck etc.? I'm sure she could get some other like-minded people, with an equal/greater hatred, to help her. | 52 | The justice league aren't locked up criminals at your mercy that will jump at a shorter sentence. They're incredibly powerful and experienced superhumans who have access to resources on the level of multiple nations, are nearly universally beloved and have countless superhuman and political allies. Better people then Amanda Waller have tried to take control of the Justice League before, and they've all failed.
And if it goes wrong, then Waller will be utterly fucked. Attempting to take over the Justice League as personal weapons isn't something that can be swept under the rug. We're talking "demoted back down to meter maid" at best here, likely prison time, and it's not unreasonable to fear a full-scale revolt against the US government.
It's too difficult and too high risk. She doesn't doesn't like the Justice League, but she doesn't hate them enough to stir up that hornets nest. | 88 |
[MCU] Among all of the characters from the MCU's "Avengers," which are Dudes, and which are Men, according to Drax's system of measurement? | (possible spoiler alert!)
&#x200B;
So, my original question was whether Drax was a dude or a man. Then I thought about "The Big Lebowski," and kind of started to wonder (unrelatedly, of course): was Obediah Stone a Dude, or a Man? Then I thought about Tony Stark - is *he* a Dude, or a Man? (I would say Tony Stark, personally, was a Dude in the first of his series but achieved his Manliness later on in the series.... Who else? What about... Thanos? Gamora? Etc. Thank you | 36 | Cap: Man
Tony: Man
Rhodey: Dude
Sam: Man
Stephen: Dude
Mordo: Man
Wong: Man
Peter: Dude
Ned: Dude
T'Challa: Man
W'Kabi: Dude
Scott: Dude
Hank: Dude
Peter: Dude
Rocket: Dude
Groot: Man
Drax: Man
Bruce: Dude
Hulk: Man
Clint: Dude | 22 |
ELI5: Why do some pimples/blackheads bleed when you pop them, and others don't? | I thought pimples and blackheads were blocked pores. I didn't think pores had blood running through them - I thought the veins were "under" the pores, so to speak. So where does the blood come from? And why do some pimples/blackheads bleed but others do not? | 2,095 | There are a few factors for which bleed, from the size of the wall if it's cystic to the place it is (how thick your skin is there)
But basically, you can imagine each of your pores as a ziplock full of peanut butter floating in a pool. If you try to squeeze out the peanut butter, especially if you don't open the ziplock first, you risk popping the bag, getting poolwater in your ziplock and/or peanut butter in your pool | 2,308 |
ElI5- what did Nietzsche mean when he said "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you." | I always interpreted it as if you look at something long enough, you'll become that thing. For example, if I see drama and chaos everywhere I go, that means I'm a chaotic person. Whereas if I saw peace and serenity everywhere I go, I will always have peace and serenity.
Make sense? | 12,730 | The context gives some clue, especially the preceding sentence:
> He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.
The warning might be generalized: You can't go out changing things, without things also changing you. When you struggle against people or things, for reasons good or bad, those people or things *will take a hand in shaping who you become.* You must accept that fact, and live with its consequences, if you are to take up a struggle.
Much of Nietzche's writing, especially in *Beyond Good & Evil*. is concerned with power, influence, and will, and about how and why one exercises one's will upon the world. The simplest reading in that context, is just that this is always a two-way road. You exercise your will, *and* you are exercised upon. | 14,733 |
ELI5:why does stress cause diarrhea like symptoms? | 37 | These symptoms occur due to your body's innate response to stress, which is to move blood away from your gut (stomach, intestines) to your muscles and other vital organs causing gastrointestinal distress if you have food in your stomach. This is known as the "fight or flight" response caused by sympathetic nervous system activation. In opposition to the sympathetic nervous system is the parasympathetic nervous system which causes the "rest and digest" response in your body. In contrast to the sympathetic nervous system, when your parasympathetic nervous system is more active (in times of low stress, relaxation) your body moves more blood to your gut to promote digestion.
Tl;dr your body is in "fight or flight" mode and not focusing on digestion, so you basically have food rattling around in your gut.
Edit: added some information | 21 |
|
CMV: Sex is an act of love and casual sex is weird | A couple of people already informed me that I have a wrong view on sex and should get it fixed, however my family members and close friends have told me that I'm in the right.
I basically believe that sex is the most intimate physical act two humans can perform and should only be done if the two partners have actual feelings of love for eachother. Therefore, I have trouble understanding people who engage in casual sex without any romantic intentions. I just can't understand how you would do such an intimate thing with a stranger. That's also probably why I'm disgusted by prostitudes and their costumers, which is stupid because 81% of the male population in my country have already had sex with a prostitude.
Please change my view Reddit, this topic fucks me up so hard mentally that I sometimes can't take it anymore. If I'm in the wrong, please tell me how I can change to stop the hurting. | 88 | Sex can be an act of love, but it can also be just something to fulfill your urges. Sex is seen as primarily being about love, because that's what religions teach us.
The idea that it's exclusively for love isn't natural. That's something that religious beliefs tell you, but if you take a look at pre-agricultural and pre-patriarchal hunter and gatherer communities you will see that the sexual behavior of humans is naturally much closer to Bonobos (genetically our closest living primates) than to pair-bonding animals like birds or voals.
Like for example you might have heard the term "Eskimo brothers". This term came into existence because the first westerners that came into contact with Inuits were surprised by how sexually open they were. They would all sleep naked together and every night turned into a gang bang, pre-marital sex was encouraged, getting pregnant by a different man didn't matter because everyone helped raising the kids together, if you visited one they wouldn't offer you tea like the British, but they would offer you to fuck their wives, kids would learn how to have sex by watching their parents, etc.
The same was true for hunter and gatherer tribes all around the globe. Which is why the South Park episode about the Super Adventure Club portrays these discoverers as pedophiles, because some of the earliest stories about isolated tribes in the Amazon are from guys that traveled those areas because they knew that they would get offered to have sex (some accounts also mention that they got offered to have sex with teens and pre-teens) if they encountered a new tribe.
Only once we developed agriculture we also developed the idea of owning property and life-long marriage. Then the idea that wives and kids are the property of their husbands came up, which also lead to the idea that women should be virgins before getting married. Slut-shaming, sexual jealousy and the idea that sex should only happen in marriages are based on patriarchy, but not on nature.
Sex with strangers, pre-marital sex, homosexual sex and sex with multiple partners are only wrong if you are looking at it from a religious perspective, but those things aren't wrong if you grew up without getting taught that they are bad.
Similarly you could compare sex to going to the cinema or to a nice dinner. It's seen as something romantic that you do with your partner, but this doesn't mean that you can't enjoy it alone, with a stranger or in a group. | 117 |
CMV: There is a toxic mindset when it comes to depression/anxiety being solely attributed to brain chemistry | I want to preface by saying I do not have extensive knowledge or qualifications when it comes to mental health or biology. In recent years there has been a spotlight on mental health and people reaching out to get help etc. I think this is great and people should get the help they need and look to live their life to the fullest. My views in this post are based mostly on my interactions with people online and browsing the internet, so it is my subjective opinion, but there seems to be a decent portion of people who talk about depression/anxiety who view it solely as a problem with the brain. Often a deficiency of a neurotransmitter, and that taking an antidepressant is akin to a diabetic taking insulin. They make it out that their brain is essentially broken/damaged and that is the reason for the way that they feel.
&#x200B;
Now the point of my post is not to determine the root of depression/anxiety, I'm sure there are many factors at play. My view is that this mindset of anxiety/depression being solely caused by your brain chemistry is a toxic mindset. It's like completely giving in and deciding you no longer have control over your life or decisions - your brain is broken and that's just how it is. When it comes to improving your mental health and getting rid of negative thoughts, I've got to say having the mindset that there's nothing you can do about it is about the absolute worst thing that can happen.
&#x200B;
I'm sure there are people who genuinely have an issue like this, I believe thyroid problems can cause depression. In the case that you get tests done and can determine the cause, that is great. In a majority of cases though, the diagnosis of depression/anxiety is given after a talk with a doctor (either a GP or therapist) and these people don't actually know that it is caused by some chemical imbalance - just that they have the diagnosis. The last thing people with poor mental health need is to think you have no power over your actions and feelings.
&#x200B;
So reddit, change my view. This view I see rather commonly online about depression/anxiety being caused by chemical imbalanced or what have you is a toxic mindset and leaves people feeling that they aren't in control of their lives.
&#x200B;
&#x200B; | 19 | This armchair neurology rhetoric - "depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain" - is most often uttered to combat the more sinister misconception that depression is simply a result of bad motivation and lack of effort.
The depressed are often given instructions or advice on how to "cheer themselves up." Get out and exercise! Don't stay in the apartment! Join a club! Do a thing! Be the happy!
Other times, people tell depressed folks that they're upset because of their life situation. It's the job, or the girlfriend, or the friend, or the city, or the political climate, or the economy, or the alignment of Mars and Jupiter.
These well-meaning platitudes have a negative impact on those who suffer from depression. Depression causes a severe lack of motivation, making these otherwise normal activities insurmountable challenges. Being upset because things are difficult in life is a normal and healthy response to external stimuli; being *disproportionately or obsessively* upset, or being upset despite things not being so bad, is depression.
When a depressed person hears this kind of advice and rhetoric, it minimizes and denies the experience they're having, makes them think the problem is their own fault, and starts a spiral of self-blame that exacerbates the depression and prevents them from seeking help.
It can be helpful to frame depression as a purely medical concern to get around this mental hurdle. If your body is sick, you go to the doctor and you take medicine. Anyone can accept that, so it's an easier jump in logic to frame depression as a sickness for which there is medicine.
Of course, there are non-medical remedies for depression. Therapy, diet, and exercise *do* help. Medicine is not the only remedy, and describing depression as a "chemical imbalance" is a simplification to the point of incorrectness. However, viewing these activities as doctors' orders rather than a self-imposed guilt trip can be the difference for a depressed person to get started, though, and can connect them to other treatments that they may not have otherwise pursued.
In sum;
>It's like completely giving in and deciding you no longer have control over your life or decisions - your brain is broken and that's just how it is.
It does quite the opposite - it tells you that the problem is not that *you* are lazy, gloomy and unmotivated, but rather that a fixable issue with your brain is preventing you from being your best self. It empowers people to fix the problem rather than resign to it.
| 25 |
ELI5: Why are local mexican and asian markets cheaper than super markets? | Can someone explain, using basic economic terms, why the local mexican and asian markets are able to provide meats and produce at cheaper prices than the large super markets like raleys or safeway? how is it these tiny stores are able to undercut the large retailers? | 19 | In a big chain supermarket, distributors are actually PAYING the store for shelf space... that's why the brand name kids cereal is at arms' reach, while generic or "off brand" KaKa poofs are on the bottom shelf.
A small specialty store only has so many brands to deal with, and some of these places import only one brand of foods for some items. | 10 |
CMV: JK Rowling's messages in her books were downright awful and dangerous, especially for a kid's book. | CMV: When I say "JK Rowling messages are dangerous" I'm referring to the messages she had in her book regarding the Dursleys and Harry's relationship.
In any other setting, Harry's childhood would have been a villain's origin story. From what I remember it only shows the abuse Harry takes from them daily and never Harry learning any form of moral compass or lesson. I'm surprised he managed to make friends with Ron after all the abuse he took from the people that "loved him".
Frankly, I'm shocked that Harry never tried to kill the Dursley's after learning he was a wizard.
But what pisses me off the most is the "motherly love" angle Dumbledore told him about and how his mother's love lives on through his aunt. WHAT THE FUCK ROWLING. You basically told your reader "You have to stay with your abuser because they love you deep down". "They love you deep down" is something you should never say to an abuse victim, especially one with childhood trauma.
This motherly love also seems to have faulty logic to it. Harry spends most his time away from the Durselys and that love never seems to go away. At most he only seems to spend about 3-5 weeks max a year at their house.
My main complaint is: Using the neglect and favouritism for Dudley that the Dursleys clearly displayed and playing it off as normal and something that everyone knows about but does nothing about is a dangerous message. Imagine a kid in a similar situation to Harry. Seeing his role model suffer every day and dealing with it because "That's what Harry would do".
In real life, there would not be a competent solicitor (lawyer) in the area that wouldn't call the police and have the Dursleys arrested for child abuse.
But there were many alternatives that Dumbledore could have had placed on Harry's protection when his parents died.
Hogwarts is a well-guarded area thanks to Dumbledore and the forest. Why didn't Harry just stay at Hogwarts? You would have thought that Dumbledore would make an exception for "The boy who lived" and the one destined to save the world and keep him close to the school grounds for extra spell practise and security. Why not give Harry a "summer school" program taught by Dumbledore himself or even Hagrid, allowing Harry to learn more about magical creatures.
The ministry is well aware of Harry and his legacy. Why not have Harry taken by the ministry and placed in some sort of witness protection that Dumbledore can closely monitor? Maybe Dumbledore can even handpick the members of Harry's guard. Like, say... The Weasely family?
Sirius was a wanted criminal but I don't doubt that he could have kept Harry safe. It took the death eaters half a year to find them when they lived in the house during Deathly Hallows and Sirius showed great magical skill during the battle at the ministry. Surely he of all people would have kept Harry safe. Plus the fact that he's Harry's Godfather must mean something to the magical world. Would that not make him Harry's sworn parent. Surely that's enough to warrant at least some of Lily Potter's protection.
and those are just off the top of my head.
My td'lr is this: Having Harry stay with clearly abusive parental figures and forcing him to stay is a fucked up message for kids, especially those that are going through similar situations. In real life, the Durselys would be arrested for their crimes and taken away from Harry. | 21 | When dumbledore said that he was explaining the original thought and why they didn’t keep him.
They didn’t know Petunia / all of them would neglect Harry. Their belief wasn’t anything concrete just a hope that it would continue through the maternal connection **not** that Petunia would love him but that whatever kept Harry getting killed by Voldemort (keep in mind they **do not know it was the horcrox thingy**) was something to do with Lily and it **might** continue with Petunia through a gene connection. Harry had to stay with someone with the same blood for this protection.
In fact Harry Potter puts a lot of agency with Harry. It never ever shames him for moving in with a different family, it never shames him for cutting out the Dursleys, the **only** acknowledgement is that Dudley was a child and therefore wasn’t a horrible person necessarily but needed to grow up, Harry still didn’t completly get over any of it though. | 21 |
I believe far too many US policies are based on emotion and not logic. CMV | I take a look at most of the controversial issues and see both sides appealing to poor-logic arguments that tug at heartstrings but have no substantial backing.
Both sides of the abortion debate are probably the worst. Pictures of dead babies/fetuses vs "you can't control my vagina" signs. The argument basically boils down to "I believe life starts here, you believe life starts there."
Gun control is another one. Gun violence is declining, mass shootings are declining, and yet people are using the victims of a tragedy to push their agenda. Assault weapons are basically never used in crimes, yet all of the most recent legislation has been targeted in that direction. Yes, a bunch of kids got shot in Connecticut by some sick asshat. 20-something people should not revamp an entire countries policy. I'm against stricter gun control, but if you're using the notion of "less guns = less casualties," you'd want to restrict handguns, which are used in a vast majority of gun homicides.
Gay Marriage is another one. People are using model couples like NPH and his partner to propel their beliefs, but one couple shouldn't affect how anyone thinks on that topic. "How am I supposed to tell my children" is just another shitty appeal to emotion.
There are a lot more, those are just the hotspot ones. | 30 | Politics and policy are not the same thing, and you're talking about about political arguments, but not necessarily policy decisions.
That's not to say that policy decisions aren't impacted by emotional political arguments. They are. But there are scientific ways to analyze various policies or programs for effectiveness. If, for example, someone thinks a mandatory gun ownership program (like one passed in Nelson, GA recently) reduces violent crime rates, we can test that. This is why many policy changes are piloted - so data can be collected and efficacy tested in order to determine if the program should be expanded or eliminated.
But most of that stuff is not salient, and doesn't make the news. | 12 |
How did the rabies virus evolve to cause the death of its host so quickly? From an evolutionary point of view, that appears counter productive? | Most of the natural hosts of rabies virus only survive for a few weeks. How did the virus evolve this characteristic ? Isn’t that a poor evolutionary trait? Why didn’t it evolve to cause the host a mild encephalitis and irritable state where the animal would show a degree of aggression but not perish in a week or so? | 447 | You are looking at it purely from a human/canine/etc perspective.
You're 100% correct that diseases that purely exhibit such extreme symptoms and progression aren't very long-lived, but there's a reason why rabies - unlike eg the Spanish Flu, sweating sickness, and thousands of other bouts of infectious diseases that came and went - issue still around today.
From an evolutionary perspective, a disease gets no more "points" for infecting humans than it would any other species. The "primary host" for a disease is one which is crucial for its reproduction, and there are plenty of mammalian species in which rabies is not an immediate death sentence, including those who coexist with it without any symptoms at all.
The primary carriers or rabies in the USA are bats, raccoons, skunks, and foxes; all of whom are primary hosts for rabies that *aren't* killed off by the disease. Rabies, apart from the dead-end human hosts, is actually an incredibly successful and adaptable disease, that can infect (and spread) via both warm-and cold-blooded hosts, and has been even artificially spread to avian subjects as well (who aren't killed by it but do remain infected/symptomatic).
In fact, in all other regards, rabies is downright terrifying from a epidemical perspective. It's theorised that it would be capable of spreading as an STD between hypothetically "infected but somehow not dying so quickly" human subjects, as it's been found in both semen and vaginal secretions. | 361 |
Is burnout normal in academics? | Im a doctoral candidate, (4th year) and though there is the light at the end of the tunnel, I feel like I burnt myself out so hard last year (COVID, grant writing w no laptop, could not go to lab, got married, family disowned me, and threats from family members, took quals twice (failed the first time)). My advisors dont know how hard the last year was for me. My advisors are extremely selfless and wonderful advisors and they are treking out a plan where I can publish 1-2 papers within 20-24 months and graduate on time.
Since May, Ive been completely burnt out and disinterested. I never get up on time, and I am going to lab at 2pm and forcing myself to stay there for 8 hours. Even when my body is in lab, my work is not great, and I can hardly motivate myself to thaw out cells.
Other people in academia seem to have trials with burn out from time to time. Virtually all PIs are over extended, post-docs too. I was wondering if burnout is a bug or a feature in academia? Does everyone feel burntout from time to time or did I fuck myself?
thanks | 165 | It’s sadly very common. Try to prioritize mental health now. Don’t tell yourself to push trough and deal with that stuff after finishing the PhD. I’ve seen many friends where this strategy did not work out well. | 106 |
Forgive me if this has already been asked, but why is it that, historically, natures giants are herbivores (i.e. blue whales, elephants, brachiosaurus)? What is it about plants that are more beneficial in sustaining a larger body than meat? | 50 | Every level you go up in the food chain requires ten times as much from the one below it. 100 pounds of cow needs 1000 pounds of grass, 100 pounds of lion needs 1000 pounds of cow and 10000 pounds of grass. Imagine how much meat a carnivorous elephant would need. | 84 |
|
[MCU] How come Ant-Man can punch Ghost? | Hey everyone, i'm not a huge consumer of the MCU but have recently been trying to catch up so that I can enjoy Endgame. I was watching Ant-Man and the Wasp and I do not believe this was addressed. I also am not incredibly familiar with the names of the players at the moment, so will try my best.
My question is simple...if Ghost has some sort of quantum disposition thing going on and cannot touch anything - how does she take any damage at all? In the big battle towards the end she does get a bit of a kicking and i'm trying to understand how. | 38 | She can touch stuff, it’s just on and off.
Her power is fundamentally unstable, so when she wants to be intangible there’s a chance that she’ll suddenly become tangible. And the thing that’s destroying her life is that when she wants to be solid, she frequently goes ghostly. | 54 |
ELI5: If EMPs can shut down all electricity, why dont they effect the electrical impulses in our bodies? | 46 | First lets look at what an EMP actually is. It is an "electromagnetic pulse", or an extremely powerful oscillating magnetic field. This causes currents to be formed in conductors through induction, and is more powerful the longer the conductor. The result is powerful surges of electricity in the power grid, and electronics relatively small surges of power can physically damage the extremely delicate semiconductors in the chips. That is why electronics are damaged or destroyed by EMPs.
Inside your body is different. We don't have lengths of wire or other conductors in our body; the "electrical impulses" that occur in our body are extremely short range charge interactions between neighboring cells. These *can* be influenced by electric charges being passed through our body such as with a Taser, but an EMP has no way to cause such charge differentials because there isn't any portion of our body that reacts strongly to magnetic fields. | 32 |
|
When I turn on a flahslight, am I creating brand new light particles (photons?) that didn't previously exist? | . | 22 | Short answer: Yes.
Electrical energy goes into the light-emitting device (whether that's an incandescent bulb or a light-emitting diode) and gets converted into photons emitted from the flashlight. | 12 |
CMV: the /u/spez situation is being blown out of proportion | Keep in mind an event like this of a ceo or admins editing posts has NEVER happened, this is especially true since most things in a post gamer gate world is mostly achieved.
I don't believe this would set a precedent, spez and in fact the rest of the administration team have been as open as possible about reddits operations in the past, and as he mentioned the admin team is very pissed at him.
He knows what he did was a shitty thing to do and it would not create a precedent because of how these tools have seemingly always existed and has not created any significant problems until now. | 76 | It's a big deal because it is immoral to use editing abilities to deliberately misrepresent a person - to make it appear as if they said something which they did not say ... he could have simply removed any posts which he found offensive.
It is a form of libel. | 90 |
Could an creature have both an endo and exoskeleton? Do any? | 276 | As far as i understand it, no creatures have both as it is simply not required. One of the basic functions of a skeleton (exo or endo) is simply to provide structural support for the creature, so it can move. If it has a exoskeleton it has no need of an endoskeleton, and vice versa.
However i'm not sure if you would classify a creature which has an endoskeleton, but also has some kind of bonelike armour (not connected to the endoskeleton) under this category. | 59 |
|
Biologists say that humans have 10x more bacteria in their body than human cells, but how can this number be possible? | 65 | Bacteria are much smaller than human cells, roughly 1/10th the diameter in size. Imagine a cantaloupe compared to a blueberry or a grape to get a rough idea of their relative sizes. There's a very large population of bacteria living in your gastrointestinal tract, which is where that 10x number usually comes from. By weight bacteria still only make up around 1-2% of your body mass.
| 60 |
|
ELI5:Why are ISPs not considered monopolies? | E.g. Only Comcast (Argh!!) is available in my neighborhood and just keeps raising the price and now is making us sign up for a contract | 180 | They are often considered monopolies in the regions they serve. Cable companies are very often regulated as natural monopoly 'utilities' by municipal utility commissions. The laws governing how these organizations regulate are often old, archaic, and have been manipulated by industry lobbying to make it difficult for them to gain serious concessions on issues like price and service. Cable television, in particular, has historically been seen as a 'luxury' utility and has been given greater discression on how to conduct itself. | 48 |
What is the difference between white and brown eggs at the supermarket? | I grew up in California with my mom buying white eggs at the grocery store. When I moved to college, I had two European room mates who thought white eggs were so bizarre, and only bought brown eggs. I've noticed that brown eggs are usually a bit more expensive than white eggs as well...
I know eggs from different breeds of chickens can come in different tints, but is there any real difference between the eggs besides color? | 134 | Chicken farmer here.
There is no significant difference between the contents of chicken eggs, regardless of egg shell color.
Some people use egg color as a proxy for selecting more humanely produced eggs, on the theory that brown egg layers are not raised in poor conditions as often as white egg layers. The hope that brown eggs are healthier is similarly based on the theory that the chickens had access to pasture and bugs.
The nutritional content of eggs does vary, but because of chicken diet, not shell color. Some brands of eggs require a special diet for their flocks to ensure better eggs.
If you get a chance to eat fresh eggs from /r/BackYardChickens, you may find it challenging to eat grocery store eggs afterwards.
Fun fact: Egg shells are naturally white (or blue for certain breeds). Brown (or green) eggs have a pigment layer over the shell. | 84 |
CMV: Israel is an apartheid state | 18 | When you defined the "crime of Apartheid", basically none of the things you listed actually apply to Israel. If you are an Israeli citizen you're entitled to the same privileges as Israeli Jews regardless of your religion or ethnicity. Everyone else has clarified the intermarriage situation. The only discrimination you mentioned in your post that applies to Israel and not the occupied territories is privileging Jews over all others for entry into Israel, which is not part of the Apartheid criteria and is the entire point of the state. I'd be more likely to hear your point for the occupied territories but Israel itself is stretching the definition a bit. | 16 |
|
[Star Trek] If Data was so unique as an android, then what was Roger Korby making? | 24 | Data was unique because he had the potential to be very, very human. He could learn, grow, decide things on his own and... Let's not forget. He was fully functional and anatomically correct.
Korby's androids, on the other hand, were trapped by their programming. Unlike the superior Soong-types, the Korby-type androids couldn't learn the way that Data could, they had to be programmed. While Data grew into a very human being after a few years, Korby's androids, after five years, were unable to demonstrate the barest shred of humanity. Despite the fact that several of them were programmed with human minds, unlike the blank slates that the Soong-types began as!
Data was, in short, unique because he could improve on his own, with the only needed input being his own senses. Korby-types, however, had to be programmed for any kind of improvements or changes. | 34 |
|
ELI5: Why, in the modern age of "HD" obsession do phone conversations still sound like you're listening through a tin can? | It struck me as odd when I was listening to a call-in radio show last night. The hosts were having trouble hearing the caller, and rightly so, because she sounded like she was transmitting from Mars. Couldn't "they" employ some kind of EQ feature for voice? "Android. Now available with 'TrueVoice'^TM "
**EDIT:** I noticed a few people citing bandwidth issues. Is this because the conversation is "live?" I mean, I can stream HD video on my phone, but I assume it's only because buffering is involved.
Also, with the audio quality being inherently poor, couldn't one develop some kind of software that fixes the voice after the fact (like the EQ I had mentioned), or can you just not polish this particular turd? | 1,719 | It's a legacy due to cost. When we used the old analogue (POTS) phone system it was designed to work well enough to be intelligible, but no more than that because a slight increase in quality would have cost huge sums.
Then technology moved on and phones first went digital. When this was specified it turned out that a method of encoding speech as good as the previous analogue system could be achieved, so that was standardised upon.
At the time the digital voice links used a data rate of 9600 bits per second. Technology always gets cheaper, so when we were still using modems in pre-broadband days we were getting 56,000 bits per second which is enough for CD quality phone calls, but the standards had already been set, were 'good enough' and standards are best if they don't keep changing.
So the world stuck with a standard voice call using 9600 bits per second. | 819 |
[Warhammer/WH40K] Has a servant of Chaos every truly escaped from servitude to the Dark Gods? | 30 | For those who truly repent, it is possible to die in the Emperor's light.
But really that's your only hope. As long as you're alive, the Ruinous Powers will have their hooks in you. It doesn't matter if you're piling skulls for the Skull Throne or down on your knees flogging yourself before the high altar of a sacred shrine; you're still at risk. If you truly want redemption, turn yourself in to the Inquisition, make a full confession, and then when they burn you try to die singing hymns to the Emperor. | 36 |
|
ELI5:The Deep Web and the dark internet | 53 | The deep web is part of the normal internet. But it's a part that isn't indexed by search engines. That can be unintentional, but more often is intentional. Onion servers reached through the Tor network (which is likely what you've been reading about that sparked your curiosity) are part of the deep web. Most people discover things on the internet using search engines, and the deep web is removed from those search engines, so it requires more direct knowledge to find a site.
The dark internet (not darknet, which is another name for the deep web) refers to parts of the internet that are no longer accessible using the internet. This is different from the deep web (where sites are 'hidden') in that these servers aren't just hidden, they're completely inaccessible. Often this is because traffic has been overfiltered, cutting out blocks of servers. Sometimes these network spaces have been intentionally cut off, and reappear briefly to instigate some sort of cyberattack - this is when you generally hear about the dark internet in the public media. | 35 |
|
How is it that voltage lags current in a capacitive AC circuit? | I thought that voltage is the force that “compelled” current to flow, so how could it be that current can flow “ahead” of voltage? | 23 | Instantaneously, what is happening is that current is proportional to the derivative of voltage: i=C dv/dt. There's no anticipation: if voltage sits steady for a while and then starts to change, there will be no current until it starts to change.
With a steady sine wave, it turns out that dv/dt is largest when v is near zero. It can appear that the current is anticipating the peak voltage, by having its own peak earlier. But it's really just a reaction to the derivative at that moment, not an anticipation of the upcoming peak. Sine waves are special in that the derivative is the same shape as the original waveform. If you had a different voltage waveform, perhaps a triangle wave, the current waveform would be a different shape, not a time shifted version of the voltage waveform.
By the way, it's not always true that voltage is the cause and current the effect. It's just an engineering choice that we set up most electrical systems that way. | 18 |
ELI5: Why do already popular products need to spend so much money on advertising? At this point, don't most consumers already have a basic knowledge about CocaCola, Doritos, Budweiser, etc.? | To be clear, I'm not referring to ads that inform consumers about new products or offers (i.e., Coke with Lime, Bud Light Platinum, new sandwich at McDonalds). I'm basically curious as to why there are so many commercials for basic well-known products. Might be a naive question | 65 | It's not about making sure you're aware of it, it's about building brand loyalty, especially when you're young.
They know, for example, that the soda you drink at age 20 is likely to be your preferred soda for the rest of your life -- and the beer you drink at age 25 will likely always be your preferred beer.
The advertising isn't designed to get you to buy the product now. It's designed to make you a lifelong customer. | 40 |
CMV: Personally eating meat isn't wrong | I accept the premise that animal cruelty is wrong and that treating animals badly is immoral. However, if you are going to places like Walmart which presumably sells thousands of pounds of meat a day, a single consumer choosing whether or not to buy meat probably does not impact whether or not they demand more meat from their suppliers. Assuming this is true, I see no reason why the actual consumption of meat, once the animal has been killed, is immoral. You aren't actually harming anybody by simply eating the meat, and (assuming my first point holds), buying meat does not significantly contribute to animal cruelty. So I don't really see the harm.
_____
> *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!* | 20 | > a single consumer choosing whether or not to buy meat probably does not impact whether or not they demand more meat from their suppliers
It is true that buying a chicken from walmart probably doesn't have an effect. However, when it does, the effect is large, and you should not ignore it.
Imagine Walmart buys their chickens in lots of 1000, and you buy one chicken each week.
There's a 99.9% chance you have no effect. Most weeks, most years, you happily eat chicken with no adverse effect on any living poultry.
However, once ever 20 years or so, at random, that chicken you buy does, in fact, trigger the manager to order an extra lot of 1000 from the slaughterhouse. That day, as you munch your Tandoori in front of a Game Of Thrones re-run, a great slaughter is brewing, gathering momentum, because your purchase triggered a different key tap into on a logistics management system. Soon, an extra 1000 fowl will be rounded up, and slaughtered as you discard the leftovers.
On average, a chicken you eat is a chicken that dies for you.
Of course, it also means an extra 1000 or so chickens will be born, but that's not the point you were making.
The error in your argument is:
* you pay attention to the very high probability, no impact event, BUT
* you ignore the very low probability, very high impact event.
If that's the way you think, here are some more pointed questions:
* Do you have insurance? Don't ignore the high impact, low probability event of a health distaster or a house fire.
* Do you get your car serviced regularly? Don't ignore the high impact, low probability event of a mechanical failure leading to an accident.
* Do you make an effort to update your skills? Don't ignore the high impact, low probability event of a downturn ruining your entire industry.
But, on the flipside,
* Do you buy lottery tickets? Don't pay too much attention to the (admittedly high impact, but) *incredibly* low probability event of a big win.
| 18 |
[Westworld] This definitely seems like a place where some guests would stay up all night on a bender of alcohol, gambling, bar fights, etc. How do the park workers get the time to repair/reset everything without guests noticing? | Is there a rule that guests have to go to bed at midnight? That seems like it would ruin the immersion.
Are the hosts programmed to spike your drink (without you knowing) to force you to sleep? | 16 | Throughout the show in the first season they're constantly talking about immersion and integration of other stories. What in guessing happens is that they simply shut down all "side quests" where that robot was a key factor until they're able to bring it back. The "locals" are the ones that take the "dead bodies" away to be "buried", but the technicians simply take it from there. | 27 |
CMV: If you are a feminist who believes the patriarchy should be destroyed, but can't quantify the results of it's destruction, you are not for any form of gender equality whatsoever | So I've been talking with some feminists lately, as one does, and I realized I had a total blind spot in my understanding of what feminists completely believed. So I asked them, "what is the patriarchy?"
Seems fairly straightforward, right? Well, the uniform answers I've been getting are actually quite unnerving. I feel like this needs a bit of context here, and something I'm coming to understand is that there are a lot of feminists out there that just don't believe that not being able to define or quantify something practically poses any kind of problem.
One of the answers I got to what patriarchy manifested itself as was equal representation in the workforce, which is actually quite positive since if you can reduce that disparity down to zero, than you should be able to hypothetically conclude that the patriarchy has been eliminated (so long as you could guarantee it stayed that way, of course).
What I'm finding, which is quite alarming actually, is that not one of the ones I've spoken to is happy with this single measure as being completely representative of the problem, but will not pose any others to fill the gaps. In fact, I can't find anyone at all who will point to a complete list of measurable end points which we can use to determine whether we will have reached this goal at any point in the future.
If you don't think this is a problem, you have to understand that these people are actively attempting to adjust certain metrics in society, like representation, to obtain that goal. This means that they are moving toward a goal which they can never accomplish, because they refuse to accept even the possibility of a definitive set of diagnostic tools to analyze whether their goal has been reached. Now if you're adjusting a system, and you never stop adjusting it, that doesn't land you in an equity position. If you are driving, and skid, and as a result turn you're steering wheel to get into the center of your lane, you only stay in the center if you stop turning your wheel at some point.
This system is inherently designed for adjusting indefinitely. That's not a system that could ever stop on equality, that's the mechanism for a totalitarian power grab. If someone could convince me of how this idea is unreasonable, using actual logic, I would actually sleep a little better here.
_____
> *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!* | 26 | Why does this situation require everybody to have an incredibly thorough and in-depth assessment of society to believe their motivations? Why do you assume that not being able to articulate their position means their position is actually for female superiority? Do you assume bad faith when other people argue for something? Are people who can't articulate why they support Net Neutrality all for destroying ISPs? Are black activists who can't instantly respond to any random study thrown at them secretly black supremacists?
You are making a massive jump to assume that simply because specific people have not articulated a concrete list of problems to your satisfaction, they must be willing and capable to fight for female supremacy; that seems spurious. Is it not instead more likely that these people have experienced discrimination in difficult to quantify ways, and that it's near impossible to create a comprehensive list of societal privileges given to men, and that "the patriarchy" can mean those difficult to quantify experiences as well as explicit disparities in employment? Not every woman would be able to say, for example, "it's patriarchal that emails get responded to more seriously when written by a man", but that's still probably something plenty of them have experienced. Those sorts of things can matter even if you can't throw a bullet point list out whenever the topic comes up. | 22 |
[Star Wars] A Jedi from the 10,000 years in the past is brought forward in time to just before the Phantom Menace. What changes in the order and the society at large shocks them the most? | Can be from further then 10,000 years if that's not long enough. | 34 | The first change they'll notice is the lightsabers which weren't fully invented as a small device until somewhere after the great hyperspace war. Then they'll be terrified of the existence of the sith having ever happened. Older jedi studied a more balanced version of the force and while the focused on the light side certain dark side techniques were studied and taught. The modern jedi under Yoda and his predecessors became more involved in politics and more extreme in their beliefs and practices. Instead of treating the dark and light side as necessary for balance they focused only on the light side and shunning the darkside completely. Seeing jedi involved in politics beyond an advisory or emergency role and their ignorance and fear of emotional attachments and the darkside would be a massive culture shock for the more scholarly monks of ancient Jedi.
Edit: ancient jedi also often had families and children they raised. They existed almost as a separate ethnic group instead of a religious cult. | 48 |
ELI5: Why is brushing your teeth so important for their (our) health? Did our ancestors make any moves towards cleaning their teeth? Is it related to dietary trends over the years? | I feel that before the modern era of tooth care, brushing would have been ridiculed, rudimentary and unsanitary. How did the hygienic custom begin? | 15 | IANAD(entist), but our modern dental predicament is due to the ridiculous amounts of sugars that we consume in our foods.
While there were toothbrushes and other dental instruments going back hundreds of years, food stuffs had far less sugar; people didn't have over processed industrial starchy-corn-syrup-fructose overloads to contend with.
A lot of mummies exhumed from around the world have excellent teeth.
Who knows, maybe in another hundred years or so our teeth will have evolved to cope with the influx of sugar. | 16 |
What starts the movement of an meteor or a comet? What force made it move initially? | What makes a random object such as a meteor to fly pass planets, what was the initial force or push that starts it's movement? Since Inertia might apply over here(unless it doesn't, the correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't the space rocks stay in a place, unless an external force is applied on it. | 42 | Much of this motion begins during the gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud around a newly formed star.
As the protostar's gravity pulls the gas and dust into it, conservation of angular momentum will flatten that gas and dust into a rotating disk around the star (the protoplanetary disks you may have heard about).
The exact process of the formation of larger bodies (such as comets, asteroids, and planets) from this gas and dust is still a matter of some debate, but as they do form, they begin to be affected not only by the gravity and orbital motion from the star and the disk, but from each other as well.
So you can imagine a large planet or gas-giant forming and "sweeping" out a path of gas, dust, asteroids, and comets from the disk. As that large planet barrels through these, their interactions can fling the comets out of the solar system and into the orbits that we see today, only coming back into the solar system to plunge toward the star on huge time scales.
But it all comes back to the motion imparted by the initial gravitational collapse of gas and dust around a new star. Of course, you can trace it back further if you wish (how did the star collapse to start with?), but I'll leave it at this for now. | 12 |
ELI5: How is this projectile aerodynamically stable? | https://i.imgur.com/Xs6NdMC.gifv | 106 | It appears to be the shape of a reentry capsule used on spacecraft.
This shape has a blunt front to deflect air around the craft without causing too much heating in one local place while causing enough drag to slow the capsule down effectively.
The rear is sloped in a conical shape to aid in stability. The center of mass is far enough forward that the cone shape towards the rear acts like the feathers on an arrow. At the speeds that this projectile is traveling there's no need to be as long and skinny as an arrow; just having the center of mass towards the front of the shape is enough. | 67 |
ELI5: Why do rainbows last so long? I know they come from the refraction of light through rain drops, but aren't those drops always moving? What keeps a rainbow stationary and constant? | 15 | It's the same way that cars crossing a bridge are always moving, but "traffic on the bridge" seems stationary and constant. Some cars exit the bridge, new cars enter the bridge, and so you're looking at different cars, but the same traffic. | 16 |
|
ELI5:Why did channels like TLC, The History Channel and Discovery Channel switch to airing only shitty scripted reality shows and stop airing anything of substance? | 1,494 | They try a show and when that show has lots of viewers they get more ad money. They then try to replicate the success with a similar show and that continues until there are not enough viewers to justify the production costs.
Tldr: because people watch it. | 1,274 |
|
[Toy Story] Do toy figurines of religious idols really believe they're the religion's diety or do they believe they're a toy? | 171 | It seems that something being a toy depends on how they're viewed by humans, especially children.
So since religious paraphernalia is viewed more as decoration than as a toy, that means that they wouldn't come to life. | 75 |
|
(Meta) (DC/Marvel) Why is Asgard science perceived as magic, yet Krypton science as advanced technology? | Krypton is shown often to be a very science orientated world, with many advanced technology feats that we can only dream of.
Asgard is shown to be a world of beauty and war, with of magical feats explained off by advanced science.
How are the two cultures so vastly different with their technology | 34 | "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
The Asgardians are significantly more technologically advanced than Kryptonians. Asgardian technology is so advanced that it exists beyond the realm of what we perceive to be "technology". When you look at the Bifrost (the technology which allows them to transport between worlds), it doesn't feature distinguishable components which we'd compare to our own technology. It seems like magic. Meanwhile, the Kryptonians have to travel between planets using massive ships which can be understood as an advanced extension of our own technology here on Earth.
For other examples, consider how Boom Tubes can easily be seen as magic (their users are literally called "New Gods" after all), whereas the ships of the Shiar Empire are seen as purely technological. | 48 |
ELI5: Could investigators go back and test the dna evidence from the O.J Simpson case using today's DNA techniques to confirm if it was truly Simpson's DNA? | 41 | There's zero doubt that it was OJ's DNA. OJ's defense was that it was possibly planted by a racist detective(Furhman) as part of a systematic culture of racism in the LA Police Dept. Whether or not it was actually his DNA was not in question. Also the murder weapon was never located, so you couldn't test that. | 38 |
|
Is it possible to improve one's vision without glasses or surgery? | 70 | I am an American board-certified ophthalmologist. Let me clear a few things up. In general, nearsightedness is caused from the eye being too long, and farsightedness is due to the eye being too short. There is no way to change this with any type of activity or medication. However, as we get older the lens of the eye begins to change shape, density, and even it's refractive ability, leading to a secondary cause of vision changes – lens changes. There is also no activity that will cause the lens to change, with the exception of a few medications which speed up the development of cataracts. The only exercise that is considered at all effective is for one particular condition known as convergence insufficiency. This is where the eyes are unable to converge for reading. Continually trying to converge the eyes has been shown to be effective. All other exercises are totally bogus, despite being promoted by some optometrists. | 58 |
|
[Star Trek] Why are the so many humanoids? | I know of the progenitors (I think), who believed they were the only sentient species, long ago and didn't want to be alone, so they seeded many planets in their likeness. But we have seen many other species that were not created by them, along with quite a few nonhumanoid species.
If we know that other life is possible in such a vast galaxy, shouldn't there be an overwhelming majority of various nonhumanoids? | 29 | > But we have seen many other species that were not created by them
How did you determine that? The progenitors is the explanation for the overwhelming humanoid appearance throughout the galaxy. There may be a few cases of convergent evolution, but that is unlikely. If you see a species that is humanoid, it is because they evolved on one of the seeded planets are are a descendant from such a race.
> If we know that other life is possible in such a vast galaxy, shouldn't there be an overwhelming majority of various nonhumanoids?
Not if that other life was pre-empted by the seeding of humanoid life among their planets. The existence of life works to preclude further abiogenesis of new life. | 16 |
CMV: We do not have free will | Free will is nonexistent, and our sense of self and ego is an illusion millions of years of evolution has created. Our basic decisions and moods can be influenced heavily by our emotions I.e. people doing irrational things when very angry, sad, distressed. We normally do not have control over a mood, if your anxious about something, you can’t stop yourself from being anxious just by wanting to.
Physical conditions can change our behavior heavily, Charles Whitman a mass murdered claimed to have scary and irrational thoughts days before his mass murder and requested doctors check his brain. They found a brain tumor that had been pressing against a part of the brain which is thought to be responsible for heavy emotion. Charles wrote in a note before his suicide -
“I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. These thoughts constantly recur, and it requires a tremendous mental effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
2nd is too many outside factors influence our mood. Our microbial forests in our stomachs have been shown to influence our moods heavily. Sufferers of IBS (Irratible Bowel Syndrome) have a depression rate of 50%. Depression and anxiety are huge changers in lifestyle and everyday actions. It’s a large outside factor no one pays attention to.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/can-the-bacteria-in-your-gut-explain-your-mood.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/the-gut-brain-connection
Change my view.
| 64 | So, the thing is... you're pointing out how free will works and then saying "therefore" it doesn't exist. if youbuild a car and can point to the motor and the drive train and the wheels, should you say, cars don't really have motion? It's all just physics.
"Free will isn't magic." Is really the claim you're making. "Hey look world, these are the mechanisms of free will." The mechanism of free will is that subjective first person experience is created by the same process as decision making so to the subject, free will appears and to the outside world it does not. Free will is a real subjective process. It is a property of subjective experience.
Think about it this way: does subjective first person experience exist? Are you claiming that it does not and you don't have subjective first person experience right now? If not, then apply all your arguments about free will to subjective first person experience and tell me where they no longer apply.
The reason the argument appears to deny your own existence is that your subjective experience is a **subjective** quality and you're describing objective phenomena. Free will is a property of that subjective experience. Not an objective property. Therefore it's silly to talk about it without regard to the subject. To observe it without experiencing it would be meaningless.
Free will is experienced but never observed. | 26 |
Can someone help break down this Covid-19 Delta variant vaccine ADE research? | This article was recently shared with me in an attempt to discourage me from getting my child vaccinated against Covid-19. That biased me against the article immediately, but Journal of Infection appears to be a reputable, peer-reviewed source.
At a high level, the article appears to be saying that generation 1 mRNA vaccines show a preference (in a lab environment?) for ENHANCING Covid-19 Delta variant infections.
Every news report I have seen up until now has indicated that, although breakthrough infection is more possible with the Delta variant, vaccination has strong co-indications with less severe infection, easier hospital stays, and survival, regardless of variant, so I don't understand what, ultimately, these "Enhancing Antibodies" are doing and whether this actually presents a cause for concern, as Yahi, Chahinian, and Fantini seem to be saying ("ADE of delta variants is a potential risk for current vaccines") or if this simply helps to explain WHY the Delta variant is slightly more likely to result in a breakthrough infection.
The conclusion of the article absolutely doesn't support the "don't vaccinate your kid" message of the person who shared it (simply saying more research is needed), as it says more study is needed, but I'd still like to ensure I understand the article correctly.
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext#relatedArticles
Edit to fix broken link | 30 | "ADE" is a condition where antibodies enhance disease, logically enough.
We know that in the case of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do *not* enhance disease. How do we know this? We have literally billions of people carrying antibodies, whether from infection or vaccination, and they are *protected* against disease. There are no observed situations in which antibodies enhance disease for SARS-CoV-2, given hundreds of millions of observations.
So we know that ADE is not a thing for SARS-CoV-2.
But vaccinologists are extraordinarily careful. This paper asks:
* Can we make an artificial system, a model case, where we do everything we can to force ADE to happen? *Answer*: Nope. Even when we do that, there's no ADE.
* Well, if we analyze this artificial, forced system, can we see hints of a shadow of the potential of ADE? *Answer*: Maybe we can. There's a minor component of the immune response that is swamped by the protective response, but that if isolated might cause ADE.
* Well, what about the variants? Are they more likely to cause this shadow of a hint of ADE? *Answer*: Not really worse, not better. Still no ADE, still a tiny fraction of a response.
* Is there anything we could do to remove this shadow of a hint of ADE? *Answer* Probably! If this artificial, barely detectable thing ever becomes detectable and in a non-artificial system, here's how to fix it.
This is three levels deep of due diligence. | 28 |
How can railway cables be kilometres long without a huge voltage drop? | I was wondering about this, since the cables aren't immensely thick. Where I live there runs a one phase 1500V DC current to supply the trains with power, so wouldn't there be an enormous voltage drop over distance? Even with the 15kV AC power supply in neighbouring countries this voltage drop should still be very significant. | 3,306 | Part of designing such systems is allowing for fairly substantial swings in actual supply voltage compared to the nominal.
(The IEC 60850 standard, for instance, specifies that a nominal 1500 VDC system is in spec as long as the voltage on the line is anywhere between 1000 and 1800 VDC.)
System design considerations include the selection of suitably-large, low-resistance conductors, as well as regular placement of substations to connect the high-voltage AC grid to the railway's overhead wires. | 2,298 |
CMV: I have no emotional connection to my religion. Having an emotional connection to a religion is strange. | I am a practicing Hindu. Every day, I try to meditate, chant mantras, perform rituals etc, I also burn incense, listen to bhajan (devotional songs) etc. I go to a temple meet up group weekly for around 2 hours.
Thing is, I don't think I feel any emotional connection to Hinduism at all. I don't care if anyone says anything that would usually be perceived as insulting about it at all. This is probably due to me constantly experiencing depersonalisation.
I just find the whole concept of being emotionally connected to a religion very strange. It's a religion, it has nothing to do with emotions.
Your challenge in this CMV is to convince me that feeling an emotional connection to a religion is not strange, that religion is linked with emotions and to convince me that I do in fact have an emotional connection to Hinduism.
&#x200B;
Thanks in advance and blessings,
Abi | 15 | It's very possible that your religious practice differs from others, but for many people religion is a matter of deep personal faith that supercedes logic; it *has* to work on an emotional level. It isn't strange at all to have an emotional connection to that.
Additionally, experiencing depersonalization constantly is a very abnormal state of being, and as you note, that probably makes it hard for you to judge what a normal level of emotional connection is. | 23 |
[Harry Potter] Why wasn't Hermione sorted into Ravenclaw? | 129 | Because the hat doesn't sort you based on what traits you *have* the most of. It sorts you based on what you *value* the most. Why was Nevllle sorted into Gryffindor despite being a pussy? What were Crabbe and Goyle sorted into Slytherine despite not having an ounce of Cleverness or Ambition (evil / pureblood house aside). Why was Luna a Ravenclaw instead of a Hufflepuff? Hell, why was Ron a Gryffindor? Just because he's a Weasley? Hermione wasn't sorted into Ravenclaw because despite her being intelligent and studious, she cared more about bravery. Look how quickly she jumped at the call of adventure. She did more to defeat Voldemort than Harry did. | 268 |
|
Why is "that was just the initial condition" not considered as an answer to the horizon problem? | [Physics] I understand the problem is that the cmb is uniform and that implies that the early universe mixed, but did it have to mix? Couldn't it have just started off uniform? | 117 | It's possible, but all that does is shift the goalpost without actually explaining anything: why, then, did it start out that way? Given what we know about quantum mechanics, the universe starting out uniform would be *unusual*, so it just raises a bunch of questions that we have no way of even beginning to answer.
To answer it means to start asking questions about the nature of the actual origin of the universe, which is well beyond our means to test (although some cosmologists do enjoy thinking about it, it's entirely conjecture and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future). On the other hand, proposals like inflation, which could resolve the horizon problem, actually predict some measurable effects.
TL;DR it could've been, but that would be weird given what we do understand, and raises a whole bunch of questions that are even harder to investigate than the horizon problem, and so we stick to the line of inquiry that has a chance of going somewhere. | 21 |
ELI5: How does alcohol make you drunk? | 505 | Ethanol molecules are very small, which means they can pass through the barrier between the bloodstream and brain quickly. Once the ethanol molecules reaches the area of the brain responsible for controlling the central nervous system, a number of things happen. Ethanol is considered a depressant, so when it comes in contact with a specific neurotransmitter called Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), it causes the reaction time between neurons to slow down. Essentially, your brain's brakes have failed and the "conductor," GABA, is now too impaired to call for help. This is the very beginning of feeling intoxicated.
Meanwhile, the rest of the ethanol has had time to reach the small intestine and is now entering the bloodstream. More ethanol molecules arrive in the brain and continue to depress or slow down the normal functions of the central nervous system, including the areas of the brain responsible for social caution and good judgment. This is why many people lose their inhibitions and become the life of the party while intoxicated. The ethanol has effectively neutralized the brain's natural "don't do that" switch.
While the brain tries to deal with this new intoxicated sensation, the liver is working overtime to metabolize or convert the ethanol into a harmless form of sugar. A healthy liver can only process a certain amount of ethanol per hour, so the drinker becomes even more intoxicated as the excess continues to flow through the bloodstream and into the brain. More ethanol in the brain means more possible damage to the central nervous system. As the drinker's level of unmetabolized ethanol rises in his or her bloodstream, the depressing effects become more pronounced. When an intoxicated drinker's blood alcohol count (BAC)reaches a certain percentage, generally around .07 to .09 percent ethanol levels, then tasks such as driving become illegal or seriously inadvisable.
As long as the ethanol remains unmetabolized by the liver, the central nervous system will still be impaired and the drinker will still feel intoxicated. This process of eliminating the ethanol from the system could continue for hours, depending on the initial amount of alcoholic beverages consumed. It is possible to consume enough ethanol to cause death, either by compromising the central nervous system beyond repair or by choking on vomit after the natural choking reflex has been suppressed. BAC readings of .50 or more are generally considered fatal.
Eventually the level of ethanol in the bloodstream should be reduced significantly and the neurotransmitters of the central nervous system will fire at their normal rate. A recovering drinker should no longer feel intoxicated within 24 hours or so of his or her first drink. Dehydration and other factors may create a painful sensation known as a hangover, but at least the drinker's central nervous system is no longer too impaired to do its job properly. | 316 |
|
[Dune Novels] What is the real basis of prescience? | It seems that to me that there are two main interpretations, but I haven't found any explanation that does not simply take one or the other for granted and then progress to more 'interesting' conclusions from it. One is that the powerfully prescient are capable of absorbing data from their experience and knowledge, and extrapolating incredibly accurate conclusions from it. The other is that they are literally capable of seeing the future - that is, what they see is a direct insight into the future, and not simply an extremely accurate mental model that imitates the future.
For the former, I am reminded of a passage from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon:
>Plodding through the surf, Waterhouse strikes deep craters in the wet sand that are read by the ocean. Eventually the ocean erases them, but in the process its state has been changed, the pattern of its swirls have been altered. Waterhouse images that the disturbance might somehow propagate across the Pacific and into some super-secret Nipponese surveillance device made of bamboo tubes and chrysanthemum leaves. Nip listeners would know that Waterhouse had walked that way. In turn, the water swirling around Waterhouse's feet carries information about Nip propeller design and the deployment of their fleets -- if only he had the wit to read it. The chaos of the waves, gravid with encrypted data, mocks him.
So we can take it as a given, seeing the feats of the Atreides, that in a universe where everything is inextricably causally connected, these prescients are capable of perfectly extracting such information and drawing conclusions from it without error. But how does this explain the no-ships, the Dune tarot, and then the Siona gene? Why would these arrangements of matter make the ability to draw conclusions from prior data impossible, and (if we accept the former conceit) why do they not cause a butterfly effect that completely breaks prescience, particularly when it involves figures with great influence?
On the other hand, if the ability is an application of natural laws hitherto unknown to us which allow direct perception of the future as it is with full context, how exactly are No-ships such a hindrance to prescience? Clearly it is not the case that the mere entry of an individual into a No-ship makes them immune to prescience, since if this were true, you would build No-chambers instead and 'immunize' people against precognition, instead of going so far to create the Siona gene. Yet, if this were not the case, why would a prescient not simply look backwards and forwards in time, looking for the moment when someone enters or exits a No-ship, or more so, looking for external sources of data unprotected against prescience, which can assist in deducing the location of this void? | 23 | I've always taken it more as the former. The existence of the No-Gene and No-Rooms being deliberately engineered to disrupt predictive paths by concealing information from such precient calculations seem to support that. They don't have any magical ability to block far-sight, but rather alter or disrlrupt sources of information as to make accurate predictions impossible.
If Prescience is about accurate predictions, then more data allows you to identify patterns, which allow you to make accurate predictions. But if you have something which limits data (such as a gene that interferes with Genentic Memory) or patterns (the Holtzman field use in No-Rooms) of atomic behaviour, then you disrupt the ability to make those predictions. | 23 |
[MCU]: Are the "realms" that asgardians are able to travel too simply other planets? Or are they traveling to different universes. | Asgard seems to be regarded as somehow special because they are able to travel to different realms. But if they're technology only let's them travel to a limited number of planets then aren't they not all that great in comparison to other space faring races?
The collector in guardians of the galaxy said that each infinity stone was a product of a big bang. This would seem to lend to the fact that there is more than one universe in the MCU. Are the asguaridans special for their ability to traverse the different universes?
Also in Thor 2 when they were waiting for the "realms" to align. Wouldn't they have just said planets if all they were talking about were planet's orbits? It would make more sense if they were talking about the universes aligning in the space outside space-time that they exist in. That would make the event much more special. | 95 | In the comics all 9 realms are different dimensions, in MCU i think they are only different parts of space, connected by yggdrasil, which make travel instant, rather then very long, even with ftl. The infinity stones are not a product from a big bang each, they are from before the big bang. It was a great being, that split itself into six parts, the stones. And when the realms would align, i think that it was more that yggdrasils different parts would align, and create all the whacky portals we saw. | 84 |
How come cars don't automatically detect and tell what is wrong with them? Given all the technology we have today? | All we have is the check engine light. What I would like is an LCD text prompt that tells what specifically is wrong. Is it because repair shops have monopolized on the check engine light reading equipment? | 20 | But they do, just not to you.
You can read out an errorcode and look it up with an instrument for $100 off ebay, but why whould you?
If the code turns out to be, faulty generator, you still need to go to the shop.
And EVERYTHING will give off false messages all the time, the trick is learning how to interpreting them, and the shop is generally better than you (No offence :D).
Do you really want an LCD display that will be filled up with 100+ errorcodes every time you blew a fuse? | 14 |
[Starship Troopers]At the start of the movie contact with the bugs was fairly limited. How did the Federation get enough Giant Bug larvae to supply them for high school science class dissections? | Making them available for a typical school implies that they have a vast supply of them. You would think that the larvae of bugs transported across the galaxy and taken from a highly hostile species would be difficult, the Federation had never engaged in planet side combat by this point in Starship Troopers so it boggles the mind how they even got them. So how are they getting Bug larvae on an almost industrial scale? | 22 | The federation had limited colonization efforts near the arachnid quarantine zone. There was also at least one non federation human colony inside arachnid space. The arachnids weren't overtly hostile to human presence at least initially and exotic zoology would make a fine export for a fledgling colony that isn't mining or farming and needs to import supplies.
Aside from that the bug they were dissecting is relatively harmless beyond burrowing and maybe swarming over a person. Breeding a population to understand bug biology and eventually using it for propaganda purposes makes sense. The point isn't to teach school children how bug anatomy works its to teach them that bugs can die and where the most lethal areas to hit are. You start with the relatively disgusting but harmless drones so by the time they see the warriors it's less of a shock to them. | 20 |
[Fallout] How has no one written a survival guide before Moria brown's one? | I was just thinking about this. In the two hundred years since the bombs fell wouldn't someone have made a survival guide by now? | 25 | Because like Moria says, the book is meant for adventures and people who are going out and about the wasteland. The ordinary people know what's out there and survive by simply staying in their protected space and defending it. These people might have a run in with some or other animals or mutants but it's nothing they can't shoot themselves out of. | 25 |
[Warframe] So what does my future look like? Should I get out of dodge asap, or am I going to live? | So I, a grineer marine, was assigned to a critical area in hopes that I could help defend against the tenno when the facility is attacked. Well, today a tenno attacked and before the alarm was actually raised, he ran right in front of me. He darted away before I could get a shot out, and he completed his mission before I was given a chance to do anything. I'm afraid my superiors are going to murder me with whatever comically cruel item they can conjure up in their minds. Is this true? Am I doomed?
(Stepping out of character for a moment, always wanted to know what happened to those marines who I refused to interact with violently or otherwise.) | 28 | Obviously you are defective and will need to report for recycling so that your cybernetics can be put to better use for the queens. Don't try running not many steel meridian traitors can stand up to the wrath of the grineer long enough for you to escape to earth. | 23 |
[Doctor Who] In Day of the Doctor, all 13 Doctors communicate with the War Council and save Gallifrey. Any indication as to where in each Doctor's personal histories they were from? Perhaps based on their clothing? Except the Seventh Doctor, who wore two two sets of clothes during the scene. | 17 | As far as i know, there is no indication at which point in their lives they arrived there. it seems all of them were alone tho, so most likely at a point where they didnt have any companions. but there is no telling how old they actually were when it happend, and it wouldnt matter since due to how meeting yourself works, you dont remember it untill your oldest version experiences it, so only the 11th doctor would remember it. | 12 |
|
Starting Postdoc@30 | Hi, I recently graduated with a PhD in a STEM field from a top tier department in my field. I have 2 publications so far and at least 2 more in line, planned for this year. I accepted a postdoc position at another University which is also well ranked, but in a slightly different area. I do want to aquire the skills that the postdoc will offer, cause I think they will be quite valuable, even if I want to make a switch to the industry.
However, now I'm feeling ambiguous about my decision. I feel like I accepted the first position that was offered to me, without giving due thought to other options. It feels my dreams of landing a tenure track position might be a fool's errand. Based on what I gleaned from the posts on here, most people report negative experiences of postdoc... The regret of getting stuck, of being exploited. I am 30 and have minimal savings, in a different country and have no relationship (been that way for a while). Am I being naive...? The probability of landing a tenure track position seems too low. However, any mentor I talk to encourages me to pursue the dream as "I have potential". Any advice...? I know I can get an industry job, after searching for a while, which pays atleast twice as much. However, I fear il be bored of working in the industry soon and will hate myself 5 or 10 years down the line for giving up on my dream. (I don't know if I am ambitious or stupid)
Any advice from someone who has been through a similar phase..? | 66 | Not everybody who does postdocs and then moves to industry jobs regret it, even if financially they are worse off in the long term. It can be very rewarding to do research for a few years, even if you have no long-term future in academia, and most likely you do not.
&#x200B;
Since we don't know your field, we can't say your chances of getting a TT position, but given the range of probabilities that exist, your chances range from negligible to very bad, unless you have already got a paper in Nature or Science. Your supervisor's claim that you 'have potential' means very little here since a very large fraction of the very large number of academics stuck on fixed-term contracts have loads of potential and would be just as good or better than most tenured academics. Academia does not reward ability with jobs. | 51 |
ELI5 Why do certain sound frequencies make us feel unnerved/afraid? | 15 | Your brain has a sort of "library" of sounds. For example, loud thuds and booms in nature are usually something like thunder, a large boulder/tree falling, etc.
These grab your attention because they present imminent danger and you generally have a good idea why.
For sounds which are not in that "library", your brain has no built in instinct other than to heighten your senses and try to figure it out. The heightened senses will likely make you feel uneasy simply because your brain is trying its best to piece together what's happening and, putting it bluntly, your brain doesn't like not knowing things. | 16 |
|
CMV: Nuclear weapons are evil and the UK should scrap them for good | I am pretty much for nuclear disarmament in the UK (I dont mind power though) . I just don't see how a bunch of nuclear weapons gives the UK protection from anything, its not like they will ever be used.
The arguments I have heard for keeping them just don't work for me, people mention that it keeps the UK on the Security Council which is just a way of saying the UK has the to hold on to influence in something that should be scrapped anyway (the permanent members just give themselves immunity) , or recently people say Ukraine gave up its nukes and look how well they are doing, but the UK isn't remotely comparable
_____
> *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!* | 114 | The primary reason the UK is currently protected from nuclear strike is that it falls under the ambit of protection by the United States military. Both the large US nuclear arsenal and the large conventional forces at the US's disposal. It is unquestioned that if a foreign government nuked London, that the US Marines and/or a US ICBM would shortly arrive at that foreign government's doorstep.
This alliance is likely to survive for the next few decades, but it's not a guarantee it'll survive forever. If Westminster/Washington relations break down some point in the future, it is possible the UK could lose that protection. And that would be a poor time to be attempting to rebuild a nuclear arsenal, since the combination of worsening US relations and an active nuclear weapons development programme could turn the UK into a pariah state. | 82 |
How would galactic internet work? | Nothing can beat the speed of light, and we all know that, at least with our current technology. However, since we are eventually going to conquer another planet someday, we would want to figure out how to access the internet from a nearby star system.
Let's say we conquer Proxima b - the closest planet that "supports" life, if we want the internet there, we'd have to start from scratch. If we wanted other websites from Earth, we'd have to wait 4.2 years, maybe even longer if the speed is slow. How would we turn this 4.2 years into seconds? | 35 | You can't.
The only way to rapidly communicate over distances that long is to somehow overcome the limitation of the speed of light. But that is firmly in the realm of science fiction.
A regular internet request from Proxima Centauri (and whatever orbits that star) will take more than 8 years. 4 years for the request to reach Earth and 4 years for the reply to get back to P.C. You can cut that in half for some services by preemptively sending data from Earth. For example news reports or emails could be sent without anyone on the other side having requested them and they're kept in cache on P.C. until needed. But this would be limited to anything that has been picked beforehand to be preloaded. Anything else would still take the full 8 years.
Space-internet is already an issue within our own solar system. The Moon is doable, signals would take about a second to propagate from the Moon to Earth or backwards, so 2 seconds for roundtrips. You could still do realtime voice and video chat provided there is enough bandwidth.
Mars, on the other hand, is a different story. The distance between Earth and Mars varies depending on where both planets are in their orbit around the Sun. But at its closest, a signal from Mars to Earth (or vice versa) would need a bit more than 2 minutes. On average, it's more than 10 minutes. At maximum distance, a reload of r/askscience would take more than 40 minutes. With those delays, using the internet on Earth is definitely possible, but the way the users browses the web will be quite different as he has to be far more direct in loading the content he wants.
Clearly, in this case, there is much to gain from a smart caching system where the Mars ISP holds copies of all the recently requested webpages and content, as well as preemptively loads links on pages that are requested by the user (bandwidth permitting). It would also be configured, along with the transmitting station on Earth, to preemptively transmit things like emails, social media updates for accounts of colonists, etc...
So internet on Mars that is connected to Earth is still doable, with some large tweaks. But anything beyond that will become rapidly less usable. And interstellar communication with reasonable latency is out of the question until we make one of the many sci-fi tricks become reality. | 38 |
ELI5: How does a rice cooker know that the rice inside it is cooked? | Usually, i cook long grained white rice in our rice cooker and it takes about 10 minutes to cook. But recently, we switched to brown rice and its cooking time is longer, i think like 25 minutes.
edit: thank you for all the answers guys! | 60 | Once the rice cooker's thermal sensor detects the pot going above 212 degrees, the water has all been absorbed. At that point, the rice is done. To prevent the rice from cooking any further, the sensor automatically trips the shut-off switch for the heating mechanism. | 96 |
Do cats and reptiles have similar eyes because of convergent evolution, or could they maybe be using the same genes? | 287 | You would need to clarify what you mean by "similar eyes". If you are referring to the vertically elliptical pupils that cats have (narrow rather than round), then yes, it is probably convergent. If you look at an evolutionary tree of the terrestrial vertebrates, vertically elliptical pupils appear in a handful of isolated groups. Many reptiles have pupils that are round, like most mammals, suggesting that the common ancestor to reptiles and mammals probably had round pupils and that vertical pupils evolved independently in those handful of groups.
Now if you're talking about similar visual capabilities, well that is probably not correct. Mammals and reptiles generally have different visual sensitivities, with reptiles generally having much better color vision than mammals, with the exception of snakes and nocturnal lizards such as geckos.
Finally, if you talking about just the general shape of the eye, than those similarities are likely due to conserved genes, but that would apply to amphibians and fish as well.
| 97 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.