Datasets:

vblagoje

/

lfqa

like 16

{ "a_id": [ "cqq79jo" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "[The Maillard Reaction](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "d41srtq", "d420wlt" ], "score": [ 14, 3 ], "text": [ "You will be burning slightly fewer calories. The reason for this is that all body mass needs to burn calories constantly to maintain normal life processes, but if you put on the vest, the vest would not need to burn calories.", "I think it would significantly depend on what exercises you're doing and where the added weight is located on your body. For instance, if you have a 20lb vest on while you bench press, you'll likely be burning fewer calories than someone who weighs the full 220 because that weight will be distributed more widely across the body, so some of that 20lbs will be located in their arms and hands, adding some weight to the exercise.\n\nOn the other hand, if you were wearing two 10lb wrist bands while doing a bench press, you'd burn more since someone naturally weighing 220lbs isn't likely to have that full extra 20lbs concentrated in their arms and hands.\n\nAs someone else mentioned, the naturally 220lb person will inherently be expending slightly more calories just because their extra 20 has cellular processes that require energy. So, there may be some situations in which you'd expend slightly more energy on the exercise itself, but they'd burn more calories overall due to their cellular processes. Though,I'd imagine those are rare.\n\nIn general, if you place the weight where it'd increase resistance the most for an exercise, you'll burn more calories." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3n21nl", "c3n26sp", "c3n3n5f", "c3n4pj1", "c3n8i8o" ], "score": [ 8, 8, 37, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Sometimes your eyes have different ratios of the color sensing cone cells. There are even people called unilateral dichromats who are colorblind in one eye but see normally in the other (not to say that is what you seem to be describing).", "I get this phenomenon, particularly when laying on my side. I remember learning somewhere that it's caused by different blood pressure in the eyes. Sadly I can't find a cite, so if this falls too much under \"speculation\" feel free to delete it. But experimenting on myself I can reliably see that it's the lower eye that sees warmer colors every time, as reported in some of the comments here:\n\n_URL_0_\n", "My photography expertise is usable here! \n\nSo see this. When you close an eyelid, the sunlight is filtering trough a blood lined flap of skin. This makes the \"warm\"(sub 4300kelvin\" light look even warmer. \n\nSee, our eyes adjust the \"white balance\" of our surroundings. That's why when you walk into a room lit with compact fluorescent bulbs it all seems green but after a few minutes it looks pure white in the room. Our eyes adjust to the color balance and shift to where grey really actual looks grey with no tinge.\n\nSo seeing all this ultra warm light thru your closed eye makes your brain balance the light to with a lot of blue. The blue is apparent when you open your eye and look at a white object. \n\nYour eye that was open, Is perfectly balanced. But when you compare, it seems very warm. \n\nSources: 5 years of photography and 17 years of staring at the sun.", "To answer your main question, it would be helpful to be as specific as possible about the exact circumstances. There are two possibilities of what you are actually experiencing:\n\n(1) The color difference is invariant. Your right eye _always_ perceives a warmer color tone in any condition. You have to be careful here because if you always test this the same way, e.g. by closing your left eye first, you could be biasing your own interpretation.\n\n(2) The color difference changes based on which eye you close first or where a given light source is in a room.\n\nSo, first, I don't notice this color temperature difference and am unable to replicate it. Let's assume that this color difference is invariant for conditions, meaning your right is always warmer as I describe in (1). In that case, there has to be a difference between your two eyes. Given that I don't experience it and I doubt that the greater population just \"hasn't noticed\", if this is affecting a subset of the population, it should point to an anatomical difference. Now, this is _not_ medical advice and I am definitely not saying this is disease-related, but if we were to take this to an extreme, we know that for certain optic neuropathies (damage to the optic nerve), there is a known perceptual difference in color perception (often tested by perception of the color red) between the two eyes. Keep in mind that if something subtle were going on here, it could be a slight imbalance that is not disease-related. Someone else suggested an imbalance in the number of cones... I find this doubtful but would need to think about it some more.\n\nOn the other hand, if this is an effect that is based on conditions and it varies which eye is warmer, as in (2), we have several possible explanations. Someone below discussed bleaching of rods -- we could use light adaptation mechanisms to explain such a perceptual effect. A variance in where your eye is relative to a light source, the color temperature of the light source, which eye you close first and for how long -- any of these factors could affect differential color perception. Someone else mentioned that you would presumably be returning to steady-state between tests of a single eye, but you have to be careful here. Let's say you wake up from a nap in a dark room, close one eye, turn on a lamp, stare at it for a while, then open both eyes, then close the other eye. It will take a bit longer for you to fully reach \"steady-state\" for both eyes then maybe you realize, though light adaption is relatively fast (~2-5 minutes, up to 10 minutes) relative to dark adaption (~10-30 minutes, up to 60 minutes). I think a difference in blood flow is unlikely to explain temporary changes.\n\nI hope this helps and let me know if it is unclear.", "Do you wear contacts?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://ask.metafilter.com/94549/right-eye-red-left-eye-blue" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c1bsbj0", "c1bsf8g" ], "score": [ 1342, 7 ], "text": [ "Okay. So. Dimensions. What is a \"dimension?\" If you go by bad science-fiction B-movies, a \"dimension\" is a sort of parallel plane of existence, one that intersects but is distinct from our own.\n\nThis is absolute, unfettered nonsense, so go ahead and put it out of your mind for now.\n\nWhat a \"dimension\" *actually* is is a way of describing the extent of a space. Given a space with *n* dimensions, you can uniquely identify any point in that space using no fewer than *n* numbers. These numbers are called *coordinates.* To identify a spot on a piece of paper, you need just two numbers; a piece of paper represents a two-dimensional surface. To identify a spot on the surface of the Earth, you also only need two numbers: latitude and longitude. So the surface of the Earth can be thought of as two-dimensional. But to uniquely identify a spot *near* the surface of the Earth, you need *three* numbers: latitude, longitude and altitude. So that space is *three-*dimensional.\n\nThe universe in which we exist is *four-*dimensional, because you need a minimum of four numbers to uniquely locate a point: three numbers for space, and *one number for time.*\n\nThink of it as the difference between asking somebody to meet you at 313 West 63rd Street on the 9th floor, and asking somebody to meet you at 313 West 63rd Street on the 9th floor *at ten past noon.*\n\nSo that's what \"dimension\" means. The dimensionality of a space is the minimum number of coordinates needed to locate a point in that space.\n\nWe're going to change gears for a second now to talk about compact versus non-compact dimensions. I want you to imagine a cylinder, infinite in length but with a finite radius. Okay? Like a pencil, say, only infinitely long. The *surface* of that cylinder is two-dimensional: you only need two numbers to uniquely locate a point on that surface. But the two dimensions of the surface are not exactly the same. One of them is infinite — the dimension that runs along the axis of the cylinder. The other of them, though, is finite. If you go far enough in the circumferential dimension, you'll come back to where you started from.\n\nThe axial dimension of the surface of an infinite cylinder is non-compact; it just keeps going and going. The circumferential dimension is compact: eventually it wraps back around onto itself.\n\nThere are some speculative theories in physics that imagine that our universe has, in addition to the three dimensions of space and one of time that we all know and love, extra *compact* dimensions. These dimensions are imagined to be incredibly small in spatial extent; in fact, we know they *must* be, because everything we've ever observed in the universe (so far!) can be adequately explained if we assume these extra dimensions do not exist. If they were very large, the laws of physics we use to understand the universe would break down because we weren't taking everything into account. Because the laws of physics we currently use don't break down, we know that these extra dimensions, if they exist, must be extremely, extremely small. Much smaller than the diameter of a proton.\n\nIt's possible that, someday, we might observe a phenomenon that cannot be explained by the laws of physics currently at our disposal. It's possible that this phenomenon might only be explained by postulating that one or more extra compact spatial dimensions exist, and then finding ways to test that postulate.\n\nBut we're not there yet. Right now, physics works just fine if we assume that no extra compact spatial dimensions exist.", "There's something in quantum theory called renormalization, which is a mathematical technique where you remove the infinities from your calculations. If you have a string and try to quantize the oscillations on it (ie it can only have certain vibrations), you'll find that this can only be renormalized if the string has 25 dimensions (10 under certain assumptions). This leads to two conclusions: the universe has that many dimensions, or quantized strings don't exist." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccdlnr8", "ccdotfp" ], "score": [ 9, 9 ], "text": [ "The Taiping Rebellion started in 1850. It was fairly bloody, even by Chinese standards. The effects of that rebellion also inspired others to rebel and there were associated problems with flooding and famine. _URL_0_", "I'm assuming you're talking about China & US mid/late 19th century. There was HUGE internal chaos in China at the time; not least the Taiping Rebellion (as elmononenano has pointed out). At the same time, there were a bunch of other rebellions: The Nian Rebellion, which was basically a bunch of bandits roaming around the Jiangsu area pillaging and beating people up, huge muslim rebellions in the Chinese northwest, and separatist movements in Yunnan (the Chinese southwest). These were all happening simultaneously. \n\nMore deeply, however, China had been in sharp decline ever since the end of Qianlong's reign. Systemic corruption, complete degradation of the administrative class and economic disruptions from Imperialism had wrecked China. It was completely chaotic, and hence lots of Chinese people left for the US. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c7haydl", "c7hdzih", "c7hgjnn" ], "score": [ 81, 32, 8 ], "text": [ "I can't seem to find any really solid sources right now, and all my books are still at school (I'm home from college on break right now), but I have studied music history quite a bit, so I can at least give you an answer to your question, even though I can't really give you further places to look currently. I can also give you [this list](_URL_0_) which is pretty accurate despite being from wikipedia\n\nBasically, Mozart had two separate audiences for his operas. Some operas were performed at palaces and sponsored by the archduke or other royalty. Such performances would have been free for the guests of the archduke, but would have been available only to royalty. Other performances took place at public opera houses, which were a new phenomenon at the time. These new public opera houses offered entertainment to the working class at relatively affordable prices- something akin to the price of a movie today.\n\nMozart's time is interesting because it is right around the time when music was transitioning from being sponsored by the aristocracy in Europe to being sponsored by the public. Mozart made most of his money through commissions by the aristocracy, as did all composers before him. He was one of the first composers to experiment with composing music for public consumption- that is, not by commission. He would work with public opera houses to put on performances which he would not be guaranteed to make any money from, because revenue was based on ticket sales, not a commission from a duke or some other noble figure. \n\nI hope this begins to answer your question. Basically, if you were already rich, seeing Mozart's music didn't cost anything, because you would be invited to see it at a palace for free. If you were poor, it was about the cost of a movie ticket today, but it would be standing in a room for up to five hours. And no, it didn't include snacks (though I believe those could be purchased or brought to the theatre)\n\nIf you add any more specific questions as replies to my comment, I am happy to answer as quickly as I can. I will also work on finding some solid sources so you can verify. ", "It's important to note that in Mozart's time, the definition of \"audience\" was much different than it is in today's modern productions. I can't offer you an exact dollar amount for tickets, but it'd be a little unfair to compare ticket prices back then to prices today anyway, because 18th century opera-goers were paying for a completely different experience. For the most part, people went to the opera to distract themselves and socialize, not to actually fully watch the opera. Some would see the show once, then go back night after night to simply not pay attention but hang out. There are accounts that sometimes the amount of drama coming from the chatty women in the audience would overpower the actual drama on stage. Here's a picture of audience dynamic from an excerpt from *Mozart's Operas: A Companion* by Mary Hunter: \"The audience would stay essentially the same for all performances: aristocrats typically rented, or in some places bought, boxes at the theater for the season, and used them as extensions of their homes, entertaining company, eating, talking, playing cards, and sometimes engaging in other less respectable activities. Gambling areas were quite common in many theaters, and helped the theaters break even. The audience would thus pay relatively good attention at the beginning of an opera seria, but then would probably listen more intermittently as the work became more familiar. Daily tickets to the parterre (the seats of the benches on the floor of the theater directly in front of the stage) and to the highest balconies were available, so presumably the audience in those places varied somewhat more than the boxholders. But the boxed aristocrats were the staple audience for opera seria in most places, and it was around their interest and pleasures that most operatic systems were organized.\"\n\nIt wasn't until later in the eighteenth century when Mozart was writing his most famous comic operas (opera buffa) like *Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail*, *The Marriage of Figaro*, *Cosi Fan Tutte*, and *Don Giovanni*, that the audience dynamic really started to shift. The aristocratic box purchase/rental thing didn't change much, but the increasingly relatable content of these operas attracted more ordinary people (in this case \"ordinary\" meant upper middle class). Opera buffa reintroduced the lower class characters (servants) that had been purged from opera at the beginning of the eighteenth century (in opera seria reforms), and these characters were down to earth, sassy, smart, used more conventional language, were easier for most people to identify with, and their stories and parts were laden with social commentary (gender, sex, class, politics). For example, female servant characters seemed particularly sexually empowered; Mozart could do this with lower class characters, but would have offended a whole lot of important patrons if he used progressive characterization for female characters of nobility. Audiences around this time were naturally paying more attention because they were more literate and more self aware (Industrial Revolution+Enlightenment, etc etc), and scholars like to argue that this was when opera culture truly started to move in the direction of our current \"lights off, sit down, shut up, and listen\" audiences. ", "Google found me a leaflet for Don Giovanni from 1788:\n_URL_1_\n\nIf I read it correctly the most expensive seat costs 6 Gulden 40 Kreuzer, the cheapest (\"one person on the last seat\") is 10 Kreuzer. (1 Gulden = 60 Kreuzer)\n\n[This report](_URL_0_) (in German) claims that Mozart's yearly income was 5000 Gulden, while his maid only made 12 Gulden/year.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operas_by_Mozart" ], [], [ "http://bazonline.ch/kultur/klassik/Wie-Topverdiener-Mozart-sein-Vermoegen-verprasste/story/18066880", "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6d-cxfUiEs/TLXo-FBGz0I/AAAAAAAAAag/qNya8qPy2fs/s1600/Don+Giovanni_Bill_Oldest.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc6qxyo" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "These insects, among quite a few others are doing something called over wintering. I'm short, they are looking for shelter. Homes/buildings are about the best fit for that. So as the temp drops they look for these places to survive. You'll actually end up seeing activity change with temp, sometimes with recurrences!\n\nThis is actually a pretty big topic that gets complicated fast. Especially when it comes to helping prevent these pests.\n\nI'm a certified pest control technician. \n\nEdit: you living in a new house has nothing to do with it. You can caulk and seal holes to help reduce activity, and residual pesticide treatments in key areas before the first real good drop in temp can help." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr1rmmx" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Can't remember specifics but something about nuns creating a shape that looked like children folding arms." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cui7pre", "cui85zk", "cui8e0q" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Computer programs ALWAYS have bugs, it's the nature of programming as software is usually so complicated with thousands upon thousands of lines of code, some situations weren't thought about or someone just made a mistake when making it. Little bugs often exist that cause programs to become unstable over time, and there isn't anything built into the software to detect that it's unstable and fix the problem on it's own. Restarting the program clears out everything and starts fresh, as it was before it got into that unstable state. As far as restarting your computer, everything on your computer is software, and is included in the above description including your operating system (windows, mac, linux) and your drivers which are software that lets your operating system talk to the hardware and accessories it's working with.", "When a program runs for a while it creates a lot of \"work product\" which is it's internal state and if there are bugs then that state can get corrupted. On the other hand when you start a program, and maybe open a file with it, it's usually the most well thought out and tested thing you can do with software so it rarely fails.\n\nSo it's a case of using more of the programs code for a longer time (more bugs can be encountered and errors can/will accumulate) versus running a smaller part of the code once.", "In the same circumstances, yes. But there are lots of moving parts -- did you click on that button before or after it finished loading some file in the background? Programs use things called \"threads\" for multiple tasks -- the user interface thread and a worker thread definitely will not ever have exactly the same timing relative to each other on different runs. Since the OS switches threads, it depends on what computational loads other programs are putting on the system. Which depends on external factors -- the exact timing of the network depends on your ISP, the user is pressing keys and moving the mouse at unpredictable times.\n\nYou're almost never running the program \"in the same circumstances\" twice if it has multiple threads.\n\nFor programmers, random crashes are the hardest problems to solve. Normally the first step to fixing a bug in your program is to reproduce the \nproblem. If it's a random freeze or crash, it's hard to get past that first step. There might be something that the user's doing with the program, or something in the user's system environment -- OS, hardware, specific versions of all related programs, unrelated programs interfering somehow..." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ezx9tqs", "ezxanxw", "ezxbbt4", "ezxbz9v" ], "score": [ 8, 6, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The limit of Speed of Light only applies to particles moving through spacetime, it does not apply to spacetime itself. Two points in spacetime can be pushed apart by the expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. The further any two points in spacetime are from each other, the faster they move apart based on the expansion of the universe, so for every point in the universe, there is horizon beyond which all points are moving away from it faster than the speed of light, and no light emitted from those points over the horizon will ever reach the former.", " > Now if all observable mass blew apart from this singularity, any objects whose relative velocity vectors were less than the speed of light would be able to observe eachother from the start\n\nYou are fundamentally misunderstanding the Big Bang. It was not all mass exploding outward from a central point. Instead it was **space** expanding everywhere at once. All **places** were closer together during the singularity and when the Big Bang happened space itself began to expand causing all *locations* to become more distant from each other. Matter itself didn't obtain a velocity through space.\n\nThe speed of light then applies to things moving through space, it doesn't govern the rate at which new space can appear between two locations. In fact given a sufficient distance between two points then any expansion of space, however small, will eventually add up to exceeding the speed of light.", "The Hubble Constant is about 74 km/second per megaparsec. That means that the comoving velocity of something 1 megaparsec away from us is about 74 km/s (pointed away from us) due to the expansion of space. \n\nAs an example, the most \"distant galaxy\" you'll see reported as 13.4 billion light years. What this really means is that the light we observed today was emitted from this galaxy when it was less than 13.4 billion light years away. However, due to the expansion of space, we expect this same galaxy is now actually over 50 billion light years from us. The universe simply isn't old enough for anything over ~13.4 billion light years of travel time to have reached us yet (the universe is ~13.8 billion years old, but for various reasons we would not expect galaxies to have formed during the early portion). \n\nFinally, it's worth noting that you shouldn't view the Big Bang as a singularity exploding from a central point. That simply isn't the model of it that's ever been proposed. Rather, the Big Bang refers to a point in time about 13.8 billion years ago where the energy density of the universe was infinite. One Planck time after the Big Bang, there is no evidence that the universe was not *infinite* in diameter. In other words, the expansion of space may be a change in the density of the universe, but in terms of actual size we're just going from infinite to ... well, infinite.", "Imagine a big, flat rubber sheet. That'll be our universe. \n\nImagine a magical marble that moves forward all by itself, at a fixed speed of 1 inch per second. That'll be our light particle. \n\nIf you sit down anywhere on the sheet, and someone puts the marble down anywhere and aims it at you, it'll reach you eventually, right? Ok, cool.\n\nNow let's add a catch. You sat on the sheet, and someone put that marble down and aimed it at you again...but then people grabbed all the edges of the sheet and started pulling *it* at a speed of 6 inches per second. Now, even though that marble is still zooming towards you, the sheet itself it stretching out *faster* than the marble is moving, so the end result is that you and the marble are moving further and further *apart* even though it's still moving towards you." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c4k0wpn" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The others posting here have done a really good job of explaining so far, but I'll fill in with a little more information.\n\nThe ACL is most commonly torn when the knee bends backwards too far, or moves too far to the side. This is easily something you can do yourself, simply by turning sharply, stopping, any number of non-contact movements that create flexion at the knee can result in a torn ACL.\n\nThe [wiki](_URL_0_) here is actually surprisingly good in comparison to most orthopedic wiki's." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "e8t7vlp" ], "score": [ 450 ], "text": [ "Yay, a question where I actually have some level of cursory expertise!\n\nTL;DR at the end. Sorry for typos, didn't proof before submitting.\n\nTo begin understanding how Mormonism was allowed to flourish requires a brief understanding of the Protestant melting pot that was 19th-century America. Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) was born into what was known as the \"burned-over district\" during the Second Great Awakening, a veritable hotbed of theological and religious development. Other notable religions cropping up from the same area are Seventh-Day Adventists, Disciples of Christ, Millerites, etc. {The Making of a Prophet, Vogel}\n\nCampbellite theology was making its way into popular religious culture and influencing theological discussions with public debates with Campbellite leaders like Alexander and Barton Stone. Young Joseph Smith (1805-44) grew up likely attending local revival meetings.\n\nFor a boy of a family of 12 with a vagabond father and no sustainable income or regular education opportunities, you can imagine his eyes bulging as he saw the collection plates passed around these congregations after sermons. A relevant piece of Smith's personality should be noted here; Smith was a charismatic man. Charisma has its benefits and weaknesses. He was polarizing, non-committal, and had a malleable set of beliefs and convictions which could quickly adapt to setting and audience. One can see how such a personality would do well as a magnetic religious leader.\n\nThe set of factors which caused Smith to claim he had an ancient record of Native American Jews is a rabbit hole too deep to dive into with this question, but suffice it to say, eventually he claimed to have such a record written on Gold Plates, which he \"translated\" into The Book of Mormon. {Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Quinn}\n\nApril 6, 1830, the first meeting of the Church of Christ was called in New York; \"Joe Smith\" had his own church of \"Mormonites\". Smith also had a bit of a sordid reputation in New York. Eventually, circumstances led to Smith fleeing the state and heading for greener pastures in Kirtland, Ohio. {Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman}\n\nUpon his arrival to Kirtland, Smith teamed up with an ex-Campbellite preacher named Sidney Rigdon. Rigdon was a preacher with multiple congregations and hundreds of parishioners at the time. There were roughly 5-7 families who were adherents to Mormonism in New York, but once Rigdon converted, many of his followers were also baptized into Mormonism, which provided a much-needed lifeline to keeping the young religion alive. \n\nA few notable converts were Newell K. Whitney, Isaac Morley, and John Johnson, quite wealthy people with significant land and business holdings in the area. Smith quickly provided leadership roles for these men to fulfill their need to \"serve the Lord,\" which manifested by them donating large sums of money, as well as various business ventures, to the church. {No Man Knows My History, Brodie}\n\nConcomitant with the rising of Mormonism in Ohio was a concerted effort to settle \"on the border with the Lamanites\" (Missouri). Missouri was still the wild frontier west in the 1830s and seized land from Native Americans was cheap. Mormonism established a foothold there and eventually the Missouri congregations outnumbered that back at HQ in Kirtland.\n\nVarious factors led to Smith's excommunication from the Kirtland congregation. He fled in the middle of the night to escape vigilante justice by his previous parishioners and made it to Missouri. \n\nMissouri in 1838, for Smith, was a place where he could finally put his theocratic motivations into practice. He formed an extra-military group, known as the Danites, to insure the security of the various Mormon settlements, numbering roughly 6-8,000 ppl at the time. After escalating conflict between the Mormons and Missourians, the Mormons raided and pillaged a few nearby settlements and razed them to the ground. Missouri militias responded by massacring the Mormons at a grain mill (Haun's Mill Massacre). Outnumbered and surrounded by multiple state militias, Smith and the Mormons surrendered. They were \"exterminated\" from the state of Missouri and found refuge in Illinois on the banks of the Mississippi. {The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, LeSueur}\n\nNauvoo, Illinois became the new Mormon stronghold. Smith had learned from mistakes in Ohio and Missouri, resulting in his cultivating relationships with prominent politicians in Illinois. The city of Nauvoo was granted their own private militia which eventually outnumbered the militia of nearly any state in the Union at the time.\n\nBrigham Young rose to prominence here. He, and the other apostles, went on a proselytizing mission to Europe in 1839, selling promises of American prosperity to any Englander willing to listen. Young established an immigration fund with a privately chartered ship, costing each European person a mere 4 pounds to immigrate to the Mormon settlement on the Mississippi. This resulted in thousands of converts making their way to the states. {Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississppi, Flanders}\n\nMormonism was a force to be reckoned with.\n\nAt the height of his career, Smith ran for POTUS in 1844 and was assassinated while being held in a jail. Nauvoo was roughly 12-20,000 Mormons (estimates are all over the place and real numbers are really hard to nail down) at this time, the population of Chicago, the next largest city in Illinois, was ~7-9,000 but growing fast.\n\nSmith's death incited a schism crisis. A handful of men claimed to have the rightful authority to be the next one-true prophet. Smith's oldest son was 11 at the time so it wasn't reasonable for him to be the next prophet quite yet (see history of RLDS for further information). {Origins of Power, Quinn}\n\nSome themes to tease out before an overview of Utah Mormonism: 1) persecution, 2) uniqueness, 3) galvanization. \n\n1) Persecution works like fertilizer. Too little and the followers don't have a common enemy, too much and the movement is snuffed out (Catholicism pre-1550). But, just the right amount of fertilizer and the movement will grow and flourish. Mormonism hit that perfect sweet spot.\n\n2) Uniqueness, Mormonism was wacky. Search newspaper databases for articles on Mormonism 1833-45 and many bear a title invoking \"Deluded Fanatics,\" \"Gold Bible Mormonites,\" or something of a similar derisive nature. Smith's claim as not just a preacher, but a prophet, a \"mouthpiece of God,\" made Mormonism really stand out beyond most congregations.\n\n3) Galvanization. Mormonism continued to make media headlines and Smith, along with other leaders, was able to turn that press into a persecution narrative, citing suffering in 1838 Missouri as their real-world examples of how real that persecution really was. A common group with a common enemy lives and dies together.\n\nUtah Mormonism presents an interesting set of factors which caused Mormonism to become what it is today. Brigham Young rose to prominence during the schism crisis and took his group of 6-7,000 Mormons to an area where the U.S. Government would stop bothering them, Mexico. Utah Territory was carved out as a result of the Compromise of 1850, and the new Mormon theocracy had a place to flourish.\n\nLife in Utah wasn't great for the Mormons in the beginning. It was an unsettled badland ruled by people with different beliefs, cultures, and skin color than them. Best estimates put Native American population in the territory around 20,000 when the Mormons got there.\n\nWhile this issue is much more nuanced than a reddit post will justify, the Mormon/Native conflicts (1849-70s) resulted in near extinction of Native American people in Utah. It was only in 1980 when Native populations in Utah reached their pre-Mormon level of ~20,000 ppl. During this growing phase of Utah Mormonism, the European immigration fund remained successful. From 1847-1860, tens of thousands of European converts made the trek across the plains and settled with the growing Mormon settlement. Thousands of white religious fanatics flooding in while conflicts with Native raged and resulted in repeated decimation of the native tribes. These Europeans interbred and created their own self-contained economy with bartering and proprietary money; everybody relied on their neighbor to survive. {Indian Depredations, Gottfriedson}\n\nBrigham Young was king of Utah. He was first Governor of the territory, director of the Office of Indian Affairs, and prophet of the Church; a trifecta of religious and government authority all held by one of the wealthiest Americans living at the time. {Blood of the Prophets, Bagley}\n\nPolygamy also factors into Utah Mormonism more than we can imagine. It created a source of conflict with the U.S. Government that increased the impact of the 3 factors previously discussed. That, coupled with the geographic isolation of Utah, created a system where Mormonism couldn't help but flourish. It was the only authority in a land with dwindling Native populations and European religious fanatics that was well above the critical mass required to grow. {Origins of Power, Quinn}\n\nEventually, the United States Government disincorporated the Church and seized all assets > $50,000 until the practice of polygamy was officially renounced by the religion. It was {Official Declaration 1} and Utah was granted statehood in 1896. It only continued to grow from that point forward.\n\nTL;DR Mormonism was started by a wacky and charismatic guy. Due to a number of complex factors, it had just the right algorithm to flourish into a major religion and build multiple theocracies. Once it attained the crucial \"critical mass\" of followers, nothing could stop it from continuing to grow.\n\nCred: independent researcher and podcaster of Mormon history." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4hywal", "c4hzepn", "c4hzjux", "c4i0k6a" ], "score": [ 14, 7, 6, 8 ], "text": [ "We honestly don't know accurately, it's mostly educated guesses and deduction, some will be higher than reality and some will be lower than the true number. It's just like with most things in history, I will give an example, with The Battle of the Nile, we know how many British were involved, how many died and how many were wounded due to the quality of records. Whereas we have very little idea how many casualties the French suffered. So without adequate record keeping we have to try and piece it together although we will likely never know the true number.\n\nEDIT: Battle of the Nile example", "The book Mao's Last Revolution is a thoroughly researched and sourced book about the events of the cultural revolution. It is hard to say exactly how many people died, but academics who say that these numbers were exaggerated tend to have their own agenda they're pushing. What exactly are your sources on this?", "Well, one major reason that you see so many wildly conflicting estimates is that it's hard to know who should count as being \"killed by\" the regime. Clearly people directly executed count, but what about people who merely starve to death or die from preventable/curable diseases? \n\nIt can be hard to know whether these people died from incompetence (like when communists seized farms), from external factors (you can't blame everything on those in power) or if it was an intentionally fabricated disaster. Usually in a crisis, most of the people will be dying from starvation and disease, not violence.", "In the case of Stalin's Soviet Union, there is enough archival data that pinpoints a minimum of those arrested/executed/exiled, etc. From incidents like collectivization, industrialization, famine, dekulakization, it gets much harder, there you rely on demographic data and at best it is still guesswork. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cfwdmt3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Just how far over your head are we talking? Do you have any sort of math background? Do you know what a computer is?\n\nYou might try to start with some sort of interactive tutorial like [Code Academy](_URL_0_) or a book that's meant to teach everything from the ground up." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.codecademy.com/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drurank", "drv5ksc" ], "score": [ 989, 674 ], "text": [ "1. Could you please specify what era you're interested in? In 2006, 50.3% of people living in the Northwest Territories identified themselves as Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Metis, Inuit, or multiple/other Aboriginal identities), along with 20% of people in Yukon and 85% of people in Nunavut. Their methods of dealing with winter, and reasons for living where they do (or rather, in 1997) will obviously be quite different from 1957 or 1857 or 1657.\n\n2. This is a little sideways, but: if you're interested in pre-colonial or early colonial era, I have an [earlier answer](_URL_1_) on how Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Quebec confronted winters. It talks a lot about what/how the Jesuits learned from the Montagnais nation (and in some cases, what the Montagnais knew and did that the Jesuits didn't or couldn't do).\n\nI'll excerpt some of the relevant portions and add in more details:\n\n~~\n\n*The \"Jesuit Relations\" of the 17th and 18th centuries have a lot to say about the challenges and benefits faced by early European settlers--in this case, Jesuit missionaries--in the deep of winter in \"these wretched lands.\" A theme that emerges, over and over, is that winter makes travel easier and being indoors harder.*\n\nFr. Paul le Jeune, arriving in Quebec in 1632, describes learning how to walk with snowshoes from the local Montagnais--he was so sure he was going to fall on his face at first, with every step he took--but he had grown quite skilled (though not as good as the Montagnais).\n\nIn 1640, Fr. Joseph Marie Chaumonot wrote back to Rome...[the Jesuits] probably used snowshoes as well--Chaumonot tells us that among the Hurons, snowshoe-making is very specifically the women's task. Le Jeune describes the Montagnais using their snowshoes to shovel, but I'm not sure whether the Jesuits adopted that practice. For transportation across unfrozen waterways, like the St. Lawrence River, the Montagnais would use their canoes as in summer. Over the snow, they pulled sleighs or sleds made of wood.\n\n...[The Jesuits] weren't hunters, so while (writes Le Jeune enviously) the Montagnais were chowing down on moose, the Jesuits ate dried eel (which, yes, they had known to eat--and maybe were getting from?--Native women). Le Jeune writes that winter actually *aided* the Montagnais in catching eels:\n\n > This work is done entirely by the women, who empty the fish, and wash them very carefully, opening them, not up the belly but up the back; then they hang them in the smoke, first having suspended them upon poles outside their huts to drain. They gash them in a number of places, in order that the smoke may dry them more easily. The quantity of eels which they catch in the season is incredible.\n\nWinter was also the season for moose hunting (and hence, eating):\n\n > On the 19th [of December], the snow being already very deep, they captured eight elks or moose. About that time one of them, named Nassitamirineou, and surnamed by the French Brehault, told them that he had dreamed that they must eat all of those Moose; and that he knew very well how to pray to God, who had told him that it was his will that they should eat all, and that they should give none of them away, if they wanted to capture others. [The Montagnais] believed him, and did not give a piece to the Frenchmen.\n\nFather de Noue, another Jesuit, told Le Jeune his experiences of traveling with a group of (I think) Montagnais:\n\n > The inns found on the way are the woods themselves, where at nightfall they stop to camp; each one unfastens his snowshoes, which are used as shovels in cleaning the snow from the place where they are going to sleep. The place cleaned is usually made in the form of a circle; a fire is made in the very middle of it, and all the guests seat themselves around it, having a wall of snow behind them, and the Sky for a roof.\n\n > The wine of this inn is snow, melted in a little kettle which they carry with them, provided they do not wish to eat snow in lieu of drink. Their best dish is smoked eel. As they must carry their blankets with them for cover at night, they load themselves with as few other things as possible.\n\nAnd modern practice to the contrary, drinking chocolate is actually a *Central* American tradition.\n\n~~\n\nThe *Jesuit Relations* are available [for free online in English translation](_URL_0_)! I suggest opening a few volumes and searching for snow, ice, and related terms if you're further interested in this particular topic.", "I'll add in a few things - often mass snow dumps and cold weather don't go hand in hand. Normally when I see it snowing that's a sign that it's warm. People did and do a lot of things to survive in winter in weather down to much colder than -30.\n\n - people gathered in houses with fires in them. \n - In many places the majority of the food for the winter was gathered during the summer. This includes fish, berries, nuts, and roots, all staples of diet. In communities that lived along almost every river in British Columbia (most of the communities, all of this seasonal harvesting constituted the majority of food, and was done in generally fixed locations at fixed times. Meat as well was often seasonal - think of the caribou and buffalo migrations/hunts by various Dene and Inuit groups in the far north, and by various buffalo hunting groups in the prairies. In particular the Metis big hunt was done once a year, with thousands participating, and going back much further in time we have numerous examples of stationary hunting locations that caught herds at specific points on their yearly migrations. These did not take place in the winter, and people preserved meat by smoking or sun-drying (more smoking the less predictable the water was i.e. closer to the coast). Men did hunt in the winter in almost all cultures, especially after trapping became a major economic force, but it often wasn't as necessary for survival as it later became when people began to be involved in more economic activities during the summer. For example along the coast, midwinter was ceremony season. In addition, my grandfather survived a lot of his childhood by snaring a lot of food close by wherever he was camping, and having your snares out every night or checking your snares every day is a pretty easy way of getting some food. Snaring food was/is a common way for kids to start trapping, and rabbits and squirrels snared are a normal part of many winter diets. These are still generalities, as Inuit for example hunted a lot in the winter, and resources vary a lot from place to place. Winter hunting was always an important fall back when accidents happened, and the men being gone a lot was also a fairly useful form of birth control.\n\n - people were skilled at building shelters of all kinds. In the north (north of the tree line) in Inuit country people built igloos, travel igloos, snow caves, or even just wind breaks out of snow. This is of course when they are on the land and not in permanent settlements which often had permanent houses made of turf as well as igloos. These could be heated by body heat and seal-oil lamps, generally with multiple wicks. In places such as the Mackenzie delta, despite there being no trees there could be lots of driftwood and fires were fine, in fact some people still heat their houses with wood today using driftwood entirely in the area. Further south in British Columbia people lived in pit houses and hide houses, and could make many kinds of shelters easily and quickly, as well as fires. Harlan Smith lists eight types of houses used just by the Nuxalk, and other first nations as well built a range of shelters for various functions and needs. By and large these houses would be as warm or warmer than our houses, they just might take more wood to keep that way Having spent time in a long house, a good fire in the middle can warm a very large building quite quickly. That said, people who spend a lot of time in the cold can get used to it through acclimation. For example, I camp in winter with a sleeping bag, groundpad, and warm clothing. My cousin hikes in jeans, and will wrap up in a tarp in freezing weather and just go to sleep. I don't recommend it, but when you're used to it, a person can function in very cold weather. This includes adaptations like hunter's reflex where many Inuit can work all day barehanded in minus thirty weather pulling in nets, without their hands freezing because their body will pump blood to their fingers every little while to keep them warm.\n - people had very good clothing, much of it still the equal to technical clothing made today. Fur-lined well made clothing is really quite warm. Also, the snow doesn't really make you that wet if you have good clothing on. It's well enough insulated that body heat doesn't make the snow melt, and if its cold enough, even more so. In particular people were careful of overexerting themselves and getting wet as a result. Caribou skin parkas are still used, sealskin leggings and mukluks are still used, and fur-lined clothing is still used today and is considered very adequate.\n - If you sent me out in my coat, with a blanket and food, I do know how I would survive, and I that's the primary difference. Just like today, in the past people knew how to survive, and that made it normal. First Nations went in to areas that had resources, and they used the technologies and education needed to survive in those areas. Warmer areas were more populated, and with the right technologies, you could move in to places where nobody else was living and have abundance. That said, almost all of Canada's first nations people have migrated north to south, not the other way around, so if anything it's been warm weather tech that people have had to develop over the years.\n\nRelevant sources - for a really detailed description of plant use, see Nancy Turner's two volume set on the topic, covering Northwestern North America.\n\nTurner, Nancy (2014). Ancient Pathways, Ancestral Knowledge: Ethnobotany and Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Peoples of Northwestern North America.\n\nYou can get Harlan Smith's books from the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Almost any collection of northern stories will tell you a lot about survival methods, as will writing by early explorers who analyzed the methods as they learnt them and often wrote about how not to die. One book in particular I enjoyed was the following:\n\nMishler, Craig, ed. Neerihiinjìk: We Traveled from Place to Place: the Gwich’in Stories of Johnny and Sarah Frank. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, 2001.\n\nthis book really tells a lot about survival in the North, and I can't recommend it too highly, though my primary interest in it is because of the cultural information." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/jesuitrelations/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/42ban7/how_did_the_early_settlers_on_the_east_coast_of/cz9btqy/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuiov15", "cuisrf0" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "_URL_0_\n\nIt is a problem in boxing, although today's boxers and trainers know more about it and boxers have adopted a much more defensive style (lots of clinching, few face-to-face brawls) that prevents them getting punched in the head as much. See any recent Klitschko fight or the Mayweather - Pacquiao fight to see this defensive style.", "To add to flipmode_squad's comment, boxers also only fight a few times a year. Sometimes only once. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c4htir1", "c4hv2l5", "c4hvwsr", "c4hwkhd" ], "score": [ 6, 5, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Looking around, there are various estimates online of the total circulating US money supply, [this](_URL_0_) source estimates about $3.5 trillion in bills and coins, which would indicate the inflation caused by adding $15 trillion to the money supply should be around 500%. That's definitely just an order-of-magnitude estimate, since inflation is affected by other factors besides just number of bills actually circulating, and estimates of the total money supply vary considerably, but I think 500% is a reasonable ballpark figure.\n\nedit: from [wikipedia](_URL_1_), it appears that by broad measures of the money supply there are more like $10 trillion in circulation, which would give a slightly more reasonable inflation figure of about 150%. Still, as I said before these are just order-of-magnitude estimates, the actual observed inflation could be dramatically different.", "I suggest you read this [article about hyperinflation during the Weimar Republic](_URL_0_). Germany started printing money so that they could pay back their WWI reparations and shit hit the fan. One of the highlights of the article: A medal commemorating Germany's 1923 hyperinflation. The engraving reads: \"On 1st November 1923 1 pound of bread cost 3 billion, 1 pound of meat: 36 billion, 1 glass of beer: 4 billion.\"", "The direct effect on the rate of inflation will be dwarfed by the indirect consequences of the loss of credibility this will cause for the Federal Reserve, and therefore the US Treasury bonds. The financial system is based on a notion of a \"risk-free\" rate. Traditionally, this has been Treasury bonds. If there's nothing you can invest in risklessly, almost all major financial models come crashing down. The CAPM and the Black-Scholes formula, two of the most fundamental financial equations, don't work without a risk-free rate. The economy will crash, the dollar will become worthless almost immediately, and life as we know it will end for decades.", "Your question would be extremely hard to answer, even by most economists because we are talking about a dynamic system. Inflation is based as much on availability of money as it is on the expectations and behavior of people based on their belief about its future availability.\n\nOn top of that, you need to be very careful about how you define these things - the $15 trillion you quote is ~$10 trillion in public debt and $5 trillion in internal debt. The internal $5T can be squared off at any time without printing a single bank-note. Credit the SS account for $5T and debit the treasury account for $5T. Voila. Debt disappears. The consequence of course is that you just defunded SS which means... I don't know.. what does it mean? It's all guess work from there. How would people react to SS being defunded? Would they chant on twitter? Burn down congress? Make love on the streets? I don't know.\n\nThe remaining $10T is known as public debt. This is debt held by various player outside the government. If you see _URL_0_, you'll see that the federal reserve holds about $1.6T in treasuries (it's a bit higher than normal because the fed is currently trying to flush banks with cash through open market operations - it was closer to 10% in 2005). Now, the thing you must understand is that the US govt doesn't print money. The Fed does. Yes - the US dollar is printed by a private corporation (under stewardship of the US govt of course... if you can call what congress does stewardship). This is not a crazy conspiracy theory - it's just how debt based money works. The way the US govt gets money is by selling a bunch of govt debt to the federal reserve and in exchange, getting currency back. Now it is entirely unclear to me how the US govt would go about \"asking the fed to print money\" to offset any debt that the fed itself holds... that just seems stupid. So instead, let's just say that the US govt asks the fed to just... ignore the current debt it holds (hint: it already does that - when US debt matures, the US govt simply sells the fed new debt equivalent to the maturity value and has the fed erase the old debt using the money just created).\n\nOk. Now we have about $8.4T to worry about. I don't know it currently stands but a good fraction of this - wikipedia claims about $3T is held by foreign sources. US debt is usually in the form of a bond with a fixed maturity period and fixed interest payments (ignore TIPS and the like.. stay with me here). Here is the kicker.. the US govt *can't* repay these debts right now even if it wanted to. US debt is not a callable bond - the govt can't simply decide to call in its debt. But pretend for now that somehow we're in bizarro world where it can do that. How does it do it? It asks the fed to print some money and takes that cash to pay off the foreign held debt. But in printing that money, the US has created an equivalent amount of domestic debt that is being held in the federal reserve. What has changed is that the foreign markets are now being flooded with US bank notes and the US govt has lost any control over how that money is going to be spent. If a good fraction of this foreign debt was being held by foreign governments (or state controlled entities), then it would be in their best interest to not flood the market with US currency because it would cause the US currency to weaken (inflate) relative to their currency making their products more expensive in the US markets. China for one, due to its currency manipulation to keep the yuan cheap, would never release excess currency into the market. In essence - nothing would have changed.\n\nNow, it's the private debt holders that are problematic. Somehow the US manages to pay them all of (read: transfer their debt to the federal reserve). Now everyone has a boat load of money. If people were smart/rational/robots, they'd realize that this was just a completely dumb idea in the first place and would do nothing with this new money. But people are none of those above things - they're panicky and stupid and we'll probably get a great amount of inflation. How much... that would be hard to say - it would depend on what else happens. The fed could simply refuse to sit by and \"pretend the govt's debt didn't exist\" and start selling such debt, unwinding all this excess currency in the market (in essense, doing the reverse of what it's currently doing where it's buying debt to stimulate the markets during a credit crunch). Or it could do nothing... or... I don't know.. this is all just stupid crazy land at this point. It makes no economic sense. No sensible economy should have gotten to this point. This is like asking how expensive of a speeding ticket you would receive for driving a nuclear powered rocket car on the I90 at 500mph. Like... it should have never gotten to this point. It would just be colossally stupid for someone to go \"Oh, that's a nuclear jet car. I'll just wait for it to start speeding before I ticket it.\" \n\nAs you can see from above, you may begin to realize the government debt is a very very very different creature when compared to household debt. They are not the same thing *at all*. Paying off govt debt is *nothing* like paying off your loans or your mortgage. If the government never got into debt, you'd never have money in the first place. So I suggest you stop thinking of govt debt in such terms. Govt debt is never going to get repaid fully. NEVER! We haven't repaid our debt from WW2 and we NEVER will. It's simply not a sensible proposition. There will always be govt debt. The important things to consider are the debt/GDP ratio and the GDP growth rate. I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you the exact relationships between these and inflation - not much more beyond wikipedia and introductory macro econ textbooks. Hopefully someone else here will pick this up and correct me where I am wrong." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-value-of-united-states-currency-in-circulation/", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic" ], [], [ "http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab9" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fdgzr2r", "fdhr6sc" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "I doubt anyone can answer that for the case of the Earth as it is far too complicated. Tides on the Earth are subject to the topography of the ocean bed and so vary throughout the oceans.\n\nI think even for a homogeneous fluid body this might not be a straightforward question either. You can evaluate the tidal force through the body quite simply but the response of the fluid is a lot more complex. If you let the fluid be convective then I know for a fact that no one can answer this question for an arbitrary plan/star.", "All of it, it's not that one piece of water gets pulled towards the sun while the other doesn't. It's not even all water, the whole planet gets squashed and stretched by them. Water just makes it apparent to the naked eye because it tends to flow around easily.\n\nOr I am misunderstanding the question and you are asking what the volume change in a particular location is." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbfhqlg", "cbfivxd", "cbfjn5e" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "there is nothing quick about it, this economy has been producing about 140,000 new jobs every month this year.\n\nBovernment employment has been going down steadily for the last few years and is one of the reasons for weak job growth overall. \n\nAccording the the BLS the jobs are primarily in the service sector, meaning retail sales and things like that so they are not even the result of government projects", "They are private-sector jobs.\n\nHowever, some of them may have been spurred by the federal government's discretionary investments in the economy.\n\nFor example, let's say the Department of Transportation gave a hypothetical $1 million grant to build a bridge. The engineering plans for the bridge had already been approved by the city, and the city just needed this last piece of financing to actually afford to build it. A private company put in a competitive bid to actually build that bridge and its build was accepted because it offered to build it at the lowest cost. The private company then hired 1 engineer, 4 supervisors, and 20 construction workers to then build the bridge. That government investment created 25 private sector jobs.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA more detailed description of those jobs created this month is available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics or Department of Labor website (report here: _URL_1_). The report states the following:\n\n\n\"Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in July, with gains in retail trade, food\nservices and drinking places, financial activities, and wholesale trade.\n\nRetail trade added 47,000 jobs in July and has added 352,000 over the past 12 months. In July, job\ngrowth occurred in general merchandise stores (+9,000), motor vehicle and parts dealers (+6,000),\nbuilding material and garden supply stores (+6,000), and health and personal care stores (+5,000).\n\nWithin leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places increased by 38,000\nin July and by 381,000 over the year.\n\nFinancial activities employment increased by 15,000 in July, with a gain of 6,000 in securities,\ncommodity contracts, and investments. Over the year, financial activities has added 120,000 jobs.\n\nEmployment increased in wholesale trade (+14,000) in July. Over the past 12 months, this industry\nhas added 83,000 jobs.\n\nEmployment in professional and business services continued to trend up in July (+36,000). Within\nthe industry, job growth continued in management of companies and enterprises (+7,000) and in\nmanagement and technical consulting services (+7,000). Employment in temporary help services\nchanged little over the month.\n\nManufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in July and has changed little, on net, over\nthe past 12 months. Within the industry, employment in motor vehicles and parts rose by 9,000\nin July.\n\nEmployment in health care was essentially unchanged over the month. Thus far in 2013, health\ncare has added an average of 16,000 jobs per month, compared with an average monthly increase\nof 27,000 in 2012.\n\nEmployment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction, transportation\nand warehousing, and government, showed little change in July.\"\n\n\nAlso see: _URL_0_\n\nSecretary of Labor Tom Perez issued the following statement about the July 2013 Employment Situation report:\n\n“Today's report shows that our economy continues to improve, modestly but steadily. The unemployment rate inched downward to 7.4 percent, the 11th straight month under 8 percent and the lowest level in more than four and a half years, since December 2008. The private sector added 161,000 new jobs in July, marking the 41st straight month of private-sector job growth and a total of 7.3 million new private-sector jobs added over that time period.\"", "[Many of them are part-time](_URL_1_).\n\nPerhaps even more to the point, [they are often replacing full-time jobs](_URL_0_). The number of full-time jobs has declined in many sectors, so that's *part* of your answer. Fire your full-time employees, hire two part-timers for the same position, et voila - you don't increase your payroll, actually save money on pesky things like benefits, and *still* \"double\" the workforce.\n\nNot saying that this accounts for *all* of the increase, but just be careful when you cite numbers like \"165,000 new jobs\" - they can be quite misleading." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/opa/OPA20131589.htm", "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" ], [ "http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/07/14/the-untold-unemployment-story-a-loss-of-162000-full-time-jobs-in-june/", "http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/11/06/half-the-new-jobs-in-the-us-are-part-time-no-matter-who-is-in-the-white-house/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbn6ga7", "cbn7unr" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "To my knowledge the Emperor wasn't praised as a god via rituals as that would go against their religion to their many gods, it would have been seen as an insult.\n\nIn the early 20th century/WW2 era the Emporer was often thought to be a Demi-god or higher being, someone who has unquestionable reign over the entire nation. Many actions during the war and in Japanese society were said to be done in the name of the Emperor, be it kamikaze bombers or some form of societal advancement back in Japan.\n\nTo my knowledge in schools children tended to be thought that the Emporer was the ultimate ruler with an all seeing eye. However, do not quote me on this, I am just trying to remember back to my Japanese studies in school which was some time ago, but I hope this helps. I still encourage a qualified 20th century historian to give you a better answer.", "The idea that the Emperor is was considered a god is only semi-accurate, in that none of the many kinds of mythological/supernatural beings in Japanese lore exactly match what we would think of as a \"god\" in the west. Many other elements of religion that we would take for granted are also absent. A good example is your question about getting into paradise. The answer is no, because in Japanese religion there is no concept similar to paradise/heaven.\n\nThe exact position of Emperor might be best summed up as something like the spiritual embodiment of the nation. He was a kind of demi-god - not because he had any supernatural powers, but because he was the direct descendant of Amaterasu, the Goddess (or *kami*) of the Sun, as well as the patron Goddess of the Japanese people. In the *Kojiki* and the *Nihon Shoki*, two ancient Japanese texts that give an account of the legendary period of Japanese history, Amaterasu appears to her human descendant called Jimmu, and informs of his divine ancestry. She also tells him that his people, the Japanese, are her chosen people and that she is offering them her holy islands (the islands of Japan) for their home. Because of this myth, the Japanese's status as the chosen people of the Sun Goddess became an important of the Japanese nationalism that flourished in the latter part of the 19th century, and the Emperor was honoured as a crucial part of that link/relationship.\n\nThe Emperor was not prayed to as such, though he was treated with extreme reverance. There were shrines to the Emperor, but the function of praying there was to pay respects or pray for the health of the Emperor, not petition him directly. As for the infamous fanaticism of Japanese in WW2, dying in battle was more a civic/patriotic duty than a religious one. It was also a product of the Japanese mindset, which tended to emphasis group interests over individualism. Dying in battle, or in suicide attacks, wasn't done for any particular reward but because it was seen as honourable.\n\nI can't really think of any direct parallels in other religions. Perhaps the closest I can think of would be something like the Pope i.e. not inherently divine but a kind of conduit to the divine. However, even this is a pretty bad comparison. It's also worth saying that most of this only applies to roughly the period 1868-1945. Before this the Emperor was far less important to the national psyche (the Shogun was the central figure), and after the end of WW2 the Showa Emperor (also known as Hirohito) declared that he was not descended from Amaterasu, severing this divine connection.\n\nSources: The *Kojiki* and *Nihon Shoki* - traditional Japanese texts\n\n*The Making of Modern Japan* - Marius Jansen" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dig663w", "digmf64" ], "score": [ 7, 2 ], "text": [ "A CPU is essentially made from switches. Tiny areas on a piece of silicon - a microchip - can be created such that they allow electricity to pass from one place to another when there is electricity supplied at a third point and not otherwise; or the inverse, they prevent electricity from passing through when there is electricity applied to the control point and not otherwise. These are then wired together by making areas of the chip conductive, or by just layering metal on top of the chip. All logic is built out of these. (Good things to Google for are pnp / npn junctions, logic gates, flip flop, half adder, ALU, VLSI if you want to read more about this stuff).\n\nAt this level, electricity isn't always \"fully on\" or \"fully off\". The switches take time to switch. When the inputs change, the output takes a while to settle down to a stable level. When a bunch of switches are wired together into a circuit, the whole thing takes time to settle down.\n\nHuman programmers working with the CPU need to be able to reason about its behaviour as a whole. It is easiest to reason about a system that, as a whole, goes from one well-documented stable state to another in response to some input and has no unpredictable behaviours.\n\nFor this purpose we introduce the idea of a clock: something that regularly pulses electricity. \n\nWe design all the various circuits such that, when a clock pulse starts and only then, they latch onto their inputs and all the switching starts; this means that as all the switching happens and all of the various outputs fluctuate before settling into the resulting states, we can ignore this fluctuation since the things the outputs are wired to won't look at them before the next clock pulse. \n\nThe closer together we space the clock pulses, the faster we can go from one state to another, and so the faster we can do work. But we have to wait at least as long between them as it takes for the part of the CPU that takes the longest to settle to a new state when something changes to do that.\n\nThis rate at which we decide to run the clock - the clock speed, the number of pulses per second, or Hertz - is the MHz (megahertz, million hertz, million pulses per second) figure you are asking about.\n\nThere are alternative ways of designing a CPU; e.g. \"dual rail logic\" allows each circuit that makes up the CPU to individually tell the things reading its outputs when its outputs are ready, so no overall clock is needed and each part can potentially run at its own speed.\n\nThis makes the system as a whole much more complex and harder to reason about, and so is rarely done.", "Anything that has a repeating cycle can be measured in Hertz. CPUs utilize a small crystal that creates an electric pulse billions of times a second to synchronize its various operations. The rate of that pulse is what we measure. For many years it would be somewhere in the MHz range, but these days many processors use a clock in the GHz range. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cq1rc1d", "cq1ri1v", "cq1rkkk", "cq1s28h", "cq1ul3o" ], "score": [ 131, 29, 12, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "It seems to me that you assume that if there is hunger and some political chaos that all the institutions stop functioning? Germany before WWI was one of the most advanced countries on the planet, they won the most Nobel prices in the sciences up to that point. WWI was 4 years and after it was over the scientists or institutions didn't just disappear. \n\nThey might have been destitute right after the war but they still had one of the biggest economies in the world plus the institutional memory and tradition in the sciences, engineering didn't vanish.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI hosted the spreadsheet on my Google docs if that is easier:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThere GDP took hits in those years but they never got below France there level and overtook England in the inter war period. GDP is a flawed way to look at the economy but it's useful to illustrate my point that they weren't as destitute as you might have thought.", "Leading up to World War 1 Germany looked like an academic and industrial juggernaut. Their universities were numerous and the best in the world. Their factories produced more and better goods than anyone else. They appeared to be accelerating as well because foreign leaders were quite worried about the rise of Germany into a continental juggernaut. David Fromkin goes into the specifics of their ascension and the perceptions of it from elsewhere in the beginning of \"Europe's Last Summer\". \n\nThen despite the heavy cost of the war there was little destruction in Germany proper outside of malnutrition and some starvation as a result of the Allied blockade. This meant that that superiority in academics and manufacturing largely remained intact. In the last years of the war and until 1924 the German economy was in shambles but there was a golden period until 1929 when everyone tanked. Germany then came out of the Depression a little earlier than most countries so they really had favorable conditions between the wars to maintain their advanced status.", "hi! You may be interested in these posts\n\ngeneral background\n\n* [When did \"German Engineering\" become a thing and how did it come about?](_URL_2_) - includes links to a few more posts\n\nthe run-up to WWII\n\n* [Was Germany more advanced technologically than the allies during WWII? How did they progress faster?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [Prior to WWII, why were German scientists so good at what they did?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [Why was Germany so far ahead technologically prior and during World War II?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [What kinds of technology and doctrine came out of the naval arms race between Great Britain and Germany prior to WW1?](_URL_6_)\n\n* [Was Germany far ahead technologically in World War 2?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [Was Germany more advanced technologically than the allies during WWII? How did they progress faster?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [How were the Germans able to field such a large and technologically advanced army during WW2?](_URL_1_)", "Any information of the Investment in public education system under Bismarck? ", "Enigma was invented in WWI by Arthur Scherbius, a person who died before WWII even broke out.\n\nFerdinand Porsche, designer of the Tiger tank, was born in 1875 and died in 1951.\n\nHugo Schmeisser, inventor of Stg44, 1884 and died in 1953.\n\nEinstein, famous German Scientist and nobel prize winner, was born in 1879 and died in 1955.\n\nAll of these people were born before WWI. All would have been post-university age by the outbreak of WWI (i.e. at least 25+. Einstein is an interesting case there). So unless they died in WWI, or fled to another country (as Einstein did), all would have been able to contribute to WWII's technological efforts. It's not as if they stopped existing on the outbreak of WWII!\n\nWernher von Braun, person behind the V2 rocket (I assume you meant V2 rocket?) and later main initial component of NASA's rocket program, was born in 1912. He got his PhD in 1934 -- and so is relevant to your question. For his teachers: See above. Other \"old\" people still alive before the outbreak of WWII. For his materials: See /u/Slashenbash's comment about GDP.\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.worldeconomics.com/Data/MadisonHistoricalGDP/Madison%20Historical%20GDP%20Data.efp", "https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c6VaKFh7znO4RT_FBJxQcQLepehkf_4ymwZclpnx-M8/edit?usp=sharing" ], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ewfg2/was_germany_far_ahead_technologically_in_world/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/307xss/how_were_the_germans_able_to_field_such_a_large/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z1hc4/when_did_german_engineering_become_a_thing_and/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25i3jv/prior_to_wwii_why_were_german_scientists_so_good/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xcdm4/why_was_germany_so_far_ahead_technologically/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25nj56/was_germany_more_advanced_technologically_than/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2d3vvu/what_kinds_of_technology_and_doctrine_came_out_of/" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnvl85v" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Yes. It hurts. I think it's an air bubble so there's not room for the liquid and the bubble so it feels like a trying to swallow big lump." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co1g483" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "we have harder metals to work that produce a better product in the end.\n\nThe main issue with bronze is that its a rather soft metal and doesn't keep its edge well. While early iron suffered similar issues (with less reparability) the moment you start getting cast and later wrought iron plus steel you have a might sharper metal that can be used in much more things." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c30eylv", "c30f1n7", "c30gl06", "c30eylv", "c30f1n7", "c30gl06" ], "score": [ 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Taking into account wind, gravity, distance, the gun they are using and the bullets they are using, the spotters are able to approximate about where the sniper should position his scope so that the bullet hits the target. Marine Sniper School is pretty intense, and they're very good at what they do.", "From my Army experience, not as a sniper, but with basic rifle marksmanship training, I can tell you what I have learned. First, you learn to his a target at 300 meters. At this distance, you can learn to adjust the sights so when you shoot at the center of the target, you will hit the center of the target. There are adjustments you can make to your rifle to ensure that the rifle is accurate to 800 meters. When you get beyond 800 meters, you need a more powerful rifle, and a longer range sight. The sniper will learn to adjust with the new rifle and sight, so again what he aims at the center of, he will hit the center of. \n\nThis will work under perfect conditions. When the sniper has to shoot from the top or the bottom of a hill, he will have to adjust for elevation. The spotter will usually give him an idea of what the elevation is. The sniper then adjusts the sights of his rifle. There are tools that the spotter can use to tell the sniper the difference in elevation. For example, there is a telescope looking sight that the spotter can look through that will show the elevation by turning it up or down. \n\nWindage, or the direction and speed of the wind is generally estimated. The spotter has learned tricks to get an idea of how fast the wind is blowing and in what direction at every point out to the target. The sniper has been trained in how to adjust his aim based on the wind speed. If the wind is too strong, or is blowing unsteady, the spotter may call of the shot until the wind dies down. \n\nFinally, at a long enough distance (like over a mile) the spotter takes into account the curvature of the earth. There are charts that are learned to assist the spotter in determining the proper point of aim based on the curvature. \n\nSo, basically, it comes down to learning how to shoot close targets well, then learning some tricks to be able to shoot at longer distances. ", "Aiming is dependent on distance to the target and wind. Wind can be measure with an [anemometer](_URL_2_) or estimated by tree movement, size of waves, flags moving, etc. Distance can be measured with laser range finding tools, or by use of the optics.\n\nMany long range rifles make use of the mil dot system. You've seen them before, they look like [this](_URL_1_). The dots in the scope are carefully marked for the zoom level of the optics so that 2 adjacent dots mark a ~0.057^o angle from the shooters position, or about 1 milliradian (hence the name mil dot). Through the power of the glorious metric system, the math gets pretty easy.\n\nThe shooter can size up targets through the scope. Lets say an enemy appears to be about 2 mil dots tall. An average human is about 1.8 meters tall. Multiply that by 1000, then divide by the height in mils:\n\n > Target size (in meters) x 1000 / Mils read = meters to target\n\nWith our example, we calculate that this target is roughly 900m away. Now depending on the muzzle velocity of the rifle, the shooter will know how many mils correlate to bullet drop at a given distance. More than likely he'll have a range table with him, or have it essentially memorized. The target is lined up X number of mil dots below the crosshair, and Bob's your uncle. A similar strategy can be used for wind, and moving targets as well.\n\n[A good read on the subject](_URL_0_)\n", "Taking into account wind, gravity, distance, the gun they are using and the bullets they are using, the spotters are able to approximate about where the sniper should position his scope so that the bullet hits the target. Marine Sniper School is pretty intense, and they're very good at what they do.", "From my Army experience, not as a sniper, but with basic rifle marksmanship training, I can tell you what I have learned. First, you learn to his a target at 300 meters. At this distance, you can learn to adjust the sights so when you shoot at the center of the target, you will hit the center of the target. There are adjustments you can make to your rifle to ensure that the rifle is accurate to 800 meters. When you get beyond 800 meters, you need a more powerful rifle, and a longer range sight. The sniper will learn to adjust with the new rifle and sight, so again what he aims at the center of, he will hit the center of. \n\nThis will work under perfect conditions. When the sniper has to shoot from the top or the bottom of a hill, he will have to adjust for elevation. The spotter will usually give him an idea of what the elevation is. The sniper then adjusts the sights of his rifle. There are tools that the spotter can use to tell the sniper the difference in elevation. For example, there is a telescope looking sight that the spotter can look through that will show the elevation by turning it up or down. \n\nWindage, or the direction and speed of the wind is generally estimated. The spotter has learned tricks to get an idea of how fast the wind is blowing and in what direction at every point out to the target. The sniper has been trained in how to adjust his aim based on the wind speed. If the wind is too strong, or is blowing unsteady, the spotter may call of the shot until the wind dies down. \n\nFinally, at a long enough distance (like over a mile) the spotter takes into account the curvature of the earth. There are charts that are learned to assist the spotter in determining the proper point of aim based on the curvature. \n\nSo, basically, it comes down to learning how to shoot close targets well, then learning some tricks to be able to shoot at longer distances. ", "Aiming is dependent on distance to the target and wind. Wind can be measure with an [anemometer](_URL_2_) or estimated by tree movement, size of waves, flags moving, etc. Distance can be measured with laser range finding tools, or by use of the optics.\n\nMany long range rifles make use of the mil dot system. You've seen them before, they look like [this](_URL_1_). The dots in the scope are carefully marked for the zoom level of the optics so that 2 adjacent dots mark a ~0.057^o angle from the shooters position, or about 1 milliradian (hence the name mil dot). Through the power of the glorious metric system, the math gets pretty easy.\n\nThe shooter can size up targets through the scope. Lets say an enemy appears to be about 2 mil dots tall. An average human is about 1.8 meters tall. Multiply that by 1000, then divide by the height in mils:\n\n > Target size (in meters) x 1000 / Mils read = meters to target\n\nWith our example, we calculate that this target is roughly 900m away. Now depending on the muzzle velocity of the rifle, the shooter will know how many mils correlate to bullet drop at a given distance. More than likely he'll have a range table with him, or have it essentially memorized. The target is lined up X number of mil dots below the crosshair, and Bob's your uncle. A similar strategy can be used for wind, and moving targets as well.\n\n[A good read on the subject](_URL_0_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.mil-dot.com/user-guide", "http://www.milsurpstuff.com/prodimages/new-mil-dot.jpg", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer" ], [], [], [ "http://www.mil-dot.com/user-guide", "http://www.milsurpstuff.com/prodimages/new-mil-dot.jpg", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnsxotv", "cnszc89" ], "score": [ 9, 3 ], "text": [ "Whoever wrote this is trying to discredit SR because they still hold onto the assumption of absolute time and don't understand that that assumption has to be abandoned. Let's take a look at this statement they make while talking about two clocks traveling at different speeds, they *completely* miss the point of SR.\n\n > [...] perhaps each should be running slower than the other. To suggest that two clocks could both run slower than each other is a seeming absurdity that defies all logic; even within the difficult ideas that SR asks us to follow. It is the mathematical equivalent of saying: A > B and B > A; which is impossible.\n\nThis isn't an argument, it's an assertion. The conclusion makes them uncomfortable, so they reject it and justify it with some babble inequalities. Further down it gets worse:\n\n > SR tells us that C and B must be recording time more slowly than A, and A should slow down by the same degree relative to C and B. It also tells us that C should be going slower than B, by a greater degree than relative to A, and likewise B should slowdown the same amount relative to C. Mathematically this is:\n\n > A > B and B > A and C > A and A > C and C > > B and B > > C.\n\nSo according to SR, clocks C and B are both running slow *from the perspective of* A. Outside completely ignoring SR's math for some affinity for greater than and less than signs, they don't seem to understand then notion of a frame of reference. In this example, from A's point of view, the other clocks are slow. From B's point of view, C and A are slow--though not equally slow. This is *okay.* This is how physics works, we are simply going to disagree on the concept of time and length because these quantities are unique to us. Luckily, the discrepancy is accounted for exactly by using Lorentz boosts--the math that tells you how to change from one reference frame to another. Here's a *really* good video from SixtySymbols on the topic of SR's reference frames--I especially like the train part half way through which explicitly discusses the disagreements different frames will have: \n_URL_0_ \n\nI won't bother with the \"challenge\" section, because it's just a retread of the same failings to understand SR as seen in the first paragraphs.", "The last gasp of the desperate. Special relativity works theoretically and experimentally, and has done for 110 years. Some people just can't accept reality I 'm afraid.\n\nAs to the challenge, I'm afraid the author seems to think SR depends on silly clock scenarios. That's just a way of teaching to beginners. So is the twin paradox. Science is NOT looking for the answer, it is known and well understood.\n\nSR has been derived over and over again from different starting assumptions, and no longer needs Einstein's original approach.\n\nSR nowadays is based on Minkowski space and its metric, but I bet the author doesn't know that.\n\nAs a final cautionary note, here is a more famous example of \"twin paradox denial\". _URL_0_ and _URL_1_\n\nTLDR: the author of that page knows nothing about SR, and is not interested in knowing about how things have moved on over the last century." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm" ]

[ [ "http://youtu.be/kGsbBw1I0Rg" ], [ "http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm", "http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath317/kmath317.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dio6296" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Electricity isn't a physical object that's being piped around, so the idea of there being specific energy being produced in one place and then shipped around doesn't really work.\n\nWhat the energy company is guaranteeing is that they'll supply, either by producing it themselves or buying it from another producer, enough energy from green sources that they could power all the people who signed up for green power without needing to use any other source." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c89xu34", "c89yte7", "c89z0cf", "c89zfmp", "c8a2nfk" ], "score": [ 6, 8, 64, 3, 22 ], "text": [ "The n-back test is well studied. Google scholar isn't loading on my phone for some reason but you can do a search for academic papers on it there.\n\nThere are also systems such as the Method of Loci that can be studied and practiced for memory.\n", "Some studies on the subject I've found interesting:\n\n* Cicerone, K., Levin, H., Malec, J., Stuss, D. Whyte, J. (2006). Cognitive rehabilitation interventions for executive function: moving from bench to bedside in patients with traumatic brain injury. - Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1212-1222\n\n* Papp, K.V., Walsh, S.J., Snyder, P.J. Immediate and delayed effects of cognitive interventions in healthy elderly: A review of current literature and future directions. - Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 2009, pp. 50-50\n\n* Smith et al. A Cognitive training program designed based on principles of brain plasticity: Results from the Improvement in Memory with Plasticity-based Adaptive Cognitive Training Study. - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, April 2009.\n\n* Willis, S.L., Tennstedt, S.L., Marsiske, M. Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. – JAMA, 2006, Vol. 296, pp. 2805-14.\n\nAnd similar for all studies is that the scientific \"evidence\" is either extremely weak or non-existent.\n\nA good *very introductory* read on the subject is the [book](_URL_0_) by SharpBrains. It tries to be unbiased and indeed I think the fact that the book was made so early in the organization's life means that it is less biased then anything will be moving forward as their organization is practically funded by the industry negating their claim of independence.", "I'm sure you'll get a lot of empirical articles here, and I encourage people to read them. However, here is the basic summation of what we know so far:\n\n**\"Brain training\" activities improve performance on the specific activity you're training with. Most of those improvements, however, don't translate to improvements on other tasks, even when the tasks are somewhat similar, and they don't increase overall intelligence.**\n\nThe exception is research on something called the dual n-back task that does have some evidence that it can improve working memory skills (the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind for a brief period of time) and may translate to other working memory tasks. \n\nThere is no evidence that any of these tasks increase intelligence, or can reliably prevent or reverse neurodegenerative illnesses like Alzheimer's disease.", "Most brain training games aren't well-studied enough to be worth spending time on. [Dual N-Back](_URL_0_) appears to have benefits that transfer to other tasks.", "So, I work in a lab actually studying this, I'm going to copy and paste a response I made to someone else, but if you're curious please feel free to ask follow up questions!\n\nSo, me lab actually does work in working memory training, focusing on older adults / memory impaired patients, though we also work with younger adults. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of this, the task usually used is the dual n-back (though there is some variation in this). Susanne Jaeggi has put forth a good number of studies arguing in favor of working memory training, with Randy Engle being the primary dissident.\nIn simplest terms, on a whole there are more studies that have found evidence in favor of working memory training rather than against it. Engle brings up a number of fair methodological concerns with regards to many of these studies.\n\nJaeggi argues that you can increase general fluid intelligence (Gf) through training on the dual n-back task, and has published a number of both behavioral and neuroimaging studies along these lines. In particular, she finds consistant increases on the task known as Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM), which is believed to be a measure of Gf / spatial reasoning.\n\nAnyhow, your question was does it work. There is no rock solid evidence yet and certainly little agreement within the community that it's effective, but there is certainly evidence suggesting it can be. In our lab we liken the effects of working memory training to more closely resemble that of cardiovascular exercise in the sense that it shows a general, though subtle, effect across a range of activities (as working memory is a central unit in cognitive control, which helps facilitate cognitive processes). I would always recommend involving yourself in a study at your local university if you're interested!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.sharpbrains.com/book/" ], [], [ "http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dzjswjr", "dzkk9k5", "dzklk9s" ], "score": [ 1315, 22, 20 ], "text": [ "The high-temperature steam produced by the lava entering the ocean hydrolizes the various salts present in seawater, primarily chloride salts. This results in hydrogen from the steam combining with chloride ions, producing significant quantities of hydrogen chloride. As the steam recondenses it picks up this HCl to form hydrochloric acid droplets. ", "The acid part of the equation was answered fully, but what about the the production of the tiny shards of glass? \n\nIs it the obsidian that forms from shock-frozen lava getting aerosolized by the explosive production of steam?", "Laze is created when ocean water comes into contact with volcanic heat. The liquid evaporates, which leads magnesium salts to form and mix with the steam. When the salts come in contact with the steam, together they create dangerously corrosive hydrogen chloride. It can be deadly when inhaled in high doses.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdn69h3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Hank Williams Sr." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ceq9muv", "ceq9mwr", "ceq9nii" ], "score": [ 4, 58, 8 ], "text": [ "Short answer: the seat of political power, nowadays known as *het Binnenhof*, has been in the Hague since 1446. [The wikipedia entry of het Binnenhof](_URL_0_) can give you some more details on the locale itself. This is where the nobility and other notables gathered during the late middle ages, renaissance and early modernity. \n\nLonger answer: Dutch political power has been fragmented and split over many players. Amsterdam was one such a player and they rose to prominence most notably during the 17th century. That's when Amsterdam became a power player, but the power was still split over many players. A brief overview of players during the 17th and 18th century: Stadholder, the provinces, the cities (each city was a seperate power, although they did band together when politically expedient) and various local notables - merchants, regenten and so on. Perhaps I should list the VOC and WIC here as well, but they were an extension of the politicians and merchants. You then also had a split between 'pro-monarchy' and 'pro-republic' parties, but those political parties fluctuated greatly over the years.\nThe city of Amsterdam didn't become a stronghold of the Stadholder during these years nor was it the seat of the nobility. In that sense, it never became the center of politics or power - it simply was a strong player, but not the center of politics. \n\n\ntl;dr: the Hague is the seat of political power, Amsterdam was simply a key player and eventually the 'cultural' capital of the Netherlands, but the seat of politics never moved there.\n\n\nI'm a bit under the weather though, so if I made any glaring errors or am unclear in any way, do ask/correct me.", "In 1248 William II, count of Holland and King of Germany started building a hall that's today known as the Ridderzaal. His son Count Floris V finished the construction in 1280. This is where the history of the Hague begins.\n\nIn the 14th century the Hague became the administrative capital of the county of Holland.\n\nIn the 15th and 16th century the Netherlands were under Burgundian, Habsburg and Spanish rule. The Netherlands were divided into small 'states' run by nobles and burgeoisie. These small states gathered in Brussels to discuss matters in the realm with their King a few times. This council became more and more powerful and got a lot of privileges.\n\nWhen the Dutch Republic seceded from Spain the states needed a new place to gather. At first this was the city of Middelburg in the county of Zeeland. When this location became unsave they relocated to the Hague. The reason was that it was a village of no significance. It didn't had any city rights which meant that it wasn't self governing and didn't had any representation on the council. Because of the fact that the village had no political power and was therefore neutral ground made the states decided to gather there.\n\nThis was also the time known in the Netherlands as 'the Golden Age'. The Netherlands was one of the most powerful nations and the biggest trade power. The center of all the trade was the city of Amsterdam. Amsterdam would always be the most important city of the Netherlands.\n\nIn 1815 when Napoleon was defeated the Kingdom of the Netherlands came to be. As Amsterdam was the most important city King William I decided that it would become the capital (it was already the de facto capital). Brussels and the Hague became the seats of the government like they used to be. After Belgium seceded in 1830 from the Kingdom the remaining seat of the goverment , the Hague, became the permanent seat of the government.\n\nSources:\n\n* [_URL_1_ where someone took the time to write a summary of a piece that was posted on the site of the Dutch embassy in India.](_URL_4_)\n* [_URL_5_ - de Ridderzaal.](_URL_0_)\n* [A tour I had last week in the Hague.](_URL_3_)\n* [Some bits from my own history knowledge (I'm Dutch)](_URL_2_).\n\nSmall note: I suck at English grammar", "this is something that has its roots in the 80 Years War. After the new republic declared its independence, not all parts of what's now the Netherlands were willing to go along with this. \nBecause of trade considerations, Amsterdam initially remained loyal to Spain until it was forced to change sides after it became isolated in 1578, so logically the new country couldn't pick it as its capital even though it was the biggest and most powerful city in Holland. \n \nThe first Free assembly of the rebels in 1572 specifically calls out Amsterdam's reluctance to join, and proposes to send out letters to other protestant trade cities to effect a blockade of the city: \n \n > With respect to [the interests of] Amsterdam in the Sound, His Highness might write to Denmark and the other Baltic towns at the earnest request of the States and towns of Holland to the effect that because of Amsterdam's great enmity and opposition to freedom and the well-being of the common fatherland [gemeen vaderlants], it should be refused passage and that they [ie. Baltic towns] should put into and trade with Enkhuizen, Hoorn and the other nearby towns devoted to us or, in the case of the Maas, with Dordrecht, where they will find the situations and arrangements as convenient as Amsterdam \n \n[source](_URL_2_)\n \n \nA second element that played a role was the position of the Stadhouder in the Republic, and by extension the House of Orange since they provided all the Stadhouders. \nAmsterdam had a large degree of independence, as did a lot of other cities. But there was always a concern that the Stadhouder would gain too much power and effectively become a king, and the regents of Amsterdam tended to be at the forefront when it came to calling for restrictions to the power of the house of Orange. \n \nLikewise the concerns were often justified as Stadhouders often fought to extend their power, and in [1618](_URL_0_) and [1650](_URL_3_) actively sought to overthrow the Republic to start a monarchy. \nThe Republic did away with the position of Stadhouder twice (the first time after [1650 and until 1672](_URL_1_) ), but in times of crisis reappointed them.\n \nDuring the Napoleonic Wars, Amsterdam became the official capital with also the government residing there. After the Kingdom was re-established in 1815, the government moved back to the Hague, but as a gesture of reconciliation from the House of Orange, Amsterdam remained the official capital. \n \nFor more information I can recommend Jonathan I. Israel's \"The Dutch Republic. It's Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binnenhof" ], [ "http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/encyclopedie/monarchie/prinsjesdag/ridderzaal/", "Steljevraag.nl", "http://www.reddit.com/u/TheDomCook", "http://english.prodemos.nl/English/Visitor-Centre", "http://www.steljevraag.nl/viewquestion?questionID=12440", "Koninklijkhuis.nl" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_of_Orange", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Stadtholderless_Period", "http://www.dutchrevolt.leiden.edu/english/sources/Pages/15720819Dordt.aspx", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II,_Prince_of_Orange" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn6oo8k" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "As a corollary to OP's question:\nWhat was the life of an average Jew in Babylon like? How were the classes divided? Were Jews well integrated into Babylonian society? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c72ytmi", "c732x96" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "There are two acceptable answers to this question. Militarily, the Soviet Union wins World War Two. They grind the Germans up, tie down major parts of the German army, and push gigantic distances (while taking serious casualties) to throw the Nazis back onto Berlin. The Russian steamroller tied down men, tanks, brilliant officers, and all the supplies of war which the Germans could have well used against the Allies. During the last winter months of Barbarossa alone, the German army uses all the equipment it had built up during the 1930s, especially in terms of tanks. After that, they are forced to live hand-to-mouth for the rest of the war. \n\nHowever, your question asks about the economic side of the war. And for this, it is undeniable that the Allies (read: the United States) fueled the Russian economy, especially in non-war related materials (the Ruskies didnt like our weapons, especially tanks, and tried to build their own whenever possible). I dont have the book next to me (but I can dig it out if necissary), but the US gave the Soviets significant equipment, hundreds of train cars, dozens of engines, enough machines to run entire factories, boots, helmets, belts, pants, cans of food, cans, trucks (they used WW2 era Studebaker trucks, re-branded of course, into the 1970s). The US was economically critical to revving up this unstoppable war machine in the East which demolishes Nazi Germany. So in that way, one could argue that really the US does win WW2 because it fuels ever allied nation in this way, then equips its own army.\n\nHere is the rub then. The Soviet Union needed the US's help. We allowed a significant amount of its male population to remain under arms, instead of farming or working to maintain the economy (make the little stuff that we gave them in great numbers). However, the Red Army could still fight the Germans, and fight them well. If we look at Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Germans were stonewalled along most of the front. This was done largely without lend-lease. Further, Stalingrad was fought and won using Soviet equipment. While the logistical element was just coming online, I would argue that it didnt have much of an effect on the outcome of the first stages of the battle. It isnt until the encirclement period that this becomes more important. \n\nWith all this in mind, I would argue that the Soviets had more of a chance than we give them. They had manpower, the Nazi atrocities gave them motivation, and their own industry (such as it was) was largely saved and moved east of the Urals. This would have allowed them to grind the Nazis back out of Russia. The victory would not have been as complete, the Soviet Union would not have mobilized so completely, and its post-war position would have been far diffrent, but I think they had the capacity to win by themselves. This is not to cheapen the US's Lend-Lease, it was indeed critical for the Soviets, but I think they could have done it by themselves, and so I would argue that they really did win the war. ", "The allied bombing campaign pretty much destroyed Germany's industrial capacity. I wouldn't call this effort more important than the fact that the Russian's were fighting around 80% of the German army on the eastern front, but destroying your enemies ability to fight is just as effective as beating your enemy in a fight." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8c2w7q" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "What you're looking for is called [Gravitational Lensing](_URL_2_)... and nothing can go faster than the speed of light (without funky quantum mechanical [jibber](_URL_1_) [jabber](_URL_0_))." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccm704l", "ccm8goo", "ccmayf5" ], "score": [ 3, 7, 12 ], "text": [ "Because for a toddler a moment is a really long time and lots can happen.", "Babies process information slowly because their brain cells lack the myelination necessary for fast, clear nerve impulse transmission. During the second year, there is a major increase in the rate of myelination, which helps the brain perform more complex tasks. Higher-order cognitive abilities are developing: a toddler is now more aware of outside stimulus but has little control of their own emotions. [Source](_URL_0_)", "One theory I have heard is that basically *everything* is a new experience for them, and they don't yet routines in place for dealing with things that seem trivial to adults. \n\nMe: I dropped my pen. Drat. I will pick it up and then resume writing.\n\nToddler: I dropped my toy. FUCK! WHAT DO I DO? IT'S ALL SO INTENSE!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/why-0-3/baby-and-brain" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fi5bx4t" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "More can always be said, but the following previous answers are quite excellent explanations.\n\nu/Iphikrates offers a [comprehensive treatment on just this topic here](_URL_0_), and u/theshadowdawn has a [similar answer here](_URL_1_), with special reference to the Battle of Cannae." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8gt4bc/why_didnt_spearmen_just_spin_around_when_being/", "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bf9val/why_was_being_surrounded_so_bad_in_antique/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fmvd2h7", "fmvfrrd", "fmvftdp" ], "score": [ 13, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "I think I’ve heard that the camouflage babies have only really works if they’re sitting completely still, which is fine because their parents will bring them food. But when they move, those spots become sort of a bulls eye, and they can’t afford to sit still anymore.", "Their only self protection is not being seen, as they aren’t fast or strong enough to run away from predators yet. So their instinct when mom isn’t with them is to lay down in a perfectly still little ball in vegetation. The pattern mimics light filtering through the trees and dappling the forest floor. \nAs they grow, they transition into being up, moving around and the pattern no longer hides them, they transition into adult coat.", "I've read that with that camouflage they blend easily with the fallen leaves on the ground which protects them from predators." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cql5emx", "cql6a35" ], "score": [ 4, 5 ], "text": [ "Loud noises make the air vibrate. The louder the sound, the greater the magnitude of the vibration. The sensor in the car also vibrates because of this and it goes off.", "(10+ years selling/installing car security)\n\nThe part of the alarm that does this is called the \"shock sensor\". It's a little device that detects a \"shock\" to the vehicle via vibration.\n\nThe most common is a \"504D\" made by DEI. Feel free to search the part number if you'd like to see what it looks like/how it's installed.\n\nIt's a security feature, not a regulation. It's uncommon with a factory security system but extremely common for aftermarket systems.\n\nThe point is, if someone was to hit your car (ex-gf takes a Louisville Slugger to both headlights for instance) the impact would create a vibration (shock) that is detected by this device and sets off the alarm.\n\nThe issue is, sound is just a vibration in air. Very loud and low-frequency sounds can also vibrate solids, like the metal body of your car. Thunder, gun shots, and motorcycles are commonly loud enough to set off these sensors (and I'm sure you've noticed, you can feel the vibration from these loud and low-frequency noises).\n\nThey do have a sensitivity adjustment, but there's a fine line between false-positives and false-negatives, and for safety sake, we generally err on the side of false-positives to limit the chances of a false negative." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5qezsd", "d5qkfq4" ], "score": [ 28, 6 ], "text": [ "It really depends on the countries involved and the situation. A lot of embassies are nothing more than office buildings with no living accommodations.\n\nThe U.S. Embassy in London is an office building and the U.S. amabssador lives in a huge mansion called Winfield House in Regents Park. Most of the staff are locals and live in the area surrounding the embassy. \n\nOn the other hand, the U.S. embassy in Iraq is a fortress where everyone lives in the compound.", "From what I gather Jullian Assange is basically living in a small guest bedroom and it is rather awkward because it isn't like a hotel, it's like a residential building turned into an office which had a place to host visitors but doesn't anymore since Assange is living there." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjwdyt4", "cjweatu", "cjweu77" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 55 ], "text": [ "Firstly, thanks to GPS, soldiers usually know where they are. Secondly, movies never show the whole process. In reality soldiers call in artillery, then stay on the radio to guide them in \"a little to the left next time\", and so on.", "Pre-tech way:\n\nThey use topographical maps to identify their location. Then they fix the position they want to be blown up and tell the artillery that location.\n\nThe artillery has already fixed their own position and the cannon's direction. So when they have the target location, they can change where the cannon points and move it up and down to change how far away the exploding part lands.\n\nSome cannon ammunition isn't like a big bullet and their distance can be also be changed by how many charges get added with the exploding part.\n\nIt's just some geometry and map reading.\n\nTech way:\n\nGPS and laser rangefinding/targeting. The info is relayed to the artillery and turned into the cannon's setup.\n\nAn alternative method is to obtain it from drone or satellite imagery.\n\n\n\nOh, the artillery guys also need to have charts for how elevation affects range for the kind of cannon shell they are firing, too.", "I had to learn artillery fire when I was a scout in the Army. Back then we didn't have GPS and our range finders never worked.\n\nBefore you go out, you and your artillery-men you are likely to be working with on the radio are given specific maps. On these maps are pre-designated areas with codes, you could use anything for a code, a word or name.\n\nAs you are driving or marching, you figure out where on the map you are, usually by looking at ridges and buildings. If you then take your compass, and compare it to the map, the squares on the map show you how far you are to other buildings, or terrain (90% of the time, we would look for ridges).\n\nThe map is divided in squares that are predetermined widths, almost always in increments of 1000x1000 meters squared. So, basically 100 square football fields of area. The squares are labeled. On a perfect map, the top left square would be called 1,1, etc.\n\nIf you called in an artillery strike on 1,1 you would be giving the artillery man what is called 2 significant digits. Which means the round could hit ANYWHERE in that huge square.\n\nFrom here you could simply make an educated guess, and start giving more digits, by subdividing that square by eyeball. So if you pretended the square was itself divided up into 4 little squares, you could call artillery into the top left corner by saying 11,11. This would tell the artillery to hit a 100 meter square instead of anywhere in the 1000 meter square. But it would hit the VERY top left corner of the map...if something was sort of near the center of the top left corner, you could be very far away.\n\nKeep subdividing the square, or use the centimeter side of a ruler, and you can call in accurate six-digit coordinates, which is almost always where you should be starting with. So if I wanted to call for fire on someone dead center in the top left square of the map, I would tell the crew to fire at 150,150. Basically you treat every square like it could be divided into 1000 little pieces and try to figure out which piece you want to hit. Each square on the map that has a label should be thought of as having 10 little ticks on the top and left sides. Find the point on the map you want to hit and draw a line up, and see which tick it is near, then draw a line left. The two ticks it is near are your 4 digits. Decide whether you need to nudge the artillery a little in any direction, and use your guess as the 6 digits. 150,150 would be the top left square, 5 ticks right and 5 ticks down, exactly where the lines cross.\n\nAt this point, you could tell your mortars or artillery to mark this position with a name, for use later. Or you can call what is called \"adjust fire\".\n\nWhen calling for adjust fire, the artillery will fire one round exactly where you indicated. When it hits, you start switching the way you call for fire. Instead of using squares on a grid, you can use the much simpler method of adjusting fire.\n\nTo adjust fire, you say Drop, Add, Left, or Right, followed by a number of meters.\n\nIf you say Drop 50, adjust fire, the artillery man will look at where you are on the map, and simply send the round 50 meters closer to where you are standing in a straight line.\n\nWhen you have the first round on top of the target, you tell the artillery to Fire For Effect. At this point, all batteries will fire on the last adjusted fire.\n\nOh last part of your Q: How do you call for fire when you don't know where you are? We were trained to never not know where we were. When studying we were driven to 6 points on a 100 kilometer square map with blindfolds on and had a few minutes at each stop to give our 6 digit grid location to within I THINK 50 meters. You did this basically by looking at the sun and terrain around you and remembering turns the humvee had taken and feeling hills and valleys. I don't think any out of the 50 people in my troop failed the first try.\n\nThere are more advanced concepts like magnetic north vs polar north and lots of classroom and getting blindfolded and dumped in the forest, but it's mostly just instinct after a little while." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chdt0q7" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "So, first I'll unpack a few things. What I will be talking about is mainly focused on the French Imperial Army, I don't know enough of the other army compositions to help but I am sure that we have the right people to help. Second, within the French army, there is a difference between light infantry and skirmishers and I'll go into that in a bit.\n\nSo, what makes light infantry? Generally light infantry was made of men between five feet and five four to five six. They were chosen for being nimble and intelligent, being able to conduct open order formations without getting confused (clearly they didn't think much of soldiers intellect). So light infantry (or *chasseurs a pied*) would be trained to fight in both a line formation and open order formation. From there, what they would do would vary from what was needed but more often than naught, they would fight in line formation. \n\nNow, the real use of light infantry was to establish a foothold; ideally a French commander would send his light forward to make contact with the enemy and hold them there. From here, the regular line would march up and fight the now tired enemy while the light pulls back for a flanking attempt. So, the use of light is meant to stop the enemy and buy time to pull in more forces to defeat the enemy.\n\nnow, for skirmishing. As I mentioned, yes the light was trained in open order combat. They could skirmish if needed but often they would leave it to the *voltigeurs*, an elite company of sharp shooters. Before 1809, a French Line battalion would consist of did companies of about 120 men, one company of elite Grenadier (whom are the tallest and most skilled of the battalion), and a company of elite sharp shooters (the aforementioned *voltigeurs*). A light battalion would have the same composition, having chasseurs instead of standard line and carabiners instead of grenadiers. The *voltigeurs* would be the ones skirmishing until they would give way for the standard light infantry in line formation\n\nThere are specific skirmishing battalions, *trailleurs*, which would often be either elite infantry like the Trailleurs De la Jeune Garde but those are unique units." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwcvoz9" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The current economic, political, and environmental climates were almost entirely influenced by members of that generation to where they are today.\n\nThe housing market, education costs, this team mentality for politics, climate, all are in pretty shitty shape for the next generation to deal with. Its also not super uncommon to hear complaints about how the younger generation is dealing with these issues, which is frustrating.\n\nNot to mention the acute issue that few of them are retiring, which restricts job markets.\n\nPersonally I think its an unfair sweeping generalization, but its not untrue for a subset." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d136mo0", "d13871x" ], "score": [ 12, 5 ], "text": [ "Paper, when folded in half, effectively doubles its thickness. When folded six times in half, there is too much thickness and not enough surface area for anything to make an effective seventh fold.\n\nHowever, the hydraulic press has enough force to fold it, but that puts extreme stress on the paper, which is eventually so much tension it breaks into pieces like glass.\n\nThe reason for this is most likely because when paper is folded, stress is put onto the cellulose within the paper which helps the crease hold its shape. After enough folds, there's so much potential energy in the paper that when the seventh fold is completed, it literally overflows with energy and shatters.", "can read through this post from yesterday as well: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[ "https://youtu.be/KuG_CeEZV6w" ]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4alxf1/eli5_what_the_hell_happened_here_after_folding_a/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cndkton", "cndp09r" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Digital video generally only actually stores a few frames then just stores what changed. Like if it's a closeup of someone talking frame to frame it'll be 80% the same so it just stores the first frame then a bunch of small frames that say \"just change these pixels\". That means going forward is real easy but going backwards means going back to the last real frame then calculating forward a bunch of frames that aren't fully stored. ", "Vidoes general are usually buffered forwards not backwards. Basically they assume that once youve seen it already it's unlikely that you will go back to see it again.\n\n So if you do have to go back all the currently buffered data is tossed out and then you are basically starting fresh from that new point that you jumped to. If your going forward in the video though there's a chance that part of it is already buffered and can just be played immediately." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cm7igiv", "cm7ipd6", "cm7mpwp" ], "score": [ 70, 6, 17 ], "text": [ "If you drop dead right now and left your body to nature, you won't end up underground like fossils. Scavengers will pull you apart and eat you, you will rot and the rains and ravages of time will remove all traces of you. Even if you were buried at a funeral, you won't become a fossil.\n\nThe conditions needed for you to become a fossil are very specific and thus rare. You need to die in a way that scavengers can't reach you, you'll be left alone, and you will be covered by silt or sediment before your bones decompose. This is easier on the bottom of the sea than on land, but sometimes there are places, such as a river delta where erosion and rains wash down the right amounts of the right kinds of silt, and the right kind of geology where the land is sinking so that the sedimentary system will continue for a long time, and a bunch of other factors.\n\nAs silt and sediment continues to build up above, and your layer continues to sink, the layers below get squeezed, and over ages become sedimentary rock. \nIf all the variables are perfect (extremely rare) your bones can mineralize as they degrade, leaving behind an impression of their shape, made out of a kind of rock that is different from the surrounding rock - a fossil.\n\nOver more ages, geology might change (continental plates push into reach other, etc) and start pushing those layers of rock up, or sideways, or pushing up ocean floor, including layers of rock below it that once were the floor.\n\nBasically, the rock above and below is sedimentary and was being formed when you wandered into it in such a way that your shape was cast like a mold. Then geological forces over eons can shift areas of the Earth's crust, including pushing up those layers of rock formed out of ancient sediments", "Because the Earth's topography is constantly shifting and changing. Erosion, volcanoes, snow melting, rivers, all constantly changed where things are at. Plus organic things add to the soil and what not. \n\nOur skeletons won't so much replace the dinosaur skeletons, rather we will just be another layer on top of them. \n\nPlus some cities build on top of itself (as in when a new building is torn down they just build on top of it rather than clearing away all of the material). ", "Not all things from the past are so far underground. In fact, one of the first examples to indicate the Earth was incredibly old was the uncovering of fossils for ocean-dwelling creatures high in the mountains. What once was the bottom of ocean or lake had (over millions of years) dried out and then thrust towards the skies due to the Earth's crust pushing outwards. Eventually the original sediment that the animal was buried in erodes away, exposing the remaining fossil.\n\nA giant cache of 500 million year old fossils was found in the [Burgess Shale deposit up in Canada](_URL_0_), high in the Canadian Rockies. It used to be deep under water, and now it's high in the mountains. Just do a google search on Burgess Shale, you'll find a lot of really [fascinating stuff](_URL_1_) that will probably interest you. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/discover-burgess-shale/burgess-shale-fossils-and-their-importance", "http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/burgess-shale/02-geological-background.php" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clzgput" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "*EDIT: While I love the period, I'm not an expert, so please read /u/LegalAction's counterpoints below.*\n\nThere is an overly idealised fantasy, portrayed in for example the film Gladiator though it is not limited to Hollywood, of the Roman Republic as this freedom-loving democratic nation. It was not.\n\nThe Roman Republic was an oligarchy of an elite group of super-rich families, which were constantly competing with each other for prestige and power.\n\nWanting to go back to the Republic would only make sense if you were one of the elite super-rich families who wasn't the Emperor. In which case though you're more likely to just try and become Emperor instead.\n\nI asked a question about this to one of the experts here recently. [You can read the answer for yourself here.](_URL_1_) But the TL;DR is that for the majority of people all that changed was that it was now the Emperor instead of the Senate appointing their governors/high administrators. The systems below that remained the same, including various local republican systems.\n\nIn either case if a return to the Republic had happened it wouldn't have lasted. Augustus was actually not the first Roman to cease total power after winning a civil war, and neither was Caesar. For that you need to go back around 30 years to [Sulla](_URL_0_). Sulla actually tried to reform the republic so it would survive. But all that happened was that as soon as the generation after him came of age they fought their own civil war." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ljtpu/how_did_the_romans_during_the_principate_the/clwe5yg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cs7gdli", "cs7h3gg" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Greeks feel that the austerity measures imposed on Greece by it's creditors, which are enforced because the lenders feel they will make the greek economy more competitive and a more attractive target for investment, aren't actually helpful. They see austerity more as a punishment for the greek people, or at best a poorly thought out and ineffective policy. Syriza, the far left party elected on an anti-austerity platform, has a strong incentive to describe Greece's treatment by its creditors as unfair or evil by using words like \"pillaging\" to gain leverage in negotiating conditions for further loans.", "To make a long, complicated story short: external investment (via debt) is necessary in order to maintain a functioning government in Greece. No investment, the government has no funds to operate, and falls apart completely. \n\nBecause capital (needed for investment) is globally mobile, investors are not in a situation where they have to accept terms from Greece, because they can just invest elsewhere for a better/safer deal. In order to compensate for the extreme risk they are taking by loaning money to Greece, they impose terms in the form of austerity measures (limit spending) which are meant to ensure that the Greek government does not overspend again and default again. This is meant to lower risk for investors so they don't end up getting shafted (which already happened multiple times). \n\nIf you don't understand how financial markets work, it just seems like the creditors have it out for Greece and are being \"mean\", but in reality their reasons for pushing austerity measures are valid and understandable. While austerity may seem bad, the alternative is no investment and a non-functional government, which would be significantly worse. The left/far left parties are preying on people's emotions and lack of understanding to make it seem like austerity measures are some type of \"punishment\", when in reality they are a necessary condition for securing investment. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d00e6hg" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "A reply to /u/HenkWaterlander ,\n\nMaybe you can clarify what assertion you are questioning, because your wording is ambiguous. Are you suggesting that the Christian kingdoms of Iberia had very little among themselves *before* the Reconquesta? How do you determine \"very little\"? \n\nLeon was united with Castile only after Ferdinand III of Castile invaded Leon following a succession dispute in 1230. This triggered insurrection by Leon loyalists. \n\nCastile itself had a civil war in the 1360s over succession. Galicia was often disputed between Castile and Portugal, who were rivals all the way throughout most of the early modern era. \n\nDue to its position, Navarre was often fought over and partitioned between rival powers. Following a civil war, Ferdinand II of Aragon, widow of Isabella of Castile, was able to obtain Papal support to invade Navarre and obtain kingship in 1513. \n\nSpeaking of Isabella, she became Queen of Castile only after overcoming invasion of Castile by Portugal due to succession crisis in the 1470s. \n\nSo, I'm not sure what assertion you are considering here. The list above isn't even nearly complete .... " ] }

[]

[ "https://youtu.be/pmtzmqLOAVA" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e25pn80" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "There are a combination of methods. One is maceration. Basically, it involves removing as much of the soft tissue as is practical, then allowing the rest to decompose under controlled conditions, often in temperature-controlled water, until the rest of the tissue is soft enough to be cleaned away. Another method can be used in combination with this. Dermestes beetles will eat flesh, but they prefer not to eat the bones, so they will clean a skeleton for you. Care has to be taken because they will move on to the bones if they exhaust the soft parts, but it saves humans a bit of work.\n\nedit: a bit of clarification." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ej0y7m9", "ej0y7ux" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "There's a general rule of threes for your body's survival. 3 weeks without food, 3 days without water and 3 mins without air.\n\nWithout food, your body starts to consume its reserves. First to be consumed is the sugar reserve kept in your liver (about 500 grams). Then the body will try to breakdown the body's fat and muscle for energy and proteins necessary for your metabolism. But it can't break it down as fast as it needs it, thus eventually, you'll die\n\nHowever your body doesn't have water reserves in the same amounts. Without regular intake, your body has only so much water and it will try to conserve it as much as possible, but without water your body can't get rid of toxic metabolic byproducts like ammonia. These toxins will build in the body and eventually cellular activity will cease without water in which to dilute nutrients and toxins for transport.\n\nEdit: Grammar", "Eaten: your liver converts stored fat to ketone bodies (a collection of chemicals that the brain can use for energy in a similar manner to sugar) and, if necessary, your body breaks down skeletal muscle to provide the protein needed to maintain internal organs such as the heart. \n\nDrank: you die. As a rule of thumb you can survive three days without water. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "deyta7b" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because you put it in reverse gear. So long as the engine is producing enough power to move the car, and the clutch is capable of translating that much power without slipping, the car is going to move, otherwise the engine is just going to stall if it's not producing enough power." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c29sp85", "c29sp85" ], "score": [ 4, 4 ], "text": [ "I don't think Chomsky can be properly explained in the format of an ideal form of government (maybe he can, but it'd hurt the LI12-level of it all).\n\nAt the heart of Chomsky's political thought is the question of authority. Why does the government get to tell people what to do, and why should it be like this? He's said he'd place himself *in the tradition of* anarchists (the people who think there should be no government at all), that doesn't mean he's an anarchist himself, though. Mostly, what he believes is Libertarian Socialism. It basically means that the government should only be allowed to tell people what to do if there's a very good reason for it. These reasons, Chomsky thinks, should be questioned often. This puts limits on what, for example, cops should be allowed to do. Some people say that since cops try to fight crime, they should be allowed pretty much anything, but Chomsky would say that cops should only be allowed to do these things if they can give very good reasons that what they want to do will *actually* fight crime. So no arresting people for videotaping them, for example.\n\nWhat makes him a Libertarian *Socialist* is that unlike classical Libertarians, he believes that things like \"to make sure everybody gets as good an education as possible\" and \"to make sure we all get the best healthcare for as little money as possible\" are good reasons for the government to do things (like tax people). ", "I don't think Chomsky can be properly explained in the format of an ideal form of government (maybe he can, but it'd hurt the LI12-level of it all).\n\nAt the heart of Chomsky's political thought is the question of authority. Why does the government get to tell people what to do, and why should it be like this? He's said he'd place himself *in the tradition of* anarchists (the people who think there should be no government at all), that doesn't mean he's an anarchist himself, though. Mostly, what he believes is Libertarian Socialism. It basically means that the government should only be allowed to tell people what to do if there's a very good reason for it. These reasons, Chomsky thinks, should be questioned often. This puts limits on what, for example, cops should be allowed to do. Some people say that since cops try to fight crime, they should be allowed pretty much anything, but Chomsky would say that cops should only be allowed to do these things if they can give very good reasons that what they want to do will *actually* fight crime. So no arresting people for videotaping them, for example.\n\nWhat makes him a Libertarian *Socialist* is that unlike classical Libertarians, he believes that things like \"to make sure everybody gets as good an education as possible\" and \"to make sure we all get the best healthcare for as little money as possible\" are good reasons for the government to do things (like tax people). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "diwdgf0", "diwxibv" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "An \"anthill\" is just one extension of an ant hive that reaches the surface. The hills form when dirt is left by the entrance of the hills.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAdditionally, some species of ants have more than one queen per colony (polygyne), while others have one per colony (monogyne).\n\n_URL_1_", "Yes, queen ants can give birth to other queens. Once a year, a ton of prospective queens and the only males are made. They all have wings, and they fly above the hill in what's called a nuptial flight. The males all die, and the fertilized queens lose their wings and go off to start new colonies." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cbupdbf", "cburh2e", "cbuyg55" ], "score": [ 18, 61, 19 ], "text": [ "What happened here?", "I can't say that it's never happened, but it seems unlikely that it was widespread. A quick review of a handful of texts doesn't show anything suggesting that this was typical. (\"The Culture of Children in Medieval England\", *Medieval Children*, *The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England*, *Growing Up in Medieval London*)\n\nAnd given beliefs about health and the body at the time, it seems unlikely. I'm more knowledgeable about the 18th and 19th century than I am about the medieval era on this point, but I'm relatively sure that both eras shared in the belief that the skin operated as kind of open system between the inside body and the outer world. Looking at the skin would have been an important part of recognizing, diagnosing, and treating disease. It would seem foolish, then, to sew someone into something that would prevent you from doing that.", "Let's look at some photos of Medieval children: \n\n[These guys seems to be wearing loose pullover top with knitted hoses](_URL_5_) with a rope tied at the waist. Some might even have buttons at the front. \n\n[Some wealthy children](_URL_7_), they appear to wear the same kind of clothes the adults are wearing. Their parents would want them to change their clothes for different occasions. \n\n[Longer tunics](_URL_0_), I don't see the point of sewing these clothes on when they are this loose fitting. \n\n[A Nordic girl's frock](_URL_2_). Again, pretty loose. \n\n[Another picture of children in tunics](_URL_3_). \n\n[Portrait of a young girl](_URL_4_). She's wearing a fancy dress that an adult woman would wear. \n\n[Willem Moreel and his sons](_URL_1_) \n\n[Barbara van Vlaenderberch and her daughters](_URL_6_). \n\nAs we can see, It seems like wealthy children basically wore what adults would wear as their parents can afford well-fitted clothes for them. Poorer children wore loose clothes, I suspect it's for both comfort and rooms to grow. It just makes more economical sense to make the clothes bigger so they could wear the clothes for many years. But there is no point of sewing someone into their clothes if the clothes are going to be this big and loose. " ] }

[ "cracked.com" ]

[ "http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/9/1/6/202916_slide.jpg?v=1" ]

[ [], [], [ "http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Kslides/mid/K038/K038475.jpg", "http://www.wga.hu/detail/m/memling/3mature3/25more1.jpg", "http://www.forest.gen.nz/Medieval/articles/garments/H44/H44.html", "http://www.flickr.com/photos/26872131@N07/3177675770", "http://www.wga.hu/detail/c/christus/2/woman.jpg", "http://www.bucks-retinue.org.uk/guidebook/david_playing_harp.jpg", "http://www.wga.hu/detail/m/memling/3mature3/25more3.jpg", "http://merryfarmer.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/children-working.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c86q04e" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Before the advent of recording, music was fairly rare, but depended on the situation (especially social class). I can comment briefly on America in 1910 and Germany post-1850.\nIn 19th century Germany, music would have been heard in church, where there was typically an organ, a choir, and possibly even a small orchestra or chamber ensemble. This was often the grandest scale of music that most people would hear. For the upper classes, this was the period where having a piano in the home, and amateur singing became a popular focus at parties. Case in point, Schubert wrote dozens (if not hundreds) of short songs (Leider) for voice and piano, and even began a tradition of gathering people in a private home to sing and play them. People still hold \"Schubertiads\" to this day.\nThis was also the period in which formal concerts arose. Before that, going to hear an orchestra was a social event, with lots of eating, drinking, and talking - and who knows how much actual listening to the music. But Liszt was the one who introduced the idea of sitting quietly for a concert, and by 1900, concert and opera halls were huge, and well-attended. Again - if you were rich, you could hear a lot of music!\nI know less about folk, or lower-class music of this period. I would say that music was much less common, and depended on one or two people in a town having instruments - possibly fiddles, flutes, drums, that sort of thing. 200ish years before this, the bagpipe was the most popular folk instrument in much of Europe, but that was on a decline, and I'm not too sure what followed it. So there could be music at festivals and celebrations, and of course casual singing like in the tavern, but formal performances must have been rare.\n\n1910 in America was a pretty interesting time for music. Church still featured choir and organ, and pianos were nearly ubiquitous in middle and upper class homes. While America was struggling to find their place in the classical music world, they were importing tons of music from Europe - Opera and orchestral performances were common, and the programs were full of things like Beethoven, Berlioz, and Bruckner. I believe 1910 (give or take a year) was when Mahler visited America.\nVaudeville was also in full swing at that time, and so finally common people were able to hear music on a fairly regular basis. Vaudeville performers sang and played instruments like piano, banjo, and mandolin - the last one was especially enjoying huge popularity. \nLike in 19th c Germany, if you wanted music, you had to make it yourself most of the time. White people in the southern states were using fiddles, mandolins, banjos, dulcimers, to play music based on celtic roots - we call it \"old time\" music now, and it was to evolve into things like bluegrass and country and western. At the same time, African Americans were developing delta blues, ragtime, gospel, and \"work songs.\" These would be performed at celebrations, or sung casually any time. \nThe big thing to remember is that recording was just starting to become a viable industry - while still a rarity in 1910, phonographs were about to explode, completely changing the way(and the frequency with which ) people could experience music.\n\nTL:DR: In 1910 America and late-1800s Germany, if you wanted music, you had to make it yourself. How often that happened depended on how much money you had.\nPerformances have gotten more and more common as time has gone on. 1910 was actually a pretty great time to hear live music, even if you weren't filthy rich. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci5ip2q", "ci5jhek" ], "score": [ 17, 2 ], "text": [ "The latest scientific thinking on this is that it's an evolutionary adaptation which actually makes you less likely to do dangerous stuff.\n\nIf a person has a tendency to imagine things like jumping off cliffs or attacking people, he/she will naturally imagine the negative consequences of the action, during the course of the fantasy. \n\nThis essentially forms a \"negative plan\" for that action. You look at the cliff and actually have the thought \"I totally shouldn't jump off, because I'd die.\" This leads to even more survival-oriented thoughts, like \"come to think of it, I could also slip accidentally. I should really just stay away from the cliff, unless it's really necessary for me to be near it.\"\n\nIn comparison, a person who didn't have the initial tendency to imagine the dangerous behavior might just continue hanging out by the cliff. Less fear of the potential danger = more interaction with danger, which translates into greater risk of death.\n\nAlso, the French phrase for the phenomenon is \"L’appel du vide,\" which translates to \"the call of the void.\"\n\nAnd that is just awesome.", "The term for these is [\"intrusive thoughts\"](_URL_0_) I believe" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ebqc9mm" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "they keep the pressure higher in the station in order to help evacuate fumes etc from the platforms " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dt4m3j7", "dt4mbek" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Some forms of mental illness can be defeated with effort (such as dyslexia). Other such as certain kinds of bi-polar or OCD can actually be beneficial in certain kinds of job as the manic periods or obsessive traits make them more efficient at said jobs. ", "There's different degrees of severity but generally speaking, these disorders are not completely crippling, especially when properly treated. In the example you cited I guess I'm a bit confused why ADHD would preclude someone from being a comedian or even make it more difficult, unless it was extremely severe.\n\nFurthermore - it's just something you need to live with. Imagine someone confined to a wheelchair or missing a finger or some other permanent physical ailment. There are countless successful people with physical ailments like this.\n\nYou compensate for it where you can with medical devices and treatment for related symptoms but at the end of the day, it's the body you're stuck in and you need to make the best of it and live with it. Same deal for mental illnesses. You get treatment and find out the best medication(s) for you, where applicable you utilize therapy, you learn coping mechanisms and how to minimize the downsides of your mental illness as it relates to everyday life." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2zc0gh", "c2zciok", "c2zcl3a", "c2zd1bu", "c2zd95y", "c2zc0gh", "c2zciok", "c2zcl3a", "c2zd1bu", "c2zd95y" ], "score": [ 2, 19, 4, 3, 2, 2, 19, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The brain would presumably need to spend all of its time counting the seconds in order to keep track of time. But even doing that, the brain is not going to be able to count the seconds perfectly, and eventually the number of seconds it has counted will start to drift away from how many seconds have actually passed.\n\nSo although the brain would certainly be able to *perceive* the passing of time, it would be impossible to accurately *measure* the passing of time.", "You can, you'd just be really bad at it. See: Campbell, S. S. (1990). Circadian rhythms and human temporal experience. In R. A. Block (Ed.), Cognitive models of psychological time, (pp. 101-118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.\n\nI think where you're going wrong is that memory is *not* dependent on external sensory input. Repeat a word over and over in your head and pretty soon, you have a new memory with no sensory input. ", "It seems the general consensus is that a brain can \"perceive\" time. But what if I posit a different situation. What if there were a device that could interrupt the sending of sensory input to the brain in a very regular pattern. Say this device could remove every other millisecond (or larger, or smaller) of sensory input. \n\nWould one's perception of time change, or remain the same?", "I'm not a scientist but I AM a philosopher...and so I answer you with a question: what is time? \n\nIf you define time as our way of perceiving change, then our ability to perceive the passing of time depends on our ability to perceive. So if you have no capacity to perceive then there's no way to perceive change, meaning that there's no way to perceive the passage of time.\n\nTo answer your second question...\nTheoretically, you'd be able to notice it. Much like with sleep, we know we've been sleeping because we notice differences in our surroundings (if you fell asleep at night and woke up in the morning, you wouldn't think that everything ceased to exist while you slept, suddenly changing the moment you woke up). \n\nAlso, would say that a distinction needs to be made between the moments between the minds unconscious but pre-dreaming state and dreaming since during a dream we DO perceive in a particular kind of way so we can denote the passage of time...albeit a distorted passage of time.", "The effects of sensory deprivation especially for such short periods of time are not nearly as severe as you're making them out to be. See _URL_0_", "The brain would presumably need to spend all of its time counting the seconds in order to keep track of time. But even doing that, the brain is not going to be able to count the seconds perfectly, and eventually the number of seconds it has counted will start to drift away from how many seconds have actually passed.\n\nSo although the brain would certainly be able to *perceive* the passing of time, it would be impossible to accurately *measure* the passing of time.", "You can, you'd just be really bad at it. See: Campbell, S. S. (1990). Circadian rhythms and human temporal experience. In R. A. Block (Ed.), Cognitive models of psychological time, (pp. 101-118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.\n\nI think where you're going wrong is that memory is *not* dependent on external sensory input. Repeat a word over and over in your head and pretty soon, you have a new memory with no sensory input. ", "It seems the general consensus is that a brain can \"perceive\" time. But what if I posit a different situation. What if there were a device that could interrupt the sending of sensory input to the brain in a very regular pattern. Say this device could remove every other millisecond (or larger, or smaller) of sensory input. \n\nWould one's perception of time change, or remain the same?", "I'm not a scientist but I AM a philosopher...and so I answer you with a question: what is time? \n\nIf you define time as our way of perceiving change, then our ability to perceive the passing of time depends on our ability to perceive. So if you have no capacity to perceive then there's no way to perceive change, meaning that there's no way to perceive the passage of time.\n\nTo answer your second question...\nTheoretically, you'd be able to notice it. Much like with sleep, we know we've been sleeping because we notice differences in our surroundings (if you fell asleep at night and woke up in the morning, you wouldn't think that everything ceased to exist while you slept, suddenly changing the moment you woke up). \n\nAlso, would say that a distinction needs to be made between the moments between the minds unconscious but pre-dreaming state and dreaming since during a dream we DO perceive in a particular kind of way so we can denote the passage of time...albeit a distorted passage of time.", "The effects of sensory deprivation especially for such short periods of time are not nearly as severe as you're making them out to be. See _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cjpt4l4", "cjpt6ct" ], "score": [ 8, 2 ], "text": [ "Because \"all of space-time is relative\" is not the full concept. In full, the Special Theory states (roughly) \"all of space-time is relative except for the speed of light in a vacuum, which is always constant no matter what frame of reference you are using\".\n\nTo make that concept work in the real world, strange things have to start happening, including the idea that objects appear smaller and time passes at a different rate when you travel very quickly indeed. And although it sounds crazy, it's been experimentally observed -- time really does pass at different rates (from the perspective of an observer) for objects travelling at different speeds.", "You sort of answered your own question. Everything is relative. For instance, if you fired a laser east, and one west, the tip of the laser running east would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the laser pointer. the west laser beam would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the laser pointer as well. You would think that 1 object going C meters per second would be going 2C relative to the object going C meters per second. But the law of relatively says that the max speed is the speed of light. So the east laser beam would still be traveling C miles per hour relative to the west laser beam, and vice versa, even though from the middle where you're firing the lasers from, they're both going C in opposite directions.\n\nIt's just physics screwing with you." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmjt59i", "cmjuwv1", "cmjvo9l" ], "score": [ 6, 3, 28 ], "text": [ "What I'm about to say is heavily debated so be careful.\n\nFor a start how do we define Roman administration? if we define it was direct rule from Rome then Roman control had been slipping for a while, the 3rd century AD the empire was rocked by continuous rebellions as at one point (270's) splitting into 3 different empires with Britain and France under its own emperor. Though Diocletian was able to join it all back together again. All this suggests than control from Rome had been weak for a while, instead relying on economic and political influence to retain control. It is known that they had been withdrawing troops from Britain since 383 so its likely was becoming less and less important.\n\nAlso the events of 410 AD wasn't really a withdraw more a local uprising. After the sack of Rome the western empire had collapsed leaving a rump empire based around Italy with the rest going to the local rulers. Constantine the 3rd set himself up as emperor in Britain and started invading France to try and get to Rome. Eventually the British got so feed up of all this they drove Constantine's people out and set themselves up independently.\n\nFrom here it gets complicated as few records survive, it appears that the British tried to keep the old ways going though we don't know how successful they were as the economic links of the old Roman empire broke down so far from the Mediterranean. Eventually this and the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons (some time between 410 and 731) destroyed what was left of Post-Roman Britain.\n\n", "The Roman Field Army left Britain in 410, and never returned. However, the rump of the Roman administration remained, hence references to \"Ambrosius\" in slightly later works. Salway in \"The Oxford History of Roman Britain\" suggests that there had been a pattern of local Emperors in Britain, like Carausius and Allectus, so Constantine III was nothing new. Salway also suggests that the collapse of Roman culture in Britain was fairly absolute over the next couple of generations. He argues that Britain was so dependent upon Rome that it's removal led to complete economic collapse in Britain, leading the very rapid decline in city life, and the fragmentation of society leading to the establishment of many local kingdoms, for want of a better word. The garrisons of the fortified places may have maintained a degree of cohesion for a generation or so, but would then, effectively become self supporting farmers/soldiers, rather like the Celtic farmer/warriors that preceded the Roman invasion, based around their fort, now their regional capital and the hall of their local king, quite possibly the descendant of the garrison commander. \nThere was no invasion by the Saxons. There had been Angeln and Saxones settling in Britain for close to 200 years before 410, with Germanic units recorded on Hadrian's wall, as well as Sarmations at Ribchester. These people would have continued to thrive in Roman Britain, reinforced by migration from N.Germany and Denmark, helped by the de-populating plague of the 4th Century.", "England is a tricky case, because we don't have much in the way of written sources, and archaeology isn't as good for answering polical-administrative questions as it is other lines of inquiry.\n\nWhat we know is that the last legions left Britain in 410 (probably - the sources for this are pretty sketchy, actually), probably to participate in one of the many civil wars that tore the western empire apart from the inside during the fifth century. After that, we have some tantalizingly sparse evidence thhat Britain stayed in communication with the rest of the Roman world, but the extent is difficult to say. It's quite possible that Britain considered itself to still be a part of the Roman empire for some time after the legions left (Guy Halsall raises the interesting suggestion that high-status art in Britain suddenly looks less Roman right around the 470s, as though the political events in Italy had some significance in britain even then). But we really can't say for sure if whoever filled the administrative gap left by the Roman army - probably the 'Saxon' federates in some regions (who were almost certainly, like other barbarian federate groups, multi-ethnic auxilary troops); perhaps surviving Roman elites, or members of local aristocracies (who would, by this point, have also been Roman, unless they chose to de-emphasize that part of their identity in favor of older local culture, or so ething new like the 'barbarian' cultures north of the Rhine).\n\nArchaeologically, Roman architecture seems to be collapsing by the late fourth century (especially villas). This in itself doesn't meant that Romans disappeared from Britain (many of the abandoned villas weren't very old when they were left to collapse, and Britain had been part of Rome before they were built). But they do suggest that elite Roman culture in Britain was looking really different by the start of the fifth century. This change was relatively independent from the withdrawal of the legions (though it may have contributed to the feeling that they could be better used in civil wars elsewhere), and happened before the Saxon invasions (we have vague references to Saxon pirates attacking England in the fourth century, but it's not clear how much of an actual threat this was - or who exactly these Saxons were (since Romans loved to slap names onto babrbarians that the barbarians might not have used themselves).\n\nThen Britain's economy collapses, for most of the fifth century. This collapse started much earlier (Roman industry in Britain was crumbling since the third century, and the movement of Roman administration away from Trier in the late fourth century seems to have further impoverished the province), and doesn't appear to be connected to barbarian invasions. Indeed, there's no archaeological evidence for an 'invasion' per se- just the normal movement of poor farmers through the fifth century that you always see happening. By the sixth century, when things are slowly romving toward recovery, Britain's material culture looks very different - people live in wooden buildings instead of stone, and elites are buried with weapons and jewelry with artistic styles that look very different from Roman precursors. The demography is a blend of locally born people and immigrants from both the east (Germany/Scandinavia) and west (Wales, perhaps even Ireland).\n\nBut this change was gradual, and similar changes were occurring throughout the Roman world. The crucial period for Britain is the fifth century, but the lack of textual sources, and the economic collapse and disappearance of so much of the types of material goods we use to establish chronologies and trace change, make it difficult to know how rapidly the island gave up on being Roman. Certainly by the sixth century, but in Western europe, that's kind of a given.\n\nMany have suggested it was never very Roman to begin with, and that as soon as the legions left the Brittons shouted 'we're free!' The limited evidence available suggests something more complicated, but the precise shape of events is very murky.\n\nRobin Fleming is working on this period currently. Her last book, Britain after Rome, is one of the best recent works on the period. Guy Halsall's Worlds of Arthur is also excellent, and explains the limits of the evidence for this period especially well.\n\n- - -\n\nElsewhere in the Western empire, changes were slow. Clovis - the first orthodox Christian king of the Franks - also considered himself (our sources say) to be a Roman. Given what we know of ethnic identities in late antiquity, this dual identity is not a contradiction. The Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy seems to have been genuinely upset when Justinian suggested they weren't legitimate successors to Rome's legacy in the sixth century. Culturally, many aspects of Roman life continue in the west for centuries. Change on-the-ground was a drawn out process, which started in some ways as early as the third century, was stalled with an aggressive new Roman bureaucracy in the late third and fourth centuries, accelerated with rapid changes in the fifth century, and wasn't completed for a long time after that.\n\nBritain's a special case, because it was always on the fringes, and the evidence is particularly sparse and difficult to interpret." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4xxosd", "d4xy1cw", "d4xzil4", "d4y1jy9", "d4y3gru" ], "score": [ 2, 86, 38, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Could you elaborate on what you mean by inefficient? Inefficient at what exactly? Do you just mean slow to change in general?", "The checks and balances system ensures that one person or one branch of government can't make quick, unilateral changes. For a law to be passed and take effect, all three branches have to be (more or less) in agreement. The fact that legislation can be difficult to pass, even if one party has a majority, makes some people think of government as inefficient.\n\nAlso, the Constitution, which sets all of the rules, was made incredibly hard to amend (2/3 of Congress, 3/4 of the states) to again prevent large changes from being made easily.\n\nEDIT: If you want to read the Founding Fathers' opinions in their own words, read the [The Federalist Papers](_URL_1_). These were essays written by James Madison (primary writer of the Constitution), Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay that were meant to convince people to adopt the Constitution. In them, these three Founding Fathers laid out a lot of their ideas for how the country should be run.\n\nIn particular [Federalist #10](_URL_0_) by James Madison addresses your question almost exactly. In it, Madison talks about the need to prevent what he called factions from taking over the government and undermining democratic principles.", "In order to better imagine this, think of a highly efficient government. One where laws pass overnight, one where rules don't have to go through many steps in order to be passed, one where you don't have to see if your laws are even conflicting in order to make them become the standard.\n\nThat efficient government is known as a dictatorship. In order to be efficient, you cannot do the arduous work of having to get your citizens to agree, getting other lawmakers to agree, or even seeing if your laws are even allowed.\n\nImagine in both governments you wanted to make it okay to kill malformed babies.\n\nIn an efficient government, the dictator says sure that's a great idea. Why waste resources on babies that aren't going to survive anyway?\n\nIn our inefficient government, the people would have to vote to make this okay. And if they did approve it, the courts could still overturn this decision citing that it is a cruel and unusual punishment (they checked this law to make sure it wouldn't conflict with other laws). The legislature could overturn that and make it into law citing their citizens agreed with it, but the executive branch (president) could veto it and say that it is violating the human rights laws of the UN. This is a very inefficient system that requires a lot of work from many different parties. You have different political groups not even agreeing within the political system. So yeah it's good then. But when you are trying to pass something that does benefit everyone, let's say universal healthcare, some people disagree with this because of reasons that are not good for the populace and that's because they're rich enough not to worry about healthcare and the people paying them are making a profit off people who do worry about healthcare.\n\nIt is inefficient, but it has to be. Efficient governments mean you have someone that doesn't answer to anyone but himself and makes laws without consulting other people in charge, or the population. When they have to ask for approval, it begins to veer into an inefficient system.\n\nEdit: forgot to mention the different levels of government where you can't override a law of a larger government entity (city vs state vs federal). In an efficient government, every citizen in your rule would answer to you the same and there would be no smaller governments making more rules because that would be a barrier in controlling your state.", "The starting point is the threshold to amend the U.S. constitution is incredibly high(2/3 of both houses of congress, plus 3/4 of the State Govt's ratification(38)). It's only been Amended 27 times in the roughly 230 years since its been enacted, and 10 of those came immediately after it was enacted. It's typically much easier for other countries to change their national charter and make sweeping changes. From there for a law to be passed you need both houses of Congress to pass it, the President to sign it, and the U.S. courts to agree that it doesn't violate the Constitution for that law to remain standing. It's a system designed for cooperation. Unfortunately that's became a dirty word in American Politics the last quarter century.", "Government agencies have to spend all of their budget every year or face a cut in their budgets the next year. This incentivizes them to go on a spending spree and buy works of art or make *Star Trek* parody commercials for internal use at the end of the fiscal year. This also means that nearly every government agency's budget will increase from year to year regardless of how much it needs it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9r8yly", "c9r90r6" ], "score": [ 21, 15 ], "text": [ "This has more to do with differing definitions of \"clean\" than it does with people in the past being stupid. Dressings were expected to kept fresh. People spend a lot of time covered in dirt and grime, but manage not to get infected all the time. Why should the inside of the body be different than the out? Still, they would try to avoid visibly dirty conditions around wounds. The biggest exception to this was \"laudable pus\" which, at least in the 18th century, was thought to be a sign of the body healing itself.\n\nThe problem comes with sterilization. For us, something that is medically clean must have either been superheated or washed with an antiseptic chemical. The easy ability to do either of these things did not exist prior to the mid 19th century. Moreover, with no understanding of germ theory, there was no understood reason to do so.", "What you're talking about is the development of germ theory, and the reason people didn't figure that out until when they did is simply a matter of not having adequate detection technology. It's not as though people didn't start bandaging wounds until the 1700s; ancient civilizations in both Mesoamerica and Mesopotamia possessed relatively advanced medical technology and even performed surgery. People weren't just walking around with open wounds and rolling around in filth. People knew that keeping a wound clean would prevent infection, but at the same time they also didn't understand the exact mechanism of infection. Once we figured out what germs were we simply stepped up our efforts to kill them by practicing much more rigorous sterilization." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck1ts0q" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The real height of Louis XVI is not known. However, his coronation \" outfit \" is between 1,90m and 1,93m. \n\nThe tallest King of France was François Ier which was described to be between 1,95m and 2,00m however, thanks to one of his armour, his height was 1,98m. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfnmcp5", "cfno4nj", "cfno9st", "cfno9vv", "cfnobzo", "cfnognr", "cfnomyr", "cfnoo1f", "cfnovye", "cfnpchy", "cfnpl3q", "cfnpm0q", "cfnpng1", "cfnq1rs", "cfnq7td", "cfnqc1p", "cfnqcjk", "cfnqkms", "cfnqmy5", "cfnqp1e", "cfnr6do", "cfnr6g5", "cfnrddi", "cfnrgcu", "cfnsh8n", "cfnt060", "cfnt8kb", "cfntylg", "cfntz2l", "cfnu21s", "cfnu7yu", "cfnubxz", "cfnukr7", "cfnusw0", "cfnv1m2", "cfnvlpy", "cfnw3fn", "cfnw772", "cfnwpj0", "cfnxeyd", "cfnykma", "cfnyob2", "cfnyr3k", "cfnyxzu", "cfnz0q2", "cfnzb42", "cfo0gzk", "cfo0nif", "cfo266u", "cfo2bje", "cfo3e6x", "cfo5636", "cfo5aoj", "cfoaxri", "cfobve3", "cfoc1zb", "cfoc5id", "cfocueb", "cfoe191", "cfoeq1g" ], "score": [ 1563, 94, 229, 2, 384, 24, 25, 70, 5, 184, 10, 2, 15, 5, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 6, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 2, 2, 2, 636, 2, 19, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 5, 4, 2, 2, 10, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Netflix is 30%+ (?) of traffic, they are a big player.\n\nAlso, YouTube at least is run by Google... who with Fiber is already suggesting that they won't take the ISPs shit.", "Too many people watching House of Cards.", "Youtube has had plenty of run-ins with U.S. ISPs, and has gotten throttled a number of times. TWC especially is known for that one.", "Google already pays ISPs for more direct connections.\n\n", "This is not a fight between Comcast and Netflix, but the peering between Comcast and Cogent (Netflix's IPS).\n\nThis same thing happened in 2010 when Netflix was using Level 3 as their ISP.\n\nThink of it this way. 2 towns built a 4 lane road between each other. They split the cost initially. Everything works great. A mega corporation moves into Town A and begins to ship its product to Town B (or C,D,E, etc through Town B). This saturates the road between the two towns causing congestion. The congestion is only going towards town B.\n\nWho should pay to add more lanes going from town A to town B?\n\n* Town A?\n* Town B?\n* Mega Corp?\n\nIf town A pays for it, the taxes in Town A will go up.\nIf town B pays for it, the taxes (and tariffs) for Town B will go up.\nIf Mega Corp, they price of their product will go up.\nThe 4th option would be for the Federal Government to step in and take control of the road. This would cause all of the above.\n\nThe 5th option, and what has happened is that MegaCorp moved from Town A to Town B. (Or at least will build a private road into Town B)\n\nWelcome to the reality of net neutrality. Someone has to pay for the road.", "Its just ridiculous mob tactics. Netflix already pays for their bandwidth, as do I. Why in the hell should Netflix be extorted into paying extra just because? If I were in charge of Netflix, I would have released a free, easy to use vpn tool to all customers instead of folding. ", "They are. I live in Ohio and Time Warner is the only game in town. They throttle your connections to basically everywhere useful. Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, and I have heard social media sites load slower than lesser known sites. ", "I work for an ISP. Netflix easily accounts for 25-30% of all of our traffic. Youtube takes up about 15% by itself. I dont side with comcast for what they are doing but the impact netflix has had on ISP's bandwidth is crazy due to the usage. We used to have 10Gb circuits that connected major areas together internally and I thought that was huge. Now we need to have multiple 100Gb redundant circuits just to carry the load. Some areas even have 300Gb circuits for customer traffic and were not even a top 10 ISP. On the plus side, we dont throttle anything or alter traffic in any way", "sounds like small business owners paying protection money to me some mob shit", "Because Hulu is run by Fox, Disney, and of course NBC Universal, which is a subsidiary of... you guessed it, Comcast.\n\nAs for YouTube... would you want to take on Google? Me neither. Maybe they will after they combine with Time Warner, but probably not because they're pretty good about taking down pirated content.\n\nI have no real proof, but I don't believe this to be an issue of bandwidth usage. It's a struggle to keep cable television viable. Young people don't want it anymore. Old people wouldn't either if they weren't afraid of change and knew how much better and simpler Netflix is. Solution? Make a better cable product? No. Eliminate the competition. ", "They do fuck with youtube. Sometimes it takes me like 2 minutes to buffer a 30 second video. Forget about watching a longer HD video.\n\n\nI always call them, and they say something like \"Oh ok we will try resetting your connection\" and then it's magically better. ", "I feel [this link](_URL_0_) might be helpful to some readers. \n\nTLDR; During peak usage, Netflix has approximately 59% high traffic than YouTube in North America, but together they make up half of peak Internet (still only in North America).\n\nEdit: approximately ", "Because Google is big enough to defend itself against Comcast. Netflix is not at the moment.", "A big reason why ISPs aren't happy with Netflix is that up until this point Netflix has not paid any ISPs extra money for more direct connections. Large Internet companies like Youtube, Facebook, Mircosoft, etc. have paid ISPs for more direct connections. Hulu is a special case since they are owned by the broadcasting companies, Comcast being one of them.\n\nNetflix did offer to set up cashing servers for free within ISPs networks so that most Netflix traffic would never leave ISPs networks, but they declined.", "Hulu barely makes a profit and that's from the \"free\" version only. YouTube monetizes advertising. Netflix is undercutting the business model of the ISPs/Cable Carriers by tossing advertising and is successful.", "Youtube and Hulu are throttled. When I had suddenlink, I had to keep fighting them to \"fix\" it, which of course entailed the stupid CSR to reboot the modem.\n\nTWC is the same, brother has it and its the same crap. Seriously, fuck the US government for turning a blind eye (and open wallet) to illegal monopolies.\n\nedit: NSA, if you cant figure this out, I am talking figuratively.\n", "You're paying an ISP for a certain speed, it is their job to make sure the speed stays the same regardless of what it is used on.", "Get a few private trackers and most of these problems are solved ... ", "Verizon has targeted youtube in the past. I used to work at verizon for their FIOS (fiber) service. We had customers calling in all the time saying youtube videos would not play. Our official response was that the bandwidth on the peering point was maxed out, and it was the responsibility of the content provider (youtube/google) to upgrade this bandwidth. ", "[One chart can probably explain this best](_URL_0_)", "As for youtube, don't fuck with google.", "ISP are most commonly cable providers as well, and what is Netflix to cable providers? That's right...a bitch", "Netflix is big, but the company is to small to fight back. \n\nI imagine hulu isn't big enough to bother with at all. \n\nYouTube is owned by Google. Google would take every ISP, tie them up in fiber, and fuck them to death, all while coming up with cool new products. ", "Netflix is 30% of traffic I don't understand why Netflix doesn't start threatening Comcast instead. Make streaming impossible for comcast users and tell their customers that they need to switch ISPs.", "Look at who owns the companies.. .and you have your answer.", "ELI5: What is op referring to?", "Netflix shouldn't be paying anyone for having a good business going. The isps are clearly the problem", "The beauty of it all is really quite stunning when you think about it. You pay your ISP for the bandwidth to watch Netflix. ISPs want more of your money but can't just jack your rates up if there is competition in the market. ISPs also know what percentage of their bandwidth which services occupy, Netflix is easily one of the most bandwidth hungry. Selectively target said external, bandwidth hungry, service and artificially limit it to force a lesser experience on that company's subscriber base on your network. It's likely that in order to placate their subscribers that service will appeal to the ISP in question. The ISP says \"ok, we'll restore QoS for X dollars\". Service provider agrees, on fear of losing a significant chunk of their own paying customers... Circle of life continues and your Netflix rates go up ever so slightly to balance out this and the future dealings of this nature they KNOW are coming.\n\nTerrorism, in business suits.", "Follow the money. Hulu is owned, at least in part, by the Hollywood content companies. This means that Time-Warner owns part of it directly, and Comcast hopes to acquire some of those companies in the future. Hulu represents where cable wants to go, with ads even when you pay for the stream and the content provided still calling all the shots. Hulu is very careful about how it offers content to protect the incumbent interests.\n\nYouTube, on the other hand, is not a direct threat to the cable companies existing business. It is not easy to see how it evolves to be one in the short term either. Add to that the fact that it helps sell cable speed upgrades, and Google's deep pockets. Demand more money for YouTube, and Google will accelerate it's fiber plans. The cable companies can't win this fight.\n\nNetflix, on the other hand, is a direct threat to the existing profit model AND is a fight the cable companies might be able to win.", "Google already pays ISPs. [_URL_0_]\n\nHoping to speed traffic through an increasingly congested Internet, several big Web companies including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Facebook Inc. are paying major broadband providers for connections to get faster and smoother access to their networks, say people familiar with the matter.", "Not sure if this was mentioned already, if it was I'm sorry. But think about it this way, most of the major players in America are companies that offer internet AND cable, and it's a pain in the ass to get them to drop either service (it took us about an hour to get Verizon to drop cable from our service). Netflix offers a viable replacement for cable, sure you don't get all the new shows, but I usually wait for the end of a season so that I can just binge on a weekend when I've got nothing to do. Netflix is significantly cheaper than adding cable to your plan, but more importantly, the money you give to Netflix is money that you aren't giving to your provider. More and more people have left their cable plans to switch to a streaming alternative. This is a threat to the income that companies such as Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc. rely on, so if they aren't getting the money from you, they'll get it from somewhere. ", "Who says they aren't? YouTube has *constantly* had quality and buffering issues, and I'm not convinced it's always YouTube's fault.", "Netflix is basically a competitor to cable. If you can't afford the $65 basic cable (Plus box rental, HD access and other) from Comcast you probably have Netflix. Now you're using that $75 internet access Comcast is providing you to binge watch on Netflix instead of watching cable and it's commercials. YouTube has had problems for ages and they are mostly internal. Hulu just plain sucks. They're getting flack from the big guys, just not enough to make news. ", "There are no commercials in Netflix, that's why we watch it more.", "Hulu is owned partially by NBC who is owned by Comcast.", "_URL_0_\n\n > Hulu is a joint venture of NBCUniversal Television Group (Comcast)\n\nHulu is owned, partially, by Comcast. They want people using it instead of things like Netflix. Why would they throttle their own product?", "Youtube is owned by Google. Google owns a lot of fiber, which is used to carry internet's traffic for other, non google services. Through things called \"peering\", as long as the amount of data going one way is roughly equal to the amount going the other way (in other words, I dump into you as much as you give me), neither side pays.\n\nTherefore, youtube's actual bandwidth costs might be close to zero and google's peering relationships protect youtube from being throttled.", "Surprised that nobody really tried to answer this, from what I can see.\n\nUltimately, most internet traffic is exchanged between networks in a process called *Peering* at places called *Internet Exchange Points(IXPs)*. ISPs and other networks sign *Peering Agreements* with each other to establish terms and conditions for sharing traffic between networks. \n\nThere are two types of peering: *public*, and *private*:\n\n* Public peering is where a large number of carriers can go to all connect to each other in a 'public forum' manner. Public peering is most often slower for a number of reasons. It can also be used as a backup when the preferred network is down or malfunctioning. \n* Private peering is where two carriers make a peering agreement to establish a connection directly between themselves. Naturally, this allows the parties to agree on acceptable latency and bandwidth. The vast majority of internet traffic is exchanged via private peering. Private peering agreements are normally secretive, and a lot of shady business goes down when negotiating them. For example, providers very frequently and intentionally neglect to upgrade their equipment at an IXP in order to gain the upper hand in peering agreements. They can now claim: \"Look, we'd love to agree to this, but we clearly need more bandwidth at this location, which will cost us money! 0:)\"\n\nSide note: A really cool site to check out if you're so inclined is _URL_0_. You can browse through public and private IXPs, and check out some peering info on a good deal of networks. (you can log in with guest/guest, you only need an account if you want to update the database)\n\nIn order to be able to transfer content quickly and efficiently to everyone everywhere, you're going to need to either peer directly with all the major networks, or partner with third party networks that can exchange traffic on your behalf. The latter is what most companies do-- Netflix, for example, uses Akamai, Limelight, and Level 3 (three very fast \"Content Delivery Networks\") to push its video to customers. Each of those CDNs have extensive peering agreements all over the globe.\n\nNetworks are constantly shifting, with internet routes being modified all the time, and problems arise frequently. Most peering agreements include the stipulation that if problems are found on a network, there will be techs around to investigate and fix it. A tech's ability to fix a problem, however, varies, depending on how well he knows the systems involved. Here's an example of Hulu trying to alleviate some of the pressure from their CDNs-- _URL_2_\n\nWith all that in mind, CDNs and other content providers that are categorized as \"Mostly Outbound\" tend to incur the largest fees for data transfer. In order to vastly reduce the amount of data needed to travel between networks, larger CDNs/content providers will strike agreements with major ISPs to host content caching hardware either inside or directly adjacent to the ISP's own network(both physically and logically). \n\nGoogle's version of this is called \"Google Global Cache\"-- _URL_1_ (very bottom of page)\n\nNetflix's version of this is called \"Open Connect\"-- _URL_4_\n\nYou can see these systems indirectly by watching a YouTube video and checking the address of the streaming server. Sometimes the address of the server may indicate your ISP, eg \"comcast-blah.blah\". If not, if you run a traceroute on the address, you'll find that it barely makes it out of your ISP's network(most of the time, check [here](_URL_5_) for a dry article on why not always).\n\nUp until a few days ago, Comcast refused, for whatever reason, to sign on to Netflix's Open Connect. They recently struck an agreement, though. I imagine that this is in part due to the recent ~~Supreme~~ Court ruling allowing ISPs to throttle any traffic they deem unworthy-- Netflix I'm sure had to pony up a few more coins to strike the agreement now. Another motivating factor was that Netflix, which was opposed to the ruling, would also be opposed to the Comcast acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Now that they have an \"in\" with Comcast, however, they are likely to be far less vocal about it.\n\nEdit: Appeals court, not supreme court. Here's the info for anyone interested or incredibly bored: _URL_3_\n\nEdit: Oh, gold! Thanks random person! Alchemy lives after all.", "1. Hulu isn't shit compared to the other two.\n2. Fucking with Google is like kicking a pit bull. No matter what happens, you're going to be a mess.", "It is **NOT** because of **TRAFFIC**. Major Hollywood studios and major ISPS are the *same* companies. Time Warner owns Time Warner Cable and Warner Bros. NBC Universal is owned by Comcast. At the very least, most major studios and major ISPs are invested in each other.\n\nNetflix is independent, though. It's a **major** independent studio creating original content that requires **NO** middleman or distributor. Mass market distribution was how Hollywood basically monopolized entertainment and media in the entire 20th century.\n\nWith the internet and streaming and pirating, mass market distribution became inefficient, bloated, and useless. The parent companies of the major ISP/media/appliance/distribution/etc. conglomerates want to ensure that companies like Netflix don't threaten their monopolies.\n\nThe only way to do that is to strongarm them. \n\nThey can't strongarm Youtube (Google), because Google is too powerful and will strongarm them back. They won't strongarm Hulu, because they already own Hulu.\n\nEdit: In fact, it has **NOTHING** to do with any sort of traffic, ISP, or bandwidth issue. It is only about \"intellectual property\" control.", "I'm pretty sure ISPs *are* targeting Youtube at least. I'm in Hawaii with Time Warner and Youtube videos at 1080p are hit or miss. If I go to a Youtube proxy website and watch the same video it's silky-buttery-smooth.", "Oh man, if ISPs fuck with youtube; Google will unleash hell upon them. Google is a very dangerous company, and has the money as well as resources to take down any company in their way. In other words, tread carefully ISPs.", "Because Google is the [Lizard King](_URL_0_)", "Major Carriers(ISPs) have agreements to connect their Networks together. These agreements and their connections are what make up the internet.\n\nNetflix pays for their Internet Service to one Carrier (Cogent I think). Cogent has it's peering agreements with other major carriers. These agreements assume that traffic is going to be pretty close to even between the networks.\n\nWhen Congestion occurs between major carriers they sometimes can agree to upgrade or improve the bandwidth between their service. Netflix however has had a large impact thus creating situations where these agreements are not balanced. While Netflix's ISP might want to improve bandwidth (No idea if true); the other carriers might not want to spend the money to resolve a problem that is the result of an unbalanced peering agreement.\n\nNetflix's solution is to offer \"Free\" access to their CDN (Content Delivery Network?) to any ISP provided they connect to one of Netflix's connection points. The major ISPs however view this as giving Netflix a free Internet Connection for the purpose of improving the quality of service that Netflix provides to Netflix's customers (Who happen to be customers of the ISP as well).\n\nGoogle on the other hand probably uses a more robust infrastructure by paying for services to multiple carriers to insure the best quality connections possible. Thinking of it as a Web... Netflix probably has a few strands connecting its CDN to the internet to insure the lowest cost for all the bandwidth they consume. Google on the other hand probably has a massive number of strands to insure the robust infrastructure.", "I'm probably late to the game, but it has a lot to do with CDNs. Netflix went with the cheapest vendor (Cogent) who tried to use free peering agreements to push huge amounts of asymetric traffic over congested link. Other video providers often use \"real\" CDNs to move their content or pay to host their content on ISP server racks (like Netflix just agreed to do with Comcast this weekend).", "They are targeting YouTube, Hulu, Pirating services and many more. ISP's are evil.", "[Netflix was the first company to openly challenge them](_URL_0_)", "Because they want to sell you cable TV service too.", "Can someone explain to me why there seems to be few ISP choices in the US? \n\nHere in Portugal, in late 90's, the communications market was pretty stagnant until the national company was made to allow the infrastructure to be used by other companies. After that competition created not only options, but a much more advanced infrastructure(fiber internet is common in households).\n\nIs it a problem with the infrastructures being privately owned by companies that then hold the monopoly?", "Customers pay for upload speeds as well as download, the same goes for content providers on the web. Nothing new here, except Netflix made complaining about their internet bill a news story. ", "Google(aka Youtube, since they were bought out) can crush ISPs, Netflix also seems more popular than Hulu. I saw a post somewhere that described exactly why ISPs were angry about Netflix.\n\nISPs share their ingoing and outgoing connections with other ISPs, instead of charging for access, to each other all the time, they agreed to share, allowing traffic to flow between with no charge. Both sides gain free access to the other ISPs 'internet highways' in return the other IPSs do the same. \n\nBut with major websites that require a ton of one-way bandwidth/traffic on these highways, only one party gets the all the benefits (like Netflix), while the other do not. The road gets damage, and cost more to maintain, and more lanes put in place to support the traffic, so they have to pay more, and get little in return. So ISPs are ending the agreement, and limiting/throttling traffic. \n\nBUT they also target Google, which you never hear about, maybe now you'll understand why youtube seems slow sometimes. But for some reason ISPs are targeting Netflix directly and more heavily, I believe the cause is that major ISPs are also cable/entertainment companies, and compete with Netflix more directly than youtube. No ISP would dare to fight against Google since they are so large, and since they do not directly compete with them in this repect. But Google is also being throttled and Google fighting back by rating ISPs performance on Youtube, to further prove it is infact the ISPs who are causing loading issues, and not Google/Youtube being the problems themselves.\n\nEdit: Google is also fighting back in other ways, such as Google Fiber, offering VERY VERY fast internet speeds, at a fraction of the price of 'traditional' ISPs. It is an on-going fight, that I'm sure will last a long time.", "In addition to the other great responses already brought up in this thread, Netflix is drying up the amount of cable subscriptions like there's no tomorrow, and the vast percentage of ISPs are also cable providers. ", "Because Netflix threatened to fight back", "They aren't only targeting Netflix, it's just made headlines because of its market share on streaming. Before I switched to Uverse, my Time Warner Cable internet actually throttled Youtube so much that I often wouldn't have enough bandwidth to load videos, especially not high quality ones. ", "Comcast owns Hulu, BTW.", "Netflix is just the beginning folks. Things is gonna get ugly out there.", "Hulu is for filthy sluts", "Because you dont fuck with Google. If you fuck with google, Google Fiber just starts coming to all of your major profit areas. ", "The Time Warner and Comcast Merger currently being examined by the justice department and FCC is scary. Comcast will have no reason to expand to fiber network over the coming years because it can reap the benefits of controlling such a large portion of the market. It stands to reason that Netflix, to stay competitive, will have to work with whatever Comcast is willing to offer. Netflix already takes up about 30% of internet traffic on a limited network.\n\n \"If the government approves this deal, Comcast will operate in 43 of the 50 largest metropolitan markets, and will have about 30 percent of the national pay television subscribers and about one-third of all broadband Internet subscribers.\"-New York Times", "because youtube is google and nobody fucks with google." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57611722-93/netflix-youtube-gobble-up-half-of-internet-traffic/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://static.ongamers.com/uploads/scale_medium/0/3/5310-0868652966-MK-CJ.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu" ], [], [ "http://peeringdb.com", "https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html", "http://tech.hulu.com/blog/2012/02/21/the-search-for-the-perfect-stream-hulus-new-quality-of-service-portal/", "http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf", "https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect", "http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=ecetr" ], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0m3lfCGgO0" ], [], [], [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/LCPeCNA.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cf50sxq", "cf51tii", "cf56kdk" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 6 ], "text": [ "Food isn't all used as energy. Fat has more calories than carbs, and protein has similar calories as carbs. But fat and protein are used by your body to build and repair tissues, fat is also used to build a lot of hormones. Carbs don't have much function other than energy, so if you don't use it as energy it is stored as glycogen or body fat. Carbs cause your body to produce insulin, a hormone that promotes energy storage (required to remove the excess carbs from your blood).", "According to the research the safest and the most effective diets are ketogenic. A ketogenic diets tricks your body into the state where it exclusively burns fats (and some protein) and generates the glucose needed from them. \n\nThere are many reasons why such diets work better than others. There is so called metabolic advantage. Running body on fats is expensive in terms of energy, converting fat and proteins to glucose and ketone bodies is wasteful. But that is what you want, you want to burn more energy.\n\nThere are fewer cravings because your body has a constant supply of energy from the extra fat you bring around. No need for snacks.\n\nThere are less opportunities to snack and overeat. The carbs are cheap. Food industry loves to feed them to you. If you do not eat carbs, you have to pass all the cheap temptations designed to make you eat more.\n", "Yes! Finally something I can answer. I am sad at the amount of misinformation and incorrect things written below. This may get a touch long, but I'll do my best.\n\nLosing weight is most certainly about calorie balance. If you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. Where the weight comes from depends on a few other factors that aren't really relevant to the question. \n\nLow-carbohydrate diets have been getting increasingly popular in the media and around the diet fringe. I think some reasons are good, and some are outright bullshit (I'm looking at you Gary Taubes, you fucking asshole). In my opinion, below is why low carbohydrate diets work well FOR SOME. I am using the caps qualifier because some people, no matter how \"correctly\" they follow the diet, never adapt to low carbohydrates. They feel mentally fuzzy, lethargic, etc. These side effects go away for most after your body makes an adaptation about 3 weeks into eating low carbs.\n\n1.) When you remove and entire section of people's diet, they tend to eat less automatically. Think about this for a moment: if I told you not to eat any bread, pasta, rice, oatmeal, cereal, etc, then you would automatically decrease your caloric intake because there simply is a lot less types of foods to eat. \n\n2.) Building on point 1, when people are given a lot less choices, they'll start adding in low calorie, high bulk vegetables. These people finally start getting necessary vitamins and minerals that they've long neglected. They feel full much sooner because of the bulk of the food and the fiber it contains. They start making better food choices regarding healthy fats (nuts, oils, etc). Fiber is extremely important and it makes you feel full by forming a \"clot\" in your stomach, slowing digestion.\n\n3.) Protein is the most hunger-blunting nutrient. It's been observed time and time again in various scientific studies, and it's pretty clear at this point. More specifically, you will feel full much sooner eating lots of lean protein than an eu-caloric amount of rice. Also, protein has a nice effect of stabilizing blood sugar, which prevents crashes and sugar cravings. It also has the highest TEF of the three macronutrients (see below) A concrete example is that rice and chicken would be far less satiating than steak and broccoli. This brings me to the next point...\n\n4.) On low-carbohydrate diets, fat content in the diet goes up. Starting at tag-along fats in the meat and cheese to explicit fat in oils, fat is a stable of a typical low-carbohydrate meal. Fat has this interesting thing in that it slows gastric emptying. At this point, most people are familiar with the GI scale, which is a measure of how fast carbohydrates are digested when eaten alone. The thing people leave out is that when you add fat to meals, the GI goes to the wayside because the fat keeps food in your stomach longer. Remember foods that stick to your ribs? That's where the expression comes from. \n\nSo in conclusion, a low(ered) carbohydrate diet works FOR SOME for the reasons above. The average (read:non-exercising) person doesn't burn many carbohydrates on a daily basis so there is less need for them. However, an athlete (think cyclist or weight trainer) is generally ill-advised to follow low carbohydrate diets because they need to replenish the carbs burned during training.\n\nAs a side note: If you search the national registry for weight loss, a few trends are common among people who have lost weight and kept it off: They exercise regularly, they keep some kind of tabs on their weight/fat, and they have some form of portion control. The majority of people have succeeded with low-fat, high carbohydrate diets in the long term but there have recently been a few who have succeeded with low carbs. Also, the majority of competitive bodybuilders, who are the leanest athletes of them all (at least for one day of the year), have gotten shredded on high-carb diets. So both low and high carb diets can and do work, as long as there is a deficit. \n\nAs a little bit of a bonus, this is how the energy balance equation goes:\nFood = RMR + TEA + TEF + NEAT or Energy In = Energy Out\n\nRMR = Resting Metabolic Rate. This is the amount of calories your body burns at rest, just maintaining itself. So if you were to lay in bed all day, you'd still burn this many calories. You can find fairly accurate estimate formulas online. \n\nTEA = Thermic Effect of Activity. This is the amount of calories you burn in formal exercise.\n\nTEF = Thermic Effect of Food. This is the amount of calories your body burns digesting food. Sort of paradoxically, it takes a portion of the calories you consume to digest food. Approximate values are: Protein: 25-30% of ingested calories. Carbohydrate: 10%. Fat: 3%. \n\nNEAT: Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. This is the amount of calories your body burns through any movement that isn't formal exercise. Think of this as brushing your teeth, tapping your foot, etc. It actually can add up to a lot at the end of the day, especially for naturally lean people. \n\nEDIT: To answer your follow up question regarding starving yourself; It really depends on starting body fat percentage. VERY Oobese individuals have been fasted up to a year (362 days, IIRC) with no ill effect. Very simplistically, if you have a lot of stored energy (fat), your body will use that before going for the reserve funds (protein, muscle). Another look into this is the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. [Wikipedia] (_URL_1_) it and read, it's very interesting. Basically, they took some war-objectors and (semi)starved them down to the lower limits of human body fat. Then, in the second phase, they refed them with different macronutrient profiles and calorie levels. The purpose of the experiment (conducted by Dr. Ancel Keys) was to learn how to refeed Jews in the concentration camps and warsaw ghettos. \n\nEDIT 2: I learned most of everything I know from Lyle Mcdonald's [website] (_URL_0_). Almost every single question you have about fat loss, nutrition, muscle growth, etc is found at his site. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "www.bodyrecomposition.com", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgzs6nn" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I work in a department of meteoriticists and proposed this question to them, because a lot of the meteorites they study come from Antarctica.\n\nSo, I asked if there was a bias towards meteorites falling near the poles, or was it just because they're easier to find in Antarctica. \n\nIn theory there is a greater chance of a meteorite on the side of the Earth facing 'forwards' as we move through clouds of material that cause the meteor showers, but as the clouds are big and the Earth spins relatively fast so it might not make that much difference.\n\nUltimately, the sample size of where we find meteorites isn't big enough to work out if there's a trend in location. Given that a lot will just fall in the sea and that it's easier to find meteorites in deserts or snow/icefields, our statistics will always be skewed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "deramlt", "deraxcu", "dercsvv", "derq0et", "dervd2h" ], "score": [ 8, 2, 6, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Any kind of circulation will make you feel cooler.\n\nThe reason you sweat is to expel heat from your body. As it evaporates, it takes the heat with it. The problem is when it is too humid in your immediate vicinity and the sweat can't evaporate in a reasonable amount of time.\n\nWhen the air in the room you are in is moving, there is a constant supply of fresh air moving past you, allowing the sweat from your body a constant chance to evaporate.", "That's also why most ceiling fans have a switch to change directions. One pushes air down and one pulls air up and out towards the edges of the room. 2 different types of circulation so one of them has to work. Lol", "Any wind cools you down if the air is lower than your body.\nIf the air is cooler than you, any contact between you and the air will make heat go from your body to the air. Wind only increases how much air touches you, and so, it increases the amount of heat you transfer to cooler air, therefore cooling you down faster.\n\nEDIT: \nYes this means that if the air is hotter than your body, wind will actually heat you up more than if there was no wind. So wind doesn't cool you down by itself. It only cools you down if it's air colder than you.", "All these people are right; a fan relies on the principles of wind chill, more or less as explained:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nbut additionally: Turning on the fan wips up all the air in a room turbulently, mixing the relatively cold air near the floor with the warm air up top, which can make the median temperature (the most common temperature in the room) closer to a comfortable average.", "There are two effects going on. \n\nOne is that you can change the direction a ceiling fan blows to either blow hot air down at you or pull cool air up to move around the ceiling. Regardless, though, what you are doing is evening out the room temperature by mixing hot and cold air together.\n\nThe second effect is that your body cools by three methods: conduction (you touching cold water or hot metal), radiation (heat just floating away from your body and slowly heating the air around you), and convection (air moving past your body to transfer your body heat to the air then move that hot air away). A fan works on convection to cool you down, but only if the air is cooler than 98 deg F.\n\nNow, in winter you might want that hot air on the ceiling to mix with the cold air below to raise the temp near your body, but you don't want the convection from the wind to cool you down. This is when you change the direction of the fan to circulate air but not blow on you." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "d4r0qv8" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "An ant can survive a fall from any height. You could drop one out of an airplane, and it would survive the impact. The ant is fine because it is so light. It isn't the hitting the ground that kills you, it's your own mass that crushes you after hitting the ground.\n\nThe formula for force is: F = M * A . Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. Mass is proportional to force. Increasing your mass increases the force that you will experience when landing. Decreasing your mass will decrease the force you experience.\n\nWhen landing from a fall off of a tree, the squirrel is fine because he is experiencing a much smaller force than you would, because he has much less mass." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dxihh2j", "dxipk5f", "dxiwpwz" ], "score": [ 13, 11, 2 ], "text": [ "Certainly.\n\nThis fear was such, that, early on, a non-intervention agreement was signed by many European countries in August of 1936, which created the aptly named Non-Intervention Committee. The most vocal parties for non-interventionism were the French and British. While Italy and Germany were on the committee, they openly flaunted the agreement and guidelines, sending volunteers, aircraft, tanks, and material to Franco's Falangists. The USSR was also on the committee, and it to, ignored the prescription of non-interventionism, sending military aid to the republicans. \n\nBritain and France did, on the whole remain loyal to their pledge of non-interventionism, though France covertly donated planes and specialists to the Republicans.\n\nSo yes, the conflict was met with a fear of it spiraling into a wider war, and while on paper, the major European powers pledged non-interventionism, many of these broke it. ", "To expand somewhat on the previous answer, I think this is one of those questions where it is really important to stop for a moment and think about whose perspective we are thinking about.\n\nThere was certainly concern on the part of the British Government that a proxy war in Spain might lead to a broader conflict between fascist and democratic powers. This led to their proposed solution of Non-Intervention, which they were able to persuade the other major European powers to agree to (but not, as mentioned previously, to stick to). This raises another interesting question though – in breaking the Non-Intervention Pact, did Hitler or Mussolini think they were risking a wider war? Would they have been willing to push intervention so far in the face of determined opposition? This starts to get into speculative territory, but it’s worth noting that depending on which European government’s perspective you take, the degree of ‘fear’ was rather different.\n\nTo my mind, the question gets even more interesting when we consider the problem not just from the perspective of governments, but their citizens. In Britain, whose government was Non-Intervention’s most ardent supporter, the Republican side was considerably more popular than the Nationalists, and there was considerable opposition to Non-Intervention, and a great deal of political and fundraising activity in support of the Republic. Aid Spain, as it became known, was probably the largest sustained international solidarity campaign in modern British history, raising the contemporary equivalent of tens of millions of pounds for the Republic. Most famously, about 2,300 volunteers left Britain to fight in the International Brigades (who in turn were made up of about 35,000 mostly European volunteers) – clearly, these individuals did not fear the potential breakdown of peace as a result of their actions. In fact, they and their supporters saw the debate differently – that by allowing the Spanish Republic to be defeated, fascism would only be strengthened and emboldened, making a European war all the more likely. Many British International Brigade volunteers, both at the time and ever since, claimed that they went to prevent the Second World War from happening in the first place.\n\nHow far was this view shared? In one of the first ever issue-based opinion polls in British history (that I’m aware of), 57% of British respondents claimed to favour the Republic in October 1938. By January 1939, this had increased to 72% supporting the Republic. This number has been cited to show the extent of support for a reversal of British policy on Spain, although to my mind it is a bit more complex. For one, the dramatic shift over a short period – especially so late in the war, seems to indicate that these numbers might be soft. More fundamentally, the question was not whether Britain should intervene, or even change their policy, but simply which side they preferred. So, it’s hardly definitive evidence that the British people were either willing to risk war over Spain, or that they believed there was no such risk. But it does certainly indicate that the answer to your question is going to look quite different depending on whose views you are interested in.", "Other answers above have discussed the approaches by other powers to limit intevention and to stop the conflict from spreading. I am very interested to hear about the impact internally in other countries.\n\nSpecifically what was the impact internal to France? After all superficially it has similar internal political and social problems and shares a border. I presume it further divided the country at a time of a similar popular front government facing reactionary forces." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxubgv0", "cxubk7r", "cxubwom" ], "score": [ 6, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Film - the original clear plastic stuff with thousands of pictures on it - is actually much higher resolution than DVD, BluRay or even 4K. Provided you have access to it, you can convert it to whatever digital resolution you want, by in effect taking a photo of each frame and running them together.\n\nIf you *don't* have access to the original, then you'll probably find you get a really poor quality disc. However - most films are archived and it's in the producer's interests to allow the best quality print.", "Because the source material was of higher resolution than either VHS, DVD or Blu-Ray.\n\nIf you look at the IMDB page, it states, under technical specs:\n\nCinematographic Process\tDigital (source format) \nDigital Intermediate (2K) (master format)\n\nSo, to make a Blu-Ray, they just run it off of the master. It doesn't matter that previous releases were on VHS and DVD.", "Possibly.\n\nDepending on what's being released on a \"newer\" format, they may have access to the original film and can release it easily at higher resolutions.\n\n35mm film (probably the most popular format, historically speaking) is about the equivalent of about 5-6000 horizontal lines digitally. When you see things like 720p, 1080i, or \"4k\" they're talking about horizontal lines. If the film is intact and well-preserved, they'd be able to release anything made in that format at full resolution.\n\nFor reference, VHS had 240 lines of resolution, DVD was 480, and Blu-ray is 1080. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clhwdd0", "clhwgiw", "clhwhxt", "clhwj03", "clhwqmh", "clhzfpy", "clhzg74", "cli2jll" ], "score": [ 20, 7, 4, 22, 2, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Op's name is 6 letters\n\nQuestion is about HL3\n\n6 divided by 3 is 2\n\nHL2 comes before HL3\n\n**HL3 Confirmed**", "It would be the third installment of the half life video game series if it ever gets released. Half life one and two were game changers so there's always been big hype around the third one since it's been idk like 10 years since 2 came out.\n\nEdit: they are supposedly working on it but they have not and probably will not set a release date. My guess is they are waiting on some revolutionary idea so that the game isn't disappointing. ", "The Half-Life series is a popular series of shooter games on PC, and the last entry in the series was in 2007, and the story hasn't been resolved. Valve, the developer, hasn't given *any* word as to when the game will release, or even how far into development it is--if it is even being developed. It's one of the most anticipated games ever, and we don't even know *if* the game will come out.\n\n\"Half-Life 3 confirmed\" is just a joke now, because of all of this.", "Half-Life is a series of video games by Valve.\n\nThe first game came out in 1998, and was a huge success. The second game came out in 2004 (after being delayed for over a year) and was also a huge success.\n\nAfter the seconds game, Valve decided to create new sequels as three \"episodes\" (which were more like expansion to the second game). The first episode, titled \"Half-Life 2: Episode 1\", came out in 2006, and the next episode came out in 2007. They were both also very successful. However, the third episode never saw the light of day, and fans are still expecting it or Half-Life 3. Since Valve are very hush-hush about this, fans try to look for anything that might hint on a new game being developed.\n\nYou can read more here: _URL_0_", "Half Life 1 and 2 are first person shooters made by Valve. Both games were immensely popular, and Half Life 1 was so revolutionary it is credited with helping to define the entire first person shooter genre. On top of that, the plot of the games (and the mini games Half Life 2 episodes 1 and 2 in the same universe) leaves many unanswered questions.\n\nWith the massive success of the series and the unfinished plot, it would only make sense that Valve would release Half Life 3, which would make tens of millions of fans very happy, but 7 years now after the release of HL2 episode 2, and 10 years after the release of HL2, Valve has announced no official plans of developing Half Life 3. \n\nBecause of this, fans have frequently developed absurd conspiracy theories trying to confirm that Valve is working on Half Life 3, and it has pretty much become a running joke in certain circles of the internet.", "Half life 3 = The Void.\n\nIt is full of things, yet it is so very empty, for it is nothingness.", "A game so long in the making, 4chan died waiting for it.", "Here's my true ELI5, because everyone else's seem a bit long:\n\nThere's a video game company called Valve. They made two first-person shooter (FPS) games, called Half-Life 1 & 2. The plot didn't resolve itself in HL2, so fans have been hoping for a third installment for a *very* long time. It's been so long that fans are always coming up with conspiracy theories...thus why it's always being \"confirmed\" to exist in ridiculous ways." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/half-life-3-confirmed" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1k9qle" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "(1/2)\n\nWell, you've inadvertently waded into what is probably the biggest ongoing debate in the historiography of slavery in North America right now! There is a huge debate raging at the moment regarding the exact role slavery has had to play in the development of modern capitalism, and the industrial revolution specifically. It's a debate that has been raging since at least 1944 with the development of what historians of slavery call the 'Williams thesis', named for Eric Williams and his book *Capitalism and Slavery*, in which he argued for an intrinsic link between the two. There is today a broad consensus that there is something of an essential relationship between the two and that slavery had a significant role to play in the industrial revolution and the development of capitalist economy; the debate largely focused on just how significant that role is, and whether or not it was definitive (in other words, was slavery a necessary prerequisite for industrialisation, or did it simply give it a helping hand?). For my part, I am unconvinced by the argument that there exists a definitive causal relationship between slavery and the industrial revolution - it has a role to play, absolutely, but I am not satisfied with the arguments that have been advanced to suggest it is the driving force behind western industrialisation.\n\nThe Williams thesis essentially holds that slavery's contribution to industrialisation is one of material investment. According to Williams, in the 17th and 18th centuries slavery in the New World provided the ingredients necessary for industrialisation. Extremely profitable farming operations allowed for the accumulation of vast wealth surpluses that provided the capital to finance the industrial revolution; the transatlantic slave trade created complex international markets, with ports and shipping lines that also carried goods and messaged, along which industrial supplies and consumer goods could later be ferried. As industrialisation gets underway in earnest, slavery begins to go into decline as it becomes apparent that industrial wage labour is more profitable and socially agreeable. It is, according to Williams, abolished in the 19th century as it becomes more profitable to 'proletarianise' slaves and turn them into sharecroppers or wage labourers, aided by improvements in agricultural efficiency made possible by the explosion in engineering creativity brought on by industrialisation. In this conceptualisation, slavery is essentially a feudalistic and pre-capitalist enterprise that is fundamentally incompatible with but necessary for the development of industrial capitalism.\n\nHistorians of slavery now widely recognise that the Williams thesis is fundamentally wrong in this regard. Slavery was not in decline in the 19th century - on the contrary, particularly in the United States, it has been shown to be a thriving and enormously profitable enterprise that did not appear to be dying out of its own accord. The picture in the British Caribbean is a little more complicated - there is still some disagreement over whether or not the region was in economic decline by the 19th century. Generally speaking, there is agreement that Britain's colonies were troubled but certainly not in any kind of terminal danger or decline that meant slavery would inevitably die out (and in some parts, like Barbados, slavery was very much a healthy, expanding institution). Nor are most historians convinced that it is a wholly pre-capitalist enterprise, either. Eugene Genovese took up that mantle most notably after Williams, and that argument has been thoroughly picked apart over the years (Walter Johnson's *Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market* is a solid critical response to the way in which Genovese has misinterpreted the historical record in this regard). I'm going to talk about this in more detail towards the end - and you'll see why I'm leaving it for the end - but suffice to say, New World slavery was not *incompatible* with capitalism.\n\nSo what about Williams' contention that slavery was a necessary prerequisite to industrialisation? Well, this is where the debate gets rather more heated and complicated. There are many historians today still arguing in favour of that component of the Williams thesis, and the most notable lately would probably be Edward Baptist in his book *The Half Never Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism*. Baptist alleges that the enormous profits being made from cotton and sugar helped to finance the industrial revolution in the United States and Britain, respectively.\n\nWhat has also not been explained satisfactorily, in my view, is at what point slavery becomes uncoupled from the wider capitalist economy. Slavery is not, as I go into more detail later, a pre-capitalist phenomenon; it is not a relic carried over from some distant feudal past. It is thoroughly and wholly compatible with capitalist economic practices. Yet scholarly studies consistently fail to find that slavery was particularly and uniquely significant to the ongoing economic prosperity of the United States or Great Britain in the 19th century. The abolition of slavery gives rise to only a small economic shock in the United States, one which is perhaps also partly explained by the end of the Civil War dragging down growth as well - economic well-being recovers very quickly. Likewise, assessments of cotton's contribution to Gross Domestic Product (the value of everything the economy produces in a year) are modest. Baptist's claims in his book depend partly on the immense value of cotton to the US economy which other scholars have shown are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economic theory: due to what is essentially an accounting error in how he tabulated the worth of cotton production in the 19th century, he has accidentally doubled it, whilst at the same time he miscalculates GDP in such a way that makes his estimates of cotton's contribution to the economy worthless (he excludes asset sales for instance but includes slave sales, even though slave sales are essentially asset sales in a slave economy). Though their 1974 work is rightfully deeply criticised, one of the more positive contributions Fogel and Engerman have made to the scholarship on slavery is demonstrating that the Southwest was just as wealthy as the Northeast in 1860 if you include wealth caught up in slaves (Gavin Wright has shown without slaves the North was 64% richer), only concentrated in the hands of a minority. It seems illogical that there should be such a huge dependency on that kind of wealth that somehow disappears to the point where slavery is abolished with a negligible impact on the wider economy.\n\nLikewise, Baptist's thesis argues that cotton drove industrialisation in Britain, but he does a very bad job at proving it - and indeed, the advent of meaningful cotton mill operations in northern England significantly predates the explosion in cotton production in the Southern US, rather than being driven by it. It is also worth emphasising that Jamaica is particularly suited to growing cotton, and particularly to hand-picking cotton. To this day Jamaican cotton is worth four to five times Egyptian cotton. Yet we do not see any meaningful effort on the part of British planters to tap into this lucrative resource even in Jamaica, which was not a sugar monopoly colony; whilst this may simply reflect poor economic planning, it seems to be rather odd that if these planters were providing the finance and capital to drive industrialisation in northern England, that they would not be logically trying to also tap into the emerging market for cotton goods. Sugar remained king in the Caribbean, even though it was a much less stable market than cotton. And in any event, I would also stress that, although the Civil War in the United States did have an impact on the British economy, there is evidence that Britain was able to heavily supplement its shortfall in cotton imports from both India and Egypt. Britain's own abolition of slavery and the slave trade has been estimated to have cost just 2% of national income, suggesting it was far from the driver of economic growth. The profits from Britain’s colonies are just not enough to finance industry’s wholesale development and growth.\n\nSo what role did slavery play in the industrial revolution? Certainly, it *was* a source of finance, and the plantations of the South and the Caribbean did produce raw materials that helped to fuel industrialisation - though the advent that made this possible, the invention of the cotton gin, comes twenty to thirty years into industrialisation and coincides with the emergence of cotton mills. But the evidence for both the United States and Britain is that the vast majority of the wealth created by slavery remained trapped within the slave system, disappearing upon abolition. The end of slavery is devastating to the elite of both the South and the British Caribbean, wiping out vast quantities of wealth over night and bringing eventual ruin to many estates. Slave owners were, largely speaking, investing in more slaves rather than in industry - though some certainly did invest in industry (as did some slave traders who were not necessarily slave owners). And we know that in Britain, about half of all planters were not actually resident in the Caribbean and had other economic interests. But the evidence for slavery being the *driving* and *causal* factor behind industrialisation is, in my view, rather weak and the argument has yet to be made convincingly. There are too many inconsistencies and problems with the developments in the Williams thesis since 1944. It has a role to play but it is fundamentally wrong, in my view, to attribute industrialisation to slavery. It's just not that simple or straight-forward, and that argument rests on a very simplified, inaccurate view of economic development in the 18th and 19th centuries." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6s048v", "c6s08li" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "This is too wide a topic to cover in a single post so let me deal with the one question you specifically asked. The hollow square (as a pike formation mostly) works well against cavalry for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the pike is a good weapon versus cavalry due to its reach. A pike formation on the other hand is normally vulnerable to flanking. Changing directions in a pike formation is messy business that requires coordination and skill. The hollow square doesn't really have a front and as such is not vulnerable to flanking. The hollow form also brings the advantage of quickly being able to reinforce a weak spot quickly as troops can move freely within the square. This was often used with a mobile force of ranged troops within the square, specifically the famous spanish square/tercio formation. A square is weaker versus a concentrated assult as much of its strenght is spread out as opposed to focused forward as is the case with a line formation.\n\nIn a more general context, military formations usually develope as a reaction to something else. A firm line is stronger than a brute force charge since every man protects the men next to him. The mobile cavalry can out-flank the line but not the square which in turn is vulnerable to a line formation or attack column. It's all a gigantic game of rocks, papers, scissors.", "Depends on the period and the weapons of the period, this topic is basically asking to describe the basics of tactics of warfare of all history.\n\nOsprey have some basic books of some eras that you may want to look into." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drcwmgq" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "If it's not a modified organism then they're not lying. I could poop in your salad and certify it as non gmo" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2rkqo5", "c2rn2oy", "c2rkqo5", "c2rn2oy" ], "score": [ 7, 2, 7, 2 ], "text": [ " > presumably reducing the chance of rejection\n\none of the biggest reasons for why we would want to use stem cells is to *prevent* rejection. if i donate my kidney to some guy, he will have to take immusuppressor drugs *for the rest of his life*. and we are the same species! if he got a monkey's kidney, then it would be an even worse rejection. the same thing would happen to animal stem cells.\n\n\nas a matter of fact, animal contamination in stem cells is a massive problem in research. at the moment, all of the NIH sanctioned human stem cell lines were just *grown* on a \"rug\" of mouse fibroblast cells (you have to do this, so that they stay stem cells). just the fact that they were *grown* on mouse cells is a large enough amount of contamination that we don't inject them into people.\n\nso if human stem cells grown with animal cells are bad, then animal stem cells themselves are much, much worse.", "our immune system is sensitive enough to recognize that cells are from a human not ourselves and destroy it.. If they find a cell from an animal they destroy it even faster.", " > presumably reducing the chance of rejection\n\none of the biggest reasons for why we would want to use stem cells is to *prevent* rejection. if i donate my kidney to some guy, he will have to take immusuppressor drugs *for the rest of his life*. and we are the same species! if he got a monkey's kidney, then it would be an even worse rejection. the same thing would happen to animal stem cells.\n\n\nas a matter of fact, animal contamination in stem cells is a massive problem in research. at the moment, all of the NIH sanctioned human stem cell lines were just *grown* on a \"rug\" of mouse fibroblast cells (you have to do this, so that they stay stem cells). just the fact that they were *grown* on mouse cells is a large enough amount of contamination that we don't inject them into people.\n\nso if human stem cells grown with animal cells are bad, then animal stem cells themselves are much, much worse.", "our immune system is sensitive enough to recognize that cells are from a human not ourselves and destroy it.. If they find a cell from an animal they destroy it even faster." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ctwyuy3" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "You might be interested in Richard Lenski's long-term evolution of E. coli [experiment](_URL_0_). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dr1uaea" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Just as a point of clarification: the waxing and waning of the moon are not caused by the earth's shadow; it is a result of the moon rotating around the earth, and from our perspective, the full half of the moon that is illuminated by the sun appears in phases. The only instance of the earth's shadow affecting the illumination of the moon is at the time of a lunar eclipse, a relatively rare occurrence. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg2h8h7", "cg2h9xm", "cg2ha6f", "cg2hd76", "cg2hdqv", "cg2iy0p" ], "score": [ 3, 10, 3, 3, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "They stay in jail", "They will remain in jail, absent some executive clemency. Everyone is subject to the laws in place at the time; just because something becomes legal later doesn't mean you're innocent of committing a crime when it was criminal.", "It was a crime when it was illegal so they would remain jail.", "Marijuana has been legalized by certain states. Meaning that particular state will not arrest you for possession under a given amount, generally 2 oz . Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level. DEA ATF and FBI can arrest and charge people for marijuana possession regardless of the state's legal stance ", " > How is it that marijuana is legal in some places in the US, but there are many people in jail for possession?\n\nIt is only legal at the state level in Washington and Colorado (for recreational use...and a few more states allow medicinal marijuana). If you are in Alabama and have marijuana on you, it is still illegal. Also note that it is illegal on a federal level. So if you get caught by the TSA or some other federal agency, they would abide by federal law. (Also, interesting tidbit I learned from the University of Colorado's HR: they have to abide by federal law in most cases! So while Colorado says possession is legal, it's legality on campus grounds is still murky.)\n\n > If weed becomes legal in more places, what happens to those in jail for possession?\n\nThey will still be in jail. Legally speaking, they still broke the law.", "If you commit a crime, it doesn't matter if what you did becomes legal later, you still did it when it was illegal. In some cases you can go to a review board and have the sentence nulled." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cf75s10" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It is because in a video we can see the actions leading up and proceeding from that action, while audio, the sound is laid out in a very specific way. (English phonetics are very complicated) When a small thing is changed, it becomes nearly impossible to understand." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ev2wyrr" ], "score": [ 1170 ], "text": [ "Automotive journalist here. \n\nYour question is intimately tied to the history of automotive magazines, and I’m not aware of a really good, academic history exploring that. I can tell you that the form itself dates back to the earliest days of motoring — Carl Benz filed his patent for the “vehicle powered by a gas engine” in 1886, and both the American publication The Horseless Age and the U.K.’s The AutoCar published their first issues in 1895. \n\nBut they were more industrial news for makers and sellers of cars than consumer opinion for many years. Prior to the development of the car review, automotive magazines experimented with being industry publications full of sales data and how-to repair guides, but the car review we know today was a post-world war II creation. \n\nThe father of the modern car review - a journalist’s opinion of the car based on their experience of driving it - was American Tom McCahill, and he’s widely credited within the industry as the first to publish 0-60 times. \n\nHe convinced Mechanix Illustrated to publish the first such article, where he reviewed his own personal 1946 Ford Coupe, which, he noted, got from a dead stop to 60 mph in about 23 seconds. He left us no notes on how he made this measurement. But he repeated the test in subsequent reviews. \n\nWhy did he pick 0-60 instead of, say, 0-50? Sad to say, no one seems to have recorded his answer. \n\nI will note that it’s quite close to a 0-100 kph measurement, which would seem intuitively more logical. But I have no evidence that he even considered this. Models at the time were generally not sold on multiple continents, so it seems doubtful that it entered his mind. \n\nBoth his review format and his test caught on. By the middle 1950s, publications like Sports Cars Illustrated (today known as Car and Driver) and Motor Trend made it the heart of their content, and they all published 0-60 times. \n\nIt’s worth noting, however, that they didn’t all use a standard technique and haven’t stuck with the same technique all along. Innovations in drag racing particularly changed the numbers — beginning in the 1960s, drag strips used a light beam system to measure time — and in the U.S., enthusiast magazines rented time on these for testing. Because of the way they trigger, the machines allowed the car to roll about 1 foot before they began to measure. The technology has changed, but to keep their numbers consistent, many publications still test with “one foot of roll-out.”\n\nThis practice never caught on in Europe, where drag racing was never a significant phenomenon. Hence, American and European publications tend to use different methods that can produce different measurements. In a world where enthusiasts argue over every tenth of a second, that becomes a little humorous. \n\nHope that helps. I wish there were better sources to point you to, but to the best of my knowledge, the first good academic history of our field has yet to be attempted." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6yao53", "c6yexe2" ], "score": [ 13, 10 ], "text": [ "All were destroyed; Troy before the Golden Age of Greece, Carthage by a victorious Rome around 150 BC, and Sparta was sacked by the Goths around 400 AD after centuries of empty autonomy as a curiosity within the Roman Empire. \n\nInterestingly, it appears that the last few speakers of the Spartan dialect are dying out. After millennia, Tsakonian - a descendant of Doric Greek - is restricted to [only a few hundred speakers](_URL_0_).\n\nThe cultures of Troy and Carthage, on the other hand, have basically been entirely wiped out by history.", "What we think of in the classical sense of Sparta is an abandoned ruin, with scattered relics lying around. [The modern city of Sparta lies just a few miles away](_URL_1_), and is a relatively new town.\n\nTroy, or the site largely considered to be Troy has been rebuild about 9 times over the years [and can be seen in layers](_URL_2_). Though now is entirely a ruin.\n\nCarthage has existed as both a major and minor city over the past few thousand years, [and is another case of a small city with the same name located just a few miles away](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsakonian_language" ], [ "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quartier_Punique.JPG", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Sparti_in-river-Eurotas-valley_flanked-by-Taygetos-mountains.jpg", "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Layers_of_Troy.JPG" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwv1fpm" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Yeah! So the faculty sent out an email telling the student body not to be super racist and wear offensive costumes on halloween. Then a professor responded to that email saying that it wasn't the school's responsibility to police students like that and they should make their own judgement and face the social consequences of wearing offensive costumes. The students took this response offensively as they thought freedom of speech should be regulated by the school. The professor did not agree. Basically the professor was trying to make a point about freedom of speech and it back-fired on him. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dru79f0" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Your field of vision is much shorter at night (the length of your headlights), so things appear to move by you quickly. During the day you see things further down the horizon." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7yu11p", "d7yvu68", "d7yx128", "d7yzfgd", "d7z5j4n", "d7z7qzy", "d7z9eu0", "d7zaesi", "d7zhwzf", "d802p9u" ], "score": [ 5820, 102, 2257, 3, 7, 85, 11, 3, 30, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes, very slowly.\n\nLight has momentum, even though it is massless, so if you shoot a beam of light in one direction, conservation of momentum will push you in the opposite direction.\n\nA reasonably powerful LED flashlight will use about 1-3 Watt, lets say 3 W. The efficiency of a LED is somewhere between 25% and 40%, so for sake of ease of computation lets make that 33% and we get a net amount of light output of 1 W. \n\nThe ratio between the momentum and energy of light is 299,792,458 (Which is also the speed of light). So in 1 second, the flashlight produces 1 J worth of light, which is equal to 0.33 * 10^-8 kg m/s. If the flashlight is not too heavy, say 100 gram or 0.1 kg, that means that 1 second of light would propel the flashlight to a velocity of 10^-7 m/s. This assumes that all light is directed in straight line. The more cone-shaped the bundle of light is, the lower the momentum transfer is.\n\nLeaving the light on for one day would propel the flashlight to about 0.009 m/s or almost 1 cm per second. Unfortunately, operating a 3 W LED for a day uses about 260 kJ of energy. Regular AA batteries have somewhere around 10 kJ of energy (depending on the type). And at a weight of 20-30 grams per battery, you can't carry put more than 2-3 in the device without violating our original assumption of a 100 gram device.", "As other answers have said, Yes.\n\nIn terms of using this as actual spaceship propulsion (powered by solar panels), there is a slightly easier way:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWhich reflects the sun's light to generate (tiny amounts of) thrust!", "As an addendum to the information already provided here:\n\nIts not just visible light that'll produce a tangible thrust. Any wavelength of light will. This becomes a problem for space probes, because electronics and power supplies turning on and off create heat in the infrared spectrum, and these infrared photons cause a small thrust which over long periods of time will cause the probe to veer off course.\n\nThere's actual computer simulation and modeling done at NASA to account for this infrared-thrust effect when setting probe trajectories and course corrections.", "How do you measure movement in space? I was think about how you would test OPs question. How would you set a flashlight in space without already being in motion? Or because it is all theoretical anyway... it doesn't matter? ", "Don't know much about physics, but why would the weight of an object matter in space? Wouldn't any object be weightless? I would of thought that the surface area of the reflective/light producing object would be what mattered? Can a physicist please explain?", "There's a classic physics trick problem where you ask students to figure out the best way to gain momentum using only a flashlight or laser pointer while in space. The trick of the question is that it's better to simply throw the flashlight/laser pointer than to bother turning it on!", "Can someone explain to me why the light would need to continue being on in order for the flashlight to keep moving? I thought when something gets propelled in space, because space is pretty much a vacuum, that it just keeps moving? Like if a rocket ship was up there, fired its engines, then turned it off, it would now move a constant velocity.\n\nI know space isn't a perfect vacuum, but surely those few hydrogen atoms colliding with the flashlight would make negligible difference, unless there's another reason why the flashlight needs to keep its light on to keep moving?", "Followup question. Given that sources of artificial light are not evenly distributed on the Earth (see: _URL_0_), are we propelling the Earth in some direction? Granted, the Earth is huge, and I imagine atmospheric scattering of light would dampen this effect, but is this theoretically happening? I would imagine that since most artificial light is used at night, if this were to be happening, we would be propelling ourself in the direction of the sun.", "Aerospace Engineer here. In college we were presented a question during class on this very topic. Essentially, if you're an astronaut and get separated from your space craft and all you have is a flashlight - can you get back to the ship?\n\nLong answer - If you turn on the flash light and point it in the direct-opposite direction of the space craft. Yes. But it is going to take a long time.\n\nShort answer - If you throw the flashlight in the direct-opposite direction of the space craft. Yes. But you're a lot more likely to mess up your trajectory and miss the ship.", "E=mc^2, and photons carry energy. \nFor the most part, a flash light emits visible light (lets assume it is an LED, and not an incandescent), which has an a frequency of about 600 THz.\n\nA photon's energy, is E=hf, (h=Plank's constants, f=frequency). So there fore, E=(6.63*10^-34 Joule/sec)*(600*10^12sec). Do the math, and it comes out to about 4x10^-19 joules (Not that much).\nNext, plug that into E=mc^2. (4x10^-19 J)/c^2 =m. Plug in c, and you get the mass of a photon at 600THz, is about 4.5 J/m^2/s^2 x 10^-36\n\nSince the Joule can be converted (kg*m^2)/s^2 (_URL_0_), you substitute J for that, cross out the m^2 and s^2, and end up with 4.5x10^-36 kg.\n\nTo give you an idea, the smallest SI prefix, is yocto- (i.e. a yoctogram), which is equal to 10^-24 grams. A photon (if i calclulated the mass correctly) is about 4.5x10^-11 yocto grams. Also, the mass of an electron is about 9.1 x 10^-31kg, making it 100,000x more massive than a phton. This is almost the same as the ratio of the mass of earth to the sun (if a photon were the earth, an electron would be the sun, and you would be about as massive as the entire universe) (VERY rough estimates).\n\nNow, a mag-lite is about 600 lumens. 1 lumen at 560nm (pretty close to our 600nm wavelength) is 3.8 x 10^15 photons/second, so let's say our mag-lite is emitting 4x10^15 photons per second.\n\nGiven this, and our previous estimate that 1 photon is 4.5x10^-36 kg, it is emitting about 18x10^-21 kg of photons per second, moving at 1c (c=speed of light in vacuum). Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, we know that this could also propel 18x10^-21 kg of material in the opposite direction at the speed of light, every second.\n\nSo now we use the F=ma formula, where m = 18x10^-21 kg, and a is 299 792 458 m/s, per second, or 299 792 458 m/s^2. \nPlug that in F=(18x10^-21 kg)*(299 792 458 m/s^2)\n\nSo. the force that the mag-lite is creating by being turned on is about 5.4x10^-12N.\n\nNow we work in reverse to find the acceleration of the flashlight.\nI'm going to make a rough estimate, that a maglite wights about 12lbs. 1lbs is about 1/2 a kilo (in earth-gravity), and so 12lbs is about 5.5 kilo.\n\nFINALLY we plug that in, to F=ma again, and get 5.4x10^-12N=5.5kg*a. Do some algebra, convert N to 1kg * m/s, multiply/devide it out, and get around 1^-14 meters per second squared.\n\nBIG THANKS TO:\nwikipedia\n_URL_2_\n_URL_1_\nMy TI-84 calculator\nThis Saturday, so i could spend about an hour working out this problem.\n\nTL,DR: A mag-lite that emits 600 lumens with a mass of 5.5kg, when turned on will accelerate at about 0.00000000000001m/s^2.\n\nEDIT: If I did anything wrong, please tell me. I am by no means an expert on this stuff. I just used google and a calculator\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55167/earth_lights_lrg.jpg" ], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule", "google.com", "maglite.com" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb4vax2", "cb4yu6x" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It goes to a service called \"Fedwire\". Everyone has different banks, so the backbone is a service provided by the Fed that \"clears\" transactions. \nYou swipe your card and Target's bank infrastructure, say its Chase, needs your money from BoA. The data is sent about transaction to Fedwire over internet/phone lines when you swipe on the scanner since they need BoA to release your money. This is handled digitally through Fedwire, which is why it is known as an \"Automated Clearing House\". It simply allows the banks to interact digitally. \n\nThe idea of having this central structure, rather than each bank communicating each individual transaction to each other digitally is known as clearing. There are enormous amounts that cancel out. If Chase needs $150 from a BoA account, but other transactions are happening (other people swiping) that result in BoA needing $100 from Chase, BoA will only actually send $50 to Chase, the net amount. It is easier and cheaper to transfer the net amount rather than the total amounts twice (one transaction vs two).\nEDIT: this is for debit", "Agreed /u/kilo21 for debit.\n \nCredit is virtually the same but I'll explain a bit about the process from a transaction stand point. Some of these steps are cancelled out depending on the company (Discover acts as its own bank and allows them to give higher rewards).\n\nYou go to Target to buy some socks and pay at the checkout with your credit card (let's say it's a Capital One Visa card). You swipe the card. Over the phone/lan line, that swipe information is sent to VISA with a dummy account number that Capital One can identify. VISA has it's own security checks to make sure the transaction looks safe. Pending your transaction meets that criteria, VISA contacts Capital One and sends over that dummy account id. \n\nCapital One references that number to pull up your actual account. They check their own security data to make sure the purchase isn't suspicious (different state, high dollar purchase, buying a lot recently), and also to make sure you have enough credit limit to make the purchase (they still may approve it depending on your card's terms, but you'll pay a fee for going over). Assuming you meet their criteria, Capital One approves the payment to Target. \n\nThere is a third player that comes in that actually pays Target for that purchase. VISA and Capital One aren't sending out checks every day to Targets across the country. Instead there's a Clearing House and other small/big banks that transfer digital cash to Target without VISA or Capital One having to micro manage things.\n\nAll of that happens in a matter of ~5 seconds.\n\n*Additional information* around transactions and fees associated. You may have noticed some businesses asking for cash only or credit/debit purchases allowed only if its greater than x dollars. All the work I described above isn't free, but it's at a stores benefit to allow credit card purchases so customers will come buy things (how many of us pay cash?). \n\nFor credit purchases, the business it's typically charged a flat % around the 2-3% range (some going to VISA, some going to Capital One, and some of that going back to you in the form of rewards). We call that interchange fees. (There are ways for businesses to lower that % too, like making you sign or the cashier asking for last 4 numbers of your card).\n\nFor Debit, it's usually a flat fee + some percent. I'm less knowledgeable here but lets say it's 10 cents plus 1%. Smaller % because there's less risk the money doesn't get paid.\n\nHowever, if I'm buying a stick of gum for $1 from a small business: Cash would give the business $1 (100% value). Credit would give ~98 cents (98%). Debit would give ~89 cents (86%). You can probably tell that payment methods are advantageous to different businesses for different reasons. \n\nSuper small companies, the neighborhood lemonade stand, would like cash because they don't mind the labor of counting, depositing, and overall managing money. Large businesses with lower prices would prefer credit because it simplifies money management and takes a smaller % away of their low value items (no flat fees). Businesses selling high value goods would love debit because it's less costly than credit at a certain cost threshold, and simpler money management than cash.\n\nSorry for the ramble. There's a lot more that goes into transactions but that's a good summary. Source: I work for a credit card company :D" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f6hoah2" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Because the magnets in the speakers don't need to be very strong and as such aren't going to impact the readings very much. For any impact they do have you can also calibrate the magnetic sensor to ignore it from the speakers as that will be constant and always on a single dimension where most smartphone compasses measure the magnetic field in all 3 spacial dimensions (meaning you will get an X, Y, and Z value)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ejt6ix8" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "One reason is that basically the brain is floating in water inside our skulls and if the the blow is strong enough to push the brain with enough momentum to bounce on part of the skull to another and the brain gets short circuited.\nAnother reason is that a certain amount of pain and/stress is too much to handle and our hearts are beating too fast because its in fight/flight mode and our brain shuts off to prevent us from dying via heart attack." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cq3hsuy" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "\nThere is no literary or other ancient evidence that directly bears on this question, so one is forced to speculate based on average heights of people in antiquity.\n\nThe only article I've ever seen address this is a 2002 issue of Popular Mechanics, which suggests that based on skeletal remains a 1st century Semitic male would be 5'1\". You can read [the article here](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=VM8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=popular+mechanics+face+of+jesus&source=bl&ots=OZMu3R-xPN&sig=uPy8RWFvUScKF7k9eEiO1jb0km0&hl=en&ei=qCw3TPegEsOAnQfw8pSEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20face%20of%20jesus&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fhh90l2" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because 30 hours is the sweet spot. Frames took 30 hours to render 20 years ago, despite the lower computing power available at the time.\n\nIf it took more time it would be very annoying to work with, and if it took less time, we could do more in CG^[1], run a more accurate simulation, or build more complex shots without it becoming unworkable\n\n\nYour question might be why does it takes 30 hours to render a frame when video games can do it in a fraction of a second. The answer is that to get results good enough to be composited seamlessly with reality requires very very precise (and thus compute intensive) light and physic simulations. Video games also do make many concessions to run fast (typically there is a hard limit to the number of lights or objects you can get on screen, and if a scene needs more it simply get replaced by a scene that fit these criteria). \n\n\n\n**************************\n\n[1] Doing stuff in CG can often be cheaper, and more flexible than doing stuff practically." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjjnu9j" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "What essentially happened was that the Spanish became importers as opposed to exporters. Spain was so wealthy, that they simply paid for all of the goods they required from other European nations including textiles, weapons, ships even. Spain would simply buy it since they had enough wealth to outsource any internal development. This eventually led to their downfall as well, because at the turn of the industrial revolution Spain was so far behind the rest of Europe in terms of industry that they lost a lot of their stature and prestige.\n\nI wouldn't say it became worthless, because they were using it to purchase all of their needs and the rest of Europe was more than happy to provide those services for Spain, but it eventually did lead to stunting the advancement of the nation itself. However, I am not an export in economics, so it may have had a larger economic affect than I am aware of " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d8578vh", "d859ujr", "d85k8t5" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "As you mentioned already, electric motors provide the full amount of torque instantaneously ,whereas conventional drives need time to build it up. So a powerful electric car will launch of the starting line much faster, but it might not be able to achieve the top speeds of gas powered vehicles, really high kW electric motors will be to big.", "It's pretty simple, they have instant full torque at any RPM (where most automatic cars are at ~4000RPM or 1500RPM-3000RPM if turbo boosted), however, they are not powerful motors, at least not as powerful as a Lambo, meaning their horsepower isn't enough, plus, Tesla's are damn heavy, over 1000lb heavier.", "Tesla's motors can in theory supply maximum torque at any RPM. The challenge is this. AC phased motors like the ones Tesla uses require an alternating electric current to be pumped into the motors. The exact frequency depends on exactly how fast you want the motors to spin at (with AC phased motors you are basically setting the position of the motor constantly to make constant rotation). \n\nThis AC current is generated by a device called a Variable Frequency Drive. The problem is that making a reliable AC waveform at high frequency and voltage is pretty difficult (especially due to things like inherent capacitance). The higher you make the frequency the sloppier the waveform gets and you lose torque. \n\nCars like the rimac concept one use a two speed transmission so that they don't have to rev the motors up into the point of inefficiency. The Tesla Model S didn't do this probably because they couldn't get the transmission worked out properly and it compromised reliability and other things, not to mention the extra weight. \n\nAlso at the end of the day Teslas are luxury cars, not Lambo fighters." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc2ibma" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In order to be declared brain dead there are a number of preconditions that must be met. These can vary slightly in different jurisdictions, but essentially there has to be a known disease process that has resulted in extensive brain damage. The damage must have involved the most basic parts of the brain, the brain stem, so that even the most primitive reflexes; those that control breathing, swallowing, pupillary response to light, are no longer functioning.\n\nFor an injury to cause brain death it usually is something that is effecting only the brain so that the other organs still function, and has not killed the patient outright, such that they have been placed on life support in the interim.\n\nHead trauma, and strokes are common, as they will often lead to delayed swelling of the whole brain which will eventually cut off the brain's blood supply. A similar thing happens in people who have been starved of oxygen for too long, which you might see in people who have had the heart restarted after a long period of CPR.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce5ts81" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Most of the processes in the cell occur by diffusion. Meaning a lot of what is happening is random chance, but since cells are small and much more compact than textbooks and animations show, these processes can occur rather quickly. \n\nEnzymes (the do-ers of the cell) don't really \"know\" what they're doing. They just do what they do until they are told to shop. Usually it's caused by a feedback mechanism. I guess a decent analogy would be if you were an enzyme who's job was to paint squares, you would keep painting squares until you either you run out of paint or squares. You could also be tapped on the shoulder and told to go home for the night (inhibited).\n\nYou're asking a lot of questions that have a complex background that would take pages to explain each one. I would recommend browsing around [this youtube channel](_URL_0_) for a good visual break down of a lot of your questions and more!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/user/armandohasudungan" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crykggh", "crykih3", "crykjus", "crykkni", "crykmwr", "crymhe2", "crymkb7", "cryn9ct", "crz146j" ], "score": [ 7, 9, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ " > Why aren't there smashed insects on the inside of my back window?\n\nBecause of relativity. The car and everything contained within is traveling 50mph and let's say the bee is flying 10mph, then it only needs to travel 10mph relative to the moving car. From an onlooker on the side of the road, the bee would appear to be traveling 60mph relative to the onlooker but if you were sitting in the moving car, the bee is only traveling 10mph relative to you. I'm 90% sure that's how it works anyway! It's all about perspective.", " > does the bee have to fly faster than 50mph to move from the backseat to the front seat?\n\nNo. The bee flies by pushing against the air around it, and all of the air in the car is moving along with the car.\n\nIt's much the same as the fact that, even though the earth is rotating from west to east at hundreds of miles per hour (actual speed depends on the latitude), you don't have to run faster than a speeding bullet to take a step from west to east, because the ground you're walking on is moving along with the earth.", "The bee isn't smashed because its flying through the air in the car, and the air is also moving at 50 mph.\n\nAll speed is relative. The speed of the bee might be 10 miles per hour through air. So, relative to the car, that's 10 miles per hour. If it flies from the back to the front, it's still 10 miles per hour relative to the car, but 60 mph relative to the ground.", "Relativity my friend. Ask yourself this question - \"Is it the vehicle moving? Or is it the world that's moving?\" This type of thinking is what Einstein is famous for.", "Yes. From the perspective of someone watching from the side of the road, the bee must fly faster than 50 mph. \n\nFortunately for the bee, it is ALREADY moving at 50 MPH because it accelerated with the car, as did the air around it, and you in the front seat. So, to the bee, it's just basically flying regular. \n\nThis is why, even though there are no smashed bugs on your back window, there are probably plenty on your front window. When a bug that is just sort of flying around encounters the car already moving at 50 mph, it gets accelerated to 50 mph also, but too fast to survive the impact. ", "Because the air in the car is moving at the same rate as the car is, and the bee is suspended in the air. It is moving at the same rate in the same direction as the car. The bee is pushing on the air around it.", "Forget about speed, relativity, or distance.\n\nAir is a fluid. Animals fly by pushing against the air, much like you would push against the water in a swimming pool.\n\nIn an enclosed vehicle, all the **air** inside the vehicle is traveling too. It's going to move around a little bit, but the air is moving along inside the car, and the bee only has to fly through the air around it, the fact the air is being shoved along inside a car doesn't affect it's ability to push itself through the air inside the vehicle.", "Same reason why jumping on a moving bus doesn't make you crash into the back of the bus. Everything inside is also moving at the same speed so based on relativity the inside of the bus is practically stationary except for the slight movements caused by the bus actually moving. It'll take you the same time to move from the front to the back of the bus with or without the bus moving.", "I swear i have spent my whole life thinking about this mind f----. Never had the courage to post because i thought it would be difficult to explain" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c42il25", "c42jx57", "c42jzl1", "c42k244", "c42kd94" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 4, 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Record publishers think that LOL LOUDER = BETTER, when really, if taken to the extent shown [here](_URL_0_), it just makes the music shittier. Of course, if the artist wants it like that, then it isn't really an effect of the loudness war, just the artist being stupid/avant-garde.", "Ever been watching television with normal volume, and then when an advert comes on, the sound seems deafening, even if you've not changed the volume? That's loudness. \n\nUsually a recording will have its quiet parts and its loud parts, and the difference between these parts can make the music more interesting. With our advert, what has happened is they've made the quiet parts just as loud as the loud parts. Background noises, people's footsteps etc are all at the same volume as the soundtrack and the voiceover.\n\nIn music recording, a producer often will make quiet bits louder just to make them stand out (for instance if the singer starts singing softly, we still need to be able to hear her). This is done using a device/program called a compressor, which ‘squashes’ the volume so it's more uniform. It boosts the quiet bits and ‘rounds off’ the loud bits.\n\nWith the loudness war, the industry seems to think music stands out better on the radio if they don't just use a compressor, but a limiter. A limiter is like a compressor, but instead of giving the quiet bits a little boost and rounding off the loud bits, it pushes the quiet bits to maximum volume and just plain ‘chops’ the top off the loud bits.\n\nThe music sounds less interesting as a result.\n\n[This image](_URL_0_) shows the waveform of a Nine Inch Nails recording, one from its original release in 1989, and the other from its ‘remastered’ release in 2010. Which one looks like it'll sound more interesting?", "I think most of what's written here covers it but if you want a more \"ELI5\" answer:\n\nImagine that instead of a song you have a recording of a person talking, and that person is sometimes whispering, sometimes screaming. Now, obviously the scream will be louder than the whisper. Now imagine if someone who is controlling the recording, raised the volume of the whisper and lowered the volume of the scream so they would be at the same level. The whisper would still be whisper, but at the same volume of the scream (you can notice this effect in speech if you hear radio announcers closely).\n\nNow imagine this in music: you have a soft guitar part in quieter section of the song at the same level as the big drums in the chorus. Some people like this type of sound, others don't. In my opinion, while some genres of music benefit from this \"treatment\" (if not overdone), others just get ruined by it.", "There are loud and quiet parts in music. Every media format (especially digital ones) has some limit of maximum sound level, so loudness of entire track is determined by it's loudest part. \n\nMost of music producers try to make music louder than their competitors to get the advantage on the radio, etc (people tend to prefer louder track to quieter, all else being equal). But once loudest part of the track achieves the maximum level, the only way to make track louder is dynamic compression. It makes quiet parts louder while loud parts remain the same.\n\nAs this competition progresses, mainstream music tracks become more and more compressed. It makes the music lose its dynamics. There are no more \"very quiet-quiet-medium-loud-very loud\" dynamics, music becomes just \"loud and very loud\".\n\nThis makes music sound tedious. Instead of nice \"tension and release\" we have just one continuos tension which is tiresome to listen to. Drums lose all the \"punch\" and sometimes even \"clipping\" occurs.", "Compression is an effect you apply to audio to \"squash\" its volume into a narrower range, as people have said. Specifically, it \"listens\" to an audio track and \"turns down\" the volume whenever it exceeds a certain threshold, but then you can turn up the overall volume to push everything to a (high) equal level of loudness. Compression is really versatile and useful to a music producer or audio engineer (it can really \"glue\" parts together or adjust the way a sound hits) but can cause unpleasant distortion at extreme settings. People who are upset about the \"loudness war\" argue that commercial music tries to hard too sound as loud as possible to the detriment of sound quality." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jackson-Black_or_White_Loudness.png" ], [ "http://www.christian-gleinser.de/stuff/nin-loudness-1.png" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ecfaud4" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Over the largest scales galaxies seem to arrange themselves in a foam like structure with the material we can see sitting where the bubble walls would be. Here is a [picture](_URL_0_) of a universe simulation to give you an impression.\n\nThe Great Wall in this would be a particular dense area. Our viewpoint is outside of it so it appears as a wall from where we are looking. If we where inside it would probably appear to look like more galaxies around us." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/universe-millennium-simulation.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f86uqxe" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's basically a diagram of how they want a system or process or *whatever* to work. It's hard to define because it's a pretty vague thing to start with that you can take in many different directions. I bet if your teammates drew you a picture of what they're talking about it would work a lot better than trying to define it with words." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csrfgc2", "csrhvlt" ], "score": [ 10, 3 ], "text": [ "Primary answer: Beards are easier maintained shaven than left to grow. Not having it there in the first place is considered professional since it implies that the person in question takes hygiene seriously by being willing to groom themselves every day.\n\nAncillary answer: Western cultures prefer cleanly shaven men to rugged ones for the reason indicated above. However, in places such as West Asia and Scandanavia, having a very large or substantial beard shows maturity and how \"strong\" a man is (i.e. it shows strong hormonal growth in that person). They are also status symbols elsewhere, depending upon what culture you ask.", "Beards, like any other fashion, come in and out of style. [This article](_URL_0_) has a brief history of beards.\n\nAndrew Carnegie was rich, powerful, and bearded. Every President from Lincoln to Taft, except for McKinley and Andrew Johnson, had facial hair. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.damninteresting.com/the-troubled-history-of-beards/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "emfhjda", "emkw7db" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "Hair is a source of nitrogen, and can be composted to make a fertilizer. I've thrown pet hair in the compost bins for years. \n\nI suspect that it might also, in larger quantities, help soil drainage (though I very well could be wrong about this).", "Fun fact: the bread you eat may contain human hair as an ingredient. \n\nL-cysteïne (or E920) is an ingredient in bread used to improve the dough. It makes the dough less sticky and easier to handle. \nL-cysteïne can be derived from a lot of natural sources, but in China duckfeathers and human hair are often used. \nIn Europe the human kind is forbidden, but this cannot be checked via tests. So if your bakery buys this ingredient in China your bread may contain some human hair!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]