q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
301
| selftext
stringlengths 0
39.2k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 3
values | url
stringlengths 4
132
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
46lsto
|
government deficit spending like how the us did during the great depression. how can a government spend money it doesn't have?
|
Just learned that the US government spent more money than they could make during the great depression in order to boost the economy. How can they spend money that doesn't exist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46lsto/eli5_government_deficit_spending_like_how_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0632h6",
"d063445",
"d063qci",
"d06uz5z"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The same way anyone or any organization does: the government borrows it from other people.\n\nWhen you buy a government bond, that's lending the government money.",
"They borrow money from others, mostly by selling bonds. You can buy a bond from the government essentially lending them money that they will pay back with interest later. The government can use that money to try to stimulate the economy, so they can theoretically get money from taxes once the economy gets better to pay off the bonds.",
"First, the definition of deficit spending is that you're spending money faster than you're making it. As long as you have money saved up, that's not much of a problem. (Most states have an emergency fund for this reason.)\n\nOnce the saved up money runs out, the government has to do something else. Like you and me, the government can borrow it (in the form of government bonds). Unlike you and me, the government can also make more money out of thin air. ",
"The Federal government issues Bonds. People, companies, governments buy these Bonds. The Bonds will mature over a period of time where the government will then buy back the Bond, plus interest, when it matures.\n\nSo the government is borrowing money from people who buy these Bonds. So the Bonds are effectively a loan to the government."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
61n56z
|
This week's theme: Oral History
|
Current: Oral History
On Deck: Ships and Shipping
In the Hole: The Balkans
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/61n56z/this_weeks_theme_oral_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfpyfzb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Wew, not a whole lot of answers this round. Shame too, a lot of these questions were pretty good :\\"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
60pl5d
|
How is magnetized plasma created and what kind of gasses produce them?
|
Curious about magnetized plasma. How is it created in a laboratory? Is there special equipment needed to create/store it? What gasses will produce them? The more info the better.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/60pl5d/how_is_magnetized_plasma_created_and_what_kind_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df9awb4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The gases can be most anything. Hydrogen (including its fusion-fuel isotopes deuterium and/or tritium) or helium are common choices. Storage generally requires some sort of magnetic confinement. A toroidal magnetic field geometry such as in a [tokamak](_URL_1_) is a common choice, though there are other geometries, such as [stellarators](_URL_0_). \n\nIn tokamaks, plasma is often made by pumping the chamber full of neutral gas and then sending current through a central coil, discharging in the medium. This acts to heat the medium (through Ohmic heating) as well as generates a toroidal magnetic field in the plasma. Alternatively, plasma can be heated by propagating energetic neutral beams into the medium or using some sort of radio-frequency or microwave heating. \n\nAlternatively, you can also make magnetized plasma in the laboratory by zapping matter with an intense laser beam. One way of generating magnetic fields in such plasma is to produce misaligned gradients in electron density and electron temperature, causing a thermoelectric magnetic field to grow in the medium. These magnetic fields can be quite large, up to ~10^9 Gauss in the case of the highest intensity lasers interacting with solid-density matter. \n\nEdit: added some links"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarator",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak"
]
] |
|
7x8edj
|
Where does sediments comes from?
|
Hi,
You can see scientist telling you the athmospheric content due to color in sediment layers.
Where do they come from? I get that it is material piling up over time.
But those sediments layer are several meters high.
It is like the earth is gaining material, growing.
Thanks.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7x8edj/where_does_sediments_comes_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"du6ediq"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Sediment deposition somewhere is the product of erosion somewhere else. Imagine a mountain with a stream flowing down the side of it that eventually flows into a lake. Rocks are weathered (broken down into smaller bits by physical and chemical processes at the Earth's surface) and then the products of that weathering (sediment) are eroded (transported away from their initial location by some process, usually at least in part driven by gravity) by the stream and carried into the lake. The ability of the water to carry sediment is dictated by the flow speed of the water (which is largely driven by gravity) so once the water (with the sediment it's carrying) enters the lake, it slows down and the sediment falls out of suspension and is deposited. When that sediment is deposited it obviously begins to displace water (i.e. if you had a glass of water and poured some sand into it, the water level would go up), but there are a couple of processes acting to limit the amount by which the water would go up in a natural system. The first is [compaction](_URL_0_), basically as more sediment is deposited, the weight of the overlying sediment squeezes the sediment below it and forces gaps in the sediment (i.e. little air pockets we call pore space) to close. Additionally, as the weight of the sediment increases, [isostasy](_URL_1_) will cause the whole column of rock to sink a little bit, effectively lowering the elevation of the top of the sediment (i.e. the bottom of the lake). Eventually, even with compaction and isostasy, the lake could fill up with sediment, forcing the water to spill over into whatever the next lowest area is and sediment would begin to 'bypass' this former site of deposition and fill in a new area and may even start to erode this former site of deposition. All of this is balanced by the amount of erosion upstream (i.e. mass is conserved, you're just moving material from one place to another)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaction_(geology\\)",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy"
]
] |
|
3ib42c
|
how come cats get stuck in trees and need to be rescued? could they get down on their own given enough time?
|
Do they enjoy being up there and just choose to not come down? Or do they truly need to be rescued? If a stray (ownerless) cat climbs a tree, will it die of starvation by not being able to get down on its own? Or would it eventually find a way down? Just seems strange that a cat would instinctually climb up a tall tree when startled or chased without having the ability to get down.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ib42c/eli5_how_come_cats_get_stuck_in_trees_and_need_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuewfur"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Cat claws are designed for climbing up. A cat is not a squirrel. Squirrels can climb up, down, and sideways, always headfirst, no problem. But a cat has to climb with her head up to avoid falling, and once she’s up, the only way down is to back down. A cat that's exhausted, scared, or injured can't make that climb, and sometimes the cat just has trouble figuring it out.\n\nThere have been cats that have eventually become too weak to climb down, and even after being rescued, have died later of the effects of starvation, dehydration, or exposure.\n\nWe don’t see cat skeletons in trees because Kitty becomes too weak to hold on, lets go, and falls. If the kitty were to actually die in a tree, they'd be picked apart by scavengers, insects, and then wind pretty quickly, and what was left wouldn't stay intact or in a tree very long. How many bird skeletons have you seen in trees? Truth is, skeletons just don't last long up in the elements. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5x1d18
|
why do most foods taste better when drunk or high?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x1d18/eli5_why_do_most_foods_taste_better_when_drunk_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deej9lm",
"deeqngi"
],
"score": [
43,
8
],
"text": [
"in very simple terms, weed blocks certain neurotransmitter reuptake. so, if your brain sends a signal that something tastes good, that signal will have a hard time turning off. so, that \"this tastes good\" signal will just keep firing. \n\n",
"Alcohol consumption makes you crave greasy food. It has to do with stimulating the production of \"galanin\", a neuropeptide (signaling hormone) that leads to craving fats.\n\nMarijuana, on the other hand, actually flips the hunger switch in your brain, causing \"fullness\" to feel like \"hunger\". It also changes how we perceive flavors so common flavors/smells that you'd normally find mundane become novel.\n\nThese two, separate things for the respective drugs, each trigger the primal urges of your body and brain. We have evolved to fulfill such urges and so we find doing so a primitive whole-body pleasure. So the craving fulfilled is a pleasure.\n\nAnd both drugs will tweak your dopamine levels upward, which is a third direct pleasure event.\n\nSo pot will change the tastes of food more than booze, but both will turn eating into a direct tickle of your pleasure centers. That stimulus will, in turn, color your memory of the experience. When you are experiencing pleasure the experience is encoded in your memory as brighter and more valid in every way.\n\nBasically you are shorting \"good\" to \"happy\" in your brain and so \"good tasting\" comes along for the ride."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5jbm1e
|
why do we react with anger upon hurting ourselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jbm1e/eli5_why_do_we_react_with_anger_upon_hurting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbf06xi"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Our brain has a complex reward system that is activated both when we receive a reward (food, money, etc.) and when we make an error.\n\nError detection is extremely important for our survival. For example, if touching a plant gives you a rash, you won't want to touch that plant anymore. \n\nBecause of this need, the areas of the brain associated with error detection have connections with e area associated with emotions. \n\nSo, take for example a game where you are told to push the letter on your keyboard that appears on the screen and you receive $1 for every correct button push and -$1 for every incorrect button push. When you correctly press a button, the reward system is activated (even if you haven't received the money yet) and if you press the incorrect button, and realized your mistake, the error detection system will activate emotional areas causing anger. These negative emotions make you less likely to make the same mistake again.\n\nSource: I'm a Cognitive Neuroscience student "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
23ienu
|
what's the deal with muslims in the u.k.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23ienu/eli5_whats_the_deal_with_muslims_in_the_uk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgxb8to",
"cgxbccv",
"cgxbsyl",
"cgxc4sb",
"cgxcb5e",
"cgxcyon",
"cgxdhqo",
"cgxdp6r",
"cgxdu79",
"cgxjbc7",
"cgxos4y"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
3,
19,
4,
3,
2,
2,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Never been to the UK, but seeing this headlines from there scares me. Is it really as bad as the news say? ",
"The same situation is going on in France, they do not assimilate where ever they assemble a large enough population they will then start to take over local government and keep insidiously working themselves into positions of power in order to establish autonomous self ruled areas where they will establish sharia law.\nIt is not just The U.K. or France, it's everywhere they go, the area around Hamtramck Michigan has the largest population of muslims outside the mideast, they have taken over many local governments and have exempted the morning and evening call to prayer form any noise ordinances, so now any non muslims have to listen to that twice a day.",
"the issue is removing the standards of schools from local authority's to any private group, meaning that different groups will impose different agendas. ",
" > DailyMail\n\n > The Sun\n\nIf the story is from one of these sources, it is guaranteed to be at least 80% fiction and gross exageration\n\n > Telegraph\n\n > Guardian\n\nIf the story is from one of these sources, it is heavily biased and slanted to the right (telegraph) or left (guardian). Facts will be interspersed with lots of inference and suggestive conjecture.\n\nWhile this story is, to an as yet unknown extent, true and being investigated, the other stories about Sharia law being implemented are complete nonsense. Just because it comes from a UK newspaper doesn't make it trustworthy at all.\n\nAlso, these problems are almost entirely specific to certain urban areas in England^1 (other parts of the UK have much lower immigration and/or smaller, quieter existing muslim communities), where there is a lot of muslim radicalisation going on. It's not even so much immigration (which is very, very difficult if you're not from the EU e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) as it is easier access to extremist ideologies designed to warp impressionable minds.\n\nBut it's important to not develop an understanding of the situation from newspapers which, as we in Britain can easily recognise, are either biased or complete bullshit. FT, The Times, The Herald, BBC are all much more balanced reporting. \n\n1. parts of Birmingham, Bradford and London are the most noteworthy.",
"You mean what's the deal with Muslims in England. They would have no chance doing this shit in Scotland.",
"Its not some kind of widespread epidemic or anything, as someone else said, places like Birmingham and Bradford are the hubs of the English Islamic community to a degree. This is normal though. Different parts of a country have different settlements. I'd say the Polish communities (that I've experienced first hand at least) stand out much more but the media obviously find it easier to make Islam into the villain and sell some papers.",
"Middle Eastern mythology is everywhere, where was you brought up?",
"There is no \"deal\".\r\rThere are deplorable muslim people in the uk and there are deplorable white people in the uk. In fact there will be people from most races who take part in criminal behaviour.\r\rJust like every population there are good people and bad people.\r\rTo be honest i don't know how much truth there is to the story.",
"I think it's important to differentiate between Muslims and Islamic Extremists. Every country has extremists, but it seems all too frequently being a muslim and being an extremist/terrorist are linked in the same sentence. Not to get all conspiratorial but it seems a handy way of producing a fear of other cultures which is coming in useful when we are being sold a new war. I'm from the UK, I live in London, I have many Muslim friends as I grew up going to a school in a high density muslim area. And I think the title of this post \"What's the deal with Muslims in the U.K.?\" is pretty retarded. ",
"The issue is that political correctness is mad in this country, speaking about any minority group in a less than positive way and people flip.\nAs for Muslims specifically there are areas in England that they have amassed, Leicester, Bradford, Birmingham and areas of London that have large populations of Muslims. Which is of course fine, but the issue is if they don't assimilate then it leads to friction. Its going to be a very small minority but it creates tension. 99 percent of muslims are fine and lovely, but a very few what to turn these areas into sharia (Islam law) strongholds. Trying to ban alcohol and make halal meat be sold in shops (as many places in Bradford has happened.\n\n\nThat said, I have no problem with them wanting sharia law in a sense, but since no one can really talk about it without a backlash, newspapers bring it up and look like mental racists and it never gets brought up and discussed which I think is the problem. \n\n\nReally though, Sharia law isn't going to be a thing here, Muslims aren't trying to take over UK its just fearmongering, but because no debates happen stories like these can spread. ",
"[This question has been asked a few times before](_URL_0_), so it has been removed. It's perfectly fine to re-post questions, just be sure to mention that none of the past ones answer your question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=uk+muslim&restrict_sr=on"
]
] |
||
ysvff
|
Can someone please explain medically what Lance Armstrong took and how he got away with it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ysvff/can_someone_please_explain_medically_what_lance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5yjsp8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"He has been accused by the US Anti-Doping Agency of using erythropoietin and steroids. Erythropoietin (EPO) makes your body make more red blood cells, which increases how much oxygen your blood can carry and, to a lesser extent, how much CO2 it can carry away. This increases aerobic capacity greatly. Steroids, well you know what they do, increase muscle mass, etc.\n\nThe effect was not subtle and times have been about 10% slower after crackdowns on doping, which is an enormous difference.\n\nEPO and steroids have severe health risks, so it is vital to the safety of the athletes themselves that they are not allowed or feel forced to use these agents. EPO thickens the blood-\n\n\"Yes, EPO has its dangers. EPO injections thicken the blood, which increases the strain on the heart. This is particularly dangerous when the heart rate slows down, such as during sleep. The increased thickness, or viscosity, of the blood increases the risk of blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes. According to the book \"The death of Marco Pantani\" by Matt Rendell, **some cyclists reportedly set an alarm each night to wake up and cycle on a trainer for ten minutes to jump-start their circulation and reduce the possible health risks of using EPO.**\"\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/performanceenhancingdrugs/a/EPO.htm"
]
] |
||
20in1y
|
Is freezing a feasible way to separate Heavy Water from Light Water?
|
According to this _URL_0_ Heavy water freezes a few degrees above 0. I've been thinking if you have a cup of light water at a constant 1 degree Celsius and placed a small piece of frozen heavy water (ice) at the same temperature into it, would the heavy water ice grow by only freezing the heavy water found in the cup?
The light water isn't at it's freezing point but the heavy water is and will attach readily to the piece of heavy ice. It likely won't work but any explanations if I'm not correct?
I wanted to know of a better way of making heavy water than this guy _URL_1_
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20in1y/is_freezing_a_feasible_way_to_separate_heavy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg3ucmr",
"cg3ujpi"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This effect is known as isotopic fractionation. Using water as an example, the heavy isotopes (deuterium, tritium, oxygen-17 and oxygen-18) tend to favour the solid phase during freezing. The ice becomes enriched in heavy isotopes and the leftover liquid is depleted in heavy isotopes. However the difference is very very small, therefore this would not be a practical way of manufacturing heavy water. You could work out theoretically how many times you would need to freeze, melt and refreeze water to get a decent concentration of heavy water, but it's getting late so I will think about it more tomorrow.",
"Freezing is a bad way to separate, because it's very much a nucleation and growth driven process. Pure water won't freeze until it's below -35 to -50C, depending on a bunch of factors, after which it freezes all at once. Distillation is much more practical, and electrocatalysis is even better."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://teachnuclear.ca/contents/cna_nuc_tech/candu-2/",
"https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/can.general/cfAh7ldu3vk/LszICX7yu7wJ"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
80ezzn
|
when using a debit card, why do some merchants require me to enter a pin, sign a receipt, or simply swipe?
|
Why is it that places like McDonald's can take your card and swipe for you without requiring you to enter a pin or sign anything but other merchants can require one or both of those tasks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80ezzn/eli5_when_using_a_debit_card_why_do_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duv1w45",
"duv2x84",
"duv38fh",
"duv3zeb",
"duv4po2"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Along with the other answer, most card providers do not require signatures or PINs for transactions under a certain amount, usually $20-$25. ",
"I can't remember the last time I swiped my card or signed a receipt. \n\nIn the UK it's pretty much chip and pin or contactless.",
"At my job, we recently implemented a policy where only receipts over $20 require a signature—it’s proof on our end if someone comes back and claims fraud ",
"At the chick-fil-a I worked at they rang every card as credit, so no chips at all and orders over 25-35 needed signatures. Wasn’t told a reason but it would make the drive thru faster at least\n\nEdit:forgot a letter",
"My store doesn't use a pin pad so your debit card is ran through the VISA or MasterCard service. We only require a signature for amounts over $15. \n\nMost supermarkets,etc will ask for your PIN on a debit card, or you can skip that step and it'll use the VISA or MasterCard service. Then they have you sign if over a certain amount like $30. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4fq20x
|
what do insurance companies mean when they say "you can save $x when you switch to this company."?
|
* Do they mean save X amount annually?
* Save X amount per month?
* Over the course of your lifetime?
I see commercials saying this all the time.
Just never really understood exactly what they meant by it.
Anyone care to explain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fq20x/eli5_what_do_insurance_companies_mean_when_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2azp3d",
"d2b16x6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's typically an annual savings amount. However, they only mention that \"those who switch save $X\", but they never mention what percentage of people who contact them for a quote actually switch. Maybe it's only a specific demographic that saves a lot and thus chooses to switch, while the vast majority realize they are getting a better deal with their current company.",
"They almost always mean X amount annually, but you need to read the fine print to be sure.\n\nOf course with annual savings, also come monthly savings if you are paying monthly.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3403ox
|
Why does lithium not form a strong base, and florine a strong acid?
|
It seems that the alkali metals all form strong bases, so what makes lithium (and francium) the exception? On this same pattern, all the halogens form strong acids, so why are fluorine and astatine different?
Also, why don't more of the alkaline earth metals form strong bases?
Edit: spelling mistake in the title... that's embarrassing...
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3403ox/why_does_lithium_not_form_a_strong_base_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqqiion"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The main difference between lithium and fluorine and the rest of the members of their groups is atomic size.\n\nIn general, atomic/ionic radii increase as you move down any group in the periodic table (because heavier elements have more electrons taking up space). Because lithium and fluorine lie at the top of their respective groups, they are significantly smaller than the other members of the group. When they form ions, the charge density is correspondingly higher - A F^- ion is like a small, 'hard' baseball of negative charge, while an I^- ion is like a giant 'soft' beach ball where the negative charge is dispersed over a much larger radius.\n\nIn order to act as an acid or base (in the Arrhenius sense), a compound like HF has to dissociate into H^+ and F^-, both dissolved in aqueous solution. But the concentrated negative charge of F^- favours bonding to the charged H^+ ion, over dissolution in the merely polar water. The less concentrated negative charge of I^-, however, is more similar to the water, and so dissolves and dissociates much more easily. More dissociation = stronger acid.\n\nLiOH behaves in a similar way, where it needs to dissociate into Li^+ and OH^- to act as a base.\n\nAs for francium and astatine, we would actually expect them to behave quite similarly to caesium and iodine, respectively, forming the strong base FrOH and the strong acid HAt. However, since both of these elements are so radioactive and unstable, experimental verification is challenging, and we don't have much data to confirm this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
55gzff
|
what is the significance of the u.s. losing the contract giving them authority over internet ip addresses?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55gzff/eli5_what_is_the_significance_of_the_us_losing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8ah077"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They have not lost anything. They are contemplating releasing control of it over to the UN. That has not happened yet. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2d4lxh
|
When and why did trousers become the standard garment for European men?
|
In the middle ages, would leggings or tights most often be a one piece garment or just long socks? By the sixteenth century, did most men in England and France wear trousers?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2d4lxh/when_and_why_did_trousers_become_the_standard/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjm77jj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"My knowledge doesn't go back as far as their invention, but there's a great deal of discussion over the ancient usage of split leg garments in the other links already provided. As for trousers as we know them today, they begin to appear around the early 18th century. Prior to that you have hose, a fitted full leg garment that is more like a pair of non-stretch tights that have two separated legs. By the mid 16th century you see things like pumpkin hose, or what will develop into breeches in the late 17th century. Essentially a separation of the leg covering to sections above the knee and below the knee.\n\nTrousers themselves start out as a [sailors garment](_URL_2_). A very common runaway ad will read that they wore a \"sailors jacket and trousers\", a dead give away as to where they came from. Around 1750 trousers begin to show up more commonly in written references like court documents, without reference to sailors. Used mostly by the laboring class or military (gaiter trousers, for example), they really weren't accepted to be \"fashionable\" until the very late 18th century. While there is a lot of speculation that the French Revolution and the Sans Culottes (those that did not wear breeches, but trousers) caused this shift, it's very likely it would have occurred regardless. There was already a strong trend for country dress than began occurring in the 1780s with chemise gowns and other, almost nostalgic, clothing styles. While British and French fashion were closely tied, one did not ever wholly change the other. An exchange of ideas constantly occurred and each made the concept their own. To be honest, with as much distaste of French fashion as you see in British satire of [rich](_URL_3_) and [poor](_URL_1_), it's hard to believe that they would take up trousers solely because of the revolutionaries trends. Those that did take up French fashions during this time were [even mocked](_URL_0_). The British are still wearing breeches above all else in the 1790s, trousers becoming more common for day wear in the 1810s. It isn't really until the 1830s that breeches fade out (with the exception of court wear) and trousers are accepted in most situations, formal or casual, in both England and France."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitem.asp?imageId=lwlpr00180",
"http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitem.asp?imageId=lwlpr03064",
"http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitem.asp?imageId=lwlpr04743",
"http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitem.asp?imageId=lwlpr04929"
]
] |
|
ahop5t
|
In Medieval Europe, women were considered inherently lustful and prone to sexual sin. Would modern stereotypes of male sexual appetite apply to them?
|
As I understand it, women in Medieval Europe were thought of as the more problematic sex when it came to sexual sins and there was intense pressure on them not to seduce and corrupt men. Today the stereotype is that men are the ones obsessed with sex, and there are a lot of notions attached to relationships that emphasise that. Tropes like women not keeping up with their partners sexual appetite or withholding sex, and the man generally being the 'getter' of sex and the woman being the 'giver.'
Would these notions have been reverses in the middle ages? Were women seen as the proactive party, trying to constantly get laid, and men being the ones constantly being propositioned?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ahop5t/in_medieval_europe_women_were_considered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eehiebo"
],
"score": [
801
],
"text": [
"No. Latin medieval culture could, and did, spin a fancy tale of the devil seducing Eve seducing Adam, and the humoral composition of women making them \"leaky\" and \"open\" to demonic influence. They made up theological and biological backing for this teaching.\n\nPopular comic literature came down equally hard on both sexes, each in their turn. Canon lawyers ruled that husbands and wives owed each other sex on demand ([within Church limits, of course](_URL_0_))\n\nBut when it came down to actual, on the ground practice: women might well be accused of being sluts, sure. In one of the texts I work with, widow Katharina Tucher has a vision of Christ calling her, essentially, a ho. Men, on the other hand? Could be *rapists*. Of course, the standards for conviction were ridiculously and hatefully high. This does not change that medieval people understood the force to come from men in cases that they did see as rape.\n\nThomas Aquinas wrote that prostitution was sinful but women prostitutes might well be tolerated, *because men can't control themselves* and otherwise would corrupt good women. His words can't be compartmentalized off as \"normative,\" either. Legal brothels in late medieval cities hosted women prostitutes, not men.\n\nThe medieval stereotype of the lusty women was a convenient veneer for and form of for misogyny. The late 20th-century figure of the \"player\" is aspirational."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/flowchart.png"
]
] |
|
na63m
|
eli15 sn1 and sn2 reactions and their differences.
|
One thing in organic I just can't seem to grasp. Some help would be awesome. I have pretty good understanding of gen chem and basic organic.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/na63m/eli15_sn1_and_sn2_reactions_and_their_differences/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c37hyq6",
"c37hyq6"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically, SN1 favors stability, and SN2 favors a quick attack. If you have a large structure with many carbons attached to it, and/or with many conjugated bonds (which also increase stability) See benzene, SN1 will likely be favored thermodynamically. There are still reactions with SN2 models on larger compounds, but they are less common and will probably not be tested over. \n\nSN2 would not be favored in the in large bulky compounds because of steric hindrance. SN2 does that back attack thing remember? It likes to shoot in really fast and not bump into anything on it's way. SN2 favors a strong nucleophile (negatively charged) which basically attacks the nucleus (positively charged) quickly. \n\nThere are reactions that you can do at low temperatures that will favor SN1 because of it's love for stability and a thermodynamically favorable product, but will favor SN2 at high temperatures. Why? Well SN2 is fast and doesn't care about stability, and SN1 is slow and careful. Edit: To clarify this section, slowing down the reaction will favor the formation of thermodynamically stable products, while speeding up a reaction favors the product that forms most quickly.\n\nSo in a most basic sense, if you see a very stable molecule and/or a weak nucleophile, it will be SN1. If you see a unstable molecule as you carbo-cation and/or a strong nucleophile (strong base in most cases) it will be SN2 because a quick reaction will take place. Solvent is also important, but I can't go into that because it's been too long. Something about polar protic/aprotic or something. Good luck and I hope that helps clear things up. ",
"Basically, SN1 favors stability, and SN2 favors a quick attack. If you have a large structure with many carbons attached to it, and/or with many conjugated bonds (which also increase stability) See benzene, SN1 will likely be favored thermodynamically. There are still reactions with SN2 models on larger compounds, but they are less common and will probably not be tested over. \n\nSN2 would not be favored in the in large bulky compounds because of steric hindrance. SN2 does that back attack thing remember? It likes to shoot in really fast and not bump into anything on it's way. SN2 favors a strong nucleophile (negatively charged) which basically attacks the nucleus (positively charged) quickly. \n\nThere are reactions that you can do at low temperatures that will favor SN1 because of it's love for stability and a thermodynamically favorable product, but will favor SN2 at high temperatures. Why? Well SN2 is fast and doesn't care about stability, and SN1 is slow and careful. Edit: To clarify this section, slowing down the reaction will favor the formation of thermodynamically stable products, while speeding up a reaction favors the product that forms most quickly.\n\nSo in a most basic sense, if you see a very stable molecule and/or a weak nucleophile, it will be SN1. If you see a unstable molecule as you carbo-cation and/or a strong nucleophile (strong base in most cases) it will be SN2 because a quick reaction will take place. Solvent is also important, but I can't go into that because it's been too long. Something about polar protic/aprotic or something. Good luck and I hope that helps clear things up. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
nikjx
|
What is the limit of the size of an element's atomic nucleus? Could a neutron star be considered an element?
|
Hi, I know that in Earth-like conditions the heaviest elements are just not stable enough, and we know about Copernicium or Ununoctium but can we hypothesise the existence of elements with even bigger and bigger nuclei? Is there a limit to that, that we know of? If not, could there exist elements with cores so big, they could be (hypothetically) visible to the naked eye, for example created inside very heavy and dense stars? If we continue this train of thought of elements getting bigger and bigger - could a neutron star be considered an element?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nikjx/what_is_the_limit_of_the_size_of_an_elements/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c39dpch",
"c39drxc",
"c39fpxs",
"c39dpch",
"c39drxc",
"c39fpxs"
],
"score": [
21,
7,
2,
21,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"A neutron star is held together by gravity, not by the strong nuclear force.\n\nAny normal element's nucleus is held together by the strong nuclear force.\nPretty much every element at the edge of the periodic table is unstable and only exists for a fraction of a second before it breaks apart... so take a look at the periodic table, and that will give you an idea of the limit.\n\nI've read about predictions of stable elements beyond the highest currently known elements [here.](_URL_0_)\nBut these have yet to be confirmed.",
"The larger the atomic number of an atom, the more quickly it goes through radioactive decay. So, there is a limit to how long a very large atom can exist. The largest elements we have discovered have very short half-lives. There might be a theoretical limit, but it hasn't been confirmed yet so I couldn't say.\n\nThe problem with heavier and heavier atoms is that they\na] require increasingly larger amounts of energy to create them\nb] decay increasingly more rapidly.\n\nCan one say one has created a stable atom if it only lasts billionths of a second?\n\nWhy do larger atoms decay faster? The interplay of the strong, electrostatic, and weak forces create quantum fluctuations which allows for the build up of a potential energy. One interpretation might be that the protons and neutrons have not quite 'settled in.' An avalanche is a good analogy. Friction keeps the snow on the side of the slope until it is disturbed. This small disturbance causes the avalanche to follow a path to increased entropy. Fluctuations in the nucleus cause an analogous release of energy as the protons and neutrons 'settle in.' The problem starts around uranium where the electro-magnetic force in the nucleus first equals and then surpasses the strong force with increasing atomic number. \n\nThe nucleus is more stable when it has a certain number of nucleons. The numbers are referred to as magic numbers. If both nucleon numbers are a magic number, then the nucleus is at its most stable. The known numbers are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126\n\nThe structure of neutron stars is much more complex than a giant nucleon. They are thought to contain a core of quark-gluon plasma and mixed shells of electrons and neutrons. I would also say that because gravity has overcome the electrostatic force at that point, quantifying orbital properties for the gigantic element would be nonsensical. I wouldn't consider them to be giant nucleons either, but I guess it's really up to interpretation.",
"There are a variety of possible limitations. There have been attempts to [extend the periodic table](_URL_0_) beyond the known elements. There's some arguments that models of an atom with more than 137 electrons would break down. Among other problems, many models suggest that some of the electrons would need to move faster than the speed of light. But these issues can be potentially overcome by more careful models, with some models going as high as the low 170s for atomic number. \n\nOf course, this is the numbers of a neutral atom. There's no reason one couldn't have larger atoms that could never be neutral. But half lives become shorter and shorter as atomic number goes up. Well before one gets to the limit imposed by electrons, the lifespan will be so short as to be irrelevant. ",
"A neutron star is held together by gravity, not by the strong nuclear force.\n\nAny normal element's nucleus is held together by the strong nuclear force.\nPretty much every element at the edge of the periodic table is unstable and only exists for a fraction of a second before it breaks apart... so take a look at the periodic table, and that will give you an idea of the limit.\n\nI've read about predictions of stable elements beyond the highest currently known elements [here.](_URL_0_)\nBut these have yet to be confirmed.",
"The larger the atomic number of an atom, the more quickly it goes through radioactive decay. So, there is a limit to how long a very large atom can exist. The largest elements we have discovered have very short half-lives. There might be a theoretical limit, but it hasn't been confirmed yet so I couldn't say.\n\nThe problem with heavier and heavier atoms is that they\na] require increasingly larger amounts of energy to create them\nb] decay increasingly more rapidly.\n\nCan one say one has created a stable atom if it only lasts billionths of a second?\n\nWhy do larger atoms decay faster? The interplay of the strong, electrostatic, and weak forces create quantum fluctuations which allows for the build up of a potential energy. One interpretation might be that the protons and neutrons have not quite 'settled in.' An avalanche is a good analogy. Friction keeps the snow on the side of the slope until it is disturbed. This small disturbance causes the avalanche to follow a path to increased entropy. Fluctuations in the nucleus cause an analogous release of energy as the protons and neutrons 'settle in.' The problem starts around uranium where the electro-magnetic force in the nucleus first equals and then surpasses the strong force with increasing atomic number. \n\nThe nucleus is more stable when it has a certain number of nucleons. The numbers are referred to as magic numbers. If both nucleon numbers are a magic number, then the nucleus is at its most stable. The known numbers are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126\n\nThe structure of neutron stars is much more complex than a giant nucleon. They are thought to contain a core of quark-gluon plasma and mixed shells of electrons and neutrons. I would also say that because gravity has overcome the electrostatic force at that point, quantifying orbital properties for the gigantic element would be nonsensical. I wouldn't consider them to be giant nucleons either, but I guess it's really up to interpretation.",
"There are a variety of possible limitations. There have been attempts to [extend the periodic table](_URL_0_) beyond the known elements. There's some arguments that models of an atom with more than 137 electrons would break down. Among other problems, many models suggest that some of the electrons would need to move faster than the speed of light. But these issues can be potentially overcome by more careful models, with some models going as high as the low 170s for atomic number. \n\nOf course, this is the numbers of a neutral atom. There's no reason one couldn't have larger atoms that could never be neutral. But half lives become shorter and shorter as atomic number goes up. Well before one gets to the limit imposed by electrons, the lifespan will be so short as to be irrelevant. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_table"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_table"
]
] |
|
eo8cly
|
What caused Celtic languages in the British Isles to develop phonemes like Bh (V), Mh (W), and Y in place of U, when their conquerors who exposed them to the Latin alphabet didn’t?
|
Specifically concerning Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh—how did these spellings come to be? With contact from the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse, and Normans over time, I would have thought these languages would develop a written language with less strange (sometimes seemingly nonsensical) lettering choices. Since many of these sounds already exist in the Latin alphabet, what influenced them to adopt such odd spellings?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eo8cly/what_caused_celtic_languages_in_the_british_isles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"febj66a"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The use of the 'h' to represent a *séimhiú* (the lenition of a consonant) is relatively new. Traditionally Irish was written in Gaelic script (which some enthusiasts still use) which, while still clearly based on the Roman alphabet, is different enough from regular letters to take a while to get used to. Traditional Gaelic script does not use the 'h's, it instead uses a little dot above the consonant in question. Irish went through a spelling reform in the late 1940s and a move to using modern script happened more or less at around the same time - the letter 'h' was a convenient option to replace the dot. To consider this nonsensical, if I may, is somewhat anglo-centric. More on the 'h' later.\n\nThis [story](_URL_0_) was written down as part of the 1931 Schools' Folklore Collection. (A fascinating project in itself, but somewhat outwith the scope of this question). You can see several instances of the use of little dots (the dot is called a *buailte*) on the first line. For comparison, there is a transcription (using the 'h's and modern lettering) on the right hand side. There are many other examples (and many English-language texts also) if you have a browse around the website.\n\n[This](_URL_1_) link should take you to an Old Irish manuscript (circa 14C). I cannot understand it (it is significantly different from modern Irish), but you can see that, to complicate matters, some of the 'dots' look like little 'h's - the sound mutation involved is sometimes described as a 'softening' of the consonant, but is mostly more of an 'aspiration', a breathing-through of the letter, so using a little 'h' actually kinda makes sense."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.duchas.ie/ga/cbes/4428278/4391190/4463798?ChapterID=4428278&LangID=ga",
"https://www.isos.dias.ie/libraries/NLI/NLI_MS_G_2/tables/2.html#021"
]
] |
|
1m05jt
|
when people "catch the holy spirit" and start freaking out in church, what's that all about?
|
Like in Baptist churches. They claim it's real. What's actually causing their spasms? If it's an act isn't it a "sin" to be disingenuous?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m05jt/when_people_catch_the_holy_spirit_and_start/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc4i2ha",
"cc4iv53",
"cc4jdxt",
"cc4jq04",
"cc4kpic",
"cc4kqdk",
"cc4l90i",
"cc4p6sm"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
4,
4,
26,
7,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The mind is a very powerful thing. Those people legitimately believe the Holy Spirit is with them and basically imagine and act out the entire thing. ",
"Mass hysteria, hysterical conversion, emotional contagion. Call it whatever you want, just don't use the word *real* or the word *science* in any of their various forms, manners, or contexts.",
"This practically doesn't happen in Baptist churches. It's the Pentecostals and some of the other non-denominations. Source: I'm Baptist",
"You should watch the documentary \"Hell House\" - a real phenomenon about Protestant church-run haunted houses that scare you into being \"saved\" from sin. Not only do the speak in tongues, but there's a scene where they sing in tongues- with a back-up band. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer you're question- it might raise more. ",
"I suggest you watch this [Derren Brown](_URL_0_) special.\n\nBasically, it's a result of suggestibility coupled with their belief of how they're supposed to react. Firstly, people who attend these congregations already have a bias to believe in this sort of thing (self selection). Secondly, when they are touched, or \"healed\", or whatever, they are essentially being called up on stage. Once they are in this situation, coupled with their likely suggestibility, they have two options:\n\n1. They could stand there and not move or do anything awkwardly, or\n\n2. They can start speaking in tongues or spasm as they are *expected* to do.\n\nCheck out [this](_URL_1_) video to see how people can do things they wouldn't otherwise, without actually ever being *forced* to do it.\n\nThe same principle applies to stage hypnotists. A good \"hypnotist\" selects audience members that are the most suggestible. It is, as you state, a sort of \"act\". The members may feel regret later, **but in the heat of the moment, they may have found it too uncomfortable to let everybody down.**\n\nEdit: I neglected to mention that the person can genuinely believe in their experience (our brains take advantage of different coping mechanisms during intense experiences). The person speaking in tongues isn't necessarily being insincere. However, their behavior is a result of the pressure they feel (external *or* internal). After all, we're all participating in the \"act\" we call \"life\".",
"It comes from the book of Acts. (Acts 2, to be specific.) In this chapter, the disciples have just witnessed Jesus returning to heaven, and are awaiting the 'sign' from God that Jesus promised in Acts 1. They are at [Pentecost](_URL_0_), which is/was a Hebrew holy day, and it says that \"what seemed to be tongues of fire...came to rest on each of them.\" (Acts 2:2b) They then began to 'speak in tongues.' In the context of this Biblical passage, it is to be taken literally; the Bible claims that these men were suddenly gifted by the Holy Spirit with the power to speak in a language they did not previously know. \n\nThe 'gift' of speaking in tongues is mentioned several other times in the Bible, mostly by the apostle Paul in talking about spiritual gifts. Some modern Christian denominations, most notably the Charismatics and the Protestants, have people that still believe that they are gifted with the ability to 'speak in tongues.' Their modern day 'tongues', however, are often (if not always) gibberish spouted as they 'feel the spirit move through them.' As to the actual cause, it depends on your belief system. The non-spiritual would say it's a placebo effect: they truly believe they can speak in tongues, they believe in the holy spirit, and so their brain produces a faux language. Some Christian denominations would agree, claiming that the 'gift of tongues' faded away centuries ago, or ended with the early church. And the true believers claim that they are truly being used as a conduit of the holy spirit, speaking prophecies and truths in a heavenly tongue. I think they'd all agree that it's being filtered through their brains, though, whatever the source. So, maybe just call it a \"mental episode\" and leave it at that? \n\nTL:DR - It is a practice that began with the apostles in the early church. It's claimed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit (of the Christian God) speaking through you in a heavenly tongue. Some people think it's basically a placebo effect, that because the people that it happens to believe it's real, their brains make it real. We can't know for sure, but whatever it is, it's filtered through the brain. \n\nEdit: Fixed some wording. ",
"I'm a Christian, I've witnessed a person speaking in tongues, and it was not up on stage, she was not under pressure or \"expected\" to do it. I believe that some people's faith leads them to do this, and although it probably is disingenuous *sometimes,* I think it is usually sincere. Whether or not you believe that it is the Holy Spirit speaking through a person, it's a religious ritual, observed by religious people, and within the context of our faith, it is not considered sinful.\n\nYour logic breaks down when you consider the context. I mean, we also believe in the virgin birth and that Christ rose from the dead. You might as well be saying, \"that's impossible, isn't it sinful to say that something happened that clearly never happened?\" Do you see what I'm saying? There's a separate set of rules within religion, it's the whole idea of faith. Believing in something despite having no proof is the whole essence of religion.",
"I like this thread more than I thought I would simply due to the **lack** of comments. There is plenty in here to discuss/argue/refute *but nobody is.*\n\nIt's like the entirety of Reddit saw the title and thought, \"... yeah I'm just gonna go ahead and stay out of that shit.\"\n\nAll thats left to be seen are the dregs of Reddit. Religious experiences go unrefuted, logical fallacies uncorrected, cognitive bias stands as fact and not a single Sagan, Dawkins or Hitchens to be seen.\n\n**10/10 would cringe again.**"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYjgeayfYPI",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOU6ga3fMhk"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecost"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4cxmtq
|
how does the sun's heat reach us if there's so little matter to transfer it in space?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cxmtq/eli5_how_does_the_suns_heat_reach_us_if_theres_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1m699z",
"d1m6b32",
"d1m6f1m",
"d1maftz",
"d1mb09p",
"d1mbb8a",
"d1mfc6y",
"d1mfq8n",
"d1mfthw",
"d1mm0sx",
"d1mpvok"
],
"score": [
157,
147,
14,
6,
2,
6,
4,
5,
6,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It doesn't transfer through conduction or convection, but radiation. It travels in the form of infrared photons, which are emitted directly from the sun radiate outwards.",
"The sun's heat reaches us through radiation.\n\nAnything with a heat warmer than absolute zero emits heat, in the form of electromagnetic waves. The sun happens to emit a lot of electromagnetic waves, because it's very big and very hot. \n\nElectromagnetic waves don't need matter to transfer through, as I am sure you know. ",
"Light! Or...more specifically and accurately, radiation. These things don't require a medium like convection or conduction, and aren't material dependent like transmission of sound. ",
"A photon is a type of particle (it's also a wave, but let's not get into that right now). The heat from the sun radiates off the sun in the form of this photon (most photons are bouncing around inside the sun itself, but some get released). These photons then travel through space at the speed of light until it hits you, and the energy in the photon then excites the cells on your body that it hits, making them vibrate a bit faster, which makes them warmer. ",
"What you're talking about, matter transferring heat, is only one way that heat can be transferred.\n\nThe way that the Earth receives so much heat from the sun is through radiation. It's essentially beams of energy which do not require any matter to move through. Think about how light moves around, it doesn't need any matter to travel through either.",
"There are three ways to move heat: Conduction, Convection, and Radiation. \n\nConduction is the easiest to understand. When you touch a hot object, the heat from the object goes into your hand where you feel it through conduction. \n\nConvection is probably what you're thinking of when you ask about matter transfering heat. In convection, heat transfers to a fluid which then moves away from the heat source (eg. hot air gets less dense and rises) until it touches something cooler and transfers its heat away. \n\nRadiation is like convection only instead of fluid matter carrying the heat, the heat is carried by photons. Photons are what light is made of. They're sort-of like matter and sort-of not. The reaction going on in the sun spits out lots of photons. Each one carries only a tiny bit of heat, but there's so many of them hitting you all at once on a sunny day you still feel the heat. ",
"The heat comes from light. Light can travel in a vacuum.\n\nHeat lamps for reptile cages emit IR light.\n\nMicrowaves emit... Microwaves (a form of light)\n\nFLIR cameras detect IR light emitted by hot things.\n\n\nShould I go on?",
"Heat (thermal energy) from the sun does not travel through space; light (electromagnetic energy) from the sun does. Light can travel through a vacuum no problem, unlike heat. When light particles (called photons) collide with something (the ground, your car, or your face) the atoms that make up that thing absorb the light and turn it into heat.\nMost light sources on earth produce so little light that the amount of heat generated when the light collides with something is not really noticeable. The sun, however, generates so much light that you can actually feel your skin heating up if you stand in direct sunlight on a sunny day. The warmth you're feeling is the result of photons being absorbed by your skin and turned into heat.",
"To expand on the other replies:\n\nLight is light. Whether it's visible, infrared, ultraviolet, radio, all of it. They're all made of photons and follow the same rules. It's a spectrum, and people are the ones who separated light into different categories. \n\nThe differences are in wavelength and frequency. They're inversely related, so as frequency increases, wavelength decreases. Frequency also determines how much energy that photon has. \n\nRadio waves have really low frequencies, and thus low energy, making them safe, for the most part. We're surrounded by them what with all of our communications. \n\nUltraviolet light is higher frequency than visible light, and can cause sunburns. \n\nGamma radiation has a really high frequency, and is energetic enough to be deadly with enough exposure. \n\nNow let's talk about the Sun. The vast majority of the Sun's light that reaches the ground here on Earth is in the form of visible light. The next most common is infrared.\n\nSo visible light is more energetic than infrared, and by volume we get a lot more of it. Wouldn't you expect more 'heat' from the Sun to come from visible light? \n\nAll light is capable of being absorbed by a material, and heating that material up. \n\nThe key here is that every material absorbs light differently. It turns out that most things on Earth absorb infrared very well, and don't absorb visible light. \n\nWhen visible light hits something very little is absorbed, the rest is reflected or scattered, and the remaining light gives off the color of that object. And think about things that absorb a lot of visible light, we'd see these as black. That's why black things heat up faster in visible light. They absorb it better. \n\nInfrared is absorbed a lot more efficiently compared to visible light, and that's why we think of infrared light as heat. \n\nUs seeing in visible light makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. There's a lot of visible light reaching the ground, and it's reflected and scattered a lot more than it's absorbed. Compared to other forms of light, it's an ideal way to see the world. ",
"Heat transfers in three ways: convection, conduction and radiation.\n\nThe sun's light reaches us by radiation. The heat you're thinking of, when something hot touches something cold, is conduction. \n\nWhen an object is heated, it emits some of that heat as radiation. For most things they radiate infra-red wavelengths. As you get hotter and hotter the wave length gets shorter, from infra-red to visible light, from visible light to ultraviolet and so on. This is called black-body radiation.\n\nWhen those rays hit something some of them are reflected (this is why we can see things in light) and some are absorbed. The absorbed rays transfer their energy to what they hit, heating it up.",
"The sun emits energy in the form of radiation, which is capable of traveling through a vacuum, the heat that we feel is caused by this radiation (which is reduced in intensity quite a bit by our atmosphere,) hitting the ground, your body, and everything else. Some of that is deflected away, but some of it is absorbed, which is the source of the heat you feel from standing in direct sunlight, why leaving something in the sun warms it up, and why excessive exposure to the sun without adequate protection can cause skin cancer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2kbnia
|
Did Romans know about elephants before the Punic Wars, or were they a completely new animal to them?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kbnia/did_romans_know_about_elephants_before_the_punic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cljt2l0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The Romans faced war elephants a few years before the First Punic War. In 280 B.C. Pyrrhus brought 20 war elephants from Greece to Rome. As Cassius Dio (via Zonaras) reports in [book IX](_URL_0_):\n\n > Now Pyrrhus set out, not even awaiting the coming of spring, taking along a large, picked army, and twenty elephants, beasts never previously beheld by the Italians; hence they were invariably filled with alarm and astonishment.\n\nBefore the battle, the Roman consul Laevinus made a speech to alleviate fear among his legionaries, fear caused by the reputation of Pyrrhus and the presence of elephants. Pyrrhus kept his elephants in reserve initially. During the battle he used them to counter Roman cavalry which was threatening his rear. The account Cassius Dio / Zonaras gives is quite something: \n\n > Then, indeed, at the sight of the animals, which was out of all common experience, at their frightful trumpeting, and also at the clatter of arms which their riders made, seated in the towers, both the Romans themselves were panic-stricken and their horses became frenzied and bolted, either shaking off their riders or bearing them away. Disheartened at this, the Roman army was turned to flight, and in their rout some soldiers were slain by the men in the towers on the elephants' backs, and others by the beasts themselves, which destroyed many with their trunks and tusks (or teeth) and crushed and trampled under foot as many more.\n\nKeep in mind that Cassius Dio wrote his history in the 2nd century AD, more than four centuries after the battle, and this part was excerpted by Zonaras 1000 years after that. So this shouldn't be taken too literally, but the takeaway is that the Romans didn't manage the first encounter with elephants very well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/9*.html"
]
] |
||
s2rm8
|
Did America ever steal tech or knowledge from the Soviet Union?
|
I know that it had worked the other way around a couple times. Was this something that went both ways?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s2rm8/did_america_ever_steal_tech_or_knowledge_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4am4iz",
"c4appvn",
"c4au6iz"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In the first several years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the leading Russian export was... patents and inventions. Sorry, don't remember the source. \n\n\n\n",
"As a layman\n\nWell, I don't know if you could really say the US stole technology from the Soviets or vice versa. Both sides were heavily engaged in espionage, but the real world isn't a game of of Civilization. Just because a spy gets you a blue print doesn't mean you suddenly have a new technology or the ability to immediately begin producing it.\n\nA big part of espionage was understanding the other side's military/economic capabilities so you could prepare strategically to counter it. The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head to the US \"stealing a tech\" is when Viktor Belenko decided to defect and take a MIG-25 with him. At the time Western intelligence had completely and utterly failed to assess the MIG-25 correctly. Belenko dropping the jet in our lap corrected this. It's not like suddenly we started producing MIG-25s though.",
"The US did capture several MIG 15's at one point, but they were from defectors IIRC. By that time they were mostly only useful for comparison to the F-86 Sabre. \n\nThe one incident that was really incontestably stealing was the Glomar Explorer. [Link](_URL_0_) where the US custom built a ship to recover a sunken Russian nuclear missile Submarine. It did not go as planned, only about a third of the submarine was recovered. Eventually the US had to admit they had it and return it because there were bodies aboard the recovered section. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer"
]
] |
|
62he0e
|
us citzens, what happens if someone commits a crime in a state and runs to another state that what he has done is not ilegal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62he0e/eli5_us_citzens_what_happens_if_someone_commits_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfmk514",
"dfmkah8",
"dfmkaor",
"dfmmnwu"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"If you commit a crime, and flee across State lines, the United States Federal Government is responsible for returning you to the State in question to face charges. This is accomplished by the US Marshall's. ",
"The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) steps in.\n\nSince the criminal has crossed state lines, the original state police no longer have jurisdiction. But neither do the police in the new state because the criminal hasn't committed a crime in their state. So the FBI comes in, they're kinda like police for the whole country. They work with the state police from both states to find the guy, then (generally) bring him back to the state where the original crime was committed for trial, etc.\n\nIt gets more complicated if it involves multiple crimes in multiple states, but the FBI will still be the ones to actually go after the guy in that case.",
"depending on what you have done, the state you commited the crime in can put a warrant on you, and if another state finds you they arrest you and give the state thats looking for you the chance to come get you if they want to. it doesnt matter if you flee to a state where what you have done is not illegal. \n\nusually they are felony charges, and sometimes the state looking for you decides they dont want to spend the money extraditing you, so you will be released, but you will still have the active warrant, so you will be processed the same way every time law enforsement comes across you whereever you are. \n\nor you have done something really serious and the fbi steps in. ",
"As per the agreements the States signed when they joined the Union the US Federal Government (Either FBI or US Marshals) will take them into custody and extradite them to the State where they committed the crime for trial. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1q3vql
|
how does a new stock on the market open trading at a price different than it was offered?
|
Twitter was priced at $26 a stock, but then opened at %45.10, 73% higher than the offering price. How does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q3vql/eli5how_does_a_new_stock_on_the_market_open/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd8w2j6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The market makers are the first ones to release the stock into the world. The stock is essentially private, controlled by the market makers. They bought it from Twitter at $x, and are now reselling it on the open market. They want to get as much money as possible for their stock. \n\nThey initially announced $26/share, but when they started to get offers in, they realized they could charge much more. So, they started feeling out offers, and decided that $45.10 was a good place to start. \n\nNow that it has hit the open market, we will really see what people think about Twitter. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1m361e
|
Is it possible to determine where in Africa modern humans originated?
|
I'm aware of work that's been done to try to determine where humans arose in Africa using genetic data (the big contenders being East and South Africa). However, I've also heard that at one point a harsh climate forced modern Humans to live solely along the coast of South Africa. If that's true, how could we hope to use genetic data to determine the birthplace of humanity?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1m361e/is_it_possible_to_determine_where_in_africa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc5fcu4"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"[National Geographic](_URL_2_): \"*Most paleoanthropologists and geneticists agree that modern humans arose some 200,000 years ago in Africa. The earliest modern human fossils were found in Omo Kibish, Ethiopia. Sites in Israel hold the earliest evidence of modern humans outside Africa, but that group went no farther, dying out about 90,000 years ago.*\"\n\n[Human Origins Project](_URL_1_) and the [Genografic](_URL_0_) will probably tell us more.\n\nNothing else so far.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/",
"http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/projects/human-origins/",
"http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature2/map.html"
]
] |
|
yz3wz
|
why is mediafire still online but megaupload got taken down?
|
Why go after one and not the other(s)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yz3wz/eli5_why_is_mediafire_still_online_but_megaupload/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c602s87",
"c602t2c",
"c6030bf",
"c6030jb"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because megaupload had many many more users, plus brought in more money",
"To my understanding, it's because\n \n * Megaupload had tons of illegal uploads and barely anything was being done about it, while MediaFire actively takes down illegal files\n * Megaupload was used way more than MediaFire to upload illegal files\n ",
"Mostly because MegaUpload actively encouraged piracy, as shown through the e-mails leaked. ",
"With third-party sites, they can avoid legal prosecution if they can show that they're trying hard to keep illegal material off their site.\n\nSo, say if Lawyer Guy emailed Mediafire and said \"Hey, Filmy Film is being hosted illegally on your site through this link, please remove it\", then Mediafire would email them back saying \"We'll take it down immediately\". If a laywer emailed the same thing to Megaupload, Megaupload would check that Filmy Film was available to download elsewhere on their site, before agreeing to remove it. \n\nAnother reason is the way Megaupload's advertising worked. With Mediafire, they have adverts around the site, and Mediafire would get a little bit of money for people clicking on those pages. Megaupload also set up a system where they would be paid a little bit of money due to *downloads*. That meant that Lawyer Guy could point out that if a person downloaded Filmy Film, Megaupload profited directly from those downloads, and so they're profiting from copyright infringement.\n\nWhile there was a lot of legal downloads/uploads going on, the sheer number of people who used MegaUpload meant that even if the illegal stuff was a fraction of the whole thing, it was still a *buttload* of illegal stuff that they weren't doing much to try and stop. So the whole site got shut down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
hjoy4
|
Would using a heavier head on a golf club give the ball more distance?
|
Would the kinetic energy of a heavier mass swinging at the same speed give a golf ball more or less distance? basically, I am saying if you can swing a slightly heavier club head the same speed as a light one, which is better? I ask this because I see all these ultralight shafts and club heads...like the Cleveland 270, 290, and 310xl with the ultralight shafts they come with.
What about if this happened in space? Just say a really heavy object weighing 10 tonnes crashed into a really small object weighing 1kg that is "stationary". The kinetic energy or inertia (whatever it is - I'm not good with physics specifics) from the heavy object will transfer to the small object, and the small object will take off. What if the heavy object doubled its weight to 20 tonnes, but hits the light object with the same speed?? Will the light object move faster because there is now more kinetic energy imparted into it?
what do you think? what are your reasons?
[Edit: I have heard from people that the transfer of one's weight while taking a golf swing is really important. i.e. the transfer of weight from one's back foot to one's front foot - this kinetic energy is transferred to the ball, making it go a lot further. Wondering if the club head mass makes a difference too].
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hjoy4/would_using_a_heavier_head_on_a_golf_club_give/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1vy1ak",
"c1vyh1x",
"c1vza6o"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, moving at the same speed, a heavier head would make the golf ball go faster. But there are other factors, such as moriaantje mentioning the contact time would likely not be the same. Also, you won't be swinging a heavier golf club at exactly the same speed, which complicates the issue. ",
"For simplicity, we assume an elastic collision: the kinetic energy of the golf ball is proportional to the kinetic energy of the club, which is a function of its mass times the square of its velocity. While it initially seems that more mass would be beneficial, the force accelerating that mass (you swinging the club) is constant. As force = mass times acceleration, doubling the mass would cut the acceleration (and velocity) in half. \n\nPut simply, KE = 0.5mv^2 , while F (constant) = ma. Looking at the equations we see that to maximize the energy of the golf ball we actually need to *minimize* the mass of the club head, which may seem counter intuitive.\n\nPractically, engineers design club heads to be as light as possible while still retaining their structural characteristics.\n\ntl;dr: Less club head mass = faster golf ball.",
"If the wind, terrain, and ball materials & construction are kept constant, more initial ball speed equals greater distance.\n\nThe initial ball speed cannot exceed the maximum speed of the contact area of the club head and ball through the duration of impact. Since the club face and ball are both elastic (metals and woods do compress and rebound slightly, and the springiness of the club shaft is a factor as well), the speed of this contact area through the impact can and does vary through the time of impact. The time of impact is brief, from a human experiential standpoint, but it is nonzero and important.\n\nAside from maximizing the speed of the club head at the initiation of ball impact, other factors relating to maximizing the speed of the contact point include maintaining the speed of the club head through the time of impact. Continued application of force on the club handle through the time of impact will tend to propel club face at a speed approximating that of initial impact, and the various elasticities in the club head, club shaft, and ball may accelerate the contact area to a speed greater than that of the club head generally. This is why you are told to swing through the ball; this is a way of communicating the importance of the speed of the club head not only at the instant of initial impact, but throughout the entire duration of contact. Shifting your weight assists you in applying force to the club handle for the duration of impact, and so assists you in maintaining the speed of the club head through the impact.\n\nIncreasing the mass of the club head will increase the force you must apply to the club handle in order to accelerate the club head to the same speed at the instant of initial impact. Assuming you can apply this force, the greater mass of the club head would tend to better maintain the speed of the club head through the time of impact, which *may* positively affect the speed of the contact area and thus the initial speed of the ball. \n\nHowever, as a practical matter, a golfer driving the ball for distance may be reasonably expected to bring to bear all available force on the club handle regardless of the mass of the head; it is not reasonable to assume that the golfer has reserve strength available to accelerate a heavier club head to a speed equivalent to that attainable with a club head of standard mass. In practical application, due to limitations of the golfer, increasing the mass of the club head will result in a *slower* club head speed at the instant of initial impact, and better maintenance of club head speed through the time of impact is unlikely have enough positive effect to overcome this deficiency.\n\ntl;dr: Developing your strength and technique have a lot more to do with increasing the ball's distance than playing with the mass of club head does."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1b74g2
|
Why is walking/running up a hill so much harder despite physical condition?
|
My girlfriend and I are very active people (I run half marathons and she's a triathlete -- yes, she beats me in every race). I run about 9:00 minute miles and she runs about 8:00 minute miles.
Given that this is so, and that we're aerobically and physically in good shape, why is it that when we walk up the hill from the grocery store to her house, we're huffing and puffing and breathing as if we'd sprinted 400m? Shouldn't we be conditioned enough at this point that our legs should be able to carry us fairly easily and our lungs able to inhale enough O2 and our bodies able to process it easily?
What's going on here?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1b74g2/why_is_walkingrunning_up_a_hill_so_much_harder/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c947iur"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you walk up a flight of stairs or see a gradual hill, your body begins to 'prepare' itself by activating the sympathetic nervous system. This will increase your heart rate and respiratory rate. So even if your a marathon runner, just walking up a few flights of stairs will get your HR/resp rate up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2e19li
|
why do big websites such as reddit and facebook not require their users to verify their emails?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e19li/eli5_why_do_big_websites_such_as_reddit_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjv470m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I recently worked on a project and I had to make this decision, so I'll share my thought process.\n\nFirst of all, verifying emails takes a long time and a lot of clicks. I'd estimate that 50% of users probably would close the tab if they saw that an email was required on registration.\n\nSecond, there's not a huge use for emails. All you can really do with an email address is use it to help a user recover their account, and if a user really cares about their account enough to recover it, they'll add it in an optional step later on anyway.\n\nBasically, requesting an email reduces how many people use your service and it provides very little utility, so it's not worth it for a lot of sites."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2w07es
|
why do companies like ferrari which advertise minimally still achieve international recognition?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w07es/eli5why_do_companies_like_ferrari_which_advertise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"comf0d0",
"comfk20",
"comg1oy"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Supercar and luxury car manufacturers often advertise on the professional racing circuit instead of TV.\n\nA Lamborghini ad will be wasted on the vast majority of the populace, but a Lamborghini winning a prestigious endurance race will put that car above others in the minds of millionaire racing enthusiasts.",
"This isn't helpful but it reminds of the quote (I'm paraphrasing here) \"You don't see lamborghini's being advertised on TV because the people who can afford them aren't at home watching TV\".",
"They do advertise. You just don't see it because you aren't the target market. \n\nHave you seen advertisements for audemars piguet, leerjet, lurssen? Probably not. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
q2v5g
|
Does Boxing/MMA headgear protect against trauma?
|
Or is the purpose to only protect from swelling and cuts? This seems to be highly debated and I'm wondering if any of you know the answer. I would think the layer of padding would help to prevent brain trauma and knockout, absorbing some of the force from the punch. Am I correct?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/q2v5g/does_boxingmma_headgear_protect_against_trauma/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3ud7xf",
"c3ue6yg"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I'll give this my best shot, since none have answered yet.\n\nThe headgear/padding used in most fighting sports are there to protect you from the most serious injuries: skull fractures, fingers/knuckles cracking, wrists breaking. As far as protection from concussions or brain trauma, again it protects against the worst f it.\n\nAll safety gear in fighting sports has to allow for enough trauma to allow the fighters to hurt each other enough for a knockout/win. The gear just acts to prevent the athletes from going to the hospital/dying.",
"This has been extremley helpful :) thanks guys!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
10pq5r
|
Can you identify what decade this picture was from based on the clothes worn?
|
[This is a picture taken at Santa Monica, California.](_URL_2_) (It hangs in a coffee shop now).
It's at the Santa Monica Rings (aka the Original Muscle Beach) right on the sand. The earliest it can be would be from the 1930's as that's when the adult playground was built.
For those interested in what is actually happening in the picture: The guy is swinging on the Flying Rings. If you take the gymnastics [Still Rings](_URL_0_) and swing with them the sport is called flying rings. (you could either pump yourself up to those heights, or get a push and then pump yourself up further).
The flying rings were banned in the Olympics (and many other competitions) by the early 1960's due to the great dismounts/flyaways the swingers could achieve (up to 20 feet high) and the chance of hurting themselves or dying is very high, especially in a competitive setting.
With that said though, that doesn't mean people don't play on them. The flying rings are alive and kicking to this day at the santa monica rings, and I play on them as well. [Here's a buddy of mine](_URL_1_) demonstrating what it's like just a few weeks ago at the setting.
Now, back to the picture. Other than the clothes people are wearing, if somebody knows what buildings exist/didn't exist in this picture, then maybe that's another way to figure out what decade or year it's from.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10pq5r/can_you_identify_what_decade_this_picture_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6flyev"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"The buildings are probably a better bet.\n\nContext: The image is looking roughly south (the Pacific -- west -- is to the right, Santa Monica -- east -- is to the left). The rings are just south of the famous Santa Monica Pier.\n\n* The two tall buildings by the acrobat's hands look to be the Santa Monica Shores buildings. Note the \"3-2-2\" pattern of windows/balconies. They're a few blocks south of the Santa Monica Pier. They were built in 1965 and 1966 according to [Emporis](_URL_0_).\n* The pier extending out to the ocean would then probably be [Pacific Ocean Park](_URL_1_), which opened in 1958, closed in 1967 and was demolished in the mid 70s.\n\nGuess: No earlier than 1966 and no later than 1975."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--U_mgXrYbY&feature=related",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBrv6SvueaQ",
"http://i.imgur.com/2xKLz.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://www.emporis.com/complex/the-shores-santa-monica-ca-usa",
"http://wikimapia.org/116577/Pacific-Ocean-Park-Pier-site"
]
] |
|
465xaw
|
why is it called hemophilia?
|
Hemo derived from the latin for blood,
Philia derived from the latin for love of
Im pretty sure hemophiliacs aren't lovin' their bleesing disorder, so why is it STILL referred to as such?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/465xaw/eli5_why_is_it_called_hemophilia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d02pdwx",
"d02phuq"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"You bleed a lot I guess. You love blood so much you just can't clot your wounds.\n\nPhilia also means \"tendency toward\"",
"According to _URL_0_\nit's using an alternative emphasis on the latter part of the word.\n > [philia](_URL_1_) \"to love\", here with a sense of \"tendency to.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=hemophilia",
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=-\"philia&allowed_in_frame=0"
]
] |
|
99rwz8
|
My high school history teachers always said that the Manhattan Project scientists had some degree of not knowing what was going to happen during the Trinity Test. How much of these allegations, specifically that some thought they'd light the sky on fire, were true?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/99rwz8/my_high_school_history_teachers_always_said_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4qi03y",
"e4qyth6"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"More can be written, but you might like to start with [\"Was there really any fear during the development of the atomic bomb that it could detonate the atmosphere?\"](_URL_1_) by /u/restricteddata.\n\nIf you're also interested in post-war calculations, a later discussion by the same is [\"I just read that, when they tested the atomic bomb, there was a belief it might light the atmosphere on fire. If they believed this, why did they still test it?\"](_URL_2_). I hope that I can also point to his recent blog post -- not in AskHistorians -- [\"Cleansing thermonuclear fire\"](_URL_0_).\n\nThis is not to discourage discussion. More questions, data and debate are welcome.\n",
"There was certainly a lot of uncertainty, but the uncertainty was bounded. Here is a _very_ abridged rundown of what I think the interesting areas of uncertainty were:\n\n* To get it out of the way, _very minor_ uncertainty about whether the test might ignite the atmosphere in a giant fusion reaction. Which is to say, they were almost totally sure that wouldn't happen. [_Almost_ is not _100% certain_](_URL_0_), but they did not really think it was a realistic possibility. But it isn't as uncertain as it sometimes is portrayed. \n\n* They had _considerable_ uncertainty about the efficiency of the implosion mechanism being tested, which meant they had considerable uncertainty about the explosive power of the bomb. The \"solid\" bet was around 4-5 kilotons of power. The pessimists thought it might not work at all. The \"optimists\" thought it might be several tens of kilotons. In the end, it was 20 kilotons, which is 4-5X more powerful than they expected. That's not _terrible_ (especially since damage is mostly an issue of order of magnitude; you have to increase the explosive power by a factor of 8 to increase the damage by a factor of 2), but it's still an uncomfortably large factor to be off by when we're talking about a nuclear weapon.\n\n* They had _a lot_ of uncertainty about where the radioactive cloud would go, or how intense it would be. They had monitors and soldiers in nearby towns, ready to evacuate them if the radiation levels got unacceptably high. They didn't end up evacuating anybody but [a considerable area was exposed to fallout](_URL_2_).\n\n* They had a _lot_ of uncertainty about how nearby people would react, whether they would buy their \"an ammunition dump\" exploded story, and so on. Would their secrecy hold? They hoped so, but there wasn't much they could do about it beyond what they did.\n\n* They had a _fair amount_ of uncertainty about the actual effects of the weapon. They could guess how some of the effects (blast, radiation, pressure) would scale up to kiloton ranges, but they really didn't know. They tried to use instrumentation to gauge it; some of it succeeded in getting good data, while some of it failed (a bunch of it was destroyed by the test itself). This means they went into the bombing of Japan with only a rough idea of what was going to happen to the cities they were dropped on (destroyed, yes, but there are a lot of other details — they [didn't expect so many people would be exposed to acute radiation and survive the initial attack](_URL_1_), for example). \n\nThere are other areas one could probe for uncertainty (if you or anyone else have questions, feel free to ask them), but this I think gives a gist of what they were thinking. I think it's important to note that uncertainty exists on a scale, which is to say, it's not all or nothing. In some areas you might have a little uncertainty, in some areas you might have a lot, in some areas you might have none, etc. Separately there are the areas where you don't even know you have uncertainty (the oft-mocked but not-dumb idea of \"unknown unknowns\"), which can be their own sources of deep uncertainty (an example from Trinity might be, \"were there any spies at the Trinity test?\", which nobody appears to have even considered at the time; at least one spy, Klaus Fuchs, was present). \n\nThe best overall book on the Trinity test is F.M. Szasz, _The Day the Sun Rose Twice_, which has a _lot_ of detail in it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2018/06/29/cleansing-thermonuclear-fire/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d2ptv/was_there_really_any_fear_during_the_development/ct28hpr/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7rnp9j/i_just_read_that_when_they_tested_the_atomic_bomb/dsyytcn/"
],
[
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2018/06/29/cleansing-thermonuclear-fire/",
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/10/18/who-knew-about-radiation-sickness-and-when/",
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Trinity-fallout.jpg"
]
] |
||
2twmg7
|
What, on the atomic level, causes cooling when a gas is expanding?
|
Compressing gas increases in temperature, and I can make an analogy in my head of atoms rubbing together creating more energy with more collisions.
But why would expanding an uncompressed gas absorb heat from its surrounding? What's happening on the atomic level here?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2twmg7/what_on_the_atomic_level_causes_cooling_when_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co442un"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In order for the gas molecules to expand, it uses energy to push away the surrounding molecules. It loses energy and will therefore be at a lower temperature than the surrounding molecules. Being at a lower temperature will mean that heat will flow from the hotter surroundings to the cold expanded gas.\n\nAlso compressing gas doesn't necessarily mean it will increase in temperature. It depends if it is adiabatic compression or isothermal. If it's the former, then it will increase in temperature and then cool down to the same temperature as its surroundings (equilibrium)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1lp52f
|
How widely used was the French Revolutionary Calendar?
|
I'm talking about the new Republican calendar adopted by the French government during the revolution. Brumaire, Thermidor, etc.
Wikipedia tells me it lasted from 1793 to 1805, but how widely would it actually have been used by everyday people? Was the average person on the street all like "My birthday is the eighth of Germinal"?
What about the ten day weeks, and all the special fruit/tool date correspondences? Did anybody care, or was it a bit like modern day Britain under the metric system, with people still ordering pints?
Bonus question: how effective was the new calendar at making the general public less religious? Was that even the intent?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lp52f/how_widely_used_was_the_french_revolutionary/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc1ion1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It was VERY widely used. All government documents from that period bear the Republican calendar date. Passports issued use that calendar. Birth certificates. \n\nPeople were quick to adopt it, too, because it signified that you were favorable to the new Republican regime. Using words like \"citoyen(nne)\" (\"citizen\") to address a stranger or as an honorific (\"Citizen Boulanger\") was another way to show that you were most definitely not monarchist, nope no way. \n\nYou can still see some buildings in Paris that have their erection date displayed in Republican calendar terms.\n\nWhen Paris declared itself independent from France in 1871 during the Commune, they briefly switched back to the Republican calendar to show their ideological roots as from the Revolution. \n\nAs for your bonus question... I don't think it was ever intended to make people less religious. I'd love to see contradictory evidence, but I think it was partially symbolic and partially to develop a new labor schedule that was more fair to more people. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2rx24b
|
if potatoes are relatively healthy, olive oil is very healthy, and salt isn't that bad for you, why are french fries so terrible?
|
Are certain chemicals released during the frying process?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rx24b/eli5_if_potatoes_are_relatively_healthy_olive_oil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnk35aw",
"cnk5ziw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Potatoes are starch (sugar storage for plants) oil is fat ( energy storage) and salt is actually fine as long as your water consumption is on par.\n\nYou end up eating a lot of calories for very little nutritional benefit. ",
"1) Olive oil is not used in deep fryers. Vegetable, canola, or peanut oils are the most common, as well as lard. None of these is particularly healthy. \n\n2) Deep frying allows more oils to be absorbed by the food, as opposed to sautéeing. So you're not just cooking the fries in those unhealthy fats, you're also ingesting more of it than you realize. \n\n3) The high temperatures of deep fryers (something something food chemistry) that make the food more delicious, but less healthy. Analogous to the char on a steak or burger. \n\nNeed a nutritionist or chemist to better explain #3"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1mpv36
|
"jesus died for our sins" - what exactly does this mean?
|
I believe in the universal spiritual creator of all, who is God. I also believe that Jesus was a messenger of God, however I never fully understood the concept of how Jesus, being crucified, "saved" mankind.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mpv36/eli5jesus_died_for_our_sins_what_exactly_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccbhb9l",
"ccbhyen",
"ccbhytq",
"ccbjlql",
"ccbk3ga",
"ccbk4yd",
"ccbkt2o",
"ccbkv6a",
"ccbmt22"
],
"score": [
17,
14,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The idea as I understand it is thus:\n\nGod is perfectly good and perfectly just. Being Good, he loves his creations and wants to bless them and be with them forever. However, being Just, he cannot reward evil. The penalty for transgressions has to be paid.\n\nJesus had no sin of his own. He took the sins of everyone on himself, making us justified in the eyes of God. And, because Jesus is a part of God (or also God, whatever), sin, death and damnation have no real power over him anyway, so after paying this penalty he came back to life, still as sinless as ever.\n\nDoes that help?",
"In the old testament, the way to atone for sins and attain forgiveness was through sacrifice of so-called \"clean\" animals. There are some theologians that state that Jesus represents a human sacrifice (an \"ultimate sacrifice\" if you will) that permanently absolves mankind of their sins so long as they repent. ",
"When Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, God got really pissed. He basically set up this whole paradise for them and let them do whatever they wanted except for *one thing*, and they broke that rule anyway.\n\nThis pissed God off so much that he kicked humanity out of the Garden of Eden, and gave them all sorts of punishments for it. It's referred to as the Original Sin, and it was so bad that everybody who descended from Adam and Eve (ie everybody) is responsible for it.\n\nJesus sacrificed himself in order to repent for the Original Sin. He went through a tremendous amount of torment in order to make up for the wrongs of humanity, basically. It's well-established in the Bible (at least the New Testament) that God will forgive sin if the sinner repents for it.\n\nSo, the idea is that by accepting Christ, you get to piggyback onto his repentance, and are thus forgiven for original sin. That's part of what baptism is for (and why more extreme sects believe that unbaptized babies go to Hell).",
"Well there is the idea of Christian Gnosticism.\n\nWhich as I understand comes down to this:\n\nThere is a true God, this true God created lesser divinities, one of which created the Jewish god. The Jewish God was a poor creation, and was hidden behind a shroud and kept secret by its creator, as its creator was ashamed of its creation.\n\nThe Jewish god believes it is the only being and a perfect one at that (due to the shroud), and creates man. The Jewish god is (as far as divinity goes) imperfect, incompetent or plain evil. \n\nThe true God eventually finds out about the Jewish god and Jesus is a messenger/incarnation of the true God and sets us free from the tyranny of the Jewish God by his sacrifice.\n\nI think its an interesting idea, though it didn't survive past the 3rd or 4th century CE.",
"If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.",
"I understand the blood sacrifice, but isn't this sacrifice invalidated when he got resurrected? I mean how is the temporal death of a virtually inmortal being a sacrifice?",
"Let's God is the judge at your local court house and Jesus a public defender. You get a ticket for speeding and have to stand before God. You're guilty, you know it, God knows it. God says your speeding potentially endangers innocent bystanders and it's not fair to people who follow the rules to have to put up your reckless behavior. God takes your license but you need it to get to work. You look over to Jesus to help you out. \n\nLet me explain something about Jesus. He has perfect credit with God, Jesus knows that laws inside and out and always abides by them so God values anything Jesus has to say. Jesus works out a deal with God on your behalf. Jesus tells God that he will teach you how stop driving like a mad man if God let's you keep your license. In fact Jesus will teach you how to abide by all the laws. God agrees as long as you remain in Jesus's program be God knows that Jesus's program eventually works. \n\nJesus having to now spend all of his down time helping you is analogous to his sacrifice. The idea is that if you have redeemable qualities that you will at least try to take some of Jesus's advice since he put is neck out for you to keep your license, even if your progess is so slow at time that you actually move backwards. \n",
"Jesus' death and resurrection is the foundations of Christianity so you would first need a little understand of events that previously happened in the Bible starting with the Book of genesis. \n\nIn the book of Genesis Adam and Eve where banished from the Garden of Eden for disobeying God and subsequently allowed sin to enter the world. Their actions alienated mankind from God and their sin was past onto their children, this is known as original sin. \n\nSince then, Jews waited for the arrival of the The Messiah who would restore their relationship with God and until then they sacrificed animals, usually Lambs, in the name of God to repent for their sin. \n\nChristians believe that Jesus was this Messiah and by following this teachings they can be forgiven for their sin and repair the relationship they once had with God. When Jesus was crucified he was the last sacrifice to God, otherwise known as the Lamb of God. It was Jesus crucifixion and resurrection that verified that he was the Son of God. '...So whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life' in Heaven with God. \n\nWithout Jesus' sacrifice mankind would still be alienated from God and living in sin. It is only through Jesus that man can be free from sin and have a restored relationship with God. This is what is meant when people say 'Jesus died for our sins'.",
"Yeah I never really got this concept either. How did God give his only son for our sins, when all Jesus seemed to do was live on Earth for like 30 years, produce the materials for a book, then die and go to Heaven? Seems to me that it's not much of a sacrifice for God, who is omnipotent and omniscient. He knew Jesus was coming back in 30 years or whatever, so what was he giving up exactly? I don't get it :S "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1p5yb7
|
Is the cell we each started off as still part of our body when we're born? If so, what part of the body is it in?
|
Each of us started off as one cell that divided and specialized and, 9 months later, we're ready to be born. What happened to that original cell? Did it die? Did it specialize and end up part of some organ?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1p5yb7/is_the_cell_we_each_started_off_as_still_part_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccz4b9g",
"ccz5sud",
"cczbufh",
"cczc053"
],
"score": [
59,
35,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"While I do not know the answer to the question, you have to remember that what would you call the \"original\" cell of the body. When a cell goes through mitosis, it splits into two. How would you determined which cell was the \"original\" cell?",
"The original cell divides about 12 hours after conception through a process called mitosis. Mitosis creates two identical cells, both are exactly the same as the first. Quick background first though: mitosis is just the spliting of the DNA, your genetic material. It has four 'phases' prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase. The first three aren't as central to this question; the last phase telophase, is where the DNA currently in the form of chromatids decondenses and forms back into a nucleus. At the same time there is another process called cytokinesis occurring. In cytokinesis the cell splits, you can basically imagine the cell ripping itself in two, but instantly healing itself where the rip is. Ok back to the meat and potatoes of your question. When cytokinesis happens each of the cells formed is half the size of the first cell, it has half of the organelles of the first cell, each new cell formed is entirely half of the first cell. That first cell is gone, or you can think of it as that first cell is both of the new cells. The two new cells spend some time building up their size, the amount of DNA they have, and the reproducing all the organelles until they are about the size of their parent cell, the cell they came from, then they both split again making four cells. This happens again the again until you reach the 16 cell stage. Humans are a kind of animal that based on development are called deuterostomes. One thing this means is that up until the 16 cell stage our cells are undifferentiated. Any cell can become any part of the body. When the cells all divide again they create a liquid filled sac made up of 32 differentiated cells this is called the blastocyst and your fluid filled center is the blastocoele. All of these cells have been made by the process of mitosis and cytokinesis splitting the cells in half. You continue to develop with your cells splitting the same way from this point on but until the blastocyst each cell is identical and undifferentiated. ",
"I think the short answer is \"yes\" to some degree, the original cell is present but in no specific area. The best way to describe it would be the acorn to tree; is the acorn still part of the tree, if so which part? The obvious answer would be the acorn is within all of the tree as it was the engine that took the raw materials and converted them into \"more\" tree and thus a bigger engine- the atoms that made up the acorn were diffused and spread through out the tree. Same could be said of the original cell that is you and me.",
"Previous comments are somewhat correct. However, almost no cell in the body lives forever. Cells grow, divide and eventually die. The only cells that have the possibility of living forever are certain stem cells and your germ cell line. If you're in your 30s, it is likely that no cell from your early life (say your teens) still exists as they eventually got old and died. The germ line is the only cell that has remained unchanged your entire life. It is the basal group of cells that replicate and differentiate to create sperm. Their immortality may be due to the enzyme telomerase. In women, all their eggs are created prior to birth and no new eggs are produced during their life time. These eggs can also be considered as \"originals\" as they are within the female body, dormant her entire life until ovulation. \n\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21qcgb
|
what is a "tontine?"
|
I do not understand all of the fancy financial words in the definitions but, I know it is basically where people put money in pool and the last person alive gets it. But how does interest come into play? How does the amount increase over time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21qcgb/eli5_what_is_a_tontine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgfi3ej",
"cgfi4p7",
"cgfvycs"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The money from a tontine is usually put into some sort of interest earning fund. This could be as simple as a savings account or it could mean stocks, bonds, money markets, or many other financial instruments.\n\nSince this money collects interest the amount gets bigger.",
"Basically, everyone pools their money and invests in a bond/stock/whatever and the interest/dividends are split equally between everyone in the tontine. When one of the investors in the tontine dies, his share of the dividend is split between the remaining investors. When only one person is still alive, he is allowed to \"cash out\" the original investment money and keep it all for himself.",
"Gemmabeta's answer is pretty explanatory, and you know the saying, you gotta have money to make money. Well you can get some sweet interest if everybody pools their money together. Just throw it into a relatively safe diversified stock portfolio (where you invest pieces in different stocks so as to be safe in case one tanks), and the people who live longest will make a ton.\n\nAlso, remember the power of compound interest. The longer you can keep money invested, the faster it will make you money. The nature of a Tontine prevents people from just taking there money out, that money will keep compounding until almost everyone literally dies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4t16p3
|
how is it decided how far to watch for deer/elk along the freeway?
|
While driving along the freeway there are signs with a picture of a deer/elk/etc. and says "next 50 miles"
How is that decided? At 51 miles am I in the clear and don't have to worry about it any longer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4t16p3/eli5_how_is_it_decided_how_far_to_watch_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5ds64l",
"d5dscmz"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"This may be wrong but my grandfather told me its figured out by collecting information based on deer population in the area along with the amount of accidents due to deer on certain roads. Let's say there's a car accident a day due to deer on a certain section of road then they will deem that particular stretch as deer crossing. \n\nAgain my grandfather told me this so he could easily be talking out of his ass, though it seems like this could actually be how it's done. ",
" > At 51 miles am I in the clear and don’t have to worry about it any longer?\n\nYou *always* worry about shit jumping out into the road. The sign just tells you \"This area has a higher concentration of deer and elk jumping out onto the road than usual, so keep on your toes.\" You aren't ever \"clear\" of the danger, and probably the danger lessens to background well before the 50 mile point. It is just a broad swath of a warning."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
69vfwj
|
how big of a plant would you need in a sealed room for enough oxygen to survive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69vfwj/eli5_how_big_of_a_plant_would_you_need_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh9pkoq",
"dh9uko6"
],
"score": [
27,
10
],
"text": [
"According to this guy _URL_0_ probably about 400 house plants (he doesnt give more detail) per person.\n\nYou might want to google the term Biodome (not the film) for experiments where they have actually tried putting people in sealed environments and using plants to generate the oxygen for them.",
"Depends on the plant. You're not only looking at oxygen generation, but also carbon dioxide removal. \n\nDifferent species produce differing amounts and remove differing amounts, and produce oxygen at differing times (stuff like Neem (IIRC) can produce oxygen at night, others will only do it during the day as they use light-based reactions to break water down to into O2 and H+). Larger trees will store and process more C02 due to a more extensive structure "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/how-many-plants-would-i-need-airtight-room-be-able-breathe"
],
[]
] |
||
174c9t
|
- why, exactly, were biggie smalls and tupac so influential?
|
I listen to a lot of modern hip-hop. However, I was born too late to be on the uptake when Tupac and Biggie were in full force. I know only a few people who listen to either of them, and I've tried to appreciate their music.
So what, exactly, made them into the icons they are? I've listened to All Eyez on Me, Tupac is a great rapper and a great lyricist, but he doesn't seem like anything out of the ordinary to me.
Please, help me out here. I'm not trolling, I just don't get it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/174c9t/eli5_why_exactly_were_biggie_smalls_and_tupac_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c822zsn",
"c8239ix",
"c8241ii",
"c825exf",
"c8262d7",
"c82crb2"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
2,
5,
42,
2
],
"text": [
"With regards to Biggie Smalls he arguably under the influence of Puff Daddy changed how samples were used, \"Juicy\" being a break out track for using an old funk record. In comparison to \"Boyz in the Hood\" with Eazy E whose style relied on synths. Arguably rap before then was lead by the DJ and the group took it in turns to rap, this second wave of Gangsta rap brought about the emergence of specific personalities. Tupacs influence was arguably similar and one mustn't forget that until Tupac and Biggie fell out they were good friends whose music often crossed over.",
"Tupac isn't a great lyricist. He was known for his raw, visceral emotions. Getting super personal, and gritty. Biggie had everything from flow, to lyrics, to storytelling. He also was one of the first to have crossover appeal to the mainstream, without changing his content at all.",
"Listen to Biggie's track Unbelieveable, dope as fuck lyrically. He was such a raw talented rhymer and lyricsist. Had a natural flow and style. For the little of him that we have the quality is there and I dont doubt he was put on this earth to be a rapper. If you really wanna appreciate his flow... listen to his verse in Notorious Thugz, he killed it. Everyday Struggle! Who Shot Ya! Biggie was anything BUT fake. While Pac had diff faces...gansgter, thug, revolutionary. Biggie busted rhyme after rhyme with style and flow. The epitomy of a rapper/hip hop artist.",
"They uniquely fit a time and place. Biggie and Tupac were releasing records right when hip-hop was first reaching suburban kids in a big way. I am not a hip hop fan now, but I went through a stage where I owned Snoop Dogg's Doggie Style, Dre's The Chronic, a BlackSheep album, and a mix tape with Wu-Tang and others. \n\nI was a white kid from a medium sized town in Tennessee, and I was listening to hip-hop because artists like Biggie and Tupac were making great records that were edgy and authentic in a way I hadn't heard before. I started by listening to Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, and Kris Kross. That was very tame hip hop, made for white audiences, but it got us used to the idea of hip-hop. Then BAM I heard Snoop, Dre, Tupac, Biggie, and Wu. The music is angry, raw and exciting. \n\nAlso, Rock music seemed boring at that time. Grunge had blown up a few years before, and was simmering down. there weren't too many things to be excited about on the musical front. [Check out the BillBoard top 100 for 1995](_URL_0_) its all R & B, pop, lame rock and.....Hip hop. What else could angry kids supposed to listen to?",
"The characters behind the words play to it as well. Tupac was more than just a rapper; he was a revolutionary, born into a family of revolutionaries. Pac had vision: while many rappers were happy simply living the 'Scarface' lifestyle at the time, Pac wanted more, not just for blacks, but for humanity as a whole. Although in many of his songs it sounds like he just hated the idea of whites ruling blacks, in reality he didn't like the idea of anyone ruling anyone. Remember that at the time, saying something like that wasn't gangsta, and gangsta was what people wanted. As a result, Pac often came across as quite contradictory, releasing songs like Keep Ya Head Up, praising strong women, while also talking about his bitches in other songs, or talking about how we all need to get along in Ghetto Gospel while seemingly advocating violence in Ride On Our Enemies. Pac was a great lyricist, a great rapper, but his message was what mattered most. If it wasn't for that, he would probably just be remembered as a great rapper, but not an icon.\n\nNotorious B.I.G was the East Coast's big star. He may not have had the same level of vision as Pac (although he certainly wasn't merely a 'bitches, bling and guns' rapper), but he was a master of flow and lyrical construction. Even if the themes of his music get boring (and they do to many), there's no doubt that he could write and perform the hell out of a song. The relationship with Pac was a very interesting one as well: originally close friends, paranoia destroyed the relationship after Pac was shot and Biggie released Who Shot Ya? at quite an unfortunate time. Their rivalry was big and nasty, not like the little bullshit Twitter beefs of nowadays, and it helped build their image as 'hip-hop warriors'. Biggie is an artist that you need to *really* analyse to fully appreciate. The best song I can think of is Hypnotize, which is the one that most people know but few really listen to. In it he employs a style that, to this day, very few rappers can pull off... and he does it effortlessly. Even the greats like Nas or Em, who can pull off similar things, just can't do it like Big. He was, like Pac, ahead of his time, even if it was in a different way.\n\nThe big thing that many people remember, though, is their deaths. Many have said that if they hadn't died, they wouldn't have the rep they do. That may be true, but there's no way of knowing. The eerie thing was that they both seemed to... know. While recording *The Don Killuminati*, Pac was reported to have been chain smoking, on edge, paranoid, and whenever something went wrong, apparently proclaimed \"we don't have the time for this!\". And they didn't; Pac was shot dead the month after recording the album. Biggie was a similar case. The dude's first album was called *Ready to Die*, and the final song was him dying. In his songs he often talked about his death, and his second album, released after his death, was titled... *Life After Death*. This album actually formed a turning point for rap; you know how gangsta rap and pop kinda intertwined with artists like 50 Cent? It all started with this. The mystery and apparent premonitions of the rapper's deaths affected how they were seen, and has given them an almost 'divine' aura. \n\nTheir deaths were also a big shock in rap. Now a lot of people have died in rap; Big L, ODB, Dolla, Big Pun, Eazy E... I could go on. But they were killed in events separate from hip-hop. Pac and Big's death... it almost seemed to be caused by hip-hop. It's very likely it wasn't; I'm sure that they had mixed with dangerous people, but a lot of people even to this day view the killings as a result of beef in hip-hop. This was a wake-up call, and beef was taken more seriously. Nobody wants another Tupac and Biggie incident, and so their deaths stand as a dark lesson in how bad things can get if beef gets too out of hand.\n\nI'm gonna wrap this up now because I've gone on. Basically, their character, personal lives and deaths all contribute to their reputation as legendary, along with their technical skill. If *anybody* says that either Big or Pac were the greatest to ever live, then that person needs to listen to more hip-hop. There have been better rappers since and better rappers before. They may have been two *of* the best, but the very best? Move on son. I love both, but they are two of the most overrated people in hip-hop in terms of technical skills. If you want to really understand why they're so influential, you have to look at the men behind the music, as there was a lot going on.\n\n**EDIT**: I just realised that, even though I've tried to use understandable language, this is a fucking huge wall of text that no 5 year old would read, so I'll do a sum up:\n\n*Tl;DR*: There was a lot more to them than their songs, and their character, ideas, relationship and shocking deaths all contribute to what make them so influential.\n\n**EDIT 2: Electric Boogaloo**: [This piece](_URL_0_) was just posted on /r/hiphop101 that goes into depth on Tupac. It covers far more than I would ever be able to in one post, and is well written. If anyone's interested and doesn't mind a long read, check it out; even if you don't agree with it all, it certainly helps explain why Pac is so influential.",
"The hip-hop you listen to today was shaped and formed by them. It's somewhat like coming from a rock background and today trying to listen to Elvis, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Frank Zappa, etc - in many respects, you simply cannot appreciate what they were doing at the time as artists since then have taken what they were doing and pushed it farther.\n\nOf course it doesn't sound special **today**. Fifteen-twenty years ago it was game changing.\n\nTo put it another way - when both Tupac and Biggie were gaining traction, Will Smith still had a serious music career. The Humpty Dance and Rump Shaker were big songs. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://sound.jp/tnsn/billboard/1995/1995.bill.html"
],
[
"http://www.avclub.com/articles/1991-found-hiphop-in-transition-with-2pac-leading,84050/"
],
[]
] |
|
8fz9a0
|
Why the electron cannot be view as a spinning charged sphere?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8fz9a0/why_the_electron_cannot_be_view_as_a_spinning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy9k5oo",
"dy7katy",
"dy7ovae",
"dy7rllx",
"dy7wax7"
],
"score": [
3,
2904,
55,
213,
307
],
"text": [
"I guess the question is why you can't explain spin of an electron as effect caused by rotation of charged sphere.\n\nFirst it is important to understand why we sometimes speak of spin as \"sort of rotation but not really\". The reason is simple: The quantum mechanical \\(QM\\) equations that describe the spin look more or less the same as the equation for QM rotation. For example the discreet allowed values of angular momentum in some direction are integer \\(or half\\-intiger\\) multiples of hbar. The same goes for the spin.\n\nHowever, the spin is not any kind of movement at all. The spin of particles arises naturally when you try to put together special relativity and quantum mechanics. \n\nBasically, for an electron you arrive at equation of the form A\\^2\\-B\\^2=0. Now this has two solutions A = B and A = \\-B, but that is a problem since B corresponds to energy and you don't get a ground state \\(the state with the least energy\\) if there are solutions like this.\n\nNormally, you would solve this problem by factoring out the equation into \\(A\\-B\\)\\(A\\+B\\)=0 and only keeping for example A\\-B=0. This however can't be done here, because we live in 4D spacetime and so actually A\\^2=dX\\^2\\+dY\\^2\\+dZ\\^2. Paul Dirac performed a neat trick, by putting in some matrices. This allowed the equation to be factored down \\(thus solving the ground state problem\\), but as a side effect, we now don't have one wave function \\(as in classical quantum mechanics\\), but rather a set of four of them \\(so called bispinor\\).\n\nIt turns out that the first two parts of the bispinor correspond to wave functions of electron with spin up and down and the other two correspond to electron's antiparticle \\- pozitron.\n\nTL;DR: Spin is a necessary consequence of special relativity in 4D spacetime that is \\(by \"coincidence\"\\) described by similar equations as rotation. \n\nA btw fact: There is difference between spin and rotation when it comes to magnetism. For any object the magnetic moment is proportional to angular momentum \\([Gyromagnetic ratio](_URL_0_)\\). If spin would be just a rotation, the gyromagnetic ratio would be twice less than what it actually is.",
"Electrons are pointlike particles in the Standard Model, and a single point can’t “rotate”. If you try to interpret the electron as a classical, rotating spherical charge, you get nonsense conclusions, like that the “surface” of the sphere has to move faster than c.",
"Aren't electrons more or less a percentage chance of negative charge existing in a quantum field? My understanding of quantum physics is very limited but as far as i know an electron isn't really \"something tangible\". Its like a tiny probability of electrical potential. It seems difficult to create a model that properly represents something like this when nothing physical or tangible really behaves anything like this. It's very contradictory to human perception.",
"Ok, this is silly, I know, but this thread seemed like a good place to ask:\n\nIs there any \"research\" into considering the electron as a \"higher-dimensional\" particle?\n\nThe part that's visible in our 4D world is the point - the very tip of the electron if it were a hyper-sphere.\n\nWouldn't this also explain how during tunneling or when \"moving\" around a nucleus, it seems to jump from location to location and not actually travel in a contiguous path?\n\nI'm quite sure the maths will prove this ridiculous but just a thought that keeps popping up in my brain.",
"The angular momentum of a solid sphere is L=Iw, where I is the moment of inertia and w is the angular velocity. For a solid sphere, I = 2/5 mr^2, where m is mass and r is radius. w=v/r, where v is the tangential velocity. This is all covered in classical mechanics. So L = (0.4 m r^2) * (v/r). The tangential velocity is therefore (5L)/(2mr). We know the mass of an electron is roughly 10^(-30) kg and the classical radius of an electron is 10^(-15). So all that we need now is L.\n\nNow a bit of quantum. The eigenvalues of the spin operator on a state is hbar * sqrt (s (s+1)). hbar is planck's constant over 2*pi, s is the spin of the electron. You can refer to Chapter 4 of Griffiths Quantum Mechanics if you want to learn more, but basically we can consider this quantity to be the angular momentum L from the classical formula L=Iw. so L= sqrt (3)* hbar/2. Plug this into the formula we derived for v classically.\n\nWe therefore find that v is roughly 800 times the speed of light. However, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This is a contradiction. Therefore, there is now way that the electron is spinning."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
526ijf
|
which has more caffeine and why? dark coffee beans (dark roasts) or greenish/tan coffee beans (light roasts).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/526ijf/eli5_which_has_more_caffeine_and_why_dark_coffee/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7hpry8",
"d7hqh3x"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"If you measure your coffee by scoops, light roasted coffee will have more caffeine. Since the beans are denser than a darker roast. However if you weigh out your scoops, darker roasts will have more caffeine, because there is less mass. What should also be noted is that Arabica beans vary in levels of caffeine depending on the plant species.",
"Light roast has more caffeine. The longer roasting time means more of the caffeine is cooked out of the dark beans. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
10fcqu
|
After the sun expands to consume the earth, will earth continue to orbit as before, just inside the corona now?
|
I imagine that the gasses being there would slow down earths orbit so that it would spiral inwards, but I'm not sure what the density of the gasses would be. Can anyone clarify what earth's fate would be?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10fcqu/after_the_sun_expands_to_consume_the_earth_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6d00qt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You are on the right track. The sun will expand to a maximum radius of about 1.2 AU. During this expansion the sun will have lost about one third of its mass. As a result of the loss of mass, it loses some of its \"tug\" on the Earth.\n\nNow because of the decreased mas of the Sun, the Earth's orbit will increase up to 150%. But as the Sun's expansion continues, drag on the Earth from the sun’s outermost layers will cause Earth to drift inward, countering the effects of the Sun's mass loss. At this point, the Earth will essentially be spiraling into the Sun and will only survive a few hundred years more before being destroyed by the Sun.\n\n\n\n\nsources:\n\nSchröder, K.-P.; Connon Smith, Robert (2008), \"Distant future of the Sun and Earth revisited\", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 386 (1): 155–163, Bibcode 2008MNRAS.386..155S, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13022.x\n\nGoldstein, J. (May 1987), The fate of the earth in the red giant envelope of the sun, 178, Astronomy and Astrophysics, pp. 283–285, Bibcode 1987A & A...178..283G"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
22ivss
|
Is using a "mind palace" an effective memory tool, or is it pseudo-scientific bunk and other memory methods are more effective?
|
The "mind palace" was popularized in BBC's Sherlock, as well as other sources.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22ivss/is_using_a_mind_palace_an_effective_memory_tool/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgq9yp8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There is a popular [model developed by Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch in 1974](_URL_2_) that describes memory as an information processing system with specialized components, much like a computer. As I understand it, learned associations are easier to recall using this \"memory palace\" technique because it simultaneously activates the components of memory responsible for processing semantic and spatial information. For a more in-depth examination of this technique, which is also called the *Method of Loci*, see Allan Paivio's classic article [*Mental Imagery in Associative Learning and Memory* (1969)](_URL_0_). As far as how it compares with other techniques, it depends on the task and the kind of information [(e.g., Herrmann, 1987)](_URL_1_). The method of loci seems to be most effective for paired-associate learning (i.e., one item of a pair evokes the other item), and is less effective for serial learning (i.e., a sequence of items)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nclack.k12.or.us/cms/lib6/OR01000992/centricity/domain/840/Mental_Imagery.pdf",
"http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1987.64.1.171",
"https://encrypted.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o5LScJ9ecGUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA47&dq=baddeley+hitch&ots=8ydL4X4eX-&sig=vphzE3zNYab0HbnqJhoT08H6xHg#v=onepage&q=baddeley%20hitch&f=false"
]
] |
|
47ikxb
|
When did the Bishop of Rome become the Pope and primary figure of the Christian faith?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/47ikxb/when_did_the_bishop_of_rome_become_the_pope_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0donox",
"d0drtxj"
],
"score": [
4,
27
],
"text": [
"That's a hard one to answer in a way that's going to satisfy everybody, since the question itself is kind of hard to pin down and narratives can be easily, even unconsciously, twisted in favor of an agenda. This is an excerpt from a post I wrote on BH.\n\n > *Papal Supremacy*\n\n > The doctrine that the Bishop of Rome has authority over the rest of the Bishops. While the modern Church holds that bishops are appointed by the authority of the Pope, this is quite a modern practice. The earliest bishops were chosen by the faithful, by the priests over whom he'd have authority, by secular rulers or simply chosen by the bishop they'd replace. The Investiture Controversy wasn't fully settled until the middle of the 19th Century, which event probably had more to do with secular authorities generally adopting a separation of Church and State rather than the Papacy imposing itself.\n\n > The doctrine of Papal Supremacy is canonically based on a reading of [Matthew 16:17-19](_URL_0_). However, the earliest Bishops of Rome seem to have made no such claim, and authority over the Nicene Church (to which the Bishops of Rome belonged pre-schism) was held by a mix of clerical and temporal powers, importantly the Byzantine Emperors. From 537 to 752 the Bishops of Rome depended on Byzantine Imperial approval for episcopal consecration (selection of bishops) even for parishes directly dependent on the Pope. Constantius II went as far as to exile Pope Liberius (ruled 352-356) from Rome, as happened again to Martin I in 653 and several others. Damasus I (ruled 356 to 384) was named \"Bishop of Bishops\" by the Emperor, which may speak to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but *also* speaks to the authority of the Emperor over him. The first claimant of Papal supremacy as we understand it seems to have been Innocent I (ruled 401-417), but this was not generally accepted within the Church. From 476 Rome was generally ruled by so-called heretics, occasionally occupied by Byzantine troops who had no interest in undermining Imperial authority, and overshadowed by more important parishes within the Church. Only in 616 did a Catholic inherit the throne to the Kingdom of Lombardy, and the struggle with the Emperors for supremacy within the Church would continue until the Great Schism in 1054.\n\n > This is not to say that the Bishops of Rome did not hold a position of honor among other Bishops. The point here is that for about half of Church history, the Pope was *not* the boss.",
"It is tempting to create a narrative of papal history that marches inexorably towards the monarchical papacy of the High Middle Ages and its role at the center of Latin Christianity. However, the question is a bit problematic—what elements we decide are essential or fundamental to the office of the papacy will ultimately determine when we decide the papacy ‘began’. I am not sure that is as useful, as it superimposes onto the past our image of what a pope –medieval or modern— ought to be. I realize that comes across as a bit pedantic, and maybe it’s not completely necessary, but I hope it will help illuminate the special role the *papa* of Rome has held for most of the position’s history.\n \nI am happy to leave the early histories of the bishops in Rome to other, more qualified posters, but by the fifth century, the bishop in Rome held the title of *papa*. The title was not unique to the Roman see, and was commonly used to refer to a senior bishop who was to act in an advisory position to other sees in his sphere of influence. The title would, however, become unique to the apostolic see by the eighth century. The apostolic see was also one of five patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) that placed them atop an admittedly decentralized ecclesiastical hierarchy. Even among these, Rome was singled out as special—it was after all the resting place of not one, but *two* apostles, on top of countless* martyrs. The legacy of the city as the old capital of the Empire was also hard to shake. Even Constantinople was willing to recognized Rome’s special preeminence among the episcopal sees, but it's worth pointing out that this garnered no additional jurisdictional or theological clout. \n\nThe papacy of the earliest medieval period was largely oriented towards the East and Constantinople, and as a result was often caught up in the theological disputes and politics of the Eastern Roman Empire-- central and southern Italy were part of the Empire for much of the period. Until the papacy of Zachary in 741, the election of a new pope required confirmation from the Emperor. As the only Latin patriarch, the pope represented the West (in theory) in eastern affairs, but in terms of real, enforceable authority, the pope exercised little to no control over the western bishops. Like other patriarchs, the pope had a number of civic responsibilities. The sees of Ravenna and Rome paid the imperial armies in Italy and Rome fed the poor of the city from its estates. The acquisition of civic and administrative duties was not itself unusual, but among the metropolitan bishops of the West, Rome was particularly wealthy; the patrimony of St. Peter during the papacy of Gregory the Great numbered over 400 estates, many of which were located in Sicily.\n\nDespite its eastern orientation and the increasingly fragmented condition of the western churches, the apostolic see was still held a position of special deference. During the fifth century, bishops from Gaul would occasionally petition Rome (addressing him as *papa*) or, as in the case of some African bishops, seek intervention in local conciliar affairs. This \", however, was not regular, and more often than not the bishops involved were in trouble back home. As the western half of the empire continued to disintegrate, regional bishops became increasingly focused on the affairs of the various successor kingdoms to which they belonged. With the conversion of the Visigothic nobility from the 'Arian' heresy, the ecclesiastical life of that kingdom became increasingly centered on Toledo. The bishop of Arles in Gaul, theoretically and at times functioned as the papal representative in the region, but Rome lacked real jurisdictional authority over the bishoprics of the West.\n\nAgain, it's important to emphasize the slow and incremental changes in papal prerogatives in the West. Fifth century popes like Leo and Gelasius both emphasized the importance of their spiritual authority, but it's hard to gauge the extent of their vision for the role of their office; they were certainly unable to impose their will on the Latin bishops. Gregory the Great at the close of the sixth century certainly grew the prestige of the office, and while there was indeed an expansion of the papal bureaucracy over the course of the sixth and seventh centuries, the authority of the popes rarely extended beyond Rome, the surrounding territories and at times in Northern Italy.\n\nI suppose most people conceive of the pope as the head of a centralized Latin church. In that respect, the eighth century, during which the papacy began to look north to the Carolingian Franks rather than East to Constantinople.^1 The Franks increasingly looked to Rome in matters of the liturgy and instruction. Even still, the real authority of the papacy was limited--but it was growing. Beginning with Louis the Pious,^EDIT the pope would ~~periodically anoint emperors~~ take a more prominent role in the anointing of emperors, a reversal of the days when the Eastern emperor confirmed the pope’s position (though the Frankish emperors were still *usually* notified of the election of a new pope). Over the course of the ninth century, archbishops in greater numbers sought the conferral of the *pallium*, the ceremonial woolen vestment symbolizing the authority of their office, from the pope. It was an old practice^2 , but the increased frequency speaks to the extent to which the ecclesiastical leaders of Francia were beginning to look towards Rome for legitimacy, even if the pope as of yet was unable to dictate who was elected. \n\nThe tenth century saw the continuation of several trends established in the preceding centuries and the papal offices were quite busy, even when the popes themselves were rather lackluster. Charters connecting the papacy to various corners of the Latin West are a testament to the increasingly centrality of Rome. Monasteries in particular sought the protection and patronage of the apostolic see^3 —and it is out of these relationships that we witness the birth of the reform movements that would characterize the papacies of the eleventh century. Otherwise the eleventh century would look back on the tenth with not a little disdain. Papal election had always been a political affair, but the tenth century is notorious for the contests between leading Roman families, West Frankish rulers, and German kings—though the condemnation of the period overlooks continuity and consistency with earlier papal models. It is also at the end of tenth century that we witness the first ‘official’ papal canonizations. These, however, would not become a sole papal prerogative until the thirteenth century. \n\nIf there is a case to be made for when the pope emerged as *the Pope*, or at least what modern folks imagine when they picture the medieval papacy, it would be during the great reform movements of the eleventh and subsequent centuries. For the sake of brevity, the reforms championed among popes, monastic foundations and other centers would attempt to unify and regulate the far-flung communities of believers and establish papal authority in the farthest reaches of Christendom. It is under the reform popes that we see our first ‘crusades’ and stronger appeals to a universal Christian community. Excommunication and the suspension of the sacraments –long-standing papal prerogatives, if rarely used—were also utilized more frequently and papal insistence on investing bishops with the symbols of their office, as opposed to the temporal princes of Western Europe, would spark its own controversy. It was not an easy transition and the conflicts between popes and princes that would play out over the next few centuries would see emperor’s excommunicated, popes bloodied, anti-popes raised, and much angst and gnashing of teeth all around. Papal developments beyond the eleventh and twelfth centuries, including the crystallization of canon law, are a bit outside of my wheelhouse—I will leave that to hopefully another poster who might be able to elaborate further. \n\nAny time you cover six centuries worth of history things are going to be left out—I have tried to stick to general trends, but even then some things are inevitably left out (so please follow-up!) What I have attempted to demonstrate, however, is that the papacy as an office and institution evolved over time, reacting and adapting to various circumstances within the spheres of influence it found itself. Like any long-standing institution, it will only become more recognizable to us over time, and for me at least, some of those familiar kernels are recognizable quite early. \n\n----\n\n^1 I don’t quite want to get into all the complexities, but the weakening presence of Constantinople in its Italian holdings and increased Lombard hostilities ‘encouraged’ the pope to look elsewhere for a protector. \n\n^EDIT As noted below, Charlemagne was crowned by the pope in 800. Carolingians had also been anointed by the pope at various points prior to this event. ~~While I am having trouble tracking down the reference~~ (FOUND IT: in McKitterick's chapter in vol. 3 of the New Cambridge Medieval History), the emphasis on the anointing of Louis the Pious is ~~probably~~ with regards to the pope's insistence that he anoint the new emperor at Rheims in 816. Other than that, please excuse the lazy writing on my part. Whoops! \n\n^2 Pope Marcus (d.336) conferred the pallium on the bishop of Ostia, and Symmachus on Caesarius of Arles in 513; Augustine received the pallium before his mission to Kent—in fact, I have not mentioned it above, but the burgeoning English church looked to Rome in a way that Gaul and Hispania were not during the seventh century (but hey, there’s only so much of 600+ years of history that one can cover, right?)\n\n^3 For ex: the foundation at Cluny—the Starbucks of medieval monasticism. The monastery would produce a couple of popes over the next century, including Gregory VII and Urban II\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=17-19#x"
],
[]
] |
||
1f3lvf
|
What can we do to help future historians?
|
I study history and focus on ancient Rome, and there is a huge lack of primary sources and data in that field. Will future historians face the same problem when they study 2013? Assuming for example Facebook and Wikipedia are archived, future historians will have much more insight in our day-to-day life than we have in the lives of our ancestors.
But is it enough? Historians who focus on modern history; are you content with the amount of sources you have? What kind of sources would you like to have that are currently unavailable? Are things like time capsules useful? Can we, both as societies and as individuals, do something to help future historians?
I'm sorry for not strictly following the rules, but I don't think any other subreddit would be more appropriate for this question.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f3lvf/what_can_we_do_to_help_future_historians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca6hkmk",
"ca6i6nf",
"ca6ms07"
],
"score": [
3,
36,
6
],
"text": [
"I've been curious about that myself. I think we need to make sure a good amount of human readable records are preserved. We have ancient books, but floppy discs from thirty years ago are obsolete and difficult to find readers for at best, or damaged and unreadable. It's important to make sure our records and media will be accessible a thousand years from now. ",
"Preserving our own digital cultures is incredibly important, but I'm going to address this question from a slightly different angle. One of the other things we need to do to help future historians (and present-day historians too) is embrace an open-access philosophy when creating digital archives of *existing* historical materials. A lot of sources that were once available freely through public libraries and archives are currently being digitised by commercial publishing companies and then placed behind a paywall. In the process, the original documents are being put into storage, sold off, or (in some rare cases) even destroyed in the expectation that we'll all use the digital surrogates instead. I work in the digital humanities, so I'm certainly not adverse to promoting this kind of research - but I am concerned about how our past is being privatised in the process.\n\nIn Britain, the most obvious example is our newspaper archive. The British Library's flagship digitisation program feeds content into the [British Newspaper Archive](_URL_0_), which is owned and operated by a family history company named Brightsolid. You need to take out a subscription in order to use the archive - not an *enormous* amount of money, but enough to restrict the archive's use in schools and for speculative research. Once this company scans a newspaper, they hold long-term copyright over the scanned images (even if the copyright on the original texts has long-since expired). This becomes particularly problematic if access to the original documents is restricted. They also control the future of the archive - if it ceases to be commercially viable in a few decades' time, then how will we access these sources? The choice of materials for digitisation and the design of the archive's interface is also influenced by commercial rather than academic aims - I can't take their data and do something else with it because they control access.\n\nThis isn't just happening with newspapers. Loads of our archives are being broken up into small chunks, sold off to digitisation companies, and then placed behind separate paywalls. This process is creating an increasingly fractured archival environment - everything is held within its own walled-garden. This, in turn, is creating a divide between researchers who can afford the necessary subscriptions (either personally or through their institution) and those who can't. I'm an enormous fan of digitisation, but in our rush to fund it we've sacrificed control over our archives and erected barriers to access that will be extremely difficult to pull down. \n\nSo, what can we do to help future historians? We could start by making sure that the records we have *already* been trusted to protect remain in public control, and adopt a flexible, open-access approach to digitisation that doesn't require us to sell-out to commercial publishers.",
"The science fiction writer [Charlie Stross](_URL_0_) did think a bit of history of the near future. And he notes that the availability of cheap storage means that future historians will likely see a boundary around our time. Before they have only information, that is deemed valuable enough to warrant the labor and expense to write it down. Afterwards they will have everything. ( The current cost to store 1 year of DVD quality video (~30 TBit) is roughly $300, less than $1000/yr including backup.) \n\nSo to think a bit of what a historian of 2050 (or someone with access to the Facebook database today) could do with the Facebook Database: It would be possible to look at the subset of users who did identify themselves as Obama voter in 2012 and Republican voter in 2016. Then this future historian could look at the \"Likes\" and groups these users have joined and try to identify important correlations about these. In addition, depending on the state of natural language parsing, the historian could try to sort through the messages the user has send or received. It is at least possible to count the frequency of certain words. For example the use of 'Gun control' indicates that the user is thinking about 'Gun control,' a more sophisticated approach would try to extract enough meaning to identify if the user is concerned about guns or concerned about too much gun control. (None of this is speculative, [source for stuff Facebook stores.](_URL_1_) )\n\nOn the other hand, for high level decision making the sources would likely be not much better than today. The social media profiles of many politicians are created by PR companies, and as such are written with a lot more bias than a supposedly private conversation at Facebook. So for an important meeting during the financial crisis, the historian may or may not have access to the protocol of that meeting, but it is unlikely that the thought process is documented in a similar way as the thought process of someone who discusses openly on Facebook. \n\nSo to finally discuss the question, the two preceding paragraphs assume that the Facebook database survives. This is by no means a certainty. And the database needs to be readable, so future historians need to be able to read the file system of the hard disks and the format of the database. And in addition, they need to be able to judge the bias introduced by reconstructing new media: Most of the world population is still off line and my parents use email only for work related stuff. And of course the historical fashion may change and future historians may only be interested in the story of kings, just like many past historians. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/"
],
[
"http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/05/shaping_the_future.html",
"http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html"
]
] |
|
3br7s3
|
how to get infinite chocolate from a chocolate bar
|
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3br7s3/eli5_how_to_get_infinite_chocolate_from_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csop7gt"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The gif is subtly doctored. When the piece moves from the left to the right, you can, if you pay attention, see it growing slightly.\n\nPay attention to the left edge of the piece. You see it growing from 2+1/2 to 2+2/3"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/ze7BjJE.gif"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
5462ei
|
In terms of harvesting power from radio waves, is there an equivalent to a solar panel?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5462ei/in_terms_of_harvesting_power_from_radio_waves_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8045dq",
"d8079yh"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"This is what all satellite dishes and radio telescopes already do in the sense that they convert radio waves into some electrical signal. However, there's no step in there where they interact with some semiconductor wafer or anything like that. The signals typically need to be drastically amplified in the electronics and remember that a single radio photon has significantly less energy than an optical photon. Instead of a wavelength of 500 nm you might be talking about 50 cm, and so if the wavelength changes by a factor of one million then the energy also drops by that amount. So it's not really practical to harvest energy via radio waves.",
"People talk about building satellites in orbit to collect energy with solar panels, \n\n\nand then convert it to microwaves (radio frequency energy), beam it down to the ground, \n\nand collect it with a \"rectenna\" \n\n\\- that would be the radio-frequency equivalent of a solar panel. \n\n\n\\- _URL_1_ \n\n\\- _URL_0_ \n\n. \n\nWe have a convenient source of light-frequency energy - the Sun - so building solar panels to collect this energy directly is reasonable.\n\nHowever, as far as I know, if you build a \"rectenna\" to collect microwave / radio energy directly, you can't collect enough to be useful \n\nunless (as mentioned) you're actually collecting the energy from a different source, and just using the microwave / radio energy as a way of transmitting it to the rectenna. \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power"
]
] |
||
6y2sek
|
how are saturn's rings clean if they have existed for millions to billions of years?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y2sek/eli5_how_are_saturns_rings_clean_if_they_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmk8ubo",
"dmk9a3v"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They are not clean. They have drawn in countless meteors and such. Thus their current color instead of just looking snowy white.",
"To begin the rings are not solid but are made up of lose dust, gravel and rocks. A meteor would likely just pass straight though them without impacting anything. Secondly they are likely not millions of years old. They might just be a few thousand years old but it is very hard to tell. Thirdly most objects that far from the Sun is made up of mostly snow, ice and dry ice which are all white. They are only dark because the little dust on them is concentrated on the surface as ice sublimates from the surface. You get the same effect on Earth during the spring when the snow melts which turns the surface of the snow dark but if you disturb it there is still crystal white snow underneath. So when two meteors crash into each other they become whiter and not darker. So the rings of Saturn is getting lighter with meteor impacts and not darker."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
304unr
|
Why were ship designs so different in Asia compared to Europe?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/304unr/why_were_ship_designs_so_different_in_asia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpp5dyj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're going to need to clarify a few things: what parts of Asia/Europe? Time period? Are you referring to hull design or rigging? Warships or merchantmen? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4yfh08
|
how power banks understand the difference between being charged and charging?
|
For example when I plug it to my mobile phone it starts to charge the phone. But if I plug it to my laptop, laptop starts to charge my power bank.
How does power bank understands the difference?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yfh08/eli5how_power_banks_understand_the_difference/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6nbqcc",
"d6nkote"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You plug it in the laptop via a USB port, and in the mobile phone via a micro USB port. This means you use two different ports on the powerbank as well. This decides if you're charging the bank or the device.",
"actually it is very simple.\n\nfor mobile device, the port that you plug it in is the receiptor of input voltage, so it draw current therefore it plug the power out from the power bank.\n\nfor laptop, all USB port are sending out voltage of 5volt 500ma for the normal USB port (not USB C), hence it push the current into the bank which charge it.\n\na smarter bank would have a over-voltage protection such that it has a very small circuit which calculate the total capacity at the moment.\n\nsince all IC chip can do maths, hence one small part of the code consist of the below.\n\nVt=(vc/5)*100\n\nwhereby Vt is the variable of Voltage total and vc is the variable of current amount of voltage. 5 is the max voltage if let say it is a 5volt battery bank, 100 is just ensuring it is in percentage.\n\ni does that for all my electronic project for low battery detection and max cut off.\n\nanyway, most power bank has 2 port, 1 for input and other for output. my above statement is for 1 port style of bi-directional power bank."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2bs4t4
|
if you got in a plane and started flying flat along with earth then maintained that direction, would you eventually begin flying out of the atmosphere?
|
Or would the plane follow the curvature of the Earth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bs4t4/eli5if_you_got_in_a_plane_and_started_flying_flat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj8cpuj",
"cj8cs2x",
"cj8czpi",
"cj8d8w4",
"cj8l2qw"
],
"score": [
35,
2,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"tl;dr: The plane would need to follow the curvature of the earth. \n\nAs an airplane gets higher in the atmosphere a few things happen. First, as the plane encounters less air resistance, it can move faster, generating more lift. Counteracting this, however, is the fact that the air gets thinner, so less of it is displaced by the airfoil, so overall less lift is created. \n\nAt a certain point, even if you have a plane that can somehow generate enough lift to get to the very top of the atmosphere, the oxygen content is not high enough to fuel the combustion of the fuel inside the jet engines, so the engines will flame out. \n\nThere are certain ways to get around this problem by using different air compression designs. Ramjets and scramjets are for ultra high altitude planes that travel many times the speed of sound. These engines do not have traditional fans to compress the air, relying instead on the shockwave of the air hitting the engine intake to compress the air for it. Because of this, you have to already be flying at very high speeds to use these types of engines, making them a logistical challenge on commercial aircraft (along with many other reasons this is completely infeasible.) \n\nHowever, even these engines fail at high enough altitudes, so you would need to carry your own oxygen supply for combustion, like traditional rockets. You may notice now that we are no longer talking about the original subject, so the short answer is that the plane would follow the curvature of the Earth unless you had very special engines to get it to the upper atmosphere. Even then, it would eventually need to follow the earth's curvature unless you are flying a rocket ship. ",
"When flying the airplane tends to enter an equilibrium of air speed and altitude. Where that equilibrium lies depends on the aircraft, wing configuration, weight, wind, thrust applied etc.\n\nIf you have a light aircraft with high thrust and low drag the equilibrium will lie at high altitude at high speed. But if you have a heavy aircraft laden with fuel that equilibrium will lie at a lower altitude at a lower speed. This is why long distance aircraft climb slowly over several thousand kilometers as they shed fuel weight.\n\nSince the aircraft reaches an altitude equilibrium it will NOT go flying out og the atmosphere, it will more or less follow the curvature of the earth because the aircraft due to its dyanimcs prefers to be a certain altitude.\n\nIf it goes too high, lift drops and the ascent slow stops of reverses and the aircraft comes back down. If it goes too low, lift increases ascent increases. But again this is a co-equilibrium with airspeed. If you drop speed you drop altitude, if you gain speed you gain altitude.\n\nSo to climb into the atmosphere indefinitely you need to gain speed indefinitely too, which means you need unconstrained engine power, which we obviously dont have.",
"If you have set your power to maintain a certain cruise speed, say 2,500 rpm, and have adjusted your trim tabs to maintain level flght, the aircraft will generally fly at a constant altitude AGL (Above Ground Level), you will be in relative equilibrium with the forces of gravity and you will follow the curvature of the earth. Additionally, whether you are using a propellor-driven or jet aircraft, both types of propulsion require an atmosphere for ignition and have their own service ceilings above which they cannot climb.",
"Aircraft work on a principle called lift. Lift requires air to work, and at really high altitudes the atmosphere does not contain much air. It's not very dense, therefore the plane could not provide enough lift to keep it in flight. \n\nalso,\nEvery planet has something called an escape velocity. On earth it's about 11.2 Km per second, any normal plane can't get anywhere close to that.",
"Think of it like trying to swim out of a pool. If you're swimming at an angle, you eventually hit the surface, then if you keep trying to swim at that angle you don't get out of the water but you keep going forward (albeit not as fast as if you would simply change the angle to swim along the surface). \n\nSo the plane would eventually be flying one altitude whilst \"dragging\" (for lack of a better word) the tail end slightly lower than the nose yet in equilibrium. This is all hypothetical in the fact that a real plane would probably eventually achieve engine failure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
90g3v1
|
how did those inbuilt battery testers work?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/90g3v1/eli5_how_did_those_inbuilt_battery_testers_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2q2s0d"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The bar is made of a thermochromic strip of paper/film (paper that changes colour based on temperature) layered on top of a strip of some conductor.\n\nWhen you press down on the two ends, the strip makes contact with the battery terminals and allows electricity to flow through it. This causes the strip to heat up and change the colour of the paper/film.\n\nThe width of the strip is also not constant, so different parts of the strip requires different currents to heat up enough to cause the colour change. The \"0%\" end of the strip requires less current, the \"100%\" end of the strip requires more current. That corresponds to a discharged and fully charged battery."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1z9dm0
|
During the late 19th century, why was Japan able to modernize its military better than China?
|
From the limited understanding I have, both countries tried to reform their military to Western standards during the late 19th century. However, the Japanese reforms seemed to succeed better as they were able to defeat the Chinese in the first Sino-Japanese war despite numerical inferiority. Later, in the 20th century, the IJN grew into a force that could threaten the US Navy while the Chinese navy remained relatively small. The Japanese army remained qualitatively superior to chinese ground forces as well for most of the war. What were the reasons for China's military ineptitude?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z9dm0/during_the_late_19th_century_why_was_japan_able/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfuzux4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is an age old topic.\n\nMy answer is pretty simple. Japan could modernize because it became a nation-state by using ethnic nationalism. Qing China (1644-1911) could not modernize because it was multiethnic empire ruled by the minority Manchus.\n\nSo in Japan's case, the new Meiji state (1868-1912) could rely upon the age-old imperial family (going back to at least the 500sAD) and a relatively quick construction of Japanese identity based upon a shared language and culture. So despite the massive changes brought upon by Westernization, they could say that they remained Japanese and continue to swear loyalty to the new Westernizing government.\n\nIn Qing China's case the imperial family was Manchu. These Manchus were a non-Chinese people who came from north of the Great Wall and conquered the Han Chinese in the 1600s. The Manchus spoke and wrote in their own language, they were Tibetan Buddhists, and culturally they were semi-nomadic. The Chinese wrote in classic Chinese, they were a fusion of Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, and they were agriculturalists who practiced foot-binding. To govern this China (that also included other minorities like the Mongols, Tibetans, and central Asian Muslims) the Manchus set up a system of diarchy where top government posts in China proper were divided evenly between Manchus and Han Chinese.\n\nThe only thing that really bound the Manchus together with the Chinese was Confucianism. The Manchus adopted Confucianism as the philosophy to govern China and continued to use it as the basis for the Civil Service Exams that selected government officials.\n\nFast forward to 19th century and the need to reform. One of the things that both countries needed to do was learn Western technology and adopt schools that taught many of the Western sciences.\n\nIn Japan, adopting that Western curriculum to modernize its military did not endanger Japanese identity nor endanger the basis of Meiji government. (Because of the ethnic nationalism mentioned above.)\n\nIn Qing China, however, if you adopted the Western curriculum you were abandoning the Confucian curriculum and the Civil Service Exams. It took a bright person at least 20 years of studying classical Chinese and Confucianism to pass the Civil Service Exams. It was unrealistic to add another 10 years of Western education. So if you pull out Confucianism from the curriculum, then what binds the Manchu people with the Han Chinese people? Very little I'm afraid. So when members of Qing China's leadership realize this, they pull back from full scale Westernization and reforms. Chinese students who study a Western curriculum instead of the Confucian curriculum also begin to question why they have to have an alien Manchu emperor in China. Thus it wasn't accidental that the father of the 1911 Revolution in China, Sun Yat-sen, got his education in the West (Hawaii and Hong Kong). And that the 1911 Revolution starts right after the Manchus abandon diarchy and staff 80% of the top government posts with Manchu princes in 1910.\n\nTL:DR Japan could push through the necessary reforms to learn how to use ships and guns they bought, but also to eventually make them. Qing China could only buy ships and guns but not teach the students how to make them.\n\nThis also explains why once China became ruled by the Han Chinese, they could do lots of reforms (particularly social reforms) in the 20th century."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fush1m
|
Question regarding using the blood plasma of recovered people to treat sick people: When the plasma is injected, is it just the antibodies in the donated plasma that attacks the virus, or does the body detect the antibodies and create more ?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fush1m/question_regarding_using_the_blood_plasma_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmf1m3o",
"fmf25r9",
"fmf2blo",
"fmfk8z8",
"fmg1thj"
],
"score": [
16,
8,
3104,
17,
8
],
"text": [
"It's not the plasma that is injected. That is just what is extracted from the donor. The donated plasma is processed, refined, and the desired elements are extracted. In this case, the anti-Covid19 antibodies. Do a quick search of Anti-D, or Anti-Tetanus, or Anti-Rabies. It would be the same process.",
"Antibodies attach themselves to proteins on the surfaces of cells, but don't actually attack anything. They act as markers for other cells like macrophages in the body to recognize \"Hey that's the bad guy!\" so the offending cells can be engulfed and destroyed. Viruses are not cells and are not technically \"alive\", so I'm not sure about that interaction. They may be able to attach to the protein coat on the outside of the virus but I'm not 100% on that!",
"I don’t see the right answer yet so:\n\nThe plasma contains antibodies from the donor. Presumably there are antibodies in the donor that have neutralized the virus. Antibodies are just proteins that latch on to a target and help flag it so the hosts immune system recognizes the problem and eliminates it. \n\nThe donor antibodies will circulate for weeks to months in the host, but they cannot make more of themselves — they are just proteins originally made by B cells in the host. Therefore plasma infusions for these critically ill patients are just a temporary measure until their own bodies hopefully learn to eliminate the virus without help.",
"The plasma contains anti-viral antibodies which were produced by the donor's immune response. These antibodies attach to surface proteins on the viral particles and serve to block the interaction between human cells and the viral surface proteins, thus inhibiting the ability of the virus to enter and infect cells.\n\nThe body may actually react to the antibodies as foreign (since they are from another individual) resulting in serum sickness.\n\nAnother thing to note is that antibodies can also serve as a homing marker for destruction by other immune cells. This is classically seen in a bacterial infection. The antibodies coat the bacteria (opsonization) and are then detected by white blood cells which eat (phagocytose) and destroy the bacteria. This process does not occur with a virus as it is far too small. In this case, the immunity is conferred trough functionally blocking viral entry into the human cell.",
"The human immune system is a fantastic system & it is very complicated. There are scientists & physicians who do nothing but study & work with the Immune System. One major component of the Immune System is the Lymphatic System, but there are many different parts that function together to protect their human host, including the bone marrow, the Thymus gland, the large intestine, the peritoneal cavity, lymph glands... The antibodies to some infectious agents provide a lifetime immunity, such as to Smallpox. If you get Hepatitis B through infection directly from another person, that will give you a lifetime of being an active Hepatitis carrier, you can pass it to other people & die from liver failure or liver cancer @ anytime in your life. But, if you get the Hepatitis B vaccine, you will develop antibodies & have a lifetime immunity. Some infections, for example, from a strain of influenza or a cold virus, you will develop antibodies, but not for a lifetime, usually only approx. 12-18 months where the antibody titer (count of the number) gradually goes down monthly. The blood from survivors, of certain infections can be removed, is strained to isolate the antibodies & infused into the overwhelmingly sick patient. The donor antibodies will actively fight the infectious organism, but all antibodies, like almost all human cells, have a limited lifetime. The hope is that the donated antibodies will give enough of an ‘edge’ to the victim/patient, to give the victim/patient enough time for their own immune system to catch up & develop it’s own antibodies. Sometimes the severity of an infection in a human host is because the human patient gets overwhelmed with a very strong organism that replicates quicker than the human host’s body can respond strong enough to fight it off. This very new concept of taking the antibodies from a survivor & injecting it into a failing human host patient, worked with Ebola patients, but it isn’t known whether it will work with COVID-19. I think that the desperation of the situation dictates whether the scientific & medical community chooses antibody donation as an option, because there are big risks with it also. Anyway, I believe that the time that is chosen is dictated by 1) the antibody donor is strong, health & fully recovered, 2) the donor is fully recovered - not still infected, 3) there is a blood donor program that is able to handle this. It’s wonderful for you to offer to donate blood, plasma, antibodies... Our nations Blood Services & Hospitals are always in great need for blood products & those blood products do save lives!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
p9eer
|
...the difference between behaviorism and cognitive science.
|
I read both theories of Noam Chomsky and BF Skinner, but I am unclear as to what each is refuting. Can someone explain the basic theories and the differences, as well as why one makes more sense than the other, overall?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p9eer/eli5the_difference_between_behaviorism_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3nkp0p"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I'm just going off memory here, and it's been a little while since I learned about this stuff, but I'll give it a shot. (Note: I'm not familiar with Chomsky's particular arguments or ideas on the topic, but hopefully my answer isn't entirely useless)\n\nAs I recall, Behaviourism is the study of observable behaviour, and that's it. That is to say, if I was a Behaviourist and I was studying a child, I would simply observe his or her behaviour, in the most objective way possible. If the child were to start crying, for example, I would simply write that s/he had cried, without trying to explain the behaviour as a result of unobservable, intangible things, like the child's thought processes or emotions. \nI believe Behaviourism arose from a desire to make Psychology more scientific, as a lot of the research done at the time relied on imprecise methods such as introspection (ie having subjects describe their feelings, etc). Lacking the modern technology we currently have, observing behaviour was about the best they could do.\n\nCognitive Science, as the name implies, does what Behaviourism couldn't: it looks at things like emotions, learning and thought processes. It's a broad field that covers a lot of topics, but I'll focus on the things I listed. Thanks to major technological advances, we have at least a general idea what different areas of the brain are used for. Neuroimaging techniques allow researchers to see which areas of your brain are most active when you're talking, when you're laughing, or in any variety of moods. So instead of just observing that a child is crying, they now have the ability (theoretically, at least) to see what emotions she's feeling. With animal test subjects (such as rats), researchers are more able to directly interact with their subjects' brains, by methods such as lesions (cutting out portions of their brain) or direct stimulation. Given how similar the structure of a rat's brain is to ours, this provides a lot of insight into how many behaviours are linked to certain emotions, and does so in a scientific way. \n\nTo sum it all up: people aren't especially reliable when explaining their motivations for an action, so it was all but impossible to obtain accurate data via 'introspective methods'. Behaviourism was an attempt to emulate the 'natural sciences' (chemistry, biology, etc) by being completely objective, but fell short in explaining the causes of the behaviours observed. Cognitive Science is sort of the best of both worlds. We can measure objective things, like emotions, in a subjective way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1pmhm3
|
what causes the "stitch"
|
One of the most annoying things that can happen when you are running is to feel that unpleasant pain in the side known as the stitch. What causes it? How to prevent it? If it happens, how can you get rid of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pmhm3/eli5_what_causes_the_stitch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd3t9fy",
"cd3v2ki",
"cd4htx7"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's said that it's caused by the midriff, a muscle that important for breathing. If you are breathing in a fast maner, it can feel the same pain as any other muscle that you overuse. Running more and breathing deeper and more slowly will do the trick.",
"\"The primary theory as to the cause is that the jarring motion of running bounces your internal organs (especially your liver and stomach) around. Those organs are kept in place by ligaments, and when those ligaments stretch, they send out pain signals. There are other possibilities, such as limited blood flow to the diaphragm, but the ligament theory seems the best explanation for running-related side stitches. It’s most common among runners who exhale when their right foot hits the ground. That’s because the diaphragm contracts during exhalation, just at the moment when the body weight is jarred on the right side of the body, where the liver is.\"\n",
"My Rugby coach (Who has a Degree in physiotherapy and sports science) told me that a stitch is the same as when you get cramp in your calf.\n\nWhen you run, especially downhill, your abs and surrounding muscles tense up in order for you to keep your balance (might also tie into what another user explained about your organs moving around).\n\nYou have to appreciate running is essentially organised falling. You propel yourself forward and catch your balance your other leg. Your core muscles, especially your abs, have to work extra hard to coordinate your balance.\n\nA \"Cramp\" is a build up of lactic acid in your muscle, which can be caused by not stretching before running or a lack of glucose or glucogen.\n\nI find the best way to stop my cramps are to stretch thouroughly beforehand, take an easy pace for 10 minutes (even walk for the first ten minutes) then kick into your normal gear. I also keep my blood sugar up during my runs (I take energy bars or glucose rich energy supplement gel)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7dcxmj
|
why does an object traveling at the speed of light gain infinite mass
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dcxmj/eli5_why_does_an_object_traveling_at_the_speed_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpwrzue",
"dpx24t9"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"\nRelativistic mass is an outdated concept.\n\nMany contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler strongly argue against the concept of dynamic mass, and most modern textbooks actually avoid it. \n\nTaylor and Wheeler state [1]\n\n > The concept of \"relativistic mass\" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself.\n\nIt is a lot more more useful to simply stick to rest mass and consider the increase in kinetic energy of a fast moving object. \n\n\n[1] E. F. Taylor, J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics",
"To be precise, relativistic mass approaches infinity as velocity approaches the speed of light. Objects with mass can't reach light speed.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) is the equation that gives the relativistic mass of an object traveling at velocity v. As v gets close to c, the denominator gets very small, meaning mass get s very large. When v = c, the denominator is zero, and loosely interpreted, mass in infinite. You'll also note that when v > c, you have to take the square root of a negative, giving an imaginary result. Most physicists consider both to be meaningless, like trying to pour 2 L of water out of a 1 L bottle. You can write an equation for it, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as having -1 L of water in a bottle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.citycollegiate.com/relativity5.gif"
]
] |
||
3jsd9s
|
Have there been recorded cases of randomly decreasing entropy?
|
E.g. An object on the floor randomly having the thermal energy from the floor align and popping the object off the floor, things becoming ordered again sort of randomly/spontaneously, etc.?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3jsd9s/have_there_been_recorded_cases_of_randomly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cus7z61"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Something like that happening on the macro scale is statistically less likely than everyone independently hallucinating that it happened and was recorded and well established. The standard deviation increases with the square root of the number of independent events added together, so for 6\\*10^23 atoms, the standard deviation would be the momentum to move around 8\\*10^11 of them, or 800 billion. So you'd need about 800 billion standard deviations to move the entire mole of atoms. Normal z-score calculators can't do that many standard deviations. Wolfram Alpha can't even do it. But I did manage to use Wolfram Alpha to figure out how to approximate it. It's something like a probability of e^(-x^2). So you're looking at a probability on the order of e^(-Avogadro's number). So basically, you'd need around the same number of zeros to express how unlikely this is as there are atoms in the object you're looking at. If it's one or two atoms, it will happen constantly. If it's 6.022\\*10^(23), not so much.\n\nOn a smaller scale, sure. If you look at it electron by electron, it will decrease entropy about half the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3cppf9
|
how do you make an app?
|
How do people make smartphone apps? I have ideas now and then about useful apps I wish existed, but no idea how you go about it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cppf9/eli5_how_do_you_make_an_app/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csxsacz",
"csxt7u0"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on what operating system (Android, iOS, Windows).\n\nBut in either case there is software that exists which lets you write code in a specific programming language. That code is compiled and then you're able to either distribute that app directly or submit it to an app store.\n\nFor each OS:\n\n* Android - You use Eclipse to write apps often in Java, and put them on the Google Play Store\n* iOS - You use xCode to write apps in Object-C (or Swift), and put them on the apple app store.\n* Windows - You use Visual Studio to write apps in C# or _URL_0_ normally, and put them on the windows app store.",
"Another cross platform option (it will run on nearly anything that is rapidly growing is node.js (nw.js, electron, etc...). It isn't yet working on Android phones, but I believe that it's [very soon going to be](_URL_0_). In my opinion, it's easier to learn and use in many respects than technologies like C# or Java. You mostly have to understand the basics of javascript, HTML5 and throw in some other web technologies, so that if you're already a basic web developer, you'll probably feel at home with it. It also costs less (I have Visual Studio for C# and IntelliJ and C# costs the most because you need both Windows and the Visual Studio licenses and dealing with licenses can be an added pain in the ass if you're constantly setting up virtual environments or having to set up new machines or you need to redo your machine). The development environment (for me) is pretty much all command line and a text editor program (like notepad in Windows at its simplest) and it feels surprisingly simple (even though in reality it's not, because like with most other technologies, I'm sitting on the top layer of many other layers that better programmers than myself have created over the years). \n\nYou can begin learning the basics of node and javascript using tutorials online. You can think about the kind of application that it would interest you to build and then search for similar examples on _URL_1_ and learn from them / use them to build an application. I learned a lot by tinkering with other peoples' example code and extending it. I'm currently in the process of going back to learn the fundamentals (of node.js, javascript and angular.js) so that I have a better grasp of what I'm doing.\n\nYou can buy a used android phone or an inexpensive tablet online and move your code there to see what it looks like for the user (you can also set up \"emulators\" -- software that mimics the smartphone/tablet environment on your desktop. This comes as a part of or an add-on to many software development environments)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"VB.Net"
],
[
"https://github.com/jxcore/jxcore-cordova",
"github.com"
]
] |
|
5b4on3
|
what is actually happening when a single taste bud decides to stick way out and get super sensitive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b4on3/eli5_what_is_actually_happening_when_a_single/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9lrw9i",
"d9lupnw",
"d9lzl5v",
"d9m0r94",
"d9m77fg",
"d9maeno",
"d9md4ts"
],
"score": [
44,
668,
22,
2,
5,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Your taste bud is getting inflamed because it was likely damaged, such as when you bite your tongue, eating something sharp, or something too hot for your mouth. ",
"Welcome to the wonderful world of inflammation.\n\nThe most common scenario where this happens is when you happen to have too hot a cup of coffee or soup, or eat way too many salty snacks without refreshing your mouth with water.\n\nIn scenario 1, the intense heat manages to burn part of your tongue, or atleast heat it sufficiently enough to stop the enzymes and cell processes from working properly, and in scenario 2, your cells are exposed to so much salt, that they shrink too fast and damage themselves due to extensive water loss.\n\nIn either case, your cells are now damaged, and will start to give off warning signals into the local capillaries and blood vessels. Typically, what triggers inflammation is a change in the local environment of the blood vessels. During cellular damage, the cells release a wide variety of chemicals called prostaglandins, that perform a variety of functions. \n\nOne of the things that they can do, is trigger the process of inflammation. They also increase the sensation of pain, sort of like a throwback warning to remind you not to further damage that region, since repairs now have to take place.\n\nThe early stage of inflammation is characterized by vasodilation, wherein the blood vessels to the damaged area dilate and become leaky, creating more space in the tissues surrounding the damaged cells. This is what makes the burnt taste buds look so red and large.\n\nThis allows the local beat cops, the neutrophils and macrophages, to come in and survey the damage. If they find that any intruders and bacteria have come to crash the party, (and there will be a lot of them), they clean them up, and also send information into the blood to call for more back up. They also clean up any dead cells, and if any cells are too damaged to function, they shut them down and trigger orders for new cells to come up in their place. Most of the time, the nearby cells know when to divide and replace damaged ones, so they start growing anyway.\n\nThe tongue is very well supplied for blood, so most of the time, there's no real need for an exaggerated response, that's why pus rarely develops there, because the local cells are able to easily handle any infection that develops. But the repair process takes time. Taste buds themselves take about a week to grow back, so until that time, the gates to enter the body are open, meaning that the burnt area is exposed and raw, which means that the inflammation will continue, as more and more invading bacteria keep trying to enter and force their way in. Once a new set of taste buds have grown, the entry region for the tongue is now closed, and you stop feeling the sensitivity.\n\nEdit : An important thing to note, the bumps that you see are actually not \"taste buds\" but larger structures called papillae which line the entire tongue and come in different shapes and sizes. So when you see inflammation, the visible swelling is actually the inflamed papillae. \n\nTL;DR\n\nProstaglandins are amongst the first few cellular messengers that trigger inflammation, which is necessary for both cellular defense as well as cellular healing. A side effect of prostaglandins is increased pain sensitivity, and the inflammation typically continues until a new set of taste buds grow to replace the damaged ones, as the damaged region is an easy entry point for local bacteria to enter the body.",
"Ok now that i've learned what is happening, is there something that can help it heal faster or make it less annoying?",
"Thanks. Just ate way too many salted pumpkin seeds and now have an explanation as to what's going on and why! Cheers!",
"I don't know but I can tell you what works for me to get it to stop: Vinegar. \n\nDab a little straight vinegar on your fingertip. Dab that on the inflamed taste bud. Do it three times. \n\nThis solves it for me within an hour or two. \n\nCan't tell you why. My reasoning as a kid was \"I ate too many sweets and that's why my tongue is this way. What's the opposite of sweet? I know, sour! What's the most sour thing? Vinegar!\" \n\nYeah, not exactly thorough scientific reasoning there. I was like 8 years old. The explanation above absolutely cannot be why this works. \n\nBut unlike most deep philosophical conclusions when I was 8 years old, this one actually showed results. The results were great. \n\nSo I continue to do this. But cannot explain it. ",
"Is it bad that I rip these off of my tongue? I don't do it every day but it hurts like hell and ripping it out and bleeding for 5 minutes is way less annoying than a week of pain. Maybe I'm just weird though.",
"Thank you for asking this question! This happens to me once in a while and I never knew what the hell was happening!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1d8ld0
|
How did Portugal (as a fascist state under the Estado Novo) manage to stay non-belligerent in World War Two?
|
I can understand how they leaned towards supporting the Allies near the end, but how did they not ally themselves with the Italians and/or Germans at the beginning?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1d8ld0/how_did_portugal_as_a_fascist_state_under_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9nz8sd",
"c9nzaq1",
"c9o6mz1"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because Estado Novo is a very peculiar fascist state. We didn't had 90% of the ostentation of Italy and Germany, and Salazar didn't want to recuperate the Portuguese Empire as the Italians want to bring back the Roman Empire or the German the Reich, Salazar wanted his people poor, traditional and in the countryside.\n\nOur natural enemy has always been Spain, so the 1st thing Salazar did was make the Iberian Pact where both of us decided to have a neutral position in the war. But Franco gave a lot of support to the Axis and ended up not having his position recognized as Portugal had, this was signed by the same time the Italians invited Portugal to join the Axis.\n\nJoining the Axis was entering some european politics that he saw unrelated to Portugal, and his focus was on the colonies.\n\nPortugal was at risk of invasion only two times: Operation Felix, the ideia of invading Gibraltar with the support (or not) of Spain, if the allies interfered ocupying Portugal. This made Salazar plan to move the government to Azores, so he send a lot of trops to the islands.\n\nThe second one was a plan by UK to invade Azores and use the islands since it's strategic location, but the trops there from the Felix operation made them think twice because Portugal would defend the islands.\n\nBut we were alone, not very well armed, and Salazar was a very lucky bastard.",
"This paper looks at the state of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance during WWII and gives some good in-depth answers. \n\nSome key points: \n\n* Despite the fact they were both anti-democratic, Salazer and Hitler weren't naturally allies and neither were their political followers.\n\n// the British Embassy in Lisbon considered the head of the\npolitical police \"impartial,\" and out of eight superior officers only\none was considered \"pro-German.\" // \n\n* The regime in Portugal wasn't anti-Semitic and accepted many Jewish refugees \n\n// Many refugees, especially Jewish refugees, have mentioned the\nwarm welcome they received from the Portuguese population in general.2 It appears, the Portuguese government was free from antiSemitism. The Portuguese Jewish community was very small but It\ncounted very influential members, among them a personal friend of\nSalazar, Moses Bensabat Amzalak\" //\n\n* The Anglo-Portuguese alliance, which goes back to 1373 and is the oldest still existing such alliance in the world, was not something to be lightly cast aside. This alliance had survived many, many prior upheavals in European history and was hugely significant for Portuguese foreign policy and trade. \n\n* Portugal had fought on the side of Britain against the Germans in WWI and many still considered the Germans to be the enemy. \n\n* Portuguese non-Belligerency was a key part of British foreign policy as it was feared that Portuguese involvement could trigger Spain to join on the side of the Axis powers. ",
" > how did they not ally themselves with the Italians and/or Germans at the beginning?\n\nThe government, while fascist, didn't think it was in their best interests to join, so they stayed out. It's as simple as that.\n\nPortugal was reasonably far away from the rest of the Axis, so they couldn't threaten her with invasion to force her hand (and wouldn't get much out of it if they did, anyway) and it was not in the best interests of the Allies to invade (as that might push the Spanish into bed with the Germans). So when they decided not to join a side that was that.\n\nNo offence, but this question is a little like asking \"how did the Americans stay out of WW1 for so long? They were a democracy like France, so why weren't they forced to join/sucked in in the beginning?\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
26lpwy
|
How was oil obtained in the middle ages?
|
There was another post about use of oil in siege warfare. How and where did the oil come from?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26lpwy/how_was_oil_obtained_in_the_middle_ages/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chs85w9",
"chs8ezs"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"They got them from oil wells near the surface. Herodotus describes oil pits near Babylon, for instance, where they dug for oil much like you'd dig for water.\n\nMore specifically for the Middle Ages, Marco Polo -for instance- describes oil springs in Baku (Azerbaijan):\n\n > bordering upon Armenia, to the south \nwest, are the districts of Mosul and Maredin, which shall be \ndescribed hereafter, and many others too numerous to parti \ncularize. To the north lies Zorzania, near the confines of which \nthere is a fountain of oil which discharges so great a quantity \nas to furnish loading for many camels. 2 The use made of it \nis not for the purpose of food, but as an unguent for the cure of \ncutaneous distempers in men and cattle, as well as other com \nplaints ; and it is also good for burning. In the neighbouring \ncountry no other is used in their lamps, and people come from \ndistant parts to procure it. \n\n(Travels of Marco Polo, chapter IV)\n",
"Hi! FYI, you'll find some additional information in the FAQ (link on the sidebar) \n\n[Mineral resource extraction]( _URL_0_) - see under *Petroleum*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/economics#wiki_mineral_resource_extraction"
]
] |
|
24ojmp
|
when talking on a cellular phone how does my voice get translated into bits of ones and zeroes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24ojmp/eli5when_talking_on_a_cellular_phone_how_does_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch94ui4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The sounds you vocalize lead to a series of compressions in the air.\n\nThe compressions are picked up by a microphone, where they cause a membrame to move in synch with your voice.\n\nThe movement of the membrame in the microphone is measured and gives rise to an electric signal that varies over time, still in synch with the noises that you make with your mouth. This is known as an \"analog\" signal.\n\nNext comes the conversion from \"analog\" to digital. This is done by measuring (sampling) the analog signal at a regular time interval and recording the value of the measurement as a number, represented by a certain pattern of ones and zeroes.\n\nTypically, the sampling occurs at a rate of many thousands of times per second, and the accuracy at which the measurement is made is measured in numbers of bit used to describe the value.\n\nFor example, in the process of you saying \"no\" to your telephone conversation partner, at one certain millisecond this causes an analogue value of 0.325 to be measured. You can represent the number 0.325 more or less accurately using zeroes and ones. The process that does that conversion is not difficult: instead of using a ten-based numerical system, you use a 2-based numerical system. Here is the relevant Wikipedia: _URL_0_\n\nNow, in the next millisecond, the sampled value has risen to 0.328. Again, you can convert 0.328 to a series of ones and zeroes. It will be a slightly different series of ones and zeroes, seeing as that 0.325 does not equal 0.328.\n\nIn practice, an engeneering improvement is that you do not send both values 0.325 and 0.328 across the line, but you compute their difference (0.003) and send *that* across. In general, the difference can be encoded with a smaller amount of ones and zeroes, which in turn means you use less bandwidth to get the message across.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number"
]
] |
||
1mai9i
|
Does low birth weight in humans have an effect on the brain later in life?
|
?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mai9i/does_low_birth_weight_in_humans_have_an_effect_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc7dtjt"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It seems nearly certain that it does. Low birth rate children have higher rates cognitive delays and other neurological issues. The effects seem to be mild for most affected, but they seem to be persistent. \n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\nJSTOR subscription needed, but the abstract says it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1602514?uid=3739912&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&uid=3739256&sid=21102634132097"
]
] |
|
8276zm
|
Is the heat energy that we get from the sun just from Photons?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8276zm/is_the_heat_energy_that_we_get_from_the_sun_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv815qh",
"dv8o23h"
],
"score": [
30,
13
],
"text": [
"Yes. Since there is (almost) nothing between the sun and the earth to transfer the heat through conduction or convection, the only way for thermal energy to be transferred is through radiation, which consists of photons.",
"Almost entirely, yes (to a large number of zeroes).\n\nThere is a very, very slight amount of energy transfer via other routes as well, but it's inconsequential in comparison. Some energy from tidal energy. Some energy from neutrinos that happen to interact with Earth. Some energy from the solar wind (which is powered primarily by the Sun's magnetic field)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1vrpg7
|
How come our eyes can see both dark/light areas simultaneously while cameras can only be set to a specific exposure?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vrpg7/how_come_our_eyes_can_see_both_darklight_areas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cev9w58",
"cevb3h5"
],
"score": [
6,
12
],
"text": [
"A camera's exposure is the length of time that an image is recorded for. Our eyes/brain combination record and process images constantly. Modern video cameras can do this, and they are programmed to adjust to dark and light areas, too.",
"It's actually the same principle, just a difference in magnitude. Your eyes are able to perceive a contrast difference of 10-14 stops in a single \"image\". A digital camera usually falls somewhere around 11 stops, give or take. The difference is that your eye has an iris which can open or close to allow you to quickly switch \"exposure\" when you look from a brighter area to a darker area. This substantially increases the dynamic range you can perceive, up to as wide as 24 stops. Once a camera captures an image, its exposure is set and you can only look at the image as it was captured, so it appears to have a narrower range."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
o1xsn
|
why the hell do big states allow smaller states to have so much influence over the direction of a political party?
|
In both the primary and the general election, many of the big states only see politicians when they are looking for money. Why don't big states put up more of a fuss to get politicians to campaign in their areas and appeal to their needs? Why do big states bow to the will of those states that have early primaries, or those that are swing states?
Thanks for any response!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o1xsn/eli5_why_the_hell_do_big_states_allow_smaller/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3dpqew",
"c3dprqz",
"c3dqnau",
"c3dqr8j",
"c3dses1"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's all about the order of the primary. Candidates get money from their party and press coverage based on how well they are doing (or how crazy they are) if you mange to win the first few states, you get tons of publicity (and civilian donations) as well as extra party backing, especially now that there is less competition and people can support you because you're less likely to fail hilariously.\n\ntl;dr: strong start = strong support.",
"The big states absolutely dominate American politics. With the exception of the early portion of the campaign for a nomination, candidates focus heavily on winning the major states and their stacks of electoral votes.\n\nAs for the early-primary states, it's driven by media coverage as much as anything else. Since media outlets insist on covering the 'horse race' aspect of the campaign as if it were the most important thing, early primary and caucus results give candidates the appearance of legitimacy or popularity, which in turn drives the donations which fund their campaigns down the line.\n\nAs for the swing states, candidates are of course going to focus most on the states that have the most possibility of doing them the most good. Just as a Republican has little chance of winning Massachussetts, a Democrat has equally little chance of winning Wyoming, so neither is going to waste much time or money on the 'unwinnable' states and focus on places like Ohio and Florida which could go either way and turn the results of the election.",
"I've always thought that places like Iowa and New Hampshire are used in the primary aspects as a mostly symbolic measure. Iowa is meant to represent the MidWest, and so whoever does well in that primary has a good chance of winning those states in a general election. New Hampshire represents the New England area, South Carolina and Florida represent their regions, etc. \n\nI just see it as \"testing the waters\" so that a political party doesn't invest heavily in someone who will not have a snowball's chance of winning.",
"Because that's how we do it. If you're looking for a logical reason there really isn't one. Someone's got to go first and since Iowa and New Hampshire always have, that's what we keep doing.\n\nIowans and New Hampshirites(?) would tell you that they take their \"duty\" of selecting candidates very seriously and that this order makes up for the advantage big states have in terms of shere number of delegates.\n\nThe parties themselves have threatened to punish states that jump in line which is one of the reasons states are hesitant to go against the grain. In 2008, Florida was threatened with losing half their delegates for doing so.\n\nBut as to why they go first, there's no logical reason really other than tradition.",
"The sad truth: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey#p/u/2/7wC42HgLA4k"
]
] |
|
8am62d
|
Why did it take so long to unify Italy again (1870s) after the collapse of the Roman Empire? how did countries more technologically backward such as England, France and Castile/Spain unify more quickly than what was previously the most advanced empire in history?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8am62d/why_did_it_take_so_long_to_unify_italy_again/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwzq4ce"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"This question takes in the best part of a millennium and a half of West European history, and I was aiming to find 3-4 earlier answers that might address parts of it. \n\nHowever, it turns out u/AlviseFalier has written an epic answer to a very similar question: [It seems odd that the Italian peninsula could give rise to the Roman Empire and then largely resist political unification until 1870. How have historians explained Italy's extended political fracture after the Western Empire fell?](_URL_0_) "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5vba8z/it_seems_odd_that_the_italian_peninsula_could/"
]
] |
||
3prqqs
|
if/once the cuban embargo is lifted, what will change?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3prqqs/eli5_ifonce_the_cuban_embargo_is_lifted_what_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw8t27t",
"cw8tbz0",
"cw97my8",
"cw99xjt",
"cw9a2up"
],
"score": [
24,
5,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It will be easier people in the US to visit Cuba, acquire Cuban goods and do business in Cuba. Vice-versa for people in Cuba dealing with the US.",
"Cuba will finally be able to buy newer, safer cars. _URL_0_",
"The biggest change for Cuba will be access to 21st century farm technology. All of our best fertilisers, crop varieties and pesticides are owned by American companies. Cuba is forced to use more dangerous and toxic alternatives when they can find anything at all.",
"There are two hypotheses about this. Critics of lifting the embargo are afraid that the injection to the Cuban economy will strengthen a repressive regime. Supporters argue that the exposure to American culture will drive calls for expanded freedom in the country.",
"Cuba's economy will have a chance to recover since Cuban sugar and tobacco products will have a chance to be exported "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://oppositelock.kinja.com/i-still-cant-believe-cuba-and-its-cars-1548175242"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
50p67s
|
Are there (presently) multicellular organisms with very few (2-50) cells?
|
I know there are single cell organisms (e.g. bacteria) an there are large multicellular organisms such as animals and plants. These are usually composed of thousands or millions of cells.
It seems logical that there would be organisms of every size but i have never heard of an organisms that consists of 2, 5 or 20 cells. Are there examples for such lifeforms?
Of course humans and other animals consist of very few cells when they are in an embrionic stage, but I am talking about "fully grown" animals/plants.
Also: If this kind of "small" organisms is not common today, where they more common in the past? This seems plausible to me because all life (as far as we know) evolved from single cell organisms. So there must have been a transition period where (through evolution) species grew to have thousands of cells like modern animals.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/50p67s/are_there_presently_multicellular_organisms_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d76nrek",
"d76vf6i"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a spectrum of morphologies and sizes of simple life-forms. Some organisms such as slime molds and choanoflagellates can alternate between states in which they are single cells and states in which they have multiple cells. The multicellular phases of these organisms could include states with only very few cells (50 or less) but can also have many more cells. The protist Volvox is a colonial algae that could have few cells (but can also have several thousand cells). In the animal kingdom, the smallest full-grown organisms tend to have about 1000 cells, but if you count embryos then you would have living organisms of 50 or fewer cells. ",
"I agree with /u/Scientist34again's answer, but I wanted to emphasis one part of it:\n > Some organisms such as slime molds and choanoflagellates can alternate between states in which they are single cells and states in which they have multiple cells. The multicellular phases of these organisms could include states with only very few cells (50 or less) but can also have many more cells.\n\nThis, I think, actually helps address one of your concerns:\n > If this kind of \"small\" organisms is not common today, where they more common in the past? This seems plausible to me because all life (as far as we know) evolved from single cell organisms. So there must have been a transition period where (through evolution) species grew to have thousands of cells like modern animals.\n\nNot necessarily. If you think about it more like a \"colony\" of unicellular organisms (let's limit it to ones of the same species, for simplicity) living together, then you wouldn't necessarily evolve step by step from two cells to 8 cells to 20 cells, etc. You'd have 100s of individuals living together, gradually accumulating pathways that help them specialize when they are living together (because not all the individuals need to do the same job). There is a finite amount of energy an individual is going to have, so as they invest in their specialization, they might lose some general skills that would have allowed them to live freely. \n\nEventually, you'd find that basically these cells have accumulated so many specializations that they can't live a full life cycle alone anymore, and you might then call that 'colony' a 'multicellular organism'."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
tc3oq
|
wide area networks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tc3oq/eli5_wide_area_networks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4lf8bi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A wide area network is similar to a local area network, but uses multiple routers/hubs and occasionally a VPN system to enable network access by dozens or even hundreds of people over a large and disparate landscape."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1jrfqu
|
radar guns that the police use.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jrfqu/eli5_radar_guns_that_the_police_use/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbhjo9s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nShort version of that: The gun shoots a radar signal at the car, the signal bounces off the car but is changed slightly by the car depending on its speed, the radar gun detects how the signal was changed and calculates the car's speed. The way the signal is changed is caused the Doppler Effect."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_gun"
]
] |
||
1e2qyd
|
How did music originate?
|
I'm a working musician who loves what he does. I'd like to know how what we consider "music" (melody and rhythm) originated. What do we know with reasonable certainty? Are there any general theories that are considered credible? Or is any answer to this utter guesswork?
The origins of spoken language are shrouded in mystery, and I strongly suspect the origins of music (a sort of language in of itself) are cloaked in guesswork. Do we even know enough about prehistoric times to make reasoned guesses at the answers here?
Suggestions for further reading would be welcome, of course, but I think at this point I need to know just enough so I can pose some interesting questions about the origins of what I hold dear.
(This is my first post to this subreddit, have been lurking and reading for a while. As per the rules, I've attempted to pose a reasonably targeted question about this very broad... thing. Suggestions for further targeting are welcome.)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e2qyd/how_did_music_originate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9w9fbn",
"c9wd6sh"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You might have better luck asking an anthropologist than a historian.",
"As hangarninetysix points out, this is probably a better question for anthropologists than for historians. And, while we do have some anthropologists here, you'll also find some in our sibling subreddit /r/AskAnthropology.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2kcm1r
|
how does a company gets money when you buy its share, if when you buy a share the money goes to the seller of the share (which is not necessarily the company)?
|
Let's say a company did IPO and sold 100% of the company's shares in $1,000 to the public. Now the company got $1,000 in its 'vault', why does it care if the share is fluctuating or changing price?
Also, even if the company holds 90% of the shares, fluctuations still doesn't affect the money it has on its 'vault'. Would they care how are these shares do?
Please ELI5, thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kcm1r/eli5_how_does_a_company_gets_money_when_you_buy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cljzy7r",
"cljzyuc"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They care about the price of the shares because the shareholders **own the company**. If the share prices do poorly, the shareholders can fire the CEO & hire a new one.",
"The bottom line is that stock represents ownership. Naturally companies are concerned about what their owners think. Even if 51% of the stock is still owned by the company, the companies directors are going to be very concerned about a devaluation of the stock."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fe2gjy
|
why it's harder for micro-organisms to become resistant to alcohol based disinfectants than drugs
|
With those disinfectants popping up everywhere, I was wondering if there was a fear of alcohol resistant bacteria becoming a thing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fe2gjy/eli5_why_its_harder_for_microorganisms_to_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjlcf0m",
"fjm1cht"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"To keep it simple, alcohol kills the microorganisms by physical means : it mostly causes their membranes to fragilize, causing death.\n\nDrugs kill them acting on cellular mechanisms (for example, some antibiotics make it impossible for the bacterias to synthetize their membrane). However, these cellular mechanisms can evolve through mutation and natural selection, causing them to evolve so that the drug that used to have an effect on them now is useless, as the mechanism is now very different or has even completely disappeared altogether.",
"To keep it simple, antibiotics are like using tools to disassemble a thing. You need the right screwdrivers, wrenches, etc. If some screws change, you can't take it apart anymore. Alcohol is like smashing the thing with a hammer. Not a whole lot that small changes can do when you're just smashing it to bits anyway."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
eyx1g7
|
how do antibodies actually work? does your body store antibodies for literally every disease it contracts during your lifetime, or is it more like a recipe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyx1g7/eli5_how_do_antibodies_actually_work_does_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgjxj6u",
"fgk8xbg"
],
"score": [
18,
2
],
"text": [
"So I answered a similar question a while ago. I'll paste and tailor it to your question.\n\nYou want to defend yourself from the unknown. You don't know what's going to attack you, you just want to make sure anything that isn't you, that is inside you, gets destroyed. How do you go about doing that?\n\nWell put simply, the body takes a very intriguing approach to this difficult problem. It has some genes that code for proteins. It takes these genes and shuffles them around so they now create different proteins. Then you take these proteins and put them on the surface of some immune cells. These proteins now function as sensors. You wire these sensors in these immune cells such that when they're activated, the cell goes haywire, sending signals to the rest of the immune army and fighting one on one with what activated the sensor. These proteins have different sequences, and so they fold differently as the constituent parts of it interact with each other in a different way. If a protein is shaped a specific way and has a particular sequence, it can have affinity to certain other compounds or proteins. So that's how they \"sense.\" \n\nOf course, with this random approach, some of these sensors are bound to get activated when they come in contact with your own proteins and cells and so on. So the body first takes these cells through some \"schooling.\" It puts these immature cells in a specific place and exposes them to the different proteins and lipids and stuff that you have in your own body. If they react, that's bad, so they get killed. After this schooling, only cells that are unreactive to your body get to graduate and become mature cells that are allowed to patrol your body.\n\nWhen a foreign object or pathogen are in your body, some of these sensors may get activated due to chance. So the cells in which they are Release a bunch of signals. These signals bring in other cells that cause an inflammatory response. Which essentially activates a bunch more cells, dilates your blood vessels so more blood can come to \"fight\", makes your vessels more leaky so these soldiers can pass through and get to the tissue to fight, and so on. Part of this response is also that whatever cell got activated now gets all the attention, it starts to turn into a plasma cell and a memory cell. The plasma cell produces a lot of these antibodies that are known to work, so they help the immune system find more of that pathogen if it replicated. The memory cell just go and hides in your lymph for later, in case the pathogen infects you again. \n\nI extremely oversimplified the matter. It is far far more complex. Because there are also things called PAMPs, these are Pathogen Associated Molecular Patterns, basically things found in many pathogens. And our body evolved to have sensors for those. So those are sort of like a recipe. But pathogens also evolve like we do and they change to avoid these sensors. And there are sooo many types of immune cells with different functions, like some even bind to proteins on your own cells, and your own cells costantly sample their insides and break them into pieces and put those pieces on those proteins on the outside. And if an immune cell senses self on these proteins, you're good, and the cell is allowed to live. If it has foreign pieces on it, it gets killed. Like when a virus hijacks your cell. Some viruses even evolved to reduce these proteins on your cells so the sentinel cells going around don't detect them. Well we evolved too and if the immune cell detects that the protein is too low, they kill the cell too. Just to give you an idea about just how complex the immune system is.\n\nEdit: Woah the comment I copied also got gold, awesome! Thank you for the shiny stuff anonymous benefactor",
"Kurzgesagt has done quite a few videos about the human body and how it deals with diseases. These are a couple of minutes each. I think [this one](_URL_1_) explains your question best.\n\nThe entire that list of videos that are somewhat relevant to your question can be found [here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI3tsmFsrOg&list=PLFs4vir_WsTyY31efyHdmtp9l7DpR0Wvi",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQGOcOUBi6s"
]
] |
||
16xplc
|
what is the difference between mitosis and meiosis
|
I know the definitions, I've seen videos, I've read books, I just still can't fully understand them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16xplc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_mitosis_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c80chsa",
"c80co5z"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Mitosis creates two cells which are fully functional cells with all of the organisms chromosomes. Imagine mitosis as cutting a sandwich in half, and winding up with two full sized sandwiches - it's pretty awesome.\n\nHowever, meiosis creates cells with only half of the number of chromosomes: 23 for humans. Overall, meiosis is only for the creation of sex cells - cells which have no function other than to pass on half of an organisms genes. With the sandwich metaphor, imagine cutting a sandwich in half, and getting two halves of a sandwich.",
"Mitosis - Basically occurs in really simple cells, like bacteria or animal/human tissues. This is asexual, so the cell is like \"heeeey we gotta make more of us. Here, copy all my stuff and lets clone me!\" Then that cell goes through mitosis, replicating their DNA, and create two cells just like them! Those are the daughter cells. Mitosis occurs in *all* organisms. These create all the cells in a body *except* sex cells.\n\nMeiosis - is kinda different. First, it happens in more complex organisms, including us, and is sexual. In this, the DNA's kinda split and get divided twice, into four total new cells! These literally only create sex cells, so lady eggs or manly sperm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
16bw9v
|
What kind of measures were taken to combat disease during military conflicts, especially for soldiers in campaigns?
|
It's often mentioned that throughout history disease was often more likely to kill soldiers (and civilians) in warfare than violence was. I'm ure inelligent military commanders were aware of this and took steps to protect themselves and their men. This, however, almost never makes it into media portrayals of the time and is largely absent from our collective cultural impression of those periods, so naturally it's something I'm very curious about.
How many of those illness-related deaths were caused by the enemy (biological warfare, etc.), and how much of it was run-of-the-mill poor sanitary and nutritional conditions? What kind of precautions, training, and logistical support was given to preventing and fighting illness throughout history? How quickly did medical advances have an impact on military policy?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16bw9v/what_kind_of_measures_were_taken_to_combat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7umuvb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Until relatively recently the causes of the diseases were not known. They couldn't effectively fight diseases because they didn't have the necessarily scientific knowledge. The Greeks and Romans held to the [Four Humors Theory](_URL_0_) and it remained the leading knowledge of medicine up to the 1800s. \n\nBy the time of the American Civil War (what I have been studying recently) this idea was out of favor, but the germ theory had not been developed. It was thought that sickness like malaria was caused by bad air, but that didn't stop the commanders from camping their men in swamps if that was the military necessity. Sanitation and cleanness were not thought necessarily, expect by a few commanders who figured it out just by trial and error.\n\nThe Civil War did result in a large advance in medicine. The wounds and cases were recorded and published after the war, giving doctors a huge resource to study. An ambulance system was developed, as was triage, field hospitals and more. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism"
]
] |
|
788jme
|
Were the witch hunting trials by throwing people into water real? How were the deaths of innocents justified?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/788jme/were_the_witch_hunting_trials_by_throwing_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dosnfut"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Trial by water was one option available under trials by ordeal in Medieval Europe. Trials by ordeal, like trials by combat, come from ancient Germanic law customs. I'll mostly write here about its use in the High Middle Ages in Britain.\n\nTrials by ordeal generally came in two forms: trial by fire, or trial by water. In the case of trial by fire, the accused held a red-hot iron for a prescribed length of time, after which the healing wound would be examined to determine guilt. Similarly, in trial by water, the accused would be thrown into a body of water: sinking meant innocence, and floating meant guilt. The concept behind trials by ordeal were that God would intervene to display the guilt or innocence of the accused party. Invoking the sacred would often include a priest exorcising or blessing the iron or water to be used in such trials.\n\nTrial by fire was considered the more prestigious of the ordeals: it was used for women, and more accused males of higher social status. Trial by water was more often used on serfs (but likewise seems to have been the vastly more common type of ordeal, on the scale of something like 83% to 17% trials by fire in England in the 12th century. Trials by ordeal were not used specifically in witchcraft cases, which in the High Middle Ages were practically nonexistent anyway (witchcraft hysteria is more a product of the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period). As Robert Bartlett describes it:\n\n > Unlike trial by battle, the unilateral ordeals of iron and water were employed in England only in criminal cases ... Henry II made widespread use of them in the drive against crime initiated by his Assize of Clarendon in 1166. According to this enactment, juries of twelve men of every hundred and four men of every township were to supply the names of anyone who, within the last twelve years, had been accused or was suspected of robbery, murder, or theft, or of harbouring robbers, murderers, or thieves. The sheriffs were to seize those accused or suspected and bring them before the royal justice. Unless they had been caught with stolen goods and were of bad repute, they could undergo trial by cold water. If they failed, they lost a foot (and, after 1176, their right hand too). If they passed the ordeal but had a bad reputation, they had to go into life-long exile from the kingdom.\n\nInterestingly, the records from this period in England indicate that something like two thirds of those subjected to trial by water passed, ie they were judged to have sank, and therefore were not guilty. Bartlett, however, notes that what passes as \"sinking\" or \"floating\" can be very arbitrary concepts: \"To place the case before God was also to put it into the hands of a small body of men with opinions and feelings of their own.\"\n\nI cannot really speak to how common the practice was for witchcraft trials, as those tended to be more common in later time periods (and mostly in other parts of Europe, such as the Low Countries, that used civil law and inquisitorial prosecution). Nor can I speak to when the idea became a common modernist myth that witch trials involved trial by water (usually with the Catch-22 idea that an innocent person would sink and drown, while a guilty person would float and then be executed). But it seems to be mostly that. While trials by ordeal are very foreign to modern people, and invoke the supernatural to a degree that would make us comfortable, there were rules behind their use, and most of those who submitted to such trials appear to have been acquitted.\n\nMostly from Robert Bartlett, *England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
24kl21
|
what is the united nations' role in the russia/ukraine situation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24kl21/eli5_what_is_the_united_nations_role_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch8153w"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It can't have one because Russia is on the Security Council. Motions were made to take the matter up, and Russia blocked them, as is its privilege.\n\nThis is the \"bug\" in the UN system. The permanent members of the Council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) don't have to live within the UN framework if they don't want to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
307zv8
|
Were Native Americans ever taken back to Europe, as slaves or to be assimilated into European society?
|
I've been reading a book lately, "The Illustrated History of Canada" and it has sparked a question. A passage I was just reading explained that Cartier took two sons of a chieftan back to Europe and returned them promptly the next year. Though it did not go into any further details. Are there any other accounts of natives being taken back, and what was the reaction from both sides? Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/307zv8/were_native_americans_ever_taken_back_to_europe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpqawe3",
"cpqkzbo"
],
"score": [
12,
12
],
"text": [
"The famous Native American Squanto was an example of this. He was captured as a young man in 1605 by the British, enslaved, and taken to England where he was taught English so he could be used as an interpreter. 9 years later he returned to New England as part of one of John Smith's expeditions. He tried to return to his people, but was then kidnapped again, got taken to Spain where he was almost sold into slavery again, got out of that situation, then went to England, went to Newfoundland on an expedition, came back to England, and then finally was allowed to return to his true home (this is almost 15 years after being abducted originally). He gets back to New England with another Jon Smith expedition... and then finds out his entire village was obliterated by a Small Pox outbreak a year earlier...\n\n2 years later he gets into contact with the Pilgrims who have just gotten through their first winter in the Americas. They were a little worse for wear to put it mildly. He showed them native farming techniques including how to cultivate maize, helped them learn the land, and acted as an interpreter and diplomat of sorts for them with native tribes in the region. He died a year later, but in that year he saved the Pilgrims expedition from failing like so many similar ventures in the New World did. He had crossed the Atlantic six times.",
"The traditional narrative of the Americas after contact grossly neglects the influence of abduction and slavery on Native American populations. Both small scale abductions, and large scale slaving raids, were used by European populations to turn a profit, reduce resistance to territorial encroachment, and as a tool of war.\n\nBefore first contact with officially sanctioned *entradas* to Florida in the early 1500s, unofficial traders and fisherman plied the Atlantic and Gulf Coast. These unofficial voyagers routinely augmented their stores with unwary captives, either for sale as slaves in the Caribbean or Europe, or to serve as translators for later voyages. During the first official *entrada* to Florida in 1513, the Spanish encountered Native American populations along the coast that already understood a few words of Spanish, and fled from the new arrivals, leading Juan Ponce de León to assume slaving raids preceded his arrival. When Verrazzano explored the Atlantic Coast in 1524 he encountered coastal populations who refused to trade directly with Europeans, preferring instead to exchange goods boat to boat across a line, possibly in an attempt to keep their distance and prevent abduction. As another user mentioned, Tisquantum/Squanto was likely subject to several of these small-scale abductions along the coast.\n\nAbductees were routinely sold in either the Caribbean or Europe, or trained as translators for future conquests. Accepted Spanish policy for new *entradas* included an initial journey to abduct a few young men, train them as translators, and return a few years to conquest and establish missions. This method was used to great success in Peru, when Pizarro captured two young boys from the coast in 1528. One of the young men, Martinillo, served as a translator during the famous showdown in Cajamarca in 1532 that resulted in the capture of Atahuallpa. In another example, Don Luis, a young man abducted by Spanish missionaries in 1561 from the Virginia tidewater region, returned in 1571 with a party of Jesuit fathers hoping to establish a mission near the James River. He escaped, organized the martyrdom of the Jesuits, and later advised Wahunsenacawh/Powhatan to expand the Powhatan Paramount Chiefdom to oppose Spanish encroachment. Wahunsenacawh/Powhatan’s daughter, Matoaka/Pocahontas, would later travel to England in 1616 where she was presented to the King James and Queen Anne as the daughter of “the most powerful prince of the Powhatan Empire of Virginia.”\n\nLarge scale slaving, and slaving raids, became a tool of war for English once they began to establish permanent settlements in the New World. The peace established between Plymouth and the Wampanoag lasted a generation. Massasoit’s son, Metacomet/Phillip, succeeded his father as sachem and due to a variety of factors organized the hostilities now known as King Phillip’s War. When the dust settled more than 3,000 Native Americans were killed and hundreds of survivors who were not professing Christians were sold into slavery in Bermuda.\n\nThe Carolinas used slaving raids as a tool of war against Spanish Florida, as well as a means of raising capital. Traders employed Native American allies, like the Savannah, to raid their neighbors for sale, and groups like the Kussoe who refused to raid were ruthlessly attacked. When the Westo, previously English allies who raided extensively for slaves, outlived their usefulness they were likewise enslaved. As English influence grew the choice of slave raid or be slaved extended raiding parties west across the Appalachians, and onto the Spanish mission doorsteps. Slavery became a tool of war, and the English attempts to rout the Spanish from Florida included enslaving their allied mission populations. Slaving raids nearly depopulated the Florida peninsula as refugees fled south in hopes of finding safe haven on ships bound for Spanish-controlled Cuba ([a good slave raiding map](_URL_0_)). Gallay, in *Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717*, writes the drive to control Indian labor extended to every nook and cranny of the South, from Arkansas to the Carolinas and south to the Florida Keys in the period 1670-1715. More Indians were exported through Charles Town than Africans were imported during this period.\n\nIn both acts of small-scale abduction, as well as organized large-scale slaving raids, slaving often served as the first shock of contact between coastal Native American populations and European arrivals. The repercussions of slaving raids spread far in advance of European settlers, shattering previous lifeways, and sparking the rise of powerful confederacies like the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Cherokee to combat slaving raids. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://uwf.edu/jworth/spanfla_retreat.jpg"
]
] |
|
2og7xa
|
Panel AMA – East Asia in the Early 20th Century
|
The first half of the 20th century was a busy time in East Asia. For this AMA panel, we're looking at the period from the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894 until the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. It's a period that involves wars, occupations, foreign sttlements and extraterritoriality, imperialism, and the creation of new nations, just to name a few of the highlights. Our panelists for today's AMA are:
* /u/an_ironic_username is a naval historian who will be discussing Japanese navalism in the 20th Century and the maritime conflicts in the Pacific during this period. He'll be popping in and out during the AMA.
* /u/Beck2012 will be addressing topics on Southeast Asia and Korea
* /u/churakaagii is a half-Okinawan who lives in Okinawa, and has an interest in the history of an area that has had a historical impact out of proportion to the size of its land mass.
* /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov is a military historian here to talk about Warlordism, the Civil War, and the Second Sino-Japanese War.
* /u/keyilan is an historical linguist based in Taiwan and East China. His areas of interest are: national language policy & planning; Japanese-occupied Taiwan & Korea; Shanghai in the 20th century.
* /u/thanatos90 is focusing on Chinese intellectual history, particularly the New Culture and May Fourth movements and the rise of communism.
We'll be addressing a wide range of topics, so don't feel limited to the specific subspecialties listed above.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2og7xa/panel_ama_east_asia_in_the_early_20th_century/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmmud9z",
"cmmun0y",
"cmmupm9",
"cmmvve3",
"cmmyl6f",
"cmmynua",
"cmmzoln",
"cmn0bxe",
"cmn1dom",
"cmn1x9r",
"cmn2vjw",
"cmn3473",
"cmn51b7",
"cmn5mi2",
"cmn6kg3",
"cmn796v",
"cmn7fbd",
"cmn7k2q",
"cmn84le",
"cmn8l01",
"cmnf768"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
4,
5,
3,
7,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
4,
5,
6,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Have any of the Austronesian languages left a substrate in the Sinitic languages of Taiwan? If so, what does this substrate tell us about culture, history and influence in the island?",
"Do western, professional historians specialized in modern Chinese history actually consult works by Chinese historians based in China, and if they do, to what extent?",
" How does Japanese feels about the independance of their ex-colony after the war?\n\nIf it is possible, I want to ask about Konfrontasi. [This video](_URL_0_) said that Indonesia reason to start the low intensity war is more about pumping nationalism rather than gaining new territory. What is your thought about that and konfrontasi in general.",
"What are some good books on the Japanese student protest movements during the early 20th century which eventually lead to the formation of the All-Japan Federation of Students' Self-Governing Associations and widespread violent conflict between students and police in the latter 20th century?",
"Would you consider Ho Chi Minh more of a nationalist or a dedicated Communist? Or did he evolve his philosophy over time?",
"How much did General Joe Stillwell's dislike of Chiang Kai-Shek influence the outcome of the Civil War? He seemed to really hate Chiang (calling him nicknames like \"Peanut\"), but would a theater commander with a more positive opinion have helped the KMT win, or were their institutional problems likely too much to prevent the CCP's victory?",
"What was life like for a foreigner in Shanghai's International District from 1937-1941? Were they directly impacted by the war at all? Were there Chinese or Japanese actions taken against them? Were they encouraged to return to their home countries?",
"The Russo-Japanese war is sometimes cited as an example of the brutal effect of modern industry and weaponry upon warfare. How violent was the Russo-Japanese war?",
"- How was Henry Puyi's day-to-day life when he ruled the Manchukuo under Japanese in Tianjin? What kind of duties did he do? What kind of freedom was allowed him? \n\n- A lot of Chinese migrated from Meixian to my country in 1930s, my grandfather included. My mom always said it was because a lot of people wanted to avoid 当兵 (dunno what the English term is), is it true or is there any other cause? \n\nSorry if my question is too far away from the permitted topics but I'm curious nonetheless. Thanks in advance! ",
"How did the late Qing and early republican government and military overcome the various dialect/language differences? If I was an aspiring foot soldier from Fujian or Guangdong would I have to take courses in Mandarin before joining the military? ",
"I have several questions (mostly on China in the '20s and '30s), so this might take a bit: \n\n1. How widespread (outside of student and intellectual circles) were the ideas of the New Culture and May Fourth movements? \n\n2. What allowed the Chinese Communist Party to grow so quickly in the '20s? Was it a result of the United Front with the KMT, or was it something else? \n\n3. How important was the Chinese market for the foreign powers? It looks like the Chinese economy essentially collapsed during the warlord period, but it somehow remained a big consumer of imported goods. Was this just because of sheer population size, or what?\n\n4. What allowed the KMT to be so successful in the Northern Expedition? \n\n5. How on Earth were the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army able to gain so much autonomy and power over the Japanese government? Half the time, it looks like the military were the ones running the show. \n\n6. How effective was the KMT's rule up until the Sino-Japanese war? On the one hand, it does look like there were genuine efforts to industrialize and modernize the army, but it seems that quite a few of the Warlords stuck around and stayed in power, and Chiang's rule seems dictatorial. ",
"What led to the cooling of German-Japanese relations in the beginning of the 20th century, culminating in the Japanese entry into the Entente? Our two countries had had largely friendly relations up to that time, the Japanese even adapting our civil law (BGB), if I understand it correctly. Did Wilhelm II's chauvinistic rhetoric (\"Gelbe Gefahr\", the Yellow Peril) have much impact (another thing that interests me, how was that received in Japan and China at the time?), or was it mainly power politics?",
"To what extent after Sino-Japanese war was the Qing reform movement doomed to failure? In a number of the narratives of I have read, the defeat created the impetus to finally overthrow the Qing. Were all attempts at reform, after 1895 merely delaying the inevitable? ",
"Did the idea of a rural \"village\" as an intermediary between the family farm unit and the market exchange hub of town/city still exist in early 20th century China? Or was there now only the hub and the family farm? Or was the rural economic structure dynamic something completely different?\n\nIf possible, can you compare with the situation now, or if too recent, at least post-cultural revolution?",
"Did the discontinuation of the imperial exams in China (and elsewhere, for that matter) have a noticeable effect on the quality of Literary Chinese writing thereafter? I know it was in general abandoned and replaced with vernacular writing, but in cases when people educated in post-exam East Asia *did* write in Literary Chinese, is there a noticeable difference in quality or style?",
"Why did pan-East Asian nationalism decline? It appears to have been more common at the turn of the century (i.e. the 1900s) than today. Even An Jung-geun, the Korean who assassinated the former Prime Minister of Japan in 1909, was an advocate for a pan-East Asian monetary union and combined armed forces.",
"What is special about the May 4th movement exactly? As I understand it, it's a backlash against western betrayal at Versailles, but I don't quite understand why it has such cultural gravitas. Surely, after all the various defeats suffered since the first Opium War, educated folks understood that something was very seriously wrong with the country, right? What is so special about the 1919 movement? What differences did it have with reformist / revolutionary thoughts and movements that came before? Why did it take Versailles to instigate such a radical departure (if it indeed is one) ?",
"What's the history behind the development of zaibatsu? Did they form as organically in the private sector then became coopted as vehicles of policy or did government policy explicitly facilitate their formation in the first place? What is the intellectual history behind the idea? Why did people think it was good to have an economy dominated by large conglomerates, and, to the extent possible, what do we know about their actual effects on the economy?",
"Why does it seem like Taiwanese don't feel the same animosity towards Japanese as say the Chinese or Koreans? My family (Taiwanese) seem to have always said things like \"even though the Japanese were strict and harsh, they were fair.\"\n\nAlso, how integrated was Taiwan into Japan at that time, economically and politically. Would the average Taiwanese person think of themselves as Japanese/would the average Japanese think of a Taiwanese person as a true Japanese?",
"1. In *China: a new History* Fairbanks quotes a defector from the CCP as saying that Mao's strategy in WWII was to focus 70% of his efforts on building power bases, 20% on fighting the Nationalists, and 10% on fighting the Japanese. Does this claim hold up?\n\n2. Why did the CCP move the capital back to Beijing? It was and still is a terrible location.\n\n3. What were major differences between the actions and operational proceedings of the Eight Nations during the Boxer Rebellion? I have heard, for example, the American leaders tended to be less rapacious.\n\n4. Do you think Cixo really murdered the Guangxu Emperor? If so, why do you think she did so?\n\n5. There are significant elements that believe that the CCP reforms implemented after 1949 were responsible for the enormous economic progress of the 1950s. Others believe that it was merely a continuation of trends seen during the Nanjing Decade before they were interrupted by war. Do you believe that the KMT government was making the sort of real progress seen in the 1950s?\n\n6. How did ethnic tensions play into the convulsions of the early twentieth century? For example, did ethnic minority groups tend to favor one or the other side in the civil wars?",
"Can I just ask each of the panelists to give a book list that would be a good \"101\" into thier respective areas of studies? \nAlso let me state my profound admaration and gratitude for all you posters of knowledge. I have learned more in the past year of lurking on this subreddit than I ever did in public school. You guys rock!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkhzudQiIiw#t=234"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
72mchy
|
Why can Windows run .exe files, but Mac can't even get a program to convert it to a readable file?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/72mchy/why_can_windows_run_exe_files_but_mac_cant_even/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnjt7m8",
"dnjv5wa",
"dnjz33z",
"dnlf3nx",
"dnm5y1a"
],
"score": [
4,
34,
9,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Executable files don't really have anything human readable in them except for whatever text there might be stored in them as strings. When you start programming, one of the first things you have your program do is print \"hello world\" to the console. In your program it would have that string stored somewhere but everything else would be more or less unreadable. You can disassemble a binary into assembly but it's difficult to decompile that back into C or C++.",
"The .exe contains x86 machine code, which the CPU in your computer interprets. To get an intuition for why it's not readable by humans, please look at the [cards in this video](_URL_0_): the holes on the cards translate into movements of the machine, and those *movements* result in the actual fabric patterns.\n\nNow, most Windows computers and most Mac computers both use the same x86 CPUs and thus you'd expect the CPU to execute the .exe file just fine, right?\n\nThe first problem we run into is that the .exe file doesn't contain *just* x86 machine code, but it also has a very particular format and structure which Windows understands, but Mac OS doesn't. Imagine if you hired a new loom operator but they didn't speak English so you couldn't tell them how to load up the cards and pump the loom.\n\nThe second problem we run into is that while there's lots of code in the .exe doing the things specific to your software (whether it's a game or Excel or whatever) the code also *refers* to and *relies on* specific things provided by the operating system.\n\nFor example, whenever the software needs to tell the time by the machine's hardware clock, or whenever the software needs to put something on the screen, it needs to talk with the OS to accomplish that task. The OS makes sure that if you run two programs at the same time, they get fair access to the hardware resources. The OS also lets the software simply ask \"what's the time?\" instead of having to know that your computer has a FD510-534-b2 clock by Taiwan Electronic Clockwork Corp that provides its timing information in multiples of 2.3 picoseconds.\n\nUnfortunately, all OSes have different ways of asking \"what's the time\" and the way that Windows understands the question is baked into that .exe file you have. If it tried to ask Mac OS \"what's the time\", it would be like asking in a language that Mac OS doesn't understand.",
"Coming from a different direction...\n\nThey can! Mostly, anyways.\n\nThere are a slew of ways that you can run an exe on a Mac, ranging from something as abstracted as a Virtual Machine, to running it under WINE, and multiple ways in between.\n\n\nVirtual Machines:\n\nEmulate a physical machine in software. A virtual machine is capable of running just about any program for the guest operating system, but it runs it slower. In some cases, uselessly slower. Many games straight up don't function properly in a virtual machine because it takes 5 seconds or more to render a single frame. Modern virtual machine software is working on improving this, and have made great strides in the past 5 years.\n\n\nWINE:\n\nWine is a program used to do a bunch of translation between the Windows format for executables, and the *NIX format for executables, as well as all the api, system, and framework calls involved. It works pretty well for a bunch of things, but it's very much a crapshoot as to what works and what doesn't. PlayOnMac is a popular wrapper on top of Wine that makes it relatively easy for a non-developer/non-sysadmin to run a bunch of Windows software.\n\nMono:\n\nWhile in decline at the moment, Mono is a framework with an abstraction layer built in, so that an executable file is runnable on multiple types of systems. The application must be specifically written to work under mono, and mono must be installed on your system. While there are a number of cross-platform systems for building applications on top of, Mono is notable here for producing .exe files that run on Linux and Mac as well as Windows.\n\n7z:\n\n7z is an archive manager program that allows you to extract the contents of an archive into individual files. Notably, it allows you to extract blobs from .exe files. Most of that information is useless to you, as it consists of machine code, but in certain cases, it can be useful to extract resources from an executable. I've used it to pull .ico files out of a .exe before.",
"The real problem isn’t the code.\n\nThere is no technical reason a Mac can’t read and understand an exe file. It is simply a file format like any other. They both have the same type of CPU and can understand the instructions.\n\n\nThe problem is that the executable relies on large amounts of code provided by the operating system. When you launch a .exe, the first thing the operating system does is looks at the dependencies and loads those too. Since the operating system is completely different, unless we can provide alternative libraries (this is what WINE does) that implement the same functionality, we are pretty much stuck at this point.",
"You may be interested in previous iterations of this same question\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nBasically, a program built for Windows is one that uses a lot of functionality built into Windows. A Mac has a bunch of other functionality (often similar in terms of high level features but with different details). Mac programs depend on Mac functionality and visa versa. You would effectively need a whole copy of Windows sitting alongside OS-X to be able to run the Windows applications. There is a project called WINE that does exactly this - it implements all of the functionality of the Windows operating system on top of another platform, so that you can run Windows programs on other systems.\n\nTo turn it around... Generally, the Mac isn't built to be a Windows clone, so why would it have the ability to run programs that are specifically intended to run on something else? It's not so much that there is some specific reason that stops them from being compatible. It's that they are two distinct platforms worked on by different teams, so there is no specific reason that they would be able to run each other's software unless somebody put in a lot of work to make it so."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlJns3fPItE"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/684xmg/why_cant_linuxosx_systems_run_exe_files/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24qbbb/why_do_many_windows_programs_not_work_on_mac_or/"
]
] |
||
71u1m5
|
how do we know where the borders that distinguish each ocean are, (i.e between pacific and atlantic) and how were they distinguished?
|
Additionally, are there clear indications between two oceans that make them significantly different enough, resulting in why they are identified by two different names? Hope I worded that well enough.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71u1m5/eli5_how_do_we_know_where_the_borders_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dndghgs"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"At the boundaries between the oceans, no, there's no sudden change.\n\nThe technical borders of each ocean are dictated by the International Hydrographic Organization. For example, the boundary between the Atlantic and Indian oceans is defined by the 20E meridian from Africa to Antarctica.\n\nOn a large scale, each ocean has its own properties that make them unique and worth referring to separately. They have their own currents, their own species, etc. Despite that, on a very fine scale, there's no exact point where one becomes the other. The border for the Atlantic/Indian above could just as well be 19E or 21E. 20E is a nice round number and just so happens (coincidentally) to be very close to the southernmost point of Africa, and we had to make the distinction *somewhere*, so that was a good spot."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1yosis
|
who are neo-nazis, what do they believe in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yosis/eli5_who_are_neonazis_what_do_they_believe_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfmfh74",
"cfmhcmn",
"cfmi1re",
"cfmkuwq"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard to really put a finger on that one. There are people with different mindsets who consider themselves or are considered Neo-Nazis. \n\nOne possible definition is people who agree with what the Nazis did in the 30s and 40s, like considering Germans (or US-Americans,..) a superior race, thinking jews are a harm to society and wanting them gone and so on. This one probably is the easiest definition (basically just meaning Nazis living today). Not like I knew any of them, but these usually seem to be rather unintelligent people disappointed by life who seek belonging. \n\nAnother approach is people who don't necessarily agree with Hitler & Co but still think there are better or worse races and that they shouldn't mix. \nFor example, an acquaintance of mine completely disagrees with Hitler's approach to the \"problem\"; he thinks jews shouldn't live with German people, but he doesn't agree with just killing them. He actually thinks Hitler was bad because he was emotion-driven and destroyed the in his view good idea of all 'German people' (=/= people from Germany but people from the 'German race') living in one, powerful state. He considers himself a Neo Nazi but not in connection with 'Old Nazis' but because he sees himself as a nationalist and socialist. He isn't one of those stereotype Neonazi skinhead guys, he's actually a very intelligent guy that dresses formally and so on. \n\nAnother possible definition is just very racist, far-right people. In my humble opinion, the line between far-right and Neo-Nazi is blurred but does exist, so I wouldn't automatically consider every racist a Neo-Nazi.\n\n**tl;dr: there are many possible definitions, depending on who you ask. Might be Hitler-fans, might be national socialists or just very racist people.**\n\nRegardless of the definition , I don't agree with any of them!",
"I think the introduction of [this article on Wikipedia](_URL_0_) describes neo-Nazism quite well.\n\n > Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive Nazism. The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements (...).\n\n\nA better understanding of Nazism (National Socialism) is important too, so you could [read up on that](_URL_1_) as well.\n\n > Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: *Nationalsozialismus*), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. [It is] usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism (...). \nGerman Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism, asserted the superiority of an Aryan master race, and criticised both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism (...).",
"Just read ~100 pages on the Third Reich tonight. Nazism was subtlety intertwined with the national sense of Germanic culture during the 30s and 40s. The Nazi's nurtured a sense of national pride for Germans, who were embarrassed by WWI and the failed democratic govt of the 20s. The Nazi's speech and actions fostered the feeling that Germans were special and different and should have pride in this fact. The Nazi's slowly but surely twisted their hatred of 'asocials' Jews and 'undesirables' into the feel good state of Germans. Children were indoctrinated by Hitler Youth with the plan that Aryan ideals would carry into the future. Some of these Hitler Youth grew up and didn't abandon the Nazi ideals like every other German after being humiliated in WWII. These people, accompanied by now former Nazi party officials continued to their quest to cleanse the Aryan race. Being a nazi in post WWII was illegal and 'Cleansing' involves murder and other illegal activities so Neo-Nazis often landed in prisons where the culture spread. ",
"Neo-Nazism basically just means \"New Nazism\". Neo is from Greek and means something akin to new or fresh.\n\n\nWhat can generally be said about is, that it's an overarching movement to ressurect or keep the original national socialist movement alive in present days. Due to the growth of skinhead culture in the 70's and 80's they have taken on a more militant/hardcore image in recent years, with less emphasis on international jewdom, and a larger emphasis on imigration in general, and an idea about taking the fight to the streets rather than through parliamentarian struggle. Usually they use WWII third reich iconography, and due to anti-nazi laws in europe they use terms like 88 - h being the 8th letter in the alphabet this means \"Heil Hitler\" or 18 for A and H or Adolf Hitler. It would be conceptual overstrecht to see neo-nazism as being a fully white supremacist movement, as lots of ethnic groups all over the world have adopted nazism, white supremacism is more likely to be a sub-movement of neo-nazism, or racism in general. Neo-Nazism have racist ideas, but is a more thourough idea about how a state should be build, and as such it's a political ideology that contains within itself racism. Racism on the other hand merely states that the different ethnic groups of humans are different races, and in the more \"negative\" version of it, that these races to be preserved through racial purity, it doesn't concern itself with economics or other parts of statebuilding."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1jzevz
|
Why is the interior of the great pyramid in Egypt not covered in paintings and ancient Egyptian writings or reliefs like all the other supposedly older pyramids found in Egypt?
|
They build these huge structures in Giza dwarfing they're previous buildings and they leave little to no clue as to why they were built. How much evidence is there really for the claim that the great pyramid was built as a tomb for the Pharaoh Khufu?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jzevz/why_is_the_interior_of_the_great_pyramid_in_egypt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbjw5yj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Just like today's tombstones are not burried with the deceased, in ancient egyptian times paintings and relief decorations were usually reserved for places where others (mainly relatives and priests) could see them, in the accompanying chapels and temples.\n\nKhufu's pyramid complex is in very bad condition but those of chephren and menkaure leave no doubt that the pyramids and their temples were meant to serve a death cult.\n\nIf you want me to go into anything specific just ask.\n\nP.S.: I am not aware of any extensive decorations in any older pyramid so if you could point me to them it would be appreciated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
144zwk
|
what constitutes a radio station being hd quality, and how do they make it hd?
|
Bonus question:
Why do most HD stations have sub-channels (HD1, HD2) and standard radio does not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/144zwk/eli5_what_constitutes_a_radio_station_being_hd/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c79y2i3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"'HD radio' is a branded implementation of the In-Band/On-Channel (IBOC) method of 'hybrid' broadcasting, wherein compact digital 'saddlebags' are placed at either end of the station's reserved 'mask' (the space it's allowed to use on the 'dial').\n\nIn many cases, there is only one HD channel, 'HD1'. Even if there are others, 'HD1' always refers to the digital version of the same station's analogue programme. (No one has been willing to give up their analogue signal and go digital-only, because HD has not caught on, so giving up their analogue signal would be financial ruin, since most listeners would not pick them up at all anymore.)\n\n'HD2' and higher HD numbers refer to other available channels, usually with different programming, from the same broadcaster. A common use of HD2 in many cities, for example, is secondary-language programming. (This is similar to SAP -- Secondary Audio Programme -- on cable TV, if you know about that.)\n\nAt this time, all 'HD' channels are subsidiary to an existing analogue (\"standard\") radio channel. Analogue stations do have sub-channels, and some of them are available to the public, with special equipment. CRIS, for example, is a nationally distributed reading service for the blind that is transmited on these subchannels. But most listeners are not aware of analogue subchannels, and it would be difficult to make them available as conventional alternative broadcast channels in the manner of the main signal. FM signals need a lot of space on the dial to work right, and there really isn't room to squeeze more than one into the 'mask' that the FCC assigns each station right now. (Nor are there any plans to make the masks wider, and for reasons I can't lay out here I can say confidently that there never will be; in the simplest terms, it really can't be done.)\n\nDigital signals are more compact than analogue FM signals, so they can sound good even though they don't take up a lot of bandwidth. But more than one analogue signal in that same mask would have to sacrifice bandwidth in order to fit, and the result would be poorer sound. This is okay for CRIS, as it's only voices speaking, but music would not sound good on narrower FM channels, so it would be a poor choice for a commercial broadcaster to make.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2mjymt
|
Are there any examples of successful opposition to Jim Crow in the segregated South before Brown v. Board?
|
I was reading through 100 Years of Lynchings by Ralph Ginzburg, and was wondering if there were any accounts of people standing up to that culture from within the Jim Crow South. Does anyone know of any?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mjymt/are_there_any_examples_of_successful_opposition/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm614at"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Good question. We often think that African American protest and the Civil Rights Movement began with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. This is usually the beginning marker because it was the first successful legal battle for de-segregation. However, do we define successful opposition to Jim Crow as only legal battles? \n\nThe current scholarship is leaning more and more to the answer \"no\". Opposition can take many forms, individual, silent protest, labor agitation, organizing community councils, boycotts, etc. This type of African American protest has existed as long as there have been African Americans (this is not my specialty, but slave narratives are a good example of the small and large ways blacks protested oppression). In terms of the 20th century, African American protest began to organize more and solidify into a coherent argument during the labor agitation of the 1930s, and there you can see many instances of successful challenges of Jim Crow.\n\nInterlude: Jim Crow didn't exist only in the South. My current research is on Depression-era blacks in the Midwest, and often the conditions and social treatment of African Americans outside of the South was comparable. For more, see Thomas Sugrue's [*Sweet Land of Liberty:: The Forgotten Struggle of Civil Rights in the North*](_URL_2_) and Kimberley Phillips' [*AlabamaNorth African American Migrants, Community, and Working-Class Activism in Cleveland*](_URL_0_).\n\nOk, back to the South. So how do we define \"successful opposition\"? Robin D. G. Kelley argues that opposition to racism is not always obvious. In [\"'We Are Not What We Seem:' Re-thinking Black Working Clark Opposition in Jim Crow South](_URL_3_)\", Kelley talks about how workers would sing hymn and spirituals while they worked in dismal factories. While employers thought this was a simple show of religion, in fact it held deeper meaning for the black workers. It was a recall to the days of slavery when slaves used hidden meanings in spirituals to give hope (as well as clues) for escape. Kelley also talks about silent protest, like slow-downs, where workers would intentionally work slower to delay production. Outside of work, African Americans in the South would also participate on small, unorganized levels of protest. Kelley tells of the story of a particularly racist bus driver would drew his gun several times on black women riders, and how he would intentionally miss blacks' stops. The riders responded by ringing the bell for stops and not get off. Is this a successful protest?\n\nOne last example of protest was the [\"Don't Buy Where You Can't Work\"](_URL_1_) movement, which had several iterations across the country, both northern and southern cities. There were many businesses, large and small, that would not employ blacks. African Americans in cities like Chicago would organize and decide to boycott businesses that would practice this, until the businesses would hire black employees. This also promoted black businesses in the community. Is this a successful protest?\n\nI know answering a question with more questions is such a typical historian move, but I do think it's important to challenge what we mean by protest. I definitely recommend you read Kelley's article (and really anything by Kelley- he's superb). But in short, I would argue yes- there were many ways African Americans successfully protested Jim Crow, in the South and North, prior to Brown v. Board. They might not be forms of protest we are familiar with, but it was brave all the same."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.amazon.com/AlabamaNorth-African-American-Community-Working-Class-Cleveland/dp/0252067932/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416325985&sr=1-1&keywords=alabama+north",
"http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=c2c7a4847dc21fd128d52a29c49b930c&action=2&documentId=GALE%7CBT2338230739&userGroupName=k12_histrc&jsid=355f6cff3a94198b092d0a770ba50edd",
"http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Land-Liberty-Forgotten-Struggle/dp/0812970381/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416325907&sr=1-3",
"http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/chwe/austen/kelley.pdf"
]
] |
|
2o7fzf
|
When/how did we begin to view the Earth as a planet in a solar system of multiple planets? In other words, at what point in time would you be able to ask "What planet are we on?" and people would begin to understand what you're talking about? [X-post to no stupid questions]
|
I watch a lot of Star Trek and it seems like they are frequently asking questions along the lines of "What planet are we on?" or "What planet are you from?" I can't remember the episodes well enough to remember if any of them ever respond with "wtf are you talking about?", but it got me thinking. Surely not all these cultures would have a concept of their home being a planet, because *we* haven't always had that concept. Sure, many of the early cultures had some knowledge of various heavenly bodies, but that's distinctly different from having the understanding that we are *ON* one. If we went back 100 years, would they understand that concept? 200 years? 500?
Does anyone know the history of our understanding of the Earth's relation to the universe?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2o7fzf/whenhow_did_we_begin_to_view_the_earth_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmkhz0c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"hi! other responses are welcome (especially to represent various other cultures), but you can get started here\n\n* [When did humans become aware that they were on planet Earth, in a solar system, and part of the Universe?](_URL_0_)\n\nIt might also be worth x-posting to /r/AskScience (astronomy)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gz1pd/when_did_humans_become_aware_that_they_were_on/"
]
] |
|
3z1ksj
|
how can bill cosby's wife be compelled to testify against him?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z1ksj/eli5_how_can_bill_cosbys_wife_be_compelled_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyihhu6",
"cyihj0p",
"cyihlxy",
"cyiiz9e"
],
"score": [
3,
153,
32,
11
],
"text": [
"The legal protection your're thinking of is called \"spousal priviledge\". Here's the full wiki if you want to learn all about it. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe most relevant line to your question seems to be \"The privileges may also be suspended where both spouses are joint participants in a crime\". So if she knew about all of this, or in any way helped him, couple be guilty of a crime herself. \n\nIf memory serves, I also believe that spousal privilege only applies if the spouse is the ONLY person to be privy to the information. If the defendant freely shared it with others, then the spouse may be compelled to share their knowledge of it as well. ",
"The problem is that, while she is his wife, she's *also* his business manager. The plaintiffs say they're only asking her to testify in her role as his business manager.",
"His wife was his business manager. Therefore, she is being deposed as a former (?) business manager. She is not being deposed as a wife, and she's not being asked questions about spousal conversations that the law is meant to protect. Therefore, there is no conflict with compelling the business manager's testimony.",
"I was actually just looking this up because I was curious too. Massachusetts code 504 (a) (3) specifically excludes spousal privilege from civil proceedings, which the defamation case is.\n_URL_0_\n\nAt least that is why I think the judge denied the appeal to keep Cosby from testifying."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/guidelines/mass-guide-to-evidence/article-v-privileges-and-disqualification.html"
]
] |
||
118iwx
|
what kind of things would people have worn during beheadings in 17th Century France?
|
Like, everyone in attendance. Police/military, political figures, commoners, etc. What was the color of the french military's cloths? Did they wear Tricorner hats, etc. I need the info.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/118iwx/what_kind_of_things_would_people_have_worn_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6k8y0k"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Do you mean 18th century? Beheading by guillotine saw widespread use from 1790ish onward, not the 1600s. \n\nAssuming that you do, revolutionary fashion tended to involve plain, close-fitting shirts for men, somewhat influenced by the english landed gentry. Frenchmen would also wear a plain frock or riding coat, short waistcoat or high leather boots, again due to English fashion, which became very popular in France.\n\nSimplicity came to be seen as progressive in the early 1790s, but the *bonnet rouge* (red bonnet) also became popular, as did the colours of red, white and blue. The tricolour cockade was worn often, and clothes often had those 'revolutionary' colours.\n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is an example of French soldiers, dressed in the revolutionary tricolour. [Here](_URL_1_) are male *sans-culottes*, dressed in revolutionary colours, but less colourful clothes (as I mentioned above) were also common. [Here](_URL_4_) is the female version.\n\n[Here](_URL_2_) is a painting of the execution of the king, and [here](_URL_3_) is one of some other poor sod."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/89867105-uniforms-of-french-army-national-guard-18-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXvDZxRwgY7%2BfkQ3zKtboESWdhwStSKODISzbITu4zUzD",
"http://images.nypl.org/?id=812248&t=w",
"http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ARCoN5M_Jw4/UCaSz9tG5vI/AAAAAAAAEyg/dFMxgQbVrLI/s1600/2a7debcd1037ccb655ac4dbe2569fa2e.jpg",
"http://historywallcharts.eu/resources/uploads/thumbs/_DSF1021-Edit-Edit__685x0__.jpg",
"http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1642640&t=w"
]
] |
|
esxa1n
|
Why aren't analog computers more widely used?
|
With technologies like Quadrature Amplitude Multiplexing used in network systems, why dont we have something similar in local computing? It seems like we would want to move to a system that can transfer large volumes of data faster.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/esxa1n/why_arent_analog_computers_more_widely_used/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fffft3a"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"We don't use analogue computers because the cost and complexity to build such machines is extremely high, and their reliability is low for their cost.\n\nThe main problem with analogue computers is that in order to represent all of the possible values, you need multiple voltages across the circuits, and be able to accurately discern between them. For a binary computer, this is typically quite easy to handle: you have +5V and 0V. Detecting between the two is very easy, and errors in determining the voltage is extremely low -- circuits don't typically confuse +5V with 0V and vice-versa.\n\nAn analogue computer however has to have multiple voltages it must be able to discern. In fact, the voltages are _continuous_^0, which can make representing a specific value challenging. We do have the technology to make it work, but outside specific applications the precision needed to give accurate results is extremely high and very, very costly.\n\nDigital circuits on the other hand are very simple (in relative terms), and very, very cheap to manufacture. It is estimated that humanity has built over [13 sextillion MOS transistors](_URL_0_), making it the most manufactured item in the history of the world. Not only can we build them cheaply and at huge scales -- we can also make them extremely fast -- fast enough and cheap enough that computers based on them can be as fast (and in many cases, faster) than what we can achieve via an analogue computer.\n\nSo the short version is that it's cheaper and easier to optimize simpler circuits than it is complex circuits. That said, for some types of continuous calculations an analogue computer might make sense even with the extra expense and complexity involved -- however, for the vast majority of computation for which we want good integer math, digital computers will continue to reign supreme.\n\n-----\n^0 -- voltages are also continuous in a digital computer, but we use a clock to decide when the signal should be measured, such that we're only effectively taking measurements when the signal is either high or low."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://computerhistory.org/blog/13-sextillion-counting-the-long-winding-road-to-the-most-frequently-manufactured-human-artifact-in-history/?key=13-sextillion-counting-the-long-winding-road-to-the-most-frequently-manufactured-human-artifact-in-history"
]
] |
|
2v03co
|
why does it get harder and harder to make friends and form meaningful relationships the older you get?
|
I'm 23, and it's been years since I made a new friend that I truly connected with and stayed in touch with. I never had trouble making friends in school, and even when I was 18 and newly in college, I made several friends whom I still talk to and have remained close with. But since then, I really haven't made any. Is it because I care less, or is there some kind of scientific fact behind this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v03co/eli5_why_does_it_get_harder_and_harder_to_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cod95mb",
"codbhqv",
"codbw6q",
"coddcrl",
"coddwuq",
"code1ro",
"codeyhj",
"codhfv5",
"codjtmn",
"codk0y4",
"codk5pl",
"codl8pb"
],
"score": [
53,
3,
10,
3,
5,
4,
3,
3,
6,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Just one mans opinion here but.. I believe it has to do with shared experiences. When you are young the world is new and there is much to learn about it, you have friends and those friends get to experience all those things for the first time with you, strengthening your relationships. As you get older you know the game already, you have solidly formed opinions and a definitive perspective on life. You may go and do things with people but they aren't as ingrained in your view on life as those people that were with you when you were gaining that view. ",
"I think it's the fact that the older we grow, the better we \"read through the bullshit\". In other words, we choose our friends more carefully. ",
"everything said here is correct. Let me add one more thing: time. The older you are, you start caring about how you are spending the extra time you have. You spend more time with parents, family, SO, etc, so making friends become difficult for you and everyone else. When you were younger, you see the same people everyday at school so building relationships was so seamless and easy -- absolutely zero effort needed. Now as adults, it takes planning, being considerate, and putting in a lot of effort from both sides... and that's where things fall apart, in addition to everything written here.",
"It also has to do with bumping into people unexpectedly yet predictably. You see the same people in classes, at the malt shop, down the hallway. The more often you encounter a person, the more likely you are to befriend them. Did you ever just ask someone in school to hang out simply because you'd seen them often enough to know they like the Clash too? Having something external like that, the Clash or hot rods, to bond over also made it easier when you were young.",
"I think it's because people are terrible. (Sorry.)",
"As you get older, you become less and less of a fuck up yourself. When you are looking for friends...you begin to hold them to the same standards that you hold yourself to. ",
"It doesn't.\n\nOr it did not for me anyways. Find hobbies that involve other people. I went a fair amount of my early adulthood grappling with the same issue as you. Then I..\n\n-Started working on hotrods (Thus mechanic buddies, racing pals, etc)\n-Took up a fitness routine (Gym bros)\n-Made drinking buddies (Frequent the same bar)\n-Joined a book club \n\nI have more high-quality friends now than any other time in my life. This certainly takes a fair amount of time. But if you throw yourself into those situations that demand repeated exposure - Your going to meet a lot of people you dont like. Your also going to meet a fair number that you do.",
"Baggage.\n\nThe older I get, the more I hate people.\n\nThe older I get, the more I have to explain *why* I hate people.\n\nAin't nobody got time for that.",
"Lack of sustained quarters amongst large groups of people.",
"44 here.\n\nI don't have alot of time for BS. Friends bring baggage and BS. I don't have much free time at this age. If you've already got a spouse/job/kids or some combination of that, there is not much time left. \n\nI value my free time much more and I realize how little of it I have. \n\nI don't hate people. I just have no time for them. \n\n",
"lots of really odd answers in this thread that're way too analytical. you aren't making new friends because you aren't constantly surrounded by people anymore. how do you expect to make new friends if you aren't getting out there?\n\ni'm almost 26 with more friends today than i've ever had in my life. how? i go out like three or four times a week; i'm always meeting new people and forming new relationships.",
"Older people get more definite in their preferences and opinions. Life experiences have revealed the really DARK realities of human nature. Once you learn these things, it's impossible to \"unlearn\" them just because you want to develop some new relationship. You figure out just exactly what the other person is under the surface and he or she may figure out exactly what you are. Very few people are comfortable with being clearly understood. There are a lot of illusions most would like to hide from you or even from their own consciousness. At a certain age it becomes exhausting to walk on eggshells."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9i7xe3
|
what makes me... me? memories? consciousness? my body? and why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9i7xe3/eli5what_makes_me_me_memories_consciousness_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6hhm2b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No one really knows the answer to this. I've alwyas considered someone's thoughts and their body make up who they are, but then again thoughts and your body can be manipulated and changed.\n\nIve always found it amazing that we are made up of different cells, like they're completely different living things to eachother, but all seem to 'sgare' a consciousness.\n\nIn short it's probably best not to overthink it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1gzqh2
|
when do you stop worrying about heat from air friction, and start worrying about air compression.
|
Take your awesome supersonic jets (such as the Blackbird). They're more concerned about streamlining and using specialist materials to ensure air friction doesn't burn up the materials mid flight.
Fast foward to say, space shuttle re-entry, and they're more concerned about air compression heating it up, rather than friction.
When does that change happen? How fast do you really need to be going?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gzqh2/eli5_when_do_you_stop_worrying_about_heat_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"capep9r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Engines that use supersonic air compression ([scramjets](_URL_0_)) for propulsion start working around mach 5."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.