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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2s3k3a
|
Why did Britain/USA not just colonialize Saudi Arabia?
|
Some half-cooked answers I've found are that, by the time they had interest in the region (oil in the 1920's, moreso in the 30's) coloniazation was frowned upon. but the King Saud at the time was the king of a desert, with nothing in the way of an army by and stretch of the imagination?
So instead of royalties and generally caring about what the Saudi's thought, why didn't COSAC/ARAMCO/USA/UK just take power, it would have made things simpler, no?
I've been reading a lot of Saudi and the birth of their country, and noone has approached the subject.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2s3k3a/why_did_britainusa_not_just_colonialize_saudi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnm5zsm",
"cnm7azd"
],
"score": [
10,
15
],
"text": [
"Just finished reading Daniel Yergin's \"The Prize,\" and it goes into a very oil-slanted history of the kingdom. In short (and I'm sure others here can add more), after WWII, the British empire was receding and the Brits saw a large presence in the Gulf as unsustainable. The US, at least under Truman, saw direct involvement in the Gulf states as \"a little far afield\" of the nation's policy and instead encouraged private business to take the lead, especially in getting energy to Europe in a somewhat circuitous application of the Marshall Plan.",
"You've pretty much answered your own question. Invading and controlling countries was not the preferred method ot at least was losing favour. That doesnt mean that some control was entirely off the books (vis a vis Persia and the Brits), but that it wasnt the ideal way of gettings one way. It was clear that a pro-western government could be dealt with via treaties, bribes and business arrangements rather than unpleasant invasions and occupation. The fact that Saudi Arabia has remained western aligned and at least partly benign for 80 years odd is evidence it was a reasonable plan. British expansionism had largely stopped at this time and was indeed receeding.\n\nAdditionally the US had never, as OlfactoriusRex suggest, ventured too far into interfering directly in these regions, partly as a matter of policy but also as a matter of practicality. US power projection capabilities at that range were fairly poor until post WW2. Some military bods would know more on that than I. The UK of course was the most expert nation at that sort of thing around this time.\n\nThe question is thus not so much why didnt they, but why would they?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
sru9t
|
Have there been Nobel prizes awarded for theories that were later disproven? If so, how does the foundation respond?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sru9t/have_there_been_nobel_prizes_awarded_for_theories/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4gfolt",
"c4gfsoy",
"c4gg6ul"
],
"score": [
20,
15,
26
],
"text": [
"[António Egas Moniz](_URL_1_) won a Nobel for \"for his discovery of the therapeutic value of [leucotomy](_URL_0_) in certain psychoses.\"",
"Typically, especially in the latter half century, the Nobel committee has been extremely careful to wait for a solid proof and acceptance of theories before awarding the prize.\n\nIt is not my intent to criticize you personally, but your example is flawed in that JJT's theories subsequent to his discovery were not what the prize was awarded for. \n\nSimilarly, Einstein won for the photoelectric effect, developed his theory of coefficients to describe atomic processes, and then subsequently rejected quantum mechanics, the very theory that perfectly explained the experimental effect for which he won his prize! His theories of SR and GR are arguably more profound, and fundamentally changed the way in which we see the universe, which the PV effect really did not - Schrodinger and Heisenberg did that. However, Relativity was only fundamentally, truly proven by our observance of gravitational lensing which happened much later.\n\nMy point is that most of these major scientists have been as spectacularly wrong about something as they have been right. Their technical errors do not diminish their accomplishments nor should they influence the Nobel process.\n\n",
"Yep, there has been the prize of [Johannes Andreas Grib Fibiger](_URL_0_) in 1926. \n\n > The 1926 prize went to Johannes Andreas Grib Fibiger, \"for his discovery of the Spiroptera carcinoma\", a microbial parasite which Fibiger claimed was the cause of cancer. This \"finding\" was discredited by other scientists shortly thereafter.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Egas_Moniz"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Andreas_Grib_Fibiger"
]
] |
||
b1y23z
|
Which part of China did Han people originate in?
|
They were called Huaxia at the time of their ethnogenesis (as well as other names at different points in history) AFAIK, but they're still the same people in question.
So which region of China did Hans originate?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b1y23z/which_part_of_china_did_han_people_originate_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiw7xmf"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The earliest that \"ethnic Chinese\" can be placed with certainty is the 13th century BC, when the Shang were writing divination records in what was clearly an ancestral form of the Chinese language. Shang materials have been found over a large part of north China but concentrated around Yinxu in Henan, identified as their last royal capital. We can confidently identify the late Shang as \"ethnic Chinese\" because their language shows continuity with later forms of Chinese; their material culture shows continuity with Zhou and later cultures; and Zhou and later texts explicitly refer to them as Huaxia.\n\nEarlier cultures in north China, like the Erligang (15th century BC) and Erlitou (19th-15th centuries BC) are ancestral to the Yinxu culture in the material sense, but they lacked writing and therefore we can't be certain whether they spoke Chinese, another language, or a mix of languages (in the better-documented Zhou period, for example, we know that South China and the northern steppe were each home to numerous distinct language families- the same could have been true of early North China). So while many Chinese archaeologists and historians identify these material cultures with the Xia and early Shang and therefore as ethnic Chinese, this is not widely accepted outside of China due to the lack of written evidence produced by the cultures themselves.\n\nIn short, we can be very confident that there was a Huaxia ethnicity at least by the 13th century BC, and at least around the middle reaches of the Yellow River, but because of the nature and availability of evidence the further back you go in time, or the further you get from Yinxu, the less certain things become.\n\n- *The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective* by K. C. Chang, Xu Pingfang et al"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1qykuu
|
Why does orbital velocity decrease with distance from the planet/sun, but velocity around a turntable increases with an increased radius.
|
If you were to model the orbit of a planet around the sun by placing a coin on a turntable/record player you would find that as the radius at which you place the coin increases, so does the velocity at which it travels.
But as the radius from the sun increases, planets move slower. Why is this the case?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qykuu/why_does_orbital_velocity_decrease_with_distance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdht8uy"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It is because the two are not the same.\n\nYour example of a coin on a turntable has constant angular velocity, regardless of distance from the center. In other words, no matter how far away it is, it makes one revolution in the same period of time. This is _forcibly_ imposed on the coin by the friction of the turntable.\n\nIf you look at the equation for [centripetal force](_URL_0_), you'll find that for constant angular velocity, centripetal force increases as a function of distance from the center. At some large distance, friction will not be able to apply enough centripetal force - and your coin will slip and be flung off.\n\nIn the case of gravity, you can find this is not the case. The inward force [does not increase as a function of distance](_URL_1_) - in fact, it _decreases_ as a square of distance - so it can never maintain the same angular velocity as you change the distance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Formula",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_gravitation"
]
] |
|
17apqx
|
When in the past did year abbreviations switch over (ex, '90s to 1890s vs 1990s)?
|
This is an [EXTEMELY unhistoric example.](_URL_0_)
Was there a point in the past century (and in centuries past, if applicable)
where certain decades ceased to refer to the historical decade and rather to a different (projected or current) decade?
edit: I hope my reply below clarifies my question:
1. To take the 'Gay Nineties' as a 20th c. example, when did people in society stop referring to these as just the " '90s " instead of qualifying them as the '1890s' or any other nicknames firmly in the domain of history ?
2. Are there specific examples historically when people stop referring to the old decade as just the 'xx's? We in 2013 still refer to 19xx as the '20's, '30s, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.
edit 2: I think the question I'm really asking is, did people in 1913 use the "'20's, '30s, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's" as we do today? I am focusing on things that reflect popular culture, more popular media like newspapers and letters and less academic articles of the time.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17apqx/when_in_the_past_did_year_abbreviations_switch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c83sotj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure what question you're asking.\n\nThe 1890s will always be the \"Gay Nineties\", as per your link (or [The Mauve Decade](_URL_0_)), just as the 1920s will always be the \"Roaring Twenties\", and the 1960s will always be the \"Swinging Sixties\".\n\nHowever, if you refer to the \"nineties/'90s\" *now*, most people will assume you mean the 1990s - which don't yet have a \"tag\" like the 1890s.\n\nWhat are you trying to learn?\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGayNineties"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890s"
]
] |
|
2iekc9
|
since space itself is stretching, does that mean that black holes could form more easily in the distant future?
|
does universal expansion affect the integrity of space?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2iekc9/since_space_itself_is_stretching_does_that_mean/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl1iru8"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It actually makes it harder for black holes to form because over time matter becomes more sparsely distributed. However, most black hole dynamics are on stellar and maybe galactic scales, which at this time aren't affected by the expansion of space."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4qj4gt
|
how do criminals get away when being interviewed in documentaries on national geographic and such?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qj4gt/eli5_how_do_criminals_get_away_when_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4tepux"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The police cannot assume what is on \"TV\" is true. Neither should you. It could easily be staged or scripted. In order to become evidence, a man or woman would have to testify in court that everything on the video is true. That would make the film makers job very difficult in the future, so you can imagine they aren't running to court to testify. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
99eid5
|
how do communication waves travel in space, for example between the rover or apollo and nasa. don't waves need matter to travel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99eid5/eli5_how_do_communication_waves_travel_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4n00tc",
"e4n1swj"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Not Electro-Magnetic waves. Those can also travel as particles. Back in the day we did, in fact, thought that there must be a medium in space to allow light waves to travel through, called **aether**, but all attempts to detect it failed, because it doesn't exist.\n\nElectromagnetic signals can act as both particles and as waves in different conditions. Numerous tests show that it has properties of both. It's very confusing, but we just have to accept it.",
"They are not matter waves, so they don't take matter to travel in. They are electromagnetic wave pulses, usually called photons, that travel in the quantum electromagnetic field. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1p3k2m
|
why is usb the standard and not thunderbolt?
|
If thunderbolt is 10 times faster than USB 2.0 then why isn't it the standard? also why is thunderbolt so much faster?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p3k2m/eli5_why_is_usb_the_standard_and_not_thunderbolt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccydzm9",
"ccyedcz"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Somebody USBed all the things before thunderbolt was a thing. When something is better cheaper or necessary enough it will eventually become the next data transfer medium de jure.",
"USB has been around for over 15 years. Thunderbolt's been around for only a couple. Will Thunderbolt become the standard? Maybe. It's hard to see something replacing USB, though. Maybe it will become the standard for displays (although HDMI is quickly becoming a standard on the PC side for that), or maybe storage devices (although USB 3 is pretty darn good, and eSATA already exists).\n\nBut mainly because USB has *just now* **almost** fully replaced everything else--definitely parallel and serial ports, and almost replaced PS/2 connectors entirely--that you probably won't see much movement away from USB in a while, just faster speeds of it. Already, you can't really find any new computer out there with USB 1.1 ports anymore (nor a 10 or 100 Mbps network adapter); they're all either USB 2.0, or mostly USB 2.0 with a few USB 3.0 ports as well (and 1 Gbps network adapters). It won't be long before most systems feature mostly USB 3.0, I'd imagine.\n\nAs for why Thunderbolt is faster, it's because it's newer, basically. They likely also use more expensive parts, meaning Thunderbolt costs more than USB does, but these parts can run faster."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
16rb5v
|
car engine terms
|
I love cars but when it comes to technical terms i get all lost and confused, for example:
What does a (x)liter V(x)engine means?(The x are the numbers, for example 3 liter V8 engine)
What does horsepower means?
It's the same as break horse power?
And what does CC means?
Thank you very much.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16rb5v/eli5_car_engine_terms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7ymg09"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > What does a (x)liter V(x)engine means?(The x are the numbers, for example 3 liter V8 engine)\n\nThe first is the capacity in liters of the cylinders of the engine. More liters = more air/fuel mixture and more power.\n\nThe V8 is the layout and number cylinders. The V indicates an engine with half of it's cylinders on either side of the cam shaft in a V shape. Some (usually smaller) engines have all their pistons in a single line instead, these are referred to with an I instead of a V.\n\n > What does horsepower means? \n\nHow much work the engine can do. More horsepower means it can do more work in a shorter amount of time. In vehicles this equates to moving the car faster.\n\n > It's the same as break horse power?\n\nBrake horsepower is a measurement of the horsepower ~~after~~ before power is lost to the drive train. Same unit of measurement, specific point of measurement. \n\n > And what does CC means?\n\nAnother way of measuring fluid capacity. 1000cc = 1 liter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ehsff
|
Can aquatic mammals get Decompression Sickness (the Bends)?
|
I'm wondering how whales can go hundreds of feet/meters/fathoms?/leagues? below the surface and rise back to take a fresh breath of air and be fine. Do they know this and rise slowly enough to present Sickness?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ehsff/can_aquatic_mammals_get_decompression_sickness/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctfut2e"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Human free-divers can do the same. \n\nThe problem is different gas pressures in your breathing mix - for a SCUBA diver or someone working in a pressurized caisson, they inhale air at higher-than-atmospheric pressure, which causes the concentration of dissolved nitrogen in their blood to increase. When they move back to normal pressure, the nitrogen in their blood will come back out of solution and form gas bubbles, causing the bends. Problems can be avoided by depressurizing slowly, so the amount of dissolved nitrogen can slowly return to normal without excessive bubble formation.\n\nFor a free-diver or a whale, they inhale air at atmospheric pressure, so they never get extra nitrogen forced into solution in their bloodstream. Thus they can ascend as fast as they want with no problems. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2lpsrx
|
in a time when drunk driving is so universally frowned up on and everyone is cracking down on duis, why is it that in some cities a business cannot be issued a liquor license if they don't have enough parking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lpsrx/eli5_in_a_time_when_drunk_driving_is_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clwzz12"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"It's often that they need a certain amount of spots in order to host any event, or they lack the required number of specialized spots (handicapped, expectant mothers, etc.) Or they lack the ability to have overnight parking for people who wish to drive there, drink, and then come back the next day and pick up their car."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1y412d
|
what is syndication exclusivity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y412d/eli5_what_is_syndication_exclusivity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfh5rvw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Syndication is when a show starts airing on other networks. Sometimes they make contracts promising to exclusively air on only specific networks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
10cp0j
|
What are the chances that the Human race could evolve into two different species that couldn't reproduce with each other?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10cp0j/what_are_the_chances_that_the_human_race_could/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6cbjt5"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Some small population that had enough people to maintain itself would have to become isolated long enough from the rest of humanity that they would change enough to not be able to reproduce with us.\n\nThe chances are incredibly slim in our modern world, almost impossible. Given that even \"isolated\" tribes on islands in the pacific did not become new species it likely will never happen. Maybe if we visit other planets and some get stuck somewhere or we have a post-apocalyptic scenario here on earth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1g21kl
|
What is a good (modern) book on the Battle of Passchendaele?
|
I'm trying to gain a deeper understanding of Passchendaele (1917) and I was wondering if any of the historians in this fine subreddit could suggest a good modern read on the battle. By 'modern', what I mean is something post 1980s based upon the 'revisionist' school of WW1 studies rather than the blood and guts and oh woe is me 1960s school of thought. I'd be especially interested in any works that explicitly tie the battle into the 'learning curve' theory and reject the conventional idea that it was a waste of a battle. Failing that, anything that applies the modern methods rather than 'lions lead by donkies' agenda would do.
Any help would be much appreciated!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g21kl/what_is_a_good_modern_book_on_the_battle_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cag29sm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"These may be of some help:\n\n- Your first stop should be John Terraine's *The Road to Passchendaele: the Flanders Offensive of 1917* (1977); while not \"modern\" in the strictest sense, Terraine is very much reliable on these matters and is one of the fathers of the \"learning curve\" school to begin with. He doesn't put up with any Lions/Donkeys nonsense.\n\n- Peter Barton and Jeremy Banning's *Passchendaele* (2007), put out by the IWM, is a remarkable piece of work. It's not so aggressively within the \"learning curve\" school as other works might be, but both Barton and Banning are serious-minded scholars and the quality of their work is enormous.\n\n- Osprey's guide to the campaign (*Passchendaele and the Battles of Ypres 1914-18*, 1997) would be worth checking out just for being an Osprey, but Martin Marix Evans, its author, has supported something like the \"learning curve\" school elsewhere in terms of the Somme. I don't know if he takes the same line on Passchendaele, but it might be worth checking out. He has another book on this subject (*Passchendaele: The Hollow Victory*, 2005), but I cannot speak to its quality or contents either. The title does not inspire delight, for our purposes, but it could be worth a look.\n\nIncidentally, it would probably be best to avoid Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson's *Passchendaele: The Untold Story* (2003); as much as I've enjoyed their work in other capacities (they penned a legendary take-down of Paul Fussell, for example), this particular book is pretty much everything you are NOT after."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7bi0es
|
How similar is present-day Judaism to the Judaism of the 1st and 2nd centuries?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7bi0es/how_similar_is_presentday_judaism_to_the_judaism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpjw3bu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is not really a simple question to answer. There's no way to really define how similar things are over time. Additionally, the 1st-2nd centuries were a time of incredible amounts of change in the Jewish community, and neither ancient or modern Judaism are homogeneous.\n\nThe foundation texts that define modern Jewish practice were not written yet in the 1st-2nd centuries. The first text that goes into the canon of Rabbinic literature, the Mishnah, was compiled in the mid-2nd century.\n\nThe Mishnah does not seem to be a legal code exactly, but it is a compendium of opinions of things in Jewish law of sorts. Its content serves to illustrate some of the similarities and differences. For the similarities, the holiday schedule, basic form of the liturgy, practices like blessings on food, some elements of theology, etc are present in the 1st century. Though it's important to note that this is the similarities specific to the 2nd century forerunner of modern Judaism--these similarities would not be present for groups that did not evolve into modern Judaism. And of course some modern Jewish groups have altered these things, though they still exist in some form today.\n\nBut the content also shows how different the Jewish world was. Agricultural laws were an important part of the laws it contained, but not many modern Jews work in agriculture. States of ritual purity/impurity were a huge part of what the Jewish experience was in the Second Temple era and immediately after, but it is not today in the same way. The Temple and the laws and rituals surrounding it were important parts of Judaism then, but are only theoretical now, and only their study is part of the Jewish experience (and even this is limited compared to practical things) Jewish courts enforcing tort law is a major point of discussion, and while Jews do still sometimes have their financial disputes settled by Jewish law, this is not nearly such a significant part of what the Jewish communal authorities are doing.\n\nReally, modern Judaism itself is similar to its ancient ancestor in important ways. But what the Jewish religious experience looks like is really drastically different, because life in general is. And that's only comparing to the predecessor of modern Judaism, we have much less textual material left over from other groups. And nothing in history is truly static, so Jewish law has developed over the past two thousand years. Depending on your perspective, that could be \"very similar\" or \"very dissimilar\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
588nj9
|
why does the math they teach in school keep changing and getting harder?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/588nj9/eli5_why_does_the_math_they_teach_in_school_keep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8ydqfy",
"d8yehkg",
"d8ygycd"
],
"score": [
14,
13,
4
],
"text": [
"One could argue that 3+5=8 hasn't changed in, forever.\n\nThe pressure is to teach **more math** in the same amount of time. That means that more intensive techniques need to be used, and students must **work harder**. It's not the math that's different, it's how much math you need that's changed since your parents were in school.",
"We keep learning more about how to better teach actual mathematics, rather than just computation. A large part of math is logical thinking and problem solving. There has more of a push to teach the ideologies of math, rather than just the computation piece. \n\nBecause using logic requires one to think critically, it can seem more difficult than simply applying a formula to a scripted problem. ",
"The world is changing, there are more expectations from high school graduates. Your average unskilled and semi-skilled blue-collar worker could probably suffice with pre-algebra level math skills. Assuming they never needed understand things like compounded interest for a car loan, home loan or retirement. \n\nOffice workers are expected to understand at least algebra, and basic statistics at the very least. A lot of jobs in engineering, sciences, business and finance are expected to know and understand calculus, which means they had to take a course in geometry, trigonometry, pre-calculus. \n\nSo at the junior high level, how do you know for whom, learning algebra by age 17 is sufficient, and which ones will need to have taken at least pre-calculus maybe even calculus 1?\n\nAs the world becomes more advanced, the skills in problem solving and logic become more important. A strong math background is an efficient way to develop those skills. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ntxo8
|
why no one appears to be talking about lockheed martin's recent claims to have a breakthrough in nuclear fusion technology.
|
I mean, shouldn't this be a much bigger deal than it currently is? Why isn't there any news coverage or any debates on the subject?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ntxo8/eli5_why_no_one_appears_to_be_talking_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmgu7jx",
"cmgu8aq",
"cmgu8pr",
"cmgubxl",
"cmgujze",
"cmgxl91",
"cmgxlue",
"cmh0d86",
"cmh1ofe",
"cmh3r2e",
"cmh5lzx",
"cmh5ntr"
],
"score": [
41,
11,
8,
26,
6,
7,
2,
2,
6,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Because they haven't made a breakthrough yet. They have a design that isn't even complete, let alone a working prototype.\n",
"They have provided no information about it. Just an announcement with no science is nothing more than a press release. If I announce my peretual motion machine in this reddit thread, no one is going to give a shit. Wanna know why? Because I am probably lying and so is Lockheed Martin.",
"Because they have a \"breakthrough\" idea. They haven't built anything yet and certainly haven't proved that it works. They are just looking for funding. ",
"[It help to present you claims with evidence, which they have not done. Without data, the reaction from other scientists is skepticism.](_URL_0_)",
"Because they made the same claims several years ago, and their target dates are just as far in the future now as then.",
"When you're older and have lived through more than a few news articles like this you'll learn it's just marketing. ",
"Because \n\n1) they haven't made a whole lot of details available, so no one has been able to say for sure that this is a real thing and not just hype and \n\n2) their claims are not actually all that remarkable given what is already well established science. We're talking about miniaturization of existing technology, not a fundamental breakthrough in the physics of fusion.",
"Fusion hype has been a staple of science news since 1951. [Literally.](_URL_1_) So far it has all turned out to be overhyped — easy on paper, hard in practice. \n\nBig claims require big evidence; when Lockheed Martin presents some evidence, people will take it seriously. Otherwise, you are asking people to take it seriously [merely on the basis of who they are](_URL_0_). ",
"Because, while Skunkworks has a brilliant track record in developing new technology, it's not actually a breakthrough until there's a physical, operating reactor that passes the breakeven point.\n\nI'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm not holding my breath, either.",
"Because their CEO's laptop is still powered off the grid.",
"Plasma physics grad student here. The reason is because they haven't done anything new. Their big announcement was related to just trying to build a smaller sized unit and because it is smaller in size, it is somehow easier. The confinement methods they are talking about have been tried before. \n\nMy research group all laughed when the guy in the video said that in 5 years he is going to have to find a job again because the problem will be solved. Yeah.... no. It's taken 50+years and billions of dollars to solve this problem. Lockheed won't be solving it in 5 years. It's a really hard problem. The guy in the video will be looking for a new job in 5 years because they failed. \n\nThey haven't provided any sorts of data or numbers or anything about their machine either. ",
"Because we (humanity) have heard this one before, several times. Because of this, I think the attitude has evolved into, \"Yeah wake us up when it's ready.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531836/does-lockheed-martin-really-have-a-breakthrough-fusion-machine/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority",
"http://www.iter.org/newsline/196/930"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1drfg3
|
what's the point of big research stations in antarctica?
|
What are they researching?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1drfg3/eli5_whats_the_point_of_big_research_stations_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9t47hp",
"c9t5kn3"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I have a professor that goes to Antarctica yearly to study climate change, by examining Ice cores and sedimentary deposits. A lot of things can only be observed in Antarctica about paleoclimate (how the climate was in the past) because Antarctica is pretty untouched by man.",
"I guess you saw that post on the British station? I followed that up with a video on its design _URL_0_ . They touch on why those stations on there. Apparently one of the reasons the location is uniquely suited for experiments due to the earth's magnetic fields. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL62D6jcWHA"
]
] |
|
2fbmn4
|
why does anybody get any kind of insurance? aren't they statistically formulated to rip you off (after calculating probabilities of accidents etc)..
|
Edit: I know that it would suck to have to pay a $50,000 hospital bill if you got hit by a car tomorrow. But don't insurance companies calculate your monthly payments based on the probabilities of you getting hit by a car in the future (eg. your traffic accident history)?
Edit: If you didn't have any insurance, but instead saved/invested in liquid assets the amount that you would have otherwise put into insurance, after 10 years, you would have a sizable amount to cover yourself if you got hit by a car in 10 years..right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fbmn4/eli5_why_does_anybody_get_any_kind_of_insurance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck7p3cp",
"ck7phhy",
"ck7pjpy",
"ck7qai4",
"ck7tzt7",
"ck7vxau",
"ck7xsxi"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
15,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the long run they make money off you *and everyone else*. In the short term it is much easier for you to pay $30 a month than to suddenly have to pay a $50,000 hospital bill.\n\nYou, personally, will not pay into the plan what you might get out of it. Neither will hundreds or thousands of other people. By combining everyones' \"losses\" together, there is a fund where someone who really needs it can tap into it. Plus profit for the company, of course.",
"If you have insurance and don't need it you lose a little money. If you need insurance and don't have it you are financially ruined for life. \n\nIt's basic risk assessment. Insurance for major things is a wise choice due to the huge risk of not having it vs the minor (relatively) cost of having it. Insurance for minor things is a poor decision because worst case scenario isn't bad enough to warrant the added expense given the odds. ",
"Insurance is designed to protect you from catastrophic loss. You *shouldn't* buy insurance for a TV or Playstation because losing them won't ruin your life. You *should* by insurance for your health, car or house because losing one of those could put you in a financial hole you can't recover from. Most people aren't willing to take the risk. In theory if you were a billionaire buying something like homeowners insurance would be a waste of money because if you did lose your house you have the resources to eat the cost.",
"Insurance trades money for risk. You have a slight risk of something catastrophic happening, but if it does, you are fucked. Instead, you give an insurance company $20 a month and you have zero risk of losing your house.",
"What made it finally click for me was this: a loss of $10,000 is more than ten times as bad as a loss of $1,000 (for various intuitive reasons). So if ten people can agree among themselves to \"lock in\" a loss of $1000 each (going to the person that takes the loss with a 1/10 chance) they are all better off, and total \"utility\" is increased. In fact, by the same argument, they could each lock in a loss of *more* than $1000 and still be better off, which is how you can cover the overhead of the insurance plan. \n\nOTOH you're right that insurance agreements unravel when you *know* which member is going to take the loss, because the non-losers just withdraw. ",
"My explanation might be on a very abstract level, but I hope it helps somehow.\n\nImagine we have a 1-in-100,000 probability to incur a $100,000 loss in a year from a particular incident. This means that while no one knows who in particular will suffer from the loss, it is a good estimate that out of one million people, about ten will face this loss. (Assuming that the calculation is right, of course.)\n\nIf one million people pay the insurer $2 to cover them for a year, the insurer will make $2 million. It is likely that they will have to pay out $1 million to the 10 claimants, and get the rest for their operating costs and profit.\n\nNow look from the insured party. Is the expected value from buying the insurance negative? Yes. (You lose $2 for sure, compared to a 1-in-100,000 chance to lose $100,000.) \n\nHowever, for most people, the \"value\" of money is not linear. (Would a person bet away all their wealth for a 50% chance to double it? Not if you already have a decent wealth. The first $100,000 is likely more valuable than the second $100,000.) So, for the insured party, what they see is that they are willing to accept a definite $2 rather than take the risk of losing $100,000 later.\n\nMy numbers might not be realistic, but I think the general concept is valid there.\n\nTl;dr Some people prefer to get a paper cut than play Russian roulette.",
"Someone raised the point about a house burning down being a less than a lifetime occurrence, but even if you're more likely to get out close to what you pay in, like health insurance, it makes sense.\n\nMaybe you decide to self insure, putting away a couple of thousand per year figuring you'll have $100,000 or so by the time you get old and get cancer. Then tomorrow you crash your bicycle and need orthopedic surgery. Now you're $100,000 in debt immediately, instead of owing a couple of thousand for your deductible (and I was a fan of the now banned by Obamacare plans that would only pay out for such catastrophic events, not every little sore throat visit, which act more like reimbursement accounts than \"insurance\".)\n\nAlso, health insurance at least isn't that bad of a deal statistically, the loss ratio (how much profit and overhead is) is limited by Obamacare to 20%, and in many states the nonprofit insurers have it down to below 10% due to competition. This is better than a grocery store, but there's a lot of businesses you could do better in as far as profit.\n\nFinally, even if you haven't met your deductible, the mere having of insurance knocks typically 10-50% off your bill due to the discount negotiated by your insurance. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5usv8q
|
Biography recommendation(s) on the space/arms race during the cold war.
|
I'm currently on the second semester of (contemporary) European history and will have to present and defend a paper for this course. I plan on doing an analysis of a biography of one of the prominent figure of the space/arms race, ideally a person who's neither American nor Russian by birth.
But given the vast array of biographies on Von Braun alone (not to mention others of his no less brilliant contemporary) I'm thoroughly lost as to whom to chose and which book to read. And as much as I wish I could read them all, I regrettably have deadlines to contend with.
So you (yes: YOU!) who has already finished their degree in modern/contemporary European History: what do you recommend. Is Von Braun overdone? Should I go for the Ukrainians or is there not enough translations of it? Should I have chosen a course with better employment perspectives?
Thank you any help you can provide!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5usv8q/biography_recommendations_on_the_spacearms_race/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddx83wx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Von Braun is kind of overdone — you're not going to find anything too new or interesting. If it were me, I would seek out other, often-overlooked, plenty interesting figures. Theodore von Karman comes to mind. Qian Xuesen is also an interesting case (though not European...). There were Germans who were taken to the USSR as well — their cases make for interesting contrasts with the ones who were taken to the USA. If you are willing to avoid rockets, and look to atoms instead, the case of Nikolaus Riehl is quite interesting and there is a translated autobiography available. Gernot Zippe is another interesting figure, and one that gets you into many other countries (he is the one who \"exported\" the gas centrifuge to many European countries in the later Cold War). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2dpcer
|
what is the purpose of the extra gears in my automatic car? when (if ever?) should i use them?
|
I have an automatic car with 3 extra gears. Why are they there and what is their purpose? I want to experiment with them but I'm afraid I might destroy my transmission. I've tried looking it up but all I've seen were long, confusing explanations of how overdrive works. Please help!
Edit: I live in Florida, a well known flat state. Should I ever use any of the extra gears there?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dpcer/eli5_what_is_the_purpose_of_the_extra_gears_in_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjrqmnm",
"cjrqnw4",
"cjrqo3r",
"cjrqv5b"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"If one of them is a D with a circle around it, it's Overdrive. It's good for when driving long distances at the same speed, like on a freeway. It's like economy mode. 1st and 2nd gears can be useful as well. I once had a car that started having transmission problems, had to put it in 1st, then 2nd, then Drive. ",
"1st and 2nd are good for driving in mountains or snow.",
"If you're driving down a steep slope, shifting into first or second will hold you back so you don't have to ride your brakes all the way down. I recently drove over Sonora Pass, and there was a large section I had to take in first, and some of it I even had to take in second.",
"The 3 2 1 aren't extra gears, they're just letting you control those gears. \n\nBasically, you're car will be automatically shifting up to (presumably) 4th gear (maybe 6th) and staying there most of the time. If you set it back to 3rd, you get the benefits of that gear.\n\nA lower gear will do two things depending on what you're doing. If you're accelerating, you'll get more power at the expense of fuel economy. Your engine will be working harder. If you're *not* accelerating, your engine will actually slow the car. The effect is more extreme as you shift down to 2 and then 1. MOST cars (all that I know of really) recommend never going over certain speeds in those gears. My person car (a nissan) says never go above 60mph in 2nd or 35 in first.\n\nUsing them effectively depends on where you live and what you're doing. You mentioned you live in Florida, so I can't see much use in them for you. They are much more useful in hilly areas, because of the tradeoffs I mentioned. If I am going down a mountain, I'll put my car into 2nd gear and let the engine help brake the car so I dont have to keep applying my foot brake. If I am going up a hill, I may also use 2nd to give me extra power. If I am taking 4 adult passengers + a bunch of cargo, I may not even be able to make it up the hill faster than 10-20 if I don't go into a lower gear. There are certain hills (I live in Seattle) that are so steep that a lot of vehicles have issues making it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
rv7da
|
What differences would we see in the world (technologically and otherwise) if it was proven that p = np?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rv7da/what_differences_would_we_see_in_the_world/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c48x9an",
"c48yhi9"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I actually just started a research project about this and I've interviewed several people about this. An example of what could be solved include extremely accurate weather prediction. However, not every consequence would be beneficial; computer security relies on the fact that some problems are too complex to efficiently solve. Security might need to be revamped or completely redeveloped if P is proven to equal NP.",
"One thing to keep in mind is that even if P = NP, so that certain problems are *in principle* efficiently solvable, we don't necessarily have any means of *actually solving them* efficiently. For example, just knowing that large numbers *can* be factored efficiently doesn't mean we know *how* to factor them efficiently. It's not like all public-key security systems would be open access the day after the proof that p = np was published (unless that proof happened to be the construction of a relevant algorithm). More people would probably start *looking* for such efficient problem solving methods, but their existence doesn't make them easy to find."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1v9ot1
|
why did the dea strike a deal with the sinaloa cartel?
|
Here's the link: _URL_0_
My question is why, when their entire mandate is discouraging the drug trade and preventing drug smuggling into the United States, did the DEA strike a deal with one of the most high-traffic cartels there is? I might be missing something but that seems like trying to treat a gunshot with more bullet wounds.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v9ot1/eli5_why_did_the_dea_strike_a_deal_with_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceq5obn",
"ceq6tmq",
"ceq8656",
"ceq94yh",
"ceqbzz9"
],
"score": [
9,
19,
10,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The article you linked says it was in exchange for information on the other cartels.\n\nNot that I agree with it, but if you are trying to bust 5 different criminal organizations it becomes a lot easier if 1 of the 5 is giving you the complete dibs on the other 4.",
"I live in Juárez México, you might have heard of if because at one point in the drug war it was considered the most dangerous city in the world. So I know a bit about this, there are a lot of factors but to summarize, the United States needs the drug trade, it means money , a lot of money, and México is the fastest route. \n\nThe problem came when to many cartels started showing up, now you can´t control the intake of drugs, everybody was \"importing\" drugs without any kind of control (yes the US knows exactly how many drugs they need to let into the border) And you no longer had one head of the cartels with whom you could organize the drug trade. \n\nThis was a problem for México also, before there was an unspoken rule, you don´t mess with the people I don´t mess with your drug business, this stopped when all the cartels started fighting. Before if there was a problem, like a rogue dealer or high crime rate in a city, you had a head boss (e.g. El Chapo) who you could go to and he could make decisions.\n\nSo to answer your question, things got so out of hand that in the best interest of the Mexican and the U.S. government, they needed to implement the one cartel system that they had before. They picked a leader, El Chapo, sprung him from jail and then began helping him regain control. This has happened, Juárez and most of México y getting back to how things were, you know there is a drug trade, but you don´t see it. Hey, as long as drugs are illegal and there is money to be made, people will sell them, lets hope this changes, meanwhile, things are quiet at least.\n\nTL:DR The U.S. and México needed to implement one head in charge of the cartels, too many cartels where getting out of control, so they decided on one and worked on getting him back in charge.",
"The DEA, like all government law enforcement and intelligence agencies, it not really about *actual* solutions, but about the *illusion* of solutions.\n\nReal solutions to hard problems are hard. They're complex, they're difficult to understand, they can take years to work, frequently with no easily-identifiable progress along the way. And crap like that isn't any good for advancing careers and increasing budgets. Shooting bad guys is easy.\n\nThe Teeming Masses don't want to hear that the government is slowly working through a complex, expensive plan to undercut the root causes of drug abuse, they want to hear that the government arrested a bunch of bad guys, and they want to see that mountain of $100 bills and guns on the nightly news. That's *progress,* you betcha.\n\nSo if the DEA isn't making enough \"visual progress\" fighting Sinaloa, what better solution than to make a deal with them to get more info on their rivals? It's a win-win in the eyes of the DEA administrators who approved the plan: the cartel gets a free ride, while the DEA gets all kinds of free information that allows them to arrest bad guys easier. OK, sure: *in the long run,* the deal makes Sinaloa even stronger, meaning that the DEA will have an even harder time bringing them down in the future, but, hey, *that's* a problem for some future administration, long after the current brass have moved on to better jobs in the government, and who cares about *that* right now?\n\nAnd on the general theme of government agencies making deals with the devil, one should understand that this is ABSOLUTELY standard operating procedure. The US has *never* had any qualms about getting into bed with some of the worst scumbags and murderers on the planet, if it advanced some other short-term goal.\n\n\n\n",
"The US should just follow in Portugal's footsteps and decriminalize drugs. Toss out the Controlled Substances Act and then invest in clinincs for rehab and clean needles and other services and cut drug abuse by half and eliminate this pointless Drug War. \n\nEdit: source \n\n_URL_0_",
"because the DEA is full of corrupt asshole douche bags. close the DEA today. end the corruption and waste of money that is the war on drugs."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/"
],
[]
] |
|
221ver
|
When did Europeans start to refer to themselves as Europeans?
|
By the mid 18th century people in America were beginning to refer to themselves as Americans.
What are some of the earliest references to Europeans in this sense?
When did it start to become common for people to refer to themselves as European?
Were there any parts of Europe that significantly resisted this sort of movement?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/221ver/when_did_europeans_start_to_refer_to_themselves/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgizf7g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"People identifying themselves as European? That's still rather a strange thing to do for anyone. Only a few people who are seriously supportive of the EU would do that. Most others would either identify mostly by their national identity or even by a regional identity, like Scottish, Catalan or Occitan.\n\nAnd if one would connect to a larger entity, most people would see little reason to then limit themselves to 'European'. People might call themselves \"world citizen\" to emphasize their international outlook, or \"Western\" to emphasize their economic and political privilege. This is partially a remnant from the Cold War, in which Western Europeans tended to see themselves as part of the NATO block more than as part of the EU, for better or for worse. It's possible that in the former Warsaw pact states the self-identification as European is easier nowadays, I don't know.\n\nSo is there resistance to self-identifying as European? Yes, almost everywhere in Europe this resistance exists. People are anxious to retain some significance in their national or regional identities, as small as the importance of their governments might be to their daily lives. Although most Europeans are reasonably accepting of their European neighbours, and in practice quite supportive of European cooperation, a large part of the European population is very resistant to Europe as an idea. Self-identifying as European would need to overcome that resistance.\n\nAnd frankly while I personally am quite in favor of further European integration, I would rarely if ever self-identify as European. It just rarely seems relevant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
22xub7
|
It's often stated that the U.S. has been at war for most of it's history. How does this compare to other states, past and present?
|
For example, of the Roman Empire's total life, how many years of peace versus war in some form did it have?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22xub7/its_often_stated_that_the_us_has_been_at_war_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgrh7dp"
],
"score": [
37
],
"text": [
"So the question we really need to tackle is: What do you mean by \"been at war\"? The United States has not *legally* been at war since 1945, which means weve had nearly 70 years of uninterrupted peace since the end of World War Two. Infact, in its history the United States has only issued 5 declarations of war, so (again) *legally*, weve only been to war 5 times. But that doesnt count that thing in Vietnam, the thing in Korea, or either thing in Iraq. But what are *those*? Youd likely suggest that they were *undeclared* wars, but they were still wars. Id agree with that, but it raises a stickier question. We could all accept that conflicts like Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq are *wars*, but what else? Is the 1989 invasion of Panama a war? What about the intervention in Afghanistan? What about Operation Gothic Serpent, which spawned the Battle of Mogadishu and the famous Black Hawk Down incident? How small a conflict can I find that still constitutes a war? What about during Hurricane Katrina, [when there were reports of sniper fire against National Gaurd Units](_URL_0_)? And how do we classify the Civil War? Surely its a war, but the United States never recognized the CSA. Then theres the KKK and its guerilla war against federal troops, whats that? And what of the Cold War, and our (continued) impending deaths in a great nuclear holocaust?\n\nSo, there is a *lot* going on in this question, including producing a workable definition of what a war is, exactly. To then compare that information with *another country*, youd have to create a robust definition which fits both nations peculiar histories, no small feat! And a country like Rome is doubly difficult, with so much of its history shrouded in the past. We really have very few sources which detail the history of Rome, and even fewer ever discuss the micro-wars which were fighting over. So in that case, itd be next to impossible to create a definition of war that would work between the two nations, *and* that would include every \"relevant\" American conflict, *and* that would produce useful results. Its like comparing apples to onions, you could call both \"food\", and both \"round\", but they have very little else in common. \n\nAnd then we have to figure out what is an *American* war? What about the Pequot war of 1634, fought between Massachusetts Indians and colonists of Massachusetts Bay. \n\nThats maybe not the answer you were looking for, was it? Well, heres as close to an answer Ill probably give: The United States has been at war for virtually all meaningful periods of time throughout its history. Between the decades long Indian Wars, a conflict which lasted most of the 18th and 19th centuries, the American interventions in Latin America, the European Civil War, the Cold War, and the Post-Cold War, you can always find some kind of conflict, large or small. Some American soldier, somewhere, has always been in a combat zone. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1123495&page=1"
]
] |
|
eknnac
|
what is redox chemistry and what is it used for?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eknnac/eli5_what_is_redox_chemistry_and_what_is_it_used/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdcnvez"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Redox is a reaction that involves reduction and oxidation of molecules. Examples are electron transfers that happen in living organisms during respiration."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
48rx7x
|
why the bullshit of naming sequels with original titles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48rx7x/eli5_why_the_bullshit_of_naming_sequels_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0lyq92",
"d0lyu68"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Don't know the thinking in the game world, but I read the movie industry avoids numbering sequels because the audience thinks they have to have seen all the films in the series to get the new one, lowering the number of people who go to the sequel. Probably something similar applies for video games.",
"I'm heavily invested in the marketing world. I have a few answers.\n1. A lot of these new games are just remakes on a new platform, or made with new software that makes them a million times more modern/enjoyable/functional. Therefore instead of making them a sequel they just release a new line of games with the original title so that when people search \"sims\" the new game comes up without any other criteria.\n2. Think of how vastly improved the new sims is to the first ever one. Now think of how much the first one succeeded, and furthermore how the entirty of the sims succeeded. If they have the new sequels new names, they lose out on a lot of web searches, and brand name love. No one likes seeing sequels past 3-5ish cause we all assume it's the same shit new game. Like CoD. Again for example, maybe in a few years they release a totally remastered call of duty and just call it that. Do you even remember what final fantasy/cod is coming out next? By the number? I sure as hell don't."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5yviqc
|
how do pearls form?
|
How does a clam, a biological mass, create a pearl from minute amounts of sand? Humans can create stony masses as well, in the forms of gallstones or kidney stones, but I can't imagine the biological processes are similar.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yviqc/eli5_how_do_pearls_form/
|
{
"a_id": [
"det7fyg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Here's a hint- It's the same material as their shell.\n\nThe sand is an irritant to the soft gooey creature, it can't reach to dislodge a grain of sand that is stuck, so it covers it in a layer of the same stuff the shell is made of. They get the minerals from their diet. Layer after layer it gets incrementally larger, just like the shell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9njuwu
|
Why was property ownership a requirement for voting in early US history?
|
Since the establishment of the US government was deeply rooted in the enlightenment ideal of rational thought is there a clear rationale for why the states required voters to own property in order to vote?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9njuwu/why_was_property_ownership_a_requirement_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7n5hxc"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Hey, this can be traced to the English traditions and views on voting rights. Though, it has to be said, we have to make a distinction between three phases: pre-Revolutionary structures, the 13 states under the Articles of Confederation and Post-US Constitution in 1789.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nPre-Revolutionary structures varied greatly between colony to colony, since each operated under its own Charter, rules and traditions. Think of them as 13 independent countries that just happen to be next to each other and share a language. Under the Articles of Confederation, this degree of political independence is also maintained, the only exceptions being military and foreign policy matters. (not that it worked anyway… ) So each one had a different electoral policy. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI assume that your question is about the Post-Constitution voting policies of 1789 so really early Federalist era. The property requirements remained in the electoral system as a holdover from the English voting traditions and views on voting rights of the 18th century. Many Founding Fathers viewed that individuals who did not posses wealth were inherently unworthy of voting because their poverty made them vulnerable to political manipulation. Only vested members who were financially responsible were immune to such populism. Likewise, they believed that women, children, African Americans and Native Americans were incapable on handling such responsibility in politics.\n\nEnglish jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s that “The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.”\n\nLikewise, John Adams affirms in 1776 that “Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.”\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWe have to keep in mind, our Founding Father did not intend for a direct democracy, but a Representative Republic, which is a very different proposition.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEDITED thanks to the input of [dhmontgomery](_URL_2_)\n\n**Sources:**\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nKeyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (2009). Basic Books, Revised Edition.\n\nMurrin, John M.; Johnson, Paul E.; McPherson, James M.; Fahs, Alice; Gerstle, Gary (2012). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People (6th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm",
"http://www.ushistory.org/documents/confederation.htm",
"https://www.reddit.com/user/dhmontgomery"
]
] |
|
sq3l1
|
Why do I sink faster in water than others?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sq3l1/why_do_i_sink_faster_in_water_than_others/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4g0l7e",
"c4g13cw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Buoyancy in water is all about water displacement.\n\nGenerally the fatter you are the easier it is to float. If you are more muscular with very little fat then you will sink. This is why it takes a toll on you. You have to work to stay afloat where others can do little to no work for the same effect.\n",
"My first question was going to be whether you've ever broken a bone. I saw an article posted here on reddit about a guy with the same issue and it turned out he had a condition that gave him very dense, strong, heavy bones. Look it up. I can't remember what it's called."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1x8zad
|
why are gay pride and black pride encouraged while straight pride and white pride are considered as racist ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x8zad/why_are_gay_pride_and_black_pride_encouraged/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf96joo",
"cf96jr5",
"cf96klf",
"cf96q90",
"cf96uei"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they are currently minorities being mistreated in many places including the US. The vast majority of Americans are pro-straight and the largest demographic of people in the mid to higher class are white. There would be no point of holding straight or white power movements as neither demographics are in need of equality or more power at further expense to the groups who are already oppressed and/or mistreated.",
"I've always found 'pride' to be a shit word for this sort of thing. 'Not-shame' would be more accurate, but there's no good word for that. \n\nBasically in the past and to a degree in the present homosexuals and black people in the United States, amongst other groups, have been subjected to prejudice against them for their romatic attractions and/or heritage. The 'gay pride' or other such events are meant to simply say \"We're not going to be ashamed of who we are because people did, and some people still do, have problems with us for reasons totally unrelated to who we really are. We're not going to give in to racism or anything.\"\n\nIn the USA at least your average straight white person doesn't belong to any group that's been subject to such in the past so it makes no sense to refuse to be ashamed like society has and to a degree still does expect you to be for being white and straight because... well because nobody has been picking on that demographic.\n\nNow maybe white pride would be fine if it was just a bunch of Scots and Germans enjoying their traditional foods and all, but there's also the fact 'white pride' as a term has largely been used by white supremacist organizations so it's sort of tainted by association as well.",
"Because gays and blacks are minorities which have been marginalized in society for centuries. Straight and white folks don't really need \"pride\" support groups because they are heavily represented in all walks of (American) society. They make the rules, and these rules are often in place to keep minorities where they \"belong\" - in the minority. Meanwhile, there are all types of \"white\" pride that take the form of ethnic recognition. This is why people can walk around with \"Italia\" soccer jersey and no one bats an eye. Furthermore, white pride is often a ruse for white supremacy, and *that* is racist.",
"No one considers \"straight pride\" to be a racial issue... So let's say they are called racists and/or bigots.\n\nThat is mostly because things like \"straight pride\" and \"white pride\" is proposed by racists and/or bigots. Whiners who want to crash the party being held by historically oppressed minorities of people because they feel they deserve some attention also.\n\nBut the fact is that every single day since the founding of America has been \"straight pride\" and \"white pride\" day. Straights and whites have never been oppressed by the law or social constructs.\n\nGay pride and black pride is just a way of saying \"We're now going to have a parade because the rest of you are no longer allowed to murder us if we do.\"\n\nNote that there are parades full of subsets of white people who were oppressed and abused at times. Italians, Irish, Armenians, etc. You don't see WASP parades because WASPs have never been abused in this country.",
"When was the last time a straight white man got lynched?\n\nSWM-\"persecution\" JAQing off is not accepted on ELI5. You can fuck right off.\n\nRemoved"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
65gqbi
|
Are there any good books or sources to read up on the mid to late pueblo people of the mesa verde region?
|
see title. Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/65gqbi/are_there_any_good_books_or_sources_to_read_up_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgazmgm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately, there aren't too many good and accessible sources on Mesa Verde meant for more general consumption (as opposed to very technical archaeological material). \n\nIf you are interested in Ancestral Puebloan archaeology generally (and not just Mesa Verde), then there are three good overviews of Pueblo archaeology, any of which would be a good primer to Pueblo archaeology (including Mesa Verde). \n\nThese three are the [Cordell and McBrinn](_URL_0_) book, the [Plog](_URL_1_) book, and the [Kantner](_URL_5_) book. Any of the three is acceptable and covers more or less the same information. \n\nFor Mesa Verde specifically, unfortunately (though understandably), most of the archaeological work (including accessible books) has centered on researching the very sudden and very thorough depopulation of the Mesa Verde region around A.D. 1270, wherein nearly the entire population of the area moved southwards into the northern Rio Grande. Explaining this sudden and complete depopulation is a major topic of research in Southwestern archaeology. For this, I would recommend two books. The first, [Leaving Mesa Verde](_URL_6_), takes a very ecological and environmental approach to the problem, positing that environmental changes in the 13th century was both a stress on corn-farming agriculturalists like those that lived in Mesa Verde, but also compounded other social problems. The second book, [Winds from the North](_URL_3_), takes a very different approach to the problem by looking at linguistic, genetic, and ethnohistoric evidence from modern Pueblos in New Mexico to discuss their connection with the Mesa Verde region. \n\nI wouldn't say either is \"complete\" in the sense that both take a very specific approach to answering the issue. If you wanted to read either, I would say \"Winds from the North\" is the most accessible to a non-archaeological audience since it doesn't get as lost in the weeds of environmental reconstruction like \"Leaving Mesa Verde\", but neither was written for a popular audience (like the three overview books I linked to above). Both are also quite expensive, so check your local libraries! Might want to skim online previews before committing to one or the other. \n\nYou should also take a look at the [Crow Canyon Archaeological Center website](_URL_2_). They aren't focused exclusively on Mesa Verde (they do a lot of work on Chaco-related sites in northern New Mexico/southern Colorado), but they are focused on public outreach and making archaeological research accessible to the public. \n\nFinally, I've written a little bit about Mesa Verde before on /r/AskHistorians, in [this](_URL_4_) and [this](_URL_7_) answer. \n\nHope that helps, and happy to field any other questions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=bvX6ygAACAAJ&dq=cordell+archaeology+southwest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjyqLWiafTAhXHhVQKHQkXBpsQ6AEIJDAA",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=k9sMAQAAMAAJ&dq=cordell%20archaeology%20southwest&source=gbs_similarbooks",
"http://www.crowcanyon.org/",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=PVv5ygAACAAJ&dq=winds+from+the+north&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKqcqwm6bTAhUqsFQKHZqqAxgQ6AEIJjAB",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cyo18/is_there_any_connection_between_the_exodus_of_the/",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=EkS2EpDK1qMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=kantner+archaeology+southwest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC6PDjiafTAhVlilQKHbzCBakQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=kantner%20archaeology%20southwest&f=false",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=RxlpCqSBVKcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=leaving+mesa+verde&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiqPi4m6bTAhXLrlQKHS-sDzUQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=leaving%20mesa%20verde&f=false",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3kq4hl/are_there_any_patterns_of_fracture_on_skeletal/"
]
] |
|
1rw69q
|
How did ancient archaeological sites like the Palace of Knossos and Troy (but not limited to) get buried?
|
I'm only using Palace of Knossos and Troy as examples, but any ancient historians who can provide an explanation to another buried site would be appreciated.
Volcano ashes covering Vesuvius I can understand. Places in deserts where winds blowing sands eventually covering up buildings I can imagine. Where did all this material that buried these supposedly high walls and large palaces come from? And what are these materials?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rw69q/how_did_ancient_archaeological_sites_like_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdrorxi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most ancient cities quite honestly get torn or burned down due to accidents, conquests, or natural disasters and are subsequently built over.\n\n\nTenochtitlan was the Aztec capital. The Aztecs had built and modelled their city over the ancient ruins of Teotihuacan. After the Spanish Conquest and the fall of the Aztec Empire, the capital of New Spain was built over the foundations of the razed city. After the Mexican Revolution, the site now stands as Mexico City.\n\n\nYou listed Troy, which was rebuilt so many times due to war or fire that historians have labelled the various iterations with numbers (Troy VI, Troy VII, etc). Heinrich Schliemann infamously destroyed several layers while searching for Homeric Troy.\n\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/teno_1/hd_teno_1.htm",
"http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/849"
]
] |
|
3ja0yf
|
why do leaves turn yellow and wither during fall?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ja0yf/why_do_leaves_turn_yellow_and_wither_during_fall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuniqps"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"During winter, there is not enough light or water for photosynthesis. The trees will rest, and live off the food they stored during the summer. They begin to shut down their food-making factories. The green chlorophyll disappears from the leaves. They then slowly begin to become waste products of the tree and turn from green to yellow/brown."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5x9x3i
|
why are americans saying special words for school years, like "sophomore"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x9x3i/eli5_why_are_americans_saying_special_words_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deghy4h",
"degkla1",
"degms9i",
"degmtsj",
"degniil",
"degrkfc",
"degtsk0"
],
"score": [
18,
9,
86,
1493,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"As an Aussie who hasn't quite grasped this slsng, does sophomore come between freshman and senior? What's the hierarchy?",
"in high school, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade are used synonymously with freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior (respectively). in university, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year are associated with these terms.\n\nthese terms are used both in high school and college/university and are uncommon outside of the US. canadians typically use grades 9-12, and they'll use first-fourth year (or further, if they've taken extra credits) for university.\n\na freshman means someone who is new, or a novice. it's a slang term that eventually became official. how it became official? it's unknown but it's likely that because these terms were in use for so long, they started being used in official capacity.\n\nsophomore comes from greek, meaning sophos (think 'philosophy) meaning wise, and moros (think 'moron'). something that is sophomoric, is something that it thought to be a good idea but isn't at all. basically a beginner mistake. why sophomore is used for 2nd year or 10th grade specifically? again: we don't know. it may be that the term was a denigrating term used by juniors and seniors. \n\njunior and senior are upperclassman levels. upperclassmen are people who have been in the school system longer, and may have been a subjective term in the past. now, it's fixed. a junior is a 'junior upperclassman', meaning they're a younger upperclassman. a senior is a 'senior upperclassman', meaning they're an older upperclassman.\n\nso... why these terms instead of year 1, 2, 3, and 4?\n\nin high school and university, one's 'year of study' is not denoted by how many years they've been in the system. it's denoted by how many credits they have toward graduation. this may be an explanation for why 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th year are not as commonly used: their year of study does not adequately describe how many credits (or years of study) they have to graduate. it's not a perfect explanation, though, but it's the best non-etymological one i can think of.\n\nto make things more confusing, there are multiple types of freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. there are 'redshirt freshmen', who are in their 2nd year of study but play a sport at a freshman level. there are '5th year seniors' (or further on such as 6th year, often called 'super seniors') which are a result of the above paragraph: people which not enough credits to graduate but have been in the program for longer than 4 years. 4th year juniors are often a result of redshirting one's freshman year (or delaying eligibility to play a college sport while still enrolling in the school)",
"These English terms originated during the Renaissance at Cambridge University, which had a three-year course of study. \n\nAs other answers have pointed out, *freshman* is a compound that means \"new man\", \"novice\". At that time, the upperclassmen were split into *junior sophisters* (\"lesser\", \"secondary\") and *senior sophisters* (\"superior\", \"greater\", \"primary\"). *Sophister* is derived from the Greek *sophos* meaning \"wise\", and in that time meant \"arguer\" or \"debater\".\n\nIn the 1600s, a fourth designation came into use: *sophumer*, which was a synonym for *sophister*, derived from French instead of directly from the Greek (Think *regal* vs. *royal*). This term denoted advanced underclassmen, but at the time was not a separate year of study. Over time, and probably in America first, *sophumer* became *sophomore*.\n\nJohn Harvard, the founder of the university that bears his name, encountered the categories during his study at Cambridge and brought them over to Cambridge, Mass. in the 1630s. Being used at Harvard, they spread to other American universities and came into use in high schools in the early twentieth century.\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"Cambridge!\n\nIn or before 1688, Cambridge University used a ranking system for students to help professors keep track of student progress: Fresh Man, Sophmore, Junior Sophister, Senior Sophister. These terms relate to the Greek \"Sophos\" meaning knowledge and were meant to reflect the amount of knowledge the student possesses.\n\nEvery major English-speaking University copied this in some form or another. It is why we now consider 4 years necessary to obtain a bachelors degree. The actual names of each rank varied from campus to campus. Importantly the names used at Harvard University were \"Freshman, Sophomore, Junior Soph, Senior Soph.\" Sometime before 1800 \"soph\" was dropped from the upperclassmen titles. \n\nIn the 19th century the US greatly expanded its high school and university offerings. With many founders educated at Harvard, their system was exported across the US.\n\nSo the question should be, why did the British Empire stop using these terms? The answer is Empire. The older Universities in Scotland and Ireland adopted the 4 year system but, because they were not founded by Cambridge alumni, they adopted their own ranking terms. At St. Andrews University, for example, the ranks were bejaune, semi-bejaune, tertiand, and magistrate. As the U.K. sought to standardize education throughout its territory, it sought to not impose one campus culture on another, instead going with very clinical 1st-4th year. \n\nThe U.K. Terminology translates easily and is unambiguous even in the US, so it should be used in most cases. \n\nTL;DR - Frontier principals had ~~dilutions~~ delusions of grandeur.\n\n",
"We got the terms from the UK who used them to refer to Years at University. They were first used by Cambridge I believe. ",
"Thanks OP, for asking. I've always wondered what these terms meant but never really bothered to find out. ",
"As said in other posts, the upperclassmen were split into the junior and senior sophisters. Eventually they split the underclassmen into two groups as well. The moronic freshman that had passed their first year would now be called sophomores, a combination of sophos (knowledge) and moros (moron, fool). So freshmen are morons and sophomores are knowledgeable morons. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1982/whats-the-origin-of-sophomore"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cjbgub
|
when drawing straws, are you more likely to get the short straw if you pick first, or after several people have already picked?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cjbgub/eli5_when_drawing_straws_are_you_more_likely_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evc9so8",
"evca50g",
"evca6fi",
"evcao57",
"evck8w0",
"eveqijj"
],
"score": [
5,
14,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"At the start, before anyone has picked, everyone has an equal chance of getting the short straw.\n\nBut as people pick and reveal their straw the probability changes now you know more information. If you're last and no one has drawn the short straw yet then obviously you have a 100% chance of getting it yourself. All the other possibilities have been ruled out by this point. \n\nOn the flip side of this, you only have a 1 in < number of people > chance of getting to your turn with no one else having got it yet. So overall the probability is the same whether you pick first or last.",
"It does not matter. Say there is 5 straws. The first one to pick have a 20% chance of picking the shortest one. Now there is 4 straws so the next person have a 25% chance of picking the shortest one. However that is assuming the first person did not already pick the short straw. And there is an 80% chance that he did not. And 80% of 25% is 20% which is exactly the same chance as the first one had. This is true for everyone involved. The last person have an 80% chance that someone already picked the shortest straw so even if he have a 100% chance of picking the shortest straw if that remains that is only a 20% chance.\n\nYou can think of the situation differently. What if instead of straws there was sealed envelopes. The order in which you pick your envelope does not matter as everyone is left with an envelope that might be the special one. The fact that you open the envelope just after you have picked it or after everyone have picked does not change its contents.",
"Neither, if it is a fair game (truly random, no cheating) each player has the same chance. \n\nMore info from a quick search:\nSay you’ve got N peeps (people). The first person to draw a straw is the least likely to draw the short one (1/N) and the last to draw is the most likely (1/2). However! While the later people are more likely to draw the short straw, they’re also less likely to pull any straw since it’s more likely that the short straw has already been drawn. In movies they almost always draw every straw because of drama, but in practice, you draw until the short one shows up and then you stop.",
"It doesn't matter.\n\nThe easiest way to think about this is that everyone who hasn't already picked a straw has an equal chance of picking the short straw; the straw, after all, doesn't care who picks it. It's a straw. Straws are, notoriously, indifferent to people.\n\nSo say you've got five people deciding. Everyone has a 20% chance of pulling the short straw and ending the game. Person A pulls the straw, and success! Long straw. He's safe. The game continues.\n\nNow you've got a situation where there are four straws available, one of which is short. Everyone else has a 25% chance of pulling the short straw... but remember, there's already been one round, which means there's already a certain number of possible outcomes that have been taken off the board. (For example, if Person A pulls the short straw, there *is* no second round.) The odds of the game going to a second round is 80% (that is, the odds that Person A doesn't pull the short straw). **Your overall odds, then, are 25% of that 80%... or, put another way, 20%.**\n\nYou can go down and down and down through the various [probability trees](_URL_0_) of how the game might play itself out, but you'll find that each person's odds of picking a straw is 20% in any given round, *if* you don't know the status of the straws pulled before.\n\nThat's why it's functionally equivalent to have everyone pull the straws one by one, or to have them pull the straws at the same time. The only difference is in how tense it gets when it's down to two and you haven't decided who's paying for the pizza yet.",
"As another response already pointed out, if the straw is pulled at any point, you are now guaranteed to NOT get the straw. Odds of getting the straw at the start of the pulling is 1 in how many straws exist. Odds of getting the straw if you go just prior to the final person are 50/50. But, that 50/50 is offset by the chances of not having to even bother pulling because the straw was already taken by someone else.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSince they illustrated with 4, I will illustrate with a prime number instead:\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSay there are 7 people pulling at 7 straws:\n\n* First man up: Chances to get the straw: 14%. Chances someone already got the straw: 0%. Net chances to pull the straw: 14% of 100%, or 14%.\n* Second man up: Chances to get the straw: 17%. Chances someone already got the straw: 14%. Net chances to pull the straw: 17% of 86%, or 14%.\n* Third man up: Chances to get the straw: 20%. Chances someone already got the straw: 29%. Net chances to pull the straw: 20% of 71%, or 14%.\n* Fourth man up: Chances to get the straw: 25%. Chances someone already got the straw: 43%. Net chances to pull the straw: 25% of 56%, or 14%.\n* Fifth man up: Chances to get the straw: 33%. Chances someone already got the straw: 57%. Net chances to pull the straw: 33% of 43%, or 14%.\n* Sixth man up: Chances to get the straw: 50%. Chances someone already got the straw: 71%. Net chances to pull the straw: 50% of 29%, or 14%.\n* Final man: Chances to get the straw: 100%. Chances someone already got the straw: 86%. Net chances to pull the straw: 100% of 14%, or 14%.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIt works out that the odds for each person to get the straw are 14% (multiple their odds for that draw by their odds to have to draw at all).",
"I think a lot of what's making this tougher to ELI5 has to do with the fact that the game stops when someone picks the short straw and the fact that one of the straws is \"different\". That brings in a bunch of math that we can do without.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nIt's far easier if we start with an identical, but simpler game:\n\nAll of the straws are different colors. There's a sealed envelope that contains the name of one of the colors, chosen at random. Each person picks a straw, one after the other.\n\nNow the envelope is opened, and whoever has the straw of that color is the loser.\n\nIt should be clear that this is the same game - you can think of the straw that matches the envelope as the \"short straw\". But it may not be clear whether or not this game is \"fair\" or if the order matters. That's okay.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nNow let's change it just a little bit. This time, everyone picks their colored straw, but the color for the envelope isn't picked until after everyone has chosen. It is still picked in a fair and random way, but we just wait until after the straws to do it.\n\nIt should still be clear that the game is the same as the last one I described. It doesn't matter whether the random color is chosen before or after the straws are chosen. Choosing the random color is unrelated to the players choosing straws.\n\nBut this game should be very simple to analyze: each player has an equal chance of having their color chosen. So each player has the same chance of getting the short straw.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nSince the second game I described is equivalent to the first, and the first game I described is equivalent to drawing for the short straw, we can see that drawing for the short straw is indeed fair, and doesn't depend on what order you go in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/probability-tree-diagrams.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2kp3py
|
Is it possible to ever encounter plastic in nature that wasn't made by humans?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2kp3py/is_it_possible_to_ever_encounter_plastic_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clnib8j",
"clnk0jy",
"clnnar8",
"clno2n5",
"clnrmnx",
"clnsgx6",
"clo99zk",
"clodomh",
"clofkhz",
"cloh5s9"
],
"score": [
154,
4,
2,
2,
2,
12,
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Not in the strictest sense, as most definitions I have seen for plastic specifically use the words synthetic or man-made. As such a non-manmade plastic is impossible.\n\nHowever plastics are really just polymers, long chain molecules that are usually organic (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, maybe a few heavier elements). There are tons of those in nature, you are probably touching a couple right now. Cellulose and starch are good examples, glucose polymers that are in almost every plant. Spider silk, DNA, and proteins are all polymers too. They usually don't look like what we think about when we say plastic but they have the appropriate properties and structures.",
"To my knowledge, amber is pretty close to being composed of the same sort of molecules (polymers) as \"plastic\"",
"Amber comes to mind, It's polymerized tree resin. It seems pretty darn close to plastic but I'm far from an expert on the topic.",
"Squid have a structure called a gladius that is very similar. Transparent and flexible, that is used to make the body rigid. But it is chitin, so not exactly plastic.",
"I would say that chitin is semi close to a plastic. [Here](_URL_0_) is an interesting article",
"There is a bee (Colletes inaequalis) in my area that lines its nest with polyester. Info herehttp://_URL_1_ and _URL_0_. Not quite what you are asking about but pretty cool.\n",
"No, but horn, ivory, nacre, chitin, lignin, cellulose and some hemicelluloses have similar functions.",
"[Natural rubber,](_URL_0_) from both *Hevea* as well as *Guayule.*",
"Linseed oil and some other natural oils are used to make paint and protect wood because they will naturally polymerize under easily achieved conditions (heat, oxygen). I think this would meet most of the common expectations for a plastic: it's a polymer, it's hard and fairly durable, not easily soluble. Linoleum, for example, is basically linseed oil plus a bunch of fibrous material, though it has some other chemicals added to help it harden.\n\nI'm not sure what non-human process would extract a bunch of plant oil and then leave it alone in the air long enough to harden, but it could happen I suppose.",
"Plastics such rubber and latex both come from the same tree and is still how we produce most of the world's supply. The most common plastics you're thinking of like milk jugs, PVC piping, and plastic bottles are sythetic polymers and are made from petroleum oil which is extracted from the ground. These types of plastics could never be formed by nature. Even bio-plastics such as PLA which is used for 3D printing and is based from cornstarch requires heavy refining."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.popsci.com/article/science/plastic-made-shrimp-shells"
],
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-pollen-to-polyester/",
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colletes_inaequalis"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rubber"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
bzw48v
|
If you are on the moon, does Earth appear to go through phases?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bzw48v/if_you_are_on_the_moon_does_earth_appear_to_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eqylr76",
"eqzr314",
"er04tri",
"er0bfzn",
"er0mdx1",
"er14kx9",
"er1d3ra",
"er1kmgw"
],
"score": [
3849,
132,
17,
11,
92,
10,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes.\n\nIn fact, it will be the exact opposite of whatever phase the Moon is in as seen from Earth. So if it's a New Moon as seen from Earth, it will be a Full Earth as seen from the Moon; if the Moon is in a waxing crescent phase, Earth will be in a waning gibbous phase.",
"The Earth would stay pretty much stationary in the sky but would rotate, unlike the moon which travels across the sky and doesn't rotate. But the phases would still take the same amount of time as the moon phases.\n\nSomething I'm looking forward to seeing with the first moon bases is images of the Earth during these phases and during eclipses. When the Earth is blocking the sun, it should have a glowing ring around it, and when the Moon is blocking the sun you should be able to see the shadow travel across the surface.",
"The moon always face the earth, so you would always see it (unless you are on the dark side) and also see it rotate daily. The moon phases correspond to moon rotation around earth in around 28 days, which will cyclically change the sunlight you see on the moon (14 days night, 14 days sunlight), the orientation of sunlight you see incoming on Earth, and also slightly the latitudinal angle (meaning you either see more of Earth north hemisphere or south hemisphere). This is also slightly modified by Earth and moon rotation around the Sun in 365 days.",
"As others here have said, yes, it does.\n\nI want to add an additional fun fact: it isn't just the moon that we can view phases of. [Both Venus and Mercury also have phases](_URL_0_), as viewed from the Earth (or the moon.) All it takes is an orbit that moves a body closer to the sun than the Earth.",
"[Here](_URL_2_) is the \"evidence\".\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIt is a video of what the earth looks like from the Apollo 11 site ([Sea of tranquility](_URL_0_)) made using [Stellarium](_URL_1_) software. Unlike the moon seen from earth, the earth never sets there. So over the duration of a day, we can see earth rotate completely and over the duration of a month, the phases.",
"One way to picture it is the earth is a giant dog, spinning around chasing its tail. The moon is a guy cautiously walking around it, never turning his back to it. So to the moon, the earth appears to stay in one spot, spinning around",
"Yes it undergoes phases, as others describe.\n\nHowever, there's another oddity: It's fixed in the sky, always appearing in the same spot, neither rising nor setting.\n\nIf you're on the side of the moon facing the Earth, its location acts as a perfect fixed point for navigation, much like the Pole Star.",
" [_URL_0_](_URL_1_) \n\nThere are some spectacular pictures of crescent earth from NASA. Unfortunately, most seem to be from space rather than the moon, but they might help people picture it. Many include both Earth and the Moon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_phase#Inferior_planets"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Tranquillitatis",
"https://stellarium.org/",
"https://streamable.com/gzlyr"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image\\_feature\\_1400.html",
"https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1400.html"
]
] |
||
38l4gf
|
Why were the soldiers after WW1 seemingly so much more traumatized than the soldiers after WW2?
|
In media etc. there is often the image of the "broken WW1 soldier", having flashbacks, nightmares, not being able to function properly in society anymore. And when you learn about WW1 in school, I am sure it will almost always emphasize how terrible the war was for the soldiers in the trenches.
But at the same time, I can't think of any depictions of the same for WW2 veterans.
Were the two wars so different that it, for lack of a better word, "broke" many of the soldiers in WW1 but not so much during WW2? Or is this a misconception?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38l4gf/why_were_the_soldiers_after_ww1_seemingly_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crvu3ew",
"crwrajd"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd say it's a difference of depiction more than anything else. The fact that more armies and more soldiers fought in WWII than in WWI, the new weapons available, the extent of the destruction caused by the war, and the extent of the atrocities committed in WWII, the trauma of the second world war was probably of a much greater scale than WWI; including civilians, the Second World War far out does the first in terms of the trauma.\n\nOf course trauma is hard to quantify exactly, but it must be said that despite the reputation for horror attached to WWI, nothing in my mind at least can compare to the Second World War in terms of sheer human suffering. ",
"I'd argue that it is a misconception, but that it is depicted like that in the media. The reason for this is that World War 1 was the first war of that scale, the first total war, where everything in a given country was mobilized for war. Also, generally spoken, there were less civilian victims than in World War 2, meaning that the media focus was on the troops. Several countries where baffled and unable to cope with the vast amount of crippled and injured soldiers (physically and mentally).\n\nThe crimes against humanity during World War 2 overshadowed anything directly war-related, and the memorial is very focused on the murdered civilians. Without this, we might have had a deeper media look at suffering soldiers. If you ever watched documentaries with contemporary witnesses you will see a lot of broken people who never processed what happened during the war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
26dn21
|
What mathematical structure represents a spin-3/2 field?
|
If a spin-0 field can be modelled with scalars, a spin-1/2 field with spinors, a spin-1 field with vectors, and a spin-2 field with 2nd-rank tensors ... what mathematical structure corresponds to a spin-3/2 field?
Would it be something like a generalization of a tensor to include an orientation, like how a spinor is similar to a vector but with an orientation that changes under a 360-degree rotation? Or would it be a vector of spinors? A spinor of spinors? Something else? How far would you have to rotate it to return it to its initial state?
Bonus questions: Are there any known special properties that such a structure has which the other 4 structures mentioned above don't? Are there any areas in physics where modelling a spin-3/2 field is particularly useful, as there don't seem to be any elementary spin-3/2 fields in the Standard Model?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/26dn21/what_mathematical_structure_represents_a_spin32/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chq2lyq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You might be interested in the [Rarita-Schwinger equation](_URL_0_). The field is represented by a spinor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rarita%E2%80%93Schwinger_equation"
]
] |
|
1eehbd
|
double exposure
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1eehbd/eli5_double_exposure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9zf540",
"c9zf8cb"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Originally, a double exposure is an accident where a camera does not advance the film to the next frame, and you take a second picture ontop of the first. This often results in a mess, but sometimes it makes an interesting effect.\n\nUsing digital cameras, the term 'double exposure' is somewhat misleading. New cameras actually have a mode that creates double exposures. You take one shot that is very high contrast, and then a second that has a flat texture. The camera mixes them together, and you can end up with a desirable effect. This has been a common photoshop trick for years now, but only recently have digital cameras included the double exposure mode. ",
"Picture a film camera. You wind the camera to put a new section of film behind the lens. Then you open the shutter to expose the film to light, which produces a photograph on the film. If you open the shutter again without winding the camera, you will expose the film again, and get a double exposure. Essentially, you have taken two pictures on the same section of film.\n\nThis can lead to effects [like this](_URL_0_), where the truck was in the first photo, but not in the second photo, so it appears as a kind of ghostly image.\n\nIf you want to do the same thing with digital cameras, you can take two photos and then combine them in software like photoshop. Also, some new cameras [have built-in multiple exposure features](_URL_1_), so you don't need to use photoshop anymore... the camera will combine the images for you, just like a film camera would."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.deweyhammond.com/2011/03/rolleiflex-double-multiple-exposures.html",
"http://petapixel.com/2013/04/17/tutorial-shooting-double-exposures-with-a-canon-5d-mark-iii/"
]
] |
||
dcswc6
|
how do animals that come back from extinction overcome inbreeding problems
|
This got me interested as I was reading about Diego the tortoise who revived the species from extinction. This may be good and well but what happens to the inbreeding which is said to weaken the genetics of the animals and also magnifying the chances of recessive geenes manifesting.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dcswc6/eli5_how_do_animals_that_come_back_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f2b08af",
"f2b1lky",
"f2b21m1",
"f2b3x5l",
"f2b49pa",
"f2b4ct2",
"f2b4s1k",
"f2b5mh6",
"f2b5tdb",
"f2b7tmv",
"f2b932k",
"f2b9j8m",
"f2b9jtq",
"f2ba653",
"f2bbnpe",
"f2bcdfo",
"f2bdd2l",
"f2bdzew",
"f2bh3yj",
"f2bml0p",
"f2bqkb0",
"f2cc4y9",
"f2cmw66",
"f2data5",
"f2dsu4j",
"f2dt0zr",
"f2e04xp"
],
"score": [
8062,
1086,
39,
575,
3,
6,
442,
21,
6,
69,
3,
2,
16,
2,
2,
7,
5,
5,
3,
2,
11,
24,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't. At least not in the short-term. In the short-term they're absolutely will be inbreeding related problems associated with that bottleneck.\n\nIn the long-term if the species does survive, it does so because the problematic genes that have been over-represented in the population are slowly culled out by natural selection.\n\nSince that means that the population is going to be less healthy in the short-term, that poses a big problem that can make it even harder to recover from a very low population than it would be otherwise.",
"Time.\n\nThey need a LOT of time for their genome to recover to amounts pre-extinction. During this period, their weak genome might lead to further population loss, which could end in disaster. \n\nBut given some luck and a LOT of time, they can overcome extinction events",
"Does this mean there are different implications between short life span animals as compared to longer life span (eg tortoises which can reach 250years)",
"As other people have said, they dont. Tasmanian Devils experienced a severe bottleneck a few decades back, so the remaining Devils are so closely related that they often spread cancer to each other when fighting. Contagious cancer. _URL_0_ < = that link is NSFL by the way.",
"Look at the Cheetah, aren't they all insanely genetically similar? They seemed to have overcome it really well.",
"Evolution - genes randomly change over time. They will definitely suffer from inbreeding but over time and generations diversity will increase.\n\nThere is a great example of this, the Big Bird lineage in the galapagos. \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBut there are many cases where genetic bottlenecks occurred and over time and future generations the genetic diversity is increased or problematic mutations just propagate to all the descendents.",
"It is a very common misconception that inbreeding \"weakens genetics\" or is otherwise harmful.\n\nWhen two animals mate, a bunch of genes from the father and a bunch of genes from the mother combine to form one set of genes. When that child mates, a bunch of that set of genes will be combined with a bunch of genes from that child's mate to create one set of genes for the child, and so on. This is why you are not a clone of your parents, but you probably have some similar features to both parents.\n\nIf a mating pair is related (e.g. if they have the same parents), then their genes are going to be similar. This is because both sets of genes were created by combining the same two sets of parent genes. They won't be identical because different parts may be represented by different parents in different sets, but they will be similar. This is why you are not a clone of your siblings, but you probably have some similar features to eachother.\n\nWhen parents have similar genes, it increases the likelihood that recessive genes will be expressed. Recessive genes are not necessarily harmful, but most harmful genetic disorders are recessive. This is why \"blue blood\" diseases were more common among incestuous royalty; the recessive gene was more likely to not get paired up with a dominant gene because both parents had the recessive gene.\n\nThe genes of the children are not in any way \"weaker.\" A gene cannot be \"strong\" or \"weak.\" It's just an instruction for proteins. In this situation, the only consequence is that recessive traits found in Diego, whether they are good/bad/neutral, will be more likely to be expressed in the children of his children. Over many generations and through random mutation, this will not be very noticeable.\n\nAnother factor is genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is beneficial because it helps a population adapt to changing environments. Inbreeding reduces genetic diversity. This factor is more of a \"big picture\" factor, in that it has no effect in the short term. Its effects are shown over hundreds of generations in changing environments.",
"They don't. Cheetahs are an example of this. Only one in ten births is viable. Tonnes of genetic problems. They are slowly failing.",
"_URL_0_\n\nOver time they may regain some variance through random mutation, but in the short term there is a big risk of disease wiping out the remaining population. Cheetahs I believe are still so close they can all serve as organ donors for each other. Bison populations in the US went from billions to dozens at one point and rebuilding herd populations is still an ongoing struggle. Dogs are suffering lots of genetic disorders from lack of diversity from establishing breeds, the problem is getting to the point the kennel clubs are thinking of opening up lineages to breed with other dogs to increase genetic diversity.",
"Unless you have dominant bad genes, you can usually overcome the downsides of inbreeding with quantity.\n\nWhen breeding dogs/horses, etc intentional repeat inbreeding is very common, and you end up with 25% crap, but also 25% great. They kill off the crap, and often even the \"so-so\", and continue on with the great.\n\nSomething like 80% of modern racing horses have common ancestry. \n\nThis doesn't work out for humans, because we have so few children, raising each one to find out if its crap or not takes a long time, and is very expensive, killing them off is morally problematic, and for the groups that regularly practiced sustained inbreeding (royalty), the \"crap\" is either now ruling, or 1st or 2nd in line, and so can't be removed.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Can someone explain how an extinct animal can “come back from extinction”? I’ve always operated under the notion that extinction means literally no more of that species exist. How do they reappear?\n\nIs it better for my brain to think about this in the sense of near extinct and coming back being an increase to their population?",
" > This may be good and well but what happens to the inbreeding which is said to weaken the genetics of the animals and also magnifying the chances of recessive geenes manifesting.\n\nOffspring that present with the more debilitating effects of recessive genes and inbreeding are culled through natural processes. On the other hand, recessive genes may also lead to advantageous adaptations, which could result in a new species eventually. This gene expression may not have otherwise presented itself had the gene pool not been restricted.",
"Humans experienced just such a genetic bottleneck 70k years ago. We seem to be doing ok if a bit violent and shortsighted. \n\n[Toba Catastrophe](_URL_0_)",
"Genetic mutation happens at random, which will diversify the genetic make up over time, lots of time. \nPossibly not enough time to overcome the manifestation of recessive genes that cause health problems.",
"You are describing an after the fact situation. Obviously many animals may never \"come back\" and inbreeding may be a cause. For the animals that do successfully \"come back\" it means either that inbreeding was never a problem or that they had enough diversity for the same result. Inbreeding also will only affect a few generations. Its good for making jokes but not really the monster that people make it out to be.",
"There is this notion out there that inbreeding causes genetic problems. It doesn’t. It can be extremely beneficial and it’s one of the mechanisms for extremely useful adaptations to result in speciation. \n\nInbreeding does nothing except increase the concentration of the founder couple(s)’ genes in succeeding generations. If there are any recessive or potential undesireable genes, then they will be expressed phenotypically more often in populations that arise as a result of inbreeding. \n\nBut maybe the founding population has many more potentially beneficial genes than negative ones. That is often the case in a genetic bottleneck situation. The only members of a species left are the ones that contain genetic mutations that help that species survive. So their children are MUCH more likely to have hose mutations than they would have if there were more breeding pairs contributing to genetic diversity. \n\nSometimes it’s better to have the genes concentrated on the phenotypes that help a species survive as opposed to introducing a lot of variety. It does make the species POTENTIALLY more susceptible to apocalyptic diseases and disorders, but that’s just a potential, not any sort of certainty. It may not even be likely or realistic that they are at risk for such things, depending on their founding genes and the microbial ecology within their environment.",
"They really have a limited chance to, unfortunately. With many species, an animal with limited genetic variability might have a harder time avoiding predation and/or hunting prey. According to the \"Red Queen Hypothesis,\" based off of the Red Queen's pursuit of Alice in Alice's Wonderland (the gist is that while Alice is always coming up with clever ways to evade the Queen, the Queen learns to adapt and become cleverer herself), predators and prey continuously adapt with each generation. A prey animal might evolve a tactic to avoid getting eaten, like the California newt, whose toxicity has increased with every generation to void getting eaten by garter snakes, but, in response, garter snakes have become more tolerant to the newt's toxicity. If you're working with a limited genetic pool, it could become much harder to evolve defenses and improved tactics. Then, on top of this predator/prey interaction, you have an ever-changing environment, which also favors organisms with really diverse gene pools. That said, there's still a chance of genetic drift and mutation happening with small populations!",
"If the starting pair breeders are relatively healthy and they breed excessively and for variety (no monogamy), then they can come back easily to a large population. Farmers have been doing this with herd animals for thousands of years.\n\nThe important factor is allowing selection and resources for population growth, the harmful mutations and recessives need to be pressured out. In the initial dozens of generations, as the population swells, there will be problems, but by then you could have a population of many thousands.\n\nThe resulting population will be distinct, similar to how the ethnic varieties of humans developed.",
"I would also say that deleterious alleles \"rapidly\" evolve away in the case of population bottlenecks under typical conditions.\n\nAs others have stated, the problem with incest is that in a general population, animals on average have a handful of recessive alleles that code for maladaptive traits scattered randomly throughout their DNA. These alleles don't evolve away because they are rarely expressed so there is little selective pressure against them. Animals have two versions of every gene and only the dominant one is expressed. So for one of these maladaptive traits to be expressed the animal would have to have a defective version from both their mother and father. If the mother and father are unrelated, they are unlikely to have the same defective alleles, so their children simply get some mismatched set of defective genes that don't get expressed.\n\nBut when there is a population bottleneck, the chance of these defective traits being expressed goes way up. And this greatly decreases the fitness of these alleles. To state it another way, one of these bad alleles isn't so bad if most other individuals don't have a copy, but as soon as copies are common in the rest of the population, it becomes really bad to have it, so healthy alleles have a strong competitive advantage and can take over in only a handful of generations.\n\nThis only works at all if there are healthy alleles in the population somewhere. Otherwise a mutation must occur to fix a defective gene, and mutations like this are rare.\n\nThis also doesn't fix the lack of genetic diversity in a population after a bottleneck. Only mutations can fix that, and especially for disease resistance, lack of diversity can be a big problem.\n\nBut in one way, this does leave the population's genome healthier. There are will be far fewer maladaptive recessive alleles many generations after a bottleneck. Now since this pure dominant/recessive relationship between genes is not common (recessive alleles do usually express themselves in some small way even in the presence of a dominant gene) , individuals with fewer \"unexpressed\" copies of recessive alleles can often be healthier.",
"Others have mentioned cheetahs and Tasmanian devils here, but you should check out sea otters too. After becoming endangered from the fur trade, the California population had just 50 individuals left. As a result, all sea otters around California are likely descended from this group and they are *fucked up*. \n\nThe males are hyper-aggressive, and have been known to rip off females' faces during mating season, brutally killing them. This doesn't happen in other populations, and we don't totally get why, because other regional groups were bottlenecked as well. But their numbers are still growing--there aren't nearly enough fuckups to kill off the entire population, and they might be taken off the endangered species list sometime in the next 10 years.\n\nSo, even with these abnormalities...populations can still get by.",
"I know this isn't a very helpful answer, but it is impossible for a species to come back from extinction. Extinction is when every member of the species has died. Extirpation is when a species is extinct in only a defined area (or just extinct in the wild), and before a species is extinct it is \"critically endangered\". These designations are made by the IUCN.",
"A lot of people are talking about natural mating here, but in a lot of \"saved species from extinction\" situations, there are actually intensive managed breeding programs. Usually these attempt to maximize diversity in the breeding population by pairing captive animals from different regions or with different traits. Now, with genetic sequencing, some breeding programs are able to actually optimize the breeding program by minimizing the number of similar genes between the two partners.\n\nBut there's a lot of other genetic concepts here that people don't draw distinctions between. For example, the appearance of recessive traits (meaning there was a recessive gene in both patents) and the fixation of traits. Recessive genes always exist in a population, and they aren't necessarily bad. What is bad is when alleles (essentially mutant versions of a gene) with negative effects get *fixed* in a population, which means that they become a very common variant in the population, possibly the only version of the gene that exists. An example of this is certain dog breeds that are prone to certain diseases, like lymphoma or hip problems.\n\nImmune system homogeneity is another issue. The immune system is supposed to be extremely diverse at every scale you can think of (from individual genes to individual cells to individuals to populations). This protects the overall population from disease because the disease will only be super lethal in a certain percentage of the population (the percentage that can't resist it). But if a population's immune genes become more homogeneous, then its resistance to disease is much lower. This is a huge issue in plants, especially crops, because many of them are literal clones, so a disease that is lethal to one of them is lethal to all of them. So not only does a loss of genetic diversity make them more resistant to disease, it also ensures that there will be further mass die-offs, which make the population even more homogeneous.",
"How do animals come back from extinction?",
"Inbreeding eventually leads to good genes. For example let's say the first couple of generations dont have issues. Then subsequent generations experience high amounts of deformities. Well at that point the only ones that survive are the ones without messed up genes. So you have a high amount of dying and a small amount of organisms, except these dont have the bad genes anymore. Subsequent generations become more fit, and then you did it.",
"Inbreeding can definitely become a problem, especially if your gen 0 has some lethal recessive alleles. Other than that, it's not like it would be totally hopeless. Start with a \"clean\" gen 0 and you can inbreed pretty aggressively for awhile, it's how most founding mice strains were made anyway.\n\nI feel like inbreeding is dramatized a bit in pop culture/society understanding. It's not a doomsday bringing event. For instance, there is roughly a 3% chance that if you (a normal human) have a kid with an unrelated partner that kid will have at least one genetic disorder. But what about if you mate with your 1st cousin? 50%? 25%? Its actually 6%. A significant doubly of chance for sure, but not exactly the double digit number most people guess",
"Being that none of these seem like 5-year_old explanations, lemme use a common saying I've heard. For 50 animals left, there will be some inbreeding and short-term problems, and for 500, there will be less inbreeding but still some genetic problems. 50 is the least amount suggested for no to very little inbreeding.",
"With Old Blue - the foundation female of all current NZ black Robins - it was the 5 extant males that provided a bit of genetic variation. \n\nI saw my first black robin this year. Sooooo cool."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcM23M-CCog",
"https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/27/study-darwins-finches-reveals-new-species-can-develop-little-two-generations"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect"
],
[
"https://thehorse.com/160220/inbreeding-in-thoroughbreds-positives-and-negatives/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
12bet2
|
why is unrefined sugar more expensive than white
sugar? by the same token, why do whole grain
products like whole grain bread and brown rice
tend to be more expensive than their white, refined
counterparts? surely, refining should add extra
cost?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12bet2/why_is_unrefined_sugar_more_expensive_than_white/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6to6dl",
"c6to9qh",
"c6tox6k",
"c6tqex7",
"c6trus5",
"c6ttb96",
"c6ttd17",
"c6ttdu0",
"c6tv5t8"
],
"score": [
145,
56,
108,
26,
40,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In a third world country unrefined food is cheaper than refined food. But in the western world they realized they can charge more by calling it \"healthy\". ",
"For most products, the price you pay at the store has a lot more to do with what people are **willing** to pay than what the product costs to make. If a company can make more money by charging more, because people are willing to pay that much, they will. If raising the price too much costs them sales and profits, then the price will go back down.",
"The term processed gets thrown around a lot, and can mean different things. It's not always about adding chemicals. Now, more processing would normally mean work and therefore more cost, but not always. \n\nFirst, it's not always more expensive. King Arthur whole wheat at Walmart is the same price as Unbleached. \n\n- [Whole Wheat Flour](_URL_1_)\n- [Unbleached Flour](_URL_0_)\n\nWhen there is a difference, there are a lot of factors. There's no single one answer. \n\nIn the case of sugar, its due to the ingredients used. Pure cane sugar is more expensive than \"normal\" sugar. Why, \"normal\" sugar has sugar derived from beats which is more available in the US than cane which grows better in the tropics. \"RAW\" sugar, while less processed is still processed to some degree. It's centrifuged (I don't know the full technique) but something does happen to it. It's also often organic and comes mainly from HI (for those in America), both of which drive the price up. \n\nAnother reason is that sometimes refined foods are cheaper for some reason. White rice has a longer storage life than brown rice for example. Also, canned fruit lasts longer than fresh, and is cheaper than frozen. \n\nFor other products, a lot of it is that many natural products aren't just less processed, but also premium grade. You don't just pay more at whole foods because it's healthy, you also pay more because they are a higher grade product. The same effect happens in other stores. You can get store brand refined product, but if you want the natural stuff, you might have to buy name brand, driving up the cost. \n\nFinally, it can be good old supply and demand. There's a lot of supply of the processed stuff, and less supply of the non processed stuff. This could change over time as our tastes as a culture change. ",
"I suspect that shelf life has a lot to do with it. Whole grains have oils that can go rancid, fresh fruit doesn't last nearly as long as canned, etc. So the processing, while it adds costs, allows the item to be on the shelf a whole lot longer and reduces waste, lowering the cost per item that can be sold.",
"Supply and Demand.\nEconomy of Scale.\n\nSupply and demand is simple. More people want white sugar than unrefined. Lets pretend that unrefined sugar earns one dollar profit. \nWhite sugar only earns 75 cents, because of processing. Pretend the price is the same to buy.\n\n100 people buy unrefined. That earns 100 dollars.\nTen thousand people buy white. That's 7500 dollars\n\nEconomy of scale comes next. \nEverything in manufacturing has 2 main costs. \"Fixed\" and \"Marginal.\" \nFixed costs are what you pay up front to start making something. Lets say it's a donut machine. That costs ten thousand dollars. This is a fixed cost because it never changes. After making a million donuts, the machine only really costs 1 cent per donut, and as you keep making them, the share of cost goes down, making each donut cheaper to make.\n\nMarginal costs are what you have to pay every time you make something. This is usually materials (like plastic), but in our case, it's ingredients. They cost... 20 cents per donut.\n\nNow, it doesn't matter how many donuts you make, they all cost you 20 cents. Fair enough.\n\nNow, you want to make Waffles. A waffle machine will cost... ten thousand dollars. But only 1% as many people want waffles!\n\nSo you only make 10 thousand waffles. Each one costs you $1.20 to make. Those popular donuts? Cost 21 cents.\n\nEven if the donuts need more processing... so many are made that even after the processing, they still come out cheaper.\n\n",
"In a similar vein, I've always wondered why buying a grilled flake at the fish and chip shop would cost more than a battered one. Surely adding batter takes more effort?",
"By the same token, why is diesel more expensive than petrol? It is also less refined.",
"Little business lesson for you. Price isn't determined by cost. Price only has to be higher than cost. The price is higher because there are people who value unrefined products more than refined products, therefore they will pay more for them.",
"It isn't always cheaper to give your customer less. \n\nImagine you have a hamburger stand. You have a well tuned assembly line of employees, each specialized in they task who can turn a patty into a burger in seconds.\n\nSo when someone says hold the pickle, it disrupts the whole process. Now you have to add overhead to track the special burger through the system and get it to the right person, more overhead than a few pickles cost. You could make a second assembly line for pickle free burgers, but there is not enough demand to justify it.\n\nThe same is true for sugar. It might be cheaper to make unrefined sugar, but it is more expensive to set up a supply chain that does *both*, especially when there is a much smaller demand for one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.walmart.com/ip/King-Arthur-Unbleached-All-Purpose-Flour-5-lb-Pack-of-8/17340169",
"http://www.walmart.com/ip/King-Arthur-Flour-Whole-Wheat-Flour-5-lb-Pack-of-8/17340168"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ve4o0
|
what is that bubbling creaking sound that my eyeballs make when i'm tired and i rub them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ve4o0/eli5_what_is_that_bubbling_creaking_sound_that_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxmqkby",
"cxms8yn",
"cxn1yov"
],
"score": [
5,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"I have never experienced this? Tagging for later...",
"Wen you rub your eyes from left to right and vice versa, especially over the joint of the two lids, you are causing air to get into and under your eye lids. This forms bubbles and makes squishy noises.\n\nThis seems to happen more if you are short sighted, because that means that your eyeball is not exactly spherical and makes it easier for bubbles to get trapped in.\n\nHappens to me too. I am short sighted as well. If i press the edges of the eye lids they seem to flow to the centre.",
"ha apparently not everyone's eyes do this, and it really weirds those out who don't have this sound."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
dwqfbs
|
How does the quantum tunneling effect limit development of micro processors and how do we overcome that?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dwqfbs/how_does_the_quantum_tunneling_effect_limit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7kzqpc",
"f7m2v5g"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"When transistors get to a certain size, they can’t always hold electrons back, which can cause false signals and errors in computations. As far as I know, we can’t directly overcome tunneling, we can only work around it.",
"As technology miniaturized within transistors, the materials became so thin that the energy of electrons flowing through them was enough to cause the electrons to tunnel through to the substrate to other transistors or be lost to the substrate of the processor.\n\nAs a professor of mine described it, back in 2007, there was talk of returning to using copper as a means of resolving the issue of voltage loss due to tunneling, but the technology didn't exist at the time to manufacture copper-based transistors at that scale, to the exacting specifications needed. Too many defects. The hope was that nanomaterial construction might resolve this issue and allow copper transistors to take the lead in continuing miniaturization, but multi-core processing instead became the new standard and effectively sidestep the issue for a period of time.\n\nMoving forward, there are a few different options:\n\n1. Metal Oxide barriers between transistors to prevent tunneling\n2. 3D processor layouts (either as stacked layers or as \"folded\" circuits in 3 dimensions)\n3. Graphene-based transistors that take advantage of the ease with which carbon atoms can be arranged on the nanometer scale.\n4. Out in left field, there's always the various moon-shot ideas various computer companies have had to reinvent computing, like HP's \"Machine\" which was advertised as utilizing volatile memory for processing rather than a central core."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
25tb7k
|
Do the rate of calorie intake and weight gain have any relationship?
|
If my basal metabolic needs are 2k kilocalories per day, 14k per week, and I, like most other people in the developed world, eat more than I need, say an extra 4k a week, does it matter if I eat those extra Calories all at once or if I ration them out in small portions throughout the week with respect to weight/fat gain?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/25tb7k/do_the_rate_of_calorie_intake_and_weight_gain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chkzyh2",
"chl2mco"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"eating an extra 4k in a day would drastically alter hormones via increasing insulin and a variety of other hormones (thyroid hormone for example). these drastic hormone deviations shouldn't be seen if you only eat a couple hundred extra kcal per day.\n\ni'm not quite sure, but I believe the drastic changes in hormone levels would promote lipogenesis to a greater extent. i haven't seen any studies on this.",
"So if you're eating an excess of 4000 cals a week, regardless of if you eat it in one sitting or in divided meals, you will roughly be gaining a pound a week. This is if the excess of 4000 cals is not used in the week (ex-from exercise) . 1 pound of fat roughly equals to 4082 calories.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
57wqua
|
When listening to music with earbuds/headphones, how are the producers/artists able to make the music only play on one side?
|
On my ride into work, I noticed that in my song there was one point where the artists voice only came through one earbud, then switched to the other side. How is it possible for the producers to create this effect?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/57wqua/when_listening_to_music_with_earbudsheadphones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8vl82e",
"d8vu833"
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text": [
"This is called stereophonic sound, or simply stereo. It works by storing the music in 2 separate channels, one intended to be played by the speaker (or earbud) on the left side and one for the right side.\n\nOn the recording side, this effect is created by using specific microphone setups, for example two microphones placed some distance apart. Or as an added effect in post production. In this case, the voice moving from side to the other will be an effect that was added after recording where the voice is initially only present in one channel, but is gradually added to the second channel at the same time as it is being muted in the first. This has the effect of the voice moving from one speaker to the other.\n\nThe stereo concept can be extended to more channels and speakers. Surround-sound can contain many channels, each associated with a specific spatial orientation (front-left, back-left, center, front-right, back-right for a standard 5 channel setup) as well as a channel with the low frequencies specifically meant to be player on a subwoofer.",
"/u/Rannasha gave a great explanation. I'd just like to add a tidbit about the earbuds/headphones. Most of these use that 3.5mm analog mini-audio connector. If you look closely, you can see three different sections on the male connector. It looks tiered, and sometimes there is even a colored band separating them. For audio output, one of those is a left channel, one a right channel, and the other is typically a ground. Your earbuds will have two separate wires from that connector and the media file will be encoded to use those two channels."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
b1aeai
|
Wikipedia says that when Constantinople fell and the Hagia Sophia was converted to a mosque, the mosiacs depicting Jesus were either covered or destroyed. Since Muslims believe in Jesus, why were these mosaics covered or destroyed?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b1aeai/wikipedia_says_that_when_constantinople_fell_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiktn0a",
"eilsdbt"
],
"score": [
28,
61
],
"text": [
"While waiting for an answer to your specific question to come in, here are a couple of posts with in-depth answers which discuss very similar topics:\n\n[Post regarding portraits of Ottoman Sultans](_URL_1_) (credit /u/Polgara19)\n\n[Post regarding depictions of the prophet Muhammed](_URL_0_) (credit /u/Labrydian)",
"Well the thing is, that during the first centuries of Hagia Sophia's history as a Mosque the mosaics were infact uncovered and were still prominently on display. When Cornelius Loos made his engravings of Constantinople around 1710, he documented the mosaics [pretty clearly](_URL_0_) (this example is particularily striking as it shows the Virgin Mary, still prominent over the Islamic Mihrab). Some of his engravings even show mosaics that have now been [completely lost](_URL_1_). \n\nShortly after Loos made these engravings, the mosaics of the mosque were covered up and [replaced with white plaster](_URL_2_). We don't know for sure when this happened as there is no official proclaimation, but the interior of the Hagia Sophia was renovated in 1717, so it is quite possible that this is when the mosaics were covered up, just 17 years after Loos made his drawings. \n\nSo what took the Ottomans so long, and why did they make the decision to cover these mosaics up by almost 400 years after they took the city? There were several renovations to the Hagia Sophia after the conquest, so why did they not cover them up?\n\nThe preservation of the mosaics seem to have been an intentional choice. For example, the windows, altar, bell tower and Patriarchate of the Hagia Sophia were all destroyed or replaced. The Ottoman Sultans could have easily also destroyed the mosaics or covered them up, but they didn't for whatever reason. Here are a few theories I have heard for why the mosaics may have been preserved and later covered up:\n\nIt may be that these mosaics were preserved to serve as trophies of the conquest. The Hagia Sophia was itself preserved partially for this reason. The presence of the mosaics next to the Islamic calligraphy and Mihrab would remind the visitor of what used to be, and clearly signal the appropriation and reconversion of this former church.\n\nAnother theory might be that the Ottomans, despite being Muslim, wanted to emphasize some degree of continuity, or respect with the past. That these mosaics were to be admired for their beauty rather than for their religious significance, and give the Ottoman Sultans legitimacy as protectors and successors of the Roman imperial past. Mehmed II did proclaim himself Caesar of Rome after all, and specifically decided to have the Hagia Sophia converted from Imperial Church to Imperial Mosque to bolster this claim. \n\nBut if any of these were the case, why were these mosaics later covered up? Well for one, the Ottoman Empire in 1717 was in a very different place compared to earlier centuries. Ottoman Sultans no longer really took their claims as Caesar of Rome seriously (After Suleiman the title seems to have faded into obscurity). The Ottomans were also slowly being encroached by the Habsburg and Russian Empire to its north and west. The Empire would manage to survive this encroachment, but the sudden losses to Christian states may have provoked a defensive attitude among some Ottomans, which may have made these Christian mosaics in the Imperial Mosque somewhat uncomfortable. Several other former churches in Constantinople, like the Zeyrek Mosque and the Little Hagia Sophia also had their mosaics covered in plaster during the 18th Century aswell. Which implies that it may have been a larger ideological change that caused this.\n\nIt is also important to point out that by the 18th Century these mosaics were in very poor condition and were probably falling apart. Some of the broken tesserae from the mosaics were even stolen by local salesmen, who would sell them as \"gemstones\". So the mosaics may simply have been covered up because they were falling apart, which accidentally saved many of them and allowed them to be uncovered much later. \n\nIt is tempting to want to look for theological reasons for why the mosaics were covered up. But it becomes difficult to reconcile such arguments with the nearly 400-year long preservation of the mosaics in the mosque. \n\nI hope this answered your question in a satisfactory manner. If you want me to elaborate more, just ask."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2skmn9/what_is_the_history_or_exceptions_to_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5493et/considering_that_it_is_frowned_upon_to_display/"
],
[
"https://www.pallasweb.com/p/1-2018-loos-eastern-nave.jpg",
"https://www.pallasweb.com/p/1-2018-loos-5.jpg",
"https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFzUdgHWAAADgXw.jpg:large"
]
] |
||
fyq6o
|
Why do certain materials in my dishwasher retain water so much longer than others?
|
I am thinking specifically of plastic tupperware. Everytime I run the dishwasher, they somehow hold on to water droplets exponentially longer than it takes any other material to dry. My guess is that is has something to do with thermal conductivity, but I really have no idea. Maybe it has to do with polar interactions? Tell me!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fyq6o/why_do_certain_materials_in_my_dishwasher_retain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1jnke9"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Heat capacity. \n\nCeramic/Metallic objects can store a lot more heat during the long wash/rinse cycles than plastic objects can. During the drying cycle, that helps evaporate any water that remains on them, while the plastic objects cool off before the water evaporates."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2bpu0j
|
why shouldn't you clean your earwax?
|
Is cleaning your earwax really that bad for your ear health? Also does it matter if I have really dry earwax and I get rid of them with an earpick?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bpu0j/eli5_why_shouldnt_you_clean_your_earwax/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj7pbe4",
"cj7qd24",
"cj7s9jn",
"cj7te4g",
"cj80a3q"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cleaning earwax is fine, cleaning too much is when their is an issue. As earwax protects your ears from excess sound, so too little earwax can result in damaged eardrums. \nI normally just wrap a tissue round my little finger and clean my ear, this means that only some wax is cleaned as the finger is too big to go fully into the ear.",
"The issue arises with the usage of Q-tips. The Q-tip gets into the inner part of your ear canal, where the skin is connected to the underlying bone (opposed to the outer part of your ear canal where there's more connective tissue in between). Irritation in that area can cause an ear canal inflammation, which hurts alot",
"The good news is that since you have dry earwax you are unlikely to produce bad body odor.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Just think of your ears as a more sensitive nose. Your snot carries out bacteria, dust and the like and so does earwax but if you try to hard to blow your nose (or pick it) then it starts getting irritated as will your ears.\nGenerally you shouldn't be forcing something actually inside your ear to clean it. Basically the parts your fingers can touch if you scratch it are safe to clean, don't try to dig in.",
"I jammed some wax down into my ear with a q-tip one time. Plugged up my hearing until the guy at the clinic used a turkey baster to pump water in there and man out came a lot of gunk. Felt great."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earwax#Physiology"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4yq5xv
|
why is there little to no border security between european nations.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yq5xv/eli5_why_is_there_little_to_no_border_security/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6po6g1"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There's an agreement between many European countries called the Schengen Agreement. This means they have all agreed to abolish border controls between their countries, and cooperate on maintaining border controls with countries outside of the Schengen Area. So for the purposes of border controls, it's as if they were a single country, including when it comes to issuing visas.\n\nThis is not strictly part of the EU, but it's closely related. Not all EU countries are in Schengen and there's some non-EU countries in it. For example UK, Ireland and Cyprus are currently in the EU, but not in Schengen. While Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are in Schengen but not the EU.\n\nIt is closely tied to the EU because in general EU members are expected to join Schengen eventually. Although some members have an opt out (including the UK, but it's leaving the EU anyway so it's moot)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
501ve3
|
How did ancient/medieval wars lasting for dozens, hundred+ years work?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/501ve3/how_did_ancientmedieval_wars_lasting_for_dozens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d71y288",
"d721ury"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The Peloponnesian War lasted over two dozen years (431–404 BC). Think of it as being something akin to the Cold War (the modern one between USA and Russia) where it is mostly political maneuvering and proxy wars. However unlike the Cold War, direct and intense fighting between the two biggest warring states (Sparta and Athens) did also break out with multiple cities being captured or destroyed. But there would also be times of relative peace after armistices or peace treaties were signed. However, the peace treaties were not enough to stop the conflict from continuing, if they were ever intended to. For instance, the Peace of Nicias, at the time called the \"Fifty-Year Peace\" was intended to last 50 years. It lasted about 5 years. The Athenians' main goal of the treaty was to have Amphipolis returned to their control, but that was negotiated out of the treaty. So it was pretty much determined that the fighting would definitely resume and the Fifty-Year peace was just an indefinite armistice. \n\nYou might ask, five years is a long time, shouldn't that be called a different war, then? Yes and no. The two phases of the war between the Peace of Nicias are called the Archidamian War and the Ionian War. However because it is essentially the same conflict with mostly the same parties involved, fighting for the same reasons, it is all considered one war even though there were long periods of relative peace. When it comes to two major expansionist powers that are close to each other, it is often just a matter of perspective as to when one war has ended and another has begun. Some historians would say that WW1 and WW2 were really just one long war and it is possible that future historians will give them just one name which everyone will commonly refer to them by. This is called periodization: picking a start and end point for a given series of events in order to facilitate study and discussion. You can't really study The Ionian War without also studying the Archidamian War. Thus we have the Peloponessian War.\n\n So you have something like The Hundred Years' War, which you probably had in mind when you asked this question, which could also be considered three separate wars: The Edwardian Era War (1337-1360), the Caroline War (1369–1389), and the Lancastrian War (1415–1453). So The Hundred Years' War is \"war that lasted 116 years\" but during that time there was 35 years of truce.",
"Generally, such \"wars\" are a sequence of conflicts spread out over a long period where each individual conflict does not resolve the overall state of hostility between the opponents. They would specifically not be one long ongoing \"war\" with battle occurring constantly for a series of years.\n\nSome modern examples might include the WWI + WWII series of wars, or the Cold War. One could easily consider the two World Wars as part of a larger conflict, and if they had happened farther back in the past it's likely there would be more historians arguing they be treated that way. As for the Cold War, there were several \"hot\" wars during it (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, lots of smaller wars without direct involvement of a major power, etc.) over a period of nearly half a century.\n\nGoing back farther, there are many similar examples. In the Napoleonic wars you have multiple different campaigns over the course of a decade. But each one was in itself not that long and the overall conflict can be broken up into about 6 or 7 different individual wars, combined with the overall conflict between France and Britain (which normally didn't involve full-scale armed conflict between the two powers). You have the hundred years war, which saw individual conflicts intermixed with periods of stalemate or hostile but mostly passive co-existence and periods of peace.\n\nA good modern example would be the Arab/Israeli conflict, which has persisted for over 60 years. At no point in the ongoing conflict was one side or the other defeated to the point of losing their sovereignty. Every war has resolved in a way that has left the belligerents in a condition to continue the conflict in the future and retain their hostilities toward one another. That's what an extended war typically looks like. A series of battles or even a series of wars over a long period of time, where none of the individual battles resolves the underlying conflict or results in a change of the conditions which allow the conflict to continue."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4avf9x
|
Did the Communist party have any chance of success in the post WW1 world?
|
Watching Peaky Blinders (not sure how good their accuracy is) and couldn't help but notice the cops and government seem to be really worried about the Communists in their country. And I remember somewhere learning about in America people, mostly the elite, were very worried about the Communists and Unions in post ww1 society. Did they ever have a chance of making a headway or progress in those capitalist countries during that time?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4avf9x/did_the_communist_party_have_any_chance_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d142p1w",
"d14caef",
"d14ubpg"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In hindsight, they probably did not have much of a chance of success. Electoral Communism had its high-water mark on the Continent as minor coalition partners to much-farther-right, distinctly-anti-Soviet labor and social democratic parties in proportional representation nations. (It never had more than one or two MPs in first-past-the-post Britain.) Revolutionary Communism was DOA almost everywhere it wasn't imposed by Soviet occupiers. The closest Communism got to power in the West was Republican Spain, and that through a lot of clever backstabbing in the chaos of the Civil War, with the end result not of victory but of enabling Franco to mop up rather more easily than he might have against a unified center-left coalition. \n\nThe rather more interesting question is, with the evidence then available, were those fears reasonable. I think that here you would say, \"somewhat so, at least.\"\n\nData points supporting this:\n\nThe Soviet revolution was truly shocking, a new thing on the face of the Earth. If the French Revolution and the Terror had been a passing fit, this was the chronic disease. It was not unreasonable to believe the Soviets would export revolution or that a sufficiently motivated Communist movement, supported by the Soviets, might powerfully try to execute something similar given a sufficient background of disorder. (Indeed, the Spanish Civil War proved those fears entirely right, even if the effort still fell short).\n\nWorld War One had created death and dismemberment, industrialization, economic mobilization and privation, and social tumult quite unlike anything Britain, France and Germany had experienced. It was not at all unreasonable to expect worker militancy and political mobilization. And, indeed, that happened. Unionization exploded, political parties favoring or favored by unions grew dramatically, etc. Electoral and revolutionary Communism were not able to catch the benefit, but the property-owning establishment couldn't have known that more centrist parties and labor organizations would be the beneficiaries. (In the UK, Labour surpassed the Liberals first in 1922, and were in government, albeit short-lived, in 1923.) That the post-war environment would be generally fruitful for unions and their political parties was re-demonstrated in 1945 by Clement Attlee's Labour victories coming despite Churchill's personal popularity.",
"I cannot speak for the entire world, but in Germany Post-War Communism did not have any chance of actual success. \n\nThe November Revolution, from the outside, may sound like (as it was meant to) a Bolshevist styled uprising like in October in Russia, but the extreme-Left of the social-democratic party was a minority, uncertain of how to go about a revolution, but definitely wanting to avoid violence. \n\nTo avoid a lot of perhaps unecessary detail it can be framed this way:\nIf the extreme-Left of the Social-Democratic party (which subsequently formed the German Communist Party KPD) was not only already a minority, but also ideologically split themselves, *and* if violence was to be avoided *and* the entire nation was shook to its core from the worst war in human history *and* a moderate party representing a good portion of the German civilian population and the officers of the army has most of the power, the KPD never really stood a real chance.\n\nMost Western Governments at this point were already aggressive towards Bolshevism, meaning domestic leftist movements were stigmatized through association. Thus, with few exceptions, Communist Parties never really had much of a chance post WWI. \n\nIf you are curious I could be more specific, but I hope this helps!",
"Certainly the belief in the possibility that communists could come to power -- if not via the ballot box then via the bayonet -- was widespread.\nFirst a bit of background information (jump to the last two paragraphs for a tl;dr). Since around the turn of the century, it was clear that a split had emerged among social democrats regarding the means to best ameliorate the lives of the proletariat. \"Social democracy\" itself was a nebulous concept: for example, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks existed together, if uneasily, in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party for a decade and a half, although using contemporary terms we would call the former \"communist\" and the latter \"social democrats\". In other words, Communists (Marxist-Leninists) advocated for the need for sudden revolutionary action, while Social Democrats (Marxists) had acquiesced to political reform via gradual, parliamentary change. (Although, based on responses to Eduard Bernstein during the Revisionism crisis beginning in 1896, social democrats were not willing to admit this themselves -- the German SPD did not formally abandon class struggle versus capitalism until the Godesberg Program of 1959).\n\nA quick look at the progression of the Three Internationals showing the winnowing of socialist ideas shows how we got to the post-WWI environment:\nThe First International (1864-76) contained a broad spectrum of leftist schools of thought, including anarchism and trade-unionism, and is best known for the struggle between Bakunin and Marx for intellectual leadership of the movement.\nThe Second International (1889-1916) was marked the ascendancy of German Social Democracy in international socialism, in part due to its vibrant presence while outlawed (1878-1890) and impressive showing Reichstag elections. Though ultimately torn asunder by the inability of social patriots and anti-socialists to reconcile with one another over World War I, this period marked the high water point for \"classic\" international social democratic thought. \nThe Third International (1919-1943), by contrast, featured explicitly communist parties as participants. Revolutionary violence was considered acceptable in the fight for human emancipation and world communism. \n\nThus in addition to the Russian Civil War and German examples already provided, one could look to the Finnish Civil War of 1918, the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 and attempted coups in Georgia (May, 1920), Bulgaria (September, 1923) and Estonia (December, 1924). Except for the victory of the Bolsheviks, none of these Reds ultimately prevailed. The next time, however, they might. It was in this sense that the specter of communism haunted the minds of many in the immediate post-War years and led to widespread red-baiting throughout the interwar period.\n\nIt is sometimes difficult to appreciate (then and now) in Western Europe and North America how notoriously unstable parliamentary democracy was in the newly independent states of Central and Eastern Europe. Their fortuitous emergence from the ashes of the continent's empires meant that they were unprepared for the challenge of democratic governance, not to mention foreign policy questions regarding border and extra-territorial co-nationals, and thus most vulnerable to radical political change -- and not just communist. In fact, if the years through 1925 were marked by communist coups, then the years 1926-1939 (beginning with Poland's May Coup) were marked by authoritarian counterreactions, often \"justified\" by the putative threat of further communist unrest. (The First Czechoslovak Republic and Finland are notable exceptions to this regional trend.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1k07zn
|
Would deep-sea pressure have any effect on explosions?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1k07zn/would_deepsea_pressure_have_any_effect_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbk0t5c",
"cbk1meh",
"cbk347p"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
5
],
"text": [
"What kind of explosions are you thinking of? What is the situation you are thinking of?",
"Yes:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nDuring such an explosion, the hot gas bubble quickly collapses because:\nThe water pressure is enormous deeper than 2,000 feet.\n\nThe expansion reduces gas pressure, which decreases temperature.\nRayleigh–Taylor instability at the gas/water boundary causes \"fingers\" of water to extend into the bubble, increasing the boundary surface area.\n\nWater is incompressible.\n\nVast amounts of energy are absorbed by phase change (water becomes steam at the boundary).\n\nExpansion quickly becomes unsustainable because the amount of water pushed outward increases with the cube of the blast-bubble radius.",
"xkcd answered this in their \"what if\" section \n_URL_0_\n\nit also includes various references too. Quite handy site"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_explosion"
],
[
"http://what-if.xkcd.com/15/"
]
] |
||
1qmj5p
|
why soldiers are such a big deal in the us, while for europe for example it isn't such a big deal.
|
To clarify & no disrespect intended- We see daily posts about American soldiers doing xxx, honoring xxx etc etc. Why is it such a huge deal over there and not here in Europe of example. Is there any back story to it?
Edit: erg, terrible title.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qmj5p/eli5_why_soldiers_are_such_a_big_deal_in_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdea3bm",
"cdeaczw",
"cdeczb8"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"I don't know the answer and am braced for the downvotes but Americans seen to get very overenthused about a lot of things. \n\nHalloween, Christmas, thanksgiving, soldiers. The world series of sports that only America plays etc. ",
"Some European countries require all young men to participate in military service for a couple of years after high school. Since everyone does it, being part of the military isn't anything special. In America, joining the armed forces is a voluntary decision, and it comes with a lot more risks than being a European soldier. ",
"Yes, it is part of the US culture. I think what you are refering to is the notion of [soldier worship](_URL_3_) which is really growing cultural phenomenon. \n\nI think *thirtyeightspecial* put it the best in this [post on solider worship](_URL_0_)... \n\n\"The article is about the Royal Marines, but I'm an American, and as such I've only experienced this with the US military, so that's what I'll talk about. I'm not sure how to say these things delicately, so please bare with me. Soldier worship is a recruiting tool, first and foremost. The benefit there is obvious; you get impressionable young people to sign up to do something that, objectively, is a horrible idea most of the time. However, it's also a social tool. By social tool I mean that its powerful propaganda that instills certain ideas about war in the general citizenry. Roughly, it goes something like this: soldiers are honorable heros = what soldiers do is honorable = the military is honorable = war is honorable = otherwise unforgivable government action is unquestionable. That's obviously a really simplistic way of saying it, but that's the end result. It creates war apologists. Most discussions about the ills of war will be shouted down as if you're slandering a religion. **Anti-war and anti-imperialism were strong sentiments after Vietnam. The government obviously had a problem with that, but with the burgeoning information age, it was difficult to convince people that war was some how ok. Instead, they pick the smallest instrument of war, the soldier, build a hero myth and kick the propaganda into high gear.** The result is that they can still make unforgivable wars and people will largely support it at first, the ranks are staffed and in the end there are very few protests. You can even see people mentally grappling with this saying \"I support the troops, but not the war. An interesting side effect of this is that some young men join the military believing the myth and eventually realize they're actually doing something horrible. It causes massive depression when it's far too late. And so you see soldier suicide rates skyrocket. In the end you just have to look at the VA to see that the government doesn't believe their own myth.\"\n\nPerhaps a more direct POV: \"\"Support the troops\" is an evil, pernicious lie. \"Support the troops\" has a function, and it is not to help soldiers, it is to help those who would use soldiers as disposable means to dubious ends. \"Support the troops\" means: wave the flag no matter what, which means, don't question their mission, which means, don't question us. Let's support the troops by making sure the VA runs as well as it possibly can, and soldiers get the help they need. Let's support the troops by helping them get back to civilian life. Let's support the troops by making sure when they go to a conflict zone, they don't go in canvas-walled Humvees. Let's support the troops by not sending them into idiotic, wasteful conflicts, by making sure politicians are held accountable for how military force is applied. Let's support the troops by reigning in the out-of-control money machine the DoD has become. Let's not \"support the troops\" by waving flags and hero-worshipping. Let's not cheer for people going off to get killed, maimed, and wounded, and to kill, maim, wound, and destroy the homes, property, and livelihood of people in other countries. Let's not support death and destruction. Let's not support propaganda and jingoism. Let's not trivialize horror. If we must engage in violence, let's do it solemnly, with clear reasons and strategies, and let's seek to strictly control the damage we cause. Let's support the actions that benefit our troops, that benefit us, and that benefit humanity as a whole. As Americans, the people in control of by far the world's most powerful military force, and a military force that acts with varying degrees of impunity around the globe, this is our obligation, and we've been neglectful. ... or, to be glib: Support the troops? The troops have automatic weapons and a license to kill. Whatta they want from me, a hot stone massage?\" - ChristopherKirk\n\n**Others in the thread made very enlightening confessions about what its like to be a soldier in the US.** \n\n\"I hadn't even done anything yet and people where patting me on my back and offering to buy me things. Most civilians don't realize that a vast majority of our military never deploy and if they do they are fobbits. These are the ones basking in the glory of the soldier worship. After my first deployment this kind of adulation made me sick to the stomach and gave me panic attacks. After about the third one I would purposely avoid to topic of being a Marine to anyone outside my battle buddies. I was never ashamed of being a Marine just terrified of some of the things I did and worried some of these people may know.\" - Chodestew\n\n\"I was in the military (Navy) and I get asked if I seen any action or had to shot anyone and I say with pride no I never did. I think the best way to support our troops is to do everything we can to stay out of a war in the first place. We as a society should fight as hard to keep them out of harms way as they fight once we call them to go into harms way.\" - mawkishdave\n\n\"As an Iraq vet, I feel the same way. I appreciate why people want to say thanks but it means nothing to me to hear it. I'd rather them say \"I'm sorry that we set you all over there in the first place\".\nI'm not so mad at the general public, but rather my parents who didn't raise me to be a little more skeptical about what our politicians say and the bullshit belief that the US can do no wrong. I would have never joined in the first place knowing what I know now.\" - waveofreason\n\n**More reflections** \n\n\"Regarding the profession/admonishment \"Support the Troops\", there really only is one correct response, and it's all of one word: \"How?\" When someone says, \"I support the troops\" or \"I support the troops, but not the war,\" the response from anyone within earshot ought to be: \"How? How do you support the troops? Do you volunteer to feed homeless veterans? Do you give your time to organizations that aid veterans or military families? Do you make some other kind of commitment or donation of your time or skills? What, beyond the depersonalized purchasing products which contribute 'a portion of the profits' to a veterans organization, or the bare minimum of paying every dime you actually owe in taxes so the VA can afford to give veterans the care they've earned and deserve, do you actually do to support the troops?\" The way this phrase is most often deployed, \"Support the Troops\" is a slactivist, conscience-assuaging statement that only supports the image of the person uttering it. People who use it, regardless of their view on war or their political ideology, ought to be questioned about the depth of their commitment to actually supporting troops. Calling people out for it doesn't make you an asshole (or, if you're a veteran, ungrateful), it makes the person claiming they support the troops an asshole if they can't give a concrete example of how they've personally involved themselves in the support veterans or military families.\" - bargemaster\n\n[More one this - \"war is a racket\"](_URL_2_)\n\n[More on soldier worship](_URL_1_)\n\nI present this as food for thought, and in no way do I want to put my own opinion into this. But yes, there is a clear and unmistakable difference between the way war, soldiers and other military acts are conceived and discussed by the general public and governments of the USA and Europe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1qb39p/soldier_worship_blinds_us_to_the_grim_reality_of/",
"http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/03/22/the-folly-of-soldier-worship/",
"http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket.shtml",
"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/soldier-worship-royal-marine-murder-afghan"
]
] |
|
7sioii
|
Did the Rome begin what we now understand to be civilisation?
|
Was everyone in rural tribes before Rome conquered or was there anything more?
[Edit] In relation to Europe I mean- I realise civilisation basically basically spread from China towards Rome already (at least I assume)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7sioii/did_the_rome_begin_what_we_now_understand_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dt5mry2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"So, \"civilization\" is a pretty terrible term. It seems to be ranking different people in a way where \"civilized\" is good and developed and \"uncivilized\" is bad and primitive. In addition, by selecting some traits as necessary traits for a \"civilization\" we exclude people who might suit the term in other ways. For instance when I was an undergraduate the definition of \"civilization\" included writing, which excludes a lot of people we might want to let it. The Inca didn't have a writing system in the sense of making marks to transmit language, but they had a system of knots that transmitted information. By the time I was in graduate school I saw \"writing\" replaced by \"complex record keeping\" which is a little better. But you can see how drawing up a checklist of what qualifies as \"civilization\" is problematic.\n\nWith that said, when I was a teaching assistant for Early World History classes we used this list:\n\n* monumental (or civic) architecture,\n* complex record keeping\n* complex social structure\n* division of labor\n* agriculture\n\nMonumental or civic architecture indicates some kind of communal awareness. Complex record keeping means things are organized and the organization is preserved. Complex social structure means we can see that some people had more importance than others, and there are multiple ranks - whether in government, religion, military, whatever. Division of labor and agriculture go together in that agriculture allows people to do things other than grow food, like build the monuments, keep the records, be the priests etc. \n\nWe also made the distinction between pristine civilizations and secondary civilizations. Pristine civilizations are communities that can check all the boxes without known contact with another civilization. The textbook we used (*Worlds Together Worlds Apart*) I think gave five pristine civilizations:\n\n* Sumerian\n* Chinese (I can't remember the precise name for this civilization)\n* Harappan\n* Olmec\n* Chico\n\nSome people like to list Egypt in there too. For your question, there are two important points. All of these developed more or less independently (so it's not the case that civilization began in China and spread west), and these developed a **long time before Rome!**\n\nSumerians show up around 4000 BCE. The Harappan cities around 3000 or so. The Chinese civilization I can't remember the name of sometime around 2000. The Olmec around 1600. The Chico, 3000.\n\nRome, by contrast, wasn't founded in tradition until 753 BCE. Archaeology shows us settlement a little before 1000 BCE. By the time the Romans showed up, the Sumerians were long gone, the Minoans had failed, the Mycenaeans collapsed, the Hittites were forgotten, and that's just civilizations geographically near Rome.\n\nRome itself developed its civilization from contact with the Greeks, from whom they got their alphabet among other things, as well as other cultures. The Greeks were heavily influenced by contact with Anatolian cultures that developed out of the Bronze Age Collapse, and so on. Rome is very much a late comer to the civilization game. Rome existed in a Mediterranean surrounded by people with different levels of civilization. Phoenicians (including Carthage), Greeks, Persians certainly rate the term \"civilization.\" I would include the Celts, the Celtiberians and Iberians as well, and numerous other European populations.\n\nAgain, \"civilization\" is a terrible idea to apply to people, especially when we can't have a good understanding of a given group. For instance, if we stress the \"complex records\" thing, we are claiming to know complex records when we see them, and we might not, and it might be a bad thing to measure in the first place. But I think I've described the sort of taxonomy that shows up in books that do that sort of thing and given some direction for your specific question about Rome.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
t3vx3
|
how i can circumvent internet censorship with proxy's and vpns.
|
With the whole Pirate bay being blocked ordeal, I'd like to know how to circumvent current and future censorship with a proxy or VPN or whatever works best.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/t3vx3/eli5_how_i_can_circumvent_internet_censorship/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4jd8hr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[Tor](_URL_0_) is pretty good. They have a firefox plugin that gives you a button to enable or disable it. When you request a webpage through Tor, your request gets encrypted and sent to one of the Tor nodes out in the internet. That node sends it encrypted to another one, who then sends it encrypted to another one, etc. Eventually it reaches what's called an \"exit node\" which will actually go out to the internet and retrieve the web page you want, and then they send it back in the reverse order until it gets to your computer. The \"exit node\" can be just about anywhere in the world.\n\nThis way, your ISP and even people running the internet for your country can't figure out where you're going.\n\nHowever, Tor is *slow* because it has to travel to so many nodes. Initially it's really slow, but once you start using it for 20 minutes or so it goes up to a little faster than 56k speeds. During the startup stages it has to find good nodes. You also shouldn't have your BitTorrent client running through Tor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.torproject.org/"
]
] |
|
a9rsbp
|
During nuclear fission in uranium, what kind of radioactive rays are emitted? Alpha, Beta or Gamma?
|
I have been told that during nuclear fission that uranium releases heat and radioactive rays, but which kind of rays are we talking about?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a9rsbp/during_nuclear_fission_in_uranium_what_kind_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecm4z2h"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"All of them can result from a fission reaction. \n\nAfter each fission reaction has occurred, the products may generally be in excited states, which can gamma decay to the ground state. Fission products tend to be neutron-rich, so they will usually beta decay one or more times to reach stability. Alpha emission from fission products is more rare than beta, but it's possible as well. \n\nAnd alpha and beta decays don't necessarily go directly to the ground state in the daughter, so alpha and beta decays will often come with gamma rays as well.\n\nThe prompt radiation during a chain of fission reactions will consist of neutrons, gamma rays, fission products, and some light charged particles, while the delayed radiation will consist of alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons, protons, etc.\n\nYou can find an energy breakdown for a typical fission reaction [here](_URL_0_). These are averages, because neutron-induced fission of uranium-235 has many possible final states, each one generally having multiple paths by which to ultimately reach stability. So the amount of energy carried away by each kind of radiation varies event-by-event."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-fission.htm"
]
] |
|
2gpdjp
|
How do you determine the boiling point of water under certain vacuum pressures?
|
I stumped my teacher in class today with this and no google results are explaining it well enough.
For example, at what temperature would water boil at in a vacuum of 15,000 microns? Or 500 microns? Or even a positive pressure of something like 200psia?
I know there's a chart in my text book to tell me, but how do they do this mathematically? Is there a formula of some kind? I understand it would obviously be approximate.
Thanks for any help/info!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2gpdjp/how_do_you_determine_the_boiling_point_of_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cklbm1h",
"cklext4",
"cklhj0p"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You use [Antoine's equation](_URL_0_) which is an empirical forumala that gives you the vapour pressure as a function of temperature. Each chemical has different A, B and C constants. You're going to have to convert your vacuum units into absolute pressure to use it however. To save you time, here's a graph of the result for water: \n_URL_1_",
"If you'd like a more in-depth (and more theoretical) look into the phenomenon of evaporation, take a look at [this](_URL_1_) document which uses the chemical potential to define equilibrium positions of molecules. Whether it's liquids adsorbing onto solids, gases dissolving into solution, always think \"chemical potential\" and you can't go wrong! If you're interested in engineering and, more specifically, thermodynamics then this is a great example of a problem you'd expect to see.\n\nFor more info, the [wiki article](_URL_0_) on chemical potential is pretty good too.",
"This drops out of thermodynamics. You can use the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation, dG = dH - TdS to calculate the boiling point (T) for standard temperature and pressure. You'd need to know the thermodynamic constants for the specific substance, namely enthalpy of formation (dS) and enthalpy of vaporization (dH) for all components (liquid water and gaseous water), and know that at equilibrium (boiling), dG = 0.\n\nThen you can use the Clausius Clapeyron equation, which can be used to relate the a known boiling point condition (the one you just calculated above at STP) to the unknown boiling point at your pressure of choosing. This would require knowing the heat of vaporization and the universal gas constant. Here is a bit on the C-C equation.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_equation",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_potential",
"http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/6020/Clouds/Evaporation.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.kentchemistry.com/aplinks/chapters/10ChemKin/ClausiusClap.htm"
]
] |
|
am4bvs
|
if we can produce phone screens that are 6" in diameter with a full hd resolution, whats stopping us from making 16k tvs?
|
Thinking about it, it's probably cost and graphical capabilities of hardware, but are there other factors?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/am4bvs/eli5_if_we_can_produce_phone_screens_that_are_6/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efj6s4u",
"efj6szk",
"efj75rr",
"efj7vpy",
"efj8aef",
"efj902k",
"efj9gpb",
"efja8df",
"efjah3b",
"efjck1f"
],
"score": [
29,
12,
7,
8,
6,
2,
2,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Nothing is stopping us. Theres just no market value. Even 4k is limited by content creators actually making their products 4k in resolution, most of the market for media consumption is for 2k displays.\n\n",
"Who honestly would want a 16k tv when a lot of media hardly comes through anywhere between 720 and 1080p. Having a 4K tv is a stretch not to mention those thinking about 8. ",
"No demand. They would be very expensive to produce, and there is virtually no content in such resolutions outside of a few niche industrial purposes.",
"First off: Diagonal. Not diameter.\n\nSecond: yeah, we have hi-res phone screens, but think about how close to your face you hold your phone, you scrutinize things much more closely on it. You might just stare at that insta pic for a minute or two. Generally not the case with TVs. You are generally watching something. Even if you do use it as a monitor, you don't get as close to your monitor as your phone, I'm generally a couple feet away at closest. Your eye being able to distinguish the difference between 4k and 16k at a certain distance is what makea higher resolution valuable in the consumer market. A 65\" 16k tv would be just as pointless as an 8k tv. Your tv isn't even a 4k tv even though it is advertised as such, it's more likely 2k. ",
"Pretty sure there's a limit of just how much data a standard hdmi cable can transfer which means we technically could but refresh rates would be terrible and everything would look choppy. This will probably change with newer interfaces",
"You can make them, but you can't sell them. Nobody will buy them because it's far from clear that 4K TV is for real. Remember when 3D was a fad a decade back? Manufacturers are waiting to see the \"won't settle for 2K any more\" consumers turn out in droves to buy 4K TVs. Until that's the norm, nobody will make 8K or 16K content. Until there is content, nobody will buy TVs.",
"Cost. Demand. Some good points have been brought up. I'd like to add that the human eye isn't really capable of keeping up with it. Sure you can see in very high def at a certain part of the screen and the focusing power is second to none but there's a lot of peripheral stuff that the eye perceives as blurry. 16k tv would be super overkill. ",
"It's different for tech geeks (visualphiles?), but the average uninformed consumer often can't see much difference between 720p and 1080p, let alone 4K or 16K. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThere comes a point at which the extra clarity just doesn't matter that much to most people (myself included). ",
"Cost, failure rate for producing large screens... like a diamond, screen size costs climb exponentially because you can always trim a large screen down to make smaller ones if there are dead pixels, etc. but you can't cobble multiple screens into a larger one.",
"One big factor is a problem that is known as \"Yield rate\".\n\nIf on average your process for making a screen is going to have obviously missing pixels every ten inches, you can make six inch screens and only trash a small percentage of them as defective. But you'd be trashing every single screen you made if you tried to make 20\" screens. Or be selling screens with obvious dead spots. And neither of those is something you can base a business around.\n\nOther factors:\n\n* The amount of data you have to send for show a single image goes up fourfold every time you double the resolution.\n* Existing cables and Internet can only go so fast.\n* Your eye can only pick out details that are so large. If you're sitting on your couch looking at the TV, it's hard to see a single pixel with a 4k display. 16k would be way more detail than you'd ever see. I'm not going to do the calculations but I'm think that's getting into the territory where you still wouldn't see any pixels even if you put your nose on the screen.\n\nit is worth chasing higher resolutions in phones because we typically hold them a lot closer to our eyes than a TV; you can actually see the difference at a comfortable viewing distance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1c7btz
|
what "chained cpi" is, and how it affects the social security cuts.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c7btz/eli5_what_chained_cpi_is_and_how_it_affects_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9dr2pm"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Standard CPI has a couple of problems in that it overestimates inflation for consumers as it doesn't account for substitution in consumer behavior.\n\nIn the simplest example imagine someone is buying Lays brand chips that cost $2 a bag. Suppose that the price rises to $2.20 a bag, instead of accepting the higher price point some consumers will seek out a cheaper an alternative (store brand at $1.20 a bag) and so measuring inflation based on the change in price of these goods produces an inaccurate result as some consumers have achieved a cost saving as a result of the price increase.\n\nCurrently SSA use the standard CPI in their cost of living adjustments and due to the substitution bias this means that every year the program gets very slightly more generous. Chained CPI is an alternative measure that is corrected for the substitution problem so the benefits offered by SSA remain much more static then they would otherwise.\n\nAnother idea that is also being floated is setting benefits based on region instead of nationally. SSA use two indexes to calculate benefits; CPI for All Urban Consumers and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The names describe why these introduce a problem; not everyone is an urban consumer (and when they are the index biases for larger urban centers) and the spending behaviors of clerical workers is hardly indicative of the population as a whole."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
22k2fp
|
can insects see cells and their organelles? aren't there insects or other very, small microorganisms (think face mites or mites in general) that can see things as small as mitochondria? any organism with eyes that can detect things- what's the smallest thing they can visually perceive?
|
I was thinking about how some animals were so small they'd be closer to a microscopic level, and therefore better able to perceive things because they lives among microscopic things. For example, a piece of dandruff would probably be like really huge snowflakes or maybe even a surfboard for a mite, but a cell organelle may be the size of a bean to a mite.
Can someone help put all the sizes into perspective?
Also, what is the smallest thing the smallest microorganism with eyes can perceive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22k2fp/eli5_can_insects_see_cells_and_their_organelles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgnl3c8",
"cgnli0f",
"cgnrrrz"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"If you're looking in visual light, the smallest object you can see, even in principle, is going to be on the scale of the wavelength of light - which for visible light goes down to about 300 nm. \n\nA single virion of HIV is a little smaller than this, and can't be seen visually no matter what. A mitochondrion varies from about 500-10,000 nm - so a small one would just barely be detectable in blue light, and a large one could in principle be seen at poor resolution (around 100 'pixels', though it's not quite that simple). These values assume you have a lens that is essentially perfect, to a degree I would assume is not found in nature.\n\nSome cells are very large - human egg cells are as much as a millimeter wide. Most are large enough to be seen in visible light in practice via a powerful microscope.",
"A smaller object needs a LARGER lens to observe.\n\nTherefore, an insect with a small lens can't really see anything small clearly at all.",
"People are talking about what the smallest visible thing actually is and while I find that very interesting, I wonder if they might be overlooking something (but I could be wrong).\n\nAn eye has to be fairly complex in order to perceive small, intricate things, and as far as I'm aware, the smaller a creature is, the less distinct and precise its vision by virtue of necessity. I think the better question is: is it possible for eye cells to be arranged so efficiently that they can perceive themselves?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2nri53
|
Solar thermal farms are 19th century technology, why isn't the US full of them?
|
You have hoover dam, why not death valley solar farm?
[**For the confused.**](_URL_0_) Solar thermal farms **don't use semiconductor PV cells**, but **fields of mirrors that heat water** in a heat engine (just like nuclear and coal power plants, that only work when the sun is up).
The US has enormous spaces of empty sunny desert and has a history being the largest, most advanced economy in the world with a culture of massive civil engineering projects like roads and rail networks that span the continent. The whole night/day thing is an issue but it's solvable with day/night prices and large scale storage. Also HVDC across 100s of miles of desert and ocean has been a thing since the 50s. ([Source](_URL_2_), ch.25)
Edit: [Better example,](_URL_1_) doesn't require automatic mirror adjustment or workers manually adjusting mirrors in deadly conditions, at the expense of capturing less light per mirror.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nri53/solar_thermal_farms_are_19th_century_technology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmg8tnm",
"cmgqg1n"
],
"score": [
28,
3
],
"text": [
"This chart from the Energy Information Administration shows the levelized cost of energy from various renewable and non-renewable sources:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEssentially, solar thermal is among the costliest sources of generation, even when compared with other renewable alternatives. Still, it has had some success in California's renewable energy marketplace.\n\nTo your point on the death valley solar farm, the nearby Mojave desert is one of the most active solar development regions in the world. Since death valley is a national park, it's pretty doubtful that there will be any development there.",
"I know your question has been answered, but I'd just like to pipe in and talk about energy storage. \n\nRight now the technology to store enough bulk energy to last all night - making a solar power source have an effectively continuous output - doesn't exist yet. It can be done, but nobody is going to flush their money away on a venture such as that. \n\nThere are a few places where large amounts of power for a short time can be stored for later use. This is when they use stuff like pumped hydro. Those are typically for really short term demands, like when everyone in London turns on their electric kettle at the same time. A pumped up reservoir will last you long enough to get a gas turbine up to speed, but not all night(unless you've got a bigger system than has ever been built or only a handful of customers). And pumped hydro is out of the question in the desert(do you ship the water in on a fleet of trucks? Evaporation?) \n\nThere are other uses for utility scale energy storage, like peak shaving, but storing enough energy to make a desert sized solar farm work through the night isn't currently feasible. \n\nA lack of utility scale energy storage is one of the things that makes it really difficult to implement all the wind and solar that idealistic high school kids would like. Currently, we basically need enough spinning reserve to cover a sudden drop in output from renewables. Fwiw, I think pumped hydro, compressed air and flywheels are neat, but I think the breakthrough in energy storage will come from a new battery chemistry. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.solarpowertoday.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Gemasolar.jpg",
"http://www.solarfeeds.com/wp-content/uploads/solar-thermal1.jpg",
"http://www.withouthotair.com/"
] |
[
[
"http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm"
],
[]
] |
|
6curfg
|
Did people living in the Roman Empire call it the "Roman Empire"?
|
I'm listening to The History of Rome and as I move into the 3rd century and Rome, as a city, becomes less and less important to the Roman Empire the question popped into my head. If I were to walk up to someone on the outskirts of the Empire in say the late 200's and asked them where they live would they, as part of their answer, say "The Roman Empire"? What did an everyman living under Roman rule call / consider it?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6curfg/did_people_living_in_the_roman_empire_call_it_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhxwxe3",
"dhyopnf"
],
"score": [
31,
35
],
"text": [
"Why are all the comments getting deleted?",
"It was more common to refer to people ethnically rather than in terms of a kingdom, although \"Romans\" often referred to themselves as *Romani*. So you had Etruscans, Etrurians, and so on which made up the body. All people could collectively be referred to as *The Populus*, however that's not really the name for the empire.\n\nEDIT: I believe that, distinctly, populus refers to a man who is of fighting age, not just 'anyone'.\n\nOlder (BCE) coins can be found stamped with SPQR, *\"senatus populus que Romanus\"*, i.e. 'the Senate and People of Rome' but this is obviously from very early on in the empire.\n\nShortest, cleanest answer is: There wasn't a proper name for the empire, but there was a proper identity shared by citizens used to identify themselves."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fa8atj
|
Any sources for reading about CIA, NSA, or just secret intellegence over all? Good non fiction.
|
I am very interested in learning the goings on of intellegence agencies. Historical or current is fine with me
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fa8atj/any_sources_for_reading_about_cia_nsa_or_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fiwkznf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Look for James Bamford's books:\n\nThe Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America's Most Secret Intelligence\n\nBody of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency\n\nThe Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America\n\nI've read and enjoyed the first two, didn't read the third, yet. Remember the first rule about fight club."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a6q0qi
|
How did the introduction of the pocket watch effect surveying?
|
I've noticed that in the US, states created before the Civil War had north-south borders defined by geographic features, and afterwards, had borders defined by what appear to be latitude.
[Animation](_URL_1_)
I know from the history of longitude, that knowing one's east-west location generally requires measuring the time the sun is at it's zenith. And I've heard while visiting the [Museum of Industry](_URL_0_) that the Waltham Watch company had a large effect on the availability of timekeeping devices starting in 1850, and really kicking off in 1860.
Is there modern scholarship or contemporary reports on the effect of readily available pocket watches allowing US surveyors to accurately define north-south lines, or lawmakers taking this into account as new state borders were being drawn?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a6q0qi/how_did_the_introduction_of_the_pocket_watch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebxtc5s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Finding longitude and latitude were very big problems for a ship out on the ocean. It was impossible to precisely measure the distance from one day to the next with no hard and fast landmarks, and the actions of currents and imprecise speed gauges made it hard to correlate knots with actual travel. Use of navigational tools like sextants and chronometers were key. However, for surveying on land, that was not the case. From a precisely measured base line, triangles could be laid off to map any piece of ground. The typical tools of chain, plumb bob, and transit would suffice. Sightings of the sun would not be needed, or precise time measurement. They would of course be needed to place continents and islands in the correct distance from each other."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.charlesrivermuseum.org/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_states_by_date_of_statehood3.gif"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
5mhz08
|
What social opportunities would be available to a free black family living in the antebellum deep south?
|
Hey folks!
As the title says, I'm interested in learning about the social and economic opportunities free black families had in the pre-war South. While Southern society was incredibly oppressive for people of colour, and indeed built on the institution of racialised slavery, my limited understanding is that some opportunities for prosperity and power did exist. Where and how were free black families able to distinguish themselves throughout this period?
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5mhz08/what_social_opportunities_would_be_available_to_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc6enzr",
"der0avh"
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text": [
"This is what my master's thesis was on, so buckle in, I love to talk about it. It was specifically about a wealthy Tuscaloosa, Alabama man named Solomon Perteet. He was by no means the most successful person of color in the antebellum South, but he's the one I know best. That said, let me give you a short bio of his life, before I move into what the literature as a whole says about your question.\n\nSolomon was born in 1789 to a wealthy white woman in Georgia. His father was most likely a slave, based on the sparse population data that survived the War of 1812. He was raised by his mother, and was apprenticed to a wealthy plaster worker at the age of eleven. He moved to Tuscaloosa in the mid 1820s, and received a lucrative contract to do the plaster work in the new Tuscaloosa capitol building.\n\nHe was already a slave owner by the time he arrived in Alabama, and married one of his slaves, Lucinda, soon after his arrival. He petitioned and paid for manumission for Lucinda and their eldest child, Andrew Jackson. (Interestingly, Solomon also paid for the manumission of Lucinda's son from another relationship, but he was only to be freed when he turned 21.)\n\nSolomon branched out into real estate, partnered with a white man to open a tannery, kept a medium-sized farm, owned a store, and got into money lending. He did most of his business with white clients, and successfully took debtors to court when they were unable to pay him back. I even found multiple instances of Lucinda appearing in court on his behalf, with an equally impressive success rate! As to the scale of his holdings, he owned at least forty city lots (10 city blocks), several rural plots of land, and large reserves of specie. According to English geologist (and Darwin's mentor!) Charles Lyell, Perteet loaned 17,000 dollars to a debtor who was unable to repay the money, and Solomon emerged relatively unscathed by the loss. Lyell traveled to the South in the 1840s and wrote about his trip, including meeting Solomon in Tuscaloosa.\n\nSocially, his family was well-integrated into elite white society. The Perteet family lived in the most fashionable neighborhood in town. They had their own pew at the Episcopal church, and held weddings, baptisms, and funerals in the white sanctuary, while also retaining access to the black chapel. Solomon, Lucinda, two of his children, and two of his grandchildren, are buried in Greenwood Cemetery, right in the middle of his rich white neighbors. After his grandchildren were orphaned in 1869, they were informally adopted by a former CSA officer, lived in a mansion, and were sent to college. \n\nThat said, racism was still fundamental to the legal and social order of the South. In my work, I found two boundaries that Solomon was unable to cross, even with his substantial wealth. The first is a concrete one. He was unable to have his son admitted to the University of Alabama in the early/mid 1840s. I have no evidence of social pressure in either direction, but there were laws expressly prohibiting higher education for people of color at the time.\n\nThe second barrier was an intangible one. Solomon was unable to escape from the the conflation of blackness with poverty and servitude in public discourse and consciousness. Even though Solomon bought his wife and daughters $300 silk dresses, silk gloves, and velvet cloaks, ads for \"negro clothes\" ran in the paper. Lucinda's glowing obituary ran in the same 1869 Tuscaloosa Monitor that bore the headline, \"Lo, the lazy negro.\"\n\nThis is probably a bit of a jumble; I've been working on it off and on today. However, this is my take on the boundaries of race and class in the Old South, based on my own research. Once I post this, I'll post a follow-up comment giving you a rundown of the literature.",
"This as incredibly helpful. I'm doing my master's thesis on the historical memory of free black societies in the north. Could you suggest anything worth reading on that subject? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8mpkm7
|
how come even after just wearing my glasses for an hour without touching them, they’ll still get smudged?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mpkm7/eli5_how_come_even_after_just_wearing_my_glasses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzpdif6"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Your eyelashes may hit the lenses, leaving behind oils. And airborne dust may also get caught in said oils, further adding to the smudges noticed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3tqncs
|
how do dogs know to be gentle with babies?
|
I was just looking in another sub and thought about it, I always see dogs super gentle and slow around babies. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tqncs/eli5_how_do_dogs_know_to_be_gentle_with_babies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx8dfjl",
"cx8m8j5",
"cx8ns66",
"cx8pyk1",
"cx8qut6",
"cx8v0dv",
"cx8wi1u"
],
"score": [
39,
6,
5,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Weve been breeding dogs for 40 thousand years to do things we want. The ones who didnt, didnt get to reproduce. Part of this was selecting for good hunting dogs, tracking dogs, guard dogs, but not murdering your children is also a trait that would be selected for. ",
"We'll assume this is your baby and your dog. If your dog doesn't attack you and is rather kind, this becomes easier to answer. You being with your child constantly and caring for it may be perceived by the dog as a mini you and another human to protect.",
"Dogs are empathetic pack animals, just as we are. They have the same mammal instincts to protect as well. (Plus they know they'd get in trouble if they even tried something funny)",
"One possible factor is that baby mammals tend to have a common 'look'\n\n > The term baby schema (Kindchenschema, Lorenz, 1943) refers to a set of facial features (i.e., large head and a round face, a high and protruding forehead, large eyes, and a small nose and mouth) commonly found both in human and animal infants. [[1](_URL_0_)]\n\nGiven that they have puppies, understand puppies need to be treated gently, and have some level of 'advanced' / 'abstract' cognition powers, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they know babies are babies and 'transfer' their puppy-related behavior accordingly.",
"In addition to the previously mentioned selective breeding for dogs with agreeable temperaments, think about the size differential relative to other people from the dog's perspective. You've got a small, blobby animal that's slow, can't move much, if at all. Even if the dog doesn't realize it's a human (I imagine they do because of the smell.) they probably understand that they completely overmatch it and the baby/toddler is no threat. There's no reazon to be aggressive. ",
"Careful there with that assumption. I my GSD is great around small kids and with my own baby. But she'll do perfectly natural and normally non-harmful things like lie down next to the child, and her paw will land on a limb or belly. It's not intentional, but their weight combined with a hefty paw with claws can hurt like hell. (Even when she does it on my foot).",
"Not all dogs are like this. Some are jealous and will guard certain things in the house (even their owners), or feel very territorial. It may be that if the owner is there the dog know they are low in the pack, so behaved at that time. Some dogs who were never territorial or had any behavior issues will develop them when a new baby is brought into the home. It's important to prepare your dog way ahead of time. (lots of good articles about this all over) \n\nNo dog should be left along with any young child. All young children should be taught how to touch a dog and what is not allowed. Age appropriate learning, of course. \n\nI had a very well behaved and trained beagle. When my youngest was 3 months old I turned around to see her dragging my son across the floor by his shirt collar, back of his neck, choking him with the front of the shirt. No idea why and her body language was relaxed,.. what the heck? 15 minutes later I look up to the same thing. Here the cat had come into the room and the dog was dragging the baby away from the cat (who was still on the other side of the room, but I guess *at all* was too much for the dog. ) She was protecting him, but it could have ended up into something not good it I hadn't been right there. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411/full"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
sz6bq
|
Does listening to neuroacoustic music have any measurable effect in putting people to sleep?
|
From what I understand, neuroacoustic music is usually either classical music with tones layered beneath made to stimulate different brainwaves or it's specially made to induce these brainwaves. Personally, I'm very speculative, but I wanted to know if there's any science backing up this idea.
A Dr. Jeffrey Thompson seems to be the current authority on this science, if it *is* a science at all. That might be of help.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sz6bq/does_listening_to_neuroacoustic_music_have_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4i97pb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The man is a quack and he has no scientific studies (besides his own) backing him up. There's no identifiable process behind the supposed 'theory', and everything I've read is nonsense.\n\nSo in short, no. Nothing beyond placebo."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3od6ox
|
when you listen to music on high volume in a loud place, does it damage your hearing the same way as it would in a quieter place?
|
For example, when you turn up the volume while running or when you are in a loud bus.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3od6ox/eli5when_you_listen_to_music_on_high_volume_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvw5qef",
"cvw7j47"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"When you have a few loud noises, the quieter of the two noises is still loud. It still would damage your hearing the same way. It might seem quieter, but its still the same noise level from your headphones. I believe the difference if any would be due to the noise being sent right to your ears rather than a noise sent from a bus which is sent every which way.",
"If you turn your music up, it will be more likely to damage your hearing. Doesn't matter how loud it is relative to your background noise. That's not considering if the background noise is loud enough to damage your hearing as well "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2f8aqx
|
what makes good sushi "good"?
|
To be clear, I'm not talking about rolls or egg etc. I'm talking about sashimi, slices of raw fish with no seasoning. Is there something special that a fancy sushi master chef will do to these slices of raw fish that will make them taste better than others? Is it just SPECTACULAR sushi rice? Is it the freshness of the fish? Is it a special way that the fish is cut? Or do the chefs "prepare" the fish in some way?
Of course almost anyone can tell decent sushi from old, horrible sushi at a bad mall joint. But I honestly don't know why fancy sashimi from an expensive place is better. I've watched "Jiro Loves Sushi" three times and still don't know the answer. Being Japanese American, my family will usually just buy sashimi-cut slices of raw fish at the local supermarket and make our own sushi at home. It tastes really good to me.
I've asked sushi fans the difference but everyone blusters around, kinda reminding me of how people talk about the differences in good wine vs mediocre wine -- just over my head and kinda pretentious sounding. Please ELI5 on what makes good sushi "good."
Edit: Thanks everyone.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f8aqx/eli5_what_makes_good_sushi_good/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck6u0mz",
"ck6uhkl",
"ck6uy00"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"the freshness of the fish and how the chef cuts it, i.e. not leaving the skin on it, thick or thin slices etc. Also with nigiri sushi (fish on rice with wasabi between) the right amount of wasabi. Some bad sushi ive had had insanely big slices, like hard to eat big, the salmon still had a little silver on the side, and there was about a baseballs worth of wasabi.\n",
"\"Good\" sushi has to do with more than just the fish. When the ingredients are so simple, every factor must be accounted for. One thing people would not normally consider is temperature, when it comes to Jiro he is exact with everything. Also, the rice is seasoned and usually so is the fish, usually not with spices but with very minimal amounts of sauces such as soy sauce, sesame oil, or vinegar.",
"It should also be mentioned that the actual quality if the fish itself is at play. Freshness is good, but many sushi chefs are ok with flash frozen as long as it's done correctly.\n\nThose dollar supermarket packs are made with less expensive pieces if fish, while the high grade cuts are usually some only to restaurants. \n\nIf course, atmosphere and presentation also are huge factors. But you are probably not going to find primo otoro in a conveyer-belt place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
34mkm7
|
how did "*" become an understood symbol for correcting a spelling mistake made while typing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34mkm7/eli5_how_did_become_an_understood_symbol_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqw3de6",
"cqwcfen"
],
"score": [
92,
8
],
"text": [
"\"*\" is usually used in text to [reference a footnote](_URL_0_). I assume it has derived from this as the corrections are usually placed under the text.",
"The * symbol, before the advent of instant messaging, was already being used as a way to emphasize words in a sentence, or to **bold** them in some word processors.\n\nUnlike most other characters on a keyboard, the * symbol also has no grammatical impact on a sentence."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_%28typography%29"
],
[]
] |
||
5ivehr
|
How were cartoons (political or otherwise) printed in newspapers during the age of movable type?
|
Surely the artist didn't sit there copying their cartoon onto every single copy, but I don't understand how these cartoons could have been reproduced on each copy otherwise.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ivehr/how_were_cartoons_political_or_otherwise_printed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbbadn5",
"dbcf7hb"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"By no means an expert on this but as far as I'm aware the most common techniques included [etching](_URL_0_), wherein an acid was applied to a metal surface which was then used as a printing plate and [woodcuts](_URL_3_) or [engraving](_URL_1_) which were done by carving the image into wood or metal, respectively. A later technique was [lithography](_URL_2_).",
"What /u/CptBuck said. Also, cartoons don't really appear in newspapers until the 19th century, first in the form of lithographs; *Punch* in Britain and *La Caricature* and *Le Charivari* in France in the 1830s. Before that they exist as stand alone sheets. What we would recognize as political cartoons, employing caricature, don't really appear until around the 1770s in Britain, printed as etchings, usually hand-colored."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etching",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engraving",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithography",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodcut"
],
[]
] |
|
7m0zf5
|
what is the leading theory / theories regarding creation of our solar system / universe / etc within the scientific community?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7m0zf5/eli5_what_is_the_leading_theory_theories/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drqjh50",
"drqld4n"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The big bang is assumed to be what happened almost 14 billion years ago, however what happened before the big bang or exactly at the moment of the big bang is unclear.",
"\nThanks to a guy called u/BadAstronomer, AKA Phil Plait, for most of this information. I knew only the most rudimentary of things before, and used to even be scared of the concept of such a huge universe before I saw his videos.\n\nScientists still have very little idea as to why the Big Bang happened. \n\nWe do know that many black holes are in the centres of most galaxies, certainly the largest like the Milky Way and Andromeda. They, plus the mass of stars and gas near the centre provides something for the whole thing to orbit around.\n\nAs for the solar system, that used to be a rather large cloud of gas and dust sitting around about 5 billion years ago. A supernovae happened nearby, which because of the insane pressure in large star cores, generates many of the heavier elements, and that supernovae also disrupted the balance in that cloud, and in the centre, it began to coalesce into a star. This took some time. \n\nIt got hotter and hotter and denser and denser until it had enough pressure and to initiate hydrogen fusion in the core. That is the definition of a star. \n\nStars have something called a steller (when we talk about our own Sun, we usually call it a solar) wind that blew away the remaining gas and dust nearby to the outer parts of the solar system.\n \nThe other planets began to coalesce in similar ways, but got nothing even remotely close to enough to be even a brown dwarf, let alone a star. Jupiter's birth is a bit disputed, we don't know whether it ever had a core, and if so how it formed. \n\nThe gas and dust was blown too far away for the four rocky planets to collect any kind of impressive atmospheres like even the Ice Giants of Neptune and Uranus have, but they did still have some.\n\nThe Asteroid belt was constantly disrupted by Jupiter's massive gravity, and was probably in part swallowed up by it, leaving Mars relatively small, and unable to form any sort of planet that has no other objects of similar size within it's orbit, part of the definition of a planet. \n\nIt actually seems like Jupiter moved inwards towards the Sun (a process that actually happens to many gas giants like Jupiter in exoplanet solar systems), but was stopped by Saturn's gravity from going too far. It was just trying to eat up as much as it could. \n\nSaturn, Uranus, and Neptune began to move further out from the Sun, towards their current positions, and that seemed to disrupt the Kuiper Belt and the comets around it. And that also began to send a lot of asteroids and comets into different orbits. I'll get to that later.\n\nEarth got it's start pretty early, but a few tens of millions of years after it's birth, a massive protoplanet named Thea slammed at it in a low angle collision, blowing apart Thea and taking a good part of the Earth with it, and the crust of the earth liquified into lava, that coalesced into the Moon, but that Moon was pretty near the Earth, so the Earth cooked the moon, making the far side of the moon's crust thicker. Remember the asteroids moving around from last paragraph? That slammed into the Moon (and Earth), which couldn't penetrate, only crater, the far side, but broke through the near side's thinner surface, bubbling up Lunar lava, which made the Maria we see today. Tidal forces moved the Moon away from the Earth and also tidally locked the Moon's faces. \n\nThe Earth cooled down and also got a lot of water from comets, and it looks like some organic molecules too, and maybe although disputed, basic forms of life. \n\nMercury was formed just as a basic coalescence of rocks, but it's orbital period isn't tidally locked to the Sun the same way. It's a 2:3 resonance, not like the Moon. And it's been that way since.\n\nVenus once was much cooler, its clouds much less of a problem, and had oceans of liquid water and maybe life. But the Sun began to heat up, due to the hydrogen fusing into helium which increased the pressure, and pressurizing gas leads to gas heating up. The Sun eventually boiled away the oceans, and water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, and the rocks even began to have greenhouse gases boiled out of them too. Plate tectonics, what may have once been, stopped. We have a few ideas as to why Venus rotates retrograde and so slowly, but the giant impact hypothesis, IE a big object turned the thing over, is popular. The Solar wind also blew away lighter elements in the Venusian atmosphere, leading to only the heavier ones like sulfur dioxide. Any core of iron providing a magnetosphere that may have provided a shield went away when the rotation slowed, exposing the planet to even more rays.\n\nMars once had oceans of liquid water too, and maybe life as well. But for some reason, it's magnetosphere stopped, not sure why, and the sun blasted away with the solar wind anything keeping the planet tempurature regulated. The water evapourated over the eons, and is lifeless today. \n\nThe Saturnian moons likely are stopping the rings from forming into a moon themselves, they've locked them into positions where they can't move. \n\nUranus likely got whacked, hard. And that would be why it spins sideways. It's much colder, and so methane is much more common in its atmosphere. \n\nNeptune's moon Triton looks like it might have been a dwarf planet captured from the Kuiper belt, which probably explains why it orbits retrograde. \n\nThe Kuiper belt is probably too close to Neptune to form a proper planet, and the objects that are there have to be far away from Neptune to not get thrown out of orbit. \n\nThe Sun's Ort Cloud is much more populated than the math would suggest. The Sun's been orbiting for a pretty long time though, and has passed by other stars. Maybe that's where the extra comets are from. \n\nGood enough answer?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5fe00v
|
what are those random sharp pains i get often on my skin almost like a big bite that catches my attention but immediately goes away?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fe00v/eli5_what_are_those_random_sharp_pains_i_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dajki4u",
"dajkvpm"
],
"score": [
9,
16
],
"text": [
"One of your hairs likely got caught in the fabric of your clothes and got tugged. When you reach to scratch it the motion either frees it or yanks it out entirely.",
"It could be a misfire of the nerves. It could be a hair stuck and being pulled on by something. Or it could be an insect, there are many microscopic insects that live in the pores and hair follicles of your skin."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
n2lch
|
Is it possible to access more of your subconscious?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n2lch/is_it_possible_to_access_more_of_your_subconscious/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c35rzp2",
"c35rzp2"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The subconscious is a psuedoscientific term used by New Age types... *not* by modern psychologists.\n\nContemporary science doesn't really view the unconscious mind (which is the more scientific term) as some sort of powerful resource to be tapped into.",
"The subconscious is a psuedoscientific term used by New Age types... *not* by modern psychologists.\n\nContemporary science doesn't really view the unconscious mind (which is the more scientific term) as some sort of powerful resource to be tapped into."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9v722q
|
how did the fluoridization of water improve dental health in america; historically and scientifically?
|
I want to know how people discovered this was good for teeth and monitored the improvement. I would also like to know how drinking tap water with flouride prevents tooth decay, because in drinking it doesn't seem to touch your teeth for every long.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v722q/eli5_how_did_the_fluoridization_of_water_improve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e99wkjp",
"e99wo01",
"e9a05ph"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Fluoride reacts with tooth enamel and hardens it.\n\nStatistical data shows a reduction in dental caries in areas with fluoride programs.\n\nHowever fluoridation occurs in nature as well, in natural wells it's sometimes at doses higher than recommended, so some municipalities are actually reducing the fluoride in the water supply. ",
"They found that people who lived in areas with naturally high fluoride levels in their water supplies had far fewer cavities than those that lived in areas with lower levels of fluoride. So they started testing the compounds and determined that fluoride helps to strengthen enamel. It was a simple addition to the water supply that greatly increased the over-all dental health of the nation, but in particular helped with making sure soldiers were more fit when drafted and so that is why the government did it. \n\nAnd you are right that drinking it is less effective than if you can make your teeth sit in fluoride solutions for a while. This is why toothpaste, and mouthwashes also tend to have fluoride. ",
"Fluoride binds with the hydroxyapatite crystals that form the enamel and makes it a lot more resistant to acidic decay. You are right that drinking it does not help a ton, but still does. However drinking it before the eruption of the teeth, fluoride can use the blood to get to the dental crown, and it is much more effective. Generally speaking, if you were drinking fluorided water from 2-5 years of age, your permanent teeth will be much more caries resistent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6kh8eg
|
How did tall ships and the like leave port before the advent of modern engines?
|
Like, how did they get out of port? Just wait for the wind to change? Or did they hook up smaller boats that were rowed? I'm just trying to imagine such large ships pushing off, and it confounds me how they would do it.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6kh8eg/how_did_tall_ships_and_the_like_leave_port_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djm3i8o",
"djmyrrg"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Most of the time tall ships aren't docked, they're moored in a more accessible area and then when they push off, it's mostly a question of letting the wind and the tides do the work.\n\nHowever, if that's not good enough, there is also a particular anchor called a kedging anchor which is taken out by longboat in the direction the ship wishes to go and dropped as far as they can get it away from the ship, and then the ship is warped, or pulled, over to it by hand. Rinse lather repeat until the ship is where you want her. It's a similar process if the ship does actually have to be docked - a rope is wound around something solid onshore on one end and the ship's capstan (a large drum that can be turned by hand) on the other, and the ship is warped in and out.\n\nI had to actually do this as a trainee sailor. If you would like to learn more about it without having to pull a ship by hand, however, you can do so [here](_URL_0_). ",
"Hi, you'll find an answer by /u/DBHT14 and more links here \n\n* [During the age of sail, how did large ships manoeuvre in ports?](_URL_0_) "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://h2g2.com/entry/A1084484"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/36isas/during_the_age_of_sail_how_did_large_ships/"
]
] |
|
6cyitv
|
How much of the earths surface can we see from the moon?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6cyitv/how_much_of_the_earths_surface_can_we_see_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhyxhcn"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"From the side of the moon that is facing us, one would see about half of the earth at any single point in time, or all of the earth over a period of time.\n\nFrom the side of the moon that is not facing us, one would see none of the earth ever.\n\nAsking \"How much of the earths surface can we see from the moon?\" is essentially the same as asking \"From where on the earth can you see the moon?\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
z2a5b
|
why do people hate tsa soo much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z2a5b/eli5_why_do_people_hate_tsa_soo_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c60ttwd",
"c60tywm",
"c60v3ht",
"c60veo2",
"c60vrat",
"c61129n"
],
"score": [
6,
7,
2,
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Simply put, it's an unnecessary means of \"security\" that takes away reasonable rights of privacy, not to mention humiliates and endangers travelers.",
"The TSA is the organization that deals with security at places like airports. The typical person's interaction with a TSA member consists of the individual having to prove that he or she is not a threat. This involves waiting in long lines and going through a metal detector. In other circumstances, people may be patted down or have seemingly harmless items taken away, like nail clippers or bottled beverages. Since many people have experiences with being bothered or inconvenienced by the TSA and few have witnessed the direct prevention of a terrorist attack or drug smuggling, they view it as a bad organization that annoys passengers instead of protecting them. \n\nPlease note that [most](_URL_0_) Americans are fine with the TSA. They're just less vocal. ",
"They are a very expensive organization to run. And there are many cases of them missing knives and guns and other dangerous items. They also make wait times for boarding a plane much longer, and stop you from taking certain items with you on the plane. \n\nSo they cost you time, and money, take away some of your conveniences when you travel, and don't do a very good job of keeping dangerous items out of airplanes. Also, sometimes they grope you or take pictures of you with a camera that can see through your clothes.",
"Because it's intrusive and useless. There's a term called \"[security theater](_URL_0_)\" that describes it: they do what they do not because it makes us more secure, but just to make it *look* like they're doing something about the problem.\n\nThe best examples are:\n\n1. The requirement to take off your shoes at the security checkpoint.\n2. The prohibition on bringing liquids into the plane.\n\nBoth of these were put in place after somebody attempted to attack an flight that way. So guess what? Next time the terrorists are going to try it a different way, so it doesn't help to focus on what they already tried!",
"It boils down to two main things:\n\n1) A lot of people feel that it violates our 4th amendment rights (protection from unreasonable search and seizure). \n\n2) Many people feel the program costs a lot for not a lot of actual protection/safety.",
"It is \"security theater\".\n\nA bunch of little skits to give us the illusion of safety...and to keep a bunch of high school dropout employed and enrich body scanner manufacturers.\n\nAnd what's worse, they know you paid $500 for a plane ticket to your sister's wedding, and will do almost anything not to miss your flight. They have you over a barrel, and use that to be as petty and authoritarians as they want.\n\nIsrael has a much higher threat of terrorist attack, but they take off their shoes, but their hemorrhoid cream in a clear bag before you go through the cancer-porn machine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/americans-views-tsa-positive-negative.aspx"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1nhbmj
|
Do we lose any weight through exhalation?
|
If we inhale 02 and exhale C02 it seems like there should be a net loss of weight as carbon leaves the body.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1nhbmj/do_we_lose_any_weight_through_exhalation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccin5ap",
"ccindc2"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"You're exactly right! We actually lose *most* of our weight through exhalation. (Sweating is the other major mechanism, but since that's mostly water it doesn't create a net loss.) This is why weight loss is so hard; all the fat molecules that your body stores have to be oxidized and exhaled.",
"This is correct. Aerobic (air breathing) organisms lose mass through respiration. This is why all substances we can derive energy from are carbon-based.\n\nPlants work the opposite way, transpiration breaks CO2 into O2 and C, with the oxygen being released to the atmosphere and the carbon being used to build the plant. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5hylrc
|
Why are cheetahs so fast?
|
Are they significantly lighter/stronger than other similar animals (e.g. A lion, leopard etc)? Are their bones/joints arranged in a particular way to encourage speed? Or is it simply something they have "learned" to do out of necessity to chase prey?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5hylrc/why_are_cheetahs_so_fast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db6ag63"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Cheetahs have a ton of physical adaptations for speed. Just mentioning a few here –\n\n- extra flexible spine for long strides and quick turns\n- shoulderblade doesn't attach to clavicle for added flexibility\n- lighter bones\n- they only run on the tips of their toes, using their claws more for traction than other big cats\n- tail partially flattened for use in balancing turns\n- large heart and lungs for pumping oxygen to muscles\n\nThey are not stronger than lions, and at a significant size and weight disadvantage – an unfortunate trade-off for the cheetah's light frame and speed. A lion can easily kill a cheetah if they have to go head-to-head, so cheetahs will often lose their hard-earned catches to scavenging lions and other predators."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3loccg
|
What was the first event in recorded history?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3loccg/what_was_the_first_event_in_recorded_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv87pd1"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There's a discussion of dated events at _URL_0_. I was taught at school that Egypt's unification around the 32nd century BCE was the first specifically recorded \"event\", though the precise date is unknown. I'm not sure if we've found earlier ones in the interim - shameful, I admit! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19pgf6/what_is_the_earliest_recorded_date_that_we_can/"
]
] |
||
ag5u86
|
How effective was armor in medieval battles?
|
Generally in movies and tv shows (i'm mainly thinking GoT, Lotr, Kingdom of Heaven, Robin hood etc.) set in this sort of medieval era armor seems to do basically nothing. Often characters wear very light looking armor and cl;eave through any heavily armored enemies like they're wearing nothing. Lotr seems to be the worst offender due to just how many times it looks like the characters whack swords straight into heavy plate armor and still insta kill the orcs/uruks.
Historically do we know how effective light, medium and heavy were armor at resisting arrows and sword/spear/axe blows and generally keeping the wearer alive? And how useful would it be in battle to wear the fairly light but mobile armor you see characters in these sorts of movies/tv shows wear?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ag5u86/how_effective_was_armor_in_medieval_battles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee6jyzg"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Alright there's a lot to unpack here. But the short answer is: armor is amazing, that's why the wealthiest people and elite fighters wore it. What sane person would choose to wear 30-60 lbs of steel on their body if it didn’t do anything but slow you down?\n\nFirst things first, light, medium, and heavy armor isn't really how people thought of armor during the medieval periods. It's, I believe, in invention of D & D, though I could be wrong on that one. In any case, it's usually easier to conceptualize armor as being either soft armors or hard armors.\n\nSoft armor were like gambesons or aketons, basically thick layers of cloth and/or leather on top of each other (interesting tidbit, among the historical recreators and scholars there’s a debate going on about how prevalent leather actually was in armor. While I’m personally on the rare side of the debate, depending on time period of course, it was used in armor. Didn’t look like biker jackets and fetish gear though, unlike what many games and shows would have you believe). \n\nDuring the medieval period these gambesons were often the first real line of defense people had, it was cheaper to make, much easier to mass produce, so you’d see some of the common soldiers wearing it. And it could definitely save their life. Layers of padded cloth could turn a killing blow into a scratch, or even stop an arrow if you’re lucky. There’s an account of the 3rd Crusade that compared the infantry after being harassed by the Saladin’s forces as looking like pincushions as they moved with arrows sticking out of their armor. Though it’s ambiguous if they’re referring to the low infantry that could only afford the gambeson or the more wealthy who likely had cloth armor worn overtop their mail.\n\nThere have been a lot of tests in the last few decades to determine the effectiveness of various weaponry on armor. Unfortunately, a lot of these tests were done by people to “prove” how one weapon was better than another, or how one weapon could beat all armor without much in the way of unbiased scientific research. You’ll see someone use a longbow and punch through some thin piece of cooking metal and claim that therefore a longbow could punch just as easily through armor. That is not the case. \n\nOne has to remember that weapon technology and armor technology went hand in hand. As armor got better, weapons changed to match them, which then changed armor to deal with the weapons and so on. But as a general rule, the best armor of the day made you impervious from anything but the most direct blows toward the weak points in the armor. \n\nWhile armor technology went through a lot of development over the period of time that we consider the medieval ages. I’m going to limit myself to full body mail that we see during the crusades, and then the full plate armor that isn’t really invented until the very end of the medieval period, but is what most people think of when talking about knights. \n\nMail, is largely immune to any weapon that cuts: swords, one-handed axes and the like. And with extra padding from the gambeson the mail has a pretty good cushion against a lot of bludgeoning weapons and piercing weapons like maces and daggers. Though these weapons could still wound or even kill. Despite the padding a solid hit with a mace or hammer on the head, could potentially bring the entire force of the blow down into the opponent’s neck. It would need to be a pretty direct hit, though. While a dagger or other such weapon could stick in between the rings of mail, or get pushed into a weak point where the mail isn’t as strong. Possibly going up under the neck armor to pierce into the throat. Or into the eye holes of the helmet to stab. \nArrows were a bit more of a problem than most melee weapons. One of the quick and dirty ways to see how effective armor was is to see what kind of weapons they had and when art depicts them as using some weapons. One of the easiest examples to illustrate this point is the huskarl of Norse and English fame. Now, huskarls were the wealthiest and theoretically the best warriors in their respective armies. In art they are depicted as being covered almost completely in mail armor and holding onto large shields when advancing toward the enemy, where they are in danger of being fired upon by their enemy. However, when actually engaged in melee combat, they would sling their shields on their back and fight with large two-handed axes as an anti-armor and anti-cavalry weapon.\nNow I want you to picture standing in the middle of a violent battle. Weapons are flying everywhere, swords, axes, spears, everything is whirling around much too quickly and chaotically for anyone to truly make out and keep their focus on. Someone attacking just out of eyesight could kill you before you could even know what’s going on. In such a situation any means of protection against this combat would be what you kept with you at all times. So to see them disregard their shield, one of their best forms of defense, and rely entirely on their armor to protect them. That speaks volumes about what they were worried about.\nEventually armor, and weaponry got better, and we get to the High and Late Medieval period where plate harnesses were fully or at least almost fully developed. \n\nYou have heard of the battle of Agincourt. Where English and Welsh longbowmen beat back the advancing armored French knights. A lot of people have taken this to mean that the longbow could pierce through the armor like it was nothing. That isn’t really the case.\n\nThere are plenty of tests some of dubious quality to show that, some use the wrong arrow, some use the wrong bow, some the wrong armor. None are perfect, but this is the best one I’ve seen: _URL_0_\n\nSo if longbows didn’t pierce through armor, how did the English win? Well, while one hitting a breastplate wouldn’t do much, an entire army of arrows can theoretically get into the weakpoints in the armor. There are accounts of the French knights lowering their heads as they charged because the volume of arrows shot at them would otherwise stick into their visors or breathing and eye holes. It’s also worth noting, that many of the French knights did make it to the English line, where they were stopped by the English knights fighting on foot, who hadn’t just charged over rough terrain into a constant rain of arrows. \n\nIn the terms of melee fighting, we see special anti-armor weapons being constructed like the pollaxe, one of my favorite weapons. It was designed specifically to be used while in full armor against opponents in full armor. And even then we have accounts of duels with the weapon continuing for long stretches of time where the armor of both contestants became battered beyond recognition but the men underneath were still fighting strong. The other powerful anti-armor weapon was the couched lance, being charged on horseback where the full weight of the horse and rider is placed on a single point to punch through the armor as best it can. This was so deadly that tournaments with these lances pioneered a thicker type of armor to protect the tournament knight. These armors could be twice as heavy as the usual field armor, and often didn’t allow much of the movement that would have been necessary to survive a battlefield, with pieces that restricted the arm and neck to move at all, all for the safety of the tournament knight.\n\nBut by this point the time of the near impenetrable armor was coming to an end. Now guns had lived concurrently with armor for hundreds of years, but as the power of guns grew, more and thicker armor needed to be developed to stop it. This was when the concept of bullet-proof came about. In order to prove an armor was immune to these weapons, the armor-smith would show off the armor take a pistol and shoot it point blank in the chest. The small dent the bullets made was the proof that the bullet couldn’t penetrate it. Here’s an example: _URL_1_\n\nBut we start to see armor getting thicker and heavier during this period to continue its dominance to the point that only the wealthy could afford it at all. And medieval style armor slowly disappeared, though armor itself isn’t gone. Even our current soldiers and police forces wear armor to defend against shrapnel and small arms fire. \n\nBut in brief. No. A movie or tv hero placed into an actual medieval battlefield would have their sword bounce off their opponent’s armor, and then they’d die. Likely from an attack they never even saw coming. Because they didn’t wear any real protection, and if they couldn’t afford it, weren’t standing in a protective line with their friends holding up their shield to protect them.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg",
"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/ce/c4/d1cec4d92b9afc9a92494fac016226e9.jpg"
]
] |
|
lxbm2
|
factory method design pattern
|
I've been pouring over Wikipedia and the Gang of Four book, but can't quite tell for what this design pattern's to be used. Thanks in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lxbm2/eli5_factory_method_design_pattern/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2wcxhy",
"c2wcxhy"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Have you ever had to instantiate an object, and then do *something* to configure or manage it?\n\nLet's say your application has a SoundManager object, and you need it to know about every Sound object that you create. This means that you're liable to write code like this:\n\n mySound = new Sound( data );\n mySoundManager.AddSound( mySound );\n\nIf you think about it, you're *always* going to add new Sounds to the SoundManager, right? So why not encapsulate that into a factory method? Like so:\n\n mySound = mySoundManager.CreateSound( data );\n\nThis example is pretty simple, but I hope you get the idea.\n\nIn addition to reducing code duplication, this has one other important advantage: the code which initializes your sounds is now located *in* the SoundManager object; you could modify it there, centrally, or someone else could write a subclass -- StereoSoundManager -- which creates StereoSound objects instead of the plain ones. This second advantage can be very handy when dealing with large libraries or frameworks, since you can work within the infrastructure established by the library while still providing your own object classes and constructors.",
"Have you ever had to instantiate an object, and then do *something* to configure or manage it?\n\nLet's say your application has a SoundManager object, and you need it to know about every Sound object that you create. This means that you're liable to write code like this:\n\n mySound = new Sound( data );\n mySoundManager.AddSound( mySound );\n\nIf you think about it, you're *always* going to add new Sounds to the SoundManager, right? So why not encapsulate that into a factory method? Like so:\n\n mySound = mySoundManager.CreateSound( data );\n\nThis example is pretty simple, but I hope you get the idea.\n\nIn addition to reducing code duplication, this has one other important advantage: the code which initializes your sounds is now located *in* the SoundManager object; you could modify it there, centrally, or someone else could write a subclass -- StereoSoundManager -- which creates StereoSound objects instead of the plain ones. This second advantage can be very handy when dealing with large libraries or frameworks, since you can work within the infrastructure established by the library while still providing your own object classes and constructors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9jlgkd
|
How did Buddhist communities in East/SE Asia perceive the decline of Buddhism in India?
|
Buddhism today is extremely marginal in India, despite having originated there, having lost ground firstly to Hinduism and later to Islam. Were Buddhist communities in East and Southeast Asia conscious of this decline? Was/is it lamented, akin to Christian and Jewish lamenting the loss of their holy land?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9jlgkd/how_did_buddhist_communities_in_eastse_asia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6sksfq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"We actually have some decent contemporaneous accounts of Chinese pilgrims visiting India during Buddhism's stable phase and then further accounts during the terminal phase. \n\nFaxian describes his experiences in India in his text *Foguoji (A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms)*. He departed China in 399 as part of a pilgrimage mission. He observes that there were apparently thriving monastic communities at Kusinagar (where the Buddha attained *parinibbana*) and other Buddhist sites. He observes that at this time Kapilavastu (Buddha's home city) and Lumbini (his birthplace) are desolate and dangerous places. If you visit Kapilavastu today I would say it is pretty similar to when Faxian visited. All that is left are some crumbling walls. We also see evidence in his records of Buddhist sites that were in a state of degradation - he describes how a holy site built over a place in Rajgir where Buddha preached Dharma was basically destroyed.\n\nFaxian describes his visit to the temple site in Bodh Gaya where the Buddha attained enlightenment. He notes that the temple is well looked after by Buddhist families and that monks who live in the area observe the precepts carefully. (Eventually this site is reclaimed by the Hindus - when it is basically discovered again by Buddhist missionaries in the 19th ce it is heavily overgrown and the Buddha image has been replaced with Hindu iconography. Anagarika Dharmapala - a Sinhalese Buddhist missionary - describes his experiences of this rediscovery in his biographical writings). \n\nNext we have Xuanzang who visits India in the 630s. He recorded his observations in the text *The Great tang Records of the Western Regions*. We learn from him that, at this stage, the situation was quite perilous and we get this very clearly from his writings. He reports that when he visited Jetavena it was basically in ruin. This was previously a major Buddhist site. Kapilavastu is predictably empty. Interestingly his visit to Kusinagar reveals an empty city with few inhabitants - just a few hundred years prior Faxian reports that there was a thriving monastic community. Again, at the city of Vaisali - previously having a community of monks - he finds \"very few monks.\" When he does find monastic communities he describes the conditions in negative terms - very often the monks are deprived and without lay support. The temples are usually dilapidated. \n\nXuanzang does complain about the fact that many of the monastic communities are Hiniyana and notes especially that they eat \"the three kinds of pure meat\" which he regards as evidence of not elevating themselves to a higher interpretation of scripture (i.e. the type of Buddhism he is familiar with in China). It is a subtle way of suggesting that they are pious but misguided. \n\nIn general, we get a sense from Xuanzang that Buddhism in India is in a pitiable state at this time. So in answer to your question, yes, there are historical accounts of Buddhism where we get a direct description of the condition of Buddhism in India and the impressions of the Buddhist pilgrims. \n\nIt is very interesting to note just how rapidly (comparatively speaking) things had degraded between Faxian's initial visit and Xuanzang's visit a few hundred years later. By the 9th ce Buddhism is all but completely destroyed in India. In fact many of the Indian Buddhist texts that we currently have only exist because they were kept in Tibet and translated to Tibetan during the initial dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet. Likewise, we also have surviving manuscripts kept in Chinese recensions. But major Indian Buddhist institutions of learning such as Nalanda were basically annihilated and the texts there lost. \n\nThere are many reasons for the decline of Buddhism in India. Hindu revivalism is one cause - Buddhism just ultimately became obviated by this more popular religion. Another important factor was a lack of state sponsorship - Buddhism originally thrived under state patronage and there was a long tradition of Indian rulers supporting many different religions, including Buddhism. But it seems that at some point this support ended. We also have to consider the fragmentation of the Buddhist tradition in India. After the Buddha's death the *sangha* broke up into many competing factions. This rivalry was probably not very healthy for Buddhism's longevity in its home nation as resources were stretched thin. Probably the least important aspect is the foreign invasion factor - while Muslim incursions into India was an issue for Buddhism (and all the native religions), Buddhism was virtually already destroyed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
glmcn
|
I was microwaving some water, and it exploded all over the inside of the microwave with a loud "pop". What happened?
|
The mug was about half full, and I had heated it up about half an hour earlier but left it in the microwave for too long, so I ran it for another minute and walked into the other room. At about 45 seconds I heard a loud pop, and when I went back to check it out I found water all over the inside of the microwave and hardly any left in the cup. What happened?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/glmcn/i_was_microwaving_some_water_and_it_exploded_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1ofz8w",
"c1ofzce",
"c1og9i6",
"c1oh7er",
"c1ohcbj",
"c1oi3ar"
],
"score": [
9,
103,
39,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Hard to say, but it was probably superheated. I've seen this happen with tapwater, and it can suddenly boil *after* it is taken out of the microwave, when you add a teabag to it. The teabag has nucleation sites for steam bubbles. [Here's a great video.](_URL_0_) At least it is great if you don't mind staring at a glass of water for a few minutes waiting for it to explode.",
"Superheating happened.\n\nWater normally boils at 100^o C or 212^o F, but that is only if there is a nucleation site for the first bubbles to form. A nucleation site can be a defect in the vessel (your mug in this case) or contaminates in the water. If you had relatively clean water, and a nice smooth mug, it's possible to heat up your water well above the boiling point. Some substances superheat easier than others.\n\nOnce a *tiny* bubble forms, the surface tension of the water might be enough to hold that bubble in place and not let it grow too much. The temperature has to increase a bit above the regular boiling point for the bubble to keep expanding. When the bubbles grows a little bit, the surface tension decreases and then the bubble grows *rapidly* which causes that loud pop you heard.\n\n[Here is the wiki article](_URL_0_).",
"Like others said, it's superheating. I got burned that way once, not fun. \n\nFor the cooler (heh) and less dangerous flipside to it, try supercooling.\n\nTake a sealed bottle of distilled water (not spring water; distilled water) and put it in the freezer. Place a roughly equal volume of tap water next to it (this is just to get the timing right). \n\nAfter 2-3 hours, check both. By then, the tap water should be frozen and the bottled water still water (you have to catch it at the right time; let it go too long and the distilled water may freeze, too). CAREFULLY remove the bottled water.\n\nNow you can make it instantly snap to ice by:\n\n1) Tapping the bottle sharply against a table\n2) opening the bottle\n3) Or the coolest one (if done just right): Set an ice cube on a table and pour the water directly onto the ice cube; the water will freeze up the stream and into the bottle. This one is hard to get right sometimes; it may take a few tries.",
"You have no fucking idea how lucky you are. JESUS. Usually the water waits until you drop a tea-bag in before it *LITERALLY EXPLODES IN YOUR FACE SCALDING YOU FOREVER*\n",
"This is actually pretty common. Be careful. The cup/water will look totally normal, then BAM hot water everywhere.",
"You really shouldn't microwave water; it can explode. If you're going to microwave water you need to break the surface tension. Most people do this using a toothpick or a popcicle stick, but just sticking anything in there will do it. Just, don't put anything metal in the microwave. Or anything that's still alive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FcwRYfUBLM"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5jekd0
|
how does the united states federal government prevent a president from assuming total control and creating a dictatorship - like the actual people, laws or processes, etc that stop a rouge president from becoming a thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jekd0/eli5_how_does_the_united_states_federal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbfi6p6",
"dbfi8bp",
"dbfkppa",
"dbfnqol",
"dbfr2fn",
"dbfrwnf",
"dbg9525"
],
"score": [
5,
48,
2,
10,
2,
24,
8
],
"text": [
"There's a system of checks and balances in place that prevent any one branch of government from having too much power. For example the president can veto a bill but congress can overturn it. The president can appoint supreme court justices but not without senate approval. There are lots of things the president can't do. \n\nIf he does the slightest thing that even hints at some sort of dictatorship there's always impeachment.",
"Mostly the fact that people would not recognize his authority.\n\nIf the president ordered airstrikes or army occupation of a US city without cause, the military leadership would inform the president that is an illegal order and ignore it and likely inform congress of the president's attempt to murder US citizens so that congress could impreach him.\n\nLegally, the President does not have the authority to make law, so he can't unilaterally change laws. Again, if he tries to enforce invalid law, congress can impeach him.\n\nWorst comes to worst, the States or People can rebel against the president's authority using police, national guard, and privately owned weapons.",
"The House of Representatives has the power to impeach the President by majority vote, the Senate has the power to remove a President after he's been impeached by 2/3 vote. The cabinet by majority vote also has the power to remove the President, but this is more for things like health issues, and not a judgement of conduct.",
"Members of the US military swear their oaths to \"Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,\" not to the President. They are specifically trained to disobey unlawful orders. A President who tried to seize power would quickly find that \"his\" armed forces wouldn't follow his orders. \n\nAnother roadblock against dictatorship is Congress. The House can impeach a President and the Senate can remove him from office. If that happens, the Vice President would take over as President. Two Presidents have been impeached, but neither of them was actually removed from office. (President Nixon chose to resign rather than face impeachment.) An attempt at establishing a dictatorship, however, would easily result in removal.\n\nThe final roadblock is the States and citizens. If a President somehow managed to claim such power, the States would certainly rebel. This could lead to another Civil War, but it's very unlikely that the US military would follow a President against the States.",
"This is where the 3 power branches come in. Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. They created this balance of power so the president can not become a dictator. That's why we have judges, senators, representatives, and all those lovely folks.",
"You have a number of things stopping this:\n\nFirst you have a [separation of powers](_URL_0_). By the supreme law of the country, the president only has a certain number of powers he can use( though this list has grown in past years). If a president tries to do something not allowed by the law, the courts and Congress can ignore them. All sides have a vested interest in keeping this upheld, while Congress has surrendered some of their power to the president, they will never tolerate becoming nothing, same with the courts. The closest we've come to this happening otherwise was when Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme courts order to not deport Native Americans by deporting Native Americans. He got away with this though because Congress refused to impeach him.\n\nIn terms of the military, while yes the president is the boss of the armed forces, all soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If a president oversteps his bounds and attempts to assume more power than is allocated to him in the Constitution, then the military is obligated to refuse to recognize his authority and orders. In addition, Congress controls paychecks, so unless a would-be dictator in can somehow assure soldiers they will get tons of money after helping overthrow the stable government of their nation, soldiers have a strong incentive to side with Congress in the event a president tries to go too far.\n\nMost importantly you will have [conventions](_URL_1_. People often underestimate this one, but there is a lot of force behind tradition and society just chugging along with what its done. we've had powerful presidents in the past who've greatly expanded their reach and power during times of emergency (Lincoln and FDR to name two), and while such actions were tolerated, we theoretically wouldn't tolerate a continual state of affair forever. We've had no coups or dictatorships in the past, this hopefully inoculates us from wanting on in the future. Soldiers by convention protect the Constitution, which is the ultimate authority for our nation, the president is just their rotating boss. Convention also means no one wants to be the first person to try and become dictator of America, it would be breaking more than two hundred years of precedent and tradition that most Americans value a great deal.",
"A rouge president? I'd say he's more orange than anything...;D"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(norm)"
],
[]
] |
||
3adwvt
|
how and why does mega work differently than others file hosting services?
|
When you download files hosted in MEGA you download the files "inside" MEGA and once they're entirely downloaded they go out to the normal downloads interface of the browser for less than a second before being stored in your hard drive.
This is different to others file hosting services that download the entire file directly in the downloads interface of the browser.
How does it work and why MEGA does it this way instead of the other?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3adwvt/eli5_how_and_why_does_mega_work_differently_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csbrkg1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mega does this because the file itself is encrypted. Files are encrypted before uploading and then decrypted on your system.\n\nWhat is really happening is:\nThe encrypted file is downloaded, this takes the time.\nThe file is decrypted, very fast.\nThe decrypted file is saved, as you noticed rather quickly.\n\nThey do this to meet some legal requirements in a rather twisted way that makes it harder on copyright holders, rather than the easier the law was intended to be. A major part of this is that the encryption makes it so Mega can not identify the content without first modifying it, but they are not required to modify to identify. \n\nMega slides through a loophole in the law."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ik9wg
|
Assuming there IS silicon based life there in the universe, what would they use as "water" or as their organic solvent?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ik9wg/assuming_there_is_silicon_based_life_there_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb598dl",
"cb599u7",
"cb5d4tt"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
14
],
"text": [
"If water is available, there's not much reason to believe they wouldn't use it - carbon and silicon have near enough identical chemistry with water.\n\nOtherwise, your options are quite limited. If it's too hot for water, you're really too hot for most simple liquids - you also don't really expect silicon at high temperatures, as its bonds are weaker than those of carbon, so it would run the risk of breaking apart. If it's too cold for water, you could possibly use some of the simple hydrocarbons (methane, ethane) if they were around in suitable quantities.",
"There are A LOT of \"what-ifs\" to this question, but I would say probably just water. The reason that silicon is proposed as a possible basis for life is that it should behave similarly to carbon based life as we understand it.\n\nThat said, some astronomers studying Titan have proposed it feasible that life could survive in the ammonia lakes, and hydrogen sulfide might be coerced to act water-like in cold enough environments, as long as you don't allow it to combust.",
"Hi! Chemist who works with silicon here. Si-based life would have a very hard time of it, for these reasons:\n\n1. Silicon is less electronegative than hydrogen, whereas C is more electronegative (Si is 1.9 on the Pauling scale, C 2.5 and H 2.1). This means nucleophilic attack (a common step in many chemical reactions relevant to biochemical processes) will happen at the Si site rather than the H. (Also, while this difference means that Si can form very strong bonds thermodynamically with electronegative elements such as O (exemplified by the thermal stability of SiO2 in sand a glass) or F, these compounds can be fairly kinetically reactive, since the large difference in electronegativity results in a highly polarized bond, thus inviting further attack by nucleophilic species.)\n\n2. Silicon has a very hard time forming chiral complexes (an important concept akin to the left or right \"handedness\" of a molecule, which determines the shape of molecules such as helices in proteins). The nitty gritty chemistry of it is that Si is larger atomically, and thus is less fussy about expanding its coordination sphere (which is a probable step that a molecule might go through in switching chiral modes) than C. \n\n3. Silicon is much less abundant in the universe than C, about 5:1. (However, in the Earth's crust it's the second most abundant element, after oxygen. But if we're talking best chance at forming a viable life form when the current known odds of forming C-based life are at 1/10^veryverylargenumber, it might likely be a factor).\n\n4. Silicon doesn't like very much to form double or triple bonds (a common motif in many biochemicals, such as many amino acids containing aromatic rings). \n\n5. Silicon oxides form the solid SiO2 (an extended solid with high thermal stability-- think sand and glass) whereas C oxidizes to give CO2, a gas. The possibility of respirating a solid makes the concept of breathing as we know it a little difficult.\n\nAny \"solvent\" for this hypothetical lifeform to form in would have to be able to address all of these points. Which is not very likely.\n\nEdit: formatting"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ea2cy
|
Did modesty in clothing (particularly covering the genitalia) originate from one culture or did cultures develop this fashion concurrently?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ea2cy/did_modesty_in_clothing_particularly_covering_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daax59z",
"dab08rd"
],
"score": [
3,
58
],
"text": [
"Followup:\n\nMy guess was that it's mainly to keep your core war, but then why do some peoples living in already warm environments cover up that area?",
"Perhaps this is a question more suited for r/askanthropology? I'd suggest cross posting this there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1og74m
|
why are we not working on sending a probe towards our nearest habitable planet (gliese 581g)?
|
Probably not the best fiscal climate in which to pose such a question but i do not think that probes are, on the scale of things, all that expensive. I should imagine that we have the capability to do so however i understand the we would probably not see the results of such an expedition in our life times given that Gliese 581 is 4 light years away. At (*insert knowledge here*)mph the probe would take (*insert maths here*) years to reach its destination but the results would surely be yet another great leap for humanity.
Additional questions
+ what would be the time delay on image return?
+ Do we possess the technology to accomplish this? *power requirements, guidance, etc..*
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1og74m/eli5_why_are_we_not_working_on_sending_a_probe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccrndn3",
"ccrng72",
"ccrnkby",
"ccrnv2e",
"ccroaib",
"ccrp1z1"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because by the time it could get there we'd already have sent probes there using faster engines, if there's any reason to do it at all. \n\nCurrent technologies would take on the order of a hundred thousand years. We can probably cut that significantly just by waiting a few decades. At that time scale, it would even make sense to wait a few centuries. Or millennia, if that's how long it happens to take to get a more economical and advanced probe. \n\nAnd incidentally, there's absolutely no reason to believe it is actually habitable... ",
"As Neil DeGrasse Tyson is fond of saying, scientists will tend to devote their time to projects that will give results while they're still alive.",
"Easy questions first:\n\n > what would be the time delay on image return?\n\n4 years.\n\n > Do we possess the technology to accomplish this? power requirements, guidance, etc..\n\nSort of. We certainly are capable of getting a probe that far from a fuel perspective, since things in space pretty much don't slow down once you get them moving. I'm less sure about how precise we could be, seeing as we haven't done it yet.\n\nThe big problem is how long it would take to get there. 4 lightyears doesn't *sound* that far, but it's a tremendous distance. The fastest we've gotten a probe (depending on how you measure it) is around 50,000 meters per second, which sounds like a lot, but it's still only .01% of the speed of light.\n\nSo, a *very generous* estimate for how long it would take is around 40,000 years. I don't think anybody wants to wait that long.",
" > At (insert knowledge here)mph the probe would take (insert maths here) years to reach its destination\n\nVoyager 1 is going fast enough that it will still be traveling at a speed of 16.6 km/s when it is far from the influence of the sun (this is its excess escape velocity). A that speed it would take over 72,000 years to reach Gilese 581 assuming your figure of 4 light years, although I'm finding a distance that is closer to 22 light years, so go ahead and multiply that time by 5.5: nearly 300,000 years. \n\nIt would have to have power for that time, which is not really feasible--it's far too distant to use solar panels, batteries wouldn't last more than a tiny fraction of the journey, and even the long-lasting nuclear generators like the ones that Voyager and Curiosity use would not last more than a few decades. \n\nWhen it gets there it would only be useful if it can either return (another 72,000 years) or send a signal back. The signal delay would be 4 years, which means that we would have to make it pretty much completely autonomous (not really a huge issue), but even just the issue of sending data that distance is staggering--I'm not sure how much power an antenna to send data that distance would take, but I'm sure that it would present a huge challenge.\n\nIt's just not feasible to send a true interstellar probe just yet--space is just too darn big. While we develop better and better technologies to try to attempt a mission like that it is much more reasonable to start looking at interplanetary colonization, particularly with respect to Mars. It's a whole world of free space where humanity could expand to once we fill the Earth up, and it's close enough to go there within a single lifetime. By the time humanity becomes a truly interplanetary civilization we will probably have the technology to create a craft that can take that 300,000 year journey and reduce it to only a few hundred. A craft we send in 1,000 years would probably get to Gliese 581 before one sent today. ",
"Voyager 1 is currently 18,880,233 KM away from Earth. \n\nGliese 571g is 20.22 light years away. That works out to 191295970155583.8 KM\n\nSo the distance to Gliese divided by the distance Voyager 1 has managed to travel in its entire life comes out to 10132077 (rounded)\n\nVoyager 1 has been going for 36 years. So 36 multiplied by 10132077 gives us 364,754,772 years.\n\nBy which time no human made probe would have any battery power left or means to communicate with earth, h\n\n**TL:DR It would take 300,000,000 years for a probe to even begin to approach that planet.** ",
"There are many good answers here, so for comparison I'll mention the furthest we've realistically planned to send current-technology probes:\n\nAn older idea was the [Thousand-AU probe](_URL_0_) that would use a nuclear reactor ion drive to reach a distance of 1000 AU (an AU, astronomical unit, is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun). Using nuclear reactors in space has been done before but it's falling out of favor.\n\nA more recent, scaled-down plan was the [Innovative Interstellar Explorer](_URL_1_), which would use safer radiothermal generators to power its ion drive. It was planned to survive long enough to reach 200 AUs. This plan is still \"on the books\" if the funding ever appears to get it built and flown.\n\nBut for comparison, Gliese 581 (at 20.22 light-years away) is 1,278,707 AUs away, over a thousand times as distant as our most extreme, feasible probe technology. Going to a nearby star just isn't on the tech map yet.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAU_mission",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovative_Interstellar_Explorer"
]
] |
|
352gct
|
Why is derivative notation d2y/dx2?
|
And not dy2/dx2 or d2y/d2x?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/352gct/why_is_derivative_notation_d2ydx2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr0bee2",
"cr0ldkg"
],
"score": [
42,
3
],
"text": [
"Often, dy/dx is written d/dx(y), where \"d/dx\" is an operator. It's an abuse of notation but well understood.\n\nIf you apply an operator twice it's common to write it as \"squared\" - another abuse of notation. e.g A(A(t)) = A^2 (t).\n\nIf you square d/dx you get d^2 /(dx) ^2.\n\nApply that to y and drop parentheses and you get d^2 y/dx^2 .\n\nSo it's a combination of notational abuses, but it's kind of stuck because it's cute.",
"The derivative with respect to x is d/dx, so the derivative of the derivative of y is (d/dx)(d/dx)y, or ddy/dxdx. This gets shortened to d^(2)y/dx^(2). That being said, it's an abuse of notation and doesn't make sense if you look too closely."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3z4rab
|
why will youtube show people dying but freak out over nudity even non sexual nudity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z4rab/eli5_why_will_youtube_show_people_dying_but_freak/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyj7ond",
"cyj7z1u",
"cyj8w9j",
"cyj8yzc",
"cyj9g5z",
"cyj9pcj",
"cyja7cz",
"cyjatml",
"cyjb2cz",
"cyjb2m9",
"cyjd5v8",
"cyjd8l3",
"cyjdbti",
"cyjdbva",
"cyjdoqp",
"cyje19j",
"cyje5xn",
"cyjelkg",
"cyjem91",
"cyjeqdn",
"cyjeqky",
"cyjergl",
"cyjf6s1",
"cyjff3q",
"cyjfgov",
"cyjfhha",
"cyjfhy4",
"cyjfoym",
"cyjfrxa",
"cyjfv5f",
"cyjg4vf",
"cyjg645",
"cyjg8dy",
"cyjgfc5",
"cyjgjs9",
"cyjgkjv",
"cyjgv5w",
"cyjh2yp",
"cyjh4es",
"cyjhfhn",
"cyji7ju",
"cyji9p4",
"cyjilnn",
"cyjiusc",
"cyjj0vk",
"cyjj3yo",
"cyjj7v6",
"cyjjalc",
"cyjjbom",
"cyjjk8w",
"cyjjq4l",
"cyjjts5",
"cyjjvf2",
"cyjkelf",
"cyjkhfo",
"cyjkjif",
"cyjkuqo",
"cyjleid",
"cyjlq3h"
],
"score": [
2679,
3,
1613,
291,
84,
468,
65,
14,
33,
3,
5,
13,
3,
2,
21,
4,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
236,
2,
3,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
11,
2,
3,
2,
6,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For the exact same reason a film can have dozens of deaths depicted yet remain PG but throw a couple breasts and swear words in and it's an instant R rating. American prudishness, pure and simple. All nudity is considered inherently sexual (not long ago there was a question on here freaking out about the idea of children at nude beaches) and sex is considered inherently bad.",
"It's just how society has developed. In this society we have, a nipple is more offensive than someone being beaten. Why? Social norms have just formed in this nonsensical way which everyone has just grown to accept.",
"Actually I'm pretty sure nudity is allowed on YouTube if it's in an educational context. There was a post linked on reddit a couple weeks ago where they put cameras inside a vagina to show the mechanics of sex and nothing was censored because it was from an educational show/documentary. There was moaning and full nudity and even ejaculation, all uncensored. (I would link but I'm on mobile and it would be a bitch to find right now) \n\nETA: link for you horny bastards _URL_0_\n\nStill gotta be 18 to view but have at it!\n",
"Uhh... Youtube usually takes down videos of people dying. The gore is always hosted on Liveleak.",
"Watch the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated, it will tell you in detail why in a very ELI5 way.",
"Actually, non-sexual nudity -- up to a point -- is allowed. Sexual non-nudity, though, is less tolerated: if it is primarily designed to elicit a sexual response, it's likely to be considered in violation of Community Guidelines.\n\nThe same actually goes for videos containing violence, gore, or anything that is intended to shock or disgust. I'd have to ask what you mean by \"people dying\", but it will depend a lot on the wider context and the intent of the video.\n\nGenerally speaking, videos have to be flagged by the community before they are reviewed by staff, since there's far too much footage being uploaded for it to be screened in advance. It may be that you've seen some videos that nobody's yet flagged.\n\nBut it's possible YouTube might have developed some sort of algorithm that tries pro-actively to find videos that may be in violation. I can well imagine that it would be easier to find nudity than death: to find nudity, you can start by simply looking for videos containing predominantly flesh tones.",
"let stephen colbert show you how retarded it is : \n\n_URL_0_",
"YouTube doesn't tolerate violence. I uploaded a video of an Iraqi teacher punishing class by hitting their butts with a ruler and I got a strike… ",
"Your premise simply isn't true. There's plenty of non-sexual nudity on Youtube. Also, there's not a lot of gore and people dying.",
"It is against Youtube's [policy](_URL_0_) to show violence that is primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful. That would include showing people dying, as it is disrespectful to the family of the victim. Youtube, however, does not review every video uploaded to the site and instead relies on the community to flag inappropriate videos for further review. Your question maybe should be, why don't people flag all violent videos for Youtube to review? I personally think it is important for people to see some of the shocking and violent things that are happening in the world (Ukraine and Syria, for instance) so that we are aware of what is happening, rather than hiding our heads in the sand under a veil of censorship. For these videos, I have to go to LiveLeak, because Youtube does not allow them.",
"You're not a U.S. resident, are you? We love our gut-spilling killing; but naked sex? Eww.",
"Because nearly everything about the world around you is a constructed reality. In the culture we've constructed, violence is necessary to maintain constructed things like hierarchies and borders that don't actually exist. It's frowned upon in personal interactions but is fostered and employed all over the world to further these imaginings. You may notice that people will often say, \"that's just the way it is\" about things that could easily be vastly different if we wanted them to be. \n \nSex and nudity speak to our true natural innate ways. They could supplant the imagined constructs as things that make the world go 'round if left unchecked. They are made to be taboo so as to usurp their natural power. \n\n\"The opposite of war is fucking.\" -Brian K Vaughan",
"Same reason that people don't care about kids playing violent FPS games, but scream bloody murder if kids see a female nipple.\n\nIt's just kinda ingrained in our culture, sadly.",
"People die everyday. But people don't get naked everyday... uh, well, at least the ones on YouTube don't.",
"Try writing a content policy. There are a ton of examples of death or violence being absolutly necessary to a show. Bambi has a death at its start. A news story about a drone strike might show a biilding exploding with dozens (unseen( inside. It is very hard - to the point that after a hundred years of trying and failing it may just be impossible - to articulate a clean line test for violence being obscene.\n\nOn the other hand , a guy cumming on a girls face and calling her a fucking slut is much easier to define as obscene and prohibit in a written policy. \n\nYes there is a degree of puritanical history built in. But sex and profanity are easier to class than violence.",
"It's an American thing. It's been that way for a long time. My friend's dad used to rant about that in the 70's.",
"Because 'MERICA, I guess.\n\nWell, as others have pointed out, it's not true that all nudity is banned... Just porn.\n\nThe rest, I guess, is 'Merica at work. As a German I've frequently seen the tendency of US-things censoring nudity but allowing violence, with Germany being the opposite around. Germany tends to leave more sex in but keep violence out as proven by video game and film testing standards. Video games often get censored for violence, but never for tits...",
"This isn't even true. I saw a video on YouTube a few weeks ago that showed a couple having sex with camera strapped to their genitals. It was 'educational.'",
"Are you sure? I have seen a lot of nudity on Youtube. Some videos having 1million+ views and not even requiring the viewer to be 18+.",
"nudity isnt banned in youtube for educational purposes. music videos can have nudity if it's restricted to 18+",
"Many Americans base their concept of morality on their interpretation of the Bible. The Bible condones violence, brutality, and mass murder:\n\nNow therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18\n\nSlaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.\" So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.\nEzekiel 9:6\n \nThe Bible also frowns upon sexuality:\n\nFlee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18\n\n\nBut I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28",
"Youtube like many other media companies has to conform to society's current norms and mores. We are much more accepting of violent imagery than nudity or sexual imagery. You can still find plenty of nudity on Youtube, but they make as much of as effort as it's worth to them to police it. Frankly, if they didn't, it would probably just become pornhub with cats and music videos. ",
"International law, I suppose.\n\nA friend of mine in America just started watching Vikings; whereas I had finished it on the extended EU BluRay version. He was completely nonplussed as to why *I* got all the boobs, butts and everything inbetween, yet he missed out.\n\nEDIT: [To clarify, this is what Americans get to see on the TV.](_URL_1_) Whereas, [this is what we in the EU get to see.](_URL_0_)",
"To the extent that this *is* true:\n\nBecause parents, particularly in Google's home country, are fanatical about nudity and sex being exposed to their children. Therefore it's bad business. Violent films and games are OK, but sex is another matter. Why? It's just an ingrained cultural attitude stemming at least in part from puritanical religious roots. I'm sure someone can give a better explanation than that, though.\n\nFor a perspective about American puritanicalism: My little nephew recently said the word \"penis.\" He was being comical, non-sexual. His grandmother admonished him, shocked that he would say that. The same grandma that lets him play Left for Dead (not that I object; just saying). On the upside, when his mother was told of the \"incident\" she responded: \"So? That's what it's called.\"",
"Non educational nudity in the US is usually considered pornographic, because of this, if youtube were to allow noneducational nudity, then it would legally be considered a pornographic website. Because of this, if someone under 18 were to view it, they'd be in legal trouble. ",
"I think that it has to do with culture. Americans have always been [very squeamish regarding nudity](_URL_1_) while violence as a whole is ok (this may seem odd if you come from a European country where the roles are reversed).\n\nYou can see this by looking at the [MPAA's movie rating system](_URL_2_) and [looking at its criticisms](_URL_0_).",
"Because violence and death are more easily explainable to little kids. Sexuality is more nuanced and complicated and parents are too embarrassed to go into details when little ones have questions.",
"They actually dont care about non-sexual nudity. If it is educational or has a point some what they keep it. Heres an example. Youre welcome. _URL_0_",
"Because there are mothers generally of Caucasian race, who don't have to work for their dreadful 80+ years on this planet so they get bored and try and be apart of things. ",
"For the same reason that we can teach any gruesome aspect of world history you'd like in school.. but show kids a condom and people go insane.\n\nI think the top comment mentions prudishness, but I don't believe that quite covers the willful ignorance towards sex, as well as the intentional misinformation they attempt to use in an effort to condemn any sexual behavior they, themselves, do not approve of.",
"Before I ever clicked on this, I knew the top posts would involve the phrase \"American prudishness\". Because it always is, every week that this goes up...",
"I wish they were super strict about LABELING content as violent, involving blood/gore, involving death, and then as well with nudity, sexuality, and then let people post whatever the law would allow them to post any place else online (aka no under age, no beastiality, stuff like that), and then give every YouTube account granular control over the kind of content that do or don't want to see.\n\nYou could even turn on the filters for the stuff currently not allowed at all by default, but give users an option to turn those filters off. Just my opinion.\n\nA better argument against porn on YouTube IMO is from the business perspective. Why should YouTube eat the costs of bandwidth while porn industry people profit? Then again, that's what the ads are for, and/or they could charge a premium to porn industry folk to use YT as a host.",
"If they didn't strike down sexually related content then the entire platform would just be porn. People already get increased views by adding sexual thumbnails. ",
"Quite a bit of youtube videos that are linked at /r/watchpeopledie get removed. So.... I think a certain amount of gore is allowed but TOO much gore isn't.",
"It's an American company and American companies are scared to death about nudity lawsuits.. just look at nipplegate, they got fined up the ying yang for that little stunt during the superbowl but if they show live combat footage with death and blood during prime time, nobody bats an eye.\n\nThat's the American way of handeling sexuality and violence.",
"Youtube regularly removes videos of people dying, or videos that imply someone died. Even ones with significant important, like Syrian civil war videos. A whole channel of them just got removed",
"YouTube is from the usa. \n\nCompare usa attitude to sex, to europe and japanese attitudes. \n\nEurope has great education. Open commercialization of sex. And as a result has the lowest std and teen pregnancy and generally better equality in male/female sexual equality.\n\nUsa has puritan social attitudes to sex which encourages behaviours like abstinence-only sex education. Breast feeding in public being shamed. High teen pregnancy rates and stds. It also has liberal attitudes to sexual advertising. Which in my opinion feeds in to a culture of taboo yet frustration towards bodies. Which in turn leads to things like sex violence.\n\nJapan has a open sex education, liberal attitudes to the body (like breast feeding) but its media and commerce is repressed to the point of censoring porn. So while teen pregnancy is low. Stds are low. And violent sex crimes are low. Commercial attitudes to sex are heavily fetishised.\n\nSo, to answer your question needs to look at each societies attitudes to violence in the same way I have above. You grow up with repressed boobies and open violence, then you are relaxed with violence yet feel weird about breast feeding mothers.",
"Ever heard of the Toyes? They have a song called what so bad about a nipple, kinda reminds me of what your saying.\n_URL_0_",
"Because human beings are sick in the head. We've always had more shame over sexuality than violence. We're more comfortable with hate than love.",
"\"Prude\npro͞od\nnoun\n\nplural noun: prudes\n\na person who is or claims to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity\"\n\n\nYoutube is an american company, run by Americans with american ideals. Sadly most Americans are prudes. They can't stand naked people, or the idea of talking about sex or sexual things unless its in an educational format, and even then, they have to use other words to describe things like penis and vagina. This prudish behavior is what they've always done, and you can't even attempt to tell them otherwise, its like discussing gun laws with them. Where as, their European cousins are open about their sexuality and have no issues with seeing a woman breast feeding in public or people talking about sexual activities on television.\n\n\nBut for some reason they(*the Americans) love their violence. They love watching things blow up, people being cut down by machine gun fire, and general nastiness. You can shoot people, drown them, bury them alive and still get a parental guidance age 13+ rating. Show one nipple and the prudes are back and your slammed with PG 16+ or worse.\nTL;DR - Americans Are Prudes.\n\nedit* clarity.",
"Because Christians and their fears of sexually empowered women have created a society that brings shame to anyone who is comfortable being a mature adult about sex nudity gender roles etc. \n\nWhy did they do it? Because every Christian male leader ever is a closeted homosexual and are terrified of their true selves.",
"Nobody's giving you the real answer, just their speculation and their opinion on sex culture.\n\n\n* Youtube uses an image-recognition algorithm that detects nudity. It can automatically remove porn, without anyone specifically reporting the video.\n\n\n* Youtube **does not allow** gory content. But it's much harder to decipher what \"guy stabbed to death\" versus \"cooking show\" in terms of a machine-learning algorithm.",
"There's a lot of non-sexual nudity on youtube, as evidenced by [/r/youtubetitties](_URL_0_). \n\nExistence of said subreddit also proves that there's no such thing as non-sexual nudity. ",
"No nudity?\n\nNSFW _URL_0_",
"People always act like this is some shocking hypocrisy, but it seems pretty natural. Ask yourself if you'd rather watch Bad Boys 2 with your parents or Eyes Wide Shut.",
"Because America has really weird Puritan mores about sex and bodies, but is far too comfortable with violence. ",
"Because United States. That's why. Violence is more socially acceptable than National Geographic episodes. It'd be kind of like asking why women are oppressed in Saudi Arabia. That's just how shit is, you'll need someone with a Ph.D in social studies to explain to you how a populace can have social pressures as well as foreign influences mold their domestic policy that get's ingrained into popular culture and later becomes tradition for it's people, followed by conservatives that will do their best to keep things the same. \n\nExplain like I'm Five? Ugh America is quite proud of the fact that it had to fight the British Empire (Mike Tyson in his prime) for it's Independance. It remembers it's first fight alot more fondly than it does the time it was rejected a blow job on prom night. Oh you're five, um, it's first kiss in the grassy field, yuck right?",
"Female body guilt. Most American women are fat. Women use sex to extract resources from men. Can't have more attractive sex objects on display everywhere that highlight their physical inadequacies. So it's banned under the guise of morality. Women don't care about morality though, when it serves their interests. But all the chumps just take it and accept that a tit is dirty somehow. ",
"Nudity is allowed if its art or educational, and people dying is usually taken down, but most people don't flag videos of people dying for some reason.",
"You can see educational videos that literally have a couple having Uncensored sex on YouTube. \n\n\nAlso, /r/youboobers has a bunch of videos with nudity\n\n\n\n",
"I think it's more interesting that \"family safety\" controls for both apple and Microsoft make it relatively easy to block porn for your kids, but very difficult to block violent content from Youtube, Liveleak and others.",
"Children born in the US who see nudity before age 14 will explode. US children have to wear pet surgery cones when they bath so they will not accidentally see themselves nude. It's kind of like a peanut allergy. ",
"I'm convinced that at least in north america, loudmouth christian conservative bullshit is the reason why you still can't see nudity or sexuality on most regular television, like the news or basic cable.\n\nHere in north america, religion has really ingrained the squeemish or sinful ideals of \"nudity and sexuality is wrong\" into our society, which is why artists like Myley Cyrus or Madonna really caused a frenzy with their sexually charged acts. Truthfully I think its bullshit that kids will play games where you can maim and mutilate imagery of other human beings, see images of gore and war in the news and in cartoons and listen to violent and misogynistic music, but everyone gets concerned if these same kids see a glimpse of a playboy or some titties on tv...",
"What I don't understand is how the media will censor a topless girl that is flat chested, but won't censor a fat guy with man boobs.",
"Because MURIKA loves its double standards.\n\nViolence - good vs. naked bodies - bad.\n\nKilling adults - easy peasy vs. killing fetuses - Wrath of God.\n\netc",
"Probably for [the same reason as Instagram](_URL_0_): because of Apple. If they allowed nudity, the iOS app would have to have a 17+ rating, and that would limit how many people would use it.\n\n(And, because I know what most replies to this comment will end up being: yes, many people here have the attitude of \"so what if a child sees boobs, they're part of the human body!\", but keep in mind there are lots of people out there who don't have this view, and many of them buy iPads for their kids. Maybe you disagree with their views, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist and YouTube still wants these people as customers.)",
"Nudity is allowed.\nVajina shaving tutorial, for example: (nsfw) _URL_0_",
"Some of the comments on here are pretty misleading. While yes I do agree that in America violence is pretty well accepted while sexuality and nudity is far from it, and I think that's wrong, there are a lot of gross exaggerations made about youtube content. \n\n\nWhile yes, you can find actual deaths on youtube, the majority of videos with deaths in them are NOT allowed on youtube, generally those that are more graphic. At the same time, Nudity is pretty easy to find on youtube in \"artistic\" and educational videos. There is some pretty explicit sexual content on youtube in the form of music videos, educational videos and the like. There is a lot more nudity on youtube than actual death. \n\n\nYou don't have to go overboard and act like you can find tons of gore on youtube before you find a female nipple to explain how fucked up censorship in america is. I feel like some of the top comments are very misleading as discourse about these issues shouldn't be so hyperbolic, that just makes concerns harder to take seriously.",
"Am I living in a different dimension? There's plenty of nudity on youtube. Especially in European movies. I even get recommendations based on all that I've seen. There are also channels who solely produce non nude softcore videos. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu0O9JIXQuU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkJS0IzZREk"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/communityguidelines.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://images.celebritymoviearchive.com/members/thumbs/m/Maude%20Hirst%20-%20Vikings%20-%20S01E05_3.jpg",
"https://timeslipsblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/desperately-seeking-floki-bjorn-meets-helga.jpg?w=714&h=401"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system#Emphasis_on_sex_and_language_versus_violence",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy",
"http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/film_ratings1.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/wRyoE60Sd3g"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://play.google.com/music/m/Txplgjk3yockocdxz6x6jro66tm?t=What_s_So_Bad_About_A_Nipple_-_The_Toyes"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubetitties"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiqG4cfOGk&list=PLhpp8OBXS14S4sAF84Ry62Ytk_rHW_5Hx"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freethenipple-2015-9?r=UK&IR=T"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/DIHxbYqEajI"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3l2qoo
|
What is the volume of an inch of rain?
|
I often hear rain-fall measured in inches. How can a 3d volume be measured with 2d linear measurements? Is there some standard amount of area used to gather the rain and calculate the rain-fall? If I leave out a 12 inch by 12 inch container and 1 inch of rain falls, how much water will I gather in the container?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3l2qoo/what_is_the_volume_of_an_inch_of_rain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv2ojej",
"cv2rxjr"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"So, first of all, a full measure of rainfall would be \"X inches in the last Y hours\". (Typically, the Y is standard, particularly on local news, and many times is just 24 or however many hours since the rainfall started. But a careful weather report will make sure to indicate the value of Y.) The reason you don't need to know the area over which the rain has fallen is because it doesn't matter.\n\nThe measurement is given assuming that the rain falls straight down and remains where it lands, with no runoff into streams or lakes and no absorption into the ground. So if I say that 1 inch of rain has fallen in the last 8 hours, that means under these idealized conditions, enough rain has fallen in the last 8 hours to cover the affected area (where the rain is actually falling) evenly with 1 inch of rain. So if you leave out a container with a flat bottom and constant cross-sectional area, it should have accumulated about 1 inch of rain in the last 8 hours. The area does not matter.\n\nIf that is confusing, just consider how we are defining each of the variables. The height *h* of the water in the container is \n\n > h = V/A\n\nwhere V = volume of water and A = cross-sectional area of container. The volume of water, however, is proportional to the rate of rainfall times the area A. So the area just completely cancels from the calculation. The height h is proportional to the rate of rainfall, measured in something like raindrops per square inch. (The constant of proportionality would describe the effective volume of one raindrop in inches-cubed, which we can assume is the same for all raindrops.)\n\nMore accurate measurements can be made with a so-called [rain gauge](_URL_0_), but the principle is the same. ",
"You will gather 12\\*12\\*1 = 144 cubic inches of rain. Rain-fall units have the dimensions of volume of water per area, which results in units of length. No matter the area of your container, if you leave it outside during an X inch rainfall, in the end the water level of your container will rise X inches.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_gauge"
],
[]
] |
|
2hz6oy
|
why does a rocking motion facilitate sleep?
|
Why does the rocking motion like that of a moving vehicle or a rocking chair put me to sleep? Why does this work for babies and also me as an adult? I can even just rock myself and it puts me to sleep - ELI5!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hz6oy/eli5_why_does_a_rocking_motion_facilitate_sleep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckxcbbs",
"ckxcz9l",
"ckxfijl",
"ckxgdxo",
"ckxh6ff",
"ckxi8jc",
"ckxlo5w"
],
"score": [
29,
44,
3,
8,
5,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Nobody knows it seems, not even scientists who have studied it.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nMaybe its something to do with rhythm which is soothing, like a heartbeat. ",
"I imagine that it has something to do with the development of an unborn child in the mother's womb. In what way is it comfortable to sleep? - in darkness, in warmth and with rocking motions, three attributes of the inside of the uterus. You spent the first nine months of your life sleeping inside of there. It's only logical that your subconscious pines for its relative safety and comfort.",
"I don't know why but damn it works ! My baby is nearly 2 months and if she's crying all you've got to do is rock her a few times and she absolutely loves to be in her car seat and the baby back back ",
"For babies, it makes travel easier while in a mother's arms. There's no particular reason to suppress that instinct as an adult.\n\nCats relax when you pinch their neck for the same reason.",
"I have always assumed it was related to the amniotic fluid we are formed in. Things in fluids move the same (mostly) regardless of the fluid itself, though the amniotic fluid is mostly water. A rocking sensation usually associates with laying submerged in a body of water.\n\nKind of like floating in water...\n\nI'm too big to fit in my bathtub..... -_-;",
"Since science seems uncertain on this one, I'll offer my own theory: \n\nLooking at how early humans probably lived and evolved, it would be very advantageous for a baby to become still, quiet and eventually sleep when carried or strapped to a moving (rocking) parent. Imagine a baby millennia ago on the plains of Africa. His mother is trying to gather food and his father is trying to sneak up on prey. If that kid can't be quiet and sleep while his parents do the things necessary for survival, he nor they are gonna live very long.",
"Consistency is the answer to this. What do you mean by consistency? Well, when there is so much going on in your mind, or you feeling uncomfortable in bed that you have to shift around, a consistent swaying motion allows you to not worry about anything else and focus on this motion. It is similar to meditation, when meditating, we focus on breathing, and we make it very consistent to exhale and inhale that helps calm the body.\n\nThis idea is same with sound. You can fall asleep to noisy environments, as long as the noise level stays consistent. As long as there are no significant changes, it should be okay. We don't have to talk about REM levels since I won't be going on about the topic on sleep and noise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/rocking-motion-fosters-deep-sleep-study-claims-2300289.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
303r53
|
why is it that playing an online game uses less data in comparison to watching a video or browsing the internet?
|
So I'm on shitty internet in Australia and I have a data cap, I've found that when I'm playing games online I barely use any data, but the second I want to watch a video it chews through my data. What's the go? ELI5
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/303r53/eli5_why_is_it_that_playing_an_online_game_uses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpoua3n",
"cpouaqr",
"cpouawu",
"cpovbb5",
"cpowrdb"
],
"score": [
23,
10,
5,
1515,
4
],
"text": [
"Online games don't need to send all that much data, just the positions and status of the dynamic objects in the game and a few small bits of info. Everything else is handled client-side by the player's computer.\n\nVideos on the other hand stream a whole lot of data all at once in order to play all the frames of the video. Video files can take a lot of space to store and a lot of bandwidth to play back, while playing games just requires you to pass a handful of numbers around",
"Because a game is rendered on your computer, all the graphics and audio is already on your computer, the only data that needs to be transferred to the other players is your movements and actions. ",
"A game is rendered on the client end (on your pc), all you send is basic info (where you character is currently located, what item you used, etc). This is mostly just text going back and forth. Text is small. Video is large.",
"Here's an analogy. You're driving down the road, talking to your mom on the phone, telling her everything you see. Your mom isn't familiar with the area, so you have to say a lot - what restaurants you're passing, what the streets are called, what the signs say, where the potholes are, etc. You have to say a lot. In other words, you have to transmit a lot of data.\n\nNow imagine instead, you're talking to your friend who knows the area. In fact, he knows the area as well as you do. So, instead of describing everything, you can just say, \"I'm crossing Main Street.\" He's familiar with the area, so he can imagine everything else - you don't need to describe it. In other words, you don't need to transmit as much data.\n\nThat's how games work. Your console and mine both already have the world stored in memory, so our consoles don't have to transmit everything - all they have to do is transmit our location, and the other console can extrapolate the rest.\n\nEDIT: Did this get linked from somewhere? It got little attention when I posted it last week, but since then it's exploded.",
"In a video, you get all the visual information in the download. Nothing is \"done\" on your PC except taking that data and display it properly.\n\nLet's say you play an MMORPG: There's a dude right in front of you. You will get his race (1 byte), his name (13 bytes. 12 for the name, 1 for the \"this string is over\" symbol), his looks (so, if you have 4 different options to modify the looks of the character, that's 4 byte), the gender (1 byte), his equipment (if you have 10 visible item slots, that's 10 times 2 or 4 bytes (more bytes = more possible numbers. since there are usually more items than you can fit into 1 byte, you need more bytes). Let's say 40 bytes. And his position (probably 3x1 byte plus 1 byte for the map ID) as well as his rotation (1 byte. Maybe 2) and what he's doing (animation ID. 1 byte).\n\nSo, that's 66 bytes of data for looking at another player. With this data, the game finds the right models, textures and animation files in the game files (that's why games are so large) and uses those to render. That's where the hundreds of polygons are. You don't download those. You just download data that allows the game to know which models to use."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
h5q0z
|
Is it possible to cure HIV or AIDS with a full body blood transfusion?
|
Not sure if HIV/AIDS infects tissues outside of blood. I know it's not a viable cure, I'm just wondering if it's possible.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/h5q0z/is_it_possible_to_cure_hiv_or_aids_with_a_full/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1ss0p1",
"c1ss0qs"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Probably not, as there is blood everywhere, so long as there is 1 virus still in your system, it will multiply again and again.\n\nIt's not very effective.",
"HIV infected cells migrate to (reside in) the lymph nodes as well as in circulation. Performing a full body transfusion, which would be difficult on its own, would not remove the infected cells which are traveling in the lymph or residing in lymph nodes.\n\n \n\nWhat you may want to look into is the recent case involving a patient who underwent irradiation and a bone marrow transplant that had HIV. The last I read about him (the article was published in Blood in 2010, don't have the article saved, but googling should come up with the right thing) he had no detectable levels of HIV. They didn't call it a cure (the media is/did) because there is the high chance that he has some population of HIV+ cells in his lymphatics or some other area which was not eliminated during the radiation therapy.\n\n \n\nAs to the initial part of your question. HIV primarily infects CD4 T cells, macrophages, dendritic cells, and in some instances NK cells. Some of these cells require a co-infection with another virus in order to be infected by HIV (NK cells do not express CD4, but when infected by herpes are forced to express it and can be infected by HIV). Any cells which express CD4 and CCR5/CXCR4 are up for infection by HIV. NK cells have recently been identified as important for the maintenance of the HIV infection as they serve as a viral reservoir."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.