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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3po14e
|
pulse vs hearth-rate
|
Is there any difference between pulse and hearth-rate?
I think of pulse more like of interval, and heart-rate like number of BPMs.
Also if possible, please refer to some sources for further reading.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3po14e/eli5_pulse_vs_hearthrate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw7x7qx",
"cw87cl7"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"**Heart**-rate\n\nYour pulse can have a little extra information on your health. A heart rate is the number of beats per minute that your heart makes, but on top of that a pulse can add the strength and consistency of the heartbeat at the point where it's measured. For example, a pulse can be characterized as \"weak and thready\" meaning your circulation system is having difficulty moving blood around due to a blood clot somewhere, even if your heart rate is normal.\n\nAs for sources for further reading, this is ELI5, not \"quote your sources\". Google it if you want more than a layman's explanation.",
"Commonly, they are used as synonyms, because they basically mean the same thing. But what they actually are is cause and effect: Your Heart Rate is rate your heart is pumping, and your pulse is the effect of your heart pumping blood.\n\nAn example of a difference would be in [Atrial](_URL_0_) or [Ventricular](_URL_2_) [fibrillation](_URL_1_) where your heart rate goes *too* fast. Rather pumping blood like it should, the muscles are just spasming; so even though your heart rate is very high, your pulse diminishes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrial_fibrillation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibrillation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventricular_fibrillation"
]
] |
|
evcwlo
|
how there can be so much money in network tv advertising and so little in comparative online advertising?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/evcwlo/eli5_how_there_can_be_so_much_money_in_network_tv/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffuwvh7",
"ffv7svu"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"What people don't like about broadcast and cable TV is the ads aren't avoidable. Online advertising is easy to block, and streaming services with ads see a lot fewer subscribers than ones that don't show ads.\n\nWith a network TV license and franchise you have geographic exclusivity. For the people that live in that area, you are the only game in town. This isn't even a meaningful concept on the Internet.\n\nYouTube is owned by Google, one of the highest income companies on the Internet. Sorry, but I don't understand your premise.",
"First off, Youtube is not struggling to profit; neither is Netflix. Netflix made more than $2 Billion in profit and $20 billion in revenue last year, far more than any TV station. Alphabet Inc (parent of Google/Youtube) is the 3rd largest company on earth with a value of $988200000000.\n\nSecondly, there are few TV stations. There are only 5 broadcast networks in the US: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and The CW. There are a few dozen pay channels available via cable. There are literally millions of websites. It's very easy to start a website. It's very difficult to start a TV station; you either need a license to broadcast or an agreement with a cable provider. So a TV station doesn't have to fight as hard for viewers.\n\nEveryone sees the same ads on TV, whereas ads on websites are individualized. An ad that 50 million people see is worth more than an ad that 1 thousand people see."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1r37tg
|
Need to explain gravity and falling objects to my 9yo...
|
I had an AWESOME conversation about physics, the planets, the sun and gravity with my son last night. I got to spin a weight on a string to demonstrate the moon's orbit, and we did the old "what would fall faster, this rock or this book?" game.
Naturally he chose the heavier one, and since at this weight air resistance wasn't an issue, much learning occurred. I explained that gravity pulls on EVERYTHING the same amount. Everything would fall at the same speed.
But eventually came the rock-vs-feather and rock-vs-paper and of course, in the atmosphere, paper loses to rock (we did not test scissors). The paper lost, I explained that it was the shape of the paper, catching the air, which was effectively pushing back against it.
So THEN came book-vs-paper, and book won handily. He rightfully pointed out that the book and the sheet of paper are the same shape. I said the weight of the book was pulling it more effectively through the air, and he reminded me that my claim was that regardless of the weight of the object, it would fall at the same speed.
Which, of course, is true. So in his mind, it's not the shape because they're both rectangular things, and it's not the weight because I say it's not...
I know it's air resistance. I could go into mass and inertia and density, but I think that might be a little advanced for a 4th grader...
Did I miss something? And if so, what? And if not, how to simplify this? He's got some excellent questions that I'd love to be able to answer, but I haven't had a physics class in over a decade...
Thanks all!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1r37tg/need_to_explain_gravity_and_falling_objects_to_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdj7jdk",
"cdj7jf3",
"cdj7oyv",
"cdj81fn",
"cdj932w",
"cdj95vn",
"cdjem5e",
"cdjgo0j",
"cdjh47y",
"cdji8zp"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
2,
4,
2,
15,
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Dropping things may not be the way to go. You should try rolling them down a hill. I think this was the way Galileo went about some of his experiments (though not a hill and more precise). I think the only time you'd get into a problem would be with weird shapes so you should be able to do a bit better experiment with different weighted balls. \n\nWith respect to the paper book issue. Isn't the paper loosing part of its downward speed from gravity by moving in a lateral direction? That may be easier for a kid to understand. ",
"The key difference here is between force and acceleration. You won't really be able to get away with avoiding inertia to explain this.\n\nSee, the gravitational *force* is indeed stronger for an object with more mass. However, that object also has more mass and thus more inertia. This means that it takes a larger force to reach the same *acceleration* for that object. It just so happens that the dependence on mass cancels out for gravity; every object experiences the same *acceleration* due to gravity.\n\nHowever, the *force* of air resistance does not depend on mass; it depends on the shape of the object (and its speed). The result is that, while all objects of the same shape (moving at the same speed) experience the same *force* of air resistance, due to different amounts of inertia (mass) they experience different *accelerations* due to air resistance. In particular, since the heavy object has more inertia, the same force produces less acceleration than on a light object.\n\nTo summarize: gravity produces more force on a heavier object than a light one but the same acceleration, while air resistance produces the same force on each but less acceleration for the heavy one.",
"For an simple unscientific demonstration, you can [build a parachute out of a plastic bag, some tape, and some yarn](_URL_0_) and have him experiment with different weights, to show that wind resistance is a limited thing that only slows objects by a certain rate.\n\nLike hook a toy action figure up to it, and drop it from the balcony (if you have one) and then hook up something heavier, and he can see that the same parachute and the same air affect objects differently. You could even hook up the book to the parachute and race it against the sheet of paper.\n\nThat way you don't have to get into the maths of wind resistance, and you can show him the difference in practical terms.\n\nEDIT: There's also the Apollo 15 video (one example of it is here: _URL_1_) where they dropped a hammer and a feather on the Moon, you can let him see what happens when there's no air.",
"The thing is, that gravity **does** pull with different force on different things.\n\nThe actual constant value is *acceleration* not *force*. The sheet of paper and the book are being accelerated equally towards the ground. Since their shape is the same, the force of air resistance should be roughly the same too. However, since the book has more mass, the earth pulls harder on the book, thus making it fall faster.\n\n\nThe mathematical description is as follows: (This is meant to give **you** additional insight in order to give you well funded knowledge to share with your son)\n\n \nNewton's law of gravity states that F_Gravity=G * m * M/r^2 (G being the gravitational constant, M & m the masses and r the distance between them)\n\nNow, Newtons Axiom states that the movement of a mass under the influence of a force is given by F=m*a\n\nIf we substitute F with F_Gravity we get G * m * M/r^2 = m * a.\n\nAs you can see, m can be canceled out of the equation.\n\nThis leaves us with a = g = G*M/r^2 .\nThis equation shows, that the acceleration of all masses in a gravitational field is, indeed, equal.\n\nThen why are some things heavier than others?\n\nTo answer this question, we have to ask ourselves, what weight is. Weight is the force with which an object is pulled towards the earth.\nSince the force, is given by F=m * a, and the mass of different object differs, the force which objects are pulled towards the ground is does not necessarily have to be constant.\n\n",
"So, to answer this you have to understand the difference between \"force\" and \"acceleration\" (I know, you're thinking- of course I do! But, your explanation shows a misunderstanding between them). Gravity attempts to *accelerate* everything at the same rate- and it does this by pulling on heavier things with more *force.* \n\nA nine year old might not be able to fully understand Newton's second law (F = m\\*a if you need a refresher) but you can probably explain it to him pretty well. Tell him to imagine a rocket hooked up to a car, and how that rocket can make the car go fast. Now imagine that instead of a car, it is a big truck. The rocket, which puts out the same force regardless, will push the truck slower than the car. And now hook that rocket up to a train, and the train might not move at all. Or if it does, it will move slowly. This is the basics of Newton's second law- if you apply the same force to objects, the heavier ones will move slower than the light ones. You can do this experiment by trying to push a book across the table, or a stack of books- you'll have to push harder for the stack. \n\nOK, so gravity isn't a rocket. Gravity pulls harder on things which are heavier. In fact, if you double the mass of the object, gravity will pull twice as hard. So that is like if you made a car twice as heavy, but also attached two rockets- the acceleration would be the same regardless. So, gravity provides *twice the force* on an object twice as heavy, but due to Newton's second law, that is *the same acceleration.*\n\nSo now, add in air. Air resistance comes from the object having to move air molecules out of the way as it falls. So, it makes sense that the force of air resistance would be dependent on two things- the \"surface area\" or shape of the object in the direction it is falling and the speed at which it falls. The larger the surface area (again, only in the direction of falling, a book turned up on its spine would have less air resistance than a book lying flat), the more air molecules it has to move out of the way. Also, the faster it is falling, it will hit more air molecules it has to move. So, the larger those things are, the larger the force of air resistance. \n\nThus, as you might expect, a book and a single sheet of paper should have the same air resistance (at least, when it first starts to fall- eventually the book will have more because it is moving faster). So, they have the same force pushing up on them- but that *force* causes more *acceleration* on the lighter object (the sheet of paper) than the heavy one (the book). \n\nPlaying with some numbers (we'll choose easy ones). Imagine you have a 1 kg book and a 2 kg book, and we'll say the acceleration due to gravity is 10 m/s^(2). The, using Newton's 2nd law we can see that the force due to gravity on the first book is 10 Newtons (A Newton is the SI equivalent to a pound, it has units of force) and the second book at a force of 20 N. But now imagine each of them have 5 Newton's of air resistance acting on them. So, the total force acting on book 1 is 5 N, and the total force acting on book 2 in 15 N (Forces add- and since they are in opposite directions you are getting 10-5 and 20-5). So now, we can use Newton's second law to calculate their acceleration:\n\n > a = F/m (just re-arranged) \n\n > a1 = 5N/1kg = 5 m/s^2\n\n > a2 = 15N/2kg = 7.5 m/s^2\n\nSo, the book that weighs more (but has the same air resistance) accelerates faster. ",
"I think one of the first mind-blowing things one learns in life is when you are taught that *everything* attracts *everything else*. Please include this in your discussions. It is not obvious at all, and only nowadays do we have experiments sensitive enough to measure the influence of, say, a solid sphere upon another test object. You can however easily convey this by pointing out that the earth moves around the sun, and the moon around the earth. The simplest explanation is that both the sun and the earth 'exert gravity', and from there that everything 'exerts gravity'.\n\nRelated: does anyone know when this idea was conceived? Did the early inventors of heliocentric models immediately make this implication, or was it not until Hooke and Newton that is was fully realized?",
"A simple thing that no one's mentioned is to put the piece of paper on top of and underneath the book when you drop them, rather than side by side. If they actually fall at different speeds, they would separate in one case. They'll fall together in both though, because the paper is shielded from air resistance effects by the book. If air resistance wasn't what was causing the difference, then this wouldn't matter.",
"Smart kid. Tells it like it is.\n\nWind resistance is proportional to the area of the object. But heavier objects are heavier and push down harder on the air. So if two objects of the same size are falling through the air, the heavier object will fall faster.",
"Please, please please show your son this:\n\nHold the paper and book up in the air shoulder width apart and drop them at the same time. The book hits the floor first.\n\nNow place the paper on top of the book. Make sure it's pretty flat and hugs the top of the book as best you can get it (edges of the paper must not extend past edges of book). Now drop the book. They fall together.\n\nIf nothing else this will astound him enough that he won't forget it and will continue to seek answers.",
"Little OFF: If you explain something to your kid (or any kids) it is a common wish for them to understand it. Sometimes explain the matter more advanced way (without the simplification). This way the kid will learn that there are things he cannot understand, and in time, that many things you don't understand either. It will open his perspective about the nature of knowledge."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Plastic-Parachute",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4s4bf1
|
in the way that people are able to build their own pcs, how far away are we from being able to build our own cellphones?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4s4bf1/eli5_in_the_way_that_people_are_able_to_build/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d56eiqh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The major issue there is that most cellphone technology is extremely compact and build to fit around preselected parts where computers have components that can come in diffrent shapes and sizes, the designs are also far less modular. When I replied my iPhones charging port I had to use tweasers to re attach some components. They also lack a uniform standees design like computers making most parts incompatibl."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
31uzwn
|
what is programmatic advertising?
|
In context of online ad tech.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31uzwn/eli5_what_is_programmatic_advertising/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq57osm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Using programming (computers) to buy ads. Some are sold in what's called real time bidding. Basically when you visit a website with the ad in question whoever is selling the ad starts a short \"auction\" among some competitors and whoever has the highest bid gets the add and that's what you see. So obviously this all happens very fast, less than a second. The sellers then obviously will use computer programs to make this efficient. \n\nWhen you visit a web page certain information is available about you from your browser, your IP (which can reveal information about where you are browsing from), cookies and other things that which can reveal more personal information. Computers are much faster than humans at calculations if you tell them the right thing to do so when all this information is available you can have the computer figure out how much to bid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2qeoyc
|
why do you hear so much more regarding desperate and lonely men rather than desperate and lonely women? shouldn't there be more or less an equal amount of both?
|
"Lonely men" for example is something you hear way more often that "lonely women" (except for those "Wow this 10/10 local and lonely girl wants you!" ads). But why is this? Are women less prone to feeling lonely the same way, or are they just more quiet about it?
I believe the actual lesbian/gay minorities should be small enough to not make a substantial difference for any gender. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit: tl;dr seems to be men are more horny than women. Fair enough.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qeoyc/eli5_why_do_you_hear_so_much_more_regarding/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn5f6xw",
"cn5f87m",
"cn5gp5k"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"If a guy bitches about being lonely anywhere public, he may get listened to or ignored, perhaps ridiculed. If a woman bitches about it, she is likely to be inundated with sex offers and pictures of naked guys from the previous sentence, which is unlikely to help her, so they are likely more silent as a self defence mechanism.",
"I'm not sure why it's voiced that way. Probably a part of it has to do with the comment EvictYou said, its simply easier for a desperate woman to have sex than a desperate man. But when it comes to a broken heart, broken love, BOTH genders feel lonely at times, even when the break up was necessary. Lonely for intimacy and lonely for love are different things.",
"Women have far better support systems available compared to men.\n\nIt's socially acceptable for women to feel hurt and express those feelings. They usually get ample sympathy and support from friends, family, colleagues and the public. When a man tries the same, he's ignored, ridiculed and perceived as weak."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3iarsy
|
how is orange juice economically viable when it takes me juicing about 10 oranges to have enough for a single glass of orange juice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iarsy/eli5_how_is_orange_juice_economically_viable_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czjw23q",
"cuesth7",
"cuestxr",
"cueszn6",
"cuetdjm",
"cuetm0r",
"cuetmxy",
"cuetxg4",
"cuev7nt",
"cuewi03",
"cuewtpb",
"cuexc8j",
"cuexh5l",
"cuexr4d",
"cuey1tr",
"cueyjjr",
"cueyl0t",
"cueywil",
"cuez66c",
"cuezin8",
"cuezywi",
"cuf00vj",
"cuf04hs",
"cuf0wld",
"cuf1e9l",
"cuf1fwl",
"cuf1jow",
"cuf1n1f",
"cuf1pjs",
"cuf1v7p",
"cuf23kx",
"cuf24bk",
"cuf2tzd",
"cuf32sc",
"cuf3btw",
"cuf3k5i",
"cuf3q94",
"cuf4zta",
"cuf5dcy",
"cuf5i0k",
"cuf5o1k",
"cuf6yfe",
"cuf7gam",
"cuf7tpo",
"cuf8t7y",
"cuf8vgy",
"cuf8wzs",
"cuf9zv0",
"cufa8aq",
"cufal0z",
"cufat4s",
"cufc0s1",
"cufccey",
"cufdy8x",
"cufdyei",
"cufe022",
"cufgpjk",
"cufit6x",
"cuflffg",
"cuflq66",
"cufnawf",
"cufr4np",
"cuft0j3",
"cuftvyq",
"cuftztx",
"cug1f8h"
],
"score": [
2,
3917,
31,
4,
57,
20,
5,
346,
80,
3,
25,
23,
12,
18,
2,
2,
2,
1079,
4,
2,
2,
5,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
13,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Also the citrus processors extract things like oil from the peels, they don't just squeeze the juice and throw the rest away.",
"They use machinery that grinds the orange down to more or less nothing, and can extract every tiniest little drop of juice from it. The machinery pretty much grinds up the oranges whole, skin and all, and then extracts every drop of juice from the ground-up mess. So they get more juice per orange than we can by hand, or even really with a countertop juicer. Multiply this by the scale at which they work - truckloads of oranges at a time - and that's how it works.\n\nDid some IT consulting at the Tropicana factory in Bradenton, FL for a while. I learned some pretty interesting things about orange juice while I was there. Also had to wash my hair 2-3 times when I came home on Fridays or I'd smell like oranges all weekend.",
"Remember that when you buy an orange, you're buying a small number of oranges, from the end of a chain of producers.\n\nWhen an orange juice manufacturer buys oranges, they're going to a producer directly and buying the entire crop.",
"10 oranges are really cheap when they don't have to be transported all the way to the store.\n\nNot only that, but to add to what dalidrow said, most orange juice sold in stores is often not real orange juice, it's also actually made from oranges stored so long they have to scoop mold off the top, and it's lost it's flavor and is actually flavored with artificial orange flavors.",
"First [watch this](_URL_0_).\n\nBasically \"second class\" oranges that have the same food quality has a much lower price. And of course, they are juiced with machines.",
"Because they can store it indefinitely. The pasteurization process makes it keep for a long time... It also destroys the flavor. The actual flavor of orange juice comes from companies like Chanel that produce a flavor pack that re-flavors the mass produced pasteurized and stored OJ. They buy in bulk, extract every last drop of moisture, and can have it on shelves nationwide year round. \n\nBecause of that, it's profitable. ",
"Also, the orange juice you buy in a store is not all orange juice...not even close.. not even anywhere near half.",
"10 oranges for a single glass? Either you have very small oranges, very large glasses or a very bad juicer. A single orange usually has around one third of a cup of juice.",
"The fancy machinery is one part, but another big reason is the quality of the fruit. Generally they come in 4 grades. Firsts, seconds, juicing and rotten. There isn't a wide gulf from juicing to rotten. Don't think about it too much.\n\nSource: orchardist background",
"It is easier to fill a carton than it was 10 years ago. Good luck finding a 64 ounce carton. They are all 60 ounces now. Multiply that by millions and $$$ to Tropicana and the like.",
"You might not be using the proper oranges. I live in the south east of spain, in a region called Valencia, well known for its oranges. There are those for juice, those for eating, sweeter oranges, etc. We've got different types of oranges depending on the season, the area, the soil ... Agriculture bitches!",
"A lot of folks are pointing out that the oranges themselves are different, and that fancy equipment can get more juice out of the oranges. All that is true, but it doesn't explain how OJ is economically viable. \n\nIf one orange tree can produce X bottles of juice, and maintaining the tree + harvesting + land + all the other costs ends up being Y dollars per tree, then all you have to do is do a little math to figure out how much you can sell bottles for and come out ahead.\n\nI think what you're really asking is how can orange juice be so cheap compared to the cost of the oranges it would take you to produce the same amount. Here you have to remember that orange growers aren't charging for oranges based on their expenses but based on *how much you'll pay for them.* If you'll pay 50 cents for an orange then they charge that. You might not want to pay a dollar. They're going to sell an amount of oranges that maximizes value. Better 1,000 oranges at 50 cents than 200 oranges at a dollar.\n\nIf we assume that selling oranges in their natural form is the most profitable way for growers to sell them, then they would sell all of them this way if possible. If they flood the market with oranges though the price will go down. At a certain point it would become cost-prohibitive. If oranges were selling for a penny a piece then everyone would go out of business (probably). So if orange growers only sell 10% of their oranges this way before it becomes inefficient, they can use the other 90% to make juice.\n\nMaking juice might only yield a profit of 1 penny per orange, while selling oranges straight up yields a nickel per orange. But it's better to make that 1 penny than flood the market with oranges and go out of business. \n\nTL;DR it's all about meeting demand at efficient levels for each portion of the market. Gotta do something (profitable) with all them oranges.",
"They use shit oranges you wouldn't buy off the shelf and they use an industrial juicer that grinds every molecule of moisture off that sumbitch. ",
"I don't know how grocery store OJ is economically viable but I will tell you that the fresh-squeezed OJ you get at a cafe or health food store is economically viable because it is as expensive as fuck.",
"The oranges you use for juicing are not the typical bright orange ones you get a the store. They are bigger. Some of ours can be almost the size of a small grapefruit. Not as pretty, but they make the best juice.",
"Son, you are using some shitty juicer, I get a glass of juice from 1 orange and the leftover product is dry as paper. The juicer was like 500$ tho : (",
"Oranges are cheap. You pay a lot more for them at the grocery than Tropicana does with its farmers.",
"My father worked in various divisions of Tropicana for nearly 40 years, going from factory work and into corporate. He has more knowledge about the industry than nearly anyone in the world, though he retired several years ago.\n\nHere's what he has to say:\n\nA standard box of oranges (as bought from a grower in Florida) weighs 90 lbs. That box when extracted by a processor will generate 5.5 to 6.0 gallons of orange juice. A typical box of oranges will supply 180 to 220 oranges ... depending on the maturity and the variety of orange. That means that it takes about 34.8 oranges to produce a gallon of OJ.\n\nRe cost .... the economics of \"table fruit\" that you buy to eat is different than the economics of field run processed fruit. Table run fruit is sorted for appearance, boxed, and sold at a premium. Some varieties of table fruit are also processed but mostly used as table fruit and sell at a significant premium to processed fruit. Valencia, Parson Brown, \"Pineapple\" oranges and Hamlins are the main varieties of oranges used in Florida to make OJ in processing plants. Extractor do not \"grind up the fruit\". There are 2 types of extractors .... one \"reems\" the fruit like you do at home and the objective of the reem is to get all of the juice, pulp and inside of the orange without impacting the white interior of the fruit (albedo) which is very bitter. The peels and waste material are then sent to a feed mill where they are pressed to reduce liquid content and dried to make cattle feed. The pressed liquid is run through an evaporator to turn it into molasses and added back to the cattle feed to sweeten it up.\n\nA comment in the string says \"don't let them tell you they don't add water because they do\". They don't add water to not from concentrate Orange Juice .... it is against the law and no reputable brand would do this.\nThe cost of the oranges is so different because when you buy table fruit it is at most a bag .... processors sign contracts to buy whole groves of oranges .... sometimes buying millions of 90 lb boxes at a time. If you look in the commodity exchange ... you will see \"Orange Juice Concentrate Futures\". This is the price a processor is expecting to pay for a standard pound solid (about one gallon of single strength orange juice) in the future. That cost typically runs from $1.25 to $2.00 ..... for about 35 processing oranges. (See math at the top of this note)\n\nNuf said ... ",
"Have you been to a diner? Orange juice is served in a thimble and costs twelve dollars. ",
"Because champagne, mods told me mimosas wasn't an elaborate enough answer for an ELI5. But I'm currently 7 tall boys of lone star in. So, ya know, I'm reaching now. \n\nI also keep waking up my cats which makes me guilty but I've been working doubles and yesterday was my Friday ",
"I would add that they juice the oranges near the orchards in Florida. Then concentrate the juice to a paste, freeze it, and then ship it via tanker truck or train to other states where they either can it and sell it frozen or they add water and put it into bottles and jugs. \n\nSo it's economically viable due to concentration and bulk transport and distribution.\n\nFurther, oranges in Florida are cultivated for their juice. They aren't usually table oranges. As such they may posses blemishes or discoloration. So then, they are less expensive to produce. Require less maintenance and insecticide, and all the fruit can be harvested and sold.\n\nHowever, those that grow table oranges must protect them from weather and insects so they don't have blemishes. All the fruit must be perfectly orange with no green or deformities and then it is shipped fresh across the country. So then, there is greater expense is producing the fruit, more waste when harvesting because much is thrown out, and greater expense in shipping around the world. ",
"It is because you are using commercial oranges. They have been picked, culled, shipped, and profits are made every step of the way. They have to be free of blemishes and \"perfect.\"\n\nThe oranges the commercial juice makers use are plain old oranges, mechanically picked, imperfect, and sometimes pretty horrible looking. They use huge presses to get the juice out--hundreds or thousands at a time.\n\nIn short, you are using the finished product to make more finished product. They are using raw materials to make their finished product.",
"I live in Brazil, here a box of oranges (40.8 Kg = 90 lbs) cost R$ 9.70 (around US$ 2.80). Assuming that each orange is about 200 grams (0.45 lbs), one box = ~200 oranges\n\nThat's US$ 0.014 per orange. I think the cost to extract the juice for each orange is greater than the fruit itself, lol\n\n10 oranges will be 14¢. Add to that the price of production, services... And yeah, you have a viable product!",
"Orange juice and oranges have different costs based on where the oranges are grown and what it costs to get them to your super market. \n\nThe oranges in your OJ are grown and juiced in Brazil and the juice is shipped to the US in large tanker boats, much bigger than would fit in your bath tub. The juice is heated and stored in a way that means it can make the slow journey by ship and even be stored for up to a year without going bad. But the flavor is taken away by the storage so the juice would taste bad. When the orange juice comes to the US the workers carefully make it taste good again by adding orange flavor that comes from oranges like orange oil and orange essence. Cheaper labor, the ability to store juice, and a process to make juice taste the same year round makes it juice cheaper.\n\nOranges you buy in the store need to taste good, and look pretty. This means the oranges need to be the best looking, and carefully shipped. This makes them more expensive than all the processing that goes into orange juice.",
"What you pay for a produce is not the cost of growing. Farmers only get a fraction of what you pay. The real costs are transport, shelf life (15-25% of all fresh products end up in the trash, either at the supermarket or at home),... \nThe transport cost for juice is far, far, faaaar less than fresh oranges. Concentrated juice is transported like petrol: _URL_0_\nShelf life is almost infinite, compared to fresh oranges.\n\nWhat I like best is the fact that most juice in Europe comes through the port of Ghent (largest juice port in the world). Ships offload in 2 terminals: Citrus Coolstore and Dreyfus. Juice manufacturers purchase from these. So ALL the juice brands in Europe use the same concentrated juice. The only difference is the mixture pulp/juice and sugar/water added. \n\n\"But\", you might say \"some are Dreyfus and some are Coolstore\"? Nope: juice ship arrives at Dreyfus, unloads half its cargo, and then unloads the other half at Citrus.\n\nSo that premium juice you are drinking? Same juice as the low-cost brand. ",
"Because companies buy in bulk. So they pay far less for those 10 oranges than we do. Which results at lower costs, which CAN lead to being profitable.",
"A lot of people saying shit here,i'm a brazilian, here the orange juice made at home is actually cheaper than the orange juice, specially outside our major cities.\n\nThe reason of this diference envolves shipping prices and orange juice making process.",
"They use the culls to make OJ. Any orange that does not meet the criteria for a sell able orange is sold to the jucier at a price that hardly ever meets the cost of production. These are the blemished, frozen on the tree, oranges with insect, bird, disease damage. In other words OJ is make of the oranges that they would toss out.",
"My grandparents used to own a farm. On the conveyor belt the smallest apples were the first to roll off into a big cardboard carton which was described as \"the box the goes off to the juicer\".\n\n Furthermore the packers would inspect all the apples and if they had any blemish at all they were labelled seconds and likely got delivered to your cheaper grocery stores or neighbourhoods, and anything that was bruised or battered or slightly rotting got thrown into the juicing pile.\n\nSo essentially - you would never sell the fruit that goes to the juicers in the first place, and as a farmer you're happy that someone will take them off your hands, so naturally you sell them for less. \n\nBTW in Australia the farmers get a bad deal... They get cents in the dollar for each piece of fruit they grow. Most of the money goes into to transport and the supermarket. The juicers as not paying anywhere near the prices you are, even if they were to use first grade fruit that is sold in the shops.",
"Same reason cherry is an inexpensive flavor of jelly.\n\nMost of the crop isn't able to be sold fresh, so it's immediately juiced and then frozen.\n\nYou'll see this with a lot of fruits that you rarely see fresh, but you see as jellys, or as flavors in other things. (blueberries, raspberries, etc)",
"But consider the nutritional value of 10 oranges versus eating one orange. You get fiber which helps slow the rate of the sugars releasing. Double bonus. Otherwise, fruit juice isn't really all that healthy. ",
"also Juicing oranges are a completely different breed of orange from the ones you get in the grocery store. They're uglier looking and produce wayyyy more juice. ",
"In addition to a lot that has been posted below, cheap labor has a lot to do with it. They are able to harvest mass quantities, and pay relatively small amounts for that labor due to migrant workers.\n\nNot to get political, but that is one of the major things that conservatives in the US don't get when they talk about \"building a wall\". Losing that access to cheap labor (for jobs that the vast majority of Americans are not willing to do) would cause a sharp increase in the price of most food.\n\nSOURCE: I grew up on a farm in the south.",
"You're also buying your oranges at retail price, and store fruit is also the fruit that looks extra nice, no weird shapes or bumps, because we spoiled first-worlders just don't want any ugly, wonky-looking fruit. (Baby carrots aren't baby carrots, they're ugly/bent carrots thrown into a machine that grinds off the nubby bits, and marketed cleverly, so you pay a premium for stuff people wouldn't buy whole.)\n\nJuice companies buy in bulk, and have a lot of bargaining power. They probably get a good deal on buying an entire orchard's crop.",
"If you buy freshly squeezed orange juice, (whole foods, for example, usually does it at their locations daily) you will notice two things:\n\n1.) it tastes so much better than any other orange juice (and the vitamin C content is like double that of regular OJ.)\n\n2.) it is expensive as fuck. Like $10 or $11 for 64 oz. \n\nI have read that mass produced orange juice is pasteurized so much that they have to chemically reintroduce the orange flavor. The taste difference is real. ",
"Juicing oranges are less good looking and less store viable, and therefore cheaper. Also it costs a lot of money to ship oranges to the store which raises the price. So for juicing oranges the oranges are cheaper, and they can just machine juice them and ship the juice (or the concentrate, usually) which all around is much cheaper than shipping you 10 oranges that you then juice. ",
"How \"premium\" orange juice is really made: _URL_0_",
"Terms like \"Premium\" are just marketing terms, no legal weight behind it. To make oj cheap and available, oranges are sourced when they are in season and plentiful. They don't get the best oranges, but the most economical to make juice. And that includes outsourcing the farm labor which often means exploited families and kids ( by law, kids can work in fields for far less than minimum wage.)\n\nJuice is squeezed from oranges, and when they squeeze, they squeeze, even the bitter white pith, they want every last drop out of those oranges. If oranges have dirt or insect filth on it, have no fear, the next step, pasteurization takes care of it. The juice is flash heated and cooled so there's no loss of flavor, but really, if you ever boiled oj, you know that shit tastes cooked, same with pasteurization, no way to get around it unless you use the high-pressure method which the oj manufacturers dont do because its expensive.\n\nNext, this juice is stored in big tanks, for months. Why not immediately pour into containers and sell? Because it's not economically feasible as mfg look for big profits for their shareholders with minimum cost. \n\nSo now the juice is stored, and poured out when its needed. There juice at this point has been sitting for several months now, and some flavor has been lost, not to worry, they add \"natural flavor\" to make it whole, and more importantly, to make oj taste uniformly even so oj from 6 years ago would taste exactly like oj poured several months ago. It's a branding thing, minute maid always tastes like minute maid, and Tropicana tastes like tropicana. By law, mfg don't have to disclose they added flavor, or artificial sweetener to oj, that's just is,... And because of lobbying.\n\nIf you want fresh squeeze orange juice, go to your local whole foods type market and see what they have. Read the label to make sure the oj is not pasteurized if you want to retain that sweet freesh squeeze flavor, and not taste like boiled oj. High pressure treatment is alternative and ok as this kills any remote possibility of bacteria in the product.\n\n",
"As /u/apennypacker said, you're eating a different kind of orange.\n\nHowever, I spent some time in Holland, and every grocery store there and many food vendors have [this machine](_URL_0_) made by Zumex, and you fill the bottle right there with consumer oranges. It's about 3 euros for a 1 litre bottle, but the orange juice is far superior and/or doesn't taste like Minute Maid pissed in a bottle. \nThen I'd walk over to the sandwich meats and buy rare roast beef that was still dripping juice. God I miss that food. All in all though, fresh food was a hell of a lot cheaper there. The joys of a tiny supply chain serving a huge population.",
"Aside from the differences in oranges. There is the economy of scale and the fact that these are juiced by the acre and stored in tanks and pumped with inert gas. Flavor is then added back then",
"Also ... the part of the orange that is \"waste\" to you is probably used in some form or other by the juice company.",
"Believe it or not, oranges don't actually cost money, they just appear on trees who use the rain and the sun to make oranges.",
"Have you seen the price of OJ lately? My insatiable desire for such a pricey fruit juice in the morning is whats not economically viable. ",
"Well understand that the flavor of orange juice would vary between every squeezing. So Tropicana, Minute Maid excetera each have flavor profile packets which were added to completely stripped orange extracted product after a complex process...but they were able to get away with with calling it natural because everything comes from oranges and they pay politicians to make it legal. They use a particular type of orange for the process which involves extracting all the flavor out of it and then adding standardized orange based flavor profile back in.\n\nYou'd be shocked how many terms are legally defined but are not what you and I would expect them to mean. \"Fresh\" chicken can be kept frozen at some point, but only for a short time, but they can retain being labelled \"fresh.\" There's another level I believe called \"fresh frozen\" which is frozen for a longer period of time, and then of course there's frozen.",
"Orange producers select the pretty oranges to sell in stores. \"Imperfect\" fruit don't sell, so when it's a bit weird looking, lumpy, discolored, etc, they need to do something with that fruit. \n\nBlammo! Juice the ugly suckers!",
"Dude, you're doing it wrong. Buy the right oranges and you can get a nice full glass (even if you strain out all the pulp and whatnot) in a quick minute with 2 to 2-1/2 oranges slapped on a cheap electric juicer. Even 10 dryish, out-of-season oranges would probably get you at least > four 8oz glasses if done properly.\n\nSource: A Chicagoan who, by trial-and-error, figured out what, where, and when to buy oranges for juicing and has since made fresh orange juice every day they're in season.",
"When you buy oranges from a grocery store, you are paying not just for the oranges but a lot more though in tiny amount\n\n0. Rent and utility of the store\n1. Grocery store owner's profit\n2. Salary of store's employees\n3. Tax\n4. For all the oranges that didn't sell and got spoiled\n5. Transport of oranges\n-- > packaging\n-- > gasoline\n-- > driver's salary/food\n-- > Loss during transport\n\nSo the final price of oranges has to include all of the above costs and more. When juicing oranges from the factory, the cost per orange would be very very less. So it is economically viable.",
"Two main reasons:\n\n1. The oranges you buy at the grocery store are not juice oranges from Florida, but table oranges from California. \n\n2. Juicing oranges are purchased wholesale and are processed before entering the retail chain.",
"It is because you are using commercial oranges. They have been picked, culled, shipped, and profits are made every step of the way. They have to be free of blemishes and \"perfect.\"\nThe oranges the commercial juice makers use are plain old oranges, mechanically picked, imperfect, and sometimes pretty horrible looking. They use huge presses to get the juice out--hundreds or thousands at a time.\nIn short, you are using the finished product to make more finished product. They are using raw materials to make their finished product.",
"Also, think of your equipment. You are using a store bought juicer. You may even have a super juicer that says it can juice a ribeye. Orange juice companies have industrial squeezing and straining machines, massive filters, and specific process technology. These cats know how to extract every amount of juice.",
"From my experience in managing super markets, the actual cost of a warehouse to buy oranges in mass quantities is a fraction of what you pay per orange. If you pay $1 for an orange, the store probably bought that for .50, and the warehouse that supplied that orange paid even less. Buying in large quantities is always cheaper than per-piece. We used to make 'commitments' to specific supply companies 3 months ahead of time assuring our store would take a certain amount of product, and they'd give it to us even cheaper than when we simply ordered that product to fill shelves. I hope this made sense, I don't remember the exact figures, but that's my estimate and my answer.",
"How it's made is a pretty good program that details the production process of orange juice. _URL_0_",
"At home you waste a lot of orange while at the factory they use the whole orange and add water at the end.",
"Also, the oranges we buy at the grocery store are not bred to be juiced. Juicing oranges yield way more juice. Source: sorry too lazy, just remember watching it on like Alton Brown or something.\n",
"You will find that produce that is unappealing to the human eye is usually consumed in a different way. Ketchup? Take some shitty tomatoes and smash them up with vinegar and sugar. Same with orange juice, apple butter etc. This is also the reason that these products have a much larger concentration of insect parts. Just remember that a whole beautiful piece of produce is worth selling it that way.",
"You are probably using the wrong type of oranges, there are juice oranges and table oranges, suitable for different purposes, as there are different apples for different purposes. Ten juice oranges should make easilly one litre.",
"Because they use the nastiest fruit that is no good for anything else except to make juice. Frozen fruit is also disgusting before it frozen.\n\nSource: work in agriculture and have seen the sorted fruit sent to be turned into juice.",
"Why is no one talking about the real reason? It's because they buy specific strain of oranges in bulk during picking season, juice it all at once (more economically viable), then send that juice to tanks to sit.\n\nSo they juice them, put the juice in these GIANT tanks that have the oxygen sucked out from them. When the juice is stripped of oxygen it is also stripped of flavor-providing chemicals. The result is a giant tank of \"orange juice\" that is essentially flavorless and can remain in that state for up to a year. One year of flavorless orange juice or pretty economically viable from a business stand point you see. But the orange juice has no taste, so what do they do?\n\n\n\nThey hire flavor and fragrance specialists. And this is the real reason why most big business orange juice companies get away with having the same taste all year long. Because they dont have to include that they use \"flavor packs\" on the label since it's all derived \"100%\" from oranges - yet, in reality, it's all cooked up in a lab and is not natural, but ya'know \"derived entirely from oranges\" - so, therefore, the FDA decides they dont need to include that information on the label. (Good ol' FDA always looking out for the industry rather than the people.)\n\nSo, from my understanding, OJ companies are allowed to do this, but are not required to print this information on the label because the flavors and fragrances are technically derived from orange essence and oil. Yet you're essentially just buying flavorless orange juice that has been hit with a chemical cocktail to make it taste and smell like orange juice.\n\nHows that for economically viable? ",
"You ever heard the term \"they don't grow on trees\" to describe something of limited resource? \n\nOranges literally grow on trees. ",
"I worked picking oranges in South Australia. Among the oranges we were picking, the ones for eating can only be picked once it reaches a certain temperature outside. The juicing oranges did not matter, and were generally repulsive and gigantic oranges that you could not even sell based on looks alone. I opened one and tried it and it was disgusting, but loaded with juice. Not to mention the people picking it were being paid at a rate that borderlines on slavery (I made half of Australia's minimum wage per day, paid to pick per bin).",
"Also - wasn't it found that Orange Juice has a lot of shit in it not listed in ingredients due to loopholes with FDA",
"They extract all of the juice they can by grinding down the entire orange then burn what is left to operate the factory that processes it.",
"There seems to be a common misconception on this thread that they \"juice\" premium retail grade (think Sunkist @ $0.50 to $0.75 per orange) oranges. \n They don't.\n They juice oranges that you would never want to see on your grocers shelf and if you did see them....you'd never buy them.\n\nThey're not your \"Christmas oranges\", in a bottle of juice.",
"Part of this has to do with the quality and attractiveness of the food. If you go to a grocery store, you'll typically find that your fruit, eggs, etc. are labeled \"Grade A\" or such. These are the biggest, best looking, and most consistent products and are sold to average consumers. The rest are the blemished, misshapen, or small products that aren't what you would typically want to buy. These are used commercially to make juices and other products. ",
"We use immigrants who are paid 9cents a pound to pick the oranges and the mechanism for juicing is automated.",
"Most cheap \"orange juice\" is made from concentrate, which is dehydrated fruit juice from unattractive fruit, in powdered form. Since this is vastly easier and cheaper to transport, this is the cheap fruit juice you will see on shelves, since all the producer needs to do is buy the concentrate, and combine it with water.\n\nReal fruit juice is more expensive, and you are being vastly overcharged for the fruit you buy, since you are paying retail and not wholesale, like the concentrate manufacturers. Furthermore, fruits are expensive to truck around, since they require refrigeration, take up more space, and are heavier.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://7seasvessels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Orange-Star-03-out-2011.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e4CEm9yybo"
],
[],
[
"http://www.zumex.com/us/1513/speed-pro-self-service-podium.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyW7JVjYoYU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2601fs
|
Do we know of any contact between Ancient Egypt and East Asia ?
|
Hello,
So I started reading *Myths of China and Japan* by Donald A. Mackenzie and although I am not finished yet, something bothers me.
In the book, he makes the claim that Ancient Egyptians were the pioneers of seafaring and that it is likely that Ancient Egyptian ships (not necessarily men, that is to say, Egyptians high-sea ships manned by other people) made it to East Asia and influenced the East Asian and notably Chinese and Japanese but also Polynesian ship architectures.
He also claims that some parts of the Egyptian mythology such as the fight between Horus in a bird form against Seth in a snake form influenced the creation of the East Asian Dragon myth.
I know this book is quite old and dates from the beginning of the 20th Century, however, have those theories been refuted since ? Or are they simple some kind of far-fetched assumptions ?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2601fs/do_we_know_of_any_contact_between_ancient_egypt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chmf80u"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Ah. I enjoyed that book and it does an excellent job of telling stories, but yes, it's age shows in quite a few places. Short answer: no.\n\nEssentially, the book is proposing a model called diffusionism, although hyper-diffusionism might be more accurate. This was a theory, or more accurately a methodology, that proposed singular origins for practically everything, thus, if something appears in two places, it necessarily moved from one to another. Independent development is generally rejected. Add to that, there is a longstanding tradition in European thought called *ex orientia lux* that tends to view everything a arising in the Eastern Mediterranean region, particularly Egypt, and spreading from there. These can lead to conclusions that can sometimes seem a bit absurd, such as the one you give--Austronesian ship design, from materials used to the rigging used, has practically no similarity with Egyptian design.\n\nToday, diffusionism is rejected as a default explanation. It happens, certainly, but is to be demonstrated rather than assumed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ojkbo
|
why do some women look super pregnant at 8ish months, yet others are barely noticeable?
|
And the baby usually ends up being the same size.
Is it how it's sitting in the womb?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ojkbo/eli5_why_do_some_women_look_super_pregnant_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvxt7v3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The boring, obvious answer is that women have a wide variety of body types and sizes. A tall, larger woman will appear less pregnant than a short, small woman. A woman with a tiny waist will show a pregnancy more than a woman with wide hips. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
11ivvp
|
Is the next generation of humans getting stronger and taller than the previous one? Also when would it stop?
|
Sorry if I worded it bad.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11ivvp/is_the_next_generation_of_humans_getting_stronger/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6mvsma"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Humans are generally getting taller and stronger than previous generations. Many scientists believe this is due to nutrition (increased calories, increased protein intake) rather than genetics. Given that vitamins and proteins are ubiquitous, it is unlikely that height would increase as a function of nutrition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2to4k3
|
What is the place of the battleship Yamato in the Japanese consciousness/culture?
|
Has the battleship Yamato been mythologized/romanticized in Japan? I have the impression that it has, though if I am mistaken, please explain why.
And if the Yamato has been romanticized, well. Why? Is it just because of the cultural weight of the name "Yamato"? Because, from the documentaries I've watched, the actual warship had little positive military impact, if any, during WW2. I don't get it.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2to4k3/what_is_the_place_of_the_battleship_yamato_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co10i28",
"co14e0y",
"co17mbf",
"co1cj7t"
],
"score": [
23,
10,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I would definitely say the Yamato has some sort of place in the hearts of the Japanese people even today. In the late 30s, when it was laid down it was praised for being the biggest battleship in history and at the time many people still thought that size was the most important feature for these kind of Battleships.\nIn theory it outgunned and outranged any US or British Battleship it would have faced, which in the thinking of WW1 or the Russo-Japanese War was the key to victory. \nHistory taught us that it wasn't enough, although the Yamato also had design flaws, as [/u/kieslowskifan](_URL_0_) pointed out in this earlier [thread](_URL_1_).\n\nWhile the Japanese were proponents of naval aviation themselves, they underestimated just how vulnerable giants like the Yamato would be to attacks from the air.\n\nThe whole concept of Battleships proved to be flawed in WW2, as can be seen in many other exemplary cases like the Bismarck, the Roma or the Sinking of the British ships 'Prince of Wales' and Repulse (by the Japanese themselves).\nAnd although many famous ships were essentially a waste of resources there is often still an almost mythological meaning to them in their respective countries, just for what they represented at the time and how tragic their loss was. ('Bismarck' for Germany, 'Hood' for Britain, 'Arizona' for the USA ...)",
"The Yamato and the Mushashi were huge battleships, dubbed unoffically \"superbattleships\" because of their 60k+ tonnes displacement and hugely powerful armament. The Ultranationalists of Japan, while not restricted by the League of Nations' naval treaties, greatly pushed for the expansion of the navy, including the creation of the Yamato-class battleship. Thanks to its size, power and speed, it's a no brainer that such gigantic and impressive looking ships came to represent the might of Imperial Japan, especially with the Empire's fierce defiance to the Western powers, obviously the US being the big one. It became a symbol of pride for all Japanese people\n\nThe Japanese knew that they couldn't go against the US naval output, so the Yamato was designed to be a hugely powerful battleship that could engage multiple targets. But as history has shown, battleships were in their twilight, this was the era of aircraft carriers. Both the Yamato and the Mushashi were sunk by aircraft carriers, and the Shinano, the third of its class, was in the middle of being converted into an aircraft carrier. \n\nEven decades later, the symbol of Yamato remained strong. One of the most popular animes, Space Battleship Yamato, obviously being named after the ship. Thanks to the popularity of the series, the name Yamato was immortalized for another generation.",
"Maybe im a bit too late but I can try my best to give out a few answer.\n\nAs you said, the name *Yamato* or in kanji, *大和* carried a bit of cultural weight as it means Big Japan. As what the other users in the thread has pointed out, the super size of the battleship is the personification of the national pride. The Japanese navy played the important part of its propaganda.\n\nJapan, being an island nation similar to Britain knows that having a strong navy means they are pretty much living in a fortress. Of course times changed and the nature of navy fighting has already evolved. \n\nThe modern culture of Japan still revered greatly at *Yamato*. Example is the anime, [Space Battleship Yamato](_URL_0_).\n\n",
"The short answer is yes, this particular battleship has been romanticized in postwar Japanese. The mystique of the *Yamato* is partly a function of its size, which is also a draw for non-Japanese audiences as well. However, the *Yamato* taps into a number of important postwar Japanese cultural archetypes that give the ship a unique staying power in public consciousness. \n\nAlthough the ship itself had little military impact on the war, the *Yamato*'s historical narrative meshes well with the larger historical narrative of Japan's defeat. The IJN intended the ship to be the expression of Japan's technical expertise and ability to transcend superior numbers to achieve victory. In this goal, the IJN clearly failed and *Yamato* paid the price. The *Yamato* became an analogue of sorts for the postwar memory and interpretation of Japanese defeat: Japan thought it had the means to win, but discovered its reach far exceeded its grasp. While other IJN ships had a more colorful service, few match this specific narrative. Films like 2005's *Otoko-tachi no Yamato*, based upon a bestselling nonfiction book, hew to this narrative, where its main protagonists, boy sailors, genuinely believe that the *Yamato* will lead Japan to victory and most of them die during the ship's sinking. In this way, the ship acts as a metaphor for Japan's whole wartime effort and erases some of the uncomfortable portions of its wartime aggression by recentering a narrative upon Japan's hubris (which can be hoisted on a few military leaders) and eventual victimhood. \n\nIn Ivan Morris's 1975 classic, *The Nobility of Failure* he argues that Japanese culture celebrates heroes who fail and yet stay true to their spirit and goals. While this is only one strain of Japanese culture, the story of the *Yamato* meshes well with this cultural archetype. In the aforementioned *Otoko-tachi no Yamato*, the ship's officers have an acrimonious meeting with the ship's commander over Operation Ten-Go. Many note, with great justification, that the ship's mission to Okinawa is a waste and the stuffed shirts at headquarters will not be called upon to make the same sacrifice. The ship's commander quiets down these objections by noting that the sacrifice of the ship will be a lesson for the Japan of the future, much like how late-Tokugawa samurai who encountered Western guns showed that the old samurai ways were not effective, so to would *Yamato*'s sinking. The ship's crew bonds over the course of the film and most die in the end. There's a similiar narrative in the flashback portions of the anime *Space Battleship Yamato* where the crew stoically face defeat. \n\n*Space Battleship Yamato* brings up another aspect of *Yamato*'s postwar cultural transformation: the ability of fiction to transform defeat into a victory. In this particular anime, the wreckage of the *Yamato* become a starship that saves the earth multiple times. William Ashbaugh cogently argues that this particular anime refights the war in a way that Japan wins, albeit in this case Japanese stoicism and technical expertise saves humanity rather than advances imperialist goals. The animation of the final space battle mirrors the animation of the ship's 1945 one, although this time, the *Yamato* triumphs over superior odds. Similarly, the technothriller anime/manga *Silent Service* has a JMSDF nuclear submarine named *Yamato* go rogue and triumph over the more numerous American and other antagonists. In this way, fiction is reversing the trauma of defeat and crafting an alternative narrative wherein defeat led to a new victory. \n\nAlthough the *Yamato* has a certain cachet in Japanese public consciousness, it is important to realize the caveat that reception is a different animal than transmission. The symbolism of turning defeat into victory of *Space Battleship Yamato* might be irrelevant to Japanese audiences who simply enjoyed a rollicking space opera. There is also a degree of apathy among the wider Japanese public about the Second World War and its relevance to contemporary Japan. *Otoko-tachi no Yamato* had a respectable box-office run but came in well behind Western films like *Revenge of the Sith* and *Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire*. There's a clear Japanese market for *Yamato* merchandise, as evidenced by [HobbyLink Japan's search result for \"Yamato\"](_URL_0_) or videogames like [Kantai Collection](_URL_1_). Yet what *Yamato* means for the larger Japanese population as a whole in 2015 is somewhat nebulous. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/u/kieslowskifan",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2e71a9/would_wwii_japan_have_done_better_without/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato"
],
[
"http://www.hlj.com/scripts/hljlist?Word=yamato&DisplayMode=images&Dis=2&Sort=std&qid=7M8KNQP6SQLQ&set=1&q=1&GenreCode2=nav",
"http://kancolle.wikia.com/wiki/Yamato"
]
] |
|
3ai7kn
|
Going into the Korean war, did the US ever have the goal of completely absorbing the north into the south, or was an eventual retreat from the Yalu planned?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ai7kn/going_into_the_korean_war_did_the_us_ever_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csd16wr",
"csd5ymj"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Going in was long before the Yalu. The intent was simply to keep the south from being incorporated into the north. Americans' concern was not to be embarrassed by having to retreat from Pusan. There was no UN mandate to do more which is why it was a UN police action, not a US war. Anyway, America was war weary after WW II and had disarmed. Civilians could buy jeeps and M-1s. Optics for Norden gun sights were available in the first simple catalogues of Edmund Scientific. The focus was on Europe and we certainly didn't want war with the new Communist regime in China. ",
"To add to /u/ApuleiusBooks' answer, before the war broke out, the U.S. was in the process of withdrawing its soldiers and heavy equipment from the peninsula in reciprocity for the Soviet draw-down in the North in (IIRC) 1947-8. If Kim il-Sung had twiddled his thumbs for another few months to a year, it's possible that no serious U.S. presence would have remained on the Korean peninsula at all. The U.S. already had expensive obligations to worry about in West Germany and Japan, and there was never as much domestic support for the Korean occupation as these. (Korea had been part of the Japanese empire during World War II and not a belligerent.) Moreover, part of the reason for the withdrawal was to deny Syngman Rhee (then president of South Korea) access to weapons and equipment that he wanted for a possible invasion of the North. The U.S. didn't want to antagonize the Soviets or the Chinese, and wanted to stick to the Korean reunification process that it was then pursuing through the U.N. \n\nInvading the North to repel the invasion and deter Kim il-Sung from future attacks was one thing (that was the subject of the U.N. mandate that the U.S. had anyway), but *occupying* and rebuilding the country would have been something else altogether. Again, the Korean occupation was already a domestic political issue in the States and would not in any way have been improved by adding to it. \n\nAnd finally, if the U.S. had forcibly reunified the peninsula under one government, a U.S.-occupied territory would then directly share a land border with China (hostile) and the U.S.S.R. (hostile). Nobody wanted that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3w8d37
|
Is there literally ZERO resistance in superconductors or is it just miniscule or neglectable (like stuff normally is in real-life as opposed to theory)?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3w8d37/is_there_literally_zero_resistance_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxu6ecw",
"cxuocx0"
],
"score": [
60,
5
],
"text": [
"The best theory we have suggests that the electrical resistance of a superconductor can be exactly zero. Unfortunately it's a bit tricky to definitively validate this result experimentally since we simply can't measure a resistance of 0. Even though [most experiments seem to show that the resistance vanishes](_URL_1_), there is always an uncertainty associated with the instruments used that prevents us from saying that the resistance measured truly is zero. \n\nNevertheless, through ever more sensitive measurements, we can increasingly lower the upper bound of whatever finite resistance (if any) might exist. For example, for high purity aluminum, the [resistivity](_URL_0_) (or the specific resistance) has been measured to be less than 2.5\\*10^(-25)Ωm. This number corresponds to a drop of at least 13 orders of magnitude at the superconducting transition, and is more than 17 orders of magnitude smaller than the resistivity of copper at room temperature (1.6\\*10^(-8)Ωm). For all practical purposes we can say that the resistance of such superconductors really is zero.\n\nedit: corrected units",
"It depends on what kind of superconductor you have. There are two categories of superconductor: type I and type II. Type I superconductors genuinely exhibit zero resistance, as do type II superconductors in low magnetic fields. However, at certain values of magnetic field and current density, type II superconductors can enter a vortex state, where the magnetic field lines form flux vortices through the material. If these flux lines are free to move around, then the changing magnetic field will induce a voltage, which can cause a resistance to appear. You can prevent this by including impurities or defects in the material, which will pin the flux lines in place, but even then, you can get what's known as flux creep, as vortices slowly shift between metastable states. This is a problem, as any dissipation will heat up your material, which can stop it from being a superconductor. This non-superconductor will then heat up, which will cause more of your superconductor to heat up, and you can clearly see that this leads to a catastrophic runaway effect where your superconductor stops being a superconductor. This happened at the LHC. One of their superconducting magnets stopped being superconducting, which caused it to heat up, which caused the liquid helium that was supposed to be cooling it to boil, which caused a rupture, which meant liquid helium spilled out over a large section of tunnel."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity",
"http://i.imgur.com/SQUaBPM.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
frtb4m
|
Just how long has vinegar been around in any form?
|
You can blame my mom for this one. We bought a ton of vinegar because we're having a stray cat problem and trying to drive them away from the place without too much harm, and apparently vinegar is a good cat repellent.
But that aside, when is the first evidence of vinegar ever being made?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/frtb4m/just_how_long_has_vinegar_been_around_in_any_form/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flyehzo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Vinegar is created by *acetobacter,* a kind of bacteria that is naturally occurring- notably, occurring in the guts of fruit flies. When yeast ( a fungi) encounter sugar, they will start to ferment it into alcohol. If *acetobacter* bacteria are present ( and, of course, that can occur because fruit flies are going to be drawn to the smell of fruit juice) and conditions are right, they will begin to ferment the alcohol to acetic acid.\n\nWhenever wine, beer, hard cider etc are made, there is a chance that it will be turned into vinegar accidentally. But if , say, a farmer had vinegar in a barrel, adding wine or cider to it would result in more vinegar being produced.\n\nSo, essentially, your question is , how long have people done fermentation, made beer or wine? That's going back to [at least 7,000 BC , for China.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219134133.htm"
]
] |
|
2oc4vz
|
When was the second first developed as a unit of time? Were there any areas where a different standard was used?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2oc4vz/when_was_the_second_first_developed_as_a_unit_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmlsd5c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"hi! I've got a pile of links for you, so settle in...\n\nFirst up, the FAQ has a couple of posts on [Hours, minutes, and seconds](_URL_11_)\n\nOrigins\n\n* [Has everyone always used a 24 hour day?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [As far as I can tell, nearly all of the world divides a day into 24 hours, each of which in turn divides into 60 minutes. When and how did this come about, and were there any radically different systems of time that we've now lost?](_URL_6_) - Sumeria, also China, Japan, Scandinavia\n\n* [How did people decide on how many seconds there would be in a minute, how many minutes in an hour, and how many hours in a day?](_URL_9_) - Babylon\n\n* [How/when did we develop measurements of time?](_URL_13_) - Babylon\n\n* [When did the hour-minute-second system of measuring time (in particular, using base 60) become the world standard, and what other ways of measuring times of less than one day have been common?](_URL_1_) - Babylon\n\n* [What is the history of time(keeping)?](_URL_3_) - Mesopotamia, also Mesoamerica\n\n* [When was our concept of time developed? How did other cultures in the past measure time? When did the world agree to the 24 hour day?](_URL_7_) - also Inuit\n\n* [How did an hour become an hour?](_URL_12_) - Europe\n\n* [In a world that can't agree on anything else, how did we all come to use hours, minutes and seconds?](_URL_0_)\n\nOther systems\n\n* [What were the common ways of time measurement in ancient Egypt and Mesopatamia?](_URL_10_) - Egypt\n\n* [Have we always used a 12 or 24 hour clock for measuring time? [x-post from /r/AskHistory]](_URL_2_) - Rome, China, Japan, Maya\n\n* [Did Far East Asia use the same standard units of time measurement (seconds, hours, days) that we use today?](_URL_4_) - China\n\n* [Did/Do native Americans have their own time system ?](_URL_8_) - Alaska\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u7rsq/in_a_world_that_cant_agree_on_anything_else_how/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i8pp4/when_did_the_hourminutesecond_system_of_measuring/cb23glx",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14jqag/have_we_always_used_a_12_or_24_hour_clock_for/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1746ek/what_is_the_history_of_timekeeping/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1r6q5p/did_far_east_asia_use_the_same_standard_units_of/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28ed0a/has_everyone_always_used_a_24_hour_day/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nsc33/as_far_as_i_can_tell_nearly_all_of_the_world/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14sht9/when_was_our_concept_of_time_developed_how_did/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mnb7u/diddo_native_americans_have_their_own_time_system/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k2608/how_did_people_decide_on_how_many_seconds_there/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1u4kzk/what_were_the_common_ways_of_time_measurement_in/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/calendars#wiki_hours.2C_minutes.2C_and_seconds",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1116t9/how_did_an_hour_become_an_hour/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ew7u0/howwhen_did_we_develop_measurements_of_time/"
]
] |
||
sx9ji
|
When, how, and why did sports (in general) become such a high-dollar enterprise in the United States?
|
I'm also interested in when sports (again, in general) simply became so wildly popular in the US. Contrasting with other countries would be interesting, too.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sx9ji/when_how_and_why_did_sports_in_general_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4hrgzp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"( I'm typing this on my phone, so please excuse any grammar/spelling mistakes)\n\nAlthough I'm not an expert, I would have to guess this happened around the late 1800s/early 1900s. During this time Americans disposable incomes and leisure time increased due to achievements by unions and other average Americans. Major league sports was a new way to pass the time. The earliest specific example of major-league organized sports would be (Vincent?) Spaulding, the baseball magnate after whom his baseball brand was named. He was the first to realize how much money could be made in organized sports, and his league included teams like the Black Sox.\n\nSports entertainment became really popular because it was a cheap alternative to things like going to the opera, museums etc.. So it appealed to many poor/working class people. It was a way to relax on the weekend after a long week of manual labor. To cater to this crowd, games were made to be a lot more rowdier and beer was sold at events. Later, to make baseball appear to more rich folks, the stuff I mentioned before was removed from games.\n\nAlso, speaking about other countries, I cant really think of any example of major organized sports before my previous example. I would guess that with increasing Americanization around the world, American culture seeped into foreign cultures, and sports was a part of it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7mt07q
|
after showers, whenever i rub my skin i get rolls of dirt/dead skin cells. why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mt07q/eli5_after_showers_whenever_i_rub_my_skin_i_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drwge55",
"drwgpzw"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"You need to exfoliate better. Or shower more often. Grab a wash cloth or loofa and wash, don't just use your hands.",
"(disclaimer: I'm no scientist.) Your skin regenerates/replaces itself every 27 days, that means, shedding off old skin cells, and replacing them with new ones. Your entire body does that, just not as fast as your skin does, as its constantly in touch with the outside world. If you dislike your dead skin cells, consider buying something to scrub your body while showering."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6fqopp
|
why does 25 mph on a bicycle seem so much faster than in a car?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6fqopp/eli5_why_does_25_mph_on_a_bicycle_seem_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dik8woc",
"dik9kww",
"dikbayp",
"dikd806",
"dikdgxr",
"dikdjwk",
"dikdlei",
"dikdmsm",
"dikdtrp",
"dike3zi",
"dikepdn",
"dikewza",
"dikexz6",
"dikf9xd",
"dikfh2g",
"dikfl7h",
"dikfrc1",
"dikkqg1",
"diklfyh",
"dikmdk1",
"dikp3f0",
"dikppih",
"dikqgc0",
"dikqzze",
"dikschp",
"diktayq",
"diku4as",
"dikw1zp",
"dil0j09",
"dil1yqa",
"dil8b54",
"dilefzb",
"dilwuf3"
],
"score": [
16,
8,
25,
6,
3,
7618,
2,
2,
17,
77,
12,
2498,
11,
13,
11,
875,
5,
3,
9,
10,
116,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you don't have metal/plastic guarding your body. You can feel the force of the wind completely. ",
"I credit being closer to the ground makes it feel like you are going faster. Going even 15mph on a bike vs a skate board is a noticeable difference. ",
"It's mostly because you have less clutter in your vision, so you experience motion from whole the field of your view, and also because you're a bit closer to the ground. ",
"Because you're on a bike not in a box that shields you from outside elements which force your awareness of the speed (wind, closeness to the ground).\n\nIs this question for real?",
"A car is designed to insulate you from the noise, wind and bumps, on a bike you get to feel all of it- which is scary and awesome. \n\n",
"You feel like you're going extremely fast on a bike because you *feel* more.\n\nCars have very well developed suspension systems that \"even out\" the bumps on the road. As long as you're not dealing with a serious pothole or a speed-bump, the car's suspension is going to face-tank most of the shock so that you don't have to. Larger tires can also take some of the shock out of the road, but it's not as effective. Bikes generally *don't* have awesome suspension, and tires of *comparable* size. That means that you feel every bump in the road, or close enough to every bump in the road as not to matter.\n\nBeyond that, cars are enclosed capsules. Your body's perception of \"speed\" relies on three things: what you see with your eyes, what your inner-ear feels, and what your skin feels. When you're on a bike, you can feel the wind running over your body. That allows you to \"feel\" your speed when you aren't accelerating or slowing down. Your eyes give you a sense of speed, but the brain is pretty good at filtering out unwanted implications from the eyes.\n\n > Side Note\n\n > The Inner Ear mostly just registers acceleration, for the purposes of this conversation. It picks up when you speed up, or when you slow down. It's also a part of your sense of balance, but that's not too crucial to note in this situation.\n\nIt's basically a combination of being able to feel the wind, and the poor shock-absorption.",
"Velocitation, why a roller coaster feels crazy fast at 55MPH but you do 75MPH routinely while driving and feels slow. ",
"So why does a boat feel so fast when in fact it's actually quite slow when compared to a car doing same speed?",
"Comfort. Drive a car manufactured in 1985 going at 60MPH, then drive the same model of car, manufactured in 2015 at 60MPH. And just because of the comfort level increase (from both internal & external forces) it'll feel a lot slower going in the newer model. Commercial airlines feel slow and they're travelling much faster than cars. You see less, you feel less, you're more comfortable. The more comfortable it feels, the slower it feels. \n\n-\n\nComment is based on experiences, not entirely sure if factual. ",
"Amateur cyclist here. I'm sure part of the \"seem,\" has to do with the stopping distance/time. Your body and brain have a fear instinct that will kick in at speeds that would harm you. You can stop pretty much instantly up to 10mph. Above that you have to slow down a little bit more gradually. \n \nYou get desensitized to it in cars because you spend so much time in them. If you brought people from two centuries ago into our timeline and put them in a 75mph car, they would be *terrified.* \n \nWhen I'm at my top speed cycling, I definitely have to be paying close attention to the roadway. Even a seemingly small bump can really hurt and potentially throw you off course. You also have to use your back brake first and then your front on so you don't throw yourself over the handlebars. Remember - there are no seat belts on a bike! \n \nEdit: Like I said, amateur. Apparently people think I'm supposed to use the front brake first and with more pressure. I'll try it. But that is not OPs question, and I stand by the stopping distance and perception statements.",
"When I bought my first nice car (Audi A7), it was so much smoother than my previous car that I initially would find myself going 80 mph when I thought I was doing more like 50.",
"Nobody has mentioned the actual reason yet. [Parallax](_URL_0_). \n\nAs you travel, objects near you appear to be traveling at a much higher rate of speed than objects further away. On a bike, you can view the apparent speed of objects very close to you, especially the ground. They seem to be whipping by. In a car, the doors and floor and body prevent you from seeing the ground below or immediately in front of you. Your vision is restricted to things that are higher up and further away, like trees and buildings and traffic lights, which appear to be moving much more slowly. \n\nEdit: obligatory RIP inbox. \n\nAnd to the doubters--sure, wind and danger play a role. But why do you think [this scene](_URL_1_) was set in a forest?",
"Next time you're going 25 mph stick your body as far out of the window as you can and see how it feels.",
"(In David Attenborough's voice) Conversely, 25mph seems exorbitantly slow on a similar-but-different mode of transportation, the \"motorcycle\"",
"Why does 550MPH in a car seem so much faster than in a plane?",
"2 Main Reasons:\n\n 1. In the car some of your senses are not feeling the speed as they should. (Wind on the skin, wind sound, bumps and surface abnormalities (better shock absorbers on a car), and turning acceleration (also in a car the absorbers minimize the acceleration you feel))\n 2. An effect called [Parallax](_URL_0_). On 2 wheels you focus more on the road just ahead of you, while on the car you look on the car that is in front of you, other obstacles in order to break in time. This effect also explains why we don't feel the speed (500 to 600 MPH) on passenger jets while being on car with speed will be terrifying. ",
"After you drive in a car 150mph and then slow down back to 90, it feels like you're walking.\n\nIf you drove your bike at 50 for a few minutes and slowed down to 25, it then would feel slow.\n\nFor me 25 feel fast in a car too, the moment I start driving in the morning, but after I've driven for a few minutes at higher speeds, 25 feels very slow. And If I have to take the high way and drive 90 then the first minute or so feels super fast and scary too.",
"I don't believe parallax is the reason for this. If you were to run at 25mph, thus not having anything blocking your view, I'm certain that you would feel like you are going faster then on a bike/car.\n\nI believe this has more to do with the size of the object traveling at speed. Let's take short distance, like, 500 meters, each object is traveling at the same speed, however the multiplication of the size of the object to cover that distance is very different. For example a it would take about 100 car lengths to travel that distance, whereas it would take 200 bikelengths to cover the same distance. Just imagine a ant and a train both going 25 mph (yes, ridiculous for the ant, but it's just the idea), they will both be going the same speed, but because train is big and long, it won't appear to be going as fast, whereas a ant would.",
"Because in a car you'll rarely go any slower than that. On the bike you rarely go any faster than that. It's 100% perspective related.\n\nFor example I recently drove on the autobahn for the first time. I topped 260 km/h many times. But then suddenly they'll introduce an 80 speed limit and you seriously feel like you're standing still.\n\n",
"Its mostly psycological, and has already been pointed to you its about how you feel about it.\n\nI wanted to point, as anecdote, I had the chance of having my first driving car to be my moms car, which was my age at the time (19 years old when I was 19). This was a cheap citroen AX, stripped out of everything model my parents used to move within the city, because it was easier to park. The kind of car they advertise in a sale and then they try to upsell you to the actual car with things. This car was so basic it lacked comodities such as backseat headrests or seatbelts.\n\nThe suspension was crap, the car would tilt awfuly to the sides whenever you took a curve, the motor was only 51Hp but you wouldn't notice the lack of power because the thing weighted less than half ton (less than 1000lbs, in barbarian units), this thing accelerated like the flash, the top speed was crap, you might get to 140Km/h (87MPH) on a down slope long enough, but it wouldnt matter, because this thing was already terrifying to drive at barely 80km/h (50MPH), the engine giving its best made the whole car vibrate like it was going to fall apart, so bad the dashboard had cuts everywhere because it just couldnt hold itself.\n\nSame road in my dad's car I could easily go top speed (120km/h) without feeling like I was going to die.\n\nHow comfortable the ride is and the amount of security it does its what does the trick. Thats why also you feel faster doing 25MPH in a bicycle, but doesn't feel as fast if you are riding a motorbike (as lon gas it isn't a crappy one, like my mom's car).",
"Motorcyclist here. I believe you get more comfortable with speed. I remember 40mph felt like reckless speed and now twice as fast is effortless.\n\nFWIW, I ride a bicycle too and the same thing happened. Without all the motorcycle gear, riding a bicycle felt like I was naked while straddling a rickety fence. Even though I was riding a much slower speed, it felt fast and dangerous because I was aware of how vulnerable I was.",
"Basically there is a part of the brain the measures how close to dying you are. So in a car it's not really activated, but on a bike it's all, \"DONT FUCK UP DONT FUCK UP.\"\n\nI was worried someone would read this and take it seriously, but then I calmed down. No one will read it.",
"In a car you manly feel the speed of you with respect to the car (your reference frame), wich is 0 MPH. In addition, you see the world go by the car fast. (And you feel a littlebit of shaking and acceleration)\n\nOn a bike you feel the speed of you with respect to the world. This is because you are not in a closed room.",
"You notice, how when you're driving the closer objects seem to move faster relative to you...\nWhen you're on a bike, the closest thing is the ground, but when you're in a car, there is nothing as close as this visible to you, hence, all the movement you can see can never seem as rapid as on a bike.",
"No one has mentioned that our (the US at least) road systems are an enormous illusion to try to keep you from being terrified. For example, how long do the lane lines look? 2ft? They are [10 feet long](_URL_0_).",
"I ride a motorcycle, and at first I noticed that I'd give it a little power and 40MPH felt like hyper speed. Just going the speed limit on the road, even though I wasn't flying by cars, it really felt like it. I'm thinking with a bicycle, it could be peddling using all that energy it might feel like it's faster. (I'm not sure, of course) But I agree with other motorcyclists - now 120-150MPH feels effortless to maintain. You get used to the speed and all the wind pushing you. I remember riding with one hand on my motorcycle felt really weird/uncomfortable even at low speeds and now I kinda just cruise at 70-80 MPH on the highway with one hand. \n\nEDIT: I would never break the law by speeding.",
"Direct wind resistance, and maybe a time-conditioned understanding of control.\n\nThe latter is more relevant when you compare a motorbike/scooter v bicycle\n\nBecause you've spent more time on a motor vehicle and at much higher speeds, your body kind of knows the ceiling speed. And is conditioned to handle it. Additionally, your control of the vehicle via the brakes is also much more responsive. So you're probably more comfortable going 40 on a bike than 25 on a cycle.\n\nVisualise it this way, at the exact same speed 25mph you're going downhill and you see a car coming into your path from out of sight. And you reactively hit the brakes. On the bike it's almost effortless, as your muscles clench up and you come to a steady halt. But with a bicycles brakes you have lesser control, and you may even skid and and on your ass or fail to stop in time",
"I guess nobody said that yet:\n\nIn a car you usually drive way faster than 25mph. \n\nYou're used to the car doing way above 25mph so when sitting in the car 25mph is slow. \nThat was funnily the thing with the (very) early trains. People never experienced such speeds so it was really really fast to them. \n\nAnd the thing with the bicycle... 25mph is on the top end of speed possible with bikes. You've rarely been faster on a bike so you're not used to it. ",
"Been riding bike for about 15 years now for exercise and fun.\n\nThe way I usually portray the \"dangerous feeling\" is you are in a metal box that protects you and you can't really see the road zooming by. By that I mean the actual pavement below you.\n\nNext time you are in a car (in a safe place) open the door at 25mph, and stick your head out so you can see how fast you are traversing over the pavement/road. I bet you'll forget for a split second how safe you feel until you close the door again.\n\nThat plus the fear of tipping over isn't as present in most cars.",
"A book I just finished sums this up. It's remotely relatable and I'll never forget this quote. \n\"In a car you're always in a compartment, and because youre used to it you don't realize that through that car window everything you see is just more TV. You're a passive observer and it is all moving by you boringly in a frame. \n\nOn a cycle the frame is gone. You're completely in contact with it all. You're in the scene, not just watching it anymore, and the sense of presence is overwhelming.\"\n\n\"You're in the scene\".. I just love that.",
"I've always felt it was an anxiety related issue. \n\nOn a flimsy bike with no protective shell going 25 miles per hour could easily kill you if you fell.\n\nSitting inside 3000 pounds of metal and plastic going 25 miles an hour just inherently feels a lot safer. ",
"In a car you have the surrounding static environment and distance from objects to alter the \"feeling\" of speed. On a bike you are in the open, able to see the ground and your environment moving quickly without interference.\n\nThis is not science based but rather my experience as a car driver and motorcycle rider.",
"Bicycle is less polygons so it renders screen faster which means faster frame rates and time perception."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax",
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XoCVXIpiH5w"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/seeline.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4zxyqc
|
Zion Harvey got a double hand transplant at 9 years old. Will his hands continue to grow along with the rest of his anatomy as he ages?
|
_URL_0_
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4zxyqc/zion_harvey_got_a_double_hand_transplant_at_9/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6ztwxx"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Yes the cells will keep working normally and normal physiological growth is expected. Abnormal groiwth is also relatively common (please correct me) due to post transplant medication that supresses the immune system thus not stopping some spurs of organ/limb growth that medication would normally stop.\n\nPS: I'm by all means not an expert. This was a fact I know due to a friend who has received a transplant, and honestly, I asked him the same question...\n\nWhich (specifically talking about hand transplant here) DNA is in the hands? With skin being able to regenerate, I'm not sure. The hosts or the donor DNA?\n\n:)"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/zion-harvey-year-after-double-hand-transplant-9-year-old-n636646"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
6e8ysm
|
where did trigonometric functions come from? and why do they work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e8ysm/eli5_where_did_trigonometric_functions_come_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di8hq9q",
"di8k4lo"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Trigonometric functions were developed by various ancient cultures, mostly dealing with measuring astronomic phenomenon which requires dealing with angles and triangles and such.\n\nBasically, we had a certain set of questions (if you know the sides of a triangle how to calculate its angles, and vice versa) that trigonometric functions were developed to answer.\n\nDifferent cultures tackled the problem differently. For example, Euclid and Archimedes used various geometric proofs to get the same answer.\n\nUltimately, mathematicians developed tables. They drew various triangles of various shapes, measured the sides and angles and wrote down what all the answers were.\n\nThe \"table\" method is what was basically used under modern day calculators came about. Before then, if you wanted to know the sine of an angle, you measured the angle, then looked the answer up in a table in a book.",
"They come from the [unit circle](_URL_1_).\n\nTake a circle of radius 1, and then draw a line from the center to some point on the circle. That line will make some angle with the x axis. Every trig function is just a way to say something about that line, based on that angle.\n\nFor example, the simplest ones are sin and cos. These are the y- and x-coordinates of the point where your line hits the circle. At an angle of zero (horizontal), your line intersects the circle at (1,0). Thus cos(0) = 1, sin(0)=0. And so on. It's all just geometry.\n\nYou can see a diagram of all these geometric definitions in [this diagram](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Circle-trig6.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_circle"
]
] |
||
27kpp9
|
what happened to telescoping fm antennas on cars?
|
When I was a kid, all the cars had telescoping power antennas. ([Like this](_URL_0_)) Now radio antennas on cars are completely invisible or small bumps on the fuselage. Some cars still have whips, but they function the same as the power antennas since they are the same length.
What technology enabled FM antennas to get smaller?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27kpp9/eli5_what_happened_to_telescoping_fm_antennas_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci1qigb",
"ci1qj6j",
"ci1svmv"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"None. The smaller antennas are less efficient. In other words, if you drive an 87 Cutlass out of a city for 75 miles, you might still be getting some of the radio stations. If you drive a 2014 Santa Fe out of a city, you might lose that city's stations at 60 miles.\n\nBut, with more in-car entertainment options since the 80s, the radio is a less important piece of the car for owner satisfaction. ",
"Most new cars embed them inside the windshield or rear window which gives them a much better and bigger area of reception. The wire used is nearly invisible to the eye and you don't have to worry about a motor burning out or breaking it in the car wash as with the telescoping ones.",
"Better/cheaper amplifiers combined with cheaper ways to etch antennae into glass.\n\nThe antennae in new cars are either embedded into one of the windows (sometimes the front, sometimes the back, sometimes a rear side window in wagons/SUVs, sometimes more than one of these places) or are contained in a small pod (e.g. the little \"sharkfin\" thing above the rear window on new BMWs). However, becasue these antennae are slightly less efficient, they need an amplifier to boost their signal. \n\nWhile this was possible before (for example the Porsche 944 had its antenna embedded into the front windshield back in 1985), it was expensive because the amplifier wasn't cheap back then, and because the technology of the time required that the antenna be sandwiched between two layers of glass which greatly increased the cost of the windshield.\n\nWith better technology, the costs associated with building these hidden/embedded antennae are smaller, as are the costs of having the amplifier for the antenna's signal. Newer antenna amplifiers also do a better job of boosting only the signal and not the \"noise\" as well, which makes them more reasonable choices too."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/DUJjRVS"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2gqi65
|
if heat rises up, why does global warming occur instead of the heat just dissipating through outer space?
|
Disclaimer: Don't get me wrong. I am not a global warming denier whatsoever. I just want to understand why this is happening.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gqi65/eli5_if_heat_rises_up_why_does_global_warming/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cklkrum",
"cklksp7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"global warming is the buildup of gasses that PREVENT exactly what you are talking about (heat dissipating up, its called albido). These gasses act like a mirror pointed back at earth, reflecting said heat back into the system.",
"Its not that heat rises its that hot air rises, because it becomes less dense than the cooler air around it.\n\nAlso the heat cant easily dissipate into outer space because as you know space is a vacuum, therefor not much for the heat to pass into. If space was completely full of some dense gas I suppose that would be a different story."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
i4o29
|
Would we be able to detect an extraterrestrial spacecraft in orbit around our Sun?
|
If an extraterrestrial Voyager-sized spacecraft were to enter our Sun's orbit (or even the Earth's orbit), would we be able to detect it with our current technology? Let's assume it's not actively transmitting any radio/EM signals.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i4o29/would_we_be_able_to_detect_an_extraterrestrial/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c20vbo0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"[Voyager](_URL_2_) or [Voyager](_URL_0_)? :P\n\nIn all seriousness though, [this](_URL_1_) says that by 2028 we hope to have detected 90% of all near-Earth asteroids of diameter 140 meters or larger. So it's *very* unlikely we'd detect a Voyager-sized spacecraft in orbit around the Sun (unless it happened to be at the same orbital radius as Earth, and pretty close ahead/behind in our orbit). Orbiting around the *Earth* however, I'm not sure there's a single answer. The probability of detection would depend strongly on the orbital radius."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/VoyagerStarship.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mitigation_strategies#Ongoing_projects",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Voyager.jpg"
]
] |
|
2ef6ow
|
what is the catch with those auction sites that claim to sell ipads and high end laptops for $20?
|
Are they knockoffs? Tax scam? Blatant false advertising?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ef6ow/eli5_what_is_the_catch_with_those_auction_sites/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjyvzf6",
"cjyw3jb",
"cjyw8th"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"They charge you a fee for each bid and this fee is usually substantial. Also you may have laptops going for $20 once in a blue moon, but I'll be that most of them go for close to retail.",
"You have to pay for each bid, and you can only improve the previous bid by a small increment each time. So as an example. Lets say an IPad costs $500. Each bid costs you $1. You can bid it up by .01 each time. So in aggregate people need to spend $2000 to win the right to buy the item for $20. And once people start bidding they feel like they have a certain amount invested so they keep going. Plus there are bots that autobid things up.",
"Building on the previous two responses, the website raises your bid by one penny. However, each bid you supply costs 10 cents. Therefore, and IPad that was sold for 20.00 USD actually netted the website $200.00 in revenue plus the $20 that you pay at the end of the auction. The other important item to note is the website will add an additional 30 seconds to the bidding time with each bid that is submitted. Therefore, the website will force you to sit watching the auction screen for hours and constantly inserting another bid. At the end, the only way you will win a bid is if you are patient enough and everyone else gives up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1texlf
|
What were the casualties expected in an invasion of mainland Japan and how did they compare to the actual casualties caused by using nuclear weapons ?
|
As a bonus question how accurately were casualties calculated during World Wars prior to invasions ?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1texlf/what_were_the_casualties_expected_in_an_invasion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce79t9n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed at least 150,000, and probably more than 250,000 eventually died as a direct result of the bombings. Just to keep things in perspective, neither the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were individually as deadly as the March 9-10 1945 firebombing of Tokyo (100,000 dead). The invasion of mainland Japan was estimated to cost at least million casualties on both sides - the U.S. military ordered so many Purple Hearts that they're still handing out them today. I'm afraid I can't comment on the accuracy of their casualty predictions, but they were based on four years of brutal warfare, and both the Japanese military and civilians had proved more willing to die than accept defeat or surrender (for example: on Iwo Jima, the Japanese commander ordered his men to kill ten Americans *before they died* - not \"kill ten and you can go home,\" or \"kill ten and we'll win,\" but \"you're going to do die and you need to kill as many of the enemy as possible;\" the U.S. took 218 prisoners of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers present; civilians on Saipan and Okinawa committed mass suicide); I see no reason not to accept the military's prediction of over 1,000,000 dead and wounded Americans (and equivalent or greater numbers of Japanese) as at least a probable outcome."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
18t2d9
|
Is there proof of mutation introducing new material into the genome?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18t2d9/is_there_proof_of_mutation_introducing_new/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8hqqx5",
"c8hrwd3",
"c8hsmnf",
"c8htbs9",
"c8i0265"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"How your friend put it is a bit misleading.\n\nMutations happen all the time. And they aren't noticeable because many don't cause any change in that gene's function. Point mutations occur in which bases (nucleotides in your DNA) are altered. There are insertions, deletions or frameshifts.. which I don't want to get into. Long regions of DNA can be copied moved around and duplicated in error. Typically this results in nothing except maybe altered expression but can lead to interesting results in a variety of ways.\n\nPoint is... mutations are noticeable when they turn genes on and off, but that's DEFINITELY not the only way they occur. You could have a mutation in you right now that causes a certain protein to have less affinity to it's substrate making it less effective.. this can be caused by a change in a single amino acid residue in that protein. An individual could spontaneously develop an enzyme that allows that to metabolize aspartame (wouldn't that be hilarious). \n\nThere is evidence for this happening (look at ecoli long term evolution experiment where the bacteria spontaneously developed the ability to metabolize citrate). \n\nHow do you think new genes come about? Typically another gene was duplicated erroneously, and then underwent many many mutations over thousands to millions of years... or less, depending on selection pressure, and viola, a new gene, with a new protein derived off old genetic code.\n\nSorry it's a rant, but it's a pretty open ended question. Your friend does not do justice to the complexity of mutations at an evolutionary standpoint, but then again neither do I.",
"There is a very long running experiment in E. Coli, running since 1988. Approximately 50.000 generations have passed now, and new mutations have shown up. The most striking one is the ability of one strain of bacteria to adept to a new food source, see [here](_URL_0_).",
"I'm not sure I know what you're asking. A mutation introduces new material *by definition*.\n\nOriginal sequence:\n\n GATTACA\n\nMutated sequence:\n\n GATGACA\n\nThe new information is the G in the fourth position.\n\n---\n\nEDIT: I can see how you might say \"But they're the same number of bases, so they're the same amount of information.\" Well, that's not quite how information theory works, but it's easier to understand on an evolutionary scale.\n\nIf your population of 10 individuals has this sequence in common, at the same place in the genome:\n\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n\nyou could say \"they all have GATTACA at that position\".\n\nIf one of them gets a mutation, even a deletion that actually reduces the length of the sequence,\n\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n ...GATTACA...\n\nyou need to say \"they all have GATTACA at that position, except one that has GATACA\". The complexity of the information in this gene pool has increased.\n\nIn this sense, random mutation is actually a force for *maximizing* the information in the genome, and natural selection is a force that *reduces* it, selectively. Most mutations are deleterious, i.e. they add information that puts the organism at a disadvantage, and selection preferentially removes those.\n\nMore on quantifying information (tangential to my field so I'm not sure I can answer detailed questions): _URL_1_ (my example is specifically a demonstration of [Kolmogorov complexity](_URL_0_))\n",
"Look up retroviruses and transposons. \n\nRetroviruses insert their genetic material into a host genome - this can disrupt a host gene, or a region that is important for gene expression, as well as introducing new genetic material that acts as a substrate for evolution. \n\nTransposons are relics of this process - sometimes the DNA inserted by retroviruses retains the ability to copy and insert itself and can \"jump\" around the genome. There are two main types of transposons - one just jumps, the other copies itself and inserts elsewhere, leading to an extra copy of the sequence. \n\nThese insertions can been seen by sequencing, or by cutting the DNA at known sites and observing a size increase from an insertion. It's possible to compare the sequences of transposons with those of retroviruses and see that certain transposons have evolved from certain retroviruses.\n\nI study epigenetics, and although it concerns marks which are \"above\" the genetics, \"above\" the DNA sequence (epi = Greek for above or upon), the positioning of the marks and proteins comes down to sequence. *Which* of the potential positions is marked, and which proteins are bound, is affected by interactions with the environment, but the landscape of potential is determined by DNA sequence.",
"Relevant old thread: [What are the current theories on de novo protein synthesis?](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/x9hw9/what_are_the_current_theories_on_de_novo_protein/"
]
] |
||
2mwm7d
|
Why isn't the sky completely white at night?
|
Shouldnt it - from earths perspective - be filled with stars, which are far from each other, but "lines up" from our view? Does the light reflections from these not reach earth?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2mwm7d/why_isnt_the_sky_completely_white_at_night/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm8ajjx",
"cm8hdri",
"cm8tfui"
],
"score": [
36,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You've hit upon a very old question called [\"Olbers' Paradox\"](_URL_0_).\n\nThe solution relies on the fact that the universe is not infinitely old, so only finitely many stars and galaxies are observable and they collectively subtend an angle on the sky much smaller than the full sky.",
"The sky doesn't appear white because of a few things. I'm not going to use the paradox that another poster used.\n\nFirst off you need to take into account the fact that these stars are extremely far away and that their intensity (power per unit solid angle) drops off at a 1/d^2 relation where d is the distance away from the source. So when the light gets to earth it is extremely dim. This leads to the fact that your eye isn't sensitive enough to then see the most faint o the stars. If you take a long exposure photograph of the sky (making sure to track the sky as the photo is being taken) you will see more stars than you normally would because over that amount of time more photons hit the ccd of the camera. \n\nWhen Hubble takes its super deep field images they are over extremely long exposure times. The objects are there, it's just that they are extremely dim.",
"Even if the universe was infinite, the [observable universe](_URL_0_) is finite because of it's expansion ([~74.3 kilometers per second per megaparsec](_URL_1_)), we can't see the areas in space that are going away from us \"faster\" than the speed of light.\n\nMoreover, light emmited from far away is so redshifted that the light emitted is not visible light anymore. \n[Here is an exemple of infrared image from a distant galaxy](_URL_2_).\n\nAnd like /u/GracefulFaller said, most of the stars that still emit visible light can't be visible to the naked eye."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe",
"http://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html",
"http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/10/hubbles-image-of-oldest-galaxy-in-the-observable-universe-.html"
]
] |
|
42tshr
|
what causes a rolled up piece of paper to act like a spring and what other materials want to naturally return to a flat sheet when rolled
|
I am familiar enough with materials having memory and smart materials that can be programmed to take a shape with external forces like heat or electricity, but what cause paper, or fishing line, to remember it's shape and want to return to it when there is nothing keeping it rolled? Are there other elastic materials similar to these that would want to snap back to a flat sheet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42tshr/eli5_what_causes_a_rolled_up_piece_of_paper_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czd2aof"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Are there other elastic materials similar to these that would want to snap back to a flat sheet?\n\nSure. They're everywhere. Metal, plastic, wood, rubber, and on and on. Pretty much any common solid material will snap back to its resting arrangement when you let go, provided you don't stress it too far. Think of a paper clip: you can bend it a little bit, and it will snap back to its normal shape and clamp onto your paper. But if you bend it too far, you bend it permanently, and you won't be able to get it back to normal. You get the same effect with those cheap plastic Bic pens, or with creasing a sheet of paper.\n\nSnapping back after stretching is known as [elastic deformation](_URL_0_). Permanent deformation after bending too far is its opposite, *plastic deformation*. The stress level where a material switches from elastic to plastic is known as the [yield strength](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(engineering\\)#Elastic_deformation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering\\)"
]
] |
|
13y7y3
|
Wednesday AMA: I am Mr_Bimmler, ask me anything regarding WWII Weapons or Vehicles.
|
Hello historians! The time is now 9 pm and I'm ready to answer questions all night long. I would like to start with saying thanks to all the moderators and users for making this my absolute favorite sub-reddit.
Anyway. Today's subject is weapons and vehicles in WWII. Ask me anything about world war 2 warfare, infantry weapons, AFV:S, airplanes, or battleships etc. I *could* answer other questions regarding WWII too but I would prefer that we keep focus on weapons and vehicles.
I will answer questions for about 6-7 hours and please don't hesitate to ask if you wonder something. I will answer **all** the questions.
Edit 1: Taking a small brake for food. Be back in 20.
Edit 2: Back to answer more questions. Please note that **all** the questions will be answered. Some questions require a more in depth answer and I need some time to write the answers because my English is not the best.
Edit 3: So many questions. I just realized that I may not have enough time to answer them all.
Edit 4: The time is now 04:30am and I'm off to bed, I will answer the rest of the questions when I awake. Please don't stop asking questions.
Edit 5: Back to answer questions.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13y7y3/wednesday_ama_i_am_mr_bimmler_ask_me_anything/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c787pam",
"c787uio",
"c787zcs",
"c7884k3",
"c788eve",
"c789b6s",
"c789jg4",
"c789shr",
"c789zf0",
"c78a26c",
"c78a6ue",
"c78ao54",
"c78ay9l",
"c78b2br",
"c78b4li",
"c78b9jw",
"c78baev",
"c78bn0g",
"c78bnak",
"c78conw",
"c78cxs8",
"c78czuw",
"c78czx2",
"c78d40o",
"c78da6y",
"c78dbdm",
"c78deoi",
"c78dibe",
"c78do3q",
"c78dw6n",
"c78e31k",
"c78ebou",
"c78ef6t",
"c78eszx",
"c78f6nx",
"c78f7dx",
"c78fqf0",
"c78fvjt",
"c78fx90",
"c78hs3g",
"c78hxnh"
],
"score": [
12,
6,
16,
11,
2,
6,
6,
19,
3,
10,
2,
5,
2,
8,
2,
4,
10,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
4,
6,
2,
3,
2,
6,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Let's talk about the Thompson M1928 in British and early American service, pre-M1 models. How many of this particular model was fielded and how much of a bother was the front grip to those who used it in action? I've heard accounts of the front grip getting stuck in webbing or pulling on uniforms when pulled from the back/from the side into action or carrying it.",
"Does it need to be military vehicles? \n\nBecause I'm extremely interested in wood gas (or wood burning) automobiles and there use in both a civilian and, if applicable, military capacity. ",
"In the United States we have done a generally good job at preserving many of the 20th century era American battleships all of the Iowa class ships are still preserved ( and well worth seeing) and several of the Carolina class ships as well. However I have always found it curious that Britain didn't preserve any of her battleships especially given the strong connection of the country to her navy. Obviously economically Britain was weak after the war, but was there a movement to preserve any of the ships?",
"I've been waiting for this AMA for two weeks. So thanks for your time and effort. \n\n1) I recently read [this](_URL_0_) about the T-34 being overrated. What are your opinions? Were they really as influential as (amateur?) historians seem to think? I actually have a ton of questions about tanks and tank design but I will spare you from a wall of questions. \n\n2) I bought a Enfield no.5 mk.1 Jungle carbine a few weeks ago. Did these see widespread action in WWII? Do you know of any accounts or memoirs of a soldier who used one? Did the troops like them or prefer the standard longer barreled version? Hell, any info you have on the jungle carbines is appreciated. ",
"I recently purchased a Colt Commando Revolver. Just a couple of days ago I received my letter for it from the Colt historian indicating that my gun had been shipped from Colt to the Boston Police Department(BPD) in 1943 \n\n_URL_0_\n\nPrior to this it was my understanding that all of the production from Colt of that model was under control of the Springfield Ordnance District, who would have been the recipient of the shipments. Yet my gun was specifically engraved by Colt for the BPD, and shipped directly to the BPD. Can you explain how/why this would have occurred? I should note that while I have just started going through the records of the BPD, I have yet to find anything in the budgetary statements that would indicate a payment to Colt. Would this be a case of the War Department paying for the guns and having them directly shipped?",
"Were there any weapons fielded that were great from a psychological warfare perspective? The only thing that comes to mind are the V rockets, but were there others?",
"Assuming we're counting the pacific theater, How much of a role did battleships play in the war? I know that we eventually switched to Aircraft Carriers, but I am curious to what role they played in WWII.",
"I have a question regarding the general reliability of military ground vehicles in WWII. How often would a German Tiger tank or an American Sherman need to be serviced? Could a Jeep travel thousands of miles with nothing more than filling it up with gas? Who would perform the actual maintenance if something were to fail in the field? It seems like you would need some pretty heavy duty equipment to repair a tank especially if the repair was somewhat serious. Thank you.",
"How reliable (i.e. how often did the tank break down/need repairs) were T-34's in comparison to the Sherman?",
"How was it decided what type of weapon a soldier would carry into combat?",
"1. Why did the Germans \"Usually\" never recover or try and repair vehicles lost or heavily damaged in battle?\n\n2. Also which do you think is better the M1941 Johnson Rifle or M1 Garand?\n\nEdit-Can you recommend any books?",
"Hi - thanks for availing yourself for questions! Any specific and easy to digest books that you recommend to learn more about WWII weapons and strategies? Also, would love to learn more about specific \"game changer\" weapons or vehicles (e.g. Japanese Zero) used by the various countries in WWII. Thanks!",
"What WW2 era Rifle, Subgun, and Pistol were the most effective? Assuming you had to survive a wide variety of tactical and environmental situations and wouldn't have reliable ammo and logistics support.\n\nI might choose an M1 garand except it would rip my finger off trying to load it under stress. Not kidding! And the 30-06 may be a bit much for closer fighting.",
"Forgive the banal, unacademic questions, but I'm always interested in the personal element when it comes to things like this...\n\n1. What WWII-era vehicle (preferably combat-related) would you most like to experience first-hand yourself? Sitting in it, I mean -- even operating it. My own would be the Ju-87, though I am considerably hampered in that I have no idea how to fly a plane.\n\n2. What's the most interesting one you *have* personally experienced?\n\n3. How did you come to have such a specific area of interest?\n\n4. What's something that people keep saying about [WWII Vehicle X] that you wish they wouldn't?\n\nThanks again for volunteering.",
"As a child, my father took me to the Polish films *Ashes and Diamonds* and *Kanal.*\n\nI forget which one, but one of them had a scene with a Nazi small, squat, tank-like machine with a mounted machine gun. The thing that left a real impression was that it was operated by a cabled remote control.\n\nWas this a real thing? And if it was, was it effective at all? Was it particularly rare?",
"How critical was the Lend-Lease Program's vehicular aid to the Red Army? I've read bits of Mawdsley's *Thunder in the East* and Glantz's *When Titans Clashed* that suggest the Lend-Lease vehicles, particularly trucks, were important in helping the Red Army get back on its feet logistically after Barbarossa. I'm also aware that many early Katyusha launchers were mounted on Studebaker trucks. Conversely, many Russian commanders were, after the war, dismissive of the role of Lend-Lease. ",
"[Jack Churchill](_URL_0_) seems to come up on Reddit at least once a week, and this doesn't surprise me. With his purported longbow and claymore, he cuts a very romantic figure in a war that was so often brutal and disgusting.\n\nI have two questions for you, pursuant to this:\n\n- What is your opinion on Churchill, if you have one?\n\n- Was he an isolated incident? Or were there others like him (fighting for whatever side) who also went beyond the expected bounds of available weapons technology to achieve weird or interesting things?",
"I have a question about lucky vehicles, planes or ships in WWII. I recently read about the IJN destroyer [Yukikaze](_URL_0_) and I wanted to know if there were similar units with other combatants who had unusual luck in surviving or accomplishing their mission? Thanks for doing the AMA.",
"How do you think the Australian Cruiser IV would have fared against similar opposition?",
"MP40 or Thompson > ",
"Thanks for doing one!\n\n1) Do you have a favorite superweapon? (I love the [Schwerer Gustav](_URL_0_), myself)\n\n2) How much money was put into giant weapon development, compared to small arms development?",
"How far were really the Germans of detonating a nuclear bomb?\n\nDid Heisenberg deliberately made a mistake when he calculated the necessary amount of enriched uranium?\n\nWhere would have Germans used a nuclear bomb? London? New York?",
"What would the performance of the German E-Series tanks been like? Were there any prototypes built? Was there anything groundbreaking in their design or construction? Thanks!",
"Somebody asked earlier what the best small arms of WW2 would be - what about the opposite? What would be, say, the five worst small arms that saw reasonably widespread use?",
"Hey, thanks for doing this AMA! Could you explain the difference between the planes built in the RAF and the LuffeWaffe and why the RAF managed to hold back the LuffeWaffe? ",
"Which WW2 tank would be the most comfortable to have sex in?",
"I've been waiting for this AMA :D. Thanks for doing it!\n\nI've read a lot about the lack of a true long-range, heavy bomber on the German side. What's the difference in range and payload between the Luftwaffe bombers versus the USAAF heavy bombers? \n\nIf Germany did have heavy bombers at their disposal, how do you think it would have affected bombing campaigns of London or Stalingrad?",
"How did a typical tank battle play out? For example, when Panzer IVs and T-34s engaged each other on the battlefield, from how far out would the firsts shots be fired from? How close would they get to each other? Did the tanks stay together in large formations, or did they break up into small groups? \n\nHow mobile were they? Did opposing tanks attempt to flank or encircle each other? Or did tanks fire from a primarily static position? How often were infantry used in tank battles, and what role did they perform? \n\nHow many hits could a tank take before being knocked out of the battle? How often were tanks knocked out due to mobility kills versus being completely destroyed? \n\nWere there significant differences in German tank doctrine versus Soviet doctrine? Did the Germans or Soviets change their tank tactics over the course of the war? \n\nThanks again for doing this AMA, and feel free to ignore any of my questions if I asked too many :)",
"So apparently my girlfriend's father has an original Arisaka (I believe, a Type 38). I was looking at info on them on Wikipedia, and I noticed this:\n\n*\"Post-war inspection of the Type 38 by both the U.S. military and the National Rifle Association showed that the Type 38's receiver was the strongest bolt action of any nation and capable of handling more powerful cartridges.\"*\n\nIs there any truth to that? I'm having a really hard time believing that an Arisaka action would be more solid than a Mauser action, mostly because the Mauser-derived rifles are still in production, but I don't exactly see a whole bunch of Arisaka clones floating around.",
"Comparing stats.. which bomber was better? A B 17 flying fortress or a B 24 Liberator? Ive always admired the B 24 but my friends say its a B 17.",
"What was the oldest specific weapon still in use? Like a model of pistol, or type of bayonet?",
"I heard or read somewhere that surprisingly few died of gun shots compared to the amount of shots fired. Is this true? If so, care to elaborate? What did most soldiers die from?",
"Okay, so I play World of Tanks, the tank fighting MMO. Now, I like a lot of people have been told time and again that Russian tanks were the absolute indisputable best of the war. Now, I know the game is nerfed and tweaked to make it competitive, but I have found German tanks tend to be rolling metal tubs that are just plain nasty to fight; great range, high penetration and rate of fire, great armor, but of course they are about as maneuverable as a slug of lead. \n\nMeanwhile Russian tanks are quick, reactive, maneuverable, fast on the reload, but squishy and give poor penetration.\n\nI have also found that American tanks are better than they are perceived to be. They are quick, the turrets can take a beating, spry, but are weak in the hull and the guns are mediocre at best. But they aren't the death traps we are lead to believe.\n\nHow accurate is this assessment to the reality of WWII?",
"Why did Australian infantry forces seem to achieve so much success with the outdated SMLE? Also, how effective was the Bren gun compared to Japanese (woodpecker or something?) light machine guns given its small magazine size. Cheers for the AMA",
"I actually have a question regarding your account name, it being a Python reference and all. Might it be safe to assume as a Python fan and a historian you're familiar with Terry Jones's work as a presenter of historical documentaries? If so, what's your opinion of his perspective? He's crafted a specific voice as a dispeller of historical misconceptions, but do you find his editorializing to be overstated or off base at all? I realize this has nothing to do with the topic and I don't expect you to have an opinion if you're not familiar with it. ",
"I remember reading one of the biggest advantages the Russians had in tank warfare was the complete lack of variety in their tanks which meant they always had the compatible parts available for repairs to their tanks as opposed to the many German varieties that often didn't have the right type of parts due to the ever changing tank designs.\n\nCan you shed any light on the issue, the advantages and disadvantages of variety or lack thereof in tank divisions and how it impacted the eastern front for each side?",
"In WWII films, namely Saving Private Ryan, shooting a flamethrower gas tank yields a fiery explosion and a gruesome death for the operator. I've always wondered if this would actually happen in the real world, or if it would just be an anticlimactic pffft of fuel with no ignition. Can you comment on this topic?",
"So this is a longshot and I can't remember the details but I remember hearing a story about a US Marine in the pacific that took a machine gun or cannon off of a crashed fighter plane and converted it into an infantry weapon with a shoulder stock and everything. I remember thinking the story was pretty incredible at the time. Have you ever heard of anything like this or know the story yourself?",
"I was told that the WWII Jeep had a camshaft that ran in the iron block without bearings, because that would give an engine life of 1500 miles, Normandy to Berlin about 2-3 times. Any truth to this old soldier's tale?",
"It's \"common knowledge\" that in WW2 the equipment profiles of the belligerents looked like what i list below. I realize that what I'm saying below is far from the complete picture but I'd like to hear about the stereotypical view.\n\n- Russia, Reliable if unsophisticated weapons and vehicles.\n- Germany, high-tech, limited numbers (german engineering etc.).\n- USA, massive quantities optimized for mass production, not always the most advanced.\n\nTo what degree do you think these stereotypes are true?\n\nAnd if the stereotypes are true, to what degree was there an overall \"national strategy\" for production according to these stereotypical principles?\n\nI guess what I'm as asking is did eg. Albert Speer sit down with Hitler one day and go \"right, we're going to make some really advanced tanks, lets not consider if they can be built in mass quantities or what they cost or how easy they are to maintain\". The same goes for the other major belligerents, did they have an overall strategy for wartime design and production?",
"I cannot not do this! It's against everything, but..\nDid you have fun in Stalingrad, Mr. Bimmler? \n\nOn a serious note, do you know about the dog-bombs and the like? And did only the soviets use them?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html"
],
[
"http://imgur.com/a/HCxBi"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yukikaze"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1om4xl
|
why is cyberbullying a problem?
|
First off I'm going to preface this with the statement that I do NOT condone cyberbullying of any kind, I'm wondering why people put up with it. Lately I've seen a couple news stories about a girl that was "bullied to death" basically bullied so hard she took her own life. This is nothing new (unfortunately) but in the news articles it said it started off with some verbal and physical abuse at the girl's school (these girls were in Florida and 14). The verbal and physical abuse got so bad that the victim's parents moved her to a new school. The victim continued to get bullied through social media and eventually killed herself over it.
Basically my question is this, if you're being bullied over social networking (or even through your phone) why continue to participate? In person bullying, verbal and physical, are unavoidable you HAVE to go to school. You don't have to go on facebook, and it is possible to block calls/texts from certain numbers. I am a 16 year old Junior in high school and I am constantly getting lectured over the "dangers of cyberbullying" sure it's not a good thing but why do victims put up with it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1om4xl/eli5_why_is_cyberbullying_a_problem/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cctak5n",
"cctaog6"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > Basically my question is this, if you're being bullied over social networking (or even through your phone) why continue to participate?\n\nYou don't have to participate directly for it to affect you. Even if you ignore the bully, if other people in your social group are still paying attention to them, it will eventually make its way back to you. Worse, you've also left yourself in a position where you can no long directly defend yourself from any accusations.\n\nFurther, it's much easier to \"cyber-stalk\" (ugh, I hate phrases like that) someone. For instance, someone can set up lots of email addresses to keep harassing you even if you've blocked known addresses. They can get cohorts to continue to harass you over social media, and blocking the number of people needed to not see the harassment could leave you socially ostracized.\n\nAll of this seems to stem from young teens being in a mental place where peer acceptance is of primary importance, and absolutely *anything* will stir up drama among friends.",
"Yeah. I'm not 16. I was fortunate to get out of high school before this nonsense started. However, I am volunteering to help with a summit on it soon. I think some problems stem from: (1) a bully can now publish his or her remarks to a very large audience. For instance, a college freshman was recorded by his roommate masturbating with a hidden webcam and the recording was spread all over school. (2) Social media is a major part of many young people's lives. For some it almost replaces off-line media. You're asking for someone to essentially shut themselves off from the world. (3) Bullying has always been a problem but now there's greater awareness of it. This is especially true when now there is online evidence of the evil stuff people say to each other.\n\nMy thoughts anyway."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6k4psl
|
Cathedrals are large and ornate, necessitating significant investment to construct. Did Cathedrals they serve any practical purpose for the village/town/city aside from hosting religious proceedings.
|
Inspired by [this](_URL_0_) post, I'm wondering if cathedrals served any practical purpose for the community which helped construct it aside from mass. If not, what was the benefit to the community of having these large, expensive, structures. I'm mainly wondering about the middle-ages but open to any time period in which you may have expertise.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6k4psl/cathedrals_are_large_and_ornate_necessitating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djjxq3t",
"djk7ve4",
"djk9kys"
],
"score": [
9,
13,
7
],
"text": [
"For clarification, is there a specific time period or geographical area in which you are specifically interested?",
"There actually are a few ways that churches functioned aside from housing worshipers for Mass, but these are, of course, directly related to the church’s larger spiritual aims which took precedence in the Middle Ages. I can’t demonstrate every way that the space of the church was used at this time but I can give a few specific examples. Incidentally, both of these also relate to how churches raised funds for their own repairs and construction. \n\nPerhaps one of the more prominent practices that became widespread during the range of dates you specified was the practice of pilgrimage in which devout churchgoers would visit the shrine of a saint or holy person—this could consist of their physical remains or some object that they had touched worn, etc—and pray in the presence of these objects so that they could for example, be forgiven for their sins, or be granted a miracle. Over time, some of these objects gained a reputation for being miraculous and thus attracted the attention of more pilgrims. This led not only changes to in the physical structure of the church itself but also alternative uses for its space. A well-known example of this is the Church of Santiago de Compostela, completed in 1211, and built to house the relics of St. James. As it was made for the benefit of pilgrims rather than local parishioners, this church had a prominent ambulatory with small chapels around it so that visitors could venerate the relics without interrupting mass [(floor plan)](_URL_0_). They could enter through the transept (side-entrance), explore the space of the church, and visit the relics located around the perimeter without disturbing the activities taking place in the nave and high altar. This practice became fairly widespread and even became the impetus for a sort of economy with hostels, pilgrimage churches and other forms of proto-tourist infrastructure popping up along major pilgrimage routes. \n\nAnother example of the popularity of pilgrimage can be seen with Chartres Cathedral [(floorplan)] (_URL_4_) [(exterior)] (_URL_1_) and, incidentally, it is also an interesting example of how major construction projects came to be funded. The relic it contained was purported to be a shift worn by the Virgin as she gave birth to Christ. This particular relic had healing powers attributed to it which made Chartres a major pilgrimage destination. In fact, during its rebuilding in 1145, wagonloads of donors arrived with food and construction materials to sustain the builders and in return were allowed to see the relics (Freeman 115). In yet another creative way of raising funds (in addition to those from bishops, church officials, and aristocratic patrons, of course), the churchmen at this cathedral played on the public’s particular interest in this relic and sent it on tour as a way to generate money for the construction of this church. This practice positions pilgrimage as a major factor in a sort of medieval proto-tourism and an influence on the economy of Europe. \n\nAnother more peripheral way that the church functioned during the medieval era was as the base for larger monastic communities. Although here the space was still used in largely the same way, it did spur the construction of supporting communities of monks whose interactions with the surrounding community broadened the ways that individuals could interact with the church. For example, if you look at the [St. Gall plan] (_URL_3_), a plan of what an ideal monastic space should look like, you can see that while the church forms the bulk of the architectural space, it also contained a hostel, guesthouse, school, and infirmary. While this particular plan was never executed, (it represented an ideal layout of space) it does show how monastic communities provided public services that could be later associated with the church. \n\nSources consulted:\n\n* Charles Freeman, *Holy Bones, Holy Dust: How Relics Shaped the History of Medieval Europe*\n\n* Carolingian Culture at Reichenau & St. Gall: _URL_2_",
"Let me start of by saying that I'm probably not the most qualified person here to answer your question. But i really like the question and i think it deserves an answer. I'm not a church or social historian. I'm a medieval historian that focusses on the northern low countries mainly in the period between 1100 and 1500. This means that first of all my answer is going to mainly be true for that period and that area, when i give examples that aren't found in the norther low countries i will specifically mention place names. It also means that i wont be able to provide a proper source for most of this, since it is quite general information that i picked up at lectures or symposiums. If anybody would like a source on something i said, please let me know and ill try and find it somewhere.\n\nIf i may, i would like to change the question a little bit. A cathedral isn't a big or ornate church, it is the seat of a bishop. Not every cathedral was big and ornate and not every big and ornate church was a cathedral. I would like to answer the question for any big ornate urban church in the high till low middle ages. One of the reasons for this change is that my area of expertise, the norther low countries, only had one cathedral in Utrecht but many more big urban churches.\n\nSo the question would be. What were the practical functions of big urban churches between 1100 and 1500? There are a couple of uses and functions big urban churches would have during the middle ages and i think the following 6 points are the most important out of all of them. But this is by no means an exhaustive overview.\n\n* Prestige\n* Tourism\n* Capittel/Collegiate churches\n* Schools\n* Lay involvement\n* Social center\n\n**Prestige**\n\nIn the middle ages being part of an urban community meant something to the members. Cities in the northern low countries were still real communities. The norther low countries had many small till medium sized cities. The biggest city being Utrecht, having around 10.000 inhabitant, most cities having around 3000 people living in them. The people living in those cities were burghers of these cities and as such had certain rights and privileges within the medieval world. They were proud of these privileges and freedoms and as such the city was often the highest unit of government they felt a real loyalty to. For the burghers having a big church that would rival a cathedral even though there was no bishop was a point of pride. Having a big altar stone made of foreign rock, a full time choir that fills the church with song or the highest tower of the region was a real concern and something they were prepared to spend a lot of money on. If a rival trading town would build a church more ornate then the one of their own community, the civil leadership would sometimes attempt to raise money to one up them.\n\n**Tourism**\n\nThat's right, medieval tourism. Well maybe it would be more accurate to call it pilgrimage. Anybody who has read the Canterbury tales is probably familiar with the concept of tourism in the middle ages. Some people would have been moved by spirituality or the need to heal a certain ailment other just wanted to see the sights and drink beer. Having a big ornate church with relics could help attracting pilgrims to the city who would in turn spend money on food, drink, bed and souvenirs. Some extreme examples of cities that had a real tourism industry would be Canterbury or Santiago de Compostela. But every city had their regional legends and saints. (This was before the papacy regulated sainthood) Even relatively small towns could try and attract pilgrims. Most wouldn't be on a European scale, but having a famous relic or miracle would even attract pilgrims to small town or village churches on a regional scale.\n\n**Capittel/Collegiate churches**\n\nThis is were we venture in a little bit of less known territory. By the late middle ages every city of some importance would have had at least one church with a capittel. Utrecht besides their cathedral had 5 churches that had a capittel staffed by cannons. Being a canon was a particular lucrative ecclesiastical position often staffed by university educated career clerics and the low nobility. Having some level of learnedness was often required and this was a way for the patrons of the church may they be nobility or as was often the case civil to bind influential or skilled clerics to them. The position of canon was particularly lucrative because they were more often then not connected to a prebend. A prebend is a collection of land or other goods that would produce the income of the canon. This college of cannons were headed by a deacon or provost (sometimes both) who often head a very substantial prebend. This meant that big churches were often also administration centers for big estates and sometimes even had lordly rights over villages or areas. In cities with a bishop the canons would also be officially responsible for choosing the new bishop, so they would have to be bribed by anyone or their patron aspiring to that position.\n\n**Schools**\n\nCapittel churches often had schools. Before there was the university there was the capittel school and in western Europe many Universities have their roots in capittel schools. The professors were often canons, giving out lucrative prebends with these canonships was a way to bind professors to the school or attract more learned and famous ones. While classes and lectures would often be held outside of the church itself, these professors and students were bound to the church and therefor to the city. While especially in the late middle ages when Universities and secular latin schools started to gain ground, in the high middle ages these were some of the most important cultural and knowledge centers of Europe. (Along with a handful of really important monasteries) Having a capittel church with lucrative prebends would have been a way for a town to attract both professors and students. While students would often bring trouble, they would also bring money.\n\n**Lay involvement**\n\nFrom around 1300 onward lay involvement in churches would flourish in the northern low countries. Lay brotherhoods were founded for people wishing to get spiritually involved, but not able or willing to take the vows. Guilds also played a big part spiritual revival of sorts in lay culture. Both these lay brotherhoods and guilds payed to have chapels build inside or next to big churches. They would furnish and decorate these chapels, bury their important death in them and pay for a chaplain to perform services in these chapels. These chapels were more then just spiritual places for these brotherhoods and guilds. From these brotherhoods in the low countries would form so called \"rederijkerskamers\", these were brotherhoods of lay people that were amateur writers, musicians and stage performance. These were the first real clubs for amateur artists in the low countries and the civil expression of culture that would displace the courtly literature that was popular during the high middle ages. These clubs gave the burghers a cultural voice and are regarded as being very important by scholars of Dutch language literature, these clubs were really just lay brotherhoods based out of churches.\n\n**Social center**\n\nFrom the smallest parish church till the biggest urban cathedral. The church was a place for the community to gather. Churches were not just open during mass or sermon, but were often open during the day. People would come in to pray, listen to the choir, look at art or in the northern low countries even read sermons pinned to the wall or pillars. But there weren't just spiritual reasons to visit the church. Often merchants would conclude business deals in the church. It was a public place, often very central and maybe even more important; who would try and cheat or lie about a deal in a church? But people could also come in and converse. Urban churches were full of life, not only during mass. They were often quite busy the entire day. There were priests, chaplains, canons, students, singers, musicians, merchants, guild members, lay brothers, normal townsfolk and often even cats and dogs in the church. \n\n\nI hope this answers most of your questions about how these big ornate buildings were practically used in day to day life. If you want i can tell you a little bit about how the medieval theologians felt about the buildings beings so ornate if you're interested, but i would type that up some other time.\n\n**Some sources:** (I'm sorry that i cant do better)\n\nAbout the role of capittel churches in medieval education: Charles Homer Haskings, *The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century* (Cambridge 1927).\n\nAbout capittels in the northern low countries general: A.J van den Hoven van Genderen, *De heren van de kerk : de kanunniken van Oudmunster te Utrecht in de late middeleeuwen* (Zuthpen 1997).\n\nAbout medieval society: W. Blockmans and P. Hoppenbrouwers, *Introduction to Medieval Europe, 300-1500* (Routledge 2007).\n\n\n\n\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6k0h8o/celtic_cathedral/"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Santiago_de_Compostela_plan_vertical.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Chartres_Cathedral_000.JPG",
"http://www.stgallplan.org/index.html",
"http://www.stgallplan.org/en/index_plan.html",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Plan.cathedrale.Chartres.png"
],
[]
] |
|
1sh4zt
|
Why does snow accumulate in stripes? (Pic)
|
Almost every parking lot looked like this.
_URL_0_
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1sh4zt/why_does_snow_accumulate_in_stripes_pic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdxma85"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It is because of wind. It works like sand dunes. You start with an even accumulation, then wind blows in one direction. Imperfections in the ground surface cause some flakes to stick, and others stick to them, until all of the snow is in drifts."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/LDKrhrH.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
4b6npl
|
how does soaking a piece of clothing in milk remove red wine stains?
|
I just got a large amount of red wine all over my white pants and I read online to soak them in milk for an hour. The stain is gone. What is going on in the milk that did this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b6npl/eli5_how_does_soaking_a_piece_of_clothing_in_milk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d16jwsg",
"d16nd9i",
"d17aai1"
],
"score": [
144,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"You're extracting the compounds In wine by using density extraction. Milk is more dense than the wine compounds so it ends up pulling up the less dense components. Source: I'm a Biochemistry student",
"Potassium metabisulfite... it's in the wine anyway.. and you won't believe your eyes. Repeatedly using will eventually cause color fading in colors other than white. Mix with a little water and away you go.",
"Drycleaner/Fabricare Specialist here. The industry standard is a Tannin Stain Remover (such as Trik, a product of Stanford Chemical Company) applied to the stain, with steam added to increase the action of spotting agent. In my experience, it is the best option. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but it's more reliable than anything else I know of."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1e9el2
|
Monday Mysteries | Ancient Ruins
|
**Previously:**
- [Decline and Fall](_URL_2_)
- [Lost and Found Treasure](_URL_3_)
- [Missing Documents and Texts](_URL_1_)
- [Notable Disappearances](_URL_0_)
**Today:**
The "Monday Mysteries" series will be focused on, well, mysteries -- historical matters that present us with problems of some sort, and not just the usual ones that plague historiography as it is. Situations in which our whole understanding of them would turn on a (so far) unknown variable, like the sinking of the Lusitania; situations in which we only know that something did happen, but not necessarily how or why, like the deaths of Richard III's nephews in the Tower of London; situations in which something has become lost, or become found, or turned out never to have been at all -- like the art of Greek fire, or the Antikythera mechanism, or the historical Coriolanus, respectively.
**This week, let's talk about ancient ruins that present some sort of problem.**
Are there are any archaeological sites out there that still don't make a whole lot of sense to us? Structures that should not exist in their time or place? Massive things of which no record in the surrounding culture seems to exist? Buildings with purposes that remain unknown?
How were these places discovered? What are the leading theories as to their origins or purpose?
Conversely, is there anything we have reason to believe *should* exist, but which has nevertheless evaded our efforts to find it?
I ask these preliminary questions with a hopeful spirit, working as I do in a field where discoveries of this sort would be absurd. Many of those reading this are focused on the much more distant past, however, where mysteries like this become compounded by the gulf of ages -- I'm hoping some of you will be able to take us back and show us something interesting.
As is usual for a daily project post, moderation will be relatively light. Please ensure as always that your comments are as comprehensive and useful as you can make them, but know that there's also more room for jokes, digressions and general discussion that might usually be the case.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e9el2/monday_mysteries_ancient_ruins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9y3g7y",
"c9y3qyy",
"c9y3w9d",
"c9y51qj",
"c9y5gp1",
"c9y5vkx",
"c9y6ari",
"c9y6p5t",
"c9yb94e"
],
"score": [
7,
10,
3,
19,
4,
35,
7,
38,
13
],
"text": [
"Ok, what stuff on Ancient Aliens really is a mystery?\n\nI'm not asking about the alien stuff, just if a ruin that they've talked about really is a complete mystery and we don't know why or how it's there.",
"Since it was the first thing that popped into my head, and then you went ahead and mentioned it, what *is* the deal with the Antikythera mechanism? I understand that it's relatively explainable for the technology of its time, and that [recent research](_URL_0_) suggests it most likely has some kind of astronomical function. \n\nMy question is about the context in which it was found. Do we have evidence of any kind of mechanical devices anywhere as complex as this device? Do we know why it was found on this one shipwreck, what it might have been used for?\n\nI've also heard it described as a primitive analog computer. Do we have any evidence that the ancient Greeks understand the theory behind how it worked? Or does it exist in some kind of vacuum?",
"Also...who *were* the Huns, really? Last I heard, the idea that they were the descendents of the Xiongu is out of fashion. Do modern scholars have any idea where they came from?\n\nIf not - if the word \"Huns\" just described a loose collection of tribes from north of the Black Sea - then what's up with the Hunnic Empire? Was it dominated by any one culture or ethnic group? Why did it seem to vanish so completely after Atilla's death?",
"The problem is that, at least as it is often stated, the designation of an archaeological remain as \"mysterious\" is entirely exogenous and thus archaeologically incoherent, a revelation not of the structure but of our own basic ignorance as to the culture. Many people describe Stonehenge as \"mysterious\" but to the builders it was not mysterious at all--imagine someone who, say, doesn't know about McDonalds remarking on these mysterious structures, seemingly containing their own distinct iconography and widely spread through zones that are neither geographically or culturally contiguous. Mysteeeerriioouus. In fact, the description of certain remains as \"mysterious\" is rather problematic, and contributes to the exoticisizing discourse around, eg, the \"unknowable and inscrutable oriental\".\n\nBuzzkill aside, the Eumachia structure at the southern end of the western side of the Pompeii forum has not, as of yet, had its function positively identified by archaeologists. It seems to have had some connection with the wool industry, but it is a bit atypical for a collegia office and is not in a particularly logical position to be a \"sheep processing unit\".\n\nEDIT: Not that there *are* not structures that we can, to a certain extent, deem \"mysterious\". But it is often used to shift the onus of ignorance onto the culture that produced it. It would be like, for example, me saying that the Spanish language is \"mysterious\".",
"I've been curious about the Japanese Yonagani Monument, which appears to be some sort Japanese Atlantis that some believe to be part of the mythical lost continent of Mu. ",
"I've long been fascinated by [brochs](_URL_0_), an odd sort of dry-stone circular building found mainly on the coast of Scotland but also in one or two places well inland. They have two walls, separated by corridors or voids, and taper inwards above ground. The doors are low so that one has to stoop to hands and knees to get in to most of them. Some of them still intact enough to have internal above-ground corridors which can be walked through. There are no external windows (there are slits on the inner walls), and although it's difficult to be sure, it seems that it would have been difficult to get on top of them from the inside to defend the buildings.\n\nThere still seems to be little known about them: the best estimate is that they were built from 1C BCE to 1C CE. They are often built with a view of the sea (not always), but they might have been built more to be seen *from* the sea as prestige objects - but since they might have been as common as every couple of miles, prestige would not have been that great.\n\nI'd be interested in anything anyone can add to this brief summary. For instance, why did they seem to have no provision for defence once the door was closed? Why were they sometimes built close together (Dun Telve and Dun Troddan are 500m apart)? Why were they sometimes built out of sight of the sea (these two again)?",
"The [Longyou Grottoes](_URL_1_). Its 24 massive caves that have been excavated by hand. It was discovered in 1992 in China.\n\nCan anyone share more info on the Longyou Grottoes? (why did they make it?, who made it?). I can't find much information on it. Except for [this](_URL_0_)",
"One particularly bizarre (to our eyes) archaeological feature are the mosaics found in Olmec cities like *La Venta*. [Here's an example](_URL_0_). These large patterns are made from serpentine (a kind of green stone considered to be a precious mineral by Mesoamericans). The weird thing about them is that they were buried immediately after construction. To us, this seems incredibly bizarre given how valuable serpentine was to Mesoamerican cultures. It would be like paving a large plaza in silver and then immediately covering it with cement. \n\nThese days archaeologists often say these mosaics are \"ritual features.\" Which is a fancy way of saying that we have no idea what they were for. Most likely, they weren't meant to be seen by mortals. It was probably enough that the Olmec priests *knew* the mosaic was there so that they could invoke it in some kind of religious ritual. But what exactly this ritual was and why it needed a massive hidden mosaic face made of pure serpentine is completely unknown to us.",
"I am quite fascinated by the Göbekli Tepe temple and what it signifies for early humans.\n\nWhat's the significance of such a structure and how does it fit into what we understand about our ancestors?"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ce73h/monday_mysteries_notable_disappearances/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cvbaz/monday_mysteries_missing_documents_and_texts/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dslor/monday_mysteries_decline_and_fall/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dcbb3/monday_mysteries_lost_and_found_treasure/"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/4/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broch"
],
[
"http://en.minghui.org/emh/articles/2000/9/11/8273.html",
"http://www.quzhouhotel.com/UploadFile/20120816112629857.jpg"
],
[
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NJsg6G2vsbA/TW1SEJNTC5I/AAAAAAAACBQ/bGxOzJOXyus/s1600/P1010413.JPG"
],
[]
] |
|
5llx01
|
how are my headphones playing a "ghost station"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5llx01/eli5_how_are_my_headphones_playing_a_ghost_station/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbwmrt8",
"dbwmsh1",
"dbwmydm",
"dbwogvj",
"dbws4zy"
],
"score": [
10,
16,
47,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Pirate radio yyarrr! This is actually normal and happens with low quality speakers. Essentially the wire in your headphones are not shielded well so they are acting as an antenna. They are able to pick up a certain AM frequency because of this. I actually was able to once get legitimate pirate music (literally yo-ho ho and a bottle of rum type music) once from some old crappy speakers I had would wake me up at night.",
"I have a couple of my own theories.\n\n1) the audio from another input on the TV is leaking onto the audio jack channel.\n\n2) the cable is acting as an antenna and picking up a radio station (but what is the receiver?)\n\n3) I'm acting as an antenna and picking up a radio station (how would my headphones pick that up, and where's the receiver?)",
"A nearby AM radio station is being picked up and rectified by the TV. \n\nA simple AM receiver can be made with a junction of two dissimilar metals or a metal needle point on a crystal. I suspect the electronics in the TV are performing the rectification and the headphone cable is the antenna. ",
"Somewhere in the headphone circuit there's a cheap half-bridge rectifier. The headphone extension is also unshielded, allowing it to act as an antenna. The AM radio signal is its own power.\n\nIf the guilty circuit had used a **_FULL BRIDGE RECTIFIER_** ^^cough ^^cough ^^sorry or if the cord was properly shielded, you wouldn't pick up the station.\n\nRadio Shack used to sell (and may still sell) ferrite donuts called Chokes to snap over cables to eat parasitised RF signals.\n\n-------------\n\n^(**_FULL BRIDGE RECTIFIER_** ༠ཽ.༠ཽ)",
"I have a related question to this that I've been trying to figure out for a while. While I'm driving in my car, in a suburb of Philadelphia, PA, and listening to a local sports talk radio (97.5 the fanatic) on my car radio. Every so often, the station will fade out, and a station from Birmingham Alabama will come in clear. I can't figure out how that could be happening. Any ideas? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5r4z1i
|
when using my smartphone camera why is video darker than photos for a given light level?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r4z1i/eli5_when_using_my_smartphone_camera_why_is_video/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd4i0pv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Exposure time. \n\nWhen you take a still-shot, the camera can pause to take in a large amount of light - after all, nobody is moving around much (hopefully) and there's no rush to get another shot in within the next few ms.\n\nWhen you're taking a video, however, the camera has at most 30 ms to take in light for each frame. So if the light level is low, it can't wait longer for more light, and it has to export what it's gotten so far and start taking in light for the next frame."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
alrkr2
|
what happens to the human body that makes it feel like cold isn't cold?
|
Just a couple days ago the "real feel" was -50 F. Now it is 5 F. A couple weeks ago 5 felt like it was unbearably cold. Now 5 feels almost balmy. What happened?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/alrkr2/eli5_what_happens_to_the_human_body_that_makes_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efgvhio"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your body can't actually sense temperature. It feels heat being absorbed or lost. So when you are losing heat your body tells you that your surroundings are cold. The more heat you lose the more you perceive your surroundings as being cold. Also, the greater the temperature differential between two things, the faster heat flows from one to the other. \n\nYou are asking about how you can feel cold in a cold temperature but then ok in that same temperature later (when you have adjusted). \n\nThis is the same thing as getting into a cold swimming pool: freezing at first but fine after you've been in it for a while. Your body adjusts by constricting blood flow in the extremities, so your skin is colder than your insides. When your skin was hotter there was a greater heat loss and you perceived it to be colder. When your skin was colder there was a smaller heat loss and your body tells you that means your surroundings are warmer (when it's really that your skin is colder)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3v2qxo
|
music equalization (as it pertains to mixing)- what's the deal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v2qxo/eli5_music_equalization_as_it_pertains_to_mixing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxjtf9s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Boosting = making a certain range of sound frequencies louder\n\nCutting = making a certain range of sound frequencies quieter\n\nI'll post sample pictures in a bit.\n\nEDIT: Here is an [example](_URL_0_). \n\nSo for me, I make hip-hop beats. When I'm making beats from sampling + chopping, I always cut the low / bass frequencies off of my samples for two reasons\n\n1. I use other samples for bass, in which I boost the low / bass frequencies and cut out every other frequency\n2. Like you said, without EQing while having multiple sources of sounds, it will sound cluttered. In my experience, when two or three of your sound sources have low frequencies which are too loud, it gives a crappy sound. \n\nWhen I use synth leads, I commonly cut / lower some of the higher frequencies to make it blend better. But I pretty much cut the bass out of every track / synth / sample except for one track, which I used exclusively for bass.\n\nOf course, with EQing, just experiment what works best for you. That's how I've learned and developed my own methods of blending different samples and basses."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/CYSlSye.png"
]
] |
||
4h7k91
|
A balloon filled with helium goes in the opposite direction of earth's gravity. Not only does it overcome the force, but it also travels up. What would happen to a balloon in deep space? Would the helium stay put or would the balloon split and the helium go in all directions?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4h7k91/a_balloon_filled_with_helium_goes_in_the_opposite/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2odv1f",
"d2oensr"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It is not fighting gravity. It is just lighter than the air around it. The air is pushing it up, much like air bubbles rise in water.\n\nSpace is a vacuum, so it depends on it's initial course. If the helium escaped Earth's atmosphere it would not keep 'rising'. Earth's gravity would still pull it.\n\nBut in a zero G vacuum it would travel (or be stationary) until something else acted upon it. ",
"In space it would probably burst. It would never reach space if released on earth because it would rise to a point where the air pressure means that the air density is the same density as the helium so it would reach a maximum altitude and then remain there until the helium leaks out and the balloon would descend"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3n0fjs
|
What did a Civil War "supply line" actually look like?
|
I understand the concept of a supply line (a fixed route for a military incursion to exchange men and materiel back and forth with the home base), and I understand that some generals maintained them while others preferred to live off the enemy's land, but how did you maintain one? Did you have to leave troops behind to hold the land all along the route, or just a token presence? If you crossed a general's supply line, would you know it? If you wanted to break a supply line, what would you do?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3n0fjs/what_did_a_civil_war_supply_line_actually_look/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvjrlsq"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"So let me first explain a little bit as to what a supply line would have looked like. It would have been a massive wagon train, stretching out across the road filled with laboring beasts, sweating workers, and stench of feces and a great unwashed mass. Jostling underneath wagon covers would be every conceivable item needed for war, from ammunition and food to water, boots, hats, coats, blankets, haversacks, bayonets, swords, guns, picks, shovels, wooden planks, *replacement parts for other wagons* and literally every implement soldiers needed to stay effective in the field. Even soldiers themselves, destined for the frontline armies, used these routes to move from supply areas in the rear to the armies up front. But, like the armies of the time, these wagon trains were pinpricks in a vast arena. And they werent the only way armies transported goods. \n\nSo whats a supply line? Its best to think of them as major highways for moving men and materiel from depots in the rear to the armies up front. These supplies were usually transported in one of three different vehicles: trains, boats, or by foot power (either a beast pulling a cart, or a man carrying goods, and himself!). The Civil War was the first major conflict fought which was aided by the use of steampowered locamotives. In the realm of tactics and operations, these trains allowed armies to quickly shuttle forces across the vast American theater. They also allowed armies to reinforce and resupply quickly as supplies moved away from rear area depots to the railheads, which were the closest railway point to the front line, adjusting for the conditions of other transport mechanisms. \n\nRailways also are the easiest supply line to understand. You have a thin ribbon of steel across which the lifeblood of armies transit. Where the railways were well developed, like in the East, transit was quick, efficient, and voluminous. But in less developed areas, or where the rail line decayed through overuse, volume quickly outstripped capacity, and prevented the free transit of supplies. Imagine what a damaged bridge, a wrecked train, or a separate rail might do to a busy rail schedule. Now imagine that same scenario in an area which was poorly developed, where that accident could block a critical passageway, and could entail rerouting traffic many hundreds of miles to reach the same destination.\n\nRoad and river traffic was more secure and less prone to accident, sabotage, and blockage. But thats not to say that there werent chokepoints and vulnerabilities across all forms of supply traffic. Each individual supply column was hard to find without the effective use of spies, scouts, and intelligence organs. Cutting a supply line rarely entailed the actual physical destruction of supply convoys and depots (though that did happen, especially in the case of raider warfare). Rather, armies would attempt to lay themselves across the enemy's supply lines, garrisoning key junctions and preventing the free flow of materiel. This would have one of three effects. If the enemy army kept on attacking, it would do so using only what goods it had with it. In that situation, most armies would simply shrivel up and die. Instead, the enemy army could pull back, attempt to outmaneuver their attacker, and reunite with supply lines. This is a dangerous move, however, because the enemy already controls some of the best routes back to base. Finally, the enemy could turn and attack, attempt to dislodge the blockage and reunite with supplies. No matter what strategy a general picked, he would have to do so with only what was available at that moment. Further, the general doing the cutting would be the one calling the shots. He controlled vital points on the map and narrowed down the possible responses greatly. \n\nOutside of the major campaigns and set piece engagements, Raiders also plagued Union supply lines. As the Union army moved into the Confederacy, they moved away from their bases. In many cases, this led to a long and perilous supply chain which had multiple vulnerabilities. Confederate raiders, usually cavalry, would circle around the Union armies (again, pinpricks in a much larger theater) and move up the supply line. There they did as much damage as they could. Rivers were the hardest to plug up, but sunken ships and steaks could block river travel. Felled trees, burnt bridges, and roving gangs all plagued back area roads. Railways were the easiest to destroy, however, because men could easily pull apart miles worth of track, and even the removal of one rail could stop an entire train until it was repaired. All the raider's had to do was ensure that enough damage was done that could not be easily or quickly repaired. To counter this threat, the Union expended vast amounts of manpower to secure their supply lines. Between half an armies paper strength or more could be devoted just to securing the supply lines or rear areas. These forces were used in a variety of ways. Some marched with convoys to repel raiders, while others patrolled road and rail hoping to catch saboteurs in the act. In other places, they occupied garrisons to provide refuge for traveling wagons and convoys. But in every place, raider still had success. Further, rear area work could be dangerous. Confederate raiders were especially nasty, and regularly picked off isolated Union patrols.\n\nLogistics and supply are one of the unsung elements of modern war. When we think of great military victories we rarely remember the supply clerks and logisticians who enabled that victory. Even armies which lived off the land still consumed some supplies. Men and ammunition were always in high demand. So the armies and commanders of the Civil War constantly considered where there army would get its next meal, and where it would get its next bullet. The supply side of the war was just as revolutionary, and just as important, as the major engagements.\n\nSources:\n\nRussell Weigley, *A Great Civil War*\n\nGordon Rhea, *The Battles for Spotsylvania Courthouse and the Road to Yellow Tavern*\n\nMartin van Creveld, *Supplying War*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1c0kln
|
how do fossils of an action or event get made?
|
For example, the [fossilized spider attack](_URL_0_): if the spider was attacking the bee, did they both have to die and stay there to be fossilized? Or does fossilization sometimes happen super quickly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c0kln/eli5_how_do_fossils_of_an_action_or_event_get_made/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9buk7l",
"c9bum2i"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's not a \"stone\" type of [fossil](_URL_3_) but insects trapped in amber which is a [fossil resin ](_URL_2_).\n\nThe insects got trapped in the [resin](_URL_0_) from a tree and that kept them intact over the ages when it turned into amber.\n\n[_URL_4_ article on the find](_URL_1_).",
"It's fossilized sap. It's basically tree blood, and it flows pretty quickly, and in some cases is almost like water. The insects drown in the stuff while fighting, and the sap hardens over the years.\n\nThis might be morbid for a 5 year old, but it would be like having a bunch of concrete dumped on you. The concrete would preserve exactly how you were as it all fell on you, and you would die trapped in the concrete. \n\nSame thing happened here. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/NAzzy11.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin",
"http://news.discovery.com/animals/insects/spider-attack-amber-121009.htm",
"http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber",
"http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil",
"Discovery.com"
],
[]
] |
|
53rfsc
|
After we get a cut, I read that our blood vessels have to grow back at the site of the wound. Do the blood vessels always grow back in the same pattern as before, or can they grow back in a different way?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/53rfsc/after_we_get_a_cut_i_read_that_our_blood_vessels/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7ws3a9",
"d7wsu31",
"d7wt69y"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"The vessels will initially be found along the most efficient pathway to distribute the blood, so there isn't a need for creating more than necessary\n\nIf the cut has damaged the area around it so much so that scar tissue doesn't allow for this path to be remade again, then a slight change in design can occur.\nIt isn't that we are predisposed with the positioning of every tiny vessel, it is just that they take the most efficient direction which will be mostly the same even after a cut.",
"In addition to /u/glaciated 's post, a cut damages more than just blood vessels, so it is very likely that the other tissues surrounding a blood vessel will grow back at a slightly different rate and formation pattern than they did during their last growth. Even a small cut will likely disrupt thousands of skin, blood, and muscles cells, which basically guarantees that the regrowth will not be identical to how it was earlier. The difference could be as small as a blood vessel shifting a fraction of a millimeter, or it could mean that a vessel changes angles slightly or begins to curve etc.",
"When you cut your finger your body tries to fill the wound with a mixture of totally random capillaries and collagen-rich fibrous tissue. Later, most of the capillaries will die back and the wound will contract and turn white. [Vastly more on this here](_URL_0_) starting with the angiogenesis section.\n\nYou can grow larger vessels too. A developing fetus or [a tumor](_URL_2_) will demand huge amounts of oxygen, and your body will attempt to deliver it. Sometimes [angiogenesis just goes berserk](_URL_1_) for little to no reason and starts trying to grow out of your body in a weird little red mass.\n\nGenerally speaking, your body merely tries to roughly glue you back together in the hopes that you will survive long enough to reproduce. Precision repairs are not a skill mammals have."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/884594-overview#a4",
"http://www.aocd.org/?page=PyogenicGranuloma",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis#Tumor_angiogenesis"
]
] |
||
5djz7r
|
why does metal heat up so much when crushed under a hydraulic press?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5djz7r/eli5_why_does_metal_heat_up_so_much_when_crushed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da548gi",
"da54klp",
"da57g9a"
],
"score": [
4,
20,
2
],
"text": [
"How do I add a flair on mobile?",
"Almost every metal is made up of crystals - ordered arrangements of atoms. Some metals are made of very small crystals, some are made of large crystals, and some very special metal parts can be made of a single crystal. These crystals aren't perfect - they have little atom-sized holes in them, and atoms stuck where they aren't supposed to be.\n\nWhen you permanently change the shape of a piece of metal, the way it actually changes shape at an atomic level is that the holes and the misplaced atoms are forced to move around. A huge number of these holes and misplaced atoms moving around makes up the change in shape you see. But just like almost everything else, when you move these holes around, they are opposed by friction. Most of the work you put into changing the shape of the metal doesn't actually change its shape - instead, it's used to move against friction, and is wasted. That work gets converted into heat.",
"If we look at a basic equation for work (Where work is measured in energy, a good proxy for temperature change) \n\nWork(Energy) = Force X Distance\n \n\nMetal has three properties that results in high energy when deformed: \n*High strength (Require a lot of force to deform) \n*High ductility (Can take a lot of deformation before breaking) \n*Work hardening (Metals become stronger when deformed) \n \n\nHigh strength and work hardening means it requires a high, and increasing, force when metal is deformed. \nHigh ductility means the metal can be deformed over a long distance before breaking. \nIf we enter this (High force and long distance) in the equation the result is very high energy, which is given off as a very high temperature increase.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
yf964
|
french politics and law
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yf964/elif_french_politics_and_law/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5v09ru"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Please be more specific? Political parties or how politics work? All the laws would be challenging... do you have something in mind?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
284m05
|
who started 'high-5s' and are they universal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/284m05/eli5_who_started_high5s_and_are_they_universal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci7cltx",
"ci7cx2g",
"ci7cyqo",
"ci7d8w7",
"ci7dugm",
"ci7dzyb",
"ci7e7fh",
"ci7eaj2",
"ci7ebid",
"ci7eghf",
"ci7f7yy",
"ci7fbgh",
"ci7fhev",
"ci7fhq9",
"ci7fks6",
"ci7flgc",
"ci7fsaw",
"ci7fvbt",
"ci7fxqm",
"ci7g05i",
"ci7g0a5",
"ci7gby1",
"ci7gecs",
"ci7geup",
"ci7h519",
"ci7hie8",
"ci7hrrd",
"ci7hxx4",
"ci7i4a5",
"ci7i7y0",
"ci7i86q",
"ci7igia",
"ci7ikbn",
"ci7ivbz",
"ci7j34f",
"ci7j9uo",
"ci7jkoo",
"ci7jlnz",
"ci7jrls",
"ci7jxoy",
"ci7kzgo",
"ci7mfz4",
"ci7mrz3",
"ci7n8ca",
"ci7ojeo",
"ci7otvv",
"ci7owwj",
"ci7pe2l",
"ci7pr1b",
"ci7r5t9",
"ci7r8uf",
"ci7sa9g",
"ci7sz9l",
"ci7ui11",
"ci7y0nx"
],
"score": [
43,
540,
33,
16,
65,
4,
15,
6,
354,
455,
2,
7,
24,
11,
366,
14,
5,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
4,
2,
133,
12,
2,
7,
2,
3,
16,
49,
2,
2,
2,
2,
17,
2,
4,
2,
3,
5,
5,
6,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, I don't know if they are universal, but here in Brazil we high-5. \nBut we are a somewhat standard western culture (though we are third world) and our culture (specially television and movies) is very Americanized. So this is not a very representative sample.\n\nEdit: Just to clarify, we don't say \"high 5!\" in english. But if you are celebrating something positive, like some achievement, and you put your open hand up in the air, I think any Brazilian will understand what you mean and high-5 you. Maybe a \"high 10\" is more common, with two hands. Brazilian athletes do this all the time for example. ",
"[Check out this Radio Lab podcast](_URL_0_), where they ask and attempt to answer this very question. Unfortunately, I can't find a transcript, but they refer to an ESPN article called [History of the high five](_URL_1_) which might also be interesting.",
"People in France, at least where I am in Brittany, are very reluctant to give high fives... It makes me sad.",
"In India it is not popular except in the urban settings. So it is not universal.",
"In Tanzania, people will say \"nipe tano\", which translates directly to \"give me five\", but then they fist bump. High fiving as we know it isn't really practiced there. So not universal, apparently.",
"High fives aren't so common in Asia, but the concept isn't foreign to Asians either. ",
"Does anyone else say \"Up top!\" when they throw their hand up for a high five?",
"\"...some Seppo bullshit, introduced by the West Indies...\"\n\n - *The Twelfth Man*",
"In Mexico high-fives are common. This gesture is called \"chócalas\" wich translates as \"strike 'em up\" (the hand palms).",
"We English people find high fives acutely embarassing. On the whole we are much too restrained. We often find it hard to ask people's first names so by the end of an evening of talking to someone we might be able to squeeze out \"oh dear, I appear not to have caught your name\" when we know perfectly well names have been ignored all evening by both parties. \n\nApparently we are terrified of putting the other person in an awkward situation so you can imagine how traumatising it would be to put our hand up and the other person didn't. We would worry they were disabled or something so would rather not go there. ",
"Pro tip: if you both point your finger tips at each other as the hands move toward each other, you usually end up with a perfect high five",
"Japan= High Touch",
"TIL freedom is not universal :(",
"In Japan, it's a ハイタッチ (High Touch).",
"My girlfriend grew up in Ethiopia, and we went to visit her family last year. (They live in Texas now, we didn't go to Ethiopia.) She hadn't seen a few of her brothers/sisters or her mom in a few years. For me, when greeting family we hug. For them, they high five extremely energetically. It's the weirdest thing, but it's what they do.",
"I prefer to believe it was started by the University of Louisville men's basketball team.\n\nAs a Louisville fan, this is the natural truth.\n\n_URL_0_",
"[This is a popular opinion on the subject, one that's often proposed as \"the\" explanation](_URL_0_); a professional baseball player in the 70's who was eventually shunned for his homosexuality.",
"They are common in germany as well. And they are called just the same as in America. ",
"I think it's funny how 90% of these answers are different.",
"High 5s are understood throughout Europe but they are seen as a foreign thing (from the Anglo-saxon culture).",
"Pretty sure everyone is atleast aware of high fives due to our movies and tv shows. I've yet to travel to a country that didn't have US movies and TV shows on 24/7. ",
"i'm from germany and not sure if i have seen a high five in real live. I allways thought that was a hollywood thing. But i can remember a couple of fistbumps.",
"I am slowly enjoying series/season 3 of *Sherlock* and last night watching the 2nd episode I see John Watson get left hanging from an awkward attempt to high-five someone. I had this same thought of wondering just how universal it has become. It seems like a very American gesture. \n\nAnd boy does it seem sometimes like reddit is following me around and putting up posts that are eerily aware of what I do and think.... ",
"Glenn Burke most probably. \n\n_URL_0_",
"it can be traced back to the Romans, they wanted to impress the celts.",
"I'm 55 and have been a student of pop culture all my life, so let's just say I've been watching TV since the 60's.\n\nFor my whole life I've seen the standard low five (which NOBODY says) as the standard hand out at waist level which is then then slapped. Gimme some skin, or gimme five goes way back to the jazz era.\n\nnow the HIGH five. I didn't become aware of anyone doing it until the Summer Olympics sometime in 80's. I saw an eastern european volleyball team do it after every point to congratulate each other.\n\n**So based on that rather unscientific sampling, I'd say High Fives were first introduce to North American culture sometime in 80's and it had its origins in European sports teams.**\n\n\nI'll happily take corrections on that, but that's when i first became aware of it.\n\nNote: a pet peeve of mine is someone who actually SAYS \"high five\" when giving high fives. \n\n\n\n",
"It was the Nazis, actually, they turned the salute into the first high five, though it was called the \"Heil five\". ",
"One time my roommate and I were meeting one of our friends new foreign roommate. She was from Sweden I believe. She agreed with my roommate on something so my roommate raised her hand for a high five. The foreign girl just stared in confusion so my roommate picked up her hand and forced a high five. My roommate then said, \"In America we high five.\"",
"Here in Ireland it is seen as a very American thing to do. ",
"These guys did..... _URL_0_",
"Radiolab did a great story on this topic a few months ago, but unfortunately I can't find it. Instead here is an ESPN piece that covers basically the same information (I think the radiolab piece may have come from this ESPN piece): _URL_0_",
"Reminds me of when I was 15 or so, and tutoring some elementary school kids who were mostly immigrants from Latin America. I said \"Hey! Dame cinco!\" when he did a good job at a math problem and held out my hand to my little buddy for a high-five. The kid had probably immigrated to the US within the last month or so, and didn't speak any English. His eyes widened and he backed away from my outstretched hand. \"No lo tengo! No tengo dinero! No lo tengo!\" \n\nI was horrified that in my quest to do a good deed with tutoring, I inadvertently made a 7-year old think I was going to rob him. ",
"Jesus did, simultaneously with the 3 days rule. Backstory:\nJesus waited THREE days to come back to life. It was perfect! If he had only waited ONE day, a lot of people wouldn't have even heard he died. They'd be all, \"Hey Jesus, what up?\" and Jesus would probably be like, \"What up? I DIED yesterday!\" and they'd be all, \"Uhh, you look pretty alive to me, dude...\" and then Jesus would have to explain how he was resurrected, and how it was a miracle, and the dude'd be like \"Uhh okay, whatever you say, bro...\" And he's not gonna come back on a SATURDAY. Everybody's busy, doing chores, workin' the loom, trimmin' the beard, NO. He waited the perfect number of days, THREE. Plus it's SUNDAY, so everyone's in church already, and they're all in there like \"Oh no, Jesus is DEAD\", and then BAM! He bursts in the back door, runnin' up the aisle, everyone's totally psyched, and FYI, that's when he invented the high five. That's why we wait three days to call a woman, because that's how long Jesus wants us to wait.... True story",
"No, it's USian only, and probably of ethnic origin.",
"Actually a guy was trying to reach the top shelf in a bro shop when suddenly his hand bumped into another guy's hand who was trying to do the same. Just during that awkward moment they came up with the term 'High-5' to avoid further embarrassment. ",
"I don't think it is universal. I only saw it in American movies and when I came to USA. I lived in 3 other countries and didn't see it there.",
"The creation of the High Five is created too Dusty Baker and Glenn Burke, after Baker Hit a home run in the LA Dodgers last regular season game in 1977 which sent them to the play offs. Burke who was on deck threw his hand up in the air and as Baker passed by him him hit his hand again Burke's.",
"And who's the asshole that started \"TOO SLOW!\" ",
"relevant: _URL_0_\n\nI can't believe this was on wikipedia",
"I would wager my guess on Black Americans. If it's cool, their rich culture probably spurned it.",
"It was actually invented by Goebbels, who awkwardly slapped Hitlers hand when he had it raised up and said \"Heil fumpf?\".",
"people have been fiving since probly the 40s/50s era of jazz and the Beats in the US. i think white people just appropriated it and went with the high 5 because we cant make anything look cool (awkward high 5s happen all the time, whereas its impossible to botch a low 5). the high 5 must have been widespread by the 80s considering how many movies involve a jumping high 5 freezeframe. \n\nin the US, the 5 is used for celebration, while the fistbump is for greeting or saying goodbye",
"I had someone come in for an interview recently. The interview went well and I went to shake his hand and he went for a high five. It was awkward, but I stuck to my handshake. Hired him anyway.",
"Pro tip: if you watch the elbow of the arm you are high-fiving, your chances to miss are drastically lowered.",
"HOLY SHIT!!\n\n\nJust asked the grandparents.\n\nGrandma: \"I didn't high five until you were born, that was black.\"\n\n\nGrandpa: \"I dont remember hi fives existing when I was a kid.\"",
"I'm in the U.S Army and during a training expedition a fellow German Special Forces soldier refused and took offense to the gesture, stating it was gang related. ",
"In New Zealand the High Five is considered an american gesture and consequently quite frowned upon. Truth.",
"The modern gesture known as the \"high-five\" was concocted in a rudimentary format by Leonardo da Vinci by the name of the (please excuse my rusty Italian here) \"hand palm slap\", but no records exist of him ever actually performing it, so most modern historians assume he only theorized it. The first real evidence we have of such a gesture is from one Sir Mathew Davies of Lincolnshire, who was studying physics when he received a successful result from his most recent experiment and threw up his hand in joyous shock, accidentally striking his colleague with it. The (unnamed) colleague assumed this was some sort of quirk Sir Davies had and returned it so as not to offend his superior. When Davies realized he was on to something here, he wrote to his patron the Lord George High-Five, Earl of High and Baron of Five, who registered the gesture under his own name with the Crown Cultural office, and the rest is history.",
"It's not universal, although I think it may be widespread. Especially through American movies/cinema. The country I'm from doesn't have highfives, more like handshakes/hand holding. When I visited last year I was given weird looks when I tried to give someone a high five.",
"I remember Vin Scully telling the story once, I believe the first high five occurred after a Dusty Baker home run for the LA Dodgers. ",
" > [There are many origin stories of the high five, but the two most documented candidates are Dusty Baker and Glenn Burke of the Los Angeles Dodgers professional baseball team on October 2, 1977, and Wiley Brown and Derek Smith of the Louisville Cardinals men's college basketball team during the 1978–1979 season.](_URL_0_)\n\n---\n\n > The use of the phrase as a noun has been part of the Oxford English Dictionary since 1980 and as a verb since 1981.\n\n\n",
"I believe this helps answer a part of your question...\n_URL_0_",
"In the UK we don't high 5. You'd look like a dick. We use a firm handshake like a gentleman. I know live in the US and continue to use handshakes. I look like a dick.",
"I was told a baseball player from the 50's started it.",
"People who were too slow for down low."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/169886-contagious-ideas/",
"http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6813042/who-invented-high-five"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_five"
],
[
"http://theweek.com/article/index/218844/the-birth-of-the-high-five#axzz34dARvUHb"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Burke"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3507Y1am118"
],
[
"http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6813042/who-invented-high-five"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_five#.22Too_slow.22"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_five"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8TuFFFOf2g"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
16hsr7
|
To what extent did resistance groups in WWII fight each other?
|
While I've read references here and there to various groups resisting the Axis in WWII having conflicts with each other (for example, I recall there was no love lost between the French communists and the Free French), I was wondering whether resistance groups both within occupied countries actually fought each other while, at the same time, maintaining their mission to eventually defeat the Nazis, or whether the threat of the invading regime caused them to put aside their differences, at least for a little while, and if not work together than at least resolve to stay out of each other's way.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16hsr7/to_what_extent_did_resistance_groups_in_wwii/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7w5p9j",
"c7w84q1",
"c7w90t5",
"c7w9m8v"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This applies specifically to the danish resistance groups, since i really don't know that much about other countries' groups. \n\nIn Denmark, there were to my knowledge no actual fights between groups. All the groups were dependent on supplies from England, and the communist groups received much fewer supplies than the non-communist groups. The danish army(in charge of the drops) decided early on to limit supplies going to communist groups, in order to make sure that there would be no major changes to the power balance, when the war ended. The result was that communist groups had to carry out raids on Germans in order to get the needed supplies, and that kind of offensive actions against an army was much more dangerous than the sabotage actions that the resistance primarily carried out. \n\nEdit: There weren't any fights, but there were a lot of heated arguments on this policy, especially after the war. ",
"I am familiar in detail only with Yugoslav resistance groups. The two main resistance groups, Chetniks and communist partisans waged a civil war parallel with the war against occupying and quisling forces. Far from just occasional skirmishes this civil war in many ways determined the strategy of both, to the extent that Chetniks mostly turned collaborators as early as 1942 and almost completely by 1943 and stopped really being the resistance group. Partisans, while not turning to collaboration considered Chetniks their main rival for post-war power and acted accordingly. ",
"Western Europe: in general there was no actual fighting between resistance groups.\n\nPoland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Eastern Europe in general: Sometimes armed fighting between Communist and non-communist resistance groups, for example ELAS and EDES in Greece or Armia Ludowa and Armia Krajowa in Poland. \n\nIn China, there was a civil war raging before the Japanese invaded between the Communists and the Nationalists and this continued partly during the war.",
"Gwardia Ludowa (from 1944 Armia Ludowa - commies, Soviet collaborants) in Poland fought Armia Krajowa (the good ones) with every means. In 1943 Marek Spychalski from GL reported 50 people from AK to Gestapo. Since 1944 Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (rightists) started reporting communists on Gestapo too. \n\nBut communists killed themselves too. First leader of GL, Bolesław Mołojec, was accused of killing Marcel Nowotko (he was the first leader of PPR, Soviet satellite party) and killed by Jan Krasicki, by a direct order from Małgorzata Fornalska, partner of later president of Communist Poland, Bolesław Bierut.\n\nOnce GL reported on Gestapo an illegal printing press in Warsaw. Afterwards they realised that it was their own press...\n\nDirectly after the war polish non-communist resistance groups were persecuted. Most members were imprisoned, a lot of them killed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4kdyen
|
What differences, if any, were there between Soviet and Western (American, British, French) tactics in countering Blitzkrieg tactics in WW2?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4kdyen/what_differences_if_any_were_there_between_soviet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3eqb4p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Follow up. Was Blitzkrieg even a real German doctrine in WW2?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5ztju7
|
why do turtles grow as large as their tanks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ztju7/eli5_why_do_turtles_grow_as_large_as_their_tanks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df1and4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's not totally true. Turtles will grow as big as their genetics and nutrition and other factors let them. Turtles actually have their growth stunted in an unhealthy way by being in an environment too small, not due to the physical environment alone, but also by the nutrients available in said environment. The physical environment will cause stress that will contribute to lack of growth.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://chaoticzoo.blogspot.ca/2011/05/it-will-only-grow-size-of-its-tank.html?m=1"
]
] |
||
5qo7s0
|
how can countries be banned from the u.s. based solely on their religious majority?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qo7s0/eli5_how_can_countries_be_banned_from_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd0r55y",
"dd0rfb0",
"dd0v6uo",
"dd0x3ps",
"dd0xgjv",
"dd0xmej"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
" > How is this possible with rights guaranteed by the first amendment? \n\nRights laid out in the US constitution only apply to US citizens, or people on US soil. If you're a foreign national in another country, the US doesn't have to give you any rights; that's the job of the country you're currently in.\n\n > Does the majority of America agree with this sentiment?\n\nProbably not the majority, but a sizable segment of the population. The 9/11 attacks, followed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, further followed by ISIS/ISIL have solidified in the minds of lots of people that \"Muslims are terrorists\".",
"There are five criteria that are considered for immigration purposes according to US Immigration Service rules. 1. Religion. 2. Race. 3. Political Opinion. 4. National Origin. 5. PSG (Particular Social Group). So using anyone of these criteria a person or group can be given special preference for admittance or denial of entry. ",
"All countries have the right to limit who can enter their country at any time for any reason. \n\nThe US constitution only applies to US citizens and people on US soil. Until you get past the immigration stations at the airport it does not apply to you unless you are already a US citizen. ",
"There's some bad information in here.\n\nFirst, not all rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution are limited to citizens. Where the Constitution specifically states \"citizens,\" the rights are restricted to those naturally born or naturalized. Where the Constitution states \"persons\" or \"people,\" those rights can be invoked by any persons regardless of nationality that are subject to US laws.\n\nSecondly, Congress has the ability to include or exclude any foreign nationals based on any reason through something known as the Plenary Powers doctrine. The use of this power is cannot be reviewed by any court, including the Supreme Court. The use of this has already been tested in the Chinese Exlusion Act way back when. Congress thought there were too many Chinese Nationals in the country and they wouldn't let anymore in. Supreme Court upheld it under Plenary Powers. They could change the immigration code tomorrow to state \"no foreign national with two legs can enter the country\" and it would be totally legal under the Plenary Powers doctrine.\n\nIn reference to your question, with the President and the executive order, through control of the State Department, the President could exclude any foreign nationals as a matter of process by directing all Consular Officials to deny for entry applications of foreign nationals from specific countries. Consular Official decisions cannot be reviewed by a court. Without approval of a Consular Official, you can't even get on a transport of any kind that comes to the US. It doesn't matter if you're coming to work, live, or visit. If you somehow make it past this rung, you can still get held up by DHS Border Patrol Agency when you actually get to the US.\n\nHow this applies to LPRs is more tricky. LPRs are foreign nationals, but they have already have been through the process granting them visas. Usually, to revoke those has to go through an Immigration Judge, and those decisions can be reviewed. I'm not in that field so I can't specifically speak to that. ",
"Immigrants can be barred from the US for any reason. This has always been the case and entire ethnicities have been excluded for most of US history. ",
"The ban is not solely banning all muslims, rather it is specific countries. Syria and Lybia are main targets for the ban as ISIS and ISIL have become dominate powers in those countries and whom specifically advocate for the destruction of The USA and promotes acts of terrorism in the USA. The concern is that ISIS or ISIL could sneak agents into the USA by posing as refugees. Prior to the ban, refugees were allowed to enter the USA as refugees without being vetted. Essentially we had no idea who these people were and if they had any ties to terrorist groups. The ban is intended to stop the influx of refugees from those countries until we can come up with a vetting process to make sure they have no ties to ISIS or ISIL.\n\nIt's not a happy situation, but it is pragmatic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26d4cy
|
Would a planet-sized ball of liquid water in space have a solid core of "hot ice" the same way Earth's inner core is solid?
|
Earth's inner core is solid because of the immense pressure, and Jupiter's core is theorized to possibly be liquid and maybe even solid metallic hydrogen. Would water form this sort of pressure-induced solid state at the core of a planet-sized ball of water?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/26d4cy/would_a_planetsized_ball_of_liquid_water_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chpxf4c",
"chq4ngn"
],
"score": [
44,
5
],
"text": [
"At high pressures water will form a solid at any temperature. Wikipedia has a rather detailed phase diagram for water:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nOf course the specifics will vary; it'd be very unlikely for a planet to form exclusively from water, so getting a water-only core becomes difficult.",
"Some recent reviews of water moons in our solar system suggest a layer cake of ice and water levels as there are various sorts of Ice that water can form and various levels of salinity: \n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg"
],
[
"http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbanf/research/water_ice.htm"
]
] |
|
1qz64h
|
why has stop snitchin' remained so popular in low-income us populations?
|
It seems counter to long-term self interest to agree to a stop-snitching attitude. How come such campaigns are so successful and criminal elements are allowed to flourish?
I work parallel to social services and have frequently encountered this up close. I sometimes hear people say they don't want to get hurt, but these are people who are exceedingly risk-tolerant in many aspects of their day-to-day lives. More frequently, I hear a genuine personal disgust with the notion of acting as a witness.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qz64h/eli5_why_has_stop_snitchin_remained_so_popular_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdhy47u",
"cdhy7v0",
"cdhyf77",
"cdhyk86",
"cdhzbbk",
"cdibo65"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
8,
11,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because every one gets out if jail... And then they come back... And then ^^^ that guy",
"People in low income situation usually have short term goals as opposed to long term goals. And in many low income areas criminal populations hold more power then government. ",
"A combination of : Fear, a sense of honor ( both legitimate and romanticized, if not altogether misplaced ) and a sense of community that is somewhat self-reliant and sees justice as a private issue - and the police as a greater threat.",
"As a black man who has poor relatives but grew up well off: many minorities historically distrusted the police and passed on such attitudes to they're kids. \n\nIf the police were shaking down local car thieves or arsonist I'd imagine most people would turn on them. Drug dealers seem to be a fact of life that many have been involved in either themselves or through family. I known far more dealers of all economic backgrounds than say murderers or thieves so I'd be less inclined to rat one out just because of civic duty. \n\nSome New immigrants come from countries where police are less effective or just thugs with badges. ",
"In many neighborhoods police are not noble protectors of the community but instead thugs of the state that arrest ones family, racially profile, and victimize and hurt with absolute impunity. This is something to keep in mind in your work. Many communities feel under siege and working with the police is in some aspects no different than being a collaborator with a foreign occupying army.\n\nWhy would these people turn in people, who they likely grew up with, know personally, and all face the same a similar poor socioeconomic status, to some thug sent from the state that put into place the very policies that placed them historically in such a position?",
"Because in those neighborhoods, snitching will get you killed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1qivbe
|
Are Southern Chinese really Han Chinese?
|
I read on Youtube comments section and other Asian-focused forums that Southern Chinese (like Cantonese) are related to Vietnamese, and were descendants of Baiyue tribes, and are not really "original Chinese blood" descendants from the heartland of China (Yellow River basin)...
Please excuse me, since I'm just an Cantonese-Chinese person raised in United States, so my knowledge about Chinese history (thus migration patterns) is very poor.
So is Cantonese/Southern Chinese really Han Chinese, or are they like Vietnamese/Barbarian/Baiyue descendants?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qivbe/are_southern_chinese_really_han_chinese/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdd9rt7",
"cdfh3fp"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Now firstly it must be made clear: \"Southern Chinese\" is not a single homogenous group. There are several major ethnic group that usually called Southern Chinese. These are:\n\n- Hokkien/Fujuanese: people from Fujian. This province is the most mountainous province in eastern China. During early Han period this period are mstly out of government controls and still un-Sinicized\n- Cantonese/Yue Chinese/Guangzhou people: people native from Guangdong, the province near Hongkong and Macau and to the south of Fujian. This province is less mountainous and rather easily accessible via a river route from Hunan. Even since Qin dynasty this place is already have a Chinese garrison\n- Hakka: these people are recent migrant from northern China. There are good record of their migration southward and these people are undoubtedly Han\n- other non-Han ethnic group sometimes also called \"Southern Chinese\", especially the Zhuang, who are linguistically closer to the Thais, and various Hmong/Miao people who are likely indigenous in the place\n\nJudging from its history, the Yue/Cantonese are likely have Han descent, as it is already an important commandery since the first dynasty of China, most likely, the men from these garrisons married local women, who were as you said were of various tribes like the Baiyue.\n\nThe question whether people living to the south of Yellow river valley really Chinese is not new. In fact during the Warring States period, the State of Chu, which located in central Yangtze basin, is considered at least partially barbarian. And songs of Chu, along with its other cultural practices, were considered \"exotic\" by the other six warring states.\n\nIt should be noted however, that there are well-recorded migrations of Chinese from Yellow river basin whenever northern steppes nomads invaded. The migrations happened during An Lushan rebellion during Tang Dynasty, he was half-Turkic half-Sogdian. Many Chinese also fled the invasion of Jurchens invasions of Song Dynasty which later followed by the Mongols under Kubilai Khan. So saying that that Southern Chinese are less Chinese is rather inacurate based on these record of migrations.\n\nIn fact, there is this theory that it was Northern Chinese who are *less* Chinese, since North China Plains was historically invaded multiple time by barbarians from the north.",
"As /u/reddriper excellently pointed out, \"Southern Chinese\" is not a homogenous group, and I will add that \"Northern Chinese\" is not a homogenous group, either. This idea of \"original Chinese blood\" or \"different Chinese races\" is completely outdated. A glance through Chinese history will show that migration and mixing of populations was far from uncommon. Of course there are genetic differences and even distinctive physical characteristics between different regions -- but you'd expect that over any geography of comparable size and terrain, and China is huge. If anything, it's a miracle in a way that there has been as much political and cultural unity over such a large span of land for millennia. The North/South \"divide\" is perhaps accentuated really as a consequence of cultural and political history more than anything. The South had been quite stable politically compared to the North, where there were large scale northern invasions over a millennium and which caused repeated waves of some migration from north to south.\n\nSo yes, Southern Chinese populations may have more genetic material from populations in Southeast Asia. Northern Chinese more genetic material from populations in the North, and the West and Southwest with populations they were in contact with in their respective regions. To deny that would be crazy, but to go the other end and claim or imply that there is no significant shared ancestry would be even crazier."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9a5cie
|
what is insomnia and why can't our brains shut off when we're excessively tired
|
Why can't our brains shut off and sleep when we're overly tired and trying to fall asleep?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9a5cie/eli5_what_is_insomnia_and_why_cant_our_brains/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4suws0"
],
"score": [
42
],
"text": [
"Insomnia can be caused by many things, but one of the most common causes of insomnia is a non-functioning ability to produce the chemical that makes us begin to fall asleep.\n\nOur brain (neurotypically) naturally makes all of the chemicals we need on a given day to function. One of them, melatonin, is produced in low light conditions when the body is laying down or comfortable, and it triggers the sleepiness that lulls us to sleep. For whatever reason (and there are many), some people's brains don't make enough of this chemical naturally to fall asleep easily.\n\nSome causes of malfunctioning melatonin production include PTSD, rewiring what your brain expects \"low lighting\" conditions to look like by watching bright screens in the dark, as a symptom of other disorders like anxiety and depression, as a symptom of taking medications, from not getting enough exercise, and so on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
12v2oa
|
To what extent did the Axis power coordinate their actions/strategy in WWII?
|
It's always intrigued me that the Germany, Italy, and Japan decided to take on the world "together". How much did they coordinate and plan together? Was simply being in the war and diverting resources from the Allied war effort enough?
Yesterday it was mentioned that the Russian-Japanese anti-aggression pact may have saved Russia from defeat in 1941. It seems odd that Japan would agree to leave Russia alone at the same time that Russia was being invaded by Germany. Did the Germans try to do anything about that?
Obviously Italy and Germany are slightly different, being so close, and because Germany essentially coopted the Italian military once things went south.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12v2oa/to_what_extent_did_the_axis_power_coordinate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ye2b4",
"c6yeamx"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"There was little to no military cooperation between Berlin and Tokyo, but some cooperation between Berlin and Rome, as well as the other German allies. However, Hitler did declare war on the US in 1941 following Pearl Harbor, and not the reverse.\n\nThe Hungarian, Romanian, Finnish and Italian armies participated quite a bit on the Eastern Front. In addition, Italy's participation in North Africa is well documented, as was the German defense of Italy against the US and British forces in later in the war.\n\nThe effects of a Japanese declaration of war on the USSR rather than the US in 1941 wander deeply into /r/historicalwhatif territory, but are interesting to ponder. Japan was already deeply embroiled in China and Burma at that time, so any consideration of war with the Soviets would have needed to include settling these conflicts first.",
" > How much did they coordinate and plan together? Was simply being in the war and diverting resources from the Allied war effort enough?\n\nWell the German-Italian cooperation through the war, which was characterised mostly by Germany bailing Italy out of trouble and diverting precious resources from more important theaters, is quite well known and well documented.\n\nThe German-Japanese relationship during the war was obviously quite limited simply because of the geographical factors which made direct communication and military cooperation pretty difficult. Before Operation Barbarossa started Germany and the Soviet Union were technically allies which enabled Germany to send a small naval vessel east along the northern coast of Russia all the way to the Pacific, but it was withdrawn soon after. The best example of direct German-Japanese contact was through the German U-boots, some of which managed to make their way to Batavia in Japanese occupied Dutch East India (Indonesia). But those were all minor incidents of course with no real effect on the war. \n\nA more interesting story are the plans the German and Japanese leadership had for the Soviet Union after the war. IIRC the Japanese were prepared to join the war against the Soviet Union once Moscow had fallen. Now Hitler's plans for the Soviet Union changed quite a few times: At one points he wanted all Soviet territory west of a line going from Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan while leaving the rest for the Soviet government, while later in the war there were talks of basically dividing the whole of Eurasia between the Axis powers.\nThe Soviet Union would be divided between Germany and Japan, with the border starting at the most western part of Mongolia and then going north along the Yenisey river, China would go to Japan while Germany would have gotten Central Asia, and finally Japan would have gotten India and Germany Iran and possibly also Pakistan.\n\n\n\n > Yesterday it was mentioned that the Russian-Japanese anti-aggression pact may have saved Russia from defeat in 1941. It seems odd that Japan would agree to leave Russia alone at the same time that Russia was being invaded by Germany. Did the Germans try to do anything about that?\n\nWell there were several reasons why Japan didn't intervene in German-Soviet war.\n\n1) **Manchurian Incidents**\n\nJapan has always been quite poor in natural resources and this was the primary reason why they decided to take control of Manchuria in north China. Manchuria had most of the resources Japan needed to keep it's industries running without having to rely on imports from potentially hostile nations.\n\nAnyway Manchuria borders eastern Siberia and throughout the 30s the Japanese Kwantung Army stationed in Manchuria and the Soviet forces in the far east engaged in a series of border skirmishes that cost both sides relatively high casualties, but which never escalated into full-scale war. Most of these skirmishes ended in Soviet favour primarily because of their heavier equipment and larger tanks which the Japanese had a hard time dealing with. The Japanese never really took serious steps to mend this deficiency, not because they were too conservative or incompetent, but because lighter armed infantry formations were much more efficient in the territories the Imperial Japanese Army fought in. The very hilly low-infrastructure areas of south and central China, the jungles of Indochina, Burma, Indonesia and the Pacific Islands were, contrary to the large open fields of eastern Europe and north Africa where the Wehrmacht's Panzers had free reign, not suited to armoured forces.\n\nThe last of these border skirmishes took place in early 1939 IIRC and the Japanese army leadership came to the conclusion that fighting the Soviet Far Eastern army could very well become a disastrous experience for the Imperial Army. Thus they decided to secure their northern border with a non-aggression pact. The Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact, just like the Molotov-Ribbentorp fact, was also very much in Stalin's interest as, even though the Soviet armies had performed quite well against the Japanese, he was quite worried of Hitler's Germany and thus needed time to build up the armed forces of the Soviet Union.\n\nSo, the Japanese knew their forces were inferior to the Soviet ones which greatly decreased their desire for a war in Siberia.\n\n2) **The Chinese Campaign**\n\nAfter 1937 the Japanese also found themselves embroiled in a war in China which required considerable amounts of troops, supplies etc. The leadership of the Japanese Army expected a relatively swift victory but soon found themselves bugged down in the war with no prospect of a fast victory. Now they obviously still controlled huge amounts of territory, including most of northern China and the entire coast line, which also required considerable resources to be kept under control.\n\nSo yea, while they still maintained a somewhat considerable force in Manchuria the Chinese front swallowed a lot of the resources available.\n\n3) **Divided Leadership**\n\nThe Japanese government was not centralised in the same way Nazi Germany for instance was, and there were several factions fighting for power. The navy and army were fierce rivals for the resources available and the leadership of both organisations had their own plans and ideas for how to win the war. The invasion of China, for instance, was not a decision made by the Japanese government, but rather by local army leadership in Manchuria who had great interests in a war with China. So once the Marco Polo Bridge Incident had occurred and the Japanese Army leaders had started sending forces into China, there was little the actual government could do about it.\n\nAnywho after the failure of Japanese army to secure a quick victory over China, the navy faction's plan for achieving Japanese hegemony over East Asia through an attack on the European colonies to the south gained popularity. The Japanese war in China meant the European powers and the US refused to sell oil and fuel to Japan, which forced the Japanese to attack south to gain the resources they needed. The swift occupations of the Dutch East India and the other European colonies meant Japan was bogged even more down, and had yet another war to fight and allocate resources to, which made an intervention against the Soviet Union even more unlikely.\n\n\nNow as to weather Hitler tried to get Japan to join the war against the Soviet Union. Yes, he did. One of the primary reasons why Hitler declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbour was he wanted the Japanese to join his war, which never happened.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ym1zx
|
What set the precedent for the "campy" style of early superhero pop culture? As opposed to the gritty/realistic style we see today.
|
When was this precedent set? What started the trend? Why would this style make sense given the historical context of the time?
Why didn't it start gritty/realistic like we see superhero movies today?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ym1zx/what_set_the_precedent_for_the_campy_style_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpb96py"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"can you clarify the timelines you are thinking about? The really campy stuff doesn't start until the 60s after the pushback from the book \"seduction of the innocent,\" (where criticism of superhero books was included along with other violent comic books) sparking a moral panic and the comics code. As a result of the code we see for example the classic campy Adam West Batman of the \"silver age\" (which was significantly less dark than some of the early \"golden age\" Batmen\") before the gritty turn in the \"bronze age\".\n\nMy hunch is your mental model starts in the silver age which would be a mistake since the campy superheros were a reaction to earlier comics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2blqsb
|
Was there ever a time and place, before alcohol regulation, where it was acceptable for children to get drunk regularly?
|
Has drinking Alcohol always been seen as an "adults only" hobby, or have there been societies in history that would allow children into pubs/establishments and serve them, or which normalized giving alcohol to children in familial and social settings?
To be clear, I'm not talking about weak beer or slightly alcoholic drinks where fermentation occurred to kill off bacteria and to improve water quality. I'm specifically curious if it was ever considered OK to provide alcohol to children for the purpose of them getting drunk, to the point where it was a common occurrence?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2blqsb/was_there_ever_a_time_and_place_before_alcohol/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj6xq74"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You seem fairly familiar with the common practice of giving smaller children beer before potable water was widely available, and the idea of \"drinking water\" would have seem foreign to adults and children alike. \n\nThere is another practice that might interest you, which involves giving a baby a small amount of brandy or whiskey to stop it from crying and make the infant sleep more soundly in the night. The alcohol was often dabbed on the baby's lip, put into their milk or on the tip of their bottle. This is a folk medicine practice that has been common in many cultures that continues, in some places, to today.\n\nWhat your question seems to be getting at, however, is the stigmatization of alcohol and the connection between \"getting drunk\" and adulthood. There would obviously be a different answer to your question for every single chronological and geographic framework that might interest you. However, in general, it might be interesting to consider the types of terms you are using and the distinctions you are drawing. \n\nFor example, has \"alcohol\" always been a universal category? In our culture, we are able to easily define what constitutes an alcoholic beverage, but this is not a historically universal definition. For example, in some cultures, there might be fermented substances that were given to children and adults as part of religious or spiritual rituals that had the effect of \"getting them drunk\", but that did not have the same connotations as being an \"alcoholic\" or \"adult\" beverage. \n\nAnother term to consider is the idea of \"getting drunk.\" You say you are interested in situations where it was \"OK to provide alcohol to children for the purpose of getting them drunk.\" Yet you rule out situations where children were given weaker beers. Consider the effect of even a weak beer on a child. You are right in saying that water was not a commonly consumed substance because of potability, but there are examples of children being given beer (or babies being given brandy) to make them go to sleep earlier, while adults would drink caffeinated beverages like tea, coffee, or hot chocolate. The effect on the children is essentially getting them drunk, and the intention of the adults would have been to make them drowsier so they would behave better and go to bed earlier. \n\nTL;DR: The historical conceptions of what constitutes \"alcoholic beverages\", what the \"symptoms\" of drunkennness are, and why a person would want to be drunk or want their child to be drunk, are all shifting definitions that would be very specific to a certain social, cultural, and historical context. \n\nA cursory glance of the scholarship on the history of alcohol and alcohol culture shows that much of the research tends to be localized to a specific country or region, so it might be in your best interest to decide if there's a specific area of time period that interests you so you can focus your reading.\n\nSome sources that stuck out to me:\n\nIain Gately, *Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol,* New York: Gotham, 2008.\n\nEric Burns, *The Spirits of America: A Social History of Alcohol,* Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004. \n\n*Altering American Consciousness: A History of Alcohol and Drug Use in the United States, 1800-2000,* ed. Sarah W. Tracy and Caroline Jean Acker, 2004. \n\nThomas Brennan, \"Towards the Cultural History of Alcohol in France,\"\n*Journal of Social History*, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 71-92\n\nRobin Room, \"Alcohol, the individual and society: what\nhistory teaches us,\" *Addiction*, Volume 92, Issue 3 Supplement 1. \n\nTheresa D. O'Nell and Christina M. Mitchell, \"Alcohol abuse among American Indian adolescents: The role of culture in pathological drinking,\" *Social Science & Medicine*, Volume 42, Issue 4, February 1996, Pages 565–578\n\nAkyeampong E. Drink, Power, and Cultural Change: A Social History of Alcohol in Ghana, c. 1800 to Recent Times. 1996.\n\nDavid G. Mandelbaum, \"Alcohol and Culture,\" *Current Anthropology*, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jun., 1965). (This source is a little dated, but it appears to apply a macrohistorical, anthropological lens you might be interested in.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ersnn
|
Can bacteria survive in a freezing enviroment?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ersnn/can_bacteria_survive_in_a_freezing_enviroment/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck2e22u",
"ck2gelb"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"[Psychrophiles](_URL_0_) thrive at very low temperatures. Such as wiki states, temps as low as -20C. They're part of extremophiles which cover all 'extreme' environments from high heat, to acidity, and metals.",
"More of an addendum since this direct question was already answered.\n\nIf you help them along by adding something to prevent the formation of ice crystals, such as 5% [DMSO](_URL_0_), then you can freeze them and have them survive. Of course, other comments point out that bacteria can survive without this, but if you add DMSO you can freeze many more kinds of bacteria, animal cells, fungus, probably others and have them revive fairly well on thawing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrophile"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide"
]
] |
||
116i1c
|
Does hair growth add weight?
|
Okay say I shaved my head. Would I, as a whole, get heavier as my hair grew back?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/116i1c/does_hair_growth_add_weight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6jr1re"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You would get heavier as you consumed food. Hair, in this analogy, can be seen like sweat. The only difference is that it's an excretion you retain, instead of one that evaporates. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ay8rdy
|
how come that in every mayor city there are hundreds of pigeons but you never see any dead ones?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ay8rdy/eli5_how_come_that_in_every_mayor_city_there_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehz3bta"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Two words: Turkey buzzards."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1g0fzf
|
will you explain to me the chi-square model when applied to genetics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g0fzf/eli5_will_you_explain_to_me_the_chisquare_model/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cafks5x",
"cafnqpk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The chi square model is a way for people who study genes to understand probability. If two traits are inherited by a child (like blue eyes and a small nose), what are the chances they were inherited together randomly, out of all the options it could have been? The other option is that these genes are linked, meaning that they usually transfer together to the child, as in, blue eyes and a small nose will generally appear together. Research in this field is helpful for learning about genetic disorders, and what may cause them, or what the full consequences of it are. \nAs for the model itself, it takes data obtained from a child generation (to see how many have this pair, and how many would have mixed inheritance), and with a mathematical equation establish how likely the outcome you are studying is due to chance. In biology, usually, a variable \"p\" from this model establishes probability, and if it is greater than .05, the outcome was likely due to chance.",
"Chi squared is just a statistical test used to compare expected versus actual outcomes. In terms of genetics, we expect Mendelian outcomes (eg you cross heterozygous for a gene, you should get 1:2:1 homozygous:heterozygous:null). So using chi squared we can statistically compare these outcomes with their actual."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3emnnf
|
Why didn't Einstein get a Nobel prize for Relativity? Was the paper on the photoelectric effect really more important?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3emnnf/why_didnt_einstein_get_a_nobel_prize_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctgijj0"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"The first thing to remember about [Einstein's Nobel Prize](_URL_1_) is that it was given for \"his service to Theoretical Physics, and especially for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect\" So it was not strictly given to him for the photoelectric effect. But to understand why that theory was highlighted above others, it is important to consider the timeline. \n\n[Einstein published the photoelectric effect in 1905.](_URL_3_) along with several other papers, including Relativity and Brownian motion. At the time there was great interest in Black Body radiation, various spectra from excited atoms and many other phenomenon that we would now consider quantum mechanics. But at the time the complete framework was not known and these things were very mysterious. We know see the photoelectric effect as mathematically simple compared to relativity, but for many years after 1905, very little actual progress was made in what would later become quantum theory. \n\n[Rutherford scattering was not discovered until 1911](_URL_5_) and the [Bohr model of the atom](_URL_0_) was not published until 1913, and we know it was not a complete theory of the structure of the atom. That's six to eight years of little progress, where the only known thing about quantum physics was Einstein's work. Throughout all of the quantum revolution, Einstein's work served as a 'north star' for other developments. It would take until 1926 for [Schrodinger's equation](_URL_2_) to be published, which is five years after Einstein's prize was awarded. So yes, Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect was very important and opened up many avenues of inquiry that ultimately gave us the quantum revolution of the 1920s and beyond. At the time, it was considered extremely important. While Relativity was also important, it didnt have any serious applications until the splitting of the atom in [1938](_URL_4_).\n\nEdit: I am not a professional historian, but I do have a PhD in physics.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model",
"http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/",
"http://www.abcte.org/files/previews/chemistry/s1_p6.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering"
]
] |
||
8ed54n
|
why are real number data types such as float and double called "floating-point"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ed54n/eli5_why_are_real_number_data_types_such_as_float/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxu7lty",
"dxu7y2m",
"dxu7yb6"
],
"score": [
2,
15,
9
],
"text": [
"Floating point data types stand in contrast to fixed point data types\n\nA floating point number has a value, and an exponent for scaling\n\nA fixed point number has a value, the scaling exponent is set by the system and is the same for all fixed point numbers you're using at a time\n\nFloating point numbers carrying their own exponent gives a much larger dynamic range. You can have one representing a very large value and another representing a very small value with no loss of precision",
"Let's say you have 8 \"spaces\" to store a number. There's a few different ways you can store numbers in it:\n\n1. Unsigned Integers. ######## lets you store numbers from 0-99999999 but no negatives or decimals\n2. Signed Integers. ±####### lets you store from -9999999 to +9999999, a smaller number than option 1 but covers positive and negative.\n3. Fixed Point Decimal ±XXX.YYYY only gives you -999.9999 to +999.9999. You could split it other ways, the point is that the data type is fixed when it's defined & can't be changed during runtime.\n4. Floating Point Decimal ±X.YYYY \\10^±Z lets you represent both positive & negative numbers from 0.0000000000001 to 9999900000. You can say that the decimal \"floats\" depending on the size of your Z (mantissa)\n\nFloating point is the most common format for storing real numbers, giving a reasonable compromise between speed, accuracy & range. \"Arbitrary precision\" numbers that let you have any level of accuracy you want are also popular but they're generally supported by by libraries rather than CPU instructions so they're significantly slower.",
"It refers to the way the data is represented.\n\nBasically the \"point\" is not in a fixed place, hence it is \"floating\".\n\nImagine you have a calculator display with a 10 digit display. If the decimal point was fixed in place after the last two digits, it would be fine for some numbers (e.g. 1234.56), but it wouldn't be able to display very small numbers like 0.00124. That would just appear as 0.00\n\nSo you let the decimal point appear at any place. You're still limited to 10 digits of accuracy, but they can be 10 digits representing small or large amounts.\n\nIf you want to dig deeper into how it works, floating point numbers actually use something similar to scientific notation, but in binary. That allows it to represent very big numbers too, but not necessarily perfectly accurately because there may not be enough digits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7qpsm8
|
why is it so difficult to figure out how life actually started?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7qpsm8/eli5_why_is_it_so_difficult_to_figure_out_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsqztei",
"dsr0nax",
"dsrxyxy",
"dssg0zf"
],
"score": [
10,
14,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"nobody was there to witness it and tell us what the conditions were. that kinda puts a hamper on things. the conditions of Earth 3.8billion years ago is very much different than it is now. and we don't even know if life was \"seeded\" or if it grew naturally out of the conditions.",
"Over time, the crust of the earth gets recycled. It gets pressed down into the mantle and eroded away, only to be replaced by cooling lava.\n\nIn the past 4 billion years or so, almost all of the original crust is gone, only small portions in Canada, Australia, and Africa remain intact. That means most of the history of early life has been erased.\n\nWhat's more, early life was single-celled creatures with soft body parts. Fossilization of bone and chitin is rare enough, fossilization of sort parts is **extremely** rare.\n\n",
"Life is fucking WEIRD.\n\nWe know about chemistry and how it works in non living things. We know how it works in living things. The trick is getting the non living things to act like living things. \n\nIf we want, we can make a cell membrane. That's just fat that happened to be arranged in a certain way. It won't be perfect but it'll do. We can shine light on it, give it energy. We can provide it with plenty of water. We can even provide it with sugar! Even though that probably didn't exist yet.. But to somehow get from the building blocks to what is essentially a machine is the missing link.\n\nEven if we somehow figure out a way to create life without the help of any already living thing, we most likely still won't know how this ever happened without the guiding hand of a human. \n\nIt had to have been an incredibly lucky coincidence of having all the perfect conditions out in the open while it was literally Hell on Earth. To form a theory around how that happened might sound crazier than some of today's conspiracy theories about a flat Earth being a frisbee for the dog of God who's eternally hiding behind our hollow Sun powered by said dog on a treadmill who keeps running after us from the inside.",
"Because every living thing turn into petroleum. And even if it's not living (for example of bones) they are hard to test."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2i62c8
|
Why does the ticking of my clock mess with the display on my TV?
|
I have an analog clock hanging on the wall about 4 feet away from my LCD HDTV. My TV is connected to my laptop via HDMI when I use it, as I don't have cable. If I don't have a video or music playing on the TV (i.e. if I just have Facebook open), there is interference on the display of the TV in time with the ticking of the clock. The interference kind of reminds me of the horizontal lines that used to happen when you played a VHS tape. What is causing this interference? Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2i62c8/why_does_the_ticking_of_my_clock_mess_with_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckz6ssk"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Battery powered clock? Usually those use a pulsed electromagnet to advance the gearing once per second. They create a small \"EMP\" electromagnetic pulse. Tune an AM radio between stations, and it may pick up the one-second pulse as a click sound.\n\nBut this shouldn't affect your TV unless it has a poorly shielded (bad) video cable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
262iiu
|
creative commons
|
Hi all - I'm taking a web development class at the moment and am trying to understand Creative Commons. I'm building an app that uses the Flickr Image Search API. It's a way to "remix" people's images from Flickr and publish them as your own.
So, what is creative commons? What is fair use? Can I use anyone's image from Flickr (or other image source for that matter)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/262iiu/eli5_creative_commons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chn0yk6",
"chn15qu",
"chn28rz"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Whenever a person creates a work like a photo, drawing, song, poem, etc., they own the copyright to it. That means that, aside from fair use, they have the exclusive right to distribute, sell, or otherwise use it. Creative Commons is basically a way for creators to allow others to use that work, usually with certain stipulations. Some common ones is that they cannot be used for financial gain, credit must be given to the original creator, or that the new work must also be shared with a Creative Commons license.\n\nFair use has a couple specifics meanings, where copyrighted work may be reproduced without the owner's permission. For example, small parts of the work can be used for educational or critical purposes.",
"Whenver you create something, you are automatically granted copyright over that work. That means that you have control over how it is distributed and used. That being said, there are limits to your control- if someone is using your work for non-commercial purposes, educational purposes, they're only using a tiny piece of the work, and/or they are critiquing the work, they can argue that their use is \"fair use\", a vaguely defined term that means that it's not actually infringing on your control. Fair use isn't really strictly defined- even if you think something is fair use, the copyright holder can still sue you and then it's up to the judge and jury to determine if it's actually fair use.\n\nCreative Commons is an organization founded by Lawrence Lessig (who did an [ama](_URL_0_) a couple weeks ago). They publish a series of licenses. For content creators who wish to share their work with the world (without charging), the copyright licenses released by Creative Commons are probably the best way to do so because they've taken the time to work out the legalese so they'll hold up in court, and because they're known, so more people are willing to use them. They all have simple descriptions, such as the [\"attribution share-alike\"](_URL_1_) license, abbreviated CC-BY-SA, which means that anyone can use the work for anything as long as they credit the original author and agree to share their own work under a similar license. In general, using a Creative Commons licensed image is allowed although you do need to make sure that your own remixes meet the license requirements. Since you're remixing the images, you can't use any images that carry the \"No-derivatives\" (ND) clause. This is a class project, so you can use images with the \"Non commercial\" (NC) clause, and so on.",
" When you create a picture/song/video/etc you are immediately granted copyright which means you control the use of it.\n\nAnd when you want to decide how other people will use it (even if you're saying they can't use it) you'd write down the rules in a contract. A licence is just a contract. A copyright licence is just a contract that talks about copyright.\n\nTraditionally most people used 'All Rights Reserved' licence which means that no one else can use it.\n\nCreative Commons is more like 'Some Rights Reserved'.\n\nCreative Commons is a name for a group of licences that say that others can use it for some things (not all) without having to ask permission.\n\nGetting back to 'Fair Use'... that's not a licence, it's about the limitations of copyright. An easy way of thinking about this is imagine if someone wrote a book that was offensive and so a journalist wanted to quote from that book to write an article. The book author owns the copyright, so can they stop people quoting it? Well no they can't because of Fair Use which limits copyright.\n\nFair Use gives everyone rights over any copyright work, but only for specific uses that are considered 'Fair'. The list of things that are considered 'Fair' is defined by the government."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/24ibwn/iama_lawrence_lessig_law_professor_activist/",
"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/"
],
[]
] |
|
8kt1xu
|
why is it that we can't see gases in their pure form, yet we can see the shadows of gases on a sunny day?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8kt1xu/eli5_why_is_it_that_we_cant_see_gases_in_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dza9he0",
"dzaicdm"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Plenty of gases have color in their pure form.\n\nWe can see shadows on hot days because air expands and then moves. And light changes a few properties when switching between mediums, so that movement of air and change in density is what makes the light wavy (gives interference patterns).\n\nBut the gases in air do not reflect in the visible range. Which to be honest is kinda the point of us evolving this specific visible range to see in (so air wouldn’t get in out way).",
"The gasses diffract light differently than air does. Light passing through them get shifted around as the pass through the area that is not air. It even happens with steams of air with big enough temperature differences. Giving rise to shadows of hot air piped out into a cold atmosphere. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1c8eda
|
What were the relative advantages and disadvantages of varying melee weapons during the middle ages?
|
I'm not too sure if this is the proper subreddit to post this question seeing as it's more about the mechanics of historical weapons rather than specific cultural usages of them, so please point me to the right place if this is not appropriate for here.
Based on what I've heard, spears and polearms tended to be the most popular war time weapons. This is due to their relative cheapness and ease to wield especially in formations.
Alternatively, swords seem to be the most versatile weapon but not everyone would be able to afford one.
What about warhammars, axes, maces, moringstars, staffs, scimitars, and other various melee weapons? What are the comparative strengths and weaknesses and in what situations would one fare better than another?
Ie, when would it better to bring a sword rather than an axe? When would you want a mace instead of a spear? etc
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c8eda/what_were_the_relative_advantages_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9eelhc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Since a historian hasn't responded to your question, I hope I can post these video links from a TV show that looked at \"alternative\" weapons such as a flail, mace, falchion, etc. :\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe host discusses some of the advantages and disadvantages of these weapons. Hope this post is OK, I can edit or delete if necessary."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CpleQ-rv7Q",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF0JpDiW33c",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmDER4qovS8"
]
] |
|
3g0aan
|
what does the 3-2-l mean in some automatic transmissions in cars, what are their purpose?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g0aan/eli5what_does_the_32l_mean_in_some_automatic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cttky4l",
"cttlhzb"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"3rd gear, 2nd gear, Lowest gear. Automatic switches gears automatically of course, but doesn't always give you the power you may want, so those options allow you to manually downshift and give your car more power. ",
"Drive allows your car to use all of its gears when it wants to. If you select one of the lower gears, it can only advance to that gear. Say you put it in 2 from a dead stop. It will start in first gear, and then when it picks up speed it will shift into second and stay there. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1ytwpw
|
why do my eyes become hard to keep open when i'm tired? is it the brain trying reduce stimuli and rest?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ytwpw/eli5_why_do_my_eyes_become_hard_to_keep_open_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfnpz3i"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Eyes are controlled by ciliary muscles. As do all muscles, when you are tired you muscles start to become harder to use. E.G, when you lift weights, the longer duration you lift for, the more fatigued you get. Same principle. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8dykbf
|
Josip Broz Tito spoke Kyrgyz?
|
Dear friends,
I recently came across this sentence:
''Besides his native language, Tito also speaks perfect German, Czech and KHIRGISIAN , which is a central Asia Mongolian tongue'' [1]
This literally blew my mind, resulting in me doing several quick google searches, only to come across a similar claim; ''Josip Broz Tito learned to speak Kyrgyz perfectly'' [2]
Can someone please shed some more light on this? When, why, and most important how did Tito even learn this language? It seems incredibly strange to me.
Hope to hear from y'all.
[1] _URL_0_
[2] LIFE Magazine, August 14, 1944, Page 38
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8dykbf/josip_broz_tito_spoke_kyrgyz/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxr1gql"
],
"score": [
30
],
"text": [
"Tito did spend some time in what is now Kyrgyzstan during the Russian Civil War. From 1918 to 1920 he was hiding out in a village near Osh, the main city in the south of Kyrgyzstan, and eventually married an ethnic Russian from there.\n\nHowever it should be noted that the region is, and was, mainly full of ethnic Uzbeks, who obviously don't speak Kyrgyz but rather Uzbek (and unlike Kazakh, I do believe Uzbek and Kyrgyz are quite different). Then there is the matter that I don't know how much interaction Tito would have had with locals, meaning ethnic Kyrgyz: they would have largely been nomadic herders at the time, largely illiterate, while the ethnic Russians (which wouldn't be many) would be more urban and literate. The Kyrgyz, like other Central Asian groups, were also rather indifferent to Bolshevism/Communism as a whole, so it further seems unlikely someone who was leaning towards that ideology would have worked close enough with the locals to learn their language. a 1953 biography by fellow Yugoslav Communist official Vladimir Dedijer also notes Tito spoke \"Serbo-Croatian ... Russian, Czech, Slovenian ... German (with a Viennese accent) ... understands and reads French and Italian ... [and] also speaks Kirghiz,\" so he very well could have. But based on my own understanding of Central Asia and Kyrgyzstan, I would question his skills in Kyrgyz, if they did exist at all, though it would not be impossible of course."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.marxists.org/archive/fast/1944/tito-people/ch23.htm"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
33prru
|
if volcano eruptions are from pressure buildup, why not just drill and relieve the pressure?
|
If they spot an active or risky volcano, why can't they just do some carefully-placed drilling and relieve the pressure before it has time to build up? Has that ever been attempted?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33prru/eli5_if_volcano_eruptions_are_from_pressure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqn7m08",
"cqnbkko",
"cqnjo4m",
"cqnshw2",
"cqntt0j"
],
"score": [
25,
3,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's a monumentally risky endeavor for so little reward. You could get seriously burned, possibly trigger a real volcanic eruption, and release toxic gases into the atmosphere. Furthermore, as long as the core is hot, volcanos will still erupt, and the nuclear fission of the uranium in the core will *keep* it hot for a long time to come.",
"Because the pressure is still very high and there is still a lot of material under pressure, no matter how it gets released... You may be able to direct the volcano and somewhat slow down the release of pressure and material, but you are basically going to create a volcanic eruption out of the hole you drilled. There may be reasons that this is better than letting the volcano erupt on its own, but it is not the same as preventing an eruption entirely. \n\nAlso it would be very dangerous for the people doing the operation",
"Any hole drilled by man is like a tiny pin prick on geologic scales ... we typically drill down only on the order of miles ... geological stuff happen at many tens and hundreds of miles deep .... it would be the equivalent of trying to drain an absess on giant using a mosquito.",
"Only one person has referenced the impossibility of this task. The earth is mighty, and mans influence is small.",
"On the scale of the Earth a volcano *is* the pressure relief.\n\nImagine you have a burn on your leg that has fluid build up, you go to the hospital and they might but in a small needle and drain the fluid.\n\n*THAT* is the volcano.\n\nNow imagine they took another needle, 100x smaller and tried to drain it, it would be almost pointless.\n\nNow imagine your burn blister, for whatever reason, has pressurised fluid inside it. If the pressure was great enough, enough a miniscule hole in it would cause it to fail and burst open anyways."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2gcjo2
|
why is it that the federal reserve can print money but america has limited inflation?
|
Ever since the GFC (2008) the US Federal Reserve has been doing quantitative easing, printing money to buy worthless assets off banks. Why doesn't all this extra money result in runaway inflation or a drop in the value of the US dollar?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gcjo2/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_federal_reserve_can_print/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckhu1cf",
"ckhw0ep"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Because the Feds are not printing enough to cause major inflation... they're not just printing carelessly, which is what you seem to believe. They have a target inflation rate, and print according to that target.\n\nThey only print \"a lot\", because the US economy and demand for the US dollar is that large.",
"Several reasons actually. The currency(not money) that is being printed/typed into the system has not, for the most part entered the system yet. It is given to large banks (particularly the ones that are a part of or have pull with the FED) and then put into the stock market. This is done by the FED to provide collateral for the banks in exchange for them making loans that would not otherwise be made because of a high rate of default. \n\nThis money has not entered the system except for being used to buy up stocks... and you'll notice the stock market has been seeing a huge run in spite of everything else. Inflation is confined for now to skyrocketing stock prices. \n\nNow when the loans-that-should-not-have-been-made eventually default, then the collateral will have to be used... then the currency comes back into the system everyone else uses. Now since the banks have the currency first, they get to spend it when it still has its current uninflated buying power. As the currency supply increases in the population however its buying power will decrease. People like you and me get to spend it when it buys the least. \n\nAnother reason the FED can get away with printing so much currency is the US dollars status as the world reserve currency and its use as the worlds main petrocurrency. The US government can spread the inflation across 7 billion people instead of 300 million. It's a plan that will work up until the point where the US dollar loses it's reserve currency status, or when OPEC decides it will allow people to buy oil using other currencies or commodities. If the rest of the world suddenly decides that they don't need the dollar, then all those dollars will come flooding back to the one place where it's illegal to use anything else... the US. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1vvtzk
|
How did the titles of "Roman Emperor" and "King of the Franks", both held by Charlemagne, become separated?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vvtzk/how_did_the_titles_of_roman_emperor_and_king_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewjmcc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"So [this excellent post](_URL_0_) a week ago by /u/idjet explains the circumstances of the passing on of Charlemagne's imperial title, as well as whether he intended to do so or not.\n\nHowever, whatever the details were, after the division of the empire after the death of Charlemagne's surviving son Louis the Pious, the title was passed to Louis' son Lothair because in the triparte split of the empire, Lothair possessed the core Frankish lands in middle francia as well as Italy and Rome. And since it was understood that in order to be emperor, one needed to be in possession of Rome, Lothair was thus designated the emperor. \n\nThis continued on after his death with his son Louis II, who was emperor even though he possessed no part of the former frankish homelands, and only retained the title King of Italy. Though the empire, the imperial title, and the frankish royal title would be reunited again under Charles the Bald and Charles the Fat, after the latter's deposition, you would see a similar situation as to what happened with Charlemagne. The various component kingdoms of the Carolingian Empire would be divied up (although this time the inheritors would not necessarily be Carolingians), and it only took someone in possession of the title of King of Italy to be crowned emperor (although not all kings of italy would be crowned emperor). And they would only be crowned because there was a need for legitimation or other political concerns, local entirely to Italy, as opposed to the rest of the former Carolingian Empire. \n\nWhich is how, the titles of \"King of the Franks\" and its successor titles, King of the West Franks (West Francia), Middle Franks/Francia (Lotharingia/Lorraine) and East Franks/Francia came to be split from the imperial title. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tw02w/what_did_charlemagne_envision_for_the_future_of/"
]
] |
||
5piml3
|
why acceleration is constant in a vacuum, and an airplane would fall at the same velocity as a tennis ball?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5piml3/eli5_why_acceleration_is_constant_in_a_vacuum_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcrfibj",
"dcrijlf"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because in a vacuum a moving object has no resistance acting on it. Clarify the second part of the question please.",
"The force of gravity acting on an object is proportional to its mass. Mass times gravity = weight.\n\nAcceleration is force divided by mass. For example, if I push on a small rock, it accelerates away from me pretty quickly while if I push on a boulder, it takes a long time to start moving with any speed. (Ignoring friction, of course; pretend both of them are on frictionless rails.)\n\nNote that weight is just a kind of force.\n\nSo if\n\n weight = gravity * mass\n\nand\n\n acceleration down = weight ÷ mass\n\nthen\n\n acceleration down = gravity * mass ÷ mass\n\nand the mass cancels out leaving\n\n acceleration down = gravity\n\nAll of this assumes there's no friction of course, and air resistance is a kind of friction. In a vacuum, all objects fall at the same rate and their mass doesn't enter into it.\n\nHere's a great video: [Brian Cox visits the world's biggest vacuum chamber](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs"
]
] |
||
foa5pe
|
what is social engineering?
|
Is it a science or a manipulative technique? Why does it often have negative context?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/foa5pe/eli5_what_is_social_engineering/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fldz18w",
"fldz4fr",
"fldzccm",
"fldzehz",
"fle9yq0",
"fleixtr",
"flej2zh",
"flej6nx",
"flejdjw",
"flenunq",
"flep5zg"
],
"score": [
13,
10,
28,
3,
14,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a manipulative technique used to get informatiom from people, and the negative context comes from scammers using it to get things such as passwords",
"When you use \"social skills\" (convincing, lying, etc) to make people do something.\n\nFor example when you send and email to someone telling them that you are the administrator of the system and that you need for them to send you their passwords. Haha",
"Social structures can be 'hacked' just like physical and digital structures can - and it's often easier to approach an intrusion problem from this standpoint.\n\nActually hacking into the DMV database is a relatively difficult task. However, pretending to be an IT consultant and tricking those with passwords to the database into revealing them is comparatively easy. That no-tech-skills-required approach is 'social engineering'.\n\nAs for being a science, no. It's no more a science than selling used cars is a science. It's mostly just being able to interact with people effectively.\n\nIn terms of a negative context, social engineering is fundamentally about tricking people into doing what you want them to do. While it often involves a degree of research - you need to know who the gatekeepers are before you can trick them into opening the gate - it's little different than any other con game.\n\nFrom the standpoint of the hacker community, it's also often considered a 'lesser' form of hacking. Hacking is, in some ways, a competitive intellectual activity. It's not just enough to intrude into a privileged system but you have to do it in a clever or skilled way. Hacking a shipping database to have the next delivery to your local supermarket directed to your doorstep is cool. Throwing a brick through their window at night and carrying off that delivery is not.",
"Essentially manipulating others to do something they may not want to do knowing all the information.\n\n\nIts most commonly used in the context of hacking because actual hacking of finding technical exploits is hard these days and its often easier to fool a human than a computer. For instance I can send you a message pretending to be reddit admin asking you to disclose your username and password due to an issue with the reddit database.",
"Social engineering is altering human behavior through indirect means...usually behaviors the humans are resistant to change on their own. Imposing a high tax on cigarettes can be seen as social engineering to stop people from smoking. It is often seen as negative because the government is deciding what is good or bad and imposing that decision on its citizens.\n\nAlternately, social engineering is used to describe infiltrating a computer system using trickery rather than technical vulnerabilities. Pretending to be from the IRS and demanding someone's bank account information is an example of this kind of social engineering.",
"I'll try my hand because I don't feel like you have received the broad answer you are looking for.\n\nSocial engineering is simply applying the social science of human behavior to achieve a desired outcome. Much like a structural engineer applies materials science to achieve a certain outcome. The engineering part is the application of the science part. So, if sociology is considered a science, then social engineering is the application.\n\nIs it manipulative? Sure, but technically so is every other form of engineering. They just don't involve people. So there is absolutely an ethical component to social engineering.\n\nIt has a negative context because the most visible examples involve breaking into stuff by tricking people. We all know that tricking someone into giving us a password is unethical, so even when done for good reason, no one really likes it.\n\nIt could be positive though. What if I used my knowledge of human behavior to manipulate people into following Dr.'s recommendations during a pandemic?\n\nTL;DR: Social engineering is the practical application of social sciences.",
"Social Engineering can be thought of as manipulating our accepted social norms for nefarious goals. \n\nOne example: We are taught to respect \"authority figures\", so when someone contacts us claiming to be an authority figure (the police, IRS, FBI, your IT Security team, etc..) our first inclination is to believe whatever they are telling us. \n\nAnother example is those \"tell us about yourself\" type of quizzes you always see on facebook. What was your first pet's name? Where did you go to high school? What is your favorite food? etc.. Which also tend to be the same types of questions that you would answer for security questions to your bank accounts.\n\nThe vast majority of identity theft and IT breaches is the result of some form of social engineering.\n\nWhat makes social engineering particularly insidious is that it takes countless forms and is always changing, which means we have to always be diligently aware and suspicious of every interaction, which becomes exhausting to the point where you will eventually let your guard down. And taking your guard down even one time is all they need.",
"Heres a good example: there are people who look up numbers of elderly persons e.g. in the phonebook just by names that imply they are maybe elderly persons. Then they give them a call and try to convince them they are their grandchildren or someting like that and they need help. Tell them ridiculous stories and force them to send money to suspicious bank accounts.\n\nUnfortunately this works too often.",
"I wouldn't call it a science. If you're trying to gain access to something, or some place, you can save yourself a lot of time by just successfully manipulating someone. That's why it doesn't have a great connotation. It's really effective but you have to be dishonest in the process. Like if you just need to get through a locked door, maybe you can pick the lock. Maybe you can't but, if you're really slick, one good phone call might get you through.",
"I want you to do something. I cant make you. I create an awards system to change your behavior. Works for some, not for you. I punish those around you for your behavior. Your friends / family will convince you to change or cut you out of they life to stop the punishment. Not wanting to be alone you change your behavior. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThat is how China does it anyways.",
"You know that scene in now you see me? Where they ask for his mom's maiden name and street where he grew up?\n\nAnd then he found out they got that info to reset his email password to access it?\n\nThat's basically it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
36u9b7
|
how do celebrities tweet and reply to other celebrities on twitter considering there are thousands of people tweeting them as well?
|
Wouldn't a tweet become buried in the thousands of tweets received from fans? How do celebrities always seem to know when someone else famous has tweeted them? Do they have to read through every single tweet to find it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36u9b7/eli5_how_do_celebrities_tweet_and_reply_to_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crh4v0k",
"crh4zui"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are services and software you can use with twitter to let you know when a certain user tweets you or posts a tweet, chances are most celebrities don't even see their fans tweets unless a pr person alerts them to one they should reply to.",
"Most/many celebrities hire someone, or a couple of someones, to run their official twitter accounts just like they might for any other PR position. So there might be a bit of planning between them in certain cases.\n\nParticularly funny or otherwise notable tweets will probably get mentioned more than a few times by their thousands of followers.\n\nIdk if it's true, but I've read that verified users' tweets are sorted separately from non-verified users when looking at notifications."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1riwc2
|
How did the wives of roman soldiers learn of their husbands deaths?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1riwc2/how_did_the_wives_of_roman_soldiers_learn_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdo10lp"
],
"score": [
1362
],
"text": [
"Alrighty, 'cause I just noticed this thread, I'm going to go ahead and do a writeup on this. I'm going to try to address all of the questions already asked in the body, so bear with me (barring the question that's outside the purview of my specialty). \n\nFirst, I'm going to confirm a simple fact. Roman soldiers were not allowed to get married. That changed depending on rank, but the rank and file were not legally allowed to get married - so there weren't any wives at home that had to get that painful letter (for the standard legionaries). However, men are men, and people are people- and the vast majority of the time a legion was just garrisoned in a province. People in that situation, naturally, develop relationships, and those relationships were tactfully ignored by the officers, who totally understood the situation these men were in. They weren't allowed to get married, but they WERE in love - the great rock and hard place argument :) The thing about being in the Legion (I'm assuming we're talking about the Principate here - that would be ca. 0-300ish CE) was that once you were in, it was a 25 year commitment. While you got great benefits, those 25 years could be hard on a man - especially when that man wanted a family. So, the natural solution? \"Civil unions.\" \n\nThose civil unions were essentially the same as marriage, just without any of the legal entitlements that they would otherwise have- so pretty much, it was marriage. Just without the government recognition. Confusing, eh? :)\n\nOne big issue with this was that many of the women that the Romans took to wife were natives of the area they were garrisoned in, or even former slaves (The soldier would buy them and promptly free them). Those families would, of course, also go on to have children - and those children called themselves \"*in castris*\" - or \"born in the camp.\" They generally went on to join the military, just like their parents, and there's a tombstone outside the fortress of *Legio II Augusta* that commemorates a woman, her soldier son, and her husband. The monument itself was erected by her daughter. \n\nHowever...the unfortunate bit is that there are always those damn legalities. We have evidence of seven cases that deemed children born during their father's terms of service to be \"illegitimate.\" Didn't matter if they were citizens or anything - if they were in the legions or *auxilia*, that child had no claim to be the heir of their father, his will, etc. Same with the wives - except the wives *also* couldn't get their dowries back (Legal wives could). \n\nNow, on to the husband dying! It's hard to say exactly how they were informed - however, if they were one of these quasi-wives, it would have fallen to the man's tent group (*contubernium*) - who would have known about the quasi-marriage - to let the woman know. The wives either lived right outside the fort in the *canabae*, or even in the room with the rest of the *contubernium*. A quick note here - privacy wasn't such a huge deal until recently, most especially regarding situations with large families (All in one room) or in these cases (8 men in one crowded room - it would have been relatively common for at least one to have a woman in there with him). \n\nI do want to stress though (regarding another question in this thread) that the legionaries still maintained strong family ties with both their quasi-wives and their \"illegitimate\" children. The vast majority of tombstones near military encampments are commemorations by the wife or \"unrelated heirs\" (coughchildrencough). We have multiple declarations by these soldiers declaring these children to be their heirs, the children are explicitly mentioned in the wills, and provided for them. As for notifying family (such as parents, siblings, etc), I have no source on that one - I can only speculate that the *contubernum* would send a letter to them as well.\n\n---\n\nFinally, onto one last question that was addressed - \"Could officers and commanders be married?\" The answer to that is **yes....ish.** The senatorial and equestrian officers were certainly allowed to be married. Legionary centurions were also exempt, however, we have no sources regarding the auxiliary centurions or the decurions - we can *assume* that they would also be exempt, but it's no guarantee. Their wives and children would also have accompanied them, but they (The senators and equestrians, at least - the centurions could and did) were forbidden from marrying *local* women. The senatorial and equestrian officers also spent far less time in the military - it was generally just a step in their career. \n\nNow, finally, on to what happened when a soldier died! One of the (many) deductions from the soldier's pay was a contribution to a \"burial fund\" that was organized per century. It wasn't much - it would only cover the costs for a basic funeral - but it was something. I'll go ahead and just quote straight from Goldsworthy for the next bit:\n\n > A funeral procession, carrying the corpse on a couch, would leave the fort or camp, for like many contemporary societies the Romans insisted that burial take place outside the settlement. Once outside, and often on a site running alongside the main road leading to the fort, the corpse would be laid on the couch on top of a funeral pyre, There it would be burnt and, once consumed by the flames the ash of both corpse and pyre gathered into a funerary urn, made sometimes of marble or metal, but most often of glass or pottery, which was then buried. Around the grave site the mourners took part in a funeral banquet.\n\n > [...] The chief mourners were a man's comrades and, as the practice of taking an unofficial wife became widespread, his family. It is doubtful that the burial club paid for more than the most rudimentary of markers for the grave, but many soldiers set aside money to pay for expensive stone monuments. Many tombstones state that they were erected by a man's heirs in accordance with his will. \n\nI sincerely hope that helps :) If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask them!\n\n**Sources:**\n\n-Goldsworthy, Adrian - *The Complete Roman Army*\n\n-Scheidel, Walter - [*Marriage, families, and survival in the Roman imperial army: demographic aspects*](_URL_0_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/110509.pdf"
]
] |
||
2haeyj
|
Would it ever be possible to create a mirror that reflects 100% of the light it's exposed to?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2haeyj/would_it_ever_be_possible_to_create_a_mirror_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckqwscg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Yes, but not in the traditional sense. \n\nMirrors are normally made of a polished metal surface covered by glass. This kinds of mirrors are theoretically unable to achieve perfect reflection. \n\nIt is possible to achieve perfect reflection using total internal reflection, and it has been done before. It wouldn't work like your traditional mirror because firstly, it only works for certain wavelengths of light and certain angles. Secondly, TIR only works when light travels from media with a higher refractive index to a lower one. This means that a flat mirror will not work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1xad8d
|
why are there airpockets in underwater caves that are clearly under sealevel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xad8d/eli5_why_are_there_airpockets_in_underwater_caves/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf9jnr1",
"cf9no5a",
"cf9oz6r",
"cf9psuj"
],
"score": [
21,
62,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Plants in the sea create oxygen. ",
"The caves may have a hidden opening or cracks somewhere to allow air in. If not the air pockets may come from methane or carbon dioxide from degradation of organic matter on the sea floor or some kind of natural gas pocket. It's unlikely that any air pockets in an underwater cave would be breathable since sunlight would be needed for plants or algae to make oxygen. \n\nAnother theory could be that the cave was above sea level at some point and the rising ocean could have caused air to be trapped in the cave.",
"because it is visited by scuba divers, whose exhalations become trapped and accumulate. ",
"fish farts. \n\nBut seriously, most caves have an atmosphere not suitable for human respiration as they are mostly methane bubbling up from decomposing matter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
21yml4
|
How are the causes of airplane crashes identified?
|
Particularly ones where there is at-speed impact with the ground. There will often be an investigation that determines stress fractures in some component were to blame, or the rudder couldn't activate due to a frayed cable. How can these causes be isolated and identified when so much damage was caused by the crash itself?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21yml4/how_are_the_causes_of_airplane_crashes_identified/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cghqpg7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, from the \"something broke in the air\" perspective; fractures that occured in the past look a lot different than fresh ones, and fractures from impact look a lot different than fractures [from other causes.](_URL_1_)\n\nImagine a crack in a steel part, for example. If the crack slowly propagates until the part snaps, you'll have a fracture that is half old and rusty, half fresh and clean. The rusty half will probably be all ratty as well, while the final fracture will be relatively straight and clean. \n\nAlso, some types of damage look very unique. For example, you might see some [fretting](_URL_0_) at the location of a fracture. That fretting would be highly suspect as the cause of the failure. If failure of that component led to a loss of control that matches the final moments of flight then you can be pretty sure that's the cause of the accident. Note, the picture is from a shaft in a helicopter that was removed prior to breaking. This particular failure mode is apparently quite common for this part. \n\nThere's a zillion things like that, and it would take a whole book (for example, [\"why things break\"](_URL_2_)) to explain all of them, but the long and short is that damage from an impact does not look like damage that occured before impact. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.flyapro.com/35mm%20fretting%20line.jpg",
"http://www.met-tech.com/images/fractured-input-shaft-6.jpg",
"http://www.amazon.com/Why-Things-Break-Understanding-World/dp/1400048834"
]
] |
|
241eky
|
To what extent was Stalin responsible for the Korean war?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/241eky/to_what_extent_was_stalin_responsible_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch2nelw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"According to Halberstam's \"The Coldest Winter\" page 49\n\n\"Stalin was playing a delicate game, flashing a half-green, half-amber light on the invasion.\"\n\nHalberstam later states that Stalin gave Kim permission, but kept his involvement to a minimum and told Kim to rely on China for any material support. There's later an assertion on page 345 that Stalin had promised air cover to Chinese troops, but reneged on his promise. \n\nThis sounds like the mainstream theory, I'm unaware of any alternate theories.\n\nEDIT: Spelling"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
scfgo
|
What would happen if we allowed exotic animals to go extinct?
|
What would happen if we didn’t protect exotic animals and have laws on hunting and conservation? Is there still a natural eco-balance that animals like elephants, tigers, and others are helping maintain? Do all animals play a role in keeping the earth safe and habitable or would the extinction of some species not have any serious consequences?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/scfgo/what_would_happen_if_we_allowed_exotic_animals_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4cw5ss",
"c4cwa5q"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most of the megafauna do have a significant impact on their environment. Lions and tigers are significant predators, and if we removed them, we would see the increase of the larger herbivores. In the United States, we removed wolves and mountain lions, and now deer go through natural boom/bust cycles. Though it is uncertain if the bison herds seen by those expanding westward were actually at sustainable levels, large herbivores in savanna and plains generally help regeneration of the prairie by eating saplings so trees did not colonize, as well as minimizing fire disturbance by reducing biomass before it dried and burned.",
" > What would happen if we didn’t protect exotic animals and have laws on hunting and conservation?\n\nIts not just exotic animals that we protect, every country protects animals and their ecosystems within their borders. Also, the USA does not regulate how foreign countries manage their resources, ecosystems or endangered species. There is [CITES](_URL_0_) which is an international organization that regulates the transport of endangered plant and animal products across borders. Despite this many millions of plants and animals are being illegally transported for the pet-trade, food, or medicinal products. There is also the [IUCN](_URL_2_) which helps conduct studies and creates reports on animals. It is the governing body that decides if animals should be classified as endangered on a global scale. \n\nOnce and animal or plant is listed governments who signed the treaty must put in steps to save or mitigate the effects that are causing the species decline. Not only does this create jobs, (scientists, policy makers, enforcers) but it often preserves the local ecological system. Because animals need habitats, saving them often means that some chunk of land also needs to be preserved. This can be good and bad for people.\n\n**The Good**\n\nWe are part of this world, and this world provides many services for us. The Earth cleans our water, it filters our air, provides us food on scales we cannot begin to imagine. Some have tried to put values on these services and often it amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars in saved expenditures. Often by preserving local ecosystems the surrounding land becomes more fertile, the water cleaner and so on. This is especially important in countries where they may not be able to afford equivalent technologies on larger scales. Also, animals can bring in ecotoursim and promote cultural identity. These are all positive thinsg that can create jobs and bring money to improvrished regions. \n\n**The bad**\nIn certain regions resources are very scarce and people fight over them. Parks where they exist sometimes hurt the people because they no longer have access to things they need like fuel and food. Education is key here - teaching people how to live sustainably in the forests using their local customs and traditions. Its important that conservation just doesn't come from governments in a\"top down\" fashion, but also in a \"bottom up\" - where communities and individual people understand the importance of conservation and see how it can improve their lives. \n\n > Is there still a natural eco-balance that animals like elephants, tigers, and others are helping maintain? \n\nYes, each animal and plant has its place in the ecosystem. They all contribute to the eco-balance but in different ways. That being said plants and animals to naturally go extinct. Sometimes if you remove just one [keystone species](_URL_3_) the whole ecosystem goes to the shitter. Example: sea otters in the pacific northwest. [Foundation species](_URL_1_) build an ecosystem up from the bottom, like plants, they provide the basics - food for herbivores, which in turn support carnivores. Removing these species - such as cutting down a forest, destroys that habitat for every other species within it. Thus different species have different effects. If we managed to kill bees we would be pretty fucked - no more fruit, mosts woods, and fibers etc. We would have to live on wind-pollinated plants like the grains. \n\n > Do all animals play a role in keeping the earth safe and habitable or would the extinction of some species not have any serious consequences?\n\nOf course loosing a few species is ok, this is natural. Extinction is natural. One day we too will go extinct. However its the *current rate* of extinction that is alarming. When so many species are threatened, ecosystems weakened by hunting, logging, burning, overfishing, wars, pollution, and other destructive human habits - the survival of some of our human communities is at stake. So while having the amur leopard go extinct in china may not seem like a big deal it represents a systematic abuse of the natural world on our part. It destroys our quality of life and hurts us. We could permit a few species to go extinct, in fact many have already (like the dodo, or the passenger pigeon) yet we are all still here. But these extinction events weaken ecosystems, the next extinction event does the same until the ecosystem supports almost nothing and is only a vestige of what it once was. \n\nTL;DR every animal is important, because each animal has its role to play. Either in its ecosystem or saving that ecosystem, or in improving our quality of life."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.cites.org/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_species",
"http://www.iucn.org/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species"
]
] |
|
5of6vd
|
how does cold air reach body temp in your lungs so fast?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5of6vd/eli5_how_does_cold_air_reach_body_temp_in_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dciuttt",
"dcj0fdk",
"dcj1o53",
"dcj4mip"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"There are small sacs in your lungs that bring the incoming air in close contact with your circulatory system. This quickly brings the air close to body temperature , as well as enabling the transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide. ",
"Not a full explanation but your nose and the way air flows through it plays a large part in this. When you inhale that cold air runs in through your nose and through it's various structures. There are \"folds\" further inside that the air runs through on the way in. As the air swirls through them it picks up both warmth and humidity. The hairs in your nose filter out pollen, dust, etc. ",
"Lots and lots of surface area. You're not warming up a .5 L balloon of air each breath, your warming up millions of separate microscopic balloons of air (alveolar sacs), each with its own personal warmer completely surrounding it (capillaries). Also the layer of insulation between the body temp blood and outside temp air is literally a couple cells thick, so heat transfer is minimally impeded.\n\nEdit: forgot to mention the ever splitting airway that comes into contact with more and more of the air as it splits.",
"Think about it this way, a pod of grapes together have WAY more surface area than a watermelon. \n\nJust to add on to /u/huskerpower_53 and talk a bit more about what /u/CausticRemains said, the air is coming into contact with a lot of surface area on its way to your lungs. It goes through your nose, but your nose has folds called conchae which increase the surface area. Then they go through your trachea (windpipe) which also has minute perfections and finally the air keeps getting split until it reaches tiny balloons that are the size of peas. This adds a significant amount of surface area which increases the amount of air touching warm, body-temperature skin. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8cyjvx
|
If I have a system of mirrors that makes 300 million meters could I see the speed of light?
|
Say i have a laser set up that shines into a system of mirrors 300 Million meters long and ends up on the wall next to me. If I turn on that laser would the light end up on the wall 1 second later? could I actually see the delay from turning on the laser and seeing the beam on the wall? Just curious...
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8cyjvx/if_i_have_a_system_of_mirrors_that_makes_300/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxkn8dg",
"dxldgye",
"dxm6anz"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes you can. This is used to determine the speed of light experimentally (There is an easy demonstration using fast rotating mirrors, look at how Fizeau and Foucault measured it in in the 19th century).\n\nYou can also do an easy experiment if you have access to an oscilloscope. An electromagnetic signal moves at the speed of light. In a standard 50 Ohm coaxial cable this is about 60% the speed of light in vacuum. So if you send an em pulse from e.g. a pulse generator to two channels of the oscilloscope, one via a short cable, the other via a cable 10 m longer, you will see a time difference of the signals of t = s/c = 5x10-8 s = 50 ns, which is easily observable. Make the cable twice as long, the time difference doubles as well. ",
"The Apollo astronauts left a retroreflector on the moon which you can do just this with - if you have a powerful laser and a sensitive detector. The moon is about 384 million meters away, so it takes a little over 2.5 seconds for the light to get back to you.",
"It is extremely challenging to make a setup that long that can keep the light focused and keep losses low enough, but it should be possible - if you spend a lot of money on it. If we ignore the practical details: Sure.\n\nUsing devices that can measure smaller time differences makes it much easier. The best detectors are sensitive to a few millimeters of flight distance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1fgifs
|
have humans created a new species? (via selection)
|
Dogs for example are distinct from wolfs but are still genetically compatible (i.e. they can mate and the offspring are fertile). Is there an animal, or plant, that humans have selected, for food, wool etc, that are now genetically incompatible from the wild species? If not which animals are the close to becoming a new species?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1fgifs/have_humans_created_a_new_species_via_selection/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caaadvx",
"caaafbq"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The most obvious examples of new species created through selective breeding are all the various domesticated plants that are a result of polyploidy (errors causing the daughter organism to have more copies of each chromosome than normal.) Those are two numerous to list, and include a wide variety of common foods.",
"Using the biological species concept (which I assume, based on your question, is your framework), we have only created one to my knowledge: [Drosophila synthetica.](_URL_0_)\n\nIf you use the morphological or phylogenetic species concepts, we have created buttloads. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039054"
]
] |
|
4hif9j
|
why do some foods contain insect parts?
|
I understand that some chemicals are preservatives, but I can't seem to understand why insect parts would be inside food.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hif9j/eli5why_do_some_foods_contain_insect_parts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2pruvn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If you have an open vat of tomatoes, say at the ketchup making plant, bugs are going to get into it. Then you take all those tomatoes and put them in a machine that pulverizes them. The machine doesn't differentiate between bugs and tomatoes, it just makes juice out of whatever is in the storage container. \n\nThen that gets heated up (or treated with acid/caustic solutions) to kill anything that could be harmful to people, bottled, and sold.\n\nThere isn't some magic force-field that keeps bugs out of the food you eat pre-processing, and most mass produced foods will not bother to remove them since they pose no health risk. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5mm6jr
|
why are serif fonts "easier to read in long paragraphs of text?"
|
I read somewhere that they are supposedly easier to read in lengthy text than sans serif. Is there a reason for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mm6jr/eli5_why_are_serif_fonts_easier_to_read_in_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc4kwp8"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There's actually no conclusive study on this that shows that serif fonts are genuinely easier to read than san serif fonts. \n\nThe idea is that the extra markings make a letter more immediately distinguishable from another letter. By having more angles on a letter, there is sharper contrast to one another and to the white background that offers a more visually interesting stimulus than the rounded letters. \n\n[Studies show that people overwhelmingly prefer them subjectively, and that comprehension increases in serif fonts](_URL_0_). But there's no data to support they're actually \"easier on the eyes\" in any form. \n\nIf they are, it's a slight variation that you can think of in terms of something being easier to read for the eyes when it's in sharp forcus than when it's slightly blurry. The extra angular stimulus may produce a similar effect to additional \"focus.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Readability_and_legibility"
]
] |
|
5877e1
|
can sound waves create other sound waves? what would those sound like?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5877e1/eli5_can_sound_waves_create_other_sound_waves/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8y0oe0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Absolutely! Sounds waves are just a vibration, and cause other objects to vibrate as well. Primary waves create what are called overtones and harmonics as they interact with the air and surrounding surfaces.\n\nIf you go to a piano and play one of the lower notes loudly and hold the key down, you will hear other, higher strings vibrating, highlighting the overtones of the primary wave. It's a cool effect!\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6wix89
|
What warcrimes did the Dutch commit in the Indonesian Independence war in 1945-1949
|
Hi, firsttime here.
Let me just add some context to my question. My great-grandfather was a career soldier up untill he retired. He started his career by volunteering as one of the 10000 Dutch marines for the first political actions in 1947 and 1948 in Dutch Indonesia. Still today very little in my country is being taught about this war as it's kind of a black page in our history.
My great grandfather would never speak about what he had done in Indonesia but it is a well known fact that most soldiers there, especially the marines, were ordered to perform warcrimes. Now the current information I do have of him was that he was part of the motorised armor division of the marines. On one of the pictures that I own of his, that he took in his time in Indonesia, he is in some kind of scout car and on the other he photographed a tank called 'Harssens', a 105mm howitzer tank of the marbrig (marine brigade in Dutch)
I thought I'd add some more specific details near the end there. The tanks can easily be traced since there were very few of them that we received as surplus right after the war so maybe the information will help. I know that this tank is now in the armor museum in Overloon in a restored state.
I am currently in the process of getting my great grandfathers military records from the ministry of defence. I'm submitting a few pieces of information so that I'll be allowed to access his records.
Back to the point; I'm trying to find out what warcrimes were committed by the Dutch, if I can be specific, the marines. Because he never told us anything, which is understandable, I'd like to connect the dots as some kind of closure.
I've already reviewed a couple of pictures online and seeing similarities in pictures, he may or may not have been a part of the rawagede massacre.
Hope someone can help me out more and shed some light on the topic, thanks in advance.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6wix89/what_warcrimes_did_the_dutch_commit_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dm8fwvn"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The Dutch historiography and research into war crimes conducted by the Dutch army during the Indonesian independance war is not very well researched. This because it was 'actively forgotten' by the Dutch governement in that no serious research was conducted , people involved were encouraged to remain silent about it and the image of The Netherlands as tolerant and 'clean' colonists was protected. \n\nAt first the intervention was seen not as a war, but as an action against internal terrorists. The term 'politionele actie' was used, for a very long time, to avoid speaking about the Dutch intervention as being a war. Veterans were asked in loyalty to the Dutch Queen to 'keep all secrets inside the Dutch army'. And any appeal for political introspection and claims for reparations were subdued. A striking example is liberal politician and member of the Foreign affairs committe of the Tweede Kamer claiming as late as 2007 that: 'The Dutch military personel have generally behaved with utmost decency... No excuses shall be made' he even likened the proposed reparations to 'The Dutch paying reparations to the king of Spain for cuelties conducted during the Dutch independance war' (this is a comparison of striking sarcastic nature).\n\n\nMost current research is centred around the Rawagede-debate. Rawagede was a massacre of over 430 indonesian males on 9 december 1947. The photos of this masascre were published in the NRC Handelsblad in the '90s and sparked the historical research into Dutch atrocities. Dutch historian C. Lorentz says that this might far from be an isolated case as 'Rawagede might be the tip of an iceberg'. Aside from Rawagede, though, not much of this history has been researched yet.\n\nI am not involved in said research, as my thesis is on pre-war Dutch-Indonesian history, so I can't really comment on the role of the MarBrig or your great grandfathers regiment. I can give you some pointers to start looking. The books *Generaal Spoor: triomf en tragiek van een legercommandant* by Jaap de Moor and *De brandende kampongs van Generaal Spoor* by Remy Limpach are a good starting point. You can find them at the Amsterdam NIOD, the Dutch research institute for War and Genocide studies. The NIOD also employs most researchers that are currently working on the case of Dutch atrocities in Indonesia and has a huge archive. If you ask around there might be people who can point you in the right direction of finding more about the history of your great grandfather. The NIOD has a library that is open to the public and contains most books that will be relevant to your case.\n\nI hope that helps you on your way. Good luck!\n\n\nSources:\n\n* Lorenz, C. (2015). 'De Nederlandse koloniale herinnering en de universele mensenrechten'. *Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis*, 128(1), 109-130.\n\n* Eickhoff, M. (2015). 'Weggestreept verleden: Nederlandse historici en het Rawagededebat'. *Groniek*, 45(194).\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6b0ie4
|
how does the bar exam work and who governs it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6b0ie4/eli5_how_does_the_bar_exam_work_and_who_governs_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhitnea",
"dhjbz5h"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In the United States, each individual state has its own bar exam, and it is generally administered under the authority of the state's highest court. For example, the Illinois bar exam is administered by the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar (IBAB), and IBAB is seven lawyers appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court. New York has the New York State Board of Law Examiners, which is five lawyers appointed by the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court).\n\nPassing the bar exam is generally a requirement for becoming licensed to practice law in that state, but there are other requirements, too, such as graduating from law school, and passing an extra-detailed background check, which may be called a \"character and fitness\" evaluation.\n\nState laws vary, so most states have a unique set of questions for at least part of their exams. However, there is also a \"Uniform Bar Exam\", which some states use part or all of. Bar exams can take an entire day, or even multiple days.\n\nIf you pass the state's bar exam, and your application shows you meet all of the other requirements, you can be sworn in as an attorney and practice law.",
"Bar exam is governed by the person with the least teeth in the bar. It's preferable he have a powdered wig. (to cover the syphilis scars, obviously)\n\nHow it works is thus: if someone wants to pass the exam, they must order the jeager bomb plus a round for the mates. If they can finish without sicking up on the bar floor, the governor (that is, the person with the least teeth), approves their admittance, and they may order as they desire; however, if they sick up, the governor oversees that they mop up, and they are then only allowed to order low-proof beers from then on.\n\nThere are rules on how often they can try to take the bar (known as \"sitting for the bar\"), among other things - but at this point we're just getting into semantics. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2x5aps
|
Is it possible to estimate the cost of constructing one of the great pyramids (adjusting for inflation)? If so, how expensive of a project was it?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2x5aps/is_it_possible_to_estimate_the_cost_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cox89l4"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Ancient Egypt didn't have a monetary system until 2000 years after the pyramid's construction so it is probably better to use work hours and the cost of employing workers as a comparison, especially because the value of today's money is heavily warped compared to a barter system.\n\n--------------------------------\n**How many people worked on the Great Pyramid?**\n\nExcavation of the pyramid town south of the Sphinx have revealed galleries that could house about 4000 workers. At the start of the construction however it is likely that several more thousand workers were hired to clear the perimeter of sand and smooth the bedrock, and complete the first few layers of the pyramid.\n\nTo provide for those workers a brigade of tailors, bakers, sandal- and wig makers, butchers, and many other people that transported or provided goods and helped logistically.\n\nWorkers were well cared for, and received benefits such as:\n\nMedial care, tax exemptions, cloths and housing, food for their families, usually 1 day off per week (5 day weeks), beer (which was a very common drink with low alcohol content), beef (cows had to be imported from other parts of the country), wigs, makeup, all kinds of fruit and vegetables and of course bread, amongst other things.\n\nAll in all most of the time about 6000-8000 people worked directly or indirectly on the monument's construction.\n\n--------------------------------\n**How long did it take?**\n\nThe Great Pyramid was not the only thing being constructed by those workers. A mortuary temple and a valley temple with a harbor had to be built with a causeway of several hundred meters connecting them. In addition 3 Queen's Pyramids, a satellite pyramid, 12 mastabas that were later joined and expanded to 8 twin-mastabas and giant perimeter walls had to be built as well.\n\nThe majority of stones was local limestone that came from the east side of the plateau, only a few hundred meters away from the pyramid. Under 1% was hardstone such as basalt and granite that was imported from upper Egypt and the rest, the white limestone was imported from Tura in the north-east. \n\nIn total about 2.5 million m³ of local limestone had to be quarried and transported. In contrast to popular believe the vast majority of those stones were not neatly cut, square blocks but stones of all sizes and shapes. We know this because Vyse blasted a hole into the south side of the pyramid. \n\nTo cut (mostly stone tools were used) and transport 1m³ of the local stone approximately 40-80 work hours had to be spent depending on the stone and location (2 people quarrying for a day, 2 trips á 1 hour with a 10 man team to transport).\n\nIncluding the other stones it would have taken 150,000,000-200,000,000 work hours to complete the pyramid and the adjacent buildings.\n\nWe don't know how many people only worked seasonally and how many all year, so completing the pyramid would have taken between 10 and 20 years with an average of 5000 workers (assuming 10 hour days, 150 or 300 days of work a year).\n\n----------------------------------\n**How much did it cost compared to today?**\n\nOnly a few percent of the workers had to be highly skilled (architects, stonemasons, foremen, etc.) but most workers were well cared for (even by today's standards).\n\nSince it was a royal project the Pharaoh didn't have to pay for land and most resources but they still have a value. To translate that value to modern money is difficult however since goods like grain can not be stored and easily exchanged as money on a bank account can.\n\nBut to put a price on it: Assuming 5% of the workers were highly paid: 50$/h and the rest moderately well: 20$/h it would cost around **5 billion dollars** to pay for ~200 million construction work hours and the people providing for them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2bvvh1
|
if i rinse out a dish right after using it and there's nothing on it, is it fully clean or do i still need to use soap?
|
For sanitation reasons, I mean.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bvvh1/eli5_if_i_rinse_out_a_dish_right_after_using_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj9eutx",
"cj9fg50"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Clean is a state of mind.",
"Come on, man. Soap."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
yul55
|
What is the cost of the extinction of individual species?
|
This has been on my mind for a while, on an episode of "bullshit" they talked about animals going extinct, and I always watch the show with a pinch of salt and analyse their opinions, they said something along the lines of "yes some animals may go extinct, so what? what difference does it make?"
So, what is the cost of animals going extinct? I love animals, and hate to see them killed off, but not for any practical reasons. looking at the tiger for example, the majority lives in captivity, they have no (or little) effect on the food chain and environment, so they won't upset nature if they go extinct now. What would be lost if they, and other animals were hunted into extinction?
I am well aware of the scientific benefits hiding in the rainforest, and I know why we should protect it, but animals?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yul55/what_is_the_cost_of_the_extinction_of_individual/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5yy0jh",
"c5yy2qe"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Answering that question requires two other questions be answered: \"How important is the niche this organism is in?\" and \"How well can other animals fill in that niche?\" Many species are more critical to the survival of an ecosystem than others. For instance, in the Southern US gopher tortoises are suffering huge losses, and as a result many other small ground-dwelling animals are also suffering, because gopher tortoise burrows were used by a variety of them for shelter.",
"No expert just an observation:\n\nLets take a look at the Puma. It once dominated North America. Humans come and kill most of them on the grounds that they're dangerous to humans and our livestock. Wolves could also be included in this as both have been hunted to near extinction.\n\nNow every fall deer hunters go out into to the woods to 'thin out' the deer population and they say its more humane than letting the deer starve over winter.\n\ntl;dr something has to fill the niche in ecosystem"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ariqqp
|
how likely is it that earth is the only planet with living beings, and that humans are the only species that have the intelligence to speak, create, develop etc?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ariqqp/eli5_how_likely_is_it_that_earth_is_the_only/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egnh8pm",
"egnhbm5",
"egnhcfg",
"egnhs4f",
"egni05h",
"egni0rz",
"egni41k",
"egnizcx"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2,
7,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We have no good way to calculate those odds. However there are strong indications that the universe is infinite in extent so even if the development of life is vanishingly unlikely it is basically certain that it has happened somewhere else.",
"Probably very unlikely. Based entirely on the “ i sure hope this isn’t it” mentality.",
"Mathematically it is virtually impossible that we are the only planet with life. It is also extremely unlikely for us to be the only planet with intelligent life, even if only 1 in a billion planets with life develop to the state of intelligence. ",
"No science behind this just a lot of weed:\n\nRealistically chances are low we are the ONLY living intelligent beings out there. It's very possible they haven't figured out how to make it to us the same way we haven't worked out making it to them.",
"We don't really have great way to actually put a number to it, but the general consensus among scientists is that it's essentially a certainty that there *is* other intelligent life out there. Based on our current knowledge of exoplanets, it's estimated there as many as *40 billion* Earth-like planets in our galaxy alone, and at absolutely minimum, 176 billion galaxies in the observable universe (although actually estimates put the number at an astounding 2 trillion). There's nothing special about life on Earth as far as we can tell, so the odds of it not happening somewhere else in the trillions upon trillions of other worlds out there is just mind-bogglingly infinitesimal.",
"It is highly unlikely that we are the only intelligent sentient species in the universe. However given the size of the universe, it is highly improbable that we will run into another intelligent sentient species. ",
"Many animals on our planet can mimic. Universally the void is so large and the speed mass can travel is very small. Even the constant speed of light (The fastest we could possibly send a signal) is well beyond our lives. We just live too short and travel so slow to be interacting with other life. Robots (Whom I'd consider life) will very well be patient enough to contact other civilizations and more likely other robots from those civilizations in stead. ",
"odds are we just so happen to be out in the boonies of our star cluster almost like being an undiscovered tribe in the middle of the rainforest "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7vd9qs
|
what is mthfr gene mutation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vd9qs/eli5_what_is_mthfr_gene_mutation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtrh1m2"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"The MTHFR gene has the instructions for the body to build an enzyme with a really long name. An enzyme is a protein that helps the body perform chemical reactions. This particular enzyme helps make methionine, one of the building blocks of proteins, and helps the body to use vitamin B9 (also known as folic acid). \n\nA genetic mutation is when the gene's instructions are different from that of the regular version of the gene. In other words, the instructions are misspelled. Mutated genes often cause the body to make less effective versions of the corresponding protein. In MTHFR's case, this means that the body produces enzymes that aren't great at making methionine and utilizing vitamin B9.\n\nThere are multiple medical problems that can result from MTHFR mutations, including increased risk of blood clots and birth defects of the nervous system. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
24ajlu
|
the handicap hypothesis/principal in sexual selection
|
I'd really like some examples as well. Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24ajlu/eli5_the_handicap_hypothesisprincipal_in_sexual/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch5d517"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Rich person wants to convince a potential mate that he/she is worth mating with. Rich person has so much money that they can afford to spend much of it on frivolous material goods that may actually decrease their ability to survive (dangerously fast car). This signals to a potential mate that they are exceptionally worth mating with.\n\nThe rich person is handicapping themselves (increased potential to die), but doing so in order to increase sexual desirability."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8kjboe
|
the significance of platonic solids, what makes them different from the other shapes?
|
Scientist and philosophers have been fascinated with these shapes for thousands of years, they are spoken of as if they are “magical” in some way mathematically speaking. Physicists seem to love these shapes, and I’ve heard one even use the idea to explain the Big Bang.
I don’t understand what the big deal is, what makes these shapes so special?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8kjboe/eli5_the_significance_of_platonic_solids_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz85i6t"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"They are polygons (3D shapes made up of flat surfaces joined together) for which:\n\n* the faces are identical in shape and size\n\n* the faces are regular polygons (so all their angles equal and all their sides are equal)\n\n* the same number of faces meet at each vertex (corner) of the polygon\n\n* the polygon is convex (it doesn't have any indentations)\n\nThey are interesting because there are only five such polygons:\n\n1. Tetrahedron made up of four equilateral triangles\n\n2. Cube made up of six squares\n\n3. Octahedron made up of eight equilateral triangles\n\n4. Dodecahedron made up of twelve regular pentagons\n\n5. Icosahedron made up of twenty equilateral triangles"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
b6alcn
|
Why do depictions of American Indians never show men with facial hair?
|
Was no facial hair a part of their culture or were they incapable of growing facial hair??
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b6alcn/why_do_depictions_of_american_indians_never_show/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejjcgc8"
],
"score": [
83
],
"text": [
"You may be interested in the older post:\n\n * [Native Americans generally didn't have beards. Do we know what they thought of the bearded and mustachioed Europeans and their decedents?](_URL_0_)\n\nMany groups plucked facial hair, with wooden or shell or even bronze implements. Others apparently singed hair off. In some groups, certain types of people did not remove hair—people in mourning among the Yurok, or possibly the old among the Aztecs, to give two examples."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18wdf0/native_americans_generally_didnt_have_beards_do/"
]
] |
|
jdfti
|
why drugs companies give half the people placebo's and half the people the actual drug when testing
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jdfti/eli5_why_drugs_companies_give_half_the_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2b6no5",
"c2b6p09",
"c2b76of",
"c2b7dhm",
"c2bbegs",
"c2b6no5",
"c2b6p09",
"c2b76of",
"c2b7dhm",
"c2bbegs"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
2,
2,
2,
12,
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Lets say you give 10 people a new drug and 5 of them get better/improve, you might think that 50% of the people who take the drug get better. \n\nIf instead, you give 10 people the drug and 10 people a placebo and 5 people from each group get better, than you know that the drug isn't (neccessarily) causing the improvement.",
"Sometimes people get better for other reasons than taking a drug. For instance because of their own immune systems, or because of the placebo effect. \n\nYou can assume that if you have two random groups of the same size, about the same amount of people are going to get better on their own, leaving the rest ill. Now if you give one group the drug and the other a fake drug, the actual effect of the drug will be the amount of people who got better in the \"real drug\" group minus the people in the \"fake drug\" group. \n\nIf you don't have the control group (which get fake drugs), it's possible than anyone that got better, did so for other reasons than the drug that was given to them.",
"To be able to say that a drug actually causes a certain effect, you have to prove that the effect will not just occur on its own. So you give one group the drug and one group a fake. Neither group knows which group they are in, so they can't effect their own results based on their own knowledge. ",
"Let's say you have a headache. You could do nothing, take a pill, rub a racoon's belly, and eventually, your headache will probably go away.\n\nHow do you know if what you did fixed it?\n\nThe whole purpose of drug testing is to measure how much better than nothing the drug is.\n\nThe purpose of the placebo is to make sure neither the testers nor the patients now whether they got the drug. Knowing can alter the results.",
"Let's say you have a cold, and I want to know if my new drug will make you better.\n\nI give you the drug, and three days later you're better.\n\nYay, it worked!\n\nBut maybe you would have gotten better in three days if I hadn't given you the drug.\n\nSo i give some people the drug, and some people a sugar pill, and I tell everyone what I'm giving them.\n\nThree days later, the ones I give the drug to are fine, but it takes five days for the ones I gave the sugar pill to to get better.\n\nYay, it worked!\n\nBut maybe being told you are being given real medicine may have some bearing on how quickly you get better, even if the medicine really does nothing. This is actually true, and is called the placebo effect.\n\nSo I give everyone their pills, but I don't tell anyone what I'm giving them. This is called a single-blind trial, because the people getting the pills don't know what they are getting, so the placebo effect is ruled out.\n\nThere is a problem with this though, which is that I know what I'm giving them, so maybe I smile more when I give the real drug, and tend to ignore the people I give the sugar pills to. Who knows?\n\nSo I have someone else give out the drugs, and they have no idea which are the drugs and which are the sugar pills.\n\nIf the drug performs much better than the sugar pills, there is not much reason to assume that it was anything other than the drug that caused the patients to get better more quickly.\n\nThis is called a double-blind trial, because both the people being given the pills and those giving out the pills are \"blind\" to what is in them.\n\n",
"Lets say you give 10 people a new drug and 5 of them get better/improve, you might think that 50% of the people who take the drug get better. \n\nIf instead, you give 10 people the drug and 10 people a placebo and 5 people from each group get better, than you know that the drug isn't (neccessarily) causing the improvement.",
"Sometimes people get better for other reasons than taking a drug. For instance because of their own immune systems, or because of the placebo effect. \n\nYou can assume that if you have two random groups of the same size, about the same amount of people are going to get better on their own, leaving the rest ill. Now if you give one group the drug and the other a fake drug, the actual effect of the drug will be the amount of people who got better in the \"real drug\" group minus the people in the \"fake drug\" group. \n\nIf you don't have the control group (which get fake drugs), it's possible than anyone that got better, did so for other reasons than the drug that was given to them.",
"To be able to say that a drug actually causes a certain effect, you have to prove that the effect will not just occur on its own. So you give one group the drug and one group a fake. Neither group knows which group they are in, so they can't effect their own results based on their own knowledge. ",
"Let's say you have a headache. You could do nothing, take a pill, rub a racoon's belly, and eventually, your headache will probably go away.\n\nHow do you know if what you did fixed it?\n\nThe whole purpose of drug testing is to measure how much better than nothing the drug is.\n\nThe purpose of the placebo is to make sure neither the testers nor the patients now whether they got the drug. Knowing can alter the results.",
"Let's say you have a cold, and I want to know if my new drug will make you better.\n\nI give you the drug, and three days later you're better.\n\nYay, it worked!\n\nBut maybe you would have gotten better in three days if I hadn't given you the drug.\n\nSo i give some people the drug, and some people a sugar pill, and I tell everyone what I'm giving them.\n\nThree days later, the ones I give the drug to are fine, but it takes five days for the ones I gave the sugar pill to to get better.\n\nYay, it worked!\n\nBut maybe being told you are being given real medicine may have some bearing on how quickly you get better, even if the medicine really does nothing. This is actually true, and is called the placebo effect.\n\nSo I give everyone their pills, but I don't tell anyone what I'm giving them. This is called a single-blind trial, because the people getting the pills don't know what they are getting, so the placebo effect is ruled out.\n\nThere is a problem with this though, which is that I know what I'm giving them, so maybe I smile more when I give the real drug, and tend to ignore the people I give the sugar pills to. Who knows?\n\nSo I have someone else give out the drugs, and they have no idea which are the drugs and which are the sugar pills.\n\nIf the drug performs much better than the sugar pills, there is not much reason to assume that it was anything other than the drug that caused the patients to get better more quickly.\n\nThis is called a double-blind trial, because both the people being given the pills and those giving out the pills are \"blind\" to what is in them.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
375ujs
|
the science behind the charlie charlie pencil game
|
What is it that makes the pencils move? I don't believe in ghosts I just want to know how this works.
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/375ujs/eli5_the_science_behind_the_charlie_charlie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crjyv38",
"crlkz9f"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The kid off camera to the right is blowing slightly, moving the pencil. Try it yourself, it takes very little wind to move the pencil. You can tell because they never show anybody in frame when the pencil is moving.\n\nThis is really no different than the telekinesis trick James Hydrick used to make pencils move back in the eighties.",
"Gravity pushes down on the crossed pencils, zeroing out the normal force pushing from below. There is also a very slight amount of friction between the pencils, just waiting to be overcome, breaking the tenuous equilibrium between the three forces. Any variable vector force (I.e. Wind blowing, someone breathing, the pencils naturally shifting, air pressure changes, etc) will break that equilibrium, forcing the pencil on top to rotate and/or fall.\n\nAs a science teacher I am so sick of this stupid game that could easily be explained by the exact forces my distracted students are SUPPOSED to be learning about."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4F2WSS8EHA"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.