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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5gh40n
|
How much CO2 does the internet produce now?
|
I've searched a bit for this question but i couldnt find an accurate description that seemed trusted AND is recent (i figured this changed a very lot last years)
so i wonder how much CO2 or energy the internet uses globally in X amount of time. This is probablly a very hard question considering you could include or exclude production and use (eg charging) of hardware, keeping up servers, etc etc.
Well i dont even know how to phrase this better but i think the question in general is clear :3
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5gh40n/how_much_co2_does_the_internet_produce_now/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dat4rne",
"db7gguh"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"As the internet is the result of the interconnection of billions of devices, each operating independently, in many different environments, each parameterised in its own way, a good portion of them being mobile and under variable workloads, I doubt it's in any way feasible to find an accurate result.\n\nYou could estimate a lot of it, but you'll have to settle for a lot of accuracy. Unless of course you want to convince everyone to provide telemetry on their devices and are willing to combine the results to give everyone an accurate picture. :-) It would be a grand experiment that would get you more than a handful of citations.",
"We might be able to get a *very* rough estimate: [as of 2012, Cisco believes there are 8.7 billion devices on the internet;](_URL_1_) let's round that to 10 billion, just in case.\n\nI'm going to assume that those devices \"average\" to about the energy of a typical desktop setup, as there are way too many devices in way too many ranges to calculate.\n\n[Most desktops use 65-250 watts depending on computer, plus 20-40 watts for an LCD monitor](_URL_0_)\n\nSo if we assume an even 300 watts times 10 billion, that's, well, 3 trillion watts worth of computing power. Keep in mind that I could be off by an order of magnitude either way at this point.\n\nLet's assume that the \"average\" computer is on and connected to a power production facility for 10 hours per day. That's probably a high-end estimate, but it accounts for both the 24/7 web and web service servers that need to stay up all the time, and the phones that charge for 4-5 hours every 2-3 days at low wattage.\n\nSo 3 trillion x 10 hours = 30 trillion watt-hours per day, times 365 is on the order of 1.095 quadrillion watt-hours per year.\n\nCoal produces about 2 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, so we have around 2 trillion pounds of CO2 produced if the energy is provided entirely by coal, and that's at the high end of the spectrum.\n\nAgain, keeping in mind that this could be off by a factor of 10 or 100 in either direction, since I'm estimating a *lot* in the calculations; I didn't take into account how much of the world is powered by less-pollution-heavy methods of power generation, or even places powered by solar, wind, or nuclear power that gives negligble/no CO2 emissions, so I expect that my estimate is on the high side, assuming I wasn't drastically off when estimating the overall power usage of \"the internet\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html",
"https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20many%20devices%20are%20on%20the%20internet"
]
] |
|
1bf19e
|
Why is coffee turbid when cooled down but clear when freshly made?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1bf19e/why_is_coffee_turbid_when_cooled_down_but_clear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c969djj"
],
"score": [
64
],
"text": [
"What is coffee, exactly? A Solution? Suspension? \n\nTurns out, hot black coffee is a solution, meaning that the coffee itself is dissolved in the hot water.\n\nPerhaps you remember that solubility increases with heat (generally speaking). So when the water is hot, it will take in all the coffee it can while brewing. When it cools, the solubility decreases and the coffee precipitates out to become a suspension, and then cause that turbidity you are talking about."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
r3j8e
|
Is it possible to get high from second-hand cannabis smoke?
|
Hi
I have been trying to find relevant articles on studies regarding second hand cannabis smoke but im unsuccessful.
I would just like to know whether it is possible to get high from second-hand cannabis smoke, under a normal social situation, for example: smoking a joint (mixture of cannabis and tobacco), will the person sitting next to me get at all high without actually smoking the joint themselves?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/r3j8e/is_it_possible_to_get_high_from_secondhand/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c42m4wj"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"This is actually one of the things we studied in forensic toxicology - the case of [Ross Rebagliati](_URL_0_), a Canadian snowboarder whose Olympic gold medal was in jeopardy after testing positive for marijuana. His defense was that he did not partake in smoking, but was in the vicinity as others smoked.\n\nThe conclusion in our class is that passive inhalation is usually not enough to give significant blood THC concentrations - one study reporting blood THC levels of 1 - 6 ng/mL right after exposure (to give context: with normal inhalation, blood THC rises to above 100 ng/mL in the minutes immediately after, and settles to about 30 ng/mL in about 20 minutes, in a typical user). And even obtaining that level required _extreme exposure_ - high concentration of smoke and limited volume (\"hot-boxing\"). Subjects complained of such severe eye irritation that they requested sealed goggles.\n\nSo my toxicology professor is adamant passive inhalation does next to nothing, physiologically."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/specials/olympics/nagano/sno/021398oly-sno-drugs.html"
]
] |
|
7uz507
|
just how much less nutritious is food that has been frozen such as frozen fruits/meals
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7uz507/eli5_just_how_much_less_nutritious_is_food_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtornqx",
"dtou4ry",
"dtp1dz9",
"dtp4f4b",
"dtp5ciu",
"dtp6aar",
"dtp6pka",
"dtp77kq",
"dtp7rfy",
"dtp8eq4"
],
"score": [
143,
48,
11,
16,
2,
11,
3,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Calories should stay exactly the same. Mineral content will also be exactly the same. Some vitamins can be changed by various environmental factors including temperature. Vitamin C, for example, is degraded by exposure to oxygen. Freezing can actually help protect against oxidizing since liquid water more efficiently transports oxygen than frozen water. I honestly don't know chemistry details on most of the other vitamins, so hopefully someone else can weigh in there.\n\nFreezing will primarily change the texture of food. This happens mostly because cell walls and other microstructures in the food get destroyed by the expansion and crystallization of water when it freezes. This is why thawed frozen fruits are almost always more mushy than fresh fruits. This destruction will make the food degrade *very* fast after the food is thawed. This is why most frozen foods are meant to be eaten directly after defrost and often instruct you to avoid refreezing them.\n\nWith frozen meals, the makers know that freezing will change textures to be less palatable. This is often alleviated by making meals that are heavily dependent on sauces which usually means adding considerable salt and simple sugars. Carb-heavy foods like potatoes are also more likely to reheat deliciously than most meats, fruits, and some veggies. This can make frozen meals tough to fit with some diet goals.",
"frozen food, if frozen very close to the time they were picked, actually have more nutritional value than \"fresh\" ones in the produce section or in cans",
"None at all. Freezing does not reduce nutritional value, though it can alter textures of foods to make it less appealing. In fact most fruits and vegetables are frozen quickly after harvesting which makes them more nutritious that food that has been allowed to get old and is close to spoiling. ",
"Frozen fruits and vegetables often contain more nutrients because it is possible to let them reach full ripeness before harvest. Fully ripened they would never be able to survive transport without rotting completely, and a disturbingly large amount of our food is shipped in from other countries. Ever had a tomato in January? It most likely came from Mexico or somewhere south of the equator. These are then chemically ripened after shipping with ethelyne gas or chemicals like calcium carbide. Nom nom. If you are truly interested in getting the best nutrition/flavor from your food buy your produce from local farms and eat what is in season for your area.",
"caloric nutrient value tends to not change at all with any food if frozen over any time frame.\nthe ash nutrient(micronutrients) value tends to not change at all with any food if frozen over any time frame.\nthe vitamin nutrient value may change drastically if frozen over any time but doesn't have to depending on the form and type of vitamin as well as freezing process involved.\n\ncaloric nutrient would be the raw energy content you get to burn,\nash nutrient would be metals, salts, all kind of stuff you kinda need everywhere in low concentrations for all kinds of reasons,\nvitamin nutrient value would be advanced building blocks we mostly have lost the capability to produce ourselves over the time frame in which evolution happens and are now required to consume from an external source like meat and plants. They are usually required for very elaborate mechanisms and we would die without, however such death through vitamin starvation can take months to decades.",
"I was an Analytical Nutrition Technician for several years. (For details see: _URL_0_)\n\nI never, at any point, observed a trend of lower nutrition in frozen food products. Nor am I aware of any documentation about this for Macro Nutrients (Sugars, Fats, Salt, Fibre, Protein).\n\nI did not test for Vitamins, and it may be that there are some vitamins that will be damaged by freezing. However, as vitamins also degrade over time and may be less damaged by freezing and then not degrading that waiting around to be shipped to you.\n\nSugars in plants also convert to starch after harvest, so frozen food may have a high sugar content.\n\n\nProcessed foods, frozen ready meals ect. will have a much different nutrition profile than a fresh meal, but that's not due to the freezing process, but rather, the stuff they make the meal with being different. ",
"A lot of answers in here. What they don't address is that frozen MEALS are often bad for you... \n\nBecause they're packed with salt and sugar and all sorts of non-nutritious crizzap.\n\nFrozen food that's just, like... food. Veggies, meat, fruit, whatever... That's great! But 'frozen meals' and 'frozen snacks' are often bad for you.. \n",
"Frozen is fine, it loses nothing from the process, and if you thaw it out and eat it raw still or use it in say, a smoothie, it’s just as good. Obviously if you cook it, like steaming frozen broccoli, you’ll lose as many nutrients as you would from doing that to a fresh vegetable. Meow, canned goods on the other hand, lose a fair amount of nutrients, as also often are packed with preservatives that sap the benefits.",
"I've noticed that frozen bags of broccoli have almost no vitamin A. Why is that? I know fresh broccoli vitamin A levels are through the roof. Are frozen vegetables not as healthy? ",
"A good ELI5 rule of thumb is that the less processing any food goes through the less nutritional value it loses. So if you walk out to your organic garden and pick a cherry tomato and eat it you will get an amazing burst of flavor and the full nutritional value the tomato has to offer. After fresh, frozen fruits and veggies are probably best, then canned. But canned foods are \"shelf stable\" and can be eaten months, even years later without having to use electricity to keep them that way. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57ljeg/eli5_how_do_food_and_drink_companies_work_out_how/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20mf6y
|
why do people and animals get comfortable? what is comfort?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20mf6y/eli5_why_do_people_and_animals_get_comfortable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg4oi8o",
"cg4qtxi",
"cg4r1z0",
"cg4uypi"
],
"score": [
57,
20,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Comfort is a lack of hardship, danger or stress. From an evolutionary point of view, avoiding dangerous situations is obviously beneficial to survival, so an animal that experienced negative emotions (discomfort) during these situations is going to try & avoid being in them. Feeling happy in a safe area means an animal would be more likely to stay in that safe area. ",
"Everything alive in nature tends to die horribly because of stuff (cold, predators, lack of food...). Comfort is the knowledge of not being at an immediate risk for your life; if you are referring to the physical sensation, that is exactly that kind of reaction, centred about not being cold and hungry in a particular moment.\n\nThe rest is just something that doesn't disturb our skin too much: smooth and soft things make us comfortable because there is less contrast between them and our skin, that has to stress itself less to adapt to their surface. That's also why cats, that having fur have a different \"surface\", find something like cardboard boxes more comfortable than we do (Solid Snake is an exception).",
"People and animals are complex creatures which can be viewed individually as complex systems incorporating feedback. Comfort is simply a more stable state than discomfort.\n\nThe brain receive sensory stimuli and responds by activating muscles. It is continuously processing and reacting in ways both instinctively and learned. Reflexes cause withdrawal from painful stimuli, hunger induces hunting behaviors, etc.",
"Try being in a state of constant fear that things are against you, won't work out and will end up killing you will fuck with your nerves. Meditation and trust are the opposite of that. The less that you are an emotional battlefield, the further you go. Look to people with too much stress in their life"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
55h3s9
|
what is so special about go pro type cameras that can't be done with just any video camera.
|
To give more context. I know that go pro have special fittings that allow them to be mounted in places that normal cameras can't. Any camera can be mounted if there is a custom mounting for it so that can't be the sole reason. I'm asking about the quality of the footage and how that fits into the overall picture about go pros.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55h3s9/eli5_what_is_so_special_about_go_pro_type_cameras/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8ai2ha",
"d8ai3ys",
"d8ai5f6",
"d8ai6q9",
"d8akagl"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"GoPro's are small, compact, rugged, and designed to mount on a fast moving object without flying off and getting destroyed. They also have good quality video and lots of storage capacity.",
"GoPro cameras are designed to be small and fit into protective cases and mounts. They are designed to handle shock and movement without problems.\n\nThey are not the only cameras that can do this, but if you are looking for some way to record yourself riding a dirt bike down a rocky trail then GoPro will have everything you need and it will all work together.",
"The real issue here is just how durable the damned things are. You can take them sky diving, base jumping, diving, rock climbing.. they can fall down the side of a mountain and record the whole thing. Then you can retrieve it and it'll work just fine.\n\nTry that with your standard DSLR and you'll see it get shattered within the first bounce. Hell, sometimes they'll break just from making the relatively short drop from chest height to the floor.\n",
"They are a small, light, durable, relatively inexpensive camera that comes with a protective waterproof casing. The casing has a stand that can easily be mounted on a variety of surfaces.\n\nThe result is a camera that can be used in harsh environments without breaking, and is cheap enough that if it does break it won't bankrupt you to replace.\n\nThere are a number of camera that can do this, but GoPro was the first to combine these features in an easy to use product.",
"In addition to the other responses, GoPros have very wide angle lenses, which is useful when you don't know where the action will happen (sports) or you don't know where the camera will be pointed (such as cameras mounted on peoples's bodies).\n\nAlso, they have high FPS recording modes which capture fast action better, but I think that high FPS recording is much more common now than when GoPros came out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2a3raz
|
Are there better job opportunities for historians depending on which history they study? Which fields have more demand?
|
As in are you better off studying Asian history rather than American history, for example?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a3raz/are_there_better_job_opportunities_for_historians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cirhi4k",
"cirjxm0"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't grab a link right now, but the American Historical Association publishes a report once in a while evaluating the field. Their last was in 2013 and it showed that you do have slightly better odds with an Asian History focus, but if I remember correctly you still have less than a 50% of finding work in academia. Outside of academia, there aren't really any ways to track job success accurately. But in American non-academia there probably isn't great demand for an Asian historian.\n\nSo basically its a huge risk no matter what you choose and you can't really \"plan\" a history career anymore. It sort of depends on who you know and your timing, which no one can predict.",
"Here are some links of value, OP: \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2014/the-2013-jobs-report-number-of-aha-ads-dip-new-experiment-offers-expanded-view",
"http://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/career-resources/data-on-the-history-profession"
]
] |
|
2yr2xr
|
why do some pills come in bottles, and some in blister packs?
|
How come when I get Prilosec from the pharmacy it's 30 pills in a bottle, but if I buy it at my local BJ's it's in this enormous cardboard box, with every pill individually sealed in a blister pack?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yr2xr/eli5why_do_some_pills_come_in_bottles_and_some_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpc6gg9",
"cpce7y7",
"cpcxlvx"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Prescriptions that are dispensed in the US have to meet child safety standards. If you're buying it OTC it isn't being dispensed and thus doesn't have to meet the standards.",
"One surprising reason for blister packs: suicide prevention.\n\nFor example, in 1998 the UK switched all paracetamol (aka acetaminophen, aka Tylenol) to blister packaging to make it harder to overdose— you can't just dump out a handful, you have to individually punch out the pills. They also limited the number of pills in a pack. I think this applies to both over-the-counter and Rx, not 100% sure on that. Anyway, suicide-by-Tylenol went down something like 30%.\n\nETA, some links: [1](_URL_0_), [2](_URL_1_)",
"Marketing and stability(whether the product will last until the expiration date.) extensive testing is performed to make sure the medication will last. In my experience blister packs are the most likely to last the longest. If a customer wants a 50-100ct they will probably want it in a bottle and we will have test the product to make sure it will last 2-3 years at the advertised strength on the label. If it completes testing then we can sell it in a bottle. We may have to add desiccants such as cotton to the bottle to prevent moisture buildup."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11002388",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol#Overdose"
],
[]
] |
|
w4tjs
|
Everest is currently the highest mountain on Earth (elevation above sea level). But mountain chains are growing/eroding all the time -- so when in the distant future Everest become second tallest, and what mountain will surpass it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w4tjs/everest_is_currently_the_highest_mountain_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5aam20"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Everest, and the Himalayan range is still growing, and will likely do so for many millions of years due to the Indian Sub-Continent pushing into Asia. This collision also created the Karakoram range (of K-2 fame), among others. \n\nWhich particular peak among the area will be the tallest in the future is hard to say due to factors like earthquakes and erosion that are hard to predict. There are other factors like depressing the crust that I won't really get into, but may play a factor. Some people think it unlikely that a peak could be too much higher than Everest is currently. \n\nConsidering that (if memory serves) the highest 100 peaks in the world are in this area, and are still growing, you can bet one of those existing peaks would be your best bet for surpassing Everest. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
79pj93
|
Do dogs have an awareness of seasonal weather change?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/79pj93/do_dogs_have_an_awareness_of_seasonal_weather/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp4715u"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Why would you think that they might not. They live long enough to experience many seasons. Their breeding cycle is tied to the seasons, they can feel both hot and cold, they know what snow is (whether they like it or not), et. al. \n\nNot to mention that the modern domesticated dog will certainly see us responding to seasonal changes through what we wear, eat, etc. In summer, they will camp out near the air conditioner, and near the heater in winter. You could certainly say that they are just responding to immediate stimuli, but they are smarter than that. I've had dogs that will drag their beds to different spots in the house to take advantage of heating/cooling. That involves some forward thinking."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2eguit
|
what is the philosophy behind a ddos attack on gaming servers?
|
In light of the recent DDOS, I began wondering why some group target certain targets.
I can understand why a group my DDOS a Government or a private sector company, or an organisation/group for political, and statement making reasons.
But what do the groups gain from preventing people play WoW, LoL or PlayStation network titles? Surely this erodes their potential support base? It is hardly a political statement preventing people play an online game.
Is the aim of the groups just to cause inconvenience to show they can, rather then any specific aim?
Sorry if this has been asked before, I searched but could only find what is DDOS, how to prevent DDOS etc, but not that answered this. If it already been answered, please point me in that direction rather then explaining again.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eguit/eli5_what_is_the_philosophy_behind_a_ddos_attack/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjzcb8e",
"cjzckc3"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"It's a cry for attention, similar to what a baby does when they poop their diapers.",
"I owned a lot of Minecraft servers over the past couple years, many of them with hundreds of players online at a time. \n\nMost of the players who threatened/attempted to DDOS our server/s didn't have a reason other than being immature kids who think they're the shit because they can put the server IP in a program they didn't even write and lag/crash it. \n\nThey seem not to realize that it's illegal and if I had pursued legal action and logged all the packets coming in from their IPs that they didn't even bother to hide with a VPN or anything, they could potentially be in a lot of trouble. \n\nIn short, they really have nothing to gain, they're just stupid kids who have nothing better to do. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
16boo4
|
Is there a limit to the number of immunity genes bacteria can carry?
|
Is there a limit to the genome size of bacteria that carry immunities for agents such as penicillin? In other words, if mankind continues to develop anti-bacterial drugs, will strains of bacteria be able to continue evolving immunity genes?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16boo4/is_there_a_limit_to_the_number_of_immunity_genes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7unb92",
"c7uy3s3"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Now theoretically, there must be a physical limit to the quantity of DNA that can be present in a typically sized bacterial cell (or any cell, for that matter). However, realistically it's probably never ever going to occur, due to the huge, vast quantities of DNA that can fit in one cell. The ameboid Polychaos dubium has the largest known genome of any organism (670 gigabases, that's 670,000,000,000 bases). Your average bacteria has a genome of 1mb to 10mb (megabase), and even though an amoeba cell is much bigger than your average bacterium, it can't account for such a discrepancy.\n\n(Interestingly, there's absolutely no correlation between genome size and organism complexity - we only have about 3.2 gigabases in our genome.)\n\nAnd even if you could overload a cell with DNA, the chance of it occurring in evolution is just as low - without a selection pressure genes are lost by neutral evolution and a number of other mechanisms. Unless we keep using ever bigger cocktails of antibiotics, and never retire old antibiotics even though they don't work anymore, then bacteria will not maintain every single resistance gene.",
"In the absence of an antibiotic, a resistance gene actually gives that particular bacterium a *disadvantage* -- at the very least, it's extra genetic material that must be copied for each replication, and some mechanisms of resistance actually harm the overall function of the bug (ex. much slower ribosomal function, but gain resistance to macrolide antibiotics).\n\nIt's more of a game of cat and mouse. Instead of carrying around a library of resistance genes, pathogens exist in populations where only a subset are resistant to antibiotics. The few resistant organisms grow out when a particular antibiotic is used, forcing the use of a different antibiotic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
evlrcl
|
what has the large hadron collider discovered exactly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/evlrcl/eli5_what_has_the_large_hadron_collider/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffweym1",
"ffwf0e6",
"ffwg702",
"ffwhtkq",
"ffwi66p",
"ffwiw82",
"ffwj8q7",
"ffwjgik",
"ffwjk0k",
"ffwjppl",
"ffwkx3x",
"ffwkzxf",
"ffwn4kp",
"ffwriap",
"ffwrvhs",
"ffwt5le",
"ffx30fs",
"ffx382u",
"ffx3khz"
],
"score": [
437,
3468,
67,
7,
263,
15,
87,
10,
4,
2,
10,
3,
5,
9,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"First off : sorry for my approximate English, I am not native. \n\nSo I'll try to make this as 5years old friendly as possible. You probably know that everything around you is made of matter, which is made of atoms. Basically little lego bricks that together form your Millenium falcon. \n\nOne of the many things they try to discover (it recently stopped for some upgrading) is what are those Lego bricks made off. Small constituants of the Lego bricks. One of the most famous discoveries was the hygg's boson. \n\nI don't know much about the subject but if I recall correctly they discovered so far that there are 13 smaller bricks that intervienne in the making of matter. \n\nWhat's incredible is that some of them seem to \"exists\" for very limited periods of time. They have thousands of very sophisticated cameras taking photos of what happens when they collide theses particules. It's like taking photos of your Millenium falcon when you smash it very quickly with a Groot replica made of Legos too.\n\nBy taking photos of the bricks that flew everywhere, you basically have an idea of what was used to make your construction in the first place.",
"Many things. Too many to list and explain individually (many are very technical and incapable of being eli5'd), but the biggest thing, and in many ways the thing the LHC was built to discover, was is the [Higgs boson](_URL_0_). At the time of the construction of the LHC, the Higgs boson was a theorized and predicted yet undiscovered elementary particle that was a big missing piece in quantum physics. The confirmed discovery of the Higgs boson was hugely significant and answered a ton of questions in particle physics while also creating new questions for us to answer.",
"The lhc is used in many different experiments, all trying to explain how particles interact at high energies.\n\nThe most important discovery is the Brout-Englert-Higgs particle an field. The particle was theorised decades ago as a solution to why the bosons for the weak nuclear force have mass. According to the symmetries that should apply to all force-bosons they can't have a mass. The theory explained how the symmetry can be broken at \"low\" energies. It also splits the electro-weak force in a electric force and a weak force. It also gives mass to the elementary fermions (do note that most of the mass of a proton/neutron/all matter is not from the individual elementary particles but from their interactions)\n\nDiscovering the higgs particle was nescecary to vallidate quantum field theory.\n\n\nTheir are many other experiments done at LHC, a lot of them trying to prove string theory and/or suppersymetry wich could solve some of the last problems we have with field theory and gravity.\n\nOne of the problems at LHC is the amount of data that needs to processed. For every usefull interaction there are billions of useless interactions. For them to find something new they need to have a good theory to test so they know what events they should look. This makes it really hard to test all possible theories.",
"Ok here we go! Just my way of explaining but ....They discovered how things that have mass actually get that feeling of having mass from an invisible field. You know how magnets work over a distance even though we don’t see anything really “touching”. Well, the same should be true for anything with stuff, such as your phone or stuffed animal.",
"Slightly meta here, but are there explanations here that are not just about the Higgs Boson? There are plenty of other discoveries, but leaving it as just \"Too many to list and explain\" is not helping us understand much.",
"Can someone explain what they discovered that's not the Higgs Boson particle?",
"Atoms are like bouncy balls, they much prefer to repel eachother and bounce off than hit eachother hard enough to smash themselves to pieces. You basically have to get two bouncys to directly hit head on at insane speeds to see inside them. When you do get a bouncy ball to smash itself into pieces all the little bits go flying into the walls and by looking at all the little pieces that hit the wall we can see what bouncy balls are made of. Turns out they are made of more smaller bouncy balls which like to recombine into a stable bouncy ball and not stay as little bouncy bits",
"There are some good answers here w.r.t discoveries made. One thing to remember is that the LHC was built to run experiments. So more than discovering something (like the Hubble finding a new galaxy/star) the LCH allows physicist to check their theories.",
"Besides what's already been mentioned, also think of all the equipment that was developed to even build the LHC.\n\nMany of these developments are making their way into industries. The detectors for example. They are now used in x-ray scanners that produce colored images. Medical imaging and non-destructive testing:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Different types of little things which make up or interact with the things which make up the things that allows us to be made in to things",
"The original purpose for the LHC was to discover the Higgs. The Higgs boson is an incredibly important particle to our understanding of particle physics, and without it, the standard model of particle physics has some pretty severe problems. The discovery of the Higgs at the LHC was a huge discovery and the most publicized.\n\nAnother pretty interesting discovery is that of the pentaquark. Basically, our understanding of the strong nuclear force told us that this type of particle should exist and the LHC has confirmed the existence of (multiple) pentaquarks. \n\nIt also contributes to our understanding of whether or not certain symmetries in our universe are violated. For example, according to the standard model, there are three particles (the electron, muon, and tau lepton) which should basically be identical in every way except their mass. This means that in certain processes, all three should be produced in equal amounts. However, the LHC has been noticing a tendency for some to be preferred over others (it isn't statistically significant yet, but there definitely appears to be a trend). This would be an important indication of new physics. \n\nThe LHC also has the capability of discovering dark matter, depending on the behavior of dark matter. \n\nSo in short, the LHC has been an incredibly important too in both confirming and pushing the boundaries of our understanding of the natural world.",
"Harry Cliff did a really interesting, informative and accessible talk on the LHC at the Royal Institution. It has sort of a dummies guide to particle physics. _URL_0_ I highly recommend it.",
"Not really an answer, but I got to tour the Atlas Detector last summer and I brought my big B & W film camera (shoots 6x7cm negatives). [Here's a print](_URL_0_), it was cool to be standing in front of one of the most advanced, modern things on earth and shoot it with a 1970's camera. Such an awesome day!",
"Physicists at the LHC have had the privilege of being able to explore the properties of nature at higher energies than ever before, and they did indeed find something profound: *nothing new*. \n\nIt's perhaps the one thing that no one predicted 30 years ago when the LHC was first conceived. The collisions have so far conjured up no particles at all beyond those catalogued in the standard model of particle physics. \n\nNo particles that could comprise dark matter, no siblings or cousins of the Higgs boson, no sign of extra dimensions, no leptoquarks - and above all, none of the [desperately sought supersymmetry particles](_URL_1_) that would round out equations and satisfy \"naturalness\", a deep principle about how the laws of nature ought to work. \n\nThe lack of new physics keeps deepening the crisis that started in 2012 during the LHC’s first run, when it became clear that its 8-TeV collisions would not generate any new physics beyond the Standard Model. (The Higgs boson was the Standard Model’s final puzzle piece, rather than an extension of it.) \n\nA white-knight particle could still show up as statistics accrue over a longer time scale, subtle surprises in the behavior of the known particles could indirectly hint at new physics. But theorists are increasingly bracing themselves for their “nightmare scenario,” in which the LHC offers no path at all toward a more complete theory of nature. \n\nQuanta Magazine has been following and writing on this crisis that more and more physicists are realizing they're facing: \n\n[A Fight for the Soul of Science](_URL_0_) \n[What No New Particles Means for Physics](_URL_2_) (recommend this one)",
"In the medical field, they use smaller versions of particle accelerators to create 'markers' for identifying certain cancerous cells that can later be targeted for treatments.",
"Dammit! Why am I always late to posts that I can actually answer?!",
" \n\n## What are the main achievements of the LHC so far?\n\n* **10 September 2008**: LHC first beam (see [press release](_URL_8_)) \n \n* **23 November 2009**: LHC first collisions (see [press release](_URL_0_)) \n \n* **30 November 2009**: world record with beam energy of 1.18 TeV (see [press release](_URL_17_)) \n \n* **16 December 2009**: world record with collisions at 2.36 TeV and significant quantities of data recorded (see [press release](_URL_7_)) \n \n* **March 2010**: first beams at 3.5 TeV (19 March) and first high energy collisions at 7 TeV (30 March) (see [press release](_URL_12_)) \n \n* **8 November 2010**: LHC first lead-ion beams (see [press release](_URL_9_)) \n \n* **22 April 2011**: LHC sets new world record beam intensity (see [press release](_URL_2_)) \n \n* **5 April 2012**: First collisions at 8 TeV (see [press release](_URL_1_)) \n \n* **4 July 2012:** Announcement of the discovery of a Higgs-like particle at CERN (see [press release](_URL_11_))***For more information about the Higgs boson:*** \n[*The Higgs boson*](_URL_6_) \n[*CERN and the Higgs boson*](_URL_13_) \n[*The Basics of the Higgs boson*](_URL_10_) \n[*How standard is the Higgs boson discovered in 2012?*](_URL_15_) \n[*Higgs update 4 July*](_URL_14_) \n \n* **28 September 2012**: [Tweet](_URL_5_) from CERN: \"*The LHC has reached its target for 2012 by delivering 15 fb-1 (around a million billion collisions) to ATLAS and CMS* \" \n \n* **14 February 2013**: At 7.24 a.m, the last beams for physics were absorbed into the LHC, marking the end of Run 1 and the beginning of the Long Shutdown 1 (see [press release](_URL_4_)) \n \n* **8 October 2013**: Physics Nobel prize to François Englert and Peter Higgs *“for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider*” (see [press release](_URL_3_))\n\nSee [LHC Milestones](_URL_16_).",
"I'm certain it has made discoveries. But the biggest thing it has done is confirm hypotheses predicted by advanced quantum mechanics. Thus, it has pushed the validity of quantum mechanics further. A very big deal, really",
"One of the thing the LHC was build to discover is the [Higgs boson](_URL_0_). At the time of the construction of the LHC, the scientists imagined the Higgs boson to exist, but never saw it and could not be certain it existed.\nThe LHC was able to prove the Higgs boson exist and helped answered a ton of questions in for scientists while also creating new questions for us to answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medipix"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edvdzh9Pggg"
],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/SSbVE2J.jpg"
],
[
"https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science-20151216/",
"https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-future-of-supersymmetry-20121120/",
"https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-no-new-particles-means-for-physics-20160809/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2009/11/two-circulating-beams-bring-first-collisions-lhc",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2012/04/lhc-physics-data-taking-gets-underway-new-record-collision-energy-8tev",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2011/04/lhc-sets-world-record-beam-intensity",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cern-congratulates-francois-englert-and-peter-w-higgs-award-2013-nobel-prize",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/02/first-three-year-lhc-running-period-reaches-conclusion",
"https://twitter.com/CERN/status/251621776390488064",
"https://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/higgs-boson",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2009/12/lhc-ends-2009-run-high-note",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2008/09/first-beam-lhc-accelerating-science",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2010/11/cern-completes-transition-lead-ion-running-lhc",
"http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/05/basics-higgs-boson",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2012/07/cern-experiments-observe-particle-consistent-long-sought-higgs-boson",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2010/03/lhc-research-programme-gets-underway",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/sites/press.web.cern.ch/files/file/old/factsheet-_cern_and_the_higgs_boson.pdf",
"https://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/higgs-update-4-july",
"http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/11/how-standard-higgs-boson-discovered-2012",
"http://lhc-milestones-archive.web.cern.ch/lhc-milestones-archive",
"http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2009/11/lhc-sets-new-world-record"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson"
]
] |
||
2qtf5b
|
how come it's always night on moon and you can see the space as it is?
|
I mean,we have night and day,we have the stars at night,but why it's always dark on moon.And it's like earth on Mars.Compare these pics to understand me correctly.
_URL_0_
_URL_1_
UPD:Thanks guys,after your answers I realised that was a stupid thing to not know about it :D
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qtf5b/eli5how_come_its_always_night_on_moon_and_you_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn9bed4",
"cn9bffu",
"cn9bgas",
"cn9bhna"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The colour of the sky is caused by sunlight light bouncing around within the atmosphere. At night, on earth, there's no sunlight so it appears black.\n\nOn the moon there's no atmosphere, so whether or not there's any sunlight, it still appears black.",
"Earth has an atmosphere of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gas and this air scatters blue light. Likewise, Mars' atmosphere scatters different wavelengths of light because of the gases it contains, giving it a different hue. \n\nThe moon has basically [no atmosphere,](_URL_0_) so there's no gas to scatter any light.",
"If the Earth didn't have an atmosphere, we too would have a black sky at daytime (also we wouldn't be able to breath, so that would be bad :P). The air scatters some if the light from the sun, making it seem to glow blue.",
"the moon has night and day just like us. light is whereever the sun shines. and the moon rotates just like the earth. now the moon doesn't have any atmosphere like the earth does so they don't have any reflections of light. The earth's atmosphere sort of breaks up the waves of color in a similar fashion as a prism. But blue being the shortest wavelength is actually the easiest color to see in the sky. The moon doesn't have any of that in the sky it's basically moon surface and space. so you see only the darkness of space as you look out from the moon"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/KaSOH8Q",
"http://imgur.com/mANQvJX"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1tid9j
|
Oil and natural gas come from decomposing ancient life. But how did these substances get so far beneath the surface of the Earth?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1tid9j/oil_and_natural_gas_come_from_decomposing_ancient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce8btzx"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"They get buried. Sediments get deposited on top of them, from processes such as sand dunes, rivers, volcanic eruptions, ocean deposits, and such.\n\nOnce you pile a bunch of sediments over a landscape, the landscape sinks from the weight, which often allows for more sediments to be piled on top. Nearby continents (or volcanoes or mountain ranges) are often long-term supplies of material that can be eroded/erupted and layered on offshore ocean floors or on top of surrounding landscapes. \n\nSedimentary layers can be many kilometers thick if left to accumulate over long enough time spans, so any organic material that is deposited within those layers has a chance of being buried deep enough to form oil or natural gas deposits (although the vast majority of oil and natural gas deposits come from marine deposits, and so are at least initially buried by marine sediments)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8g9uxs
|
Do fingerprints change as you age? For instance if your fingerprinted at 5 years old will it have any similarity to your fingerprints at 20?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8g9uxs/do_fingerprints_change_as_you_age_for_instance_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy9zhwd"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"The pattern won't change. You can get a scar that would show up on newer prints that wouldn't show up on older prints. It shouldn't affect identification of a print.\n\nYou can still ID the prints by matching loops, whirls, and arches."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3d7nhh
|
why is it safe to put some chemicals like hydrogen peroxide on open wounds, but not to ingest them?
|
Seems like putting it on an open cut would be pretty direct to your bloodstream.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d7nhh/eli5_why_is_it_safe_to_put_some_chemicals_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct2kvg9",
"ct2lot7"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not just about getting into your blood, it also has to do with the way it's broken down in your body, and what it comes in contact with along the way. That said, most things that would be poisonous to rub on a wound are also poisonous to ingest.\n\nHydrogen peroxide at the concentrations you'd use on a cut is actually pretty harmless if ingested, too. It'll jack up your stomach, but that's about it. At the end of the day, though, the dose makes the poison (repeat that about a thousand times a day and maybe you'll ward off the crazy people like Vani Hari). If you ingest enough hydrogen peroxide, yeah, it'll still kill you. But it would be a *lot* more than you'd be exposed to just pouring on a cut. And if the concentration were high enough, it would kill you to drink it pretty quick, but at those concentrations it'll burn the shit out of your skin, too.\n\nAnother example would be, say, urushiol, which is the chemical on poison ivy that makes you itch. If it gets on your skin, you itch, it sucks, probably won't kill you unless something weird happens. But if you swallow it, it's exceedingly dangerous, but not because it gets in your blood. It hits your esophagus and causes it to itch and burn (just like your arm), and swell. Which can lead to suffocating! Or if you *burn* poison ivy (which you should never never never do) the urushiol gets into your **lungs**...and then the itching and swelling, and super bad things happen to your very delicate lungs.\n\nThen there's snake venom: will kill the shit out of you if you get it [in your blood](_URL_0_), but it's actually mostly harmless to ingest. Mind, if your esophagus is cut, the venom can enter your blood stream that way, but if it gets into your stomach, your acid breaks it down so it can't actually hurt you.\n\nThere are some chemicals (that I can't think of at the moment) that affect your stomach acid chemistry, which can kill you. There are even some that kill you WITH your stomach acid by destroying your stomach lining so your own acid hurts your stomach.\n\nSo that's the long version. The short version is: everything is made of chemicals, different chemicals interact differently. Some things are only poisonous in large amounts that you won't get from a cut, or only kill you when interacting with your stomach.",
"I was under the impression that hydrogen peroxide is no longer recommended for open wounds because it delays the healing process.\n\nRegardless, ingestion and topical use are different. Getting into the blood stream from a cut on the surface is much more difficult than going through your stomach and intestines."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CQKLiwQCIs"
],
[]
] |
|
5ogozs
|
how is seo used to generate high website traffic?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ogozs/eli5_how_is_seo_used_to_generate_high_website/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcj6lva",
"dcjbwyh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically makes your website show up better in search engines. Let's say you search for Socks on Google, the websites with better SEO are going to be showing higher up over websites with worst SEO",
"SEO is a complex topic, so bare with me.\n\n* Who is your audience, professors and business or students too lazy to write their own stuff? You need to address that on your site because there may be legal issues you need to deal with that affect your Google ranking. Google isn't likely to put you at the top if your audience is students.\n\n* 50% of your visits are wasted visits, people with just enough interest to visit but not enough to stay more than a few seconds because they ran across your site in the process of some higher priority activity. Thus, the Pareto Principle applies, where 20% of your visitors generate 80% of your repeat traffic. So focus on who that audience is.\n\n* The first visit is likely going to be short and visited again a bit longer if their original impression was good. Keep in mind that the most important statements you make must appear at the top within the window of a horizontal laptop screen.\n\n* SEO is all about getting Google to crawl (scan) your site regularly for changes in content, new pages, edits, updates. The more it crawls your site the better you grow in search. \n\n* Being number one in search is not what it is all about. My stats showed I got more visits being number 112 than being number 1. However, being number 112 got me a lot of visits which contain some low quality visitors, while I got a smaller volume of higher-quality visitors being number 1 who will be repeat visitors. So listed as \"map of Stanley's finding Dr. Livingstone expedition\" got me positioned at 112 and lots of visitors, but \"interactive map of Stanley's finding Dr. Livingstone expedition\" got me number 1 and a hand full of high quality visitors.\n\n* SEO involves having high-quality links to your site from articles, associations, government, universities and social media. And you need links within your site to them. So place links in comments you make on other sites, create Facebook, Google+ and Pinterest pages that link to your site.\n\n* SEO is a changing environment, thus your site must be able to be seen on laptops as well on smart phones. One is not necessarily compatible with the other. One works well with a side bar directory, the other doesn't. \n\n* You need to establish both a Google Analytics account and a WebMaster Tools account. Use the WebMaster Tools account to submit your site map to Google and submit individual URLs as well.\n\n* Category directories and subdirectories will help with your page count and make it easier for Google to understand the content."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1c2m65
|
what is i and how does i^2 = -1?
|
i^2 = -1? How can the square of anything be -1?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c2m65/what_is_i_and_how_does_i2_1/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9ceil3",
"c9ceosm",
"c9cg2ft"
],
"score": [
3,
18,
7
],
"text": [
" > How can anything be the square root of -1?\n\nExactly. *i* is a mathematical representation of this concept. This is all just logical mathematics. *i* is for imaginary, and we are imagining some type of value that can be the square root of a negative integer.\n\nSo we say that the square root of -1 is this imaginary value we call *i*, because some math equations need *something* in order to be a placeholder for this concept. Therefore i^2 = -1. It's all rather arbitrary.",
"Why is i^2 = -1? Because that is exactly how we define i!\n\nYour second question is more interesting. When your start working with squares, it isn't long before you realize that the square of any number is always a positive number. The question that follows is, then what happens when you take the square root of a negative number?\n\nWell nothing happens, the square root of a negative number just doesn't exist. Then some old random greek dude said, imagine, there is some number i whose square is -1..\n\nNow suddenly we have a way to express the square root of every negative number! square root of -25 is 5i . It turns out that the ability to express the square roots of negative numbers has very useful applications in engineering so we adopted i and kept it.\n\nBut it still remains that i has no clear significance when counting. for instance if I had i apples, what does it even mean?! For a long time, it was considered quite pointless and hence the name imaginary numbers as opposed to the other *real* numbers.",
"[A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/"
]
] |
|
tm013
|
What is the latest advancement/update that has been made on a 'Unified Field Theory' in physics? ie. The 'Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything'?
|
I just saw the episode of 'Through The Wormhole' where they discussed the prepints for a unified theory that could explain 'god' or 'creation' through pure universal science. ( or something like that! Please forgive me, I'm no physics major! haha)
Is the 'An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything' still in its workings?
What other great strides have been made in this area of a unified field theory?
...Oh how I regret becoming an Arts student!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tm013/what_is_the_latest_advancementupdate_that_has/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4nrbor"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It didn't really pan out; there are certain irreconcilable differences between it and the standard model that it tries to extend. Ultimately this theory made very little noise in the high energy physics community but a disproportionately large noise among science journalists, who jumped on the story without concern for the underlying science.\n\nIn terms of \"theories of everything\" developed by single people, the most notable one in recent years is called Horava-Lifschitz gravity, which has made a big splash in the physics community but no journalist has ever written about it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2zsvdf
|
why do girls generally find it harder to achieve an orgasm despite having way more nerve ending than men in their privates?
|
I'm basing this on the fact that men generally find it harder to give their girls an orgasm as compared to women giving their guys an orgasm!
EDIT: Thanks for all the input. I understood a lot more than i originally had about the subject!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zsvdf/eli5_why_do_girls_generally_find_it_harder_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cplyvnl",
"cplzn1m",
"cpm5sdk",
"cpm6fzd",
"cpm7mkc",
"cpm9n92",
"cpmaw9f",
"cpme4fm",
"cpmgauu",
"cpmgym8",
"cpmh2pv",
"cpmhi30",
"cpmhrwl",
"cpmhx3q",
"cpmi5uj",
"cpmjf80",
"cpmmmxt",
"cpmnirq",
"cpmq4j9",
"cpmrydc",
"cpmryfn",
"cpms5wj",
"cpmsb9e"
],
"score": [
31,
489,
8,
21,
16,
12,
12,
24,
5,
2,
13,
2,
6,
10,
5,
4,
21,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Female orgasms aren't necessary for reproduction. The man has to ejaculate sperm through an orgasm. The women doesn't have to ejaculate anything.",
"It is hard to say exactly. They are still doing research into this. What we can say though, that when it comes to women having orgasms, there is a significant different between women of different orientations that we do not see in men. (heterosexual women 61.6%, lesbian women 74.7%, bisexual women 58.0%)\n\nThis seems to indicate to me that while there is probably a biological reason as well (even the higher orgasm rate among women is lower than the lowest orgasm rate among men - 74,7% vs 77,6% for bisexual men), there is probably also a very huge social component. Honestly, it may just come down to there being a lot of ignorance about female sexual pleasure. It is not something we pay attention to in sex-ed. In a lot of places, the clitoris is not even mentioned in diagrams. And when that is the main source of a woman's sexual pleasure, well... yeah. It seems to me that when it comes to heterosexual couples, there is either less of a focus on the sex acts that make it most likely for a woman to orgasm, there is less experience in performing these sex acts, or women feel less comfortable with asking for what they actually want which may be a result of certain sexual attitudes where women who are too vocal about what they want from sex are labelled as sluts.\n\nThough as for the biological reasons why women may orgasm less, you have to keep in mind that women are far more likely to be on drugs that diminish sexual libido / pleasure namely anti-depressants (which women are two and a half times more likely to be on compared to men) and hormonal birth control. Those may also play a role in all of this.\n\n\n[Source for the orgasm rates] (_URL_0_)",
"It would be like guys trying to orgasm with their dick glued to their balls, and not touching the upper part of the shaft. They'd be limited to prostate stimulation and the tips of their dicks. How many dudes would be able to get off then? A lot but not all, and with greater difficulty. Super rough analogy though, and doesn't explain the extra nerve endings in the clitoris.\n\nIf men didn't have orgasms easily, they would not be able to reproduce. If women don't, babies will still happen. But then again, why did men (or women, or any species for that matter) evolve orgasm in the first place? I don't know what's going on with evolutionary biology these days, so I wouldn't know exactly how it fits into this. \n\n",
"The simple answer is that (generally) in men, action A (repetative in and out penetration) will lead to orgasm; in women, action B (clitoral stimulation) will lead to orgasm. If a male and a female complete action A, the mechanism for orgasm is (again, generally) only fulfilled for the male. Similarly, if a male and female complete action B, the mechanism for orgasm will only be completed for the female. \n\nTL;DR: men and women have different O buttons. Which one you push affects the outcome.",
"When my SO and I had sex for the first time she experienced the first orgasm she ever had. She had been with a few other guys before me. I am not anything special in bed and I'm average size. When we discussed it she said the guys she had been with before had both smaller and larger size than myself with similar technique and duration. The only difference was that she felt that she loved me and had not had the same feelings for the other guys. My conclusion is that at least for my SO, her emotions and thought processes dictated or at least influenced her ability to orgasm. It may not be that case for everyone but I do believe that what is going on in a woman's mind can effect orgasm or ability to orgasm. Men are not as influenced as women by this although it can happen for some or at certain times. ",
"Three main reasons:\n\n- problems with physical arousal (physiological response - lack of blood flow to genitals, lack of lubrication, poor nerve response etc. all of which can be scientifically tested in labs)\n- problems with psychological arousal (sociological impacts, shame, trauma, embarrassment, etc. all of which is subjective but quantifiable through incidence analysis)\n- problems with sexual pain (pelvic floor contractions, too small or tight vagina, physical deformity, etc. all of which is scientifically definable via examination.)\n\nThese are the three main reasons that women have a hard time cumming. Then there's the huge, obvious answer that vaginal penetration doesn't directly stimulate the clitoris, which is invariably a woman's O button. You don't push the button properly, you don't get the O. Simple.",
"Social conditioning and perpetual embarrassment centered around \"You shouldn't be allowed to enjoy that.\"\n\nUnder proper stimulation, I doubt there is any vagina that will not pulsate under the proper sustained stimulation just as there are few penises that won't ejaculate under proper stimulation.\n\nAiming for just one part, may largely play a role here, imagine trying to make yourself ejaculate just from testicle or nipple play. Like, it CAN be done, but you're pushing the stone up the hill by doing it the hard way...the best contact is penis fully submerged, clitoral rub against the male frontal hip wall, essentially replicating what the Sybian does...it hits all points at once, BUT you had both best be a little grow out or completely bare or it's a prickly sandpaper of death!",
"Well I noticed something. \n\nWank it while not touching your head. See how long you last.\n\nWhile your having sex you're only rubbing her shaft. I never seem to have an issue finishing my girlfriend off when she's also touching her clit.",
"Female here, I use to work as a sexual health worker for a youth walk-in clinic. \nThe short answer is most young girls are told that pleasuring them selves and having sex in general it's only thing that BAD girls do. \nFrom the time that a boy has a penis he plays with him self there is scientific evidence showing a male in the womb touching him self. \nAs we get older it does not get better most men don't spending much time making a girl cum, it's mostly all about getting to the penetration. \nAnd trust me 87% most woman will never cum that way! \nIt's hard for a girl to relax its best to talk to your partner, do not use your girls privet parts like a video game controller. \n",
"Not sure if it has been said or not but one theory I have seen is that evolutionarily speaking it is beneficial for the male to orgasm first. If the female were to orgasm first before the male than that would be the end of sex without fertilization. Versus the male orgasming and that be the end with fertilization. Just a theory I saw. ",
"In the book \"Sex at Dawn,\" by Ryan and Jetha, the authors claim that humans evolved in small polyamorous nomadic communities. They see longer orgasm times for women and the ability to have repeated orgasms as partial evidence that women are designed to have sex with more than one man in a session. They also see the fact that women are inclined to make noises (\"female copulatory vocalizations\") as evidence that everyone in the tribe is supposed to be \"in on it\" when the woman is having sex. \nRyan and Jetha's story about why this behavior would have been selected for is that when it was not understood that only one man could be the father of a baby, it was both possible and in the best interest of the child for there to be lots of men who regarded themselves as fathers of all the children in their small nomadic tribe. In nomadic groups, all resources are expected to be shared and there is no ability for people to hoard private property and that extended to sexual partners.",
"From my understanding one possible place to look at could be that quantity =/= quality, or in this case quantity of nerves =/= more orgasms. Maybe there is a diffrence between sensory neurons in that area that we haven't noticed yet, although I would say that most scientist have already thought of that.\n\nThere is also the fact that a penis \"has more to work with\" than a clit, but I'm not qualified to be the judge on that. You might find research on this if you are really interested.\n\nThere is also unfair social aspects (from which both genders suffer from, keep in mind) such as \"men jerk off because men are gross, but girls don't because girls are clean and neat.\" which makes it harder for women to understand what works for them. This is probably the larger aspect, as women do face a lot more flak for exposing their sexuality than men do. \n\nFor example, I had a discussion with a friend of mine and this subject came up, so I was trying to see her opinion on masturbation. long story short: she basically said sex/masturbation is gross and its \"just like men\" to do these things.",
"A lot of young women don't even know what a clit is. I didn't find out until I was eighteen. I finally achieved my first orgasm at 19ish. I didn't understand that I had to think of something that turned me on in order to orgasm. It took a good year of focussed masturbation to get to that point. And hell, I didn't even grow up in a conservative community.\n\nAs an adult I've noticed that most women are really embarrassed about talking about masturbation and orgasm. Guys joke about it like it's nothing, but trying to get women to talk about it is almost impossible. \n\nI will say that in my sex life I'm mostly disinterested in achieving orgasm. It's nice but not a must. I derive most of my pleasure through doing stuff to my partner, especially teasing/pain, haha. If I wanted an orgasm I'd just masturbate. I don't know if this is a common view, though. For me it's like... once I come the fun is over. I don't get multiple orgasms... I come like a guy, haha, once and it's done and I want to roll over and sleep.",
"For most women, the amygdala (fear center of the brain) has to be turned off before we can achieve orgasm, although some women will achieve one by just pure stimulation, usually around 45 minutes when done improperly but the buildup happens anyway. \n\nEdit :grammar ",
"Fingering - meh, ok\n\n\nLicking - aight cool\n\n\nFinger + lick = you're getting somewhere \n\n\nVibrator - holy fuck yes. Multiple orgasms achieved, no joke. ",
"you're so close, but yet still so far off.\n\nYes, it's about nerve endings, but more importantly the location of those nerve endings. for females, its in the external genitalia. males typically focus their attention on female internal genitalia. there's the rub.",
"I spend a decent amount of time during sex thinking about how I look to him. I think it's called \"spectating\" and it's fairly common. Do I look fat when I do that? Am I doing enough? Is he having a good time? It makes it pretty hard to focus on how things feel when I'm constantly thinking about how my boobs and stomach look.",
"Ask a woman. Ask a married woman in her late thirties. You will know all you could ever want to know.",
"Female orgasms are not a biological imperative. ",
"I find, through my various sexual exploits, that although physical stimulation is considered the most apt at telling us what feels good. It is not always what causes orgasm. For women I believe the experience is less about who has more nerve endings where but what lies inside their head as this physical stimulation happens. I stand firm in my belief that the most powerful sex organ is not the clitoris or the head but rather our brains.",
"I know for me it is almost all psychological. If I'm upset about something that happened with my partner it takes a lot longer than normal because I can't get over it in my head until I'm ready. Its weird but true.",
"Women are way more emotional. I stopped counting after bedding about 30 women by the time I was 30, so I have a fair amount of experience. I rarely did any one night stands and had very good communication with most of the women.\n\nAnyway, long story short, some women are very orgasmic at the drop of a hat. They are usually very sexual and have a lot of partners. Other women have a hard time having an orgasm. Most of the women I've been with who didn't come very often didn't really masturbate too much. First they need to be comfortable with their own bodies, then they need to feel \"safe\" with you. Basically they are \"in their heads\" preventing themselves from being too comfortable and actually releasing. With one of my early girlfriends from the goth/industrial clubs, it was literally like she was holding her breath and \"letting it out\" when she came.\n\nConfident women are more likely to come. Seriously abused women are much less likely to come, but they are more likely to fake it. Those kind of girls seem to think that sex is some kind of performance, and they are doing it \"for you\" because they don't have enough self-respect to realize that they are just as deserving of feeling good as you are.\n\nAnd VERY few women I have ever been with will come the first time just from intercourse. I will usually spend up to about 45 minutes massaging them/going down on them before intercourse. [which for me only lasts about 20 minutes usually]. \n\nThe bottom line/TLDR is that if you make them feel comfortable and safe [which has way more to do with how you treat them and how they feel emotionally] they are much easier to get off. If they don't feel safe, their emotions get in the way of their enjoyment.\n\nFor further research, I recommend looking for videos on the \"hour long orgasm\". I have never had a girl break up with me after learning that method.",
"Because most men don't know what the hell they're doing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12669/abstract"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f0zitw
|
how can millionaire/billionaires have more influence on a presidential candidate than other donors that donate the same amount, if the maximum contribution is $2,800?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f0zitw/eli5_how_can_millionairebillionaires_have_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fh0hkm5",
"fh0qmqs"
],
"score": [
13,
6
],
"text": [
"There are limits, but they can contribute to multiple different groups (candidates, PACs, parties) with different limits. And they can host fundraisers which can generate large amount of donations. Or use their corporations to also donate.",
"Because the $2,800 limit only applies to donations directly to the candidate's campaign. They can donate *unlimited* amounts of money to super PACS that support the candidates. So, for example, Bill Gates can only give $2,800 directly to candidate X, but he can give $280 million to a super PAC that can spend as much money as it wants to benefit candidate X."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5f0pz1
|
what is a tupperware party? is it just women comparing their food containers? is it an euphemism for something nsfw?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f0pz1/eli5_what_is_a_tupperware_party_is_it_just_women/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dagjuye",
"dagtkob",
"dah0d2h"
],
"score": [
28,
19,
2
],
"text": [
" > Is it just women comparing their food containers?\n\nNo, it's people *buying* food containers. [In-home demonstrations](_URL_0_) are the main avenue for selling Tupperware-brand containers in most countries.",
"Is there a reason why you didn't just trust the google results?\n\nTupperware parties were a reason for women to get together, drink wine, eat appetizers, and gossip in the living room. You got some shopping for the house or the holidays done and the hostess of the party got a discount on her purchases depending on how much Tupperware was sold during the party. The representative doing the selling got a good commission and could recruit others to sell or throw their own parties, increasing their cut. The same still applies to stamping parties, makeup parties, natural cleaning product parties, etc.",
"It is a marketing technique.\n\nTupperware distributors throw parties for their friends and acquaintances, to demonstrate and sell the latest and greatest Tupperware products.\n\nNot all of them are women."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupperware#Tupperware_parties"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
40zozr
|
when moving something back and forth quickly, why can the object be seen in every position at once?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40zozr/eli5_when_moving_something_back_and_forth_quickly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyyed3k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your eyes refresh at a pretty constant rate and when your brain processes each image it keeps some of the information from the previous image or images that it saw. So if something is moving fast enough then your brain will retain some information of where it was before, creating the illusion that its in more than one place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2rut9h
|
Accuracy of 'Romance of The Three Kingdoms'
|
Most of how I envision life in ancient China to be is mostly influenced by Wuxia serials and the few Chinese classics such as Water Margin, Journey to the West and The Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
Out of all them, I feel The Romance of the Three Kingdoms is one of, if not the most, popular source of information a layman might have about 170-280 medieval China. Considering that the writer, Luo Guanzhong wrote said novel almost a thousand years later, how accurate is his portrayal of the times?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rut9h/accuracy_of_romance_of_the_three_kingdoms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnjhdi8",
"cnjlr0n"
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text": [
"Note that the Romance of the Three Kingdom is different from simply Three Kingdoms. Luo's portrayal of the time period and accuracy of important events are right on the spot - it's other aspects of the novel that deserves the attention.\n\nEasily the first thing you would spot is the author's bias in favour of Shu Han. I have mainly criticized the novel based on his favouritism, and not of historical accuracy, but there are things that are contested. For example, Guanyu's weapon the guandao wasn't invented during his time. In more accurate texts, Guanyu is described to have kill his opponents by 'piercing', which is a word attributed to halberds or spears. Halberds are more common among generals during the Late Han-Three Kingdoms. He also made up a significant amount of fictional characters that doesn't have any historical backgrounds. The obvious one is Diao Chan. Some of the personalities attributed to certain figures were completely skewered for Luo's own purposes. Such one would be Zhang Fei. In fact, the historical Zhang Fei came from a prestigious background. He was well educated and a brilliant thinker and is also an artist. He authored a piece of art depicting a peach garden which inspired Luo to come up with 'the oath of the brotherhood in the Peach Garden' although in reality the brotherhood was only shared between Guanyu and Zhang Fei. Luo was however correct about Zhang Fei's ill-temper. Many other more problems but I don't think this is what you're mainly asking for.\n\nI fail to recognize any inaccuracy in terms of time and significant events.\n\nSpeaking of Water Margins, the first 36 characters were indeed inspired by people who may have existed, bu the following 72 are completely made up and never existed. Water Margin has no background context to support its story other than general facts, such as Song fighting against other rebellious states and that the government was highly corrupted. The novel was in fact authored by two persons - Shi Nai An and his student, well again, Luo Guanzhong. Shi wrote up to the amnesty of the bandits, and from then Luo wrote the rest.\n\nI understand that these are huge influences of the Chinese culture, but its portrayal are far from accurate. Let's not get into the Wuxia genre or Monkey King.",
"I'm sure you're aware of the adage regarding ROTK, in that it's 2/3 history, 1/3 fiction. As a segue, I notice that the Chinese seem to love that formulation because that's how they characterize Mao, as 2/3 good, 1/3 bad.\n\nThat said, there are definitely a ton of small anachronisms in Luo's version with what's known of the history at the time. I remember raising an eyebrow when I saw a mention of a character who was a \"failed examination\" candidate. The examination system, which was so prevalent in Ming times, got its start in the Tang Dynasty (though restricted to the aristocratic families) and really took off as we know it in the Song Dynasty.\n\nBut with that said, I don't know think that Romance (or even Records) of the Three Kingdoms is \"that\" accurate if you want to take a deeper historiographical look, rather than taking even Chen Shou (author of Records) at face value. The events as recorded in the chronicle likely happened, but its the meaning (always the meaning) of those events as interpreted by Chen Shou and later historians that is subject to scrutiny.\n\nIf you want the best history we have so far on the subject, check out this article written by noted post-Han scholar Rafe de Crispigny, which is luckily available for free on the internet.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThis was originally written for what was supposed to be the Cambridge History of China vol 2., covering the post-han pre-sui years, but for some odd reason, that book has still not been released.\n\nIt's a bit more thorough, and leaves as many blanks as it fills, but it'll give you a better grasp of what historians, as opposed to romanticists (of which you have to be careful of with regards to mainland Chinese scholarship) actually think of this era.\n\nHis section dissecting \"what really happened\" at Red Cliffs is fascinating, and worth the price of the read alone. If you want the tl;dr version, basically Cao Cao was defeated at Red Cliffs in what might have been a far smaller skirmish. Over time, the contemporary chroniclers played it up in order to suit their politics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/html/1885/42048/3KWJin.html"
]
] |
|
ar8pg1
|
why does liquid cough medicine work better than the pill form with the same ingredients? once they start doing their thing shouldn't they, well, do the same thing?
|
My husband has always insisted on LIQUID Robitussin when he has a cold/cough. He absolutely refuses to take the pill form of these drugs, and every time I offer I get a lecture about how the pills "don't work for shit".
I've always just gone with it and gotten him whatever liquid cold/cough meds he requests..... It's far easier than having a debate with someone who isn't feeling their best. We have liquid for him, I keep the pill versions on hand for when I need them. Compromise.
I got bronchitis this week, and, since I couldn't stop coughing long enough to get to the store for more meds I was stuck with his liquid versions. I'll be damned if the liquid Robitussin didn't calm things down enough that I could get actual sleep, fairly quickly and continued to help for several hours. Seems he's on to something, but why?
ELI5 TLDR: Liquid cough medicine helped when the pill form of same drug did not. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ar8pg1/eli5_why_does_liquid_cough_medicine_work_better/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eglglbo",
"eglgzv7",
"eglsatc"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Speed is one aspect, when you swallow pills you're waiting for your stomach to break them down then for them to be absorbed and start working. \n\nLiquids are able to be absorbed faster and also they will coat the throat on the way down.",
"Cough medication are usually in syrup form. When you take them, the syrup may have some local soothing effect on the throat, hence relieves the cough. The medication you mention also acts centrally, which basically means it tells the brain to stop coughing. On the other hand, if it is in pill form, it only acts centrally.",
"Placebo probably plays a large part. When I have a cold, I always have (generic) Lemsip drinks, rather than the pharmaceutically identical capsules, because it makes me *feel better*.\n\nPlacebo is a very real thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
94x89c
|
if water is a incompressible fluid why does pressure increase when going under water? wouldn’t the pressure stay the same since the density of the water doesn’t change?
|
Edit: an not a
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/94x89c/eli5_if_water_is_a_incompressible_fluid_why_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3og0oe",
"e3ogm7r",
"e3ogovb",
"e3ohpfb",
"e3ok8hf"
],
"score": [
4,
28,
20,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Maybe not an answer, but as you go deeper, the weight of the water above you is exerting the increased pressure. ",
"First of all, water *is* compressible. Just not very easily. For most purposes, we can think of it as being incompressible. So let's do that. \n \nThings work the opposite of what you are thinking. If the water was compressible, it would absorb the force (caused by its weight). That force would literally be used to overcome the repulsive forces between molecules. \n \nBut instead, that force doesn't get absorbed by the water molecules, and is instead passed on to everything in the water in the form of pressure. \n \nThink of it like this. You and a buddy are holding opposite ends of a long sponge. Your buddy pushes on the sponge. Do you feel much force? No, because the sponge just gets compressed instead. \n \nNow imagine that instead you and your buddy are holding opposite ends of a baseball bat. He pushes. Do you feel it? Yes, because the bat doesn't compress much. ",
"Bricks aren't compressible either. But it's a lot harder to carry a stack of 20 bricks than it is to carry a single brick.\n\nPressure is just a force over an area. Since the area (you) remains the same, increasing the force will increase the pressure. Since weight is a force, the more weight pressing against you, the more pressure.",
"Let's imagine you lay down on the ground. I put a bucket on your chest and start filling it with water. You will feel the weight of the water pushing down on your chest. That force/pressure of the water pushing down on you has nothing to do with the compressibility of the water and everything to do with its weight.\n\nIt's the same thing if you go diving, but the force is just spread out all the way across your body because you're completely surrounded by the water.",
" > If water is a incompressible fluid why does pressure increase when going under water? \n\n* The pressure comes from the weight of the water.\n\n* The weight comes from the mass of the water being effected by gravity.\n\n* The farther down you go the more water is above you pressing down. The more water, the more mass, and the more mass the more weight, and the more weight the more pressure. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
e8gu1k
|
. where is vegetable oil made of? i think it’s made from vegetables because of the name. but what vegetable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e8gu1k/eli5_where_is_vegetable_oil_made_of_i_think_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fabuv56",
"fabv3bw",
"fabv415",
"fac41ah"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Seeds like canola, sunflower, peanut, sesame, even corn and coconut . When plants store oils it's typically in the seeds, which is supposed to be fuel for the growing seedling. \n\nIf you take peanuts and crush them you can separate the oil pretty easily.",
"Canola oil made by pressing the oil out of rapeseed, corn oil is made by pressing the oil of dried corn, soybean oil is made by pressing the oil out of dry soybeans.\n\nVegetable oil is usually one of those three, or a mix of them, usually just whatever is cheaper the day they make it.",
"Your traditional super market \"Vegetable Oil\" is generally made from soybeans, meaning the vegetable oil you get in the store is actually soybean oil.\n\nThere are other \"vegetable oils\" but they usually go by their more specific name, like Olive oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, and so on. The generic one you get called \"Vegetable oil\" is soybean oil",
"The manufacturers use the name \"vegetable oil\" as a catch-all because it can refer to most of the cheap and neutral sources of oil - most often soybean, but also things like rapeseed or corn, depending on the brand. They're grouped together like that because they have a high smoke point and a fairly neutral flavor, making them great for frying and baking. There are other very neutral oils - like coconut oil, avocado oil, and plenty of others, but those are often sold separately at a higher price point due to other uses.\n\nA lot of the other oils we use - think olive oil, peanut oil, sesame oil, etc - have somewhat stronger flavors or lower smoke points, making them more useful for flavoring a dish, making a dressing to drizzle over food, or sometimes sautéing, but less desirable than plain, neutral vegetable oil."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ahk7zz
|
why did early color tv programming look so artificial like the color was added in later?
|
_URL_0_
This is from the early 1960s and President Kennedy's skin color looked unnatural, as everyone else's. To me, the quality is like early 1900s colorized pictures from National Geographic that was added later by hand.
Most of the JFK footage is black and white and there are some color films but they still look off
_URL_1_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahk7zz/eli5_why_did_early_color_tv_programming_look_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eefbxhk",
"eefdebp",
"eefguz7",
"eegrz1e"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Film ages, and with age, fades. I see it when I look at old still pictures of family from those days.",
"I believe that program was originally taped in monochrome, so the color must have been added for this documentary.",
"I'm not certain but I think it's due to the limitations of the technology of the era. \n\nHave you heard of Technicolor? basically they filmed a scene with 3 separate filters (Red, Green and Blue) and later combined the 3 reels to produce the colourised film. The quality of the final product depend a lot on the skills of the tech who made em. Check out this link on YT ([_URL_0_](_URL_1_))\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIMO, I like the less realistic colour of the older movies. Maybe it's cause I grew up with those, I dunno.",
"Technology changes. Early colour recordings where made with a different technology. The US TV System NTSC is jockingly known as a short for \"Not The Same Color\". PAL and SECAM works with a different technology and produced different results."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/GMWQnoDA0o8?t=46",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn0nJ2nG8VQ"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqaobr6w6\\_I",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqaobr6w6_I"
],
[]
] |
|
4ef695
|
how touch lamps work.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ef695/eli5_how_touch_lamps_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1zlm7s",
"d1zvbhb"
],
"score": [
10,
42
],
"text": [
"Have you ever touched the wire leading to an amplifier and heard the speaker make a loud buzz? That is because you pick up lots of electric noise from around you, and when you touch the plug, that noise is amplified and sent to the speakers.\n\nTouch lamps do the same thing! They have an input connected to the case of the lamp and amplify it. If it is loud enough, then the circuitry turns the lamp on.",
"It detects changes in capacitance, just like the touch screen on most cellphones.\n\nCapacitance is a fancy way of saying that since you and the lamp both contain electrons which can flow around free inside you but which don't transfer to the lamp, touching the lamp changes the amount of electrons that the lamp could hold. Since the lamp is connected to a source of electrons changes in capacitance cause electrons to flow in or out of the lamp when you touch it which triggers the electronic switch.\n\nAnything that has some capacitance can change the equation and trigger the switch again which is why you can turn on the lights by poking your cat if your cat is touching the lamp."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9szfwq
|
Was it legal for a husband in medieval England to kill his wife and/or children? What social consequences, if any, would a man face for committing such an act?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9szfwq/was_it_legal_for_a_husband_in_medieval_england_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8usith"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Cold-blooded murder was always illegal and carried with it legal punishment, from the earliest surviving medieval law code we have through the entirety of the medieval era. A person would be acquitted if the murder was found to be done in self-defence. One could also be found innocent on grounds of insanity and usually if the murder was ruled to have been committed by accident or through negligence. The legal concept of manslaughter developed quite a bit over the course of the medieval era, so as far as that goes, it really depends on what point in the Middle Ages you are considering.\n\nThe medieval period in England spanned around 1,000 years, and as one could expect, law codes and the legal system as a whole underwent significant changes and development over ten centuries. The consequences for being found guilty of murder were quite different in the early 7th century law code of King Æthelberht from those attendant to the laws which were in place when Henry Tudor (Henry VII) ascended the throne in the late 15th century.\n\nIn Æthelberht’s law code, a person would be fined a substantial amount of money, either 50 or 100 shillings, if found guilty of murder. Keep in mind, most day labourers were paid in what amounted to pennies per week. The law code uses the term ‘man’ (\"If a man slay another…\"), but ‘man’ is gender-neutral in Old English (see citation below of Anne Curzan’s book).\n\nUp to the 13th century, a man accused of murder could face trial by jury or trial by ordeal, the latter of which could very well kill him in the process. After the 13th century in England, trials were conducted by a jury of twelve men. Women were not permitted to be jurors. Depending on the jury’s sympathy, a man convicted of murder could face the death penalty. If a woman were to murder her husband, however, she would be tried not for ‘simple murder’ (as would a man accused of murdering his wife) but for ‘petty treason’ after the enactment of the Treason Act of 1351.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;\n\nCurzan, Anne (2003). *Gender Shifts in the History of English*. Cambridge University Press.\n\nOliver, Lisi. *The Laws of Æthelberht: A student edition*, Louisiana State University, at [_URL_1_](_URL_0_)\n\nBriggs, John (1996), *Crime and Punishment in England: An introductory history*, London: Palgrave Macmillan.\n\nBlackstone, William; Christian, Edward; Chitty, Joseph; Hovenden, John Eykyn; Ryland, Archer (1832). *Commentaries on the Laws of England*, vol. 2, (18th London ed.), New York: Collins and Hannay.\n\nGreen, Thomas A. (1976). *The Jury and the English Law of Homicide, 1200-1600*. University of Michigan Law School.\n\nGreen, Thomas A. (1972). *Societal Concepts of Criminal Liability for Homicide in Medieval England*. University of Michigan Law School.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEdit: grammar"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.oenewsletter.org/OEN/print.php/essays/oliver38_1/Array",
"http://www.oenewsletter.org/OEN/print.php/essays/oliver38\\_1/Array"
]
] |
||
ez63f
|
Water that doesn't affect your thirst
|
If you drink pure water, you're less thirsty. If you drink salt water, you're more thirsty. At some point in-between, it seems to me there must be a type of water with no effect on your thirst. Is there any particular biological significance to this particular salinity? Is this what saline solution you put in blood is?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ez63f/water_that_doesnt_affect_your_thirst/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1c36xk"
],
"score": [
58
],
"text": [
"That's exactly what the IV fluid is. If there is not enough salt, the water will go into your red blood cells via osmosis and cause them to swell, and eventually explode. If there is too much salt, the fluid will absorb all the water from your red blood cells and cause you to be more dehydrated. This is why drinking saltwater is not a good idea. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fydrs
|
Do hot ( > 36.6) drinking water provide calories to organism?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fydrs/do_hot_366_drinking_water_provide_calories_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1jkgua"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"If you drink water at a temperature approximate to your body's then you will not have to spend energy in thermal regulation to compensate for the drop you would have when drinking cooler water, but it's almost negligible. That's about it. In nutritional terms, water is void of any calories.\n\nDisregard Marsupial Mole and ihaveatoms."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
buvxjo
|
why are 144hz monitors more popular than 120hz?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/buvxjo/eli5_why_are_144hz_monitors_more_popular_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epid4uj",
"epig9pw",
"episfva"
],
"score": [
22,
47,
4
],
"text": [
"Good marketing. 144hz monitors introduce a hiccup when playing 30 and 60 FPS locked video or games if you don't modify the monitor settings every time. 120 is divisible by both, making it a smoother and more versatile experience with fewer adjustments. If all you do is play CSGO at minimum graphics settings in hopes you'll one day be pro, maybe 144hz is worth it, but for 99.999% of people, 120hz will provide a better experience",
"It's a mix of display connection limitations and marketing.\n\nBefore displayport and higher versions of HDMI, the display cable that could transfer the most data was Dual Link DVI. The initial 120 Hz refresh monitors were at 1080p resolution. 120 Hz made sense because it was double 60 Hz, the standard monitor refresh rate and divisible by 24, the movie frame rate.\n\nMonitor manufacturers wanted to distinguish their monitors so they pushed the limits of Dual Link DVI. It turns out 144 Hz at 1080p was close to the maximum supported data rate for the cable. So monitors came out with 144 Hz refresh rate and 144 > 120. The number kinda got stuck as the new threshold so most high refresh monitors set that as the standard.",
"Films are shot at 24 frames per second. You want to upscale in multiples of that. 120hz = 5x 144hz=6x. As to why is 144 more popular, higher frame rate = more good and the cost is usually comparable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4fvhe1
|
How did New Horizons get to Pluto?
|
By that, I mean what route did it take? Did it use a gravity assist here or there, or was it a straight shot?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4fvhe1/how_did_new_horizons_get_to_pluto/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2cl03t"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It had a gravity assist at Jupiter; see [this](_URL_0_).\n\nYou can see the trajectory [here](_URL_1_).\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/26feb_grandtheft/",
"http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Where-is-New-Horizons/index.php"
]
] |
|
ak9709
|
It's 1925 and money is no object for me, I want to travel between America and Europe what are my options?
|
What is the fastest way? What is the most luxurious? What would it cost and how would I go about booking the trip? Since it is international would I need a passport (we'll say I'm American) or visa?
& #x200B;
& #x200B;
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ak9709/its_1925_and_money_is_no_object_for_me_i_want_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef2psp8"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"You're pretty much limited to traveling by ship. Daring individuals have starting making transatlantic flights, but you're still three years away from the first east-west non-stop transatlantic crossing, and also three years away from the first regular transatlantic travel by commercial airships, which will enjoy a brief period of popularity before being replaced by commercial airliners. Ironically, the airship that would make the first commercial passenger flight, the Graf Zeppelin, would also be the one to arguably spell the end of luxury airship travel when it comes crashing to earth in a fireball in 1937. You won't really be able to take a cross-Atlantic trip on an aircraft (A seaplane) until around 1937, when Imperial Airways will start making regular scheduled flights. Having said this, if you are just spectacularly wealthy, you might be able to simply purchase one of the new flying boats, have it fitted with extra fuel tanks, and just about make it from the west coast of Canada to the closest parts of Ireland.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nYour only realistic way of getting to Europe from America, or vice versa, is sea travel. You're in luck, however, because you're still in the heyday of luxury cruises! The crossing will take you a few days, maybe a week, but you'll be crossing in style, with your own state room and attendants, or if you want to slum it for some reason, you can buy a ticket on the lower decks and just wait to get there. The Titanic went down horribly in 1912, but that's in the distant past now, so you don't really need to worry about that, and the War to End all Wars ended in 1918, so you don't need to worry about the fate of the poor Lusitania, who was torpedoed off Ireland in 1915. All in all, you're relatively safe, relatively certain to make it to your destination, and you'll be doing so in style.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI don't know much about passports at the time so someone else will have to answer that, but I hope this helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
kqxoe
|
why does my girlfriend's clit become super-sensitive after she has an orgasm?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kqxoe/eli5_why_does_my_girlfriends_clit_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2mhxb3",
"c2mic13",
"c2mijt9",
"c2mjpbn",
"c2mhxb3",
"c2mic13",
"c2mijt9",
"c2mjpbn"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
20,
2,
10,
3,
20,
2
],
"text": [
"This was unjustly downvoted. Maybe you should try /r/askscience?",
"Why is a five year old asking this?",
"Have you ever noticed how hyper sensitive your penis gets after orgasm? Same thing. ",
"This bothers me too, I've read everywhere that women unlike men can experience multiple orgasm and their arousal doesn't drastically fall post-climax; But it doesn't seem to be quite right, indeed.",
"This was unjustly downvoted. Maybe you should try /r/askscience?",
"Why is a five year old asking this?",
"Have you ever noticed how hyper sensitive your penis gets after orgasm? Same thing. ",
"This bothers me too, I've read everywhere that women unlike men can experience multiple orgasm and their arousal doesn't drastically fall post-climax; But it doesn't seem to be quite right, indeed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9k86gd
|
What kind of swimming techniques would people in the 17th and 18th century use?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9k86gd/what_kind_of_swimming_techniques_would_people_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6y8zom"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"European and Euro-American sources from the 16th-19th centuries, which here include travel accounts and treatises on how to swim, unanimously agree on several points: (a) they swim badly (b) the people of basically every other culture they encounter swim better (c) there is apparently no reason for the white people to go, *Huh, maybe we could learn a thing.*\n\nGeorge Catlin, who traveled the Upper Plains in the 1830s, distinguished Euro-American swimming style, at least of trained swimmers, from that of the Mandan (Numakaki or Nueta):\n\n > The mode of swimming amongst the Mandans, as well as amongst most \nof the other tribes, is quite different from that practiced in those parts of the \ncivilized world. The Indian, instead of parting his hands simultaneously under the chin, and making the stroke outward, in a horizontal direction...throws his body alternately upon the left and the right side, raising one arm entirely above the water and reaching as far forward as he can, to dip it...whilst \nthis arm is making a half circle [underwater], the opposite arm is describing a similar arch in the air over his head, to be dipped in the water as far as he can reach before him, with the hand turned under, forming a sort of bucket, to act most effectively as it passes in its turn underneath him. \n\n > *[Letters and Notes on the Manner, Customs, and Condition of the North American Indians](_URL_1_)*\n\nCatlin contrasts the European style of swimming, a rudimentary breaststroke, with what is a decent approximation of modern freestyle (forward crawl). At least, with respect to the arms. The form of kicking is not often described in travel accounts and letters, which is interesting.\n\nA similar distinction is noted by Portuguese and other European slavers and visitors to West Africa. French slave trade agent Jean Barbot in the 17th century described swimmers of the Gold Coast:\n\n > The Blacks of Mina [Elmina] out-do all others at the coast in dexterity of swimming, throwing one [arm] after another forward, as if they were paddling, and not extending their arms equally, and striking with them both together, as Europeans do.\n\n > *[Description of the North and South Coasts of Guinea, 1732](_URL_2_)*\n\nOnce again, the contrast is made between essentially freestyle and essentially breaststroke (unless the French are doing fly, which...no). Barbot does observe that African nations from further inland are not so practiced at swimming, preferring not to swim (for pleasure or for food and travel) in their rivers. This inclusion is actually kind of a change of pace for Euro-American accounts. With respect to the people of Elmina, he further notes a couple of different manners of swimming besides a single stroke variety to propel themselves forward:\n\n > ...playing on the surges of the sea, about the shore, some on pieces of timber, others on bundles of rushes, made fast under their stomachs, the better to learn how to swim; others ducking under the water, and continuing there for a considerable time\n\nBarbot associates these rafts with learning how to swim, although the description makes it seem like they are also a prop or toy used by experienced swimmers. The idea of lightweight wood as a beginner's tool *might* reflect European practice. For his *Early British Swimming*, Nicholas Orme turned up a wild reference in a London chronicle from the 1420s:\n\n > Diverse persons of low estate of the city of London, assembling one day on the wharf...wished and desired they had the person of my lord [the bishop] of Winchester, saying they would have thrown him into the Thames to have taught him to swim without wings.\n\n > *[Chronicles of London](_URL_3_)*\n\nOrme takes this as a reference to water-wings, better known today as \"floaties\" (the inflatable things you see kids wearing around their upper arms). Even though, as he points out, there isn't another known reference to \"water-wings\" as the name for a swimming tool until the 20th century, his conclusion about a device of some sort seems more plausible to me than this being a metaphorical reference akin to flying without wings or some such.\n\nBut not all Europeans made the same connection, or rather, some were confronted with evidence so strongly to the contrary that they couldn't plausibly believe instruction the only use worth mentioning. Charles Warren Stoddard, adding a bit of LGBTQ diversity to the Dead White Dudes' Club of this answer, described Native Hawai'ian swimming--or rather, surfing--in 1874:\n\n > Kahele, having been offered a surf-board that...was itself as light as cork and as smooth as glass...seized his sea-sled, and dived with it under the first roller which was then about to break above his head, not three feet from him. *[does the same with more waves]* ...Again Kahele dived and reappeared on the other side of the watery hill...turned suddenly, and, mounting the towering monster, he lay at full length on his fragile raft, \nusing his arms as a bird its pinions...As it rose he \nclimbed to the top of it, and there, in the midst of foam seething like champagne...He leaped to his feet and swam in the air.\n\n > *[Summer Cruising in the South Seas](_URL_0_) - I hope you'll check out this whole passage*\n\nLater on, he mentions swimming that seems more like *swimming* as such, but doesn't provide any descriptive details.\n\nOur white explorers almost unanimously emphasize two further points that intersect with debates in modern scholarship (mostly on different subject matter) over pre/early modern Euro-American swimming. First, they stress that *everyone* swims, even children (\"These islanders are amphibious. The little bronze babies float like corks before they can \nwalk half the length of a bamboo-mat,\" writes Stoddard). Second, they stress that \"everyone\" includes (!!!) women.\n\nThe first point, about the extent of swimming ability among white men, has several points to the contrary: a lot of people (including, by the way, Stoddard) explicitly say they can't swim; in the later 19th century, there's a whole panic among naval officers and commentators about the lack of swimming ability even among midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy; swimming treatises are not only prescriptive but aimed first exclusively and second mostly at the noble/upper classes.\n\nWhat seems more likely, from other accounts of sailors and sailing, is that there wasn't much *formal* swimming instruction, as in the strokes or freediving technique, and no training in swimming endurance. However, sailors at least would be able to tread water and other things to keep from drowning if they went overboard in port or some such.\n\nThe question of women swimming has a couple of points against the possibilit as well: (a) they are hardly ever mentioned (b) there's often a distinction made between \"bathing\" and \"swimming,\" in which men swim while women bathe, *or* religious leaders are like \"women can be in the water only to bathe\", (c) in early medieval-16th century sources, there is a strong association of swimming and military practice, and (d) most people swam naked.\n\nIn medieval sources, at least, there are a few references to women bathing while wearing some sort of smock, and Orme observes that men in Norse sagas (who are very often strong swimmers--see Beowulf) sometimes strip down to their undergarment but no further to swim. In general, however, swimming for recreation follows along with seafarers realizing their ship is about to capsize--the first thing they do is strip.\n\nThere don't seem to be that many references to what people wore to swim in the Euro-American travel accounts. The exception in the ones I looked at for this answer is again Stoddard, who is writing after the invention of swimsuits in the west:\n\n > One after another, they came out of the sea like so many mermen and mermaids. They were refreshingly innocent of etiquette--at least, of our translation of it...With uncommon slowness, the mermaids donned more \nor less of their apparel, a few preferring to carry their robes over their arms; for the air was delicious, and ropes of seaweed are accounted full dress in that delectable latitude.\n\nThe reference to mermen and mermaids isn't unique; it probably reflects the ease and skill with which the Euro-Americans see people from other cultures swimming, in comparison to their own. This is not a unanimously positive thing. As I mentioned at the beginning, none of these accounts feature the author saying, \"Hey, maybe teach me?\" Kevin Dawson, who has published some version of the major article on early modern swimming about eight different times, observes that a lot of white authors in the 17th-mid 19th century make a strong connection between swimming ability and animal/natural traits: \n\n > Man cannot swim with the same faculty as many of the inferior animals, which seem to be led by instinct to use the proper action for their preservation, while rational creatures, being aware of their danger, grow fearful or impatient, and begin to struggle.\n\n > -*introduction, 1840 edition of Benjamin Franklin's letter/treatise on swimming*\n\n(Note that Franklin, for his part, advised everyone learn to swim). Dawson thinks that probably Europeans applied this dichotomy to the people of color they encountered. That, though, presents a really interesting contrast to what we see in medieval sources, which is a strong connection between swimming and knightly prowess. It would be fascinating to trace whether, when, how, and to what extent that shift actually occurred.\n\nI know this has ranged further afield than the original 17th-18th century time frame. However, I hope the general similarities in accounts over the time span help justify that extension--as well as, quite frankly, how awesome these sources are."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://archive.org/details/summercruisingi01stodgoog/page/n240",
"https://archive.org/stream/lettersnotesonma00catl#page/n167/mode/2up/",
"https://archive.org/details/descriptionofcoa00barb/page/266",
"https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoflond00kinguoft/page/80"
]
] |
||
2i84ud
|
Does light experience time when traveling in a material?
|
I have heard that light slows down when it passes through a material (correct me if that's wrong). So hear's what I don't get, if light is traveling through space at a speed slower than C, than it must be traveling through time a little bit. I know light does not experience any time when traveling in a vacuum, so does it experience time when it is slowed down through an object?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2i84ud/does_light_experience_time_when_traveling_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckzrkei"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Light doesn't *experience* anything. I don't mean that in a pedantic sense of it's not conscious. I mean that an observational frame *at c* makes no sense at all. \n\nHowever, when you have a material, that material has an electromagnetic field *already* between all the various charged particles (electrons and nuclei). And given all those particles and how they can move and how they're bound, what we can often do is take *all* of that, and come up with an \"effective\" electromagnetic field for the material. It's not the \"true\" EM field of particles in free space, but it allows us to take account of all the material properties.\n\nSo in this *effective* EM field, energy is carried around not in photons but in other \"quasi-particles.\" Since our EM field isn't \"true\" the particles it has aren't \"true\" (as in fundamental particles that make up all kinds of matter) either; they're just particles specific to the EM field in this specific material. \n\nAnd *those* quasi-particles can have mass, and usually *do* pass through the material at speeds lower than c. This is the \"speed of light in material.\" It's not really \"light\" like the kind of light that propagates through a vacuum. It's a cousin, a relative to light, that is specific to that material.\n\nSo yes, for these quasi-particles you can construct frames of rest for them in which an observer experiences time and distance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
zj2wx
|
How true the factoid you frequently hear that the atoms in your body are entirely replaced (albeit gradually) about every 5 ~ 7 years.
|
As far as I know, tooth enamel doesn't get replaced, so I'd imagine at least that stays put. What about the rest of the body? What atoms get replaced the fastest? Slowest? Not at all?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zj2wx/how_true_the_factoid_you_frequently_hear_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c65547n"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's not really atoms, but cells as a whole. Cells can grow old and die off (called \"senescence\") and are replaced by new cells. So over a period of time (5-7 years as you say) you could say that all the cells currently existing in your body will have died off and been replaced by new ones. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7r2jnt
|
Why is the waste produced in a thorium fuel cycle need storage for only 300 years instead of thousands of years for uranium fuel cycle, even though U233 from Th232 had mostly similar fission products as U235?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7r2jnt/why_is_the_waste_produced_in_a_thorium_fuel_cycle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsu2fg4"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"This argument is mainly about transuranic isotopes. These are waste products which through neutron capture become heavier. They do not fission at all. To go from U238 to P239 all you need is one capture. To go from U233 to P239, you need a series of captures and there will be plenty of opportunity for fission instead of capture and less transuranic elements will be bred from Thorium.\n\nThe fission products are indeed very similar in composition. One notable exception with liquid fuel reactors is that xenon will not be transmuted in the reactor core (as a gas it will bubble out). In that case you get a lot more Cs135 which has a half life of 2.3Ma. But mostly the fission products are essentially the same.\n\nFission products are either very short lived and those are not a problem, or they are medium lived (10-100years half life) and those are a problem, or they are long lived and those are not that much of a problem (they have low radioactivity).\n\nP239 has a half life of 20000 years and that means it is pretty radioactive and also pretty long lived. Also when P239 decays, it will go through a long chain of maybe a dozen decays before it becomes stable, whereas fission products usually become stable after a single decay."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6amj48
|
Why was Bill Clinton's approval rating so low in the first few months of his presidency?
|
According to Gallup []() Trump is currently enjoying a 42% approval rating, and his approval ratings have been called historically low among modern presidents. And indeed, the average approval rating for a President in May (from Ike to Obama) is about 62%. However, we have had one President who polled within a margin of error of Trump - William Jefferson Clinton, at 45%.
So here's the question - what were the circumstances of Clinton's first 100 days that led to such low ratings?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6amj48/why_was_bill_clintons_approval_rating_so_low_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhftmlf",
"dhgeq57"
],
"score": [
1571,
104
],
"text": [
"As you said, at this point of his presidency a few months in, in early May of 1993, Clinton was at a 45% approval rating. Clinton's lowest approval rating then actually slipped to 37% - a low-point mark I believe he reached in early June of 1993.\n\nThe reasons for these low ratings early on were largely tied to what many deemed to be Clinton's poor handling and implementation of his domestic agenda out of the gate. His initial attempts at implementing his early economic policies after taking office were quickly called out very effectively (largely by the Republicans of course) as being something that would raise taxes for the bulk of Americans, and that was deemed very troublesome by many of the population, as Clinton initially failed to counter those claims very efficiently or effectively. \n\nClinton's support of the \"Brady Bill\" (aka the *\"Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act\"*) early on into his presidency when it was initially introduced by Chuck Schumer in February of 1993 also hurt Clinton's numbers badly amongst 2nd Amendment advocates in the next few months. \n\nThe whole \"gays in the military\" and the plan for the *\"Don't ask, don't tell\"* Clinton/Democrat policy also is deemed to have hurt his polling numbers early on amongst a considerable number of the electorate (both Dems and Republicans). He also took some early flak for his health care reform ideas (championed in large part by the then First Lady Hillary Clinton), and his early plans and support for NAFTA (the *North American Free Trade Agreement*) brought him a lot of heat from both sides of the aisle (and from Ross Perot supporters as well).\n\nOf course, there was also the crazy *\"HairGate\"* scandal in early May of 1993, where Bill Clinton infamously received an hour-long haircut aboard Air Force One while it was parked on the tarmac at LA International Airport, where the delay caused by him getting his haircut was said to have forced the closure of two runways at the airport for security reasons for about an hour (said to have resulted in huge delays for many passengers on other flights inbound and outbound from the airport). That did not play well in the media at all, and was made by many in the press to initially have Clinton look like an entitled ass who cared little for the average traveller, even with some press calling it *\"the most expensive haircut in history\"*. It was later revealed a couple months or so later that no flights were actually affected by Clinton's desire to get a trim that day aboard Air Force One on the tarmac at LAX, but the initial damage had been done and that hurt his May (and June) 1993 polling numbers as well. \n\nBasically, it was a host of all those things that affected domestic policies that served to drop his early poll numbers quite low. As we know though, Clinton later rebounded quite well, and even survived the Monica Lewinsky affair and impeachment proceedings to emerge to be recognized as quite a popular President after his two terms in office were complete in 2001. ",
"Im surprised no one has mentioned the three-candidate nature of the election. Clinton only won the election with 43.01% to start with. Bush had 37.45% and Ross Perot 18.91%. Clinton never really had a majority to start with. Others have commented on why he slipped but I think it's important to remember he never started over 50% really in the first place. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
foh605
|
Why don't mosquitoes die of malaria?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/foh605/why_dont_mosquitoes_die_of_malaria/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flg860w",
"flgmqns"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"It would be detrimental for the plasmodium parasite to kill off the mosquitoes. It requires them for its reproduction.\n\nSo, the answer to your question would be that the parasite has evolved to avoid harming the mosquitoes.",
"Malaria is a red blood consuming parasite, mosquitoes don't die from it because their blood is different from ours. Mosquito have only hemolymphic fluid and does not possess any red blood cells. As you know, malaria require a host red blood cells to reproduce and to feed themselves. Thus, malaria are dormant inside mosquitos..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
25l5ka
|
why is food (and other things) preserved when it is frozen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25l5ka/eli5_why_is_food_and_other_things_preserved_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chi8xbt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"What makes food go bad is bacteria. Bacteria cant live in the cold very easily and even if they do they slow way way down. Thus freezing prevents the bacteria from spoiling the food and the food stays good for longer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2yh4p6
|
Questions regarding Moses & Pharoah and the timeline
|
Recently watched "Exodus - Gods & Kings" and I started to question lots of things (not from religious perspective). I did my research and i am not satisfied with whatever i found, so probably you guys can lead me to right direction or answer the questions ?
1. What was the Timeline of Moses ? Was it 1200 B.C or something else ?
2. Based on the above question, Who was the pharoah at the time of Moses ?
3. Are there any historical (archaeological) proofs about the Red Sea partition (I read it on quora during the research that it wasn't the red sea, it was perhaps one of the lake which has dried up now ? But regardless are there any proofs ?)
4. I have seen lots of muslims sharing a pharoah's (Rameses II) mummy which (as per the post they shared) is the one found from the bed of the Nile and they quote a verse from the quran which says that we (God) has mummified the pharoah for later generations. But I couldn't find any reference in any of archaeology journals that if a mummy was ever found in Nile or anywhere ? Moreover, Rameses II was actually died of natural causes (as per wikipedia).
Please don't make this post a religious post, All the questions that i am asking are from historical/archaeological point of you.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2yh4p6/questions_regarding_moses_pharoah_and_the_timeline/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp9i7ab"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Check out our [FAQ](_URL_0_). Lots of threads there already."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_do_we_know_if_the_exodus_happened_the_way_it.27s_told_in_the_bible.3F_if_at_all.3F"
]
] |
|
y595a
|
realism, modernism and postmodernism in literature.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y595a/eli5_realism_modernism_and_postmodernism_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5slui1",
"c5smrif",
"c5sosry"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"All three are defined by an underlying philosophy (sort of, nowhere near as coherent as that sounds, really), a set of writers associated with them (and how they influence each other), a set of typical themes, a set of typical techniques, and a time period in which they were prevalent.\n\nSo it's not exactly very strictly defined. Asking 'What is modernism in literature?' is not like asking 'what is an antelope', but more like asking 'what is rock'n roll?' or 'what is classic cartoon?'\n\nI'll take a stab at giving a rough impression of each.\n\nRealism has the goal to describe the world as it really is. In practice, this can mean a focus on subjects that used to be 'beneath' literature or considered boring. The life of the working class, everday life, etc. The A-Team is low on realism, the Wire is high on realism.\n\nModernism goes, hold on, what do you mean 'what the world really is'? What with Darwin and Freud and Einstein, we are no longer so sure we can pin that down. You can pretend to describe the world all neat and precise and logical, but that's not how your life actually looks like.\n\nModernist stories tend to be disjointed, disgressive, open to interpretation, and often go against the establishment (political, religious, whatever you got). They often deal with the experiences of the late 19th and early 20th Century that freaked everybody out.\n\nBlackadder Goes Forth would sort of be an example.\n\nPostmodernism goes, let's not just ask what does reality mean, but also what does asking mean, and being mean, and meaning mean, man? Let's no longer try to figure out what 'reality' is, but just admit that nobody knows and point out that anybody who claims to know is full of it.\n\nModernism is all very well in its way, but it still is all about stories who come to some kind of resolution and make some kind of point and life doesn't actually work like that at all.\n\nSo you get stories who fall apart on you while reading them, that seem to aim towards an ending then take a sharp turn left and then explode into a big pile of confetti. (The deliberate refusal to hold to fixed definitions or make sense at all often makes post-modernism seem much more complex than it really is)\n\nPostmodernist technique tend to be about playing around with the elements of the narrative, not taking it seriously in order to point out that there is nothing there in the first place, to be taken seriously or not. You get stories within stories, characters talking to the author, sudden genre shifts, self-contradictions, narrators who are not merely unrealiable, but just plain trolling etc.\n\nTV example: Monty Python's Flying Circus.\n\nTL;DR:\n\nRealism -- > That's a good story. It has some interesting things to say about real life.\n\nModernism -- > That's a good story. It has some interesting questions about so-called real life.\n\nPostmodernism -- > That's a very clever somewhat story-like text, but WTF?",
"An English professor once explained realism as \"the events that take place between lunch and dinner.\" meaning that it's a story in which not much is accomplished, but rather the story has been told because it happened and it could be. \n\nModernism expands on this idea by finding significance in the mundane or by finding the mundane in the extraordinary. Joyce's \"Ulysses\" is a great example of the first. It's the story of a single day from the life of Leopold Bloom, but during his day we learn so much about him, his circumstances, and the world around him through his routine. We're not explicitly told about Bloom so much as we are left to make inferences based on the things that encapsulate his day. Hemingway is a great example of the latter; many of his stories are set to extraordinary backdrops of war but are focused more on the telling of a personal story that could be told outside of that backdrop. They use something as impersonal as war to speak about the personal. ",
"Going by my fuzzy memories of college lit. classes, this is what I recall:\n\nRealism - was a reaction to Romanticism, and focused on writing about events like they could've actually happened. Mark Twain is a great example of a Realist. His philosophy and writing are pretty much Realism in a nutshell. He was one of the writers whom incorporated \"local color\" into his prose, like writing out dialogue to reflect regional accents and slang, for example. Realism is focused on positing what might actually happen to the characters, given their circumstances. It's about the ironies and tragedies of life, and the surprising comedy therein. Naturalism and Fatalism are Realism's dark cousins, often portraying characters as unable to act against nature or their circumstances, and resigned to their (usually unfortunate) fates.\n\nModernism originated after the First World War. It borrows from Realism by setting many stories in realistic circumstances, but as chowderkirk pointed out, the stories are introspective and often personal. *The Old Man and the Sea*, for example is about the struggle of an old fisherman to hook a marlin. It makes an unlucky fisherman's attempt at catching a fish a Biblical struggle. Modernism was about taking something epic (World War I) and bringing it down the level of one or two people, and how they were affected by such a huge event; or likewise, how a small event can become huge for a few people.\n\nPostmodernism went one step further and questioned the very nature of perspective and thought itself. It's found in examples of narratives where the narrator is unreliable, or the writing stream of consciousness, and the very idea of perception is itself questioned. It can be very thought provoking (What is real? What is unreal?) at best to the solipsistic at worst. It's when Modernism went meta, and looked within and without. Some of this was brought on by things like the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War. *The Waste Land* by TS Eliot is the standard-bearer in postmodern poetry. It's a daunting, at times vexing, piece of poetry that's nearly impossible to understand from the author's point of view. I recall in college it came with a lot of endnotes so you could tell what Eliot was talking about.\n\nImagine Modernism as subreddits. Realism is r/TrueReddit, trying to cut through the bullshit of Reddit and get to the good stuff. Modernism is r/TrueTrueReddit and r/TheoryofReddit, trying to cut through the bullshit of r/TrueReddit and Reddit and ponder Reddit itself. Postmodernism is r/Meta, r/MetaTrueReddit and beyond, questioning the very fabric of time, space and Reddit as we know it.\n\nAlso it's very important to note that although these styles started during generally agreed-upon points in time, they never really ended. They're also highly influential upon contemporary writing across all genres."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8wdq47
|
How are each of the lobes in the brain differentiated on a biological level?
|
Certain areas have different functions, but how does that map to their individual clusters of neurons?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8wdq47/how_are_each_of_the_lobes_in_the_brain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1v5wfo"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"How are they differentiated? Well it's not simple. It's kinda like trying to decide where certain neighbourhoods in city begin and end. There are some areas that we are certain about, others where it gets a bit blurry. Let me explain.\n\nTo start with, the different areas of the brain were decided by looking down a microscope and seeing if the cells looked a little different. This was done most famously by a guy called Korbinian Brodmann in 1909. It's definitely the case that different areas of the brain look slightly different down the microscope, like [this](_URL_1_). But it's not very exact, though the so called \"Brodmann areas\" are still widely used, especially in humans. But since 1909, we've learnt a lot, and we generally do things differently now.\n\nA simple question might be: Where is the primary visual cortex? It was decided that the primary visual cortex is where the visual inputs go to in the cortex. Any area that gets a lot of inputs from the eye is the primary visual cortex, and any area that doesn't, is NOT the primary visual cortex. So you can stick a dye into the pathway from the eye, and have a look. And if you do that, you get an image like [this](_URL_0_) (this is a mouse brain, but the concept still holds in humans) and where the brain is glowing yellow/green is primary visual cortex. You can do similar things for all the other primary sensory regions. But things start to get a little more complex outside of those regions. The question is not where the region is, but what defines that region? That is to say, what properties must a region have in order to be classified as region X? So a debate that I'm aware of is \"Do mice even HAVE a prefrontal cortex?\". And this debate exists because we don't have a great definition of the prefrontal cortex. If someone could say \"well the prefrontal cortex is an area that has projections from this other region, and contains cells that look like this\" then it would be easy to figure out if mice have an area that meets those conditions, and where it is. However, if that exact definition doesn't exist, then people have trouble deciding what counts.\n\n\\ > Certain areas have different functions, but how does that map to their individual clusters of neurons?\n\nSo I've said that most areas of the cortex are defined by what projections they received, and to a less extent what the neurons look like. But what does that mean functionally? By and large, this is still an unknown. Most areas of the cortex appear to do roughly the same thing. There are a few areas that are plainly very different (e.g. the periform cortex), but by and large the rest (especially primary sensory cortex) looks pretty similar when you look at it closely. These areas all have 6 layers, where the input from the senses goes mainly to layer 4. Layer 4 projects to layers 2 and 3, and layers 2 and 3 project down to layers 5 and 6. Layer 6 projects back to the sensory input, and layer 5 projects off to other regions. There are also similar inhibitory cells, that appear to be linked up in the same way. However, because we don't really know what the cortex does, or how it does it, we can't really answer whether there are important differences between cortical regions. There certainly ARE differences (layer 4 is quite different in different regions) but what that means in terms of how the cortex functions is not know."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://i.imgur.com/SmKBodm.png",
"https://i.imgur.com/tDHUChk.png"
]
] |
|
e06i3b
|
percentage of rain meaning
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e06i3b/eli5_percentage_of_rain_meaning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8c81kj"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Ugh, it's kind of a mess. \n\nSo, a 20% chance of rain can mean there's a 20% chance that you will get rained on at some point that day. \n\nBut sometimes it can be used to mean things like 20% of the day will be raining. \n\nOr that 20% of the land within an area will be rained on. This is the interpretation that the National Weather Service goes with -- if it rains at all, it will rain on 20% of the area. \n\nWhich can be confusing because it might not rain anywhere. Or it might rain constantly on that 20% of land area. It can also mean that forcasters are 100% sure that it's going to rain on you and 100% sure that it's not going to rain on me, but the percentage they come up with will depend on how large the area they're covering is and what they predict will happen in those places too. \n\nAnd none of it indicates how much rain you'll get. \n\nAn 80% chance of rain could mean that it rains for 5 minutes over 80% chance of the area *or* that 80% of the day will be lightly misting *or* that there's an 80% chance it could rain at any point during the day *or* that there's an 80% chance that it could rain anywhere on the map *or* that 80% of land will see torrential downpours and flash flooding."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
f5s93b
|
what exactly happens to a dissolved/bankrupt company's debts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f5s93b/eli5_what_exactly_happens_to_a_dissolvedbankrupt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fi0ecn9",
"fi0exd4",
"fi0f6sz",
"fi0pwx4"
],
"score": [
3,
25,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In a sometimes lengthy court process, those the company owed money to can fight to recover some of the debt from whatever assets the company has left. Any debt that remains unpaid after that will remain forever unpaid and written off",
"As a former business owner who was owed tens of thousands by customers, I can confirm that when a company goes bankrupt, first the taxman, bankers and lawyers get paid. There usually isnt anything left after that so the remaining businesses get a couple of letters in the mail from the courts which, roughly translated, mean \"You have been fucked hard in the ass with no lube. Have a nice day\".",
"Basically, the court forces all their assets to be sold, absolutely anything that has value goes. Then the court uses it to pay off debts (in a specific order). When the money runs out the court the court tells everyone left that they are not getting paid, tough luck, this is a risk of loaning money.",
"The company's assets are liquidated and applied to its debt. Any remaining debt is discharged and the creditors take a loss.\n\nThere are some situations, usually involving misconduct, where the \"corporate veil\" can be lifted and owners of the company become personally responsible for the debt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ysbbm
|
a new pacific island has just formed from a volcano. presuming it's in international waters, who 'owns' it?
|
This island formed recently: _URL_0_
Let's say it was in the middle of the ocean - ie not right next to Tonga, who I'm guessing have claim over it - and it was in international waters. Who would 'own' it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ysbbm/eli5_a_new_pacific_island_has_just_formed_from_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpcgf17"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The short answer is whomever claims and can successfully defend it. \n\nNo one inherently \"owns\" any piece of property, so whomever wanted it would have to defend their claim either legally (get it recognized by other nations) and/or militarily (repel all invaders). Usually, the island will be part of a chain, so the most likely owner would be the nation that has claim to the rest of the island chain, but if it was truly in the middle of nowhere and still desirable, various nations would probably race to put a research station on it to lay a claim (I got here first) and from there, it would be legal wrangling and/or a small scale military conflict to retain/gain possession. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tongafrenchpolynesia/11463853/First-photographs-emerge-of-new-Pacific-island-off-Tonga.html"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
bb4c25
|
During the California gold rush, was selling shovels really a better way to make money than searching for gold?
|
I work in the tech startup industry, where a common saying is that the real way to make money during a gold rush is to sell shovels (the message for tech startups is that the best way to make money is to make a product to sell to other tech startups).
Is there any truth to this saying? During the California gold rush, was selling shovels (and other related equipment) more likely to provide a solid financial return than mining for gold?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bb4c25/during_the_california_gold_rush_was_selling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekid9jf"
],
"score": [
38
],
"text": [
"The short answer is we really don't know. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nOutside of word of mouth and the strikes that were notable enough to make news, we don't have a good idea of how much gold was really found as the lack of law enforcement and the hardships in filing a claim meant that miners were tight lipped about the locations and size of any strikes they might have made. There are estimates based on assayers records when they purchased gold, but that is limited as gold in itself was a currency and not always exchanged for cash or credit. We don't have any accurate numbers on how many people made a fortune, or even just made enough to come out ahead outside of journals and newspaper articles. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe second real problem in this question is that there wasn't just one California Gold Rush, there were multiple ones. By the standards of Gold rushes just few years later, Sutter's Mill (the first one,) is positively puny. In the first gold rushes most people definitely made money off mining. But a lot learned quickly that good money was made selling goods and services to miners and less than two years later merchants were setting up shops near major gold strikes within days of one being reported. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAdditionally, there are stories of farmers taking herds of cattle and sheep, wagons of wheat and even eggs from Oregon's Willamette Valley to the California gold fields and making lots of money that way. Later on timber was another big export, creating the Pacific Northwest's early Timber Industry. Lots of coastal towns exported fish and dairy products to the gold fields. Some people even made money off building wagons and ships to transport all these goods. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nWithin a pretty short amount of time an industry sprung up around reselling claims. People would search one out, pan or mine them long enough to confirm it was a good place and then sell the claim to another miner or mining company. This is still an actual business methodology here in the United States BTW as the demand for gold in electronics keeps increasing. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe other places to make real money in those days was in prostitution and taverns. Stories abound of both arriving before merchants were even able to setup shop near gold strikes. I even have family stories of an ancestor who made his \"fortune\" just sweeping up the town's two taverns early in the morning and then panning the dust for gold. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAnother place that people made money directly or indirectly off of mining in those days was selling land. People would make a land claim, hold and then sell it as little as a month later. Or they would sub-divide it to sell pieces to newcomers, or even incorporate a town on a portion of it. Many of these towns disappeared quickly, leaving only a place name, but the larger portion of cities in California and Oregon were built directly or indirectly off of gold mining. Early investors in successful town sites made money buying and selling town lots. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nTo answer your question more directly, I think the real answer is the best way to make money is by identifying a niche and filling it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2rgyd9
|
what would actually happen if someone paid off people's student loans via hacking?
|
I've seen the idea thrown around on here and by my friends when Xbox Live/PSN/a major website goes down via hackers: "Why don't they use their abilities to pay off student loans instead of ruining fun for everyone?"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rgyd9/eli5_what_would_actually_happen_if_someone_paid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnfrjb1"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"because they're not hacking, they're doing a denial of service attack.\n\nThey dont get inside and get to find out information and change things.\n\nThey're just attempting to make so many connections at once the server can't handle it.\n\nIt's the difference between infiltrating a building like a spy (hacking), and forming a picket line (DDOS, taking a service down)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bdt3m8
|
Just watched lindybeiges video about fire arrows, I have a small question
|
Here's a link to this video _URL_0_.
So well, I agree with all he said.
But I was playing a game in medieval climates (stronghold crusader, it's not so historically accurate game since armored guys walk so slow and you can destroy walls with swords, but... Yeah it's an awesome game) and I saw that there were pitch ditches which could be set on fire by fire arrows. And I wonder if its true? Could it be? Were they used in any castle or defensive structures?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bdt3m8/just_watched_lindybeiges_video_about_fire_arrows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"el0mftg"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I actually wrote a little bit about fire arrows just a few days ago [here](_URL_0_). Like literally every historian I maintain that fire arrows are not meant for battlefield use. They are, as stated the, absolute last resort for a besieging force to set something on fire if you have nothing else available. \n\nSo what about a pitch ditches? \n\nNo. I have never ever heard of a pitch ditch used defensively. Why? Well... why would you ever do that? It would be *immediately* apparent to any attacker who could just throw a torch in it, wait for it to burn out and then step over it. Also you'd have to know almost exactly when an attack is going to come or whatever flammable substance you fill it with is just going to soak into the ground and even if you somehow managed to magically get tons and tons of flammable substance, undetected, into a trench just before an enemy attack and set it ablaze at just the right moment... then what? You'll burn at best a few dozen men at the cost of enormous quantities of flammable substance. A much more effective use of it would be to pour it from the walls already ablaze whenever someone tries to climb said walls or knock very forcefully on your gates."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/zTd_0FRAwOQ"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bapvwe/why_would_medieval_armies_use_regular_arrows_over/"
]
] |
|
1o7unj
|
How does communicating through radio waves in space between 2 bodies moving at constant relative velocity away from each other stil influence the perception of paradoxical slowness of time of the other under special relativity?
|
I am currently reading Brian Greene's the Elegant Universe. There is a section that says, although one of the body(moving at relative constant velocity) would still perceive the other's time is slower than theirs. The thought experiment goes like this, both parties moving relatively to each other agrees to send out a signal in radio wave to the other person at 12.00 a.m. to clarify whose time is actually slowing down. The time taken for the radio wave (light) travels to the other half would still shows the person sending it experiencing a slower time although the extra distance travelled by radio wave towards the relatively moving person is taken into account. The result they've gotten from signal sent to each other proves each of their time are slowing down. How does this paradox still holds true even when the time taken for the light signal to travel is already taken into account?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1o7unj/how_does_communicating_through_radio_waves_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccprarq"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
" > parties moving relatively to each other agrees to send out a signal in radio wave to the other person at 12.00 a.m.\n\nThere is your problem right there... if they have synchronized clocks, then they started in the same reference frame, and it is only through acceleration that one's clock would start moving more slowly than the others. In that way, the moving body will send their pulse after the ones that stayed at rest, and no paradox occurs.\n\nIf they do not start out in the same reference frame, how would they agree on what 12am is?\n\nThe answer resolving the paradox will depend on what method you pick to \"synchronize\" their clocks. Every strategy you come up with will have different parts of relativity that prevent this paradox from coming up, because there is no such thing as a simultaneous action in relativity.\n\nFor instance, lets say you have two light switches, both exactly 50m away from a switch. If you flip the switch, then you'll see them turn on at exactly the same moment, apparently simultaneous.\n\nHowever to someone moving very quickly, they will see one of the lights turn on before the other. This is not some trick of perception, in their equally valid reference frame, it really did turn on earlier.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4t1c7r
|
Was a blade poisoning a thing ?
|
Did it happen on battlefield or only on assassinations ( if it happened on assassinations ) during Medieval times or before.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4t1c7r/was_a_blade_poisoning_a_thing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5ef9kb",
"d5ehnty"
],
"score": [
5,
64
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nThis older thread was the closest I could find that might partially answer your question and mostly focuses on whether poison arrows - not blades - were a thing, the consensus seeming to be that they were. ",
"I'm going to try and give an answer as serious as possible, but I'm no expert.\n\nYou separate battlefield and assassinations for the use of poisoned blades, but you have to remember that poisons in general have very different objectives in both cases. In the latter poisons were common, but usually left in food or wine, possibly even coated bed cloths. The objective in this case would be to take out a key figure. Poisons were also very commonplace in warfare, as were other forms of biological warfare, but rather than targeting a single individual, they more than often were a tool of psychological warfare. Greek generals encouraged the projection of snakes by catapults (Hannibal had apparently used a similar technique to cause chaos in Eumenes the IInd's ships) because of how fearful men were of their bite. Far more common was the poisoning of wells and food supplies. This has occurred throughout history, possibly dating back to tribal warfare in our pre-civilizational history. The objective wasn't always to kill, but rather than weaken the opponent, to sap them of their strength for the fight to come. Honor wasn't as widespread as it is in our romantic perception of antiquity and medieval warfare. The reason why I'm not yet taking about weapon poisoning is because poison was a huge part of warfare, whereas blade poisoning is the niche.\n\nThe \"poisoned weapon\" trope is a rather common one in literature, one could almost believe that every major villain and their grandmothers coat their blades in some foreign poison originating in a Latin-american backwater. Yet in reality while poisons were fairly commonplace (or as commonplace as they could be), they had a far more local point of origin. In Europe one of the most common poisons was cyanide, and could be extracted from apricots. But cyanide couldn't be coated onto weapons, it would most likely just cause an irritation of the wound which wouldn't be fatal. As a matter of fact most poisons couldn't be applied to weapons, as a penetration of the blood stream was neither guaranteed (slashes are rather ineffective in actuality) or were simply ineffective in such a use. As such when weapons were coated with poison it was most likely venom. Viper venom was most common in Europe, while in Latin America, Curare was a common plant-based poison that led to a slow death by paralyzing the nervous system. Most areas in the world had access to poisons that could enter the bloodstream that were know to them during the Middle-ages.\n\nThis leads to the most important question, which weapon was poisoned ? Honestly, the poisoned dagger shoved in someone's back was rather rare. The most poisoned weapon was always the arrowhead. Arrows (unlike the popular misonception) rarely killed, they just don't pack the punch bullets do, and do little damage beyond simply puncturing holes, possibly in vital organs. They were usually used to incapacitate or stagger. But poisons could finish the job. This wasn't that common in medieval Europe, simply because of the cost (how impossible it would be for a Capetian king to tip every arrow in Viper venom, when he has 20 000 archers, some Genoan crossbowmen, and most of them have quivers with 30~50 arrows or bolts because they can't hit anything in the chaos of warfare) although it did occur to a certain degree in Antiquity. Add to that how slow poisons do kill. Venom can lose it's potency rather quickly, and if your poison takes 30-40 hours to kill someone then it's useless for open warfare (if the arrow can deliver a dose that can cripple someone before he dies, then the arrow would have crippled him in the first case, and the victim will only die once the battle has already ended). In the cases of tribal warfare across the African and American continent though, it was a perfect tool for short skirmishes that mainly left wounded men rather than corpses in it's wake. Scythians used to poison their arrows, but they mainly pushed their reputation as poison-users as a scare-tactic. North-Western Indians also used Viper poison (as far as I can remember) on their arrows during their battles with Alexande, as did Romans in particular cases. But these are more often than not the exception rather than the norm. In truth, unless you were expecting a long attrition war, the tactical advantage given by poisoned arrows on the battlefield was minimal at best.\n\nNow comes the question of poisoned blades in general, since it's the true heart of your question. It simply wasn't used in assassination, if you can't land a strike with a knife that would be fatal to begin with, then it probably wouldn't deliver enough poison to be fatal either (but if you could, then the poison is useless, this is the problem with poisons on weapons). Blades have limited space, and you can't just dip your blade into a sugar frosting of arsenic and allow it to get over all your clothes before you fight, and then scratch someone with it and watch them fall over. The poison loses it's potency rather quickly in open air and allowing it to drip everywhere is more than unsafe. Depending on the origin of the poison, it was usually applied so as to dry on the blade rather than be a liquid ooze that covered it. The Indonesian Kris was actually forged with poison infusions, and was used in semi-open warfare (although today it's mostly traditional, and it didn't have much reach). Swords were often poisoned, as were spears, but this was in primitive warfare, and as war evolved, they were discarded, for more effective weapons that killed instantly. Most poisoned weapon tales are derived from archaeology since by the time written accounts arose, they had already passed out of use. \n\nSo was blade poisoning a thing ? Not really, be it for warfare or assassination, it's just impractical, the doses delivered were too light to have any effect unless you just shoved the full extent of the blade into your opponent (if he isn't already dead that is). Arrows were used, but honestly, a pile of dung to fester an infection was both cheaper and as effective. I'm sure there were minute cases, and it was common in primitive forms of warfare, but it would have become obsolete by the time we reached the Medieval Era in the 400s, let alone the Game of Thronesian 13th century you were probably thinking of."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rx5o2/did_poisoned_weapons_especially_arrows_ever_got/"
],
[]
] |
|
7b3pkx
|
Did ancient Romans have some kinf of pockets in their clothes? If not, how did they carry small things around?
|
And also, what was the usual "every day carry" like?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7b3pkx/did_ancient_romans_have_some_kinf_of_pockets_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpftu4h"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Not as such.\n\nThe garments of the Romans were generally loose fitting and simply sewn, both of which don’t work well with the concept of pockets as we know them. However, the looseness of the garments also meant that it was relatively effective to simply use the folds of these garments to carry small items. Indeed, this method was prevalent enough that such a fold was even given a name—*sinus*. The image here shows it in use by a slinger for slingstones: _URL_0_\n\nApart from this, pouches and sacks were typically used to carry things more securely. The *marsupium* _URL_2_ and *pera* _URL_1_ are relatively well known, but there were many other names and descriptions.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Funda.html",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Pera.html",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Marsupium.html"
]
] |
|
1tomzj
|
how do they make amputations in movies look real?
|
I've tried looking it up on google, but found little to no information. I imagine it helps if the actor or actress is already an amputee, but not all are. So do they do it? Rotoscoping?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tomzj/eli5_how_do_they_make_amputations_in_movies_look/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cea04cc",
"cea3nga",
"cea57tw"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on what movie you're talking about. In more recent movies, yes, you can digitally remove a limb from an actor. Typically you would shoot a scene without the actor, then the scene WITH the actor in the same set-up. They wear green tape over the limb and the limb is removed digitally, leaving the image without the actor behind it. This is how it was done in FORREST GUMP.\n\nEarlier movies, more likely you would cast a body double that was an amputee. This was done for TERMINATOR 2 when the T-1000 is frozen by liquid nitrogen and his limbs begin cracking off. You never see Robert Patrick's face clearly in these shots because it is an amputee double. This was also done for the scene in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL when the Black Knight is chopped up. The character is wearing a full-bodied costume so it doesn't matter who is inside it - same goes for Darth Vader. It is also possible to hide arms inside costumes or to put an actor in a hole in the ground for close-ups, and use a body double for long shots.",
"In Final Destination 3 in the scene where that guy got crushed by the sign, they shot it in front of a green screen and they put green screen material on half of the actor, as well as hoses that shoot fake blood.",
"I know for the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan, it seemed like every amputee in Ireland had been cast. They were all extras though"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2uwj7k
|
why do two nuts on a bolt lock and stop spinning? why don't they just act as one longer nut?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uwj7k/eli5_why_do_two_nuts_on_a_bolt_lock_and_stop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cocc6rk",
"cocc6y1",
"coccux3"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"pushing them up and down doesn't do anything you have to turn them, by turning one on top of another you actually just push down on the other.\n\nIt's friction, that's the fundamentals of how they work and why even single ones don't just fall off when you tighten them.\n\nIf you think about it, whatever you tighten it against is pushing back that's why they get tight. ",
"Because one is being twisted while the other is being pushed against. ",
"When the two nuts are twisted against each other, their threads push in opposite directions and create friction with the threads of the bolt. So it *is* like one longer nut: a longer nut with really bad threads that are misaligned enough from one end to the other to create lots of friction against the bolt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3b0rsp
|
What caused the Middle/Far East to use bowing as a greeting while the Western world chose the handshake?
|
As a child of the east and the west, I always wondered why half of my family always shook hands and the other half bowed. So does anyone have a reason why one half the world has no problem touching strangers and the half refrains?
Edit: I think that the impression I got for bowing in the Middle East is because of watching the news, where people in official capacities are meeting, thus a bow being a more formal greeting.
Edit 2: everyone is focusing on the Middle East, I did also say Far East where it was super common when I lived there (Japan and Korea) to bow rather than shake hands. This was 30 odd years ago, so handshakes are probably more common in the Far East now, but my question still hasn't been addressed. Thanks
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3b0rsp/what_caused_the_middlefar_east_to_use_bowing_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cshy2lv"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Could you give example of the Middle East using bowing as a greeting? I am familiar with the far east using bowing but I haven't experienced anyone from the Middle East doing the same."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6kjup0
|
During beta decay, when a neutrino and a beta ray are created, where does it's mass come from?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6kjup0/during_beta_decay_when_a_neutrino_and_a_beta_ray/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djmm7rl"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The binding energy of the daughter nucleus is larger than the binding energy of the parent. The extra energy is released as the masses and kinetic energies of the particles in the final state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1y6w4a
|
please explain radiation and exposure to me. i can't grasp the concept of it not being a gas/object/liquid etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y6w4a/please_explain_radiation_and_exposure_to_me_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfhvjxp",
"cfhvo1j",
"cfhvsu0",
"cfhvxp4",
"cfhw14i",
"cfi3784"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, in this context radiation is the emission of particles, alpha, beta, etc. What that means to you is that some of these really little pieces of atoms \"radiate\" (escape from) from a source, strike your cells, and damage them like miniature canonballs.\n\nThings that small can be described either by their electrical energy content or their kinetic (canonball) content. this leads to confusion about the terminology we use to describe them. In reality, standard english is not sufficient to accurately portray sub-atomic particles. ",
"There are 3 main kinds of radiation. The kind most people mean is gamma radiation, which is just a kind of super-intense light that our eyes can't see. Beta radiation is just an electron that's flying through space at a really high speed, and alpha radiation is the center of a helium atom (with no electrons attached) flying through space at a really high speed.\n\nWhen a person gets hit with radiation, it can mess up their bodies. We're designed to deal with a certain amount of radiation, because the sun sends gamma radiation to earth, and lots of the things around us are very slightly radioactive. But if you get a lot of radiation in a short period of time, you can get really sick, and weird things can happen like your hair falling out and lots of throwing up. This can even kill you.\n\n\n",
"You can think of radiation like really small bullets flying around. When the bullets hit you, they cause damage to your tissues. \n\nIn reality, the \"bullets\" are really pieces of atoms: protons, helium nuclei, etc. When they hit your cells, they may break apart some of the molecules in the cell. The cell is often able to repair the damage. However, if you are subject to too much radiation within too short a time, your cells can't keep up with the repairs. In cases like this, cancer can develop, or cells may die.",
"When we talk about radiation, most of the time, we are talking about three basic things that come out of radiation. Two of them are particles (called **alpha particles** and **beta particles**), and one of them is a beam of light (called a **gamma ray**). \n\nThey are the result of atoms breaking apart or coming together at the nuclear level. Usually, when we think of atoms joining or breaking up, we are thinking of molecules. So an atom of oxygen meets two atoms of hydrogen and makes a chemical bond to form water (H2O). These are called chemical reactions. \n\nRadiation is different, In radiation, you have two atoms of hydrogen that merge together to form an atom of Helium (so H becomes He) or you have Uranium atoms splitting apart to become Thorium (U become Th). In order for this to happen, the atoms themselves have to break apart. These are nuclear reactions.\n\n**When atoms break apart or join together, they produce a bunch of particles, like the ones I mentioned above.** Gamma rays are just a very, very, very high energy type of light. Alpha particles are the nucleus of a Helium atom, (two protons and two neutrons) but without electrons. Beta particles are electrons, but with no nucleus attached. \n\nThis is why they aren't a \"gas\" or other state of matter in the traditional sense. **Because they are just varying amounts of these isolated parts of atoms, or light, they don't take on the forms** (gas, liquid, solid) **of the molecules that we are used to dealing with, since they are operating at the nuclear, not chemical level.**\n\nEach of these behaves differently, but what they all have in common is that they are high energy, and very reactive. That alpha particle wants to grab electrons and become an atom, that electron wants to find a proton or two to join with too become an atom as well. And the gamma ray? well, it has so much energy that most anything it touches will take a beating at the atomic level. \n\nAnd **that's what causes the damage. These things are so energetic that they tear things apart at the atomic level, like the words tiniest cannon ball.** Although the exact mechanism depends on the type radiation and how much you're exposed to, ultimately, that's what radiation exposure is: being torn apart at the atomic level. \n\nAs a final note, understand that it's rare that things that are exposed to radiation become radioactive. This can happen. Gamma rays in particular can sometimes set off chain reactions that turn what would otherwise be a stable atom into a radioactive atom instead. But, **when we talk about an area being irradiated, what we usually mean is that something that is radioactive, like uranium, has been turned into dust and spread around an area.** That area then stays radioactive for as long as the dust is there. ",
"Radiation can be a partical (alpha and beta and neutron radiation) or it can be an energy wave (gamma radation). Light is an energy wave. Heat is an energy wave. X-rays are energy waves.\n\nIn nuclear reactors, neutrons impacting uranium produce uranium isotopes, more neutrons (to sustain the reaction), and heat.\n\n\nIn any of these cases, if the radiation is absorbed by living tissue, it will damage it. Enough over a long period of time will result in cancer because it's more than the body can repair on it's own. Or a lot of radiation in a short period of time will severely damage organs and other bodily systems and the body will just shut down.\n\nThe body is always dealing with cells damaged by naturally occuring radiation (from the sun, from certain minerals/rocks such as granite). It's when there is enough damage and the damaged cells don't get properly removed that they can run away and grow (i.e. cancer).\n\nLow energy radiation (like alpha particles) can be easily shielded by something as simple as paper or clothing. However, if you were to ingest something that produce alpha radiation, this would be very bad, because now all the radiation is being directly absorbed by tissue.\n\nGamma and Xray radiation is most easily shielded by lead, hence, the lead aprons you wear when getting Xrays at the dentist or to cover other body parts not getting Xray'd at the hospital.\n\nNeutron radiation is much harder to block. Thick layers of concrete and certain plastics are used for this. You have to physically get in the way at an atomic level. Think of kicking a football through the uprights versus it going through the net behind it. This is also why a concrete structure was haistily thrown up around Chernobyl after the meltdown, to absorb the neutron radiation being thrown off by the exposed reactor.",
"I tell people to think of it like a light bulb. When it's on, you are being hit by the light, when it's off you are not. Just like shining the light on something for a long time doesn't make it give off light of its own, so too do objects that have been exposed to radiation not continue to give off more once the source is removed. \n\nAreas like Chernobyl become radioactive because they are full of tiny radiation sources, ie many particles of radioactive elements scattered throughout the area. \n\nSome great technical definitions here, so I'll stay out of that and hope I'm not too far wrong! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5jug95
|
why the nose of the concorde and the tupolev tu-144 angle downwards.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jug95/eli5_why_the_nose_of_the_concorde_and_the_tupolev/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbj1yzk"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Nothing complex here. It folds down for takeoff and landing to give the pilots a clearer view of the ground. Then it comes up into streamlined position for normal flight."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
p6hzq
|
Is there any link between how young you grow grey hair and how old you live?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p6hzq/is_there_any_link_between_how_young_you_grow_grey/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3mwvox"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I am unaware of any link between canities and life span. The development of gray hair has the technical name canities. It is actually not the development of gray hair, but rather the growth of hair lacking any color pigment. These hairs appear white and when intermixed with pigmented hair gives the general appearance of gray hair.\n\nHere's some information on canities from a medical article:\n\n > The onset and progression of graying or canities correlate very closely with chronological aging (but not with photo-aging) and occur in varying degrees in all individuals eventually, regardless of gender or race. The age of onset is genetically controlled and heritable, such that on an average Caucasians begin to gray in their mid-30s; Asians, in their late-30s; and Africans, latest in their mid-40s. Indeed, hair is said to gray prematurely only if graying occurs before the age of 20 years in whites, before 25 years in Asians and before 30 years in Africans. Although not formally tested, a good rule of thumb is that by 50 years, 50% of people have 50% gray hair.\n > \nFrom [Aging of the Hair Follicle Pigmentation System](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938584/"
]
] |
||
3g8sfh
|
how do tv episodes, albums and scripts get leaked, and why does it seem to happen so often?
|
^
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g8sfh/eli5_how_do_tv_episodes_albums_and_scripts_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctvwf4w",
"ctvwyyq",
"ctvxdcw",
"ctvy6fj",
"ctw2eyw",
"ctw5nne"
],
"score": [
23,
15,
7,
5,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Writer, publisher, .... Will send them to himself via email. Or friends and family. And from there someone will leak it.\n\nOr grabs a USB stick. Leaves it at caffee. Noasy waiter who knows a studio is nearby grabs it..\n\nOr as a part of marketing. Some speculate the Iphone[whatever number] wasn't leaked- But staged, so it ets publicity for example.",
"A lot of \"leaks\" in the music industry are often staged to create buzz ahead of a release. Some labels will leak to gauge reactions on a release they're not too sure will sell as well as they hope.",
"when I lived in nyc i had a couple different roommates throughout my time there that worked in the film/tv industry. every now and then they would toss me a working script of whatever it was they were currently working on, usually to show me how much they fucking hate working on whatever movie it is and why. personally i never even thought of \"leaking\" something but I'm sure it's how some stuff does get leaked.",
"There are a LOT of people involved in production work. Many of them are highly technical and have the ability to transfer files. It only takes one person to start a torrent and the production is more-or-less done for.",
"Apart from the staged leaks, it is probably because somebody in the huge chain of workers just doesn't feel invested enough to care, but real leaks are actually VERY demoralizing... I've had leaks that plainly make me want to stop working in said project. \n\nSource: I'm a product designer. ",
"I was working a in a press office as an intern. My boss was new to the role and not good at communicating even basic information. \n\nI was in charge of managing a database of press packs submitted by clients to promote their films. To clarify - all of this stuff was sent to us with full permission to be published. \n\n I get a call from a group saying they're screening one of the films we're handling and need x, y and z. \nSo I send out x,y and z. \n\nNot a problem right? It's my job to do exactly that, right? \n\nThe next day, all hell breaks loose because someone 'leaked' 'embargoed' information. \n\nEmbargoed means info not to be published until after a certain date - usually there is a big header and footer on all material in the pack saying this. \n\nI was being treated pretty badly in that job so didn't bother owning up, just sat and watched as they all went crazy finding 'the source of the leak'. \n\nNo one bothered to ask me, just as no one had bothered to tell me it was embargoed in the first place. \nThat is how leaks happen. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3m2xhx
|
Is it possible to create a water molecule by combining 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxygen atoms through fusion?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3m2xhx/is_it_possible_to_create_a_water_molecule_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvbh8nh"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"If I'm understanding your question correctly, the answer is \"no\" because water is defined by its formula of H2O. HOO would be an entirely different, unstable molecule. \n\nIf you're using the term fusion in the nuclear reaction sense, then I don't understand what you're getting at. I suppose that you could, through a series of high energy reactions, break one of the oxygen atoms down into daughter nuclides that includes hydrogen nuclei, and which could be further used to make a full H2O molecule, but that would be highly impractical."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
59krov
|
is heisenberg uncertainty principle just a theory at the moment or have we observed it?
|
also, if it's just a theory, how far away are we from observing it (estimation)? Can it only be explained through maths or do we have conclusive observations of it? I only know the very basics of what it is, so please treat me like a 5 year old in this answer please XD
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59krov/eli5_is_heisenberg_uncertainty_principle_just_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d998fk0",
"d9991x0"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Your understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might not be the issue here. \"Theory\" in scientific terminology refers to a model that works until disproven. \"Theory\" in common English refers to an idea or a thought process.\n\nSo the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a model that works until it is disproven.\n\nI hope this helped you.",
"You're misinterpreting the meaning of his principle. It's not a theory per se, it's a set of inequalities that assert limits to the precision by which pairs of complimentary variables of a particle can be known. This is not to be confused with the observer effect, which states that measuring a system affects it. In fact, Heisenberg's uncertainty explains the observer effect. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of quantum systems, and thus our physics are founded on it.\n\nSo in that capacity, yes, we observe it all the time when working in quantum systems. In fact, some quantum technologies are based upon it, including aspects of quantum computers, super conductors, quantum optics, and gravitational wave interferometers.\n\nLastly, never say \"just a theory\" again, it trivializes the underpinnings of all science. Newton rolls in his grave and spontaneously combusts in protest. Theories are not hypothesis, they are not educated guesses, they are not unfounded - theories explain facts and their relations, and are thus a higher order of knowledge than facts. Our most fundamental theories are validated by decades and centuries of independent proof. No one questions gravity or germ theory."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
jhtic
|
collective bargaining
|
I don't understand how a government or institution taking away collective bargaining rights changes the power dynamic for the unions.
NOTE: I am pro-union. Please do not mistake my genuine curiosity / misunderstanding as supporting any kind of agenda.
I went to a labor rally just to get answers to these questions, and ended up getting yelled at by people who thought I was just there to argue. I'm not. I'm really looking for answers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jhtic/eli5_collective_bargaining/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2c92pz",
"c2ca1zy",
"c2c92pz",
"c2ca1zy"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"collective bargaining is the process of a group of employees negotiating employment benefits (pay, health care, vacation/sick time, etc.) as a single group as opposed to each employee negotiating with the employer at the time of hire. \n\nthe only way this is possible is with the creation of a union. if collective bargaining is ever legislated away then the entire usefulness of a union disappears. ",
"Say a company doesn't pay its workers very well. If each person goes and asks for a raise individually, the boss will probably say no, or fire them. If *every employee at once* asks for a raise and says \"we're going to stop working if you don't pay us more\", then they're much more likely to increase everyone's pay (or give more vacation, or whatever they're bargaining on). This is the basic idea of unions and collective bargaining. \n\nIf you take away the ability of workers to have collective bargaining, it takes away the main purpose behind a union.",
"collective bargaining is the process of a group of employees negotiating employment benefits (pay, health care, vacation/sick time, etc.) as a single group as opposed to each employee negotiating with the employer at the time of hire. \n\nthe only way this is possible is with the creation of a union. if collective bargaining is ever legislated away then the entire usefulness of a union disappears. ",
"Say a company doesn't pay its workers very well. If each person goes and asks for a raise individually, the boss will probably say no, or fire them. If *every employee at once* asks for a raise and says \"we're going to stop working if you don't pay us more\", then they're much more likely to increase everyone's pay (or give more vacation, or whatever they're bargaining on). This is the basic idea of unions and collective bargaining. \n\nIf you take away the ability of workers to have collective bargaining, it takes away the main purpose behind a union."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
nvdf0
|
- why doesn't corn break down when you poop, and if it doesn't break down what sort of nutritional value am i getting?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nvdf0/eli5_why_doesnt_corn_break_down_when_you_poop_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3c8cuo",
"c3cb5if",
"c3c8cuo",
"c3cb5if"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"You have to chew it.",
"Only the skin of the kernel can't be digested. The inside of the kernel can actually be digested and has nutritional value. This is why you are advised to chew: if you don't chew, your digestive track is unable to get to the goods and you'll poop the kernel whole.",
"You have to chew it.",
"Only the skin of the kernel can't be digested. The inside of the kernel can actually be digested and has nutritional value. This is why you are advised to chew: if you don't chew, your digestive track is unable to get to the goods and you'll poop the kernel whole."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ahalu
|
how can a geothermal system heat my house when it's 10 below zero and the system is 55 degrees?
|
I just can't wrap my head around how Geothermal Heat Pumps can create hotter air than the source fluid temperature without supplemental heat sources.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ahalu/eli5_how_can_a_geothermal_system_heat_my_house/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhejrh2",
"dhelg2z",
"dhelndg",
"dhem663",
"dheolp4",
"dheqckj"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
3,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They do have a supplemental heat source: the earth. Even if it's 10 below zero outside, it's not going to be nearly so cold at the depth the geothermal pump runs to. When you get deep enough, the ground is more or less the average annual temperature, moving only a little bit due to the seasons.\n\nThe heat pump won't get your house any warmer than the underground heat source. (In a perfect system, your house would equal that underground temperature exactly.) But it will significantly reduce the cost of your traditional heating that brings the house up to comfortable temperature.",
"Reverse refrigeration. Water on the source side enters your heat pump at 10c and leaves at approximately 7c, air enters on the other side of the heat pump at 19c and leaves at 27c. \n\nIn between the water and air is a loop of refrigerant being pumped to transfer the heat. On my phone but the refrigerant changes phases and temperatures while being pushed through a loop that changes siz at specific locations. \n\n\nEdit. Answered much more thoroughly above by /u/DRNate_",
"Just as in summer your air conditioner takes heat from your 74 degree home and forces that heat into 98 degree air, working in reverse it can remove heat from 55 degree water from the earth and force that heat into your 66 degree house. This is the geothermal heat pump, a vapor-compression cycle using the geothermal well or loop as a heat source.",
"The answers here are wrong. The temperature a heat pump can warm a space is not limited to the temperature of the ground (55, in your example) or the outside air in the case of a traditional heat pump.\n\nAs long as the medium you're running through the ground (water, glycol, whatever) is a lower temp than ground itself, you'll transfer heat energy to the system. The compressor and refrigeration components of the system then essentially concentrates the heat you've transferred and uses it to warm your space.\n\n",
"To help with your compressor question, they come in many sizes of course. So one must selected of a certain size. A general rule is you have to pump three pounds per minute per ton of capacity. As it is pumping and compressing gas, we are getting the liquid in the condenser or in then case of geothermal, the coax coil.\n \nNow, capacity of a compressor changes as the density of the gas changes which simply changes with the change in suction pressure. The ground is not constant temperature, but does resist temperature change much more than air. As the loop temperature drops, the capacity of the system will drop. Generally speaking, the cost per BTU will always be cheaper than electric backup heat, but the capacity may be inadequate. \n\nUnder good conditions, the compressor may be producing > 190F hot gas. Oddly, a system low on refrigerant will cause that temperature to get hotter, but recall that I mention refrigerant density. So while hotter, the capacity decreases because the density is less due to being undercharged. The volume and velocity of the hot gas is reduced so the heat quickly is lost enroute to the evaporator.\n\nI am a tech rep for Hydron Module, ClimateMaster and Waterfurnace...among other HVAC things.",
"You may think that water boils at 100^(o)C. However, this is only true at sea level. In the mountains, the boiling point lowers. This is because the atmospheric pressure drops as you go up the mountain.\n\nThere are all sorts of refrigerating fluids, for example, freon, that do the same thing. Drop the pressure in a sealed container of liquid freon and it will start to boil. It will absorb heat from the environment to do so. Increase the pressure on a sealed container of freon gas and it will liquefy, releasing heat as it does so.\n\nHeat pumps use these principles to pump heat around. They pump liquid freon into the a series of tubes in the \"cold\" region and the pressure is dropped. This pressure drop causes the freon to boil and absorb heat. The freon gas is then pumped to the \"hot\" region, where it is compressed. This causes the freon gas to liquefy and release the absorbed heat.\n\nI visualize the effect like a sponge. If you squeeze a sponge, put it in some water, and let go, the sponge will expand and absorb water. The sponge can then be carried to another place and squeezed. As it is squeezed, the water is released.\n\nBy choosing the working fluid and operating pressures properly, heat pumps can move heat easily from fairly cold regions to fairly hot regions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2795ny
|
what's the difference between a laser cutter and a plasma cutter?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2795ny/eli5whats_the_difference_between_a_laser_cutter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chyk16z"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Laser cutters use lasers, plasma cutters use plasma. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
61odoo
|
how do microphones/speakers not echo the sound of a crowd
|
At a concert, how do microphones keep from echoing the screaming of the crowd. In a confined space, wouldn't the loudness of the crowd create a continuous echo throughout the stadium?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61odoo/eli5_how_do_microphonesspeakers_not_echo_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfg147i"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To an extent, they do. However, most microphones are more sensitive in the direction that they're pointed.\n\nThere are no microphones that are only pick up sound from one very specific direction - if someone makes a noise from behind the mic, it'll get picked up to some degree, the question is how much it'll get picked up. A typical mic will pick up in front of it very well, but because the capsule (the electronic thing inside that deals with converting sound to electrical signals) faces towards the singer or instrument, that's where the sound will have the greatest influence. Anything coming from behind will be tiny in comparison meaning that the crowd aren't amplified to any significant degree through the speaker system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2vm7m6
|
why do texts only allow 160 bytes per message?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vm7m6/eli5_why_do_texts_only_allow_160_bytes_per_message/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coiwwm2",
"coiwz9z"
],
"score": [
3,
13
],
"text": [
"SMS was an add-on to the cell networks that existed at the time. 160 characters was all they could fit in given the technical limitations of the networks; and honestly, that was kind of a feat, then.\n\nToday, it persists for backward compatibility; if you need more than that, send an email.",
"The dirty secret of text messaging (and text fees) is that the message gets stuffed into the spare room of a data packet that was going to be sent anyway. Your phone says \"I'm still here!\" at regular intervals, but when you send a text it says \"I'm still here, *and* I have something to say!\" That message then gets routed to the recipient and is stuffed into the tower's reply: \"I hear you, and somebody has a message for you.\"\n\n160 bytes happens to be how much room is available to stuff a message into those packets."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1ijdmw
|
What were the reasons that people of your time period and region believed one contracted various illnesses and diseases?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ijdmw/what_were_the_reasons_that_people_of_your_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb51c2a",
"cb51l2z"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Before the HIV virus was discovered there were many theories about what could be causing AIDS. Some of these theories continued to circulate after the discovery of the virus, and a few hardcore AIDS denialists still believe in alternate theories. \nDuring the very early years of the epidemic there were more questions than answers. No one was sure if AIDS was caused by an infectious agent, environmental factors, or if there was something about gay male sexual practices that was making gay men sick. In an essay entitled \"We Know Who We Are\" in the *New York Native,* Michael Callen and Richard Berkowitz put forward the theory that AIDS was caused by repeated exposure to common viruses. Both gay men with AIDS, they blamed AIDS on gay male promiscuity. \nThe best way I can describe the multiple theories and the confusion it cause is by letting someone else describe. This is from Larry Kramer's play *The Normal Heart* which tells the story of the the founding of Gay Men's Health Crisis during the early years of the epidemic. \nMickey: \"I can't take any more theories. I've written a column about every single one of them. Repeated infection by virus, new appearance by a dormant virus, single virus, new virus, old virus, multivirus, partial virus, latent virus, mutant virus, retrovirus...And we mustn't forget fucking, sucking, kissing, blood, voodoo, drugs, poppers, needles, Africa, Haiti, Cuba, blacks, amebas, pigs, mosquitos, monkeys...What if it isn't any of them?...What if it's monogamy? Bruce, you and I could actually be worse off because of constant bombardment of the virus from a single source - our own lovers! Maybe guys who go to the baths regularly have built up the best immunity! I don't know what to tell anybody.\" \nNow over thirty years into the epidemic, when the knowledge that HIV causes AIDS is practically universal, it's easy to forget that there was a time when there were all sorts of weird theories. ",
"Ohhh, I have a good one. One belief that arose in the last couple of centuries BCE in Judaism(s) is that various conditions - well, mainly *demonic possession* - were caused by the infiltration of the (evil) spirits of deceased giants from primeval times, themselves the [hybrid offspring of angels and humans](_URL_2_). Several texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls support this idea (which [originates in the Book of Enoch](_URL_3_)) - and myself and scholars like Archie Wright (among others) have [argued](_URL_1_) that this is the implied background to some of Jesus' exorcisms in the gospels. \n\nThis later becomes explicit in Christian sources like the [Testament of Solomon](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament_of_Solomon",
"http://www.academia.edu/1403086/Enochic_Evil_Spirits_in_Mark_5",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim",
"http://www.neno.co.ke/bible/book/Book%20of%20Enoch/15/9"
]
] |
||
4zq6mb
|
when can police get accurate speed readings on a moving vehicle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zq6mb/eli5_when_can_police_get_accurate_speed_readings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6xwgk2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When they have radar on and it is within a certain degree of head/tail-on. I think it's within 15 degrees, but can't remember the exact number. The further off it is, the less accurate. And when the radar is properly calibrated, which should be done a minimum of twice per shift.\n\nWhen the are following the vehicle and pace it with their car.\n\nWhen they use lidar, which is like radar, but with lasers. I think this follows the same requirements as radar.\n\nWhen they calculate the speed from a known distance and time the vehicle traveled. The most common method is Using solid lines that run across the road at either 1/8 or 1/4 mile intervals.\n\nI'm sure they have other ways, but those are the 4 most common."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5rzhrx
|
At what point did Salt become so devalued, and why?
|
I have heard that Roman soldiers were paid in Salt, and we still have phrases like a man "worth his salt". In ritualism around the world as well, salt also seems represent something rather valuable.
My basic understanding is that Salt was a precious commodity in Ancient times, was valuable during the height of the Spice Trade, and then became mundane in modern times.
So what happened to change that, and when?
Was Salt ever particularly valuable?
(Yes, I'm sure its a large global industry so its not exactly "devauled", but my understanding is that it certainly used to be much more valuable per pound)
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5rzhrx/at_what_point_did_salt_become_so_devalued_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddbewqc"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"All 4 of these r/AskHistorians posts will answer your question. Hope the mods will consider this an adequate response (I'm not from around here:)!\n\n[Why was salt so scarce and valuable when it is in the ocean everywhere?](_URL_2_) (16 days ago, from /u/bucko9765)\n\n[I'm given to understand that in the pre-modern world salt was a very valuable commodity. If you lived near a coast line what (if anything) was to stop you just making unlimited salt by boiling sea water?](_URL_1_) (8 months ago, from /u/grapp)\n\n[How could a Polish salt miner become rich by getting a handfull of salt each day, while poorer people used salt by the kilo in producing food for the winter?](_URL_3_) (11 months ago, from /u/Toasterlad)\n\n[Salt was once incredibly valuable. But when and how did salt go from an expensive commodity to a common appearance on our every day dinner tables.](_URL_0_) (3 years ago, from /u/Africa_Whale)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nbccf/salt_was_once_incredibly_valuable_but_when_and/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4kz3le/im_given_to_understand_that_in_the_premodern/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5opntw/why_was_salt_so_scarce_and_valuable_when_it_is_in/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45xfn2/how_could_a_polish_salt_miner_become_rich_by/"
]
] |
|
1wnoti
|
if roman numerals are written in order from greatest to least in quantity, such as xii (unless when subtracting like xiv), why is super bowl 48 labeled as xlviii instead of lxviii?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wnoti/eli5_if_roman_numerals_are_written_in_order_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf3pebl",
"cf3pgrp",
"cf3plpg"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"XL would be 40. LX would be 60. It's exactly the subtractive principle you mentioned. ",
"X(-10) L(+50) V(+5) I(+1) I(+1) I(+1)",
"They're *not* written in order from greatest to least.\n \nHowever, *if* a lower-valued symbol appears before a higher-valued symbol, then it is subtracted from it (i.e. it becomes negative).\n\ne.g. XI = 10+1 = 11\nbut IX = (-1)+10 = 9\n\nSo, LXVIII = 50+10+5+1+1+1 = 68\nand XLVIII = (-10)+50+5+1+1+1 = 48"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
445g3l
|
It is often said that middle age era male English skeletons are deformed due to excessive archery practice, are examples of such deformities found in warrior cultures as well? (Mongols, Huns, Spartans, etc)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/445g3l/it_is_often_said_that_middle_age_era_male_english/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cznlqbt",
"czo6ktl",
"czon6oz",
"czoo8dv"
],
"score": [
201,
61,
8,
5
],
"text": [
"To be clear before we start, \"deformed\" isn't exactly how I'd describe *os acromiale*, which is the condition you're describing. Very briefly, what happened to longbowmen (and current competitive archers, etc) was that the growing point (growth plate) on the scapula does not fuse with the bone itself; appearance of that in the left side seems to indicate that arm was taking strains consistent with holding a bow. \n\nThere's an interesting chapter on this in Fury (ed) *[The Social History of English Seamen, 1485-1649](_URL_0_)*, concerning the archaeology of the *Mary Rose*. ",
"This whole thing about the “deformed” skeletons of English longbowmen is a much repeated factoid that comes from a serious misunderstanding of anatomy and work-related remodeling of human skeletons.\n\nThe original work is a paper by Rhodes and Knusel in the *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, in which they reported their findings on skeletons from a couple of medieval cemeteries in Towton and Fishergate in England. These skeletons belonged to two populations – archers using longbows, and infantry using swords and shields. They simply reported that it was possible to distinguish these two populations from their skeletons alone.\n\nSpecifically, they reported that:\n\n*\"Many of these individuals may have participated to some degree in weapon-related training during the key juvenile development period, when bone is most responsive to phenotypic plasticity, yet there does not appear to be a single signature to indicate such training. This may relate to changes in training or technology through time or simply individual preference in weapons.\"*\n\n*\"The men of the Towton population appear to have been engaged in a habitual activity that preferentially loaded the left humerus when compared with the right. This disparity is strongest in the distal humeral shaft. The loading pattern varies such that it creates significant differences between limbs in diaphyseal shape from the mid-distal to midproximal shaft. These changes may relate to a type of weapon requiring both hands, possibly a longbow.\"*\n\n*“The Fishergate blade-injured men appear to have been engaged in a habitual movement pattern that created right-side dominance in cross-sectional geometric properties. This is carried through all slice parameters and may relate to weapon use, most likely a right-handed, unimanual weapon.\"*\n\nThis relatively innocuous conclusion, that there are skeletal differences between people using a two-handed weapon (“possibly a longbow”) and a one-handed weapon such as a sword, has been repeated often and grown in the telling, so now you hear it as “wow, these English bowmen used such *powerful* bows that their skeletons are deformed!” No, their skeletons are not deformed, it’s just that certain bones have adapted to their task of increased weight bearing, which happens to everyone who does any kind of repetitive physical activity over a period of time.\n\nAnd yes, we find skeletal changes related to occupation in all kinds of warriors, ancient and modern. For example, here’s a paper about archers living 7,000 years ago in Sub-Saharan Africa with similarly remodeled skeletons:\n\n* Dutour, O. (1986), Enthesopathies (lesions of muscular insertions) as indicators of the activities of Neolithic Saharan populations. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 71: 221–224.\n\nAnd here’s the longbowmen paper by Rhodes I mentioned above:\n\n* Rhodes, J. a., & Knüsel, C. J. (2005). Activity-related skeletal change in medieval humeri: Cross-sectional and architectural alterations. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 128: 536–546.\n\nThere are dozens of similar examples from different periods and different times. It would be surprising if this were not the case.",
"Some pacific islanders had massive buildup of their OSS at the base of the skull, due to stone working, and also where the biceps connect. I know the ancient Chamorros of Guam had this regularly, and I believe the Tongans had it as well. ",
"The Spartans did not practice weapon proficiency, so their skeletons do not show any deformities due to repeated forceful motion of a particular kind. Their physical training consisted of generic athletic exercises like running, discus-throwing and the like (and apparently they liked ball games).\n\nFamously, the remains of 13 or 14 Spartans who died during the fighting in Piraeus in 403 BC have been found in a marked grave monument in the Kerameikos at Athens. There is nothing remarkable about [the skeletons](_URL_0_) except the fact that one of them had a spearhead logded between the ribs, and another had several arrowheads stuck in his leg."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=Zt5_no6uC8IC"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/67/5b/e7/675be7143190cd628eb8118bec860117.jpg"
]
] |
||
4biggz
|
what and where is "privilege"?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4biggz/eli5what_and_where_is_privilege/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d19egly",
"d19endh",
"d19eqgx",
"d19f17u"
],
"score": [
11,
6,
6,
7
],
"text": [
"How often are you followed around by sales clerks in a store, because they think you might steal things? As a white girl myself, I never had - but the first time I went shopping in those same stores with a black friend, I could tell that she was being followed around, regarded as untrustworthy. I asked her about it and she just sort of shrugged it off. \"Yeah, that happens a lot\", she said. And other black friends say the same thing. \n\nI had no idea. That's what privilege is - me being treated differently because of how I look and having no idea that is happening. ",
"Privilege is worrying if the \"Girl Power STEM Conference\" is sexist rather than worrying if you're going to be sexually assaulted by drunk village elders.\n\nEverything is relative, and you're sampling from the top 5% of the world's 13-year old girl experiences. How do I know, because your English spelling is correct and you're using reddit.",
"Privilege is just the things society gives you that it denies others. While you may not think that your whiteness has given you any advantages, you benefit in a variety of ways. As a white girl, you have certain advantages and disadvantages when it comes to getting a job, getting promoted, or being taken seriously at work. As a white person, you are more likely to get a job. As a girl, you are less likely to be promoted. Society is type casting you into a certain role based on things that you can't control. This doesn't mean that you can't overcome society's expectations, just that the odds are stacked against you and that's not fair. \n\nRecognizing our privileges should not be about feeling guilty for how society gives us a leg up, it's about fighting for the people who aren't getting a good deal.",
"Being treated like you're amazing and special for doing something normal is called *patronization* and it is based in sexism. Though you may not mind or it doesn't offend you right now.... give it time. \n\nThe fact that you even have the option to think about STEM is privilege. Predominantly black communities have schools with 1 computer for 2000 kids. Their parents are struggling to feed their family to the point that you would have to get a job at 15 in order for your siblings to survive. College is far out of the question. \n\nAlso, you probably don't get how women are treated like children every day because you *actually are* a child. When you're an adult and people still treat you like a helpless 13 year old you might realize how prevalent it is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2l0cw4
|
From an evolutionist standpoint, if warmth is necessary for survival, why did humans evolve without fur?
|
it just seems counterproductive to me. if we started out as monkeys why would we lose that warmth.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2l0cw4/from_an_evolutionist_standpoint_if_warmth_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clqs3zi",
"clqxx2l"
],
"score": [
13,
5
],
"text": [
"We lived in warm places and didn't need fur to live. Losing it made us cool down better when exercising, enabling us to endurance-hunt other animals who cannot exert themselves as much continuously over a long time.",
"Because staying cool can be more necessary for survival than staying warm is if you live in a hot place or need to run to hunt and get your food. Both of these were likely the case for very early humans. So the assumption that warmth is good for survival is the issue here, not some unusual case of how evolution works"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8ryp1v
|
Is energy always conserved? Are there exceptions ?
|
This [video](_URL_2_) suggests that this isn't the case. During red-shift of photon, the energy is simply lost!
Questions:
1. Why does photons get red-shifted ?(I always thought red-shift was a local phenomenon, between the observer and object, or within the reference frame.)
2. This [link](_URL_1_) suggests that energy is used by the universe itself while expanding, does that mean entire laws of physics will change? All the constants that define the universe will change?
3. This [paper](_URL_0_) seems to suggest that it all depends upon the frame of reference, so all the constants and measurements we do is solely dependent upon the frame of reference ? Or is it that some measurements are local and some are universal ?
4. Is space-time is not flat, and is curved , what are the observable effects ? and what are the effects due to it ?
PS: Physics is clearly not my forte :P
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8ryp1v/is_energy_always_conserved_are_there_exceptions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0vbhis"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"You might find this blog post interesting:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nOutside of cosmology, energy is conserved in isolated systems. Within cosmology, one runs into an issue of concepts and semantics. Let's say, because of dark energy and a non-zero cosmological constant, \"conventional\" energy is definitely not conserved, and increases in time.\n\nHowever, there is, in some sense, an energy that can be associated with the curvature of the universe itself. If one includes this, then there is still conservation. However, this \"energy of curvature\" is: a) negative, and b) cannot be formulated in terms of a local energy of a local \"thing\" like a field, rather you can only assign a number to the entire universe as a whole.\n\nThus, it doesn't really have many of the properties we would associated with an energy or energy density."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0511178",
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/19/ask-ethan-when-a-photon-gets-redshifted-where-does-the-energy-go",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHCc9b2phn0"
] |
[
[
"http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/"
]
] |
|
3j8s2j
|
Is there any g-force felt by those in a space station?
|
I understand that while in a space station, generally, you are weightless and only under the effect of microgravity.
Does this mean that the g-force produced by the station's acceleration around the earth is negligible or is it entirely nonexistent?
Bonus question: if there is a g-force caused by rotating the earth, how fast would I have to go at sea level for it to kill me? Barring atmospheric friction, of course.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3j8s2j/is_there_any_gforce_felt_by_those_in_a_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cungfay"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > Is there any g-force felt by those in a space station?\n\nNot much, that's why it's called micro-gravity.\n\nYou should be asking:\n\n > Is there any gravitational force in a space station?\n\nYes.\n\nThe acceleration due to Earth's gravity at the ISS is [92%](_URL_0_) as strong as that on the surface\n\n > Is there any ~~g-force~~ acceleration felt by those in a space station?\n\nNot really.\n\n > if there is a g-force caused by ~~rotating~~ orbiting the earth\n\nNo. The astronauts don't *feel* any acceleration because they are in free-fall. As mentioned earlier, this does not mean there is no force applied on them.\n\nWhat the so called g-force (acceleration) does on, let's say a banking airplane, is it applies a force on your body through the seat, which presses your body.\n\nThings in orbit don't have anything to press against to get crushed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-g_environment"
]
] |
|
1j8q28
|
How efficient is human power?
|
Given that food requires energy to be grown, shipped, and stored, what is the real cost of burning, say, 1000 calories? How do the efficiencies of walking and driving compare?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1j8q28/how_efficient_is_human_power/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbc8v8j",
"cbcfips",
"cbcgba7",
"cbcgspe"
],
"score": [
357,
32,
3,
10
],
"text": [
"A 68 kg (150 lb) person walking at 4 km/h (2.5 mph) requires approximately 210 kilocalories (880 kJ) of food energy per hour, or 4.55 km/MJ. One 1 US gallon (~3.7854 liter) of gasoline contains about 114,000 BTU (120 MJ) of energy, so this converts to roughly 360 miles per US gallon (0.65 l/100 km).\n\nA relatively light and slow vehicle with low-friction tires and an efficient chain-driven drivetrain, the bicycle is one of the most efficient forms of transport. A 140 lb (64 kg) cyclist riding at 16 km/h (10 mph) requires about half the energy per unit distance of walking: 43 kcal/mi or 3.1 kWh (11 MJ) per 100 km. This figure depends on the speed and mass of the rider: greater speeds give higher air drag and heavier riders consume more energy per unit distance. This converts to about 732 miles per US gallon (0.321 L/100 km; 879 mpg-imp).\n\n_URL_0_\n\nTL;DR: Biking > Walking > Car",
"_URL_0_\n\nNumbers taken from _URL_1_\n",
"Does muscle efficiency change depending on fitness, diet, ect?\n\nI seem to get hot from activity (even just walking) much more quickly than anyone else I know (who are all more fit than me), and this has been the biggest hurdle for me trying to get fit because 65% of the year it's just too hot to do anything. I wonder if maybe the others get less hot because there muscles are capable of utilizing the energy more so it doesn't get expelled as waste heat.",
"Follow up:\n\nHow does our efficiency compare with others in the animal kingdom?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Walking"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Dwpaa5W.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3hu8x6
|
Why were medieval cities in England smaller than ancient Mesopotamian cities?
|
At the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066, the largest city in England, London, had a population around 20,000. The largest cities in ancient Sumer reached > 40,000. How can it be with the superior farming technology of the medieval world those people couldn't create larger farming surpluses and thus facilitate the growth of significantly larger cities? Why does the medieval world appear to be so rural when many times and places that preceded it seem to be able to create large urban populations?
Thanks
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hu8x6/why_were_medieval_cities_in_england_smaller_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuan59r"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Apples and oranges, my friend. \n\nIf you look back to [Roman London in the 2nd century, the population was about 60,000](_URL_0_). After the fall of the Roman empire, London continued to function as an Anglo-Saxon city but it didn't have the benefit of a major empire controlling and trading from it. It was a relatively busy port, but it was repeatedly attacked by Vikings. By the time of the Norman Conquest, it was much smaller than it once was, but if you look forward about 200 years, the population of London was probably around 80,000 and continued to grow.\n\nIn comparison, you can look at [a city like Uruk](_URL_1_) which grew from a fairly small farming village into the center of government and society for a major civilization over about 800 years. The population grew exponentially as the city grew, because that is where the jobs and food and money were.\n\nThere were times when medieval cities were large and when Sumerian cities were small. If you want to compare both cities at the height of their prominence, Uruk had about 80,000 residents during the \"Uruk Period\" of Sumer when it was the most influential city. London in 1914 (I'm gonna call that the height of London's power, but feel free to dispute it) had about 4.5 million in the official city, but 7.1 in the \"greater London area\". \n\nEdit: added some sources"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.demographia.com/dm-lon31.htm",
"http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=uruk_mod._warka"
]
] |
|
2iz5v9
|
How long have humans been using knots?
|
And how do we know?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2iz5v9/how_long_have_humans_been_using_knots/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl6u26o",
"cl6ucqh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The knots are definitely prehistoric, the oldest fish net is over 9000 years old. The net was practically modern – instead of nylon, it was made of willow bark – so the earliest knots are probably quite a bit older. Chimpanzees are known to make knots in wild, so a good guess is that humans have been using knots as long as there has been humans.",
"hi! this question would be worth x-posting to our sister sub, /r/AskAnthropology, since there are a few more anthropologists & archaeologists over there"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
275p6d
|
what would happen if our solar system simply moved to another location?
|
So from what I understand there is no direction in space, but what if our entire solar system, intact, moved from its original point (point A) to a new point (point B) which is, say, 10 000 light years from point A? What would happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/275p6d/eli5_what_would_happen_if_our_solar_system_simply/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chxmnwo",
"chxmrou"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"If it remained as far away from the nearest stars, gamma-ray sources, etc. as our current one, there would probably be no detectable difference.",
"Well, the entire solar system is moving at a fairly rapid clip through the galaxy; 7 km/sec, actually. So we move that distance about every 430 million years.\n\nUnless there is something else where point B is (objects like another stellar system, stellar remnant, large planetary body), or it is in a different place in the galaxy (core, arm, void, halo, or outside it entirely), then very little should be different from an every day perspective."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
a30sy4
|
In Ancient Rome how difficult was it communicating with new tribes/kingdoms that spoke different languages? Would it take weeks, months or years to be able to understand each other enough to conduct trade, form alliances or negotiate peace?
|
This question can also apply to Europeans making contact with the people of the New World and other such first encounters.
I've been listening to the History or Rome and History of Byzantium podcasts and whenever the Romans would first meet a new tribe/kingdom it seems that they were able to communicate with them fairly easily. Were their languages similar enough to barely understand each other or was it extremely hard with a lot of miscommunication, and as a result consequences, due to the language barrier?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a30sy4/in_ancient_rome_how_difficult_was_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eb2s822",
"eb3roff"
],
"score": [
22,
4
],
"text": [
"I can only speak for the Roman Empire - and fortunately (since I answered a similar question last week) I can copy and paste an earlier reply:\n\nIn the eastern provinces, where knowledge of Greek was widespread, Roman generals and their staffs (who, as members of the elite, were usually conversant in Greek) had no problems. In the west, the Romans typically relied on bilingual locals.\n\nDuring his conquest of Gaul, Caesar seems to have had a staff of interpreters (probably from Cisalpine Gaul), whom he supplemented with Romanized local notables:\n\n\"Therefore, before attempting anything in the matter, Caesar ordered Diviciacus to be summoned to his quarters, and, having removed the regular interpreters, conversed with him through the mouth of Gaius Valerius Procillus, a leading man in the Province of Gaul and his own intimate friend, in whom he had the utmost confidence upon all matters.\" (*BG* 1.19)\n\nProcillus (who may have been the son of a Gallic chieftain) is representative of the class of men who tended to spring up on the margins of the Roman Empire. A complex array of sociopolitical motives encouraged local potentates on both sides of the border to learn Latin, or have their sons learn it. Sometimes, the process was actively encouraged by Rome, most famously by the general Agricola in Britain:\n\n\"\\[Agricola\\] likewise provided a liberal education for the sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference for the natural powers of the Britons over the industry of the Gauls that they who lately disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its eloquence. \" (Tacitus, *Agricola* 21)\n\n(Tacitus' reference to the \"industry of Gauls\" refers to the schools of Latin rhetoric already widespread in Gaul a century after Caesar's conquest. )\n\nMore generally, however, locals learned Latin on their own initiative, even beyond the Roman border. In the imperial era, the existence of large permanent garrisons on the frontiers created a thriving economic zone that drew in local populations on both sides of the border - and encouraged them to learn Latin, if only to profit from the legions. Extensive recruitment of auxiliaries from beyond the frontiers, likewise, spread a working knowledge of Latin far beyond the border zone.\n\nWhen the Romans expanded into new territory, in short, they usually found locals fluent in their language already there.",
"If you're interested in first contact historical stories you might enjoy reading the travel diary of Marquette when he traveled through Wisconsin to get to the Mississippi River for the first time. He details several encounters with natives who'd never met a European. I think he had someone from the Illinois tribe who spoke French and then that person was able to talk to someone from a small village who knew a little of their language and communicated to the chief that way. It's a fascinating read, I wish I knew of more stories like that for my own reading but I only know Marquette because he traveled through my area of Wisconsin and it was fascinating to read. [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) is the one I usually use when I clip out interesting quotes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.americanjourneys.org/pdf/AJ-051.pdf"
]
] |
|
5q20wg
|
Why were so many willing to fight for and defend the institution of slavery, even when they owned no slaves?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5q20wg/why_were_so_many_willing_to_fight_for_and_defend/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcw0ngc"
],
"score": [
127
],
"text": [
"So when speaking about Southern society in the Antebellum period, what is important to understand is that the South was *not* simply a society in which people owned slaves, but rather it was a *slave society*. I hope that the difference is appreciable, but to make it clear, what I mean to say is that slavery permeated it at every level, from the richest of plantation owners with hundreds of slaves working their fields, to the lowliest backwoods 'cracker' barely scraping sustenance from their small patch of dirt. I'm incredibly fond of this quote from Bertram Wyatt-Brown in describing what a slave society means, as it also will be of the utmost importance in the next point:\n\n > Policing one's own ethical sphere was the natural complement of the patriarchal order. When Southerners spoke of liberty, they generally meant the birthright to self-determination of one's place in society, not the freedom to defy sacred conventions, challenge longheld assumptions, or propose another scheme of moral or political order. If someone, especially a slave, spoke or acted in a way that invaded that territory or challenged that right, the white man so confronted had the inalienable right to meet the lie and punish the opponent. Without such a concept of white liberty, slavery would have scarcely lasted a moment. There was little paradox or irony in this juxtaposition from the cultural perspective. Power, liberty, and honor were all based upon community sanction, law, and traditional hierarchy as described in the opening section.\n\nThe point is, the slave was a *foil*, of sorts, something which any whiteman could hold himself up against, and in fact, in many ways it was the *non*-slave owning whites who felt invested in the system. Not only was \"slave owner\" something to which a poor whiteman could aspire to, but the slaves provided him with someone who, no matter how low he might sink, he still could look down upon. The thought of a blackman outranking him would be an abhorrent thought to a poor white man. One very interesting aspect which Wyatt-Brown talks about in \"Southern Honor\" is the slave patrols, which would generally be made up of lowerclass whites, and led by *slightly* better off Yeoman farmers, and often found themselves in conflict with slaveowners, especially those who were seen as too lenient and lacking in discipline. The men of the slave patrol had a vested interest in ensuring the blacks remained the lowest rung of society, and they felt threatened by masters who, to quote one incident \"upheld his negroes in their rascality\" - in this case didn't whip one of his slaves enough for a perceived transgression.\n\nThe fear of a post-slavery society was a terrifying prospect, and one which was played upon heavily in the bid to 'sell' secession. The best example of this comes from the Southern Commissioners, men who were sent by the earliest states to secede to other slave states then 'on the fence' in an effort to sway them. In their speeches and correspondence, they make apple reference to the basest of fears of what free blacks, unfettered from the institution of slavery by Northern abolitionists, will unleash. They don't only speak to the possibility of black persons negatively affecting the labor market at the expense of poor whites, or of the 'negroes' elevating themselves above whitemen, \"the slaveholder and nonslaveholder sharing the same fate; all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes\", a prospect that was bad enough, but speak of whitemen being murdered in their sleep, \"*wives and daughters [subjected] to pollution and violation to gratify the lusts of half-civilized Africans*\", and in the end, an \"*eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the countr*\". \n\nSo the point is that slavery, and the desire to protect it, was far more than simply about the economic interests of the planter class with their plantations, or the small farmer who could best afford one or two. The very structure of Southern society was in too many ways focused around slavery, and what it meant to be free, to be white, to be a *man*, were all set up in explicit opposition to the enslaved blacks. To be sure, we can find an unending parade of Southerners, both slaveowner (roughly 1/3 of Southern soldiers came from slaveowning families) and nonslaveowner (roughly 2/3 of Southern soldiers came from nonslaveowning families) alike, who echo the sentiments of one Kentuckian in his desire to emulate Washington in \"*bursting the bonds of tyranny*\" or a Texan enlisted man who wrote home that \"*Liberty and freedom in this western world [...] so we dissolved our alliance with this oppressive foe and are now enlisted in 'The Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence' again*\" . If I had the time or inclination I could find thousands of those, as we have no shortage of letters and diaries preserved from this period, but we must return to Wyatt-Brown above in understanding what *Liberty* meant to a Southerner. To them *Liberty* was a very different concept than what it is to us today. *Liberty* was part of slave society, and defined by slave society. They were going to war in the name of *Liberty*, but that *Liberty* was not only the *Liberty* to own slaves, which many of them could only aspire to, but to define oneself in opposition to a slave, which was available to every white man.\n\nTo be sure, not all necessarily expressed themselves in such 'high-falutin' terms - and we can find our fair share of grumblings that \"*this is a Rich mans Woar But the poor man has to doo the fiting*\". In his study of letters and diaries, James M. McPherson notes that it patriotic and ideological sentiments were more common with soldiers from slaveowning families, or from states with high slave populations (he notes the most interesting difference being \"82 percent from South Carolina avowed patriotic convictions, compared with 47 percent from North Carolina\"), as well as a similar split with soldiers who joined in the first year, and those later on, but but even those who saw their need to fight as a more basic defense of home and family from Yankee aggression were fighting for a way of life which they saw as threatened, and one which would be irreparably changed with abolition. \n\n\"Apostles of Disunion\" by Charles Dew\n\n\"Southern Honor\" by Bertram Wyatt-Brown\n\n\"What They Fought For, 1861-1865\" by James McPherson\n\nEdit: Formatting"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
uhoju
|
What can you tell us about the formation of national identities?
|
I had to phrase it as a question, but this is more to invite discussion than expecting a single good answer. In the thread about cultural quirks, we were discussing the difficulty Tsarist Russian commoners had in understanding politics ([permalink](_URL_0_)), and I said that:
> abstract nation-states didn't really exist until a few centuries ago - Rome being the obvious exception - and that most nations were really just very extensive family businesses belonging to the ruling family.
Anybody care to comment on the formation of the modern, abstract nation-state, and the transition from family/feudal systems?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uhoju/what_can_you_tell_us_about_the_formation_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4vgqqt",
"c4vhzd7",
"c4vmwxr"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[Imagined Communities](_URL_0_), you can start there.",
"Well, there are two significant events that develop, one for the idea of the modern state system, and another for national identity.\n\nFor the modern state system, you want to look at the [Treaty of Westphalia](_URL_1_), signed in 1648. This treaty introduced the policy of state sovereignty, essentially the belief that states should be able to guide themselves, and that they have an innate existence given to them by the recognition of other states. This was the birth of the modern state system.\n\nFor nationality, the first display and arguably its first use is with the French Emperor Napoleon I, and the levee en masse. Napoleon was the first to weaponize nationality, where before people would typically signify themselves with their family or perhaps county, Napoleon had men identifying with the nation of France, making it a point of pride and honor. This led to the mass recruitment of millions, which allowed him to drive into Europe the way he did.\n\n[For a source on Napoleon and Nationalism, i found this website, which provides a nice, brief explanation.](_URL_0_)\n\nI am sure there are some better resources out there, perhaps someone would be wiling to delve into it more.",
"I'm obviously no expert--would love to read responses from some medievalists in the subreddit!--and I realize this is sloppy, so caveat lector....\n\nYou can see hints of nationalism cropping up as early as the Hundred Years War (if not earlier--but I dont know much about that), and language is a good lens through which to see this. Up until Henry V (r. 1413-1422), English was an acquired tongue for the English monarchs [can anyone verify this? I know I have read this but I can't find a reputable site to back me up], French being the primary language; in fact, the first English king to even be born in England was Richard I in 1189, but he grew up in Aquitaine. With the ongoing conflicts with the French came the rise of national unity (clearly I am oversimplifying this), and I can imagine monarchs wanting to distance themselves from their French ties (which they did, but gradually). In 1362, Edward III adopted a law that declared that all government affairs had to be conducted in English. And with near total loss of land on the Continent, I feel that'd be the (or a) nail in the coffin: the French are different; we're over here, they're over there, we speak different languages, and they suck. Here's an [an old-ass article](_URL_0_) that probably says something to the same effect but much more eloquently and intelligently (though I don't have access to it at the moment).\n\nSo, by the mid-15th century, it seems that French and English national identities were established. I don't have any specific quotations for you at the moment (though could investigate if you're interested), but you can see in [Joan of Arc's trial documents (1431)](_URL_1_) that there are nationalistic sentiments at play. They speak unabashedly of 'the French' and 'the English', and it's no accident that she's a national hero.\n\nI would imagine this will have played out very differently in, say, Italy, where there were numerous city-states with their own regional pride at stake."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uf4cz/what_are_some_weird_cultural_quirks_trends/c4ux4ol"
] |
[
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Nationalism-Edition/dp/1844670864/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338674426&sr=8-1"
],
[
"http://www.flowofhistory.com/readings-flowcharts/the-early-modern-era/the-age-revolutions/fc106",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westphalia"
],
[
"http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3678656?uid=3739568",
"http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/joanofarc-trial.asp"
]
] |
|
2uaz8g
|
what is epistemology and ontology?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uaz8g/eli5_what_is_epistemology_and_ontology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co6si13",
"co6sr55",
"co6t9ub",
"co6typw",
"co6u8o9"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think this can be answered easily, and I'm still confused after hours of consideration. The definition also depends on in what context you're using these terms.\n\nThis is what I've distilled the two into (please correct me if I'm wrong!):\n\nOntology is what we consider as knowledge or what we consider are 'things' to know while epistemology is the way in which we transfer and gather that information or knowledge.",
"Epistemology asks the question \"What is knowledge?\"\n\nOntology asks the question \"What is existence?\"",
"In computer science people sometimes use the term Ontology when talking systems that categorize *everything* or a whole domain of knowledge. e.g. if you had to put a label on every link that Google indexes you might talk about the ontology of the link categories. Or in that spirit you might think of the Dewey Decimal System as an ontology for categorizing books.\n",
"Epistemologist here. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It asks questions like what counts as a true claim. It might also ask questions about what is objective knowledge, or if objectivity is possible. Ontology is the theory of being. So, it asks questions about the essential nature of things that exist like human beings. It is also interested in the relationship between beings or things which exist. In general if you were to say \"there is an ontological difference between X and Y\" you mean there is a difference in their nature. As opposed to saying there is a logical difference between them, which is only a difference in how we think about them. ",
"How do we know things? \n\nIt's a good question. Probably an important one. In order to answer it, we need to figure out what we mean by \"things.\" What does it mean to be a thing? What properties does a thing have? How does a thing relate to other things? Those are the problems faced by the study of Ontology. In order to make sense of our world with the tools available to us (primarily language), we have to figure out how to categorize and order things and ideas and notions of existence. Ontology examines the ideas we use to make those structures and categories.\n\nBack to the original question: How do we know things? \n\nWell, we've got the things part taken care of. Now we need to figure out what we mean by \"know.\" What does it mean to know something? How do we arrive at a state where we can say that we know that thing? What does our understanding of knowledge mean for the way we gather the information that leads to it? Those are questions of Epistemology. If, for example, we say that knowledge of something means that we have a justified true belief in that thing, then we have to interrogate what provides justification of the truth of our beliefs. Empiricism says that knowledge, or a justified true belief, can only be gained through the experience of the senses. That's a (dramatically oversimplified) version of the Epistemology that drives classical notions of Science and Scientific Inquiry. \n\nThere are interesting debates to be had in these areas. There are some who might say that Epistemology is a sort of specific Ontology of things in the category called \"Knowledge\" (a position that has some merit). But, they're pretty important concepts that cause a lot of confusion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ainyc
|
why is it, when i hear a song i havn't heard in years, i can feel like i'm in the same mood and state of mind from when last i heard it.
|
Has anybody else heard a song that they maybe listened to a lot in high school or some time, and when you listen to it again, for a bit you sort of feel exactly how you did at that time in high school when you listened to it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ainyc/eli5_why_is_it_when_i_hear_a_song_i_havnt_heard/
|
{
"a_id": [
"civqyfz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I know exactly what you are talking about. And one reason that this might happen is due to classical conditioning. Have you heard of Pavlov and his dogs? A biologist, I believe, discovered that his [dogs salivated whenever he rung a bell](_URL_1_). Pavlov would ring a bell, wait for a bit, and then feed his dogs. After a few tries, the dogs would salivate at the sound of the bell because they subconsciously expect their meal.\n\nThis is the very basic form of conditioning. The same thing can happen with music. Whenever you listened to a song (*unconditioned stimulus*) in high school, for example, you were probably also doing something at the same time whether it was reading a book, falling asleep, thinking about your current problems and situations in life, etc. Your brain associates those feelings/thoughts/experiences with whatever stimulus (in this case a song) was happening at the same time. This is called **acquisition.**\n\nThere is also the topic of **extinction** in classical conditioning. Without going into a lot of detail, if the stimulus stops being repeated over time, the connection will weaken. However, the connection has a high chance of spontaneously being made again. That is called **spontaneous recovery.** [This graph](_URL_0_) shows you what happens in the case with Pavlov and his dogs. As the graph shows, the dogs produced increasing amounts of saliva during **acquisition** for each time they were fed after the bell was rung. During **extinction,** the dogs still expected the food even though the bell was rung. But when no food was given to them, they quickly lost that connection as shown by the decrease in saliva production. After a while, the connection would return again for a short time (like when you listen to the song again after a few years) and the conditioned response (in this case the thoughts and feelings you had back then) would return. But if you were to continue to listen to the song without thinking of those thoughts you had before, your mind will slowly break that connection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.csus.edu/indiv/w/wickelgren/psyc001/ClassCondGraphSm.JPG",
"http://changecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/classical-conditioning.jpg"
]
] |
|
3ar0x6
|
when a fly comes into my house, is it happy to be there or would it rather be outside in its "natural" environment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ar0x6/eli5_when_a_fly_comes_into_my_house_is_it_happy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csf56h4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Insects are attracted to light. The fly doesn't doesn't know it's inside your house because it doesn't have the concept of indoors/outdoors. Just light. If you closed all your windows, turned off the lights, and left the door open, the fly will happily let itself out. And put away your food."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
51dyqx
|
how do bus stop buttons work?
|
A few days ago, me and my friends were on a bus and we saw that one of the screws for a stop button had come loose. My friend loosened the other one and it came off, but to our surprise, there were no cables. We tried pressing it but it didn't work. How exactly do they trigger the signal at the front of the bus. Here is an image so you can get an idea of what it looked like:
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51dyqx/eli5_how_do_bus_stop_buttons_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7b8eit",
"d7baaui",
"d7bed96"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Could it be that you had a button that never actually worked because they forgot to wire it up? :)",
"While those are historically wired, there is nothing that says they have to be. The wires run around the whole bus and are a real pain to find a fault in, so it makes sense to go wireless.\n\nThere are buttons out there with a radio transmitter that are powered by the actual pressing of the button itself, so you don't need any batteries and all that. They activate from the power produced by the pressed button and transmit for half a second or so before going to sleep again.\n\nAll you need is a handful of sensibly placed receivers around the bus that pick up the signal.",
"As others have said, it's probably wireless. If you don't mind the lagality of it, a fun practical joke would be to steal the button and carry it in your pocket, and whenever a bus passes by, press it."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/BHCqB"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3i540k
|
The extent of the roman empires trading influence.
|
How far would a roman coin travel?
Where would the goods brought into the empire come from?
Where would goods be sent out to?
What sort of goods could survive travelling such distances, and how would they be conveyed over such vast distances?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3i540k/the_extent_of_the_roman_empires_trading_influence/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cudpl5n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We do know that Roman coins and Indian goods have been found in South India and Rome respectively.\n\nIndian traders used to trade till Egypt directly and Roman traders would take over from there and this process worked in the reverse.\n\nIndian export guilds actively traded in Indian luxuries AND Wootz Steel with Egypt, Rome and China to the east."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
yttiv
|
why was samsung sued by apple for ui patent infringements when they use a google ui?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yttiv/why_was_samsung_sued_by_apple_for_ui_patent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5ysnga",
"c5yy2e3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They heavily modify the UI. They use googles underlying operating system, but install touch wiz on top of it, which changes many of the behaviors. ",
"As /u/SecureThruObscure pointed out, Samsung heavily mods the UI.\n\nLet's take [this image](_URL_1_) for comparison. On the left is Stock Android 4.0 (ICS) which is what Google makes availble. On the right is still Android 4.0, but running an additional layer of customization from Samsung that they call [TouchWiz](_URL_0_).\n\n- Notice how Samsung uses the dots to denote number of active homescreens. \n- Notice how the Phone icon samsung uses is very close to how it looks on the iPhone, but differs completely from the one on Stock Android.\n- The Contacts app's icon is also closer to what Apple uses than it to to the Stock Android icon.\n\nThere are other things too, of course. This is why Apple is just very pissed at Samsung. Not only did they make their phones look like their iPhone, they even made that attempt in software."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchwiz",
"http://i.imgur.com/xbrBL.jpg"
]
] |
||
c4jwau
|
You hear often that is space you lose muscle mass because of atrophy from the 0 gravity. Is it actually possible to GAIN mass with enough exercise or is it always a losing battle?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/c4jwau/you_hear_often_that_is_space_you_lose_muscle_mass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erxez0g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I mean, you can work out and gain mass, but the statement about muscle is taking into account that you follow the same routine as in earth and were stabilized on not gainong/losing muscle. \n\nWhat it means is that since you don't make work against gravity to walk, move things, etc. Doing the same workout with the same diet you would lose muscle, as you are doing less force and consequently your muscles are doing less work so they aren't as needed, so they reduce mass."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3qkjxn
|
what are some civilizations that rose to a peak and than to a downfall?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qkjxn/what_are_some_civilizations_that_rose_to_a_peak/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwfz62o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sorry, we don't allow [\"trivia seeking\" questions](_URL_1_). These tend to produce threads which are collections of disjointed, partial responses, and not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for. If you have a specific question about an historical event, period, or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again. Alternatively, questions of this type can be directed to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history /r/askhistory, or /r/tellmeafact. For further explanation of the rule, feel free to consult [this META thread](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nub87/rules_change_throughout_history_rule_is_replaced/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22trivia_seeking.22_questions"
]
] |
||
1klwho
|
How prominent were gangs and outlaws in the wild west?
|
Were they a big issue for everyday life in the west? To expand, were there any well-known or important gangs of outlaws?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1klwho/how_prominent_were_gangs_and_outlaws_in_the_wild/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbqc2zn",
"cbqf0xz"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"I'm not really a historian or qualified to answer this question on my own; however, I would point to Pierre Berton's book *Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush* as an excellent read. The Klondike gold rush is later and far removed from what we typically think of as the wild west. Nevertheless, a lot of the actors in the Klondike gold rush drifted west over time and have history in earlier frontier areas.\n\nOne notable figure who had a prominent role in Skagway, Alaska during the gold rush and other places earlier in his life, is [Soapy Smith](_URL_0_), the so-called dictator of Skagway. He and his gang had the town firmly in his grasp to the misfortunate of those who were unlucky enough to be caught up in his many confidence-games. His era in Skagway is a very entertaining read (as is the rest of the book).",
"Here is a article that lists several sources that claims that the entire pop culture idea of the wild west is completely overblown by Hollywood \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapy_Smith"
],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinion/25tierney.html?_r=0"
]
] |
|
50p6uf
|
how does modern dsl achieve the speeds it does with using regular telephone wire/rj-11?
|
The local phone company offers 40mbps- just mind boggling to me that they're able to achieve that throughput on a regular telephone line.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50p6uf/eli5_how_does_modern_dsl_achieve_the_speeds_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d76etiq",
"d76fq39",
"d76ifkj"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I work for ATT as a technician, and I may not be able to give you a super technical explanation, but I'll try. \n\nTypical Cable companies use Coax to carry signal down the line. Coax cords have a string of copper on the center which is generally wrapped in a weave of metals with a rubber shell. They can push greater speeds down the line because they have a higher source. Unless you're talking about Fiber, which ATT and just about every other company is laying and using now. \n\nTo get to your main question though, \"old telephone wire\" is really just copper cable. If it's REALLY old it may be made of lead, but that's generally not the case. You will most likely have fiber going to a node, and then twisted copper wire going to terminals in people's yards, then a twisted copper drop going to the house, which is then connected to your internal wiring. Usually the wiring inside a house can be Cat5, or Cat3. Most of the time if the houses are older you will run into \"quad wire\" which was used, and still is used for alarm systems, to run phone lines previously. \n\nTL;DR They are both copper wires at heart, and it it just runs the same. Lol. Sorry for the long speech. :) \n\nEDIT: As for the RJ-11, our internet just runs off one twisted pair of two wires, so technically we only need 1/5th of the full RJ-11. Unless it's a bonded pie and we would use two pairs. ",
" > The local phone company offers 40mbps- just mind boggling to me that they're able to achieve that throughput on a regular telephone line.\n\nIt's all about bandwidth. That is the range of frequencies you can use for communication.\n\nHigher speeds have been mostly about getting closer (and the occasional EM black magic). \n\nEarly dial up systems used 3000 hz of bandwidth, which is what a long distance phone call uses. This gave a theoretical limit of 30kbps (28.8 kbps modems were typical).\n\nYou couldn't go faster because the phone system only provided 3000 Hz of bandwidth, this was plenty for human voice communication. If you used frequencies lower than 400 Hz or higher than 3400 Hz the telephone system that carried dial up would just cut off the extra.\n\nLater, we got a little cleverer. You could install the dial up receiver in the exchange, before it went onto the long distance network (which has the 3000Hz limit). This allowed you to use more frequency and 56k Dial Up was born.\n\nHowever higher frequencies don't travel as well, so you still had an upper limit to how much bandwidth you could put through the phone line. \n\nTo get closer ISPs installed cabinets closer to people's homes, this allowed them to use much more bandwidth in the existing copper cables, because the signals didn't travel as far. ADSL was born using over *1 million Hz* of bandwidth (~25kHz - 1100 kHz). \n\nThe downside is that while dial up could run for a very long distance, ADSL drops off quite quickly. ADSL speeds decrease significantly after 2km. ADSL2+ is faster, but drops off rapidly after ~1.5 km. VDSL2+ is the faster, offering up to 60mbps, but speed drops dramatically after just ~500meters.\n\n_URL_0_",
"remember the 14kbps to 36kpbs to 56kpbs to 112kpbs and so on and so fore? these are technology in it's receiving part of the modem. basically as long as the wire in telephone jack can maintain it's voltage without corrupting it's data over that distance, and the recipient can make it out of what the sender is trying to say at that speed, it can goes as fast as 40mbps as you stated.\n\ntechnology algorithm + the medium physical bandwidth = speed of transfer.\n\nwith 40mbps on your telephone line, you make sure there is no water in the trunking or else you are fucked since the frequency is so fast. you won't be fucked if it was a 56kbps because it is slow and the other end still be able to understand the signal even if it have been amplified in water.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/ADSL_Line_Rate_Reach.gif"
],
[]
] |
|
1vi1gn
|
If I were to adopt a child from 5,000 y/a and raise them in modern day America, would they grow up to be a "normal" person?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vi1gn/if_i_were_to_adopt_a_child_from_5000_ya_and_raise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceshrtv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The [modern human](_URL_0_) is thought to of come about ~50,000 years ago. So any significant time before that (say 100,000 years) and you have an entirely different species. So 5,000 years ago they were just as intellectually equipped as we are today. But bring that back 50,000 years and it's questionable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm"
]
] |
||
84zs0p
|
[chemistry] Do electrons ever switch places within the same atom?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/84zs0p/chemistry_do_electrons_ever_switch_places_within/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvtnmrm"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"Electrons don't come with labels, fundamentally. You can't distinguish \"this\" electron from \"that\" one, they're all identical. Whenever you have a system of multiple identical particles, the wavefunction for the system must include all possible combinations of each electron being at each position.\n\nSo the total wavefunction for a multi-electron atom must be some combination of this kind.\n\nClassically, you would consider the mismatched terms to be one electron switching places with another, but quantum-mechanically, that doesn't make sense, because the electrons were never distinguishable things to begin with."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.