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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
79w7et | what does aspirin do that helps prevent heart attacks, stroke and now cancer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/79w7et/eli5_what_does_aspirin_do_that_helps_prevent/ | {
"a_id": [
"dp6hisl",
"dp90mv8",
"dp57yg0",
"dp58cj9",
"dp598p7"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
8,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"One observation is that some cancers are linked to inflammation. Aspirin may reduce certain kinds of inflammation.",
"Chronic inflammation promotes cell proliferation, which increases the chances of DNA damage. Aspirin is an NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) so taking it at low doses will help prevent inflammation, which decreases the probability of DNA damage occurring.",
"For the heart attacks and stroke risks: aspirin thins out your blood, lowering the stress on the veins and arteries.",
"Blood clots can cause blockages in the arteries that bring blood and oxygen to the heart and brain leading to either heart attacks or strokes. Aspirin can help in preventing this by thinning the blood and preventing the blood from even clotting. As for how it can prevent cancers i'm not entirely sure, maybe by preventing the clots from forming you can prevent chronic complication from even happening in the first place.",
"The theory is that it thins the blood, making arterial blockages less likely.\n\nBut most of the evidence for this is statistical. You have one group use aspirin, one that doesn't, and see who has the most heart attacks. That can show that aspirin is beneficial without us knowing exactly why it is beneficial."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
z10wu | Is it possible for a planet to have no night time? | In Issac Asimov's short story Nightfall the setting is a planet that has a night once every 2500 years (I think that's the time frame) or so, and that's because of an eclipse of the single sun in their sky at that point in time by another planet. The reason given for this is that the planet they live on has six suns. The story itself is really interesting, and I think the point of the no night time is to "accept it" for the sake of the story.
But it got me thinking, is that even possible? The only way I could think of for a planet to truly never have night is if a couple of the stars orbited the main stars outside of the orbit of the planet, which seems preposterous. Besides that all I could imagine would be a consistently short night for most of the planet (but there would always be somewhere dark). | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/z10wu/is_it_possible_for_a_planet_to_have_no_night_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"c60m7f7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"One way I can think of for a planet to not experience any nighttime is for it to be located at [L1](_URL_0_) between two stars. However, either forming the planet at L1, or forming it elsewhere and then somehow moving it to L1 would be unphysical. Also, (assuming you got a planet there) it would be a very unstable configuration. If there was anything else massive in the system (say another planet) then the L1-planet's orbit would be perturbed and it would cease to be at L1.\n\nThe scenario of six suns is an interesting idea but also doomed to failure. The way I see this scenario is for the planet to be orbiting one star but there are several other, more distant stars around. The idea of groups of stars in mutual orbit around each other is a good one: such groups have been observed (I'm not sure if a group as big as six has been observed though). The idea falls apart when considering how close the other stars must be in order to sufficiently illuminate the planet: The planet needs to be far enough away from its host star so that it doesn't get fried but close enough to its host star (relative to how far the other stars are) so that the other stars can't steal it away. As a result the other stars will have far less illumination power simply because they must be much farther away from the planet then the planet's host star is. Such a planet might have day and a nighttime that's not completely dark, but the day/night cycle would be present.\n\nOne could also imagine a six-star scenario in which the planet orbits in and among all the stars, not particularly attached to any star in particular. In this case its orbit would be highly chaotic. The amount of illumination it gets would be highly variable (and visit values that would be very unhappy for life) and its expected lifetime would be short (it would be very likely for the planet to either impact one of the stars or get flung from the system).\n\nEdit: Every time I hit save I think of something else ..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_points"
]
]
|
|
abxxi7 | Would we be able to sequence DNA that's been fossilized, or preserved in amber? Or is it too degraded to even see? | Could we recreate the DNA or edit existing DNA at some point? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/abxxi7/would_we_be_able_to_sequence_dna_thats_been/ | {
"a_id": [
"ed6fcak"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"DNA degrades pretty fast, as geologic time scales go. New(ish) techniques have allowed sequencing of DNA from relatively young fossils, but the oldest DNA to have been sequenced so far is that of a horse from about 700,000 years ago, and that only worked because the horse had been preserved in permafrost; no tropical DNA even remotely close to that has been sequenced. \n\n > The fossil, a fragment of horse leg bone, was too old for radiocarbon dating, but Willerslev estimated, based on its location in the permafrost, that it was between 560,000 and 780,000 years old. ... No DNA had been salvaged and sequenced from a fossil more than 130,000 years old (that was a polar bear jawbone), and theoretical estimates put the upper limit of DNA survival at about 1 million years. \n\n--[700,000-Year-Old Horse Becomes Oldest Creature With Sequenced Genome](_URL_1_)\n\nA million years is a long time when you're trying to remember what you had for lunch yesterday, but it's really short as time goes. Dinosaurs mostly went extinct 65 million years ago, for example.\n\nAs for recreating or editing the DNA, it might be possible for microbes, but for complex organisms, we're nowhere near being able to do that. See answers in the recent question [Will we ever be able to clone dinosaurs from fossilized DNA?](_URL_0_) for why."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/a9bccd/will_we_ever_be_able_to_clone_dinosaurs_from/",
"https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/06/700000-year-old-horse-becomes-oldest-creature-sequenced-genome"
]
]
|
|
9sucfi | does the brain stem ever learn anything new? | Does the brain stem learn anything over time to make it better at keeping body systems running? Or perhaps, are we born with all the software it’ll ever get - with no hope for “updates”?
FYI - not high at all. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9sucfi/eli5_does_the_brain_stem_ever_learn_anything_new/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8rrbky"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Hmm good question. The short answer is not really. At the most basic level, the brain stem is a way for the nerves of the body (PNS) to communicate with the brain and a way to regulate autonomic functions without active thought (imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be to have to think about breathing 24/7.) So directly, no the brain stem does not learn in that it forms new synaptic connections in response to stimuli that it can “remember” and change its function. But, the mid and forebrain can influence its behavior so long as this influence does not cause a more significant important system to fall out of “acceptable levels” like heart rate and respiration. \n\nSo the learning that takes place in these areas can influence its behavior. For example, hypothalamus of the midbrain regulates sleep cycles. This means that when the midbrain (hypothalamus) has learned it’s close to sleep, it lets the hindbrain know to trigger more parasympathetic responses (rest and digest). \n\nThis is grossly simplified and probably wrong as I’m still a student but it’s as much as I can remember from my neuro block. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1rrmrp | why is gasoline always priced to .009? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rrmrp/eli5_why_is_gasoline_always_priced_to_009/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdq8d11"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > The extra \"tenths\" is a very old tradition that's never gone away. In 1935, a Reno Nevada newspaper wrote about \"selling third grade gasoline at eight and nine-tenths cents a gallon.\" \n\n > In those times, a penny had considerable value. To raise the price of gasoline from 8 to 9 cents would be more than a 12 percent hike. To compete, gas stations raised prices by tenths of a penny. Around this time, federal and state excise taxes were also introduced in increments of tenths of a cent, so it made sense to keep the decimal value.\nPerpetuated for Profit?\nThe tradition stuck. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, 'prime suppliers' of 'motor gasoline' reported sales of 372,833.5 thousand barrels sold in February 2007. These gas sales collected US$ 141 million in nine-tenths-of-a-cent increments. With gasoline prices in the US$ 2.00 to US$ 4.00 range, the 9/10 no longer serves a constructive purpose, and occasionally measures have been introduced to abolish it. From 1980 to 1984, the state of Iowa experimented with even cents, but eventually returned to the 9/10 pricing.\n\n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_all_gas_prices_have_nine_tenths_of_a_cent"
]
]
|
||
ad7hxr | Is there a genetic link between cleft palate and torus palatinus? | I (28F) have a torus palatinus on the roof of my mouth, which is just a harmless bony growth that sticks out. My brother (27M) was born with a cleft of the soft palate. So basically, I was born with an excess of bone and he didn’t have enough. I’m wondering if there is a reason we would both have palate abnormalities, since there is no other family history of it, and I haven’t been able to find an answer through my own research. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ad7hxr/is_there_a_genetic_link_between_cleft_palate_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"edeeq24"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The soft and hard palate are both formed during foetal development (vs embryonic). There is a high likelihood that there is a minor genetic defect since both abnormalities to the palate, with similar point in gestation, have manifested themselves in siblings. Here is an excellent website explaining the development of the palate including abnormalities: _URL_0_."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Palate_Development"
]
]
|
|
vrug0 | Are matter and antimatter symmetrical. | What i mean here is could our universe exist as antimatter, with all our laws of physics intact. Obviously we would be calling positrons electrons, etc. But would it work. (Asked this a while ago, but realized i may have worded it a bit awkwardly.) | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vrug0/are_matter_and_antimatter_symmetrical/ | {
"a_id": [
"c572i8q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Now that is an interesting question. As you've phrased it, the answer is yes: our universe would work the same if it were made of antimatter, and the physical laws we would discover would be the same.\n\nHowever, there are a couple of laws that, although their general forms would be the same, would have the sign of a fundamental constant or two flipped from plus to minus (or vice-versa, since we don't actually know the signs). This corresponds to the fact that there are a few physical processes that work differently than their anti-counterparts. None of them are particularly relevant for the kind of matter that makes up the objects we deal with in everyday life, or even planets, stars, and galaxies, although they could play a role in explaining why our universe does consist of matter instead of antimatter in the first place.\n\nThe buzzword for this sort of thing in physics is \"[CP violation](_URL_0_).\" It stems from the idea of CP symmetry, which is the mathematical expression of the statement \"matter and antimatter behave identically.\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation"
]
]
|
|
30op10 | If Germany and Japan were not allowed to have armies and were defended by the US after World War 2, why wasn't Italy in the same situation? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30op10/if_germany_and_japan_were_not_allowed_to_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpupwlx"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"There were limitations placed upon both the size, deployment, and structures of the Italian military in the [1947 Peace Treaty- Warning PDF](_URL_1_). Part IV of the Treaty demanded that Italy defortify its frontiers with France and Yugoslavia and deploy no weapons that could reach into these areas. Italian islands like Pantellaria had to be completely demilitarized. Both the Italian Air Force and the Army were limited to two hundred planes and tanks. Furthermore, the Army was limited to 250,000 men and the Navy could not acquire new ships until after 1950 and then could not build heavy units like battleships or aircraft carriers. The Allies also forbid Italy from developing either nuclear or guided missile technology. \n\nItaly's joining of NATO two years later and the formation of the European Defense Community (EDC) in 1950 rendered many of these provisions and limitations moot. Although the EDC foundered amongst much wrangling and apprehension, the initial treaty allowed Italy to release itself from the military provisions of the 1947 Treaty. Since Italian rearmament took place under the auspices of these two institutions, there was little opposition among Western European and American governments over this development. The Italians allowed for the US deployment of IRBMs and the Italian Navy launched two large guided-missile cruisers and flirted with an abortive plan to deploy Polaris missiles on its ships. \n\nThe rearmament and incorporation of Italian troops into the defense structures of Western Europe were congruent with the wider trend of rearming former Axis powers. In both the cases of Japan and West Germany, the embryo of a postwar military emerged in the form of police forces that maintained domestic order and patrolled the borders. These polices forces often had a strong paramilitary character and were staffed by veterans from the war. Treaties with the US and Western forces in the 1950s allowed for these policing institutions to be expanded into proper military formations, albeit often with explicit provisions that they would be both subordinate to civilian control and be incorporated into defense organizations which were dominated by US military leaders for most of the Cold War. In the case of Japan, its armed forces, called the Self-Defense Forces, developed very strong defensive capabilities but lacked many offensive weapons that would allow it to project this military power outside of the home islands or immediate environs without major US assistance. The Japanese constitution explicitly outlawed war and renounced offensive weapons which resulted in stretching the terminology for military equipment (just recently, the Maritime Self-Defense Forces just launched a [\"destroyer\"](_URL_0_) which really looks like an aircraft carrier). These often self-imposed restrictions caused a degree of friction with the US in the latter half of the Cold War. Kissinger, for example, resented how the Japanese would never really step away from their defensive orientation and help the over-stretched US forces during the tail-end of the Vietnam War and its aftermath. This criticism avowed civilian control over the Japanese and German armed forces have often created the mistaken impression that neither Japan nor the FRG possessed a military worth much value. In fact, both forces were highly advanced, relatively large, and well-trained and their existence (and staffing by officers from the Second World War) was a consistent source of criticism within Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. \n\n*Sources*\n\nDi Nolfo, Ennio. *Power in Europe? II: Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, and the Origins of the EEC, 1952-1957*. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992. \n\nHattendorf, John B. *Naval Policy and Strategy in the Mediterranean: Past, Present, and Future*. London: Frank Cass, 2000. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/japans-latest-destroyer-sure-looks-like-an-aircraft-car-1693949228",
"http://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000004-0311.pdf"
]
]
|
||
5irpdx | how can devices such as google home and amazon echo understand your voice while loud music is playing in the background? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5irpdx/eli5how_can_devices_such_as_google_home_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbaiprw"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Background music adds complications to all signal processing, including for Google Home and Amazon Echo. Both of these devices have an always on functionality, meaning they are always listening. They are always listening for a distinct and very specific signal to be played (ie. your voice saying 'OK Google' or 'Alexa'). These two phrases have been broken down into their components and each component of the signal must be heard, in the correct order. So after the device processes the signal for the sound 'Oh', it expects to hear 'Kay' next. \n\nBackground noise is not able to affect the commands because even though the device recognizes there is background noise, it is only looking and waiting for specific sounds at specific frequencies in specific orders (which are the command phrases). Think of it as a coin sorting filter, no matter what you put into the coin sorting filter, it is only looking for a certain number of specific coins, and anything else will be disregarded.\n\nThis isn't to say that background noise is totally filtered out. If the background noise is too loud it can alter the command phrase and mess up the signal processing.\n\nTLDR: These devices filter out any noise signal that isn't the command phrase signal while waiting for command phrase.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
e4ycmw | what happens to a body when mixed with molten steel? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e4ycmw/eli5_what_happens_to_a_body_when_mixed_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9fzi0p",
"f9g11zg",
"f9g1ude",
"f9g44hv",
"f9i33np"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Molten steel is at least 1370 degrees celcius. Crematoriums operate at a maximum of 980 degrees celcius.\n\nThe body is basically cremated. Burnt into ash.",
"The high temperature will burn a body to ash, and the processes used to produce and recycle steel produce a lot of waste in the form of slag and scale, which would easily mask any human cremains that are floating around",
"Water would evaporate, the carbon would be mixed in with the steel to make high carbon steel along with the other elements, depending upon the quantity of steel it might be possible to detect that a body was added to the steel by the chemical composition, but other than that it would be untraceable.",
"Well, first of, that moisture would most likely cause a violent steam explosion if thrown in to a melting cauldron at a foundry: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nIt would be more plausible if the process is started while everything is cool, thus allowing any moisture to evaporate while the steel is melting.\n\nThis is all hypothetical, isn't it, [u/DreamSeaside](_URL_1_)? All academic?",
"I was told that molten steel has the same density as solid steel\n\nMeaning if you fell into a crucible full of molten steel, you would remain on the surface, and instantly catch fire while skating around the surface turning to steam and smoke (and dying)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR6SWhJXc-4",
"https://www.reddit.com/user/DreamSeaside/"
],
[]
]
|
|
ahp96s | why do artists and painters in movies always hold out their pen and focus on it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahp96s/eli5_why_do_artists_and_painters_in_movies_always/ | {
"a_id": [
"eegpk1l",
"eegt3xm",
"eehdnt4"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They're using the pen/brush handle/thumb as a reference for judging the size of an object, keeping it at arms length every time gives you a constant good-enough-for-art measurement.",
"people in movies or “actors” don’t usually know much about art and are just following directions from the script. If the script doesn’t say anything about what to do and just says “painter is painting” then the actor might go to a school like an academy of art to learn how to behave like an artist. But artists in art school are art students, so when actors copy and act like art students they look pretty silly, especially when an actor is trying to look like a master painter. \n\nThat said, if you’re trying to paint a realistic portrait of something, holding out your arm and squinting through one eye at your outstretched thumb or paintbrush can be pretty useful when looking at things in perspective. This is because to your eye, things look smaller the further away they are! How? Because your eye has a lens in it just like a camera. If you don’t want things to look like you see them through your eye’s lense, you don’t have to worry about any of this, just paint. or act like you don’t care.",
"for scale. and it's actually their thump that's important, typically. from the tip of your thumb nail to the knuckle is close to an inch on most people. by using a consistent reference (the height of their thumb held at the length of their arm), a reasonably skilled artist can translate distances with remarkable accuracy on the fly. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
fgh6lg | what causes veins in the arms and hands to bulge sometimes, in addition to a feeling of "fullness" or pressure without physical activity? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fgh6lg/eli5_what_causes_veins_in_the_arms_and_hands_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"fk62evw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"One of the main functions of veins is to serve as a reservoir for extra blood. If you had just enough oxygenated blood in your arteries for when you are at rest, then you would have a big problem as soon as you were active. So, your veins are like balloons that can expand when needed to hold extra blood. When you work out, the veins are distended because a lot of blood is going to the tissues, and it needs to get back to the heart quickly. When you're resting, they can be distended with all the extra blood. Lots of other things affect how distended they are--such as gravity, if you're relatively dehydrated, etc."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
16a0bw | How were wounded soldiers treated during battle in formation-heavy armies (Roman legion, phalanx, Napoleonic line infantry, etc)? | If you were wounded in any significant capacity, were you treated as dead and ignored until the end of the battle? Was there any chance of a fellow soldier not at the very front trying to pull you back and "rescue" you? At what injury level were soldiers able to retreat from the front lines, or was it a fight until the death usually? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16a0bw/how_were_wounded_soldiers_treated_during_battle/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7u5oyu",
"c7u6vup"
],
"score": [
6,
26
],
"text": [
"From what I understand from previous posts and various books I have read, a soldier wounded in a Napoleonic line company would be pulled away from the line initially by sergeants or corporals and then taken back to the surgeon by drummer boys and military band member. Usually a soldier was pulled away during a battle even if only moderately wounded (arm or leg wounds etc), as to close ranks and/or maintain platoon fire discipline so he wasn't fighting to the death unless the whole company was. In close combat, you would be wounded then killed later or as air challenged said, placed in the victors infirmary (well, maybe during the mayhem following a siege attack or even in the surgeons office) but someone might want to clarify that as I am not that well versed in that. ",
"John Keegan wrote a very enlightening analysis of what happened during battles. It's called *[The Face of Battle](_URL_0_)*. If you get the chance to read it, I highly recommend it. It gives a lot of insight into the factors that make up the actual battles, like fear, fatigue, terrain, weapons, formations, etc. He also makes a point of specifically talking about the dead and wounded.\n\nMy best understanding was his discussion of Agincourt, so I'll just briefly summarize that. In this battle the French suffered a lot more wounds, and basically all were left where they fell. For one, the battle wasn't incredibly long, and for two, the English couldn't afford to break ranks and the French were too cramped to break ranks, so the wounded had no where to go but forward or down. The wounded and dead just piled up. At least one English officer was either suffocated or had a heart attack after being buried in one of these piles. It was only after the most intense part of the fighting, when the French withdrew and were regrouping for another charge, that some of the English went out to look for loot or wounded men who might be worth ransom (a big caveat). The next day, the English killed the wounded they found still on the battlefield, and Keegan notes that they probably would have died from their wounds or shock anyway.\n\nAndrew Goble wrote an interesting article about wound medicine in medieval Japan called [\"War and Injury: The Emergence of Wound Medicine in Medieval Japan\"](_URL_1_), but unfortunately he didn't talk much about treatment during the battle itself. There is one screen painting, and I wish I could find it right now, that includes a warrior giving rudimentary first aid to a comrade during a battle, but it's an artist's depiction and I haven't seen any English language description of Japanese battles that included handling the wounded. [State of War](_URL_3_) talks a lot about wounds, but doesn't give any insight into this.... which is a bummer because this is the period when Japanese militaries started using formations and the shape of battles changed significantly. Prior to this, when it was more one-on-one, warriors could withdraw when wounded (see [Takezaki Suenaga's scrolls](_URL_2_) for instances of this happening) partly because, in my own analysis, there were no formations or direct hierarchy preventing them from doing so. The only thing stopping them from doing this for a light wound might be that they were rewarded based on performance and only compensated for injuries. That and retreating, in formation or not, exposes even armored combatants and is a good way to get killed.\n\n*Edit for formatting fail*"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Face-Battle-Study-Agincourt-Waterloo/dp/0140048979",
"http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mni/summary/v060/60.3goble.html",
"http://www.amazon.com/Little-Need-Divine-Intervention-Invasions/dp/188544513X",
"http://www.amazon.com/State-War-Fourteenth-Century-Michigan-Monograph/dp/1929280238"
]
]
|
|
5v3vi6 | what has the mri scan done to help us understand the role of the brain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v3vi6/eli5_what_has_the_mri_scan_done_to_help_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddz1m4w"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It helped us map out which areas of the brain are activated under different situations, using contextual or sensory testing, such as exposing a person to visual, auditive, olfactory, etc... inputs, and watching which 'compartment' of the brain showed increased activity.\nResearchers also draw conclusions from similarities in brain activity stemming from different substances (\"sugar and cocaine activate the same part of the human brain\")."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4f2bla | What films, if any, most accurately portray a pre-WWI battle, especially hand-to-hand fighting? | I was watching Braveheart again last night. Its laughable historicity aside, I've always thought the battle scenes were excellent. However, maybe they're inaccurate, too?
Which got me to wondering what movies have done the best job of portraying what a massed-formation battle would most likely look like, especially pre-WWI, and most especially pre-firearms.
Thanks! | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f2bla/what_films_if_any_most_accurately_portray_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d25hsox",
"d25jpdi",
"d25lrt5",
"d25mike",
"d25r9y3",
"d25unav"
],
"score": [
7,
21,
28,
4,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Everyone would do well in remembering that we require **in-depth** comments in this subreddit. Just throwing out a title of a movie and a short sentence or two is not enough. Explain what *why* it's accurate (sources please!), show examples and walk us through it.",
"Unfortunately, you're not really going to get a satisfactory answer to your question, because - with very few exceptions - we don't really know how mass battles were fought. A lot of the source material we have on battles doesn't describe formations or troop density or tactical manoeuvres or anything like that with any granularity, so we can't accurately recreate them on film.\n\nThat said, though, there are some films depicting Greek and Roman battles that might be more accurate than others, but that's unfortunately far out of my specialization, so another user will have to pick it up.",
"For a few reasons, you're probably *never* going to see it because (as /u/EyeStache pointed out) we don't know how they fought since none of the sources explicitly tell us (they assume the audience knew) but I feel modern audience has been so conditioned to view ancient/medieval battle in a certain way. No director will attempt to be 'realistic' as the audience would be confused, it would take a very skilled director with the pull to get it shot his way and willing to spend considerable screen time to 'get it right'. \n\n\nGoldsworthy has a model of ancient combat that stresses the psychological aspects of warfare. That suggests that combat was pretty terrifying (in an age without Geneva Conventions, antibiotics, painkillers) and few would be willing to just charge straight into an enemy formation bristling with sharp pointy objects. So one would try to fight in a formation - be it a rigid Greek phalanx, a slightly more flexible Roman cohort, or even a loose Gallic tribal force - to ensure your flanks are covered. Certain men in the unit, be they huscarls, centurions, generals, will be the main motivator for the unit. They're the guys who'll whip the men into action, who'll lead the assault, who'll be fighting to kill their opponent. Most soldiers will be more intent on fighting to survive, concentrating on protecting themselves rather than killing their opponent. After several minutes of fighting both sides would tire and pull back to rest and to psych themselves up for another round. Rinse and repeat until one side takes too many casualties or loses the will to continue fighting (or both) and then panic takes effect and the unit dissolves. Its a good model and one that can explain how battles can take several hours yet the victor only comes out with a handful of casualties (even treating casualty numbers with some grains of salt).\n\n\nLastly, the majority of the killing was done when one side broke and ran. They'd abandon anything to slow them down like weapons and shields which would leave them defenceless and vulnerable when struck from behind. But there's hardly anything 'heroic' in showing Mel Gibson cutting down fleeing English soldiers without mercy.",
"The scene depicting Gaugamela in Oliver Stone's Alexander is pretty great in a fair degree of it's details - or at least in terms of the depiction of the account in Arrian, and of the Macedonian phalanx, and ancient warfare in general. There are several factual errors surrounding the battle and film itself, but if you were after a depiction on film of a massed ancient battle, there aren't many better.\n\nIn terms of why this is successful - details such as the terrifying but ineffectual scythed chariots match up to their description in Arrian, and pretty much every other time they are mentioned anywhere - they are frightening and terrifying constructs, but they rarely seem to have any effect on the overall outcome of a battle (as noted in Phillip Sabin's Lost Battles, among other places).\n\nHow accurate it actually is, is probably impossible to say, but it at least depicts the source material reasonably well, which is often about as good as you cab get with ancient warfare.\n\nThe battle scenes from Kubrick's Spartacus are an interesting counter-example. The Roman Quincunx formation is still a matter of debate (one I suspect is solved by massed battles looking rather more tentative and piecemeal than generally depicted on screen), but Kubrick's solution to the puzzle of a checkerboard army formation (i.e., \"wouldn't that leave massive holes?\") was to have them march into position in Quincunx, and then deploy into solid linesm which there is no evidence for.",
"As others have pointed out, no battle can be truly realistic as we don't have sufficient information to say precisely how they were fought, but we do still have enough information to say with a high degree of certainty that, in Western warfare, the chaotic Hollywood style of massed armies mingling and fighting one on one battles didn't happen. Instead, sources emphasize the need for a densely packed formation that fought together.\n\nFor instance, when fighting the Colchians, Xenophon writes: \n\n > In the first instance, the Hellenes drew up opposite in line of battle, as though they were minded to assault the hill in that order; but afterwards the generals determined to hold a council of war, and consider how to make the fairest fight.\n\n > Accordingly Xenophon said: \"I am not for advancing in line, but advise to form companies by columns. To begin with, the line,\" he urged, \"would be scattered and thrown into disorder at once; for we shall find the mountain full of inequalities, it will be pathless here and easy to traverse there. The mere fact of first having formed in line, and then seeing the line thrown into disorder, must exercise a disheartening effect. Again, if we advance several deep, the enemy will none the less overlap us, and turn their superfluous numbers to account as best they like; while, if we march in shallow order, we may fully expect our line to be cut through and through by the thick rain of missiles and rush of men, and if this happen anywhere along the line, the whole line will equally suffer. \n\n(*Anabasis 4.8*)\n\nVerbruggen, in *The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages*, cites a large number of literary and poetic texts that point out the dense and tightly packed cavalry and infantry formations. He notes in particular that Raas of Gaver's advice at the Battle of Worringen that they thin their ranks in order to match the width of the enemy formation was considered by the chronicler Jan van Heelu to be a tourney tactic not suited to battle. Liebrecht, lord of Dormaal was of a similar opinion and is recorded as having said \n\n > Thick and tight! \n\n > Thick and tight! \n\n > Let every man press up stoutly to his \n\n > neighbor as close as he can. So we shall certainly win \n\n > glory today!\n\nIn contrast, the archbishop Siegfried's army advanced in a disorderly fashion, all his troops virtually in a single line. As a result, while the archbishop's army was able to outflank their enemies temporarily, they were unable to break the formations of the Brabant army and were ultimately defeated when a company of foot and horse (the peasants and knights of the Count of Berg and the civic levy from Cologne) arrived and took the archbishop in the flank.\n\nWith regards to the battles in *Braveheart*, they have only the vaguest connection to how the battles are recorded as being fought, and fall into the Hollywood melee trap. Stirling was a case of foot soldiers cutting off a portion of the English army from the bridge they were crossing, trapping them in a loop of the river and systematically killing them, while the main English force was largely without archers and was demoralised, leading to their retreat. Falkirk was a case of dense, circular infantry formations resisting a cavalry charge but ultimately being taken apart by archery and cavalry as a result of their tactical immobility.\n\nIn short, *Braveheart* doesn't even get the most basic aspects of the battles correct, let alone how they might have been fought.",
"I'd suggest you check out the film waterloo. The movie used 15-16 thousand soldiers from the soviet unions army as extras in the battle scenes. It in a lot of ways a reenactment of the battle. They had engineers prepair the battle area by getting rid of hills, planting 5000 trees, and laying out miles of roads, planting rye, and wild flowers. They uses irrigation pipes to create the mud of the battle. The 16000 extras were drilled in 1815 battle formations and how to handle bayonets, sabres, and cannons. The troops would function as units, and orders were given to the officers by the director to try get authenticity. So well its still a film at the end of the day there was a considerable amount of care put in try to keep it authentic as possible"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
a1nxkj | how exactly does more money translate to winning court cases more often? is it purchasing smarter lawers or just manpower to go through documents? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1nxkj/eli5_how_exactly_does_more_money_translate_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"earbr3o",
"eare2cd",
"earek2j"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"More manpower to go through documents and do legal research\n\n\nMore talented/experienced trial attorney's\n\n\nMore money to hire experts at trial\n\n\nMore money to file appeals, continuances and delay tactics",
"If I know I'm going to lose, I settle out of court. This is much cheaper, so it leaves me with more money. Also, since I only go to court when I think I'm likely to win, I usually do in fact win.\n\nSo I both have more money and win more often than someone who pays a lot of money for their lawyer to show up and make losing arguments.",
"More money have private investigators investigate things. \n\nmore money means that you can hire a dedicated legal team rather than have to rely on a over worked public defender. \n\nMoney help a lot in court cases. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
ammeek | how can a password not containing numbers or special characters be considered weak? | If I can pick ANY combination of characters for my password, isn’t a combination containing only letters equally hard to guess as one that doesn’t? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ammeek/eli5_how_can_a_password_not_containing_numbers_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"efn14zb",
"efn18j5",
"efn1wno"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Unless you're using a randomly generated chain of letters, most password cracking software have functions built in to use the most commonly used words in passwords.\n\nIf you set a limit to the length of the password (say 20 characters), you go from very predictable, and easily brute-forcible using numbers, to somewhat predictable, and not impossible to brute force, using the 26 letters of the alphabet, to impossible (unless you have lots of time and a supercomputer) if you combined all 3.",
"In theory an attacker who doesn't know you didn't use the numbers and special characters would need to consider that they might have been used, slowing their attempts on your password. But consider that an attacker might simply only decide to go for the easy targets and just try normal characters, leaving out numbers and special characters. That wouldn't ever get into accounts of the people who included them but it would happen to break yours since you didn't.\n\nBy expanding the possible characters to include the extra numbers and special symbols it presents a task too great for an attacker to solve, and to ensure it actually *is* too hard to solve they force you to include them in your password. Otherwise the attackers just solve the problems they can and the simple passwords get broken.",
"My point is: why is a password like ‘gsnnssijcbdbhduehvedbvpqqqqq’ considered weak by most services while something like ‘dopeHe4d1999’ is considered strong? "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3hb0pv | How was the Soviet invasion of Poland justified in the Soviet public? | How did the Soviet media antagonize the Polish state and justify the Molotov-Riebentrop pact? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hb0pv/how_was_the_soviet_invasion_of_poland_justified/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu60obq"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Just 20 years earlier, the 'corpse of Poland' was supposed to be the road to global revolution. The defeat of the Soviet army at Warsaw in 1920 was a major setback to international socialism. Also the territories Poland took in that war, while historically a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, were populated largely by what we would call today Belarusians and Ukrainians. These groups were seen as part of a greater russian ethnicity, who were vulnerable to German atrocities due to the failure of the Polish government to protect them. This supposed intervention was the official reason cited by the soviets, though I would add that the sentiment of Poland as a historical enemy of international socialism helped as well. \n\nEdit: after rereading your question, I would like to note that the molotov-ribbentrop pact was secret, and no 'justification of it was necessary. Apologies, I initially read your question as asking about the justification for invasion, not the pact itself. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
f3j1i8 | how do broken bones knit when they aren’t completely immobile? | ELI5: when you break a bone, especially one that can’t be casted, there’s still some relative motion between the pieces. I understand osteoblasts do their thing and generate new bone. But when the pieces start to touch and the new bone connects, why doesn’t the slightest movement cause it to disconnect? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f3j1i8/eli5_how_do_broken_bones_knit_when_they_arent/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhj54as"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A lot of things actually heal better this way. For example, in hip fractures, the fixation depends on the bones being slightly mobile (look up a dynamic hip screw) as this reinforces repairs along areas of stress, making the overall repaired bone stronger. \n\nInitially a haematoma will form around the site. Then fibrous, but reasonably flexible tissue will be laid down, this is called a callous. This will hold the broken parts close together. Then the bone will fill itself in within this area. Small movements aren't too much of a problem but larger movements will break the connections as they start to form."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7cddyl | why do bass sounds seem to travel better through walls, when high pitched sounds usually carry better over distance? | I have always had the impression that high pitched sounds carry better - for example a high pitched voice is often understandable from several rooms away while a bass voice often doesn't seem to carry. My personal experience is that often my girlfriend cannot hear me from the next room unless I deliberately speak in a falsetto, whereas I can always hear her. I have read before that women and children have higher pitched voices so if they get in trouble with a predator and scream, the males will hear them more easily and be able to come to the rescue. Screams by nature tend to be in a higher pitch than normal, presumably because higher pitches carry better over distance.
But when it comes to certain bass sounds, like those created by car stereos and subwoofers, it seems they can carry through walls and be felt while the higher pitched sounds drop out. Often when driving I can feel somebody's bass from their car stereo while hearing no other elements from the music.
Since I live in an apartment I am wondering what is more likely to annoy my neighbors: the high pitched chirping of my pet birds, or the pounding bass of my sound bar subwoofer when I watch an action movie.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cddyl/eli5_why_do_bass_sounds_seem_to_travel_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpp4s0k"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There are two effects at work.\n\nThe first is the physics of it. Any material will attenuate different frequencies at differing levels. For most solid materials, low frequencies will be slightly attenuated and high frequencies massively attenuated. Through free space, both attenuate over distance but by relatively similar amounts (high frequencies still don't travel as far, but low frequencies don't have the huge advantage they do passing through solid materials). This relationship is not strictly linear, but generally low frequencies penetrate/propagate better than high ones.\n\nThe second is the biology of it. Human beings hear high frequencies (relative to our range) significantly better than we hear low frequencies. What we think of as 'balanced' levels across the frequencies are actually incredibly loud low frequencies coupled with relatively quiet high frequencies. When you evenly attenuate across the frequency spectrum, this causes low frequencies to drop into the inaudible range much more quickly than high frequencies.\n\nThe combination of these two effects is what causes the phenomenon you're experiencing. If you've got a wall, low frequencies punch right through while high frequencies are almost completely blocked. If you're simply listening to a sound through free space, distance will cause both to attenuate - but your inability to hear low frequencies well will make everything turn 'tinny'.\n\nIn terms of your apartment, the walls likely block the sound from your birds entirely while the pounding bass of your subwoofer makes their furniture shake."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
18wjvm | Are shades of grey actually colors that we just cannot see that part of the spectrum for? | I learned that bees can see certain shades of colors. One experiment was looking to test their learning association with pollen. Blue cards were used, and grey cards of similar light shade/ intensity as the blue cards to negate the chance they are attracted to that light intensity rather than the color and can actually differentiate between the two. Other color cards were used too, but appeared grey to the bees. So, are different shades of grey that humans perceive actually colors that are just outside of our color spectrum? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18wjvm/are_shades_of_grey_actually_colors_that_we_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8ipkm5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Shades of gray is a matter of intensity, not wavelength.\n \nWhite light (which is when our Red, green, blue receptors are equally stimulated), can appear anywhere from black to any shade of grey, based on how much light you are receiving.\n\nWhile the minds can be very complex, seeing multiple colors as grey or red / green color blindness and whatnot, at a fundamental level different shades of grey are not at different spots in the spectrum, they are a single point in the spectrum.\n\nIt IS however possible that we see other parts of the spectrum as gray, as the human mind is a pretty amazing thing... 2-3% of women can see into the UV:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI dont know if it shows up as gray for them, but it certainly is possible... but would still be different than normal white light that is lower intensity "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Possibility_of_human_tetrachromats"
]
]
|
|
32qy6j | How common/effective was guerrilla warfare in WWII? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32qy6j/how_commoneffective_was_guerrilla_warfare_in_wwii/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqdx0cf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"TL;DR: Very common, and in MANY cases, EXTREMELY effective!\n\nThere were resistance movements in Greece, Yugoslavia, France, China, Indochina, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the occupied territories in the Soviet Union, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Albania, the Philippines, Indonesia; those are the ones that come to mind at the moment!\n\nAll of those movements save perhaps Czechoslovakia, Norway and Denmark were engaged in full on guerrilla warfare, often full scale battles. The Norwegian resistance engaged in important acts of sabotage, and aided in attacks on the German heavy water plant in Norway, and in attacks on the German held Svalbard Archipelago, while the Czech resistance 'iced' Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler's right hand man. \n\nThe Soviet, Yugoslav and Polish resistances amounted to small armies operating behind enemy lines, with the Yugoslav partisans especially engaging often in open warfare, while they and the soviet partisans took part openly in the liberation of their homelands. The Polish Home Army was incredibly sophisticated, taking part in the uprisings in Wilna (Vilnius) and Warsaw, while the French FFI & Maquis took part in engagements such as the brief uprising in the Vercors Massif. \n\nThe Filipino resistance forces aided the US in the liberation of the Philippines, along with the Alamo Scouts, Philippine Scouts, and US Army Rangers & Airborne. The Chinese communists under Mao made up a formidable force, although some of their exploits were embellished to say the least! Enver Hoxha's Albanian partisans, and the Greek resistance movements both took part in extensive actions against German and Italian occupation forces.\n\nI doubt I've done justice to the manifold, and incredibly brave, resistance movements that operated against the Axis, and often each other! If I've left any out, which I undoubtedly have, please, ANYONE, add more!!!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1lbs5g | Does fasting make people more famine resistant? | I posted this here yesterday but I think it got deleted somehow. If the mods find anything wrong with this post, please notify me so I may correct it.
In the Muqaddimah written in 1377, Ibn Khaldun speculates that one of the benefits of fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan is that it increases the famine resistance of practitioners. Does the historical record provide support to his hypothesis that fasting makes people more famine resistant?
There are some societies where fasting people live as neighbors with non-fasters in similar socioeconomic circumstances. Has there ever been a point in history when a famine struck and the fasting group was shown to have been more famine resistant than the non-fasting group?
I don't have a strict definition for famine resistance so feel free to form your own reasonable definition. I think if at least the fasting group was shown to have a significantly lower mortality or time to mortality we can agree that they were more famine resistant. Again, other metrics may suffice.
Thanks. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lbs5g/does_fasting_make_people_more_famine_resistant/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbxqztz",
"cbxrbyl",
"cbxszq8",
"cbxtwu1",
"cby100l"
],
"score": [
186,
157,
2,
28,
7
],
"text": [
"This Radiolab segment discusses the improvement of your resistance from disease if your father or grandfather is in a fasted state when they develop sperm. \n\n_URL_0_",
"I attended a presentation through university that was looking at famine conditions during pregnancy and early child hood development \none study that stood out to me was based on the Dutch famine of 1944. \n\nIt was caused by a siege and during the time food supplies were very limited. Obviously it is incredibly unethical to conduct this sort of research so there are few examples that can be studied. this famine affected millions of people and there were women who were pregnant in this time period. \n\nThe children born were studied by Dutch and British researchers who followed them through there life. It was found that these children were more prone to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, microalbuminuria and other health problems. It was also found that this was noted in the second generation of offspring as well. \n\nThe Liggens Institute which gave the lectures also provided studied done on feast and famine conditions of mice. With a bit of searching i could not actually find a paper however here is part of the lecture material they use as part of there scholarship preparation program this is aimed at 17 year olds who are trying to gain a biology scholarship so it has been simplified somewhat but is still very informative. \n[Feast or Famine](_URL_0_)\n[Video of Lecture](_URL_2_)\n[Wikipedia article on dutch famine](_URL_1_)",
" > addition, when you fast you reduce your IGF-1 (Insulin-like growth factor). IGF-1 is what promotes cell division, muscle production, and so on.\n\nif ig-1 promotes cell devision and muscle production, would that mean that reducing your igf-1 is bad thing?",
"Exercise in a fasted state causes positive adaptations in your body that enable better performance while in an un-fed state (or a fed state even...). If I can be liberal with my interpretation of what you mean by \"famine resistant\" by saying it makes you body more albe to provide for itself in a competitive environment then yes.\n\nFasted training improves glycogen storage significantly more than fed training. It improves glucose synthesis. It improves VO2 max. All these things could make your body more able to compete for food in a difficult environment.\n\nIt's not a stretch to say that these effects extend to those that are active while fasted and not just those that are performing LISS exercise while fasted.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_",
"I will do my best to answer your questions specifically, OP.\n\nThere have been no reputable large scale studies of fasting vs. non-fasting groups having been imbued with famine resistance. \n\nUsually, when you're looking at fasting groups vs non-fasting groups, there is more than just this one thing dividing them. A great example is the potato famine in Ireland. The famine was partially caused by potato crop failure, mostly caused by the economic policy of the British at the time. Ireland was exporting food at the time. So, the Brits had plenty. This is an example of close neighbors being under vastly different circumstances.\n\nAs far as the radiolab article that people are talking about, there are a few things that are wrong with using this study for this purpose. \n\n1.) They hypothesize an epigenetic factor, but do not study what that factor may be, so do not prove its existence.\n\n2.) Other, more readily available explanations are available. For example, if your grandad had genes that conferred a disease resistance upon him, he would therefore benefit during famine, when disease strikes the starving. No epigenetic factor at play here.\n\n3.) This \"winnowing event\" would reduce the number of disease susceptible males in the population, but nothing is mentioned about the females. Maybe they were given larger portions of food than their male counterparts due to cultural reasons?\n\n4.) The town would go through famine, which is not the same as fasting. Famine is an extended period of time of very low nutritional intake. Fasting is a very short period of time (no more than 72 hours) of no nutritional intake.\n\nFor these reasons, I do not think the radiolab article is a good fit for your question. (although I thought it was interesting) As far as your other questions go, I bet that fasting would prepare an individual for the psychological aspects of starving (initially), but would confer no famine resistance. I also bet that generations of families going through cycles of famine and plenty would confer famine resistance, but only if done in a controlled manner. (and allowing the weak to die, regardless of supply)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/2012/nov/19/you-are-what-your-grandpa-eats/"
],
[
"http://lens.auckland.ac.nz/imagesb/bf/Feast_or_Famine_2009.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944#Legacy",
"https://mediastore.auckland.ac.nz/uploaded/public/05-2012/252F6E97D6E84856AAC001A45FCBA69B.preview"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18276898",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20452283",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19432594"
],
[]
]
|
|
wls51 | What precisely was a "fashionable regiment?" | I'm fairly familiar with how militaries at the time functioned, but this phrase comes up all the time in 18th and 19th century literature, but I've never seen it explained. What made regiments fashionable? Physical location, great parties, snappy uniforms? Did it change over time? And how often did such regiments get stuck doing actual soldiering? Was it less often than others? Also how much more would a commission cost compared to an unfashionable regiment? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wls51/what_precisely_was_a_fashionable_regiment/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5efld3"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The fashionable part was more for officers than the actual soldiers. Finding a good regiment or unit usually had to do with the location of their deployment, the favor of the commanding officer with the higher ups, the amount of action they saw, and sometimes where they had been mustered or who was in them. This was the case for most armies and navies of the time. An example would be a British nobleman who had recently purchased his lieutenancy trying to find a unit headed for India. He would want to go there because it would be a good place to gain experience against relatively under-equipped opponents, he would be able to make good connections with other officers and with executives in the various Trading Companies, the wars were generally very profitable so attracted the attention of the press and other officers , and a man could generally gather some manner of loot in the battles. A place where he wouldn't want to be deployed would be in a unit being sent to a Caribbean island where most of the soldiers died of various diseases and fevers from the climate. Since you had to buy your place and advancement in the armies of England in that time, the richer people were usually able to secure the best placements because of family connections. Another possibility for a British officer would be to try to find a position in a militia unit. These units got to look the best, parade around for the big cheeses and make good impressions on the lords and ladies without ever needing to leave their mustering grounds. This would change over time as militia units began to be deployed in wars overseas. \n\nThese are just examples for the British army but other armies were similar. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1cfqsm | how does someone who knows absolutely nothing about cars go about choosing a secondhand car? | I do know I'd maybe like a green one. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cfqsm/eli5_how_does_someone_who_knows_absolutely/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9g1ymm",
"c9g2nft",
"c9g6noc"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you're looking at potentially putting a lot of money into something that's going to need to be reliable for you, I would seriously recommend finding a friend who does know about cars, and take them with you.",
"Give each of the following traits a 1-5 score based on how important they are to you: Performance (in the sporty sense of the word), fuel economy, storage and carrying space, roominess, and reliability. Be realistic, if you want a car that is all 5's, you are going to spend a lot. Also write down your price range, and any preferences you have ($4000-8000, preferably green, not a truck, must have a sun roof, etc). Get a copy of the consumer reports used car edition they release each year, and look through it for cars that line up with what you wrote down. Get a friend who knows cars to help. Toyota and Honda will generally always be good bets. The German cars are usually very nice cars but may need more maintenance. Most other Japanese car brands will be good too but look and see. Of the American brands, Ford is probably the best bet, then GM. Stay away from Chrysler/Dodge except for a few very specific vehicles.\n\nMake a list of 5-10 cars that match your needs well. If your price range is in the $8000-15000 range or so, you can look at car dealers, as most of them also deal in used cars. Sometimes they will have cheaper cars too. There are several websites that will conglomerate car listings, check those out. And keep an eye out on craigslist. Don't just look in your city, look around anywhere within a 2 hours drive or so, or more even. The gas money you spend driving there should be more than offset by the benefits of getting a great car for you. \n\nLook at a few different cars, and test drive them all. Watch out for high mileage cars, you are more likely to run into a lot of maintenance. Take them to a trusted mechanic (arrange this beforehand) for an inspection. It may cost a bit, but if you don't do it it can bite you in the ass. The dealer should be okay with this, if they aren't then forget about buying from them. Oh and bring your car knowledgeable friend along too. As for negotiating a price, I am going to leave that up for you to find out. There are tons of guides online, and I am not going to try to cover all of that. Good luck",
"Have someone who knows how come along with you. Your biggest trouble spots are the engine itself and the transmission. As long as both of those are in decent shape, most other stuff is relatively minor to fix in a financial sense. IE, it costs a lot less to replace a radiator than a transmission."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3izrx1 | the difference between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3izrx1/eli5_the_difference_between_homo_sapiens_and_homo/ | {
"a_id": [
"cul3b5d",
"cul9dda"
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text": [
" Homo Sapiens is what species we are. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a subspecies - it's used to mean \"anatomically modern Homo sapiens\", ie people who's bodies look like ours. \n\nThe subspecies H. Sapiens Sapiens, ie us, differentiates us from H. Sapiens Idaltu, arguably our direct ancestor. \n\nNote that in this hierarchy, Neanderthals are a separate species of Homo, specifically H. neanderthalensis, and they died off. Homo Sapiens are the only surviving species of the Homo genus.\n\nIn my view, differentiating between h. sapiens and h. s. sapiens makes the question pretty poor, as it's comparing species to subspecies, but h. s. s. is the *most* correct, so unfortunately you cannot prove your teacher wrong.",
"The way it was explained to me in my college Anthropology class, Homo Sapiens means roughly \"thinking man\", while H.S.S. means roughly \"man who thinks about thinking\". The degree of difference being that as the question your teacher posed alludes to, h.s.s. is capable of symbolic thought whereas h.s. is not believed to have possessed this capability."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1fn5ru | Franco-Prussian War, any experts around? | Long story short, my family history is a bit of a mystery. My Great Great Grandfather was originally from Frankfurt, is buried on the Isle of Man, and his son moved to Manchester. Until last week, we didn't know anything more than that.
Then, after a family member did a bit of digging, we found out that he was a cavalry major in the Prussian Army during the Franco-Prussian war.
I've got a degree in history myself, but my specialisation lies more in Russian history and The Cold War. So I'm wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of some good sources on any cavalry actions of that conflict.
Any information on specific cavalry regiments raised in and around the Frankfurt area would also be fantastic.
Thanks for your help. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fn5ru/francoprussian_war_any_experts_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"cac252l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"/r/Genealogy might be useful for you?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2dbnmu | given the gigantic size of its military, why can't the us impose its will on every country? | I'm not American btw | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dbnmu/eli5_given_the_gigantic_size_of_its_military_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjny3wq",
"cjny9qi",
"cjnyd3j",
"cjnylfs",
"cjo0knh"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"While we could do that to every country individually. We would piss off the world more then we already do. And we cant face the entire world.",
"Having a large military force is not enough, while most countries could not hope to beat the US in a straight battle. Imposing your will on a country requires more than that. In many parts of the world guerilla tactics have been used against an occupying power, to overcome these requires a vast amount of manpower as the Germans found out in WWII.",
"In order to impose your will upon a country using military force, you'd have to be willing to kill anyone that resists. The US (and most countries, really) is generally loath to do this unless it can pass off some sort of defensive justification.",
"It would completely destroy their economy.\n\nIf you're talking about invasion, it's one thing to perform a military action, it's entirely another thing to hold on to the results of that military action through a continued policing presence. That's VERY VERY expensive.\n\nAnd even if you just impose your will on other independent people through threat without actual military action, they are not going to buy your exports and are not going to import to your country, and they will sabotage you when they can get away with it. So your economy, which funds your military unless you want to drive your country into bankruptcy or simply conquer everyone else and steal their stuff or take slaves, moves to a standstill. ",
"The cynical answer is because it is much easier to let our economy do that, and just use our military to protect the soft targets that the economy needs to function (see the [Straight of Hormuz](_URL_0_)).\n\nAlso, we don't have nearly a strong enough military to forcibly occupy every nation on Earth and impose our will, especially given the existence of nuclear weapons."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz"
]
]
|
|
5bxzny | if the average human hearing is 20hz to 20khz, why do they sell headphones with higher ranges, like 30khz? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5bxzny/eli5_if_the_average_human_hearing_is_20hz_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9s63db",
"d9somi7"
],
"score": [
25,
7
],
"text": [
"To get better results at 20KHz. The rules on this subreddit are forcing me to elaborate, but this is the simplest answer. Speakers with a 'response' from 20Hz to 20kHz cannot have a nice linear response (same output power for same input level, which is what you want for accurate reproduction of sound) across that range of frequencies, and then immediately drop to no output at all at 19Hz and 20,001Hz. On headphones marked as 20Hz-30KHz the audible range from 20Hz-20kHz can be made lovely and linear, with increasingly poor response between 16Hz-20Hz and 20kHz-31kHz, and worse response still outside that range.",
"Because if you want a car that goes easily with 200km/h you buy a car that has a top speed (on board) of 300 km/h.\n\nIf you have a car that has a max speed of 200km/h don't expect to reach that speed as easily as lower speeds."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
a4tjzt | why are other video hosting sites not as used/popular as youtube? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a4tjzt/eli5_why_are_other_video_hosting_sites_not_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebhha0f",
"ebhj85j"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Here is a [video](_URL_0_) that goes into the problems start up video sharing websites run into. Their audiences end up being the very same people that drive everyone else away. ",
"Popular among whom? In Japan, _URL_1_ is far more popular. For some *specific* vids, _URL_0_ is more popular as it usually cares about copyright far less than YT, etc."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://youtu.be/r3snVCRo_bI"
],
[
"dailymotion.com",
"nicovideo.jp"
]
]
|
||
9q3jkq | How do lakes deep underground maintain an ecosystem with no energy input from the Sun? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9q3jkq/how_do_lakes_deep_underground_maintain_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"e86myyy",
"e86pxca",
"e86qp2k",
"e86r3xz",
"e86racs",
"e86reiw",
"e86tu5k",
"e872hh6",
"e878or8",
"e87eu5w",
"e87gyrr",
"e87q8d8",
"e87qq82",
"e880asl",
"e882l9d",
"e887a02"
],
"score": [
3200,
785,
2,
37,
9,
197,
12,
5,
5,
6,
2,
2,
8,
19,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Underground aquifers could support primitive microbial life-forms if they were adapted to living off the minerals, and hydrogen seeping into the water from the surrounding rock. They may also adapt similarly to deep sea life that lives off of/near hydrothermal vents if they're present in the underground aquifer",
"Any chemical can serve as an energy source if there is a more thermodynamically-stable energy state, such as glucose being oxidized to carbon dioxide and water. Both of those are more stable than glucose and the oxidation of glucose into them produces energy.\n\nThere are many such compounds such as methane, decaying plant matter, and minerals that might come from another source and drive the ecosystem. For example, in the deep ocean organic matter falling from above can feed lower life. Deep lakes can have material washed down into them from the surface or they can feed on previously-buried matter.\n\nThere are also other sources of energy such as geothermal and nuclear decay that can provide energy to an ecosystem.",
"Do you have a specific lake in mind?",
"It’s pretty much already been explained by others here but perhaps you’d enjoy looking up online about “chemo-heterotrophs” I believe this is the life you are speaking of.\n\nThe “chemo” part meaning energy is derived from chemical compounds in the environment, whilst we also have “photo-heterotroph” which derives energy from sunlight (photosynthesis).\n\nThis greatly increases the possible habitable environments on other planets/moons (i.e. IF there is life on Titan they’d be too far away to receive sunlight benefits and may be chemo-heterotrophs, or similar).",
"Not sure specifically what like to cave/lake you're thinking, but in caves, there are ~~cynao~~bacteria that can derive energy from oxidation of chemicals/minerals like sulphur with carbon dioxide. They're called chemoautotrophic bacteria. These often form of the \"base\" food source of any ecosystem that survives down there (excluding critters that go in/out of the cave to feed).",
"A lot of cave dwellers are sustained by rare calorie inputs from surface sources, so they too rely on the sun for food. For example, bats bring nutrient-rich guano into caverns, enough to feed a whole ecosystem of amphipods, cave crickets, and centipedes. Many troglodytes are also adapted to have extremely slow metabolisms so that they can take advantage of the rare bit of food that comes into their cavern from the outside world. The [olm](_URL_0_), a cave salamander, is able to enter stasis when food is scarce, and can re-absorb organs when it needs the calories (and grow them back once it finds a morsel of food). They can last as long as ten years in between a meal. As for what they eat, the olm only lives around underground rivers with connections to the surface, so every so often an insect or a small crustacean will get washed into the cave from outside and the olm is there to grab and devour it. ",
"Also, when animals in the upper part of the water column die - especially larger fish, whales, etc - their corpses decay, break apart, and chunks float down to the sea floor. We watched a video in my marine biology class of a whale carcass on the sea floor, and it was absolutely SWARMING to any and all types of deep sea life - they can smell the food from miles away and they all gather to get as much of this nutrient-rich food source as they can. Decaying carcasses are a small part of their diet, but are definitely an important one. ",
"Energy originally from the Sun can be stored as chemical energy in molecule such as glucose (especially molecules rich in Hydrogens where the potential energy of the electrons is high) and harvested through oxidation (essentially breaking it down). These energy containing molecules could get into the ecosystem in a number of ways. \n\nThere are also autotrophs (organisms that make their own ‘food’) through chemical means, rather than using sunlight. For example, the tube worms at the bottom of the deep ocean. ",
"To break things down: Life could be sustained either through allotropy (food from basic building blocks) or heterotropy (digesting available premade nutrients). As plants are the basis of heterotrophy, without sunlight heterotrophy is impossible. Without sunlight you can go through chemosynthesis, which is an allotropic way of creating energy stored in chemical bonds. As this way of “feeding” creates relatively little energy, life forms thriving this way are rudimentary (single celled organisms). An example (omitting complex details) are methane producing archaea (bacteria like creatures). They get energy from carbon and water to create methane. Some archaea break down methane for energy. Surprisingly lots of these archaea live next to each other in deep water wells (aquifers) sustaining each other, for millions of years now.",
"So many wonderful, thoughtful replies! But couldn't we simply and accurately say \"chemosynthesis\" rather than photosynthesis? I thought that was the explanation for hydrothermal vent communities so it would apply elsewhere as well.",
"It's a common myth that all life comes from the sun... hydrothermal vents and cave ecosystems are testament to that.\n\nIt is my personal opion that life originated from chemosynthesis and broadened to include photosynthesis",
"There is a good documentary on amazon prime about \"the real lost world\" and it details what they find on the giant Mesas in South America. It's not exactly underwater like what you said but it's still a desolate region with very little resource, but in the documentary the only legitimate scientist there actually finds microbial life living off some weird way I'm not sure. She received an NSF Grant to continue research on it though. Life is able to survive in the darndest of places.",
"Marine snow.\n\nWhen you get deep (mostly in the ocean but it's somewhat true in lakes too) there is a constant \"snow\" fall that looks very pretty. It's made of feces and dead stuff. This can provide some energy for ecosystems.",
"So, I'm kind of late to the party here but this is actually my area of expertise so I'm excited to see someone asking about stygobionts (subterranean aquatic animals). As stated by others, energy sources for living organisms in caves and aquifers can come from two places: organic material from the surface that washed into the cave, or there can be \"in house\" biologic production via chemolithoautotrophic bacteria. These bacteria take sulfur ions (among others) and either oxidize them or reduce them and glean a small bit of energy from this reaction. It's much less energetically favorable than photoautotrophy (like plants) or heterotrophy (eating other organisms), so these bacteria grow very slowly. They also need a carbon source, in plants this comes from CO2 in the air and in heterotrophs it comes from the food they eat. Caves are made of limestone generally, which is calcium carbonate. Thus, cave waters have abundant carbon in the form of CO2 and HCO3. These specialized bacteria are able to uptake and use this carbon. In this way, they are literally made of rock! \n\nCertain caves have such a good environment for this chemolithoautotrophy, the bacteria grow abundantly enough to form the base for an entire ecosystem of organisms including vertebrates. The Edwards Aquifer in central Texas is the most bio diverse aquifer in the Americas, and probably the world once all the diversity is described. The diversity in the Edwards is truly astounding for a ground water sustem. One well-studied site, the San Marcos Artesian Well has 43 described animals, and probably nearly double that in undescribed species. These include a blind salamander, numerous crustaceans and insects, worms, and lots of tiny planktonic organisms. The reason for the hyper diversity of the Edwards has to do with its large size, old age, and excellent porosity. And also because it has a saline zone that is a source for those sulfur ions that the bacteria need. Diversity is highest in the zones near this freshwater-saline interface. If you'd like to know more about food webs in aquifers, I suggest the 2016 paper by Hutchins et al. in Ecology. ",
"I've never studied lakes (assuming freshwater) but I imagine most of the same fundamentals apply.\n\nIn the oceans, some systems are supplied organic matter from cold water sinking down through valleys on the seafloor, this leads to cold water coral reefs like that of Lophelia pertusa. These systems are still provided for by photosynthesis they just don't exist in the light directly (mostly).\n\nOther systems are chemosynthetic. In the case of life around a hydrothermal event, instead of a plant photosynthesising light to produce organic matter at the base of the food chain certain specialist bacteria synthesise the rich source of chemical compounds discharging from the seabed. Specialist organisms either house the bacteria to benefit from them or cultivate them on their body as a food source. Then like any other system it moves through to predators and scavengers etc. of these specialists. Plenty of these species have 'Alvin' in their latin names due to the sub used to explore the vents and find them.",
"You'd likely get a fair amount of ammonia-oxidising bacteria which can make use of ammonia and inorganic carbon, like carbon dioxide. Some of the products they make will then serve as food for other organisms when they die.\n\nThe thing to note is that the growth may be slower depending on the bottleneck, but EVERYTHING would run off that timing anyway. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2sci7l | Why is it in the overwhelming majority of societies in history, that gender roles remain consistent? | Not specific gender roles such as pink for girls and blue for boys, but more general gender roles such as that men are dominating and leader of the family while women are nurturing and caretakers. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2sci7l/why_is_it_in_the_overwhelming_majority_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cno9113"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"hi! it might be worth x-posting this question to /r/AskAnthropology or /r/AskSocialScience"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
36mfa2 | what is the 'school smell'? | Where does it come from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36mfa2/eli5_what_is_the_school_smell/ | {
"a_id": [
"crf6pl8",
"crf6sxz",
"crf7mh2",
"crf87ex",
"crf9f36",
"crfiwuw",
"crg0uc6"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
9,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I always thought I noticed it more when I came back from brakes, when they had time to buff the floors. I thought it was the cheep floor wax schools use.",
"Different schools will smell differently. You are talking about buildings and rooms filled with people all using different scents in their soaps and hygiene products (and some without), books, cleaning supplies, foods, and environmental factors that all combine to create the smell you know as school.",
"I asked a custodian once why all school cafeterias smelled the same. He said it is the lovely aroma of spilled milk and bleach. \n",
"As somebody that works in an inner city school that ranges from K-8th Grade, I could tell you that the \"School\" smell you speak of definitely gets stronger as you go from the Middle School to the Elementary part of the school. If I had to guess, I would say it's some combination of sweat, dirty laundry, disinfectant, and low quality food with a hint of freshly sharpened pencils. It is a smell like no other.",
"Perhaps the cleaning agents used within the schools. \n\nAlso school lunch pizza. How can I get that recipe?",
"I also wish to know what is the \"School Computer Lab Smell\" ? Like the combination of metals, cleaning agents and overly ventilated air...? It is my second favorite scent, next to the \"Swimming Pool Aisle at Walmart\" where the chlorination products mix to a mouth watering scent. :3",
"It has a lot to do with the standard building materials for a school (whatever cheap brick or laminate they use, chalk boards) and then the cleaning supplies and mish mash of regular day mess that they accumulate."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4hzqz8 | how are people with split personality disorder diagnosed? | How are people with split personality disorder diagnosed?
Also are they aware of what goes on while other personalities are active? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hzqz8/eli5_how_are_people_with_split_personality/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2tqdxj",
"d2tr7wu",
"d2tt7az"
],
"score": [
4,
14,
7
],
"text": [
"Dissociative Identity Disorder is extremely rare. People are diagnosed by a qualified professional in the same way that any psychiatric illness is diagnosed. They must demonstrate that they meet the diagnostic criteria outlined in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. Google \"DSM criteria for dissociative identity disorder\" for specifics. ",
"There is also some really compelling evidence that the entire idea of \"other personalities\" isn't really a thing, that American psychologists who really wanted it to be real were inadvertently encouraging their patients to demonstrate that sort of behavior through positive reinforcement. Saying \"Tell me about your other personality\" encouraged patients to think of themselves in those terms, arguably making their situation worse.\n",
"Lets just talk about the elephant in the room. Psychology is not an exact science, and there are many that feel it isn't a science at all since many of the observations made are subjective ones rather than objective. \n\nThat being said, it does make predictions about peoples behavior based on their previous actions and depending on the model it can be an accurate way of understanding a persons behavior. \n\nSo because the measurements are subjective, you have to make many more of them, and you have to use the right testing and model in order to make a diagnosis. There for a battery of tests are given to the subject, often by a team of psychologists and it works like a process of elimination. They also have to be able to observe the subject for a period of time. These observations, along with the results of many, many, tests, will lead to a diagnosis. \n\nAs far as the experience of being MPD it's difficult to guess what another persons experience is, and like people in general, every case is a little different. Movies and books tend to over dramatize MPD to write a gripping story so it can lead to a distorted public perception of what it means to have multiple or split personality disorder. \n\nTo some extent, we all have a little bit of this going on even in healthy people. You have your pissed off conflict escalating self. You have your negotiator self, and your diplomatic self. There is you when nobody else is around to judge, there is the way you act at work, and the way you act around your art school friends, the way you behave around family, etc. \n\nIt's not a disorder though because they are just different aspects of the same personality, you, and you don't suffer any debilitating aspects or have a negative quality of life because of it and most importantly, you are somewhat in control of yourself. \n\nSomebody who feels compelled to behave in socially unacceptable ways beyond their control could be suffering from a variety of psychosis, which goes back to the need to test and observe. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1det8m | Why were the U.S. Army so ill-trained and ill-equipped when they entered WWI? | Compared to the European armies, why were the U.S. Army so ill-prepared for war? why didn't the U.S. have a much larger and better prepared army in peacetime leading up to first world war?
(this isn't a homework question I just wanted to know) | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1det8m/why_were_the_us_army_so_illtrained_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9pydx2",
"c9pnpvs",
"c9prgyi"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
6
],
"text": [
"Another reason was that President Wilson refused to prepare the US Army for war (I believe he even refused to send observers to Europe). This was one of Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans' main criticisms of Wilson at the time. While Wilson eventually agreed to an expansion of the navy (over a period of 10 years), he still left the army neglected. The size of the active US Army was about 100,000 (for a comparison, that was what Germany was *restricted to* after the war by the Treaty Of Versailles).\n\nOnly when war became imminent was the Army expanded. Because the suddenly enlarged US Army had to be so quickly drafted, trained, and some would say *rushed* into the field naturally the troops were not only inexperienced in combat, but the commanders weren't familiar with the advanced style of modern European warfare. This lead to frequent misuses of US forces and high casualty rates. \n\nShortly after the outbreak of WWII in Europe, George C. Marshall said *\"You know, I know, all of us know that the time factor is the vital consideration — and vital is the correct meaning of the term — of our national defense program; that we must never be caught in the same situation we found ourselves in 1917.\"*",
"Not an expert on the topic, but here's my take, and anyone who knows more can correct me if I am mistake.\n\nFirst, the U.S. wasn't in the business of having a standing army up at all times at this point in history. Most soldiers were drafted in order to fight in specific cases. This makes sense considering how logistically difficult and how expensive it is to pay for an army (including the loss of labor).\n\nSecond, this is before the time of simple and cheap transport. War in Europe didn't necessarily mean the U.S. was going to be involved so there wasn't a reason to prepare for battle.\n\nFinally, the U.S. before WWI wasn't not as important, rich, or technologically advanced in relation to European nations at this point. In fact, if it hadn't been for the two world wars that practically destroyed Europe there is a good reason to suspect that the U.S. would have a similar role to China today (one in which it is economically growing, but is still politically on the outside). This part is speculation on my part, but the rise of the U.S. in my mind has to be inexorably linked to the fall of the European powers.\n\nSo to flesh out the answer, there are a lot of reasons why the U.S. was unprepared: logistics, politics, military structure, economics, and lack of need.\n\nHope that helps.",
"I'm not sure how ill-trained and ill-equipped they were, but it's partially due to the fact that the US didn't spend the previous three years fighting an intense war. If the US had immediately joined the war in 1914, they probably wouldn't have looked *that* out of place. The other nations went into the war with outdated tactics and equipment too (maybe not outdated, but certainly not fit for that kind of warfare), but they then had three years to adapt and improve. You saw tactics evolve from simple charges to complex combined arms assaults. You saw equipment evolve - like how the brightly coloured uniforms quickly became a dull grey or green for every army. But also just having soldiers in the field and in combat raised the experience and the know-how of the soldiers and the officers. And these advances were *huge.* The US Army could count on communication between the Allied armies - it's not like they went in totally blind to the advances of the last few years - but it's not the same as actually fighting the war. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5lw6v3 | Did early humans have any predators? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5lw6v3/did_early_humans_have_any_predators/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbzaou3",
"dbzbxy3",
"dbznq66"
],
"score": [
31,
26,
10
],
"text": [
"Many. Remember that it wasn't until fairly recently in the timeframe of modern human evolution that most large megafauna died off (well, was wiped out by humans anyway), so for most of that time humans coexisted with a panoply of large predators that did indeed prey on them.\n\nBig cats including now extinct saber toothed cats and cave lions. Wolves including now extinct dire wolves. Crocodiles and alligators including now extinct giant varieties with jaws a meter long. Marsupial lions. Cave bears the size of polar bears and giant bears that weighed as much as a car. Cave hyena that were bigger than most humans. Constricting snakes, such as boas. Large birds sometimes preyed on children and humans possibly had to content with giant flightless carnivorous birds.\n\nWe know that early humans sometimes fell victim to these predators based on marks on various human bone fossils. There is also one particular case of evidence of a human skull having been bitten by a saber toothed cat (Megantereon) as the cause of death.",
"To add to /u/rocketsocks there's also some evidence that one of early humanity's top predators was [eachother](_URL_0_) and that human meat was frequently on the menu. This comes from finding human bones with butchery marks, sometimes in the same pile and with the same tool marks as animal bones from hunting. It's hard to tell if these were deliberate kills or merely eating your dead relatives like some modern tribes, but probably some of both.",
"There are African eagles which eat moneys. There's a particular pattern of bird claw and beak damage to the monkey head.\n\nArchaeologists dug up the skull of an early hominid child with the same damage pattern.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nGoogle \"hominid skull eagle\" for more articles."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100831-cannibalism-cannibal-cavemen-human-meat-science/"
],
[
"https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/monkbird.htm"
]
]
|
||
1nq58k | The personal life of women (circa 1050) | Hi Reddit Historians! This is my first time posting, so I hope I get it right. I would like to know about what a the personal life for women would look like in the 'early' medieval ages. Namely, what was their role in the family? Did women have a the right to speak up and voice their opinions? Did they really have to follow everything their husband said? I know there would be a distinct difference between noble women and peasant women, if you could explain both I would really appreciate it.
A bit of background: I am going to run a role play chronicle set in the medieval ages. I have read a few books on the subject, also about women's lives, but they give me more of an idea about what working was like for women. Namely, it was hard and that life was hard for everyone so they got over it. However, being a woman and having a few women in my role play group, I want to get my personal life portrayal fair. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nq58k/the_personal_life_of_women_circa_1050/ | {
"a_id": [
"cckxyah"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It would be useful to specify a location as well. Since you said \"medieval,\" I'm assuming you're looking for European answers, right?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3na2lf | why is the highest tax bracket only about $450,000? why not have higher tax brackets at incomes of $1 million, $5 million, $10 million, etc.? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3na2lf/eli5_why_is_the_highest_tax_bracket_only_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvm71hw",
"cvmab22",
"cvmbr4e"
],
"score": [
82,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"If you have that much money, it's easy to [minimize your effective tax rate](_URL_1_) (charities, retirement plans, investments, etc). The top tax bracket was as high as 94% in [1944](_URL_0_). As for why it's not very high now, look at the series of laws in that table. Rich people are able to lobby for tax changes, and tend to argue that the bulk of the economy is run by rich people so by taxing them less, they have more money to e.g. start companies, so you gain a stronger economy.\n",
"the problem is compound interest... according to bloomberg the walton heirs doubled their net worth from 70 billion in 2007 to 140 billion in 2011... by heavily taxing people like them you slow down the disaster when the top .1 % have most of the wealth on the planet",
"When did this become r/soapbox? "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates",
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/04/as-the-rich-become-super-rich-they-pay-lower-taxes-for-real/"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3bq551 | why can't dopamine be manufactured? | If many drugs are largely enjoyable due to artificially elevated dopamine release, why can't dopamine be created and taken to achieve the euphoria? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bq551/eli5_why_cant_dopamine_be_manufactured/ | {
"a_id": [
"csogeik",
"csogjjy",
"csojnta",
"csvrxv8"
],
"score": [
40,
5,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"While we can create dopamine, there's no way to enjoy the dopamine without injecting it into our brain. It's much simpler to just take another drug that causes dopamine production.",
"They basically do manufacture dopamine. In fact, a popular drug treatment for people with parkinson's is 'L-DOPA' which is technically the pre-cursor to dopamine which causes the body to produce more dopamine.\n\nThere are also synthetic chemicals which can mimic neurotransmitters in the brain (e.g. bind to receptors and cause the brain to activate in pretty much the same way as a natural neurotransmitter). There are also other ways to increase neurotransmitter levels (e.g. by inhibiting re-uptake in the synapse).\n\nAs with any drug, however, firstly you can't really control where exactly in your brain gets the dopamine boost (it basically just increases dopamine activity everywhere, which won't necessarily mimic natural concentrations of the neuro-chemical).\n\nSecondly, these drugs (depending on how they increase dopamine activity) may have unwanted side effects, especially in the case of continual use or over-dosing. For example, depending on the drug, your body may start to adapt so that you need a larger and larger dose over time until the point where the drug has basically no effect or you have to take so much of the drug that you risk over-dosing.",
"Dopamine can be manufactured, but dopamine itself won't cross the blood-brain barrier. You can however produce drugs that will increase dopamine levels - patients with Parkinson's disease are given [L-DOPA](_URL_0_), which is a precursor to dopamine that can reach the brain.",
"I work for a home infusion company and some of our bags of IV fluid have dopamine in it, but as stated before it doesn't cross the brain barrier. So I don't know WHY it's in there but I assume it does something good for neurological and autoimmune diseases. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-DOPA"
],
[]
]
|
|
3g3k06 | what is a dna schedule and how does it prove when human life begins? | Mike Huckabee mentioned it tonight in the Republican primary debate. Can any geneticists or embryologists explain what a DNA schedule is and how it demonstrates that human life begins at conception? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g3k06/eli5_what_is_a_dna_schedule_and_how_does_it_prove/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctuiqoc",
"ctujmnn",
"ctuznuv"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's not a term that exists. Huckabee made it up. \n\nThe question of when human life begins will always be a philosophical one. Science can't \"prove\" anything here. A new, genetically distinct organism is created at fertilization. So you could argue \"life\" begins there. But at that stage several eggs are fertilized and most of these will spontaneously abort rather than go on to form a fetus. So is it the beginning of human life? That's for you and your God to decide. ",
"I think he's defining organic matter containing human DNA as human beings. Like if I were to leave my skin cells in his mum's butt, they would be his sibling poo babies. \n\nOr maybe DNA just needs to organize its busy life and that somehow relates to embryos.",
"I am an MD and a researcher in molecular biology and I have never heard the term \"DNA schedule\" before last night. Apparently, though, Huckabee has used the term in prior speeches, so it wasn't a brand new invention. That said, I can't see where anyone else has used the term.\n\nI think that his argument is that each zygote has a genome which is distinct from the parents and that this somehow makes a zygote a person. If that's his claim, then he may be using the term \"schedule\" in the sense of a plan or procedure or perhaps in the sense of a legal schedule like an appendix to a document. He would be saying something like, \"The instructions for development contained in the DNA of a zygote are unique, therefore it is a legal person.\"\n\nI'm not sure how you coherently get from the idea that a zygote has a non-parental genome to the idea that a zygote is a person. Clearly, personhood is not conferred only by having a unique genome. Some human lymphocytes and certainly cancer cells are slightly different in their genes from the rest of your cells and identical twins have an identical genetic sequence (more or less), yet no one argues that a tumor is a person but both twins are not. Furthermore, presumably a human clone would also be a legal person at some point in development. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1qh8wn | why was/is there such an incredible fear of communism? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qh8wn/eli5_why_wasis_there_such_an_incredible_fear_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdcrewf",
"cdcs0l4",
"cdcsck6",
"cdcskb9",
"cdcvl6o",
"cdcvymc",
"cdcwvic",
"cdcwx2m",
"cdcx7io",
"cdcxa2k",
"cdcxc7s",
"cdcxcp5",
"cdcye4n",
"cdcyggy",
"cdcyo93",
"cdcyucg",
"cdd01ln",
"cdd0f0u",
"cdd129o",
"cdd1hr2",
"cdd1lai",
"cdd2214",
"cdd23sz",
"cdd24w9",
"cdd2hua",
"cdd2wum",
"cdd2xfg",
"cdd3hhi",
"cdd3srt",
"cdd6icf",
"cdd7y8o",
"cdd8oym",
"cddamiy",
"cddb7mj",
"cddbkb3",
"cddbska",
"cddbwbk",
"cddccy5",
"cddcikn",
"cddcq28",
"cdddagl",
"cdddo4k",
"cdddqk3",
"cdddrp3",
"cddht5b"
],
"score": [
23,
3,
13,
89,
5,
4,
46,
16,
3,
2,
8,
3,
3,
2,
3,
6,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
7,
2,
41,
3,
3,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because all of the historical attempts has worsened the condition of the country, e.g\n\n[Mao's reign in China](_URL_0_)\n\n[Soviet Union](_URL_1_)\n\nI agree that idealistically the world would have communism, but from what we can see in history it just can't work.\n",
"In the US the fear of Communism kicked off after the Russian Revolution, when the states went through the first \"Red Scare\". This was an ideology that had eliminated an established European monarchy - it seemed powerful, and it didn't seem unreasonable to think that a similar revolution could happen in the US, particularly since the country had experienced a lot of high-profile attacks/assassinations by anarchists at the end of the 1800s and start of the 1900s. It was an ideology that went against what people believed was the American way of life - Lenin was talking about a global revolution, and there were a lot of people in the United States that would have a lot to lose if what happened in Russia happened in their country too.\n\nAfter WWII I doubt anyone thought there was any kind of risk of the USA undergoing a communist revolution. The fear was more that the USA's could lose allies to communism, and that the ideology would spread, or that the communist 'enemy' would attack the US.",
"All these people are talking about dictatorships. It's understandable because dictatorships and communism go hand in hand kind of. You can say that is the fear with communism because people usually associate it with a dictatorship. When people think of communism they think of people getting shot for criticisms against the government and their liberties getting taken away. This is just more of a by product of the one party system. If the party is an ass and wants to take liberties away they can. But it the party is cool and allow those liberties they can. Both work in communism.\n\nSome of the key features of communism is the means of production is controlled by the state and the economy is planned by the one party. This means that the one party decides how the economy is going to run. They determine how many of one product is going to be produced and determines the prices for those product. There are also a lot of other features that appear good on paper, but don't really work out in reality. \n\nIt should be noted that no government has really achieved real communism/socialism they just picked some of the features they liked left the rest out.",
"*Note: I am not a history or a sociology major or anything that could be classified as 'a professional' on this subject. I've just had alot of history classes and read alot. Im going to try and cover Communism as a concept and as a history topic.*\n\n\n* **Communism == USSR**\nRemember that Communism, or Marxism-Leninism as in the 1920's was what overthrew the Russian monarchy in a revolution and began the USSR. As you must know that the USSR was an enormous economic power that grew extremely quickly to rival the U.S. After defeating Germany with the Allies, at the end of the WWII the USSR decided it would be *a great idea* if the whole world would reject democracy (or whatever government they currently had) and use socialist(?) Communist governments, and decided to enact this process by force- invading Eastern Europe and supporting parts of Africa (Congo and Ethopia) and East Asia (Korea) in communist reform. The U.S. (and some of Europe, but mostly the U.S took active measures) saw this 'spread' of 'communism' as a threat- and thus the war between 'democracy' vs 'communism', 'the west' vs 'the east *(of the Berlin Wall)*, the U.S vs the USSR in indirect conflict over ideology began (thus begins the Cold War.)\n\nWe can blame propaganda and people like McCarthy for giving the popular beliefs about communism being bad and such- but again, Im not a sociologist, the propaganda was likely as bad for both sides. But the 'War against Communism' was a frightening war where both sides could obliterate the world with nuclear arms; a war not on land or other disputes but the ideology of government. The outcome of this war between the U.S vs the USSR (and the collapse of the USSR) has been cemented into our ideals of Democracy vs Communism; and considering the public opinion of these nations you can guess which government system is favoured.\n\nAs for why there is still a fear now, we still have a major country that still uses Communism style of government- China. I'll presume you already know why people are in fear of China; I dont spread rumors so I'll refrain from listing them here. Of course China is still doing extremely well under its government so ultimately Communism cannot be labeled as bad/evil. On the other hand we also have North Korea- which with its military spending, personality cult, low standard of living(?), censorship and suspect behaviour, represents a threat(?) of what a Communism governments can perform (similar occurrences are reported from the USSR and China). I cant tell if any of this is completely true because yes, propaganda and censorship still exist both for and against North Korea.\n\n\n* **Communism as a concept/ideal**\nAssuming you know what communism is, most people confuse it with an extreme version of socialism. Socialism presumably being- reforms that favour use of state funding to help a majority of people (e.g welfare, health care reforms, etc). There's the belief that reliance on state funds will increase (thus more taxes) and people will do less to benefit themselves (this is ignoring people who are already in less than ideal situations due to circumstance and the state funding is their only reliable means of escaping poverty/etc). This doesnt seem to be much of an issue with European countries where social reforms are widespread- but in the U.S there seems to be a strong backlash against social reforms and these 'social reforms' are then perceived to be our government heading towards 'communism'.\nThe Western world (U.S, Europe) is probably never going to head towards Communism unless a very serious threat/something occurs.\nThats all I've got. Being from Nigeria, England and the U.S I think I gave a decent but neutral description on the topic. I dont think there's anything inherently wrong with Communism; but the examples we do have (excluding China?) have not been exemplary.\n\n**TL:DR** The Cold War made the U.S (representing Democracy) seem like the good guy and the winners over the bad guy; the USSR (representing Communism.) \nLots of propaganda from both sides.\nLots of atrocities and low standard of living committed under Communist governments.\nPeople link a 'welfare state' with being Communist.\n\n**Edit:** Lots of grammar mistakes. LOTS OF THEM.\n\n**Edit 2:** I acknowledge that my answer is by no means complete and I should have put more emphasis on the atrocities that occur as a result of Communist governments (the dictatorship of Stalin in the USSR, Mao Zedong of China, and various countries of the Eastern Bloc. I encourage people to read the criticism/replies before forming a complete opinion on Communism (although this is reddit- you should never take just one person's opinion on something anyway.) \n\nCommunism is also a very vague and nebulous idea- its important to learn from history but its also important to know that Communism is not **solely** the manner in which Stalin / Mao built up the USSR and China upon bodies of their own people (although it seems to happen **every time**, but the USSR/Stalin originated the first communist government so it might be what others built upon on, or maybe its just my bias in thinking dictators use Communism as a means for absolute power that caused me to omit this.) If someone can better explain what Communism is from a concept/ideal point of view please do. Thanks again- the original post has stayed the same.",
"Partly seeing what governments espousing Communism (Soviets, Maoist China, modern China to a much lesser extent) have done in the past, partly propaganda, partly horror at Communist philosophy.\n\nThe Soviet Union was founded in an extremely violent, bloody revolution. The royal family, including the children, as well as other who happened to be born into noble families, were murdered. Churches were seized, pillaged, and burned, and clergy murdered or exiled, showing that the revolutionaries (called the Bolshevics) had no respect for God. Religion, which unlike on Reddit was and is mostly revered, was banned. Dissenters were killed or imprisoned. Later, under Stalin, purges even began within the party, leaving no one safe. The model of central, state control of the economy that defines socialism was inherently and historically inefficient, leading to widespread poverty and starvation at worst, and lack of opportunity at best.\n\nThose that have studied the philosophies involved have deeper complaints. By collectivising the means of production and placing it under state/community control, Communism denies people agency. It denies people the right to pursue their own best interest over that of the collective, which is one of the most basic and fundamentsl human rights there is. It justifies this with a skewed view of history based on class warfare and perceived (and sometimes real) oppression. It wrapped this up with a universalist view of their revolution - they believed (and practiced to varying degrees) in spreading their revolution worldwide, so it wasn't something that could be brushed off as someone else's problem.\n\nFinally, from the beginning there has been a lot of propaganda muddying things up. While the attrocities committed by Communist revolutionaries and governments are real, some people let their reasonable distaste for it get too far and either make them seem bigger or more common than they were, or ignore the role played by incompetence. The power of the Soviet Union, and their will to destroy us, were hugely exagerated. The soviets loved to keep things secret, leading people on the outside to assume the worst. The desire to spread Communism wavered over time, but you wouldn't hear about that. The presence of big scary communism lead people to overlook problems with their own governments, partly by the design of people with an interest in maintaining the status quo, and partly out of honest priorities.\n",
" In a communist country there is no private property and everyone works for the collective good. In democratic free enterprise workers receive the marginal value of the product or service they produce. The theory is that with the existence of private property people will work hard to better their own position in life (and in doing so they unintentionally increase the overall GDP of their country). Communism was originally proposed as a post capitalist structure but it has always been implemented in countries that do not have a vast amount of wealth to collectivize. The result is that hunger becomes more widespread rather than wealth, as was the case in the Soviet Union. If communism were implemented in a wealthy country like Luxembourg it would likely have an entirely different result from the terror based regimes we are familiar with. Once the human race has developed to a point where we no longer need innovation and most of the world problems have been solved (ie hunger, pollution, disease) it may be possible to finally adopt a system where we all work together rather than race each other to the top.",
"Since I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, look into primitive communism, many tribes were successful for thousands of years without personal property and ownership of others labor. Unfortunately, models like these don't scale up well, but in smaller groups it can still be possible, the people in that system however would have to give up many of the comforts we hold dear in modern society, and I don't know many people who would want to do that, myself included. But to answer your question in a completely uneducated viewpoint, I feel most of the fear of communism is a fear of losing ones own identity as an individual. We have grown up in a paradigm that promotes rugged self sufficiency and it's hard to imagine any other way, so fear of the unknown I'm sure plays a part, plus there has never been a good modern model that hasn't ended in catastrophe. Hope this helps! ",
"It isn't fear. Communism is intrinsically flawed because it is merely a set of laudable goals but zero understanding of human psychology or sociology. That is exceedingly dangerous combination when many people blindly support it because it permits individuals to grab massive power with little real understanding of how to create a successful society. \n\nWhat it leads to, ineluctably, is the opposite of communism; massive inequality and domination. ",
"The rich feared losing all their power and money, which is ironic, given the current state of communist China. ",
"The points I don't see many people bridging are that when you have sharing or redistribution, someone has to be in charge of doling it out. That someone ends up a point of control and, further, that someone ends up with the privilege of giving themselves and their friends more than anyone else. \n\nTheoretically, community oversight can solve this; in practice, that doesn't tend to happen. Among other reasons like basic human complacency, national scale means you can no longer personally watch the people doling stuff out. So you trust someone else and then they become a point of control too. \n\nThat's why, human desire for more stuff aside, communism isn't sustainable at scale, and tends to lead to dictatorial governments. The same issues potentially exist in socialism and capitalism, especially with the US's form of democracy, but capitalism in theory keeps power (via money and opportunity) more distributed. In practice, it also devolves (as we're currently seeing), just in a different way and pace. \n\nRe: it being scary, probably because it does look so good on paper, and because once you start it it's hard to reverse until the system in general collapses. You can flee, but you probably don't have enough power to actually modify the system. Capitalism and democracy at least give the illusion of choice and power, if not always the reality. \n\nArguably, the truly scary thing is power centralization, however it happens. But the lure of \"getting things done\" is high enough that people go for it every time. Ambition doesn't always work in one's favor on the long scale. ",
"There's an interesting economic argument against communism called the [economic calculation problem](_URL_0_) about how economic planning is a poor (or impossible) substitute for markets. The arguments stems from a debate in the 1920s between Austrian/marginalist economists and Marxists economists called the [socialist calculation debate](_URL_1_). Back then (neoclassical) economics was still in its infancy.\n\nThe gist of the argument is that without a price mechanism, which a market provides, you cannot match demand and supply. \n\n",
"To me its seems that everyone thinks that what Russia had was pure Communism. What most people hate is actually the political view Stalinism. Leon Trotsky's (the original communist leader) views were very diffrent to Stalin and it was when he died in which the political idea communism became hated, because of what Stalin turned it into.",
"Second time today I've found myself suggesting people read Leon Trotsky. Also, you're crazy if you think China is still practicing Communism. It isn't. They're capitalists under single-party state control. ",
"Because it killed 50,000,000+ people.",
"I'll go a different direction with this.\n\nPeople, you know are afraid of many things. We are afraid of things that look scary or things we don't know or things we don't understand. We're afraid of change in any form really, just like tomorrow, if I said we are going to eat completely different food now on, before you even tasted what I make, you will be a little unsure how to feel.\n\nNow I could tell you, communism is bad and millions and millions of people died because of it, but really, how many people died from god, or democracy. It's hard to say, but what I can tell you is, people don't like change, and when we all finally agree to change, it's usually when things are so bad we feel like there is no other way.\n\nIn those situations, it is easy for certain people to hold great power and do good things or do bad things.\n\nThere is a certain fear of communism in the U.S.A, but people also fear electric cars and thorium reactors and solar panels and hell and...well so many different things.\n\nPeople are generally afraid of anything that is not the norm.\n\n",
"We are raised to believe Communism is bad like we're raised to believe hard work pays off in a Capitalist state. While the latter [is demonstrably untrue](_URL_0_), the former is more problematic. \n\n\"Communism,\" following Marx, is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Stalinist Russia, or Castro's Cuba were therefore never Communist societies- they were actually quite the opposite. They relied on heavy state control, stark social stratification, and state manipulation of currency. Those countries did nothing to abolish the state, to upend the class war, or to eliminate wage slavery. They aren't particularly relevant to this conversation, because while they are excellent examples of State Capitalism, or Fascism, they aren't very pertinent examples of Communism. \n\nThe great fear of Communism in the US follows from what a Marxist might call \"Ideological State Apparatuses.\" In school, in the media, in religious institutions, even in our families, the Capitalist ideology pervades. It's neither rational nor irrational, but it's inculcated early and often into our daily practices, and therefore into our ideologies. \n\nThis is what causes a kneejerk reaction in many to the concept of Communism. Few truly understand by \"Communism\" that a widely laudable set of ideals is being set forth, with a century and a half's worth of strong scholarship in its favor. They point to Soviet Russia, or \"The People's Republic of China\" as strawmen against the Communist proposition because their prescribed ideology prevents them from seeing the difference between the two.",
"Just a few reasons, off the top of my head...\n\n* Iron curtain\n* Millions killed by their own government\n* Failed economic system\n* Bread lines\n* Little to no hope of improving one's lot in life\n* Widespread poverty with very few controlling the money and power (people bitch about this in a capitalistic economy, it is ironically worse in a \"communist\" economy)",
"Additionally, to add to the good historical facts raised below, the communist nations not only did not care about an individuals rights, they made it a point to squash all dissent. There was no such thing as free speech at all. One had to be very careful to what you said and to whom. The Berlin Wall was not put up to keep West Germans from escaping to communist East Berlin. It was the other way around and that was true in all the Eastern Block nations. Life was very hard for people and communists, generally, do not run a good economy or agribusiness resulting in severe shortages of food and other basic goods. You are still a very fortunate person to be born and raised in the USA. You can learn how so in more detail from immigrants, especially political ones. \n",
"On an unpollotical note and note reading much of other comments would u feel comfortable in a society in which no matter how hard you work you will always be equal in wealth amd etc as some one who does nothing ",
"Did you not read this mornings news? 80 North Koreans shot for having bibles or watching porn and soap operas. ",
"This video explains the basic american fear of Communism during the peak McCarthy Era better than anything else I've ever found.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Communism, as an ideology, is incompatible with many Western beliefs/ideals such as private property ownership and individual achievement (the idea that if you work harder or are more business savvy/risk-taking, you should be rewarded accordingly). Proponents of capitalism will argue that communism stifles progress and invention.\n\nHowever, in theory socialistic societies don't sound horrible, especially when we know of the gross inequalities in our world today. Just look at America's 1%. Say what you will, but that's a gross inequality of wealth in the world's top economy--should CEOs be taking in multimillion dollar salaries while employees are laid off? Sorry, I digress, but a communist might criticize capitalists for that reason.\n\nCommunism became unspeakable to Western societies after World War II, when the bipolar powers of the US and USSR emerged as competitors in a roughly 40-year pissing contest that would span all over the world. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 was Truman's request for Congress to send millions of dollars in aid to Greece and Turkey to aid in recovery and development. Truman warns that poor countries are prone to radicalism, which would result in socialist governments taking over. He characterizes the world in black and white terms, Russians/communists = evil, Americans/liberty-loving capitalists = good.\n\nInterestingly enough, the Communist Party in the US had been around since 1919 and were essential in creating and leading major labor unions. Communist-trained leaders and members were known to be very organized, good at recruiting members, exceptionally passionate and dedicated to their job. Communists were also known as more willing to accept African Americans in labor unions (pretty rare for the time) and were more likely to be proponents in general for civil rights and economic equality.\n\nBy the late 1940s, though, communism was not only unpopular; it was evil. With the \"closing of the Iron Curtain,\" communism became solely associated with the Soviet Union, America's ultimate enemy. Early on, the war in Korea (1950) proved that we would be fighting physical wars against communist proponents in addition to proxy wars in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East.\n\n**To really answer your question**, however, the Red Scare (1947-1955 roughly) is why there was such an incredible fear of Communism. People often refer to the era and the attitude itself as McCarthyism, so named after a turd of a Senator named Joseph McCarthy who engaged in modern-day witch hunts of alleged communists. The Red Scare was the fear of the upsurge of Communism in America, and the specific fear that we were being infiltrated by Soviet spies. \n\nThe American government was the one going after everyone! They imposed loyalty tests for federal workers. Workers who were found to have ties with Communism were fired. Keep in mind that CPUSA had been labor supporters just a decade back; many workers had interactions--even brief ones--with CPUSA for this reason. Yet this would work against them. If your name was found on a confiscated CPUSA mailing list from 1937, you were suspicious.\n\nCommunism *was* more prevalent in the entertainment circles. In Hollywood, directors, writers, producers, actors, and many more in the industry were blacklisted--sometimes by their own peers (see Elia Kazan). Some were appalled by it; Stanley Miller, a playwright who was himself questioned by the US Congress, wrote The Crucible as an allegory for the era. These Congressional hearings themselves were awful. Hearings aren't like courts, and there's no due process of the law. Congressmen like Joseph McCarthy would hurl allegations at a powerless victim; even if they weren't guilty of anything, simply the public embarrassment of being involved was enough for it to affect you for the rest of your life. It lasted only until the mid-late 1950s, but damn, it was bad. You knew it was going downhall fast when McCarthy accused General Marshall, a friggin war hero, of being a Communist. \n\nBut still, it's quite the sore subject.\n\nP.S. The [kibbutzes](_URL_0_) in Israel are intriguing modern communal communities. I personally would love to know more.",
"Because of human nature\n\n",
"How could you do it on a large scale without a fascist government? People are always quick to point out that the USSR and People's Republic of China aren't good examples of communism, but the system inherently requires a large degree of centralized planning to the extent that control will have to be exerted on the individual in a way that makes cronyism look like anarcho-utopia. ",
"I just don't like the idea of the government telling me what job I have to do for the rest of my life, and owning my land/house, yada yada. I'm all for helping people. I donate to charities, help at the food kitchen, whatever I can. But I want to be able to help people help themselves. I want to be able to choose my career, buy the house I want, all of which I've done. We can all still work together, it's just better to do it all by our own choices, rather than the government controlling all or most of our lives. \n\nI know this is brash, vague, and not helpful. Just my very quick 2 cents. No disrespect to anyone that feels different.",
"This sounds like one of those ELI5 questions that everyone tried to answer like it's ELI'm a college senior. ",
"An example from childhood: Your teacher assigns a project and you have groups of 4. How often do you actually get all 4 people to make a contribution? Usually it's the motivated kids pulling extra weight to get 4 people's work done. \n\nBy removing the personal consequences of failure and rewards of success, communism breeds apathy. ",
"I believe Communism as an idea is sound and fair. It's just extremely hard to implement as it relies on the people in power having integrity and actually sticking to the plan. Thing is, the people in power can never be entirely trusted and in general people are greedy selfish fucks.",
"Why's there a fear of communism? Take a look at the everyday circumstances of the average person in China, or formerly, in the USSR.",
"This question was answered rather eloquently in 1985: _URL_0_",
"The reason communisms barbarity is seemingly poorly understood is that too many of the intellectual elite of the capitalist/democratic West were enamored of its ideas. No one really defended fascism after WWII, but there were still intellectuals- professors, journalists, artists, who thought that Marx had good ideas. They spent a lot of energy excusing the crimes of communism, often trying to lay the responsibility for these atrocities on the \"wrong man\" being at the pinnacle of the system, or even on American actions. (They only did it 'cause they were afraid of us.)\nThe Holodomor was an explicitly communist act. The Kulaks of Ukraine did not wish to \"collectivize\" their farms, so the Soviets did their best to exterminate them (4-14 million dead, mostly of absolutely, undeniably intentional starvation.) People act like it is only the megalomaniacs at the top, or the free-loaders on the collective farm that spoil communism.\nNope. Communism spoils communism. What Stalin did to Ukraine was the logical, and only outcome of forced collectivization. If you stand in the way of the collective will, your existence is a problem to be solved. The justification is that the goal is so, so important, no individual can be allowed to hinder it. \n\nWhen Mao inflicted the \"Great Leap Forward\" upon China, he created what is probably the greatest famine in human history. Either it was willful elimination of excess population for the benefit of industrial development and population control, or it was (as an economist might say) misallocation of resources in the absence of the price signal. Pretty predictable. The national cultural suicide that was the Cultural Revolution was another perfect example of communism properly practiced. Mao gets all the credit for China moving into the 20th Century, as if China would have stayed a semi-feudal warlord infested state with out the Great Helmsman. Marx, and later communists, realized that communism could not work if the people retained their old value system. Hence the \"Vanguard Period\" when they would be instilled with the new ethos. Sure, it was part personality cult, but this gets at another problem of communism:\nHave you noticed that apologists for communism always point to people as the problem? If your system is not designed for people, please don't use it on them. \nYet people still point to China as the success story, ignoring the fact that this incredible rise coincides with the end of Mao and Deng Xiaoping's adoption of more capitalist economics. Look closely at China, and I think you will find that, while it is massively productive and way better off than it was, it is starting to run into the limits of \"Socialism with Chinese characteristics.\"\nSo, yes I guess we can say that despite many dedicated communist revolutions, communism has never existed. In the end human nature and the inherent inefficiency of central planning did them all in. \n\nThe presumption after the tens of millions of lives lost must be that communism does not work, and attempting it leads to an incredible concentration of power in a totalitarian state that will prevent any redress of grievances with terror.",
"From a personal view communism does not work because it does not reward the gifted, there is no incentive to be good at anything.",
"666 comments; Communism's evil confirmed! ",
"Fear of Communism mainly manifests in areas dominated by Capitalism. In situation where there is inequity, the folks who possess the lion's share are generally unlikely to endorse a systemic change that would change ownership to everyone. And the folks that have the most money have the greatest ability to control messaging.\n\nIronically enough, the real hardcore capitalist types that endorse Laissez-Faire policies and no regulations are, in fact, endorsing communism. Karl Marx saw Capitalism as a critical step in the evolution to it's successor (known to the public somewhat interchangeably as communism, marxism, socialism.) In order for the succession to occur, Capitalism needs to be left completely unfettered. The result, according to Marx, would be over-production and severe income inequity which would cause a crisis of capitalism. The workers would become too poor to afford the goods that are produced by their capitalism employers. The system stalls and over-production occurs. (JIT production systems hadn't been invented yet.) It's at this point that a revolution would occur and the goods would be distributed fairly.\n\nSo - want Communism? Go with the Tea Party and Neoconservative types and buckle your seat belt. \n\nAs an aside, it's interesting that in addition to their policies supporting a Communist revolution, the Republicans control 'red states.' They also complain viciously about Liberals just as Karl Marx did. And the Neoconservative movement actually started in the American Communist Party.\n\nTLDR; The Republicans are, in some ways, more communist than avowed communists.",
"Feared by who? The rich and powerful who control most of the information feared communism b/c the communists tended to purge them, appropriate their property and wealth, and hand it out to others. Most of the rest of the Red Scare was just smoke and mirrors because --though communists have done some truley horrible things-- fascists and capitalists and others 'ists\" of all ilks have done just about the same amount of evil to average people as communists. But those who pull the strings were very well aware that communists would snatch their wealth and so they put a lot of effort into anti-communist propaganda. ",
"Communism is idealistic in nature. This proposed form of government, in no way takes the human behavior into account. It is an idealistic design, for a people far from ideal. Humans are flawed, it is what defines us. Therefore true communism has yet to exixst. What does exist, is a bastardization of the communist ideal.",
"It is important to know that real communism has never happened on a large scale. People love to throw around the word communism, but many don't actually know what it is. To quote attiladanun \" Your teacher assigns a project and you have groups of 4. How often do you actually get all 4 people to make a contribution? Usually it's the motivated kids pulling extra weight to get 4 people's work done.\" This is only because of the teacher being a bad teacher. If there is some sort of enforcement that says \"well, if you don't do your part, then you get nothing\" then people will do their part. Communism works quite well on a small scale such as tribes or communes. This is because there will be consequences if you don't chip in.",
"Because you live in a country that was capitalist during the existence of the USSR and the USSR was explicitly anti-capitalist. The country had every intention of creating global communism and tried to support communist revolution whenever possible. The capitalist countries, especially the US tried to do the opposite, by installing capitalist-friendly (although often authoritarian) regimes wherever it could. The middle there was a massive propaganda war. The US government has very actively tried to make you hate communism. That is why there is such an incredible fear. The propaganda was extremely effective. ",
"Communism was an attempt to promote the equality of all people in a society. In modern terms, it's the knee here reaction people have to the golden parachute CEOs; they've been so hurt by the fabulously wealthy that they would rather remove the concept of wealth and class than be subjected to the giant gap between the poor and the mega rich. For Communism, especially in Russia, this doesn't really work. Government workers were given more power than ever, and the military officials got to be top dog. To me, it's the returning to a caveman type era, why be nice to the little weakling when you've got the bigger stick? Also, like the previous commenter, when everyone gets equal reward for every job, those that have the crappiest, dirtiest jobs (think garbage man v burger flipper) are ticked off because their effort is far higher than others but they all get equal reward. And in the case of Russia that reward was awful. It's all basic modern economic principle and that's why capitalist/Democratic systems are often viewed as superior because they are based upon individual choice and the pursuit of personal goals. Mind you, this is ftom a western cultural perspective. I've heard that eastern cultures are more focused on benefitting the community. ",
"It's collectivism vs individualism. I think you'll find there's a place for both, but the argument for collectivism is far more compelling.",
"Communism needs to first be understood. First the soviets did not have communism and neither do the chinese etc.. they have or had \"forms\" of communism.\n\n\"TRUE\" communism is rather closely relates to true \"socialism\"\n\nthey are not necessarily \"bad\" unless your wealthy. then they are very very bad.\n\nthe wealthy people in control of our nation certainly don't want to give up their wealthy so they demonized communism in extreme.\n\nnow its just built into our society to hate it.\n\nand this is just fine for the wealthy ones in power :-)",
"Arguments about how there has never been a truly communist country are essentially fantastical. All attempts at communism (on a national and not village or tribal level) have wilted down to the proliferation of repression and grave injustices. Capitalist systems started out pretty awful by today's standards, but I am able to make that statement because things HAVE improved, capitalism allows for improvements (albeit slow and painful) that communism doesn't. The only communist system that has survived to be a world player is the Chinese one, and I think most will agree that it's because their economy is essentially capitalist. Their political philosophy is the one that's still communist, and most will agree that the injustices and censorship etc. of that style of governance are not desirable. \n\nSo communism has fared worse than capitalism both as an economic philosophy and as an political one. (Actual results, not intended ones). This is not to say that capitalism is the ideal (no human construct is), but as history and actually results on the ground have shown, capitalism makes things better, **overally** and **eventually**, i.e. on a national and global scale. The improvement is like a chain saw, it contains rises and falls on a smaller scale, but it rises none-the-less. So I yearn to see a scientific approach to political discourse, where we don't simply pin ideas in our heads together, but look at actual results. \nLet's not debate the ideas or the intentions, but the actual results achieved in practice.\n\nSo communism is feared because in all attempts (despite all cultural, economic, linguistic differences etc. between all communist and former communist countries), it (without fail so far) degenerates into tyranny and doesn't pull out of it. (The only ones pulling out clearly adopting capitalist philosophies in their economies.) Its ideals greatly appeal to our sense of equality and so forth, but in practise it emphatically fails to achieve its goals. This appeal is what attracts so many young boisterous and change seeking individuals, which is why the left is comprised primarily of active young adults. But the results on the ground are why it is not popular among the more mature demographics, when people eventually realise that actual actions and results are more important than intentions, no matter how noble. That is why \" **if u are not a radical in your early 20s, you have no heart; but if you are still a radical in your 40s, you have no head** \"\nMost people are incapable and unwilling to look at these things in required detail, and so the capitalist countries resolved to simply shun communism in (ironically) a rather authoritarian manner. But that's fine, because we must not create a false dichotomy; there is a lot of grey area, and though grave injustices can occur under capitalism, it effing improves, and moves on.\nAnd when a better system pops up, we'll take it. But communism is definitely not it. In the evolution of political philosophies, communism has is definitely being pushed to extinction, principally because it doesn't work. So let's not create a false dichotomy and say that capitalism is just as horrible as communism; there are similar undesirables, but one can clearly move in a direction that the other can't.\n\nUnless we have an apocalypse and return to living as small tribe! :)\n\nOne other thing. Governments suck at doing most things. Imagine Apple or Ferrari being run by a centralised government type body, I dare say that you are far less likely to have the innovation and growth etc. experienced. So think about **that** when u espouse collectivised economies and wealth redistribution and egalitarianism in a world we know that we have very different people with very different capabilities and motivations. There is a very good reason why Gates made a whole lot more money than me, and trying to make us equal contributors, or sharing his wealth with me or making it for everyone is not the way to go... you'd make him sad and he would move to another country :)\n\nBut seriously, people are afraid of communism because the western powers bullied them into being fearful of it. But for good reason :)",
"This is my complete guess and conclusion based on the stories I hear from the vietnamese people I work with who escaped during the Vietnam war. \n\nCommunism is run by party. This party is like the school yard bully, they do whatever they want, when they want.\n\n1/ For example,in AUS for a bill to be passed, it needs to be revised and formally go through a process before it can be imposed. Notice is also given to the public of the new law. \nIn Vietnam, it seemed that the communist can one day say 'today we are no longer using shells as our currency, we are now using beads'. This screws up the nation as everyone was using shells before and they are now poor, hence making the communist party richer as they most likely obtain the majority of beads. This is what actually happened during the Vietnam war (not actually using shells and beads, but changing their currency) \n\n2/ here we follow a structure of law, where if you do something wrong you will be charged/thrown in jail/face consequence in a humane way where you still have rights to being treated in a humane manner.\nIn communist countries, law enforcers ARE the communist and you will not be treated with civil rights as this does not exist. You will probably be bashed, shot or robbed. They can do whatever they want to you and no one can touch them.\n\n3/ they have f**king control over EVERYTHING. Facebook is banned in China, youtube and google is banned in North Korea and Vietnam - no f**king joke. They control what their citizens have access to as they want their citizens to believe they are the best and nicest people out there and that their country isn't suffering.... When it is. I remember at work this vietnamese lady told me just before she escaped from Vietnam, she was required to fill out a permission slip to visit her friend in the next town. WHO DOES THAT!? here you just hop in your car and do whatever you like!! This was 30 years ago so I'm not sure if this is still the case\n\n4/ I was also told that when Ho Chi Minh died, the law enforcers of the town went around telling everyone that they HAD to cry and wail when the media show up. If anyone was caught not doing so, the punishment was they would starve the victims family of rice and food. I guess the communist have access to their food supply as well.\n\n5/everything is all about money. Want to send your child to school? Sick and need meds for pneumonia? Only the wealthy can afford these services as it will go directly into the communists pockets. I know that the healthcare in US sounds like this but the difference is in USA, they will only perform enough service/s so you will not die. They may not treat you, but just enough so you can still walk out breathing. In Vietnam, no medical treatment will be performed unless you show them the munnies.\nIn developed countries there are public schools are education is free. Not the case in Vietnam. Only rich kids get an education or very hard labourers can only afford to send one or two of their many children to school. \n\n6/ humanity does not exist. If you die on the street... Who cares? Your pockets will be emptied clean and everyone will go on about their day. Not over here buddy... Not over here. Someone will probably contact for help, your family will be notified and you will have a proper burial. \n\n\n\nIt sounds like a massive lack of freedom, broken laws and the communist are only interested in making themselves richer and have no interest in helping their nation. I have asked my fellow colleagues the question that if Australia was to be under attack by China, North Korea or Vietnam, would they take refuge again or would they stay. They shook their heads and said 'I would run until I die. I would never succumb to the communist.' I'd say they are probably in their 50s or 60s and came to Australia around thirty years ago.",
"This would have been a better question over in /r/AskHistorians. Because it wasn't about theoretical fear of theoretical communism, it was about some specific incidents in Communist history that people were afraid would happen if it came to them.\n\nMost Americans have *no* idea what the Boxer Rebellion was about. For this discussion, the only thing you need to know was that the US Marine Corps was sent in to pull off a kind of takeover of China, to prop up a pro-US regime, and the Chinese people guessed (correctly) that the Christian missionaries who were in China right before the US invasion, who were in some cases the excuse for the invasion when bad things happened to them, were spies for the US and for US oil companies. So when the pro-US government of China got overthrown, Christian missionaries and their converts were tortured to find out what they knew, then slaughtered.\n\nNone of the reasons for this made the papers back in the US, only the fact that after the Communist takeover of China, US missionaries and their converts were slaughtered. So most Americans assumed that, if Communism came to the US, Christians would be slaughtered here, too. (Never mind that Christians were mostly left alone in Soviet Russia. People were having to guess, at a time when their own government was lying to them about what it was doing, so unsurprisingly their guesses weren't all that accurate.)\n\nAnother thing that most Americans didn't know was that the Russian Revolution of 1917 was, arguably, the most complicated war in human history: 13 distinct sides, plus invasion forces from 7 different countries. In the aftermath of the revolution, where a coalition of several sides won, there was a series of show trials, purges, and internal massacres intended to take out rivals to the ruling faction, then again so that one leader inside that faction could stop worrying about being overthrown by his internal rivals.\n\nMost Americans didn't know enough Russian history and politics, or enough about the history of revolutions in general, to understand why any of this was happening. So they assumed it was just happening \"because Communism,\" that if Communism came to the US, there would also be internal genocide, waves of assassination, and show trials of accused dissidents. And maybe it even would have; not because of Communism, but because after most revolutions the aftermath more closely resembles The Reign of Terror than what we went through in the US.\n\nThat being said, there were people whose fear of Communism was somewhat legitimate: people who had inherited great wealth, and people whose income mostly came from the stock market, both of whom stood to lose most of their fortunes, maybe even lose everything, if Communism ever came to the US. So, even if nothing else went wrong while the US was converting to Communism, it would really have sucked for the richest 0.5% or so of us -- and that 0.5% were able to pay for a lot of ads, a lot of lecture tours, a lot of lobbying firms, and a lot of clubs and organizations, to spread stories about how scary Communism was.",
"I lived in a communist country when Russians came here. It was the darkest age ever for our state. We are free now and hating communist like ever before. Still, North Korea is com.\n\n//Edit: spelling"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2006-01_PSID_Overview_and_summary_40_years.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/g_DaMKUP3Og"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcpR2J2R3w"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
umxc6 | How do you regulate calcium if you don't have a thyroid? | Calcitonin is made in the thyroid. How can you properly regulate calcium without the thyroid gland? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/umxc6/how_do_you_regulate_calcium_if_you_dont_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4wrkdd",
"c4wtwzo"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Calcitonin is actually not that important in normal calcium homeostasis - it's primarily regulated by parathyroid hormone. The parathyroid glands receive feedback from both vitamin D and serum calcium levels to modulate secretion of PTH, which increases vitamin D conversion to its active form in the kidneys while also inducing bone release of calcium to increase serum calcium levels as needed.",
"Arumbar is correct. Just to add, this is why when people have to get their thyroids removed do to disease, cancer or whatnot that they only have to supplement T3 and/or T4 and not supplement calcitonin as well "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2y50t2 | when i close my eyes and blow my nose, i feel an air bubble in the inner corner of my eye. why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y50t2/eli5_when_i_close_my_eyes_and_blow_my_nose_i_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp69tbk",
"cp6ex0b"
],
"score": [
64,
9
],
"text": [
"Your tear duct (nasolacrimal duct) is connected to your sinuses.\n\nThere's a flap that's supposed to keep the two separate, but in some people, it doesn't quite seal.\n\nYou're trying to blow air through your nose, but because of the pressure, some of the air leaks through your tear duct.\n\nIf you're bored, search the internet for \"squirt milk from eye\". It's a very clear indication of the connection.",
"It's because the tear duct is connected to your sinuses. Not everybody can do it. My wife can but she refuses to squirt milk out of her eye because it freaks her out. If I could do it, I'd do it all the time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
75gzoc | what happens to caterpillars who haven't stored the usual amount of calories when they try to turn into butterflies? | Do they make smaller butterflies? Do they not try to turn into butterflies? Do they try but then end up being a half goop thing because they didn't have enough energy to complete the process?
Edit: u/PatrickShatner wanted to know: Are caterpillars aware of this transformation? Do they ever have the opportunity to be aware of themselves liquifying and reforming? Also for me: can they turn it on or off or is it strictly a hormonal response triggered by external/internal factors?
Edit 2: how did butterflies and caterpillars get their names and why do they have nothing to do with each other? Thanks to all the bug enthusiasts out there! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/75gzoc/eli5_what_happens_to_caterpillars_who_havent/ | {
"a_id": [
"do659i2",
"do68qck",
"do6cjww",
"do6gktm",
"do6grdv",
"do6lrgs",
"do6m5yg",
"do6mpno",
"do6mz74",
"do6rxto",
"do6tfoa",
"do6tj8f",
"do6vg97",
"do6w7bv",
"do6x29q",
"do78v2e",
"do7e579",
"do7eouu",
"do7hcya",
"do7nndc",
"do84fud"
],
"score": [
3186,
82,
4398,
47,
411,
62,
64,
1626,
63,
41,
2,
5,
10,
13,
26,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Edit: This is an incorrect answer to the original question and could be misleading. This is an example of what could happen if the caterpillar cocoons early due to disease or infection NOT say climate or environmental pressure. \n\nThey generally don't survive once they are out. The body will usually form but wings and legs and such don't come out so well. There are a number of different environmental pressures that would force a caterpillar to try early including food pressure or disease but I'm not aware of a mechanism internal to the pupae to regulate conservation of limited resources when transforming early. \n\nI raise Monarchs and had one go into chrysalis fairly early in its life cycle and come out earlier than expected. It made an attempt at being a butterfly but the second wing wasn't formed and not all of its legs worked. \n\nImagine you planned for a $100,000 house and hired your contractor but only gave them $75,000. With no adjustments to the original plan the contractor would build until they ran out of money and then quit leaving you with say a roof and walls but nothing on the inside. \n\n",
"Depends on just how much they are short... The way full metamorphosis works for things like butterflies.. almost the all of the internals of the caterpillar turns to goop and a butterfly starts forming just like it would as if the cocoon were an egg. So slightly /smaller caterpillars just end up becoming slightly smaller butterflies. However if its a huge deficit, then there just isnt enough material to form a functional adult and they dont make it",
"There are two hormones governing moulting and metamorphosis in insects. Ecdysone is a fat soluble hormone and increases towards the end of each instar (it accumulates in body fat). Once a threshold is crossed, a moult is triggered. Ecdysone levels drop immediately after the moult, then slowly build up again towards the next peak.\n\nJuvenile hormone (JH) shows declining expression with age. It tells the body what the next stage should be at the ecdysone peak when moulting is triggered. In a caterpillar, once JH levels drop below a predefined threshold, the next ecdysone peak initiates the pupal stage. If the caterpillar is underfed, this ecdysone peak (and hence the next moult) is delayed until sufficient energy reserves are available. \n\nTl;dr - Metamorphosis is delayed till the caterpillar has enough stored energy available",
"Or this happens.. there is a particular caterpillar found in arctic regions that may spend up to 14 years as a caterpillar due to the short summer season and extreme winters.. \n\n_URL_0_ ",
"Can there be an additional question added to this. \n\nAre caterpillars aware of this transformation? Do they ever have the opportunity to be aware of themselves liquifying and reforming?",
"Is it possible for a caterpillar to live out until its natural death as a caterpillar and never become a butterfly? Or is the likelihood of death too great in that form?",
"Caterpillars can and do fail to pupate. Have a look at this site:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nStress can cause them to pupate early, when they're not ready, and they'll simply die in the middle of pupating.",
"There are many good answers so far but I will add that sometimes they do in fact just end up tiny as adults if they do not get enough food or improper nutrition. I import 40,000+ butterflies a year in the chrysalis and can tell you that every year we see a few that are probably 75% smaller than they should be. \n\nI have personally raised an Atlas moth, the largest moth in the world, on palm fronds which are basically nutritionally void (it's mom picked the food, not me). It should have been the size of a dinner plate as an adult. Instead it was about 3 inches across. ",
"It's not really possible to answer your question about awareness, but the emergent butterfly does have some of the *memories* of the caterpillar. \n\nScientists tested this by making caterpillars averse to a particular smell. As a butterfly, it is also averse to the smell, despite its brain liquefying and re-forming. \n\nI'll try and find a cite. ",
"What happens to all the caterpillars I found eating my dam weed plants when I went to harvest yesterday? Do they turn into lazy video game playing butterflies?",
"I have a question that sort of relates to this. If we say that the caterpillar has a conciousness, after the whole process, is it still the same conciousness or is it a 'new' being?",
"Do butterflies still feel like they're caterpillars? Just like how former fat people still fell fat?",
"I’ve been raising caterpillars for years. \n\nOne year, they had eaten all of the host plant and there was none available in town. \n\nDue to lack of food, they absolutely skipped their 5th instar (stage of caterpillars in between when they shed their skin). \n\nThey pupated after their 4th molt, and all of them (probably about 100 or so) came out very deformed and unable to fly\n\nI didn’t let them suffer, but I feel a syringe with isopropyl is a much easier and humane to kill them. \n\nJust my two cents. ",
"I love how throughout twelve years of school, we were always told that caterpillars turned into butterflies, but I don’t remember them ever saying how.",
"My dads a high school biology teacher who had a student who gave him a caterpillar. My dad tried to refuse him but ended up with it anyways and told the student he better feed it cause he sure as hell wasnt gonna take care of it. Long story short, the caterpillar didn't eat enough and ended up with only four legs. \n\nOnly reason I found out about this story was because ironically, that student ended up being MY high school biology teacher. ",
"Can someone please explain how that goop turns into a butterfly and how life is sustained in the chrysalis?",
"What if you very very carefully and gently sliced open a chrysalis while its all liquid inside, and poured it into a tiny ice tray and resealed it with thin wax? would we have square butterflies?\n\nor if you added more super nutrients into the mix.... or added two butterflies worth of goo together... \n\nGiant butterfly or two headed butterfly with four wings?",
"Many things can happen depending on the species of lepidoptera (butterfly/moth). Host quality (their food) plays an important role in many kairmone, allomone, and pheromone production (these are chemicals used for self defense, mating, deterring, calling, etc.) If host quality is bad sometimes the larvae (caterpillars) don't make it to pupation (cocoons and chrysales). Sometimes the larvae develop to adults and lack the ability to lay eggs, adults are undersized, or malformed. Sometimes host quality can affect which females get mated first or not at all. It's complicated but can you imagine if eating steak all the time made you an attractive female? That would be cool",
"I read a study once that actually touched on your edit question. In it they produced negative outside stimulus on the cocoon i.e. electric shocks or high temperature if I remember correctly. And when they brought the stimulus near the adult butterflies they reacted negatively without the researchers actually doing anything to them. \n\nEdit. I am on my phone so sorry for any misspelling.\n\nAlso I could be wrong on the \"stimulus\" but suficit to say the result were conclusive enough to determine that yes indeed they are conscious of they're environment and themselves while in that state.",
"I raised a couple hundred monarch caterpillars this year. I had a few caterpillars that did not grow to their full size before pupating. Their chrysalis was smaller than usual and as a result the butterfly was also smaller than normal. \nThe very last caterpillar I had stopped growing around the 3rd instar. It stayed that size for a week or so before pupating. Its chrysalis was so tiny but didn't form right. ",
"The specific plant matters to the caterpillar, but most butterflies aren’t picky. Any nectar flower is usually good for them. \n\nNot all flowers have nectar, some have pollen. Butterflies and moths usually like to drink nectar. Bees however, like both. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-oldest-caterpillar-on-earth-spends-its-winters-frozen-solid/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cranialborborygmus.com/monarch-caterpillars-failed-pupating-partial-chrysalis.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
qbbd9 | Question about shuffling a new deck of cards. | Let's say we've opened a new deck of cards. How much shuffling need be done to ensure a random distribution is created? And, what method of shuffling (by hand) can be used to generate this random deck using the least number of shuffles?
Is just one shuffle enough to consider it random? Two? Ten? I'm interested in when the orderly deck of cards somehow becomes essentially disordered through shuffling. It seems "fuzzy" as to when a deck becomes satisfactorily random due to shuffling, compared to its start "position."
Also, how much of a factor does the deck size play in achieving a shuffled randomness? If we use two decks at once does it require twice the amount shuffling? Half? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qbbd9/question_about_shuffling_a_new_deck_of_cards/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3w7vmu",
"c3w7x41",
"c3w7ymw",
"c3w7z9a",
"c3w80va",
"c3w82rm",
"c3w8ex2",
"c3w8hn7",
"c3w8n8f",
"c3w9acb",
"c3w9mph",
"c3wa8d6",
"c3wadlt",
"c3wbhcr",
"c3wbomd",
"c3wfol8",
"c3wi6gq"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
20,
94,
2,
2,
6,
26,
43,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"And as a fun point of fact, the order of the cards you get in a well shuffled deck of standard paying cards has never been seen before, ever. ",
"If you perfectly shuffle(cut a deck in half perfectly, and then shuffle exactly one card at a time) the deck 4 times, it will go back to same order. Magicians trick.",
"**EDIT: I'm done**\n\nSorry for the delay, real work called. So, I wrote a program that takes n 52 card decks, and shuffles them the standard way (so many chunks, front to back). User setable are: how many decks you use, how many times you drop the cards from front to back, how many times you get the same card in a row before you consider it poorly shuffled, how many times you get the same suite in a row before it is poorly shuffled, and how many times cards need to be in consecutive order before you consider it poorly shuffled. \n\nDecks were initialized using the order than new decks normally come in, all the cards of a single suite in numeric order from smallest to largest. \n\nUsing a single deck of cards, assuming for \"drops\" per shuffle, that you would dislike having three of the same type of card in a row, 4 of the same suite in a row, or three consecutive cards in a row, and running it 10,000 times you get an answer of 12.4 shuffles. \n\nUsing two decks instead of 1, but then doubling the amount of drops per shuffle from 4 to 8, running 10,000 times, the answer is 16.8. \n\nThe number of cards consecutive in a suite being raised to 5 lowers the average of the single deck from 12.4 to 9.3. \n\nI'll copy my MATLAB code to a comment on this topic.\n\nAlso, if you want any other specific tests run, I'll be glad to do it. Sadly, at work google docs is blocked, so I can't put up a spreadsheet. ",
"Seven shuffles.\n\n_URL_0_",
" > It seems \"fuzzy\" as to when a deck becomes satisfactorily random due to shuffling, compared to its start \"position.\"\n\nThis is right. First, to be clear, what we mean by \"random\" is a probability distribution that covers all possible decks evenly. I assume this depends on how you shuffle - as mbseid mentions, a perfect shuffle creates the same deck every time, the opposite of random. \n\nThis 1990 NYT article says the minimum number of times you have to thoroughly shuffle a deck is 7. Less is not good enough, more is unnecessary:\n\n_URL_0_",
" > And, what method of shuffling (by hand) can be used to generate this random deck using the least number of shuffles?\n\nDoing a wash randomizes the cards better than multiple riffles. It would be preferable to do one wash, over doing several riffles.\n\nAt the WSOP, a legitimate shuffle consists of a wash, a riffle, a box (continuously cutting the deck), another riffle, and a final cut. Doing this for the first time you open a pack of cards would be enough to sufficiently randomize the order of cards in the deck. For normal use, I would suggest just doing a wash and a riffle.\n\n",
"can you simulate \"washing\" a deck in your computer analysis? Poker dealers do this when new decks are handed out or at a players request. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Science has a number for riffle shuffles, but poker rooms use the following process with a new deck: wash, riffle, riffle, strip, riffle, cut.\n\nwashing - just sort of spreading the cards out in front of the dealer, mixing them up in a few directions, then gathering them back into a deck\n\nriffle - the traditional imperfect interleave shuffle\n\nstrip - groups of cards are taken off the deck, and stacked to form a new deck on the table\n\ncut - split the deck into two parts, then put the top part on bottom\n\nThis is viewed as being far more verifiably random than just a large number of riffles, because if the dealer can execute a perfect riffle, the position of the cards has essentially no randomness at all, no matter how many riffles are executed.",
"I'm a poker dealer at one of a large chain of casinos, we have to sort the deck back into order in all the breaks in play, and shuffle before every hand. The shuffle we have to do is as follows:\n\nChemmy (some people seem to call this a \"wash\"\n\n2 Riffles\n\nSeveral \"strips\" (this involves taking a random number of cards from the top of the deck and placing them on top of the last strip. We normally strip the deck 4 times twice.)\n\n1 final Riffle\n\n1 Cut\n\nI guess if it's good enough for poker players it must be effective, those guys complain about EVERYTHING.",
"You could use the fisher yates algorithm to shuffle the deck.\nYou only have to go through the deck once.\n\nLook here:\n_URL_1_\nor _URL_0_",
"The problem here is that you can't effectively quantize the shuffling effort.\n\nIt depends on the shuffling strategy you employ. You need to consider two things:\n\n* You want each card to travel as far as possible and have as few of their initial neighbours in their vicinity - a \"wash\" (as described in other comments) is, in theory good, if done on a large enough surface and with enough patience; on a small surface cards will partially overlap and **tend to maintain their order**. Also, cards will tend to form \"local groups\" and won't distribute uniformly.\n\n* Secondly, whatever strategy you use, it might be reversible and even worse, it might be its own reverse (repeating it will produce a deck identical or very similar to the initial state) - laying the cards in a matrix, rows of N cards and then reassembling the deck by picking the columns. Done twice, there is a chance you'll end up with lots of sequences from the initial deck. If you want to do it, do it an odd number of times and use different prime values for N each time.\n\nPersonally, I prefer to use the following technique: holding the deck, I grab a part of its top (or bottom), less than half, and ruffle it in a random spot into the remainder of the deck that's in my hand (I just press them against each other, the cards will mix quite easily). It can be done quickly and repeated indefinetely, with the possiblity of alternating the spot where you grab the small stack of cards from the deck.\n\nFor \"extra paranoid\" situations, you can split the deck into 2, 3, maybe 4 decks, shuffle them independently using them whatever techniques, ruffle them all together into one full deck again, shuffle it some more, repeat the whole process (split, ... ), until you've had your fill. Doing it twice should be enough for whatever purpose.\n\nP.S.: When opening a new deck, always check that cards aren't stuck together (literally), sometimes their coating will make them adhere to each other and, well, that's bad.",
"If you do a straightforward hand shuffle on a new deck, then there's going to be clumps of cards that are still in order (unshuffled), but the clumps will be in random positions - obviously not ideal because if someone sees two cards in order then they can recognise a pattern. \n\nHowever, if you follow an exact shuffling technique, wouldn't the result after shuffling, in theory, create the same order each time (not random)? How can you quantify a method of shuffling from order, without being able to determine the end result? ",
"Hope to not be deleted for being unscientific - but I read in the Book of Hoyle years ago that three shuffles is considered \"shuffled\". Riffle or mixing of any type, preferably a combination of three types of shuffling.\n\nYes, not math/statistics - but for some, cannon. Poker rooms are different, this is home type games (hearts, spades, 500 [not Rummy], etc).",
"I'm a big card player, I like to shuffle a new deck using the the standard shuffle method then bridging them. I do it maybe 5 or 6 times then shuffle using the grab about a third from the middle then distribute them to the front and back do that a couple times cut the deck once and then once more classic shuffle. Seems extensive but if you dont give a new deck a good shuffle it will be skewed...or just throw the whole thing against the wall and that Gould make it random.",
"I remember reading something a while back about this. It said that in order to achieve total randomness, you must shuffle the deck at least 7 times. What I don't understand is how they come up with this number without knowing how well the person shuffled the deck.",
"Anyone ever play M:TG? \n\nStart with a wash, deal out 6 (or more) random piles, end with a (faro? interleave?). Wash ensures you don't know which cards are where when you do the 6 piles.\n\nOnly need the wash if you've dealt out the whole deck or if it's a new one.\n\nOnly need the interleave to make the cards easy to handle and for flair.",
"[My solution] (_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/Mann.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/winning_number.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRkXIiYZjUU"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%E2%80%93Yates_shuffle",
"http://bost.ocks.org/mike/shuffle/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.imgjoe.com/x/deck.png"
]
]
|
|
20nta7 | What is the consensus of the theory that Marcus Brutus is the illegitimate son of Julius Caesar? | I've heard both sides of it, but have no qualifications to subscribe to either theory | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20nta7/what_is_the_consensus_of_the_theory_that_marcus/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg5aao9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Very unlikely is the consensus since Caeser is only around 15 years older then Brutus which would have made him very young to be fathering children. Caesars affair with Servilla most likely started around 77bce after the death of her first husband."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
33o9h8 | how can steam charge for mods? haven't mod communities been permitted by developers because they don't profit off the content? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33o9h8/eli5_how_can_steam_charge_for_mods_havent_mod/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqmt2cg",
"cqmt9nl"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Some mods are free, other mods are payware. Mod communities aren't automatically given blanket permission by developers to give away free mods. It depends on the developer, the titles and the modder. They can charge for mods if they want. ",
"So as a mod maker, you can make the mod free.\n\nNow that you can charge for it, steam takes a big chunk of the money. Probably most of it will go to the original content creators to prevent this very thing from becoming a legal issue."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
jldfz | the appeal and glamor of ivy league schools | Why are these schools so desired? Would a degree in economics from Yale be the same as a degree from Tufts? ELI5 | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jldfz/eli5_the_appeal_and_glamor_of_ivy_league_schools/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2d2hgp",
"c2d2nra",
"c2d3f95",
"c2d2hgp",
"c2d2nra",
"c2d3f95"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
5,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Perceived prestige, top-notch professors and networking.\n\nMany schools outside of the Ivy League offer all three, some for much cheaper.",
"It's not what you know, it's who you know.",
"Hello, I went to an Ivy so I can offer a few anecdotal points. First, you must understand that there are, broadly speaking, two main academic pursuits, which I would categorize as:\n\n* Hard sciences/engineering\n* Soft sciences/business\n\nand of course some subjects in between. However these two are the most common. Now, on to the appeal. As far as the first category is concerned, for undergraduates these schools have some of the best reputations for engineering and premed, even though they are exceedingly difficult. Organic chemistry and thermodynamics suck no matter where you go, make no mistake, but the reputation of these schools in the eyes of Med School admissions boards, for example, can act to make up for slight disadvantages in GPA. Additionally, these institutions have some of the highest endowments/grants in the world, so for post-grad types, the research opportunities are really terrific (Cornell and Carl Sagan played a huge role in the development of the Mars Rover, for example).\n\nNow, as far as the second category, the real allure here is the alumni network. You are paying, in large part, to have access to these people when you start looking for a job after school ends. Finance at Penn's Wharton School isn't tremendously more difficult than Finance at Colgate, but you better believe that they will have more and better connected alumni, particularly in the NYC area. Many of my friends got jobs out of school because their first interview was arranged by an alumnus they knew in the company.\n\nTL;DR: For science, the academic reputation and research opportunities. For everything else, the huge networks of alumni.",
"Perceived prestige, top-notch professors and networking.\n\nMany schools outside of the Ivy League offer all three, some for much cheaper.",
"It's not what you know, it's who you know.",
"Hello, I went to an Ivy so I can offer a few anecdotal points. First, you must understand that there are, broadly speaking, two main academic pursuits, which I would categorize as:\n\n* Hard sciences/engineering\n* Soft sciences/business\n\nand of course some subjects in between. However these two are the most common. Now, on to the appeal. As far as the first category is concerned, for undergraduates these schools have some of the best reputations for engineering and premed, even though they are exceedingly difficult. Organic chemistry and thermodynamics suck no matter where you go, make no mistake, but the reputation of these schools in the eyes of Med School admissions boards, for example, can act to make up for slight disadvantages in GPA. Additionally, these institutions have some of the highest endowments/grants in the world, so for post-grad types, the research opportunities are really terrific (Cornell and Carl Sagan played a huge role in the development of the Mars Rover, for example).\n\nNow, as far as the second category, the real allure here is the alumni network. You are paying, in large part, to have access to these people when you start looking for a job after school ends. Finance at Penn's Wharton School isn't tremendously more difficult than Finance at Colgate, but you better believe that they will have more and better connected alumni, particularly in the NYC area. Many of my friends got jobs out of school because their first interview was arranged by an alumnus they knew in the company.\n\nTL;DR: For science, the academic reputation and research opportunities. For everything else, the huge networks of alumni."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
27mnzg | If Arab and Middle Eastern countries did not recognize or support the state of Isreal, why did they allow much of their Jewish populations to emirgrate there from the late 40's to early 70's? | I'm not asking about the "push" or "pull" factors concerning why Jews would emigrate, but it seems that allowing more Jewish people to emigrate to Isreal would strengthen the young country and that other countries in the Middle East would have wanted to keep Isreal as weak as possible. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27mnzg/if_arab_and_middle_eastern_countries_did_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci2b396"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It's important to contemplate what else was happening during this time. A lot of the countries involved were fighting against old colonial powers and remnants of imperialism, we have the Suez crisis in Egypt, intensifying Cold War in the region, tensions between Soviet aligned forces, US-leanings and the non-aligned movement. The Palestinian cause is often portrayed as an Arab cause, and the conflict with Israel as the defining element of the 20th century, but in practice there has been little done by Palestine's neighbouring Arabs that can be traced to a support of Palestine (when not beneficial to their own countries)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1fl538 | Are the relativistic time differences between clocks on the Earth and the clocks in GPS satellites, due to the reduced gravity 12,500 miles up or the speed at which the satellites travel or both? | An object that travels faster relative to another has an internal clock that 'runs' slower, while an object closer to a gravitational source does the same thing, so which of these (the distance from the gravitational center of the Earth or the orbital speed) has the greater effect on the clocks in the GPS satellites? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1fl538/are_the_relativistic_time_differences_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"cabazxa",
"cabb38r",
"cabb589"
],
"score": [
3,
28,
7
],
"text": [
"Both, but the gravitational effect is stronger.",
"The velocity causes the clocks to fall behind by 7 microseconds per day. The lower gravity causes them to go faster by 45 microseconds per day. Net result is that they go about 38 microseconds per day faster than clocks on the surface. So the gravity has a bigger effect and also the two effects are in opposite directions. [Source](_URL_0_)",
"The clocks on the satellites run slower than those on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day due to the (special) relativistic effect of their high speed. They run *faster* by about 45 microseconds per day due to the (general) relativistic effect of the \"reduced\" gravity.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html"
],
[]
]
|
|
6x97rj | William III of England (or Holland, take your pick) was installed by a foreign power. How did this happen and what were the consequences? | Is this better understood as a miltary process, an adversarial one, a political one, or something else?
What state's interests did William ultimately serve? England's? Holland's? Both? Other? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6x97rj/william_iii_of_england_or_holland_take_your_pick/ | {
"a_id": [
"dme86sp"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Tiny correction: William III was stadholder of the Netherlands, not *just* Holland, and he installed *himself* with a bit of help from Parliament. Two years ago [Scott Sowerby held an AMA](_URL_0_) on England in the seventeenth century, including a lot of questions on the nature of the event you're describing, the so-called Glorious Revolution."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pprje/thursday_ama_im_scott_sowerby_associate_professor/"
]
]
|
|
1m1q58 | e: keynesian economics | I know I could wiki this but I'd like to hear from other people. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m1q58/e_keynesian_economics/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc4y78m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a relatively complicated concept, and your inquiry is rather open-ended, but I'll do by ELI5 best:\n\nKeynesian economics is a theory of economics conceived (at least, among others) by John Maynard Keynes in 1936, in the book *The General Theory of Eployment, Interest and Money.* To a large extent, his theory was a response to the Great Depression.\n\nThe central premise of Keynesian economics is that the private market, on its own, gets things wrong from time to time, which results in (at times, vast) inefficiencies and economic harm. While this wasn't new thinking in 1936, Keynes beleived that - in the short term - a floundering economy could be corrected by the government intervening and injecting artificial demand into the private sector. (By the term \"artificial\" in this response, I mean something that is imposed by the government, as opposed to something resulting from the operation of the private sector left on its own.)\n\nKeynesian economics proposes that demand can be increased - and the economy improved - by employing two tools simultaneously: (i) artificially reduced interest rates, usually accomplished when the central bank cuts rates; and (ii) massive investment in public works (building roads and the like), and other forms of government spending.\n\nThe idea is that there has been some hiccup in the private market that has caused things like wages, employment, and consumer spending to fall short of what the economy can sustain. So the government pumps resources into the economy to get people buying and borrowing more, which would in turn (hopefully) coax private enterprise to grow.\n\nKeynesian economics rests on the concept of a \"Keynesian multiplier,\" which is the concept that the government can spend money that generates additional spending in some multiple of that amount. In other words, the idea is that by spending $1 on roads (for example), the government actually adds $1.50 or $2 to the total economy. Of course, if you're trying to grow the economy with Keynesianism, your government has to deliver a multiplier greater than 1. Otherwise the government is producing less value than it's taking out of the private economy.\n\nI won't weigh in on whether Keynesianism works or not. If you want historical examples, western countries have tried it to some extent. Here in the U.S., our approach to the economy was substantially Keynesian from post-WWII into the Carter years. More recently, the Obama administration's recovery efforts have been classically Keynesian."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
fjty4g | How were 15h century halberdiers typically equipped? | Recently I've gotten it into my head to get together kit for reenactment and wanted to do a 15th century halberdier. However, my research has turned up pretty empty as to how armoured halberdiers were, so it'd be a great help if anybody here has proper answers. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fjty4g/how_were_15h_century_halberdiers_typically/ | {
"a_id": [
"fkpf1ej"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Fellow 15th century reenactor here, here's my main advice: have a more specified goal.\n\nThe 15th century is a large time period with lots of changes. Not only that, but the definition of \"Halberdier\" will change depending on where you are. A halberd could be the traditional image of halberds we have in X place, but go to Y place and it could mean some complete other thing\n\nThat's how we did with my 15th century group. We said \"we want to do 15th century Pikemen\" and after two years we realised it was too difficult to have something coherent, so we narrowed it down to \"1470's Burgundian Pikemen\". Notice how we picked a precise place and time. From there we started exploring, studying, etc. We still have a lot to work on,but overall were getting better and better\n\nOnce you picked a more precise location and time, you can start researching sources from that precise setting and it maybe easier like that, since you probably will have less contradicting sources. Sources you can look for are Ordinances, manuscript miniatures and pretty much any contemporary source like written texts or surviving objects.\n\nHoping this helps"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4p048u | if i hold a green light and i go into a dark i would see everything in that room not only green things(i.e things that reflect green color)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p048u/eli5if_i_hold_a_green_light_and_i_go_into_a_dark/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4gxasg",
"d4gxf6h",
"d4gy5dc",
"d4gyjh9",
"d4h0892"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
14,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Things that normally absorb green light will show up as darker, but you could still see them because of the shadows they will cast, and they will be next to things that absorb a different amount of green light.",
"The walls of the room are probably white, so they reflect green light just fine. Even things that appear dark because they absorb green light would be visible because they would be black against the green background of the wall.",
"Coloured objects work by absorbing all light to different levels. This is not quite as simple as 'red colours absorb EVERYTHING but red', the outgoing spectrum has significantly more red than other things, but it doesn't absorb ALL of the other light. That way you can dimly see non green things with your green light.",
"Objects that reflect no green at all will appear dark black. Many objects have a blend of colors, so even though there don't look green, they still reflect *some* green light -- for example white and gray objects, and many yellow and blue and brown objects.",
"Think of what a black object looks like under normal white light. It's not invisible, it's just dark. \n\nNow, the purity of your green light might not be perfect, but let's assume that it is for a moment. A blue object (again, we'll assume it's a pure blue) wouldn't become transparent under green light; instead, it would simply absorb the green light and therefore appear dark. \n\nDoes that make sense?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5ruhfr | What is a chance of a number to be prime? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5ruhfr/what_is_a_chance_of_a_number_to_be_prime/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddab0t4"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"If you randomly pick a number between 1 and N, then the chances for it to be prime are approximately 1/log(N). This is the [Prime Number Theorem](_URL_0_), one of the most important results in Number Theory and is kinda like a Riemann Hypothesis-Lite."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number_theorem"
]
]
|
||
3fpiow | after wwi and wwii, why doesn't america hate germany? | I mean, Germany started 2 world wars. Germany killed million and millions of gay people, disabled people, old people, jewish people, mentally ill people, black people, non german people, and other "undesirables" during, the Holocaust (do I capitalize Holocaust?). Also, why is it that everyone always thinks of jewish people when they hear the words "holocaust" despite the fact that jewish people were only one of many demographics that the germans targeted and killed?
Thanks for the answers guys. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fpiow/eli5_after_wwi_and_wwii_why_doesnt_america_hate/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctqr7zt",
"ctqr98h",
"ctqrbnv",
"ctqrf4k",
"ctqri3a",
"ctqri84"
],
"score": [
11,
9,
2,
4,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"After WWII, Germany was completely destroyed and remade as the Allies saw fit, it was almost a completely different country than pre-war Germany. Plus, Germany was an essential ally during the Cold War, which made it easier to forgive them.",
"Well, to your first question, America hated the Nazis, not Germany. Once they were out of power and the new West German government became an ally, most of the anti-German sentiment was redirected at the USSR.\n\nTo your second question, it's because of the 11 million that died in the Holocaust, more than half were Jews. There were other groups that were targeted, but since the majority of victims were Jews, most remember them.",
"Many people use the term \"Holocaust\" specifically to refer to the Jewish deaths. But even if you're including all the other groups you mentioned, you still get Jews accounting for roughly six out of the eleven million deaths.\n\nAs for why we don't hate Germany, it's because we killed or captured the Nazis responsible and the remaining Germans accepted responsibility for what happened. Even your average German citizen who didn't like Jews was horrified to discover the concentration camps. After a certain point, you can't hold every citizen responsible for the actions of their government and the Nazi government was destroyed. ",
"America doesn't tend to hold a lot of grudges. We're best friends with the UK after we had to fight for independence. \n\nAfter WWII, the Allies, mostly led by the US, took over half of Germany and set up the government how they wanted. When reunification happened, it was the US-guided western Germany that dominated the transition. Germany today is like the successful little brother America always wanted. Well, so is Japan. America has a lot of successful siblings.",
"First the causes of the wars are very different. Arguably Germany caused the first one, but the conditions of the international system were in such a shape that the balance of power was off and secret alliances didn't help this. Second the causes of the second world War are just as complex but that's more complicated.\n\nTo strike at the root of your question I think there might be a few answers. First in 1945 the us knew the Soviet Union would be a threat and our leaders knew we needed allies in western Europe and thus Germany and Berlin were the place the hammer would fall first. Second, the people of the US can recognize that Germans weren't to blame, the nazi party was and it's leaders. Third, taking into consideration the first two and the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union we can see why close ties were forged and once forged these sorts of ties are not easily broken thus Germany is still a member of nato.",
"There certainly was hatred and racism towards germans during WW1 and WW2, and a bit after WW2 as well. \n\nEven small things, like frankfurters were renamed as hotdogs to deemphasize their German origin. Sauerkraut was renamed as liberty cabbage, Salisbury steak became meatloaf.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment"
]
]
|
|
1o1ots | how is it possible that animals can fit so much complexity into such tiny brains? | I started thinking about this after watching that Michio Kaku talk.
How do living things, specifically biological brains create such complex 'emergent' behavior, and why can't we approach it with our current technology.
I mean even a simple cockroach can walk, intelligently seek out food in environments it's never seen before, get some kind of map going, create nests, social circuitry for reproduction, and so on.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o1ots/eli5_how_is_it_possible_that_animals_can_fit_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cco1l14",
"cco1tnc"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because nature creates bajillions of them, each of them a little different from the other, and lets them run wild. The survivors get to breed. With our technology we don't tend to create bajillions of experiments running in parallel. ",
"If they couldn't perform basic functions, they would cease to exist. All we see are the lucky ones."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
4hvrrp | Did the Romans Commemorate their dead in yearly ceremonies? | Did the Romans have a similar ritual as we have when we commemorate the dead from wars in the past(The Great War, World War 2, Korea, etc)?
I am mostly interested in rituals during the Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4hvrrp/did_the_romans_commemorate_their_dead_in_yearly/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2srz44"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Keep in mind you're asking about a time period of 1-2,000 years.\n\nThe closest I can give you resides in the triumphal arches erected to celebrate victories. Whereas it's not a remembrance of the dead as we think about it, it is a remembrance to the victorious wars the Romans engaged in.\n\nOtherwise the closest would be Roman funerals of at least the late republic. Aristocratic Romans would keep life-like masks of their ancestors that achieved great deeds and on the death of a member of their family they would hold public funerals where actors would wear these masks and don clothing appropriate to the dead person. This in a sense brought the dead back to life to welcome their newly deceased family member to the ancestors. In practical senses, it was a reminder of the great deeds their family members in the past did and to remind the public of these events and the part their family had in them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1cxl90 | Has there been a case of a soldier in WW2 being killed by ordnance from WW1? | It is almost Anzac day here in Australia and after hearing one of the yearly filler war stories on the news- this one regarding unexploded ordnance, I was wondering if there was any recorded incident of ordnance from a previous war affecting the next? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cxl90/has_there_been_a_case_of_a_soldier_in_ww2_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9kydxl",
"c9kywpa",
"c9l2h4j",
"c9l2qaq",
"c9l2ydo"
],
"score": [
19,
15,
6,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"I have not heard a case of a soldier on land being killed by ordnance from WW1, but I have heard of cases in which sailors have died on ships that hit naval mines laid during WW1. \n\nI have a link saved somewhere since I used the source on a recent term paper. I'll find it and post it when I return home from work\n\nEdit: Added sailors",
"The [Blücher](_URL_0_) was sunk by a torpedo made in 1900. Norway was neutral in WWI, so this example may not count.",
"Marines at Wake island might have still been using ww1 equipment,",
"On a similar note, I've heard that the RAF were severely underfunded between the wars. Did they or any other Air Force use WWI aircraft in a battlefield role during WWII?",
"the [Browning Automatic Rifle](_URL_0_) was used by US soldiers in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Bl%C3%BCcher"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle"
]
]
|
|
66foch | how do banks make profit from "free" products? | All products I own (cheque accounts, savings accounts, credit & debit cards etc) don't carry an annual fee. Credit cards I understand they're probably just relying on people's inability to pay them back on time and thus pay interest, but what about accounts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66foch/eli5_how_do_banks_make_profit_from_free_products/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgi5g4r",
"dgi5hnm",
"dgi5j88",
"dgi6eyq"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"they make money using your money to loan out to others. \n\nyou deposit $1000. the bank isn't just sitting on it. they're using that $800-900 of that money pooled with other people's checking account money to make loans for people's mortgages, personal loans, business loans. etc",
"Overdraft fees and service charges are the more known sort of thing. But when you are banking and say, make a deposit, you are giving the bank money to reinvest into something else, like a loan. It is still your money, you're just technically letting the bank use it without you really know that they're using it. It's all net profit margins. ",
"For a lot of these, hoping for people who aren't 100% financially responsible. \n\nChecking account: fees they don't tell you about. ATM, overdraft, etc.\n\nSavings account: using your money to be able to loan out more money (read about fractional reserve banking -- sorry for not eli5ing this) \n\nDebit card: hidden fees, more chance for overdrafts\n\nCredit card: Interest! Hoping you make the minimum payment, and only the minimum payment monthly. \n",
"While banks seemingly have begun preferring overdrafting and other fee-based revenue, the other big way they make money is through your money.\n\nWhen you open a bank account, you're essentially giving your money to the bank and they write you an IOU. When you buy things with a check or debit card, you're essentially just saying \"this person owes me a lot of money, so they'll pay you for me.\" In the meantime though, they invest your money and earn interest on that investment (which is why they offer you a percentage of that interest). Any single bank account isn't going to make enough interest to keep the lights on, but taken as a whole it's quite a lot of money."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4k7b12 | why do we have different lotions and creams for out face and body? isn't it the exact same skin? (for example when you have a dry skin) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4k7b12/eli5_why_do_we_have_different_lotions_and_creams/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3cpnk0",
"d3cqnh4"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No. Some skin is thicker. The soles of your feet for example are much thicker than your eyelids. That's one difference at least.",
"Look at body lotion and a face moisturiser - body lotion is pretty thick and, depending on the cream, scented. The lotion is too thick to wear on the face, and those lotions which are scented are too strong for the skin on the face, as it's more sensitive than, for example, your legs. Face moisturiser is much lighter, easily absorbed by the skin and some are scented, but not as strong as body lotion. \n\nThe skin is different all over your body. As someone already mentioned, the skin on your feet is much dryer and thicker than your face. So putting foot cream on your face wouldn't be a good idea, they're made to break down calluses and are way too thick for the face. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1huu96 | What were the training regimes for heavy cavalry in the Napoleonic era? | Before they were let loose on the battlefield what sort of miltary training did they have to go through? There seems to be plenty of resources on their tactics but none on how they were trained. Any help would be greatly appreciated. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1huu96/what_were_the_training_regimes_for_heavy_cavalry/ | {
"a_id": [
"cayci3k"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
" > Cuirassiers are of greater use than all other cavalry. This arm...needs to be well instructed. It is in the heavy cavalry that the science of the mounted man should be carried to the highest degree.\n\n-Napoleon\n\n\"Heavy Cavalry\" probably denotes multiple types and styles of units during this period. Heavy Calvary in this age (at the onset of the 1800's) fought simliarly as in the previous centuries in that they were still primarily relient on charges and functioned overall as [\"shock units\"](_URL_10_).\n\n[In Napoleon's army,](_URL_6_) it at one point might have consisted of a selection and assortment of the following regiments of [\"heavy cavalry\"](_URL_5_):\n\n* [x2 Horse Carabiniers](_URL_0_)\n* [x12-x15 Cuirassiers](_URL_2_)\n* [x15-x30 Dragoons](_URL_1_)\n\nWhen Napoleon first took control he had very few cavalry units that could compete with other nations such as Austria. At the time, there were not enough trained horsemen to fill his ranks. Upon centralizing his power and increasing the size of his *\"Grand Armee\"* he also knew the importance of increasing his selection and assortment of light and heavy cavalry regiments in which the following years after gaining control instituted several actions in order to bolster his calvary ranks.\n\n\nAt the initial onset of integrating a easier to manage horseback rifle/musket [carbines,](_URL_4_) and cavalry firearms in battle, these types of units eventually transformed from a heavy shock troop value to mobile and robust units capable of different platforms and fighting with the increased use of firearm technology. Thus, the training would have transitioned from this shock value to use more firearms and mounted tactics to incorporate the technology. Scouting, skirmishing, directly engaging, and chasing down enemies were all roles that the cavalry would continue to play which would require training of different sorts with the changing and different equipment as time progresses.\n\n[This](_URL_7_) PDF talking about Cuirassier swords and some tactics and methods may give a slight clue as to some of the training that would be needed to perform the duties. For instance the PDF states:\n\n > Figure 2 [17] :The sabre in action. This ink demonstrates the manner in which the sabre was wielded in the charge, and\nsecondly what became of the well dressed lines once the charge got under way. **The trooper therefore leaned well forward in\nthe saddle, right arm thrust out as far as it's would stretch with sabre continuing the plunge towards the enemy; in this\nillustration the trooper's elbows are bent to a rather marked degree whereas, in fact, they would be trained never to bend the\nsword arm lest the enemy's edged weapons slide off their sabre guard and amputate the elbow.**\n\nThese are types of methods and training requirements that more than likely would have applied to soldiers. Cuirssaiers relied on their sabers that had an edge, but most of the time it was the trauma and blow or a thrusting stab that caused the most damage. Correct sword play and sword handling would have been a very critical aspect of further training. Classically, cavalry troops were garnered from the upper class ranks. Owning horses were not cheap and having experience on one usually meant you were from a more privledged family. Learning how to handle a sword on both foot and horseback would have been an important training focus regardless of the experience level.\n\n[One of Napoleon's cavalry commanders notes in one](_URL_9_) of the opening battles of his offensive in 1813 (Lutzen):\n\n > In his report on the battle of Lutzen, for example, Marshal Ney praised the spirit and courage of his young horsemen but lamented that the attacks by the raw recruits were poorly coordinated and that they had the distrubing habit of falling off their horses during charges....Indeed, when Napoleon decided to seek an armistice in the summer of 1813, a move generally regarded as a major mistake, he stated that while he knew the risks, he needed time to train and equipe his cavalry properly...\n\nWe can see here some of the percieved failures and also deduce that training at the onset of the green Napoleonic cavalry was horseback skills and horse riding skills. Although there were more than likely veterans, because of the lack of horsemen when he started his military build up, there were recruits with little experience and bad skills in horseback. Training would have almost certaintly entailed basic horsemanship. Ensuring the soldiers knew how to care for their horses and ensure they were well fed and healthy during campaigns would have been another large aspect of the cavalry troops' training at first.\n\nBut, the difficult and more advanced training would have been formations and orientations as a group and a unit. [The future Duke of Wellington would say about cavalry training](_URL_3_):\n\n > The formation and discipline of a body of cavalry are very difficult and tedious, and require great experience and patience in the persons who attempt it...\n\nManeuvers and shifts and drill tactics would have encompassed much of the training life of a cavalryman during this day and age, as well as many other time periods. Learning maneuvers like [this](_URL_8_) would have been very difficult without lots of practice and training and repitition.\n\nOverall, the training for a cavalry man in the Napoleonic era would have been decided on a few factors such as country of origin and previous experience. Horseman ship and the ability to ride a horse was the first needed skill and the roles of a cavalry soldier were then added to those. More than likely, all soldiers would have been needed to exensively train on formations, drill and ceremony, and assault/defense tactics. This would have been done through reps and reps and reps of doing these tactics over and over again. Because cavalry played such a critical role in this era, these units were revered as important tactical units that were a necesity and mainstay of the armies during the 19th century.\n\nEdit: Sp\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabiniers-%C3%A0-Cheval",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon#19th_century",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirassier#18th_and_19th_century",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=QcfPN0xQfoEC&pg=PT36&lpg=PT36&dq=napoleonic+cavalry+training&source=bl&ots=G675ipQOgD&sig=ZsARhMk2ewJlRaMC4ZqxwEpA_oc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mv3aUabDGcGyiQLcioDQCA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAzgK",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine#Early_history:_before_the_1900s",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Arm%C3%A9e#Heavy_cavalry",
"http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/cavalry_Napoleon.html",
"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oldswords.com%2Farticles%2FFrench%2520Cuirassier%2520swords%2520AN%2520IX%2520-%2520AN%2520XI.pdf&ei=2f_aUdCkPKGCiALYrIGgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGQ_PAymf7YVvPPC3uo4jfmaqQJmw&sig2=RK4_9ItF1p0xZkLF0cfcMQ",
"http://i.imgur.com/MmfgD40.png",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=Q39O0kpNg24C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA74&ots=pXs3TWmSQ0&dq=french+cavalry+fighting+techniques",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_troops"
]
]
|
|
b9ldod | how does the male body (idk if females experience this too) reach post nut clarity? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b9ldod/eli5_how_does_the_male_body_idk_if_females/ | {
"a_id": [
"ek5bwls"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I don't have the answer. It's neurochemical stuff.\n\nBut way to go asking the question like you're five! That shows commitment to the sub."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6hfeb6 | what is "starvation mode", in terms of dieting? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hfeb6/eli5_what_is_starvation_mode_in_terms_of_dieting/ | {
"a_id": [
"dixw59a"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"It's a largely debunked idea based on a few poorly designed studies decades ago.\n\nThe idea is that if your body is deprived of calories for too long, it will start hoarding what calories it does have, thus increasing stored fat.\n\nThe main reason most people advocate not eating too little has more to do with sustainability of a dietary change rather than any sort of rebound effect. The other thing that goes into eating too little is the tendency many people have to \"eat back\" what they missed. \n\nFor example, if you don't eat for a day and your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure, or how many calories you burn in a day) is 2000 calories, you're 2000 calories ahead. However, if over the next week you \"reward\" yourself every day with an extra doughnut, then you can easily offset the calorie deficit. \n\nThis is what often leads people to say \"I ate less and gained weight, it must be starvation mode.\" \n\nAt the end of the day, I highly reccomend both /r/loseit for good advice, and even cautiously recommend /r/fatlogic as a way to see what really works for people, as well as to hear all of the bunk science that repeatedly gets tossed around. If a point is made in /r/fatlogic it's inevitably backed up with science, and I actually tend to find most of the people there willing to actually discuss things. A lot of the other \"dietary\" advice I see on the internet seems to revolve around self-referential blogs, or people trying to sell you something, and rarely actual studies and reputable sources.\n\n/Edit to add the one true part of the starvation mode idea: the more weight you lose, the less you burn every day. For instance, if you weigh 300 lbs, your TDEE might be ~3000 calories. If you drop a hundred pounds, it may be closer to 2000. So the less you eat, the less you CAN eat and maintain the same weight. That is true, but it's because of the lost weight and your body not needing to fuel the extra fat, burn as much energy to get around etc. not because of starvation mode.\n\n/edit again to mention one of the things I like the most about /r/fatlogic. Most of the people there (myself included, though on a different account) have struggled with being fat, and many of the regulars include their heaviest weight as well as current weight in their flair. It's not a bunch of theory and echo chambering. It's people who used to believe a lot of the bunk science, but learned better and are now supporting themselves and the community by pointing out all of the logical/scientific flaws we tend to believe. It's NOT Fatpeoplehate, and I do see people get banned for inappropriate/hateful comments. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
fqssst | could my immune system hypothetically "run out of storage space" for new diseases and thus be unable to become immune to any new ones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fqssst/eli5_could_my_immune_system_hypothetically_run/ | {
"a_id": [
"flryy7y",
"fls2r04"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, your immune system forgets bacterias and viruses over time. That's why a vaccine will eventually not work anymore. But your body remember most bacterias and viruses for years. So no worries.",
"One of the ways your immune system \"remembers\": your body makes a bunch of B-cells and each one has a different random antigen (foreign particle) they react to. If they are presented with that antigen, they change and will split to produce plasma cells (that mass produce antibodies) and memory b-cells that are long-lived and will be around for the next time your body encounters that antigen."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
ezvzuz | New Orleans was a French possession for only about 45 years and had a very small population for most of that time. How did French influence manage to remain so strong there? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ezvzuz/new_orleans_was_a_french_possession_for_only/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgq6n8h"
],
"score": [
46
],
"text": [
"I'm assuming that you mean the French influence is strong in New Orleans as compared to other territories of French Louisiana added to the United States in the Louisiana purchase? Obviously, the French influence in New Orleans pales in comparison to that in Quebec. So taking the question as why is the French influence more obvious in New Orleans than in, say, St. Louis, I think the underlying answer is population. In 1810, New Orleans was a city of 17,000 inhabitants -- nearly all of them French speaking. As discussed below, Spanish Louisiana was really a continuation of French Louisiana and another 8,000 or so French speaking immigrants arrived in New Orleans in 1809. So, 1810 New Orleans was a large, well-established, Francophone city. The other cities of the Louisiana territory were not and so did not have the same cultural persistence.\n\nAs you note, New Orleans went through two colonial powers: France (to 1762) and essentially Spain -- though with the briefest return to France to the Louisiana purchase in 1803. You should, however, really think of this as a century of French influence -- not a half century each of divided French and Spanish influence.\n\nDuring the Spanish period after 1762, Spanish cultural influence on the Louisiana territory broadly was limited. The first Spanish governor arrived in New Orleans in 1766 and was driven from the city by a Francophile revolt in 1768. The Spanish suppressed the revolt (oddly enough the governor sent to do this, Alejandro O'Reilly was Irish by birth) and then installed Luis de Unzaga as governor. To prevent further difficulties, Unzaga decided to embrace the francophone Louisiana elite. Unzaga married a francophone Louisian Creole woman (Marie Elizabeth St. Maxent), allowed significant cultural and political autonomy, and allowed the francophone Creole elite to continue to dominate affairs. Spanish culture simply did not penetrate Louisiana.\n\nNew Orleans also received several waves of French-speaking immigration. After the Haitian revolution, a large number of French speaking refugees (including much of the colonial elite) fled to New Orleans beginning in the 1790s. A number of French monarchists also fled France for New Orleans during the French revolution. A number of other Francophones fled Haiti for Cuba. In 1809 many of these were expelled and fled to New Orleans. In 1809 alone, over 9,000 of these (almost exclusively French speaking) refugees arrived, roughly doubling the population of the city.\n\nThus, we get to the early 19th century with a large, well-developed and French influenced city, so the next question is why this didn't unravel over the next 200 years. Of course, it did to a considerable extent. Again, New Orleans is not Montreal -- it's a clearly American, English-speaking city. There was simply a large enough cultural force to have some persistence over time -- thus, the French street names, French cuisine, fondness for the -eaux suffix and so on.\n\nIn 1812, Louisiana (as a whole, I don't know of New Orleans statistics) was 75% French speaking. Thereafter, there was large scale English speaking immigration, and Louisiana (again as a whole) was 70% English speaking in 1860. The French culture was stronger in rural South Louisiana than in New Orleans. In 1852, the New Orleans *Knickberbocker* [declared](_URL_0_): \"The New-Orleans of 1852 is not the New-Orleans of twenty years ago. The innovations of the Anglo-Saxon race have been steadily undermining the manners and customs of the aborigines of the country ... The Creole influenced breathed its last breath ... New-Orleans is now an Anglo-Saxon city.\" The aftermath of the Civil War dealt the death blow to Louisiana French speakers -- the Reconstruction-era constitution mandated English language education. The French speaking newspapers in Louisiana largely closed in the second half of the 19th century."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=8IY4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=%22the+creole+influence+breathed%22&source=bl&ots=M7-UTs6H58&sig=ACfU3U1hHMapWhgfMnN8qUCNueczmv0KSw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJj56-1r3nAhUolnIEHWpMB9gQ6AEwAXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20creole%20influence%20breathed%22&f=false"
]
]
|
||
67bfo3 | WW2 Tanks - British/Soviet Commander Hatch machineguns? | Something I've never seen in any WW2 games, photos, movies, tv shows etc is any sort of machinegun mounted on British or Soviet tanks for the Commander to use, yet i've seen plenty of examples for American and German tanks. Were they not really something they used, or have i just not come across any examples? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/67bfo3/ww2_tanks_britishsoviet_commander_hatch/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgpcg3l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There were two official types of roof mounted AA machineguns for Soviet WWII era vehicles: the 7.62 mm DT in a P-40 mount and the 12.7 mm DShK.\n\nThe [P-40 mount](_URL_3_) was developed before the war, in 1937, with an improved version built in 1938. This mount was installed on a wide variety of vehicles, including BT, T-26, T-28, T-35, and KV tanks. The A-20 also had it, but the production T-34 did not.\n\nBT and T-26 tanks with these mounts were also called \"AA tanks\" and were considered a special kind of tank, much like commander's tanks. According to the table of organization, every fifth light tank would have an AA machinegun (one per platoon). \n\nThe P-40 was phased out of production since it was made clear during the Spanish Civil War that the DT was not powerful enough to shoot down modern aircraft. Self propelled AA guns in larger calibers were given preference. Nevertheless, you see KV tanks with cast turrets and ZIS-5 guns (at least late 1941) with these mounts, plus DT machineguns installed in ad-hoc manner for AA on tanks that weren't supposed to have them at all, like T-34s. \n\nHowever, the idea of SPAAGs didn't work out despite many attempts, and the tankers still wanted mobile AA cover. The presence of a 12.7 mm machinegun on the M4A2 Sherman tanks delivered via Lend Lease was found to be a very desirable quality. The evaluation of the tank highlights that the presence of such a machinegun makes the tank superior in firepower to other domestic and foreign medium tanks.\n\nEven though that evaluation was written in 1942, the wheels of bureaucracy turned slowly, and an [AA gun mount](_URL_2_) for a domestic 12.7 mm machinegun was only approved in October of 1944. Even then, it was only installed on heavy tanks and SPGs. I've read arguments that the T-34-85 was too unstable a platform for DShKs, but there are many photos of Syrian T-34-85s with that exact machinegun, so its absence from medium tanks is a mystery to me.\n\n\n\nM.V. Kolomiets *T-26 Tyazhelaya Sud'ba Lyogkogo Tanka*\n\nA.G. Solyankin et al *Sovetskiye Lyogkiye Tanki 1920-1941*\n\nA.G. Solyankin et al *Sovetskiye Sredniye Tanki 1924-1941*\n\nP. Samsonov [*M4A2 Sherman Assessment*](_URL_0_)\n\nP. Samsonov [*AA MG*](_URL_1_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/10/lend-lease-impressions-m4a2-sherman.html",
"http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2015/12/aa-mg.html",
"http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2016/04/aa-dshk-mount.html",
"http://i.imgur.com/iQrFlzA.jpg"
]
]
|
|
8443vu | How did professions that used lots of paper, like bankers and lawyers, preserve the hundreds of pages of documents in the 19th Century? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8443vu/how_did_professions_that_used_lots_of_paper_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvo0579"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"This has always been a problem and fire was a common enemy. You don't even have to go back as far as the 1800's. You can read about [The 1973 Fire, National Personnel Records Center](_URL_0_) to get a basic idea of what kind of loss could occur and how they might go about reconstructing as much of that data as possible. Redundancy, indexing, backups, and disperate storage methods have always been important in data retention, still to this day.\n\nI'd love to read a 'Salt' like book about your very question and will be eagerly watching this thread."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/fire-1973.html"
]
]
|
||
1j7yb1 | Help me understand why my speed of light loophole is probably wrong. | If gravitational attraction leads to constant acceleration, why can't two objects with mass be placed far enough apart in a sufficiently empty universe to accelerate towards each other and eventually reach the speed of light. I'm sure the distance needed could be calculated based on the mass of the objects and the math should be fairly simple, but I'm a biologist now, give me a break. Additional thoughts
* I'm assuming that the speed of the objects would actually be asymptotic to the speed of light, if that's the case, why? If acceleration is constant, shouldn't speed increase linearly?
* I'm also assuming relativistic principles play a part (increased mass of objects as they approach the speed of light, time dilation, other magical stuff)
Which part do I have wrong? Or oversimplified? Or forgotten? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1j7yb1/help_me_understand_why_my_speed_of_light_loophole/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbc3gad"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
" > If gravitational attraction leads to constant acceleration, why can't two objects with mass be placed far enough apart in a sufficiently empty universe to accelerate towards each other and eventually reach the speed of light.\n\nBecause the acceleration becomes less and less, the closer you get to the speed of light.\n\nYou may or may not be aware of this, but in the theory of special relativity, when you add velocities, the relationship is **not** linear.\n\nIn classical mechanics, you have a very simple relationship between two speeds *v* and *u*:\n\n*s = v + u*\n\nIn relativity, however, [the relationship has an additional factor](_URL_0_) that keeps the total speed *s* below the speed of light:\n\n*s = (v + u) / (1 + vu/c^(2))*\n\nAt ordinary speeds, the term *(1 + vu/c^(2))* is very close to 1, so the factor is negligible. However, at high speeds (where the product *vu* is large compared to *c^(2)*), the factor is no longer negligible, and you get results like this:\n\n*v = u = .5c*\n\n*s = (v + u) / (1 + vu/c^(2))*\n\n*s = (.5c + .5c) / (1 + .25c^(2)/c^(2))*\n\n*s = 1c / (1.25)*\n\n*s = 0.8c*\n\nSimilarly, if you plug in *v = u = c*, you get *s = c*. So, the composition of any two velocities *always* adds up to the speed of light or less, in every reference frame.\n\nSo in short, there is *no distance* for which *v + u* can possibly equal *c*. This is equivalent to saying: An infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate a massive body beyond the speed of light, and there is no distance for which the gravitational potential energy between two bodies is infinite.\n\nHope that helps!\n\n > I'm assuming that the speed of the objects would actually be asymptotic to the speed of light, if that's the case, why? If acceleration is constant, shouldn't speed increase linearly?\n\nWell, when dealing with gravity, the acceleration *won't* be constant -- it will increase with the decreasing distance between the two masses, according to [Newton's law of universal gravitation](_URL_1_):\n\n_F = G (m1\\*m2)/r^(2)_\n\nBut even if the acceleration was constant, acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity over time. But velocity is different in different reference frames! That means, while the acceleration may be a certain magnitude in a certain frame of reference, in a different frame of reference, the acceleration will be scaled down proportionally to the object's current velocity. That is to say, the faster an object is travelling (in a reference frame), the less it accelerates, when a certain (frame-invariant) force is applied -- or equivalently, the more force is required to accelerate it by the same magnitude as if it were stationary.\n\nAnother way of saying this is that the force law in relativity is not Newton's force law, *F = ma*, but rather it is *F = γma* where *γ* is the [Lorentz factor](_URL_2_).\n\n > I'm also assuming relativistic principles play a part (increased mass of objects as they approach the speed of light, time dilation, other magical stuff)\n\nActually, mass *doesn't* increase as objects approach the speed of light -- these days, it is understood that \"mass\" means the *rest mass* of a body (its measured mass in the body's center of momentum frame), and kinetic energy is not considered part of an object's mass. The term that includes kinetic energy and scales according to *m = E/c^(2)* is known as \"relativistic mass,\" and it is rather well established these days that relativistic mass is not the term *m* which appears in equations like *E = mc^(2)*, rather it is the term *M = γm* where *γ* is the Lorentz factor and *m* is the body's rest mass.\n\nAnd by the way, in case you weren't aware, *E = mc^(2)* is actually a reduction of the complete formula, and it *only* applies to *massive* bodies, when the body is at rest. The full equation for an arbitrary body's energy at any speed is:\n\n*E^(2) = p^(2)c^(2) + m^(2)c^(4)* where *p* is the momentum\n\nAs you may be able to tell, if you plug in *p = 0* you get *E = mc^(2)*. Similarly, for a massless body, if you plug in *m = 0*, you get *E = pc* which is the familiar energy of a photon (this is how a photon can carry energy and momentum despite being massless and having an infinite range). And for a massive body which is moving, the mass remains the same, while the momentum contributes to the additional energy of the body.\n\nHope that helps!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor"
]
]
|
|
9zua7f | Did the dinosaur-apocalypse meteor's impact change the Earth's orbit or rotation? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9zua7f/did_the_dinosaurapocalypse_meteors_impact_change/ | {
"a_id": [
"eac2rv6",
"eacb43w"
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text": [
"Slightly. Every collision results in the transfer of linear and angular momentum. But the mass of the impactor was so small in relation to the Earth that if it happened, it would be difficult, but not impossible, to measure the affect.",
"Back of the envelope estimate: Earth has a ~~diameter~~ radius of 6370 km. An object with a ~~diameter~~ radius of 5 km and the same density (overestimate) has (5/6370)^3 or roughly 5\\*10^(-10) times the mass of Earth. If it hits Earth at 40 km/s (quite fast), its velocity is about 100 times the surface velocity from rotation. As order of magnitude estimate we would expect the length of the day change by 100\\*5\\*10^(-10) = 5\\*10^(-8) or 4 milliseconds (in either direction). 40 km/s is a bit faster than Earth's orbital velocity, so we expect changes of the order of the mass ratio, half of a billionth. The length of a day might change by ~10 milliseconds and the semi-major axis could change by tens of meters. While such a change would be measurable with today's technology it was completely irrelevant for Earth and life on it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3n580y | Is one side of the brain emotional/creative while the other side is logical/factual? | I think most people have heard references in pop culture/among the general public to being "left-brained" or "right-brained," the implication being that one side is logical and the other side is emotional, or one side is creative and the other side is factual.
I always thought this was just one of those things people say that didn't have any scientific credibility until I saw [this TED talk by Jill Bolte Taylor](_URL_0_), a neuroanatomist who had a stroke in her left hemisphere and, she says, became more creative as a result of increased reliance on her right hemisphere.
I also recently started reading a parenting book ([here](_URL_1_)) that is premised on the idea of helping your kids "integrate" the left brain and the right brain.
So all of that is a lengthy lead-up to ask: Is this stuff true? Is one side of the brain creative/emotional and the other side is logical/factual? What evidence suggests that (other than Jill Bolte Taylor's experience)? When I read about specific brain regions, it seems like the only things that have been empirically shown to differ between brain regions are things like motor control (i.e., left brain controls right body; right brain controls left body) and also speech processing, which is mostly in the left hemisphere (depending in the person's handedness).
**Is there evidence that one hemisphere of the brain is creative/emotional and the other is logical/factual?** What does that evidence look like? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3n580y/is_one_side_of_the_brain_emotionalcreative_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvm2q3i"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Things such as logical or creative can be complex behaviors and are not limited to a single area in the brain. There are some aspects of brain function that are lateralized (e.g., language on the left and visuospatial on the right), but even these are not only done on one side of the brain and are not the same for all people. There has been a great deal of research on so-called [\"split-brain\" patients](_URL_2_) which clearly show this [lateralization](_URL_1_). But, and here is a big but, most people do not have a severed corpus callosum and therefore the hemispheres of the brain communicate with each other and share in behaviors. Therefore, in the end, [both of the sides of the brain work together](_URL_0_). \n\nAnything that you see from educational materials, brain training, self-help books, philosophy, etc. that tries to draw large truths about people in general from a left/right brain perspective, are taking an ounce of research findings and turning it into a metaphor instead of scientific truth. "
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.ted.com/speakers/jill_bolte_taylor",
"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491514817?ie=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div"
]
| [
[
"http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275",
"http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00839/abstract",
"http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v6/n8/full/nrn1740.html"
]
]
|
|
6te4rg | What keeps food from ‘going down the wrong pipe’ and doesn’t when said event occurs? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6te4rg/what_keeps_food_from_going_down_the_wrong_pipe/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlkpq07",
"dlqtwro"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Swallowing is a pretty complex process that takes place in three different stages. Esophageal stage isn't as important to your question. The oral phase is important in food bolus preparation for pharyngeal transit. Without the phase, food going down the wrong tube is more likely but not a given. \n\n The pharyngeal phase is most responsible for preventing penetration and aspiration. What you're talking about is aspiration, food going through the vocal folds into the trachea. Swallowing in the pharyngeal phase takes place in less than a seconds time. The larynx elevates and the epiglottis folds down over the glottis to allow for a conduit into the hypopharynx. This is the main preventer of food going down the wrong tube. The glottis and false cords are also closed, you can't breathe during this time. If there is penetration for whatever reason due to some dysfunction of the pharyngeal phase and food enters the larynx, then you have your larynx, specifically the false and true vocal folds, that are extremely well innervated and the food induces a cough reflex. Even with aspiration into the windpipe, the trachea, which is also well innervated, will induce a cough. \n\nThere are many insults that can alter each part of this, but there is a lot of redundancy built in. ",
"The epiglottis is what prevents the food from entering the respiratory tract. When this fails it is usually because the person inhaled, even a little bit, and a piece of food or drink got into the respiratory tract causing them to cough until it is out. \n\nCompromised patients, such as elderly folks, have less of a cough reflex and weaker muscles and often the food/drink particles will get into the lungs. Because they are not super healthy this will lead to pneumonia. (Healthy individuals who get food/drink particles into their lungs will have it cleared out by their immune system)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4w10av | how old black and white photos, that pre-date colored photography, can accurately have color added into them. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w10av/eli5_how_old_black_and_white_photos_that_predate/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6328aq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I don't do recolors, but to my knowledge when one is doing a recolor, he/she guesses approximately what the colors would be. There's no real science behind it. Hope that helps. If anyone has more knowledge, please chime in."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1kiamy | what is penicillin? and how do we get it from mold to curing things? | I've never really understood. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kiamy/eli5what_is_penicillin_and_how_do_we_get_it_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbp7nav"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's a chemical that forms in the namesake fungus. A scientist noticed by serendipity that a sample of the fungus prevented bacterial growths."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7w5al1 | why are you not guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers in the us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7w5al1/eli5_why_are_you_not_guaranteed_a_trial_by_a_jury/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtxkk6e",
"dtxkle1",
"dtxkmwa",
"dtxknb9",
"dtxkote"
],
"score": [
3,
30,
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"IANAL, but in some states, the right to a jury trial may not be guaranteed if the possible sentence is a very short imprisonment or just a small fine. The accused may be encouraged to waive their right, but generally the right to a trial by jury stands.",
"The Supreme Court decided that \"petty crimes\" that have a punishment of less than 6 months in prison or only result in a fine do not require a jury. \n\n_URL_0_",
"It has been rules several times by the supreme Court that this doesn't apply to pretty crimes (District of Columbia v. Clawans). This generally means cases where the punishment is less than. 6 months in jail. \n\nBasically it's a reasonableness limit applied so that very minor crimes aren't clogging up the legal process. There is still an appeal process for these cases as well that help ensure they are handled well by the judge. ",
"You have this right for cases that involve a sentence of less than six months. The Supreme Court has decided that states may waive trial by jury in lesser cases. Some states still require trial by jury in petty cases, some give you the right to one but usually don’t as a matter of routine and expediency, some states remove the option altogether if the sentence is under six months. \n\nIf everyone up for a traffic ticket or petty shoplifting could demand trial by jury, it’s clog up courts to no end.\n\nNow if you do something felonious, in any state, you have the right to a jury. ",
"This is really only true for minor cases where you get a fine or suspension. Something small like speeding. If jail time is involved then yes you can get a trail by jury of your peers.\n\nHere is information that you can get a trail by jury with a misdemeanor: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/66/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/illinois-misdemeanor-criminal-process"
]
]
|
||
3n86ci | Did 'Bloody' Mary Tudor deserve her title? | I've been watching The Tudors lately, and have been really moved by the deeply sympathetic portrayal of Mary Tudor.
I was just wondering what some other people think of her. She obviously did some terrible things, but was she the monster some people make her out to be, or is she misunderstood?
Thanks. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3n86ci/did_bloody_mary_tudor_deserve_her_title/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvluo13"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"I think it's fair to say she wasn't significantly worse than her contemporaries, even her lauded successor, Elizabeth I; it was a period where religion and politics were deeply intertwined, and warfare was constant across Europe. It's worth nothing that she killed fewer people over the course of her reign (283 is the exact number, I think) than her father did in single years of his, and her nickname and that of her sister were actually reversed in Ireland; instead of Bloody Mary, Irish Catholics were cursing Bloody Bess. English troops caused massive destruction in putting down Irish revolts, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths by starvation, in addition to the actual fighting. \n\nPart of the reason we have the famous one-note perception of Mary is because her reign was ultimately quite short, so we only see the results of her immediate activities (suppressing Protestantism and losing Calais), rather than her long term policies (fiscal reform, naval expansion, and colonization), which bore fruit under Elizabeth. Her short reign was especially irksome with regards to Calais, since she was alive long enough to lose it upon entering war in support of her husband, Philip II, but not long enough to have a seat at the negotiating table at the end of the war, whereupon Spain and England passed out of personal union, and Philip had no problems letting the French keep Calais. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1th202 | Why does a silencer reduce the bullets velocity? | I've always known that silencers reduce range but I've always wondered why. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1th202/why_does_a_silencer_reduce_the_bullets_velocity/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce848i9",
"ce8a7d0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most modern silencers, more correctly known as \"suppressors,\" in fact do *not* affect a bullet's velocity in any significant way. Early suppressors contained a rubber gasket (called a wipe if memory serves) that would briefly be in contact with the bullet, and the idea is that the resulting friction would slow the ~~gun~~ bullet down a bit. But modern suppressors don't have such wipes anymore, and they are manufactured with high accuracy such that they do not influence the bullet's trajectory in any way.\n\nEdit: I might add that suppressors have been known to cause subtle inaccuracies in target shooting because the added weight to the gun is harder to aim.",
"As I understand it (and has already been said), modern suppressors do not *themselves* reduce the velocity of a bullet significantly. The largest effect on bullet velocity is going to be from the ammo that you shoot through it. Suppressors can only dampen the sound of the powder burning. Any supersonic ammo you shoot through a suppressor will still create a loud sonic-boom once it leaves the barrel. To quiet the shot, you need to [shoot sub-sonic \\(reduced powder\\) loads](_URL_0_) - which do not create a sonic boom. The subsonic ammo is naturally slower than the regular ammo. Less velocity, less range, less kinetic energy.\n\nEdit: Similar and more dramatic difference in [this video](_URL_1_); shooting .22LR."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/WhgZYBRh0ZI",
"http://youtu.be/P0yNi3VlXzs"
]
]
|
|
4ih2yj | what is it that can make similar guns from different brands sound different when firing the same cartridge? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ih2yj/eli5_what_is_it_that_can_make_similar_guns_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2y37mn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Barrel length affects the amount of propellant that is burned. Shorter barrel means louder blast. \n\nMuzzle brakes/compensators/flash hiders on ends of barrels affects how the burned propellant is directed, which can change how the shot sounds. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ysgqp | why is iran having nuclear capabilities such a big concern when the u.s. and plenty of other countries already do? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ysgqp/eli5_why_is_iran_having_nuclear_capabilities_such/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5yfpo1",
"c5ygj72",
"c5yincu"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Essentially, it's problematic because nuclear powers are harder to bully, and a Nuclear Iran would make it harder for the established powers to continue containing Iran's influence.\n\nPlus, there's the \"they just might be crazy enough to do it\" concern. If the situation in Iran gets bad enough (attempted coup, public uprising, etc), you'd prefer if they didn't have the option of turning Jerusalem into a smoking ruin.",
"Iran is not under US influence. Anything that helps them resist US policy objectives will cause what we're seeing now. why it's seems so intense is complicated; Israel clamoring for action certainly adds to the tension, but I think a lot of the tension comes from Iran's middle east position, oil, and competing regional policy objectives with Russia and China.\n\nNukes would mean Iran doesn't need to worry much about US hard power intervention.",
"There is no nuclear weapons program in Iran, according even to Israel and the US:\n\n**The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.**\n_URL_0_\n\nThe US instead accuses Iran of having the \"intention to obtain the capability\" to make nukes. A \"capability\" to make nukes is a deliberately vague accusation since the technology is 60 years old, and so practically any country with some technological development is \"capable\" theoretically of making nukes.\n\nIn fact according to the IAEA 40 nations have this \"capability\" right now -- that's 1 out of every 4 or 5 nations on the planet:\n\n**More than 40 countries with peaceful nuclear programs could retool them to make weapons, the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said yesterday amid new U.S. and European demands that Iran give up technology capable of producing such arms.**\n_URL_1_\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-iran-usa-nuclear-idUSBRE82M0G020120323",
"http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html"
]
]
|
||
12hyar | Because of the time it takes for the light of distant stars to reach us, how different would the sky have looked hundreds of years in the past? | I was driving home tonight and wondering to myself if I was gazing at the same sky as say, Galileo, or if what I was looking at would be nearly unrecognizable to the people of that time.
Since it takes years for the light of distant stars to reach us, does that mean that in the past there would have been fewer visible stars? My basic intuition tells me that there would be far more visible stars now than there were in the past. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12hyar/because_of_the_time_it_takes_for_the_light_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6v6s9l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are very few stars that will change on such short time scales. One example is Eta Carinae. It used to be one of the brightest stars in the sky, but \"burped\" a hundred years ago or so, and is now obscured by its own dust cloud. \n\nAlso, the time that light takes to reach us plays no part whatsoever into how many stars are in the night sky."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2frz5n | Japan and USSR during 1938-1939. Were the USSR's armies actually superior to those of Japan? In what ways? | I have done some basic reading on Khalkhin Gol and the Battle of Lake Khasan(wikipedia), but there was little elaboration other than "after several engagements during August 2–9 the Japanese forces were disastrously defeated and thrown out of the Soviet territory".
I am also curious as to how Japan in 1905 is described as a "modern force" using the latest technology but in 1938-39 is described as inferior to the Soviet Union. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2frz5n/japan_and_ussr_during_19381939_were_the_ussrs/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckcsvcr"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The Red Army was superior to the Kwantung Army in three main ways, all of which feed into each other. They had a superior doctrine, were superior technologically, and were superior numerically. The last two were both dictated by, and enabled the first.\n\nThe Red Army in the region, under Georgy Zhukov, used the ideas of Deep Battle formulated by Mikhail Tukhachevsky. While this had been discredited by Tukhachevsky's purge, Zhukov was willing to put it into practice in this case. This doctrine dictated broad-front attacks to open the enemy rear to strong combined-armed forces. These could then be used to destroy the enemy ability to fight, by occupying territory, or, as it was used in this case, by encircling the forward forces of the opposition. It would later be used successfully in WWII. In comparison, Japanese doctrine was static, with armour being used separately from infantry. Attacks were made using small groups of infiltrating infantry similar to the German stormtrooper groups of the later part of WWI. Defensively, the doctrine mandated a thin forward defence, where a defence-in-depth is the best way to deal with Deep Battle. \n\nThe Soviet doctrine relied on fast tanks, supported by motorised infantry. This resulted in production of the BT series of tanks, ancestors of the T-34. These tanks were fast, and well armed with a high-velocity 45mm gun. While they were lightly armoured, their guns had an effective range far higher than those used by the Japanese. Japanese tanks were much slower, with less effective guns. At the same time, they had the same low armour as their Soviet counterparts.The motorised infantry required large amounts of trucks, which allowed Zhukov to ship supplies forwards from his railheads with ease. The Japanese, who didn't have the same access to motorised transport, struggled with this. In the air, the contest was surprisingly even. The Zero and Ki-48 Oscar of WWII had not yet entered Japanese service. Instead, Ki-27 Nates took on I-16s. This was a more even contest than that with the tanks, but still in favour of the Soviets. The I-16 was more heavily armed, and armoured than its Japanese counterpart. The Ki-27 was more manoeuvrable, but the I-16 was faster in a dive. With the advantage of numbers and improved tactics, the Soviet Air Force was able to prevent the IJA from affecting the battle significantly.\n\nFinally, as was common for the Soviets, they had numerical superiority. They had 3 rifle divisions, 2 armoured divisions, 2 motor rifle divisions and 2 tank brigades. They also had the support of 2 Mongolian cavalry divisions. At the point of attack, the Japanese had a single division. In general in war, the side with more forces wins - there's a Patton quote to the effect of \"war being decided by the side who gets there first with the most\". \n\nThe second part of your question has two answers. The first is doctrinal.The Japanese doctrine of 1938 had a clear family resemblance to that of 1905. They had taken the wrong lessons from 1905 and from WWI. The Sino-Japanese War had done nothing to disprove this doctrine. As a result, their doctrine was heavily focussed on infantry combat supported by light artillery. This was fine in 1905 and 1914, and worked against poorly led Chinese infantry. This led to Japanese army procurement being focussed on weaponry that fitted this plan. In 1905, these were the most modern things on the market - bolt action rifles, machine guns, light field artillery. In 1938, the same types of weapons were being bought. Armour was experimental, and used low-velocity guns for infantry support. Heavier artillery pieces were neglected - some of the heaviest guns used by the IJA in 1938 had been bought to deal with the forts of Port Arthur in 1905. However, the rest of the world had moved on. Heavy artillery, tanks and trucks were the most important things an army could have, and Japan had only the most basic of these. \n\nEven had their doctrine been in favour of producing these, they would have run into trouble doing so. Japan didn't have the greatest heavy industry in 1938. When the country is only producing a limited amount of armour plate per year, and the navy wants most of it for building battleships, the army can't build tanks. There were not enough trained mechanics to support a large tank or motorised corps. Even the IJN's aircraft carriers only had just enough mechanics for their air groups - the most significant losses at Midway were in ground crew, not pilots. The Soviets had the heavy industry, and the technically skilled manpower to support the demands of modern war. Japan did not."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
ujv2c | Many questions about recent /r/science posts about our universe being inside a black hole. | My questions come from this article/thread:
_URL_0_
but I've read others.
Questions:
1) Does anyone know how seriously the science community is taking these kinds of theories (the media is never realistic about this).
2) I'm confused about how the influx of matter into a black hole corresponds to the arrow of time for the universe inside. Am I to understand that for every particle that falls into a black hole, a clock ticks forward one nanosecond in the contained universe?
Is the converse true? Black holes decay by emitting Hawking radiation. Will this make time move backwards in the contained universe?
2) What happens when a black hole disappears altogether due to Hawking radiation? Does its contained universe end?
3) Are the timescales between parent and child universes comparable? That is, can a child universe live for eternity, while its parent's black hole only lives for a few billion years?
4) Is the total energy of the parent and child universes comparable? If not, is there any correspondence between the total energy of the child universe and the total amount of mass that fell into the parent's black hole?
5) Is there any correspondence between the laws of physics of the parent and child?
I am quite certain that my questions are full of naive assumptions, so somebody please tell me what's what.
| askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ujv2c/many_questions_about_recent_rscience_posts_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4w2pwc"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"1) Not very. It's mostly just that one guy working on it. It's a cool story, so they picked up on it.\n\n2) The arrow of time markers shouldn't be viewed as something causative: time doesn't advance because of entropy increasing or the universe expanding. Rather, they're ways to figure out which way is which. It's similar to losing your bearings while scuba diving, and watching the bubbles to figure out which way is up.\n\n2B) I'm not sure this is fully understood, but by the time it gets small enough for that to happen it is emitting high energy gamma radiation. In reality black holes are colder than the cosmic microwave background so they won't have a net loss of energy.\n\n3-5 I have to do more research and I'm not on a computer with journal access right now."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ujdnf/black_holes_may_contain_alternate_universes/"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
8e88c4 | why technology "freezes" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8e88c4/eli5_why_technology_freezes/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxt680j",
"dxt7paq",
"dxt8auv"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't unless your in the arctic. Sometimes things lock up, due to software conflicts. ",
"If you want an in depth answer, you're gonna need a lot more than literally 3 words.\n\nSoftware freezing up is almost always due to some resource being hogged and not shared.\n\nFor example, if some logic is going real slow and it's using up 95% of the computer brain (called RAM or Memory), and something else needs 20% of the brain, then everything just kinda stops until that first one finishes up.",
"One option could be that the computer only makes you think it's running many things at once when really only one thing is running at a time. A process could just be doing some work that takes a bit stopping other processes from running. But as others have said there are many possibilities"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
92pdgo | how did apex predators that existed millions of years ago go extinct? (i.e terror birds, megalodon, levyatan) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92pdgo/eli5_how_did_apex_predators_that_existed_millions/ | {
"a_id": [
"e37cofn",
"e37d491",
"e37rjst"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard to pinpoint the exact causes ~~of~~ for most prehistoric animals and plants, beyond trying to extrapolate data from the scarce info we have. We can look at extinction events nowadays for clues though. Overfeeding and loss of habitat from environmental changes are the two biggest causes.",
"Basically, the climate on earth changes constantly, always gradually, but sometimes dramatically. For massive predators, when the climate changed from what they evolved to fit, their adaptations stopped helping them in their environment. For example, Megalodon was an absolutely massive shark, needing a lot of food to keep it going. It likely feasted on large animals, so when those animals declined in number (say the ocean warmed, and they either left their habitat or went extinct), the Megalodon has nothing left to eat, so it died out too. Bigger isn’t always better.\n\nBasically, when talking about any animal that went extinct for natural, non-human reasons, it’s because a change in the environment made it uninhabitable for that species. They’re forced to either adapt as a species or die out. Apex predators (and humans) tend to be pretty genetically stable, so that adaptation often doesn’t happen fast enough to keep up with the environment.",
"Apex predators are especially prone to going extinct because they sit at the very top of the food chain. Thus they rely on a large chain of species below them to stay healthy in order for them to stay fed.\n\nGrass needs water, sun, and dirt, and a climate good for it. Deer needs lots of grass (and thus, indirectly, everything the grass needs), plus trees for a varied diet (and thus everything the trees need), plus a good climate for deer. Whatever _eats_ the deer needs deer (and thus everything the deer needs) plus other prey and whatever _they_ need, plus whatever environmental conditions the predator needs.\n\nSo top predators need a good, strong, healthy environment.\n\nComplicating things for them, there are a lot fewer predators. There's a huge amount of grass blades per 100 deer per 1 top predator. Top predators have small populations which makes it easier for them to die out"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3kego7 | In America during World War II, what would happen if a man was drafted, and it turns out he wouldn't have made a good soldier? | To elaborate, I'm not talking about something that would immediately disqualify him, like a medical factor (if I remember correctly, being flat-footed was enough to get disqualified).
Instead, what I mean is something like a personality trait. Maybe it turns out that the man is undisciplined, doesn't take orders well, or doesn't work well within a unit. If a man has a personality unfit for a soldier, would the American military just make do? Or would he get kicked out? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3kego7/in_america_during_world_war_ii_what_would_happen/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuwym7t"
],
"score": [
34
],
"text": [
"In a draft, it's not like you get handed a uniform. It means you report for selection. People are turned down for all sorts of reasons, even in a draft. Poor vision, diabetes, epilepsy, heart problems, hearing problems, mental illness, being too short, or not strong enough to keep up. There are written tests, medical tests, physical fitness tests, and interviews to determine if you're a viable candidate for the military. Even though standards are usually lowered somewhat during a time of war, there are still standards to be met, and people who don't meet them will not be able to serve. \n\nKnowing that, there were a lot of people, particularly in Vietnam, who tried to avoid service by failing the tests. For example, the [Ishihara test for Colour Blindness](_URL_0_) includes a plate that can be seen by people of any colour blindness, and was used during the draft to find out who was lying to avoid military service. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.dfis.ubi.pt/~hgil/P.V.2/Ishihara/Ishihara.24.Plate.TEST.Book.pdf"
]
]
|
|
25j643 | Are the steroids that cause people to gain weight in medication the same as the steroids people use to build muscle? | I've been wondering about this for a while because I have a couple of friends who are overweight. They tell me the reason they're overweight is because of the steroids in their medication that they take.
Are these steroids the same type of steroids that bodybuilders use or are steroids just a generic term for something? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/25j643/are_the_steroids_that_cause_people_to_gain_weight/ | {
"a_id": [
"chhopvu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The term steroid refers to molecules that have a similar 4 ring, 17 carbon base skeleton. Additions to this skeleton are what make each steroid different, but still belong to the same family.\n\nSo the type of \"weight gaining\" steroid that most people are on would be something like prednisone. The weight gain is a side effect, since most people are using it to suppress their immune system. For anyone who has had to take it, they will tell you it makes them ravenously hungery and insatiable.\n\nThe type of bodybuilding steroid people take is an androgenic steroid (similar to testosterone). \n\nAgain both share a similar backbone, but are different. And it's not just these two types that have this similarity. Estrogens, progestogens, androgens, and mineralocorticoids (that maintain blood pressure), glucocorticoids (that help regulate immune function and blood sugar levels) are all steroid hormones. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5wcdr7 | Do we have any idea how gender egalitarian Teryan early pre-Christian pagan England was? And how much the introduction of Christianity change to that? | I ask because I'm reading the Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley and I'm wondering how accurate it is? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5wcdr7/do_we_have_any_idea_how_gender_egalitarian_teryan/ | {
"a_id": [
"de9svg4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you say \"early pre-Christian pagan England\", are you referring to:\npre-Roman pagan southern Britain (ie BC);\nthe early Roman period in southern Britain (pre-Christian pagan, so maybe the 2nd century AD); \nor the early Anglo-Saxon period prior to Christianisation (so about 500-600AD)?\n\n(Also, I confess I don't at all know what you mean by Teryan)\n\nChecking Wikipedia, I see that the Mists of Avalon is a work of Arthurian fantasy, set during the time of the Saxon invasion. So, then, I'd have thought you'd really want to know how gender-egalitarian post-Roman Christian Britain was, not early pre-Christian pagan England.\n\nRemember that Arthur is a fictional story set in what is essentially a fictional time; very few Arthurian romances portray the period accurately, because the source material (the original Arthur stories) is itself extremely inaccurate (it's portraying a legendary, mythical time, not an accurate picture of late Romano-British culture). \n\nSo, at the time prior to the Saxon invasions, what later became known as England (it was the Anglo-Saxons who named it England), was inhabited by the Romano-Brits; a somewhat Christianised, thoroughly Romanised culture. As Christianisation had been recent, it's quite likely that there were still many pagans; however, they were not the \"Mother Goddess\"-type pagans of Mists of Avalon; they were Roman-style pagans, worshipping gods like Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, Venus, etc (though sometimes with British names; for example, Bath was a city where people worshipped the goddess Minerva/Sulis, using both a Roman and British name).\n\nThat doesn't directly answer your question about gender-egalitarianism. But I want to explain the background.\nArthur is set in a fictionalised, mythical golden age. Many modern works try to set him in a slightly more realistic time, before the Saxon invasions. What they often miss, however (as I think Mists of Avalon does, but then, it is just a work of fiction, it's not trying to be history), is that the pre-Saxon period was the post-Roman period, nearly half a millenia after the Romans had conquered Britain. In some medieval legends, Arthur is related to the Imperial family of Rome.\nSo, it's a mistake to think about gender equality or other cultural sociological phenomonen at this time as being about Brythonic culture, but rather, as being like Roman culture."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
30etou | why do people choose to live in high crime areas (e.g. compton, ca and south side, chicago) | Always wondered how these places have had such a bad reputation for sooo many years yet there are still a lot of people living there.
Why haven't the current residents left yet, why do people continue to live there, why do people keep moving there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30etou/eli5_why_do_people_choose_to_live_in_high_crime/ | {
"a_id": [
"cprr1if",
"cprr2cy",
"cprrotu",
"cprt6qa"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"High crime and low rent/property value go hand in hand. People live there because they can't afford to live anywhere else.",
"Because living there is cheap and that's all they can afford. I've never \"chosen\" to live anywhere, I live where I can afford to live.",
"I live in a high crime area, on the \"good\" side of the city. We still have crime but usually just vandalism as opposed to gang violence in other parts. The cost of living is low here. We pay less for our mortgage for a nice house with a good amount of land than we paid for renting a 2 bedroom apartment in a nice, virtually crime-free village. So I'm gonna go ahead and say it's cheaper to live in bad areas and when you're not wealthy and have debt, children, etc. you're gonna need more space for your money. Which you can get here.",
"People typically don't choose... they're stuck because they don't have the resources to move someplace better, whether the money for an apartment in a better part of town, the money to cover a move and/or a vehicle to do so, there are also commuting factors if they have a job, family/friends nearby. And some, because it's all they've known, don't know there are options out there. \n\nHere in Chicago, the bad neighborhoods do have only a fraction of the populations that they once did. Those who can leave, do."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
68jhd3 | what causes airplane turbulence in a completely clear sky? | I was on a flight today that had some pockets of bad turbulence, especially for take off and landing. However, the sky was completely clear the entire flight. I wondered what it was, and it was windy in both cities. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68jhd3/eli5_what_causes_airplane_turbulence_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgyymtc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Turbulence is caused when different currents of air mix, causing pressure differences in the air and thus affecting flight through it. This doesn't always form clouds or other detectable formation, called clear air turbulence."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5dbh8t | why do some people (like myself) have big booming voices and have difficulty speaking at an inside voice, but some people have really soft voices and struggle to speak up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5dbh8t/eli5_why_do_some_people_like_myself_have_big/ | {
"a_id": [
"da39fan"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Genetics. I think this question is similar to the question 'why am I blonde and my sibling is brunette?' Or 'why am I taller than my siblings?'. It's all in the genes. That being said, you can teach yourself to speak softly/loudly. It takes practice like everything else but it can be done."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
37ffmd | -why were fifa execs arrested, and what did the usa have to do with it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37ffmd/eli5why_were_fifa_execs_arrested_and_what_did_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"crm8ljv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"We don't know yet.\n\nEven FIFA don't know yet. They've issued a press statement saying they are \"seeking clarification\".\n\nWe also don't know who's been arrested - only one of the six men has been named, and he's a FIFA official from the Cayman Islands.\n\nThe FBI are due to give a press conference at 3.30pm BST. No doubt we will know a lot more then."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
67zlb5 | how hard is it to quit smoking? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67zlb5/eli5_how_hard_is_it_to_quit_smoking/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgugvsa",
"dguh98n",
"dguhby3",
"dgukvh5",
"dgulgie",
"dgum2pj"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it contains a drug and drug addiction is very hard to overcome. Even with willpower it's hard to overcome. Same with any addiction. I've never smoked so never been addicted to nicotine. But I have been addicted to medicine. I won't say \"drugs\" because of what that appears. I never abused my medicine but I sure as hell never missed a dose, and stayed on longer than I truly needed. My regular dr (different than prescriber-was a workmans comp dr), reg dr weaned me off and helped me. \n\nAddiction needs the desire to overcome it plus willpower and strength to do so. Many people can't or won't. \n\nSome people can quit cold turkey and not have any problems. Others relapse and or have bad withdrawal off add to rice substances. Everyone is different because of chemical biology. ",
"Former smoker here. Quitting is in fact super hard. The feeling is hard to describe but the closest thing I think I can relate it to is having a really itchy mosquito bite. You know you are not meant to scratch it, but sometimes you think, \"oh fuck it, Imma just give it one quick scratch, ohhh yeah, that feels better\". Now imagine feeling that itch, but 10 times worse, and it takes a good month or so to go away. And if you scratch it even once, you have to start all over again.",
"The brightest minds in the chemical engineering world have been working on making cigarettes as addictive as possible for nearly 100 years. \nAs a reference, it's been said smoking addiction is harder to break than heroin. The withdrawal is lengthy, smoking is an addiction on many levels.. the habits are extremely difficult to break.. requiring a new way of life, a massive commitment for most anyone. And it can cause weight gain, that is a massive factor for many. The main factor in all of it is will, if someone wants to quit for their own sake, they are much more likely to succeed.\nA grade 11 teacher bet me a bacon double cheeseburger from the local ritzy burger joint I couldn't quit.. I collected that bacon double cheeseburger in grade 12. ",
"I've smoked on and off since I was 14. This August will be 2 years without smoking and every day, especially now that it's almost summer, I want a cigarette. It's really hard. Try giving up all sugar for a week and see how you feel. That's really the only day to day addiction we don't like to think is one that can come close to any drug addiction.",
"When you are addicted to a drug, your prefrontal cortex (part of the brain that helps you make good decisions, judgment, etc.) is no longer in control. Instead, your brain becomes re-wired into thinking that the drug, nicotine in this case, is just as or even more important than food, sex, sleep, etc. I am a recovering alcohol myself as well as current smoker, and let me tell you, there's a lot more to it than willpower. If it were simply a matter of willpower, then it wouldn't be an addiction; it would just be a bad habit.",
"\"Quitting smoking is the easiest thing in the world, I have done it a thousand times\" - Mark Twain\n\nIt's hard to quit because you get addicted"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1383od | What are some other theories of gravity? | Mind Blown! I just realized why it is the THEORY of gravity. Some things in the universe might not yet be fully explained by our current models!!
So I have been studying astro physics and am having trouble understanding and believing in dark matter. For we have never seen it or detected it in any way. I did a quick google and found MOND and TeVeS’ theories. But are there more?
I got to thinking about how mass could be increased/decreasing due to its velocity and us seeing dark matter's effects is really just the effects the masses that are there gaining mass due to that...
I would love to hear more, why I am wrong?
_URL_0_ | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1383od/what_are_some_other_theories_of_gravity/ | {
"a_id": [
"c71tqvw",
"c7256a2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are plenty. It's very easy to construct a new theory of gravity - just put in some new ingredients and decide how those ingredients behave, and how they interact with the gravitational field. The real question isn't whether you can do it, it's a) whether you can make it fit with observations, and b) whether it's preferable to our current theory, general relativity (GR). GR fits practically all the data very well, especially if you consider two modifications - adding in dark energy and dark matter. Moreover GR is about as simple a theory of gravity as you can get - it has pretty much the simplest form for a theory with no extra ingredients. So any new theory is going to be more complex and less attractive, and seem fairly ad hoc.\n\nThe motivation for modifying this simple and elegant theory of GR is usually to explain dark energy or dark matter, and for various reasons people tend to prefer doing this for dark energy (there's just a lot of evidence out there that dark matter is a particle, and the modified gravity alternatives like TeVeS are really complicated and messy in comparison).",
"I once saw a thing on TV where this old man was trying to prove that gravity was a PUSH from the sun. Problem was he used magnets to prove his point, problem is I'm not made of Iron."
]
} | []
| [
"http://phys.org/news85310822.html"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2hg5nn | how/why does 'ghost pepper' cause vomiting, rectal bleeding, sweating? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hg5nn/eli5_howwhy_does_ghost_pepper_cause_vomiting/ | {
"a_id": [
"cksc4l6",
"cksdqq2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm assuming the chemicals in the pepper cause a great deal of irritation to human tissues.\n\nRegular hot peppers cause similar irritation, but not to the same degree. At a certain point hot peppers are no longer foodstuffs and are just health hazards.",
"Capscaicin, the active ingredient that causes spiciness in peppers of all sorts, binds with a receptor present on your skin, in your eyes and mouth and all through your digestive tract. These receptors usually open at above body temperature to warn your brain of excessive heat, but the capscaicin increases its sensitivity and it open at body temperature.\n\nThis makes your body think it's burning up, and it engages numerous bodily defences to try and cool down and expel the thing causing the heat. As far as your body knows it's on fire if you eat an obscenely hot pepper.\n\nIf you were one of the people born without these receptors - it happens - you'd have no sensation of spice and could sit down eating habaneros, scotch bonnets and anything else you pleased for hours without issue.\n\nIf you want to have the hot pepper experience without diarrhoea, rectal bleeding or any of the really nasty side effects, chew the pepper for a solid 10+ seconds and spit it out. That way your stomach and intestines deal with barely any of the capscaicin, but you get a full dose in the mouth and upper throat.\n\nI've eaten a moruga scorpion and carolina reaper as well as some other quite hot peppers that way and never had so much as a bit of burning when I next pooped. \n\nChewing and spitting, though, will still cause excessive salivation, sweating, tearing up, increase in blood pressure and heart rate, and really all the normal side effects of a big adrenaline rush. (Because it gives you one.)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
axa4j2 | Where do stereotypical "redneck" names like Bubba, Skeeter, or Cletus come from? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axa4j2/where_do_stereotypical_redneck_names_like_bubba/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehslnai"
],
"score": [
545
],
"text": [
"LIke many Colloquial things, the etemology of these names is tough to trace because their use is rarely documented very well. \n\nThe etemology of the word bubba has [reportedly](_URL_3_) traced to the german word \"Bube.\" (meaning boy), or a similar sounding Gullah Word [BuhBuh](_URL_0_) meaning brother. - See also [this article](_URL_1_) referencing different Gullah words for Brother, \"Buh\" \"Bruh,\" and other contractions of the term all meaning \"brother,\" and used as a familial term among African American Communities in the Antebellum south. \n\n > Animals in the tales refer to each other as 'brother' in the same manner that slaveholders referred to their chattel as 'family.' On one side, they are indeed 'brothers' and 'family,' for they belong to the same species. On the other hand, certain characteristics, such as race or class, circumvent true kinship. These lessons were not lost on the young. \n\nIt's notable that in many southern Baptist Communities \"Brother\" is still a fairly frequent term used to reference a man who's a member of the community. \"You should go see brother john.\" \n\nGiven the fairly limited German population in the South (Although a non-trivial population of German Catholics settled in the Mississippi Delta in the late 1800's and early 1900's, as well as significant german populations in Texas (per a comment) the Creole interpretation is more likely. And it's a fairly straightforward path as to how it would have gained more widespread use. \n\nAs to \"Skeeter\" - the root word is Mosquito. [Mirriam Webster](_URL_4_) lists the first known use of the word as referencing a mosquito to be 1839. It comes from earlier English origins describing something that is quick and darting (hence it also describing a small boat). Given the presence (or abundance I might say) of mosquitos in much of the South, it's not unusual that it might have some use as a nickname. \n\n\nCletus is trickier. Most sources seem to indicate the name is of greek origin. \" It actually had some popularity as a given name in the late 19th century. I'm unable to find any sources specifically identifying how it *specifically* became associated with rednecks that predate its use on the Simpsons for the Character [Cleetus Spuckler](_URL_2_) who is a stereotypical hillbilly character with his first appearance in 1994. Edit: a comment response did point out that the Dukes of Hazzard (airing 79-85) had a character named Cletus as one of the Sherrif's deputies.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://gullahtours.com/gullah/gullah-words",
"https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2351&context=etd",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_Spuckler",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=L70EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA272&dq=%22bubba%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z72UVZ7-J9aqyASu3p74Dw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22bubba%22&f=false",
"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeeter"
]
]
|
|
2nwrku | How accurate, topographically speaking, was the Chernobyl level in CoD 4? | In Call of Duty 4: modern Warfare, two of the missions are set in Pripyat in 1996. The missions are "[All Ghillied Up](_URL_0_)" and "[One Shot, One Kill](_URL_1_)". I had assumed that the level designers had taken a large amount of liberty with the leve;s, but the recent footage from the drone sent into Pripyat makes me think it was more accurate than I had assumed.
Do we have any maps, comparisons or living accounts of how accurate the levels are compared to real Pripyat? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nwrku/how_accurate_topographically_speaking_was_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmhtoqh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know about topography, but the way the game is styled is fairly accurate. Pripyat has been abandoned since the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, so everything has been left for mother nature to control. But the ferris wheel is actually real and is still in Pripyat and some of the more famous building are also worked into the game \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
} | []
| [
"http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/All_Ghillied_Up",
"http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/One_Shot,_One_Kill"
]
| [
[
"http://unknownworld.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Town-Centre.jpg",
"http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/images/2012/nov12/chernobyl_2012_sm/chernobyl_2012_03.jpg"
]
]
|
|
156fn8 | If you had a properly sized lens completely free of any imperfection, could you build a magnifying glass that could see atoms? | If not, what about large molecules or cells? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/156fn8/if_you_had_a_properly_sized_lens_completely_free/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7jp02x",
"c7jq9mo",
"c7jr3ms",
"c7jrpix",
"c7jrvlf",
"c7jt53r",
"c7jth8d",
"c7jttr5",
"c7jul38",
"c7jy5gk"
],
"score": [
185,
9,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, because the wavelength of (visible) light is longer than the distances between atoms, so they cannot be distinguished are the therefore non-resolvable. 1000x magnification is about as far as light can go, which allows you to see bacteria, but not viruses.\n\nElectron microscopes are instead used because the wavelength of electrons...or something...is short enough to distinguish between two objects at that scale.",
"So the diffraction limit is what determines the smallest spot size of an imaging system (_URL_0_). If this spot size is smaller than the size of your object, than the object can be viewed. Otherwise, it cannot. So we are able to see cells that are larger than a few microns with a microscope because the spot size that is created from the imaging system is smaller than the cell. But that equation in the wiki page is what determines the spot size.",
"No the size of the object being able to be viewed depends on the wavelength. You might be able to see stuff like viruses in the ultraviolet range. Maybe you could build a gamma ray microscope since that has a really tiny wavelength but electron microscope is still probably better.\n\nPerhaps the next step up from electron microscopes might be high energy neutrino microscopes.\n\nIn theory wavelengths can go down to the plank length but at this point it would be incredibly destructive to whatever you where viewing.",
"I once read an article about metamaterials and negative refraction, to be used to enhance the focusing properties of lenses.\n\n[Here's a Wikipedia article.](_URL_0_)\n\n[And another on the superlens](_URL_1_)\n\nQuoting said page:\n\n > A superlens, super lens or perfect lens is a lens which uses metamaterials to go beyond the diffraction limit. The diffraction limit is an inherent limitation in conventional optical devices or lenses.",
"Many people have commented correctly that normal lenses are limited by diffraction; they work in an optical regime called the \"far-field\". The far-field is the light that propagates from a source away to infinity (and the intensity drops in proportion to the distance squared).\n\nHowever, there is also \"near-field\" radiation which does not propagate from the source. For example, there are evanescent waves that do not oscillate as they move but reduce exponentially with distance from the source.\n\nBy building as near-field lens of the appropriate size and shape (very difficult!), and by placing it very close to the source (also not easy!), it is possible in-principle to image things much smaller than the diffraction limit down to atomic resolution.\n\nSee wikipedia's article on the [SNOM](_URL_0_). EDIT: See Borskey's and MrBurd's comments, I didn't see it on my first read-through.",
"As people have said, you can't use light directly to see things below the wavelength/2*NA of your system. Atoms are much much smaller than that. The only things that people use to image single atoms are scanning tips - AFM, STEM and variations on that theme.\n\nHowever, if you play some tricks with the physical system you're imaging, you can use light to get down to single-digit nanometer resolution in the far field (100x smaller than the wavelength of light). The most well-known technique for this is STED (_URL_0_), and there are some others including STORM and PALM if you want to look them up. The key with these techniques is that they only work with specific physical systems though - they aren't general-purpose light microscopy.",
"no, light stops working the way you are used to when it's on that scale.",
"Yes, you just need to make it out of magnets, send electrons through it, converge the beam, and then scan it. As a lens technically doesn't have to be a hunk of curved glass, I'd say that the lens system in one of these counts. \n\n_URL_0_ ",
"not even almost. visible spectrum has waves too long for that.",
"You cannot actually \"see\" an atom, our eyes can only see photons (electromagnetic radiation), they can't see electrons, protons, neutrons, or any other kind of particles."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disc"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_index_metamaterials",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlens"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_scanning_optical_microscope"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Electron_Aberration-Corrected_Microscope"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
ad1ydr | why do all space launch pictures make the space ship look like it’s going in a full circle? | Every long exposure space launch I see the contrail is always curved like its going in a circle. I thought when I jumped the earth wouldn’t move beneath me. What gives? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ad1ydr/eli5_why_do_all_space_launch_pictures_make_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"edcsmro",
"edcsna0",
"edcsnjr"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The rocket doesn't go straight up to exit the atmosphere, it has to curve to conserve energy and reach the desired altitude. So the trail from the rocket explosion is really curved, because its trajectory was curved.",
"When you jump, the Earth *does* move underneath you, but your inertia from being up to speed with the earth up until that point is so great that the amount of slowing down you experience compared to the Earth is negligable.",
"I'm not sure what you mean here, but rockets don't go straight up. They turn and twist to go 'downrange' in order to reach their intended orbit.\n\nOften, the long exposure will include the ditching of the first stage and/or second stage.\n\nIn the case of SpaceX, they mostly land the first stage, which conducts a series of burns towards landing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2pa91r | why have many pathogens evolved to be deadly if this constrains their ability to spread? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pa91r/eli5_why_have_many_pathogens_evolved_to_be_deadly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmur9yl",
"cmuraa6",
"cmurbam",
"cmus4rb"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
9,
2
],
"text": [
" > if this constrains their ability to spread?\n\nIt really depends on the disease. For example, let's look at cholera. When it infects you, it spreads by draining your body of water through your intestines, and all that water contains more cholera bacteria. In areas without much infrastructure, the contaminated water can spread really easily to drinking water. Even though draining more water out of the host kills them faster, it also lets the bacteria spread to more hosts faster. ",
"It is often a byproduct of their reproductive/dispersement schemes. For example, with Ebola, you turn into a human volcano, and all these bodily fluids in turn spread the disease. The more you spew, the more you spread. Unfortunately, you also tend to die of malnutrition/dehydration. AIDS tends to hijack your immune system to spread, unfortunately, that leaves you defenseless and you end up killed by a cold. Each disease is a balance, too lethal and it doesn't have a chance to spread before you die, too mild, and it is wiped out before it can be spread. \n\nEdit: also, as it is a good point brought up by others, we are often not the natural host of the disease, and the host animal suffers no harm from the disease. A fun example is armadillos and leprosy. I was constraining my argument simply to the affliction of humans.",
"We are not the natural host animal for many pathogens. The best way to find the host organism is to ask...which animal does it hurt the least but still grow in?\n\nThe really deadly ones are usually not regular human diseases....HIV has only been in us for 70-80 years. Ebola is usually in small forest animals.",
"Because they don't have to do things optimally, they just have to survive. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2lzhre | why does a person's body stop the force of a grenade when the force is strong enough to break through walls? | This is probably the worst day in the world to ask this, but I read an article about it and was curious about how it's possible. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lzhre/eli5_why_does_a_persons_body_stop_the_force_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"clzk7kg",
"clzki33"
],
"score": [
3,
13
],
"text": [
"The person who is laying on the gernade catches all the srapnel (metal bits that used to be gernade). Without srapnel flying around the gernade has a highly reduced effective area. \n\nTo your point about walls; depending on the structure a wall is sometimes softer than a human. If you're talking concrete then not much of a gernade will even be noticed on the other side, but dry wall can be punched through bare handed if you have the will.",
"Hand grenades aren't anywhere NEAR as powerful as shown in the movies, and they are specifically not an explosive-damage weapon, they are a shrapnel weapon.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.