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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
s0fs6
|
What's the current scientific consensus on the effect of dietary fat on heart disease?
|
I have a buddy who's lost impressive amounts of weight on the ketosis diet espoused by r/keto. I'd join him on his bacon diet in a heartbeat if I wasn't afraid that, well, it might make make my heart stop beating. The rumors I've always heard have told me that high-fat diets lead directly to heart disease and my personal LDL has always been high.
The most informative article I've found containing actual citations is a [_URL_0_ post](_URL_1_), but I have no idea whether the studies cited there are representative, respected, reproducible or relevant--I just don't have the expertise.
I am aware that everybody is different and that studies indicate statistical tendencies across populations.
Please note I'm not asking for medical advice and I'm going to speak with my doctor no matter what I do. I just want to know what's the current scientific medical consensus about eating a high fat, no starch low sugar diet.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s0fs6/whats_the_current_scientific_consensus_on_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4a4s92",
"c4a60t3",
"c4a6un2",
"c4a762v"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"A quick Pub Med [search](_URL_1_) has several articles that might answer your question. I'm busy studying at the moment but if I get some free time I'll try to skim some of the literature. I grabbed two that looked promising if you want to do some reading in case I forget about this and don't return. You can try your own search at Pub Med. Look for systemic reviews or large studies, and remember make your search parameters your question not the answer your looking for. Good Luck. Oh and you should probably consult your physician before doing major dietary changes like this. He/She may have something to add based on your medical background. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n",
"The original saturated fat hypothesis for heart disease was incredibly poorly supported. It was using comparisons between only a few countries that didn't adequately segregate between all possible variables. That's why you got things like the so-called \"French Paradox\". France ate 3x the saturated fat as America, but got less heart disease. It was only a paradox if you assumed that saturated fat caused heart disease. It's clear that it cannot be the case, as there are native american and african populations that eat/ate nothing but animal products and have almost no heart disease. Diet is very complicated, and almost impossible to do the correct studies with proper controls (allowing a human to only eat a defined diet for 50+ years). While there isn't a scientific consensus, I think it's much more likely at this point that sugar is actually the culprit for heart disease.",
" > The rumors I've always heard have told me that high-fat diets lead directly to heart disease and my personal LDL has always been high.\n\nWell, there are a few complicated issues at play in your question! I'll try to break it down, issue by issues.\n\nHeart disease in the form of atherosclerosis (hardening of the cardiac arteries with fat and other cells), can have a number of different causes. High blood lipids such as LDL cholesterol and triglycerides are just *one* of the risk factors - others included obesity, diabetes, smoking, lifestyle, genetics, hormones, etc. When you think about research for cardiovascular disease, realize that it is very difficult to isolate risk factors since they are so interelated. \n\nSo, by reducing blood lipids you (generally) lower your risk for atherosclerosis.\n\nNow, let's talk dietary fat. There is a distinction to made between a high fat diet, and a high *saturated* fat diet. Saturated fat is solid at room temperature, and generally comes from animal sources - think butter, ice cream, beef, bacon, etc. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated are the other kinds of fats, and they come from plants - seeds, nuts, vegetables - think olive oil, avocados, nuts. (To complicate matters further, you can get saturated fat from plants and unsurated fats from animals - just less of each.) \n\nWhether or not a high *saturated* fat diet increases LDL cholesterol - the risk factor for cardiovascular disease - is a matter of debate. Several, long term, huge studies have tried to figure this out, and the data is mixed. [Some of them are listed here.](_URL_2_) Some people will say there is no relationship between saturated fat and heart disease, but that's because they are \"cherry picking\" or cite one or two studies and ignoring the rest. Obviously, other studies show a clear association. There's not a consensus either way and the matter remains unresolved.\n\nHowever, most conservative institutions recommend a diet low in saturated fat. The American Heart Association, for example, recommends limiting saturated fat to [seven percent of calories a day](_URL_0_), while replacing the calories from saturated fat from plant based - poly- and monounsaturated fat.\n\n > I just want to know what's the current scientific medical consensus about eating a high fat, no starch low sugar diet.\n\nThere really isn't one. \n\nDoctors look at risk factors like those mentioned above. If you can shovel bacon in your mouth and keep a low LDL, then, they probably won't bring up your diet at all. If you're smoking, or overweight, or diabetic, they'll try to help you get those things under control.\n\nGenerally, if you lose weight, your blood lipids drop. So, pretty much, [no matter what you eat](_URL_1_), if you're overweight and need to lose, reducing body fat will help your LDL. If you're losing weight with keto and eating lots of saturated fat, it's possible that the weight loss will improve your blood lipids. The only way to really know if keto increase your LDL is to try it long term and get your lipids tested frequently.\n\nThe keto diet is used medically to treat conditions like childhood epilepsy, but it's also used for weight loss. By eliminating most of the carbohydrates in your diet, you force your body to use fat to do the work of carbs. This can have unpleasant [side effects](_URL_3_) such as bad breath and kidney stones. You have to stay on it - you can't \"cheat\" or your throw your body out of keto.\n\nThe concern I would have with keto is that by limiting carbs, you're limiting a lot of good vitamins and minerals in your diet! High carb foods like fruit and whole grains have a lot of good stuff in them, such as phytochemicals and fiber that have added nutritional benefit.\n\nHope that helps. Good luck!",
"I found this book interesting.-\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYou can even read the first chapter for free.\n\nDiet is complicated. It's not just one thing, you have to look at the total diet and that is where so many studies stumble and this leads to confusion and the public's distrust of anything concerning diet. Saturated fat intake in Inuit populations is very high but they also don't eat all the processed foods and sugars we do. Their diet works because the entire thing works together. You can't just do one part of it and expect the same results. Throwing saturated fat everywhere in your diet while continuing to eat like an American is just a terrible American diet. There is definitely something very wrong with the Western Diet, but what is it exactly? We don't know. It's probably many things added together."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"SomethingAwful.com",
"http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3407406"
] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18700873",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=systematic%5Bsb%5D%20AND%20(high%20fat%20diet%20cardiovascular%20risk)",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21595100"
],
[],
[
"http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp#.T4L-upmJcXs",
"http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Cardiovascular_disease",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Adverse_effects"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Jungle-Effect-Healthiest-World-Why/dp/0061535656"
]
] |
|
xtp5n
|
How did lords control their land?
|
How were the estates of the realm decided? I assume favors for family and friends, but after a lord allows a vassal to use the land, how did they control them from taking it over?
Was it a fear of god or military, or both? Also, if they were using the land to farm or raise cattle, how were they taxed?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xtp5n/how_did_lords_control_their_land/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5pi8hh",
"c5pm1e4",
"c5pqvrm"
],
"score": [
11,
15,
4
],
"text": [
"By saying \"taking it over\" I assume you're saying that the vassal will rise up against his lord? It's my understanding that vassals were granted land that provided them with homes, food, protection. To rise up against the lord was to threaten this entire system, and I'm guessing *other* vassals that had been granted land had a strong incentive to stop the rebel. The entire system seems to me to rest on loyalty and trust: for someone to bluntly break that trust threatens the entire system.\n\nWhat most interests me is groups of vassals conspiring together. I suppose as long as everyone could trust each other (and agree on who'd be the next lord) than everything would turn out OK. \n\nIn some ways it reminds me of the mafia leadership. Why wouldn't the lower ranks raise up and knock off the godfather and put their own man in place? Probably because no one trusts each other and the godfather is pretty good at playing people off each other/keeping the powers of everyone limited enough to keep his own job secure yet strong enough to fend off attack from outside gangs.\n\nEDIT: I teach middle school and we do a roleplaying scenario like this class-wide. Everyone tries to buck/break the system but it becomes pretty apparent that while feudalism isn't the BEST system of government the world has ever invented (by our own standards of what's good/fair/just) it worked pretty well for the temporary situation that Europe found itself in: divided by geography and language, outside invaders, etc. ",
"Lords were frequently not able to control their vassals. The problem of an \"over-mighty vassal\" is most apparent with the troublesome Duchy of Normandy, whose rulers eventually became kings of England, even though they were technically vassals of the crown of France. This eventually resulted in the Hundred Years War. So it wasn't the case that vassals never rebelled against their lord's authority.\n\nHowever, in general, your question should be \"what motivation would the average vassal have to rebel in the first place\" rather than \"why didn't they rebel all the time.\" There's little practical benefit in doing so. If a vassal abandons his feudal obligations, then the lord would raise his banners and go to war against him. Unless all of his other vassals joined your rebellion, then one man's landholdings would not be able to hold out against a much larger force. Of course, this depends on the lord in question being able to raise such a force. A weak king might see his realm disentegrate around him as his barons left his service. \n\nThough sometimes it's the fashion among students to ignore the cultural factors in favor of more \"practical\" concerns, the fear of God was also a part of it. An oath of fealty was both political and religious, a promise before both man and God. By directly violating your feudal oaths, you completely abandoned your honor and became fair game in the eyes of the Church. William of Normandy justified his invasion of England in 1066 by claiming that Harold Godwinson had sworn oaths to him over religious artifacts. The Pope believed him and so gave him Papal blessing for his conquest. \n\nAs to your final question, the primary responsibility of a vassal to his lord was military service. By swearing an oath to a lord and recieving lands for it, a vassal made an agreement to serve in war when his lord required. In addition to personal arms for himself, vassals would have been contracted, for lack of a better term, to bring X number of men-at-arms and archers along with him. I believe that the term of service was usually limited to a little more than a month per year, but of course, this would vary depending on the specific lord and vassal involved. \n\nKeep in mind that I'm speaking in generalities about the overall feudal system, and that there is an enormous debate between people way smarter than me about the specific nature of feudalism. But I think this will suffice for a broad understanding of the basic concepts. ",
"To echo what others said here and boil it down, in those kinds of systems \"lords\" didn't really control their land. They controlled people via patron-client relations. Clients (vassals) might decide to break allegiance, but then they'd have to deal with the wrath of the patron (often via the other clients). Sometimes these clients would be related to the patron via marriage, so that made things a lot messier. In African examples, sometimes the patron would have hostages--pawnship slaves or \"apprentices\" who were heirs in the vassal's household. You rebel, they die, or worse yet, they replace you when the patron puts you to the sword. Of course if the patron is in decline and vassals are breaking away, you might be able to create yourself as a new patron (as the Sonni dynasty in Gao did while the Empire of Mali was in decline, thus becoming the nucleus of Songhai).\n\nThe more I read comments in these kinds of threads, the more I realize that European and African systems ca. 1300-1500 (I know, BIG generalizations there) really weren't all that different in material function, even if the religions, cultures, and commodities were very dissimilar."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4eul5r
|
how do doctors know the type of cancer someone has when it's metastatic?
|
Ex. My father had "metastatic colon cancer" Ty!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4eul5r/eli5_how_do_doctors_know_the_type_of_cancer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d23hqh0",
"d23ietu",
"d23occw"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can obtain a sample and look in the microscope. Colon cancer mostly occurs in the outermost most layer of the GI tract called epithelial layer and the surrounding connective tissue. The best way to see if it is spreading is by checking presence of cancer cells in areas below the epithelial layer. Cancer cells are often huge and have pretty big nuclei and look nothing like the cells around them. \n\nAnother way is to obtain a tissue sample from the nearest lymph node. Lymph vessels drain the area around cells so they are a easy pathway for metastasis. Lymph vessels drain into lymph nodes so you can biopsy a lymph node to see if there are any cancer cells there. \n\n",
"Sometimes they don't. There are ways to tell, taking biopsy and examining the cells from the secondary tumours but often it's not practical or helpful and it depends on the individual case.\n\nMy father was diagnosed with liver and lung cancer but we were told that they didn't know where the primary tumour had came from. \n\nIn such cases it's often referred to as [cancer of unknown primary] (_URL_0_).\n\nAs with your own dad, my dad almost certainly had a primary that was colorectal. It was never confirmed officially though but from the information we have it seems the most logical. I'm not a clilnician but I worked for the hospital at the time and was given advice and information by the Consultants and Professors that I worked for.\n\nI'm very sorry to hear that your father had metastatic colon cancer. \n\nSometimes it isn't practical to look for the primary. It depends upon a lot of factors and every case is different.\n",
"That cancer has metasticized tells them what stage it is in. Cancer has 5 stages, though it's usually diagnosed in 1 of 4 stages. They are: \n\nStage 0: 'In Situ'. A cell that becomes malignant usually does so in the company of other, similar cells. It can stay in that position, in a single tumour in a single spot. This is *in situ* cancer. \n\nStage 1: Localized. In this stage the cancer cells gain the ability to pass through the 'basement membrane' that the boundary to the tissue in which the cancer cells began, invading neighboring tissue as they do. This is a serious step, because while some *in situ* cancers never progress, this step means that this particular cancer means to do just that, progress, and continue to grow. While the cancer may be a single lump, it is considered localised. \n\nStages 2 & 3: Regional Spread. Once a cancer has invaded the surrounding tissues, the next common step is for one of it's 'daughter cells' to invade through a lymph vessel. A lymph vessel is like a blood vessel but instead of blood, it carries a clear fluid called lymph, which is constantly exuding from our capillaries back to the blood stream. As it travels to the blood stream, this fluid passes through a lymph node, one of the major players in our body's immune system. When the cancer cells reach the lymph node, they may provoke an immune response against them, which may destroy them and other cancer cells. This is a best case scenario. More often, though, the cancer cells begin to divide and form a new lump in the lymph node. This stage is regional spread. Thi sis to say, the cancer has spread to the general region where it first began, but not to other parts of the body. Whether it is stage 2 or 3 depends on how many lymph nodes the cancer has reached. \n\nStage 4: Distant Spread; Metastasis. The cancer cells have multiplied in the lymph nodes and are now spreading through the lymph and blood systems to other organs. Once they begin growing in another organ, that is metastatic cancer. This is the latest stage of cancer, and hardest to treat because it involves treating multiple parts of the body. \n\nHave they told you where the cancer has spread? Colon cancer tends to hit the liver, but sometimes the lungs or peritoneum (lining of the abdominal cavity). If the metastases are small, and they know where they are, then surgery *may* be an option to give him more time and possibly even provide a cure. Chemo is usually done in conjunction with the surgery, before and/or after. \n\nI am really sorry for your dad, and I hope his prognosis is a good one. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.macmillan.org.uk/cancerinformation/cancertypes/unknownprimary/unknownprimary.aspx"
],
[]
] |
|
vb7qw
|
At the end of Fight Club, the main character shoots himself in the head with a gun in his mouth and just ends up with a hole in his neck. Is this possible, improbable or just outright ridiculous?
|
I understand that's it's a movie and all that, but can someone actually survive a gunshot from their mouth? I feel like it's more than just the bullet that does damage. I don't know what gun or bullet he used, but I'm interested to see what the possibilities are in general.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vb7qw/at_the_end_of_fight_club_the_main_character/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c52xvay"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Surprisingly yes. [Here](_URL_2_)\n\n[Another](_URL_0_)\n\n[Last one for now](_URL_1_)\n\nIt's still quite rare for most psychiatric patients to attempt a self-inflicted gunshot wound, pills are a far more common choice, but even a gunshot to the head is not a guaranteed death by any means."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21967669",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20309801",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033318210000204"
]
] |
|
1oaecc
|
are you good with css?
|
If so, please consider reading this!
As we approach 1,000,000 subscribers, we'd like to make our subreddit look a little more clean. Primarily, we're looking for a way to *slightly* change the link listing, especially how the flair is displayed in the link listing (and it should mirror in the search results and of course on the page containing the post itself).
To clarify, we are *not* looking for just concepts-- we would like proposals of actual CSS code we can implement. Of course, if you don't want to code the whole thing out right away, you can state what you would make it look like and then you could work on it.
We also don't want to dramatically change the look from reddit's default. The sidebar would stay the same, and we don't want to change the colors of the links themselves or their backgrounds. We just want the flair to look a little more aesthetically pleasing than it is right now. Feel free to change the image files in the flair from our "M" and star and check mark. And we do want them to say "explained" and "modpost" and "official thread" when you hover like they do now.
We can't guarantee that any submissions will be implemented, but I thought I'd open this up to the community to see if you all have any good ideas. Please don't spend too much time on this. You'll be credited in the stylesheet and at the bottom of the subreddit.
If you don't want to post your idea in response to this comment, please PM me personally at /u/anonymous123421 so I can share it with the other mods without us having to get flooded with different modmail PMs.
Thanks!
~123421
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oaecc/are_you_good_with_css/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccq7z2x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"CSS is very easy coding wise. The only difficult area I might see is finding what you want or you're looking for in clarity of the links. \n\n_URL_0_ - this page is what you're going after correct link wise? \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/"
]
] |
|
2pkh5d
|
what was the justification for the chinese government selecting the last panchen lama?
|
I'm reading a BBC news article, and I discover that the Panchen Lama (the one who "plays a key role in selecting the next Dalai Lama) was chosen by the Chinese government. Apparently, the Dalai Lama chose a Panchen Lama, but the government rejected the choice.
Reading on, the Chinese government claim that THEY will select the next Dalai Lama (even though the current Dalai Lama is saying that he may well be the last one). What is the justification here, why do the Chinese government think they are entitled to do this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pkh5d/eli5_what_was_the_justification_for_the_chinese/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmxhv4g"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The way I understand it is China had a pretty good relationship with the Tibetan buddhists and for hundreds of years there was an understanding between the two. The Chinese respected the choices made by the Panchen for finding the next Dalai Lama. \n\nFast forward to the current Dalai Lama and the friction between them. After they snubbed Tibet's choice of new Panchen Lama and selecting their own the Chinese now essentially get to choose the next Dalai Lama after the current one dies and remove Tibet from the equation altogether. It is a devastating blow to the Tibetan buddhists and that's why he's saying after he dies its pretty much game over."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3p3nn5
|
When one washes the dishes, is the soap foam a good 'practical' indicator about how dirty is the water?
|
When I wash the dishes at the start the sink is full of hot water with a bit of soap, and a lot of foam is generated while the sink is filling.
Then I wash the dishes starting from the less dirty to the most dirty, and until the end the water is more or less clear with a lot of foam. As soon as I start to wash the dirty dishes the foam diminishes a lot and the water gets darker.
I remember that soaps reacts mostly with fat, so I was thinking that the level of foam is a good indicator of how much 'not bound'/' not used' soap is remaining. Is that so?
Thanks for the answers, in the meanwhile I see if I can improve my results with search engines to refresh my little chemistry knowledge.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3p3nn5/when_one_washes_the_dishes_is_the_soap_foam_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw2yjut",
"cw2ymty",
"cw2ysss",
"cw34zfz"
],
"score": [
2,
17,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Two things:\n\n1. Foam is generally an indication of agitation, since foam is just small bubbles and bubbles form by 'mixing' air into the water so to speak. So it is likely that your end water is foamier because of more scrubbing and swishing around. (Scientist note: try washing your dishes from most dirty to least dirt next to test this hypothesis ;])\n\n2. Soap interacts well with fat, not reacts, because I'm almost certain no reaction is taking place. What **is** happening is that soap and detergent decrease the surface tension of water, so a soapy water mixture can get in and around fats on surfaces whereas water would just kind of slide over fats or other things that don't mix with water because of polarity. Whether a reaction is taking place in addition to that, I don't know. ",
"It is a good indicator about how much soap is left to clean off your dishes.\n\n\nSoaps don't truly react with anything, but they do surround fats and oils and \"pull it off\" the dirty surfaces. So if the soap is being used to surround a glob of oil, it can't make foam (which is basically air surrounded by soap).\n\n\nNow the interesting part is that different soaps generate different amounts of foam. In terms of cleaning ability they may be very similar, but not similar in foaming ability. So most dish detergent contains stuff that makes a lot of foam so it looks very effective.\n\n\nOn the other hand, car wash soap contains (or should contain) less foaming agent because who wants to spend the time and water removing all that foam.",
"I once read an article authored by researchers working at soap giant UniLever that went into this. What I remember is that the effectiveness of the soap solution is not related to the amount of foam the product generates.\n\nSo you can have lots of foam and no working soap, or a perfectly fine working soap which makes no foam at all.\n\n*However*, as the consumer expects the product to be pleasantly foamy (you don't want to much, or to little) at the start and slowly lose it's foamyness as the soap in the mixture is used up, until no foam at all when the soap is all used up, the manufacturer tweaks the ingredients just so that the final product displays this desired behavior.\n\nSo the answer to your question seems to be: Yes, the amount of foam correlates to how active your soap solution is. But is is not because soapy solutions naturally behave like that but because it was *made* to behave like that.",
"It's important to note you rarely use soap - bar soap is about it. Almost everything else you use is a detergent. Soap works by making debris to slippery to stick, detergents work by suspending the dirt in the mix and breaking down the oils that hold. Just as the water in your dishwasher produces no suds, the detergent you use in laundry, the shower, and hand washing, don't actually need or create suds. They are added for customer satisfaction. I use trisodium phosphate as a degreaser, and it will strip six month old grease off your range hood, but generates no suds. Now, if you are using actual soap, the suds will tell you how strong it is, because the surfacant action of the soap is what causes the bubbles, but in most cases in indicative of nothing. This is why you should avoid cheap cleaners like \"Moy Fabuloso\", because while they sud up as well as other cleaners, they aren't nearly as powerful. Same goes for laundry detergent. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
89yw80
|
why do google captchas make you click street signs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89yw80/eli5_why_do_google_captchas_make_you_click_street/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwuhz8w",
"dwui1tm",
"dwume8t",
"dwumqmc",
"dwun9d3",
"dwuoslz",
"dwup0pf",
"dwuqc98",
"dwur402",
"dwurju6",
"dwurycn",
"dwutedu",
"dwuu9ni"
],
"score": [
5371,
992,
305,
34,
1402,
16,
4,
4,
70,
30,
29,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"They're used to train their image recognition software so that they can read street signs more accurately.",
"Google is working on self driving cars and they need their algorithms trained. So they crowd source it. And they know computers cant tell because that is why they are having you train their cars.",
"What about the one that just says “I am not a robot” and you just click it once and the box turns into a check mark and lets you go",
"As pointed out in other posts, they are using it to train their image recognition software. The machine learning algorithm they are using requires training. \n\nThey will start out with a massive database of known data that is used for the initial training. Then they will continually refine the algorithm over time. Both these steps take a lot of work because manually validating that a dataset is correct takes a lot of manpower.\n\nGoogle captcha essentially is a huge mechanical turk. By asking real people to validate what is in a picture they can now validate and refine the algorithm. [this training piece is a part of the algorithm, it's not a manual thing]. All the while the algorithm is also \"guessing\" and comparing it's answers with the manicured data set of known answers provided by humans.\n\nYou lower risk of getting bad data by asking say 30 people the same question. You can make some assumptions that if 80% of the people said box \"X\" is a road sign, car face.... that yep, it's that thing.\n\nEssentially Image Captcha is saving google millions of dollars in real human time to help improve their machine learning! And if you've ever gotten a Captcha wrong (and you were right); it's most likely because the image didn't have enough answers to achieve a consensus to say you are right, but it does hold on to your answer to help build that consensus for the next person!",
"...and does the pole count as part of the sign?",
"Everything Google has you do is to feed/train a new technology it is working on.\n\nThe new image captchas are most likely helping train some sort of image recognition AI.",
"They run out of books to digitize for google books, so now they are digitizing street signs for google maps. ",
"Current bots have hard times with pictures, so it shows that you are human. You are also helping google develop their self-driving cars. That is why cars and street signs are what you are always clicking. You are essentially training their car bots while proving you aren't an internet bot.",
"The irony of all of this too, is that once machines are 100% successful at completing CAPTCHAs, they will be obsolete as a method for checking human vs. machine.",
"[A lot of people here aren't reading from Google's info on reCAPTCHA](_URL_0_)\n\nELI5: Google cuts up images into a grid 4x4 for small images, 5x5 for bigger ones, and so on and so forth. Google gives these images to their bots and teaches (trains) them to find which grid has what object. Google has the answers for this small set of images, and for the bots that guess correctly, they get to have clones made of them.\n\nThe reason Google breaks up these images into smaller grids because it's easier to find Waldo in a small box, but harder to find Waldo in a big, crowded image.\n\nGoogle's bots, after some time, are really good at spotting objects.\n\nA reCAPTCHA on a website asks a user to figure out which squares have a stop sign. Google and their bots know the answer to this. But Google is tired and doesn't want to go through new sets of images and identify more and more traffic light, for instance.\n\nGoogle then asks several bots to guess where the traffic light is. To make sure the bot's guess is right, the user, from earlier, that answered the first reCAPTCHA right is asked to find the traffic light. Many more of the user's friends are also asked the same question to make sure it's right.\n\nIf the bot and the users think the traffic light is in a particular square, then the bot is given a pat on the back, and has many clones made of it.\n\nA benefit of Google asking a lot of people what's a traffic light, what's a stop sign, what's a store front, is that when the bots get older and can drive cars, they can recognize when to stop, and where.\n\nAnother benefit is that Google's bots can help other people find things in images, like a person lost in a flood from an image taken from high above.\n\nMore detailed info from the link above:\n\n > reCAPTCHA offers more than just spam protection. Every time our CAPTCHAs are solved, that human effort helps digitize text, annotate images, and build machine learning datasets. This in turn helps preserve books, improve maps, and solve hard AI problems.\n\n--\n\nSide note: a lot of people still hate reCAPTCHA, but, it's quicker, now, is better at protecting sites, and contributes to image recognition.",
"What are you supposed to do with one like [this?](_URL_0_)",
"Do you know what this picture is? (It's a banana.) And this one? (It's a dog). People have very good eyes, and are very good at telling what is in a picture. Computers don't have eyes! They aren't very good at telling what is in a picture. They need some help from people. \n\nSome smart scientists want to teach computers how to tell what is in a picture, but they need help from lots and lots of people. When you click on the pictures of street signs, you are helping the computers learn how to see what is in a picture!\n\n",
"2 purposes:\n\n- Giving a task that is relatively hard for AI to perform reliably (making sure you're human and not a bot)\n- Creating training data (where is the sign & where it's not on a photo) to improve their image recognition, most likely in preparation for driverless vehicles.\n\nOld text-based captchas are being solved pretty easily by open-source deep learning setups these days, so they are not a good candidate to filter out bots anymore."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/recaptcha/intro/"
],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/2qQtV4w.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2v7nkx
|
how is nintendo able to demand ad revenue for related youtube videos?
|
I've been reading a bit about all the idiocy that Nintendo's been doing recently with Nintendo-related YouTube videos. However, doesn't fair use law apply? I would think that I could post any Nintendo content I wanted without paying royalties, as long as it doesn't stop people from buying the game, but I haven't heard anyone else talk about fair use. Explain?
Tl;Dr Nintendo's been acting stupid, how come I can't just ignore them because of fair use law?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v7nkx/eli5_how_is_nintendo_able_to_demand_ad_revenue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cof5ceh",
"cof7dbx"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Fair Use doesn't technically apply to Let's Play content so Nintendo is under no legal obligation to allow that content to remain on YouTube, so they can hold it to ransom all it likes.\n\nFair Use mostly applies to Review content (which Nintendo have been striking off YouTube too, because they're crazy)",
"When you 'buy' a video game you are not truly buying it. You are leasing it (atleast in North America), same for Movies and TV Shows. If you look on the back of any game/movie box/case you will see that it says LEASED not OWNED by the party who purchased the game.\n\nYou do not own that content because you bought it, Nintendo sold you a liscense to play and use the game -- however -- if you start to make money off of Nintendo's product, they have every right to demand a cut of your profits, if not all.\n\nI think it's a totally stupid business move but, Nintendo always does the weirdest stuff.\n\nSorry if it's confusing, I tried to make it as simple as possible.. :)\n\nSide note: Nintendo is really only interested in the people who have high view count and subs, because some of those gaming channels make almost a few tens of thousands a year."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4xqevm
|
after a band breaks up or a musician dies, who profits from the sale of their merchandise and music?
|
Does it all go to the producer/ merch company or do the musicians get any profit?
Additionally, how do you get the rights to print say, a Beatles album cover on a shirt then sell the shirt if the band is broken up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xqevm/eli5_after_a_band_breaks_up_or_a_musician_dies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6hkyi7",
"d6hl39q"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It really varies a lot based on the legal structure of the group (e.g., incorporated or not) and their agreements with the record label. In general, copyright is treated like any other property, and may be sold, transferred by a will, and so on. \n\nFor example, if the artist assigns the copyright to the band's corporation, and the artist dies, that copyright just remains with the corporation--but the heirs of the artist can inherit the artist's share in the corporation and thus a right to the profits. If the artists retains the copyright themselves, it becomes part of the estate and will go to the artist's heirs (or creditors). Some rights will often be transferred to a record label, but sometimes only temporarily or reverting on death.",
"Generally it goes to the estate of the deceased. However it would depend on the specific contracts that person entered into."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
jy7vb
|
Non-combustive exothermic reactions?
|
I was wondering what kind of non-combustive exothermic reactions there were and which ones produced the most heat. I've already tried looking at many different reactions and the one that produces the most heat seems to be the crystallization of sodium acetate.
Any idea as to what other non-combustive exothermic reactions there are out there? (that produce more heat)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jy7vb/noncombustive_exothermic_reactions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2g2m8s",
"c2g2oxw",
"c2g2m8s",
"c2g2oxw"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Salt (e.g. calcium chloride) + Water is an example of one.",
"Unless you mean exothermic without oxidizing (Combustion is just a faster oxidizing reaction) I'd vote for:\n\n* Potassium Permanganate and Glycerol or Ethylene glycol\n* Cyanoacrylate and cotton\n\nOne problem is they both eventually burst into flame, but only because they're reaching the ignition temperature for either Glyceral, Ethylene glycol, or cotton. \n\n* Magnesium + water works if you don't want a reaction that eventually bursts into flame. However, there is a little problem with Hydrogen gas.",
"Salt (e.g. calcium chloride) + Water is an example of one.",
"Unless you mean exothermic without oxidizing (Combustion is just a faster oxidizing reaction) I'd vote for:\n\n* Potassium Permanganate and Glycerol or Ethylene glycol\n* Cyanoacrylate and cotton\n\nOne problem is they both eventually burst into flame, but only because they're reaching the ignition temperature for either Glyceral, Ethylene glycol, or cotton. \n\n* Magnesium + water works if you don't want a reaction that eventually bursts into flame. However, there is a little problem with Hydrogen gas."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
zacvx
|
How would I go about making a superconducting magnetic train?
|
_URL_0_
This is what I'm talking about.
I want to make this for my science fair project as a sophomore in high school. I have the basic idea but no idea how to go about creating it. You have to make a superconductor by cooling strong magnets with liquid nitrogen. The problem is I can barely find any information on it. What kind of magnets do I use? What strength? How much liquid nitrogen do I need? What temperature do the magnets need to be? Thanks in advance.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zacvx/how_would_i_go_about_making_a_superconducting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c62v7ia"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > You have to make a superconductor by cooling strong magnets with liquid nitrogen.\n\nNo, that's not how superconductors work, you need to have something made specifically from a superconductive material.\n\n > What kind of magnets do I use? What strength?\n\nOrdinary neodymium magnets would be fine.\n\n > How much liquid nitrogen do I need?\n\nDepends on how many demonstrations you plan on doing.\n\n > What temperature do the magnets need to be?\n\nRoom temperature."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIZyyNJnAQ"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
9m69sq
|
At what age does human hearing fully mature?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9m69sq/at_what_age_does_human_hearing_fully_mature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7edqc9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hearing in infancy is much less sensitive (to quiet, high, and low sounds) than in adulthood. An informative paragraph from a review of the topic (pdf: [Mattock, Amitay, & Moore, 2010](_URL_0_)):\n\n\"It is not entirely clear when human hearing begins, but behavioural indices, such as fetal movements in response to external sound, suggest that it is around the 25th week of gestation (Lecanuet et al., 1995). However, this ‘onset of hearing’ marks but one significant event in a developmental sequence that begins at conception and continues, according to a recent cortical evoked-potential study (Poulsen et al., 2007), to somewhere beyond 40 years of age. Despite this widely protracted period of development, it is clear that most major changes in auditory perception occur relatively early in a child’s life. Newborn infants have tone-detection thresholds that are 30–70 dB higher than adults. Sensitivity then improves dramatically, so that, by 6 months, it is possible to observe thresholds for high-frequency sounds that are only 10 dB or so higher than those of young adults. But, while high-frequency sensitivity matures early (by around 2 years), lowfrequency sensitivity continues to develop until about 10 years of age.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199233557.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199233557-e-13?print=pdf"
]
] |
|
1j48v5
|
why does a gyroscope resist being rotated
|
Here's my theory, and you can tell me if it's right or wrong. When a gyroscope spins, all of the stuff that makes up the spinny disc goes in a nice circle, and the only forces it experiences are centripetal force. BUT, as soon as you start to turn the axis of rotation funny things begin happening. Suppose our gyroscope is spinning with its axis vertical, and we begin trying to turn the axis clockwise. If you were to examine a single point on the disc at any given moment you would be trying to accelerate it downward (if it's on the right hand side) and then upward if it's on the right hand side. Thus, any force you apply to one point must be applied in reverse half a rotation later in order to keep the axis rotating clockwise.
Am I close?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j48v5/eli5why_does_a_gyroscope_resist_being_rotated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbaxp8j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This video is far greater than any words I can possibly convey: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO7pn3uiWA0"
]
] |
|
dv8zde
|
why can you cook some things from frozen but not others?
|
For example if I buy a fresh chicken breast and freeze it myself, cooking it from frozen is bad. However I can buy already frozen chicken breast and cook it from frozen with no problems?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dv8zde/eli5_why_can_you_cook_some_things_from_frozen_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7b7qcn",
"f7b7wuf",
"f7b8ipz",
"f7b933d",
"f7b96qj",
"f7b9p2p",
"f7beuzu"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
12,
7,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You *can't* cook originally fresh chicken from frozen??\n\nUh oh...",
" Well if you try to cook it straight out of the freezer you will cook the outside but on the inside it will still be frozen.",
"Usually stuff you cook from frozen has already been cooked once, and you're basically just heating it up. It's easier to do that than it is to make sure the food is actually cooked all the way through if you're trying to cook frozen, raw chicken.",
"I don't know what you've been told, but in terms of food safety, cooking all types of frozen chicken (whether you bought it frozen or not) is perfectly fine. \n\nHowever, cooking frozen chicken takes longer than defrosted chicken, which can be an issue because chicken can get dried out very easily.",
"The colder something is when you start cooking it, the harder it is for it to cook through evenly. With a raw-frozen chicken breast, you run the risk of over cooking the outside layers of the meat without the middle part getting cooked enough to be safe to eat. The heat just can’t penetrate to the center of the meat evenly enough because what it’s penetrating is so so cold. Under-cooked poultry is unsafe to eat because of microscopic critters that could be in there that are killed when the meat is cooked to a certain temperature (I think it’s 165 F for chicken).. \n\nIt’s not an issue for cooked-frozen chicken because it’s already been cooked and those critters have already been cooked/killed. The worst thing that happens in this case is that the middle of the meat is cold, but it was already cooked before you even bought it. Also, when companies prepare these pre-cooked chicken breasts, they tend to flatten them out for exactly the reasons I’m writing about here: They cook faster and more evenly that way. \n\nIt’s less of an issue with some meats than with others, I can only guess because they have fewer critters than live in them, or their critters get killed at a lower temperature. With beef, less of an issue. With pork, just as big an issue as with poultry.",
"It depends on the cooking process. Slow cooking processes work fine from frozen. Fast processes can be a problem, if the food can't transfer the heat fast enough the outside burns before the inside is cooked enough. Chicken can be more of a problem, because the required internal temp is higher. You can cook home frozen just like you cook equivalent pre-frozen. You can't cook a whole chicken with processes that would work for a breast filet, no matter who does the freezing.",
"It sounds like you might be confusing two different pieces of advice.\n\nOne common piece of advice is to make sure you defrost things before you cook them. This is not so much for food safety, as it is to ensure the thing you're cooking cooks evenly. If you put a frozen chicken breast in the oven, and bake it, it's likely that the outside will burn before the inside is cooked throughout, or that the whole piece will dry out when you try to cook it thoroughly. Defrosting normalizes the temperature and helps make sure all parts of the chicken (or whatever else you're cooking) cook at the same rate.\n\nThe other piece of advice is to not re-freeze things that have defrosted without first cooking them. This is true, but only for things that have thawed outside of the refrigerator. The concern here is, if food thaws to a warmer temperature (as if it were in your car, or in the garage, or out on the counter), as microbes previously inactivated by the freezing process, can again become active at temperatures above 40F and start multiplying leading to foodborne illness.\n\nSo for that reason most people will say if you thaw something, you need to cook it (to kill the microbes again) before re-freezing it.\n\nBut in reality, if you take a store bought piece of frozen chicken, thaw it in your fridge (at 35F), you could re-freeze it without worry.\n\nEDIT: spelling"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cemhl3
|
how does the https transfer the key to decrypt the data without compromising the contents of said data?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cemhl3/eli5_how_does_the_https_transfer_the_key_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eu3rnlb",
"eu3snt8"
],
"score": [
2,
11
],
"text": [
"To try to simplify, these kinds of protocols work by having the reciever send the lock, instead of the sender transmitting the key.\n\nAn analogy is that I send you a combination safe, you put the thing inside it and send it back to me. The combination to open the safe is only ever known by me, but this way once you put something into the safe you know nobody else (not even yourself) can open it.",
"If data could be encrypted with a paint colour, then...\n\nIf I wanted to send you encrypted data, first I would send you some random colour paint.\n\nNext, you and I would independently choose a second secret random colour paint (both different) and mix it with the first colour I just sent you. We would come up with two new colours.\n\nWe then send each other our new paint colours, and mix in our own second secret random colour with each other's new colour. The result is that we both come up with the same final colour (the final colour each being a total mix of the three colours: the original, your secret colour, and my secret colour).\n\nI can now use this final colour to encrypt the data, knowing that you will have independently come up with the exact same colour.\n\nIf someone else were watching us send these colours, they would get the first colour and the third pair of colours that were produced, but it would be very difficult for them to figure out what each of our secret colours were; it would be difficult for them to un-mix the third colour back to the first colour and whatever secret colour we each chose, so they would not be able to produce their own final colour.\n\nHTTPS uses mathematics that have similar properties, easy to compute one way, difficult to reverse."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3y0l6n
|
What would happen to the children of prostitutes in Roman society?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3y0l6n/what_would_happen_to_the_children_of_prostitutes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy9sug8"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In Roman society, children weren't seen as full people. If a parent possessed a child that was unwanted they would abandon them until they either were adopted by somebody that did want them, or succumbed to exposure. It would come to no surprise then, that this was a common practice among prostitutes in Roman society. (Not to discourage a more comprehensive answer, if there was something special about the children of prostitutes then I'd be very interested in hearing it)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1j5kc0
|
Was there a peaceful coexistence between the early Christian groups?
|
I am thinking about very early Christianity. To my current knowledge the main groups in early Christianity was was the Pauline Christians, Jewish Christians and the Gnostic Christians (please correct me if this list is not accepted)
We read can that Irenaeus did attack the Gnostic groups, but I understand this was a bit more later in history
Was these groups more tolerant to each other and lived side by side early on or was they divided from the start?
Thanks in advance and for any corrections!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j5kc0/was_there_a_peaceful_coexistence_between_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbbfrv1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I can come up with a couple examples:\n > And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.\nWhen therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.\n\nThat would be Acts 15:1-2. That would be an account of Paul having a dispute with \"Judaizers\". \n\nIn another example, we can see Paul encouraging coexistence\n > For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is rquarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that seach one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?\n\nIt seems that at least with that one issue of \"Do you have to be circumcised?\", Paul would be willing to go to war. But while we have no specific examples of how Paul, Apollos and Cephas differ, it must have not been that big of a deal to Paul.\n\nThose were examples of Paul interacting with Jewish Christians. What follows would be examples of Paul interacting with Gnostic Christioans\n\n > But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.\n\nor alternatively\n\n > For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.\n\nPaul said both of these things, but he said the opposite thing to different groups. \n\nConclusions:\n\nIt seems to me that pretty much all blanket statements become tropes because for every postulate, one can find counterexamples. But I think your three categories are spot on I think you would find people who retain their Jewish thinking, people who retain their Greek thinking, and people for whom Christianity becomes a new paradigm.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a4jtug
|
how the casino know where we put our bets on the roulette and how do they avoid us lying that we won the bet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a4jtug/eli5_how_the_casino_know_where_we_put_our_bets_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebf3as3",
"ebflb6b"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Each player has different colored chips. There is a big table with all the possible options that you can bet on. There's a space for each number, for black, for red, for odd numbers, etc. You have to put your chips on the table before the dealer waves and says no more bets. There is a camera right above it. Then the ball lands on a particular color. If your bet wins, the dealer puts the correct amount of money on top.",
"The really ELI5 answer is: They watch you.\n\nThe dealer is watching first and foremost, it's their responsibility. Most of them have also been doing it long enough that even if they don't see you place extra chips on a winning bet (called capping a bet, not to be confused with pulling money off a losing bet called pinching a bet) they will often notice if they look away and look back and more chips were there than they remembered.\n\nBut cameras are always watching. Even if the eyes behind the camera aren't watching you at that very moment the camera is recording so it's as simple as going back on a youtube video to double check if anyone did anything funny on that table.\n\nAnd it's a crime. Around these parts it's similar to theft and at best you're going to give the money back and get your ass kicked out and at worst end up in jail."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3zjwon
|
How did France's Revolutionary Army equip itself? How could it supply almost a million men?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3zjwon/how_did_frances_revolutionary_army_equip_itself/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cymw03x"
],
"score": [
32
],
"text": [
"The French Revolutionary army was an odd animal. Hodgepodge and haphazard, the Revolutionary army was very different than the previous armies of France. Rather than the restrained, well kept armies dressed in white, the French Revolutionary army was funded and equipped with what they found or given.\n\nThe French Revolution and the declaration of the Republic pulled power from the King and placed it in the hands of the people, this included the rights and ability to produce arms. Almost right away, the French Assembly started setting up more foundries and manufactures to produce armaments. Rather than the famed Charleville factory, which made muskets, factories were set up all throughout France to produce hundreds of thousands of muskets \n\nOf course, not all soldiers carried or wore French items. War was the best supplier of arms for the French as they would often take abandoned muskets and artillery guns as well as taking the clothes of the dead or from prisoners. Since the .69 calibre musket was generally the smallest calibre used by European armies, the French didn't need to worry about using different ammunition and often used captured enemy cartridges.\n\nOther units such as members of the national guard would wear their own clothes, being required a blue jacket of a certain style and given a pike if muskets were not available."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
cmuyip
|
why does playing a game at higher frames than originally intended (e.g. 60fps instead of 30fps) often cause glitches with the physics?
|
If you change the game to be 60fps, shouldn’t everything adjust as a result?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cmuyip/eli5_why_does_playing_a_game_at_higher_frames/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ew4wxbu",
"ew4x93j"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"These games run the FPS and the physics engine in the same loop, and make some assumptions about the speed. They don't calculate physics that would have happened since the last calculation, they just calculate another 1/30 of a second of physics. So, by increasing the FPS, you increase the number of physics calculations but not the time its calculated for, resulting in 'faster' physics.",
"Graphics and physics are processed separately. Think about the inside of your computer. It has a \"processor\", which is technically called a CPU, or \"central processing unit\", that handles all of the math and interactions between things, etc. Then you have the \"graphics card\", which is technically called a GPU, or \"graphics processing unit\". Note how they are both distinct processing units. Basically, graphics require so much memory that you have to do them separately.\n\nNow, the CPU tells the GPU what it should be doing in general, such as \"make the character move forward by flying/walking/etc.\" but the GPU does the calculations of what it looks like, such as your feet hitting the ground and the weapon swaying in your arms. To a large degree, where you see your character is what the CPU recognizes for physics.\n\nSo, the CPU and GPU are linked, but let's say the GPU is updating information faster than the CPU (such as playing at 60 fps on a game intended for 30 fps). You run your character into a wall. Your character model running forward happens at a faster speed than the CPU registers the collision of your character against the wall. For a brief moment (milliseconds), your character model passes into the object model of the wall. When the CPU next refreshes, it calculates a collision, since it has a program saying those two models can't intersect, but since you are intersecting, it forces you out of the wall at high speeds.\n\nYou can do similar things playing at low FPS, but the logic is a backward (CPU registers movement but character model never intersects with another object)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1al2o0
|
What are the properties of plasma formed at reentry in the atmosphere?
|
Kerbal Space Program have just released reentry effects, and some are complaining that the color of the reentry effects should be differently colored depending on the atmosphere.
So that made me wonder, what exactly decide the color of the plasma formed around a space capsule on reentry.
Since I knew little and less about the topic, I grasped at terms I had learned at high school such as black-body radiation, plasma, ionization, absorbation and spectrum analysis, and attacked Wikipedia and Google with raging fury.
However, I cannot find anything about the properties of the plasma. I know plasma glows, and according to Wikipedia, Oxygen glows blue and Nitrogen glows pink/violet.
So, is the color of the plasma blueish? From what I've seen on pictures and documentaries, it's red/orange.
So what are the properties of the reentry plasma? And where can I learn more about it? My google-fu have failed me this time.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1al2o0/what_are_the_properties_of_plasma_formed_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8yg8oh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Oxygen glows blue due to [glow discharge](_URL_0_) while re-entry plasma is basically a [black body](_URL_2_) and its color depends on its temperature. \n\nAccording to [NASA](_URL_3_) the space shuttle reaches 3000 Farenheit, which is 1900 Kelvin which corresponds to orange-red black body radiation.\n\nEDIT: Here is a [Temperature chart](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_discharge",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Blackbody-colours-vertical.svg/38px-Blackbody-colours-vertical.svg.png",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation",
"http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_sys.html"
]
] |
|
1qb7p9
|
what difference does the wheel size make, specifically in regards to winter tires?
|
Ok, I have been looking for an answer to this and I can't find one I understand/that seems legit.
I have a new car, that came with 18" alloy wheels and the tires are 245/45R18 all seasons. But I live in Calgary and need winter tires. I do understand how winter tires work, I did my research and have the brand picked out but what I can't understand is the size.
I was thinking I would get the tires switched out so I have winter tires on the wheels that came with my car. In the spring when it comes time to switch back, my intention with this plan is to buy new wheels for the summer tires. Purely based on vanity, assuming in the next six months I will find what I'm looking for that will fit my car.
Everyone I've spoken to has said buy new wheels for the winter tires, and ones on a smaller wheel. 16 and 17" have been suggested. When I ask why, reasons include: it's cheaper, it's really expensive to have your tires switched out, a blank stare, etc. They don't seem to understand I would like new wheels in the spring, and I know you can change them. I don't intend to switch them out every season. It's also cheaper in the short term, and in the long term if I get new wheels anyways.
So, is there some kind of benefit to having winter tires on smaller wheels? I did hear there is more tire touching the ground....but I don't understand how that would work. If it is better (safer) I will do it but I need to know why it should be that way.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qb7p9/eli5_what_difference_does_the_wheel_size_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdb2351"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You want narrow tires for snow/ice. 245/45R18 aren't that narrow. \nUsually what people do is buy a cheap set of steel rims in a size common on econoboxes, so they cay buy cheap, tall, narrow econobox winter tires to put on them. Also because you can slide around into curbs and only mess up your cheap steel rims and not your nice alloy ones.\n\nThat said, your plan will work fine - especially since you live in Calgary and chinooks melt most of the snow. I never changed to winter tires when I lived in S Alberta."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ngifg
|
why i get so many nose bleeds in the winter and other people don't
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ngifg/eli5_why_i_get_so_many_nose_bleeds_in_the_winter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c38wgen",
"c38wmo6",
"c38xej1",
"c38y51a",
"c38wgen",
"c38wmo6",
"c38xej1",
"c38y51a"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
3,
6,
2,
9,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Its something to do with the sensitivity of the blood vessels in your nose and how the cold dry air of winter often exacerbates said sensitivity. Atleast thats how I think of it because I'm getting the fucking nose bleeds too.",
"Cold air is dry air. You may be able to make the nosebleeds stop by getting a humidifier for your home, or at least for your bedroom.",
"Shower more. Seriously. By regularly getting nice hot steam and moisture up in there, it keeps it from drying out.",
"You aren't alone! I don't feel like it's really winter until I wake up with a bloody pillowcase :/",
"Its something to do with the sensitivity of the blood vessels in your nose and how the cold dry air of winter often exacerbates said sensitivity. Atleast thats how I think of it because I'm getting the fucking nose bleeds too.",
"Cold air is dry air. You may be able to make the nosebleeds stop by getting a humidifier for your home, or at least for your bedroom.",
"Shower more. Seriously. By regularly getting nice hot steam and moisture up in there, it keeps it from drying out.",
"You aren't alone! I don't feel like it's really winter until I wake up with a bloody pillowcase :/"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
193eu5
|
the amazon web services
|
Things like what's the Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2).
What's the difference between the Simple Storage Service (S3), the Elastic Block Store (EBS) and Relational Database Service (RDS). And so on.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/193eu5/eli5_the_amazon_web_services/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8kgpkb"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The basic idea is that Amazon has *shitloads* of computers, all set up so that if one goes down, nobody will ever notice. They've designed their system to handle massive spikes of customers so they can handle the holiday rush. Once they had all this figured out, they realized they could rent out server space/time.\n\nEC2 gives you a virtual server that you can use for whatever you want - most people use them for web servers but that's not a requirement. You can create & destroy them on the fly from software, depending on the load. It's easy to clone fully-configured servers, rather than having to set each one up by hand.\n\nS3 is a way to store files for your website and redistribute them. You don't have to worry about buying new hard drives when you run out of space, doing back ups or even making sure you have enough bandwidth. Like EC2, you can easily manipulate things automatically with software.\n\nOne of the downsides to EC2 is that, while you can create and destroy servers automatically, you can't store much on them. If you wanted to run a database, for example, where you needed a lot of fast, reliable storage space it just wouldn't work. EBS gives you 'drives' you can attach to your EC2 instances.\n\nFor data that you want to keep around, but don't plan on using, there's Glacier. You 'pack it away' and can get to it if you need it, but it might take a while to get. If you want to keep data going back a few years to be safe, but never actually read anything older than 3 months - this is where you put it. It's a lot cheaper than the other storage services.\n\nThe RDS is (big surprise) a database. Once your server load gets past a certain point, it's hard to just add another database - RDS hides all the complexity of that from you and handles scaling and sharding and all the stuff you need when a site gets huge.\n\nThere's a bunch more services that tie in to these things. Some things, like the queuing service, start to make sense when your system is running on hundreds of servers at once."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
efvaim
|
How centralized was the Sassanid Empire?
|
I've heard that they were a centralized monarchy compared to the Arsacids/Parthians, but I've lso heard that they were extremely feudal and decentralized which was a factor for their quick demise to the Arabs. What's the truth here?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/efvaim/how_centralized_was_the_sassanid_empire/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fc2ptgj"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Honestly, it's hard to say. By the time of the Arab invasion, the Sasanian monarchy had by and large collapsed, and Khusrau Anushirwan's decision to split the empire into four administrative regions exacerbated this, turning it into, effectively, a series of principalities governed by the powerful nobility.\n\nI've expanded a bit on this [here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/e95xnh/did_justinian_make_a_mistake_by_waging_a_costly/fah3l5x/"
]
] |
|
52pd01
|
How did the jellyfish lifecycle evolve?
|
It seems like jellyfish have a interesting lifecycle. How did this evolve? What is the evolutionary advantage to having a polyp phase and a medusa phase? Wouldn't simply being one or the other keep the organism simpler and save energy?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/52pd01/how_did_the_jellyfish_lifecycle_evolve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7mxktq",
"d7n1s4w"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"just a highschool student, so this might be wrong, please correct me if i am: the polyp phase is adapted to sitting at the sea floor and getting food there, having is tentacles pointing upwards and its mouth adapted to eat stuff that it finds there. after it gets enough time to grow and mature, the adult jellyfish we're used to seeing has a shape that's adapted to swimming and can go find food in the open sea without competing with the younger ones, while also getting to reproduce wherever it happens to go, spreading the population over a larger area.",
"Cnidarians (the phylum that includes sea jellies) is a very interesting and complex group of organisms. Something that unites them is their life cycle, going from polyp to medusa. Some have extended polyp stages like the anemone, and some have extended medusa stages like the sea jelly. It's hard to say exactly why evolution happens. A chance mutation may have been beneficial leading that trait to be passed on. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
oswhi
|
How do our bodies stay together?
|
By this I mean, what compels the atoms in our body to stay together in the perfect alignment to create our form our cells, bones, and tissue? how could those atoms perfectly align themselves in the correct formation millions of times to form us?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/oswhi/how_do_our_bodies_stay_together/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3js8hy",
"c3jszki"
],
"score": [
27,
3
],
"text": [
"Big question my friend.\n\nCovalent Bonds: Atoms form together to form molecules. I am not a quantum physicist, so I can not explain this process perfectly, but simply put, atoms join together because that is what they do. That is the nature of out universe. By sharing electrons, they form a lower energy state, and they like to have low energy. This is a very strong bond. Thus, water, tends to stay as water, rather than breaking down into hydrogen and oxygen. So, first we need to think of the various types of big molecules that make up your body. Remembering, that generally speaking, molecules are stable, and wont break down unless acted on. And they are stable because of covalent bonds, the sharing of electrons that atoms like to do.\n\nFats: Fats... you know what they are. But on a molecular level, they are long changes of carbon atoms hung together, with some hydrogen atoms. Different fats have different lengths of carbon, hung together in slightly different ways. This is what makes some fats liquid at room temperature, and some solid.\n\nProteins: Proteins are where you body gets exciting. These are made from little molecular building blocks called \"amino acids\" There are 21 different amino acids that your body uses. And each one is a group of 10-40 atoms joined together via those covalent bonds. The body knows what to do with these amino acids through various complex systems. Think of them like lego blocks. They all have slightly different shapes and properties, but they all join together, \n\nDNA: DNA (and other nucleic acid) is also made building blocks, 4 or 5 different types. This is (generally) the information store for your cells. Think of it like a book, but instead of having hundreds of thousands of different words, DNA has 4. The order of those words tell the story. In this case, DNA tells the body how to make protein. \n\nCarbohydrates. Sugars, starches. Again, we have building blocks. You may have heard of glucose? Well that is your sugar buidling block. This can get joined with other similar things, to make long chain sugars, that your body stores for energy (along with fats, which are also energy stores).\n\nNow you know what makes up a cell, lets build one. Your body is made up of millions of cells. About a 10th the width of a human hair. They are little bags, The wall of the bag is made up of those fats we talked about. Slightly modified, so that they like to disolve in water at one end, and hide from water in the other. If you get enough of these fats together, the spontaneously form into little bags, much like how soapy water will spontaneously form bubbles. Inside the bag, i.e. the cell, smaller little bags of fats are made, where different reactions happen. What kind of reactions? Well this is where protein comes in.\n\nProteins can be made to do huge amounts of amazing things, just like lego. With a few buidling blocks, you can make almost anything.\n\nLook at this video\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThis is a protein in action. They have many truly amazing actions. Muscle contration is because of long fibres of proteins in your muscles pulling on each other. You see because of light sensitive proteins in your retina. You name it, proteins are doing it. The other amazing thing they can do, is force chemical reactions. Here they are called \"enzymes\". They can act in various ways, but just think about it like the protein grabbing one molecule, and another, and then forcing them together. They force them together in such a perfect way, that the form new covalent bonds. Your enzymes produce a lot of the raw material for your body by forcing molecules together, or breaking them apart (there are a few things we can't make, and hence we need to eat them, like vitamins).\n\nSo, now we have cells, bags of fat, with proteins working inside.\n\nFinally, on those cells, other proteins can sit; trapped in the fats. These proteins can be used to make your cells rigid (otherwise they would just be floppy bags). And they can also join together with the proteins on other cells. Linking all the cells together to form organs.\n\nSO there you go\n\nAtoms go with other atoms via covalent bonds, which are very strong, to form molecules. Molecules get joined up (also via covalent bonds) to make fats, DNA, protein and carbohydrates.\n\nModified fats make the cell wall, and proteins inside the bags do the molecular work, including making new things, and fixing old things. Proteins of the surfaces of the cells, make the cells rigid, and join cells together to make tissues. ",
"I'm not sure if this a question about chemical bonding, or what align things in the body. Contrary to simple cell diagrams you would see in a textbooks, cells aren't simple liquid-filled sacs: both the inside and outside of cells and their components (organelles) are packed with structural proteins that keep things together. It is these proteins that \"stick\" cells together and facilitate movement within and outside the cell"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOSyGTYCRFw&feature=related"
],
[]
] |
|
2q5qem
|
Why would an asteroid impact produce more than a hole in the ground?
|
Found this: _URL_0_
It says that an airburst destroyed an estimated 80 million trees in 1908. How does that happen? How does the heat generated by air compression cause the asteroid to explode? Why doesn't it simply... melt or burn away?
If it strikes the ground (in the heart of a city), how does the kinetic energy eventually destroy a large portion of the city? Why doesn't it simply smash through a building into the ground, leaving a huge crater?
Having some trouble connecting the dots.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2q5qem/why_would_an_asteroid_impact_produce_more_than_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn43ha7",
"cn43lbq"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Keep in mind that meteors impact really, really fast. The meteorite that produced [Meteor Crater](_URL_0_) is theorized to have impacted at 12.8km/s. At that speed, it doesn't just leave a hole in the ground: The meteor is heated by the extreme deformation, and most or all of it is immediately vaporized in a large explosion. The pressure wave and heat emitted in this explosion are what causes all the damage. This pressure and heat are basically the same way that nuclear bombs cause so much damage. In the case of that meteor in 1908, friction from the atmosphere alone was enough to heat it to the point of exploding, so it was much more destructive over a wide area than it would be if it had hit the ground. Nuclear bombs are also deployed in this manner; they detonate in the air to damage a much wider area.",
"Given enough speed running into a fluid (like air) is just like running into a solid. It happens rather frequently. Sometimes they are big too;\n\n- _URL_1_\n\nAs for the \"how\" try this article ;\n\n- _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://gizmodo.com/5984469/what-would-actually-happen-if-the-2012-da14-asteroid-crashed-for-real"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater#Formation"
],
[
"http://www.wired.com/2013/02/why-does-a-meteor-explode-in-the-air/",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#Asteroid_air_burst"
]
] |
|
7rafie
|
Are there problems in computer science that no algorithm can solve for all inputs?
|
I know (vaguely) of NP complete problems that can not be solved by an algorithm in polynomial time, but are there problems that we can’t write an algorithm to solve for all inputs? Intuitively I’m inclined to believe that there must be problems so complex you could never make a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm to solve them, but I can’t find anything online saying that’s necessarily true. Is my intuition correct? Or, can any problem, no matter the complexity and number of inputs, be solved given enough time?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7rafie/are_there_problems_in_computer_science_that_no/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsvdm3p",
"dsyudi7",
"dt0his0"
],
"score": [
35,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Are you familiar with Undecidable problems:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nand specifically the Halting problem?:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAlso an important excerpt:\n\n > Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm running on a Turing machine that solves the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs necessarily cannot exist.",
"I don't know of a problem that isn't solvable for *all* inputs, but the closest I can think of would be the [busy beaver problem](_URL_0_). It is known that this problem is undecidable in general, and there are only four instances of the problem that have been solved in total.\n\nThe problem is, roughly: given a Turing machine with a fixed number of states and tape symbols, how long can such a machine execute and still eventually halt? \n\nIn a sense it is a dual to the halting problem itself, and the halting problem is how we can prove that it is undecidable. If we knew that any halting 4-state Turing machine could only execute for a maximum of N transitions, then you could run any 4-state Turing machine for N transitions and determine that if the machine has not stopped yet then it will never stop. In effect, the busy beaver problem is an oracle for the halting problem, and thus must be undecidable itself.",
"People have already given the correct answer to this, namely that yes there are indeed decision problems that are undecidable, and functions that are not computable.\n\nBut I feel like adding that your intuition that there could be some problem that is *so complex* that we just can't solve it is not quite right. Complexity is not the problem - there is something inherently self-referential about the question. Since a Turing machine (which is equivalent to any reasonable model of computation) operates on strings, and a Turing machine can also be represented as a string, a Turing machine can be forced to run *on itself* as input. So you are going to run into difficulties that are related to \"this statement is a lie\" and \"the set of all sets that do not contain themselves\". What Turing did was leverage this difficulty in the correct way to show that the Halting problem is undecidable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver"
],
[]
] |
|
5cgg8f
|
do all software have bugs in their code or can there be bug-free software?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cgg8f/eli5do_all_software_have_bugs_in_their_code_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9w9g6p",
"d9w9uyr"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"As software becomes more complex, the likelihood that it will be used in unforseen ways increases exponentially. \n\nThere are tons of bug-free software. Have you ever seen a 4-function calculator crash? Probably not. \n\nBut, realistically, the chances of having something as complex as Windows or MacOS or a modern day video-game not have any bugs is zero. There's just too much going on.",
"A bug in program just means that there is a discrepancy between what the programmer wanted it to do and what it actually does. I.e. it crashes when someone inputs numbers or is too slow to be convenient. \nWith small snippets it's very easy to make a software which doesn't have such mistakes. For example, a program which replies to all inputs with \"hello\" would be rather hard to get wrong.\n\nHowever, when you expand the scope of the project, guaranteeing perfect operation becomes impossible. With arbitrary inputs, people intentionally trying to break it and potentially millions of lines of code all interacting with each other, it's impossible to confirm that the software works perfectly in every situation imaginable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7308rw
|
Did Martin Luther condemn peasants because he truly believed that they were acting like savages, or was he trying to look good for the political leaders that the peasants went against?
|
Or was it a mixture of both? Thanks in advance.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7308rw/did_martin_luther_condemn_peasants_because_he/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnn19te"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"My estimation is that Luther meant what he wrote concerning the 1525 Peasants' Rebellion. More broadly, he wasn't politically ignorant, but he was also not really known for flattering those in authority or trying to look good for political leaders against his own views. He knew how to say things in a persuasive way, but I have a great deal of trouble believing he'd go to such lengths to please the princes against his better judgment.\n\nIn looking at his writings concerning the events, I think this holds true, that's he did believe what he wrote. There's three important documents here: *Admonition to Peace*, a reply to the 12 Articles of the Swabian Peasants; *Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants*; and *An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants*. All are from 1525, at different stages of the events - the first is fairly moderate; the second, much more extreme; and the third, a response to the criticism he received for the second.\n\nIn the first, the *Admonition*, Luther acknowledged that the peasants had some just cause to be upset; he addressed the rulers:\n\n > As temporal rulers you do nothing but cheat and rob the people so that you may lead a life of luxury and extravagance. The poor common people cannot bear it any longer... Since you are the cause of this wrath of God, it will undoubtedly come upon you, unless you mend your ways in time.\n\nTo the peasants in the same *Admonition* he wrote:\n\n > You, too, must be careful that you take up your cause justly and with a good conscience... But if you act unjustly and have a bad conscience, you will be defeated.\n\nHe continues:\n\n > The fact that the rulers are wicked and unjust does not excuse disorder and rebellion, for the punishing of wickedness is not the responsibility of everyone, but of the worldly rulers who bear the sword. Thus Paul says in Romans 13 and Peter, in 1 Peter 3, that the rulers are instituted by God for the punishment of the wicked.\n\n > The rulers unjustly take your property; that is the one side. On the other hand, you take from them their authority, in which their whole property and life and being consist. Therefore you are the far greater robbers than they, and you intend to do worse things than they have done.\n\nHe goes on to describe and condemn any breakdown of law and order and mob rule, and concluding:\n\n > In saying this it is not my intention to justify or defend the rulers in the intolerable injustices which you suffer from them. They are unjust, and commit heinous wrongs against you; that I admit. If, however, neither side accepts instruction and you start to fight with each other - may God prevent it! - I hope that neither side will be called Christian.\n\nRemember, this is from the first of those three writings, the *Admonition*, which is the more moderate and earliest of them. It was only when this preaching failed and the violence escalated that he then advocated for the princes' use of force to crush the rebellion and restore civil order. \n\nLuther was consistent throughout his career in respecting civil order and had a strong aversion to any civil rebellion, chaos, mob rule, etc. It's easy to mistake him at first glance, assuming in his opposition to the authority of the papacy he cared little for such things, but it's quite the opposite. He valued authority highly indeed; his opposition to papal authority was because he was concerned with higher authority of God and Scripture. His political philosophy was broadly defined by his perspective of the Two Kingdoms - the right-hand kingdom is defined by the Gospel of God's grace and salvation by faith in Christ alone, while the left-hand kingdom is concerned with matters of this world and included (but was not necessarily limited to) civil government and earthly rulers. It's important to note that this is not a distinction between church and state; both the right-hand and left-hand kingdoms are ultimately ruled by God for the good of His people, but one is characterized by Law and one by Gospel.\n\nPrimary source: *Luther: Selected Political Writings*, edited by J. M. Porter"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cbhqx2
|
why do more razor blades = a closer shave and more razor burn?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cbhqx2/elif_why_do_more_razor_blades_a_closer_shave_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etfj7nh",
"etfl6ad"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Each item on a razor blade pulls the skin tighter and tighter as it passes over the skin. A 5 blade razor will pull from the back of the head, and then each blade which will slice closer and closer to the stretched skin. Since your skin isn’t perfectly smooth you end up ‘shaving’ a little bit of your skin off which causes irritation and inflammation, aka razor burn.\n\nIf you suffer from this, use a single blade safety razor.",
"More blades removes more layers of skin, allowing you to remove more of the hair than like a single blade. Losing the extra layers of dermis causes the razor burn."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1vt977
|
why are rear wheel drive cars better for racing than front wheel drive cars
|
please say more than just "torque steer'
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vt977/why_are_rear_wheel_drive_cars_better_for_racing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cevkgj5",
"cevkzx0",
"cevlrhb",
"cevo5kt",
"cevoctf"
],
"score": [
78,
5,
12,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Mostly because 1) when a car accelerates, weight is shifted to the rear. More weight = more traction. By the same token, less weight in the front means less traction. 2) Steering is easier because in a FWD car, the front wheels have to move the vehicle AND steer. You can get a lot of negative side-effects like torque-steer and understeer. RWD cars propel from the rear and allow the front wheels to just steer. Pretty oversimpified, tho.\n\nedit: words",
"if you look at all the \"hot hatch\" type cars, they are tryig to push more power than any other type of car through the front weels. They can only realistically go up to like 300hp without needing all sorts of clever trickery to eliminate torque steer, wheel spin, heavy steering, etc. Its simpler and easier in high power cars to jut put the power to the back for a plethora of reasons, which have already been stated so I won't waste your time. Also, people tend not to realize this but race cars are as a general rule extremely simple. So in following that logic rear wheel drive is the common choice",
"As others have said, weight transfer and the pushing/pulling effect are parts of it. When the car accelerates, the weight is put onto the rear tires. For drag racing/accelerating, this makes RWD better because you can put more power down. In the corners, RWD also wins because although weight is being transferred off of the front wheels, the rear wheels sort of push the front end down again. This allows a RWD to corner much faster than a FWD. RWD also allows for better weight distribution. One of the best handling cars in the world, the 1st-gen Mazda Miata, is able to have an almost perfect 49.5/50.5 F/R weight distribution because of its drivetrain. RWD is also more controllable if one end of the car loses traction. It's faster to oversteer around a corner than to plow through it understeering, although keeping the tires gripping is still the fastest line. That, in a nutshell, is why RWD is favored by racers.",
"Makes doing donuts easier.",
"All of these are great answers. I'm an automotive engineer, and I've studied this exact question. The major reason is the transfer of effective sprung weight (as people here have mentioned). Basically, as a car accelerates, the centre of mass is effectively shifted backwards. This means there is more weight over the rear wheels, increasing the normal force between the rear tires and road surface. As frictional force is directly proportional to this (normal) force, the rear tires have increased grip under acceleration. The same principles apply with deceleration (braking) which is why our main braking system (brake pedal as opposed to handbrake) is on the front wheels.\n\nEdit: If we were explaining it like we were 25 year olds, the transfer of effective mass is explained by Einstein's theory of equivalence, that the effects of gravity and acceleration are equatable. This means that as you accelerate, it's as if gravity is acting on the rear of the car more than the front."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1igyss
|
If the Moon is slowly moving away from us, what will happen to the Earth when this actually happens?
|
It seems the moon is moving farther and farther away from the Earth every year. When the moon is no longer in orbit, what will happen to the Earth and the moon?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1igyss/if_the_moon_is_slowly_moving_away_from_us_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb4cnp1",
"cb4itmk"
],
"score": [
40,
6
],
"text": [
"The Moon will never leave orbit. Its track widens at a rate of only a few centimeters per year, and given current rates of change, the Earth will become tidally locked with the Moon (keeping the same face constantly toward each other) long before it can to leave orbit. At that point its orbit will stop expanding, so we'll still have the Moon when the Sun expands into a red giant and engulfs us in its last days.",
"The earth is transfering its own rotational inertia into the rotational inertia of the earth moon system. This is done by tidal deformation of the earths crust. The result is that the earth rotation slows down and the moons orbital distance increases. When the earth becomes tidally locked to the moon this will stop and the moon will start to get closer to the earth again due to radiation of gravitational energy (this will take eons to matter).\n\nThere is less rotational energy in the earth moon system than is required to eject the moon. It will never leave earth's orbit due to purely internal influence."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6y3eqi
|
what is that strange feeling of numbness we get when we wake up in the middle of the night?
|
Sometimes, I wake up in the middle of the night not feeling my body. I am fully awake and aware of my surrounding but I can not feel any single part of my body and slowly regain feeling of it
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y3eqi/eli5what_is_that_strange_feeling_of_numbness_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmkht2j"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yer probably describin' the physical consequences of *sleep paralysis.*\n\nYarr! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: Sleep Paralysis ](_URL_7_)\n1. [ELI5: Sleep paralysis and why it happens. ](_URL_0_)\n1. [ELI5: Sleep Paralysis ](_URL_2_)\n1. [ELI5: Sleep paralysis? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [ELI5: How does sleep paralysis work and why does it happen? ](_URL_3_)\n1. [ELI5: Sleep paralysis ](_URL_6_)\n1. [ELI5: What happens during sleep paralysis? ](_URL_4_)\n1. [ELI5: What does Sleep paralysis feel like? What happens during it? ](_URL_5_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p0zz0/eli5_sleep_paralysis_and_why_it_happens/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ohjso/eli5_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4evd7k/eli5_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/581vdp/eli5_how_does_sleep_paralysis_work_and_why_does/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gkmbk/eli5_what_happens_during_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46iskd/eli5_what_does_sleep_paralysis_feel_like_what/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u55av/eli5_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rje2w/eli5_sleep_paralysis/"
]
] |
|
2h13vd
|
how come only the skin on the palm of our hands and at the bottom of our feet get 'soggy' when we are in water for too long? why not our arms or legs etc?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h13vd/eli5_how_come_only_the_skin_on_the_palm_of_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckock9z",
"ckocy4t"
],
"score": [
4,
8
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ \n \n\"...Common perception is that wrinkling is a local effect on the skin, unconnected to rest of the body... \nEinar Wilder-Smith, a neurologist at the National University of Singapore, has done research looking into the wrinkling effect over the past decade. His research suggests that finger wrinkling relies on nerve endings that entangle sweat glands and blood vessels in our fingers. “",
"Nobody knows. However [some scientists believe](_URL_0_) it is to give our ancestors better grip on wet/slippery objects, and it is a nervous reaction."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://the-sieve.com/2012/04/14/the-story-told-by-fingers-that-dont-wrinkle/"
],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/09/skin-wrinkle-water-grip"
]
] |
||
7a6t3s
|
why and how is bottling up your feelings bad for your health
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7a6t3s/eli5_why_and_how_is_bottling_up_your_feelings_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp7kd8h",
"dp7lhyx",
"dp7myi2"
],
"score": [
22,
12,
5
],
"text": [
"It'll make you neurotic. If you can't process and come to acceptance of your emotions, it can lead to anxiety, depression, bouts of anger, unhealthy impulses, and self destructive coping mechanisms.",
"Because burying your feelings tends to make them last longer and even get worse. Negative feelings accumulate in our unconscious and cause negative emotional responses to other stimulus that may not have caused negative feelings without that extra baggage. \n\n\nWhen you are emotionally hurt, angry, etc, you experience a bunch of physical symptoms which are typically lumped together as “stress”. They can include increased heart rate and blood pressure, increased production of various hormones and other biochemical messages within your body, etc. \n\nAll of these physical responses actually have an evolutionary purpose - your body is trying to get ready for whatever physical exercise you may need to undergo to escape from whatever danger is causing your stress. Ultimately, your body is built to survive, and stress is an indicator to your body that survival may be at risk, better get ready. \n\nHowever, modern stress isn’t really about survival of the “better-run-or-get-eaten” variety. And moreover, it doesn’t go away in a few minutes to an hour the way evolution has taught our bodies stress is likely to behave. Instead, we remain stressed for days, weeks, months, and our bodies undergo that chemical “better be ready” thing far longer than our ancestors ever had to. So we end up with higher blood pressure and heart disease, weakened immune systems, lack of sleep, headaches, even just grinding our teeth. It can all affect our health negatively. ",
"Among other things stress can lead to heart disease. Just like lack of sleep caused by stress. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b8a2l7
|
what is the laplacian operator (in both scalar and vector forms) in vector calculus?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b8a2l7/eli5_what_is_the_laplacian_operator_in_both/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejwnlhz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Laplacian can be thought of as the \"curvature\" of a function. To grossly simplify it, you could say it takes the average of the gradients of a function. For example, a flat surface will have no curvature and thus has a Laplacian of 0."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3gtyc4
|
How historically accurate are Shakespeare's histories?
|
I assume Shakespeare spruced up the dialogue, but is there anything in any of his plays which is outright wrong? And, if so, would his audiences have known or cared?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gtyc4/how_historically_accurate_are_shakespeares/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu1hfh5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As Bill Bryson Notes in his edition of the Eminent Lives series, the history plays were highly reflective of the mood and political movements of the time and always looking to curry favour with the Monarch as well as provide entertainment for Londoners of all classes. This, it is believed, is where we get the warped interpretation of King Richard the 3rd as a person and ruler - as Shakespeare was almost demonising the last Plantagenet King who was superseded through war by the Tudor Dynasty, to which Elizabeth belonged.\n\nThis point would naturally provide inaccuracies in terms of character and actual legacy of the historical figures - but also, there are some hard-factual inaccuracies too. For example, as Bryson puts it, \n\n > \"Whether by design or or from ignorance, he could be \nbreathtakingly casual with facts...In Henry VI part I, for example, he dispatches Lord Talbot twenty-two years early, conveniently \nallowing him to predecease Joan of Arc.\n\nAlso, again either through ignorance or poetic license, there are Geographical and seemingly obvious inaccuracies in his comedies and tragedies. A glaring example is,\n\n > \"...In the Tempest and Two Gentlemen of Verona he has Prospero and Valentine set sail from, respectively, Milan and Verona, even though both cities are a good two days' travel from salt water.\n\nSo although Shakespeare it is believed had a good education in Stratford, his plays [history, comedy and tragedy alike] abound with factual errors, embellishments and misplacements. Whether this was through ignorance, poetic license, fear of arrest for outraging the nobility/monarch is a matter of speculation. His more worldly audience (such as merchants and the nobility) would have known to a certain extent, whether the common audience would have cared is unknown, but royal and aristocratic patrons definitely would have cared if the history plays showed them and their ilk in a less than positive light.\n\nEdit: At present, my only quotable source is this book by Bill Bryson, as I have literally just finished reading it and am away from my bookcase. I will add further citations from other works if people request, but it won't be for a good few days! \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7ic323
|
What happens when hadrons collide in a particle accelerator?
|
Do the collisions behave the same as the sort of collisions in high school physics classes where momentum and energy are conserved?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7ic323/what_happens_when_hadrons_collide_in_a_particle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqxopp8",
"dqxutok"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, energy and momentum are conserved. There are many different processes which can occur when particles collide, depending on the types of particles and the collision energy. But the total energy and momentum are always conserved.",
"At high energies, the collisions often produce a lot of new particles.\n\nOverall energy and momentum are conserved (they are conserved in *every* process if we ignore cosmology), but instead of two high energy particles you often get somewhere between 10 and 100 particles at lower energy per particle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4nexpg
|
Celebrations in liberated countries WW2
|
The common imagery that comes to mind when thinking of liberated cities of WW2 is people in the streets waving flags and hugging solders as they marched down the street (I think I've seen footage of such events). Was that just press re-enactments or was it real. If so, how was it organized? Where did they get the flags? If not, what was the liberation actually like?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4nexpg/celebrations_in_liberated_countries_ww2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d43nvcz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Although it is common to see flag-waving and bouquet-throwing civilians greeting Allied troops, this is not always representative of experiences across Europe. It is important to note that in many places in Europe, some of which were flattened by preliminary bombing operations or artillery shelling, displayed neither euphoria nor gratitude to Allied troops. Additionally, the liberations of Europe came unevenly in rural and urban regions, an important dynamic many fail to appreciate.\n\nOne example to illustrate this is the battle for the Schelde in the southern Netherlands between October and November 1944. As a way to open the port of Antwerp, First Canadian Army was given the task to clear the islands of the Dutch province of Zeeland, which protrude into the North Sea and overlook the route into the port. Given the resource and personnel shortages of First Canadian Army, Lt.-Gen. Guy Simmonds and British Admiral Bertram Ramsay proposed to bomb the dykes of Walcheren island, which was well below sea level, and flood the island. Beginning on 3 October 1944, over 10,000 tons of ordnance were dropped on the island (and elsewhere) to flood optimal German defensive positions prior to executing amphibious attacks. By 28 October 1944, thousands of hectares of the province were flooded with saltwater. For the sake brevity, I will say that the Allied action killed about 10 percent of Westkapelle on the first day of the operation and we know that villages elsewhere experienced similar casualties.\n\nIn the end, many towns and villages in Zeeland have a very different understanding and memory of the Second World War. \"Liberation\" in autumn 1944 made houses uninhabitable, flooded arable land with saltwater, and ensured that the war would be synonymous with inundation. The *Bevrijdingsdag* (Liberation Day) celebrated in May in the northern provinces is inapplicable to this province.\n\nIn places where Allies were greeted joyously by Dutch civilians, some of the gatherings were spontaneous and others were permitted by SHAEF Civil Affairs units or hitherto \"illegal\" resistance groups like the *Ordedienst*, which, depending on the region in the Netherlands, acted as translators and guides for some Canadian units. The photos you mention above typically belie the anger and frustration many civilians sought to express to local authorities and Allied troops. In at least one case, elements of 2 Canadian Corp needed to protect members of the NSB/Nazi sympathizers from Dutch civilians, and ensure they were turned over to the correct authorities for interrogation. Civilians sought first and foremost justice rather than jubilation. In general, and I must emphasize the generality of this statement, the euphoria of civilians depicted in the media is often taken from towns or regions which were not devastated by \"mopping up\" operations or large-scale aerial bombardment. \n\nFor more on Belgium, see Peter Schrijvers' *Liberators: Allies and Belgian Society* (Cambridge University Press, 2009). For the above example, see [one of my articles](_URL_0_). I hope this helps."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://caans-acaen.ca/Journal/issues_online/Volume_34_Issue_2_2013/CJNS34-2pp29-56Goodlet.pdf"
]
] |
|
2i25zr
|
Are there any examples of prophecies that have led to war?
|
e.g. Croesus and the Delphic Oracle
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2i25zr/are_there_any_examples_of_prophecies_that_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl1iw25"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Apparently not haha"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
g1o3qr
|
why do some humans become depressed/anxious when all alone and other humans don't?
|
I generally become very depressed when I'm alone, while my friend is very happy being alone. Why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g1o3qr/eli5_why_do_some_humans_become_depressedanxious/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fngpz0i",
"fnh1arj"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't believe there's a single person who wouldn't get depressed when left alone too long. We're a social species and there are many cases where extended isolation has severely damaged people's mental well-being. \n\nNow I think there are definitely people who get depressed faster than the others. Every person is different and it's not really a symptom of anything more than your personality.\n\nI generally am good left to my own devices. But, in a case like this where I'm left alone too long I feel an itch to see people. I miss the company of others even if I don't relish actually speaking to them.\n\nThere's loads of things nowadays online about \"introverts\" and \"extroverts\" and people are very quick to say they are one or the other but psychology is not as simple as \"you exhibit one behaviour. You are X\". Everyone is different and needs their own levels of social interaction to keep sane and I think that may just be human nature. \n\nThere's nothing wrong with you for preferring your own company and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be around people as long as you're not doing harm to yourself and those around you. It's all about knowing yourself and your needs.",
"I imagine that in our evolution, being alone could mean you were losing some social opportunity, and could even be dangerous. Or it could be fine and give time to rest and plan.\n\nSo maybe there is natural brain variation in how people tend to respond. Or it may depend on how they are feeling about themselves and their social situation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1yqjoo
|
if keeping your heart rate up is good for you during exercise, is the same true of watching scary movies, playing video games, or other passive heart rate boosters?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yqjoo/eli5_if_keeping_your_heart_rate_up_is_good_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfmuy6j",
"cfn4hy5",
"cfnasqy"
],
"score": [
27,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Heart rate increases due to exercise are healthier than heart rate increases due to terror (eg. watching a scary movie). Terror-based heart rate increases are accompanied by a spike in adrenaline, which can be damaging to your heart over time. ",
"When you are afraid, anxious, or stressed, the main causes of passive heart rate increase, your body releases cortisol. [It has a lot of negative effects](_URL_0_) including decreased immune function, weight gain, muscle break-down, and decreased thyroid activity. Source provided is one of many you can find.",
"Exercise for your heart is good for maintaining health overall because it is participating in a physical activity, but any thing that causes a \"passive\" boost to your heart is caused by stress, which is a mental activity. There is many different forms of stress that are both positive and negative towards your health, and there are many reasons that causes it. It certainly depends on your initial reaction to certain events, e.g. falling in love, watching scary movies, looking at a pair of breasts for 10 minutes, playing multiplayer FPS video games (i.e. internet lag), throwing a surprise party, or popping the question. Your reactions to these events, based on stress, good or bad, causes you to release a chemical called cortisol. Cortisol has both negative and positive values to what it does to your heart, and overall health. It depends on the events you are experiencing that causes such values to have either a good or bad impact on your heart rate (and health). E.g. a cardiac arrest can develop from the release of cortisol in a stressful situation, like your friends scaring the living bejeebers out of you, or a frail old man.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.castanet.net/news/Natural-Health-News/63064/Negative-effects-of-Cortisol"
],
[]
] |
||
3rvc37
|
What exactly caused Europeans to be seen as barbarians by the Chinese?
|
It's often said that China had a sino-centric view of the world and anyone who was not Chinese was automatically considered a barbarian.
But I read recently that Europeans before the 18th century usually didn't use forks, and would instead cut their food with a knife and eat it with their hands. For Chinese people who've been using chopsticks for centuries, assuming they held the notion that eating with your bare hands is barbaric, that would certainly make Europeans seem like barbarians.
So basically, did Chinese people mention any specific Europeans dress, behavior, appearance, food, language, culture, etc. as seeming "barbaric"?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3rvc37/what_exactly_caused_europeans_to_be_seen_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwrpn5q",
"cwrqd29"
],
"score": [
64,
30
],
"text": [
"I believe your question stems from debate regarding the precise definition of the Chinese term 夷 (*yi*) which appears to have arisen in the mid-19th century. This term was variously translated as 'foreigner' or 'barbarian' - the latter use promulgated by a Pomeranian missionary-cum-translator in China in the early 19th century, the former championed by Waley (1889-1966) and earlier documentation provided by individuals ranging from Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) to British envoy George Macartney (1737-1806) - which made no note of *yi* as a perjorative.\n\nAdditionally the Qing Chinese stressed that *yi* merely designated foreigners deemed as 'easterners' (the British most regularly visited Eastern ports), with *man* designating southern foreigners, *rong* northerners, and so forth. The British interpreted the term as highly offensive and showing of contempt - and indeed the term did have currency as a frequent distinguisher of Chinese culture from outsiders - the extent of distaste it showed for the latter being the subject of bitter discourse.\n\nIndeed the issue of *yi* coloured relations between Britain and Qing China to such a degree that article 51 of the Anglo-Chinese Treaty of Tianjin (1858) specifically addresses its use, prohibiting its official use in reference to the British government (with a translation of the article [here](_URL_0_)). Historian Lydia Liu writes \"Never has a lone word among the myriad languages of humanity made so much history as the Chinese character *yi*.\" There is certainly an argument that the supposition of *yi* as a strict pejorative by the British served as perfect reasoning for diplomatic aggression British policymaking showed in the country at the time. \n\nQing attitudes towards foreigners in reality were much more varied. Initial official opinion of Europeans was born of naivety - they were not seen as any more powerful or influential prior to the 19th century than traders who had been visting China for over a millennium. Their customs and produce were mere curiosities at best to the emperors of the late Ming and early Qing and not considered dangerous or influential with regards to imperial authority. Contrary to popular opinion, Chinese opinion was not cemented in opposition to European aggression even after the Second Opium War (1856-1860) - a marked negative trend in Chinese attitudes towards Europeans was only really noticeable in the period surrounding and subsequent to the Sino-French War of 1884-1845 by which point Western intentions became clear for all to see and the dynasty was seen as in peril. \n\nEven at this point amongst opposition there was an ingrained psychological phenomenon in Chinese society which pinned much blame on the Qing for the inability to successfully govern and modernise at the rise of European imperialism - providing a fatal weakness that it would be natural for foreigners to exploit. Whilst some by this point proclaimed of \"selling my soul to the foreign devil\" (Lu Xun, 1890s), others equally became open critics of the Qing regime in a brazenness rarely seen prior. Whilst the last Qing emperors placed great importance on the understanding of foreign society and technology, openly praising Western methods became taboo and individuals such as the pro-Western Qing ambassador to London of the late 19th century was physically assaulted, impeached and finally dismissed for his opinions. \"He cannot serve human beings / So how can he serve demons?\" read one proclamation.\n\nThe zenith of anti-European sentiment in China would be reached with the Boxer Rebellion of 1899-1901 - a nationalist movement strongly opposed to Western imperialism and the strangehold the West had on China by this point - and unofficially supported by the Qing regime. The arrival of troops of the [Eight-Nation alliance](_URL_1_) under a humanitarian guise and the effective complete subjugation of imperial power it resulted in imprinted a lasting stigma in Chinese sentiment towards the West which continued to exist to a greater or lesser extent throughout the 20th century. Whilst it would be unreasonable to surmise that the Chinese showed no contempt for Westerners prior to imperialistic designs on the Qing empire [indeed the superiority of Chinese culture generally had been a core tenant of dynasties of past], there is certainly a strong argument that this merely served as justification for otherwise what was clearly Western expansionist aggression towards Qing China beginning with policy-making leading up to the First Opium War (1839-1842) and arguably only ending with the dissolution of the empire in 1912 - throughout which anti-Western sentiment amongst the populace of Qing China would *truly* root itself.\n\n**Sources:**\n\n*The Opium War* - Julia Lovell\n\n*The Clash of Empires* - Lydia Liu\n\n*China: A History* - John Keay",
"Haven't most cultures considered other cultures barbaric at one time or another? Maybe this is more of a social science question? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://feinanfei.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/7/1/2071474/article_51_of_the_treaty_of_tianjin.doc",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance"
],
[]
] |
|
4oerta
|
What were/are historians' responses to Max Weber's theories?
|
Max Weber is most famous as the originator of the idea of the "Protestant Work Ethic" and the relationship between religion and industrialization in Western economic history. Needless to say his Wikipedia page has a section on "Criticism." What was the response to his work when it first came out, especially from Catholics? And what are some of the major stances on his work today?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4oerta/what_wereare_historians_responses_to_max_webers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4byi4m"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"As a related question, am I wrong in thinking that Weber's definition of the minimal requirement for a state (monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a limited and defined area) is still pretty damn useful?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4bjd07
|
why is a two-state solution for palestine/israel so difficult? it seems like a no-brainer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bjd07/eli5why_is_a_twostate_solution_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d19ms2w",
"d19n41s",
"d19ogl7",
"d19pd87",
"d19po95",
"d19rqrb",
"d19rt0j",
"d19s82o",
"d19snnw",
"d19u9nx",
"d19wnew",
"d19x5zt",
"d19xeti",
"d19xqm1",
"d1a02uz",
"d1a0ncd",
"d1a2950",
"d1a2h64",
"d1a2uoi",
"d1a30pi",
"d1a34ln",
"d1a4idm",
"d1a54ou",
"d1a6fig",
"d1a7mmy",
"d1a7tn9",
"d1a8dnh",
"d1a8rls",
"d1a9i76",
"d1a9j5s",
"d1aacn7",
"d1aag2l",
"d1aapyo",
"d1abbsi",
"d1absmq",
"d1ac021",
"d1ac2km",
"d1acmef",
"d1acubl",
"d1ad44t",
"d1ad7xy",
"d1adbbd",
"d1adlq3",
"d1adlyc"
],
"score": [
13,
4845,
8,
90,
34,
19,
367,
460,
4,
15,
133,
14,
9,
17,
11,
3,
10,
56,
8,
2,
5,
3,
5,
12,
43,
5,
29,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
5,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Because Israel is about the size of New Jersey, splitting it would make it downright tiny. Liveable land isn't exactly plentiful as it's mostly desert. It would also require resettling a whole lot of people. Also, the area around Israel has a lot of cliffs and strategic value when it comes to defending the country from the many enemies that surround it. Giving that up would allow a single person with a rocket launcher to fire at pretty much any target they wanted. And then there's the fact that the country of Israel owns the land and doesn't want to give it up.",
"It's because the situation is an endlessly spiralling disaster. The Jewish people have been persecuted so much throughout history up to and including the Holocaust that they felt the only way they would ever be safe would be to create a Jewish State. They had also been forcibly expelled from numerous other nations throughout history. In 1922, the League of Nations gave control of the region to Britain, who basically allowed numerous Jews to move in so that they'd stop immigrating to Britain. Now this is all well and good, since the region was a No Man's Land.\n\n..Except there were people living there. It's pretty much right out of Eddie Izzard's 'But Do You Have a Flag?'. The people we now know as Palestinians rioted about it, were denounced as violent. Militant groups sprang up, terrorist acts were done, military responses followed. \n\nFurther complicating matters is the fact that the people known now as Palestinians weren't united before all of this, and even today, you have competing groups claiming to be the sole legitimate government of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. So even if you want to negotiate, who with? There's an endless debate about legitimacy and actual regional control before you even get to the table.\n\nSo the discussion goes \n\n\"Your people are antisemitic terrorists\" \n\n\"You stole our land and displaced us\" \n\n\"Your people and many others in the world displaced us first and wanted to kill us.\"\n\n\"That doesn't give you any right to take our home. And you keep firing missiles at us.\"\n\n\"Because you keep launching terrorist attacks against us\"\n\n\"That's not us, it's the other guys\"\n\n\"If you're the government, control them.\"\n\nAnd on, and on, and on, and on. The conflict's roots are ancient, and everybody's a little guilty, and everybody's got a bit of a point. \nBear in mind that this is also the my-first-foreign-policy version. The real situation is much more complex.\n\nOh, and this is before you even get started with the complexities of the religious conflict and how both groups believe God wants them to rule over the same place.",
"Hard-liners and spoiler groups on both sides. Hard-liners don't want to compromise with the other side and maintain enough control to prevent meaningful negotiations from coming to fruition (consider that Abbas would have gone with Oslo II but for fear of assassination). Spoiler groups (settlers and people attacking other people) keep mucking up the negotiation process and give the hard-line argument credence. \n\nThat, historic persecution experienced on both sides leading to both feeling like they're victims, historic claims to the land, religion, propaganda, and a whole host of other factors has lead to an impasse. But hard-liners and spoiler groups are a large part of it.",
"The Arab nations refused to accept a 2 state solution back when Israel was founded, instead choosing to launch an attack on Israel. The major powers in the region refused to accept any Jewish state at all there. This war and subsequent wars were won by Israel, solidifying opposition to it existence. ",
"Two primary factors: extremists opposed to peace and then one major sticking point for each side - the right of return for Palestinians and dismantling of settlements for Israel. It's been almost 50 years since the 1967 war, but the Palestinians who lost their land in the aftermath want it back. The Israelis who are on that land say no way. Similarly, Israel keeps building settlements in the West Bank and won't give up most of the them in a peace treaty.\n\nThere are lots of other details, but that's the key - the parties fight over the details. And then if they start to get close on anything, some extremist launches a terrorist attack or rocket attack or murders someone and things fall apart. ",
"The truth is, many people on both sides aren't really interested in a 2-state solution. Many Palestinians want to destroy the state of Israel and reclaim their ancestral homeland (see Hamaz). And many Israeli policy-makers want Palestinian territories to remain in a state of limbo with no official recognition as a country.",
"Alright, I live in Israel, and here's my take. Obviously, this issue is polarizing, but as far as I know the most common reason is this: Security.\n\nPretty much everyone, left and right, maybe excluding the ultra-radical right, would give land, fund, supply, and support a Palestinian nation without a second thought **if it can reasonably assumed that said nation won't attack us**. [Israel has given huge amounts of religiously significant land for sustainable peace before](_URL_2_) and all of Israel agrees that was a great decision. On the other hand, when Israel gave up land unilaterally, without a reasonable promise of peace, it turned into [the geopolitical equivalent of a waking nightmare](_URL_1_), and is widely regarded as one is Israel's greatest mistakes.\n\nThe standing opinion in Israel is that terrorist organizations are too well rooted, that the Palestinian population can't be trusted to do peace, and that the current Palestinian Authority is either unable or unwilling to enforce order in Palestine (this particular opinion, as far as I can gather, is shared by Palestinians as well). This opinion is only reinforced by the recent wave of violence arriving from both Israeli Arabs and Palestinians.\n\nAs of right now, I have to admit, the prospect of a nation populated by people educated by [this sort of stuff](_URL_0_), led by the current PA, being a bottle rocket-launch away from my house, terrifies me to my core.",
"A two state solution would be\n\n1. Unfair to the Jewish people, because they have a historical right to whole Israel\n\n2. Unfair to Palestinians, because they have a historical right to whole Israel.",
"There's a couple of issues here.\n\nOne is that there is land that is holy and sacred to both, and both countries want that in their state. A lot of Jerusalem falls into this category.\n\nThe other issue is right of return. There are millions of people who want to return to their family's homeland, but in a two-state solution, a lot of these people will be on the wrong side of the border and will never be able to return home.",
"My Egyptian professor explained it this way:\n\n\"Imagine you enroll in my class and on the first day of class I tell you that I'll give you a D+ in the class right here, right now. And then you can walk out, go about your life, never come to class, never do papers, never take tests, and I'll still give you a passing grade. (Hey, a D+ is technically passing...).\n\nSome of you might take that offer. But other of you who have bigger aspirations would never settle for the bare minimum when you know you can achieve much more.\"\n\nThe Israelis are willing to do a two state solution, but they'll never give Jerusalem (and other prime areas) to the Palestinians. And the Palestinians want more than just the perceived left overs. They want Jerusalem, the West Bank, etc., too. So you have both groups wanting the same specific plots of land.\n\nTo complicate the matter, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians speak in a unified voice. While some people in both camps would be willing to sacrifice the areas it wants in order to work together and have peace, others at the extremes of both camps won't compromise and won't settle. So even if the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority came up with a plan, there would be sizable populations on both sides that wouldn't agree to it and would continue to fight for the whole enchilada. ",
"Let's not forget that Israel remains a proxy war for a lot of other nations on both sides, with a ton of national and religious pride, along with hundreds of billions of dollars in profit for profiteers.",
"You have a house. It's not necessarily a particularly nice house, but a lot of it has sentimental value. Then your rich neighbour comes along and says \n\n\"Hi Palestine, this is my buddy Israel. He actually used to live here! Long before you bought the place, though. Anyway, he's fallen on hard times recently so he's going to be moving into your front room and the master bedroom. Indefinitely. Come on, he's had a really rough time of it!\"\n\nYou're not really happy about that. In fact, you kick up a fuss about it for months. You argue with Israel; Israel fights back just as hard because he feels he deserves the house. Then your rich neighbour, and a few others, come round and say\n\n\"We totally get that you're unhappy with this! Completely understandable. So what we'll do is ask Israel to give you back half of the front room, *and* the cupboard where you keep your shoes. He keeps the master bedroom, though, because it's really special to him. I know you liked it too, but in fairness, he lived there first.\"\n\nNo-brainer, right?",
"Has any country other than Israel ever been asked to give back land it won in a war?",
"I need an ELI5 to explain to me why it is a no brainer. Perhaps the most complex ongoing conflict that exists on this earth... ",
"The Israelis are militarily dominant and don't want to give up land when they don't have to. Also Palestine would be chopped in two between the West Bank and Gaza. ",
"Imagine you have a brother who you've never gotten along with. You fight all the time, and on top of that for most of your life the rest of the people you know has largely either joined in or just allowed it. Now in your house there is a room that he likes, even though it is not his room. It's a family room, for everyone. You both hang out there sometimes. Your parents decide that, since you don't have a room and don't feel safe in other areas of the house and community, that should be your room. But your brother is still there. He likes to hang out there. Now, he has been hanging out there before it was your room. He feels justified to it as he has been there so long. But your parents say it is your room, and it's where you feel most safe. So whose room is it? Should you let him have part of the room so he'll leave you alone in your part, or should you claim the room all for yourself?",
"Palestinian people were so foolish back in WWI era.They thought if they fight against Ottoman Empire, Brits would give them freedom.\n",
"To be fair, in 1967, UN security council resolution 242 mandated the withdrawal of Israel from the acquired land.\nOf course, what country would withdraw from land just because of a UN resolution? Except, Israel has been expanding and growing in the West Bank. The EU has declared those settlements illegal. It's not like there has been any reason for the Palestinian violence to stop because expansion hasn't really stopped. But what about Gaza? Well it's taken over by a terrorist group. Gazan leadership doesn't trust West Bank leadership because it believes that political movement and the stone throwing has led to nothing on that side. West Bank leadership says: well you keep trying to shoot shitty missiles and then you get yourself and a bunch of other people killed. You're also under an 8 (9 now?) year siege, so STFU.\n\nI think it'll be hard to provide the whole image in an ELI5 without some assumptions that are usually bias. But I hope you get as much of it as possible. Ultimately, I think the situation is too complicated for most of us to understand. ",
"Israel doesn't want two states and faces no real pressure from the US which could force it to compromise. ",
"The Palestinian Authority is Israel's negotiating partner, but doesn't actually have sufficient authority in either the moral or practical sense over the majority of Palestinians at this point. Hamas is a terrorist group and a lasting peace with Israel is contradictory to its mission and inherent reason for existence. Israel is understandably reluctant make the obvious necessary concessions for a peace treaty with the Palestinian authority when the periodic wars would still likely continue afterwards with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups like Hezbollah.",
"One state solution: state won't be Jewish anymore\n\n\nTwo state solution : settlements are to deep within areas \n\n \nFull out genocide : impossible , too many repercussions and logistics.\n\n\n\nAnd there you have it , we can't solve it because we are in a deadlock . ",
"_URL_0_\n\nRead the Hamas Covenant of 1988.\n\nIsrael has repeatedly tried to come to the table for a solution, but they are dealing with a democratically elected yet unrecognised government whose goal is to destroy jews in the region.",
"Another factor on top of what /u/zap283 said is that Israel is worried that bringing palestinian rule close to the heavily populated areas ie. Tel Aviv, would make them vulnerable to rocket attacks and invasion much more quickly - a state alongside israel can be used as a platform for a successful war.",
"Because, you can't steal someone else's land, then want to make a deal to split it in two. Well, not without a bit of pushback.",
"What about a one-state solution? One where everyone has equal rights?",
"It's a messy situation. Key points:\n\n* Israel wants more territory.\n\n* Palestine wants their territory back.\n\n* Palestine is really \"with their backs to the wall\", they have a fight or die situation.\n\n* Israel has powerful friends, so they get away with a lot of stuff.\n\n* Most big players on the national scene profit from the ongoing conflict, in one way or another.",
"Palestinian here:\n\nIsrael and Palestine are so connected in very different levels, these connections make it very hard to simply separate it to two states and move on.\n\nOther than that, Palestinian are not mature enough to have their own state with borders (yes, you will not hear that from Palestinians), but this is the truth, Israel knows that, and they won't leave the borders of Jordan just like that, Palestinians don't have army, they have a LOT of corruption, and they need a lot of work before being able to become a successful state (if ever), leaving the borders will create a lot of trouble to Israel itself as there is no clear borders for the west bank with Israel.\n\nThird, which is probably the most important thing, is religion, in Jewish religion, what really matters is Judea and Samaria Area which is the west bank basically, there is no mention to Telaviv, Natanya in the bible, however there is Hebron, Nablus, Jerusalem, so they will not leave it just like that.\n\nEDIT: I can think of another reason which is Israeli Allies, Arab (especially gulf states) are standing next to Israel, as they have a lot of common interest in fighting Iran and Hezbullah.",
"Ahmed owns an apple together with Aytac, when they engage in a fight at school with other people Aytac loses his share and Ahmed has it by himself a while. Then comes John and takes hold of it, and later gives it to Shlomo. Ahmed needs this apple to survive, and so does Shlomo, says Shlomo. Shlomo says that Ahmed and Shlomo should share it together. Ahmed says that Shlomo has no right to one single part of the apple, because Shlomo never did anything to grow it. Shlomo responds that if he does not get a share of the apple he will die, because John, Gael, Ivan and Timmy and everyone else on this planet otherwise will kill Shlomo. Which is weird, because Shlomo shares apples with all these people already and they go along with it. And then Shlomo tells an endless story day in and day out about what Hans once did to him. Shlomo has a habit of exaggerating and lying about things so it's not necessarily true at all; but even if it was, how could it be Ahmed's fault? Why does he have to share his apple with Shlomo at all? Shlomo owns the apple factory down the street and has all the apples he needs already. You see kids, Shlomo is a bit of a cunt, and we should not give him any apples, and hopefully he will learn to grow his own. This will end the conflict, this is the no-brainer.",
"A two state solution requires all kinds of compromises. Firstly there has to be agreement on who gets what land. The most contentious aspect is who gets a right over Jerusalem. Then there has to be agreement on whether Palestinians who were displaced (kicked out or fled voluntarily depending on who you believe) when Israel was formed get a right to return to Israel. \n\nThese things are hard to agree on because both sides want a bunch of concession and preconditions just to establish enough goodwill to even begin a proper negotiation process. Neither side are willing to make the initial concession because it compromises their security or their bargaining position or because they don't have the internal support to make those concessions. \n\nEven if Israeli's and Palestinians each had very progressive, peace-orientated leaders, those leaders might risk alienating their support base if they compromise too much too quickly. Both nations are highly divided and skittish about how to approach the situation. \n",
"This question can be answered by another: What borders will the two states have? UN Resolution? 1967? Current borders? There's no fair answer.",
"As someone who has been on holiday there....\n\nIts mostly the politicians, who like in most places are voted in largly by old people...\n\nQuite a lot of the young people are very much pro peace, infact almost everybody is (except for the weirdo American immigrants you get there who are all hyper pro violence)\n\nMost people wether arab or Jew will tell you the same thing.\n\"we would love to have peace, but if you give them an inch they take a mile, they want to push us into the sea/desert\"\n\nAlso America giving Israel a blank cheque for defence doesn't help",
"Whenever they try a 2 state solution map they both want to control the high points in case of future conflict and they can't agree. Then a bomb blows up, a missile gets fired and it's over. ",
"So I'm pretty late to the party, but hopefully writing this is not a waste of time.\n\nThere's a lot of good explanations here, but the national security and great power politics explanations are missing. That's something I figured I'd fill in. \n\nTL;DR: For the Great Powers that can forcefully bring about peace, it's more important to maintain control over oil resources than bring a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. \n\nLong Version: \n\nThe post-Ottoman Arab world was a mess. This was the first time in almost 500 years that Arabs had self rule, and there was a giant political struggle. The unity of nationalism against a perceived oppressor gave way to the bickering of factional politics, and this is not the factional politics of the Democrats and the Republicans. You usually had three main factions: the Islamists, the Western educated liberal elites, and the Communists. These three sides were constantly vying for control of the newly established states across the Arab world. \n\nEgypt is a great example of this. The Communists (Nasir) and the Islamists (The Brotherhood) banded together and ousted the King (WELE). Instead of creating a unity government, though, Nasir reneged on his deal with the Islamists, imprisoned as many as he could, took apart their grass roots systems, and declared them illegal. This, in turn, radicalized the Islamists, which eventually ended in the killing of Nasir's heir, Sadat. The maturation of the Islamists led to their deradicalization and renunciation of violence and culminated in the election of Morsi. Then they were deposed, horribly persecuted by Sisi, and the radicalization has started all over again.\n\nIt's also important to note that the Communists and the WELEs are actually very fluid. This is actually the source of a lot of the instability in the Middle East, particularly Israel (getting there, I promise). The Nassirid communists turned into the liberal establishment under Sadat and culminated into the Western backed Mubarak. \n\nThese narratives repeat themselves across the Arab world: Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. In fact, Saddam was a \"Ba'thi,\" and Ba'this are usually communists. This is one of the reasons that he was so horribly oppressive to both Sunni and Shia Islamists, and both were happy to see him gone. \n\nNow, none of this would be particularly important. It would just be another tale of post-colonial and post-imperial turmoil which has grasped the majority of the world after the fall of the colonial empires of Europe in WWII. Well, it wouldn't be, if not for oil.\n\nAccess to and securing of resources has and does push the majority of power politics, and this is true today. Oil basically runs the world. After WWII, the US made it a priority to control oil resources in the Middle East, because that is the most important National Security issue for a nascent great power. The problem, though, is that the Arabs are too fluid. You never know when there will be an Islamist or Communist or WELE. Ideally, we'd like the WELEs to come to the top and stay there, but it's never a guarantee. What's worse is that, during the 50s, almost all the Arab governments were Communists or Communist leaning (except for the \"Gulf\" states, who are their own brand of tribal governance). \n\nThe US needed a base, a stable nation from where the US could manage the region. That base was Israel (note that, from the 70s, we made an important decision under Kissinger to \"manage\" the fluidity by supporting strong men. These guys would keep a lid on the politics, in return we would give them power and materials, and in return they would give us their loyalty over the Soviets. It's not a coincidence that this policy brought an end to the wars between Israel and its neighbors). Don't listen to the rhetoric that Israel is a key \"ally\" of the US in the region. Israel is not an ally; Israel is our vassal. And it's one of the best kind of vassals.\n\nThe huge wave of immigration to the region of European Jews, which had been fervently opposed and blocked by the Ottomans, came to a head under the British. The Children of Israel went from 3% of the population to 30. The ensuing chaos sparked great racial hatred between the two groups. Interestingly, the first terrorists in the Holy Land were Zionist nationalists attacking British and Palestinian targets. The Holocaust led to a great guilt gripping the powers of Europe, and they recognized that something had to be done to prevent such a thing from happening ever again.\n\nThey found their answer in the very vocal and politically well situated Zionist movement. Up to this point, the Zionist movement had been A movement, not THE movement, among Western Jews. Many Orthodox Jews still opposed it at the time (many Hassidic still do, btw). But Zionism was primarily a nationalist movement, not a religious one. And it afforded the US an amazing opportunity. \n\nThe tensions created after the fall of the Ottomans between the Arabs and the Jews was huge. A British pull out would almost certainly lead to the eradication of the nascent state, and the land would be ripped apart and divided among the Arab nations. This meant that Israel's very existent was dependent on someone outside of the region. \n\nThe US became that guarantor. During the ensuing war of 48, the US supplied Israel with the material and diplomatic cover it needed to survive. This, however, had an unforeseen effect on the Zionist movement: it deeply emboldened it. Up to this point, there were extremists in the movement that wanted ALL of historic Palestine, but a lot of Zionists were happy with the terms of the British, the so called '47 borders. In the ensuing war of '48, however, the extremist militias of the Zionist movement engaged in mass ethnic cleansing, forcibly expelling nearly half a million Palestinians from their homes and taking the land (they made up some story about Arab commanders telling the Palestinians to leave, but this is mostly accepted as a farcical national myth by most historians, and was first disproved by Israeli historians). The US had no choice but to let them keep it. The Israelis knew we needed them, and the Communist Arabs sided with the Soviets. \n\nThis, more than anything else, is the root problem of the conflict. Like most major conflicts in the world, this conflict was a proxy war between great powers trying to leverage their dominance over a very important region using a Grand Strategy known as Off-Shore Balancing. The Soviets and the US tried to empower their vassals and client states in the region to gain an upper hand over the other, and, by way of that dominance, take control of resources. \n\nThe question now, though, is why is it so difficult to make a peace once the Soviets are gone? I think the answer is two fold:\n\n1. Many in the national security scene still believe that Israel is a vital vassal in the region in terms of maintaining control of the oil resources. The Arab Spring kind of proved to many of them that the Arabs are not stable governments, and so maintaining a powerful vassal to manage the region is still important.\n\n2. The Holocaust was, rightly, a great trauma for the global Jewish population. Immediately after the war of '48, they had flashbacks to the Holocaust. They would not allow what happened in Germany to happen in Israel (and the threat was very real, because of the immense racial tensions during the Mandate Period of Palestinian history). To make sure that Israel was always properly protected, the Jewish community in the US, primarily, but around the Western world in general, established very important political institutions to advocate for the protection of the Jewish state.\n\nWhen you combine a national security interest with a powerful political lobby, one which many politicians believe is more powerful than the NRA, it's almost impossible to make it do anything. \n\nAnd that is, in short, the national security reason for the Israel/Palestine conflict.",
"If it seems like a no brainer then you clearly have no idea what the conflict is about. There is no possible ELI5 about this without completely undermining how serious and pervasive this conflict is, culturally/economically/historically etc. ",
"Just because it seems like a no-brainer to an outsider doesn't mean the people like it. I expect you might say the same about the US in 1860. Just make it two states. One slave and one free. It's a no-brainer.",
"The biggest issue is that there are extremists on both sides that refuse a two-state solution. Hamas, the Settlers, and a whole lot of politicians, again, from both sides, refuse to let that be a viable outcome. ",
"1. Israel has a proportional representation voting system with very low thresholds for getting seats. As a result, governments tend to be coalition governments reliant on hardliners for support.\n\n2. The Palestinian authority lacks the resources to effectively govern the occupied territories. In that power vacuum, organizations like Hamas have been able to step in and provide governance. However, this also commits more people to a hardline approach.\n\n3. Even beyond the political system, some Israelis settled in the Occupied territories, making it harder to trade away territory. An Israeli terrorist also assassinated Yitzhak Rabin over the Oslo process. Similarly, terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups can also derail the peace process, pushing support towards hardliners. Israelis may then clamp down on Palestinians, deepening mutual resentment.\n\n4. In many respects, a meaningful two-state solution is impossible. The Occupied Territories are economically reliant on interactions with Israel, and are likely to remain so. A two-state solution might also fail on other fronts (e.g. what sort of rights would gay Palestinians have). \n\n5. Many of the issues involved in resolving the crisis are indivisible. While Arafat and Barak were generally willing to trade land, some land-related issues like the temple mount in Jerusalem were harder to resolve. Elsewhere, giving up land may create vulnerabilities (e.g. the Golan heights could be used to launch rockets into Israel). \n\n6. Each side has a different vision of history, and that informs their negotiating positions. Arafat argued that just accepting the Occupied Territories was a compromise in itself, because they comprised of only 22% of historical Palestine (e.g. the British Palestinian mandate). The main sticking point in negotiation is right of return. Many Palestinians fled (or were kicked out) Israel in the 1948 war, becoming refugees. The descendants of these refugees now number 4 million, and believe they are entitled to return to Israel (and potentially to receive compensation). ",
"Lots of general platitudes, political opinions, and recaps of Israeli-Palestinian history, so I won't delve into those. Instead, the specific issues that are way harder than you probably think:\n\n1. Many people simply don't *want* the two-state solution. Either because of religious reasons (\"god gave us the land\", on both the Jewish and Muslim sides of the argument), because of nationalist entitlement, exasperation with the 20-year attempt to reach it, security considerations, or other reasons. That number was always at around half of the Palestinian and Israeli population, and it's recently becoming a majority.\n\n1. Jerusalem. The Palestinians want a capital in the eastern part of it, while the Israelis strongly object to dividing Jerusalem. And I don't see anyone giving that part up. Both cite political, historical and religious reasons for their insistence. Incidentally, dividing cities, let alone capitals, is generally considered an undesirable thing in international law (Berlin is a famous example). If Jerusalem would indeed be divided, it would be an interesting precedent, with very interesting (read: difficult) challenges.\n\n2. Palestinian Refugees. About two-thirds of all the Palestinians in the world are descended from 1948 refugees from Israel proper. The Palestinian people overwhelmingly demand that all of them would \"return\" to Israel, turning it into a Palestinian-majority state. Needless to say, there's precisely 0% that that Israelis would ever agree to that. The Palestinian leadership is more willing to compromise on this, but it's doubtful they have the mandate to do so. \n\n You might've heard about the Israeli demand for the Palestinians to recognize them as a \"Jewish State\"? That's what they're talking about. The Palestinians object to that, because it would mean preemptively giving up the \"right of return\". And that's exactly why the Israeli are demanding that. Basically, the Israelis are afraid that when the Palestinians are talking about a \"two state solution\", they mean \"one pure, Jew-free Palestinian state, and one Palestinian-majority, Palestinian-ruled state\". Which is no two-state solution at all.\n\n3. Security. Basically, the Israelis already tried a withdrawal from Gaza, without even asking anything in return, and the result was a Hamas-controlled terror enclave that shot thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. If it happens in the West Bank, which is *far* closer to Israel's population center, it would absolutely paralyze Israel and its economy. There is no obvious technological or military solution to that.\n\n4. The settlements. While most settlements are in easy-to-annex blocks, some were intentionally put in the middle of Palestinian territory, with long roads leading to them. At least one of them, Ariel, is a relatively big town, with its own university. Combine that with the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are non-contiguous, and simply drawing a map of the Israeli-Palestinian border becomes a very non-trivial one. \n\n Although, on a personal note, I think that's actually the easier part of this. Most Israelis, and even some settlers, *are* willing to give up settlements for a true peace agreement. That could not be said about the other items on this list.",
"A lot of people really aren't answering the question, they are just telling you about the situation, the problem is the US (not just the US but it's simplified) and Israel are allies so why give up land?",
"Its simple, there is hardly any Palestinian land left to create a viable Palestinian state because almost all of it has been colonized and Palestinians displaced. I really don't understand why people keep thinking this is a complex and ancient topic! No it's not, it started in 1948 and it's a beef over land and human rights, not religion or some ancient feud. ",
"So, Jewish person from Israel, speaking from first hand events.\n\nI am currently in Israel for school with several other people, all non-Israelis. The fundamental issue that a lot of them question is; if we don't care what people think of us, why don't we \"nuke\" the Palestinians.\n\nEvery Israeli native, and many foreigners obviously realize why this is a bad idea, but the \"nuke-em\" perspective(which represents many people from around the world, mostly north-to-Central America) are both less educated and louder than the median, which tends to send everything into uproar and cast a bad light about the whole discussion.",
"Netanyahu has been calling for negotiations without preconditions for years now. It's the Palestinians who keep demanding preconditions and refusing to negotiate without them.\n\n",
"Because the Muslim political movement is aggressive and chauvinistic at the very core; they simply do not want to co-exist with anyone else.",
"It may not be popular on reddit, but I think [this explanation](_URL_0_) is a perfect answer: Most Israelis want to live in peace and are willing to accept a neighboring Palestinian state. And most Palestinians do not want Israel to exist. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV9M3mmqOII",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_Peace_Treaty"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8"
]
] |
||
3iteh7
|
how does using a throwaway account protect your identity on reddit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iteh7/eli5_how_does_using_a_throwaway_account_protect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cujh9mt",
"cujhb6j",
"cujhnz4"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
16
],
"text": [
"It's to prevent people in your life who know your reddit username from knowing that the stuff posted by the throwaway is from the same person.",
"A throwaway account is a new account that have no connection to your main account or real identity (if your real identity is known).\n\nSo obviously, there is no way for someone to know who the throwaway is. So you are anonymous. ",
"Well OP, a quick look through your Reddit history, I see several pictures of the same cat which I can presume belongs to you or your family, I see you've posted some marijuana purchases, and I see that you have been active on /r/NoFap. \n\nMaybe you can imagine wanting to post a *really* embarrassing secret to Reddit. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to post that to the same account where you posted pictures of your face. Someone could look at your post history and they might know who you are in real life!\n\nThat's the kind of situation where some people might make a throwaway account. They can still reveal the secret, and there's no worry that an outsider might look at their post history and be able to identify them.\n\nThat being said, a throwaway account likely still logs IP access. In theory, any admin of Reddit could easily correlate a throwaway with a main account if accessed through the same IP address. You could work around this by using a different network, perhaps a cafe with wifi; or you could use Tor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
qtbdj
|
the process of brewing
|
More specifically, the process of home-brewing please
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qtbdj/eli5_the_process_of_brewing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c40anrf",
"c40bosc"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Yeast eats sugar and excretes ethanol and carbon dioxide as a waste products. Eventually there is so much alcohol in the solution the yeast dies off and you have an alcoholic beverage.\n\nFor beer, the sugar typically comes form a specially prepared malted barely. Most homebrewers start with a kit that has all the grains prepared. You basically mix everything together and put it in a large bottle that lets the CO2 escape, and let it set for days or even weeks until all the yeast dies. If everything went right, now you have beer. Yay, beer! ",
"In my experience, most people do the \"partial mash\" method. Meaning, you get a lot of your sugar from extract, and then add some specialty grains.\n\nExtract is the sugar and byproducts of grains that have germinated, and then baked - a process called \"malting.\" You need a lot of grains to homebrew a typical 5gal batch of beer. Extract simplifies this because you don't have to by many pounds of malted barley.\n\nThe specialty grains are used to give unique flavors to your beer, and you typically use about 1.5-2.5lbs per 5gal homebrew batch.\n\nHops are used to 1) add flavor, and 2) \"cancel out\" the excess sugar flavors after the fermenting process is done.\n\nYeast is used to convert the sugar from the extract and specialty grains into carbon dioxide and alcohol.\n\nNow, with all that - here is a simple explanation on how to brew beer at home\n\n- Start by filling a stock pot with about 2.5gals of water, and place it over a burner on high\n\n- While the water is heating up, you place your specialty grains in grain bags (think large tea bags), and you steep the grains while the water is heating\n\n- Just before boil, you remove the steeping grains (because it they get too hot, your beer will end up tasting a bit nasty)\n\n- At boil, you add your extract - bits at a time, as to not \"boil over\" the stock pot.\n\n- Now, recipes call for different types of hop additions. One is call \"boiling hops\" - meaning you add them while you are boiling your beer (which typically lasts for an hour). The other is called \"finishing hops,\" and are added just before you complete boiling.\n\n- After boiling is over, you cool down the \"wort\" to the temp required for the yeast (about 70F for ales, and 30-40F for most lagers).\n\n- You then transfer your wort to a 5gal glass bottle (\"carboy\") and \"pitch\" your yeast.\n\n- Wait for a several days while the yeast makes beer, and blows off CO2\n\n- After the beer has settled down, you \"rack\" it to another container. This lets you get rid of all the dead yeast cells and left over \"junk\" that may have been in your beer.\n\n- You can then age your beer as long as you want, or get ready to bottle/keg as soon as it clarifies.\n\n- Bottling: you add a bit of sugar to the beer, and bottle it. The left over yeast will consume the new sugar and carbonate the beer in the bottle.\n\n- Kegging: dump all the beer in a keg, attach a CO2 to the keg, and carbonate for several days.\n\n- LAST BUT MOST IMPORTANT STEP: drink."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
b4jtsq
|
why does screaming relieve physical pain to an extent?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4jtsq/eli5_why_does_screaming_relieve_physical_pain_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej74yyu",
"ej7d1d6",
"ej7h5g5",
"ej7kj13",
"ej7kn4z",
"ej7l67j",
"ej7mgtk",
"ej7osc6",
"ej7sf3k",
"ej7ukg4",
"ej7utih",
"ej85hdt",
"ej8gcq3",
"ej8ibx4",
"ej8pggp",
"ej8pn8p",
"ej8x88a",
"ej8xldu",
"ej910mi",
"ej95x99",
"ej9h9v4"
],
"score": [
5807,
4,
120,
658,
120,
76,
4,
97,
9,
2,
6,
4,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The theory is that the the part of the brain used for pain and the part of the brain we use for talking or yelling kind of “overlap,” so we can’t really use both at the same time. The brain is quite interesting, but sometimes it really sucks at multitasking, so we’re able to use one part or the other, but not at the same time. Screaming can even be used for pain management, although others around you may not appreciate it very much. It’s an interesting area that’s still being studied.",
"Evolutionary response. Part of the pain is purely psychological. Pain means that danger is nearby and the primal part of your brain wants you to warn the herd. You shout out conforming to instincts and the satisfied brain settles down for a while.",
"Screaming helps trigger our brain's \"fight or flight\" response. In the response the brain releases loads of adrenaline which helps our heart speed up, gives us maximum strength, and numbs our response to pain. This is why people talk about not even feeling being shot. The adrenaline is so high your response to pain is little to none.",
"Multiple doctors have told me that, if you have the urge to cry or scream, to do so. The reason why; bc it supposedly relaxes your body and eases the stiffness and tension, which then relieves some of the pain. ",
"The body has two basic modes of being: rest/digest and fight/flight. This allows us to respond to a changing environment and accidents. Pain is a signal that encourages us to rest/digest. However, if we face immediate danger then the body will create natural painkillers that temporarily relieve the pain, since our brain is telling our body that it needs to be in fight/flight mode: \"No time to rest/digest now!\"\n\nWhen we scream, we can activate our fight/flight response mode. Many warrior cultures used screaming to prepare for battle. This would make sense as a way of activating the body's natural painkillers.\n\nDepending on the context, screaming can also be intended as a signal to others. Humans are social creatures with brain chemistry that feels pain more strongly when we feel disconnected. Since physical pain is such a personal thing it is natural that the experience of it also triggers a feeling of disconnection, which is itself painful. Screaming as a signal to others could lead to social rewards that in themselves trigger natural painkillers.\n\nEdit: fixing autocorrect...",
"Alot of the top comments have really smart responses, but they ignore that when you scream, youre releasing more CO2 than normal, and in turn your heart will be pumping more oxygenated blood through your body. ",
"Additionally, why does yelling and swearing relieve stress in most people?",
"My psych professor explained the \"pain gate\" hypothesis to us: basically, the amount of information that is able to pass up and through to the part of the brain that processes pain is limited. By yelling, or rubbing your belly, or concentrating on something else or any number of stimuli or a combination of stimuli, you are giving your brain enough extra info to process that the raw \"pain\" data that gets through is limited.",
"In addition to the physiological responses shared, there is also a psychological one - our society has evolved toward altruism where our natural instinct is to help those who alert us to pain or danger. Screaming is your brains way of sending a distress signal to others around you who might be able to help. ",
"Not an expert, but it's mostly due to your brain focusing on something else. Like if you have a headache, watching a interesting movie or playing a video game makes your brain \"forget\" the pain (no loud sounds or bright lights of course)",
"I majored in sensory psych and among the course load I took “pain and suffering” and “sensory perception” and it has to do with giving your brain something else to process. The pain receptors are a more visceral, primitive system and so is auditory perception, than say your neocortex or outer layer brain processing of reasoning. The brain has limited bandwidth so when you give a good hard scream it is focusing on processing the yell and the scream and if it’s real good, the physical sensation of the primal yell. So it temporarily numbs you.\n\nThere are a lot of interesting things that numb pain. For instance capsaicin activates pain receptors and after several days of overloading pain receptors, the brain will “turn down” the pain signal in the same area so it is useful in chronic surface pain management. \n\nObviously screaming ain’t a long term treatment though. ",
"There is a theory that ties this together with endorphins and to a lesser extent adrenaline. This connects the \"kia\" (shouting while striking) in karate, the valsava and scream in lifting, and screaming / growling / cursing when you stub your toe on a table leg.\n\nThe temporary excitement kind of tells pain to quiet down so you can focus on the matter hand. In sport, it reduces natural inhibitions to allow for maximal effort. In toe-stubbing it basically gives you a break to run from or attack your table.",
"I honestly don't know the direct answer but it reminds me of a fantastic NPR show where an anthropologist discovers a word in a native tribe that makes them want to decapitate people. The word \"Legit\" seems to be a composite of intense emotions for these people. After his wife dies in an accident he says he finally understood the meaning behind the word as his only way of coping with the pain is through an intense wailing. I would say this is closely related. \n\n_URL_0_",
"I asked in college and my professor said “My understanding is that yelling or screaming release adrenaline and endorphins which are natural at creating euphoria or masking sympathies of pain.”\n\nSo, screaming creates a catharsis , which is pleasurable psychologically, hence endorphins released. \n\nBut screaming is a subconscious response to pain, which releases adrenaline to survive. \n\nThe two mix together to temporarily remove “feelings” of pain. ",
"Put in simple words...When you scream you exhale the air within your body which relaxes you and pain fades away a bit.",
"It’s actually quite simple. Screaming is linked in our brain to aggression and pain response. Both trigger a release of endorphins, such as adrenaline and cortisol, that result in a decrease of pain reactivity. Learned this in my anatomy class when studying fight or flight response.",
"“We found that the amygdala—but not auditory cortex—is specifically sensitive to temporal modulations in the roughness range (Figure 4B). These results demonstrate that rough sounds specifically target neural circuits involved in fear/danger processing [27, 28] and hence provide evidence that roughness constitutes an efficient acoustic attribute to trigger adapted reactions to danger.”\n\n_URL_0_",
"Screaming causes a feeling of rush inside you, and that feeling will temporarily override the feeling of pain.\n\nThere’s only a few feelings you can self generate inside you by your self, the ones I’m aware of are screaming as you’ve mentioned, speeding to cause a rush feeling of adrenaline (my favourite) and then self inflicting pain - which is not necessary if you’re aware of the other 2.\n\nThese work with both physical and emotional pain.",
"Limited understanding of the brain here, but working on the gate theory of pain and signal transmission between neurons it’s like; neurons are roadways leading to your brain that can only handle so much traffic, once a lane is full another gateway opens and signal moves forward. If you experience pain and utilize your senses; sound, sight, touch, smell, equilibrium, taste you can flood the lanes causing a traffic congestion. Pain takes a priority in the traffic lanes, like an ambulance or fire engine, but the more congestion there is the more information the brain has to process and so....yelling/screaming engages another sense organ/pathway causing ‘traffic’ which slows everything down. This, the activation of gateways along the pains path are already occupied, slowing down the signal of pain. Your not minimizing/relieving pain, just working the system)))))",
"Muscles store tension, and in most animals they have a natural deactivation mechanism (body tremors) that release this tension. In humans though due to our higher brain function and us being highly social we can override this deactivation mechanism because it's not always convenient at the given time to go through it. The problem is we tend to do it so much we can get stuck in the \"on position\" for the tension and our muscles get locked in place, this is trauma.\n\nSo when you scream you are activating multiple muscle groups, particularly in your core muscles and neck, common muscles that get locked in. By activating them you are actually releasing tension built into them and triggering a tremor that causes them to heal. There is also a hormonal release associated with it that floods your system with pain dampening hormones.\n\nIf you want to learn more about this look into **Polyvagal Theory**",
"TL;DR: Pain is encouraged by a disruptive event in your body, such as stubbing your toe. This sends a signal upwards in the nervous system to your brain. Pain is produced within the brain itself. When the brain determines that a certain sensation is unimportant, it will send a signal downwards to 'block' the upward signal. This is called the descending pathway (DP). Screaming encourages your fight or flight response which will cause your brain to filter out the unnecessary pain signals by activating the DP.\n\n\n\nI know this post is a little old, but I think I can shed some light. I am a physical therapist and currently the field is heavily influenced by pain science, the study of how pain is produced, modulated, and perceived. I think the best way to answer this question is to first understand how pain is produced. Contrary to what you may think, the 'production' of pain does not occur in the painful area. Let's use a stubbed toe as an example. When you stub your toe, dedicated nerves from your toe send a signal to your spinal cord that an event has occurred at your toe. Another nerve then sends the same signal to your thalamus (part of the brain) stating the same thing, \"an event has occurred at your toe.\" From here the thalamus has to decide if this \"event\" is bad or not based on a lot of life experiences you already have and context of your surroundings (this is a simplified statement, the real process here is likely very complex).\n\nSo, if the thalamus determines the \"event\" is bad, it then sends a signal to your sensory cortex (another part of your brain) and pain is finally generated and perceived. This final step is the only thing that truly produces pain. If the thalamus had decided the event was normal and not dangerous, you would not perceive pain because the signal would stop there.\n\nNow that we understand the production of pain, we can talk a bit about how pain is modulated. This refers to our bodies ability to influence the intensity of the pain signal as it travels from your stubbed toe to your sensory cortex. There are many components to this, but I will just speak on one that is important to the question above: the descending pathway (DP). The DP is a series of nerves that travels from the brain to the spinal cord. When this is active, it sends it's signal to the same place in the spinal cord as your stubbed toe first did. However, it acts in the opposite way. Your stubbed toe encourages your spinal cord nerve to send the signal up to the brain. The DP tells that nerve not to. In a way, the DP says that this stubbed toe signal is not important, please ignore. This is a super important pathway and is actually similar to how opioids work but they come with some unfortunate side effects. I won't get into this too much here because I have already written a lot.\n\nThe DP is the pathway that most likely plays a role in how screaming alleviates the pain. As people have noted, screaming encourages the fight or flight response in you. This is called a sympathetic state of your nervous system. A sympathetic state will cause your brain to prioritize only the most important sensations to encourage survival. In that process, the DP will activate for any unimportant pain signals such as your stubbed toe. Running from a potential threat is more important than your toe, so your brain dampens that signal with the DP.\n\nEdit: formatting"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/01/529876861/an-anthropologist-discovers-the-terrible-emotion-locked-in-a-word"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00737-X"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7kgamb
|
what makes something “music”?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7kgamb/eli5_what_makes_something_music/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dre2max"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's a bit like asking what makes something art. There's no one definition that everyone agrees on. Personally I believe something is art when it is called art by its creator. By extension, something is music when it is art (by the definition above) and it is sonic in nature.\n\nPeople who say you don't make music are elitist dickholes, don't pay any attention to them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3t5n5k
|
why don't refugees, if they have to pay up to 1000 dollars in order to get crammed on a sketchy boat, use that money to arrange their own, less sketchy boat with fewer people?
|
In essence, pooling the money of 20 people would pay for a safer journey. Why do they pay the smugglers instead?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t5n5k/eli5_why_dont_refugees_if_they_have_to_pay_up_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx397np",
"cx399w0"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"They use smugglers because that is their only option. Legitimate travel methods are not allowing them out of the country and buying their own boat would cost far more than what the smugglers are charging if there are even boats available for purchase and people who know how to operate them for hire at this point in time. ",
"This is a classic economic question, I suppose.\n\n1) Information. Refugees might not know how much it would cost to pool these resources themselves. They might not be able to find a boat or captain themselves. They might need help when they get there.\n\n2) Would it really be cheaper to do it that way? What would the refugees do when they get their? Sell the boat? To who? Well the smugglers don't have to buy a new boat or hire a new captain every time. So that saves money.\n\n3) Is this some sort of strange victim blaming?\n\nEDIT: grammar and typos"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
jzk9x
|
Cows have bacteria in their stomachs to help break down cellulose in grass in order to digest it. Could a human be inoculated with these bacteria, and then be able to eat grass?
|
Based on a previous askscience question about how and why cows and other grazing animals can eat grass and humans can't. Am I misunderstanding the mechanism by which these animals can use grass as a source of sustenance or is it simply that the bacteria can't survive in the human digestive tract.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jzk9x/cows_have_bacteria_in_their_stomachs_to_help/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2gd7nq",
"c2gd7nq"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"The bacteria are part of it, but remember that ruminants like cows have a four compartment stomach. First, the plant material enters the rumen and is separated into solid and liquid layers. The solid is regurgitated as the cud, which is masticated further and swallowed again. So, even if we innoculate ourselves with the stomach flora of bovine, have them survive the human stomach and have the human survive as well, we would encounter the rough task of heaving up our grassy lunch, chewing up the vomitus and swallowing it. Then there is the possibility that not enough nutrients may be extracted from the plant matter. Based on that, I'd say it isn't feasible.",
"The bacteria are part of it, but remember that ruminants like cows have a four compartment stomach. First, the plant material enters the rumen and is separated into solid and liquid layers. The solid is regurgitated as the cud, which is masticated further and swallowed again. So, even if we innoculate ourselves with the stomach flora of bovine, have them survive the human stomach and have the human survive as well, we would encounter the rough task of heaving up our grassy lunch, chewing up the vomitus and swallowing it. Then there is the possibility that not enough nutrients may be extracted from the plant matter. Based on that, I'd say it isn't feasible."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4skh8n
|
How do we know that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from Earth if it takes 2.5 million years for light to get there in the first place?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4skh8n/how_do_we_know_that_the_andromeda_galaxy_is_25/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5a8p0g",
"d5acobg"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Andromeda is billions of years old so we have plenty of old light hitting us. The light being 2.5 million years old is of little concern. Measuring cosmic distance is actually pretty hard to do and requires being clever. [Here's my favorite lecture on the topic](_URL_0_), it's by Fields Medalist Terrance Tao and is very accessible and well explained.\n\nThere are several ways to measure the distance to Andromeda, but the basic idea is that if you know how bright a star is supposed to be, and you see the same type of star far away, then the apparent brightness will be related to the distance. [Cepheid variables](_URL_1_) are one type of star you can do this with.",
"If you mean \"how do we know it hasn't moved in the last 2.5 million light years,\" well, we don't.\n\nI mean, it has definitely moved - we know it's moving towards us (very slowly) from the measurements we've taken (or it *was* moving towards 2.5 million years ago). By now it's actually about ~~0.0025~~ 900 light years closer to us than it looks, which isn't very much.\n\nIt's *possible* some powerful entity has wiped it from existence in the last 2.5 million light years, but it's not very likely."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/7ne0GArfeMs",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable"
],
[]
] |
||
1qdt9l
|
Were gladiators assigned to a single gladiator type, or did they change fighting styles from fight to fight?
|
I am making a game (for multiple devices) that puts the player in the role of lanista in charge of a ludus in the Roman Republic or Empire, trading and training gladiators while playing at politics.
The various [gladiator types](_URL_0_) are well documented, but I cannot figure out to what extend these were roles assigned on a game by game basis, or if a gladiator always fought using the same equipment and fighting style.
It makes a lot of sense that fighters would specialize, but on the other hand having some flexibility and practicing different styles could also be valuable - especially for non-celebrities.
Any clear answer or sources?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qdt9l/were_gladiators_assigned_to_a_single_gladiator/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdcrxxp",
"cdcvj0a"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To the best of my knowledge gladiators were assigned a single 'style' and trained in that area. The reason for this is actually quite simple, some styles (i.e. Retiarius) took a large amount of skill to preform well. A lanista would not want to invest a large amount of time and money into training a slave as a gladiator only to have him die in the arena as a result of lack of skill. Switching styles would be a huge disadvantage to the gladiator, he will not be as skilled, and to the lanista, who will have to invest even more money and time into training him. \n\nIf we think of a typical ludus, the number of gladiators could range from a handful to a large number, the exact number of gladiators within a typical ludus is unknown to me but you wouldn't want too many for fear of a revolt, especially considering you were training these men to fight. The fact that a lanista had the ability to chose from different gladiators means that he could train different men in different styles, therefore having a wide array of skilled men at his disposal.\n\nIt should also be noted that to be considered a 'good' gladiatorial match, the fight could not be over too quickly. To prolong a fight and strike in the right places (i.e. not immediately lethal or crippling) required an enormous amount of skill and good experience and knowledge of ones weapons and equipment, another reason to keep your gladiator in a single style.\n",
"I've contacted one of my professors for assistance in answering this. She teaches a class on Greek and Roman Sport and Spectacle. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_gladiator_types"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4fj2if
|
why are divorce rates so high in america where people can choose their spouse but low in india where it's arranged?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fj2if/eli5why_are_divorce_rates_so_high_in_america/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d297o1p",
"d297qmu",
"d297y94",
"d297y95"
],
"score": [
22,
2,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"Research shows that \"love marriages\" and \"arranged marriages\" end up with similar levels of happiness.\n\nSo the difference in divorce rate can't be attributed to differences in happiness.\n\nDivorce became common in the USA in the last 50 years because (1) the social taboo against it faded, (2) women gained greater rights, and (3) women gained greater career prospects so they could more easily live without a husband.",
"Isn't it frowned upon if people get divorced there? For all I know they aren't allowed to.",
"To say the least getting a divorce in the US is way easier than in India. Womens rights, social acceptance of divorce and financial independence in some parts of India are decades behind, so this is like asking \"Why have there been less divorces in the 50's than now?\" - \"Because now, they can\".",
"Divorce rates in the U.S. have fallen in recent decades [se chart](_URL_0_), after all those wishing for them but not doing so because of the taboo finally did so, and because people are waiting longer to get married and have a better idea about who they are, what they want in a spouse, etc.\n\nBut in reference to your question, presumably the types of cultures that would arrange marriages would also be the kind that would look down upon divorce very strongly, and probably would be the kind in which the woman would have little means of support were she to leave her husband. And some cultures, arranges marriages are more of a business transaction than about love and personal fulfillment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/"
]
] |
||
zlla8
|
why do (uk) car insurance prices vary from week to week/month to month?
|
I finally landed a decent paying job, though i have to commute 80miles a day to get to it. I've been looking into car insurance since i first found out about the possibility of this job, and some weeks it seems reasonable, other weeks its a little excessive. For instance, i've found a car i want, and my insurance when i looked it up 3 weeks ago was 2300 for the year. (Yay previous convictions), then when i looked it up today, its gone down to 1900. I looked at another car i liked the look of, and when i did it originally the price was 2200. Then it went up to 2800. Now its down to 2000. Why does it seem to vary from time to time, and is there any kind of 'sweet spot' to buy it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zlla8/eli5_why_do_uk_car_insurance_prices_vary_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6886hg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Insurance companies try to get the very best price that you (or people like you) are will to pay. This involves the company using data analytics to find the perfect price point for every kind of customer.\n\nSource: I work in the industry. I build the rules that optimise prices."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
uqoxc
|
What would a person experience if they took a dose of LSD while in a Sensory Deprivation chamber?
|
I think the title pretty much sums it up but if you didn't know a Sensory Deprivation chamber is a soundproof chamber in which you float in near body temperature liquid.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uqoxc/what_would_a_person_experience_if_they_took_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4xooa7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"If you are not opposed to some Googling, searching for John C Lilly might bring some answers for you. Sorry I cannot provide more information. r/drugs might also be able to prove some insight."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
62lrpk
|
how is it that the us pay more taxes towards healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare, but majority of the citizens don't receive the benefits? where does all of the tax money go?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62lrpk/eli5_how_is_it_that_the_us_pay_more_taxes_towards/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfnirl3",
"dfnjia6",
"dfnk7qs",
"dfnkho6",
"dfnlyzh",
"dfno2tv"
],
"score": [
25,
26,
5,
43,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"THe US does not pay more TAX MONEY towards healthcare. They do pay more money towards healthcare. That is a major distinction, because it introduces a private party that has a vested interest in collecting profit.",
"Well, there are various reasons.\n\n1) The US, by and large, does not price control it's medicine. That means that corporation can ask people and the governement to pay their price, rather than having to negotiate.\n\n2) High healthcare costs cause the poor to postpone visiting a doctor untill it gets really, really bad. This causes costs to go up. A small infection that could have been treated with a bit of antibiotics can turn into a lifethreatening condition if ignored for long enough.\n\n3) Overtreatment. Caused by defensive medicine and the way healthcare payments are made. In order to get more billable (and profitable items) or in order to avoid lawsuits, doctors often order unnecessairy but expensive tests.",
"Insurance companies salaries, costs and profits and the costs for people that process insurance claims in the docs office/hospital siphon off 30% or so. If we got rid of them costs would go down but there would be a huge number of newly unemployed.",
"One major factor in the UK's health system being relatively [cost-efficient per capita](_URL_0_) compared to the rest of the world is that NHS attempts to standardize purchase costs for medical items across all their hospitals, with the overall volume of orders being so large that there is significant leverage available for pricing negotiations.\n\nSecondly, the fact that the healthcare system is government funded means that there is a direct link between drug prices and the cost of funding, which gives the government a great incentive to keep the prices down.\n\nIn the US (as I understand it) there's a disconnect all the way along the chain. Looking just at medicine, drug companies sell drugs to healthcare providers. Healthcare providers \"sell\" them to patients, but healthcare insurers are often paying the bills. \n\nAs the healthcare provider is effectively a middle-man, the financial distress in this system is born by the healthcare insurers (ignoring people going bankrupt over medical bills, which is another entirely disgusting matter). The healthcare provider has no real reason to make the effort to decrease their bills for consumable items, as the cost is shunted on to the next party in any event.\n\nThe healthcare insurers have two options: press for lower prices to be provided by medical providers, or increase premiums. One of these is difficult to do as they're not party to purchasing contracts, and I'm unsure if they'd ever intervene in this way. The other involves passing cost along to a semi-captive market making a distress purchase.",
"Health care is very expensive in the US. Tax supported health care goes mainly to those over 65 and desperately poor people. ",
" > Where does all of the tax money go?\n\nTo the insurance companies, whose CEOs and senior executives are paid exhorfbitant salaries and bonuses in compensation.\n\n**Edit:** Downvotes by those in denial or disagreement (or insurance company trolls) in no way refute or impugn the statement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP?end=2014&name_desc=true&start=2014&view=map"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2of7qo
|
how is lizard squad hacking xbox live?
|
I just don't understand how a multi-billion dollar corporation like Microsoft can be hacked by a few 20 somethings.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2of7qo/eli5_how_is_lizard_squad_hacking_xbox_live/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmmka5e",
"cmmklbr",
"cmmmhuc",
"cmmn0e5"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
10
],
"text": [
"DDOS attacks on their servers. They did the same to EA earlier. Completely destroyed the use of all their online games.\n\nEdit: think of it as someone using up all the bandwidth so that no one else can use the internet. Like powering on a torrent at full speed, while your playing a game of Fifa online. ",
"It's getting fucking annoying that's for sure. I'm thinking they plan to shut down PSN, Xbox Live, and Steam on Christmas.",
"I think we should also explain how to stop these attacks and why even with billions of dollars, it can be difficult to completely negate these attacks. \nOne way to protect a network from DDOS is to just have LOTS and LOTS of bandwidth and spread your information over LOTS of servers. which of course takes LOTS of money. \nAnother is of course proper network security, a firewall looks for and blocks non important or false network traffic, they try to filter out basic attacks and block repeat signals so that you can free up bandwidth and make yourself harder to hit. Of course the big corporations have very expensive and well maintained firewalls, but no wall is immune if the attacker is dedicated, persistent and willing to do the work. \nand the last ability a company has to defend themselves are their network maintainers/defenders. These people are supposed to be able to see the attacks as they come in and modify the firewall to customize it against the attacks coming in. Most hacking attempts, specially BOT nets, use a one size fits all attack. Each computer firing the same type of \"ammunition\" so a skilled defender can see the pattern and tell the firewall to ignore those packets. But it requires a lot of skill and costs a lot of money to maintain a full time skilled network defense. Most companies have an outside source that they can call upon to protect their networks. Once the attack occurs, they can call up the company to have someone come out to fix the wall and stop the attack. \nYou'll also notice that most of these attacks are only for a few hours at most and that's why. It takes time to figure out the attack and patch the firewall to stop it, but it will happen sooner or later. \nBut that's why even billion dollar tech companies can be targeted and shut down. it won't last long, but when you are talking losing millions in sales and such, and also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to stop it it is sometimes worth just paying them to not hit you. \nHope this clears up some other questions that might come up. ",
"Lizard squad is using a technique called a \"Distributed Denial of Service.\" This isn't a hack or an act of \"breaking into\" a computer-network system. Instead the goal is to clog up the bandwidth available to people to access the system.\n\nYou can think of it as a public pool on a hot summer day. The pool is a service with a maximum number of people who can be in and swimming at one time. On most days it has a fair number of people who are in swimming around and on others it may have fewer. Sometimes it is closed for maintenance.\n\nThen there's that day when too many people are there. You're in the queue to get in but it's hard to establish any kind of order. People are pushing and shoving to get through first and many are frustrated when they do get in because the pool is already full. As soon as one person gets out another two or three fight over the spot. And what's worse is a lot of the people in the pool aren't even doing anything but standing around.\n\n**A DDoS takes a large volume of computers and other devices that can access the internet and continuously sends requests towards a target.** Xbox Live is a service with many servers in many locations, implying that an attack like this has taken some time to prepare and execute. The computers in the DDoS only have to send as many \"requests\" as they can each second. They don't have to wait for responses from the Xbox Live servers, **they just have to send so many requests that the servers cannot keep up, effectively preventing others from accessing this service.**"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
axv8tx
|
What did British military recruitment look like in the Scottish highlands in the 18th century? Specifically, how did the consequences of Jacobite Rebellions impact highlander's willingness to serve/the British ability to garner interest in military service?
|
In looking at every major conflict involving Britain in the 18th century, we find a number of Scottish soldiers and regiments also participating. Many Scots made their fame and fortune fighting in North America and Europe, specifically in the Seven Years War and the American Revolution. But these conflicts, specifically the Seven Years War, fell within the short timeframe following the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. We also see how the Dressing Act of 1746 made traditional highland dress illegal and how the historical record reveals a long stream of repression of gaelic culture. The Highland Clearances, too, were beginning in the mid-18th century and began to collapse traditional clan society. Did this progressive dissociation with the clan system encourge or discourage military service in the British army? The Dressing Act also included an exception making it legal for highlanders to wear traditional dress in a military context. How did this come into play? What sort of strategies did the British use to raise highland regiments or to promote individual service in the British army?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axv8tx/what_did_british_military_recruitment_look_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehxyt9k"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is a very insightful barrage of questions, and while I am tempted to try to answer them in detail, I would instead like to recommend a handful of top-notch works that comprehensively address these issues far better than I could hope to do. I would consider all of these absolutely indispensable for the purposes of your interest as stated above:\n\n* Allan Macinnes, *C**lanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788*\n* Christopher Whatley, *Scottish Society 1707-1830: Beyond Jacobitism, Towards Industrialisation*\n* A.J. Youngson, *After the Forty-Five: The Economic Impact on the Scottish Highlands*\n* Andrew Mackillop, *More Fruitful than the Soil: Army, Empire and the Scottish Highlands 1715-1815*\n* Robert Clyde, *From Rebel to Hero: The Image of the Highlander 1745-1830*\n* Victoria Henshaw, *Scotland and the British Army, 1700-1750: Defending the Union*\n\nYou might also wish to have a look at forthcoming work by Nicola Martin on British imperialism in the Scottish Highlands and North America after Culloden.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nA couple of thoughts in addendum:\n\n* Have a close look at the words of the 1746 Dress Act. There has been some recent work done by Jenn Scott and others analyzing both the wording and ramifications of that temporary law. Other recent articles of interest on the subject are from the [Scottish Tartans Authority](_URL_2_) and [Jo Watson](_URL_3_).\n* We must consider if the Clearances (which happened both within and outwith the Highlands) were the primary cause of 'cultural collapse' or whether the clan system was already threatened earlier in the eighteenth century between Jacobite risings. A good trawl through both Macinnes and Mackillop above should collectively address that question pretty thoroughly, or at least offer some insights. Some say it was the cultural 'genocide' aimed at the Highlands after Culloden that did the most damage, bolstered by widespread forfeitures and the abolition of heritable jurisdictions. Others lean toward it being caused by the natural modernization and improvement toward which some chiefs and other landowners were already headed (Cameron of Lochiel, for example).\n* A very important point (and complex irony) which emerges from your questions is how Britain implemented Highland regiments into their cause of empire even directly after Culloden, while at the same time 'civilizing' what was considered by many to be a rogue element in British society. Simon Fraser, Master of Lovat, is often served up as a prime example of how tepid Jacobitism could be transmogrified into heroic nationalism – especially with so many opportunities for military engagement in the New World and on the Continent.\n* It is also worth weighing whether the British government in the eighteenth century necessarily equated Highlanders with Jacobitism, despite the national and international composition of the rebel army in 1745-6 and its attempts to unify under a 'tartan mask'. After all, powerful elites like Duncan Forbes of Culloden and John Campbell, Lord Loudoun, were ultra-patriotic Highlanders who distinguished themselves as heroes of the British nation both during and well after the Forty-five. What does this also tell us about the variability or even speciousness of Jacobitism-as-nationalism in the eighteenth century? Were Whig and Hanoverian lawmakers in favor of the Union any less patriotic than the conservative Jacobite supporters of an ancient, Divine Right monarchy? Was dissolution of the Union really a priority for most Jacobites in 1745 as opposed to 1715, when it was still a very fresh issue?\n* You will read much more from Mackillop, but the issue of recruiting on both sides was a fascinating one in the middle of the century. Many communities in the Highlands were quite reluctant to send men into battle and thereby away from farms and crops, regardless of for whom they were fighting. The Jacobite army, which had the relative luxury of spending most of its time on 'familiar' ground, faced massive waves of desertion after significant battles due to men bearing off to attend their homesteads. Some scholars suggest they would always come back, but my own opinion is that it was an uphill battle all the way just to keep men in ranks – and their increasingly draconian recruitment tactics bear this out. I will spare you further analysis here, but you would be welcome to read my [doctoral thesis](_URL_0_) for more on the motivation and the constituency of the Jacobite army.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWishing you continued luck in your historical search!\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWith best wishes,\n\nDr Darren S. Layne\n\nCreator and Curator, [The Jacobite Database of 1745](_URL_1_)\n\n(recently of the Institute for Scottish Historical Research, University of St Andrews)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/8868",
"http://jdb1745.net/about.html",
"http://www.tartansauthority.com/resources/archives/the-archives/scobie/tartan-and-the-dress-act-of-1746/",
"https://sassenachstitcher.com/2019/02/10/the-act-of-proscription-tartan-and-gaelic-culture/"
]
] |
|
9en3x7
|
Ancient Greek Capitalism
|
From what I understand, to call Ancient Greece capitalist would be incorrect in a Marxist framework where-- as far as I understand it-- society "progresses" from primitive communism, to slave society, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, and finally to communism. I understand that Marx's view can be viewed as rather Whig-ish, so I'm curious how economic historians classify Ancient Greece nowadays considering the Historiographical differences that exist between 19th century England where Marx was living and modern day.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9en3x7/ancient_greek_capitalism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5q36un"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I cannot directly address the question, beyond saying \"it depends on your source.\" But if you'd like context...\n\n & #x200B;\n\nMarx was not alone in the characterization. Adam Smith also maintained that there was a definitive change in the economic system. He did not go back to Ancient Greece, but he goes back to what we may call the end of Mercantilism. What I'm hoping is read into this is that a change did occur that Smith is attempting to explain. The merchants, in this case, are looking to get themselves rich. In his narrative they don't really understand the full economics, except that by pressuring their monarchs to alter the economic system they'll be rich. This happens to generally work out. [Adam Smith](_URL_0_):\n\n & #x200B;\n\n > The different progress of opulence in different ages and nations has given occasion to two different systems of political œconomy with regard to enriching the people. The one may be called the system of commerce, the other that of agriculture. I shall endeavour to explain both as fully and distinctly as I can, and shall begin with the system of commerce. It is the modern system, and is best understood in our own country and in our own times. \n...When those countries became commercial, the merchants found this prohibition \\[upon trading precious medals as capital\\], upon many occasions, extremely inconvenient. They could frequently buy more advantageously with gold and silver than with any other commodity the foreign goods which they wanted, either to import into their own, or to carry to some other foreign country. They remonstrated, therefore, against this prohibition as hurtful to trade. \n > \n > They \\[the merchants\\] represented, first, that the exportation of gold and silver in order to purchase foreign goods, did not always diminish the quantity of those metals in the kingdom. That, on the contrary, it might frequently increase that quantity; because, if the consumption of foreign goods was not thereby increased in the country, those goods might be re-exported to foreign countries, and, being there sold for a large profit, might bring back much more treasure than was originally sent out to purchase them. Mr. Mun compares this operation of foreign trade to the seed-time and harvest of agriculture. \n > \n > If we only behold, \\[says he\\] the actions of the husbandman in the seed-time, when he casteth away much good corn into the ground, we shall account him rather a madman than a husbandman. But when we consider his labours in the harvest, which is the end of his endeavours, we shall find the worth and plentiful increase of his action. \n...Such as they were, however, those arguments convinced the people to whom they were addressed. They were addressed by merchants to parliaments and to the councils of princes, to nobles and to country gentlemen, by those who were supposed to understand trade to those who were conscious to themselves that they knew nothing about the matter. That foreign trade enriched the country, experience demonstrated to the nobles and country gentlemen as well as to the merchants; but how, or in what manner, none of them well knew. The merchants knew perfectly in what manner it enriched themselves. It was their business to know it. But to know in what manner it enriched the country was no part of their business. \n\n\nIt would be inaccurate to say that Marx just lifted Smith wholesale, but there is a certain parity that can be made. For instance, the Manifesto by [Marx](_URL_1_) essentially explains the process similarly:\n\n & #x200B;\n\n > The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development. \n > \n > The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop. \n > \n > Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. \n > \n > Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. \n > \n > We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.\n\nMarx was interested in this process, how this occurred. Feudalism came from somewhere, and it was probably a similar process, so it's applied further out.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIt seems to me that the position that Ancient Greece was simply a capitalist country is less historical than overtly political. If one can say that capitalism is the natural state of existence that everyone practiced and Marx perverted it, then you can score a propaganda point. However, nothing we know about ancient Athens concerns fiat systems, and Adam Smith himself notes a transition.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSo while I cannot say with certainty that there is no historian out there that claims that Ancient Athens was a capitalist country, it seems problematic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html?chapter_num=25#book-reader",
"https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007"
]
] |
|
2yhbza
|
why would putin admit he ordered the annexation of crimea?
|
What benefit is there for a world leader to say such a thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yhbza/eli5_why_would_putin_admit_he_ordered_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp9ievj",
"cp9l8eb"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
"I think mostly to show that he can. He is demonstrating his power. Opposing Putin tends to have it's downsides as well....",
"Keep in mind when he claims he said it. \n\nBasically, Putin's position (and you can take this back to either Soviet or Czarist understanding) is to be hyper-concerned with any unstable or destabilising border area. Russia's \"security dilemma\" is one in which its leaders never feel secure unless they can control the areas around them, and then around those areas, and so on and so on.\n\nPutin's orders can be defended from a security standpoint - Ukraine looked like it was about to degenerate into either an anti-Russian unstable state or a completely destabilised state in a civil war. \n\n Beyond the historical claims on Crimea, Russia is not simply going to allow a strategically vital area either fall apart or fall into the hands of either an enemy or an unknown.\n\nSo, at home, Putin can say to the Russian people (and those abroad), \"When it looked like our safety, security, and well-being could be compromised, I acted immediately. Besides this, I acted in such a way as to minimise casualties, maintain stability, and maximise the benefit to our people. Whatever issues the Ukrainian peoples have with their governments, and we are happy to discuss these with the Ukrainian government, must never be allowed to threaten or endanger Russia or her citizens. I acted to protect the Russians in Crimea, and those Russians believed their safety and prosperity would be better served reuniting with Russia.\"\n\nAbroad, Putin can state quite simply, \"This area was ours before the end of the Cold War, it continues to be of vital strategic importance. With the continuing instability in Ukraine which was taking an evermore aggressive outlook along ethnic lines, I acted to ensure the safety of Russians, the continued stability of a strategically and economically vital area, and I did so in as peaceful a manner as possible. There were no massive crackdowns or murders as in the Soviet days, we have not confiscated private property, and a vote of the Crimean peoples has validated our actions. It is very easy to tell a man how to put out a fire when the flames are not licking at your own doorstep, if the West had offered anything other than castigation and criticism of Russia, perhaps we could have worked together. They did not, and so we put out the flames ourselves.\"\n\nSo why admit it? There are a variety of ways he can benefit both at home and abroad which make him look like a wise and pragmatic leader, and by ignoring it he can't take advantage of those factors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
703q1n
|
During the Second World War, were there any Red Army units deployed, say, deep within Siberia or the -Stan countries, that were never sent to fight against Germany?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/703q1n/during_the_second_world_war_were_there_any_red/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn0bk5o",
"dn0bk5o"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Yes, since after all, throughout the war the USSR maintained a border with the Japanese controlled regions of China, and Japan wasn't exactly a friend, but it was not a particularly strong force.\n\nTo start, just prior to the outbreak of World War II the two powers had been involved in low level clashes, most notably Khalkhin Gol in the spring and summer of 1939. This tension aside however, once Germany launched Barbarossa in 1941, Japan and the USSR remained at peace, honoring their neutrality pact, until the very last moments of the war when the USSR invaded Manchuria as per agreement with the Wwestern Allies. Although the two Axis powers were nominally in a military alliance, Japan was not obligated to join in the conflict with the Soviets, and spurned German requests to join them unless certain conditions were met - which never were. \n\nThat fall the Soviets began moving large numbers of troops from the Far East to their fight in the west, which through September had been minimal, but in October became a torrent. From June through September, only seven divisions were moved, while October-November alone saw 12 Divisions, plus 12 naval rifle brigades. Although the impact of Richard Zorge, a spy working in Japan who reported on Japanese unwillingness to do anything less than back a clear winner and help with the clean up, should be noted, just how important Zorge was is a matter of debate - there is no question that it helped solidify the correctness of the decision in Stalin's mind, but the pressing threat from the Germans was enough that even without such assurances, the Soviets were faced with little choice, it was simply a gamble they couldn't afford not to take. Additionally, while the movement of 19 Divisions is by no means insignificant, due to increasing numbers of call-ups, the strength of the Soviet forces in the Far East was actually increased following the transfers, having averaged between 43 to 48 Divisions during the period they were occurring, but 51 to 53 by early 1942. By no means was that a full-throated military force, in comparison to what was being fielded against Germany, but it was hardly something to dismiss.\n\nAfter Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese threat was greatly reduced. Not only had the immediate chance of Japanese intervention dissipated with the failure to take Moscow and speedily bring the USSR to its knees, but Japan entering conflict with the western Allies following Pearl Harbor meant that her eyes were focused elsewhere. Despite this, the Soviets hardly neglected the Far East, continuing to raise divisions stationed there, which reached 65 by mid-1942. In the face of Operation Blau, although it did slightly raise fears again of Japanese intervention, 10 divisions were sent to the Stalingrad Front. \n\nFollowing victory at Stalingrad, the concerns with Japan were less that she might join Germany her war against the Soviets, but now quite the reverse, when and how the Soviets would join the Western Allies in *their* war against Japan. Although in no rush, Stalin was looking ahead, beginning construction of additional rail capacity for the eventual transfer of forces east, and committing, in late 1943, to joining the Pacific War once Germany was defeated. By the fall of 1944, the General Staff had began work on initial preparations for conflict in the Far East, and the General Staff's recommendations were officially accepted in June, 1945, with orders sent out to the commanders of the Far Eastern and Transbaikal to be prepared within a month for operations to commence. Offensive operations were launched at midnight, August 9th immediately following the delivery of news to the Japanese ambassador that war had begun. By this point, the Soviets had built up a force of roughly 1.5 million men who utterly overwhelmed the poor quality and understrength Japanese forces in Manchuria, who made considerable gains before JApan's unconditional surrender less than a week later (although operations would continue for several days beyond that).\n\n\nDavid M. Glantz (2017) The Impact of Intelligence Provided to the Soviet Union by Richard Zorge on Soviet Force Deployments from the Far East to the West in 1941 and 1942, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 30:3, 453-481\n\nHASEGAWA, TSUYOSHI. \"SOVIET POLICY TOWARD JAPAN DURING WORLD WAR II.\" Cahiers Du Monde Russe 52, no. 2/3 (2011): 245-71. ",
"Yes, since after all, throughout the war the USSR maintained a border with the Japanese controlled regions of China, and Japan wasn't exactly a friend, but it was not a particularly strong force.\n\nTo start, just prior to the outbreak of World War II the two powers had been involved in low level clashes, most notably Khalkhin Gol in the spring and summer of 1939. This tension aside however, once Germany launched Barbarossa in 1941, Japan and the USSR remained at peace, honoring their neutrality pact, until the very last moments of the war when the USSR invaded Manchuria as per agreement with the Wwestern Allies. Although the two Axis powers were nominally in a military alliance, Japan was not obligated to join in the conflict with the Soviets, and spurned German requests to join them unless certain conditions were met - which never were. \n\nThat fall the Soviets began moving large numbers of troops from the Far East to their fight in the west, which through September had been minimal, but in October became a torrent. From June through September, only seven divisions were moved, while October-November alone saw 12 Divisions, plus 12 naval rifle brigades. Although the impact of Richard Zorge, a spy working in Japan who reported on Japanese unwillingness to do anything less than back a clear winner and help with the clean up, should be noted, just how important Zorge was is a matter of debate - there is no question that it helped solidify the correctness of the decision in Stalin's mind, but the pressing threat from the Germans was enough that even without such assurances, the Soviets were faced with little choice, it was simply a gamble they couldn't afford not to take. Additionally, while the movement of 19 Divisions is by no means insignificant, due to increasing numbers of call-ups, the strength of the Soviet forces in the Far East was actually increased following the transfers, having averaged between 43 to 48 Divisions during the period they were occurring, but 51 to 53 by early 1942. By no means was that a full-throated military force, in comparison to what was being fielded against Germany, but it was hardly something to dismiss.\n\nAfter Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese threat was greatly reduced. Not only had the immediate chance of Japanese intervention dissipated with the failure to take Moscow and speedily bring the USSR to its knees, but Japan entering conflict with the western Allies following Pearl Harbor meant that her eyes were focused elsewhere. Despite this, the Soviets hardly neglected the Far East, continuing to raise divisions stationed there, which reached 65 by mid-1942. In the face of Operation Blau, although it did slightly raise fears again of Japanese intervention, 10 divisions were sent to the Stalingrad Front. \n\nFollowing victory at Stalingrad, the concerns with Japan were less that she might join Germany her war against the Soviets, but now quite the reverse, when and how the Soviets would join the Western Allies in *their* war against Japan. Although in no rush, Stalin was looking ahead, beginning construction of additional rail capacity for the eventual transfer of forces east, and committing, in late 1943, to joining the Pacific War once Germany was defeated. By the fall of 1944, the General Staff had began work on initial preparations for conflict in the Far East, and the General Staff's recommendations were officially accepted in June, 1945, with orders sent out to the commanders of the Far Eastern and Transbaikal to be prepared within a month for operations to commence. Offensive operations were launched at midnight, August 9th immediately following the delivery of news to the Japanese ambassador that war had begun. By this point, the Soviets had built up a force of roughly 1.5 million men who utterly overwhelmed the poor quality and understrength Japanese forces in Manchuria, who made considerable gains before JApan's unconditional surrender less than a week later (although operations would continue for several days beyond that).\n\n\nDavid M. Glantz (2017) The Impact of Intelligence Provided to the Soviet Union by Richard Zorge on Soviet Force Deployments from the Far East to the West in 1941 and 1942, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 30:3, 453-481\n\nHASEGAWA, TSUYOSHI. \"SOVIET POLICY TOWARD JAPAN DURING WORLD WAR II.\" Cahiers Du Monde Russe 52, no. 2/3 (2011): 245-71. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
mdzl6
|
fifo & lifo (accounting)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mdzl6/fifo_lifo_accounting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c305e5c",
"c305e5c"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Let's say you buy 10 widgets at $1 a piece, then later you buy 10 more at $1.10. You then sell 5 of them. How much are the remaining 15 widgets worth? FIFO means first-in-first-out, LIFO means last-in-first-out, meaning do you count those 5 you sold out of the first batch you bought (the $1 ones), or the last batch you bought (the $1.10 ones).",
"Let's say you buy 10 widgets at $1 a piece, then later you buy 10 more at $1.10. You then sell 5 of them. How much are the remaining 15 widgets worth? FIFO means first-in-first-out, LIFO means last-in-first-out, meaning do you count those 5 you sold out of the first batch you bought (the $1 ones), or the last batch you bought (the $1.10 ones)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2p6bz1
|
why are guns legal but switch blade knives are illegal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p6bz1/eli5_why_are_guns_legal_but_switch_blade_knives/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmtqmu5",
"cmtqppi",
"cmtrn0i",
"cmts57u",
"cmttiap",
"cmtvuoi",
"cmtxpdg"
],
"score": [
39,
14,
6,
11,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Because laws are not necessarily logical or moral, and in fact are often very arbitrary. I have no idea why people don't understand this.",
"There's no National Knife Association to tell idiot politicians why those laws won't do what they think they'll do.\n",
"[Mostly sensationalism.](_URL_1_)\n\nFor example: \n\n > In The Toy That Kills, Pollack wrote that the switchblade was \"Designed for violence, deadly as a revolver - that’s the switchblade, the 'toy' youngsters all over the country are taking up as a fad. Press the button on this new version of the pocketknife and the blade darts out like a snake’s tongue. Action against this killer should be taken now\". To back up his charges, Pollack quoted an unnamed juvenile court judge as saying: \"It’s only a short step from carrying a switchblade to gang warfare\".\n\nAlso, they're legal to own and even carry in many places, [including a large number of states in the U.S.](_URL_0_)\n\n",
"The law was passed in the 50s when they became associated with criminals on TV and in movies. It scared the public as a whole thus passing the switchblade law in the late 50s. \n\nTo get a better understanding to why the law still stands today i decided to ask a law enforcement officer.\n\nHe basically told me that if you are pissed off or in a fight with someone what are you more likely to use on them? A gun or a switchblade? \n\nA swtichblade is so easy to pull out press a button and just use it when you are in a fight it can actually be more dangerous.\n\n\n\n ",
"A switchblade is a fighting knife, pure and simple. It frequently falls foul of offensive weapons law because of this.\n\nFirearms have many uses including hunting and competitive target shooting up to and including Olympic Games level.\n\nTypically you will find jurisdictions that ban switchblades will also have laws against certain firearms or CCW, only allowing hunting and sporting arms.\n\nIn more open states of the US with open or concealed carry firearm laws, knife laws are also more liberal.\n\nAlso bear in mind firearms and knives are usually covered by different laws written at different times and lawmakers do not always refer back to existing law. They pitch it to what they feel is appropriate at the time, not proportionate to a gun law written a decade back.",
"Some guns are legal, but not all.\n\nSome knives are legal, but not all.\n\nSome states have decided that a switchblade serves no purpose but to make it easier to use a concealed knife to harm someone, and banned them.",
"I had a switchblade once, but it was a modified hairbrush."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#State_laws",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Controversy"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4pa9wo
|
What are meteorites made from?
|
Title pretty much explains it all, it's always interested me, like are they granite? Because surely that would imply they were formed volcanically, or are they just pure elements?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4pa9wo/what_are_meteorites_made_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4jd95j"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"In the broad sense Meteorites are for the most part made of the same minerals Earth is made of (there may also be volatile species [ice, CO2, and rarely organic molecules, etc.], those burn up on rentry for the most part and I'll leave their discussion to others if they feel like joining in). That being said, it is the combinations of these minerals, it is the ways they relate to one another and their isotopic ratios which are mostly of interest.\n\nThe most common minerals are iron & nickel sulphides, iron oxydes, olivine, various silicates. [There are various elaborate classification schemes](_URL_0_), and the basic fundamental distinction reflects the relative proportion of silicates and non-silicate materials, ranging from stony, stony-iron and iron meteorites. Each has several sub categories.\n\nIn terms of relating these compositions to terrestrial materials, what meteorites most look like is what is termed \"unevolved mafic to ultramafic igneous rocks\" (although there are several minor and subtle chemical differences). These are rocks derived from primary melting of the mantle, and whose composition is close to that of the resulting primary melt. They are rocks you might find in the lower part of the ocean floor, or in some kinds of igneous intrusions called [Mafic/ultramafic layered complexes](_URL_2_). They are typically undersaturated in silica, and consist mostly in olivine and pyroxene, with locally variable amounts of oxyde or sulphide minerals settling along the bottom. Some comparable (but not identical) rock types in these environments you could look at to have a gross first approximation of meteorite mineralogy might be [peridotites](_URL_3_), magnetite cumulates and magmatic segregation copper-nickel ores [(see slide 22)](_URL_1_), as well as some basalts/gabbros. Mostly dark and dense stuff.\n\nGranite is a quite evolved igneous rock, which is supersaturated in silica (hence all the quartz). It is quite unlike most meteoritic material."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite_classification",
"http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/nr/mines/prospector/matty_mitchell/Virtual/Metallic%20Mineral%20Deposits%20of%20NL,%20Part%204,%20Intrusion-Related.pdf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layered_intrusion",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridotite"
]
] |
|
1x4x6m
|
does cancelling my credit card hurt my credit? or is it better to keep it and not use it?
|
I want to cancel my credit card with X bank and get a new one with X bank. I've heard people say that cancelling your credit card hurts your credit, while others say not. I've also heard it's okay to not use your credit card and just let it sit there untouched and open.
What's the pros/cons of doing either, and is there really a smarter choice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x4x6m/eli5_does_cancelling_my_credit_card_hurt_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf850wi",
"cf85178",
"cf85646"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Hurts your credit. Just don't use it and let it expire. ",
"The age of your credit history does go toward calculating your credit score. Also the number of credit accounts you have can also increase your score. \n\nYou would more than likely, in the long run, be better off keeping the account. ",
"Banks look at the total of all your credit lines, and the total of all of your debt. What they want to see is your debt to be a relatively low percentage of your total credit line. As the percentage of total debt goes up in relation to the total credit line, your credit rating goes down.\n\nWhen you cancel a credit card you reduce your total credit line by x amount (whatever credit line that card had). That will cause any debt you still have to now be a larger percentage of your total credit line, which can harm your credit.\n\nIf you have no other debt, it may not matter much if you cancel the card. But it's also useful to just keep the credit line open and not use it. That keeps your total credit line larger, and your debt percentage lower which helps your credit rating."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1uppyo
|
how do massive cold fronts, like the one being experienced in america right now, occur?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uppyo/eli5_how_do_massive_cold_fronts_like_the_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cekgi97",
"cekk43m"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The cold front that is being experienced by the United States and Canada right now is known as a polar vortex. Polar vortexes are strong winds found in the upper level of the atmosphere that normally stay over the north pole. On occasion the vortex can be distorted, causing cold air to spill to the south. \n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"[NPR had a pretty good explanation](_URL_0_) -- basically, you've got high pressure air to the west, high pressure to the east, and in between the cold arctic air. The arctic air is getting squeezed by the two systems on each side, and when you squeeze something it has to squirt out somewhere. The arctic air is getting squirted out all over the US this time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/us/polar-vortex-explained/"
],
[
"http://www.npr.org/2014/01/06/260265148/powerful-polar-vortex-makes-rare-appearance-in-u-s"
]
] |
||
3ldrry
|
why is it so difficult to not flinch when something jumps out at you on a screen(like a scary movie for example) even though our brain registers that it is fake and expected?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ldrry/eli5_why_is_it_so_difficult_to_not_flinch_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv5g2fu"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Reflexes occur *much* faster than rational thought. It's been shown that people reacting to painful stimuli move away from the stimuli before the rational centers of the brain are even activated. This means that your rational brain is not even involved when you flinch - you know it's fake, but that knowledge isn't relevant to the reflexes. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7zjn85
|
How does the cosmic microwave background persist? Why hasn't it been distorted and destroyed by new sources of energy pumping into space?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7zjn85/how_does_the_cosmic_microwave_background_persist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duok0d0",
"duoxwkv",
"dupj5bj"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically CMB, it is a picture of a age, the last scattering surface age, and it is the name of that because, the photon crosssection is very low, basically a photon of cmb can interact with gravitation lens and matter. So if you observe through the MW disk, you will see a interference, but in the deep space basically the photon don't interact. \n\nWith you are interested for more information, read about and decoupling of matter and radiation \n\nAnd more about sashwolfe effect. \n\nI hope this helps. ",
"The universe is largely transparent. Sure, some parts of the radiation have been absorbed, and there is a bit of new emission at this wavelength range, but overall it is not a large effect and it can be taken into account.",
" > How does the cosmic microwave background persist?\n\nEnergy is conserved, and the CMB is mostly not interacting with anything, so it *must* persist. The laws of physics require it.\n\n > Why hasn't it been distorted and destroyed by new sources of energy pumping into space?\n\nBecause it doesn't interact directly with almost any of these other energy sources, and there isn't that much energy being \"pumped into space\" in the first place -- not nearly as much as is already there due to the CMB. There is more total EM radiation intensity from the CMB than all other EM radiation sources combined. The other EM radiation is also at different wavelengths. EM radiation does not self-interact, and it is easy to distinguish radiation with different wavelengths, so the signal of CMB radiation is easily separable from other sources."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
282ngn
|
If someone paralyzed from the waist down breaks their leg, will their body still know and be able to repair it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/282ngn/if_someone_paralyzed_from_the_waist_down_breaks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci6sz8r",
"ci73geh"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Paralyzation and regeneration are two different things. Just because paralyzed people don't feel their legs doesn't mean the body ignores it completely...ya just can't feel bad stuff happening to it. There's actually a disease people can have where the body feels no pain. Was covered in a House episode though I can to remember its official name right off hand. \n\nAnyway, if the tissue is still alive, blood flowing through it and everything else, then it will heal just like anything else...that person just won't feel the process. It's a boon and a curse really. People could really hurt themselves pretty bad if they couldn't feel things happening to them. ",
"Paralysis is a result of nervous system dysfunction. If a limb is still viably attached to a person, though paralyzed, then lots of usual processes can still occur. A fracture will cause bleeding and inflammation. Chemical signals will be emitted which travel through the blood and attract white blood cells. Platelets will adhere and form clots. Approximated bone fragments can knit together as the initial fibrinous callus made of clot, inflammatory material, and other things is infiltrated with collagen fibers and then mineralized by osteoblasts. All through chemical signals.\n\nYour nervous system has very little input into many body processes like these."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
adm2su
|
Buddhism originated in India but today, most of India is either Hindu or Muslim. Conversely, Buddhism is very common in East Asian countries such as Japan. What were some of the key factors that lead to the decline of Buddhism in India and its rise in East Asia?
|
To add: the cultural association between Buddhism and East Asia is very strong, even though the religion originated in India.
East Asian societies like Japan and China have also been historically hesitant to embrace outside religion (Christian Missionaries come to mind). What made Buddhism so different/appealing that it's more embedded in their (East Asian) culture than the culture it originates from?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/adm2su/buddhism_originated_in_india_but_today_most_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edihki7"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"One of the interesting things about the spread of Buddhism is that it took a very roundabout route through the northwest of the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia (what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan) into East Asia along the Silk Road routes -- so the form it reached China in (Mahayana) was a bit separated from the credo of the original Buddha.\n\nThe 'golden age' of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent coincided with its institutionalization by the Mauryan Empire, especially during the reign of Asoka. In fact, [he issued a series of multilingual (some are in Greek and Aramaic) edicts](_URL_0_) throughout the empire advertising the non-violent morals of Buddhism, that he had converted various peoples in his empire (including Greeks), and that he had sent missionaries as far away as Sri Lanka and the Hellenistic kingdoms of the west. Stupas and Buddhist seminaries were sponsored en masse -- though these were institutions that ultimately relied on imperial or communal support and funding. While Buddhism became entrenched in a few places, such as Gandhara (a region that now straddles Afghanistan and Pakistan, [known for Graeco-Buddhist art](_URL_4_)), it largely petered out outside of a select few pilgrimage points, universities and monasteries. It just wasn't endearing enough to the common imagination, nor did it attract much imperial support in the bulk of the subcontinent. So Buddhism went on a steady decline in the subcontinent, coinciding with the emergence of Hinduism and Islam.\n\nBack to Gandhara and the northwest frontier, however: Buddhism flourished thanks to the capture of the region by Graeco-Bactrians and Kushans, who again institutionalized the religion through stupa-construction and funding of Buddhist monasteries and scholars. Mahayana Buddhism also emerged here, especially through humanistic depictions of the Buddha (whereas Buddhism was originally aniconic) and the concept of *boddhisattvas*. One of the principal *vajrapanis* (or protectors of the Buddha) in Graeco-Buddhist art is Hercules, for example, while Gandharan Buddhas aesthetically resemble depictions of the Hellenistic god Apollo. This is also evident from the travel accounts of Chinese traveller [Fa-hsien](_URL_3_), who travelled to the region during Hephthalite rule (better known as the Huns). He mentions the Buddhist mythology endemic to the region (such as fables that the Buddha had slain dragons there) and stupas built by the Kushan emperor [Kanishka I](_URL_6_), whose reign also saw the flourishing of Graeco-Buddhist art and Silk Road trade with Han and Tang-dynasty China.\n\nAlso during this period was the [migration of many Gandharans and the Gandharan language into what is now Xinjiang in western China](_URL_5_). The Gandharan language was a Sanskritic one written in either Greek or Aramaic script at various points in history, but in China, it was principally the language of Buddhism. Through the many Gandhari-language scrolls peppered throughout Silk Road oases and Buddhist monasteries, it is evident that Gandharan Buddhism -- with its heavy Hellenistic and Iranian influence -- was the medium by which Buddhism spread to China. There were even some prolific figures like the Kashmiri monk [Kumarajiva](_URL_1_) who translated works like the Diamond Sutra directly from Sanskrit to Chinese, introducing tens of thousands of Sanskritic loanwords into the Chinese language. Important also were an Iranian people called the Sogdians, who left Buddhist inscriptions all over the Hindu Kush and the Hunza Valley of northern Pakistan -- they were primarily Zoroastrian and eventually Muslim, but the artwork Sogdians constructed in China and along the Silk Road often blends Iranian, Chinese, Hellenistic and Buddhistic motifs and elements.\n\nFinally, it's important to note that the period of greatest incursion of Buddhism was during the Tang-dynasty period; that dynasty is known widely for its cosmopolitanism, and was deeply engaged with the geo-political affairs of Central Asia, Iran and the Tibetan plateau. Their capital at Chang'an (modern Xi'an), for example, hosted great shrines, temples and monasteries of various 'Western' religions, such as Nestorian Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Islam, and a very multi-ethnic population that still characterizes western China today. Buddhist monasteries were sponsored by the state, and members of the royal family even converted to Buddhism during this period. The famous Buddhist monk [Xuanzang](_URL_2_) even travelled throughout Central Asia and India to collect Sanskrit texts during this period, and was accordingly celebrated by the contemporary Tang emperor.\n\nThat cosmopolitanism ended with the devastating An Lushan Rebellion, which led to increasing xenophobia and the persecution of 'non-native' religions like Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Manichaeism and Islam. Although Buddhism did not escape repression, it was endearing enough to establish long-standing monasteries and seminaries and thus survived until the decentralization of the Tang dynasty, by which point it flourished with native Chinese artistic and mythological elements. What was different about Buddhism, as compared to Zoroastrianism, Nestorian Christianity, Islam and Manichaeism, was that it had very little backing among the Central Asian foes of the Tang dynasty; Manichaeism, for example, was sponsored by a Uighur khanate that had opposed the Tang, and Zoroastrianism was the principal religion of the Sogdians, who constituted a considerable antagonistic faction during the An Lushan rebellion. Christianity and Islam, likewise, was endearing to various Turkic tribes.\n\nSources:\n\n*The Silk Road: A New History* by Valerie Hansen "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://projects.mcah.columbia.edu/indianart/pdf/asoka_thapar.pdf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum%C4%81raj%C4%ABva",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanzang",
"https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/faxian.html",
"https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2018/12/ancient-kingdoms-probably-never-heard-of/#/09-ancient-kingdoms-gallery.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka"
]
] |
|
6gmtvd
|
stop-motion animation
|
I know you've seen the Shiny short film from Australia. How does someone create something so glorious?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gmtvd/eli5_stopmotion_animation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dirh1hb",
"dirhfbk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Conceptually, there's not much to it. \n\n1. Set your camera on a tripod or other device to ensure it stays in exactly the same place\n2. pose your clay figure/doll/paper cutout/clothes\n3. take a photograph.\n4. SLIIIIIIGHTLY move your figure towards it's next position. \n5. Take another pic.\n6. Repeat *thousands* of times. \n7. Take your photographs and play them back at 30 pictures a second. Tada! Motion!\n8. Add in sound effects and music via video editing software, just like you can for a \"regular\" movie clip.\n\nThe secret sauce that makes it look so good is practice and patience. ",
"Videos are essentially a number of still images played in quick succession. Stop motion videos consist of a number of individually clicked still images, each clicked after making slight changes in the subject's position. When they're all put together and played in quick succession in a video, it produces an illusion of movement. \n\nNot to be mistakened with time-lapse video where a number of still images are clicked at equally spaced time intervals and then put together into a video, generating a speedened up version of the captured events. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5s0qw0
|
How were ancient open-field battles organised?
|
This may seem like a stupid question but did two armies just happen to find one another while on the move or would there have been an agreed location to begin a battle?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5s0qw0/how_were_ancient_openfield_battles_organised/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddbohl1"
],
"score": [
176
],
"text": [
"I can only answer this for Classical Greece, but I'm sure some of our resident experts will be willing to add the Roman perspective.\n\nSimply put, Greek armies were usually able to find one another because it was all but impossible for an army to move without being noticed. Armies are large masses of men, often wearing shiny metal armour and weapons, accompanied by countless servants and camp-followers, wagons carrying equipment and supplies, horses for cavalry, oxen to draw carts, and sheep and goats for sacrificing. The movement of armies was slow and noisy. It threw up vast clouds of dust and frightened flocks of birds. When encamped, an army betrayed itself through the light and smoke of its many fires; when on the move, it tended to be preceded by throngs of refugees. Even without scouts, it was often hard to miss an advancing army.\n\nThese general characteristics were made worse by the terrain of mainland Greece (and indeed most of the Greek world). About 80% of the peninsula is covered in mountains; most city-states occupied isolated valleys or coastal plains, accessible over land only through a few mountain passes. The routes of invading armies tended to be very predictable, and a simple watchtower or border fort with a small garrison would provide a city under attack with ample notice that an enemy was approaching. Some of the most admired achievements of Classical Greek generals were deceiving the enemy about campaign targets or stealing a march, so that land could be seized and ravaged before the enemy had time to organise its defence. Most of the time, if an invasion was imminent, its exact path into friendly territory was known before the enemy had set a foot beyond their borders.\n\nAs a result, the defender's choice whether or not to fight a pitched battle was usually an informed decision. They knew where the enemy was and how many men they had with them. They also knew the lay of the land and the extent to which it could be used to their advantage. If they felt they would be at a disadvantage, they might hide within their city walls and allow the enemy to put the countryside to the torch. If they felt they had a decent chance of winning, they would march out to fight.\n\nEven so, the aim of Greek generals was always to skew the odds in their favour as much as they possibly could. Sometimes two armies would shadow each other for days, looking for an opportunity to strike. Aineias the Tactician actually advises a defending city to allow its enemies to plunder, to wait until they are weighed down with loot and drunk with victory, and then to attack with fresh troops from all sides. Advantage was the watchword:\n\n > Contrive (…) to catch the enemy in disorder with your side in formation, to catch them unarmed while fully armed, to catch them asleep while wide awake, when they are visible to you but you are invisible to them, and face them when they find themselves in poor ground while you are in a strong position.\n\n-- Xenophon, *Education of Kyros* 1.6.35\n\nSince the defender knew his own land well, the invader had to be always on his guard against possible traps or ambushes. Large armies moved slowly, but surprise attacks could be launched by lean task forces carrying no baggage, ideally consisting of nimble and flexible troops (light infantry and cavalry), operating at a short distance from a city or fortified base. Nowhere was safe; marching columns had to be carefully protected against all eventualities. Sometimes local guides or hostages could be used to gain more intelligence, and horsemen and light infantry could act as scouts to prevent nasty surprises. Xenophon's ideal general is one who never lets his guard down:\n\n > On the march, whenever he knew that the enemy could fight him if they chose, he would lead his army in such a formation that he could most easily defend himself, moving on as quietly as the most modest girl, believing that this was the best way to keep calm and least vulnerable to panic, confusion, and blunders, and safest from surprise attack.\n\n-- Xenophon, *Agesilaos* 6.7\n\nSafest of all was to have the enemy in plain sight. If both sides were willing to fight a pitched battle, they would often end up encamped across from one another, waiting for the opportune moment. Greek armies tended to encamp on hills, to make sure they would have the advantage if they were to be suddenly attacked - but Greek commanders were smart enough not to attack an enemy in a strong position. The result was an awkward standoff. Neither side would be keen to give up its advantage, but there could be no decision without a battle, and militia armies couldn't afford to stay in the field forever. There were only two solutions. Either one side or the other would give up, break camp, and go home - or both sides would march down into the plain and fight it out.\n\nThe mutual decision to go down to level ground for a pitched battle has often been interpreted as a 'battle by agreement'. Indeed, Herodotos makes the Persian general Mardonios mock the Greeks for finding \"the best, most level piece of ground\" for their engagements; Polybios, who wrote in the 2nd century BC, argued that \"the ancients\" used to fight only on a place and time that had been agreed upon by both sides. However, Polybios' claim is clearly a nostalgic fantasy. He is in fact the earliest source ever to use the term *machê ex homologou* (battle by mutual consent); no Classical author knew this term. The record of Classical Greek battles proves that commanders of the period, far from announcing their moves in advance, always preferred to take the enemy by surprise - even when the time and place where the battle would be fought was clear. They tried to hide their deployment behind hills or tall grass; they tried to start their attack before the enemy was ready; sometimes they tried to decieve the enemy into thinking there would be no battle that day, only to charge when they turned away to make dinner. They frequently tried to hide key forces out of sight or to orchestrate attacks from unseen directions once the main force was already engaged. In short, they did everything they could to make sure that even a battle in the open plain was as little like a 'battle by agreement' as they could make it.\n\nSo where does Polybios' idea come from? It seems likely that he is referring to the one sole exception to the rule that Greeks did not arrange the conditions of battle beforehand. This exception is the so-called Battle of the Champions, fought between Argos and Sparta around 550 BC. To make sure the engagement was fair, the two city-states agreed that only 300 warriors on each side could take part, and that the rest would retreat to a distance where they could not be tempted to influence the outcome. The result is the only battle in Greek history that was fought fairly at an agreed-upon place and time.\n\nThe only trouble was that the two sides couldn't agree about the outcome. At the end of a long day's fighting, only 2 Argives and 1 Spartan were left standing; the Argives, confident in their numerical superiority, declared themselves victorious and went home. The one surviving Spartan, noting that there was no one else left on the battlefield, declared himself the winner, stripped the enemy dead and went home. Both Argos and Sparta claimed the victory; their disagreement turned violent; and in the end the matter was resolved in an all-out battle between the full armies of both sides. The attempt to fight a battle by mutual consent and under specific limitations proved a complete failure.\n\nAfter this debacle, no Greek conflict was ever again resolved by organising a battle at a predetermined time and place. The Greeks settled instead on committing massive violence on a preferrably unprepared enemy, knowing that armies were slow and cumbersome, men were easily frightened, and there was nothing better than to destroy the enemy at minimal risk to their own side. Open battles were only fought rarely, reluctantly, and at a bitter price."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
e25los
|
why did google let microsoft use chromium on edge?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e25los/eli5_why_did_google_let_microsoft_use_chromium_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8tmumt",
"f8tvsy4"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"[Google is an advertising company, first and foremost](_URL_0_). Everything that they do, they do to further the goal of selling more ads.\n\nChrome, Drive, their MS Office knock-offs: their only purpose is to get people to use them and sink ever deeper into the Google ecosystem. That is why they are \"free\".",
"because it's the defacto standard; atleast for a majority of the mainstream internet now. IE sucked for everyone but especially for developers; i remember the stupid shit you had to do in order to achieve the same result as document.getelementbyid.innertext/innerhtml = blablahblah. hence you can probably defer from that fact that nobody would miss the old IE engine; whatever it was."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-tech-giants-make-billions/"
],
[]
] |
||
1z39jj
|
In evolution if mutations are random, how does bacteria learn to use the mutations correctly? Does the behavior mutate randomly too?
|
_URL_0_
This question may be a bit confusing so let me put it this way:
If a cell evolves a flagellum that it did not have before (dont know
how likely that mutation is) how does it know how to use the tail upon evolving? If it were to get proteins that help it cling to objects instead of a Flagellum, how would it know to use those proteins for that purpose?
How does behavior that comes with the use of a mutation come to be, along with the mutation? Does this question make any sense? How does it know to use the mutation to start with?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1z39jj/in_evolution_if_mutations_are_random_how_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfq51m9",
"cfq53th",
"cfq5tdi",
"cfq73x2",
"cfq8kq7",
"cfqcfeg"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4,
3,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"'Mutation' refers to somewhat random modification of a cell's genome. This usually affects only affects a few proteins. A cell doesn't just mutate and create a complex structure like a flagellum. That sort of evolution takes a long time, think millions of years. In addition, mutation is only a small part of what drives evolution.\n\nAs for which came first, the flagellum or the behavior, that's a bit like asking if the chicken or the egg came first. Both could happen or they could co-evolve at the same time. That is entirely dependent on the species though. And to answer that question for just one species is incredibly difficult and takes years of research.",
"Something complex like a flagellum does not appear in a single generation. More likely it will evolve from an existing structure and as that transitions toward a \"new\" structure like the flagellum in your example behavioral traits will evolve along with it. Keep in mind though that this will happen over many many generations in a gradient fashion. ",
"It's kind of like breaking a continuous string of changing passwords. The population of bacteria doesn't know what the password is or how it will change, so it does a brute force method and throws everything at it. Some fail along the way and don't pass, others crack it and get to the next password. Each time it passes an environmental check, i.e. the password, it marks a mutation that is well suited for that environment. The changes are incremental, but the rate of mutation may vary as with the environment. It has no end goal except to survive in the current moment. Not every mutation results in a change, however. They may code for the same protein or be useless until something triggers its usefulness. The thing is you only get to see the successful organisms that make it, not the endless dead ones that have lined its path. \n\nWith simple organism, there is no thought in behavior. It is a result of its functions, some may swim in circles, some may not even know how to swim. Again, only the successful ones get to move on.\n\nTL;DR: Evolution throws everything against the wall until one sticks.",
"Bacteria don't \"know\" anything, they just react, chemically and physically to their environment.\n\nThere is no \"plan\" to evolution. Mutations happen all the time, but because they are random, most either do nothing, or are actually harmful, resulting in the death of the organism. \n\nEvolution happens because every once in a great while, a mutation occurs that creates some slight advantage. Over MASSIVE amounts of time, these can build up, and eventually the species looks very different from its older form.\n\nBacteria can develop antibiotic resistance so quickly because their generations are so quick, sometimes only minutes long, and there are so many cells, rather than one large multicellular organism. This gives many more chances for mutation. \n\nAlso, bacteria have ways of sharing genes amongst themselves, so beneficial mutations can spread either through inheritance, or through sideways gene swapping, something multicellular organisms can't do.",
"Bacteria don't know anything because they aren't conscious. Physics drives their chemistry to happen and that is what causes them to function and react to their environment. Compounds and molecules are just bumping in to each other and reacting according to the laws of physics and chemistry, and this causes everything that happens inside the bacteria to take place.\n\nSay, for instance, a new protein evolves that helps a bacterium stick to something. Well that protein would most likely be something that is expressed in the outer membrane so that it can grab on to something. In this proteins previous form, it didn't cause the cell to stick to something at all, or it was somewhat sticky but not enough to stick permanently. Now that the protein has changed, it just causes the bacterium to stick automatically. There is no conscious thought about it, it just sticks. If that new protein leads to the increased survivability of that bacterium then it will reproduce more than other bacteria in that specific area where being sticky is advantageous and the new protein will spread.",
"This should really blow your mind, then.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nNot only are its 'flagella' actually an entirely separate species of bacteria in their own right, they are attached to the cell wall via special mounting brackets that are _also_ a different species."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixotrich"
]
] |
|
3p5rmh
|
Why didn't Germany go through Luxembourg instead of Belgium in WWI?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3p5rmh/why_didnt_germany_go_through_luxembourg_instead/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw3d1cz"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The Germans **DID** go through Luxembourg, they just went through Luxembourg **and** Belgium. The problem with just going through Luxembourg, is that it creates an incredibly cramped 'battlespace' if you will, with not a lot of room for the massive German Armies (970 000 men alone advanced through Belgium) to maneuver. This complicates maneuver, logistics, and it would force the Germans to reduce the actual forces involved in the attack, resulting in a large reserve, but in a smaller invasion, one that is advancing through difficult terrain in the Ardennes/Schnee Eiffel area, and into the area of the northernmost segments of the French fortress line. This gives the French an immense advantage, even greater because the German invasion would essentially be playing out as **they** had expected it to, with a German thrust through southern Belgium, Luxembourg, and Northern Lorraine, and with German reserve divisions uncommitted. \n\n > then Britain wouldn't have been dragged into the war, meaning the Germans wouldn't be halted after the Marne.\n\nFor one thing, the Germans are invading France, and still invading a neutral country, both countries of which have made no aggressive moves against them. This is still a violation of the international laws, treaties, and customs that the British and others had worked so hard to make part of the European state system; it still constitutes a threat to the Balance of Power in Europe. In late July, there **was** talk of Germany only invading 'a corner of Belgium', and while this may make intervention more difficult, it is still unlikely to prevent the British from intervening. \n\nMoreover, the BEF played only a small role in the Marne; the bulk of the fighting and the crucial delaying actions which took place before hand was/were done by the French and Belgians respectively. As has been noted, this German invasion is now undertaken in circumstances less advantageous than in August 1914, so there's every possibility that the French counter-offensives and offensives at the Frontiers would succeed, though this is speculation.\n\nOther answers:\n\n* [Why didn't Germany just go around Belgium in the invasion of France?] (_URL_0_)\n* [Why was invading Belgium a bad move by Germany?] (_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30byp7/why_didnt_germany_just_go_around_belgium_during/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34bn05/why_was_invading_belgium_a_bad_move_by_germany/"
]
] |
|
fdd1pi
|
how are doctors so sure a person can't regain consciousness once their vitals shuts down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fdd1pi/eli5_how_are_doctors_so_sure_a_person_cant_regain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjgnogs",
"fjgq7ia",
"fjgyqz3",
"fjhkg1q"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"They have seen many people's vital signs shut down. When none of those people can be revived after X minutes, they start to think that nobody can ever be revived after X minutes. Nothing is every 100.0% certain, but they make decisions based on most probably outcomes.",
"A heart beat circulates blood carrying oxygen around the body, without oxygen cells rapidly start to die and other organs fail, without a heartbeat and lungs breathing all organs including the brain are going to get worse rather than better.",
"The part of the brain that controls organs is a very basic part of the brain that the earliest organisms used. Higher level of thinking comes with millions of years of advancement. Therefore, certain things shut down in a somewhat predicable order and if *that* part of the brain is deteriorating, then it doesn't look good for the more advanced parts such as conscious thinking.",
"I'm going to assume that by \"vitals\" you mean the two vital organs heart and lungs.\n\nThe truth is we don't know on an individual basis who is going to survive what period of cardiac arrest (which is when the heart stops), but data from group studies enable us to give educated opinions based on systematic experience.\n\nThere are a few key facts to consider: the airways and lungs supply oxygen to the blood, and the heart takes that oxygen-filled blood and pumps it around to the body. Together these two organs keep the body well supplied with oxygen, which is crucial for cells to extract energy from the food we eat.\n\nSome cells can survive longer without oxygen by burning the food in an alternative way, but they sacrifice a lot of energy for this. Our brain cells can't do this because they need maximum energy output 24/7 because they're working so hard.\n\nOur brain is really what we \"are\" - it is where our personality, our consciousness and our memories reside, it is what we use to feel love, joy and all other emotions. Therefore, as soon as the brain dies, we are dead, no matter if the heart is beating or not. The heart is nothing more than a special muscle.\n\nThis means that if we stop breathing, or our heart stops beating, the single-most important organ for survival *is the same organ that is worst equipped to cope with a lack of oxygen*. The brain burns through oxygen so quickly that if it doesn't get a constant supply of it, it will start to die within minutes. And, crucially, brain tissue doesn't regenerate like skin or bone.\n\nThat's why if a heart stops for many minutes, and no one is doing CPR, it is highly likely that even if you can get the heart beating again, the person will never wake up again because too much brain tissue has already died.\n\nThere is a lot of data where scientists have looked at the time between when the heart stops, and when the heart started beating again. For every minute with no heart beat (and no CPR) the chance of a successful recovery decreases about 10 percetage points (meaning that after 10 minutes the chances of recovery are practically zero). Experiments with animals and single cells in laboratories show similar results.\n\n**TL;DR: The heart and lungs supply oxygen to the brain. The brain can't handle oxygen deprivation, which is what happens when \"the vitals shut down\". If the brain is dead, there is no chance of regaining consciousness**."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3alatl
|
What is the Origin of Yahweh?
|
In a historical context where did the god of Judaism and Christianity first emerge? Were there any previous incarnations?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3alatl/what_is_the_origin_of_yahweh/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csdspdx",
"csdwazp"
],
"score": [
5,
12
],
"text": [
"Mark Smith in *The Early History of God* and *The Origins of Biblical Monotheism* traces the original cult center of Yahweh to the town of Tayma in NW Arabia. According to this theory the proto-Israelites were a combo of local Canaanites and migratory shepherds (much like the modern bedouins). The migratory shepherds were spending part of their time in and around Tayma where they picked up Yahweh worship and then carried him into Canaan where he was adopted by their more settled relatives. He then first joined the Canaanite pantheon and then superseded it.\n\nThe theory isn't universally accepted yet, but it has become the most popular among biblical academics. Other competing theories are that he was imported from Mesopotamia or that Yahweh originally started as a nickname for the Canaanite God El, and eventually replaced or superseded El. ",
"In general, however, it seems that the Tetragrammaton (the ineffable four letter name of G-d) is associated with the South, particularly the southern wastes (the Negev Desert and similar places). If He does have a geographical origin outside of the land of Israel, it is likely somewhere to the South. One of the main problems is we have no historical record of Israelites outside of the biblical account in the earliest periods, the archeological evidence doesn't point unambiguously to any one clear origin, all the Biblical texts are undated. The G-d of Israel, being aniconic, is particularly hard to trace. You'll have a cultic stand with a blank space on it, and archeologists will ask, \"Is this an attempt to iconically represent the Tetragrammaton, which resists iconic representation?\"\n\nThere's also a theory that YHVH is the causative form of the Hebrew root meaning \"to be\", meaning roughly \"He who caused to Be\", so when we see the name translated as \"LORD of the Hosts\", it could be reparsed as \"He who caused the heavenly host to be\". This is fairly convincing, especially in light of G-d's answer to Moses, \"I am who I am\" or \"I am I am\" (Exodus 3:14). This would point to the name being a title, rather than a proper name originally. \n\nG-d's other common name in the Hebrew Bible is \"El\" or \"Elohim\". This relates to the West Semitic word meaning \"god\" and also the name of the chief of Caanite pantheon. Arabic is a South Semitic language, but Allah comes from the exact same origin. See more about [El in Ugaritic myth](_URL_0_) (Ugarit is the best preserved source of pre-Israelite documents from the Land of Canaan). Particularly convincing is some presumably early texts seem to imply that people think G-d had a consort, [Asherah](_URL_1_). It's confusing because in the Hebrew Bible there's also references to Asherah as a sacred pole or maybe a sacred grove associated with cultic sites, so it's unclear in the text whether Asherah represents a diety or an object or a place.\n\nYou can point to many points of similarity between Israelite religious practices and those of other Ancient Near Eastern peoples, but there are clear differences. It's ultimately unclear exactly how Israelite monotheism emerged, and what its exact relationship was to other traditions. Some argue that strict monotheism dates to the earliest stratum of Israelite history but country folk ('am ha'eretz) continued to conduct religious rituals to other gods. Others argue that strict monotheism wasn't consolidated until the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, just before the Babylonian Exile. The exact origins of the Tetragrammaton and the monotheistic thought associated with it will never be fully clear. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29#Ugarit_and_the_Levant",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah"
]
] |
|
uby62
|
If the Alsace-Lorriane region had not been taken away from France after the Franco-Prussian War would it have any effect on politics of Europe?
|
It's just for personal curiousity on the subject, I've done some reading (read google, wikipedia) but was looking for a more academic conversation on the matter.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uby62/if_the_alsacelorriane_region_had_not_been_taken/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4u1in2",
"c4u75ab"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"That depends.\n\nAlsace-Lorraine was certainly a very serious problem between France and Germany, but so was crowning the Emperor in Versailles and a number of other slights during the Franco-Prussian war.\n\nIMO, if they had left Alsace-Lorraine with France, they could have patched things up. Also IMO, I don't think there's any way for Germany to *not* take Alsace-Lorraine given the nationalist momentum at play.",
"Yes! In every classroom in France between the end of the Franco-Prussian War and the start of World War I, every kid was taught that the evil Prussians had \"Stolen\" Alsace-Lorraine from France. It is easy trace one of the roots of French/German antipathy back to this event, because Prussia took the region almost exclusively to deal a heavy psychological defeat on the French. One of the principles of France throughout its history is that it is simply unacceptable to lose (or sell) a part of the homeland (the hexagon). Alsace-Lorraine was viewed as a thoroughly French region, and this was of the utmost humiliation in France. \n\nI do think however, that if Bismarck wanted to look serious in his unification goal, he had no choice but to capture Alsace-Lorraine, because it still had a significant German population. \n\nIt's also important to note that the Alsaciens were never fully supportive of the Prussian Empire, in fact many Germans who tried to emigrate to t he region had difficulty settling and marrying there. Furthermore, mixed couples always preserved French language and culture and passed it on to their children. Thus, Alsace-Lorraine was never really assimilated into Germany; and it strengthened the French impression that Alsace-Lorraine was wrongfully taken away from France. \n\ni'm not ready to say that a French alsace would've avoided much of the French/German antagonism, but I think it's safe to say that it did have a major role in the mutual hatred (it was hatred), and an easy way for French politicians to exhort even more hatred towards Germany. It certainly was also one of the main \"motivators\" used on soldiers during WWI, and a crowing achievement of the War (on the French side) was the re-claim of the region. \n\n*Edit: Grammar*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1nfzhk
|
Other than the Doolittle Raid did Jimmy Doolittle do anything with a major impact on WWII?
|
I ask because I just found out that he died the day I was born (9/27/1993) and I remember my dad saying that one of my great uncles had flown with him at war-time but not in the raid.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nfzhk/other_than_the_doolittle_raid_did_jimmy_doolittle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccigxmm"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Doolittle's main impact on the war actually came before the hostilities. When he was working for Shell, he convinced the company to invest in the property/plant/equipment to refine 100-octane gasoline before there was a market for it. He correctly predicted that engine technology would evolve to suit the new fuel when it was available, and that current engines could run better than on the 87-octane standard avgas of the time.\n\nThe innovation was rather timely for the war, as the first bulk shipments of the product to Britain arrived shortly after the Fall of France. Where the RAF was outperformed over France, they suddenly had a boost which helped them defeat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. \n\nBeyond the raid which bears his name, Doolittle was also instrumental in turning the tide of the air war before the Normandy landings. As the newly minted head of the eight airforce, he reversed the policy of close fighter escort. Under him, fighter pilots were instructed to chase down fleeing German fighters to shoot them down, and approved a wider range of fighter sweeps which caught many of the Germans on the ground. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3gd7ty
|
What would happen if a celestial body like the moon or small planet were to pass by us close enough to enter our atmosphere?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3gd7ty/what_would_happen_if_a_celestial_body_like_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctx52lg",
"ctxj8ut"
],
"score": [
25,
5
],
"text": [
"I want to start to answer this question by helping you understand just how unlikely this scenario is. The height of our atmosphere is on the order of 100km. To help you picture how thin our atmosphere is, this is basically [equivalent](_URL_0_) to the thickness (not the radius) of a penny compared to an NBA basketball. \n\nSo this is the setup. You have a full size basketball with a penny sitting on top representing our atmosphere. Now you want a moon or small planet to skim our atmosphere without hitting the planet. You can represent this by a baseball or ping pong ball or whatever. I challenge you to throw the baseball at the basketball and knock the penny off without actually hitting the basketball. The odds are just exceptionally small.\n\nThe overwhelmingly likely outcome is either the object misses the Earth entirely and nothing too important happens (except maybe disturbing the orbit of our own moon slightly) or else a collision with the surface of the Earth, killing all life and generating so much heat that the entire surface of the planet could be molten for a while.\n\nIn the event that something large *does* manage to skim through our atmosphere despite the crazy small odds, I don't know enough to give you a detailed answer, but maybe a planetary scientist could stop by and speculate. I suspect that it would do enough damage to eject a portion of our atmosphere and heat the rest of it up, almost stirring things up like a rock skipping over water. There would likely be global weather and climate changes, but I don't know what they would be. ",
"Something to consider is how fast such a body would have to be moving in order to skim the atmosphere *without colliding with Earth*. As others have pointed out, the atmosphere is vanishingly thin on a planetary scale. For something between Earth and Moon sized to pass by us without actually coming into contact with the Earth it would have to be moving *fast*, otherwise gravity would attract the bodies to one another and they would collide.\n\nHow fast? I don't know the maths, but tiny little satellites need velocities around 8 km/s just to stay in orbit so I'd say a moon-sized body will need a LOT more speed. Most likely at the kind of speeds we're talking, the atmosphere would catch on fire through sheer friction and the shockwaves would destroy anything beneath the atmospheric \"skidmark\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28100+km+%2F+radius+of+earth%29+%2F+%28penny+thickness+%2F+nba+basketball+radius%29"
],
[]
] |
||
zynzn
|
Why do my stationary eyes fade to black in a little to no light environment?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zynzn/why_do_my_stationary_eyes_fade_to_black_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c68ut88",
"c68v1jk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have never experienced this \"fade to black\". Honestly, it doesn't sound like something that should be happening. If there is enough light in the room for your eyes to see around you, your vision should not fade at all due to a lack of motion. It might be a good idea to mention this to your doc. ",
"(edit: combined comments)\n\nThis sounds like the [Ganzfeld Effect]( _URL_2_)\n\nor maybe [Troxler's Fading](_URL_3_)\n\nThe visual system can do some pretty crazy things when deprived of visual stimulas. Such as the [Prisoner's cinema](_URL_0_) effect.\n \nHumans are a very visual creature and when we have abnormal cession(wrong word?) of motion in our visual field our brains start to do some pretty crazy acrobatics. \n\nI would also think some specific [optical illusions](_URL_1_) would play on this type of visual effect.\n\nI am in no way trained in visual physiology, but these seem to fall into your interest and maybe others who ware trained in these fields can answer more fully."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_cinema",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_effect",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler's_fading"
]
] |
||
igc3w
|
Physics Question: Driving in the rain. Does more rain hit your windshield as you go faster?
|
My wife and I got into a "discussion" yesterday as we drove through a rainstorm.
Let's assume that you are driving in the rain, which is falling straight down at a uniform rate (drops evenly distributed etc.).
Does your front windshield strike twice as many drops per unit time if you go twice as fast?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/igc3w/physics_question_driving_in_the_rain_does_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c23iw62",
"c23iw6l"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Imagine uniformely distributed droplets ahead of your car. Look at the volume in front uf your windshield, forming a right cuboid (\"rectangular box\") the area of your windshield, but with a varying depth of 1, 2 and 3 meters.\n\nAt time t_0 there are, say, 100 drops within the first meter, 100 more in the second, and 100 more in the 3rd. Assume, that each drop leaving the cuboid below is refilled by another one from above.\n\nAs you drive the 10 meters in 1 second, 100 drops will hit your windshield. But at triple speed, 30 meters in 1 second, 300 drops will hit it. So, the answer is yes.",
" > Does your front windshield strike twice as many drops per unit time if you go twice as fast?\n\nClose to it. The rate of water hitting your windscreen is equal to the density of raindrops, multiplied by the relative velocity of the rain, multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the windscreen in their relative direction of motion.\n\nThe density of raindrops does not increase with your speed, so that's simple.\n\nThe relative velocity does increase - but it doesn't double when you double your speed. The rain already has a downwards component of velocity (and some horizontal velocity from wind), and you are effectively giving it a boost in its horizontal velocity. You add these together (vector addition!) to get the rain's velocity. So because the rain already has some velocity, doubling the contribution from your car's motion does not double the entire thing. But it *will* increase its velocity and the rate of water impacting your windscreen. However, rain drops fairly quickly, so you have to be going at a decent rate for this to be noticeable - i.e. you'd see the rain falling more \"backwards\" than \"downwards\".\n\nThe third effect is that if the rain is going straight down, its target the cross-sectional area of your windscreen as seen from above. It's not hitting your windscreen at exactly 90°, it's seeing it \"side on\" and has a smaller target. But as you accelerate, this will change - the \"target\" gets bigger until the rain is hitter your windscreen at right angles to the surface. At this point, the apparent cross-sectional area of your wind-screen is maximised, and you get more water on your screen.\n\n**tl;dr:** Accelerating increases the drops per unit time, but it's not just proportional to your speed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
37dcdi
|
why are we able to speak well over 6,000 languages, and yet are unable to effectively communicate with our domesticated brethren?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37dcdi/eli5_why_are_we_able_to_speak_well_over_6000/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crlwa5d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As far as we know humans are the only animal to use language.\n\nThe sounds other animals make would be more analogous to human body language than to speech."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6z9hfu
|
how do clocks compensate for the fact that a day isn't a full 24 hours?
|
Wouldn't they eventually be off and start displaying incorrect times?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z9hfu/eli5_how_do_clocks_compensate_for_the_fact_that_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmthr2l",
"dmthxwb",
"dmtiiuv",
"dmtismz",
"dmtjg6h",
"dmtm0uh"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
21,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's such an insignificant amount of time that it's not really noticable. That's why leap years are only every 4 years instead of more often.",
"That's what leap years are for but there is also a thing called leap seconds. Every once in a while scientists add a second for instance 4:59:60 then 5:00:00 to compensate for this.",
"Clocks are mechanical and are not 100% accurate to begin with. They become more inaccurate over time. Otherwise, many internet based clocks sync with servers that keep time for them called NTP (network time protocol) servers. ",
"A day *is* a full 24 hours, give or take a leap second every year or two. Until we invented atomic clocks, a day was exactly 24 hours by definition.\n\nLeap years are a separate issue, they correct for the fact that there aren't exactly 365 24-hour days in a year.",
"There's two kinds of days. A solar day is nearly exactly 24 hours. A sidereal day is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and change. There are 365.24 solar days in a year, but 366.24 sidereal days in the same time. ",
"Understood. Thanks everyone!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
30k413
|
is google licensing its fiber optics?
|
I just noticed today that AT & T is also offering gigabyte internet. Coincidentally they are offering in the same cities as Google Fiber.
First I thought Google was licensing, then I thought that would be introducing their own competitions to the cities. So who owns the Fiber Optics in those cities?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30k413/eli5_is_google_licensing_its_fiber_optics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpt6i5l"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Google isn't licensing their fiber optics. What's happening is that Google is succeeding in their goal to force ISPs to step up their game. Google believes fast, affordable internet should be available to everyone. The current market is happy for a single ISP to have a monopoly over each area. Google is breaking that pattern by building their own fiber optic network, offering blistering speeds for a relatively low price. This is spurring the competition to make changes to stay competitive, so companies like AT & T are building their own fiber optic networks to compete with Google's."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
duohmk
|
blue light from screens reduces melatonin, but doesn’t that mean more serotonin?
|
Wouldn’t it be better to have less melatonin so there’s more brain “space” for serotonin? Thank you!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/duohmk/eli5_blue_light_from_screens_reduces_melatonin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f77fj8t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"No, it doesnt work that way. Oddly enough dopamine and melatonin are inversely linked (one goes up and the other goes down). But contrary to popular belief that has more of an effect on movement than on mood. But it is thought to be related to why people can get a bit addicted to screen time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
yzl3u
|
why don't girls ask guys out?
|
I've never understood it, and in my perspective it's a bit unfair. It just leaves guys to play a crazy guessing game
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yzl3u/eli5_why_dont_girls_ask_guys_out/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c606wdr",
"c6072kd",
"c607q4a",
"c608550",
"c608rnp",
"c6097p7",
"c60aln8",
"c60bllb",
"c60r3ai"
],
"score": [
18,
3,
5,
12,
2,
4,
12,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because our culture has long been focused on men being in a dominant role. Asking someone out is a dominant action and not expected of girls.\n\nNot that hard really.",
"Traditionally, men are seen as dominant. Men are viewed as the gender which is in charge. They make choices and women accept the choices men make. It's the same reason fathers give their daughters away at weddings. The idea is that the woman needs a man to take ownership/care for her because she's unable to do so herself. Thus, she's under the care of her father until he gives her to her husband at which point she becomes under his care.\n\nPlus, we often look down on women who embrace their sexuality. It's appropriate for a man, like myself, to be willing to sleep with basically any decent looking girl. But it's entirely inappropriate for a woman to do the same. They're cognizant of that (socially acceptable yet objectively objectionable) fact. \n\nI dunno, it's a complicated world. (Irrelevant Childish Gambino quote: \"sometimes the stupid shit is the real shit\".) But please realize that a situation which appears unfair to men can be explained by a larger context in which men are privileged. Don't let your perspective be limited to your own experiences, because when you do that you miss out on a lot. Preaching over; because men are seen as appropriate sexual aggresors while women should be demure. ",
" > it's a bit unfair. It just leaves guys to play a crazy guessing game\n\nSee, you didn't need our help. You figured it out on your own.",
"They've been told not to since they were young. They've been told to wait for the guy to do it",
"It's not that people haven't tried to change the customs, either...\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBut society remains stubbornly set on \"women aren't allowed to ask men out\".",
"Others have answered about the cultural reasons for this but I'm going to talk about evolution.\n\nIn humans (and most mammals) females are the nurturing parent. They have the responsibility to bear young and, consequently are always confident that they are the parent of their own child. By contrast, males potentially can get away with an investment of a few minutes but can also be quite uncertain that they contributed genes to the child produced by the female they have slept with.\n\nFemales therefore want to try to ensure that any male that fathers their child is willing to stick around to assist with child rearing. Whether or not they actually *intend* on having children every time they have sex is irrelevant. Millions of years of evolution have pushed females to want to ensure that males are the \"real deal\" so to speak.\n\nMales on the other hand benefit from spreading their 'seed' far and wide. This gives them the best chance for having their genes passed on to the next generation. Note however that, should the male ever be confident that the child is his (there's an equation for the probability threshold but it's roughly around 50% confidence as the limit) then he should actually want to nurture it.\n\nSo how does this play out in the real world?\n\nFemales don't want to approach males for sex because that doesn't allow the female to test her potential partner for stability, trustworthiness and nurturing potential. Additionally, a male when approached for sex by a female \"should\" always accept as that is a free chance to pass on his genes. Finally, males \"should\" approach as many females as possible for sex - for the same reason.\n\nObviously the real world isn't as black and white as all of this. Males can and do make a conscious decision to be more dependable in order to gain a mate and females can and do sample the male population in order to find the most suitable mate - remember that a promiscuous female is still 100% confident that any child is hers.",
"because girls are cruel. \n\n^I ^am ^going ^through ^a ^dark ^phase ^of ^my ^life ^right ^now.",
"I missed that memo. I ask guys out often. If you aren't gonna make the move, then I will. ",
"It's just because of society's stupid standards and stereotypes. From a personal frame of reference, though, I will say that my current girlfriend actually asked me out...and it's a nice, solid, happy relationship."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Hawkins_dance"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5wzpf8
|
why can't dc be transformed as easily as ac
|
It seems cars with their coil packs have no problems doing it with coil packs. As far as I'm aware, the ratio of the voltage increase (or decrease) is the result of the ratio of the turns in the primary and secondary windings.
If AC oscillates at a voltage V 60 times per second and goes through a transformer to step up or step down voltage, what would be the difference between a DC circut entering a coil pack that modulates on\off 60 times per second. There still is on\off periods just like AC. Car coil packs do it way faster than that and last years.
If this won't work, why? And how does one step up\down AC besides literally driving a physical generator with a physical DC motor.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wzpf8/eli5_why_cant_dc_be_transformed_as_easily_as_ac/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dee3hvi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you switch a DC signal on and off, you're turning it into an AC signal. \n\nIt's easier to manipulate the voltage and current of AC signals, because with AC we are able to use magnetic coupling as another degree of freedom. Magnetic fields can only create electric fields when they are changing, which requires a changing electric field, which is what AC signals are.\n\nWe *can* do voltage and current manipulation on DC signals themselves using semiconductors. This ends up being less common for high power scenarios.\n\nUsing magnetic coupling on DC signals which switch on and off rapidly is wasteful, because magnetic coupling is most efficient when the signal is a pure sinewave. Otherwise, energy can get lost in all the little non-primary constituent frequencies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
as54vl
|
if it takes about 8 minutes for sunlight to reach earth doesn’t that mean that it’s true position in the sky is 8 minutes ahead?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/as54vl/eli5_if_it_takes_about_8_minutes_for_sunlight_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egru2kw",
"egru3m2",
"egru6gq",
"egru8lc"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"EDIT: sorry, the first thing you said is not entirely true. The second is fine.\n\nThe sun's position in the sky is due to the rotation of the earth, much more than the orbit around the sun + difference from the speed of light. If the light reached us instantly, the sun would be an imperceptible fraction further forward or back (not sure which, need someone smarter). But it wouldn't be 8 minutes worth of rotation ahead in the sky.\n\nThe other thing you said is still true, yes some or even all of the stars we see could be dead and we won't know about it until the light gets here. The sun could disappear right now and you wouldn't know for 8 minutes.",
"Yes and yes, most of the starts we see are probably dead and or in different point in the sky by now. Also if the sun exploded or just went out we wouldn’t know for 8 minutes ish ",
"Whose position in the sky? The Sun's? We're orbiting the Sun, it's mostly \"fixed in the sky\" as far as position, and its apparent movement (sunrise, noon, sunset, etc.) is because of the Earth's rotation, so our \"Sun position\" observation would be instantaneous.\n\nStars that are far away COULD be dead, yes, but their light is traveling still. We see them as they were billions of years ago.",
"short answer - yes, to both questions\n\nto add a bit more, when the sun goes down, due to the 8(ish) minute delay and refraction in the atmosphere, the sun's position is actually just below the horizon when it appears to be just touching it\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
yadhz
|
what are they talking about when they say a room or building has 'great acoustics'? how do you determine if a room has great acoustics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yadhz/eli5_what_are_they_talking_about_when_they_say_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5tsga3",
"c5tt41g",
"c5tzs3p"
],
"score": [
60,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"When someone makes noise, a sound wave travels from them to your ear, and that's how you hear it.\n\nMaybe you're picturing a laser-beam type wave, shooting from the sound source to your ear. If you could see it though, it would actually look more like a ripple on a lake, traveling outward in every direction from the source.\n\nDid you ever wonder how come you can hear a noise even if you can't see what made it? Sound can travel around corners and such, can't it? That's because sound waves can bounce almost every surface - especially hard ones - and go in new directions.\n\nSo now imagine you're in a room with another person and they make noise. This will all happen very fast - too fast maybe to consciously hear - but first you will hear that part of the ripple that happened to be in line with your ear. Then you'll hear the reflections of the parts of the ripple that hit the wall behind you or to your sides and are coming back your direction now. (And if you're closer to, say, the back wall, that reflection will reach your ear \\*just\\* before the side wall reflections). Then you'll hear further and fainter reflections, maybe a few that bounced off three or four surfaces before reaching your ear.\n\nThis all happens super-fast. But the overall effect is called \"reverberation\" and it can vary a lot.\n\nLet's imagine you're in a tiny tiled room, like a bathroom. If someone makes a loud noise there'll be a LOT of reflections coming at your ear very quickly after the source sound happenes. The reverberation you'll get will be ringy and harsh.\n\nOr let's imagine you're in a big cathedral. The source noise will be far away and by the time it reaches you will be blended with its own reflections, but also some other reflections will only reach you after a long bouncing journey. The reverberation will be blurry and booming.\n\n'Great acoustics' is when the sensation you get is clarity and pleasantness. There's minimal interference and the reverberation has a unique and warm effect on the raw source sound. Room shape, material surfaces, and the position of the source sound (and the listener's ear - that's why some seats cost more in fancy concert halls) all make a big difference to the sound.",
"\"Great acoustics\" can be relative to what you're trying to accomplish. In recording studios, you'll notice a lot of rugs/blankets draped over things, etc. This is to absorb sound so the recording is in its most basic form and you can digitally manipulate it rather than having to have the singer/musician do it multiple times.\n\nSometimes, a lot of echo is desirable. In my high school there was a two-floor staircase that was really narrow. It was made completely of marble (school built in the 50's) or something similar. It echoed a *ton*. This was great in my all-male choir class. ~20 of us would line up in this staircase and sing 8 and 16 part harmonies. The echo allowed you to hear your own part really well and how it interacted with everyone else's part.\n\nIn concert halls there's a delicate balance to this. If the hall was completely dead, the orchestra/symphony/band/choir would sound really small and thin. You can definitely tell the difference as a player, too. If you're really in tune and the hall/room is built well you'll be able to hear overtones (notes created by your notes being in tune) more clearly than you would in \"dead\" rooms.",
"'Good' acoustics will depend on the purpose of a room. The accoustics are considered good if you can hear what you want to.\n\nListening to a choir in a cathedral is good. The acoustics of the room in this case are created by the high ceiling and exposed stone. This means that sound bounces a lot, so you get lots of echo. This is good for choral music; rhe sound of the choir really fills the cathedral and you can't even hear that guy 10 rows forward that keeps coughing.\n\nNow, fill the same cathedral with tables and chairs and serve dinner. It's horrible acoustics! The sound of cutlery hitting plates is bouncing all over the place, and is so loud you can barely hear the other people at you table. You raise your voice to try and be heard, as does everyone else just making it even noisier and more difficult to hear what you want. This does not make for a pleasant dinner.\n\nLet's do the same tests in a big restaurant. The restaurant has a low ceiling, carpet, curtains, and lots of pictures on the walls. The choir sounds 'flat'. They can't make their sound fill the room, and people at the back can't really hear them very well. However, when dinner is served, people are able to hold conversations without raising their voices.\n\nI should point out that different types of music require different accoustics. Set up a rock band in the cathedral and it will sound horrible because all the bouncing sound makes it really hard to actually hear the song clearly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
49me1r
|
Did FDR let Pearl Harbor happen? Was there knowledge that A, the attack was going to happen, and B, when?
|
I've heard this before and I don't believe it, but can somebody fill me in?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49me1r/did_fdr_let_pearl_harbor_happen_was_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0t3hb7"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Hey there this has come up before!\n\nWould point you towards 2 of my previous answers on the subject: _URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt boils down to a combination of things people looking back to say \"conspiracy!\".\n\nThe big one is that it is much easier to say it was all planned, then that 50 years of rising geopolitical and racial tensions set into motion giant nations and bureaucracies whose eventual inevitable conclusion would be conflict in some sort. Frankly it is a testament to diplomacy that the war was held off as long as it was, because professionals on both sides of the ocean knew it was coming, and both navies had trained for generations to fight it, and according to some interpretations geopolitcs of the region made it a foregone conclusion base don both nation's goals.\n\nBut one major point I would use to say it is ridiculous that FDR had such advance knowledge of the attack and was of a mind to let it happen is he was doing the most damage he could to the Pacific Fleet. It was sheer coincidence that bad weather delayed *Enterprise* in returning or you could have added a carrier and a gaggle of escorts to the toll. \n\nBut the Battle Line was the real kicker. FDR was a Navy man at heart, had been Assistant Secretary in WW1, LOVED the Navy with all his heart, and also knew how it was planned on fighting Japan, with the battleships then settling into the mud of Pearl Harbor. \n\nItd be like going looking for a fight and then intentionally letting the first punch break your arm, you just lost the tool you planned on using to hit back with! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ve1qb/did_america_know_that_japan_was_going_to_attack/cxmzy6j",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3yifa3/were_there_conspiracy_theorists_who_believed_that/cydw2s7"
]
] |
|
1xgzcm
|
rutherford's nuclear atom
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xgzcm/eli5_rutherfords_nuclear_atom/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfb8lho",
"cfbaxq0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't summarize it better than the Wikipedia article, but I'd be happy to answer any more *specific* questions you have.",
"The atomic model prior to Rutherford was that of J.J. Thomson. Thomson's atom was made entirely out of electrons (the first sub-atomic particle identified) and held together by a diffuse positive force. \n\nRutherford's students Geiger and Marsden did an experiment where they shot alpha particles (a \"heavy\" form of radiation, now known to be helium nuclei) at a very thin gold foil. Most of the radiation went right through — which would be expected with Thomson's model. But sometimes some of it shot straight back again, \"reflecting\" off of the foil. This was incompatible with Thomson's model.\n\nRutherford proposed that this showed that Thomson's model was wrong. Instead of being a more or less homogenous soup of electrons and positive charge, the atom for Rutherford had a small, very dense core around which tiny electrons revolved like satellites. This would explain the Geiger-Marsden results — most of the time the alpha particles were just going through the electrons and thus passing through, but sometimes they struck the cores and were scattered backwards.\n\nThere were problems with Rutherford's model. He understood the rotating electrons in a classical way, which would mean that they ought to be losing energy over time. Bohr's atom rectified this problem by proposing that electrons worked in a quantum fashion. De Broglie gave better meaning to this by showing that the quantum orbits of Bohr corresponded to wave frequencies, meaning that the electron was in fact a matter-wave. Schrödinger worked out the full quantum wave mechanics of electrons and showed how they were in fact probability waves. Chadwick eventually showed that the nucleus contained not only positively-charged protons, but neutrally-charged neutrons as well. And so on.\n\nRutherford's atom was closer to the truth than Thomson's, but still fairly far from the modern understanding of the atomic model."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2n9ko8
|
why do we not use airships nowadays? shouldn't there be a solution to the explosive problem by now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n9ko8/eli5_why_do_we_not_use_airships_nowadays_shouldnt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmbl1xo",
"cmbl4a4",
"cmbmpts",
"cmbujoh"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They'd be pretty slow compared to airplanes, cars, trains, basically any other modern method of travel. It would be such a novelty/niche market that it'd probably be hard to turn a profit.",
"There is a solution to the explosive problem, use helium instead of hydrogen. Its less efficient as a lifting gas but only slightly.\n\nThe big problem with airships is thier relative flimsyness, big airships had a horrible habit of breaking apart and crashing, even without going boom. They tend to be very weather dependent, they also need large ground crews to land and take off.",
"Don't listen to anyone here, they're all morons who can't do a cursory google before posting. Search for \"aerocraft\". You'll find a shit ton of companies trying to be first in the market of new rigid frame lighter than air vessels.\n\nWhy? Because they're cheap and extremely versatile. Lighter than air craft have huge lifting power and superior fuel efficiency than standard truck freight delivery. Unlike fixed wing aircraft, you can land a vessel right next to your factory, your grocery store, your warehouse, WHATEVER, and deliver. And while trains are extremely cheap to move bulk freight, they can only go so far as the nearest freight depot, and have to be transferred for local delivery. The cost of building the infrastructure for rail delivery everywhere is prohibitively expensive, and the cost of trains over short distances is actually more expensive than other means.\n\nSlow? An average speed of 80 mph is slow? And let us not forget, trucks are limited as to how they get to their destination because they're at the mercy of where the roads go. An aerocraft moving at 80 mph can travel \"as the crow flies\", point to point.\n\nSo trains, trucks, ships, and aircraft all have their place in logistics, but there is definitely a market for aerocrafts that promises bulk freight delivery at extremely competitive costs and times.",
"There never actually was an 'explosion problem' with airships even when they did commonly use hydrogen. Yes, this had its hazards compared to using the more expensive helium and that had to be managed, but statistically airships to this day retain a higher safety record than fixed wing aircraft. The chief problem for the evolution of the airship was its characterization as a 'terror weapon' after WWI and the systematic dismantling of most of the world's fleet of them, which led to a gap in its technology advance. Aircraft development has long been dominated by military applications and ultimately the airship, despite it's reputation, proved not particularly effective as a weapon because of low speed, weather susceptibility, and carrying capacity. Generally, aircraft technology that doesn't prove to be a good weapon has a hard time being financed. \n\nHowever, it's wrong to say that it was obsolesced because airships retain capabilities impossible for other aircraft, including extreme altitude capability, range, and energy efficiency. A 747 uses as much fuel taxiing on the runway before takeoff as the Hindenburg would use traveling from New York to Los Angeles. Today we have the means to make electric driven airships powered by photovoltaics that can travel non-stop around the world indefinitely at several times the speed of container ships. They can operate in VTOL and reach locations lacking in infrastructure. Their operational economy of scale is lower than other aircraft, which means that you can justify the operation of an intercontinental airship on a fraction of the transit volume needed to sustain the existence of a jet airliner. This makes it possible to provide transportation to places fixed wing aircraft can never hope to support economically. Telecommunications aerostats--airships designed for high altitude stationary use--can compete directly against satellites in cost-performance, supporting vast amounts of on-board solar power and being perpetually upgradeable. Airships have often been suggested for use as skycranes and in the future could take the role of gigantic 3D printers. Though it remains speculation at present, some suggest that future high performance materials may allow the creation of airships using no lift gasses all, relying on simply an internal vacuum for lift like a submarine in air. Its these capabilities that keep interest in airships going despite an ingrained cultural resistance in the aerospace community. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1selem
|
In the US during the 1800s, was it common for slaves to go insane?
|
I'm reading Beloved by Toni Morrison. It discusses slaves going crazy. Did this happen? How often?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1selem/in_the_us_during_the_1800s_was_it_common_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdwusv7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There was just a thread discussing this a couple of weeks ago, hopefully you can find some answers here: \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1r2dcf/mentally_disabledimpaired_slaves_in_antebellum/"
]
] |
|
93hsq3
|
How does the smoke, heat and debris from wildfires affect cloud and weather systems?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/93hsq3/how_does_the_smoke_heat_and_debris_from_wildfires/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3faeag"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most areas have regular wind patterns that are determined by the heating of air. Hot air rises, and cold air sinks. Air, like most other things, likes to move from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. When hot air rises, the pressure beneath that air decreases, so surrounding air masses that are under pressure move into these areas. That’s how you get wind. A wildfire produces a lot of heat, which causes the air around it to rise. This can disrupt the regular wind patterns in an area and as a result makes predicting the movement of a wildfire incredibly difficult. It’s one of the reasons the current wildfire in California is so hard to deal with.\n\n\nWildfires also have the ability to affect cloud formation. More specifically, because of the heat’s effect on the water capacity of the air, and the emission of smoke/debris, wildfires can cause clouds to form. Hot air can hold more water than cold air, so when a wildfire burns it increases the air’s ability to hold water. Also because of the heat, water is more likely to evaporate from the ground and the plants near the fire. So the wildfire is putting more water into the air, which is needed to form clouds. Another thing that you need to form clouds is matter. Water droplets can’t form without something for water vapor to condense onto. They need some kind of material like, in the case of wildfires, smoke and debris. Wildfires produce a ton of matter that is perfect for water to condense onto. Since wildfires put a lot of water and debris into the air, this can lead to cloud formation. In some cases, the clouds can become large and heavy enough to rain, which can extinguish the fire.\n\n\nI hope this helps! I would be happy to answer any other questions if you have them. :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ofzdr
|
why do we refer the secretary of state as mr. secretary, but never the ceo of microsoft as mr. ceo?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ofzdr/eli5_why_do_we_refer_the_secretary_of_state_as_mr/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmmu0x8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because of tradition which was developed to divide society into classes dating centuries back and how that contrasted with the bourgeois revolution in the XVIII century. The titles mean to convey someone's social position and indicate whether the interlocutor is positioned above or beneath in social rank.\n\nAsk yourself why we call monarchs \"your highness\", bishops and ambassadors \"your excellency\" and judges \"your honor\". It is all to do with the notion that position or birth makes someone stand higher or lower on the social ladder. Since republican governments inherited a lot from their monarchical predecessors the notion that state officials get honorary titles was understood as sign of prestige. Consider the famous anecdote about what title the US president was supposed to initially have. That however applies only to officials with a position. Note again that your regular clerk in the local government branch isn't Mr. Government Worker - although in some countries even entry-level staff get titles.\n\nCEO of companies are purely functional titles which describe their role i the company. They are in effect job descriptions and not position titles and as such differ in absolutely nothing from your entry level \"sales assistants\" or \"assistant regional managers\". There is some use for a honorary title during a board meeting: \"chairman\" and \"the board\" and some older companies - especially in Europe - had a \"president\". Modern high-tech companies are *yet* too formally egalitarian to do something like that regardless of the earnings and actual practical hierarchy. Notice I said *yet*. \n\nThose old European companies used to start as little manufacturing plants or shops where a bunch of \"burgers\" (middle-class town dwellers) would set up a company to earn some money. They would go into partnerships with nobles (people with titles) and since they couldn't own titles themselves and most of the were too poor or uninfluential to buy one or marry into a family they insisted on an egalitarian approach. That changed in the late XIX century when after 100 years of capitalist/industrial revolution the balance of power shifted in their favour but the language was already conditioned to the new title-less approach.\n\nHowever that also depended on the society in which the new institution developed. In Germany and Britain where social class was still strong and entrenched the language and social structure was less formal because it still operated in parallel to the old social class system. In Germany the nobility was eliminated from the primary role in society only after WW1 and in Britain only after WW2. In France where the French revolution wiped out most of the nobility by the end of XVIII century the industrialists had greater social and cultural influence and therefore the traditional language and code of conduct in French companies was much more hierarchical because they were filling a void. That's the result of a 100 years of living with or without nobles.\n\nNote also that artisan guilds in the medieval era did have titles for example - again to denote structure.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nTL;DR: Because of how power used to divide people into social classes. Most state positions were linked with social status and as such were reserved for the nobility or the church. No titles were allowed for the middle-class other than functional titles within the government of towns (mayor, councilor, alderman) and definitely no titles were allowed for functions involved with trade which was considered a disgraceful profession. So it was a formal ban on titles in business that shaped the language for the first few centuries and it carried on to this day.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.