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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
212trm
|
What is the history of the American lawyer's bar exam?
|
I was discussing the bar exam last night with some lawyer friends and it really seems like an antiquated notion. Clearly it doesn't weed out incompetent attorneys, the number of lawyers that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag seems to be ever growing. It also does nothing to indicate the ethical implications of a lawyer's eventual practice. There are some actual real life scumbags in the legal profession.
When taking into account that Abraham Lincoln, renowned in his time as a great lawyer, didn't take any form of bar exam, what is America doing? Why did this hurdle to legal practice sprout? My cynical side leads me to think so state bars could make money while leading the legally uneducated public to believe lawyers are a higher grade of professional. What were the arguments for the exam at the time?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/212trm/what_is_the_history_of_the_american_lawyers_bar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg965v9"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Not a historian, but as a law student I feel qualified to give some insight into the reasoning behind the exam.\n\nFirst, passing the Bar shows you're familiar with your state's laws. As many know, states law vary quite widely depending on where you're at, so having an exam to prove you know the state's law where you want to practice is helpful. If I pass the NY state Bar, that shows nothing about what I know about California law. So seeing that I'm a member of a state's bar lets clients and judges know that I'm competent to give counsel and not overlook a unique aspect of that state's law.\n\nSecond, there *is* an ethics part of passing the Bar. It's not the Bar exam itself, but it's a separate ethics test. It's important to note that legal ethics and moral ethics are totally different. Legal ethics are an artificial construct created to ensure lawyers and judges act in ways that aren't perverse to the goals of a legal system. This is quite different from moral ethics which teach you to act in ways that aren't perverse to the goals of society. Do these two ethics intersect? Yes, at times. But it's important to recognize that they have distinctly different goals.\n\nA lawyer's job is to provide the best counsel as possible, and to represent their clients interests. Lawyers are fiduciaries of their clients. So legal ethics put constraints on how lawyers can act that conflict with those interests. So if an accused murderer tells his lawyer that he did it, legal ethics say the lawyer cannot divulge that because it's not his job to decide if the law says his client is guilty. That's for a jury to determine. So allowing lawyers to circumvent that process goes against the core of our judicial system - it's the people of the community that were harmed by the suspect that get to decide guilt. \n\nSo when confronted with that situation, an ethical lawyer might say \"Well you don't know if, according to the law, you're guilty of what you say you are guilty of, so let's put that aside.\" This way the lawyer not only protects the inherent decentralization of power within the judicial system, but also conforms to his fiduciary duties to his clients.\n\nHowever, if the client said \"I did it, and I plan on doing it again\" *then* the lawyer would have an ethical duty to report the intent of his client to commit future crimes (but not the client's confession!). Here, the fiduciary duties take a backseat to the prevention of future harm simply due to social policy. Nothing can be done to prevent the crime that's already occurred, but things can be done to prevent that crime from being committed again by the same individual. \n\nSome might see this as flawed, but it's extremely important to recognize that the judicial system is a careful balance of powers. If one side has weak representation, and the other side has very strong representation, then the adversarial scheme becomes totally one sided and injustice results. This is why we have laws compelling discovery - it's not fair to allow one side to have a surprise witness that the other side can't prepare for and defend against. It's harder to get to the truth when access to information is unequal, so legal ethics are constructed to maintain the balance. \n\nUltimately, someone could be a total scumbag in their personal life, but still be a fantastic advocate for their client. Legal ethics don't seek to remove these types of people from the pool of attorneys because one's personal moral compass doesn't necessarily mean they're a bad lawyer. It seems counterintuitive, but a hypothetical I always remind myself of is a cigarette company that sponsors a medical study on the health effects of cigarettes. Just because the study was funded by a cig company doesn't mean that the science behind the study is invalid. The same logic applies for \"unethical\" lawyers. And the opposite is true too. Just because someone is a pastor/priest doesn't mean they're necessarily a good person, even though everyone in the congregation may see them as such. \n\nAnd finally, it's important to have a standardized system of lawyers. The ABA lets people know who is qualified to practice in the field, while also having a governing body that can set formal, binding regulations on how those in the field practice. Law is a licensed profession, just like doctors or taxi cab drivers. Would you like to see a doctor that hasn't passed his Boards? Or a cab driver who doesn't have a driver's license? Same goes for lawyers. So necessarily, there needs to be a centralized system of governance over the licensing requirements. Sure, in Lincoln's day, nobody passed a Bar and there were competent lawyers. But no one had to get a license to be a doctor back then either, and it's hard to argue that a formalized licensing system didn't help legitimize the medical field. \n\nHopefully that helps gives you some understanding of the reasons behind why the legal community views the ABA and Bar Exam as important, even though I can't give much insight into the historical creation of the system. \n\nEdit: Fixed some words.\n\nEdit 2: See the post by /u/EvilNalu below for some good clarifications."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
92oqw7
|
what happens in our brains that makes us "like" or prefer one thing over another?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92oqw7/eli5_what_happens_in_our_brains_that_makes_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e382kef"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not a professional, but I have heard that whenever you like something, your body makes the hormones dopamine, seratonin, oxitocin, and endorphins. You don't necessarily crave food you like for the taste, for example, just the sensation that comes from it. You like what sends more \"good\" hormones, if you will, (that tend to be at fault for bad habits) throughout the body whether that's a song, food, sport, ect. I am not sure what the opposite of those are, but I imagine it works similarly. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6nksqc
|
hypnagogia
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nksqc/eli5_hypnagogia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dka89gl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That's a popular question here. I hope you find these previous posts helpful.\n\n\n- [Eli5 Sleep Paralysis and Why It Happens...?](_URL_0_)\n- [Eli5 Sleep Paralysis...?](_URL_4_)\n- [Eli5 Sleep Paralysis...?](_URL_3_)\n- [Eli5 How Does Sleep Paralysis Work and Why Does...?](_URL_1_)\n- [Eli5 Sleep Paralysis...?](_URL_2_)\n- [Eli5 Sleep Paralysis...?](_URL_5_)\n- [Eli5 Hypnagogia and What Causes It...?](_URL_6_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p0zz0/eli5_sleep_paralysis_and_why_it_happens/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/581vdp/eli5_how_does_sleep_paralysis_work_and_why_does/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ohjso/eli5_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sqmum/eli5_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u55av/eli5_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4evd7k/eli5_sleep_paralysis/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2knhup/eli5_hypnagogia_and_what_causes_it/"
]
] |
||
t13so
|
Why are there no true-color pictures of tiny things that are much (!) greater than visible light wavelengths?
|
i mean i understand you cant get colors from observing a single atom, but what about tiny microbes and bacteria...why are there no true color pics at that scale?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/t13so/why_are_there_no_truecolor_pictures_of_tiny/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4in1u9",
"c4in267",
"c4in2wa"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"So it depends on how large something is what you can resolve as you already alluded to. Let's make a bacteria a 2.5 um x 2.5 um square. If we take green and crudely put the diffraction limit to be 1/2 the wavelength then we have 100 pixels (10 x 10). It isn't much.\n\nNow there are ways to beat the diffraction limit, in particular NSOM (near field scanning optical microscopy). I would in fact be surprised if someone hadn't done NSOM with a monochromated light source and scanned a bacteria multiple times to build up a full spectroscopic image of one. The resolution of NSOM can quite small, though I believe the highest resolution is done in the nIR rather than the visible. ",
"Bacteria, microbes, single cells, and the like don't interact much with light. There just isn't much color to see oftentimes. We have to use other tricks to generate contrast that don't rely on scattering or absorption of light. But then it is possible to get pics of eukaryotic organisms.\n\nBut there *are* examples of microorganisms that are colored. We can see those just fine. Anything with chloroplasts is a good example of this.",
"Because they'd be blurry in the red spectrum. Red light has a wavelength twice as long as blue, so it would be a noticeable change in detail. You can resolve details a lot better with very short wavelengths, or even electron microscopes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6mj2sb
|
why does having something on your head (hat, headband, etc) worsen a headache?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mj2sb/eli5_why_does_having_something_on_your_head_hat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk28xbo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To put it simply, headaches are generally skin deep. Pressure on nerves or blood vessels can make it feel worse. Common headache medicines work by reducing inflammation, which reduces that pressure in the inflamed tissue.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > The brain itself is not sensitive to pain, because it lacks pain receptors. However, several areas of the head and neck do have pain receptors and can thus sense pain. These include the extracranial arteries, middle meningeal artery, large veins, venous sinuses, cranial and spinal nerves, head and neck muscles, the meninges, falx cerebri, parts of the brainstem, eyes, ears, teeth and lining of the mouth. Pial arteries, rather than pial veins are responsible for pain production.\n\n > Headaches often result from traction to or irritation of the meninges and blood vessels. The nociceptors may be stimulated by head trauma or tumors and cause headaches. Blood vessel spasms, dilated blood vessels, inflammation or infection of meninges and muscular tension can also stimulate nociceptors and cause pain. Once stimulated, a nociceptor sends a message up the length of the nerve fiber to the nerve cells in the brain, signaling that a part of the body hurts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headache"
]
] |
||
2nd7zh
|
What were investigative procedures like for crimes committed in colonial America? If I were to have committed murder, how likely was I to get away with it provided I took even the most basic of precautions?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nd7zh/what_were_investigative_procedures_like_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmd3hqd",
"cmd6fko"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't say much about specifically colonial America, but I have done some reading in the Ratcliff Highway murders, which were somewhat contemporary, and give some insight into the methodology behind early criminal investigations.\n\nThe Ratcliff Highway murders involved two home invasions just outside London in december of 1811. Seven people were killed, and authorities eventually arrested a man named John Williams for the crime, who killed himself before he could be hanged.\n\nThe investigation into the murders relied on eyewitness testimony, wound analysis, and physical evidence. \n\nEyewitness testimony was used to create a basic timeline of events, such as when a boarder living with the Marrs came home to find the Marr family dead, accounts from various night watchmen, and other men who stayed at the boarding house that Williams stayed in. Among the evidence was the claim that Williams had come home late on the night of the second murder and would not let his roommate light a candle and that he was damp smelled of blood, and that the laundress of the boarding house had washed a shirt stained (lightly) with blood.\n\nAfter the murder of the Marr family, investigators of the River Thames police force examined the scene and determined that a maul, or heavy hammer, had been used to batter the victims to death and the infant son's throat had been slashed open . The second set of murders, at the Williamson home, a crowbar and a sharp knife or razor had been used. \n\nThe maul they found at the first scene was chipped on one end and marked with the initials \"JP,\" who was eventually identified as a John Peterson, a sailor who stayed at the same boarding house as John Williams, the Pear Tree. his trunk was in the house, and it was missing the maul. Police connected the two. The owner of the Pear tree even claimed that he had once borrowed the maul and was the one that had chipped it, positively connecting the murder weapon with John Peterson's trunk. Williams, already a suspect due to earlier witness testimony, also had access to the trunk and a bevy of other circumstantial evidence against him, was arrested but never brought to trial, as he killed himself.\n\nYou can see a lot of similarities in how this case was investigated and how modern police investigate crimes. Obviously in 1811 things like fingerprint comparison, DNA testing, and other more rigorously scientific processes were impossible, but there was the ability to basically account for ironclad facts. Connecting the maul as the murder weapon and tracking down its owner and tying all the physical evidence to witness testimony helped to make a pretty fair case against Williams.\n\nThe case was more or less strong, but largely circumstantial and modern analysis has attempted to debunk him as the perpetrator. That said, the investigation itself is pretty insightful into how pre-20th century criminal investigation was carried out.\n\nMost of this info comes from PD James' *The Maul and the Pear Tree.* If you're interested in the case I would strongly urge you to track it down and read it - it was easily obtainable in my local library. Sorry I couldn't be more specific about Colonial America, but I hope this helped.",
"The very top answer of one of the top threads of all time in this sub covers this \"What If?\" in Massachusetts Bay in 1772; before some rules clarifications happened around here. I highly recommend this thread. It was huge, and what brought me into this sub. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1247fn/its_year_xxxx_of_your_specialty_a_dead_body_is/"
]
] |
||
1suluw
|
Why is redwood naturally rot resistant?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1suluw/why_is_redwood_naturally_rot_resistant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce1g7jd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Compounds known as \"extractives\" cause the wood to be resistant to pests and pathogens. Some of these compounds may be extracted with water; others are soluble in acetone, ethanol, or benzene, and (I suppose) others may be classified based on their ability to be extracted by other solvents as well.\n\n[Google Scholar link to papers on extractives in sequoias.](_URL_1_)\n\nMost seem to be [tannins.](_URL_0_)\n\nAs to \"Why redwoods?\" vs. any other trees- probably because some combination of genes and luck resulted in a fortuitous combination of type, quantity, and location (within the tree, within the cell) of compounds that results in a particularly good ability to fend off pests and pathogens- one that also continues well after the tree is felled. Perhaps at some point the species was challenged by a bug or a pathogen which naturally selected the trees that had the most potent suite of compounds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannin",
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sequoia+extractives"
]
] |
||
2hpwdo
|
Is it possible to convert the co2 in mars (or similar planets) atmosphere into o2?
|
Theoretically, as far as my imagination goes, would it be possible to plant trees or other vegetation on the surface of mars, so they can "clean" the atmosphere for humans to breath?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2hpwdo/is_it_possible_to_convert_the_co2_in_mars_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckux5dh"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Yes, and in fact on the next Mars rover, [there will be an instrument that will convert CO2 into O2 in a technology demonstration in preparation for human exploration](_URL_0_).\n\nThe problem with plants on Mars would be the soil moreso than the atmosphere. The Phoenix mission I worked on did some experiments with the regolith to determine composition, pH, etc. and at first they thought it would be suitable for planting things, but the discovery of perchlorates has complicated that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-mars-rover-will-make-oxygen-from-co2/"
]
] |
|
cbismr
|
why is science so political? and why does it make you seem left leaning to other people when you don’t deny scientific discoveries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cbismr/eli5_why_is_science_so_political_and_why_does_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etfrsfe",
"etfswru",
"etfyw4w",
"etggi96"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"\nI [answered a similar question](_URL_2_) to this on ELI5 around two years ago (and got gilded for the answer!). The previous question was more specific to climate change, but it applies to the politicization of science in general as well. Here's what I wrote then: \n > > Generally speaking, why are conservatives so opposed to the concept of climate change?\n > \n > A combination of corporate influence on public policy and a growing anti-science sentiment among American conservatives that is fueled (perhaps simultaneously intentionally and unintentionally) by religion, media, and access to the Internet. How we wound up with this mess took decades to coalesce.\n > \n > The corporate influence is the easiest to explain. Many large industries, including the energy industry, have traditionally viewed environmental regulation negatively, as additional regulation can create additional expense for industries, particularly in the short-term. This has put most large industries on the side of the Republican party which has traditionally been a proponent of smaller government and, thus, less regulation. So corporations that view additional regulation negatively throw their financial support behind Republican candidates that will vote against environmental regulation (and other types of regulation as well). \n > \n > The Republicans typically spin this as \"More regulation = higher expenses for companies = less jobs,\" while ignoring that throughout history the shift to newer and better technologies leads to economic growth and better-paying, higher skilled jobs. I.e., yes, we may have fewer horse groomer and wheelwright jobs now than we had before we made the switch from horse & buggy to automobiles, but those losses were more than made up for by the millions of jobs in manufacturing that came with the switch. Likewise, we will lose, for example, coal miner jobs as we move away from carbon fuels, but we'll wind up with millions of new jobs in newer, greener industries. \n > \n > However, that's not much consolation to the coal mining communities of West Virginia and their elected representatives and the coal companies that support and lobby them, though. So those representatives vote against progress. \n > \n > That part is fairly simple and straightforward and has played itself out over and over in the history of American politics. Eventually, progress wins (mostly). Where it gets trickier is when religion and media get mixed into it. \n > \n > Science has always had it's religious detractors (just ask Galileo), but until the mid-20th century there wasn't a lot of *direct* conflict between religion and science in the American political theater (mostly because religion held sway). However, science really picked up steam in the 20th century and started having amazing positive impacts on people's daily lives, increasing its acceptance in society and, subsequently, knocking religious/scriptural explanations of how the world works back on its heels. \n > \n > This gave rise to a fundamentalist evangelical Christian movement in the US that has a strong anti-science bent, as much science contradicts scripture. It particularly took off in the late 70's and the 80's, but you can see elements of it back to the 50's and earlier. Organizations like The Moral Majority strengthened religious opposition on scientific and science-related issues like abortion, stem cell research, evolution, etc. to the point of things like preventing evolution from being taught in some school districts (or requiring that creationism be taught along with it). Since fundamentalist, evangelical Christians disproportionately identify as Republicans these issues became core components of the Republican platform. \n > \n > Concurrently with this, there was a growing backlash among conservatives against universities, as colleges and universities, particularly in the 1960's, were seen (not incorrectly) as having been a hotbed of liberalism that generated significant support for the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the opposition to the Vietnam war, and other liberal / Democratic issues. And where does science come from? Universities. So science gets branded with the scarlet letter of Liberalism by association. That adds to conservative distrust.\n > \n > And it's in the 70's and 80's where -- at least in my opinion -- stuff starts to really get murky. You have the corporate funders of Republican candidates pushing back against environmental regulations that limit their short-term profits. You have Christian fundamentalists pushing back against particular fields of science that contradict scripture. You have mainstream Republicans pushing back against liberalism in universities, and eventually, in primary and secondary school, which influences the Christian fundamentalists and spawns the home-schooling movement and the school vouchers movement (to use public money to send kids to private religious schools). \n > \n > **This all comes together in a weird mix of growing skepticism on the right about both science and education.** I think the corporate funders *picked up on this* and started backing candidates that expressed those skeptical, anti-science views because that landed them more Republican voters, hopefully more successful Republican candidates winning seats to get them (the corporations) more representation in government ... which then supports their anti-regulation desires. \n > \n > **So somewhere in that late-20th century political realm, religious skepticism about science got in bed with corporate anti-environmental-regulation interests and that anti-regulation, anti-science combo made a powerful mix for getting Republican candidates elected.** \n > \n > Then, in the next decade, the nineties, you introduce the expanded role of media -- particularly 24/7 cable news -- and the Internet into the mix. What this does is create echo chambers, so that the population that is voting for these anti-regulation, anti-science candidates can now get all of their information exclusively from sources (e.g. Fox News Channel and conservative websites) that support and reinforce the same anti-regulation, anti-science, pro-religion positions that they hold. \n > \n > That's how we wind up with a whole political party that not only regularly ignores science and logic, but goes through all sorts of mental gymnastics to come up with alternative explanations that, though having no basis in fact, can be piped through the echo chamber to strengthen their hold on their political base. \n > \n > If you [look at the data](_URL_1_), from the early 70's onward, except for a small bounce in the 80's under Reagan but *particularly* from the 1992 election onward, there has been a pretty continuous decline of trust in science among people who identify as conservative. (Source of that chart is [this article](_URL_0_).)\n > \n > I used to think that Republican candidates were just in the pocket of Big Business, and took anti-science stances to keep their corporate campaign donations rolling in. But increasingly I think the Republican candidates that are getting elected now came up and were educated in the political environment of the last 40 years that I described above and _**actually** don't believe in science_ at all ... or believe it's a liberal conspiracy ... or at the least are selective in what science they are willing to believe. That's *really* chilling. \n > \n > This is a troubling position for our country to be in. The one ray of hope that I see is that, in the long-term, corporations know that they have to invest in science to continue to grow and be relevant. \n > \n > [Even Exxon Mobile and ConocoPhillips, the two largest US oil & gas companies, urged Trump not to abandon the Paris Accord](_URL_3_). Of course, that may have just been a PR move, since they had nothing to lose at that point. But they *are* global companies and know that _they must make the shift to different energy sources **anyway**_ to continue to sell into the global economy. \n > \n > I expect that at some point in the next 5-10 years, the corporations that fund the Republicans will be well on their way to making the switch to greener energy policies to stay competitive in the global marketplace and will be driving the Republican candidates they fund *away* from those climate change-denial policies that they drove them *toward* for the last 30 years because the corporations are going to want those sweet, sweet government tax dollars to pay for their conversion to greener sources.\n > \n > That does not bode well for Republicans. Republicans benefited over the last 40-50 years from an anti-science alignment between corporate interests and the religious interests of their base. But that anti-science -- particularly climate science -- stances on the part of American corporations was inevitably destined to be temporary. As soon as the rest of the world -- *and the rest of the world's corporations* -- get on board with greener technologies, the corporations will toss the religious Conservatives to the curb quicker than you can say \"quarterly earnings report.\"",
"Science is political because it affects policy. If your job is to mine coal and science says coal is bad your job is now on the line. You will vote for someone who disagrees with the science because otherwise you and your family are going hungry\n\nAlso you don't always seem left leaning if you don't deny scientific findings, it just depends on which scientific findings you disagree with. The antivax movement is largely liberal mothers, disagreeing with vaccine science doesn't seem right wing at all.\n\nHowever the most visible science argument right now is climate change which the right is against because a large portion of their base will suffer (at least in the short term) from policies made to combat climate change. This is why you think agreeing with science makes you seem left wing: the biggest most talked about example of this scenario supports it.",
"Science is powerful and the current, most respected \"final authority.\" It used to be the church, and that was when clergy got highly politicized as well. And with politicization comes money, with money and special interests come corruption, it picks away at the credibility of an institution. As far as climate change is concerned I don't think it's the science and objective findings that are contentious, but rather the interpretation and reaction on part of the media, which is then projected onto science itself.",
"Well, when you have GOP candidates literally saying that children shouldn’t be taught critical thinking skills that might challenge their ideas, it’s not hard to figure out which party is anti-education."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/28/can-the-republican-party-solve-its-science-denial-problem",
"http://i.imgur.com/kNAiir4.png",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6euf97/eli5_generally_speaking_why_are_conservatives_so/",
"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
e8gxzq
|
How does our body deals or tries to deal with toxic substances such various poisons and specifically heavy metals?
|
For example, it is said that phagocytes ingest various foreign particles within our body. Does that include toxic substances?
When we know what lethal dose is, does that mean that generally speaking anything lower is somehow "dealt" with, or do these substances freely circulate within our body on their own?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/e8gxzq/how_does_our_body_deals_or_tries_to_deal_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fac7676",
"facdbhx"
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text": [
"So phagocytes generally attack bacteria and parasites. Poisons and toxins filtered through the liver and then excreted through the kidneys (for the most part). However if it's a potent toxin like say, curare, which is a powerful muscle relaxant, it will essentially kill you before your liver can and circulatory system can deal with it.\n\nWhen you talk about lethal dose the lethality of it is either causing liver failure because it's too much toxin for your liver to handle, or it is too effective at it's site of action. For example, digitalis is a drug used to strengthen heart contractions to treat congestive heart failure. The correct dose partially inhibits sodium/potassium pumps. Too much would completely inhibit them and you would die because your heart would stop beating. \n\nHeavy metals usually aren't dealt with because our bodies don't really have a mechanism for them. Like mercury stays in your body pretty much forever. \n\n\nThere are a lot of generalizations in this explanation but it is accurate for a lot of toxins and drugs. Hope I answered you well enough",
"There are about as many ways your body deals with toxic things as there are toxic things. There are some groups of many toxic things that are handled in the same way. For example many gaseous toxins such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide are removed from your body when you exhale. There are also many toxins like heavy metals that are not actively removed from the body. They may still be removed by simply diffusing through your body and eventually ending up in waste though. This is how heavy metals naturally exit the body. This process can be extremely slow. For example the half-life of mercury in the blood is about 7-10 days, but the half-life for mercury in the brain is about 27.4 years.\n\nLethal dose is usually given as \"LD50\" which means it's expected that half of people given this dose would die. It is possible to die when exposed to less than the LD50 and it's possible to survive when exposed to more. It should also be noted that the LD50 of many compounds is very inaccurate. Obviously you can't just test how much of a poison it takes to kill people so LD50 is usually based on a very small sample size.\n\nIf you do consume a large but nonlethal dose of a toxic compound that does not mean that your body has handled it. For some things like heavy metals the toxic compound will remain in your body. Some toxins that your body can;t remove on its own can be removed. In the particular case of heavy metal poisoning there are drugs that bind to heavy metals and allow your body to filter them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
88oa6t
|
What motivated León Trotsky to choose Mexico as his place of asylum in 1928?
|
I am from/in Mexico and , to our shame and demerit, we failed to provide sanctuary to Trotsky after he was exiled by Joseph Stalin's forces in Soviet Russia.
Now, I understand that Mexico was sympathetic to communism and spceifically sympathetic to Trotsky, believe you me, I know this very well.
My question is, out of all the places in the world, why specifically Mexico? it does not appear he had been here before, nor that he had major dealings with any of the prominent figures at the time, so I am left a bit confused as to why this was his choice.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/88oa6t/what_motivated_león_trotsky_to_choose_mexico_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwmupus"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"/u/Cozijo answered this question posited slightly differently (as in, why did the Mexican government offer Trotsky asylum and what was the history of Russian Socialist influence in Mexico) [here](_URL_0_) a couple of years ago. You might find their response informative."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.cl/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zs05u/during_leon_trotskys_exile_the_mexican_president/"
]
] |
|
1d8zh6
|
can 'they' be used as a singular, third party pronoun?
|
I've heard many people on each side, and I wanted to know the basic arguments for each side, and the cases when it would and wouldn't be acceptable, as well as why.
This will settle so many more second-guesses in my writing, so thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d8zh6/eli5_can_they_be_used_as_a_singular_third_party/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9o1qf4",
"c9o3c2y",
"c9o3z6t"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In English, like many other languages, there is no genderless singular pronoun (bedsides the rarely used \"one\") so male is used as the default. Recently it has been considered sexist to use 'he' when meaning genderless (by no means unfoundedly as there is a valid sexist based argument why male is default) so 'they' has been used in its stead.",
"Yes. Some people will claim that it's plural, and therefore can't also be singular; they are wrong. Consider \"you\", which also does double duty as plural and singular. In some cases it may be inappropriate for the register being used, and in a graded assignment may be marked wrong. In the particular instance you give, it is considered a matter of politeness to use the pronouns a person tells you to use.",
"That very much rather depends on what you mean by \"third person singular.\" If you go by subject/verb agreement, then the answer is that in standard English it cannot be so used; you can't say \"They is happy,\" you have to say \"They *are* happy.\"\n\nNow, in terms of *reference* (or the fancy word linguists and philosophers use here, *indexicality*), *they* in English has for centuries been used primarily to refer to multiple parties that are not in the conversation, and secondarily to just one such party . People who are superstitious about matters of grammar—for example, you typical English teacher—tend to get pissed off about the second use, because they believe it's \"illogical\" (despite the fact that very few of these people have ever studied logic). But if you look at languages across the world you notice that this sort of thing is completely normal:\n\n* English *you* was originally just plural, and *thou* was the singular. In European languages it's common to use a second person plural as a form of respect when referring to one person, and English had that, so much that *thou* dropped from common usage.\n* In French, going by subject-verb agreement, *tu* is the \"true\" second person singular and *vous* the \"true\" second person plural, but *vous* is used in singular reference as a respect form.\n* Other languages do the \"respect pronoun\" thing by using a third person agreement pronoun for second person singular reference. In Spanish, for example, *usted* always has second person reference, but the verb agrees like third person singular.\n* Portuguese doesn't even use a pronoun here, it uses *o senhor/a senhora* (\"the gentleman/the lady\") with second person singular reference but third person singular agreement. Brazilians use *a gente* (\"the people\") as first person plural reference, third person singular agreement.\n* German uses third person plural agreement pronouns for respectful second person singular reference.\n* In Haitian Creole there is a pronoun (*nou*) that's both first and second person plural. (There's no subject-verb agreement.)\n* In Japanese it's normal to use nouns in a second person reference situation; if you're talking to the baker, it's normal to say something like \"Does the baker have my cake ready?\" In English the closest we could get to that without sounding weird would be something like \"Do you Mr. baker have my cake ready?,\" but there I'm using *you*. \n* Some linguists would claim that Japanese doesn't really have pronouns like European languages do—that it just has nouns. Why? Because there are just too many nouns that are be used with first and second person reference that if you were analyzing the language without preconceptions you wouldn't come up with the idea of a special type of word used only for this function. (I don't know how good of a hypothesis that is, so don't ask me to defend it.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9w0jbi
|
why are some roads tan, and others black?
|
I know that they are made out of different materials Tan probably is concrete, and the black is obviously asphalt. However I want to know the different use case for the different materials.
I also seem to notice the tan roads tend to have hight speed limits, more road noise, and appears to have more construction vehicles on them. These roads also seem to have less cracks in them.
Thanks in advance for an answer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9w0jbi/eli5_why_are_some_roads_tan_and_others_black/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9gm1n7",
"e9gmhsg",
"e9goro5"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You're correct as to what materials they're made of. Concrete roads are more durable, and tend to be used in high traffic areas where frequent repairs can't be done. Asphalt is much cheaper to install, so it's mostly used where concrete is not required.",
"Asphalt is cheap and can be recycled \"in situ\" which means a machine can come through and tear up the original material, add some fresh asphalt, and set it back in place. It's not nearly as strong as concrete and is easier to patch. Asphalt roads are better for residential and lower traffic areas. Asphalt roads are technically 'tarmac'.\n\nConcrete roads are tan or grey or other colors when local materials are used. Cement is considerably more expensive but can be mixed at a variety of strengths and is better suited for interstates with high traffic and larger vehicles. Concrete cannot be recycled in place and therefore replacement costs can be huge. \n\nAsphalt is a byproduct of petroleum refinement, cement is its own product which requires a large energy input to produce.",
"Further note:\n\nThe origin of the oil industry was kerosene, as a replacement for whale oil in lamps. At that time gasoline was a \"waste product\" from the refinement of crude oil. It did not serve much purpose and was too difficult to store until the internal combustion engine (ICE) came along. It was often burned off at the source, and natural gas (methane) was simply vented into the atmosphere. Many early automotive engineers preferred alcohol to gasoline as a fuel for the ICE.\n\nAs gasoline became the primary product of petroleum refinement and electricity took over as a light source, kerosene became a waste product until it was converted into diesel and later jet fuel. It took a long time for natural gas to find its place as it is incredibly difficult to store and transport. \n\nAsphalt has always been the red-headed step child of the petroleum industry as it is heavy, sticky, and difficult to store. Its primary uses are as a binder for tarmac and in roofing and flooring products such as shingles and tar."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1p0oiu
|
how did western european countries end up colonizing the world, instead of some other civilization?
|
China, India, the Ottoman Empire and parts of West Africa were very rich and powerful before Europeans came along and took over. What gave them the edge over these other civilizations?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p0oiu/eli5_how_did_western_european_countries_end_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccxjcyk",
"ccxjivx"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Short answer. Geography\nLong answer. Go watch guns, germs & steel\nThe basic premise is that because of Europeans ability to grow a large variety of low effort high calorie foods in their temperate climate they gained an advantage over other civilizations",
"The simple answer is a combination of geography (not needing to navigate around multiple continents, water currents working their favor) and the technological advancements they made in terms of sailing. Their economy also was at a point where these voyages could be funded with relative ease."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2hyi0g
|
ups drivers not making left turns?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hyi0g/eli5_ups_drivers_not_making_left_turns/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckx5t00",
"ckxauye",
"ckxe8m8"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"This article gives great insight on why it's done. \n_URL_0_",
"i wonder if it really saves gas if you have to drive extra just to make a right turn instead of a left... for example: \n\n_URL_0_",
"UPS driver here. The idea is to reduce the amount of time spent waiting at red lights, dealing with intersections, etc. In practice it doesn't necessarily apply to every intersection we come to; some of our routes are single stop setups, where we drive to one skyscraper, park, and stay put all day, and other routes demand multiple-hundred-mile runs where you follow the deliveries and plan as best you can based on who ordered what. If we have a run that can be planned out to follow a mostly clockwise path, then yay us, but the whole \"no left turns\" thing is a theoretical goal and not a hard rule on the ground. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://compass.ups.com/UPS-driver-avoid-left-turns/"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/nLLKZk0.png"
],
[]
] |
||
1agnpz
|
Saint Patrick. Who was he? Why is he celebrated to much - why does he have national holidays and parades around the world?
|
Canada, and other countries (officially and unofficially) celebrates St. Patricks day today. For the most part, it has become a celebration of wearing green, waving the Irish flag, and getting inebriated off green beer. In other words, it's basically become a feel-good day but with obviously no connection to the genesis of the holiday and St. Patrick himself. So:
- who was he?
- why is he celebrated so much?
- why does he have national holidays and parades around the world?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1agnpz/saint_patrick_who_was_he_why_is_he_celebrated_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8x8hy9",
"c8xam66"
],
"score": [
2,
16
],
"text": [
"1. St. Patrick was born in what is now england toa well off family but was captured and sold as a slave in ireland. he said his faith grew there and once he escaped came back as a missionary, who is credited with getting rid of paganism. this is where the story of driving driving snakes out of ireland comes from, there are no snakes native to ireland. another myth is using a 3 leaf clover to explain the holy trinity. durning the 1600's the day he died (march 17) became an official christian holiday. \n\n2/3. being the patron saint of ireland he it was really celebrated just in ireland, but because of intentional (and unintentional) immigration it is celebrated all around the world and has become more of a heritage pride thing outside of ireland. i believe the largest parade in the world is in NYC. i have little bit more but i dont want to bore you.\n(i got most of this from a book, \"the everything irish history heritage book\")",
"The evidence we have around St. Patrick's life is patchy, but he was a bishop in Ireland in the fifth century. \n\nHagiographies written after Patrick's death claim that Christ gave a vision of purgatory to St. Patrick, and the idea of a vision of purgatory became increasingly interesting to the medieval world as the idea of purgatory became more widely discussed in theological thought. A late twelfth century text by a monk from Huntindonshire, the *Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii* depicting a monk finding a cave that led to a vision of St. Patrick's purgatory became extremely popular, especially in its later versions (one translated into Anglo-French by Marie de France.) The popularity of stories of St. Patrick's purgatory explains some of St. Patrick's growing influence in the medieval world.\n\nMy personal favourite story of St. Patrick, though, comes from [Jacobus de Voragine's Golden Legend](_URL_0_), a thirteenth-century collection of saints lives that became a medieval best-seller. As the story goes, St. Patrick heard that a sheep had been stolen and, during a church service, Patrick asked the thief to come clean. When no one did, St. Patrick made the sheep cry out from the stomach of the man who had eaten it, thus revealing his thievery. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden000.htm"
]
] |
|
83a6ji
|
how is putting files in the recycle bin any different from a regular folder?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83a6ji/eli5_how_is_putting_files_in_the_recycle_bin_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvgb0bz",
"dvgb3j6"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Imagine your computer is a spaceship, you have a bunch of storage compartments. oh this old crap? don't need it anymore, probably, put it in the air lock. \n\nNow instead of having two doors between it and the nothingness of space, it only has one door, and at anytime, you can press the \"open outer door\" button, and eject all those recycle bin files into space. Just one little press of a button, maybe accidental, even\n\nimagine putting important files into that airlock instead of trash...dangerous.\n\n\nSure, even \"deleted\" files , tossed out of the metaphorical airlock can be retrieved when floating out in space, but by \"undeleting\" them, but odds are they'll be corrupted.",
"It isn't. The recycle bin is just another folder. The operating system is going to associate meta data to that folder through some mechanic that when you \"empty the trash\", it implies this folder has its contents deleted. That's it. Nothing special. And your user interface has shortcuts, like if you hit Shift + Del, typically the file is deleted without going to the recycle bin. No computer is going to automagically delete the contents of the recycle bin unless you explicitly configure it to do so. This might be done by a network admin on a company or school computer, but this is not the behavior of a personal PC. If you're running out of disk space, the UI may suggest you empty it.\n\nOn Unix type systems there is a /tmp directory that is temporary, and you can't be sure that anything you put there will stay there. Again, the filesystem doesn't give a shit, it's just another folder, there has to be some higher level program that looks to it specifically and a standard protocol that dictates convention.\n\nTypically on a Unix system, the tmp folder can be scheduled to be purged if the disk is running full, or the directory starts reaching a certain size, or it may get purged at shutdown or startup. The kind of data that goes here should typically be cached data where if it were gone, the data could be obtained another way, the /tmp data would just be an optimization. Other things that go in there are lock files, whose presence means some other file is in use, or some process is running. If the filesystem supports locking open files, then the program can open the file and forbid the drive from being unmounted or the file being read or written to by any other program. You can clear this folder and those open files would remain since they're still in use. Not all of this is a best practice anymore because some of what I mentioned has inherent flaws and new features of operating systems can make some of that old fashioned."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6g6hpr
|
what is a hung government? and why do some people think it's good for britain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g6hpr/eli5_what_is_a_hung_government_and_why_do_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dinwijw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's good because with no one party in charge, they don't get to run the country purely on *their* idea of what's best. They have to run it by the other party/parties and reach a compromise (if the other parties are tough enough to argue their case and stand up to the ones with the most majority). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1nfxg2
|
Were shields in the Medieval era really painted with the heraldric symbol of a lord the soldier belonged to?
|
I'm asking this because in [threads about recognising friend from foe in pitched battles](_URL_0_) i've never seen shields mentioned, which makes me wonder about them.
Were shields that were painted expensive to make and maintain? Greeks and Romans had painted shields, Celts, Vikings as wells, so i'm interested about medieval shields. Surely they must have painted theirs with heraldric symbols, right?
And actually, what kind of paints would they use? How does one paint a shield? Who would paint the shields? And obviously it's going to be battered to hell in a battle, so how would you repair the paint.
Sorry if this is an obvious question.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nfxg2/were_shields_in_the_medieval_era_really_painted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccish2k",
"ccier2y"
],
"score": [
8,
134
],
"text": [
"Medieval shields were covered with fabric, primed with a plastery chalk paint called gesso, then painted with tempera paints and possibly metal leaf. \nProfessional shield makers made shields and were often governed by guilds.",
"There is a practical reason to paint (wood) shields, which is to disguise the grain. \n \nBecause wood has a grain it is significantly stronger in one direction than another, and significantly more penetrable. It is much harder to chop/cut across the grain than to split with the grain. This means that a shield bearer has a vested interest in concealing the direction of the grain. Painting does it pretty effectively. \n \nI can't speak about heraldic painting. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k4e5n/how_did_ancient_or_medieval_armies_recognize/"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
cmeehd
|
When a stroke or brain damage causes a person to have to re-learn language, how does the brain typically adapt? Do the damaged parts recover or do other parts of the brain take over, and how does this affect the relearning process?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cmeehd/when_a_stroke_or_brain_damage_causes_a_person_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ew1wa2p",
"ew1xnuw",
"ew207zs"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
6
],
"text": [
"The damaged parts do not recover. By and large, they are dead. The other parts take over, and there is evidence of some processes, like long distance axon sprouting, that are not thought to normally occur. \n\nThere are several different well identified learning mechanisms being engaged.",
"[Here](_URL_0_) is a primary source that covers exactly this topic in a comprehensive manner. To answer your question broadly, the damaged areas heal as well as they can and healthy regions of the brain generally take over for regions that can’t be fixed. \n\nTo summarize some points from the link: a few days to weeks after the stroke or injury, inflammation is reduced and new synaptic pathways begin to form. If the neuron cell bodies in the damaged area are still intact, then their axons and dendrites will regrow and synaptic connections will reform. If not, other neurons will form connections around the damaged area (which often scars). Around two weeks after a stroke in the language center of the left hemisphere, heightened language activity is found in the right hemisphere - in other words, the right hemisphere partially takes over for the left hemisphere’s language functions as it heals. After roughly a year, the language function shifts mostly back to the left hemisphere.",
"tl;dr: if damage can be repaired, it is. If not, new neurons can be made, and they generally move in adjacent to any surviving neurons. Relearning depends on the extent and type of damage, and is complicated.\n\nIn a normal, healthy brain, language 'happens' primarily in two spots, both of them on the left side of the brain. These are called Broca's area and Wernicke's area. Each one is roughly the size of a quarter (or a pound coin) in diameter.\n\nHow these areas react to damage depends on the extent of the damage. A neuron can be divided up into 3 parts - the cell body or soma, where the nucleus is; the axon (the 'out port'), and the dendrites (the 'in port'). The shape of all these depends on the type of neuron, but typically dendrites are short, and branch along their full length, while axons are longer, and tend to have a long stem before they start branching.\n\nIf axons or dendrites are damaged, but the cell is still alive, then those damaged parts can be replaced. This process may be similar to the process of learning something new - new branches kind of poke around till they make a connection, and wait to see if that connection gets positively re-inforced. \n\nIf the soma is damaged, though, you run the risk of the cell dying, in which case the whole thing needs replacing. Different brain injuries will damage cells in different ways. A stroke starves cells of oxygen, and so kills them. Cells either survive or don't, largely. In the case of blunt force trauma, axons and dendrites are frequently damaged without killing the whole neuron.\n\nThis is relevant because neurons in the language centres are *highly* connected - both amongst themselves, and with neurons far away in the brain. So if you damage part of an axon or dendrite, you lose exponentially less connections, and thus information, than if you kill off the whole neuron. This affects how much work needs to be done to relearn whatever was lost. \n\nUntil recently, we thought that new brain cells were never made in adulthood. Now we know that's wrong, but it's still unclear the extent of this. \n\nIn the event that there's light spread out damage (like in a very mild stroke or concussive damage), neurons that can repair themselves will start doing so, and any new neurons that are needed will move in amongst the surviving neurons. The language area typically won't change shape significantly.\n\nIn the event that there's serious, focused damage (for example a piercing brain injury), it's rare that the whole of a language centre will be destroyed. The area will likely expand away from the damaged site. Part of this seems to be repurposing of existing neurons, and part of this seems to be new neurons moving in. Repurposing isn't hugely well understood to my knowledge. I know it's well documented in motor and sensory areas though. \n\nAs far as I know, it's unheard of for a totally 'new' language centre to be made in a completely different area as a result of damage. That sort of thing *does* occur in cases where a brain region failed to develop correctly in the first place though. People born with parts of their brain missing will sometimes have the same sort of subdivisions, just in unexpected places. This is not well understood though, and not consistent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2019.00295/full#h1"
],
[]
] |
||
y8qfx
|
How would our brains function without our five senses?
|
I've begun to think about cyborgs and this is one of the questions that I thought of. Would it be like a dream state? Sleep? Coma? I'm basically trying to understand how the brain would operate on its own.
Edit: I'm asking this in the case of that a person has lived for X number of years (say 40) and then has their senses stripped away.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/y8qfx/how_would_our_brains_function_without_our_five/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5tg1rg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I read about an experiment in Mikhail Veller's book (he provided a reference, but I won't be able to retrieve it from work). \n\nHe described an experiment where a physically and mentally healthy volunteer was put in a dark sound-proof room, wearing a special suit that hinders all touch feelings, and strapped on elastic bands in the air to minimize the feel of weight, position or gravity, with special paste used to block taste in the mouth feeling. Basically, it effectively shut down all senses. According to the study, within 8 hours, patients began showing signs of insanity. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
wtn9m
|
what would have happened if the banks didn't get bailed out?
|
I'm having an argument with my friend about this, and we realized that neither one of us knows what we're talking about. Help?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wtn9m/what_would_have_happened_if_the_banks_didnt_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5gci4l",
"c5gd7mi",
"c5gdd2p",
"c5gfxek",
"c5ghkrg"
],
"score": [
44,
12,
11,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, put shortly, the US economy would have collapsed, as liquidity would have disappeared and loans would be non-existent. Other Western economies soon would have followed (assuming no bailouts anywhere) resulting in a collapse of the entire financial system.\n\nBroken down more (I'll do a 'like you're 5' summary at the end):\n\nUS economy would continue to destabilize. Institution after institution would fail. With credit frozen, a vast majority of people wouldn't be able to afford necessities (I'm assuming there would be a run on the banks quite early, which would propagate the downward spiral). Business credit would also be frozen, stopping product movement and essentially rendering companies large and small helpless.\n\nAlternatively, instead of bailing out banks, they could have offered mortgage assistance, making citizens deal with the toxic assets. On the other side, it would have preserved average family net worth in the long run. The government also could have acquired the toxic assets at face value, which would reduce taxpayer risk.\n\nLike you're 5: You don't have money to buy pizza, so the pizza guy can't buy ingredients to make pizza. The ingredient man doesn't get paid because nobody makes pizza. No ingredients get made. The farmers don't have anyone to buy their food. Everyone except the farmer starves.",
"Step 1. Many, many banks would be broke.\n\nStep 2. All the banks stop lending money, because you can't lend money when you're broke.\n\nStep 3. Businesses just sometimes have \"bad months\" when they're in the red. Shit happens. They survive these bad months by borrowing money. But if they can't borrow money, they have to lay off employees or close their doors.\n\nStep 4. As many, many businesses lay off employees and close their doors, unemployment goes up.\n\nStep 5. Other businesses, knowing that they can't borrow (because there are no lenders), start trying to \"trim the fat\" from their businesses just to make sure they never go in the red. They, too, lay off employees.\n\nStep 6. The new wave of unemployed individuals start living off their savings. In order to stretch their savings, they spend as little as they can.\n\nStep 7. Other people, fearing that they're going to be laid off next, start building a \"nest egg\" just in case. They, too, spend as little as they can.\n\nStep 8. Since everyone is spending as little as they can, businesses everywhere see all their customers disappear.\n\nStep 9. Without customers, even more businesses shut their doors. Even more people get laid off.\n\nIt goes on. \n\nBut what it boils down to is: our economy *needs* functioning banks. Businesses borrow money for good reason. We absolutely need for the lenders to exist, for them to be there. Without them, businesses are in big trouble. Once the businesses are in trouble, everything else goes downhill.\n",
"I'd always heard that Ron Paul would have descended on a magical zeppelin to whisk away his supporters to an island made of gold, like some sort of Willy Wonka rapture.",
"In most developed countries, the financial system can handle the collapse of maybe a few sizeable banks. Governments step in and recapitalise the failed banks, meaning that people who had deposits in them will still have access to that money, and that people who had loans from them will not suffer immediate foreclosure. But the recapitalisation of a failed bank is not just for the benefit of individual people ('retail' customers) - it's also for the benefit of businesses who were dealing with the failed bank. These businesses include other banks.\n\nBy not stepping in to recapitalise or bail out a failed bank, the people and businesses tied up in that bank have lost out. If you had a loan with them, the failed bank's creditors will want it back immediately - you'll probably get a foreclosure notice from the administrators. If you kept your money with them, you just won't get it back. It's gone.\n\nImagine millions of people being in that situation. The loss of all their savings, their current account balances; even those with decent incomes will take years or decades to recover. But what about those people who work for affected businesses? A business whose bank collapses unaided, and that suddenly has no cash, can't pay its staff. It can't pay its invoices. It might chase up its own clients for payments, but what if a good proportion of its clients were also with the failed bank, and now have no money? Pretty soon that business is facing bankruptcy.\n\nSo what you have in the face of a single collapsed bank is a kind of domino effect as the individual and business bankruptcies ripple out throughout the economy. And included in this domino effect are other banks who were exposed to the failed bank. As soon as one of them also collapses, the situation will escalate dramatically.\n\nSo the practical effect of all this on you and me is that we would all suddenly have no money at all, and the businesses who we buy food from would also have no money, and therefore no way to buy food wholesale and ship it from the countryside to their stores. Our problem isn't just that we can't get cash out of ATMs; it's that the economy is no longer functioning and we can't eat.\n\nAt this stage the government would need to treat this as a humanitarian crisis and step in. It would still have lots of money because it didn't bail out the failed banks; but the value of that money will have dropped as a result of the banking crisis, so it wouldn't be as strong as it was before that first bank crashed. \n\nTo centrally administer the economy and make sure we can all eat it would probably need to call for outside aid, which would come in the form of an IMF loan. But if this same situation had erupted globally, and not just in our hypothetical country, the IMF itself may not be able to step in, it may be drained of resources. This is where the ink runs off the page; from here on in we'd be in uncharted territory.",
"[I recommend you use Khan Academy lectures, when you have the time, and learn most everything about the bailout on a general level](_URL_0_)\n\nLectures are Bailout 1-13. \n\nThe first few explain basic banking then it goes into the proposed plans and ends with why it may or may not work and what would have been a better solution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.khanacademy.org/finance-economics/core-finance/v/bailout-1--liquidity-vs--solvency"
]
] |
|
47dlwh
|
Was the Mongolian composite bow a better weapon than the English longbow?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/47dlwh/was_the_mongolian_composite_bow_a_better_weapon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0c867a",
"d0ccdy8"
],
"score": [
2,
24
],
"text": [
"I feel this is an odd question. The two bows might be somewhat similar in effect (i.e. shooting an arrow across a distance), but have different purposes. It's like asking if a sniper rifle is a better weapon than an assault rifle. They have two different battlefield uses.",
"Yes. I mean if by better you mean better ballistic performance, yes composite bows shoot faster, farther and harder because:\n\n1. Composite bows have more reflex. That is, a longbow when unstrung is straight, a reflexed bow is bent forward in the opposite way. When a longbow is strung there's almost no tension in the string while a reflexed bow has already been bent and tensed quite a bit just to string it. In terms of shooting, this means longbows only accelerate arrows at the beginning of the shot and not so much near the end as the bow uncoils while a reflex packs a lot of energy throughout the bow.\n2. Recurved limb tips improve smoothness at the end of the draw. At the end of your draw when the angle between the string and limbtip is significant, recurved tips maintain a more efficient lever point for the string keeps the rate at which the bow gains weight lower. This again means you're packing more energy just before your final draw length.\n3. Horn/sinew are more flexible than longbows and means composite bows can be strained more by being pulled more. A higher draw length affects the energy storage of the bow as much as the draw weight does. While a longbow is typically shot at draw lengths of 28\" (and expert archers in the past would draw to 30\" next to the head), Asiatic draw lengths are typically much higher, about 32\", past the head. Longbows can be made to draw longer but that requires making the limbs longer too (see next point).\n4. Smaller and lighter limbs keeps the virtual mass of the bow low. When you shoot an arrow, you're accelerating the arrow's mass but the limbs have to get moving in order to pull the string which launches the arrow. This inertia of the bow is called its virtual mass. The heavier and bigger the limbs, the heavier its virtual mass, and less efficient the bow. More energy goes into getting the limbs moving and less energy goes into the arrow.\n\nPoints 1, 2, and 3 mean composite bows store more energy, point 4 means composite bows use that energy more efficiently. This is true at all load factors, composite bows will generally always out shoot a longbow (given the same draw weight), even with heavier arrows though people generally assume longbows are better at heavy arrow shooting. It's just that their low virtual mass means composite bows are exceptionally good at shooting light arrows fast and far.\n\nWhat the longbow does have going for it is that they're easy to make, a good bowyer could turn one out in just a couple of hours and the only maintenance it would need for its lifetime would be some oiling to protect the wood from moisture.\n\nMeanwhile a composite bow takes months to make, sometimes as long as a year depending on the climate because the components have to be glued and let dry completely before adjustments to tillering can be made. Even after it's finished the the bow has to be shot and heat tillered for about a year, before the bow starts to shoot consistently without the limbs warping and flipping front to back. If the climate is humid, the bow will have to be kept in a special heated box to be able to keep the sinew dry for shooting. You pay for the extra performance with a much higher initial cost and require constant caring for."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
18vyal
|
This might sound like a silly question, but would is it possible to fly through a rainbow?
|
I've always wanted to get close to one, but they're so far away, mostly. I know it's just light reflecting off water, so would it disappear the closer we got to it or would there be a definitive edge to the rainbow itself?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18vyal/this_might_sound_like_a_silly_question_but_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ik6zd",
"c8is30q"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"No, a rainbow doesn't exist at a definite location like you are thinking. They are an optical phenomenon that always appear up at a specific angle (about 40 to 42 degrees) away from the line from the sun through your head.",
"I've \"driven through one\" before.\n\nThe sun was low on the horizon behind the car, and the rainbow was arching over the road - [about like this](_URL_0_)\n\nAs other posters here are saying, it maintained a constant angle / apparent distance as the car moved. \n\nWe \"drove toward it without reaching it\" for maybe a minute. Pretty interesting! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/uJZfP.jpg"
]
] |
|
lbt7n
|
how computer languages like c and c+ are developed and how they work with the computer?
|
I've always wondered this. So there is a blank computer and someone decides to write a language for it. How does the computer know what to do with that language?
Thanks!
EDIT: Awesome thanks everyone! Super interesting and helpful
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lbt7n/eli5_how_computer_languages_like_c_and_c_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2rekhe",
"c2retcr",
"c2rgtab",
"c2rekhe",
"c2retcr",
"c2rgtab"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
7,
17,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"You're telling a person how to get somewhere. Technically, how to get there includes steps like this:\n\n* Put your left foot forward.\n* Shift weight forward and onto your left foot\n* Put your right foot forward\n* shift your weight forward and onto your right foot\n* Repeat the first four steps 257 times.\n* Pivot left.\n* Turn head left. \n* Look for cars. \n* if there are no cars, turn head right\n* Look for cars\n* Turn head left again to double check\n* if there are no cars, put left foot forward\n* etc.\n\nYou can see how this would be extremely time consuming. Instead, you say:\n\n* Walk to the next intersection. \n* Turn left and cross\n* etc.\n\nComputer processors are built to understand **machine code** a way to tell a computer what to do in extremely small steps (like giving a person directions the first way). \n\nWhen you create a programming language, you make rules for how to tell the computer what to do in a broader more natural way that is easier to write (like giving directions the second way). \n\nAdditionally, you make a program to translate your language into machine code. This program is called a **compiler**.",
"So the physical processor knows how to understand a specific language called machine code (or assembly). Machine code is incredibly unreadable and very hard to work with on a large scale, so people invented programming languages. The problem is processors don't know how to speak those languages, so someone created a translator, called a compiler, which can translate from the programming language to assembly.\n\nIt sort of becomes a miniature human-driven singularity at that point. You write the first (Very simple!) compiler in assembly. Then you write your next compiler in your language so it can support more features. Then you write your next compiler in your newer language... repeat.",
"Well the computer itself only knows what to do with binary. For example, you might feed a processor something like:\n\n 1011 0010 1010 0011\n\nThe code mean something like:\n\n 1011 - > add\n 0010 - > the number 2\n 1010 - > and the number 10 \n 0011 - > put the result into register 3 (a register is just temporary storage on the processor)\n\nSo to compute this instruction, the processor would add 2 and 10 to get 12, then store the result into register 3. This is, of course, extremely simplified, but that's basically how machine code works. The problem is that machine code is damn near impossible to read or write, so instead people come up with assembly languages, which are just basically easier ways to read and write machine code. In an assembly language, the instruction might look like:\n\n add 2, 10, $3\n\nWhere each of those symbols are just mechanically translated into binary to be ready for the processor. That was a big improvement over machine code, but it still gets *really* messy for large programs. The control flow of the program is very hard to follow, and even relatively simple algorithms involve a lot of overhead in the form of manipulating registers to keep track of temp values, and composing basic arithmetic and logic operations to perform more sophisticated operations. Next came compiled languages, like C. Compilers are very complicated programs, but they have a straightforward job. They turn high level code into assembly language. The only rule is that the assembly code which is produced, has to do exactly what is specified by the high level code. In C, the code from before might look something like this:\n\n x = 2 + 10;\n\nThe problem is that in C we don't have direct access to registers, so the resulting assembly might be something like:\n\n add 2, 10, $3\n mov $3, 0x003F\n\nThe last \"mov\" instruction would be moving the result from the register to the memory location specified by the variable 'x'.\n\nSo to get back to your question; when a processor is being designed, the designers choose an architecture to follow. The \"architecture\" (or full name \"instruction set architecture\") just specifies which machine language the computer understands. Generally, unless it's a small chip for a very specific purpose, they will go with an already existing architecture since assemblers and possibly compilers will already exist for it. If it's a processor for a personal computer, it will always use what's called the x86 architecture.\n\nOn the other hand, when a high level language is being designed, people generally try to make it so that the language is easy to read and write, and makes it easy on programmer to do whatever the language is intended for. Once the language specification is created, compiler writers will create compilers which are able to translate that language into different assembly languages, which can then be run on different processors.",
"You're telling a person how to get somewhere. Technically, how to get there includes steps like this:\n\n* Put your left foot forward.\n* Shift weight forward and onto your left foot\n* Put your right foot forward\n* shift your weight forward and onto your right foot\n* Repeat the first four steps 257 times.\n* Pivot left.\n* Turn head left. \n* Look for cars. \n* if there are no cars, turn head right\n* Look for cars\n* Turn head left again to double check\n* if there are no cars, put left foot forward\n* etc.\n\nYou can see how this would be extremely time consuming. Instead, you say:\n\n* Walk to the next intersection. \n* Turn left and cross\n* etc.\n\nComputer processors are built to understand **machine code** a way to tell a computer what to do in extremely small steps (like giving a person directions the first way). \n\nWhen you create a programming language, you make rules for how to tell the computer what to do in a broader more natural way that is easier to write (like giving directions the second way). \n\nAdditionally, you make a program to translate your language into machine code. This program is called a **compiler**.",
"So the physical processor knows how to understand a specific language called machine code (or assembly). Machine code is incredibly unreadable and very hard to work with on a large scale, so people invented programming languages. The problem is processors don't know how to speak those languages, so someone created a translator, called a compiler, which can translate from the programming language to assembly.\n\nIt sort of becomes a miniature human-driven singularity at that point. You write the first (Very simple!) compiler in assembly. Then you write your next compiler in your language so it can support more features. Then you write your next compiler in your newer language... repeat.",
"Well the computer itself only knows what to do with binary. For example, you might feed a processor something like:\n\n 1011 0010 1010 0011\n\nThe code mean something like:\n\n 1011 - > add\n 0010 - > the number 2\n 1010 - > and the number 10 \n 0011 - > put the result into register 3 (a register is just temporary storage on the processor)\n\nSo to compute this instruction, the processor would add 2 and 10 to get 12, then store the result into register 3. This is, of course, extremely simplified, but that's basically how machine code works. The problem is that machine code is damn near impossible to read or write, so instead people come up with assembly languages, which are just basically easier ways to read and write machine code. In an assembly language, the instruction might look like:\n\n add 2, 10, $3\n\nWhere each of those symbols are just mechanically translated into binary to be ready for the processor. That was a big improvement over machine code, but it still gets *really* messy for large programs. The control flow of the program is very hard to follow, and even relatively simple algorithms involve a lot of overhead in the form of manipulating registers to keep track of temp values, and composing basic arithmetic and logic operations to perform more sophisticated operations. Next came compiled languages, like C. Compilers are very complicated programs, but they have a straightforward job. They turn high level code into assembly language. The only rule is that the assembly code which is produced, has to do exactly what is specified by the high level code. In C, the code from before might look something like this:\n\n x = 2 + 10;\n\nThe problem is that in C we don't have direct access to registers, so the resulting assembly might be something like:\n\n add 2, 10, $3\n mov $3, 0x003F\n\nThe last \"mov\" instruction would be moving the result from the register to the memory location specified by the variable 'x'.\n\nSo to get back to your question; when a processor is being designed, the designers choose an architecture to follow. The \"architecture\" (or full name \"instruction set architecture\") just specifies which machine language the computer understands. Generally, unless it's a small chip for a very specific purpose, they will go with an already existing architecture since assemblers and possibly compilers will already exist for it. If it's a processor for a personal computer, it will always use what's called the x86 architecture.\n\nOn the other hand, when a high level language is being designed, people generally try to make it so that the language is easy to read and write, and makes it easy on programmer to do whatever the language is intended for. Once the language specification is created, compiler writers will create compilers which are able to translate that language into different assembly languages, which can then be run on different processors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1wmhdb
|
timeshares? something for rich people or something ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wmhdb/eli5_timeshares_something_for_rich_people_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf3dta6",
"cf3du1m"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Condos in places like ski resorts and vacation resorts are ridiculously expensive.\n\nSo, instead of buying a condo, you buy a small share of it, usually 1/26th or 1/52nd. This gives you the right to stay there 1 or 2 weeks per year.\n\nWhile there's nothing wrong with that concept, the problem is the timeshare industry is rife with scam artists and sleazeball high-pressure sales tactics. It's almost never a good idea to get involved with it.",
"A timeshare is when you pay a portion of rent, essentially, on a property in order to receive limited use at said property. For example, if I have a place that costs $1,200 a year to own, I could sell timeshares in it for $100 a year to 12 people. Those people each then get to use that property for 1 month out of the year."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6s5582
|
why do most of us have one common fear?
|
Such as Spiders, clowns, heights. Etc
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6s5582/eli5_why_do_most_of_us_have_one_common_fear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlaa8tu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Instinct. Phobias like heights, scuttling insects, snakes are common because these were very common ways to be injured and killed in our past. Depictions of monsters and the supernatural all share common traits across the planet, like big sharp teeth and glowing (or rather reflective) eyes, because seeing these in the wild will quite probably be the last thing you ever see before you are mauled to death by a predator. The dark brings dangerous animals, and makes walking to the toilet treacherous. Colorful animals and plants are highly dangerous; their spots, stripes, and technicolour patterns say \"stay away from me\". Many people are made uncomfortable by clusters of small holes in mundane objects (the classical example is a lotus seed pod), because seeing this type of pattern in a piece of meat or on somebody's skin is a sign of decay or disease.\n\nPeople who are afraid of the dark, siders, snakes, monsters, and people from other places are the ones that would survive in prehistory, because all of these natural phobias stem from survival instincts. We have these fears because our ancestors survived them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bxnkw8
|
how do diuretics work?
|
ELI5: how is it that a liquid like coffee gives you the urge to pee much faster than water, for example?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bxnkw8/eli5_how_do_diuretics_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eq8rdch",
"eq8rwnw"
],
"score": [
7,
23
],
"text": [
"Side question, why does coffee make you poop? Or is it just me?",
"There's a hormone in your body called ADH, or anti-diuretic hormone. As you know, diuresis means \"to pee\". So an anti-diuretic hormone causes your body to pee less - specifically by making your pee less watery, but leaving all the bad stuff in there.\n\nSome substances (like caffeine and alcohol) cause your body to produce less ADH. When there is less ADH in your blood, that's a signal telling your kidneys to leave more water in your pee, causing it to build up faster. This is why you may notice your pee being more clear after drinking these drinks. Your body isn't producing more urea (the main poison your urine is designed to get rid of), but it's just getting rid of more water in the process. (edit: see below, the urea isn't what colors your urine)\n\nThis is one reason why staying hydrated is important to prevent hangovers - even small imbalances in your body's water levels can cause your brain to shrink slightly and cause headaches.\n\nSource: studying to take the MCAT next week."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4pw1uu
|
why aren't there nitinol motors?
|
I have seen older videos using waste heat and nitinol to create a motor. Can someone correct my ignorance with information?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pw1uu/eli5_why_arent_there_nitinol_motors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4oaeck",
"d4odr36"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Nitinol motors are just a kind of Stirling Engine. They just don't provide enough power to be useful in most applications. There just aren't that many applications where you need a small amount of power, have a ready source of heat, and can't use a more efficient engine for some reason.",
"So, there's three critical factors for what would make an engine good.\n\n\nFirst, you have to consider durability, or reliability. The piston engine has been around for a century at this point because, while other engines might perform better, piston engines tend to be hearty bastards that can get 300,000 miles on a single engine when built properly. No rotary engine is ever getting that.\n\n\n\nSecond, you have scalability. While that piston engine has some good ability to scale- everything from a tiny leaf blower engine to an 18 wheeler's diesel engine all runs off the same basic design principal, while something like a cargo ship or a submarine is going to want a turbine engine. \n\n\nThird, you have throttle. If I push my foot down on the accelerator, my car speeds up in relatively short fashion.\n\n\n\nWhile you can have some flexibility with any of these three factors, when you have virtually no presence in one, then you hit a problem. A nitinol motor has no ability to throttle. It's on, or it's off. There's also questions about scalability. It's the same reason why you don't see a nuclear powered car. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ytvwa
|
Question about the temperature inside
|
I live in Ontario. I am currently living without air-conditioning, and the temperature indoors gets hotter throughout the day and maxes before I am about to go to bed. Why isn't the house cooling down at night? During the day (12:00 to 4:00) It can be as cool as 26C, but can reach up to 30C at night. It makes it hard to sleep as you could imagine. Also, are there ways that I'm missing that would keep an un-AC'd house cool during the day and night until I get this fixed out?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ytvwa/question_about_the_temperature_inside/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5yrll1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's a delay because your house is storing heat in the floors, air, etc. You might try cooling your house with convection. If you have a two-story house and window fans, set them up to blow air in on the ground floor, and blow it out of the upper floor. Hot air rises, and the fan setup should encourage those natural convection currents. You could also try to shade the south-facing windows of your home. ([source1](_URL_1_))([source2](_URL_2_))\n\nedit: This effect is sort of similar to [seasonal lag](_URL_0_). Where I live, the temperature peaks in August, despite the fact that the amount of solar radiation peaks in late June."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_lag",
"http://www.azsolarcenter.org/tech-science/solar-architecture/passive-solar-design-manual/passive-solar-design-manual-cooling.html",
"http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm?mytopic=12351"
]
] |
|
1vl4o9
|
How far back in history do we see the use of patents?
|
When did the idea of intellectual property become tangible? How were these rules enforced?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vl4o9/how_far_back_in_history_do_we_see_the_use_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cetca3x"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Although actual patent laws which were actively enforced by the state are generally thought to have started with the Venetian Statute of 1474, much earlier precedents do exist. In 500 BC in the Greek city of Sybari, culinary innovators were able to patent their dishes for a whole year.\n\nSome earlier uses in Western Europe included the letters patent issued by the English sovereign, which granted the recipient monopoly in the respective fields of commerce or science. One such letter was sent out in 1449 by Henry VI to John of Utynam, a Flemish man, for a 20 year monopoly for his invention. The first Italian patent was granted by Florence in 1421, where the Florentine architect Filippo Brunelleschi patented his invention, which was a barge with primitive hoisting gear."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
18fhhg
|
Why is the relationship between time and light as it is, and why does it break classical space-time for anything to travel faster than it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18fhhg/why_is_the_relationship_between_time_and_light_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ebzuf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > Why is this assumption made? Why not let c vary and t be constant?\n\nBecause c doesn't vary, and time does. It's not an assumption, it's an observation. There is no situation in which you can observe anything moving faster than c. There are plenty of situations in which relativistic objects can be seen to experience time dilation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
m5e8c
|
What are the effects of Heavier then Earth Gravity on a human?
|
What are the effects of heavier then earth surface gravity (say x2) on a human?
If a human were put on a planet that has double the strength of earth's surface gravity would that human be able to adapt and become stronger? Or would the human die, due to the heavier gravity?
Also what would be the effects on a human growing up on a planet with double the earths gravity?
Thank you.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m5e8c/what_are_the_effects_of_heavier_then_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2y8nxy",
"c2y8nxy"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"I found a few studies where they grew embryos of various animals in hypergravity:\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThey mostly look at microscopic properties, rather than the whole organism.",
"I found a few studies where they grew embryos of various animals in hypergravity:\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThey mostly look at microscopic properties, rather than the whole organism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117705001122",
"http://www.descsite.nl/Publications/Papers/wubbelsetal02-b.pdf",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12124183",
"http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00016489509121918"
],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117705001122",
"http://www.descsite.nl/Publications/Papers/wubbelsetal02-b.pdf",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12124183",
"http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00016489509121918"
]
] |
|
1xwnct
|
why do people "share" porn over social media like reddit or twitter? possible nsfw
|
I am not saying "Why is porn on the internet", but why is it shared among friends and strangers alike? I feel that when people show each other sexy pics of their SO, it is a way to brag as well to validate their partner, but just images of porn stars they have never met makes no sense to me along those lines. Why brag or feel the need to validate that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xwnct/eli5_why_do_people_share_porn_over_social_media/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cff9cb0",
"cfffnrv"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"I assume for the same reason people share movies, music and books with their friends. They found something they like and they want to enrich the lives of people they care about.",
"There's a whole giant side to reddit that's just NSFW sub-reddits. Heck if you looked at that history of reddit post that guy made a while back NSFW used to be about 1/3 of reddit's traffic.\n\nI'd guess most people posting in them are using throwaways and not tying it to their real identity, but there most certainly are large social media communities dedicated to sharing porn with like-minded people.\n\nI'm sure there are similar twitter accounts and you only need to look at the backlash when Yahoo bought tumblr and there were rumours they'd ban NSFW content to know it exists there as well.\n\nAs to why, I think its partly that people like to belong to communities that legitimize and support their choices, but also as a growth from how porn used to be shared before tube sites. You may not remember this, but back a while ago when the internet was younger, you didnt have a handy site with a list of categories, video thumbnails and a useful search function. Instead you had malware laden sites loaded with popups, fake links that took you to other sites in the rabbit hole and mostly just 15second preview clips from paysites when you did find a link that went to content.\n\nThe way you got full scenes, and stuff in decent resolution was file-sharing. Torrents, and before that Kazaa, Limewire and similar and direct transfer sites like yousendit, and before all that IRC file sharing. But when you're searching that all you get is an obfuscated text line telling you a movie scene and maybe an actresses name. Makes it hard to know what you're downloading, and before fast internet you didnt really have the chance to just download a bunch and hope for something good.\n\nSo there were forums, dedicated to posting links to downloads along with preview clips, photo samples and descriptions. That way you could look through, find something that looked good and know what you were downloading. These still exist for those that do a lot of porn downloading instead of tubing, but are certainly less necessary now. I think the sharing communities on reddit and twitter are just a more recent incarnation.\n\nThe one that confuses me is facebook, because in all the other cases I assume it's accounts people create just for sharing porn and dont tie to their real identity. The sharing on facebook thing confuses the hell out of me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4boele
|
during hitler's rise to power, did people in germany debate whether or not he was fascist and anti-semitic or was it widely accepted?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4boele/eli5_during_hitlers_rise_to_power_did_people_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1azk0f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hitler and the Nazis were explicitly fascist- but fascism wasn't a byword for evil back then. It only became so because of its association with the Germans' crimes during the war and holocaust.\n\nHitler and other top Nazis were also openly anti-semitic. It was part of his public persona. There was some speculation about whether, or to what extent, it was all an act, to rile up racial resentment among the proles, but it wasn't a secret that they wanted the Jews gone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6zf6bx
|
Do pencil markings make your paper heavier?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6zf6bx/do_pencil_markings_make_your_paper_heavier/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmw23ud"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Yes, since you're just rubbing small amounts of graphite onto your paper. The same goes for ink markings from pens or markers. You are adding matter, so you are increasing mass. However, since you're adding such a tiny amount, it would be difficult to measure without extremely precise equipment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1edv2p
|
How long does it take for a population III star to form?
|
Hi, briliant minds of askscience,
Let me begin by saying im just a guy who whants to learn the truth about the universe and i am by no means a scientist or have a PhD so maybe you guys can help me out with solving this question, well actually questions.
So here we go:
How long does it take for a population III star to form?
Why i am asking this question is because of the following:
They say that the universe is approx 13,7/13,8 bilion years old.
and
The oldest star found to date HD 140283 whas approx. 14,5 bilion years old with a error marging of 0,8 bilion years.
and
The Cosmic Microwave Background dates from a time when the universe whas approx. 370 milion years old.
If we take the youngest possebillety that the oldest star is 13,7 bilion years old and the oldest possebillety for the universe age to be 13,8 billion years old, then it has to form in a time frame of 100 milion years.
If i remember correctly the CMB whas the earliest light of the universe we could see and the universe whas all ready 370 milion years old.
So how could this star form from a date before the CMB? Or maybe do stars even form before the CMB
Sorry in advance for my English wrighting it is not my native language.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1edv2p/how_long_does_it_take_for_a_population_iii_star/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9ziq3q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hi there - your English is good!\n\nWe're not exactly sure how population III stars formed, but we expect it would be quite different to star formation in the present day, because the interstellar medium was much warmer, denser, and not yet ionised. It's generally expected that population III stars were more massive than stars today.\n\nWe do expect that population III stars started forming when the universe was only 100-200 million years old. The CMB was emitted when the universe was only 377,000 years old; long, long before stars started forming, so that's not a problem.\n\nIt's important to note, however, that HD140283 is *not* a population III star - it's a population **II** star. It contains heavy elements not produced by the big bang. HD140283 formed from the material given off by the first population III when they died.\n\nHowever, very massive stars will live for only a few million years before they die. So if the first population III stars formed when the universe was only 150 million years old, then it's entirely possible that the first population II stars, like HD140283, formed when the universe was less than 200 million years old.\n\nSo in short, stars like HD140283 don't yet act as evidence against our current understanding of the age and evolution of the universe. \n\n(PS: I'll point out that the error margin of 0.8 billion years on the age of HD140283 only accounts for *random* error in the measurements and calculations. If there is some sort of *systematic* error in the measurement, then the age of the star could be very different; given that measuring the ages of stars is very tricky, this is possible. However, unless our entire understanding of cosmology is flawed, it is unlikely there are significant systematic errors in our calculated age of the universe.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4vi5dk
|
what is the 'birds and the bees' story, and how is it meant to be an accurate, child-friendly explanation of sex?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vi5dk/eli5_what_is_the_birds_and_the_bees_story_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5yjubc",
"d5yk5cm",
"d5ylk67",
"d5ylkqx",
"d5ylona",
"d5ym0bg",
"d5ynk29",
"d5yoflu",
"d5ypjs7"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
16,
2,
40,
2,
3,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I think birds and bees is just a vague way of saying nature in general, like all creatures do it to reproduce ",
"I've never heard of an explanation that actually involves birds and/or bees.\n\nI'm sure rule #34 applies, I'm just saying I haven't seen it(thank god).\n\nIt's just a code, a way of referring to sex when you're around little kids.\n\nedit: me not good at grammar.",
"I always assumed they were referring to birds and bees pollinating flowers, which is how flowers mate.",
"I think the story explains how birds and bees help fertilize flowers and therefore flowers are able to reproduce. It still makes no sense to me, but I'm pretty sure it's also about flowers.",
"It never really was an explanation.\n\nThe actual source of the phrase is unclear, smeo attribute to a Samuel Coleridge poem from 1825, others to a Cole Porter song from 1928. In both cases, birds and bees are evocative of springtime, which has long been associated with fertility.\n\nWhatever the origin, the birds and the bees has become a joke about the awkwardness parents have explaining sex to their children, and not an explanation itself. It comes up in popular culture all the time, usually in a sitcom sort of setting. It is a trope that quickly and clearly sets up a funny situation for the audience.\n\nThe fact birds and bees are only tangentially related to sex is part of the joke...the uncomfortable parent is trying to tiptoe around the subject, and winds up making a terrible and confusing explanation that never makes sense. ",
"Just a euphemism for the \"sex talk\" that parents have with their kids. Personally I've never had this talk and don't know anyone who has. I mean honestly, you think your kids don't know? \n\nAs Eminem says, \"they got the discovery Channel don't they?\"",
"I always imagined a bird just flying along, when suddenly a swarm of bees comes out of nowhere and starts bashing itself against the bird. Eventually, one of the bees manages to push itself into the bird, and inside, it melts and the two meld together into a hideous bird-bee hybrid.",
"Maybe an actual explanation could go something like this: \n\nJust like birds makes eggs which can become a baby chicken, women make eggs inside which can become a baby.\n\nThe eggs must get a small \"egg\" from the daddy as well to make the baby\n \n\nMost birds don't have girl parts and boy parts like humans though, but instead an all-in-one butthole that they rub together for a couple of seconds to do this...\n\nFlowers however, have girl and boy parts(but most of them have both), and bees carry \"eggs\"(pollen) from \"boy\" flower into a \"girl\" flower. The \"boy eggs\" then mix with the eggs of the \"girl\" flower so that it makes a baby flower. \n\nPenises of the boys(like the bee, but not as detachable) carry boy \"eggs\" into vaginas of girls. The boy and girl eggs then mix, and the girl becomes pregnant, and then a baby person comes out.",
"you can always do what we did, we did the talk straight like it is, without any bees, birds etc. just told her: penis goes into vagina and everything like that, just not sure if our daughter understood, she's just 3 months old"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2b67k9
|
Compromise of 1790
|
I'm currently reading "Empire of Liberty" by Gordon Wood. In the Compromise of 1790 he says that basically the location of the nation's capital was moved in exchange of debts being turned over to the federal government. My question is, how important was it to move the capital at that time? Was it a psychology victory for the south or was there more to it then that?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2b67k9/compromise_of_1790/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj2s38d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" Moving the Nation's capital to the South was an important strategic victory. IN the late 18th century news traveled slow, having the capital in the South meant that the Virginia heard news quickly, and allowed the political elite more time to respond. Another concern, one which we take for granted today, is that in the event of any civil war Virginia would be in a far better position to respond than the Northern states. For a time when it seemed that the Federalists might steal the election of 1800 from Thomas Jefferson, Pennsylvania and Virginia's governor ensured plans were in place to (arguably) ensure Jefferson won the election. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
l9l3u
|
yeast
|
Just what the hell is it? And where does it come from? Do we mine yeast? Do we farm it? Is it 'alive'? Yeast!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l9l3u/eli5_yeast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2qvrbv",
"c2qvt0a",
"c2qwrre",
"c2r049n",
"c2qvrbv",
"c2qvt0a",
"c2qwrre",
"c2r049n"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
6,
4,
2,
3,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Is the [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) article not good enough? \n\nQuick edit: That sounds way more condescending than I intended. What I mean is, do you want an even simpler version of that?",
"Yeast is a part of the Fungi family and has over 1500 separate species.\n\n Saccharomyces cerevisiae which is used in baking converts carbohydrates to carbon dioxide and alcohols and as such has been used in baking and alcohol production for centuries. The carbon dioxide causes baked good the rise up and the alcohol produced is used in the production of bear. \n\nYeast is grown both locally and commercially you can read a tutorial on growing your own yeast here (_URL_0_)\n\n",
"Yeast is a fungus; it's a single-celled creature that evolved from amoebae like the rest of the fungi.\n\nIt is very much alive, just like any fungus. We culture yeast as opposed to mining it (which means if you set up a petri dish and yeast spores are around, they might settle and form a significant colony).\n\nHow yeast makes alcohol: like all organisms, yeast undergoes a chemical process called glycolysis, where glucose is broken down into a molecule called pyruvate. This produces usable energy for the yeast, but if there's no oxygen present (which would further break down the pyruvate), then the yeast has to ferment it in order to let the reaction continue (otherwise, it would use up the other reactant, something called NAD+).\n\nIn humans, fermentation produces lactic acid. In yeast, it produces alcohol.",
"Basically yeast is a living organism that eats sugar and shits out alcohol and carbon dioxide. In bread we want the latter to make it all nice and light and bubbly and whatnot. In beer we want the former because it makes us laugh fall over. \n\n",
"Is the [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) article not good enough? \n\nQuick edit: That sounds way more condescending than I intended. What I mean is, do you want an even simpler version of that?",
"Yeast is a part of the Fungi family and has over 1500 separate species.\n\n Saccharomyces cerevisiae which is used in baking converts carbohydrates to carbon dioxide and alcohols and as such has been used in baking and alcohol production for centuries. The carbon dioxide causes baked good the rise up and the alcohol produced is used in the production of bear. \n\nYeast is grown both locally and commercially you can read a tutorial on growing your own yeast here (_URL_0_)\n\n",
"Yeast is a fungus; it's a single-celled creature that evolved from amoebae like the rest of the fungi.\n\nIt is very much alive, just like any fungus. We culture yeast as opposed to mining it (which means if you set up a petri dish and yeast spores are around, they might settle and form a significant colony).\n\nHow yeast makes alcohol: like all organisms, yeast undergoes a chemical process called glycolysis, where glucose is broken down into a molecule called pyruvate. This produces usable energy for the yeast, but if there's no oxygen present (which would further break down the pyruvate), then the yeast has to ferment it in order to let the reaction continue (otherwise, it would use up the other reactant, something called NAD+).\n\nIn humans, fermentation produces lactic acid. In yeast, it produces alcohol.",
"Basically yeast is a living organism that eats sugar and shits out alcohol and carbon dioxide. In bread we want the latter to make it all nice and light and bubbly and whatnot. In beer we want the former because it makes us laugh fall over. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast"
],
[
"http://www.webpal.org/SAFE/aaarecovery/2_food_storage/2a_bread_making/grow_yeast.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast"
],
[
"http://www.webpal.org/SAFE/aaarecovery/2_food_storage/2a_bread_making/grow_yeast.pdf"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
54cigs
|
what is the biological difference between a queen ant and a regular "worker" ant?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54cigs/eli5what_is_the_biological_difference_between_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d80qn6h",
"d80t0f0"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"The queen is capable of mating and laying eggs. That is about the only actions she does. The worker ants are infertile and vary in body type based on task in many colonies. Some colonies will have 4-5 different types of workers and 2-3 warrior ants. ",
"The question is a little broad, so I'm going to make a few assumptions answering it. First, I will state that ants are a very diverse species and that my answer does not apply to many, but let's just examine one type of ant.\n\nWhen a queen ant is born it will mate and start a colony with the stored sperm. It will fertilize the eggs with the sperm and it will create a female and this will start to form the basis of the colony. Interestingly, this sperm will last the queen its whole life (up to 30 years).\n\nNow you might be asking \"how are different ants created, is it just the probability of getting certain genes?\". Well actually, what kind you get doesn't so much have to do with genetics but rather with how that larvae is cared for. \n\nIf workers feed the larvae more, or put them a high or lower temperature, and so forth, this will actually cause them to develop into the different types of ants. This is quite useful because workers can regulate how many soldiers, workers, queen, or other specialized types there are through the environment. \n\nSo, any particular larvae has the potential to become any type within the colony (except male), but it is the environment that determines what they become. Queens for instance may be the result of a biological clock and sufficient feeding.\n\nSo you may ask, how are males created? Well, the female won't fertilize the egg and it becomes male. Sounds kind of weird, but that's just how these types of ants work. \n\nDepending on the species and location, males and females are usually created around the same time. If you're up north like me, they tend to have a bit of breeding season.\n\nNow as far as physical features, the big difference between queens and their non-queen female offspring are that queens have reproductive features as well as wings. They are larger. But as already pointed out, genetically there is no significant difference, which is to say that any fertilized egg could become a queen within the right environment. After the queen goes out and collects some sperm, it will start its colony, and then soon become immobile.\n\nNow it may seems a bit strange how the environment will actually determine what kind of ant is produced, but this is actually pretty normal when you think about it. Take for instance our bodies. Every cell of our body (excluding that important gut bacteria and such) has the same DNA, yet the cells are all quite different from each other. How is this?\n\nWell, on a simplistic level, the environment that the cell is exposed to will determine how that cell will develop, or to put more technically: what genes are expressed. Ants are just the same in that the surrounding environment will cause different genes to be expressed.\n\nAs stated early, this explanation doesn't apply to all ants. The most annoying as well most interesting thing about ants is how different they all are. Also, this is an ELI5 and this could easily become Explain It Like I'm A PHD."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
arshi7
|
how does alexa work so quickly and accurately when it supposedly isn't listening-in at all times?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arshi7/eli5_how_does_alexa_work_so_quickly_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egpeb9j",
"egpeob7",
"egpf12s",
"egpfdmw"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Computers have a response time of just a few *milliseconds* at their slowest.\n\nThey can perform thousands of calculations every second.\n\nStarting recording as soon as you say \"Alexa\" is easy.\n\nJust like how making a \"?\" appear as soon as you hit the \"?\" key on your keyboard when you type up a question.",
"Funny you should ask this. My kid turned off Alexa’s mic(so now she can’t hear us) I asked her too do 3 things in a row with no response... she said, just so you know my mic is off.\n\n\n\n\n\nShe is always listening ",
"Because it is always listening to everything you say, it just doesn't save or send any of it to it's servers. It forgets everything shortly after you say it until it hears you say \"Alexa\", then it starts recording and transferring data.",
"It is always listening, I think I read somewhere it analyzes the last 4-5 words said for \"Alexa\" to start doing something."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
guky2
|
Could it ever be possible to record somebodies dreams in audio or video format?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/guky2/could_it_ever_be_possible_to_record_somebodies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1qhupp"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"So this thread is full of non-responses and incorrect responses.\n\nAnd nearly all of them are infuriating me.\n\n\nWhat you're asking is analogous to \"uploading/downloading\" in the brain. The answer is no. We have had countless threads about this recently. Search terms:\n\n* upload/uploading\n\n* download/downloading\n\n* singularity\n\n* brains\n\n\n\nFirst of all, we have no idea how brains work when people are awake and can tell us stuff during EEG, MEG, MRI, TMS, etc... We can't even imagine what it would take to \"record\" an awake set of functions and produce the output, so dreams are completely out of the question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3f3teh
|
why does air travel (especially us airlines) have such a low rate of failure?
|
In terms of major crashes or large passenger aircraft, why is there such a low chance that the plane will crash? Obviously we don't want that to happen. But there seem to be so many variables involved, the airlines have done a good job in keeping planes in the sky. Is it the engineering practices? Standards? Other Processes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f3teh/eli5_why_does_air_travel_especially_us_airlines/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctl1doq",
"ctl1e81",
"ctl1haf",
"ctl8r5d"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
18,
3
],
"text": [
" > why is there such a low chance that the plane will crash?\n\nLots of inspection and standards. \n\nAlso lots of incentive, a plane crash financially hurts a company a lot immediately and long-term. \n\n",
"It's really a combination of everything you listed. As an aerospace engineer, I can tell you millions of hours go into designing plane and analyzing every possible way that the aircraft can fail. The maintenance schedules also try to eliminate any possible hazards long before a problem arises. The FAA is extremely stringent on its safety standards for any plane to be able to fly.",
"As elaborate as a car is, they're simple to drive, and pretty much any idiot can get a license and be on the road. Hence, you have millions of Americans driving at any given time of the day, many of which probably don't put a lot of effort into their driving skills. Thus, the high amount of negligence, road rage, and automobile accidents.\n\nAn airplane is a highly sophisticated and expensive vehicle -- not everyone can handle one, and to fly a plane requires an extreme amount of training and skill. Since the skies aren't nearly as jammed as the roads, there are fewer airplane incidents. Airplanes also have a crew of people keeping track of them during every move; chances are, when you're out driving a car, a team of car traffic control operators aren't monitoring your speed and warning you of road hazards.\n\nTL;DR - airline pilots are smart and don't text while flying.",
"Imagine every time went for a drive, you spend 30 minutes inspecting your car, and if you found anything off, you called a mechanic over to look.\n\nEvery few weeks, you had a mechanic inspect it.\n\nEvery few months, you had a mechanic do a full diagnostic.\n\nAnd every year or two, you had the engine and transmission rebuilt. And replaced them every five.\n\nYour car would probably not have a single mechanical issue while your were driving over its entire life. And it would last 20 years.\n\nThat's roughly the level of maintenance an airplane is going to receive.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
41ffvb
|
Why did "Nationalist" China collapse in the face of "Communist" China so easily?
|
I often read about Kai-shek and how his government was corrupt and a failed institution. Why did China implode and come out the way it did in the 50s? Were there any key moments that could've changed it? I read something about a kidnapping of Kai-shek, but otherwise remain ignorant.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/41ffvb/why_did_nationalist_china_collapse_in_the_face_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz29ceu",
"cz2funa"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I talk a bit about this [here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_0_).",
"Chiang Kai-Shek was kidnapped in 1936 in what's known as the \"Xi'an Incident\". Essentially, in the face of a fierce Japanese offensive, Nationalist leaders were frustrated with Chiang's seeming obsession with eliminating the Communists. They felt that it was undermining the Nationalist effort to resist the Japanese, so several generals, including Zhang Xueliang, redirected Chiang's train, and forced him to sit down with the Communists to sign a truce and agree to unite against Japan. \n\nIn regards to why the Nationalists fell so easily to the Communists, there are a couple of factors:\n\n1. Poor morale by the common Nationalist soldiers. Most of these soldiers were conscripts, and were both ill equipped and unmotivated to fight the Communists. They were fed starvation rations, and were sometimes chained in groups and forced to advance or be shot in the back. The result was mass defections from the Nationalists to the Communists. In 1946, there were roughly 4.3 million soldiers for the Nationalists and 1.2 million for the Communists. By 1949, the Nationalists had about 1.5 million soldiers and the Communists had over 4 million. \n\n2. High morale among Communist soldiers and support. During the time of the Civil War, over 90% of China's population was rural, and the Communists had spent the last twenty years creating a positive image of themselves - in fact, Mao's focus on the peasantry driving the Communist Revolution in China was a major source of tension with the Soviet Union. Joseph Stilwell, an American general who served in China and Burma during WW2, noted that the Communists enjoyed enormous support and high morale; both the soldiers and the common people believed in their mission and leaders. Stilwell had a horrible relationship with Chiang, which undoubtedly resulted in his scathing critique of the Nationalists, but his account nonetheless indicates the popular support propelling the Communists.\n\n3. Poor morale among the Nationalist leadership. Rampant corruption withered morale and the finances of the Nationalists, and by 1946 they were drowning in debts. Following a rapid series of CPC successes in Northern China in 1948-early 1949, Chiang quickly resigned and Li Zongren took power. However, the fractious GMD politics continued; against Li's wishes, Chiang moved the majority of the nation's gold and USD reserves to Taiwan in April 1949, which resulted in Li resigning. \n\nThese are some of the major reasons for the Communist victory. There are some others, but in my opinion, they are ancillary to the ones listed above. For example, the acquisition of Japanese weaponry in Manchuria is significant, but would have had a minimal impact on the war if the Nationalists were not hemoragghing soldiers. \n\nWere there any key moments that could have changed the course of history? Well, if the Shanghai Massacre didn't drive Mao to the countryside, the Chinese Communists may have remained a relatively small political party confined to the urban areas. If Chiang had been allowed to continue his attacks on the Communists, he might have wiped them out, but his government seemed doomed to fall by that point. Essentially, China's situation was so critical during the early twentieth century that the Nationalist loss was almost inevitable. Rebalancing the scales in their favor would require altering the nature of Nationalist leadership and world events to a degree beyond a single event. \n\nSources:\n\n*The Rise of Modern China*, Immanuel C. Y. Hsu. (1970)\n\n*The Search for Modern China*, Jonathan Spence (1990)\n\n*China: A New History*, John Fairbank (2006)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qm81w/why_didnt_the_usa_intervene_between_china_and/cn8fo99",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d730k/in_the_second_sinojapanese_war1930s1940s_the/ct2x8tj"
],
[]
] |
|
1kicer
|
how do our bodies convert the food we eat into feces?
|
Or any animal. What is the process? We consume many, many different foods, but our feces is almost always brown.
Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kicer/eli5_how_do_our_bodies_convert_the_food_we_eat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbp8tmj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Most of your feces *isn't* food you ate. Most of it is cells that have lived out their useful life span and died, and your body is expelling their remains. Most of these cells are red blood cells, which is what gives feces its characteristic color.\n\nAs for your digestion, basically what happens is that the food you eat goes into your stomach where it gets \"mushed up\" into a relatively uniform mass. From there it goes into your small intestine, where most of the nutrients in your food are absorbed by your body. What's left over passes into your large intestine, or your colon it's also called, where symbiotic bacteria break down things that your body couldn't digest directly. These fermentation products, as they're called, get absorbed by your colon, along with most of the water that's still in your no-longer-food-and-now-primarily-feces.\n\nThen you … you know. Go number two."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
35gp4y
|
when our brains find something funny, why don't we just think it's funny. why do we often expel air through our noses, or laugh out loud?sometime to the point we can hardly breathe.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35gp4y/eli5when_our_brains_find_something_funny_why_dont/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr4ehpr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Humor is a really important social tool. \nIt's likely we wouldn't experience humor if it weren't communicated in some way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bvygoj
|
the amounts of elements formed during supernovaes
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bvygoj/eli5_the_amounts_of_elements_formed_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epth3mw",
"eptnlxi"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"After the Big Bang there was only hydrogen and helium in the universe.\n\nThat coalesced into stars which fuse the hydrogen and helium into heavier elements. Once the star gets to iron it can no longer fuse heavier elements (fusing iron takes more energy than it releases). At this point the star dies. If it is big enough the star collapses and as it collapses it can fuse much heavier elements in moments before it explodes.\n\nSome elements, like Americium, have a very short half life (like ~430 years) so some heavy elements decay away long before humans ever came around.\n\nGiven the size of stars they can produce vast quantities of heavy elements.",
"You are many order of magnitude off with the amounts of element formed in a supernovae.\n\n20 tonnes of uranium is nothing. Just the crust of earth have 40 trillion tonnes of uranium and the crust of earth is 1% of the mass of earth. Humans mine around 60 000 tonnes of uranium per year.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn a type II supernovae the star had a initial mass of between 8 and 50 times the mass of the sun and the white dwarf that is left behind have a max mass of 1.4 solar masses. So the mass ejected is 5-48 solar masses.\n\nThe sun have a mass of 2\\*10\\^27 tonnes that is 2 octillion tonnes or 2 billion billion billion tonne.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf you look at [_URL_1_](_URL_0_) wit abundance of elements in the solar system most is hydrogen with 10\\^10 compared to 10\\^-2 of uranium.\n\nSo the the solar system is approximate 1/10\\^12 uranium\n\nIf what is ejected from a super nova is similar to the composition of the solar system you would have \n\n2\\*10\\^27\\* 1/10\\^12=2\\*10\\^15 tonnes ejected per solar mass of eject matter. That is 2 quadrillion tonnes or 2 million billion tonnes.\n\nSo a Type II supernova eject somewhere around 10 million billion of tonnes of uranium. So the numbers in the original post is 15 orders of magnitude off.\n\nThe answer might be a couple of magnitudes because I do not know if the abundance table is by number of atoms or by mass. If it is buy mass the amount is 200x more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#/media/File:Elements_abundance-bars.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance\\_of\\_the\\_chemical\\_elements#/media/File:Elements\\_abundance-bars.svg"
]
] |
|
2jchpg
|
Why did King or Emperors use so many titles?
|
If we look at say Francis II the last Holy Roman Emperor even after his abdication after the 30 year war used the following:
> [Francis the First, by the grace of God Emperor of Austria; King of Jerusalem, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Würzburg, Franconia, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola; Grand Duke of Cracow; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Sandomir, Masovia, Lublin, Upper and Lower Silesia, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen and Friule; Prince of Berchtesgaden and Mergentheim; Princely Count of Habsburg, Gorizia and Gradisca and of the Tirol; and Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria](_URL_0_)
Why not just be King or Emperor.
There are other examples where the King is King XXXX Duke of YYYY, Prince of ZZZZ, Arch Duke of WWWW.
I mean if you're the King or the Queen, why do you need any more titles than that? You're already as high as it gets title wise?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jchpg/why_did_king_or_emperors_use_so_many_titles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clagh54"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"\"Used\" isn't quite the right word. What you're quoting up there is what's called the *long title*, an official collection of all the noble titles held by the person.\n\nFrancis II's long title would only be used for some official documents, by no means everyday use. Why the long list? Because all those titles were distinct claims directly held by the person of the monarch. For example the titles of \"King of Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria\" were all different historic kingdoms and because of that Habsburg rulers had to have several crowning ceremonies.\n\nThe crown lands of Bohemia traditionally had a ceremony with the Crown of Saint Wenceslas in Prague, although in reality the heir became monarch as soon as the previous one was dead ([Le roi est mort, vive le roi!](_URL_0_!)). Hungary on the other hand required the actual ceremony with the Crown of Saint Stephen in order for the heir to become active ruler; the Hungarian crown as an entity also included the crown and lands of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria. \n\nThe title of Archduke of Austria on the other hand is a hereditary title for the whole Habsburg dynasty even if they have just been born. Although I guess the title of Archduke of Austria was de-facto eradicated with Otto von Habsburg signing off any claims on Austria in 1961 so he was allowed back in the country.\n\n > I mean if you're the King or the Queen, why do you need any more titles than that? You're already as high as it gets title wise?\n\nThe title is certainly nice, which is why it is at the start of the long title. Before the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire the Habsburg monarchs would even put the kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary before their \"main\" title of Archduke of Austria. Still, a kingdom is just one type of land holding. \nThe Archduchy of Austria was never part of any kingdom. Similarly, Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria or Carintia-Carniola also were independent duchies at one point or another, although Styria and Carintia-Carniola had been under Habsburg possession almost as long as Austria proper. How else are you supposed to show what lands you have if not by having a full list of landed titles somewhere?"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_king_is_dead,_long_live_the_king"
]
] |
|
93wehx
|
What is the most dangerous part of car exhaust for the human body, the gases or particulate matter?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/93wehx/what_is_the_most_dangerous_part_of_car_exhaust/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3jcvqu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Carbon monoxide is the most dangerous component of exhaust. It has a binding affinity for hemoglobin something on the order 100x that of oxygen, so the CO molecules bind in your blood over O2 and you are unable to transport oxygen within your body. CO poisoning can become rapidly fatal if not corrected. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
d7jdm6
|
why can you die from using methamphetamine and having anthesisa performed on you?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d7jdm6/eli5_why_can_you_die_from_using_methamphetamine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f10k6eo",
"f113s76",
"f116lpx",
"f121mqh"
],
"score": [
14,
24,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Meth increases blood pressure and heart rate, and this increases the ability of anesthetics to change the rhythm of the heart, which will lead to a heart attack.",
"I'm an Anaesthetist.\n\nYou can summarise this into:\n\n* **Effects of the methamphetamine itself.** The sympathetic effects of meth (esp increased Heart Rate and Blood Pressure) can lead to heart attacks and strokes. Also, sometimes people are anaesthetised for their own safety when going nuts on meth, and this means giving an anaesthetic in a less than ideal environment from a safety perspective.\n* **Interactions between the amphetamine and anaesthetic agents.** A clear but outdated example would be Halothane (an inhaled anaesthetic) which sensitises the heart to catecholamines (meth increases catecholamine levels), causing abnormal heart rhythms. Meth increases synaptic (or active) catecholamines like noradrenaline, which causes interactions with other drugs which also act to increase synaptic catecholamines (including some blood pressure drugs used in anaesthesia, some analgesics like Tramadol, and antidepressants).\n* **Difficulties with dosing anaesthetic agents in the context of meth use.** If you are acutely high on meth you need MORE anaesthesia to go to sleep. If you are a chronic meth user, but not currently high, you need LESS anaesthesia to go to sleep. This can be challenging for us to get our doses right.\n\nEdit: simplified a few terms",
"Thank you everybody for your time in responding to this question. I'm currently 3 years sober from meth and while working with clients in the substance abuse population I just learned this the other day.... So this information is great to add to my repertoire.",
"Are there options for intensive surgery that doesnt require being asleep. Like localized?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5gu7t7
|
what's an easy way to describe gap insurance?
|
I've been told and read about it, no one gives examples, easy examples. Please help.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5gu7t7/eli5_whats_an_easy_way_to_describe_gap_insurance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dav2h9b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"GAP insurance covers the difference between the actual cash value of a vehicle (what your insurance will pay if it is totaled) and the balance still owed on the financing (car loan, lease, etc.). GAP coverage is mainly used on new and used small vehicles (cars and trucks) and heavy trucks. Some financing companies and lease contracts require it.\n\nSo... you buy a $30k car and insure it properly and also get GAP coverage.\n\n3 weeks later you get in an accident, totaling your car. Your insurance gives you $25k for the car (they don't cover the depreciation you ate driving it off the lot).\n\nGAP insurance covers the remaining $5k so you don't have to come up with it out of pocket."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6s5osv
|
why does a small private plane such a cessna cost so much more than the materials and labor?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6s5osv/eli5_why_does_a_small_private_plane_such_a_cessna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dla7nmn",
"dla8oe8"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Several reasons.\n\n- The material are actually more expansive. For a car you can use normal steel, you don't need high end material unless you make a high end car. But you can't use that for a plane of it will be way too heavy, you need a material that can strong and light. That usually mean aluminium, fibreglass or even carbon fibre.\n\n- Everything important in a plane need to have a very high reliability, easy maintenance and if possible be in double. Having problem with you car is annoying, having problems with your plane mean several death and a possible lawsuit for the manufacturer. \n\n- Economy of scale. A car manufacturer will sold a lot more car than a plane manufacturer could. Not all expanses are proportional to the amount you make. It's not because you make 100 times more car than plane that you need 100 times more lawyers, factories, employees, etc.",
"Lawsuits are a significant factor in the cost of general aviation aircraft. When there's a fatality, the manufacturer is almost always sued, regardless of circumstances. Even when the aircraft performed safely for 30 years. Manufacturing a single aircraft means the manufacturer faces potential liability forever. \n\n\"By some estimates, product liability costs add more than $100,000 to the bottom-line price of a typical new general aviation airplane.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3t3hem
|
Are there many examples of sieges throughout the 20th century, which lasted for months or years like mediaeval sieges?
|
I'd also be interested in knowing why we don't seem to hear about sieges in 20th century or modern warfare any more. Starving your enemy out of a city seems like a very effective strategy.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3t3hem/are_there_many_examples_of_sieges_throughout_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx2txn2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Siege of Leningrad in WWII lasted 872 days, and was one of the most destructive sieges in history.\n\nThe Germans and the Finns besieged Leningrad. The Russians defended. The siege was rarely complete, as supplies (in small numbers) could still get in across Lake Ladoga most of the time.\n\nUp to 1.5m Russian soldiers and civilians died in the siege. Famine and disease were the main killers. 1.4m civilians were managed to be evacuated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
42xs7d
|
how do comedians verify if their jokes are original?
|
With all the backlash that Amy Shcumer is getting over plagiarizing jokes, wondering how comedians could possibly know if their material is original.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42xs7d/eli5_how_do_comedians_verify_if_their_jokes_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czdv2hn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They don't.\n\nIf you come up with it on your own and it just happens to be similar, thats not stealing a joke. Some comedians may try and vet that to hopefully not get accused but most people understand that happens. \n\nYou have to actually put in effort to end up with a joke that people cant easily see how youd just happen to both come up with it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a7os23
|
how are non-organ, donated body parts prepared to be transplanted such as skin?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7os23/eli5_how_are_nonorgan_donated_body_parts_prepared/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ec4kawf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Skin *is* an organ. \n\nSkin harvested from body donations is used for transplants, and in that case it is called a *cadaver skin transplant* or *allograft* to differentiate it from a transplant of one's own skin.\n\nA device known as a *dermatome* is used to skin skin from the donor, the common one is basically a fancy wood planer but they also have electric ones.\n\nMost skin grafts use thin layers of skin, with only a small amount of dermis, which leaves stuff liker fair follicles and sweat glands behind.\n\nFull-thickness skin grafts take the whole skin, especially useful for reconstructing a face, and the recipient will need antirejection drugs just like any internal organ transplant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1i5gdn
|
Was the CSA doomed to be ruled by the most powerful states?
|
Is there any sort of a historical parallel between the end of the Holy Roman Empire, which was torn apart by the two powerful states of Prussia and Austria, and the CSA? Was their confederation lose enough to allow, for example, Virgina to annex or invande parts of other states, and so on, as happened in the HRE?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i5gdn/was_the_csa_doomed_to_be_ruled_by_the_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb15eq7",
"cb165c6"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, this is all what-ifs and hypothetical, but I don't think that larger states like Virginia would begin to annex neighboring states for a few reasons.\n\n1. Whereas the Holy Roman Empire was once comprised of hundreds of very very small states and kingdoms, the CSA was comprised of relatively large states. There wasn't really a state that was significantly small or insignificant. This makes the annexation of territory difficult. \n\n2. The borders of the Southern states were pretty well defined. The borders between the Southern states weren't constantly changing like the borders between the German states were. \n\n3. Finally, the Confederate government was more organized and powerful than the Holy Roman Empire. The Germanic states did not have anywhere near the cohesion that the Confederate states had. A lot of the time the German states would be fighting against one another, which would often result in territorial changes.\n\nOf course, this is my personal opinion.",
"I really don't think you can compare the Confederacy with the HRE. \n\nFirst thing, the HRE wasn't torn apart by Prussia and Austria, it was a very very loose confederation of states, cities, bishoprics, etc, ruled by an elected Emperor. For the last 500 years of its existence it was rules by an Austrian emperor, but in some cases his power was pretty nominal. As for Prussia, it mostly expanded eastwards into Poland until the early 19th century, when it got large swaths of land in western Germany.\n\nHowever, by then there was no HRE. Why? because Napoleon abolished it. That's right. The HRE didn't die because Prussia and Austria killed it, it was abolished by Napoleon and after the end of the Napoleonic wars those two countries actually tried to build a replacement in the form of the German confederation. It was by that time, after much planning, national agitation and shrewd diplomacy that Prussia managed to form Germany as a state.\n\nSo there's not really room to compare the CSA and the HRE. The CSA was a much more defined body, like the Union in the north. Countries couldn't just annex other countries inside of it or inherit new territories.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
912vye
|
Was the Medici family actually corrupt?
|
Common knowledge is that the Medici family was a gang of rich bankers who were incredibly corrupt. They are treated like an earlier Italian version of the Rothschilds, and anything with their name on it must stink.
However, the Medici family was also huge proponents of art and are, in part, the reason why we have many Renaissance classics. They also were strong members of the Catholic Church, though some don't seem to have lived a Catholic lifestyle. A Medici became Pope? It MUST be because they bought the power because Heaven forbid a Medici actually be a pious religious person.
I'm curious how much of the 'common knowledge' story of the Medici family is actually true. Were they corrupt tyrants who bought their power? Were any of them virtuous Catholics? Do they deserve any praise or is the Medici family a poison on history?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/912vye/was_the_medici_family_actually_corrupt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2vcglx",
"e2woypt"
],
"score": [
25,
4
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nthis post talks about how the medici grew in power and what they did to become that powerful\n\n_URL_1_\n\nthis post is about the methods that the medici used to control the florentine government\n\n\nboth credits to /u/AlviseFalier\n\nnot sure about the papacy though",
"In addition to the answers already linked, I also answered a similar question about government in late medieval and renaissance Italy [here](_URL_0_). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8x7jmm/what_prevented_the_rise_of_financial_institutions/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ryco4/how_did_the_medici_maintain_control_over/dt28jt3/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5oymus/how_corrupt_was_italy_during_the_renaissance/dcnkd30"
]
] |
|
qd3zo
|
How does human space exploration stack up against robotic exploration? (Voting optional)
|
Why don't robots get more historical love for their space exploration accomplishments. Notice on this poll that Neil and Buzz still get the votes, despite some pretty amazing unmanned feats (_URL_0_ - you have to vote to see results)
So, historians, are robots that boring?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qd3zo/how_does_human_space_exploration_stack_up_against/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3wnqn0",
"c3wqom4",
"c3wtkzo",
"c3x7zn6"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > Privacy Notice: We ask for an email only to ensure no one person can stuff the ballot box. The information you provide to this NASA Web site will be used only for its intended purpose. \n\nBecause asking for an email address is the best way to ensure no one person stuffs the ballot box... heh.",
"There was a propaganda effort for the manned space program. Honestly, that effort is ongoing even today.",
"It goes without saying that the technical feat of putting a man on the moon and bringing him back far outweighs sending a robot and leaving it up there.\n\nNevertheless, to list a few unmanned things... I happen to think the Soviets putting a robot on Venus considering its super corrosive atmosphere was pretty impressive the few times they did it. The fact that Voyager will leave our solar system soon is certainly not boring. Some of the pictures from flybys of the outer planets have also been particularly spectacular.\n\nRobots do get historical love, just not popular historical love. Popular history is about what's dramatic, and without someone's life hanging in the balance some people tune out.",
"Robots aren't boring, but to quote the astrophysicist reddit has a crush on; \"Until computers synthesize information and recognize a serendipitous discovery when it stares them in the face(and perhaps even when it doesn't) robots will remain tools designed to discover what we already expect to find.\" [Death by Black Hole, pg. 153, by Doctor, Occasional Redittor and Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive, Neil Degrasse Tyson]\n\nThe ability of our mind to make intuitive leaps and realize when a pattern is emerging that isn't necessarily what was expected is what gives us an advantage over robots. \n\n(No, I don't just memorize quotes- I'm in the middle of that book ATM and had that quotation bookmarked to ask a question for the AMA he did yesterday since it was announced ahead of time). \n\nThat said, a robot will always be able to explore cheaper than a human could, without the whole pesky \"wanting to see their family again\" issue. So they both have their merits. Robots have gone places humans physically or technologically can't, and taught us things we couldn't know otherwise, but if cavemen had built robots to collect sticks, we may not have ever rubbed the two together and discovered fire. \n\nEdit: **TL;DR** No, they aren't boring. Yes, we're still smarter than them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/50th/poll.cfm"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
58vlsa
|
After divorcing or beheading 80% of his wives at that point, what did Henry VIII's last wife expect to happen to her?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/58vlsa/after_divorcing_or_beheading_80_of_his_wives_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d93oo0a",
"d94f4t1"
],
"score": [
462,
7
],
"text": [
"I understand where you are coming from, but the question far oversimplifies the politics and reality facing Henry VIII during the early sixteenth century. Let's take a look at this one wife at a time.\n\nKatherine of Aragon - This is obviously the most contentious, and is often oversimplified as Henry desiring to get rid of Katherine because she could not produce an heir. This view, while compelling in popular culture, doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny. The still standard biography of Henry is J. J. Scarisbrick's *Henry VIII*. In the book, Scarisbrick goes to great length to show the theological problem facing Henry over his marriage to Katherine. Katherine had been married to Henry's older brother Arthur for a few brief months. Scarisbrick maintains that Arthur and Katherine did not consummate their marriage, & another major biographer John Guy, (*Henry VIII*, 2014) does claim that the marriage was consummated. Which ever is actually true is not the important part. What does matter is that Henry believed that his inability to produce an heir was God's punishment for breaking divine law by marrying his brothers wife. Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21 are clear texts that forbid a man from marrying (or potentially having sex with) his brother's wife. There is a counter text in Deuteronomy (25:5) but Henry felt that the divine punishment of a lack of heir was indicative that the text of Leviticus was more important. Since Henry believed he was violating God's law, his annulment (not divorce) makes sense as his only real option.\n\nAnne Boleyn - Boleyn is a more difficult case, because the accusations she faced seem political in nature, as charges of incest seem more like wild accusations as opposed to actual crimes. The best modern biographer of Anne Boleyn, Eric Ives, argues that the charges again Boleyn were political, but masterminded by Thomas Cromwell (Ives, *Anne Boleyn* (1984) pp. 358-360). G. W. Bernard, in his response to Ives, argues that Anne Boleyn was actually an adulteress (Bernard, \"The Fall of Anne Boleyn\", *English Historical Review* 1991, pp. 584-610). While much of Bernard's account is fixated on proving the adultery, a more important aspect for our purposes to to see that whether or not Boleyn had committed incest or adultery, Henry believed she had. Both Ives and Bernard indicate that Henry & Cromwell went to great lengths to discover or prove the adultery, and once Henry was convinced that she had, Boleyn's case was hopeless. It makes sense for Henry to see adultery - with his advisers and trusted friends - as treasonable and worthy of an execution. Boleyn could be completely innocent, but to Henry's mind, along with the advisers unrelated to the Howard family & Cromwell, her adultery was proven and her execution inevitable.\n\nJane Seymour - Not much needs to be said here, as she was the most beloved of Henry's wives. She bore the future King Edward VI, and Henry was buried by her side upon his death. She died within a two weeks of giving birth to Edward (October 1537) and Henry deeply mourned her death (Loach, *Edward VI*; Scarisbrick, p. 497).\n\nAnne of Cleves - Henry's marriage to Anne of Cleves was short lived, and technically annulled. Henry had only a portrait to see what she was like, and when he saw her for the first time, instantly found her plain and distasteful. Henry said of his first meeting with her that \"I am ashamed that men have so praised her as they have done, and I like her not,\" (Scarisbrick, p. 370). The two married in January of 1540, and annulled due to the marriage being unconsummated in July (Kelly, *Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII*, pp. 270-274). Anne actually lived out the remainder of her life in relative comfort in England. Though Henry is often charged with barbarity, it is worth noting that he maintained a friendship with Anne until his death, and the two exchanged letters casually for years (Warnicke, *Marrying of Anne of Cleves*, p. 252).\n\nFor Catherine Howard, the historian Henry Kelly explains how she was done in by her own indiscretions. She had been previously engaged to a Francis Dereham, and had had sex with him multiple times before her marriage to Henry. Kelly argues that she continued to do so after her marriage, which is why Henry's marriage to her was annulled and she was executed (Kelly, pp. 275-278). Scarisbrick agrees with this assessment, arguing that Catherine probably found her new husband repugnant and moody. Henry was, by this time, 50 years old and fat, as his portraits of the 1540s show, while Catherine Howard was about 18 and an item of desire among the men of the Tudor court (Scarisbrick, pp. 431-433). While Anne Boleyn was possibly innocent of any wrong doing, Catherine Howard without a doubt was an adulteress, though probably a young and naive one, unaware of the personal and political consequences.\n\nSo now we come to Henry's last wife, Katherine Parr. Luckily, Katherine Parr's writings and correspondence have now all been published by Janel Mueller (2011). About a week after her marriage to Henry, she wrote her brother how God had helped Henry select her, among any other woman. She continues with, it \"is, as of reason it ought to be, the greatest joy and comfort that could happen to me in this world,\" (*Katherine Parr: Complete Works*, p. 46). This is a woman happy with the choice she has made. While Catherine Howard had expressed jealousy of Henry's treatment of Anne of Cleves, Katherine Parr never mentions her. In a letter Katherine Parr wrote to Henry while he was in France reads \"the want of your presence, so much beloved and desired of me,\" (Parr, p. 63). Henry seems returns Parr's affections, and the two were known to discuss and even debate theology with one another (Scarisbrick, p. 479). When Katherine was charged with heresy (that she held Protestant sympathies is almost beyond doubt), Henry protected her and prevented her conviction and execution (Scarisbrick, pp. 479-481). \n\n\nSo, where does this leave us? Katherine Parr probably expected to be treated with some respect, and kept materially well during her marriage to Henry VIII. She personally took a role in helping educate Henry's three living children (Guy, *Children of Henry VIII*). Katherine was almost as beloved by Henry as Jane Seymour. While we look back on Henry's relationship with his wives as barbaric, it is worth looking at how Henry saw it. He thought he broke God's law with his first wife, and his second and fifth wives had betrayed him sexually and personally. His fourth wife may have had her marriage annulled and been exiled from the court, but overall she did well for herself, even gaining enough material wealth at the end of her life to send presents abroad to family members (Warnicke, *Marrying of Anne of Cleves*). Katherine herself did not see Henry as a danger, but as a companion and lover. She helped raise his children, was the first woman author to publish in English in 1545, and was allowed to pursue her exploration of early Protestant faith. Katherine Parr expected to be a Queen Regent of England, and in the end, that is what she was.",
"\"She [Katherine Parr]...was the first woman author to publish in English in 1545...\"\n\nSurely not? Julian of Norwich, Margery Kempe, and Juliana Berners all preceded her."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5s8w45
|
Why do the Chinese hate the Dalai Lama so much?
|
I have a colleague in the UC system right now who is going berserk over the fact that His Holiness is invited as a commencement speaker at UCSD.
I fully understand why people in the West love and adore him. I also understand on a basic level why the Chinese hate him. But I'm not understanding the details of how Chinese have been inculcated to find him a traitor and terrorist (she's equating him to Bin Laden.)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5s8w45/why_do_the_chinese_hate_the_dalai_lama_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dddvv7o",
"dde2r9s",
"dded78r"
],
"score": [
31,
222,
9
],
"text": [
"Hi, I'm actually a historian of modern China so hopefully I'll be able to shed light on this for you.\n\nFirst of all, perhaps the issue most central (at least from a historical perspective) is the narrative of the so-called Century of Humiliation ( 百年国耻). Now of course the defeats suffered by the Qing Empire did not directly concern Tibet but it's important to understand how this historical moment, the 19th century, is discussed in the modern context. As the name implies, in this narrative the Qing Empire, and by extension \"China,\" was the victim of the evil influence and intervention of imperialism. Of course it is debatable to what extent the Qing Empire was actually a Chinese empire. Yes, it's capital was Beijing and the majority of its administrators were Chinese speakers (Manchu/Jurchen, Han Chinese, or sometimes Mongolian). The China historians who make up the New Qing History School largely argue that the Qing was a multi-ethnic land empire much like the Ottomans or even Russia. But the importance of keeping each successive state that ruled China serves both the narrative of continuous historical greatness of China as well as lends moral legitimacy to China's contemporary imperial ambitions. This is of course very ironic given the fact that since 1911 much of Chinese political thought has been highly critical of the dynastic period of Chinese history with it generally being labelled as \"feudal,\" but that is a different discussion and relates more to discussions of Maoist thought. \n\nThis is where the two primary revolutionary parties of the post the Xinghai Revolution China (1911) come in, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Nationalist Party (KMT or Guomindang). They both sought to portray themselves as the liberators of China from the yoke of imperialism. For the communists especially, this also meant an opposition to all things \"feudal\" in the Marxist sense although the KMT also used similar political logic. But also in their attempt to liberate China from imperialism and recover from the humiliation of defeat, they also sought to restore the traditional hegemony of previous Chinese states. This is of courses ironic given the rejection of much of Chinese history as backward and feudal but this logic served the political needs of both regimes when they were in power. Tibet was a key part of this logic. Tibet was conquered by the Manchus (Qing Empire) in 1720 but slipped from Chinese rule after the Xinghai rule and effectively became an independent state due to the weakness of the central government under the KMT. Thus, the \"recovery\" of Tibet became central to both the KMT and CCP's desire to recover from the humiliation of the 19th century.\n\nIn a broader sense, the current hatred of the Dalai Lama by Chinese citizens can largely be attributed to propaganda. I'm not trying to say that some of the arguments made by Chinese nationalists are incorrect or purely sourced from indoctrination, but it's undeniable that this plays a central role. Given the importance of the recovery of Tibet to the CCP, its conquest after 1949 had to be justified within the logic of Marxism and Maoism. Particularly, the communists argued that the Tibetan theocratic government engaged in mass slavery, feudalism, and superstition, all of these terms became words used to describe anti-revolutionary thought or rhetoric after 1949 and the CCP engaged in a scorched earth policy to eliminate these \"oppressive\" evils with religion being one the greatest targets. Thus within this narrative it is easy to see why the CCP opposed the influence of the Dalai Lama and the religious institutions of Tibet, their authority represented a direct challenge to the narrative of economic and political liberation of Maoism and the utopia that this ideology would bring to China.\n\nIn the modern sense, I can only give you anecdotal evidence but these answers seem to largely fit in with the narratives I have already mentioned. One common argument is that the Tibetans were oppressed under the Dalai Lama. Another one is that the imperialist powers supported and promoted the narrative and cause of the Dalai Lama in order to humiliate and belittle China. Another answer is that Tibetan people are better treated than Chinese people, receive more benefits, and are very happy under the rule of the CCP. Thus the Dalai Lama is simply an evil agitator. However, the most common answer I've seen and heard essentially is: denying the legitimacy of China's rule over Tibet is racist towards to Chinese people. This is a similar argument to the arguments opposing Taiwanese independence. In essence, opposing Chinese political goals are a direct insult to the Chinese people. This argument really illustrates how the narrative of the national humiliation and the narrative of victimization still plays a central role in how Chinese people perceive their history and how they view the role of their government in rectifying the historical failures of the very government they vilified some 30 years ago. It is very troubling to me in part because Tibet suffered and continues suffer under the rule of the Chinese government. One only has to look at the colonization of Han Chinese in contemporary Tibet as well as economic marginalization that the government encouraged making Tibetans the poorest of China's poor. This does not even include the ongoing political repression and imprisonment of dissidents. I hope this answer was helpful. \n\nFor more information on the Century of Humiliation and responses to the victim narrative of the CCP and KMT, I suggest reading Robert Bickers's book: The Scramble for China: Foreign Devils in the Qing Empire. Also, Dru Gladney's seminal paper on minority representation in contemporary China, Representing Nationality in China: Refiguring Majority/Minority Identities, is an excellent piece that touches on this topic. \n\n",
"So, to get to the bottom of this, we’ve got to go back… *waaaay* back… like all the way back to the Tang Dynasty in the mid-7th century far back… to get a wide enough viewpoint to really explain this.\n\nRound about the year 604, Songtsän Gampo becomes the 33rd titular king/emperor of Tibet, called the *tsenpo*, but the first to unite the nomadic plateau-tribes into the Tibetan Empire (*Bod Chen Po*) centered around his sometimes-capital Lhasa. With surprising quickness (in 7th century terms, any way) in less than a century it becomes one of the Tang Chinese Empire’s chief threats, and is constantly harassing them from the west while other steppe peoples/angry border generals do a number on China’s northern border. By the last decade of the 8th century, its territory looks like [this](_URL_1_), and it along with the Uyghur Khanate has managed to cut off central China from its far western holdings and seal up the Silk Road once again. You can imagine that the Emperors of China were *not amused.*\n\nWell, that situation stabilized for the rest of the Tang Dynasty, and much of the subsequent Song Dynasty of the 10-13th centuries, thanks to marriage alliances and the Tibetans succumbing to their own series of devastating civil wars… and that’s nice and all, but let’s flash forward.\n\nKnock knock. It’s 1240 and the Mongols are at the door. And one of the (many, many) grandsons of Genghis Khan, Prince Godan, come a-calling and asks for a meeting with the Tibetan leader and Buddhist lama Sakya Pandita, giving the pretty standard-issue Mongol greeting of “bow down to us or we’ll kill everything you’ve ever loved” (and they’d showed that they really meant it by sacking a monastery and executing some 500 Buddhist monks). So Sakya thinks this whole “bowing” thing sounds like the better end of the stick and accepts. Tibet begins its life as a vassal state to the mighty Mongol Khanate, which some 30 years later fractures into sub-states like the Golden Horde, the Ilkhanate, and for our purposes the Chinese Yuan Dynasty under another of Genghis’ grandsons, Kublai Khan (AKA Emperor Shizu of Yuan, 元世祖帝) . \n\nSo, now Tibet’s officially a part of a Chinese Dynasty, albeit a conquest one. That middling little detail wouldn’t stop subsequent dynasties, like the Ming, and then the Qing from saying “no take-backs” to Tibet. At times submission was sent, and at other times the Tibetan response was somewhat less-than-satisfactory, ranging all the way from internal civil war to outright *de facto* independence. But at least in the eyes of the Chinese imperial governments, once in the empire, always in the empire.\n\nSo now we’re at the year 1391 (alt. 1543, when the title was actually first given), and it’s time for the Bodhisattva of Compassion to take corporeal form in the person of Gendun Drup, the first Dalai Lama. Incidentally, that title is a bit of a linguistic muddle – but hey it’s central Asia, so that’s to be expected. The “Dalai” comes from the Mongolic for “ocean/oceanic” – which often in such instances itself refers to the idea of “all the oceans/everything”, which “Lama” stems from the Tibetan word for “guru”, *blama*. So, “Universal Teacher”, if you will. From the mid-17th century until the mid-20th century this incarnation of the Bodhisattva will become the political and spiritual ruler of Tibet… and since it is an immortal entity merely sheathed in flesh, every time the old Dalai Lama “dies” Avalokiteśvara simply reincarnates into a body of its choosing to begin anew. That part will be problematic later.\n\nIn the early 17th century, the on-again-off-again relationship between China (now under the rule of the Aisin Gioro Jurchen/Manchus of the Great Qing Dynasty) and Tibet (now led by the 6th incarnation of the Dalai Lama), is solidified in the form of first a tribute payment by Tibet to the Manchus – the first recognition of Qing suzerainty over Tibet vs. their old pledge of servitude to the Mongols. Then in 1718, the Qing Army was dispatched to Tibet to – er’hem, - *assist* with the expulsion of an invading force of the Dzungar Khanate. This encountered some turbulence in the form of an extremely embarrassing defeat at the Battle of Salween River in 1718, but the Qing Kangxi Emperor simply re-raised a new force and stomped the Dzungar threat out in 1720. So now Tibet officially has acknowledged its vassaldom to the [Qing Empire](_URL_0_).\n\nOK, fast forward to 1911 and the Qing Empire is dead, overthrown from within by the republican forces of the Xinhai Revolution. And there was much [queue cutting](_URL_2_) and rejoicing. But wait, now that the Chinese are back in control of China… what’s to happen to all those periphery areas and territories, like Tibet – who had pledged allegiance to the imperial order that the republican upstarts had just overthrown? So the Republic of China simply decided to maintain the exact same borders as the Qing, nevermind the question mark over whether those non-Chinese regions would extend their pledge of vassaldom to this new regime, rather than having it die with the old one. Suffice it to say, there is more than a little griping about this state of affairs. But at least for a while it doesn’t really matter all that much because the RoC is far too busy beating down regional warlords, and the fighting the Communist Party, and then fighting the Japanese, and then fighting the Communist Party again all the way until they find themselves booted off the mainland entirely in 1949 and forced across the sea to Taiwan. Meanwhile, Tibet has been functioning completely autonomously, and considers itself legally free of its pledge to the late Great Qing – once more a *de facto* independent and free nation from 1912-1951.\n\nSo now it’s Oct. 1st, 1949, and Mao proclaims the People’s Republic of China… and now there’s no more infighting and civil wars to worry about (just forced labor, mass starvations, and Five Year Plans). The PRC takes the Qing/RoC’s borders and just runs with it, saying in effect, “uh, yeah, these are all ours, too.” Tibet says \"wait, but we pledged ourselves to the Qing Empire, which is no more\" and then the PLA officers laughed and laughed at this silly joke as their Type 50 tanks rolled in... \n\nThe following year the PLA pushes its way into Tibet to reassert Chinese control and faces only sporadic resistance. The fourteenth (and current) Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government accepts the Seventeen Point Proposal in 1951 and is “peacefully reintegrated” into China. And for a few years, things seem hunky-dory from Beijing’s perspective. The Dalai Lama is named as the Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the People’s National Congress. In 1955, Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai both visit Lhasa and celebrate the Tibetan New Year with an nice [photo op](_URL_3_) with the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama (the 2nd in command). \n\nBut over in Lhasa, the Dalai Lama was growing more and more concerned over the ebbing away of his political and spiritual authority. In 1956, while on a trip to India to celebrate the Buddha’s birthday, he secretly asks India’s President Nehru for political asylum, which was rebuffed on the grounds that India had just signed a treaty with China promising mutual non-intervention in each other’s internal affairs. But that same year the CIA steps in on the heels of an outbreak of rebellion in the Kham region, and begins arming and training the rebels to effectively mount a guerrilla campaign against the CPC/PLA.\n\nBy 1959, the Tibetan guerrillas had been pushed back into the Tibetan heartlands by the PLA, and the Dalai Lama – on the hook for this whole thing – fled the country with assistance from the CIA. This time he was admitted to India where he set up the Tibetan Government in Exile.\n\n_________________\n\n**So long story short here:** the Chinese hate the 14th Dalai Lama because they view him as a traitor to the state, an insurrectionary, an oathbreaker, and a political firebrand who went around getting the UN to adopt 3 anti-Chinese, pro-Tibetan resolutions all before the PRC was granted representation in the body as of 1971.\n_________________\n\n**But wait! There’s more!**\n\nOwing to the Dalai Lama’s ability to *never truly die if he doesn’t want to*, there is lingering tension/fears on both sides about what will happen when the 14th eventually kicks the bucket. His initial chosen successor was taken into Chinese custody almost immediately after he was named in 1995, and has not been seen since. The Chinese government then issued laws about reincarnation, stating that anyone planning to reincarnate must first receive government approval to do so, otherwise it’s an “illegal or invalid” reincarnation. Yeah, it goes off into cuckoo-land. Meanwhile, with the 11th Panchen Lama MIA, Beijing went ahead and named its own Panchen Lama – who is the “designated reincarnation” of the Dalai Lama – in 1996. #14 retaliated by... saying some things that I'll not get into.\n\n",
"I would suggest trying to have a series of calm discussions with your colleague if you're truly interested. Like any colonized* country there's usually a culture of talking-down-to when looking at Chinese history, so Chinese people are often very defensive. \n\n*before anybody comes in here and tries to tell me that China wasn't colonized, it was *the* goal of New Imperialism, and Russia, France, Britain, Japan, and Germany had huge successes and an unequal relationship with China\n\nI'll try to answer your question (and I hope to God this doesn't count as soap-boxing) but I'd encourage you to talk to your colleague about why she thinks this way and to genuinely listen. \n\nu/cthulhushrugged wrote a concise summary of Sino-Tibetan relations, but I don't think Chinese really think about their country that much this way any more. I think the word you'll hear (which is the common accusation the government throws around) is \"Splittist.\" They believe the Dalai Lama wants to split the country, specifically Tibet from China, despite the fact that that has never been his goal, and he's reiterated his commitment to a \"Middle Way\" approach for Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, with Tibetans in charge of their own affairs. \n\nThere's more political reasons (i.e. territorial integrity) than historcial reasons (i.e. the Dalai Lama's connections to the CIA) for the Chinese to hate the Dalai Lama. Keep in mind that the rhetoric China has used for the Dalai Lama is the same as that used for Taiwan: both represent an alternative to Beijing rule, which is a threat to the integrity of the Chinese state. \n\nChinese, though quick to forget about how they acquired Tibet, are quick to point out that Tibet \"had a caste/slave system\" which I wrote about extensively [here](_URL_1_), and [here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://theqingdynasty.com/thecontent/images/2014/02/Territories%20under%20Qing%20Dynasty%20Rule.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Tibetan_empire_greatest_extent_780s-790s_CE.png/600px-Tibetan_empire_greatest_extent_780s-790s_CE.png",
"http://www.newsgd.com/gdgateway/culture/content/images/attachement/jpg/site26/20141118/eca86b89c39315d4e1e406.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Mao_Zedong%2C_Dalai_Lama_and_Panchen_Lama.jpg?1486360230495"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ezim8/how_much_truth_is_there_in_the_claim_that_the/daj193u/?context=3",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/273mh9/there_has_been_some_claim_that_the_dalai_lama/chxbgrd/?context=3"
]
] |
|
7f591g
|
how does the human ear discern between a quiet noise and a distant noise?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7f591g/eli5how_does_the_human_ear_discern_between_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq9ltl6",
"dq9m5ww",
"dq9mqs1",
"dq9ppfy",
"dq9tdif",
"dq9u9v2",
"dq9utu9",
"dq9v7p0",
"dq9yvtl",
"dq9yya9",
"dqa1iba",
"dqa1p0d",
"dqa1rt7"
],
"score": [
22,
6451,
11,
206,
29,
2,
22,
20,
2,
16,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"A distant noise sounds more echoey because it is accompanied by a lot of reflected sounds on its path to you, whereas a quite sound close to you is more direct.\n\nFor very close sounds, another cue is that the sound has different angles to you ear. Whereas an infinitely distant sound arrives at your ear at the same angle, closer sounds become more different, and your ear can pick up that difference. Additionally, the sound is louder to the closer ear, more than expected of distant sounds.",
"A quiet noise from a nearby source will have more high frequency content than the same noise made much louder from far away. This is because air absorbs high frequency sound energy over distance but not low frequency to the same extent (think about how a plane sounds low and rumbly from far away, but when you are close, it sounds like all of the frequencies).\n\nAdditionally, nearby sounds will create stronger reflections off of surfaces close to you, creating a more full sound compared to distant sounds which will most likely consist of just one apparent location, or the reflections will be recognized as an echo, another indication that the sound is a large distance away.\n\nIf you are not near any other objects, the first effect will be the predominant way your ear/brain make the distinction.",
"Just to add to what's already been said. I think we can agree that the outer ear (penna) is weird looking. These bumps and ridges are important though because they bounce sound around the ear. We are able to detect if a noise is above or below us this way.",
"Interaural arrival times (sound arriving in on ear slightly before the other), interaural spectral differences (the fact that your head casts an acoustic shadow and blocks high frequencies will help you determine which direction it's coming from and how far away it is, less of an acoustic shadow means the sound is closer) and interaural intensity differences (sound from farther away will be louder in the ear facing it, whereas this difference will be less pronounced in a sound that's close).",
"In the study of audio engineering the terminology that we use is interaural time difference and interaural level difference. It refers to the sound hitting the ears at different times and at different amplitudes.\n\nThe first order reflections of a sound source bouncing off of surfaces between the listener and the source will collect carry and transmit information to the listeners brain about the location of the source. \n\nIf you listen to a loved one who is in your childhood home over the phone you might be able to tell which room your family member is standing in simply by the pattern of first order reflections.",
"How much reverb is on the sound. If it is 'wet' (lots of reverb) it is far away and if it is 'dry' (less reverb) then we know its close. This is because a close sound has less time to interact with its surroundings and is therefore less muddy. Whereas a faraway sound can interact with the space around it and add reverb.",
"I'd like to add to the top answers that your ear doesn't; your brain does. Your ear is just a microphone that translates vibrations into a signal (nerve pulses in this case, electrical current in the case of an actual microphone) that your brain (or computer) can work with. Your brain (or computer) then processes it and judges what is the case and not.",
"Audio expert here. Didn't read any other comments, so this may have been answered already.\n\nIn terms of decibels (also referred to as volume, or the intensity of sound), a distant noise could measure the same as a quiet, nearby noise. The difference is that through evolution, we've learned to pick up on the fine nuances between the two.\n\nNearby sounds will tighter reflections (echos) off the walls and surfaces around us. Far away sounds, that were loud when produced but have gotten quieter as they reach us, are filled with reflections that are greater spaced. A sharp \"bang\" 1/2 mile away will trail with echos a lot longer than a nearby snap, though both may have the same decibel rating.\n\nAlso note that over distances, low frequencies travel further than high frequencies. That's why when you hear a helicopter close up, you can detect the high-pitched whine of the turbine very easily, but seeing a helicopter in the distance, you only hear the low pounding of the blades. Knowing this, our brains automatically can decipher how far away something is, especially when we know what it sounds like nearby.",
"It’s not so much the ear that has this ability but the brain. The ear serves to transmit the auditory information into a language the brain understands (sound propagation through air into electrical and chemical transmission in the brain). The Brain is then able to interpret the information the ear has picked up. In this scenario, key information would be the change to sound waves that a far noise would undergo vs a noise that was nearby (distant noises undergo more reverberation) and the differences between what the left and right ear pick up. (Is greater for sounds further away). The brain has evolved to be very good at extracting this information, as I imagine it’s a large survival advantage to locate the whereabouts of prey and predator.",
"I don’t know it has been said like that but we use three different things to tell an audio source\n\n- Inter-aural time difference (ITD): since a sound is travelling around our head it takes it slightly longer to reach the ear that’s further away to the sound source\n\n- Inter-aural intensity difference (IID): for the same reason, the sound arrives to the ear that’s further away from the sound source with a lower amplitude\n\n- Inter-aural spectral difference (ISD): the shape of our outer ear, the pinna, does the rest.\n\nAdditionally, it’s important to know that a sound from closer distance will have more high frequency content.\n\nEverything together is helping us locating a sound source.\n\nEDIT: Spelling.",
"Not an expert, but there's a wonderful audio clip called 'virtual barbershop' that will demonstrate to you very well how exactly the brain identifies where a sound is coming from.\n\nIf you hear it, you'll realise that the way your brain determines how far and where a sound is coming from has nothing to do with how loud it is\n\nIn short, your brain can detect the tiny differences in the sound as it reaches each of your ears. And it uses that to determine the location.\n",
"It's actually easier than that. Sound is pressure waves carried by the air. In your ear these pressure waves vibrate tiny hairs which your brain interprets as sound. Intensity (volume) is based on how strongly the hairs vibrate. Location (direction) and distance are based on the difference in time it takes the sound to hit one ear over the other (yes milliseconds, but your brain perceives it) as well as the different intensity of the same sound in each ear.\n\nBasically your brain does trigonometry with sound automatically. \n\nIts actually the same basic principle that allows animal's with forward facing eyes to detect distance and movement with high accuracy (the same light hits each eye slightly different and your brain maths the rest)",
"The better question is, why do emergency sirens (cops/EMTs/firetrucks/etc) sound like they're coming from all directions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4uj7tc
|
why do men need stimuli for an ejaculation? wouldn't it be better if you could do it actively like moving a muscle?
|
Wouldn't it be advantageous in wild nature (This is what humans are supposed to live in, after all) to be able to ejaculate as quickly as possible, or even do it completely conscious like moving an arm? So: in - inject - out.
This would reduce mating time drastically and so the time you are exposed to predators. I guess this applies for any other animal that uses stimuli to ejaculate too.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4uj7tc/eli5_why_do_men_need_stimuli_for_an_ejaculation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5q32lw",
"d5q3s71",
"d5q6eln"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There needs to be a positive feeling associated with sex to make sure we do it. If it was like flexible your arm, then you would not go out and look for it. Its like working out. We know we should, but most don't.",
"If something feels good, then you do it more. Same goes for woman.\n\nThink of junk food, it taste good so you will always want more, if it didn't taste good then you would never want it. (only difference is that sex is actually good for your body lmao)",
"Being advantageous has absolutely nothing to do with it. Its not like we can put in a Feature Request to change how the Human body works. \n\nEvolution doesn't go \"Hey, you know what would be cool?\" Evolution is a long, long series of *random mutations* which, *if* they provide a significant enough advantage, *might* pass on to the next generation and *eventually* become permanent. It is *not* directed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4s04yl
|
What were some of the factors that lead to the city of Atlanta to be settled and grow as large as it has?
|
I was recently in Atlanta and curious why they picked that spot to settle and what factors made people want to settle there?
There's no coast, I don't think there's any river for shipping routes, I'm always surprised the city is so big. What factors contributed to its growth when it isn't like a typical American city.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4s04yl/what_were_some_of_the_factors_that_lead_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d55jdmc",
"d55nnsq"
],
"score": [
3,
14
],
"text": [
"That's an interesting question. I wonder that about a lot of cities. I don't want to hijack your thread but I'm interested in the reconstruction of the city after it burned as well.",
"Atlanta native here.\n\nThe simple answer is that there is no particular reason. Atlanta is just a spot on the map. The city was initially known as Terminus - as in, it was the end of the railroad line. The convergence of several major railroads made it a vital link for the Confederate armies in getting the resources of the deep south to the front in Virginia. This was why W.T. Sherman targeted the city and ripped apart its rail network.\n\nAfter the War, the city reinvented itself as a symbol of the New South (the city crest still includes the Phoenix) and also became the new capitol of Georgia. People like Henry Grady, who founded the Atlanta Constitution, promoted the city as a place to do business and it became a regional center known for its relatively moderate racial politics and for having a thriving black middle class centered around the Sweet Auburn neighborhood. This wasn't always true, however. Atlanta experienced a race riot in the 1906 and the infamous lynching of Leo Frank happened in 1915 (in the suburb of Marietta).\n\nBy the end of World War II, Atlanta was a large city, but it wouldn't have been considered the regional capitol it is today anymore so than Birmingham in neighboring Alabama. However, in the 1950s, Hartsfield International Airport was opened and became a major transit hub and one of the world's largest airports, bringing huge amounts of business to the city. Also, while other southern cities often had violent approaches to the Civil Rights movement, Atlanta was pretty accommodating. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his lieutenants were all from the area and his organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was based on Auburn Avenue. Also, white Atlanta was often pro-civil rights like Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. and Constitution editor Ralph McGill. This all led to a willingness for more northern and international business interests to invest in the city. For example, both the NFL and MLB, which had often been hesitant to move into the deep south, put teams into the city in the mid-60s (the Falcons and Braves).\n\nIn the latter half of the 20th century, the city's suburbs boomed, buoyed by strong in-migration from northerners seeking cheap real estate, nice weather, and a good job market. The construction of four major interstates in the city (I-75, I-85, I-20, and I-285) also allowed the metro area to expand in all directions, with no real geographic boundaries to pen in the growth. \n\nThe inner city experienced disinvestment and population loss caused by the \"white flight\" phenomenon, although it has experienced an urban renaissance and gentrification since around the turn of the millennium.\n\nIn short, the answer is that Atlanta is a crossroads town, whether it be by rail, air, or highways and people are drawn by the business opportunities to be exploited. Also, the relatively cordial racial relations in the city have made the city a symbol of the \"New South.\"\n\nSources: Atlanta and Its Environs, by Franklin Garrett. This is the largest (I think it's at 4 or 5 volumes now) history of the city.\n\nAlso, for more on Atlanta's complicated racial relations (which are way less rosy then I went into above) there's Where Peachtree Meets Sweet Auburn by Gary Pomerantz."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1uuq52
|
When did the NBA become considered a major league in America?
|
_URL_0_
Just asking this after reading this entry about Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game. The way people talk about it now, it seems like one of the greatest and most celebrated events in sports history. But it seems like it wasn't a big deal at the time, as major newspapers barely gave it any coverage. Plus, the attendance was only 4,124 and the game wasn't televised.
So this leads me to believe that at least in the early 1960s, the NBA wasn't considered a major sports league. So when did it become considered a one?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uuq52/when_did_the_nba_become_considered_a_major_league/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cema9nv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well the important thing to remember about that game is that it turned into more of a farce than one of the \"greatest and most celebrated games\". Kinda like those [DIII schools that set scoring records by centering their offense on one player and play full-court press for the steal, and barring that allow uncontested baskets to get back on offense quicker.](_URL_0_)\n\nBut back to the point of the question, the NBA was not always the leading basketball league. It was a major sports league as throughout the 20th Century, baseball, football and basketball were the major sports (and the hockey fan in me wants to include hockey too, but I can't justify it). Just like the NFL was split between the National Football League and the American Football League before the AFL-NFL merger in 1970, so too was the NBA split in the 1960s when the American Basketball Association was founded in 1967. ~~Un~~ Just like the other scenario, the NBA was the established organization and the ABA was the up and comer. The ABA was able to attract key college talent and a few of the more exciting NBA players. The Boston Celtics were the dynasty of the 1960s in the NBA and UCLA was the dynasty of college basketball during that time. UCLA's top player was a 7'2\" center then called Lew Alcindor, but now better known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. When he was being recruited professionally, a few sports writers mused that whichever league he chose would be the top league for the next decade. The NBA ended up winning the contest for Jabbar, but the ABA still carved itself a piece of the basketball pie.\n\nBut in the early 1960s, basketball was still gaining popularity. There were only 8 teams as of 1960. Across all leagues though, you'll see an increase in fandom and popularity whenever dynasties come into being. The Boston Celtics dynasty of the 1960s, winning 9 out of 10 championships in the decade, brought a wider fan base to the sport. Sensing public demand, the NBA started to relocate some of their teams to better markets and began new franchises. Ever wonder why the Los Angeles Lakers are called the \"Lakers\" despite the clear lack of lakes in LA? ^(totally unintentional tongue-twister there) They originated in Minneapolis, itself home to 20 lakes and in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. The price the NBA was asking for new expansion teams though was extremely high, which also played into the push for an alternative basketball league. It was only after the ABA's creation that the NBA rapidly expanded. The expansions brought the number of NBA teams up to 14 in 1968. The NBA's expansion strategy was not just one of opening up new basketball markets, but it was also an attempt to *close* the markets to the ABA. By 1974, the NBA grew again to 18 teams, adding teams in *such basketball mad cities as New Orleans*. /s \n\nThe ABA was able to thrive despite daunting odds because they were able to promote themselves as a different style of basketball. They added the three-point line to the court to add some more excitement and difficulty in shooting. Showmanship was the name of the game in the ABA and some of the rules were adapted to allow for that. The 3-point field goal was one of those. The slam-dunk was popularized in the ABA (not that it didn't exist before) and they included the contest in their all-star game in 1976. The ABA allowed for the drafting of college underclassmen, a shrewd strategy which was an attempt to kneecap NBA talent since the NBA didn't allow underclassmen to enter. They took their talent from places the NBA ignored. While NBA recruiting was focused on the urban centers of the Northeast and West Coast, the ABA noticed that there was a hotbed of raw talent in the South and Midwest which they capitalized on. They also had a longer shot clock which technically doesn't lead to an offensive-explosion, but it's not a perfect argument. The most distinctive feature of the ABA though was their patriotic red, white, and blue basketball they used instead of the orange one that is most common to us. While this style of play was very exciting and the league saw many new fans come out, they couldn't overcome the financial difficulties of trying to compete with the NBA, especially when they could not secure a lucrative television contract.\n\nThe two leagues merged in 1976 and the terms brought 4 ABA teams into the NBA (San Antonio Spurs, Indiana Pacers, Denver Nuggets, and New York Nets) and the other ABA teams folded. This merger brought the number of teams in the NBA up to 22. The NBA also adopted the 3-point-field goal, the more dynamic style of play, and the slam dunk contest in the all-star game. Today's NBA looks more like the ABA than the NBA of the 1960s. This competition, merger, and massive expansion were critical to the explosion in popularity of the NBA. Of course, this was nothing compared to the Larry Bird, and later, Michael Jordan era, but that's another topic for another day. Same goes for the 1992 Olympic basketball dream team, consisting of tons of superstars (...and Christian Laettner). There's also much more that can be said about the legal aspects of the merger, comparing it to the WHA-NHL and the AFL-NFL ones, but I'm not much of a legal scholar outside of some constitutional knowledge. \n\nEDIT: Fixed a silly mistake."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain%27s_100-point_game#Aftermath"
] |
[
[
"http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1854433-jack-taylor-scores-109-points-as-grinnell-college-defeats-crossroads"
]
] |
|
1hxh80
|
how sound works?
|
I read a post where someone said that there is no sound in space. I wanted to know why? What causes sound to be heard?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hxh80/eli5how_sound_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cayvtvx",
"cayvue4",
"cayxklp",
"caz7v9v"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of sound as a movement. \n\nWhen you beat a drum, the drum-skin vibrates up and down; this causes the air surounding the drum skin to move up and down too. \n\nThis movement propogates through the air as a [pressure wave](_URL_0_), until it hits something. When this pressure wave hits your ear and ear drum, it causes your ear drum to start moving and vibrating at the same frequency that the drum-skin is vibrating. \n\nThis movement is then sensed and interpreted by your brain as a sound, hence you hear. \n\nSound can't propogate through space, as it's a vacuum (or at least near enough). With no air molecules to transmit the sound wave, there's no sound. \n\n[See here for more info.](_URL_1_)",
"It's a pressure wave that travels through the air. So something moves - maybe a person's vocal chords, or a speaker, or whatever. That jiggles air molecules, which jiggle the ones next to them, and so on, and that wave moves out like ripples on a pond. Then the air right next to your eardrum moves as well, which moves the eardrum, and you hear the sound.\n\nThere's no sound in space because there's no air to carry the wave. Just like there are no pond ripples if you're not... on a pond.",
"Interesting fact to add here. In order to have sound, you need a source, a medium and a receiver. An example would be the words you speak, the air which the sound travels and the ears that receive it.\n\nSo if that silly question comes up \"If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?\" The answer is a definite no because there's no receiver.",
"Heh, I feel obligated to link Bill Nye's tv episode about waves. It has relevant information regarding sound, plus I LOVE this show:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nOne more thing to add about sound, there is a neat effect called Doppler you've probably heard before and didn't know what it meant. It basically means a shift in frequency based on relative motion. See picture for clarification: _URL_0_\n\nAnd a couple of videos. Works better with headphones: \n_URL_3_\n_URL_2_\n\nWhen an object is coming towards you, the sound waves it's emitting are compressed more, thus the pitch sounds higher. When that same object is right next to you, you're hearing the true sound waves. And when the object has passed you and is moving away, the sound waves are spaced out more and thus have a lower pitch.\n\nTwo prime examples of this are standing next to a NASCAR track and hearing the cars roar by, and standing next to train tracks and hearing the train go by."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave",
"http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/u11l1c.cfm"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://images.yourdictionary.com/images/science/ASdopple.jpg",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGyRe_SGnck",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyxvPiOqEiE",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPJyYaXhuv4"
]
] |
|
zd9mm
|
When a body is in motion, its mass increases relative to an observer at rest. Why?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zd9mm/when_a_body_is_in_motion_its_mass_increases/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c63nona"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"First off, it doesn't. This is called relativistic mass, and it is a mis-understanding of relativity. What actually happens is that as objects approach the speed of light it's momentum increases faster than Newton's momentum equation, p = mv, would predict. \n\nSo, why does this happen? Well, why is always a hard question to answer, but here is what we can tell you. Einstein discovered that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. That means that if you are running with a flashlight and turn it on, and I am at rest compared to you, you and I will both measure the speed of light to be 3E8 m/s. So, no matter how fast you are moving, in the same direction as the light is moving, you'll still measure that the light is moving at 3E8 m/s. \n\nJust from this rule (which you can't say why this happens, but it is experimentally verified) you can show that their must be time dilation (time goes slower for people moving faster), length contraction (distances are measured shorter for people moving faster), and momentum increasing (like discussed earlier). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6pmasf
|
how come if milk is poured in to a pint glass, that when ever beer is poured into the same pint glass it will become flat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pmasf/eli5_how_come_if_milk_is_poured_in_to_a_pint/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkqg2yt"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"That is a myth. Beer will always go flat once it is not under pressure (keg, bottle, or can) so it will go flat in any glass that it is poured into. \n\nNow the kernel of truth that exists is that if you pour beer into an unwashed milk glass it will not form a good head. This is due to the fats from the milk preventing it from retaining surface tension. You will see a similar effect from any source of fats, so if you put a drop of grease from the food you eat it will do the same. But this loss of head is not the same as going flat. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9pg2gt
|
what optical property allows a projector to project a coherent image onto a surface while simply pointing an lcd screen at surface only produces a blurry image?
|
I've always found this difficult to understand. When you point an LCD screen at a surface, the projected image is usually blurry even when the surface is very close. However, a projector does project a coherent image onto a screen. What specific optical property is allowing a projector to do this?
Also, is the reason the image projected by the screen is blurry because the image is already incoherent when it reaches the surface, or is the initial image hitting the surface coherent, but it becomes blurry when reflected off the surface and into our eyes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9pg2gt/eli5_what_optical_property_allows_a_projector_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e81j095"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A projector has a series of lenses on the inside that focus the image. You can adjust these lenses to focus the image, where as a lcd screen is light scattering in any direction with no organization. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5hb0bt
|
how do companies like gj wentworth work?
|
I assume they don't just give you one lump some of cash.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hb0bt/eli5_how_do_companies_like_gj_wentworth_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daysm5y",
"dayspdm"
],
"score": [
23,
7
],
"text": [
"When you win a lawsuit or settle it in your favor, the person you won the money from usually doesn't have to pay you all at once. Instead, there is a payment plan. When you agree to such a payment plan, instead of having a trial, this is called a \"structured settlement.\"\n\nJG Wentworth and similar companies buy your structured settlement from you. So, let's say that you won $10,000 in a lawsuit, and the other party has to pay you $1,000 per month for 10 months. A company like JG Wentworth might offer to pay you $7,000 right now, today. In exchange, they'll get the $1,000 per month for ten months. You get the money quicker, but they come out on top.\n\nHence: It's my money, and I want it now.",
"They get the rights to some income stream you have, and in exchange they give you cash up front. \n\nAn example would be something like this: You get hit by a car. The Jury awards you 100,000 dollars for your injuries, but the person doesn't have that lying around, so the ultimate deal is you get 5,000 dollars a year for the next 20 years. \n\nBut, the next day, you decide you want to have a down payment for a house, so you go to JG wentworth and say, \"hey, I'll give you the right to collect my 5k a year for the next 20 years, if you give me, say, 30k right now.\" They figure out the risk and the impact of inflation and decide that's a good deal, so they make the trade. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2t9b69
|
Does sharing drinks, eating things that were on the floor, etc actually improve the immune system?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2t9b69/does_sharing_drinks_eating_things_that_were_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnxj3y0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In the sense that you increase the number of antigens your body encounters, and thus the number of different kinds of antibodies you produce, yes.\n\nIn the sense that you won't get sick or that you might not accidentally encounter some bacteria, virus or other pathogen that your immune system can't respond to fast enough / at all to prevent getting sick, no. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bb7rrz
|
Are there linking species between sexual and asexual reproduction? They just seem so discrete
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bb7rrz/are_there_linking_species_between_sexual_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekh58w5",
"ekh85g1",
"ekiz7am"
],
"score": [
16,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Just speaking generally, there are species (I know of single cell organisms for sure) that can reproduce both sexually and asexually. If the organism gains a competitive advantage from sexual reproduction in a certain environment, then those organisms more prone to reproducing sexually would eventually out-compete and possibly diverge from those favoring asexual reproduction.",
"In the nematode *C. Elegans*, the majority of individuals are hermaphrodites with two X chromosomes which produce limited amounts of sperm and fertilize their own eggs. There are also males with one X chromosome who can only produce sperm and must find hermaphrodites to mate with. Males appear naturally if an X chromosome is lost during meiosis, but this is rare.\n\n_URL_0_",
"There are a number of species that reproduce both asexually and sexually. The two modes of reproduction are discrete in that they occur at different times of the year. Here are two examples from internet source:\n\n\"Aphids reproduce through parthenogenesis in the spring and summer when environmental conditions and the food supply can support rapid population growth. When resources are limited in the fall and winter, they reproduce sexually.\"\n\n\"Tiny aquatic organisms called rotifers reproduce parthenogenetically in the spring and summer. However, their eggs only produce females. In the fall, they produce tiny offspring that lack digestive tracts but produce sperm. These creatures fertilize eggs and hatch a new generation of females in the spring.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20094/"
],
[]
] |
||
811xr8
|
Why is WW2 considered to be a major catalyst in the advancement of women in America when they had been a large part of the workforce since factories became mainstream?
|
The recent post and answers regarding OSHA got me thinking about women and children working in textiles factories and whatnot. Was there a shift in roles from employee to traditional homemaker then back to employee again?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/811xr8/why_is_ww2_considered_to_be_a_major_catalyst_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv5cy7o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are two sides to this answer.\n\nOne side is that World War II did see (in America and elsewhere) an explosion of women a) performing jobs that had traditionally been coded masculine, such as laborers in factories making munitions and machinery, and b) joining the workforce when they likely would not have if their husbands had not been at war. From the rise of cotton mills in the early nineteenth century to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in the early twentieth, the textile and garment industries depended on the underpaid labor of working-class women - standing at mechanical looms and spinning machines, sitting at sewing machines packed into a sweatshop, taking piecework home. The vast majority of domestic servants were female, from the basic maid-of-all-work to the average cook and parlor/chambermaid - male servants were paid a great deal more, and tended to be found in elite households that needed footmen to pass plates at fancy dinners, butlers to pour expensive champagne, and stablehands, grooms, and coachmen to deal with carriages (later, chauffeurs with cars). In the last two decades of the nineteenth century, women's participation in paying work exploded, with women coming to make up a larger portion of the workforce as they entered a wider variety of industrial jobs. In the early twentieth century, sales counters were frequently staffed with women; the new position of telephone switchboard operator was gendered feminine, and the older position of secretary became so.\n\n(This caused, as you might guess, a tremendous amount of gender-related anxiety. Early in the century, when textile craftsmen were transitioning into factory work, they typically pushed back by excluding women from their trade unions, since female workers would be paid less and therefore threatened their wages, as well as their sense that they were doing \"a man's job\". Factory owners that largely employed women at the machinery would employ men as supervisors and office workers, positions that put them above the \"unskilled\" women and certainly gave them higher wages. Progressive middle class legislators addressing industrial workplace issues tended to take the view that the most important thing was to guarantee the working class man's ability to maintain his family - though they by no means managed to do so - rather than to protect all workers.)\n\nDuring World War I and World War II, the loss of men from masculine-gendered industrial and office fields meant that there were openings that needed to be filled, openings that women weren't usually considered for if there were enough men to fill them. Most stereotypically, they picked up work in munitions factories, but they could be found everywhere - janitorial work, driving cars and ambulances, holding supervisory positions. Middle class women who had not been required to work outside the home were also entering the workforce in order to support their families when their husbands were at war, or did so in response to the frequent depiction of war work as a patriotic duty. These factors did make women's participation in the workforce during World War II (and I) somewhat revolutionary.\n\nThe other side is that the narrative of women's history is often drastically simplified in popular culture in order to provide a moral message about how and why \"things got better\". \"Premodern times\" are jumbled together in a mass of barbaric customs that saw all women treated as mindless chattel; then in the early modern period, individual proto-feminist intellectuals began to protest this treatment in writing, which progressed into real action in the nineteenth century. Women experienced freedom working during World War I, which made them happy and liberated and created the flapper. The same thing happened again during World War II, after which men tried to put women back in their place, which resulted in the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. There is a clear progression from worse to better, implying some level of natural improvement, and people and situations are filed into objectively good and bad boxes. The women on the side of progress are typically portrayed in fiction as radical pioneers, contrasted with conservative biddies and condescending old men. It's all very simple and black-and-white.\n\nOnce you begin to read about women's history, though, you see a beautiful and amazing complexity. (You can get some of this from [my past answers here](_URL_0_), but for [the real good stuff](_URL_1_) you want /u/sunagainstgold's.) A great deal of complexity comes out of looking at the differences in occupations and choices of upper, middle, and working class women in their own contexts rather than assuming a unified and modern set of desires and preferences and a middle class default perspective: what did these women actually want out of life, and how did they view various activities? A working class woman might see sewing as a necessary task to keep her family out of rags, while a middle class woman could practice it as a form of craft to make chair covers, cushions, etc. for her home, and an upper class woman might produce artwork with the best materials or completely leave it off, since she could buy things that had been made/embroidered by others. Women at all levels of society could view their occupations (whether paid jobs or domestic/family duties) as careers even though we do not now see them as desirable ones. More complexity comes from simply taking a deeper dive into the sources. Widows ran their late husbands' businesses, wives worked with their husbands as equal partners. Women with social power exercised it, even against men. They wrote books and studied history, science, the arts. Here and there, it is possible to say that \"women's economic power declined as guild protections were enacted\" or \"it became more acceptable for women to participate in that field\", but the straight line of progress gets extremely fuzzy! In order for the narrative to be kept clear, women's paid employment before World War II has to be downplayed and masculine-coded occupations have to be portrayed as objectively more appealing and empowering than feminine-coded ones."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/chocolatepot",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/sunagainstgold"
]
] |
|
2dm88p
|
how does live cd work?
|
I consider myself an adequate Linux user, and have a general layperson's understanding of computer systems. However, I still don't understand how Live CD works.
Specifically, I noticed that you can still create new files (such as using apt-get to install packages), but since the system image and other files are supposed to be unaltered, how is this done? Do these live systems create in-memory file systems? Or do they just use the spare space in the USB disk? If so, what about read-only CDs? If not, what if the main memory is too small?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dm88p/eli5how_does_live_cd_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjqu6y9",
"cjqwma0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, AFAIK live system create in-memory file systems. _URL_0_\n\nI don't think you can run those if the main memory is too small.",
"Instead of mounting the file systems on to persistent storage, such as a hard disk, the file system is mounted in volatile memory (i.e. RAM), often using something called [tmpfs](_URL_1_), the temporary file system. Since the contents of main memory are lost when the computer powers off or restarts (hence the term \"volatile\" memory), the contents of the temporary file system will also therefore be lost and no permanent changes will be made.\n\n*Edit*: a little more detail. Many live CDs actually use something a little more complex, called [unionfs](_URL_0_), which allows the file system on the disk to be mounted as read only, but then will transparently switch to the writable memory mounted file system (e.g. tmpfs) when changes are made. This allows memory to be preserved, as it's only used when the user actually changes something. Since most users of a live CD won't be installing huge amounts of software, making lots of changes or downloading lots of data, memory isn't usually a problem."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_drive"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnionFS",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tmpfs"
]
] |
|
99stce
|
how does going to a malacious website help the people behind it spy on you and take your personal information?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99stce/eli5_how_does_going_to_a_malacious_website_help/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4q5xfm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They can look at your cookies, which are bits of info that search engines like Google use to find ads that suit you. Companies can look into these to find out things such as your age, gender, and use that to track you further. I'm not an expert, but I'm comfortably sure all of this is factual. There are definitely other ways malicous sites can gather info about you, so be safe with a VPN"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
fwquy9
|
how gear ratios, long and short gears work.
|
Half a year ago I got my licence, which made me want to know as many things as I can about cars. The physics behind the working of a vehicle is the most interesting part for me. I've read many articles, and watched videos, therefore I now know quite a lot about the topic, but gears, gear ratios is something that I definetely need a simple explanation of. Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fwquy9/eli5_how_gear_ratios_long_and_short_gears_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmpvec8",
"fmpwyay"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"lets say you have a gear with only say 10 teeth, against a gear with say 20. the constant in this case is that spinning through one tooth (36 degrees) on the first cog, moves through one tooth (18 degrees) on the second cog. in such a way, you've managed to move the second gear at half the speed of the first.\n\nHowever, ignoring the friction losses, the work you put into gear A has to be carried through to gear B. since gear B only moves half as far, it has the capacity to turn with twice as much 'torque' or rotational force. this is why your car has different gears, some for moving slowly with an increase in torque, and some for moving fast with less torque.",
"A gear ratio in a car means that for every one rotation of the input, the output will rotate \"x\" amount of times.\n\nA gear is basically a lever, but a bunch of little levers in a circle. That's how torque (turning force) is transmitted. The size of the input gear related to the output gear is what determines how much torque can be transmitted.\n\nFor example, if the engine is turning at 1000rpm and the rear wheels are also spinning at 1000rpm the gear ratio is 1:1 (this is usually around 4th gear in a car).\n\nA gear ratio that has a second number larger than one, eg 1:3 (the output (wheels) spins once for every three turns of the input(engine)), (often first gear) means the wheels are spinning slower than the engine - the car is in a lower gear which will transmit a lot of torque from the engine to the road. This is for when the car is trying to speed up.\n\nA gear ratio that has a second number less than one, eg 1:0.8, (often fifth gear)means that the wheels are turning faster than the engine - this is called \"overdrive\". There is very little torque going to the rear wheels in overdrive, however by this point the wheels are already spinning fast and have inertia - the high gear just delivers enough power to *keep* them spinning against friction. It's much easier to keep something moving than to get it moving.\n\nShort gears mean that the ratios are relatively close throughout all the gears, which allows you to speed up quicker. Long gears means the ratios are farther apart, allowing you to have a higher top speed with a lower engine RPM."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
tgsnd
|
which is more powerful the suck of a fan or the blow of a fan or are they the same?
|
An interesting question my older brother just asked me. I'm not totally sure how to answer. Any help?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tgsnd/which_is_more_powerful_the_suck_of_a_fan_or_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4mhfsp"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Imagine a lot of people entering the Disneyland through the turnstiles. They are very uneducated people so they don't have the habit of queuing. Instead, they just congregate near the entrance as they move slowly through the turnstiles one by one. Once they're in, they immediate rush towards the attractions straight ahead.\n\nThis is a poor analogy because the mechanisms are reversed, but it roughly illustrates how air particles move around the fan. One key concept is that air particles are always pushing at each other. When fan blades spin, they \"kick\" air out the front. The air around the back, being push by the air further behind, are drawn into the fan from all directions much more slowly. Therefore you can feel the wind from the front, but hardly from the back.\n\nI think the real question here is that, the blowing stream is fast but narrow, while the suction stream is weak but wide. All in all, which is stronger? The answer is the blowing stream, because the fan blades are adding energy into the air stream while they're spinning."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8szciv
|
why are different kinds of disinfectants used in different situations?
|
i’m specifically thinking of iodine hydrogen peroxide and rubbing alcohol ex. rubbing alcohol is used for shots iodine for surgeries and hydrogen peroxide for at home use on cuts and scrapes and i’m just wondering why they are used this way (my last post was removed for this so i would just like to clarify that i am in no need of advice and i will not change my general health practices based on any answers i receive i am only wondering why doctors recommend or use these disinfectants in these situations)
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8szciv/why_are_different_kinds_of_disinfectants_used_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e140ekc",
"e15c0vp"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This can be a big deal--there are often specific guidelines on how to clean for certain diseases and equipment. C diff infections are notoriously hard to kill, and require crazy amounts of cleaning in a patient's room to make sure it doesn't spread. Overall, it depends on quite a few things, including:\n\n* The toxicity of the disinfectant (putting bleach on a cut is not a great idea)\n* The type of pathogen you're concerned about--things like bacterial spores are very hard to kill, whereas larger viruses and \"normal\" bacteria are relatively easier.\n* Cost and ease of use\n\nFor example, according to the CDC guidelines, alcohol solutions are okay to use to disinfect small surfaces like medication vials and external medical equipment like stethoscopes, but they are not effective enough to clean surgical materials.\n\nIf you're curious, you can read the CDC guidelines [here](_URL_0_) (warning...not a thrilling read)",
"Alcohol is more of an immediate disinfectant--it evaporates pretty quickly, making it good for an injection site clean and cleaning the tops of vials before drawing up the solution.\n\nPovodine-iodine is a much longer term antiseptic than either rubbing alcohol or hydrogen peroxide; it doesn't evaporate like rubbing alcohol, and it takes a longer time for it to be absorbed by the skin, which is why we use it (or chlorhexadine gluconate) as the skin cleanser for surgical scrubs.\n\n\nHydrogen peroxide isn't really a great antiseptic. It shouldn't be used on cuts and scrapes because it actually impedes the healing process and can damage the healthy tissue around the cut.\n\nChlorhexadine gluconate is what we use the most to clean skin where I work. It works like povodine-iodine (and is possibly more [effective](10.1002/14651858.CD003949.pub4.) as an antiseptic, but a lot more research is needed on that).\n\nBut really, none of these should be used on already open skin. In cases where we need to debride and irrigate a wound, we mostly just use normal saline.\n\nLooking at everyday equipment, it's a totally different scenario. The standard practice is ammonia-based cleaner **unless** the person it was used on had an enteric infection, then it's bleach.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/disinfection-guidelines.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
1yxyh1
|
how does a html5 video load instantly (even on a phone), never buffers, and has amazing quality, when the same video in a gif takes 30 seconds to load, stutters, and looks like shit, and a flash video buffers and pauses all the time, and why isn't everyone using html5?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yxyh1/eli5_how_does_a_html5_video_load_instantly_even/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfoto4v"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Easy:\n**GIFs** are basically a series of images strung together, created decades ago. They are really simple files. Long gifs are made up of quite a few hundred images that you have to load and as such you can imagine they are quite slow.\n\n**Flash** basically plays a video file using it's own plugin. Video files are way better than Gifs because they were designed to actually show video and as such instead of huge amounts of individual images it basically sends a few and then a bunch of info regarding what happens in-between them. It's better than GIFs but unfortunately it has the added overheaded of having your browser load a plugin (Flash) and then the video itself.\n\n**HTML5** is quite new and basically just loads and plays a video file, bypassing the whole loading a video into flash and loading the flash plugin part.\n\n\nThe problem with web development is that it's quite chaotic and there's quite a few different browsers that don't support every feature. Flash is fairly safe today but a lot of Browser programs don't allow HTML5 features such as video. \n\nI could go into more detail as to why there's no buffering on HTML5 and such but this is ELI5 :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
30oilp
|
After a nephrectomy, how does the body fill the empty space where the kidney was?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/30oilp/after_a_nephrectomy_how_does_the_body_fill_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpv1k96"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The kidney is retroperitoneal, which means it is under the peritoneal cavity. There is a small amount of blood which eventually gets resorbed. But apart from that the body doesn't do anything with the extra space. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2zrbtr
|
why do we most often focus on economic growth in absolute gdp terms instead of gdp per capita?
|
It's always bugged me that I read about economic growth in real GDP terms being the same primary metric of economic success for countries with high population growth (like Lebanon) as it is for countries with low or negative population growth (like Japan). Why isn't economic growth always discussed in per capita terms?
If I'm a job-seeker in a high-population-growth country like Lebanon, doesn't the economy have to expand much faster to create jobs for all the other job-seekers than it does for an economy like Japan, where the population is actually shrinking? In Japan's case, doesn't a shrinking population conceivably leave everyone with a larger piece of the pie (even if that pie is growing more slowly than it is in Lebanon)? In other words, why isn't 0% real GDP economic growth in a country with a shrinking population considered better than 2% economic growth in a country with 10% population growth?
Thanks in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zrbtr/eli5why_do_we_most_often_focus_on_economic_growth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cplkxzd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"GDP isn't meant to be used as an employment statistic, you're absolutely right about that. It's supposed to measure a nation's ability to participate in a war through the creation of useful goods and services, and it's overall purchasing power to pursue new kinds of industrial technology."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fstna3
|
during the therapy of a person, what's the goal of a psychologist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fstna3/eli5_during_the_therapy_of_a_person_whats_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fm3dfhr",
"fm3hi9m"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The goal of the therapist is to help the client find their own goals and support them as they work towards those goals.\n\nSafety is also the top priority, so sometimes assessments of SI or SIB need to happen.\n\nBut overall, the therapist doesn't really have their own goals in the relationship.",
"Say you want to build a house. You have no idea how to build a house. So you go talk to an expert, an architect or an engineer, etc. and ask them for help. They don't know what you want, but they can help direct you define what you want or need and make sure you don't skip any important steps.\n\nThey don't \"build a house\" for you, they help you build your own house.\n\nA psychologist does not have a goal, so much as they help you with your own goals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
54elst
|
Were the Romans aware that an eclipse of the Sun was caused by the Moon blocking its light?
|
I'm just reading Augustine's City of God, and he argues that the darkening of the Sun mentioned in the gospel accounts could not be explained by a lunar eclipse, because the crucifixion occurred at passover which is always a full moon, and eclipses always occur during the "last quarter" of the moon.
Firstly, what does "last quarter" mean for the Romans? Eclipses only occur during new moons - is that consider the "last quarter" in Roman reckoning, or is he mistaken?
Secondly, is this just an empirical observation based on historical reports, or did the Romans actually have a physical model for how eclipses work? That is, did Augustine say that eclipses happen during the last quarter just because historians had noted that eclipses always happen at this phase, or did Augustine say this because the Romans actually knew that the Moon had to be in the correct position for an eclipse to occur?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54elst/were_the_romans_aware_that_an_eclipse_of_the_sun/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8172iu"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The Greeks reportedly knew how to predict them as far back as 585 BC. Herodotus gives an account in *The Histories*:\n\n > ...just as the battle was growing warm, day was on a sudden changed into night. This event had been foretold by Thales, the Milesian, who forewarned the Ionians of it, fixing for it the very year in which it actually took place.\n\nWe also know that Claudius Ptolemy, a Roman citizen, had worked out how to predict both Solar and Lunar eclipses with a very clever and sophisticated model during the Second Century, detailed in his *Almagest*. It's not unreasonable to suggest that Augustine may have had knowledge of the works of Ptolemy, given that it had been so long since its publication.\n\n*****\n\nI had difficulty identifying anything about the Romans' beliefs surrounding solar eclipses, but there's a semi-famous account in Plutarch's *Parallel Lives* about a lunar eclipse on the night before the Battle of Pydna, almost 600 years before the birth of Augustine:\n\n > When it was night, and, supper being over, all were turning to sleep and rest, on a sudden the moon, which was then at full and high in the heavens, grew dark, and by degrees losing her light, passed through various colors, and at length was totally eclipsed. The Romans, according to their custom, clattering brass pans and lifting up firebrands and torches into the air, invoked the return of her light; the Macedonians behaved far otherwise: terror and amazement seized their whole army, and a rumor crept by degrees into their camp that this eclipse portended even that of their king. Aemilius was no novice in these things, nor was ignorant of the nature of the seeming irregularities of eclipses, that **in a certain revolution of time, the moon in her course enters the shadow of the earth and is there obscured, till, passing the region of darkness, she is again enlightened by the Sun.**\n\nSo although at least some amongst the Romans certainly knew the cause of such events in that time, they nevertheless still took part in religious rituals intended to bring back the Moon's light. Even Aemilius subsequently took part in sacrifices (which Plutarch describes in detail), despite knowing that it was a natural occurrence."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
12t7u6
|
Does cooling really account for 30% of all CO2 production by humanity?
|
Today, my professor for thermodynamics claimed that 'it is estimated that cooling (i.e. airconditioners, refrigerators and other cooling devices) account for 30% of humanity's CO2 production. It sounded like quite a bold statement to me, so I wonder: is there any truth to this claim?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12t7u6/does_cooling_really_account_for_30_of_all_co2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6xxq6b",
"c6xzkmt"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Ask him to provide a source for that statistic next time you see him. \n\nThe number seems high, but not outside the realm of possibility considering [this](_URL_0_) site claims 40% of energy consumption is from buildings. He should be able to provide sources for his claim, or at least explain where he came up with the number and in my experience professors typically think more highly of the student who actively expresses interest in the topic at hand.",
"It seems slightly high, but the figure is well within the realm of possibility, especially if one includes heating as well. As an architectural rule of thumb, HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) systems account for roughly 40% of energy use in commercial buildings, and around 50% in residential buildings. This varies by country and region, depending on local climate and building codes, but is a good estimate for much of the built environment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.stateofgreen.com/en/Energy-Efficiency"
],
[]
] |
|
19numt
|
Are there any notable examples of history vindicating someone? Perhaps an action that was not popular but proved instrumental later?
|
I'm just curious, I really like tragedies that turn into happy endings, eventually. They say that the worst plight of history is an unjustly sullied name.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19numt/are_there_any_notable_examples_of_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8q2fes"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Must resist username joke...\n\n[Seward's Folly](_URL_0_) is probably the most obvious in terms of a standard high school history class. Not everyone thought buying Alaska for two cents an acre was a good idea. I'd say that he was vindicated.\n\nIn a similar vein, many people opposed the Louisiana Purchase. It was questioned whether Jefferson even had the Constitutional authority to make such a purchase.\n\nA case could be made that Benedict Arnold was at least partially vindicated by at least having cause to join the British."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase"
]
] |
|
40g1dw
|
Did the Russo-Finnish Winter War actually encourage Germany to attack Russia?
|
I've been reading about the Russo-Finnish Winter War lately, and was very interested to read that the war might have convinced Hitler to invade Russia (due to the Soviets' poor performance).
On Wikipedia it states: "Perhaps more importantly, the very poor performance of the Red Army encouraged Hitler to think that an attack on the Soviet Union would be successful."
It didn't link a source however, and I couldn't find any through my admittedly short Google search. Any insight? Maybe some sources?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40g1dw/did_the_russofinnish_winter_war_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyty492"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hiya!\n\nThe short answer is yes, the appalling performance of the Red Army in the Winter War was absolutely influential in convincing Nazi Germany, and indeed other states, that the USSR would be incapable of defeating a German invasion. I've discussed this directly in [this](_URL_0_) post, as part of a wider discussion of the importance of the conflict. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them - though I am about to go to bed so I'll probably only get to them tomorrow.\n\nI hope this helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jpeu1/why_is_the_winter_war_finnishrussian_war_so/"
]
] |
|
tqash
|
Have there been many incidences of a country re-locating their government in the face of invasion?
|
To clarify, I don't mean a government-in-exile, but a case of the govenment moving from their capital to a more defencible location when an invading army came too close to the capital. I know, for example, that when the French invaded Russia in 1812, that the Russians did not surrender when Napoleon captured Moscow. Instead, they evacuated Moscow and were content to sit in Saint Petersburg until Napoleon got tired and went home; but Saint Petersburg was the capital at the time anyway. I'm thinking more along the lines of the 'National Redoubt' myth that had the Allies worried near the end of the Second World War; that Germany would move their government from Berlin to a 'fortress' in the Alps and continue to fight from there. Obviously, that didn't happen, but have there ever been cases where an invaded country actually did something like that?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tqash/have_there_been_many_incidences_of_a_country/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4otge3",
"c4otq3o",
"c4ougen",
"c4ouopm",
"c4ov07f",
"c4ov58s",
"c4ov61b",
"c4ovv2u",
"c4ow5pk",
"c4owbju",
"c4owe53",
"c4owoam",
"c4oxip0",
"c4ozd3q",
"c4ozgr9",
"c4p2lk8"
],
"score": [
28,
10,
7,
15,
7,
12,
13,
7,
4,
4,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Portugal moved their government to Brazil when Napoleon invaded, and this directly led to independence and the Empire of Brazil",
"During the Korean war the south Korean government was forced to move to the very south of the country when northern forces managed to take control of Seoul.[This](_URL_0_) shows the farthest extent they were forced back (known as the Pusan pocket).",
"[During the Second Sino-Japanese War, the capital of the Republic of China was moved away from Nanking when it was clear that it would fall soon after Shanghai. ](_URL_0_)",
"Pre-confederation / colonial Canada moved its capital from Kingston to Ottawa as a response to the War of 1812.\n\nNot as a result of invasion, but England moved its Parliament to Oxford as a reaction to the great plague of 1666.",
"Not exactly a country, but during the American Revolution Virginia moved its capital up from Williamsburg to Richmond, where it remains today.",
"Soviet Russia moved the capital from Petrograd to Moscow after the revolution, partly because of the threat of a German advance on Petrograd. Typed this on my phone, will add more later.",
"Poland moved their government to London for the duration of WWII _URL_0_. The French considered doing the same (merging Britain and France was one suggestion put forward to enable France to remain in the war). Chinese nationalists moved their government to Formosa (where it remains to this day) in the face of imminent communist victory. ",
"From Montgomery to Richmond . Ooops.",
"Somewhat after the invasions/rebellions that hastened the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, Kemal Atatürk and his crew moved the Turkish capital from Constantinople (next to the sea, very exposed) to Ankara (far inland and surrounded by rough terrain), where it remains to this day.",
"During the Second Peloponnesian War, the Athenian Empire was run from the island of Samos for a period. The war was fought between oligarchic Sparta and democratic Athens, so when Athens had an internal revolt and a group of oligarchs called The 400 seized power over the city, the Athenian generals just moved the seat of the Empire to Samos. They continued to run the Empire from there until The 400 were overthrown.\n\nAlso you might consider:\n\n* the Republic of China fleeing to Taiwan,\n* China moving its capital back and forth between Nanjing and Beijing in response to the military balance with the steppe nomads,\n* Russia moving its capital from St. Petersburg back out to Moscow. \n\n",
"The Continental Congress withdrew from Philadelphia twice, first to Baltimore and then (less than a year later) from Philly to York, Pennsylvania. The first time was only due to proximity of British forces and fears of an attempt on Philadelphia; in the second case, the British actually captured the city. ",
"France moved their government from Paris to Vichy during the WWII because it was in the \"France Libre\". But it was a pro-occupant government led by the maréchal Petain that didn't last long.",
"It's been speculated that Myanmar moved its capital from Yangon to Naypyidaw in 2005 as a measure against [coastal invasion](_URL_1_) and [political demonstrations](_URL_0_).",
"France (or France libre at the time) moved their capital to Brazzaville, Republic of Congo during WWII. ",
"I have always wondered why Napoleon never marched on petersburg, anyone know?",
"China has done it so many times it's almost not worth even counting. Almost every dynasty it happened multiple times."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5caf53ef01630008d98e970d-800wi"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre#Relocation_of_the_capital"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_government_in_exile"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/world/asia/24myanmar-sub.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all",
"http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=142506821"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4wvrkv
|
Can Pauli's exclusion principle be violated?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4wvrkv/can_paulis_exclusion_principle_be_violated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6aa0a6"
],
"score": [
111
],
"text": [
"No. There are a few steps along the logical progression that lead to Pauli's principle, and they're all more or less iron-clad.\n\nFirst, if you have a wavefunction representing multiple identical particles, Ψ(x*_1_*,x*_2_*,...,x*_i_*,...,x*_j_*,...,x*_N_*), and you define the permutation operator P*_ij_* as an operator which switches particles i and j, then we have:\n\nP*_ij_*Ψ(x*_1_*,x*_2_*,...,x*_i_*,...,x*_j_*,...,x*_N_*) = Ψ(x*_1_*,x*_2_*,...,x*_j_*,...,x*_i_*,...,x*_N_*).\n\nObviously applying this operator twice must give you back the same state, because if you switch two things then immediately switch them back, nothing has changed.\n\nSo P*_ij_*^(2) = 1 (the unit operator). This implies that the eigenvalues of the permutation operator are 1 and -1. Also note that this holds for arbitrary i and j, so you can switch any two of the identical particles in your system.\n\nIf the permutation operator commutes with the Hamiltonian (as it very often does), energy eigenstates are eigenfunctions of the permutation operator, so they must come with one of the eigenvalues (1 or -1). That means that they must either be totally symmetric under exchange of any two identical particles or totally antisymmetric under exchange of any two identical particles.\n\nWe define **bosons** to be particles which have permutation eigenvalue 1 (they are symmetric under exchange) and **fermions** to be particles which have permutation eigenvalue -1 (they are antisymmetric).\n\nIf we try to write a wavefunction for two identical fermions, one in state n and one in state m, we have to make sure it's antisymmetric under exchange, so we write:\n\nΨ(x*_1_*,x*_2_*) = Ψ*_n_*(x*_1_*)Ψ*_m_*(x*_2_*) - Ψ*_n_*(x*_2_*)Ψ*_m_*(x*_1_*), ignoring spin and normalization.\n\nClearly for n = m, the two terms on the right side are the same, so when subtracted they give zero.\n\nThis is Pauli exclusion. All it says is that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, and there aren't many ways to poke holes in the ideas that led up to this.\n\nPerhaps the more interesting thing is how permutation symmetry relates to spin. If you study quantum gases of each of these kinds of particles (bosons and fermions), they have remarkably different and interesting properties, just based on the difference in permutation symmetry. The link between fermions/bosons and half-integer/integer spins comes from the [spin-statistics theorem](_URL_0_).\n\nBut anyway, no, Pauli exclusion can't be violated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://bolvan.ph.utexas.edu/~vadim/Classes/2011f/spinstat.pdf"
]
] |
||
30qdq3
|
Judas's betrayal of Jesus and Roman law
|
Why did the Romans have Judas betray Jesus? Specifically, how did that benefit the case they were building against him?
I'm likely going to get some details wrong as I'm not a student of either the Bible nor Rome.
His "betrayal with a kiss" happens when he tells the Roman guard to arrest Jesus. Were they that likely to arrest the wrong man in a scene out of Life of Brian? Jesus says "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to seize me? Day after day I sat teaching in the temple area, yet you did not arrest me."
It doesn't seem like Judas proves the case of blasphemy either. Jesus seems to state that he's the son of God prompting the high priest to say "He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy"
My guess is that it's more of a social function. Just as the Romans were afraid to arrest him during a religious festival (they said, “Not during the festival, that there may not be a riot among the people.”), having an apostle betray him might be evidence that he's not blessed if his closest followers would betray him.
It's also interesting that Judas "would be better not being born" while Peter was sanctified and apparently forgiven by Jesus despite denying he knows him three times. Though there's a far cry between falsely accusing someone for money and denying you know them to save your own skin.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30qdq3/judass_betrayal_of_jesus_and_roman_law/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpuw5c1",
"cpuwr7i"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you’ve misread some basic details in the Gospels. I recommend at least reading through Matthew 26-27 and John 18-19.\nThe accounts we have do not have Judas betraying Jesus in relation to Roman Law, but in relation to the political and religious dealings of the power-players in Jerusalem, namely the Pharisees and the Priestly groups and Sadducees. Judas arranges to lead the soldiers (probably not Roman soldiers, but armed temple guards) to intercept Jesus at a time when his arrest will not cause a commotion. \n\nThe kiss is a standard greeting but it is used to identiy and single out Jesus. While Jesus was teaching in public, not everyone would recognise him by sight. In a dimly lit garden setting, in which the possibility of a commotion might involve Jesus slipping away, the kiss might work to ‘mark’ their primary target.\n\nAs for the play between Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s, the way the narrative is constructed is designed to highlight that Judas feels remorse, and then kills himself, whereas Peter experiences repentance, and thus restoration. However you understand the historical underpinning, it is (also) a literary construct in which two responses to betraying Jesus end with radically different outcomes, which invites the reader to a figurative interpretation.\n\nTo circle around to your first question, no aspect of Roman Law requires Judas to betray Jesus. Rather, it appears to function in the early stages of Jesus arrest and trial in front of Judean authorities.\n",
"I redacted this comment, since it was meant to be an answer to a [different post](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30pyfk/what_crime_did_barabbas_commit_to_warrant_him/"
]
] |
|
1u6l7q
|
why do i sometimes hear a really high-pitched noise in one of my ears then go deaf in that ear for a minute?
|
It happens once every couple weeks and lasts anywhere from a few seconds to a couple minutes
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u6l7q/why_do_i_sometimes_hear_a_really_highpitched/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cef0fv1",
"cefe76r"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"You could have [tinnitus](_URL_0_).\n\nYou should see a doctor if you want any further information, since asking for medical advice is not allowed in this forum.",
"WebMD says you have Cancer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus"
],
[]
] |
|
3oxe2i
|
why is north korea generally not considered to be a monarchy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3oxe2i/eli5_why_is_north_korea_generally_not_considered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw1b60y"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because it's not a monarchy, it's a single-party state.\n\nBasically, the government consists of the Worker's Party of Korea, which is led by Jim Jong Un as the Secretary of the Worker's Party (and commander of the military).\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5lq6ku
|
How did early computers display characters in languages where the letters are more complicated than English-type (and languages that use the same characters)?
|
Like with [Japanese characters](_URL_0_), was it difficult to fit all the little markings of each character? Even with [English characters](_URL_2_) in very [basic fonts](_URL_1_), it seems like there is little wiggle room and that the characters had to be carefully designed (and yes I know the characters are not specific to English, I just don't know what to call it). Does anyone have any examples of how it was done it languages with more complex letters/characters?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5lq6ku/how_did_early_computers_display_characters_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dby2aqz",
"dby2lsh"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I can say a bit about how it worked for Japanese in particular. For early computers there are actually two problems: one is that, like you say, there is not really enough pixels on the screen to display legible characters. Another problem is that early computers where mainly developed in English-speaking countries, so operating systems tended to assume that each letter can be stored as a number between 0 and 127 (in 7 bits), which obviously doesn't work if there are thousands of characters.\n\nAs you may know, Japanese actually has three different scripts: kanji (chinese characters, there are thousands of them), and hiragana and katakana. There are 50 letters in each of the hiragana and katakana scripts, and they represents sounds directly. Ordinary writing uses a mixture of all three. The letters look something like this: kanji 般若波羅蜜多心経 hiragana はんにゃはらみったしんぎょう katakana ホンニャハラミッタンギョウ.\n\nSo the earliest solution was to write all computer text using only the 50 katakana characters. These fit in the 128 set that most English-language computers allowed, and with some extra complexity they used an encoding that let's you switch into a katakana mode and a English-letter mode, so the computer can display both. You can see how this works in [JIS X 0201](_URL_2_), which was standardized in 1969.\n\nAlso, normally each katakana character is roughly square, but the font support for western computers are of course designed for rectangular letters (e.g. the fonts may be 8x14 pixels). This lead to \"[half-width katakana](_URL_1_)\", where each character is squished together to fit in a rectangular box of the same size as an English letter.\n\nThis system was in use well into the 1980s for small computers (e.g. check-out machines in supermarkets). And indeed, you can still often see half-width kana on your supermarket receipts.\n\nAnother example of resource constrained systems is home microcomputers, and in particular gaming consoles like the original 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System. Here the biggest problem was that memory was expensive, so they could not afford to draw kanji fonts and include them on the cartridge. So in this case, most game text was written either in hiragana or in English, with a few kanji sprinkled in. Of course, resolution was limited too, so only simple kanjis could be legibly written. [Here is a nice blogpost](_URL_0_) which discusses how things were done, with a bunch of examples and screenshots.\n",
"The images you linked appear to be from old text-mode UIs. In this mode, the video card had a small memory where the operating system could write the bytes to be displayed. Unlike modern encodings which can use several bytes for a character (e.g. UTF-8), these were limited to one byte per character, thus being unable to display more than 256 characters at any given time. By default this was [ANSI ASCII](_URL_2_) plus the [IBM extensions](_URL_3_).\n\nNot sure exactly when the possibility to change the font was introduced, but I believe it was when color monitors appeared for PCs. The video memory was extended in such a way that it used two bytes per character, the first byte was the character itself and the second was the attributes (4 bits for the foreground color, 3 bits for the background color and one bit for blinking/fixed). This is when [more complex text-mode UIs](_URL_1_) started to be developed.\n\nA separate area of memory was used to define the font in the form of a bitmap (each character is 8x16 pixels). Programs could write to this area to redefine the font; some of them did it to make fancy UIs that [looked like graphic](_URL_4_), others did it to get internationalized characters. Note that each 8x16 slot needn't contain a readable \"character\" as we understand it in English, any monochrome picture that fits in 8x16 pixels was possible, like the lines and angles that made the windowing UI.\n\n[Here's a screenshot showing Japanese input in text mode](_URL_0_). It's using more than one character slot to display a single Japanese character, but that's perfectly possible if you redefine the font.\n\nGraphics mode is more advanced, you'd write one or more bytes in the video memory for each pixel on screen. But that's beyond your question."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/76970/76970,1170152107,4/stock-vector-hundreds-of-japanese-kanji-characters-with-translations-underneath-vector-2580121.jpg",
"http://www.amstereo.org/images/trs-80_model_iii_font.png",
"http://www2.latech.edu/~bmagee/460-560/history_of_writing/kaypro_screen.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://yachtclubgames.com/2016/07/japan-localization/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-width_kana",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIS_X_0201"
],
[
"http://bisqwit.iki.fi/src/jainput_table.png",
"https://winworldpc.com/res/img/screenshots/20-cb5d8e11ea5ade2ec05bb6c76ff7895d-Borland%20CPP%202.0%20-%20About.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII",
"http://ascii-table.com/ascii-extended-pc-list.php",
"http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/8LiTxEUxSHU/maxresdefault.jpg"
]
] |
|
3lhh5j
|
the difference between headphones
|
I'm considering looking for a new pair of headphones, and I am nowhere remotely close to an audiophile. But I do think a new pair of headphones would be nice because I've had my pair for years. Thing is, the prices confuse me when I know nothing about sound quality and the descriptions offer no help. So ELI5: How do an $80 and a $180 pair of headphones from the same brand differ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lhh5j/eli5_the_difference_between_headphones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv6c7z4"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Please for the mother of god, go to _URL_0_ and make a new post. Tell them what type of music you listen to and if you play games or not. Tell them if you like bass or not, or if you even have a preference. Explain the types of instruments that you like the sound of. Tell them your budget that you'd like to stay within. Tell them WHAT you're using to listen from. (ipod, computer, xbox, etc) Tell them if you want earbuds, ON-ear, around-ear, or whatnot. They'll hook you up.\n\nSource: audiophile. I wasted a TON of money before I found out about the world of GOOD headphones. They don't even have to cost a lot."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"head-fi.org"
]
] |
|
b2um7w
|
Does having a fast metabolic rate cause your body to generate heat faster?
|
I have a sonic fast metabolism and every night I get bad night sweats, also I am fine in the very cold but anything above 80 is much much too hot for me.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b2um7w/does_having_a_fast_metabolic_rate_cause_your_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eixwt64"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your metabolic rate is the energy you use per unit time, and as we all know energy can come in different forms, including heat. Individuals that have a slower metabolism can feel a bit colder, although not too normal, it can occur as well as vise versa. Too add on, your metabolic rate can be broken down into several of categories, which include;\n\n1. Basal metabolic rate: metabolism during sleep/deep-rest.\n2. Thermic of food: calories used when digestion occurs.\n3. Thermic of exercise: calories used during exercise.\n4. Resting metabolic rate: Metablic rate during rest to keep you alive.\n\nHowever, to answer your question, it isn't too common though, because of how vital it is for your body to maintain temperature. Your body has ways to regulate your internal temperature, and it is vital to stay alive and healthy. For example, When you exercise and many, many signals in your body occur, one specifically is the use of energy (ATP) which produces heat (muscle contraction). As a result our sympathetic pathway in our bodies kick in and we begin to sweat to cool down our body. This is just one way, there are many others.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
be71hq
|
Why was Opeartion Barbarossa so sucessful at first and how did the soviets stop it later?
|
As the title says, I would like to know why was the german offensive so successful in the first stages of opeartion barbarossa. Were the soviets not expecting an attack or was the red army simply too weak to stop them at first? What changed when they finally halted the offensive?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/be71hq/why_was_opeartion_barbarossa_so_sucessful_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"el3yk4s"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The initial success has a number of factors. For one, the Great Purge took out a huge proportion of the most senior staff- Marshalls, Corps commanders, admirals, etc. While not all were killed, and some were eventually \"rehabilitated\", this meant the initial defense against the strongest fascist push fell on an army in disarray, with commanders who were inexperienced and or terrified of taking any action without political approval. \n\nAnother issue was the border fortifications. The \"Stalin line\" was a huge system of forts and gun positions along the Western border as it stood before the molotov-ribbentrop pact. After the pact and the partition of Poland, the plan was to build a new system on the new border. The guns were mothballed, maintenance ceased, garrison troops and supplies were shuffled around, etc. But the invasion came in before the new fortifications were in any way ready. So instead of one or both defensive lines being ready, 0 were.\n\nThird, logistics were a hot mess. The equipment of the red army was in a transition period, with a vast number of outdated tanks, small arms and cannons being phased out in favor of new ones. When the invasion came, units might find themselves with their old equipment, but no ammo or fuel because they were supposed to be replaced with the new stuff. Or they had hundreds of brand-new KV and T-34 tanks, but the shells for the main guns were still thousands of miles behind the front in a supply depot somewhere. There are numerous isolated incidents of these new tanks absolutely dunking on the fascists when they could be brought into action (_URL_0_), but this was a battle of millions, and the majority of the new tanks were idle or squandered.\n\nAs for why it failed.. Well. The short version is that the wehrmacht didn't have enough fuel, equipment, men, transportation or food for a multi-axis attack with supply chains that were thousands of miles long. It's nearly 2,000km from Berlin to Moscow. It'd be quite a feat to get a few million men there in peacetime. They didn't have the equipment because they didn't have the resources or the workers. They didn't have the soldiers because they'd already called everyone up. So when Nazi officials said it would be a short campaign and the soviets would collapse in a month or two, that was part hope, and part necessity. Because if anything *other* than a crushing victory before winter 1941 happened, Nazi Germany was doomed. They'd spent 8 years robbing Peter to pay Paul, meaning they lurched from one crisis to another. Hitler's plans from 1938 on were basically \"step one- invade. Step 2-??? Step 3- everyone surrenders and the thousand-year-Reich prospers.\" Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of the world, the bill came due.\n\n\n\nSources:\n\n\"Russia's War: a history of the soviet effort\", Richard Overy\n\n\"The Wages of Destruction\", Adam Tooze"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/battle-of-raseiniai.html?m=1"
]
] |
|
o6ijx
|
Who was the first monarch?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o6ijx/who_was_the_first_monarch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3eru2v"
],
"score": [
41
],
"text": [
"The oldest monarch almost certainly lived in ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt.\n\nThe oldest datable monarch that we can be certain existed historically is currently [Lugalzagesi of Umma](_URL_2_) (2341-2316 BCE) who was the first city-ruler of an ancient Sumerian city to rule as hegemon over all the others. Although \"kings\" before him tried to accomplish this, they failed to do so, and these previous rulers were essentially just the mayors of individual cities. Lugalzagesi was later captured by, the much more famous, [Sargon of Akkad]( _URL_0_) (2334-2279 BCE).\n\nWe know the names of many of these earlier \"city-rulers\" but as one moves further back in time they and their descriptions become increasingly mythological and absurd. In any case, the earliest such \"city-rulers\" may or may not have high priests of the city's patron deity, and the office probably corresponded with the rise of genuine cities in the mid-fourth millennium BCE (~3500). This was all in Mesopotamia.\n\nEgypt probably had \"monarchs\" sooner than Mesopotamia because they mostly skipped the \"city-ruler\" phase and jumped into a territorial state faster. The problem with Egypt is that the dates for these early kings are really messed up. We're fairly confident that even the earliest kings existed, but trying to ascertain exactly when is most unpleasant. For your purposes, the first ruler of unified Egypt is the guy you want, but the problem is that we aren't sure who he is exactly. He has typically been thought to be Menes, but he could also be Narmer, (Hor-)Aha, or the Scorpion King. Whoever it is, he is buried in one of the monumental tombs at [Abydos](_URL_4_) and probably lived around 3000 BCE.\n\nAll of this ignores the long tradition in Egyptian and Mesopotamian (and Biblical!) literature that describes many individuals and kings said to have lived in the hoary mists of ultra antiquity, but most archaeological and accompanying research has revealed most of the early parts of these works to be entirely artificial, composed in much later periods, and often for transparently obvious political reasons.\n\nCheck out the [Sumerian King List](_URL_1_) and the [List of Pharaohs](_URL_3_) for many more named kings, but take the details with a grain of salt. For various reasons, Wikipedia is typically 25 years behind contemporary research into Ancient History.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugal-zage-si",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abydos,_Egypt"
]
] |
||
7xp7qa
|
what would happen if we didn't remove the air bubble from syringes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7xp7qa/eli5_what_would_happen_if_we_didnt_remove_the_air/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dua3ct8",
"dua4nz3",
"duaa61v",
"duadald",
"duak10x",
"duanv5o",
"dubslex"
],
"score": [
145,
32,
8,
3,
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The main risk with leaving an air bubble in a syringe is inaccurate dosing. With the syringe partly full of air, the amount of liquid won't be accurate to the markings on the syringe.\n\nGetting air into a vein isn't a significant hazard unless it's a huge amount - like a whole drip tube full or someone squeezes a drip bag in, including the large air bubble. \n\nThe air will circulate in the veins and reach the lungs where it will lodge and get removed in a few minutes. The lungs will filter out the air so it can't travel to the brain except where there is also a \"hole in the heart\". ",
"A small amount of air in an IV will not hurt you. We were taught in school it would take at least 10mL of air injected at once to possibly kill someone. \n\nThey have a test called a “bubble study”, it can”identify potential blood flow issues inside your heart. For the bubble study, you will get an intravenous (IV) line in a vein in your arm. A saltwater solution called saline is mixed with a small amount of air to create tiny bubbles and then injected into your vein”, Harvard University. ",
"The heart is fundamentally a pump, if you were pumping water out of a ditch and air got mix into the pump with water, the sudden changes in fluid medium (type) would cause various pressure and flow changes that could potentially damage the pump. I guess that's a layman's way of looking at it haha. ",
"It feels incredibly weird going into your vein then dissolves into your blood. You could shoot an entire 100 unit syringe of air into a vein and be fine. ",
"One thing not mentioned yet is that at least 1 in 10 people have a hole in their heart (patent foramen ovale). If air goes into the right side of the of the heart in people who have this or any other hole in the heart the air can travel to two important organs with life threatening consequences, the brain or coronary artery. ",
"It's unpleasant and causes hydraulic issues with the heart and arteries. It can also lead to clotting just like blood exposed to air. \n\nEver hear about a mechanic complain of air in the brake line? Same concept, air compresses and most liquids do not, it affects hydraulic flow and can cause foaming. \n\nImagine a bottle of liquid hand soap that has no air in it, like a brand new bottle. Shake it up and what happens? Nothing. Now do the same with an air bubble in it, and you end up with foam that takes a long time to dissipate. The heart doesn't like foam and neither do the VERY narrow capillaries all over the body. ",
"Nothing would happen. It takes around 50 mL of gas to be injected into a vein very rapidly for it to cause serious problems like an air embolism. \n\nAs a nurse, I've routinely pumped around 1mL of bubbles into a patient's vein very quickly during a \"bubble study.\" \n\nAnd unless you're using a 1mL insulin syringe, a small bubble in the barrel of a syringe isn't going to mess up your doses all that much. Even a small bubble in a 3mL syringe isn't going to make that much of a difference.\n\nSo for the most part, nurses who thump syringes to get rid of bubbles are doing it because they've seen it done on TV or on the floor and are just imitating what they've seen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3yl1uh
|
in the united states why is it legal for me to home brew beer but illegal for me to distill spirits?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yl1uh/eli5_in_the_united_states_why_is_it_legal_for_me/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyebxa3",
"cyedgbe",
"cyedgvh",
"cyedtyc",
"cyejyae"
],
"score": [
38,
15,
9,
20,
5
],
"text": [
"Chances of adult soda go boom not very high. Chances adult spirits go boom much, much higher",
"Search turns up a few prior discussions, including one long one: _URL_0_\n\nQuick answer: Taxes. The federal tax on distilled spirits is much higher than on beer or wine.",
"From what I understand, federal taxes are required to paid on ALL distilled spirits produced in the US. ",
"A leftover from prohibition. The government doesn't want to change it as they would loose out on tax money. Can be dangerous but more people are hurt by deep frying turkeys every year. Let me make that choice myself. Make me pass a safety test. Legalizing homebrewing it has launched a 4 billion dollar craft beer industry. \n\nCall your congressman to support H.R.2903 \n_URL_0_\n",
"It's simple, hard alcohol tax is much higher than beer tax. Also, it doesn't hurt that President Carter liked to brew beer"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=legal+brew&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all"
],
[],
[
"https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2903/related-bills"
],
[]
] |
||
ecjcth
|
how did studios able to upgrade old mv to 4k on youtube (especially last christmas by wham)?
|
How difficult is the conversion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ecjcth/eli5_how_did_studios_able_to_upgrade_old_mv_to_4k/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbbrjha"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Actual 35mm has a expected resolution of approximately 4K so it's just a matter of doing a new transfer from the film to digital media. So there's really not a whole lot involved it's just a matter of scanning the film in at the higher resolution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3i7hdp
|
what is going on with the hugo awards
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i7hdp/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_the_hugo_awards/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cudxi69",
"cudxnak",
"cudxux5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This was asked previously at _URL_0_.\n\nI thought the article relatively straightforward, but I was already familiar with the basic Hugo process. Perhaps if you started a new thread asking specifically about what in the article is confusing. Otherwise, between the previous thread and that article, I don't know what to make simpler. ",
"Many conservative authors believe there is an effort to exclude them from the Hugos so started a pair of voting slates to increase nominations or force exclusionary forces to vote for no award (which is allowed in Hugo voting). The conservative slates were both wildly successful in nominations, and there were many awards that were not awarded. \n\nIt's highly likely this will continue next year (rules changes take a while to go into effect), though the rules have changed for 2017. \n\nTo read [commentary](_URL_0_) that's more favorable to the other side, try this (both are biased, but you might be able to get more of the story by reading through both biases). ",
"Some of us like our SF and fantasy WITHOUT tedious political and social commentary. Some moderately effective but shortsighted people attempted to enforce that view on what is supposed to be a cosmopolitan award ceremony, and were soundly rebuffed by the remainder of the voters in what became basically a nullification of the whole event.\n\nGRRM staged a minor coup and held his own awards ceremony."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i3p61/eli5_whats_the_big_controversy_with_the_hugo/"
],
[
"http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/08/23/burning-down-the-field-in-order-to-save-it/"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.