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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2bq4u6
|
is asthma curable? beacuse it has happened 8 years since i had an asthma attack
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bq4u6/eli5is_asthma_curable_beacuse_it_has_happened_8/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj7sqza"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Many people grow out of their asthma as they get older. I used to have severe asthma when I was younger, and had to be hospitalized on occasion. However, between ages 15-20 my asthma cleared up dramatically. I still carry an inhaler, but haven't used it in years. I only carry it because it feels disconcerting to not have it in my pocket after suffering through a childhood of asthma attacks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4gs3jo
|
Why did India end up with Christian-majority regions in the country's east, as opposed to much sparser representation in the rest of the country?
|
I was previously under the impression that India's Christian population was relatively evenly distributed, with a more urban than rural presence but largely geographically proportionate. However, there are three Christian-majority states in the east, Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya.
Of course, vast majority of India's Christians are elsewhere. However, I am interested if there is a historical reason(s) for the representation of the religion in the east.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4gs3jo/why_did_india_end_up_with_christianmajority/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2k95qy"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Also add Arunachal and Upper Assam, which while not necessarily a Christian majority, are certainly significantly Christian and growing.\n\nThe short answer is that Baptist missionaries spread throughout the region. The Nagas are predominantly Baptist, and NCSN, the major separatist/terrorist/whatever organisation is foundationally Baptist.\n\nThis actually goes back to the 19th century with a now-famous missionary named Edwin Clark. He and his wife are now household names among Naga-populated areas (I actually stayed at a house once where the homeowners had a mug showing their faces and dates of their mission work).\n\nThen in addition to this, you have a large population moving across the Patkai mountain ranges into India from Myanmar, people who were converted earlier and brought with them their Christian faith.\n\nAlso, Wikipedia says this about Clark:\n\n > Although Clark succeeded in converting the Nagas, today the entire Naga community are just name sake Christians and practise their animistic rituals with a little bit of Christianity thrown in.^[citation needed]\n\nBut that's not true. The Christians in the region tend to be devout bordering on fundamentalist, the missionaries are credited to this day with ending human sacrifice and head-hunting (though that happened more slowly), and in fact the decrease in local cultural traditions is so widely acknowledged that a Hindu-backed \"local\" religion called [Rangfra](_URL_0_) has been developed in a specific subset of Nagas as a means to preserve or bring back local practices, or at least that's the narrative.\n\nSo that's the short answer. Prior to the 1860s people practiced local indigenous religions, and then Christian missionaries moved in and convinced a huge number of people to convert."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://vkvapt.org/kharsang-latest-news/279-kharsang-rangfra-day.html"
]
] |
|
654euc
|
why is read spelt the same as read
|
I mean the two tenses if you don't understand. I'm asking because i always read the past tense read as the present tense read
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/654euc/eli5_why_is_read_spelt_the_same_as_read/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg7ecxs",
"dg7ojmj"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"First of all, the verb *to read* isn't unusual in changing its vowel sound to indicate the past tense. There are lots of verbs that don't follow the usual *add -ed* rule of showing past tense. For instance:\n\n* *lead* ~ *led*\n* *feed* ~ *fed*\n* *meet* ~ *met*\n\nHowever, all of these are spelled differently to indicate the change of vowel sound. So why isn't it *red* for the past tense? Well, I'm afraid nobody knows for sure. English has a lot of weird spelling conventions (why does *bough* rhyme with *cow* and not *dough*?) due to inconsistent standardisation and the Great Vowel Shift, where lots of vowels suddenly changed how they were pronounced. One possible explanation is to avoid confusion with *red*, the colour, which is a very commonly used word.\n\nI hate leaving an incomplete answer, but the folks over at [/r/etymology](_URL_0_) may be able to fill in some gaps.",
"/u/violettaxe might be interested to know that the modern verb \"read\" was in Middle English (before Shakespeare's time) \"reden\", with the past tense form \"redde\" and the past participle \"red\". The form \"reden\" would have had a long vowel, the other two a short vowel.\n\nIt's not likely it was respelled to avoid confusion with \"red\": it's difficult to think of a sentence where confusion between a verb and an adjective would be even possible, much less critical; confusion between a present tense form and a past tense form is much more likely, so a deliberate respelling to avoid a merely theoretical confusion would have the effect of creating a very real confusion.\n\nYou would never get confused between \"They **lead** by example\" and \"It went down like a **lead** balloon.\" But a sentence like \"We read it\" is ambiguous.\n\nI think two things are happening at the same time. The Great Vowel Shift can help to explain the present tense form: the long vowel in \"reden\" was later written as \"ea\", but later merged with the slightly different vowel \"ee\" before that sound changed to its modern form.\n\nFor the past participle, there's an interesting fact: it seems that \"rad\" was also an acceptable spelling. That suggests to me that those two forms correspond to two groups of dialects. So I'm going to hazard a guess that the spelling \"read\" represents an attempt to represent both pronunciations. Since then, the \"rad\" pronunciation has died out, but the spelling remains."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://reddit.com/r/etymology"
],
[]
] |
|
1nolmo
|
what does increasing "contrast" on a tv or computer screen actually do?
|
I mean, it has to do something with black and white, but what exactly? How does it work?
Thanks! :)
< 3
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nolmo/eli5_what_does_increasing_contrast_on_a_tv_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cckier7",
"cckiko4",
"cckllx2"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"In the context of video displays, contrast refers to the difference between the faintest and the brightest pixel displayed. Adjusting the contrast control will usually adjust the signal amplification multiplier. The incoming video signal will indicate how intense each pixel should be. This might result in a range of 0-10 brightness for each pixel. If you adjust your contrast up, this might double each value, making your new range 0-20 and if something came in as an 8, your display might bump it up to a 16.",
"Increasing the contrast makes the blacks darker, and the whites lighter. Simple as that.",
"Everyone's pretty much covered it, it adjusts the difference between lights and darks, but [here is a nice picture illustrating it](_URL_0_). Notice how much \"flatter\" the left image looks than the right, whereas the right one the dark areas are much more pronounced and the light areas even lighter. \n\nTVs and monitors don't really do this, but overdoing it results in images that look like [this picture of what I can only assume is Jesus in his \"selfie phase\"](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Bmr0zvE.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/jyazUAj.jpg"
]
] |
|
348x93
|
why does the giant red spot on jupiter keep on going? if it's a storm why hasn't it just blown its self out/dispersed over time? how long will it last before it does go?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/348x93/eli5_why_does_the_giant_red_spot_on_jupiter_keep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqsdm9u",
"cqsees6",
"cqsef40",
"cqsernm",
"cqsfbee",
"cqsfd5e",
"cqsfuz5",
"cqsgafc",
"cqshdg8",
"cqsib1f",
"cqsj7nf",
"cqsk1mp",
"cqskr62",
"cqslaag",
"cqslfkv",
"cqsll3m",
"cqsm23a",
"cqsowh5",
"cqssm7a",
"cqsw7ph",
"cqsx39p",
"cqsxuzh",
"cqsyz4o",
"cqt1szw"
],
"score": [
6,
3279,
476,
94,
306,
117,
21,
2,
8,
13,
4,
2,
12,
6,
3,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
7,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Experimental models have shown that the red spot is an extremely powerful storm, but also completely stable. Its hypothesized that it will never go away, and is a permanent feature of the planet. ",
"The Hubble observations indicate that the GRS is getting smaller by 580 miles per year along its major axis and its shape is changing from an oval to a circle. At the current rate, the storm is expected to become circular in four years. The vortex could completely disappear or grow larger, since the fate of such storms (even storms on Earth) is difficult to model and predict precisely due to their complexity. (Looked that up on Hubble's website) ",
"My professor actually explained last week something that the system of winds in Jupiter will keep the storm going as there are no physical features to interrupt it.",
"The red spot appeared soon after humans used telescopes to look at jupiter. [now, it is shrinking.]( _URL_0_). \nJust a big storm on a big planet.",
"Here is an article that talks about this question. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n**What has kept it going?**\n\nThe average velocities going around the spot are about a couple of hundred miles an hour. And the jet streams are also on the order of a couple of hundred miles per hour. But the estimates of the vertical velocities are really, really small. They’re in the order of inches per hour, not hundreds of miles per hour, and because of that, they’ve largely been considered unimportant. But the vertical winds happen over a large area and they happen continually, and therefore we think they can be very important. We think that what’s trying to destroy the Great Red Spot is the heat that is being transferred into the cool top and out of the warm bottom, that is trying to restore radiative equilibrium. But we think what makes the Great Red Spot stay alive despite this radiative heat transfer is this small vertical velocity.\n\nThere’s a rule of thumb that as winds descend, they become warm, but as they rise, they become cold. Thermal radiation with photons inside the Great Red Spot tries to equilibrate the temperature of its lid and floor with the surrounding atmosphere. This would tend to make the cold, dense lid hotter and it would eventually disappear, destroying the Great Red Spot.\n\nBut as the heavy lid starts to dissipate, pressure balance is lost. The loss of balance then allows the high pressure at the center of the Great Red Spot to push gases vertically outward through the weakened lid. As the wind rises up, it cools off, due to our rule of thumb, and resupplies cold air to the lid, re-establishing it as a cool, heavy lid. A similar process happens to the floor of the Great Red Spot and in turn re-establishes the warm floor at the bottom that thermal radiation is trying to destroy.\n\nPlus, the upward moving gas that passes through the dissipating lid goes outside of the Great Red Spot, eventually stops rising, and is pushed outward horizontally over an area that is very big compared to the area of the Great Red Spot. It then stops moving outward and descends. That descending gas pushes the atoms and molecules of the atmosphere that surrounds the Great Red Spot downward, greatly lowering their potential energy. Finally the gas completes its journey by returning home to the center of the Great Red Spot. On its final return trip home, that gas harvests the potential energy that was liberated from the atmosphere that surrounds the Red Spot.\n\nThe harvest of that energy is what balances the loss of the Great Red Spot’s energy from thermal radiation. In a computer simulation, you can actually measure the direction and magnitude of all the energies that go in and out of the Great Red Spot, and the whole energy budget balances very nicely. You’ve got this great drain of potential energy in the atmosphere in the area surrounding the Great Red Spot due to this circulation of gas, but it’s OK because the sun re-establishes radiative equilibrium in that surrounding area and re-supplies its energy. So, ultimately, the source of energy that prevents the Great Red Spot from being destroyed is the sun.",
"Shear stress in the atmosphere from the rapid rotation of the planet. It's like a giant version of the eddies you see in the water when you are rowing a boat.\n\nEach of the bands on Jupiter is a strip of atmosphere moving really fast, [about 28,000mph at the cloud tops](_URL_2_). At different latitudes these [bands of atmosphere move at different speeds in different directions](_URL_1_) and the shear stresses at the boundaries are enormous. Most of the time it's (very) roughly laminar flow, but there are enough imperfections (those giant billowing white structures you see in some of the [zones and bands](_URL_0_)) in the flow that periodically an eddy forms. If it gets large enough the moving bands of atmosphere will perpetuate it, keeping it rolling like a marble between your hands. That's essentially what the Great Red Spot is.\n\nThe Earth has similar atmospheric banding called [Hadley Cells](_URL_3_) but we have only 3 north and 3 south of the equator with relatively mild winds. The airflow in the Hadley Cells is, in part, what determines which regions of the earth will be wet or dry. Venus, by comparison to either Jupiter or the Earth, has only one of these atmospheric bands on either side of the equator as Venus has a low rotation speed, thick atmosphere, and relatively low wind speeds.\n\nOn Jupiter, most of the force for the banding and the storms comes of the extremely rapid rotation (9.9 hours for a full rotation compared with 24 hours on the Earth) of the planet.",
"TL;DR Because there is nothing to stop it. \n\nOn earth, hurricanes form and can exist over the ocean, once they hit land they quickly disperse. This is because of drag from the surface; as the wind push against the solid ground it looses some of it's energy. With harder ground come more resistance which saps more of the storm's energy. Since water is far more fluid than earth (duh) there is much less resistance so storms can grow larger and last longer. This is why tornadoes can never get as big as hurricanes or last as long. Jupiter, unlike Earth, may not even have a surface. It's around thirty vertical miles of clouds and then a lot more metallic hydrogen made liquid by the massive pressure. It's possible Jupiter might not even have a solid core. Since there is little to no surface to cause drag and slow down the storm, it just keeps on going.",
"So as if in the movie, Interstellar, is it possible that the gravitational pull on Jupiter is that much slower than our perception of time that it is in fact an average-timed storm? ;)",
"Scientists aren't sure, but in recent years it has been observed to be shrinking. At the same time, other large storms have formed nearby. There is the possibility that they will merge, which suggests the possibility that this is how the GRS formed in the first place... none of which is certainty.",
"There are some great answers here regarding Jupiter. Let me give a little context for earth though.\n\nBig storms like this, both on earth, and (it would appear) on Jupiter, are driven by convection. Air is warmed in lower levels of the atmosphere, rises, and begins to rotate due to the Coriolis Effect.\n\nOn earth, these big storms are called hurricanes (or typhoons), and they are the product of heat generated by the sun striking the earth's surface. This heat source is fickle, though. It's dependent on the angle of the sun, the surface the storm is over, and the weather in the days before the storm (clouds block heat from reaching the surface).\n\nThis means that storms tend to be short lived, surviving so long as they're in a fairly uniform environment, and weakening once their environment changes. We see this when hurricanes make landfall, but it can also happen when storms are moving so slowly that they start to choke off their own energy source by cooling the atmosphere around them with rain, and shade from their clouds.\n\nOn Jupiter, at least as far as I understand it, the heat source is primarily heat generated by the enormous pressure in Jupiter's atmosphere, as it's much further from the sun. This is not so fickle an energy source, and the storm never makes 'landfall', there's no land, which would disrupt it's normal convective currents.\n\nAs such, it's likely that the storm is actually changing due to broader changes in the global weather pattern, rather than because it's dying in the typical earth-like fashion, due to a change in its local environment that cuts off the energy supply.\n\n**EDIT:** Stupid apostrophe's. Why your so hard?",
"That storm is freakishly big(two earths IIRC) so it takes a long time to dissipate. Add the environment of Jupiter to that and you have your answer. It has changed color, disappeared and reappeared multiple times in the past. ",
"Is it possible to physically land on jupiter?",
"You might be familiar with a certain perpetual whirlpool here on earth in the north pacific. You probably remember it from history where navigators used it to go back and forth to America. It's powered by the sun and will likely continue doing what its doing well after you're gone. I suspect the storm on Jupiter is like that, a solar powered swirl, and works like the one on earth, where one area is heated and expands and another is cooler so you end up with current. As others have said, if Jupiter has a solid surface, its under an ocean of liquids and so a storm can spin unimpeded.",
"Two jets streams flowing in opposite directions is one thing thing that is accounting for it. Current theories based on how vortices work Earth say that it should ended a while ago. Newer 3D models are trying to replicate the GRS, but don't account for the sphericity of Jupiter, and compressibility factors. \n\nSource:\n_URL_0_ \n\nAlso i am a aerospace engineering student ",
"The storm is an antibaric low pressure system. The only system like this that has been observed in the universe is on Jupiter.",
"Is it possible it just absorbed a huge comet sometime in \"recent\" history, which created that?",
"[i'm just going to place this here](_URL_0_) there we go, enjoy. Thats a good one. A little outdated, but good",
"Saw on a science show years back that an equivalent storm on earth would be the size of Florida and have 300+MPH wind.",
"It's worth noting that the storm is not eternal. It's been around for as long as we've had a telescope, and it'll probably be around for quite some time, but it may very well have formed around just a hundred or so years before the invention of the telescope. And it could very easily dissipate and never return.\n\nIn the grand, cosmic timescale of our solar system's history, the GRS might just be a blip on the radar.",
"As ELI5 as I can make it, the reason weather is as weird on Earth as it is is because we have mountains and canyons and oceans. Things that break up wind flow and redirect storms. I live in an area where wind should not exist but because of a small pass in the mountains(Cajon Pass), we can get 60 mph winds. \n\nJupiter has no mountains. It is made of mainly gas (that becomes liquid then solid gradually because of pressure) and there are no obstructions. That means winds can flow as fast and as long as possible because there's nothing to change their path. That's why we see the bands on the gas giants. They're the path of wind. \n\nThe Red Spot is interesting. It is a hurricane that formed on Jupiter. If you know anything about hurricanes on Earth, they can go for a long time over ocean, but dissipate really quickly on land. Because Jupiter is practically a giant ocean(albeit liquid Hydrogen and Helium) the storm goes on. And goes on. And goes on.",
"The short answer is, because it's extremely huge, and huge things take longer to do almost anything compared to smaller examples of the same thing.\n\nAn elephant takes longer strides than a mouse, but if you only count how fast they can move their legs in the same time, the mouse far outpaces the much bigger animal. By the time the mouse has moved its legs many times, the elephant takes only one step.\n\nIn the same way, comparatively sized storms on our planet -- hurricanes/typhoons -- burn out in a matter of weeks. But the Great Red Spot on Jupiter's face is 2-3 Earths across -- *many* times the size of the biggest storms ever seen on our planet, and in fact several times the size of our *entire* planet. It will take a lot longer for that storm to burn out than any storm here, because there's just so much more matter and energy involved in it.\n\nMore, Jupiter has no surface features to impede any storms. The entire planet is one giant ocean of (mostly) hydrogen. (And yes, if it was a lot bigger, it would be a star: At an estimated 13 jovian masses, the same structure would be a brown dwarf.) So storms can rage there as long as there's energy to feed them and the immediate region remains unstable; which can be a very long time.\n\nThe Spot was first noted in 1635, and is expected to persist indefinitely. It may be a more or less permanent feature of the planet's equatorial wind patterns.\n",
"A lot of people are answering in the most physical terms, but there's been a lot of theoretical research on this in chaos theory. Have to go to work now but [this article](_URL_0_) seems like a friendly overview of how chaos theorists see it. IIRC a model has actually been independently programmed that shows a spot of isolation persisting in a sea of turbulence on a virtual planet using a simple system of equations that generate chaotic behavior.\n\nTL;DR: It's not just about the explicit physics, it's about the mathematical nature of turbulence and chaos!",
"Man it's cool to think that there is a storm goin on over there... No one is there but it's still going on, you know? I just think thats awesome.",
"Not sure how reputable this guy is in all honesty, but it is neat to think about..\nNassim Haramein made a documentary called \"Black Whole,\" where he made a claim that the latitude of the storm on Jupiter (largest storm in the solar system), correlated with the latitudes of Olympus Mons (largest volcano in the solar system), Hawaii (Earth's oldest active chain of volcano's). Interestingly, all are at roughly 22°, give or take a degree.\n\nCoincidence or not? You decide!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/15may_grs/"
],
[
"http://nautil.us/issue/22/slow/jupiter-is-a-garden-of-storms"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter#Zones.2C_belts_and_jets",
"http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/jupiter/atmosphere.html",
"http://www.psi.edu/epo/visualizations/jupiter.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.space.com/23708-jupiter-great-red-spot-longevity.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1tIS-S-Mqw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/12/science/jupiter-s-baffling-red-spot-loses-some-of-its-mystery.html?pagewanted=1"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2jm1la
|
How distantly (genetically speaking) are we related to the mitochondria in our cells?
|
I know technically our mitochondrial DNA is our DNA. But if we were to look at our Nucleus and mitochondria as two different species how distantly related would we say they are? Additionally same question for plants and their chloroplasts.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jm1la/how_distantly_genetically_speaking_are_we_related/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cld8tly",
"cldoq39"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"There's been a lot of translocation events, and a lot of mitochondrial genes are not within \"our genome,\" rather than remaining on mitochondrial plasmid DNA. Mitochondria were (most likely) single cell organisms (prokaryotes) that were endocytosed and remained viable inside old old old eukaryotic cells (endosymbiosis). In that sense, we are very very very \"far away\" on the phylogenetic tree---but we've gotten together and swapped DNA. ;)",
"The genes found in the DNA of our mitochondria are much more closely related to the ancestral prokaryote from which mitochondria are derived than they are to our own genes. However of the estimated 2000-5000 proteins found in mitochondria only 16 are actually coded for by the mitochondrial genome. The rest are coded for by our nuclear genome.\n\nSo if you compare the mitochondrial GENOME to our nuclear one you will see we are evolutionarily distant relatives. If you look at the mitochondrial PROTEOME you will see much greater mitochondrial overlap."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33jbi9
|
how is the age of a wild animal determined?
|
I was just reading a news article from a year ago, in which they found a 103 year old orca whale. It led me to wondering how they knew that this orca was 103 years old!
If anyone is interested, here is the article: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33jbi9/eli5_how_is_the_age_of_a_wild_animal_determined/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqlo3ki"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are many ways to tell the age of an animal, usually it is done via dentition. However, in the case of Orcas and other marine mammals the only real way is through large photo databanks. Photos of the orcas, especially their dorsal fins can tell you exactly who is who based on the size, shape, colouration, and scars. \"Granny\" the 103 year old Orca was probably placed into a databank long ago, and her features noted. Every once and a while very old orcas are spotted. Now that we have much more comprehensive [photo] databanks we will be able to learn more about the longevity of marine mammals over the coming decades."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.thedodo.com/recently-spotted-103-year-old--547381307.html"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
a47072
|
How Long does it take after division for a cell to become fully operational?
|
After meiosis, is there a time period that the cells remains inactive and prepares for its function? Or does the cell immediately begin to function right when division is done.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a47072/how_long_does_it_take_after_division_for_a_cell/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebgiyp9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's different for different cells. And likewise depends on the function. For some white blood cells, they have to actually divide multiple times and then actually start making protein (several hours) before they're considered active. Alternatively, cells in a developing embryo don't wait any time at all since theyre main job is to divide. There's almost no G1 or G2, just S and mitosis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
exn5o
|
Best books and videos to help understand/slightly dumb down quantum mechanics?
|
I just finished reading Hawking's The Grand Design, and now I'm on Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos (Chapter 4). While both have been incredibly interesting and I feel like I'm getting a decent grasp on a lot of these concepts, I'm looking for some good books and videos to cross reference.
I do really well learning visually, so I think an ideal combination would be something like: Wikipedia, some good youtube videos, and some books designed for the lay person.
Thanks :)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/exn5o/best_books_and_videos_to_help_understandslightly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1bqfod"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It's hard to dumb down quantum mechanics, because without the mathematics it's just nonsense and witchcraft. Depending on your background, I'd recommend a second year modern physics textbook, which are generally called \"Modern Physics.\" Unfortunately these mostly cover semi-classical quantum mechanics, so you miss the fun stuff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jevq6
|
What taste receptor(s) is/are involved in the 'burnt' taste, and how are they activated?
|
As a follow-up to [this post](_URL_0_), which has some good information but not quite to the depth of my curiosity.
I know that ion channels and receptor proteins are responsible for the standard tastes (bitter, salty, sour, sweet, umami), but I'm wondering if something like this is also going on with the taste of burnt food. Do denatured proteins fit into a distinctive mix of bitter/sour receptors? Does the product of burning hydrocarbons have some effect on ion channel activation? Please get as molecular as possible in your answers.
Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jevq6/what_taste_receptors_isare_involved_in_the_burnt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2bj7ik",
"c2bj7ko",
"c2bj7ik",
"c2bj7ko"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know but I'd wager that if anyone knows, somebody or another working here could point you in the right direction: _URL_0_",
"A large component of taste is smell, which is why things taste weird when you're contested. The taste of burnt food is due to various compounds in the food binding to the scent receptors in your nose.",
"I don't know but I'd wager that if anyone knows, somebody or another working here could point you in the right direction: _URL_0_",
"A large component of taste is smell, which is why things taste weird when you're contested. The taste of burnt food is due to various compounds in the food binding to the scent receptors in your nose."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ha9qy/on_the_molecular_level_why_does_food_look_and/"
] |
[
[
"http://www.monell.org/contact_us"
],
[],
[
"http://www.monell.org/contact_us"
],
[]
] |
|
ajgdp2
|
how come older video games have fewer glitches
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ajgdp2/eli5_how_come_older_video_games_have_fewer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eevaj69",
"eevanog",
"eevareo",
"eevb6bb",
"eevfk9w",
"eevh4bv",
"eevluon",
"eevtbba",
"eevzeux"
],
"score": [
43,
3,
11,
4,
2,
22,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Part of it was that older video games were simpler, and thus had less opportunity for glitches to arise. Part of it was that older video games were a lot stricter on finding glitches, since you couldn't just fix it later with a patch. Once the game was released, that was it. It was done. While modern games still try to fix glitches before the game is released, they are a bit more relaxed because they know they can fix it later. ",
"Old video games took exponentially less lines of code. The difference between a 2d nes game and dynamically rending 3 dimensional hit boxes in an online multiplayer is just staggering orders of magnitudes.\n\nSo even if they made only 1/10 of the errors they did back in the day, it's still many more errors just because of how much more modern games are doing",
"Older video games didn't have the ability to be patched post launch, so what they shipped was what people got. Kind of why a lot of glitches have become infamous. If a game now has a glitch, the developers will just fix it.",
"Much simpler code is a big one. I think Doom 3, from the early 2000s, has something like over 100k lines of code. Super Mario World likely has absolutely nowhere near that. And I can just imagine how big AAA title code bases are these days.\n\nAnother thing is, when it came out, that's it. No patches (unless you were on PC then you might be able to send in for a patch on floppy or something). So it had to be right the first time around unless you wanted to spend an absolute ton of money recalling all those cartridges and discs and sending Everyone a fixed copy. That would cost them crazy amounts of money, millions at least.\n\nFinally, since update patches are so easy to send out these days, Some companies just don't *care.* Lots of big bugs in your software but the holiday season is starting? Ship it now, we'll fix it later, rather than postponing release like the old days.",
"The average SNES game was about 1-4 Megabytes of code and assets. The average PS4 game is 30-60 Gigabytes. Around 20,000 times as large. \nWhich one do you think is going to be the most difficult to debug? ",
"If you watch speedrunners of older games, you'll learn very quickly that older games have just as many glitches. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nWe just didn't have the internet at the time to hash them out as quickly. If you look at Mario Bros speedrun, they us a good number of glitches. And a lot of speedruns need a glitchless category because the actual glitches make the speedrun no fun to watch. ",
"Newer games are just more code. The more code, the more bugs in the code.\n\nThe number of bug per line of code even tends to go up as the size of the program increase, as interactions between different systems in the games becomes a lot more complex. \n\nI just checked [Doom3's code](_URL_0_), it's 363297 lines of code. From my experience, a modern AAA game is about 25-60 times more code. \n",
"Pokémon Red/Blue is old and really glitchy! I saw some guy exploit a glitch he found so much, to the extent he could execute arbitrary code he wrote within the game!",
"They shipped a completed product that was fully tested to the best of their abilities and carefully and meticulously reviewed in house before sending out to customers because the practice was at the time that you needed to sell a quality good so that your company didn’t collapse. Now you have addicts and people chasing new fixes because the quality of content has fallen and the only lures are hyped up gambling mechanics designed to lure out the addictive personality traits in people and generally children. Once in a while though a quality game is made which restores some hope in the disenfranchised players who have started to lose interest."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3-BFG"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
4pu4it
|
We have lots of evidence of source of the *Bible*, do we have any evidence for sources of the *Iliad* or the *Odyssey*?
|
There is internal and external evidence that the *Bible* comes from other sources. Whether the repetitions (Moses and the rock) or known other versions (Noah story). Do we have anything similar for either of Homer's epics. I know we have evidence that something Troy like existed and there were probably some sort of wars. But I was thinking even more about all those Odysseus stories, the Sirens and Cyclops and Circe and the pigs. These seems like they could have been independent stories that were pulled together.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4pu4it/we_have_lots_of_evidence_of_source_of_the_bible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4q1pb9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is strong evidence that parts of Homer's works are much older than their attributed date, and that components are part of a larger Indo-European epic tradition.\n\nOne great starting point is a Bryn Mawr symposium volume, *Troy and the Trojan War*. It's available in its entirety online: _URL_0_\n\nIf you have any linguistic background, the very best (in my opinion) on the subject of the Indo-European tradition is Cal Watkins' *How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics*.\n\nOn evidence for earlier sources, there are a few lines in Homer that don't scan properly as dactylic hexameter lines. However, if the Greek is changed to a pre-Mycenaean form of the dialect (ca 1500BC, if I recall correctly), all of those lines scan perfectly. This is generally accepted as evidence of much earlier folk tales being incorporated into the narrative. On the subject: \n\nRuijgh C. J. \"D’ Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes dela tradition épique: analyse dialectologique du langage homérique, avec un excursus sur la création de l’alphabet grec\" // J. P. Crielaard (ed.) *Homeric Questions: Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology* Amsterdam. P. 1–92."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://repository.brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=bmc_books"
]
] |
|
1g5bdp
|
How does a fetus in utero hiccup?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1g5bdp/how_does_a_fetus_in_utero_hiccup/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cagxccx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A contracting diaphragm can trigger hiccups in mature fetuses. In order for a fetus to hiccup in the womb, its central nervous system must be complete. The central nervous system gives the fetus the ability to breathe in amniotic fluid. A hiccup results when the fluid enters and exits the fetus's lungs, causing the diaphragm to contract rapidly. Fetal hiccups are quite common and can often be seen on an ultrasound as jumping or rhythmic movements. Fetal hiccups are reflexive and do not appear to cause discomfort. Also I found interesting that hiccups prepare the fetus's lungs for healthy respiratory function after birth and they help regulate the baby's heart rate during the third trimester."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ardowj
|
why does gifs and videos sometimes buffer twice?
|
Sometimes after i've seen the gif once it pauses to buffer on the second view.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ardowj/eli5_why_does_gifs_and_videos_sometimes_buffer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egmkpa5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Lets say its dark and you want to fill a cup with water. Its your first time ever filling this cup. You like your water all the way to the top of the cup, and some bad cup designer didnt put a lid or marker to let you know it's full. So you pour and pour, and you hit the top but oops! You spilled. So, you take the time to remember how big the cup is. Now, you drink and you're still thirsty, so you start filling up again - but this time since you know how long it takes to fill your cup you know to stop and you dont spill and you drink happily until you're no longer thirsty!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7211op
|
Name of the USS Enterprise
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7211op/name_of_the_uss_enterprise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnexzpr"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"It hasn't changed much. Still retaining the conceptualization of an undertaking, especially a large or bold one. And we see that in the origin of the early Enterprises. Of the two under the Continental Navy one was captured from the British in a raid, the other a sponsored Privateer. Both involving more risk and daring than a normal warship.\n\nThe third, and most famous of the early Big E's also had a slightly unique origin. The 1799 schooner was built in a private yard in Baltimore and purchased rather than built by a naval constructor at a Navy Yard. Several notable early warships emerged from private yards, or were funded by local communities over being built by the navy itself in particular for ships smaller than frigates. She would serve with notice in the first Barbary War, living up to her name and capturing an enemy ship. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5xl43i
|
why are so many us veterans homeless? why are they in this position or how did they get to this point (generally speaking)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xl43i/eli5_why_are_so_many_us_veterans_homeless_why_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deix1zl",
"deix5pi",
"deiy3dc",
"deiy4d5",
"deiypnn",
"deiz491",
"deizsim",
"deizube",
"dej06b4",
"dej0dss",
"dej0fzd",
"dej0hvr",
"dej0m27",
"dej0mtz",
"dej0ptl",
"dej0yft",
"dej0yjz",
"dej1wtl",
"dej3ouw",
"dej3qxe",
"dej4xqs",
"dej6ezi",
"dej7pmd",
"dej7pv2",
"dejaiqo",
"dejavca",
"dejb1cb",
"dejbb55",
"dejbcd2",
"dejbk54",
"dejbnzt",
"dejbo5q",
"dejbqyw",
"dejbyy1",
"dejc1j0",
"dejc7gd",
"dejcg0m",
"dejckjf",
"dejcqlc",
"dejcry9",
"dejczbz",
"dejd3r5",
"dejdbwp",
"dejdd1m",
"dejdhb7",
"dejdmy0",
"dejdyin",
"deje2iy",
"deje3fq",
"dejebr3",
"dejecmv",
"dejeo00",
"dejeu59",
"dejexh1",
"dejf59n",
"dejffwp",
"dejfi46",
"dejftma",
"dejh9cm",
"dejhafk",
"dejhhhb",
"dejhzuw",
"deji5wp",
"dejiwy9",
"dejj0dr",
"dejj1gj",
"dejj7ee",
"dejjfmj",
"dejkuea",
"dejn5p8",
"dejnvk6",
"dejnzvl",
"dejsgn7"
],
"score": [
7,
3951,
5,
382,
139,
3,
2,
112,
6,
174,
8,
888,
4,
249,
2,
2,
12,
43,
287,
7,
7,
5,
15,
2,
4,
7,
2,
229,
2,
3,
2,
3,
18,
4,
6,
3,
4,
13,
2,
2,
3,
7,
6,
9,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
3,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd think that most of our veterans are taken care of. MOST.\nI'd also wonder why some aren't.\nWhat we want to do is not have any veterans.",
"There are problems with PTSD and substance abuse that result from being in active war zones. There's the problem that military certifications aren't always transferrable to non-military jobs. So an army paramedic can't just become an ambulance driver. They have to go through redundant training (time and money) to be \"qualified\" to do the job they already do. The VA in too many places aren't staffed or funded or managed well enough to be able to help people in a timely manner. It's always a big campaign issue that's never really solved.",
"My guess is primarily because many military occupations don't translate well to civilian opportunities. ",
"Lots of reasons: PTSD ain't no picknick. \n\n Some people signed up because they had no other option, turns out service didn't change that. \n\nContrary to popular imagination, most skills learned in the military aren't valuable in civilian life. Polishing your boots, shooting a gun, and taking orders isn't valuable in a society where everyone wears sneakers, settles differences peacefully, and are free to make own decisions. \n\nMaybe you're lucky and learn to drive a truck or run a warehouse, but if you don't you're out of luck. \n\nAfter service you're in much the same situation as before, except you're older and have some bad memories. If you didn't have your life together then, odds are you don't have it now, either. \n",
"Beyond the mental and medical issues veterans face, most military career fields have little to no documentation that the public or private sector accepts that the individual has the training and can do the job they are applying for. Have been on the receiving end of this since i got out in mid 90's. Did a hitch in Air Force as avionics maintainer- and was told i needed to go back to school for four more years at cost of 80-90 thousand per and also pay for the Airframe and Powerplant Licence before i could touch an aircraft.Did second hitch in the Army as Combat Engineer/Diesel and Construction Maintainer- as was told the same crap upon exit even though i SPECIALIZED in construction equipment(CAT) i \"didn't know SH*T\" and would cost top much to train- pay my own way- and NO GI Bill wouldn't cover it all- so no good job- no schooling - GI Bill wasted- and here i sit doing what work i'm \"qualified\" for..... plumbing manufacturing- got my training records- cost Uncle Sam 800,000 plus for all that training- and i pull down less than 30k a year. Just think of what most combat vets learned- without a skill usable in civilian left , the leadership they learned is not wanted or appreciated by most employers.",
"Because serving in the military and seeing active combat often causes tremendous mental and physical trauma, and because we have no \"reintroduction to society training/therapy.\" Many military members actually participate in combat situations. Being in a combat situation often means you are killing people, while other people are trying to kill you and your friends/colleagues. It is one of the most traumatic situations a human can go through. It also involves a totally different set of skills to succeed than what is sought for in a civilian job. As a result, many Vets suffer from PTSD, anxiety, and other mental health disorders, especially those who have seen active combat, although the rate is actually higher for drone operators. In addition, many suffer from feeling lost in a civilian job because what made them a good soldier does not translate to many jobs. Many vets are injured and can't perform manual labor but don't have skills for other work. In addition, due to the mental health issues, many soldiers resort to substance abuse as a way of dealing with the stress. Although most former military members readjust fairly well, a much higher percentage of them do not, compared to the overall population. Hence the disproportionate representation of vets among the homeless.",
"Because regardless of how we love to glorify war, and think we'll just go kick a bunch of asses and all be heros, that shit is horrible and fucks people up. ",
"Well the simple answer may surprise you. \n\nThey aren't. \n\nVeterans are only slightly over represented in the homeless population. 7.3% of Americans are classified as Veterans, and Veterans comprise 8% of the homeless population. However, even that doesn't tell the whole story. \n\nGiven the preponderance of the military in drawing members from backgrounds of lower socioeconomic status, the rate of homelessness among Veterans may actually be lower than the general population.",
"Because the U.S. doesn't care about its people, and people who come back with PTSD from war can't cope with life anymore.",
"Man there is some bullshit up in here. First - we don't know those claiming to be homeless are actual Veterans. We do know the country currently has a hard on for Veterans and so it's a pretty good strategy if you're homeless. Second - the FUCKING vast majority of Veterans do not and did not serve in or near combat. It takes a ridiculous amount of support personnel to wage a war today. Most who serve do so in that capacity. Third - an all voluntary force seems great on paper but what you actually get are a ton kids from poor communities with terrible education, family histories of substance abuse, and all the other crap that comes with poverty (including health issues both mental and medical). These kids sign up before issues start to manifest and then get out and are faced with the same limited options they had before but now they've got a big spotlight pointing on them and \"Veteran\" issues. This is actually a poor issue and the class division in this country. Fourth, many, many chronically homeless, including Veterans, have serious mental illness (bipolar, major/treatment resistant depression, schizophrenia) and should NEVER have been inducted. Period. Having an SMI makes it very difficult to function in a society and maintain the things that keep you \"homed.\" Additionally and compounding the mental health issue - if your service branch starts to notice you exhibiting signs of a mental illness (which should have been screened for before you were inducted but wasn't) they will do everything to force you out with an Other Than Honorable Discharge - VA isn't currently authorized by congress to treat OTH Veterans though the new Secretary is working hard to get OTH Veterans (currently about 550k in the US) access to VA mental health care. \n\nSo why are there a lot of homeless Veterans? All voluntary forces tend to suck up the desperate and serious mental illness and other mental health/substance abuse issues are automatic disqualifiers but frequently \"missed.\"",
"As a 10 year veteran, the majority is because they are lazy fucks. There are hundreds, if not thousands of programs just for veterans. An intelligent soldier would take advantage of schooling while in the service and get a degree while in and save money to be prepared to transition back to civilian life. I was medically retired and after my last knee surgery I paid off all my debts with my tax refund and saved over $500 a month. In less than a year I had over $8,000 saved in my bank account thanks to knowing what possibilities were laid ahead of me. I took finance classes and resume writing classes. It is a requirement now for 18 months prior to a soldiers ETS date, for them to enroll and go through the program called ACAP. ACAP goes over and teaches soldier how to be civilians. At ACAP soldiers are required to wear civilian clothing, NOT the ACU uniform. It goes over how to excel at doing interviews, writing resumes, using excel spreadsheets, the list of skills taught and programs that are available is long. Even during out processing the amount of briefs that a soldier is required to do in order to get out is numerous. There are VA briefings, ETS briefings, abc-xyz briefings... It takes about 1-2 months to out process the Army, if not more than that for some. If someone leaves the Army, and winds up homeless, then the is on them and nobody else. The resources are there and a smart budget will go a long way. There is no reason for a vet to be on the streets unless they want to be there.",
"Honestly, certification.\n\nWhen I was in, I maintained servers, worked on equipment worth billions in operations and in support of the entire Pacific Rim. I was a system administrator as well and could debug accounts as well as work on the circuits to connect two persons on a line through multitudes of different cryptographic and plain systems - from the highest of Classifications to Unclass bullshit.\n\nNone of that is transferable. They all want college degrees or certs from COMP-TIA. Don't have it? It doesn't matter what the fuck that training paper says you can do when you get out.\n\nI went from that straight to unemployment while looking for any civilian job. If I wasn't charismatic and able to talk my way into work when I really need to, I'd be homeless as well.\n\nNow I Scuba Dive. I went from facilitating international rendezvous over secure circuits and globally administrative duties... to working at a tattoo shop, then an arcade, now Scuba Diving and doing college.\n\nNone of your skills are marketable. Nobody gives a shit.\n\nThey tried to remedy this with TAPS - when you get out they make you take a class for resume writing. Guess what?\n\nNo civilian certs? You have a really long piece of toilet paper unless you want to go back into government work.",
"Military jobs tend to be very specialist in ways that don't translate to the real world. One of my relatives is a signals operator (radio guy) in the Canadian Army. He's done 4 major things in his 15 years in which included deployment to Afghanistan: Drive LAVs, shoot weapons, talk on radios, and \"fix\" computers (literally operating a hard drive imaging box - stick a hard drive in, press a button, take hard drive out). None of these things have a lot of real world applications and he's in a tech trade. He's getting out in a year. Trying to find a job with these qualifications isn't going to happen so he is immediately going to school when he gets out. \n\nMy relative is basically spending his last year fighting the Army for compensation for all the damage he's done to his body in the time he's been in which includes a bad knee and shoulder, a messed up back, and significant hearing loss. People who don't get that compensation/medical care after they leave or don't have the ability for retraining are far less able to get a job than the average person. This is particularly bad for anyone who leaves with untreated mental issues, such as PTSD.\n",
"Vet checking in. Combat MOS for those wondering.\n\nMany of these comments are somewhat right, but a big piece of the puzzle is missing. Yes, PTSD sucks ass, but most of us manage/channel/and/or don't have it. Most vets haven't seen combat, contrary to some of these posts. The worst a lot of people have seen/heard is a mortar impact. The training, while getting better (IMHO. I received a lot of \"life experience credits\" for a Bachelor's coming from a combat MOS), still has a lot of catching up to do as pointed out. It is *extremely* hard to adjust to civ life after being in for some people, especially after multiple tours overseas. This is where I believe the missing piece is. Institutionalization. Having such routine, discipline, and structure attached to everything is difficult to part from. Going from that to being able to grow your freedom beard (or, should I say \"allowed\" to emphasize the point) is kind of mind blowing. Purpose and duty to mundane and boring AF is a brutal change.",
"There was nothing set up to take care of vets when they got back from war back in the day. It was a standard job for most men",
"Easy! Those homeless you see are lying. The few who are veterans fucked up just like any other homeless person",
"A lot of people are citing the combat illness. There are other factors. While the overwhelming majority go on to be successful in their lives, others are chasing the successes they may have had while serving.\n\nThere is a comradery you get with others that you serve with. Its not just a job... It's a life style. Often times when 'Home' you could still spend upwards of 100 hours or more a week at work. There is a constant push for training, operations, and work while on the job so there is often not a whole lot of down time depending on what branch of service you signed up for. While deployed an average work week could be longer but off time is spent with the same people you were at work with and everyone is on edge after a few months in theater.\n\nThis situation where you are constantly busy really leaves no room for quality down time. Most people handle it just fine and go on to be successful but there are some that get burnt out by the strenuous and rigorous life style.\n\nSome go on to a civilian life style after a successful military career and fail horribly because they aren't constantly pressured. These guys needed the timelines to be crunched and have a feeling of their new life is not meaningful. Depression can come from many directions and when you were a part of a group that had tight deadlines where lives were on the line constantly, going to a non military career could seem pointless.",
"As someone who had a best friend who served in Afghanistan, I will give you my take on it. A lot of soldiers that end up joining are lower income people looking to better their lives but what comes with poverty is tons of issues. People who are impoverished have higher percentages to have criminal records, lower education, high chances of substance/alcohol abuse, and untreated mental disorders.\n\nOnce an individual serves the above problems are likely to be exasperated. Once an individual leaves the army, they are more likely to suffer substance/alcohol abuse, mental disorders (PTSD, etc), and finally are untrained for the civilian workforce. So once they leave they get double dose of all these issues. \n\nOne things that the military does in the US is scout for recruits in impoverished areas. Think rural communities and inner cities. It also doesn't help things that juveniles are sometimes given the option to join the army or go to jail. \n\nI still remember the recruiters coming into my tiny rural high school promising thousands of dollars for signing up. This leads to a large number of individuals who are dirt poor to enlist. \n\nMy friend and I no longer talk because once he came back he fell into the same merry-go-round he was in before he left. Last I heard he was running a lab somewhere in our home town homeless. \n\nEdit: One last thing I forgot to mention. Most of the military is made out of people who are in poverty. Once you get up into the officer ranks this is no longer true. To be an officer you have to have a college education. People who become officers are less likely to come from impoverished households. Officers by the way are less likely to see combat. They are considered to important to loose. The ones that will always see combat are your grunts who are typically with out a college education and are likely to come from impoverished households. This has been a huge issue for the army for a long time. Vietnam is a good example of this sort of thing. During the draft, for instance, they were more likely to draft people who were impoverished. This led to protests which then created the lottery type draft where nearly every male was eligible regardless of occupation or whether or not you were in college. With this lottery it helped America eventually end the draft. ",
"Like everyone is saying, all the amazing shit you did in the military doesn't count towards anything in a civilian job unless you can express it on a resume properly, and lots of vets can't.\n\nHere's a couple pro-tips for vets.\n\nHave you ever signed for anything (of course you have) then you \"successfully managed and maintained equipment valued at (whatever cost...HMMWVs are about a quarter million bucks BTW)\"\n\nEver had to teach a class (you probably did) then you've \"successfully trained and prepared x number of personnel\"\n\nEver lead a detail or held a leadership position? Then you \"supervised x number of employees\"\n\nShit like that.\n\nI put all this crap on my resume and got a job before my terminal leave was even over so I think I'm decent at spinning the army crap into relateable BS. Then when you get the job work your ass off, civilians are fucking lazy and everyone is used to that so if you actually fucking work you're automatically in the top percentage of quality employees\n\nEdit: if anyone wants, inbox me and I'll help you spin your military shit into something real too\n\nAnd another pro-tip for like everyone...print your resume on different color paper. Like a subtle difference than plain white, nothing crazy but when there's a stack and the guy sees one that's slightly more blue or whatever he might pull it out first.. which is good\n\nEdit. . . again: Rip my inbox. ",
"Vet here. I agree with previous posters - I had to go back to school to get a degree to get a decent paying job. Saw a guy a few weeks ago that was a army vet and he was in charge of a hospital and my boss just laughed because he had no degree - we finally figured out he was army and then his resume made more sense...we still couldn't hire him because he had no degree and didn't meet the minimum qualifications because of it.\n\nSome of the military MOS's need to give people equivalent civilian certs so even though the military has its own they are valid certs when people get out - like a corpsman shouldn't have to go to nursing school when they get out, same for IT professionals, maintenance, etc. If it's the same work, give people something besides toilet paper and a career set back for their service.",
"Along with the other reasons already mentioned, I just thought I would add my $0.02. \n\nPerspective is everything.\n\n\nWhile there are plenty of veterans who served honorably and successfully returned to civilian life, there are those who are predisposed towards serving something greater than themselves and tend to have the hardest time re-adapting to civilian life. Military life rewards selfless service and promotes living by a code of honor, while civilian life rewards self serving, greed based capitalism that goes so far as to use the very principles of honor based codes against those who live by them.\n\nThese two systems are diametrically opposed to each other, even though they aren't mutually exclusive. Some veterans who struggle enough will study the nature of these systems through philosophy and other social sciences. Once they come to realize the truth of this dichotomy, they are either able to adapt and overcome it or they are not. Those who either choose not to adapt, or simply can not adapt, fall by the wayside as there simply isn't any program that fills the crack in this perspective problem.\n\nAll gave some. Some gave all. Old soldiers never die, they just fade away...",
"As part of why vets end up homeless we have to also include the policies that put them in this situation. Wars became unpopular as long as we had a draft. The Vietnam War put an end to the draft and each president since has privatized it and based it on a volunteer and privatized mercenary army. As a result war is now a profit center that processes impoverished rural and inner city kids who volunteer because they think its going to improve their lives. The harsh reality is that this relieves the rest of society of any sacrifice or responsibility for our wars while it profits from it. Due to the lack of personal involvement we rally behind our government's use of Authorizations For Use of Military Force without formally declaring war. As a small portion of the population, these kids became the sacrificial cows of a modern society. Add to it the highly profitable and shabby nation building mission creep, and the automation of war with drones and the like that further insolate us from our involvement and responsibilities.\n\nJust like the shabby built nation-building infrastructure, the military gives them only enough training to do the job required in military organization structure that leaves them unprepared to compete in the civilian workforce. Once they leave the military society seems to just cast them aside as damaged goods. My father was one of those damaged goods, and despite his owning his own business, he had a drinking problem that resulted in domestic violence that would cause him to loose his business, could not keep a job and eventually ended up on welfare. His drinking and abuse eventually isolated him from his own family and he became homeless.\n\n----\nDisclaimer: I am not a vet, I never served because my father who was a WWII vet made sure I didn't have to serve when he showed up at White Hall Street while I was being processed for the draft during the Vietnam War. At the time I was trying to get in the Navy to avoid field combat and being abused by my drunken father.",
"There's also a bit of a correlation/causation problem happening, I fear. When I was in the military, I saw quite a few people leave before their time was up: coping problems, drug or alcohol issues, many things. Each of these people who wasn't making it one way or another is able to be called a \"veteran\", even if they were shipped away in the middle of basic training. Frankly, many of us had enlisted because we were in need of the kind of path that was available via the military: training, food, shelter, education, feeling like you were getting your shit together -- all good if you're a bit adrift (as I was). But some adrift people don't stop being adrift. The military may well have been their last shot at being able to \"adult,\" with the alternative leading to homelessness. So, aside from PTSD-type issues that arise from military service, for others it may be that time in the military is not indicative of anything other than one last try before falling through society's cracks.",
"A lot of good answers, however the de-institutionalization of America is also a factor. During the 1970's many private and state run psychiatric hospitals were closed due the public's view of their harsh treatment of patients. A big push from this was the movie and book, \"One flew over the cuckoos nest.\"\n\nDue to the fact that the effects of war trigger many mental conditions in soldiers. After this de-institutionalization, many veterans turned to living on the streets due to the lack of adequate facilities to enter into when needing care. ",
"Has anyone mentioned the isolation that veterans experience as soon as they get out? They go from having hundreds of people in their support system to sometimes having 0.\n A lot of times the vet moves to an entirely different area immediately after separating. They have no support, none of the training transfers, and the veteran will also be experiencing massive stress from other areas too like marriage, children, etc. More often than not, Vets are the hardest working, most loyal and trustworthy people you can find. Unfortunately, our Government and VA are not any of those things. \n\nPlease thank a Vet every chance you get ",
"I worked as Homeless Coordinator for the VA (granted in a fairly rural state), so I can provide a civilian insiders perspective--\n\nfor post OEF/OIF/OND vets, the biggest issue, imo, is exactly what /u/shottylaw states [here](_URL_0_). Institutionalization.\n\nA lot of people enter the military are seeking structure, and when they leave, they find the *structure* they received isn't transferable. It's not the transferable certification that is the issue in and of itself. The problem becomes when veterans are unable to sell their certifications to civilian employers. But it's hard to get transitioning military members to see the value in learning the civvy language prior to leaving the military. Still a massive failure by the VA, imo, though. \n\nFor the older guys (pre-OEF/OIF/OND vets) PTSD always seemed to be the biggest issue for homeless veterans. Those dudes got fucked and were largely abandoned by society, and, in return, rejected society themselves. Most of the older vets I met, there was no hope in getting them housing because they don't want it.",
"I am not a vet. However this is something that really bothers me. We talk about paying for all these social services, we pay for all these wars, and we donate support rebuilding other countries but we have problems at home. We need to fix homeless and hunger problems here. Like they say on airplanes, Fasten your oxygen mask first before you help others.",
"The Dark Side no one is talking about? Some of them joined right out of High School and have never had to: manage their own money, rent an apartment, decide what to do next, find friends or a support network.\n\nThink about all the things that are on a military base. Stores, doctors, barbers, the mess hall, barracks. It doesn't occur to many servicemen all the things they'll have to look after themselves. Some people have compared it to getting out of prison.",
"A lot of homeless are not vets. They use it as a front to get beer and drug money. Also, a lot are vets. Of you know a Lil about the military you can easily spot fakes. As far as them being homeless... Ptsd",
"It's because we take hard working, aspiring young men and women and put them through hell. We break them physically, mentally and emotionally. Then, when they're no more use for killing other people we fly them home, give them a pat on the back and tell them \"good luck!\"",
"Its a combination of a number of factors and its not only limited to the US, its the same situation in other countries, doesn't matter if they see combat or not.\n\n\nMost that join the military are from poor background or special circumstances and in the army they can't hope to advance up the ranks much but the package offered is too good to pass on and its honest work. Your work experience in the military and whatever certs or courses you got there have almost no relevance to civilian employers. They want recognized degrees and relevant work experience. So these peeps end up having to take up much lower paying jobs(as compared to their military pay), might run into financial problems, turn to vices and will inevitably spiral into more desperate situations.\n\n\nI know some countries tried to remedy this by employing them into government offices in an effort to care for these people who defended the country but there is always not enough headcount to employ them all. \n\n\nIts hilarious how the government pulls in investors and corporations(especially the foreign ones) to drive the economy and to provide jobs but in the end these very businesses don't give a fuck about the very people who bleed to protect them.",
"No two veterans have the identical experiences. I served as an officer Stateside, and was basically a bureaucrat; others went through any number of special hells that we can scarcely imagine.\n\nThe human mind is a delicate machine. Hit it too hard, and it may never work properly again.",
"Combat troop, academic, non-profit manager weighing in. Many factors, including many of what's above. One huge variable being left out - childhood. Many vets were considered at risk as youth, were of lower income households and were exposed to traumatic circumstances before they joined the service. Many of these variables are correlated with unhealthy coping mechanisms, addictive behavior and dysfunctional views of self and environment. NOW pile on all the other stressors of combat, PTSD, TBI, physical injury, separation and you get chronic homelessness, suicide, substance abuse and unemployment. \n\nBut that's not the end of the story. MANY MANY veterans facing these challenges live healthy and balanced lives. The difference? The opportunity to continue their service here at home by exercising values and skills, endorsement by the community by doing so and access to resources/treatment and other vets. When these dynamics come together we see posttraumatic stress turn to posttraumatic growth. When ptg occurs, it provides fuel to the society as a whole. We call this inspiration.\n\nWhat you can do - do more than say thanks. Ask for a story and listen. Ask a vet something they learned. Remind them we still need them. Keep in mind many homeless individuals choose to be homeless. But many don't so practice this with everyone. Clinical observation shows the key to posttraumatic growth is compassion, purpose and community. \n\nSource: was homeless combat vet, now have graduate degree in social work, work with homeless vets and married with kids and a golden retriever. All because someone reminded me I was still needed.",
"Homeless is a lay term that macarades as a technical term. How one person defines homelessness is different than another. Everyone agrees that people we see sleeping on the street are. What about those with a shelter bed (still legally homeless)?. Couch surfing with family (not legally homeless). Couch surfing with friend (sometimes homeless). Sleeping in a car (homeless). About to be evicted by landlord (not homeless until the sherif arrives).\n\nEnding homelessness is easy and simple. Provide everyone with a safe and secure place to lay their head. It's less expensive than you think. In my city of 2m+ (Philadelphia), the official nightly street homeless count is 750.\n\nMany people require stable housing before working on the causal issues that got them there. Old notions of requiring 90 days of sobriety as a condition to a housing subsidy will never solve the problem. It just results in paying social workers to be the housing police and not doing what they were trained to do - help connect people to available resources and help achieve positive outcomes.\n\nVeterans have dedicated pools of funding and in Philadelphia there was a big flashy announcement that we are at functional 0 veteran homelessness. Even the people making the claim understood that it came with many caveats.\n\nMy organization (MHASP) is working on some innovative ways to use technology to help people experiencing homelessness who are resistant to accessing services to come to a center, have some immediate needs met while also being educated on what is out there to help.\n\nUpworthy just released the following video (over 1M views): _URL_0_",
"Correlation does not prove causation. Shark attacks happen more frequently when ice cream sales are highest, but that does not mean one causes the other. Shark attacks and ice cream sales both increase as the weather gets hotter. \n\nGrowing up poor makes you much more likely to end up homeless, and it makes you much more likely to join the military. \n\nPoor people join the military more frequently. If you're poor but young and able bodied you can join the military for the most part. Three meals and a bed to sleep in, after a few years you're earning a decent pay check. You get health care for yourself and your dependents, and there's a lot of people who find your job honorable. \n\nThis sounds like paradise to someone who is poor. \n\nBut the military isn't for everyone. Some of these poor people who joined just aren't suited for the military, so they stay in for 4 years or 6 or whatever. The pay isn't great those first couple years, and if they never had a dime to spend in their lives and then at 18 they start getting paychecks, they might not spend it wisely. They probably won't really. \n\nSo they leave the military at 22 or 24, after spending 4 or 6 years completely committed to a job they hated, still essentially the same poor kid who enlisted at 18, except now they're a veteran. So they're flat broke, estranged from friends and family for 4 to 6 years or whatever, with job skills that don't translate to anything they actually want to do in life. If they go back to their home town, half their friends moved to the city for college or work, the other half have settled down and started families. They don't want to move into mom's spare bedroom for the same reasons they joined the military in the first place. \n\nIf you are poor and join the military and don't like it and get out ASAP, you are going to be poor when you get out. And poor people tend to end up homeless. \n\nNot everyone who joins the military is poor, but if you're poor, if you have no opportunities, if you're the type of person who is likely to end up homeless, the military is an extraordinarily attractive option and you might not know if you can stand it or not until you try it. So you ask a bunch of homeless people if they served in the military you'll see a bunch of hands go up. It's one of the things they tried that didn't work. Homeless people don't just move from their parent's house to a cardboard box, they try things and those things don't work out. \n\nThe other responses about PTSD and mental illness and all that are correct also, but they're missing a piece. ",
"Rambo said it best.\n\"I was in charge of million dollar equipment. Out here i can't even get a job parking cars.\"",
"Vet checking in. Intel rate in the navy.\n\nI did crypto work for the navy, worked on breaking codes and actually part of my chain of command included the NSA.\n\nI got out and wanted to join the NSA or some intel agency. Nope they all wanted a degree. I was fine doing the work for them while I was in the Military, but I get out and nope. Not good enough.\n\nI ended up moving back home, got a job at a gas station. Luckily it was near NASA. One day I asked a guy if NASA needed cryptologists and he said \"funny you should ask. That's the department I manage\" \n\nNailed the interview, worked at NASA for a few years and used it to kick off my IT career.",
"Wow, finally a topic I feel I can honestly contribute to. \n\nI have worked with many homeless Vets, and have done volunteer work for years. As a few posters have said, PTSD plays a huge part in this issue, but a main factor that most people don't think of if the fact that most soldiers go in as basically children. Yes, 18 is legally an adult, but try having a conversation with an 18 year old. Ask them about a mortgage payment or what to do if they get into a failed relationship.\n\nSo ELI5, we give children a fair amount of money, teach them how to thrive in a very regimented and special environment, with emphasis on only operating as a group or unit, let them loose in the world solo and expect them to make mature, rational decisions. Some people can, some can't. People mention drug and alcohol abuse, but are confusing cause and effect. Man starts drinking because things are hard, things don't get hard because of drinking. \n\n- disclaimer - \nIndividuals are all different and this is by no means a catch all, just something that is vastly overlooked when discussing the issues of veteran homelessness.",
"This is purely speculation on my part as I haven't ever been in the military. Remember what it's like to get a job in high school? You have disposable income and no bills. You can do what ever you want with that money because if you don't have you still have a home and food. The military, especially for inlisted, seems to continue this trend. They feed and house everyone and all basic needs are meet. So their money is effectivly all disposable. They seem to miss some fundamental life skills like budgeting and paying rent and things like that. This is a purely anicdotal observation I don't mean to offend.",
"I know I'm going to be downvoted, but at least some part of this effect is that the best, brightest and most job capable tend to go to college and not the military. \n\nFrom my highschool, not a single honors student went to the military. Only a few pretty dumb dudes went to serve. My one friend who ended up in the Navy ended up there because he flunked out of college. \n\nI'm not painting a broad brush, but this is a correlation that you just can't overlook.\n\nAlso, my Navy friend said since they couldn't smoke pot (drug tests), they'd sneak off with cans of compressed air and basically get high via suffocation and killing brain cells. So maybe let them smoke a joint instead of that?",
"I'm a vet, have worked as a university coordinator for vets, have worked at an adult homeless shelter, and I can say that the big three are: non-transferable certifications, ignorance about the civilian world, and institutionalization. Everyone hits \"the wall\" when they get out, some hit it harder than others, though...",
"Most people in this country are one or two bad circumstances away from being homeless. Veterans are a particularly high risk population for several reasons. For one, they have higher rates of PTSD, which can be so debilitating that they can't attain or keep meaningful work. Substances abuse is also common, and creates professional and personal issues that can cause them to become unemployed or kicked out of their home. Some simply lose their jobs for any number of reasons and either have no savings, or their savings is quickly depleted due to co-occurring crises. Simply put, they have more problems on average, boiling down mostly to mental illness, financial strife, physical health issues, and substance abuse, and are either too proud to seek help, or lack adequate support from their families and community. \n\nFun fact that might make you feel better about the situation: in 2010, the Obama Administration set the goal to \"end homelessness\" by taking a unique approach to several major target populations: vetetans, chronically homeless, youth & families, and \"other.\" Instead of the traditional approach of \"let's fix all your problems and then get you into housing,\" which is extremely expensive on the city and very time consuming, they use a \"Housing First\" model. This basically says, let's get you in a house, and THEN worry about everything else. It's shown to be faster, cheaper, and more effective than previous approaches because it allows a person to get out of \"crisis mode\" so that they can actually focus on their other issues aside from their homelessness and achieve true stability. \n\nThis method is so effective, that we actually \"ended\" veteran homelessness in 2016. This isn't to say that we no longer have homeless vets, but we HAVE reached what's called \"functional zero.\" In my city alone we have something like 50 new homeless vets every month. But we now have the ability to house every single veteran that seeks homelessness services within 90 days of entry into the program (called SSVF), regardless of their circumstances. The actual number of homeless vets in the country on a daily basis has also gone down 47% since 2010. \n\nEdited to add another HUGE reason: lack of transferable skills from the military/no civilian job training. ",
"You can't just be trained to kill other people and do it with no hesitation, and then be expected to fit in perfectly with everyone else.\n\nThis is a major part, but not the only reason why.",
"The Army culture just fucks with your head. The worst part is that you don't realize it until it's sunk it's claws deep down in your brain and it's got you. Soldier's don't go and seek care for injuries or illnesses because they don't want to be thought of as malingerers or \"shit bags\" by their comrades or ESPECIALLY the NCOs in the unit because god help you if you get on the bad side of one NCO because now you are a shit bird and every NCO now thinks it. \nIt just builds this dystopian reality in your brain and then in 2 or 4 or 6 years or whenever your contract is up, you don't re-enlist because you're like \"this fucking blows, why would I keep doing it?\" Then they stamp your forms and out the door you go and then you realize, \"HFS. I have NO IDEA where to go from here.\" I suppose I could go to college or go to work at my friends garage but the fucked up thing is that, a lot of times, you miss the Army. Stockholm syndrome is where a captive comes to have affection for their kidnapper and I swear it's just like that. Whether you write guidance software for Boeing or sweep a floor at Chipotle, you miss you captivity and it is like a fucking ball and chain around your ankle. ",
"Marine from Minnesota here\nAnother really big problem they have is many veterans have is they spend 4 years or more in the military and get out and move somewhere away from home.\n\nDuring their time away many grow farther away from their families, and don't have a support network in a new city when something happens, and its hard enough to take advantage of VA benefits when you have a place to live, once yoy cant put an address on any of the forms, you basically arent going to be able to get any help from it. \n\nAnother big issue is the difference between the job you do there and the environment you are in because one is far more structured and you spend your time learning the ins and outs of it, only to have every single thing change.\n\nHeres one a lot of people don't agree with, but I think it needs to be addressed. A good number of people who join don't know how to take care of themselves and their finances finances because of the families they grew up in, and dont learn it while they are in, they get out, and still cant do it, and then they end up homeless. \n\nThen theres everyone who has had a drug or alcohol problem and can't be quickly rehabilitated, they get kicked out fairly quickly in my experience, meaning they dont have the time to prepare to go somewhere else, very often the money, and don't have any plan in place before they get out, meaning no school lined up, no resume and job offers waiting, no place to stay when they get kicked out, with no money to get back to somewhere where they can get the help of friends and family, and it goes downhill from there fast. ",
"A lot of times it having no marketable skills and like mentioned before, training certs. That can't be easily transfered to the civilian world. Have a buddy who repairs the electronics on helicopters as an E3, but would be making 125k+ a year doing the same thing in the civilian world, but if he tried to get back into the civilian market, he'd still have to undergo lots of training. But luckily because of his years of experience he's slightly more attractive to companies.\n\nAs for ptsd, that is a struggle, but it's also a struggle just to become a civilian again, lots of men find themselves lacking a purpose, some find it, others struggle with no longer having that high of being in a life and death situation where their actions are extremely meaningful.\n\nHow do you go from commanding a squad or platoon to some normal everyday job right. You lose the brotherhood and support structure you had while you were deployed, and you lose that purpose.\n\nPlus let's not forget many vets only have a highschool degree, and although the GI bill was meant to fix that, I know many many people who were or are in the military who just absolutely hated school, and will not be going to college after their time in the military.\n\nContracting is a viable option, making big bucks, but it's still only temporary.",
"A lot of the other reasons have been mentioned, but I will bring up a controversial one as well: not all of the people who claim to be homeless Vets are actually Vets. Or sometimes they are, but their stories of what they did in the service are highly exaggerated (and I say this as a combat veteran who volunteers at the VA).\n\nIf you haven't read it, 'Stolen Valor' by B.G. Burkett does an excellent job of shining light on the phenomenon of people who lie about their service to gain sympathy, or use it as an excuse to explain their failures.",
"As mentioned by others there are plenty of reasons; but it all boils down to one fact; the american dream failed. Being awesome all the time just wasn't sustainable, and with a military industrial complex that employs nearly 40% of the American populace, when America isn't in a war, people start losing their jobs and defaulting on their mortgages. So America keeps finding reasons to \"fuck yeah!\" all over the globe.\n\nThose who actually make it home are promised riches and bitches, but then... who's going to pay for it? So it doesn't happen. \n\nWith no sellable qualities in the civilian market, and probably some stress-related illness, maybe an addiction or two... you see where this is going? Even their own families don't want them around and with no one to provide for them, they end up on the street\n\nAnd for what? Well for freedom, of course, and little Johnny down the street, and warm apple pie\n\nAnd they call it democracy ",
"I can somewhat explain this situation. When I separated from the military I was only partially prepared for life on the outside. Unemployed for about 6 months and things were bad for a while.\n\nThe first thing is there are a lot of people who join the military to get away from problems at home. So when they get out and return home those problems are still there and an individual has just lost a strongly developed level of support the military offers. Without close friends or family ties, things can go to shit fairly quick. Furthermore, it is very common for divorce to occur not long after leaving the military. Had this happen to many friends and it was devastating even more so when piled on with leaving the military. \n\nSecond is monetary. Aside from being lucky enough to jump into overseas contracting, odds are you will never be able to match the pay and benefits you had in the military for a few years. You basically go from on top of your game to entry level and that is a serious challenge for someone used to the military. Sometimes Veterans see jobs as \"beneath\" them and decline entry level positions to hold out for jobs that are simply not available (I did this a few times).\n\nNext up, tons of military jobs do not have direct civilian equivalents. Those that do may differ significantly from the civilian side. This is even more challenging when you return home to a place far removed from any military bases. Employers may not understand the work history or be able to relate the job to experience. \n\nThis doesn't even get into various medical issues, especially mental ones or PTSD for combat veterans. In short, no money, no family support, no job, removal from close friends and such all adds up to a pretty bad day. Honestly, all of this is not much different from why many homeless people end up being in such a position. ",
"The same as most homeless persons, they have drinking and drug problems along with some mental issues. I work for a non-profit that houses a lot of former homeless Vets. Most are just out of jail, former homeless. 8/10 had a drug and drinking problem and most return to drinking after moving in. 2/10 lost their homes due to living paycheck to paycheck and something happened to them. \nThey seem to get back on their feet and stay. ",
"I haven't seen another comment mention this but I may have just missed it. As an FYI, about 11% of folk experiencing homelessness are veterans, whereas veterans make up about 7% of the general population. So there is some disproportionality but not as dramatic as it is perceived.",
"The use them and then throw them away mentality of our government. The powers that be could give two flying weasel shits about the troops, the only time there is concern is when it's a media opportunity otherwise no fucks are given. ",
"Late to the party.\n\nStrictly speaking from my (possibly special-pleading) personal experience, homelessness is way more complicated than \"do I have enough money/income to keep a roof over my head?\" although obviously that is probably the prime factor in many cases.\n\nFor me, when I left Walter Reed Army Medical Center after a 16-month stay subsequent to my \"I participated!\" experience in Iraq, I kinda knew I was still not all there upstairs, even though I had gotten a lot of very good MH treatment and been handed a paper attesting that I was competent to make my own legal, medical, and financial decisions. Well, maybe I was, but that's not really saying much.\n\nThing is, I had enough revenue coming in (mainly VA disability) that I could have paid the rent on a hole-in-the-wall somewhere and kept food on the table and the lights turned on. We're not talking Park Avenue, but a roof and food, yeah.\n\nI was in no place to manage even the modest responsibilities that would have entailed. Maybe by setting up auto-pays through my bank's online bill-pay service, maybe the rent and all the separate utilities and all that would have gotten paid every month, but this was a long time ago and that service was still pretty new. Most people weren't really doing that yet.\n\nSo I had the money. And at the time (and to this day), I was under the impression that I simply didn't have enough marbles in my head to rent a place of my own and keep my shit together, much less resume custody of my school-age daughter and be a single parent without neglecting her or otherwise being a hazard to her well-being.\n\nAbout a year later, I did feel I had recovered my faculties to where I could do all those things, so I did, and everything turned out fine.\n\nBut during that year, I was homeless and couch-surfing or sleeping in my vehicle because *I couldn't cope* with managing my own place or burdening my family by asking them to put me up (of course they would have) while I tried to pull myself together.\n\nNo idea where I'm going with this. Maybe that sheds a little light on one way such a story can unfold. Some people whose heads are in a place like that never do pull out of it.\n\n",
"Going to war and being under intense stress for long periods of time can really mess a person up. The military refused to acknowledge the psychological damage done to these people for a long time and didn't provide adequate care, and still don't. Add that to coming out of service with no education, and no real transferable job skills, and you have a recipe for disaster. \n\nTL;DR lot of guys suffering from stress induced disorders who don't have a degree or skills that transfer to society. That and the VA is a disgrace. ",
"Because we have a government that's designed to go to war more often than it's designed to handle the negative consequences of war. ",
"According to [end homelessness,](_URL_0_) the veteran homelessness rate was only 8.6% in 2014, compared to only 7.3% for the general population - the difference isn't that large these days.\n\nThe main reason is that poor people without a college education are more likely to be homeless, and veterans are likely to be poor people without a college education. Indeed, poor people are more likely to join the military in general, and enlisted people tend to join the military straight out of high school, so don't go to college. Blacks are also more likely to join the military than whites, and are also more likely to be homeless.\n\nSo a lot of it is demographics.\n\nThe other half of the puzzle is that the military also doesn't really teach people a lot of skills that are necessary for civilian life; military life is more structured, whereas in civilian life you are responsible for yourself and there's no one really telling you how to live your life, giving you a place to live, ect.\n\nMoreover, a lot of what you learn how to do in the military is fairly narrowly applicable.",
"4 years enlisted Marine Corps/ 2 years in school,\n\nI do not think mental issues are always the case either. A lot of military personnel are not exposed to the dramatic combat, but the military lifestyle in general has some after effects. A lot of military members are sort of confused as to what to do after they exit the military. And its not all the military's fault. They try to get you to have a plan but when it comes down to it the military lifestyle prevents you from planning such things.\n\nI think another thing that is overlooked is when your in the military they basically take everything you have and teach you to live out of a pack, basically homeless. Former military personnel have a lot higher tolerance for such things, as in they are taught to not be objective. I have often thought about what it would be like if I ended up homeless and it wouldn't really bother me. I would get a nice sleeping system, find a place to maintain hygiene and get enough money for food and just do my thing. I think that can be true of a lot of veterans, the idea of being homeless does not really scare them.\n\nThe biggest contributor to it, BIGGEST...people do not care. Seriously, most civilians do not give a shit, they really do not. That is why you have such fierce loyalty among the veterans and their branch, because we take care of each other...we are all we have. The population is basically brainwashed into \"thank you for your service\". Its annoying. I really don't want to be thanked, because its just a parrot and you have no idea what you are thanking me for anyway. You want to thank a vet, buy them a beer or just shoot the shit with them. Ask what they did and if they enjoyed it, or how their day is going, stop parroting thank you. Everyone \"almost\" joined, we get it, you do not have to be a tied to the military to earn our respect. If you're one of the people that thinks its stupid to thank military, that is fine too! We don't need it. \n\nI'm currently going to school to be a Mechanical Engineer, I am 26. My four years in the military and all my accomplishments are about 3 lines on my resume. I had to rewrite it because honestly companies do not give a fuck. I went to the career fair, spoke to 20ish companies...no interviews. I had an excellent GPA, good speaking ability, relevant experience, but not the extra curricular they recognized. In this current market, being a part of an after-school club holds more weight than a squad leader in the United States Marine Corps. Kids that were in fraternities, freshmen, got 4+ interviews based on their connections. People just do not care, I have since started doing the clubs after school, rewrote my resume based on that, basically removed the majority of my military experience and got 3+ interviews at the most recent career fair; with a lower GPA. I get that people do not give a shit now, I adapted, some people haven't and end up not being successful.\n\nMilitary skills are not marketable to companies, lets be honest a decent amount of people do not have a lot of options outside the military. That is not a bad thing, but some people exit the service and get stuck. The GI Bill is GOLD. They will pay for 4 years of college, not like help you through it, like you can go to a great school (not ivy league obviously) and they pay for you. Tuition, books, food, rent. I mean you won't be living like a rockstar, you have to be smart with money but its such an amazing deal. A lot of vets do not take advantage of it. Spend 4 years in the suck and then have to go do math with a bunch of kids...not exactly appealing. When I was discharged I needed to relearn math. Get up at 4:30 to go workout, work 7:30-5, study 6-7:30/8 go to bed. All that just so I had the ability to be successful my freshmen year. Basically back to square one at 24, a lot of vets have a hard time starting over like that and then all it takes is time for it to fall apart. \n\nThat is just for average case veterans, not the ones with hardcore PTSD, loss of limb, or the rampant substance abuse. So add that into it and its no surprise honestly. We just do not have enough man power or money or knowledge to fix the problem. Just my two cents.\n",
"Despite several very dedicated service men and women our military (USA) has been a dumping ground for the under-educated, socially inept, financially inadequate, and mentally unstable. It's often viewed as either a way to escape a horrible life of poverty or stay out of prison.\n\nTake an 18 year old kid who already has a weak foundation, throw him in a war zone with questionable rules, give him access to drugs, sex, and all manners of debauchery all while forcing him to do horrible things in the name of his country.\n\nIt's a recipe for disaster. ",
"It's actually not as bad as it looks from the outside. We're certainly over-represented in the homeless population but not even *most* military veterans are homeless.\n\nSo, in addition to some of the comments regarding PTSD, non-transferable skills, the types of people who enlist (especially into combat MOSs), their educational backgrounds (or lack thereof), criminal histories etc. I'd like to toss in a vote for a serious, *serious* lack of personal finance education.\n\nJesus. Horatio. Christ. do Soldiers waste money.\n\nA lot of the low-to-mid enlisted come from a lower socioeconomic background and have never had \"so much money\" in their lives. However, what they don't understand is that we really don't get paid all that much in the grand scheme of things. That money burning a hole in their pocket, enabling them to buy 'dat Lam, those Jordans, and a 70\" 4K television is only freed up by the fact that we (generally) don't pay for housing, healthcare, or food (though they'll still order our instead of eating at the dining hall which wastes taxpayer money as well as their own) as an entitlement of service. Once they get out, whether by choice or chapter, they have no idea how to function on a realistic budget which includes all those things, plus incidentals, without the benefit of someone (usually your PL/PSG) breathing down your neck to be responsible.\n\nNot to mention that at least 50% of the time they're worse off when they leave because of the debt they've accumulated in-service *still* managing to live beyond their means.\n\nOh, and [redacted for political correctness] dependents: more than a few soldiers will marry for BAH so they don't have to live in the barracks. Except that's not the right reason at all. In the event they separate*/divorce they now have alimony and child support to pay.\n\n*The Army doesn't recognize separation. You're either married or single. So whether you're separated for a month or five years, you're still responsible for your spouse. The implications of this could be, say, them living in a house on your BAH (with you not being allowed to live there) while you pay rent/mortgage elsewhere.\n\nSource: Am Army Officer\n\nEDIT: Also, your money is your spouse's money. They will enforce this. Keeping your spouse from spending your money is considered abuse and you will get fucked up for it.",
"Well, if you're willing to give up your whole life in your home country and go risk being killed in a foreign land just to do a shitty job for a shitty pay, your life here must already be pretty fucked up before you get into the military, so why would you think that would change when they leave the service?\n\nThis is one of the things in the \"American mindset\" that kind of pisses me off: one day a guy is seen by everyone as \"inferior\", because he doesn't have a job or a good education and is poor; then he spends a few years in the shittiest job there is because it was the only option for him, and now he's expected to be a full-blown fucking superhero, with the highest moral standards and a good and stable life with great relationships with all of those around him.",
"On top of everything already mentioned, which is completely accurate, it can be hard to transition into a civilian world that lacks the discipline, give it 110% or get smoked till you're motivated attitude, never accept defeat mentality. The culture is a complete 180 and can be hard to assimilate. It can be hard for a vet to keep their job when they see how the real world functions... and they realise they just don't fit in. One tiny aspect of it IMO.",
"Joining the military stunts personal growth. It's like being an adult with a baby sitter and not having to be as responsible for your finances, meal planning, and other things that normal young adults do who don't live in barracks. You always have someone looking out for you, and you won't always have that outside of the military.\n\nAdd that to a culture that promotes alcohol abuse, driving on even if you're having legitimate problems, and the idea that you're all the toughest humans ever, even if you're not. You still have to deal with everything you experience, but most won't because it isn't taken serious at a soldier level.\n\nSo you've got a 22 year old kid with zero education, a drinking problem, war horrors he probably hasn't dealt with yet, and he's being reintegrated back in to society. It's a recipe for disaster.",
"The US sends people to fight who already have nothing. When the armies done, they send them back to nothing - with added psychological problems.\n\nMakes perfect sense that it would all fall apart for these people. ",
"I dont know either, but maybe the war had a effect on there perception of reality. To the point that the illusion of the American dream does not entertain them any longer.",
"I don't have any science to back this is, but I am a mil brat who has lived 20+ years in an army town, dated a marine, etc etc....\n\nI think it's worth noting the \"kind\" of people that join the military. A huge number of guys join in the first place because they feel like they have no \"direction.\" They thrive in that setting because it is regimented and are told what to do, how to act, where to be.... You take an institution that attracts a large number of people that don't have self-guidance and I think you will naturally end up with people who continue as drifters when they get out. ",
"Lot of people who claim to be vets are not. The VA has massive funds to help vets but a lot of them do not want to go. They feel the VA and Doctors are bad for some reason. Most vets have never seen any combat and play it like they are combat vets. No one wants to confront a vet but literally you have thousands and thousands of vets who use other peoples military experience as their own.\n\nMental Health is the big issue and its not just vets. I was homeless (not that pretend shit where you bounce house to house) for 2 years. I seen a few vets out of the thousands in San Jose living on the streets. Most do not consider themselves homeless. They live in their cars or in tents. \n\nIf you can become homeless after being a cook in the military you can be homeless working at McDonalds.",
"As a veteran myself I believe the biggest problem is a lack of actual education about life after the military. The military makes it a long check-in-the-box process of getting out and people tend to not pay attention when sitting in the dozens of classes required to exit the military. By not understanding all the resources available to help, vets can fall back on behavior that was acceptable in a very structured lifestyle but not wholly acceptable in the unstructured civilian life they are entering and this leads to self-destruction. ",
"A lot of people are going to disagree and or call me insensitive. The hard honest truth is simple. They *want* to be homeless. There are so many resources available to people, particularly veterans (however most homeless \"veterans\" simply are flat out liars, and never were in the military), that the only way you stay in the street is if you want to. They want the freedom of being able to do whatever it is they want. People can control themselves more than they are given credit for or even know themselves. Some people pick drugs or alcohol over a home, some just don't want to work a job. Others just don't want to try. Think I like getting up at 4am and working 12+ hours a day at 2 jobs? Fuck no. But I do it. Because we have to. In order to have a home and a vehicle and phone I have to get up and do things I don't want to do. A large chuck or homeless people say \"fuck that I'm not doing that\" and that's completely fine. If you have never tried to help or actually talk to a homeless person, I highly suggest you do so. Every time I've attempted to help or talk to a homeless person, within 2 minutes they have said 30 things that 100% convince me that they are homeless by choice only. ",
"Legitimate question. I hope to offend anyone either. \n\nWhere is the money they make while serving? How much are their expenses while serving? \n\nThe reason I ask is usually people who work jobs have a savings account. And if they plan on getting a new job usually have savings to back up on while they transition. Just curious why the military doesn't teach them to save xxx amount of money to say live for a year while they transition back and find new careers. \n\nNot speaking of the substance abuse issues. That's a whole different topic. ",
"They go in as young adults, never learn how to manage their money, have free housing and food, so when they get out, they have a paltry amount left with a 40000 mustang at 17% interest with a baby momma who works as a stripper and thinks her etsy page is the best thing since sliced bread.",
"I spent 5 years in as an 11b, got out in 2011 and have been homeless 3 times for various reasons. One was due to shitty job market, one was self inflicted (not wanting to deal with a roommate that sold drugs) and most recently, this past October and November because the Veterans Services Commission of Hamilton County not being able to provide assistance due to my not having a job. Now I'm working a steady, being utilized to nowhere near my potential, with bills that outweigh my income. Life as a civvy is great!",
"10 year veteran here. (I'm doing fine- I saved up a quarter of a million dollars, got about 7 cyber certs and a cyber bachelor's when in Cyber is blazing hot right now.) \n\nSome service members came straight out of high school. They maybe didn't spend that much time in \"the real world.\" Maybe they didn't exactly fit in anywhere else but military worked. They got used to being totally covered for housing, medical care, commissary food prices. They got used to a job where if you show up in uniform, you get paid every 2 weeks. You don't have to make sales quotas or follow market trends and your company basically can't go out of business no matter what you do or don't do. \n\nI know lots of service members who live paycheck to paycheck. They know when Pay Day is because that's when they can afford to buy more food and not before. Maybe they have a big shiny and/or fancy car (SUV? Charger? Mustang? 350Z?) with payments and maybe some maxxed out high interest (19%+ ?!?) credit cards. \n\nThey were probably told they can and should get some college credits in, but they didn't really feel like it after work and especially not when they were deployed. They didn't pay close attention to their VMET (big document with what all their skills translate to in the real world.) They didn't get many other, if any certs. They didn't score that Department of Labor Apprenticeship in their career field by logging in the 2,000 hours. They didn't start networking with friends and folks in their field before they got out. They spend a lot of time drinking and just relaxing after work, which is fine, but they didn't do much if any of that other nutritious stuff. \n\nNow imagine they get out without planning for it. Either they decided not to re-enlist just a few months before they got out, or they got tossed out for some bad stuff that got out of control. Every service member goes to a mandatory separation class where they are taught about interviewing and resumes and getting their skills together, but it didn't sink in. They didn't pay that much attention, it was hard to believe, that's a lot of work to get all together. \n\nNow layer PTSD or any other health problems with this sort of tuned out attitude to make it even worse. (Or even without it, the tuned out part can be pretty damaging.) They could file their medical record with the VA and even get some health care and maybe even a little money each month in compensation- but they never got around to it, they don't like paperwork. They don't really have a good idea how to turn artillery specialist into a usable job skill, or who they'd even apply with and they lost the copy of their resume they had from TAPS. They don't get that paycheck every two weeks and they're upside down on their car so it's gone pretty soon. Without a car, how are they going to get to job interviews? It all seems too much. They crash on friends' couches for a while, but that welcome wears out eventually. Well, no problem, they've camped in harsh places before so a city park isn't going to be that bad, just for a little while. A little of that and their clothes are getting grubby and getting a job seems totally out of the question. \n\nI guess my theory is that a small but non-zero percentage of people in the military are sort of tuned out, and doing the minimum to get buy. The military supports that and props it up with a giant framework of steady paychecks, housing, food and health care. Even people who are kind of tuned out can usually score a job with a friend somewhere that also doesn't mind if they do the minimum, but a few can't. They also don't know how to or don't have the right attitude to make the most of the support they could get from the VA. Some have all of the above compounded by health issues like PTSD, but the law has a button that is (in theory) supposed to expedite PTSD for the VA to support people with a PTSD diagnosis. I don't know every veteran's story of course, but I know there are PTSD folks who have seen some SHIT, and still gotten themselves to therapy and fought their way through it. For whatever reasons, not every veteran has the knowledge or will to fight their way through the paperwork and job applications it takes to function in our society, so without some external help (which they might even be resistant to) they drop out to the bottom.",
"My experience in observation is this:\n\n-any knucklehead that served 180 days in training is considered a veteran, whether they served a full term or washed out because of being overweight, injured, pt failure, got in trouble.\n\n-a shitbag that goes in as a problem child and gets kicked out for being a shitbag will blame the rest of his life's failures on the military.\n\n-anyone can write \"homeless Vet\" on a sign and have never served. I ran into a \"Vet\" asking for money in LA whose unit was the 4077th Semper Fi and did his basic training in Compton.\n\nNow, for real full term vets the problem is just as others have described: non-transferable job skills. We are the best cops, firefighters, etc but have to struggle to get into the job market like anyone else.\n\nFederal jobs have a ton of nepotism attached to them so even those are a struggle to get. Hell, trump has nepotismed the shit out of the White House jobs!\n\nThe \"feel goods\" who were hiring recent vets realized that we are coming out with a ton of PTSD issues and can be a liability plus the veteran first job initiative can just be a bunch of smoke and mirrors.\n\nThere are a ton of Vet/Military websites all spouting off job opportunities but they all boil down to the excact same hiring source: USAJOBS.\n\nNow we also have a ton of successful vets but the reality is that the dirty drug addict holding a homeless vet sign will get all the notice. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xl43i/eli5_why_are_so_many_us_veterans_homeless_why_are/dej0mtz/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.upworthy.com/when-someone-on-the-street-asks-you-for-money-whats-your-answer-this-app-can-help"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/fact-sheet-veteran-homelessness"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3opzae
|
Linguists: Are there studies that look to find links between Asian language and Native North American speech?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3opzae/linguists_are_there_studies_that_look_to_find/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvzkf45",
"cvzum4o"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes. However the only really notable one so far is [the Dené-Yeniseian theory](_URL_0_), though.",
"The linguist Edward Vajda has proposed a link between the Na-Dené language family in North America and the Yeniseian languages in Siberian. (see _URL_1_ or _URL_0_). I'm not a linguist, so it's not clear to me how well-established this connection is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9%E2%80%93Yeniseian_languages"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dené–Yeniseian_languages",
"https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/dy/"
]
] |
||
be3r5o
|
Irish Independence
|
One thing I've never understood is why the UK was so determined to hold on to Ireland. By the time the Republic gained independence, American was long gone, Canada and Australia had free rule as independent members of the Commonwealth. What made the UK so determined to hold on to Ireland?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/be3r5o/irish_independence/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elk8rm7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"First, Ireland wasn't a distant colony like the others mentioned, the 1800 Act of Union made it part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Just like England, Scotland and Wales, MP's elected in Ireland took their seats in Westminster. An uprising in Ireland wasn't viewed as colonists going native trying to break away from the Empire, it was an integral part of the United Kingdom trying to break away. During the War of Independence the UK deployed demobbed British soldiers to Ireland as part of a police force and never formally involved the army. They painted the conflict as being simply a criminal situation. Deploying the army would have been an admittance that the United Kingdom was in the middle of a civil war.\n\nProximity and size meant it was easier for Britain to control Ireland than it was for the other regions you mention. The likes of Canada were given Dominion status due in part to their distance from London and the difficulty of direct rule. The UK was caught off guard during the 1916 Rising in Dublin but was able to deploy 16,000 troops to the city within days, most of them being transported directly from Britain.\n\nControl of Ireland had strategic consequences for the UK. In 1796 14,000 French troops had attempted a landing in Ireland but were unable to do so due to bad weather. In 1798 a rebellion broke out and 1,000 French troops landed at Mayo and a larger force failed to land at Donegal. The 1800 Act of Union was forced through the Irish Parliament to bring Ireland under closer British rule and a number of [Martello towers](_URL_0_) were built along to the coast during the Napoleonic Wars. The 1916 Rising leaders had secured weapons from Germany but these were captured by the British before they could reach shore (the ship carrying them was scuttled near Cork harbor) and there were fears that Germany would attempt a landing. In 1918 British authorities in Ireland attempted to arrest 150 members of the Nationalist movement, capturing about half that number. Though they had no evidence they genuinely seem to have believed that the Irish were again collaborating with Germany and that plans were in place to land up to 70,000 German soldiers. 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland gained Free State status in 1922 but a number of \"Treaty Ports\" remained under British control due to their strategic importance. These were handed back to Ireland in the 1930's and during World War 2 there were some brief calls for them to be returned to Britain for the duration of the war. Naval ports in Northern Ireland produced ships for the war and many US soldiers were based there. The United Kingdom assembled \"Plan W\", a planned invasion of Ireland, at the request of the Irish government, in response to a German invasion.\n\nImperial pride had a lot to do with it as well. Ireland fought a War of Independence against British rule from 1919 to 1921. Since 1800 Irish politicians had been arguing for Home Rule, limited self government within the Union, but this was continuously refused. The 1916 Rising and World War 1 change opinion massively in Ireland in favor of a Republic. If Britain wasn't willing to give Ireland Home Rule they defiantly weren't willing to give that! Ireland was one of a number of Imperial possessions, British or otherwise, that fought for its independence in this time period. Britain's power was waning and it didn't want to speed up this process by allowing Ireland to go easily. Anti-colonial struggles following the World War convinced Britain the days of its Empire were over and this was reformed as the Commonwealth of Nations in 1931, of which the Irish Free State was a member and remained so until the Republic of Ireland Act 1949.\n\nSince 1922 the the six north easterly counties of the island have remained part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The plantations, where land was stripped from the native Irish and given to British settlers, had been most successful in this area and they had a strong Unionist population, though they were a tiny minority on the island overall. They had resisted Home Rule and threatened civil war to remain part of the United Kingdom. The party governing the UK today is officially the Conservative and Unionist Party (often just refereed to as the Conservatives) and they strongly supported the Irish Unionists. Following the partition of the island they have supported Northern Ireland's place in the Union and continue to do so. The area has limited strategic value in the modern world and has been heavily economically deprived under British rule but is still defended by them as an integral part of the Union. The Troubles, a 30 year armed conflict mainly involving Nationalist and Unionist Paramilitaries, Northern Ireland and British state forces, ended with the signing of the Good Friday agreement in 1998 which says that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until a majority vote otherwise. Changing population dynamics and Brexit are causing many to call for a boarder poll on Irish reunification, something the Conservatives want to avoid.\n\nTLDR: Ireland's proximity meant it had strategic value and made it easier for the United Kingdom to impose direct rule on the island. As a constituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland loosing it had deeper political ramifications than far flung parts of the Empire."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martello_tower#Ireland"
]
] |
|
5gbszw
|
how do big tech companies make money off of free services (especially those without ads e.g. google maps)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5gbszw/eli5_how_do_big_tech_companies_make_money_off_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daqyygu",
"dar2m2c",
"dar5jfd"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Because it keeps you in their ecosystem, making you more likely to use other products by them which they do make a profit from, either by selling the service or by using the collected data they have on you for target advertisements. \n \nAlso, Google makes Android, having no 1^st party navigation will push the device manufacture (Samsung, HTC, etc.) to make their own system, which is what happens with cars and they almost all suck (thankfully my new car has Apple CarPlay/Android Auto).",
"Of note, Google provides Maps as an API / service to other developers and charges a fee for use beyond some reasonable number of requests. That is, if you build an app that shows a map to users you can show it, say, 10,000* times a day. Beyond that you would purchase blocks of requests, say $1 per additional 10,000 requests. Google provides a lot of developer-friendly services and APIs similar to this which can also come at a cost.\n\nThis trend is not solely used with Google. Companies like Amazon and Microsoft also provide various services that are charged for. Typically these will be tools and software consumed and built internally by the company which then get spun out into a Business-to-Business commercial offering as well. Amazon Web Services are another example of this, where they built \"cloud tools\" internally to more easily setup and manage web servers, databases, messaging (email, push notifications), and many, many more things. This originally started as an internal tool for their engineers but they realized there was commercial potential and now it's extremely popular among a segment of software companies.\n\n*I don't recall the actual numbers off-hand, and I'm too lazy to look them up right now.",
"So none of the responses so far are accurate so I'll just point out the obvious: they aren't. Specifically, they aren't making money from consumers of free services. They make money in other ways. For example, Google makes maps free to use for consumers, but developers must pay to use the apps in an application. Oracle makes several Java applications free to use, but charge businesses for enterprise editions of software. Microsoft has various campaigns of free services and software (such as their OS), but charge businesses licences to use them. \n\nIn other words, companies make money from offering free services to consumers by charging other businesses for services that users use. For example, by Oracle handing Java out, this ensures that many consumers will use Java and companies will now make Java applications. Licensing is usually the largest income for large software companies like Microsoft. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2qsh89
|
how comes elementary, middle, and high school is so meaningless and easy, but college is so much pressure and everything coming down on you at once
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qsh89/eli5_how_comes_elementary_middle_and_high_school/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn93nog"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In today's marketplace it can be very tough to get a good paying job without a college degree. In fact, you can even look t it in the current state of the economy that the degree won't even guarantee you a job anymore. What it is good for is to guarantee you an INTERVIEW. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
akoktk
|
why is it that when someone needs to sneeze but can’t quite get it out, looking at a bright light helps?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/akoktk/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_someone_needs_to_sneeze/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef6iz56",
"ef6k82q",
"ef78tbp",
"ef7agjg",
"ef7gpqz"
],
"score": [
15,
34,
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s the photic sneeze effect. A large percentage of people have a gene that causes them to sneeze when they look at the sun.",
"The trigeminal nerve (triggers a sneeze) runs close to the optic nerve. Flooding the optic nerve suddenly (with light) can cause the trigeminal nerve to trigger.",
"There's a nerve that runs from your nose to your brain called the trigeminal nerve. That nerve is located near the optic nerve. When that nerve gets tickled, you sneeze. That nerve is generally tickled by detecting stuff in your nose.\n\nA decent portion of the population is born with a birth defect that causes the protective sheath of the trigeminal nerve to be weakened. That weakened sheath can allow the trigeminal nerve to be tickled by a strong enough signal being transmitted by the nearby optic nerve. \n\nWhen you look at a sudden bright light, the optic nerve transmits a strong signal to the brain. This signal is strong enough that it can tickle the trigeminal nerve through its weakened sheath. And you sneeze. \n\nImagine two wires next to each other, and one of them has a bunch of holes in the plastic coating. Sometimes when you turn on one lamp, the other might flash on for a moment. ",
"I experience that as well, and was surprised to learn not everyone has that reaction. Some of my siblings are aware of it, so I guess heredity is a factor. I've heard it called **ADCHOO**—Autosomal Dominant Compelling Helio-Ophthalmic Outburst, or 'sun sneezing'. Sometimes just walking outside on a sunny day will trigger a sneeze.",
"This sounds kinda wierd but when i get a sneeze stuck i rub the top of my nose like im rubbing a clit and never lose a sneeze... The light trick sounds interesting tho"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
25s5kq
|
what should i do in a brawl?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25s5kq/eli5what_should_i_do_in_a_brawl/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chk7l56",
"chk7rq7",
"chk7y1b",
"chk8478",
"chk8973",
"chk8evq",
"chk8ii6",
"chk8paz"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Definitely curl up in the fetal position.",
"[Karate chop] (_URL_0_)",
"If you have to ask, Run Away.",
"Attack weak spots like: balls, throat, eyes. If you end on the ground protect your head and attack knees, balls. If given the upper hand assume more people are coming and deliver as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. \n\nAbove all, try to avoid situations like this. They can easily end with severe injury or death. However, if ever in such a pinch, other people getting severely hurt is always preferable to getting hurt yourself. ",
"Stop, drop and roll.",
"A lot of fighting just comes down to sheer willingness to hit and be hit. Saying \"if you're in a fight do this\" doesn't really work. An aggressor has the advantage typically because they're already hyped up to do damage while the defender is still thinking \"buh what should I do now?\"\n\nTake a self defence class. ideally one which a) involves physical sparring and b)emphasises that the first course of action if possible should be running away.\n",
"If you need to fight defend yourself do it however you can. Fight as dirty as you need to because it could be the difference between life and death and no one is going to say it was a good thing you didn't fight dirty at your funeral.\n\nThe other thing you should do is not go down, do everything you can to keep standing and protect your head. Brain damage is permanent so protect it at all costs. If you go down protect you head however you can.",
"Always carry pocketsand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67isFmH5vQ8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3pyscu
|
why does fish smell so much more than other kinds of meat?
|
Why is that classic "fishy odor" so sharp and so prone to lingering when compared to beef, chicken, etc?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pyscu/eli5_why_does_fish_smell_so_much_more_than_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwan2de",
"cwaqlb0",
"cwar0e8"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They live in a completely different environment, for one.\n\nThey are very much further divergent in common ancestry than, say cows, pigs, and ourselves. Notice that poultry has a stronger and very different scent from mammalian meat products, but much less pervasive than fish. Closer common ancestry.\n\nThird, they have diets of other marine life, and at the bottom of the food chain are grubby little nasties, and plankton and shit. Literal feces. Cattle are herbivores, and eat deliciously fragrant land dwelling plants.\n\nLastly, having a strongly scented meat could be beneficial to the survival of the species of fish. If a predator bites a chunk out of one fish, the scent will permeate the water, drawing other predators to that location, potentially drawing the attention away from the rest of the school.",
"Not only Fish, but most sea creatures smell when they are taking out of the water. Sea water is rich in salt water, and in order for these animals to maintain fluidity in their cells they have to fill their cells with amino acids and amines(type of ammonia), this is done so their bodies are happy chilling in the ocean. Now their cells are filled with trimethylamine oxide (TMAO), thats the stuff that allows them to live in salty water. But when they are not living in the ocean and are on land this TMAO changes to TMA(trimethylamine), fish enzymes and bacteria create the change. Its just a chemical reaction that happens to the fish. But when this happens, its starts to smell. TMA gives off that odour you're thinking about. \n",
"Fish doesn't stay fresh as long. \"Fresh\" means \"not too much chemical damage.\"\n\nOne big reason is that they're not warm-blooded. When you chill a chicken or beef carcass the low temperature shuts down the enzymes in the meat and that greatly slows-down chemical damage.\n\nGo a step further and frozen meat will stay fresh (except for the icing damage) for about a year as long as it's kept safe from oxygen. \n\nBut a refrigerated fish is a different story. Cod for example can spend their entire lives below 50F and be happy. A refrigerator isn't cold enough to stop their metabolic enzymes, so fish spoils much faster than warm-blooded meat.\n\nProtein turns into free amino acids, which have strong cheesy/fishy/yeasty scents and flavors that aren't necessarily bad, but which are definitely acquired tastes. Vegemite is a perfect example of a food with a lot of free aminos in it. Soy sauce is another one. Cheese has some. Those products are all slightly decomposed.\n\nFurther decomposition, especially once the wrong kind of bacteria are involved, makes other small amines that are *really* gross. (One literally has the nickname [putrescine](_URL_0_)).\n\nSpoil meat will produce similar smells, but it takes longer. Meat also contains more and different kinds of fat. When fats spoil they go stale-bitter-sour, and that is a big part of the difference in smell.\n\nIn short: fish is fishy because it's already starting to go bad. Fresh fish does have an odor, but it's very mild and for lack of better terms more buttery, salty, and maybe earthy depending on variety. Not sharp like amines.\n\nP.S.\n\nMost of these decomposition products are not a food-safety risk themselves, but they do serve as natural warning that there may be toxic bacteria and fungi present. Gross food might not hurt you, but food that tastes fine can."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putrescine"
]
] |
|
r6bh8
|
Dear /r/askscience, please help me educate myself on evolution.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/r6bh8/dear_raskscience_please_help_me_educate_myself_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c438l58",
"c438mci"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The one I prefer is [Berkeley's Evolution 101](_URL_0_).",
"The best \"self-educate\" resources on evolution that I have ever discovered are:\n\n1. _URL_0_\n\n2. Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry Coyne (book)\n\n3. The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, by Richard Dawkins (book)\n\nIf you're looking for creationist resources, you might check out the Discovery Institute (Intelligent Design think tank), or Answers In Genesis, or the Institute for Creation Research.\n\nI think you'll find out pretty quick that there's actually not much \"controversy\" about evolution, at all, despite what the creationists want you to think.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01"
],
[
"talkorigins.org"
]
] |
||
5j248m
|
if you look at the 70s and 80s, their culture (music, clothes, etc.) was so different from each other. why does 2000s and 2010s culture seem almost the same?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j248m/eli5_if_you_look_at_the_70s_and_80s_their_culture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbcq70y",
"dbcqfgk",
"dbcro2l",
"dbcuv0h",
"dbcw28h",
"dbcyq2j",
"dbd17ly",
"dbd2n1w",
"dbd2pk1",
"dbd2uwg",
"dbd338u",
"dbd36sq",
"dbd3b85",
"dbd3gnx",
"dbd3kjj",
"dbd3p9f",
"dbd3zge",
"dbd4nbo"
],
"score": [
193,
345,
7,
14,
33,
10,
69,
9,
19,
26,
186,
2,
3,
3,
3,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You remember the transition because it was recent. The evolution of fashion in 60's and 70's is thought of in punctuated snap shots because of how long ago it was.",
"Does it really, though? One example I can think of is clothing - think of the loose, baggy styles of the early 2000s compared with the tight, form fitting trends of today. \n\nPerhaps another example would be the rise of the hipster. Had you even heard of the term prior to 2010 or so? I certainly hadn't. ",
"Well in accordance to common art philosophies perpetuated by people like David foster Wallace and Danto, is that we are beyond the realm of history meaning that we've surpassed a traceable linear history that shows progression but no we live in a world that is many different lines of history as we're getting more connected with the furthest corner of the world. We now instead of a visible progression (I mean it's always been this way) have a progression built on what we've learned before and what we have now, an oscillation of modern postmodern tendencies. We are progressing but differently ",
"Our clothing today is stylish, but its primarily functional, we have stretchy fabrics that keep in heat, we can get clothing to do easier what we couldnt get it to do before. Thats a little part of my cltohing fashion is plateauing. With music, part of it is technology, the new music tech in the 60s 70s and 80s was radically different, and fairly easy to use, music laregly followed the new possibilites (synths, samples, thigs like effects pedals). Also, back then, people were more into defining themselves in contrast to former generations. Now a days, culture has accumulated, and we have a lot of hip history to draw upon, so our priorities have changed along with this fact. Think, we got electric intsruments somewhere in the 30s or so, rock beats in the late 50s, all that new RnB n Soul n Funk sounds in the 70s, eventually, there werent any obvious next new directions, at least that would sweep the public consciousness. We see more subtle combinations of things from the last 40 years now, as opposed to \"new\" stuff, and this is what the people want these days. ",
"It's probably down to social media and the internet in general leading to trends becoming global almost instantly. What may have been trendy in the U.S. in '66 may not have hit Europe until a year or two later. Also mainstream 80's subculture may not have manifested in the former soviet block until the late 80's early 90's, whereas these days fads spread almost instantly particularly among young people, so in my old person opinion it's globalization and interwebs.",
"We went from alternative rock and flannel shirts to wubwubwub and hats with price tags still attached in a 10 years span. It's a pretty rad change if you ask me",
"Partly because we haven't turned 2000s and 2010s into easily digestible stereotypes yet. \n\nBut yes I agree with you. I loved through 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s and it feels like things slowed down in the 2000s comparatively. \n\nObviously there has been lots of change though.",
"Because for the last 15 years all modern American pop music has been produced by two guys. ",
"The internet is homogenizing societies and making fads come and go so fast that they never develop into trends ",
"It is a matter of memory and detachment. You see, when the decades are not over, you cannot see them as how they are different from the previous one. I remember thinking the same in the 2000's and the 90's back then and about the 90's and the 80s'. \n\nJust get a little bit detach and you will se the obvious differences. Member when everyone thought that Edd Hardy, Ambercrombie and True Religion jeans were cool??? Ohh, I member. Member the RAZR phone and the IPod craze? ",
"You didn't notice the shift because you're 20-ssomething and you were not alive. if you look at yourself in the mirror every day for ten years i bet you wouldn't notice a difference in how you look, one day at a time. but now go on facebook and look at a photo of yourself from 2006, wow, that is a huge change.\n\nyou didn't live in the 70s or 80s so you have a snapshot image in your mind of what 70s was and you don't ever think of the day by day changes and shifts from decade to decade. just my thoughts.",
"The leggings of today are similar to the 90s.\n\nWe no longer use the \"shrug\"- that cardigan that only covers the arms and shoulders.\n\nFedoras? Porkpie hats? Those things go back decades.\n\nMy biggest issue more than fashion is actually the music.",
"Many decade fads of the past were driven by technological shifts. The tech that came out in 2000 didn't influence much in 2010. The 70s\\80s just was huge with transistors and computer tech. Synth, recording and mixing techniques, new textiles, bakelite, plastics, it was huge. Going from the 50s to 60s, and 60s to 70s had similar jumps. Tech doesn't make ripples, it makes shockwaves.\n\nLooking at 2000 to 2010... not much tech influenced culture as in the past. Only thing that comes to mind is the rise of the Hipster and retro kitsch and the crybully.",
"In the 80s, I and my peers generally didn't think we were doing things much differently from the 70s. More like we were emulating them but with different resources. ",
"I've been wondering the same thing.\n\nI remember the 60s, 70s, 80s, each distinctive.\n\nThen the 90s were different, and since then it doesn't seem to change much.\n\nI thought maybe I was just missing something.",
"What we think of as \"70's\" is effectively a distilled selection that defined the decade as being different from the years that came before and after. \n\nBut the music of the 2000's is still recent enough for a lot of it to be played at house parties, on the radio, etc and the content is fresh enough to be remembered by everyone - so there's more variety still being exposed, and less \"decade defining\" music that has been distilled down. \n\nAlso, bear in mind that the 70's have both the 60s and 80s to define it and give it context - the decade following the 2000s is only just over halfway through, so we still dont yet know what will \"define\" the 2000s and what will continue to develop and remain popular throughout the following decade. ",
"The 80s introduced cheap labor and textiles to fashion. No such gains between 2000\\2010. All the development is in software tech. Not clothes",
"It's there, they're different. You just don't realize as much because you lived it. Think about yourself today versus yourself in 2006, they seemed somewhat similar (depending on your age). But if you go as an outsider, they're massively different. Look at a TV show from the early 2000's; the girls wore flared jeans and butterfly hair clips, the boys wore baggy pants, they all listened to boy bands on their Razr phones, and they used slang and catchphrases like bling, don't have a cow, and bi-otch. All of that would be outdated and out of style, today, would it not? A good example is Friends. If you watch the early episodes, they were clearly living in the early 90s, and the later seasons were clearly in the 2000's. However, if you watch the whole show, you won't realize that all of a sudden the outfits seem different, because it's gradual.\n\nKeep in mind that our views of the past are flawed as well. Everything didn't shift from flower power and bell bottoms in 1979 to mullets and jazzercise as soon as it became the 80's . Changes like major shifts in fashion, culture, and music are gradual, and things last from one to another, and are adopted overtime. What we think of as iconic symbols of the 90's began in the 80's and lasted into the 2000's. Stuff ebbs and flows. Nothing feels that different one day to another, but after enough days you realize you've aged 10 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1vd3t9
|
What provisions would sailors bury in the 16th - 17th centuries?
|
I was re-reading the Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake and it mentions he buried provisions in a cove in S America expecting a return to the same hideaway to continue to plunder the Spanish. In general, what provisions would sailors bury that would be valuable but also worth the risk of losing? Along with the dangers of spoilage and rust, there isn't anything I can imagine that is worth burying. Is there any documentation out there that has a specific list of items? My google-foo has failed me. Many thanks for any answers.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. I really enjoyed both comments. I had no idea that meat could last that long without refrigeration. I remember reading a book about Magellan that made it seem like hunting was plentiful around there. I also like the idea of storing all excess repair parts, those seem like one of those "low risk-high reward" burial items I didn't think about.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vd3t9/what_provisions_would_sailors_bury_in_the_16th/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cer5abh"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"My knowledge is from a slightly later period, but I'll give it a shot.\n\nFresh water for one thing. The casks of water would already be brackish part way through an overseas voyage (even going as far as British colonies in the New World sailing from England), but any fresh water is better than none, especially when adulterated with rum or other spirits. Likewise, small beer (beer with a very low alcohol content, drunk as an alternative to (often) suspect sources of water).\n\nYou also have to remember that any foodstuffs provided for long sea voyages would be prepared to survive that voyage. Meats would be heavily salted and have a shelf-life of up to seven years before spoiling. Any bread would be in the form of ship's biscuit, otherwise known as hardtack, which similarly has a long shelf-life (but would require that you knock the weevils and maggots out first before eating).\n\nOther than that, I'm really at a loss. Perhaps items required for repairs on a return voyage (e.g. nails, rope, tar, pitch, etc.)? Hope I've been helpful in some small way.\n\nSource: Lots of reading and practical lessons working at historic sites."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3qlrnr
|
the situation in the south china sea. why doesn't some international body (such as the un) rule who owns what part of the ocean, and what is international waters?
|
[The whole situation seems messy and dangerous.](_URL_0_). Surely there must be some international law that covers situations like this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qlrnr/eli5_the_situation_in_the_south_china_sea_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwg9pse",
"cwg9u3v",
"cwga2ud",
"cwgamy4",
"cwgb1g8"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because no body of gov tells what sovereign countries what the rules are. Some countries agreed to certain rules between themselves in a treaty. Other countries agree on some rules but not others.",
" > Surely there must be some international law that covers situations like this?\n\nYou mean like the UN convention on the law of the sea upon which the sovereign claims China is challenging are based?\n\nThe reason this is a big deal is precisely because China is seeking to overturn the rules based nature of management of ocean resources. The US sending ships within its claims is a routine thing the US does when countries attempt to violate freedom of movement in what the UNCLOS calls international waters. \n\nAlso, China's response was actually rather tepid. They didn't even summon the US ambassador for direct talks on the matter. It's likely that Obama told Xi Jinping that he was going to do this during Xi's visit to the US.",
"Is that the same UN in which China and the U.S. both have veto power on the Security Council?",
"Here's the situation in a nutshell:\n\n* Countries can own land and the waters for up to 12 nautical miles from that land.\n* Other ocean further out is \"international waters\" and not owned by anyone\n* China is creating man-made islands out in the ocean so that they can claim it as their land.\n* Having land further out in the ocean allows them to claim more ocean that was previously considered international waters\n* The US thinks they are cheating, so they brought in their military ships into this ocean area which they were legally allowed to be in before\n* China says they are invading their territory. The US says it's not their territory.\n\nThere are no international laws on this because countries creating their own islands is not something that has been done before. Who is right?",
" > Why doesn't some international body (such as the UN) rule who owns what part of the ocean, and what is international waters?\n\nThere are some good answers here already, but I think it's important to realize that international bodies only have as much power over a nation as that nation *allows* them to have.\n\nSay, for example, that the UN makes up some rules about who owns international waters. China then says, \"Nope, fuck you guys, we'll do whatever we want.\"\n\nSo what can the UN do about that? Answer: not very much. Maybe try to impose economic sanctions, but:\n\n1. China is on the UN Security Council, and can unilaterally veto any decisions. \n2. If China were *not* on the Security Council, their economy is so large that it would negatively impact the world economy to try to impose sanctions.\n\nIn short, \"international law\" is more accurately thought of as \"nations who decide to cooperate with each other and call doing so 'law'.\" International \"law\" can only be enforced through:\n\n1. Voluntary cooperation. \n2. Member nations all agreeing to levy economic sanctions against the offender. \n3. Member nations agreeing to go to war against the offender."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/china-not-frightened-fight-war-south-china-sea-uss-lassen"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3y9jgo
|
How could a crystal like this be grown in the lab as they state?
|
I saw this browsing through eBay and I was wondering how they could actually produce something like that in a lab:
_URL_0_
They say the crystal is a combination of purple colored amethyst and lighter yellowish colored citrine quartz (some doubly terminated).
I am curious because all of the home/lab grown crystals I have seen are very generic in shape and only of one variety
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3y9jgo/how_could_a_crystal_like_this_be_grown_in_the_lab/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cycln7c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not completely sure it's lab-grown at all. [Here](_URL_0_) you have a short summary of how quartz crystals (like amethyst) are grown with the use of an autoclave.\n\nThe crystal you refer to doesn't look like it's lab grown but I do suspect it has been irradiated or heated.\n\n[This](_URL_1_) is an example of the different ways to modify amethyst. It's a cheap way to make cheap amethyst look like the more rare and expensive citrine.\n\nAnyway, this can happen naturally but mostly it's all done in a lab somewhere."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/AMETHYST-CITRINE-QUARTZ-LAB-LABRATORY-GROWN-GERMANY-MINERALS-CRYSTALS-GEMS-CAB-/381320583266?hash=item58c87a5862:g:f1oAAOSwrklVellS"
] |
[
[
"http://www.vogelcrystals.net/Hydrothermal.htm",
"http://www.geologyin.com/2015/08/changes-in-color-of-amethyst-by-heat.html"
]
] |
|
iv3g9
|
If you were on the moon could you throw a rock hard enough for it to either escape the moon's gravity or enter into orbit around it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/iv3g9/if_you_were_on_the_moon_could_you_throw_a_rock/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c26v3u3",
"c26v4ld",
"c26vqzz"
],
"score": [
5,
15,
8
],
"text": [
"Escape the moon's gravity? No. The moon's escape velocity is ~2376 m/s (5314 mph).",
"The formula for escape velocity is v = sqrt(2GM/r)\n\nG is the gravitational constant: 6.67300 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 \nM is the mass of the body (the moon in this case): 7.36 × 10^22 kg \nr is the radius of the body: 1737400 m \n\nPlugging in the numbers and solving for v yields: 2372 m/s, or 5319mph.\n\nSo unless you can throw a five-thousand-mile-per-hour fastball, no.",
"[This xkcd](_URL_0_) shows how high you'd have to jump to escape the gravitational pull at the surface of various bodies. On the moon, that's like jumping 288 km."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://xkcd.com/681_large/"
]
] |
||
2e8397
|
How does the physiological response triggered by watching a horror movie compare with a 'true' horror response?
|
For instance, are the same regions of the brain activated?
(The topic arose over on /r/truegaming in [this thread](_URL_0_).)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2e8397/how_does_the_physiological_response_triggered_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjxy4sp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As a general theoretical rule, it's not the situation itself that elicits an emotional response, but our interpretation of the situation (e.g., Siemer, Mauss, & Gross, 2007). For example, if I think mice are disease-ridden, then I might react in fear to mice. On the other hand, if I think mice are cute, then I might have a positive emotional response to mice.\n\nSo if my interpretation is the same for a monster chasing me in real life vs. a monster appearing in a horror movie, then I will generally have a similar physiological (experiential, behavioral, etc.) response in both situations."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/2e6uy5/are_horror_games_bad_for_the_brain_is_the/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
5ry1nd
|
how come after you recover from a sickness such as the flu or a stomach virus, for a few days your stomach is wonky and doesn't seem to work properly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ry1nd/eli5_how_come_after_you_recover_from_a_sickness/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddb49ei"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Your body's natural response is to basically flush everything out.\n\nYou might not know this but your body, when healthy, supports a functioning ecosystem of bacteria in your gut that aid in digestion.\n\nYour body basically says \"I'm not right, kick them all out\". Sort of like a party where a few bad actors get kicked out and the entire thing gets shut down. \n\nHopefully, the stuff that you want in there is still hanging around, and now they need to start rebuilding. In the meantime....you aren't shitting right, lots of weird sounds, shit has been upended. \n\nIt's just your body coming back to equilibrium. There are bacteria living in you that have evolved to live in the environment that your gut produced for millennia. Thankfully, they're right at home, and they're ready to come back as soon as things settle down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
e4z49g
|
sleep paralysis demons (for someone who has never experienced sleep paralysis before).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e4z49g/eli5_sleep_paralysis_demons_for_someone_who_has/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9gcifp"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Sleep is not an on/off switch; it doesn't always work perfectly.\n\n\"Sleep paralysis\" is actually completely normal - it would be very bad for someone to be acting out everything in their dreams, so their bodies lock up and stop them from moving while they're asleep. Usually.\n\nThe problem is when part of a person is awake and the rest is not. For some people, this causes sleep-walking (mind asleep, body not). For other people, it causes monsters to come into your room and claw at you while you can't move (body asleep, mind not.)\n\nWhen you're in this half-asleep half-awake state, your real world and dream world mix together like an Augmented Reality horror game. You'll hallucinate sounds that aren't there, you'll sense presences moving around, you might feel things touching you. If your eyes are open, then you'll start seeing some creepy stuff in your room. Since you can't move due to the sleep paralysis, you'll probably freak out, which will cause all of these dream elements to definitely become nightmare elements.\n\nEvery culture has their own distinct version of Bloody Mary, who everyone from that culture swears they've met before. It turns out that Bloody Mary is their subconscious failing to recognize their own reflection in a dusty mirror in the dark and Photoshopping it to a completely different figure. It can be a family member, a stranger, or a monster. They were told to expect a monster, so a monster they get.\n\nI believe the same thing affects sleep paralysis incidents. \"Shadow people\" is a common urban legend, and so most people dream up shadow people when they're paralyzed.\n\nAnd hell, I'm pretty sure alien abductions are the same thing. Aliens are scary."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
huyhv
|
How does something like Chantix NOT produce withdrawals/nicotine cravings if it binds to nicotine receptors?
|
**When stopping Chantix**.
This isn't medical advice, just a random thought. I've considered trying Chantix but I hear it's expensive and I'm a little scared of the side effects... can't be any worse than smoking though!
Anyway, thanks in advance. I love being able to ask scientists questions, I can't think of anywhere else I would be able to. :)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/huyhv/how_does_something_like_chantix_not_produce/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1ykwy5",
"c1yl77y",
"c1ylg7r"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"chantix is a *partial* agonist, which means it binds to the same receptors, but doesn't elicit as strong a response. the response is weak enough that it doesn't lead to a lot of dopamine release downstream, so it won't really have withdrawal effects.",
"Chantix is a what's called a \"partial agonist\" so while it activates the nicotine receptors (dulls craving) it also blocks the nicotine you smoke from binding to the nicotine receptor (uncouples the pleasure you receive from smoking). This second pathway of uncoupling the pleasure you receive from smoking a cigarette was actually just re-affirmed in a recently published paper, that I do not have on hand. In the paper they had people continue smoking cigarretes for 4 weeks while on Chantix and they had even higher quit rates than those that started Chantix and quit smoking at the same time.\n\nThis partial agonist class has a few other drugs that are used for similar situations. You may have heard of Suboxone (generic Buprhenorphine), this is a partial agonist at one of the opiate receptors (mu). It helps people quit using opiates in much the same way that Chantix helps people quit smoking. There is also one drug that falls into this class, Abilify (generic Aripiprazole) which is a partial agonist at D2 receptors in the brain and is used as an anti-psychotic.\n\n",
"Syntrik/waterinabottle explained it nicely. Im well aware that we dont give medical advice however, But I would like a very fast rant/warning.\n\n < ENGAGE RANT > \n I want to warn you and anybody else considering using this drug of one thing which isnt fully documented in the usage guidlines yet. Im not going to talk about its efficiency /side effects / appropriateness whatever.\n\nVarenicline ( chantix/champix) should not be used if you have any history of psychiatric illness , particularly depression / anxiety disorder and especially suicide. It was never trialed to any great extent on people who suffer from mental illness, and it carries a warning to say it is not recommended but various governing bodys may not have officially adopted this. A Varenicline Rep told me yesterday ( co-incidence , no? ) that a large multi centre trial is underway to see if its safe in mental health blahblahblah. \n\nMany case reports and my hospitals own anecdotal experience is that it is not. Just Last night a young man took an absolutely massive overdose of various pills, out of the blue no warning, happy guy, wife about to have her baby, great family, loved his hobbies etcetc... 1 week after starting champix. He had a hx of depression but controlled for a decade. ( very strange co-incidence that the rep was in that day !) I know its not scientific , i know there are all kinds of bias there, but I strongly suspect the champix is behind this suicide attempt.\n\n < /RANT > \nMy Rant is over now. I would hate to think that any redditor (or anyone) might be inappropriately started on this drug and suffer like that guy. Just be aware of it thats all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2v6h6a
|
how come microsoft could sell windows for $100 for so long. how come cheaper os's didn't take off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v6h6a/eli5_how_come_microsoft_could_sell_windows_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coev8bw",
"coevepf",
"coevf1e",
"coevpmx",
"coew0b8",
"coew4he",
"coex38n",
"coexml9",
"coexomv",
"coexqqp",
"coextd4",
"coextu0",
"coey14w",
"coey471",
"coeyas0",
"coeyg3c",
"coeyizt",
"coeyn29",
"coez9mb",
"coezjfr",
"coeztuc",
"cof0fky",
"cof3617",
"cof48hh",
"cof4uff",
"cof7gsy",
"cof7jim",
"cofe2nd"
],
"score": [
454,
3,
22,
186,
24,
10,
2,
15,
2,
4,
1032,
3,
6,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
5,
10,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think you understand how much effort goes into creating an operating system. The sheer amount of knowledge and code alone is daunting. That alone keeps most people from starting a business let alone the amount of competition apple and microsoft can bring keeps everyone else out. The only reason Linux and derivatives like ubuntu have developed as free open source alternatives is because they are community driven and free to rebel against the \"system\"",
"1) Windows is the most well known, trusted and reasonably simple OS. \n\n2) People probably grew up with windows as schools back then didn;t usually buy Apple PCs or Apple laptops.\n\n3) Almost every program is guaranteed to work with Windows. There's a chance some apps won't work with Linux or Ubuntu",
"I'll get downvoted to hell by the Linux lovers, but the honest answer is that Windows + MS Office cannot be matched by any open source offering. The reason why Windows is successful is because it is better than Linux.",
"Actually, they don't sell it for $100. That's what you pay if you build your own PC, but PC builders are a minority. If you buy a comupter with Windows pre-installed, you're probably paying about $50 for Windows. On top of that, lots of companies (I'm looking at you, Norton) pay Windows PC makers to pre-install their software, which lowers the price further. Beyond that, people don't buy the thing that's good. They buy the thing they are familiar with. That's why advertising is so successful. And most people are familar with the name Windows.",
"Because $100 for Microsoft Windows is a great deal. ",
"well i can tell you why it there wasn't an alternative for me. I think my first expirience with Linux was around 2004/2005 and to be honest it was a great time for using windows. First there was windows 95, 98, than windows me and after that windows xp. And i enjoyed every single one of those to some degree. Even though i have to admit ME and XP mostly got me by the improved look. You can't imagine how much a teenage boy enjoyed it when they removed the grey block behind the icon-texts on the screen, it allowed me to see more of the beautiful girls i had as wallpapers! So basically letting me see more boobs was the most important feature for me back than :D and if i'm completely honest not that much did change. \n\n\nAround that time i tried Suse linux, it had an installer and a great look. But than again there was problem number one, it had 3 or 4 cds (i can't remember exactly) and at a time when everyone around me had crappy internet, it was impossible for me to download without my parents cutting my head off after looking at the phone bill. Finally my father got it from an colleague, who was a big linux fan and an IT engineer, probably one of the view people at the time who had good internet and used linux. \n\n\nBut after i was finally able to get it, it was just as easy to install and a easy to use. Even though most people told me linux is hard to use, the GNOME interface was just wonderful. It really was as easy to use as Windows and maybe even looked a bit better at the time.\n\n\nBut than i ran into the first big problem, flash player support... back than playing flash games was something me and my friends did a lot and we just started discovering the internet. You can't imagine how important flash was for me! After a while i flash to run, but my \"weak\" pc wasn't able to make it a good experience. \nIn addition to that it took lots of effort to get some hardware to work, that made playing other games difficult (if there even was a linux version). Even having a different Windows version back than was kind of bad. We used to do LAN Parties, because playing online together was kinda impossible, and there was always the guy who didn't get his network card to work or had some driver problems. Linux just made me that guy, which i didn't enjoy at all.\nAnd the biggest reason i stopped using linux shortly after i got it was open office. Back then everyone only had Microsoft office and the one time i tried to do my homework with open office something horrible happened. The wonderful document i made on my Linux pc didn't work with the schools windows! And it turns out that my homework doesn't work because i used Linux to do it, is just as bad as an excuse as my dog ate it. \n\n\nThere may have been solutions to those problems, but i just used windows and i was rather young and inexperienced (but i had more pc knowledge than my parents). So the lack of smart Linux users that could help me out was another big problem.\n\n\nNow to the modern world, i talked about using Linux in a bigger tech company at a conference with some important people. And they mostly mentioned two things why they won't use Linux. The first one is support, a big company can't have software problems and if there are any they need to have a great support to solve those problems fast. And you don't have that with free Linux versions, so you'd need to take one of the paid business versions that offer you some kind of security and support. The second reason was still compatibility, many tools those companies use just aren't for Linux and you can't be sure that a new piece of hardware comes with Linux support (And those companies don't talk about equipment that costs a view hundred bucks, some of the measurements equipment is really expensive and makes cars look cheap). So even today Windows is the standard that most companies use and using Linux still causes compatibility issues, for not very common hardware and software. \n\n\nBut than again i can only recommend Linux to the average user nowadays, it's wonderful, easy to use and i'll try to smuggle it on my grandfathers pc in the near future. He probably won't notice the difference, i just have to make sure solitaire is still there. \n\n\nTL;DR Linux had and still has big compatibility issues.",
"Given how difficult it is to make an operating system $100 is a very generous price.\n\nThere are cheaper/free operating systems out there but they are generally not used for pc's.\n\nWindows has become the standard for pc's and most people cater to that. Most games only come out with a windows version, most commercial software is designed primarily for windows. Also if you computer is not working, your tech-savy cousin know windows too since he uses it as well.\n\nThat being said other operating systems, especially linux, are widely popular on other platforms such as servers and mobile phones. for instance android is based on linux.",
"One reason Microsoft continues to dominate is that there are so many companies already running Microsoft and who have invested in programs which run on Microsoft. Microsoft became the dominant company early and has built on that user base for many years.\n\n1) The cost of changing OS's is prohibitive for most companies.\n\n2) The companies licensing agreements make changing to another O.S. difficult.\n\n3) The pervasiveness of Microsoft means that if you want to get a job doing anything which involves computers, familiarity with Microsoft is almost a requirement. So you probably use Microsoft at home even if you like some other O.S.\n\n4) Microsoft Office is a well integrated suite of programs which has been well received by businesses. There are other such programs available and conversion programs, but Microsoft is at the top of the usage chart. Of course, Microsoft Office runs on Microsoft operating system.",
"Market share and compatibility. The Microsoft world had become so ingrained after Windows 3.1/95/98 made the Windows world ubiquitous. By the time XP was released, compatibility for most consumer hardware was finally coming to a standardized position in alternate operating systems (such as Linux), but the process of installation was still fairly complex -- which led to driving the Windows adaptation rate even higher. Add to this fact, that game developers still typically treat Linux and Mac as a secondary project (if they pay attention to the platforms at all), and you find a huge swath of the consumer base who has zero desire for a platform that isn't Windows.\n\nThat also can't discount the footprint in the Enterprise, education, and corporate worlds that Microsoft has with Windows/Office/Exchange/MSSQL/etc.\n\nHardware compatibility, and ease of use wise, Linux is only just now coming close to what Windows can boast, but developers still haven't made the move (and won't as long as Microsoft continues to hold the marketshare). Apple on the other hand maintains an entirely independent ecosystem -- hardware and all -- and largely avoids competing with Microsoft on the same ground. As such, Apple has no expectations of becoming the ubiquitous OS on desktops the way Microsoft has -- this is evidenced by the fact that their underlying operating system is just as compatible and adaptable as Windows 7/8 currently is (as proven by Hackintosh fanatics), yet they have never even hinted at the possibility of a general consumer hardware release.\n\nIf Valve had struck when the iron was hot, 1.5 years ago, I think that the outlook for Linux becoming the de facto PC gaming platform would be vastly different than it is at this moment. Until some kind of game changer like that comes along, that heavily compels the industry to change the status quo, we'll continue to see a Microsoft dominated desktop.",
"Microsoft didn't sell it to you as the end user in the vast majority of cases. they sold it to computer manufacturers. The Manufacturers get volume discounts via OEM liscensing. They then get to sell a product that is compatible with a huge amount of hardware and software.\n\nEven Apple with their massive market might have compatibility issues. If you just want to go on failbook and reddit as well as watch a movie and write your blog then an Apple is an excellent (if a little over powered) machine. Likewise if you use all those high end media creation programs like Photoshop and Dreamweaver style things. Apples are awesome for that too. What you can't do most of the time is see an advert for a new AAA game, go out and buy it and play right out of the box. You either have to mess about with Bootcamp or Parallels to make it work like Windows or you have to hope they made a Mac OS version of the game. \n\nNow imagine all those problems but without Apples market share and ability to influence software manufacturers. Your new computer OS might be a wonderful thing that is easy and intuitive to use but unless there is software to run on it then you have nothing. ",
"A lot of people have been skipping many critical issues. While creating an operating system is a very ambitious project, and the investment would be incredibly high, I do not believe that is the main issue. In fact, I don't even believe it is a very big one. I'm sure there are countless companies that would be happy to pay the price to develop a new kernel, shell, and GUI. Provided you could guarantee user adoption and manufacturer support.\n\nThere are individuals who have created operating systems on their own, yes they are very limited, but it's very doable. As an example, check out [Visopsys](_URL_2_), and the well known [Linus Torvalds](_URL_1_), who wrote the original Linux kernel (and imported the bash shell).\n\nThe real problems arise **after** you have created the operating system. In order to create an OS, you will inherently need support for at least one CPU architecture, in today's environment, the obvious choice would be [x86-64](_URL_0_). After you have your kernel created, you need a shell, and also a GUI. Lets just assume all of this is done.\n\nNow, lets say Joe Shmoe goes and buys a computer. He gets the latest processor, motherboard, video card, sound card, and SSD. Since you are a large company, with good programmers behind your project, you have kept your kernel up-to-date. It supports all of the latest CPU features, and Joe's computer is crazy fast on your OS. His SSD is also supported out-of-the-box, since this is easy to implement.\n\nHowever, Joe has no sound. The built in Ethernet on his motherboard doesn't work, and neither does the card reader that came on the front of his case. And while you have included a basic Video Driver, his Geforce GTX 9996 Extreme Edition HD x2 lags while playing even the most simple games. This is because you don't have driver support for the motherboard, card reader, sound card, or video card. \n\nNow, you could contact Nvidia and Creative Labs, and tell them that you need support, but why should they shell out $10,000 to create a driver for your operating system? Lets forget the issue that none of their developers have any experience with your operating system or development environment. You don't have any deals with Dell to sell a million copies of your operating system paired with their hardware, you don't have wide support for other devices, and there is very little demand for your product. \n\nBasically, you can't get people to use your operating system because of a lack of manufacturer support, and you can't get manufacturer support, because of a lack of people using your operating system.\n\nAdd the fact that you cannot support proprietary APIs like Microsoft DirectX (no support for new games), you don't have the industry standard office suite Microsoft office (lack of interest from professionals), a lack of audio and video manufacturer support (no video or music editing for hipsters), and all you are left with is an operating system that at best, might reach the popularity of Linux (which has less than 1.5% of the Desktop market). \n\nI doubt you could even reach that percentage, since everyone who is well established in the field, specializes in development environments and APIs that you don't support. Effectively, you would be asking developers to learn an entire new environment, with the promise of opening them up to an additional 1% of the market. It's not worth it for them, or for you. This means that companies like Adobe aren't going to bother creating a version of Flash for your operating system, so no YouTube. There are countless little programs that daily life on a computer requires, and all of these would need to be ported over to your operating system in order to perform things that are taken for granted on Windows.\n\nThe operating system itself plays an important role, but it relies heavily on the support of hundreds of manufacturers, tens of thousands of developers familiar with their environment, and established software (Microsoft office, Adobe Photoshop, Chrome), and the use of APIs that developers are already familiar with, and are supported by video card manufacturers, such as DirectX. It's not just the windows driver that is needed in this case, but hardware and software support on the part of the video card as well ([pixel shader](_URL_3_) is a good example).\n\n*Edit: I just remembered that YouTube is now HTML5 based, but the sentiment remains. While a good high quality browser ported to your system would support HTML5, there would still be many similar issues. I should mention that Netflix is moving away from Microsoft SilverLight in support of HTML5 as well. Open standards are taking the lead in online video streaming right now, which helps, but there is a long way to go. And lets face it, porn plays a major role as well, which is still dominated by Flash and SilverLight. I have even noticed a few impressive games using OpenGL, but it will most likely never reach the popularity envisioned for it in the 90s. New online office suits are also very impressive, and show a lot of potential, especially with Word, but other formats are still lacking in support (such as Powerpoint). These may seem trivial, but if you rely on any of them on a daily basis, then even one makes all the difference.*\n\n*Edit2: My first gold! Thank you very much mysterious stranger, hopefully I'll see you out in the wasteland!*",
"100$ IS cheap for operating system especialy for so well flushed out like windows.",
"I am convinced Windows dominated the market for so long because a) it was easy to use, and b) it had a reputation of being a serious OS 'for adults' (unlike Apple, which had its foothold in schools since the early 80s iirc). \n\nApple also used Token Ring networking, which 80s kids will remember as the reason why if one computer went down in the lab, all of them went down. This was not viable for large-scale businesses, but Microsoft used a different method (was it TCP/IP?) that made networks much more stable and made it the de facto corporate OS.\n\nAs a result people who had the money to buy a computer tended to gravitate toward what they were familiar with. Apple was a kid's OS for a long time and had a bad rep because of Token Ring.",
"Late to the show, but you must consider that an operating system is a loose connection of parts bound together by one or several APIs. \n\nYou have the kernel. In GNU/Linux, *Linux* is the kernel. That is all it is. A kernel is a part of the OS that schedule processes, allocates memory, manages interrupts, and so on. A user-space program makes *requests* of a kernel via system calls. An OS can *just* be a kernel, though it would not be very friendly to use.\n\nThen you have the toolchain. This is the compiler, debugger, linker, ELF libraries. These tools allow you to *compile* the kernel, and also other parts of the OS.\n\nThen you have system libraries. In GNU/Linux, this would be things like glibc, which is a large amount of system based library functions that do *useful* stuff that other programs might need.\n\nThen you have device drivers.\n\nAnd so on.\n\nSo an OS is not one big indivisible blob. It is many parts. I mean you can have GNU/Linux with a *realtime* kernel. Or you can run GNU (what most people think of as Linux) with a hurd kernel. Removing Linux from the GNU OS altogether.\n\nEdit: All the things on top of the above are just user-space programs. In GNU/Linux anyway. GNOME is a graphical environment. Don't like it? Install a different one like KDE. And so on. Libreoffice needs both the underlying graphical APIs and the glibc APIs to function (plus a bunch of others that goes beyond the scope of a ELI5 answer). But you can (and servers do) run OSs without any graphical environment. It is an OS, you just can run any UIs on it.",
"What options have we had? Windows, Apple, Unix, Linux have been the major OS's for the past +20 years. There have been others but, these 4 are the most successful. Also, Android, very successful, based off Linux.\n\nMicrosoft focused on the x86 platform developed by IBM, a business oriented company with a long history.\n\nApple had depended upon proprietary, expensive hardware, popular in the early gaming community, now based off FreeBSD, a nix. It has always been popular in the creative areas of business such as video production, arts, math & science. \n\nUnix is an old OS, mostly commandline driven, not really suited for day to day end users who have little knowledge or need of knowledge of how a computer works. Mostly used as servers, science and mathematics, production environments. \n\nLinux, started in '91, is community driven, based off Unix. It has taken 20 years for Linux to reach the user friendliness that is has today. And still if there is a problem, it takes someone with certain skills to work with it. New hardware support lags since the community must get the hardware and get proprietary information from the hardware producers in order to develop drivers. \n\n\nOut of these 4 OS's Microsoft won out as the leader because it made an OS simple enough for even computer illiterates to use, based on cheaper hardware. Back in the day the difference between buying an Apple or a PC with the same capabilities could be $1,000. \nIt's not hard to understand why business sided with Windows on costs alone. ",
"Microsoft managed to get Windows entrenched as the de-facto standard operating system for many years by makimg deals with manufacturers to include it on their computers. A computer isn't very useful without an OS, Apple chose to keep their OS tied to their hardware (if you want it you need to also buy the computer from them), and the Linux alternatives didn't have a very good graphical user interface and were considered difficult to use for your average consumer. So Microsoft comes in, convinces manufacturers to ship Windows with their computers, and that's what people get used to seeing and using. They make a version available for sale to build-it-yourselfers but they are a tiny minority compared to the big companies buying tens of thousands of Windows licenses.\n\nMicrosoft did masterfully well at getting Windows to be damn near everywhere. They pushed hard to have it on workstations for the office as well as computers for the home user. They made an OS with the potential to run on anything - they released information to all the manufacturers for how to build drivers to make Windows run on their hardware, and information to developers for how to make their software run on Windows. They didn't try to control everything from end to end like apple did, and they had a much more mature graphical user interface compared to other alternatives.\n\nEventually everybody and their brother was used to Windows, their work and home computers ran it, all their favourite programs ran on it (and were almost exclusively made for just windows) and they were familiar and comfortable with it. Developers making new programs would make them for Windows because they had the largest market share and hardware manufacturers would make drivers for windows for the same reason. This made it harder and harder for \"alternative\" operating systems to get a foot-hold.\n\n**What does this all have to do with their ability to charge a high price?** Familiarity. People don't want to re-learn how to use a computer just to save a few bucks, especially if it means that their computer works differently than the one at work or the ones their friends have. If they can't share programs or even files with their friends or bring work home to work on. Back in the days before the internet people carried programs and files on diskettes, and a diskette formatted for windows wouldn't work in a Mac (or often on Linux). Files written in MS Word wouldn't be compatible with the word processors on Linux or Mac. \n\nSo most people who needed to buy an operating system were willing to pay the high price for the one that they knew could do all of the things they needed it to do at home and at work, that was familiar, that allowed them to transfer files and programs between other computers they used and that would actually run on the computer they were buying it for. \n\n**TL;DR:** Sometimes the price of something is the least important consideration.",
"The big thing, aside from the proliferition in the business world, was that microsoft was a software company instead of a hardware company. On top of that they got a head start by being the software that IBM initialy used, and IBM was who the government turned to for computers. This gave MS the first crack at most customers. On top of that when pentium patent ran out and athlon cloned it from IBM, it meant that PCs that could be produced more cheaply were based on the architecture that MS Dos had been programmed for. In order to get the Mac windows, you had to buy a Mac(like how you had to get a blackberry for BBM) , and although the price was not as inflated as what we see now, the brand wasn't well known. The pentium and athlon chip sets were what people knew worked, and only MS-dos worked on those chips at the time.\n\nAs to Linux, it's interface was designed by programmers, for programmers, which is great if you don't mind learning to make your own desktop environment, and tweaking the lines of code to suit your needs. If you had specific needs this was an advantage, but you had to know how to take that advantage, few people do. It wasn't until distrobutions like Ubuntu that anyone really focused on making an intuitive user interface rather than a streamlined interface for linux.",
"A commercial OS must be pre-installed on computers bought in large volumes to have a chance... A chance at adoption. If the coolest, slickest, stablest, most compatible OS was suddenly released - ran perfectly on all consumer hardware (Apple and white-box whatevers) - and ran all applications from all OSs equally as well as the OSs the apps were natively written for... It would still die if not pre-installed on a LOT of machines. In my history with computers the only OS that sounds like this _sort of_ is BeOS. Be's only hope at long term success was getting bought by Apple to become OSX. It did not. It died. \n\nOnce the OS has the adoption and acceptance associated with coming LOTS of consumer hardware then the OS maker can charge a fair chunk of change to anyone that doesn't have the OS but wants to join the cool club. But if the OS _only_ runs on one vendor's hardware then that vendor has less motivation to charge a bunch because it looks like lock-in and skips to positive publicity of giving away the OS upgrades etc. \n\nWindows is unusual in that it is a commercial OS that runs on a wide variety of hardware platforms. Not unique, but in the niche of desktop, granny friendly OS it is unusual. BeOS tried to be that too... And so did OS/2... Windows was pre-installed more and won. So they can still charge a premium to join their cool-club for those not also buying hardware at the same time. ",
"Because you can get it for free from webs like piratebay(which most of the people from the 2º and 3º world do),and because people in the 1º world can afford to pay for it,so most of the people ends up using windows.",
"There are two related concepts in economics that explain this: *Network Effects* and *First Mover Advantage*. Networking effects describes how the value of a product is also dependent on how many other people use it. So things like Facebook and World of Warcraft are valuable because other people use these things; if you are the only person playing WoW, it's not nearly as fun. First Mover Advantage describes how the person first to the market usually gets to set the rules. So Microsoft was the first to monetize and tap into the home PC Operating System market (first mover advantage) and this creates a Network Effect as more and more people adapt to using Microsoft Windows.",
"Windows is very manageable and that is important for big companies. you can control or lock down a lot of things in the windows os from a centralized server. Same with IE, btw. ",
"There are multiple reasons for this:\n\n* Microsoft products historically had very weak DRM (if at all). Students could grab a copy and install it on their computers without great difficulty. Once these students were in positions to decide about operating systems for their companies, they decided on—you guessed it—Windows.\n* Microsoft Windows is one of the few operating systems that doesn't implement POSIX, the standard for operating systems. Yes, there is a compatibility layer but it has been carefully designed to be absolutely unusable; for instance, you can't make GUI applications with the POSIX layer. This makes it very hard to get Windows software to run on other operating systems, making it hard for people to change operating systems.\n* Microsoft systematically bribed people in the former USSR so they bought Microsoft products when the companies there introduced their first computers.\n* Microsoft has contracts with PC vendors that prohibits them from selling their computers with other operating systems. In exchange, the vendors get a discount on Windows. Since 95% of the customers want to have Windows, it would be suicide to get rid of the discount just to sell something without Windows to 5% of the customers.\n* People are used to Windows and in their mind it's free with every computer they buy. Why do extra effort to install a different OS with less available software if Windows is there already?\n* There is a lot more software for Windows than for other systems. Why use an operating system where your important business software doesn't work?",
"There's a lot long, technical answers in here, but in the end it's very simple, Microsoft cornered the market early and now have a monopoly on PC OS's. ",
"Because despite what Linux and Mac fanboys say, Windows is fucking amazing.",
"Anyone remember BeOs ? Sad....it was the batmobile of OSes ",
"I feel like I should weigh in here, not because I'm some sort of expert, but as a consumer who has grown up using almost every one of the 'main' operating systems (commercial or otherwise). Apple DOS - OSX, Almost every variant of MS, PC, and IBM DOS, PS based GUI's: OS/2 Warp, MS Windows (2.0 through 10preview), Various KDE and GNOME Linux distros. I know that a lot of people will disagree/argue, I feel like MS Windows made it possible for normal people to use computers. While each version had it's own set of problems, realisticly, when you paid that $100, you knew you were going to open up the box, and walk through a fairly straight forward installation process, and when you booted into the OS, you were going to be able to enjoy a fairly simple, somewhat reliable user experience. Again, to be COMPLETELY pragmatic.. A healthy computer with a fresh installation of Windows will work GREAT, for a very long time. The \"problems\" that have tarnished Windows reputation over the years are largely related to poorly written, 3rd party software, user installed malware, adware, and viruses.. Even down to the driver support issues that came about post XP.. \"realisticly\", these too are user created problems. People didn't check with brother and HP to see if there were Windows Vista drivers available for their 5 year old Inkjet printers and they got salty when they installed Vista and nothing worked. \n\nThe reason this is a factor in why cheaper OS's didn't take off, in my opinion, other OS's were difficult to obtain, install, and use.. let alone find widely compatible software for. I work in a medium enterprise environment, it's 2015, and Open Office is still, NOT a viable replacement for MS Office, nor is Google Docs.. Nor is GIMP a realistic replacement for Photoshop. \n\nIn the past, Apple OS thoughted slim, sleek (and often, not very flexible or powerful) apps and utilites, making it a great choice for a school, but not very good for an enterprize customer who needed advanced networking support. At the same time, PC based operating systems offered very advanced apps and utils, but they were not polished very well and were very difficult to operate due to their massive functionality. So over the past 10 years, I've whitnessed the PC world refine their OS and app space to try to mimmic Apple, and I've also seen the Apple world start to develop more and more higher end applications with the same functionality of their PC based counterpart. \n\nWhat's ultimately happening is, developers are realizing that it's much easier to develop powerful tools on a Unix based OS than it is for an app to try to navigate Microsoft's convoluted security layers etc. \n\nI don't know where I'm going with this, so.. I just realized, I forgot to take my medication today. Gotta run.",
"How many people that use Windows realized that they paid for it? For most, it simply comes with the computer. The price, as far as most people are concerned, was $0. Plus, Windows is what their computer at work had - so they already knew how to use it - why learn something new?",
"Linux has been doing VERY well, and it is free. Not just free as far as money, but free in the philosophical sense too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux#The_creation_of_Linux",
"http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/30/visopsys-operating-system/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shader"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
34fkg8
|
How did the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union function?
|
The USSR had a supreme court, but there is only a two sentence blurb on its Wiki page.
What did it do?
Did it have power or was it just another tool or the party?
Did that role evolve much over the life of the USSR?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34fkg8/how_did_the_supreme_court_of_the_soviet_union/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqufcsv"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The Soviet Constitution of 1918 did not establish a Supreme Court as such for the fledgling Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic. You can find a copy of the 1918 Constitution as it was reprinted in *The Nation* in 1919 [here](_URL_0_). As far as an organ of the state that would have fulfilled some of the functions that tend to be associated with a Supreme Court (if we’re contemplating something like the Unites States Supreme Court) it appears that those functions would have been fulfilled by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (CEC) which was the \"supreme power of the Republic\" between convocations of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets (Article Three, Chapter 6). Interestingly, the CEC is described as “the supreme legislative, executive, and controlling organ of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic” but judicial functions are not mentioned specifically. Nevertheless, the CEC functioned to resolve some disputes:\n > A People’s Commissar has the individual right to decide on all questions under the jurisdiction of his Commissariat, and he is to report on his decision to the College. If the College does not agree with the Commissar on some decisions, the former may, without stopping the execution of the decision, complain of it to the executive members of the Council of People’s Commissars or to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.\n\nWhen the Constitution of 1924 was adopted, a Supreme Court was established by name. That court acted “To give the Supreme Courts of the member Republics the authentic interpretations on questions of federal legislation” and also to “render decisions on the request of the CEC of the USSR as to the constitutionality of laws passed by the member Republics.). Most of the sections dealing with the Supreme Court refer to the Member Republics in some way and either (a) legal disputes related to them or (b) the interpretation of federal legislation. How similar the court would have been to high courts today is not clear from a straightforward reading of the constitutional text.\n\nThe Supreme Court survived into the [Constitution of 1936]( _URL_2_) as well. In that document the Supreme Court was “charged with the supervision of the judicial activities of all the judicial organs of the U.S.S.R. and of the Union Republics.” Members of the court were “elected by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for a term of five years.” In contrast with the Constitution of 1924, it was the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. that “Interprets laws of the U.S.S.R. in operation” (Article 49), but that power is *not* specifically mentioned with respect to the Supreme Court itself.\n\nThe Soviet Union adopted [another constitution in 1977]( _URL_1_), but there seems to have been little change to the structure of the Supreme Court or its functions. Here, again, it is the Presidium and not the Supreme Court that is given the authority to “interpret the laws of the USSR” (Article 121)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://debs.indstate.edu/r969r87_1919.pdf",
"http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html",
"http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons03.html#chap09"
]
] |
|
2grjcg
|
Do freeze-dried fruits have the same nutritional value as fresh fruits?
|
Are freeze-dried fruits less nutritious than fresh fruit? Is there any kind of damage that the freeze-drying process does?
I'm not talking dried, sugared fruits, I mean just pure fruit freeze-dried.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2grjcg/do_freezedried_fruits_have_the_same_nutritional/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cklvxyn",
"cklye9j"
],
"score": [
48,
8
],
"text": [
"This question depends heavily on how one defines *nutritional value*. If you mean specifically the inorganic mineral content, then the answer is flatly yes, freeze-dried fruits have the same inorganic mineral content as fresh fruits. On the other hand if you are more interested in the content of various organic compounds in the fruits, such as organic vitamins, antioxidants, or sugars, the answer becomes slightly more complex.\n\nThe freeze-drying process simply removes water from the tissue, so it should have no direct impact on the either the inorganic or organic components *at the moment of removal*. The process sort of locks in what is there by removing the water, which may have otherwise fostered an environment in which degradation of the organic compounds would have been more favored. However, it is also important to note that many nutritionally-relevant compounds continue to be synthesized in fruit throughout the ripening process, and freeze-drying would also put a halt to that. \n\nI think most people probably do not know how freeze-drying actually works, so here is a quick overview: Fruit samples are frozen to some temperature well below the freezing point of water, and are then placed under a high vacuum. We are all familiar with the melting and boiling points of water, but what we often fail to appreciate is that these points are also dependent on pressure; 0°C and 100°C are the respective melting and boiling points for water only at 1 atm. If we increase or decrease the pressure, those points change. For example, this is why boiled foods often include \"high altitude instructions\", which will say something along the lines of \"boil 4 minutes longer.\" Why? At higher altitudes there is lower atmospheric pressure, meaning the water boils at a lower temperature, which means you need to cook your food longer to compensate. Back to freeze-drying: in a high enough vacuum (i.e. low enough pressure) solid frozen water will actually be unable to melt into the liquid phase, but will instead *sublimate* directly to the gas phase. You have probably observed this phenomena in carbon dioxide, which exhibits this behavior at normal atmospheric pressures. So-called *dry ice* goes directly from a solid to gas, and in the freeze-drying process the water is behaving as a dry ice.\n\nIn freeze-drying, the water is removed in a low energy system through the process of sublimation. Because no additional energy is added, no additional reactions altering the nutritional contents of the fruit (or other food). Compare that to heated drying (or even cooking!), where energy is added and water leaves through boiling, a system favoring additional chemical reactions. These reactions may well destroy some of the desired nutritional components, though on the other hand they create other compounds with desired properties, such as flavor.\n\n",
"One other thing /u/waywardminer didn't touch on is the nutritional value of \"eating 5 cups of fruit and vegetables daily.\"\n\nOne of the reasons this is suggested is that a cup of, say, apples or spinach, has a LOT less energy than a cup of, say, cheese. If all you eat is cheese all day, you will eat a lot of calories and never feel full. \n\nThe same thing applies to dried fruit - you may only need one cup of dried fruit to get the \"same\" nutrients as you'd get from 5 cups of whole fruit, but you will not get the same benefit of feeling full, so you will eat more. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
kctsj
|
When I was a kid I would get a strange reaction when touching an aluminum soda tab to my braces then my tongue...
|
What exactly was happening? Was I making a battery in my mouth? it always made a weird taste, but it was fun to 14 year old me. I would place the tab by itself on my tongue and nothing would happen, until I also touched it to my metal braces.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kctsj/when_i_was_a_kid_i_would_get_a_strange_reaction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2j8r9l",
"c2j8r9l"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Essential, yes, you made a battery with your saliva acting as an electrolyte. Different metals have different electrode potentials causing an ion migration. This is likely what caused the weird taste as your tongue completes the circuit.\n\nTry licking the terminals of a 9 volt battery and see if it tastes the same.",
"Essential, yes, you made a battery with your saliva acting as an electrolyte. Different metals have different electrode potentials causing an ion migration. This is likely what caused the weird taste as your tongue completes the circuit.\n\nTry licking the terminals of a 9 volt battery and see if it tastes the same."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7ez3v2
|
how do lungs work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ez3v2/eli5_how_do_lungs_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq8dv7o",
"dq8eauu"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of it is their surface area. They also have a huge amount of elasticity. Finally there are amazing chemicals which coat the surface of the cells in the alveoli.\n\nStart with the nose and mouth. They allow air into the bronchi. It crosses the eating tube and an amazing valve keeps things sorted out mostly.The bronchi branch into bronchioles which branch more and more. When you see bronchi you can just say air tube. The tubes get smaller and smaller. Finally they end in little sacs called alveoli which have the tremendous surface area and the fantastic chemicals which allow them to stay open. Gases diffuse across the membranes of the alveoli and into the blood stream. Carbon dioxide also diffuses across the other way due to their being more in the blood than the atmosphere.\n\nMuscles expand the chest which means air moves into the lungs. Then the chest contracts so air moves out. The fresh air in the alveoli means gas diffusion takes place. Oxygen moves into the blood. Carbon dioxide leaves.\n\nSometimes the alveoli fill with fluid and you have pneumonia. Sometimes air or fluid gets between the lungs and the chest wall. This is serious. Sometimes the flow of blood and the amount of air changes and you have a mismatch between the right amount and what is happening. ",
"First of all, you can see your lungs as two balloons. If you try to make the balloon bigger by pulling its walls, air naturally flows in. If you release the walls, the balloon collapses and expels air outside (Thanks to the negative pressure in your pleural cavity, lungs never actually collapse and are held to a residual volume). When releasing air, if you tighten the neck of the balloon it produces a high pitched sound (exactly what happens when you speak ; air flows in your larynx and makes your vocal folds vibrate at different fequencies depending on how tight you clench them).\n\nThe analogy with balloons stops here, I don't have an ELI5 style analogy for what comes next.\n\nWhen the air is inside the lungs, the partial pressure of gases is roughly equal to what it is outside (air gets wet inside the trachea). The interesting thing here is that your lungs (most precisely the alveoli) are full of capillar blood vessels with a very thin membrane that allows gases to go through. In the blood contained in these vessels, the partial pressure of O2 is slightly lower than its outside-of-your-body counterpart, which allows oxygen to flow toward your blood, while the C02 pressure in your blood is higher than outside, allowing C02 to flow toward your lungs and therefore out. The gas exchange is made passively just by gradient of concentration. This is basically how you breath at lung level.\n\nYour lungs, beside vocalisation and breathing, also have other functions such as regulating your body temperature and the pH of your blood."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
i1l6z
|
I have a question about this article.
|
_URL_0_
Specifically, this paragraph:
"It's what Batmanghelidjh calls the 'chemistry of terror'. "The experience of constant fear triggers stress chemicals which act like an acid on the brain … they kill off pathways necessary for socialisation and affect working memory. [Young people] predisposed to violence as a consequence of past trauma can then find themselves provoked into aggressive behaviour by external factors and are unable to moderate their actions, to self-soothe, self-regulate or moderate their actions," she says."
Does anyone know more about this? The phrase "chemistry of terror" didn't bring up many results on Googe (235) and I would expect more if this claim was backed by scientific research and been discussed and whatnot.
Does it sound like any processes you know of?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i1l6z/i_have_a_question_about_this_article/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c205gpd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Stress hormones such as cortisol are thought to have a negative inpact on adult neurogenesis. The work of Elizabeth gould may be of interest to you.\n\n\"ELIZABETH GOULD OVERTURNED ONE OF THE CENTRAL TENETS OF NEUROSCIENCE. NOW SHE’S BUILDING ON HER DISCOVERY TO SHOW THAT POVERTY AND STRESS MAY NOT JUST BE SYMPTOMS OF SOCIETY, BUT BOUND TO OUR ANATOMY.\"\n \n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.smh.com.au/world/beating-the-chemistry-of-terror-20090409-a264.html"
] |
[
[
"http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/02/the_reinvention_of_the_self.php?page=all&p=y"
]
] |
|
ffg7b4
|
What is considered the "cutoff date" for determining if a source is still relevant and not superceded by more recent research in the field?
|
For example, I am told that anything 20 years or older is less credible than something, say, five or ten years ago. Is that relevant in a field that may not be studied as often as others, and thus is one of the few works written on the subject matter?
The issue I have now is that I own two books: A History of Their Own (written by Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinsser), and then Barbara Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror".
I've looked on here and the consensus seems to be that the latter is filled with inaccuracies that are no longer considered true of the time period she is writing in, historical fiction or otherwise, yet the book is recommended for those with an interest in that period of history by various people.
Both of these books from what I can tell were published in the 80s...which is a long time ago. This brings me to my current issue. I have no idea how to tell where I should begin or which sources would be considered credible (primary is usually the best).
Thank you in advance.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ffg7b4/what_is_considered_the_cutoff_date_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjy7u2n",
"fjyoaju"
],
"score": [
12,
7
],
"text": [
"For the most general answer...there is no hard cut-off date. The general assumption is that more recent books will have up-to-date research, but that depends very heavily on the person or persons doing the research and writing. Just because a book is written in 2020 does not mean it is more accurate than a book written in 1920, if the person doing the writing is simply regurgitating old sources without looking at them afresh, or without considering any research that has been done in the previous 100 years.\n\nAssuming there *has* been any research in the last 100 years, which for very obscure subjects there might not be. And assuming too that you can in any way get away from the older source, which is not always possible. To give one example from my own field, the five-volume set of H. P. Lovecraft's *Selected Letters* from Arkham House is, to be generous, a severely flawed production: published from 1965 to 1976, the contain excerpts from 999 (or 1,000, depending on how you count) of Lovecraft's letters and postcards. All of them have been abridged, some have been further edited and censored, and a few contain misprints or straight out errors in dating and page counts. Nearly all of the contents have since been reprinted in unexpurgated form (where possible) along with many other letters that had previously been unpublished, so that the *Selected Letters* is almost redundant.\n\nAlmost.\n\nBecause there are still several letters that have *not* been republished, and can only be found in the *Selected Letters*, and the *SL* remains the main source for many of the quotations among Lovecraft scholarship. That's the problem with really impactful books: it's hard to get away from them entirely until the contents have been entirely superseded, and even then they have historiographical value.\n\nSo yes *generally speaking* newer books are (hopefully) more credible than older books, but it's very much an issue of needing to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.",
"One thing to look at would be a recent dissertation in your field of interest, not so much for the text, but for the sources they used. Doctoral students are required to be systematic in their review of the literature, so a current dissertation represents a good look at what someone trained in the field thought was important to read and to cite. You can also look at book reviews in scholarly journals of new books on your subject-- that's where you'll get a sense of how the academic community views current scholarship.\n\nI read Tuchman's \"A Distant Mirror\" long ago, but if I were to recommend a book on the 14th century today, last year's work by William Caferro \"Petrarch's War\" would be the kind of place I'd start. Caferro isn't doing anything like the breadth of the survey that Tuchman is, rather its a very deep dive into Florence at the time of the Black Death. In reading Caferro's work, you get both \"the story\" as he understands it, and his abundant footnotes, which tell you which sources he used and what he thought of them. He's spent a scholarly lifetime in the archives with original materials; Tuchman worked almost entirely from secondary sources (sources which in many cases were already quite old when she accessed them).\n\nSo: if you know little about a subject, it generally makes sense to read current scholarship first. As u/AncientHistory has noted, we all have cause to go back to much older sources-- in Islamic history, there are a lot of \\_secondary\\_ sources that are a century old that are still the best thing on the topic; sometimes a book from 1950 is the most recent work on your subject. One clue to a scholarly work's continued relevance would be subsequent reprints. So, for example Gustave von Gruenebaum's works on Islam from the 1950s have been reprinted fairly recently . . . evidence that they're still considered books that academic libraries and readers (his only audience) think are valuable.\n\nBut starting out with a current dissertation, looking through the sources they used, looking through academic book reviews (accessible on JSTOR) . . . that will give you a reasonable idea of the current state of play."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6po2wp
|
why do americans think the usa is the best nation on earth when people from my country don't say this about our homeland? how did it develop to be socially acceptable to say this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6po2wp/eli5_why_do_americans_think_the_usa_is_the_best/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkqsad0",
"dkqsdn3",
"dkqt585",
"dkqt6l6",
"dkqtztg",
"dkqy5lo"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
7,
24,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"We are told this over and over from an incredibly young age. Americans are conditioned to believe that we are the greatest, and people would risk their lives to live here, so we “appreciate” our homeland. Most people who have spent a lot of time in other countries know that it isn’t the greatest place in the world, but a lot of people are just overly patriotic. ",
"The USA was a revolutionary country, created with an entirely new form of government in response to a belief that the European model (the British Empire specifically) was unfair. So this pride started early.\n\nWinning World War II contributed greatly to our national pride, and right after the war, as the *only* non-devastated great industrial power, the USA was the clear leader of the world economy. That boosted our ego too, until the other countries rebuilt.",
"Most nations are a people who have been in a land for a very long time. America is a nation of people who paid a high cost to leave their homelands and the decedents of said people. Such a people are likely to believe America is better than other nations, if for no other reason than so they/their forefathers don't seem foolish for accepting the costs to move there. \n\nFurther, because America doesn't have many people who have lived here a long time, one of the ways America adapted to allow a very diverse group of people to live together, was to channel lots of pride toward American uniqueness. In other words, [many Americans lost much of their original heritage](_URL_0_) to assimilate, but trading their heritage for being part of the \"best nation on earth\" makes the loss seems more acceptable. ",
"The US has an enormous population, with varying socioeconomic status and culture. \n \nThroughout history, this is really too many people to naturally stay as a single country. Rural people in Mississippi are as close to a New Yorker working on Wall Street as they are to an English person in culture. \n \nTherefore to keep the country together, patriotism is taught from a very young age. By teaching people they are the luckiest, from the greatest nation on earth, they then form as 1 to support the national cause. \n \nIt is easy as a foreigner to make fun of US exceptionalism and patriotism. But without it, the country would likely degenerate into another civil war and break up. \n \nOther large population countries have their own way of keeping the country together. China monitors opposition politics, and shuts it down quickly (as well as benefiting from the economic miracle, it's tough to be in opposition when everyone is getting rich from the status quo). \n \nIndia has a patriotism very similar to the US. Try saying something negative about India to an Indian person(why do you treat lower caste people poorly). Then say something negative about the UK (why do upper class people get benefits beyond their wealth and abilities) to an Englishman. The Indian will likely get very defensive, explaining India's greatness. The Englishman will probably shrug their shoulders and say how you may be right. \n \nVery large populations of disparate culture and economics don't have a reason to feel together as a country, unless they are taught to be from a very young age. ",
"Europe suffered greatly at the hands of \"nationalists\" in both WW1 and WW2. They killed off practically an entire generation in *each* of those conflicts, so nationalism and patriotic zeal are associated with truely horrific events in their culture.\n\nBy contrast, the US only showed up at the tail end of WW1 and lost comparatively few soldiers, and the post-WW2 boom elivated the US to obvious Superpower status, so the patriotism pushed as part of the early 20th century war efforts was associated with success and heroism.",
"I'm an American and I certainly do not think this at all whatsoever.\n\nYoung children in America are indoctrinated to believe America is the greatest so that they don't question our leaders. Most are so heavily brainwashed that any questioning of 'American' actions is met with 'what, are you un-American?' or 'you must hate freedom.'\n\nFortunately, our current administration is leading many people to question their unwavering patriotism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/opinion/whatever-happened-to-german-america.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3d8x0j
|
Many Eastern generals base their strategies off the teachings of Sun Tzu. Are there any Sun Tzu/Art of War counterparts in the West?
|
On a side note, what are some of the noticeable conflicts in ideas between the Eastern and Western approach to warfare?
Off the top of my head I can think of Cannae, where Hannibal annihilated the Romans by surrounding them. Chinese ideas seem to suggest that it's best to leave an escape route open for the enemy; as they will be more focused on running away than fighting back.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d8x0j/many_eastern_generals_base_their_strategies_off/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct2xi4s",
"ct2xn7g",
"ct2zaf4",
"ct35z8l"
],
"score": [
29,
4,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Von Clausewitz is usually considered to be the great Western military theorist, but he's strictly modern, and he sticks to military theory. Sun Tzu's writings had a lot to say about politics and human nature. Given that, I'd wonder whether Machiavelli might be the better comparison.\n\nI think the two big things that separate Eastern from Western military traditions is the use of massive, low-skilled conscript armies and the value placed on trickery, deception, and political maneuvering.",
"The west does not really have text quite as old and as well known as Sun Tzu. I am not a expert in how well known Sun Tzu was in the east.\n\nTheir are early text that can teach you about miltary matters but are not directly tactical or strategic guides. Thucydides \"History of the Peloponnesian War\" has lots of insideds into miltary matters and startegy. We have lots of text from Byzantian times, the Strategikon and the Tactica are well known. The Byzantian certently had a larger tradition of giving out manuals like this, their are a lot more. They often tried to combine roman and classical greek knowlage.\n\nIn the Renaissance the old Roman text were rediscovered and they informed leaders of the time and some ideas were taken over, others could not be used. These text were often not written by actual generals but rather historians and they may contain errors. This is less likly to happen in a dedicated book on the subject like the 'Strategikon'.\n\nSo at many times in history people were looking back on greek and or roman past.\n\nIn more modern times we have a explosion of text on these matters, Clausewitz beeing the most well known.\n\n > On a side note, what are some of the noticeable conflicts in ideas between the Eastern and Western approach to warfare? \n\nIm am relativly sceptical about these 'cultural' differences between east and west. Their are however historians who belive in this, see The Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson.\n\nThe idea of the Golden Gate (leave an escape route open) was used by Western and Eastern Armies for different reasons at different times. \n\nDecisive Battles were fought in the east and the west alike.\n\n",
"Maybe not quite the same thing, but Alfred Thayer Mahan's \"The Influence of Sea Power upon History\" basically influenced every admiral's naval decisions in WWI and WWII (both Eastern and Western) and caused some of the greatest naval battles in history. The only problem was that pretty much everyone around the world based their naval strategies on Mahan, so everyone was going in with these huge naval forces trying to destroy each other, causing massive battles. In fact, it continues to be extremely important and emerging countries are still using it as the basis of their naval strategy. ",
"I can't say that it is as extensive as The Art of War, but [*De Re Militari*](_URL_0_) by the late Roman writer Vegetius was popular and well-regarded during the Middle Ages. It did sort of fall out of favour, though, unlike The Art of War. I can sort of see why: I own a translation of *De Re Militari*, and while there is nothing in it that is \"wrong\" per se, it just really isn't that extensive or descriptive.\n\nAs others have mentioned, Carl von Clausewitz easily occupies a Sun Tzu-like position when talking about strictly modern history. A contemporary of Clausewitz, Antoine-Henri Jomini, also was very influential, though his fame hasn't been as lasting as that of Clausewitz. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Militari"
]
] |
|
13enu0
|
In Mathematics, how can "i" exist? Isn't the square root of -1 impossible by definition?
|
I've used "i" plenty of times but I never quite understood it. If there is no number such as n*n=-1, why did we invent "i" instead of saying it is impossible? Furthermore, what are the practical applications of "i"? Can such a number exist in the realm of physics or reality?
I'm sorry if the questions don't make sense to advanced mathematicians, but to me all of this just sounds like "troll science". My friends and I even mocked it by inventing t (t=1/0).
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13enu0/in_mathematics_how_can_i_exist_isnt_the_square/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c739uif",
"c739xhh",
"c73a3yd",
"c73a3zn",
"c73bgcg",
"c73butp"
],
"score": [
48,
10,
2,
4,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"You could just as easily argue that negative numbers are impossible by definition because numbers are used to count things and you can't have less than none of something.\n\nThe point is that numbers are abstractions, and we get to choose the rules by which they behave. The number i exists because we *defined* it to exist. People were sitting around trying to solve problems, and they discovered that they *could* solve those problems, and get \"real\" numbers out as answers, so long as they allowed √-1 to exist for part of their calculations. It's not too big of a stretch to then start thinking about how numbers work if you allow √-1 to exist in general, and you can start to ask questions about its properties. One thing you can find if you do this is that the usual rules for arithmetic work nicely, and that if you allow combinations like 3 + 4√-1 then you can get every root to any polynomial equation. So adding this √-1\n\n1. preserves arithmetic;\n2. increases the number of solvable problems.\n\n > Furthermore, what are the practical applications of \"i\"? Can such a number exist in the realm of physics or reality?\n\nImaginary numbers play a critical role in the standard treatments of electrodynamics and quantum mechanics, but really they're not *necessary*; anything that you can do with imaginary numbers can be done by using matrices of real numbers instead.\n\n\n > My friends and I even mocked it by inventing t (t=1/0).\n\nYou can do this, but if you start looking into the implications you will find that either arithmetic involving t doesn't work like normal arithmetic or that 2 = 1 and you're in a really weird number system. Now, there are mathematicians who study such strange number systems, and they're perfectly valid as long as you stick with the stated assumptions, but the number system clearly doesn't contain the usual real numbers.",
"i is one of two solutions to x^2 +1=0. It exists in the same sense that solutions to x^2 -1 =0 exist.",
"Here's a good explanation of why you can't divide by zero ([Link](_URL_0_))",
"You seem to have this naturalistic grounding for mathematics -- numbers stand for things in the world. But let me ask you, does the number *1* stand for something in the world? Does it exist in the realm of physics or reality? *Have you ever held the number 1 in your hand?* No, of course not. You've held one of *something*: one apple, one key, one whatever. But that's not the same thing as the *number* 1.\n\nNumbers are abstract entities that may or may not exist in any real sense (maybe off in the realm of Platonic ideals, or as the set of all equinumerous sets, or whatever you like) or maybe they're purely mental or formal tools for reasoning. But what matters, more than anything else, is that the things we say about them aren't contradictory. As long as we don't get ourselves into the peculiar situation of saying 1 is not 1, or any other false thing, then we're fine. Well, it just so happens that *i* is ok in that way: having *i* doesn't screw anything up, the laws of arithmetic don't prohibit square roots of negative numbers. On the other hand, the laws of arithmetic (in their usual form) prohibit 1/0.",
"It is also used quite often in AC circuitry, both capacitors provide an imaginary resistance to alternating current. You can have a circuit that has a voltage across a load of 110 + 10*i, which is then converted to a magnitude and phase, in this case you would have a voltage of 110.5 at an angle of 5.2 degrees",
"Mathematics, the real deal, past the high-school level, is kind of just about stating things precisely and determining what happens once you do that. Math isn't a set of rules that are arbitrarily imposed. If a mathematician wants to make something up, he or she does, and then figures out what that thing does. When we made up the number i, we realized it did a lot of really quite ridiculously cool things (eg the [Fundamental Theorem of Algebra](_URL_0_)). We payed a price for including i into our system: we no longer were able to abide by the law that n^2 was always positive, and we were no longer able to define \"less than\" or \"greater than\" on our numbers. So we lose some and we gain some when we move from the real numbers to the complex numbers. However, we now have a choice of where we want to do math that we didn't have before, and there are still plenty of problems to work on exclusively in the real numbers.\n\nFor a lot of real world applications, the real numbers (that is, all the numbers but ignoring i) are all that is needed. However, there are, even in the real world, a bunch of applications of the number i, especially in [probability and physics](_URL_1_).\n\nIf you can discover cool consequences from using your number \"t\" in a mathematical system, then do so! Your math teacher might disagree, but you don't have to show him (or her). Other mathematicians have invented entire systems of math devoted to talking meaningfully about quantities that are often left unexplained by conventional arithmetic, such as infinitely large numbers, infinitesimally small numbers, and other such things (eg the [hyperreals](_URL_4_) and the [surreals](_URL_2_)). The surreals also have a really cool use as well; they're used to discuss the optimal strategies to certain types of [games](_URL_3_).\n\nI hope this helps answer your question; it's a matter of philosophy, really. We're often willing to throw away some of the laws of real-arithmetic (including the law that \"n^2 is always positive\") in order to get the benefits of including i into our system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/BRRolKTlF6Q"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_algebra",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_amplitude",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreals",
"http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConwayGame.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreals"
]
] |
|
3ftl74
|
what/how is steel tampered? why does heat makes it stronger?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ftl74/eli5_whathow_is_steel_tampered_why_does_heat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctrudbm"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Hot steel when cooled slowly is composed of large \"crystals\". This \"ordered\" structure is very stiff but not very flexible, i.e. brittle.\n\nQuenching hot steel in cold (room temperature) oil forces it to be composed of small \"crystals\". This less \"ordered\" structure is not as stiff, being more flexible it is much less likely to break, hence it is perceived to be \"stronger\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7yyl1m
|
Newly released video game's attempt to accurately portray ethnicity of rural Bohemia in 1403 is met with criticism in the media. Accusations due to lack of People of Colour present are made. Should a person living in countryside of Bohemia in 1403 expect to encounter people of diverse skin colours?
|
Developers of a video game called *Kingdom Come: Deliverance* speak of a pretty serious effort to pursue historical accuracy in their portrayal of Northern Bohemia as it was in 1403. In this game, a player takes the role of a son of a blacksmith who travels around in 16 square kilometre area between modern day Sasau and Rattay.
Real world settlements and towns in the game include Stříbrná Skalice, Světlá nad Sázavou, Ledečko, Sázava Monastery, Talmberk Castle, Samopše, Úžice, Nový Dvůr, and Přibyslavice.
Minorities portrayed in the game mostly consist of Cuman mercenaries. There are no black or oriental people travelling around the countryside. This makes a situation that keeps drawing significant and consistent amounts of critique in gaming press and as such, likely affects the score and sales of the game negatively. Is it called for? Should a person living in rural countryside of Bohemia in 1403 expect to encounter people of different and diverse skin colors? [Here] (_URL_0_) is an Eurogamer's review of the game as an example.
Direct quote from the review by Eurogamer:
- - -
But there's also a big problem. There are no people of colour in the game beyond people from the Cuman tribe, a Turkic people from the Eurasian Steppe. The question is, should there be? The game's makers say they've done years of research and found no conclusive proof there should be, but a historian I spoke to, who specialises in the area, disagrees.
*"We know of African kings in Constantinople on pilgrimage to Spain; we know of black Moors in Spain; we know of extensive travel of Jews from the courts of Cordoba and Damascus; we also know of black people in large cities in Germany," the historian, Sean Miller, tells me. Czech cities Olomouc and Prague were on the famous Silk Road which facilitated the trade of goods all over the world. If you plot a line between them, it runs directly through the area recreated in Kingdom Come. "You just can't know nobody got sick and stayed a longer time," he says. "What if a group of black Africans came through and stayed at an inn and someone got pregnant? Even one night is enough for a pregnancy."*
Does this historian's portrayal appear accurate and relevant in terms of how a peasant or a son of a blacksmith was likely to experience Northern Bohemia of 1403?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7yyl1m/newly_released_video_games_attempt_to_accurately/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duk2gce",
"duk4ehs"
],
"score": [
2,
11
],
"text": [
"This has come up here quite a bit recently. [This thread](_URL_0_) may provide you with some information on the topic. ",
"This question has been asked several times recently, along with a few other questions you might be interested in concerning medieval Bohemia as depicted in the game -- [its depiction of locks](_URL_4_) and its [depiction of bathhouses as places of sexual commerce.](_URL_6_) \n\n- [\"People are getting extremely upset because there are no black people in Kingdom Come: Deliverance. How accurate is this for 16th century Bohemia?\"](_URL_0_) answered by /u/commiespaceinvader [on a more conceptual level](_URL_0_dtp41zu/) and by /u/PrimeCombination [on a more logistical level](_URL_0_dtpgsk9/). \n- [\"How diverse was Bohemia during the fifteenth century?\"](_URL_5_) \n- [\"The video game Kingdom Come: Deliverance recently came under fire for not including people of color. How common were people of color really in 15th Bohemia or the HRE?\"](_URL_2_) \n\nResponses to the lack of representation of characters of color in the game strike me as more of a response to the paucity of characters of color in historical or historically-inspired video games in general (barring nation-building games like CK2) rather than necessarily the realities of late 14th and early 15th century Bohemia. I'm sympathetic to this -- I'd like to see more diverse fiction, the history of people of color in Europe is *interesting*, and seeing \"but it's based on the Middle Ages/Early Modern period!\" as an excuse to make yet another setting as lily-white as possible gets old fast. The presence of people of color in video games is under a large amount of scrutiny as an \"authenticity\" thing both because it has become heavily politicized and because it's in some ways more conspicuous to your average gamer than other seemingly-misplaced concepts and objects that have seeped into the historical-and/or-fantasy genre, like the potato. There were lots of places in medieval Europe where you might find Moors and North Africans, Sephardic Jews, and sub-Saharan Africans of various extractions all hanging out -- not even necessarily passing through. But at the same time, distribution of individuals of non-European descent within Europe wasn't uniform or fixed -- so the presence of non-white people in one place doesn't necessarily mean those same people were present in another place two countries over, or a century earlier, or that we have documentary proof they stuck around and started families there. (Though the latter's certainly *possible*, even if only by accident, as in the historian you quoted's scenario with a one-night stand at an inn producing children.) There being delegations of Japanese samurai in 16th century Rome doesn't necessarily mean there were delegations of Japanese samurai in 16th century England, for instance. But this is a great reason for people who make fiction to make fiction showcasing those places of cultural crossover -- that stuff's cool, and it's as \"authentically\" medieval/authentically Renaissance as settings defined by their relative lack of cultural crossover are. Encounters between white Europeans and non-white people really did happen, and a lot of stuff has made it into video games not because it's exhaustively well-documented as a frequent occurrence but because it sounds really cool and *seems* possible, even if it was not historically likely or common. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-02-20-kingdom-come-deliverance-review"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7v1lil/people_are_getting_extremely_upset_because_there/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7v1lil/people_are_getting_extremely_upset_because_there/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7v1lil/people_are_getting_extremely_upset_because_there/dtp41zu/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7rkol0/the_video_game_kingdom_come_deliverance_recently/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7v1lil/people_are_getting_extremely_upset_because_there/dtpgsk9/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7xos8z/rpgs_make_us_think_that_locks_were_really_common/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7y8rxt/how_diverse_was_bohemia_during_the_fifteenth/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7y3zas/in_kingdom_come_deliverance_set_in_1400s_bohemia/"
]
] |
|
ae0pak
|
- why, after you become proficient in a foreigner language it is still hard to understand lyrics in music? the same words you already know are hard to understand in a music. why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ae0pak/eli5_why_after_you_become_proficient_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edljbdi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you become fluent in a foreign language through proper teaching methods you are not a “native speaker.” You don’t understand colloquialisms or dialects. It’s the same reason a native English speaker does not understand the lyrics in metal or some rap songs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4s1zjk
|
If the photons take around 10,000 years to reach the outer surface from the core of the sun , was the sun dark for the first 10,000 years after nuclear fusion started to occur?
|
Did the sun start out much darker than now and reach its peak and then start decreasing its brightness?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4s1zjk/if_the_photons_take_around_10000_years_to_reach/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d564824",
"d564m00",
"d56et1j"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"No. When the Sun started fusing, it was still glowing from the energy release of slow gravitational contraction. The Sun was actually similar in luminosity before it started fusing, but slightly brighter and cooler because it was larger. When fusion began, the contraction stopped, but the Sun's outer properties didn't change much.",
"Stars are formed when clouds of gas collapse and become very dense balls of gas. Once a high enough pressure is reached fusion can occur.\n\nThe star would be brightest in the infrared spectrum at this point.\n\nThis stage is known as a protostar and can last around 1 million years. Eventually the star starts to output enough radiation to push away the gas surrounding it and starts to look more like what you would expect a star to look like.",
"That 10K years figure is an average (from models, obviously, as opposed to empirical observations). So ignoring stellar formation, and photon emission at the outer layers of the sun, lots of lucky photons made their way from the core outward in mere seconds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3rk32g
|
why can some electrical appliances turn on immediately when connected to a power source (like a laptop) but others can't? (like a cellphone)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rk32g/eli5_why_can_some_electrical_appliances_turn_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwot5nh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"While I'm not an expert I know the reason in some items such an iPhones (we all know that pain) is to prevent the phone losing power during boot and corrupting the memory or OS.\n\nImagine your phone was completely dead and you stuck it on charge and it immediately start booting, but then you accidentally pulled the charger out, the phone would abruptly lose power and potentially cause a problem.\n\nMaking you wait until it's reached a couple % is the phone way of ensuring it'll make it completely through a boot cycle.... and a shutdown cycle also if you actually do pull power."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5ge2al
|
Why do liquids form a rough sphere when there is no gravity?
|
Just watched a trailer for Passengers and saw the part where she was drowning in globs of water and it made me curious.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5ge2al/why_do_liquids_form_a_rough_sphere_when_there_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dark4eh"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"[Here](_URL_2_) and [here](_URL_0_) are pictures of water drops in weightlessness in the Int'l Space Station, so yes, you will get spherical shapes without gravity. (Probably better to look at actual pictures rather than the trailer from a film!)\n\nThe reason is [surface tension](_URL_1_). Surface tension causes the surface of the volume to contract as much as possible. Typical liquids are close to incompressible, so surface tension will cause the drops to arrange their volume into that shape that minimizes the surface area, and that shape is a sphere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-8/hires/iss007e17973.jpg",
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/surten.html",
"http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/iss_11_24/i18_13569.jpg"
]
] |
|
2nev7x
|
Why does the Kremlin in Russia have Arabic-style round towers?
|
Something I never understood.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nev7x/why_does_the_kremlin_in_russia_have_arabicstyle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmddg4j",
"cmdefio"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
" > It's kind of the other way around. The building you have in mind is actually [St. Basil's Cathedral](_URL_1_), which was built in the mid-16th century. However, the use of large towers with rounded domes goes back to at least the 11th century in Eastern Europe, and is probably a development of the types of Church architecture that were popular in the Byzantine Empire in the 10th century when large monumental churches begin to be constructed in what it today Western Russia. \n\nSimilarly, Islamic archiecture, especially after 1400 or so, was heavily influenced by both Byzantine and Persian architectural designs. This level of influence is somewhat disguised by the large number of mosques in what is today Turkey and Syria that are were originally Eastern Orthodox churches, but have been heavily modified in the subsequent centuries. \n\nThe very fact that you think of Onion domes as \"Arabian\" is largely a result of a mis-attribution of anything Islamic as also being Arabian somehow. While Islam may have arisen in the land of the Arabian Peninsula, subsquent trends in Islamic Architecture have been very heavily influenced by Persian and Eastern Roman architectural traditions.\n\nThis [photograph from 1915](_URL_2_) shows the original design of the Great Mosque of Kufa, which was the original design of early Islamic mosques. Notice that there is only a series of colonnaded walls, with no roof, and the minaret tower is short and squat. Note that the Great Mosque of Kufa was heavily modified during a series of renovations in the mid-20th century, so the [modern mosque on the same site](_URL_0_) has several smaller towers and additional architectural flourishes that were not part of the original structure.\n\nIn contrast, the construction of mosques with large towers really only started in the 1400s, which is why many Persian-style and Ottoman-style mosques have them.",
"hi! assuming you mean the onion domes on the cathedrals within & outside the Kremlin, as opposed to the [round towers on the Kremlin walls](_URL_0_), there's a good discussion on those in this post\n\n* [Why are onion domes predominant in Russian architecture?](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://english.masjed-alkufa.net/news.php",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Basil%27s_Cathedral",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Kufa_Mosque%2C_1915.jpg"
],
[
"http://ruhistory.narod.ru/mocsow/kremlin_index.jpg",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gb89y/why_are_onion_domes_predominant_in_russian/"
]
] |
|
9cpixr
|
if i pull a plug from an outlet does the electricity instantly disappear, if so why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9cpixr/eli5_if_i_pull_a_plug_from_an_outlet_does_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5cblgp",
"e5cbnt0",
"e5cefpf"
],
"score": [
11,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"It doesn't really disappear. In fact, the electrons that were just flowing through your appliance are still there, but with less motion now. When the circuit is cut off, the electrons simply stop moving, but they remain inside the wires, lightbulb filamet, toaster, or whatever you pulled the plug on.",
"Yes. Electricity is the flow of current through a loop. If you break the loop at any point, the current stops and the effect of the electricity may stop. (The iron is still hot, but it's not getting hotter any more.)\n\nFlipping the switch, popping the breaker, blowing the fuse, or pulling the plug are all interruptions in the circuit.",
"The simplest explanation I can think of is to pretend that the electricity (electrons) are like water. When you turn the tap on (switch the power on) the water flows through the pipe (wire), when you turn the tap off (switch off) the water is still there, it just doesn't move any more. \n\nElectricity works in pretty much the same way - the electrons are still there when you pull the plug, they just aren't moving. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20ri1f
|
how large was the universe post inflation at 10^-32 seconds?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20ri1f/eli5_how_large_was_the_universe_post_inflation_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg61kyk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Can you give me that number in planks?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ly08w
|
Were mercenaries used during the American Civil War?
|
If so, how were they used and where can I find out more about them? If not, were mercenaries used in any other United States wars?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ly08w/were_mercenaries_used_during_the_american_civil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc405cs",
"cc458qu"
],
"score": [
26,
2
],
"text": [
"Of a kind. \n\nIn 1861, Congress approved a bounty of $100 to be paid to every man who enlisted in the Union Army for a term of three years. This sum was not paid until the end of the enlistment or the end of the war.\n\nIn 1862, with enlistment dragging, Congress OK'd a $40 advance in the enlistment bonus, but that still didn't help.\n\nLater in 1862, the Militia Draft Act passed. This set up America's first draft law, but included within it was the substitution clause. In short, any draftee could find a substitute to serve his nine months of service. The substitute, in exchange for his service, would receive a bonus from the person drafted. Depending on the number of substitutes available and the negotiating skills of the substitute, the fee varied between $100 and $1,500. The latter fee was in particularly wealthy sections of Philadelphia, New York City and Boston.\n\nIn general, however, the average was between $300 and $400.\n\nYou might disagree with calling this a mercenary practice, but it had all the hallmarks of one, including men who made their living by taking advantage of the system. There were large numbers of \"bounty jumpers,\" men who would sign up to serve as a substitute, then run at the first opportunity and repeat the process.\n\nThere were brokers, men who specialized in connecting substitutes with draftees for a portion of the take. \n\nTo read more about this, [check out this 1965 article reprinted in 2000](_URL_0_).",
"As per your first question the closest I can come to is the Confederacy hiring certain British/French 'Advisors' near the end of the war. As for your second yes Mercenaries were used heavily during the American Revolution. The Pennsylvanian Provost Corps being an example."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt_history/talks_text/moffat_soldiers_pay.html"
],
[]
] |
|
1trbdu
|
Does moore's law extend to technology before computers? If not, is there any sort of trackable "trend" in technology? Has it always been moving forwards?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1trbdu/does_moores_law_extend_to_technology_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceaq4vn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I am a chemist who occasionally talks about the history behind chemistry when teaching various subjects... So although I can't answer to Moore's law, but I do have some insight into technology and scientific advancement.\n\nFrom a scientific point of view, technology has always moved forwards, although the rate at which it moves is changing. This is mostly due to science is about building on the knowledge we already have to explain the universe around us.\n\nFor example, if you look at the history of elements and atoms, the atomas concept has been around since Ancient Greece (think of atoms as the smallest pieces of matter that you can break stuff down into). Which then slowly changed to the \"plum pudding\" model of the atom [(~1904)](_URL_2_). In [1911](_URL_0_), Rutherford's paper on his Gold Foil experiment revolutionised how we think about the atom and inspired a young physcist [(Niels Bohr)](_URL_3_) to develop his [quanta approach](_URL_4_) and this led to the development of Quantum Mechanics and its' bigger brother statistical mechanics.\n\nSomething similar occurred for the elements, with the development of the Periodic table by [Mendeleev](_URL_1_) resulting in a sharp spike in the discovery and manufacture of new elements... (there are few other things involved in this field, tying together a few different strands of chemistry and physics, but you should be getting the drift).\n\nAlthough I can't talk to Moore's law, science and technology have always been advancing and advancing at an increasing rate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford%27s_Model",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelev",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model"
]
] |
||
tj9mq
|
What is AskHistorian' opinion of Fomenko's New Chronology?
|
[This](_URL_0_) is what I am referring to.
Could it hold any significant validity, or is it really just nationalistic fringe theory? Why?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tj9mq/what_is_askhistorian_opinion_of_fomenkos_new/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4n3nq2",
"c4n42ha",
"c4n4991"
],
"score": [
6,
8,
7
],
"text": [
"It's a fringe theory. A cursory look at the Wikipedia article shows how often Fomenko and his ilk resort to anomaly hunting to justify their \"theory.\" I mean, Fomenko's rejection of Carbon dating is pretty lame; also convenient to justify his theory.\n\nBesides, I get the sense that New Chronology is heavily focused on Western Eurasian history. I mean, how does Fomenko square the successive dynasties in China? What about India? Islamic history? Mesoamerican history?\n\nI don't put any stock on Fomenko's ideas. ",
"I think that it's a fun thought experiment, but beyond that it's the territory of tinfoil hats.",
"I bought Vol. I of his New Chronology series. (There are about seven volumes, but only four or five have appeared in English so far.)\n\nIt's really bizarre. One of his central thesis is there's a conspiracy to lengthen history and, as the back cover says, \"Jesus Christ was born in 1053 AD ... the Old Testament refers to medieval events ... Apocalypse [i.e. Book of Revelation] was written after 1486 AD\".\n\nI've only read about a hundred pages or so, but one of the early \"proofs\" he offers is that in Medieval paintings, ancient people/things were depicted as Medieval. So 16th century drawing of Cicero shows him as a 16th century nobleman, *ergo* Cicero lived in the 16th century.\n\nFomenko also relies heavily on astrological data, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Prepare for about a hundred pages of zodiac charts \n\nAlso, there's about fifty pages of nothing but line graphs comparing, say, the lengths of the reigns of the Holy Roman emperors to lengths of reigns of ancient Israelite kings, or comparing the Avignon Captivity with the Babylonian Captivity; they both lasted seventy years, therefore they're the same, which means \"ancient Israel\" is actually the HRE of the 1000s - 1300s. Consider [this](_URL_0_) example from Wikipedia. Now imagine fifty solid pages of this.\n\nAlso, Fomenko is apparently a mathematician by trade, which shows up when he spends a hundred of pages discussing nothing but mathematical equations and proofs, once again \"proving\" that ancient times = medieval times. Take this random paragraph from p. 192:\n\n > Now we shall consider the set of all integer-valued vectors *c = (c^1, ..., c^n)*, the coordinates of which are non-negative with the sum c^1 + ... c^n, equalling the same value, namely B - A, or the length of the time interval (A,B). We shall denote the set of all these vectors with the letter S. Geometrically, those vectors can be presented as originating from the beginning of coordinates, or from the point 0 in *R^n*. Let us consider the ends of all such vectors *c = (c^1, ..., c^n)*, all of them situated on a multi-dimensional simplex *L* defined in the space *R^n* by one equation: c^1 + ... + c^n = B - A where all coordinates c^1, ..., c^n are real non-negative numbers. Set *S* is presented geometrically as a set of \"integer points\" on simplex *L*, or a set of all points with integer-valued coordinates, from *L*.\n\nNothing like a chapter or two of dense, complicated mathematics (complicated math *translated from Russian*, no less) to destroy any gradual progress one would be making through the six-hundred page dome.\n\nOverall, it's an interesting read, mainly for its kookiness. But I, as a mere history fan, could already see massive holes in Fomenko's logic. I imagine an actual professional would be able to rip this thing to shreds, sentence by sentence."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_\\(Fomenko\\)"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Fomenko_-_Roman_Empire_parallelism.jpg"
]
] |
|
eokmbg
|
how does my car know to stop playing my music and switch to fm radio when traffic updates come on?
|
Like I'm assuming theres some voodoo in the airwaves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eokmbg/eli5_how_does_my_car_know_to_stop_playing_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fed9vqs",
"fedf4dl",
"fedfsvm",
"fedgcdo",
"fedgl5t",
"fee74ay"
],
"score": [
18,
7,
4,
4,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"Radio checks your last tuned frequency for a special signal that you can't hear, like a very high beep noise, every second. If the radio \"hears\" it, it switches to the radio.",
"Your car does that?? That's badass.",
"Never heard of or experienced this feature.\n\nWhat car do you have?",
"What? There are cars that do this?!",
"I'm starting to think this isn't a thing in America?",
"In European cars you have a TA button for Traffic Announcements. This will switch to radio if a TA signal is received."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3vsd6n
|
Saint Paul and his impact on the early Christian church - biography?
|
I've come rather interested in the establishment and transformation of the early Christian church, from ressurection through to the 300s and Constantine's alleged death bed adoption of the religion.
One difficult area I've found in my understanding (well, one of he largest) is understanding the impact of Saint Paul. So many of the biographies I've seen seek not to analyze why he created his teachings / policies and in what context they sit.
Can you recommend a book that does a good job of describing his point of view and tries to describe the context for some of his key teachings? This time period is very fascinating to me and I'm not looking for a religious text but rather a political / social analysis I think.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vsd6n/saint_paul_and_his_impact_on_the_early_christian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxqc0if",
"cxqcj7k"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"The best book for you is Harrill's [*Paul the Apostle*](_URL_0_). It's a great primer on Paul but he also discusses the influences on Paul's teaching and Paul's reception.",
"You might like Sarah Ruden's [Paul Among the People](_URL_0_). It tries to contextualize his (often unpopular today) teachings within Hellenistic culture."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Apostle-Legacy-their-Context/dp/0521757800/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449503349&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+the+apostle+harrill"
],
[
"https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7738312-paul-among-the-people"
]
] |
|
443g3l
|
Is there a specific volume a dangling water droplet has to exceed before it falls? Does the volume vary depending on the material or shape of the surface?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/443g3l/is_there_a_specific_volume_a_dangling_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czn6vo7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes. The volume depends on the force against the surface tension. With water droplets, this usually means the downward force (gravity) against the upward force(water surface tension). The downward force increases as the mass and volume increase, however the surface tension remains relatively constant over the same surface area (lowest point of the droplet). The droplet falls as the downward force overcomes surface tension "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7y8q38
|
why can't modern browsers like safari tell me how large the zip file that i am downloading is?
|
Every time I am downloading a GitHub zip of a project I am working on, safari never knows how large the zip file is, why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7y8q38/eli5why_cant_modern_browsers_like_safari_tell_me/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dueh2kf",
"duenzzk",
"duf2wx7",
"dufbzib"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Chrome does not show the size either. If I am not misstanke the reson \nis that size information is optional in HTTP. There is a good reson that is is optional because HTML code generated dynamically, with for example a PHP script, the transmission can start before they are completely generated. You would have to wait if size was required\n\n\n\nI suspect it is not included is because the zip generation is likely done on the fly so the ZIP file done necessary exist when you ask for it and it is generated for you, They might even start to transmit it before it is completely generated depending on how zip work.\n\nThe coder had to add the size information if it was available and they did not do that. Most other zip files you download are files that already existed on the file system on the server so the standard transmit a file function on a server is used and that include the size as is it know for a preexisting file.",
"Browser can only tell you the file size if the web server which is hosting the file passes that information to your browser.\n\nIf the file is generated on the fly, web server does not have this information either, because when download process starts the file is not complete yet. ",
"Your question has already been answered by others, but by way of a solution, there’s a chrome extension that will tell you the size of a repo before you download: _URL_0_",
"Files are broken up into many (thousands) of [packets](_URL_0_), and the packets are sent to your computer, which then re-assembles them into the whole file. \n\nThe system is similar to loading people into a train; \"All aboard!!!\" and you don't need to count them, you just need to look and make sure nobody's left outside. \n\nGithub can send you the first packets of the zip right away, so you don't wait, and keep sending packets as fast as the internet and your download speed allow, until the last packet arrives with the message \"I am the last packet / no more packets after me\" built in. \n\nKnowing how many packets there are doesn't help the actual download in any way, and is not necessary; it's just a convenience for you, the user, so you can maybe estimate how long it'll take."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/github-repository-size/apnjnioapinblneaedefcnopcjepgkci?hl=en"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_packet"
]
] |
|
2ul2df
|
Why do gas giants have "hard" edges?
|
Being that what we actually see when we look at a gas giant is the atmosphere, I'm wondering why they look the way they do. If you were to take a cross section of a planet's atmosphere, it would thin gradually as you got further away from the center of mass. There would not be a threshold where atmosphere existed below some defined altitude and not at all above it. So why don't these gas giants have fuzzy edges? Whenever I see images of them, the edges are so dramatic.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ul2df/why_do_gas_giants_have_hard_edges/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co9jpqs"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Short version: the edges *are* a bit fuzzy, but because gas giants are so mind-bogglingly huge, you can't really tell without high-resolution photos.\n\nLong version: When you see the \"surface\" of a gas giant, what you're seeing is light that entered the atmosphere, penetrated some distance before being scattered off a particle, and bounced back out again. The average distance a photon travels before being scattered is [inversely proportional to the atmospheric density](_URL_1_), and the density [increases exponentially as you go deeper.](_URL_0_)\n\nNow, my calculus skills aren't up to the task of calculating exactly how the opacity profile would vary as you looked at the limb of a gas giant. So instead, I'll do some good old back-of-the-envelope estimation. Firstm let's estimate how thick the \"fuzzy\" part of Earth's atmosphere. [This photo taken from the International Space Station](_URL_4_) shows it to be roughly twice the Moon's angular size, or about 1 degree. The horizon as viewed from the ISS is [about 1000 miles away](_URL_3_), so the apparent height would be 1000 mi * sin(1 degree) which is about 30km.\n\nMaking hand-wavy assumptions about similar scattering behaviors of different gases, we can assume that the thickness of this band is proportional to the atmospheric scale height. Jupiter's scale height is a little over 3 times that of Earth, because even though it's colder and has higher surface gravity, hydrogen is much less dense than nitrogen or oxygen. So let's say Jupiter's fuzzy band is about 100km thick.\n\nJupiter's diameter is about 140,000 km, so on a photo like [this one with a resolution of 2260x3207 pixels](_URL_2_) the fuzzy band should be a couple of pixels wide. And if you zoom in, that's pretty much what it looks like! (If anything, my estimate was too low. You can see that there's a lot of fuzziness in the upper atmosphere, and then a much sharper line where the opaque cloud tops start.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/PIA04866_modest.jpg",
"http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp7/luletters/lu_letter5.html",
"https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasamarshall/4971299549/"
]
] |
|
1l9vdn
|
how do "anti-aging" and "firming" creams work? if they don't work, how do the companies justify their claims?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l9vdn/eli5_how_do_antiaging_and_firming_creams_work_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbx536g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They don't justify their claims by simply not making any claims which are legally enforceable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
28jo2j
|
Is there truth to the notion that the CIA actually had little to do with the overthrow of Iran's shah in 1953?
|
As reported in [this Reuters story](_URL_0_) that quotes Iranian historian Ray Takeyh?
Edit - I meant PM, this was before coffee.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28jo2j/is_there_truth_to_the_notion_that_the_cia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciblgg3",
"ciblv9d",
"cibog0s",
"cibt3m2"
],
"score": [
76,
6,
11,
6
],
"text": [
"No, there is very little truth to this. \n\nThe Iranians nationalized British oil assets in the late 40s/early 50s. The Iranians had a democratic process for their government which was fairly established. When they kicked the British out, they didn't have the engineers and other qualified personnel to run the refineries. Fearing their proximity to the Soviet Union and economic collapse, the CIA launched Operation Ajax. It was led by Kermit Roosevelt (the grandson of teddy). The plan was to stage a coup detat and overthrow the peacefully elected government, in it's place they would set up the shah of Iran. The first attempt failed but Roosevelt disobeyed orders and tried again. He succeeded. \n\nIt wasn't much of a secret to the Iranian people that the US was pulling the strings, but when the shah became abusive and oppressive, the Iranian people overthrew him...and blamed the Americans. The Iranian revolution took place in 1979, but after Ayatollah Khomeini tried to incite revolution in Iraq during his exile, Saddam and Khomeini weren't friends. Saddam captured territory in Iran. Since the Iranians weren't getting along with the Iraqis, the US sponsored Iraq and gave them huge military aid. We all saw how that turned out... \n\nRead the book \"All the Shah's Men\" by Stephen Kinzer, phenomenal book, cautionary tale and the results of intervention are still being felt today. ",
"btw, Ray Takeyh is not an \"Iranian historian\" he's a washington \"think tank\" \"policy\" \"wonk\". ~~He doesn't even speak Persian...~~ edit: (didn't think he did from listening to him speak, e.g pronunciation of names).",
"If you are interested in reading more about this topic, I would suggest reading 'Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mossaddeq Revisited\" by Darioush Bayandor. Bayandor puts together a reasonable case: [On August 15, 1953, the CIA did, indeed, stage a coup to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq. But that coup failed. By August 16, the agency had acknowledged its failure and the State Department had already ordered rapprochement with Mossadeq. Three days later, however, a few powerful clerics led by Ayatollah Borujerdi, among whose disciples was a junior cleric named Ruhollah Khomeini, orchestrated major unrest. This unrest, spurred by the clergy who felt threatened by Mossadeq’s promise of a secular democracy, facilitated the coup for which the CIA has been credited, and vilified, all these years.](_URL_0_) In my opinion, it is at least worth the read. Bayandor takes a few digs at 'All the Shah's Men' and critiques the current history of the coup for being too US-centric - i.e., that Iranians themselves are given little agency and are depicted as pawns for the CIA. He doesn't exonerate the CIA, but he does insist that this 'American meddling in a stable democracy' narrative gives no credence to the Iranian events/people on the ground. \n(EDIT: a few additional thoughts)",
"Yeah... that's an interesting argument.\n\nThis is a very fastly evolving piece of history. Previously, there was no official conceit of US involvement, despite many leaks. However, in 2000, then SecState Albright confessed to the US role in a failed attempt at detente. Obama attempted the same in 2009.\n\nBut the big reveal was yet to come...\n\nTo celebrate the 60th aniversary of TPAJAX, the CIA went and declassified their existing records of it. The ACLU had actually managed to subpoena this in the 1980's when Kermit Roosevelt published Countercoup, but as of Aug 2013, the whole thing has been released, relatively unredacted.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt gets rather tactical at times, so I wouldn't recommend it as a sole narrative, but there's plenty of smoking gun docs in there. Yes, operations frequently went sideways once they hit the field, but when has any operation ever gone exactly as planned?\n\nAlso, the Reuters story is just an EXSUM of his actual Foreign Affairs article: \n\n_URL_1_\n\nMuch of what he cites (albeit selectively) is from the Aug 2013 release."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/19/us-iran-relations-when-history-isnt-history-after-all/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/spook-story-what-really-happened-mossadeq"
],
[
"http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/",
"http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141527/ray-takeyh/what-really-happened-in-iran"
]
] |
|
2qp6wd
|
why don't airplanes fly lower? wouldn't it save time, and have less turbulence? is it for the sole purpose of less air resistance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qp6wd/eli5_why_dont_airplanes_fly_lower_wouldnt_it_save/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn871vp",
"cn87750"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"generally there is less turbulence the higher you go. It would not save time because it's much harder to fly fast at lower altitudes. ",
"Air resistance is a huge factor, It could also be about the noise they make but I would think the main reason is they can fly faster when the air is less dense. Lower where the air is denser they can fly slower because the wings get lots of air providing lift, higher where there is less air the plane must/can fly faster to get the same lift. Generally it takes about 15 minutes to get to cruising altitude and on a flight that could take hours its much faster to fly up high quickly then to fly low and slower. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
rf7eo
|
why are we all mad at ea games?
|
I can never seem to express this opinion in words. I just know I'm supposed to be mad as hell.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rf7eo/eli5_why_are_we_all_mad_at_ea_games/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c45bizm",
"c45d7v0",
"c45dnyn",
"c45emgu",
"c45f9t1",
"c45gdvj",
"c45gnav",
"c45j2tj"
],
"score": [
20,
12,
3,
2,
6,
2,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I can't speak for all EA games but they completely eliminated all competition with Madden by buying the exclusive rights to the NFL rosters, completely eliminating NFL 2k games, which were $19.99 I might add. With this exclusive license, they can make whatever crap they want with 0 competition.",
"If you don't know, than its not bothering you and you shouldn't be.\n\nPersonally, for me, its invasive DRM that makes playing games horribly convoluted and generally more troublesome than it should be. It's also terrible, *terrible* customer support(I once spent 24+ combined hours talking to EA support trying to get B2K activated in BF3 over the course of several weeks). \n\nAnd lastly, its the fact that EA just wants to capitalize on customer's expectations from good developers while never delivering. For example, the game *Spore* by Maxis was something I was very much looking forward to. When it came out, it was a game made for toddlers because EA wanted \"to appeal to a wider audience\". Battlefield 3 was simplified for the same reason and then rushed into the market as an unfinished product(with literally a 20-40% of the player base unable to even start the game at launch). They also never bother to fix bugs that were left in the game as a result of them rushing it.\n\nI could list many many more examples...",
"They also price gouge on Steam and other digital distributors.",
"I started playing guitar again. Thanks for being a piece of shit EA!",
"My hatred for EA started back when I bought Spore. See, EA decided \"we don't want people to resell these games\" and put an insanity level DRM on Spore. Basically, when you installed the game, it created some impossible to delete files in the root of your computer, then sent your computer info to their servers. Why did they do that? Because you were only allowed to install the game 3 times. Oh yeah, and changing ANY hardware on your computer made it count as a new install.. So, the special edition of Spore I spent $80 became worthless after I installed it on my computer, my laptop, then got a new video card for my computer.\n\nAfter that.. let's see.. Dragon Age: Origins. Trying to force you to buy dlc to play content that was on the disk at release? Then proceed to rub your face in it nonstop? Fuck you, EA. \n\nThat's when I stopped bothering with EA. Most people kept going, and had to deal with day 1 dlc in other games, and other various things designed to get every last dollar out of their customers. ",
"The simplest way I can explain is that, unlike other publishing or development companies, EA appears to go out of it's way to make it blatantly obvious they do not care about consumers, but rather consumer's money.\n\nEvery company just wants people's money, but they make attempts to veil their greed. ",
"Because they told us to challenge everything.",
"EA used to be its own dev studio. It was not always evil, in fact, far from it! Wikipedia talks about its early history: \"EA routinely referred to their developers as \"artists\" and gave them photo credits in their games and numerous full-page magazine ads. EA also shared lavish profits with their developers, which added to their industry appeal.\" As gaming became a bigger industry, like many large players, it shifted to publishing titles from other studios. Unfortunately, as it became more about management and less about creation, EA began to lose its way. Over the course of the 2000's, it got worse and worse until eventually it took over Activision's spot as the most hated gaming company.\n\nThe problem is that games cost more and more money to produce, and take more and more time. As that happens, a lot of the core decision making is taken out of the hands of the developers and into the hands of the investors. If a game costs $50 million to make, someone has to put all that up front, and they want to make sure they get their money back. Unfortunately, the people with the money tend not to know anything about video games. This is not really unique to EA.\n\nAs has been said, the publisher buys up developer studios, and then either releases a lifeless sequel or kills the dev's properties entirely, to be resurrected when EA sees fit.\n\nPopular studios EA has shuttered:\n\n* Origin games - Famous 80's PC studio founded by the Garriotts. Released popular titles like Wing Commander. Bought by EA in 1992. Everything fine until 1997 when they basically become the Ultima company until it wasn't making money anymore (2004), where it was shuttered.\n\n* Westwood - Command and Conquer dev. Released many popular RTS titles in this series. Bought by EA in 1998 but kept independent for the releases of TS, RA2. Generals was the first real title under EA supervision and was middling. Studio liquidated and absorbed. All CnC titles after middling to bad.\n* Bullfrog - Classic PC developer co-founded by P. Molyneux. Created many timeless games including Theme Park, Theme Hospital, Populous, Dungeon Keeper. Bought 1995, shuttered 2001(effectively). Since then EA has re-released Theme Park on the DS.\n* Maxis - Legendary PC sim studio co-founded by gaming pioneer and crazy person Will Wright. Created SimCity and sequels, spinoffs, The Sims. Bought by EA in 1997, released Spore, critical and commercial failure. 50% this was on Wright, though. Released TS3 in 2009 to commercial success - but let's face it, those people would've bought anything. \n* Pandemic Studios - Full Spectrum Warrior, Star Wars: Battlefront, Destroy All Humans. Bought by EA in 2007 while they were making The Saboteur. Closed immediately after the game's release (even though a lot of people thought it was awesome).\n \n\nThey don't always close their studios, though. Sometimes they just ruin all their games:\n\n* BioWare - Highly popular PC RPG developer. Released Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Star Wars:KOTOR, Mass Effect. Bought by EA in 2007. Release schedule sped up with increased focus on franchise titles. As a result, games like DA2 and ME3 were rushed, messy titles with a lot of problems. SW:TOR is more marketing and 'omg full voice' then it is an actual game.\n\n* Danger Close(formerly known as EALA, formerly known as Dreamworks Interactive) - In between some cheap titles (Dilbert's Desktop Games!), released The Neverhood and Medal of Honor. Bought by EA in 2000, ran MoH into the ground, did slave work for EA which at least resulted in Boom Blox, and finally told to revive MoH only to humiliate it again. 50% of that may be DICE's fault. Speaking of which...\n\n* DICE - Popular PC developer responsible for epic large-scale combat series Battlefield. Bought by EA in 2004 just before BF2's release. Even with EA, manage to release BF:2142 to acclaim, then Mirror's Edge and BFBC2 to less. BC2 popular but still seen as dumbed down. EA makes a big push with BF3, but their influence results in another rushed, incomplete game.\n* Critereon - Maybe the exception to the rule? Maker of popular racing series Burnout. Bought by EA in 2004, made some okay Burnout games, brought it back hard with BP in 2008, and a legit Need for Speed revival in 2010. Time will tell with these guys.\n\nThere are others, these are just the big ones. As you can see, it takes a few years from the studios to go from bought to shit - whether or not that means that it took time for EA to ruin them, or if it means that EA didn't really go to shit until 2004 on is something we will probably never know as industry outsiders.\n\nBeyond that, EA has commited other crimes. In 2004 the infamous 'EA Spouse' began a livejournal detailing the horrid working conditions in EA's studios and introduced the gaming public to the concept of 'crunch time'. They got a lot of bad press for this. Of course the sports games warrant mention, too. EA makes football, soccer, hockey, golf, boxing, and snowboarding games. Some of those come out every year. As we've seen above, EA doesn't seem to understand that you can't make a good game in a year. So they mostly are identical to last years model as they come out, with 1 or 2 major features and a slight graphical upgrade. They are also very heavily geared towards hardcore fanboys and can be somewhat inaccessible (I'm looking at you, Madden). They used to make basketball games but their 2010 game was so bad they were forced to pull it in disgrace literally weeks before the release date.\n\nLastly, people's butts are pretty hurt about Origin. Origin's real problem is that it's not almost a decade old like Steam is, and doesn't benefit from that many years of bug fixing and feature adds. To be fair though, EA knew what it was up against, and released their inferior product anyway (picking up on a theme here?). For the most part, people are annoyed that it is required for some games just so they can get it on your system, where it takes up space since it has no value-add features like Steam does. It doesn't help that BF3 has its own web interface, so to some people it seems like it's 2 pieces of unwieldy horseshit between them and their game. Not me though, Battlelog 4 lyfe.\n\nIn all seriousness though, to sum up, EA is bad because they're a huge company who doesn't have a real grip on what they should be doing or having their studios do. Unfortunately, most gamers don't have a passion for industry knowledge like some of us do - they just buy the sequels. And as long as the money is there for these incomplete, unsatisfying games, EA will continue to chrun them out. Hope that helps."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
e8vrel
|
why do vocal harmonies of older songs sound have that rich, "airy" quality that doesn't seem to appear in modern music? (crosby stills and nash, simon and garfunkel, et al)
|
I'd like to hear a scientific explanation of this!
[Example song](_URL_0_)
I have a few questions about this.
I was once told that it's because multiple vocals of this era were done live through a single mic (rather than overdubbed one at a time), and the layers of harmonies disturb the hair in such a way that it causes this quality. Is this the case? If it is, what exactly is the "disturbance"? Are there other factors, such as the equipment used, the mix of the recording, added reverb, etc?
EDIT: uhhhh well I didn't expect this to blow up like it did. Thanks for everyone who commented, and thanks for the gold!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e8vrel/eli5_why_do_vocal_harmonies_of_older_songs_sound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"faew6yj",
"faexmef",
"faey0e0",
"faf0530",
"faf0lm9",
"faf1h9x",
"faf1sje",
"faf390m",
"faf3wjv",
"faf3zto",
"faf40dq",
"faf4ad5",
"faf6y8k",
"faf7kb9",
"faf7yiq",
"faf8jpi",
"faf8pvg",
"faf8wq6",
"faf9oar",
"fafaaii",
"fafbpy2",
"fafc451",
"fafccwv",
"fafcd94",
"fafd5sh",
"fafjek2",
"faflr4u",
"faflztm",
"fafob2u",
"fafps7s",
"fafrdaw",
"fafs6zs",
"faftbrc",
"fafxxoj",
"fag0gga",
"fag12dn",
"fag1awb",
"fag2xg3",
"fag380u",
"fag69jr",
"fag7nzv",
"faga7bd",
"fagh9lb",
"fagiz0q",
"fagkf2r",
"fagkudd",
"fagl8j9",
"fagltbv",
"fagmg4d",
"fagps3p",
"fagrus5",
"fagsclv",
"fah5w2j",
"faha7f9"
],
"score": [
1377,
14,
695,
19,
121,
5,
2056,
30,
14,
123,
59,
2,
7,
41,
9,
7153,
65,
20,
2,
4,
2,
2,
28,
14,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
34,
20,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Some of it is the mixing/mastering. [this “Twenty Thousand Hertz” episode](_URL_0_) and the following episode covers the differences in modern mixing/mastering, versus mixing/mastering in previous decades. \n\nSome of it is that songs used to be recorded in a single session in a big group, yeah. There are differences in the way they were recorded, and the ways that it’s been mastered make a big difference. Same with the size and acoustics of the studio in which it was recorded.",
"I think it is just a style of harmonizing. These things go in and out of fashion over the years. It just so happens that CSN and S & G were active at the same time.\n\nI'm sure there are modern groups that sing this way from time to time.",
"They loved doubling up vocals back then, as in you have the same vocal track repeated a fraction of a second later. John Lennon is doubled up on nearly all of his songs. They'd do this with harmonies as well - each vocal onto a single track and then doubled up. That's a lot of vocal going on at once, with sounds overlapping and interfering with each other, giving it that swirling shimmery sound.\n\nWhat I also notice about the example you posted is that every vocal harmony is at a similar level, as if you're listening to a group of singers in a room. Modern music tends to go with the lead vocalist pushed to front, and backing singers for the harmonies, pushed further back in the mix. \n\nAny kind of commercial music is competing in a kind of arms race of sound, attempting to stand out. Producers come up with a trick that makes their song sound bigger, then pretty soon everyone's doing it. Vocal doubling was one of those tricks. As we move into the 80s, the backing track becomes more of a focus. There's only so much you can do with vocals, but instruments and production techniques are changing all the time.",
"A lot of harmonies today are auto-tuned and represent only 1 - 3 voices. I sing in a church choir of 20 voices and we still sound like your \"old fashioned\" example. I think it is the fact that different singers' voices have different timbre - different tone and a different mix of overtones / undertones - and that a larger number of voices has a more full and interesting mix of harmonics.",
"Overdubbing was common even in this era; in fact, the effect here is produced by multitracking, a form of overdubbing in which multiple takes of the same part by the same vocalist(s) are overlaid and bounced to a new track. What you were told about acoustic disturbance isn't totally inaccurate, as the perceived effect itself comes from the constructive & destructive interference of the overlaid waveforms, but this doesn't require that they interact in the air, which you can test for yourself just by graphing any two simple waveforms and then graphing their sum. The same waveform summed with itself will produce the same waveform but with twice the amplitude/volume (1+1=2 (constructive)), while a waveform summed with its inverse will produce silence (-1+1=0 (destructive)). Where no two takes of a part will ever be identical, the multiple waveforms interact with one another in such a way as to create a complex pattern of interference, reinforcing & attenuating certain frequencies in a non-fixed way, which we perceive as this 'airy' quality you describe, and which cannot be produced quite the same just by processing the signal with a unison or chorus effect as is common today.",
"I've found those same vocals in Brandi Carlile music, from Belle Brigade, and that recent sibling band that I wish I liked more...\n\n_URL_0_",
"Check out a documentary called The Harmony Game. In it, the producer of many Simon and Garfunkel classics details his vocal recording and mixing style which basically amounts to having each vocal recorded and doubled individually and then both vocals on one mic giving the mixer several tracks to pan and balance.",
"Do you really want airy music from Pitbull?",
"Here's a recent song from Fleet Foxes. The album recording is beautiful, but this cover just might be my new favorite thing on the internet. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nYou'll notice they're all sharing one mic in close proximity, which supports the explanation you heard.",
"Part of it might have to do with the loudness war and songs being mastered for shitty audio gear now days. The loudness war is artist wanting their music to be mastered louder and louder, which results in less fidelity in the song because its all kinda jammed up there rather than using the full spectrum.",
"Modern compression and limiting techniques also tend to kill any sense of natural ambience in music.\n\nIf we REALLY want a deep dive into this, the proliferation of digital effects has reshaped sound quality as well. As good as digital reverbs can be, IMO they are still no match for dedicated reverb rooms and huge, real, plate reverbs.",
"I'm not sure if it's what you're referring to, but you're probably hearing the room's reverb in mono, as it was recorded through the (single) mic.\n\nThese days the vocal will be recorded drier (without the room's reverb, and probably mic'd closer to the mouth), and some reverb/delay effects will be added that aren't strictly mono",
"Everything is autotuned these days. Autotuned vocals have a particular sound that takes away a lot of the natural imperfections that give the older recordings such a natural character.",
"Dude. Seriously. These people don't know what they are talking about. CSN sounds incredible, not because of any recording tricks, it's because they are incredible together. That's how and why they got together.",
"Because all modern music is tuned to perfection. For a harmony to sound really nice you need some imperfection.",
"I see a lot of good info, but I didnt see anyone talk about this. When people sing in the same room the vibrations of their voices actually affect each other. When perfect harmonies are sung there are natural overtones created by the stacking of the sound waves. When voices are autotuned or electronically harmonized you are actually missing a lot of frequencies that natural harmonization would have, making the newer stuff sound flat and robotic.",
"Vocals were often recorded much further off the mic back then 1-2' rather than 6\". \nAlso not everything was pitch corrected and an amount of tuning variation between harmonies can make them sound thicker and richer.\n\nEdit: auto correct hates me",
"Came here knowing the example would be \"Suite: Judy Blue Eyes\".\n\nWas not disappointed. Thanks OP.",
"I think it just comes down to stylistic changes and what you're listening to specifically. Go check out Fleet Foxes for a modern band using multi-part harmonies. Multi-part harmonies are just not a big thing in music, usually songs only have a singly harmony, overdubbed by the same singer, and mixed lower in the mix.",
"Because they were singing and recording together, they were tuning to each other with natural intervals, not auto-tuned to equal temperament.",
"Cause they were actually singing in harmony instead of a bunch of separate tracks being mixed together by a computer and then artificially tuned.",
"Karen Carpenter must have done this stuff. I mean, her voice was magic all on its own! - - but didn't they do overdubs or something? I know it was before autotune or whatever that's called.",
"There’s a lot of comments here that are technically true, but aren’t really related to the issue OP is asking about. Yes, there’s the loudness war and digital effects and autotune and all that. Those have definitely changed things. \n\nBut the main thing is just the style of music. It’s just not as popular as it was 40 years ago. That’s why it doesn’t appear as often in modern music. It’s the same reason you don’t hear a lot of disco on the radio anymore. \n\nThere is plenty of music coming out today that still sounds like this that was recorded and mixed digitally on modern equipment.",
"Because it's not popular? Hiphop doesnt have record scratches anymore, rock doesnt use twangy clean guitars, hammond organs aren't in every rock song, folk doesn't include mouth harp in every song etc. \n\nIt's just an aesthetic that was really popular in the vocal pop and folk groups in the 50s and 60s, and kept going into the 80s and 90s but kind of died down after that. You still have bands like Bon Iver, Fleet Foxes, Beirut, Tindersticks, Elephant Revival, even more popular things like The Dead South and Mumford & Sons do a lot of quite airy harmonies regularly in their music.",
"Check out The Milk Carton Kids if you dig Simon & Garfunkel. Modern version of a similar style",
"As another point, what are some modern songs that actually have harmony parts akin to CSNY? I can't recall any modern acts that have harmony.",
"I’ve seen several responses stating that recording multiple harmonies in the same take result in this sound. In CSN(Y)’s followup album, Deja Vu, they recorded all of their vocal parts (and instrumental parts, for that matter) separately.",
"Check out Mountain Man for some excellent harmonies, like anything of theirs! Lead singer of Sylvan Esso is one of three women in the group.",
"Musician weighing in here, there are several reasons mainstream modern music **in general** sounds worse than a lot of older music despite more advanced recording technology and techniques.\n\nThe biggest reason (apart from modern tendencies to isolate each vocal track and record one at a time) is compression. Compression is essentially when you boost the volume of a track or instrument to make the quiet sounds match the volume of the loudest sounds. Most mainstream music is compressed to the point that every single track in a recording is as loud as the other, which kills a lot of the distinctive tones and removes any variety and nuance from one beat to another. It literally strips away a lot of the quality of the instrument being recorded, be it a voice or a guitar.\n\nI don't mean to say that all modern music is like that, there are some incredibly nuanced modern bands, some even managed to break into the mainstream (Alabama Shakes, Vulfpeck, etc), but modern pop music (hip hop and country included) is hot garbage where sound quality is concerned, even if you like it, you know it all sounds the same.",
"Something to keep in mind that in the 60s and 70s, there was very little digital anything in the studio, especially reverb. Most methods of creating reverb employed some type of mechanical device.\n\nThe cheapest and most prevalent was spring reverb, as found in a lot of guitar amps of the era. Part of the audio signal was sent into one end of a long pair of springs (12\"-18\" depending on the manufacturer) and then recovered on the other end. Since the signal bounced around on the spring several times before dying out, the sound approximated the kind of reverb you would hear in a small room with hard surfaces. It was kind of metallic sounding.\n\nAnother method was the \"plate\". A 4'x8' metal sheet (often stainless steel) was suspended from stiff springs in a wooden frame. A transducer was mounted on one end and a pickup on the other. This provided more lush resonance than a spring, but was similarly metallic sounding\n\nThe best studios use the old school \"echo chamber\" method where the build a long concrete room/vault in the basement or in a separate building, stuck a speaker on one end and a microphone on the other. This approximated room resonance the best because it literally WAS room resonance.\n\nUnless they included some way to modify the physical parameters of the device itself, all of these old types had a very distinctive and consistent sound. Every recording made in Studio B at A & M Studios, for example, probably used the same reverb device, which means they had a very similar \"lushness\".\n\n In the modern studio, pretty much all forms of reverb are created digitally. That provides nearly infinite ways to modify the character of the reverb; length of each echo, number of repeats, increasing or decreasing a particular frequency with each repeat, etc.",
"I’m late to the party but something I don’t see mentioned much is that a lot of it is a very clear stylistic trend in arranging music. Big thickly voiced chords with lots of 3rds are not in vogue. The trend by and large across most popular genres is more toward open, powerful, clean chords (or just single note lines) that do not contain a lot of harmonic material. I say this as someone who does it for a living - if I layer up chords with nice fat harmony I get the note “it sounds old” or “cheesy”",
"Everyone is going on about the studio, the mix, the mastering, digital effects etc. that’s not the root cause. It’s simply the style of the music and the talent. I have no doubt we could recreate that sound with modern recording equipment IF the talent and desire existed. \n\nI’m an audio engineer and sure there’s subtle differences in analog vs digital recording and I can expand on that but it’s really not the root cause",
"Lots of good info in this thread, so let me give you some counter examples, i.e. more modern songs with that have amazing vocal harmonies.\n\n* Cowboy Junkies, The Trinity Session\n* The Young Uns, particularly The Ballad of John Longstaff\n* The Milk Carton Kids",
"OP if you're looking for a semblance of this in modern music check Milk Carton Kids. Great harmony.",
"All these posts about \"natural harmonization\" vs \"electronically harmonized\" and other rubbish about digital recordings making these sounds impossible, are mostly flat-out wrong, technically impossible and also going in the wrong direction. I don't know why that dreadful comment is top at the moment as it's just completely wrong.\n\nThe reason why the vocal harmonies of older songs sound \"airy\" is purely and simple down to production. Aside from minor influences such as analogue recording gear, mostly it's down to:\n\n - singers who actually had to be good at their craft because they didn't have autotune, and they trained / practiced a LOT.\n - the style of music giving a lot of space to the vocals. In the track linked above, there is very little high in the mix aside from the vocals.\n - double-tracking vocals to make it sound like the voice is richer (this technique is still used but not quite in the same way)\n - the age before the \"loudness wars\" where dynamic range is compressed and everything is in your face, removing the space where that airiness can sit.\n - multipart arrangements with pleasing harmonies. Even in the CSN song above, when there is a single voice in the lead, the \"airiness\" is gone. You can hear when a single voice is multitracked, when harmonies are used, and when a single voice is used alone.\n\nThat's really all it is. Be a great vocal performer, give the voice a lot of room in the mix, good harmonies (either yourself or other singers), multitrack it for that airy quality.\n\nSource: used to be an audio engineer and performer.",
"There is so much misinformation in the comments. The sound is the result of the recording technology and the mixing and singing style of that era.\n\nFor technology, you're hearing old mics, effects, mixing consoles, and recoding devices (most likely tape). For style, there's a style in mic setup, use of effects, mixing, and for the singer, there's the singing style of that era, too.\n\nUse old equipment the way it was used back then with a singer that is accustomed to using their voice from the style of that era, and you can replicate the sound you're talking about. With skilled enough audio engineers and musicians, you can emulate this sound with software, too.",
"Mixing aside I think it's 1 5 10 all male harmonies.\n\nIn the style youre talking about melody sings in normal range, male falsetto sings octave plus a third (10 total) and mid sings the 5th. [Simon and Garfunkel](_URL_1_) Use octave separated male male harmony but are missing the third harmony that rounds it out . Csn's use of 1 and 5 harmonies are definately unique since singing a third higher or lower is more common. But balanced with the falsetto third harmony up an octave you get massive range, and a different sound. Think [bohemian rhapsody](_URL_4_) pushing the limits of their voices although they use more beach boys esque harmony (see below) but great range. [momma’s and the papas](_URL_3_) have great harmony but use counter melodies male and female so it doesn't mean the same way. \n\n\nNext most similar is the most common duet harmony that your probably comparing csn to. Often mixed male and female it lacks the complexity. Sibling harmony like [first aid kit](_URL_0_) interesting haunting harmonies and they both sing the melody sometimes for a doubling effect. [Jack black singing extreme](_URL_2_) Is another example of the much more common up or down a third harmony that's common.\n\nIn comparison the beach boys use similar spread in their harmonies but they rely heavily of the seventh chord 2 4 5 7, a dissonant non smooth tense style that is actually popular in 50's music and even old hymns and church music. Also maj7 chords.\n\nAnother comparison is barber shop. This has the same notes as csn but in the same octave usually 1 3 5 or 7ths but never the octave above. It sounds crowded and outdated. Depth in barber shop is given by adding a simple walking base line usually an octave lower playing the root note of any chord. This type of music usually also has simple chord progressions of 1st 4th and 5th.\n\nAcapella harmonies usually have an ooh aah background sound so they aren't singing the lyrics, producing another style. Same with choral arrangements or backup singers which dont sign the melody but instead add a rhythm section vibe.\n\nSo with all the harmony styles I can think of that all fundamentally use the same notes in different ways that style your talking about which I'm caling 1 5 10 male harmony is difficult to arrange, difficult vocally and just out of style compared to the third or choral/backup harmonies used so often today.",
"Any recording engineer will tell you that a particular \"sound\" whether it be from the modern era or older is not due to any single factor but a number of little differences that produce the signature when stacked together. A few of them in this case could be:\n\n1. Recording technique: As is mentioned already, tracking harmonies together verses stacked (individually at a time) creates a softer, but more cohesive sound. If you have ever played a digital piano you will notice that individual notes can (in the best emulations) be almost utterly convincing but chords less so, because the resonance of the notes together impact each other on a real piano.\n2. Recording equipment: Tube gear and tape were used in these earlier eras. Tape in particular can mute the high end frequencies. When you add them back or compensate for them you get the same frequencies but sweetened by harmonic distortion and non-linear characteristics. Digital is cleaner but harder. Older technologies are (generally) softer and sweeter. Plate reverbs were also more popular back then. They produce a rich, haunting sound that is very beautiful but less suited to modern music. Yes plate reverbs still get used a lot today but it more subtle ways and often with a digital emulation rather than the real thing. \n3. Recording spaces: A room is as important to a sound recording as light is to a film recording. And in the 70s there were some LEGENDARY rooms that simply don't exist today. It's also one of the reasons for THAT signature Motown sound. Recording spaces today are more perfectly designed and built for a variety of recordings. Older, less perfect, more creative spaces gave different sounds. \n4. Fashion: There was a popular style for harmonies of that era. You can hear similarities in something like Fleet Foxes in more modern times but when you have a critical mass of artists all going for one \"sound\" you are going to get an overall higher standard and the best of those will be better than the best today, when the fashion is not as popular.\n\nAdd all these things together and although each is not a game changer, the cumulative effect is a unique sound that is not easily replicated today.",
"Simon and Garfunkel always sang what is known as \"Close Harmony.\" That is the notes of each melody were very close on the scale and often notes would be shared. Lots of artists still harmonize but most tend to make triads and plain chords. Close harmonizing is actually pretty difficult to do the way that Simon and Garfunkel did which is why you dont hear a lot of it any more. I had this question a few years back and went on a journey down the music theory rabbit hole to find this out.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEdit: Removed: \"So Simon might have been singing a tonic while garfunkel would sing a supertonic, basically always creating that eary disonance you get by playing two notes adjacent to one another on the piano.\"",
"I am an engineer, and work heavily with vocalists. In my experience, there are two main differences between current recordings and vintage, like your examples:\n\nRecording technique: When they recorded back then, they almost always did it in big studios (big, amazing sounding rooms with pleasing acoustics) on top-dollar mics (and here’s the important part) a good distance (8-16 inches) away from the mic (as opposed to now, when people get right on it). When you’re close to a mic, two things happen: One, the sound has more bass, or low frequencies. This is called the proximity effect. As you back away from a mic, you get less exaggerated low end, and the high frequencies (high end) don’t change nearly as much. Two, the closer you are, the less room sound (the resulting acoustics of the space you’re in) you capture. Bad sounding room? Get closer to the mic so you pick up less of the room. This makes a huge difference from the get-go.\n\nSo if you want a great, natural sounding recording, get in a great sounding room, and let the mic pick up both the source *and* the pleasant acoustics. Proximity is the main way to balance it. Farther away, more treble and “air” in the recorded sound. And that’s just the way they liked it. It yielded great results.\n\nThe other difference is in mixing technique, which others have touched on. These days, we like a little more compression (which makes things louder as a whole, reducing the difference between the quietest and loudest parts of the source) on our stuff, but more importantly, we like our mixes to be bassier, which means that other stuff—like vocals—has to be balanced to that. The whole mixing approach is different, just because we have a higher sonic standard. Engineers of the 60s and 70s made some amazing sounding stuff, but the kick drums and the bass don’t always deliver in the consistent way the hits do now. Low end is vital to a massive, punchy mix. And they just didn’t always have it dialed in back then. Anyway, how you treat the low end affects how you want to mix the vocals. E.g, a banger with tons of bass probably likes a loud, heavily compressed lead vocal. A folkier acoustic number (more like S & G or CSN) would like a dynamic (varying widely in volume) lead vocal that is “spacier” (recorded or perceived to be in a large, open space and less in your face), which befits the vibe of the music.\n\nThere are also techniques like double-tracking (where the vocalist records a second take parallel to the first take, matching it usually as closely as possible), which can be treated different ways. The Eagles would do this sort of thing with their background vox and pan (in stereo, panning is the distribution of a sound between left and right channels) the doubles to opposite sides. Say the BGs are in 3 different parts (3 different notes at a time): they might pan one set of the 3 parts to the left channel, then the doubles to the right channel. If the doubles are performed well, this yields an incredibly satisfying effect, particularly for stereo. This is just one example of a widely used technique.\n\nCSN would even pan each voice (see *Helplessly Hoping* and listen on headphones for a better idea) differently across the stereo field. This isn’t the answer to your question, but it’s another technique that maybe isn’t as common today. Modern music doesn’t seem to like having stuff panned way off to the sides, like the Beatles did (drums on one side, vocals on the other, and so on) occasionally (See *Lady Madonna*).\n\nThese days, it seems like the in-your-face vocal style is the thing, but that doesn’t mean people don’t record/mix the old way still.\n\nBut IMO, it’s mostly just the way we like to hear music. We like “hyped” vocal sounds, which are really pretty unnatural. Older music tends to sound more natural. Producing recorded music is pretty illusory.\n\nOh, dear, I’ve written quite the essay. I hope that helps a little.",
"I was at a private concert, without microphones, that featured two people singing while facing each other. They moved forward and back depending on the effect they were looking for. The sound effect was phenomenal and I can't imagine that the effect of the voices bouncing off each other could be captured by microphones. There was dampening and enhancing of rich sounds that I simply cannot describe. \n\nFrancis Dunnery of \"It Bites\" a former \"Top of the Pops\" UK prog rock star was the featured vocalist the name of the female vocalist accompanying him escapes me.",
"Recording Engineer Here - You describing a quality that is impossible to relate to (unless it's you). So, the discussion below really wont give you an accurate answer. Even your description of \"airy\" would be different from how I or others perceive it. There are a million differences between how things might have been recorded, performed, mixed, mastered, reproduced, performed yada yada.. And so - so real way to quantify an answer. \n\nIn modern recording, most mortals, have the ability to capture extremely high resolution recordings that would rival some of the best equipment of the 40's-90's. Anyone can fire up garage band with a decent $100 microphone (maybe cheaper) and as long as the room sounds good and the performance is good, it can be amazing. Plenty of good examples of great songs recorded on relatively inexpensive equipment. (I just wanted to rule out equipment)\n\nWhere I net out is simply.... Performance, how it was captured and preference. Go listen to the new Highwomen record, it's recorded on some of the best equipment developed in the 60's-today. It's warm, and to me; amazing. Alternatively the harmonies on any TPain record sound like robots on autotune. I'm just suggesting that the \"air\" you desire can be found in modern times. You might not have found it yet.",
"As someone who was spent the majority of my life singing backup and lead and recording in studios I have noticed the same thing, and I think there is more than one culprit. I'll run them down. \n(DISCLAIMER: I am just one guy, with one opinion, sharing my personal experience, and claim to represent no status quo or prevalent industry opinion. Thanks!) \n\n\n**Recording equipment:** \nWhatever can be said about the latest Avid, 128 audio tracks, 512 instrument tracks, and 1,024 MIDI tracks digital monsters, UNless they are in the hands of someone who understands EQ, frequency, Phase cancellation, and the proper use of Preamps, and Compression, The result can often come out crystal clear, but lacking in that human warmth, (What I largely consider a lower mid range richness of tone and color) \nMost of the people I record with now, have \"split the difference\" using Pro Tools along with some Retro preamps, and of the new \"lunch box\" (Half rack) outboard gear. So, recording gear is crucial to this conversation. \nSuffice it to say that for me, (Nyah! You kids get off my lawn!) nothing really comes close to an analog recording rig, like a Studer Recorder, with a Neve or Trident console. It won't make you sing any better, but it will pick up the nuances of your vocal tone in a way that is not magnified, or diminished because of anything digital. And it's been my experience, that recording analog, or digital with really vintage mics, so long as you use good outboard gear, which can be expensive enough to make one want to just say \"screw it, we'll record and fix it in the mix\" \nWhereas Analog was the industry standard, and the equipment was fairly consistent in quality and design between the recording years of 1950, and 1990, and lot of the vocals of that era bear the similar sound of old school recorders, consoles and mics. This is considered to be the classic typical vocal sound in the recording industry. \n(The story of single-mic, one-take recording, vs multitracking is an amazing story that I will not go into here, but you can check [this link](_URL_1_) for more info on it) The recording you provided by CS & N was recorded on an Ampex 300 two‑inch tape machine with old-school universal 1176 compressors. \n\n\n**Including............**\n\n \n**Microphones:** \nA Lot of the times I see people use a lot of new plugins to make up for the fact that they cannot afford like the Neumann U87, and 47, the Neumann TLM series, the AKG 414, (One of my favorites back in the day because it sounded great and I could afford it) Sme of the other all-time mics can be found [Here](_URL_3_). IN a world with so many choices and so many speciality mics getting promoted from all over the world, many of the designed in Europe and Made in Asia, practically all of them advertise \"that classic sound\" or \"That vintage sound\" \nThe mic they are recording on based on the photo seen here, appears to me to be either a Neumann TLM 67, or U 87, although I am not certain when the U87 came out. \nThese two factors had a profound effect on the vocal quality, that is both warm and airy,. There there is...... \n\n\n**Natural vocal range and EQ dynamics.** \nMultiple vocals on one track, can get filled with information quickly, glutting the sound, and packing the mid range, to make the vocals a little more like an [old Tom Jones record](_URL_0_), (They absolutely rock. Not knocking them in any way) than say, a Freddie Mercury recording. Softer, higher range vocalists, tend to sound better in my opinion when stacked for harmony vocals, with [THIS SONG](_URL_2_) being a great example of it, than bg throaty tenors, which tend to take up a lot of space, and often work better for leads. \n\n\nA problem that also sometimes arises is Phase cancellation, (When two opposing sounds cancel one another out, as sometimes happens in multi-mic recording, when they are not placed correctly) \n**Single vocalist harmonies:** \n\nAlso when one vocalist (as it happens a lot these days with a single vocalist doing all the vocal tracks) this heavy effect I spoke of can occur unless the vocalist has a wide dynamic range. \nThree different people all with different vocal quality and ranges, have less of a tendency to try to sing exactly alike tonally, and and don't crowd a single part of the EQ spectrum., and just sound more human, because, they are. \n\n\nRoom Bleed: \nIn a digital world, often with the emphasis being in each track being perfect, and isolated, a lot of the magic that occurs in vocal recording gets lot, because room bleed can add great overtone and coloring to a vocal harmony, especially when used with compression. multi mic'ing in different position in a rom can capture some of the airy qualities you spoke of. \n\n\nSo, trying to make every track antiseptic and perfect, a separate entity until itself, works for some records and not so much for others. \n\n\nThank you for giving me a nice 40-minute reason to Ignore my guitar player here in the studio while he \"Figures out what he is feeling\" \n\n\nMB",
"Long time engineer/mixer here. Simple answer--Autotune. What gives harmonies and group vocals richness and thickness is actually the constant ever-so slight detuning and wavering that human voices naturally have when singing, and that subtle rubbing against each other is what gives you the thickness. Back in the day pre-Autotune you couldn't \"tune\" vocals, either the singers were singing on or close enough to the pitch or they weren't, and they had to do it again until they got it right.\n\nIn all of today's recordings, everything is Autotuned almost as a default, even regardless of whether the vocalists are good singers or not. And I have experienced firsthand many times when mixing and editing how much thinner group and harmony vocals get when they're perfectly tuned, versus leaving them alone to have their natural fluctuations and flaws. It's not subtle.\n\nNot only this, but so much of the subtleties that convey emotion and vibe exist in the flaws of a performance. Listen to classic Aretha or Led Zeppelin recordings and you'll hear lots of places where the vocals are what would be called \"pitchy\" today, yet that's where all the vibe and soul is, in those imperfections. \n\nI myself have worked on projects where I was tuning a vocal, even subtly, and kept wondering why it seemed to lose emotional impact when comparing against the original untuned version, and it was the fact that a good portion of the emotion was in the little flaws, which makes sense since it's flaws that make us human and not robots.",
"forget Simon and Gart, its too new and manipulated in the studio. Go hear some Stanley Brothers \n_URL_0_ \nthe chorus, OMG",
"I would like to add the fact that nowadays double, triple and quadruple tracking of vocals and harmonies is very common, but the trend is to tune them very strictly and then align them perfectly with digital tools. \nThe “bigger” sound of old recordings was given by the natural phasing of slightly different performances, one against the other.",
"Check out Jacob Collier, he's a brilliant young musician from London who's really into Harmony and layering voices & sounds!\nHe's just insane and regarded as some kind of musical genius of this generation.",
"\\ > **that doesn't seem to appear in modern music?** \n\nTwo words: Fleet Foxes\n\n\\ > If it is, what exactly is the \"disturbance\"? \n\nIt's called \"resonance\"",
"Love the harmonies in Simon and Garfunkel’s [Only Living Boy in New York](_URL_0_). \n\nI have no idea what the method of recording is called, but I love the final result.",
"Very simply because the producers and engineers dont leave any space or headroom in the mix and master anymore. The dynamic range of a song is very important.",
"Analog mixing desks, amps, and magnetic tape. They can capture the highest frequencies, which is the ‘air’ or presence you’re talking about, in a much more organic way than digital equipment, which is cold and clinical (and approximate).",
"Surprised nobody mentioning that they used tubed equipment, even the microphones had tubes.",
"I think people are not taking into account how much modern music is compressed compared to earlier material. Modern music is compressed to within an inch of it's life to sound as loud and full as possible. Once this practice started, you were basically forced to do the same otherwise your song would actually sound quieter by comparison. Another good example of this is TV commercials. They always 'sound' louder because everything is maxed, unlike a TV show that will have peaks and dips.\n\nWithout such heavy compression earlier music should and does sound more open and 'airy'. This should account for the difference in sound you are hearing.",
"Analog vs digital recording. \n\nAnalog recording lets the art form the sound waves while digital recording confines the art form to parameters determined at top and bottom, clipping occurs if you breach those parameters. \n\nThe richness you hear in the uncompressed expression of song captured naturally and reproduced from a natural sounding master"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/C7HP9Xkim9o"
] |
[
[
"https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/twenty-thousand-hertz/id1171270672?i=1000450841062"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_eNu4NUVI"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/gpvzmKe3RJk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/PC57z-oDPLs",
"https://youtu.be/9C1BCAgu2I8",
"https://youtu.be/1ISYT6EeUM0",
"https://youtu.be/N-aK6JnyFmk",
"https://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lIvcm1pltI",
"https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/wml/exhibitions/thebeatgoeson/thebeatgoesonline/technology/studios/multitrack.aspx",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tMFqa_K7bg",
"https://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/11-of-the-best-studio-microphones-ever-how-and-when-to-use-them--audio-140"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIHFxIQfSxc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/5biEjyXNa2o"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1pl1ys
|
why old war footage always appears to be in fast forward.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pl1ys/eli5_why_old_war_footage_always_appears_to_be_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd3ej3p",
"cd3erm5"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"cause it's filmed at a low framerate. we play it at 24 or higher framerate so it's smooth. otherwise it'd look jittery. ",
"I believe this results from capturing film at a frame rate lower than the frame rate at which the film is being played back.\n\nTo make things simple, let's pretend you film something at 15 frames per second and then play it back at 30 frames per second. \n\nWhen the film was captured, 30 frames would cover a duration of 2 seconds of action. So, if you play the film back at 30 frames per second, you are seeing two seconds worth of action over a duration of just one second (so everything appears to move faster than normal).\n\nIn reality, the difference between the capture frame rate and the playback frame rate is probably not as large as 15 vs. 30, but you may still notice the effect on speed of the action as it's played back.\n\nThere are a number of reasons why old footage may have been captured at lower frame rates than normal, including: cost (the lower the frame rate, the cheaper it would have been to film), mobility/portability (higher frame rates would have required cameramen to carry lots of extra film with them which would not be very practical during war battles), and lack of universal standardization over frame rates."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2d146o
|
is the top liquid in a hot coffee cup hotter or colder than the bottom?
|
My wife and I can not agree if the top coffee in a coffee cup is hotter or colder than the bottom, can anyone help resolve this issue? I say it is hotter, based on my limited knowledge of convection. The hotter coffee rises, cools slightly, then falls to the bottom of the cup, it is replaced by relatively warmer coffee below, the cycle continues until equilibrium with the air. I also understand that the cup will loose heat from all sides of the cup but more so from the top. My wife is using empirical evidence, she can drink from the top, but if she uses a straw, she says the coffee on the bottom is much hotter; I think this is from the method. When you drink from the top it is spread out more than a larger quantity on a smaller area of the mouth via a straw, or, the coffee in the straw is heating up as it is being drawn to the surface. We have searched on line but can not find a conclusive answer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d146o/eli5is_the_top_liquid_in_a_hot_coffee_cup_hotter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjl1de7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The upper part is able to lose heat much more quickly to its surroundings, cooling it down more than the bottom part."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3lavgo
|
I'm wealthy aristocrat living in Republican Rome with some 'unconventional' desires. Is there anything to keep me from buying a bunch of slaves for some masochistic rape-torture session?
|
Like the title says. Was there any sort of law or convention keeping wealthy Republican Romans -aristocratic or Equestrian- from letting their inner Ramsay Bolton loose on some slaves? If such a individual wanted to torture and rape some people, or play a little 'Most Dangerous Game' on his land with some slaves, would there be anything keeping him from doing it asides social conventions?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3lavgo/im_wealthy_aristocrat_living_in_republican_rome/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv4qqoz",
"cv4uecm",
"cv4whv3",
"cv5815i",
"cv5o5te"
],
"score": [
2218,
388,
120,
81,
9
],
"text": [
"What you're talking about is pretty much the story of Vedius Pollio, a rich equestrian master who was famous for his \"excessive cruelty\" to his slaves. Many Roman authors like Dio Cassius, Seneca, Tertullian or Pliny report that he had a fishpond full of ~~lampreys~~ (moray eels) in which he threw some of his slaves to watch them getting eaten alive. One day while Augustus was visiting, a slave broke a crystal cup, so Vedius Pollio immediately ordered him to get thrown to the ~~lampreys~~ (moray eels). Augustus found that so revolting that he ordered his guards to break every single cup in the house. Vedius then had to forgive the slave (he couldn't at the same time punish him and let Augustus do far worse). But otherwise he was not punished in any way for abusing his slaves. Except that at his death he was so infamous that his Roman villa was destroyed. So not being cruel to your slaves was more of a reputation and honour thing than a legal concern.\n\n\n[Here's a source](_URL_0_)\n\n\nEDIT: Note that the source also explains his villa was destroyed first of all because it was seen as *too luxuous*, rather than because of Vedius' cruelty.\n\n\nEDIT 2: Thanks to /u/XenophonTheAthenian for correcting the translation - the animals were more likely [moray eels](_URL_1_).",
"This isn't exactly what you are asking about, but might be of interest. Martial (Marcus Valerius Martialis) published epigrams between 86 and 103AD (i.e. during the Principate), often containing social commentary. One I remember is:\n\n*Why did you cut out your slave's tongue, / Ponticus, and then have him hung / Crucified? Don't you realise, man, / Though he can't speak, the rest of us can?* - Martialis, Book 2, Epigram 82\n\nI'm afraid I can't find my Latin copy. If I interpret this correctly, it would mean that \"Ponticus\" could get away with murder of a slave at this period, but had to dress it up as punishment rather than sadism.\n\nEDIT - /u/HotterRod has given the original below - it seems that there is no mention of the slave being killed.",
"I would to piggy back on this question and ask the same scenario in the united states. Was there anything to prevent an American master from doing the same?",
"81 BCE unjustified killing of another's slave was a crime.\n\nAlso brutal treatment of slaves could result in disapproval from censors, which could result in a legal disgrace. \n\n\nEventually Hadrian creates several laws to protect slaves, but that's not until the empire. \n\nSource:Textbook on Roman Law 3rd Edition ",
"Slaves often had to be tortured before their testimony were regarded as true. This does not answer your question directly, but it gives some insight into the Roman view on torturing slaves. \n\nRead more about it in this thread:\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/pollio.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moray_eel"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28fwwv/did_roman_slaves_have_to_be_tortured_before_their/"
]
] |
|
1ov77o
|
why doesn't our dna mix with blood donors' dna and change our dna?
|
**EDIT**: Thank you all for your replies (even the meanie). I don't have a science background so that explains why my question seems "dumb." Thanks again.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ov77o/eli5_why_doesnt_our_dna_mix_with_blood_donors_dna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccvyq0d",
"ccvzk9n",
"ccw25xp"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"First of all, red blood cells, which is the largest part of the blood you receive, have no DNA at all.\n\nSecond, unless you are some types of bacteria which are designed to incorporate foreign DNA, you can't uptake foreign DNA.",
"To expand upon /u/mjcapples explanation:\n\nRed blood cells (RBCs) are somewhat unique insofar as, early in their development, they lose their nuclei--the innermost 'core' of a cell which contains, among other things, the DNA. Since RBCs are primarily \"semi-disposable oxygen sponges\", a nucleus would really just get in the way, preventing the storage of more oxygen (like a sponge with a large jelly core). As such, over millions of years, we evolved RBCs that shed their nuclei early on to make more room for all that delicious oxygen.\n\nEven if they did have DNA however (as some parts of our blood do), it wouldn't matter. DNA doesn't (normally) just float around wherever, randomly bumping into other DNA and exchanging genes. Except during active cell division, it's kept inside the gated fortress that is a cell's nucleus. In order for foreign DNA to even *reach* your DNA, it must first cross through the cell membrane and the nuclear membrane (both of which evolved to protect against that). Viruses can do this, but they're specially evolved to mimic parts of our own biology or directly inject their genetic material into the cell. Even so, just having DNA next to each other is not enough. You need certain sub-cellular machines called enzymes to actually split our DNA and patch in the foreign DNA. And since these machines include some error-checking it's not an easy task to simply merge in different DNA.\n\nAll this is to say, don't go injecting yourself with spider guts. It's not going to give you super powers.",
"To also add onto the other replies, it is not normal for DNA to change. At all. Most cases of changing DNA usually result in those specific cells turning cancerous. \n\nBased on the question itself, it suggests you don't have much of a science background.\n\nNote: In the case of organ transplants, the DNA of the donor doesn't change your DNA but, let's say a liver, still has the donors DNA. This is actually really troublesome because it often leads to organs being rejected by the body after several years even."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2rshjv
|
How rapidly did the New England whaling industry transition from sail to engine-based vessels?
|
I imagine the benefits for engine-based whaling outweighed the high initial cost of transitioning from sail, but I would love to hear more about this transition.
Were there hold-outs who clung to sail, or was it universally seen as a beneficial transition? Were some locations, like New England, faster to make the transition? What were the drawbacks to engine-based vessels compared to the older sail models?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rshjv/how_rapidly_did_the_new_england_whaling_industry/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnixegg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When steam power was being applied to whaling vessels in the mid-19th Century, it was a development of economic necessity after hundreds of years of traditional whaling methods. The right whale have been hunted since our earliest records of a whaling industry. Their coastal presence, relative slow swimming, and their bodies floating after death were very advantageous to sail whaling vessels. When whaling as an industry began taking larger and larger catches, the populations began to shrink and move to other bodies of water. Baleen whales have traditionally been the basis of whaling industry, the profitability of right whales in the whaling industry was declining as the whale stocks fell in traditional hunting grounds, especially in a post American \"Golden Age\" of whaling in the early/mid 19th Century. The industry began to look to new grounds - in Southern and Northern waters - and new whales- namely the rorquals of the Baleen family - to make up for an increasing loss. The largest issue pertaining to hunting rorquals was their speed, far greater than other baleen whales, which tended to frustrate large scale efforts by sailing vessels to turn them into a fishery. The introduction and evolution of steam power in whaler vessels was necessary to both catch up to whales and to keep up in the process of a hunt. \n\nThe first steam powered whaler in the American fleet was the *Pioneer* (aptly named), having left port in April of 1866 on a successful maiden voyage. It was crushed by ice a little over a year later in June of 1867. The celebrated 'first' steam whaler of the American fleet was the *Mary and Helen* left New Bedford in 1879 and became the first American steam whaler to successfully hunt in the Arctic. The 1880's, then, became the decade that the United States whaling industry as a whole began converting their ships to steam power. \n\nA quick note, we traditionally hold New England as the whaling hotbed of the United States industry. While this popular perception holds truth in the early decades, by the developing 19th Century, we see West Coast ports opening to whalers as they chased catches into the Pacific and Arctic. San Francisco became a huge whaling capital that rivaled cities like New Bedford in the modern whaling age. \n\nRelative to other whaling powers like Great Britain and late bloomer Norway, the United States entered steam power in their national industry relatively late. Britain was experimenting with steam in the 1850s, and the Norwegian Sven Foyd was developing and perfecting steam power in whaler vessels in the 1860s (among his other contributions that have immortalized him in whaling history). The lateness of American whalers to \"modernize\" fully in steam power can be contributed to early availability of these vessels - Norway was an initial supplier of steam whalers to other nations while maritime powers like Britain were very much able to construct their ships indigenously - and the declining profitability of whaling in the United States. Consider the total amount of whale oils taken by American vessels in 1851, 428,000 barrels, compared to their haul in 1898, 18,000. For comparison, a figure of 340,000 barrels is given for worldwide production in 1909! There are a number of reasons for the decline of the American whaling industry, a decline that modernization and steam power could only temporarily halt, but that's a far different topic.\n\nBecause steam power was providing American whalers a new and exciting opportunity to continue profit in a standing industry, their was very little in-house resistance to its adoption. The specialization and need for a more technical crew also gave realized or underwhelming promise of a greater stake in the traditional lay system of payment (as controversial as the system was for whalers) as the more \"important\" roles, like engineers and harpoon gunners, generally received a greater payout than deckhands and other \"non-important\" positions. Internationally, great gunners were worth their weight in gold and were often poached from various national whaling fleets in fierce competition. \n\nWhat is noted is a cultural romantic resistance to the new industrial slaughter of whales as opposed to the older, \"better\", days of whaling. As the industry declines and evolved in the mid/late 19th Century, we see an established [\"whaling literature\"](_URL_0_) in American culture, almost universally calling back to the days of men in boats with hand thrown harpoons. While the struggle of man vs leviathan is a useful bedrock for story (again, another discussion for another topic), it was becoming increasingly outdated and nostalgic in it's depiction - perhaps purposely - of what whaling had largely evolved into in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In that we find our only real widespread resistance to the modernization of whaling, within that being steam power.\n\n**EDIT**\n\nSome further reading:\n\n*Leviathan, The History of Whaling in America* by Eric Jay Dolin\n\n*The History of Modern Whaling* by Johan Nicolay Tonnessen and Arne Odd Johnsen\n\nPublications provided by the [New Bedford Whaling Museum](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.whalingmuseum.org/explore/library/bibliographies/whaling-19th-century-american-literature",
"http://www.whalingmuseum.org/"
]
] |
|
99vhyv
|
how are purchases correctly identified as fraudulent by credit card companies when there is nothing “unusual” about them?
|
By nothing unusual, I mean a charge within a spender’s typical budget amount and relative location. This happened to me recently, and in discussing my relief with friends, they also mentioned having charges correctly flagged by credit card companies.
Conversely, if a person is traveling and a card doesn’t require travel notifications, how do the auto flags know those travel charges are legitimate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99vhyv/eli5_how_are_purchases_correctly_identified_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4qrwwv",
"e4qsj7w",
"e4rvmts"
],
"score": [
8,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Kind of like data mining. Some companies will alert you if you buy something off a new website, or if the website is frequented by hackers. Let’s say you buy a bike online for $130. $130 isn’t that much money. However, people usually don’t order bikes off the internet. That’ll raise a red flag. And of course if there’s a pattern that’s a red flag as well. Hackers tend to either buy a bunch of little stuff in a short span of time, or a few expensive things in a longer period of time. So companies look for things like that, even though it could be normal. ",
"Typically other customers will have called in and reported a particular transaction as fraudulent, the bank will then have investigated to see if other customers are affected in the same way. For example Monzo recently kept seeing fraudulent transactions shortly after their customers used ticketmaster, and were able to alert customers and preemptively issue replacement cards.\n\n_URL_0_ ",
"I worked in a regulated industry and can provide a little bit of insight.\n\nIn a nutshell, it's all about data. Your personal activities are but one data point (one piece of sample data) from a collection of data spanning millions or even billions of transactions.\n\nAfter a while distinct patterns emerge in that data and analyzed to determine when fraud is present (and given a score) , your individual spending pattern is only a very small part of it a very big picture. some times the pattern is introduced from transactions that happen from known stolen cards, like a script that tries to validate card numbers, or simply the terminal ID of the transaction source (the cc machine on the store counter) could be suspect. Or even simply by location and type of use (there is a card test that uses a card to buy something on amazon and sends to a random address). \n\nAt the end of the day, there could be millions of data points that contribute to scoring a fraudulent purchase or activity as a hit and then the system compares it against other factors at a large scale, comes up with a final score and then flags accordingly. \n\nThe systems are mind numbingly accurate and get more accurate every day. The data collection system I worked with had an accuracy rate in detecting fraud across a sample set of over 100 million transactions a year that was only incorrect in its scoring system less than a dozen times, all but 2 were false negatives (meaning the fraudster got away with it twice before that hole closed).\n\nI don't know if that was ELI5 worthy, but it was as generic as I could make it. Also on mobile, so sorry if my sentences are a mess"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://monzo.com/blog/2018/06/28/ticketmaster-breach/"
],
[]
] |
|
doksei
|
how does popcorn lose calories when it pops?
|
Every bag of microwave popcorn I've seen always shows something along the lines of 200 cals/serving unpopped and 50 cals/serving popped. How is this possible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/doksei/eli5_how_does_popcorn_lose_calories_when_it_pops/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f5on2rb",
"f5oo17t",
"f5opqqi"
],
"score": [
23,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The serving size for popcorn is probably in cups, and popped corn is much less dense than the unpopped kernels. Lesser kernels in the same amount of space = less calories.\n\nEdit: grammar",
"A calorie is a unit of heat; specifically one calorie is the amount of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius. When your body digests food think of it as”burning calories. Let’s say a piece of bread is 100 calories. If you toast the bread, it may be now only 90 calories because you literally burned part of it.\n\nIf you ever wondered how the caloric content of food is determined, it is literally by burning it. Let’s say i wanted to know the calories in a BigMac. I buy one from my local McD, and freeze dry it. Then I place it in a device called a calorimeter, which is a combustion chamber with a gas flame surrounded by a water jacket. Pop in the freeze dried Big Mac, completely burn it, measure the temperature rise in the water jacket, deduct the temperature rise from the gas flame and the result is calories. Simple process.",
"It's simply a difference in serving size. In this example below, it says 150 calories per serving unpopped, 30 calories per cup popped.\n\n1 serving unpopped is 2 tbsp, which produces 5.25 cups poppped. But the popped calories is per **cup**, which is about 1/5 of 5.25 cups. That's why the popped calories is only 1/5 the unpopped.\n\nTBH, it's a dumb way to show the facts.\n\nSome other answers suggested that calories are lost when the corn is popped, but that is a small amount, not 4 to 5 times!\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/2neBq0k.png"
]
] |
|
9zcsv1
|
Standing waves in space?
|
When you put a bowl of water or sand on a subwoofer, you will get beautiful stort of standing waves.
Were there experiments performed, where water bubbles in weightlessness were exposed to similar stimulation?
I was thinking of it, as experiments like that could contribute to our understanding of the atomic structure, I suppose.
If yes, what were the results? Did the resulting forms resemble anything familiar?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9zcsv1/standing_waves_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea8eeyv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of experiments that involve watching falling droplets and looking at their surface oscillation modes. As they are falling they are effectively weightless (except for air resistance). Here is an example, e.g. figure 3. _URL_3_\n\nEvery year the American Physical Society Division of Fluid Dynamics has its [gallery of fluid motion](_URL_0_) contest, so you can see some pretty cool videos from the finalists. [This one](_URL_0_meetings/dfd-2018/5b9b12f2b8ac3105e5ac8e8a) has some cool oscillating levitated molten metal droplets.\n\n\n[Or, of course, this NASA video](_URL_2_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://gfm.aps.org/",
"https://gfm.aps.org/meetings/dfd-2018/5b9b12f2b8ac3105e5ac8e8a",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKk_7NIKY3Y",
"https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/53358500/art_3A10.1007_2Fs00348_016_2284_8.pdf"
]
] |
|
3ui106
|
Were there any high ranking Nazi officials who had children or close relatives with a disability who would have been euthanize if not for their position?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ui106/were_there_any_high_ranking_nazi_officials_who/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxfb1zy"
],
"score": [
153
],
"text": [
"Even if they did care about the situation of their family members the problem was that many of these children or close relatives were already in institutions before the killings started. The handicaps, disorders, or other conditions were already known to the authorities way beforehand.\n\nThe most famous example is Aloisia Veit, niece in the second line (daughter of a cousin so) of Adolf Hitler himself diagnosed with Schizophrenia, she was killed as part of this idea. It is unknown if Hitler knew that she was killed but most probably he did or at least could have suspected it.\n _URL_2_ \n\nAnother prominent example is Magdalene Maier-Leibnitz.\n_URL_1_\n\nShe was born in a prominent family and diagnosed with Schizophrenia but she was also killed, don't know if their family members were hardcore Nazi's, but many Germans agreed in this time that their 'handicapped' children had to be taken care of in specific institutions, where they were eventually killed, so even for prominent Nazi's this was very difficult to stop in.\n\nLets just say the Nazi's were crazy extremists.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n**Edit:** I did a bit of extra research on this topic before and there is this interesting Book, if you are interested, this article in a prominent German newspaper elaborates on it:\n_URL_0_\n\nThe Book deals with the 'sensitive' question if Germans approved of what happened to 'handicapped' people. Among historians there was a discussion if Germans actually knew what would happen to handicapped people, their own family members, prominent Nazi's and other Germans. A long time it was said that they didn't know, that the Nazi's tried to silence it by telling the people their 'handicapped' family members died of illnesses, for example.\n\nAlthough it is true that the Nazi's did spread these kind of message historians nowadays think that the Germans did know what would happen to their family members [certainly the hardcore Nazi's ofc] and that they approved of it. The historian Götz Haydar Aly mentions in his book the following poll among the parents of 200 handicapped children in Germany around 1920 (even way before the Nazi propaganda regarding handicapped people would start).\n\nThe question was if the parents would agree with a painfree ending of the children's life:\n\n* 73% said yes\n* 27% said no \n* A majority of the 27% said yes in the circumstances that they could not take care of the child themselves or when the child would suffer too much so\n\nThe following years the Nazi's would make much propaganda stating that handicapped people should not be allowed to reproduce and even live in Germany, a sentiment already present, but now strengthened.\n\nIn other words, the Nazi's approved of these kind of measures, although it was not mentioned in public.\n\nProminent opposition came from the Church, Christians, who had Religious reasons to defend the Rights of 'handicapped' people but it did not prevent Germans from letting 'handicapped' people, family members or not, being killed in these days."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.welt.de/kultur/literarischewelt/article114390776/Wie-Eltern-ihre-Kinder-in-den-Tod-schickten.html",
"http://www.ev-kirche-esslingen.de/geschichtliches/euthanasie-in-esslingen/",
"http://m.zdf.de/ZDF/zdfportal/xml/object/5907354"
]
] |
||
u392u
|
If astrology was not older than astronomy and astrophysics, would one of them be more fittingly called astrology?
|
I hope the title is clear enough but ask if you need any clarifications.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/u392u/if_astrology_was_not_older_than_astronomy_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4rydrx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Interestingly, according to the [Online Etymology Dictionary](_URL_0_) the term astronomy actually predates astrology and originally astrology was part of astronomy. I'm not sure if that helps with your question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=astronomy"
]
] |
|
7g6e3l
|
What did the "barbarians" (Goths, Vandals, Huns, etc) think of Roman engineering achievements? Did they value aqueducts/roads etc, attempt to maintain them in conquered cities?
|
I've been reading about Roman history lately, and it's interesting (though unsurprising) how hard it is to find the barbarian POV on events.
I know it can be hard to find information like this, but I'm really wondering what the various tribes who started sacking Rome and other major cities towards the end of the Western Empire thought of the advanced structures. In the Middle Ages, it seems like it took the Germanic and Frankish people a long time to approach that level of sophisitcation again, and I'm wondering why they didn't have captured Roman engineers to learn and copy from, etc? Did they just not care? Were they in awe of the coliseum or pantheon but unable to replicate them?
Thanks for any information on this topic!!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7g6e3l/what_did_the_barbarians_goths_vandals_huns_etc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqhg8tj",
"dqi0gx1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Rather than issues with engineering and technology, the constraints on monumental architecture in the post-Roman era were more organizational, economic, and even cultural. Indeed, at the level of society, politics, and technology, post-Roman states were not as different as you'd think when compared to their late Roman predecessors. What those societies prioritized compared to the earlier empire is another matter.\n\nWe've actually gotten a recent flurry of questions about the end of late antiquity, although there's always room for more discussion, especially on the specific topic of post-roman public works. In any case, [this discussion](_URL_4_) authored by u/Iguana_on_a_stick examines life in \"Roman Cities\" after the end of the empire and might give you a clearer idea of what post-Roman states were like. I myself also answered [a slightly more targeted question](_URL_2_) about the kinds of people who were \"doing well for themselves\" after the proclamation of the first Kingdom of Italy as well as [this other answer](_URL_1_) more generally examining societal divisions in post-Roman Italy. You'll see that rather than barbarians looking to put \"Captured Roman Engineers\" to work, the people running post-Roman breakaway states were many of the same people who had been running the late Empire. \n\nAlthough the city of Rome itself experienced a dramatic decline in Late Antiquity (you can read more about that [here](_URL_3_)) you do see the construction of some kinds of new structures, notably churches (examined in that same answer). Concurrent with Rome's decline in importance, you also see the growth of other cities: Ravenna is the prime example, but so are a number of others; notably Milan, Pavia, and Bologna. Venice, although more peculiar and [worthy of a separate examination](_URL_0_), is also an example of a successful post-Roman urban space and a remarkable feat of human engineering and ingenuity even in its early days. ",
"Its important to note that, by the Late Antique period in most of the West, many of the Classical structures which were built during the Classical period were in various states of disuse. Many scholars attribute this decline in euergetism and public building to the decline of the *curiales*, a group of governing local elite who were largely responsible for the extensive classical building of the 1st through 3rd centuries AD^1. With their decline, public building fell into the hands of the emperor and his direct court, which after the early 4th century became ever more focused on the Eastern Empire and Constantinople. There is significant evidence to suggest existing buildings were still in use during the Late Antique period. James Gerrard has suggested that re-use of Classical structures in post-Roman Britain may have been a strategy used by the elite, many of whom were leftover military leaders or landowners under Rome, to associate themselves with the power and legacy of the Empire^2. It seems that large-scale building projects were inexorably tied their perceived usefulness. Under the Empire, the *curiales* benefited in the form of prestige and greater social mobility. By the 5th and 6th centuries in the West, there was not enough personal benefit to the local elite to justify spending huge fortunes on public building.\n\n**References**\n1. Whittow, M. ‘Ruling the Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: A Continuous History’, Past and Present No. 129, (1990). \n2. Gerrard, J. The Ruin of Roman Britain, (Cambridge, 2013)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fn3r9/italian_history_how_did_the_republic_of_venice/d2cdfwh/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7d3ncw/who_are_the_ethnical_successors_of_the_ostrogoths/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7dbcdp/did_anybody_in_the_high_standing_areas_consuls/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4dclc7/what_exactly_happened_to_the_city_of_rome_after/d1qhl1q/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7dt269/what_happened_to_the_inhabitants_of_roman_cities/dq0gwxc/"
],
[]
] |
|
73nyix
|
how did bangladesh come about
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73nyix/eli5how_did_bangladesh_come_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnrrqho"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"From the 19th century it was part of British India. \n\nWhen India gained independence from Britain it was split in two, broadly along religious lines. The mainly Hindu parts became India and the mainly Muslim parts became Pakistan.\n\nPakistan was in two disconnected parts, East and West Pakistan. West Pakistan was the dominant part and despite sharing a religion was quite different culturally from the east.\n\nEventually a war broke out and, with the help of India, East Pakistan gained independence and became Bangladesh."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dvvisg
|
what exactly are my cable modem and router doing in the minute after being reset?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dvvisg/eli5_what_exactly_are_my_cable_modem_and_router/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7eyori",
"f7f6m9p"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Booting. \nThey both run some form of linux. And, frankly, neither will have many hampsters under the hood CPU wise for computing power (you don't need a massive CPU for essentially packet shovelling), so booting up - even a stripped down embedded version like these will have - an operating system takes some time. Then they have to launch whatever routing/modem control services, firewall services, DHCP and DNS services, and then the little webservers that provided your admin/control app. \n\nThe OS kernel itself is probably booted up in under 20 seconds, the rest of the junk can take upwards of a minute.",
"Analogy time - imagine you are opening an sandwich shop for the day. You unlock the shop and switch on the lights. Are you now ready to flip the closed sign to open and start serving customers? Probably not. You may still need to switch on the cash register, maybe warm the oven, defrost some stuff on the fridge, mop the floor, prepare your display cabinet, etc.\n\nIn router/modem terms (general computing devices), before the devices are ready to perform its job (such as to receive electrical signals from a wire and send them to the correct devices on your wireless network), it needs to do some setup first, such as loading the instructions of the wireless communication algorithm from disk to memory, or detecting which devices it can connect and route to, etc (“exact” steps are too complex and varies by product). \n\nAll these takes time because it takes time to read and write data to a disk, perform calculations with the CPU and read/writing to its memory. Sometimes it takes times only because it is waiting for a response from the network, eg checking if you are a valid customer. It may execute very fast but the millions of instructions and steps add up to significant microseconds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3ba6xj
|
What is the deal with safe drinking water?
|
Please don't tell me I should be fine with tap, call me an idiot for considering distilled, or laugh at me for even asking the question. It honestly seems like nobody has a solid answer to the question "What is the safest form of drinking water?".
Google search results led to varying opinions, jokes, obvious astroturfing, arguments, fights, conflicting scientific studies. What gives? Is there even an answer to this question?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ba6xj/what_is_the_deal_with_safe_drinking_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cskdjzc",
"cskf7x7"
],
"score": [
12,
8
],
"text": [
"If you are in the United States, public and municipal water is required to be safe to drink and undergoes regular contamination testing. (via EPA and Safe Water Drinking Act _URL_2_ and any additional state regulation) You should be able to check out your local water quality report. Here's mine: \n\n_URL_0_ \n_URL_1_ \n\nIf you are worried about your local water, call you municipality and/or your Doctor.",
"I would say the ultimate form of safety would be distillation into a glass container followed by gamma sterilization. This would address any potential chemical or biological dangers. Whether the process, cost, and spiritual damage resulting from having to consume flat, tasteless liquid are worth the sanctity of our precious bodily fluids is left as an exercise to the reader."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/wqreport",
"http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/ccr2014.pdf",
"http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/"
],
[]
] |
|
11a2nr
|
Would a warp drive result in time travel?
|
Recently I heard about the possibility of a warp drive being feasible. It claimed you could "move faster than the speed of light" by compressing spacetime in front of you and expanding behind you, while never exceeding light speed. I was thinking though, would this result in time travel as you are arriving before, say a beam of light, starting in the same place? I'm only a junior in high shool but the thought came up. I'm quite certain I know the answer is no time travel, but I'm still curious as to why.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11a2nr/would_a_warp_drive_result_in_time_travel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6krobe"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > Recently I heard about the possibility of a warp drive being feasible. \n\nYou heard incorrectly. There has been a lot of talk recently about someone at NASA apparently showing that warp drives are now a possibility, but that's really a mischaracterization. See, for example, the discussion [here](_URL_2_), [here](_URL_0_), and [here](_URL_1_) for details.\n\n > It claimed you could \"move faster than the speed of light\" by compressing spacetime in front of you and expanding behind you, while never exceeding light speed.\n\nThis is the basis of the so-called \"Alcubierre drive\". Unfortunately, there's no reason whatsoever to suspect that such a \"device\" can actually exist in our universe. Moreover, even if there were a way to create such a region of spacetime, the resultant curvature is such that someone inside could never communicate with the outer boundary of the \"warp bubble\"; i.e., it could never be turned off. It's *possible* that there are modifications of this that can be realized in our universe, but the only modifications to date that come close to doing so rely on purely speculative models that require, for example, the existence of large extra dimensions.\n\n > I was thinking though, would this result in time travel as you are arriving before, say a beam of light, starting in the same place? \n\nThat, in itself, doesn't result in time travel. It just means you can watch yourself arrive. However, the existence of such a device *would* allow for time travel if you follow the appropriate sequence of events."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/103mwp/despite_the_media_reporting_nasas_claim_that_warp/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/101b4u/could_someone_explain_the_alcubierre_warp_drive/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1046ug/how_does_a_real_life_warp_drive_work_how_can_we/"
]
] |
|
4kmuf2
|
how much would a bullet have to travel to do no damage to a human, or for us to catch it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kmuf2/eli5how_much_would_a_bullet_have_to_travel_to_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3g58ib",
"d3g5kl2"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Depends how fast it started out at, and all of its ballistic characteristics. Generally though it's going to be lethal at any distance it can reach in the air.",
"Pretty sure the only way to catch a bullet between gun and ground in normal earth conditions would be to shoot it straight up and catch it when stops moving upwards and starts moving downwards. The problem is that traveling (air resistance) is only one of the forces at work. You also have to contend with gravity. By the time air resistance has the bullet slow enough, the bullet will have also reached the downward speed as if it had been dropped from a plane. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
mi89h
|
how tv channels work
|
how do they profit , through adds?
and do they need to pay royalties to show movies...?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mi89h/eli5_how_tv_channels_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c314e24",
"c314e24"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Different channels make $ in different ways. \nHome Shopping Networks actually pay cable/satelite carriers to be on their lineup. Some networks like ESPN charge a premium to the Cab/Sat providers because people demand their content (plus sellling ads). HBO(and the like) make most all of their money off of Cab/Sat subscriptions. Broadcast stations & networks make their $ by selling Ad space as it's generally revenue neutral for the Cab/Sat agreement.\nYes to the royalties... it's why you see older/crappier movies on 'lesser' channels, it's a lot cheaper to license.\n",
"Different channels make $ in different ways. \nHome Shopping Networks actually pay cable/satelite carriers to be on their lineup. Some networks like ESPN charge a premium to the Cab/Sat providers because people demand their content (plus sellling ads). HBO(and the like) make most all of their money off of Cab/Sat subscriptions. Broadcast stations & networks make their $ by selling Ad space as it's generally revenue neutral for the Cab/Sat agreement.\nYes to the royalties... it's why you see older/crappier movies on 'lesser' channels, it's a lot cheaper to license.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1obtb7
|
There's a running joke that we still speak English in the US because Germany lost WWII. Are there any instances of two major powers (for their time period) fighting a major war, and the loser adopting the language and/or customs of the victor?
|
I know that colonized countries will adopt the language of it's new leader. And indigenous peoples being forced to adopt the language of the newcomers. But what about major wars between two relatively advanced nations? Would the US, England, France, etc have been forced to adopt German?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1obtb7/theres_a_running_joke_that_we_still_speak_english/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccqjx83",
"ccqlsvi",
"ccqpkog",
"ccqwjay"
],
"score": [
49,
21,
4,
9
],
"text": [
"Norman Conquest of England. It's thought that up to about 30% of English words have a French origin. Its hard to exactly pin down because English has such a huge vocabulary. After the Norman Conquest of 1066 the nobility of England became Norman/French. This influence lead to important people picking up French so they could speak to their rulers and words trickled down into the language as a whole. However, there wasn't whole scale adoption of French, just bits and pieces. ",
"English is still widely spoken in the Philippines thanks to Teddy Roosevelt.",
"the arab conquest of the byzantine levant and n.africa ended up with the peoples switching from greek, coptic, and berber to arabic.",
"Before WWI, 10% of American families used German as their primary language and many state. and local governments used German exclusively especially in the Mid-west and Pennsylvania. Because of both World Wars the German language was greatly frowned upon. \nIn a sense, you could say that those wars caused German speakers in America to disappear. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
20u7ud
|
what is happening since antibiotics are going to stop working for us?
|
Also I have never been on antibiotics, which might contribute to me not getting it, even thought I know what antibiotics is.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20u7ud/eli5_what_is_happening_since_antibiotics_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg6r7um"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The problem is... evolution. We've used antibiotics so much that, if things continue, only antibiotic-resistant germs will survive and reproduce. We can keep coming up with new antobiotics, but the cycle will just keep repeating unless we manage to find something that kills 100% of all germs... not easy to do without killing the person too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4mciru
|
why do females ejaculate during intercourse?
|
Uh, yea. as an adult i still don't know why females have to ejaculate. Men do it because of sperm and pregnancy and all but, why do women do it to? sheesh embarrasing question
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mciru/eli5why_do_females_ejaculate_during_intercourse/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3uckqh",
"d3ucmr0",
"d3vdo91"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, I think this is a really good question.\n\n[The Truth About Female Ejaculation](_URL_0_)\n\n > Since 2000, an increasing number of researchers have suggested the liquid may come from the Skene's glands, which are located on the anterior wall of the vagina around the lower end of the urethra. But the truth is we simply don’t know where ejaculate comes from and it’s something that doctors and researchers will continue to study and learn more about over the coming years.\n\n > As far as the amount of ejaculate, a woman can release as little as a teaspoonful or a capful, yet some claim to “squirt” a great deal more than that. Some studies suggest that all women ejaculate when they reach orgasm, but instead of the fluid being released from the vagina, it is pushed back up into the bladder when the muscles are tightened post-climax. Hence, some women might experience retrograde ejaculate, while others ejaculate outside the body.\n\n[Here's where female ejaculation comes from, and what it's made of](_URL_1_)\n\nHope this helps.",
"It's a happy accident of evolution. It doesn't have a functional reason as far as we're aware, which is probably why it only happens in some women, some of the time. Just when you orgasm, everything contracts down there and all the glands that are normally providing lubrication (and also the bladder) can be squeezed, thereby expelling fluid.\n\nYou can read all the science of it in [this paper](_URL_0_), including the difference between squirting and female ejaculation.",
"Females don't \"have\" to ejaculate. In fact, I would say few do. I'm the only one of my friends that does. For me, everything starts swelling when I am aroused and it sort of presses on my \"female prostrate\" until I can't hold it any longer. I know that doesn't actually answer you question of why physically... But just some insight. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health/dr-laura-berman-truth-about-female-ejaculation.aspx",
"http://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-where-female-ejaculation-comes-from-and-what-it-s-made-of"
],
[
"https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zlatko_Pastor/publication/236601214_Female_Ejaculation_Orgasm_vs._Coital_Incontinence_A_Systematic_Review/links/53d4c6bf0cf220632f3d1773.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
2yewnw
|
if we saw something happen 10 light years away and then switched lenses to 9.99 years could we watch it again?
|
So what I mean is, a lens that can see up to 10 ly, and then switch to a lens that could only see 9. In a year could I see the same thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yewnw/eli5if_we_saw_something_happen_10_light_years/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp8vbmc"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"That's not how that works at all. 10 light years is the distance light travels in 10 years in a vacuum. Once the light reaches us, that's it, it's not like it's an instant replay on TV that you can rewind. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
beii9g
|
how does the youtube 'recommend' work?
|
I've been noticing recently that some videos in my recommend are also appearing in other people's recommends (based on the comments), as we are all flocking to the same video at the same time (even if it is not a new video). Why/how are random videos entering people's recommend algorithms at the same time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/beii9g/eli5_how_does_the_youtube_recommend_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"el64zkk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Exactly how it work is kept secret by google to make it harder to manipulate.\n\nA part of how it work depend in correlation between you and other people. If you and another person both have watched the same videos and the perhaps given the same a thumbs up you can guess that the inrest is similar. So when the other people give a new video on a the same subject a thumbs up or just watch all of it that indicate that you likely are interested in the same video.\n\n A old video can popup because people stated to watch it now for some reson perhaps because someone in there own video linked to it or it was used in a external article and that drow a lot of traffic to it.\n\nGoogle also used automatic system to analyse the videos and it can give you auto generates subtitles so thy try to determine what the content is and automatically match it to other videos.\n\nSo the algoritm is secret and changes all the time to and changes so it is harder to game the system and inject auto generated video that is there just to get money from initial advertisement but people do not like"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2dliry
|
why is bottled water often more expensive than coke (or other fizzy drinks) which, as well as containing water, contain lots of ingredients which need to be bought and paid for while water is just, water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dliry/eli5why_is_bottled_water_often_more_expensive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjqn40o",
"cjqn9jj",
"cjqp26v",
"cjqp7v3",
"cjqsfn0"
],
"score": [
11,
19,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Supply and demand. There is a higher demand for clean, good tasting, portable water than there is for soda. As such it can command a higher price. The additional ingredients and manufacturing for soda just means that the profit margin is smaller.",
"When you buy a bottle of Coke, it comes from a local bottling plant. Coke only has to ship a very highly concentrated syrup containing the flavor across the country & somebody adds water to it locally & then distributes it to stores. Many bottled waters come out of the same factories - they just don't bother adding anything to the water.\n\nIf you want a 'special' bottled water those have to be bottled at a single location and then shipped all around the world. Shipping is expensive, water is heavy & Evian has to come all the way from France.\n\nThen there's always the idiot factor. If you put a fancy label & a high price tag on some tap water, you can probably get people to buy it because they just assume that the more expensive product is higher quality.",
"Bottling plans use a lot of water. As a result of extreme volume, they get a discount. That is why if you are about to die of dehydration in Mexico, it's cheaper to buy a Coke than an equal amount of regularly bottled water. \n\nAlso, bottled water is seen as a lower demand product which is somehow fancy. Think about it, you're too good to drink from a tap, and you're paying money for water in a bottle... of course they are going to hit you with high prices. You're freaking rich.",
"It's a scam, get a water bottle.",
"Any item is only worth as much as people are willing to pay, and most people won't pay too much for a quick snack, but people who are thirsty (or tourists who don't understand the value of the currency) don't mind the price tag, and don't forgot the ooo-fancy-tag-and-high-price effect, which states that people assume the generous corporations are only charging so much because their item is of the best quality."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
dj47hm
|
"Slavery is right because is in the Bible." Was this in Medieval Europe the main argument used to justify the enslavement of people?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dj47hm/slavery_is_right_because_is_in_the_bible_was_this/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7pg3u1"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It was certainly \\*one\\* argument, but definitely not the main one. \n\nJust for some background, there were lots of different types of law in the Middle Ages, and they all dealt with slavery in different ways. Some places still used the compilations of Roman law made in the 6th century by Justinian. Roman law was sort of “lost” in western Europe for a few centuries after, but it started spreading out from Italy again in the 11th century. Medieval people used Roman law for things that Roman law was good at: settling contracts, making loans, recovering debts, very dry stuff like that - but also regulating property, including enslaved people.\n\nAnother legal tradition was Germanic law, the customs of the Germanic peoples that settled in the Roman Empire, like the Saxons or the Visigoths or the Lombards. They also dealt with slavery and sometimes their customs were influenced by Roman law too. In addition to Roman and Germanic laws, there was also church law or canon law. Slaves weren’t normally a matter for canon law, unless an issue involving a slave somehow intersected with the church (like marriage, or baptism, or converting a slave to Christianity, etc.). But canon law does sometimes mention the Bible in relation to slaves.\n\nA key thing to keep in mind here is that, in all of these different kinds of law, even the canon law of the church, the Bible generally wasn’t considered to be a legal treatise. Canon law depended far more on Roman law, the laws of early Christian church councils, and the writings of ancient and early medieval theologians and jurists, rather than directly on the Bible itself. The canon lawyer Gratian, who compiled the most influential collection of church law (the Decretum) in the 12th century, did often quote from the Bible to support or explain various laws, but he didn’t cite the Bible as an actual source of law.\n\nSo, laws about slavery were based on Roman law, especially the Christianized version by Justinian. Roman law didn't say that slavery was right - it actually assumed that all people are naturally free, and that slavery is an unnatural state created by humans. In the *Digest* (one of Justinian’s 6th-century compilations), the word “freedom” (*libertas*) is defined as \n\n > “the natural power of doing what anyone is disposed to do, save so far as a person is prevented by force or law.” Slavery is “a creation of the law of peoples (*jus gentium*), by which a man is subjected, contrary to nature, to ownership on the part of another.” (*Digest*, ch. 1.5.4)\n\nIn the *Institutes* (another one of Justinian’s compilations), slaves:\n\n > “are either born slaves or enslaved afterwards. The offspring of slave women are born slaves. Enslavement can happen under the law of all peoples, by capture; or under the law of the state, as when a free man over twenty allows himself to be sold to share the price. The legal condition of all slaves is the same.” (*Institutes*, ch. 1.3.4)\n\nThese Roman law principles were adopted by canon law as well, with some modifications:\n\n“Christian law, although it did not attack the institution of slavery, did insist that Christians must treat their slaves humanely and admonished owners to make every effort to provide for the religious needs of their slaves. The canons, unlike Roman civil law, recognized the capacity of slaves to marry legitimately and attempted to preserve the integrity of slave families by restricting the rights of owners to separate married slaves from their spouses and children.” (Brundage, pg. 14)\n\nOtherwise, slavery only appears in the context of other church matters. In canon law, slaves are forbidden from becoming priests; they’re allowed to marry, but a man or woman cannot divorce their spouse if the spouse turns out to have been a slave without their knowledge; and children cannot inherit anything from their parents. \n\nThere are two more very important things for the purposes of this question. One is that in both canon law and Roman law, a child’s status depends on the status of their mother. If both parents are slaves, the children are slaves too. Children with a free mother and a slave father are free, but children with a free father and slave mother are slaves. Enslaved mother = enslaved children.\n\nThe second is that in both canon law and Roman law, Christians were absolutely not allowed to be enslaved. Christians could own Jewish, pagan, and Muslim slaves (there were no Muslims yet when Justinian’s code was issued, but they were included later). But Jews and pagans (and by extension Muslims) were not allowed to have Christian slaves. \n\nThe idea of Muslim slaves is one case where Gratian’s canon law does refer to the Bible. The story of Abraham and Sarah and Sarah’s slave Hagar is used as an allegory for the relationship between medieval Catholics (represented by Sarah) and Muslims (represented by Hagar). The usual understanding of Abraham’s story in the Middle Ages was that Abraham’s legitimate child with Sarah, Isaac, was the ancestor of the Jews (and therefore also the Christians). In the Bible, Sarah initially wasn’t able to have any children, so Abraham was allowed to have a child with Hagar. Their child, Ishmael, was the ancestor of the Muslims (and so Muslims were usually called “Ishmaelites” or “Hagarenes”). Since Hagar was a slave, under Roman and canon law, her child would also therefore be a slave, so all of Hagar and Ishmael’s descendants were slaves too - slavery was essentially a congenital condition inherited by all Muslims. \n\nThis argument was extremely popular during the crusades, when a huge number of Muslims came under Christian rule. The crusade chronicler William of Tyre claimed that Pope Urban II used the same symbolism when he called for the First Crusade:\n\n > “The cradle of our faith, the native land of our Lord, and the mother of salvation, is now forcibly held by a people without God, the son of the Egyptian handmaiden. Upon the captive sons of the free woman he imposes desperate conditions under which he himself, the relations being reversed, should by right have served. But what is written? ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son.’” (William of Tyre, pg. 89-90)\n\nThe allegorical symbolism of the Abraham-Sarah-Hagar relationship was still popular in the 14th century. The Italian jurist Oldradus de Ponte wrote that:\n\n > “…Sarah signifies the Holy Catholic Church; the handmaiden Hagar, the accursed sect of Muhammad which took its origins from her. Therefore, the Holy Church, symbolized by Sarah, may use that accursed handmaiden as the blessed Sarah had used her, by beating her. She may use her as her Lord commands, by driving her out and depriving her children of inheritance and possession, that they not share with the free children. For since they are the offspring of a slave woman, and are therefore themselves slaves (for the children follow the womb) – indeed slaves, reproved by the Lord – they are not legally competent to hold rights of jurisdiction, lordship, or honour.” (Zacour, pg. 82)\n\nSo, “slavery is right because is in the Bible\" is not quite the right way to think of it. Slavery was present in the Bible, but it was present everywhere else as well, so there was nothing really special about the Biblical kind. The Bible was extremely important for medieval Christians, but one thing it was not, was a legal document. It was rarely ever used as a source of law for Christians. However, it was used to justify one particular situation, in which Christians owned Muslim slaves but no one could own Christian slaves. Otherwise, all other aspects of slavery were mostly regulated according to Roman law, since the Romans had pretty much already thought of every possible issue (except the religious-ethnic part)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
67vo47
|
why will the new tax plan work/not work?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67vo47/eli5why_will_the_new_tax_plan_worknot_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgtnvj3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"OK. So taxes are required to pay for government services. There are 2 ways to increase government revenue, you can increase the % that people pay in tax (through the elimination of deductions and credits or simply raising the rates) or you can increase the tax base. The tax base is the income that people pay taxes on. \n\nFor example. Say the government finds some magical policy that doubles everyone's income tomorrow. That policy will make everyone richer, but will also help the government because as incomes rise so too does tax revenue. \n\nOne of the basic tenants of the republican party is something called supply side economics, trickle down economics or Reaganomics. The basic idea is that if you cut the tax rate, corporations and individuals will spend that money on other economic activity that that economic activity will generate profits and incomes that then get taxed. The tax cut effectively increases the tax base enough to offset the tax cut. \n\nThere is evidence that this does not actually happen. However many people on the right still believe in it. In addition, many of those people don't think the government should be as large as it is (they think it should provide fewer services) and therefore want to cut its revenue as a way to cut its services. \n\nA third factor is that these same people tend to believe that the individual knows better how to spend their own money to better the individual than the government does. Therefore the individual should be more in charge of their own money. People on the left would argue that the individual will spend the money to better only themselves. Governments role is to spend the money for the betterment of everyone, so the individual's money is more effectively put to use for the collective good by the government. \n\nAt any rate. Republicans tend to heavily favor tax cuts. So that's what Trump's tax plan is, it's a tax cut. This tax cut will favor the wealthy, they will receive more benefit from it than the poor will. While republicans argue that increased growth will pay for the tax cuts, most people think that there will need to be corresponding cuts in services to pay for the tax cuts. \n\nThere are a few issues here. First is that the president is not authorized to write or pass laws. That's the job of the house. So while the president can put some ideas forward it's up to the house to turn those ideas into actual policies and rules. Trump's plan is a 1-page document with some ideas on it, not really a plan in any kind of real sense. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
246mmk
|
why do i hear non-existant noices when it's quiet?
|
It can be from games I play from time to time, for example. I guess there can be some kind of "You're used to the sound" explanation, but it still seems pretty odd.
Edit: To clarify, I can differ from "real" noices and non-existant ones. If I focus on a sound which isn't really there, I can't hear it anymore. It's like I *pretend* it's there without being aware of it until I try to be aware of it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/246mmk/eli5_why_do_i_hear_nonexistant_noices_when_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch46bk4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You've finally gone insane."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9o822y
|
why do some terminal patients appear to show a marked improvement toward the end, within days of ultimately succumbing (especially cancer patients)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9o822y/eli5_why_do_some_terminal_patients_appear_to_show/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7s4qy9",
"e7s5xnj",
"e7siyqs",
"e7sjcrx",
"e7trsyx"
],
"score": [
53,
26,
12,
17,
6
],
"text": [
"The term for it is \"Terminal lucidity\" and we don't have a great grasp of why it happens. The explanation I've heard is that it is the body burning everything it has to keep going, effectively spending all of its reserves to return to something closer to regular operation. Once those reserves run out, the person dies.",
"One common reason is that sometimes patients are started on steroids by palliative care doctors. This can often make a marked difference in quality of life, improving energy levels, reducing nausea etc. and can really help patients who were previously functionally limited",
"Chemotherapy drugs are really hard on the body. Basically they kill all cells that happen to be currently dividing, and hope that the rapidly dividing cancer dies before the drug kills you. If the cancer becomes hopelessly advanced to the point where death is inevitable, most patients will elect to stop treatment. They will briefly \"improve\" because the awful side effects of the chemo go away, but ultimately the cancer will kill them.",
"This is apparently a common part of the death process, my grandma’s hospice gave us a little pamphlet that explained how sometimes the person will suddenly have a really good day, almost like back to their old selves, just before they pass away. They were right. You would barely have known she had Alzheimer’s that day, she sat up and ate and visited with us. I think it turned out to be her second to last. ",
"There is the expression, Swan Song, in which the swan sings a lovely song before it dies. It’s that last surge of a beautiful life."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6qn2pv
|
In the Battle of Britain, why did Germany switch tactics away from trying to destroy the RAF, and instead try to destroy civilian moral in the Blitz?
|
What the above question says really. From what I know the Luftwaffe was close to victory, but at the last moment switched strategies. Just wandering why.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6qn2pv/in_the_battle_of_britain_why_did_germany_switch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkylwfp"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The idea that the Luftwaffe was close to victory in the Battle of Britain is largely a myth and in reality the RAF while being battered and under substantial pressure was no where near the brink of collapse. This is largely due to the incorrect estimate of RAF strength by Luftwaffe intelligence and their lack of coherent strategy that was then executed improperly. This by extention led to their apparently abrupt switch from targeting Fighter Command for annihilation to targeting civilian and industrial areas. The fundamental objective of the Luftwaffe was to achieve air superiority over the lower British Isles and the Channel to facilitate the launching of Operation Sea Lion. Oberkommando Der Luftwaffe (OKL) thus decided that the destruction of the RAF was a necessity to achieve this but failed to decide on the means to do so or the extent to which they would have to subdue the RAF.\n\nOKL directed that the RAF was to be completely annihilated which was excessive as Fighter Command and to a lesser extent Coastal Command and the Fleet Air Arm were the real components opposing the Luftwaffe's attempts to gain air superiority. In addition, their objectives also included targeting aircraft production facilities as part of their total annihilation. This was to be eventually followed up with general attacks on military, economic and civilian targets to destroy morale and the combat capabilities of the other service branches. OKL's second failing was that they did not create a coherent and concentrated battle plan for achieving their already lofty aims and eventual just attempted to accomplish them more or less simultaneously.\n\nThus the Battle of Britain opened in Late June of 1940 which started the first phase of the battle. This phase was largely air-skirmishing and the testing of strategies on both sides. The Germans while conducting fighter sweeps also launched strategic bombing raids on aircraft production facilities, airfields and other military targets. This was followed up by the second phase of the battle which started in mid-August 1940 around the time of Operation Aldertag. During this phase, the German's adopted a focused effort to annihilate Fighter Command, targeting primarily their fighters and airfields. The Germans at this point severely under-estimated the number of British aircraft and their ability to produce them. Germany had correctly estimated that at the opening of the Battle of Britain that the RAF has approximately 675 Fighters, however they under-estimated their rate of Fighter production to be at only 200 planes a month while in reality it was double that. This combined with the problem of overclaiming kills in aerial combat led OKL to estimate that Fighter Command had only 100 fighters left in September 1940 towards the end of the second phase. In reality Fighter Command still had approximately 700 fighters still operational although pressure was starting to mount. In addition, the Luftwaffe severely over-estimated the amount of damage they inflicted on the RAF infrastructure estimating that they had knocked 8 airfields out entirely with most badly damaged. The reality was that while airfields had been taken out of action for a few days that were all still largely operational. However, during this period the RAF did see heavily losses with the loss of over 400 Fighters. Thus, the pressure was on Fighter Command and the RAF but they were no where close to being rendered useless.\n\nThe assumption that the change of targets to population centers as revenge for Bomber Command's raid on Berlin is also a myth. While it likely did reinforce the decision made and Hitler did have the final say in the matter, preparations were already long underway to commence strategic bombing. Around early September, Fighter Command had adapted to the German strategy of targeting their airfields thus they employed squadrons exclusively for their defense limiting the number of squadrons sortied to intercept raids on other targets. This contributed to the OKL assumption that the RAF was on the verge of collapse as they had decreased their interdiction of Luftwaffe sorties against other targets. Thus, the OKL assuming that the RAF was soon to be defeated proceeded with the thrid phase of their plan around mid September 1940 prematurely and started attacking targets like population centers. The idea behind was to erode morale among the population and create panic prior to the invasion of Britain. Of course in hindsight this isn't the case and strategic bombing with unguided munitions is seen today to be largely ineffective against a determined populace. However, during WWII Strategic Bombing Doctrine still had a lot of traction as it was the belief that destruction of that magnitude would deal a significant blow to morale and warfighting capacity. Thus it was an apparently sound decision at the time to move on to softening the British in preparation for the invasion through strategic bombing, under the assumption that the RAF had been battered into submission and could not resist.\n\nOf course this was not the case and their assumption was wrong on both counts. The RAF continued to actively sortie to intercept raids causing high losses for the Luftwaffe and the bombing of civilian targets such as London had relatively little strategic impact. The mounting losses eventually forced the Luftwaffe to change to night attacks which would come to characterize the Blitz which is the forth phase of the Battle of Britain starting around October. I cannot emphasize enough that the German's were never close to defeating the RAF. In addition to their other short comings, they never understood how the British air defense system worked and thus did not focus on targeting radar installations. Thus despite the damage the RAF took they were still an effective opposition as they air defense system was still intact although damaged. In all fairness, they were starting to lose some coherence as the German attacks on Fighter Command mounted contributing to the idea that the RAF was breaking down. \n\nIn conclusion, Fighter Command was withstanding the attacks admirably and the Germans were no where close to destroying them. Their faulty assumptions however made them switch to their latter objectives without effectively securing the earlier ones thus making it appear to be a change in strategy when in reality it had been planned from early on in the Battle.\n\nSources:\n\n*The Battle of Britain, Five Months that Changed History - James Holland*\n\n*The Battle of Britain, Myth and Reality - Richard Overy*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
10kv0y
|
Geologists: How were these rocks formed at this angle, creating the illusion of the water not being level (Ardèche, France)?
|
Sorry for the poor phrasing, here are two pictures: _URL_0_
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10kv0y/geologists_how_were_these_rocks_formed_at_this/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ec0u3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"not a geologist, but as tectonic plates shift rocks will get pushed up forming entire mountains. the sedimentary lines of these mountains will be on an angle like that shown in your picture\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/g0gR9"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
ct31dy
|
why do people smoke and not just wear nicotine patches, which don't cause harm to your lungs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ct31dy/eli5_why_do_people_smoke_and_not_just_wear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"exi9850",
"exi9bw1",
"exiazql",
"exidb37"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"People become addicted not just to the nicotine, but to other aspects of smoking: the feeling of smoke in the lungs, the taste of the tobacco, the ritual of \"lighting up\", etc.",
"Smoking actively feels good. The patch leaks nicotine into your system, which can help curb cravings, but doesn’t feel like anything. It’s a tool to help you quit, it’s not an event like smoking is.",
"Interestingly enough, one of the factors that determines the addictiveness/\"likability\" of a substance is the speed at which it exerts its effect. Patches need about 4 hours to reach the maximum concentration in the blood. When you smoke a cigarette, it takes about 5 minutes. Smoking delivers the drug at a much faster rate which causes a stronger effect and makes it a more \"likable\" delivery system.",
"I only smoked in college (I'm nearing 40 years of age, so it's been a long while.), but I can say that part of the addiction is ritual. It's something you do regularly like eating or sleeping and it becomes so ingrained in your daily lifestyle that not doing it feels bizarre. Other reasons are:\n\n1. Smoking is a social activity and many people who do it enjoy the companionship of others who also partake. It's a really easy way to make friends. Yes, there are healthier ways to make friends. But for introverts or those with social anxiety, it serves as an easy conversation starter. My best friends in college were the people I met at our designated smoking area on campus. People bummed smokes from one another all the time. I would bum and then let others bum from me.\n2. It's an excellent timeout/meditative activity that gives you a reason for standing outside. My brain was overwhelmed and anxious in college and smoking really helps alleviate a lot of that. No, it doesn't solve world problems. However, not even taking the nicotine into account, smoking is a naturally meditative experience, especially when done alone. Meditation often focuses on breathing exercises - which is exactly what smoking does. It forces you to consider how you're breathing in. That, in and of itself, is incredibly calming. Later on, it's not just the breathing but the feeling of smoke going into your lungs which feels good.\n3. Smoking is a reward. I would work my butt off in college on term papers or studying and give myself goals like, \"Once I've made it past this point I'm having a cigarette.\" It's strange, looking back, to note how much more motivated I was and how integral smoking was to my success. I graduated with a 3.97 GPA and absolutely believe this is because I smoked. That said, I think smoking is a nasty, foul-smelling, unhealthy habit. However, if there were a healthy option I'd still be doing it and not for the nicotine.\n4. Oral fixations are a very real thing and some people are natural fidgeters. I, myself, possess both of these traits. Back in the day, I had a tongue piercing barbell that I couldn't keep myself from rolling back and forth along the bottom of my lip. It used to drive my Mother crazy. Smoking solves both of these problems really easily. The oral part is obvious. The cigarette gives you something to do with your hands. From flicking to tapping and rolling between the fingers - cigarettes are a fidgeters best friend.\n5. And when you don't take any of the previously mentioned reasons into account, there's still the most obvious reason. Smoking is more socially acceptable despite it's health-risks than meditating at work, or using a fidget device at work, or just about any other activity you can do AT work to relieve stress. Smokers, whether they'd like to admit it or not, seem to eek out more breaks at work than non-smokers. I'm not saying this is true at places like Wal-Mart. But, as I've worked in computer repair and IT departments - smokers find a way to \"step out for a quick smoke break\" more often than their counterparts. This is most definitely a problem of how smoking is perceived, how poor work conditions are, and that people are regularly overworked. I'm a big believer that if people took more breaks during a work-day they'd be more productive, which shouldn't come as a surprise given how much my smoke breaks helped me through college."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
86z4zq
|
Can spectroscopic measurments distinguish between a gas of atomic hydrogen and one of molecular hydrogen (H2)? If so, how?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/86z4zq/can_spectroscopic_measurments_distinguish_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dw93jju"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Yes, molecular hydrogen has a load of molecular vibration energy levels in addition to the atomic spectra lines.\n\nThis smears the spectral lines out as each transition can include any mixture of electron energy and vibrational energy.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt seems to be rarely detected in astronomy, I think because all the hydrogen we see in stars is hot and atomic, so it is nearly impossible to detect the cold molecular hydrogen.\n\nAlso in gas discharge tubes the molecules disassociate so only the atomic spectrum is usually seen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/~lixd/GA/AT4/AT404/HTML/AT40403.htm"
]
] |
||
2ds7ta
|
How do heavier-than-air gases end up in the atmosphere?
|
I know that carbon dioxide is hevier than air. How did it get into the atmosphere?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ds7ta/how_do_heavierthanair_gases_end_up_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjsld2i"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"What you are wondering about is why there is no stratification of the atmosphere. This is the idea that due to gravity, the constituent molecules of the atmosphere should arrange themselves in layers by mass. The process that keeps the atmosphere well mixed is turbulent flow. Air movement is driven by differential heating, either on the macro or local scale. Turbulent fluid flow involves the mixing of layers by eddies and so the atmosphere is continually being stirred up. What this means is that gases that are released into the atmosphere don't just fall out. This process continues up until the turbopause which is about 100km up. After this the atmosphere does begin to divide by molecular weight. \n\nIntuitively this is similar to the idea of having a bowl of miso soup and your miso sinks to the bottom of the bowl and if you stir it up it keeps moving around evenly for quite a while. Imagine that the bowl is just always being stirred.\n\nAs for how does carbon dioxide get into the atmosphere well there are many ways but they all operate under the same principle. A parcel of gas is exhaled or similar. This gas is going to be carried away by its natural high kinetic energy and the flow of the gas around it. Gravity is a small effect which doesn't really have much of an effect due to the constant stirring to compensate for it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2gjuls
|
i know how a rainbow is formed...but what determines the size of the arch or 'circumference' of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gjuls/eli5_i_know_how_a_rainbow_is_formedbut_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckjsbv2",
"ckjseeu",
"ckjsks3",
"ckjtsxl",
"ckjtwxr",
"ckjuo40",
"ckjuwcy",
"ckjvl1j",
"ckjvtlx",
"ckjw2j9",
"ckjziv8",
"ckk214k",
"ckk2pnv",
"ckk37qa",
"ckk3r1u",
"ckkcvfn"
],
"score": [
120,
787,
10,
13,
25,
3,
15,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"ELI4: how are rainbows formed?",
"The main rainbow appears 42 degrees away from the point opposite the sun, i.e., 138 degrees away from the sun. (The angle is determined by the way light from the sun is reflected and refracted inside water drops.) The nearer the sun is to the horizon, the higher the arch will appear.",
"I think the issue here is that rainbows don't have much of a circumference, they're not projected onto the sky where everyone sees them. They're reflected from the raindrops into your eye [like so](_URL_0_). The angle between colours makes it looks the size it does (even though it only exists in your eye). I could be wrong but i think the arch shape is because raindrops are circular.",
"Tan42 degrees * (distance to rainbow) = (radius of the rainbow)\n\nSince all (primary) rainbows are the same size in your field of vision, their size is simply determined by your distance away from the reflecting water droplets in the sky.\n\nStretch out your arms, and point one hand to the center of the rainbow and the other to an \"end\" of the rainbow (doesn't matter which \"end\"!).\n\nThe angle between your arms is about 42 degrees.\n\nThis angle of 42 degrees will be the same for a nearby sprinkler rainbow as for a rainbow in the distant mountains.\n\nUsing Trig, this means droplets that reflect a rainbow 1 meter away will appear to have a circumference of 1.8 meters.\n\nIf the raindrops are 1km away, the circumference will appear to be 1.8km wide.\n\n10km away, the circumference will appear to be 18 km wide.\n\n(Double check me guys!)",
"try [this](_URL_0_) explanation",
"Cool thread. Ok, what's the explanation for DOUBLE rainbows?",
"Professor Walter Lewin at MIT gives an amazing explanation of this. Here's the video: _URL_0_",
"A rainbow is in effect a \"cone shape\" that converges at the viewer's location, correct? ",
"Here is a nice image Descartes drew to explain why you see the primary and secondary rainbows where you do. The circle represents the raindrop and the lines the path the light takes from the sun to your eye.\n\n[Drawing here](_URL_0_)",
"What determines it is the wavelength of the light, as well as the material that refracts the light. Since we're talking about rainbows here, that material is always water droplets, so that's that. On to the other part:\n\n > ELI5: Wavelength? Coloured light?\n\nPhysicists are still in an eternal discussion whether light travels in a wave or in a particle. In many cases, the wave theory works best, and colour is just such a case. So for simplicity's sake: Light travels in the form of a wave.\n\nThe colour of a wave is determined by the frequency, i.e. how many waves fit inside a fixed time frame. Wavelength is another way to describe how long the waves are. The wavelength is the physical length of one of these waves. For visible light, these lengths are pretty short (think in the order of hundreds of nanometres). The colour is determined by the exact length of the cocktail of waves. White light is a cocktail of all colours of light that can be produced and seen. Black light is none. Red has the longest of wavelengths of all basic colours, Violet the shortest. Infrared light (i.e. heat radiation) is longer than red, and Ultraviolet (UV radiation) is shorter than violet (hence the ultra part). Brown, reddish purple and pink shouldn't really exist, but they can be kinda explained by being a weird cocktail of the wavelengths.\n\nDifferent wavelengths reflect at different angles due to the behaviour of the waves when it's reflected or refracted by a lens, like what happens in a raindrop. As a result, the light leaves the water droplets at slightly different angles, which causes the rainbows we all love to see.",
"in order for a rainbow to be formed, your angle to the sun, with the raindrop as a reflective surface has to be 42 degees.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nthat means, that the distance to the reflective ~~plain~~ plane (i.e. waterdroplets in the atmosphere) determines how big the arch is, while your position relative to the sun and the reflective ~~plain~~ plane determines how much of it you see.\n\nlong story short: how big a rainbow appears to be, depends on where exactly youre standing, and where the water droplets are, or more specifically the distance between the two. the further you are apart from the water droplets, the bigger the \"virtual size\" of the arch.\n\nedit: spelling (marked in the text)",
"What determines the distance of the rainbow? How about multiple rainbows? Are they just different cross-sections of the same 42° cone?",
"I may not get 700 points like jaa101 did for not even answering the question, but here goes...\n\nThe size and, therefore, the circumference of a rainbow is determined by how far the water droplets or rain are from you. If you do it right you can literally reach out and touch the rainbow.\n\nAnyone with a water hose which has a mist setting can see this for themselves.\n\nThe red comes from a slightly different angle than the orange, which is coming from a slightly different angle than the yellow, et cetera. 42 degrees is an approximation and a simplification of the reality you are witnessing.",
"Alright. So after reading this stuff, is it possible that on a certain day, with the sun perfectly over the horizon and a raincloud just perfect, there could be a super rainbow? One that encapsolates the entire moon/sky? ",
"It's determined by the Sun's position in the sky. If you pay attention, you will notice that the shadow of your head is right in the center of the arch.",
"Well, of course it's the angels. The angels between the sun and the rain create this beautiful prismatic effect, and it appears different depending on the angels between you and the rain as well.\n\nWait, no...\n\nAngles. I meant angles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob/images/thumbnail/RainbowdiagramUWSTOUTmodified.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/video-lectures/lecture-31-rainbows/"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcE3TaMg0Z0#t=2870"
],
[],
[
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IvN2oH-G0dg/UL82z4eXugI/AAAAAAAAAOM/iAi5skUaCOQ/s1600/Descartes_Rainbow.png"
],
[],
[
"http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenbogen#mediaviewer/File:Rainbow1.svg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
80gk7n
|
How many frequencies can we reliably send across fiber cables?
|
If I've understood it correctly, fiber optic takes advantage of the fact that light can "co-exist" with different frequencies at the same time. With this, we can thus send multiple signals across a fiber cable at the same time by using different frequencies. How accurate can we detect these different frequencies? And how many can we then send through the cable?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/80gk7n/how_many_frequencies_can_we_reliably_send_across/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duxoqju"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The answer depends on the quality of the cable and the inline amplifiers, and of course the multiplexing gear at each end.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) blog suggests that a high end arrangement is 96 channels, 50GHz apart, with 100 Gb/s per channel. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.neophotonics.com/what-is-dwdm-and-why-is-it-important/"
]
] |
|
krijb
|
How exactly does a myelin sheath propagate an action potential?
|
It is known that an action potential travels faster down a neuron with a myelinated axon compared to an unmyelinated one. However, how exactly does the myelin sheath conduct the action potential?
I've heard two things but don't know which is true
1. The myelin sheath allows for electrons to get excited along the plasma membrane of the neuron, and the electron excitement travels faster than ions do in the unmyelinated sheath. If this is the case, how do excited electrons influence the voltage-gated Na channels at the nodes of Ranvier.
2. Sodium ions can diffuse faster where the neuron is covered by the myelin sheath because of the lack of, or infinitesimal amount of Na leak channels. Again, if this is the case, how would this be conducive? I'd think that a greater presence of sodium leak channels would be beneficial since less sodiums ions would have to go through the voltage-gated Na channels.
Please explain. This has been bothering me since I had biology in 9th grade.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/krijb/how_exactly_does_a_myelin_sheath_propagate_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2mlzgq",
"c2mlzgq"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In order for the least amount of electrical signal loss over the distance of a propagating action potential you want very high resistance on the cell membrane, but low resistance within the axon itself. Myelin acts as an almost perfect insulator for the membrane. This means you don't get electrical loss to the outside environment.\n\nSalutatory conduction via myelination requires Nodes of Renvier which are breaks in the myelin sheath every so often. This happens because the electrical signal can only propagate so far before falling off to the axonal resistance. In these breaks you have a high concentration of sodium channels that act to \"boost\" the signal.\n\nAn easy way to think about it is that it increases speed via allowing the signal to hop between points, instead of having to follow the entire route.\n\nSquid are famous case studies of the disadvantage of not having myelination. Another way to increase the speed of a propagating action potential is to increase the diameter of the axon. The squid has an extremely thick axon that can actually be seen very well without a microscope. This process, although getting the job done, is fairly inefficient because of the size.",
"In order for the least amount of electrical signal loss over the distance of a propagating action potential you want very high resistance on the cell membrane, but low resistance within the axon itself. Myelin acts as an almost perfect insulator for the membrane. This means you don't get electrical loss to the outside environment.\n\nSalutatory conduction via myelination requires Nodes of Renvier which are breaks in the myelin sheath every so often. This happens because the electrical signal can only propagate so far before falling off to the axonal resistance. In these breaks you have a high concentration of sodium channels that act to \"boost\" the signal.\n\nAn easy way to think about it is that it increases speed via allowing the signal to hop between points, instead of having to follow the entire route.\n\nSquid are famous case studies of the disadvantage of not having myelination. Another way to increase the speed of a propagating action potential is to increase the diameter of the axon. The squid has an extremely thick axon that can actually be seen very well without a microscope. This process, although getting the job done, is fairly inefficient because of the size."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.