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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2mx783
|
Could a diamond withstand an atomic bomb?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2mx783/could_a_diamond_withstand_an_atomic_bomb/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm94yvd"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Diamonds are flammable. They cant even withstand a blowtorch. They're just carbon. They are very hard and can deal with a great amount of mechanical force, but fire will chemically consume the carbon very easily."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1yb5df
|
what will actually happen in the event of a financial collapse?
|
Will we lose our savings? People are talking about how one just might be on its way.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yb5df/eli5_what_will_actually_happen_in_the_event_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfixqc3",
"cfiy92q",
"cfj0vfk"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of it like this. no money means no jobs, Jobs like growing food, Driving busses, Police.",
"The collapse of modern society.",
"Credit will dry up in a financial collapse, causing banks to call in their loans and the people who can't pay are forced to sell. This applies to individuals, businesses and the government. The world runs on credit, so next to no credit slows the economy down. Then over time everything tends to correct itself and pick up the crumbs after"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5x6th4
|
where did the king of England live before the first Palace of Westminster was built?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5x6th4/where_did_the_king_of_england_live_before_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"degkkbz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In the royal palace at Winchester, which was near the cathedral. Winchester was the capital of late Anglo-Saxon England, having previously been the capital of Wessex. Winchester was also the home of the treasury, the royal workshops and the officials and scribes who issued charters and tended the country's comparatively well developed bureaucracy. The kings also lived on various royal estates scattered around the country (that at Corfe in Dorset, on the site of the present castle, would be an example) as they moved about their domains to give justice, assert their power and counter threats. Early mediaeval kings tended to be mobile, both for military and political reasons, and for the practicalities of feeding and supplying the court."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
twfkt
|
What is the ecological function of the average yellowjacket wasp? Does their existence have any positive benefits?
|
Bees might be scary sometimes, but we all know that bees basically make it so flowers and food can grow. What does a wasp do? Do wasps have any purpose beyond making more wasps? Do they accomplish something in the grand scheme of nature that isn't apparent?
What do they do other than fuck shit up?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/twfkt/what_is_the_ecological_function_of_the_average/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4qb6qn",
"c4qb9r2"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"No living thing has an 'ecological function', i.e. they're not designed to do a job. Organisms fill ecological niches, but they do so for their own benefit, or, if you like, the benefit of their DNA. Even then, I am oversimplifying like mad. \n\nIf you're asking what benefit wasps have to *humans*, then they eat caterpillars which damage our crops. But the fact that this is a benefit to us is of no interest to the wasp, and it's absolutely not the reason why the wasp is as it is. The development of species has little to do with whether humans are around or not, unless humans are killing them or benefiting them.\n\nThere are lots and lots of species which are of no benefit whatsoever to us, and lots of species which don't impact us at all. They're getting on and living their own lives as best they can.",
"Seeing as \"wasp\" is a very general term that encompasses many different families of Hymenoptera, I'm assuming you mean all of them.\n\nTo remove all wasps from an environment would cause a major disturbance in the overall ecological balance. To begin, let's consider a couple things that wasps actually do:\n\n* Pollinate various kinds of plants\n\n* Provide food for vertebrates and invertebrates alike\n\n* Consume an array of arthropods\n\n* Parasitize **many** different insects\n\nI place emphasis on that latter point due to the importance of parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in the environment. The family Braconidae is one of the most specious families in all of Insecta, boasting anywhere between 50,000 to 150,000 species worldwide. If you were to remove every single one of those species, species that actively inhibit the growth and development of other insects, you could possibly see an explosion of those other insects. The consequences of such a situation could be disastrous, especially when considering all the various pest species that are biologically controlled by parasitoids. Take, for instance, filth and stable flies in a cattle or diary setting. These flies can severely impact beef and milk production if left unchecked. One way to actively regulate those fly populations, however, is to use parasitoid wasps, which seek out and destroy the developing fly larvae. Without them, your operation is hampered significantly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
eumel7
|
what does it mean when a gamer refers to the metas of a game or the meta in a game?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eumel7/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_a_gamer_refers_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffq61x6",
"ffq714u",
"ffq85ji"
],
"score": [
9,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"It refers to the current widely accepted “good” strategies of play. These sometimes change with patches or new gameplay techniques developed by those who play at the highest level.",
"“Meta” isn’t an acronym.\n\n“Meta” is stuff that is self-referential\n\nI first came across it in computing - back when I learned about HTML at the start of the web in the early 90’s (but I found out it’s older than that - see Wikipedia entry at end of comment).\n\n“Metadata” is “the data about data.” It was the information in the header of a web page (invisible to the user) but contained data about the specific web page. \n\nObviously, “most effective tactic available” doesn’t make sense in this instance - there are no “tactics” in web page information.\n\nA meta game is “the game about the game.” It’s sort of the next level of strategy. Instead of the game statistics and the powers of different characters (say like in Dota), it’s the next left. If they pick Phantom Lancer, I’ll pick Earthshaker. It’s the game about the game, in that sense.\n\n[Link to Wikipedia entry about metadata](_URL_0_)",
"The \"meta\" game is the game within the game. Generally that's what the term \"meta\" means.\n\nFor example, imagine tactic A was originally common and everyone played it because it's highly effective by itself. So it becomes \"the meta\" because it's what everyone tends to do because it's legitimately. But then tactic B might be devised which counters tactic A, and suddenly loads of people just play that strategy and consistently win against people playing tactic A until suddenly THAT becomes most popular and becomes \"the new meta\". And so on.\n\nThen the game gets updated in some way that alters gameplay - one character gets an upgrade, another gets a downgrade. Suddenly tactic A is viable again, but tactic C is the new counter. It's the meta game all over again.\n\nFor a more concrete example, Overwatch has (had?) a meta called \"Dive\" which basically meant players played a team of fast moving characters who could all pounce on a single target with the intention of killing them quickly as having the numbers advantage against your opponent is a very strong advantage. Over time this style moved in and out of favour as the game got updates and other strategies moved in and out of favour.\n\nOr in baseball, the real game is to hit the ball and run around the bases, but the meta game is the hitter trying to guess what the pitcher will throw next and hit it while the pitcher tries to keep him guessing. With modern statistics pitchers' styles can be quantified and \"curve balls\" and \"sliders\" etc are a thing which isn't really part of the official rules but is what sorta tends to happen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata?wprov=sfti1"
],
[]
] |
||
3x8a3k
|
What is the general historical consensus on Henry Clay and any good book recommendations?
|
I like the idea of "the great compromiser" but I know he owned slaves and couldn't win the presidency if his life depended on it. How do historians look at him and his legacy?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3x8a3k/what_is_the_general_historical_consensus_on_henry/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy2fqus"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Of course, it's very risky to try to say anything good about a slaveholder. But if you accept the premise that the Civil War was better being fought in 1860 than in 1825, Clay does deserve some credit. Without the Missouri Compromise, the southern states likely would have seceded much earlier. And it was the overturning of the Missouri Compromise in 1856 ( along with the Dred Scott case) that started the descent into war.\n\nA good politician could be defined as someone who settles things when there are seven people to share a pie and each one feels entitled to a third of it. Clay is an outstanding example of a good politician. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
pbutq
|
Has the discovery that the Universe's rate of expansion is accelerating disproven the Big Crunch theory?
|
Because astrophysicists have realized that the expansion of our Universe isn't slowing down as previously thought, does this mean that our expansion will be infinite, or can there still be some limiting factor to the expansion?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pbutq/has_the_discovery_that_the_universes_rate_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3o402y",
"c3o40cq",
"c3o43o3"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"not *disproven* per se, but yeah, it seems to strongly indicate that Big Crunch won't happen.",
"Because Dark Energy (which is driving the increasing rate of expansion of the Universe) isn't yet fully understood, it still isn't known how the Universe will end and a Big Crunch is still a possibility.\n\n[link](_URL_0_)\n > In a broad class of dark energy models, the universe may collapse within a finite time t_c. Here we study a representative model of dark energy with a linear potential, V(\\phi)=V_0(1+\\alpha\\phi). This model is the simplest doomsday model, in which the universe collapses rather quickly after it stops expanding. Observational data from type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), cosmic microwave background anisotropy (CMB), and large scale structure (LSS) are complementary in constraining dark energy models. Using the new SN Ia data (Riess sample), the CMB data from WMAP, and the LSS data from 2dF, we find that the collapse time of the universe is t_c > 42 (24) gigayears from today at 68% (95%) confidence. ",
"It hasn't disproven the Big Crunch, but it's certainly made it a lot less likely.\n\nThe Universe accelerates or decelerates in response to the type of matter or energy which is gravitationally dominant, or densest. Density behaves differently as the Universe expands for different types of matter: for normal matter, for example, it decreases with the cube of the Universe's size, while for the dark energy thought to drive the acceleration, the density is constant over time. Whether a form of matter makes the Universe accelerate or decelerate is tied into this; in particular, acceleration comes from the forms of matter which dilute away very slowly, or not at all, as the Universe expands. So once the Universe is accelerating, all the things which would make it decelerate again should always be less dense than the dark energy. This would mean the Universe will continue accelerating for all time. It's possible to reverse this, but it would require some rather exotic, and not particularly well-motivated, new physics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409264"
],
[]
] |
|
3e1ggv
|
why does milk expires when left in heat over time, but not when poured into hot drinks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e1ggv/eli5_why_does_milk_expires_when_left_in_heat_over/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctalz2q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"bacteria likes to grow between 41-140 deg. F. more time in this \"danger zone\" means more bacteria, means you could potentially get sick."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
191mrx
|
what makes certain diseases like aids, diabetes, and cancer so difficult to cure?
|
These have been around for so long and a vast amount of research has gone into each I'm sure. What makes them so difficult to tackle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/191mrx/eli5_what_makes_certain_diseases_like_aids/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8jyxko",
"c8jz8x4"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) attacks your immune system. It attacks the part of you that fights off diseases.\n\nDiabetes is a congenital condition. It is something determined by your genes. Diabetes is when your body does not make enough of this stuff called insulin. We would have to change the way your cells work to cure diabetes.\n\nCancer is not one disease. It's a whole bunch of diseases that are kinda vaguely similar in one particular way. Cancer is when the cells of your body start dividing out of control. This can cause any number of problems. There are some cancers that we can kick the crap out of. Other cancers are very difficult to fight. We will never \"cure cancer\", because cancer is not one thing, like polio or syphilis. \"Curing cancer\" is kind of like saying \"curing disease\".",
"AIDS is caused by a virus, and viral diseases are just inherently hard to treat. Treating a viral infection depends primarily on your own immune system; your body either naturally or with help from a vaccination acquires the ability to recognize — like chemically, I mean — the virus particles, and gloms onto them and neutralizes them. A secondary treatment is antiviral therapy, which involves custom-building special molecules that can in one way or another interfere with the virus's life cycle, keeping it from making you sicker while your body takes care of it by itself.\n\nAIDS in particular, though, is a hard disease to treat in either of those ways. First, because it specifically attacks *your immune system itself,* meaning you can't depend on your immune system to eradicate the infection, and second because the virus that causes it changes *fast and frequently.* It's kind of like the stealth bomber of the virus world; it's sneaky, and that makes it hard to attack.\n\nDiabetes and cancer are both *types* of diseases, not diseases themselves. There are a number of forms of diabetes, and what they have in common is that they inhibit your body's ability to regulate your blood sugar level. Your body runs on a sugar called glucose, and to be healthy you need a fairly consistent concentration of glucose in your blood. A normal person has a number of mechanisms that help regulate your blood glucose concentration, but a diabetic person *in some way* isn't regulating it correctly. There are a variety of causes and mechanisms of action of diabetes, such as a type in which your body has an autoimmune response — your immune system attacks and kills something inside you that it would normally recognize as \"friendly\" and ignore — to your own insulin-producing cells, killing them. This keeps you from producing insulin (which is used to regulate your blood glucose concentration), which is why people with this type of diabetes *must* inject themselves with insulin, since their bodies can't do it directly.\n\nSimilarly, cancer is a *class* of disease, more properly called *malignant neoplasms.* It's basically uncontrolled and expansionistic cell growth. A cell in your body malfunctions in such a way that it starts making dividing out of control, making more and more of itself without responding to the normal regulatory mechanisms that prevent that kind of thing. This results in tumors, and in the most severe cases the spread of more and more tumors throughout your body as the malfunctioning cells move around.\n\nSince both diabetes and (even more so) cancer have a wide variety of *etiologies* — reasons for happening, basically — no \"cure\" for them is even possible. Instead, we can only treat, and seek to cure someday if possible, the individual specific things that happen to a person. In the case of cancer, the \"cure\" doesn't involve somehow magically making cancerous cells *not* cancerous cells any more; those cells are lost causes. The \"cure\" for cancer is *removing* those cells from the body without killing the patient. And we're fairly good at it, frankly. People who are diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid gland — a particular type of cancer — have a better than ninety-five percent chance of surviving for twenty years or more after diagnosis. Of course, other cancers are much harder to treat; the twenty-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is less than three percent. But the rates are going up all the time, as we get better at identifying cancers and removing them.\n\nDiabetes, on the other hand, is not fatal *unless* it goes untreated. People with diabetes (speaking generally) simply lack a particular molecule their body needs, so as long as it can be supplied to them in the right way, they live perfectly full and complete lives. The challenge there isn't curing it (though that'd be great) but finding better ways to make sure it can be lived with. In principle, type-one diabetes should be no more life-threatening than having bad eyesight; people with bad eyesight wear glasses, people with type-one diabetes take insulin. We're not there yet, but there's no reason why it *couldn't* be that simple, in an ideal world."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2p7iki
|
Why do rockets burn up when decelerating into the atmosphere but not when accelerating out of it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2p7iki/why_do_rockets_burn_up_when_decelerating_into_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmudj74",
"cmug7o9"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"When a rocket is taking off from inside the atmosphere it starts stopped at ground level, where the air is most dense. Rockets also start of the heaviest before they take off, since they have the full amount of fuel. As the rocket ascends, it becomes lighter and thus able to accelerate more quickly for a given fuel burn rate. This combines with the fact that the atmosphere density drops off with altitude.\n\nDuring re-entry the rocket is going its maximum speed at the beginning, so once it encounters a layer of atmosphere thick enough to slow it down it will also rapidly heat up. If rockets were launched at full speed from the ground they would have the same problem, but they do not. This is one reason it is hard to shoot satellites directly into space with a big railgun, the atmospheric resistance is a much larger issue in the first few km of atmosphere, but drops down by a factor of 10x by about 15km up.",
"There are some good answers, but if you want to know if it is possible build a rocket that will start to melt mid-flight then [it's been done](_URL_0_).\n\nThe Sprint anti-ballistic missile was designed for the difficult and mostly hopeless mission of taking out Soviet ICBMs after they'd already entered the atmosphere and while they were falling to Earth at orbital speeds, and is one of very few upward-bound things ever built that needed ablative heat shielding on the nose. It would accelerate at an impressive 100 g (the space shuttle did 3 g max) and would begin to glow from the heat before the first stage even separated, and the missile would be white hot when it reached Mach 10 in about five seconds while still relatively close to the ground."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sprint.htm"
]
] |
||
5ykh55
|
what is a bank bail-in? how is it different than a bail out?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ykh55/eli5what_is_a_bank_bailin_how_is_it_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dequ3qi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Bail-in means the money that has already been lent to the bank is used to save the bank, instead of from external sources such as the government, other countries, IMF/World Bank, taxpayers, new investors etc.\n\nIn a bail-in, essentially a bunch of people to whom the bank owes money are told that they are not getting all of their money back. There are different sources of bail-in money, some more controversial than others:\n\n* Depositors - this is obviously the most controversial, since it is often the savings of ordinary people, and depositors don't think of credit risk when putting money in a bank.\n\n* Bondholders and other creditors - this is less controversial because bondholders knowingly take on some risk when buying bonds. However, it is still controversial because bondholders are made to save the bank and the benefit goes to shareholders.\n\n* Contingent convertible bonds - these are a new type of bonds in Europe that are specifically created to bail-in the bank if needed. When bondholders sign up for these bonds, they are told right off the bat that when things go pear-shaped, they are first on the hook. In exchange they get a good interest rate on the bonds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3khw5j
|
why do we have to think really hard to remember information if that information is in our head? how do we "find it"?
|
We all have those moments where we have to think really hard for a few seconds, minutes, or even hours to remember something. Eventually we remember it. If that information was in our head the whole time, why does it take so long to search for it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3khw5j/eli5_why_do_we_have_to_think_really_hard_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuxldmo",
"cuxlh8f"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Perhaps someone knows more than I do about this, but I believe it has to do with neural pathways. As you collect thoughts for storage, your brain creates connections between thoughts. Like how when you think of eating eggs, you might also think about eating bacon. They are associated strongly, and thus have a strong connection in your brain. If, over time, you continue to accumulate memories, a sort of web is created, and those things that have few or weakened connections to other things become more difficult to locate because the path required to get from the current thought to the desired one is longer and less clear. \n\nThis may not be correct; I remember reading something along these lines awhile back, and it intuitively makes sense if you know a little bit about network theory or neural networks. \n\nPlease correct me if this is wrong, fellow Redditors.",
"Your brain is a giant mess of neurons that fire in succession of eachother. This is very useful for pattern recognition (a key development in intelligence) but also integral in how we memorize information. As an example, I say the word 'computer' to you. The neurons most closely linked with the word computer will also fire, which will probably give you stuff like the idea of a computer, basic functions of a computer (eg. web browsing). The more you think about an idea or thing the more neurons it connects to. For example the word 'car' might be connected to any, all, or none of:\n\n* The idea of a car\n* The idea of travel\n* Speed\n* The memory of your first car\n* The memory of your most recent car\n* Your longing to even have a car\n* etc\n\nThe more connections it has the easier it is to remember. So if you're trying to remember what to call that four-wheeled vehicle in your garage and you think of 'speed' the neuron for 'car' will fire and all the information associated with it will be available to you. Information you have:\n\n* Been recently exposed to\n* Is alien (i.e, you have no reference too it, it's standout)\n* Haven't accessed in a long time\n\nWill be difficult to find, because you will have fewer connections too it. This is further complicated by the fact that the brain will try to help you out by 'blocking' similar ones so you only see what you are looking for. (Say you're looking for an actors name, you don't want to remember all of the actor's names at once, now do you). However, your brain borks it up sometimes and can end up making it harder to search for what you actually intend on finding."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ew0jyt
|
Does anyone have any explanation of the strange light emanating on the roof of the Hagia Sophia reported by the Ottomans and the Byzantines during the siege of Constantinople?
|
I learned of this from the Netflix series, the Rise of the Ottomans. Below is the clip.
[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)
& #x200B;
I cannot seem to find any naturalistic explanation to this. Further, both sides reported seeing this strange light emanating from the Hagia Sophia. This tells me it isn't mere legend. Didn't know if anyone potentially knew anything about this and had some explanation of what it could have been.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ew0jyt/does_anyone_have_any_explanation_of_the_strange/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffz6wko"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"What we have is a story conveyed by a single historian that would like to sell a book and no listed or spoken sources for this account. At least that’s all I can gather from this clip and the text associated with it. It is most likely an embellishment of the historical account to add grandeur and divine validity to a conquerors brutal assault. If not that then two other possibilities are mass hysterical hallucinations brought on by the stress of the situation and the power of suggestion, where only a few people may have seen something strange but then stirred the stressed crowds into a frenzy. Also, it could very well have just been lightning. \n\nAn interesting paper on the light effects inherent in the conscious construction of the dome for purposes of using light reflections to create unusual projections:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-NM8RMra6Q"
] |
[
[
"http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/ijac20075207.content.pdf"
]
] |
|
vk962
|
why your eyes hurt when you look at a computer to long in the dark
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vk962/eli5_why_your_eyes_hurt_when_you_look_at_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c557vij",
"c5585v9",
"c558r67"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Focusing your eyes at one distance for an extended period of time causes stress to your eyes.\n\nIn the dark, there isn't much else to look at, so your eyes don't look at the other stuff around the monitor, which means that you spend longer with your eyes focused at one length than you do during the day.",
"If you are working on the computer, make sure the brightness contrast between the monitor and the background is not that drastic. You should light the wall behind the monitor. This will help contract your pupils and make it easier for your eyes to focus, helping against hurting eyes.\n\nBut some people are more prone to hurting eyes than others. I have worked and played 10+ hours in really dark environments on monitors and my eyes never hurt.",
"Checkout F.lux if you want a program that adjusts hue for darker periods:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI can't live without it now.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://stereopsis.com/flux/"
]
] |
||
1q6elx
|
Join us for our weekly in-character IAmA with Felix Klein, a German soldier who served on the Eastern Front, at 1:30 PM EST over at /r/HistoryNetwork
|
Hi everyone,
As mentioned in the title, we're having our weekly in-character IAmA over at /r/HistoryNetwork.
Our host will be portraying a German soldier who served on the Eastern Front in WWII. Specifically, this character entered the war in the 268th Infanterie-Division, and when it disbanded in '43, he volunteered for the Grossdeutschland Panzer-Grenadier Division.
Please join us at 1:30 PM EST for what we hope will be a great IAmA!
~~I will include a direct link to the IAmA here, once it goes live.~~
~~**Edit (2pm EST):** Sorry guys, our host is MIA at the moment - we're trying to get in touch with him and get this IAmA up and running. Hold tight, and hopefully we won't have to postpone.~~
**Link:** [Historical Figure IAmA with Felix Klein, a German WWII soldier who fought on the Eastern Front](_URL_1_)
----
**Note:** Please be reminded that this 'Historical Figure IAmA' is a weekly feature at /r/HistoryNetwork. The host of this IAmA is not the actual person which they are portraying - they are a reenactor. These IAmAs are hosted by knowledgeable users who have volunteered and been vetted to participate in this feature.
You may find an archive of our weekly IAmAs [on our wiki.](_URL_2_)
If you have any questions or concerns about this IAmA [please contact the mods directly.](_URL_0_)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q6elx/join_us_for_our_weekly_incharacter_iama_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd9vjkx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Apologies for the delay. I had to order the GRU official to temporarily release him for questioning. His papers were not in order it seems. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHistoryNetwork",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryNetwork/comments/1q7106/hallo_my_name_is_felix_klein_and_i_was_a_soldier/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryNetwork/wiki/iama"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
yu6d6
|
If serotonin and dopamine are the only reasons we feel 'pleasure', are there other chemicals that control or dominate 'fear' 'anger' 'pain' 'sadness' etc.?
|
And a follow up; if things like 5HTP or St. John's Wort can stimulate serotonin flow, are there other supplements that can decrease the "negative emotion" chemicals?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yu6d6/if_serotonin_and_dopamine_are_the_only_reasons_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5yv40b",
"c5yv7vm"
],
"score": [
71,
10
],
"text": [
"This is a ridiculously oversimplified way of looking at neurotransmitter function. And it's found everywhere, thanks to popular science articles with headlines about 'the pleasure molecule' or 'the motivation molecule'. Yes, these neurotransmitters have been implicated in processes like addiction. But they have many other roles too. Dopamine is an important component of the basal ganglia, and regulates key functions such as movement. It also has some role in depression, as well as psychosis. Serotonin is important for the functioning of the enteric nervous system, which regulates GI movements and secretions. The other neurotransmitters in the CNS (eg glutamate, acetylcholine, norepinephrine, GABA, etc) all come together to play a very complex role in regulating various functions. And at this moment, we have a *very limited understanding* of how that all works. For example, we used to think of depression as a 'neurotransmitter imbalance' in the brain, but now we realize that there's much more to it than that. I would really hesitate to label any of the neurotransmitters as being solely responsible for or even 'dominating' any emotion.\n\nAs an example of how difficult this sort of thing is to pin down, I looked on pubmed for papers describing neurotransmitter associated with fear and fear extinction: [This paper](_URL_1_) suggests that norepinephrine plays some role. [This paper](_URL_2_) found a relationship with glutamate receptors. [This paper](_URL_0_) suggests that serotonin transporters are involved.",
"Serotonin and dopamine are mechanisms, not reasons. If you eat a delicious piece of cake, the cake caused you to feel pleasure, not the dopamine. The dopamine/5ht is the body's means of representing the pleasure (in fact, even that's not strictly true, dopamine/5ht are modulatory compounds they don't have direct effects, instead they change the way other systems work, modifying synaptic plasticity). \n\nSo the answer to your other question is no. Emotional responses (including pleasure), are much more complex than any single neurotransmitter can capture. There are of course neurotransmitters that correlate with certain emotions: Norepinephrine and anxiety/alertness comes to mind, but none of them are simple switches.\n\nNow the core of your question doesn't really seem to be about that, you just want to know if there are any antidepressants that work via an antagonistic mechanism, and in fact, most of them do. SSRIs inhibit serotonin retake, MAOIs inhibit monoamine oxidase which breaks down serotonin. So you could look at reuptake and MAO proteins as \"negative emotion chemicals,\" if you wanted, but they act that way because they change the levels of 5ht (amphetamines actually have a similar mechanism with dopamine). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22431634",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22321909",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22884897"
],
[]
] |
|
7ewwjh
|
what's the difference between uefi and bios?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ewwjh/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_uefi_and_bios/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq80znr",
"dq8192g"
],
"score": [
22,
12
],
"text": [
"UEFI is the replacement specification for BIOS - it does the same basic role of bootstrapping on launch, but BIOS has a host of technical limitations owing to the fact that the original specification is nearly 30 years old and unable to work with some modern hardware (for example, BIOS can't work with a hard disk of over 2.1TB).\n\nAn easy illustration - any newly built computer that boots into UEFI will have usb mouse support. No such luck on an old AwardBIOS.",
"Every computer needs some *firmware* that tells it what to do when it first powers up, before it starts loading the operating system.\n\nThe firmware for the original IBM PC was called BIOS. Every x86 PC clone since then has been designed to be backwards compatible with it and suffers from a bunch of limitations due to that.\n\nAt least until UEFI came out. UEFI is a modern replacement for BIOS, designed from the ground up, based on the needs of modern systems. For starters, it can be a larger program - this allows you things like a GUI, the ability to go onto the network to get updates & room for a bunch of diagnostic/repair tools."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
yu70y
|
Is there any point in space where one can experience true zero-gravity, or are we always essentially under some gravitational influence?
|
I know that being in orbit around a planet would be considered micro-gravity and not technically zero-gravity, but considering that almost everywhere you go you would be under some sort of gravitational influence, is there anywhere that can truly be called "zero-gravity"?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yu70y/is_there_any_point_in_space_where_one_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5yu9nl",
"c5yub2u"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"No; there is no such thing as true zero-gravity.",
"This question has an answer that blew my mind when I learned it!\n\nYour answer comes from Newton's law of universal gravitation:\n\nForce of gravity = G * (m2 * m1) / r^2\n\nWhere:\n\n * G is the [gravitational constant](_URL_0_),\n * M2 and M1 are the masses of the two bodies you are calculating gravity between, and\n * R is the distance between the centers of the two bodies.\n\nThis is the simplest equation for finding the gravitational force between one thing and another thing. **Note that there are no limits in this equation.**\n\nThe term for distance between the two objects can go from anything greater than 0 up to infinity. This means that at any time, there is a force on your body from **every particle in the universe!** \n\n\nNow, with that in mind, I suppose it *is* technically possible for a point in the universe to exist such that the gravitational forces from all the particles in the universe exactly cancel out in all three dimensions. However, this point would be basically impossible to ever find, not to mention it would be constantly moving around because everything in the universe is constantly moving around."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant"
]
] |
|
2wxvtm
|
why do jews and muslims seem to hate each other so much? is it a result of the palastine/israel conflict or are there issues stemming back further?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wxvtm/eli5_why_do_jews_and_muslims_seem_to_hate_each/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cov4twl",
"cov56sr",
"cov7wgd",
"covamw8"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Depends how far back in history you want to go. As the story goes God told Abraham that his son would be the first of a great nation, but he had no kids and his wife was 80, so he said \"no way that can happen\" so he had a kid with his servant Hagar (a socially acceptable thing back then). Then God said to him \"that's not the son I meant, try again with your wife\" and so another son Isaac was born and he was the one blessed to become the nation of Israel. The other son Ishmael is now regarded in Islam as the first Islamic prophet where Isaac is regarded as the first of the nation Israel. Because of this both Muslims and Jews believe they have land rights to Israel. \n\nFor reference:\n\n[Ishmael](_URL_0_)\n\n[Genesis account](_URL_1_)",
"Before World War I the entire middle eastern region was a part of the Ottoman empire. Ottomons began as orthodox christians but transitioned to Islam. They were benevolent towards non-muslims, and granted them religious freedom. For most of the 2nd millenium AD the religious makeup of the empire was mostly Christians though the rulers were muslim. Islam gradually grew through the population and became the majority. There wasn't really much religious animosity in the middle east during this time.\n\nThe ottomans backed the wrong side and were defeated in WWI. A power vacuum was created and the British were given control of the middle east in what is called the British Mandate. They drew arbitrary lines creating countries without thought to ethnicity, which started the trouble. \n\nAfter WWII the British ended the mandate and gave up control. A guy named David Ben Gurion dreamed of a Jewish state and had been pushing for it through the first part of the 20th century. He saw the withdrawal of the British as the perfect opportunity. He worked with the Mandate to create a Jewish, muslim and christian state in Palestine but the borders were never finalized. There was massive jewish immigration out of Europe during WWII, escapees of the holocaust. England and the U.S. were the primary recipients of the immigrants and this was creating a lot of political tension. Ben Gurion promised that a Jewish state would attract Jewish immigrants, taking the pressure off them, so his plan became a desirable solution for the U.K. and the U.S. as well. As soon as the British handed over control (literally on the same day, if I recall), David Ben Gurion declared the Jewish State. the U.S. and U.K. immediately recognized the state, much to the anger of Islamic palestinians who were living there and who were the majority. (I believe Jews were about 15% of the population at the time.)\n\nTL;DR: Jews, christians and muslims have been living in the area for thousands of years in relative harmony. David Ben Gurion declared a Jewish state when the British vacated control, and the U.S. and U.K. recognized the State, and convinced the U.N. to follow along. Muslims pissed ever since.",
"The hate we see between Jews and Muslims is almost entirely due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. \n",
"It'd be like, if after the was of 1812, when the British returned home, the Canadians were all \"fuck that shit\" and kept the war with the US going. There was no formal declaration, just a continual skirmish along the border. Now imagine that this conflict continues, on and off, for multiple generations. Land is taken, land is lost, but still the march of war goes on. \n\nNow people in the south, Texas, Florida, etc know about the conflict, but it never really effects them too much. Because there isn't an actual war, there isn't a draft or anything, just occasionally someone thinks it their duty to serve, and dives in. But for the most part, the south is cool with Canadians.\n\nThe north however, the north *hates* Canadians. For generations they've had to avoid raids, and missles, and bombs, and what have you. So their Idea of a Canadian is \"The only good Loony, is a dead Loony\" and hate everything to do with them. They wouldn't piss on a Canadian if he was on fire.\n\nImagine that the North of America is the Middle East, and the south is the rest of the world. Those near the constant conflict are much more polarized than those that are further away. Sure they all know what's going on, more or less, and all have opinions, but, just like not all Jewish hate Muslims, and vice versa, not all Americans hate all Canadians.\n\nAs ELI5 as I can make it"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael",
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+17&version=NIV"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2n9gsv
|
Has Capitalism and Communism always had such an antagonistic relationship?
|
I was wondering if Capitalism and Communism have always been systems whose adherents are always at war? When was the first instance of a conflict between the two?
As an add-on, what was the earliest switch between systems and what was the most peaceful switch between systems?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2n9gsv/has_capitalism_and_communism_always_had_such_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmbr9zg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's important to note that communist theory was born out of the first industrial revolution. The growth of factories and the ways in which labor was used by those in power gave rise to the ideas that Marx, Engels, and others put to paper. Petite-bourgeois capitalism -- a trades worker earning a living by their own work, or a small concern with a couple of employees -- was not at all repellant to Marx. It was the systematic extraction of maximum labor for minimum wages that he believed would spark revolution. \n\nWhen people became a commodity, it marked a major shift in both economic and political thought. \n\nBOMK, there has never been a non-violent switch to an ostensibly communist regime. There have been many small, community-scale attempts at pseudo-communist government and numerous semi-utopian societies, but as far as nation-states go, the switch has been by force.\n\nIt's also important to note that while many use \"communist\" as simple shorthand for the political regimes of (for example,) the USSR, China, and Cuba, none of these states exist in anything close to actual communism. It varies by state, but each of these is (or was) in the process of revolution -- a series of steps that would take a society from a class-based, exploitative capitalism to a classless, cooperative (communal) society. No state has actually achieved communism. \n\nEDIT: Words"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fw3wrk
|
When the Great Depression is discussed, it is often to describe the impact it had on the United States and Western Europe. What effects did the Great Depression have on the rest of the world - Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia and the African colonies?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fw3wrk/when_the_great_depression_is_discussed_it_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmmsgwa",
"fmmzrah",
"fmnuclw"
],
"score": [
6,
30,
17
],
"text": [
"While you wait for fresh answers from qualified experts, you may be interested in [this previous response](_URL_0_) that specifically deals with the effects on African colonies, provided by /u/Commustar.",
"I can speak for Brazil.\n\nThe depression can be seen as the last nail in the First Brazillian Republic’s coffin. For 40 years by the time the depression hit, every single government failed to address the social problems and demands for basic worker’s rights. By that time, there had already been one attempted communist revolution, called the Prestes Column, and multiple revolts by the subversive lower class of the military, called “Tenentistas”, who, being young and coming from the lower classes, desired reform for the outdated way the First Republic operated.\n\nThe reason the First Brazillian Republic could afford to ignore all these revolts and popular demand for reform, was because it was a well-structured Oligarchy. The vote was restricted to only men who were able to read, which excluded most of the then-illiterate population. And from what elections there were, that were most certainly completely rigged, with classic fraud stumbles like there being more votes than electors. The ones behind the frauds were the agricultural elite, that controlled the country’s main export, coffee. By the 20th century, coffee consumption was reaching its apex worldwide, and the ridiculous money those big farmers made allowed them to control the political enviroment completely, with no one being able to stand up to them. \n\nAs the 20s rolled in, the price of coffee started to drop. That was bad news for the national economy, and for the big farmers that controlled the country. They started doing some pretty insane stuff to fix the crisis, like infamously burning the coffee they produced to keep the prices high, while the government paid them tax payer money as reparations for the lost merchandise. As the power of coffee dwindled, other elites sensed opportunity to capitalize on the widespread discontent of the populous and universal want for change to finally have a nation-wide opposition to the coffee planters in the upcoming elections. Of course, that was a first baby step, as they would need a lot more support to break the traditional power sources of the country.\n\nThen, the depression finally hit. Of course, among the many things the people of the world stopped consuming in order to save money in these desperate times was coffee, bringing the depression to Brazil and collapsing the economy as well as the power core of the last 40 years of politics. Now, everybody was on board to take the candidate of the coffee lobbyists down with an unprecedented campaign in favor of opposition candidate Getúlio Vargas. It was a huge national event, everybody who was allowed to vote went out to vote, Vargas’ running mate was murdered and even the army was starting to consider abandoning the coffee producers... then the results came in, and Vargas was defeated. \n\nTo this day we don’t know how legit the result was for both sides, as both had signs of forgery, but following this there was a general uprising of indignation with the results. Army officials backed the revolters and began a march to the capital, declaring Vargas as the legitimate president. Vargas accepted the leadership of the revolution after it became clear the government was scared out of their minds and was losing ground to the revolutionaries, and joined the march to the capital, when the entire Brazillian army refused to start a civil war and defend the government, leading to a quick takeover by the revolutionaries. That would begin the “Vargas era”, that would cover 15 years total and see radical transformation to the country, but that’s outside the scope of your question.\n\nSo, basically the Great Depression was the final push needed to destabilize the already declining Republic and usher in a 15-year-long dictatorship in Brazil, that included reconciliation between Vargas and the coffee producers. \n\nSources: \n\n**Getúlio** trilogy by Lira Neto\n \n**Oswaldo Aranha: A biography** by Pedro Cortêa Lago\n \n**History of Brazillian liberalism** by Antonio Paim",
"**Eastern Europe**\n\nTraditional historiography of the Soviet economy held that the USSR was unaffected by the Great Depression and that the economy was thriving in spite of it. The second part is true, the first is not. The Soviet Union at the time of the stock market crash in the United States was in the middle of the highly successful First Five Year Plan which emphasized the production of capital goods (those that could be re-invested to create other goods, with steel being the prime example) and was able to overshoot its production targets. This and the following five year plan contributed greatly to the Soviet Union transitioning from an agrarian to an industrial economy before the outbreak of the Second World War. While industrial output grew at double digits, the overall growth rate of the Soviet economy was on the scale of the upper single digits when the agricultural sector is included.\n\nThe depression without a doubt affected the Soviet Union, however. According to earlier histories, the Soviet Union benefited from the Great Depression due to the ability to hire experts from the West, most prominently from Ford Motor Company, for cheap. These experts introduced to the USSR modern industrial management. However, the effect of this paled in comparison to the catastrophic drop in global food prices throughout the 1920s, one of the main causes of the Great Depression, and something that would continue during the 30s. Between 1926 and 1928, Soviet grain exports declined from 231,021,000 rubles to 51,512,000, owing both to greater diversion of food to feed the cities and falling grain prices . In the same period, imports of industrial machinery almost doubled to 247,300,000 rubles, driving the Soviet Union into a trade deficit by 1928. There is no way to objectively measure how much potential wealth was lost as a result, but it was certainly on the scale of hundreds of millions of rubles.\n\nThe Soviet economy, while successful on a numerical level, was at this point not offering its citizens a much better standard of living than before. Throughout the first two five year plans, industrial wages for Soviet workers actually dropped 17% on average. The emphasis for GOSPLAN, the Soviet central planning commission, was on increasing output, and the cheaper workers were, the better.\n\nHungary and Romania were two other economies dependent largely on exports of agricultural goods, with Romania also making revenue from exports of oil commodities. Falling grain prices led their governments to become largely insolvent, with the Hungarian government defaulting on its debt by 1931. Poland, meanwhile, was one of the hardest hit countries by the depression. Its economy attracted much foreign investment in the 1920s owing to economic reforms suggested by the renowned American economist Edwin Kemmerer. This made the contraction all the more severe, as many investors pulled out of the country in response to the market crash.\n\n**Asia**\n\nChina escaped the Great Depression largely unscathed. The traditional explanation for this has been the maintenance of the Silver Standard whereas the rest of the world was on the Gold Standard. Recent work by Shiroyama Tomoko has discredited this hypothesis, proving that the value of silver increased relative to the value of gold in the early 1930s and hurt China's export competitiveness. The replacement of the silver standard in 1935 with fiat currency addressed this problem and allowed the Nanjing government to recapitalize the market.\n\nJapan actually grew significantly during the depression. Whereas industrial output in the US and France declined more than 25% between 1929 and 1935, it actually *rose* by 42% in Japan during the same period. This has been attributed to the decisive response of finance minister Takahashi Korekiyo, whose policy of rapidly abandoning the Gold Standard, expanding the money supply, and expanding the state budget has been called \"proto-Keynesianism\". Aside from his financial stimulus, Japan also benefited from the occupation of Manchuria, whose industrial output by 1935 equalled that of Japan itself. In the puppet state of Manchukuo, companies connected to the Japanese army like the Manchurian Industrial Development Company (today known as Nissan) reaped immense profits using slave labor. \n\nThe depression in Japan and Manchukuo was extremely formative in the development of the post-war Asian \"developmental state\". In Japan, Takahashi had a lasting influence on the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Japan, and for the next five decades, both bodies would be controlled by \"inflationists\" who believed there was no end to printing money. The Manchukuo economic establishment, meanwhile, consisted mainly of \"reform bureaucrats\" with statist ideas who were gradually deported there by their more conservative colleagues in Tokyo. These bureaucrats re-aligned market incentives around their development goals and enforced oligopolies. The policies of the Japanese Finance Ministry and Manchurian central planners would be imitated by postwar Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and eventually the PRC.\n\nLike the Five Year Plans of the Soviet Union, the policies of Japan during the Great Depression have often been studied as a foil to unsuccessful recovery policies elsewhere. Some publications have suggested the Japanese bureaucrats synthesized a coherent Keynesian economic theory before Keynes, but this is wrong. In reality, most came from the Tokyo University Law School and had no theoretical understanding of economics whatsoever. This was the key to their success: they had no knowledge of the right thing to do, but also were not educated in the wrong thing to do. The economic mainstream at the time suggested that during a \"bust\", the market should fix itself and the government should focus on balancing its budget. These recommendations led to the tax and tariff hikes that worsened the crash elsewhere.\n\nIn India, overall economic output was relatively unaffected (with Angus Maddison estimating that Indian GDP actually grew from 1929-1934) but some industries suffered terribly. The worst effected were those depending on exports to Britain, which adopted protective trade policies. Five years after the 1929 market crash, Indian exports had fallen by more than half. India's paradoxical fate - an *overall* relatively healthy economy and severe decline in the export sector - had to do with its vast internal market. While industries depending on European consumption suffered, the standard of living for the great majority of Indians who were not fully integrated into the global supply chain did not change at all.\n\nThe situation was similar elsewhere in South Asia. In Burma, Indonesia, and the Philippines, essays by Peter Broomgard, Ian Brown, and Willem Wolters indicated that standards of living did not significantly decline despite the downturn in the global economy.\n\n**Africa**\n\nu/Commustar in [this answer](_URL_0_) has already provided an excellent overview of the depression's impact in Africa. To summarize, in many parts of Africa, especially the Belgian Congo (in particular the mineral rich Katanga), Rhodesia, and South Africa, European colonizers had mobilized the local population to produce mineral and agricultural commodity products for export. These areas were heavily integrated into the global supply chain, and the collapse in commodity prices led to a wave of bankruptcies and layoffs in the primary sector. Colonial authorities increased extractive behavior in response to mounting debts, with policies ranging from agricultural purchase boards to forced labor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/df18x3/how_did_the_great_depression_affect_countries/f34hb8q/"
],
[],
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/df18x3/how_did_the_great_depression_affect_countries/f34hb8q/"
]
] |
||
2d52fq
|
why is electricity the most commonly used power to make machines work?
|
I guess steam can be used as well. But what other forms of powering machines are there? And how efficient?
How different would it all be if electricity wasn't used, but one of the alternative ones instead?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d52fq/eli5_why_is_electricity_the_most_commonly_used/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjm5f81",
"cjm5pi4",
"cjm5pyh"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"imagine the amount of pipe it would take to furnish a city block with steam to run appliances today, not to mention the heat the pipes would give off. water wheels were used a lot before electricity, _URL_0_ for mills \"making flour from grains\" and saw mills \"cutting wood for buildings\" or for blacksmiths using a water-wheel trip hammer _URL_2_ also water powered appliances _URL_1_",
"Steam itself isn't an energy source. Steam engines would use some type of fuel (usually coal, I believe) to heat water creating steam, which mechanically drives the engine. Steam is merely a mechanical part of the process. Believe it or not, nuclear power plants are basically steam engines. The water is heated by nuclear reactions, and the steam is used to drive a turbine that generates electricity.\n\nFor most devices, an electric motor is much more compact than other types of engines. Since electricity is functionally unlimited, you don't have to worry about running out of fuel. Electric motors can also be used indoors because they don't create exhaust.",
"Electricity is used because you can send a lot of \"it\" using easy to obtain, easy to maintain, easy to install, easy to troubleshoot, and easy to repair conductors. You can then manipulate it easily for many functions.\n\nYou can replace the word easy with relatively cheap, relatively efficient, and relatively safe.\n\nAlso electricity is very easy to \"make\".\n\nLet's say instead of electricity we use some fluid to power our homes. Air, oil, steam, water. Every time I said easy above replace it with either cumbersome, expensive, or inefficient."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBqNxXlJxHA",
"http://www.notechmagazine.com/category/water-powered-machines",
"http://explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-FB9"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2jyapo
|
why is it totally ok and expected to haggle some items (like cars and apparently mattresses), while others have a fixed price? why can't we haggle the price of chips or an iphone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jyapo/eli5_why_is_it_totally_ok_and_expected_to_haggle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clg6svu",
"clg6syz",
"clg6xrp",
"clg72f8",
"clg78lz",
"clg7mu0",
"clg81za",
"clgdv78",
"clghwbh",
"clgp867"
],
"score": [
23,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're more than welcome to try, but for pretty much anything from a chain or franchise store, the prices aren't set by the guy behind the register. He has no authority to change the prices of the items being sold and he risks his job doing so. Now if you went to a local mom & pop corner store where the owner's also the guy behind the counter, then yes, you could theoretically haggle over the price of a can of soda.\n\nAnother thing is volume. The guy selling you chips or soda have no incentive to offer you a better price because there's likely a dozen people behind you in line who would be more than willing to buy the item at the price being sold. One or two iphones or bags of chips being sold is not going to change their bottom line at the end of the day.\n\nCar dealerships and mattresses, however, are sold in smaller volumes but for larger revenue. Manufacturers often include rewards for those who sell their inventory faster as well. There's more incentive for the middleman (the dealership) to make their sales, as each one has more of an impact. For car dealerships, throwing in small extra or shaving off a few thousand doesn't hurt their margins as badly because they bank a lot of revenue on maintenance and other repair services, which can only be done once they sell you the car. They're not just selling you a product, they're selling you a commitment...one they can profit off of down the road.",
"Amount of inventory and volume of sales. High amount of inventory or sales means little or no haggle. Lower inventory or low sales volume creates better opportunity for haggling. ",
"You are welcome to try to haggle with any item you buy. However, your biggest obstacle will be the employee's ability to alter the price of the deal. At most businesses, the employees do not have any ability to alter the price of the item. Doing so will get them fired, so they aren't going to find your attempt to haggle very funny.\n\nIf you can find a business that gives its employees the ability to change prices, then they will be willing to haggle. Car salespeople, mattress salespeople, etc are given the ability, grocery store cashiers are not.",
"Commissions are part of the overhead. Salesmen also get bonuses for units moved. They can trade commissions for those bonuses so there is wiggle room in the price.",
"It's just the culture of the items. The item itself really doesn't matter all that much. many car dealerships are moving towards \"no haggle\" pricing. You can open a burrito shop and haggle with customers over the price if you want. ",
"Galaxy Note II - at an independently owned Verizon store. I totally haggled the price.\n\nWe took the kids to a pumpkin patch and my friends son wanted two pumpkins. He said \"sure, but you have to haggle the price down\". He traveled to the Middle East often and said he wanted his kids to be good at negotiating. The kid was beaming when he got them at half price.\n\nI do haggle sometimes at department stores on suits, jewelry, etc.",
"It's mostly about volume. Haggling is tiring and time consuming for the staff - fine if you're selling 2 mattresses an hour, not fine if you're checking 1000 items per hour at Food Lion. Therefore, volume businesses like Food Lion discourage haggling, but negotiations on price *do* occur there - advertised specials, manufacturer's coupons, loyalty cards and private label items being the main means.",
"I always ask for a cash discount. I always pay cash and get like 10-15% less.",
"The iPhone has something called MAP pricing. Apple tells the retailers what they're allowed to sell the iPhone for, and if they sell it for less, Apple will take away their ability to order any more Apple products from them.\n",
"Try haggling anywhere the person you're talking to had the authority to lower the price.\n\nI once negotiated a discount on China at a department store. I saw it was dusty and the only one of its kind left, so it was obviously just taking up valuable shelf space. \n\nI got the China set for 90% off. Ten years later and I'm still proud!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1x1epk
|
How did drive-in movie theaters get away with showing R and X-rated movies on giant outdoor screens in the 1960s and 70s?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1x1epk/how_did_drivein_movie_theaters_get_away_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf7a0b1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Most screens were angled away from roads and neighborhoods. Also some would utilize trees, usually evergreens so they wouldn't shed their cover in the winter, as hedges to block the view. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7gjft0
|
why is there turkey bacon but no chicken bacon?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gjft0/eli5_why_is_there_turkey_bacon_but_no_chicken/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqjk9bx",
"dqjka6i"
],
"score": [
17,
2
],
"text": [
"Bacon is, by definition, strips of cured meat from the belly of a pig. Turkeys aren't pigs, so there's actually no such thing as turkey bacon. Turkey bacon is pseudo-bacon. It is an abomination.",
"They do have it, I don't know why its not more popular. I've had murrays chicken bacon and it was bomb as fuckkk"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3adnqo
|
why do human beings keep fighting wars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3adnqo/eli5why_do_human_beings_keep_fighting_wars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csbn9i4",
"csbnezy",
"csbnko7",
"csbnl1y",
"csbobb7",
"csbpfvy"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
28,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Humans have *always* fought. It appears that a tendency for groups to fight each other is built into human nature.\n\nMost often, fights are about access to resources. If my tribe defeats yours, we can take your land, your animals, your water supply, and other valuable things.",
"We're animals. We don't like people in our territory, or stealing our food, but we're also very intelligent (I understand the irony here), in the sense that our animal instincts have manifested themselves into much more complex emotions and behaviors. \n\nThis results in us fighting about pretty much anything, because we're past the point of basic needs, we're now greedy.",
"Because, deep down we are all primitive beings.\n\nIf you look in the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest (or conflict), is prevalent everywhere. Same principle here, except we've made a sport out of irt",
"Essentially, it's because humans do not trust each other to play fair. Let's say I think you took my fruit roll up from my lunch box, I'm going to be upset. Now the rational thing to would be ask if you took it. This is a normal course of action. Now let's say you say no. The problem is, I know you love fruit roll ups, I know that it would be in your best interest to take my fruit roll up. I also know that I want my fruit roll up back. What I do not know, is what is in your back pack. This is called incomplete information. \n\nI've decided that I'm not going back to my desk without either a fruit roll up or peace of mind that you don't have it. I then ask you to show me what is in your backpack. If you really didn't take it, you would open the backpack and that would be it, right? The problem is, you don't know that my only motive for looking into your backpack is to check for my fruit roll up, I might want to see where you hide that power ranger toy I've coveted for a few weeks now. This leads to a breakdown in bargaining. I'm now trying to get you to open the backpack through anger, negotiations, reasoning, etc. Still unclear on my true motives and being annoyed I don't trust you, you grow more hostile. You realize that I'm not going away until I get my fruit roll up or peace of mind. At this point, you fear that I will probably use force. You attempt to increase my cost of war by threatening to tell the teacher, third party bargaining. This calms me for a minute but I also threaten to tell the teacher you stole from me, which will get you in trouble too. \n\nYou now have one of three options, 1) open the backpack despite not being clear on my intentions and give me something I want at a potential loss to yourself. 2) make good on your threat of telling the teacher and hope I'm bluffing that I'm going to accuse you of stealing, which we both know I'm not. 3) decide that if you go to the teacher either we both get in trouble or I attack you to take your backpack before you get to her and so you launch a preemptive strike and push me away from you, starting a physical altercation (war). Or 4) keep arguing and do nothing, in which case I'll realize that bargaining has failed and launch an attack ",
"Because we're crazy. I don't mean that figuratively, I mean it literally. As a species. And not the harmless kind of crazy. No, not us. We're crazy in the seeing people hiding the trees, starts gathering firearms to go hunt down Charlie because \"they're after me\" kinda crazy. The proof is in the pudding. ICBMs. There's an underappreciated topic. \n\nPeople running around acting like the sky is falling over a few people getting Ebola, yet being comfortable with nuclear holocaust looming over their heads since the day they were born. \n\nExample of crazy? Some 11yo watches a movie, sees a scene where say..there's nudity. The kids parent freaks out. The same parent who will sit down and watch a movie with said kid where people are shooting other people dead and being glorified while never batting an eye. \n\nCrazy. Vicious. Paranoid. And masters of self justification. Like a breed of dog that bred really smart, physically healthy and good looking but mentally always feral. Don't look it in the eye. \n\nBlah blah blah blah blah. Lol. ",
"Short answer: Humans (and most life forms) tend to acquire power. Conquering other groups, and having their resources added to yours means having more power. The end."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2b6py6
|
why is it regular coke called coca-cola but diet coke is just diet coke?
|
Thanks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b6py6/eli5_why_is_it_regular_coke_called_cocacola_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj2beza"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because that's the brand that the company decided to brand it under. That's their decision to make. Diet Coca-Cola isn't a very catchy name. It's pretty long and cumbersome, but Diet Coke is short and memorable.\nThey want to reserve the \"Flagship brand\" for Coca-Cola Classic, and might not want to mix the brand names together too closely."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
asn2cg
|
does your stomach "digest" water?
|
I know your intestines pretty much absorb water as is - no need for enzymes etc. But does your stomach do anything when you drink a glass of water? Does it automatically release stomach acid? If not, how does it know the difference between water and say soup?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/asn2cg/eli5_does_your_stomach_digest_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egvcrvg",
"egvpgc3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Firstly you know the difference between water and soup and can taste the difference. Your body is able to pick up on signals from your brain. This is what the famous experiments by Pavlov using dogs were demonstrating. In addition your stomach is able to correct the acid levels and let its content into the intestines on its own as needed. It can even absorb some of the water and nutrients by itself. So the stomach will react differently depending on if you are drinking water or soup.",
"Stomach acid is already in your stomach, at all times really soaking into food and breaking it down. When you drink water, or any liquid, you're diluting that stomach acid so more will be secreted to compensate. The ideal stomach acid pH is around 1.5 to 3.5. There are specific cells in the stomach that would detect the change in pH caused by the dilution to bring the pH back to the optimal levels. Soup, water, Coca Cola, coffee, they all tweak the pH in your stomach and you stomach has to constantly adjust to remain at the correct pH.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n(Acids are just substances that donate protons, so the cells in your stomach can quickly donate protons to correct abnormal pH balances.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
358sml
|
why are the tips of all the scissors in my office magnetized?
|
I randomly noticed today that the scissors on my desk picked up a safety pin like a magnet earlier today. Tested 3 other pairs from 3 other offices, all different brands, and the same thing happened. No one has other magnets anywhere near the scissors. What's going on here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/358sml/eli5_why_are_the_tips_of_all_the_scissors_in_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr2hvin"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of scissors are sold magnetized, to make it easier to pick up pins, needles, etc. with them.\n\nOthers become magnetized by being stored near magnets, magnetic tools such as screwdrivers, or simply by being in magnetic fields. \n\nA steel scissor in a magnetic field will 'want' to become magnetic itself, and once something is a magnet it requires a heavy disruption (such as dropping it from a big height, or hammering on it randomly) to destroy the magnetic alignment again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1aqcr7
|
Myths of latin America independece wars
|
A colombian historian friend of mine told me that in most cases the independece wars in Latin America came as a rebelion to the french impossed king in Spain instead of a true rebelion against the spanish crown. Is it true? What other myths regarding the independence of Latin America do you know?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1aqcr7/myths_of_latin_america_independece_wars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ztfu0",
"c8zwlbm",
"c8zx3fr",
"c8zx7a7",
"c902r5d"
],
"score": [
20,
10,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"YEs this is true. Napoleon conquered Spain in the early 1800s. HE imposed his cousin as the new king of Spain. This led to a rebellion against the new king in favor of the actual Spanish king, This was further spurred in with the Bourbon reforms that were unpopular among the catizo (Spaish born in the America) and Meztizo elite. \n*Going off what I remeber from reading my text book and Latin American History classs",
"Well, this is not entirely true. I will speak about Argentina's case:\n\nWhat is true is that when Fernando VII was jailed by Napoleon, all of the high-ranking Criollos (People born in the colonies with Spanish blood) saw this as an opportunity to start building independence without going into outright rebellion to the crown, which would've been problematic at the time.\n\nIn 1810, the First Junta of Argentina ceased to recognize the authority of the Spanish King, arguing that the legitimate king was jailed and that thus the crown no longer held any authority. This allowed them to disregard the authority of the local Viceroy and form a \"Junta\" which ruled instead, which was in essence a civil government but that still recognized the authority of the jailed king.\n\nHowever, it would be naive to say that the intention of independence was not present. They were not rebelling against the French, the circumstance was merely a political excuse.\n\nI would think this is true for all Latin American countries. They had no particular reason to rebel against the French, and even if there were outcries of loyalty to the crown, reality is that, in Rio de la Plata in particular, England already had a very strong hold of politics and was pushing for independence, as well as the criollos.",
"As far as Mexico goes that's true. The imposition of Joseph massively damaged the popular legitimacy of the crown and the junta and Constitution of 1812 gave them a taste of representation. Throw into that the massive taxes that Spain was placing them under to pay off the French and you have a recipe for rebellion. I got most of this from Mexico's Crucial Century by Colin M. MacLachlan and William H. Beezley",
"Could someone tell me if this is true of the Venezuelan War of Independence? I was originally born there, but left before I could get anything more than the little kid version of our history. Can anybody help?",
"The installed French king was a powerful blow to Spanish imperial credibility, but the Latin Americans did not rebel against him. The Spanish regents simply went into exile in the colonies and refused recognize French authority in many cases. The Latin American elites got used to their autonomy from European rule and decided to rebel. Most of the fighting happened after 1813 when Joseph Napoleon abdicated.\n\nMost of the fighting wasn't even against European soldiers. For instance, less than 1% of the royalist forces in the final Battle of Ayacucho were even European. Most were Natives or Criollos who liked the old system because of the special ejidos that the Spanish Crown had granted them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8eutty
|
The Habsburg and Bourbon dynasties seem to have dominated kingdoms and dukedoms of Europe for hundreds of years. Were they successful for similar reasons and to what extent was there an ongoing rivalry between the two?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8eutty/the_habsburg_and_bourbon_dynasties_seem_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxzxuod"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The Habsburgs were successful because they produced heirs and formed political alliances through marriage across Europe. Their dominance over Europe and their colonial possessions in America gave rise to the (often recycled) phrase: \"the sun never sets on the [Habsburg] Spanish empire.\"\n\nThe Bourbons were a cadet branch of the ruling Capetian dynasty that ascended the French throne in 1589 (under Henry IV). They produced heirs and remained enthroned until the French Revolution (1791), only to be restored after the defeat of Napoleon, and then later replaced by the cadet Orleans branch in 1830, which was itself removed in 1848.\n\nThe Bourbons ascended to the throne of Spain in 1700 under Philip V, after the Habsburg King Charles II died without issue. Philip was the grandson of Charles' half-sister, Maria Theresa, and the Sun King, Louis XIV. Although his elder brother (Louis XV) was in line to the French throne, Philip's ascension to the Spanish throne was conditional on his renouncement of the French crown so as to avoid a personal union between France and Spain. Disputes over the succession led to the War of the Spanish Succession (1701 - 1714) between The Grand Alliance (the Habsburgs, Great Britain, the Dutch Republic and later others) and the Bourbons. The conflict was settled by the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht, which affirmed the renouncement of his claim to the French throne.\n\nThe ongoing rivalry between both powerful houses spilled over into war from time to time. Apart from the War of the Spanish Succession, there were the Italian Wars, the Thirty Years' War, and the Nine Years' War. In general, these wars sought to check each other's power. There were also strategic marriages between the Houses during pauses in enmity. The three most notable examples were in 1615 (Anne of Austria to Louis XIII), 1660 (Maria Theresa to Louis XIV) and 1770 (Maria Antonia to Louis XVI)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2wi6ed
|
why is the community in league of legends so toxic and hostile 89% of the time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wi6ed/eli5_why_is_the_community_in_league_of_legends_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cor2n0u",
"cor4z7x",
"cor8rph"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It's part and parcel with any game with a large enough fan base. A prime example is Call of Duty. Most people play that game on Xbox and Playstation, so therefore you are much more likely to encounter an asshole there, than on say a game like path of exile, which has a smaller fan base on PC. \n\nIn the case of LoL, thousands and thousands of people play, so it is very likely that you will meet people who do nothing but bitch about new players, as if they were born knowing how to play. When the popularity of a game is so high, expect to see players of all ages and all levels of maturity.\n\n Don't forget that most of the time you don't know who the other players are, so they feel protected behind their monitor, and thus they reveal their true colors.",
"Mostly due to game mechanic and immature gamers. A typical game requires a 30-40 time commitment AND your team is only as strong as your weakest link. If someone starts throwing early, your stuck for that committed time fightng an uphill battle. \n\nIt could also be because you're trash you fucking casual non-warding nub, get rekd. Insekt.",
"Pick five random people off the street and tell them to play basketball agaisnt five other random people. Also give them anonymous masks and if they win they'd get money. Probably be some aggressive behavior there. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8rhzih
|
why are there people able to eat several burgers, pizza, and more food afterwards and still be fine without feeling like throwing up?
|
_URL_0_
here is a thin looking man devouring a table of food that could serve a house party. How does he train his stomach to do that?
If I eat only slightly more food than I could eat, there would be acid in my mouth and unpleasant taste lingering from indigestion
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8rhzih/eli5_why_are_there_people_able_to_eat_several/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0rgsbc",
"e0rgw11",
"e0rnygl",
"e0rolj3",
"e0sow9x"
],
"score": [
161,
21,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Taken from \"and then you're dead\" - Cody cassidy & Paul doherty- about eating a lot of cookies like cookie monster:\n\nFirst, a thin physique helps. Exactly how you can stay thin while eating 11 pounds of cookies is a bit of a paradox, but it’s true that with less fat in the way your stomach has more room to expand outward.\n.. \n\nUnless you have eaten 60 cookies many times (and thus suppressed your gag reflex), your stomach will revolt and you will vomit. But that’s a good thing: 60 cookies equals roughly 4 liters of food, and that’s approaching your stomach’s breaking point.* We know the physical limit of the stomach thanks to the German physician Algot Key-Aberg, who in the late 1800s attempted to cleanse a patient of an opium overdose by pumping water into his stomach. Unfortunately, the patient’s drug use suppressed the normal vomiting response and his stomach broke like an overfilled water balloon, killing him on the operating table. This event piqued Key-Aberg’s curiosity and he began experimenting to determine the true capacity of a stretched human stomach using corpses. He concluded that the typical stomach can hold 4 liters of food before eruption. (Imagine two party-size sodas next to each other. If you eat or drink more than that, you are approaching what we will call here the stomach eruption limit.) This limit applies to all of us, except, however, for a gifted few. A small number of people have publicly passed the 4-liter mark. Depending on your training, or whether you received the genetic gift of a flexible stomach, it is possible to eat more. Joey Chestnut, the reigning hot-dog-eating champion, once ate 69 hot dogs in 10 minutes. That’s approximately 9.5 liters of food—or 130 chocolate chip cookies.\n\n(this book delves into what can kill you, with science. It's brilliant and interesting and I recommend. Yes I copied from kindle, yes it's cheap, no I didn't write it and I wish I did 😄)",
"That's a Matt Stonie thumbnail! World's #1 competitive eater.\n\nLong story short, your stomach can change i size because it's not a rigid organ. Over time he trained himself to be able to eat more by... eating more. Obese people go through the same thing; they have to eat more to sustain their size, so then they *can* eat more because of how much they eat. You can see Matt's stomach expansion after a meal in some of his videos - it's quite terrifying, really.\n\nAs to why Matt is skinny, he doesn't eat like thst every day and he likely does a fair amount of exercise. He may even 'purge' after a session but that's not sustainable long term so I doubt it. I'd imagine he eats a mostly volumetric diet between competitions - that is to say, he eats food that takes up a lot of space but has relstively low caloric value (leafy greens), so he naturally needs to fill up more.",
"As someone who trained for and participated in an eating competition, i can give a more practical background on how people stretch their stomach. About two weeks before the contest, you change your diet: two big meals a day increasing daily, usually consisting of low calorie-dense foods (lots of veggies and rice without much fat). Drink lots of water. Day before competition, about 24 hours before, eat one enormous meal to the point where you want to puke. Do not eat anything except maybe a cup of yogurt between big meal and competition. This all stretches your stomach out and makes you able to eat way more. \n\nSome people do this with water, but it is very dangerous.",
"I don't know what this guy does, but eating one meal a day helps me. I work long hours and don't eat until I get home, but I'll eat a meal like 2 turkey sandwiches, 40 pizza rolls, a bowl of ice cream and then snack on something else and feel fine. Sometimes I'll go for round 2 before bed. Not this exact thing every day, but a ton of really shitty food like this usually. Also, I'm 5'10\" and can't seem to get over 155 lbs.\n\nI think my stomach has just gotten used to stretching so much. ",
"I once ate 21 plates of fried shrimp at Sizzler. I was fine ... until it all came out the next day. 24 years later, my butt hurts when I think about it."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOop2bLiSFw"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
24ps9a
|
what are the dangers/benefits of having a low birthrate and a large percentage of your population over the age of 65?
|
_URL_0_
After reading this article I realized that the tone of the article was suggesting this was a very negative thing. I would think that with limited resources, especially in a small island country like Japan, this situation would be ideal rather than something to be “warned” about or feared. Can someone explain why this type of situation with a low birthrate and a large percentage of the populous over 65 is a bad thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24ps9a/eli5what_are_the_dangersbenefits_of_having_a_low/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch9h5bc",
"ch9h5ps",
"ch9h6bd",
"ch9h6n6",
"ch9hbzs",
"ch9hjcu"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"People over 65 generally work (much) less than young people. But, they consume much, much more of a country's social services, like healthcare. An aging population and low birthrate suggest that in the future there will be many fewer young workers to support the growing needs of the aged group within the society. \n\nAdding to this pressure is the fact that most social insurance and government pension programs are built on models that presume future funding from new workers, who will in turn have their end of life needs funded by yet another generation of young workers.",
"There are a lot of reasons, but the biggest one is that supporting an aging population is very expensive and having a low birthrate means there will be fewer and fewer people in the workforce to shoulder that burden. As an aside, a country like Japan which is highly modernized does not have particular difficulty from being an island nation; they're still integrally linked in to the worldwide economy.",
"Because you have a very small workforce. Old people can't work in industries and businesses to generate money for the country, so the country becomes poor as nothing is made or sold. Also, who will be paying taxes to support all these old people and their pensions?",
"In current industrialized societies the welfare of the old rests directly on the earnings of the working young. So if you have a good distribution you have say 10 workers supporting each senior so it is only 1/10th of their earnings whereas with a shrinking population you only have 5 workers supporting each senior and that is much harder on the workers to continue to provide for the seniors.",
"This is the ageing population problem. With less babies being born, and people living a long time, the proportion of old people rises. There are a few reasons this is worrying:\n\n* Old people do not work. A country needs working age men and women so things actually can get done.\n\n* State pensions. Old people get money from the government, because they do not work. More old people means more money that the government has to spend.\n\n* Old people get sick more. This puts more strain on the health service.\n\n* Old folks tend to spend less. This isn't too great for the economy.\n\n\nThe big one is that there are more people who are not working than people who are working. This is bad for the country, because you need lots of working age people in order for the economy to thrive and the country to progress.",
"In biology, what we can see from [Japan's age demography graph](_URL_1_) is that the population is mostly unstable and with significant degrowth. This is different than say [Germany's](_URL_2_) which is almost completely stable. Also, this is different from, say, [Pakistan](_URL_0_), which is unstable and rapidly growing.\n\nAll areas have a maximum population limit based on resources, functions, etc. Japan might have over-shot theirs, but nature will fix this problem itself, as you can see with the younger generations being smaller. A harmonic population size that ever stabilizes is very typical in biology, so there is nothing to be afraid of.\n\nEdit: Whoops, we're talking about Japan, not France."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.france24.com/en/20140504-number-children-japan-slips-new-low/#./?&_suid=139923281433503122998889634957"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pap.org.pk/statistics/Pyramid.gif",
"http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/japan-population-pyramid-2012.gif",
"http://www.prb.org/images13/germany_pyramid_2011.png"
]
] |
|
g0pgaf
|
how was experimental cgi rendered before the mid-eighties?
|
I've always been fascinated with computers from long before my time. 1980s CG animation in particular is something I've always found oddly soothing. But a lot puzzles me about how it worked. How were things like [Carla's Island](_URL_0_) made as early as 1981? If I were working as an animator at the time, what kind of program would I have used to create things like that? Weren't computers at the time only capable of simple pixel images at most?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g0pgaf/eli5_how_was_experimental_cgi_rendered_before_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fnax9fl",
"fnaxyp0"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Those images were animated one frame at a time in a supercomputer at LLNL. Computers in 1980's were capable of working in 3D, just not in real time (I was at SIGGraph in 1980). Essentially you figured out each voxel (3D pixel) and color coded it. Then you rendered the 3D space to 2D with a camera algorithm. You printed the 2D image on a piece of paper and photographed it, or if you had one, directly to film. Then you developed the film and projected it.\n\nWhat's most \"breakthrough\" about Carla was that the water has a surface normal. This means that the moonlight can reflect off it based on the relative height of the water in two voxels. That's why the second half of the film is so dark, to show off the awesomeness of that algorithm.",
"Carla's Island was made on a Cray-1 supercomputer using a process called raytracing. This was a state of the art supercomputer in 1981 when the film was made. \n \nRaytracing works by having the animator define everything in the scene mathematically, including the shape/color/texture of objects, any light sources, and the location of the \"camera\". Then the compute goes pixel-by-pixel and goes \"What would the camera see at this pixel\" and calculates every bit (or \"ray\") of light that would interact with that pixel to figure out what it should look like. Then it goes onto the next pixel and does the same thing. \n \nThe movie in question did some things to cheat and make life easier for the computer. For example the wave motion was periodic, so that a lot of the frames are actually identical except for changes in the colors. This meant that the super computer only needed to computer 144 complete frames. Then a much smaller computer could loop through that computed data an adjust the few things that changed (mostly the location/color of the sun/moon)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUloIyGMM2A"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2xpli5
|
Do lightning rods really work?
|
I just read this and it says "[Meh... maybe, kinda?](_URL_0_)?"
Can I get some other opinions because all my life I have believed in them and I want to know if I was putting my faith in a false idol like I did in my Milli Vanilli phase.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xpli5/do_lightning_rods_really_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp2lxka"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Lightning rods work to reduce damage and injury by lightning, rather than reduce lightning altogether.\n\nLightning is going to strike regardless. The purpose of lightning rods is to attract lightning to it, and then guide it to the ground with a heavy conductor. Like a really heavy gauge wire.\n\nIt works to prevent damage and injury in that it attracts the lightning, so that lightning won't strike other nearby structures that are not designed for lightning strikes, or people."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2286/do-lightning-rods-really-work"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
13ac6b
|
Question about the sale of commissions
|
If I understand correctly, in most western militaries in (roughly) the 17th-19th centuries, commissions as officers were literally sold for money. How exactly did that work? Would it be a fixed cost if I wanted to be a lieutenant, a higher one if I wanted to be a colonel? Were qualifications taken into account at all? Could a talented enlisted soldier become an officer? Could a talented officer be promoted to a rank he couldn't afford to purchase? If an incompetent officer was demoted or discharged, was he entitled to a refund?
On the surface, it seems like a stupid system, and not one that would put the most talented officers in positions of command. But I can't imagine it would persist as long as it did without benefits. What benefits were there, aside from the obvious one of raising funds for the army?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13ac6b/question_about_the_sale_of_commissions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7283m7"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I can speak towards one benefit of selling commissions: the system seems crazy, but it *always puts someone in command of the army that has a vested interest in the Status quo*. The Officers had to have a certain level of wealth to buy those shiny pips - they were normally the sons of landowners out of the line of inheritance. The British were the most famous example of selling commissions, and they did so after having one experience of the army being the tail that wagged the dog (re: the English Civil War). The system was put in place pretty much as soon as Charles II was restored to the throne. ((The sweet, sweet money for such a financially feckless King was an obvious bonus.)) Putting Officers in charge who had the most to lose out of any potential mutiny allowed for - in Britain anyway - a very long period of stability as far as the army went, even as Europe went up in flames.\n\n((Actually, the British Navy in this period was much more meritocratic - the Officers had to know what they were doing in order to sail the complex sailing ships and fight with them effectively. One therefore had to pass a period of apprenticeship as a Midshipman and then pass strict exams to make Lieutenant.))\n\nIt worked just like you think it would; you could buy a rank for a set cost. More money, more rank. The best (re: more socially exclusive) regiments would demand a premium above the 'official' price for each rank, and the Cavalry cost more than the infantry anyway. A certain proportion of Officers were always promoted from the ranks, but these often never made it much past Captain. The highest rank you could buy was Colonel anyway - the General ranks were appointed. You could gain promotion in battle, by only by hazarding your life: commanding the party (called a \"forlorn hope\") that was storming the breached walls of a fortress or city, for example. Dangerous stuff.\n\nIt was also a form of accountability in that if you got cashiered for being incompetent or cowardly, you stood to loose a LOT of money. You bought the rank, and sold it again when you retired: the idea was that you came out financially roughly the same. It often made a nice retirement package for Officers who were on their way out - like some sort of modern company savings scheme. But if you got the boot, that was a truly significant portion of money you'd just chucked away.\n\nBesides, if you needed talent, and you were British, you'd go to the East India Company and grab one of their \"Sepoy\" generals. They often had a wealth of practical experience!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
38n4i4
|
what are the benefits that justify the u.s. military budget?
|
I can not seem to find an answer not bathed in political ideology.
If it is to get a technological advancement (like the F-35s ect.) why do we just sell them? Doesn't this just give away our advancement we spent a grand portion of our GDP on?
I am just looking to understand the benefits of this huge budget. It seems protection could be made a lot cheaper since EVERY other nation doesn't need the same percentage of GDP like we spend.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38n4i4/eli5_what_are_the_benefits_that_justify_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crwb9us"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > If it is to get a technological advancement (like the F-35s ect.) why do we just sell them? Doesn't this just give away our advancement we spent a grand portion of our GDP on?\n\nNope, because they generally only get sold to nations that the US trusts and has evaluated the security of. Sales also recoup some of the cost spent; if 1000 F-35s are sold (and that's roughly how many currently have been ordered, with more expected), then the US will have recouped about half of what it spent on domestic aircraft.\n\n > I am just looking to understand the benefits of this huge budget. It seems protection could be made a lot cheaper since EVERY other nation doesn't need the same percentage of GDP like we spend.\n\nBecause the US needs to be able to deter nations like Russia and China; not because the US expects Russia or China to invade the US, but because it needs a non-nuclear solution to prevent those nations from harming allies of the US, from whom the US does trade with, uses the sea lanes of, etc\n\nFor example, if all nuclear weapons disappeared right now, China would be likely to try and invade Japan, Vietnam, etc in order to secure the South China Sea and associated gas fields, etc. China has the military capability to do that, and it knows that the US wouldn't want to get into a nuclear war over another nation (what's worse, having a few million die and Japan, etc change government, or having billions die all around the world?). However, because the US has the ability to reinforce Japan and prevent China from invading, they don't. Of course, China is also economically reliant on the US, but that hasn't always been the case and won't necessarily be the case into the future."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
msqji
|
how do drugs like meth and crack change someone's appearance?
|
Thank you all for your contribution! I will get to upvoting all of you... tomorrow.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/msqji/eli5_how_do_drugs_like_meth_and_crack_change/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c33jwbl",
"c33k4v3",
"c33k9b3",
"c33kn0d",
"c33kto8",
"c33lqii",
"c33lxdj",
"c33mos7",
"c33n3ip",
"c33o4p1",
"c33octc",
"c33og8p",
"c33ooll",
"c33opad",
"c33qigu",
"c33jwbl",
"c33k4v3",
"c33k9b3",
"c33kn0d",
"c33kto8",
"c33lqii",
"c33lxdj",
"c33mos7",
"c33n3ip",
"c33o4p1",
"c33octc",
"c33og8p",
"c33ooll",
"c33opad",
"c33qigu"
],
"score": [
18,
154,
94,
14,
9,
2,
134,
3,
8,
2,
16,
4,
3,
2,
2,
18,
154,
94,
14,
9,
2,
134,
3,
8,
2,
16,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't, technically. What you see in those photos of 'meth addicts' over time going from normal to unkempt, is a cause of their hygiene. If I recall correctly 'meth mouth' occurs because the addict stops brushing their teeth. Normal hygiene goes by the wayside when you're addicted to these substances.",
"Constriction of blood vessels decreases the amount of blood that reaches parts of the body, and parts that rely on the smallest vessels may not receive enough blood to remain healthy. Skin and the face are two examples, and the mouth is a special case because other regulating systems are also compromised, like saliva. Smoking complicates mouth problems, and injection further compromises the already-suffering skin with wounds, which the body struggles to heal. Not sure about hair, eyes, and nails and stuff. ",
"Long term meth use hurts saliva production, so plaque stays on teeth longer, rotting them.\nSource- I work at a rehab center. Everyone comes in with really messed up teeth and end up getting dental work the same month. Lots and lots of pulled teefers.",
"There are many effects from coming down off of a drug. Anxiety and itchiness are a couple of them. People on meth and crack tend to scratch at themselves a lot, which is part of the reason you see so many open skin sores. I've seen crackheads detox before... All they do is scratch, eat, and sleep. Like the others said, poor hygiene is the biggest factor in a crappy overall appearance.",
"Not sleeping for days on end, constantly scratching at the crawling sensation side-effect of being on meth, lack of proper hygiene and not eating for long periods of time basically. ",
"According to the billboards near my house it will make you want to punch things and be naked and shivering.",
"I used to smoke crack. I would stay up for three days at a time on benders, then sleep for three after and repeat. All that mattered was getting more. I didn't care about hygiene, except for when coming down... The water helped ease it. Dehydration and not eating didn't help, that stuff makes your body wants (other than more rock of course) all go away. I thought I was keeping my usage on the low-down but a couple friends could tell, so I'm assuming I was looking gross. The come down also makes you want to crawl out of your own skin. When you're high, you feel no pain as well so cuts go unnoticed. Burns on your lips from smoking a hot pipe don't matter. \n\nGod I'm glad I got out. ",
"I have some first hand knowlege of this. Biggest reason I saw people start to look bad was because of the picking. Of course the wrinkles, bad teeth and bad hair were because of the chemicals. Most meth heads I knew were cleaner than normal people because they obsessed about it. Hence the picking. But I never saw anyone look like the public service announcements. One guy I knew had a big sore on his hand, another lady had no teeth by the age of 30, and everyone got fat after using it for more than a few years. ",
"I had a neighbor that smoked meth and I thought the sores on his face were from scratching. The comments here say otherwise. I once found him in his car singing and rolling around in the front seat. I heard his yelping and I thought a child was screaming and being violated, it was him singing to Rush or something. I asked if everything was OK and he said his doctor recommended small use. It's worse than alcoholism but almost the same, regarding addiction. I think the guy used to have itches and scratch them until they became raw. They were all over his face all the time. I gather from a google search that it's from picking at imaginary bugs crawling on your face. I doubt that.\n\nAlso, things like adderall are very closely related to meth, and it's prescribed to children but nobody cares aside from the pharmaceutical manufacturers that push to get the meds prescribed. If they stopped giving kids this shit, they'd lose sales money from parents that don't pay their kids enough attention. We don't want that now, do we?",
"I also believe much of the deterioration comes from the fact that meth reduces your appetite and users can go several days without eating. This creates an emaciated look. Users also suffer from severe insomnia. I have seen people who were awake for 10 days before. Being awake this long is really bad for you and can cause mental problems as well as physical ones. ",
"My best friend's daughter is a meth/oxy head. She got bit on the ankle by a brown recluse. Instead of gettting it treated, she let it fester just so she could keep getting perscriptions for oxy. At some point, my friend got a call from her saying she needed help and was in serious pain. \n\nWhen he went over to the drug hole she was living in, he said he almost barfed from the smell in the room. He looked at her foot and said the wound looked like a small pizza with extra sauce and cheese. Yum! He showed me a picture he took of the wound and he wasn't kidding. It was red and all pussey and some of the skin looked black or charred. He took her to the hospital, they cleaned it up and gave her something for it. \n\nTwo weeks later...she let the wound go again just so she could get more oxy. Before he could go down and try and save her again, she got picked up for a parol violation. While in the county jail, they fixed her wound.",
"People have discussed the physical (saliva and itching) and psychological (decreased awareness/care) effects resulting in a change in a person's appearance. But I think, at least in terms of meth, there is another element.\n\nIf you got your methamphetamine from a doctor, you would still likely experience many of those same effects. But due to the fact that, I'd imagine, the majority of the meth one buys on the street is not of a particularly high quality, the likelihood of trace chemicals or adulterants is important. \n\nI knew a person who was extracting another drug, DMT, for their own use. The resultant product was of high quality, but because of the use of lye in the extraction process, over time he started having skin issues due to secreting trace amounts of lye. \n\nConsidering the collection of chemicals necessary to make meth, or techniques used by dealers to increase profit, the sweating or metabolizing of these chemicals seems to be another significant factor.",
"Drug addicts don't take care of their bodies. The body deteriorates. This is why severely depressed people or people coming off a video game binge look a lot more like drug addicts.",
"I never did meth, but I was on adderall for a few years and since I've heard they are pretty similar, I would like to add something.\n\nEven though I took care of myself, hygiene wise- I still ended up with a very mild case of \"meth mouth\". I went from having great teeth, to needing two root canals and having 9 cavities filled within a year. At first, blame was placed on genetics, being a mom (this happened 4 years after my twins were born), to too much pop (which never affected me before). Not saying that those factors didn't contribute- but I *know* the adderall is what amplified it all. I had **constant** dry mouth and just recently learned that that is a huge factor in messing up your teeth. \n\nLuckily, I went to the dentist and took care of the problem. I am since off adderall, and haven't had a cavity or problem since. \n\nSo, in short- I think dry mouth and a lack of giving a shit causes meth mouth. \n\nAlso, the adderall made me pick like crazy. I had sores that would not heal for almost a year. After 16 months of being off adderall - any unhealed sores are finally gone and my face is once again clear. I never looked anywhere near as bad as the anti-meth pics, but it was embarrassing to always have some sort of blemish on my face (which I never had), and/or when someone would notice a huge sore on my arm that had been there for many months. \n\nSo glad I quit that stuff. I couldn't imagine what meth would actually do to me. \n",
"This probably is not true in all occasions, and to be fair I don't know anyone in real life who uses Heroin. But one think I've from watching Intervention on TV it seems like most everyone who abuses Heroin is *more* attractive then the average person without fail, whereas thats not true with the other drugs. Is there something to this or are they just picking attractive people for the show, or am I crazy?",
"They don't, technically. What you see in those photos of 'meth addicts' over time going from normal to unkempt, is a cause of their hygiene. If I recall correctly 'meth mouth' occurs because the addict stops brushing their teeth. Normal hygiene goes by the wayside when you're addicted to these substances.",
"Constriction of blood vessels decreases the amount of blood that reaches parts of the body, and parts that rely on the smallest vessels may not receive enough blood to remain healthy. Skin and the face are two examples, and the mouth is a special case because other regulating systems are also compromised, like saliva. Smoking complicates mouth problems, and injection further compromises the already-suffering skin with wounds, which the body struggles to heal. Not sure about hair, eyes, and nails and stuff. ",
"Long term meth use hurts saliva production, so plaque stays on teeth longer, rotting them.\nSource- I work at a rehab center. Everyone comes in with really messed up teeth and end up getting dental work the same month. Lots and lots of pulled teefers.",
"There are many effects from coming down off of a drug. Anxiety and itchiness are a couple of them. People on meth and crack tend to scratch at themselves a lot, which is part of the reason you see so many open skin sores. I've seen crackheads detox before... All they do is scratch, eat, and sleep. Like the others said, poor hygiene is the biggest factor in a crappy overall appearance.",
"Not sleeping for days on end, constantly scratching at the crawling sensation side-effect of being on meth, lack of proper hygiene and not eating for long periods of time basically. ",
"According to the billboards near my house it will make you want to punch things and be naked and shivering.",
"I used to smoke crack. I would stay up for three days at a time on benders, then sleep for three after and repeat. All that mattered was getting more. I didn't care about hygiene, except for when coming down... The water helped ease it. Dehydration and not eating didn't help, that stuff makes your body wants (other than more rock of course) all go away. I thought I was keeping my usage on the low-down but a couple friends could tell, so I'm assuming I was looking gross. The come down also makes you want to crawl out of your own skin. When you're high, you feel no pain as well so cuts go unnoticed. Burns on your lips from smoking a hot pipe don't matter. \n\nGod I'm glad I got out. ",
"I have some first hand knowlege of this. Biggest reason I saw people start to look bad was because of the picking. Of course the wrinkles, bad teeth and bad hair were because of the chemicals. Most meth heads I knew were cleaner than normal people because they obsessed about it. Hence the picking. But I never saw anyone look like the public service announcements. One guy I knew had a big sore on his hand, another lady had no teeth by the age of 30, and everyone got fat after using it for more than a few years. ",
"I had a neighbor that smoked meth and I thought the sores on his face were from scratching. The comments here say otherwise. I once found him in his car singing and rolling around in the front seat. I heard his yelping and I thought a child was screaming and being violated, it was him singing to Rush or something. I asked if everything was OK and he said his doctor recommended small use. It's worse than alcoholism but almost the same, regarding addiction. I think the guy used to have itches and scratch them until they became raw. They were all over his face all the time. I gather from a google search that it's from picking at imaginary bugs crawling on your face. I doubt that.\n\nAlso, things like adderall are very closely related to meth, and it's prescribed to children but nobody cares aside from the pharmaceutical manufacturers that push to get the meds prescribed. If they stopped giving kids this shit, they'd lose sales money from parents that don't pay their kids enough attention. We don't want that now, do we?",
"I also believe much of the deterioration comes from the fact that meth reduces your appetite and users can go several days without eating. This creates an emaciated look. Users also suffer from severe insomnia. I have seen people who were awake for 10 days before. Being awake this long is really bad for you and can cause mental problems as well as physical ones. ",
"My best friend's daughter is a meth/oxy head. She got bit on the ankle by a brown recluse. Instead of gettting it treated, she let it fester just so she could keep getting perscriptions for oxy. At some point, my friend got a call from her saying she needed help and was in serious pain. \n\nWhen he went over to the drug hole she was living in, he said he almost barfed from the smell in the room. He looked at her foot and said the wound looked like a small pizza with extra sauce and cheese. Yum! He showed me a picture he took of the wound and he wasn't kidding. It was red and all pussey and some of the skin looked black or charred. He took her to the hospital, they cleaned it up and gave her something for it. \n\nTwo weeks later...she let the wound go again just so she could get more oxy. Before he could go down and try and save her again, she got picked up for a parol violation. While in the county jail, they fixed her wound.",
"People have discussed the physical (saliva and itching) and psychological (decreased awareness/care) effects resulting in a change in a person's appearance. But I think, at least in terms of meth, there is another element.\n\nIf you got your methamphetamine from a doctor, you would still likely experience many of those same effects. But due to the fact that, I'd imagine, the majority of the meth one buys on the street is not of a particularly high quality, the likelihood of trace chemicals or adulterants is important. \n\nI knew a person who was extracting another drug, DMT, for their own use. The resultant product was of high quality, but because of the use of lye in the extraction process, over time he started having skin issues due to secreting trace amounts of lye. \n\nConsidering the collection of chemicals necessary to make meth, or techniques used by dealers to increase profit, the sweating or metabolizing of these chemicals seems to be another significant factor.",
"Drug addicts don't take care of their bodies. The body deteriorates. This is why severely depressed people or people coming off a video game binge look a lot more like drug addicts.",
"I never did meth, but I was on adderall for a few years and since I've heard they are pretty similar, I would like to add something.\n\nEven though I took care of myself, hygiene wise- I still ended up with a very mild case of \"meth mouth\". I went from having great teeth, to needing two root canals and having 9 cavities filled within a year. At first, blame was placed on genetics, being a mom (this happened 4 years after my twins were born), to too much pop (which never affected me before). Not saying that those factors didn't contribute- but I *know* the adderall is what amplified it all. I had **constant** dry mouth and just recently learned that that is a huge factor in messing up your teeth. \n\nLuckily, I went to the dentist and took care of the problem. I am since off adderall, and haven't had a cavity or problem since. \n\nSo, in short- I think dry mouth and a lack of giving a shit causes meth mouth. \n\nAlso, the adderall made me pick like crazy. I had sores that would not heal for almost a year. After 16 months of being off adderall - any unhealed sores are finally gone and my face is once again clear. I never looked anywhere near as bad as the anti-meth pics, but it was embarrassing to always have some sort of blemish on my face (which I never had), and/or when someone would notice a huge sore on my arm that had been there for many months. \n\nSo glad I quit that stuff. I couldn't imagine what meth would actually do to me. \n",
"This probably is not true in all occasions, and to be fair I don't know anyone in real life who uses Heroin. But one think I've from watching Intervention on TV it seems like most everyone who abuses Heroin is *more* attractive then the average person without fail, whereas thats not true with the other drugs. Is there something to this or are they just picking attractive people for the show, or am I crazy?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
48hfl8
|
Why did so many cultures develop or widely adopt iron around the same time?
|
It seems like around 1200-1000BC, such a wide range of cultures moved into the Iron Age, from the Greeks to Mesopotamians to Indians and I've even read of iron smelting being used in Sub-Saharan civilizations (such as the Nok) starting around the time. I've heard of the Bronze Age collapse possibly caused by the mysterious "Sea Peoples", but that wouldn't explain Vedic civilizations using iron.
To me this points to some global weather pattern/geological shift that made iron more available and logical to use or made tin less available. Is there any evidence of the sort? Or is it all one massive unsolved coincidence?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/48hfl8/why_did_so_many_cultures_develop_or_widely_adopt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0jqr9t"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"The process actually took a much longer time. We have evidence for iron being used deep into the 2nd milennium BC, but it remained a rarity / luxury for centuries. Perhaps this is because its manufacture and full potential was still poorly understood, or perhaps because - as a material - it lends itself to very different scientific / cosmological / magical ways or relating to the world than bronze does (cf. Chris Gosden 2012).\n\nIron starts to really catch on in the Near East around the beginning of the first milennium. Around 1100, the Mediterranean was experiencing a severe economic and demographic collapse, almost certainly as a result of climate pressures that led to crop failures and the disappearance of most major Mediterranean civilizations. A popular theory argues that this 'Dark Age' cut off access to the long-distance trade routes through which copper and tin reached the Near East, forcing people to find an alternative metal. And iron ore, unlike copper, is plentiful in most parts of the world - once bronze was cut off, people realized iron's advantages and never looked back.\n\nIt's also possible that the shift to iron accompanied transformations in religion and understandings of the world - again, see Gosden 2012. His article, though brief, makes the important argument that radical changes in technology usually involve social transformations as well as economic pressures, and he notes that many cultures seem to have resisted the adoption of iron long after the starting date we usually assign to the iron age, he inks because bronze was so central to their magical understanding of how technology ought to work.\n\nIron doesn't really become common in Western Europe until a few centuries later still (c8th century), once population is recovering from the 11th century collapse.\n\nSo it's not a sudden transformation - iron took roughly a millennia from its discovery to replace bronze as the default material for tools.\n\nBut some changes did clustered around 1200-1000 BC, and these occurred during the massive social upheavals that followed a period of climate change, famine, and economic and social collapse / slow recovery.\n\n\n---\n\nGosden, C., (2012), Material, Magic and Matter: understanding different ontologies: in “Maran, J. and Stockhammer, P. (eds) Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters”, pp 13-19, Oxford: Oxbow Books."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3lr0n9
|
Are there any particularly vivid contemporary account of ancients cities?
|
I'm interested in accounts by contemporaries of ancient cities such as Rome, Alexandria or Babylon (but I'm interested in anything). I'm hoping there are texts which get into what the different neighbourhood are like, what can be bought in the market, how many locals and how many foreigners are in the streets and stuff that really brings life to the streets.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3lr0n9/are_there_any_particularly_vivid_contemporary/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv8wzi0",
"cv8xoa0",
"cv8zkrb"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
9
],
"text": [
"Yes, there are many.\n\n[Starting on page 251 of this book](_URL_1_) you'll find Herodotus's description of Babylon, written in the 4th Century BC.\n\nAlexandria was founded in the 3rd Century BC, and both Arrian of Nicomedia and Diodorus Siculus both wrote about the founding of the city. Though their writings were centuries after the fact, Arrian did have access to texts that were later lost, including Ptolemy's biography of Alexander. (Ptolemy was Alexander the Great's most trusted advisor.) Maybe not the \"vivid\" description you're looking for, though.\n\nProbably more up your alley is the description of Alexandria in \"De Bello Alexandrino\" written circa 40 BC and attributed to Julius Caesar or someone close to him. [Here is an English translation](_URL_0_) of the original Latin text.\n\nI'll leave it up to others who may know more about Rome.\n\nThe problem with many of the texts of ancient historians is that their writings aren't always matter of fact. Depending on the author, they frequently stray into \"tall tale\" territory. For instance, in Herodotus's description of Babylon, he describes the city's walls as being ~50 meters thick, with a hundred doors. Later research reveals the city had more like eight doors in the city walls. So take these kinds of accounts for what they're worth.\n",
"The best source I can think of is Juvenal's [Satire 3](_URL_0_). It basically gives a bunch of reasons why no one should live in Rome. Most of his satires talk about life in the city but this one is about the city in general. Other poets like Catullus, Ovid (*Amores*) and Martial also give a good indication of \"regular life\". ",
"Peter Levi's translation of *The Guide to Greece* by Pausanias, from the second century. This is a detailed travel guide that describes all the art in the temples, the agoras and acropolises, and gives a good idea of what you will see at public events. He tells ancient legends, folktales that are really pretty modern, and lacks only maps. His descriptions are so good that you can often draw up the city center from him."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://juliuscaesar.altervista.org/en/alewar_book.html",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=YyQTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA252&dq=herodotus+description+of+babylon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMIp7zF8vmHyAIVBDKICh24ggfN#v=onepage&q&f=false"
],
[
"http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_03.htm"
],
[]
] |
|
i2h9c
|
If there is a such thing as a graviton, why do black
holes have a gravitational force?
|
If a photon cannot escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, why would a graviton be able to? How do proponents of the graviton reconcile a massless particle that can apparently escape a black hole?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i2h9c/if_there_is_a_such_thing_as_a_graviton_why_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c20ckbd",
"c20ckcm",
"c20ehjy"
],
"score": [
7,
63,
4
],
"text": [
"Before we knew about photons, we had a *classical* field theory of electromagnetism. Electric and magnetic fields exerted forces on objects that were charged and thus coupled to the field. And these classical fields could vibrate in electromagnetic waves, though the waves didn't have a fundamental \"packet\" of vibration. \n\nWell General Relativity tells us about a similarly continuous field, with similarly non-packetized vibrations. There's no observations yet to suggest that the curvature fields of GR are quantized (packets) like the other fields we're familiar with. \n\nMany people believe that since the other fields were actually quantized fields, that GR will eventually be one too. The packets, the quantized excitations of the field, would be named gravitons. Other people believe that there's no need to quantize it, and that between the lack of observational need and the mathematical shortcomings of the attempted quantized GR theories that it may just be a classical field.",
"Well, this is actually a rather nuanced question that touches on several interesting concepts: how do quantized fields work, where do virtual particles come from, how does the holographic principle apply to black holes and so on.\n\nWe aren't going to talk about gravitons, though, because there's no evidence that they exist. Instead we're going to talk about photons.\n\nPhotons are localized excitations of the electric field. We all know that when you put two charged particles next to each other but separated by some distance, they accelerate. If they're identically charged, they accelerate away from each other. If they're oppositely charged, they accelerate toward each other.\n\nWe also know that \"action at a distance\" is not a useful concept in our universe. All phenomena are local. So how is it that one charged particle can \"reach out\" and \"push\" the other one?\n\nThe answer, of course, is that that's not what happens. What happens is that charged particles interact with the electric field, which fills all of space and time. A charged particle gains momentum from the electric field; that's how charged particles accelerate.\n\nThe electric field is a *quantized* field. That means we can model the interaction of two charged particles as an exchange of *virtual* photons. I emphasize the word \"virtual\" here because these photons we're imagining aren't actually real. They're just states of the electric field.\n\nSo is it the case that one charged particle *emits* these virtual photons and the other *absorbs* them? No, that's not a useful way to look at it. Instead, imagine that the virtual photons are emitted *by the electric field itself.*\n\nThis is how black holes can have electric charge. When a charged particle falls into a black hole, that charge doesn't just *disappear* from the universe. It hangs around, continuing to contribute to the electric field. Another charged particle near the black hole will interact *with the electric field* and accelerate appropriately, depending on the net charge on the black hole and the charge on the particle.\n\nBut that raises the interesting question of just how it is that charge \"hangs around\" when charged particles fall into a black hole. The answer — and I'm skipping over about twenty years of very esoteric theoretical physics here — is the holograph principle. That is, when a charged particle falls into a black hole, its charge is conserved *on the event horizon itself,* along with all the other conserved quantum numbers associated with that particle. We can imagine that the black hole is actually an infinitely thin, spherically symmetric shell of charge. The electric field created by a such a shell of charge is in fact indistinguishable from the electric field created by a point source of the same total charge — that's Gauss' Law — so everything works out.\n\nSo let's bring this back to the question you asked. *If* gravitons existed — and that's not a conditional statement; it's subjunctive — they would be emitted by the quantized gravitational field *surrounding* a black hole, the source of such field being the energy of the event horizon itself, and indistinguishable from the field that would be created by a dimensionless point source.\n\nLong story short? It's not a problem. There are far bigger challenges in formulating a working theory of gravity as a quantized field in flat spacetime.",
"This is the #2 question on _URL_1_.\n_URL_0_\n\nI still don't understand it well enough to try to summarize, but there are some good answers there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does-gravity-escape-a-black-hole",
"physics.stackexchange.com"
]
] |
|
31sqjp
|
why do dogs de-stuff their toys?
|
I've always thought it might be something instinctual (i.e, hunting, etc.) but watching my two dogs completely de-stuff two toys only to ignore all the stuffing and keep playing with the empty toy made me wonder if there's a simple explanation for the behavior.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31sqjp/eli5_why_do_dogs_destuff_their_toys/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq4lspw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Many dogs have their own version of canine OCD. Which is why you might observe them doing strange things, like chasing their own tails. \n\nOCD in dogs can often be attributed by not getting enough exercise or proper obedience training. This can also be breed-specific. Border Collies for example often have OCD-like tendencies more than other breeds which lead them to stuff like chasing shadows and etc.\n\nThe best way to combat these behaviours is keep an energetic dog well exercised and properly trained. As for your dog ripping the stuffing out of a few toys, that's not a cause to be concerned about. \n\nsource: my mother is a dog-trainer. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7zmsop
|
Why does snow melt in the sunlight, even when the temperature outside is below freezing?
|
My first thought is that the sun is just a big ball of heat, but if the air temp is below freezing, how can the heat melt the snow?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7zmsop/why_does_snow_melt_in_the_sunlight_even_when_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dupaqk8",
"dupasfo"
],
"score": [
5,
14
],
"text": [
"Just a placeholder until someone better provides an answer:\n\nMajor forms of heat transfer are:\nConvection, conduction, advection, radiation.\n\nHeat going from the atmosphere to the snow would be generally be conduction or convection, depending on whether the air is moving.\n\nRadiation works via electromagnetic waves. No solid medium is required. The sun can heat the snow via electromagnetic waves without being in contact, either direct or indirect via atmosphere.\n\nThere are probably some inaccuracies here, first post on this sub. :/",
"Why does a plate of steel melt when shot with a giant frikkin laser, even though the air temperature is only 70^o F? ;) \n\nIt's just a less intense version of that.\n\nThere are 3 ways heat transfers into things (some might say only two). Conduction - contact with something hot (put snow in your mouth and it will melt). Convection - Hot air or water etc flowing over something (use a hair dryer on snow and it will melt, though slower than you might expect). Radiation - in simple English, heat waves. (this is why bonfires in winter carnivals still feel warm even though the air temperature is freezing cold).\n\nThe air does conduction or convection heat transfer. The Sun does radiant heat transfer. So the heat transfer from the air is not a way to melt snow if the air temperature is below freezing, but the heat from the Sun might be enough.\n\nIf the air temperature is *closer* to freezing at 32^o F, but still below freezing, that will help get the sunlight heat over the treshhhold.\n\nYou can get a boost by putting black colored powder on the snow, to absorb more of that radiant heat. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
p74il
|
If you get all your daily nutritional value in one meal and don't consume anything for the rest of the day, is it bad for you? If so, why?
|
Can your body not sufficiently use all of that in one sitting? Will it store most of it instead? What exactly happens?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p74il/if_you_get_all_your_daily_nutritional_value_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3n1lcc",
"c3n292t"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Some of the good stuff can't be stored by your body, and it's more about having a constant adequate supply over time than it is about getting your daily/weekly/annual amounts.\n\nImagine taking all your vitamins for the year on the 1st January then not consuming any more for the rest of the year. You're not going to do so well. The same is true on a day and even hourly scale, but there's a point at which it gets absurd, and 'daily' is about it.",
"Your body can only absorb so much of certain nutrients in one sitting, so if you are eating all you need at once, much of that is just going to travel through your GI tract and right out of you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2gzs61
|
What exactly was the relation between the Greeks and Romans and the planets?
|
How did they know they were planets and not stars? Did they name them after their gods as an honor or as some sort of ritual practice?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gzs61/what_exactly_was_the_relation_between_the_greeks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cko0gnf",
"ckp13t3"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"To the ancient Greeks and Romans, planets meant \"wandering stars\". That means that unlike all of the other stars, which moved together through the sky day by day, season by season, planets moved relative to all of the other stars on a regular basis. They did not understand why. They did not know that they were round masses of rock that, like earth, orbit the sun. They named them after\nGods to honor the gods. ",
"hi! you may be interested in these previous posts\n\n* [When did scientists recognize the planets in our solar system as (relatively) nearby planets, and not as other stars. How did they know that these celestial bodies were planets and not stars?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [What was the relationship between Ancient Greek religion/ and the named for them? Did they think Venus, Mars, etc were the actual ?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [Why were the planets named after the gods the ancients named them after? More specifically, why was Saturn given his own planet instead of a more... prominent god?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Did ancient Greeks know that Olympos was the highest mountain in Greece when they placed their there? Did they know Jupiter is the largest when they named it after the king of , Zeus?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [When ancient people named the planets after their gods, did they really believe that what they saw in the sky was that god, or did they know it was just an object named after them?](_URL_3_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k9ok6/did_ancient_greeks_know_that_olympos_was_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iaxt2/what_was_the_relationship_between_ancient_greek/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2072w4/why_were_the_planets_named_after_the_gods_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24jeow/when_ancient_people_named_the_planets_after_their/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19lbh0/when_did_scientists_recognize_the_planets_in_our/"
]
] |
|
20itb2
|
Usage of Spanish and Mexican currency in the US economy before the gold rush.
|
I am do a project about currency and had read about this, I had forgotten to cite it and now I can not find the info. So what was its importance and are there any good articles out there?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20itb2/usage_of_spanish_and_mexican_currency_in_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg3o9yv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"**Colonial**\n\nSpain had the greatest influence on American currency. Spain’s large supply of gold and silver made it the largest contributor of coinage to the territories that would become the United States. Gold issues were used by wealthier businessmen and bankers while the common people used silver [8-reales, pieces of eight \\(also called milled dollars or cobs\\).](_URL_0_) Each reale was worth 12 and a half cents and the coin was frequently in half, quarters or into all eight. However of course the coins reach did not extend everywhere mostly confined to cities or coastal towns and rarely seeing use in rural areas. \n\n**Revolutionary**\n\nWhen America received independence in 1776, although they would not mint coins for another 16 years, they set the value of their dollar to the value of Spanish dollars. Also\nEven up until the war of 1812 the majority of all coins in circulation were minted at the Spanish controlled mints of Mexico City, Lima and Potosi. \n\nA history of money and banking in the United States, Murray Rothbard\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www3.nd.edu/~rarebook/coins/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/Sp-Cobs.intro.html"
]
] |
|
bco898
|
What led to the cognizance in the early 1950s that Rock and Roll was a new, distinct thing, and what distinguished it from its forerunners?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bco898/what_led_to_the_cognizance_in_the_early_1950s/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekuj21d"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"According to Marion Keisker, who worked for Sun Records during the 1950s, the label owner Sam Phillips constantly said words to the effect of \"if I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a billion dollars.\" Additionally, according to Keisker, Phillips wasn't saying this cynically in the way you might think; he started the Memphis Recording Service, essentially, to put out all the R & B music he was hearing and loving around Memphis, and recorded early music by the likes of Ike Turner and Howlin' Wolf, which was licensed to Northern record labels before he started Sun Records in earnest. Phillips, here, was as much frustrated at the racism of the music industry and of the listeners who ignored the fantastic music he was putting out, as much as he had dollar signs in his eyes looking out for the white man he mentioned.\n\nAnd then, of course, Elvis Presley came to Sun Studios to record some singles to show his mum (or so he said; Peter Guralnick argues he was primarily trying to get noticed by Sam Phillips...which eventually worked), and Phillips found Elvis's ability to make a sort of upbeat countrified R & B. And, well, the rest is history...oh wait, that's what I'm meant to be writing about here!\n\nElvis's Sun Records recordings in 1954 and 1955 did well regionally, and Elvis became a regional star. In the wake of the enormous success of Bill Haley and the Comets' 'Rock Around The Clock' - the biggest hit of 1955 - a major record label, RCA Records, bought Elvis's contract from Sam Phillips and Sun Records. In 1956, with major label backing, and a sound which still captured a little of the eerieness of the Sun Records sound (with its slapback echo), but smoothed off the edges, Elvis became the biggest name in pop music, having a succession of #1 singles, and conquering the rapidly rising TV variety shows ([I discuss this elsewhere](_URL_0_)) - the music that in 1955 had been a sort of novelty single sung by a balding older man (Haley), was now the dominant music of a generation ([though, as I discuss elsewhere, we should be careful assuming all of a generation likes the same music](_URL_3_)). By the end of 1956, rock'n'roll was a different beast to R & B in important ways - [not least of which was that almost all the prominent rock'n'roll stars on major record labels - and thus with significant national resources behind them - were white](_URL_6_) - ultimately, the likes of Chuck Berry on Chess Records and Little Richard on Specialty Records had an uphill battle attempting to compete with white rock'n'roll stars on major labels, and radio stations and television variety shows that would prefer to play the white, sanitized Pat Boone cover of 'Tutti Frutti' than the wilder real thing (i.e., Little Richard).\n\nPart of why RCA Records took a chance (of sorts) on signing Elvis was that for the first time, more or less, retailers, advertisers and, of course, record companies, were aware of a *youth demographic* - the children born in the Post World War II baby boom (the baby boomers, in other words) - who you might expect to have different tastes and interests to their elders, having grown up in a fundamentally prosperous age with the rise of affordable consumer electrical goods - washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc - and cars (if you were middle class and white), and an age where people increasingly lived in suburbs rather than the inner city or rural areas ([I discuss youth music in the context of the 1910s here](_URL_1_) which should give some context to what came afterwards). Rock'n'roll - R & B made *for* white teenagers, in other words - was marketed towards this new demographic, very successfully. The term 'rock & roll', in the era before Elvis's success, was mostly commonly associated with Alan Freed's radio show in Cleveland, which - before Bill Haley's 'Rock Around The Clock' and then Elvis - traded upon playing a particular selection of R & B (and some upbeat country music of the era) to the white teenagers of Cleveland to much success (though the term is much older as a description of music than Alan Freed); Alan Freed's use of the term 'rock'n'roll' was essentially a rebranding of R & B, in the belief it would appeal more to the white teenagers who made up his audience. \n\nIn March 1952, Freed put on a concert in Cleveland for his audience, the Moondog Coronation Ball, which promptly sold over 20,000 tickets to a 12,000 person venue (due to printing errors); the police shut down the concert after one song. By 1954 Freed was broadcasting in the New York market, popularising the term 'rock'n'roll' there for R & B music marketed to white teenagers, and providing some of the groundwork that led to the success of Bill Haley & The Comets and then Elvis.\n\nIt's also fair enough to say that 'rock & roll' *is* different to the R & B of the era. R & B in the decade before 1955-56 was a diverse set of music, with quite a variety, from more uptown recordings more obviously descended from jazz and swing (e.g., the jive of a Louis Jordan) to some fairly adult-centered recordings with more country origins (the Chicago blues), to urban street corner harmony groups (what we might now call 'doo wop', though it wasn't called that at the time - groups like The Penguins). Rock & roll took a particular corner of R & B - somewhere in between the uptown stuff and the Chicago blues - and then refined it to the tastes of white teenagers - the music became straighter (with less of a shuffle or swing feel, and less of a 'behind the beat' feel), faster and more energetic in both tempo and vocal performance, and with more focus on the electric guitar than there typically was in R & B of the period (outside of the Chicago blues, which rarely had the high tempo energy of rock'n'roll - but when it did, it sounds *very* rock & roll to modern ears). The drum beat of rock'n'roll was heavier, more prominent in the recordings, taking more from the drum styles of jazz drummers like Gene Krupa than R & B drummers typically did.\n\nThere is also a large influence of (largely white) country music in rock'n'roll; Bill Haley had started his career as an exponent of Western Swing, a country-jazz meld that is best known these days for being the 'western' in the term Country & Western, which generally played music in the style of swing, but with a certain countryfied-ness - a focus on fiddles rather than horns, for examples. Elvis himself, of course, covered country songs like 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky' ([here's Elvis's version](_URL_2_) and [here's Bill Monroe's 1946 country original](_URL_5_)) alongside R & B songs like [Big Mama Thornton's 'Hound Dog'](_URL_4_). And as much as the country establishment of the 1950s protested against rock'n'roll (and they were not really *that* established in the 1950s - it's really only in the mid-1940s that you see a distinctive move from the tradition-focused 'hillbilly' music to a more professional Nashville-based country music establishment with a focus on songwriting and a cleaner, more 'poppy' sound), they were relatively happy to let in (white) refugees from 1950s rock'n'roll in their later careers (e.g., Waylon Jennings who'd almost died in Buddy Holly's plane crash, or Jerry Lee Lewis, who turned to country in the mid-1960s after giving up on rock'n'roll), who in the 1950s often made fairly similar music to the country of the period, except with louder drums. Typically, rock'n'roll of the 1950s made by Southern acts, which has something more of a country-ish feel, with a bit more twang in the guitars, and perhaps less focus on the drums - Elvis, or Carl Perkins, or the Johnny Burnette Trio, or Wanda Jackson - gets called 'rockabilly' (a portmanteau of 'rock'n'roll' and 'hillbilly')."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8z8yp1/elvis_presley_was_famously_filmed_from_only_the/e2hajbz/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9mtwvq/what_would_be_rebellious_teen_music_in_the_1910s/e7hzgl1/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7M0CmkJ-2o",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7rcwqg/in_lets_get_lost_the_documentary_about_jazz/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoHDrzw-RPg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVFpThoeb4",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7kyhnw/is_eminems_charge_that_white_artists_used_black/drifka9/"
]
] |
||
27oc34
|
Did any of the major scientist involved in Nuclear testing seriously believe it could have ignited the atmosphere? If so, why did they go forward with it?
|
I remember reading that 'some scientists' believed that a nuclear explosion could ignite the atmosphere (chain reaction of atomic explosions) and wipe out the whole planet. I'd like to believe that, being rational men, scientists would have disproved the possibility long before performing an experiment with such catastrophic contingency and high school textbooks only include the reference to further dramatize the nuclear testing. (Not sure if this is a better question for AskHistorians or AskScience, so XPosting it.)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27oc34/did_any_of_the_major_scientist_involved_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci2ybny"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The idea was floated briefly in 1942 or so but it was not very hard to calculate that even with really optimistic assumptions about how such a reaction would propagate in the atmosphere, it would still cool down too fast to be of any consequence. There are just too many nuclear processes that can sap away energy, and you need a LOT of confined energy to create large-scale fusion reactions. \n\nIf you are curious about the science in question, [it later got written up as a report.](_URL_0_) Basically it was easy to calculate that the N+N fusion reaction was not easy to get started and even if a few reactions did occur it would not be sufficiently hot to maintain further reactions. It turns out it is very hard to make fusion reactions work on a large scale and they knew this during World War II, well before the Trinity test. It proved to be one of the most difficult parts about solving the problem of the hydrogen bomb (which was explored during WWII as well) — not only will the atmosphere not easily ignite, but even if you _want_ the fusion fuel to ignite, it's not easy for that to happen either."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00329010.pdf"
]
] |
|
2ljrf9
|
why don't homeowners want their property value to lower?
|
Hear me out, but also know that I'm something of a financial ignoramus.
People are always stressing that the neighbor not watering his lawn or the vacant house down the street are lowering property values. And if you're looking to sell your house, that's something to stress over. But if you don't plan to sell your house anytime soon, wouldn't you want your property value to be lower? Aren't your property taxes determined by the value of your property? Surely most people are more concerned with the property taxes they have to pay now rather than the price they may get for their house in 5 years?
I'm sure my understanding is totally misguided, but why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ljrf9/eli5why_dont_homeowners_want_their_property_value/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clvggo8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You want your house to be worth more when you sell it than when you bought it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ohcc2
|
why do most people think mammalian animals are cute/adorable but not other types of creatures (except for /r/whatsthisbug)
|
My wife and I are watching Planet Earth on TV and I'm curious why most humans feel a strong sentiment for other mammals? Is this just a cultural thing localized to Western societies? Does it span globally? I don't think I've ever seen a great explanation.
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ohcc2/eli5_why_do_most_people_think_mammalian_animals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3h9buc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Its basically to do with our evolutionary need to look after our young. We're programmed to find small humans cute in order to make us protect them. This happens to such a degree that anything with similar features to babies (big head, small bodies, large eyes) triggers the same response.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.happynews.com/news/562009/why-baby-animals-cute.htm"
]
] |
|
1z7z0u
|
why are graves dug 6' deep?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z7z0u/why_are_graves_dug_6_deep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfrctab",
"cfreyv6",
"cfrggaw",
"cfrim9w",
"cfrj3ob",
"cfrjjmy",
"cfrjl0j",
"cfrjr0d",
"cfrjs95",
"cfrjt95",
"cfrk8x5",
"cfrlk27",
"cfrlyph",
"cfru42c",
"cfrc7r7"
],
"score": [
373,
2,
27,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
5,
33
],
"text": [
"it is the approximate depth that prevents wildlife from digging it up. both as a matter of moving 6 feet of earth and because the gasses from the body will not filter up quickly enough to be detected by scavengers.\n\nit's also the approximate height of a human being. a digger could easily assess his depth and also get out of the hole under his own power were it necessary.",
"So we have time to prepare for the zombie apocalypse.",
"From my experience, working in a funeral home, this is more of an expression from older days. They are often not usually dug to be six feet deep because it is not necessary. There is a vault that goes around the casket and is not much bigger than a casket, so that should help provide an example of how much is actually going in to the ground, which is probably around 3 1/2 feet in height (a guesstimate). \n\nI have been told that they use to be dug that deep to help protect bodies from wild animals and grave robbers. Vaults protect that casket, thus a body is not really exposed, at least for decades. Plus grave robbing is no longer an issue. \n\nThe people posting about flooding.. That might be true in certain instances but I do not think that is really the case. New Orleans has a lot of flooding and their cemeteries have a bunch of above ground mausoleums to prevent caskets from having this problem, not deep holes. Interesting sight if you ever get the chance to see it by the way. \n\nThus graves really aren't dug that deep anymore and is more of an old expression about six feet deep. Though things in funerals are regional and thus it could be different somewhere else. \n\nEdit: Added information about the purpose of a vault. ",
"I'll bet it's because of congeliturbation - aka the freeze thaw cycle that brings up rocks in fields.",
"Look at it this way. Even before Katrina New Orleans has had caskets floating down the street during floods due to an inability to bury the dead deep enough due to a very high water table. Macabre, and not in a good way.",
"The funerals I've been to, the graves are way deeper than 6ft. More like 8 to 10 ft. This is in West Texas. ",
"It also can be traced back to when the black plague occurred, there were to many bodies to bury and they had to double up burial plots with multiple caskets.",
"I suspect it has to do with staying below the frost line. If below frost is 42\" you need to dig an additional 24\" to accommodate the height of the coffin. It may not make any difference in warm climate, but where it snows, I bet a coffin buried any less than 42\" could potentially heave.",
"So the zombies can't dig themselves out, of course...",
"iirc it's partly so animals don't dig them up",
"its mainly so animals can not smell the body and dig them up.",
"All these reasons are wrong. Graves are 6' deep because that's the minimum cover of soil which will hold back a zombie.",
"Minimum depth to keep zombies from digging themselves out.",
"Damn you reddit for making me interested in the answer to a question I never knew I cared about.",
"During the outbreak of a plague in England, the Mayor of London decided that was the depth needed to prevent infection of others. It was the 17th century, so it probably wasn't very scientific, but just a number chosen to ensure it was deep enough."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1q7fh8
|
What's the deal with Western Sahara?
|
Regarding the legality vs. day to day life of the typical western saharan.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q7fh8/whats_the_deal_with_western_sahara/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd9yqdm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The deal is that it was occupied by Morocco in 1975. Moroccans built a long berm (desert wall) and occupied everything west of it. Everything east of it is occupied by the effectively independent Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, but it's mostly worthless land with a couple of oases and only a really tiny fraction of the total Western Sahara population. [This is how the country is divided now.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flags_of_Morocco_and_the_SADR_over_Western_Sahara_map.png"
]
] |
|
2wv75m
|
why are italian luxury goods far more ubiquitous worldwide than their normal goods?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wv75m/eli5_why_are_italian_luxury_goods_far_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coue2pd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's supply and demand. \n\nIf you're in some other country, you don't buy \"plain\" italian stuff because you have local and cheaper producers who make it, or can get it from China where the labour costs to manufacture stuff is really low and keeps your price down. So Italian stuff doesn't sell to that market. Little demand means little supply, so you don't see it a lot.\n\nHowever, you buy designer labels, elite wines and top tier cars from Italy because that's the only place to get the ones with those particular brands or experiences, and you really don't care about the cost if you're buying that kind of stuff. So the Italian exports that cater to the highest-level markets are the most visible, and the big demand creates a focus on creating a supply."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1c1kl3
|
Wrist watches pre- and post-World War I
|
Today in my Military History class my professor mentioned that prior to WWI it would be rare to see a man in America wearing a wrist watch, and if you did you most likely question his orientation. He then explained how wrist watches were popular/necessary during fighting in Europe in order to properly time artillery strikes.
My questions: 1) was his first two statements accurate, and 2) if so, did their wide-spread use during WWI lead to their acceptance in popular culture after the war?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c1kl3/wrist_watches_pre_and_postworld_war_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9c8wf3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately no proper sources so I'll delete this when a better answer comes along, but one of the descriptive plaques in the clock section of the British Museum describes the acceptance of wrist watches as a fashion. Prior to the war they were seen as a feminine accessory, and men would rather wear a pocket watch. \n\n\nThe American army during WWI began issuing wrist watches to soldiers and their usefulness and the image of battle hardened soldiers wearing them eroded their image as a lady's accessory so men continued to wear them after the war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ps7k8
|
What did other european countries think of Belgium after it was revealed what Leopold II had done in Kongo?
|
A follow-up question: did England consider this incident at all when they were contemplating whether or not to aid Belgium when Germany invaded them in 1914?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ps7k8/what_did_other_european_countries_think_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd5kxy4",
"cd5nf14"
],
"score": [
28,
2
],
"text": [
"It certainly did not go over well. [This article](_URL_2_) has some information about the reaction of British humanitarians to the revelations of the abuses in the Congo. [Here](_URL_1_) is the text of Roger Casement's damning report (I'm sorry it's sideways; download it and rotate in the viewer). [Here](_URL_0_) is the text of the abstract of the \"Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Administration of the Congo Free State\".",
"Not an answer, but could someone enlighten me to what Leopold II did in Kongo?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://archive.org/stream/abstractofreport00belgrich/abstractofreport00belgrich_djvu.txt",
"http://www.scribd.com/doc/181107527/Casement-Roger-The-Congo-Report",
"http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_colonialism_and_colonial_history/v011/11.1.pavlakis.html"
],
[]
] |
|
vtdlc
|
Theoretically, if I were motionless and there was no force of gravity on me, would time stand still?
|
I might have some errors in thought. But it's my understanding the time is relative to gravity and speed and the time we experience is determined from the speed/force of gravity from the earth, as well as the gravity from the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy and so on.. However, if I were to somehow be an environment where there was no force of gravity on me and I were somehow motionless would all time-related functions cease somehow?
I was just thinking about the concept and my question is probably derived from a misunderstanding of the relativity of time.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vtdlc/theoretically_if_i_were_motionless_and_there_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c57gs3l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Time would still move. Also you need to remember motion is relative, so you can be motionless to some objects, but not to others."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
23jbii
|
how did they figure out the shape of te continents before aviation?
|
Like for maps...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23jbii/eli5_how_did_they_figure_out_the_shape_of_te/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgxkh6s",
"cgxlbb4"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Sailing around the edges and making detailed records. Some better than others. A lot of world maps look ridiculous in modern times, but size was a major issue before planes and satellites. Some very old maps of smaller areas, like Great Britain, were far more accurate because they had a massive navy and spent a lot of time surveying to coasts.",
"Triangulating. You pick three distinct landmarks and do some math to determine where they are on the map, and then draw the landscape around them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6nfpbj
|
why were white people taller than asians? does it have something to do with what they eat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nfpbj/eli5_why_were_white_people_taller_than_asians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk93ccp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In short, yes. After WW2, some Asian countries began to import meat and other foods, and saw a drastic increase in average height. Most people in Japan, for instance, relied on a diet of rice, with some occasional fish, pre-war. Think about how much teenagers eat when they have their growth spurt; if that food isn't available the body has to use its energy more conservatively."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6n4wgo
|
I have recently become aware that Henry Kissinger is STILL one of America's top diplomats, even fifty years later. What is it about Kissinger that makes him this timeless advisor of Herculean proportions?
|
So I have this really brainy coworker who knows a butt load about history and he seems to know a bunch of Washington types and he said to me today that, "there are only really two diplomats working in the world that are truly elite - Lavrov and Kissinger."
I understand that this is probably an exaggeration, but my surprise was that he - and upon my further reading many others - still consider Kissinger to be the sort of Ultimate Voice in the US government over the last 50+ years when it comes to Foreign Anything. My further research has Kissinger in rooms with Kushner in 2017 acting on behalf of the United States, and his modern presence shocked me.
Is Kissinger's modern influence being overstated by my coworker? If it isn't, how is it even possible that Henry Kissinger (who in my 1993-born brain is synonymous with NIXON/SEVENTIES and hardly anything more) has carried his influence all the way to present day in his nineties? Half the time I hear about him he's being accused of war crimes, the other half speaks of him in the past tense.
To be brief and redundant, my question is:
I usually associate Kissinger with the 70s, but he is still considered not only relevant but essential to US foreign policy. What did he do in the 80s and 90s to maintain his importance (as anything after 1998 is not allowed to be discussed on this sub)?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6n4wgo/i_have_recently_become_aware_that_henry_kissinger/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk6vk3k"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The thing about Kissinger and his association with Nixon is that Kissinger didn't go down with the proverbial Watergate ship. In the immediate years after Watergate Nixon was pretty much ostracised. It wasn't until the mid-eighties that Nixon slowly got accepted for his foreign policy expertise again, and only in a private capacity, as a speaker and author. He did do some unofficial work advising Reagan on diplomacy with Gorbachev but other than that he was never really involved with government again. Kissinger meanwhile was mostly involved with academia, although he also has involvement in several consulting firms. His only official involvement with the US government came following the September 11 attacks. In 2002 the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was established to investigate the attacks with Kissinger as chairman, but he stepped down after only a few weeks to avoid having to divulge his client list as a political consultant.\n\nKissenger managed to avoid the stain of Watergate. He has been accused of war crimes, mostly over his role in planning the Cambodia bombings. But without Watergate looming over him he has always maintained a respected voice in foreign relationships. He pulled off what was probably the biggest coup in post-World War II diplomatic relations by opening up diplomacy with the Peoples' Republic of China. The amount of manoeuvring that took, outside of the public eye, has earned him the respect of even his most vocal critics. No matter what their opinion on the legality of the policies he has been involved in, he has always been given at least grudging acknowledgement for his accomplishments. Perhaps no other moment highlights this than the 2016 Democratic primary debates. Hillary Clinton pushed her foreign policy credentials by talking about the fact that Kissinger advised her and approved of her work as secretary of state, with Sanders replying that he was proud that Kissinger wasn't a friend of his and wouldn't advice him.\n\nThe problem with quantifying something like Kissinger's influence is that while certain facts, like his constant involvement advising top level US officials, are easy to establish, the consequences of his advice, how relevant it actually is, and what influence it has, whether positive or negative, is almost impossible to quantify. Furthermore, by necessity, a lot of his work has been carried out in secret. There's still a lot we don't know. There's a famous story about Mao offering to export ten million Chinese women to the United States. This came from papers released by the State Department in 2008. When Mao was reminded of the fact that his derogatory comments about Chinese women would cause disapproval he and Kissinger calmly agreed to have them stricken from the record. Obviously that hasn't actually happened, but who knows what has been removed?\n\nThere are three books on Kissinger that I can recommend: *The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House* by Seymour Hersh, *The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy* by Jussi Hanhimäki and *Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist* by Niall Ferguson. All three books provide different angles and none of them tell the complete story, but all of them provide interesting analyses of both Kissinger as a person and as a diplomat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5yeoln
|
why is it that with how advanced we've become technologically, we still cannot have peoples medical records be able to be transferred between all the doctors?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yeoln/eli5_why_is_it_that_with_how_advanced_weve_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"depdf55",
"depdfny"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"- Who would be responsible?\n\n- How do you secure it?\n\n- How do you prevent misuse?\n\nThese are just some of the questions that are hard to answer before you can have an electronic patient file ",
"It's entirely possible, depends on your country's healthcare system. Where I live (Israel) we have exactly that. But in some countries there isn't such a system in place or healthcare companies don't share data to stop people moving to another company. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4y3bq4
|
Why are the Russians preserving Lenins body?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4y3bq4/why_are_the_russians_preserving_lenins_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6lbzvr"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The decision to preserve and enshrine Lenin's corpse was opposed to not only by his family, both his two sisters and brother objected to it as did Lenin's wife, but also likely by the great man himself. Lenin in his waning days had noted he wanted wither a simple burial or a cremation. The reason for not honoring these wishes was twofold. Firstly, there were no crematoria available in Moscow for Lenin's corpse, thus preventing the family from immediately pushing for Lenin's desired funeral. Second, a simple funeral was something not in the offing for the emerging political culture of the Soviet state. When Lenin died in 1924 there was already a strong cult of personality that surrounded him as the guiding light of the Revolution and the founder of the Soviet state. Lenin alternated between being leery of this cult of personality, but also encouraging it. Therefore it was quite natural for the Central Committee would plan a grandiose funeral and tomb. \n\nBut it was not a straight line between constructing a massive mausoleum and putting an embalmed corpse on public display. A number of members in Lenin's funeral commission opposed the idea as somewhat grotesque, but the embalming idea had two very powerful backers: Felix Dzerzhinsky and Stalin. The former would say:\n\n > if science can preserve a human body for a long time, then why not do it, the tsars were embalmed just because they were tsars. We will do it because he was a great person, unlike any other.\n\nThe duo were able to steamroll any opposition to the embalming proposals and win over a number of the inner circle to their side. The funeral committee had already used embalming methods to preserve the body for the initial throngs of viewers, so this was an evolutionary step despite the vocal opposition of Lenin's family. \n\nThe exact rationale behind the embalming of Lenin's corpse is somewhat unclear. Many of the pro-embalming camp were quite chary to explain their exact rationale for wanting to do so or admitting that embalming served the immediate interests of the Soviet state. The Central Committee member Avel Enukidze justified the embalming as a gift for future generations so that they would know the physical features of the founder of the USSR, but explicitly denied they were turning him into a quasi-spiritual relic for the Soviet state. But despite Enukidze's denials, there was an immediate propaganda value for embalming Lenin. The novel use of embalming, which preserved Lenin's skin and features, was a way to showcase Soviet science and progress. The then-recent discovery of Pharaoh Tutankhamen in 1922 was a global event and heightened awareness of mummies and other preserved bodies. The state commissioned the prominent architect Alexey Shchusev to design a permanent mausoleum and the resulting elegant design fused modern Constructivist styles with Mayan motifs, suggesting not only the inherent modernity of Lenin, but also cementing his place in global history. \n\nThese stylistic elements of the mausoleum and its displayed occupant opened up criticism that Soviet leaders were creating a religious shrine in an avowedly atheistic state. The state's encouragement of visits to the mausoleum and production of Lenin paraphernalia aped the religious practices of pilgrimages to Orthodox shrines and the household veneration of icons. Although defenders of embalming like Enukidze explicitly denied this, this secular religiosity surrounding his corpse was something immediately apparent to contemporaries and likely occurred to the Central Committee as well. Stalin was a former seminarian and Dzerzhinsky had at one point studied for the Catholic priesthood, so both were familiar both with the mechanisms of religious worship and veneration of objects. The mausoleum not only featured Lenin's body, but was adjacent to the newly established Lenin Museum that featured many personal relics of his life and work such as the gun that shot him in a failed assassination attempt, as well as the bullet extracted from Lenin's body. Many of the official tours of the mausoleum included in their itinerary a stop at the museum. \n\nLenin's state funeral and display helped cement a grandiose funeral culture among the USSR's leaders that would remain in place throughout the lifespan of the USSR. Although Stalin aspired to have the same preservation as with Lenin going so far to have his corpse preserved by the same methods, de-Stalinization put an end to his attempt to be elevated to the same status as Lenin. But while Lenin's preserved corpse brooked no rivals, state funerals in the USSR were both events that sanctified the individual and the current political order. The state funeral of [assassinated party boss Sergei Kirov](_URL_0_) was a major media event and mass state ceremony during the Stalin period was indicative of this trend. Part of Stalin's own emerging cult of personality was for him to be the most prominent pallbearer for a figure celebrated by the state. This trend of politicized funeral processions continued despite de-Stalinization. Being afforded a prominent place in a state funeral was a sign of political power and ascendancy and one of the intelligence tasks of CIA analysts during the Cold War was to parse out political hierarchies based on Committee members' positions within the funeral process. The average Soviet citizen was also aware of the importance of Soviet funerals to existing political power structures. One Brezhnev era joke highlighted the gerontocracy of the USSR's leadership:\n\n > a Kremlin guard sought to stop a Politburo member from entering into the funeral of yet another Central Committee member by asking to see his funeral pass. The Politburo member brushed the guard's request aside by saying \"I have a season pass.\" \n\nThe enshrinement of Lenin and the quasi-temple structure of his mausoleum gave the Soviet state a site from which to perpetuate its funeral culture that mixed death with the existing political order. \n\nThe fall of Communism might have ended the display of the corpse, and there were many voices calling for its removal, but the corpse had taken on a life of its own as one of Moscow's more prominent tourist attractions. Although it no longer received Soviet-size crowds, rumors of the corpse's imminent removal prompted waves of visitors to see it for one \"last\" time. The obvious fascination with seeing such a morbid curiosity lent a certain inertia for state authorities to keeping Lenin's corpse where it was. The post-1991 Communist Party also pushed for keeping the corpse in place, especially as it turned increasingly post-91 towards celebrating a variant of Russian nationalism that saw Soviet accomplishments as Russian ones. The relatively weak Russian government of Yeltsin did not want to cross the Communists in the Duma on this issue. The Putin government has made a further commitment to the keeping of the corpse on display, with the state subsidizing the embalming efforts to keep Lenin looking as he did in 1924. As with other figures of the Russian past celebrated in the Putin era like Peter I or Potemkin, it is not his specific ideology that the Putin government celebrates, but Lenin's reputation as a state-builder who elevated the power of the state. In this, there is a degree of overlap between the early USSR and the Russian Federation that has given Lenin's corpse a life of its own. \n\n*Sources*\n\nKotkin, Stephen. *Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928*. Penguin Group USA, 2014. \n\nPlamper, Jan. *The Stalin Cult: A Study in the Alchemy of Power*. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. \n\nTumarkin, Nina. *Lenin Lives!: The Lenin Cult in Soviet Russia*. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]: Harvard Univ. Press, 1997. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qqlSCgV_NM"
]
] |
||
27iwgk
|
why do websites need "mobile versions" of websites? dont they work the same way?
|
What makes surfing the web on a cell phone or tablet different from a computer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27iwgk/eli5_why_do_websites_need_mobile_versions_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci18y2q",
"ci197xi",
"ci19cnh"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Some elements of the site will not work for mobile browsers. The screen will also be smaller which makes browsing experience friendlier to the users.",
"There are three types of mobile versions of websites, mobile apps, media queries, and mobile websites. Mobile apps would be ones that you download from Google Play or the App Store. Media queries are the same website but the server sends files that tell the browser how to render the page at specific window sizes. Mobile websites are different websites that use a subdomain, _URL_0_, these are completely different websites that can do anything.\n\nI think there is a lot of movement toward the media queries as it is by far the easiest to set up, but the mobile app is probably the one that gets the most return visitors although that is by far the most difficult as it uses a completely different computer language.",
"The layouts would look horrid on a mobile device without alteration (columns of text wider than your screen making you swipe side to side every line, etc), and certain features would not work (how are you supposed to hover on a menu without a mouse?)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"m.example.com"
],
[]
] |
|
5xmfsh
|
why is politics not a compulsory course from high school through college?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xmfsh/eli5_why_is_politics_not_a_compulsory_course_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dej9a5m",
"dej9d9m",
"dejc2lv",
"dejg2pu",
"dejibrw",
"dejn7sf",
"dejqki3"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
59,
7,
10,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"We have civic education in high school in my country. They teach you how the political system works, the separation of affairs between the different powers of State, what elections are for, etc. Let me tell you, it doesn't seem to make much of difference if you look at what people end up voting for...",
"Because telling people \"this is how to rule a country\" makes no sense. No one *knows* what the best way is, so it can't be taught. If you mean a general education on the respective country's political figures, then it's because that's not very long term. An overview of the system itself is already being taught, at least here in the Netherlands.",
"A \"politics\" course sounds a lot like government indoctrination.\n\nIn high school (Colorado, USA) we already have courses that cover the branches of government, how elections work, etc. How much further do you think it should go?",
"In New York State, high schoolers are required to take half a year of U.S. Government and half a year of economics (including a financial literacy component).\n\nIn my class, we were required to write brief weekly reports on government-related news, which was generally political. I believe that one of the teachers required students specifically to read the WSJ in some capacity, but I don't remember the details (though I know that the library stocked it).\n\nOne obstacle to a more explicit politics course in high school is trying to define a neutral, objective stance. There are still a few schoolboards in the U.S. who don't like the idea of evolution being taught as fact and who deliberately rewrite sections of the history curriculum to suit their politics. A government-defined “neutral” stance on modern politics seems to be asking for trouble.",
"The better question is why aren't financial classes mandatory. Too many financial illiterate adults in society. ",
"In a way, we do. We discuss how the three branches work, basic election procedure, how a bill becomes a law, etc. Beyond that, there is nothing more to say unless you want to start teaching one political agenda over another. Ideally, children would develope the critical faculties needed to reason the \"right way\" to run the the government a side benefit of a quality education. Side note: a lot of people forget the most basic parts of government operations anyway...",
"There used to be a class called \"civics\". They don't teach it any more. Maybe because the schools have a mandate to not spend any money on things that aren't absolutely essential (home economics, and shop classes are also being cut), or maybe because a lot of politicians would prefer that the American populace not actually have a good understanding of how government works. If people don't really get why gerrymandering or voter suppression are bad things, then politicians can get away with doing it. If people don't actually know what the constitution says, politicians are more likely to get away with violating it, or with falsely accusing their rivals with violating it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ya995
|
why do clouds rotate with the earth?
|
It seems like the rotation of the Earth shouldn't affect clouds or the atmosphere since they are made up of gases. Why doesn't the earth just slide beneath clouds without dragging them with it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ya995/eli5_why_do_clouds_rotate_with_the_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfip7z5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Gases are affected by gravity too. The rotation of the Earth creates the jet streams, and that's the predominant influence on the travel of the clouds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ycpqm
|
Is the Victorian age referred to the "Victorian age" outside of Britain?
|
I was just wondering what the Victorian period (roughly the second half of the 19th century) was called in places such as America or through Europe and the rest of the continents? Was it Known as the Victorian era at the time?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ycpqm/is_the_victorian_age_referred_to_the_victorian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfjcvqy"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Popular conceptions of history in the UK often affix the name of the reigning monarch to these periods; in addition to \"Victorian\", you have probably heard people speak of \"Elizabethan England\" for Elizabeth I, and its association with England's gradual rise in prominence and power or the cultural achievements of the age (Shakespeare, etc). Or of the Edwardian Era, for Edward VII, who ascended the throne after Victoria's death, and whose reign saw its own significant cultural and political shifts across British society.\n\nBut I don't believe that places outside of the British empire itself would have contextualized their own perception of history using the monarchy of the United Kingdom as a frame of reference. People tend to view things through the lens of more immediate concerns, and in terms of what fits into their own national narrative. \n\nIn the United States, for example, the period from the end to the Civil War to roughly 1900 (the latter half of Victoria's reign) came to be known as the Gilded Age, a term coined by Mark Twain, and meant to mock the veneer of refinement and decorum that masked a host of problems with political and commercial corruption in a rapidly expanding and prospering American society.\n\nIn France, that same period, from around 1870 to the start of the WWI came to be known as the *Belle Époque* (\"Beautiful Epoch\", or more familiarly, think \"Golden Age\"). From the time of the French Revolution in 1789, France had experienced roughly 80 years of political upheaval and bloody conflict, both domestic and foreign, going through two republics, two empires, and two monarchies. After the conclusion of the demoralizing Franco-Prussian War in 1871, it entered a period of relative peace and stability, during which culture and not strife was to flourish (think of artists like Debussy, Gauguin, Matisse, Lautrec, and many others). Again, a focus on developments at home and a crystallization of what was most relevant to the French people.\n\nIn short, it seems that we tend to contextualize history most naturally in terms of what affected us personally or close to home, which should come as no surprise since we are in the end vain creatures. Don't think of it as people of the day (or later historians) saying to themselves, \"Hmmm, what should we call the Victorian Era here in American/France?\" They framed their history in terms of what was most relevant to their nations and their people instead. My focus in learning about this period was in Western Europe and the U.S., but if anyone can shed any light on other parts of Europe or the world that would be fascinating too.\n\nThe one area I can think of off the top of my head where these lines blur is in the realm of architecture. I'm not well-versed in architectural history at all, but regardless it's easy to note that many styles retained their names even as they spread to other countries, as in the case of Victorian architecture, as well as Georgian, Second-Empire, and a number of others. These larger trends often spurred American offshoots as well, but in any case, you can find countless example of Victorian architecture across the United States.\n\nSource: A college course I took in \"Political History during the Long Nineteenth Century\", I'll see if I can dredge up some of the books I read for it when I get home."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9th19t
|
the libertarian party
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9th19t/eli5_the_libertarian_party/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8w9l0h",
"e8w9tok",
"e8wstuv"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically a focus on as least amount of government intervention in peoples lives as possible. High amounts of both Social and Economic freedom. I would encourage you to visit /r/Libertarian, the FAQ is great and the Libertarian Parties website also breaks their beliefs down well.",
"\"Fiscally conservative and socially liberal\" \n\nBasically they want lower taxes, smaller government, like republicans but don't think government should get involved in social issues like trying to regulate marriage, weed, abortion rights, etc, like democrats.\n\nSounds alright in theory, until you actually scratch the surface and realise most of them are just fucking nuts, and even the \"smart and reasonable\" ones like Gary Johnson really don't know what the hell they're doing in any level of detail.",
"Rather than the part, let's go over the philosophy and how it differs from the other two. \n\n\nConservatism and Liberalism are RELATIVE positions. Conservatives seek to keep to the norm and Liberals seek to change it. What specifically that means can vary wildly, according to time and place. A Chinese Conservative, for example would be nearly the opposite in many ways form both an American Conservative and form a Chinese Conservative 1000 years ago. \n\n\nLibertarians, on the other hand, is an ABSOLUTE position. It always means what it means. Libertarians believe that that Government should not interefere with the choices of the individual. That will always be the case, no matter what the current norm is. \n\n\nInsert caveat that people are individuals and never totally agree with any given idea or philosophy and go for it to varying degrees and with varying exceptions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
12htv3
|
the invisible hand
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12htv3/eli5_the_invisible_hand/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6v59nu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Of the market?\n\nThe idea is that firms will profit maximize and consumers will utility maximize until they reach an equilibrium. This equilibrium is socially optimal in some economic models.\n\nOr more generally...\n\nEveryone tries to make themselves as best off as possible! When everyone tries to do this everyone should find a natural compromise where things can't get any better. Because this is supposed to happen without guidance there is an 'invisible hand' that guides the economy. (the name is a 'joke' reference to the notion of a managed economy)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
rq8ps
|
Why is it that sometimes when you look at something that is either just out of focus, or a tad bit too dim, you can see it much clearer by averting your eyes slightly and 'looking at it' with your peripheral vision?
|
I notice this happens a lot in the dark, and I'm pretty sure it can happen with things that are in the light as well (like trying to read a sign or see a person from really far away). It doesn't necessarily make things clearer, just more visible.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rq8ps/why_is_it_that_sometimes_when_you_look_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c47rgzo",
"c47ryqn"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not a scientist, but the short of it is that your eyes are made up of rods and cones. The rods are more sensitive to light and less sensitive to color. You also have a much higher density of rods. The view you get from the side utilizes more of the rods, so it requires less light to see what you want to see. If you ever find yourself in a dim area and you need to put a key in a lock, look away a little and you'll be able to see better.\n\nThis also works for urinating in the middle of the night.",
"I'll just add that this commonly comes up when looking at faint objects through a telescope. When observing the moons of Jupiter, I often find that they vanish when looking directly at them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
f32co
|
Has anybody here ever worked with crows? Are they really all that smart?
|
Okay BBC, we get it already, [crows use sticks for stuff](_URL_0_). (And if you are in any doubt of this then you can recursively follow the 'See Also' links to read this same story repeated over and over across the last decade. Seriously, does somebody at the BBC have a crow fetish? Is there some kind of New Caledonian lobby group?)
Thing is, I actually once found myself in the lab where a lot of this stuff comes from, and I got the distinct impression that they shoot a staggering amount of footage, only a tiny fraction of which contains any evidence of tool use whatsoever. So - and I appreciate this is a longshot - but has anybody here had any experience with this work and would be willing to put the headlines in context? Are crows really all that clever and/or are they just easier to keep than some other animals? Is there any hint of confirmation bias here? And if they are so smart why have I never seen a crow run for Governor of California?
EDIT: To expand/elucidate/refine:
1. How clever are crows relative to other animals?
2. To what extent may practical issues of experimenting with crows have biased the public perception of Q1?
3. To what extent may media reporting have biased the public perception of Q1? (e.g. how representative are the small sample of videos that we in the public see of general crow behaviour?)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f32co/has_anybody_here_ever_worked_with_crows_are_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1cwu5h",
"c1cwvaj",
"c1cxb08",
"c1cxivw",
"c1cxqt6",
"c1d157z"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What group are you talking about? The reason I ask is that I checked the references for Wikipedia page on the [New Caledonian Crow](_URL_0_) and I see three citations from three different research groups.\n\n",
"Your sarcasm aside, Ive seen crows in the wild doing some rudimentary tool usage - just spend enough time watching crows (or other corvanoids) and youll start to pick out some of their rather advanced behaviors.\n\nWhen my parents were growing up, they had pet crows as well, which did all sorts of rather advanced tricks.",
"Two things to consider here: \n\n1. how many other animals can you name that are known to use tools?\n2. did you know that crows [can hold a grudge yet no human can tell one crow from another](_URL_0_)?\n\nIntelligent/smart/clever are somewhat subjective terms that easily lend themselves to anthropomorphism, methinks.\n",
"If you shot a staggering amount of footage of humans in their day-to-day normal activities, I doubt it would be impressive, or indicative of advanced intelligence. Or even that compelling. ",
"[The amazing intelligence of crows.](_URL_0_) Ted Talk.\n\nThis is a great talk, with some more footage of crows of course. But really what's surprising about crows is they're usually seen as a pest and not a very clever animal.",
"I once saw a crow in Texas using cars to crush acorns. It was very obvious. It would line up a bunch of acorns across the road near a stop sign and then sit right next to the road. The cars would come up, stop, crush a few nuts, and then in the rear-view you could see the bird hopping out to the road to see what was smashed open. Then it would eat those and replace the empty spaces with new nuts. Pretty fucking good indicator of intelligence...\n\nThey probably don't run for governor of California for the same reason you and I don't. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9353000/9353588.stm"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonian_Crow#Tool_making"
],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106826971"
],
[],
[
"http://blog.ted.com/2008/05/13/joshua_klein/"
],
[]
] |
|
krkfr
|
that rumbling sound you hear when you clench your rear upper neck muscles.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/krkfr/eli5_that_rumbling_sound_you_hear_when_you_clench/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2mmx6w",
"c2mn89j",
"c2mnaxg",
"c2mnh97",
"c2mnxvl",
"c2motzv",
"c2mpes6",
"c2mr46b",
"c2mxe8q",
"c2mmx6w",
"c2mn89j",
"c2mnaxg",
"c2mnh97",
"c2mnxvl",
"c2motzv",
"c2mpes6",
"c2mr46b",
"c2mxe8q"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
4,
33,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4,
33,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have wondered this for years. *saved for future reference*\n\nHopefully there will be an answer.",
"Like when you smile really hard? I always thought it was blood being squeezed.",
"Layman here, but it seems to me that those muscles extend up into the back of your head near your ears and what you're hearing is the muscles quivering close to your ear canals.",
"Like you're 5:Not everyone in the world can make this sound. It's when a muscle in your ear is able to be squeezed together making what sounds like rumbling. Like when you flex your arm, look at the muscle and your fist--see it moving, or vibrating? That's whats happening in your ear, but you are able to hear it.\n\nNot like you're 5: You're contracting your Tensor Tympani muscle. Not everyone can do that, so congratulations!\n_URL_0_",
"I can't hear anything, and now I'm sad.",
"Is this what you hear when you yawn (with vigour)?",
"I've noticed this sound is much louder while under the influence of opiates. Can somebody explain that? \n",
"also, the sound you hear when you shut your eyes really hard",
"Thanks. Now I can't stop doing it. At least I know why, but it's really bloody annoying. \n\nIn repayment for that: Can anyone else hear the hum of the room they're in? Not your computer hum, the hum of the room. \n\nAhhhh, there you go.... muahahahahaha.",
"I have wondered this for years. *saved for future reference*\n\nHopefully there will be an answer.",
"Like when you smile really hard? I always thought it was blood being squeezed.",
"Layman here, but it seems to me that those muscles extend up into the back of your head near your ears and what you're hearing is the muscles quivering close to your ear canals.",
"Like you're 5:Not everyone in the world can make this sound. It's when a muscle in your ear is able to be squeezed together making what sounds like rumbling. Like when you flex your arm, look at the muscle and your fist--see it moving, or vibrating? That's whats happening in your ear, but you are able to hear it.\n\nNot like you're 5: You're contracting your Tensor Tympani muscle. Not everyone can do that, so congratulations!\n_URL_0_",
"I can't hear anything, and now I'm sad.",
"Is this what you hear when you yawn (with vigour)?",
"I've noticed this sound is much louder while under the influence of opiates. Can somebody explain that? \n",
"also, the sound you hear when you shut your eyes really hard",
"Thanks. Now I can't stop doing it. At least I know why, but it's really bloody annoying. \n\nIn repayment for that: Can anyone else hear the hum of the room they're in? Not your computer hum, the hum of the room. \n\nAhhhh, there you go.... muahahahahaha."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_tympani_muscle"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_tympani_muscle"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
er7nhx
|
how to learn to use a wing suit
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/er7nhx/eli5_how_to_learn_to_use_a_wing_suit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ff24gjg",
"ff258zg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe go skydiving in a wing suit with a parachute on, and practice most of the way down?",
"Step 1: Learn to use a parachute *very* well. Like, well over 200 jumps. \nStep 2: Study how to use a wingsuit. \nStep 3: Always wear your parachutes (normal and reserve) when you use a wingsuit. \nStep 4: Jump out of a plane. Don't panic too much. Don't forget your wingsuit. \nStep 5: Land with a parachute. \n\nThere's also a special sloped wind tunnel in Stockholm that you can use if you want to learn to use a wingsuit without all the practice and falling."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
246yco
|
why are famous people called stars?
|
How is the word 'star' associated with them? For example, movie stars or sports stars when they can be called movie person,etc.
What about superstars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/246yco/eli5_why_are_famous_people_called_stars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch473tq",
"ch47dn3"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard to say, but there is a reference to a famous English actor called David Garrick, and it was written in 1779. The writer is talking about less well-known actors -- \"little stars, who hid their diminished rays in his presence\". The writer seems to be saying that Garrick's talent shone out like the sun, making the lesser stars' talent appear invisible, just like stars are outshone by the sun during the daytime.\n\nSo a star is somebody whose talent shines out. Bigger stars are brighter (have more talent).\n\nThe first person to be called a \"superstar\" was Frederick Wellington \"Cyclone\" Taylor, a hockey player for the Vancouver Millionaires from 1912 to 1922. But the word didn't become popular until the hit 1970s musical *Jesus Christ Superstar*.",
"Is it associated with the word \"Starring\" ??"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fcijr3
|
What causes the plumes of water vapour on Jupiter's Europa?
|
Is this water ejected out due to pressure? Temperature? Does Europa have geothermal activity?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fcijr3/what_causes_the_plumes_of_water_vapour_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjcovn1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes Europa is geothermally active. Europa is heated by tidal effects from Jupiters gravity. Essentially Jupiter squeezes Europa. This is the reason why it has a liquid ocean and it is also the reason for the plumes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
d1qgt6
|
I know that in the Middle Ages salt was an extremely valuable product, was it the same in the Mediteranean regions despite being so close to the sea?
|
We often hear about how valuable salt was in the Middle Ages, in many landlocked provinces nobles had complete control over salt sources making it extremely expensive, I'm curious about the value of salt in the Meditaranean regions, was it a household product or still fairly expensive?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d1qgt6/i_know_that_in_the_middle_ages_salt_was_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezspter"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Salt prices varied a lot by region, due to the different distances salt needed to be transported, different transport costs (ship vs land), and taxation. For example, Miller (1991) discusses the variation in English salt prices in the 13th to 15th centuries. For most of this time, salt was cheaper than wheat, per bushel, varying from 58% of the price of wheat to exceeding the price of wheat in the most expensive two decades (the 1380s and 1440s). The highest prices were in the regions furthest from salt-producing areas; the highest prices were almost double the lowest prices. Scottish prices for salt were approximately the same as the price of wheat, for the 13th and 14th centuries (Gemmill and Mayhew, 1995).\n\nAlso note that salt being about the same price as wheat wasn't unusual - the Roman Price Edict of Diocletian listed similar prices for salt and wheat. This means that salt wasn't an extremely valuable product.\n\nWhere salt was expensive - where it had to be imported and transport costs were high, it could be much more expensive. For example, in Sweden, salt was about 10 times the price of grain in the late 13th century, dropping to about double the price of grain by the early 16th century due to dropping transport costs (Söderberg, 2007).\n\nSalt could be heavily taxed. Taxes could more than double the price in a region. Taxes like this sometimes led to great variation in prices in adjacent regions, which drove a sometimes thriving smuggling trade, in turn sometimes leading to strong attempts to suppress smuggling. In extreme (post-Medieval) cases, salt taxes could drive the price of salt much, much higher. For example, in Provence in 1710, the salt taxes were so high that the cost to the public was 140 times the cost of production (Laszlo, 2001); prices this high made it unavailable in sufficient amounts to use for salting meat for preservation for many people.\n\nI don't know if there was equally extreme taxation anywhere in Medieval Europe. But transport costs alone caused a variation in prices of at least a factor of 20 (from about half the price of wheat to about 10 times the price of wheat). Where it was cheap, it was easily affordable. Where it was expensive, it would still have been readily affordable for regular use in cooking - what might have been too expensive was the large amounts needed for salting fish or meat.\n\nReferences:\n\nElizabeth Gemmill, Nicholas Mayhew, *Changing Values in Medieval Scotland: A Study of Prices, Money, and Weights and Measures*, Cambridge University Press, 1995\n\nLaszlo, Pierre, *Salt: Grain of Life*, Columbia University Press, 2001.\n\nEdward Miller, *The Agrarian History of England and Wales: Volume III 1348-1500*, Cambridge University Press, 1991\n\n Johan Söderberg (2007), \"Prices and Economic Change in Medieval Sweden\", *Scandinavian Economic History Review*, 55:2, 128-152, DOI: 10.1080/03585520701435988"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7y9oou
|
Do NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, reduce specific areas of inflammation or do they reduce inflammation overall?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7y9oou/do_nsaids_such_as_ibuprofen_reduce_specific_areas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duf4grt"
],
"score": [
40
],
"text": [
"When you take an ibuprofen, it distributes through your bloodstream around your body and gets into cells, where it latches onto proteins called COX-1 and COX-2 that help to synthesize a type of molecule called prostaglandins. Prostaglandins are very important in causing inflammation. \n\nCOX-1 is present in pretty much all body tissues all the time and helps to maintain a bunch of important bodily functions; COX-2 is synthesized in response to inflammatory stimuli. The reason you can develop stomach problems with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs is because the blockage of COX-1 stops the normal protection of your GI tract from working as well as it should. We've made some COX-2 specific inhibitors (celocoxib or Celebrex was a well-known one), but unfortunately they seem to have some serious cardiac side effects for reasons I don't fully understand and they got pulled from the market.\n\nSo to answer your question, the best way to describe it is that they block your body's ability to create certain inflammatory molecules. This both reduces inflammation in specific places, and prevents inflammation from being developed as strongly in new places. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ffi8a
|
How much of a Nazi was Werner von Braun?
|
Was he the devoted to Nazism or did he just work with them because they had the money he needed? Did he know about concentration camps? I just want to know as much about this as anyone can tell me.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ffi8a/how_much_of_a_nazi_was_werner_von_braun/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caa9l94"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Werner von Braun was a member of the Nazi (NSDAP) party and of the SS, where he reached the rank of Sturmbannführer. So he was a card-carrying Nazi. After the bombing of Peenemunde, he was involved in the development of the Dora Mittelbau underground production facility, which was build by Concentration camp laborers under abysmal conditions, which he observed firsthand.\n\nOn the other hand, he had been under surveillance by the Sicherheitsdienst and was arrested in 1944 for defeatist remarks, and only released because he was indispensable for the rocket program.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
19y45h
|
what is the difference between advil, tylenol, and ibuprofen and how exactly do they alleviate pain in the body?
|
For example, do these pain killers have a way of targeting pain in the body, or do they affect the body uniformly? Why can't you mix certain pain killers with alcohol while others will not hurt you when mixed with alcohol?
*EDIT* Thank you ToubaboKoomi for sharing this video: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19y45h/what_is_the_difference_between_advil_tylenol_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8sd6di",
"c8sdha0",
"c8sdr5y",
"c8sezav",
"c8sf3jf",
"c8sfbkw",
"c8sfmq1",
"c8sh8jg",
"c8si2dv",
"c8sk24x"
],
"score": [
466,
29,
7,
21,
6,
53,
11,
3,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Advil *is* ibuprofen. So is Motrin. Tylenol is a little different, it's acetaminophen. Most over the counter painkillers are either acetaminophen or ibuprofen. They work by inhibiting an enzyme called cyclooxygenase and then inhibits the production of prostagladins. \n\nLY5: When you get hurt, this little protein (cyclooxegenase) creates a kind of chemical (prostaglandins) that make that spot swell up (inflammation) and then when that swells up, you feel pain. When you take ibuprofen or acetaminophen, they spread everywhere in your body and make the protein stop producing the hurtful chemical. Then the pain and swelling go away!",
"I know you're supposed to take Tylenol instead of Motrin/ibuprofen when you have a concussion, but I forget why.\n\nSource: I've had about 5 concussions...I think...",
"Related Question: Why do I not seem to feel any great effect from it? Is it more effective to some people then others? Or am I just trying so hard to think it doesn't work?",
"How about explaining the differences between ibuprofen, acetaminophen, aspirin, and naproxen sodium, which are the four most common OTC pain relievers?\n\nFor people who only recognize brand names:\n\n* [Ibuprofen](_URL_3_): Advil, Motrin\n* [Acetaminophen](_URL_1_): Tylenol\n* [Aspirin](_URL_0_): Bayer\n* [Naproxen Sodium](_URL_2_): Aleve",
"A lot of these answers are helpful, but I'm still curious as to HOW drugs like these work; as in, how do they know where you are in pain, and if they don't, why aren't there more side effects on the rest of the body? For instance, I can take an advil for a headache, or I could take it for a sprained muscle. It doesn't make a difference, the pain still goes away. In that sense, is the medicine being distributed throughout my whole body? Does it have to travel through the bloodstream? etc.",
"This [video](_URL_0_) explains it fairly well.",
"This whole thing is pretty confusing if you live in Australia, where Acetaminophen is called something completely different: paracetamol. \n\nAlso, I'd like to point out that with Ibuprofen, many Doctors are seriously concerned with the potential dangers to your stomach, even within recommended dosage.\n\nBy comparison, the danger to your liver presented by Acetaminophen/Paracetamol is only present if you exceed recommended dosage.",
"My question is, what are these drugs made of? How did scientists discover them?",
"There is a difference if you are one of the millions of people who take the anticoagulant ('blood thinner') Coumadin (aka Warfarin). \n\nWarfarin users should avoid aspirin or ibuprofen unless directed by a doctor, as either can affect your INR substantially. In general, they can take reasonable amounts of acetaminophen without affecting INR.\n\nIANAD, but I do take Warfarin (I have two replacement mechanical heart valves).",
"Sounds like a case of \"he-said, nsaid.\"\n\nI'll show myself out. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mcuIc5O-DE"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paracetamol_brand_names",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naproxen",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ibuprofen_brand_names"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mcuIc5O-DE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7fyd77
|
how come if we travel to space at the speed of light and then come back, then time on earth is drastically different?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fyd77/eli5_how_come_if_we_travel_to_space_at_the_speed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqffevr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Think of it this way:\n\nIf you throw a ball out of the window of a car, for at least a little while, it will travel the speed of the car + the speed you threw the ball.\n\nNow, we have one rule: light always travels the speed of light (in a given *time* it covers the same distance).\n\nSo, you're in a car going half the speed of light, and you shine a light out the front. How fast does it move away from you? The speed of light. I'm standing still as you do this: how fast do _I_ see the light move? The speed of light.\n\nHow is this possible? Speed is distance divided by time. _Time_ is what changes. You are going half the speed of the light, so the light should be moving away from you at only half the speed. The light moves away from your 1/2 light speed car more slowly, but time is being counted 1/2 as fast (a second is twice as long as it is to you in the car than to me standing still), so the speed of light works out to the same amount for both of us.\n\nThis is how every thing works everywhere, so the result is that as you travel faster, time slows down so that our one rule stays satisfied."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
cyjg8o
|
why does the japanese language have four alphabets?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyjg8o/eli5_why_does_the_japanese_language_have_four/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyscwe5",
"eysl24p"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"There is hirigana which is the phonetic alphabet similar to the English alphabet. Then there's kanji which isn't really an alphabet it's just a bunch of symbols for words, things, or ideas. Then there's katakana which is for spelling English words, but it's the same as hirigana just different symbols so it's kind of redundant. Then there's romanji which is pretty much just the japanese spelled out with English letters so it's not really its own alphabet.\n\nIn summary hirigana and kanji are for native Japanese speaking. Katakana is for English words in Japanese. Romanji is Japanese spelled in English letters. Why do they need all of these? I don't really know, it's my understanding that they could just as easily use only hirigana and a lot of the time kanji is skipped and just spelled with it's hirigana pronunciation.",
"Technically, they are not alphabets, they are kana or writing style / character set\n\nThere are 3 main kana's\n\nHiragana - main writing style\n\nKatakana - mostly used for borrowed words like computer or radio\n\nKanji - old school writing style, not every Japanese know all the characters\n\nThe fourth you mention\n\nRomaji - English transliteration of the kana"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1uw9wl
|
What's with the British tradition of naming pubs The ___ & ___, ie The Fox and Hound, Horse & Rider, etc.?
|
There seem to be a lot of them. I couldn't get anywhere with google, just a list of names with no explanation.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uw9wl/whats_with_the_british_tradition_of_naming_pubs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cemxya7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This article gives some background on some common pub names.\n_URL_0_\n\nThe two names you mention are more than likely a reference to hunting (i.e. hunting with hounds rather than shooting)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.britainexpress.com/History/culture/pub-names.htm"
]
] |
|
3s682a
|
How does a volcano's shape determine the kind of lava that comes out of it?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3s682a/how_does_a_volcanos_shape_determine_the_kind_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwvdh9h"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It's more like the other way around: the type of material determines the shape.\n\n2 things are key in determining the shape of a volcanic edifice: how explosive is the volcanism and how viscous is the lava; both relate to the amounts of dissolved volatile material in the volcanic melts.\n\nThe higher the amount of dissolved gas, the more explosive the volcanism; and this leads to the development of stratovolcanos such as many Andean Peaks, or the volcanos of the Pacific rim (Mt Fuji for instance). Lots of tuff, breccia, débris flows, and volcaniclastic material. The coarse material (blocks, lapilli, etc) stays close by, while the ash can travel a great distance through the air, leading to a rather localised edifice.\n\nAnd higher gas content also makes for more viscous lavas, for those days when the volcano produces lava-flows instead of pyroclastics. The more viscous the lava, the closer to its point of origin it remains.\n\nVolcanic édifices with very low volatile contents are examplified by shield volcanos such as the Hawaian islands. Those are built up by very far reaching, very liquid material, building a broad edifice sort of like a stack of pancakes (See Olympus Mons for an example, or Kiluea *without* the water around it)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
38ywfe
|
MY Great Gandfather was a Swiss citizen drafted into the German army in WWI, how?
|
This is a question my family has been trying to answer. My great grandfather became a pacifist after the war and didn't want to talk about it, but he mentioned he was conscripted into the German army as an artilleryman. The problem is, he lived in Lucerne. Any WWI people who can answer how you might have been conscripted?
If it at all helps, he was underage until 1916 and didn't get conscripted until then.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38ywfe/my_great_gandfather_was_a_swiss_citizen_drafted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crz2llx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Did he have German citizenship as well as Swiss? If so, that might explain it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jdolr
|
audio compression
|
Note: I am talking about dynamic range compression, not audio data compression (e.g. mp3 encoding).
I'm a casual musician who records songs in my spare time. I've heard a lot about how audio compression can be applied to make your songs sound "better", but I don't quite get what it is and what it does. There are a number of good articles on the net, but I'd like a simplified explanation.
As a side note, I notice my own recorded songs are somewhat quieter than commercially-produced music, even when I try and get all the levels as close to 0 db that I can without crackling. Obviously, sound engineers use a number of things to get audio as loud as possible, but is the main element I am missing compression?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jdolr/eli5_audio_compression/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2b8uxc",
"c2b97vy",
"c2b8uxc",
"c2b97vy"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Compression is a tool (sometimes a physical piece of hardware, sometimes a software) which is based on volume reduction. You set a [threshold and ratio](_URL_0_) in reference to your signal. \n\nWhat happens is at your set threshold, you will get a volume reduction based on ratio. For example: If you set 4:1 compression ratio, for any 4 dB you put into the compressor over the threshold, you will get 1 dB out. \n\nThe effect of this is it makes the loud things quieter, and due to that, the quieter things louder. If you use light compression on something like a vocal or guitar, you can get some very nice tones out of it. If you compress a whole song, then you are able to have less dynamic range, and hence keep the overall level closer to zero. \n\n\nBut be careful! Compression is both a beautiful and dangerous tool. It is easier to get yourself lost in overusing it, which will make EVERYTHING sound like crap. \n\nWith great equipment comes great responsibility. ",
"Audio compression is a technique that sound engineers use. It changes a sound recording to make the quiet parts louder (and also makes the loud parts quieter, sort of). Music producers like to do this so their song sounds loud the whole way through. One good reason to use audio compression is so people can hear your song better if they're listening to it in the car. When someone is driving really fast, the car gets a lot louder which can sometimes make it hard to hear the music, especially if it has both a lot of quiet parts and a lot of loud parts. Using audio compression on the song will make it easier to hear all the different parts of the song more easily by making them the same loudness.\n\nAnd now, deviating from LI5speak, yes, audio compression is the main element in getting your recorded song to sound as loud / as close to 0dB as possible, but you may also need to do some equalization with the compression. This should be obvious, but if you are trying to get a loud kick drum sound and the crash cymbal is too loud, the crash cymbal is what will determine the peak amplitude when compressing. You'll need to bring the high frequencies from the crash cymbal down and bring the low frequencies from the kick drum up and then run your compression.",
"Compression is a tool (sometimes a physical piece of hardware, sometimes a software) which is based on volume reduction. You set a [threshold and ratio](_URL_0_) in reference to your signal. \n\nWhat happens is at your set threshold, you will get a volume reduction based on ratio. For example: If you set 4:1 compression ratio, for any 4 dB you put into the compressor over the threshold, you will get 1 dB out. \n\nThe effect of this is it makes the loud things quieter, and due to that, the quieter things louder. If you use light compression on something like a vocal or guitar, you can get some very nice tones out of it. If you compress a whole song, then you are able to have less dynamic range, and hence keep the overall level closer to zero. \n\n\nBut be careful! Compression is both a beautiful and dangerous tool. It is easier to get yourself lost in overusing it, which will make EVERYTHING sound like crap. \n\nWith great equipment comes great responsibility. ",
"Audio compression is a technique that sound engineers use. It changes a sound recording to make the quiet parts louder (and also makes the loud parts quieter, sort of). Music producers like to do this so their song sounds loud the whole way through. One good reason to use audio compression is so people can hear your song better if they're listening to it in the car. When someone is driving really fast, the car gets a lot louder which can sometimes make it hard to hear the music, especially if it has both a lot of quiet parts and a lot of loud parts. Using audio compression on the song will make it easier to hear all the different parts of the song more easily by making them the same loudness.\n\nAnd now, deviating from LI5speak, yes, audio compression is the main element in getting your recorded song to sound as loud / as close to 0dB as possible, but you may also need to do some equalization with the compression. This should be obvious, but if you are trying to get a loud kick drum sound and the crash cymbal is too loud, the crash cymbal is what will determine the peak amplitude when compressing. You'll need to bring the high frequencies from the crash cymbal down and bring the low frequencies from the kick drum up and then run your compression."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/processing/images/compressor-graph-01.gif"
],
[],
[
"http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/processing/images/compressor-graph-01.gif"
],
[]
] |
|
1zrxeh
|
does windex "melt" flat screens?
|
If you have not been living under a rock, you're probably aware that the age of CRT's has come and gone. Chances are also very high that you own at least one flat screen device. You've also likely been told at some point: ** "Do not use Windex to clean your < insert screen type > ." **
I'm hoping that somebody out there can provide a legitimate, simple, (hopefully citable) explanation as to what Windex can do, or where this myth came from.
Please do not bother responding if you're going to tell me, "don't do it!". You have better things to do with your life- please go do those things instead.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zrxeh/eli5does_windex_melt_flat_screens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfweukc",
"cfwghaj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"CRT's had *glass* screens. Many modern flat panels (LCD/LED-LCD) are *plastic*. Cleaners formulated for glass, like Windex, may react with some plastics. This can lead to etching, fogging, and/or reduced strength.\n\nIn addition, some flat panels are made with an outer layer of harder plastic or glass but not all are. The displays made without this protective layer can be scratched fairly easily, so cleaning with paper towels or tissue paper can be an issue as well.\n\nCleaning with a clean, dry, lint-free cloth is usually the recommended method because it should be safe on just about any screen. If you need a solvent and don't want to buy a dedicated cleaner, use a small amount of water (on the cloth).",
"Screens like LCD / CRT have extremely thin non reflective coatings, usually quartz , The ammonia in windex and other glass-cleaners is a solvent to it and turn it milky. Even though the amount of ammonia in windex is very weak it can affect it over time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2fdueu
|
internally, why is putin allowed to continue to take such drastic steps without any checks on his power? when is the next opportunity for russia to have another leader?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fdueu/eli5internally_why_is_putin_allowed_to_continue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck89yr1",
"ck8a0zf"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Putin is one of the old guard, a hardcore former KGB guy, so he's a symbol of all that old \"Great Russian Bear\" mentality, which I think a lot of Russians respect. \n\nFor the older people who support him, they're remembering what it meant to have Russia be a world power, strong and mighty, and conveniently forgetting how bad it was under communism. For the young, they have no idea what life was really like under communism, and see him as a great and powerful leader who can make their country significant again. \n\nPutin was elected in 2012. He has a six-year term, and can conceivably be elected for another six-year term in 2018. ",
"In 1993, Russia's parliament tried to do exactly what you suggested, stripping power from a president that was overstepping the bounds of constitutional power. In response, the Russian president shelled its Parliament and stormed it, killing 187 civilian MPs in the process. \n\nThe referendum made in the aftermath has the following clauses, which remain in effect now: \n\nThe president could choose the prime minister even if the parliament objected and could appoint the military leadership without parliamentary approval. \n\nHe would head and appoint the members of a new, more powerful security council. \n\nIf a vote of no confidence in the government was passed, the president would be enabled to keep it in office for three months and could dissolve the parliament if it repeated the vote. \n\nThe president could veto any bill passed by a simple majority in the lower house, after which a two-thirds majority would be required for the legislation to be passed. The president could not be impeached for contravening the constitution. \n\nWhich basically amounts to, 'Putin doesn't give a shit'. It's pointless to even bother protesting the Russian government because constitutionally, the President has literally all of the power in the government and can't be contravened by anyone. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8fcvx9
|
What was Taiwan/Nationalist China doing during the Great Leap Forward?
|
From what I understand, up until the late 1980s, Nationalist China was planning to one day retake the mainland, which was why the suspended the constitution, kept the country in a state of permanent martial law, etc. The Great Leap Forward was a period of great chaos in Communist China, which \(in my incredibly uneducated opinion\) provided the closest thing to an opportunity Nationalist China had to retake mainland China. What exactly was Nationalist China doing during this period? Were they trying to gain military support from other nations for a hypothetical attack? Or by that point did they realize that they had no real hope of retaking the mainland? If they did realize that retaking the mainland was impossible, then why didn't they end martial law until the 1980s?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8fcvx9/what_was_taiwannationalist_china_doing_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy3sctc"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"This doesn't necessarily explain why Taiwan didn't invade Chinan during the ~30 years after separation, but it does explain context for what Taiwan was doing. This is paraphrasing an essay I wrote a while back. \n\nThe modern history of Taiwan began in 1895, when control of the island was handed over to Japan. Japan believed that the Taiwanese people could be assimilated into their budding empire, so Taiwanese people were allowed to study at Japanese universities and were accorded similar privileges of citizens. When the KMT received control of Taiwan in 1945, the island was economically prosperous with a solid infrastructure and a well-educated populace. Prior to the arrival of the mainlanders, Taiwan was mostly made up of three demographics: a small number of Japanese elites who ran the island, a very small and suppressed aborigine population mostly living in the mountains, and the large population of native Taiwanese whose ancestors immigrated from mainland China since the Ming dynasty. As of the 1970s, about 1% of the population was aborigine, 14% were mainlanders, and 85% were native Taiwanese. \n\n\nWhen WWII ended and Japan was defeated, control of Taiwan was handed to the KMT, as they were considered the reigning government by the US and other western powers. While both populations (KMT and native Taiwanese) were Han Chinese, the native Taiwanese population generally came from the southwest coast of China and spoke a particular dialect almost unintelligible to certain KMT members. The KMT distrusted the Taiwanese due to their cooperation with the Japanese, while the natives disdained the less advanced mainlanders. At first, many of the Taiwanese elites spoke Japanese, but they quickly learned Mandarin to show their commitment to the new government. Mainlanders also saw Taiwan as a minor frontier colony or a backwater because they envisioned the country from a different perspective. The Kuomintang also feared that the Communists might have infiltrated Taiwan, and distrusted anyone who was not an experience Nationalist supporter. So right off the bat, there were tensions between the KMT and the natives, and the KMT had to rebuild its power base. \n\nRemember, the KMT was coming off a severe defeat that had forced their retreat to Taiwan. While the native Taiwanese people were hoping that the arrival of Han Chinese people would remove the “glass ceiling” blocking their promotions, the KMT was much more concerned with consolidating their power and helping their cronies. Furthermore, they didn’t have nearly enough manpower to constitute a military threat because most of their forces were dedicated to controlling the mainland. Under Japanese control, there had been about 80,000 bureaucrats and 13,000 police running the island, not including the actual Japanese military force. The KMT could only afford 44,000 bureaucrats and 8,000 police officers. Chiang Kai Shek was more concerned with keeping the party and the island together than trying to take back the mainland. Bear with me for a moment, while I ignore the 2/28 incident, which was a pivotal massacre that defined KMT/Taiwanese relationships for the next 30 years. \n\nBruce Dickerson wrote a good essay about how Chiang Kai-Shek wanted to reorganize the KMT. Chiang Kai-Shek blamed the loss of the mainland on the organizational structure of the KMT, and it needed to be changed from the bottom up. Dickerson points out how many of the flaws related to too much energy being lost to infighting, so Chiang Kai-Shek disbanded a lot of the youth groups and ground level organizations. He also prevented many of the former leaders of these groups from rising to power. What these steps led to was Chiang Kai-Shek holding a lot more individual power, ironically similar to Mao’s moves with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.\n\nOk, back to the 2/28 incident. In the middle of the KMT’s retreat to Taiwan, Taiwanese natives were growing angry at the KMT’s failures to improve conditions, general corruption, and other economic problems. On 2/28/1947, riots broke out. While Chiang Kai-Shek was reluctant to use force, as he needed all of his military might on the mainland, he eventually sent the 21st Battalion to keep order in Taiwan. The KMT soldiers opened fire almost immediately after touching down, spraying indiscriminately into crowds on the coastal wharfs. While estimates of how many died vary depending on the source, the most conservative estimates suggested 2,000-5,000 civilians died, and few hundred soldiers were killed or wounded. Taiwanese revolutionary groups have stated figures ranging from between 10,000 and 100,000; future president Lee Teng-hui suggests 30,000. At least two soldiers were executed for insubordination. In the days that followed, the KMT specifically targeted academics, elites, and other leaders of the rebellion. About a third of the casualties from the 2/28 genocide were arrested, convicted, and/or executed after the initial landing. About half of all of the casualties were academics or politicians. \nThis is where my interpretation differs slightly from the historiography. Some historians have claimed these casualties were only a small percent of the elites. One figure suggested that if there were 8,000 total deaths, only 0.012% of the elite class died, however, this math is garbage. I think that the author didn’t understand how percents work. Mathematically, if 10,000 elites died, and calling 5% of Taiwanese society “elite,” 3% of the elite population was killed. Furthermore, even if the true number of elites killed is insignificant, the culture of fear and subsequent arrests neutralized the ability of the Taiwanese elites to resist the Kuomintang government.\n\nFor the next several decades, the KMT used martial law as an excuse to visit dissidents and either interrogate them or make them disappear. Lee Teng-hui, who would later become president of Taiwan, described his experience as, “One day in 1969 I was suddenly woken up in the middle of the night and taken away by the Taiwan Garrison Command for several consecutive nights and days of interrogation.” He had been under surveillance since joining a rebellious student group in the aftermath of the 2/28 incident. Everyone else in the group had been arrested years prior.\n\nThe really interesting thing is how the KMT continued to set up a government to control the mainland, not just Taiwan, while not making serious moves to reclaim the mainland. In a hilariously corrupt set up, the “national” government had representatives from each province—of which Taiwan was only one. This meant that nearly all of the representatives were KMT members, not natives. Meanwhile, the KMT carefully allowed local elections, using controlled factionalization to prevent any one group from becoming too powerful. \n\nBeginning in the 1960s, the Kuomintang’s demographics began to shift as old veterans were retired and the most powerful elites were small, locally based Taiwanese businessmen and politicians. Beginning in the 1960s, many mainlander soldiers began to retire, and the KMT struggled to fill the holes in their organization from veteran families, particularly as native Taiwanese tended to avoid the military. As private industry grew, a small “new outward-looking business elite comprised primarily of owners of small and medium-sized enterprises” became the dominant economic cohort. Many of these new elite were native Taiwanese, as expected given their proportion of the population. The KMT slowly lost the power and political capital to retake the mainland, as for many of the native Taiwanese, it wasn’t really necessary. \n\n\nSources:\n\n\nDickson, Bruce J. \"The Lessons of Defeat: The Reorganization of the Kuomintang on Taiwan, 1950–52.\" The China Quarterly 133 (1993): 56-84. Accessed November 25, 2017. \n\n\nEdmonds, Richard Louis, and Steven M. Goldstein. Taiwan in the twentieth century: a retrospective view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.\n\n\nHarrell, Stevan, and Junjie Huang. Cultural change in postwar Taiwan. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.\n\n\nLai, Zehan, Ramon H. Myers, and Luojia Luo. A Tragic Beginning: The Taiwan \tUprising of February 28, 1947. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991.\n\n\nLee, Teng-hui. The road to democracy: Taiwans pursuit of identity. Tokyo, Japan: PHP Institute, 1999.\n\n\nRubinstein, Murray A., ed. The Other Taiwan: 1945 to the Present. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1994.\n\n\nSchoppa, R. Keith. Revolution and Its Past: Identities and Change in Modern Chinese History, 3rd ed. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2011.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4wt4fu
|
how does the ocean maintain a perfect salinity level? my aquarium requires a refractometer and work without relying on changing weather patterns.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wt4fu/eli5_how_does_the_ocean_maintain_a_perfect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d69oya2",
"d69q9x7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't.\n\nThe ocean is not uniformly saline. Some parts are more or less salty than others.",
"It's basically because the ocean is so much bigger than your aquarium.\n\nThe ocean's salinity varies by about [20%](_URL_2_) from place to place, with the lowest salinity being near big rivermouths and the highest in desert seas like the Mediterranean and Red Seas. It doesn't change nearly so much from time to time -- see below for an explanation. Since your average fish isn't likely to swim from the Congo to Greece, each fish is adapted to the consistent salinity they see over the course of its life.\n\nLet's compare your aquarium to the Mediterranean Sea. Your aquarium gets no rainfall, but it does evaporate, and heating and air conditioning makes the air inside our houses very dry. A typical aquarium will lose several mm of water depth per day to evaporation. For a small tank, that's [2%](_URL_0_) of its water per day. On the other hand, the Mediterranean Sea also has a net water loss (evaporation minus rainfall) of [a few mm per day](_URL_1_), but since it's about 3000 times deeper than your fishtank, its salinity will change by 3000 times less. It compensates for this slight water loss by exchanging a little bit of water with the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f14/normal-evaporation-rate-162656.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Latitude_Longitude_Evaporation_minus_precipitation.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/WOA09_sea-surf_SAL_AYool.png"
]
] |
||
9fc0k4
|
How does a major hurricane (like Florence) impact shallow water sea life in the area where it hits?
|
I would think that sea life in deeper water would not be impacted significantly (maybe I'm wrong), but I wondered how devastating these types of events are to fish and other sea life in shallower areas.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9fc0k4/how_does_a_major_hurricane_like_florence_impact/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5vhdnd"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They can be pretty devastating depending on the mobility of the creatures. Fast moving animals like sharks and whales can avoid the large currents, wave action, and changes in oxygen and temperature from a hurricane but other slow fish or sedentary creatures cannot. \n\nCoral reefs can become covered in sediment and take a long time to recover. Less oxygenated water can kill off slow fish, and large horizontal currents can sweep away things like turtles and invertebrates.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)\n[other source](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.livescience.com/60354-how-hurricanes-impact-underwater-marine-life.html",
"https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes-sea-life.html"
]
] |
|
2de1wi
|
Is there a current future and a current past?
|
The space we are looking into is the past and there could be some life form in the far distant, looking into their "hubble telescope" and seeing us, but we are already dead by then because that is in the future.
Looking a few light years away is the past for them and the present for us. So is it possible that there is a life form in the future that is looking at us right now but is a few thousand light years away?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2de1wi/is_there_a_current_future_and_a_current_past/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjoo23c",
"cjoowx3"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Certainly possible there **will** be a life-form somewhere out there looking AT us, but they probably wouldn't be able to see us (except maybe signals which have escaped our planet). Be careful with the word **is**. \n\nYou may be interested in the top comment on this recent [thread](_URL_0_).",
"If another life form were to be \"looking at us\", they would not see us in the future, they'd see us in the past. If they are, say, 25 light years away and had the ability to resolve our planet, they would see it as it was 25 years ago, just the same as when we look at them. This is due to the time it takes for light to reach them from us. \n\nFurthermore, time is just as relative as movement in every other dimension, and is not a constant that is universal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2aug1o/are_there_any_visual_not_radio_telescopes_in/"
],
[]
] |
|
4fh8z3
|
How does download bandwidth throttling work? For TCP and for UDP?
|
I can see how to limit the packets I am sending, but how would I limit the packets I am receiving? Do I just delete some random packets and hope the sender will ignore me for a while as a result? Would that even work for UDP?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4fh8z3/how_does_download_bandwidth_throttling_work_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2986le"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"TCP has [flow control](_URL_0_) built into the protocol. \n\nYou are correct that dropping packets is how you throttle UDP. The sender won't ignore you; they have no idea that packets are being dropped. There may be some application level communication over TCP that tells the sender to slow down, but they'll keep throwing UDP packets at you even if some get dropped. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#Flow_control"
]
] |
|
4pnjy0
|
why do we feel blood rushing to our head but don't get that feeling in our feet when we are walking around?
|
Is it because our bodies are built to have blood flow top down or have our bodies just gotten used to it similar to how we don't feel the Earth spinning.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pnjy0/eli5_why_do_we_feel_blood_rushing_to_our_head_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4md9z4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > Is it because our bodies are built to have blood flow top down\n\nBingo.\n\nYour body is built to force blood uphill to your brain, and to prevent blood from pooling downhill in your hands/feet. When you reverse your orientation you feel that rush of blood to your head because the vessels above your heart don't have the same capability to control blood flow and prevent pooling that the ones below the heart do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2516q8
|
How does the myelin sheath increase conductivity in neurons?
|
I've heard that myelin increases conductivity because the signal 'jumps' from node to node, which is quicker than opening every sodium channel along the axon, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how it would propagate slower if there is no myelin sheath present. That would mean there is more Na+ diffusing into the cell allowing for more electronic conduction? I don't see how sodium channels opening all along the axon, instead of just at the nodes, decrease conductivity.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2516q8/how_does_the_myelin_sheath_increase_conductivity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chcnasp"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Myelin increases *conduction velocity*. The action potential (AP) is a front of depolarization that occurs as adjacent segments of the axon are raised above their threshold voltage and activate voltage-gated ion channels.\n\nIn an unmyelinated axon, the speed of the AP propagation is tied to the dynamics of the ion channels. \n\nIn a myelinated axon, in the internodal segments, voltage changes from proximal, already-fired nodes propagate currents *electrotonically*. These currents are more akin to that of an electrical wire (and the dynamics of electrotonic conduction can be modeled with the so-called *cable equation*). Electrotonic conduction decays with length, meaning without additional nodes where voltage-gated sodium channels can open, the activation would peter out. Instead, channels open at nodes, causing depolarization, causing electrotonic currents that can cross the internodal segment fairly quickly, then to be refreshed by another depolarization.\n\nThe AP still depends on ion channel dynamics, but now segments with ion channels are dispersed, there are fewer segments to depolarize, and the AP jumps from node to node."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3gegqu
|
why is adolf hitler talked more about for his responsibility for the deaths of about 17 million instead of mao zedong, who is responsible for about 3 times as many deaths?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gegqu/eli5_why_is_adolf_hitler_talked_more_about_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctxe13f",
"ctxe46g",
"ctxecdr",
"ctxez4d",
"ctxgqsx",
"ctxpz19",
"ctxrs4g",
"ctxsl76",
"ctxsu4v",
"ctxsxqm",
"ctxtfdk",
"ctxtfdr",
"ctxu3sb",
"ctxu72g",
"ctxun6k",
"ctxwvc7",
"cty2yt6",
"cty37tk",
"cty5llh",
"cty7hq5",
"cty8zpw",
"ctyjesf",
"ctyl4rt"
],
"score": [
123,
32,
20,
12,
962,
9,
2,
15,
2,
2,
2,
10,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you live in the West. Hitler's atrocities are more personal to you and your countrymen. If you lived in Asia you would hear a lot more about Mao and 1930's/1940's Japan.",
"Don't forget Stalin on your list, whose death toll is around 30,000,000 if I remember correctly.\n\nHitler gets the attention because his actions affected a significant part of the world. He was also different in the fact that his actions directly started a genocide. Hitler's war drew in pretty much 5 of the 6 populated continents (South America remaining mostly out of it) and drastically shifted the political scene of the world.\n\nStalin and Mao, on the other hand, were mostly responsible for the death of their own citizenry. Because the politics that lead to those huge number of deaths were primarily internal, the results were swept under the rug until the events were part of history. People typically don't care as much about events that don't directly affect them.",
"The nazis literally made death factories to eliminate entire groups of people from the earth.\n\nThe others just had no problem killing people they didn't like/care about.",
"Pretty sure that this comes down to their motives; Hitler tried to exterminate an entire race, Mao started the Steal Revolution in which millions starved to death. Hitler tried to kill people and succeeded, Mao tried to improve his country [and kind of succeeded; infrastructure and income] while also killing millions. Yes there there were 100s of thousands of people Mao killed for no reason other than he didn't like them but he also didn't TRY to exterminate a whole group of people. ",
"Two things: specificity and deliberateness. When the Final Solution was put into action at the height of WWII, it was with a view to wiping out entire classes of people - Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and the disabled, to name a few. The Nazis undertook this work with a level of planning that was unprecedented in human history and has never been matched since. They made an earnest attempt to kill every single Jew in occupied Europe using all the techniques and technologies of the industrial age. This is why the Holocaust was such an appalling event: firstly because we attach a special significance to genocide compared to other forms of mass murder, and secondly because of what an indictment of the industrial age it was. To expand on this second point a bit, the Holocaust gave us - probably for the first time in history - an act of genocide in which the virtues of a supposedly civilised society were put to a perverted use, as tools of extermination. The Nazi regime coordinated countless soldiers, bureaucrats, engineers, scientists, doctors, politicians, and industrialists, and deliberately concentrated all of their talent and learning to destroy European Jewry.\n\n\nFor sheer numbers, Mao (and Stalin) put Hitler in the shade, but theirs were passive acts of mass murder, and they probably weren't genocides. Mao starved millions in the 1960s, but the starvation wasn't the goal - it was a simple by-product of CCP policies. Likewise, Stalin would probably be guilty of ethnic cleansing in his treatment of numerous ethnicities in the USSR, but these acts were always in service of his paranoia, and never because he made a concerted attempt to bring the state's full industrial might to bear on a particular ethnicity. \n\nWhether or not a certain dictator might have intended to kill so many people seems like a semantic difference, and to the victims it wouldn't really matter. But, we differentiate between murder and manslaughter for a reason, and for the same reason we also put Adolf Hitler in a category of his own. Sheer numbers are not at issue here: what really matters to us when we compare these things is mankind's capacity for evil, and the Nazis' methodical genocide is a far darker reflection on our species than Mao's criminal neglect.\n\nObviously, this is just a perspective, and I'm happy to take criticism from anyone who disagrees.\n\n**Edit:** A lot of people are pointing out that it's a result of cultural bias in the West and/or that Stalin and Mao gget off lightly because their crimes were confined to one country. I'd definitely agree with that, but I'd still maintain that if you were somehow able to revive all three and take them to the Hague for trial, Hitler would still get the most severe sentence. I guess I came at this from a quasi-legal perspective, and I'm grateful to everyone who offered cultural explanations, most of which I hadn't previously considered.",
"We share a lot of cultural roots with the Germans. More than we are comfortable admitting, since the wars. Their actions appalled us a lot for this reason.\n\nIn raw numbers, some of the other actors were worse. In terms of shocking our own conscience, the Germans hit a bit too close to home. Our own anti-semitism, as a majority Protestant nation, was a factor in this. \n\nThe industrial nature by which they did it was pretty shocking, as well. Ike rightly predicted that people would not believe it without proof. Some seem not to believe it *with* proof.\n\nAnother factor was that they did not count on losing. They kept records. Most of the littany of genocidal actions that have plagued our Earth since then have been(are) conducted with a view to secrecy.",
"Post World War ll, movies about the Holocaust/ Nazis exploded in popularity, mainly due to the fact that all famous directors at the time lived in Europe and had close ties with the event. This lead to mainstream knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis' atrocities that soon found its way into every classroom in the western world.\n\nMao's legacy exists in China and it's sphere of influence in the East, but most of these countries praise him as a leader who modernized China and gloss over all the famine he caused. I doubt most adults 40 and over know much if anything about Mao, as he's literally non existent within Western culture.",
"Economy price winner Amartya Sen wrote a book called \"Hunger and public action\" where he campared China after the revolution (-49) with India after the independence (-47), two countries on quite equal terms.\n\nHe talks about the 16-30 million people that died in Chinas great famine and that it could grow so severe because the lack of freedom of press and regional party officials not wanting to lose face saying that everything was under control. Thus central government was unable to contain the crisis. \n\nBut when it comes to India, the same number of people that starved to death in the great famine starves to death in silence every seven years. Amartya Sen states that the chinese model, despite all the faults of dictatorship was superior to the indian when it comes to providing for the fundamental needs of the people. Indian market economy is indifferent to suffering, only cares for profit. So countless millions starve while food is exported. But this is not seen as politics and no one is held responsible. It would sound absurd to say that ghandi killed 50 million people. \n\n\nBut in a planned economy people can be held responsible. So Mao being the chairman of the CCP is held responsible for the great famine. And it is reasonable to say that he has a certain responsibility for it. But it is also reasonable to believe that without the chinese revolution many more people would have died. \n \n",
"If Adolf was successfully assassinated would the Nazi party have just gotten another \"guy\"? Was Hitler really the driving force of the final solution or was he just the front man?",
"Here in New Zealand, we hardly learn about the Pacific \"theatre\" of the war... Wouldn't know what Pearl Harbour was until that movie came out. We also don't learn about the Japanese Empire nor its atrocities, even though our troups went to SE Asia to fight them Japanese... (We learn more about Gallipoli - where most of our troups fought - and died - for honestly a failed cause; Gallipoli was a disaster)\n\nWe only learn about the British side of the war, as well as bits of the German side. Basically how the war affected Britain, and Europe in general, nothing else unfortunately. ",
"All these answers trying to go deep. The truth of the matter is, where u live (US, Canada, UK) hitler was enemy number one, and these countries are very supportive of the jews. Hitler isnt talked about much in the other 90-95% of the countries. ",
"The reason is that Mao Zedong was indirectly responsible for those deaths. A lot went into the great leap forward and it was the goal of the party to propel them into a 'First World Nation' in a very short time. His policies just simply didn't work and there were a mass amount of starvation in the country side due to this. It wasn't just Mao's fault though, but the pressure to 'produce'. A lot of farmers at the time would falsify reports showing that they met the quota, when in fact they didn't. This deception led to the quota being raised and the falsified reports to continue. The peasants in the country-side didn't have enough food to eat and to meet quota so as a result villages ended up starving to death. China is a massive nation with secular villages full of millions of people. There just simply wasn't enough food for everyone. ",
"Here's a very ELI5 answer. \n\nHitler and the Nazi regime desired and planned the deaths of the people they killed. \n\nMao desired power and his plans killed people and he did not care. \n\nFor Hitler death was the PURPOSE, For Mao death was a BYPRODUCT. ",
"1- His evil went along with an international war effort. So he was more of a direct villain to a lot of the world rather than a cruel man ruining some other part of the world. Hitler, along with his genocide, was going for world domination.\n\n2- We beat him, and we would all like to think that we already beat the worst evil the world can produce.\n\n3- Targeting and popular propoganda that made it clear his intent against a group Americans are familiar.",
"The reason is that Hitler lost the war, and the regime that he established was effectively terminated and put to trial. \n\nMao and Stalin, on the other hand, were the founders of modern states that are still in existence. Mao founded the current China, Stalin created the modern Russia (most of the institutions of modern Russia were created under Stalin, and modern Russia considers itself heir to Stalin's state). Both these states have important resources to defend their founders, and find apologies for them (including, saying, as most commentators here, that they \"lacked the intention of murder\", which is untrue). Moreover, other states that want to cooperate with Russia and China, refrain from being overly critical of these figures, at least officially. ",
"Part of it was Hitler was our enemy during WWII and the truth about concentration camps came out during the later part of the war, so the shock and horror of the holocaust was more direct to Americans and Europeans than what happened under Mao. And, that shock has never completely gone away.\n\nOn the other hand, much of the intellectual elite was sympathetic to communism in the 1930s and 40s, and the reports of how badly people were being treated in Soviet Russia and later China were not really taken seriously. I don't think most Americans were aware of how many people were starving to death in China until well after the fact. We were never shocked by it while it was happening; it's not the same thing if you just read about it in a book later.\n\nAlso, there's the fact that Hitler deliberately engineered the death of all these people, while you could argue that Mao didn't really want millions of people to starve (even though he didn't care when his ass-backwards policies clearly weren't working and literally talked about the virtues of doing things ass-backwards).",
"Partly because Mao's legacy is still debated by many academics. The legacy being what he is or what he is not responsible for. \n\nMost of the deaths attributed to his regime were not necessarily state-sanctioned and driven. For example, the campaign for land reform was said to have resulted in the death of one million people. To a Western audience, we imagine brutal secret police rounding up people and hoarding them into pits to be executed, much like the *einsatzgruppen* did throughout occupied USSR territories during the Second World War. In reality, the sweeping and chaotic rural transformation that occurred was more protracted in nature, and far more dependent on grassroots violence over that initiated by state agents. Chinese landlords fought tooth-and-nail to avoid land redistribution. They at first tried less violent methods, of bribing or blackmailing Communist cadre, of commanding wives, daughters or prostitutes to seduce Communists to undermine their credibility, of enforcing tenancy relations by coopting peasant resistance by promising favorable treatment if they choose to resist land reform, and by concealing their holdings by transferring land titles to ignorant poorer relatives or to what would be considered today as 'non-profit' institutions. Likewise, they also became extremely violent, hiring thugs (there was a large stratum of rural bandits and petty criminals that were easily recruited) to physically intimidate and murder land reform cadres and their peasant supporters. The most charismatic and harboring of anti-landlord feelings convened mass meetings with party cadre where they called out landlords directly and publicly on such crimes. Sometimes Party cadre had to even restrain peasant violence, and attempt to discern whether poor peasants were just attacking richer or even middle peasants in an attempt to enlarge their own stock of property. Plus, they had to restrain the peasants by creating a metric by which such extra-judicial proceedings could even be carried out - many Communists feared that land reform could be exploited over petty disputes, or be used against poor widows who had no other choice but to rent out their land because they didn't have time to work on it, and so on. \n\nAnother is the role of the famines under Mao. Many Westerners conflate collectivization under Stalin to that under Mao, in which the former was undoubtedly based on a generous application of mass violence. I think there is a long list of differences, both in the regimes and how they enacted their policies and how their economies varied from one another, that need to be considered. While there are many documented cases of coercion being used by regional and local party cadre, particularly in the south, it was by and large a voluntarist movement that was patriotic in nature. Many Chinese named their children (and I can't find that Chinese pronunciation of it now) \"Overtake Britain\" and \"Overtake America\" in coal and petroleum production, which were at the time unknown resources in China. Many also genuinely believed in the Maoist dream of ending the division of city and town, of decentralizing production and proletarianizing the peasantry. This all did not happen without consequence, as the famine proved and Mao's embarrassment at the Lushan Conference confirmed. The PRC attempted to import one million tonnes of grain from Canada during this time to make up for the obvious bottleneck in food distribution, but a blockade prevented it. Politically and economically isolated by both the Soviet \"revisionists\" and also by Western \"imperialists,\" their style of radical development disrupted food production and distribution that was not at all created by one man alone (as anti-communist historians like Conquest and Pipes try to play it up as) but by a movement altogether. \n",
"Chuck Klosterman wrote a book on villainy. He addresses this question, \"why does Hitler stand out amongst Stalin and Mao?\"\n\nHis answer is basically:\n\nWe Americans know more about Hitler's personal life than about Stalin or Mao. The mustache, the rumors of his testicle, his vegetarianism, Eva Braun, proximity of German culture to our own, etc. Even though a lot of it is rumor, misinformation or propaganda, Hitler is a bigger villain because he is more memorable than the others.\n\nJewish immigration would be a thought I would add. Jewish Americans were aware of his atrocities, helped build The Bomb, lobbied our government leading up to the war.\n\nOthers mention the \"intention\" of the mass murders, the facets of genocide, etc. these are also highly relevant answers.",
"Because Hitler killed other people's people. Can't remember the comic who said it but, if you kill millions of your own people, that's an accomplishment! But, once you start moving into other countries and killing their people, that's when it becomes a problem.\n\nKilling your own people is entertainment, killing another country's people is a travesty.",
"Because those that lived to tell became rich and influential and made it their life's mission to spread the news and remind the world. Many of Mao Zedong's victims were minorities in China that still lack a voice and equal rights today. ",
"This is just a question of general public discourse. For example, in the US, it has been estimated that between 20 and 100 million native Americans were exterminated just for Europeans to settle here. People generally don't talk about this, though, because Native Americans don't have very much control over the media.\n\nSimilar atrocities, like the Armenian genocide (although much smaller, was still around 1 million people and should be noted) and the Holodomor (almost 2 million people) are basically unknown. Not that there is any reason for this -- it is just that there is insufficient impulse for people to talk about these things in comparison to the tight media control that tries to quell such discussion.\n\nHitler lost, and the outrage about the number of deaths he caused has a tremendous voice in the people who control media. Hitler's media apparatus went down with him, so that's the end of it. For example, everyone knows that Hitler killed about 6 million Jews, but the total casualty figures, which is a much larger number (17 million according to you (I have not even checked this figure, as it is unknown to me)), including soldiers is less well known. Why is the knowledge about these atrocities so disproportionate relative to its impact?\n\nIn China they actually do play up the atrocities that the Japanese did to them in the so called Nanking massacre (which was a comparatively small number of people). This seems absurdly disproportionate, but since it fits a particular narrative that the media there wants to portray, this gets some play there.",
"Its because of how it was done.\n\nNo One else built factories for the explicit purpose of killing people.\n\nThey werent an old volkswagen factories modified to kill people.\n\nThey were specifically built from the ground up for the only purpose of killing people. think about it.",
"The Chinese empire (unified by Mao) still exists and many times bigger than Nazi-unified Europe could ever become. That's why you don't criticize Mao, he succeeded where Hitler couldn't. \n\nIf Hitler won WW2 and unified Europe, there wouldn't be dissent about his policies.\n\nIf China was fragmented into a thousand tiny states like Europe, you bet Mao would be bearing a lot more bad press. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2fs8bw
|
how do business/company owners get paid if they are at the highest level in the business?
|
If they own the business, do they get a normal paycheck like everyone else? Can they just take money from the company and pay themselves? How does this all work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fs8bw/eli5how_do_businesscompany_owners_get_paid_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckc96hl",
"ckc9dr6"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on how the company is setup. The owner may simply take the entirety of the net earnings as income. Or the owner might have established the business as a separate entity, and granted himself a regular summary. Or, in the case of corporations, the Board (which is generally elected by the stockholders) determines the CEO's compensation.\n\nSo it all depends. But ultimately, they're getting paid, yes.",
"I own a corporation, but also am an employee. I get a pay check just like my employees. Sometimes I act as a share holder and sometimes like an employee. The government requires me to pay myself."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
10sf3i
|
Why does the Riemann Zeta Function lack closed form expressions for its value at odd natural numbers?
|
I'd love a clever insight. I hope there is a "big picture answer" to this one! This is bothersome.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10sf3i/why_does_the_riemann_zeta_function_lack_closed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6g9b8c"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Not sure if this will be big picture enough for you, but here's one way to think about it:\n\nTo find zeta(2n) in closed form, you can use Parseval's Theorem. Parseval's Theorem relates the integral of the square of a function to the sum of the squares of its Fourier coefficients. Notice all those even powers: if the Fourier coefficients go as 1/n^(a), then the squares of those coefficients go as 1/n^(2a), i.e., the even powers.\n\nNow there is a reason Parseval's Theorem is the way it is. Parseval's Theorem arises because expanding a function in a Fourier series is mathematically analogous to writing a vector as a linear combination of basis vectors, and Parseval's Theorem is about the analogue for functions of the dot product of a vector with itself. Given a vector (p,q,r), its dot product with itself is p^(2)+q^(2)+r^(2) -- a sum of even of powers.\n\nFor zeta(2n+1), there is no effective way to apply Parseval's Theorem to get the corresponding sum.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7jt6ds
|
how is disney not a monopoly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7jt6ds/eli5_how_is_disney_not_a_monopoly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dr8ycx1",
"dr8yjju"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"To be a monopoly, you have to control all (or nearly all) of the commerce in your given market. Microsoft was thought to be a monopoly in the past because they controlled ~95% of the PC OS market.\n\nDisney is in the entertainment market. Even after the merger, they won't even control 50% of that market, much less the > 75% you really need to have a serious discussion about a company being a monopoly.",
"mo·nop·o·ly\n\nməˈnäpəlē/\n\nnoun\n\n1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.\n\n\n\nDisney does not have exclusive control of media or entertainment"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1ueidp
|
why does pbs get the rights to bbc content where other networks do not?
|
I've noticed that PBS seems to get amazing series from the BBC (Downton Abbey, Sherlock) where other competing networks do not.
Normally, networks will sell the rights to other countries to the highest bidder, but if that's true why hasn't FOX/NBC/CBS/TNT/AMC/ABC tried to gain the rights to wildly popular shows like Downton Abbey or Sherlock? They certainly have more money for great shows than privately-funded PBS does. Does the BBC and PBS have a contract that makes them the exclusive rights holder for the US Market? Or now that shows like Downton Abbey and Sherlock have become so popular, PBS now has serious competition for BBC shows in the future?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ueidp/why_does_pbs_get_the_rights_to_bbc_content_where/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceh8nny",
"ceh9332"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"British entertainment, while popular, is still considered a niche interest amongst the larger population. Larger networks like FOX/TBS/NBC would prefer to make American adaptions (The Office, Skins, Top Gear) of British shows in order to more appeal to an American audience. \n\nThis has left networks like PBS with a nice little niche to get involved in. They can get newly popular British programming and get the ratings from it while American networks focus on their own adaptations. \n\n",
"Downton Abbey is not a BBC production; it is created by ITV, a commercial television company. So whatever is the reason that PBS gets British shows, it's unlikely to be a specific agreement between them and the BBC."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ns31i
|
i'm fat and don't understand carbs
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ns31i/eli5_im_fat_and_dont_understand_carbs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvqrgd2",
"cvqrm7b",
"cvqrn27",
"cvqsmuo",
"cvqudlg",
"cvqzin4",
"cvr0kyp",
"cvr2aqy",
"cvr2ifu",
"cvr3p5d"
],
"score": [
2,
30,
23,
3,
9,
2,
3,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you'll get better and more help and support in places like /r/loseit :)\n\nGood luck!",
"You don't really need to worry about carbs at your point. I'm 6'0\" and was 280 at one point. Just watch your calories, and I mean really watch them because bullshitting yourself does nothing but hurt you. Eat 1500-1800 calories a day for a month and you'll lose weight guaranteed.",
"In order to lose weight, you need to eat fewer calories then you burn. Someone of your weight and height probably burns close to 3,000 calories a day, so you have a lot to work with (at least for now).\n\nNote, that **this does not require exercise**. That 3k calories is just keeping your blood flowing and your lungs breathing and your cells otherwise supplied. Cut down to 2000 calories a day, and you'll end up losing about a pound every few days (at least for a little while). \n\nAnd what about carbs? carbs don't matter. I say this as someone who lost close to 80 pounds on a low carb diet. And I'll say it again **Carbs don't matter**. What matters is calories. \n\nThe reason that carb diets \"work\" isn't because some carbs are good and others are bad, it's because high calorie foods that don't really fill you up (like french fries, or breaded anything) tend to be very, very, very carb heavy. A slice of bacon is 70 calories. that means you could have 5 slices of bacon instead of a large French McD's French Fries and still have 200 calories left over. \n\nNow, there's a bit of a caveat in that high carb diets are associated with things like diabetes, and some people argue that cutting carbs makes it less likely that you will end up diabetic or pre-diabetic, both things that will leave you hungrier, less efficient at processing food, and less healthy in ways that are likely to keep a person heavy. And, maybe for some people carbs really are magic, because biology is messy. \n\nBut ultimately it's not about carbs. It's about calories. \n\nWell, calories and mindset. but mostly calories.",
"Don't get mixed up between \"carbs\" and \"calories\".\n\nCalories is food energy, present in fat, sugar, starch, protein, alcohol. \n\nCarb is *carbohydrates* and that means sugar and starch (food like bread, bagels, grains, pasta, etc contains lots of starchy carbohydrate). Some carbohydrates are better for you than others, brown bread with all of the bran and germ and other parts of the wheat is better for you than bleached white bread, and of course a gallon of sugary drink is even worse. Eating the right amount and kinds of carbs is very important for people with diabetes.\n\nYou need calories to live, and you certainly use more calories when you exercise. All weight loss is about using more calories than you are taking in, and whether those calories come from carbs (sugar, bread, etc) or other sources (fat, protein) *doesn't matter*. Weight loss is about the math, not the source. \n\nYou are having trouble burning calories if you can't exercise, so you need to work on the other side of the equation by *eating fewer calories*. For example, a baked potato has fewer calories than french fries, and a bunch of carrots has even fewer calories than a baked potato.\n\nTLDR; eat less calories, hope it works out for you.",
"In my life I've seen weights between 185-295. Few pro tips:\n\n-Every change should be a life change. If you can't see yourself doing it forever, it's probably not a good idea. \n\n-Giving up caffeine was the single greatest change for me. This isn't the same for everybody but when I gave this up my cravings went away. It's worth do some research on. \n\n-Exercise like any other thing you do daily (shower, brush your teeth, sleep, etc.) I do ~40 minutes a day now after breakfast. The only exception is if I'm going hiking, snowboarding etc. \n\n-I should note even when I was at my largest I still was an athlete. I've always love a number of sports. I acknowledge this helped a good bit in my progress and maybe is a bit lucky. However it comes with a great point. Find exercise you enjoy. If it isn't fun, you won't do it for very long. Remember, life changes. \n\n-There will always be another meal. Always. So you can eat what ever you are craving later. I used very hard limits. 4x 500 calorie meals w/ 1 cheat meal a week. Cheat meal was whatever I could eat in a single sitting. (though for some people they may stretch that out to far.\n\n-Don't give up.\n\n-Most important, for anything, have a why. This is really an end all be all life lesson. If you can't find a why, you fail, at anything. Fuck anybody I'm about to offend. Maybe it's about dating a really hot person. Maybe it's about health. Maybe it's about just feeling good in the mirror. You need that why though and it MUST be stronger than the temptation to eat. I can't stress this enough. No \"Why,\" no results. How far does this concept go?\n\nAsk anybody you work with why they do what they do. You'll notice the people with the best answers, are the ones that do 80% of the work. \n\n ",
"The best summary I have every heard was:\n\n\"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.\"\n\nInstead of carbs, let's talk calories. Your body burns about 2200 calories a day. Perhaps a bit more because you have a lot of body to haul around but a bit less because it is tiring and painful to move, so you don't. \n\nIf you consume more than you burn, you will gain weight. If you consume less, you will lose weight. Obviously the answer to losing weight (unfortunately) is eat less and move more. \n\nMost of the posts in this thread will talk about good carbs and bad carbs but really for you, those things don't matter yet. See a doctor, get on a diet, eat less and exercise more.\n\n",
"Hey, I'm 5'10\" and tipped the scales at over 370 a few years back. Today, I'm around 190. As others have said, carbs don't matter. What matters is calories. If you eat 5000 calories a day, you're going to gain weight. It doesn't matter if those carbs are protein, fat or carbs. Where low carb helped me was it made me feel fuller faster. Carbs just caused me to crave more carbs. Eating one slice of pizza is so difficult. I want six slices. Forget about sweets. I've eaten an entire box of cookies before. \n\n\nWhat I've found throughout my weight loss journey is this: everything that involves eating less and exercising more works! As mentioned low carb/keto worked for me, but I've also done something called a Protein Sparing Modified Fast, which worked very well. Then again, I've done the diet/workout protocol called LeanGains and really liked it. I've also followed bodybuilding programs, which included carbs, and had success. The diets that accompany P90X and Insanity also include carbs.\n\n\nIf I could be so bold as to suggest a strategy for you, I'd suggest the following:\n- Weigh yourself\n- Download MyFitnessPal App\n- Buy a kitchen scale and get used to weighing and measuring your food.\n- Visit /r/keto and learn more about the ketogenic/lowcarb diet and why it's actually a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. Learn a little about why fat doesn't make you fat.\n- Day 1: weigh yourself. Naked, first thing in the morning. Make a note of your weight.\n- Start a ketogenic/low carb diet, with your only goal being to not exceed 25g of carbs per day. Eat whatever you want and as much as you want for 2-3 weeks, but DO NOT go over 25g of carbs per day. Meticulously track everything you eat with MyFitness Pal. Make sure you read the FAQ at /r/keto and learn how to prevent electrolyte depletion. It's not Gatorade. These 2-3 weeks of no calorie limits will make the transition to keto much easier, imho.\n- At the beginning of week 3 or 4, weigh yourself again. You should have lost a significant amount of weight. Yes, a lot of it was water weight, but you will have lost some actual fat. \n- Go back to /r/keto, use their calorie calculator to figure out how many calories to eat per day and how many of those calories need to come from fat, protein and carbs. With this information and MyFitness pal, you'll be set. This is it - your road to success. Of course, as you continue to lose weight, you'll need to adjust, as your body won't require as many calories.\n- Start lifting weights. Don't go to the gym without a plan. Find a good beginner lifting program and stick to it. It'll probably be three days a week. A search at /r/fitness will help you find a program. Sprinkle in some moderately challenging cardio (nothing crazy) a few times a week and you'll see changes pretty quickly.\n\n\nGood luck!",
"Forget the ELIF thing man, get your sciatica tended to. Sure there are carbs and calories and other things that you should get wise about. Forget them for now. Go to the doctor and repair yourself. \n\nSciatica is a compression of a spinal nerve root in the lower back. The more that gets inflamed, the less you can move your leg. This has nothing to do with carbs and has only tangential connection to your weight. But it's the first thing in the list of fixes. \n\nAs someone who's been in your spot, this is not something you can man-up through. Telling yourself that if you lose 20 pounds will fix it is wrong. It'll cut the pain by a small amount, but the underlying condition will remain, and depending on how you move, that pain savings will evaporate real quick. \n\nOne way this can go is with proper care, medication, and PT. It's recoverable - your spine can restore itself to normal distance between your vertebrae and then you can listen to talk about carbs and weight loss. \n\nAnother way this can go is with spinal damage spiraling into disk rupture, leading to spine surgery.\n\nAt 27 I had the first, five or so years later I had the second. I've got 2 inches on your height, but the weight is pretty much identical. Get to a doctor, asap. ",
"Check out r/keto, it really is a life changer that helps you manage carbs and your blood sugar to lose fat and be healthier overall. O have lost over 80 lbs eating a ketogenic diet.",
"I will agree with most people that you shouldn't worry a lot about carbs more than calories, though I will say even with what you've said I'd recommend a certain level of activity. Try lifting heavy things - if you have leg/back troubles, you can lift heavy things while sitting or lying down. You have a couple options for heavy things lifting:\n1) lift something very heavy a few times\n2) lift something not very heavy a lot of times\n\nYou should do 1 if you can as this will give you more appreciable results for less work, and honestly 2 is not as effective for weight loss for whatever reason, ending up being a bit more like cardio. Just be careful with 1 as you do not want to further damage yourself.\n\nI'm a girl, and when trying to get my weight under control (full disclosure: I have never exceeded 190lbs), I joined something awful's You Look Like Shit forum and found a community of women who got into weight lifting because they wanted to lose weight and stuck around because they wanted to be stronger and tighter. While I may not have been humongous, there were a few amazing girls in that group had started at 300lbs+. You have to take it slow and give your body time to adjust, but you will be doing your body the greatest service in this way. While dead lifts were most popular when I was big on the forum, you can also just do bench presses or lat pulldowns if you are concerned about your back or your legs. Doing exercises that strengthen your core may help with your lower back pain and allow you to take on more work.\n\nDead lifts are probably one of the best ideas for your situation though, as they are essentially picking something off of the ground and then dropping it or setting it back on the ground - no lifting above your waist unless you want to take it there, and no constant reps - you release the weight after every lift. I started out doing about 5 of these 2-3 times a week along with a couple of other lifts to strengthen my upper body, trying to increase my lift weight by 3-5kg every week or two, as a modest start. I saw a good degree of toning and decent weight loss even chugging down peanut butter nutrition shakes, and the benefits to one's bones is apparently quite good as heavy strain seems to encourage greater bone density, which combined with muscles will make it easier to take on more intense activities. YMMV, personally my weight loss and gain tend to be about normal - I lose weight if I try, I gain weight if I don't try, it's not always so easy or so hard for others so it really will depend.\n\nBut you should certainly consider some form of calorie restriction even if lifting heavy things feels beyond your body's current abilities - part of it is eating less than you burn, but you should also make sure what you eat is satisfying, which may be where you're thinking of good carbs vs bad carbs. I've found beans, poultry and fish to be very satisfying for low calorie values, and I did switch to whole grains for a while. I can confirm that avocados, while one of the most calorie dense plant-based foods you can eat, do tend to stave off the feelings of needing to snack for me. At my healthy peak I would have one for breakfast normally with a whole grain or a salad, or split it in half and wouldn't be hungry until lunchtime, eat the other half at lunch with yoghurt or a sandwich and hold fast through till dinner. Intermittent fasting (5:2 mainly, though 16:8 is an option if it fits with your lifestyle) is an excellent way to maintain calorie restriction without having to dig too much into your normal life - its malleability and the freedom it allows in your diet otherwise makes it easier for many to stick with than other methods.\n\nI mentioned making peanut butter nutrition shakes, I had two variants of shake I would make. To have a healthy day while eating little, I'd make the following:\n1 avocado\n1 mango\nlike 30g of baby spinach leaves\nsome honey\nA bit of greek yoghurt for additional protein and calcium\n\nThis would normally make two shakes - I'd sometimes add a teaspoon of milled flaxseed or nuts in because it seemed good at the time but I don't know if it did anything, but that was a tasty, healthy shake for not many calories. The other shake was the weightlifting shake (keeping in mind that I am 5'5\" and was also trying to lose weight more than build muscle so skimped a bit on some things):\n\n-About half a serving size of protein powder indicated on the product\n-One to two tablespoons of peanut butter or almond butter\n-Enough Almond milk to get desired consistency, normally 200-300ml in my experience (you can use regular semi-skimmed milk, I just like the taste of almond milk more, and it had fewer calories per 100ml)\n-1/2-1 full serving of BCAA powder as it was recommended on the forum, but the stuff tastes like royal ass so it did not always make it in\n\nWith the option for a bit of honey and/or yoghurt if necessary, I think I'd still add a teaspoon. I used honey rather than other forms of sugar as I'd seen some success in warding off throat troubles when consuming honey, but can't testify whether it made a huge difference - I did tend to recover faster from colds when eating the stuff straight off a spoon but in shakes, who can say...\n\nStill, this shake would serve as breakfast a bit just before and the rest after a morning lifting session, and would leave me feeling good and taste-fulfilled until lunch. The avocado shake would normally be breakfast on non-lifting days and get me through to lunch as well (since I wake up at 6 for work, mornings tended to be the hardest time to not snack...)\n\nAnyway, whatever you choose to do, good luck! The key is, as others have said, considering things you can maintain consistently without the concept of being a temporary fix. People who do 5:2 intermittent fasting will usually do it the rest of their lives, adjusting as they go along, people who lift weights also will continue to lift weights, people who eat avocados will at least have avocado days."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3gdxyk
|
Is there any record of defection from the west to the Soviet Union?
|
I know that many ended up defecting from the USSR, but was there a notable amount that went the other way? Maybe out of communist sympathies or political pressure?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gdxyk/is_there_any_record_of_defection_from_the_west_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctxcwyc"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"There were quite a few defectors from the West that went over to the Soviet Union. The USSR treated western defectors with a very high degree of importance and lavishness, giving them access to the same privileges as the important Party members.\n\nA few of the more important or influential defectors:\n\nGeorge Koval: Koval was a spy that stole nuclear secrets from the US and brought them to the Soviet Union in 1948. He was an American who became a Soviet spy, and he is one of the prime infiltrators of the Manhattan Project. Koval's stolen secrets were extremely important for the development of the USSR's own nuclear weaponry projects. Koval was drafted into the US Army in 1943 and worked at atomic research labs, and the secrets he stole included intimately detailed research on how to produce and process polonium, plutonium, and uranium. Koval left the US in 1948 and never returned, and in 1949 the USSR detonated its first nuclear weapon. In prime Putin fashion, never missing an opportunity to flip the bird to the US, he ordered Koval to be named a Hero of Russia in 2007.\n\nAlfred Sarant and Joel Barr were two more atomic spies that defected to the USSR (Sarant defected to the People's Republic of Poland and then to the USSR while Barr defected to Czechoslovakia and then to the USSR) and they were both influential in the production of the Soviets' first hydrogen bomb. Sarant and Barr both defected in 1951, and worked inside the Rosenberg Spy Ring. \n\nJulius and Ethel Rosenberg: These two were an interesting case. They're two of the few cases of US citizens being outright convicted and executed for the formal charge of treason. The US Constitution has very strict definitions of what constitutes treason, and the Rosenbergs were convicted along those lines. They were charged with high treason and conspiracy to commit espionage relating to passing on information and secrets about the US hydrogen bomb projects. While there is little doubt that Julius was definitely working for the Soviets (he led the spy ring and coordinated the activities and information handling), his wife was executed for the same charges. Ethel's charge, conviction, and execution were most likely the by-product of rampant McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare, as there was little evidence that Ethel was involved at all. She was convicted on the evidence given by her brother, who later stated that he perjured himself to protect his own wife, who was the actual typist of the classified documents that Ethel's brother stole. The prosecution encouraged her brother to give that testimony, and another convicted spy working with the Rosenbergs (Morton Sobell, served 17 years of a 30 year espionage sentence) outright admitted that he (Sobell) was a spy, that Julius was the ringleader, and that Ethel had nothing at all to do with it.\n\nBoth Rosenbergs were executed on the same day by electrocution in an electric chair in capital punishment ward of Sing Sing Correctional Facility in New York State."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.