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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
32d4of
|
Was 'The Prince' by Niccolo Machiavelli actually read by monarchs or their heirs?
|
The book is basically a how-to on Ruling but I haven't found much on whether or not monarchs actually read or took interest in the book and Machiavelli's influence on rulers in his time.
Anybody know anything about this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32d4of/was_the_prince_by_niccolo_machiavelli_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqa3rvt",
"cqa53a6",
"cqantg3"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know about reading and following it, but Foucault does mention in Security, Population, Territory, that The Prince apparently had more influence as a book that other writers of that time try to critique and the entire political thought and ruling was influenced by the thoughts based on criticising and being against the point of The Prince, cumulating with [Anti Machiavel](_URL_0_) by Friderick the Great.",
"Actually a similar question was asked just few days ago:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I've heard several historians mentioning that Ivan the Terrible (aka Ivan IV of Russia) had probably read The Prince. Ivan had famous personal library and is considered very close to Machiavellian perfect ruler. Ivan became Tsar at a very early age and survived through numerous schemes and conspiracies. When he came of age he turned out to be master schemer himself using noble quarrels and class divisions to gain absolute rule and weaken old Feudal system. He was also cruel and ruthless man.\n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Machiavel"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/324xj7/how_was_the_prince_by_machiavelli_received_in_its/"
],
[
"http://www.eiu.edu/historia/Carswell2.pdf"
]
] |
|
7k1l9m
|
what are gas giants and why can't we land in them?
|
**Edit** Thanks for all the answers, that clarified alot
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7k1l9m/eli5_what_are_gas_giants_and_why_cant_we_land_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dratrxj",
"dratth2"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Exactly what it says on the tin: they are giant balls of gas. We can't land on them because: they are giant balls of gas.\n\nEven theoretical models that permit them to have a surface of some kind at the center, it would be under such conditions (temperatures, pressures) that no man-made craft could reach it and survive.",
"So it's a planet made almost entirely of gas with some ices (they usually do have a metal core) and thy are much bigger than earth. We can't land on them because they don't have a surface. As you go down through the atmosphere, due to the immense pressure, you would start feeling gas around you. As you went deeper in the gas would start to feel more and more fluid like until you reached the point where you could swim. This change from gas to liquid is gradual unlike on earth where you would get a splash. Also we couldn't land on them because the immense pressure and heat would destroy almost anything we send"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
63459w
|
Why were the nazis killing Jews at such a rate during the war, why not wait until after and channel all the money/time/effort into the fighting?
|
I was just watching a documentary on Auschwitz and I was asking myself why on earth anyone would do such horrendous things to fellow humans, and then it struck me that it didn't even seem to make sense practically, let alone ethically.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/63459w/why_were_the_nazis_killing_jews_at_such_a_rate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfrmrbh",
"dfrn2lm"
],
"score": [
8,
44
],
"text": [
"There's a few reasons:\n\n1. The \"Stabbed in the back\" myth wasn't just a convenient propaganda tool, it was an actual belief of many in German society and in the Nazi party. The Third Reich was in many ways a result ofthe shame of defeat in WW1 and the subjugation of Germany at the hands of her historic rivals. And a large part of this was the belief that Germany would've won the war, except that she was betrayed at the home front by various demographics (For example, Communists and Jews). It wasn't purely a matter of exterminating the inferior race to promote the racial purity of the German people, although that was a large part of it, it was also a means to permanently make sure that this time Germany wouldn't be sabotaged from the inside.\n\n2. The camps paid for themselves. The Nazis made extensive use of working people to death. It was essentially two birds with one stone. The hair of Jews and other prisoners would fill mattresses on U-Boats, and their expensive possessions were stolen by the Nazis. In addition to this, while the prisoners could still work, the camps provided hundreds of thousands of free labourers who didn't need to be paid or even looked after.\n\n3. Concentration camps and death/extermination camps are not the same thing. The Nazis constructed camps specifically designed the streamline the process of murder on an industrial scale. Train carriages full of people would arrive at the camps and by the end of the day all of those people would be ash on the rooftops, or lying in mass graves. This meant that in many camps if you kept your head down, your main concern was starving or catching an infectious disease. On the flip side, if you ended up at a death camp there was essentially no hope. The actual mass exterminations weren't overly expensive (relatively speaking), especially factoring in all the economic benefit the state gained from the work camps.",
"There are several things that need to be taken into account. The first being that the war the Germans fought from 1941 onward -- but in certain ways also present in the war against Poland in 1939 -- can not be separated from the Holocaust. From the German political leadership to the army leadership to the field commanders to the SS the Holocaust, meaning the systematic murder of Europe's Jews as well as several other atrocities, can not be differentiated from the war they fought because the reasons behind them were rather congruent and large scale murder of people was part of German warfare from 1941 the latest.\n\nThe whole spiel about \"If only Hitler hadn't decided to kill the Jews we'd live in our German speaking Europe without Bolshevism and had been to the moon by 1946\" that certain kinds of people, including a certain kind of Holocaust deniers frequently employs is oblivious to the fact how much of an integral part the Holocaust and mass atrocities were to the German warfare in WWII. In fact, Nazi Germany would have been unable to carry on the war for so long if it hadn't been for the Holocaust and other atrocities similarly how no prototype of the V2 rocket that reddit loves to glorify so much would have ever left the assembly line if it hadn't been for the massive use of the slave labor of Concentration Camp prisoners.\n\nBecause this is a subject about which whole books have been written in the past, let me try to cover some of the areas I deem most important and then get to the points you made:\n\n**What kind of war the Germans were fighting and why they fought it**\n\nIn line with Clausewitz' dictum that war is the extension of politics by other means, we tend to see modern war as a struggle for political and economic hegemony over certain areas and between states. This is also true for the war the Nazi state fought but it was also more than that. For Hitler and the leadership of the Third Reich, the war they started by invading Poland in 1939 was also always a racial war. A racial war in the sense that for Hitler history was ruled by the law of race struggle and the purest expression of that struggle was war. He and the rest of the Nazi leadership sought to fight the war to end all wars in Europe resulting in the total political and racial hegemony of the Aryan race.\n\nHow these principles shaped how they fought this war was apparent from 1939 and only increased over time. When the Wehrmacht marched into Poland in 1939, she did so not only with less regard for civilian life than had been displayed at least in certain areas in WWI (the bombing of Warsaw comes to mind) but also with the SS Einsatzgruppen closely on their trail. The Einsatzgruppen in Poland were charged with conducting rear security for the Wehrmacht. How they understood this task gives us an impression of what the aims of this war were. In between the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and December of the same year, the Einsatzgruppen murdered 65.000 people. Their victims were the Polish intelligentsia, i.e. priests, politicians, intellectuals, authors etc. as well as politically active Jews and some Roma communities. The purpose of this killing spree was to physically wipe out the people most likely to lead the Polish resistance against the occupation as well as to kill any elites from which the notion of Polish nation could persist. The Poles were to serve the Germans as subhuman slaves. They had no need for any kind of political or intellectual elites and in order to prepare them for their serfdom, their leaders and intellectuals had to be killed. The war in Poland was from its very beginning fought as a war of racial dominance and the campaign of murder by the Einsatzgruppen was seen as a first step of racial consolidation of Poland.\n\nThis is important to mention because similarly to the Polish intelligentsia, the Jews in the eyes of the political and military leadership of the Third Reich always represented a security risk. Jews were seen as the puppet masters behind Communism and Partisan resistance. \"Where the Jew is, is the Partisan and where there is the Partisan, there is the Jew\" ran the Wehrmacht moniker. This thinking becomes apparent in Serbia in 1941 when the Wehrmacht encounters serious Partisan resistance due to the communist and nationalist uprising against the occupation. The immediate response of the Wehrmacht aside escalating violence against civilians is to write to Berlin to deport the male Jews of Serbia to Poland because in their mind, it's these people who are responsible for the uprising. When that doesn't work out for several reasons, the Wehrmacht commander, Franz Böhme, orders all male Jews shot as part of the anti-Partisan campaign.\n\nThis example serves to illustrate the for the Nazi and military leadership, racial ideological thinking was so deeply ingrained in their idea of how to conduct this war that the Holocaust as in the systematic murder of all of Europe's Jews became an integral part of the war comparable in its importance to, let's say, building tanks. The same way they thought they could not conduct their war without tanks, they thought they conduct their war without killing Jews once they started resp. this was also a factor in what lead them to start the killing in the first place as I discuss [here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_2_).\n\nWith this underlying mindset in mind, the organization of the Holocaust and the decision for several other atrocities taken where designed in a fashion that assisted the German war effort further than just satisfying their idea of security through killing Jews.\n\n**The Holocaust as a for profit venture**\n\nAs I describe in [this previous answer](_URL_0_), the Holocaust was a financially profitable venture for the Nazis that helped fund the war effort. The total earnings of the German state from the Holocaust just from using the prisoners as laborers ran in the billions vs. relatively low cost of running operations. That combined with the economic rational of even the murder process -- gold teeth of the victims as well as the sale of their shaved hair for mattress stuffing and U boat crew shoes -- and the relatively low cost of the killing operations -- the Reinhard Camps gas chambers ran on Russian tank engines e.g. -- made the whole undertaking a venture designed with financial gain in mind.\n\nAlso, the Holocaust didn't bind a lot of man power. The Einsatzgruppen in the Soviet Union who murdered 500.000 until the end of 1941 had three thousand members. The total staff for the Operation Reinhard Camp in which 1,5 million people were murdered were 500 people. The number of concentration camp personnel never comprised more than 10.000 people total and that includes secretaries, people unfit for active duty in the Wehrmacht, administrative personnel, and non-German personnel, which the Nazis would not have used in active fighting.\n\nAdditionally, the Concentration Camp provided much needed cheap man power without which the Nazis would have never been able to fight as long as they did. The German economy lacked man power even in the 1930s. When the war started, the Nazi immediately began basically kidnapping people from their homes all over Europe to work in Germany. By August 1944 25% of the total labor force in Germany were forced laborers; civilian, POWs and from the camps. That's more than seven million people or the population total of Austria back then. All in all it is estimated that 12 million people worked as forced laborers for the Germans during the war. IG Farben and various German armament undertakings including reddit's much loved V2 rockets could not have done without the labor force of concentration camp inmates, which were needed just to make up all the people drafted to the Wehrmacht and to satisfy the ever rising man power need.\n\n**The Holocaust and the quest for food**\n\nAt the same time, this need for man power had to be balanced with the need to feed all the people in the occupied territories and especially the German population. The leadership of the Third Reich remembered the end of WWI well when the hunger winter of 1917 had been a decisive factor in the revolts and mutinies that ended the war. For them, keeping the Germans fed was a top priority target. Feeding millions of Jews or Soviet citizens for that matter was not high on their priority list.\n\nHistorian Christian Gerlach asserts that the reason why Aktion Reinhard, the killing of the majority of Poland's Jews, started in 1942 rather than later when it was originally planned, had to do with the German food situation. Unwilling to lower rations for the German population, the Nazis reduced the need for food supply by killing a considerable amount of Jews. You don't have to feed dead people.\n\nThis argument is backed up when looking at the Nazi plans for the invasion of the Soviet Union or the policy in Greece. In the USSR the Nazi Generalplan Ost foresaw at least 3 million people, mostly the urban population, starving in the first year of the war so that the Wehrmacht and the German population could be fed. These plans went even further into letting 27 million people starve but could not be exacted. However, the group that also fell victim to this plan were the Soviet POWs. Of the 3 million POWs captured in 1941, half starved until the end of the year. All in all 3 million Soviet POWs died so that the Nazi leadership could feed the Germans. A similar situation developed in Greece, where the Nazis produced a man made famine by exporting all food stuff to Germany. 300.000 Greeks starved to death during Nazi occupation so that the German population could be the second best fed of the whole war after the US population.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3n4mx8/how_much_did_the_holocaust_cost_germany/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fcte0/what_is_the_concensus_on_the_weak_dictator_theory/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xc03h/just_how_much_of_the_wehrmacht_was_dirty/"
]
] |
|
d3s00b
|
Did Mao Zedong lead a lavish, opulent, and sexually promiscuous private life?
|
When I was young I read a autobiography called 'Life and Death in Shanghai' and always wondered how accurate it was.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d3s00b/did_mao_zedong_lead_a_lavish_opulent_and_sexually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f05zk77"
],
"score": [
61
],
"text": [
"This is a great question and a great way to discuss how messy history can be. In theory, the answer should be the truth. He either did or didn't. But because of who Mao was and what he represented, there are multitudes of people who will swear that his life was lavish, opulent and sexually promiscuous while there are multitudes that will swear that it was not. \n\nThe first book to gain wide acclaim with a western audience on this subject was \"The Private Life of Chairman Mao\", by Dr. Li Zhisui. The book was published in 1994, almost twenty years after Mao died. Dr. Li Zhisui was Mao's personal physician (although there is a dispute about when he was his personal physician and what kind of access that gave him). Dr. Li initially admired Mao the revolutionary, but became critical and disgusted with Mao over time as he observed his life with power and paranoia. He claims Mao became corrupted by the power he had, becoming increasingly unstable and paranoid. He claims Mao lived a lavish lifestyle, enjoying luxuries not even imaginable to the Chinese citizenry, owning numerous estates, and having numerous extramarital affairs with very young women and even boys. Dr. Li claimed that he regularly treated Mao for venereal diseases and claimed that Mao was sterile. Western audiences widely believed this depiction of Mao, although numerous people have written books stating that the book was anything from an exaggeration to simply being false. \n\nJung Chang, another individual who had admired Mao when younger, but became disaffected later on in her life, claims that Mao was a hypocrite, as well as possessed of an insatiable sexual appetite. While publicly, Mao extolled an austere lifestyle, privately, he required huge efforts of those in his command to enjoy various pleasures, such as having a certain type of fish shipped hundreds of miles to him or requiring his servants to wear in new shoes so they would be comfortable, etc.... She wrote that Mao was a \"hedonistic megalomaniac.\" Again, Chang's writings were widely read and believed by western audiences, who for the most part wanted to believe the worst about Mao's private life. \n\nNumerous people, including academics, have contradicted these mostly negative depictions of Mao. Many academics point to both books as being exaggerations, lacking context, picking and choosing quotes, disregarding contrary evidence, and being otherwise incessantly biased towards depicting Mao in a bad light. Numerous pro-Mao sources attest to his piousness and sincerity. I am not sure there is a consensus about these matters from academics, and most academics would claim that Mao was a more complicated persona than these books admit. So what is the truth about his private life? It is hard to say for sure and depends a lot on which sources one finds to be credible. With a person as divisive as Mao, both because of his complex history and because of what he represents to different groups, if becomes an almost impossible task to sift through the contradictions of supposed first hand accounts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
qhwzc
|
how i can feel the presence of someone entering a room
|
Often when I'm in my room asleep/half asleep and someone comes in to grab something quietly I can 'feel' them enter and exit the room.
What exactly is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qhwzc/eli5_how_i_can_feel_the_presence_of_someone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3xqch8",
"c3xsgou",
"c3xsmx9"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
10
],
"text": [
"Sound and air pressure would be my answer. Even if they're quiet, in a quiet room they disturb the static air mass and you can pick up on that. One of the cool things about being an animal.",
"You have two levels of sensory perception.\n\nThere is the alarm response...it's fast, gets you ready to response, but doesn't tell you much.\n\nThen there is the normal sensory perception, where your brain takes the time to process what is going on.\n\nSince your alarm response is faster...*especially* when you are sleepy...it can give you the impression that you notice something *before* you figure out what you are seeing and hearing. ",
"Sound. There was a study done with blind people, who apparently have similar powers, as they always claimed that they \"felt\" the presence of object or people. They tried blocking sound to their ears and they stopped being able to detect things. They also hooked microphones to their ears that gave them the \"perspective\" of another person who would walk around, and they were able to \"feel\" when he was near an object, despite being in a different room/location.\n\nSorry, I cannot recall the name of the study, we discussed it in a psychology class a long time ago."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
evwato
|
What is the smallest number of cells in a multicellular organism found in nature?
|
Basically, a nematode worm apparently has around 1000 cells. Are there any multicellular organisms with, say, 10 cells?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/evwato/what_is_the_smallest_number_of_cells_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffyqh83",
"ffz37pf"
],
"score": [
51,
13
],
"text": [
"[Myxozoans](_URL_0_) are the smallest members of the animal kingdom. They are parasites that live between the cells of larger animals like fish. The smallest never get above 10 µm, and are made of exactly seven cells. I haven't been able to find an animal with less than that.",
"Myxozoans definitely have the fewest cells of any *animals* as u/phosphenes says, but some other multicellular organisms can still challenge this. Several types of green algae in the order Chlamydomonadales form colonies and are often studied as models of how multicellularity may have first evolved. You may have seen the relatively famous [*Volvox*](_URL_4_), which contains a few hundred or thousand cells, but this group actually contains [a continuum from single-celled to larger colonial species](_URL_3_) (figure from [Arakaki et al. 2013](_URL_2_)). As you can see, there are at least two species in this group ([*Tetrabaena socialis*](_URL_0_) and [*Basichlamys sacculifera*](_URL_1_)) which consist of only *four* cells, which is quite impressively small. However, this does start to get into the argument of whether such an arrangement should be considered a true organism or simply a colony of single cells (though the paper I cited above does seem to argue the former)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxozoa"
],
[
"http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/imgjan06/Fig3.jpg",
"http://protist.i.hosei.ac.jp/pdb/Images/Chlorophyta/Basichlamys/sp_1.jpg",
"https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081641",
"https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081641.g001",
"https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerhard_Gompper/publication/269339518/figure/fig28/AS:668512456544256@1536397198082/olvox-carteri-is-a-colony-of-several-thousand-cells-organized-around-a-spheroidal.jpg"
]
] |
|
2qm8mb
|
What does traditional Native American music actually sound like?
|
Mostly, if not only heard holywoods version.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qm8mb/what_does_traditional_native_american_music/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn7d6uv",
"cn7odnv",
"cn92ckv"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It really depends on which nation you're talking about, as they had different resources to make instruments with, different aesthetic preferences, and contact with different other nations.",
"In Alaska, the annual Alaska Federation of Natives conference has [a pretty good day of dance and music](_URL_0_), and here's a poor-quality video from the state video archives from this year's event.\n\nAlaska Native music is built around voice and drumming (if I were to make a generalization), and so smaller exhibitions (like [this one from the National Museum of the American Indian](_URL_1_)) don't give you the full experience. You need to be there in person to feel the bass from the drum.\n\nDancing is an integral part of the performance, so it's not just aural -- it's also visual and physical. You need to move to the music to be part of it. \n\nThere's a lot of video on YouTube, so take a look for things from the Alaska Federation of Natives conference and Celebration, which takes place every other year in Southeast Alaska. That happened just this summer, so a search for \"Celebration 2014 Juneau\" should bring up plenty of results.\n\nYou've asked for traditional music, but I do want to point out that Native culture -- like any other active, living thing -- is constantly growing and changing. It's not static. [Pamyua, for example](_URL_2_), is a fun example of modern Native music in Alaska. They do a lot of good work traveling around the state and teaching kids, so I like to give them credit for what they do.",
"There are several groups that aim to perform traditional Mesoamerican music as has been filtered down through the ages while also aiming to re-create how the music originally would have sounded. As with the groups /u/The_Alaskan wrote about, dancing was an integral part of the music, with the copper bells and shell shakers worn by the dancers as part of the music. You can see how that works in this [video of one of the re-creationist groups](_URL_1_), where the guy on the left is integrating the rattle on his leg.\n\nThe truth though, is that our picture of what the compositions sounded like is not very clear. We certainly know that the music was heavy on drums, whistles/flutes, rattles/bells, and conch horns along with the singing of the dancers. Two styles of drums are prominent among the Aztecs in particular, the [*huehuetl*](_URL_2_) and [*teponaztli*](_URL_0_). We have innumerable references to these instruments being played, but typically no more than \"the drums, flutes, and horns were played in celebration/for a festival/during war.\" Putting the instruments together into an authentic composition where no records have been kept of the actual music is difficult. It's like having all the ingredients for a meal, but none of the recipes. \n\nHere's a passage from Sahagún's *General History of the Things of New Spain* which gives you an idea of the kind of textual evidence we are working with, translated from a rather formal and roundabout poetical Nahuatl style:\n\n > And only in the calpulcos were those who beat the drum for [the procession]. They were only seated. They beat only the upright drums; they sat rattling gourd rattles; they sat erecting gourd rattles; they beat turtle shells; they struck turtle shells; they sat using turtle shells.\n\nThat is... not very helpful in distinguishing what exactly was being played. Both ([2007]( _URL_3_)) does a great job of marshaling textual and pictorial evidence to give some insight into the specifics of the actual music. For instance, he notes the Spanish called what he terms \"Temple Music\" things like \"gloomy\" and \"dark,\" which of course may be the Spanish reaction to the context more than the music. He does though, go through how certain combinations of instruments were specifically played for certain festivals and that certain deities even had instruments associated with them, like the rain god Tlaloc being associated with rattles and clatterers mimicking the sound of falling rain. \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao7Fn2EVMto",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOXXwG4MZbw",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7U5GCrMWOo"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzQskpLLDHY",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_LHv62R--M",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xKZaxV5HU",
"http://www.jstor.org/stable/41699767"
]
] |
|
5ll4g2
|
why do roads have unnecessary bends?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ll4g2/eli5why_do_roads_have_unnecessary_bends/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbwhl8a",
"dbwhnrr",
"dbwipiq",
"dbwnpgj",
"dbwozxs"
],
"score": [
21,
61,
17,
2,
20
],
"text": [
"Many very long roads add \"unnecessary\" bends in order to keep drivers awake and alert. Long stretches of straight road tend to put tired drivers to sleep, which is obviously a safety hazard.",
"I think the premise is false - just because it seems unnecessary, it's highly unlikely anybody is going to build needlessly curvy roads.\n\nObvious factors would be geography (Sometimes cheaper to simply avoid a big rock formation than to go through it), land ownership (maybe they couldn't acquire the land, or again, it was cheaper to go around), following a previous road/trail rather than trying to re engineer it, avoiding any other obstacles and, finally, some roads are built deliberately curvy to increase driver concentration.",
"Many times because you can't see and are completly unaware of why.\n\nThis includes geological formations, various barriers of material, utilities that need to be run, grading and drainage issues and a myriad of planning that goes into road engineering.\n\nA properly built road takes those factors in, it doesn't just appear.",
"Roads have required gradient changes (changes in slope). In order to achieve the specifications, the roads are longer and more curved to accommodate rise over run. In other words, roads can not be too steep so they are stretched out over long distances via curves and bends to accommodate the gradient change. This is one of the basics of civil engineering. ",
"There's a multitude of reasons why road designers do this.\n\nChasing the straight is the biggest reason. Roads that wind through uneven areas will often chase the straightest path that involves the engineers having to do the least amount of work levelling the ground. It's often cheaper and easier to extend the road a few hundred meters or even miles than it is to have to bring in the engineering resources to level the ground to build the road.\n\nThe next most common reason is a winding road is easier to travel up/down a gradient. Let's imagine you are at the foot of a steep hill. You can walk up that hill one of two ways. You can walk up it in a straight line and fight the gradient all the way up, or you can walk a \"Wavy\" indirect path that extends the distance you have to walk but decreases the gradient, making it easier, if a bit longer. Just like your legs, a vehicles engine and brakes will have an easier time of it ascending or descending the gradient if it does this.\n\nThe third most common reason is that sometimes its just easier to avoid something that the engineers knew was there but is not immediately obvious to you. Like marshy ground beneath the surface. In the UK there is a motorway called the M62 that is bisected by a [lone farm and looks extremely odd](_URL_0_). Many people believe that the farm is still there because the owners refused to sell their land. The real reason is the ground around the farm is so marshy its unsuitable for a road, the engineers simply went round it and did not need to demolish the farm, so they left them there.\n\nThere was some flawed research many years ago that led to the thinking that drivers are less likely to fall asleep if they are forced to drive to a curve. This was quickly debunked but it led to a common myth that motorways developed during the 60's and 70's where designed with this research prompting the constant curves in them. The real reason is that they where designed with shallow curves to eliminate the amount of sharper curving that might be required and thus maintain higher speeds and prevent slow-down or braking pinch points.\n\nA similar myth often leads to the belief that roads are sometimes designed with curves/bends to force drivers to obey a speed limit. No road designer would ever do this. All roads are designed to be navigated as fast as possible as an efficiency metric. Any road that is by design slowing the traffic down is inherently inefficient and will cause problems.\n\nBelieve it or not, property ownership is rarely a barrier to a roads construction and it rarely dictates the path a road has to take. If a road is considered necessary, many compulsory purchase laws exist in most countries that allow the land in question to be compulsory purchased from the land owner to allow the road to proceed. As I alluded to above, many people believe this is the reason the [farm that bisects the M62 in the UK](_URL_0_) remains where it is in its odd location. The real reason is the engineers didn't want it as it was a unsuitable path for the road to take. Had they wanted it, they would have gotten it (Just like they compulsory purchased all the houses and farms that surrounded it)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.641355,-1.9517334,358m/data=!3m1!1e3"
]
] |
||
a8revb
|
Could "active light cancelling" exist?
|
As of today, we have developed efficient active noise cancelling technology that we can find in popular headphones. Could the same idea apply to light, even if we are talking about EM waves and not mechanical waves?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a8revb/could_active_light_cancelling_exist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecdzqib",
"ece0kqk"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Sounds difficult, natural light is incoherent - meaning that the peaks and troughs of all the waves aren’t aligned (out of phase). It is also not polarised - so those waves if you look at them end-on are misaligned. To ‘cancel out’ the light you’d need the same amount (and frequency) of light, polarised in the same plane, 180° out of phase (so the peaks of one wave align with the troughs of the other) with what you want to cancel, travelling along the same path.\n\nSound is much easier to cancel as, polarity isn’t applicable, and it’s already effectively ‘in-phase’ so that’s not an issue either. Probably also less necessary because it’s much easier to block light than sound and then just display whatever you want to.",
"In principle, sure. It is much, much harder, though, because light wave repetition rates are much, much faster. In practice with modern computers that sort of active use of wave interference is mostly limited to radio waves (for example in steering a beam), which have much slower repetition rates \n\nBut we really don't need it because passively blocking light is easy. Any opaque object does that. In fact is is harder to make a material that *doesn't* block light thank one that does. Making something that passively blocks all sounds is much, much harder, and almost impossible to do in a small space.\n\nThink of 3D goggles. Those are essentially the equivalent of active noise cancelling headphones, in that they block any output besides what the device itself creates. But no fancy circuitry is needed to block the light, just a piece of plastic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3gqrrk
|
Was "The First American" Ben Franklin ever seriously considered for U.S. President?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gqrrk/was_the_first_american_ben_franklin_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu0ncxu",
"cu0pgd3"
],
"score": [
46,
21
],
"text": [
"When he came back to the US from France in 1785, he was very much hoping to retire from public duties. Instead, Pennsylvania made him President of the state, ( essentially the governor) and he served three terms, for three years, and complained of the work. Even if he had been willing, once he had seen the Constitutional Convention finish in 1787 his health was too poor to be considered\nfor first President. But there was no one running against Washington, anyway: the only competition was between candidates for Vice President",
"As alluded to in the other comment, it's more that it could've been no on other than Washington.\n\nAlso, remember that the way we see and revere someone in the present isn't the same that they were seen at the time. Franklin was well-regarded, but no one had a national profile like Washington.\n\nPlus, his age. He was just over 80 in the late 1780s."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7gw83s
|
what ant decides when a colony is to be moved?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gw83s/eli5_what_ant_decides_when_a_colony_is_to_be_moved/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqm7bf3",
"dqm9pfo"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"No one ant decides to move. Instead, when an ant thinks the colony needs to move, it goes out scouting for a new home. If it finds one it likes, it comes back to the nest, lays down a phermone trail, and brings another ant to check out the new nest. If _that_ ant likes it too, it will go back and also lay down a phermone trail and bring a new ant to check out the place. If it doesn't like it, the ant will just go back home.\n\nEventually, if the number of ants desiring to move to the new place gets big enough, the whole colony will migrate over. Ants may move if their old home has been damaged, or if they've just outgrown the space available, or various other reasons.\n\nHere's a write up about an experiment that this info comes from\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"I was really hoping there would just be one ant who was confident enough to convince their colony mates to move, and thus the move was on. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.insidescience.org/news/when-ants-get-together-make-decision"
],
[]
] |
||
5otupv
|
why are bulletproof vests not reusable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5otupv/eli5_why_are_bulletproof_vests_not_reusable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcm0rzu",
"dcm0y4r",
"dcm12nm",
"dcm15j6",
"dcm5kas",
"dcmgidv"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The easiest way I can explain this, is a kevlar vest is like a cube of jello? If you smack the jello and crush it, it will break apart, but absorb the shock, if you hit it again it's just a pile of mush so it will barely stop your hand, your hand being the bullet.",
"It can stop multiple rounds it just lowers the structural integrity of the material the more it's damaged lower than what is required to classify it as that class of body armor... they have an expiration date too.",
"Because the vest can stop a bullet only if certain parts of it are at full strength. \n\nWhen a bullet goes though it the layers will weaken as they stop a bullet. In fact some of the layers are designed to breakdown as they get struck by the bullet. As they those layers degrade they absorb a lot of the force of that bullet. \n\nBut if I have a new vest and a vest that has been shot a few times, the used vest will give much more unreliable protection. \n\n\nThey new vest will be far more reliable. ",
"They are not bulletproof, they are bullet resistant, that resistance goes down each time they are struck and eventually they will fail and bullets will pass through them.",
"Kevlar vests are made by layers after layers of material. Think of a net to catch a bullet. The bullet is going to rip through the net but it does slow it down a bit. There is a second net which the bullet also rips through but slows it down even more. Layer after layer gives way but slowing down the bullet more and more until the bullet is moving so slow that the next net does not break.\n\nSo even though the bullet did not get through the vest, half of the nets now have a hole in them. Those nets won't be as uniform in absorbing energy making them less effective and should a bullet strike the same spot twice, lets just hope the second half of the vest is just as good.",
"Ok depending on the type of vest you are talking about is going to get you a different answer, but a vest with plates is meant to break so as to absorb the impact. However, once the plate is broken there isn't enough surface area to dissapate the energy from the impact of the bullet so it will be inoperable.A Kevlar vest however is woven in layers which give it alot of strength. Technically speaking if you were only shot once a kevlar vest would be reusable if you didnt get shot in the same exact place albeit the structural integrity of the vest would be damaged and the risk of reusing kevlar vests is not one that law enforcement/Military is/should be willing to take. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
oofa5
|
eil5: why are sunsets more colorful in winter?
|
This may just be spitting in the wind, but it seems like sunsets during the winter months are more vibrant and colorful. They have deeper, richer, longer lasting colors. A lot of the time, they stretch all the way across the sky. Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/oofa5/eil5_why_are_sunsets_more_colorful_in_winter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3is8vu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"OK, so it all depends on where you are on the earth. The sun's light is directed at an angle from -23 degree to +23 degrees throughout the year (in relation to the equator). This is because of our Earth's tilted axis. The winter solstice is when the sun is at its lowest point (in the northern hemisphere) and the summer solstice is when the sun is at its highest point (again, in the northern hemisphere). These solstices line up with the beginning of winter and the beginning of summer. The other two interesting points are when the sun's light is at an angle of zero degrees, these are called equinoxes.\n\nNow, the higher you are in the northern hemisphere (a higher \"latitude\"), the lower the sun light's angle will be in the winter. So, when the sun rises and sets, it almost seems like it barely gets above the horizon. I am in Seattle, so it is not that exaggerated, but noticeable.\n\nOK, now here's your answer: when the sun is setting during winter, the light has to pass through much more atmosphere before it reaches your eyes. More atmosphere means more \"stuff\" the light has to pass through. This is because of the angle of the sun's light as it shines on your location. The more \"stuff\" the light has to pass through, the more the light will be reflected and absorbed and create the colorful sunsets you see.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
83i88e
|
In Medieval Western Europe did certain regions Develop unique sword fighting Styles? Like "this region favors techniques with lots of slashes" or "this region favors techniques with lots of thrusts"?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/83i88e/in_medieval_western_europe_did_certain_regions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvifo9p"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"follow-up: I know that in The Princess Bride, all of the techniques mentioned in the sword fight between the Man in Black and Inigo Montoya are based on real, genuine medieval masters' techniques; were they really moves-and-countermoves designed to act off each other?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1qmgo7
|
how can some people stand in the cold in shorts and a t-shirt and be perfectly fine, when another person of equal size and body type, might be freezing and need tons of layers to stay warm?
|
I'm a 20 year old male, 5'11", 145lbs, lived in Florida all my life. We recently had a cold front come through town, it was high 50s, low 60s, and in the morning I needed to get something out of my car and didn't realize how cold it was so I walked out there in shorts and tank and instantly I was freezing. Later in the day, now dressed in pants and a long sleeve shirt with a jacket, I drive out of my neighborhood past this bus stop and see a guy waiting there about the same size as me rocking shorts and a t-shirt and looking completely unfazed by the weather. How is this possible?? Why does this happen? I want to be able to stand out in barely cold weather and not be bothered, what's the deal with my body!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qmgo7/eli5_how_can_some_people_stand_in_the_cold_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cde9atd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because different people adjust to these things differently. \nI met an exchange student from Poland here in Belgium and he was just rocking some shorts and a t-shirt when all of us were wearing our jackets and all of that. What's cold for us wasn't exactly cold for him. Same principle applies the other way as well, when I go to Dubia or something like that I'll feel like I'm melting when the people there seem to think it's a rather chilly day... It's just what you're used to.\n\nThat, and people adjust in different ways. I even like to sleep with my window open in the winter, because I handle cold really well. My mother, on the other hand, always heats her room until the point that I couldn't even be in there for more than three minutes. \n\nAlso; I'm not a scientist so I don't really know any super cool explanations, but that's just how I see it.\n\n\nTL;DR: It all depends on what you're used to.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1je60s
|
why are acid attacks so prevalent in the middle east/asia?
|
What is it that makes this form of assault so prevelent in the middle east as well as in Asia?
Is it because of the lack of control over acidic chemicals? Is it because many of these chemicals are produced in these places?
Please reddit, explain this like i'm five so I may be enlightened as to why this form of assault occurs in these regions at such a high rate.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1je60s/eli5_why_are_acid_attacks_so_prevalent_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbds8kb",
"cbdtrp7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Follow up: If you can get these chemicals in the US and other Western countries, why are these attacks not as common here as they are in the east?",
"this is because they have no base."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6t1nqs
|
Was Gerald Ford already considered a "lame duck" President when Nixon resigned or did he have the political capital to accomplish anything?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6t1nqs/was_gerald_ford_already_considered_a_lame_duck/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlh9n5q"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Not an answer, but a clarification for OP: \"lame duck\" refers to a politician's final months in office, after a successor has already been elected, or when term limits guarantee that they will not be able to run for re-election. Essentially, it means \"everyone knows you're about to be replaced, so you don't have much political influence anymore.\"\n\nFord was able to run for re-election in 1976, so the term would only apply during the last couple months of his presidency, after Carter had been elected.\n\nI get the question you mean to ask, regardless of semantics. Just wanted to clear that up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
jdgm3
|
the difference between polar and non-polar compounds
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jdgm3/eli5_the_difference_between_polar_and_nonpolar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2b6y60",
"c2b6zn1",
"c2b6y60",
"c2b6zn1"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of the shape in terms of sports objects. Something like a baseball, soccer ball, tennis ball would all be non-polar. An American football would be polar. A simplified non-polar example is \"balance,\" except not in a physical manner but with electrons.\n\nFor molecules, the polarity is the spreading out of electrons. A non-polar molecule (such as methane, CH4) has a single carbon atom in the middle surrounded by four hydrogen atoms. All the hydrogen atoms are the same distance apart from each other. If you were to have the methane molecule physically in your hand and turned it so you were looking at one of the hydrogen atoms directly in front, it wouldn't matter which hydrogen atom it was, since it would look the same every time.\n\nIf you didn't know anything about chemistry and were asked to draw out the water molecule (two hydrogen atoms, one oxygen atom) it would make sense to just draw it as H-O-H, in a straight line. In the real world this is not the case, mostly because of electron orbitals, but I feel like that might be too complicated to explain to a five year old (or maybe I just can't). But the main point is that the oxygen atom has numerous more electrons than it wants to share with the hydrogen atoms. It stores its extra electrons that it's not sharing in its orbitals, which is kind of like an electron cloud for the molecule. Without the cloud the water molecule would be completely straight, but since the cloud is there on one side it pushes the hydrogen molecules into a \" > \" shape because the cloud is quite large and takes up a lot of room. This causes the water molecule to be polar, having a partial negative charge where the electron cloud (orbital) is (because electrons have a negative charge) and a partial positive charge where the hydrogen atoms are located. The overall charge of a water molecule is zero, so if there is a partial negative area there needs to be a partial positive area to balance it out.\n\nI have no idea if a 5 year old could understand that but it was fun to type anyway.",
"A polar molecule has a positive charge on one end and a negative charge on the opposite end. Because of this, polar molecules align end to end like magnets. The charge difference is caused by one atom of the molecule being \"stronger\" and therefore better at pulling electrons towards it.\n\nA non-polar molecule has an even charge across its whole surface.",
"Think of the shape in terms of sports objects. Something like a baseball, soccer ball, tennis ball would all be non-polar. An American football would be polar. A simplified non-polar example is \"balance,\" except not in a physical manner but with electrons.\n\nFor molecules, the polarity is the spreading out of electrons. A non-polar molecule (such as methane, CH4) has a single carbon atom in the middle surrounded by four hydrogen atoms. All the hydrogen atoms are the same distance apart from each other. If you were to have the methane molecule physically in your hand and turned it so you were looking at one of the hydrogen atoms directly in front, it wouldn't matter which hydrogen atom it was, since it would look the same every time.\n\nIf you didn't know anything about chemistry and were asked to draw out the water molecule (two hydrogen atoms, one oxygen atom) it would make sense to just draw it as H-O-H, in a straight line. In the real world this is not the case, mostly because of electron orbitals, but I feel like that might be too complicated to explain to a five year old (or maybe I just can't). But the main point is that the oxygen atom has numerous more electrons than it wants to share with the hydrogen atoms. It stores its extra electrons that it's not sharing in its orbitals, which is kind of like an electron cloud for the molecule. Without the cloud the water molecule would be completely straight, but since the cloud is there on one side it pushes the hydrogen molecules into a \" > \" shape because the cloud is quite large and takes up a lot of room. This causes the water molecule to be polar, having a partial negative charge where the electron cloud (orbital) is (because electrons have a negative charge) and a partial positive charge where the hydrogen atoms are located. The overall charge of a water molecule is zero, so if there is a partial negative area there needs to be a partial positive area to balance it out.\n\nI have no idea if a 5 year old could understand that but it was fun to type anyway.",
"A polar molecule has a positive charge on one end and a negative charge on the opposite end. Because of this, polar molecules align end to end like magnets. The charge difference is caused by one atom of the molecule being \"stronger\" and therefore better at pulling electrons towards it.\n\nA non-polar molecule has an even charge across its whole surface."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
27odik
|
why can't i upload a gif as my profile picture or banner on facebook or twitter?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27odik/eli5_why_cant_i_upload_a_gif_as_my_profile/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci2s4ye",
"ci2scus",
"ci2t83i"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the format is not supported by the parameters set up by Facebook and Twitter. Also, HUGE GIF.",
"Because they decided that they don't want you to. ",
"Could you imagine loading an entire facebook page of GIFs? It's already bad enough to load one sometimes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1tzggd
|
Has there ever been a succession crisis wherein a monarch or noble died while their spouse was still pregnant with the prospective heir?
|
Question somewhat inspired by the example of Alexander's son by Roxana. I suppose I'm interested to know, if in other time periods or cultures, there were more sophisticated practices besides war and feuds to resolve such a situation.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tzggd/has_there_ever_been_a_succession_crisis_wherein_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cedcedk"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"[Shapur II](_URL_0_) of the Sasanian Empire was crowned while still *in utero*. The crown was placed on his mothers belly. His older brothers were killed, blinded or imprisoned when his father died. The nobles and Shapur's mother ran the kingdom so there wasn't much of a succession crisis, though the older brothers probably weren't very happy with the situation, until he assumed the throne at 16.\n\nJohn I of France was king for 5 days, from birth to death. The kingdom was ruled by his uncle, and later king Phillip the Tall while John's mother waited for John to be born and after his death. No real crisis.\n\n[Ladislaus the Posthumous](_URL_1_) was born 4 months after his fathers death. He succeeded his father as Duke of Austria but not his other titles. His cousin became King of the Romans, and Ladislaus wasn't crowned King of Bohemia till he was 13, both titles had been his father's. King of the Romans was an elective title.\n\n[Theobald I of Navarre](_URL_2_) was also born after his father death. His mother was regent for him until he was 21. The [Champagne War of Sucession](_URL_3_) was fought by other claimants to his title but didn't start till he was about 14."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapur_II",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladislaus_Posthumus_of_Bohemia_and_Hungary",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobald_IV_of_Champagne",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Succession_%28Champagne%29"
]
] |
|
58ll79
|
António de Oliveira Salazar was a Portugal's reactionary leader, when he came to power in 1932 why didn't he restore the monarchy which had been overthrown 1919? Also what were the relations between Salazar and Franco and the right wing regimes in some former Iberian colonies in Latin America?
|
Salazar was exceptionally traditional and reactionary, even compared to his neighbor and ally Francisco Franco. In Portugal the monarchy was overthrown in October 1910, just over 20 years before he came to power - since he was such a traditionalist I am very confused as to why he didn't restore the monarchy in Portugal. One of the biggest reasons for the nationalist uprising in Spain to begin with was the restoration of the monarchy, we're monarchist feelings just not as strong and Portugal is they were in Spain?
Also, the second question. How did Salazar and Franco interact with the right wing regimes in the former Iberian colonies in South and Central America? I'm especially interested in Salazar's interactions with the Vargas government in Brazil 1930-1945/1951-1954 as well as Franco's relationship with Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic) and Juan Peron in Argentina during his first term (1946-55).
Thank you!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/58ll79/antónio_de_oliveira_salazar_was_a_portugals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d91uqn7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"So in Salazar's case, traditional and reactionary are contradictory. He was indeed profoundly conservative, but was for the most part far from advocating anything other than \"stability and good order\" (with him in charge, naturally) above anything else. Since Salazar's \"right of rule\" came from the formal support of the President of Portugal Óscar Carmona (p.1928-1951), the re-estabilishment of the monarchy was contrary to his interest. Monarchists were (are) by default, against the separation of Church and state, well Salazar, being a devout believer himself, promptly reverted the measures of the \"First Portuguese Republic\" (1910-1926) and reinstated Catholicism as the official religion of state in 1933 (along with an entirely new constitution), thus solving that issue and, as he saw it, gaining allies to his statesmanship. Just as the reality of Spain as a multi-national state that faced a civil war with several competing ideologies was worlds apart from Portugal, a mostly rural country, Salazar as a dictator of civilian background was far from reactionary when compared to *General* Franco, both of whom, it seems, despised eachother on a personal level but kept a relationship of convenience.\n\nSource is Filipe Ribeiro de Menezes' *Salazar* (2010), which is sort of the Portuguese equivalent to Ian Kershaw's *Hitler*\n\nSalazar intended to diplomatically approach Portugal to Brazil, but did it only later, to garner support when the Portuguese Colonial War broke out, but since I'm not too well versed on the matter I'll refrain from further comment. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6cw4ge
|
Why did Hitler executed Jews with gas, ovens, shots, etc if they could work? Wouldn't be more efficient just make them work until they starve instead of spending resources with mass killings?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6cw4ge/why_did_hitler_executed_jews_with_gas_ovens_shots/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhxubnr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hi! As this question pertains to basic, underlying facts of the Holocaust, I hope you can appreciate that it can be a fraught subject to deal with. While we want people to get the answers they are looking for, we also remain very conscious that threads of this nature can attract the very wrong kind of response. As such, this message is not intended to provide you with all of the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as Holocaust Denial, and provide a short list of introductory reading. There is always more than can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point for you.\n\n##What Was the Holocaust?\n\nThe Holocaust refers the genocidal deaths of 5-6 million European Jews carried out systematically by Nazi Germany as part of targeted policies of persecution and extermination during World War II. Some historians will also include the deaths of the Roma, Communists, Mentally Disabled, and other groups targeted by Nazi policies, which brings the total number of deaths to ~11 million. Debates about whether or not the Holocaust includes these deaths or not is a matter of definitions, but in no way a reflection on dispute that they occurred.\n\n##But This Guy Says Otherwise!\n\nUnfortunately, there is a small, but at times vocal, minority of persons who fall into the category of Holocaust Denial, attempting to minimize the deaths by orders of magnitude, impugn well proven facts, or even claim that the Holocaust is entirely a fabrication and never happened. Although they often self-style themselves as \"Revisionists\", they are not correctly described by the title. While revisionism is not inherently a dirty word, actual revision, to quote Michael Shermer, *\"entails refinement of detailed knowledge about events, rarely complete denial of the events themselves, and certainly not denial of the cumulation of events known as the Holocaust.\"*\n\nIt is absolutely true that were you to read a book written in 1950 or so, you would find information which any decent scholar today might reject, and that is the result of good revisionism. But these changes, which even can be quite large, such as the reassessment of deaths at Auschwitz from ~4 million to ~1 million, are done within the bounds of respected, academic study, and reflect decades of work that builds upon the work of previous scholars, and certainly does not willfully disregard documented evidence and recollections. There are still plenty of questions within Holocaust Studies that are debated by scholars, and there may still be more out there for us to discover, and revise, but when it comes to the basic facts, there is simply no valid argument against them.\n\n##So What Are the Basics?\n\nBeginning with their rise to power in the 1930s, the Nazi Party, headed by Adolf Hitler, implemented a series of anti-Jewish policies within Germany, marginalizing Jews within society more and more, stripping them of their wealth, livelihoods, and their dignity. With the invasion of Poland in 1939, the number of Jews under Nazi control reached into the millions, and this number would again increase with the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Shortly after the invasion of Poland, the Germans started to confine the Jewish population into squalid ghettos. After several plans on how to rid Europe of the Jews that all proved unfeasible, by the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, ideological (Antisemitism) and pragmatic (Resources) considerations lead to mass-killings becoming the only viable option in the minds of the Nazi leadership.\nFirst only practiced in the USSR, it was influential groups such as the SS and the administration of the General Government that pushed to expand the killing operations to all of Europe and sometime at the end of 1941 met with Hitler’s approval.\n\nThe early killings were carried out foremost by the *Einsatzgruppen*, paramilitary groups organized under the aegis of the SS and tasked with carrying out the mass killings of Jews, Communists, and other 'undesirable elements' in the wake of the German military's advance. In what is often termed the 'Holocaust by Bullet', the *Einsatzgruppen*, with the assistance of the Wehrmacht, the SD, the Security Police, as well as local collaborators, would kill roughly two million persons, over half of them Jews. Most killings were carried out with mass shootings, but other methods such as gas vans - intended to spare the killers the trauma of shooting so many persons day after day - were utilized too. \n\nBy early 1942, the \"Final Solution\" to the so-called \"Jewish Question\" was essentially finalized at the Wannsee Conference under the direction of Reinhard Heydrich, where the plan to eliminate the Jewish population of Europe using a series of extermination camps set up in occupied Poland was presented and met with approval.\n\nConstruction of extermination camps had already begun the previous fall, and mass extermination, mostly as part of 'Operation Reinhard', had began operation by spring of 1942. Roughly 2 million persons, nearly all Jewish men, women, and children, were immediately gassed upon arrival at Bełżec, Sobibór, and Treblinka over the next two years, when these \"Reinhard\" camps were closed and razed. More victims would meet their fate in additional extermination camps such as Chełmno, but most infamously at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where slightly over 1 million persons, mostly Jews, died. Under the plan set forth at Wannsee, exterminations were hardly limited to the Jews of Poland, but rather Jews from all over Europe were rounded up and sent east by rail like cattle to the slaughter. Although the victims of the Reinhard Camps were originally buried, they would later be exhumed and cremated, and cremation of the victims was normal procedure at later camps such as Auschwitz.\n\n##The Camps\n\nThere were two main types of camps run by Nazi Germany, which is sometimes a source of confusion. Concentration Camps were well known means of extrajudicial control implemented by the Nazis shortly after taking power, beginning with the construction of Dachau in 1933. Political opponents of all type, not just Jews, could find themselves imprisoned in these camps during the pre-war years, and while conditions were often brutal and squalid, and numerous deaths did occur from mistreatment, they were not usually a death sentence and the population fluctuated greatly. Although Concentration Camps *were* later made part of the 'Final Solution', their purpose was not as immediate extermination centers. Some were 'way stations', and others were work camps, where Germany intended to eke out every last bit of productivity from them through what was known as \"extermination through labor\". Jews and other undesirable elements, if deemed healthy enough to work, could find themselves spared for a time and \"allowed\" to toil away like slaves until their usefulness was at an end.\n\nAlthough some Concentration Camps, such as Mauthausen, did include small gas chambers, mass gassing was not the primary purpose of the camp. Many camps, becoming extremely overcrowded, nevertheless resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of inhabitants due to the outbreak of diseases such as typhus, or starvation, all of which the camp administrations did little to prevent. Bergen-Belsen, which was not a work camp but rather served as something of a way station for prisoners of the camp systems being moved about, is perhaps one of the most infamous of camps on this count, saw some 50,000 deaths caused by the conditions. Often located in the Reich, camps liberated by the Western forces were exclusively Concentration Camps, and many survivor testimonies come from these camps.\n\nThe Concentration Camps are contrasted with the Extermination Camps, which were purpose built for mass killing, with large gas chambers and later on, crematoria, but little or no facilities for inmates. Often they were disguised with false facades to lull the new arrivals into a false sense of security, even though rumors were of course rife for the fate that awaited the deportees. Almost all arrivals were killed upon arrival at these camps, and in many cases the number of survivors numbered in the single digits, such as at Bełżec, where only seven Jews, forced to assist in operation of the camp, were alive after the war.\n\nSeveral camps, however, were 'Hybrids' of both types, the most famous being Auschwitz, which was a vast complex of subcamps. The infamous 'selection' of prisoners, conducted by SS doctors upon arrival, meant life or death, with those deemed unsuited for labor immediately gassed and the more healthy and robust given at least temporary reprieve. The death count at Auschwitz numbered around 1 million, but it is also the source of many survivor testimonies.\n\n##How Do We Know?\n\nRunning through the evidence piece by piece would take more space than we have here, but suffice to say, there is a lot of evidence, and not just the (mountains of) survivor testimony. We have testimonies and writings from many who participated, as well German documentation of the programs. [This site](_URL_2_) catalogs some of the evidence we have for mass extermination as it relates to Auschwitz. I'll close this out with a short list of excellent works that should help to introduce you to various aspects of Holocaust study.\n\n##Further Reading\n\n* \"[Third Reich Trilogy](_URL_5_)\" by Richard Evans\n* \"[Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution](_URL_0_)\" by Ian Kershaw\n* \"[Auschwitz: A New History](_URL_3_)\" by Laurence Rees\n* \"[Ordinary Men](_URL_1_)\" by Christopher Browning\n* \"[Denying History](_URL_4_)\" by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman\n* [AskHistorians FAQ](/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_nazi_germany)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=Z7FiPwAACAAJ",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=HFB-dkuZzSwC",
"http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=bx-dZEV228QC",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=Q-0B9-D5Vz4C",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=HZmXOPGTGjIC"
]
] |
||
65jy6i
|
when venus fly traps eat, how does the animal die? - also what would happen to a finger in a venus fly trap?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65jy6i/eli5_when_venus_fly_traps_eat_how_does_the_animal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgau817",
"dgb3cmh"
],
"score": [
46,
166
],
"text": [
"The fly's body slowly dissolves in liquids secreted by the plant. Same thing would happen to a finger. Seems like a pretty gruesome way to die. ",
"Basically the Venus Fly Trap (VFT) seals up when something is inside of it, creating a pocket. It then fills that pocket with acidic digestive juices (essentially creating a stomach).\n\nThe acidic juices aren't strong enough to destroy chitin (the harder exoskeleton), but it is strong enough to deteriorate the connective tissue between the chitin - like in leg sockets or in spots between body segments (thorax and abdomen). Then the acid gets inside the guts of the bug, liquefying it. \n\nOnce the bug's insides have been liquefied, the flytrap absorbs the nutrients/digestive juices within the pocket. When the trap re-opens (if it does... most traps can be activated 3-5 times before the trap self destructs), the chitinous husk of the last meal is leftover. This husk can attract spiders or other bugs looking for a meal, serving as bait in a way.\n\nWhen it comes to the finger issue, there's a few problems. VFT traps are activated by triggering a certain amount of hairs. Even then, after the trap closes, the prey item has to keep triggering the hairs, which indicates that prey is inside the pocket, signalling the trap to fully seal itself up and begin filling with acidic juices. In the instance you just put your finger in a normal size trap, it would probably close, realize its prey item is too big since it can't fully seal itself up, and then release you. \n\nNow, in the instance you fell into a man-size VFT, and it closed around you, sealing you up inside, and you continued to struggle and try to get out instead of sit very still as to not agitate the trigger hairs (which would release you, as the trap would think it did not actually catch you. Bugs are too stupid to not resist, we are not), the plant would seal itself up and become air-tight. Before any acidic juices are released, you asphyxiate within the trap from lack of oxygen (most likely), or you will drown in the juices when the pocket fills up with acid. You probably won't feel being burned alive - it takes the VFT a few days to fully digest a bug, so I imagine if it were the same for humans, you'd be dead due to asphyxiation long before you felt any burning sensations. \n\nProbably TMI for ELI5, but I've been raising VFT for close to 15 years now, and have studied them quite a bit. Also, as a note, don't feed your VFT meat. They don't like it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
dtzzr0
|
how was such a massive structure like the hoover dam constructed so perfectly without modern technology and how were they able to hold the water back during the build?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dtzzr0/eli5_how_was_such_a_massive_structure_like_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7092ly",
"f70ezmv"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The river was diverted by use of tunnels, there was no water to hold back. Once the dam was complete, the valley filled with water. You can read more on Wikipedia [Hoover Dam](_URL_0_)",
"What are you talking about? The Hoover Dam _WAS_ made with modern technology."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam"
],
[]
] |
||
1zefnx
|
How different will the night sky be in one galactic year (time it takes for the sun to orbit the Milky Way)?
|
If the sun is orbiting the galaxy at a different rate than other stars and nebulas than does that mean we will see different stars in the sky?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zefnx/how_different_will_the_night_sky_be_in_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfthg9s"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The galactic year is about 225 to 250 million years (estimates vary). Over that time scale the proper motion of the stars would distort the constellations beyond recognition. [This site](_URL_0_) shows an example of the changes to the Big Dipper over just 100,000 years. There would also be some stars that fade out since they are close and not bright and others that appear that are far now but dimmer but would brighten as the are closer. The time scale of 200+ million years make any real calculations of what the sky would look like a guess."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/help/proper.html"
]
] |
|
cepqe3
|
how does gold end up concentrated in a vein on earth, considering the contents originate from multiple separate supernovae?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cepqe3/eli5_how_does_gold_end_up_concentrated_in_a_vein/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eu48nq3",
"eu4g3fg",
"eu4gi3a",
"eu4icg4",
"eu4ksx2",
"eu4negs",
"eu4rvc3",
"eu4va5k",
"eu51cwm",
"eu62fgs"
],
"score": [
5497,
11,
318,
14,
3,
396,
7,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So there are a *lot* of factors at play here so I'm skipping a fair bit. The current theory of how gold seams form is as follows:\n\nDeep underground, a lot of minerals are fairly homogenously dissolved in groundwater and, because it's underground, this water is at extremely high pressure (3000 atmospheres). Earthquakes at these depths can cause fissures and cracks to open up between the rocks, and when this happens the pressure drops to close to 1 atmosphere. This causes the water to vaporise, depositing all the minerals dissolved in it onto the surrounding rock, gold included. \n\nWhen the earthquake is over and pressure normalises, the water condenses and re-dissolves most of the minerals. Gold is not very soluble though, so it is less able to be re-absorbed and stays as a thin deposit on the rock. This process repeats over and over until a significant amount of gold has been deposited in a seam/vein.\n\nAt this point some kind of geological activity is required to bring the seam to, or close to, the surface. Earthquakes, plate tectonics, volcanoes, etc can all do this. It's no coincidence that the (well, a) gold rush occurred in California, an extremely earthquake-prone part of the world!",
"My only experience is panning, so can't speak to deep veins. BUT those veins, over time, can make it to the surface. \nGold is denser than most material. Rain water and rivers will cause it to get trapped and concentrate as the area around it erodes away or material moves down stream.",
"ELI5: Can someone explain what OP is asking?\n\nEdit: thanks everybody",
"Planetary differentiation. \n\n\n [_URL_1_](_URL_0_) \n\n\nGold is heavy. Really heavy. When a planet is red-hot and molten, heavy elements sink to the core. Lighter stuff 'floats'. If that planet were to be destroyed by whatever mechanism, you'll have a bunch of asteroids with different compositions. Those asteroids then hit earth, seeding the upper crust with various metals. \n\n\nSee also, the Late Heavy Bombardment period: [_URL_3_](_URL_2_)",
"Gold and quartz precipitate out of solution in hydrothermal vents when the water cools in the upper crust",
"Geologist here, please ignore most of the previous replies apart from /u/interstellargator who explains crack-seal vein formation nicely.\n\nGold deposits are formed in many different ways, most of the time in gold mines you will never see the gold - it is contained microscopically within other minerals which need to be crushed up to recover it.\n\nWhen you talk about gold veins you are probably talking about the classic movie style 'motherlode' vein where you see nice [big chunks of visible gold](_URL_0_) hanging around in rocks. These types of veins are actually really common, they just don't tend to have gold in them. The veins form from hydrothermal processes, hydrothermal means hot 'water' (for want of a better word) which is loaded with salt, chlorine, sulphur, carbon dioxide and various acids. They are NOT magmatic (molten rock).\n\nHydrothermal fluids can come from a few different sources, the earth's mantle, crust, or surface and gold can be picked up by fluids originating from any of these sources! You just need to heat up the water, pressurise it, and get some nasty chemicals dissolved in it, this isn't hard when you start to circulate water around underground!\n\nFluids will travel through cracks and very small pores in the rocks and gradually the concentration of gold will increase as it dissolves it from the rocks it travels through (which may have 1 part per billion or less gold) or, if it is sourced from the mantle, the gold may already be dissolved in the fluid. Then, as the fluid circulates around something changes - it can be the pH of the fluid, the amount of oxygen, the temperature, and the gold will start to precipitate out.\n\nRemember - at this point, the fluid is extremely high pressure, it is busting apart the rock and pushing through it, it starts to fill in - think of lime that builds up on your kettle or your showerhead, exactly the same idea but this is quartz and gold instead of carbonate. additionally, because pressures in the earth are enormous, this type of veining occurs quite shallowly in the top ~5km of the crust because otherwise the open spaces would be forced shut, deeper 'vein gold' occurrences you get from more of a crack-seal type of vein.\n\nFinally, many people regard the most valuable type of gold vein to only exist on a website called 'Reddit' where a single inane comment will be 'gilded'. This is a rare occurrence just like the discovery of physical gold however the processes seem to be much the same albeit more of a social phenomenon than a chemical one. This inane comment will be followed by a 'chain-reaction' of replies generally along the lines of 'Nice' or 'F' and depending on the alcohol levels in the vein this can trigger what is known as a 'gold train' which is of course, as we all know, where the world famous 'Kind Stranger' nugget first originated.",
"Many have already given good answers, so I will just try to add something as I am currently working in gold exploration.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nOne good way to think about concentrating gold in significant amounts is the classical 1. Source 2. Conduit 3. Trap model for the formation of ore deposits. The model suggests that in order to form economic concentrations of gold there is firstly a need to have a source site (or an area) where gold is concentrated in fluid solution (hot, saline mixture of vapor, liquid and metals). As an example you could have **a rock unit deep underground** (several kilometers) that is subjected to circulation of hot fluids which are able to dissolve gold from the rock and increase the gold concentration in the circulating fluids to 100x - 1000x of that of the source rock. Here it is good to know that gold (as are most other elements too) is present almost in any kind of rock, but just in neglible amounts.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSecondly, a **conduit** is needed to transport the now gold enriched hot fluids to depths where gold precipitation is possible. Someone already mentioned earthquakes ,and fissures and cracks related to them, that are very effective in creating pathways for the fluids to flow. Geologically there are also several other ways to create different kinds of weakness surfaces in the bedrock that are used by the gold bearing fluids to rise up.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFinally, there must be a **change** **in the prevailing conditions** that act to destabilize the hot fluid (OR more precisely the chemical complexes within the fluid) that carries gold. Generally, three different mechanisms are responsible for gold precipitation: 1. Drop in pressure 2. Drop in temperature 3. Fluid chemistry change (mixing with other fluid, or contamination with reactive rock such as limestone/marble\\[ex. pH changes\\]). The process can be any single of the aforementioned or a combination of them, and if the change is strong enough gold 'simply' drops out of the solution a bit like a salt (NaCl) saturated water would precipitate salt on the bottom of a mug if the temperature is decreased.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWorth mentioning is that there might be just a single event that precipitates gold, or the formation of the gold deposit can happen in multiple phases or pulses.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEdit. Just corrected one typo, and added one missed paragraph change",
"Some top answers are focusing on the vein deposit part, so I'll try to focus on the Earth formation side and link to other answers.\n\nAfter a supernova, elements are scattered out, but you can vaguely argue that each point of distance is expected to have X% composition (size of star, supernova size/rate, element mass, velocity, volatility etc.). So just by earth being the distance that it is, is expected to have a certain % gold as an overall average. \n\nWhen a planet forms, it heats up, such that rock melts, this means that elements are mobile through the earth. Prime example is the so-called Iron Catastrophe, where a massive quantity of iron, iron-like and iron bonding elements sank to the core, mainly because of how heavy and dense they are, and this formed our core ( as its mainly iron and nickle). Each element has a spot where its comfortable, and for gold, it likes to go where iron goes. This is why gold is rare on/near the surface, it needs magma to bring it up from deeper in the earth.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nNow, while magma has a higher gold concentration than the surface, its not enough to form a deposit, it needs something to concentrate it further. This is where it diverges into different deposit types, mechanism, theories etc, but it usually chemical and/or physical changes.\n\nThis can be when the rising magma feels a pressure drop as it gets closer to the surface, its dissolved water comes out and the dissolved gold will be carried by that water. With enough water being released, it will crack the surrounding rocks (call it natural fracking), the magmatic water will rush into the openings, and now with a new massive pressure drop the gold is uncomfortable being dissolved and will prefer to bond to itself and deposit in the crack, forming a vein of gold to fill the crack. (there will be other minerals forming aswell, but this one way to form a gold vein deposit)",
"Geology is an odd mistress.\n\nGeology works on a very slow timescale but cosmic stuff is even slower. Stuff on the earths surface can be buried deep underground or be found in odd places. Some scientists have drilled under the ocean floor and found arboreal bacteria related to that sound on the earths surface and unrelated to ocean born bacteria. During some geological event the stuff got trapped under the ocean and layers of ground but was able to survive.\n\nOperating on that long timescale you can see plate tetonics fuse and make mountains from plains or dip and make new oceans or do a whole bunch of weird stuff. Even on a year over year timescale you can see it in real time, as rivers quickly change course or landslides and avalanches deposit earth in new places or icebergs and churrents deposit large amounts of stone and soil elsewhere as they drift. Through this process elements and materials are distributed regularly. The Americas are fed Iron and other metals from the Sahara and Africa for example.\n\nThe earth isn't static. It just moves very slowly.",
"Gold is pretty unreactive chemically, which leaves it out of most of the geochemistry that occurs during Magma/lava cooling, on larger bodies of magma a sloppy goo is left over at the end of the cooling/crystallising and some of that will be ‘native’ gold. There are other metallic elements that behave in similar ways eg silver. So you can find native gold in igneous rock veins. Once the elements get hold of the rocks they start to break them down, throwing off pebbles, rocks, boulders etc. If the rocks contain native gold there’s a really good chance that the gold will be washed down rivers and dropped at river bends or dead spits in river flow and gold being pretty dense you get unusually high concentrations because once deposited it’s harder to get moving again (this is the same effect you use to pan for gold ). These levee deposits can in turn be covered and turned into sedimentary rocks to later be mined, or the river deposits themselves are panned/sieved to extract the gold. \n\nSo it’s because it’s non-reactive chemically and it’s density causes it to be concentrated in the environment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary\\_differentiation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late\\_Heavy\\_Bombardment"
],
[],
[
"https://www.mining.com/rnc-minerals-recovers-giant-gold-slab-mine-australia/6/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4g6s7t
|
why do we sometimes get that "empty" feeling after a show, game, book, etc?
|
Is there a good reason for why we get "the void" after a series or show ended?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4g6s7t/eli5_why_do_we_sometimes_get_that_empty_feeling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2f16ox",
"d2f3e71",
"d2fn01h"
],
"score": [
14,
28,
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty much the same reason you get sad when a friend moves away, or when someone you care about dies. You grew attached to the story, the series, the show. You grew with the characters, watched them learn, watched them live, and, in some cases, watched them die. When the story ended, a sense of closure is also a sense of being ripped away from what you cared about.\n\nBasically part of the reason I haven't read a new book in a while, and why I'll just stop playing a game or watching a show at the last episode.",
"Entertainment releases dopamine, serotonin, and probably other neurotrasmitters. When said entertainment is finished, you are actually experiencing a mild withdrawal.\n\nMy friend and I did an experiment in college where we turned off all forms of entertainment for a week, with the exception of non-fiction books and chess. It was eye-opening. But really I didn't miss it too much by the end off the week.\n\nGranted, this was during the Writer's Strike and tv sucked ass anyway, so...",
"I felt depressed for about a week after finishing the mass effect series. I actually didnt leave my bed for the following 24 hours. Every now and again I'll remember the thrill I had playing it and feel that aching feeling. It's pretty bad and I actually thought about playing it again today but in a different way. \n\nMy boyfriend understood because he had played the series years before me and knew what it felt like but none of my other friends or family did. They thought it was really bizarre. It may have been a little too overdramatic but I did play all 3 games in less than a week with about 3 hours of sleep a day. Such a good game. Such a disappointing ending. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
91dwv2
|
How has the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen affect human evolution since our early ancestors came on the scene?
|
I'm curious about whether the decrease in carbon dioxide has been an advantage for us in the way that eating meat might have given us more energy to work with, and I'm wondering if an increase in atmospheric co2 might hinder us, evolutionarily, in the future.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/91dwv2/how_has_the_changes_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2zah3g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not at all, directly, if you are talking about hominids and not older things. The O2 level has remained steady for the past few million years, and CO2 has not varied enough to have real physiological effects.\n\nCO2 _has_ varied enough to effect temperature as part of feedback loops during the glacial cycles of the ice age (not to mention global warming) and that's had all sorts of effects on humanity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ao1n38
|
What's the point in keeping smaller particle accelerators around after larger ones have been built?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ao1n38/whats_the_point_in_keeping_smaller_particle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efxpsob",
"efxym9a",
"efy8sf4"
],
"score": [
15,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Particle accelerators have many different uses. There are tens of thousands of them in the world, it would not make any sense to try to use one big one for every application. Also it’s not necessarily true that bigger is better. That happens to be true on the energy frontier of high energy physics, but there are other areas within HEP, as well as completely different fields, which use accelerators, and don’t necessarily need them to get any bigger.",
"Such big instruments have really tight schedule that's already filled for months or years with teams around the world always having limited time to do what they want. I know of someone that was doing a PhD and had to use this kind of small facilities, and he still had to stay up 2 days straight to be able to do all the experiments he wanted in the short time he was allocated, for which the reservation was made months in advance. It's the same for big telescopes or other kinds of big experimental facilities.",
"Most accelerators are used in the industry, for medical applications and so on all over the world - they are needed where they are and their size fits their application.\n\nThere are a few big accelerators used for high energy particle and nuclear physics. The largest three running projects are the LHC, RHIC and SuperKEKB. The LHC accelerates protons at the highest energies. It can also accelerate heavier ions and does so typically for a few weeks per year. RHIC is a dedicated heavy ion collider - at lower energy, but with more time for more different ions for nuclear physics. SuperKEKB is an electron-positron collider at much lower energy. Its main focus is the study of particles called B mesons. While they are produced at the LHC, too, the LHC collisions always come with many other particles in addition which makes it difficult to measure various parameters. SuperKEKB often produces pairs of B mesons with nothing else in the collision, that makes it much easier to study them.\n\nThere are a couple more projects, typically specialized on lighter particles (- > lower energy needed)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
us08c
|
does the way we respond as a society influence how
traumatic an event is for a person?
|
[inspired by this post](_URL_0_) , I'm wondering , does the way we, as a society, react towards certain events influence how traumatic they are for people? for example, in ancient greece, sexual relationships between young boys(ephebes) and adults were socially acceptable, would a boy in those times be less traumatized than a boy nowadays?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/us08c/does_the_way_we_respond_as_a_society_influence/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4y2q4g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Unquestionably it does.\n\nSocial pressures drive how we view/judge ourselves. The need for group attachment is strong, hence the drive to \"fit in\" is strong. Failing in this (actual or perceived) can be highly traumatic because it triggers a fear of being cast out and left to fend for ones self, bereft of group protection and support.\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/urgv3/hide_and_seek_from_a_toddlers_point_of_view/c4xzklc"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2zqzpm
|
how is it that all the hydrogen and helium (the lighter stuff) accumulated in the centre of our solar system, and all the heavier elements ended up circling around it? wouldn't the opposite make more sense?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zqzpm/eli5_how_is_it_that_all_the_hydrogen_and_helium/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cplicgf"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Take away the air and everything falls at the same rate. So initially everything would be pulled to the centre of the solar system at the same rate. Since most of the mass of the solar system is hydrogen, it makes sense that most of the mass of the sun is hydrogen. Once fusion started the lighter elements would be blown away from the inner solar system by solar winds. We see this in the inner planets, they are low in free hydrogen and helium, yet rich in heavier elements. The gas giants further out still have plenty of lighter elements because the are larger and are less affected by solar winds. Even though the sun is almost all hydrogen there are probably heavier elements at it's core."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
jqxjw
|
shouldn't eli5 be more about explaining concepts than answering questions?
|
Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a lot of questions here that really isn't hard to grasp, nor to explain...
I'd rather have questions of the type: "[ELI5] How the Large Hadron Collider works" or "ELI5: Farm Subsidies" than "ELI5 What the heck happened to Digg?" or "ELI5: Why does everyone hate the sound of their own speaking voice on recording?" (examples from the frontpage).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jqxjw/shouldnt_eli5_be_more_about_explaining_concepts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2eeg43",
"c2eejq6",
"c2eex67",
"c2ehf3y",
"c2ei5lo",
"c2eeg43",
"c2eejq6",
"c2eex67",
"c2ehf3y",
"c2ei5lo"
],
"score": [
17,
7,
7,
5,
2,
17,
7,
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Agreed. ELI5 is often treated as \"AskReddit, except I don't want to have to think\"",
"shouldn't this question be in askreddit?",
"Like [this](_URL_0_) crap? Yeah it's kind of out of hand. ",
"Exactly. This isn't just a place to ask questions; it's a place to understand the concepts that you just can't grasp even after reading many different explanations.",
"Okay turbo, I see your point.\n\nThe thing is this is a place where maannny people from all sorts backgrounds get together and talk they all have different questions. Some might know a lot about Farm Subsides and they might laugh at somebody who asked about them, or explain it in terms that made no sense to the person who asked. But those Farm Subsidies experts might know nothing about sound waves and so it confuses them when they hear there voice on a recording and it sounds different. So here at ELI5 we treat every question like it deserves a though explanation.",
"Agreed. ELI5 is often treated as \"AskReddit, except I don't want to have to think\"",
"shouldn't this question be in askreddit?",
"Like [this](_URL_0_) crap? Yeah it's kind of out of hand. ",
"Exactly. This isn't just a place to ask questions; it's a place to understand the concepts that you just can't grasp even after reading many different explanations.",
"Okay turbo, I see your point.\n\nThe thing is this is a place where maannny people from all sorts backgrounds get together and talk they all have different questions. Some might know a lot about Farm Subsides and they might laugh at somebody who asked about them, or explain it in terms that made no sense to the person who asked. But those Farm Subsidies experts might know nothing about sound waves and so it confuses them when they hear there voice on a recording and it sounds different. So here at ELI5 we treat every question like it deserves a though explanation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jqj53/eli5_what_are_the_cc_and_bcc_functions_in_my_email/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jqj53/eli5_what_are_the_cc_and_bcc_functions_in_my_email/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
28mjrw
|
i remember old games in higher graphics than they actually were.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28mjrw/eli5_i_remember_old_games_in_higher_graphics_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciccd7l",
"ciccdgz",
"ciccdmu",
"ciccele",
"ciccezn",
"cicckxj",
"cicd9m2",
"cicdgel",
"cicekug",
"cicelv7",
"cicf1mq",
"cicfk0y",
"cicfmfo",
"cicfw70",
"cicgbq8",
"cicgvrk",
"cicif25",
"cicirmf",
"cicixeo",
"cicmwyk",
"cicosvb",
"cicr4vt",
"cicrq88",
"cicx606"
],
"score": [
89,
341,
2,
13,
5,
35,
16,
13,
8,
2,
38,
6,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
14,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The power of imagination!",
"Well, a couple factors.\n\nThe first is the fact that you didn't have the new games of today to compare them with. Obviously if you took DOOM and put it up against Battlefield 4, then DOOM would look awful. But back in its prime, DOOM was the best of the best. Those *were* cutting edge graphics and that was a cutting edge game.\n\nThe other is imagination. When you play a game and really get lost in it, then it's like reading a book. You're not only playing the game and looking at pixels on a screen but you're building this image in your head as well. ",
"It's due to all of the nostalgia. Then you keep replaying the best parts over and over again, only the way you think it was. Ergo with better graphics.\n",
"Well they looked less shitty on a 1024x768 monitor than they do on a 1080p HD LCD for a start (not accounting for mods of choose)",
"I've often thought about this. The only conclusion I can come to is because you're comparing the graphics to what you've already played at the that point in time. Thus, any improvements/advancements blew our proverbial socks off and it's that impressed mindset that we remember. How many times I've heard or said, \"it almost looks real\" is kind of embarrassing in hindsight.\nHere's another thought; our minds are maybe geared up to remember other things rather than quality of detail. Like emotions, smell, touch etc. I don't know but when I try to remember situations from years ago, imagery is pretty vague.",
"I also remember the first time I played GTA3, but I remember the bridge being far longer than what it actually is.",
"A lot of it boils down to comparative thinking and gradual progression. Graphics are perpetually increasing in quality, with some combination of improved technique and [Moore's Law](_URL_0_) doing the driving. We've never, however, meter real time content (e.g. games) against reality; even the most graphically stunning titles today aren't close to photorealistic - you can tell you're playing a game, but it's at the forefront of what can currently be achieved, and that is the standard we care about. No doubt at some point you'll think that a game made in 2012-4, at the pinnacle of what can currently be achieved is visually stunning, because it exceeds our previous measure for games; you've never seen a game with better graphics. Similarly, it's easy to remember a game made in 1994 as visually stunning because it did the exact same thing. Now, you can't really picture the graphics from 20 years ago (unless you have an eidetic memory) so your imagination fills in the blank. Of course, now when you go back to said older game, it's certainly not visually stunning by modern standards; we're used to considerably better, thus the older game looks terrible, and the gap between your misremembered perception and reality closes sharply.\n\nYou can actually demonstrate this process to yourself over a much shorter time scale. On a decent TV, sit and watch a standard definition channel for a while - rate the picture quality out of 10. Most people say around 7 or 8. Swap then to a high definition channel. You'll probably think it looks a little better, but the difference between SD and HD is mostly minimal, maybe rating it 1 higher at 8-9. Now swap back to SD and rate it again; you'll find that by comparison to HD it looks awful; far worse than it did before, with most people revising their rating to around a 5. This is much the same process.\n\nIt's quite interesting to consider that even the most visually spectacular games today will be considered retro, or even ugly in a few years time, and people will probably still be talking about this, but using Crysis 3 as the outdated example.",
"In addition to the other reasons listed here, if you played the game on a CRT monitor it will look shittier on a LCD. Same reason that [old consoles look better on CRT.]( _URL_0_)",
"God I remember playing Perfect Dark on 64. I felt like those graphics were cutting edge and that there was no way graphics could get any better. The other day I pulled it out and I felt like I was playing minecraft.",
"I *always* remember Stunt Race FX looking like absolute shit.",
"Another factor is you were probably playing them on either a small monitor or a large TV that wasn't very sharp.\n\nIn both cases that helps to make low resolution graphics less apparent by smoothing the pixels out. [Here's an image to illustrate](_URL_0_) (edit: make sure you view the image at full size)",
"I remember getting a little chubby for the original tomb raider... square boobies",
"I remember playing Soccer on my commodore 64. I got right up next to the screen and remember thinking it looked just like real life. ",
"A) You had smaller tv screens and B) didn't have a comparison point with higher graphic games yet.",
"Your brain is really awesome at filling in details that aren't there. Your memories of games are very low quality, so your brain (being used to reality) fills in far more detail than is really there. \n\nIn the same way that it looks like you can see everything in front of you at high res. Whereas in fact you only see a [small area](_URL_0_) in high res, most things you see low res and your brain fills in the rest.",
"In addition to the stuff others have mentioned, the TV you were usually is actually a factor for games of a certain age.\n\nCathode-ray tube TVs -- you know, the big chunky ones, pre-LCD -- were a bit blurry. Back in the NES, SNES, and N64 days, developers were actually banking on this blurriness to cover up the harsh lines of early 3D models, and the blurring smoothed out the pixels in pixel-art SNES games. When you play those games on a modern LCD, the harsh lines and square pixels show up with sharp clarity and can look a lot clunkier. If you go into the menus of a retro game emulator, many of them have video filters designed to blur things a little, add scanlines, and otherwise mimic the look of older TVs, which can make a lot of things look, unintuitively, nicer. \n\nLikewise, the stuff you were comparing those games to was of a similarly low quality. If you were watching your movies on a long-play VHS on a 20\" TV, then you would've never really seen a ton of background details, and you would've been used to some blur. So putting on a good N64 game like Perfect Dark wouldn't have seem as far from the movies as it does today, when you've been watching 50\" Blu-rays. Some fuzziness and a lack of background detail would just be par for the course.\n\nIf anyone out there still has a CRT and an N64 or PS1, try taking a photo of a game running on that setup compared to a screencap of it running on an LCD TV, to show everyone the difference, it's larger than you would think.\n\n",
"There are a bunch of replies about the technical stuff here, but I think it's unrelated.\n\nThis is kind of the same as the slide that felt huge as a kid, but when you go back as an adult it's just not that impressive. Kids' imaginations make things really impressive.\n\n[Obligatory XKCD](_URL_0_)",
"The biggest factor here is that memory is based on meaning more than actual occurrence. It's similar to the reason why you often can remember what a movie or a song is about without remembering the name or the exact lyrics. You remember the story of the game, the characters, and the gameplay most of all because that is the meaning to you; that's what made you fall in love with the game. The graphics did not convey the game's meaning. \nNow, your mind has those things (characters, gameplay, storyarc) to create a mental image for your memory all of these years later. What does your mind do? It sets up those things as accurately as it can and then drapes imagery overtop of it. This imagery is in a higher detail than the actual graphics of the game, but that doesn't really matter too much because the memory has the correct meaning, similar to how you might not remember what your best friend was wearing at your 10th birthday party, but you remember how he got you a kickass videogame as a gift. Not the exact details are needed because you got the meaning right.",
"Yes same here, I guess we didnt know any better graphics to compare with, any other thoughts?",
"One word: Relativity\n\nThink about it",
"There's an image been floating around the last few days comparing Lara Croft over the years, the original must have been made with about 15 polygons. But back in 2001 looked quite good.",
"Maybe because back in the day, screens used to have lower resolution, we didn't have a 1920x1080 screen, but a 640x480 one, I remember playing The Legend Of Zelda Twilight Princess, and being amazed on how good it looked.",
"A major part of this was the way CRT televisions worked.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nDithering on a CRT display worked in such a way that the light from individual pixels would blend over to adjacent pixels. When you play an old game on a modern display you can see each individual pixel, when in the past they all blended together and colors would seamlessly transition from one to the next.\n\nEarthworm Jim on the Genesis took advantage of this:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn the bottom of the screen you'll see a series of orange bars spaced evenly apart. Today this looks horrible, but back then the color would blend with the \"blank\" space and create a semi-transparent fog effect.\n\nIt's the same reason why going back to watch episodes of Seinfeld in standard definition look so much worse; not only are you accustomed to higher standards, but also don't have one of the benefits that come from a CRT display.",
"You remember the experience more than the graphics. That's what you are really comparing in your mind relative to modern games. Not the graphics. Your memory generally retains feelings better than visual images. Most games that you play even today seem good to you because of how interesting they are to play; not how graphically stimulating they are. This will be the case until you can no longer differentiate the game visuals from reality. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1axi3x/eli5_why_does_my_n64_look_so_much_better_on_an/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/PDeb2Ys.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis"
],
[],
[
"http://xkcd.com/255/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyhPTEB3hB4",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither"
],
[]
] |
||
4xe3sc
|
What are some intuitive applications of eigenvalues/eigenvectors in engineering?
|
I somewhat understand the concepts, but I have a hard time understanding how they are applied or what they represent in the physical world, so some examples would really help me.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4xe3sc/what_are_some_intuitive_applications_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6eu9vr",
"d6f2wtt"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"- Structural analysis. Eigenvectors tell you the shape of a vibration, and the corresponding eigenvalues tell you the relative strength of the vibration modes.\n\n- Fluid mechanics. Eigenvectors tell you the direction of information propagation, and eigenvalues tell you the wave speeds.\n\n- Control theory. Eigenvalues of your system tell you about stability of the system. e.g. any system with a positive real eigenvalue is unstable.\n\n- Anything involving linear algebra, see \"eigendecomposition\". If you have all the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a system, you effectively have it completely solved. Related to control theory, the spectrum of eigenvalues tells you everything about the stability and convergence of numerical methods applied to solving linear algebra problems.\n\n- Anything involving differential equations. Eigenfunctions (infinite dimensional eigenvectors) give you possible solutions. See [Sturm-Liouville theory.](_URL_0_)\n\nI don't think I had any real understanding of eigenvalue/eigenvector/eigenfunction concepts until studying analysis type concepts at a higher level. Seeing the connection between infinite dimensional systems (like differential operators) and finite dimensional systems (your standard first linear algebra course) is where I found the ideas to really take hold.",
"Physically, eigenvectors often represent some definition of principle directions. Imagine a stress element cube taken from the middle of a solid with complicated external loads. Each face of that cube will have different forces acting on it--some are in tension, some are in compression, and most will have a shear force along that surface. This combination of loads can be represented by a 3x3 matrix for the 3 orthogonal directions.\n\nBut for any case like the above, there is a different axis system of 3 orthogonal directions where the same forces can be represented purely as tension and compression. The eigenvectors represent that coordinate system, and the eigenvalues are the magnitudes of the forces in those directions. That's a pretty important analytical tool--converting a mess of 9 different loads into 3 mutually perpendicular forces.\n\nMaybe you're not convinced--that seems like a cool math trick but doesn't have an immediate practical application. For an isotopic material (same properties in all directions), there is usually an important distinction between plastic (permanent) deformation and elastic (temporary) deformation. An isotropic material with hydrostatic forces (same tension or compression in all 3 directions) will never deform plastically. So you now have the tools to convert a complex combination of forces into 3 principle forces, compare their magnitudes, and separate out the portion of forces that can cause plastic deformation.\n\nFor the 2D version, look up \"Mohr's circle.\" That's an eigenvalue problem for a 2x2 matrix and is a little more digestible."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm%E2%80%93Liouville_theory"
],
[]
] |
|
9tfj39
|
what is an ssh key and sftp and why are they important
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9tfj39/eli5_what_is_an_ssh_key_and_sftp_and_why_are_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8vxf3g",
"e8w3hk6"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"SSH - Secure Shell\n\nSSH is a method of remotely managing computers or electronic equipment such as routers and switches using a command line interface. All data sent using SSH is encrypted ensuring that data cannot be eavesdropped.\n\nPrior to the development of SSH management for similar devices was (and still is to a degree) performed with the telnet protocol which although similar in function transmits data in clear text that can be intercepted or compromised.\n\nSFTP - Secure File Transfer Protocol is a method of securely transferring files over networks leveraging SSH technology.",
"since the question was about ssh key and nobody explained it, ssh key is a pair of cryptographic keys, one public that you can distribute (install on a remote computer) and one private, that you keep to yourself. the key pairs are made from exponents which are easy to compute and hard to guess (using logarithms)\n\nshort video explaining it _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/3QnD2c4Xovk"
]
] |
||
2zsm4z
|
How often did prehistoric man eat meat?
|
Was it daily, like many of us do today? Or was this a rare treat?
Same question for Medieval man. Was there alot of meat on the menu in the 'Dark Ages'?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zsm4z/how_often_did_prehistoric_man_eat_meat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cplxodi",
"cpm4luo",
"cpmlves"
],
"score": [
31,
33,
5
],
"text": [
"Also consider /r/AskAnthropology.",
"Asking about \"prehistoric man\" is difficult, because this encompasses a huge variety of situations and almost all of human history. However, I'll assume you are mainly talking about hunting and gathering societies most specifically when you say \"prehistoric man\" which I can answer somewhat. \n\nGenerally we know from modern hunter-gatherers that these types of societies usually produce the majority of their daily caloric intake from vegetable matter. For instance, the mongongo nut provides most of the caloric intake for the !Kung people of the Kalahari desert. Generally, women and children are going to be the ones gathering fruit, nuts, roots, and other vegetable matter for the group while the men of the group are usually the hunters who range farther from camp to hunt larger game. Children can also help the women with some gathering activities, and both women and children can hunt actively for smaller game in the vicinity of camp such as rabbits or turtles. Granted, if a woman is out and about gathering and sees a deer or the like, she probably wont let it just walk away even if she isn't actively looking for prey like that. \n\nSo basically, the answer to your question is that when hunter gatherers eat meat is based largely on when the men in the group can actually hunt and kill something. Some parts of the year or in certain locations this may be a lot easier than others, and so meat might be very available depending on where and when the group is hunting. This is why gathering is so important, because it provides a steady and reliable supply of calories even if the men fail to find something that day. \n\nThere are exceptions of course. Most societies living in the arctic circle (even up to the present) can't rely on plant foods for most or even any part of the year and make very heavy use of animal meat and fat (especially the fat) as part of their diet. Reindeer, caribou, seals, fish, and whaling are all part of the daily diet. Likewise, groups living during the last ice age (the Pleistocene) in Europe and North America might have relied more heavily on megafauna (so mammoths and other large animals) as part of their diet. However, I suspect some of this might just be a figment of the archaeological record since the only things that generally preserve from these times periods are stone weapons and the bones of large animals. Even then, the amount of mammoth bone at pleistocene sites in the Americas is vastly outnumbered by the amount of turtle remains found at these sites, which suggests a lot more reliance on women and vegetable products/small animals for daily living.\n\nIn short, hunter-gatherer groups for the most part (ignoring the arctic circle and some other situations) will eat meat whenever it is available which can be very seasonally and location dependent. Hunter might only bring in a kill once or week or less, or they could bring in something every day. Most groups supplement this hunted protein intake by \"gathering\" turtles, rabbits, and other small animals to add more daily or semi-daily protein to the diet. \n\nAs for Medieval man, that I can't answer. ",
"There've been a couple all right answers but I don't think they've taken ecology into account enough. Rather than thinking strictly about how much of the diet is meat versus how much is plants, you need to look at what proportions of the food available in the environment is animal vs. plant based.\n\nGroups like the Hadza and Ju/'hoansi (\"!Kung\") live in subtropical semi-arid savanna environments. These environments can support a high proportion of tasty mammalian biomass. However, though semi-arid savannas have lower plant productivity than, say, temperate or tropical forests, a higher proportion of that productivity is edible roots, fruits, and seeds. Because of this, the Hadza and Ju/'hoansi use a lot of plants in their diet. However, tropical forest foragers, such as the Ache, Asian Negritos, and African pygmies, eat much more meat, even though edible animal biomass is lower in tropical forests, because the high plant productivity of tropical forests is mostly tied up in wood and inedible leaves.\n\nTaiga and arctic foragers also relied heavily on meat because taiga and tundra don't provide much in the way of plant food, and what edible plants there are tend to be sweet fruits, which, while important in the diet, can't be a staple.\n\nAdditionally, there's plenty of maritime and riverine foragers who rely on \"meat\" in the form of fish and shellfish.\n\nSo: it's highly variable and there's not one way that foragers live, but if you look worldwide, meat tends to be more important to foragers than plant foods.\n\n(this is taken almost entirely from The Foraging Spectrum by Robert Kelly, a really great introduction if you're interested in hunter-gatherers)\n\nHowever, through most of our species' history in the Pleistocene in Africa, we inhabited dryer savanna environments, so from the origin of our species around 200,000 years ago to the Out-of-Africa migrations 60-50,000 years ago, we probably did eat mostly plants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dzxnky
|
what actually is a patent and why are companies allowed to sell products without them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dzxnky/eli5_what_actually_is_a_patent_and_why_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8ar4g7",
"f8ar4o2",
"f8arfga",
"f8asih7",
"f8atat8",
"f8au4ni",
"f8bp8cy"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A patent is a legal right for a company to control their invention.\n\nIf you didn't invent it, you'll need permission from the patent holder, or to make your own version of it that doesn't infringe the patent.",
"It's a legal protection saying no one but the inventor can make this thing without the inventor's permission.\n\nYou can sell products without them if the invention was never patented, or if the patent has expired (normally after 20 years).",
"But! If you got yourself a patent for your product (for example) in Germany, it will just be protected in your own country.",
"They exist so if you spend all the time and money doing research and development then you are guaranteed all of the profit for a certain number of years. They spur innovation and are brought up in the constitution",
"A patent is an exclusive right to an invention given to the inventor for a limited period (for example 20 years) in exchange for the detailed description of the invention being published for everyone to see. So an inventor will spend time and money trying different things to fix a problem. When the inventor have found a solution he writes it down and sends it in to the patent office for approval. When the patent is approved the patent office will publish it for everyone to see. It then becomes illegal for anyone to use the invention without the inventors permission. Typically the inventor will either sell the idea to a manufacturer or he will license it out to one or more manufacturers that may want to use his patent. Other inventors might look at his patent which helps them come up with improvements or alternate inventions. After 20 years the patent protection will expire and anyone can use the invention free of charge.",
"The other comments so far have done well explaining what a patent is. As to the second part of your question, a company may choose not to patent their product because patents are public records. While a patent gives legal protection against copycats, it will eventually expire. When it does expire, anyone can use your patent to create an identical replica and sell it as their own (as long as they don't use your brand or trademarks).",
"A patent says \"this is my unique invention, you need my permission if you want to make money off of it.\"\n\nA company might sell a product without a patent when:\n\n* their product isn't doing anything that has been patented or is patentable\n* patents only last a limited amount of limit, all relevant patents may have expired\n* the patent was explicitly put into the public domain\n* the company doesn't believe the patent is valid\n* the company is infringing on the patent"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3rgow5
|
what does a hospital do when there are too many emergency's at the same time?
|
You only have so many people, so what happens when there are 10 emergency's and only 8 medical people (so nurses and doctors)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rgow5/eli5_what_does_a_hospital_do_when_there_are_too/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwnwiwm",
"cwnwlh6",
"cwnym2v",
"cwo0x6r",
"cwo60as"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"triage. \n\npeople generally fall into 3 categories\n\n1. Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive;\n2. Those who are likely to die, regardless of what care they receive;\n3. Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome.\n\nyou ignore #1 until the end. #2 you spend minimal time on to make them comfortable or just ignore them as well. you treat #3 based on the shortest amount of time you need to spend to the longest amount of time you need to spend. in order to save the most people. then after all of #3 is done, you can go back and spend more time on #1/#3.",
"They will do what is known as \"triage\" - dividing people into three groups (or more), and helping them in that order. Generally the most primitive version, the one that was originally developed on the battlefield, groups them like this - people who will die if they don't receive medical attention, people who will be OK for a while but eventually need medical attention, and people who are going to die regardless of medical attention. They receive attention basically in that order.\n\nA big hospital will have more levels than that and some varying other factors, but that's basically what they'll be doing - categorizing people into broad groups by how immediately they need medical attention.\n\nThat's why if you go into a busy ER with a nail stuck in your hand or something, you might be waiting a while - a person who comes in with a gunshot wound is going to get treated before you. ",
"All UK hospitals have a \"major incident plan\". This typically involves sending every outpatient (clinic patient) home and not calling for inpatients (people on the wards) unless their condition is time critical. Clearing this frees up an awful lot of resources - you can go from just having an A & E CT scanner for emergencies to potentially having 3 or more CT scanners, as you can pull in the ones used for routine services and the same for x-ray rooms and other medical and diagnostic facilities.\n\nThis allows for the major incident plan to be performed, all doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals can be deployed as needed in the hospital to aim to treat patients in a order aimed to maximise benefit, which /u/jnxjnx described.\n\nThe emergency department will often be expanded during the major incident plan, taking up all free rooms that are nearby, with things like the A & E waiting room being changed into a room for minor incidents that, while the minors, majors and resuscitation departments will all be used for the more severe cases. Major cases will be coming in by HEMS (helicopter emergency medical services) and ambulances, so the hospital is alerted in advance of them.\n\nThe hospital will also start routing patients to other hospitals to try to spread the patients out, and the ambulance services will (of course) know and will work to try to avoid overwhelming any one particular hospital.\n\n[Here is an example of a major incident plan for a district general hospital - that is to say, not a major trauma centre. They will liaise and work with St George's Hospital, which is a major trauma centre, in a disaster or when they are overwhelmed. Tbh I just grabbed the first one a Google got me.](_URL_0_)",
"Almost all doctors that work at a hospital are on call to be brought into the hospital in the event of an emergency or to be sent to a the site of a major accident.\n\nIn the event that there are too many people to safely treat in the hospital, they send them out to other hospitals. They keep those unable to travel in hospital A, send those that can survive the trip but need urgent care to hospital B, anyone who can wait will either have the decision to wait at hospital A or travel elsewhere.\n\nIn the event that there is a major disaster, such as 9/11, they set up medical stations near the site of the disaster. These stations are for triage (judging injuries and directing people to hospitals that can help them) and treating basic injuries. There isn't much doctors can do for a concussion other than watch, and there isn't much sense taking up time and resources at a hospital if your injuries can be treated on-site.",
"What about VIP's? I don't mean Obama or anything, but like a board member or Doctor's wife? I've seen those people get \"bumped up\" over someone who really needed help otherwise. Often they're unappreciative, at least at my place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.stgeorges.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Kingston-Hospital-Major-Incident-Plan-version-9-June-2013.pdf"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2i5fdl
|
if i smack into a hot object, will the burn be worse than if i lightly touched it?
|
For example, let's say that I accidentally smacked my arm into a very hot object, like the inside of a stove, hard enough to leave a bruise. Would the burn go any deeper into the skin or cover a larger area than it would if I had touched it lightly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i5fdl/eli5_if_i_smack_into_a_hot_object_will_the_burn/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckyzt41"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Burns are due to thermal energy transfer. Generally, this would be a function of the difference in temperature and time.\n\nThe burn would be a little deeper, as some compression would be expected due to the kinetics but I wouldn't expect to be substantially worse. If anything, you might expect the burn to be less severe as the contact time would likely be lower."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4zg0t3
|
if the earth rotates on its axis constantly, how are we able to see the same starts every night?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zg0t3/eli5_if_the_earth_rotates_on_its_axis_constantly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6vijmm",
"d6vjfxm"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"We don't see the same stars every night. The Earth wobbles on it axis ([axial precession](_URL_0_))\n slow enough that it is perceived that you are seeing the exact same stars in relation to the time of year. As for Earth's orbit and rotation, both of those happen at relatively fixed rates, leading to consistent snapshots of distant stars in relation to our current place in our our orbit or rotation. All of these things lead to why different constellations become visible throughout the year.",
"The short answer is you don't, but that's not due to the rotation, it's due to our orbit around the sun. Without accounting for stars to the north, think of it this way.\n\nYou are in a gym sitting on a office chair that spins. There is a white sheet in the middle of the gym, this represents the sun. As you go around the \"Sun\" very slowly, your chair also spins. You will notice you can see the basketball hoop on one side for about half the trip around the gym. Then it goes behind our sheet that represents the sun. Same with stars at night. They track across the equator as the night progresses and the Earth spins. Each night they will \"start\" slightly closer to the western horizon, until they are no longer visible at night. \n\nFor stars to the north, it's a little more complicated. The earth is actually tilted. During the summer we tilt towards the sun, and in winter we tilt away. The impact of this is that stars due north and below a certain angle are always in the sky at night regardless of the time of year.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession"
],
[]
] |
||
tn76y
|
Rotational inertia
|
I'm looking for an in depth analyses, my school doesn't have the greatest of text books and I am doing a final project on the aforementioned topic, the project is a wooden disk with two sets of holes drilled in it, 4 along the edge 5 in from center, and 4 2.5 in from center, showing how if you place bolts in the outer hole the disk roles faster than if you put them in the inner holes. I know it works I just need to know how help please!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tn76y/rotational_inertia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4o1ys1",
"c4o26ez"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"The quantity you're interested in is called the [moment of inertia](_URL_0_). It's a function of the mass and the square of the distance from the rotational axis to that mass. There's formulae on that Wikipedia page both for a point mass some distance from the axis (which is a decent model for the bolts here) and a disk rotating about its centre.\n\nIf you consider the amount of kinetic energy the disk has at a given rolling velocity from linear motion (mv^2 / 2) and rotation (Iω^2 / 2 where I is the moment of inertia and ω the angular velocity), you should be able to explain its behaviour.",
"You can go on the MIT courseware site for many physics topics. [This](_URL_0_) site has some good notes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia"
],
[
"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01l-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2005/lecture-notes/"
]
] |
|
5tk3y4
|
saltwater aquariums are so delicate - so how do these animals survive in the wild?
|
Saltwater aquariums are so beautiful - but most people can't be bothered with the maintenance on them. You have to balance your perimeters *just so,* check them daily as minor fluctuations can harm your fish... And then you could look at the damn thing too hard and everything goes to shit and your $500+ worth of fish are dead.
How in the hell do these delicate little snowflakes survive in the trash pit that is the ocean?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tk3y4/eli5_saltwater_aquariums_are_so_delicate_so_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddn42tu",
"ddn9uu1",
"ddnagxj"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of ocean. It's hard to actually change the conditions because there's so much of it (pollution diffuses across the entirety of the ocean). \n\nOn the other hand... it also is a demonstration that ecosystems are actually quite fragile. And that's why we have exterminated so many species and pushed so many into a death spiral....",
"Most fish aren't too delicate. Rather, it's very hard to maintain even reasonably stable conditions in a tiny tank of salt water with many things living in it. The chemical conditions can run out of control. This doesn't happen so easily when you have a million billion times more water to work with.",
"In the wild, a hard rain can change the conditions of fresh water pretty quickly. Freshwater fish have evolved to have changes in Ph or an immediate 2-3 degree drop in temperature fir example. \n\nIn the ocean, there is so much water that ut is actually very difficult to change the temperature or Ph in a given region. Certain Sea life (like Reef animals) have not evolved to adapt to rapidly fluctuating conditions. \n\nThink of how much rain it would take to drop a river 1 degree. Now think of how much you would need to drop an ocean 1 degree. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1zvue9
|
Is it possible for entropy to reach zero?
|
I learned that although entropy for system can be negative, that usually means entropy of the universe increases. Is it possible for entropy to decrease so much that there is absolutely no disorder?
Since that kind of order would require for the universe to reach absolute zero (I assume), would all energy have to turn into matter at that point?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zvue9/is_it_possible_for_entropy_to_reach_zero/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfxk6vk"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics says a system cannot be brought to zero entropy in a finite number of finite steps (equivalently, can't be brought to a temperature of absolute zero in a finite number of finite steps). You can read more [here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics"
]
] |
|
azzxtj
|
what makes a beer belly how it is, round and hard? what makes it different from a normal stomach or a soft(fat) stomach?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/azzxtj/eli5_what_makes_a_beer_belly_how_it_is_round_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eib8h0u",
"eibb8ei",
"eibc1qz",
"eibo90l",
"eibv461",
"eibwpmu",
"eic3zvg",
"eic9q2z",
"eicnu1r"
],
"score": [
243,
39661,
265,
35,
25,
637,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is *visceral fat,* the kind that grows *behind* your abdominal muscles and makes them stick out, as opposed to an external blob of fat.",
"If you stab your belly with a knife, first you will cut the skin, then subcutaneous fat, then your abdominal muscles, then visceral fat, then your organs. \n\nThat means if you press your belly and feel softness, you are pressing against your subcutaneous fat. Cutaneous means skin, and subcutaneous means below the skin. If you press against your belly and feel something hard, you are pushing against your muscles.\n\nIf you have a big belly, but it's hard that means that you have a lot of visceral fat. Visceral means deep. It feels hard because you are pressing the muscle, but there's a lot of fat behind the muscle which causes your gut to bulge.\n\nThis visceral fat is very dangerous. It's right next to your organs, so it can \"spill into them\". You can get non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, for example. Visceral fat is the thing most associated with heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, etc. In fact, measuring your waist size is probably even better than measuring your weight or BMI.\n\nDrinking alcohol causes beer bellies. Taking in a lot of calories causes beer bellies. And most importantly, genetics causes beer bellies. Asian people tend to store their weight in their belly, which means they can get heart attacks at far lower BMIs than other races.\n\nFortunately, even though visceral fat is the most dangerous kind of fat, it's the easiest to lose. Cardio like running, swimming, cycling can melt away visceral fat. It's the first kind of fat to go.\n\nAs a last thing, sometimes people say that if you have a lot of visceral fat, you are apple shaped. Your gut is big and your arms and legs are small. If you have a lot of subcutaneous fat (especially in your thighs) you are pear shaped. ",
"Heavy drinkers can damage their liver, which in turn can cause a condition called ascites where your [abdomen fills up with fluid](_URL_0_), and will eventually get round and hard like an overfilled water balloon. The treatment is literally to poke a needle into their belly and drain out the extra fluid, after which the round, hard look you are describing will be reduced.\n\nThis is different from a \"beer belly\" someone might get from drinking too many calories in beer.",
"Ascites is a condition where the space in your abdomen between your organs fills with liquid. This can be caused by a damaged or cirrhotic liver. Alcoholism causes this liver condition. When you see someone that has a distended abdomen (similar in shape to that of a pregnant woman) it may be this condition. A beer belly is usually a very dangerous thing. ",
"Many \"beer bellies\" are actually, in medical terms, ascites: fluid in between the visceral and parietal peritoneum, or the two layers of connective tissue that line your organs and your skin, respectively. These are men and women who look 9 months pregnant. The fluid builds up due to liver failure, and builds up so quickly that the skin doesn't slowly grow like it does with fat, but rather stretches to capacity and becomes firm. Doctors often do a procedure called a thoracentesis to drain the fluid, as ascites is painful and can cause organ issues from conpression. I've seen someone in severe liver failure remove 5 liters in one go (with more to go, but the doctor stopped after 5 to prevent hypovolemic shock), and another who would routinely lose 2-3 liters every 3-4 days wgile waiting for liver transplants.",
"You’ve gotten a lot of good info here, especially from u/McKoijion.\n\n\nHowever, to add to his answer, it’s not just that alcoholic beverages have calories. Also important to note is that alcohol is an endocrine disruptor.\n\n\nYour endocrine system is a system of chemical messengers (hormones) secreted by endocrine glands that circulate through the blood and have various effects on the body, especially metabolic ones.\n\n\nAlcohol has been demonstrated in studies to throw off the balance of certain hormones in the body:\n\n\n1. Alcohol stimulates the generation of fat. It does this by forcing glucose (sugar) into the blood, which triggers the release of insulin, which stimulates the body to make fat and store it.\n\n\n2. Alcohol stimulates your body to release cortisol, which over the long term can have metabolic effects, including weight gain.\n\n\n3. Alcohol interrupts the release of testosterone (very simply put; it actually inhibits the release of luteinizing hormone, which inhibits testosterone production). Testosterone aids males in burning fat, so inhibiting it promotes weight gain.\n\n\n4. In heavy drinkers, alcohol appears to interfere with the release of thyroid hormones, which slows down metabolism. However, this does not seem to affect moderate drinkers.",
"so if you are working out. firstly your belly will be hard then it will become soft as visceral fat goes away. and then as you continue working out it belly gets hard due to muscles ?\n\n & #x200B;",
"Older men tend to store fat around their organs (visceral fat). It feels hard because it's under a bunch of muscles.",
"I have a lot of fat near my belly. \nBut i am addicted to gaming and mobile phones. \nI cant leave them.The only thing i want to do is sit near my computer and play. \n\n\nWhat should i do.I am a student in live alone far away from my family. \n:("
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.alfapump.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ascites-illustration.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5nwswp
|
why does toast bread keep all the cheese in while normal bread lets the cheese ooze out?
|
I was just eating breakfest and pondering about it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nwswp/eli5_why_does_toast_bread_keep_all_the_cheese_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcevrxz",
"dcewj43"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"What is toast bread? As far as I know there is only bread. Once it's toasted then you have toast. Or are there specific breads that are meant for toasting and I missed the memo. ",
"I understand your question. \n\nIn lots of places in Europe, they have their usual bread, which most of North America would see as fancy bakery bread. It's either a sourdough, a fluffy white loaf or a dark rye. What they call \"toast bread\" looks what a North American would think of as regular bread. A pre-sliced loaf that comes wrapped up in a plastic bag. \n\nToast bread has a denser structure than the white bread you are used to. Therefore the air pockets are smaller and the cheese can't sink through them. Plus with the denser structure, it can hold the melted cheese better. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
11svno
|
How exactly do underground rivers form?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11svno/how_exactly_do_underground_rivers_form/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6paya2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I am guessing this post is based on the recent news about the Amazon so if we use that as a case study: the water in the river isn't held in the river because the river bed is impermeable to water, rather there is water below which extends down to a bedrock layer which IS impermeable (or nearly) to water. \n\nIn this case if there are rock layers between the river bed and the bedrock which are either porous or actually have caves/channels running through them, the water will flow the same as it would above ground. I am sure there are several ways this can occur but the most common would be the dissolution of sedimentary rocks like limestone or sandstone which forms channels that the water can then flow through. \n\nThe driving force here is the continual addition of water from the headwaters of the river, in this case the Andes. So as long as there is more water added at the headwaters, it will have to find somewhere to go. This either means displacing the existing water and causing it to flow, or building up and spilling out in a flood. In cases like the Amazon this addition of water would cause the underground \"river\" to flow just as the above ground river does.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2logkm
|
Why do you not the feel the gust of wind produced by a fan as one single stream of air?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2logkm/why_do_you_not_the_feel_the_gust_of_wind_produced/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clx8lug"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's probably something like this: You're getting a wave of air from each pass of a blade. There is also a vortex moving air from the front of the blade around the tip toward the back. So there would seem to be a lot of turbulence in the flow, and you won't feel it as one smooth jet. \nEdit: I found a cool [propeller tip vortex visualization](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5qy9VRLJZo"
]
] |
||
12ydkf
|
How can spectroscopy show the Sun is made of hydrogen when the Sun is a plasma
|
How can spectroscopy show the Sun is made of hydrogen when the Sun is a plasma (and is therefore at temperatures high enough to prevent any electrons from falling back into orbit and emitting the characteristic photons)? I understand the Sun's light comes from it's photosphere which has a temperature of about 5777 K but hydrogen is completely ionized at about 5000 K...
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12ydkf/how_can_spectroscopy_show_the_sun_is_made_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6z6qg3",
"c6z82my"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Hydrogen is barely ionized at all at 5000 K. Only around 10000 K does hydrogen become overwhelmingly ionized. The Sun's surface temperature is about 5777 K, and the outer layers of the atmosphere are even cooler, so there is plenty of hydrogen absorption in the solar spectrum.",
"To some extent that depends on what we call the \"surface\" of the sun - being a ball of gas it doesn't have a surface so much as a point at which that gas becomes mostly transparent. So you have light given off at or below this cutoff point which then passes through the transparent gas beyond and produces an absorption spectrum."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
42eh3i
|
why is a dish cooked at home considered "healthier" than the same dish cooked at a restaurant?
|
So why is a dish made at home considered healthier than the same thing I get at a restaurant?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42eh3i/eli5_why_is_a_dish_cooked_at_home_considered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz9p21u",
"cz9p2hs",
"cz9p2kx",
"cz9pd7z",
"cz9qdeq",
"cz9s4j0",
"cz9uxkw",
"cz9xjvs",
"cza0avt"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
86,
7,
18,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You choose the ingredients and the way it is prepared. Restaurant dishes tend to use things like more salt and butter than you normally use at home.",
"Assumptions. People make the assumption that home cooked food is healthier than anything that you will ever get at a restaurant, because restaurants are designed to get you in and out, for the most part. ",
"It's not inherently healthier, but restaurants tend to do things slightly differently. They use tons of salt and butter or other fatty oils and sauces. It helps seasonings stick to the food better and tastes amazing, but does a number on its calorie count.\n\nI used to work at a chain restaurant where, for a regular burger, they would butter the insides of the bun before lightly toasting them on the flat-top. Speaking of which, it did not get as hot on that surface as the regular grill and let the beef keep more of its grease and juices, compounding the \"unhealthy\" nature of it.",
"Because you know exactly what is (and is not) in it. Fast food is usually laden with large amounts of sodium, fat, and sugar. Fast food often has non food fillers, and preservatives that home cooked meals don't.",
"A lot of what they do in restaurants to amp up flavour is by adding a lot more salt, sugar, butter than you would at home. Fat and sugar are the two major players when it comes to taste. When it come to sugar, for instance, there is a 'sweet spot' which is the exact amount of sugar that is added to intensify flavour before it becomes unpalatable, thats why most processed or packaged foods have high sugar amounts. Wouldn't surprise me if the same is done in restaurants. ",
"They probably aren't referring to the quality of the ingredients, but the way that its prepared. Restaurants tend to use more butter, salt, sugar and the portion sizes are usually larger than what you should eat. They want the food to taste great and leave you satisfied. Cooking at home you have better control over the ingredients and portion size.",
"I remember an article in a tabloid about a woman who would cook all the time from celebrity chef cookbooks like Nigella and Gary Rhodes and couldn't work out why she wasn't losing weight. She threw her cookbooks out and the pounds started slipping off.\n\nThe idea is that if you are cooking, you are more in control about what goes into your food. This is pretty misguided though as taste is deceptive and a calorie-laden meal might appear \"lighter\" than it actually is! Also portion control is harder at home because second and third helpings may be readily available. Cooking healthily at home requires manual effort.",
"To your brain, restaurant food is a form of entertainment. Your brain expects to enjoy what it is eating because it had to deal with your frustrating job for 9 hours to pay for the food it selected from the menu. \n\nYour brain has expectations. It's a fickle little asshole that better get what it expects, or else it won't want to leave a tip or come back ever again. Restaurants know your brain pretty well.\n\n\nAt home, your brain will eat rediculous things because it's very proud of itself. YAY, I put peanut butter on celery sticks! When was the last time you saw that shit on an apetizer menu? \n\nAt home, your brain has different goals and lowered expectations. At home, your brain has other forms of entertainment, like TV and Halo and pornography. \n\nWhen your brain is responsible for meal prep, it doesn't demand an orgasm of flavor, it just wants some full tummies, so it can get back to fragging noobs and wanking on boobs.\n\nChain restaurants serve engineered products. Engineering is a requirements driven process. The requirements of entertainment food are taste and percieved value. Industrial grade fillers, thickeners, and flavorings are used to get tbe job done. Even the chicken isn't quite made of chicken. \n\nThe resulting product is surprisingly lacking in nutritional content, water, and fiber. Your brain may not know this, but you need water and fiber. And then marketing gets involved. Your brain loves marketing because marketing makes it easier for your brain to make decisions. \n\nDecisions are frustrating for your brain. If your brain walked into a dirty public toilet and saw a poster of the new McSnibble breakfast sandwich, it would want it's own McSnibble breakfast sandwich. Especailly if there were boobs next to the sandwich, even if hour brain is a proper lady. Boobs are awesome, therefore brain shall endeavour to partake in this obviously flawless meal item.\n\nYour brain's just like that...a delusional, passive-aggressive, lazy thrill junky. Your brain only knows the Max Powers way. \n\nTeach your brain how to enjoy cooking and you shall eat like a king...a real king...not a Burger King.",
"Serving size...at home you typically don't cook endless supplies of fries or portions bigger than your head. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6y33j6
|
I just looked at the sun with my eclipse glasses, and there are two black dots on the sun. What are those?
|
If you have your eclipse glasses, go look. Are they solar flares visible to the naked eye? Or are they planets?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6y33j6/i_just_looked_at_the_sun_with_my_eclipse_glasses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmkcwfj",
"dmkdxaq",
"dmkgrj3",
"dmkh4hu",
"dmkhfhn",
"dmki479",
"dmkis5j",
"dmkm3mf",
"dmkomoz",
"dmkp60u",
"dmkqnd5",
"dmkwolj",
"dml7ii2",
"dmlfher"
],
"score": [
1813,
14909,
56,
109,
39,
347,
162,
71,
25,
7,
89,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"From r/astronomy, should answer your question :)\n\n[If you still have your eclipse glasses, take a look at the Sun today - there are currently two enormous naked eye sunspot groups facing our planet.](_URL_0_)",
"Those are called sunspots. They are areas of the sun's surface that are cooler than the rest of it. They're still very hot, just not hot enough for the light they're emitting to be enough to see through eclipse glasses. Basically, there are strong magnetic fields in those locations that are inhibiting the normal surface convection of those areas, thus keeping them somewhat cooler than the rest of the sun.",
"I ran outside and took a photo. Yep, sunspots. Pretty large one in the center. That may mean the sun is spitting stuff our way.\n[Sunspots 09/04/2017]\n(_URL_0_)\n\nAnd the view from NASA's [Solar Dynamic Observatory]\n(_URL_1_)",
"One of the sunspot groups has grown tremendously in just the last day or so, here's a cool GIF of it:\n\n_URL_0_images2017/04sep17/sunspots_anim.gif?PHPSESSID=q66lf7ihj64s5nvk96jco0g392\n\nThe larger spots within the groups are larger than the planet Earth. The growing spot group, known as AR2673, is active, and being monitored for flares or other disturbances. It is facing Earth directly, and if it blows, could spray a blast at us. Go here, might have to scroll down a bit, great pics:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"_URL_0_\n\nIf you want to see Mercury and Venus both cross the sun at the same time, you'll have to wait another 67000ish years.",
"Earth-facing sunspots AR2673 and AR2674.\n\nI received the _URL_0_ alert for them just last night!\n\nIf you've taken on a more than passing interest in the sun as it sounds like you have, you might consider signing up for their alerts - they'll let you know about Coronal Mass Ejections as they happen so you can have some lead time to get to a dark area to see the aurora!",
"Wait.. you can just stare at the sun whenever with eclipse glasses? ",
"Wow, I'm pretty late to the party here -- but I feel compelled to post anyhow -- at least you'll see it, /u/supaiderman.\n\nJust like /u/Arkalius and several others pointed out, those are naked-eye sunspots. They're places where the Sun happens to be *very magnetized* right now. The magnetic field in a sunspot is about 1-3 kiloGauss (about 2-6 thousand times more powerful than Earth's own field), over a region about the size of, well, Earth's entire surface area. \n\nThe strong magnetic field prevents convection: normally the surface of the Sun is heated by hot material rising up from below in bubbles about the size of Texas. These bubbles are called \"granules\" because they look like granules of corn in a solar telescope. Each granule rises to the surface; cools by radiating, well, sunlight; and then sinks again in about five minutes (!!!). To do that the material has to move sideways to get away from the stuff coming up just under it. In sunspots, the magnetic field prevents that sideways motion, stalling the convection and allowing the material to stagnate and cool.\n\nSunspots are themselves pretty damn hot -- about 4,000 Kelvin, which is plenty hot enough to be bright white. But the surrounding solar surface is about 6,000 Kelvin, and glows even more brightly -- so the sunspots look dark by comparison.\n\nIf you go to the [Solar Dynamics Observatory's nowcast page](_URL_0_), you'll see that the corona over the sunspots is particularly bright and (if you pay attention to the spectral information in those UV images) much hotter than even the rest of the ultrahot corona. That's because the strong magnetic field penetrates into the corona, heating and containing it. Watch over the next few days and you might see a strong solar flare happen there.",
"On eclipse day I used a 6\" telescope (with appropriate filter) and my Canon Ti2 to take this picture when the sun was about 75% occluded.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYou can see the sunspots in the picture. They actually change gradually over time and you can follow their movements and the rotation of the sun by observing regularly.\n\nJust thought you might like to see a close up of the spots you saw through your glasses.\n",
"Go here. \n\nIt's neat. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nSOHO satellite solar analysis. Includes images of the sun in different wavelengths of light, and will also show you items that you can't see with your glasses, such as the sun's coronal activity. ",
"Sunspots. They are bright, but they look dark because what they're next to is even brighter.\n\n\"If you have your eclipse glasses, go look.\" \n \nThis made me go 'whoah dude' more than it probably should have. I mean, it's obvious that we all share the sun, but I've never seen it spelled out so clearly like that.",
"If you go to _URL_0_, top left there is always an image of the sun showing sunspots (the dark areas) and faculae (bright areas). The numbers are just how astronomers keep track of them (i.e. Sunspot group 2357).",
"There's a little black spot on the sun, today.\n\nIt's the same old thing as yesterday\n\nThere's a black hat caught in a high tree top\n\nThere's a flag pole rag and the wind won't stop\n\n[Sunspots](_URL_0_)",
"If you want to see planets pass in front of the sun, you just missed the transits of Venus in 2004 and 2012, the next one isn't until 2117. \n\nTransits of Mercury are more common, there was one in 2016, the next one is on November 11, 2019 - then the next after that isn't until 2032"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/6y16bi/if_you_still_have_your_eclipse_glasses_take_a/"
],
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/ut7Uziw.jpg",
"https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_0171.jpg"
],
[
"http://spaceweather.com/",
"http://spaceweather.com/images2017/04sep17/sunspots_anim.gif?PHPSESSID=q66lf7ihj64s5nvk96jco0g392"
],
[
"http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/astronomy-questions-answers/will-mercury-and-venus-ever-transit-the-sun-simultaneously/"
],
[
"http://spaceweather.com/"
],
[],
[
"https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/"
],
[
"https://imgur.com/m9T50DG"
],
[
"https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/spaceweather/"
],
[],
[
"spaceweather.com"
],
[
"https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/sunspot-regions"
],
[]
] |
|
3y3zgw
|
Why are synthetic cannabinoids so much more toxic than cannabinoids found in cannabis?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3y3zgw/why_are_synthetic_cannabinoids_so_much_more_toxic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyacjrp"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"That's a pretty broad statement. There are hundreds of compounds that bind to cannabinoid receptors. Many synthetic cannabinoids have a similar structure to THC and CBD etc, and metabolize similarly, so they have much the same side effects and safety as THC and CBD. Others have completely unrelated chemical structures, but still happen to bind to cannabinoid receptors in the brain. They trigger the same sorts of effects in the brain, but maybe not in the same way, or they also might affect other parts, or their metabolites when they're broken down might have secondary or tertiary effects. \n\nHave a look at the number of categories there are in this wikipedia template: _URL_0_\n\nEach category is a whole different class of drug, which happens to bind to cannabinoid receptors. The most common in \"spice\" type mixtures these days are alkylated naphthoylindoles. [Here's](_URL_2_) a good article discussing this family and comparing binding affinity etc. Probably the most notorious of these is [JWH-018](_URL_1_), which is the one that comes to mind with a confirmed fatality.\n\nUnlike THC, JWH-018 is a full, rather than partial agonist of the CB1 and CB2 receptors, so it affects those receptors in a far more potent and specific manner than THC and friends. It's been shown to inhibit GABA neurotransmission more effectively than THC, leading to seizures and convulsions. \n\nIn short, there are thousands of molecules that bind to the same neuroreceptors as THC, and therefore produce similar effects. But that's where the similarity ends. Chemically, they all have different structures, they break down differently, they bind to other parts of the brain, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cannabinoids",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWH-018",
"http://countyourculture.com/2010/11/01/synthetic-cannabinoids-the-alkylated-naphthoylindoles/"
]
] |
||
1cg9j8
|
If I use an AC electric heater in a small enclosed area, the air would feel dryer. Where did the water go?
|
If I use an AC electric heater in a small enclosed area like a small room, the air would feel dryer. Where did the humidity in the air go? Because the room is enclosed I don't imagine that the water can escape that way.
Does the water actually turn into something else? Or does it just feel dryer while it's not actually becoming dryer?
Or does it feel dryer simply because the warmer air can carry more water? If so, should the air become as humid as before when the heat has dissipated?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cg9j8/if_i_use_an_ac_electric_heater_in_a_small/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9g7ru1"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"If you consider an enclosed volume, like a perfectly insulated room, then the water isn't going anywhere. It stays in the air. However, your heater obviously changes the temperature of said air. Here is where an important distinction comes into place: There are two (actually three) definitions of humidity. *Absolute* humidity is the mass of water vapor divided by the mass of dry air at a given temperature. *Relative* humidity is the absolute humidity divided by the maximum possible absolute humidity at that temperature. A relative humidity of 100% means that the air is fully saturated and cannot carry any more vapor. \n\nNow what we humans feel as humidity is the relative humidity. The important thing about that is that the absolute humidity changes with the temperature. Hotter air can carry more vapor, which means in effect, that the maximum possible absolute humidity of high temperature air is higher than that of low temperature air. \n\nSince your absolute humidity remains constant if you are in an enclosed volume, the relative humidity will eventually drop if you heat up the air. Therefore, you perceive the air to be dryer. \n\nEdit: Yes, the air would become as humid as before when the heat has dissipated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
136r6y
|
Can you create matter out of pure light?
|
Considering matter is heavily condensed energy, can you create for example a neutron, or an electron with only pure light, or technically just radioactive waves? I'd assume you need an rnormous amount of them, but can you combine that energy so it transforms from a wave into a particle?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/136r6y/can_you_create_matter_out_of_pure_light/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c71a7w7",
"c71accw"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\nPhotons can in principle collide with each other to produce particle-antiparticle pairs, although I think that this more commonly occurs when a photon impacts a massive particle. But yes, you are correct that on the quantum scale, mass and energy can readily transform into each other.",
"While it's possible in principle to start with light and end up with matter, it's a fundamentally quantum process, and as such is naturally probabilistic. So if you put two extremely high-energy, high-intensity light sources together, you'd get various charged some particles out (mostly electrons and positrons by a wide margin), but you couldn't design a setup that would be guaranteed to produce an electron at point x at time t."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production"
],
[]
] |
|
384kix
|
If a neutron star lost mass could it reach a point when the gravity wasn't enough to keep the star in its neutron degenerate state?
|
Let's say protons decay and through proton decay a neutron star slowly lost mass. After some time the gravitational pull would be too low for the neutron star to hold everything together.
I imagine this would happen in an extraordinary explosion (lots of potential energy to be released in a neutron star). Any estimates of how much energy that would be? I'd also think it would happen extremely quickly taking only a few seconds to occur.
Or would the gravity weaken so slowly that the star just swells until it's no longer a neutron star but instead some ball of gas?
EDIT: Proton decay was the first way I could imagine a neutron star losing mass. But maybe the star comes in too close to a black hole? I'd imagine as the neutron star got to the black hole and began getting ripped apart there would be a place where the neutrons are not longer stable and 'pop' back to proton, electrons, and anti-neutrinos, right at the edge of the black hole. Is that possible? Any other scenarios? Thanks to /u/iehava and getting me thinking about other neutron star mass loss.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/384kix/if_a_neutron_star_lost_mass_could_it_reach_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crsn3y8",
"crst25o"
],
"score": [
3,
25
],
"text": [
"Assuming a proton decays and energy is lost due to photons/neutrinos/some other ultra-light particle, the amount of mass lost is tiny compared to the neutron star. There is no reason for all of the protons (or neutrons) to decay at the same time. The neutron star would slowly lose mass and become a white dwarf. ",
"Thought experiment time. We're off the edge of the map; here there be *wild*, **wild** speculation.\n\nLet's imagine that there is a neutron star somewhere and one of two things happen:\n\n1. It collides with a massive enough object whose relative velocity is a *substantial* fraction of *c*, causing at least some of the neutron star to be ejected.\n2. A black hole passes by close enough to rip off at least some of the neutron star. The relative velocity would probably still have to be pretty high or else it would simply swallow the neutron star or maybe capture it instead.\n\n(I've said these two things because I am having trouble imagining any other process by which a neutron star could lose enough mass quickly enough.)\n\nSo now we have an object made of entirely neutrons, but whose mass is no longer above the limit of electron degeneracy pressure. What I would **guess** happens, is the neutrons start decaying. Neutrons that are outside of an atomic nucleus have a very short \"life span\" and have a half-life of just over 10 minutes. The normal beta decay products of a neutron are a proton, electron and **anti**neutrino. Then, the now-free electrons get captured by the now-free protons, and possibly start the process stellar fusion over again. Some neutrons would not decay if they stayed inside or captured a new hydrogen (or other) atom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
s9n42
|
Could I go far enough underground to survive a wayward gamma ray burst?
|
If a nearby star went nova and splashed Earth with a wash of gamma rays, could I find a mineshaft and survive? I realize the likelihood of such an event occurring is low and all that jazz.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s9n42/could_i_go_far_enough_underground_to_survive_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4c8mw4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No. This is because the gamma ray burst wouldn't ever directly affect you even if you were standing outside at the time.\n\nThe problem is that they would cause a chemical reaction in the upper atmosphere changing molecular nitrogen into nitrogen oxides, depleting the ozone layer and exposing the surface to solar and cosmic radiation. This would affect phytoplankton and reef communities, severely impacting the marine food chain.\n\nSo finding a mineshaft isn't going to protect you from starvation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ywv03
|
My goal for this year is to really learn the ins and outs of American history. What are some comprehensive resources I should check out?
|
By "comprehensive" I mean a text that's both thorough and expansive, covering all ~250 years of American history. I've got no clue where to begin, and was hoping some historians here could point me in the right direction. Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ywv03/my_goal_for_this_year_is_to_really_learn_the_ins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfogthl"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The Oxford Series of American history will cover many of the periods in question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1yv9pv
|
How were dwarves of noble birth treated?
|
Instances of dwarves being born to nobility had to have occurred. Were they simply hidden away (which is what I assume was done)? Or is there any instance of them/one being treated as one would treat anyone else of noble birth? I apologize if this is a repost question (I figure someone has asked something similar due to the popularity of Game of Thrones, I just didn't find the answer). Thanks.
(Edit) Thanks to all, for the answers you have given.
I'll clarify my question a bit. I am curious about dwarves of noble birth, spanning from the beginning of written record, all the way through the mid twentieth century.
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond my question.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1yv9pv/how_were_dwarves_of_noble_birth_treated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfo7le1",
"cfobzah"
],
"score": [
34,
21
],
"text": [
"There is not much records of dwarfs in the nobility they were rumours that Matilda of Flanders was a dwarf at 4 foot 2 but I believe those are inaccurate, she was short though at around 5 foot. She ended up married to William the Conqueror so you could take that been short was no barrier to high class. However if you want to know about a Tyrion like person in reality you just have to read the story of Jeffrey Hudson. \n\nThe only have noble dwarf that I can think of is \"Count\" Boruwlaski who appears to be the child of poor nobles. Since there is no evidence of other dwarfs of noble birth unfortunately your question is to me unanswerable unless we have an expert who knows a lot more on the topic then I do.",
"According to [The Lives of Dwarfs: Their Journey from Public Curiosity Toward Social Liberation by Betty M. Adelson, p. 46](_URL_2_) the first Carolingian King of the Franks \"Pepin le Bref (the Short)\" was not in fact a short man; he was dubbed \"the Short\" centuries after his death. Adelson writes that his even more illustrious son Charlemagne *did* in fact have a dwarf son, Pepin II. Most other sources call him [Pippin the Hunchback] (_URL_1_) whose legitimacy is under dispute, and who led a rebellion against his father, leading to his expulsion and disinheritance. \n\nThe monk [Notker the Stammerer, in his *De Carolo Magno* (\"Concerning Charles the Great\") / *Gesta Caroli Magni* (\"The Deeds of Charles the Great\"),](_URL_0_) describes Pippin as \"a dwarf and a hunchback.\" With respect to the treatment of Pippin as a little person, I am not seeing any credible primary sources. It is said that he was regarded with sympathy when Charlemagne dismissed him and his mother Himiltrude in preference to younger brothers Charles the Younger and Carloman, himself renamed Pippin, and Louis, who resulted out of his 12-year marriage to Hildegard of Vinzgouw, but those sympathies soured upon Pippin's decision to revolt in 792."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/stgall-charlemagne.asp",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pippin_the_Hunchback",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=Ym5x3mq2p7EC&lpg=PA150&ots=8ZeumWdWP5&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q&f=false"
]
] |
|
3jfea8
|
Is it possible to accelerate to a set speed instantaniously?
|
Hello science people. I was wondering if it is possible (I know its not with current technology but maybe one day) to accelerate to per say 50 km/h without starting at one, two or thee so on and so forth. I was just kind of curious! :)
- Cheers
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3jfea8/is_it_possible_to_accelerate_to_a_set_speed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cup6cm3",
"cup7u98",
"cupg21u",
"cupkyei"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Instantaneous acceleration requires infinite power. So no.",
"From what I know that is impossible. No matter how fast you get to that set speed, there will always be an amount of time needed to accelerate. However with advancing technology that number may get extremely small. ",
"Jumping instantaneously from one speed to another speed would require infinite acceleration, and therefore an infinite force, which does not exist. Also, the object being accelerated would feel an infinite g-force (inertial force) and therefore be crushed to zero width.",
"Yes, it is. Photons do it all the time. When a photon is released from an electron which moves closer to the nucleus in a more inner electron level, it will often release a photon, which travels at light speed. The photon is released traveling at light speed. Mass can't do it, tho perhaps neutrinos from a SN can do it, simply because their are nearly massless and the huge energy output of the SN can do that. Most neutrinos from such energetic events travel at near light speed, 99.99+%\n\nInstantaneity is allowed by quantum mechanics, however. When the Bell test for the EPR's \"spooky action at a distance\" was performed, the transfer of spin info from one of two entangled particles to the other was many times light speed. Chinese experimentalists have confirmed this happens at greater than 40K times light speed. Which is mighty peculiar, but still within QM models, as the other measurements have shown many times light speed as well, just not this high a value of 99.99 or so of being instantaneity. But that's transfer of INFO, not acceleration of mass.\n\n_URL_0_\nThese experiments are referenced in detail.\n\nso photons and bosons can, but anything with mass, except perhaps the tiny massed neutrinos, can't. Though there is some question of the latter, too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments"
]
] |
|
4kmcp6
|
If a disc was spun at 1 RPM, how large would this disc need to be in order for the edge of it to reach the speed of light?
|
Such a weird question, but I've been thinking about this for much longer than I'd like to admit.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4kmcp6/if_a_disc_was_spun_at_1_rpm_how_large_would_this/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3g5sha"
],
"score": [
53
],
"text": [
"The total circumference of the disc is 2 * pi * radius. At 1 RPM, a point on the edge travels 1/60th of the circumference per second.\n\nSo the required radius can be found by solving: ( 2 * pi * r ) / 60 = c\n\nOr: r = 60 c / 2 pi or about 2.86 milion kilometers (8-9 times the distance between Earth and the Moon).\n\nOf course, in reality this wouldn't be possible as it would require infinite energy to spin such a disc. And long before it would reach that point, it would probably tear itself apart."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5xpw33
|
why do some people develop tics that go away, but others' progress into tourette's syndrome?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xpw33/eli5_why_do_some_people_develop_tics_that_go_away/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dejzsdr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Tics do not \"progress into\" Tourette's Syndrome. Rather, tics are a symptom that can have various causes. One possible cause is Tourette's Syndrome."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6u3vaw
|
Why is the Chinese front during WW2 rarely ever acknowledged or talked about?
|
At least 14 million people died on the Chinese front during the Second Sino-Japanese War/World War 2, with some extreme estimates placing the number of casualites over twice as high. This means that the Chinese front had the second largest amount of deaths during the war, if not the most deaths, depending on what the correct estimates of deaths for both the Chinese front and the Eastern front were (although it seems more likely that the Eastern front was worse, but not by much). However, we rarely, if ever, hear about China and it's presence in the war and the millions of people they lost during the war. Personally, in highschool, we learned about the Western front, the Eastern front, and the Pacific campaign as well as other less significant fronts like Italy and North Africa and of the numerous casualties, especially on the Eastern front. Yet, the only thing I remember hearing about China is that Japan invaded them in 1937, that's it. I also don't recall seeing any WW2 documentaries talk about the front, let alone any documentaries specifically about the Chinese front. Millions of innocent people lost their lives there and barely anybody talks about it. Without the Chinese Japan could have committed a lot more of it's manpower and equipment towards fighting the United States and the British Empire. Why is this? Why does it seem nobody knows anything about this forgotten part of the war? Thanks.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6u3vaw/why_is_the_chinese_front_during_ww2_rarely_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlq2si4"
],
"score": [
109
],
"text": [
"I'll base my answer on the essay *The Sino-Japanese War in History* by Hans van de Ven, one of the leading Western historians on the Sino-Japanese conflict, and expand on the citations with a bit of a refutal of the point of view he describes. He begins:\n\n > By the 1970s, a consensus view had emerged in Western studies of the Sino-Japanese conflict. It held that the Nationalists had formed an incompetent, corrupt, and militarist regime that had been unable to mobilize Chinese society effectively against Japanese aggression. It had failed to make use of U.S. support to reform its armies [...] preferring instead to ready itself for a postwar conflict with the Chinese communists.\n\nThese accusations can be understood by taking into account Chiang Kai-shek's famous saying \"Communism is a disease of the heart, the Japanese are but a disease of the skin\" and his - either singleminded or clearsighted – refusal to let the Communists be Communists and ally with them against the Japanese, which he only did after the infamous Xi'an incident, where he insurgent officers imprisoned him until he agreed to ally with the Communists. I will not dive into the vast debate sorrounding this topic and just leave it at saying that the Americans, as can be seen in the citation, clearly thought it wrong.\n\nAs for the Nationalist Government being unable to mobilize Chinese society, that surely had not been for a lack of trying. There were incountable programs – for example Chiang Kai-shek's New Life Movement – started in order to drill Chinese society into a new shape, up to Dai Li's infamous Blue Shirts and other strings of Nationalist ideology often labeled pseudo-fascist. There had been several programs to jumpstart Chinese industry and economy, and extensive army modernization programs had taken place under German advisors (!) in the 30s; but the most heavily industrialised regions were Manchuria, already under Japanese control, and Shanghai, which fell almost immediately, and in the course of the battle took with it the 80.000 German-schooled elite troops. \n\n > The consensus about the Nationalists was most clearly articulated in Barbara Tuchman's 1970 *Stillwell and the American Experience in China*, in which General Joseph \"Vinegar\" Stilwell, commander of U.S. forces in the China theater and chief of staff to Chiang Kai-shek, figured as the quintessentially American hero - plain speaking, go-getting, dedicated, patriotic, honest, modern and rational. The Nationalists, on the other hand, were a politically debilitated \"husk\" who had wasted the United States' \"supreme try\" in China.\n\nStilwell was a very polarising figure, especially hated, both on a personal and professional level, by Chiang Kai-shek himself. His demand to be made supreme commander of the Chinese armed forces and other animosities led to several break-downs, and the actual feasibility, notwithstanding potential benefit, of many of his plans remains questionable. It is, again, a question to big to adequately talk about here, but I think it's fair to say that his single account of the war cannot be taken at face value when the personal views are taken into account. More on that later.\n\n > Tuchman built on criticism of the Nationalists by U.S. journalists such as Theodore White, of Henry Luce's *Time* magazine [...] In 1946, Theodore White and Annalee Jacoby's *Thunder out of China* became a best seller.\n\nWhite had been a correspondent in China during the war and witnessed the Henan famine, in which approximately 4 million people died of hunger, first-hand. This obviously had quite an impact on him, and in fact he was relieved of his duty as war correspondent because the articles he sent back home portrayed the Nationalists to negatively (!). He later formulated his experiences in the said book.\n\nIt is true that the Henan famine was caused at least in part by the Nationalist government's decision to collect taxes not in cash, but in kind (mainly grain) in order to feed the army. Together with already depleted granaries, this led to the infamous famine. Again, I won't delve to deeply into this. In his book *China's War with Japan, 1937-1945: The Struggle for Survival*, Rana Mitter writes that \"The Henan famine showed that the consequences of the financial squeeze on the Nationalists were something liek a Greek tragedy: individuals could have behaved differently, but overall the result was inescapable. [...] The continuing resistance of the Nationalist Government may have well beeen dependent on the grain tax. But those who paid the price were the peasants Theodore White saw dying in the field of Henan.\"\n\n > Characterizations of China as not a martial culture and one mired in corruption and backwardness contributed to dismissals of the Nationalists. [...] Stilwell referred to Chinese politics as \"Byzantine\" and spoke of \"the suspicious, jealous Oriental mind.\"\n\nAnd here we have good old racism. China was indeed perceived as just categorically different from the Western allies, or even from the Soviets – who, as you are quite right to say, have achieved quite a bit of attention even in popular media, though even that is a bit of a newer phenomenon. No comment on racism here, but I'll include another citation from Stilwell: \"In 1942, he lamented that \"the despised people [Chinese, Russians, Greeks and Filipinos] are doing the best work for civilization.\"\" Make of that what you will.\n\nVan de Wen closes his essay with this assessment:\n\n > The interpretations of the Sino-Japanese conflict outlines above have proved remarkably tenacious, and this has made it harder to have serious discussions about the Nationalists. Until recently, the weight of the field lay not with republican history, but with studies of Chinese Communism and late imperial China. From this perspective, World War II was of little consequence, as it did not have a significant impact on history; hence the paucity of studies about the Sino-Japanese War from a military point of view or analyses of its broader historical consequences.\n\nThis adds the ultimate piece of the tragedy: Even though the Chinese suffered immense losses, the actual capitulation of Japan itself was a result of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The Japanese army in China only capitulated afterwards. There is of course, as you say, the question of the \"Chinese quagmire\": Without the Chinese resistance, how much more war material would the Japanese have been able to muster? If the Chinese had capitulated after the fall of Shanghai, or of Nanking, or of Wuhan, what would have happened?\n\nBut the Nationalist Government under Chiang Kai-shek decided to fight on, and survived, even though with immense casualties, even during the Japanese Operation Ichigo of 1944. We will never know what would have happened, and have to work with history as it happened.\n\nThat basically sums it up. \n\nHowever, things seem to be changing. My university last semester offered a course on precisely the Sino-Japanese War for both Sinologists and historians, and relations with Chinese universities are pretty good. \n\nIn China itself, the Sino-Japanese War, and especially the role of the Nationalists, has also been recently reassessed. For example, read this passage out of Xi Jinping's adress at the commemmoration of the 70th anniversary of the war's end:\n\n > Today is a day that will forever be etched in the memory of people all over the world. Seventy years ago today, the Chinese people, having fought tenaciously for 14 years, won the great victory of their War of Resistance against Japanese Agression, marking the full victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. [...]\n\nThe new name of the wars themselves are also telling. The official stance is now that of the Chinese having taken part in a common effort together with all other free nations against the Fascist agressors - a good way to present yourself as a worthy partner on today's world stage.\n\n > [...] I pay high tribute to *all* the veterans, comrades, patriots and officers in China who took part in the war of Resistance and *all* the Chinese at home and abroad who contributed significantly to the victory of the War.\n\nThis is a remarkable change of heart. Compare this to the party line during the Maoist era, in which the Communists were the only ones who were actually fighting the Japanese, while the Nationalists were incapable at best and collaborating traitors at worst. Only in the 80s were Chinese historians allowed to write about the Nationalist contribution to the war again as part of a \"new remembering\".\n\nAnother important theme that has resurfaced during the \"new remembering\" is that of China's victimization during the war, namely the Nanjing massacres and the comfort women. This even extends to a \"numbers game\", in which Chinese losses against the Japanese are inflated to as much as 35 million people. The question of a conclusive Japanese apology and especially the controversy sorrounding the Yasukuni shrine remain hotly debated, and Japanese history politics under Shinzo Abe retain a nationalist and revisionist stance.\n\nThe Sino-Japanese War remains a topic underrepresented in the Western consciousness. I hope I could explain why that is and make a case for why it does not deserve to be that way. It really is a fascinating, though also deeply tragic and often just plain sad topic. I know alternative history is unprofessional, but it really is interesting to think about how China would look if the war had never happened.\n\nSources:\n\n*The Sino-Japanese War in History*, Hans van de Ven\n\n*China's \"New Remembering\" of the Anti-Japanese War of Resistance, 1937-1945*, Parks M. Coble\n\n*China's War with Japan, 1937-1945: The Struggle for Survival*, Rana Mitter\n\n*Address at the Commemoration of the 70th Anniversary of the Victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against the Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
35aj9m
|
why is first (1st), second (2nd), third (3rd), but everything else is xth?
|
* *first*
* *second*
* *third*
* four**th**
* fif**th**
* six**th**
* seven**th**
* eigh**th**
* nin**th**
* ten**th**
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35aj9m/eli5_why_is_first_1st_second_2nd_third_3rd_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr2k9ow"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The numbers you are asking about are called ordinal numbers and we don’t know for sure why 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are different. Generally, the more often a word is used the more likely it is to be irregular, so that may explain some of it (think of the verbs that are irregular in a lot of languages – to be, to go, to have, etc. – they are all used very often).\n\nIn the Old English system they just added “tha” to the end of a number to make it an ordinal. This became the –th that we use today. First comes from the superlative form of the German word for “before”, so it means “the most before.” It’s easy to see how pointing out where one thing is ahead of all other things would be useful even when not counting. You probably use “first” a lot in your everyday life without referencing other numbers afterwards and people back around 1000 CE did too.\n\n“Second” comes from French by way of Latin and means “following.” You might recognize the sec-/seq- prefix in other words like sequential. There are also a lot of times you would use this word without necessarily thinking about numbers, so it’s also pretty understandable why it broke away from the regular ordinal pattern.\n\n“Third” comes from the Germanic “thridda,” which is a form of “three.” I don’t really have a good speculative explanation for this one other than “third” is easier to say than “threeth.” "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
vqpfy
|
the recent obamacare decision ruled by the supreme court, without bias.
|
Mandate upheld, mandate struck down. Either way I don't know what it means for the American people.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vqpfy/eli5_the_recent_obamacare_decision_ruled_by_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c56rymx",
"c56sxbq",
"c56sxym",
"c56syvu",
"c56t6am",
"c56u1h7",
"c56u1ye",
"c56u4cp",
"c56um46",
"c56ve8j",
"c56vjqc",
"c56wmi0",
"c56zjiy",
"c5719ww",
"c571jv8",
"c5740xi",
"c57460y",
"c574l6y",
"c574x4g",
"c579487",
"c57beif"
],
"score": [
565,
47,
11,
38,
23,
2,
4,
14,
7,
2,
2,
13,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There were 4 questions before the court:\n\n1. Can the court hear these arguments before anyone is actually penalized for not having health insurance?\n\n2. Is the Individual Mandate to buy health insurance constitutional?\n\n3. If not, is the rest of the law constitutional without the mandate?\n\n4. Unrelated, can government require states expand medicare since the government is giving them money.\n\n\nThe decisions were as follows:\n\n1. Yes, they can talk about it. This was unsurprising\n\n2. The Individual Mandate is really a tax, not a fine. This is an important distinction because everyone agrees Congress can tax people but few people thought Congress could force people to buy stuff. This was the big question.\n\n3. Moot point due to 2.\n\n4. The court decided that if states take federal money they have to go with the federal rules, but states don't have to take the federal money and can then ignore the rules that come with the money. This was not terribly surprising.\n\n\nThe interesting thing is that the case was decided 5-4, with Republican appointed Chief Justice Roberts being the deciding vote. NOBODY expected that - they were expecting 5-4 against, 5-4 with KENNEDY the deciding vote, or 6-3 with Roberts joining so he could write the opinion. \n\nEDIT: The entire health care reform was upheld. You will have to have health insurance in 2014. There are a bunch of other provisions that were better explained elsewhere.",
"The frontpage topic will likely bury my question so I'll post it here.\n\n > ruling that a penalty for refusing to buy health insurance amounts to a tax. \n\nCan someone explain this to me? It sounds like it's forcing you to pay a penalty for not buying health insurance (and if I'm interrupting it wrong please correct me), and I honestly don't see how this is fair.\n\nI'm very in-the-dark about politics, this bill, and so on. I have no political stance, so please don't go downvoting me because it might sound like some republican going haywire.",
"Awesome. \nNow why are providers losing money with the decision to implement ACA?",
"I also have a related question if you don't mind me stealing your thread a bit.\n\nI constantly hear from doctors that Obamacare being upheld will noticeably reduce their salary. Why is this? ",
"In my admittedly limited knowledge, it seems like people are most up in arms over the \"mandate\" portion of the reform. My question is, how is this mandate any different from being required to own car insurance? No one complains about that, so why is health insurance such a big deal?",
"How are they going to find out if you don't have insurance? Won't that be hard to implement? \n\nAnd how will the evaluate a person to see if they need help with paying for insurance?",
"I have like a really nitpicking question about the ruling itself. This might be more than ELI5 can handle.\n\nRoberts wrote that the mandate should be treated as a tax for the purpose of the Constitutionality question. But he also ruled that it should NOT be treated as a tax for the purpose of something called the Anti-Injunction Act.\n\nCan anyone ELI5 what the Anti-Injunction Act is and what the difference between the two scenarios are? Why is seemingly exactly opposite logic used in each case?",
"So insurance companies are required to spend 80% of the money from premiums on healthcare and \"refund\" the amount over there, hopefully making premiums cheaper.\n\nWhat's to stop healthcare providers from raising rates? After all, more people will be insured - won't demand for services go up?",
"You are only 5 now, and so for the next 20 years you won't have to pay for doctor visits if your parents decide to keep you \"covered\". After that you will have to pay monthly(?) for doctor visits. If you don't pay, a greater amount of your piggy bank will be taken away each year. If you've learned fractions already, the doctors also have to use 85% of the money you pay on providing you and all the other people healthcare.\n\nAll this is what the bill says IIRC, however some of the actual effects may be slightly different. ",
"Here's an interesting question:\n\nI'm employed as a worker's compensation nurse case manager. We pay for work comp injuries but pre-existing conditions are not covered, obviously. \n\nHow is this going to impact how I do my job?",
"Hopefully someone can answer this for me,\n if they are now required to cover everyone what's to stop them from charging someone who has AIDS $5000 a month for insurance? unless I missed that part of the law that says insurance companies have to charge everyone the same.",
"Ok. One more question: does this honestly mean I could end up waiting 5 months for non-emergent tests/procedures?",
"Can someone explain to me how this being upheld could be considered a bad thing other than charging people who don't get insurance that can afford it?",
"I read a bunch of comments and I still don't understand :/",
"Work is hard to find these days, good work is even harder. My current employer can only hire me for 16 hours a week (sometimes only 8). I want insurance but the insurance they offer is only available to full time employees (35hrs or more) and it costs $85 a week. I want insurance and I wan't it bad. I need to get healthy. But as it stands I can't get insurance from employer or the government. \n\nHow can I get insurance? When can I get it? How much is it going to cost? Is the insurance the employer offers going to get cheaper? Will my non-fulltime ass be able to get it now or is it still for full-timers? Will I be able to get the new fancy obamacare insurance? Free or cost? When? \n\nTY ELI5!",
"This thread is more informative than anything I've seen on cable news. All I've ever seen argued are the moral implications, for and against. Zero talk of logistics. \n\nUnfortunately I think most Americans still need an ELI3 edition. ",
"Can anybody explain the difference to me between this and having to buy car insurance? People gladly shell out to the idea of car insurance, but seem to be unwilling to budge on health care. Or is the comparison invalid?",
"Canadian here, why do people not want this?",
"No one explains it better than Philip Defranco, take a look at his video to better understand the meaning of Obamacare. I know it helped me! _URL_0_",
"Calling it Obamacare sounds kinda bias.",
"Does it just mean you have to have health insurance in general? Or that you have to have the one the government says? Say you like the insurance you currently have. Will you be forced to drop it and get whatever crappy insurance the government is pushing?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW5dvk_jE9w&feature=BFa&list=UUlFSU9_bUb4Rc6OYfTt5SPw"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
24plir
|
Where can I find more information about the effects of the Japanese occupation(1910-1945) of Korea on Korean culture?
|
I have recently read about some of the "Nissen ittai," or "Japan and Korea as One," policies, however I'm not finding a lot of details on them.
The examples I currently know include how newspapers and magazines published in Korean were closed and the Korean Language Society was disbanded, some Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese family names, and there were forced state Shinto devotions. However, the sources I am currently using do not include many specifics.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24plir/where_can_i_find_more_information_about_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch9ypo0",
"chciath"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Not a historian, and since I'm Korean I don't know *too much* about good English sources. But Bruce Cummings' *Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History* is probably a good place to start. ",
"I think a broad but relevant introduction to the subject can be found in *Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea, 1910-1945*. Hope it's what you're looking for."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
a62rki
|
why is it that sometimes a car move forward the moment you release your brakes while on "drive" but sometimes it doesn't even when it's stopped at the same place?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a62rki/eli5_why_is_it_that_sometimes_a_car_move_forward/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebr8743",
"ebsm0qa"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It be like that sometimes. Best 5yo answer possible.\n\nThe adult version has to do with idle rpms, incline of hill, temperature of transmission, type of transmission, weight of cargo/passengers, etc.",
"This may not be ELI5, but the force pushing the car forward (assuming the same gear) is proportional to the square of the difference between engine speed and transmission input speed. Since you're starting from a stop, that difference is simply the engine speed (shown on your tachometer). When starting, the idle engine speed (before you touch the throttle) is dependent on several factors, but mostly engine temperature. If it's really cold out, the engine speed will be higher, and there will be more force pushing the car forward. For example, if the engine is warm, the idle speed in gear may be as low as 600 rpm, but if it's very cold and the engine just started, it may be 1500 rpm. That would result in over 6 times the force pushing the car forward."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1e4swv
|
What would happen if a hydrogen bomb was detonated at the bottom of the Kola Superdeep Borehole?
|
The borehole has a depth of 40,230 feet, which is 12,289 meters. The temperatures at that depth prevented the Soviet scientists from continuing on the dig.
What would the consequences be of a detonation this far down in the Earth's crust?
[Wikipedia article](_URL_0_) for more information on the borehole.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1e4swv/what_would_happen_if_a_hydrogen_bomb_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9wtrgx",
"c9wutsj"
],
"score": [
5,
41
],
"text": [
"This might interest you: _URL_0_\n\nThe deepest underground nuclear blast was about three kilometers deep, but I can't find any information about it besides the fact that it happened.\n\nTo answer your question, there would probably be a lot of seismic noise and a widening of the borehole into a crater as shown in one of the diagrams on the wikipedia page.",
"The detonation would create a spherical cavity, and then probably collapse since the deepest spot is apparently a mix of mud & rock. \n \nWhat's that, you're asking about Russian history? I'm glad you asked! Relevant to your question, Soviet Russia buried and detonated nuclear bombs to successfully create 23 subterranian cavities in salt deposits just north of the Caspian Sea. The idea (besides vainly hoping that the salt would absorb the blast enough to let them secretly violate the test ban treaty) was to store petroleum vapors for months until the horribly toxic contaminant gasses separated out, and it worked! 6 of these cavities were closed when water leaked in and melted the contaminated walls, and 7 of the detonations were probably really concealed weapons tests, but 11 cavities were still being used in 2000. The Russians also detonated two cavities to store toxic oil refinery waste, which was extremely successful financially, but then toxic waste wasn't the top priority to certain people at the time so they allegedly just dumped the rest into the holes created by their (semi-successful) nuclear projects to shake up oil & natural gas fields. The details are still classified but we think this because in at least a few places the aquifers are known to have been contaminated. \n \nSupposedly, one cool thing they found is that the EMP hits the molten rock so when it freezes it's electrically polarized in a sphere facing the center. So the cavity sucks oil inward."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing"
],
[]
] |
|
9ya4ie
|
Will Mount Everest always be the tallest mountain?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ya4ie/will_mount_everest_always_be_the_tallest_mountain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea0jbko",
"ea101sd"
],
"score": [
26,
4
],
"text": [
"No, eventually enough physical weathering will take place that it has worn down and plate tectonics will create newer mountain ranges that are higher given enough time. We are talking about long long periods of time here of course. Possibly millions of years. ",
"No. Variation in erosion and uplift rates are likely to mean something else ends up higher.\n\nIn the near future, geologically speaking, the highest mountain will almost surely be in the Greater Himalaya, the mountains formed by the collision of Asia and India. That's where all mountains higher than 7000 m are (Everest being 8848 m).\n\nIn about 50 million years Africa and Europe will collide, creating a new mountain range comparable to the Himalaya, and it's likely the highest mountain will be there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8eqayr
|
why do some youtube videos show a small image of that point in the video when you hover over the progress bar and some don't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8eqayr/eli5_why_do_some_youtube_videos_show_a_small/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxx9b96"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Typically it's newer videos that haven't had time to finish being cached (prepared for quick reference) on Google's servers. After the video has finished processing completely, one of the benefits is being able to see that image."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4du8de
|
Is DNA stable in a vacuum?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4du8de/is_dna_stable_in_a_vacuum/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1uigwn"
],
"score": [
40
],
"text": [
"Under dehydrating conditions, DNA will turn into one of the three stable DNA forms, in this case, [A-DNA](_URL_0_). A-DNA is similar to the common form, B-DNA, as it is right-handed, but it is a little bit more compacted (scrunched) than B-DNA. The third form of DNA is Z-DNA, which is a left-handed helix. As for structural stability, the A-DNA backbone will not spontaneously break down in a vacuum, and it will be more stable due to a decreased risk of hydrolysis from nucleases which, as proteins, would denature and lose activity under dehydrating conditions. A DNA molecule in a vacuum would last for thousands, if not millions, of years. \n\nedit: I was thinking \"cold\" vacuum scenarios, (i.e. outer-space conditions.) DNA degradation is [temperature-dependent](_URL_1_), that, DNA in a hot vacuum would degrade due to extreme kinetic \"jiggling.\" Exposure to UV radiation, gamma, and cosmic rays, would also increase the degradation. But under cold/room-temp, low-pressure, dehydrated conditions, DNA would be very stable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_double_helix#Helix_geometries",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836546/"
]
] |
||
2xtlap
|
Which modern-day country is the real cultural successor to the historical country of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?
|
I've heard people arguing that Belarus is closer to how Lithuania used to be in times of the Grand Duchy and as a part of the Commonwealth. In one of his videos, Norman Davies also said that the official language of the Duchy was Ruthenian. What would then be the place of the predecessor to the Lithuanian language and culture as we know them today in the Duchy?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2xtlap/which_modernday_country_is_the_real_cultural/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp4gmkm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The somewhat glib answer to \"real\" cultural succession is a mixture of no one or it depends on how one interprets culture. Although the Commonwealth had a rich cultural legacy, fitting such early modern idioms into modern-day conceptions of national identity like Polish or Belorussian is a highly difficult task. \"Ethnicity\" in the in the Commonwealth was highly fluid and plastic concept and common twenty-first century markers of ethnic identity like language do not fit. For example, bilingualism complicates trying to lay specific claim on cultural figures of the Commonwealth. The Lublin Union began a process wherein Polish became the language of state and high culture in the Lithuanian regions, while the local vernacular remained intact and distinct from Polish. No one contemporary nation-state can convincingly lay claim to be the direct heir to the Commonwealth because nationality as a fundamental concept of identity did not exist in the early modern period. Is a poet who writes in Polish but self-identifies as a Lithuanian and comes from the Lithuanian gentry Polish or Lithuanian? There is no easy answer.\n\nThis problem has not prevented nationalist activists and some nation-states to try and derive legitimacy from the Commonwealth. Timothy Snyder's *The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999* is a book that delves into both the Commonwealth and how the post-partition generations have tried to sublimate its cultural legacy into their national projects. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1nsm4o
|
What are some works of art by political figures?
|
I was thinking about how interesting it was that John Milton was both an important political figure and wrote *Paradise Lost*. What some other examples of important political figures who also created works of art?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nsm4o/what_are_some_works_of_art_by_political_figures/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cclopcg",
"cclp8ju"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The early modern period provides a fair few examples for this (with Milton's *Paradise Lost* certainly a good one - though I think it's worth remembering that it's as much a commentary on contemporary society as it is art.) \n\nThomas More's *Utopia* (1516) has always been one of my favourites - it's a rich criticism of European values and society through the fictional 'tales' of Raphael Hythloday, and his dealings with the culture and inhabitants of 'Utopia' - a supposedly perfect society, though the name more or less literally translates to 'no-place'.\n\nMore was, amongst other things, a statesmen prior to the english reformation, serving as Lord Chancellor to Henry VIII until 1532 (... he met a particularly sticky end somewhat shortly after...) \n\n*Utopia* is actually a very entertaining read, and really illustrates some of the major popular religious and political criticisms of the day - and one or two less popular views too.\n ",
"Benjamin Disraeli, two time PM of the UK, was a notable writer in his time, practically inventing the \"political novel.\" While the bulk of his work was published before he took a position in the government, almost all of his work has a political edge to it, and he continued writing up until his death. His most famous works are probably \"Vivian Grey\" and \"Sybil,\" the latter of which is still in print (not sure about the former). While his work has not entered the \"canon,\" it is still notable and worth reading in and of itself and is not just for people interested in Disraeli. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
27csa6
|
why do people torrent movies and tv shows instead of streaming? streaming is instant and doesn't leave any incriminating files on your computer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27csa6/eli5_why_do_people_torrent_movies_and_tv_shows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chzjwvn",
"chzjywf",
"chzk134",
"chzk1eg"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Torrents can be streamed as well. But what I believe you're asking is why people download torrents rather than stream. The main reason is that torrents are much higher quality, and have higher bandwidth than some file that someone put online.\n\nSince a torrent can have hundreds of seeders, the download is much faster than that of a stream. Plus, one could just delete the files when they're done.\n\nAnother reason is that torrents are more available than streamed media.",
"There are few currently-airing shows that offer legal streaming immediately after airing. The illegal sites rarely stream in HD, and even SD quality can be hard to find.",
"It depends. \n\nIf you're streaming via a bit torrent based system, such as Popcorn Time, you're more likely to get caught because the bit torrent protocol requires your IP address to be publicly available via the tracker. Downloading from more obscure torrents significantly reduces your chances of \"getting caught\"\n\nIf your streaming via a HTTP service (read website) the quality is probably terrible. \n\nSure, streaming is instantly gratifying, but unless you're using a slightly open bit torrent service, you're going to have a bad time. \n\nHaving the files on your computer isn't really a problem - chances are, if they're searching your computer, you're fucked anyway. ",
"Well, actually it does leave incriminating files. Check your browsers cache files. Guess what you will find in there. Your streaming activity is one thing. \n\nAlso, torrenting allows for better quality files for people with slower connections. AND you can stream some of them if you really want to. Needs a really damn fast connection to do that though with most good torrents. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
49dao8
|
if the constitution is supposed to be upheld at all times in government then why do politicians constantly get accused of doing things that are "unconstitutional" but are never penalized for it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49dao8/eli5_if_the_constitution_is_supposed_to_be_upheld/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0qukdf",
"d0qulbc"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Because its rarely clear cut whether or not the things they are doing is unconstitutional. Its a matter of how you interpret it which is the supreme courts job. Someone would have to charge the politician with a crime and the supreme court eventually make a ruling.\n\nOften times its just politicians doing stuff that ends up in that gray area where maybe it is unconstitutional but theres an argument to be had both ways.",
"Just because someone accuses you of doing something unconstitutional, doesn't mean they were actually doing something unconstitutional. Plenty of politicians are sore losers who will accuse their opponents of everything, regardless of whether the accusation is actually true."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1z7sfo
|
Why did Italian power and influence ebb after the Renaissance
|
This is my one blind sight in European history. The success of the Renaissance originated from the Italian city-states that had grown very large and rich. I have ideas of why Italy could be eclipsed by the rest of Western Europe, but I want to hear the current narratives. Did the warring between the cities result in an Ancient Macedonia-Greece situation? Did the Ottoman's influence over the Mediterranean play a large role?
Yet Germany was also a collection of small states, and they became a region of great industry in later centuries. What was the difference?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z7sfo/why_did_italian_power_and_influence_ebb_after_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfthqc2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"First, the Italian City States were very different from one another. At \ntimes Florence was doing great and at others Venice was. I bring this \nup to illustrate that there was no \"continuity\" of greatness. The \nRenaissance in the Italian peninsula is believed to have taken place \nbetween the 14th and 16th centuries. That is quite a gap of time. I \nbring it up because it will heavily define the way this question is \nanswered and the importance of understanding what an \"era\" is in \nhistorical terms. It is more of a \"chapter\" to help us identify and \nimagine when things end and begin. For example, most Renaissance figures we commonly identify with lived hundreds of years apart.\n\n\nWith that out of the way, we can start with some of the factors that \ncan affect a region over the course of several hundred years. In this \ncase, we need to look at what made the Italian peninsula during the \nRenaissance such a powerhouse of culture and growth. We can start out \nwith the Venetian Republic in order to address your mention of the \nOttoman influence in the Mediterranean. The Ottomans are seen as the \nlast nail in the coffin for the Venetian Republic. However, Venice was \nable to maintain a decent presence in the region until about the 17th \nCentury (again, the dates come into play. when eras end and start). It was at that time, that the Cretan War took the last foreign strongholds away from Venice.\n\nThe true death of Venice as a commercial power came at the hands of \nsomething else: the discovery of the Americas. Suddenly, the spices \n from the east did not seem so exotic anymore. The tales of golden \ncities and endless riches from the new world turned the heads of most \nEuropean investors. The Venetians were able to hold on to a sizable \namount of trade from the East, but at that point the attention of most \nhad been focused elsewhere. Before the Venetians could gather support from other Christian nations to maintain a hold of trade in the region. After the discovery of the Americas, it became increasingly difficult to do so.\n\nWhen it comes to the wealth of the Renaissance, there is a term that is \nextremely important: \"Conspicuous Consumption\" which was coined by \nThorstein Veblen. It is the acquisition of luxury goods and investment \nof capital in order to display power. Many statesmen and political \nfigures of the Italian peninsula were famous for doing this. In \nFlorence, we have the \"Ospedale degli Innocenti\" (hospital of the \ninnocent) built in the 15th century. While it sounds like a great idea \n from our modern perspective for a state to invest towards its ill \npeople, there was financial motives behind it. Families invested \ntowards the construction of this hospital, with that investment came \nrecognition. The recognition turned into admiration from the \"popolo \nminuto\" (\"the little people\" in other words, poor urban dwellers) and \nthat turned into political power. The heavy investments of some of the \nfamous figures from the era, such as the de'Medici family, came as a \nform to contribute to society while gaining support from the lower \nclasses.\n\nNow, we have touched of some of the elements that helped to create the \npeninsula's wealth and image for the period. But where did it go wrong? \nthat is a hard question. In my opinion, it was a mixture of bad \nelements coming together. I already commented on the financial impact \nthat the discovery of the Americas had, but the wars also came at a \ncost. The crippling effects of trade and financial interest being turned elsewhere changed some of the wealth flowing into the region. Now, the part that I mentioned at the beginning of greatness not always having continuity will come into play.\n\nCountries like Spain began to make an impact in the European military \nstage. The discovery of the Americas brought them great wealth. Spain \nbegan to have enough power to interfere with affairs in other European \nterritories. Charles V of Spain also began to grow impatient with the \nVatican's actions and poor decisions. This led to a brutal campaign in \nthe Italian peninsula. The Vatican was also about to face another \ncrisis that would cripple the peninsula's social stability: the \nreformation. Trade was hindered due to war and war itself also plagued \nsome of the peninsula. All this created instability which allowed some of the bigger powers such as Spain and France to start picking apart territories. \n\n\nOverall, you can get an idea how conflicts over time can destabilize a \nregion. Not just that, but to a degree each city state had a situation that has to be analyzed individually. The independence and wealth of the city states ultimately hurt them: regional warfare decreased their power and the great wealth accumulated painted a big target on them for the incoming global powers.\n\nSome books worth reading:\n\n*Gold & Spices: The Rise of Commerce in the Middle Ages by Jean Favier \n(covers the rise of the American trade industry and the last days of \nthe Mediterranean)\n\n*Italy in the Age of the Renaissance : 1300-1550: 1300-1550 edited by John M. Najemy. It is a nice collection of essays, some of which cover the decline of certain city states. \n\n*Communes and Despots in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, edited by John E. Law. This one touches on some of the more controversial policies that affected the politics of the city states..some hurt more than others.\n\n\n* The Devil's Broker : Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in \nFourteenth-Century Italy (Frances Stonor Saunders) (a lighter read that \ndoes a decent job at explaining how mercenary culture damaged some core elements of the Renaissance Italian military structure).\n\nThere is really a LOT more to cover here. I just touched on two of the major cities of the time. Follow-up questions are welcome.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
o7y3n
|
How do pigeons work? In a biomechanics sense.
|
When I see pigeons walking around, they seem to always bob their head in rhythm with how they're walking. Is that the only way they can walk, or do they have some other reason for doing this?
When they get startled and take flight in a hurry, they seem to always make a strange fwefwefwe noise, is it their wings producing that sound, or are they vocalizing that? Why?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o7y3n/how_do_pigeons_work_in_a_biomechanics_sense/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3f3nwu",
"c3f416n",
"c3f4397"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The bobbing is to keep to image of the world still on their eyes. When you move your head the vestibulo-ocular reflex moves your eyes automatically, so that the image of the world stays stable on your retina. However, birds have only a very limited ability to rotate the eye ball in it's socket. Instead, they rapidly move their head, and then let the body catch up.. move the head... body catch up. i.e. they keep their head still for as long as possible, so that the image on their retina is nice and stable... then jerk their head forward (blurring their vision for a a short time)... then making it stable again.",
"The bobbing is thought to be a way to gain information on depth. A pigeon's eyes are located on the side of its head, so it is [unable to use stereo vision](_URL_2_) to gain information on depth.\n\nBy moving its head up and down, it makes uses of [parallax](_URL_1_). That is, the pigeon can compare pre- and post-bob images much as we compare the image from each eye.\n\n[The way we know this is that pigeons don't bob their head when they walk on a treadmill.](_URL_0_)",
"\"The pigeons have \"modified wings\" that produce the whistle as they fly, but only this sudden take-off creates the alarm that causes other birds to flee.\" [BBC](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://jeb.biologists.org/content/74/1/187.full.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision#Field_of_view_and_eye_movements"
],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8232570.stm"
]
] |
|
2jfqgq
|
Microgravity is referred to as "free fall". Does that mean all the objects in the universe are falling toward something?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jfqgq/microgravity_is_referred_to_as_free_fall_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clbmetq"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Microgravity is a misnomer for objects that are in orbit around the Earth. Gravity on the space station is approximately 90% as strong as it is on Earth. The reason the astronauts appear weightless is because they are in free-fall, just like when you go over a hill on a rollercoaster and are lifted out of the seat, the space station is constantly \"falling\" away from the astronauts, so they seem weightless. And the space station doesn't crash to Earth because it is falling around the Earth (for more information on this, look into Newton's description of orbit)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9dxscz
|
why do american houses have such thin walls?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9dxscz/eli5_why_do_american_houses_have_such_thin_walls/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5ko3t1",
"e5ko66t",
"e5ko7u8",
"e5koayw",
"e5kollo",
"e5kot81"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"😂❤️ besides the fact that those are movie sets which are constructed to be punched thru. Basically just drywall. You would have a hell of a time punching thru normal walls with studs and supports.",
"Well, it's a movie, so take it with a grain of salt. And second, standard American housing construction is comprised of wood frames, wood studs, and drywall. Assuming you don't hit a stud, drywall isn't terribly resistant (not as strong as brick, but probably much more resistant as movies make out). ",
"In new construction, walls are usually made out of studs and drywall. Drywall is made of gypsum, and it comes in thin sheets. You can punch through drywall fairly easily. It's used for interior walls because it's cheap, it's light, it's easy to install, and it's easy to paint and make it look nice.",
"Movie sets use cheaper walls designed to be broken through. Most actual homes are not like that, and are much harder to break through. ",
"If you are watching action movies it is just unrealistic. But it is fairly common in the US to have interior walls made of wooden framework with wood studs every so often (2x4 posts), covered with drywall. This is compressed gypsum and there is a layer on each side of the wall. Interior space within the wall is available for running wiring, plumbing, and can even be filled with insulation as well (although interior walls often don't need it).\n\nOf course it is possible to punch through gypsum board but they are also pretty easy to patch or replace, and if you need to access electrical wiring or plumbing it is more convenient than... whatever else you are imagining.",
"You're watching movies. The walls are means to break.\n\nI'm a standard American home built in the last 30 years, the studs are 16 inches apart and sheetrock covers it. Sheet rock is moderately easy to break through. In an older or specialty home, lath (thin strips of wood) and plaster is used. This is harder to break but cracks mildly easily. On certain walls in modern homes sheerwall is used behind sheetrock. This is a 3/4 inch piece of plywood placed behind the sheetrock to help muffle sound and vibration.\n\nAll of this goes for Europe as well. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bbrgcl
|
how are global fast-food chains such as mcdonalds and kfc able to maintain the same taste and quality around the world?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbrgcl/eli5_how_are_global_fastfood_chains_such_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekkv5cs",
"eklcc68"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"McDonald’s tastes different depending on where you are. When I was in Germany the Big Mac was a bit different from the ones in the U.K.",
"There's an intricate dance that goes on behind the scenes at the big chain restaurants. The company will have chefs on staff who create new menu items, or refine the recipes for existing ones. Marketers will also determine what sells in a particular region in order to settle on a menu.\n\nThe head office will then strike up deals with a handful of major suppliers who are not only big enough to ship ingredients in a large enough quantity, but also at a consistent quality and a consistently low price. \n\nA lot of the food is actually manufactured in factories before being packaged/frozen and shipped out to the individual locations. These factories have strict recipes they need to follow, and because there aren't very many of them, standards are easier to control. So you can pretty much guarantee that each bag of KFC's seasoned flour mix is going to contain the same 11 herbs and spices in the same ratios, regardless of its final destination. Same with a bag of McNuggets or burger patties. \n\nThe individual restaurants are also given strict guidelines over how food is to be heated and assembled. Obviously they'll be some minor variations, but since they all use the same building blocks, they'll mostly be the same. It's not really in their best interest to deviate too much as they'll a) get a strip taken off them from head office, and b) customers expect consistency from this sort of food. \n\nOf course things won't be the exact same wherever you go due to varying regional tastes. Which the above mentioned marketers determine. For example, BK's Kuro Burger, with its bun and cheese died black with squid ink, might fly in Japan but it not in the US. Just like your classic American beef Whopper isn't going to fly in India. Though the taste and menu items are probably all going to be the same in a single country or cultural region."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1korzn
|
the apocalypse according to the bible
|
I'm an atheist who is very interested in learning more about armageddon or the apocalypse as stated in the bible. Events, important characters and any predicted outcomes? Literally all I have been told is that Christ comes back, the four horsemen are released and thats it!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1korzn/eli5_the_apocalypse_according_to_the_bible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbr2xzn",
"cbr34qr",
"cbr4nwi",
"cbr5efo"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"God gave the apostle Paul a vision of the end of the world, hence why the book is called \"Revelations\". There's a lot of symbolism analyzed by a lot of people that understand it way better than I do, but the parts I do get are that there's a battle between the forces of Heaven and Hell that causes the apocalypse. I think the four horsemen are involved with that. When Jesus comes back, he takes all that have died and deemed worth to heaven to join him and his father",
"In addition to /u/ferlgatr's response and if you're interested, you can read the entire book of Revelation which discusses the end times [here](_URL_0_). There are multiple versions from which to choose, I have linked the Message, which is not necessarily as accurate as other versions, but is written in \"today's language.\"",
"The Biblical account of the apocalypse is contained almost entirely within the book of Revelations. Revelations, in turn, is probably as dizzying a maze of symbolism as exists in the entire faith. Unsurprisingly, different people offer different interpretations.\n\nYou have the basics right. The common elements are: Christ's return, the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, the Horsemen, the Rapture, the Thousand Year Peace, the Banishing of Satan - these are the major plot points, so to speak. But putting them together is another matter entirely. There are numerous schools of thought on what-happens-when, and the whole thing is very much up to interpretation.\n\nThe 'pedia article you're looking for is [here](_URL_0_). You'll get a better understanding reading that (as well as Revelations itself - which isn't long) than you will here.",
"Its hard to pin down because so much of \"the Revelation to the Apostle John\" (the revealing) are metaphors (I don't know if that's the right word). \n\nFirst, let's start with Jesus himself to understand bible metaphors. In the Old Testament days, there were prophecies of the messiah who would come in the future. Jesus wasn't born in December, he was born in spring at the time of the spring lambs. (The early church celebrated his birth on May 16, and the shepherds were watching their flocks by night when the angel appeared to announce the birth; and that was only done when the ewes were birthing in spring).\n\nFor centuries Jews had been sacrificing lambs during the Passover, and touching the blood on the door-posts and lintles (some suggest that by doing this they had to unknowingly make the shape of the cross, hundreds of years before the Romans began crucifying). In this way the Passover traditions were a prophecy to show who the real messiah was when he showed up.\n\nSome people believe that the events of Joshua's life and the fall of Jericho in the old testament are a prophecy about the apocalypse. In Hebrew \"Joshua\" is the same name as \"Jesus\" in Greek (the new testament was written in Greek, the language of international communication in the first century AD).\n\nThe book of Daniel and Revelation talk about a seven-year period at the end. The middle of that time (3-1/2 years in) is the Abomination of [that causes] Desolation (AoD). A new world leader has helped the world survive a difficult time, and even emerge into a 3-1/2 year long period of recovery, peace, and prosperity. Then...he sets up and idol of himself in the rebuilt temple to God in Jerusalem, and orders the whole world to worship him. The new world leader is revealed to be the anti-Christ. The setting up of a pagan idol in the holy temple is an \"abomination\" and the apocalypse that follows is the resulting \"desolation\".\n\nThe next 3-1/2 years are a slowly escalating series of global disasters, killing almost everyone on Earth. There are some vague verses that depending on how they are interpreted, suggest that Christians will be pulled out of the Earth into the spirit world. The word \"Rapture\" is not in the bible, but it is the phrase that was coined to label the event of believers being removed. A few believe the Rapture will happen at the end of the 7 years, some believe at the middle (3-1/2 years) and most rapturists believe the Christians will be raptured at the beginning. \n\nThere are four places where the number 666 is mentioned. Twice it is mentioned as the \"number of the beast\" which everyone must have on their hand during the end days if they wish to buy or sell. It is also mentioned twice as the salary of Solomon (The third king of Israel after settling in Palestine). It has been speculated that Solomons salary is a hint that his life is a prophecy about the anti-Christ. \n\nMany centuries before Solomon, Jacobs life led Abrahams entire family to live in Egypt during a famine, which then turned to slavery, the exodus to return, living as nomads in Palestine, and finally to settle with Hebron as their capital (this is why they are called Hebrews). Abraham is the father of Arabs and Jews, and out of all of his decendants, his grandson Jacob was blessed and was renamed \"Israel\" by an angel (It's Hebrew for \"struggles with god\").\n\nIn the same way, after Jesus was crucified, the Romans evicted the Jews from Palestine because of all the revolts (revolts because of prophecies in the Old Testament) in 73-AD? the Jews were spread out across the Roman empire so there weren't enough in any one place to revolt (The Diaspora [Dispersion]).\n\nAt the end of WW-one, the British took control of Palestine from Muslim Turkey and allowed Jews to return there if they wanted. Jews had been oppressed in many nations, so they left their recent homes to return to Palestine.\n\nIn May 1948, the British pulled out of Palestine, and Israel declared themselves as a nation, their neighbors attacked, and Israel survived, though they didn't have control of Jerusalem (Israel was shaped like a \"C\"). In 1968, there was a war, and Israel gained control of Jerusalem. All of the materials to rebuild the Temple on the original site have been made, but await political stability to assemble it. Doing it now would start a war.\n\nMetaphors: During the period of the Judges, the people of Israel were nomads, when Saul became the first king of Israel, his reign is a prophecy of the 1918-1949 era, when David became a war-king and moved the capital from Hebron to Jerusalem, his reign is a prophecy about 1949-rapture, and when Solomon became king, his reign is a prophecy about the 7 years, which includes the apocalypse.\n\nSolomon married foreign princesses to form political alliances with his neighbors, he thus secured peace and prosperity at the price of allowing heathen wives to worship pagan gods in Israel.\n\nI can chat for quite a while about this, and more metaphors if anyone is interested, but...whenever you get two scholars together to discuss an interpretation of prophecy, you end up with three opinions.\n\nInterpretation is interesting, but any speculation presented should be studied by yourself to see if you agree with any given point.\n\n\"Armageddon\" is Hebrew for \"hill of Megiddo\". Megiddo is a city in Northern Israel and in prophecy is the scene of the final battle at the end of the apocalypse.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=MSG"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology"
],
[]
] |
|
1xb7gh
|
Is there any proof of Nazi's suffering mental breakdown's
|
SO is reading a fiction book involving Nazi's and its mentioned that during one of the many street killings of Jews, one soldier collapses and another refuses to kill anymore..another mentions a soldier getting up in the middle of the night and walking out their station and killing themselves..
Is there any proof things like this occurred, or if there was a refusal to kill, what would be their punishment ?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xb7gh/is_there_any_proof_of_nazis_suffering_mental/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfaj3jk"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know about breakdowns, but the psychological toll it exacted was noted. Himmler gave a speech to a group of SS men on Poznan, where he discussed the difficulty of performing mass killing:\n\n > I also want to mention a very difficult subject before you here, completely openly. It should be discussed amongst us, and yet, nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public.\n\n > I am talking about the \"Jewish evacuation\": the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. \"The Jewish people is being exterminated,\" every Party member will tell you, \"perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter.\"\n\n > And none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when there are 500, or when there are 1000. And to have seen this through, and -- with the exception of human weaknesses -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.\t\n\nAdditionally, the decision to switch from mass shootings to gassings was apparently made due to concerns for the killers--apparently a number of them suffered from mental problems after, and Himmler, after witnessing such a killing, pushed for switching to gas. Wikipedia cites Richard Rhodes' *Masters of Death*, a book about the Einsatzgruppen--unfortunately I don't have it on hand, so I can't cite it myself."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6noe1p
|
why is open-mouth breathing often associated to lower intelligence? is there any biological or behavioral link between the two?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6noe1p/eli5_why_is_openmouth_breathing_often_associated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkayuyz",
"dkb0932",
"dkb4svv",
"dkbr9oc",
"dkbx5zv"
],
"score": [
58,
238,
29,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"It is a common stereotype, but the only serious connections I can locate are [here](_URL_0_) where users point out (1) it means you're uncultured and (2) it could be correlated with the physical symptoms of Down's Syndrome.\n\nI also found some articles that suggest mouth breathing is correlated with sleep apnea, and people with sleep apnea are often tired and spaced out -- seems like a tenuous connection though.",
"It's part of the \"boorish brute\" stereotype that's roughly as old as social classes are. Laborers who have to expend lots of energy throughout the day will end up panting heavily and loudly over the course of their work. More \"refined\" individuals accustomed to leisure are more likely to be able to placidly go about their time breathing through their noses. Lateral stereotypes stemming from this phenomenon includes colorism in Southeast Asia and grooming conventions around fingernails and hand calluses in the West and elsewhere.\n\nOver time, rules of etiquette codified not breathing through your mouth, and the brutish stereotype of mouth breathing was further entrenched into what we see today.",
"I think that \"mouth breather\" might be a more figurative term for someone who is \"slack jawed,\" meaning inattentive or constantly bewildered (Webster's refers to \"slack jawed yokels\"), rather than a literal commentary on someone's breathing habits.\n\nI found a couple of sites expressing the same opinion, but nothing \"official\" yet.",
"Mouth breathing has nothing to due with intelligence. Mouth breathing is more likely due to clogged sinuses. When the flow of air is restricted your instinct is to breathe through your mouth. Someone might make the conclusion that this restriction of air causes a mental disability, however, mouth breathing takes in more air than nose breathing because the mouth and throat are wider than the nose passage. Also heavy exertion also results in mouth breathing due to the need for an increase in the amount of air required. ",
"I really don't know about the answers here... A lot of them seem based around cultural reasons or through extrapolating connections between things as if it was a super conscious premeditated response, which i do not think is what you feel. \n\nI would imagine that it has to do more with how much the mouth contributes to facial expressions and by having it open it makes the face look more blank and thoughtless, devoid of any expressions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2lrqbr/why_are_mouth_breathers_considered_less/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9dp2pd
|
how does tinting a car's windows help keep it cooler inside during the summer, since dark objects absorb more of the sun's heat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9dp2pd/eli5_how_does_tinting_a_cars_windows_help_keep_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5j26zi",
"e5j28e8",
"e5j2np8"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
27
],
"text": [
"The tint film is actually multimple diffrent sheet sandwhiched together. In general youll have a dark colored film to block/absorb visble light and youll also have a reflective film that helps reflect visible/infrared light. Both stop visble and infrared light from heating up the inside of the car by reflecting away or dispersing the heat generated by the light within the glass.",
"Think of it like color vs light. To have white light, its every spectrum of light. But to have white colors, its the absence of any color.\n\nSo for a window, the darker the color, the more light it absorbs, meaning the LESS light passes through the glass and into the car. Therfore not allowing more energy to heat up the air inside.",
"The heat is absorbed in the glass, making the glass hot. Fortunately, the glass is outside, where the air cools it. That's much better than making the upholstery hot, that's trapped in a sealed up car with no way to get out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
o8gli
|
why is evolution considered a theory and not a scientific law?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o8gli/why_is_evolution_considered_a_theory_and_not_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3f7u6s",
"c3f9lvr",
"c3fabu2",
"c3fdmjt",
"c3fgoja"
],
"score": [
41,
12,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Google says: \n > Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not \"better\" or \"more accurate\" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_0_)",
"* A scientific theory gives an explanation of how something works.\n\n* A scientific law simply states how something has been observed to work under certain conditions.",
"People get theory and hypothesis muddled a lot. Theory is something that has been proven, hypothesis is just what you expect to happen and you test it out. But a lot of people use theory interchangeably in place of hypothesis- which isn't right ",
"Folks use the incorrect meaning of \"theory\"\n\nAs you are aware many words have more than one meaning. \n\neg \n\n1. the word \"Tear\" can mean ripping of paper or water from the eyes.\n\n2. the word \"love\" can mean sexual love, bromance, love for a pet, love for your family or the love a man has for a fine cuban cigar.\n\n3. Check out the definiation of the word \"the\". It has [18 meanings](_URL_0_).\n\n\nThe general public sees the word \"thoery\" as something that has yet to be proven i.e. My theory is that Bob likes Sally. In science this meaning is a \"hypothesis\"\n\nIn Science the meaning of the word \"theory\" is pretty much \"this is as true as we can make out and by gee, we are 99.99999% sure it is the TRUTH\"\n\nOf course the religious fundamentalists (which is the unsaid part of your question) use the incorrect definition of the word \"thoery\" when they say that evolution is only a \"theory\". By their reasoning then gravity is only a \"theory\", and thus when you punch them in the face, it's ok because Newtons laws of motion (which is only a \"theory\") will not effect them, so they won't get hurt.\n\nReally, the whole \"theory\" argument is semantic one, and I wish more folks (media, politicians etc) understood that words can have more than one meaning.\n\nDon't get me started on Gay \"Marriage\" - my soapbox will collapse under the weight of my opinions.\n\n \n\n",
"Only sith deal in absolutes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/why-isnt-evolution-considered-law",
"Evolutionfaq.com"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+the#hl=en&q=the&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=6sUKT6rwNc2zrAfF9qH0Dw&ved=0CC8QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=ea91701b1741a412&biw=1920&bih=1075"
],
[]
] |
||
vwydk
|
What consumer products can I buy today that take advantage of the physical properties of graphene?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vwydk/what_consumer_products_can_i_buy_today_that_take/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c58ddb4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I am not aware of any such devices currently, though my field of expertise is only tangentially related to graphene.\n\nThis is likely because graphene is a *very*, *very* new material. As recently as 2008, the only reasonable way to get any was exfoliation, which isn't really suitable for any industrial process. To put this in perspective, we've been growing single-crystalline silicon with the Czochralski method since 1916 or so.\n\nAdditionally, as far as I'm aware, there is currently still no way to grow graphene in a way that is compatible with modern electronics processes. Modern-day silicon CMOS processes are the result of non-stop development since ~1976; while they are great for making very small, very fast Si electronics, they are very sensitive to high temperatures and to impurities (especially the metals needed to catalyze low-temperature graphene growth). Graphene doesn't exist in a technological vacuum; it's not very useful unless it can interact with other modern-day electronics, ideally on the same chip.\n\nFinally, even if graphene were demonstrated to be better than other materials in every way by a factor of 10, it's still rather early to expect consumer devices; modern semiconductor facilities are extremely expensive (and complex) to set up. As a reference point, GlobalFoundries' fab 8 has been under construction since 2009 and is expected to start production this year; the estimated cost is ~$10bn."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
vcxca
|
Light cannot escape the gravitational pull of a black hole. So where does the light go?
|
I mean, why is the black hole not lit up when the light gets "absorbed"
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vcxca/light_cannot_escape_the_gravitational_pull_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c53dm4o",
"c53fz7k",
"c53hgud",
"c53ki0e"
],
"score": [
10,
22,
14,
5
],
"text": [
"Lets take a look at what a black hole is and how it bends spacetime, looks at [this image](_URL_0_). The light begins to follow that path and, since it is a singularity the light get \"trapped\" in there. It is not getting absorbed.",
"Fun fact: If you were orbiting a black hole, and say you were invincible,the gravitational pull of said hole would be so strong that light would orbit, enabling you the ability to look forward and see the back of your head.",
"This is a short and highly informative video on what might happen when you travel into a black hole- I recommend you take a look.\n\n_URL_0_",
"For the black hole to 'light up' light would have to escape. For you to see light the photons have to travel to you. Since the photos are trapped inside the black hole, there is nothing to see, and that's why it appears black.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://imgur.com/2DhT2"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9CvipHl_c"
],
[]
] |
|
9u8ixm
|
Why are some JFK assassination files still classified?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9u8ixm/why_are_some_jfk_assassination_files_still/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e92e92l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This submission has been removed because it violates our ['20-Year Rule'](_URL_1_). To discourage off-topic discussions of current events, questions, answers and all other comments must be confined to events that happened 20 years ago or more. For further explanation of this rule, feel free to consult [this Rules Roundtable](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45wqkl/rules_roundtable_5_the_current_eventsmodern/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_current_events"
]
] |
||
1fs03b
|
What is the earliest academic paper that can be cited?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1fs03b/what_is_the_earliest_academic_paper_that_can_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cad84m5",
"cad9ewz"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"I suppose that I could reference Euclid's [*Elements*](_URL_0_), which is 2300 years old.",
"How would you define 'paper'? The style and format of scientific papers has changed substantially over time, and so have the standards of academic publishing. And you don't have to cite 'papers', you can always reference books, chapters, etc. \n\nPersonally I've never needed to cite anything earlier than the 1920s or so, and don't see where I'd need to unless I was specifically writing about the history of something. Because anything that old is likely either wrong, or well-established enough to be in the textbooks. E.g. it'd be seen as superfluous to cite \"Einstein, 1905\" in any and every paper involving special relativity.\n\nNothing stops you of course, but since research papers are written for an audience of people who have a background in the subject, just look silly to provide references for things that the audience would be expected to know full well. \n\nNot to mention, the original sources aren't always the best sources. Old explanations become obsolete as we learn more, and also as education changes. Newton's _Principia_ is quite difficult to understand for a modern reader - even one who knows the physics - because it's addressing a 17th century audience. Schrödinger's 1926 paper on his eponymous equation isn't a good place to learn about it either, since he didn't fully understand his own result. It's been re-interpreted and re-derived more rigorously later.\n\nIn short, there comes a point where the original source becomes redundant and/or obsolete, after which there's little point in citing it unless you're writing about the history of the science rather than the results themselves.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements"
],
[]
] |
||
2jgxoi
|
In 1945, When President Truman told Stalin of a "new bomb of unusual destructive force", why did Stalin react as if he was uninterested and not show any special interest in it? And how did he react when it was first used on Japan?
|
I was looking it up and of all the accounts, apparently Stalin didn't seem to be that interested as he never asked any questions or seemed intrigued. He just said it was good and he hoped it would be used on Japan. Why did he act this way and how did he react when he realized the actual power of it?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jgxoi/in_1945_when_president_truman_told_stalin_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clbunph",
"clc1kln"
],
"score": [
35,
3
],
"text": [
"He already knew about the bomb by the time Truman told him about it. As for his reaction to us bombing Japan, he was upset and actually locked himself away out of being depressed that the Soviet Union didn't join the war against Japan. Not out of honor, but because FDR promised him lands lost in the Russo-Japanese War if they would help us defeat Japan after V-E Day. He ended up invading Japan anyway, which shocked the Japanese and forced them to end the war more than the impact of the atom bomb.\n\nSource: Racing the Enemy by T. Hasegawa",
"Really good resource on this here: _URL_0_\n\nTruman didn't have a very high opinion of Stalin (\"the little squirt\") or a very good relationship with him like FDR had. He and his appointee Secretary of State James Byrnes seemed to think Stalin was a bit of a dope who didn't understand what he was being told. We know better now, he was just using a poker face, and messaged Georgii Zhukov that evening to accelerate the Soviets' own nuclear program.\n\nStalin had agreed at Yalta to enter the war against Japan three months after the defeat of Germany. U.S. desire to have him do so was in flux after successfully testing the bomb at Trinity. Suddenly, the postwar order looked better with de facto unilateral U.S. occupation of Japan and keeping the Soviet Union out of China. Stalin wanted access to those same Manchurian railways at stake in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905. He also wanted the disputed Kuriles and Sakhalin. The Potsdam Declaration was notably issued with references to the Soviet Union removed, which Vyacheslav Molotov tried to insert, but it had been released to the press already. The Soviet Union still used the pretext of enforcing the Potsdam Declaration with its declaration of war on August 8, 1945.\n\nIn short, Stalin was using a poker face. Unlike Truman, who was informed by Leslie Groves and Henry Stimson of the bomb in April, and was excited to tell Stalin, Stalin had known for a long time due to his spies in the Manhattan Project. He didn't want to tip his hand on this, or show fear as he wanted to keep his claims in East Asia despite the bomb changing the situation.\n\nRoberts, Geoffrey. \"Stalin at the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam Conferences.\" *Journal of Cold War Studies*, Fall 2007, Vol. 9, No. 4, Pages 6-40\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.dannen.com/decision/potsdam.html"
]
] |
|
7qavya
|
Are there any other less heard of societies like Carthage?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7qavya/are_there_any_other_less_heard_of_societies_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsnrh8l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Indus Valley Civilisation is a very interesting and hardly known early society that is likely responsible for the \"brahmin\" caste (highest caste) in Indian society. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
nacwd
|
social security and what it implicates
|
What does it mean, what does it do, when was it invented, what was the original use, and what is it being used for right now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nacwd/eli5_social_security_and_what_it_implicates/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c37jero",
"c37jero"
],
"score": [
9,
9
],
"text": [
"Wow, this is a big topic.\n \nIn the US, Social Security was a program started by President Franklin Roosevelt in the midst of the Great Depression. The original idea was that the country should provide for those who could no longer provide for themselves after years of work. Everyone would pay into a fund, and then after you retired, you could get a monthly payment out of the fund to make sure you didn't go homeless in your old age.\n\nOver the years Social Security has been expanded to include the disabled and some other people that would have difficulty providing for themselves. \n\nIt's paid for by a payroll tax, which means the government takes (normally) 6.2% of your paycheck from you and the same amount from your employer. If you make over $106,000, you're only taxed on the first $106k. This is supposed to be so rich people don't pay tons of money when they won't get very much after they retire (There is a limit to how much you get per month from social security). \n\nCurrently, there is a tax holiday due to the recession and we're only paying 4.2%. There is debate in congress over whether to lower or raise this amount. \n\nThe money was originally supposed to go into it's own fund, but when times were tough sometimes Congress would borrow from that fund. Congress now owes a lot of money back to the Social Security fund. Some people think that means SS will not be around in years to come, others say there is no problem and the program has enough money for decades. Even then, sometimes the age when you start drawing SS gets increased to deal with longer lifespans.\n\nAs an aside, some people say that the average lifespan was shorter than the age when you started getting SS, so the program was never meant to pay for people long term. While it is true the average lifespan was lower when the program started, that had more to do with infant mortality than how long people in the workforce expected to live.\n\nToday, social security continues paying old people and the disabled, and workers still put some amount of their paycheck into it. Some politicians would like to get rid of the program, some would like to shore it up so it's around for further generations, but since old people get SS, and old people vote in droves, no politician wants to screw it up (unless they can blame the other guy). ",
"Wow, this is a big topic.\n \nIn the US, Social Security was a program started by President Franklin Roosevelt in the midst of the Great Depression. The original idea was that the country should provide for those who could no longer provide for themselves after years of work. Everyone would pay into a fund, and then after you retired, you could get a monthly payment out of the fund to make sure you didn't go homeless in your old age.\n\nOver the years Social Security has been expanded to include the disabled and some other people that would have difficulty providing for themselves. \n\nIt's paid for by a payroll tax, which means the government takes (normally) 6.2% of your paycheck from you and the same amount from your employer. If you make over $106,000, you're only taxed on the first $106k. This is supposed to be so rich people don't pay tons of money when they won't get very much after they retire (There is a limit to how much you get per month from social security). \n\nCurrently, there is a tax holiday due to the recession and we're only paying 4.2%. There is debate in congress over whether to lower or raise this amount. \n\nThe money was originally supposed to go into it's own fund, but when times were tough sometimes Congress would borrow from that fund. Congress now owes a lot of money back to the Social Security fund. Some people think that means SS will not be around in years to come, others say there is no problem and the program has enough money for decades. Even then, sometimes the age when you start drawing SS gets increased to deal with longer lifespans.\n\nAs an aside, some people say that the average lifespan was shorter than the age when you started getting SS, so the program was never meant to pay for people long term. While it is true the average lifespan was lower when the program started, that had more to do with infant mortality than how long people in the workforce expected to live.\n\nToday, social security continues paying old people and the disabled, and workers still put some amount of their paycheck into it. Some politicians would like to get rid of the program, some would like to shore it up so it's around for further generations, but since old people get SS, and old people vote in droves, no politician wants to screw it up (unless they can blame the other guy). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
f0a2wz
|
what the scientific explanation as to why you are not supposed to put kitchen knives in a dishwasher? how is this any different than hand washing them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f0a2wz/eli5_what_the_scientific_explanation_as_to_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgsdlsu",
"fgsg7sm"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The main reason is that your knife should only be wet for the minute or so it takes to clean it, then it should be dried. Having water sitting on there will make it rust and damage whatever finish it might have. Dishwashing tablets often have more salts in them compared to dish washing liquid which can eat away at metal. If your knife has a handle made from a separate material water can seep in the joints and corrode the glue or screws, which will be made of far cheaper metal than the blade. \n\nDishwashers will also jostle a knife around and the sharp edge can be chipped easily, and some people say the heat is high enough to warp a temper but I think that's a pop cultural myth thing.",
"Rust. \n\nHigh quality knives are made of a different kind of steel than flatware. In order to hold thinner sharper points, and to be able to handle sharpening, they are made from steel with less chromium and no surface coating — which protects from rusting. \n\nHot water over time will release free oxygen (unlike O2 which is in the air) which will lead to faster rusting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4q4x5y
|
"Basically, the Nazi party gained power because the Socialists and Communists attacked people on the streets" Can someone explain how accurate this claim from a forum post is?
|
[Link](_URL_0_)
> They painted themselves as Socialists in the beginning. After Hitler's takeover of the party, the National Socialists incorporated much of the ideals of fascism, which included a fair deal of Corporatism and Mercantilism. They also incorporated many socialist plans such as social welfare, etc.
> However, they saw both Capitalism and Communism as Jewish economic systems and directly opposed them. They were against most forms of Socialism as well, believing it to be the first steps to Jewish Communism.
> The Nazis largely gained power by bringing violence and stability where the police had been ineffective. Socialists and Communists ran the Streets of Germany, once the government failed and the Police were an ineffective force. Several failed attempts at revolution(some violent) by Socialists and Communists resulted in growing Nazi power.
> Basically, the Nazi party gained power because the Socialists and Communists attacked people on the streets, and the Nazis turned it back on them, destroying the Communists and Socialists again and again and again.
> One has to understand that the Nazis were considered the political and economic saviors of Germany. Their social and foreign policies were controversial even at the time. It was only after the Nazis had proven to be successful that they were even able to put their social policies in force, and even then it required them to largely disband the democracy of the time to do so.
> The fact that you have trouble understanding that the Nazis didn't come to power because you think the Leftists didn't do enough to oppose them, only dooms you to repeating the same mistakes that let the Nazis come to power in the first place.
> Violence creates Chaos. Chaos creates Uncertainty. Uncertainty results in Extremity. Extremity results in more Violence. And the Circle gets progressively more vicious until someone introduces Law and Order back into the Circle. And at a certain point, like for example, when people are murdering each other in the City Square or on the steps of the Capitol, it really doesn't matter if it's an Austrian man with a weird mustache who constantly rants about the Jews, just so long as someone installs Law and Order back into Society.
> The purpose these traditionalists had was to talk about how the Left was silencing and attacking Trump Supports.
> In Response, members of the Left silenced and attacked them.
I realize that forum posts on history often get things wrong (hence why /badhistory was founded, after all), so I wanted to ask here if the post is mostly accurate and not leaving anything important out. I don't want to run the risk of picking up misinformation or (slightly) distorted/biased accounts of history, because even though I study history in university and had this covered at length in school, it's been some since that and in my lectures and seminaries now where mostly about other time periods.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4q4x5y/basically_the_nazi_party_gained_power_because_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4q9ep8",
"d4q9iip",
"d4qc3r2"
],
"score": [
21,
14,
35
],
"text": [
"There are some misconceptions here, for sure.\n\nFirst this writer conflates \"Communism\" and \"Socialism.\" These two movements were represented by the radical KPD and the moderate-centrist SPD respectively, and the two parted ways decisively during the 1918-1919 Revolution, when the SPD under Frederich Ebert cooperated with the Freikorps and other conservative elements to crush the various Communist uprisings. The rift widened further after the general strike in 1920 when, once more, the SPD coordinated a violent crackdown on the Communists...and further still in 1923 after the Ruhr crisis. So, \"the Nazi party gained power because the Socialists and Communists attacked people on the streets,\" gets it wrong twice. The socialist SPD was never involved in these sorts of attacks, and the Communist uprisings that did take place were comparatively tame and quickly quashed. That's not to say there wasn't some real bloodletting, ie in Munich in 1919, but the reaction against the Reds was usually quite a bit bloodier than anything the Reds did. Also, by 1929 the Communists were not by any stretch \"indiscriminately attacking people on the streets\" (the way the Nazis attacked Jews for instance), though they were increasingly locked into a cycle of street violence against the Nazis and right wing groups like the Stalhelm, the identity of these groups being based largely on hatred of Bolshevism and liberalism more generally.\n\nThe Nazis and their right wing allies *consciously and deliberately* fanned the flames of violence as much as possible in order to create the conditions of instability they needed to gain support and to make a popular enemy out of the Communists and Socialists. This is most apparent in Chancellor Von Papen's un-banning of the SA in the summer of 1932 against the advice of the SPD ministers of the states, leading to a spiral of violence that did much to sweep Hitler into power. You can probably trace the misconception in this post back to Papen's deposing of the SPD government of the state of Prussia, when he blamed the Socialist government for failing to control the violence his own policies had caused.\n\nMany if not most Germans did dislike the SPD and the KPD, but the hatred had more to do with prejudices that can be traced back two generations to the anti-socialist coalition Bismarck used to tame the Reichstag in 1878, when he blamed the Socialists for attempting to murder Wilhelm I. Anti-socialism was a tenet of German conservative thought. From 1919 on there were right-wing firebrands attacking the Republic's existence, ie Hellferich of the DNVP, and right wing terrorism was, especially in the early days, far more widespread than terrorism from the left, e.g. the assassinations of Walther Rathenau and Matthias Erzberger. \n\nAnd, no, it wasn't just a flight to safety and order. Yes, there was an aspect of that, but the political impetus for it came not from any real, organic threat - where it was in control the SPD ran completely responsible governments with capable, professional police forces - but from the fear mongering and manipulations by figures on the right. The Nazis were not responding to a real threat of Communist takeover when they advanced the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Acts in 1933, but it was helpful indeed for them to claim that they were. Then there is a long list of reasons the Nazis won so many seats in 1932-1933 and, ultimately, the Chancellorship, beginning with the machinations of Papen and Schleicher to hitch the conservative wagon to Hitler's populist horse, and further explained by long term trends and prejudices (anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, hatred of the Versailles treaty, a feeling of unfulfilled unity stemming from the shared struggle of the war years, a sense that outsiders, the *ostjuden* controlled Germany) and more immediate concerns that would be recognizable to a modern pollster, such as economic woes.",
"Disregarding the overall tone of the comment, this is pretty biased in favor of the Nazis, because during the Weimar Republic literally every major political force had a militia, especially the Nazis. The Nazis used the SA during this time, the Rotfront was the arm of the left-wing radicals, the social democrats relied on the Reichsbanner Scharz-Rot-Gold, and there was also the reactionaries with the Stahlhelm and the various Freikorps paramilitaries on their side. The professional military, the Reichswehr, claimed neutrality in these political battles (while conducting foreign policy behind the government's back), which essentially meant that they could not be relied upon by the government to enforce order. When the author refers to violence conducted by the Socialists and Communists, this is likely referring to the 1919 Spartakist Uprising, the 1919 short-lived Bavarian Socialist Republic, and the 1920 Ruhr uprising by Socialist and Communist elements. \n\nThe problem with the poster's theory, that:\n\n > > The Nazis largely gained power by bringing violence and stability where the police had been ineffective. Socialists and Communists ran the Streets of Germany, once the government failed and the Police were an ineffective force. Several failed attempts at revolution(some violent) by Socialists and Communists resulted in growing Nazi power. \n\nIs that the Nazis were not around as a real political force during this time. Most anti-government support coalesced around the DNVP, the reactionary party, who ALSO launched an attempt to seize power via the Kapp Putsch (which in turn led to the Ruhr uprising). The Nazis, for their part, also launched a coup attempt (the infamous Beer Hall Putsch in 1924). It failed miserably. So any claim that the Nazis were a stabilizing force after street violence by the socialists and the communists is... absolutely false. \n\nThat isn't to say that there wasn't conflict between the two, however. The SA would intentionally provoke the Rotfront (and vice versa) into so-called \"Zusammenstöße,\" or street fights, that were often bloody and terrorized the streets. Hardly the spitting image of restoring order, I would think. Meanwhile, up until the Great Depression, Germany was actually doing quite well for itself under the Grand Coalition of pro-democracy parties, who had managed to reverse the mismanagement of the Kaiserreich and the immediate post-war period. \n\nUltimately, the greatest argument against the author's argument-namely, what really cemented the alliance between the conservative military and the Nazis-was the Night of the Long Knives, where the Nazis, using the SS, intentionally purged the SA. In other words, the Nazi party literally \"restored order\" by suppressing elements of their own party, which would certainly imply that the Nazis were a radical and destabilizing faction to begin with. ",
"Beneath the milquetoast paeans to stability and certainty, the linked post is pretty much rubbish. This statement in particular is especially problematic: \n\n > Basically, the Nazi party gained power because the Socialists and Communists attacked people on the streets, and the Nazis turned it back on them, destroying the Communists and Socialists again and again and again.\n\nThere are a number of problems with this statement. \n\n* Firstly, the author omits one of the important elements in the escalation of street violence: the NSDAP. The SA and other right-wing paramilitaries took to the streets in the crisis years of 1929-33 and they certainly played a major role in the chaos the author laments. The SA in particular was quite violent and to omit them from any narrative is just plain wrong. Much of the SA's actions in the street battles was about asserting control over territory, such as marching in districts that were political strongholds of the KPD, and as such was deliberately provocative. Of the paramilitaries active in these years, the SA was arguably the most \"military\" with a strong hierarchical structure, uniforms, and martial ethos. \n\n* Neither the SPD nor the KPD were innocent lambs in these years, and both had their own paramilitaries, the main ones being Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold and Roter Frontkämpferbund (RFB- note, although banned in 1929, there were various successor organizations and rather than throwing out more acronyms, RFB will stand as a placeholder). Both of these paramilitaries engaged in battles with the SA and between each other and justified their violence as serving ultimate political ends, whether preserving the Republic or carrying forth the workers' revolution. However, to portray them as \" attacked people on the streets\" is a rather myopic way to view their actions that obscures the very specific context violence on the left often had and makes them out to be thugs accosting non-political Germans on the streets. Street-brawls between factions often had collateral damage for bystanders, but such brawls were typically a consequence of trying to disrupt another groups' rally or defend/reclaim territory perceived to be taken by the enemy. Violence was both real and symbolic, such as stripping insignia or destroying banners, which meant that a hypothetical apolitical German in regular clothes had little signifiers of their political loyalty. \n\n* Both the Reichsbanner and the RFB were also as much at odds with each other in this period as they were with the SA. Lumping them together as the author did loses the very real and important distinctions between the two. The Reichsbanner was caught in a very peculiar bind of being a defender of the Republic, but through extralegal methods. This actually proved detrimental for the Reichsbanner's internal cohesion as it became increasingly unclear what they were fighting for in these street battles. The RFB hemmed and hawed between local activism and wider calls for revolutionary discipline from the KPD leadership. This actually made it rather difficult to parse out what exactly was the RFB's strategy in this period. After the state ban, the RFB briefly abandoned its strategy of confrontation against fascist and cell-based organization and sought to recruit among elements in the SA as part of \"organized mass struggle,\" leading to a brief period of strange political bedfellows between the SA and RFB. This move was unpopular among the rank and file of KPD activists and violence continued at the local level despite moments of seeming cooperation like the 1932 Berlin transportation strike. \n\n\n > The Nazis largely gained power by bringing violence and stability where the police had been ineffective.\n\n* This statement is a bit of a half-truth, but it obscures an important facet of German policing. The Republic's police forces were increasingly impotent to stop the street battles, and this did undermine the popularity of the Republic for some Germans. However, the German police force was not a neutral, apolitical force in Weimar. Police leaders were notoriously sympathetic to the right-wing political spectrum and they devoted a considerable effort to bringing down KPD groups. Statistics gathered by the Berlin police for Prussian Ministry of Interior over police intervention in political assemblies in 1931 shows the police disproportionately targeted KPD assemblies. Such a tilt against the KPD and the left was typical for Weimar law enforcement and extended into the judicial system; Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch ended with a slap on the wrist for the conspirators even though they committed treason. Not placing the NSDAP as an active political force and instigator in the street violence is a crucial oversight, especially since after Hitler's seizure of power, the police, along with the NSDAP, proved to be quite ruthless in stamping out left-wing paramilitaries. \n\n > The fact that you have trouble understanding that the Nazis didn't come to power because you think the Leftists didn't do enough to oppose them, only dooms you to repeating the same mistakes that let the Nazis come to power in the first place.\n\nAh, the lessons of history... see side-note at the end \n\n* The right-wing sympathies of the German police were also mirrored in various elements of the German political establishment. Although the NSDAP had considerable, and in many cases, unprecedented, success in the polls, Hitler had the benefit of a right-wing cabal that actively sought to undermine the Republic. Electoral success, again, is only part of the picture, and counterfactuals in which Hitler loses at the polls for whatever reason have to take into account that the increasingly senile Hindenburg had a conservative camarilla surrounding him that had little love for either the Republic or democracy. \n\n > One has to understand that the Nazis were considered the political and economic saviors of Germany. Their social and foreign policies were controversial even at the time. \n\n* This statement is somewhat oversimplified and that oversimplification obscures a lot on the historical nature of the NSDAP's popularity. One of the strengths the NSDAP had both in the seizure of power and its rule over Germany was its ideological platform was often incredibly hazy and quite contradictory. This allowed itself to graft onto existing ideas, institutions, and mentalities within German society. For example, the phrase *Volksgemeinschaft* which became ubiquitous during the Third Reich was one of the favorite catchphrases of the great SPD leader and one of the founders of the Republic, Friedrich Ebert. Some ideas were indeed controversial, but they also found resonance among a broad swath of German society. This growth in support alarmed many within the Republic, whether among conservatives like the DNVP or left-wing parties like the SPD and KPD. Both Hitler and the NSDAP were not the only political actors promising the German people that they were the saviors from political paralysis of 1929-33 and economic dislocation caused by the Depression. The late Weimar period saw a renewal of this type of millenarian form of politics; returning Germany to stability was only one plank in the NSDAP's platform and its political discourse often stressed law and order as an integral component of the new order. One of the important questions for historians of modern Germany is why the NSDAP managed to succeed here when other parties failed. \n\nAnd therein lies a considerable that this skewed and incomplete view of late Weimar politics does to understanding how events unfolded between 1929-33. The linked author has managed to put the onus on Hitler's seizure of power not on the SA street brawlers, the conservative camarilla, or even the voters that cast ballots for the NSDAP, but rather on the cardinal political opponents of the NSDAP. This absolves the former groups of responsibility for Hitler and this exculpatory narrative dates back to 1945. Many postwar Germans of all political stripes would claim that their support for the NSDAP was often conditional and predicated support for Hitler as the only real alternative. This obscured many German's active support and co-option of Nazi ideals and participation in the dictatorship. The choice of \"Hitler or chaos\" was a highly politicized historical narrative that in many ways was more about providing an alibi than understanding the actual mechanics of Hitler's seizure of power. \n\nThis was not to say violence and chaos were unimportant factors in Hitler's ascent, but they were far from the only ones and focusing only on chaos runs the danger of justifying Hitler's dictatorship and denying that many ordinary Germans* supported the NSDAP for reasons other than law and order. \n\n*side-note too, it also bears stressing many Germans did not support Hitler either, some on ideological grounds, others for moral ones. The collapse of the Republic is a highly complicated historical event, which is why trying to derive historical lessons from it for present-day politics is a very fraught and unsound enterprise. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=29178176&sid=de658a27f8100a9a240fd740d4b1635c#p29178176"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
64jto6
|
how will a self-driving car react when facing a choice: killing the driver or a pedestrian?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64jto6/eli5how_will_a_selfdriving_car_react_when_facing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg2nfcc",
"dg2njsf",
"dg2nt17",
"dg2o467",
"dg2pi6l"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There wouldn't be that kind of decision baked into it, deciding which lives to kill. It would follow the standard programming for collision avoidance. \n\nIf it detected something heading toward it, it would brake, or steer into an available space to avoid the collision, or both.\n\nNothing is perfect. Humans do this already. If a ball bounces into the road, you stop or swerve. Hopefully paying attention as you're supposed to at the lanes and traffic around you so you always have somewhere to go in such a situation. An automated car would do the same thing.\n\nThe default solution would be to hit nothing. It doesn't matter if its a person or a vehicle. If the sensors detect a probable collision it would slow or move to prevent it. A person is just another thing not to hit. You would have code that also makes sure there is an out in a situation, such as making sure cars are spaced appropriately enough that there's an escape lane, proper distance between vehicles, and everything else.\n\nAre things perfect? No, but people aren't perfect either. Accidents happen, usually because of someone doing something stupid, like running into a street.",
"It won't have to. The reason humans can't stop in time is usually because it reaction time is terrible and we are bad at responding ideally under pressure.",
"This is actually a commonly cited ethical dilemma about AI and self-driving cars and as an argument for government to step in and set some more guidelines about this sort of thing. Does a self-driving car serve the passengers first, or is it just a raw numbers game? If the car decides to kill a pedestrian, does the family have the right to sue anybody?\n\nNon-philosophically, in 99% of situations, there's not going to be an obvious \"Will kill me or will kill them\" scenario. In the one you cited, it would likely drive into the building as you're much more likely to survive than the car.",
"(From what I've heard self-driving cars don't have full control over the vehicle, so that a human being can take over if required.)\n\nSeeing as how they are programmed to follow the speed limit and based on current design where they have a 360° camera on top of them. It'd be clear to say that the car would slow down to either come to a complete stop or attempt at trying to avoid the person or atleast minimise the impact (if it's impossible to avoid the person).\n\nHowever if the person was to appear out of thin air, then the car would have no chance in stopping in time, which would result in (depending on the speed limit) either the pedestrian being killed or surviving the impact, but is required to be taken to the hospital. The person/people in the car may receive injuries or could end up in a fatal crash (again purely based on how fast the self-driving car is traveling).\n\nBut seeing as how a human being can take over at anytime, it would then depend on the person who is behind the wheel.",
"Who pays for it?\n\nBecause the driver pays for the car the car is never going to do anything deliberately unsafe. It can stomp on the breaks but unless the sides are clear it will not swerve to avoid something.\n\nOn top of that a SDC isn't going to make value calls. A pedestrian is going to be handled in the exact same manner as a bag of garbage. Even if you could have a SDC that recognized the difference between person and object and was programmed to respond differently to person vs. object in certain situations, it wouldn't put the driver's life in any more risk than he or she is already in. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2b0wqe
|
what happens if you're sent to jail for a crime you didn't commit and evidence that you're innocent pops up years after you get out of jail?
|
I just finished watching Need for Speed and the thought occurred to me. If someone is sent to jail for 10 years for murder and after they get out evidence pops up that proves they aren't the murderer what happens? Does the government do anything to apologize for wasting your life or do they just ignore it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b0wqe/eli5what_happens_if_youre_sent_to_jail_for_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj0p3sb",
"cj0p41t",
"cj0pfkg",
"cj0rk5g",
"cj0toz6",
"cj0tqpq",
"cj0vntk",
"cj0xr27"
],
"score": [
7,
114,
7,
29,
2,
7,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"this situation has happened plenty of times in real life. they get reparations based on how long they were imprisoned for.. it depends on a case by case basis. some states have statues, _URL_0_",
"If it becomes known, then it's wiped from your record and you get reimbursed for the time spent in prison.\n\nBut that varies from state to state.",
"According to the law you're to be immediately released after your acquittal which doesnt always happen. Some individuals spend years in prison AFTER their aquittal.\n\nYour apology would be up to several million dollars...\n\n......from the lawsuit you will later drop on whatever law enforcement entity that put you behind bars in the first place",
"Some people get millions of dollars, others nothing. Some get released immediately, some unfortunately do not. The worst is false child sexual assault allegations. Almost always you are assumed guilty, and must be proven innocent, and pedophiles don't make friends well in prison. ",
"Similar situation: the movie 'Double Jeopardy'\n\nSpoiler (sort of): You can't be tried for the same murder twice, so what happens when your husband frames you for his murder, but he's not really dead...?",
"In some cases, you won't be reimbursed at all. On the contrary, you'll be in debt: \n_URL_0_",
"[One redditor who was in jail for 18 years for a murder he didn't commit actually had an AMA](_URL_0_). This isn't really ELI5 but check it out if you're interested.",
"You hook up with a team of crack commandos, and promptly escape from a maximum security prison. You then fight crime in the LA underground as soldiers of fortune."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/us/table.wrongful.convictions/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/US/alan-northrop-rape-bill-compensate-wrongly-convicted/story?id=12792640"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/27ehyu/i_spent_18_years_in_prison_for_a_murder_i_didnt/"
],
[]
] |
|
b4b1hy
|
how do gpg keys work and how are fingerprints verified?
|
I do have my own public and private keys but I don't understand how they're used to verify identities or what signing someone else's key will do and what is the point for having fingerprints.
And how do you verify a fingerprint someone you know online gives you because for all intents and purposes it may not be actually theirs.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4b1hy/eli5_how_do_gpg_keys_work_and_how_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej5inuy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Without getting too mathematical, your private and public key are generated in such a way that:\n\n\\- When you use your private key to encrype a message, only your public key can decrypt it.\n\n\\- When someone uses your public key to encrype a message, only your private key can decrypt it.\n\nWhat is that good for? Well some can send you a secret message using your public key and only you can read it.\n\nAnd using your public key anyone can be certain that your private key encrypted the message they got from you. That is a Signature, or some called a fingerprint.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nHow can you be certain that the public key your friend gave you is actually their public key and not a key someone elses? Well that is where certificates come into play. Your friend goes to a certificate provider whom you both trusth and sufficiently assures the provider that the public key is his and his alone. So when you get the public key of your friend you go match it against the certificate.\n\nAnd that is why some websites sometimes come up as 'not trusted', because the websites give you a public key, but the certificate they point you at is not from any certificate provider that your browser trusts.\n\nAnd that is the gist of it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5e6yni
|
why has the usa's money supply (m0) increased so much since 2008?
|
Here is a historical chart of our M0 assets: _URL_0_
This seems like extreme inflation, am I wrong?
What exactly is going on here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5e6yni/eli5_why_has_the_usas_money_supply_m0_increased/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daao53x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"M0 is the measure of monetary reserves, which the Fed creates when it makes asset purchases. The increase is mostly due to it's large scale asset purchases, ie. quantitative easing. \n \nGrowth of M2, or broad money, has been much more subdued as shown [here](_URL_1_). Also the velocity of M2 - ie. the rate at which it changes hands, has dropped significantly, shown [here](_URL_0_).\n \nIt's important to realize that the term inflation got it's reputation at a time when it was believed the amount of money in circulation was directly proportional to prices, something called Quantity Theory of Money. That is, if you inflate the supply of money, prices go up accordingly. Or simply inflation = rising prices. But after many decades of observation we know that this is not the case, and there are many other factors at play. Here is the negligible [price inflation](_URL_2_) that occurred at the same time M0 was increasing drastically.\n \ntl;dr - monetary inflation =/= price inflation"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user196978/imageroot/2016/05/19/monetarybase_fredgraphjuly13.png"
] |
[
[
"https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V",
"https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2",
"https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA"
]
] |
|
3532nv
|
Can a train pull more cars than it can push?
|
I commute taking Amtrak. On my way to work the engine is pulling the cars, and on my return home it's going in reverse and pushing the cars (same number of cars). This made me wonder what the limits for each method of locomotion are.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3532nv/can_a_train_pull_more_cars_than_it_can_push/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr0xwel"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The main reasons for most locomotives pulling their cars (particularly heavy, long freight trains) is forward visibility and braking.\n\nA freight train braking with the engine at the front will tend to compress together as each car pushes into the decelerating car in front of it. A freight train braking from the rear would tend to pull apart as each car pulls away from the decelerating car behind it and is stopped by its coupling. If a train is being pushed and a coupling fails under braking, the risk is that a portion of the train will detach \"run away\" from the rest."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1rp418
|
How much of vision is filled in by the brain?
|
For example, in my blind spot. If I close one eye, the blind spot is there, but is filled in by my brain to what is roughly in the background, and I don't notice it.
Another example: I have a little brown dog that looks like a brown pillow when he's curled up. When I saw an actual brown pillow on my chair, for a split second I saw it as my dog.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1rp418/how_much_of_vision_is_filled_in_by_the_brain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdpqiqf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"this is a complicated question. closest to your meaning, I think, is the issue of filling-in of surface color - the [Cornsweet illusion] (_URL_2_) is usually taken as one piece of evidence that the visual system uses boundary properties to infer properties of surfaces. the [watercolor illusion] (_URL_1_) is another example at the same level. these illusions can be taken to demonstrate the fact that surface features are at least in part inferred from non-surface properties. there's a whole system of 'lightness and brightness' illusions that show this in different ways. [color constancy] (_URL_0_) is also at a similar level, showing that what you see as a particular color depends on other structure in the same scene. \n\nbut more broadly speaking, *objects* are also perceptual inferences. 'dog', 'pillow', 'chair' - these are mental constructs. there is a physical reality, but it doesn't contain identities or meanings or clear-cut distinctions between clumps of matter. it's the brain that decides *this* clump and *this* clump are different (pillow vs dog), while *this* clump and *that* clump are similar (pillow vs another pillow).\n\nso under this theory, you can see any clump of stuff as any object that is *known* to you, and while you'll usually get it right, you will often make mental mistakes. so you might see a clump and interpret it as 'dog', and then shift your interpretation to 'pillow' - what has happened is that the identity of objects is something that is filled in by context and features, just as is the color of surfaces, etc; and if the context strongly suggests 'dog place', you might be inclined to mistake a non-dog object for a dog, just as the border in the Cornsweet illusion inclines you to mistake the two sides of the display as being different colors. the difference is maybe that the dog/pillow has internal structure, as well as contextual relations, that help you to make further disambiguations upon a little more analysis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watercolor_illusion",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornsweet_illusion"
]
] |
|
3qwvx8
|
why is this specific sound effect of children laughing and playing used over and over and over again in movies/tv shows?
|
_URL_0_
I feel like every time there are kids laughing and playing, this sound is used!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qwvx8/eli5_why_is_this_specific_sound_effect_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwj0v6h",
"cwj3ewj",
"cwj5gap"
],
"score": [
10,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"Also the goddamn rusty door sound effect, it's everywhere. tv series, even modern movies apparently use the same sample cd set.\n\nthere is also a weird unrealistic \"air sucking in before explosion\" sort of whipping implosion sound that is used for every explosion in some movies. Like air somehow knows that shit is going to explode beforehand.\n\nthere is also a loop of police radio, that is used all the fucking time, i guess the thinking is that we are not listening to backround sounds so carefully, but they use the same sample ALL THE FUCKING TIME.\n\n\n_URL_0_",
"Recording new sound effects is expensive, so to save money, sound designers pull unimportant / generic sound effects from an existing library of pre-recorded stuff. You're not supposed to notice it, but sometimes certain sound effects get so overused that they become a joke. The Wilhelm Scream is the most famous example.",
"Stock footage. If a studio has a sound in stock, why go and record new stuff? That means scheduling more time and more people. It's easier for productions to just use the stock stuff. \n\nThis is why you see the same \"Extra\" cars all the time. Look for that black BMW 7..shows up like 7 times in Die Hard with a Vengence, but also in a dozen other films. How many times can The Walking Dead use that same old gray Taurus? Same deal. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yedSDFtSmJw"
] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afnR1C7HTh8"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
13fyoj
|
how people get caught not having a tv license?(uk)
|
How do they know you don't have a license? Has anyone ever been caught and fined? Surely unless they come into your house and check they can't know if you're watching TV or not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13fyoj/eli5_how_people_get_caught_not_having_a_tv/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c73m005",
"c73m1p6",
"c73mn4c",
"c73ms19",
"c73n84w",
"c73n97k",
"c73p167"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2,
2,
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"They knock on your door and you feel really guilty and admit you should pay.",
"wtf is a TV license...-edit-\n\nNot sure why I'm being downvoted. I actually Do not know what a TV license is. I'm canadian. We aren't fascists about television here.",
"I didn't seem to know anyone who bought a license as far as I can tell as a American it was the honor system. How ever I did live in a college town.",
"I think it's done on a post code system, if they know that that address doesn't have a licence they'll send letters. I'm not sure how they find out if you're watching without having a licence but then they send a warning and then I think they come round to check to see if you have a tv. ",
" > How do they know you don't have a license?\n\nWhen you buy a licence, your address is added to the big list of 'addresses with TV licences'. You're is also on the big list of 'people who live in places'. If it's on the second but not the first, they know you don't have a tv licence.\n\n > Has anyone ever been caught and fined?\n\nYes.\n\n > Surely unless they come into your house and check they can't know if you're watching TV or not?\n\nThis is correct, so they actually do send people around houses. They also send lots of threatening letters, often with statements that are at best distortions of the truth in order to try and scare you into paying. They don't actually have much legal power except to fine you if they can show you use a TV, so (for instance) you don't have to let a TV inspector in if they do come to your door.",
"They can't. \n\nThey say they can detect people without a licence, but it's bullshit. The only way they know is by knocking on your door and getting you to admit to it. And they have no legal right to enter your property unless you allow them. \n\nThere was a website knocking around a few years that, amongst other things, proved that the vans they use to \"detect\" non-licence payers did not have any such equipment and that despite the TV Licensing Company's claims to the contrary, they're a subsidiary of the BBC and not independent. \n\nIt's another tax. Until we have the option to block BBC channels, then it is not an \"optional licence\" it is a mandatory tax. ",
"I'm sorry, but this reminded me of \"The Young Ones\"...."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.