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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2hu0t9
|
why do some people sweat substantially quicker/more often than others?
|
I know someone whe sweats almost every time they sit on leather (like their legs/rear end) even when they are not necessarily hot. It might be normal room temp, but they might still be sweating... Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hu0t9/eli5_why_do_some_people_sweat_substantially/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckw1cqh",
"ckw1e37",
"ckw1ec5",
"ckw1fcg",
"ckw1h1a",
"ckw1kus",
"ckw1ua4",
"ckw1vuc",
"ckw1zr8",
"ckw20lx",
"ckw27mk",
"ckw2dnn",
"ckw2g4s",
"ckw2z62",
"ckw39f0",
"ckw3d7x",
"ckw4fvn",
"ckw4i93",
"ckw4tnd",
"ckw5lh4",
"ckw6t4i",
"ckwailv",
"ckweat8",
"ckwfw4e",
"ckwilnj"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
2,
6,
37,
11,
3,
9,
414,
227,
56,
50,
8,
6,
7,
5,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of our sweat is released by the eccrine sweat glands, which are stimulated when the body is hot. When stimulated, these glands release a watery substance onto the skin. When this moisture evaporates, the body cools down. If we're sweating due to an emotional response, like anxiety, sweat is released from the apocrine glands. These glands are stimulated when we're nervous or overly excited.\n\nExcessive sweating happens for many reasons. Usually the reasons are pretty benign, like heavy exertion or hot weather. And some people just sweat more than others.\n\n(link : _URL_0_) ",
"Genes. Some people have more active sweat glands. ",
"I VERY rarely sweat. I might get a little sticky after a workout, but I don't sweat.",
"Certain meds will also cause you to sweat your ass off. ADD meds are prob. the biggest offender that comes to mind right now. ",
"Quick question: do people that sweat more burn more calories?",
"Omg this is me at work. Its 70 degrees and I will break out sweating. Our ac broke one time and it got into the high 70s. Having to wear a smock I was sweating like it was a fucking sauna\n \nEdit - everyone at work thinks I'm seriously fucked up. Its hard to talk when sweat is running down your face while customers are looking at you. You feel like a fatass or a miserable out of shape person..",
"Ever since I got heat exhaustion and \"whited out\" (optics nerves were pinched from constricting blood vessels due to dehydration, and all I could see was bright white) I sweat a lot more than I normally did and do more than most people. I also feel hotter in normal situations than I used to. The hypothalamus is crazy.",
"When I was thin, I didn't sweat much. Now that I'm a fat pig, I sweat profusely all the time.\n\nRocket science.\n",
"Your training level also plays a part in sweating. A highly trained athlete will sweat much more and much faster than an average person. This is an adaptation their body went through because they are much active more and need more sweat to cool down. You can see this when NBA players warm up and they are already starting to sweat even before the game starts.",
"I would really like an answer to this. I sweat like a fat kid stuck inside of a 150lbs mans body\n",
"So your hypothalamus controls your body temperature, its like the AC unit in your house. Some people's A/C units are more sensitive than others, like setting your unit to immediately turn on after a raise in 1-2 degrees. The AC unit in your body causes your blood vessels to dilate and get closer to your skin. The actual cooling is the sweating part… your sweat cools your blood as it circulates through your body. Some peoples AC units are very sensitive to any temperature change, and causes an increase in sweating to cool the body down ASAP",
"My favorite part is when I towel off from a hot shower, and I'm already covered in sweat before I'm fully dressed.\n\nOr walking outside in the summer. In wool work trousers. Summer weight wool is a fucking LIE. ",
"Hyperhidrosis is a pretty common thing. It's basically over-active sweat glands. I was born with it in my hands, feet and underarms. It doesn't matter how hot or cold you are, sweating can and will just happen for no reason. There are procedures and medications available to help manage the condition. And it's hereditary. Yay genetics!",
"Everyone that sweats a crazy amount at stains their work shirts needs to get certain dri that has aluminum chlorate in it. It was a miracle worker. Instantly ",
"When I went first time to doctor for over sweating I got some interesting (and quite disturbing) facts. Human can produce up to 5 liters of sweat per day. It can be treated with cognitive behavioral therapy and that shit takes years.\nThan I was like \"Fuck that, I'm gonna be sweaty pig for the rest of my life\".",
"I don't have sources because this is something I recently learned in class, but I can try to find some if you want. \n\nSweat glands are epigenetically controlled. The first few days after birth, the body determines how much sweat needs to be produced, and grows the sweat glands accordingly. \n\nSo if someone is born in a warm climate and experiences hot weather for the first few days of their life, their sweat glands will grow to be ready to produce a lot of sweat, and vice versa for someone born in cold weather. ",
"Sweaty bastard here, can confirm any light activity sends off the sweat glands going ",
"Well, some people like me suffer from hyperhidrosis, but I'm sure you meant people without this condition. Still, I can't tell you how many times people have shook my hand or whatever, and commented on \"how nervous I must be\" since I was sweating. And when I tell them how it literally is always sweating, even in cold weather, they act like I'm just making an excuse. Please don't be these kinds of people...",
"To lazy to scroll. Alcohol has a profound effect on this, the more you drink the more you sweat. Dry to drenched in seconds. ",
"I sweat lightly when I'm active. My Chinese wife just turns red. Our kids sweat when they sleep even in the winter and buckets when they play. I don't get it.",
"I used to date a guy who was an excessive sweater. Anytime we had sex, he would pour buckets! And this is from regular, non hardcore sex... The sheets would be soaked and I would be dry. He was in shape too. Not sure why he was like that.",
"My SO calls me mr. Frog, because I'll just sit there and be moist. Sweat so easily. ",
"I may have scrolled too fast but it looks like no one mentioned that profuse sweating/overly easy sweating can be a sign of liver problems.",
"follow up question:\nwho is better at tolerating the cold.. thin people, muscular people, big people, fat people.. .etc. ? ",
"If you sweat a lot, like me, check with your doctor about prescribing Hypercare Solution. It's prescription only but dirt cheap. It uses aluminum chloride. You dab it on before you go to bed and then just apply your regular deodorant after a shower in the morning. The only side effect that I've encountered is some slight burning/irritation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/men/sweating-odor/why-do-i-sweat-so-much.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8srx3z
|
how do car sharing services deal with impounded cars?
|
Today i saw a car sharing smart (a Car2Go) being taken away because it was on a no parking zone.
I'd like to know how getting back cars works for them in these situations.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8srx3z/eli5_how_do_car_sharing_services_deal_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e11qeuc",
"e11qg1v",
"e11wbxp"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The user who parked the car there will be charged for the ticket along with an administration fee for the company's trouble getting it out of impound. The car still belongs to the company and they will pay for the impound fee and ticket, recouping the cost from the driver.",
"The person who had it last will be charged for it getting impounded. Some times the impounding company calls the business since occasionally its disgruntled employees leaving work vehicles and its unlikely they'll be able to pay. But sometimes they don't and fees will build until it gets figured out. ",
"I used to work for one if the car sharing services but I cannot divulge in which company I was with.\n\nBefore the vehicle is out on a reservation, users sign up with a lot of information regarding their eligibility, driving record, background checks and a few other ends here and there. Once they reserve the vehicle, the sole member who is registered is now solely liable for any kinds of damages, at-faults or impound issues (of course pending investigation by any associates or agents that go out to the car.)\n\nSince the company pays the parking garages, lots, and local government (for on street parking) for the spots that are strictly reserved for the car-sharing vehicles, members are required to leave the vehicle in those spots anytime they leave the car. Anytime they park in a space that is not reserved for the vehicle, they are to pay for the parking fee to avoid getting impounded or fined. \n\nAlso-- most vehicles, whether it is aftermarket or OEM from the factory, come with a tracking device that is hardwired into the immobilizer and the vehicle, for theft prevention purposes, and so that only the member can access the car for the reserved time. The GPS always updates the location in realtime so that we know where it is at any moment in time.\n\nSo with all these tied together, whenever a vehicle is impounded (due to illegal parking, expired tags, theft or any reason therein), the GPS signal is sent from the tracking device to the main system to locate the vehicle at its exact coordinates. Once we realize that the vehicle is missing and the vehicle is put out of commission through the system to ensure other members don't reserve the vehicle while it is out of service, an associate or management is sent with company money to bail the vehicle out (assuming it is NOT totaled).\n\nOnce it is paid, the associate or manager will drive the vehicle back (assuming it is safe to drive) and move it to where it is supposed to be. They keep the receipt, take photos of any damages that were done, any belongings and document it when needed.\n\nThe time of towing will usually be given through means of receipt, reports or any kind of documentation that was given by call center, government, company and/or so on. Then the department responsible for the impounded and speeding fees (usually Headquarters) will triangulate the information and track down the last person to use the vehicle or current (since the vehicle when impounded is out of service and cannot be rented for fleet.)\n\nSo when the member in question is finally proven to be the person that caused the impound of the vehicle to take place, they charge them and notify them through the email linked to that account that they have been charged with the fee plus an administration fee because the vehicle has been found to be impounded during or after their reservation.\n\nYes there are a few very rare exceptions that haven't happened since I worked there, but most of the rules are laid out in a rulebook that members have to SIGN and ACKNOWLEDGE when their application has been approved.\n\nThis was my first eli5 post and I was kind nervous making sure this was typed out okay. I'm sorry if it wasn't the best explanation but I hope it helps.\n\nEdit: I missed a few details and grammar.\nSorry... English is not my first language."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
34b8e7
|
How safe was ancient Rome compared to some modern cities?
|
If i were to go back in time and take an extensive walk around ancient Rome, say during the time of Trajan, how likely would i be to get assaulted, killed or robbed outside of the better areas? To which modern cities could the danger of such a walk be compared?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34b8e7/how_safe_was_ancient_rome_compared_to_some_modern/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqter6j",
"cqto1r4"
],
"score": [
1018,
4
],
"text": [
"We just don't know. A lot of people will use Juvenal, a satirist of the late first century who painted a very vivid picture of Roman life, to show that the city was very dangerous. However, this is roughly the equivalent of using a modern stand up comedian to get an accurate picture of life in Chicago--I have spent a great deal of time in Chicago and have yet to pay a bribe or get shot, but stand up comedy acts usually revolve around those two aspects. So Juvenal is funny, and he gives a good example of what the grumpy sort of conservative might say, but it isn't very useful in a statistical sense.\n\nSo another way people might look at this is whether the conditions for crime exist, although I personally think this is futile as I'll explain later. On the face of it, conditions for crime seem pretty ripe: there was very little in the way of active policing, grinding poverty and copious inequality. But these conditions can also be said to be fairly true for modern Mumbai, which had fewer murders in 2013 (187) than New York City (332), which is quite safe for an American city. Drawing straight lines from a set of observed material or social conditions to crime rate is usually not possible. After all, policemen are not necessarily better at reducing crime than, say, neighborhood organizations like what existed in Rome in the form of *vici*.\n\nBut this brings up an issue that is easy to miss: despite the common comparisons to third world cities, Rome is comparable to precisely nowhere on earth. In fact, this applies to every ancient city, as the industrial revolution and rise of globalization has irrevocably altered every settlement of significant size. There are places in the world where you can find villages or small bands that are relatively cut off from mainstream society and live in comparable material conditions as pre-modern people in comparable communities and then use comparative ethnography to understand how ancient communities lived. But there are no places in the world where you can find a city of a million in such material conditions. It is honestly one of the most frustrating and yet tantalizing parts of studying the ancient world.\n\nThat being said, it is possible to look at comparative stats from, say, Tudor London. One problem with this is that these statistics can be notoriously difficult to interpret--[this review](_URL_1_) of Stephen Pinker goes over some of the issues of pre modern crime stats. The second is that crime rates vary wildly in modern cities, so they probably would in ancient ones as well.\n\nEDIT: Wow, this got noticed. A great book on ancient Rome is Steven Dyson's *Rome: A Living Portrait of an Ancient City*. It deals extensively with the city itself and is pleasantly \"fact heavy\". I can also recommend books on Roman urban life in general if anyone is interested.\n\nEDIT2: So apparently my quick comment about Mumbai got the most attention, which is great but further questions about that should be taken over the /r/AskSocialScience. [Here](_URL_0_) is a source for 2009 so you know I'm not making it up.",
"A follow up question\nHow much of a effect did your class have on your safety?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/30/new-york-crime-free-day-deadliest-cities-worldwide",
"http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/11/steven-pinkers-medieval-murder-rates.html"
],
[]
] |
|
1v3pfc
|
what are the effects of ibuprofen on the body?
|
I'm a gymnast so I tend to be sore often, and I would say I take more ibuprofen than the average person, so what are the effects of this on my body? I know it can effect the liver, but does it do anything to anywhere else?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v3pfc/what_are_the_effects_of_ibuprofen_on_the_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceoerak",
"ceogvvl",
"ceohv0h",
"ceoi97k"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It isn`t great for your kidneys and actually quite horrible for your stomach as well, especially if taken without food. ",
"Another side effect that very few people know about: it affects your hearing. To be more precise, it can give you permanent hearing loss. Apparently it reduces the blood flow inside your ear (the cochlea) and damages it.\n\nI've been using this painkiller three-four days a week for over 15 years, and I've noticed my tinnitus has progressively become worse, especially the last 3-4 years.\n\nEDIT: more info _URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"Ibuprofen and other NSAIDS, like acetaminophen (Tylenol brand), block the production of prostaglandins (hormones) which are produced by damaged cells and cause inflammation.\n_URL_0_",
"A few points: I was not sure whether by \"what are the effects of ibuprofen on the body\" you also meant how does it work to alleviate pain, so I thought I'd add a bit on that first.\n\nIbuprofen is an anti-inflammatory drug. Inflammation is an immune response and damage control system in the body, where the affected area (such as a wound or a bacterial infection) widens its arteries (where blood travels from the heart) while constricting its veins (where blood returns back to the heart) to allow more blood to rush to the area and temporarily stay there. To put is as simply as possible, this means that, if infected, white blood cells can get to an infected area and help fight the infection, and red blood cells can help carry the necessary nutrients to help the body repair itself. This also allows platelets in the blood plasma to clot bleeding if a blood vessel has broken. So basically, inflammation is a very important thing in the body to heal injuries and fight infection, but the process can lead to heat, swelling and painful sensations. \n\nSo, what happens when you take Ibuprofen? It basically tries to reverse the effects of inflammation by widening veins to allow some of the blood in the area to be released. This alleviates swelling and pain, but can also hinder the speed that the body heals and recovers, especially if overused. Like most drugs, overuse can be very bad for your kidneys over time, as the chemical has to be constantly filtered out of the bloodstream if abused. The liver releases enzymes to help in this as well, which can also damage the liver if overused. There is also an increase of blood pressure associated with long term overuse, which can lead to hypertension and heart disease over time.\n\nThere have been some extreme cases of patients abusing anti-inflammatory drugs having gastro-intestinal issues as well, from diarrhea and constipation all the way to stomach bleeding. So yea, it's real bad to abuse these drugs. \n\nYou didn't mention your gender, but a very interesting study done in 2005 and published in the Journal of Urology seems to have linked long term overuse of anti inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen with a 140% increased risk of erectile dysfunction. There is information on this on the wiki article about ibuprofen if you want to see it.\n\nI don't think there is any danger in short term temporary use of anti inflammatory pain releivers, but I have to say that, even as an athlete, if you are so often in pain as to be regularly taking pain medication to cope and continue to perform in gymnastics, I would urge you to see a doctor, and perhaps some physical therapists, to find the source of the issue. You could be ignoring serious issues that could lead to stress fractures or tears.\n\nEdit: Phrasing and wording on a few sentences."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120913/Ibuprofen-or-acetaminophen-may-increase-risk-of-hearing-loss-among-women.aspx",
"http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/29/aje.kws146.abstract"
],
[
"http://content.time.com/time/covers/1101050228/map/viox.gif"
],
[]
] |
|
3ssve9
|
British PM Benjamin Disraeli was born Jewish. How did people in Britain and around the world react to this fact?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ssve9/british_pm_benjamin_disraeli_was_born_jewish_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx04qou"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"Disraeli was subjected to antisemitic slurs throughout his entire career. When he first presented himself for election, he was greeted by cries of \"old clothes\"; on another occasion, his opponents hoisted roast pork on a stick in front of him; and he was once offered a donkey to carry himself back to Jerusalem. Caricatures of the politician regularly depicted him with a hook nose and a stooped posture.\n\nOne of the more famous instances of such anti-semitism came from Irish nationalist MP, Daniel O'Connell, who in a 1835 election campaign described Disraeli as \"the worst kind of Jew.\" \n\nDisraeli retorted in a letter to the *Times*: \"Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.\"\n\nBut the point at which Disraeli's Jewish heritage became a major bone of contention was actually later in his career - at the time of the Bulgarian Christian uprising against Ottoman rule in 1876. The Ottomans had crushed the rebellion mercilessly, and reports circulated in Europe about the atrocities their soldiers and irregular forces had committed against Christians.\n\nThe Liberal leader, William Gladstone, was horrified by these stories and published a pamphlet condemning Disraeli for his inaction in defending the Bulgarians. He suggested that Disraeli, because he had been born a Jew, had a sympathy for the Turks because of their lenient treatment of the Jewish minority within the Ottoman Empire. \n\nOther critics piled on, calling Disraeli the \"Jew Earl, Philo-Turkish Jew and Jew Premier,\" an \"abominable Jew\" and the \"traitorous Jew.\"\n\n(In point of fact, British foreign policy had always been pro-Turkish, but Disraeli's Jewishness made him an easy target.)\n\nA very good recent book on this subject is Adam Kirsch's *Benjamin Disraeli*, which places Lord Beaconsfield's career within the context of 19th-century anti-semitism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
eh1i31
|
why do passenger jets have to have their fuel manually calculated? why can't the computers in them automatically calculate the fuel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eh1i31/eli5_why_do_passenger_jets_have_to_have_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcc3z1v",
"fcc4bll"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Uhhh what are you talking about? What aspect of \"their fuel\" do you think is manually calculated?",
"Exactly what do you mean? \n\nThey have fuel gauges that tell you how much fuel is on board, fuel flow meters that tell you how much is being used, and flight management computers that tell you how much you're going to need.\n\nIf any of these components is inoperative, there are means to manually measure/compute these things, but it's not normal operation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
a1koum
|
how does it rain in kansas?
|
There’s like no oceans or large bodies of water near Kansas. How the hell does enough water get up in the clouds to rain??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1koum/eli5_how_does_it_rain_in_kansas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eaqk5xw",
"eaqot0c",
"earlm83"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no real limit to how far moisture can travel in a cloud. \n\nThe rain falling in Kansas can be from evaporating water from mountain streams, the ocean or anything else. ",
"Water evaporates everywhere, even from the respiration of grass and trees. The rain in Kansas may not have come from an ocean, but from a forest in Colorado.",
"The rain in Kansas largely comes from the Gulf of Mexico, as you might see in this map:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/climate_water/slides/US_precip_map.gif"
]
] |
|
9b6f74
|
difference between colonialism and imperalism
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9b6f74/eli5_difference_between_colonialism_and_imperalism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e50r4ly"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"The terms are closely related and often treated as interchangeable, and the differences are largely arbitrary.\n\nColonialism is the idea of having colonies, ie dominions away from your homeland that you own. Oftentimes this has involved exploitation by the colonial power of resources and people of the land taken over, so it's treated as a bad thing in modern parlance.\n\nImperialism is a somewhat more general concept. Its root lies in \"empire\". Empire has meant different things at different times. It once meant a totalitarian government with absolute power over large areas (ie, Roman Empire). In much of the post-medieval era, especially in Europe, it meant having colonies (ie British Empire, French Empire). It was also somewhat interchangeable with modern industrial might and power, leading to terms such as \"Empire State\" in the US. At times imperialism/empires have been glorified and at times they've been criticized, the latter becoming the more common usage starting in the 20th century.\n\nAfter WWII with the elimination of virtually all colonial holdings, traditional colonialism died out. But imperialism, as before, took on varying interpretations. The postwar economic global order overseen by the United States made it difficult to impossible to maintain a large overseas empire. Yet that same order made it possible for some powerful countries (particularly the countries that won WWII) to use their economic might (and sometimes military strength) to wield power over countries with less economic strength, even though they aren't formally colonies. This has been called the 20th/21st century imperialism. And because imperialism was so synonymous with colonialism for so long, many see today's economic imperialism as being a form of colonialism, although not as direct as once before. I think the actual term is neocolonialism or something."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
22uwg7
|
how come files i save on windows can't have a ':' in the file name?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22uwg7/eli5_how_come_files_i_save_on_windows_cant_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgqm42l"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There are several characters that have special meaning to Windows \n\nA filename cannot contain any of the following characters:\n\n\\ / : * ? \" < > |\n \n---------------------------------------\n \n/ is a switch (and also a directory separator).\n\n\\ is a directory separator.\n\n: is a drive designator.\n\n\\* and ? are wildcards used in searching.\n\n\" is a way to allow spaces in parameters.\n\n < and > are redirection that allow input and output of a program to come from, and go to, something other than screen/keyboard.\n\n| is a pipe that allows output from one program to be used as input to the next"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
fzv38g
|
Why didn't India become majority muslim if Iran did.
|
Ok so I was wondering why the hindus in India did not become muslim like the Zoroastrians in Iran. Some cities like delhi where under islamic rule for like 600 years, yet they did not become majority muslim. And to my understanding Zoroastrianism was more organised than Hinduism. Also weren't other religions like Buddhism and Jainism more prevalent in India during the middle ages, meaning it is easier to convert.
So again, why wasn't India islamic like other countries such as Iran?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fzv38g/why_didnt_india_become_majority_muslim_if_iran_did/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fn6xslk",
"fn6z1ex"
],
"score": [
36,
11
],
"text": [
"This is a very broad question that doesn't have a single answer, but I'll bullet point some of the most common explanations that have found consensus among historians of India. Hopefully a historian of Iran can provide the other half of the answer to your question.\n\n* There was never a prolonged attempt at converting the Indian populace, although enemies of the state were occasionally forced to convert. Although Hindu nationalists frequently point out a number of temples were destroyed by Muslim conquerors, almost all were destroyed in the course of war or during a rebellion, and were almost never tied to conversion to Islam. Temple destruction is best understood as a tool used by Muslim (and Hindu) rulers seeking to challenge their political opponents, not as a religious statement (EDIT: changed wording slightly to avoid confusion). As Metcalf and Metcalf put it, the goal of Muslim states in India was to extend Muslim power, not to convert or oppress Hindus. This leads into the second point:\n* Muslim rulers in India quickly discovered that the best way to extend Muslim power was to ally with Hindu polities, social groups, rulers, militias, and religious institutions. The most prominent example is no doubt the longstanding alliance between Rajputs and the Mughals (see Jodha Bai's marriage to Emperor Akbar), which solidified the power of both parties for centuries in North India. Indeed, the Mughal state itself was most responsible for the ascendance of several majority Hindu groups that would come to define Hindu power in India (e.g. Marathas, Rajputs, and Jats).\n* Even Aurangzeb, notorious among Hindu nationalist historians for his supposed intolerance, patronized Hindu religious institutions and employed Hindus in his administration. For example, a quarter of his mansab holders (basically, men of rank in the military) were Hindu, and most of his wars were waged against Muslim rulers. Aurangzeb is a controversial figure, and I'd be happy to answer more questions about him, but for now I'll move on.\n* Although we now understand them as wholly distinct religions, Hinduism and Islam were never fully (EDIT: replaced really with fully for clarity) separate in terms of local practice and traditions. In India, just like every other place where Islam spread to, the religion was incorporated into the existing religious milieu. The lines between Bhakti and Sufi devotionalisms were blurred, and Hindu deities were frequently worshipped by Muslims. As Cynthia Talbot put it, \"There is a general consensus that it is questionable whether a Hindu or Muslim identity existed prior to the nineteenth century in any meaningful sense\" -- at least at the village level.\n* Even educated members of the Mughal court, who knew very well that Islam was distinct in origin from existing indigenous religions, often divided their allegiance between Hindu and Muslim authorities. Most famously, both Akbar and Jahangir were devotees of Hindu yogis and believed that Hinduism and Islam shared a single underlying truth, although a number of prominent Muslim nobles were strongly opposed to such a view, which they deemed heretical.\n* Now to answer your other questions. First, you mention that Zoroastrianism was more organized than Hinduism, and that may be true, although I can't say I know much about the history of Zoroastrianism. It is critical to note, however, that it was not just \"Hinduism\" that managed to survive in India (if such a thing as \"Hinduism\" even existed at all). Perhaps more crucially, it was Brahmanism (i.e. Brahminical religious institutions) that found a significant foothold in Muslim-ruled India, and later become utterly ascendant under British rule. Brahmins were not particularly well-organized or well-defined before the 17th century, but were patronized extensively by non-Hindu rulers and viewed themselves as representing a distinct religious tradition. \n* The last thing you mentioned was Buddhism and Jainism. Buddhism had already long since been on the decline for many centuries by this point, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Buddhism and Jainism would make it \"easier to convert.\" Are you suggesting that it was easier to convert from Buddhism or Jainism to Islam than some other religion? I'm not sure if there are any real grounds for such a claim.\n\n\nSources:\n\nC. A. Bayly, \"The Pre-History of 'Communalism'? Religious Conflict in India, 1700-1860,\" Modern Asian Studies, 19:2 (1985)\n\nCynthia Talbot, “Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities in Pre-Colonial India,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37, no. 4 (1995): 692–722.\n\nMetcalf, Barbara D., and Thomas R. Metcalf. A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press, 2006.",
"The first thing I’d say is that Iran didn’t become Islamic overnight. Today we think of Iran as country dominated by conservative Shia Islam, however this only really dates to the 17th century when the Safavid dynasty made Twelver Shi’ism the official religion. The notion of Iran being ruled by a council of clerics only dates back to the 1980s. \n\nFor the early Arab conquerors it was a far better option not to convert the Persians. It made the transition to the new regime smoother and opened the population up to paying the jizyah, the Islamic poll tax on non Muslims. It probably wasn’t until after the Abbasid revolution in the 850s CE (200 hundred years after the conquest) the the Muslim population of Iran slipped over 50%. You can see similar patterns in other countries. When the crusaders arrived in Palestine in the 1090s the vast majority of the population was Christian. \n\nWith that point out the way let’s look at India. Islam arrived in two different ways: through trade and invasion. \n\nThe first Muslim incursions into modern day Pakistan came in the 8th century, establishing Umayyad rule in Sindh, however it really wasn’t until the 11th century that Muslim dynasties made large gains in India. This was done by three successive Turkic states called the Ghaznavids, the Ghorids and the Delihi Sultunate. The first two ended up controlling northern India while the latter ruled most of the subcontinent. All three of these states were conscious of their vulnerability as interlopers and saw no reason to annoy their subject populations by forced conversions. While there were certainly several incidents of religious persecution the Delhi sultans ultimately needed Hindus to make their Empire run smoothly. It should also be pointed out that medieval India’s population numbered in the hundreds of millions. Islam in India took on a distinctively Indian form, and became one more faith in the diverse religious milieu. Merchants spread Islam, especially Sufi Islam far and wide, notably Bengal which today has one of India’s highest Islamic populations but is distant from the historic centres of Muslim power. While many people were converted willingly, Islam had little appeal to high caste Hindus who would loose their social status. A problem that Christian missionaries up to the present day also encounter. \n\nSufi Islam in its Indian form entered into dialogue with Hindu traditions and became largely pluralistic in its outlook. At the court of India’s last Muslim Empire: The Mughals Islam was seen as one aspect of an eternal truth rather than having a monopoly on it. The Mughal Emperor Akbar removed all restrictions and invited thinkers from all known religions to debate with him. One consequence of this was Akbar’s founding of his own religion: the Din I Ilahi which he intended to contain the truths of all religions. \n\nEven Aurangzeb the notoriously conservative Sunni Mughal Emperor had thousands of Hindu officials in his army and bureaucracy. Aurangzeb probably wished he could convert all of India to Islam. Though even for one of the most powerful people in the world, this was not practical.\n\nEdit: removed short paragraph on Zoroastrianism which requires fact checking."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fg5wa
|
How clean exactly is my tap-water?
|
I live in North America. Also, if it is not clean, what would be some simple precautions to take to ensure purity?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fg5wa/how_clean_exactly_is_my_tapwater/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1fopvl",
"c1fouai",
"c1foymd",
"c1fp17o",
"c1fp2o9",
"c1fpch4"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
3,
9,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"At the very least, it meets minimum requirements set by the government. But.. Every city has a different water source, some are significantly cleaner than others.\n\nAlso if the water is not clean, the precautions you would take would vary. If for instance there was a lot of suspended particles, a simple particle filter would clean it up. However a particle filter would not work against volatile organic compounds.",
"[This NY Times section will let you read up on it as well as check out your own state's water contamination levels](_URL_0_)",
"For simple precautions, use a water filter. The kind that attach to your faucet are about $18-28 or so and filter quite a bit.",
"Your tapwater is some of the safest, cleanest water in the world. Drink it! ",
"[EPA: Local Drinking Water Information](_URL_0_)\n\nYou can get background on the quality of your drinking water through the EPA.",
"Keep in mind if you are in a bit more rural area you may be drinking from a private well rather than a regulated source."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/ccr/index.cfm"
],
[]
] |
|
15p59y
|
What would effect balance more loss of sight or loss of sound?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15p59y/what_would_effect_balance_more_loss_of_sight_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7omo31"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"As someone who has severe Meniere's disease, it is sight. Here's simple proof: stand on one leg with your eyes open, then do it with your eyes closed. It is a lot easier when your eyes are open, because your eyes receive visual information that works in conjunction with your inner ear for balance and equilibrium. When I have a Meniere's attack (extreme dizziness that can be caused by different things: vestibular nerve degeneration and/or water in the inner ear), my eyes go through nystagmus - they bounce around. Also, definitive Meniere's diagnosis is also made with a test called electronystygmography: you wear blacked-out goggles with cameras around the edges, and are told to watch certain lights on an opposite wall while the cameras record your eye movements. For someone with Meniere's disease (using as an example for inherent balance disorder), the eyes' have observable saccadic movements while trying to pay attention to movement. \n\nLong story short: loss of sight would probably improve balance. Loss of sound wouldn't do anything; sound is transmitted along the auditory nerve, which does not innervate the inner ear/balance center."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3l1w03
|
what is the deal with proms and homecoming queen and kings?
|
I tried to gain understanding of this form a exchange student from USA but I didn't get the concept at all. What is the deal with the proms? Do all schools have them? Is there a national prom day or how does a school decide when it is held? In the movies they always vote for prom king and queen. Then there is a home coming king and queen? What is that now? I remember the exchange student also saying that only first and third year is allowed to participate. If second year students want to get it, they have to be asked as a date. I think I may be confusing many things here but it would be nice to understand teen movies better.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l1w03/eli5_what_is_the_deal_with_proms_and_homecoming/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv2fazr",
"cv2g2q6"
],
"score": [
2,
24
],
"text": [
"Here in the USA, yes almost all schools have a Spring Formal Dance. During prom season which runs from April to the end of May; teenage girls go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a dress they will wear once, and most guys go out and rent a tuxedo or possibly a limo. They then take their date out to a fancy dinner.\n\nGrades 11 and 12 (juniors and seniors)are allowed to participate. Grade 9 or 10 students (freshmen and sophomore) must be asked by an upperclassmen.\n\nThere is no National Prom Day. \nMost schools book a venue off campus to throw the party at. It's' just the school's way of trying to fancy stuff up. Example: My junior and senior prom were held at a Flour Daniel office building 20 miles from the high school.\nAs far prom king and queen, who knows why that is a tradition.\n\nHomecoming is very different from Prom, atleast where i was from.",
"Both of these are big social events in a high school population that include/are centered on a big dance. Many schools have one or two other dances over the course of the year (more in more religious areas, where social activity is regulated by grown-ups).\n\nHomecoming is in the autumn, maybe a month or two after school starts (which is typically around the beginning of September). In college, its a time for recent graduates to come back and visit, and it has some of that flavor in high school as well. There's usually an official football game which is the homecoming game, where the King and Queen are crowned. \n\nProm is in the spring, a few weeks or a month before graduation. It's meant to be the social climax of the high school experience. \n\nIn both cases most schools have Kings and Queens and courts, which are essentially rewards for being popular. A school sets its own policies, although IIRC for prom at my school only seniors were eligible and only seniors voted, while at homecoming I think others were allowed to vote. \n\nHomecoming is usually open to anyone in the school. Prom is typically only for seniors (those about to graduate, typically 17-18 year olds), or maybe juniors as well (the year behind senior), although they can bring an underclassman as a date. But as I say, any given school might have its own rules of traditions that are different than the norm. \n\nWhen I was a lad it was de rigeur to go only if you could score a date, although that was (dear god) 25 years ago, so maybe things are different now. \n\nHigh school dances in general are sort of weirdly formal and weirdly trashy, because high school kids are often sexually active but still learning how to behave. There's also a culture of going to prom and then when it's over going out and getting drunk, and there is a lot of anxiety over kids getting in car accidents. (Note that it's illegal for people this age to buy, possess or consume alcohol, but it's not that hard to get your hands on it.) In part because of this, and in part because it seems cool, lots of kids take limos on prom night, and to a lesser extent to other dances. \n\nIn the movies it's a cliché that people lose their virginity on prom night. And certainly there is a lot of fucking that goes on, but many high schoolers have already punched their v-card before that point. (Although I will note the first time I ever got to second or third base was after homecoming one year. Which isn't particularly germane, but, you know, any excuse to tell that story.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1qqge2
|
Is it possible to asphyxiate yourself from breathing water vapor?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qqge2/is_it_possible_to_asphyxiate_yourself_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdfgrzx",
"cdfkunj"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"[Asphyxia](_URL_0_) is just a condition in which the body's tissues don't get enough oxygen which is caused by abnormal breathing. Breathing in water vapor wouldn't really go into that category. It seems nit-picky but it is in a different category just an FYI. Now, to the question I know you're asking. The [water vapor capacity of air](_URL_1_) at normal temperatures wouldn't be enough to kill you. But as you can see in the graph from that link the capacity increases exponentially at higher temperatures so there would definitely be a temperature that would hold enough air to kill you. However, the heat would kill you before you could drown from the air.",
"This is a tall order but I think it could be done.\n\nIt is impossible to do this in a straightforward manner because you would need unsurvivable temperatures or pressures to fill an area with steam and cause of death would not be purely asphyxiation by water vapor. However, if you supersaturate air with water vapor you can drive the humidity significantly above 100%. Perhaps not enough to suffocate you outright, but enough that water will begin to condense onto any available surface - including your lungs! \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxia",
"http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html"
],
[]
] |
||
x2j4t
|
syrian protests and bashar al-assad
|
Im constantly hearing information about this, but i really have no idea what is going on.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x2j4t/eli5syrian_protests_and_bashar_alassad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5io3si"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Bashar al-Assad was a dentist by trade prior to succeeding his father, Hafez, to the Presidency of Syria in 2000. Assad belongs to the Syrian Baath Party. The Baath Party is a pan-Arab, Socialist political party that broke up into two divisions: the Iraqi Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, and the Syrian one of Hafez al-Assad. The Baathists are typically Sunni and Christian Arabs. Going back in time a bit, for one, brief period Syria, Iraq and Egypt were united in a pan-Arab political union. It was short-lived but its background influences much of Syrian politics today. It is the root of the current Syrian regime.\n\nThe beligerents in the Syrian uprising include anyone not represented in the regime. This means Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, Shiites, Islamists, and anyone else who is not aligned with the Baathists whom run the government. So it is not clearly divided among ethnic lines. It's much more political, but even politically it's not as easy as black/white, right/left and so on. \n\nLike the former Egyptian and Iraqi regimes, the Syrian one is a semi-socialist, mostly secular, authoritarian, and military government. It is a single party state where minority views are disenfranchised. So like Egypt and Libya, there is one tyrant at the top and an embedded network of supporters in the military and government. This gives the Syrian uprising a common cause, even though they aren't totally united politically, ethnically or religiously. At this stage the most cogent goal is the removal of the Assad/Baathist regime.\n\nThe uprising began in 2011, about a month after the Libyan one and two months after the Tunisia uprising. It is part of a wave of civil unrest, uprisings and protests known as the Arab Spring. So far this wave of disturbance has included Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia and Syria - although Algeria and Saudi Arabia had very minor flashes of protests as well. The Syrian uprising was started from within the country and was inspired by what was happening in the region. \n\nRegarding foreign involvement, NATO was heavily involved with the Libyan revolution, providing material and combat support to the Libyan rebels, and recognizing the rebel government fairly quickly. Politically the world was on the same page: Gaddafi had to go. With Syria that consensus hasn't developed. The US, as far as I know, hasn't supplied the Syrian uprising with weapons, but has supplied communications equipment. Russia and China aren't on board with military action, and Iran has used the situation to its political advantage. \n\nOf all the nations who would get involved, Iran would be one due to its support of Syria. How involved it would get in the event of foreign military intervention is uncertain. During the Iraq War, evidence of Quds force operatives was found several times, showing Iran had sent agents into Iraq during the American occupation. So it's reasonable to guess Iran would covertly support Syria here.\n\nAs to what America would do, there isn't as much momentum behind military support like there was with Libya. America is clearly war-weary, and with the election ongoing the President is not likely to order the military into Syria this year. A full scale invasion is out of the question, because Iraq and Afghanistan's trials loom too large in our memory. Nonetheless the Dept. of Defense is throwing plans around in case they have to deploy.\n\nThe single biggest blockade to international action in Syria is probably due to Russia and China. They have economic interests in the country which makes their votes on the UN Security Council an assured \"no\" if military action is proposed.\n\nThe largest supporter of military action in Syria is Israel. They are sworn enemies going back to Israel's founding in the late 1940s. They have warred with each other twice and a series of proxy battles have ensued thereafter. Israel is threatened by the Assad regime's very existence, and Syria likewise by Israel. Syria has supported the Palestinian movement, has occupied and manipulated Lebanon to its own ends and may provide some assitance to Hezbollah at times. As Israel is a major US ally, the US is forced to take some kind of stance on the whole issue.\n\n**tl;dr - If you think this is long, there are literally tons of books about this very issue.**"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
42kg3b
|
In an old news report from the 1980s about wrestlers being arrested for drug possession, the shocking part of the story was that wrestlers that supposedly hated each other were traveling together. Did adults back then really not understand that professional wrestling was staged?
|
The text of the news report, which was featured in the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster":
> The Iron Sheik had been arrested recently along with wrestler Hacksaw Jim Duggan while driving along the Garden State Parkway. The Iron Sheik was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana. What has interested most wrestling fans in this case is that the Iron Sheik and Hacksaw are known to be adversaries. So why were they traveling together?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/42kg3b/in_an_old_news_report_from_the_1980s_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czbe9p1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'd be really curious what publication that report ran in - I know the *Weekly World News* covered wrestling (to the exclusion of most other sports) in its sport section in the 1980s. \n\nAnd *WWN* might not have been as straight-faced in its editorial stance as its prose would make it seem. \n\n*EDIT TO CLARIFY*: For most of the 1980s, pro wrestling would have been considered beneath the notice of most straight media in most parts of the country. Certain local markets might have taken an interest (I'm thinking of Tampa here), but more in the \"entertainment\" section than the \"sports\" section. \n\n*WWN* had a somewhat unique niche (shared mainly by *Sun*, a copycat/rival paper) as a tabloid that covered outrageous and \"beneath notice\" material with a straight face, especially through the 1980s. \n\n[Here's an example](_URL_2_), from an issue in July 1990... when the paper was already starting to wink a little more knowingly at its readership. \n\nPart of the dynamic of both forms of entertainment was the uncertainty of the put-on - the feeling of \"they're not really serious about this... are they?\"\n\nIn wrestling, the big turning points were in 1989, when Vince McMahon testified that wrestling was scripted before the [New Jersey state senate](_URL_3_), and 1997, with [\"The Montreal Screwjob\"](_URL_0_) (which was the subject of a pretty good episode of [RadioLab](_URL_1_) ... there were documentary crews filming and getting audio backstage). \n\n \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2014/11/19/bret-hart-opens-about-infamous-montreal-screwjob",
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/montreal-screwjob/",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=SfQDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA27&dq=%22weekly%20world%20news%22%20wrestler&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q=%22weekly%20world%20news%22%20wrestler&f=false",
"http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/10/nyregion/now-it-can-be-told-those-pro-wrestlers-are-just-having-fun.html"
]
] |
|
2xl1bj
|
Question about American GI deserters in the Vietnam war...
|
What was it really like for the american gi's who came back under Gerald Ford's amnesty extended to draft dodgers and deserters left in south east asia? I know they had to do community service and 'repledge their allegiance to america,' but what were their lives really like? were they on a list in the fbi or cia? were they able to get real jobs?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2xl1bj/question_about_american_gi_deserters_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp1ib45"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Currently reading an oral history of WW1 (Make the Kaiser Dance by Henry Berry) which was published in 1978. One interesting viewpoint that is shared among most of the vets that Mr. Berry is interviewing is their belief in the righteousness of the US's involvement in foreign conflicts. Nearly every Doughboy that is interviewed explains that US involvement in the wars (WWI, WW2, and Korea) were, in their eyes, necessary conflicts. They also admit that the US should have involved itself sooner. This same view applies for the Vietnam war. Interestingly, the multi-war veterans make a subtle observation: in each subsequent war after WWI, the fighting spirit of the American soldier had diminished from the previous war. WWI had men taking inititative, going over the top to their doom in wave after wave, attacking trenches and foftified positions without adequate artillery, munitions, leadership, tactics, etc. WW2, according to some of the veterans, had a noticeable decline in this \"esprit de corps\" among soldiers. Korea had even less, and then Vietnam had so much less that men would move to Canada or dodge the draft to avoid the fight. Obviously, when it comes to this last point, the veterans get so worked up that they refer to these men as cowards, traitors etc. \n\nNow, how accurate are these statements? What makes the heroic defense of Belleau Wood any less heroic than the defense of Bastogne, or the defense at Wake Island. Are these just old timer vets trumpeting their glory days, or do they have a point? Maybe of a little of both. Every army in every war has their deserters and their conscientious objectors, but Vietnam's was more widely publicized and probably the most visible. Also, they are still around today, whereas the conscientious objectors of WW1 have long since passed away.\n\nSo how does this relate to your question. The vets that Mr. Berry is interviewing in the 1970's were either just on the verge of retiring, or had already retired. Also, most of them had successful careers in a variety of fields, and had achieved a high position in their respective companies. If the majority of them shared this viewpoint to the draft dodgers of Vietnam, and held positions of power in their respective companies, you can imagine the outcome if the draft dodger were to apply at the old-timers company. Is this last train of thought circumstantial? Sure, but it doesn't require a leap of faith to see that draft dodgers and conscientious objectors had a difficult time starting careers in the decade following the Vietnam War."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
poy1y
|
How does memory relate to addiction?
|
How does addiction in the brain work? And how does it work for particular substances?
If I were black-out drunk one night, had a cigarette, and had no recollection of that night the next morning, is there a chance that I would be sub-consciously addicted to the nicotine, and craving a cigarette?
Is it possible to become addicted to something where you have no memory of actually consuming the substance.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/poy1y/how_does_memory_relate_to_addiction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3r8xtj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Woohoo, my area of expertise. There are two main components to addiction, the biological and the behavioral. Various substances affect different neurotransmitters & regions of the brain, but it's understood that the addictive components are largely universal. Pleasurable activities like eating, sex, and using drugs increase the amount of dopamine in the ventral tegmental area, or the \"reward pathways.\" This biological component is not really affected by memory so blacking out will not reduce the addictive potential. [More on the brain & biology of addiction](_URL_0_).\n\nThe behavioral components of addiction are based on learned associations, so it is very dependent on memory. If you learn that alcohol reduces anxiety, you'll soon associate reducing stress with having a drink. As this association gets stronger & you drink more frequently, you'll stop using other ways of coping with stress and will instead automatically look towards drinking, because it works and it's quick. \n\nThe biological and behavioral components really work together in causing addiction. Is it possible to become addicted with no memory of taking the substance? No. The biological effects will make you want to use when you're conscious, but if you can resist, it's likely not an addiction. A fundamental part of addiction is the disruption of your life and functional impairments, of which all occur in your normal, conscious life.\n\nI work in addiction research so feel free to ask away if you have questions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/guide/essence.htm"
]
] |
|
2g9mee
|
why is something advanced like assembling tiny computer parts made overseas less expensive than making them in the us? is it just purely nature resources or does insurance and legal stuff take a large chuck of profit in the us?
|
I know that some countries have some advanced technology so how come we make things like computer chips which I assume are hard to make are made overseas like Germany or Taiwan rather than at home? How come it's so much cheaper to make something that complex in a foreign country? Is it because the US has more laws for workers or less natural resources than other places? Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g9mee/eli5why_is_something_advanced_like_assembling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckgykg3",
"ckgyksu",
"ckgyviz",
"ckgyww4",
"ckgz5ak"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3,
3,
19
],
"text": [
"Labour costs, more dodgey occupational health and safety standards etc",
"Slave labor in slave conditions. The reason China has become such a superpower is through treating their entire working class population as slaves so all the first world countries outsource their menial labor to them.\n\nI don't think China has minimum wage laws or working hour laws. If they do, they are ignored.",
"Physically making things has a certain value depending on how complex and novel, but mass manufacturing can be done without requiring much creativity or intellectual input on the part of those doing the physical work, although a good designer should always consider advice from people who actually make things. Who makes more money, the architect or the construction worker?",
"Lots of computer chips are made in the US; the US and other industrialized nations still manufacture lots of things like cars, airplanes, advanced medical equipment, and precision tools. Things that require very strict quality control measures unlike the shit made in China and the 3rd world, we just can't compete with $0.27/hour they pay in some factories.",
"There's lots of factors.\n\nCost of labour is one. Workers in some countries will do the same work for less than others.\n\nThere can also be lower health and safety standards.\n\nCost of energy is also important. Some countries like china have no concerns about burning highly polluting coal and not worrying about the environmental problems it causes, leading to cheaper energy prices.\n\nCost of resources is another.\nWhen a country is in need of aid, countries like the UK and the US offer aid in return for better human rights and moving towards democracy, which governments often don't want to do.\n\nWhen China offers aid, they look at a countries natural resources and say \"we'll give you this aid if our companies can have the rights to mine those minerals\". Under-developed countries often aren't using the minerals anyway since they don't have the industry to do it, so china gets a really good deal on resources while the countries government doesn't have to sort out things like democracy and human rights.\n\nGermany is different, however. German manufacturing isn't successful for being cheap, it's successful because they invest in producing specialist parts that nobody in the world can make.\n\nChina has a bad reputation for quality, even though not all Chinese made stuff is poor quality.\nPlaces like Germany can't keep up in terms of price, so they make things china can't, and they make things customers wouldn't trust china to make.\nGermany has a history of great engineering which it continues to foster, so the words \"made in Germany\" make people think \"quality\", unlike \"Made in China\" which makes people think \"cheap\".\nSeeing the words \"Made in the USA\" might make you feel like you've done some patriotic service, and it may seem better than \"made in China\", but I bet it's not as reassuring as \"Made in Germany\".\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2y8gsm
|
why don't game designers just use real world physics equations in games?
|
Since we have so many well-established physics equations explaining gravity, motion, and just various forces overall, why don't game programmers just create their worlds using actual physics equations? Since a computer/console is just going through the code and essentially solving equations, wouldn't it just be easier to define all of the parts of the equation and have the video game world work that way? Sorry if I'm just completely off on my assumptions as well. I just started my Informatics major.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y8gsm/eli5_why_dont_game_designers_just_use_real_world/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp773wx",
"cp773xy",
"cp77f3c",
"cp77n05",
"cp77pl6",
"cp782qk",
"cp78ryh",
"cp79b7r",
"cp79wht",
"cp79xvd",
"cp7a8h3",
"cp7aidi",
"cp7aidl",
"cp7amzy",
"cp7anws",
"cp7ar4h",
"cp7ast1",
"cp7aurn",
"cp7awki",
"cp7b0yn",
"cp7b2zi",
"cp7bcju",
"cp7be4k",
"cp7bt5i",
"cp7c147",
"cp7c7ie",
"cp7cff2",
"cp7ci1m",
"cp7ct04",
"cp7cvo0",
"cp7cw9y",
"cp7cy4f",
"cp7db2h",
"cp7e3dc",
"cp7eo41",
"cp7eqnh",
"cp7fdyz",
"cp7fkyi",
"cp7fpxn",
"cp7gbxq",
"cp7gkn7",
"cp7hq58",
"cp7i110",
"cp7ik9u",
"cp7iq3v",
"cp7j88g",
"cp7jduz",
"cp7jh5f",
"cp7jrfo",
"cp7kvb6",
"cp7m9qj",
"cp7n28s",
"cp7o7gu",
"cp7ooes",
"cp7pwm6",
"cp7px7t",
"cp7pzfl",
"cp7qpn9",
"cp7s5ow",
"cp7ss69",
"cp7t9k5",
"cp7tw4t",
"cp7u7at",
"cp7vf3m",
"cp7wv32",
"cp7xjsw",
"cp7y2x7",
"cp7zdyk",
"cp80jqe",
"cp80n1b",
"cp82xuj"
],
"score": [
43,
3759,
316,
8,
5,
70,
6,
22,
3,
16,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
19,
8,
532,
85,
5,
7,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
13,
3,
4,
3,
4,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
5,
19,
3,
2,
2,
10,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
7,
3,
4,
2,
4,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They do.\n\nThe problem is that the physics you do in the classroom is theoretical, not practical. It's easy to calculate the behavior of a point, but it's super hard to calculate the behavior of a complex structure such as a body. Every part of the body has it's own properties and interconnections, and so the equations need to be performed separately on all of them.",
"They do. It's often tweaked a bit to make for better gameplay, but they are based on real world physics equations.\n\nThey're not perfectly accurate because of processing power limitations. It's hard to accurately simulate lots of complicated objects, so some simplifications are made. For example most game physics only deals with completely rigid bodies. Soft bodies which can compress and stretch (such as fleshy humans parts) are modelled using rigid bodies connected together with joints and springs.\n\nThere's also the fact that they do it using discrete maths rather than continuous. The game is split into distinct frames, and it uses the results of the previous frame, and works out where things will be the next frame based on their velocity, acceleration, other objects they have collided with etc. Doing it this way means sometimes it's sometimes glitchy, especially if things are moving fast. A common thing that goes wrong is that an object is moving so fast it can completely go through another object because it's so fast that there is no frame where it would be intersecting the other object, so the simulation doesn't realise it should have collided with it. Some physics engines can deal with this though.",
"To some extent they do, but at some point real-world physics outstrips even our best graphics engines and processors. Depending on the type of game, there are different issues to contend with.\n\nTake a racing game. It seems pretty straightforward. Take the stats for a given car (0-60 acceleration, top speed, 100-0 deceleration, drag, etc) and put those numbers into simple physics equations to describe behavior. That might even get you an okay simulation. But when you start pushing for absolute realism, you have to account for ***everything***. How hot is the pavement? How old is the pavement? What are the weather conditions like? How humid is it? What's the dewpoint? What kind of lighting conditions are there? Wind speed and direction is a factor. The materials the car is made of matter. What kind of brake pads do you have? How far into the race are you and how hot are they and how much does that affect their performance? What is the auto-body made of? How does the suspension handle different terrain and transitions between them? How does the engine perform under stress with different types of motor oil? \n\nJust handling light in a game world is incredibly complex. Light doesn't just bounce once and stop, it reflects and is absorbed by multiple surfaces before it's done. So how do you handle driving under trees when you're modeling every leaf with real-world physics equations and you have to determine where the light will pass and where it won't, plus what color, tone, and brightness will hit the road surface and the myriad car surfaces.\n\nIf you get into games like call of duty or the like, then you have to start dealing with human motion, skin which can be all kinds of colors, have varying amounts of hair, sweat, blood, and dirt, and moves in ways we have trouble modeling with simple physics equations.\n\nNow imagine having to do all of these calculations simultaneously, repeatedly, and rapidly to handle the constantly changing conditions. It's enough to overload even the best consoles and gaming PCs out there. So game designers use other equations to model some patterns and movements to simplify what the system has to handle. As our computing power increases, our ability to match real-world physics increases, but we still have a ways to go.\n\nSo TL;DR: There are too many details to calculate real-world physics constantly for every aspect of a game, but we are getting closer.",
"They do.\n\nMost games follow Newtonian physics for the most part. However a computer can only compute so much in a certain time so to have a game which is playable in real time you need to make some simplifications.",
"They actually do. The problem is that you need to simulate that for everything. And I mean, literally everything. Not just how fast the ball falls to the ground. But how it bounces. Real life ball will have bilions of places, on which if the ball falls, will bounce a little differently, with different power, to different place. Now, how do you emulate the bilions of spots for a singular ball? It would take a huge ammount of work and processing power, which is entirely pointless for game, where ball is just a after thought. So they make ball bounce in singular way, so to not torture themselves. And I don't even mention the rotation of the ball, based on atmospheric pressure, wind resistance, material, the force that given it motion, the ammount of pressure in the ball, interacting through the material with the outside, etc...\n\nToo complicated for simple object that is supposed to look like it bounces somehow convincingly.\n\nIt's not that they wouldn't want to. It's just too much things to keep track of. So they focus on 1 thing. A Water in the original Bioshock, a ragdol in skyrim, Shadows in titan quest (and any game ever since). We are getting there, but suprisignly, the real world is hellova complicated.\n",
"As other people have said, they do and they don't.\n\nReal world simulations take extremely long times. For example, one of the most efficient and accurate ways to analyze a deforming body is to use something called Finite Element Analysis (FEA), and even that is just an estimate. But either way, to calculate deformation of a simplified object with simplified forces (like really simplified forces I should add) can take hours or days. In a video game, you want to step on a piece of grass and have it respond to the force of your foot. To simulate this with real world physics (or as close as we can get) is one, way way way too complicated to analyze with even the best software that exists without huge simplifications, and even if you managed to build the model perfectly, it would probably take on the order of weeks for an average computer to calculate everything. \n\ntl;dr Not really because of time\n\n\nEDIT: Souce: Mechanical Engineer who has spent countless hours wanted to shoot myself in the face trying to run ANSYS",
"A lot of the time they do! However for some things real world physics just isn't *fun*.\n\nSo they use different animation curves etc. Look at bayonetta's jump In Bayo1/2. So rises really quickly and falls a lot slower. She doesn't slow down over the course of the jump, she pretty much just stops at the top, hangs for a bit then falls again quite slowly. The time it takes you to rise is a lot quicker than the time it takes you to fall. This non-physics based jump serves a gameplay purpose: You want to get aerial quickly to start your combo, and you want to fall slowly so you have enough time to actually execute your moves. It also gives a much snappier animation and feels more \"real\" than real physics.\n\nI guess it depends on what you want your physics for. ",
"As well as the many points raised here already, in some cases the real world physics are thrown out as they're just not as much *fun*. For instance, Elite Frontier used (more or less) real world acceleration and newtonian physics for space travel - not to the extent of Kerbal Space program, but you get the idea. The trouble is that if you want to have space combat with space ships fighting each other, using real world physics means that even just getting into the same general area as the other ship is quite tricky (see rendezvousing in KSP), and in effect both ships have to *want* to fight each other, where what players want is more sort of dogfighting, where you have a constrained battle space that the participants enter, a la Elite Dangerous.",
"Not too sure about the physics but the graphics will look incredible if they ever start using this.\n_URL_0_",
"I like how all of these posts are \"They do!\" followed by a long list of ways they don't ",
"Because your equipment does not have the processing power to handle those calculations in real time. ",
"From a storytelling perspective you add details/mechanics to the game that reinforces the player experience you are going for. E.g. if you design an adrenaline pumping action game you might choose to not add inertia. So it's the same reason movies don't show people going to the bathroom - it doesn't reinforce the narrative.",
"Because simulations are hugely CPU intensive. Ask any houdini artist and he'll tell you, a water sim/glass sim/particles could take days to render",
"A lot do. However, there are a lot of complications in physical equations which are a bitch to compute. That's why scientists need to use supercomputers to model interactions.",
"Now, when I studied assembly it was for a 16-bit microcontroller, not a 32/64 bit PC, so the cycle counts I provide may be off somewhat.\n \nIn the world of a CPU, everything is in clock ticks. For a high speed situation like a game, you have a limited number of ticks, 33 milliseconds(ms) worth if on console, ~16ms or even 8ms on a PC(accounting to 30fps, 60 fps and 120fps respectively. It is really not a very long time when you consider it has to process at least everything you can see in the game. \n \nOne of the problems is that outside of addition and subtraction, math takes a long time. Addition is easy, only took 2 clock ticks. Subtraction was a bit harder, taking three. Multiplication took 34 clocks ticks to complete. Division took a whopping 56. \n \nNewtonian physics have a lot of multiplication and a decent amount of division in them if you process them as is. \n \nSo on order to save time and make sure you don't lag, developers cheat and cut corners.",
"Some equations take longer to process especially ones that have to be executed over and over. In this case it's often better to use a different equation or one that approximates the solution. If your equation takes less time to process you'll see improvements in performance and framerate. ",
"I'm a researcher who use Comsol Multiphysics to run thermal-hydraulic simulations. Equations running hydraulic mechanics are very cpu demanding while computing 3D models.\n\nFor exemple fluid flow modelling of melt metal during laser welding (molten pool size approach 0.8mm) take 16h with a 6 cores cpu running at 3,46ghz and 10gb of ram to describe 10 ms of process.\n\nJust imagine what it would take to run a game with real world physics.",
"Why don't we have real life graphics? ",
"My fluid simulation that took 90 hours to simulate for 10 seconds of actual video tells me game engines just aren't powerful enough to render and calculate things in the time frame needed. ",
"Engine programmer here;\n\nMost of the time we actually do use real-world physics. The best scenario is to use real-world physics to do everything, however simulating the real-world takes a heck of a lot of computing power.\n\nSimple stuff we do use real-world physics equations, like reflecting a vector or gravity and other forces, but complex things like lighting and collisions we have to cheat as cheating takes a lot less computing power than doing it raw.",
"The physics engine in arma 3 is pretty nice. At least when it comes to ballistics _URL_0_",
"For one, real world physics aren't necessarily more fun than virtual physics. Also real world physics are extremely complicated and factor in things that aren't generally coded in games, like mass.",
"To put things in perspective, it's almost absurdly hard to simulate the simplest of everyday things. Suppose that you have something more complex than two spheres hitting each other, and you want to make it realistic. Say you want to simulate how a model of a foot behaves as it starts touching the ground, just at the beginning of the contact phase of the gait cycle. There are still Ph.D.s being written about that topic, more-or-less.\n\nSuppose you have a spy game where you spy on someone with a \"bug\" that has a radio transmitter. The player's character has a hand-held receiver. The software that can realistically simulate how well does the receiver receive the transmission, is pretty much priced so that if you have to ask, you can't afford it. $100k wouldn't be a stretch. That's how hard it is to numerically simulate \"simple\" radio propagation in complex environments, such that it'd be good enough to be used in place of measurements in real life.\n\nThat's why, in a game, you often have to pretend really hard. For example, if you want to simulate drop-outs etc. in your hand held receiver, you have to make up an alternate reality where the nature is governed by much simpler rules, and simulate those instead. As long as the behavior feels natural to a human with suitable experience, you've done your job, even if numerically it's completely bogus.",
"In Super Meat Boy the physics are all faked, but its to the benefit of the game. The controls in that game are pristine.\n\nSource: _URL_1_ (which comes from his own tumblr where he asks fan questions, _URL_0_)\n\n",
"This thread has a lot of misinformation. Perhaps some devs in some games use some equations similar to physics in the real world but it's not taken to that degree throughout. An example would be helicopters or planes in a battlefield game. In real life you are talking about a massive rotor manipulating air and another rotor counterbalancing that torque to hover. In a videogame air resistance and torque are complete non factors, I can't think of one that accounts for them because it's wildly unnecessary. To keep the helicopter in air you swap the player physics engine with the helicopter physics engine (which most likely will just turns off 'gravity' while playing the animations). Another example, Most underwater levels aren't filled with any sort of substance as we think of water in real life, instead they tint the screen blue, use slightly different 'gravity' solutions, and make new character animations to simulate swimming. \n\nTldr much in the same way we don't use true particle physics to light game, we use very truncated models of those concepts and tricks to achieve the simulation of physics on objects. \n\nedit: Typed that first bit on my phone, wanted to elaborate. As /u/leafsleep pointed out\n\n > Real world physics isn't calculated, it's intrinsic to how things exist. All of the physics equations we have are just the best models we have of our observations - the things don't actually follow those equations. Simulating the real world perfectly basically requires infinite calculations per second. To me it's surprising that we can do so much with what we have.\n\nVideogame are quite the opposite, everything needs to be told what to do, and is done so by variables chosen to be described by the programmers. In real life you hit a mailbox with a car and the forces of gravity and inertia will be exerted upon the tensile strength of metal, mass of the entire contents, etc. In Grand Theft Auto you hit the mailbox, it probably swaps to a dented version, and follows similar ~~physics~~ behavior as most other objects of that size. At some point the designers of the game have to make a decision whether or not simulating all of those real life phenomena really makes an impact on gameplay, if not, simulate everything else to a convincing degree and call it a day.",
"Its because the real world sucks and people want to play games that are fun.",
"Video games are approximate SIMULATIONS. We can only approximate reality in them. WE can barely model more than a few dozen molecules on supercomputers. What you are asking is to track every particle in the game every single tick. Not possible.",
"They already do, but as The Third Law of Motion says: for every action, there is an equal, opposite reaction. This means that in order to accurately model physics in the videogame world, the game would need to constantly bring up the calculations whenever something happens. This eats up the processing power that could be used elsewhere (like AI, for example).",
"I tried adding realistic general solving of astrodynamic trajectories to my space colonization game. I used a library called PyKEP, got it working after a lot of clunking around.\n\nFor single impulse missions, it was very quick and easy. As soon as you added continual thrust (like an ion engine - highly important for asteroid mining) the solve time went up to 4 minutes. When adding gravity assists it went up to 8 minutes.\n\nWe needed to be able to calculate trajectories on the fly for thousands of ships simultaneously and instantly... Without having a petaflop computer lying around, faking it was the only way forward unfortunately.\n\nComputational limits are the reason games cannot 100% emulate the real world. However, according to the Deutch-Turing-Church hypothesis, if you can 100% compute a physical event on a quantum computer, it's the equivalent informationally as the real thing. \n\n**ELI5 Version** Computers aren't capable enough yet to emulate everything in physics, but one day they could be and if that happens it will change the world.",
"I'll give you an example, consider [Peggle](_URL_1_). That was a game mainly created by Sukhbir Sidhu, John Vechey (game designers), and programmer Brian Rothstein, and it was inspired by many of the pachinko machines that you see in casinos and the like.\n\nInitially, they used something like Box2D which was able to nearly exactly replicate real world physics, and it was good. It \"worked\". But was it \"fun\"? Was it as fun as it could possibly be? Absolutely not. Play a few levels of some of the official Peggle versions, then play some of the poor Peggle replicas on Facebook. Within no time, you'll see the Facebook versions \"work\", but are nowhere near as \"fun\".\n\nBecause when you think about it, would real world sports be more fun if each players had one Sonic-like charge in them per game, they can use when they like? It almost certainly would, but the real world is limited by real world physics, games are not, so there's then no need to limit them to that.\n\nSo back to Peggle. The guys had a closed-system development approach to making that. Brian made the system, then Sukhbir and Vechey played around with it for weeks, and then months, making slight tweaks to the ball bounce, the stickiness of the blocks and then the magic Peggle-slide.\n\nThis code is so complicated that there's only about 7-8 people in the world would be able to program that again from scratch! Source? I worked in PopCap, on a version of Peggle that didn't get realised, and then when they closed the Dublin office, set up a company with two of those who could code it, _URL_0_ :)",
"Ok the main reason is that these equations are very bulking and hard to do in real time. It would be easy to do if there was maybe 1 or 2 objects, but when you have 10 objects interacting at one the equations become very complex.The equations they use right now for the physics in games still can't handle many objects interacting at once without lag.",
"Real world physics would be kinda boring wouldnt they? I feel the same about real-looking graphics. What is this preoccupation with making things look \"real\"? It seems to me it just drives up production costs, and forces developers to make \"safe\" moves with their games.\n\nBut to each their own. I suppose some games do well with realistic graphics versus stylized.",
"They do. In python you can even import gravity",
"As a guy studying game design in college, we were actually told that although technically you can do this, it's not always a good thing. Take Grand Theft Auto for example. Half of the physics used in cars is so far from reality it's laughable BUT it's also fun to play and that's the key thing. If you put real world physics in GTA literally most of the fun would vanish. This is a struggle a lot of games have to cope with. Balancing gameplay and realism.",
" > define all of the parts of the equatiom\n\nthere's your problem. you going to make calculations for gravity, energy, momentum quadrillions of atoms at a time, every collision or interaction, for every single frame?\n\nor do you want to make it less accurate but faster to calculate?",
"To answer this from a fluid dynamics perspective, currently there is no way of finding the exact solution to the equations that govern fluid dynamics, namely the navier-stokes equations. \n\n\nAny solution to the equations are an approximation, and although there has been a lot of work in attempting to reduce the time needed to compute a solution while maintaining a high degree of accuracy to the real result, even simple fluid models may take many hours to arrive at a solution. \n\nPresently we are not close to being able to solve complex fluid problems in real time, and I assume that the applications of computational fluid dynamics will stay within the realms of research for some time, given the computing power required, coupled with the need for custom solvers. ",
"It is more fun to be able to bend the laws of physics then be restricted by them. It is usually more fun to jump higher and run faster. ",
"Here's a good followup question. Why don't we use real-world physics equations in the real world?\n\nIt turns out that virtually everything you use is some approximation of some broader law. For example, why would you assume that a gravity vector points downward when it really points toward the center of mass? Why would you assume that the gravity vector points toward the center of mass, rather than the sum of all the massive points nearby? Why do you assume that it is constant, rather than falling off with the inverse square of the distance? Why do you assume that gravity propagates instantly, rather than at the speed of light?\n\nWell, to answer the above, it's because determining all the points of a gravity field based on all the contributing massive points is very expensive, computationally. Even if you wanted to, you would need to specify a resolution at which to take the massive points, or you would need to sum the contribution of every atom in the earth. So, for our needs, assuming a constant, instant gravity value over a range doesn't break the game, unless you are coding Super Mario Galaxy or something. \n\nAnd that's just one parameter of an equation which will almost certainly be solved iteratively, which has its own error. [Runge-Kutta](_URL_2_) is the algorithm that is usually used to solve differential equations, and the above picture is a good example of the kind of error that occurs from the ideal solution.\n\nIf you wanted to solve it in a non-iterative manner, which is what it sounds like you are asking, you would need a closed form solution. We don't have closed form solutions for everything. A good example is the Quadratic Equation - you can get the roots of a quadratic equation with a pretty concise equation. But if you increase that to a cubic formula, finding the roots becomes [far more complicated](_URL_0_). And polynomials are something that is found just as part of a lot of differential equations, for example, in the denominator of a [second order transfer function](_URL_1_). \n\nAnd finally, let's say we could put in the physics equations we do know, and get closed form equations out. What then? Well, there are programming languages like Coq that are used to prove new mathematical observations. It's not a solved problem in the slightest. One big deal 'recently' was a closed form solution to the [navier stokes equations](_URL_3_) which someone more familiar with the paper would need to help me with. Navier stokes is used to describe fluid dynamics, for example, like the gravitational field above but with pressures and fluid velocities. They are an analog to Maxwell's Equations, which are basically the same thing but for electromagnetism. \n\nSo, tl;dr - What you want is to plug in the physics equations we know, and have it generate closed form or even iterative solutions for an arbitrary environment. This is not a solved problem. If you feel like solving it, please do, and grab a few nobel prizes on the way. \n\nEdit, sorry, I thought this was ask/science/reddit not ELI5. Leaving it to make children cry. ",
"One reason is gameplay and game balance. For example, Fruit Ninja.\n\nIf the fruits fall at 9.8 m/s^2 it will be extremely challenging for the majority. (It's currently 1.8m/s^2 cmiiw)\n\n\nAn example of game balance is a Shotgun's effective range in fps games. It would be overpowered to get 1 hit kills from 20 meters away. Many games give shotguns a range of only a few meters for game balance.",
"1) computational expensive. Especially when multiple physics objects interact with each other.\n2) floating point errors\n3) simulating things at a fixed, often varying framerate. That physics object heading towards the ground at one frame will be 12 feet inside of it the next frame.\n3) Honestly, it just *looks* wrong.\n\nI'm an animator and visual effects artist, so Ive got a good deal of experience working with rigid body simulation, soft body simulation, ragdolls, particle physics, realtime and pre-computed. Tweaking physics related settings is not intuitive for artists and engineers who write the systems will make something physically accurate, but will look slow, floaty, and lacking a convincing sense of weight of mass. \n\nThe audience doesn't want reality. They want something that caters to their expectation of reality. This is why car blow up into fireball or why a shot in New York City will show the Empire States building, Brooklyn Bridge, and Statue of Liberty at the same time.\n\nEven motion capture animation suffers from this. You an capture a stunt or performance and it won't look 'right' until you go in and tweak the motion, exaggerate poses and timing, etc.\n\nPhysics math in games is often simplified. Something that's really costly will be faked using a simpler algorithm or fewer iteration.\n\nTyping on phone, so apologies for spelling and composition.",
"Not really related, but including your title, you used the word \"just\" seven times in your question.",
"What made you think they didn't use them in first place?",
"Simply put, computational power is not good enough. Take water (or any liquid), for instance. The equations to model even the simplest liquid (Navier-Stokes) are monstrously difficult to solve (which you have to do numerically in almost all cases), what we often end up doing is something called finite elements. What this involves is cutting the liquid up into little triangles, then using some clever manipulations solving every equation on every corner (at the bare minimum) and proporgating that information across the whole mesh. Then you use that information to inch the mesh forwards in time 1 tick, then you remake the mesh to the new liquid state, and do the whole thing again. In a large system it can take hundreds upon hundreds of computational hours to do this. And bear in mind, these arent even the base physical equations, they're some form of large scale approximation to them. If you want to try do molecular dynamics for liquids on a large scale then well, maybe in 100 years.\n\nPhysics are far more complicated than computers can handle.",
"To make an apple pie, first you must create the universe.",
"First, you imagine a spherical NPC in a vacuum...",
"Most of the answers here seem to be from engineers or engineer minded people but you asked about why game designers don't use real world physics and the answer is because it often isn't fun.\n\nAs others have said, many heavy-reality based games will try to get close which leads to funny glitches but overall they do a good job. But more importantly what is fun about games is breaking the rules. Saints Row would NEVER want real physics nor would F-Zero (and I could go on and on). When you annihilate a foe in Diablo you want to see them go flying so the physics is intentionally modified to sell that fantasy.\n\nGames do this with everything, not just physics. Find a game with an iceberg and I bet you'll see 90% of it is above water whereas in reality the opposite is true.\n\nThe only time you truly want a solid physics approximation is in a realistic simulator and there hasn't been one on the market since maybe Microsoft's Flight Simulator which isn't really a game.",
"That's usually the idea, but the world is very complex so they make approximations. Since it's a game, not a simulation, what matters is looking correct and that gives the path to compromise when creating the approximations.",
"Often the baseline is modeled using basic physics equations. The iterations are often tuned for gameplay and performance reasons.\n\nReal isn't always fun, especially outside the realm of simulation games.",
"Most of the time, they don't. I'm willing to bet that most of the people chiming in with \"They do!\" haven't actually ever made a game. \n\nThe simple answer is that real physics don't feel good in a game setting. If Mario obeyed real physics, for instance, he would barely be able to jump, he'd move pretty slowly, and he wouldn't accelerate and decelerate the way he does in game. It would feel unresponsive and unrewarding. \n\nInstead, we make games using approximations and we only use the components we need. To continue our Mario example, all we need is acceleration, deceleration, maximum run speed, a few variables for jumping, and gravity. If we used real world physics we would have to take lots of other variables into account and that just gets messy. \n\nIn fact, it's even simpler than that. You don't even need to use acceleration and deceleration because you can actually just say how long you want it to take to accelerate to full speed and decelerate back to zero. This gives Mario that weighty feeling, but some games don't even do that! Mega Man just goes from zero to max run speed and back again, for instance, giving him functionally infinite acceleration. That's the difference between the platforming action of Mario and the twitchy combat of Mega Man. \n\nIf we use real physics, there's so much shit to deal with that games often become unwieldy. Some of those things might be worthwhile and important, such as in a driving simulator like Gran Turismo, but most of the time developers can just go, \"We don't need that,\" and approximate the rules with the bare minimum number of factors that make the game feel good. \n\n**TL;DR**: Most games don't use real world physics because they're complicated and not fun. ",
"The real question is, are physics just God's video game engine?",
"In the real world it is impossible to move an object to a certain position directly. You have to apply forces to it so it moves to where you want it to go instead.\n\nIn physics simulations you also should not directly move objects from one place to another but instead apply forces that will cause the move. The problem is that the developers are building a game, not a real world simulation. In a game you want things to happen in a certain, controlled way. So to get that control the developers often cheat and directly move objects around or assign speeds to them\n\nIn a game engine when you cheat and just move an object around, in typical situations it works so oftentimes games are built that way.\n\nThis leads to glitches where you for instance cause the game to move you or an object into a position that is part way inside another object. The physics engine tries to push the object out by applying a force to the object, while the game keeps moving it in. The force translates to energy that becomes stored in the simulation and because of the cheating it soon builds up to extreme amounts and the simulation explodes. Often the game is simply setting the speed of an object to a reasonable value but the engine is putting a lot of force on it, so when the game stops setting the speed the simulation converts the force to speed on the object and flings it far away in the opposite direction.",
"One, it's hideously expensive. So you simplify things. A person isn't a person, they're a capsule. A box is a box; so is a rock, a dog, and a bicycle, they're all boxes as far as the simulation is concerned. Simple objects make the simulation go faster. You may or may not allow them to rotate in space: that's expensive, and you may get most of what you want if they only translate through space.\n\nTwo, for a game like a multiplayer game, you may need to communicate what happens to multiple clients ASAP, and the more realistic and detailed the simulation is, the more messaging you may have to do, all the time, which bogs things down. Or you can do simulation client-side, and not communicate that stuff to other clients, with the result that you're confined to cosmetic stuff only, as gameplay-impacting physics wouldn't be synced up across clients.\n\nThree, a lot of gameplay feels terrible with realistic physics. I'm playing a character running around, and I can't run at max speed instantly? I have to ramp up to my top speed, have to slow down when I stop, and I have momentum when I turn? Yeah, that feels sucky (unless that's what the game is entirely about, like a racing game). So, you may immediately be dealing with things like infinite acceleration, which destroys a lot of real physics calculations.\n\nFour, framerate can affect the calculations, and games tend to be environments where variable outcomes based on framerate aren't acceptable. You therefore need things to be as simple as possible, as reliable as possible, and as real time as possible.\n\nFive, there's only so much precision to the calculations, which can lead to visual artifacts in things being solved via physics calculations. Things like rigid body debris from an explosion that can't quite calculate a rest position, so it vibrates in place for a long time, those sorts of things happen. You can tolerate them, you can try to hide them, or you can do hacky things to short-circuit the physics code to make things look correct.\n\nIn short, they're as real as the game can tolerate, if physics is a thing the game uses.",
"There's an even easier answer...\n\nBecause consumer products wouldn't be capable of handling the processing power needed to replicate the calculations fast enough to make for gameplay.\n\nBasically, you'd need a few thousand dollars worth of hardware before it would even be viable to play a game with realistic physics.",
"I just want to point out that in this discussion there seems to be a conflation of two ideas. A lot of people seem to be saying that the only reason is because real physics is too challenging to simulate. This is true. But we're not necessarily asking for a simulation of the universe. Newtonian physics is fine on a large scale, and unless the game is aiming artillery pieces we can ignore air resistance (and the million other simplifications physicists make). Newtonian physics is as realistic as we need to go for many, many applications.\n\nThe main reason is simply a cost-benefit analysis. There's no point hiring physicists and adding extra code (a rule of software development: more code = more bugs, so higher maintenance costs) for modelling something that would be 1% different than the simplified model, and that happens in the background so the player will never notice it. Or worse, that would actively detract from gameplay.\n\nTo use a bit of an extreme example. Engineers designing a nuclear reactor need the neutron transport software that runs for days because the results have to be exact for the heat transfer portions or reactor design, or else very bad things will happen. \n\nCompare this to a nuclear reactor in a game (like to power a Minecraft village). It's fine for a developer to assign some random power production value, ignoring the heat transfer portions entirely, because the game isn't *about* nuclear power. Players care about getting power to the village using the next tier of equipment, they don't care if it's nuclear or driven by unicorn farts. Forcing them to do it realistically is going to turn a lot of gamers off because they want to play a game, not read Introduction to Nuclear Physics and Introduction to Heat Transfer first.\n\nThe example is a bit extreme but it serves a point. The rules need to be bent a little bit so as to not frustrate players, or to add or reduce a challenge. Just like how in most games when you get shot or attacked by a zombie, you can just hide and your health will slowly regenerate. Or when you die you can respawn. Unrealistic, yes, but essential to gameplay.",
"In one of my game's where I had to approximate gravity I used Newton's equation for gravitational force. But in the case of complex games there isn't enough computing power to simulate physics to the atomic level. So game physics is mostly done on the macro scale.",
"Dynamics simulators split the model into tiny cells using a 3D grid. \nIn order to model a 1x1x1m volume with 1 cm accuracy, you would need 1,000,000 cells. And if you want a frame rate of 10 fps, your processor will need to apply hundred of physics and thermodynamics equations to 1,000,000 distinct cells 10 times a second. Sure, this is easy when nothing is moving in the volume, but when your material is undergoing physical or phase changes the processor has difficulty keeping up with the demand. Ultimately, almost all video games and simulators use some form of physics, but it is simplified using correlations and limits to improve game-play. Also, there's the problem of our incomplete knowledge of physics (dark matter, additional dimensions, etc). I think you will soon see processors that are capable of running real-time simulations that can fool you and I into thinking we are seeing something real, especially with the advent of quantum computing.",
"-They use a lot of physics equations. The problem however is the floating point limitations of the computer. It's practically impossible to get precise (real)numbers. It's also very expensive computation wise.\n\n-Games need to \"look like\" the real thing. Not \"be\" the real thing. \n\n-Gaming computation is already expensive as it is. Besides using real physics simulation doesn't mean better games. \n\nTL:DR: Computers are limited and slow.",
"I already know what the real world feels like -_- why would I want that in my game",
"For the most part, they do. Sometimes, approximations are used because doing real physics computations is very, very hard for a computer to do. For instance, [the Navier-Stokes equations](_URL_0_) are not used to model fluids in games since they are too complicated to run without sacrificing framerate.",
"I went outside yesterday. The graphics were amazing but the storyline was terrible",
"It just isn't fun to completely simulate reality. Paintings are the same way. Most are *naturalistic* and not *realistic* because imitating reality perfectly is impossible and often aesthetically unsatisfactory. It is better to bend things a bit to be a bit more fun; visually appealing; and responsive, especially considering how human perception shapes our expectations.\n\nCheck out a book called [Game Feel](_URL_0_). It has a lot of cool case studies of game design that is geared towards creating good-feeling gameplay. Mario's jump is a good example. He rises much faster than he falls. This allows the player to have more agency over where they land, and in fact the fast-rise, slow-fall character ends up *feeling* better to everyday people. The *realistic* version feels stilted and unnatural, oddly enough. I'd say this is sort of analogous to entasis in columns in architecture.",
"For some things, they do, at least to Newtonian precision. There's rarely much point in doing quantum mechanics or relativity calculations, though some quantum effects get approximated to give you things like soft shadows.\n\nThere are some phenomena that are extraordinarily expensive to compute in real time. Some real world equations have no symbolic solutions at all, so any calculation is going to be an approximation. For some equations, like the Navier-Stokes equation, it is not even known if they always have solutions, so simplified forms are required to ensure you don't end up with discontinuities. Others, like the rendering equation, have symbolic solutions that require some very esoteric math that nobody has bothered to accelerate, because the approximations to the rendering equation that everyone used before a solution was known can be computed well past the resolution of human vision.\n\nMost phenomena in physics have approximations that are good enough for non-relativistic simulation that it makes no sense to apply higher-order corrections, since no human will be able to perceive the difference. In most cases, those approximations were the state of the art for decades, centuries, or even millennia, so if it was good enough for Archimedes and Newton to describe the world, it'll be good enough for getting your ass kicked by a 12-year-old halfway around the world who fucked your mom last night.",
"Since no one has said this, I will add that even \"real world\" physics are themselves just approximate mathematical models to describe our universe. \n\nThere really shouldn't be any philosophical dissatisfaction over the fact that a game uses approximate physics as opposed to real physics, as long as the perception of accuracy is maintained.\n\nFor example, no one will go crazy over how game engines don't use enough digits of Pi. Even with a million digits of Pi, we know philosophically that we will always only be working with an approximation of Pi, the underlying model is reasonably represented.\n\nAnalogously, we usually don't have to model relativity in games since the player doesn't usually go near the speed of light. But the model of the motion of objects will seem like the same regardless.",
"Probably because it would be too boring. Same thing could be said about movies. Imagine you were walking with the actual speed when you are on the moon. It would lose the interests of the player fast. Most of the time, players don't care about the physics of it, it's more about the storyline so they would tweek it in order for the story to flow better.",
"They do to an extent. However a complete simulation of everything would be computationally prohibitive. There needs to be a lot of simplification. One of the biggest issues is that linear stuff is easy for a computer to do but non-linear things are hard. This means no circles or curves in general, no waves, no aerodynamic drag etc. Those things involve non-linear equations. To model them you need to linearize them. For instance if you've got circles turn them into squares or octagons. It's not perfect but for a lot of applications it's good enough. Also everything needs to be discretized. The world is continuous but computers are not. Every step in a simulation is a snapshot of the situation and the math just needs to generate the next snapshot rather than every possible snapshot. ",
"Computer science graduate student here. The key problem you have there, from a computational standpoint, is that the computer is not solving equations in most programs; that's simply not how modern computers work at a fundamental level. We aren't solving, we are computing. They would be called solvers if they solved equations (like 1 + x = 6), they are called computers because they compute equations (like 1 + 5).\n\nIn video games programmers simplify the equations and then program them in such a way that the computer just has to do a little math (just a couple hundred computations) to a bunch of stuff (everything in the game). The reason for this is that video games have just 0.0167 seconds to simulate physics, lighting, AI and do networking, input, rendering and sound.\n\nIn comparison mathematica takes **seconds** to solve an equation. It's a solver, that we created using a computer (the beauty of software). Solving equations in the general case is hard (millions and millions of computations), doing algebra is not easy for computers.\n\nAnother key distinction is that physics equations are both continuous and parametric. Modern computers are discrete and imperative. Our computers *can do* continuous and parametric, but it's extremely expensive (in computational resources) and simply not possible in the time frame that video games have.\n\nNow, all that being said, you have a good idea, a physics system which does the job of the programmer - looking at the game world and figuring out the efficient computation to do at run time - would be a cool/useful project. It would be like a physics system compiler; just like a programming language compiler. We are starting to get closer to a period where such Domain Specific Languages might be feasible.",
"We do use them but they actually don't look the best or have visual appeal. We use it as a starting point and then exaggerate from there. Sort of like Hollywood with movies. A real explosion or mussel flash is not as sexy as a Hollywood explosion or mussel flash, same with physics. You really would be surprised, I was. It must be something with our brain knowing it's fake, so if it is real physics it seems bleek. Maybe when we develop more in VR we can do more with real physics equations, but then again we have been so used to the exaggerate version it might be hard to appreciate realistic physics. ",
"We have the equations yes, but they are hard for computers to solve quickly. As it turns out approximations are good enough to trick humans in most cases. So approximations get used.\n\nAlso some of the equations we know how to solve for simple cases (a planet orbiting a star) but not the more complex cases (several planets orbiting a star with there gravitational fields effecting each other).",
"Well, they are trying too. The equations are really the same as the ones we use in the real world, but the more and more accurate you get, the more work the computer has to do. When you've got to pump out 60 frames a second, you make some compramises between realisticness and game aesthetic. Is it really important that the building crumbles perfectly or that you get those 60 frames? Optimizing the game engine to have \"pretty close\" physics is good enough for us nowadays. Maybe one day in the future we will have one to one hyper realistic physics, but today we just don't have the processing power.",
"You probably already have the answer you're looking for, but even though, here is an example.\n\nIn real life, light has gravity and thus, doesn't *quite* move in straight lines, and because everything with mass generates a gravity field, light technically bends around every person and object.\n\nIf I were to put this logic in, say, a 3d first-person shooter. You'll not be getting an impressive framerate, but won't notice the difference in terms of gameplay (that bullet you just shot came 0.000001% more to the right then it realisticly should)\n\nSo, as a TL;DR, in real life there is a ton of shit going on that aren't very noticable but would require a ton of computer-power to calculate.",
"In the particular case of fluid simulation, which I have studied somewhat shallowly, the thing is that the equations governing the behavior of fluids in real life can't even be solved (Navier-Stokes equations). \n\nThat's, if you want to have a picture of the state of a fluid without any simplifications (compressible, viscous, unsteady boundary, etc) we still don't know how to find a continuous solution for it. What we have are numerical methods which can solve the differential equations, albeit on a \"simplified\" fashion.\n\nBut even those numerical methods are way too heavy: In order to solve the equations and guarantee the boundary condition it takes anywhere from minutes to weeks, depending on the flow conditions and your code.\n\nYou can't have that in a game, in games you're supposed to solve all the physics on a fraction of the time required to render a single frame. That sure as hell can't be done when using a rigorous CFD method.\n\nSo, as most people have said, computing time is the hardest part, but I just wanted to clarify that some physics problems don't even have a continuous theoretical solution, they have to relly on numerical methods to provide a [very precise] approximation of the result."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cix07R1vlhI"
],
[],
[],
[
"tommyrefenes.tumblr.com",
"https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6461974"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.sixminute.com/about-us/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMRJEyKFQLU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicFormula.html",
"http://lpsa.swarthmore.edu/Transient/TransInputs/TransStep/img35.gif",
"http://www.peterstone.name/Maplepgs/images/RK_error_curves.gif",
"http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/10/05/navierstokes-another-historic-1/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations"
],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Game-Feel-Designers-Sensation-Kaufmann/dp/0123743281/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6l8n82
|
Why were firearms such an advantage for Native American tribes on the plains in the early 1800's?
|
I'm reading Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" and am somewhat mystified by something. As Lewis travels west he encounters tribes with fewer and fewer western weapons (guns). These tribes (like the Shoshones) have been driven from their land by rival clans because those clans have rifles. But as we learned earlier, this tribe or that tribe seems to only possess a small handful of rifles (Lewis's arsenal of a few dozen rifles is described as the most firepower some of these tribes have ever seen). My understanding of rifles from that era is that they are slow to load and inaccurate to fire, leaving the user fairly vulnerable if acting alone or in small numbers. I get what made them effective on the battlefield, but I'm perplexed as to why entire tribes were driven into the mountains by a few rifles in the hands of their enemies.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6l8n82/why_were_firearms_such_an_advantage_for_native/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djrw8cx",
"djs4p61",
"djsif4f"
],
"score": [
7,
41,
16
],
"text": [
"Could you specify the date more? Technology for weapons changed immensely throughout a 100 year period.",
"Great question, and it has a few parts. Fortunately, David Silverman's *Thundersticks: Firearms and the Violent Transformation of Native America* gets to quite a bit of them, and we can synthesize what's left from other sources.\n\nAt the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the typical route for firearms into the northern plains involved the Hudson's Bay Company and the rival North West Company, each of which operated strings of trading posts through what is now southern Canada. French firms operating from St. Louis had only begun to exploit the Missouri River as a transportation artery.\n\nTo the south, there were trade routes into Spanish Mexico through the Comanche and other tribes, but these were long and more difficult: The principal trade routes were to the north and east.\n\nI mention trade, because that's the critical factor at this period. What matters is not how many guns you have but how well you can supply and repair them. At the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the Blackfeet dominated these supply routes and really were taking it to the Shoshone to the south and west. \n\nNow, it's important to note an observation by fur trader Peter Fidler, who noted what you do ─ that the firearms of the time were heavy, slow to fire, and generally unsuitable for horseback maneuvering. Instead, he observed that while Blackfeet hunters tended to prefer the bow and arrow, Blackfeet *warriors* adored firearms. \n\nAt the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the Blackfeet were attempting to corner the market (with some success) on firearm access to the inhabitants of the northern plains and northern Rockies. The benefits were obvious: By collecting furs from more isolated tribes, they could mark up the price of any European goods (especially firearms) by a great deal and thus enrich themselves.\n\nBy the end of the first decade of the 1800s, that strategy was beginning to fall apart. Manuel Lisa's Missouri Fir Company built Fort Raymond at the junction of the Yellowstone and Big Horn rivers in 1806; the North West Company built Kootenai House in 1807; and Saleesh House and Kullyspell House came two years later.\n\n**Lewis and Clark arrived at a particular moment when the Blackfeet were having the most success cornering the firearms trade in the exact territory they were passing through.** ",
" > My understanding of rifles from that era is that they are slow to load and inaccurate to fire, leaving the user fairly vulnerable if acting alone or in small numbers.\n\nSmoothbore trade muskets like those used by Native Americans during this period were very well suited for small-scale warfare. At short ranges ( < 50 yards or so) a round ball or buckshot could pick off individual targets more easily than a low-velocity arrow, especially if that target is moving, and a bullet with a good charge of powder was much more likely to kill or maim than an arrow was. In a forest or on rough terrain a musket could be shot from cover more easily than a bow and the shooter could hide himself during the lengthy reloading process, and in an ambush or sudden attack a pre-loaded musket could help make the initial strike more devastating. During the 16th century the arquebus/musket generally was more effective in skirmishes than in large scale engagement. Instead it was the difficulty of getting 10,000 musketeers to fight effectively on a single battlefield, when the smoke, noise, and general chaos made accuracy almost impossible, which lead to so much experimentation with complex formations and volley drills during the 16th and 17th centuries.\n\nIn the Americas it would be a long time before guns were available in large enough numbers for that to be much of a concern. They couldn't always win wars on their own, but they were often a significant advantage even in small numbers. One early example was described by Samuel de Champlain in 1609 while aiding his Algonquin allies in a battle against the Iroquois. After asking his allies to point out the enemy chiefs he stepped forward and fired, killing two and wounding a third (he had dropped four bullets into his arquebus. Both sides began exchanging arrows, but after a couple more of Champlain's men opened fire from the nearby woods the Iroquois fled.\n\nu/The_Alaskan covers the case of the Blackfeet pretty well. With a monopoly on trade routes with europeans the Blackfeet could force their neighbors to pay extremely high prices for european goods or use force to seize more hunting grounds for themselves. In turn as the primary customer of the Hudson's Bay and other companies they could demand more goods and better deals for themselves.\n\nIn Silverman's *Thundersticks* there is an account from a man named Saukamappee describing an encounter from the 1730s between a Shoshone war party and allied Blackfeet/Cree forces who had brought about 10 muskets with them. Both sides approached each other on foot out in the open:\n\n > Once the Shoshones closed to within firing range in preparation for making a charge, the allied gunmen stepped to the fore, \"and each of us [had] two balls in his mouth, and a load of powder in his hand to reload.\" Then just as the Shoshones rose up from behind their shields to string their arrows, the musketeers unleashed a volley, killing and wounding several of the enemy, and filling the rest with \"consternation and dismay.\" In their retreat the Shoshones acknowledged that their rivals had obtained a technological advantage just as formidable as the horse.\n\n-\n\n > \"The terror of that battle and our guns has prevented any more general battles, and our wars have since been carried by ambuscade and surprise of small camps, in which we have greatly the advantage, from the guns, arrow shards of iron, long knives, flat bayonets, and axes from the Traders.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ee0vrm
|
What is the origin of pasta?
|
Was it originally Italian/European or was it actually brought over by Marco Polo or was it brought from Asia before Polo?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ee0vrm/what_is_the_origin_of_pasta/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbp3179"
],
"score": [
213
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately, the early history of pasta is mysterious. There are some possible candidates for pasta in ancient Greco-Roman cooking (*itrion/itrium* and *laganon/laganum*), but the general consensus is that they were not pasta. How do we define pasta? Serventi and Sabban (2002) define it as a food made from unleavened kneaded dough that is cooked by boiling.\n\nThe earliest pasta/noodles appear to be Chinese, with an archaeological find of millet noodles aproximately 4,000 years old, textual references to noodles during the Han Dynasty, and stuffed dumplings, with as much right to be called \"pasta\" as ravioli, were already being made and enjoyed in the 3rd century.\n\nIn the West, a better pasta candidate than the earlier Greco-Roman mystery foods appears in Palestine in late antiquity (3rd to 5th centuries AD), called *itrium*, but unlike earlier *itria*, is described as a dough that is cooked by boiling. Is this a descendant of older Mediterranean *itria* etc.? Is it something new? Transmitted from China? We don't know - we don't know enough about this Palestinian *itrium*, and even less about earlier *itria*. We don't even know for sure that we should call it \"pasta\".\n\nIsidore of Seville, in the early 7th century, described a *laganum*\n\n > a broad, flat bread, which [is cooked] first in water and then fried in oil.\n\nas quoted by Serventi and Sabban (2002). As a dough product that is cooked by boiling, this is a good candidate for pasta. The description isn't detailed enough to be certain that it was really pasta.\n\nSomewhat later, in the 9th century, we find *itriyya* in the Syria-Palestine region: spaghetti or vermicelli made from semolina. Unambiguous pasta! This appears to have spread around the Mediterranean, likely due to the Arab conquests, and 12th century Sicily became a major pasta producer and exporter. The export sales mean that the product was dried - the ancestor of our modern dry pasta had arrived. This is long before Marco Polo, so clearly the Polo myth is just that: a myth without basis in fact.\n\nThus, the ancestor of modern pasta appears to be *itriyya*. The mystery - to which we have no good answer - is whether *itriyya* developed from the older *itrion/itrium* which it was named after, and whether those might have been pasta, or whether it was an invention of Western Asia, or whether it came from China.\n\nReference:\n\nServenti, Silvano and Sabban, Françoise (2002), *Pasta: the Story of a Universal Food*, Columbia University Press."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fwjemr
|
Why can't we suppress immune system overreaction?
|
With different diseases causing your immune system to go into overdrive and causing major damage instead of helping you, example being the Covid-19 making the immune system overreact and destroy the lungs, why do we not have any medicine to suppress or counteract this reaction?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fwjemr/why_cant_we_suppress_immune_system_overreaction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmp7hsv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Short answer: we do have many different medicines that suppress the immune system. In the case of COVID-19, though, we don't have much hard evidence that immunosuppressant drugs work in most patients. \n\nLong answer: in fact, we have lots of different drugs that block different parts of the immune system. These are most commonly used in treating autoimmune diseases (in which an overactive or dysregulated immune system attacks healthy tissues in the body), preventing organ transplant rejection, and managing certain cancers and inflammatory syndromes. In fact, many of our modern immunomodulatory drugs are extremely effective in treating particular diseases. Methotrexate, for example, suppresses the activation of certain immune cells and has shown great efficacy in the long-term treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, while drugs like cyclosporine have offered dramatic breakthroughs in the survival of organ transplants. We also have a host of steroids and, increasingly, highly specific synthetic antibodies at our disposal that act in a variety of ways to dampen harmful inflammatory responses.\n\nWhile there is mounting evidence to suggest that a subset of patients with severe viral pneumonia from COVID-19 may experience an abnormally overactive immune response, we (1) don't yet have robust indications that immunosuppressants can treat this type of specific inflammatory response and (2) don't have a reliable way of telling which patients have \"too much,\" \"too little,\" or \"not the right kind\" of immune activation in the lungs.\n\nHydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which is closely related to a fundamental antimalarial drug (chloroquine), also functions as an immunosuppressant and is most commonly used in the U.S. to control subtypes of systemic lupus erythematosus (also called SLE or just lupus). Some early low-quality studies have indicated that HCQ can shorten the time to recovery in patients with COVID-19. Unfortunately, these reports have significant methodological flaws and have not been replicated with much success—despite how eager many government officials are to proclaim it a \"miracle cure.\" This is especially true once a patient requires mechanical ventilatory support, which indicates that severe lung injury is already present.\n\nIt's possible that we may learn more about the immunological response to SARS-CoV-2 and thus be able to better treat the patients presenting with severe disease. However, to echo most leading public health experts, our best bet going forward will be to avoid the spread of the infection and to redouble our efforts to develop a safe vaccine. Neither of these measures are particularly flashy or immediately effective, but their long-term importance cannot be overstated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1axu60
|
How has modern technology changed the study of history?
|
How exactly has your discipline changed or benefited from modern technology? I'm mostly thinking 20th-century and onwards, but any examples are welcome; more specifically, I was wondering how things like improved radioisotope dating and better computers and modelling software had aided historians, but really I'm just interested in knowing how the study of history has changed.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1axu60/how_has_modern_technology_changed_the_study_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c91r455",
"c91zkbz"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"They've made finding things a lot quicker... for example I just read:\n\n > The child who played\n\n > Beneath the ash trees by the riverside,\n\n > Saw the same quiet home his fathers knew,\n\n > Save that a deeper shadow from the boughs\n\n > Fell on him…\n\n > So the same life passed down from sire to son.\n\n > To the same granite font-stone each was borne;\n\n > And the same chime from out the time-worn tower\n\n > Called them to prayer; and by the same dark bench\n\n > Carved by rude hands of old, they knelt to God.\n\n > Year after year they trod the same green path\n\n > Over the moors with wild thyme thickly spread\n\n > To the far valley; where the church lifts up\n\n > Her pinnacles beneath the sycamores;\n\n > And there, beneath the shelter of their boughs,\n\n > Each, as he passed away, was laid to rest.\n\nIn W.G. Hoskins' the history of Devon, but it was entirely unsourced. Luckilly google revealed [this](_URL_0_). Which was fantastic! It saved me having to start munching my way through Hoskins' bibliography to discover the poem's author, and it provided me with a reference for where I can find it.",
"One change that has barely been digested is the arrival of You Tube. A few years ago I published a book about Jimi Hendrix and London. You Tube sprang up while I was researching it, and I found I could find clips of incidents I was writing about. But how do you evaluate a film clip for truth? This is going to be a whole new field of scholarship. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.longmarshpress.co.uk/agracefulwriter.html"
],
[]
] |
|
143qly
|
Why have countries outlawed traditional dress?
|
I visited the royal textile museum in Bangkok today and the exhibits mentioned that in 1941, the Thai government had issued a decree requiring all Thais to start wearing western-style clothing instead of traditional Thai clothing. Was that an accurate statement on the museum's part? If so, why did the government issue such a decree, and why does the ban on traditional clothing apparently continue to this day?
More generally, how common have bans on certain kinds of attire been around the world historically? Does it tend to happen for the same kinds of reasons in each case, or is it usually more about unique political or social situations in the countries in question?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/143qly/why_have_countries_outlawed_traditional_dress/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c79lprx",
"c79m6g1",
"c79magi",
"c79n6fx",
"c79pyl9"
],
"score": [
30,
6,
34,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"I may be wrong but I believe that it was always seen as a way to westernize. Ataturk band the fez and some other pieces of attire specifically so that Turkey could look more western. Same goes for Peter the Great. He introduced western clothing to Russia and pressured his people to wear western clothing. TO get rid of beards (they were not in fashion in Western Europe) he introduced a [beard tax](_URL_0_). In the end it could be seen as a way to fit in with the nations that are seen as 'superior' or more advanced.",
"A major consideration here is the Japanese occupation of Thailand - which began in late 1941... The Thai government was keen to avoid a bloody occupation and direct control, and there was some brief fighting... It is possible that this decree was tied to \"modernisation\" attempts by the Japanese regime...",
"Banning clothing is a traditional way for those that are in power to remove an opposing culture's identity. After the Andean Rebellions of the 18th century, especially the Tupac Amaru II rebellion, the Spanish authorities ruled that Andean indigenous peoples could not wear Incan-styled clothing. This included the tasseled headdress worn by the Sapa Inca, which Tupac Amaru adopted in his claim that he was the last legitimate ruler of the Andean peoples. At his execution, Tupac Amaru was forced to hear and watch the death sentences of his friends and family as well as the edict that Inca dress be outlawed because it was \"ridiculous\". There a number of accounts about Tupac Amaru, I prefer the brief one in Elliot's *Empires of the Atlantic World* if you are a nonspecialist. \n\nThis ban was not extraordinary. The Iberian peoples during the Reconquista placed strict rules on who could wear what, restricting economic freedom so that a social norm could be maintained by the state. If Jews, Moors, and middling classes could not buy certain items or wear certain fabrics and patterns, it made it easier to identify social and religious groups. Henry Kamen writes about this in several books. *Spain 1469-1714* is the last one I read where he notes this. ",
"Generally it's to suppress a culture. In Scotland it was suppress Highland culture due to their support of the Jacobites. Tartan was seen as a symbol of Scottish identity in a time the UK was trying to bring Scotland around to seeing themselves as British. It backfired, of course, seeing as Scotland was one of the first countries to develop a national identity, but the intent was to speed assimilation into \"Britishness\".",
"None of these comments so far have mentioned some important details about the historical context in which this decision was made. We must remember that Thailand is the only country in the region that has never in it's entire history been colonized. Nations all over Southeast Asia were coming under the control of Europe (think Burma to the West by Britain, and Indochina to the East by the French). The Thai monarchy was trying to put itself and it's people in the same category as European monarchies and their subjects. Enforcing Western style dress was just one aspect of this self-preservation campaign."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard_tax#Russia"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4kg4lh
|
us army/navy/air force numbering systems
|
Ex: Eighth air force, 115th infantry, etc. Those are just random examples, but how are they named? Is there a method to the madness or just chronology
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kg4lh/eli5_us_armynavyair_force_numbering_systems/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3enfvi",
"d3eoset"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's all sequential. It starts at 1 and goes to 2, 3, 4, 5 etc... When the U.S. goes to war it expands the number of units activated to fill up every number sequentially. When the U.S. leaves a war or downscales then it gets rid of most of its units except the ones with historic or glorious lineage. That's why units like the 101st Airborne are still around.",
"_URL_0_\n\n > Is there a method to the madness or just chronology\n\nactually, it is not a good idea to have a sane numbering system. It turns out that statisticians can figure out how many troops are on the battlefield based on # observations and troop numbers"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem"
]
] |
|
1ikqyb
|
What was the life of a North American field slave like during winter time?
|
Did they live in the same hovels even during the winter? I'm assuming this was less of a problem in the South where the winters were probably warmer.
What type of work did they do during this time? Did they ever have seasonal breaks or at least less work during the cold months?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ikqyb/what_was_the_life_of_a_north_american_field_slave/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb5yxl4"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"So for the most part slaves lived in their dwellings year round. These structures were usually sturdy enough to handle winter weather. If you ever get a chance to go to the Robert E. Lee house at Arlington National Cemetery, they have a slave's quarters exhibit which gives you a better sense what these structures were like. \n\nAs to type of work, it depended on the crops and the region in the South. For example, climates such as those in Louisiana and Florida are subtropical and rarely ever got so cold that they needed to stop growing crops. Here slaves worked all year long. \n\nFurther north, in states such as Maryland and Virginia, there was more of a winter. During the cold months, slaves would tend to livestock, make repairs to farm equipment, chopped wood, and do other odd jobs that they did not have time to do during the growing season. \n\nThe type of crop also mattered. For example, on tobacco plantations, the process of curing the tobacco and processing it took place during the winter months. The thing is, work on a plantation never ends. Even when it was the planting season, slaves would usually tend to their own livestock or work on their own gardens. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2tv2on
|
How well trained were the Secret Service when they first appeared?
|
With reference to this image: _URL_0_ (President Roosevelts inauguration, May 5th 1904) How well trained were these SS Agents compared to the military of that year?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2tv2on/how_well_trained_were_the_secret_service_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co31zat"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I'm afraid I don't have the answer for what you're asking, but it's important to note that the appearance of the Secret Service in protecting state officials was not the actual first appearance of the agency. The Secret Service was founded in 1865 as a part of the Department of the Treasury and remained under their auspices until they were moved in 2003 to the Department of Homeland Security, though their functions remained more or less the same. The Secret Service's functions, at its foundation and now, were mainly to investigate and protect financial systems and identity documents, although originally it also carried out many of the functions now performed by the ATF and other agencies. The Secret Service's role as a protection service only began after McKinley's assassination"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/lW8h71l.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2jts5e
|
How did Soviet armor tactics and methodology differ from American and German armor tactics and methodology during WWII?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jts5e/how_did_soviet_armor_tactics_and_methodology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clf6i6q"
],
"score": [
51
],
"text": [
"Soviet general strategy developed immediately prior to the war relied on a principle called \"Deep Battle\". In comparison to German strategy that developed during the first period of the war, this was not about exploiting and pushing weaknesses in particular sectors, but rather, heavily engaging the enemy across all sectors. This limited the effectiveness of breakthroughs in terms of depth penetrated, but also theoretically crippled the ability of the enemy to respond to said breakthroughs by preventing forces from re-orienting to said breakthroughs, making their potential consequences that much more drastic. If it wasn't clear, this relied on substantial quantitative superiority across the front being attacked, as to mount an offensive across a large area meant that particular sectors were not prioritized. In practice, this meant that armoured units were not necessarily concentrated, and instead, distributed piece-meal. Now, in France this type of piece-meal distribution of armoured assets meant that the Germans could quickly overwhelm sectors by local concentration of firepower. However, the sheer number of Soviet armoured units (and the use of a high number of dedicated anti-tank guns and Tank destroyers) meant that, particularly during the later stages of the war, the Germans had great difficulty in developing that local superiority. \n\nIn terms of broader strategic aims, the German tactics were direct intellectual descendants of late 19th century Prussian tactical writers who advocated for battles of annihilation, which required the surrounding and destruction of enemy armies. However, Soviet deep battle didn't require that; rather, the broad offensive and breakthroughs were intended to sap the morale and fighting ability of a large unit and force it to withdraw, hopefully in disorder. If I could make a comparison you might be familiar with, it is similar in idea to the 'Hammer and Anvil' strategy of Alexander; the broad operational offensive would hold enemy units in place, while breakthroughs (like Alexander's cavalry charges) would force a collapse of frontal integrity and force a retreat. In comparison, the Germans were constantly aiming for the double envelopment of Cannae in their battles to make up for quantitative inferiority. Unfortunately, this all too often relies on leadership blunders of the opponent. The Soviets provided this in spades early in the war, but later in the war, the strategic mobility of the Germans was significantly reduced. This was reflected in shifting German armoured tactics as the war dragged on. Priority was given over to TD production, which theoretically were able to fire from better cover and was a cheap attempt to bring quantitative parity up to the Soviets. However, they were very ineffective on the offensive, and very vulnerable to any breakthroughs thanks to their lack of a turret. \n\nThe greatest weaknesses of the Soviets pre-war were poor equipment (even the flagship and powerful tanks like the KV-1 and T-34/76 were lacking in some serious ways) and training, despite numerical superiority. It would take until 1942/43 for Deep battle to become effectively used.\n\nNow, as for the Americans, they had their own ideas about tank warfare that in many ways were reflections of the British doctrine of Cruiser and Infantry Tanks. If you are not familiar with that doctrine, it involved utilizing the infantry tanks (heavily armoured, slower, and often sporting guns designed primarily to defeat fixed fortifications) would assist infantry in a breakthrough, while cruiser tanks (less heavily armoured, faster, and often with lighter, high velocity guns) would utilize the breakthrough to flood through the flanks of the enemy. In practice, this didn't really work that well. With the advent of man-portable AT weapons as well as quickly escalating armour, the cruiser tanks were found to be vulnerable and underarmed. \n\nNow, the Americans took this idea and turned it on it's head a bit. Instead of infantry tanks they focused on a large number of medium tanks designed to fulfill sort of the role of both the cruiser and the infantry tank. US forces were much more mechanized than their German opponents, so it was thought that speed would be the best offense against heavier German tanks. We can see the dual purpose thinking quite literally in the first American tank used in the war, the M3 Lee: _URL_0_ The requirements for a tank that fulfilled both the cruiser and infantry role are pretty clear here. On the other hand, the Sherman did away with using two separate guns and instead it utilized a single multi-purpose gun, the 75 mm Gun M2. It was a medium velocity gun gun. However, even by 1944 before Normandy, many realized it was woefully inadequete for dealing with German heavies like the Tiger, and even the Panther. This led the British to retrofit some of their Shermans with the QF17pdr, a 76mm gun with much higher velocity. These higher velocity guns were worse for HE shells, but much better as AT guns, which meant they didn't serve as great a purpose attacking fixed positions, but in tank battles showed their worth. On the other hand, US Army Ordinance was stubborn about reequipping the Shermans (and fielding a heavier tank) and instead felt the best solution was a high speed TD fleet that could quickly be called on to re-deploy and attack enemy tank formations when needed. Except, they were very lightly armoured. This is where I make the connection to the Infantry/Cruiser tank dilemma. The US doctrine of using TDs as tank assassins certainly worked in some cases, but as mentioned, the Shermans (and particularly the TDs) were extremely vulnerable to even man-portable AT weapons. The sort of fast breakthroughs and maneuver warfare that the US doctrine dictated was found to be impractical for most of the campaign on the western front, and indeed, the greatest lesson all sides learned from the war is that a good combo of armour, firepower, and speed in a general tank design was the best option. TD's were fast enough to get into position against panzers to blunt offensives, but too vulnerable to flank or lead them. I would say that the quick effort to upgun Shermans as the war went on, and the quick change to rapidly deploy M26s to Europe was an acknowledgement that the American doctrine pre-invasion was a failure. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/M3grantmini.jpg/1280px-M3grantmini.jpg"
]
] |
||
49k7gw
|
Did any European states/societies weather the Protestant Reformation and formation of new religious minorities without major incidents or violence or patterns of persecution?
|
It seems like the Protestant Reformation in Early Modern Europe was a pretty traumatic event in a lot of places. As societies converted to new forms of Christianity, there was often violence against the new types of Christians and/or violence against Catholics once some form of Protestantism had taken hold. Catholics in many protestant nations were subsequently viewed with suspicion, accused of double loyalty to the pope in Rome. In staunchly Catholic nations like France, there were incidents of extreme violence against Protestant communities.
But did any of the societies whose religios composition was directly affected by the Protestant Reformation buck one or more of these trends? Did Protestantism take hold in any Catholic societies without violence or persecution against Protestants? Did any converted nations treat the parts of there populations that remained Catholic without suspicion or prejudice?
Or is my understanding of the traumatic nature of the reformation off base or misinformed?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49k7gw/did_any_european_statessocieties_weather_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0sqnys"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As a budding early modernist, I'll try and take a crack at this one since no one else has. \n\nWhen I first read through your question, my response was \"no, of course not.\" Yet I have recently taken a course which dealt with refugees and violence in Reformation Europe, and there were some cities and states known to tolerate religious minorities without an overwhelming amount of violence. \n\nI'll point you to the example of Amsterdam, which was a trading hub and thus filled with a plurality of peoples. A majority Protestant area, it practiced a kind of \"tacit toleration\" which allowed Jewish, Catholic and even Anabaptists to practice their faith, though not openly. In fact, Amsterdam still has these hidden faith centres, which are located throughout the city as remnants of this kind of blind-eye toleration. Radicals were quickly suppressed and there were even some Catholics on the city council. Though Catholic worship was technically banned, many were allowed to worship if they paid off local officials. \n\nFor Jews, a very large Sephardic community formed in Amsterdam made up of conversos, some of whom converted back to Judaism and some who did not. As an interesting side notnote, it did lead to some interesting debates amongst the prominent Jewish rabbis on how to treat these conversos, some who wanted to return to Judaism without knowing much of anything about it. \n\nOther major trading cities have similar forms of tacit toleration towards the minority religions, though in the case of Venice, the Jews were ghettoized, locked into a specific part of the city after nightfall. \n\nWhile there were no doubt tensions within the cities amongst the officials and the different religious pluralities, Amsterdam's relative uniqueness as a trading city that had multiple people of multiple faiths going in and out for trade, the same violence that one sees in England, France and Germany never quite reached the same amount of violence. Though there may have been the occasional blip of violence, I do believe I'm correct in that it never reached the same levels as other places in Europe. \n\nSource: Nicholas Terpstra. *Religious Refugees in the Early Modern World*. Cambridge University Press, 2015. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6uiqky
|
what's the psychology behind people being mean to others?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6uiqky/eli5_whats_the_psychology_behind_people_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlszn4p",
"dlszuk9",
"dlt0cu4",
"dlt0e6j",
"dlt6oeh"
],
"score": [
8,
13,
8,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Being mean to others could be motivated by so many factors; it's hard to explain a complex behavior with one simple explanation. \n\nHowever, one can always apply the principles of behavior modification to understand behavior. Those principles state that behaviors that are reinforced will occur more often, and behaviors that are punished will occur less often. So, if someone is mean to others repeatedly, there's a decent chance that this behavior has been reinforced some way or another in the past. Some common reinforcers may be attention from peers, a feeling of superiority, or other social gains.\n\nSource: I am a grad student working toward my PhD in Clinical Psychology. ",
"Plenty of reasons. Here's a couple others probably won't bring up.\n\n1. Competition for resources. If I shove you aside to get the last PS4 on the shelf, I'm being a selfish jerk. Way back in the day though, being willing to do unsavory things for say, food or shelter could make the difference between life or death\n\n2. Confirmation bias. If I already think that /u/throwitaround123 is a bad person, my brain is going to prioritize information that reinforces that belief. If I just think you're a bad person because we got off on the wrong foot, I'm going to interpret good things you do as either some attempt to manipulate me, or just the exception to the rule. This can lead to treating people unfairly.",
"The only people I met like this were narcissists. It was a pay off for them. They felt good making me feel bad. There's some kind of self gratification in this process and I will never understand it. Simply because I don't feel \"good\" by making others feel \"bad\".",
"Bullies are mean to affirm that they are in the top position and that nobody will challenge them.\n\nSometimes a physically weak person will bully others to keep them scared so they don't get challenged.\n\nIt's a power thing mostly - they want to keep others scared of them because they are either very secure and don't want there security threatened or they are very insecure and that's the only way they know how to feel safe.\n\nI was born with empathy towards others, I remember somebody signed my yearbook \"to the kid that was never mean to anyone\" however sadly most people are not that way and will be mean to anyone just to get ahead or to feel powerful.",
"\\- feeling inferior and like you need to be put in your place; insecurity\n\n\\- physical necessity, like needing money, food, or shelter, or needing to fuel an addiction\n\n\\- meeting social needs or to increase social standing: stealing girlfriend, making fun of your appearance in front of others, etc\n\n\\- [borderline personality disorder](_URL_0_); it's a coping mechanism and these people generally don't realize what they're doing\n\n\\- sociopathic malicious behavior: serial killers, etc"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder/index.shtml"
]
] |
|
6980q9
|
why is "no antibiotics" a big selling point for meat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6980q9/eli5_why_is_no_antibiotics_a_big_selling_point/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh4gbtd",
"dh4h4l4",
"dh4i634",
"dh4ihaq",
"dh4mm98",
"dh4n4mg",
"dh50rjk"
],
"score": [
8,
143,
13,
6,
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Two reasons: To keep the meat \"healthy\" despite the actual living conditions of the cow. No antibiotics means that the sanitation regulation for cattle handling HAVE to be followed.\n\nAnd second is for our own health. Antibiotics are like nukes, a last resort medication, they must not be taken so carelessly because it help with the development of microorganisms resistant to antibiotics. How do you kill a bacteria that survives our trump card? ",
"Animals raised for meat are often given constant doses of low levels of antibiotics. This keeps them healthier in unsanitary conditions, and boosts their growth so you get more meat from each animal.\n\nThe problem is that bacteria are really good at evolving to resist antibiotics, *especially* when exposed to constant low doses of those antibiotics. So pumping our livestock with them is basically creating a \"boot camp\" for bacteria. Anytime we come up with a new type of antibiotic, a resistant strain of bacteria shows up within two years, because farmers buy the new drug and start filling their cows with it, training the bacteria in the cows to fight it. \n\nWe saw this recently with [colistin](_URL_0_). Colistin is supposed to be a \"drug of last resort\", the thing doctors hold in reserve until you *really really* need it. It's the antibiotic equivalent of a nuclear bomb, and if bacteria become resistant to it, we're fucked. We don't have anything more powerful. And you know what happened? They found colistin-resistant bacteria spreading around, because farmers in China and India were pumping colistin into their cows.",
"Probably some fish are a good example to explain *why*.\n\nPangasius is a fish that's cultivated in Vietnam. It can get oxygen out of the air, so for the farmer (sorry, don't know the proper word in english) it doesn't matter too much if the water is clean or not. They can grow a lot of fish in a really small amount of water, about 150 fish per m³. Pangasius eat a lot of their own defecation, which is full of deadly bacteria, and those deadly bacteria are nuked with antibiotics.\n\nSo: antibiotics in our food chain is a sign for meat and fish, cultivated in an unsanitary environment.\n\nNext to that, the problem with resistation.",
"No antibiotics implies healthier animals, not feedlot animals living knee deep in their own feces.\n\nWhen antibiotics were given to farm animals, it was noticed they grew and gained weight significantly faster.\n\nAfter the antibiotic revolution, doses increased and farmers worked out you could avoid good husbandry and just pump your animals full of antibiotics and most would survive.\n\nImages of these poorly run feedlots hit the media, and were linked to antibiotics.",
"Thankyou for every comment on here. I've been wondering this myself lately. This post is very informative.",
"Thank you all for your answers!",
"This would be something my ag teacher would love to answer but I'll do my best. \nPeople tend to think cows or pigs treated with antibiotics will make you sick because the antibiotics are in the meat. But in reality any meat you buy from the store has no trace of antibiotics. Farmers have to let the antibiotics pass through the animal's system before they can be consumed. If there's any trace of antibiotics in the meat than it's no good. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colistin"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5xv6jm
|
what happened in the bible and how much of it is true?
|
I'm from a different part of the world. All I know about the Bible is through pop culture. Noah's Ark, Jesus, water to wine, walk on water, and crucifixion. Clearly the part about Young Earth and all isn't true, but Jesus Christ was a real person, right? What cause did he champion and how did he come to be considered the son of god? And how'd he die?
Edit: I also remembered that I had heard about the Garden of Eden and the Adam-Eve-Apple story, not sure how that's relevant. And whatever mythology spills over in supernatural.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xv6jm/eli5_what_happened_in_the_bible_and_how_much_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"del3ama",
"del3cs0",
"del3ggs",
"del5ept",
"del8w9u",
"delbahx",
"deld8iy"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
10,
3,
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
" > but Jesus Christ was a real person, right? \n\nProbably, yes. It is also likely that not everything attributed to him actually took place, but the legends likely center on what was a real person.\n\n > What cause did he champion and how did he come to be considered the son of god? \n\nThat is difficult to say exactly, but he was most likely a preacher who was convinced the \"End Times\" were imminent. It may be that his being the Son of God was something what was added later.\n\n > And how'd he die?\n\nProbably he was crucified.",
"Part of the problem with answering that question is the fact that there is precious little information about the man outside of the Bible.\n\nNo contemporary writings of Jesus of Nazareth exist, and even the biblical teachings were not written down for a couple hundred years. The closest writing is that of Josephus, around 94 AD.",
"The Bible is a long collection of stories and it take far too long to go through all of them here, so this will just be a brief overview.\n\nThe usual Christian Bible is split into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is stories about the Jewish people from before Jesus. The New Testament is about Jesus and stories from after he died. Major stories in the Old Testament include the creation story, the story of the Jews fleeing Egypt under Moses, the story of Job, King David, and all of that.\n\nThe New Testament is about Jesus' life and teachings and the founding of the new Christian church. \n\nMost of the stories aren't true (or at least aren't verifiable), but they are based in history. For example, it's unlikely that any story about a particular person is true since so much time has passed. However, the references to the ancient kingdoms that existed are probably true (though they may be a bit inaccurate about dates, etc.).\n\nAs for the New Testament, the historical consensus is that Jesus was probably a real person who claimed to be the son of God. There isn't a whole lot written about Jesus by non-Christians from around the time he lived, which is what you would expect since non-Christians would not have thought of Jesus as special, but there are a couple of references to him. There are enough secondhand accounts, though, to make it seem likely that he was real and that he was crucified. However, everything in the New Testament was written from stories of people who knew people who knew Jesus - none of the authors knew Jesus directly. As a result, the details of his life are probably untrue.",
"Jesus Christ is a real person or not is a difficult question to answer. The problem is that we don't have much other source than the bible. \n\nTake Julius Caesar. We have a lot of literature talking about it. Some from himself, some from his friends and some from his enemies. We have different point of view about the same person. We also have archaeological finding that reinforce the position that Julius Ceasar was real.\n\nWhen it come to Jesus we don't have as much. We don't even know the author of most of the bible.\n\nIt doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't a real person, but we don't much evident that he indeed existed.",
"There is no historical record of him ever existing. The religion might have been invented by Paul( Saul) (Paulus)\n\n\nNailed by David Fitzgerald is a good book to read. \n\nThe core of the religion is love. Lots of similarities to the teachings of Buddha. \n\n",
"The Christian Bible is a collection of smaller books assembled into one as a sort of spiritual library. Each book has an author, an audience, and a specific message.\n\nSome of the books are related to each other, and some stand on their own. Some of the bible is pure history, describing the Jewish people as God molded them into His people. Proverbs is essentially a long list of wise sayings. Psalms is a book of poems and songs. The Song of Solomon is a long erotic poem written by a man to his lover. Some of the bible is prophesy, predicting the future. Some of it tells the story of the life of Jesus on earth, and some of the \"books\" are really letters, written to the early church from its leaders.\n\nThe first part of the bible is the \"Old Testament\". Jews and Christians share this part of the bible in common. Both accept it as spiritually valuable. The Old Testament includes the story of the creation of the earth, early Jewish history, and the laws of the Jewish people. The Old Testament foresees a messiah who will restore God's people to a position of power, and of right standing with Him.\n\nThe second part of the bible is the \"New Testament\". It begins with four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies of a Messiah. Jews do not believe this to be true.\n\nThere is a book (Acts) describing the history of the very early church. Then there are a set of letters written by early church leaders. Most of these letters were written by Paul. Paul was a devout Jewish leader who converted to Christianity and spent the rest of his life trying to evangelize the Roman world of his time. A few letters are written by actual followers of Jesus (Peter and James). The last book of the New Testament is called Revelation, and it is a highly metaphorical, almost incomprehensible prophesy about the end of the world.\n\nThe Bible was written by many people, over a very long period of time. Some books are very reliable, with many source manuscripts, all of which agree with each other. Other books are not considered as reliable, because there aren't many manuscripts, or because the manuscripts don't agree completely with each other. There is an entire field of study dedicated to textual analysis.\n\nAmong Christians, there are different positions regarding the authority of the Bible. Some hold it as an inspired work, divinely protected and guided through time as the Word of God. Others view it as a mere guide or source of spiritual meditation. There are many points of view in between these two extremes.\n\nI hope this is helpful The Bible is a really interesting peek into a variety of cultures and spiritual beliefs, regardless of your personal religious convictions.\n\n",
"There is a lot that happened in Bible. The Bible was written over a period of roughly 2,000 years by 40 different authors from three continents, who wrote in three different languages. Some books contain stories, some contain teachings, and some contain poetry.\n\nI will try to give you a simple explanation of the Bible. Pretty much everything from creation up until King David is heavily debated whether it is factual or not. Believers generally take it all as fact, and non-believers generally take it all as myth. There isn't much concrete proof outside of the Bible for a lot of it.\n\n**Genesis**: Begins with the story of how God created everything. Goes to the story of Noah where God flooded the earth. Noah's family repopulated the earth and then God chose Abraham to become the father of a holy nation. The story then follows several generations until you get to Joseph and his 11 brothers. Joseph was separated from his family and became a prominent figure of Egypt. A famine brought his family to Egypt where Joseph could help them, and the entire family settled in Egypt. Joseph's brothers and his two sons become the basis for the tribes of Israel. Israel was the name of the nation of God, but at this point in the Bible they are simply a group of people living in Egypt.\n\n**Exodus**: Picks up several hundred years later. Apparently a new pharaoh of Egypt felt threatened by the Jews and enslaved them all. They lived in slavery until a man named Moses came along. He was an Israelite, but was adopted and raised by pharaoh's daughter. He ran away and in the wilderness God spoke to him and told him that he would lead God's people out of Egypt. God brought ten plagues to Egypt to convince pharaoh to let His people go. Eventually pharaoh did let them go and all the Israelite left Egypt as free men and women. Pharaoh changed his mind however and went to fight the Israelites, but they were able to escape after God parted the waters of a sea so they could walk across. Pharaoh tried to chase them but drowned along with all his men when God stopped parting the waters.\n\n**Leviticus, Numbers Deuteronomy**: contains laws set by God on how the Israelites are to conduct themselves and their upcoming nation. It also documents their time in the wilderness. Because of the people's lack of faith they were punished to wander the wilderness for 40 years until an entire generation died. The next generation would inherit the land of Israel. God provided food and water to the Israelites during this time and they were entirely dependent on Him.\n\n**Joshua**: documents the Israelites conquering the land they are to settle. They find it inhabited and are to wipe everyone out. They basically murder everyone and take the land, but there are patches of people here and there who put up some resistance. The land is split into twelve lots and given to each tribe. The tribe of Levi doesn't receive any land, but they are given the duty of becoming priests.\n\n**Judges**: describes a time when the nation of Israel had no king. During this time other nation attempted to conquer parts, or all, of Israel and God chose specific people to lead the armies of Israel in a resistance. The most famous story in here is about Samson who was famous for having long hair and superhuman strength. When his hair was cut off he lost his strength and was captured and blinded. Years later (after his hair had grown back) during a party he knocked down two columns and killed thousands of Philistines at once (killing more in his death than when he lived).\n\n**Ruth**: documents the great-grandmother of David. David will become king of Israel later.\n\n**1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles**: documents the time when Israel had kings. Saul was the first king, but lost favor with God and was replaced with David who was known as \"a man after God's own heart\". The next king was David's son Solomon who built the temple where animals were slaughtered according to the laws given in earlier books. The idea being that sin against God demands retribution and the spilling of blood. God's wrath against sinners is redirected to the animals and the people are saved. Solomon later marries many women of different nations to make alliances with those nations. He was then tainted by the other religions they brought and God decides to punish the nation and splits it in a civil war. The people of both nations begin to fall away from God and worship other Gods, and then God brings other nations to conquer them both. The Israelites are scattered throughout all the lands.\n\n**Ezra and Nehemiah**: details the time when the nation of Israel is allowed to come back under the nation of Persia. The Israelites travel from all over and come \"home\" to rebuild the Temple and the nation (although it is still ruled by Persia).\n\n***At this point the Old Testament ceases to be in chronological order***\n\n**Job**: a story about a Godly man who is tested by the devil. This is actually the oldest book in the Bible and I'm not really sure when it is supposed to take place.\n\n**Psalms**: is a book of poetry. Mostly songs the Israelites sung to or about God. King David is attributed as being the authour of many of these songs.\n\n**Proverbs**: a book believed to be written by King Solomon. It is essentially a guide to his son on how to live a good and Godly life and resist/avoid temptation.\n\n**Ecclesiastes**: a book all about the meaning of life. It shows how without God one cannot derive meaning from anything. It is also a book believe to be written by King Solomon.\n\n**Song of Solomon**: yet another book attributed to King Solomon. This one is mainly love poetry.\n\nAfter this you have **the greater and lesser prophets**. This is a mixture of stories and prophecies. Many of these prophecies speak of a messiah that is to come and a time when Israel will become a great nation again. These prophets arose at different times throughout the history of Israel, and I honestly don't know a lot about many of them. The most famous prophet is Daniel who is most famous for being placed in a lion's den overnight. God protected him and he came out unscathed. He prophesied a list of nations would come and overtake the other. These include Babylon, Persia, Greeks and Rome. After Rome he predicted that God's kingdom would come.\n\nThis ends the Old Testament\n\nThe new testament is all about Jesus. Jesus was born around 4 BC when Israel was a nation under Roman rule. There had been a period of silence from God for about 400 years.\n\n**Matthew Mark Luke and John** detail the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the long awaited Messiah that the Israelites were waiting for, but he was different that they expected. They expected a great leader to end their subjugation, but this isn't what Jesus was about. The basic message of Christianity is that He came to suffer and die and take the full wrath of God for our sins. The slaughtered animals taught in the law was only a symbol of what he has done for us. Anyone who believes in Him can attain eternal salvation and be right with God forever. He taught that Godly living isn't about following a set of laws, and is about loving God and loving each other. This message was so radical that the leading Israelites of the time put him to death on a cross (a particularly gruesome and torturous way to die). They thought they were killing a blasphemer, but it was all part of the plan. Through his death, his believers are saved. Three days later Jesus rose from the grave and spent some time with his believers before ascending to heaven.\n\n**Acts**: details what happened after Jesus. His followers were able to spread the message throughout Rome (the know world) and set up churches in a very short amount of time. It begins by following the acts of Jesus' disciples (his closest followers and students). About halfway through the book it follows Paul. Paul was an important Israelite who was given the task of persecuting and killing Christians. However, Jesus appeared to Paul personally and converted him and personally taught him in the ways of Christianity. Paul became the first and most prominent missionary of the time.\n\nThe rest of the New Testament are letters from Paul and some of the disciples. These are mainly to specific churches, or to certain people. Many are addressing specific issues that arose in those churches at that time, but they lay a foundation for how the church and it's people are to behave.\n\nThe last book of the Bible is **Revelation** that is a prophetic book about the end of the world. It is heavily symbolic and many sects of Christianity debate on what exactly is meant in this book.\n\nI know this was super quick, and super long, but I hope it provides a groundwork for your introduction to the Bible. Let me know if you have any questions, or would like me to expand on any of the sections."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
14ju86
|
why do individual states have their own military forces?
|
Sorry for the US-centric post, but after seeing [this post](_URL_0_) I was wondering why the hell Arkansas needs a bunch of A-10s? Crowd control? Surveying the aftermath of a disaster?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14ju86/eli5_why_do_individual_states_have_their_own/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7dslmd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The National Guard is also meant as an emergency augment to active forces and pilots must frequently maintain qualifications, so they possess an aircraft inventory to ensure this."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/14jbah/a10s_188th_fighter_wing_arkansas_air_national/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1z03c6
|
if a fever, coughing, vomiting or diarrhea are the body’s defenses fighting an infection, why do otc drugs offer to combat the symptoms? wouldn't you want the body to do its job?
|
I understand that deaths related to Spanish Fever were caused by the body's overreaction, but most symptoms of a sickness are the body’s defenses fighting the battle. Shouldn't they be aided and not suppressed or is it all just marketing and they are really just drugging you with a small dose of DXM?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z03c6/eli5_if_a_fever_coughing_vomiting_or_diarrhea_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfpa6tk",
"cfpnegh"
],
"score": [
37,
2
],
"text": [
"The symptoms you list might be *part* of an immune response, but the real work in fighting the infection is being done at the cellular level by your immune system. Stopping these symptoms does not stop the immune response.\n\nIf you have a cold and you stop the runny nose by taking something, the immune system hasn't shut down. It is still actively fighting the virus. But you just aren't as miserable.\n\nIn more extreme cases, like high fevers where the fever does actively help the body, the issue is that the body can push the fever past the point of helpfulness and into a dangerous realm. We don't know why it does this. We do know that you can suffer long term consequences from running a very high fever for an extended period of time, so the fever gets treated alongside the illness.\n\nSome symptoms, like vomiting or diarrhea, might help flush out the issue, but again, can cause harm to the body as well (dehydration being the main one here). They are also not fun symptoms to experience. But even though these are part of the immune response, they are not the whole thing. The real work is being done at the cellular level.",
"Not sure about fever but for symptoms like diarrhea and stuffy noise/sneezing may be caused by the infection itself. The infection wants to spread and attacks our body so we sneeze, get a runny noise, have diarrhea this makes the infection have a better chance of spreading to others.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2wxlcq
|
how can campbells make soup with cooked meat in it that doesn't need to be refrigerated?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wxlcq/eli5_how_can_campbells_make_soup_with_cooked_meat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cov0w7n",
"cov0x9o",
"cov5c5h"
],
"score": [
4,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"Meat rots because of bacteria. Canned good in general are packaged sterile, which means they don't rot.",
"The way meat spoils is that pathogens get into it. Refrigerating it slows the rate at which pathogens can reproduce. With soup, the soup is canned, then cooked in the can. Any pathogen in there is killed, and no new ones can get in while the can is sealed.",
"This is the whole point of canned food, it's been *sterilized* by heat (plus preservatives) and then sealed so no bacteria or air can get in. Most bacteria still need oxygen to live, so thy can't live in the sealed can.\n\nAnaerobic bacteria (do not need oxygen) can live in the sealed can, but hopefully were killed by the heat process and inhibited by he preservatives. Occasionally a poorly-preserved can can swell, and this is caused by activity of anaerobic bacteria which can produce deadly toxins.\n\nCanned goods last a long time but not forever."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c6gxse
|
what is domain and a host before making a website?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c6gxse/eli5_what_is_domain_and_a_host_before_making_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"es8napc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A domain is that thing most people type into the address bar. \nEG \n\"_URL_0_\"\n\"_URL_1_\" \nYou need to register it so when someone types in _URL_2_ they reach you. \n \nA host is the computer that actually responds once someone types in your web address."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"www.reddit.com",
"www.google.com",
"www.yoursite.com"
]
] |
||
114xeb
|
If the Nazis had moved to resettle Jews in Palestine instead of Madagascar (or eventually camps) might the Jews have cooperated?
|
I know that the conditions that the Nazis wanted to place on a Jewish nation would have been anything but popular. I remember that they were to be isolated from the rest of the world financially, by using German banks to act as overseers (and no doubt plunderers) of all international business.
Still, a subjugant Jewish state in former Palestine is only one step away from a free Jewish state. I wonder whether resistance efforts and international opinion might have been more favorable toward the Nazi's goals if they had somewhat intersected with Zionist goals.
I came to this question while thinking about a back-to-Africa movement in the 80s that was co-sponsored by the KKK and black supremacist groups. That case is pretty ridiculous but it was an interesting show of two very different groups working together.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/114xeb/if_the_nazis_had_moved_to_resettle_jews_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6jciq3",
"c6jf4sp"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Madagascar was never a real idea. \n\nThe suggestion of relocating the Jews there was old, first suggested by a French racist in the 1880s. Hitler seized on it. It had all the fun of a sick joke (imagine if Michelle Bachman suggested deporting undocumented Mexican immigrants to Timbuktu) plus juuuust a dash of tempting possibility. \n\nHitler started dangling the possibility of this deportation after the war started, but it was never real. Even if Hitler had forced Britain to surrender after a miraculously successful Operation Sealion and opened the sealanes, even if Jews had actually started emigrating, there would have been no hope. Here's the proof: while some Nazi bureaucrats started drawing up emigration plans, behind the scenes Hitler had already picked out the island's governors: Victor Brack and Philipp Bouhler. \n\nBrack and Bouhler's involvement show that Hitler never had any intention of letting the Jews escape his grasp alive. They were the heads of Germany's [Aktion T4 program](_URL_1_), it's first experiment with mass killing by gas. You can guess what they'd do with a jungle island and millions of subjects.\n\n[More here](_URL_0_). ",
"It's noteworthy that Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official tried in Israel in the 1960s, did travel to the Middle East in order to speak with Zionists about the possibility of moving the German Jews there in a mutually-beneficial agreement. Eichmann and his associate were, if I recall, caught by the British posing as two German businessmen in order to enter the Protectorate for this meeting, and were pretty much laughed back to Germany."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=Ry-qW0lw2ZAC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=Philipp+Bouhler+madagascar&source=bl&ots=DAKz_LTrpF&sig=FdIKUVzoIv0UfRAhmfk1xE0Iumg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gdhyUNH_Jsm-yQHj1IHQCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Philipp%20Bouhler%20madagascar&f=false",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4"
],
[]
] |
|
1rnj0l
|
if heat is simply molecules moving faster, why does my breath moving air faster cool down soup?
|
EDIT: Guys these are such great thoughtful thorough explanations and I really appreciate you taking the time to write them and I don't understand a word of what anyone is saying I'm sorry.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rnj0l/eli5_if_heat_is_simply_molecules_moving_faster/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdozo3h",
"cdp0mwe",
"cdp0s23",
"cdp1f2p",
"cdp1rco",
"cdp36m7",
"cdp404n"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Moving faster around randomly. Net movement is still close to zero. Your sending out many air molecules that each come in thermal contact with the warmer soup. When two things are in thermal contact they want to become the same temperature. The air you blow heats up a bit during the time it is in thermal contact. The soup cools down.",
"When you blow on the soup, you're essentially blowing the highest energy particles away from the soup, lowering the temperature of the soup as a whole. Temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of all the particles in a substance, so getting rid of those high energy particles at the surface of the soup reduces the temperature.",
"It's the comparison of two concepts: Forced versus Natural Convection. Naturally, the air above the soup will rise and in turn the temperature of the soup will cool. When you blow on the top, you are forcing that convection, allowing more air molecules to flow away from the soup and cool it down.\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n\n",
"It is important to note that evaporation is a two-way street. The air above the soup already has water in it, and at any given temperature there is a certain amount of water that evaporates into the air and a certain amount of water vapor that condenses back into the surface of the water. However, the \"temperature\" that I am referring to is not the room temperature, it's the temperature of the air a fraction of a millimeter above the surface of the soup (because air molecules don't travel very far before they collide with each other), and the difference between this hot, wet air and the slighter less hot and wet air a bit above it, etc. There is a continuous gradient of hotness and wetness that all interacts, and of course air currents develop because the hot air rises.\n\nWhen you blow on the soup you replace the hot, wet air that had established a sort of equilibrium above the soup with cooler, dryer air and suddenly there is a lot fewer molecules of water going back into the soup from the air, fewer steam molecules beating down on the top of the soup and preventing some of the less energetic water molecules from getting airborne, etc.\n\nRichard Feynman has a great explanation of this in his very first \"Lecture on Physics\", section 1-3 \"Atomic Processes\". It's too long to type out here but it's a great illustration of how thinking about the world in terms of fundamental concepts (everything is made of atoms) can lead to simple explanations of all sorts of things that weren't obvious at the outset.",
"This is a good explanation from XKCD. It doesn't involve blowing but it uses stirring as the example. _URL_0_",
"Now a lot of people already gave excellent answers, but seeing as you have troubles understanding those, I will try to stay true to theme of this subreddit:\n\nThe soup is giving off its heat to its surroundings (the bowl it's in and the air above it). These surroundings get close to equal the temperature of the soup, creating an equilibrium, and thus no incentive for the soup to give off more of its heat (because everything nearby is almost the same temperature already). Now, if you blow on the soup, you move the hot air above it away, making room for colder air to get there and get itself heated up, thus giving the soup a reason to give off more of its heat again.\n\nAlso heat is particles moving faster, but completely random. If you take a section inside your hot soup, and look at your molecules in there over time, you will not be able to see a general direction of movement (statistically, and only if you didn't stir), e.g. for every molecule moving up there will be one moving down, for every molecule going right there will be one going left.\n\nYour breath does add kinetic energy (movement) to the whole system of your soup, but it is directed movement, and mostly added as mechanical energy. Only a (very very) small amount of it is added as heat. This addition of heat of yours is way too small to outweigh the benefit of blowing away the hot air above the soup, in total making your soup colder when you blow on it.",
"Remember heat energy is thermal energy, and the easiest to show how energy transfers.\n\nHeat is the amount atoms \"vibrate\" or \"excite\" when you heat an ice cube into liquid, and then into a gas, you have the water atoms slowly become more excited. At a solid, with thermal energy =0, the icecube has all the water atoms chilled out, and they stick together with their bonds.\n\nThen when the water thermal energy = 5, water is liquid. It's still together but the molecules can move more freely. They are moving about a little faster to break the bonds they hold together. \n\nWhen water is at steam, thermal energy = 10, the molecules are excited, and flip out. This creates a gas. They don't bond anymore to eachother, just fly around in a gas like form.\n\n\nSo, when you expel your cold air to a warm soup, you need to understand two things \n\nThere are two thermal energy levels at play here, the level of your air, the level of the hot soup.\n\nThe second thing to remember is thermal energy transfers from hot to cold. That is the hotter object will go to the colder one when it transfers it's energy, never the other way around.\n\n\nSo imagine this. You blow cool air into the hot soup. Your soups thermal energy is about 10, and the air you blow out is at 5. Remember air is not water, air molecules are excited into a gas like state at a very low temperature(amount of thermal energy) and that water molecules take a lot more energy to get Into a gaseous state.\n\nThis means the air can stay gas like and be colder (lower level of thermal energy) while water can be liquid yet be hotter (higher thermal energy)\n\nSo you blow into the soup. Now see what happens. \n\nRemember heat transfers high to low.\n\nThermal energy of the air you blow out is 5, it is cooler than the soup.\n\nThe soups thermal energy is 10\n\nWhen you blow the air to the soup, the air hits the soup, and now thermal energy will be conducted. Well, because high goes to low, what's happening is the soup is transferring its energy to the cooler air.\n\nSo over one second soup =9, air = 6\n\nTwo seconds, soup =8, air = 7\n\nThe air was cooler, and the soup was warmer, but what happened was the soup cooled because it transferred it's thermal energy to your air, which now got Warner.\n\nThe air will blow off into the air in the room, and now the soup will stay cool. \n\nIt's all about transferring this energy. Imagine when you put Ice cubes in a cup. Do the ice cubes cool the drink? Yes, but does the drink warm the ice cubes? Yes. It's always a transfer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_convection",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_convection"
],
[],
[
"http://what-if.xkcd.com/72/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
aqns66
|
the new funding bill is over 1100 pages long. how does a bill of this size get written so quickly, and how could it possibly get reviewed effectively?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqns66/eli5_the_new_funding_bill_is_over_1100_pages_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egha5xb",
"eghbhfa",
"eghcarf"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The bill itself is technically new, but the component parts are mostly from earlier versions of the budget or budget proposals that were previously submitted, with only a few changes between previous versions and the current version.\n\nAs the budget has been argued and debated for months at this point, the congress members are already very familiar with the bulk of the contained provisions and only need to familiarize themselves with any changes.",
"It is a mistake to assume that bills of this size are reviewed effectively - remember a year ago, when the 480-page budget bill had hand-written notes scribbled in the margins, and included provisions which surprised even the Republicans who voted for it once they actually read it after voting. It is almost certain that the new funding bill has not and will not be reviewed, and that large portions of it may be written poorly.",
"It's not written as a novel. There are thousands of line items, and their structural arrangement was decided long ago. What people have been debating is what values to put on a few dozen lines of a 1100-page long document. All the other lines, like fuel for the Coast Guard's helicopters, haven't changed in months.\n\nWhen each number is changed, somebody tweaks the paragraph describing it, and the 10 people who care about that line review it. Nobody reads it cover-to-cover because nobody cares about every line element."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
kgoxr
|
Relationship between Testosterone and Beard Growth?
|
I was wondering the correlation between Testosterone levels and beard growth.
I'm almost 25 and my facial hair is extremely patchy.
I've been reading around and some places say taking a testosterone supplements have shown to increased beard growth.
Looking to know more.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kgoxr/relationship_between_testosterone_and_beard_growth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2k4eel",
"c2k5zl4",
"c2k5zv3",
"c2k4eel",
"c2k5zl4",
"c2k5zv3"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
2,
4,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"/not an expert\n\nThere's more of a correlation between DHT than with straight Testosterone. DHT is a metabolite of T that has much stronger androgenic effects (hair growth being one of them). The conversion from T to DHT happens through an enzyme that is highly concentrated in the skin. This is why you can have someone with high T, but with relatively little facial or body hair. They have lower levels of the enzyme in their skin.",
"You could go to an endocrinologist and get your hormonal blood levels checked. \n\nThe relationship between testosterone and beard growth is more one of activation, rather than continual growth. Testosterone causes beard hair follicles to grow on the face. It doesn't play much of a role in keeping them active. They simply keep producing hair once the follicles are developed. \n\nThis can be seen in male-to-female and female-to-male transexual people. Unless they start really early, male-to-female trans people will already have facial hair when they start transitioning. They can take anti-androgens (which block testosterone) and estrogens. While this causes numerous effects including skin changes, brain chemistry correction, and breast development, it does not change facial hair. The hair follicles are already grown. They must be removed manually with laser or electrolysis hair removal.\n\nFor female-to-male trans people, testosterone does cause facial hair to develop. So there is definitely a causal relationship between testosterone and beard growth.\n\nNow, will it work for you? Who knows. If you have low testosterone, it might. The best bet would be to talk to the male members of your family. If you have considerably less facial hair than they did at your age, then it couldn't hurt to go have your hormone levels tested.\n\n*Woohoo, I can claim to be an expert at something! Being trans proves useful for once. :P*",
"/not an expert and not my field - basically first hand observation\n\nI worked in a family practice physicians office for a while and many men had blood tests showing low testosterone. I didn't notice any less (or more) facial hair or difference in their physique from those with normal results. ",
"/not an expert\n\nThere's more of a correlation between DHT than with straight Testosterone. DHT is a metabolite of T that has much stronger androgenic effects (hair growth being one of them). The conversion from T to DHT happens through an enzyme that is highly concentrated in the skin. This is why you can have someone with high T, but with relatively little facial or body hair. They have lower levels of the enzyme in their skin.",
"You could go to an endocrinologist and get your hormonal blood levels checked. \n\nThe relationship between testosterone and beard growth is more one of activation, rather than continual growth. Testosterone causes beard hair follicles to grow on the face. It doesn't play much of a role in keeping them active. They simply keep producing hair once the follicles are developed. \n\nThis can be seen in male-to-female and female-to-male transexual people. Unless they start really early, male-to-female trans people will already have facial hair when they start transitioning. They can take anti-androgens (which block testosterone) and estrogens. While this causes numerous effects including skin changes, brain chemistry correction, and breast development, it does not change facial hair. The hair follicles are already grown. They must be removed manually with laser or electrolysis hair removal.\n\nFor female-to-male trans people, testosterone does cause facial hair to develop. So there is definitely a causal relationship between testosterone and beard growth.\n\nNow, will it work for you? Who knows. If you have low testosterone, it might. The best bet would be to talk to the male members of your family. If you have considerably less facial hair than they did at your age, then it couldn't hurt to go have your hormone levels tested.\n\n*Woohoo, I can claim to be an expert at something! Being trans proves useful for once. :P*",
"/not an expert and not my field - basically first hand observation\n\nI worked in a family practice physicians office for a while and many men had blood tests showing low testosterone. I didn't notice any less (or more) facial hair or difference in their physique from those with normal results. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9zpavc
|
why are 32 cases of e. coli enough to issue a country-wide ban of romaine lettuce?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zpavc/eli5_why_are_32_cases_of_e_coli_enough_to_issue_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eaax9an",
"eaaxcas",
"eabgqbs"
],
"score": [
18,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because it shows widespread contamination of the food item and that is a major public risk. If they were all in the same local area they would only shut down that region, but because they are spread out it is a major risk. ",
"If you are a storeowner or restaurant that sells someone tainted lettuce and they get food poisoning (or their kid dies), that’s on you. You’re responsible. Look at what Chipotle has gone through due to multiple tainted food problems. \n\n",
"This is the not the first outbreak caused by Romaine Lettuce in recent years.\n\n\nJust like why we take a single case of Ebola very serious. We know that if we don't it will be a much bigger problem based on historical data. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
y4hbo
|
how r/braveryjerk works
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y4hbo/eli5_how_rbraveryjerk_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5s918a",
"c5s9a22"
],
"score": [
19,
13
],
"text": [
"If you're so brave you get uprons, and if you post there you are so brave.",
"1. Be So Brave\n2. Acquire le uprons"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5o46pi
|
why do we have differences interms of intelligence? some are smart and some are dumb as sh*t.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5o46pi/eli5_why_do_we_have_differences_interms_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcgg7k0",
"dcglfn3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So if we are the result of a long line of procreation with similar genes, then other people are too. Our traits, capacities and affinities travel through generations - including our mental abilities. We often run into others who are weaker than us in one way or another, just as they would also be stronger in some other way (maybe). \n\nI hope that made sense.",
"It depends of many factors let's start , first we have to remember genes are transmitted from generation to generation so some characteristics of past generations I'll pass to future generations, also let's consider the next factors \n\n1- Education at low age \n2- Awakening of curiosity by the parents at low ages \n3- Self esteem \n4- How much money your family has \n\n// I'm not saying being rich makes you intelligent , just that people with more money has access to more educational resources\n\n5- When someone motivates you to do something you feel good doing it thus because you feel good doing it you I'll do it more and more constant every time therefore you'll be good at it\n\n6- Some people may appear to be dumb but they are good at other stuff that you haven't thought "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
qy34z
|
why is animal breeding widely known and accepted and evolution not?
|
Humans have been breeding animals for certain desirable traits for millennia, and with obvious and dramatic outcomes (e.g. all the breeds of dogs). How is it that the theory of natural evolution still meets with such resistance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qy34z/eli5_why_is_animal_breeding_widely_known_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c41d57t",
"c41eine",
"c41exbf",
"c41mmzf"
],
"score": [
31,
8,
29,
2
],
"text": [
"I THINK THE CREATIONIST YARN IS THAT ADAPTATION IS OK, BUT SPECIATION IS NOT. THAT IS TO SAY; THE BREEDS OF DOGS HAVE BEEN BRED TO \"ADAPT\" TO DIFFERENT (HUMAN-CREATED) NICHES, BUT THEY ARE STILL THE SAME SPECIES -- THEY CAN STILL BREED WITH EACH OTHER. \n\nTHE SORT OF COMMON-SENSE (WHICH I USE HERE AS A NEGATIVE TERM) UNDERSTANDING THAT IF A NEW SPECIES WERE TO EMERGE, THAT IT WOULD HAVE NO ONE TO BREED WITH BECAUSE IT HAS SPECIATED ALONE, CAN BE QUITE COMPELLING TO SOME FOLKS!",
"People either ignore it, or say that variations do happen, but they can't create different species. Some believe, that evolution happens, but God is influencing it. \n\nIt's not an issue of lack of education, or intelligence, but beliefs. When you get to view the world in a certain way, you'll start changing world to conform to your views. When you are an American Christian, then you'll see God in everything you don't understand. When you are a particle physicist, you'll see dark matter instead of abnormal gravitational behaviour.",
"Evolution is widely known and accepted, too.",
"Evolution is widely accepted, the polls showing that it isn't capitalise on the fact that to a large portion of the public \"evolution\" implies abiogenesis and a bunch of other topics regarding the origin of man, rather than a change in genetics over time. If they asked a clearer question, they'd get a much more sane looking set of results."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1c789r
|
If I were to sleep deprive a person until their death, what would the cause of death be?
|
As far as I know, science still does not have a definitive answer to why we need sleep. So my question is related to this.
Suppose I don't let this person microsleep either, they just have to go without any sleep at all until they die. Is it possible to kill a person this way?
NOTE: I of course would not actually do this to anyone, I'm just curious about this.
**Bonus question** (optional to answer, but somewhat related to the main question): Are there people who can't fall asleep due to a neurological condition which made them losing the ability to sleep? Does such a condition exist? Would it be possible for anyone to live without sleeping?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1c789r/if_i_were_to_sleep_deprive_a_person_until_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9dv69w"
],
"score": [
76
],
"text": [
"We don't know whether total sleep deprivation in humans leads to death. The longest any individual has undergone total sleep deprivation under controlled laboratory conditions is ~11 days. Under those conditions, cognitive function is greatly impaired along with other physiological functions, but there is no sign of any syndrome that may lead to sudden death.\n\nAdditionally, it's difficult to maintain total sleep deprivation over long periods of time. With increasing time awake, elements of sleep (including increased EEG theta power) or microsleeps begin to enter wake with increasing frequency.\n\n[Fatal familial insomnia (FFI)](_URL_2_) is an example of a disease in humans where individuals are unable to sleep and eventually die. However, it is not known whether death is due to sleep loss per ser, or to the prion disease.\n\nThe best known example of sleep deprivation leading to death is from [studies in rats](_URL_0_) where the rats lived on a flat circular disk above a pool of shallow water. Rats were paired, with two on opposite sides of a disk, separated down the middle by a barrier. One of the rats was constantly monitored by EEG. If they fell asleep, the disk began slowly rotating, meaning both rats would need to wake up and begin walking so as not to fall off into the water. The other rat was therefore free to take naps whenever the monitored rat was awake. This method results in a loss of up to 90% of sleep for the monitored rat and about 30% for the other rat.\n\nBoth rats therefore undergo a similarly stressful procedure, but the monitored rat dies after a couple of weeks, whereas the other rat has no serious problems. The cause of death under these conditions is still unclear, but evidence points towards [impaired immune function](_URL_6_) and [negative energy balance](_URL_5_), which may lead to [systemic bacterial invasion](_URL_1_).\n\nSome of these physiological responses -- including impaired immune response -- are a hallmark of sleep deprivation. However, death due to sleep deprivation has not been observed in other species, or even in rats sleep deprived by other means. Quoting from a [recent review](_URL_3_):\n\n > In a classic series of studies, Rechtschaffen and colleagues demonstrated that sleep deprivation in rats produces a consistent behavioral and physiological syndrome leading to death within 2–3 weeks [13]. The deprivation procedure did not completely eliminate sleep, but rather interrupted and reduced it by 70%–90% compared to controls who lost 30%–40% of their baseline sleep [14,15]. Deprivation greatly increased body temperature and food intake, but weight fell rapidly. A stereotyped pattern of fur discoloration and skin lesions occurred. Finally, body temperature fell and death followed. No similar syndrome has been described in mice or other mammals commonly observed in laboratories, or in rats sleep deprived by other means. Sleep deprivation in pigeons by the same technique used in rats is not lethal and produces none of the metabolic and thermoregulatory changes observed in rats [16]. Human sleep deprivation for as long as 11 days and chronic sleep restriction does not produce even the earliest signs of the autonomic changes seen in rats undergoing sleep deprivation by the ‘disk-over-water’ technique. Body temperature tends to fall in sleepy humans, rather than rising as it does in the initial stages of sleep deprivation in rats [17,18]. Humans whose sleep is reduced for long time periods tend to gain weight, rather than lose weight as rats do under 70%–90% sleep deprivation conditions [19]. Fatal familial insomnia, a rare genetic condition reported in humans, is not analogous to the disk-over-water method of sleep deprivation [13] because it is characterized by massive brain degeneration and autonomic dysregulation [20].\n\nThe only other example I am aware of for sleep deprivation causing death is in the case of selective brain lesions. The brainstem and hypothalamus contain many neurons involved in the regulation of wake and sleep. From 1915-1924, there was an epidemic of encephalitis that caused damage to many brain regions, including these sleep and wake regulatory neurons. This was studied by [von Economo](_URL_7_), who found that depending on the area of damage, the encephalitis caused different types of sleep disorders, including profound lethargy, profound insomnia, and inversion of sleep/wake cycles.\n\nLater experiments were able to localize these neurons and identify their specific functions and circuitry. In 1946, [Nauta et al.](_URL_8_) lesioned some of these brain regions, resulting in either constant sleep or constant wakefulness. Here is what they report:\n\n > In a number of rats the lesion of the hypothalamus was followed by a condition of sleeplessness. After regaining consciousness some of these animals were restless and irritable, reacting vigorously to minor stimuli. Their condition closely resembled the sham rage observed by Fulton and Ingraham in cats after prechiasmatic lesions, and described by Bard as a result of decerebrations through the rostral part of the diencephalon. In a number of operated rats no such change of character was observed, the animals remaining as quiet as before the operation.\n\n > In both groups the normal alternation of wake and sleep had completely vanished. Naturally this fact could only be ascertained by means of a continuous observation of the animals. The normal difference in activity between day and night -- established by Szymanski who in a space of 24 hours registered an average of 14 hours of sleep distributed over 10 period, which were longer and more frequent during the day than during the night -- was in this way found to have disappeared completely, the rats being awake whenever they were observed. The animals showed a normal interest in their environment. Their general condition was excellent at first and they spontaneously took food and drink. Soon, however, their state deteriorated, which is not surprising considering the large amount of sleep to which the rat is accustomed. After a period of 24 hours the sleepless rats usually began to show symptoms of fatigue. They did not eat or drink of their own accord and their interest in the surroundings decreased. Symptoms of sham rage, if present, persisted. In spite of the fatigue and even of the succeeding exhaustion during which the gait became unsteady, sleep was not forthcoming, the opened eyes and the spontaneous activity proving that the animals were awake. After a period averaging three days the exhausted animals fell into a state of coma which soon ended in death. A return of the sleeping capacity was never observed in any of the animals.\n\n > We did not observe hypothermia in sleepless rats, nor did these animals develop purulent infections of mucous membranes.\n\nAgain, it's not known what the cause of death was, but it is an interesting experiment. It's also worth noting that [a more recent experiment](_URL_4_) involving lesions of this brain region and EEG recordings found only a 60% decrease in NREM sleep that persisted for at least three weeks without death, although the lesioning method was different.\n\n**TL;DR:** We don't know if sleep deprivation is lethal for humans or other species. In some cases (disk-over-water or brain lesion), it seems to be lethal in rats. That may be due to impaired immune function, but we don't know for sure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://aegean.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Blumberg/Course_Docs/Seminar.2008/Readings/Rechtschaffen.1983.pdf",
"http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/278/4/R905.short",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia",
"http://www.aquacircle.org/images/dok/siegel%202008%20do%20all%20animals%20sleep.pdf",
"http://www.jneurosci.org/content/20/10/3830.short",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016643289500009I",
"http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/265/5/R1148.short",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_von_Economo",
"http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=1947-00093-001"
]
] |
|
6u8ywz
|
what is the biological reason behind human toddlers instinctively pointing at things with the index finger ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6u8ywz/eli5_what_is_the_biological_reason_behind_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlqtsl3",
"dlqu4yw"
],
"score": [
10,
12
],
"text": [
"Are you sure that's instinctive? I think parents pointing at things in front of children is where that comes from.",
"So from watching my own child, it's not so much instinctual, it's more of a learning process. They do things to get your attention as they are a baby and eventually they find that waving their hands in the direction of something will make you look over there, and it kinda just goes on from there.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5m6mbp
|
At the end of Civil War what happened if you were southern soldier with outstanding wages?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5m6mbp/at_the_end_of_civil_war_what_happened_if_you_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc1nhpz"
],
"score": [
44
],
"text": [
"You didn't get paid - simple as that. The same thing happened to people who had bought Confederate war bonds. The government responsible for paying them was defunct, and the Union wasn't about to subsidize the Confederacy's debts. This is specifically addressed in the 14th Amendment:\n\n > Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.\n\nNow, the former Confederate states *did* assume the obligation of paying pensions to aged veterans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2k7v9m
|
Why was England so behind militarily during the First English Civil War? Were they behind in other ways to the Continent?
|
So I am currently listening to the great Mike Duncan Podcast "[Revolutions](_URL_0_)", and the first segment is about the English Civil War. After listening to Duncan's awesome series on [Rome](_URL_1_), I was really surprised to hear about the seemingly disorganized and unprepared armies leading into the English Civil War; I would imagine Caesar or Constantine could have their way with these armies even without muskets.
So my question is why was England's Military so behind at this point? My British history didn't previously extend far beyond the late 18th century so I was surprised to find what would become the strongest empire was recently amongst the least powerful. Were the English just lagging behind the innovations made on the continent during the 30 years war? But even with that in mind, I was shocked by the small size of the armies and the overall disorganization there appeared to be. Assuming this, what changed to take the British Empire from bumbling pike pushes to a world power?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2k7v9m/why_was_england_so_behind_militarily_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clis71i"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"The issue was not them lagging behind in \"innovations\" but stems from your observation of the small size of armies and overall disorganization and there's very good reason for that. On the tail end of the Medieval Era during the War of the Roses what existed of England's highly professional military establishment, which had its roots in the Hundred Years' War, would effectively destroy itself. The Tudors, who took control in the aftermath in 1485, as Koch says, *\". . .was not based on a strong military organization but on a rather refined local policing and administrative system, seeing the growth of the Justices of Peace.\"*^1 The dynasty would in all practicality destroy whatever remained of England's professional forces.\n\nWhat existed harkened to mainland Medieval history; that is that each county would be required to provide soldiers and officers proportional to the size of the county. In other words, a militia. Prior to this, outside of Ireland, there was no other standing army though. These forces were raised and destroyed as the occasion demanded; such as against the Scots. There were some attempts to create a voluntary standing army but Parliament had an inherent distrust of potential power abuses stemming from one and thus never followed through in allowing it.^2\n\nThe simple fact that makes everything pretty clear is that between 1485 and 1642 England, outside of their Irish territories, had no and largely had no reason for a standing army. On the eve of the Battle of Edgehill Parliament would approve the first standing army in a long time; the Eastern Association of Norfolk, Suffolk, Huntingdon and Lincolnshire -- Oliver Cromwell's constituency.^3 This effort would be helped largely by those few who fought in the Thirty Years' War in the Dutch, French, Spanish, and German Imperial armies. It would be crucial that these men would be there during this process to help bring continental ideas, at least in a rudimentary fashion, to what would eventually be called the \"New Model Army.\"\n\nDespite what this man would do later on in the political realm and despite his bias against Presbyterians (he was known to dismiss Presbyterian officers for that reason^4 ) his genius in the aspect of war can not be ignored. Within just a few years Cromwell would take an army which was comprised of literally nothing and turn it into a thoroughly professional standingarmy; one which promotion would (in general) rely on merit and where discipline would be universal and just. To quote Koch in mass:\n\n > *\"Nevertheless, Cromwell's political shortcomings cannot detract from his achievement of creating an army as disciplined and armed as it was effective. The pike, a prominent weapon in 1643, had been virtually replaced by 1650. When the Civil War began pike sand muskets operated together but in a rather disorderly fashion and without the tactical organization deployed on the continent. Pikes served as defense against cavalry attacks but there is also evidence that units equipped with pikes fought one another. Gradually, however, the musket won the upper hand, particularly when it could be used as a club in close combat. Another factor in favor of the musket was the greater mobility and speed of the musketeers, who wore no armor whatsoever. In the first years of the Civil War the distance infantry could cover on foot was 10 to 12 miles a day. With the discarding of armor and the introduction by Cromwell of uniforms - red coats - the average marching distance increased to 15 to 16 miles a day. The closing campaign of the first Civil War, the second Civil War and the subjugation of Ireland and Scotland bore witness to growing professionalism.\"*^5\n\nCromwell would, like Adolphus, begin to address the issue that would plague late 17th and 18th century warfare -- decisiveness. This was a period of warfare in continental Europe where no one side could, in layman terms, force the issue. Decisiveness is critically important in warfare and Cromwell would note the necessity of this. Out of this Cromwell, like Gustavus fighting in Germany, would place heavy emphasis on artillery. The sieges of Pembroke Castle, Pontefract, and later Drogheda showed the result of these siege trains. Both Wexford and Ross would negotiate surrender after the first day of bombardment. He was not a man of slow maneuvering and countermaneuver. MacArthur's maxim in World War II may as well have been Cromwell's: There is no substitute for victory. \n\nHowever, with that said, he was still no Gustavus Adolphus. He was no Wallenstein. He was no Tilly. He or his English contemporaries were, ultimately, relying on adapting the techniques and tactics which were already in practice elsewhere. They were by not revolutionaries they were, as can be said loosely, enrolled in crash course continental warfare; they were catching up. \n\n-----\n\n^[1] H.W. Koch, *The Rise of Modern Warfare: 1618-1815*, 51\n\n^[2] Koch, *Modern Warfare*, 51\n\n^[3] Koch, *Modern Warfare*, 51\n\n^[4] Koch, *Modern Warfare*, 53\n\n^[5] Koch, *Modern Warfare*, 57"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/",
"http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
19sbg9
|
black lights
|
What exactly do they do, and why do certain things glow under them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19sbg9/eli5_black_lights/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8qv8u9",
"c8qvph6"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Black Lights basically work the same way as \"normal\" light. When light hits a surface it bounces off. Depending on the material the light that bounces of is viewed differently, this is how we can see different colours.\n\nThe difference between black light and \"normal\" light is that the wavelength is much longer so that we cannot normally perceive the light itself. However when black light comes into contact with specific materials it bounces of in a way that we can see it.",
"Any light source emits energy at a certain wavelength in the [electromagnetic spectrum](_URL_0_). \nRed lights emit wavelengths in the red region, so everything that can reflect red light looks red. The same is true for any color of light. Blue lights make things look blue, green lights make things look green. Black lights emit light on the edge of the Ultraviolet range, which if you look at the picture, is outside the range of \"visible light\". That's why when you are under a black light, everything looks black. Things that can reflect UV light, would look \"UV\" but you can't see UV light, so they look like they are reflecting no light. **EXCEPT** when certain materials are hit with UV light, they absorb some of the energy, or change the wavelength of the light they reflect so that it enters the visible range. This is what makes them seem to glow, they are reflecting visible light, while everything around them is reflecting \"invisible\" light. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.liparanormalinvestigators.com/images/articles/spectrum.jpg"
]
] |
|
ghzjx
|
Chemicals in the brain. Where do they come from?
|
Serotonin, dopamine/norepinephrine, and a few others that I've forgotten what they are and can't find them with a quick google search... "The runners high" one.
Does the brain produce these? Are they just signals and not physical chemicals? Does a different organ produce them and they travel through the blood to the brain?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ghzjx/chemicals_in_the_brain_where_do_they_come_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1nomi5",
"c1nop6a",
"c1npcns",
"c1npkjp"
],
"score": [
4,
11,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"According to the google, they are produced in the cyton, or soma; the body of the nerve cell that contains the nucleus. They are then transported to the synaptic vessicles where they wait to be released by an action potential by stimulation. \n",
"Does the brain produce these? - Yes, it does!\n\nAre they just signals and not physical chemicals? - Both! Brain cells signal each other using chemicals. Electrical impulses travel within neurons, but when one neuron talks to another, it uses chemicals.\n\nDoes a different organ produce them and they travel through the blood to the brain? - The neurotransmitters you mentioned are created in the brain, which is true for pretty much all of the \"brain chemicals\", exceptions aside. For something to get into the brain, it has to cross the \"blood-brain-barrier\" which is very selective about what gets through",
"Interesting note: many normal metabolites outside the brain have very different functions inside the brain. Glutamate for example is a neurotransmitter inside the brain, but outside its just a normal metabolite found in high concentrations. Thats why the brain is \"chemically locked\" from the rest of the body: everything that gets into the brain has to be given a permit of sorts at the *Blood Brain Barrier (BBB)*. Many problems arise when this barrier breaks down (does so in some disease cases), as there will be some good amount of unregulated traffic of important chemicals within the brain.\n\nAlso within the brain itself the chemicals can mean very different things depending on their localization. Being outside the cell would mean a completely different thing than being present inside. Going back to glutamate, this is again an important intermediate in essential biochemical pathways (I think) and that function goes on just fine within the cells of the brain while the same thing's presence outside will mean a neurotransmitter signal. Location matters, literally.",
"Quick answer: pretty much every protein in the body is produced from DNA, in the typical DNA - > RNA - > protein. Many of these proteins are involved in enzymatic reactions involving synthesis of any sort of molecule, including neurotransmitters.\n\n\nYou can head over to Wikipedia and look up the chemical pathways for practically any neurotransmitter or substance in the brain. For example, [this is how Dopamine is synthesized](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine#Biosynthesis"
]
] |
|
6zwlx6
|
How can you algebraically solve x^x=5?
|
I looked up the answer on wolfram alpha but the math it was using made absolutely no sense to me. Can someone at least explain what type of math is required in order to solve this? Also, how and why does e show up?
_URL_0_
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6zwlx6/how_can_you_algebraically_solve_xx5/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmyyfet"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"How do you solve e^(x)=5 algebraically? You invent a new function, log(x), that satisfies e^(log x)=x , and then just say that x=log(5) is the solution. We didn't *really* solve it, we just gave a name to the solution (along with the new function) and pretended that this meant it was solved. We're essentially saying \"The solution is what it is, and we shall call it 'log(5)'!\"\n\nSame thing here. What is the solution to x^(x)=5? We can't solve it algebraically, so we'll just give a name to it (along with a new function) and pretend that we solved it. The solution is whatever it is, and we shall call it \"e^(W[log 5])\".\n\nThough there is a little more to it. Technically, we are not naming solutions to things like x^(x)=5, we are naming solutions to things like xe^(x)=A (for some value A). We can't solve this algebraically, but we know that it has some solution so we'll just label it (whatever it is) to be \"W(A)\". So the *real* algebraic work it to take something of the form x^(x)=5, and rewrite it as te^(t)=A. If we put t=log(x) into te^(t)=A, then we get xlog(x)=A. Since t=W(A) is the solution to te^(t)=A, it follows that x=e^(W[A]) is the solution to xlog(x)=A. Now, we can also rewrite x=e^(log x), which means that x^(x)=e^(xlogx). So we really want to solve e^(xlogx)=5=e^(log 5), which means we are trying to solve xlog(x)=log(5). Luckily, we've given an arbitrary name to the solutions of this type, and so we get the solution x=e^(W[log 5]). \n\nThe function W(A) is the [Lambert W Function](_URL_0_), and it's not really a function for all A, but for log(5) it is."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5Ex%3D5"
] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_W_function"
]
] |
|
16y639
|
al jazeera vs cnn bias
|
I love al Jazeera but recently there have been some news surfacing about the Syrian war bias. And every time I tell my friends how well rounded this source of news is and how much information they provide compared to any other news channel they tend to point out it's source of funding. Is it really bad that it is funded by the Qatar government? What are some positives and negatives of this news network?
Edit: I realize all news sources are biased. I just want to know what these two channels are accused of leaning towards. I know CNN is criticized for being too liberal. What about Al Jaeera. I just need a good argument for my opinion.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16y639/al_jazeera_vs_cnn_bias/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c80g62g",
"c80nr1x"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"All news sources are biased. They can attempt to control that bias, and there's no reason to believe Al Jazeera does this any less than CNN, but at the end of the day choosing what to report and how to report it is an inherently biased process.\n\n(By the way, Al Jazeera is funded primarily by Qatar, not Saudi Arabia.)",
"al Jazeera tends to have a slight pro-Arab, pro-Muslim bias, but is a fairly reputable news organization.\n\nThe problem is, a lot of people consider a strong pro-US bias to be \"normal\", and consider anything without it to be biased.\n\nCNN, on the other hand, has a pro-celebrities-I-don't-give-a-fuck-about bias."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3j5vqk
|
tennis challenges and how that technology works.
|
Is it lasers or something. That seems like bullshit
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j5vqk/eli5_tennis_challenges_and_how_that_technology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuml1x0"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"You mean that Hawk Eye thing? If so, it has a bunch of high speed cameras covering all angles of the court, because there are multiple angles, a very expensive computer program is able to figure out where the ball bounced, and the speed of the ball factors in how \"squished\" the ball is when it impacts. \n \n[Here is a 2 minute video on it.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://youtu.be/XhQyVnwBXBs"
]
] |
|
pt2qy
|
If a photon's frequency determines its color, how does combining colors work?
|
My understanding of light is that the frequency determines color. But if you shine a green light and a red light at a (white) wall, it appears to us as yellow. Are both green and red photons being reflected and processed by our eye somehow? Or, maybe if both green and red photons hit the electrons in the wall, then they emit a yellow one?
If my first hypothesis is true (that the eye is actually doing the "merging") then how does that work chemically? It must mean that our eye treats green + red photons the same as yellow photons, which is pretty fascinating.
If the second is true, then how does that work with respect to energy levels? The frequency determines energy, so if you get a green and red photon then maybe you emit 2 yellow photons? What about red + blue photons - magenta is a higher energy photon so would it emit fewer?
Follow-up bonus question:
Why are there 3 primary colors of light? I suspect this has more to do with the chemistry in our eye than any properties of EM waves, since AFAIK there is nothing special about the range of the EM spectrum that makes up visible light.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pt2qy/if_a_photons_frequency_determines_its_color_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3s0x94",
"c3s133o",
"c3s1mpd",
"c3s2uif"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Your eye has different [cones](_URL_1_) for different colors, so the actual 'merging' is done in your brain. ('color' is ultimately defined perceptually, since what we call a 'color' doesn't always correspond to specific wavelengths, as you seem aware)\n\nTwo-photon absorption (and emission) does exist. But it's an exceedingly unlikely thing in the best of circumstances. In practice it's only seen with certain materials where it's unusually likely to occur, and with high-intensity laser beams.\n\n > Why are there 3 primary colors of light? I suspect this has more to do with the chemistry in our eye than any properties of EM wave\n\nMore or less. [Here's a CIE diagram](_URL_0_), which is a 'map' of the colors we can perceive. The round edge corresponds to pure wavelengths of light, while the middle part corresponds to mixtures of them. So white is roughly in the middle. It's not a 'true' diagram of course, because your computer monitor can only actually display a subset of all the colors you can perceive. There's more green because our eyes are most sensitive to it, we can distinguish green hues better than reds or blues.\n\nAnyway, so if you make a triangle with red-green-blue as the corners, you'll see that you'll fit most colors inside of it. That's why they work as primary colors. But you don't have to use those three. you could also pick cyan, magenta and yellow, too. (a triangle rotated about 60 degrees compared to R-G-B) You could choose any colors you like, but to work well, you want them to span as much area of the diagram as possible.\n\nBut R-G-B is in fact the set of colors our eyes work with. It is chemical, ultimately amounting to three different variants of the photoreceptor proteins [photopsin](_URL_2_).\n\nThere _are_ some properties of visible light that make it more-or-less best for seeing with. UV radiation doesn't penetrate so far, it's absorbed by lots of stuff; and it's chemically 'harder' to absorb with specificity because it's so energetic. X-rays, on the other hand, well there's no a lot of them. Radio waves simply don't interact with almost anything at the 'chemical' level, so it'd be hard to evolve. While IR radiation would be very 'noisy' due to heat, and therefore also difficult to detect with specificity. \n\nThe visible range is a good one; it has a lot of energy, but not so much energy that it's easily absorbed or often breaks chemical bonds. Many things, most importantly perhaps, air and water, don't absorb much of it. \n\n\n\n",
"I'll take a stab at answering this\n\n > Are both green and red photons being reflected and processed by our eye somehow? Or, maybe if both green and red photons hit the electrons in the wall, then they emit a yellow one?\n\n\nYes to the first part. The waves are not combining to form a light that is at the yellow frequency. Electromagnetic waves at both green and red frequencies are being reflected and absorbed by our eyes. Our eyes have cones which can pick up red, green, and blue, so in this case the green and red cones would be stimulated and our brain would process this as yellow.\n\n\n > It must mean that our eye treats green + red photons the same as yellow photons, which is pretty fascinating.\n\n\nCool right? Our brains do a sort of \"average\" of different light frequencies based on the color wheel to come up with the final color we see. To prove this to yourself, look at the electromagnetic spectrum and think about this: what is the frequency of magenta?\n\n\n > If the second is true, then how does that work with respect to energy levels? The frequency determines energy, so if you get a green and red photon then maybe you emit 2 yellow photons? What about red + blue photons - magenta is a higher energy photon so would it emit fewer?\n\n\nHmm, sounds like you need to do some more reading on photons and electromagnetic waves. The color of light depends on it's wavelength, or the frequency at which the emf is changing. There are no \"yellow photons\" or \"red photons\".\n\n\n > Follow-up bonus question: Why are there 3 primary colors of light? I suspect this has more to do with the chemistry in our eye than any properties of EM waves, since AFAIK there is nothing special about the range of the EM spectrum that makes up visible light.\n\n\nLike I said earlier, our eyes have three types of cones which can pick up red, green, and blue. But there are other color systems as well, like CMYK which is used for printing.\n\n\nhope this helped !",
"Oh, I know this one =) There are some wavelengths (like for example some specific shade of yellow) that are indistinguishable from some combination of wavelengths (like, some specific combination of green and red wavelengths). They would be different light beams in the sense you could distinguish them with instruments, but not by looking at it.\n\nThat's because we don't perceive the light wavelengths themselves. We perceive the light excitation on cones. Our cones have response curves in a way that it's possible for a light beam with a given frequency to excite them exactly like two beans of different frequencies. See [this](_URL_3_). Notice the overlap and general spreading: the green cones actually absorbs a lot of wavelengths we wouldn't recognize as \"green\" - and the reason we don't recognize the yellow or orange wavelength as green is that the red cones will absorb it too\n\nIf you add more cones, you may be able to distinguish more colors. In fact, many combinations we see as being \"the same\", would be considered as different colors by other species, like birds. The inverse is true for people with color blindness.\n\nA fascinating thing is that our imaging systems (computer displays, image compression techniques, etc) are geared towards [color spaces](_URL_2_) similar to the space of colors we can recognize. A computer graphics professor of mine once said that such images would seem unnatural to some other animals because there would be a bunch of colors missing.\n\n**edit**: while researching in order to answer this, I learned that [some colors can only be represented by a mix of multiple wavelengths](_URL_0_). For example, pink. Other colors, that can be a single wavelength, are called [spectral colors](_URL_1_).",
"As some of the other comments have pointed out, color is a psychological phenomenon, not a physical property of light. So whenever you're talking about how color perception works, if you're going to do it properly, you need to be careful not to talk about colored photons or colored light waves. Light doesn't have a color, it has a frequency. (The frequency is related to the wavelength, in the sense that the product of the two is the speed of light, but that's not important here.)\n\nYou've of course heard that the energy of a light wave is related to its frequency. But it's a bit more subtle than that. The frequency is actually related to the _quantization_ of the light's energy; in other words, the energy carried by light is emitted and absorbed in discrete \"packets\" (quanta), and the frequency determines the size of the packet. You can kind of think of a light wave as containing various numbers of various sized packets; for example, you might have 100 packets of size 32.14, and 72 packets of size 41.104, and 16 packets of size 44.779, for a total energy of 100×32.14+72×41.104+16×44.779=6889.952.\n\nThese packets are important because, as I said, light can only be emitted or absorbed one packet at a time. This is where energy levels come in. Suppose you have an atom or molecule (or crystal or whatever) with energy levels at 10.225, 31.115, 64.706, 105.810, and so on. If the system (atom, molecule, etc.) is in one energy level, and if a wave comes along that happens to include a packet with energy _exactly_ equal to the difference between that energy level and a higher one, then the system can absorb the packet and \"jump\" up to the higher energy level. For example, suppose this system - let's say it's an atom, for concreteness - is in the third energy level, so that it has energy 64.706. If the light from the previous paragraph comes along, then the atom could absorb a packet with energy 41.104 because that is exactly the right amount of energy to \"promote\" it to the fourth energy level: 64.706 + 41.104 = 105.810. The atom will later \"drop\" down to the lower energy level, giving off the same amount of energy (41.104) in the process, but this time the energy could be turned into heat or an electrochemical potential or some other form, not necessarily light. This is basically how the photosensitive proteins (photopsins, thanks to Platypuskeeper) in your eye work: they have an enormous number of energy levels, perhaps even a continuous spectrum, so they can absorb many many different sizes of packets of light. As I understand it, the transition that takes place involves the protein restructuring itself in some manner, basically changing shape, and that change in shape triggers the sending of a signal along the optic nerve to the brain. The strength of the signal that gets sent this way depends on how exactly the protein restructures itself, which in turn depends on the size of the energy packet it absorbed.\n\nNow, again as other comments have mentioned, there are three different types of cone cells on your retina, usually labeled red, green, and blue. But the labels are misleading. What really makes the difference between these three types of cones is that each one contains a different kind of photosensitive protein. The photopsin that exists in the \"blue\" cone cells is most sensitive to a particular frequency that we happen to perceive as blue, meaning that it sends the strongest signal when it absorbs an energy packet whose size corresponds to this particular frequency. But it can absorb energy packets of other sizes as well, and it will still send signals to the brain, just not as strong. The same goes for the other photopsins: the \"green\" one sends the strongest signal when exposed to a particular size of energy packet which we perceive as green light, and the \"red\" one sends the strongest signal when exposed to the energy packets which we perceive as ~~red~~ [yellow-green](_URL_2_) light. (I told you the names were misleading! For this reason the cones are called \"long\" for red, \"medium\" for green, and \"short\" for blue, or simply L, M, S.) In each case, the protein will send signals for a whole range of frequencies, just not as intense ones as it will for the peak frequency. The function that describes how strong a signal a given protein sends for a given frequency of light is called a _response curve_, and Wikipedia has a [graph of the response curves for each of the three photopsins](_URL_0_).\n\nArmed with those response curves, consider what happens when, say, monochromatic yellow light (and remember, by this I mean light of the particular frequency that we perceive as yellow, because light doesn't actually have color) falls on the eye. To be concrete, suppose I'm talking about light of wavelength 580 nm, which corresponds to a frequency of 5.2×10^14 Hz and an energy packet size of 3.4×10^-19 J. According to the [numeric data](_URL_1_) for the response curves, the L cones will send a signal of intensity 0.969429, the M cones one of intensity 0.653274, and the S cones one of intensity 0.000109. The brain receives these three signals and processes them, and comes up with the psychological concept of \"yellow.\" (As usual, the story appears to be much more complicated than that, but hopefully this is the basic idea.)\n\nBut consider this: instead of sending light of wavelength 580 nm, you could send some combination of light at, say, 570 nm (the peak of the L response curve), 543 nm (peak of M), and 442 nm (peak of S) which would produce _exactly the same response_ as the 580 nm light, so that the brain would receive the exact same signal. (caveat: this particular example doesn't seem to work, but hopefully the point is clear) So your brain would conclude \"aha! yellow\" even though there is no light that has a frequency we would actually perceive as yellow. This is how computer monitors and TVs are able to work: each pixel consists of a tight cluster of LEDs (or phosphors, in the old days), one of which emits red light (i.e. light that we would perceive as red on its own), one green light, and one blue light. By controlling the intensities with which each of these color elements radiate light, you can control the degree to which each of the cones responds and simulate a whole bunch of different colors. Naturally, this allows you to produce combinations of the signals from the three cones which don't correspond to any single frequency of light, which is how you get things like magenta or white that don't actually have a wavelength."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931.png",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photopsin"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_color",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space",
"http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2003/white/excitation_of_cones.htm"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aCone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.svg",
"http://cvrl.ucl.ac.uk/database/data/cones/linss2_10e_5.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Physiology_of_color_perception"
]
] |
|
7b0cs7
|
What happens if we shoot an antiproton at a heavy element atom?
|
Would we create an atom of the element below it in the periodic table or would the energy of the annihilation be enough to blow the nucleus into smaller bits?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7b0cs7/what_happens_if_we_shoot_an_antiproton_at_a_heavy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpe7frx",
"dpeuvcw"
],
"score": [
30,
10
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of possible outcomes, depending on the center-of-mass energy. It could annihilate with a proton, it could scatter off of the nucleus (elastically or inelastically), it could create new particles like mesons or other baryons, etc.",
"If the antiproton has a high energy, there is no significant difference to a proton - it might scatter elastically, but if it hits the heavy nucleus then it typically rips apart the whole nucleus.\n\nIf the antiproton has a low energy, scattering is still possible, but the other option is now an annihilation reaction. That releases 2 times the proton mass as energy, about 1.9 GeV. That is more than the total binding energy of nearly all nuclei, so something will fly away most of the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
22cv2v
|
what do 'visine' eye drops do to your eyes, and why do they turn so white?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22cv2v/eli5_what_do_visine_eye_drops_do_to_your_eyes_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cglk7fw",
"cgll03w",
"cglt9jp"
],
"score": [
22,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"Visine is a vasoconstrictor -- it causes the blood vessels in your eye to contract. This lowers the blood flowing through them, and thus eliminating the red eye phenomenon.",
"User should be aware that there is a rebound affect, thus the eyes will be more red after the visine wears off than before use of visine. ",
"If you ever use visine and want to try something I think works better get some Rotos its like have breath mints for your eyes haha"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1r7yfr
|
why do companies like hospitals enter contracts with suppliers? isn't it a horrible idea to limit yourself to 1 vendor, where they can charge insane prices?
|
On the top of /r/rage, there is a post about how some crappy metal baskets cost 700 dollars, and there is no other way to get them because they are contracted to a medical supplier. Why on earth would a company make it so that they can only buy from 1 source, where that source is now free to charge things marked up 7000%? What could possibly be the benefit for the hospital in this case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r7yfr/eli5why_do_companies_like_hospitals_enter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdkj646"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They usually aren't free to charge whatever they want. Usually the contract specifies quantity and price, and usually you would get a preferential price compared to buying on the open market. It is entirely possible that the hospital ate the cost of a $700 basket because they were getting needles for $1 instead of $1.50 and they use more than 1400 needles for every basket they need (or whatever). Or maybe their supply chain people were horrible. Or there could be cronyism as well. But a $700 basket doesn't automatically imply corruption.\n\nIt is also possible that the basket had to meet certain requirements that a normal basket does not and that drives up price. Not that said requirements are always necessary, but that isn't on the supplier."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
slv5h
|
Why did the humans who migrated north develop white skin while those in Africa retained the original black color?
|
I know there's probably not a definite answer to this, but are there any theories as to what could have caused this?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/slv5h/why_did_the_humans_who_migrated_north_develop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4f1g98"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The leading explanation is that skin color adapts to sunlight intensities which produce vitamin D (at higher latitudes there is less sunlight) or ultraviolet light damage to folic acid. Other hypotheses include protection from ambient temperature, infections, skin cancer or frostbite, an alteration in food, and sexual selection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3l6rov
|
how do they know how things were pronounced in the past?
|
There was a post about how English was pronounced 500 years ago. Sure we have written words left over from back then, but how do we know how the pronunciation of these words has evolved?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l6rov/eli5_how_do_they_know_how_things_were_pronounced/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv3mkbq",
"cv3mn61"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"One source of information is poetry. If we can see that two words rhyme, then that's evidence that the endings of those words were pronounced the same.",
"Misspellings are another way. Usually a misspelled word is closer to the phonetic sound of that word. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
29iicn
|
why are fireworks considered patriotic?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29iicn/eli5_why_are_fireworks_considered_patriotic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cil8j35",
"cil8pgh"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"\"...the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air...\"\n\nI'm speaking for Murica, obviously.",
"John Adams suggested that fireworks be part of Independence Day celebrations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
da7xny
|
gauss-jordan elimination - algorithm to solve systems of equations.
|
I'm working on a voxel game and as a part of that I need to solve systems of linear equations programmatically, to generate a contour of the scalar field that my voxel data essentially is.
I'm a High School dropout, and I'm having lots of trouble with articles that start talking about "improving numerical stability via partial pivoting". I'm not trying to diminish validity of these articles, but being barely past HS level math it's tough to understand on my own.
I taught myself a bunch of math required for other things before, and I know that what they're describing is probably super simple but explained with jargon because it helps people in the field understand it faster; It's just so opaque to me, I can't help but get frustrated when I've got to look up every other term I see.
So, explain like I'm five, please?
---
*Bonus points if you could touch on how I can know that the system has no solutions or infinite solutions as algorithm goes on, as well as "least wrong" solution to a "no solution" case - I heard that's possible with GJ Elimination*
---
The above is appreciated but not required, thank you.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/da7xny/eli5_gaussjordan_elimination_algorithm_to_solve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1nts1c",
"f1o0a6a",
"f1oee4e"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It might help if you researched row reduction of matrices, that's what GJ really is. There's a lot of technical and mathematical jargon (linear algebra is a big field) but if you just need to learn how to solve them then that shouldn't be too hard. It's essentially just a process that you use to get a matrix (the matrix represents the linear equations) to something call \"reduced row echelon form\". Essentially it's just a defined process to simplify the matrix and solve the system.\n\nI feel like this picture is helpful\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt'll be helpful to know what level of understanding you're at - do you know how to write the system as a matrix?",
" > how I can know that the system has no solutions or infinite solutions\n\nThis can usually be determined by calculating the [determinant](_URL_0_). If it's zero, there will be either no or infinite solutions. If it's nearly zero, numerical solutions will be unreliable.\n\nIt sounds like you're smart and motivated enough, and in deep enough, that you should just go ahead and read a linear algebra textbook.",
"You don't, you steal instead.\n\nNo matter what language you are programming in, someone has written a tricked out matrix libraries that is faster, has fewer bugs, and more feature than anything you can write in a reasonable time. A big part of good programming practice is not reinventing the wheel when you don't have to. \n\n\\ > *Bonus points if you could touch on how I can know that the system has no solutions or infinite solutions as algorithm goes on, as well as \"least wrong\" solution to a \"no solution\" case - I heard that's possible with GJ Elimination* \n\nThe object of GJE is to transform you matrix into something that looks like this:\n\n`1 0 0 | 7`\n\n`0 1 0 | -2`\n\n`0 0 1 | 4`\n\nExpressing these as regular equations shows us why this is desireable:\n\nx = 7\n\ny = -2 \n\nz = 4\n\nIf a matrix has no solutions, you get:\n\n`1 0 0 | 7`\n\n`0 1 0 | -2`\n\n`0 0 0 | 4`\n\nThat last line is saying 0z = 4, which of course is impossible. There is no mathematical definition for the \"least wrong\" solution. For a 2x2 matrix, each row represents a line on a plane, and the solution is where they cross. When there is no solution, that means they are parallel and never cross. There is no single point that is the least wrong place where they cross. \n\nIf a matrix has infinite solutions, you get:\n\n`1 0 0 | 7`\n\n`0 1 0 | -2`\n\n`0 0 0 | 0`\n\nWhich means 0z = 0, which will be true for all z."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://images.app.goo.gl/4231XoEZuKxcZJ8d6"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant"
],
[]
] |
|
bd0ffi
|
Why does oxygen want to bond with other oxygen atoms? And why do we have a high amount of O2 but relatively low amount of O3 on earth?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bd0ffi/why_does_oxygen_want_to_bond_with_other_oxygen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekvxyg8",
"ekw16fr"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Because oxygen has 6 valance electrons that it can share, give, or take. It needs 8 valance electrons to form a full outer shell. So it typically forms a double bond (covalent) and both oxygen atoms get full outer electron shells.\n\nEdit: if you’re interested, there’s probably a khan academy vid or something about chemical bonds in the chemistry course.\n\nEdit 2: I don’t know too much about chemistry so idk about O3.",
"Atoms always react to get the most stable configuration possible. O2 is the most stable configuration and as such has no need to react any further, and therefore remains in air in that configuration. \n\nO3 is less stable and will therefore react (gain, lose or share electrons with other atoms) wherever possible, in an attempt to achieve a more stable configuration.\n\nEdit: Interestingly, it's this instability and reactivity that makes O3 so harmful to health, while O2 is essential to life.\n\nThis is why most countries have exposure standards for permissible concentrations of O3 in air.\n\nInhalation of O3 can damage lung tissue and exacerbate conditions such as asthma and COPD.\n\nPart of my job includes ensuring that workplaces meet these chemical exposure standards, and that suitable controls are in place to prevent the known adverse health effects in employees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2bxfns
|
how come that atoms can be sending signals, and detected through space? how are the atoms not becoming smaller from emission?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bxfns/eli5_how_come_that_atoms_can_be_sending_signals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj9v8nl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not exactly sure what you mean to ask. Let me try to rephrase your question, and you let me know if I lost the original intent. \n\n > If energy is conserved, and atoms lose energy when they radiate, how does an atom not lose energy (and therefore mass) when we detect light coming from it?\n\nThe answer is this: If you have a lonely atom in space, with nothing to interact with, already in its ground state (it doesn't have any extra energy), then it won't radiate. However, if you give the atom some extra energy (in the form of a photon, let's say), then the atom will eventually re-radiate an identical photon into space. \n\nAn atom can only radiate as much energy as it can suck from its surroundings. If you give it a constant supply of energy (by heating it, shining light on it, moving it, etc.) then it can happily radiate away the energy that you've given to it. If it can't suck any energy from its surroundings, then it won't radiate at all. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4x3mj2
|
how come soap fails to foam in rubbing alcohol (70% isopropyl)?
|
When I wash my hands with soap and water, it foams. Sometimes, I've tried to wash my hands with soap and rubbing alcohol, odd I know, but it doesn't foam at all (or it foams so little it looks like it's not foaming). Also, I've sprayed rubbing alcohol into a sink filled with foamy soap-water, the result is that the rubbing alcohol quickly eliminates all the soap bubbles.
My initial guess would be something to do with polarity, but looking online it appears both water and rubbing alcohol are polar.
So, I ask, how come soap fails to foam (or barely foams at all) when mixed with rubbing alcohol?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x3mj2/eli5_how_come_soap_fails_to_foam_in_rubbing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6c648a",
"d6c66ou"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Alcohol has a lower surface tension than water that prevents it from \"sticking together\" hard enough to create bubbles. \n\n[Ethanol surface tension](_URL_1_) — 22.00 mN m^-1 @ 293.15 K\n\n[Water surface tension](_URL_0_) — 72.75 mN m^-1 @ 293.15 K\n\nSo you can see, ethanol has around 3 & times; less surface tension than water. (I couldn't find data for isopropanol sorry)",
"Soap foams in water because of water's high surface tension; water likes to bond to itself way more than other molecules. In bubbles, the water molecules' bonds to other water molecules stabilizes the bubble against the weight of the bubble caused by gravity so the bubble is stable. \n\nAlcohol has way less surface tension than water. Alcohol bubbles cannot sustain itself against gravity so the bubble collapses."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ddbst.com/en/EED/PCP/SFT_C174.php",
"http://www.ddbst.com/en/EED/PCP/SFT_C11.php"
],
[]
] |
|
5v9ue3
|
the process of dating
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5v9ue3/eli5_the_process_of_dating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de0dad4"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"You meet someone.\n\nYou talk to them.\n\nYou do things with them.\n\nYou do more things with them.\n\nYou develop special things you only do with each other.\n\nYou do things together until you decide you want to do things with other people in the future or not.\n\nThen maybe you get married or break up but those are different eli5's."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9gcfv1
|
why do phones/laptops etc have so many different size screws in them? why not just use one size?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gcfv1/eli5_why_do_phoneslaptops_etc_have_so_many/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e633h8y",
"e638om7"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"First off, let’s only talk about assembly related screws. \nIf they are screws on different components, and the components are made by different companies, it makes sense that there’s no common ground between those right?\n\nNext there’s standard following screws that must be be a certain way to follow standards. The mounting screws for m.2 SSD for example must be that size. The mounting/ tension screws are also mostly the same types for a given chip/heat sink.\n\nSo last there’s the screws that are put in place by the assemblers. The mac book pro is the only one I’ve looked at that has more than like five types of assembly screws.\n\nSo the different types may be different regarding length. Longer screws lock things in place better, but not every place can support such long screws. On bigger laptops you might see a long screw type and short screw type locking the chassis down.\n\nNext you have size, which often comes hand in hand with the screw type (torx, Phillip, etc).\n\nPhillips screws are designed so that it’s harder to overtighten them. The head will wear out before you can tighten them too much. But due to this design, they are also extremely fragile when you shrink the sizes down. So the very small screws mostly use torx, which provides extremely well grip and doesn’t wear easily, making them suitable for the internal screws.",
"That's one of those things that has never made much sense, in my experience (I did IT support for a factory that made telecommunications equipment). One of the dumber reasons for having a ridiculous variety of fasteners in a product is that it can be very difficult to change the manufacturing process on the fly. For whatever reason, a designer specs a particular fastener for an application - and when it goes into production, it takes an act of God to change it.\n\nI remember several big multi-departmental exercises (that took *months* to complete) in which the goal was to prove that fastener A was identical in every respect to fastener B so that we could pick one going forward and stop ordering/stocking/forecasting the other. Having proven that, the next huge battle was over whether we wanted to use A or B. This sounds stupid, and it was - and it happens all the time. If factories have this much trouble eliminating obvious duplicates, you can imagine the uproar it takes to actually try to standardize on a smaller subset of more common fasteners.\n\nEverybody obviously knows that unnecessary complexity in a manufacturing environment is a bad thing, but it just takes ridiculous amounts of effort to change the process. Sometimes you get T-shirts and coffee cups out of the deal, though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2n54t0
|
What type of brain damage is caused by enlargement of the brain ventricles and how reversible is it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2n54t0/what_type_of_brain_damage_is_caused_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmav9pr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Nobody here is going to be able to help you sort out what it means to your parenthood, and what you'll overcome as a family. additionally, hydrocephalus is a widely variable disease, with wide variation in overall prognosis. nobody here will be able to give you a real good idea as to what to expect, that said, I'll explain what I can.\n\nHydrocephalus is a condition that results from a variety of causes. the brain produces cerebral spinal fluid, CSF, and that circulates from the ventricles, through the aqueducts, down through a channel in the middle of the spinal cord and out the opening on the end, and the CSF is reabsorbed in the sub-aracnoid space. \n\nany blockage along that route can cause a buildup of CSF, and the syndrome is named differently for different blockages. these disorders and others, like spina bifida, are usually caused by a neural tube defect- the fetal tissue that is to become the central nervous system fails to fold properly. \n\nThese neural tube defects are often caused by folic acid deficiency in the first trimester. bad morning sickness can make it difficult to get enough of the right nutrition early enough in pregnancy. poverty, too, is often a factor in maternal nutrition. \n\nhydrocephalus can also result from meningitis- if the meninges become inflamed and block the channels of CSF re-absorption, fluid will accumulate.\n\nNow I'll try to address your question about damage and how reversible it may be. treatment of Hydrocephalus is best with early intervention. if detected soon enough, a shunt, or catheter, can be placed \"upstream\" of the blockage. the shunt is runs under the skin and to the abdominal cavity where it is reabsorbed. \n\nif surgery can prevent the fluid buildup soon enough, the central nervous system may form in a very normal manner. \n\notherwise, the fluid buildup can cause two separate problems. one is, that the structures nearest the enlarged ventricle/s may be displaced, and unable to develop normally. clinical manifestation would vary depending on which structures are involved and how seriously they're affected. \n\nReversible... that's a tricky one here. I wouldn't say you can reverse, or fix, the structural damage. but the brain really is a fantastic piece of machinery, and whatever structural abnormalities exist, the brain will still form circuits and make connections. I think reversible is the wrong word; you've got to make do with the tissue you've got, and the damage isn't reversed, it's just, adapted to. so recovery/not reversal, comes with adapting to the tissue you've got. and I'm sure there's a lot of stuff online where you can get an idea of the trials and triumphs of parents in your situation. some are bound to be tragic, some very hopeful.\n\nSo the other, more dangerous cause of brain damage would be an acute increase in intracranial pressure ICP. this often does not happen in utero because the cranium is still soft and still forming, and accommodates the fluid. but if a shunt is installed and the shunt fails, and becomes kinked or blocked somehow, ICP will go up, causing progressively worse symptoms and if untreated, brain damage. this is different than the deformities that accommodate the larger ventricles. Brain damage from increased ICP is sudden and serious, possibly fatal. ischemia, herniation, and compression of brain tissue is are some of the causes of severe damage. \n\nAnyway, Only time will tell what you and your son will face. some follow-up reading had the hopeful comment that sometimes outcomes are very good. your doctor should go over the long-term plan, and the signs and symptoms that are telling of a medical emergency. good luck."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8d3lro
|
how close are scientists to finding out how to reverse aging in humans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8d3lro/eli5_how_close_are_scientists_to_finding_out_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxk36jb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This one requires an answer not explanation.\nMaybe you can rephrase?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1f5lia
|
I'm doing a presentation on the Quileute tribe. Anything I need to know about the culture of PNW Native Americans?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f5lia/im_doing_a_presentation_on_the_quileute_tribe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca71ihr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As a general over of the native peoples of the Northwest Coast, they were arguably quiet unlike other tribes from around the North Americas. The region they inhabited was rich in food and resources, with salmon runs and widespread game, as well as the large food sources of the Pacific Ocean. Because of the surplus supplies, these peoples were able to live relatively sedentary lives in large villages, as opposed to other tribes throughout North America, who weren't as settled. \n\nThe surplus food they enjoyed also granted them leisure time, and as a result, their art flourished, often relating to the natural world in which they lived, heavily featuring animals. Also, the large cedars of the Pacific North West also allowed them to create perhaps a defining feature of the natives of the region: Totem Poles. These intricate works were created by craftsmen, indicating specialization in their economies. They were also known for making large, ornate ocean going canoes, with a prime example as described by the British explorer Alexander Mackenzie, as inlaid with what appeared to be human teeth (later found out to those of otters). \n\nI could go on for days on the this topic, so if you have any other questions about the natives of the PNW coast, shoot me a PM!\n\nHope this helps! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1dhr5z
|
what are the factors that decide whether law is handled at thr state level vs the federal level?
|
I don't want to know the actual people that decide as much as I want to know why certain laws are handled federally and some are handled at the state level. Ex. Gun laws, gay marriage, differing divorce laws.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dhr5z/eli5_what_are_the_factors_that_decide_whether_law/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9qf3tc",
"c9qfaps",
"c9qg0ue"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"The US Congress is **only** allowed to pass laws and perform actions that it is given specific permission to do so by the US Constitution.\n\nHere is a [list of enumerated powers granted to Congress](_URL_0_).\n\nThere are also \"implied powers\" and that's where it gets a little bit fuzzy. Congress is allowed to regulate \"interstate commerce\" but because that's such a vague statement it often goes to the Supreme Court for interpretation.",
"The Constitution spells out what laws the federal government can pass and what laws states can pass. The interpretation of these rules is basically the purpose of the Supreme Court.\n\nTo keep it simple, the rules are thus:\n\nCongress can only pass laws on certain topics (Enumerated Powers), however Congress has a lot of wiggle room in there (Necessary and Proper Clause). Anything Congress passes laws on, states can't pass different laws on (Supremacy Clause). States can be more strict, but but not less. This is because anything that Congress doesn't regulate is a power retained by the States or individual citizens (Tenth Amendment).\n\nFunctionally, politics and public mood matter. Sometimes people yell \"tenth amendment\" other times they yell \"necessary and proper!\" They don't actually yell these things - that would be silly - but they say things that mean the same thing like \"states rights\" and \"compelling federal interest.\"",
"Since you have two good answers on Federal powers, I'll answer the State side of the question. The answer is that states have very few limits on what they can do -- they can make lots of decisions that are forbidden to the Federal government. This is part of what makes the states [\"laboratories of democracy\"](_URL_1_).\n\nHere are a few limits:\n1-States each have their own constitutions, which prohibit certain actions (differs by state), and guarantee certain rights to their state's citizens.\n\n2-They also have to abide restrictions in the US constitution. These are in Article I, Sec 10, and in Article IV. States can't coin money or impose tariffs, for instance, because the US Constitution says they can't.\n\n3-The Bill of Rights and other amendments to the US Constitution [have mostly been interpreted as also applying to the states](_URL_0_) (there are a few exceptions, like the 7th Amendment right to a jury in a civil lawsuit). Every state constitution protects the core rights like Freedom of Speech anyway, often copying the exact language of the US Constitution. But the state-level courts may interpret their state Constitution differently, so this is a double-safeguard against abuses of rights.\n\n4- If the Federal government makes a law, the US Constitution makes that law supreme over state laws. This means the states can't make laws that are contradictory. [Federal \"preemption\" ](_URL_2_) of state laws is a contentious subject that depends on the exact content and intent of the state and federal laws in question. For example, the Feds for the most part have exclusive regulation over car safety and air travel, even though those aren't exclusive powers granted in the US Constitution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_United_States_Congress#Enumerated_powers"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_Democracy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption"
]
] |
|
3249kq
|
why does it rain so much in april compared to other months?
|
*April showers bring May flowers*
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3249kq/eli5_why_does_it_rain_so_much_in_april_compared/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq7q4jq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your answer is one Google search away mate ;)\n\n > During spring, the best precipitation dynamics of winter and summer converge. In the upper atmosphere, jet streams remain strong and the air holds on to some winter chill. At the surface, sunlight is strong, warming the ground, water and lower atmosphere. Warm, moist air is less dense than cold dry air, causing it to rise into the colder upper atmosphere, squeezing out moisture into precipitation, not just in Chicago, but across most of the northern hemisphere. Not surprisingly, this abundance of atmospheric energy and moisture is why the peak of the severe weather season occurs in spring."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2v1ery
|
why do cats and dogs sneeze and yawn but not cough?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v1ery/eli5_why_do_cats_and_dogs_sneeze_and_yawn_but_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"codl835",
"codlc19",
"codorbb"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Dogs Cough. \n\nNever heard a Cat cough though. ",
"They do, you've just never heard one cough.",
"Both cats and dogs can cough. Cats coughing sounds really funny btw!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2jy087
|
how come i can vibrate my eyes?
|
I can conciously vibrate my eyes. Most people I've met cannot do it. Why am I able to? What's happening when I do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jy087/eli5_how_come_i_can_vibrate_my_eyes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clg3lj0",
"clg3y4r"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Muscles in eyes. Move muscles. Move muscles fast. *Vibration*.",
"I can do that, I'm curious to find out why as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
crltqr
|
why do some bugs splat yellow, and others splat white when they hit my windshield?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/crltqr/eli5_why_do_some_bugs_splat_yellow_and_others/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ex6qo31"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"So bugs are very small. They don't have a skeleton, so instead they have a rigid exterior, or an exoskeleton. This exoskeleton is hard and strong enough to deal with the attacks of other bugs. \n\nInside them, everything is packed together densly. Hairs, nerves etc are all squished together inside. So when this exoskeleton ruptures, the brains, nerves, eggs, guts, every organ that the insect or bug has will splatter all over. Depending on what is inside the color will be different, it is mainly yellow because their innards are yellow colored"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ij5kn
|
why does everything we drink, regardless of color, come out as either clear or yellow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ij5kn/eli5_why_does_everything_we_drink_regardless_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl2mejw",
"cl2mf4b",
"cl2mixq"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Most dyes that are in food and drinks aren't absorbed into into the blood stream, and therefore do not make their way to the kidneys and out your body in your urine. Dyes and food coloring typically stay in your digestive tract and are excreted in your stool",
"your body pretty much breaks everything down. what comes out is waste and + urobilin which gives it the yellow color.\n\nBonus: beets can make your pee pink or red and green beer can make it greenish.",
"The stuff you drink doesn't actually come out as pee. The water gets taken out and it comes out as poop. The water that's taken out will eventually be used to flush out waste from the cells in the form of pee. The waste in that pee is not from what we drank.\n\nYou can test this yourself by drinking (or getting your child to drink) a lot of brightly colored, cheap \"juice.\" Don't use real juice, just the bright stuff with those plastic-molded twist off cap bottles. You know the stuff. In a day or two, you (or the child) will have poop of that color.\n\nIt happens all of the time with kids, bright red \"juice,\" and parents freaking out thinking that their child has severe rectal bleeding."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4bqz7g
|
Why were both the Spanish peninsula and the Caucasus region called Iberia by the Greeks?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4bqz7g/why_were_both_the_spanish_peninsula_and_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1bz47d"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Mostly coincidence. Iberia in the case of Spain+Portugal comes from the Ebro River, while in the Caucasus it comes from a local Indo-european word \"Hber\".\n\nsince place names in Greek will pretty much always end in ia, the two places became known as the same.\n\nhomonym place names aren't too uncommon, a region on the Adriatic and in the caucasus were both called Albania, and a Region north of Portugal and north of Crimea are both called Galicia"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5ftr1z
|
why does scratching a wound give such a pleasure when it is considered bad ripping it up, leaving it open for infections etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ftr1z/eli5_why_does_scratching_a_wound_give_such_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dan1pk6",
"dan2372",
"dan2v42",
"dan2woy",
"dan5qe5",
"dan7t3o",
"danauji",
"dang9xk",
"danl5bd",
"danoo6v"
],
"score": [
499,
16,
351,
8,
40,
3,
56,
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"This question is still being researched today because there isn't a clear understanding of why we have an itchy response. But most believe the itchiness of a scab or cut is from the body releasing histamines as part of the healing process. Histamines cause mild allergic reactions, but signal to other cells to divide to fill the wound. \nThe pleasure part could just be from satisfying the itch, just like any other itch on your body, but in this case involves removing of a scab as collateral. \nSome people who habitually scrape at wounds and scratches are thought to have a form of OCD, but that is for extreme cases, and they may get pleasure from fulfilling their compulsion.",
"My thought was that it was a response that was to increase blood flow to a wound or clean wounds via bleeding.",
"LPT: Scratch beside the wound on both sides and it'll feel as though you're scratching it without disrupting the scar. ",
"I like to itch around it as to not make it prone to infection or any bacteria. But just applying flat pressure such as your palm and gently rotate it on the wound tends to alleviate the itch",
"This is almost certainly to call attention to the area so that you can evaluate a wound, sore, pustule, etc. The wound may be infected and in need of picking (draining), or it could be harboring parasites, or debris such as splinters or ingrown hairs. Since your body doesn't have a lot of sensory signaling mechanisms, itching/tickling serves as a universal, \"hey, check this out\" for a variety of potential issues.\n\nWhen a wound heals, itching usually comes later during the healing process when you are less likely to cause yourself an infection, and removing (debriding) scabs and dead tissue can help wounds heal.",
"When you have a cut or any break in the skin then you have a message to the brain that says \"look look! Something bad\" so you scratch. The message is supposed to be so you can make sure you're ok but it's not pain because the skin isn't cut deep enough to reach those receptors. It's because of a histamine response that's supposed to protect that part of your body and it's why using an allergy cream makes the itch go away. ",
"For me it's partly the tightness a scab can cause. Idk if I imagine it but sometimes you feel like the scab is pulling a bit so ripping it off is wonderful because it's a release. The other part is it's annoying to have a raised hard bump on your skin. You're hyper aware of it and keep running your hand over it and get a huge urge to take it off and be 'smooth' again. At least I do haha",
"Because not everything in our body makes sense. As long it doesn't kill (too early at least) it will go to your kids. Simple as that. So scratching an itch is pleasant and scratching a wound won't kill you in most cases. Evolution won't drop things that you can live with. ",
"Some sciencey show I watched a long while back said that itching injuries (not just scabs) was a thing because it temporarily numbed the nerve endings, making the pain go away.\n\nFrom that, I would guess that it generally feels good because your brain pumps some '*good boy*' chemicals in as a reward for 'removing' the source of pain.",
"I'm no entirely sure if this is what you're asking about, but I'll answer it as easily and simply as I can.\n\nThere is a known phenomenon where scratching around a wound can dull the pain or irritation felt. To understand why this effect is real, you have to look at the specific interactions at a nervous level. Pain goes through multiple pathways, two of which are the fast pain pathway (which tells your body the location of the pain) and the slow pain pathway (which communicates the typical discomfort associated with pain).\n\n[This image](_URL_0_) gives a very simple to understand example of Gate Control theory, which is responsible for the effect. Pain and touch go through separate pathways. In this case, the red line represents the pain pathway. As you can see, the touch pathway in blue can actually excite an interneuron, which in turn inhibits the pain pathway by releasing endorphins to effectively blunt the perception of pain. \n\nI hope this somewhat explains the idea that touching the area around a wound is pleasurable, or at the very least alleviates some the pain or irritation in an understandable and fairly simplistic manner."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://dealpain.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/gatecontroltheory.png"
]
] |
||
5h3dk8
|
how does dry heat cause nose bleeds?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h3dk8/eli5_how_does_dry_heat_cause_nose_bleeds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dax6udl"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"I believe that since the skin inside of your nostril is usually kept wet with lubricating mucus to at least some degree, drying it out would cause it to contract and crack more easily, causing a nosebleed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
32dstr
|
why do dogs go crazy, and get "the zoomies," after a bath?
|
Wow, front page! I never expected that to happen at all. I gave my dog a bath earlier, made this post, then went on to do laundry and other boring housework. Just got back on here to see if anyone had commented, and was surprised by all of the great responses...thanks guys! TIL my dog FRAPs out after a bath, and your dogs do too!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32dstr/eli5_why_do_dogs_go_crazy_and_get_the_zoomies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqabgcx",
"cqac4nk",
"cqacseu",
"cqadof3",
"cqaekzm",
"cqaepbx",
"cqaf8cr",
"cqaff7a",
"cqafh1t",
"cqafog0",
"cqafpfy",
"cqagijl",
"cqagkzs",
"cqagq3z",
"cqagyia",
"cqahbg7",
"cqahl6a",
"cqahlpv",
"cqahm2q",
"cqahu0d",
"cqahzi8",
"cqai7je",
"cqaicl9",
"cqaj2zs",
"cqaj4g4",
"cqaj8qq",
"cqajg3n",
"cqajh1x",
"cqajodx",
"cqajs2c",
"cqajzh4",
"cqak76c",
"cqakbbg",
"cqakkea",
"cqako3v",
"cqal6sd",
"cqalaa7",
"cqalpne",
"cqalq94",
"cqam06q",
"cqam4d8",
"cqam7j3",
"cqamdib",
"cqame7j",
"cqammah",
"cqamne1",
"cqamvvq",
"cqan3n0",
"cqanatf",
"cqane6q",
"cqani0u",
"cqanjpq",
"cqanq7q",
"cqanr09",
"cqanvzs",
"cqao2zk",
"cqao5yg",
"cqaogxu",
"cqaolx8",
"cqaosu6",
"cqapf9o",
"cqapfab",
"cqapqtu",
"cqapv0p",
"cqaq8bt",
"cqaq9y2",
"cqaqn1n",
"cqaqsll",
"cqaqv3d",
"cqar1ma",
"cqar2dz",
"cqar3yw",
"cqarew7",
"cqarhip",
"cqarmdc",
"cqarxex",
"cqarybo",
"cqas20i",
"cqas493",
"cqasdkb",
"cqasn10",
"cqaso4p",
"cqassd9",
"cqat37j",
"cqat9lu",
"cqatbui",
"cqatq8h",
"cqatvwo",
"cqatwvz",
"cqau78j",
"cqauhax",
"cqaunof",
"cqauu8l",
"cqaw0bm",
"cqaw5p9",
"cqaw96h",
"cqawa24",
"cqawfk6",
"cqawhud",
"cqawkpg",
"cqawx2b",
"cqaxxer",
"cqaybrj",
"cqazgk3",
"cqb1n86",
"cqb1ts3",
"cqb23au",
"cqb2etu",
"cqb2gy3",
"cqb33he",
"cqb36pn",
"cqb36yb",
"cqb4vke",
"cqb5dsz",
"cqb7qnn"
],
"score": [
26,
892,
7,
3178,
574,
64,
3,
9,
2,
33,
7,
2,
20,
3,
3,
282,
4,
2,
3,
8,
2,
140,
12,
2,
11,
2,
2,
69,
13,
3,
3,
8,
10,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
60,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
4,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
3,
2,
5,
3,
5,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
8,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Ugh my dogs go psycho. I think they do it to help them dry off faster? I'll give my dog a towel after a bath and she'll just run herself all over that thing ",
"Dogs are a close relative of the wolf, and are descendants of predators. Their natural instinct in the wild is to hide their scent from prey: when you bathe them, this scent camouflage is washed away, so their immediate instinct is to find something smelly enough to mask their scent.\n\nI don't have a source for this, my knowledge comes from a discovery channel docuentary I watched years ago.",
"I would think maybe they're trying to air dry themselves? That's what it kinda seems like",
"Actually we don't know the real reason why dog's have a habit of doing this but there's a lot of theories.\n\n1. Dogs don't like the extra weight of the water on their bodies and so they try and get dry as quickly as they can\n\n2. The water washes their scent and so they run and roll around in order to get their scent back\n\n3. The dog's scared of the taking a bath, so when the bath is over they have a bunch of adrenaline and so they have a lot of energy afterwards\n\nThere's a few other theories. But there's no concrete proof that any theories are correct",
"The technical name for zoomies is Frenetic Random Activity Periods or FRAP. We're not sure why dogs do it but it tends to decrease with age and most dogs do it after baths. ",
"Zoomies, are a way that dogs release their fear. They only do this when they feel comfortable and trusting in their environment and it's a way for them to dissipate all the adrenaline. \n\nEdit: [One of many sources](_URL_0_)",
"I think part of the display of energy afterwards is that the dog has become \"free\".",
"I read that dogs do this because in the wild being wet could make the difference between life or death. Dogs rely on their fur for insulation, so when they're wet it increases their risks for hypothermia. They need to get that water off their bodies as soon as possible.\n\nI read that long ago, I could be wrong.",
"I always thought it was because he had to pee. And he does, after every bath.",
"Their normal thermal equilibrium is drastically affected by having their fur saturated with water, especially when oil-stripping chemicals are in the mix. The effect is a decrease in the amount of heat they retain. In order to not go hypothermic, they run around to get their blood/muscles to do their thing, and keep em warm until the oils they naturally produce coat their fur again and take over the job.",
"I assumed my dog just felt good. He does this when I let him out on the patio for some fresh air too. ",
"I believe my dog does it because she knows she's going for a walk soon.",
"Lots of good theories in this thread; but one reason could be that while taking a bath, dogs feel 'trapped' in a way, since they are instructed to not move much during the bath, and get excited when you 'set them free'. ",
"I believe that it would be closest to the adrenaline theory because my dog also gets zoomies after a bath but he also gets them after he gets in trouble lol",
"I have a cat only, explain? ",
"Trainers and behaviorists call these FRAPs: frenetic random activity periods. A lot of pet lovers just call them “zoomies.” Puppy and young dogs are most likely to engage in these bursts of crazy, but even an old dog can sometimes get the zoomies, especially with a pup to spur him on. Sometimes dogs can be trained to respond with a “zoomie clue” from you: If you mimic a play bow (front down, rear up and a smile on your face), your dog may jump right in to play with you and then it’s FRAP time.\n\nSource:_URL_0_",
"ELI5: You know that feeling when you've washed clean and the wind feels good on your skin? The touch of your bed spread, even if its not clean, feels cleaner? The wind through your nuts or breasts?\n\nThe dog is trying to capture that feeling while it lasts.\n\nI am not a scientist, but I think like a dog sometimes.",
"Does anyone have a video example of this??",
"combination of them drying off and masking their scent.",
"It has to do with temperament, I think. I have two dogs. The high strung Border Aussie goes mental after a bath and my mild mannered Boxer just wants to go lay down somewhere warm and try to get back to a place where he can trust me again. ",
"i am not a dog psychiatrist but i am pretty positive its there instinct to get dry, sort of like us when we get cold we shiver. \ndogs have hair all over there body and its gonna take a bit more then shivering in place to get rid of the moisture in there coat. it seems like a instinct with most dogs but i have seen a few that were obviously trying to dry off using tools like a blanket lol. :) yeah dogs dont have towels and i'm sure it would help most any breed of dog to have a instinct to get dry. \n",
"My parents have a Dachshund/Beagle Mix. One of the laziest dogs you'd ever meet. Very anti-social. Doesn't give a flying fuck if you call him over. Hates when you sit on the couch when he's laying there. He's also a stinky bastard. He's not a big fan of baths, but when he's let go after he's dried off, he goes to the kitchen, everyone that's home will chant his name and he will run laps from to the dining room, through the kitchen, into the living room and back. And he'll do this 10-15 times or until we no longer chant his name. He's like the Frank the Tank, of Dogs.",
"\"The zoomies\" actually has a scientific name, it's a FRAP (Frenetic Random Activity Periods). When a dog gets over stimulated they do this to play and burn off excess energy. All dogs do it when young and they eventually out grow it. Although, based on their normal activity level, even an older dog can build up enough energy that some excitement can through them into a FRAP to burn off that energy.",
"Scents are a communicable memory storage system for dogs. Wash it away, and they can't communicate very well. woof! *\"Must go roll in dead thing, and then rub it against humans!\"",
"Many dogs feel restrained when being bathed. They may tolerate it but it’s not something they’re eager to do. When they’re finally able to jump out of that tub it’s as if they’re experiencing pure freedom. No longer held back by you (their evil shampoo wielding owner) they are free, and with that feeling comes excitement.\n\nImagine you’ve just done something you were terrified of whether that’s sky diving or riding in that scary elevator at work that’s always breaking down when you’re done you often feel a sense of adrenaline. It’s a rush of excitement if you were able to conquer that then you can do anything.\n\nMany people speculate dogs experience a similar level or excitement and exhilaration once they’re freed from the tub. It might be the pent up nervous energy or it might just be a sense of freedom. Whatever it is the end result is usually the same; no holds barred zoomies.\n\n",
"Because most dog owners get anxious before giving their dog a bath and inadvertently pass that energy on to their dog.",
"I always thought it was because they don't take baths very often so it feels super duper awesome to be clean to them. ",
"Does this have anything to do with why my cat runs around the house 3 times after he shits? I've heard it's called the litter box derby",
"Zoomies are a stress release. There are many articles out there that say as much. Some dogs will stress up and release this tension with more energy (barking, jumping, zoomies, etc) and some will stress down and do the opposite (tail tucked, avoidance, slowing of movements, etc). Some will even do a mixture of both.\n\nIt's not them trying to get dry or them getting their scent back. That's ridiculous. If this was true, why would dogs do it in different settings without water being involved?\n\nI know some people are going to counter this by saying their dogs just LOVE swimming so here's some examples of where stress can come into play. Being carried into a bath tub can be a stressful situation. Being contained in a room while being scrubbed down can be a stressful situation. Maybe the room you bathe your dog in is the room you clip their toe nails, which they hate. Maybe you've bathed your dog in a situation that wasn't fun for the dog once, so it predicts that the not so fun situation will happen again. (e.g. Fido rolled in a mud puddle. You yell at fido and grab the hose to wash him off.) Maybe your dog doesn't enjoy the feeling of its fur being wet, or the cold that comes with it. Maybe your dog loves jumping into the lake because you've thrown toys in their for the dog to fetch. Your dog may love toys enough to hop into the water to fetch them, but that doesn't mean it loves water.",
"Maybe they just feel better after the experience?",
"I thought my dog just wanted everyone to see how pretty he now was and how good he smelt. ",
"\"The zoomies\" is the best phrase ive ever heard for this",
"My dog also does it after he poops. Pooping seems fairly stressful for him - it takes him, like, 10 minutes to find a good spot and circle it exactly right, and he often cries while he is looking. I always assumed the zoomie insanity that frequently follows was sheer joy from the sudden feeling of bowel lightness and general wellbeing. Who doesn't feel better after a good poop?\n\nMy other dog does not poop like a weirdo. And he doesn't go mental after a bath. He seems humiliated for being wet and distrustful of those who made him that way. But to be fair, he looks pretty stupid when he is wet. ",
"I always thought that my dog hated it because he was cold and ran around to warm up/dry faster. We always towel him down but his hair just won't frickin dry perfectly. ",
"My cat gets the 'zoomies' every night when he wants to go outside. Runs around the house like he's gone insane, but it lets me know he wants to go out. =P",
"my dog was simply cold and instantly rushed to a warm place or under a blanket to dry off.",
"Because they are overwhelmed by the smells. Getting dirty, or rolling in the dirt helps them get accustomed to the million+ smells around them.\n[Source - My Dad]",
"Try having a springer spaniel. Those dogs are made of 24/7 zoomie.\n\nSource: former springer owner",
"I didn't know there were others who called their dogs hyper mode zoomies too.",
"I know the reason my dog does it is because she has to go outside right afterwards to take a fat dump.",
"Lol I didn't realize most dogs do this. When mine does I can't tell if she's happy or annoyed because she looks happy when she goes crazy. But before I release her from the bathroom she's really well behaved and calm.",
"Clicked my way here because I read \"the zombies\". Disappointed. Carry on please.",
"Our dog gets the zoomies after taking a dump, or his poo dance as we call it.",
"I think that having water on them sort of creates a tickling sensation or something because they run around really fast and then usually roll on their backs",
"Rough drying your dog after a bath hypes them up to. If you dry them very gently with a towel they are less likely to zoom.",
"The technical term is 'playing.' It's seen in many species of mammals, including humans.",
"Huh, I've never heard of this. My dog just looks really sad and hides in his bed after a bath. He hates water more than anything.",
"GLI5 (guessing...) After a bath, their hair is all messed up and probably feels uncomfortable, poking into them, going in different directions than natural cowlicks and whatnot. What would get the hair rearranged would, I assume, be using all the usual range of motion in a compressed period of time. Kind of like breaking in a pair of pants.. Except doing it with their whole coat at once.\n",
"What is/are \"the zoomies\"? I've never heard this term before.",
"I always thought they were trying to both dry themselves off and get their natural smell back on.",
"Indeed it is weird! My dog does it too..Never figured it out... _URL_0_\n",
"The post bath zoomies! Our guy does high-speed figure eights in the yard like it's the funnest thing ever. My theory is that the water gets into his brain and causes a short circuit.",
"This doesn't happen to our dogs. They just sulk and look as manipulatively-sad as they can after a bath. We've had 7 in our time and I don't remember any getting 'the zoomies'.\n\nThey are springer spaniels, though, which have a larger number of specific traits bred into them so maybe this response is missing from them. In fact, after bath time is one of the few moments they aren't going mental.",
"I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with why a lot of kids would love to jump through a puddle or run into some waves on the beach.",
"I don't really care why it goes crazy but it's soo funny. Once my friend who was scared of dogs came over when my dog had a bath and my friend had to make a pillow fort because they were too scared",
"They think they are too clean and want to share it with everything.",
"It's like they are so glad it's over that they go crazy and run all over the house. ",
"The zoomies are another term for a short lived (for most dogs, 5 minutes or so, depends on age too) power surge of energy. They often will run fast and manically about wild eyed, back and forth, or in big loops, running over, on top of, or under things. It's as if they were suddenly, mystically summoned to go wild.\n\nAsk any vet or (degreed) behaviorist, and they'll tell you these are most likely to occur in the morning (burning off any pent up energy), and once in the evening for a lot of dogs (people come home, activity pattern change excitement, burning off pent up energy and boredom).\n\nAlthough quite domesticated and hugely different from wolves (much like we are as primates from apes), they have retained being crepuscular, which means they are most active at dawn and dusk. Pets often modify these times from dusk or dawn to when there is activity in the home (wake up and early evening), and these innate energy patterns play out, with enthusiasm/'reunions', change of activity in home, mild stress (just funneling that energy really), lots of things can triggering it too, and in combination of that special time of day *and* a triggering event, a pretty sure thing some people can predict even - especially in puppies. \n\nZoomies will be especially frequent if it is rewarded. If dogs get a lot of attention, or play/fun connections with people or other dogs ensues after 'zoomies', then that behavior is more likely to occur with more frequency, or intensity, etc ahead. Some dogs are very accidentally \"trained\" (by cause and effect) to be half crazed ricocheting maniacs because they have the most fun for being zoomie infested half out of their mind often. If the good stuff in life (attention, play and action) all come from being batshit crazy (they get hyper = they get attention or action), they'll embrace that too. It works. What gives them the most pleasure they'll keep. Whoops!!!!\n\nThose are only the most common reasons for the zoomies! There are common denominators in many 'why's' of behavior. Dogs are neat because science of behavior has been studied in animals so much, especially in the past 20 years, we've gotten a lot figured out about them. Some things are innate (nature). And some are cause and effect/instilled by experience - the nurture. Thing of it is with dogs, we know a lot of the difference, even down to neuroscience, neurochemistry, and what is nature and what is nurture in what they do, and how to fix and manage things best knowing the difference!\n\nTl;DR: Science of zoomies.\n\nEdit: Thanks for my first gilding, made my day, got the zoomies.\n",
"Our 6month old Great Dane does the zoomies (love that phrase) and he she doesnt need a bath!. Danger! big boned dog zooming around inside small house....zoom....zoom!",
"What about after a poop?",
"I always knew as putting on turbo, I pike it better thqn \"zoomies\" I think",
"What about rain? I know my dog runs around crazy when he gets inside from the rain.",
"We had a zoomie circuit in our house...living room to hall to kitchen to den back to living room. Complete with a sofa on the far wall of the den for rebounding off the back to turn from kitchen to den direction back to den to livingroom direction. zoom, zoom, zoom.\n\nHe liked walkies and sniffles too (what we liked to call visits to outdoors for doing his business).",
"My dog get's the zoomies after it poops. It's like she's scared of her own crap.",
"Alot of dogs get water in their ears and it drives them crazzzy!",
"My dog (Pomeranian) FRAPs from time to time, but after a bath, he finds a blanket or bed or whatever he can and just rubs himself all over it trying to dry himself off. Just scooting his body against a blanket or towel for a good portion of time.",
"I always assumed it was because they were cold and can generate some heat by running around. My dog seems to love baths and will run into the bathroom when I say \"bath time.\" And he loves being dried off. He'll flip the towel in the air until I grab it and get the excess water off. But if I hit him with the blow drier too, he doesn't seem to run around as much (if at all).",
"We call it the \"puppy runs\"....\nI now realize that it sounds like they have really bad diarrhea... ",
"my Schnauzer is like that also after only a face wash, trying to dry his beard as quickly as possible. I don't know if it has to have to do with extra weight - I assume he just doesn't like being wet. I also dry my beard after I wash my face - didn't even think about extra weight (until now, obviously).\n\nHe's also trying to help me dry my leg hair by licking it when i get out of the shower. My wife said \"well, you're drying his feet when you come back inside from a walk, so...\" which made sense, I guess.",
"My dog will either jump on our bed and roll around it, run his body across the side of the bed or couch, or roll around dirty clothes if available. He seems to desperately want to get our stink back on him.",
"I think my dog just cold and runs around to get warm.",
"My dogs do \"the zoomies\" after they poop. Every. damn. time.",
"I always think it's because they're cold when wet. And it's probably just really uncomfortable. Same reasons we dry our hair. ",
"it's not just the bath, I would say it's whenever they have any sort of excitement they need to get out.. I imagine, in the wild, they would run with their mates, but in a house? zoomies",
"i'm not sure why but i am pretty sure they think its pretty funny to shake off any water on their fur in range of a human.",
"\"the zoomies\" is the funniest, but best term to describe this",
"My dog does this after she poops, she'll practically pull me across the yard because she's so excited (she's a bulldog so she can't quite do it).",
"\"Blitzing\" is the typical used word in the U.S. for \"the zoomies\"... certain dog breeds ate more prone to it (Bichons, poodles, Collies, etc...)",
"used to say \"Mad Dog Mad Dog\"\n\nmine used to do this after every bath - 8 lbs soaking wet and ran like a bat out of hell....loved that little beastie",
"This also happens after they take an incredibly satisfying shit.",
"I thought my chihuahua just wanted to dry off by running and rolling around.\nHe's very chill during the bath , but afterwards he's a rocket ship",
"Labs tend to love water and will shake it off by command or on their own. To each dog their own.",
"It's like I bathed my dog in red bull every time",
"All dogs are different.\n \nOne of my dogs gets super excited after he poops. He doesn't like baths but doesn't get super active after them either.\n \nThe other doesn't mind baths but loves getting rubbed with towels. That's the extent of her hyperactivity post bath.",
"I don't know about everyone else but I run around like a nut when I get out of the shower. \n\nIt isn't a pretty sight if I don't grab a towel first. \n\nWho am I kidding ? It isn't a pretty sight any way.",
"Omg I always thought my dog was just a psycho. Great ELI5!",
"LOL@ \"the zoomies\" \n\nI always wanted a phrase to explain that behavior ",
"My gf and I just call it 'a mood.' Like, \"Watch out he's in a mood again!\"",
"I wish I could give you an extra upvote for \"the zoomies!\"",
"TIL the zoomies is a real term used for dogs when they get all rambunctious and runny. Thought it was just a thing my friend and I used for our crazy husky dogs.",
"Interesting... I've had more than a dozen dogs since I was kid (as many as 8 at a time), and I've never heard of \"the zoomies\" or witnessed one doing this after a bath.",
"Oh man our first family dog used to do this and this post brings back really funny memories. Rip buttons.",
"TIL dogs go crazy and get \"the zoomies\" after a bath",
"Imagine you vacuumed all the electrons off an object. It would zoom around seeking any negatively charged object. It's like that with your dog and poop.",
"Never heard it called the \"zoomies\" before but I love that term.",
"French bulldogs are like the masters of zoomies. Mine does it after he poops, or just decided to run circles inside the house. It's so funny.\n",
"I didn't know this was a real thing! I always just assumed my dogs went crazy post-bath because I towel dry them really vigorously and rile them up! ",
"My dog also does this when he goes underwater at the local river!!",
"I'd say the reason they run around so much is that they're freezing. If you take a cold shower, you'll jump around and yell and jump around until you're warm. I think they're doing the same thing. Dogs have an average body temp that is higher than humans, so even though you think you're giving your dog a reasonably warm bath, its probably pretty chilly for the dog.",
"My dog does this after getting inside from taking a poop. It is like his empty GI magically fills up with cocaine after he drops a deuce. ",
"I read zoomies as zombies- for a while I was reading through the comments completely baffled, thinking get that dogs were hallucinating about zombies after a bath. Weird. ",
"So this means I am not the only one who gets their dog all excited by yelling zoom at it until it starts running around?",
"we yell \"FRISKAAAaaaaAAAAAY!!\" and it's zoom-zoom time",
"TIL about zoomies/FRAPs... I love watching my doxies spazz out after baths. Such a weird thing!",
"I think I'm in the minority with having a dog that gets out of the bath, finds his favourite bed, curls up and sleeps until dry. All our previous dogs had zoomies, but our wheatie? Nope, he sleeps it off.",
"my dog does this when i \"uncrate\" him, doesn't matter how long he was in there. Runs around in circles like an idiot lol ",
"Mine does it after he poops. He's very proud of himself.\n\nI hear the dog door open with a crack, and him clicking and sliding across the tile floor until he reaches terminal velocity on the hallway rug then launches himself over the arm of the doggy love seat in my office. I'm constantly having to adjust the thing because it slides across the room from his momentum. \n\nIf I don't attack him and play with him right then, he looks like he's about to lose his shit!",
"I think it has to do with the fact that dogs are naturally oily by nature. When you bathe them, it strips the oil off their skin. We can compare this feeling to taking a hot shower in the winter time. Personally, I get all itchy and have involuntary twitches until I can get some lotion on my skin. \n\nI can only imagine my dog feels the same way after a bath, hence the zoomies and random dirt rolling immediately after she is let outside. ",
"The zoomies? You mean the runs : p",
"At our house we call it the \"running hee-bee-jeebies\". As soon as they are done getting toweled off after a bath they start doing sprints around the perimeter of our backyard. We also have a pitbull mix that will sprint from corner to corner digging random holes in the ground.",
"People say they grow out of it... \n\nNever have they owned a Husky before.",
"Im pretty sure they do it to dry their fur.",
"How bought this one: They just feel good?",
"The Zoomies hahah. my dog goes nuts as soon as I put him on the ground. ",
"Omg, zoomies. Never heard the phrase. Knew exactly what you were talking about."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://naturaldogtraining.com/blog/why-do-dogs-zoom-zoom-zoom-around-the-house/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.vetstreet.com/dr-marty-becker/why-does-my-dog-race-through-my-house"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPfZ78m3xZo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2vwdj7
|
Is there a fourth Rome?
|
If the original Rome was the first, the Byzantines the second and the Russian Empire the third, is there a fourth Rome by any extent?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2vwdj7/is_there_a_fourth_rome/
|
{
"a_id": [
"colmcau"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"What an excellent question... although not exactly a historical question unless you mean: \"Has any state officially declared itself to be the Fourth Rome, or could any state or persons be considered to have made some analogous claim.\" There is a book called \"Moscow, the Fourth Rome\" which relates the idea to the USSR and Eisenstein's film Ivan the Terrible in which one character says something like: \"There have been three Romes. The first two have fallen, but the third (Moscow) will never fall. And there will be no fourth!\" One could also relate Albert Speer's plan for Nazi Berlin to a \"fourth-Rome\" ideology.\n\nOf course... in a broader sense there are, and have been, many Romes. Rome itself is composed out of multiple layers, added by successive powers in the course of various attempts to concretize political prestige, from the classical period onwards. Furthermore, Rome has been repeatedly invoked throughout modernity as a source of legitimacy, from the French Revolution to the architecture of Washington DC. I'd guess the USA would today be the most plausible candidate, although I would personally nominate Skopje, \"Macedonia.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1v7ydp
|
what is the foreword of a book?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v7ydp/eli5_what_is_the_foreword_of_a_book/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cepkrzw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A foreword isn't a part of the original work itself. It's sort of an introduction to the work by another person (usually another writer, or an editor or scholar of some sort) who either knew/knows the author of the work, or has studied/worked with them. It's intended to give you something of an appreciation for what's to come."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
25dghp
|
why are the chinese taking over africa?
|
In South Africa they want build a whole new town the New York of Africa. In Mozambique they build highways, airports.. Do they get resources like diamonds and oil from the government or do they hope to expand their habitat and expand en masse?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25dghp/eli5_why_are_the_chinese_taking_over_africa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chg2yvx",
"chg44g7",
"chg46tn",
"chg4jol",
"chg5c6a",
"chg7vge",
"chg8i1v",
"chga2ar",
"chgah4s",
"chgaqk8",
"chgb2yr",
"chgb5mm",
"chgc0ty",
"chgcpk5",
"chgewye",
"chgfcgu",
"chgfzyj",
"chggak8",
"chgguj2",
"chgjmq3",
"chgllve",
"chglslm",
"chgmzy5",
"chgoo1i",
"chgpy0q",
"chgqmdl"
],
"score": [
609,
13,
137,
13,
8,
7,
7,
3,
2,
2,
35,
2,
8,
2,
6,
3,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Africa has lot of natural resources and needs lots of money.\n\nChina has lots of money and a growing need for natural resources.\n\nIts nothing new, the US and Europe have been doing the same things for a very long time. China is just the newest player in the \"let's fuck Africa\" game.",
"Farmland. China cannot produce anywhere near enough food to feed their own people, they have ~20% of the worlds population but only ~9% of the worlds farmland, and much of that is polluted and/or remote and/or inefficiently farmed. In an effort to alleviate this they have been buying vast tracts of land in Africa for food production.\n\nAfrica is not the only region where they are doing this. China recently purchased an area the size of Belgium in eastern Ukraine for food production. Chinese firms also have large farm holdings in South America, Australia and even the United States.\n\n",
"For hundreds of years now, major powers have looked at ways to strengthen their economies. Back in the Industrial Revolution, factory productivity increased dramatically. Industrial powers (mostly Western European countries, plus the US) looked to Africa and Asia as sources of cheap raw materials and markets where they could sell finished goods. In this early model, the colonies were conquered militarily and governed by the colonial powers. \n\nThis model fell apart after WWII when it was no longer tenable for European countries to hold onto their colonies. This was a combination of the level of damage done to the UK, France, Germany, etc but also a growing realization of the idea that colonies deserved independence. \n\nToday, China is a rising global power. Much of the economic growth has come from being a very effective low-cost exporter. However, over the coming decades as the Chinese middle class grows, it will become more expensive to maintain this manufacturing edge. Just like England needed India in the 18th century, China very much wants to develop strong relationships with Africa. \n\nDespite the historical parallels, some things really are different for China than they were for the European powers. For one thing, it's no longer considered acceptable to militarily subjugate another country. China has an advantage in this regard. When many African nations became independent there was an understandable anti-capitalist sentiment. After all, capitalism had removed millions of Africans as slaves and harshly dealt with hundreds of millions more as colonial subjects. Many of the first governments established in newly independent African countries leaned towards Communism. As you can imagine, since this happened at the height of the Cold War, these countries were not treated well by the US and this only deepened anti-Western feelings, even in cases where the socialist governments descended into dictatorships or other models of failed governance. \n\nMany of these countries now see China as offering a third way: a nominally socialist economy that has still managed to bring many millions out of poverty and become a major global power on its own terms.\n\nThe Chinese government is spending very heavily on infrastructure development in Africa: roads, bridges, power, water, etc. These gifts help establish stronger ties between China and African countries and they are also be very useful investments in allowing the local economies to globalize. \n\nTL;DR: Many African countries are skeptical about Western-style capitalism. China gives them cool stuff that will help them buy goods from China in the future. ",
"Africa is one of the few places where cost of manufactoring is cheaper than China but it's lack of infrastructure has been one of the major hampers in attracting investors. China probably sees that if it's one of the first countries that aggressively improves the infrastructure they will have a foot in the door when companies start moving away from China as prices rise due to higher wages as China grows into an economic power.",
"Free trade.\n\nFree trade works based upon one idea: Relative efficiencies. \n\nYou see, while China may have more workers than any other country in the world, it also has a ton of money. Comparing its workers to its money, you see that relatively, it is a capital rich and labor poor country. Compared to itself. Capital rich countries need to invest their money into capital poor labor rich countries. This is Africa to a T. Even if Africa hardly had any workers, it doesn't really have any money. So it will always be labor rich and capital poor. China simply gets the most bang for its buck by investing in such places.\n\nNow then, there are other considerations. Any country that intends on going to war or at least would like the option needs a constant supply of natural resources. Africa is simply the best for almost any natural resource you need. Diamonds, gold, minerals (real money), uranium, Africa has it all.\n\nIn the past, Europe tried to get those resources through imperialism. After WWII, America tried to get those resources by destabilizing the countries for so long that any multi national corporation could swoop in and set themselves up into such a position of power that the access to those resources could be guaranteed. America did this in Nigeria and Congo as two prime examples. And it totally worked in Nigeria. (I'm aware Nigeria's gas is controlled by a British corporation.) \n\nChina is just following its own philosophy: take over not by conquest, or anarchy, but by investing and creating good will.",
"In addition to some of the other points in the thread, the IMF and World Bank will usually place fairly strict rules on their loans: economic & political restructuring, human rights requirements, etc. For many African countries who are still fighting (ethnic and political coalitions) through governmental reformations, China is a welcome partner since they are a bit more freewheeling with their loan expectations. \n*edit for clarity",
"Honestly: Resources and a stupid populace. Downvote me all you want. I have done business in Africa with Chinese people who are there for this exact purpose. Indians and Chinese kick ass in business in Africa because the locals are no where near as intelligent. I knew one Chinese man who was fluent in Swahili. The locals couldn't fathom this. He would go to meetings with a translator and people would offer the translator money to screw him over. He could understand everything. Like idiots they said how much money they could pay in front of him, and he understood it and raked in money as a result. He repeated this process about 50 times and retired by age 30.",
"One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the global power balance between Russia, the US, and China (also, India). Ideally, China would want to trade with other countries in South East Asia instead of Africa. \n\nHowever, there are problems with that. China has been involved in wars with Japan (1931-1945), Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1979), the USSR (1969), India (1962), and of course the rocky relationship with Taiwan. \n\nThe USSR and the US have exploited this. Japan, South Korea, and India are the 4th, 5th, and 10th largest trading partners for the US (China 3rd). Those countries are also very important export targets for Russia.\n\nMeanwhile, Russia supplies oil to the EU and exports/imports from many former Soviet Union countries. The US has similar ties to the EU and also is the dominant trade partner for Mexico, Canada, and Brazil.\n\nSo China has few options to continue expanding. Russia and the US already have a decent margin on China's home turf (helped by tensions in the area), and both Russia and the US already have firm control over other industrialized markets.\n\nThe solution? If China can't find a new trading partner, they'll build one. As their economy grows, they need more and more natural resources and they have few other options. Additionally, China's main advantage (a massive, cheap manufacturing base) will start to weaken over time as the Chinese middle class grows. Shifting production to Africa will help satisfy growing consumer demands in their own country.\n\n((I'll note, however, that everyone trades with everyone else, so this is simplistic. China still trades with other SE Asia countries, and the EU, and Russia, and the US. Still, they don't have enough room to continue growing with their current trade partners)). \n\n",
"China is now the world leader in solar panels. They also are very heavily state invested in desalinization. My guess, and it's purely a guess, is that China views Africa as its future source of cheap labor. Their own population is becoming more middle class. If they can provide electricity and water to drought prone regions, the residents will be more than pleased to work cheap in return for not starving to death.",
"The Han Chinese have an expat trader class that are about as smart on average as any peoples of the earth. They look for business opportunities. They organize. IMHO as a white dude I would not minded living as a minority among them. \n\n(Except Singapore. That place is too fucking hot.) \n\nAnyway, this is the Chinese (as opposed to the run of the mill Han) who is expanding into Africa. They don't want to run the joint (well they will run the joint but try to install popular puppets).\n\nThis clasd has worn out it's welcome a few places (Viet Nam, East Timor). But as long as there is money to be made, they will be there.\n\nLet's see how many Chinese gals will intermarry. I bet that figure will be about none. ",
"When I was in college, I was really involved in Model UN. I wanted to work for the UN really bad and studied international relations and I even interned at the UN and sat in UN sessions for the International Criminal Court. There's a very common saying in the international relations circles and academia that \"the West doesn't care about Africa.\"\n\nWhether the statement is true or not, many people in the world, especially Africans, resent it. The saying stems from a lot of colonialism and imperialism throughout history in Africa from European imperialists, slave traders in America, etc. While Asia and Africa were both home to underdeveloped countries at the turn of the last century, Asia has enjoyed a lot of investment from the West so much that China, Korea, Taiwan, India, etc have all become economic powerhouses in the past few years. Most of this has come from the seed money of Western investment. \n\nThe general consensus is that the West is only interested in Africa for natural resources, but isn't interested in investing in its long term infrastructure. Whether it's the Western desire to exploit Africa or that that Africa lacks strong leadership to demand purposeful long-term investment at the cost of short term gains for themselves is debatable. My guess it's a mix of both. For America, we haven't gotten involved militarily in Africa since the fiasco in Somalia (of Black Hawk Down fame), yet we will commit troops in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. Usually when some genocide or violent uprising happens in Africa, Western countries donate a hundred troops or \"elite military trainers\" but never entire regiments or boots on the ground to stop the violence. \n\nWhat China is doing is a strategic long-term investment in Africa because Africa is a vacuum of influence by the West. The West, focused in long term interests in the Middle East and now Eastern Europe doesn't have the time or resources to counter China's moves in Africa. China has also studied how the West's interactions with Africa over the years and learned NOT to simply come and take what they need. They know that they will need Africa in the long run so they build roads, bridges, tunnels and all sorts of infrastructure to facilitate trades with their African partners. China knows it is going to be consuming lots of natural resources for the foreseeable future. And instead of competing with the US and Europe, China wants to build strong relations with Africa to gain access to those resources where the West is not entrenched. \n\nFrom the African perspective, China is a country that has no imperial or colonial history in Africa. They see China as a fellow third world country that has grown powerful and influential and wish to duplicate its success. China presents itself as not conquerors but fellow brothers of the third world. Also, China can be a great source of income and investment without the traditional moral judgement attached by aid from the West. China often does not care about democracy, human rights, land rights of indigenous peoples, or environmental sustainability. This allows for certain strong-armed African leaders whom might evoke the ire of the Western public opinion to grow powerful and influential from Chinese cooperation but could not from the West.\n\nIn China, the central government is also fanning the China-African cooperative movement. Popular Chinese media shows show stories about Africans studying abroad in China, or Africans who can trace their lineage from long-thought-lost Chinese expeditions in Africa. Mixed Chinese-African offspring from interracial families have gotten into the limelight in Chinese Media through of mix of gawking novelty and budding Chinese international identity. African laborers and migrant workers are becoming increasingly prevalent in China a well as alarming number of African women becoming involved in the Chinese sex trade. \n\nA lot has been written about the Chinese focus on Africa and how the West isn't doing enough to counter them. Many blame that the American public simply do not have an interest in the affairs of Africa. We all see the charity and aide commercials about starving children in Africa. While some give some insignificant amounts of money, few are willing to invest significant amounts of money to build capital there. \n\n\n**EDIT** Wow thank you for the gold kind stranger! :D\n\nAlso I want to mention that I do not work for the UN. I just wanted to but getting in was so hard. I work for a bank now X_x",
"I heard Chinese is now an official language in Zimbabwe. ",
"Highways, airports, infrastructure... these sound like good thing to me. The West already fucked Africa over... seems China is at least genuinely helping",
"Money, you nit-wit.",
"In 20 years we are going to see China become more and more powerful. Not necessarily a bad thing. We may see it as something bad because America portrays them as that, they are the east and America is the west, China, for the situation is vastly ahead of many other countries in terms of growing infrastructure. But as the top comment says, yes China needs resources and Africa has them and needs in some capacity assistance to help build an economy and infrastructure, besides Africa is fucking huge, way bigger than the US, so there is a shitload of potential.",
"Resources and building good relations for future military bases/strategic positioning/favors.",
"Tldr; Africa is becoming China's China.",
"It is said to be a growing market in the next decade. Invest pennies now, and gain billions later. ",
"Mostly they are securing access to raw materials. The infrastructure investments are usually in exporting corridors, or if not directly related, it is involved in government deals that drives supplier countries into China's sphere of influence. They are also providing no strings attached financing, which is useful for shady governments.",
"China has been spending a lot of money to make long term investments in a lot of countries, and not just in Africa. Most of these agreements appear to be an exchange of infrastructure investments for raw materials. This fits well with China's trading policy before its decline in the 19th century; China would produce manufactured goods in exchange for raw materials while being rather agnostic on who they traded with. The question is whether the current Chinese leadership will maintain this traditional view.",
"China tells African nations that they dont care about how their countries are ran, they just want there resources and would gladly build roads hospitals or ship in Bentleys to some corrupt general dictator. No human rights inspection crap from China. just resources and they will build roads ect, sounds better than the US pyramid scheme we call the World Bank. Not to mentioned our policy extortion or war deals ex. Panama and Iraq.",
"Same reason the Europeans did so 100 years prior: natural resources",
"The Chinese are brilliant. What most of you are failing to see is that China is not only helping them to build infrastructure just for the resources, they are trying to build a new market.\n\nSimilar to what Ford did with his employees, gave them a decent enough wage so that they could buy his cars.\n\nChina is and always will be an exporter, they need customers, the more, the merrier....and Africa is literally, the final frontier.",
"Uhhh.... South African here. Why am I not aware of this?",
"Why don't you go read some scholarly articles instead of asking a bunch of Jack offs who don't know shit? Intellectually lazy.",
"Watch this TED Idea and think about it. China is doing what the western countries never managed to do. Not everything they do is just \"bad\".\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/dambisa_moyo_is_china_the_new_idol_for_emerging_economies"
]
] |
|
2d7oak
|
Why do airplanes tilt when turning? Why can't they turn without tilting?
|
Essentially what i'm asking is why can't a plane turn from facing north to facing east without tilting vertically at all? why cant you just increase thrust on the engines on the left side of the plane so that it is moving faster that the right, thus turning the plane without tilting or banking it.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2d7oak/why_do_airplanes_tilt_when_turning_why_cant_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjmycf7",
"cjmyeod",
"cjn2srs",
"cjn9upo"
],
"score": [
13,
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They can. There is a [famous incident](_URL_0_) where the pilots were forced to fly this way when the controls gave out.\n\nThe reason they don't normally fly this way is for efficiency and comfort. When a plane turns, the ailerons are tilted on the wings at the same time the rudder is turned. This banks the plane as it turns so the passengers don't feel the g-forces and get airsick. Redirecting the airflow over the plane gives the pilot much finer and quicker control over the aircraft than changing engine power. Also, changing the engine power affects the lift on the wings, so maintaining the proper altitude would be difficult.",
"They can, but there are two reasons why they usually don't - efficiency and comfort:\n\nAs I'm sure you know, the wings generate upwards lift. If you were to roll the plane 90 degrees to the left, within reason all of this lift would now be pulling the plane left rather than up, turning it.\n\nObviously 90 degrees is a pretty extreme example, and as there's little to no upwards lift, it would actually drop whilst doing so. So planes usually bank at relatively shallow angles, giving both vertical (up) AND horizontal (sideways) lift - this way the lift both helps it turn and actually holds it in the sky. \n\nThe roll for the bank is controlled by the ailerons (the large flap things on both wings), but pilots also use the rudder, which is vertical and on the tail of the plane. This is similar to a boat rudder - it turns the plane without banking it. A good pilot should balance the ailerons and rudder in a turn, to keep the total g-force downwards (pushing you into your seat) to keep things comfortable. For example, a rudder steer with no bank would pull you sideways, which isn't exactly comfortable. ",
"The other posts here have covered passenger comfort, and the desire to keep the airflow over the wings coming from directly in front and not from the side. I'd like to add one further thing: airliners and most aircraft (modern fighter jets being a notable exception) are designed for stability in yaw, pitch and roll. In general, pitch stability is provided by the horizontal stabilisers, roll stability is achieved by slightly angling the wings up (so the tips are higher than where the wing connects with the fuselage), and yaw stability is provided by the vertical stabiliser (the vertical tail fin). \n\nThe basic idea is that when all the control surfaces are set neutral, the plane should continue flying in a straight line and not deviate (on any axis). To show how this works, let's take the example of yaw. These surfaces are aerofoils, so yawing will create an angle of attack for the airflow over the vertical stabiliser, creating a sideways force ('lift', as far as that stabiliser is concerned), that tends to turn the plane back towards its original heading (a little hard to imagine the vectors involved, but trust me it works!). So while turning by using the vertical tail rudder to make the plane yaw is possible, the plane will 'fight' against this somewhat and try to return to the original heading, due to this design for stability.",
"They can, but it's not the most efficient way to turn.\n\nYou use the rudder (control surface on the vertical tail) for yaw control, and you can turn this way. However, this bleeds off a lot of energy if you're going to turn a significant angle. It's also very slow for most aircraft designs. The tail is there for stability: aircraft want to travel in a straight line.\n\nYou can also use differential thrust on the engines for yaw control. [Flight 232 lost all control](_URL_0_) and the pilots managed to somewhat successfully crash land it on a runway by steering using only the engines.\n\nIn a normal banked turn, you're using the wings themselves for the turn. The lift from the wings in level flight goes straight up, but in a bank you're using part of that lift for the turn. And wings can produce much more force than a tail.\n\n[This wikipedia blurb gives a brief idea of what a \"coordinated turn\" is, which is how a pilot typically turns.](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_flight#Coordinating_the_turn"
]
] |
|
2lx9bc
|
How is the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft affected when the shuttle is attached to it during flight?
|
How is this aircraft affected aerodynamically, when the space shuttle was attached? Obviously the added weight is an issue, but what I am looking to understand, is how the 747 is affected while flying...do the wing surfaces of the shuttle provide added lift, how does the landing glide slope change?
The tail section looks much different than a conventional 747, what is the purpose of that change?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2lx9bc/how_is_the_shuttle_carrier_aircraft_affected_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clz91eb",
"clzia1s"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The difference is tremendous, versus a standard 747. The system is designed so that the Shuttle (Orbiter) provides lift once enough forward speed is maintained.\n\nThe system dramatically increases the weight (mass) and drag of the 747. The range of the Shuttle Carrier when the Orbiter is attached is reduced to about 1000 miles -- a VERY short range compared to the standard 747.\n\nThe Shuttle Carrier also forces pilots to deal with a situation that few pilots ever have to deal with: VERTICAL displacement of the Center of Gravity. Bank angle is critical to the Shuttle Carrier. Bank angle in excess of about 20 degrees threatens to flip the Shuttle Carrier into an inverted attitude -- which would be catastrophic.\n\nLanding is a very precise instrument maneuver... Requiring careful control inputs and ridiculously rigid fuel management protocol.",
"The tail section changes are additional vertical stabilizers. The shuttle is mounted directly in front of the original vertical stabilizer, creating a lot of turbulence and reducing its effectiveness. The added mass of the shuttle would reduce stability in turns even further."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
18bqrs
|
if you were to levitate in place for 12 hours by some means, would you end up on the other side of the earth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18bqrs/eli5_if_you_were_to_levitate_in_place_for_12/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8deggx",
"c8df01f",
"c8dfjer",
"c8dgqa1",
"c8diq48",
"c8div9u",
"c8djc7f",
"c8dqen9",
"c8dr8ih"
],
"score": [
59,
85,
20,
9,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's going to depend on just how your levitation device works; saying \"by some means\" makes the question impossible to answer, because the means by which you're levitating is going to determine whether you stay fixed above one spot or stay fixed relative to Earth's center.",
"The air around the Earth is moving along with it, and if you levitated, you would be suspended in this fluid (air).\n\nThink about an air freshener in a car:\n\nOnce the car is on the highway *and not accelerating* , the freshener hangs from the mirror, it is not being pulled to the back of the car. This is because the air in the car is moving forward at the same rate as the car, and thus pushes the air freshener forward too. \n\nEDIT: I was unclear, by \"Once the car is on the highway\" I meant \"moving at a constant speed with 0 assumed acceleration\". Also, it depends on the method in which the person is being levitated. If you assume gravity disappears, the person would fly gradually off into space, no longer kept in \"orbit\" by centripetal forces created by gravity. They would continue along a trajectory tangent to the Earth's orbit If the levitation is merely an equal reaction in the opposite direction of gravity, a person would be affixed to a point in the atmosphere, in something you could almost call an orbit. ",
"Okay, so let's say you're sitting in a train, and in the middle of the train car there is a ball, floating in the air. You look at that ball, and it's sitting there perfectly still. So you might say, \"that ball is levitating in place!\" After you've been in the train for twelve hours, the ball would still be floating there, not having moved an inch.\n\nNow, your brother isn't on the train at all. He's standing on a road, next to a train crossing, and he sees your train go by. So you wave at him and point at the ball, shouting \"Look, that ball there is just levitating in place, isn't that AMAZING?!\" But your brother shouts back \"It's not levitating in place at all, it's going away from me, just like the train!\"\n\nYou say the ball is staying in place, and your brother says it isn't.. who is right? Well, both of you are just telling what you see, so actually both of you are. It turns out that the answer to questions like \"is that thing staying in place?\" or \"is that thing moving?\" depends on the person that is asking the question.\n\nSo, a person who went from one side of the earth to the other in 12 hours, is he levitating in place or not? Well, someone who was standing next to him when he started might say \"he suddenly lifted into the sky then started moving really really fast in *that* direction\". But someone who was watching from space with a large telescope might say \"first he was moving along with the earth like everyone else, but then suddenly he lifted into the sky, and just stopped moving at all, with the earth continuing to turn under him.\" To the first person, it looked like the earth was standing still and the dude was moving really fast. But to the other person it looked like the dude was standing still and the earth was turning.\n\nIn conclusion, the answer to \"If you were to levitate in place for 12 hours by some means, would you end up on the other side of the Earth?\" Depends on where you are (and how fast you're going) when you ask the question.\n\nIf you really want to blow the kid's mind, here's a little bit of a different, but also very interesting question: \"If you were to levitate in place for 12 hours, where would you end up?\" If you think really hard about everything I just said, you might realize you can answer *anything* you like to that question, and I can put you in a place, moving at some speed, where your answer is correct (As long as it doesn't make anyone travel faster than `c`, but explaining the speed of light is constant to a 5yo is too much for me to handle)",
"When you are lifted off the earth, you retain your angular momentum, so you'll stay above the same location until some force acts on you to push you in some other direction.\n\nThis means that no, you won't.\n\nIf you were to say 'Well, how about if I were instantly made to not retain any angular momentum' we would have to start asking 'in relation to what?'\n\nIf you said 'the earth', then you would be left out in space as the earth spun around the sun, leaving you behind. If you said 'in relation to earth's spin only', then yes.\n\nBut the important thing here is to somehow have the angular momentum removed from you, not the levitation.",
"by levitating you obviously mean JUST ignoring the friction between you and the floor. well if we are exact, the next thing which has to be taken into account is air friction, which makes you highly depending on wheather condition.\n\nin other words: since gravity is only depending on radius, and friction is ignored, you would indeed be decoupled from earth rotation. you would end up somewhere else but not on the other end of the world.",
"Sir Isaac Newton did a great job of ELI5 in 1687: \"Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.\"",
"The Earth is rotating at ~1,000 miles per hour. \nThat is ~16.66 miles per minute. \nThat is ~0.27 miles per second.\n\nIf you jump straight up, and land 1 second later, are you now 0.27 miles from where you jumped?",
"Would this happen if you levitated in a big house or something? No, of course not. The house would move with the world, air in the house would move with the house, and you would move with the air. You wouldn't end up crashing through the side of your house just because you weren't touching the ground.\n\nNow take this outside. The air would move with the world, and you would move in the air. You wouldn't stay perfectly in place because the air doesn't move *perfectly* with the world. That's what wind is. So the wind would blow you around. But it wouldn't blow you halfway around the world in 12 hours.\n\nLevitating is really just like being a speck of dust or a balloon full of helium. You can easily see what effects the air environment has on these things.",
"No, your angular momentum would be conserved and you would keep rotating with the earth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
axrmbe
|
Why do some diseases confer immunity, but others do not?
|
It’s often said that you cannot get the same disease twice, because your immune system “remembers” fighting it and will defeat it before it starts. When someone does get sick with the same disease twice, it is often said to be a different strain, like how there are many cold viruses that circulate.
However, when reading about certain diseases, such as gonorrhea, food poisoning, and malaria, it seems that these diseases *don’t* result in long term immunity. Is this true? Can you get sick with the same thing twice, and if so, why is that?
For that matter, how does acquired immunity actually work? I have heard that it often diminishes with time, which is why we need booster shots for vaccines. Why are some diseases like smallpox and measles “immune for life” whereas you need a tetanus shot every 10 years?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/axrmbe/why_do_some_diseases_confer_immunity_but_others/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehw6aw7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pathogens are extremely extremely diverse with many different disease progressions, mutation rates, and reservoirs. \n\nFor example, human-only diseases like Polio and Measles are nearly eradicated due to vaccination. \n\nThe flu (Influenza) is easily transmitted and is in constant evolutionary battle with the human immune system, and every new flu season a new strain has evolved to evade our immune systems. There also animal reservoirs that can give rise to other flu strains that can be completely foreign and deadly. \n\nHIV, is for the most part, completely incurable as its genome is permanently integrated into your infected cell genome, and have an extremely high mutation rate. Vaccines are not close in the near future. \n\nAdditional improper usage of antibiotics or antiretroviral drugs will result in bacteria surviving at a sublethal dose of drugs and develop resistance.\n\nFood poisoning is caused by many different pathogens as well.\n\nThere are many diseases that are commonly asymptomatic as well, though this doesnt answer your question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
wdk1s
|
I'm working on a "King Arthur" type story, but i'm trying to make it more historically accurate. I have a few questions about the Celts in Britain and the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain.
|
Now, i know that King Arthur probably didn't exist. He's a mix of real life, folklore, romanticism, legend and fantasy. That's why i'm trying to create a story about Arthur but in a more historically accurate setting.
I plan on making Arthur a, now forgotten, chieftain of several united Celtic tribes (that's where the round table comes in), struggling against invading Anglo-Saxons. Does this make any sense?
What was the situation of the Celts after the Anglo-Saxons settled? What territories did the Anglo-Saxons invade and when (i know the Roman left Britain around 410 CE).
[On Wikipedia, this is a map of Anglo-Saxon territories in 600 CA. I wanted to start from there.](_URL_0_)
How big of an impact did the Anglo-Saxon invasion have on the native Celts? How long did the Celts exist, that is, when was the Celtic culture completely wiped out from Britain?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wdk1s/im_working_on_a_king_arthur_type_story_but_im/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5cekyj",
"c5cespv",
"c5cetl9",
"c5cffzw",
"c5cko0g"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A fantastic book has been written that did what you are trying to do. It is my favourite book series of all time. The first book is called The Skystone _URL_0_ . The book series takes place over a couple generations. But in this first book, the main character Publius Varrus, is a Roman Officer in Britain (I believe born in Britain) and basically the first book recalls the withdrawal of the Roman troops from Britain, as well as the casting of excalibur (hint hint skystone). As the Romans withdrawal, these Romano-British know it's going to be anarchy, and make plans to create a fortified city that can protect them (hint hint camulot) that can retain the virtues of the Roman Empire. Like I said, it is a series over a few generations as Arthur is born and the Saxons invade.\n\nIt is very realistic in descriptions of the society, the warfare (including innovations), just a completely immersive experience. Anyways, just a magnificent read. I never re-read books, but this one I plan on re-reading 10 years down the road. I basically cried at the end of the series knowing I will probably never read anything I enjoyed so much. If you write a similar book I might read it but unfortunately you have big shoes to fill in my mind. Here is a link on goodreads, as you can see, a very high rating even compared to classics _URL_1_ . I wouldn't suggest for the OP to read it though till he's done because it's so good you will subconsciously copy it.",
"This notion of wholesale invasion is under considerable review and debate. \n \nThere's a few things to consider, the first being that the Roman Empire wasn't so much the *Romans* per se invading the world as much as it was the McDonaldsisation via franchise of a large part of the world. \n \nBeing Roman was a brand name that could be bought into and the Roman corporation spread in a checkerboard fashion, initially they were invited into Britain and early adopters of the Roman label gained considerable advantage and typically paid for it with with the grain crop output of their former rivals. \n \nTowards the end of the Roman period in Britain a large proportion of the \"Romans\" in charge were already Germanic mercenaries that had aligned in various ways with Rome. \n \nFollowing the reduction in strength of the Roman brand and the withdrawal of Rome from Britain it's reasonable to assume that the people formerly in charge pretty much stayed on in charge but no longer felt the need to wear the Roman livery quite so much. \n \nThe other game changing disrupter of those times was the [Plague of Justinian](_URL_0_) - one of those ill recorded major epidemics that may or may not of pretty much wiped out 50% of the population everywhere - it hit Britain circa 550 having already cut a swath across Europe. \n \nThis leaves us with a picture of Europe cut up by plague (reduction of Anglo Saxons in Europe) and Britain a prosperous bread basket with Anglo-Saxons already on a good wicket and perhaps less affected by Europe; this leaves the door open for a picture that's not so much an *Invasion!* as it is of already resident Europeans who've drifted upwards through a power vacuum inviting their extended families to come on over to where the living is better. \n \nAs mentioned, there's much debate and you can read more and find a few references for further study here in the [Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain](_URL_1_) article. ",
"Just out of interest, have you read TH White's _The Once and Future King_? His depiction of at least the face-value parts of medieval Britain is accurate, though his story is as folk-lore legend as it gets. And it's not in the frame of time you're thinking of as the England of White's Arthur is a post-Norman one. Only, seeing other depictions of the legend would be helpful to you I'm sure.\n\nJust out of curiosity, do you intend to set your story during the time of the Heptarchy?",
"If you want to read up on the history of this period, two books to add to those vannucker listed are [this one](_URL_0_) and [this one](_URL_1_). They should give you a very good overview of the period.",
"Oh man, post-Roman Britain is a crazy topic. The big problem here is that after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (not Hortensius' withdraw, which to my research did not have a significant immediate effect on British life) civilization in Britain is more or less utterly obliterated. Occasionally this view is challenged, but the evidence is pretty firm. The best example is that the use of the pottery wheel is lost.\n\nThe exact specifics of the Anglo-Saxon \"invasion\" are complicated. The most restrained view of the evidence has bands of Germanic mercenaries being hired by towns for protection, and eventually these mercenaries attained a degree of political power. Whether this was accompanied by destructive mass migrations is unfortunately impossible to say.\n\nThe landscape is the most interesting part of this period. Post-Roman Britain was a place studded with crumbling but still magnificent remains of the former civilization (beautifully evoked in the Anglo-Saxon poem \"The Ruin\"). These ruins were often poorly understood by the people at the time--a great example, not from Britain, is a Gepid princess in Romania being buried in a Roman latrine. Old Amphitheaters, for example, might be converted into meeting halls--one fun \"theory\" is that King Arthur's round table was one such.\n\nAs for Celtic influence, I am generally skeptical. Religious art did enter a so-called \"Celtic phase\" but I assume, as someone who is not an art historian, that this is an example of Irish influence rather than a latent Celtic seed in the heart of Romano-British.\n\nA good place to start, incidentally, would be the Venerable Bede's work. It is readable."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Britain_peoples_circa_600.svg/300px-Britain_peoples_circa_600.svg.png"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skystone",
"http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/151723.The_Skystone"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain"
],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/History-Roman-Britain-Peter-Salway/dp/0192801384",
"http://www.amazon.com/Britain-After-Rome-Penguin-History/dp/014014823X/"
],
[]
] |
|
1kogps
|
why does reddit fuzz votes? i know it is an anti-spam measure, but how does it help?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kogps/eli5_why_does_reddit_fuzz_votes_i_know_it_is_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbqzvl8",
"cbr01ol"
],
"score": [
2,
18
],
"text": [
"If you have a spam bot and yo'ure going around upvoting and downvoting things it's impossible to know if your upvote was matched by a real person downvoting, or if you've been banned from reddit and your vote isn't actually doing anything. The value in you not knowing if your span bot is working or not is that you won't take the time to make a better one if you think this one is working, and the time spent running a banned bot is time that reddit gets one fewer spamer.",
"It helps because reddit has a shadow-banning system which is able to secretly ban accounts from having their posts/comments published to everyone else without telling the user who owns the account that they have been banned. The other key thing is that up-votes and down-votes don't count from these shadow-banned accounts (as far as I know).\n\nSo, spammers will open up tons of different accounts and use them to up-vote certain posts (attempting to manipulate vote counts). However, with the shadow-banning system in effect, they aren't notified when their accounts have been banned/disabled, so they may pointlessly be trying to up-vote posts using accounts where they don't actually have any voting power.\n\nThe problem is that spammers could simply figure out whether their votes are counting by tracking the up-vote or down-vote counts for the post in relation to votes made by the spammer's account. This is where vote fuzzing comes in. By fuzzing the vote counts, it makes it much more difficult for spammers to figure out whether their votes are actually counting, so the spammers may continue to try manipulating votes using accounts that have no power to influence vote counts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3q2mpx
|
what is "high fashion" and why does it often look almost nothing like clothing people wear?
|
I've seen a few fashion shows - the garb seems more like crazy modern art than clothing, and I've never seen anything like those items at a store.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q2mpx/eli5_what_is_high_fashion_and_why_does_it_often/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwbiigl",
"cwbinb5",
"cwbj6zz",
"cwblqon",
"cwc49p7"
],
"score": [
28,
88,
35,
19,
3
],
"text": [
"Think of it as an exaggerated signal of the direction of trends. The fashion designers working on fashion lines that will end up in mass production will take cues from the high fashion in less drastic changes to their lines. So for example, it has been fashionable for men to have flat front pants for several years. Recently high fashion has had shown some pleated pants on the runway. Now the pants at the fashion shows seem exaggerated to the common eye, big and baggy around the hips with large pleats. But that can be taken a signal that pleats may be ready to reappear in the mainstream. Similar changes happen for example in colors. High fashion may signal that a new shade or tone of color is ready to trend which may pick up in mass produced lines the coming season. ",
"Because it's not supposed to, *haute couture* is intended to communicate the designers ideas in an extreme memorable way. Later they'll design ready-to-wear collections that will be more like what buyers are actually buying. \n\nAn example of how couture ideas become clothes can be seen [here](_URL_0_). An extreme version on the left shows that the designer is thinking asymmetric silhouette, floral patterns, and a long slit which were preserved in the ready to wear garment and the ideas were much more muted in the diffusion collection (which is what many more people will wear). Versus is a higher volume brand than Versace. ",
"The way it was explained to me in layman' terms, was that designers use as many of their concepts as they can in the allotted time. While the overall outfit is outrageous some of the designs will be mimicked. Imagine a world where everyone wore only t-shirts. Then during a fashion show someone shows an outfit that is half leather, half fur, has a collar, flashing lights and giant wings. Most of it would be deemed outrageous, but looking at each piece separately someone might say, \"hey, I like that collar thing\". The that person goes on to make a polo shirt. It's not about the overall crazy design, it's about the piece parts.",
"It's basically made as art. The designer can go off the rails and do whatever, but at the same time trying to show buyers and the public what direction he she is going to take the brand in. Some brands, like [Maison Margiela!](_URL_0_), only do couture type clothes, other's mix and do couture and what's called pret a porter, or ready to wear. However the line between the two have been mixed, some designers throw in very un-wearable clothes in their ready to wear, but make simple dresses for couture.\nThere are also strict rules regulating which fashion brands can release couture lines.\n To earn the right to call itself a couture house and to use the term haute couture in its advertising and any other way, members of the Chambre syndicale de la haute couture must follow specific rules; they must:\n\ndesign made-to-order for private clients, with one or more fittings;\nhave a workshop (atelier) in Paris that employs at least fifteen staff members full-time;\nhave at least twenty full-time technical people, in at least one workshop (atelier); and\npresent a collection of at least fifty original designs to the public every fashion season (twice, in January and July of each year), of both day and evening garments.\n\nMost of the money for fashion brands is in the sales of accessories (bags, belts, umbrellas,) perfume and make up. The mark up on a Dior lipstick is astronomical. Aspirational marketing is huge in fashion.",
"It may help to think of it as art.\n\nArtist paint pictures or make statues or any of hundreds forms of arts, but the things like them we use in every day life tend to be more practical.\n\nEngineers build things and designers might add touches of design to them, but they amount artistic expression you can do with something that is still supposed to do its primary job is limited.\n\nWith cars for example you often see prototypes and concept cars that look far wilder and impractical than anything that actually gets built, but design ideas do end up in the final design.\n\nSimilarly high fashion is supposed to be about art more than practical consideration but small bits of it may end up in every day fashion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://marquis.marquisoffashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Versace-Couture-RTW-and-diffusion.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://ng.se/sites/default/files/users/40849/marc0593-1.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
klnen
|
why when i eat spicy food my poop turns into water.
|
It's not even all spicy foods, (Indian food seems to do nothing to me) but when it does, my god, those are the most painful, and liquid, poops ever. Why does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/klnen/elif_why_when_i_eat_spicy_food_my_poop_turns_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2l8y38",
"c2lbnxi",
"c2ldkh0",
"c2lh587",
"c2li46c",
"c2l8y38",
"c2lbnxi",
"c2ldkh0",
"c2lh587",
"c2li46c"
],
"score": [
28,
31,
8,
2,
2,
28,
31,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You lower intestine removes water from your poop before you poop it out. This is to prevent you from becoming too thirsty. If your intestine doesn't like what you've eaten (For example if it's hot and painful to your intestine.) your lower intestine will push it out faster. This will make it have alot more water in it and not be solid. This also what your body will do if the food is poisonous or will make sick.\n\nYou can solve this problem by ether eating something that can help to stop the hotness (Yogurt works for example.) or eat something like fiber that can produce enough extra poop to that the hot food doesn't seem that bad.",
"Turning poop into water was one of Jesus' less popular miracles.",
"They're not even liquid poops. They're just ass-piss.",
"I believe this is what Johnny Cash was singing about in his song \"Ring of Fire\".\n\nReferences to \"love\" in the song are just a euphemism for the Habanero squirts.",
"Because you touch yourself at night",
"You lower intestine removes water from your poop before you poop it out. This is to prevent you from becoming too thirsty. If your intestine doesn't like what you've eaten (For example if it's hot and painful to your intestine.) your lower intestine will push it out faster. This will make it have alot more water in it and not be solid. This also what your body will do if the food is poisonous or will make sick.\n\nYou can solve this problem by ether eating something that can help to stop the hotness (Yogurt works for example.) or eat something like fiber that can produce enough extra poop to that the hot food doesn't seem that bad.",
"Turning poop into water was one of Jesus' less popular miracles.",
"They're not even liquid poops. They're just ass-piss.",
"I believe this is what Johnny Cash was singing about in his song \"Ring of Fire\".\n\nReferences to \"love\" in the song are just a euphemism for the Habanero squirts.",
"Because you touch yourself at night"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1re5ap
|
how can my german shepherd be just as happy in the 0 degree weather outside as in the 75 degree inside?
|
I know she has a double coat but how is she not dying when she comes inside the warm house?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1re5ap/eli5_how_can_my_german_shepherd_be_just_as_happy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdmdj29"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Dogs can regulate their body temperature way better than humans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8r70xc
|
if lighter colors reflect more light, why is light skin better at producing vitamin d than darker skin?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8r70xc/eli5_if_lighter_colors_reflect_more_light_why_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0oyetq",
"e0ozg9f",
"e0p3fud"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"According to a study done and anthropological study done by Nina Jablonski, she comes to the conclusion that lighter skin is more succeptiable to sun damage, particularly from UVB radiation from living at higher altitudes. Due to the uneven spread of sunlight over generations, fairer skinned humans developed higher Vitamin D production rates in order to help defend against harmful effects due to radiation exposure.\n\nThose humans who lived in the south, near the equator and experienced more frequent and constant sun exposure at high levels subsequently developed darker skin tones which allowed for a more natural, physical barrier from sun exposure.\n\nTL;DR - lighter skin = weaker defense from UVB; increase Vitamin D production to compensate. Darker skin = stronger defense from UVB; less Vitamin D needed to combat damaging effects.",
"Light skin has less pigment within it which absorbs light. By having less pigment the light skin allows the light to penetrate and catalyze the production of vitamin D. It isn't just about which skin absorbs the most light, but about which skin allows the most light through.",
"I think the other answers overlook the mechanism. The important hing is that only inside living cells are chemicals converted into Vitamin D. Under the dead layers of skin. \n\nMore and more melanin is like putting more and more paint over a solar power panel. Use enough and the panel doesn't work. (i.e. Vitamin D does not get made sown in the living skin cells.)\n\nAs far as skin lightness/darkness goes, the evolution has been figured out. The balance between 2 disease states:\n\nDark skin is advantageous n areas with lots of light. In these area the light breaks down folic acid in pregnant females and results in spina bifita. Not getting sunburned is a bonus.\n\nLighter skin is advantageous when there is less light. Because less light means less Vitamin D is getting made, and your kids get rickets if they don't get enough.\n\nAn trivially interesting think - Eskimos have dark skin in an arctic climate because their natural diet of aquatic animals was so rich in Vitamin D there is no real danger of Vitamin D deficiency while eating it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5rh4x0
|
why do you sometimes feel a big lump in your chest when you eat something heavy like bread or rice quickly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rh4x0/eli5_why_do_you_sometimes_feel_a_big_lump_in_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd77ed6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you finish chewing a mouthful of food and swallow, the chewed food forms a ball-like \"bolus\" that needs to travel to your stomach. To do so, it has to go down your tube-like esophagus. \n\nThe esophagus has muscles lining it that pinch and push the bolus down towards the stomach. Think of it like pinching a straw and moving your fingers up and down to transport something in the straw. This is why it's possible to swallow water even when you are upside down.\n\nYour esophagus is normally lined with mucus to make it nice and slippery for the bolus to slide along. If you quickly eat bread or rice and swallow, the bolus can be very dry and large. The dryness can absorb the mucus, making it difficult to push downwards. The size also makes it harder for the esophagus to push everything down. The lump you feel is actually the bolus stuck in part of your esophagus that can't move unless you force something else down (water). Luckily, it's stuck after the split between your breathing and eating paths so it shouldn't impact your breathing. When this happens to me, I usually get hiccups!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4jbl7c
|
There is plenty on how many Americans have died in U.S.-involved wars, but how many of America's enemy combatants have died in U.S. wars?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4jbl7c/there_is_plenty_on_how_many_americans_have_died/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d35syok"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"As a historian with a specialization in military history, I can give you this very educated estimate. 2,230,115. Some things are very hard to estimate, namely casualties in some of the Plains Indian Wars and the Banana Wars, but that figure incorporates my best professional estimate. I'd say that's about as close a conservative figure as you can get. I'd be willing to accept up to 3 million as a liberal estimate.\n\nEDIT: This figure only covers casualties I believe to be inflicted by US forces, not including allies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1bjsnv
|
What are some achievements and advancements of Mesopotamia thanks to Hammurabi's Code and other written laws?
|
A history teacher gave us this as an essay though he never really went into detail about what he wanted. I can think of some obvious ones such as a more widespread understanding of morals, but what are some more explicit implications of written laws?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bjsnv/what_are_some_achievements_and_advancements_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c97c0uw",
"c98fy7x"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the most significant aspect of Hammurabi's Code was that punishments were constant (rather than arbitrarily decided by an official). For example, each theft preformed by a man against a man was punished the same way. ",
"I'm kind of late to answer, but I'd like to point out how one of the edicts of Hammurabi's law was that the length of slavery to pay off debt be limited to 3 years. \n\nThis is pretty important when you consider that debt could be a crippling aspect of economic activity in the period. \nLoans (at least for silver, barley's rate may have differed) were charged interest by law at a rate of 20% over the period of the loan. For a five year loan this came to a manageable 3% interest per year, but the short-term emergency loans issued to workers such as farmers and craftsmen to pay taxes or fund purchases often had terms as low as a month or two, which could mean interest rates of up to 800%. \nYou can see how that could be problematic. \n\nI got this information from Paul Kriwaczek's fascinating account in his book *Babylon* of the business records of a merchant of Ur named Dumuzi-Gamil in the reign of King Rim-Sin, a decade or two before Hammurabi consolidated Babylonia. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4v24mz
|
Does smell always correspond to substance?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4v24mz/does_smell_always_correspond_to_substance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5v0mr4"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Smell is basically made of small particles of that substance detected by the nose. So if you can smell it it usually means it is there, but sometimes the nose can smell things that are not present, which has to do more with the brain than the odour itself"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
16a8is
|
Is Hawking's Brief History of Time still accurate?
|
I'm about to read it for the first time and am wondering if any of the discussed topics and ideas have changed significantly in the last 25 years. Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16a8is/is_hawkings_brief_history_of_time_still_accurate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7uh42d"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The biggest thing that has changed since it was written was the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating (thus implying a positive cosmological constant or \"dark energy\"), meaning \"big crunch\" type scenarios won't happen within our framework of cosmology."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1n0be1
|
If the heaviest elements sink toward the center of the earth, shouldn't there be stratified layers of heavy metals - one of them being gold?
|
If the heaviest elements sink toward the center of the earth, shouldn't there be stratified layers of heavy metals - one of them being gold? And if so, won't we someday (possibly with the invention of some supermaterial) suck out this molten layer - upsetting the global gold/platinum/silver markets and so logically upsetting the world economy?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1n0be1/if_the_heaviest_elements_sink_toward_the_center/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccebzel",
"ccecn5b",
"ccectqp",
"cceet4d"
],
"score": [
50,
7,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"I think that the geological activity at these depths would be faster than the stratification of the heavy metals. The plate tectonics and magma flows would probably be faster than the rate at which the metal sink, and would constantly be mixing up the mantle and breaking up the lower crust. ",
"Yes, there will be a lot of those heavier metals near the core. In fact it's generally accepted/assumed that pretty much all the gold from the Earth's formation is at the core, and nearly that we find on the surface was delivered by asteroids during the late heavy bombardment when the Earth was the size it is today (more or less) and had already started to form its crusts. \n\nAs for the economy thing - possibly, who knows if its realistic to expect that to be possible, we'd know at least sometime before it happened on a large scale that it might be possible, allowing anything monetary still tied to those metals to be changed so that a crash in their prices didn't have too widespread an effect",
"We can measure the density of the core and a few of its properties (solid, about as dense as iron, magnetic, rotating) and speculate, but nobody's been down there to take a sample. The temperature is comparable to the sun and the pressure is the weight of a planet overhead, so even a Star Trek level civilization would find it a bit of a challenge to dig down there.\n\nHowever logic says this would be a good place to look for gold. We know the asteroids are loaded with precious metals and when Earth formed it all went somewhere. Incidentally, if you want thousands of tons of platinum, iridium and gold then maybe you should go mine a couple of asteroids instead.\n\n",
"It's worth remembering that almost everywhere on Earth the first molten material you will ever hit is the Outer Core more than 2900km beneath your feet. Elsewhere there are regions at shallower depth where a small percentage of rock *can* melt (provided temperature and pressure conditions are met). Even under active volcanic belts, molten material is quite rare.\n\nThat being said...\n\nIn the early Earth, much of the planet was at a very high temperature from accreting new material, the decay of short-lived isotopes and the gradual separation of the metallic core. It is quite possible much of the planet was above melting point. During this time, dense material, especially the unreactive metals will have sunk into the Core leaving the Mantle and Crust depleted in these elements.\n\nThe dominant process concentrating elements today are chemical - whether elements can be incorporated into magma. Geologists use the terms compatible and incompatible to describe how easily elements 'fit' into crystal lattices. So for instance, rare earth elements such as yttrium are highly compatible with the crystal structure of garnet - garnet soaks up yttrium, olivine is compatible with nickel, plagioclase with europium and so on. Rocks containing these minerals will be enriched in elements that are compatible with that mineral. For instance, garnet is rare on the surface, but is a major constituent of the Upper Mantle, so it's likely that the Upper Mantle is rich in yttrium and similar elements. \n\nAnother example is uranium which tends to migrate into silicate minerals found in the Upper Crust. So the continents are much richer in uranium and thorium than the underlying Mantle. This has a side-effect that much of the geothermal heat we see is generated at very shallow depths.\n\nHTH."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7xcav5
|
Can different volumes/pitches of sound travel at slightly different speeds in the same medium?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7xcav5/can_different_volumespitches_of_sound_travel_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"du7jxfx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, it's known as frequency dispersion. It can occur for any type of wave, sound included. \n\n\nAs far as sound propogating through air goes, the effects are pretty much non-existent. Wikipedia puts the frequency dispersion at 0.1m/s increase from 10 Hz to 100 Hz, and states past there it's negligible. Nothing quite as noticable as say the frequency dispersion of light through a prism. \n\n\nVarious other fluids or solids would have different acoustic dispersion and may see more pronounced effects. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.