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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5n90ia
|
how does a mechanical keyboard improve typing speed?
|
I'm already a pretty swift typer, but my dad is a notoriously slow typer. I let him take a look at my clickity-clackity mechanical keyboard, and he was able to type at a much rate than normal (he still typed with one finger on each hand regardless, but quicker than usual). Is it the difference in tactile and sound feedback vs a membrane keyboard?
edits: sentence structure, spelling, and word choice
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n90ia/eli5_how_does_a_mechanical_keyboard_improve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc9lj7h"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Tactile feedback is improved, resulting in less missed keys, AND key actuation rate (the speed at which the keys move up and down) is greatly improved, resulting in a more fluid key movement, which can contribute quite a bit to speed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
26meht
|
When did depictions of Hindu gods begin having more than two arms?
|
Was it a particular scripture that describes them as such, or was it a trend in one part that became fashionable over time? Certain deities are almost never shown with multiple arms (like Ganesh) while others are almost always shown with many (Kali).
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26meht/when_did_depictions_of_hindu_gods_begin_having/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chsm54j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The *Vedas* actually are fairly aniconic, and so the depiction of what we call today the Hindu gods was relatively late, not until the early centuries CE with he development of so-called Puranic or Shramanic Hinduism. This in turn was probably a result of influence from Buddhism, which in turn may have been taking cues from Gandharan art, which was influenced by currents in Western Eurasia. But that particular thread is a bit difficult to trace back so don't take this as the only potential interpretation. It also isn't completely relevant except insofar as it reminds us that these particular depictions are not as old as the *Vedas*.\n\nLooping back, the figural representation of the Hindu gods shouldn't be taken as literal depictions, to the extent that a literal depiction even makes much sense. Rather, by depicting the multiple arms or multiple heads the artist is able to combine the different aspects of a particular deity that they want to depict. For a largely illiterate population, visual communication of ideas such as this is extremely important in the popular dissemination and depiction of religion. A very common comparison is to [a stained glass window](_URL_0_), which communicate particular Biblical or religious stories without requiring a literate audience. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.13171952.2410/flat,550x550,075,f.u4.jpg"
]
] |
|
155vfr
|
if you are traveling faster than the speed of sound and you turn to say something to you friend, will they hear it ?
|
The scene: you are in a jet going faster than the speed of sound, but the air inside is still. Will you hear things ?
If so, its sound traveling faster than the speed of sound.
If not, where is it going ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/155vfr/if_you_are_traveling_faster_than_the_speed_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7jkajf",
"c7jkgnl",
"c7jpkw3"
],
"score": [
3,
25,
2
],
"text": [
"Similar to this but the pressurised cabin is Felix's pressurised suit. \n \n_URL_0_ \n \ntl;dr Yes, because the air is moving at that speed already the air is motionless in effect (from the cabin itself holding the pressure). Therefore it will vibrate the air molecules and you will hear the sound fine. ",
"If the air inside is still (meaning you're travelling in a pressurized cabin and the air is travelling with you) then yes, your friend will hear you. This does not count as going faster than the speed of sound because the speed of sound in measured relatively to the air that the sound crosses (inside the cabin), not the air outside the plane.\n",
"The speed of sound is the speed it travels through air. It's not like the speed of light, which is a universal constant.\n\nSee, light travels at C. No matter what^(false generalization). If you're in a car traveling at 50 MPH, the light that comes out of the headlights is still traveling at C. So's the light from the taillights. This actually causes the light waves to stretch out and change color slightly, which is known as redshift, or to compress slightly, called blueshift.\n\nSound doesn't do this. Sound travels at 340 meters per second in air. But it's literally *in* air - it moves by transmitting vibrations between air molecules. It's physically moving.\n\nSay you're in a long, empty train moving at 50 MPH, and you're running a toy car forward in the train at 5 MPH. To you, inside the train, that toy car is moving at 5 MPH. But actually, it's moving at 55 MPH. It doesn't care, because it's a physical object moving relative to other physical objects.\n\nSound is the same way. It moves through another physical object. So inside your jet, there's some air. The sound of you talking moves through *that* air at 340 m/s. So it sounds perfectly normal to you and your friend. But if you look outside, you're in a bubble of calm air traveling faster than sound. So you add the speeds together - your speech is moving through the world at twice the speed of sound."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/10/felix_baumgartner_supersonic_skydive_will_he_be_able_to_hear_his_own_voice.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4emmmb
|
why is there an attendance policy for many classes in college when i'm the one paying for the classes?
|
I am the customer. The professor gets paid to teach regardless of attendance. Thank you in advance for your response(s).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4emmmb/eli5_why_is_there_an_attendance_policy_for_many/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d21ekro",
"d21eo2g",
"d21eoch",
"d21ep9h",
"d21eqyw",
"d21eust",
"d21fjg4",
"d21fx5w",
"d21h01d",
"d21ia4s",
"d21iryx",
"d21iyrk",
"d21mev1",
"d221m57"
],
"score": [
3,
19,
33,
4,
3,
13,
2,
5,
2,
5,
4,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't matter who's paying/being paid, it's about ensuring that you, as a student, are committed to learning the course material. Ostensibly, the lectures/labs/recitations/etc make up a significant portion of the learning process (otherwise why have them in the first place) so missing them for no reason is a sign that you don't care to learn the material. If you don't want to learn the material why did you even bother to enroll in the class?",
"In the US, most colleges and universities receive government assistance for funding their institutions. The tax payers (your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) voted in favor of a bill that says \n\n > since we the tax payers are helping to fund these students education, we expect to have these students actually attend the classes they registered for. Should they fail to attend so many classes, they show themselves to not be taking higher education seriously and should thus be asked to leave the class that we - the tax payers - are giving some money to help fund.",
"Being the customer does not entitle you to dictate the nature of the product - all it entitles you to is the choice whether or not to purchase said product. The professor, as the provider of said product, retain the ability to dictate what type of service they will provide and how that service will be provided.\n\nIn this case, they feel that in order to earn a decent grade and grasp the material fully, you need to attend a certain number of classes. That is their prerogative as the teacher. If you disagree, you are free to enroll in a different course or another institution which has requirements more to your liking.",
"Classes have a limited number of seats for students to occupy. If there is a course that is required and you sign up and don't go you are preventing a student who couldn't sign up because the class was full from attending. ",
"A college degree isn't something that you (ought to) just buy. It represents something. That something should include both a willingness and ability to learn. You aren't likely to do these things if you aren't in class.\n\nMost schools I've seen (at least) don't really enforce an attendance policy beyond about sophomore level anyway. If you don't show up to class, you'll fail the tests. I've never once given an F to someone as a result of an attendance policy, but I've given plenty of Fs to people who didn't show up consistently.",
"You're paying for the right to attend their classes - not for the right to set the rules. Otherwise, you could say \"I deserve a passing grade, because I paid for this class.\" \n\nThe professors or the school set the rules, and you agree to follow them when you enroll in the class. If they want to include attendance in their grade, or use it as a reason to drop a student from their class, that's their right... and if you can be dropped, it's worth keeping in mind that other students are paying for the right to enroll in that class as well, and the university can pick the criteria by which they place students in classes.\n\n",
"In addition to the other answers given, some classes actually require a certain number of people present to function. For example, one of the classes that I teach is a public speaking class. In order for the class to function as intended, you will need to have an audience present to speak to. In order to provide an incentive for students to show up on days when they do not personally have to present, I grade based on attendance and on providing peer feedback to the speaker.\n\nSimilarly, there are a lot of classes that rely on a discussion format for learning. That's something that you can't experience without being physically present. In addition, you aren't the only person whose learning experience may be affected when you don't come to class. In discussion-focused classes, for example, you not being present detracts from the learning experience of the other students in your class, who are deprived of your perspective on the material.",
"\"The professor is paid to teach regardless of attendance\"\n\nWell yes: but how can I teach you if you're not in class?\n\nWe're also paid to evaluated you. \n\nBoth my husband and I are professors. Honestly, we don't care if a student misses one or two classes a semester: we've been there, we understand. But if you don't show up to class and participate regularly, I have no idea who you are. Chances are, you missed quizzes. Chances are, you missed assignments or tests. Chances are, you failed tests because you didn't listen to the information given: you weren't there. \n\nI can't in good conscience pass you because you don't have the knowledge that I'm claiming you have. If your attendance was down it's grounds to fail, because you didn't complete the course. \n\nIt would be fraudulent for the university to say that you did. We are telling your future employer that you are capable of something you're not. \n\nThe real question here is: If you don't want to show up to class, and you aren't interested in the material: why are you at university? \n\nThis is an honest question you need to ask yourself. There is nothing wrong with doing something else: a trade, start your own business, do something you love. \n\nEDIT: also, honestly: would you pay a tutor $100 to teach you something, and then not show up? \n\n\n\n\n ",
"I always loved when professors actually explained this in class, because it gets quite entertaining between the student questioning it. I once had one who got into an argument that basically ended with the professor saying that \"being in my class is not your right.\"",
"You pay to take the class, not to get the passing grade/degree. The passing grade is a result of doing the things the class requires of you, sometimes including attending class. The money you pay just gets you in the door.",
"You know they have no losses by NOT enforcing that policy....\nBut you paid that $100(example) to get the education....wouldn't that money go to waste?if you dont get/learn anything by joining?\n\nAnd as many people are pointing the fact that without thorough evaluation of performance of the kids/students/grads ,how can THEY improve the quality and service they offer?\n\nThey too have a reputation to maintain.\n\n",
"It's just an American thing. in other nations, like mine, there's no attendance requirement. You just have to pass the exams. It's university. You're an adult. You're supposed to be able to organize yourself by that age.",
"I had an attendance policy when I taught. In expository writing, you practice analytical thought in class via discussion. If you are not participating in class, then you are not completing all parts of the class, hence you will be penalized accordingly. So many students reduce a class to the sum of its graded assignments. The meat of the class is...unsurprisingly...what takes place in the class room.",
"I am a professor AND a businessman. First, from the business perspective on my end - when my customer / client decides that I did not supply what I promised for the price they paid we have a problem. The client either gets their money back or my business name is potentially smeared. From the educational perspective, I am paid to deliver content and to assure that my students are learning for the amount they are paying (and more). Therefore, I, the expert in education, must apply my knowledge of what is best to make the learning process take place. Part of that, at least on my subject/discipline, is making sure the student is in the classroom. The connected grade is a motivation to keep the student in class and attending when they need to.\nTake my word for it, it would be much easier to say, \"it's their money so if they don't attend they just don't get the content they paid for\" - but my students often do not have a mature enough perspective to see that money is wasted if they do not attend."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6pk9cf
|
why do american cargo trucks have the engine sticking out in front of the driver whereas european trucks have the engine below the driver?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pk9cf/eli5_why_do_american_cargo_trucks_have_the_engine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkpyn8k",
"dkpyqag",
"dkpz7ao"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
9
],
"text": [
"European trucks tend to have to get into smaller spaces inside older cities built before cars were invented. The engine below trucks otherwise known as *cab-over* are shorter and allow the drivers to maneuver better in tight spaces. ",
"The regulations for the maximum length includes the truck in the EU, so to have a longer trailer you need make the truck shorter. ",
"US laws have maximum trailer restrictions, EU has total length restrictions so it makes sense to have as short of a prime mover as possible so you can have a longer trailer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8awo55
|
Monday Methods: Who we are is defined by who we aren't – Edward Said and Orientalism
|
Welcome to Monday Methods, a bi-weekly feature where we discuss, explain, and explore historical methods, historiography, and theoretical frameworks concerning history. Today's topic is Edward Said's book *Orientalism* and how it exemplifies what cultural scholars, historians and so forth frequently describe as "othering" – the mechanism of defining who "we" are by defining who "we" not are – who is "the other".
Edward Said, a professor of literature at Columbia University and today counted among the founders of the field of post-colonial studies, published his book *Orientalism* in 1978. It deals with the representation of "the East" – the societies and people who inhabit Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Asia – in Western literature, media, and art. Specifically with how a specific canon of representation has evolved from the 19th century forward that constitutes a hegemonic discourse that constitutes in Said's words "the ontological and epistemological distinction made between "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident"" and that has become both an instrument of domination and a defining feature of how "the West" defines itself.
Some long time readers of this feature might find terms such as hegemony and discourse already familiar – Said relies heavily both on Gramsci's concept of hegemony as well as on Foucault's notion of discourse, which have been discussed before [here](_URL_2_) and [here](_URL_1_).
The essence of Said's argument in *Orientalism* is that the representation of "the Orient" in Western art, culture, and academia – the Western knowledge of the Eastern world – is not based upon an objective exercise of intellectual inquiry but upon a fictional depiction in the form of an intellectual exercise in self-affirmation. It is a system of thought that in the words of Said "approaches a heterogeneous, dynamic, and complex human reality from an uncritically essentialist standpoint; this suggests both an enduring Oriental reality and an opposing no less enduring Western essence".
The examples he cites from Orientalist fiction, covering everything from travel literature of the 19th century to 20th century academic texts show the strong discursive tendency to exoticise the East, portraying it as irrational, psychologically weak, feminized, industrially backward, despotic and backward which is contrasted with both an implicit and often explicit portrayal of the West as rational, psychologically strong, masculine, and capitalistically developed.
The Orient that is reproduced in culture, academia and politics is a field of projection unto which the West throws the negative images of its own self-image. It is constructed both in a negative and imaginary frame: As a realm of despotism and backwardness but also as the abode of legend, fairy tales, and marvels; of senusuality and pleasure. It epitomized longing for a different option. Alongside alleged Eastern cruelty, the portrayal of the Orient also – through its relationship with the feminine – involved sensuality and being a refuge from the alienation of the rapidly industrializing West. As Said writes:
> Scenes of harems, and slave markets were for many Western artists a pretext by which they were able to cater to the buyer's prurient interest in erotic themes (...) Such pictures were, of course, presented to Europeans with a "documentary" air and by means of them the Orientalist artists could satisfy the demand for such paintings and a the same time relieve himself of any moral responsibility by emphasizing that these were scenes of a society that was not Christian and had different moral values.
But Orientalism entails more than mere projection. Like every comparison, it creates dichotomy and thus entails a power relationship. It works in a dialectical relationship with an alleged European mission to civilize and like every hegemonic discourse has a tendency to assert itself in a very real power dynamic. As Said asserts "by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating restructuring, and having authority over the Orient." It creates both the basis and the legitimacy for how scores of Western politicians, experts, and colonial administrators have dealt with the alleged Orient, from North Africa to India and thus has very real implications for the relations of power between the political regions of Europe and the US and the aforementioned regions of "the Orient".
What Said has written about in *Orientalism* is of relevance to historians, even those who deal not with the Orient per se, because of the particular lessons it teaches that can be expanded beyond the particular example of the Orient:
The first one is the importance of the Other as revealing about the self. How past and present cultures and societies describe those they see as different is an important factor in revealing something about themselves. This concept of the Other was originally pioneered in the field of philosophy, by Edmund Husserl in his phenomenology and in the field of psychology with the Other being constituent for the self. In a more historical sense and following Said, given that the Orient is not real, not an inert fact of nature but rather a discoursive construct with a historical formation, we can glean more about those who define themselves as the West by reading what they have to write about the Orient than about the countries and societies that are the alleged Orient. This is not limited to that particular example: From the Roman and Greek writing about the Barbarians to the 19th century German discourse on Jews and Slavs, historians have learned and realized to examine these as more revealing to their authors than about their subjects.
Expanding this, historical discourses on the Other are almost always power discourses, meaning they have the tendency to assert themselves in concrete and manifest power relations. Here Said's relevance for post-colonial studies comes into play for what kind of knowledge is produced about certain people can strongly influence the relations of power with them. Subjugation can justified this way, as can colonial projects and continued discriminatory measures. This reading is also one that can be applied in a fruitful manner by historians of almost every period and every region – seeing how not only identities of self are solidified through the Other but how they change and shape the relationship with the alleged other is a topic relevant from the beginning of antiquity to the present day.
In short: Said's writings on Orientalism make interesting reading even for those who do not deal with the Orient for it exemplifies certain dynamics and relations that are relevant throughout human history and can help particularly those of us who are in academia take a critical look on what kind of knowledge we produce within the framework of its historical context. For more, read Said's introduction to this book, where he also addresses criticisms [here](_URL_0_).
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8awo55/monday_methods_who_we_are_is_defined_by_who_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx30599",
"dx31kmz",
"dx32pq9",
"dx3shdf",
"dx6170r",
"dx8fa72"
],
"score": [
8,
56,
19,
15,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"Good post. Do modern day historians, particularly historians of the \"orient, still use Said's Orientalism theory directly? Or have there been developments since he wrote it?",
"It is really striking just how much of our understanding of history and culture is shaped by this particular form of colonialist self-definition. My field, for one, thrives on Orientalism, and trying to let go of this worldview involves giving up a lot of the things we think we know.\n\nThe Greeks, of course, were the earliest people to \"Orientalise\", in the sense that they created a negative stereotype of the Eastern foreigner that has much in common with the othering process described and criticised by Said. They often derided the Persians as effeminate, deceptive, physically weak, despotic, and decadent. But this was the product of their lived experience: a single enormous Empire dominated the East, and the Greek sense of self emerged in large part from the simple fact that mainland Greece had managed to resist Persian expansion. Recent scholarship has argued that the Greek identity itself rose from this act of orientalist negation: \"Greeks\" are those who are not like Persians, who fought the Persians and won. Many of the specific dimensions of their view of the East developed out of historical realities like the immense wealth of Persia.\n\nBut it is the more modern kind of Orientalism described by Said that has led to these Greek stereotypes remaining prevalent. Scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, strongly influenced by the Orientalist perceptions of their day, were unapologetically uncritical of the Greek narrative of Greek superiority over the feminine, irrational Persian. They were only too happy to repeat the Greek claims that supported their notion of a timeless, homogenous East. Stories from Herodotos and Xenophon and tales of court intrigue and royal extravagance found in Ktesias were such a perfect fit for contemporary Orientalism that they could be instantly transposed to the Ottoman Empire through a mere swapping of names. Greek prejudices helped shape Orientalism, and Orientalism in turn kept Greek prejudices alive.\n\nThe result is that much of what you read in all but the most recent textbooks about the Achaemenid Persian Empire and its conflicts with the Greeks is stereotyped nonsense. Invariably, the Persian court is sketched in terms that bring the dress and architecture of 19th century harem paintings irresistibly to mind. The Persian Empire is typically described as a power in terminal decline, ineffective in war, ruled by cruel despots, softened by luxury and decadent to the core. The battles it fought in the Persian Wars and against Alexander are almost always presented as foregone conclusions, in which the light-armed and cowardly Persians never really stood a chance of defeating the mighty, manly Greeks. And this is what goes for *scholarship.* When pop culture gets its hands on the Persians, sheer undiluted Orientalism runs wild, and the result is movies like *Alexander* and *300*.\n\nIt's only in the last few decades that scholars have begun to become aware of the field's prejudices, and to resist the clichés of Orientalism. With the emergence of the field of Achaemenid Studies in the 1980s, it became a goal to try to analyse the history of this empire without the Greeks' orientalising goggles on. It is now, at last, increasingly recognised that the Greeks formed the western fringe of a deeply interconnected Levantine cultural zone that cannot justifiably be separated into \"West\" and \"East\". But it will take many more years before wider audiences will be used to the idea of recognising the actual nature and achievements of the Persians, instead of mentally amalgamating them with everyone else we identify as \"Oriental\".",
"In my graduate studies, Said's work on Orientalism seems so foundational that to encounter a contemporary historical monograph that doesn't reference the subject in some way is almost surprising. He joins the ranks of Foucault as one of those mythical figures of historiography, always worth paying respects to. \n\nBut given the prominence of his work, I wonder: do any professional historians encounter professional historical work that makes you think \"Ah, this person didn't read Said.\" Or is Orientalism only really a discursive factor in non-academic spheres (i.e. film, politics, etc.)? Also, what are some of the common criticisms of his notion of \"Orientalism\"?\n\nAs an aside, did Edward Said coin the term \"The Occident\", or did that exist prior? ",
"I’m not sure if the format of these threads allows uninformed questions, but here goes: it seems that, as /u/Iphikrates confirms, the concept of the east as a distinct place, and the practice of exoticizing it, dates back far longer than the 19th century, and to periods when the West wasn’t dominant or a colonial power. \n\nI just finished reading *Baudolino* by Umberto Eco which while not a historical text I believe aims to accurately convey the attitudes of the 11th century and I think can be called an orientalist novel in Said’s sense. Which then suggests that many of the ideas shown in the novel, such as the legend of Prester John, were also orientalist or perhaps “Proto-orientalist”.\n\nTo me it seems that Said is artificially limiting orientalism to the past 200 years in order to specifically define it as a phenomenon of colonialism and subjugation, when in fact the ideas are more complex than that. \n\nAm I missing something?",
"I've increasingly got a bit dubious about the way Said uses the idea of an Other in his work. On the most basic level it seems that the processes he describes are by no means limited to how Europe perceived the Orient, just look at Linda Colley's work about how British identity formed by contrasting itself to the French Other.\n\nBeyond this it seems his concepts are tad absolutist and ironically he appears to have provided a literary model which other postcolonial studies have echoed to self-affirm. Joel S Kahn's criticism of *The Myth of the Lazy Native* by Syed Hussein Alatas explores this really well when he argues that contrary to claims that the British saw the Malays as lazy and immobile they were in fact very worried about their mobility, and crafted policies to limit this. Now I don't buy him completely but I still think it's interesting to wonder if Said's insistence all European writings merely recreated established images has in fact lead to us ignoring those that don't.",
"A bit tangential. Can't remember where (maybe on a more belligerent subreddit, maybe in some blog or manifesto by a young postgrad), but I remember seeing it said once or twice that no-one should use the concept of \"othering\" without referencing Said (and possibly also someone else I've forgotten). How true is that really if we're talking about academic essays and papers? I had thought \"other[ing]\" had passed into general usage, and at any rate I'm used to it as a normal word slung about among arts & humanities grads when talking about all sorts of cultural phenomena. Does it really still need to be outlined as more abstruse or contentious concepts need to be? "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2014/12/Said_full.pdf",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6cmtpw/monday_methods_a_special_episode_of_our_podcast/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5e9s91/monday_methods_marxism_and_hegemony/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5z36fn
|
What were students in the Soviet Union taught about other forms of socialism, particularly Maoism and Trotskyism?
|
Did the Soviet curriculum on Marxism describe tendencies critical of the Soviet government? Ideology was such a substantial part of why China broke away from the Soviet bloc, that I'm interested in how this theoretical break was officially described. If a Russian college student wanted to learn about Mao Zedong thought, would he or she be able to?
I'm interested in any examples from 1953 until the breakup of the Soviet Union.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5z36fn/what_were_students_in_the_soviet_union_taught/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deuxm8k"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"To piggy back off of your question...\n\nWas Gramsci ever taught to Soviets? I can see how Gramsci might be considered particularly unpalatable to the Soviet system, so I would be shocked if the answer was \"Yes.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ksu7c
|
what will they do with the royals world series champions shirts?
|
Obviously, before the Giants won the World Series last night, both teams premade a ton of T-shirts so that they could be sold as soon as either side won. The Giants shirts will be sold, but what will happen to the Royals shirts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ksu7c/eli5_what_will_they_do_with_the_royals_world/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clod0xa",
"clozm33"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"At least some of the time, those kinds of products get donated to places like the really poor parts of third-world countries. There's some great pictures floating around the internet of rural African kids wearing championship shirts from a team that didn't actually win.",
"As others have said, they end up in poor countries. This hasn't always been true. Not too long ago, they were shredded. Some activists basically shamed the companies into donating them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1w0kuu
|
how does my body let out a fart and not also all my stools, even when watery?
|
The colon seems like an upside down valve. You'd think that if you open the valve, even a little, all would come out.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w0kuu/eli5_how_does_my_body_let_out_a_fart_and_not_also/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cexk8ff",
"cexkif7"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Psh, speak for yourself. If mine is \"watery\" it's like an air powered paint grenade.",
"I would assume it involves pressure differences. Gas has a higher pressure than liquid. The air outside of your butt has a lower pressure than the gas in your butt. The gas in your butt most likely collects between your sphincter and the stool inside your rectum, allowing it to escape without the stool coming with it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
266elf
|
What are the interrelationships between tool-steel metallurgical properties?
|
The website for Hock Tools says this on their tool steel page:
"The three qualities that most effect the selection of a steel for a hand-tool application are edge-holding, sharpenability, and corrosion-resistance. For metallurgical reasons, you can only have two of the three."
Can someone explain more and why this would be?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/266elf/what_are_the_interrelationships_between_toolsteel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chohfcz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The website explains it in the following paragraphs, perhaps not that well:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe choices are low-carbon steel, high-carbon steel, and alloy (stainless) steel. The authors may be overgeneralizing, because there are many, many different alloys of steel. The following is generally true:\n\nCarbon steels are easier to sharpen than alloy steel.\n\nHigh-carbon and alloy steels are harder than low-carbon steel, and thus hold an edge better.\n\nLow-carbon steel is more rust-resistant than high-carbon steel, and alloy steel is generally rust-resistant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.hocktools.com/toolsteel.htm"
]
] |
|
1zcpl5
|
When they were independent, how were Duchies, Principalities and Marquisates effectively different than kingdoms? If you were monarch of a sovereign state, why wouldn't you call yourself a king?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zcpl5/when_they_were_independent_how_were_duchies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfsikc6",
"cfskbl0",
"cfsotnj",
"cfsumpa"
],
"score": [
428,
75,
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Fully independent happened very rarely - at least in theory, they were vassal to someone, and even if they fought that off, the theoretical liege lord could at any time with the approval of the papacy, the emperor and other lords come stomping to bring you in line.\n\nMany of these states would be within the Holy Roman Empire and *de jure* under the emperor.\n\nCalling yourself a King was a dangerous game. It told everyone around you that you wanted to be *de jure* vassal of none. To accept that you are temporarily not under their thumb was acceptable to many. To shove it in their face and claim to be their equal? Them's fighting words.\n\nKingdoms existed either through a long tradition (Sweden, Scotland, France, Bohemia, England, Denmark, Norway, Castile) or were created through violence and papal or imperial support (Portugal, Hungary).\n\nMany were de facto independent, few were de jure independent.",
"The title of king is a European concept and came from the Germanic tribal (word: Koenig) system in the wake of the so-called Barbarian Invasions at the end of the Roman period. \n\nWith the ascendancy of Charlemagne, the title of King became intertwined with Papal power. The Pope conferred divinity to the kings; their position as ruler was now part of the conceptualization of Christendom. So the various rulers around Europe who had the title of King were essentially ratified by the Pope after this point. This includes France, Germany, and England.\n\nSpain is the most interesting example. Charlemagne invaded Iberia in the late 700's, conquering a borderland called the \"Spanish March\". Within that area he conferred several \"Kingdoms\" and \"Counties,\" appointing Kings and Counts, respectively. \n\nFast forward a few centuries. The various titles in Spain more or less stayed static, with the exception of the Kingdom of Asturias, which fell apart and was re-shuffled into the kingdoms of Castile, Leon, and Navarre.\n\nAragon is a more interesting example: in the mid 1100's, the Kingdom of Aragon married into the house of Barcelona, adding the \"County of Barcelona\" to the King of Aragon's lands. He didn't incorporate Barcelona/Catalonia into the Kingdom of Aragon, because the Count of Barcelona was a more powerful figure AND because the historical significance of both positions, King and Count, held a lot of political and social sway.. Thus he remained \"King of Aragon, Count of Barcelona.\"\n\nLater, in the late 1200's, the Pope convinced James II of Aragon to renounce his claim to the Kingdom of Sicily (a norman kingdom founded in the 1000's) by giving him \"The Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica.\" This new kingdom was essentially created by the Pope at that time. It wasn't even ruled by Aragon, either--James had to to and try to Conquer it. But not ruling it \"de facto\" didn't stop him from claiming it \"de jure\".\n\nTL;DR: Kingship was a title with heavy historical significance; in order to be a legit king, you had to have both political right to rule as well as the blessing of the church.\n\nEDIT: As per peteroh9's correction, it was Pepin III, not Charlemagne, who became King of the Franks with the Pope's help.",
"As a sort of follow on to this question, what role did the pope (and by extension papacy) play in deciding who got to be a Kingdom and who was a Duchy, Principality or Marquisette (is that correct?)?",
"In the Holy Roman Empire at least, there was only allowed one king, the King of Bohemia. Eventually the Habsburgs were allowed the tittle of Archdale, but no one was allowed to claim the tittle of King under the system. This is the reason why the King of Prussia was actually the King in Prussia and only a Duke in the Empire (the claiming of the title was a political move but eventually the in was dropped and they were just called the king of Prussia.) \n\n source: The Iron Kingdom"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
16ozix
|
why in grade school i used 30+ year old textbooks, but in college textbooks last one semester?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16ozix/eli5_why_in_grade_school_i_used_30_year_old/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7xzk9g",
"c7xzydl",
"c7y0b2o",
"c7y0g75",
"c7y1nzk",
"c7y2bgx",
"c7y3p2q",
"c7y5xqz"
],
"score": [
22,
25,
10,
4,
13,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"because in college the students have to pay for the books in order to study and they may keep the book after, so they need to be bought every semester and the old book isn't printed years later. \n\nIn grade school (normally) the school district pays for all the books so they don't need to buy new books. It's also cheaper to teach off of the same book every year and buying books rarely is also much cheaper then buying a new set for every kid every year. Finally elementary education doesn't change as quickly as college education, which normally tries to be more useful for the current marketplace.",
"I have no proof of this...but I have a feeling it boils down to money disguised as publishers keeping information up to date. Although I don't think that is every case. Books are business. They need to make a buck somehow. Also, I was an English major in college and I saw \"updates\" in books that were ridiculous (e.g. margins moved a fraction of an inch, minor typos, updated pictures etc.) None of those things had much to do with what I was learning. \n\nThat being said, the MLA Handbook is updated frequently and I found that to be useful. ",
"Aside from the money part, in grade school you're getting taught the basic theories about what you are learning. In college you're getting taught the details, which can change a lot in a small amount of time, especially for developing fields like genetics. ",
"Textbooks in college last one semester because of the used book market.\n\nIn the old days, college texts would last a long time just like in grade school. But then students wised up and started selling their books used. Of course the publisher sees no money from a secondhand sale, so they only really have the one semester during which to recoup their costs. After that they really aren't going to see any more sales, so the only way to keep making money is to put out a *new* book the following semester and try to get professors to teach that one. This same phenomenon is also the cause of the back-breaking cost of many college textbooks--they only have one semester to turn a profit, so they charge as much as they can.",
"Your elementary school/school board would have to buy new textbooks = no new texbooks. They don't have the money and therefor won't spend it.\n\nYou have to buy whatever book the college tells you to = new books every semester.",
"School districts don't have the money to spend on textbooks, because the budget is fixed and often doesn't have enough wiggle room to make that extra spending. This is compounded with the fact that basic math, language, history, and science doesn't change often enough to warrant a change in textbooks, where college subjects can be bleeding edge.\n\nStudents in college however pay for the textbooks out of pocket or via loans, and boy do the colleges and professors milk them for it. Backroom deals, subsidies, professors with textbooks releasing versions every year with virtually no change besides some of the question numbers... it's a huge racket, and you should avoid it as much as possible.",
"Some classes, the professors write their own books and often they notice their own mistakes during the lecture. This leads to newer editions which the next set of students have to buy. \n\nHonestly, many college textbooks contain so many faulty editing. Examples are bad or incorrectly shown or the numbers don't add up. I always notice something in most of the textbooks I get. I do use older editions when I can (to save money) and when I compare it with my friend's current edition, mine looks like messy draft version. Other than that, they rearrange pictures and tables and figures to look more aesthetically pleasant. Some bullshit not worth paying $240 for.",
"I had a Professor tell me that the University will make a deal with certain publishers to get their books cheaper provided that the University sells a new edition per year. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
21igr6
|
how do lungs control breathing rate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21igr6/eli5_how_do_lungs_control_breathing_rate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgdbkii",
"cgdbojc",
"cgdg9xi"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You have a muscle called the diaphragm which actually does the work. _URL_0_\n\nAs it contracts, it \"opens\" your lungs so they take in air. ",
"Your lungs actually inflate and deflate according to the actions of a muscle at the bottom of your chest cavity called a diaphragm (See the start of _URL_0_).\n\nNow your unconscious breathing rate is controlled in your brain stem and it's basically determined by how much carbon dioxide (CO2) you have in your bloodstream. Generally the higher the carbon dioxide concentration, the heavier your breathe. \n\nFun trivia: Your body doesn't actually care about how much oxygen you're getting and you can pass out and die with no discomfort from lack of oxygen. That's why you can pass out by hyperventilating. You expel carbon dioxide but aren't holding air in your lungs long enough to absorb enough oxygen. So your body thinks all is good because your CO2 level is very low but you still pass out because your brain can't notice you're low on oxygen too. Once you pass out, you generally stop hyperventilating and your oxygen level comes back up.",
"Breathing is controlled by the brain stem (which is located in the cervical spine. C3, 4, 5 keep the diaphragm alive!) \n\nThe breathing rate is controlled by the levels of carbon dioxide in the blood (PaCO2) as the body produces carbon dioxide the levels of carbon dioxide in the blood increases the respiratory rate increases to exhale the Co2.\n\nTaking a breath in involves the diaphragm moving downwards and it decreases the pressure in the lungs below that of the normal pressure of the outside air, this then causes air to be basically sucked into the lungs like a vacuum. \n \nWhen you breath out the diaphragm moves up squishing the lungs, increasing the pressure of the air inside of the lungs til a point that the pressure inside the lungs is higher than the pressure outside so the air is pushed out. \n\nAcessory muscles are uses to increase this effect, say for example when you've run 100m you body is producing a lot more Co2 so to compensate you need to breath more. The shoulder muscles help out by moving up and down to get more air in and out. \n\nIf you look at someone who is just sitting in a chair you can see there chest rising and falling if you look close enough but you don't tend to see there shoulders moving a lot. Whereas if you look at someone who's run a race there whole body is moving to get more air in.\n\nFor example - Look at this guy's shoulder after he's just finished the boat race _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Respiratory_system.svg"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na-ZvufXwng"
],
[
"http://youtu.be/63E91FI11VY?t=48m41s"
]
] |
||
2mruxr
|
what is imax and how is it better than normal cinema screens?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mruxr/eli5_what_is_imax_and_how_is_it_better_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm6zkr1",
"cm709uz",
"cm7ak3c"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Bigger film = bigger projection with better quality. ",
"Normal film shoots on 35mm film, while IMAX film shoots on 70mm film. Larger film means that you can enlarge the picture way beyond a normal screen size without losing picture quality. Basically, you can keep the picture quality pristine on those massive screens because the film itself is much larger.",
"Normal 35mm film is actually 21.95mm x 18.6mm. IMAX film is 70mm x 58.5. Modern digital projection system uses 4K DCI format (4096 x 2160, aka 2160p in contrast to 4K UHD TV at 3840 x 2160), 35mm film is roughly 6K resolution, and IMAX is at around 18K resolution. So it's more than just \"bigger screen\".\nAlso, movies are normally shot in \"cinemascope\" 2.40:1 aspect ratio which is wider/thinner than conventional HD TV at 16:9, but IMAX is shot in 1.43:1 aspect ratio so it fills about 40% more of your field of view. So it's more than just \"bigger screen\". Additionally in comparison to 35mm film that has audio builtin to the same film, IMAX has audio separately on 35 mm film or on a separate hard drive in uncompressed format just for audio. So it makes more use of film for the images. The film itself is extremely costly and heavy so some IMAX movies are not shot exclusively in 70mm IMAX but shot in 4K DCI digital and upconverted/remastered to 70mm IMAX. You'll notice changing aspect ratio in movies like Interstellar, and it CAN be a tell tale sign that the film makers used shittier camera for scenes they deemed unimportant. If you care about image quality and total immersion, not to mention better sound, watch movies in IMAX in all its glory. If you can't tell the difference and IMAX is simply a \"big screen\" don't waste your money on viewing experience that could've been used on a large popcorn with extra butter on top. Technology is more than what meets the I....MAX. addendum: maybe what I wrote is more like ELI21..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2q47p6
|
Do some snowflakes have depth to them?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2q47p6/do_some_snowflakes_have_depth_to_them/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn30jco"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"All snowflakes have depth to them. [Though some are more \"three-dimensional than others](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/snowtypes4.jpg"
]
] |
||
2gmx4e
|
How are the receptor sites on synapses cleared or cleaned?
|
Once a neurotransmitter gets into a site is it absorbed? Are there free floating custodial cells the regularly clears out used transmitters? Do they break down into the intercellular solution?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2gmx4e/how_are_the_receptor_sites_on_synapses_cleared_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckkqyb4",
"ckkr18u"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The binding of neurotransmitters to their receptors is completely reversible. That is to say, once a neurotransmitter binds to it's receptor, it will eventually unbind from the receptor. Indeed, when we talk about the \"affinity\" a neurotransmitter has for a receptor, we are talking about the ratio of how quickly it binds to a receptor, to how quickly it unbinds.\n\nHow quickly does a neurotransmitter unbind? Well it depends on the neurotransmitter/receptor pair we are talking about, but in general it unbinds on the order of 2 to 50 ms.\n\nBut then what? Well, the neurotransmitter may very well bind to the same receptor again, or to another receptor. But eventually it will diffuse away from the synapse. Here its fate depends somewhat. But a classical fate will involve it being snagged by a molecular pump, which pumps it into a cell; either another neuron, or an astrocyte, where it may be repackaged for release, or broken down by enzymes.",
"There are several ways.\n\n* Some neurotransmitters are just pumped back into the presynaptic cell. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors partially block the reuptake of serotonin, for instance, letting it sit in the synapse and perisynaptic space longer.\n\n* Some neurotransmitters are also cleared by astrocytes, which are everywhere in the brain, providing some structural support as well as doing other chores. Glutamate can be partially cleared by astrocyte uptake and conversion to glutamine.\n\n* Acetylcholine is degraded by an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase. Cholinesterase inhibitors like donepezil or galantamine block some of the acetylcholinesterase activity and increase the amount of choline active in the synapse (or neuromuscular junction, for that matter)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3szkrd
|
. why are some people born not as smart as others, not accounting for mental disabilities?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3szkrd/eli5_why_are_some_people_born_not_as_smart_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx1tmrm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It actually isn't clear that anyone is born more or less smart than someone else. At least not significantly so. \"Smartness\" is enormously affected by education, and people have a huge range of different educational experiences."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1swa7c
|
Why did Japan never adopt the crossbow?
|
Japan doesn't seem to have adopted the crossbow at any time in its pre-gunpowder history. At least, I've never seen a crossbow depicted in Japanese history -- bows and spears, certainly, but not crossbows. I find this very confusing mainly for two reasons: i) the interchange of technology and ideas between Japan and China; and ii) the existence of the Chinese repeating crossbow as early as 300BC.
Does anyone know why the crossbow doesn't seem to have made the same leap that swordsmithing, Buddhism, etc themselves made? My only real guess would be that the Japanese bow was already powerful enough. That logic makes me uncomfortable, though, because it reminds me a bit of the "katanas are perfect final evolution" foolishness. Maybe a mixture of the bow's power and the crossbow's difficulty of use on horseback?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1swa7c/why_did_japan_never_adopt_the_crossbow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce1xkqu",
"ce1y0p1"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"I would note at the outset that there are some mentions of the crossbow in Japanese history. Just google 'oyumi' for some background information. It is, however, correct to note that their usage is vastly less prevalent than in China.\n\nCompared to the Chinese, the Japanese would have had logistical problems in producing crossbows. The main difficulty would have been one of readily available materials - the same limited choices of construction materials that determined the development of the distinctive Japanese longbow would have complicated the design and manufacture of hand-crossbows as well.\n\nThe bow staves of Chinese crossbows were generally composites of wood, bone, sinew and glue, constructed in much the same manner as a steppe bow. But, as a mountainous country without the ready access to the steppe \"enjoyed\" by the Chinese, the Japanese supplies of animal products were scantier and as a result they fashioned their bows from wood and bamboo instead, which required that the weapons be long. Manufacturing crossbows with composite bow staves of wood-and-bamboo comparable in length to those of regular bows would have resulted in a weapon too unwieldy to be practical: not merely extraordinarily wide and not readily usable by troops standing in close ranks but also extraordinarily long, as it would have been necessary to lengthen the stock, to permit a sufficient draw. Crossbows made with short wood, or wood-and-bamboo bow staves would have been considerably weaker, and more prone to breaking or delaminating, than the regular bows already in use.\n\n",
"Your last point makes the most sense to me. It's difficult to say why something didn't happen, but from my understanding, I would hypothesize that wholesale adoption of crossbows would have been because they were unusable on horseback. Mounted archery, as you may know, was the primary method of combat until the 16th century and the beginnings of mass infantry (with a short attempt during the 7th century at a conscripted army that has no evidence at every actually happening). It's possible that, had mass infantry been a thing for a long period of time they might have started using crossbows... but even when mass infantry developed as a tactic, guns weren't the primary weapon. Tom Conlan's research showed that arrows were used just as often and just as efficiently. [He has a chapter in this book on those statistics](_URL_0_). He elaborates on that more in [State of War](_URL_2_). \n\nFor the sake of reference, Japanese bows, especially Heian-early medieval bows, really weren't that powerful. They're also pretty clumsy and not easy to just pick up and use from horseback either. Warriors spent a lot of time developing their abilities, and being a mounted archer was part of being a more elite warrior. It also meant you had the economic means to have a horse.\n\nI haven't read these for a while, but you might find them interesting if you're willing to look more into the topic:\n\n[Hurst, *Armed Martial Arts of Japan*](_URL_1_)\n\n[Kleinschmidt, ed, *Warfare in Japan*](_URL_3_), chapter titled \"The Introduction of Mounted Archery into Japan.\"\n\nEdit: typos"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=DROBAV-DQ9IC&pg=PT262&lpg=PT262&dq=conlan+warfare+in+japan&source=bl&ots=igqVjGpDUx&sig=jOUFEy-tedjaq9UfHktFB0KLpxc&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=2Q6tUtmcIoapyAHll4DABA&ved=0CIABEOgBMAc#v=onepage&q=conlan%20warfare%20in%20japan&f=false",
"http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Martial-Arts-Japan-Swordsmanship/dp/0300116748",
"http://www.amazon.co.jp/State-War-Fourteenth-Century-Michigan-Monograph/dp/1929280238",
"http://books.google.com/books/about/Warfare_in_Japan.html?id=bTtyAAAAMAAJ"
]
] |
|
2oflfs
|
why don't women catcall men?
|
I'm sure it happens but not nearly as often as the other way around.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oflfs/eli5_why_dont_women_catcall_men/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmmobf8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Women are not encouraged to express their sexuality in the same way as men in our culture. Women actually having lots of sex or otherwise finding too many men attractive is frowned upon (the term \"slut shaming\" is used to describe this). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1bpaws
|
Why was obsidian so valuable to prehistoric peoples?
|
I realize this is a bit more of an archaeology question, but we have several active archaeologists here, so I figured I would ask. I'm finding in my reading that it seems like every culture I read about uses obsidian, in Asia, North and South America, and Mesopotamia. And not only did they use it, they established trade routes to get to it.
What sparked this question today was a maritime route established in Japan from around where modern day Tokyo is down the Izu Islands as early as 30,000-32,000 years ago. [Habu, 2010, Seafaring and the Development of Cultural Complexity in Northeast Asia](_URL_0_). From what I'm reading, the boats were seaworthy, but this is more than a day trip, and there's really nothing else on the island that they could get of value that wouldn't have been available where they were. I've also read of instances in the Americas and Mesopotamia involving surprisingly long terrestrial land routes.
Aside from being shiny, what made obsidian worth establishing these fairly lengthy trade routes?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bpaws/why_was_obsidian_so_valuable_to_prehistoric/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c98r1me",
"c98tj40"
],
"score": [
9,
9
],
"text": [
"Obsidian can be used to make sharp cutting tools. It is a hard stone to work, but the thin flakes can be shaped and turned into very effective knives. It is more brittle than metal, but it keeps its cutting edge longer. Obsidian is so sharp, it was used to make surgical knives until fairly recently in modern western medicine. They were used to remove cataracts on the eye, but lasers have replaced them around 1980.",
"Besides its obvious value as a sharp cutting tool, obsidian's qualities of translucency and reflection as made it valuable in ceremonial items, particularly round mirrors used in divination among Mesoamerican peoples, being with early Olmec peoples. The Aztec god Tezcatlipoca's name translated to English as \"Smoking Mirror\" ([Carmichael 177](_URL_1_)). \n\nObsidian mirrors are actually fairly reflective as [this snapshot](_URL_0_) demonstrates."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://scholar.berkeley.edu/junkohabu/publications/seafaring-and-development-cultural-complexity-northeast-asia-evidence-japanes"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://smg.photobucket.com/user/centauraeblan/media/Museum%20of%20Natural%20History/aztec020.jpg.html",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=NszrR18-NDAC&lpg=PA177&dq=Tezcatlipoca%20obsidian%20mirror&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false"
]
] |
|
herdf
|
Are there any documented cases of evolution where there has been speciation?
|
I have a religious but otherwise very reasonable friend and I have finally piqued her curiosity with evolution, specially since she is studying medicine and we have been discussing the pharyngula stage, vestigial features, etc.
The thing is she says she accepts microevolution, but she does not believe two species can come from the same ancestor (it's the old "it's not evolution, it's adaptation"). I looked around but couldn't find any. Any ideas?
Thanks!
Edit: Thank you very much for your responses! I will read these myself and share it with some other friends, as well. AskScience Rocks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/herdf/are_there_any_documented_cases_of_evolution_where/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1uuflm",
"c1uugrj",
"c1uuh6z",
"c1uukqw",
"c1uv7gz",
"c1uvfa7",
"c1uvo9k",
"c1uxujd"
],
"score": [
17,
14,
7,
18,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, I was going to post a giant list, but it was over the word limit... so start here:\n\n_URL_0_",
"This is one of the more famous ones [(Lenski)](_URL_0_)\n",
"Richard Dawkins just came out with [this](_URL_0_) book, which has at least one example in it (lizards, IIRC).",
"[Ring species](_URL_1_) are great examples of speciation in progress *right now*.\n\n[Wikipedia: Speciation](_URL_0_) also gives examples of observed speciation.",
"How are scientists defining species when they speak of speciation? What makes something a new species?",
"What is up with religious people from the bible belt and evolution? The Catholic Church is fine with it...",
"_URL_0_ has a great write up not only describing the definitions of speciation and an overview of how it works, but also a comprehensive list of observed cases (complete with cited studies). \n\n_URL_2_\n\nGoing off memory though, I know that researches in one experiment took a large population of fruit flies and split them into two groups, exposing them to different environmental pressures. After some time, they took members of both groups and found they were no longer able to mate. \n\nAs far as macro vs micro evolution is concerned, I've always found [this image](_URL_3_) is extremely helpful. \n\n\nThis is also a great video, which compares evolution to the Origin of language _URL_1_.\nGood luck!!",
"One of my favourites is the Italian wall lizard, [here](_URL_0_) and [here](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/13511-observed-speciation/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth:_The_Evidence_for_Evolution"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species"
],
[],
[],
[
"TalkOrigins.org",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEYUg0iUQtQ",
"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html",
"http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5486532197_27525927c5.jpg"
],
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard"
]
] |
|
3ap89v
|
why does grammar seem to be less important in spoken language than in written language.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ap89v/eli5_why_does_grammar_seem_to_be_less_important/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csenri3",
"cseso2y"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Intonation.\n\nThere's an old acting exercise where you try to say the word 'hello' as many ways as possible. \n\nTry playing 'mute' in your next conversation; you'd be amazed how much information you convey without words.",
"Because writing is seen as more formal than speaking. Why does formality matter?\n\nBasically, in a society you have multiple people speaking multiple different dialects, each with their own grammar rules (for example, in the US we have General American English, African American English, Hawaii Creole English, Southern American English, etc.)\n\nIn such a society, the group with the most power (usually wealth), picks their dialect to be the \"prestige dialect\" [_URL_0_] , and teaches it as the \"correct way to speak\". For example, the prestige dialect of American English is General American, so General American is taught as \"correct grammar\" all over the US.\n\nWhat ends up happening, is that people who don't speak General American natively end up speaking their own dialect informally, and then switching to the prestige dialect when they are in professional settings. \n\nWriting is seen as more formal than speaking (very rarely outside of the internet will you have informal writing publically available), so speakers of non-standard dialects will tend to switch to the prestige dialect when they write.\n\nThis explains why on facebook (where people write informally), you still see a lot of \"bad grammar\" (really should be called \"non-standard grammar\"). It's because in informal settings, people switch to their native dialect.\n\n**TL;DR** Writing is more formal than speaking. When people that speak non-standard dialects are in formal situations, they switch to the standard dialect, which is why it seems to others that writing has \"better grammar\" then speaking. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_(sociolinguistics)"
]
] |
||
1pzljg
|
Is walking to work more polluting than driving?
|
[This article](_URL_0_) says so. The argument is basically:
Walking burns calories. You have to replace those calories by eating food. Making food requires pollution. And it makes so much pollution, you're better off driving to work?
Does this sound right to you? It sounds fishy to me.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1pzljg/is_walking_to_work_more_polluting_than_driving/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd7o4yq",
"cd7ouis",
"cd7qtj2",
"cd7u0qm",
"cd7yxcb"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You're probably still going to eat that food whether you walk to work or not. But now there is the elimination of the pollution from your vehicle, which is to be factored out of the equation. If you're concerned about your food choices and the amount they increase your carbon footprint, then you should look into buying local. Since the distance the food is being transported is much shorter, there is less of an impact.",
"It's important to consider such factors, but they're little more than handwaving unless somebody crunches the numbers. This is why the title is \"Why Walking to Work **Can be** More Polluting Than Driving to Work\" instead of \"Why Walking to Work **Is** More Polluting Than Driving to Work\".\n\nIt's not impossible to quantify, though. One way to do it would be to figure up the total carbon footprint of all food consumed in the US by weight, then figure how much more you're going to eat by walking instead of driving, and what fraction of the total carbon footprint that is. If you ate exactly enough _more_ to make up for the energy required to walk to work, that would be 80 to 100 calories if you lived a mile or so from work. That's equivalent to about 8 grams of pure fat, or 15 to 25 grams of other foods by wet weight.\n",
"You have to be a little careful with these sorts of arguments - it's easy to follow the chain to reach a preordained conclusion. The article makes a good point that walking more means you need more food, which requires energy to produce, move, and prepare, but it stops dead at 'you drive car' - if we follow the chain a bit further, you can factor in things like the energy it took to make the car, to pump out and refine the oil, to make the parts for maintenance... you can go as deep as you want until your argument has been 'proven'. ",
"[This guy](_URL_0_) does some calculations that look good going into more detail. Near the end he has a 10 to 1 calories for food production to compare with econlib article of 15-20 to 1 calories required to produce food.\n\nThis comes out with 34 mpg for a human with 10 to 1 production calories per food calorie, and a little as half that for the econlib article's food production cost values.\n\nSo we have confirmation from another source for the econlib numbers with argument over the production cost of a food calorie.\n\nfrom Argonne National Lab in the US: _URL_1_\n\nFigure 24 has about 80% efficiency for total energy use to fuel energy in tank from oil pump to gas tank, so for that 40mpg car to go one mile took 1 gallon needs an extra 0.2 gallons equivalent energy use (frequently from other petroleum products according to the Argonne report) it is now 33.3mpg equivalent.\n\nFossil fuel production is relatively efficient apparently.\n\nOther people like to bring indirect costs in such as health gains from walking and asthma and other lung problems leading to early mortality as an increase cost to fossil fuels that tend to move things significantly in favor of walking if you can. This is where a lot of the you should walk to work is better for you and the enviroment than driving. This is doubly true if you drive to work and then walk in the evening for exercise.\n\nCycling for reference at 10 to 1 is 130 mpg or once again as little as half that for the econlib article food production cost values.",
"There are a lot of cases where you can say things that are \"not wrong\" if you analyze them word by word but that are trying to lead you to wrong conclusions.\n\nThe exact calculations of consumed mpg, and the assumptions needed to perform them, have been excellently done by other user. But the real problem is not the calculation itself but deciding which is the meaningful calculation to be performed?\n\nTipically you have the option to walk only if you have to go less then 1 mile away. Turning on a cold car and driving it at slow speed and with many stops for one mile is going to consume an incredible amount of energy (I don't know the exact figure. But let's say that no way it's anything better than 7 mpg). So a car uses a lot of energy. How does this compare to the *extra* calories that you have to eat? Well, for such short walking distances you do not have to eat any extra calorie! \n\nActually you *need* to do a minimum of activity every day (couple of miles walking or comparable activity) activity for your body to remain healthy. Otherwise you would be able to claim that staying in bed all day long and not doing anything at all and then eating only 800 calories a day would pollute much less than... well, \"living\". \n\nProbably if you need to drive 20 miles actually a car uses less energy than the scenario in which you run a marathon in the morning and one in the afternoon each day and then refeed this extreme energy expense with 10'000 thousand calories or whatsoever! But I mean... Really? You simply do not walk 20 miles in the morning and 20 in the afternoon!!! It's a totally meaningless comparison!\n\n(You can suspect that the author is deliberatly trying to be misleading when he starts citing all the effort that goes into food production \"gas guzzling tractors\", \"18 wheelers going around on freeways\" and not for gas production)"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/McKenziewalking.html"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/",
"http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/165.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
44vnpm
|
if both parties agree gerrymandering is bad and accusing the other side of the aisle, what is truly preventing gerrymandering from being outlawed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44vnpm/eli5_if_both_parties_agree_gerrymandering_is_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czt8z5r",
"czt92s8",
"czt9zev",
"cztipct",
"cztiuc3",
"cztk7pr",
"cztmr6v",
"cztncvd",
"cztqkxr",
"cztw3qv"
],
"score": [
163,
3,
12,
2,
64,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gerrymandering is only bad for one party, and it's great for the other. So despite both parties agreeing that it can be bad, they also know they can benefit greatly from it. The benefit for them outweighs the detriment, no matter how much they want to whine about how bad it is to appease to voters. After all, they might lose some districts if they end gerrymandering. ",
"There are fair laws and court rulings about gerrymandering enacted in times past. The party in power tries to circumvent this. Gerrymandering is in truth illegal and courts will ban it if a case is brought forward to them. Perhaps it is a case of cynicism that a political party does not appeal. They think they will win an election in the future.",
"Both parties agree that gerrymandering is exactly what they want. Gerrymandering allows both parties to carve out safe positions for themselves. Safe positions that allow politicians to have stable careers without worrying that they'll be voted out of a job in a few years time.\n\nSo gerrymandering remains, because it is in the best interest of all the politicians.",
"What's a precise definition of \"gerrymandering\". There's dozens of things you want to look at when making districts, and no matter what politicians will be able to cherry pick things to argue for that give them more control. The only real solution is something like at large representation, where a district has multiple representatives awarded by how much of the vote different parties get.",
"Gerrymandering is both bad and already illegal. The question is: how do you police it. Sure, districts LOOK bad, and have bad effects, but by what objective standard do you say - this district is wrong? \n\nThis has been an interesting field of study in mathematics for a long time, because the answer is very non obvious. And yes, we can, by gut feeling, tease some out we don't like. That's possible. But who decides when something is just too bad? And on what basis? This is what makes it hard. There isn't a gerrymander police is out there checking for it. Somehow has to have standing to sue, then the court has to agree, and then the remedy is to let more-or-less the same people redraw is a slightly less offensive way. For certain definitions of offensive. \n\nConversely - how would you draw districts that AREN'T gerrymandered. This, too, is a very nontrivial question mathematicians have long considered, especially when your goal starts being things like \"geographic cohesiveness,\" \"representativeness of the population.\" You can easily draw districts that are unbiased but also unrepresentative. \n\nTL;DR - it is illegal, it's just very hard to find objective definition of what is right, so we only fix what is heinously wrong. ",
"You can't just have a law that says \"Gerrymandering is illegal.\" You have to ban specific techniques and do so in a way that doesn't interfere with legitimate lines, which is not as easy as you'd think.\n\nAdditionally, sometimes gerrymandering is done for \"good reasons.\" There's a district in I think Chicago that is obviously gerrymandered as fuck because the lines are specifically drawn to enclose two different mostly Latino neighborhoods and not a lot else, virtually guaranteeing that the district will elect a Latino representative despite being located in a city that's mostly white. You can certainly argue that this isn't actually a good thing, but it's another argument that people can throw against change.\n\nLastly, states (mostly) have the right to draws their lines as they like, so the fight against gerrymandering must be won in each of them separately, and that can be extremely tough in states where one party is dominant. This is a US-specific thing, obviously. Some states actually already have some pretty good laws about it (you can easily tell which ones by looking at a political map and seeing reasonable lines).",
"Fixing gerrymandering is actually really tough, especially when you are trying to achieve a certain outcome--i.e. representing minority voices. A little bit of messing with the districts is good and necessary, but a lot is gerrymandering and bad, and this line is sometimes hard to find.\n\nFor example, it's very intuitive to take a bunch of towns right next to each other and make them one district, right? Well, if you did that, you'd have an overwhelmingly white-opinion Congress because white people are just a slight enough majority in most areas that they would be able to vote in whoever they wanted in just about every district. \n\nBut if you get *too* creative with the lines, mixing minority-majority and white-majority districts, then you get some really crazy districts and what is essentially on-purpose gerrymandering.\n\nThe moral of the story is that when you have a weak majority or a plurality in place, it's almost impossible to \"fairly\" assign one seat. America is *just* multicultural enough that there is enough opposition to majority opinion to make this issue very noticeable and very hard to fix.\n\nOddly enough, people mostly criticize the \"safe\" seats, where the district is written so that there is a clear majority. Even though it's pretty easy to see that just about everyone in the district is happy with the result, people object to the district being drawn in such a way. Districts with weaker majorities and more volatility (and also a much lesser population of the district actually voting for the guy in the seat) tend to get less criticism.\n\nSo the reason it's tough is because it's a very complicated issue of electoral organization, and most people do not understand electoral systems. And the ones that do recognize that the US has a particularly difficult time changing its electoral rules, which means that a real good solution to this problem is a very difficult and long-term process.\n\nEDIT: Many of these other answers are wrong. I studied this in school, and I can tell you it's not so simple as politicians protecting their jobs. Cleavages and majority-minority politics are the base of this problem, not greedy politicians.\n\nEDIT 2: [This link](_URL_0_) contains a bit more information about how the redistricting commissions are formed and how they vary by state. It's a remarkably fair process.",
"how would you draw districts for representation? tell me your absolute fair and unbiased plan that most correctly groups together people without disenfranchising any.\n\nthere reason theres no end to gerrymandering is because there is no solution",
"Gerrymandering is \"barking up the wrong tree\".\n\nAs other posters have already discussed, it is really hard to legislate against and really hard to objectively asses.\n\nIt would be better to have an alternative voting method than \"winner takes all\" First Past the Post (FPTP) method we have today.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nA ranked or proportional system would be more \"fair\" by most measures. It may require larger districts where more than 1 rep gets elected out of them. Though Montana and Alaska only has one congressperson.",
"Gerrymandering is often used to describe any sort of redistricting. In general, redistricting is not bad. If you have district that is split nearly 50/50, especially if that split is geographical , it would be much better to split that district into two separate districts or to merge those districts into other districts with similar constituents, so they could actually be represented."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system"
],
[]
] |
||
xash5
|
What makes air smell "fresh"?
|
I opened up my window today and a pleasant scent rolled in with the air that people usually call "fresh air". I went outside and it is a gorgeous day! What makes air smell fresh and is it related to what we consider good weather?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xash5/what_makes_air_smell_fresh/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5kvq84"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"could it just be the absence of other scents?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3vsvl3
|
Did Coca-Cola really create the current image of Santa Claus?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vsvl3/did_cocacola_really_create_the_current_image_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxqzahg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Thanks to /u/Subs-man for summoning me with confidence that may or may not be warranted.\n\nCultural icons like Santa Claus naturally attract a great deal of attention, and anyone who asserts that they found the \"real source\" of this sort of thing will confront agitated readers and also opponents who will maintain that they, in fact, have uncovered the \"real source.\"\n\nThe late twentieth-century American Santa Claus draws on many sources and influences. One of these includes an aggressive Coca-Cola add campaign that helped solidify what the jolly fellow looked like for that time and to the present. Of perhaps even greater importance for the appearance of Santa is [Thomas Nast](_URL_1_) (1840-1902), who presented the nation with [his image of Santa](_URL_0_) during the 1860s.\n\nNo single artist created an image in a vacuum, however. Numerous Yule-time supernatural beings (not to mention diverse European traditions about St. Nicholas) can be considered as adding to the current of tradition that flowed forward, giving us what we have today - and each of these entities had an appearance that was more or less agreed upon by believers. Asserting what is the source of Santa is extremely complex, and his image grew out of that evolution. Let's give Coca-Cola its due, but we must understand that its advertisements were nothing more than the latest of many influences that affected the tradition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1225.html",
"http://cartoons.osu.edu/digital_albums/thomasnast/santa_camp.htm"
]
] |
||
u72u1
|
why isn't french a lingua franca anymore?
|
I know that the British empire and the US economy were crucial to impose English as a Lingua Franca but I've always wondered if there's a reason in French by itself that made it less easy to learn or something.
I mean, despite the outcome of WWII French was taught as a second language at school in many countries for years (not so long ago) and even French is still an official language of the IOC, Eurovision (I realized that yesterday, right) and other institutions
_URL_0_ perhaps as a remembrance of that glorious past.
Why? Was it harder to learn? Didn't they push enough?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u72u1/why_isnt_french_a_lingua_franca_anymore/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4sxfw7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It *is* a Lingua Franca, in much of Africa, and in several parts of the middle east.\n\nIt's also an extremely popular second (third, fourth, fifth) language in other parts of the world.\n\nThe reason English has become so popular is because it's so pervasive. We have products shipping all over the world, jam-packed with advertisements in English, Hollywood blockbusters opening across the world, propaganda radio stations blasting at third world countries. Not to mention aid workers, missionaries, tourists, music, TV shows. It's probably harder these days *not* to pick up any English than to learn it as a second language.\n\ntl;dr **The United States and its products are everywhere, and that makes learning English logical and easy.**"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_organisations_which_have_French_as_an_official_language"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2au3v4
|
How was land divvied out to settlers in the US during colonization? Was there ever a point where it was sold by the local or federal government?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2au3v4/how_was_land_divvied_out_to_settlers_in_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciyyfjm",
"ciyzhay",
"cizbhf0"
],
"score": [
6,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"I can talk a bit about post-independence land sales. You mentioned federal which is period after constitution came into force. \n\nAnyway, as an example in Georgia in 1795 they had the Yazoo Land Fraud. After Revolutionary War, Georgia had claim to large parcels of land in it's far western areas (modern-day Mississippi) but didn't have the manpower to properly control it. \n\nTo raise money, the legislature passed the Yazoo Act, which sold large areas of land (around 35m acres) to investors. Once the fact that bribes were used to ease passage of the law, the Rescinding Act of 1796 was passed, which repealed the land sales. \nEventually, SCOTUS decided that this law interfered with right of contract, and the Federal Gov't paid several million dollars to settle land claims since Georgia ceded the territory to it. The end result is directly led to creation of Alabama and Mississippi. Speculatively, it also led to rise in 'states rights' since some felt like the federal government and the SCOTUS in particular shouldn't have interfered in the contract nullification. (I don't have any hard data to back that up, except in what politicians were elected in response to Yazoo Act)\n\nSource: Politics on Periphery by George Lamplugh",
"Yes. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is a prime example of this. Created by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (precursor to the modern Constitution), the Ordinance handled the expansion of the states into the Northwest Territory comprised of what are today Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.\n\nThe law set the rules for navigable water ways, the means for creating new states from that land, and also provided for the sale of parcels of land. Interestingly, this included the first federal effort to fund education, \"Congress granted more than 77 million acres of the public domain as an endowment for the support of public schools through tracts ceded to the states. \" The idea was that the sale of those acreages would be used to fund schools in the territories.\n\nEighty years later, we'd see the Homestead Acts, which sold parcels of 160 acres to person who would inhabit and improve on the land for a term of years. This land was sold directly from the Federal government's holding in unorganized territory, a precedent which was set by the Northwest Ordinance!\n\nThe National Archives has three excellent primary sources, listed with my sources below, detailing the journey of one mans purchase, improvement and eventual claim on land he purchased through the Homestead Act. These improvements included building a 12x14 dwelling, planting crops, and residing there for five years. \n\nIf you happen to be a college football fan, you may know the terms \"Boomer\" and \"Sooner\" and their context with Oklahoma University. This is actually a reference to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1889, in which the federal government sold off seized Indian lands in the former Indian territory (now Oklahoma). At the sound of a cannon, prospective settlers were to race in and claim their land. Boomers waited for the official start, whereas Sooners jumped the gun and illegally claimed before the start of the sale.\n\nThose are just three examples that spring to mind. Here are some sources, I hope this piqued your interest!\n\n[Education and the Northwest Ordinance](_URL_0_)\n\n[The Northwest Ordinance of 1787](_URL_2_)\n\n[one applicants story of the Homestead Act of 1862](_URL_3_)\n\n[Boomers, Sooners, and the Indian Appropriation Act of 1889](_URL_1_)\n\n\n\n\n",
"The other comments so far seemed to address the early republic more than colonial land distribution - hopefully this will add the colonial period back into the discussion.\n\nThe terms of all colonial land distributions and sales were determined by the various colonial charters. Especially in the early years of settlement, there was some variation in the forms of these charters, and specific rights or \"liberties\" were granted to the settlers by the crown - all sovereignty and land-ownership, in this sense, remained theoretically with the monarch.\n\nBasically there were three major types of colonial charters that could result in strikingly different methods of land distribution - corporate charters, royal charters, and proprietary charters. \n\nCorporate charters were issued to groups or corporations of investors in colonization, for example the Virginia Company or the Massachusetts Bay Company. These typically granted the company's board of directors the right to distribute land (and full membership in the corporation, along with the political rights this entailed) as they saw fit. Obviously, colonial settlements with different goals would distribute this property differently. For example, the Massachusetts Bay government generally left the distribution of available land to individual townships, and tended to support a more equitable distribution of property in keeping with their goal of creating a godly republic. [See Michael Winship's \"Godly Republicanism\" (2012); Daniel Vickers, \"Farmers and Fishermen\" (1994)] The Massachusetts Bay Puritans also made the critical decision to bring their charter to the New World with them, so that potential enemies back in England couldn't meddle with it - THAT's how important charters were! \n\nIn Virginia, on the other hand, all property initially belonged to the Virginia Company, and almost no land was distributed to actual settlers before 1619. Once Virginia began to move away from its initial focus on finding gold, land ownership and the production of tobacco became the basis of the economy, necessitating a shift in patterns of property ownership. Still, the majority of land continued to be held by a few of the \"old planters,\" a pattern that was reinforced by Virginia's transition to a royal colony (more on that below) in 1624. By the mid-1620s, Virginians also instituted the headright system which granted an additional 50 acres of land to any planter who could import bound laborers (at that time primarily English indentured servants but increasingly slaves over the course of the 17th century). [See James Horn, \"Adapting to a New World\" (1996); Edmund Morgan, \"American Slavery, American Freedom\" (1976); and MANY others on colonial VA] These kind of major variations in the processes for distributing land were a function of the broad leeway given to colonial governments in structuring their local law - as long is it was not \"repugnant\" to English law, colonists could adapt legal precedents to suit their particular conditions or goals.\n\nRoyal and Proprietary colonies became the dominant mode of organizing the English colonies following the Stuart Restoration in 1660. The empire had become far too important to the financial health of the metropole to allow local colonists or corporate boards of directors to tinker with. All royal colonies were overseen directly by the crown (typically by the Privy Council, and later, the Councils for Trade and Plantations) and all colonial laws, including those touching on land distribution, were subject to royal approval. Royal colonies were also often used to reward the king's favorites with large land grants or special trading privileges. In a similar vein, proprietary colonies were directly granted (in almost feudal fashion) to particular royal favorites, for example Lord Baltimore in Maryland or William Penn in Pennsylvania. These Lords Proprietors would govern in the king's name in these proprietary colonies, but had a bit more leeway in framing their local laws.\n\nIn theory, the sale of landed property was legal in all of these colonies, particularly once English common law and greater royal oversight were established throughout the empire in the 1690s, as long as the procedures for alienation, devise, or descent followed English common law norms and procedures.\n\nYou can get see all the colonial charters, as well as the state constitutions created after the Revolution, in Francis Newton Thorpe's \"Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws\" (1909) - a key collection of primary sources for anyone interested in colonial or early national history. [There are a number of volumes of Thorpe available online through Google Books and _URL_0_]\n\nHope this helps to answer your question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.lwv.org/content/history-federal-government-public-education-where-have-we-been-and-how-did-we-get-here",
"http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/landrush.htm",
"http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=8",
"http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/homestead-act/"
],
[
"archive.org"
]
] |
||
an6lwz
|
With a powerful telescope, is it possible to see the 'outline' of certain stars? Or are they all simply too far away for them to appear as anything else other than a point of light no matter the magnification?
|
And if it turns out that it is possible, please share a picture or two!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/an6lwz/with_a_powerful_telescope_is_it_possible_to_see/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efr7vjw",
"efranes",
"efs50ck"
],
"score": [
85,
15,
4
],
"text": [
"[There are some stars that we can very roughly resolve](_URL_1_), e.g. [Mira (Hubble Space Telescope)](_URL_3_) or [Pi1_Gruis (Very Large Telescope)](_URL_2_). \nThe limit for resolution comes from the [diffraction limit](_URL_4_). So for more and better resolution pictures of other stars we will need bigger telescopes. Fortunately, [these telescopes are being built right now.](_URL_6_) \n\nFurthermore other smart techniques exist to get over the diffraction limit. For example it is possible to use the rotation of stars to extract the surface distribution of [chemicals] (_URL_0_) using doppler imaging or even [magnetic fields](_URL_5_) using Zeeman-Doppler-Imaging. ",
"Well, one certain star for sure, and that's the sun! Ok, I know it sounds like a a 'troll' answer, but it's not. If you get a chance to check out the sun through a telescope with a really good filter, like one of the Coronado ones, you realize that some of the best astronomy views are during the day! Observing the sun is absolutely amazing!",
"Astronomical interfeometry is, to my limited knowledge, currently yielding the highest resolution images of other stars. \n\nHere's a website with info about interferometey, and a gallery of images towards the bottom of the page :\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.astro.uu.se/~oleg/images/53cam_abn.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_with_resolved_images",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi1_Gruis#/media/File:The_surface_of_the_red_giant_star_%CF%801_Gruis_from_PIONIER_on_the_VLT.jpg",
"https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9708/mira_hst_big.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman%E2%80%93Doppler_imaging",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_large_telescope"
],
[],
[
"https://www.eso.org/public/usa/teles-instr/technology/interferometry/"
]
] |
|
5n5qtz
|
why are electric rails in public transportation unaffected by rain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n5qtz/eli5_why_are_electric_rails_in_public/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc8tylp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Even wet things have resistance. Put enough space between the voltage difference and there will be minimal current flow. Look at the insulators in overhead wires. The really high voltage ones are built in ripples to increase the distance between the high voltage and the ground even when wet."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
xq3d4
|
Why do we use operator precedence to eliminate ambiguity in math instead of simply "going left to right"?
|
I was explaining order of operations to my mom (because of those "What is 5+5+5-5+5-5+5x0" questions on Facebook) and she asked why they decided that it worked like that instead of just going left to right. I understand the need for some kind of rule so that there's no ambiguity, but it seems like simply always going left to right would eliminate ambiguity as well as the order of operations would. Was it chosen because it has some advantage, or was it just someone's preference that became the norm?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xq3d4/why_do_we_use_operator_precedence_to_eliminate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5olnya",
"c5omabp",
"c5omblu",
"c5oo9gh",
"c5oqqih"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
10,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"It's because of the prevalence of coefficients and exponents on variables in algebra. For instance, take the expression 2x + 3y. If we were to use your way of going left to right, we would always have to put parentheses and make it look like 2x + (3y). Similarly, if we were to have the expression 4x^2 + 3x + 2, we would have to write it 4(x^(2)) + (3x) + 2. It's because of the usefulness of the forms and the desire to not write parentheses all the time that we came up with these rules. ",
"So you can make more complicated expressions. For example, how would you write a(b+c)? ab+ac. But what if a is something complicated, or if you need to perform some operation on a like a simplification, for example (ab+ac)/a? Taking Algebra and Calculus you'll run into many situations that are analogues to (ab+ac)/a, but would take a couple lines to write out.",
"As an aside, you can use RPN and do something like you're referring to. It's very easy to learn, but it can be tricky to read. It's still pretty popular among old-schoolers that are heavy calculator users, in engineering for example.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"Do away with operator precedence and you'll be writing so many parentheses around terms you'll get sick of it and propose operator precedence.",
"Others have explained the historical reasons for this convention in mathematics, but you may find alternatives interesting. Several simpler schemes are in use in Computer Science:\n\nPostfix, or Reverse Polish Notation[1], was once popular on calculators (which some people are still die-hard fans of) and maps to FORTH programming languages[2]. This puts the operands first, followed by the operator. Working with expressions in postfix notations is conceptually like working with a stack[3] which makes implementation on very resource constrained machines fast and simple, and has some other nice properties. The standard expression \"2 + 3 * 4\" in postfix notation is \"3 4 * 2 +\".\n\nPrefix notation, is used by LISP[4] programming languages. This puts the operator first followed by the operands with parenthesis for grouping. This makes nesting expressions with any number of operators very elegant. The standard expression \"2 + 3 * 4\" in prefix notation is (+ (* 3 4) 2).\n\nIn both of these notations, there is no operator precedence whatsoever. Everything is explicit and all operators are equal. In standard mathematical notation, however, operator *precedence* is only part of it. \"Going left to right\", as you say, is one option of two. This is called the operator's *associativity*[5], an operator is either left associative or right associative. For some operator ~, the expression \"1 ~ 2 ~ 3\" would be equal to \"(1 ~ 2) ~ 3\" if ~ was left associative, and equal to \"1 ~ (2 ~ 3)) if ~ was right associative.\n\n[1] _URL_2_\n\n[2] _URL_3_\n\n[3] _URL_0_\n\n[4] _URL_1_\n\n[5] _URL_4_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_(abstract_data_type)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_associativity"
]
] |
|
460qnt
|
Why is the switch from IPv4 to IPv6 so difficult? What key principles are slowing migration to the new standard?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/460qnt/why_is_the_switch_from_ipv4_to_ipv6_so_difficult/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d01sqhi",
"d01tx58",
"d01vh1d",
"d020svs"
],
"score": [
3,
30,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"In America, there are still plenty of v4 IPs available. Although you might not be able to get a direct allocation from ARIN, any co-location provider or major ISP should be able to give you a reasonable IPv4 address range.\n\nSecond, is that most applications have matured to the point where NAT doesn't wildly break them, like say 5 years ago.\n\nWith the advent of SNI (Server Name Indication) for SSL, you can now even host multiple SSL websites on a single IP.\n\nThe difficulty of moving from IPv4 to IPv6 will vary by organization, but for my organization, the potential benefit versus risk is just not there. Simply put, IPv6 offers nothing compelling enough to make us want to migrate, because everything we do with IPv4 works perfectly.",
"Network engineer here. Probably the biggest factor is that there isn't really a pressing need to change yet. Its true there are no new IPv4 space to hand out from Arin, but there's still plenty of space floating around. Secondly, \"If it ain't broke, don't fix it\". Meaning once you have a network up and working, don't touch it. Most business can't afford much (if any) downtime for their networking teams to fiddle around with getting IPv6 to work. And last, there could be costs involved for a business to update their hardware to something that supports v6. That is getting less and less of an issue though as most routers/switches that are not v6 compatible are end of life and will have to be upgraded anyway if they end up breaking.\n\nThat being said, most (if not the vast majority) of backbone networks are v6 compatible, at least in the U.S. so as businesses come on board their WAN connections will be ready for it. But I'm afraid it won't happen until v4 space is utterly exhausted and there is no other choice.",
"The primary difficulty is that IPv6 addresses are not backwards compatible with IPv4.\n\nOn one side, the network protocols are different. That requires new support in your routers, servers, and clients. You need to configure all parts of it differently from the IPv4 case.\n\nOn the other side, you have to use different programming APIs to add support for IPv6. In many cases, they are not simple drop-in replacements, but require non-trivial refactoring of programs. In theory, the IP version after v6 would only require a minimal amount of change, but we'll see that when it happens.\n\nThese, in conjunction with developers of infrastructure systems not having a strong desire to do the actual work, has made the migration slow. IPv6 recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, but the wide-spread deployment only started last year.\n\n(I am a Network Operator, and do network programming for an Operating System)",
"Here is [Dan Bernstein's acerbic take on the IPv6 mess](_URL_0_). Basically, he says they forgot to make a transition plan and instead were hoping for a \"flag day\" when everyone will just switch, or something like that. Which is not happening.\n\ntldr: If Dan Bernstein were in charge, we'd all have been on IPv6 for years now."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html"
]
] |
||
3ysxvq
|
Stories about Germans fighting their way to allied lines to avoid soviet capture
|
Where can I find good information on this, preferably individual stories on the matter
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ysxvq/stories_about_germans_fighting_their_way_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cygct35"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There are many stories. A very good one is that of General Walther Wenck, commander of the 12th Army, which Hitler called on to break the siege of Berlin. After trying and seeing it impossible, Wenck pivoted his troops to the east to help the beleaguered 9th Army escape across the Elbe. Wenck was the youngest general in the Heer and his move to rescue Busse's troops was one of the biggest efforts to have troops surrender to the western allies rather than the Soviets.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nA good collection of personal accounts from that period is a book called \"With Our Backs to Berlin.\"\n\nA great book is Traudl Junge's Until the Final Hour. She was Hitler's secretary in the Berlin Bunker. The movie Downfall is based on her memoirs. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.pnn.de/pm/85684/"
]
] |
|
6uf2vz
|
[Book Recommendation] Geopolitical history of Medival Europe
|
I'm looking for a broad *geopolitical* history Medieval Europe (~400-1400),
in the spirit of Brendan Simms' *Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy from 1453 to the Present*. Can you recommend such a book?
Many thanks for considering my request. I will greatly appreciate any help you can provide.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6uf2vz/book_recommendation_geopolitical_history_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlsi3tf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There have been a few attempts to apply IR theory to the Middle Ages, although I have to warn you it's not going to look like modern geopolitics in the sense of sovereign actors (states or otherwise) acting in their own interests. The general role of the Middle Ages in IR thought, at least recently, involves what the different sovereignty/political matricies of that era can say about *the idea of* geopolitics. (Naturally, actual medieval historians are more interested in the actual history.)\n\nThat said, you could check out Andrew Latham's *Theorizing Medieval Geopolitics.* I'm not that comfortable with some of the terms he throws around casually, but he's got it right that \"state formation\" is not a one-and-done creation of 1648, at least."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4subv0
|
why do torrents for tv shows come out within hours of the episode, but for movies it often takes weeks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4subv0/eli5_why_do_torrents_for_tv_shows_come_out_within/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5c68sa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For TV shows, someone has the recording equipment and software all prepped and ready for the airing of the show. So all they have to do is record it, encode it, and create the torrent. In contrast, movies first show in a theater. Theaters have policies against recording, so whoever does it typically has to actually work in the theater or know somebody who does and sneak in the equipment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bnf3ro
|
i recently learned that the sun is actually further away from earth in the summer. how is it warmer during the summer, yet it’s farther away from us then in the winter?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bnf3ro/eli5_i_recently_learned_that_the_sun_is_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"en4z7kr",
"en50mru"
],
"score": [
21,
5
],
"text": [
"The seasons are caused by the angle the light from the sun is hitting us at (and how long each day), which in turn comes from the Earth being tilted. In the summer, it's hitting the northern hemisphere more directly, so it heats up that region more. It's the opposite in the southern hemisphere (when it's summer in the north it's winter in the south and vice versa).\n\nThe difference in distance might make a small difference, but not as much as the angle.",
"This (being closer in winter) is only true on the northern hemisphere. \n\nThe deciding factor for the amount of energy the earth gets from the sun is the 23.5° of inclination (the axis of the Earth is not perpendicular to the plane it is moving around the sun on). Both northern and southern hemispheres have their respective summer when they are tilted towards the sun. The tilt stays constant all year.\n\nIf you have ever seen a globe (like, a ball with an Earth map on a desk), they should be tilted as well. Shine a lamp horizontally on the globe and watch what happens - the hemisphere tilted towards the sun will stay in the light much longer (when the Earth rotates itself) than the other one, so it collects more energy every day and gets warmer: summer!\n\nEdit: here is a picture: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/12/seasons_solstice_equinox_NASA.jpeg"
]
] |
||
e4ls5e
|
Does the brain send signals consistently to keep a muscle in the same state?
|
When I, for example, hold one arm straight to the side, does the brain continuously give the signal to keep the muscle extended or does it just make the arm extend once and it will stay extended until a different signal comes in?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/e4ls5e/does_the_brain_send_signals_consistently_to_keep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9egren"
],
"score": [
95
],
"text": [
"yes - you can think of muscles as huge bundles of motor units, which are small bundles of muscle cells. Each motor unit has its own motor neuron. When you raise one arm out to the side and are holding it there, your motor cortex is sending out a consistent stream of signals to keep that arm up. However, it requires more force to raise that arm to its holding position, and therefore, requires recruitment of a greater number of motor units (more signals sent from the brain) to initially raise the arm.\n\nIt is actually pretty interesting how it works. Motor units can't stay contracted for very long, or else once the arm was raised the signals would stop. Instead, as individual motor units run out of ATP (the main cellular form of energy), they relax and the force that they were generating to keep the arm up is replaced by another motor unit that was previously relaxed.\n\nTo simplify - at the beginning of a muscle contraction, there are a really really large amount of individual signals, the number of signals then decreases but remains consistent until you lower the arm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5ynt9p
|
How are strong acids neutralized by weak bases, and vice versa?
|
In school we were always taught that bases neutralized acids, and acids neutralized bases. However, how are acids that are very strong able to be nuetralized easily by very weak bases?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5ynt9p/how_are_strong_acids_neutralized_by_weak_bases/
|
{
"a_id": [
"desorvy",
"desshxs"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The terms strong and weak are generally used to describe the ability of an acid or base to react with water. Water is both a very weak base and a very weak acid. This means that an acid has to be pretty good at donating H^+ in order to completely react with water; on the base side, the base has to be pretty good at taking H^+ to react completely with water. \n\nThe consequence of this definition is that any base that is stronger than water will be capable of reacting with a strong acid to make that base's conjugate acid instead of aqueous H^(+). We define \"weak base\" as any base stronger than water but weaker than a strong base. Any weaker, and we call it a non-base, or poor base. An example of this would be the molecule diethylether. \n\nThis all only applies in water, though. In different solvents, especially those that aren't effective acids/bases, the behavior is very different. ",
"The term \"neutralize\" is a bit loose. In an aqueous solution, you can react 1 mole of hydrochloric acid with 1 mole of ammonia but you **won't** get pH 7. Instead you get around pH 5 because ammonia is a weaker base compared to the strength of HCl as an acid. So it is better called the equivalence point. If you simply dissolved ammonium chloride in water, you would get the same pH. Here's a picture of the pH against volume for that titration.\n_URL_1_ \n\nSimilarly, many sodium salts are alkaline. Things get more complicated where there can be more than one dissociation. Here's some more complex titration curves. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nNote that you only get a sharp endpoint at pH7 for the strong *vs* strong case. It also illustrates why different indicators are sometimes needed to get the correct result from a titration.\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.creative-chemistry.org.uk/alevel/module4/documents/N-ch4-05.pdf",
"http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/acidbaseeqia/sawb1.gif"
]
] |
|
5shv9a
|
whats the difference between being passive aggressive and sarcastic.
|
This has always confused me and i ask my friends and they cant explain it. ELI5 please and give examples of each please.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5shv9a/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_being_passive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddf6i49",
"ddfa9by"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of expressing hostility in an indirect way, so it can be denied when confronted.\n\nIt can manifest itself in a variety of ways. You might intentionally forget something important in retaliation for someone genuinely forgetting something, then try to subtlely link them together. Or can be as simple as sulky while watching a movie your SO likes but you don't, to ruin the fun and make sure they don't ask you again. Malicious compliance is also common, where you do what someone wanted, but in a way that gives results they did not want. In both cases, when accused, you turn it into an argument about your intentions rather than your actual acts of hostility, confusing the issue and avoided blame.\n\nAlso note that passive-aggressive behavior has found its way into pop psychology, and is often applied to non-confrontational behavior that isn't hostile. Passive-aggressive notes, for example, usually aren't.\n\nSarcasm has a role in passive aggressive behavior. It allows for technical agreement, but with a tone that conveys disagreement while maintaining plausible deniably. Not all sarcasm is passive-aggressive, and passive-aggressive behavior is certainly not limited to sarcasm.",
"Here is an example of both when the dishes need to be done, and your roommate has neglected to do them.\n\nPassive aggressive: You leave the dish detergent on the counter or in a common area where it normally wouldn't be. \n\nSarcasm: \"I'm glad we ran out of clean plates or else I wouldn't of been given this opportunity to fashion a sandwich on a napkin.\"\n\nYou see in the passive aggressive example, you have plausible deniability that you are not upset that the dishes are dirty. And that the dish detergent just so happen to be in a weird place.\n\nWith sarcasm you indirectly state a problem without confronting it head on. \n\nBoth of them can convey the same message but only one of them has a stronger foundation for plausible deniability."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fo8zxi
|
Before the columbian exchange why weren't the Native Americans as interconnected as the europeans? Would that not of helped them advance in technology?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fo8zxi/before_the_columbian_exchange_why_werent_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fle176w"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Hello, I am someone who went to school for archaeology in the US and has done archaeological field work. My specialty is the American SW, but I do have a general educational background.\n\nI'd like to say that answering this question is difficult is because of how vague it is. Which American-Indians were less interconnected than which Europeans? I will attempt to dispel that general myth, but as for the advance of technology, I would highly recommend reading 1491 by Charles Mann as he does an excellent job explaining the difficulties with that question and the assumptions that it makes.\n\nOn a general scale the lack of knowledge is a major effect on the interconnectedness that we (as in popular history more than academic) know of in the US. The pre-colonial population suffered a mass extinction event from disease, followed by and alongside centuries of genocide, displacement and forced cultural assimilation and annihilation. Because of this, much of the verbal history has been lost forever. We do not have contemporary extensive texts describing the trade networks of North America like we do in Europe. The Maya did have an extensive library, but thanks to efforts of the Spanish three or maybe four books survived. Most of our information on pre-contact trade comes from archaeology.\n\nNext I would like to argue that pre-contact America was just as interconnected as Europe. The first is on a major scale. One of the best ways that archaeologists can study the movement of people is through their material culture, i.e. the things they make. And an excellent material to track is copper.\n\nCopper was mined from areas in modern Northern Michigan. It had a wide variety of uses, but what makes it so special is how far it spread. Copper objects made from mines in Michigan found it's way to Mississippi, Florida, and even the American South West. These were likely transported by river, as waterborne trade was the dominant method for moving goods until the locomotive came around.\n\nTo put this in perspective, an ancient trader, taking their copper from northern Michigian, to Florida, via the Mississippi and then the Gulf, would make a voyage of over 2000 miles. In comparison, the distance between Paris and Moscow is about 1700 miles. And this trade of copper was not a rare event. Pottery, Obsidian, and certainly other items that we cannot find material remains for like foodstuffs and hides, also were traded across what is now the modern US.\n\nOn a much smaller scale I'd like to discuss how we still have so very much to learn. Modern day Florida is full of waterways. And water is an excellent medium for trade. The early railroad industry's biggest competitor in the US and the UK was canals. And it wasn't until more developed, more powerful and faster locomotives came along that the governments fully supported them instead of canal building.\n\nWhy is this important? Because archaeologists have been studying Florida's waterways for the past few decades and they've noticed that quite a few of these waterways are unusually straight, and uniformly wide. Archaeological work has been done on some of these canals and concluded that they were built by pre-contact civilizations, dredged by hand.\n\nThese canals would have been built at an immense cost in human labor, but would have connected more inland populations with the sprawling trading and political networks.\n\nI hope that gives you a better picture of just how interconnected pre-contact America was. My response of course leaves out things like the complexity of the Maya kingdoms, or the sheer size of the Inka empire and their terrifyingly impressive road network and economic model. And again, I highly recommend picking up a copy of 1491, it's very well written and an excellent introductory text."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2kmwm0
|
Why are there no pictures of China's famine during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-1961?
|
We often see pictures of the Holocaust, Holomdor, Bengal Famine, nuclear bombings of Japan, Japanese war crimes, etc. But, we never see pictures of China's famine under Mao and I cannot even find pictures of it anywhere online.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kmwm0/why_are_there_no_pictures_of_chinas_famine_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clmx4oq"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The lack of pictures is related to the fact that officials were covering up the existence of the famine from upper government officials and foreign visitors as long as they could. \n\nNow, there is *written* description as well as numerous witness accounts of famine victims dying from starvation. Here are some excerpts of both written testimony and spoken recollections from witnesses at the time:\n\n > In the calamity at Guangshan County's Huaidian people's commune in the autumn of 1959, the commune's average yield per *mu* was 86 kilos, for a total of 5.955 million kilos. The commune's party committee reported a yield of 313 kilos per *mu*, for a total of 23.05 million kilos. The procurement quota set by the county was 6 million kilos, which exceeded the commune's total grain yield. In order to achieve the procurement quota, every means had to be taken to oppose false reporting and private withholding, and every scrap of food had to be seized from the masses. The final procurement was 5.185 million kilos. All of the communal kitchens were closed down, and deaths followed. Liu Wencai and the commune party committee attributed the kitchen closures and deaths to attacks by well-to-do middle peasants and sabotage by class enemies, and to the struggle between the two paths of socialism and capitalism. They continued the campaign against false reporting and private withholding for eight months. Within sixty or seventy days not a kernel of grain could be found anywhere, and mass starvation followed.\n\n > [...]\n\n > When thirteen children arrived at the commune begging for food, the commune's party secretary, surnamed Jiang, along with others incited kitchen staff to drag them deep in the mountains, where they were left to die of hunger and exposure.\n\n > [...]\n\n > With no means of escaping a hopeless situation, ordinary people could not adequately look after their own. Families were scattered to the winds, children abandoned, and corpses left along the roadside to rot. As a result of the extreme derivations of starvation, 381 commune members desecrated 134 corpses.\n\n > \\- written report to party secretary Wu Zhipu, 28 November 1960, Henan Province\n\n-\n\n > In the last half of 1959, I took a long-distance bus from Xinyang through Luoshan to Gushi. Looking out the window, I could see one corpse after another in ditches along the roadway, but no one on the bus dared to talk about the starvation. I saw a corpse outside the western gate of Luoshan County and telephoned the Luoshan party committee to tell them. Guangshan County had the largest number of starvation deaths--a third of the population, with entire households wiped out. Even with people starving all around them, the leading cadres continued to stuff themselves. While I was staying at the Gushi County party committee guesthouse, party secretary Yang Shouji was treating guests to *pisi* soup [a local delicacy].\n\n > \\- journalist Lu Baoguo\n\n-\n\n > Among only fourteen work units, including the Yumen petroleum management bureau, the Yumen railway office, the Xibei mining machinery factory, the municipal commerce bureau, and the municipal party school, 3,132 persons are suffering from edema, which afflicts 25 percent of the staff in the most seriously affected units ... The illness has struck workers more than cadres, those employed in heavy physical labor more than those in light work, and those eating at communal kitchens more than those taking their meals at home.\n\n > \\- written report from the Yumen party committee, 11 December 1960, Gansu Province\n\n-\n\n > During last year's Great Leap Forward, romanticism went too far; a girl who was pretty to begin with had too much powder applied to her face. For example, a yield that was clearly 200 kilos per *mu* was reported as 400 kilos or 500 kilos, and everyone tried to sound better than anyone else, with the more reported the better.\n\n > Some of our comrades, for reasons of face, didn't relay the true situation to the upper levels. Let me ask you now: What matters more, your face or ensuring that the peasants get enough to eat!? The last time I came over from Shijian and saw many sick people. In particular I saw a great deal of enema, many people with grossly swollen legs, many women suffering from uterine prolapse and amenorrhea.\n\n > If we take the road to impoverishing the peasants, who will take part in revolution? I, Zhang Kaifan, will have no part in it!\n\n > What do the peasants get to eat? A family, young and old, gets an average of less than 50 grams per person. Some of our comrades are so foolhardy as to carelessly change the food ration standard without any thought to the survival of the masses. Don't they have any human decency?\n\n > \\- speech from Zhang Kaifan to the Wuwei County party committee, 7 July 1959, Anhui Province\n\n-\n\n > The number of deaths at the three communes and four villages I'm familiar with is extremely alarming. In one, the deaths reached 5 percent, in another 15 percent, and in another more than 20 percent ... Some villages are almost completely empty. I personally witnessed 300 or 400 parentless children rounded up, with around 100 deaths reported.\n\n > \\- letter from Zheng Shaobai to Mao, discovered 2 July 1960, Anhui Province; he was discovered and subjected to violent persecution for writing this letter\n\nYou get the idea.\n\nAnyways. So party members were aware of the actual conditions. The thing is, reporting the truth could get you into actual trouble with other officials, who could subject you to struggle sessions and otherwise make your life (and your family's life) miserable. \n\nSo people lied, covering up the truth. In Henan, letters were seized and writers persecuted for trying to warn others of famine conditions. People were forbidden to leave their villages. Deaths were miscounted, either by not including the deaths of various groups (non-locals dying in the region, very young children, locals dying elsewhere, etc.) or by reporting them as deaths from other causes such as epidemics (a tactic used in Sichuan Province, blaming unsanitary conditions in communal kitchens for enema rather than starvation). When people (especially foreign journalists) came on official visits to model communes, the government arranged for corpses to be hidden from sight, forbidding the starving peasants from leaving their homes while putting well clothed and well fed people on display, and bringing guests to designated areas to show off how wonderful communism was and how the people were so happy. Government officials purposefully deceived foreign journalists to ensure that favourable reports were being transmitted outside. \n\nReports did leak, of course. You can't keep people silent forever, and eventually Mao backed off with the Great Leap Forward. But the deception and the cover-up of famine deaths are rather through, to the point that various journalists repotred with great earnest that they never saw any starvation deaths during their visits to China during this period. And if you don't see it, you're not going to take pictures.\n\nSource: Tombstone, Yang Jisheng"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3l4xtp
|
photosynthesis.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l4xtp/eli5_photosynthesis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv3814q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm just going to throw the complicated equation out there and break it down piece by piece.\n\n6CO*_2_* + 6 H*_2_*O + sunlight ==== > C*_6_*H*_12_*O*_6_* + 6O*_2_*\n\nChemically this describes the process of photosynthesis, now the ELI5:\n\nThe first thing is carbon dioxide (literally 1 carbon, 2 oxygens). Second is water (hopefully a familiar expression of it). And then sunlight.\n\nThese three things are what is necessary for photosynthesis to happen. Carbon dioxide is a gas and there is plenty of it in the air (~0.04%, seems small but that is plenty on the atomic scale of the atmosphere). Water is also pretty abundant on earth... it's taken into plants from moisture in the ground (which comes from the sky, which comes from bodies of water) via the roots. Where does the sunlight come in? Sunlight is a form of energy. If you spend some time basking in the sun you can feel that, it will make you nice and warm. One of the fundamental rules of the universe is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The total energy is constant but it is possible to convert between different types of energy. Heat is one type, chemical energy is another, kinetic energy (movement) is yet another. There are a whole bunch.\n\nSo photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide and water and energy from the sun (as light) and converts that energy to another form the plant can use, chemical energy.\n\nC*_6_*H*_12_*O*_6_* is the where the energy is stored. A molecule. This specific one is a sugar. Those lovely molecules that give us energy as well. The plant can use this energy as it needs to operate (live). The last thing is oxygen which is a byproduct. This is a \"waste\" product to that plant, something that is left over from this conversion and is released. To us it is very important and we need it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1q0kj4
|
why do you feel distress in the heart region when you think about something emotionally painful? why there and not in any other part of the body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q0kj4/eli5_why_do_you_feel_distress_in_the_heart_region/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd7xt03"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The neurological process involved in the perception of heartache is not known, but is thought to involve the anterior cingulate cortex of the brain, which during stress may overstimulate the vagus nerve causing pain, nausea or muscle tightness in the chest.\n\nsource: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-chest-pains"
]
] |
||
3i3fh9
|
Does my phone weigh more when it's charged?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3i3fh9/does_my_phone_weigh_more_when_its_charged/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cucxsde"
],
"score": [
73
],
"text": [
"Yes, the total mass will increase by a tiny tiny tiny bit upon charging due to the additional electrochemical energy pumped into the battery. Counter-intuitive though this may seem, [the mass-energy equivalence principle](_URL_0_) is nevertheless very much real and adding energy to a system will increase its apparent mass by a contribution given by E=mc^2 . To give you a feel for how small a change in the apparent mass this would produce, if a typical cell phone battery has a total energy capacity on the order of 20kJ, then the equivalent mass would be 20000J/(3\\*10^8 m/s)^2 =2*10^-13 kg, or 0.2 nanogram, which is comparable the weight of a human cell (which weigh ~1ng on average with a broad distribution)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence"
]
] |
||
12ccqr
|
What limitations does lacking a language place on the human brain's ability to think logically/reason?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12ccqr/what_limitations_does_lacking_a_language_place_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6txl40",
"c6u2im8",
"c6u35bb",
"c6u7fkf"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Being deaf is not the same as not knowing a language. Could you clarify your question a bit more?",
"See Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativity. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nTHINKING IN PICTURES by Chapter 1: Autism and Visual Thought\nDr. Temple Grandin\n\n > I THINK IN PICTURES. Words are like a second language to me. I translate both spoken and written words into full-color movies, complete with sound, which run like a VCR tape in my head. When somebody speaks to me, his words are instantly translated into pictures. Language-based thinkers often find this phenomenon difficult to understand, but in my job as an equipment designer for the livestock industry, visual thinking is a tremendous advantage. ...\n\n\n > ... Growing up, I learned to convert abstract ideas into pictures as a way to understand them. I visualized concepts such as peace or honesty with symbolic images. I thought of peace as a dove, an Indian peace pipe, or TV or newsreel footage of the signing of a peace agreement. Honesty was represented by an image of placing one's hand on the Bible in court. A news report describing a person returning a wallet with all the money in it provided a picture of honest behavior. ",
"This question is directly addressed in an episode of Radiolab, a wonderful podcast that tackles random topics and takes them to pretty awesome places. [ Here's a link to the relevant portion of the episode (30 minutes long).](_URL_0_)\n\nIf you want to listen to the podcast, which I would highly recommend, do NOT read the following paragraphs. It summarizes the answer to the OP's question. However, it does not answer the question *nearly* as well as the podcast does. \n\nAnyways, for those of you who are listening to the podcast, I hope it adequately answers your question! \n\nFor those of you who have not, however...\n\nThe relevant part of the podcast describes how a woman found an intelligent deaf individual who does not understand the concept of language...at the age of 27. She attemped to teach him the basics of what language actually *is*, and after several fruitless days, she succeeded, with the man having a sudden breakthrough, rather than gradually understanding over time. Keep in mind that the man was not unintelligent, rather, he had grown up in an area where the deaf were not taught how to communicate with any sort of \"sign language\".\n\nI have not listened to this episode of Radiolab in quite some time so I don't recall how it \"felt\" for him to think. From what I can remember, the man *did* describe how difficult it was to translate ideas between individuals. \n\nFor instance, when one of his friends tries to tell his peers about a woman falling out of the stands during a bull fight, the friend actually has to physically act out the scene, acting as the matador, the bull, and the woman falling out of the stands, in order to describe/remind his friends of the memory. These little skits would take an immense amount of time; communicating the sentence, \"remember when that woman fell out of the stands at the bull fight?\" takes nearly an hour, as opposed to several seconds. \n\nI cannot recall how the man described his own \"internal dialogue\" prior to learning language, and I'm not going to postulate on how it must have been for him, as I'm not really qualified to make any such claims with certainty. \n\nHowever, it does seem significant that it took the intelligent, \"languageless\" man several days to understand the concept of language. Hopefully, someone with a greater understanding of the topic will elaborate on exactly *why*, if at all, this is significant. \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html"
],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/words-that-change-the-world/"
]
] |
||
35k9yu
|
why do i sometimes get an eyelash type hair on my arms?
|
I mean like a really dark, somewhat thicker hair that easily stands out to me. Is it just an illusion or something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35k9yu/eli5why_do_i_sometimes_get_an_eyelash_type_hair/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr593i2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Chances are you have a lot of melanin in that specific follicle and it makes your hair darker, it usually happens on or around moles and freckles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1qx9fb
|
How true is the assertion that the culture of the Roman Empire was much more martial and militaristic compared to the Han Chinese Empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qx9fb/how_true_is_the_assertion_that_the_culture_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdhlwqy"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Well the Roman military was generally more central to the political organization of the Empire and in many ways to society at large, but that is really more of an institutional matter. I'm not certain that comparing rates of \"militarism\" is something we can do, or even if it is something worth doing. Can you define \"militarism\" in such a way that would allow us to make a cross cultural comparison?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7eb4n4
|
Opinions on "They Came Before Columbus" by Dr. Ivan Sertima
|
Over at r/Africa someone posted an article about African cities and one of the claims in the article is that Africans reached the Americas before Columbus.
I live in Africa myself and love learning about the often overlooked history of the continent but this claim seems dubious to me. A quick browse through the article and site raised similar concerns.
When I raised my concerns I was referred to"They Came Before Columbus" by Dr. Ivan Sertima. How credible is his work and the claim?
The article in question is _URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7eb4n4/opinions_on_they_came_before_columbus_by_dr_ivan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq3si37"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I've written previously on van Sertima [here](_URL_1_), covering a lot of the topics in the book. This *Current Anthropology* [article](_URL_2_)also goes into further detail on some notable claims in the books]. Recent genetic research shows [no evidence](_URL_0_) of admixture with Africans among Native Americans. This [review](_URL_3_) is also a great read, and highlights the prejudice latent in the argument:\n\n > Once Africans could not put two bricks together without a Caucasian foreman. In von Daniken's world non West-European cultures are in stasis without periodic visits from alien counterparts of the *Enterprise.* [...] neither Van Sertima nor anyone else seems very interested in possible Amerindian influences on the Old World prior to 1492. How can you expect the early Americans to have made it across that expanse of ocean? They couldn't even build a respectable pyramid. \n\nEven ignoring the content, the book is a slog to read, producing no new research and relying heavily on two or three earlier sources interspersed with mindless filler and god-awful attempts at citing and indexing."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.corespirit.com/100-amazing-african-cities-completely-destroyed-europeans/"
] |
[
[
"https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XDVCNOQY1nogMg9VRmXAXz-Fu56bezyd/view?usp=sharing",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qcow0/what_is_some_of_the_best_evidence_that/cwea4so/",
"https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/vansertima.pdf",
"https://drive.google.com/file/d/13LuDMC1SOHmd9MYTe3mqrfFFcd518Tp8/view?usp=sharing"
]
] |
|
1f2bxj
|
How was the War of 1812 related to the Napoleonic Wars?
|
Besides Impressment
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f2bxj/how_was_the_war_of_1812_related_to_the_napoleonic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca63s5n"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Well, basically, one of the big causes of the war (How important it was depends on who you ask or read, though!) was Britain's impressment of American sailors from American ships. They were doing this because trained sailors were a valuable commodity, and the Royal Navy needed every one it could get in order to keep up it's war effort in the European theater. The U.S. at the time was neutral, and happy to trade with both sides of the conflict, if they were able. As you may expect, this certainly did not sit well with the British.\n\nAnother thing that I have realized in reading is that a lot of Americans wanted to get revenge on Britain, as you may expect. They wanted to expand American territory, and felt that while Britain was occupied with Napoleon, it would be a perfect time to ride in and snatch up Canada. This isn't a bad plan, the British weren't able to spare much of anything beyond what was already there to defend Canada. Many important voices in Britain saw America's declaration of war as a knife in the back. While Britain was defending the world against the Corsican ogre, these upstart Americans wanted to interfere!\n\nOnce Napoleon abdicated and went into exile for the first time at Elba, the British were able to bring their military resources to bear on the Americans. George Prevost received a large number of Peninsular War veterans as reinforcements, as they were not freed from fighting in Spain, and marched south into New York, though, ultimately was turned back by Macomb and MacDonough at Plattsburgh.\n\nThe British also invaded from the south, but, again, were defeated, this time by Andrew Jackson at New Orleans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5cry7k
|
; i heard that the president of the us needs permission from congress to go to war, but i also heard that the president has nuclear launch codes and if he gives the order to attack it must be followed. wtf!?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cry7k/eli5_i_heard_that_the_president_of_the_us_needs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9yvad4",
"d9yvcol"
],
"score": [
4,
8
],
"text": [
"Going to war and sending troops to attack someone are two different things. \n\nThe President, being the Commander-in-Chief of the US military can direct that military, including nukes, to attack any place or person in the world. He then has 2 days to notify Congress of the action, Congress then has 10 days to either approve the action, declare war (which is also approving the action), or to decline the action. If they decline it the President then has 30 days to recall the troops. \n\nFully declaring war grants the President a lot of additional powers and that has not been done since WWII. All \"wars\" since then have not been true wars, they have been \"extended military conflicts\" or \"police actions\" which use the military in the same way as a true war, but do not grant the President as many powers over the country such as declaring rationing or reinstating the draft or the like. ",
"The Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war.\n\nHowever, Congress has given the president the power to use military force for short periods of time where US interests are concerned. In the nuclear age, the reason is obvious: the war could be over before Congress could even be assembled to vote on a declaration of war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
o7ux2
|
What are the mechanics behind some animals having a good sense of smell?
|
There seem to be several measures of a "good sense of smell". Some animals seem to be able to pick out one scent among many others. Other animals, like sharks supposedly smelling blood in water miles away, seem to be able to sense minuscule portions. Do both these capabilities boil down to the same basic functions? What is happening with the olfactory nerves that certain smells (and the chemicals that comprise them) are more noticeable? Perhaps more to the heart of the issue: why is the difference between our sense of smell and another creature's so great?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o7ux2/what_are_the_mechanics_behind_some_animals_having/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3f3pts"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's generally put down to the size of the olfactory epithelium and the number of active olfactory receptors genes.\n\nThat is, the amount of tissue within the nose that has cells that express receptors for picking up smells can vary a lot. A human has about 10 cm^2 of olfactory epithelium, a dog can have up to 200 cm^2 [3]. When we looked atand the number of different receptors an animal can express. A human has about 400 different olfactory receptors [1] while dogs have about 850 [2]\n\nThis means that there is more area for smell molecules to bump into and hence be sensed (as their impact with a receptor is purely probabilistic) which means their can be less molecules in the air (at a lower concentration) and there can still be a good chance for them to bump into a receptor. This means an animal can smell things are lower concentrations.\n\nHaving more receptors means that an animal would be more likely to be able to tell two different, but similar, compounds apart.\n\n\n[1] Gilad Y, Lancet D (2003). \"Population differences in the human functional olfactory repertoire\". Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 (3): 307–14.\n\n[2] Quignon P, Giraud M, Rimbault M, Lavigne P, Tacher S, Morin E, Retout E, Valin AS, Lindblad-Toh K, Nicolas J, Galibert F. (2005) \"The dog and rat olfactory receptor repertoires\". Genome Biol. 2005;6(10):R83.\n\n[3] Mark F. Bear, Barry W. Connors, Michael A. Paradiso (2007) Neuroscience: exploring the brain. 3rd Ed. Lippincott Williams and Walker. Phillidelphia"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
71o9ic
|
why does our body heat up (and start sweating) when we are in pain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71o9ic/eli5_why_does_our_body_heat_up_and_start_sweating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnc9vo9",
"dncbt55"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"Pain in any part of the body triggers the release of a hormone called adrenaline. This hormone causes which we called \"Fight or Flight\" response. Basically, it makes Our body ready for either fighting the pain or running away from pain. For this, the body increases the blood pressure thus increasing the intake of oxygen on the body. This enables the body to make split second decisions and as more oxygen is consumed, more heat is produced in the body which in turn makes us sweat more and make us hot. ",
"Nice try, Ajax, but no.\n\nYou are on the right track with adrenaline and fight or flight, but then you go off the rails with blood pressure and oxygen, and sweat making you hot.\n\nLike I said fight or flight is absolutely correct. In either situation - fighting or fleeing - your body needs to prepare for sudden explosive muscular movements which WILL generate heat, necessitating sweat ( referred to as a \"cold sweat\" or \"fear sweat\" ) to COOL YOU DOWN.\n\n Yes, blood pressure goes up, by constricting blood flow to non essential systems, skin, gut, liver, salivary system, and opening blood flow to heart, lungs, brain, and Large Muscle groups. The extra blood flow to the muscles may or may not make you feel hotter, depending on your level of muscle mass.\n\nThe extra blood flow to the brain facilitates a dump of neurotransmitters - dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, which leads to the clarity.of thought, but also causes dilation of the pupils, in some cases leading to reports of tunnel vision, or greater focus on the threat. In the case of a pain response, this can cause a psychological increase in pain levels, due to this focus, though most reports after the event indicate that there was less physical pain ( thanks, epinephrine and dopamine!), and more panic and focus on the threat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
48vbpu
|
how an inch of rain equates a foot of snow
|
Based off of this article:
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48vbpu/eli5how_an_inch_of_rain_equates_a_foot_of_snow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0mufdx",
"d0muifw",
"d0mvydz"
],
"score": [
22,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Snow is fluffy. If you melt a foot of snow, the fluffiness goes away and discover it was only an inch of water. The rest was air.",
"Water is denser than snow. When snowflakes pile on top of each other, there's a lot of empty space in between the crystals. So a cubic foot of snow contains a great deal of air, whereas a cubic foot of water is just solid water. That's why a cubic foot of water is much heavier than a cubic foot of snow. A cubic foot of solid ice on the other hand (without all the air that snow has in it) would weigh the same as a cubic foot of water. ",
"Look at a snowflake - it is a frozen crystal, with lots of pointy parts sticking out. As they fall on each other, these ridges and points lead to a jumble, and lots of air pockets in between each crystal. Water is all just one thing, fully compressed. Once you squeeze all the air out of the snow and push it into a hard piece of ice with no air pockets, it is much closer to the size of the water. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://snowbrains.com/miracle-march-snowfall-totals-for-western-usa-just-keep-getting-bigger/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bbccdi
|
why does it hurt so much more and longer, after ripping skin off near your finger nail compared to your toe nail?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbccdi/eli5_why_does_it_hurt_so_much_more_and_longer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekhspd4",
"ekhsx21"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Your fingers are far more sensitive than your toes, mostly because we use our fingers to interact with the world while our toes are just used to help us run faster.",
"You have more nerve ending in your fingers. You also actively use your finger more than your toes. This means you are more likely to hit/bump/touch sore area, prolonging its healing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
b3qvws
|
Why are most landmasses on Earth continent-sized and not just a bunch of little islands? Is there a reason why most of our land is clumped together?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b3qvws/why_are_most_landmasses_on_earth_continentsized/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej2v7ku",
"ej37iem"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"It's mostly just due to how the the circumstances to create plate boundaries which push continents away from each other (such as the mid atlantic ridge) are rare and mysterious. There's a (future) mid oceanic ridge forming in the east african rift valley, and it's not entirely certain why it's happening. Besides plate tectonics there's not really any other way for continents to split up",
"An interesting question! I suppose it comes down to the way tectonic processes work. The processes that form continental crust mostly occur at convergent plate boundaries, which means they don't occur in random little spots throughout the oceans to create islands (hot spots do that! But we're talking about continents here). That means that we tend to add continental crust onto existing continental crust, which favors large continent chunks rather than lots of small pieces. Furthermore, lots of stuff moves towards subduction zones, which are often (although not always) found on the edges of continents. As islands move towards these zones, they're sometimes sort of scraped off the descending plate and added to the continent, again favoring adding pieces to already-big pieces of land."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3h3ihp
|
Is there any evidence that the Soviet Union had the atomic bomb before America did?
|
I am currently teaching English and Russia, and a substantial number of people I have talked to are laboring under the impression that the Soviets had the A-bomb before the US did. This seems incorrect to me. What is the history and the historiography behind this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3h3ihp/is_there_any_evidence_that_the_soviet_union_had/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu40ev2"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The Soviet Union did not explode their first atomic bomb until 1949. There were a small number of Russian scientists that worked on the theory of nuclear fission before 1941, but it wasn't until after Germany collapsed, that Stalin ordered the Soviet atomic bomb program to be put into high gear. Stalin also put Beria in charge of that program. It was far more secretive and done with far less concern towards the worker's safety than the US Army's bomb program. Details of the Soviet Union's A- Bomb can be found in this book \"Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant\" by Amy Knight (1993)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1h3fe3
|
Why did the Mongols not conquer Byzantium?
|
It seems that geographically they came very close. I'm curious why it never happened. Was it on the Mongol agenda?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1h3fe3/why_did_the_mongols_not_conquer_byzantium/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caqnfc4",
"caqqh6l"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Forgive me, I am not formally educated in this area, but I believe the mongols had a hard time with large walls and castles. The Theodosian Walls in Constantinople would have been quite the challenge for a Mongol army, and it is possible they wanted to focus on easier targets before tackling that one.",
"It was on the mongol \"agenda\" such as it was that the mongol \"agenda\" was to conquer the entire known world. \n\nAs to why it didn't happen? Political realities and lack of interest. Hulagu conquered Persia and much of the middle east and allied with the Christians to fight the Ayyubids and Batu was pre-occupied with the Russians and Poles. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8j73he
|
How were the peoples of the different pre-unification states of Italy viewed by the rest of Europe?
|
I am interested in the Italian pre-unification states, and was wondering if any of you know how the peoples of these states where viewed by the Europe. I don't mean how the Italians as a whole where viewed but how people viewed the people of Piedmont for example. In many ways what were the stereotypes of the people of these states (e.g Tuscany, Piedmont, Venetia, the Two Sicilies, Papal states).
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8j73he/how_were_the_peoples_of_the_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyy2p9t"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I'll assume that by \"pre-unification\" you mean in the period between Napoleonic Italy and Italian Unification; although the Italian States created by what is more widely referred to as \"The European Restoration\" were the successors of polities with long and storied histories. But I'm also not entirely sure what sort of \"views\" or \"stereotypes\" you're looking for. Much of travel as we would recognize it, both for leisure and migration, wouldn't become widely accessible until industrialization, notably steam power, became widespread and commonplace (in other words, after Italy's unity). That's not to say there wasn't any travel at all, Italian ports were major mediterranean centers of shipping afterall, just that I've never really encountered mentions of \"stereotypes\" before cross-culture contact became easy, or notions of distinct national identity definitively and distinctly emerged in all of Europe at the end of the 19th century (as opposed to local, more tangible identities). In short, the \"us versus them\" mindset that needs to exist for stereotypes to exist needs an \"us\" before it finds \"them,\" and this sort of mentality didn't really flesh itself out everywhere and at the same time. Things would of course change with mass migration, mass media, and the consecration of nationalism as a major driver of the interests of states; and although those things were certainly already emergent in some places in the immediate post-Napoleonic world, one of the last places where they would come to exist would be Italy. \n\nThe most common commentaries left would be by those whose job was to travel and report on their surroundings, typically diplomats and statesmen, but I don't know if they were representative of commonly held beliefs such that they constituted \"stereotypes.\" For example, the British Prime Minister William Gladstone published an editorial on the political situation he saw during a diplomatic visit to Naples [which you can read here](_URL_0_), but this is of course not representative of the thoughts of the whole of Britain, nor representative of what Gladstone might have thought of the rest of Italy; indeed Gladstone's thoughts on the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia were much more nuanced, however these too must be framed within the wider context of the ultimate goal of preserving peace in Europe (under threat given Piedmont's stance against Austria) and not some preconceived notion on national character such that it might be called a stereotype. And lastly, Gladstone's thoughts can't even be said to be representative of the rest of Europe: one of France's greatest diplomatic triumphs is turning the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia to the French sphere and sparking Piedmontese conflicts with the Austrian Empire. Although a logical turn of events in hindsight, especially given the shape of intellectual life in Piedmont, the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia was originally conceived as an Austrian-aligned buffer state between France and Austria, rewarded by the Austrian foreign minister Metternich for its monarch's staunch anti-Napoleonic stance with an expanded terretory; few would have foreseen that less than two generations later a Piedmontese monarch would align himself with a new Napoleonic Empire against Austria. And as a consequence the Austrian government's stance, and Metternich's stance, towards Piedmont would also change. \n\nIn any case, my point is that collecting the entirety of foreign positions on the governments and people of pre-unitary Italy a long and difficult task. You might be better off looking into a more generalist history and taking ideas from there; *Italy in the Nineteenth Century* by John A. Davis is a great place to start. But if you're interested in personal opinions to see what some \"people at the time\" might have thought, you might be interested books which, while not representative, were certainly somewhat influential and widely read in their day: the french writer Stendhal, who lived in Italy several years, completed *Rome, Naples and Florence* in 1817 which you might be interested in. The book is an example of a person's impressions of a large part of Italy in the aftermath of the restoration (and certainly more positive than Gladstone's view). Another interesting travelogue written when the unification process was underway (the nascent Italian state had absorbed everything but Rome) are the parts of Mark Twain's *Innocents Abroad* which take place in Italy (although it's mostly written to be humorous and is very superficial, I can't help but feel that modern tourists' take-aways aren't that different). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/26th-july-1851/14/mr-gladstones-pamphlet-on-naples"
]
] |
|
3t1qyz
|
if usps postman doesn't ask for my sign and drops off package, what's stopping someone from ordering expensive stuff from amazon and claiming it never arrived ?
|
I've never seen any USPS postman asking for signature.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t1qyz/eli5_if_usps_postman_doesnt_ask_for_my_sign_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx2c41x",
"cx2fpsv",
"cx2hcph"
],
"score": [
9,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The shipper decides if a signature is needed. I have delivered $5 items requiring a signature and also left $2000 items on a porch when the shipper did not require proof of delivery. \n\nSource: Ex FedEx driver",
"Nothing. People have done this to amazon,specifically.they generally just budget for it as a price of doing business.\n\nThey take a loss,but it's better than adding hassle to people's lives if they want to make sure you don't ever think about going to a competitor \n\nIf it happens enough to get noticed,they will blacklist you and won't send you stuff anymore.\n\nedit:if it's supposed to be signed for,isnt ,and something happens,the postman is in deep shit.usps probably has insurance for it,but the delivery guy is going to face some penalty. \n\nIt's hard to balance,because usually it's fine,and people get pissy if it isn't delivered even if they weren't there to sign.its a lose/lose",
"Most companies will file a claim with the delivery service which often has checks as to whether an item was delivered. Delivery people usually have to mark a specific time/detail when they make the delivery as proof that they physically put the package at the final location. They keep records of filed claims for each address. If you report a lot of missing items companies will stop delivering to you based on these claims. Insurance will cover the rest for the company until they cut you off. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
llj14
|
Which single species accounts for the largest portion of earth's biomass?
|
Also, since some population models predict human numbers rising to 15 billion this century, will this change our rank in terms of biomass and what are the environmental effects of having so much additional water contained within ballooning human biomass?
Source: _URL_0_
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/llj14/which_single_species_accounts_for_the_largest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2tnw0v",
"c2to9u4",
"c2toefy",
"c2tp65g",
"c2tpiij",
"c2tnw0v",
"c2to9u4",
"c2toefy",
"c2tp65g",
"c2tpiij"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
2,
4,
2,
12,
4,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"[According to wikipedia](_URL_1_) (I hope this is considered a valid source) Antartic Krill\n\n > is, in terms of biomass, probably the most abundant animal species on the planet (approximately 500 million tonnes).\n\nSource of this figure is [here](_URL_0_). Would still be nice to have an expert confirm this as well as provide an explanation for why this is.\n\nI would have thought it'd be some sort of plant, but idk.",
"The [AntBlog has a good answer to that question.](_URL_0_)\n\nTLDR: By mass, cattle beats human, weighing about twice as much. Lots of krill, but probably they only weigh as much as humans.",
"Have no clue as to whether Stephen Gould knows what he's talking about; but he makes the case that bacteria may have more biomass than plants and animals.\n\n_URL_0_\n > But new discoveries in the open oceans and Earth's interior have now made a plausible case for bacterial domination in biomass as well.\n > \n > [... many comments points suggesting this ...]\n > \n > surprisingly, total bacterial biomass (even at such minimal weight per cell) may exceed all the rest of life combined, even forest trees, once we include the subterranean populations as well. \n",
"I would have to think that a single plant species \"outweighed\" any single \"animal\" species. So I would look for data on algae, phytoplankton, or grass species.\n\nThe reason I come to this conclusion is due to the nature of the biomass pyramid with plants being the \"primary producers\" and therefore, the largest trophic level (by mass).\n\nWhile that doesn't necessarily mean that any single plant species will outweigh an animal species it leads me to believe that is where we should look first.",
"I have no idea which species has the most biomass (it's an interesting question though!) but I can say that the water contained within people is minuscule compared to the amount of water people use. If you have a bucket of water with a faucet open on the side, pouring out water, the important thing is the rate the water pours through the faucet, not how much is actually within the faucet at a given point in time.",
"[According to wikipedia](_URL_1_) (I hope this is considered a valid source) Antartic Krill\n\n > is, in terms of biomass, probably the most abundant animal species on the planet (approximately 500 million tonnes).\n\nSource of this figure is [here](_URL_0_). Would still be nice to have an expert confirm this as well as provide an explanation for why this is.\n\nI would have thought it'd be some sort of plant, but idk.",
"The [AntBlog has a good answer to that question.](_URL_0_)\n\nTLDR: By mass, cattle beats human, weighing about twice as much. Lots of krill, but probably they only weigh as much as humans.",
"Have no clue as to whether Stephen Gould knows what he's talking about; but he makes the case that bacteria may have more biomass than plants and animals.\n\n_URL_0_\n > But new discoveries in the open oceans and Earth's interior have now made a plausible case for bacterial domination in biomass as well.\n > \n > [... many comments points suggesting this ...]\n > \n > surprisingly, total bacterial biomass (even at such minimal weight per cell) may exceed all the rest of life combined, even forest trees, once we include the subterranean populations as well. \n",
"I would have to think that a single plant species \"outweighed\" any single \"animal\" species. So I would look for data on algae, phytoplankton, or grass species.\n\nThe reason I come to this conclusion is due to the nature of the biomass pyramid with plants being the \"primary producers\" and therefore, the largest trophic level (by mass).\n\nWhile that doesn't necessarily mean that any single plant species will outweigh an animal species it leads me to believe that is where we should look first.",
"I have no idea which species has the most biomass (it's an interesting question though!) but I can say that the water contained within people is minuscule compared to the amount of water people use. If you have a bucket of water with a faucet open on the side, pouring out water, the important thing is the rate the water pours through the faucet, not how much is actually within the faucet at a given point in time."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/population-world-15bn-2100"
] |
[
[
"http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/W5911E/W5911E00.HTM",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_krill"
],
[
"http://www.antweb.org/antblog/2010/10/do-ants-really-have-the-largest-biomass-of-all-species-on-earth-laurie-usa.html"
],
[
"http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/W5911E/W5911E00.HTM",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_krill"
],
[
"http://www.antweb.org/antblog/2010/10/do-ants-really-have-the-largest-biomass-of-all-species-on-earth-laurie-usa.html"
],
[
"http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2n4zjm
|
What were Soviet blocking detachments during WW2?
|
I read somewhere that the Soviet Union employed troops who would shoot anyone who attempted to retreat, desert, or showed any sign of panic or "cowardice". Apparently they would even place land mines in front of their own trenches to prevent any Soviet troops from deserting to the German side and sight their artillery in on their positions so if entire units began to retreat or desert they would be killed.
I would like to know whether or not this is true and to what extent it is true. Where does this information come from? Any stories or accounts proving its veracity?
I especially want to know whether or not the part about the use of land mines and pre sighted artillery to deter and if necessary combat " treason" is true. I find that this fact adds another horrifying layer to the endless, brutal hell that was the Eastern Front.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2n4zjm/what_were_soviet_blocking_detachments_during_ww2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmadwhn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, the Red Army did deploy units who *could* shoot retreating units, but the practice wasn't nearly as widespread as often depicted. The actual number of retreating soldiers shot by the 'Barrier Troops' on the spot was relatively small. The already low figure for people killed also includes soldiers arrested by barrier troops and subsequently sentenced to death by tribunal. Service in a penal unit was another possible punishment. Far more commonly, the barrier troops would just turn fleeing soldiers around. Deploying units to 'back stop' less reliable troops or to collect deserters isn't that far out a practice, and combined with how dire things were for the Soviets when the original order for blocking units was given, wasn't entirely insane.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nHere is a bit of analysis on the topic from a previous post on AskHistorians:\n\n_URL_2_\n\nI've never heard of the use of landmines or artillery to stop mass defections to the Germans. The landmines thing doesn't actually make a lot of sense since during the early period of the conflict, Soviet troops were often being used in counter-offensives, and mines would have gotten in the way (never mind there wouldn't have been a heap of time to deploy them).\n\nThe artillery story actually sounds like something that happened in WWI, rather than WWII, and it was in France - though against Russian troops:\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_in_the_Red_Army",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies#Repression",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1d589e/did_the_red_army_use_barrier_battalions_post_wwii/c9n1wsr"
]
] |
|
21naaj
|
if people are not satisfied with the u.s. government, why don't they vote for a third party?
|
I see/hear people complaining about the government all the time, yet when the election comes up everyone still votes either democrat or republican. Why don't more people vote for a third party?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21naaj/eli5if_people_are_not_satisfied_with_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgeoh2w",
"cgeohjg",
"cgeolm5",
"cgeolup",
"cgeq2yi",
"cgerbxn"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
4,
14,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The biggest reason I see is that there's no third party that's large enough to actually get elected in a major election, and voting for them is tantamount to a wasted vote (yes, I know it's not really a wasted vote, but you're gonna lose).",
"America uses FPTP voting, which inevitably results in only two parties. If you vote for a third party and the third party loses by a wide margin, your vote could have been better spent on the larger party that you dislike least. \n\n[CGP grey explains the problem really well](_URL_0_)",
"They do, occasionally. See Ross Perot in 1996 and Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Usually forming a third party is counter-intuitive though since it almost always splits the vote, resulting in an easy plurality victory for the other side.\n\nBasically when the US political system was formed, the founding fathers intentionally created a system that would favor two parties. This was to prevent \"factionalism\" as they called it and was intended to keep minorities from gaining too much power, while also keeping the majority from tyrannizing minorities. Since there are only two parties, both are forced towards the center in order to try to \"capture\" as much of the populace as possible. This stifles radicalization and prevents one group from decisively controlling the legislature for significant lengths of time.",
"It's gamesmanship, essentially.\n\nLet's use an example; say there are 101 people, almost evenly split between voting for two parties. 50 voters apiece, with one guy making the difference between the two parties (the swing vote). Let's say this guy votes randomly.\n\nIf you, as a Democrat, vote Democrat, then both parties will be evenly matched, and the swing vote will randomly decide a winner (in real elections, this is decided by how well each candidate campaigns). **However**, if you vote third party, then your original party (Democrats) is very likely to lose to the Republicans (as it will be 1-49-50, with the swing vote choosing randomly between the three). If two people vote for the third party from the Democrats, then it's 2-48-50; no matter how the swing vote goes, the Republicans win.\n\nAs such, each vote for a third party increase the chances that your original opponent will win. In general, people who vote third-party support more of the original party's ideas than their opponent; someone changing from Democrat to Green will support more Democrat ideas than Republican, but Green better represents the voter.\n\nTherefore, voting for the Democrats is the lesser of two evils; while all of my views (Green) will not be represented, at least some of my views (Democrat) will be represented, as opposed to very few of my views (Republican)",
"Don't you really mean a second party?",
"I do. Since my votes for the election don't matter, and for some idiotic reason my state still determines who wins the election all the time, I vote for a third party candidate that looks good. \n\nIt doesn't really matter, winning Ohio is all about who can institute a better cheating system on the electronic ballots anyways."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1xq20o
|
What affect did the Black Death have on the royal families of Europe? How did they handle it?
|
Were any royal lines killed off due to plague?
Did any houses cut themselves off from the outside (as much as possible at the time)?
Would domestic staff be barred from leaving the premises?
Did anyone take advantage of the plague to force claims and take land by force?
What kind of practices were used to protect families from the disease?
Was reading an article and realized I've never really heard about what happened among the aristocracy, just that millions died. Interested in anything of note among these lines.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xq20o/what_affect_did_the_black_death_have_on_the_royal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfdt2ls",
"cfdxgjw",
"cfdyvc1",
"cfe7yi9"
],
"score": [
94,
29,
12,
52
],
"text": [
"I know of at least 1 case where the Black Death directly impacted the political viability of a dynasty. King Edward III of England's daughter Joan of Kent was en route to marry Peter of Castille, son of Alfonso XI of Castille and Maria of Portugal when she and her party were exposed to the plague outbreak in Bordeaux, France in 1348. Because the marriage never happened, the alliance with Castille was called off. Castille and England would be fighting before Edward III's death in 1377. Source: \"The Plantagents: The Warrior Kings and Queens who Made England\" by Dan Jones.",
"The royal families of the time had land and that is what made them royal. What they did was to go to their country estates and barricade themselves in to escape the epidemic. Because of this most royal lines remained intact and viable. The outcome wrecked the economy because those who tended the fields were dead. This was were the instability of the royals really came from. Those below them were less bountiful. They survived the plague but those who did the \"real work\" died off.\n\nI had an emphasis on the dark ages for my BA.",
"Enguerrand VII of Coucy, a powerful French nobleman who was also the son-in-law of Edward III of England, died of the plague, as did many other nobles. It was not at all uncommon.\n\nBarbara Tuchman's excellent book \"A Distant Mirror\" tells the story of the bubonic plague and the Hundred Years' War, with Coucy serving as its central character.",
"The nobility or great men of Norway, which struggled for the elective throne of the country, were eradicated by the plague. Not that all died, but the class as a whole more or less ceased to exist.\n\nThe plague hit Norway particularly hard, and death toll estimates range between 50 and 70%.\n\nNorway, like Sweden, had a rather strong class of self-owning farmers and no serfdom. However, Norway also had a law called the *alodement* law, which meant that if you worked free-held land for three generations (later shortened to 30 years), it became yours. It had originally been created to ensure that people could own the land they had lived on for generations, but when the plague hit, a lot of land became deserted.\n\nThus, tenants of the nobility or great men could simply move to land that had been vacated due to the death of the owners and live there for 30 years and become self-owning farmers. Since there was plenty of land to go around after more than half the population had died, the great men and nobility lost all their tenants. They had no legal means and nto the economic resources to force a serfdom upon their tenants, and were forced to start farming their own land for their survival. Thus the Norwegian nobility reverted to self-owning farmers.\n\nThe crown of Norway became the object of struggle between Denmark and Sweden, with Denmark ending up on top.\n\nWhile the plague did not directly kill the royal line of Norway, it did kill the ability of Norway to produce its own candiates for Kingship."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zkkm4
|
how come i sober up from intoxication, even though i don't urinate or go to sleep?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zkkm4/eli5_how_come_i_sober_up_from_intoxication_even/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpjqvyh",
"cpjs579"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Urination and sleeping have nothing to do with becoming sober. Alcohol is metabolized by the human body, and the resulting substances are either used by the body or excreted.\n\nAlcohol metabolism is important to life. The average adult human body produces a \"shot\" of alcohol approximately once every week. In effect... We are all \"alcoholics.\" :)",
"To add to what /u/lacsacr wrote. \nThe alcohol that affects you and makes you drunk is the one in your blood. Your blood is constantly being cleaned and filtered by your liver and kidneys as well as like /u/lacsacr said metabolized (or in other words broken down into its basic components."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3ywuud
|
What did the Wehrmacht get wrong in WW2?
|
There seems to be a tendency to put the German army and their equipment up on a pedestal (Thank you for introducing me to the term "Wehraboo", Reddit) so I was wondering if this sub could provide me with examples of things the Germans got wrong.
I'm not talking about Strategy failures (Not invading Malta, Stalingrad, etc.) or errors at the political level. Did the Germans have any consistent failings in tactics and doctrine - or anything that can't be blamed on "Hitler was nuts"?
Any examples for the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine would be OK too.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ywuud/what_did_the_wehrmacht_get_wrong_in_ww2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1vdktx",
"cyhenij",
"cyheq8y",
"cyhhxkt",
"cyhlgmw"
],
"score": [
2,
43,
5,
11,
11
],
"text": [
"Good question and I would argue going into Faul Bleu (Case Blue which resulted in the Wehrmacht defeat at Stalingrad) the odds of a Nazi victory in the East remained not only on the table but quite possible actually. Leningrad was surrounded and completely cut off...more than 800,000 would die in that siege...the worst siege in human history. Also the Germans remained dug in at Rzhev and had been since 1941...repelling with ENORMOUS loss to the Red Army one attack after another. I think the major blunder was after the extraordinary defeat of the Russian Army and Navy on the Eastern Crimea (Operation Busted Hunt) Von Manstein and Hitler squandered this tactical and strategic annihilation with a disastrous attritional struggle over Sevastopol which was now a \"Leningrad South\" and of no threat to Germany or Romania. If Von Manstein had followed Busted Hunt with a thrust directly across the Kuban cutting Russia off from its oil and food the Red Army would have quickly collapsed. Instead you had the real nuttiness of Hitler and his \"trophy Cities\" which in the case of Sevastopol meant the total destruction of top of the line defenses...something that could have helped when the tide of Battle turned. Instead not even Berlin could be defended once Germany started to lose.\n\nGood question and good comments too.",
"I mentioned this in a different thread regarding why the Germans lost due to natural disasters. In this answer about Operation Barbarossa, and being badly prepared for warfare, I mentioned how the Germans were badly prepared for Winter and a few examples about the hierarchy structure within the Wehrmacht. I did eloborate further on this and I think this answer can be of value to your question. I think understanding the hierarchy of the German High Command, the Culture behind it, how the German military leaders thought and acted can understand where and how they failed. A more specific case can be found here in the same thread:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n-----\n\nThe answer to this question is still subject of controversy but nonetheless important. Regarding your question if the German High Command was full of incompetents or just of advisers who told Hitler what he wanted to hear also on this topic the sources are a bit mixed. The problem with German generals is that after the war they started to clean their own responsibility, representing themselves as simple puppets of an insane Hitler, who had nothing to do with the Nazi policies of that time. I will try to answer your question by focusing on Operation Barbarossa, ofc there are many more examples with their own reasoning and answers, but I think a general look at the problems regarding the planning of Operation Barbarossa might also proved to be an answer for other events during World War II.\n\nThat the German Army accusations regarding Hitler's insanity and monopolization of war operations are an farce is shown by the following quote of Kershaw [at the time the German army experienced its first difficulties as a result of the Winter weather in Russia but kept on planning a second offensive towards Moscow]:\n\n > *The astonishing lack of realism in the armýs orders derived from the perverse obstinacy with which the General Staff continued to persist in the view that the Red Army was on the point of collapse, and was greatly inferior to the Wehrmacht in fighting power and leadership. Such views, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still prevailing with Halder (and, indeed, largely shared by the Commander-in-Chief of Army Group Centre, Bock), underlay the memorandum, presented by the General Staff on 7 November, for the second offensive. The hopelessly optimistic goals laid down - the occupation of Maykop (a main source of oil from the Caucasus), Stalingrad, and Gorki were on the wish-list - were the work of Halder and his staff. There was no pressure by Hitler on Halder. In fact, quite the reverse: Halder pressed for acceptance of his operational goals. These corresponded in good measure with goals Hitler had foreseen as attainable only in the following year. Ha Hitler been more assertive at this stage in rejecting Halder's proposals, the disasters of the coming weeks might have been avoided. As it was, Hitler's uncertainty, hesitancy, and lack of clarity allowed Army High Command the scope for catastrophic errors of judgement.*\n\nAll the failures in planning Operation Barbarossa were not simply the result of a delusional Hitler, or Army leaders just telling him what he wanted to hear [although they clearly were present], but a High Command of Political and Army leaders who truly believed the Red Army was no match for the Wehrmacht, that they were superior, and they would end the war before winter. I think a lot of answers regarding errors being made during the time can be answered by this analysis. Heinz Guderian for example, speaking the truth or not, warned for the extremities in Russia and the impossibility of going into Russia. Hitler surrounded by military leaders who thought otherwise was not the only one who questioned Guderian, they almost all did, which app left Guderian with the task to make the best out of it.\n\nAt the same time it is also true that Hitler thought himself to be a military expert. The name of Franz Bauer is mentioned a lot regarding weather forecasters who predicted a mild winter. But later in the year, both military experts and weather experts, warned Hitler from going into Russia this time of the year when look at possible climate influences. Even Jodl, his more closest military adviser, expressed his worries. While in 1941 Stalin, also experiencing the extremities of his own country, left the technical planning of the military campaign to experts Hitler did not and wanted to have something to say about everything. So the sources are a bit mixed regarding this topic.\n\nBut Hitler was not clear himself. Hitler did have his worries, asked Goebbels and other military leaders to be sure that Operation Barbarossa would not make the same errors as Napoleon did when he invaded Russia, and he hesitated a lot. The army high command had a lot of freedom to plan the operation, to influence Hitler, to set priorities.\nFor example regarding the Russian Winter Ian Kershaw says:\n\n > *Nevertheless, in mid-November the drive on Moscow recommenced. Hitler was by now distinctly uneasy about the new offensive. On the evening of 24 November he expressed according to the recollection of his Army Adjutant, Major Gerhard Engel, his \"great concern about the Russian winter and weather\". \"We started a month too late,\" he went on, ending, characteriscally, by remarking that time was \"his greatest nightmare\". A few days earlier, Hitler had been more outwarly optimistic in a three-hour conversation with Goebbels. \"If the weather stays favorable, he still wants to make the attempt to encircle Moscow and thereby abandon it to hunger and devastation,\" the Propaganda Minister noted. Hitler played down the difficulties; they occurred in every war. \"World history was not made by weather,\" he added.*\n\nArmy leaders such as Halder convinced Hitler that provisions and other resources would reach the German troops in time and help them being protected against the extremities of the weather. This was not even close to the reality of the time. So in other words Hitler himself was never really clear on the planning of Operation Barbarossa himself. Ofc he wanted to hear what he wanted to hear, but I don't think he was not aware of the dangers at all, or that he would push for something not reachable if all the signs would tell him to stop. Lets be honest Hitler also didn't do this in the year preceding Operation Barbarossa why would he do it now.\n\nIn short the Army High command was full of people totally in line with the Nazi ideology of a superior Germany and the willingness to invade Russia. The idea that Hitler was the mastermind behind every single plan is in a direct sense incorrect. They had a relative amount of freedom and were capable, when on the right spot, to influence Nazi policies. I think another excellent example is for example a non-Military one involving Eichmann. The Red Army was already marching towards Germany and near the Hungarian borders. The Nazi's took control over Budapest and Eichmann commanded that all Jews had to be killed, at this time the Hungarian Jews did not experience the full blow of the Holocaust yet, but after Eichmann's command hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were killed in a relatively short amount of time in the concentration camps. Why? You might ask. Hungary could not be saved. There was not chance the Germans could 'clear' Hungary and settle it with Germans. The Red Army was close. The answer to this question can solely lay in the idea that the German leaders of the time were so convinced by the Nazi ideas that they were not merely radars in the machine but acted also independently, while still as part of the Nazi German structure, they made these kind of decisions on their own, together, or not necessarily involving any 'direct' command of Hitler. This whole overview shows how bad decisions can come into force as well, it is not a matter of just looking at an handfull of insane leaders, but a whole ideological system with its own specific flaws leading to multiple bad decisions before and during the war.\n\nSources:\n\n* Ian Kershaw - Hitler\n* Timothy Spyer - Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler And Stalin\n* Andrew Roberts - The Storm of War\n* Alfred W. Turney - Disaster at Moscow\n* David Stahel - Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East\n\nEdit: Clarity and small stuff",
"There aren't many that I can think of. \n\nJust when the Luftwaffe had nearly crippled English radar they abandoned the campaign in favor of bombing cities, primarily I think London. \"It is doubtful whether there is any point in continuing attacks on radar sites, in view of the fact that not one of those attacked so far has been put out of action.\" - Reichsmarschall Göering, 15 August 1940 Many have cited that as a major factor in why the UK won the Battle of Britain. \n\nThe Kriegsmarine wasn't very effective at all. The surface fleet, that is. Noted WWII historian Gerhard Weinberg suggested the Germans would have been better off in World War II if they had built no navy at all and devoted those resources to the army and the Luftwaffe. \n\n\nFrom [Stephen G. Fritz (Department of History, East Tennessee State University) review of Robert M. Citino _Death of the Wehrmacht: The German Campaigns of 1942_](_URL_0_) (a book I know about but have not read) \n \n > German military doctrine placed great emphasis on operational factors, to the detriment of prosaic material and logistical considerations. German planners thus concentrated their efforts on designing elegant operational schemes to achieve victory, while their opposite numbers in the enemy states tediously mobilized economic resources. As a result, Germany found itself dangerously dependent on maneuver for success, since it consistently lacked the firepower and material resources necessary for decisive victory. When it worked, as in 1870-71, the triumph was glittering and spectacular; when it failed, as in 1941-42, the defeat was total and ruinous. It seemed for Germany that war was always all or nothing; its dependence on operational doctrine left it little room for any alternative outcome. ",
"There are alot of logistical issues that plagued them through out the war that most military planners should have recongnized. They didn't have proper winter gear in the quantities required in 1941. They could not produce enough trucks of similiar types to keep up logistical flow, so you see them using tanks, trucks, and artillary from every country they captured. \n\nThan as the war progressed they didn't focus on building good items quickly, they kept developing weapons systems that were over engineered and not up to par. Good examples are the Tiger tanks, they were too big to cross most bridges, were terrible in anything but dry solid ground, and would break down more often than be lost by enemy fire. This trend can be seen in the tank destroyers like the Elefant. \n\nThe Airforce struggled with many doctrine issues. They focused alot on light and medium bomber but not on long range bombers or fighters. They had very well made fighters but didn't produce them in the number required early in the war to keep air supprimacy. \n\nAlso from a tactical standpoint Hitler in late 42-early 43 started his no retreat policy where he would order towns held at all cost which led to pockets of 20,000+ Axis soldiers being wiped out to hold town with little strategic need. ",
"The \"hero cult\" associated with fascism in general, a fascination with elite units to the expense of regular troops, preference for tactics over logistics, egregious overconfidence, the byzantine system of NSDAP militias and inter-service bickering and empire building and a tendency to reinforce failure rather than success (which to be fair is probably very hard to avoid).\n\nFor an example of the hero/elite stuff, take *Panzer Lehr*, an armored division formed from various armor training cadres (\"*Lehr*\" means \"teach\"). The division was arguably the finest armored formation of any of the combatants, but its existence meant the other units' training and leadership suffered. Opportunity costs are a thing.\n\nFor an example of inter-service rivalry and empire-building, consider *Fallschirm-Panzer-Division Hermann Goering*, the Luftwaffe's armored division.\n\nAs far as militias go, *Waffen-SS* was just the largest and best-known. The SA also had its own armed branch, the *Feldherrnhalle*, and the NSDAP also maintained a flying corps (NSFK) and motor corps (NSKK) independent of both. In addition there were a huge number of foreign volunteer units (most eventually assimilated into the *Waffen-SS*) and the *Volkssturm* home guard units - all of which could and should have been better integrated into the *Heer.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3v9kzh/is_there_an_important_battle_that_was_basically/cxlkv6e"
],
[
"https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=14333"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
th50e
|
Why do coins have people's heads on them?
|
I've noticed most European coins dating back to Hellenic times have the current ruler's head on them. Why is this? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans huge narcissists?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/th50e/why_do_coins_have_peoples_heads_on_them/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4mkbfj",
"c4mlkdq",
"c4mll3y"
],
"score": [
7,
25,
14
],
"text": [
"An episode of History of the World in 100 Objects covered this very subject. [Here](_URL_0_), give it a listen.",
"Before mass media or any sort of printing, there was no way to see what a ruler looked like without a painting of some sort, which was extremely expensive. Therefore empires put the faces of their rulers on the coins, so that the subjects of the empire could see the face of their emperor.\n\nIncidentally, the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) actually did not put the faces of the Emperor on the coins for many years, instead opting to put an image of Christ in its place",
"Well, let's think about it. There's a practical reason to have coins stamped with images. It is hard for an ordinary person to reproduce a coin with a complex image on it. States have always had a vested interest in controlling currency.\n\nCoins have rarely had ordinary \"people's\" faces on them, they are stamped with faces that represent state authority. Monarchs bodily represent state authority. \n\nThere's been plenty written about how that authority is experienced by ordinary people in the use of their currency. Use of coins with a monarch's face on them is in some way a recognition of the existence of state authority, if nothing else. Some people have refused to use certain coins at all and defacing coins was often a political act. \n\nIn the modern era, states have put a substantial effort into the images represented on their currency. Usage of coins and paper currency are one of the most intimate ways in which people engage with instruments of the state. What ends up on the face of a coin or a bill is negotiated and planned in an explicit act.\n\nIt's not simply about state authority though. In many ways, especially in the modern era, states have concerned themselves with the images on their currency because it helps to imagine and reinforce ideas of the nation itself. Benedict Anderson goes over this kind of thing quite a bit in Imagined Communities (although I can't remember if he addresses currency specifically).\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/uw_cy8iCRxSgI9I-rbVadg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
kmue2
|
what does the electric shock therapy do in a mental hospital?
|
I don't know the exact name for it, but an example of it is what happens to the old lady in Requiem for a Dream at the very end.
On that note, how does injecting painful liquids that make the patient squirm and scream help treat their mental illness?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kmue2/what_does_the_electric_shock_therapy_do_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2lijes",
"c2linon",
"c2linu7",
"c2liswl",
"c2liu42",
"c2ljfvb",
"c2lijes",
"c2linon",
"c2linu7",
"c2liswl",
"c2liu42",
"c2ljfvb"
],
"score": [
2,
32,
2,
2,
4,
13,
2,
32,
2,
2,
4,
13
],
"text": [
"It's called electroconvulsive therapy. I have no idea how it's supposed to work.\n\nNobody injects painful liquids just for the sake of injecting painful liquids... where did you hear that?",
"The proper name for that kind of therapy is *electroconvulsive therapy*, or *ECT*. \n\nThe way ECT is done in real life isn't exactly like in the movies. In real life, the first step is to first use medicine to make the patient fall asleep. Patients are never awake during ECT.\n\nThen, they inject the patient with a different medicine that makes it so they can't move. It makes their muscles turn off and go limp. This is important because of the next step.\n\nThen, they shock the patient's brain with electricity. The idea is to overpower the brain's own electrical circuitry and force it into a seizure. Usually seizures make people shake and flail wildly, which could hurt them. Because the patient's muscles are temporarily turned off, though, that part doesn't happen.\n\nNobody knows exactly why, but all that electricity kind of reboots the patient's brain. This can help the patient recover from bad mental illnesses that they haven't been able to treat in any other way. It causes other problems, though, like headaches, memory loss, and confusion. Sometimes patients and doctors decide it's worth it though.",
"I think the electricity is meant to stimulate certain parts of the brain, and cause more activity there (if the nodes are connected to the brain) Otherwise I think its just a method of pain to shock people when they do something wrong, so there develops a sort of 'sixth sense' for wrongness.\n\nI don't think they do inject painful liquids. The only liquids they'd inject would be painkillers, so the opposite of a painful liquid.",
"I remember reading in my psychology book that it isn't used much anymore, but that when it is used it is used to treat very sever depression. That somehow the electric affects the neurons in the brain causing them to release things that adjusts the brain's functions.",
"Some doctors discovered that patients who were both epileptic and depressed appeared to feel much better after having seizures. As I remember it the seizure sort of fires up the whole brain, releasing signal substances and such. \n\nWhen you are depressed the signals in your brain don't spread as fast, think of it as dropping stones in water, and the ripples on the surface being thoughts, now if you changed the water to jello it wouldn't be spread around as much as when it was water. Basically the convulsion therapy stirs up the brain, making you feel less shitty.",
"I worked in mental health for 5 years and did some clinicals at a psych floor while in nursing school. I did even get to interview a patient prior to ECT, then watch the procedure, then talk to her again afterward. It really is *nothing* like to see in the movies. She was very depressed prior. Couldn't even get out of bed. During the procedure, the only thing that moved was her toes, twitching a little bit. Afterward, she was a little tired for a few hours, and then was back to normal. It really was amazing how much it helped her.",
"It's called electroconvulsive therapy. I have no idea how it's supposed to work.\n\nNobody injects painful liquids just for the sake of injecting painful liquids... where did you hear that?",
"The proper name for that kind of therapy is *electroconvulsive therapy*, or *ECT*. \n\nThe way ECT is done in real life isn't exactly like in the movies. In real life, the first step is to first use medicine to make the patient fall asleep. Patients are never awake during ECT.\n\nThen, they inject the patient with a different medicine that makes it so they can't move. It makes their muscles turn off and go limp. This is important because of the next step.\n\nThen, they shock the patient's brain with electricity. The idea is to overpower the brain's own electrical circuitry and force it into a seizure. Usually seizures make people shake and flail wildly, which could hurt them. Because the patient's muscles are temporarily turned off, though, that part doesn't happen.\n\nNobody knows exactly why, but all that electricity kind of reboots the patient's brain. This can help the patient recover from bad mental illnesses that they haven't been able to treat in any other way. It causes other problems, though, like headaches, memory loss, and confusion. Sometimes patients and doctors decide it's worth it though.",
"I think the electricity is meant to stimulate certain parts of the brain, and cause more activity there (if the nodes are connected to the brain) Otherwise I think its just a method of pain to shock people when they do something wrong, so there develops a sort of 'sixth sense' for wrongness.\n\nI don't think they do inject painful liquids. The only liquids they'd inject would be painkillers, so the opposite of a painful liquid.",
"I remember reading in my psychology book that it isn't used much anymore, but that when it is used it is used to treat very sever depression. That somehow the electric affects the neurons in the brain causing them to release things that adjusts the brain's functions.",
"Some doctors discovered that patients who were both epileptic and depressed appeared to feel much better after having seizures. As I remember it the seizure sort of fires up the whole brain, releasing signal substances and such. \n\nWhen you are depressed the signals in your brain don't spread as fast, think of it as dropping stones in water, and the ripples on the surface being thoughts, now if you changed the water to jello it wouldn't be spread around as much as when it was water. Basically the convulsion therapy stirs up the brain, making you feel less shitty.",
"I worked in mental health for 5 years and did some clinicals at a psych floor while in nursing school. I did even get to interview a patient prior to ECT, then watch the procedure, then talk to her again afterward. It really is *nothing* like to see in the movies. She was very depressed prior. Couldn't even get out of bed. During the procedure, the only thing that moved was her toes, twitching a little bit. Afterward, she was a little tired for a few hours, and then was back to normal. It really was amazing how much it helped her."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
af6lww
|
how are magnets produced/extracted?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/af6lww/eli5_how_are_magnets_producedextracted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edw1bxn",
"edwi2fq"
],
"score": [
25,
3
],
"text": [
"There is type of iron ore called magnetite, also known as lodestone, is a natural permanent magnet. Magnets can also be made using other large magnets. You take a piece of material and place it next to a large magnet and after some time that piece of material becomes a magnet.",
"Follow up: how do they work?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1atzw1
|
why does the u.s military use depleted uranium in their ammunition?
|
*Some of their ammo.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1atzw1/eli5_why_does_the_us_military_use_depleted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c90q27t",
"c90q2zk",
"c90rv11"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"because it's really frickin hard and can go through really heavily armored things",
"It's a dense material! Denser than lead while having excellent strength. This combination increases the kinetic energy of the projectile. Thus the impact force. ",
"in addition to being very dense (and therefore a good penetrator of armor) depleted uranium is naturally [pyrophoric](_URL_0_). powdered or vaporized DU will spontaneously combust when exposed to air. its stable in the ammunition itself, but on impact it will blow itself into dust (if fired from a cannon with sufficient energy, anyway) which will ignite. its a really nasty weapon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophoricity"
]
] |
|
9azrz3
|
How did the vikings prepare their dried/salted cods? Are there any specific recipes that we still use today?
|
I heard that the vikings used to carry dried cods with them for food. How did they prepare these? I can't imagine them simply nibbling on them for the entirety of their journey (unless they had absolutely nothing else to eat). Did they cook them in any ways?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9azrz3/how_did_the_vikings_prepare_their_driedsalted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e51riz2"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Well, there are no written documents from Viking Age Scandinavia, and since nobody carved their favorite cod recipe into a runestone, we've got no definite evidence, which is usually the case. The best we can usually do then is to extrapolate back from the Scandinavian Middle Ages. (corresponding to the European High-Late Middle Ages, because we've inserted the Viking Age c800-1050) \n\nFirst, let's talk a bit about salt. There are no natural salt deposits in Scandinavia, with the possible exception of the tiny Danish part of Friesland (which I'll get to). The Baltic Sea is bracken, a mere 0.8% salt versus about 3.5% in the Atlantic. But the climate on the Atlantic coast is temperate at best and wet, evaporating salt in the open is a non-starter. So the only 'domestic' method of producing salt is by boiling seawater, which requires an abundance of wood to be possible, and is labour-intensive. A clue this method was in use already during the Viking Age is in Egil's Saga, (written at latest the early 13th century but depicting events supposedly happening centuries earlier) which says that after Harald Fairhair conquered Norway, all the \"saltkarlarnir\" (salt men) among some other professionals owed him allegiance.\n\nThe wood supply would be too small in present-day Denmark and so we're talking about Norway and the Halland coast of Sweden, which was Danish then. Kong Valdemars jordebog of 1231 mentions taxes being paid in salt in Halland, which implies salt production. The Swedes, or rather the _Västgötar_ only held the mouth of the Götaälv river (present-day Gothenburg) and were out of luck and had to import, as did most Danes. During the Viking age Western European salt trading was in full swing. Medieval Scandinavian records commonly list two kinds of salt \"trave salt\" coming from the Trave river, i.e. Lübeck and ultimately the Lüneburg salt works, and \"Baie salt\" from the Baie de Bourgneuf on the French Atlantic coast. Smaller amounts were also produced in Frisia by burning salt-containing coastal peat and seaweed to \"salt ash\". Which in the Middle Ages seems to have been referred to as \"ryber solte\" in Low German, after Ribe in Denmark (southwest Jutland, near Frisia). This salt isn't referred to so much despite apparently being valued at less than half of what other salt cost - so the salt ash was clearly considered an inferior product. There's also a reference to \"Vinland traveller salt\" (vinlanz faru salt) which I'm afraid is extremely unlikely to have anything to do with the Vikings who went to Newfoundland, and is more likely a reference to France and thus the Baie salt.\n\nSo salt was imported and/or produced from labor-intensive boiling or peat burning. It was big business for the Haneatic League later and a major import for the Scandinavians, even estimated at 25% of Sweden's entire imports by the late Middle Ages. Much of which would be re-exported in barrels of salted herring. (You need a barrel of salt for three barrels of herring) \n\nWhat this all boils down to (ooh witty) is that salt is believed to have been quite sparingly during the Viking age. Drying fish with salt (klippfisk) did not become commonplace until the early modern period, when imports had gotten cheap enough. So methods used include the drying you mention. But there's drying with salt and there's drying without salt, and the old Scandinavian way then was to dry without salt - producing what's called stockfish, which is not the dry salted cod you might be thinking of, but a product of both drying and fermentation. There are drying racks all along the Norwegian coast. As far as we know it's probably produced the same way (it's such a simple process) but I believe the first depiction of the process it is in Olaus Magnus 16th century _Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus_.\n\nThis process doesn't as well for oily fishes like herring, mackrel and salmon. The ways those were preserved, using little or no salt, was primarily smoking them - and there's archaelogical evidence that there was plenty of fish-smoking going on during the Viking Age. (we're less sure if it was hot smoke to dry the fish, cold smoke to cure it, or both) \n\nThe other method would be fermentation. This survives in various forms like the infamous Icelandc _hákarl_ , Norwegian _rakfisk_, Swedish _surströmming_ and the pan-Nordic _gravlax_. Hákarl is produced by burying shark in the ground, while gravlax ( _grav_ = grave, ditch, lax = salmon) was originally produced in a similar way as the name implies, but is a different dish now. \n\nRakfisk and surströmming are fermented with salt, but far less salt than would stop all decomposition. There's a story in Sweden that surströmming came about because of a salt shortage during Gustav Vasa's reign, leading people to try to use less salt. This is a myth. Salt was after all always in short supply and surströmming existed already. A notable person from Umeå in Vasa's day was _Erik Ångerman Sursill_ (Ångerman because he was from Ångermanland, and the nickname 'Sursill' means 'sour herring' i.e. likely surströmming - 'sill' and 'strömming' are just dialectal variants for herring). Sursill is known because they've traced thousands of people in Finland as his descendants in the work 'Genealogia Sursilliana'. (a title that's a wonderful mix of haughty Latin and the somewhat-derogatory Swedish nickname) \n\nAnother figure I mentioned in [a post](_URL_1_) recently is the Norwegian Olaf Gravlax mentioned in a letter in 1348, and that would be referring to the older kind of gravlax. It's possible surströmming and rakfisk are this old - but that may depend on how you define them. In any case, fermented fish of some form along those lines probably existed in the Viking Age.\n\nHow did they eat it? That's one of those \"everone knows\" kind of things that nobody writes down and so _nobody know_ centuries later. But we do have an medieval eyewitness account of preparation and eating of stockfish from the Venitian Pietro Querini, who was shipwrecked off Lofoten in 1432. [Here's his account. (p148, 'I stochfisi seccano al..)](_URL_0_). Having now looked up the obscure Venitian words like 'manara' it reads something like (my apologies in advance to Italianists):\n\n > The _stochfisi_ is dried in the wind and sun without salt, and because these are fishes with little fat-moisture(? _humidità grassa_ ) they become hard as wood. When they want to eat them, they beat them with the back of an axe so they become thready like nerves, then add butter and spices to give flavor.\n\nIt's not exactly a recipe but it does give an idea, and tells you it's not a long procedure as with preparing lutefish from dried fish. Speaking of lutefish, despite being a uniquely Norwegian-Swedish-Finnish tradition now, the origins of that dish are thought to be north Germany around the late middle ages. Not all weird Nordic fish dishes have Viking Age or even Scandinavian origins. \n\nSo stockfish, and dried/smoked fish certainly existed in the Viking Age, as did fermented fishes along the lines of hákarl and what gravlax used to be. Surströmming/rakfisk is medieval at the latest. Dried and salted fish (_klippfisk_) on the other hand was introduced to Scandinavia only in the 17th-18th centuries. \n\nMind you, stockfish is edible as-is too. You can get it as a [snack in Norway](_URL_2_)). (If you're in the mood for something all-natural, protein-rich and disgusting-tasting) The fermented fishes are eaten essentially as-is (not cooked) too, with some garnish.\n\nThe one thing I've not mentioned here is the rather obvious option of reconstituting dried fish by boiling or soaking it. That'd done today, and the lutefish process also involves that, but I just don't know a medieval account of it. If I'm allowed a tad of speculation, it does seem like a less likey preparation option for men on a boat with a limited water supply though. \n\nSo there do not exist any specific recipes we use today. (nor reconstructed ones like people have done with _garum_ ) You can't say any specific fish is a 'viking' dish, but you can say that the present stockfish, smoked fish and fermented fish traditions evolved out of practices that go back to the Viking Age (or further).\n\nSome sources:\n\nPietro Querini's account in Ramusio's _Delle navigationi et viaggi_, linked above.\n\nHugo Yrwing, _Salt och saltförsörjning i det medeltida Sverige_ (Scandia 1968, s. 219-242)\n\nAlfa Olsson, _Om allmogens kosthåll_, 1958\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://archive.org/stream/secundovolumedel00ramu#page/n357",
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9aqn9y/how_were_noble_houses_named/e4xnxxh/",
"https://www.matoppskrift.no/bilder/bilder_1000/17242.jpg"
]
] |
|
3qajod
|
why does it hurt so bad when you pop something into or out of its joint?
|
I have a hip condition that makes it so that my leg pops out and back in at least three times a week. It feels like I've been stabbed and completely winds me. Where are all the nerves that make this so painful? Is it not just bone vs bone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qajod/eli5_why_does_it_hurt_so_bad_when_you_pop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwdikmf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pain is, at the core, a signal that something is damaged and you should do something about it, or protect it, or something. In the case of joints popping out, your body is telling you in no mild terms, \"Don't you fucking walk on that leg with your hip popped or you are going to tear a ligament and be crippled forever so don't you fucking dare try it.\" "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2w2h0x
|
why did the nazis despise the russians more than their other allied enemies on the western front?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w2h0x/eli5_why_did_the_nazis_despise_the_russians_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"comzk7u",
"comzmy4"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I think it had to do with historical rivalries, as well as Nazi ideology that saw Slavic people as racially inferior.",
"The Nazis viewed the Slavic people as racially inferior but also the Nazis never foresaw themselves fighting Britain or a lot of the west as they were also of the Aryan race and subsequently \"Übermensch\". The desired German Empire was taking inspiration from the British in India and Hitler was a little disappointed Britain didn't ally with the Germans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2goyr5
|
why has the us military switched to a digital looking camouflage on clothes from the traditional more wavy looking pattern?
|
When you look at the pattern on modern military uniforms it looks all pixilated and made up of a bunch of squares instead of the usually wavy pattern. Is there a reason they made it like this now? I feel that the traditional would be better for blending in
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2goyr5/eli5_why_has_the_us_military_switched_to_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckl6mdj",
"cklfvqs",
"cklh6x2"
],
"score": [
29,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In testing like [this](_URL_1_), MARPAT is the digital camo, it takes about [3 times](_URL_0_) as long to identify MARPAT vs traditional camo",
"I always thought that it was because with Cameras and that being digital and the images they product being pixelated. Pixelated camo blends better with modern imaging technology.",
"It was a move to save money. \n\nThe military held a competition for several compleating camouflages in which the multicam pattern won. This pattern applied science on how humans see in an attempt to increase its effectiveness in as many environments as possible. Unfortunately multicam was a complex pattern to produce and expensive because it was patented. \n\nTo save money the military decided to develop an in house camoflage using computers to determine the best interference pattern, hence the digital look. This sadly wasn't tested very well ( and possibly not at all) in the real world and the method of generating it based on any theory taking into account how humans see. The digital camoflage pattern was very effective in some situations but not many. It eventually turned out to be a poor choice in Iraq a disaster in Afghanistan. The military eventually issued multicam to troops there. The will soon replace the digital camoflage with a multicam derivative. \n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_\n_URL_2_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://hyperstealth.com/digital-design/Test-Results-1.gif",
"http://hyperstealth.com/digital-design/test-results-3.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Camouflage_Pattern",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_universal_camouflage_trials",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiCam"
]
] |
|
1cr84u
|
When discussing new strains of flu, what does H7N9/H5N1/etc refer to?
|
My guess is that there is a core "flu" molecule, with varying amounts of extra hydrogen and nitrogen. Is that accurate?
Edit: NOPE. That is not accurate. Not even close. Thank you, /u/arble for clarifying. :)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cr84u/when_discussing_new_strains_of_flu_what_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9j7k63"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"They're labelled according to which specific variant of hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins they have.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus"
]
] |
|
19eovo
|
How were gunpowder weapons implemented in Chinese and Japanese warfare?
|
I understand that the Chinese and Korean armies were fond of rocket propelled missiles, but how common were matchlock weapons or European style artillery, and how were they used in battle? Were rocket troops used as light infantry to harass the enemy or were other tactics used?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19eovo/how_were_gunpowder_weapons_implemented_in_chinese/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8nin44",
"c8nmtjk"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"Finally, a chance to use my degree! \n\nThe Japanese and Chinese had gunpowder hand-cannons long before the 1500s, but gunpowder small arms didn't play an important role in East Asian warfare until around the 1540s. As the semi-apocryphal story goes, two Portuguese adventurers - the first Europeans ever to visit Japan - landed on Tanegashima in 1543, a small island near Kyushu with a Chinese ship. These two impressed the local daimyo by a display of their matchlocks so much that he purchased them outright, and immediately began reverse-engineering and copying them. There's a museum on Tanegashima that actually claims to have the original European musket and the first Japanese prototype. In fact, one of the common names for guns in Japan during this time was \"Tanegashima\" or \"teppo\". \n \nThis novelty spread rapidly throughout the war-torn archipelago: they were first used in combat six years later, and within ten years Japanese-made copies were in use all over Japan. Warlords Takeda Shingen and Uesugi Kenshin both used teppo in their repeated confrontations at Kawanakajima, the Mori used them at the Battle of Miyajima, and the Hosokawa and Miyoshi used them in street fighting in Kyoto in 1550. Oda Nobunaga, famous as the first of the Three Unifiers of the Sengoku period, achieved some of his greatest victories thanks to the gun; first at Anagawa in 1570 and five years later at Nagashino, he used firearm volleys downslope on rough terrain to obliterate his opponent. Maybe the most important indicator of the gun's popularity was the fact that both Takeda and Oda died of bullet wounds (well, and Oda was also stabbed and shot with arrows in a burning building - he was pretty much the ultimate badass). \n\nDespite widespread enthusiasm for the new guns, the mid-1500s matchlock was a pretty lousy weapon. It's painfully slow to set up and reload, and as the name implies, the matchlock relies having a lit match or wick ready to ignite the powder, which is quite a problem in the rain. Oda Nobunaga didn't apparently think much of guns at first; Perrin quotes him as saying that while guns were \"all the rage\", he thought the spear was the foundation of a good army.\n\nMaybe the most basic problem was that it wasn't clear how to *use* the gun. The Europeans had just dropped off the weapon itself, with no instructions on tactics. Consequently, the daimyo developed their own methods of volley fire (like Oda used at Nagashino) and their own books of firearm tactics. They also developed their own innovations; waterproof cases to transport guns, and little umbrellas that went over the firing chamber to keep the match and powder dry in the rain.\n\nAfter Oda's crushing victory at Nagashino, firearms became a necessity in Japanese warfare. Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu, subordinates to Oda who aspired to replace him, both were heavy users of firearms, and had a famous battlefield standoff that lasted several months as neither was willing to approach the other and suffer a Nagashino-style massacre. They eventually declared a truce, and Tokugawa was instrumental in Toyotomi unifying the country. \n\nA similar military interest **[in Western firearms]** did not apparently occur in China or Korea, though, because the countries weren't broken into tiny warring fiefdoms. It's perfectly reasonable to suppose that, had matchlocks arrived two centuries earlier or later, they would have similarly been ignored in Japan. Actually, the Koreans did eventually begin using muskets themselves, when the musket-using Japanese samurai invaded Korea in 1592, cutting a swath of destruction up the penninsula with the ambitious goal of conquering China. As with the samurai on Tanegashima, the Koreans reverse-engineered the muskets and began using them to halt the invasion force.\n\nAs every Japanese schoolkid knows, the Korean invasion ended after Toyotomi died, and Tokugawa Ieyasu claimed the mantle as the final unifier of Japan. Obsessed with developing a stable national government, one of the first things Tokugawa's regime did was block or discourage access to firearms, the tool that allowed him, Oda and Toyotomi to conquer the country. Kampfer describes seeing musketmen in Japanese retinues during the Edo period, but the shogunate regulated gun manufacturing, and there were few pitched battles that relied on gunpowder weapons after the early 1600s. \n\nThere was also a marked decline in technological advancement. When Perry and other Westerners forced their way into the country in the 1850s, they saw the samurai still using antique designs from the 1600s. Part of this was simply that after 1650 there really wasn't a need for more advanced firearm technology beyond the flintlock musket. Additionally, I've also got an amateur theory that one of the reasons the Tokugawa encouraged the cult of bushido and the fetishization of the katana was because, compared to the spear and gun, it was a vastly inferior weapon and less threatening to a regime obsessed with order and stability. Boys and their toys. \n\nsome sources:\n\nLidin - Tanegashima: The Arrival of Europe in Japan\n\nPerrin - Giving up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879\n\nedit for clarity...",
"The answers so far seem to indicate that East Asia were not interested in firearms and didn't incorporate them into their armies before the Portuguese brought them to Tanegashima. While this is true for Japan, it is absolutely false in the case of China, where the Ming dynasty has been systematically implemented in their battles since the 1400s, and this is not including the use of fire lances even earlier, dating from the Song dynasty in the 12th century.\n\nFor the Ming dynasty, we have a record of how Mu Ying (沐英), the general settling Yunnan in the 14th century, devised an infantry formation incorporating firearms to counter elephants. The result is similar to the western concept of a firing line: the line in front fires, pass the gun back to the second line to reload, gets an already loaded gun, repeat. The concept was at least two hundred years ahead of Oda Nobunaga's \"revoluntionary\" innovation in Nagashino. Later, the Yongle Emperor (1320-1464) created an elite military brigade that specializes in the use of gunpowder weapons, the Divine Engine Division (神機營). They took Mu Ying's concept of line formation and adapted it to become three lines, where the two lines in the back reloads to allow for a faster rate of fire. (See image at _URL_0_). The Divine Engine Division were devastating against the Mongolian cavalry, and a favourite Chinese tactic to use along with the firearms was ambush: many times the Mongols were led into defiles, and once, during Altan Khan's attack of Beijing, the Mongols were lured into a narrow alley to be shot at. After the volleys, Chinese cavalry would charge out from the sides and finish the job.\n\nBy the late-Ming, Chinese cavalry forces stationed in Liaodong (near Korea) were described to be wielding firearms as well. The Armored Cavalry of Liaodong (遼東鐵騎), as they were called, were involved in the defense of Korea against Hideyoshi's invasions in the 16th century. So here I ask rhetorically, if firearms weren't widely used in China and Korea, how could they have put up a defense against the battle-hardened Japanese samurai armed with matchlocks, twice?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ming_musketeers.jpg"
]
] |
|
34hf7e
|
In a packed grocery store with long cashier lines, is it better to choose one at random?
|
So I got stuck today for 20 minutes in a cashier line, and it got me thinking about the optimal way to choose a line. Whenever a customer had finished shopping he would run through all the lines to find the shortest one. But here I was thinking, if every customer before me has searched for the better line, then the lines are more or less equally long. So the best option would be just to pick the nearest line and not bother looking for anything better.
So I know this obviously has been thought about someone before. And while I know a little about game theory, I have no idea how I would search for such a concept. Does anyone have somewhere to lead me to? Could anyone explain under what area of economics/mathematics this would fall into?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/34hf7e/in_a_packed_grocery_store_with_long_cashier_lines/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqvf9a6",
"cqvh949"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Personally I evaluate the amount of products in each persons cart, I'd rather get in the line with five lightly loaded carts than two heavily loaded ones. Also I've found that younger to middle aged (20-35) cashiers seem to be a bit faster. Several elderly persons in a line are usually a red flag as they tend to write checks which increases the wait time.",
"When you pick a line, you have to wait until all the people who were on the line before have finished. How much that takes depends on how many people are on the line and the products they have. Thus, if you choose the line which takes less time, you will wait less. That's it. Your initial intuition was right.\n\nIt is true that, since all people will think like you, the lines will *tend* to get similar, but they won't always be, because the amount of people who enter the lines and their amount of groceries are both random. You can't control what the others will do, so you can only look out for yourself. Since you can only estimate the duration of each line, there will be times where you won't be able to tell which one is best, and you'll have to choose at random, but other than that, just look for the best line.\n\nIt would get way more interesting if you could make everyone follow a certain strategy: then maybe another strategy could lead to better result, but I don't think so. That would be modeled with some kind of stochastic process, but I don't know a lot about that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
90k9ka
|
It takes antibiotics 4-6 weeks to treat acne. What's happening in that time?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/90k9ka/it_takes_antibiotics_46_weeks_to_treat_acne_whats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2skpwe"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Many antibiotics are not \"bactericidal\" as much as they are \"bacteristatic\". In other words, they can prevent bacteria from replicating (by inhibiting division, stopping synthesis of important components, etc). However the bacteria still need to die of \"\"old age\"\" or be killed by the body's defenses. This can take time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4pdej7
|
What made the Soviet Union a super power? Why isn't Russia one now?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4pdej7/what_made_the_soviet_union_a_super_power_why_isnt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4k9hql"
],
"score": [
146
],
"text": [
"A detailed discussion of Russia as it exists today is probably outside of the scope of this sub. However, it's not difficult to highlight differences between the USSR in its prime and the Russian federation post-disintegration. \n\n1. The USSR was a larger and more populous entity than the Russian Federation. The USSR's population on the eve of the dissolution was 290 million. The population of the Russian Federation in 1991 was approximately 150 million, a figure that it is still at in 2016. This is close to a 50% loss of population when the Russian SFSR struck out on its own. The USSR was not just Russia, it was Russia, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Moldova, the central Asian republics and the Baltic States. After the dissolution of the USSR, these countries experienced the effects of a demographic decline that was in the making late in the USSR and has not really recovered until recently in Russia.\n\n2. The USSR possessed a variety of client or puppet states in Eastern and Central Europe. Any conflict with the USSR would drag the other Warsaw Pact countries into the fight as well. These countries maintained large military forces in their own right. Before the USSR had dissolved, these countries had already started breaking away and seeking ties with the west. \n\n3. The USSR had endemic economic problems, and these started becoming major problems by the end of its lifetime. Russia inherited the economic situation of the Russian SFSR, and was subsequently exposed to additional economic shocks as it transitioned from a planned economy to a free market economy. \n\n4. The USSR in the 1950's and 1960's was on par with or ahead of the United States in some areas of technology, particularly military technology. By the 1990's, the United States had pulled well ahead in essentially every area. The economic situation in the early Russian Federation was extremely bad as mentioned above, and this meant that large scale military R & D was out of the question. Even maintaining forces was not possible, and the size of the military as a whole shrank, even beyond what was lost when the other SSRs broke away and formed their own military forces. Naval forces were in particular disrepair, as they had not been the top priority even in the USSR's heyday. This is relevant when we speak of power projection especially. \n\n\nRussia in 2016 is still a very powerful country. But it lacks the economic power, the technological sophistecation and global power projection capabilities to challenge the United States in a meaningful way outside of its own back yard. Its large nuclear Arsenal is the most visible vestige of its superpower past, but in other respects it is a shadow of its former self, economically, demographically, militarily and geographically."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1hq7lo
|
Has an amphibious assault ever been pushed back and thwarted on the beach, before the invaders got to establish some kind of beach head?
|
There have been a few failed invasion attempts, or probing operations that have gone wrong, but have there been any attempts at invasion that have not managed to get off the beach at all?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hq7lo/has_an_amphibious_assault_ever_been_pushed_back/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cawsg2f",
"cawtd7l",
"cawyl2v"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Does being sunk while still at sea count?",
"Gallipoli would come close even though it lasted 8 months. The Allies really didn't manage to expand their beachhead with most of their attacks to expand the beachhead failing. So while it wasn't thwarted on the beach itself they didn't really manage to get past the establish a beachhead phase.",
"The Persians didn't get very far from their landing site at Marathon in 490."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bjsrxv
|
why does states in usa want to ban abortion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjsrxv/eli5_why_does_states_in_usa_want_to_ban_abortion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"emavdrx",
"emaw2ws",
"emax8hz",
"emax9d7"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they believe it's an act of murder, you are killing a unborn baby. I support abortion.",
"Because too many people cannot comprehend that there are other beliefs and ethics beyond their own, so they think that their beliefs must be legally enforced, even upon those who disagree with them, somehow having the misguided belief that that protects their \"religious freedom\". It's not. It's religious supremacy.",
"I will try to answer this as objectively as possible and will explain the difference perspectives since there isn't really a complete black and white answer to this.\n\nThere are essentially two major viewpoints:\n\n* That as soon as a women becomes pregnant, there is a living being inside of her. And removing said being would be murder. \n* That the fetus is just a lump of cells (roughly expressed) and that there is no murder in removing said lump of cells. That the right for women to decide what to do with their own body is more important. This is up to a certain time in the pregnancy when the fetus starts to become sentient and actually develop into a developed human being. \n\nThis is mostly based on your own morality and values. If you believe that as soon as a woman is pregnant there is a living human being in there. Of course removing it will be seen as murder. On the other hand, a lot of people (and most of the western worlds laws) see the fetus as not a sentient being up until a certain point in time of the pregnancy. \n\nSo it's a big debate because one side sees it as murder, and murder if of course a big nono. The other side sees it as the right every woman should have since it's her own body to govern over. \n\nAs as you yourself said, there are massive consequences to banning abortions since there wont stop all abortions.",
"Because its killing an unborn baby, and if not medically necessary many people consider this tantamount to murder. Which self aborting could be legally and people are charged with for doing so."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9jgg2u
|
what does it mean to be an evangelical christian and why is this category so prominent in surveys?
|
Seeing as this thread may receive a lot of hate, I am genuinely interested in why this group is always mentioned in surveys when there are many different religious beliefs. Why aren't other classifications/religions listed in these surveys?
Are these people self-proclaimed, or do they choose Evangelical from a list?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9jgg2u/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_be_an_evangelical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6rc7i3",
"e6rf3wj"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The word evangelical means someone who is actively trying to spread their religion. Most Christian denominations have some elements of evangelism.\n\nIn the US, the term is used to describe a loose group of culturally conservative and politically active denominations, who typically believe governance should be based on religious principles. They believe the government should oppose things like abortion, homosexuality, women's rights, and evolution because they run counter to their view of biblical principles.",
"Evangelicalism is Christianity centered on certain, specific beliefs:\n\n - Evangelicals believe that atonement for sins comes from praying for forgiveness and accepting that Christ died to redeem your sins. Evangelicals call this being \"born again\" - they see it as a new baptism by which the sinner emerges from the pool as a new person, blessed by Christ and empowered by his sacrifice. They believe that this is the ONLY way to get into Heaven (unlike, say, Catholicism, which believes that faith alone is not enough. Faith must be matched with good deeds and a good life.)\n\n - Evangelicals encourage a \"close\" relationship with God and Christ through personal prayer (ie, not group led prayers as you hear in Catholic mass, though there is some of that in Evangelical services). They also believe that the Bible (and more specifically, the Gospels) is the final authority on God and Christianity and so they encourage believers to study it closely and innately - usually under the guidance of a pastor or elder who can help with things like context. This doesn't necessarily mean that all Evangelical groups see the Bible as inerrant, ie \"literal history\" (though many do). Just that the Bible is ultimate authority for Christians, not church hierarchy. \n\n - Evangelicals also believe heavily in spreading their faith. Most Christians took Jesus' command to spread his message as a command to evangelize, but Evangelicals in particular see it as a key component of living a godly life. \n\n - Evangelicals also tend to believe heavily in the emotional and spiritual aspect of church. Speaking in tongues, boisterous worship, loud songs, etc (that are not acted but rather expressed honestly) are meant to be outward manifestations of your faith. They're seen as expressions of your zeal for your faith, your happiness upon being \"born again\" and lifted up from sin, and your positive outlook on the world. You know the old trope of the guy who has the near-death experience and then lives each day afterwards with a positive attitude and a smile as if each day is a gift? That's the attitude that Evangelicals are supposed to have. \n\nIn the United States, Evangelicals, protestant, and Fundamentalists are often used interchangeably to describe the same group of people but there are some differences between them (while also a lot of overlap). There are evangelical Catholics for example as well as \"progressive\" evangelical denominations. Evangelical shows up as a separate option in those surveys often because Evangelical churches are often not part of broader, nationwide churches. Many evangelical churches are begun by particularly charismatic or inspiring pastors who may/may not have any formal training or accreditation by larger churches and so don't belong to any mainstream group. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
eo34t9
|
why video game companies make such beautiful cinematic trailers about their video games, but they never lead to a full fledged movie on the big screen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eo34t9/eli5_why_video_game_companies_make_such_beautiful/
|
{
"a_id": [
"febzw4w",
"fe7n9kg",
"fe7oead",
"fe7plru",
"fe7s48y",
"fe8qp3t",
"fe8w60j",
"fe931jo",
"fe98soz",
"fe9coj0",
"fe9gllf",
"fe9ogp2",
"fe9pj83",
"fe9u6ls",
"fe9z50p",
"feanxeq"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
45,
6,
463,
749,
9,
16,
17,
16,
118,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because you've already played it. You know what happens already. Hell, you've probably seen every nook and cranny of the game world and witnessed multiple endings.\n\nWhat would a movie have to work with?",
"I doubt it would be cost effective. To make 90 minutes with those kind of visuals would take a huge amount of both time and money and it would require to make a huge box office to have a decent profit so it would be too risky to greenlit such project",
"It has, on several occasions, and the movies were financial flops. \n\nSee Final Fantasy the spirits within",
"Prince of Persia, The Witcher, Assassins Creed, Warcraft, Resident Evil, Rampage, Silent Hill, Super Mario Bros.,Doom,Tomb Raider... I'm sure I forgot a few.",
"The storytelling and writing is different. The writing in games works in games, but the same writing sucks for a movie because games are meant to be played, not watched. That's the main reason why games that are turned into movies suck, and why movies turned into games suck. \n\nYou wouldn't want to see a 90 minute movie of Master Chief shooting a bunch of flood creatures, but you would like to shoot flood creatures for 90 minutes. A cinematic should be used to transition from event to event and then go back to shooting.",
"A lot of it comes down to budget as well. Blizzard puts out crazy sexy looking cinematics and it would look great on the big screen but Blizzard has also said that if they were to make a full length feature film that looked as good as the cinematics that it would be the most expensive movie ever made. \n\nAt the end of the day the only reason companies don't make something is because it wouldn't make enough money to be worth it.",
"Getting three minutes of content to put into a trailer campaign is a piece of cake. Seriously, you can do it even if you haven't actually got a fully fledged, carefully made product to sell. Remember Aliens: Colonial Marines? They had some glorious trailers for that garbage fire of a shoddy looking scam job, but barely a game to go with them. \n\n But you have to understand a few things. First is that these beautiful cinematic trailers take way longer to make than to watch. Hell, there are YouTubers making content out there, who shoot hours and hours of footage, just to get material together for a ten to fifteen minute video. That means watching the hours and hours of footage, curating out all the boring crap, selecting the good segments, refining them, adding graphics, animations, captions and the like. That takes flipping ages. So, making movies of any quality, takes an awful lot of time and patience and must either be done for the love of doing it, or with reasonable expectation of a return on that investment of time and patience, which brings us neatly round to....\n\nSecond, movies very particularly, do not get made unless someone with an awful lot of money and power, normally someone whose name is not household level, says they ought to be. They also do not get made unless the studio cranking the film out, believes it will make its money back and then some. Realistically, the track record of films based on computer games has been less than reassuring to investors, and when we are talking about making movies, we are really talking about securing investment. It is worth pointing out at this stage that movies that don't get funded, don't get made. It takes a lot of human and technical resources to make a movie, and without the reassurance of someone putting their money where their mouth is, those resources simply are not going to materialise. \n\n Third, once again, there is a stigma about computer games movies, a deep, abiding, and not in the slightest undeserved stigma, surrounding computer games movies. The stigma goes, basically they are terrible, and there have already been enough bad ones made, that no amount of success of computer games movies will EVER amount to a rebalancing of the scale in favour of the notion of a computer game movie. \n\n Basically, between the difficulty of making movies, the difficulty of making animated movies, the difficulty of selling computer games related movies to serious production houses, and the fact that computer game movies are often shit, its not surprising that these things don't happen often.",
"Most effective video stories are effective because of the medium they are presented in. The last of us would not be interesting as a movie. World of Warcraft would not be interesting as a movie.",
"There are certain lore deep games that could probably do it successfully, but most (good) games are made to be enjoyed as an active player, not a passive observer. The main issue with the lore deep games, however, is that your audience is going to be limited. For example: Kingdom Hearts. There’s enough deep lore and stuff going on that it could work, but there’s no way that you can fully include an audience outside of fans of the game.",
"Anyone can look like an olympic runner for 2 seconds. You'll notice those cinematic trailers do not offer much in the way of dialogue or actual storytelling. Its much harder to tell a complete story in 2 hours, the trailer lets the actual gameplay do that so it doesnt have to",
"Money. A beautiful cinematic trailer will get you to buy a game that is likely around $60 usd.\n\nA beautiful full-fledged movie will get you to buy a ticket for $15 and cost more than the entire production cycle for a video game most of the time.\n\nThe goal of both products is to get your money not make you happy. When you already make video game money, it doesn't make financial sense to go and make movie money.",
"I think another issue is the cost. Those crazy 2 minute cinematic cost A LOT of money to make. Imagine investing it to be 1.5 - 2 hours and making 0 profit.",
"Money is the answer. Take Warcraft the movie as an example since it's the most recent I remember. Production costs of 160 million. Needed to make 380 million to break even..\n\nThis stuff consumes a lot of money and needs a lot of specialists in their specific workfield. \n\nAdditionally: marketing purposes. You get people hyped and hooked on by epic Trailers, not gameplay.\n\nLast point: 2-3 minutes of storyboard are rather easy since in most cases Trailers either show a \"how did it come to the Situation we jump into as the player\" or an action scene that doesn't need story at all and rather cool Explosions; shoot outs and so on.\n\nIn both cases you don't need to worry about story and character development, the boring middlepart of the movie, hybris, bridge. Everything that makes a movie a movie basically.\n\nInteresting enough though I wonder what the animated resident evil movies were supposed to be. Direct to DVD and definitely expensive judging by the production quality. maybe a love Project of capcom with no direct intend to make money.",
"Square Enix tried valiantly with Final Fantasy : The Spirits Within... and hit the Uncanny Valley so hard it left mental scars.",
"Video game plots are usually equivalent to a b+ movie at best. What sells the game is how the player interacts with the mechanics and/or the environmental storytelling. Most game trailers, if they even have any narrative cohesion, would be like trying to sell you a short story that somehow lasts over 20+ hours.\n\nI think the difference between games and movies are great enough that it would be hard to translate between the two.",
"It’s surprisingly easy to make a 2 mn money shot that works well.\n\nI’ve produced/exec produced/co-directed/commissionned a few that made a splash back in the days :\nHaze - _URL_1_\nI am Alive - _URL_2_\nGhost Recon - _URL_0_\n\nTrust me - the sweat, the crunch, the tears, the endless approval loops, the actual physical fights over 2 mns costing 400k to 800k$. There’s no way any of those would make it into any longer form content without actual deaths.\n\nOr if it does get out with minimal casualties.. it’s not so great.\n\nA « good » example with Ghost Recon Alpha - _URL_3_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/VhVx3jBXRSY",
"https://youtu.be/kbrCZpaH9oM",
"https://youtu.be/HZ6Aely9YrQ",
"https://youtu.be/7-wAzlqzXH0"
]
] |
||
1ipguz
|
why isn't cheating in marriage a punishable crime?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ipguz/eli5_why_isnt_cheating_in_marriage_a_punishable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb6qv2s",
"cb6qv5j",
"cb6qvq9"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because in the modern world, we generally think that the people you get in bed with aren't the government's business.",
"You need cause to criminalize something, what is the cause behind criminalizing extramarital relations?\n\nCan you think of any instances where criminalizing extramarital relations might have negative effects, or be considered overly intrusive? ",
"Cheating is a punishable crime in many religions, and there are also countries who make it illegal too--here is a wiki I found, hope that helps :)\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery"
]
] |
||
1idoso
|
How much "agency" does a single cell in a multicellular animal have compared to a unicellular animal? What is the most complex behaviour a single cell is capable of?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1idoso/how_much_agency_does_a_single_cell_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb3j67j",
"cb3msd9"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Hahah. This is such a fucking good, yet remarkably complex question. I often think of it as one of the greatest questions - especially in its extrapolation to a human and one's place in civilization. Its immeasurable really. All things are dictated by their physical circumstance as far as science subscribes to determinism, which suggests each has the same level of control - that is none.\n\nIf you grant objects with an inherent sense of agency that defies determinism, then you can start to look at it in a less reductive sense.\n\nThe definition of agency makes things interesting, which I see as a value for the 'capacity' to act. To simplify this extensively, you could use the volume of mass or energy over which an organism's agency resides. In this, the observable universe is really the containment for possible 'effect' by any organism capable of emitting or interacting with light, which is most organisms.\n\nTo invite aristotle to the party, you can probably think of it in terms of wave function collapse. Large organisms like humans with a large mass have distinctly controlled quantum probabilities. Their degrees of freedom go up as the number of electrons in their system do, but each of these impose restriction on the others, assembling to a much more concrete object. I haven't ever really contemplated what effect that would have on 'agency' as a philosophical notion. Perhaps it would improve the capacity to act on the larger system, but reduce the capacity of each individual cell in the body.\n\nBut perhaps by increasing the capacity of the larger body, it actually maximizes the agency of each individual cell. I'd muse that such calculations are currently beyond science, but it would be nice to find an answer!\n\nEdit: Anecdotally it would seem that its not only size but actual freedom that dictates the degree of agency. For example, larger organisms and flying organisms, less affected by predation are anecdotal examples of organisms that had the freedom to invest in 'manipulation' of environment. That is to say, their primary adaptation occurred to improve living conditions and social environment which indirectly affects survival, rather than affecting survival directly and functionally (which was already relatively high). Similarly, I would assume a highly successful unicellular organism would be the one to see selectivity on the 'social' level. The examples of birds, elephants primates and other social animals, to me, are anecdotal signs that complexity begets success, and success begets capacity, which is a measure of agency.",
"I remember reading about some sort of single celled algae which could integrate about 16 factors when deciding where to settle down, or something like that. Don't have the reference on me, though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
31no2p
|
If my mouthwash "kills the germs that cause bad breath, plaque, etc etc" then how do they come back?
|
So my mouthwash has on the front "Kills germs that cause bad breath, plaque, and the gum disease gingivitis". If I brush my teeth really well and then soak my mouth in mouthwash until it burns, shouldn't that kill all of them? You would think it would at least kill most of them for at least a few days, but they do seem to come back awful fast.
Why?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/31no2p/if_my_mouthwash_kills_the_germs_that_cause_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq3fdrd",
"cq3fi3l"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it doesn't kill **all** the germs. You aren't going to kill even all the ones in your mouth, but aside from that there are trillions of microbes living in your body that can just move right back in to the freshly cleaned habitat. Then on top of that you are constantly taking in new microbes through breathing and eating.",
"No, it does not kill every \"germ\" in your mouth and your body is full of them (from the inside out!), so they quickly repopulate in your mouth. In addition to that, you're constantly breathing in air (also full of germs) and putting things in your mouth with microscopic life on it. (Food, pens, fingers, other random objects.)\n\nIt would be super, duper bad for you if all the bacteria and viruses in you suddenly died, because shortly thereafter you would too. So let's be thankful our mouthwashes are good for freshening our breath for a few moments, but not much else. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
36eez5
|
If you were to float in space without a spacesuit, is there a distance from the sun at which you would neither freeze nor burn up?
|
Assuming space is 0 degrees Kelvin, and the sun is millions of degrees, is there an in-between zone at which it would feel like room temperature?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/36eez5/if_you_were_to_float_in_space_without_a_spacesuit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crd9wmp",
"crdb04c",
"crdjcbx"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Space is cold but it's also very sparse. It's not space that has temperature, it's the residual gases that are in it. We rely on contact heat transfer with the air on Earth to evacuate a part of the heat our body produces. With that source of heat loss gone, overheating is more a problem than freezing in space. For example, the ISS actually has [big radiators panels](_URL_0_) (those black things) that help cooling it by emitting infrared light.\n\nSo in the end, even naked in space, you would not freeze, but probably feel pretty warm. Since our bodies don't loose any heat by contact with the air when it is at 37°C (99°F), that's probably how warm space would feel.\n\nSide note: the Sun is not millions of degrees hot on the surface, but a mere 5000°C (10 000°F). Still very hot.",
"Yes, that's the distance at which heat loss from the human body becomes equal to ~~incoming~~ absorbed solar energy.\n\nUnder normal circumstances (not sleeping and not taking vigorous exercise) the human body generates around 100 watts of heat (Wiley J. Larson, Linda K. Pranke - *Human Spaceflight*, ISBN 0-07-236811-X). This is consistent with the food intake recommendations of [8 MJ/day](_URL_0_).\n\nIf we assume a worst case scenario, in which the human body radiates as a black body at 310ºK, it would lose about 1kW of heat. Assuming a normal body area of 1.9 m^2.\n\nAt 1AU from the Sun (i.e. the mean Earth-Sun distance) we receive 1360 W/m^2 . If we consider that 1/2 of the body's surface is perpendicular to the Sun then this is slightly higher than the heat loss. So we'd have to move your human a few million km away from the Sun to reach the equilibrium point.\n\nAlternatives? Sure. Just wear clothes with a light color to reduce sunlight absorption. This is exactly why EVA suits are white.\n\nOf course, all of the above doesn't make sense anymore when we consider we need the pressure of an EVA suit to survive.\n\nEdit: fixed a term.",
"Your equilibrium temperature is set by the condition that the power you receive from the Sun (which gets larger as you get closer to the Sun) must be equal to the amount you, as a blackbody, radiate into space (this is proportional to your temperature raised to the fourth power).\n\nThus, the closer you go to the Sun the higher your equilibrium temperature... so yes, you can find a spot where it's suitably comfy.\n\nFor those who like details... setting your emissivity (ie blackness for absorption and emission) equal to one (perfectly black) which isn't a bad guess at the wavelengths of interest (1 to 10 microns, roughly),\n\nP_fromsun = 1360 x A_1 x (R_earthorbit / R_fromsun) Watts/m^2\n\nP_emittedbyyou = sigma x A_2 x T^4\n\nwhere A_1 is your projected area facing the Sun, A_2 is your total surface area viewing space, sigma is the Stefan Boltzman constant (6x10^-8 W/m^2 /K^4 in these units), and T is your temperature in Kelvin.\n\nSetting these equal and rearranging gives\n\n(R_earthorbit / R_fromsun) = (sigma/1340) x (A_2/A_1) x T^4\n\nSo now we just need to estimate the ratio of the areas. Taking you to be a sphere (I'm a physicist... this what we do, okay?) then the ratio is just 4. Plugging in numbers and setting T=300K, we have\n\n(R_earthorbit / R_fromsun) = 1.43\n\nor\n\nR_fromsun / R_earthorbit = 0.70.\n\nSo you have to go closer to the Sun to find your comfy spot.\n\nNote: I ignored your 100W that /u/katinla says we generate... you can revise those calculations by saying\n\nP_fromsun + 100W = P_emittedbyyou\n\nto get an even better answer.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0102/iss_sts98a.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy"
],
[]
] |
|
1dcehy
|
If a live power line touched the surface of the water in the middle of the ocean, how large of a "fatal zone" would it create?
|
Salt water is more conductive, right?
Would the electricity spread out in a spherical shape and dissipate after a certain distance?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dcehy/if_a_live_power_line_touched_the_surface_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9pa987"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Useful info for anyone trying to answer: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/Radials.pdf"
]
] |
|
i4l6c
|
How may we mathematically predict the color of an element or compound?
|
If I want to know the color of an element or a compound, what information do I need to gather and what math do I need to use?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i4l6c/how_may_we_mathematically_predict_the_color_of_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c20v2wf",
"c20vkmd",
"c20w0ug",
"c20x9ro"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I know that crystal field theory helps you determine color for transition metals if you are interested in reading on that.",
"In principle, quantum electrodynamics tells you everything you could want to know. In practice, figuring this out is very hard. The general area of physics/math you would want to look at is scattering theory, which studies how waves and particles `scatter':\n\n_URL_0_",
"You will want to calculate the energy difference between the valence molecular orbital and the excited molecular orbitals - or, in the case of bulk material, valence band and conduction band (namely, the band gap).",
"I originally didn't respond because I was expecting that others could answer better than I could. I came back a day later to find a few physics-oriented replies; my organic chemistry background tells me that, in a molecule, the size of a system of co jugated bonds is a good way to make an educated and usually largely accurate guess at the color of a molecule. No?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering_theory"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
41nw0z
|
how did the hms challenger find challenger deep in 1875 without access to submersibles or sonar?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41nw0z/eli5_how_did_the_hms_challenger_find_challenger/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz3s3v3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A very long string, with a lump of lead on the end.\n\nNo - really. Though rope, of course, rather than string. A big lump of lead on the end - the line goes slack(ish) when it reaches the bottom. Grease pressed into the hollow end of the cup could sample the bottom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
aug9cz
|
How often does any given red blood cell cycle through the heart?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/aug9cz/how_often_does_any_given_red_blood_cell_cycle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eh97o60"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"normal cardiac output for an average sized person is 5L/min, and normal blood volume for an averaged sized person is 5L. Therefore any red blood cell would go through the heart twice in a minute, once through the left side and once through the right side."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ktryl
|
how game developers write and design games for the xbox 360, ps3, and pc simultaneously?
|
I always wondered how a studio can write a game for the XBox 360, PC, and PS3 at the same time and have all versions come out identical. Do they just make one version of it? Are there different teams that work on different consoles? How's it work? Keep in mind please that I know absolutely nothing about writing code or designing games.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ktryl/eli5_how_game_developers_write_and_design_games/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2n5w2k",
"c2n5z7c",
"c2n61pe",
"c2n66zi",
"c2n6epd",
"c2n6in4",
"c2n6r15",
"c2n7x7a",
"c2n5w2k",
"c2n5z7c",
"c2n61pe",
"c2n66zi",
"c2n6epd",
"c2n6in4",
"c2n6r15",
"c2n7x7a"
],
"score": [
3,
28,
129,
3,
13,
29,
4,
2,
3,
28,
129,
3,
13,
29,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually it is written on one platform and ported to the rest. For big studios, they do this quite often so the tools and methods they use to change the code becomes more efficient. \n\nUsually it's built for PC and then ported to consoles. There have been a few cases where it has been done the other way around, but most of the time this results in lots of bugs..etc. ",
"Some engines can do this:\n\n_URL_0_",
"One of the big ideas in programming is *abstraction*. Basically, this means hiding away as many details as you can about things, in order to get a higher level view of it. Using a web browser is a good example of abstraction: In order to view a web page, you do not need to know anything about how the internet works. You just give the browser an address, and it does all of the work of finding the right server, requesting the page, and then rendering the page once it comes in. The details of how it does this are not important to you. In fact, Mozilla or Google could change how it works entirely, and as long as the browser still gets you your page, you don't really have to care.\n\nPeople writing games try to do the same thing. They try to add abstractions to their code, so that the details of what platform they're running on end up mattering very little. Inevitably there will have to be some platform specific code. But, in a well written application, this portion will be relatively small.",
"(English not first language) Well, the way things work in the wonderfull land of development, is preaty simple, there are a lot of different machines, and they are all like robots, they do whatever you tell them to do, but they need to know exactly what you mean, for example you can tell to the xbox360 or the ps3 to color all the screen blue, but they speak different languages, so we create some other robots, but not real robots, this robots are imaginary friends, actually you can build the blue prints of your own robots, the blue prints are called classes, and then you can create as many robots (aka 'instances') from that blueprint as you want, and design them to do whatever you need them to do, so the companies have huge piles of imaginary robots blue prints (aka calsses), they call them engines or libraries, and some of these robots are designed to be the translators, like C3PO on star wars, great movie isn't it ? so, the robots that take care of what is going on in the game, speak the same language that the translators, and the translators speak directly to the xbox/pc/wii whatever, the must of the time they can use the same robots to move things around or to drive a car, in some cases they have to make some minor fixes to the blue prints of some robots :) so when are you planning on starting building imaginary robots ?",
"So there are a few things you need to worry about that make consoles and PCs unique. They are:\n\n1) Method of input (controller, keyboard/mouse, microphone)\n\n2) Hardware capabilities (number of polygons, shadow, shaders, etc)\n\nSo let's say a studio wanted to develop a first person shooter for all of them. The first thing you'd do is (as schauerlich described) abstract away the differences. How would you do that?\n\nForget about a keyboard. Your character can run forward, backward, can strafe, and can look around. So write your game assuming that your character can do just that, and let's say you have it in an abstraction you call an InputModule. You didn't write any code for the input module, all you did was define what you want out of it (this is generally called an interface in coding terms).\n\nSo now, all you have to do is write a different version of InputModule for each individual console. Everything else about the game is entirely identical (and trust me, 99.9999% of the work is not in hooking up InputModule).\n\nAs for hardware capabilities, you can do something similar with graphics, where you write (or have) a graphics engine that understands something colloquially called hinting. Basically, hinting means \"If you can do Xa, do Xa, but I'll be fine with X\" where \"a\" is some additional effect (a special shader, or an extra light). The same general rules apply for networking libraries.\n\nTL;DR: Figure out what's different between all platforms, figure out a representation for all of them that makes sense, and code it using that representation. That way, all your versions of the game are completely identical minus some plumbing that doesn't affect the game in any significant way.",
"Imagine you live on Europe and you have a freezer. Now you want to move to the USA. You could either buy a new freezer here, or use a power adapter between the plug and the freezer. It's probably cheaper to buy the power adapter. Same if you move to Japan or any other country.\n\nWriting portable code works pretty much the same way. Instead of recoding the whole game (\"buying a new freezer\"), they add a layer between the game and the hardware (\"a power adapter\") so that the only thing that needs to be changed between different platforms is that layer.",
"I used to build the system that made this idea work.\n\n[](/fluttersrs) All the video game systems have a lot in common. They all can show 3D graphics, they can play sound, they have something to use as a controller, and can connect to the Internet. No matter what you do, you need all of this for a game. The code that you have to write for a PS3 vs a Wii tends to be very different to make the graphics and sound work, and is kind of tedious and hard to write. \n\nThis means writing a game engine, which is a sort of \"universal adapter\" for consoles. Game engines have code written for each platform that take most of the features of the console, repackage them, and hand them to the game. Each platform then has the same code for controlling the hardware. So if you say \"I want this character to appear at this spot\", it will work on every console.\n\nOnce you have a build engine, you can write most of the game once, and it will just work everywhere. You'll still need to do some tweaking here and there, as not every platform is the same. But it will be far less work than writing the same game three times at the exact same pace. And, as more new cool features get added to the engine, every new game can get them.",
"Explaining it to you like you're 5:\n\nIt's like writing a book that's going to be translated into different languages. You only use words that all the languages have in common.",
"Usually it is written on one platform and ported to the rest. For big studios, they do this quite often so the tools and methods they use to change the code becomes more efficient. \n\nUsually it's built for PC and then ported to consoles. There have been a few cases where it has been done the other way around, but most of the time this results in lots of bugs..etc. ",
"Some engines can do this:\n\n_URL_0_",
"One of the big ideas in programming is *abstraction*. Basically, this means hiding away as many details as you can about things, in order to get a higher level view of it. Using a web browser is a good example of abstraction: In order to view a web page, you do not need to know anything about how the internet works. You just give the browser an address, and it does all of the work of finding the right server, requesting the page, and then rendering the page once it comes in. The details of how it does this are not important to you. In fact, Mozilla or Google could change how it works entirely, and as long as the browser still gets you your page, you don't really have to care.\n\nPeople writing games try to do the same thing. They try to add abstractions to their code, so that the details of what platform they're running on end up mattering very little. Inevitably there will have to be some platform specific code. But, in a well written application, this portion will be relatively small.",
"(English not first language) Well, the way things work in the wonderfull land of development, is preaty simple, there are a lot of different machines, and they are all like robots, they do whatever you tell them to do, but they need to know exactly what you mean, for example you can tell to the xbox360 or the ps3 to color all the screen blue, but they speak different languages, so we create some other robots, but not real robots, this robots are imaginary friends, actually you can build the blue prints of your own robots, the blue prints are called classes, and then you can create as many robots (aka 'instances') from that blueprint as you want, and design them to do whatever you need them to do, so the companies have huge piles of imaginary robots blue prints (aka calsses), they call them engines or libraries, and some of these robots are designed to be the translators, like C3PO on star wars, great movie isn't it ? so, the robots that take care of what is going on in the game, speak the same language that the translators, and the translators speak directly to the xbox/pc/wii whatever, the must of the time they can use the same robots to move things around or to drive a car, in some cases they have to make some minor fixes to the blue prints of some robots :) so when are you planning on starting building imaginary robots ?",
"So there are a few things you need to worry about that make consoles and PCs unique. They are:\n\n1) Method of input (controller, keyboard/mouse, microphone)\n\n2) Hardware capabilities (number of polygons, shadow, shaders, etc)\n\nSo let's say a studio wanted to develop a first person shooter for all of them. The first thing you'd do is (as schauerlich described) abstract away the differences. How would you do that?\n\nForget about a keyboard. Your character can run forward, backward, can strafe, and can look around. So write your game assuming that your character can do just that, and let's say you have it in an abstraction you call an InputModule. You didn't write any code for the input module, all you did was define what you want out of it (this is generally called an interface in coding terms).\n\nSo now, all you have to do is write a different version of InputModule for each individual console. Everything else about the game is entirely identical (and trust me, 99.9999% of the work is not in hooking up InputModule).\n\nAs for hardware capabilities, you can do something similar with graphics, where you write (or have) a graphics engine that understands something colloquially called hinting. Basically, hinting means \"If you can do Xa, do Xa, but I'll be fine with X\" where \"a\" is some additional effect (a special shader, or an extra light). The same general rules apply for networking libraries.\n\nTL;DR: Figure out what's different between all platforms, figure out a representation for all of them that makes sense, and code it using that representation. That way, all your versions of the game are completely identical minus some plumbing that doesn't affect the game in any significant way.",
"Imagine you live on Europe and you have a freezer. Now you want to move to the USA. You could either buy a new freezer here, or use a power adapter between the plug and the freezer. It's probably cheaper to buy the power adapter. Same if you move to Japan or any other country.\n\nWriting portable code works pretty much the same way. Instead of recoding the whole game (\"buying a new freezer\"), they add a layer between the game and the hardware (\"a power adapter\") so that the only thing that needs to be changed between different platforms is that layer.",
"I used to build the system that made this idea work.\n\n[](/fluttersrs) All the video game systems have a lot in common. They all can show 3D graphics, they can play sound, they have something to use as a controller, and can connect to the Internet. No matter what you do, you need all of this for a game. The code that you have to write for a PS3 vs a Wii tends to be very different to make the graphics and sound work, and is kind of tedious and hard to write. \n\nThis means writing a game engine, which is a sort of \"universal adapter\" for consoles. Game engines have code written for each platform that take most of the features of the console, repackage them, and hand them to the game. Each platform then has the same code for controlling the hardware. So if you say \"I want this character to appear at this spot\", it will work on every console.\n\nOnce you have a build engine, you can write most of the game once, and it will just work everywhere. You'll still need to do some tweaking here and there, as not every platform is the same. But it will be far less work than writing the same game three times at the exact same pace. And, as more new cool features get added to the engine, every new game can get them.",
"Explaining it to you like you're 5:\n\nIt's like writing a book that's going to be translated into different languages. You only use words that all the languages have in common."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/HN1F2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/HN1F2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1fcarc
|
Can sound waves be altered to travel more or less distance based on wind conditions?
|
I understand that changes in the atmosphere can distort sound, such as rises or falls in temperature can change the way sound waves move through the air... But I'm referring to an old saying "carried by the wind". Is it possible for wind to carry a sound a distance it wouldn't have otherwise traveled?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1fcarc/can_sound_waves_be_altered_to_travel_more_or_less/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca8y7th"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I'm an acoustical engineer. The effects of wind and temperature gradients on sound are actually quite similar. The important concept here is *refraction.*\n\nTo begin, I want to explain the basic concept of how sound carries and decays over distance. This is dependent upon the frequency of the sound (more specifically the wavelength) as well as the dimensions of the source (again, in relation to the wavelength). But we don't need to get into too much detail about that (unless you have questions). Suffice it to say that the primary reason for sound attenuation across a long distance in a free field is *geometric dispersion.* That is to say, the sound energy that is concentrated at the source, spreads out in all directions equally, and is less concentrated at a distance. To understand this better, look into the Inverse-Square Law, which applies specifically to point sources. In reality, you'll also have some *air absorption*, which is a result of the humidity of the air.\n\nThe reason that I want this concept to be clear is so you understand this: sound traveling faster does not essentially mean that it will travel farther. Speed of sound is not a factor in the Inverse-Square Law, nor does speed come into any of the other equations for sources of other dimensional characteristics (i.e. non-point sources such as line sources).\n\nAs the temperature of the air increases, the speed of sound will also increase. A change in the speed of sound will result in refraction. The effect of wind on sound is essentially just considered a change in the speed of the sound wave.\n\nThere is a meteorological concept known as an [Inversion Layer](_URL_0_). Basically, this is an increase in an atmospheric property (such as temperature or wind speed) with altitude. If the temperature or wind speed increase with altitude, then the speed of sound will increase at higher altitude. This will result in a refraction of the sound wave back towards the ground. For an illustration, see [this diagram from the Handbook of Acoustics by Malcolm J. Crocker.](_URL_1_)\n\nThe result of an Inversion Layer, is that the sound does not spread out in all directions equally (specifically, less energy goes up), and some of the energy can be directed back towards the ground. If the effect is strong enough, it is almost as if the sound *reflects* off of the atmosphere. This acoustic energy adds to the direct sound. As a result, it is possible to achieve greater sound pressure levels at a greater distance from the source."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_%28meteorology%29",
"http://imgur.com/JOVHGOJ"
]
] |
|
hy0tb
|
starting work in a bio lab. Could someone simply but thoroughly explain PCR and the procedure?
|
I'm going to be a junior in high school next year and im working at a university this summer in a biology lab. I read the packet that the professor gave me but some of it didn't make sense because i didn't know what all of the stuff was for. For example, I wasn't quite sure what a primer was or why a buffer was required. Help would be greatly appreciated as I'm trying to understand but its difficult with my limited lab and bio knowledge.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hy0tb/starting_work_in_a_bio_lab_could_someone_simply/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1zb803",
"c1zc6so",
"c1zc8bo",
"c1zev7a"
],
"score": [
21,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Wow! Congratulations on getting a placement at a university at your level of education. I think that'll provide a _very_ good experience for you.\n\nNow, you know that DNA is double-stranded, and to replicate it, you will need to pull the two strands apart. However, once you have your single-stranded DNA, how do you start replicating? You use an enzyme called DNA polymerase.\n\nThe way DNA polymerase works is that it binds to a single-stranded DNA, and attaches the correct complementary nucleotide and builds on the second strand. However, it can only _extend_ a strand - not _start_ one. Therefore, you need a primer - a short single-stranded DNA that binds to a part of your long DNA strand. This acts as a site where polymerase is recruited and bound to DNA, and also where the DNA extension is started.\n\nIt's best to explain PCR using a [diagram](_URL_0_). The way PCR works is that you first heat up your DNA to denature it (turn them into single-stranded DNA). Then you throw in your primers and allow them to _anneal_ to your single-stranded DNA. Throw in polymerase and let them do their work in _elongating_ the DNA strand. Once they are done, you now have twice the amount of _double stranded_ DNA. You heat them back up so they denature, and repeat the process of annealing, and elongation, roughly doubling the amount of DNA you have each cycle.\n\nBuffers are used to control the pH of the solution, as most biological systems (enzymes, for example) have an optimal pH at which they operate.\n\nEdit:\n\n_________\nPCR Analogy:\n\nImagine I'm a kindergartner learning how to write by practicing those copy books. Now imagine I am working on the word \"Community\". The book looks like this.\n\n > Community\n\n > [________]\n\nWith empty space at the bottom for me to copy down. Now, I'm quite dumb - I don't know how to start! So I need some help. My teacher starts me off by writing the first two letters:\n\n > Community\n\n > Co[______]\n \nAnd now I proceed to finish the word:\n\n > Community\n\n > Community\n\nNow imagine my teacher wants me to practice multiple times. She tears the page in half horizontally to separate the two words, and gives me a blank piece of paper underneath on which I can do my copying. Once again, I have this:\n\n > Community\n\n > [________]\n\nAnd I run into the same problem of not knowing how to start, so I ask my teacher to start me off with a couple letters... And the cycle continues.\n\n- When my teacher writes down \"Co\" to start me off, that's like the primer _annealing_ with the single stranded DNA.\n\n- When I finish the word one letter at a time, that's the same as polymerase _elongating_. \n\n- And when the teacher splits the paper in half to restart the process, that's _denaturing_.\n\nExcept in DNA, no one is really \"copying\" - instead, DNA polymerase finds the correct complementary bases (A goes with T, C goes with G); but the basic process is the same.",
"We were shown this in my biochem class last year (first med).\nI never forget what it's used for :D\n\n[Well it's amazing what heating and cooling and heating will do](_URL_0_)",
"[This](_URL_0_) website is very helpful for learning what the step-by-step procedure is for many techniques you'll probably be asked to do. If you want to learn the actual processes happening when you do stuff, I'd recommend becoming friendly with people in the lab and asking them to explain things to you. Biology is much better taught by examples than by reading in my experience. Once you know what you can and cannot mess up (or how to fix stuff you've messed up) then you'll be much better at your work.",
"[Here](_URL_1_)'s a quick vid, and youtube is great for these kinds of things because videos really make explaining this stuff easier. But for more detail I'd suggest grabbing a couple of basic textbooks (eg *Biochemistry* by Voet and Voet) and reading a couple of chapters. \n\nMore specifically to your other questions, you need primers to stick to the bit of DNA you're interested in copying to tell the TAC polymerase (which does the copying) which part to copy and where to start. The buffer is to create the perfect environment for the TAC polymerase to work, because it's actually borrowed from a bacteria and you need to make it feel at home. [Here](_URL_0_)'s a pretty nice glossary I found."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/PCR.svg"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5yPkxCLads"
],
[
"http://www.mnstate.edu/provost/ProtocolPage.html"
],
[
"http://www.pcrlinks.com/glossary/A.htm",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LQwvDOqpIY&feature=pyv&ad=7177580948&kw=PCR"
]
] |
|
31opr3
|
Is a spider's instinctual ability to form a perfect web passed down through its genetics?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/31opr3/is_a_spiders_instinctual_ability_to_form_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq43ovm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It has to be, since it's not like adult spiders are around to teach their young, and inheritance through DNA, fundamentally, is the only way to pass this sort of thing on otherwise. (There are epigenetic effects, but they come down to messing around with DNA through other mechanisms). \n\nFor spider web weaving, you'd figure that it comes down to the programming of specific neurons and arrangements of neurons, but the details of this are very much up for grabs. We still don't know enough about the molecular basis of memory, be that short-term, long-term, or \"genetically built in\", to say for sure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
arpdyl
|
how do you calculate a use-by date?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arpdyl/eli5_how_do_you_calculate_a_useby_date/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egov8ct",
"egovpgx"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"For shelf-stable items, they pull them out of their asses. They're \"Best if used by\" dates, not expiration dates, and they are put far enough in the future that they won't deter you from buying the product. But it's also in the company's interest if people throw out perfectly good product and buy more, so there's incentive to find an optimal medium. A secondary concern is to not go with a date so far in the future that the product might actually have significantly degraded before the date.",
"Use by is a mark of safety - and is used to show what the point in time to food will no longer be safe to eat would be.\n\nTo test for it, manufacturers will do a shelf life study, where they analyse both bacteria in the product, and how the product looks/tastes over time (depending on the food), and determine the length based on the last non-failed date.\n\nFor checking the bacteria, they’ll look at what possible organisms could grow based on the food and it’s packaging. Milk will have a different set of target microorganisms than orange juice.\n\nSo first off, a food is made. The manufacturer will then store it, possibly temperature abuse it (to replicate you buying it in the shop and taking it home), and then keeping cold.\n\nThe food will be tested then every day, for various microorganisms, and when they find levels that are concerning to human health, that’s when the use by is set.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1hh8yx
|
Why did Lee choose to commit his army to attack Cemetery Ridge during the Battle of Gettysburg?
|
Given that yesterday was the 150th anniversary of the first day of the battle of Gettysburg, I figure I'd ask a fairly specific question I had watching the classic '93 Gettysburg movie.
There's an exchange between Lee and Longstreet in which Lee gives his discretionary order to Ewell to take the high ground occupied by union forces, which would become the famous "J" shape on Cemetery Ridge. Longstreet argues that Lee maneuver his forces to the south and draw the Union off of their strong defensive position. Why doesn't Lee do this? What about the situation made Lee overrate his ability to overrun Union lines?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hh8yx/why_did_lee_choose_to_commit_his_army_to_attack/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caukmlk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is a classic debate in how the battle was fought, but I just want to clear up a misconception, if there is one (maybe someone else will read this and learn, even if you alread knew). Longstreet understood the immense power of the rifle on the defensive. He knew that an attacker would suffer massive casualties against a defender, especially when the defender was prepared, and in good terrain. His experience at Fredericksburg taught him that. But Longstreet (a very capable general himself) still understood the value of maneuver. Thus, his plan was to take the Army of Northern Virginia out of its positions around Gettysburg, then slip around the Union army and interpose the army between Washington and the Army of the Potomac. This would force Meade to attack to protect Washington, just what Longstreet wanted. But the misconception I want to clear up, is that Longstreet argued for an Operational maneuver, not a tactical flank attack. On the Second the Confederates do just that, attacking Little Round Top, which was lightly defended for most of the day, and attacking around Spangler's Spring which formed the very right flank of the defenses on Culp's Hill. \n\nBut, I think this question is asking \"Why did Lee decide to attack at Gettysburg at all?\" and this is such a heavily debated topic that there are 1001 different answers. Mostly it came from his temperament as a general. Lee was extremely aggressive, and generally attempted to attack his opponents. So, when he came to grips with the AotP at Gettysburg, it seemed only proper to attack them. This was reinforced by another argument, which suggests that Lee may have underestimated the AotP. He was fresh of his victory at Chancellorsville, which is widely regarded as his greatest victory. At Chancellorsville, Lee took an inferior force and used it to utterly smash the larger Union army. But the Union generals *always* seemed to do this, they would take to the field with a massive and well equipped force, only to be out maneuvered and caught off guard by the AoNVa. So, in Lee's mind it Gettysburg should have been no different. Lastly, many arguments try to rope in Lee's experiences around Richmond in 1862. Lee took over the defenses of Richmond after the death of Confederate general Johnston. He proceeded to dig an elaborate series of defensive works around the city (also, as a side note, his previous posting was to construct defensive works all along the Virginia Coast). For this, the public lambasted Lee, and wished for a more aggressive and offensive minded general, like Johnston who was actually quite famous. This experience, it is argued, soured Lee on the whole defensive enterprise. He constantly won spectacular offensive victories, and the few times he fought defensively, the victories were less spectacular and less complete than any offensive battle Lee ever fought. So at Gettysburg, it seemed to Lee only right and natural to push his troops into the offensive over the Second and Third day of battle. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4ekde8
|
why do films from the 70's and 80's have that definitive coloring?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ekde8/eli5_why_do_films_from_the_70s_and_80s_have_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d20vuaf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the film itself: pretty much everyone was using the same one or two Kodak stocks, and there was a switch in the mid 70s to a different formulation that was sharper but had a slightly less natural look than before. You can find all sorts of debate online about the differences between [5254 and 5247 films] (_URL_0_) for example. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=28315"
]
] |
||
z93fq
|
does the president's foreign policy affect the price of gas?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z93fq/does_the_presidents_foreign_policy_affect_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c62jor7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes it will. Depending on how the President feels towards OPEC and other countries that have oil will affect how they feel about us. If the President goes pissing off all of these countries they could easily raise prices or stop giving us oil entirely such as in 1973 when we supported the Yom Kippur War and they embargoed us."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2h7rez
|
biologically, what happens when your body "learns to use less oxygen"?
|
Like for example [here](_URL_0_), I often hear that it's important to train your body to use less oxygen.
What happens in my body when I get used to less oxygen? (and why would that be better?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h7rez/eli5_biologically_what_happens_when_your_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckq5gnh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure you really \"learn to use less oxygen.\" The poster in that thread didn't know what he was talking about, he was just asking. In running for example you can use a little bit less oxygen by losing weight and developing a more efficient technique, but otherwise as you get more aerobically fit you learn to process more oxygen not less.\n\nEDIT: Reading over some of the suggestions in that thread, I don't think any of them will \"teach you to use less oxygen\" and some of them are downright bunk."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/1ijw9a/increasing_oxygen_efficiency/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
4lyqmk
|
why is a 1440p phone 400$ but a 1440p monitor almost as expensive without any other internals or programing
|
Im thinking of the note 4 I just bought and how even though it is 1440p it has amazing resolution and depth that is like the same price on larger monitors without all the features of a phone (I swear im not a marketer its just a huge upgrade for me). Is it all just material cost?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lyqmk/eli5_why_is_a_1440p_phone_400_but_a_1440p_monitor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3r6h5j",
"d3r7xzg",
"d3raqdz"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Phones and monitors are two very different products in two different markets.\n\nMonitors are also generally much larger than phones, and bigger screens cost more.",
"Pricing is all about what the consumer is willing to pay, and what the company needs to earn to keep its doors open. What it costs to make the product is only a single variable in a formula that includes material costs, administrative overhead, competition, politics, marketing, consumer research and expectations, research and development, tax law, etc. \n\nYou could, with access to enough information, put together a complete list of every decision that went into a particular product line or device. Really though, it boils down to basic economics like supply and demand. If enough electronics companies can afford to get that phone or monitor to market for $400, and enough consumers are willing to pay $400 for it, that's all that matters.",
"Screen cost go up exponentially with size due to greater likelihood of flaw, damage, etc. So if 50 phone screens were equal to a single monitor, that monitor might cost 200x what one phone screen does. It's kind of like diamonds, where a lot of little diamonds cost nowhere near what one large one does."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.