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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6txwdl
|
why can't we see satellites from the iss?
|
I was watching the live feed from the ISS and people are asking why can't we see satellites ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6txwdl/eli5_why_cant_we_see_satellites_from_the_iss/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlodaa5",
"dlodfmf",
"dlodopp"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Space is big. Why would you think satellites would be visible from hundreds of miles away?",
"The orbital path of satellites is a sphere significantly larger than *the entire Earth*. While there are thousands up there, most of them are the size of a car basically. You aren't going to just randomly see *anything* in space. It's SO huge, if you're not trying *really really hard* to find something, you never will. \n\nIt's like if you're in the Sahara ATVing. You might wonder \"I can't be the only one ATVing in the Sahara, where is everyone\". Well, the Sahara is 3.5 million square miles. It's like finding a needle in a haystack, when the haystack is the size of 7 countries. It doesn't matter if there's 2000 needles, or 5 million. You probably won't see another one even if you search for the rest of your life.",
"Most satellites are in what's known as \"Geo-Stationary Orbit\" which is about 22,236 miles up. You're not gonna see something the size of a car from that distance. Space is BIG."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1wt6dq
|
tax returns
|
How does electing for 0 or 1 or whatever work? Why do they do it that way? What determines how much I get back/pay in? How accurate is the system? What is the best possible way to ensure that I benefit as much as possible in the long run? Do my questions even make sense? I don't know, I'm 5.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wt6dq/eli5_tax_returns/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf54st6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I can explain tax returns like you're 5, but I can't explain to a 5 year old how to file taxes. So, \"taxes are a small part of your earnings that government takes in order to run itself. That's how we pay for roads, school, police, firefighters, armed forces and a lot more. Every month the government makes a guess about how much you should pay and takes that from your pay check. At the end of the year, you do the math and figure out if you payed more that you should have, or less than you should have, or just right. If you payed more, you should write a check and pay the remaining. If you payed more, which is very common, you tell the government and they send you a check.\n\nNow, for advice on how to file your taxes and which decisions to make, I strongly recommend you go to an expert - H & R Block will do unless your taxes are really complicated. What they charge you is worth it in that they can either find you more return or save you an audit by correcting some mistake you'd make. What I really like is that they guarantee their work: if you later find out they made a mistake, they pay you back whatever their mistake costs you.\n\nEDIT: typo"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2le4pg
|
why can't jerusalem be made into an independant city-state, similar to the holy see & vatican city?
|
All the fighting seems so senseless. If it is a holy site for multiple groups, just make it independant. Not Israel's, not Palestine's, not anyones. I don't understand why this sort of thing can't be implimented more frequently.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2le4pg/eli5_why_cant_jerusalem_be_made_into_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cltwesh",
"cltx1y2",
"cltzh17",
"clu1nlj",
"clu2u10"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because compromise requires everyone to give something up - Israel would have to give up their current possession of the territory, and other groups would have to give up their hopes for future possession of the territory. Not to mention the legal, economic, and security hassles that would come of ceding a big chunk of high-value territory in the middle of one's land.",
"The long and the short of it is that that is not what anyone wants. Both sides want the city for themselves and are working to that end. Giving the city up would be perceived as a loss, and so far no one has offered any convincing reason why it wouldn't be. \n\nAs for the Vatican, it made its deal with Italy in exchange for limiting and controling the influence of the Church in Italy. Here, there was something to gain by both sides.\n\n",
"That was the original plan. Under the UN resolution that created the state of Israel, Jerusalem was to be placed under international control (basically a special government organised by the UN) for 10 years, after which the citizens would vote on the future arrangements. \n\nHowever, in the war that followed the creation of Israel the city was occupied by Jordan and Israel, and actually declared the capital of both countries. Since the Six Day War the whole of Jerusalem has been occupied by Israel.",
"I know this will be voted down to nothingness but what would happen if Jerusalem just disappeared one night? Like North Korea says fuck this shit and nukes it just to see the worlds reaction? \n\nI know this is super hypothetical but what do you think would happen? ",
"Because people are greedy and feel the need to own the land claiming it's their holy divine right and will surpass all government laws. You're basically trying to separate a polar bear and a tiger from their only source of food. Both groups will literally continue to tear each other apart until one is gone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ibb40
|
why is a rainbow's colors the way they are now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ibb40/eli5_why_is_a_rainbows_colors_the_way_they_are_now/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb2song"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"rainbows are caused by refracting light (bending) in water drops, the different colors bend by different amounts causing them to spread out in a predictable order based on their frequency (their energy) from a low of red to the higher frequencies of the blues and violets. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2l014x
|
Why Does Smoking Cause Erectile Dysfunction?
|
Causes appear to range from long-term plaque build-up to nicotine-induced vasoconstriction. Can a Redditor provide a concise summary on the relationship between smoking tobacco and erectile dysfunction?
Furthermore, if a Redditor could expand on the topic with respect to statistics and prognoses.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2l014x/why_does_smoking_cause_erectile_dysfunction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clqi2le"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Smoking tobacco can cause impotence through a number of means: it can impact the nervous system, your endocrine system (hormones) and of course, your cardiovascular system. ^[1](_URL_3_) These are not the only ways smoking impacts the body, but the list of reasons not to smoke from a medical prospective is quite long.The cardiovascular impacts of smoking, as you said, include plaque build-up and vascular constriction. Both of these restrict blood flow / raise blood pressure. Nicotine also raises blood pressure. ^[2](_URL_2_)\n\nAn erection is the penis filling up with blood. To do this, your brain tells blood vessels in your penis to relax, which fills it with blood. ^[3](_URL_1_) High blood pressure keeps the blood vessels in the penis from dilating and maintaining an erection becomes... harder. \n\nAs to prognoses, [according to the CDC](_URL_0_) your risk of stroke returns to the level of a non-smoker between 5 and 15 years and your risk of heart disease returns to the level of a non-smoker at around 15 years. Since these are linked to the same cause of ED, I would think smoking-related ED would go away as well. While 15 years might sound like a long time from now, keep in mind that month by month your cardiovascular system is getting better and your risk for these diseases is always going down and thus your chance of ED going away is... going up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/posters/20mins/index.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_cavernosum_penis",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9162447",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8254833"
]
] |
|
8wvlk8
|
Did any Amish get drafted during the Vietnam War?
|
Has it ever happened or were the Amish deferred due to religious reasons?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8wvlk8/did_any_amish_get_drafted_during_the_vietnam_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1ytp82"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"[Here](_URL_0_) is an answer to a similar question "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cjk1u/were_the_amish_also_drafted_into_the_vietnam_war/#ampf=undefined"
]
] |
|
5ht9ig
|
"millenials"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ht9ig/eli5_millenials/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db2u2p9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"What u/homeboi808 said for the literal definition. There's also several underlying characteristics that people are usually referring to when talking about millenials (at least in the US) such as:\n\n- tech-savvy\n\n- socially liberal, but not necessarily registered Democrats or very politically active\n\n- urban non-homeowners\n\n- college-educated\n\nThis is me editorializing here but what I've noticed is that usually when the media talks about millenials they're talking about those traits -- a particular subgroup of the generation(s) that grew up with the dot-com bubble and/or the financial crisis. People like rural young adults without a college degree don't seem to be the focal point of such discussions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8r9ne2
|
how does stuff from in the ground become oil in sunflowers and other plants?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8r9ne2/eli5_how_does_stuff_from_in_the_ground_become_oil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0pizef"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Oils are made of big molecules that contain three atoms: carbon (C), oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H). These atoms are present all around us in the form of smaller molecules. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen can make a water molecule (H2O). Water is present in the ground where the plant grows. One carbon and two oxygen atoms can make carbon dioxide (CO2), which is part of the air that the plant breathes. \n\nThe cells of the plant are able to perform complicated chemistry that shuffles the atoms of water and carbon dioxide around and recombines them into bigger molecules like sugars and oils. For example, one of the oil molecules that makes up sunflower oil is called 'oleic acid', and it contains 18 carbon, 34 hydrogen, and 2 oxygen atoms. This process, of building big molecules out of smaller ones, requires energy that the plants get from sunlight. \n\nThe plant makes these molecules as a way of storing energy for later. It uses the energy from the sunlight to make the bonds that are necessary to hold these big molecules together. Later, the plant can destroy these bonds again, releasing the energy and making it available to do things with (e.g. to build materials to allow the plant to grow). Or, we can eat the plant instead, and then we get to use the energy in its sugars and oils.\n\nSo plants make oil by rearranging the atoms of water and carbon dioxide into larger molecules. And note that the carbon dioxide doesn't actually come from the ground, it comes from the air. So if you see a bottle of sunflower oil, it's interesting to think that a lot of that stuff actually came out of the air, just like the air that you breathe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
apg7nk
|
Why does it sting when you sterilize a wound?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/apg7nk/why_does_it_sting_when_you_sterilize_a_wound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eg8yetl"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It doesn't necessarily, anti bacterial agents don't sting for instance. But more simple sterilizing agents like alcoholic or peroxide sting because they are toxic and and the area around the wound is hyper sensitive to any toxic substances so that you don't stick your hand in paint thinner while you have a paper cut or something "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
86xol2
|
why do shoes with no support hurt my feet, but walking barefoot doesn’t?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/86xol2/eli5_why_do_shoes_with_no_support_hurt_my_feet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dw8m2yd",
"dw8yoce"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because walking barefoot is normal. Wearing shoes is putting an artificial arch, or no arch on your foot. ",
"Shoes can be at a weird angle or position that your foot doesn’t like. Being barefoot always puts you in a natural and healthy position"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1rd8yh
|
If the charge of electrons plays an important role in the shape of their orbitals and how strongly they push against one another, how do protons end up so closely packed together I the nucleus?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1rd8yh/if_the_charge_of_electrons_plays_an_important/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdm1vxx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Protons and neutrons are held together by the strong nuclear force (or a residual form of it, sort of the equivalent of van der Waals forces for nucleons), which in stable nuclei is much stronger than the electrostatic repulsion between protons. If a nucleus has too few neutrons then the repulsion will break it up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5m8ruu
|
why do some people die days or even weeks after their injury happened?
|
How come sometimes people will get shot or beat up pretty bad, they survive but then die in the hospital say a week later. I know sometimes the injuries are so bad that you have to expect it but sometimes they're recovering well & everything looks good then they pass
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m8ruu/eli5_why_do_some_people_die_days_or_even_weeks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc1ogzf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Could be a whole host of things but the common culprits I see are\n\n-ARDS: And inflammatory condition that a major insult to the body can cause which makes the lungs stiff and basically at least partially unusable\n-Sepsis: Another inflammatory response but this time to an infection. People who are that injured have more problems staving off infections. \n-Blood clot: These patients are immobile (which is a risk for clots) and injury can cause various coagulopathies. A blood clot that travels to the brain can cause a catastrophic stroke. One that travels to the lungs can cause a deadly pulmonary embolism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5r3nqm
|
why is the super bowl played on sunday night rather than saturday night?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r3nqm/eli5_why_is_the_super_bowl_played_on_sunday_night/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd45kyq",
"dd45qrk"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"The NFL plays on Sunday, college football plays on Saturday, high school football is played on Friday. ",
"NFL Spokesman Brian McCarthy:\n\n\"The concept of playing the Super Bowl on a Sunday has worked well for 44 years and we don't anticipate moving away from this tradition. Fans expect to see the Super Bowl on a Sunday, the day on which 89.2 percent of NFL games are played.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ejw25c
|
What is the functional reason as to why some leaves are serrated or have different types of margins?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ejw25c/what_is_the_functional_reason_as_to_why_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fd2irg8"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Leaf shape genetics is a pretty complex topic. See here for a review: _URL_1_\n\nIn the case of the margin, I found a study on the model organism *A. thaliana* which shows that the serration is due to a self-organizing pattern of the hormone auxin. See here: _URL_0_\n\n > Here, we use a combination of developmental genetics and computational modeling to show that serration development is the morphological read-out of a spatially distributed regulatory mechanism, which creates interspersed activity peaks of the growth-promoting hormone auxin and the CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON2 (CUC2) transcription factor.\n\nThis is similar to a reaction-diffusion system, and in general this kind of system is the source of many types of patterns in biology. But there's an added layer of complexity because the auxin is actively transported by PIN1 (an auxin transport protein).\n\n > At the heart of the model is a feedback loop between auxin transport by PIN1 (process 1 in Fig. 5A) and polar localization of PIN1 by auxin (process 2). Within each cell, PIN1 is polarized toward the neighboring cell with a higher auxin concentration (up-the-gradient polarization model) (10, 11). Operation of this mechanism requires the presence of CUC2, which enables the reorientation of PIN1 (process 3). Auxin, in turn, represses CUC2 expression (process 4), which yields an interspersed pattern of auxin convergence points and CUC2 activity. In Arabidopsis leaves, which grow primarily at the base, this mechanism produces a basipetally progressing sequence of auxin convergence points separated by CUC2 expression. This pattern controls local rates of margin outgrowth, yielding serrations at sites of high auxin activity and indentations at sites of high CUC2 expression."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.pnas.org/content/108/8/3424",
"https://evodevojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-9139-5-47"
]
] |
||
arfvxl
|
how come acts like killing civilians and war prisoners, using flamethrowers, biological weapons, etc are considered a war crime, but the act of starting a war in of itself is not considered a crime?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arfvxl/eli5_how_come_acts_like_killing_civilians_and_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egmxfh1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The idea of war being some sort of abhorrent thing to be avoided is a relatively new way of thinking. Historically, war has considered to have been a normal tool for used by nations for a variety of things. It is pretty much a concession that sovereign nations retain the option to go to war. However, there are acts so heinous that just about everyone will agree that they are inherently wrong and those that commit them should be punished.\n\nAs for why we don't \"ban war.\" Well, who would enforce that rule and how? Obviously no party to the war is going to enforce it. So you'd need some third party willing and able. Able? How? Well, we already deter and punish warlike actions through censures and economic sanctions. We use political pressure and diplomatic measures to avoid conflict. But what happens when that doesn't work? Well, unless you're willing to go to war to enforce the ban on wars, then the ban is ultimately toothless. And if you are willing, then I guess you aren't really for banning wars.\n\nYes, you can go to war without declaring that you are doing so. The last war the US formally declared was against the Axis powers in WWII."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2jqslb
|
what are the differences in computer programming languages like html, css, javascript, etc. how do people know the different commands and syntax, is there a list of all possible commands and syntaxes somewhere? why not just have one universal language?
|
How are they different and how does a computer differentiate between them? Can you code one website using multiple languages simultaneously and the computer has some way of knowing which is which? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? How is it that there isn't one language that is just so much better than the others, it seems by now that through collaboration that they would have created something universal and user friendly? Any ELI5 type explanation about anything computer programming related to help understand all of this would be greatly appreciated (For someone who literally knows nothing about programming or coding, it seems hard to find good basic explanations in layman's terms- they always seem to be directed at audiences that have prior programming experience and fail to make sense at a very basic level)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jqslb/eli5_what_are_the_differences_in_computer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cle9b7p",
"clea9fm"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"First point: HTML and CSS aren't programming languages. HTML is a markup language to describe content, and CSS is a language to describe the styling of HTML. Neither has any meaningful programming constructs.\n\n > How are they different\n\nThe use different paradigms, different implementation details and focus on different things.\n\n > and how does a computer differentiate between them?\n\nIf it's compiled it doesn't need to - it's just a binary after compilation. Interpreted languages are described as needing to be input to another program. (The interpreter). The OS is told that, say, PHP files need to be feed to the PHP interpreter.\n\n > Can you code one website using multiple languages simultaneously and the computer has some way of knowing which is which?\n\nSure. Like any other file a server can figure out how to use a file based on its extension - Apache for example knows that .php files are PHP and runs them as such.\n\nYou can also explicitly describe how to handle it. In Nginx, for example, you commonly say that any file ending in .php is to be sent to the PHP interpreter first. \n\n > What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?\n\nThere's a huge collection of languages. Can't really go over each.\n\n > How is it that there isn't one language that is just so much better than the others, it seems by now that through collaboration that they would have created something universal and user friendly?\n\nWhy don't we have just one best car? Because what's great for someone commuting into a big city isn't the best thing for someone doing cross-country road-trips isn't the best for someone that needs to move couches and other large loads regularly isn't the best for someone who needs to win at a racetrack.\n\n > Any ELI5 type explanation about anything computer programming related to help understand all of this would be greatly appreciated (For someone who literally knows nothing about programming or coding, it seems hard to find good basic explanations in layman's terms- they always seem to be directed at audiences that have prior programming experience and fail to make sense at a very basic level)\n\nProgramming is just telling the computer to do things. It's up to you to decide what the ultimate goal is and how to accomplish it. Programming languages exist to make it easier to tell the computer to do things you want it to do. \n\n\n > How do people know the different commands and syntax,\n\nNobody knows it all. You get familiar with tools you often use, though.\n\n > is there a list of all possible commands and syntaxes somewhere? \n\nOf course. The documentation. Most programming languages today have an official website or at least a few unofficial ones with extensive documentation on various things. ",
"Different programing languages were developed for different purposes, and they're all good at different things. It's not really a matter of universal vs. user friendly, different languages interact with computer memory differently, and can perform the same task in very different ways. Because of this, depending on the program you want to write, one language will be better for the job than another. You can think of it as a toolbox where each programing language is a different tool. Once you know the job, you pick what tool will best accomplish it. Can you hammer in a nail using a wrench, probably if you try hard enough, but you can save yourself time and headache by picking the hammer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9022vf
|
Why isn't French more of a Germannic language?
|
Both Gaul and Britannia were conqured by the Romans from Celtic tribes that inhabited the region and both regions were invaded by Germanic tribes as the Roman empire declined (Franks, Saxons etc). Why did Britain developed a language that is considered (from my shallow understanding) Germanic and a culture that is often more associated with the Germanic culture while France, another territory occupied by the Romans but later taken over by the Germanic tribes develop a romance language (French) and a culture that is considered Latin?
Thanks for any info!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9022vf/why_isnt_french_more_of_a_germannic_language/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2nc0us",
"e2nmt41",
"e2nobm5"
],
"score": [
6,
18,
4
],
"text": [
"previous answers on the topic\n\n*_URL_0_\n\n*_URL_2_\n\n*_URL_1_",
"/u/cchiu23 's links to previous answers cover the main question pretty well,but I just wanted to add a note on nomenclature here. When they say a language is Germanic (or Romance, or Slavic and so on) they're talking about which language family the language stems from. It's not some form of quantitative statement about which languages it resembles most. \n\nSo English is a Germanic language since it originated from Middle English, which came from Old English, which came from Proto-Germanic. The fact that more than half of the English vocabulary is now from French and Latin doesn't change that. Another example is for instance that Norwegian is considered part of the West Norse branch of languages, even though, due to centuries of Danish rule, the Norwegian vocabulary (in the most-used dialects) now more closely resembles Danish, which is an East Norse language. \n\nAcross languages, basic words and counting words are the ones that are least likely to change, so that's where linguists look when they want to tell where a language came from. In that sense, it's still quite obvious that English is Germanic. \"Hand, man, house\" is \"Hand, Mann, Haus\" in German, \"hand, man, hus\" in the Scandiavian languages, and so on, and does not resemble so much French \"main, homme, maison\", which on the other hand does resemble \"mano, uomo, magione\" in Italian. Since both the Germanic languages and Romance languages are Indo-European, some words \n\nAs it were, there's a significant amount of words in French that are from early Germanic languages, even many common and basic words like 'boulanger' (baker) and 'regarder' (to look). \n\nBut in short, your parents are still your parents regardless of how much you end up resembling them.\n\n",
"Another historical episode worth considering to frame understanding of your question would be the Norman conquest of England. The Normans, despite having militarily conquered the English, did not make a decisive impact upon the language of the people they conquered, with French being the language of the court and nobility but not of the common people. The relatively small numbers of Normans who settled in England were eventually assimilated into the general population, and thus their linguistic impact was in the form of place names, varied vocabulary, grammar that has since disappeared from English, etc (I'm sure someone else here could speak better to this point than myself). \n\nRoman Gaul, at the time of Frankish conquest, had been under the effects of Romanization for hundreds of years. Latin was prolific and the lingua franca of the territory by the time of Western Roman collapse in the 5th century. Germanic speaking Frankish invaders settled throughout Gaul, eventually intermarrying and assimilating into the general population. Their effect on the Gauls was like the Normans to the English, where they simply didn't have the numbers to actively displace the population and force them to learn their language like the Romans did to the Gauls. \n\nRoman Britain was far more homogeneous than Roman Gaul was, with Celtic speaking Britons having remained the majority up until the Roman withdrawal. Where the Franks settled among the Gauls they conquered, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes actively displaced the native Celtic speakers and pushed them further and further west. The Celtic Britons under their dominion practiced intermarriage with the German tribes as well as lost their language to them. \n\nIn TLDR form: the Franks settled among and assimilated into a distinctly Latinized native population, and thus Gaul retained a Romance character. Meanwhile, the Germanic tribes invading Britain actively displaced the natives from the land they conquered (Look up the \"Celtic Fringe\" if you want to see this illustrated), and those native Celts that remained assimilated into and learned the language of their Germanic occupiers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33pxnf/why_did_the_franks_end_up_speaking_a_romance/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rchjj/why_dont_the_people_of_france_speak_a_germanic/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ai835/how_french_were_the_franks_plus_some_bonus/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
agkwz9
|
why does peta use extreme marketing tactics that make them look like they're crazy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/agkwz9/eli5_why_does_peta_use_extreme_marketing_tactics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee6ymmj",
"ee6zfqw",
"ee70aju",
"ee7ht76"
],
"score": [
45,
19,
11,
16
],
"text": [
"Because PETA is crazy. They've got nothing to do with anything they pretend to stand for. They're just crazy and kind of money hungry. ",
"I think it is for publicity. \"PETA gives whoever a stern talking to for wearing fur.\" won't get people looking at them as much as \"PETA throws a bucket of blood on someone.\" ",
"If you truly believe that a non-human animal has value approaching that if another human being, then \"crazy\" actions make sense. You see a guy having a burger, some of them see it as being morally the same as biting into a burger made of a child killed for the purpose of providing a pleasant experience to someone else. Naturally, their reaction to that is going to seem extreme to the majority of us that don't see it that way.",
"Part of it is publicity, part of it is an effort to shift the [Overton window](_URL_0_). This is the idea that the public has a narrow range of ideas they consider acceptable, but if you deliberately push extreme ideas outside that range, you can shift it in your direction, as people try to pick a middle ground.\n\n\"Meat sure is tasty, but PETA says milk is genocide and owning pets is slavery. That's going too far, of course, but I did decide to go vegetarian at least.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window"
]
] |
||
2vvwi4
|
why did soldiers in the past conduct war in 'marching band' manner?
|
I watched documentaries about British War and early American War.
Their weapons were cannons and primitive riffles with bayonet.
But the thing I don't understand is that opposing troops began a battle in some open space/field (not garrison or cities), as if the commanders agreed to a location before hand. Both parties marched toward each other in 'marching band' manner and waited for instruction before firing their weapon, while they supposed to just stand there to take each other bullets.
Why use such tactics? Isn't this the stupidest military strategy ever?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vvwi4/eli5_why_did_soldiers_in_the_past_conduct_war_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"colclk7",
"colct49",
"coldr4u"
],
"score": [
2,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"/r/AskHistorians will give you a better answer.",
"It has to do with the military weapons that were in use at the time and its effectiveness.\n\nThe musket replaced the matchstick firearms that were used previously, which meant that infantry could fire much faster (albeit still relatively slow compared to today) but the firearms were only effective to a certain range.\n\nTo provide maximum damage, it was necessary for a large amount of infantry to be in formation and close range with the enemy so as to be sure that the target was hit.\n\nThough, with any battlefield, there's a fog of war. During this time, there was really actually a \"fog of war\" because of all the smoke from firing the muskets and cannons that were produced. To ensure some type of discipline, it was necessary to keep infantry in formation so as to not be firing on each other as well.",
"\nYou don't want to fire until you're close enough to the enemy to have a reasonable chance of hitting them, in order to preserve ammunition.\n\nYou want your infantry troops to remain in close formation because Revolutionary era guns are very slow to reload compared to 20th century firearms. Enemy troops (especially cavalry) are easily able to get close enough to kill you before you can reload. Infantry armed with pikes (and later bayonets) can break a cavalry charge, but only if they're in tight formation.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
235h9i
|
How does caffeine physiologically increase your heart rate and blood pressure?
|
I can't seem to piece together how caffeine actually increases your heart rate and blood pressure. Everything I google is sort of a PSA that it does infact do this. I want to know the actual physiological response that is occuring.
Also, what is this why it is shown to improve athletic performance?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/235h9i/how_does_caffeine_physiologically_increase_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgtnfha"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A few different ways, but mostly through the inhibition of adenosine receptors. Adenosine is a purine nucleoside found in many important biomolecules (e.g., ATP, cAMP, etc.) In the brain, adenosine acts largely as an inhibitory neurotransmitter, and in the heart much the same way. In fact, sometimes when patients have pathologically fast heart rates (such as supraventricular tachyarrhythmias), we give adenosine on purpose to SLOW the heart down. This is where caffeine comes in. Caffeine is an adenosine receptor blocker. If you block the blocker (blocking adenosine), you create a stimulant. By blocking adenosine in the heart you increase heart rate. \nAdenosine is also a neurotransmitter with similar inhibitory effects, and the same applies here. Caffeine crosses the blood-brain barrier easily and causes stimulant effects here as well (wakes you up, makes you more alert, etc.). \nBlood pressure is increased by the aforementioned methods, but additionally due to another of caffeine's effects: inhibition of phosophodiesterase inhibitors. In essence, this causes the smooth muscle cells of vascular structures to constrict, potentiating the increase in blood pressure. \nAs for your athletics questions I have no informed clue—I could only speculate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6hcqhy
|
Is there any evidence of or study about scarcity in American men after World War 2 leading to American women having to more compliant to potential partners?
|
Based on [this](_URL_0_) reddit comment.
Quoting here:
> If there were even 2 single young men coming back for every 3 single young women, it would necessitate young women to be extra competitive in the dating scene (i.e., compliant to a potential spouse). It's not lost on me that in the 1930's and '40's, there was lots of witty back and forth on screen between men and women. Late 1940's and '50's produced the blonde bimbo and June Cleaver.
My own impression is that America didn't lose anywhere near enough men for this to be a causal factor.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6hcqhy/is_there_any_evidence_of_or_study_about_scarcity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dixbxc3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In America, no, not really. US death rates compared to the population of military-aged men were not very extreme.\n\nThe USSR, on the other hand, had drastically heavy casualties, especially among young men. The casualty figures are sometimes disputed, but it is safe to say that the Soviets lost more men than all the other combatants in Europe combined. This certainly had an effect on demographics - the cohort of men born in 1923 were the hardest hit, with only about 20% of them making it into 1946 without becoming casualties of some sort (wounded or dead). Also keep in mind that the USSR had its own share of troubles before the war which also contributed to losses in this generation.\n\nAfter the war, it was rather quietly accepted for men to have mistresses besides their wives, and for women to be single mothers - there really were not enough eligible men for every woman to end up happily married."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6h903f/disney_rejection_letter_to_a_woman_1938/dix3arj/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2o0dve
|
how a group like lizard squad could take down such a large money filled network
|
Lizard squad took down Xbox live. Wouldn't the Xbox live be more secure and harder to hack? I do not much about this, but it seems such a large company would have better security.
Edit: Ok, so DDos. My bad.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o0dve/eli5_how_a_group_like_lizard_squad_could_take/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmijn84",
"cminpq5"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They didn't hack it. They DDosed it. A 5 year old can DDos. ",
"They can't really defend from massive amounts of information flooding their servers. There is always going to be a point where they would shut down because many people sending all those packets of info to Xbox Live at once, combined with all the people online, the servers wouldn't be able to handle it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
b62u6v
|
How did chile get away with being basically nothing but coast?
|
they cut off giant argentinia from the west coast and make bolivia one of only 2 landlocked countires in south america. with ports being so important and chile being so narrow and occupying half of south americas west coast i don't understand how they got away with it. argentinia and bolivia can basically see the ocean. were there serious attempts at changing that?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b62u6v/how_did_chile_get_away_with_being_basically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejjakz0"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"As far as Argentina goes, you have to look at the geography of the region. Historically, the heart of Chile has been the region in what's now Central Chile around the capital, Santiago. This region of Chile is bounded by the Andes mountains on the east which provide a fairly difficult to penetrate border due to the very high elevation of the passes. As Argentina and Chile set their sights south on expansion into Patagonia, there was some conflict that was resolved diplomatically to result in the borders they have today, but I'm unfortunately not well versed in that subject to really expand beyond that.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor Bolivia, their situation is the result of the War of the Pacific. To give a very, very brief introduction, the northern reaches of Chile today used to belong to Peru and Bolivia. Antofagasta to Tocopilla was Bolivian, while Iquique to Arica was Peruvian. While the region is home to the desolate Atacama Desert, it's actually a fairly valuable region to this day thanks to its valuable silver and copper deposits, and in the mid-1800s it was perhaps even more important for its nitrate deposits (important for fertilizer and high explosives). The border disputes themselves date to colonial times, but the situation immediately leading up to the war is vaguely reminiscent of the Mexican-American War - the regions administered by Bolivia and Peru came to be populated largely by Chileans, and the inevitable problems that sprung from that eventually gave Chile casus belli to invade and take on the Bolivian-Peruvian alliance in 1879.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nUnfortunately for Bolivia, they weren't very well prepared for the war. They had a coast but no significant navy, with naval action being almost exclusively a Chilean-Peruvian affair. Chile was economically, politically, and militarily better suited for the war, and, while Bolivia's situation allowed it better access across the Andes than Argentina, it still suffered from the fact that its heartland was in the highlands far removed from the coast with very limited means to reinforce things. While Peru and Chile could both ferry in reinforcements via ship (in fact the bulk of the campaigning consisted of Chile landing troops at critical points on the coast), Bolivia had to bring men and supplies across the mountain passes of the Andes and desolate deserts of the Atacama. Bolivia was removed from active participation in the war fairly quickly, and the final years of the war ended up being a more drawn-out affair as Chile tried to subjugate the Peruvian interior to bring Peru to the peace table.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWhile it took Bolivia quite a while to finally accept the realities on the ground, the new borders that cut Bolivia off from the sea largely reflect the geographic limits of the region. Like further south in Chile, the borders are the Andes mountains, but with the presence of the Atacama in the region, the bulk of the population is right up along the coast. As far as \"fairness\" to Bolivia goes, while the Pacific Coast is certainly a point of contention to this day, the geographical barriers in the region really limited its usefulness to Bolivia, and I've seen it argued that the territorial losses in the Chaco War were more damaging due to the loss of access to the Paraguay River, which was more accessible to the Bolivian heartland and had navigable access to the sea."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
aiht67
|
it seems like the sun and moon dont move too much in the sky day to day. why arent there several days of slightly different eclipses in a row?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aiht67/eli5_it_seems_like_the_sun_and_moon_dont_move_too/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eeo3h2t",
"eeo7hko"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
" The moon's orbit is roughly 1.5 million miles around. (C = 244000 x 2 x pi) So it's moving almost 56000 miles a day. So it takes about an hour to move the distance of its own diameter.",
"A lunar eclipse can only happen when the moon is full because that’s when the moon is exactly opposite the sun. Full moons only happen every 29.53 days. The night after an eclipse, the moon is no longer full. It is no longer exactly opposite the sun."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9f6cgx
|
what is smooth motion capture on tv?
|
[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)
There is recent petition by top directors to remove smooth motion capture on TV.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9f6cgx/eli5_what_is_smooth_motion_capture_on_tv/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5u3iu0",
"e5u3pc2",
"e5u4wf8",
"e5uyenz"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Footage that were shot for TV are usually 30 FPS (not sure, but I think it is?) and movies are usually 24 fps. It will look slightly stuttered to human eyes but we will still perceive it as motion. Modern smart TVs has a feature that analyze the input and put extra frames in between those real frames to smooth it out so that motions look, well, smoother. Some people like it, many don't. Personally i feel that it makes everything look like soap opera and feels cheap. I definitely don't want motion smoothing to change the feel of a movie and that's probably their point.",
"i thought smooth motion capture worked to eliminate motion blur as well as depth of field. ",
"Movies are usually shot in 24Hz, that means 24 images each second. This is a convention that goes back to old film projectors, and is still used in spite of digital technology making it possible to use a much higher frame rate.\n\nEven though our eyes can't distinguish individual frames at a frame rate of 24 Hz, we would still notice a flickering when watching the raw footage. Between frames, when the shutter of a film camera is closed, objects in the scene continue to move, and will appear to jump through the image rather than moving in a smooth line like we would perceive the real object with our eyes. So in post production, they apply a motion blur effect, which connects the movements happening between two frames and makes it look very natural.\n\nSo there's no need to apply any further blur effect. All it'll do is to reduce the image quality - it's already blurred enough, by professionals and not by a computer.",
"It's generally called Smooth Motion. No capture in it's title. That sounds more like a feature of a camcorder.\n\nVideo is made of frames, a bit like a flip book of still images. The frame rate used by movies and most modern TV captures images around 24 to 30 times a second.\n\nSmooth Motion uses maths to calculate what the frames between the ones the cameras captured would look like.\nIt then displays these calculated frames along with the camera's captured frames in sequence and bamm! Now the frame rate is higher.\n\nIt's good for sports as the fast moving objects become clearer.\n\nFor movies though, it can make things look \"wrong\". Often it breaks the dreamy illusion of characters in a story and it can instead look too much like actors on a film set.\n\nSo these Hollywood people want TV makers to provide a straight forward way to bypass their wizzy magic processing and let people watch the film as it was intended to be seen.\n\nAs it currently stands, each manufacturer has their own name for smooth motion. Intelligent Frame Creation is one I've seen.\n\nThe concept is comparable to having a bypass button for the tone controls/EQ on an audio amplifier.\n\nA lot of these processing systems are initially impressive but are fatiguing or generally worse in the long term."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/9/12/17849560/tv-motion-smoothing-reference-mode-nolan-anderson"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7w113b
|
what an api-key is and how to use it
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7w113b/eli5_what_an_apikey_is_and_how_to_use_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtwoshp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"API key is a key (just like a key to your front door) that identifies you.\n\nwithout API key, the system will either not respond or not give you full access to its capabilities.\n\njust like if you didn't have the key to the apt building, you can still get in the first front door, but not into any apt. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
82aydp
|
How well off were Kulaks in pre-Soviet Russia?
|
I understand that Kulaks were essentially "rich peasants" which is why the Soviet regime wanted to liquidate their class. I am just confused about how they could be "rich" and still be considered peasants? What separated them from average peasants,who weren't specifically targeted?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/82aydp/how_well_off_were_kulaks_in_presoviet_russia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv926nt"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Kulak, which derives from a term for fists or closed fist, had no real firm definition in the pre-revolutionary peasant milieu. The word was a derogatory term applied by other peasants to those members of the peasantry who had somehow gotten rich at other's expenses. Generally speaking, Kulaks were peasants in the post-Great Reforms period who were operating outside the *Mir* (commune, also called the *obshchina*) and acquiring land or farm animals without the oversight of the peasant community. Kulak did not have any specific class connotations in this context but rather was a descriptor for a number of behaviors against the community. Nor did the peasantry consider all rich peasants Kulaks. Studies of the existing evidence shows the term usually applied to peasants who took up root around a *mir* which they did not come from originally. This became more common with the Stolypin land reforms and the establishment of the peasant land bank which added a good deal of social disruption within the Russian countryside and allowed outsiders to buy up land. \n\nThe Bolsheviks took this very loose term and tried to make it an iron-clad social classification. One of the problems for Lenin and company was that the Marxist intellectual tradition of the time did not really concern itself much with matters of the countryside. Lenin's 1899 book *Development of Capitalism in Russia* argued that capitalism had taken root within the peasantry and divided up the peasantry into three classes: *serednyaki* (middling), *bednyaki* (poor), and kulaks (the rich). This tripartite division ignored the existing social organization of the peasantry as well as blaisely assuming that wealth was an indicator of peasant capitalism. This definition of a class-based peasantry was one of the reasons why the Bolsheviks' peasant policies were a general flop within the Russian countryside during the Civil War. Moscow's Committees for the Village Poor was to encourage the emerging class-consciousness of the peasantry and organize them in a campaign against peasant exploiters. The Committees generally failed at this task and the Bolsheviks were left having to accept the resuscitated Mir and the Black Partitions of the Revolution. The NEP period added a further confusing element as the state encouraged or allowed a form of peasant capitalism within the countryside. There were attempts by the state to encourage the *bednyaki* to act as a kind of rural proletariat and accord them privileged status in the nascent USSR, but these programs often fell short of funding or organization to match the state's propaganda of an alliance between rural and urban Russia. In the meantime, not only did peasant organization remain fairly robust in the face of Soviet attempts to regulate it, but there was a marked discrepancy between the tripartite classification of the state and the realities of peasant social organization. \n\nOne of the persistent undercurrents of the agricultural debates of the NEP period was that the Left Opposition and various factions around Stalin was a promise to get tough on the peasant Kulaks. This made the Kulaks a natural scapegoat and enemy during collectivization since the Soviet state could, and would, ascribe any peasant resistance to this class enemy. Poor peasants defending their seed grain and animals could suddenly become evidence of Kulak exploitation. This was what made collectivization so violent; the Soviet state had a dogmatic vision of the peasantry that did not match its social reality. \n\n*Sources* \n\nAltrichter, Helmut, and Sheila Fitzpatrick. *Russia in the Era of NEP: Explorations in Soviet Society and Culture*. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1995. \n\nBurds, Jeffrey. *Peasant Dreams & Market Politics: Labor Migration and the Russian Village, 1861-1905*. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998. \n\nMoon, David. *The Russian Peasantry, 1600-1930: The World the Peasants Made*. New York: Routeledge, 2016. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6xtkql
|
Does Hurricane Harvey affect the weather for the rest of the United States? If so, how, and how far?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6xtkql/does_hurricane_harvey_affect_the_weather_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmjtldh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Second this, down here in San Diego we had a strong bout of heat followed by a odd couple of days of light rain. Humidity off the charts. Even with mountain ranges in between I gotta think that kind of weather system is going to super charge the atmosphere. Either with energy, moisture, most likely both "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5rhtov
|
why do our mouths tolerate temperature (hot or cold) much more than our skin.
|
For instance we can tolerate several ice cubes or hot soup in our mouth but it would hurt or even burn our hands.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rhtov/eli5_why_do_our_mouths_tolerate_temperature_hot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd7c829",
"dd7cpcl"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I can hold hot soup in a bowel in my hand which will burn my mouth. If I am careful I can spoon the soup to my mouth, cooling it on the way and cooling it with my tongue. I can hold a block of ice in my hands. I really think I can tolerate hot and cold things in my hands better than in my mouth. Small parts can go in my mouth. But not too much.",
"I believe your premise is false. The same temperature of soup that would burn your skin, would burn your mouth. And you can hold about the same amount of ice in either your hands or your mouth.\n\nHowever, your mouth has glands that put out saliva at body temperature, which dilutes any hot or cold thing you put in your mouth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5zfv89
|
what makes a substance nutritious?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zfv89/eli5_what_makes_a_substance_nutritious/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dexu046"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A subtstance is nutricious when we can extract energy from it. That substance can be carbohydrates (sugars), fats, and amino acids from proteins. The body modifies these substances into one of the products that can be used in the so-called Krebs cycle. The Krebs cycle is a series of chemical reactions that releases stored energy from those substances in the cells. The end product is CO2 (a waste product that you exhale) and adenosine *triphoshate* (ATP), an adenosine molecule with three phosphate groups attached to it. ATP is the transporter of energy in the human body. When ATP breaks down in an adenosine molecule with two phosphate groups (ADP) and a free phosphate group, energy is released which can be used for metabolic processes in the body such as muscle contraction."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3xx7lr
|
how do people sing in tonal languages? if the melody is falling but the tone of the word is rising, how does that work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xx7lr/eli5_how_do_people_sing_in_tonal_languages_if_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy8ltvi",
"cy8msjd",
"cy8vkn8"
],
"score": [
40,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"At least in Chinese the tone of the word is ignored. You just follow the melody. The context will take care of identifying the correct meaning of the word. Also, most of the time the text is displayed in subtitles (on TV, DVD etc.).",
"Elaine Lau has a [good explanation](_URL_0_) for the relationship between the tone and the melody in Cantonese, a tonal language.\n\nThe singer will have to sing exactly the note that is assigned to the word. The composer will have to be careful when assigning the note to the word. In Cantonese, a wrong note used for a non-vulgar word can cause it to sound like a vulgar word. And so, if the original sound of the word is low and making sound it high turns it into a vulgar word, it is therefore better to assign a low sounding note to it. For example, in Cantonese, there is a word when said in a low voice it means throw but when it is said in a high voice it becomes the F word.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nNowadays, A Cantonese song can have a Western tune with Western rhythm, traditional tune with Western rhythm, Western tune with traditional rhythm or traditional tune with traditional rhythm. I suggest you look into iTunes for Cantonese songs to have a feel of how they sounded like.",
"Well in Mandarin Chinese, tones that don't fit the melody are substituted with the more neutral \"1st tone\" or in some cases the 3rd tone that dips then rises, in particular the 4th tone that is a strong down tone (like the word \"No!\") that is hard to sing. \n\nYou can tell the word is the 4th tone by the fact that the melody of the song lowers in pitch (despite the word itself being an neutral tone), or the word is said for a shorter time compared to the words before and after it. Or if all else fails by context in the song.\n\nAlso I have noticed that the \"down beats\" in music (the ones you count) often tend to have words with the 4th tone in them (not always though)\n\nCantonese Chinese on the other hand has more tones, but are less sharp, abrupt and clean like Mandarin (look up videos for Mandarin vs Cantonese) that flows better, so for the most part, tones in songs are not changed as much, as it is pretty clear what word is being said from the tone, regardless of melody or pitch of the song.\n\nIn general, the tones are less pronounced compared to when the words are spoken normally, though hints of the tone are still there. For tones that would break up the rhythm or melody of the songs, neutral tones are substituted and the length of the beat or the notes before and after help for the word to sound like it is the \"correct tone\"\n\nIt also might just be second nature to native speakers, since before I saw this question, I never really though about it yet what happens to tones when songs are sung.\n\nThis is all from personal observation, feel free to comment on anything I might have gotten wrong. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/research/WorkingPapers/wp-lau.pdf"
],
[]
] |
||
9dppbt
|
does our digestive system digest stuff in the order we eat? eg, will caffeine work slower if it is taken after food?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9dppbt/eli5_does_our_digestive_system_digest_stuff_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5j6ud2",
"e5jjr0l",
"e5jjyba",
"e5jo5w0",
"e5jocvt",
"e5jr0iw",
"e5jsr0f",
"e5jty2o",
"e5jvarb"
],
"score": [
646,
172,
5,
3,
17,
9,
9,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s more that everything gets thrown together into a big pot in whatever order you eat it, but once it’s in there it dissolves fairly simultaneously.\n\nYou might get a small change if you take it simultaneously with a big meal or other drinks, because that dilutes it down and means it takes longer for everything to be digested, but your stomach is definitely not some sort of conveyor belt that digests things one at a time.",
"To add what others are saying, if you drink something, it can often go straight through the stomach, and alcohol and caffeine are both absorbed faster in the intestines, and with greater efficiency. That's part of why drinking on an empty stomach will get you drunk faster, or coffee with no food will hit you quicker. ",
"If you eat something on a full stomach it does take longer to reach your bloodstream.\n\nAnd if you get something on an empty stomach it is noticeably quicker to reach your bloodstream. ",
"Think of your stomach more like your mouth. You can put it one big bite, a few little bites, and then you salivate and chew. Then you start swallowing smaller chunks of your mouth load.\n\n \n\n\nThis is what your stomach does. You can put it all in at once, or in segments, and it'll release the stomach acid and enzymes and churn a bit - and then when ready it will start taking chunks into your intestines. It's not like a toilet you fill up and flush it all into your intestines in one go.\n\n \n\n\n \n",
"Things digest together. It's more of a matter of drinking coffee with a meal, or drinking separately, that influences how fast caffeine goes into your system.\n\nIt's also why you are advised to take some medications together or right before/after meal, so that the pill is dissolved in a more controlled rate.",
"Yes and no. \n\nCaffeine as a liquid will be absorbed as soon as it gets to the intestines. \n\nBut the order that you eat does affect some absorption. It depends on the frequency. If you eat everything at once, it all ends up in the stomach, and it becomes mixed together as its digested.\n\nIf you don't, and take some time between what you eat, it will digest in that order.\n\nAnother way to look at it is how your poop looks. Eat something red like red beets and then dont eat anything for an hour. Then eat some carbs and drink clam chowder, and your poop will be white.\n\nThen you'll poop out red poop and then white poop. So the order does matter.\n\nBut for things that are liquid, the order doesn't really matter because the absorption rates are different for things like that.",
"My doctor told me, because I’m diabetic, that I should eat protein every meal since it takes longer to absorb and will slow down absorption of carbs I eat at the same time. Not sure if true. ",
"Think about it this way: When you hit the gas pedal on a car you hear the engine rev up, but when you let you foot off the gas the noise doesn’t just go away, it winds down. The digestive system kind of works the same way in a sense. \n\nYour body is a massive homeostatic system, meaning that it’s main goal is maintain a comfortable environment in which to survive; I.e shivering when cold, sweating when hot. However it does all this in the most energy efficient way it can (sometimes). \n\nBack to the car analogy: Once you eat the engine is rev’d up so to speak, and it will stay that way for as long as you have your foot on the gas (eating) and slowly wind down as you stop eating. Much like it isn’t good for your car to constantly turn it on then off your body doesn’t want to waste the energy of starting the digestive system over and over again. So the closer to the time you eat after the initial consumption the faster that food or drink will be processed, decreasing as time passes.\n\nThen again I’m an internet stranger and could be completely full or crap. ",
"So, digestion = breaking stuff down, absorption = taking it into your body. \n\nLogistically speaking, once you put something in your mouth your body starts digesting it. You have enzymes in your saliva that break down carbs and fats. Once it enters your stomach, more enzymes and the acidic environment continue to break the food stuffs down. Once it enters your small intestine, pancreatic enzymes and bile (from gall bladder & liver) continue to breakdown the foods. In your small intestine is where absorption occurs too, however different types of molecules are absorbed in different parts of your small intestine. Things like amino acids (from proteins), lipids (fat), vitamins, carbs/sugars are all taken into the blood steam at varying sites of your small intestine. Some are absorbed at the beginning of the small intestine (the duodenum), some at the middle segment (jejunum) and some at the distal segment (ileum). I believe water freely absorbs throughout the entire intestine. Your food is digested/broken down as much as possible (down to the molecular level) and then it is absorbed at its respective site. This is because most molecules require a specific type of transporter to bring it into the blood stream. The stuff your body can’t absorb combines with the waste products in your bile to form the poop nugget. It goes through phases of water secretion/absorption in your large intestine, and then u sit down and flush it away 💩\n\nCaffeine is a different type of compound than the food you regularly eat, as it can absorb into your body pretty much anywhere (it can easily pass into cells without the need for transporters). It is 99% absorbed into your blood stream within 45 minutes. Here is the full breakdown of caffeine (yes, pun intended) \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223808/#!po=5.76923"
]
] |
||
47clbw
|
Quantum tunnelling examples often state that a person could "walk through a wall" by (an extremely low) chance. Is this a specific scenario or is literally anything 'possible'?
|
If the above is possible (has it been confirmed or proven? is it even the most likely theory?), can anything happen even if it seemingly breaks the laws of physics?
For example, could FTL travel occur simply by chance (even if it's next to impossible, probability wise), or is the quantum effect that can cause seemingly impossible / unlikely events still bound by the classic laws of physics?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/47clbw/quantum_tunnelling_examples_often_state_that_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0c7tgs",
"d0c8x2d",
"d0c9bn7",
"d0ceak1"
],
"score": [
13,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think there is a misconception on your part here. \n\nTunnelling does NOT break the laws of physics. Actually physics predicts it, so it is literally in obedience of the laws of nature. Just because it does not behave like one would expect from everyday life, does not mean it is breaking the laws of physics. It much rather means that your intuition is wrong.\n",
"Quantum tunneling is indeed a weird behavior, just look at this tunneling animation: \n\n* _URL_0_\n\nFor tunneling to be significant, the particle needs to be appreciable declocalized. From de Broglie's matter wave postulates we see wavelength scales as inverse momentum. For big objects like cars, dogs and people—our wavelengths are utterly and truly insignificant.\n\nSomeone might chime in and say \"technically possible, but very close to zero.\" I think this view is overly simplistic. Big systems are complicated beasts and it is not immediately obvious that tunneling should apply to big hot, de-coherent systems.\n\nOn the issue of FTL travel, surprisingly the literature seems a bit controversial here. I'm not an expert on this particular subfield, but I see two big camps: One camp says FLT tunneling occurs, but transmits no info much like entanglement, the other says that FTL tunneling cannot occur. [Edit: There is a third camp which claims relativity is truly violated.] The experiments to show this are fairly hard to do and near impossible over significant distances which might explain why this isn't settled. The sources I'm using are a bit old however, so if anyone knows more about this than me please chime in if I'm mistaken.\n\nI am personally suspect of any relativistic quantum mechanics done without using field theory. You can immediately see this in the Green's functions which describe solutions to Schrodinger's wave equations, they have an infinite propagation speed which is dangerous to have in your mathematics. In comparison, quantum field theory includes a condition called \"micro-causality\" which preserves relativity from the get-go.",
"Quantum tunneling is an existing phenomenon.\n\nIt shows that a particle can pass through a potential barrier even when it does not have the energy to go over the barrier.\n\nThink a ball in a pit on top of a steep hill.\n\nIn classical physics the ball will just sit there and never move unless pushed hard enough (gains more energy than the potential barrier has). This is the world you are used to. This however is just what large congregations of particles behave with overwhelming probability.\n\nThe quantum mechanical view (which is more correct as it explains things classical physics cannot) states that there is some non-zero but small (this depends on the potential barrier and particle energy) chance the ball in the above example will pass through the pit wall and roll down hill, i.e it will tunnel through.\n\nSo, the example of a person walking through a wall is just an application of quantum tunneling to a large collection of particles. As such the person can pass through a wall, but the probability of such an event happening are overwhelmingly small.\n\nSo, as you see it's just something that all particles in our world *can* do, but we have never seen it happen to large objects because it's practically impossible due to low chance.",
" > Quantum tunnelling examples often state that a person could \"walk through a wall\" by (an extremely low) chance.\n\nQuantum tunneling is a real physical effect that is predicted by the laws of physics. Although it seems weird, it is a perfectly valid effect. Macroscopic objects consist of trillions upon trillions of incoherent atoms, so that quantum effects become ridiculously small. A person could walk through a solid wall without damage via quantum tunneling, and this would not break any laws, but it has a ridiculously low probability of ever happening, so that in a practical sense it is impossible. \n\n > is literally anything 'possible'?\n\nNo, quantum theory is not a magic ticket that makes all things possible. Even though quantum theory contains some bizarre effects that we are not used to in everyday life, it still follows all the laws of physics. For instance, energy/mass is always locally conserved. Any event that involves energy/mass not being locally conserved is not allowed, no matter how cleverly you try to apply bizarre quantum effects. For instance, a penny cannot instantaneously turn into a truck, even though quantum theory is weird, since this would require the creation of mass out of nothing.\n\n > could FTL travel occur simply by chance\n\nNo. According to our current understanding of the universe, faster-than-light travel is simply impossible. In fact, speeds above c don't even really exist. Again, quantum theory does not break any laws of physics, or contain weird effects that can be used to break the laws of physics. It just contains effects which seem weird to the average person's everyday experience.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Quantum_Tunnelling_animation.gif"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
6nxib6
|
how do ac thermostats work - how do they know what the temp is in the whole room?
|
I've looked this up and only found articles about how the AC itself works, and how it *uses* a thermostat to regulate the temperature, but I've always wondered how it is that my wall AC unit can be set to a temperature, then figure out what that temp is in the whole room. Because if the thermostat is just right in the AC unit itself, wouldn't the unit and the area around it get cool way faster than the room, thus the compressor would shut off sooner than it should? And if they do account for this gap, how do they know what the size of the room is? If I put an AC in a room too small for its size, will it actually get even cooler than 70 if I set it to 70?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nxib6/eli5_how_do_ac_thermostats_work_how_do_they_know/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkczey0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They simply do not know. They only measure the temperature at the exact location of the thermostat, which has a little sensor inside."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1g1cu0
|
Why did resistance groups in the Third Reich fail?
|
I know there were a lot of people from different groups (Military, Christians, Students) that offered resistance and attempted to assassinate Hitler but why were none of them really succesful?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g1cu0/why_did_resistance_groups_in_the_third_reich_fail/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caftu01",
"cag3ksx"
],
"score": [
49,
3
],
"text": [
"If you're looking for a one-size-fits-all answer, you're going to be disappointed, because there really isn't one.\n\n* The July 20 plot, also known as Operation Valkyrie, failed because of pure dumb luck. Hitler escaped with a singed pant leg and a perforated eardrum, and though the plotters had amongst themselves relatively powerful co-conspirators like the military commander of occupied France Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, their inability to kill Hitler was really what made the coup attempt fail. (I don't think a source is really necessary for this one since it's so well known and the basic facts are irrefutable)\n* The White Rose movement was a bunch of non-violent University of München students and their professor who distributed 6 political leaflets over the course of roughly a year (1942-1943), leaflets that advocated for peaceful resistance against the Third Reich. [This German source from LMU München claims that it was the school janitor that saw one of the conspirators distributing leaflets and reported them to the police, who promptly arrested, show-trialed, and executed most of the movement's members](_URL_1_). The same document concludes that it was a lack of willpower and organization on the part of the general German population that prevented the movement from becoming widespread. This is by far the most common explanation for why such resistance movements failed.\n* Resistance in the army before 1939 did not want to remove Hitler from power but, as Dr. Eckart Conze, a professor of modern history at the University of Marburg put it in [this Der Spiegel interview](_URL_0_), \"bring him to his senses.\" This is corroborated by German Chief of Staff Franz Halder's [journal](_URL_2_) (I am citing this somewhat indirectly from Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). Any resistance in the Herr from 1939 onwards was tempered by wartime mobilization; it's hard to set up a coup when most of your co-conspirators are at the front.\n\nI could go on, but in the end it boils down to a multitude of factors. One of the most important ones, no doubt, was Hitler's popularity with the German people throughout the war. Hell, even 7 years after the war, in 1952, Hitler was still regarded \"favorably\" by approximately 24 percent of West Germans (according to Albert Speer's \"Spandau: The Secret Diaries\", so take that with a grain of salt).",
"In addition to /u/Imxset21's response, I'd like to add that the sheer brutality the Nazi's used to deter further resistance. For example, when Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated, every male over the age of 16 in the town of [Lidice](_URL_0_) were put to death and the rest of the inhabitants were sent to the Chelmo extermination camp.\n\nWhile in Poland, to deter resistance, the Nazi's would publicly execute 50-100 Poles for every German that was killed in various cities. When the Warsaw uprising took place, the Nazi's ended up killing ~150,000-200,000 individuals and sent another 60,000 to death camps.\n\nIn response to the uprising:\n\n > \"The city must completely disappear from the surface of the earth and serve only as a transport station for the Wehrmacht. No stone can remain standing. Every building must be razed to its foundation.\" – SS chief Heinrich Himmler "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/hitler-s-diplomats-historian-calls-wartime-ministry-a-criminal-organization-a-725600-3.html",
"http://www.utzverlag.de/buecher/40639les.pdf",
"http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng1.pdf"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice"
]
] |
|
2ufbsi
|
Exactly how accurate are the majority of our recorded dates in history once we look past a few hundred years, such as: "April 16th 1457 BC"?
|
How did we figure these dates out? Is the process always the same? How certain are we that we are correct in these dates? How do we know exactly on what day significant events occurred in ancient history?
That being said, is there any logic behind the idea of a computer programmed to sort through historical documents from around the world to see if there were any errors in proposed dates? For example, if a government document from a certain date failed to meet certain historically relevant parameters set by another historical document known to be from the "same" date. I'm not sure if it makes much sense, but could this be attempted? *Has* this been attempted? If it hasn't or couldn't, why not? How much room for improvement is there on the accuracy of historical dates anyway?
**TL;DR:** WAY more questions than asked in my title, if you don't want to answer them, just read the first paragraph or answer the title.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ufbsi/exactly_how_accurate_are_the_majority_of_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co7yly2"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
" > How do we know exactly on what day significant events occurred in ancient history?\n\nhi! you may be interested in these previous related questions\n\n* [How do we know what years certain pre-gregorian historical events happened in?](_URL_12_)\n\n* [Can we be certain that the dates of events that happened 2000+ years ago are correct?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [How do historians work with dates from different calendars? Do you have some kind of unified calendar?](_URL_8_)\n\n* [Have dates and calendars been adjusted correctly from Julian to Gregorian? Like the day Columbus landed on America or St. Crispian's Day at Agincourt?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [If an event is recorded to have occurred on a particular date, and I ask you to say with 100% confidence how many days have elapsed since that event, what is the oldest era for which you can do this?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [Historians, how do we date ancient events using the modern BC/AD (or BCE/CE, depending on your preference) system?](_URL_9_)\n\nand these tangentially-related posts\n\n* [What is the earliest known event to which we know the exact year it occurred?](_URL_10_)\n\n* [What is the earliest recorded date that we can determine accurately?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [What is the earliest reliable documented event in human history?](_URL_7_)\n\n* in the FAQ section [How did the world agree on what year it is?](_URL_11_), this post [How certain are we that the year 1 AD was 2012 years ago?](_URL_13_) \n\n* [How certain are we of what year it is? Were there every any disagreements, like during the Dark Ages or afterwards, of the exact year?](_URL_14_)\n\n* [How sure are we that the year is actually 2014?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [How do we know this is really 2014?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [How do we know what year it is?](_URL_6_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fnhep/have_dates_and_calendars_been_adjusted_correctly/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24ixs5/how_sure_are_we_that_the_year_is_actually_2014/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2c88fb/how_do_we_know_this_is_really_2014/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19pgf6/what_is_the_earliest_recorded_date_that_we_can/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1m77fn/can_we_be_certain_that_the_dates_of_events_that/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vr3br/if_an_event_is_recorded_to_have_occurred_on_a/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2k2lf4/how_do_we_know_what_year_it_is/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/q944u/what_is_the_earliest_reliable_documented_event_in/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2lkip2/how_do_historians_work_with_dates_from_different/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vum7l/historians_how_do_we_date_ancient_events_using/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26kljs/what_is_the_earliest_known_event_to_which_we_know/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/calendars#wiki_how_did_the_world_agree_on_what_year_it_is.3F",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1obrab/how_do_we_know_what_years_certain_pregregorian/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17e1kl/how_certain_are_we_that_the_year_1_ad_was_2012/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xww2c/how_certain_are_we_of_what_year_it_is_were_there/"
]
] |
|
89470i
|
if you spin in an office chair, why do you spin faster if you move your legs in? similar to how figurine skaters hold themselves together.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89470i/eli5_if_you_spin_in_an_office_chair_why_do_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwowa4y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you throw a ball, doesn't a lighter ball move faster than a heavier ball if you use the same amount of force? \n\nThere's a similar concept to mass in the angular world, angular momentum. But angular momentum is a big more complicated--distance away from the axis of rotation increases it.\n\nSo when you tuck in your legs, the mass of your spinning body is closer to the axis of rotation. This decreases your angular momentum, which makes you move faster."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
m2ef5
|
What gives "Science" its legitimacy?
|
I recognize the importance of the scientific method in determining truth claims, but when something is said to be "scientific" why does that give it credibility? I am thinking, for instance, of a scientific approach to History, or any "Social Science". Why do we think that it is possible, and why does putting the word science in front of something validate it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m2ef5/what_gives_science_its_legitimacy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2xkgqi",
"c2xlpnz",
"c2xqbnz",
"c2xkgqi",
"c2xlpnz",
"c2xqbnz"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
4,
10,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Falsifiability (it *can* be proven wrong), peer review, universal truth (anyone can do the experiment and get the same result) off the top of my head.\n\nThis question might better be suited to r/philosophy since it's more about the philosophy of science?",
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the question inferred that scientific claims from the hard sciences does not warrant any doubt. Whereas, if it's not from biology, chemistry, or physics, they are somehow \"less legitimate\"?\n\nEither way, credibility is mostly platitude. Scientific claims still need to be scrutinized and critically investigated, instead of just being taken at face value. It's no more legitimate than personal anecdotes or fervid belief - it's just easier to replicate, demonstrate, or be (dis)proven.",
"When science was first getting started, there was a huge debate over whether or not it could be considered legitimate. After all, how could mere observations of the world, subject to imperfect senses and lack of information, provide true information when compared to truths derived from pure mathematics and logic? But people started using science as we know it now, and it got good practical results, and really that's pretty convincing evidence of success. But people, being people, will take a the name or techniques of something successful and slap it onto everything else they want to be successful (or want other people to _think_ is successful), with varying results. Putting the word science in front of something doesn't automatically validate it, but a fair number of people _think_ it validates it. That's just how the human mind works.\n\nTL;DR: Because people think that if X works in situation A, then X will also work in situation B. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not.",
"Falsifiability (it *can* be proven wrong), peer review, universal truth (anyone can do the experiment and get the same result) off the top of my head.\n\nThis question might better be suited to r/philosophy since it's more about the philosophy of science?",
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the question inferred that scientific claims from the hard sciences does not warrant any doubt. Whereas, if it's not from biology, chemistry, or physics, they are somehow \"less legitimate\"?\n\nEither way, credibility is mostly platitude. Scientific claims still need to be scrutinized and critically investigated, instead of just being taken at face value. It's no more legitimate than personal anecdotes or fervid belief - it's just easier to replicate, demonstrate, or be (dis)proven.",
"When science was first getting started, there was a huge debate over whether or not it could be considered legitimate. After all, how could mere observations of the world, subject to imperfect senses and lack of information, provide true information when compared to truths derived from pure mathematics and logic? But people started using science as we know it now, and it got good practical results, and really that's pretty convincing evidence of success. But people, being people, will take a the name or techniques of something successful and slap it onto everything else they want to be successful (or want other people to _think_ is successful), with varying results. Putting the word science in front of something doesn't automatically validate it, but a fair number of people _think_ it validates it. That's just how the human mind works.\n\nTL;DR: Because people think that if X works in situation A, then X will also work in situation B. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ro4aq
|
Did Union citizens who bought their way out of the draft during the Civil War suffer social stigma, later?
|
I understand it was a matter of simply, openly paying $300 to get out of the draft, but did doing so have any sort of appreciable social impact, after the war, on the people who did?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ro4aq/did_union_citizens_who_bought_their_way_out_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwpsz1u",
"cwq1bm6"
],
"score": [
26,
8
],
"text": [
"Just wrote a paper relating to this!\n\nThere was both a social stigma and even some physical danger in buying your way out of the draft (either through commutation or by hiring a substitute). For example, there was a popular tune of the time called \"We Are Coming, Father Abraham\" (a parody of an earlier recruiting song of the same name) which included lines like:\n\n > We are coming, Father Abraham, \nThree hundred dollars more \nWe'll stay at home and take our ease, \nFor fighting's such bore; \nWe can't all go and meet the foe, \nFor who'll attend the ladies? \nThe Exempt Brigade will stay at home \nTo nurse and dress the babies! \n\nGoing even further, during the New York draft riots in July 1863, rioters were a little angry at anyone that they thought might have bought their way out of the draft:\n\n > Rioters sacked the homes of several prominent Republicans and abolitionists. With shouts of \"Down with the rich\" and \"There goes a $300 man\" they attacked well-dressed men who were incautious enough to show themselves on the streets.\n\n- *Battle Cry of Freedom*, James M. McPherson",
"During the election of 1884 Grover Cleveland was criticized for purchasing a substitute during the Civil War, a Polish immigrant George Benninsky who he paid $150. He did so because he was the sole financial support of his mother and younger sisters. The Civil War being won less than nineteen years prior to the 1884 election was very much in public memory, being a \"$300 Man\" and the nominee of the Democratic Party, which made up a vast part of the Confederate rebellion certainly hurt his image(along with the rumors of an out of wedlock daughter). However his reputation for honesty, especially compared with the corrupt Sen.James Blaine lead to his victory. \nVeterans of both sides of the war prided themselves with their service, they formed powerful veterans groups like the [GAR](_URL_0_) , officers were often addressed publicly by their military titles decades after the conflict. Those who had bought their way out found themselves in a special isolated corner of their generation, though not often publicly damned they were looked down upon. Theodore Roosevelt who admired his father found it humiliating that he had, in TR's perception shirked his duty as an American citizen and as a man. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Army_of_the_Republic"
]
] |
|
13pqvb
|
If the air was made up of different gases, would things sound different?
|
Sound travels through the air, so if the air was made up of different gases, would what we hear sound different than the sounds we hear in our atmosphere now?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13pqvb/if_the_air_was_made_up_of_different_gases_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c76189d",
"c761p0m",
"c762e0e",
"c76383v",
"c768kgn"
],
"score": [
7,
22,
218,
133,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. That is why your voice changes when you breath helium; the gas that is your vocal cords are vibrating against has different acoustic properties than the regular nitrogen/oxygen/argon/trace gas mix that it normally vibrates against. It is also why things both sound different and carry over a longer distance in water.",
"Edited and deleted because I was wrong. The change in medium would change the wavelength, but the frequency would remain constant.\n\nI need to reflect on my life now, as I have talked about this with dozens of people over the past few years.",
"Yes, composition of gases do change how sounds are perceived but it's mostly from different density gases affecting the power of individual frequencies rather than changing them due to different speeds of sound. For example, if you inhale helium, your voice sounds squeakier. The same frequencies are present, but since helium is much less dense than our normal atmosphere of nitrogen/oxygen, there is less power in the lower frequencies. Good explanation here : _URL_0_\n\nThe reverse is true for gases like sulphur hexafluoride which is (mostly) non-toxic but a much higher density. Inhaling it adds power to the lower frequencies so your voice sounds deeper - video here: _URL_1_\n\nBut there is more than just changing the timbre because of differential density; the overall density of the medium sound is traveling through also contributes. A thin atmosphere will yield quieter sounds; for example, on Mars, sounds would on the order of 40-50 dB lower (only 1% of our atmosphere); in addition, CO2 (primary component of the martian atmosphere) also tends to absorb sounds in the 500-1500 Hz range where most human speech sounds occur. On Titan on the other hand, which has an atmosphere a bit thicker than Earth's and is mostly nitrogen, it would sound the same, but the speed of sound would be significantly slower because the average atmospheric temperature is -179ºC which would affect your ability to localize sound while freezing to death.",
"Wow, I'm seeing a lot of misinformation in the replies here, so I feel like I need to step in.\n\nFirst off, assuming the new atmosphere is not very very thin, the source of the sound is going to determine if the frequency is going to change. A pipe organ's pitch, for example, is a function of the speed of sound (fundamental frequency is f=c/4L, where c is sound speed in air and L is pipe length). The pitch of a chime, on the other hand, is a function of the speed of sound *in the material of the chime*, and thus will not be altered by the presence of a new gas. The voice is a hybrid system, which can be thought of as having an input sound from the vocal folds (not altered by gas) being filtered by a resonant vocal tract (is altered by gas). The net effect is that the human voice is altered by a change in gas. **Note that frequency is conserved across changes in medium. If I had a pipe organ playing in a room with normal air, and I was listening outside of that room, in an area filled with a different gas, I would hear the same frequency as if I were in the room.**\n\nIf, on the other hand, the atmosphere is very thin, we will begin to see significant absorption. \"Very thin,\" in this case, refers to the average distance between molecules in the air with respect to an acoustic wavelength. If the distance between molecules is small, and the collisions between molecules are mostly elastic, then very little energy is lost in the wave. If the distance between molecules is large, the directional kinetic energy of the wave will quickly become the random kinetic energy of heat. Since acoustic wavelength is a function of frequency, this basically puts an upper bound on the frequencies that can be transmitted long distances. In our atmosphere, the limit is in the Megahertz range, far above our range of hearing. This isn't necessarily true on a planet like Mars, which has an extremely rarified atmosphere.\n\nSo, to answer your question, some sounds would change, but others would not.",
"Just to add to the discussion and bring it up expicitly here since I don't see the term mentioned in other posts - one thing that changes in a well defined way between different fluids is the _sound attenuation_. This is given by [Stoke's law](_URL_0_). This tells you how the frequency composition will change as sound travels through the fluid. It's proportional to the dynamic viscosity and inversely proportional to the density of the fluid. \n\nSo if air was mad up of different gases some frequencies will die off more rapidly than others between the source of the sound and the detector/listener in a different way to that we are accustomed to in normal air, changing how it sounds. \n\nI'm not really sure how noticeable an effect this is going to be mind. In the most extreme case, compare how things sound in air to underwater, but more usually there's already a reasonably large difference in attenuation depending on the relative humidity, and I don't think I've ever thought \"it sounds humid today\".\n\nThere's some more related info and some numbers at [this website](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/speech.html",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u19QfJWI1oQ"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_law_\\(sound_attenuation\\)",
"http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_4/2_4_1.html"
]
] |
|
2gw4z5
|
why is silence awkward?
|
Why when you're around some people, silence is the most uncomfortable thing in the world? And around others you are perfectly fine?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gw4z5/eli5_why_is_silence_awkward/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckn2mo5",
"ckn2s04"
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text": [
"It isn't actually necessarily awkward. Many folks are too worried about what others may be thinking, though, and so it creates anxiety. It needn't be that way. Sometimes silence simply means nothing need be said right then.",
"It's due to social expectations. Let's look at 3 common situations here:\n\n1. You're on the public train. It's unusual to talk to strangers on the train while commuting to school/work, and here the dynamic is the opposite: having to converse is usually awkward, while silence is the norm.\n\n2. You're with really good friends/family. They're people that you are comfortable with and used to having around. They know what you are like and you do not need to create any sort of impression anymore, and depending on the activity, little communication may be necessary to enjoy the mutual activity, and if there was communication, it is willful and not just to break radio silence.\n\n3. You're stuck in a situation where you hardly know the other person (e.g. through mutual friend; mutual friend temporarily gone to washroom). Silence is awkward because social norms dictate/suggest that you should make small talk with the other person. Not talking may make you feel like you are being rude or plain boring, but at the same time you do not know what to really say because you do not know what the other person enjoys talking about or what they may be offended by. \n\nTL;DR: Silence is awkward because it seemingly reflects badly upon yourself"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1fmwet
|
Why is it possible to freeze semen and then have it function properly when thawed?
|
And can this be done with other organism and what are the limits?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1fmwet/why_is_it_possible_to_freeze_semen_and_then_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cabtimn",
"cabu4tn",
"cabud1f",
"cabvkob",
"cabw4hh",
"cabx1o3",
"cabx7vm",
"cac4ehg"
],
"score": [
393,
20,
77,
17,
11,
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Before I offer my insight I would point out: sperm are not organisms. They are differentiated cells of an organism.\n\nBacteria in laboratory settings are frozen at -80°C on a regular basis. I haven't been in the lab for long, but I'm yet to encounter any stored for under two years that have not grown when thawed. My understanding is that most biological cell samples (including sperm) are frozen in a glycerol stock (a low percentage usually 10-20%), which massively reduces the formation of ice crystals that damage the cell membrane. \n\nAs for limitations, there are many. Only certain small multicellular organisms such as some select insects can survive freezing, as they have adapted to protect against and repair cellular damage. The temperature is also an important factor, and -80°C is the generally accepted temperature (-196°C aka liquid nitrogen is also an option). At these temperatures the molecular mobility is low enough to halt cellular function. The duration for which the biological sample is frozen is also a factor, largely due to accumulative DNA damage that prevents the cell(s) from functioning properly.\n\nEdit: Another important factor that is being highlighted in this discussion is that not all the sperm need survive. Even if 99% of the sperm died (which is a grossly exaggerated proportion) there is a chance of fertilization. Healthy sperm are more likely to achieve fertilization, and a large portion of the frozen sample will be undamaged.",
"A side question, how long (theoretically) can sperm or female eggs remain frozen and still be functional when thawed?",
"Part of the reason is redundancy. A mL of sperm contains 20-40 million sperm. If you lose 99% of them, you still have hundreds of thousands of viable cells left.\n\nIn contrast, a full organism is probably not going to be viable unless a large majority of cells survive with minimal damage. That's a taller order.",
"We freeze early embryos in ivf using liquid nitrogen all the time, thaw them and get really good cell survival and regularly get pregnancies. Some of these might even have been created with frozen sperm! ",
"A tangential question: it's my (lay) understanding that sperm from an older man suffers from greater epigenetic damage, leading to an increase in autism and schizophrenia (IIRC) among older fathers.\n\nAre there any (known or hypothetical) selective pressures on which sperm survive the freezing and thawing? Would sperm frozen in one's 20s be healthier than a fresh batch from one's 30s? 40s?",
"As I didn't see any real explanation yet, I'll give it a shot:\n\nCooling itself does not do any harm. It only causes things to get slower and smaller.\n\nIt's the side effects which cause harm: crystallisation of water and other things, uneven contraction and then expansion of atoms and molecules, substances becoming solid or liquid at different temperatures, and so on.\n\nDue to such effects, molecules get damaged in the process of freezing or thawing, life sustaining (repair and other) activities get disturbed, and so on.\n\nIt's possible to counteract that, for instance by adding substances which keep water from crystallising, but those will also interfere with normal functioning of cells.\n\nThe same in Eli5: If you imagine a cell like a factory, and a cooling like a snow storm going through it, the damage might consist of belts freezing to the machines and breaking, of fabric becoming brittle and cracking, of produce piling up in some still functioning parts and blocking everything, and so on.\n\nWith enough care in how to do the freezing and thawing, it can work. And science gets able to do that with more and more complex organisms.",
"It also depends on the species of sperm. If I remember correctly, in veterinary medicine, cow semen is frequently frozen and used however, pig semen doesn't yield appreciable pregnancy results. ",
"I worked for an Andrology lab where I would freeze and thaw semen daily. The cells are mixed with a freezing media that includes DMSO, a dual polar/non-polar molecule that stops ice crystals that would lyse the cells from forming. The freezing process is slow and consistent at 1C/min, giving the cells time to freeze evenly without damage. The tubes of semen are then put in liquid nitrogen tanks, which need to be filled daily from a huge liquid nitrogen hose. The oldest semen sample we've had in long term storage is over 20 years old! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47l31o
|
Where did an alchemist get their metals?
|
It is well-known that the role of the alchemist was to transfer base metals into gold. But how were the metals procured in the first place? Were they bought from a merchant? From the local market?
Was the trade of raw goods in the ancient world typically conducted in a face-to-face manner? Was there ever a middleman?
Finally, do you know of any interesting books or articles pertaining to this subject?
Many thanks in advance.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/47l31o/where_did_an_alchemist_get_their_metals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0drwu1"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Hi, I do the History of Alchemy Podcast.\n\nAlchemists got their raw materials like everyone else: the market, or from the smelters themselves.\n\nThere was actually a whole industry around alchemy like there is for chemicals today.\n\nSome labs specialized in arsenic and sulfur compounds used by other alchemists for more advanced processes.\n\nBut metals were always mined, refined by metallurgists, then sold to alchemists (and jewelers and gold smiths, etc).\n\nYou're talking about 1400 years of history on 3 different continents... if you want to narrow it down some more I have tons more details, but I don't know if you need examples from the ancient world, or if examples from the 1600's are fine.. etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3zr5ip
|
what does it mean when a company is said to be worth x amount?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zr5ip/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_a_company_is_said_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyobgyp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"quantity of shares outstanding, multiplied by the market price per share. meaning if you bought every share, to own 100% of the company, this is how much you would need to spend."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ae6oh
|
What is the earliest example we have of a republic?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ae6oh/what_is_the_earliest_example_we_have_of_a_republic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8wwucb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe Rome is the earliest form that we have. Early cultures (China, Mesopotamia, India) were monarchies. Greece was split between democracy and monarchies. Rome was a republic in between the times of kings and emperors. Tarquin was the last king of Rome in 509 b.c. Augustus Caesar was the first emperor of Rome in 27 b.c. So the 482 years stuck in between was the Republic age. This is when the ever-so-famous Roman Senate was created. People had a choice on who was ruling and who was participating in government. This sounds a lot like Greece, but Democracies and republics are slightly different. Greece had a \"government by the people\" while Rome had \"government by elected officials\". That is how they differ. \n\nTL;DR To answer shortly, Roman Republic 509 b.c - 27 b.c "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1yzane
|
centuries ago, how did they find the other planets in the solar system? also, is there a possibility that there are other planets in our solar system that we have not yet found?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yzane/eli5_centuries_ago_how_did_they_find_the_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfp3aai",
"cfp3f1q"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are visible to the naked eye and have been known about and studied since ancient times. Early astronomers noticed that these \"stars\" appeared to change position compared to other stars and so they started to track thier motion across the sky. The word planet actually means \"wandering star\".\n\nUranus had been observed but thought to be a star. It took the invention of the telescope to make accurate enough observations to track its movement. Eventually its orbit was calculated with such precision that astronomers noticed oddities that could only be explained by the presence of another planet - which turned out to be Neptune.\n\nAstronomers also thought they saw a similar disruption in Neptunes orbit and so predicted yet another planet. When Clyde Tombaugh pointed his telescope at the patch of sky he expected \"Planet X\" to be, he discovered Pluto.\n\nWe now know that this was a coincidence, and there is no Planet X. Pluto was found because the outer solar system is full of these small icy dwarf planets and Pluto was just in the right place at the right time.\n\n\n",
"Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter are pretty bright objects on the night sky. In addition, they move fairly quickly in relation to static stars and this can be observed without any specialist instruments within few weeks. Apparent movement of the planets on the night sky must have been very intriguing and mysterious to them (bare in mind that first astronomers didn't know anything about solar system construction, elliptical orbits, different nature of celestial bodies) - all these must have made them thinking that these traveling stars are somehow different than the others - that's why they called them \"planets\" (from Ancient Greek ἀστὴρ πλανήτης (astēr planētēs), meaning \"wandering star\")"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2elxp3
|
How did the Munich Massacre effect the world's view of the Palestine/Israel conflict?
|
More specifically Western society's view of the conflict. Did it raise awareness of the hostilities? Could the current pro-Palestine sentiment in many Western media sources be attributed, wholly or in part, to the terrorist attack in Munich?
Sources greatly appreciated thank you!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2elxp3/how_did_the_munich_massacre_effect_the_worlds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck2fukq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I have a question for you. Do you want the version that is super, super long and includes a write-up on what actually went down at Munich, and the subsequent responses back and forth? Or do you want the shorter version that only talks about media coverage of the incident and how it changed things?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
g30lfi
|
i’m 35 years old and still don’t understand fractions.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g30lfi/eli5_im_35_years_old_and_still_dont_understand/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fnoh62f"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"The bottom number is the number of pieces of pie that are cut.\n\nThe top number is the number of pieces of pie that are left.\n\nExample. 5/7 Cut the pie into seven equal pieces. Then take five of them. (Discarding or eating the other two). What you have is 5/7 of a pie."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1kbo1a
|
Why were Japanese cities and towns so heavily wood based before and during WWII?
|
I remember reading about all of the various Allied Bombings in the Second World War, and I started to wonder... it seems like the Japanese tendency to have wooden buildings was probably a bit... unwestern. But hadn't they Westernized pretty hard in the century before the war?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kbo1a/why_were_japanese_cities_and_towns_so_heavily/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbnawxf",
"cbnb07t"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"[This post should answer your questions](_URL_0_)",
"Okay, I'll bite. First off, even though most of my answers here on /r/askhistorians have happened to be about Japan, I'm more of a military/aviation history sort of person. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on (roughly) the use of military power/force on civilian populations in the 20th century, but I did a TON of research on it specifically done by the Allies against Japan, specifically Tokyo, as I lived there (well, Fussa, but close enough). \n\nWell... so I'll start here. Japan begins to Westernize in 1868, following the [Meiji Restoration](_URL_4_). After two centuries, it neglected the [*Sakoku* (exclusion) Edicts](_URL_1_), which was basically a death penalty for any foreigners entering Japan outside of commerce-specific zones. The capital was moved from Kyoto to Edo, which was renamed Tokyo, 'Eastern Capital'. The Meiji Restoration saw the deposition of the Tokugawa Shogunate, restored the Emperor, and allowed Westernization on a grand scale. Cities that had been established for so long, like Kyoto and Tokyo, were not as quick to modernize in a sense we would know it as. Japanese architecture, especially that of the lower classes, was built with three things in mind: low cost, low footprint, and high strength. This was to resist natural disasters common to the area, such as typhoons and earthquakes. The most readily available material? Wood. It continues to be very useful in modern Japanese architecture - it absorbs stress from winds and earthquakes, and most of the support for the building is actually in the roof. Wood can absorb and reform in the face of great stress, and it is pretty resilient. \n\nJust as people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, people who live in Japanese houses shouldn't start fires. The largest fear of Japanese residents was fire - with the urban sprawl of Tokyo becoming so extensive and crowded, winter and its warming fires often lead to the conflagration of entire blocks . Japanese structures are typically all wooden, and very few buildings were made with fire-resistant plaster and brick. Mortar and stone are typically only found in the industrial buildings of Japan, and only after heavy modernization in the 1920s . \n\n[The Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923](_URL_2_) – (the highest magnitude earthquake recorded in the region until the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake) and the tsunami that it brought were accompanied shortly thereafter by a typhoon, destroying much of Tokyo’s periphery buildings. The reconstruction efforts provided Tokyo with the structure that it would carry into the nationalist era and the Second World War. Between 1868 and 1923, seven major fires had destroyed major parts of the city, so reconstruction plans were made to deconcentrate Tokyo and spread the business and industrial centers throughout, reaching even to the city’s limits. The city was to expand to the point where its original fifteen historic wards would be replaced by thirty-five special wards. While these plans were approved by the municipal governments, they were not prepared to house displaced citizens, so they were quickly engulfed by a rapidly expanding sprawl of haphazardly constructed wooden dwellings, often in violation of firebreak codes . Firebreak codes were basically mandatory gaps purposely left between blocks and structures, similar to the compartmentalization of vessels – under this strategy, no one fire would be able to engulf the city. However, the reconstructed buildings that broke firebreak laws were seldom destroyed so despite extensive planning, Tokyo effectively reverted back into densely packed neighborhoods - well crap, guys. American Volunteer Group commander, General Claire Chennault, during his brief layover in Kobe, called the Japanese factories and buildings “flimsy in construction, a prime target for incendiary bombs”.\n\nThere definitely were some buildings that weren't wood. \n\n_URL_3_\n\nFrom that picture, you can see some buildings left. \nThe picture is a photograph of the Kyobashi-ku and Nihonbashi-ku districts, with Fukagawa-ku in the background. Note the lack of freestanding structures, with the exception of the large buildings and the bridges – this evidences a completely lack of standard fragmentation munitions, and also shows how much of the city was constructed with wood – the only structures that are easily identifiable in this picture are brick warehouses and small brick residences, along with the large school in the center. According to survivor testimonies collected by Bret Fisk, many of those buildings were hollowed out by the firestorm that consumed the city. The bridge connecting the two districts, the Kototoi Bridge was the scene of many deaths, as the bridge was eventually hit by incendiaries and those who had taken it as a point of refuge either burned alive or drowned. \n\nIf I left something unanswered, let me know. \n\n\nHere are some of the sources I used. I can't find the Bret Fisk article anymore, I no longer have the database I used when I was doing research. \n\nArmstrong, Alan. Preemptive Strike: The Secret Plan that Would Have Prevented the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Guiford, CT: Lyons Press, 2006.\n\nFedman, David, and Cary Karacas. \"A Cartographic Fade to Black: Mapping the Destruction of Urban Japan during World War II.\" Journal of Historical Geography. 38. no. 3 (2012): 306-328.\n\nSeidensticker, Edward, Tokyo Rising: The City Since the Great Earthquake. Cambridge, HUP, 1991.\n\nTokyo Metropolitan Government, . Hathi Trust Digital Library, \"Tokyo: The Making of a Metropolis.\" Last modified 1993. _URL_0_.\n\nVale, Lawrence J., Thomas J. Campanella, and Carola Hein. The Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, Kindle Edition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ih4r9/why_are_japanese_castles_built_of_wood_as_opposed/"
],
[
"http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002856220",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku_Edict_of_1635",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1923_Great_Kant%C5%8D_earthquake",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_restoration"
]
] |
|
2kh59f
|
why do sex dreams feel good? do you stimulate yourself while dreaming?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kh59f/eli5_why_do_sex_dreams_feel_good_do_you_stimulate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cll8npt",
"cllg7lo",
"clln8sm",
"cllod88"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think I stimulate mysel[F] in my sleep, but since coming into my mid 30s I frequently have sex dreams that result in orgasm and sometimes wake me up. I'd also like to know why this is, and why I can't seem to accomplish the same result simply by thinking about it while awake.",
"This has always been interesting to me too.\n\nI don't know, but I wonder if it's because with really vivid dreams like that the brain can't tell if you're asleep or awake and it stimulates and activates the corresponding areas of the brain (ie sex, pain) even without physical interaction because it feels like it should be there.\n\nThat's just my theory.",
"Dreams are recreations made by our brains of moments of our lives, one day you had experienced an orgasm. So your brain simulates the same feeling in his dream, it is just a psychological trick done by you for you.",
"Everything you feel is handled by the brain even when you have actual sex it feels good because of your brain. You don't actually stimulate yourself but if your having a dream your mind can basically be tricked into recreating some of the actual physical / mental changes that happen during real sex."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1rcslu
|
why does the us army use 9mm instead of .40 or .45?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rcslu/eli5_why_does_the_us_army_use_9mm_instead_of_40/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdlwkp8",
"cdlwkqs",
"cdlwubq",
"cdly9zl"
],
"score": [
23,
21,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A 9mm round was chosen to be compatible with the rest of NATO. NATO has standardized a lot of their weapon system (All magazines need to work in all guns) in order to simplify the logistics of war. ",
"There have been lots of arguments about it. It boils down to Stopping Power vs Magazine Capacity. Modern studies support that Round Placement is more important than \"Stopping Power\" so the greater capacity and accuracy of the 9mm round is desired more than the punch of the larger .45 (they did use the 1911 .45 until the 80s, and some branches still issue them) \n\n.40 was developed as a compromise between .45 and 9mm. It has a lower recoil for faster target recovery, but has a higher energy than 9mm. However the difference between .40 and 9mm in terms of real world power was unnoticeable, and the .40 has been losing popularity. That coupled with the fact that 9mm is round used worldwide, is avaliable and cheap, .40 has mostly been phased out. ",
"While I agree with the use of 9mm, the Beretta 92 (M9) pistol is garbage. DoD really ought to switch to a better pistol.",
"The reason I was lead to believe was that during WW2, America much prefered .45 caliber weaponry, however, given Europe's propensity for desiring 9mm instead, America curtailed to 9mm for uniformity purposes with it's allies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1v9lc1
|
In the way that some people can hear higher or lower pitches than normal, can some people see a bit into ultraviolet or infrared light?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1v9lc1/in_the_way_that_some_people_can_hear_higher_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceqce0u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[This exact question was asked a month ago.](_URL_0_)\n\nAnd many similar like it have been asked fairly recently. Please try searching before posting a question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1raqf6/if_we_have_a_hearing_range_thats_slightly/"
]
] |
||
2ziqca
|
why do i get super excited for something good leading up to it happening, but my excitement fades just before the event?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ziqca/eli5why_do_i_get_super_excited_for_something_good/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpja3rs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's no one real answer to your question, so I'll give you the best answer I know. You seem to have trained yourself to be disappointed. The idea of something good happening might excite you, but as the event nears and shifts from idea to reality, your doubts begin to outweigh your excitement because you've been disappointed in the past."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2so5qc
|
why musicians on youtube need to wear headphones while they record but live musicians don't
|
not specifically to youtube (but that's where I noticed it)
Is it to only focus on their sounds so they don't get distracted by the accompaniment? Or so they only listen to the accompaniment and don't focus on their own. How does it work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2so5qc/eli5_why_musicians_on_youtube_need_to_wear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnrbcme",
"cnrbdr2",
"cnrbel0",
"cnrj9un"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Live musicians use stage or in-ear monitors which do basically the same thing - allow them to hear themselves.",
"Live musicians often also have ear monitors. They're just not as noticeable. ",
"Live musicians that use mics do tend to have earbuds that play back your sound just like headphones do. ",
"It's most important when recording using a microphone, because you want to hear the accompaniment, but you only want the microphone to record what you are playing. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1qpzma
|
What civilizations existed in sub-saharan Africa during the Roman Era. 200 B.C.E - 200 C.E
|
Also, did Rome have any knowledge of the sub-saharan Africa and if so did they establish any trade?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qpzma/what_civilizations_existed_in_subsaharan_africa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdfcqfv"
],
"score": [
44
],
"text": [
"Two come to mind off the top of my head: The [Nok Culture](_URL_0_) and the [Nubian kingdom of Meroë](_URL_1_). We know the most about Meroe, because it was a direct trading partner of Egypt; the Romans kept this up, although they occasionally sparred as well. But most Roman-era knowledge we can confirm involves accounts from the Nile Valley and the *Periplus of the Erythrean Sea* which may or may not extend beyond the Horn of Africa. For example, the port of Rhapta was important, but we still don't actually know for sure where it was. \n\nTrade involved iron goods (and fine iron, too, in Meroë), ostrich feathers, ivory, a few exotic animals, slaves, possibly other precious goods, and hardwoods. But there's no clear evidence of trade involving Nok directly--we still don't even know if it was really an empire, or more a civilization of loosely affiliated people who happened to have a good agricultural surplus and so could create some really neat things. It's possible there was indirect trade (many-hands) all the way to West Africa, but it would be very limited. At the time you're describing, regular trans-Saharan trade hadn't been re-established--that would take a few hundred more years.\n\nThis doesn't mean, by the way, that there weren't other civilizations. The Niger inland delta was the site of urban complexes (Djenne-Jeno), and we have strong evidence of a very sophisticated African intercultural complex in the Great Lakes area and southward (see [Chris Ehret's *An African Classical Age*](_URL_2_) ) that may have included a variety of political entities. But we don't know enough details to name them and bound them adequately in the sense it seems like you're looking for."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mero%C3%AB",
"http://www.amazon.com/An-African-Classical-Age-Southern/dp/0813920574"
]
] |
|
5sna9u
|
why do people cling to false information that has been widely and thoroughly debunked?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sna9u/eli5_why_do_people_cling_to_false_information/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddgc84g",
"ddgcnrc",
"ddgct6e",
"ddgcy1k",
"ddgdjmf",
"ddgejnm",
"ddgeqk9",
"ddgezax",
"ddgg1lq",
"ddggcwo",
"ddgismk",
"ddgj059",
"ddgkxog",
"ddgn6x6",
"ddgutvx",
"ddgv0ag",
"ddh1lt2"
],
"score": [
180,
2,
2,
165,
21,
4,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
35,
3,
4,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"We have faith in our caregivers: Caregivers are looking out for our best interests\n\nWe have faith in our senses: Seeing is believing \n\nWe have faith in our memories: \"I remember when it happened\"\n\nAnd Faith is a virtue.\n\nWhen suddenly confronted with irrefutable evidence it is easier to reject the new information than it is to lose faith because losing faith makes me weak. And it means that either my caregivers were wrong, that my senses were wrong, or that my memory is flawed.\n\nIt is easier to me to go with what I know than to question my reality.",
"You have to start to question everything you know in order to figure out what you don't know. People do not do this because it is time consuming and basically ^ what he said. Things that are taught early on are based on faith and trust, not evidence. Your mom told you that cracking your knuckles causes arthritis? You are more likely to believe it and refute evidence that says other wise, because why would mommy lie? ",
"It all depends on how the contra info is presented. On the assumption you're asking this in the current political context, people are rejecting the delivery, not the fact itself. An awful lot of people like to scream and shout, call people names, or one of a thousand other things that will cause the target audience to tune out before the new information has a chance to be absorbed. \nIt's not what you say, it's how you say it that matters. ",
" > false on its face and easily provable as such.\n\nDo you have any examples for this? Most things in the world today require you to put your trust in someone else who is an expert, or require you to become an expert yourself.\n\nConsider the concept of the solar system. I absolutely believe that there are 8 planets (and Pluto), but I have only personally seen four of them. I'm choosing to trust astronomers and scientists and physicists who tell me that there are more, and I have no issue with that trust, but there's always a possibility that they are lying. \n\nThrow in 20 years of action/crime/drama movies where nothing is ever what it seems, and huge organizations all have agendas and manipulating the herd is how people get ahead, and then remove a great education that teaches you to think critically and you can end up with a natural distrust of everyone who isn't exactly like yourself. ",
"Because it's easier.\n\nI'm not being snarky. That's why. People's \"opinions\" are so wrapped up in their identities these days, admitting to backing the wrong idea is tantamount to calling your whole worldview into question. It's *way* simpler to just go \"*LALALALA*\".",
"Some things that are claimed to be debunked are just as ridden with bias as the original claim... It's almost impossible to find an unbiased source for anything these days.",
"People like to pick a team and stick with it because it makes them feel less isolated and more a part of something.",
"Despite having access to a LOT of information (or possibly because of it), we've all become acutely aware of how easily it is manipulated. Varying sources put up anything and call it the truth when a lot of the time the truth is probably not anywhere close to supporting their agenda. But that doesn't matter to them. \n\nWhat's really sad is when they use information that, repeatedly from multiple sources, has been proven false. The wage gap for example. People spend so much complaining about something that is accounted for by individual career choices that it distracts from real problems. ",
"Any information is always presented through the lens of the presenter's worldview. If we find that the information threatens our worldview, we can easily tell ourselves that the information is distorted or conjured up by the other's worldview. It's really very easy, you do it every day towards those you disagree with.",
"Because most people have created careers, professional reputations, relationships, on the basis of a belief (religion, atheism, climate change, capitalism, socialism, etc) to the point that should their beliefs be proven wrong, they would lose all of the framework that has made them who they are and why anyone would or should value their statements. Imagine, if tomorrow, the theory of relativity was proven completely wrong. The scientist and professors today would basically have to start over as they would have nothing of value to offer. A sixty year old professor would be on the same footing as a freshman in college. I think that is why most scientific discoveries are bristled at by the scientific community because it could threaten the existing status quo and cause many researchers to have to throw away years of research and opinion.",
"People are afraid to be wrong. \n\nBasically, egotism. If you're capable of admitting you're wrong, or uninformed, or just flat out willing to accept the possibility of something counter to your beliefs, especially with anything important...\n\nThat is when you are mature. That is wisdom. And that deserves a pizza. ",
"I've been grappling this and I wish I could give you an answer. I'll respond to it, but I've been hoping to understand this more myself. \n\nOpinions seem to be tied very closely to people's identities. So if you provide people with data that refutes their claims or beliefs, they would have to admit that the premise on which they've based their identity, their purpose, and their goals we're all a sham. I dont think people consciously have this thought. I believe it's an automatic psychological defense mechanism. \n\nThere is something called the 'Back fire effect.' Check it out here. _URL_0_\n\nIt basically states that when you present proof suggesting a person's opinion to be other than correct, they will grow more convicted in their views. Basically the opposite of science!\n\nWhat really boggles my mind is when I see this behavior in college educated people. Not because I believe non-college educated people are less intelligent. Far from it actually. But a college degree, more than anything, should confer upon a person proof to society that they know *how* to think. That is to say that I hold them to a higher level of responsibility, that their opinions should be backed by facts, with room to be flexible should new facts be presented to them. In practice, proof (however it is presented) should affect a person's conclusion. But unfortunately, that is applies to theory more than reality. \n\nI see this mostly happen mostly with political views.",
"Because if something backs up their beliefs they don't want it to be false. Usually in the form of politics and hot button issues. Someone sees a crazy headline and it verifies there thoughts so they believe it. Example: I saw a headline today that said Trump is illiterate, immediate people repost it to Facebook without a 2nd thought. I think its called confirmation bias. ",
"Cognitive bias is very difficult to overcome.\n\nWhen you believe in something so strongly and proof becomes known that challenges that belief, your brain will actively work to discredit the proof. You'll connect the dots to work around the proof.\n\nIf you were to get a connect the dot puzzle and it told you that it was a bird, but it LOOKS like it supposed to be a pig, you'll go against the progression of 1-2-3-4 and connect those dots to make a pig instead of a bird because it challenges your belief that it's not a pig.\n\nSome people associate this experience with being gullible, but it has to do with what you've learned previously. What you learn initially has a stronger impression than when you learn afterward that might conflict with it. \n\nThis is not to say that the individual isn't to blame, but there's a deep biological basis for the cognitive bias. Overcoming it means that you're stronger than your \"programming\". The good news is that the more you challenge this bias, the easier it becomes to overcome other bias. This is why scientists and researchers are more open to being wrong, as it leads to more discovery and information.",
"The problem comes when someone states a \"fact\" when it isn't true.\n\nWe lack the ability to check everything that people say so a lot of false shit gets adopted as fact.",
"I would argue it's a lack of interest in properly educating oneself. I had 2 conversations with a 20 year old delivery driver the other day. In the first he was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED that Hawaii was a state and not a continent/country.\n\nIn the second I had to explain that germs cause sickness, not cold weather. Cold weather will weaken your immune system to some extent but you need to get germs in your body to get sick. He basically just said he didn't believe me, then when he saw me wearing a light jacket the next time I went out for a cigarette he said \"cold huh?\" in a very snarky tone.\n\nThis is what you get when you combine the NYC public school system, a lack of interest, and an already \"not the sharpest razor in the cookie jar\" kinda person.\n\nOn the plus side, after explaining the germ thing further he did say \"learn something new every day!\" so I think he knew I wasn't looking down on him. I hope this doesn't come across as hubris or a holier than thou up on a high horse kind of mentality but I feel like it's partially on me to help get him interested in learning these basic sorts of things. It's up to you too, assuming you can do it without being condescending. I can't speak for anyone else but if someone explains something well to me that I previously didn't understand, or gives me evidence that disproves something I already believed, I always appreciate it. I think most people do as long as the other party isn't being a jerk about it.\n\nI guarantee that a large percentage of people who cling to these falsehoods do so because there's an animosity toward people who talk to them like they're stupid for believing it in the first place. I'd wager there's a ton of people reading this who still think urine is sterile. You're not stupid, you just never double checked. That's ok, cuz guess what? You learn something new every day!\n\nOr you don't...",
"put simply, people are stupid. ignorance is simply not knowing something. stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant when presented with fact. that's why you can't fix stupid, it's a choice."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
akowmx
|
why are rupert's drops so strong?
|
They're just made of glass yet I've seen bullets literally shatter when they hit them, how come?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/akowmx/eli5_why_are_ruperts_drops_so_strong/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef6m0f6",
"ef9ilpb"
],
"score": [
15,
6
],
"text": [
"Due to the way they're made, the heads of the drops have a surface compressive stress thats equal to nearly 7000 times atmospheric pressure. This gives the head of the drop an extremely high fracture point, making it difficult to break, even by a bullet.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSource if you want to read more: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"**tl;dr;tl;dr** Watch this cool video: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n**tl;dr** Rupert's Drops are just a crude method of manufacturing tempered glass. Rapidly cooling heated glass causes the outside of the material to solidify first, while the molten inside continues to pull in on itself as it cools. This causes huge tensile pressure, creating a very strong outer shell. Once the material fractures however, this broken tension causes a runaway fracture that destroys the drop. (The \"tails\" have nothing to do with the formation of tensile strength, and are simply a result of the gooey drop. However because they're nice and thin, they're the easiest parts to snap, causing a structural breakdown.)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n**ELI5**\n\nGlass is full of millions of little particles, all holding hands. When you heat a glob of glass, all the little particles relax and become nice and gooey. They're still holding hands, but in a super chilled-out way.\n\nIf you feel like being mean, you can drop this gooey glob into a freezing bucket of water.\n\nWhen you do this, the particles on the outside of the glob are the first ones to touch the water. This causes them a huge shock, and they immediately tense up. They pull really hard on their neighbours because they're so cold. This causes a shell of tensed-up particles to form on the outside of the glob.\n\nAll the particles on the inside of the glob take a bit longer to feel the cold water. When they do, they look around and are surprised to see their outside-neighbours have already stiffened up. They pull against their outside-neighbours anyway, and cause even **more** tension to build up.\n\nThis continues to happen, layer by layer, until all the glass particles have stiffened up, right down to the center.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nUsually, the harder the particles in a material hold onto each other, the stronger the material becomes. So if you hit our solidified glass glob with a hammer, it won't care, because the particles are holding onto each other so hard.\n\nBut our Rupert's Drop has a secret; all the glass particles are holding each other in a chain, and they're relying on each other to keep the pressure up.\n\nDiamonds don't have this problem, because the particles in a diamond have a bunch of arms, holding onto several neighbours at once.\n\nBut if you snap a particle in our Rupert's Drop, its neighbours will fall over, causing their neighbours to fall over too, and so on, and so on.\n\nThis causes the drop to explode.\n\nThe \"tails\" on a Rupert's Drop are the easiest bits to snap, because they're nice and thin.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWe can make better Rupert's Drops with clever machines that carefully heat and cool different pieces of glass really evenly. You can find this special glass in phones, cars, buildings, and aeroplanes. It's called \"tempered\" glass."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-year-old-mystery-prince-rupert.html"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-f4gokRBs"
]
] |
|
2gcbyf
|
since life has existed longer in the oceans than on dry land, why has nothing close to the equivalent to human intelligence ever evolved under water?
|
So millions of years ago life crawled from the oceans and in time evolved to the words I am typing now. Why did it take that step from water to dry land to make that advancement in intelligence possible? Why has the equivalent in intelligence never developed in an environment that has sustained life longer than dry land has?
Edit: Thanks for everyone's replies! It was very interesting for my first ELI5.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gcbyf/eli5_since_life_has_existed_longer_in_the_oceans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckhp166",
"ckhp9qe",
"ckhpahr",
"ckhpbom",
"ckhpjuk",
"ckhpmbm",
"ckhpprn",
"ckhrjfe"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
5,
2,
3,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"who said it hasn't. have you looked at the family structure and bond that exists in killer whales, as well as the social acceptance of outside killer whales inta preexisting group. also have you looked at dolphins. both these animals may not use words but communicate and are very intelligent. ",
"It seems the big problem is failing to make the distinction between intelligence and dexterous utilization of it. There are water bound creatures with who it is not immediately clear just how far their cognition is from a human. The primary issues seems to be that aqueous environments require fins for mobility, or otherwise fairly specialized task-specific utensils, and the construction of civilization requires dexterity.\n\nI can imagine dolphins whales, octopi, potentially being frustrated seeing human civilization, realizing \"we can do that too\" and then having their dreams shattered because they can't find one damn mutant in the ocean with five fingers who can hold a hammer.",
"After moving to land warm blooded animals evolved. A powerful brain is extremely energy costly and this requires warm blood. /u/armadilloeater mentioned dolphins, another warm blooded mammal. Mammals and birds are warm blooded and did not arise until the move to land, I would suggest warm blood is the difference.\n\nFrom this point, high intelligence has only evolved once and it was in humans. This shows us that this is an extremely rare adaptation and does not easily arise. It took a long time to appear in humans despite living on land and having warm blood.",
"I believe it's the sheer odds of it all. The things that have to occur for the development of intelligence like ours are so incredibly difficult to achieve makes me feel like we just got lucky.",
"It just seems logically to me that since water is such a drastically different environment than what humans developed in, evolution would have found an additional path to development that wouldn't require dry land. But I guess whales would definitely be an example of evolving. ",
"One theory is that cooking allowed us to to partly break down the food before it gets to our stomachs, this allowing us to absorb more calories. This obviously can't be done underwater, even if the animal had hands and suitable tools. ",
"Dry land is arguably a more hostile environment which requires greater adaptability. Many aquatic creatures have remained more or less unchanged for millions of years simply because there is no benefit in changing. How they are just plain works, period.\n\nIt isn't as if evolution is a conscious entity with a plan. Human intelligence works pretty well for humans. Other animals have qualities that work much better for them.",
"Another explanation is that evolution doesn't work toward intelligence. Evolution works toward survival. Whatever trait will help an organism survive is passed down the line to the next generation. Human level intelligence simply happened upon us and has worked well for us. Marine life is doing well with what it has. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
awfukq
|
why does revenge feel so good?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/awfukq/eli5_why_does_revenge_feel_so_good/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehm7osx",
"ehmbunt",
"ehmbvpm"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A sense of justice being served",
"Some interesting Buddhist-style imprecations on here, but I'll offer my own thinking that revenge is an adaptive behaviour. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nMany intelligent animals have a sense of justice, it's been shown time and again that animals including chimps, ravens, dolphins, and your humble *H. sapiens* have a sense of fairness. Not only that, but animals will punish or exclude individuals who cheat or are unfair with others. Perhaps the satisfaction of revenge stems from a desire to punish an injustice?",
"Because it can restore your ego a bit"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3wn176
|
Why can't we 're-start' dead cells?
|
I'm specifically curious about cells that have died from a lack of oxygen, I'm aware that this can cause a buildup of toxins that can change pH and de-regulate enzymes, but I don't see how that could structurally compromise the cell - presumably all the necessary parts for, say, a neuron, are still present if it suffocates.
It seems to me like the line between life and death for a cell is less clear for a cell than for a person, and in certain circumstances it seems there is so little difference between a dead and living cell that a flush of the cytoplasm or a rebalance of the pH could get it going again, yet as far as I know we don't do this, why?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3wn176/why_cant_we_restart_dead_cells/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxy8fo3",
"cxyhxm3",
"cxz7hp6"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing it's something to do with apoptosis, 'Programmed cell death'. By the time a cell has been compromised somewhat, it will kill itself; I'm guessing that there'd be no point in attempting to resurrect cells in a being where the cells most affected by the cause of death have already destroyed themselves totally. This is all conjecture, by the way, I'm just a lowly A Level student :) ",
"Entropy. Cells are constantly rebuilding bits of themselves that have spontaneously degraded or have been damaged by some force (oxidizing agents, radiation, physical strain). When they die, bits begin to degrade but aren't fixed. The most damaging to continued cell function are the cellular membrane and the DNA. If the membrane is damaged, the cell can no longer control its internal environment, so many proteins ect cease to function. If the DNA is damaged the cell can no longer produce the proteins and RNA necessary for normal function.",
"The most immediate effect of lack of oxygen to a cell is lack of ability to efficiently produce energy (ATP). The cell could still produce energy with a low level of efficiency via fermentation of glucose (Im assuming you are referring to human cells) Fermentation leads to the production of lactic acid and when it is the sole process by which the cell is producing energy, causes a buildup of acid, lowering the pH of the cell outside the range for the cells proteins/enzymes to function. Leading to a shutdown of even the Fermentation pathway, leading to a zero ATP production. \n As Energy levels of the cells decline, the cell cannot power pumps (Sodium Potassium ATPase's) that maintain the cells hydrostatic equilibrium with the extracellular environment. As that occurs, there is an influx of water into the cell in order to equilibrate the cells internal concentration with the outside environment, this rapid influx causes the cell to swell, eventually leading it to lyse (pop like a balloon) due to volume overload, disseminating is cell membrane and spilling intracellular contents to the exterior.\n\ntl;dr: cells lose oxygen- > lose energy- > lose ability to osmotically regulate\n- > lose membrane integrity and essentially explode "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4wa8oq
|
In the times of Ancient Greece and Rome, how would the state make sure those who had been exiled would not come back?
|
Surely it would be possible for someone to make their way back to a Roman city simply without being recognized?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4wa8oq/in_the_times_of_ancient_greece_and_rome_how_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d663lx0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Well the thing to remember is that exile is a punishment for the elites. You need money/wealth to be able to just pick up and go live in another state/city. And if you're one of the elites, you're well known because you were politically active. For Athens, ostracism was (in theory) to remove any politician who became *too* popular and thus a risk to the democracy. That kind of person is unlikely to be able to sneak back in unrecognized."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
v3yxc
|
How does drinking distilled water differ from tap water in regards to the health of a person who suffers from gout?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v3yxc/how_does_drinking_distilled_water_differ_from_tap/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c515ptz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Probably not at all. Gout is unrelated to the salts (calcium, magnesium, etc.) found in trace amounts in tap water; instead, it results from uric acid that precipitates in joints and tendons. It is generally thought that this uric acid (which is comprised solely of [hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen](_URL_1_)) came from purines in vegetables, although that theory is now defunct.\n\nIt has been suggested that gout may stem at least in part from [overconsumption of fructose.](_URL_0_)\n\nIn short, there should be little to no difference between distilled and tap water as it relates to gout."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/10/05/gout/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uric_acid"
]
] |
||
5jl625
|
why does everything feel so soft when you've just woken up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jl625/eli5_why_does_everything_feel_so_soft_when_youve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbh42a0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Can you elaborate, OP? I've been waking up for years and have never noticed a difference in how things feel immediately after waking up. Whether it's my bed, the floor, my clothing, my breakfast, or whatever, it doesn't feel any different than it does later on in the day. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1tmz4t
|
Given they formed in relative proximity to one another, why are some of the moons of Jupiter (Io and Europa) so vastly different in composition?
|
I can understand over vast cosmic distances that certain heavenly bodies would be of differing makeups, but -- save for a moon being "captured" into a planet's orbit -- shouldn't it be expected that moons forming around the same planet would share roughly the same composition? Perhaps I'm assuming a greater difference than there actually is with Europa and Io. Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1tmz4t/given_they_formed_in_relative_proximity_to_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce9pc6r"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Here's the thing about the moons of the outer planets: we don't know a lot about their interior composition. There's certainly a lot of evidence to suggest the presence or absence of particular structures, such as the liquid water oceans on Europa, but until we get missions out there to study each of these moons, we can only really hypothesize.\n\nThat said, while there is a great degree of variation in the compounds observed on the surfaces of these moons, it's likely that the abundances of specific elements are actually quite similar across the board, taking the interior compositions into consideration. Keep in mind that the Earth and its moon, despite being formed from the same material in the same region of the Solar system, have very different surface features. If this proves to be an insufficient explanation, then further work will be needed to explain why one particular moon is predominantly composed of silicates while another is predominantly composed of volatiles. In any case, there's definitely an opportunity for more science to be done."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bd71rt
|
Why does the annual Arctic sea ice minimum happen at around the autumn equinox?
|
My intuition suggests it would occur either around the summer solstice, as that's when sunlight is at a maximum; or just afterwards in July, as that's when temperatures are usually at their highest.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bd71rt/why_does_the_annual_arctic_sea_ice_minimum_happen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekwnzsq"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It's like how the hottest part of the day isn't when the sun is at it's peak. There's a thermal lag due to the atmosphere needing to heat up and still receiving enough heat to offset how much it's trying to cool. \n\nSimilarly, the coldest part of the day is right before sunrise because it's the longest stretch of cooling."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1of4za
|
Was Attila really a great military leader?
|
I have been reading a fair amount about Attila and his campaigns into the western and eastern Roman Empires. he seems to do a pretty good job of convincing them to commit to peace and to give the Hunic empire tribute. But, I have heard little of his actual leading ability, and even less of his leading ability in war times. Also Rome sounds as if it were weakened when he attacked, E.G. Famines, Earth quakes in Constantinople.
Also was his conquest again the Gothic people when first attacking the Western Roman Empire that great, hadn't the Goth's just landed in Europe (Sorry if that is woefully wrong, I know little about the Goths)?
Sorry if this question is a little too broad.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1of4za/was_attila_really_a_great_military_leader/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccrgsos",
"ccrlm4u"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"I haven't used this subreddit so I don't know if my answer is correct, but I study medieval history in Montreal and I asked one of my teacher, Hungarian historian Piroska Nagy, a similar question.\n\nShe answered that, if we focus on the military aspect of the late Antiquity barbarians conquests, the advantage of the Huns against their enemies wasn't that much of tactical military superiority, but their totally different approach of war. In other words, taking specifically the Romans, well they knew how to fight against celtics, germans, persians, etc. but had no idea how to defend themselves against these asiatics horse riding bloodthirsty archers warriors.",
"Attila was like a preview of Genghis Khan (or maybe Ogedei). His leadership must have been pretty significant to take charge of a bunch of disparate steppe warriors only and keep them running as a cohesive and dominating fighting force. Rome was certainly very weak and the Western half was in its death throes. The huns had the added advantage of being used as mercenaries for Roman interests before they decided they could make more by sacking/getting tribute, so they knew how the Roman military machine worked. All-in-all, Attila must have been a very strong leader, the huns were recently united and ready to pillage, all their enemies were the weakest they've ever been, and they had ridiculous mobility only helped by Roman roads, so they had free reign of Europe. Like all successful people, it's always a combination of skill and timing (i.e. luck!)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3qucx3
|
How often were war pigs used in battle? We're they as effective against war elephants as we are led to believe?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qucx3/how_often_were_war_pigs_used_in_battle_were_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwipsam"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The best-known instance of pigs being used against elephants was the battle of Maleventum where the Romans \"drove them [Pyrrhus's elephants] off using pigs coated with grease and pitch, which they turned into live torches. Their [the pigs'] shrill, dying squeals made the huge pachyderms panic and put into flight\"\n\nSo, that's the bulk of the story, right there. The Romans set some pigs on fire and the elephants didn't like the sound and shied away. As would I. Healthy, happy pigs make horrible noises. Pigs burning to death must be about the worst sound there is. Also note that the story doesn't say the pigs charged the elephants. The Romans might have kept them in pens. \n\nI don't know if being set on fire qualifies the pigs as combatants. It certainly doesn't make them \"war pigs\" in the sense of a \"war horse.\"\n\nThe Romans--and many other cultures in the ancient world--were wary (or just frightened of) elephants in battle because the great beasts were the day's equivalent of the tank. Whenever some invading army showed up with elephants (Pyrrhus in this case) the Roman's lacked an easy counter (they had no elephants), so there are a number of Brer Fox-esque tales where the Romans defeat the elephants through trickery. Aside from the flaming pigs, the Romans also tried building these crazy calliope-carts filled with anti-elephant caltrops and specialized halberd-like devices designed to cut their trunks and flaming grappling hooks. I imagine them looking somewhere between a da Vinci drawing and something out of Mad Max.\n\nThe carts didn't work. Pyrrhus just kept his elephants away from them and sent archers to kill the men inside. \n\nOn an unrelated, but heartbreaking note, several primary sources also mention that female elephants with calves would refuse to fight (or just go straight crazy) if separated from their offspring, so sometimes those calves had to go into battle with their mothers. If those babies were harmed, the mother was likely to go on a rampage, often killing indiscriminately.\n\nIt's like _Dumbo_ in hell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2v96ib
|
Why was there so little direct oceanic trade between Britain and the Mediterranean in the ancient period?
|
I'm new to Reddit, so please excuse me if this question has been asked and answered before (I didn't see it in the FAQ). My understanding is that the bulk of Roman trade between Britain and the rest of the Roman Empire was conducted overland, with trade routes heading through France and only a short trip by ship across the English Channel. But pre-modern historians often make reference to the fact that it was much cheaper and quicker to ship goods by water than by land, which would seem to suggest that the more obvious trade route, at least for heavy goods, would be to take them by ship along the west coast of France and Spain into the Mediterranean. How much Atlantic shipping was there in the Roman period? If I'm correct that there wasn't much of it, why wasn't there more?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2v96ib/why_was_there_so_little_direct_oceanic_trade/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coggh8q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"One reason may be that the journey through the straits and around Spain is a long and surprisingly difficult one. It's over 5000km, roughly ten times the overland distance. You're also on the Atlantic coast, which is considerably rougher than the Mediterranean (although I'm sure the more experienced seafarers could handle it). Comparing naval vs overland movement in this period, even a naval journey ten times longer might still be preferred. But if you have an overland trade route through friendly territory, that would weigh in its favour.\n\nMoreover, I recently heard a comment about sailing through the Straits of Gibraltar. I'm pretty certain it was in the lecture linked [here](_URL_0_). The speaker comments that sailing West through the Straits of Gibraltar is easy, but going the other way the wind and currents are against you. So the crusader fleet which sailed from England was broken up and used for timber after it had served its purpose.\n\nIf we look ahead to Mediaeval times, the overland route to the Mediterranean remained key for English trade, and control of the south of France was economically very important for England."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2uecoi/how_were_early_medieval_battles_usually_fought/co7o6rl"
]
] |
|
7155xw
|
what is the difference between a ba in a science and a b.s. in a science?
|
I'm a Canadian and I've never seen a B.A. in science (such as chemistry) before and am curious what this means and how it compares to a B.S.. I think the BA is a more US Thing as I found it on a US schools website.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7155xw/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_ba_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn8eicw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is 100% dependent on the whims of a given school, and there is no general answer to it.\n\nIn my experience, if both are offered in a natural science, the BA takes a bit more superficial look at the subject, and may avoid research methods, labs, etc. The credit hours required *may* be less.\n\nFor something like psychology, I note that BA and BS are basically interchangeable, and are usually based upon what college psych falls under. If it's part of the College of Liberal Arts, BA, or if College of Science, BS. When both are offered, it seems to be divided by topic - BA may be general psychology, while BS is more specific like Industrial/Organizational psychology. But you can't assume that the BS is more scientifically rigorous in this case."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cj5zs5
|
What's the difference between an emulsifier, a solubilizer, and a surfactant?
|
When I look it up, it all sounds like the same thing and it's confusing me.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cj5zs5/whats_the_difference_between_an_emulsifier_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evcqhsj",
"evel4e4"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Gosh it has been a while since I’ve seen these so bear with me.\n\nEmulsifier reduces the polar/non polar interactions between substances like oil and water and allows them to mix well but nothing dissolved between them both are still the same chemically.\n\nSolubilizer allows for greater dissociation. Like salt would dissolve better to Na and Cl.\n\nSurfactant I thought reduced surface tension of liquids.\n\nLet me know what you find out.",
"Essentially these names can be interchangeable and you would ideally include context.\n\nEmulsifier is any chemical that will promote or create an emulsion. It does not necessarily have to be at the interface. It can work via electrostatics, charges, surface tension or man other types of forces. The type of chemical can be a salt, a surfactant, a solvent, a mineral, a colloid, a polymer, a protein, a carbohydrate, a small organic molecule or almost anything really. You can even make an emulsion using physical force by shaking something really well.\n\nSolublizer is any chemical that promotes getting a material into solution. It can be a solvent, a co-solvent, a salt, etc. etc. For instance, you could run vegetable oil into chewing gum to aid dissolving the gum, but you might use a salt to better get a protein into water.\n\nSurfactant is a tighter definition. Simplest is a chemical that has both polar and non-polar areas that can form a *micelle*."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1utgsk
|
the difference between technocracy and meritocracy
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1utgsk/eli5_the_difference_between_technocracy_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"celht0b",
"celi0x8"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Technocracies are based on knowledge, so the smartest man rules, while a meritocracy is based on accomplishments.\n\nEdit:\n\nAs /u/Sibbour mentions, the two concepts are more than likely to overlap: the smartest man can only be determined demonstrably, which makes it a meritocracy.",
"They're quite similar. All Technocracies are Meritocracies, but not all Meritocracies are Technocracies. \n\nFor an ELI5 explanation, a Technocracy occurs when the HIGHEST offices are held by unelected individuals with special skills. [Italy from 2011-2013 is a good example.](_URL_1_) A Meritocracy is more so having a highly skilled and qualified bureaucracy. For example, having qualified scientists in the Department of Energy, qualified teachers in the Department of Education, etc. \n\nThe aesthesis of a Meritocracy would be filling bureaucratic positions with unqualified people, usually done as a political favor. [Andrew Jackson is infamous for the Spoils System, the aesthesis of a Meritocracy](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Monti"
]
] |
||
2q90qd
|
Where were Ibn Battuta's wives during his travels?
|
I've been reading some English translations of the Rihla and it's always quite unclear about who is actually with him during different parts of his travels. I'm sure his party was constantly changing, but I'm particularly curious about his wives and slaves. Did he bring them along? If not, where did he leave them?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2q90qd/where_were_ibn_battutas_wives_during_his_travels/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn47pwr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This isn't an answer but.. which translation of the Rihla did you read, and did you find it interesting?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
l8oqv
|
why acid doesn't burn the test tube but it will burn other things?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l8oqv/eli5_why_acid_doesnt_burn_the_test_tube_but_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2qo5uo",
"c2qoeix",
"c2qo5uo",
"c2qoeix"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"The pyrex glass used in test tubes is extremely non-reactive",
"To explain even further;\n\nThe reason acid seems to \"eat\" through things is because it doesn't have an even amount of electrons. the electrons REALLY want to bond with more electrons to become even. so when something with electrons that can be pulled off easily (reactive) is introduced it's broken up chemically. Pyrex and glass in general is extyremely non reactive.",
"The pyrex glass used in test tubes is extremely non-reactive",
"To explain even further;\n\nThe reason acid seems to \"eat\" through things is because it doesn't have an even amount of electrons. the electrons REALLY want to bond with more electrons to become even. so when something with electrons that can be pulled off easily (reactive) is introduced it's broken up chemically. Pyrex and glass in general is extyremely non reactive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ecbe7
|
how do breast implants work?
|
So I've seen a couple of plastic surgery shows; the most popular surgery being breast augmentation. Although, I've seen it performed multiple times, I'm still confused as to what happens to all the "organic" tissue that resides in a breast when a cilicone inhancement is forced in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ecbe7/eli5_how_do_breast_implants_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjy4fet"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's still there. The implant simply pushes the organic tissue outward, making the breasts larger."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
aebhxp
|
why do people read in a different voice than they would speak regularly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aebhxp/eli5_why_do_people_read_in_a_different_voice_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edo25wm",
"edseipv"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Presentation.\n\nMost people reading out loud have an audience, and therefore try to make things more interesting to listen to.",
"People use their story-telling voices when they read out loud. If they don't use the same story-telling voice when telling a story, they're doing one of those things wrong.\n\nUnless it's a textbook. Then you're hearing the sounds of weariness and confusion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
bwxwg7
|
out of all the money raised for cancer why does pediatric cancer get less then 5 percent.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bwxwg7/elif_out_of_all_the_money_raised_for_cancer_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eq1b4gv"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"I’m no expert on cancer funding, but keep in mind that less than 1% of new cancer diagnoses are in children. With this context, 5% of total funding (if that is the actual number) is already disproportionately high.\n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-in-children/key-statistics.html"
]
] |
||
fyw28
|
What protocol do human nerves use?
|
If I were to take the signal wire that goes to a servo on a robot and spy on the output I'd see digital PWM signals.
If I could interface with the nerves that for example control the muscles and spy on those connections what protocol would I find? I know it's electrical but I'm unable to find what it is.
Is it a varying analogue voltage? Pulse Width Modulation? Serial :) ?
Is this protocol the same for all nerves in the body or do the nerves that control muscles have a different protocol from the nerves that receive the input from the senses?
EDIT: Thank you all. I have a vague idea now in what direction I should research.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fyw28/what_protocol_do_human_nerves_use/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1jo4n8",
"c1jo8b9",
"c1joo4i",
"c1jovat"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"I'm pretty sure there's not a protocol. Frequency of action potentials encodes to intensity of stimulus, but that's not really a protocol in the sense that a different message will be sent by different codes.",
"It's mostly spikes of difference in potential that travels through the nerves. Upon reaching the end of the nerve, at the axone, the difference in potential provokes the release of neurotransmitters. For the muscular nerves, try looking up neuromuscular junction.\nI don't think there's a protocol, in a sense that I don't think there is a symbolic form of communication between muscles and nerves. The basic signal is a bunch of spikes of potential. Signals from neurmuscular junctions of a given muscle add up to provoke muscle's response in a complex way.",
"The output of a neuron is a voltage spike along its axon (axon ~ output signal wire). The amplitude and width of the voltage spikes are fixed, so information is generally encoded in the frequency of spiking. \n\nTo drive a muscle to contract, the motor neuron connected to it will fire voltages pulses into it more frequently.\n\nThe protocol for all neurons is roughly the same. For any given neuron, voltage pulses are received as input from some number of other neurons, the cell decides what its output should be, then it sends some output pulses along its output.",
"Action potentials are all-or-none and pretty homogeneous across neurons, meaning that the spike itself is just a \"hey!\" signal. This signal is often described as binary, but it's not, quite. In a binary representation, 1 and 0 convey equal information; in a neural system, the presence of a spike conveys a lot more information than the absence of one. The complexity of neural signaling is an emergent property of the network - which neurons connect to which others, how strong these connections are, whether the connections are excitatory or inhibitory, the timing of other inputs onto the same output neuron, etc. It's a complex symphony of chemistry, electricity, diffusion, and molecular dynamics. It's also a highly dynamic system, so a set of inputs that triggers a neuron to fire on Monday may not do the same thing on Thursday.\n\nThis doesn't mean that understanding the nervous system is completely hopeless. We've made a lot of progress over the decades, and at this point have a rough map pretty well figured out. We've also mapped out some specific circuits in detail (for example, we have a pretty good understanding of neural processing in the retina, at least for the frog). For others, though, the way in which information is encoded is still mysterious. For example, we can't easily predict the pattern of activity on the auditory nerve that results from any but the simplest sounds. This indicates, to me at least, that there's no single way that information is represented within the nervous system.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2b6r7v
|
why doesn't youtube comments have a voting system like reddit where the downvotes actually count? wouldn't this solve their current problem of having incredibly vile and insulting comments staying on top?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b6r7v/eli5_why_doesnt_youtube_comments_have_a_voting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj2bsu9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Youtube's comment system does take into consideration down-votes, but it also considers the number of replies when ranking comments. The idea is that comments which are more insightful and encourage discussion will garner more replies, so comments with lots of replies are usually ranked near the top. This, however, means that many controversial comments also get ranked higher because they are so provocative."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3dmz7p
|
Why do my hands feel tingly after using power tools for a prolonged time?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3dmz7p/why_do_my_hands_feel_tingly_after_using_power/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct765rq",
"ct7c7tk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe I have more of a severe case. I hardly ever use powertools but the other weekend I went Kayaking and my hands we're tingling for 2+ hours after. Plus anytime I use a lawn mower or anything its the same. Maybe it's my gripping too hard because it happens if i'm playing fighting games too. Its uncomfortable and annoying :/",
"Vibration sensation on the skin is via Pacinian corpuscles, which sense the vibration and send it to the brain. (Larger movements that affect the limb are also detected via proprioception, which is how you know where your body is positioned even if you can't see it.) After a while of continuous vibration, your brain starts to ignore the sensation, until the sensation stops. I suspect part of the feeling is the same mechanism as phantom limb, where a sudden loss of sensation confuses the brain and you still \"feel\" it temporarily, or the sensation of a still-rocking boat even if you just stepped on land seconds ago."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1tapqj
|
how does one damage his/her eyesight when using electronics or reading small text?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tapqj/eli5how_does_one_damage_hisher_eyesight_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce644hh"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Eyes are not damaged by reading small things. The worst you can do, really, is get eyestrain or a headache."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
234dgu
|
If sound travels at 340.29 m / s, then how come we can't feel it like wind?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/234dgu/if_sound_travels_at_34029_m_s_then_how_come_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgtbrma"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Two reasons. First, the sound causes the air to move back and forth rapidly, anywhere between 20 and 20000 times per second. This is quite unlike wind, which is (more or less) moving in a steady direction.\n\nSecond, and more to the point that you're making, even for very loud sounds, the velocity of the *air itself* is very low. This might seem odd, but remember that the speed of sound is the speed of the disturbance, not the air. The particle velocity is going to be determined by the acoustic impedance of air and the pressure level. Consider a sound pressure of 94 dB, or 1 Pa. The acoustic impedance of air is given as the sound pressure over the particle velocity, and is a property of the medium. For air, this value is about 415 Pa/(m/s). Dividing 1 Pa by 415 gives us 0.0024 m/s, which is less than one cm/s!\n\nMoreover, we can use these two values to find the total distance the air moves. Particle displacement is given by u/(2\\*pi\\*f), where f is frequency and u is the particle velocity we found above. Let's assume we have a tone at 1000 Hz, right in the middle of our hearing range. Plugging the numbers in you get a displacement of 380 *nanometers*. Very small indeed!\n\nSo, basically, while the sound is moving very fast, the air itself is hardly moving at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
67yna8
|
what effect will the proposed tax cuts have on the economy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67yna8/eli5_what_effect_will_the_proposed_tax_cuts_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgu97u9",
"dguemca"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Free up money for those who made it to spend as they wish, accelerating demand, creating new taxpayers, and more money into the great sucking maw of the federal treasury, which has orders of magnitude more money than it needs. \n\nTalk of \"paying for tax cuts,\" \"tax giveaways,\" and \"the rich\" is nothing more than demagoguery for the economically illiterate. ",
"Short answer: We don't know.\n\nLong answer: seriously, we don't know. The only information given is changing the tax rate to 15%. Even if you assume this means the effective tax rate (as the tax rate is already 15% for low earning businesses), we have no idea how this would be structured.\n\nOn top of that, most companies don't even pay the effective tax rate. This is mostly due the countless number ways different companies benefit from various forms of deductions, tax deferral, etc. So in order to really say what will happen to the \"economy\", you'd have to know what it specifically entails, and even then, you'd be merely speculating.\n\nThe stated goal is to incentivize companies to remain in the US as opposed to moving their operations abroad. The US has the 2nd highest effective tax rate, at 35%, however we also have the largest consumer base with the US making up 29% of the worlds consumer spending. The next 5 countries combined only make up roughly 27-28%.\n\nThe changes from 35% to 15% are not actually that drastic if you remove the majority of deductions businesses taking advantage of. The average effective tax rate for all US business over the last 2 decades was roughly between 15-20%.\n\nAnd none of these comparisons are even fair because every country has different tax laws and depending on your business, you may have more or less benefit based on that country.\n\nFinally, everyone is affected different by \"changes\" in the economy. When people push rhetoric that something is good or bad for the economy, what they really mean is \"this is good or bad for me\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
656qc1
|
if you stay in the air long enough will you see rotation of the earth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/656qc1/eli5_if_you_stay_in_the_air_long_enough_will_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg7upms"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No. Just being airborne doesn't change the fact that you are rotating with the earth. You'd need some other force to decelerate you. \n\nHowever you can provide some of that force. If you were standing at the equator, rotating with the earth west to east at 1000 mph, and you leaped to the west at 2mph, your speed in the west to east direction would now be 998mph. You would see the Earth rotating beneath you at 2mph. \n\nTo see the earth rotating below you at 1000mph, you'd have to jump west at 1000mph, which means no skipping leg day. Also the headwinds would be pretty ferocious and inclined to push you back towards the rotational direction. Also you'd die.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5h3ab5
|
li5] what is a cytokine storm?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h3ab5/eli5_li5_what_is_a_cytokine_storm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dax87jr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Say you have a swat team that needs to go kill a bad guy. They have signals that they use to talk to each other. Usually they are really calculated and in control when fighting bad guys. But say you go into a house expecting a basic drug raid, and it turns out there's a bunch of super powerful aliens everywhere. The aliens start killing everyone like it's nothing. The swat team might reasonably start freaking out. Instead of controlled, calculated hand signals, they might start screaming \"OPEN FIRE!!!\" They might start panicking and telling their teammates to panic too. Their teammates might start shooting everyone they see, friend or foe. They might start throwing grenades everywhere. It might turn out that the damage the swat team does is even greater than the scary aliens they are afraid of. The bigger the swat team that goes in, the more the damage.\n\nIn the same way, chemokines are signals that various cells use to talk to each other. They can't use hand or verbal signals, but they can dump these protein based chemical signals into the interstitial fluid, and those proteins might float around like a message in a bottle until another cell sees it and picks it up. If there are a bunch of signals, the white blood cells (swat team) might start freaking out and attacking everything, and they might start screaming themselves and dump more chemokines into the fluid to warn other white blood cells. The stronger the immune system, the more swat team members there are to panic, and the more friendly fire damage they can do.\n\n* So the cytokine storm is basically the white blood cells panicking and shouting to shoot everything, including your healthy cells.\n\n* The Flu Pandemic of 1918 is an example of this immune system overreaction. More healthy people died than young/old people with weak immune systems because most of the deaths were caused by an overreacting immune system causing friendly fire than any actual threat. The stronger their immune system (swat team) was, the more friendly fire damage it could do. The influenza virus that year looked really scary to people's immune system such that their panicked state caused more damage than the flu itself.\n\n* There aren't enough details about the encephalitis lethargica situation for anyone to know what really happened, but it's possible that it was the same cytokine storm situation.\n\nAutoimmune reactions (body mistakenly attacking itself) cause a lot of deaths from allergies to cytokine storm. Human are pretty great at staying alive, but it goes wrong every once in a while."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2dj0zy
|
considering they are related to wolves. when a dog is playing fetch, what does it think it is doing?
|
As in, what would be the point in the wild. Why do they seem to enjoy the game so much.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dj0zy/eli5_considering_they_are_related_to_wolves_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjpxfej"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It simulates hunting prey. That's why dogs like squeaky toys, they sound like injured animals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1netr5
|
How did the apollo 11 mission protect against solar radiation?
|
For that matter, how do the technologies we use today work? It seems like coating everything in lead isn't cost-effective (too much weight to launch into space) but I don't really know what they did use, but it seems they didn't have the same coatings we use today.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1netr5/how_did_the_apollo_11_mission_protect_against/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cci028b",
"cci0a1v",
"cci0h4l",
"cci535e"
],
"score": [
9,
8,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"This may not be the best answer but seeing as the only current response is the idiotic one by chubsthemagicwagon I'll give it brief overview. First of all we aren't great at it that is one of the major obstacles to going to mars. On earth we have atmosphere and earths magnetic field to protect us, in leo no atmosphere but still magnetic field protection. Beyond that you shield the best you can and try to not stay out for too long.\n\n[source] (_URL_0_)",
"In short, they dealt with the problem by making sure they weren't exposed for too long. The US Atomic Energy Commission sets acceptable does levels for workers using radioactive materials and the estimate doses for the astronauts during this time were \"significantly lower than (the limit of) 5 rem.\" [1] (_URL_1_)\n\nThere are a few different things to worry about in space, first there are the Van Allen Belts, giant clouds of high energy particles trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. These two clouds extend from about 1000 to 60000 km away from the earth's surface and do pose a serious issue for deep space travel. (LEO missions such as the International Space Station stay below the inner belt, and I remember reading a slightly supervilliany sounding proposal by some Russian Engineers to actually drain the Van Allen Belts using some giant cables.) The Apollo Missions dealt with these belts by essentially moving through them very quickly, limiting the total dosage to acceptable levels. \n\nThe second serious concern is Solar Particle radiation. The Sun blasts our solar system with a 'solar wind' of charged particles, and will occasionally let out a large spike in activity. Because of the difficulties in modelling the plasmadynamics of our sun, these events are very difficult to forecast. The background dosage of radiation from the steady wind was not strong enough to pose a danger to the astronauts while they were in the command module, it neither would an average a solar flare event. This was because the relatively thick pressure vessel of the CM could absorb enough radiation to keep them safe, but if a flare had gone off during an EVA or when the astronauts were inside the thin-walled Lunar Module the radiation doses would have been \"extremely serious\" (again see source above.) Since NASA had people monitoring the solar weather at the time, it seems likely that if a strong flare had happened, they could have aborted the lunar landing and stayed in the CM.\n\nThe final hazard are cosmic rays, basically very high energy particles coming from outside the solar system whose origins are not even now very well understood (I actually find cosmic rays incredibly interesting, go read about Very High Energy Cosmic Rays on Wikipedia). At the time of the Apollo missions the effects of these rays were not well understood, but the general approach was to estimate the dosage, (0.6-1.0 mRads per hour) and take it as part of the risks. The missions were generally not long enough for this to be a problem, but a very long mission (such as to Mars) would have some problems with these. Go read [2] for more information about the health threats from cosmic rays and how we might deal with them on future interplanetary missions.(_URL_0_)\n\nA fairly extensive treatment is also given here: (PDF warning): [3](_URL_2_)",
"They didn't, for the most part. The missions were very short in the grand scheme of things, and the expected radiation dosages weren't a huge concern. The astronauts did report occasional \"flashes\" in their vision though, which are [believed to be the result of cosmic rays striking their retinas](_URL_1_).\n\nThat said, if you're curious as to how NASA *would* have dealt with cosmic radiation and solar flares on a long duration mission, they explain it in their plan for a [manned Venus flyby](_URL_0_). Basically, they'd have a small portion of the craft designated as a radiation shelter, and they'd pack food, water and equipment around the edges to act as shielding. They calculated that they'd need 5g/cm^2 of shielding to keep exposure (at 0.7AU, rather than Earth orbit) at \"tolerable\" dosages.",
"_URL_0_ - Full Article\n\nRADIATION PLAN FOR THE APOLLO LUNAR MISSION\n\nJerry L. Modisette, Manuel D. Lopez, and Joseph W. Snyder\nSpace Physics Division\nNASA Manned Spacecraft Center\n\n\nAbstract\n\n The radiation protection plan for the Apollo Pro-\ngram is based on real-time monitoring of solar ac-\ntivity and radiation in the spacecraft to provide\ndata on which to base estimates of the radiation to\nbe expected. The major radiation hazard is from so-\nlar flare particle events, which are unlikely to\noccur during any given mission. The monitoring sys-\ntem, consisting of onboard dosimeters and the Solar\nParticle Alert Network, provides early warning \nthrough observation of solar flares and the associ-\nated radio bursts and a continual updating of the\nradiation picture as particles arrive at the space-\ncraft. Prediction criteria have been developed\nwhich are progressively revised as more data are\nreceived, with a corresponding reduction in the\nerror limits on the prediction of radiation dose.\n\n The criteria are initially based on the energy in\nthe radio burst, with flare classification, location\non the sun, delay time between the flare and parti-\ncle arrival at the spacecraft, and particle flux\nmeasurements factored in as data become available.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/284275main_Radiation_HS_Mod3.pdf"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays",
"http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm",
"www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf"
],
[
"http://devin.com/cruft/19790072165_1979072165.pdf",
"http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S4CH2.htm"
],
[
"http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm"
]
] |
|
3lb12z
|
what is bandwith?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lb12z/eli5what_is_bandwith/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv4q48f"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Technically, it's the frequency width of a signal. On your radio for instance, you can tune into a radio station and still hear it slightly above and below the pinpoint frequency of the station. The full width of the signal is the bandwidth and is typically measured in Hertz.\n\nBandwidth has been colloquialized to mean 'data transmission rate.' The more bandwidth that an electrical signal has, the more data can be transmitted through that signal because the data can be sent at slightly different frequencies within the signal bandwidth. It's like the width of a road. A wide road can be split into more lanes so more cars can drive down it. Wide bandwidth can be split into lanes (or channels) to send more data. This is where the term television channels comes from. Each TV channel occupies a slightly different lane within the television signal bandwidth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5fg7mc
|
how is jill stein allowed to force states to hand recount ballots?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fg7mc/eli5_how_is_jill_stein_allowed_to_force_states_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dajzoo4",
"dajzw6g"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Anyone can call for a recount. Anyone. They simply have to pay for it. The expense is why it does not happen more often. ",
"She doesn't force the state. They just needed to raise enough money to pay for it. There's been multiple reports of faulty voting machines. As a result several computer scientists and lawyers recommended Jill Stein mount a recount. Originally the Clinton campaign and the White House weren't gonna ask for one. But at the recommendation of those individuals decided to get on board since Stein was gonna pay for it anyways. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6tct68
|
before birth, do humans have a sense of direction, or is that not developed until birth? also, if all the blood rushes to our heads when we are upside down, how come this doesn't happen to a fetus when in the birthing position?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6tct68/eli5before_birth_do_humans_have_a_sense_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlm9vhw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For a sense of direction I'm going to assume you mean knowing left from right, up from down, forward from backward. \n\nThis is called [relative direction] (_URL_0_ direction) \n\nThat wiki article has a section called \"Cultures without relative direction\" and highlights some societies which don't use this system. \n\nThis would suggest that a sense of direction is not innate but a learned cultural phenomenon. \n\nThough it might be that the sense of one's place within an environment or of one's own body relative to itself ([Proprioception] (_URL_1_)) could be innate but it's expression is culturally learned. \n\nTl:dr .... Not sure.. No one is "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception"
]
] |
||
1ghfcc
|
When drug metabolites are passed into the water supply through urine, how long do they remain there?
|
This question basically concerns the level of filtration within sewage plants. I'm aware that bacteria and possibly even viruses (TED talk - Poliovirus) are able to be mechanically filtered from a water supply.
Are there any chemical methods of removing such metabolites and if so how effective are these? Is it possible that there may be trace amounts of drug metabolites in the fresh water supply, from either recreational or prescription drugs?
Thanks in advance.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ghfcc/when_drug_metabolites_are_passed_into_the_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cakgb1c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There is certainly drugs in the fresh water downstream of sewage treatment plants. [Caffeine](_URL_0_) can be used as a marker for treated sewage, as it is not degraded in treatment plants, and is quite persistent in water. Hormones from birth control is also present, as is various benzodiazepins. \n\nWhether this makes it into fresh water for human consumption depends on the source of water and which treatments it undergoes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120730-caffeinated-seas-pacific-northwest-caffeine-coffee-science/"
]
] |
|
6mcdir
|
what are autoencoders and how do they work?
|
(I understand this is not 5-year-old content; more like ELI20) I've looked at so many sources but I can't seem to understand how they work. What is it that makes them different from other Neural Networks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mcdir/eli5_what_are_autoencoders_and_how_do_they_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk0ljzy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"One thing NNs are good for are for finding a function that you don't already know, but have training data for. But there are other uses, too. It can also be interesting to ask it to find a function you *already* know, and then look at how it found it. \n\nAn autoencoder is a neural network that is trained to reconstruct its own input (that is, to find the identity function). You put in an input (say, (4.5,1.7,-2.3)) and penalize it if it outputs anything but (4.5,1.7,-2.3). As a way of *finding a function*, that'd be silly; you already know the identity function. \n\nSo you typically don't look at the output layer, you look at (one of) the hidden layer(s). Once the network can reliably reconstruct its input, the hidden layer must contain enough information to represent the output. If (as is typical) the hidden layer is smaller than the input/output layers, what it represents is the same information in a lower dimensionality. That can come in handy for a lot of things. (For example, for chucking 'em into another neural network as input, instead of the original representation. Or even measuring the distance between them to see how different two things are, when it's inefficient to compare the originals.)\n\nIt's important, however, that the network be \"frustrated\" in its attempt to just memorize the inputs. You have to limit the number of hidden nodes, add noise to the inputs, or otherwise make it difficult. Because otherwise it could just assign each possible input to a unique \"code\" and then associate each \"code\" with an output. That'd be of no more use than just using the input. You have to force it to utilize its hidden nodes to pick up *generalizations* that apply to more that one input. Fewer hidden nodes means it has to use its nodes to represent more than one input node's information; noise means that the hidden node can't necessarily \"trust\" any single input node.\n\nAlso, note that while the prototypical autoencoder has the classic \"hourglass\" shape (bigger input and output layers, slim hidden layer), lots of different network architectures can be autoencoders, or parts of more complicated networks can be autoencoders even if the whole thing isn't, or something can be an autoencoder or not during different stages of its training. The important thing is that you're training the network (or part of a network) so that it reconstructs its input."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
875glc
|
In (early) medieval times, did people take heroic sagas and mythical tales at face value? Were people genuinely naive and believe in creatures like trolls or dragons? To what extent did stories recieve critical reception and how did they resonate with the (lower class/education) people?
|
In accordance with this weeks meta I thought I'd ask this question. I was going to ask a variation of this in any case at some point, so here you go.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/875glc/in_early_medieval_times_did_people_take_heroic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwaemfc",
"dwbsjto"
],
"score": [
32,
2
],
"text": [
"Pre-industrial Europeans had a long-standing, vibrant belief system in a wide variety of supernatural entities. If by \"mythic tales\" you mean the stories of Greek and Roman gods - Christians of the early medieval period would have tended to see them as false gods and/or demons attempting to confuse and distract people from the True Faith. But that may not be what you mean; you are likely referring to the sorts of legends that come down to us from primary, medieval sources, stories that involve many sorts of fantastic creatures and beings.\n\nEvery society has its skeptics, but in general, during the medieval period, there was a widespread belief if not assumption that the world was populated by all sorts of things that we know call fairies, trolls, or elves. Giants are a bit of a different matter since most people would have believed that they were confined to an ancient time when they helped shape the landscape and that they had died out long ago (but once existed nevertheless). In general this was also true of dragons, except that people were more inclined to see them as either a monster of the distant past or of a distinct place. People might describe an odd circumstance where they could speak in the first person of having an encounter with what they believed might have been a (fill in the blank: ghost, elf, angel, saint), but they would not speak in the first person of encountering a giant or a dragon. They believed they did exist, and if someone told of an account of seeing a dragon flying around in the sky, that would have been terrifying to hear about it - and would have likely believed it, but one was not likely to meet the person who professed seeing it.\n\nBut all of this translates into a resounding yes - people did take seriously the stories of their own culture (setting aside those from the Classical world). It is unfair to term these people as naïve, however: I know of many people who believe in ghosts and angels. One may pass judgement on them, but as a folklorist, I do not. It is not my job to study the \"silly beliefs and superstitions of ridiculous people,\" presumably those with less education. I study beliefs and the stories that embrace those beliefs, but I do not judge those beliefs, if only because I don't know.\n\nWe also should not assume that only the lower classes and poorly educated believed in these things. Some of our best documents from the early modern period were crafted by well educated people who put forward the idea that the fairies were very real.",
"As a follow-up question - are what we think of as a dragon or a troll (or fairy or elf) the same thing as what a classical-era or early-medieval European think of them? \n\nI know there's been a bit of research linking more recent UFO encounters to older fairy encounters - most building on work from Jacques Vallee in *Passport to Magonia*. I'm just curious if the categories of being would even be the same in a pre-Industrial world. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1n489s
|
Was there a age limit to watch the games in the Colosseum in rome?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1n489s/was_there_a_age_limit_to_watch_the_games_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccfbm5n",
"ccfctlp",
"ccffut4",
"ccfmta9",
"ccfn9pu"
],
"score": [
90,
908,
32,
8,
9
],
"text": [
"Related question: were there age limits for the competitors?",
"This is a fascinating question that required me to do a little research.\n\nFirst, remember that not all events at the Colosseum were gladiatorial combat events, or similar violence (animal hunts or naval battles, etc.). Sometimes, the events held were *sylvae,* which was a sort of large-scale terrarium piece in which artists, designers, botanists, etc., recreated a forest, desert, etc., scene for the Roman public to experience. Sometimes animals would be let loose in here, and people could just come and watch and observe. \n\nTechnically, the Colosseum was open to any Roman citizen. During gladiatorial combat, however, you must remember that the audience was often overwhelmingly male, and quite aggressive. You'd think of some of the world's worst soccer hooligans, for example. It's likely, although I have no direct evidence to support this, that young men were attracted, as they often are, to scenes like this. It's also likely that they were prevented from going at a very young age by the simple fact that there was nowhere to sit. \n\nThinking on it a bit: we do know from Livy (and others) that the Vestal Virgins often attended ludi at the Colosseum. These were girls as young as six years old, so it is possible that, at least as far as this specific example goes, young children did attend the events. The Vestals were nearly always accompanied by bodyguards (usually lictors), however, and they sat in a box apart from the rest of the crowd, so it's unclear how representative they are. \n\nCassius Dio mentions that Nero had children actually fight in gladiatorial combat in the Colosseum in order to impress the King of Armenia, so that's another example, albeit not one of spectatorship. Check out [Weidemann](_URL_0_) for more info. \n\nThat's the only scant stuff I can come up with, I'm afraid, but I will get in touch with an old Classics prof of mine and try to get more info for you. Very interesting question.\n\nOne thing to keep in mind, by the way, is that our definition of \"youth\" today is probably very different from what it was in the Roman era. Boys as young as 10 joined the Roman army and navy in a variety of roles. 35 years old was middle aged. So it may be that we would have seen some young faces in the crowds at the Colosseum that would make us balk today, but that wouldn't have caused an eye to bat back then.",
"You bring up a fascinating topic: How various cultures throughout history have defined childhood and how important it was to them that children be shielded from the realities of violence (and violent entertainments enjoyed), tolerated, or forcibly endured by most adults.\n\nI'm very curious about what inspired your question, OP and if you anticipated some of the answers.\n\nToday, some of us go to extreme to try to shield our children from certain facts about our behavior and human behaviors that our cultures accept as inevitable and don't try to eradicate.\n\nI wonder if there are, or have been, cultures in which children are/were *not* shielded in this way. (Of course, post internet, I think it's becoming impossible to hide things from computer saavy kids.)",
"In a series of books The Roman Mysteries by Caroline Lawrence, she describes the order of the layers in which people would sit in the Colosseum, in the book The Gladiators of Capua. According to her there were two boxes at the edge of the 'ring', one for the Emperor and anyone he invited, and one for any Vestal Virgins that wanted to see the games. After those two boxes the senators or other rich people, but only men, and men could be as young as 10 years old. After the senators other men would sit, from richer to poorer, heading farther up. Then women and children, but not in order if status or wealth and finally the slaves, which sometimes would mingle with the women and children, though they were often pushed back.\n\nSo to answer your question, there was no age limit but younger boys and all girls and women would sit farther back so they didn't see all the gruesome details.",
"There was no enforced age limit in the sense that we have age limits at, say, movie theaters today. It would have been at the discretion of parents and tutors whether a young person went. According to Suetonius writing about the age of Augustus, yes, underage boys attended spectacles, and with enough frequency that there was a specific area for boys and their tutors to sit.\n\nGarrett Fagan's book The Lure of the Arena has an excellent chapter on amphitheaters and spectator demographics. He cites Suetonius' Life of Augustus to discuss the seating regulations that were originally introduced for theaters and extended to amphitheaters. To be absolutely clear, this is talking about the reign of Augustus, who died in 14 CE, while the Colosseum was not completed until 80 CE, so this is at a remove of several decades. \n\nIn any case, Fagan summarizes Suetonius thus:\n\"Suetonius tells us that the crowd at spectacles comprised men, women, and children. He specifies ten classes of spectator and implies two others: senators; foreign ambassadors; ex-slaves; soldiers; underage boys; the tutors of underage boys; married commoners (and, by implication, unmarried commoners); citizens with dark clothes (and, by implication, citizens with bright clothes); women, apparently of all classes, and Vestal Virgins.\" (Fagan 2011: 105)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=B7wzXCCsKiQC"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3d2vbq
|
Is there any documentation suggesting that the Allies would have prosecuted or treated Hitler, had he not committed suicide in Berlin, differently than the other Nazis at the Nuremberg trials?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d2vbq/is_there_any_documentation_suggesting_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct1e84e"
],
"score": [
49
],
"text": [
"To add to the question: I know that Hermann Goering made the decision to surrender to the Allied forces rather than the Soviets. Presumably Hitler would have been captured by the Soviets. Was there a significant difference in treatment of upper Nazi officials depending on who had captured them? Were all of those tried at the Nuremberg trials captured by the Allies?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3q8yu3
|
Can mass be artificially generated?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3q8yu3/can_mass_be_artificially_generated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwd4snh",
"cwdimz1"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes; in a particle accelerator you can perform processes in which the final sum of masses is different than the initial. A drastic example is a photon-photon collider where the original sum of masses is zero.",
"Mass and energy being equivalent, you can alter the mass of any object by altering the amount of energy it stores. The Hiroshima bomb lost about an ounce of mass when it exploded. Even chemical reactions that give off heat leave the products very, very slightly lighter than the starting materials. A tightly coiled spring weighs the tiniest amount more than the same spring loose."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7gkwcr
|
what exactly happens in the stock exchange scene at the end of trading places (1983) to cause the dukes to lose everything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gkwcr/eli5_what_exactly_happens_in_the_stock_exchange/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqjtjiq",
"dqjtle7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The Dukes have a forged report showing that the orange harvest will be poor, so they expect the price of orange juice to rise when that news becomes public. They buy all the orange juice they can get, expecting that they can immediately sell it for a profit when the price rises. Other traders notice that happening, assume the Dukes know something, and start to buy too. The price does start to rise because everyone wants to buy.\n\nMeanwhile, our heroes are selling orange juice to anyone that wants to buy it at this ever-increasing price. They don't actually have any yet, but they don't have to deliver until the end of trading.\n\nNow the news of the perfectly normal orange harvest is released, and the price crashes. The price was rising because people expected a poor harvest, and now everyone knows that's not true. Our heroes buy from everyone except the Dukes as the price drops and everyone tries to sell. They now have plenty of orange juice to cover what they sold earlier, and they're buying for less than they've already agreed to sell it for. They make a huge profit.\n\nBut no one will buy from the Dukes. They're left with a huge amount of orange juice that they paid too much for, and when trading ends everyone wants paying for that orange juice. The Dukes expected to be selling it all for a profit, so they don't actually have enough money to cover everything they bought.",
"The Dukes got a forged report telling them that the orange juice harvest was going to be very poor, so they expected the price of orange juice to rise in the future. They used this information to decide to buy futures contracts, basically an agreement to buy or sell something at a predetermined price in the future. Everyone else sees the Dukes are buying the futures and the price is inflated (goes up).\n\nValentine and Winthorpe sell futures at the high price. Once the real report comes out that the harvest is normal the price of futures plummets and Valentine and Winthorpe can close their futures position by buying futures at the lower price from everyone but the Dukes. They sell high and buy low, in so doing turning a profit. But because they don't buy from the Dukes the Dukes are left with a big debt, having bet poorly on the price being high."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4bjpmn
|
why canada is the only other country to have an mlb team.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bjpmn/eli5_why_canada_is_the_only_other_country_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d19q1ou",
"d19q28t",
"d19qj04"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Because it would be very difficult for distant countries, even ones where baseball is very popular like Japan, to participate and play against MLB teams. There are 162 games in a season, sometimes multiple in the SAME DAY, and many in a single week. MLB players spend a lot of time on planes as is. A 14 hour flight to play any other MLB team would be totally unreasonable. So they have their own leagues.",
"There are many American sports leagues in which Canada has teams. It's just natural, since they border the United States, play many of the same sports, and generally have very free cultural and economic exchange.",
"The only other country close enough to feasibly participate in the MLB would be Mexico. The problem is that Mexico is a much poorer country than the U.S., meaning that a hypothetical Mexican club wouldn't make enough money to compete."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1yemfl
|
how do we recognize songs playing that we can't consciously hear?
|
At work, every day without fail the receptionist plays her radio, but I'm too far away to hear it. however, every day without fail I get random songs popping into my head, have no problem with knowing "how the song goes next" as I usually do and (what gets me is) whenever I walk past her office the song in my head is always the one her radio is playing at the time. This is for weeks now. Is there a point where hearing becomes conscious? I've made my office silent and just listened and I can't hear anything but the songs still come to my head? Any one know the psychology (or whatever field it belongs to) behind this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yemfl/eli5_how_do_we_recognize_songs_playing_that_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfjtj0t"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Your brain is recognizing the bass line from the song. At those lower frequencies, they'll be more likely to reach your brain at a distance, but you might not consciously tune in on it since you can't hear the melody, which are in higher frequency ranges."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5t9450
|
why isn't television open and free like the internet is?
|
By open and free, I mean how in television cable charges extra and puts channels into packages (Like could you imagine a social media bundle if net neutrality goes away???), and not just anybody can make their own tv show.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t9450/eli5_why_isnt_television_open_and_free_like_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddl26tl",
"ddl304e",
"ddlmj45",
"ddlop8a"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is open air TV. I have open air TV and receive 44 channels and their associated digital offsprung. I think he last time we counted there were 101 channels, but there still isn't anything on.\n\nAlso, there are some rules about Public Access Television, where you could produce a show. But why pay for all the studio rental when there are video hosting sites that allow you to reach a much larger audience.\n\nIf you don't like cable charges, vote with your check books and cancel the cable.\n\nCable is dead, those noises it's making are just various gases escaping. Don't be a sucker and pay for those gases.\n\nIf anything, Cable providers should be PAYING a household for the privilege of putting so much advertising infront of their eyes. \n\n\nTL DR looks rant-y. If you all committed to NOT watching Game of Thrones, HBO would make it free to get eyes on those commercials so they can keep charging astronomical ad space fees.\n\n\n\n",
"Once upon a time, television was only available 'over the air' they broadcast it from a station and you picked it up with an antenna. There was no way to charge you for receiving it, so it was entirely ad supported. However since there were only about three networks ad money wasn't really spread out that much as well. But the thing about broadcasting a signal is there's only so much bandwidth, only so much range of frequencies you can send a tv signal in, and if two people try to use the same frequencies in the same region the signals will interfere and people won't be able to watch either. So the television band needs to be regulated so that people can reliably receive a broadcast. So people couldn't just start their own with a low power broadcasting antenna. There are however public-access channels, which have frequencies set aside for local public use, because the airwaves are held to be something that is not owned by anyone person but like a natural resource that should be used for the public good. (This is also the reason the FCC has the power to regulate content on them)\n\nNow cable sends the same types of signals (at least non-digital cable) as the over-the-air tv, but it does it within a well... cable. So there's no risk of interfering with other people's broadcasts, and they don't have to be regulated, you can also get better signal quality and fit more channels in. But you still have only a finite number of channels, and every channel is sent out to all the subscribers. There are points where the cable company controls the splitting of the signal to individual houses where they can turn on and off service, but in essence what they're sending to everyone is the same things. \n\nEarly pay per view movies were just a series of channels where a movie was playing continuously over and over, and you called the company and said, I want to watch this movie, and then they would provide the information to the cable box to de-scramble the signal. But the signal was always coming in. \n\nThe reason you paid for cable was the company owned the actual cable lines, and the company maintained them, and the company had the licenses with various stations to provide that content, and the high end satellite receivers to get the signal to distribute. \n\nThe internet however works differently, you're not providing the same content to every single person, a person sends out a packet of data that goes out through the network and gets to a server that sends data back. And it has to be routed to a specific person. Its much easier to send one signal to every house on the cable network, than to send a different signal to each one. The amount of data that cable tv transmits every second is vastly more than the internet speed you get because you want specific internet sites not just tuning into a channel that everyone gets. \n\nIts not worth the money or effort of the cable company to use their equipment to mix in some random likely low quality channel that most people probably won't care about. Sending that one signal to every subscriber, and considering how many internet streams there are out there, it would overwhelm the bandwidth pretty quickly. \n\nFor those specialty things, internet works better, if only a few people want to watch them then they can be sent to only a few people. ",
"Free TV is the broadcast channels -- NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, plus some local channels, PBS, etc. You can get those for free. The rest are cable broadcast channels that need to be provided by a cable provider. ",
"It is free in the u.s. ....put an antenna and it's free. If you want special channels then you have to pay."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1cblmp
|
why does heating a mirror stop it from steaming up while having a shower?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cblmp/eli5_why_does_heating_a_mirror_stop_it_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9exhk2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Because the \"steaming up\" is condensation of water vapour (water in it's gaseous state). Condensation is caused (or more specifically, vastly increased) because of changes in temperature. The water vapour cools quickly once it comes into contact with the cold surface of the mirror. Heating up the mirror diminishes this effect."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.