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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3b3vh1
|
How do metals that originate on Earth "cold-weld" in space?
|
So I've heard that [crafts sent to space](_URL_0_) can run into problems of "cold-welding" of their materials. In other words, pure metallic objects of the same composition just stick together. Apparently this doesn't happen on Earth because of a thin oxidized layer on the surface of the materials. However, if two parts on, say, a satellite, were manufactured on Earth (i.e. and have an oxidized layer that keeps them from sticking when in contact on Earth), are they able to cold-weld in space because they lose this layer somehow?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3b3vh1/how_do_metals_that_originate_on_earth_coldweld_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csjkya9",
"csk5jyu"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text": [
"The layer has to be rubbed off first - the parts won't just stick together spontaneously. This generally happens with moving parts: hinges, telescoping arrangements, pinned joints, etc. Every time they move, they scrape against each other, scouring off the oxidized layer. On Earth, the layer quickly reforms once exposed to atmospheric oxygen. But in space, it can't reform, leaving the parts vulnerable to cold welding.",
"In a more general sense, *surface friction* can operate quite differently in a vacuum than it does on earth. Surfaces that slide or rub may experience unexpected and *far* higher friction after being exposed to the conditions in low earth orbit. This can be difficult to predict.\n\n\"Cold welding\" is probably the most extreme example, but the more common occurrences include [Galling](_URL_1_) and [Fretting](_URL_0_) types of wear due to friction and vibration. Both of these can often be far more severe in space.\n\nIn this sense, \"Cold Welding\" may be seen as an extreme example of Galling. Or else galling may be seen to be microscopic cold-welding that occurs in earth's atmosphere.\n\n > are they able to cold-weld in space because they lose this layer somehow?\n\nSpace isn't exactly empty. Objects in orbit are constantly bombarded by charged particles and ions. \n\nSuch as solar wind from the sun, cosmic rays from deep space, and ionized gases from the upper limits of the atmosphere that have been energized by UV rays from the sun.\n\nThis environment is pretty effective at *cleaning* surfaces, and removing contaminants on a molecule-by-molecule basis.\n\nThis is known as [\"plasma cleaning.\"](_URL_2_) In fact many materials will slowly erode and disintegrate when placed in orbit, due to the constant bombardment by ions.\n\nIn fact, companies that manufacture computer chips use energized plasmas at very low (orbital) pressures to clean the silicon wafers in between different steps in the lithography process.\n\nSo-called Plasma Cleaning has quite a few commercial applications, in cases where materials need to be absolutely, perfectly clean.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://esmat.esa.int/Publications/Published_papers/STM-279.pdf"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/693/fretting-wear",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galling",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atVSxvbiPg0"
]
] |
|
9a47fr
|
The Islamic star and crescent is the symbol of Islam today and is widely believed to be adopted from the Ottoman Empire. What symbol was used to represent the symbol before the rise of the Ottoman Empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9a47fr/the_islamic_star_and_crescent_is_the_symbol_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4t74ii"
],
"score": [
30
],
"text": [
" > The Islamic star and crescent is the symbol of Islam today\n\n\nIn order to regard something as Islamic, in this case the star and crescent symbol, it has to be regarded as such by a source of our knowledge of Islam, the Qur'an and/or Ḥadīth, or, at least, be endorsed by a figure, of some degree of perceived religious authority. The use of the star and crescent symbol by some Muslims, several centuries after Islam came to be, is not sufficient to warrant the characterization of it as an Islamic symbol; in reality, the star and crescent has no meaning in an Islamic context (I understand the common association of this particular symbol with Islam as a religion, but it's more a fallacy than a fact). It's also worth noting that the star and crescent symbol can be seen in use by entities with no Islamic affiliation, like, for example, the [City of Portsmouth](_URL_1_) (in the UK).\n\n > What symbol was used to represent the symbol before the rise of the Ottoman Empire?\n\n\nThere were several states that appeared prior to the rise of the Ottomans with varying degrees of influence. I will focus on two ruled by the Arabs. \n\nThe Arabs opted for epigraphs of an Islamic nature rather than an actual symbol. Being calligraphs, they would be used as a state symbol, minted on coins and inscribed on state buildings. The Umayyads of Damascus and the Nasrids of Granada, are good examples.\n\nZiyad bin Abih, serving as governor of Kufa between 661-674, was the first to introduce a religious slogan, in Arabic, on his coin issues as representative of state identity; it read *Bismi Allah Rabi* (\"In the Name of God, My Lord\"). Coins, from that period onwards, started to be issued with similar phrases, and they differed from one governor, and region, to another. \n\nAbd al-Malik bin Marwān, reigned between 685-705, introduced a [uniform coin issue](_URL_3_) which stated, among other things, the Muslim declaration of faith: *There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God*. This coin issue would be continued, with minor changes, by the Abbasids and some Fatimids rulers (and would appear in the flag of modern-day Saudi Arabia).\n\nThe Nasrid rulers, in the Emirate of Granada, chose [this](_URL_0_), \"La Ghalib illa Allah,\" which can be translated as \"there is no victor but God,\" and used it for their flag and [coat of arms](_URL_2_), which appears at the [Alhambra](_URL_4_).\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://ballandalus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/img_0730.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/City_Flag_of_Portsmouth.svg/800px-City_Flag_of_Portsmouth.svg.png",
"http://www.cultureaddicthistorynerd.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/nasrid-coatofarms.jpg",
"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/79/7c/e9/797ce90a44dd2dcf24e8c1ea85adddbc.jpg",
"https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqtvJffL86AAe5JuPpPFPVLKHLfQdlWM5OEyxsAvWGnZd3xIFz"
]
] |
||
6hvggd
|
Is there something like an anti-microwave that will freeze your drink in 1-2 mins?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6hvggd/is_there_something_like_an_antimicrowave_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj1nbqd",
"dj1o0w2",
"dj2dj3g"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There is such a thing as an anti-griddle. You'll see it used sometimes on shows on the food network and it's used for rolled ice cream. But it would be a bit impractical for freezing a drink. Both because it's very expensive and because it freezes liquids that are spread over a flat surface rather than in, say, a glass. ",
"There are a few things, in the culinary world the most common would be a blast chiller or a fish freezer, less common would be an \"anti-griddle\". A blast chiller is like a convection oven except for a very cold freezer, it uses rapidly moving very cold air to freeze things quickly. A flash freezer is simply kept super cold, to freeze things more quickly. An anti-griddle is a surface connected to essentially a heat pump that is maintained at below freezing (think of the cooling coils on an AC unit), you can spread liquids on it to freeze them rapidly (like ice cream).",
"Aside from an extremely cold freezer no. A microwave works by sending highly energized particles through a substance, thereby exciting the atoms and causing heat energy. This is impossible in the reverse direction because the system would always be adding energy to the substance you would be trying to freeze. It's for this same reason that reaching 0K is so difficult.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5moo37
|
what's going on in mexico right now with the raising of gas prices and other amenities? why are people looting stores and pissed off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5moo37/eli5_whats_going_on_in_mexico_right_now_with_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc57l1r",
"dc5bso1"
],
"score": [
51,
36
],
"text": [
"Well basically Pemex raised the rate to rougly 16 pesos per litre. That's roughly $1.30 Canadian. But the minimum wage remains around 80 pesos/day. \n\nSo people are looting in rebellion, but also to get the stuff they need.\n\nBut there's been some speculation that the government is arranging the lootings",
"Some context is needed first.\n\nFor years, all energy products had to be purchased through a monolithic organization called Pemex which was the only entity in Mexico allowed to purchase the product from the producers. Pemex then sold this to distributors, sometimes using heavy government subsidies.\n\nIn 2013, however, the government passed an energy reform bill that was to remove power from Pemex in phases that kicked in at the beginning of the year. This was to make the market more competitive, and made Pemex go from having a government-sponsored monopoly to being a government-owned competing business.\n\nOver the past year, the Mexican Peso has devalued significantly from the last few years hovering around 13-15 pesos per US dollar to today's price of 22 pesos per dollar. Oil, being handled in US dollars, would thus be relatively more expensive as the peso has devalued. However, because Pemex still controlled gasoline they heavily subsidized the price of gasoline to remain relatively stable. The 2017 phase of the energy reform kicked in at the beginning of the year though, and has raised the price of gas to be more in line with what it should be. It should be noted that the government is STILL somewhat subsidizing gas, and that people's requests for the government to subsidize gasoline again would just add to income inequality by putting money hand over fist in the hands of the rich. The other request people have is to lower the amount the government taxes gasoline from the current 3.5 pesos per liter of gasoline, but this will put a heavy dent in the government's income.\n\nIt's a difficult situation all around"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9m8gym
|
how come when you put ice cream on warm pie, the pie melts the ice cream, but the ice cream doesn’t freeze the pie?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9m8gym/eli5_how_come_when_you_put_ice_cream_on_warm_pie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7cqm0n",
"e7cycm0"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"The hot pie is way above freezing temperatures, but the ice cream is only slightly below freezing. Both object's temperatures will tend toward equilibrium, but that average temperature will still be well over freezing. ",
"Let's assume the pie *a la mode* is sitting on a plate in your dining room. \n\nThe whole system (pie + ice cream + plate + surrounding air in the dining room) tends toward equilibrium, the state where the whole system is a uniform temperature. A system reaches equilibrium by the hotter items (the pie, in this case) giving up some of their heat energy to the cooler items (the ice cream, plate, and surrounding air). \n\nGiven enough time, both ice cream, pie, and plate will converge on room temperature. Unfortunately for the ice cream, as it absorbs heat from the pie, it warms up and crosses the boundary where the liquid in it can remain frozen, so it turns into a milky puddle. \n\nThe ice cream and the plate and the surrounding air in the room will all cool the pie by receiving some of the energy of the very active (i.e. \"hot\") molecules. But before the pie ever reaches it's freezing point, the whole system (ice cream + pie + plate + surrounding air) will reach equilibrium at which point the heat transfer stops. \n\nBut if we change the scenario, the results will change. Put the pie, ice cream, and plate out on your back porch in North Dakota in the middle of January. Now the surrounding air is well below freezing, so that changes the balance of the system. Since there's so much cold, cold air around, it can absorb a *lot* of heat, so while the hot pie might be hot enough to still melt some or all of the ice cream before the pie itself can cool down, eventually the ice cream (perhaps now in puddle form) will re-freeze and the pie *will also freeze* as it gives up all of its heat to the sub-freezing air around it. \n\nTL;DR: Heat moves from the hotter region of a system to the cooler region, until the whole system has reached the same temperature -- a state called \"equilibrium.\" \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1gikzw
|
When wood burns, what percentage of its mass is turned into energy?
|
I read in this subreddit that if the mass of one mosquito were turned entirely to energy that it would be enough to "power" a human for it's whole life. So, just exactly how efficient is burning fuels from a mass-to-energy standpoint? Do some fuels produce more energy-per-mass than others when burned?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gikzw/when_wood_burns_what_percentage_of_its_mass_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cakkzxi"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Burning wood liberates about 20 megajoules per kilogram. Divided by c^2 , that's about 22 micrograms lost per kilogram of wood burned."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
b3bq6a
|
Why were some parts or counties of Louisiana not affected by the Emancipation Proclamation?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b3bq6a/why_were_some_parts_or_counties_of_louisiana_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiygw1c"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The Emancipation Proclamation in part [reads as follows](_URL_0_):\n\n > That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.\n\n > That the executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States, and part of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof shall, on that day be, in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto, at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.\n\nIt is a bit of a word soup, but the key takeaway here is that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to States, or the *part of States* then considered in rebellion. If it was under Union control, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply there. And while some like to be cynical and claim that this points to Lincoln's lack of conviction about ending slavery, and that he only was interested in it as a carrot and stick to induce the end of the rebellion or else punish those who continued, the much more simple explanation is that Lincoln didn't believe he had the Constitutional authority to do more than what he was doing. \n\nEnding slavery in the country as a whole by Presidential fiat would have been unconstitutional, and although attempts were made during the war in the border states still loyal, it was generally unsuccessful as it required agreement of the state governments. The process for ending slavery was begun in late 1863, the the 13th Amendment being drafted and worked on by Congress through the following year and eventually sent for ratification following the House vote in early 1865. Lincoln knew that he needed to follow that process to wipe out slavery nationally. *But*, he felt that he could do so with his own pen in the areas where the states were in rebellion, believing that he was vested with this power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution naming him Commander in Chief of the armed forces.\n\nSo anyways, the point is, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to where the Confederates controlled, because Lincoln didn't believe he had power to do more. As this applies to Louisiana specifically, by the time the Emancipation Proclamation came into effect, on January 1, 1863, by that point Louisiana was partially under Union control, New Orleans having been captured in early 1862, and due to a decent minority of pro-Unionists, it regained partial Congressional representation, with Michael Hahn and Benjamin Flanders taking seats for the tail end of the 37th Congress that December (although this would be brief, and none would be seated for the 38th Congress). So in short, at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation's implementation, a portion of Louisiana was under Union control, and had members sitting in Congress, which very clearly exempted those parts of the state from being within the purview of the Emancipation Proclamation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Emancipation_Proclamation"
]
] |
|
2rchtf
|
as unhealthy as we now know it to be, does tobacco provide any kind of benefit to the human body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rchtf/eli5_as_unhealthy_as_we_now_know_it_to_be_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnekqyl",
"cnelbro",
"cnell7x"
],
"score": [
10,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, it does make you look cool.",
"In additional to a stimulant effect, it can dilate the bronchial passages in your lungs, making it a little easier to breathe and improve cardiovascular performance over a short time. Cyclists have been known to light up briefly to jump start their breathing.\n\nOf course, the long term damage to your lungs will quickly outweigh any short term benefits.",
"And it helps to protect smokers from Parkinson's Disease. (Please don't smoke to reduce risk of PD)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9qwyf2
|
In a short time period and in the height of their success, the Beatles went from being a "silly love songs" boy band to a progressive countercultural group creating increasingly experimental music and art. Was it drugs? Marketing? Indian spirituality? What was the reason for this revolution?
|
Or was the evolution there from the start, and it just didn't stop?
What happened?
Ninja edit: Not sure if the question is about India...might wanna check the automatic flair in this case.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9qwyf2/in_a_short_time_period_and_in_the_height_of_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8cimt7",
"e8cjdbg"
],
"score": [
41,
42
],
"text": [
"Often Revolver is thought of as a landmark album, and [In this interview](_URL_0_) Paul talks about the influences behind it - basically their talents as songwriters were improving while at the same time their interests and influences were expanding. George was interested in Indian culture and music, Paul was interested in electronic music and had become heavily involved in the London counterculture and Avant Garde art world, John had just got into LSD and wanted to write about it, and they'd just appointed the 20 year old Geoff Emerick as their sound engineer, and he was willing to go wherever the Beatles wanted to to help get the sound they were looking for. For example John recorded the vocals for *tomorrow never knows* [upside down](_URL_1_) to get the sound he wanted. \n\nThe problem with this is it almost forced them into becoming two separate bands, because they couldn't play the songs off revolver live because the technology wasn't there to stage them. So their following world tour was full of songs from their previous albums - and this plus the fact no one could hear them, plus the death threats from John's 'bigger than Jesus' statement led them to stop touring. In turn this gave them even more freedom to experiment in the studio without worrying about how they would stage the songs in a concert, and so sgt pepper was even more experimental. \n\nThey were also becoming more and more famous and so being allowed more and more time in the studio - you have to remember their first album, *please please me*, was recorded mostly in one day, whereas sgt pepper took months to record. That means songs can be experimented with and worked on from an idea stage, whereas their first few albums they had to arrive with finished songs that were ready to record. \n\nPaul sums it up in that interview:\n\n > Q: Do you find problems from people who want you to play to the teenagers?\n\n > Paul: yeah well the thing is you see, we've kept quite a few songs on the album - you see if we suddenly did exactly what we want to do - in fact I think that is what we want to do, what we've done on Revolver. But if we did all the way out things - I suppose people think it is way out, I don't actually - but if we did a whole album of them, then we'd be doing what people who make electronic music do, they go too far out too suddenly, and no one stays with them. Everyone's left behind because they're miles out ahead, digging all this electronic stuff. But we did the last album, rubber soul, a bit more towards that, then this one a bit more, and the next should be a bit more, and if people stay with us, it's great. \n\n > Q: Paul, your music is improving every time, and your lyrics are more interesting -\n\n > Paul: well see that's the thing, if you look back to say, 1960, when we were playing love me do, please please me, from me to you - it was one kind of thing - and it was the kind of thing people liked. But I think if we went back to that, our fans now wouldn't like that too much, because it'd be taking a step back, retracing our steps. And from our point of view, we'd never go back, and if anyone ever said \"you're going too way out, you've got to go back to then\" - well we'd just give up. ",
"The Beatles had no established pattern to follow. There was no showbiz pathway that acts their size typically followed - because there were no rock'n'roll bands as big as the Beatles before them. There's television interviews with the Beatles in 1963 (from when they were very popular in the UK but before they had broke big in the US) where Lennon and McCartney talk about an ambition to continue being professional songwriters after Beatlemania dies off. Ringo apparently planned on opening a hairdressing salon once Beatlemania died off in a few months and they were no longer the big thing. Beatlemania obviously didn't die off a few months after that - instead, it became a worldwide phenomenon in 1964, and continued being a worldwide phenomenon in 1965, if not quite the regular frontpage news it was in 1964. \n\nThe upshot of this is that nobody knew what worked anymore. The Beatles were a new category of act in the first place - the leaderless, self-contained, rock'n'roll group, featuring different singers who also played instruments, was vanishingly rare in rock'n'roll and pop before The Beatles. Generally, bands didn't write their own material before the Beatles. (And yes, the Beatles were absolutely influenced by Buddy Holly's band The Crickets). When Brian Epstein was shopping the act around to labels like Decca and EMI before they got signed, the Artist & Repertoire men responsible for signing acts weren't sure what to make of the Beatles; they didn't fit into a pre-established category that the A & R guys knew how to package and market. Broadly speaking, the Beatles also were quite innovative as songwriters and performers - they combined Brill Building melodicism and craft with an understanding of the importance of rock'n'roll energy and rambunctiousness. And The Beatles did have this rambunctiousness musically because they had signed onto very specific ideas of masculinity, authenticity and cool which were not incredibly common in the UK at the time (and which very much fit with the way the baby boomer generation conceived themselves).\n\nIn this context, The Beatles were incredibly lucky that they signed to Parlophone Records and had George Martin as producer, because Martin was one of the few producers in England who had the vision and ability to take the Beatles to where they wanted to go. Martin, in the context of EMI's producer hierarchy, was considered not that comfortable with pop acts in general, and in many ways the Beatles were foisted on him. \n\nHowever, because he wasn't a well-established producer of pop music, he was less hung up about trying to make the Beatles fit into a particular pigeonhole, and working with them in sessions, he came to appreciate their humour, their outlook, which he shared more of than he let on (with his widely parodied patrician bearing). And he basically came to the conclusion that the Beatles knew what the source of their appeal was, and that they were immensely charismatic, and that he should let them be The Beatles; as producer, he brought a song called 'How Do You Do It' to The Beatles, and they recorded it but hated it and begged him to not release it (despite his certainty it would be a hit). Martin was one of the very few producers in England or the USA in 1962 who would have listened to The Beatles there. He was also one of the few producers who would have responded with enthusiasm when The Beatles began to ask him to do things that were artistic and musically more ambitious than the majority of pop. \n\nAnd because of Martin's previous work producing comedy albums by The Goons, which had exploited the possibility of the medium and of the recording session for comic effect, he had both the respect of the Beatles and he and Geoff Emerick, the engineer, often had the skills and experience to implement some of the Beatles' odder suggestions (John Lennon famously asking Martin to make his vocal on 'Tomorrow Never Knows' sound like a chorus of Tibetan monks chanting on a mountaintop; Emerick was the one who figured out that Lennon would be happy if they fed the vocal through a rotating Leslie speaker usually attached to a Hammond organ).\n\nSecondly, there was Bob Dylan, who by the time he introduced the Beatles to marijuana's typical set and setting (if not the drug itself), was the voice of the American counterculture. The Beatles, at the time, and in later interviews, clearly credit Bob Dylan's music with encouraging them to write about what they were thinking about, for better or worse, rather than the listener-focused pop music lyrics they had assumed they had to write for their fans (e.g., they wrote 'From Me To You' with a keen awareness of the psychology of being a Beatles fan). As a result, the Beatles, and particularly John Lennon, in 1964 begin to write songs that are more from the heart ('Help!' and 'I'm A Loser'). By 1965 this had progressed to lyrics that felt more like the absurdist, pun-filled stream-of-consciousness silliness Lennon had circulated amongst his friends as a teen and published in the wake of Beatlemania as *A Spaniard In The Works* ('Norwegian Wood', in particular, was very influenced by Dylan). By 1966, Lennon was reciting the *Tibetan Book Of The Dead* in his lyrics.\n\nAnother very big influence on the Beatles' experimental music in the mid-1960s was their moving from Liverpool to London, and finding their way into being part of the 'Swinging London' social scene. John Lennon had gone to art school with former Beatles bass player Stuart Sutcliffe, a talented artist, and to some extent the group had always applied some very art student logic to their music - and while Paul and George didn't go to art school, they were certainly within Lennon's orbit and soaked up the art school atmosphere. For this reason, they gravitated to the counterculture art scene in London. And McCartney lived in London with the progressive, cultured, rich family of his fiancee at the time, Jane Asher, who were around this scene, and learned a lot.\n\nThis association with 1960s counterculture was a very long-lasting one: Paul McCartney's 1990s autobiography *Many Years From Now* is co-written with Barry Miles, who was famous in the 1960s within the Swinging London scene for founding the Indica Gallery, an important hub within the London counterculture. Through becoming a part of the cool set in London, the Beatles were exposed to basically every intellectual fad and cool drug that went through the London scene, from the Maharishi to Primal Scream therapy, and the London scene is all over their mid-1960s works. Tara Browne, a London socialite who passed away in 1966 in a car accident, socialised with the Beatles and was widely seen as the inspiration for the verse in their 'A Day In The Life'. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/CP4eQJ6Rgus?t=90s",
"https://i.imgur.com/zLGTj3Tl.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
eh1uzy
|
how is dosing for medications and over the counter drugs universal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eh1uzy/eli5_how_is_dosing_for_medications_and_over_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcca1tz",
"fccduy9"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends upon the medication and it’s mechanism of action (how it works within the body). \n\nSome medication doses are based on weight, as differences in size change the amount needed for the same result. Other medications are metabolized/ utilized in the body such that the amount available per dose is relatively constant and independent of weight.",
"Partially it's for convenience. It's also a matter of dose-vs-effect curves. Doubling the dose doesn't always mean double the effect. For some drugs, past a certain dose, taking more doesn't really do much. It's also a question of toxic doses--the amount of a drug that causes you harm, especially when you compare it to the dose needed to get an effect (the toxic ratio). So if you can safely take 5 times the dose that you need before you start to get sick, then they can target the dosage so a person of average height and weight takes maybe 3 times what they need to get the positive effects."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5junlm
|
why are most gun optics and telescopic optics circular, when if they were square you'd have a larger fov?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5junlm/eli5_why_are_most_gun_optics_and_telescopic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbj3kxf",
"dbj40wi"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"So that the lens magnifying what you're looking at doesn't distort the image. It evenly magnifies it so that whoever is aiming can still accurately gauge the size and shape of the target.",
"Because the means to make a square lens equally precisely isn't cheaper. Actually, to make a precision square lens, they make a round lens and then cut out the square part of it. If you have the extra money to spend, there are always bigger and better optics to buy; and they are cheaper than their square counterparts would be."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1p91m0
|
do animals recognize family members and avoid reproducing with them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p91m0/eli5_do_animals_recognize_family_members_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cczynxo",
"cczzoit",
"cd05dhs"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Absolutely no.\n\nAn animal in heat is programmed for only one thing, as is any male of her species within range. They do not care if they are son, mother, sister, or father. The prime directive is procreation.\n\nThere may be the odd species where this is not the norm, but that would be the exception.",
"In my anthropology class we learned that male apes and chimps will have sex with anyone EXCEPT the female who birthed them. Its a pretty complex structure. Aka they refuse to have sex with their mother, and some apes refuse to mate with their daughters. \n\nsource: _URL_0_",
"short answer: yesno."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/kindis.html"
],
[]
] |
||
89llrm
|
how does tolerance to something work? for example, what makes your body more resistant to caffeine after ingesting it daily for a long period of time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89llrm/eli5_how_does_tolerance_to_something_work_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwrtp27",
"dwrw0it",
"dwrzpfw"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Here’s my best stab at it for caffeine.\n\nIt’s kind of like if a kid is riding his bike ten miles to school every day. Say it takes him sixty minutes to ride there every day. \n\nOne day, he discovers that there’s a school bus which runs right by his house and straight to school after it stops at his house. He rides the bus instead. What took him sixty minutes to achieve before now only takes him a little over fifteen minutes. \n\nNow that it only takes fifteen minutes, he starts planning for only that long to get to school. He gets accustomed to riding the bus, which becomes his new equivalent of the bike.\n\nThen one day the bus doesn’t show up. He has to ride his bike instead, which takes four times as long. He shows up late. He has to go back to leaving for school earlier to make it in time. \n\nThe bike is normal functions, and the bus is the caffeine. Your body doesn’t become *resistant* to caffeine so much as it becomes *dependent* on caffeine to do normal things at a level that fits what is normal for us (getting to school). It works similarly for other things, although some may require more effort from your body rather than less to become accustomed to.",
"Biochemist here. Caffeine is an analog of adenosine, and as you probably know it's a stimulant. It does this by inhibiting the same receptors as adenosine, but that's not relevant to your question.\n\nWhen you ingest things into your body, they will eventually be utilized and broken down, or just broken down. The answer to your question is in this area of biochemistry. Caffeine (and any drug) promotes its effects so long as it is present in your system, but most will eventually be caught by the CYP family of proteins present in your liver. CYP proteins are a very important set of enzymes that pick up xenobiotic/biologically useless substances or toxic substances and modifies them for excretion. The amount that these enzymes are present are also sensitive to the frequency and intensity of how often substances are present. If your body senses that caffeine or whatever is constantly and immensely being introduced, protein synthesis will be modified to adapt to these changes to maintain homeostasis.\n\nIn the specific case of caffeine:\nCaffeine is degraded by CYP1A2\nCaffeine also binds to Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor, which is a receptor that detects caffeine and similar compounds. Once it senses caffeine, it begins a signaling sequence to promote the creation of more CYP1A2, thereby increasing the degradation of caffeine.\nInterestingly, if you have a defect in either of these genes, you could be caffeine sensitive as your body won't be able to degrade caffeine as well.\n\nEdit: accidentally said caffeine was an adenosine agonist instead of an antagonist",
"So, I only took one college course on neuropsychology, but it was about drugs effects on the brain, so I'll explain it as I remember it:\n\nYour brain is a factory. In this factory, there is chemicals and receptors. Certain chemicals can only go in certain receptors. Let's pretend the chemicals are Workers and the receptors are Work Stations. \n\nAdenosine (Worker) is a chemical that makes you tired and it begins working when it attaches to the right receptor (Work Station). But one day, when adenosine goes to its Work Station, it discovers caffeine is working in its spot. Now, the body doesn't feel tired because adenosine isn't in its Work Station. \n\nBut the factory's supervisor notices that adenosine isn't in its Work Station. The supervisor starts thinking there's a problem because the factory has always worked smoothly. The supervisor sends out adrenaline to solve the problem.\n\nBut coffee keeps taking adenosine's Work Station and supervisor wants thing to go back to normal (homeostasis). So, he makes more Work Stations and the adenosine goes back to work, which makes you tired again. \n\nTL;DR: your brain gets upset over changes and will try to compensate for it. \n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ww3dt
|
Why is a year 365.2 days and how do we know it?
|
Why is it not 360 like the circle?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ww3dt/why_is_a_year_3652_days_and_how_do_we_know_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf5wnbt",
"cf5wtt0",
"cf5xzbg"
],
"score": [
15,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"It just is. Why would you expect it to be 360 instead?\n \n360 is just a convenient number to use for dividing circles because it has many divisors. The fact that it's close to the number of days in a solar year is pure coincidence. \n\nWe know the number of days by measuring the angles the between the Sun, and the Earth and certain \"fixed\" reference points (really far away stars and such). After 365.24 days, the angles line up exactly. A less exact but clearer demonstration of this would be Manhattan-henge, where the setting Sun aligns with the street grid of Manhattan twice a year. ",
"It takes a certain amount of time for the Earth to rotate once (which we can measure by timing how long it takes for the sun to come back around to the highest point in its daily journey), and it takes a different certain amount of time for the Earth to revolve once around the sun (which we can measure by timing how long it takes for the sun to come back to its overall maximum angle). The former time period is called a solar day and the latter is called a solar year. (Roughly. See [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) for the complications.) If you do the measurements, you will find that there are about 365.25 solar days in a solar year. You'll need multiple years and/or sensitive equipment to get a sufficiently accurate measurement though.\n\nThe division of the circle into 360 degrees is _completely_ unrelated. It's just a giant coincidence that it happens to be close to the number of days in a year.",
" > Why is it not 360 like the circle?\n\nSimply put, one orbit around the sun is not divisible evenly by rotations of the planet. IE the earth is not in the exact same orientation when it is in the same position relative to the sun year after year. The earth is not what is known as \"tidally locked\" with the sun.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThough since you quote 365.2, I assume you are talking about a sidereal year (pronounced sie-de-re-el), not a calendar year.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThere is a difference.\n\nA \"day\" is the time it takes for the sun to be in the same position in the sky. A sidereal day is the time it takes the earth to rotate 360deg, 1 complete rotation referenced by far away stars. Due to our movement around the sun, the sun's position at the same time each day will move slightly (see the sun at noon throughout the year). The sun to sun day is not exactly equal to one 360deg rotation due to the earth rotating AND orbiting.\n\nLeap years et al are there to make up the difference between our calendar year and the sidereal year, thus keeping the seasons from drifting to different months."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time"
]
] |
|
ds8ih0
|
Why is the Heliopause directional as if all the galactic cosmic rays come from one location?
|
& #x200B;
Recently, reading articles about the Voyager spacecraft, illustrations all show the Heliosphere trailing off in one direction. I would expect cosmic rays to be coming from stars and galaxies all over the universe instead of from just from one location.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ds8ih0/why_is_the_heliopause_directional_as_if_all_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f6osh1b",
"f6p2nhw"
],
"score": [
19,
7
],
"text": [
"The heliosphere is the bubble produced by the solar wind pushing against the \"interstellar medium\" - the ambient gas/plasma within our galaxy. Both the interstellar medium and all the stars of the Milky Way are orbiting around the Milky Way centre. However, the stars aren't all orbiting at the same speed - there's a bit of scatter to their velocities. That also means that different stars are moving at different speeds relative to the interstellar medium. We're currently orbiting a bit faster than the local gas is (and faster on average than most nearby stars), so this interstellar gas ends up piling up \"in front\" of the Sun, and we get a long tail \"behind\" us.",
"Voyager data actually suggest that the Heliosphere and Heliopause is bubble shaped. [In this image you can see what the models based on the voyager data suggest.](_URL_1_) And in the bottom-right corner you can see the old model with a magnetosphere-like tail. The article this picture is coming from [was published in nature in 2017](_URL_0_).\n\nThat being said, cosmic rays are only one component of the interstellar medium. Most of the interstellar medium is simply gas and dust drifting around in the interstellar space. And we are moving with respect to that interstellar medium, so it makes sense to assume that a tail-like structure is being formed. But aparently this is not the case."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0115",
"https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41550-017-0115/MediaObjects/41550_2017_Article_BFs415500170115_Fig1_HTML.jpg"
]
] |
|
1p10e0
|
the nervous system
|
Can anyone explain the major areas of the nervous system to me in simplest terms?
Somatic, visceral, sensory, motor, the functions, vocab, just anything worth mentioning.
I'm trying to grasp it and I think this might help.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p10e0/eli5_the_nervous_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccxmz4c",
"ccxtg6u",
"ccy7gws"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Motor-Brain to muscle. Allows you to move.\n\nSensory-Sensory nerve cell to brain. Tells you what's happening.\n\nCranial nerves-12 important nerves in the brain.\n\nSpinal nerves-several important nerves from the spinal cord.\n\nCNS-brain and spinal cord\n\nPNS-everything else\n\nAutonomic nervous system-that which happens automatically\n\nSomatic nervous system-that which you control",
"Also worth mentioning:\nefferent: motoric (memory hook: effector, something that does the effect)\nafferent: sensory\nvisceral: inherent to organs\nsomatic: everything not belonging to organs\nMore about glands:\n endocrine: secrete hormon in blood vessel\n exocrine: secrete hormon not in blood vessel",
"Oh yes. Medical student reporting in, about to get my geek on. \n\nBefore we begin, it's important to understand that the nervous system has two routes: Data going in to the brain, and data going out of the brain. These routes are known as 'afferent' and 'efferent' signals, respectively. \n\nSo, we shall begin our journey with the efferent (OUT-going) nervous signals. There are two major divisions of outgoing nervous signals: \n\n**The Somatic nervous system** - This is the stuff we control consciously like moving our muscles, baking a delicious cake or walking. This information goes from the primary motor cortex in your brain, down the spine, and out to your muscles via spinal nerves. \n\n**The Autonomic Nervous System** - This is the stuff we don't exert any conscious control of. Our heart beating, gastrointestinal motility etc. (Fun Fact: breathing's sort of halfy-halfy. For example, you weren't breathing consciously until you read this). \n\nThe autonomic nervous system can be divided into **SYMPATHETIC** and **PARASYMPATHETIC** branches. The sympathetic branch does all the stuff that speeds you up, the 'fight or flight' response: Raised heart rate, adrenaline release, increased breathing, anything you'd need to run away from a sabre-toothed tiger. The parasympathetic does the 'rest and digest' stuff, so chilling and playing vidya while your body deals with that nineteenth pack of Doritos. \n\n\nNow, the sensory stuff:\nThis is a tricky area, as there are a number of different sensory signals our brain can receive. Itch, pain, light touch, heavy touch and proprioception (our awareness of our limbs' position in space) are detected by different types of nerve ending. \n\nSuffice to say that this 'somatosensory' information (meaning information relating to our body) is all consciously detected as afferent signals from our limbs, trunk and head, up our spinal cord and into our brain. \n\nThen there's the stuff we're not aware of. Things like a drop in body temperature or heart rate. This is the visceral (relating to our organs) sensory information. This, again travels via either spinal nerves or cranial nerves (nerves that go straight to the brain - no need to use that spinal cord)\n\nOh fuck, I forgot about cranial nerves!! Those motherfuckers are a bitch to learn. You're stood feeling like a toddler who got caught with his finger up his arse in front of this pimp-ass surgeon who just asked you where the nucleus of the glossopharyngeal nerve lies. Douchebag. \n\nAnyway there's 12 of them. They each have functions that are any combination of those listed above. They do sight, hearing, taste, smell, balance, sensation of the face, movement of the facial muscles and tongue and a whole mess of other crap too. But get this, they don't use the motherfucking spinal cord. Not once. \n\n**TL;DR -** Fuck you, I had to learn it!!\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1rx5mv
|
if texting while driving is bad/illegal why is it ok when car companies install navigation screens on their cars?
|
im pretty sure you can make phone calls and check emails and all kinds of other stuff you shouldn't be doing while driving
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rx5mv/if_texting_while_driving_is_badillegal_why_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdrsek3",
"cdrsk6d"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Those screens don't work when the car is in motion (or at least have severally reduced functionality).",
"As in GPS?, they are designed to be less distractive and don't require the same level of attention to operate as opposed to sending a text message."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4irbp9
|
why do old erasers get hard?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4irbp9/eli5why_do_old_erasers_get_hard/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d30gm4s"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Rubber and various plastics contain solvents and \"plasticizers\" that keep them soft and malleable. They evaporate over time, making them harder."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5vdemi
|
I need help to put a date on a map I bought
|
I was able to buy this educational map of europe from my old school but it is not dated so I have no idea if its from the 1950's or even 70's.
It's in french so if you want me to translate something feel free to ask.
_URL_0_
_URL_0_
I don't know if the quality is good enough, I can take a more detailed picture if needed.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5vdemi/i_need_help_to_put_a_date_on_a_map_i_bought/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de1dyoy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not positive on this because I don't know what French cartographic conventions were for showing the division of Germany. If they're like American custom, then East and West Germany should appear separately. They don't here, which means it's meant to represent Europe after October of 1990. (It's certainly not before the Cold War, because Germany's border with Poland is the post-WWII line.) I don't see a note to the map to the effect that it's meant to be a historical one, so it's probably roughly contemporary to that.\n\nBut we also have the USSR, which dissolved at the end of 1991. That puts things to before December 25, 1991. Yugoslavia also has independence movements ongoing about then, but the first successful one doesn't get international recognition until 1992. Can we narrow it down further? Baltic independence movements are also on the move, but not widely recognized until after the August Coup. The USSR recognizes all three of them in September of '91.\n\nSo, assuming again that this is meant to be a contemporary map, it probably dates to between October, 1990 and September, 1991, with a little fuzziness on either side to account for production times."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/5SAasQl.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
21ahhu
|
Does the human body ever grow new blood vessels in our circulatory system?
|
I was curious if the body ever creates new veins in our circulatory system as we age, or to meet new demands for oxygen by our muscles?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21ahhu/does_the_human_body_ever_grow_new_blood_vessels/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgb88fa",
"cgbf504"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes it does. [VEGF](_URL_0_) is responsible for this. As we grow, our body must supply the new cells with oxygen, nutrients, and waste removal. This also plays a role with cancer as tumors increase the production of VEGF to feed themselves. If we can block this growth factor, See: [Avastin](_URL_1_), we can inhibit tumor growth. My research happens to be based in how this plays out in rat liver so I can go into more depth if desired. ",
"Very much so. The general process is called [angiogenesis](_URL_0_); as you'd probably expect from a complex biological process, there are a [host of chemical factors involved](_URL_0_#Chemical_stimulation)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_endothelial_growth_factor",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevacizumab"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis#Chemical_stimulation"
]
] |
|
7xfes2
|
Are there illusions for touch the same way there are for other sight and hearing?
|
For instance, are there any textures that our brains have a hard time processing or understanding?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7xfes2/are_there_illusions_for_touch_the_same_way_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"du7ymdy",
"du81du1",
"du81mux"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Not sure if this is the kind of thing you mean, but your nervous system can't distinguish cold from wet through touch alone. Your brain uses context to tell that you're wet, but all it really feels is the temperature of the liquid. So under certain circumstances it can feel like part of you is wet when it's just cold.",
"Lookup \"Rubber Hand Illusion\" or \"Invisible Hand Illusion\" on Google. \n\nIt's a simple experiment designed in the 1990's that can convince your brain that a rubber hand sitting on a table in front of you *is your actual hand.* \n\nThere's YouTube videos and lots of articles about it.",
"I was at a museum once where there were copper pipes stacked in an alternating warm-cold pattern. Touching them individually they felt hardly warm or cool. But when you place your hand felt both warm and cold pipes at the same time the warm one felt searing hot and the cold one felt icy. I don't remember the name or explanation of this but I think it's what you're looking for.\nHere is [the rubber hand illusion](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk"
]
] |
|
3dnu1i
|
Sexuality and sex in Viking times
|
Was anal sex acceptable? Was being the, er, fuckee (sorry, English not first language, I'm making this up as I go along) something shameful? How freely discussed was sex? Was being gay recognised? How common was anal sex between men and women? Were lesbians recognised? Were there such things as Viking dildos? Were many thralls/slaves kept purely for sex or was it just a side thing to other duties? When was it considered acceptable for children to have sex- as adults/over 12, or was younger acceptable? Between a child and an adult?
Basically, if anyone has any books or answers to any of the questions, please answers! Sources, books, links, anything. So, yeah. Thanks in advance!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dnu1i/sexuality_and_sex_in_viking_times/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct70e72",
"ct76oz9",
"ct7eo30",
"ct7h87t"
],
"score": [
415,
24,
45,
34
],
"text": [
"Ouch, this is a very wide question.\n\nGenerally, when it comes to (male) homosexual sex, the vikings considered only the passive partner gay, and accusing someone of being the passive partner in a gay relationship was such a severe accusation that the accused had the right to challenge the accuser to a duel to the death, both in Swedish early medieval county laws and the Icelandic law. There were very few offences that allowed that.\n\nThe vikings raped both men and women, and to be the passive partner (raped or otherwise) in homosexual sex was seen as very shameful. It was a way to degrade men.\n\nI have never seen any sources on how common anal sex were between men and women, so I cannot give you a reply that is p to the standards of this sub - the sagas, early medieval laws and runestones (which is what we have for sources on the viking age) does not mention anal sex as far as I know.\n\nLikewise, I have not heard much about lesbians.\n\nThralls were expensive, and while *hird* members and the high ranked males of the houehold might very well have their way with female thralls and concubines and lovers were common for great men, women being dedicated sex slaves were a waste of resources - there were always duties to do outside pleasing a high-ranking male and women would tend to them, thralls or otherwise.\n\nI have not heard of viking age sex toys in archelogical finds.\n\nViking era sex was rather uncomplicated. Young people had sex, and it was more or less accepted - you were supposed to marry the one you made pregnant, though. Failing to do so could have you be regarded as less than a man and thus fit for rape (remember, only the passsive part of homosexual sex, voluntary or otherwise was viewed as gay or less manly).\n\nAs far as I know neither marriage nor sex was acceptable before the girl ahd reached sexual maturity. The age of 12 or the first menstruation (whichever came last) was usually viewed as the age of sexual maturity, although it seems like it was very rare with marriages where the girl was less than 15 years of age, according to the few sources I can find.",
"I can answer a few of these. Sex was apparently easily discussed enough that it comes up several times in the sagas. The plot of *Volsungasaga* actually includes a dude's sister using shape-shifting magic to trick him into having sex with her and getting her pregnant so she would have a better son than the shitty sons she was having. And these were the protagonists of the story. About the dildo thing, dildoes are pretty simple devices and we've found [ancient dildoes](_URL_0_) so I don't see why some Norsewoman couldn't have come up with such a thing even independently. ",
"The woman who runs the excellent [Viking Answer Lady](_URL_0_) page wrote up the best piece I ever read about gay Scandinavians in the Viking era, which was included in a scholarly publication [here](_URL_1_) along with its copious source citations.\n\nI'd like to draw special attention to the concept of *seiðr*, a traditionally feminine form of magic that is portrayed as involving ritual sex. Men could practice this magic as seiðrmaðr, although it was feared that this would lead to unmanliness. They had a word for that -- seiðskratti were seiðr practitioners in the receptive ergi homosexual role. Viking era Scandinavians had a wide and colorful vocabulary for putting a fine point on all manner of homosexual insults, as that article illustrates in great detail.\n\nSeiðr, however, remained a concept regarded with some amount of reverent fear, even being practiced by Óðinn himself. The article illustrates this by way of a quotation from Ynglingasaga:\n\n > Óðinn himself, the Allfather and King of the Gods, was justly accused of ergi or unmanliness because of his practice of seiðr or women's magic, as learned from the goddess Freyja. We are not certain what it is about seiðr that made it \"unmanly\" for a man to practice the art: it could be anything from the idea of cowardice as a result of being able to harm your enemies through magic rather than in open battle, to overt sexual rituals involving the seiðr-practitioner as the passive sexual partner, or even as the passive homosexual partner. Ynglingasaga explains: Oðinn kunni þa íþrótt, er mestr máttr fylgði, ok framði siálfr, er seiðr heitr, en af þuí mátti hannvita ørlog manna ok óorðna hluti, suá ok at gera monnum bana eða óhamingiu eða vanheilendi, suá ok at taka frá monnum vit eða afl ok geta oðrum. En þessi fiolkyngi, er framið er, fylgir suá mikil ergi, at eigi þoacute;tti karlmonnum skammlaust við at fara, ok var gyðiunum kend sú íþrótt. Óðinn had the skill which gives great power and which he practiced himself. It is called seiðr, and by means of it he could know the fate of men and predict events that had not yet come to pass; and by it he could also inflict death or misfortunes or sickness, or also deprive people of their wits or strength, and give them to others. But this sorcery is attended by such great ergi that men considered it shameful to practice it, and so it was taught to priestesses (Ynglingasaga 7).\n\nThis brief sample of historical Viking sex wizardry only scratches the surface of the topic, but that article will fill you chock full of good good stuff. [Enjoy the read!](_URL_1_)",
"Hi there! You have a lot of very specific questions, but I'll do my best to answer each in turn. This is a very sticky issue, so I'll begin by directing you to the Gràgàs law codes of medieval Iceland. They have specific sections regarding marriage and sexuality.\n\nVikings, like all medieval people, followed the \"one sex\" theory, which essentially meant that men and women were placed on a dominant/submissive continuum, with women on the submissive side and men on the dominant side. This theory had its roots in classical Greek medical theory and saw women as imperfect men. Along these lines, men who took a submissive role during sex were branded \"blaðr,\" which is really hard to translate but most guess somewhere around \"sissy\" or \"bottom.\" To unjustly accuse a man of blaðr was a serious offense that could result in death, outlawry, or even inciting a blood feud. On the other hand, women who were too aggressive could be labeled hvartr, or \"butch.\" the reasons for such an accusation could include cross-dressing (which was also grounds for divorce), among other things. To answer your questions on gay and lesbian relationships, they didn't really see sexuality the same way we do, so those labels don't hold up against Viking relationships. What you see in the sagas is accusations of blaðr against weak men and hvartr against domineering women. The problem lies in them failing to fulfill their proper roles along that spectrum. I haven't encountered an example of same-sex romantic relationships in any of the sagas I've read.\n\n > How freely discussed was sex? \nActually pretty freely. Sex was important in determining the validity of a marriage, mostly because medieval people believed that both men and women needed to orgasm to conceive a child (this relates to that idea of women as imperfect men; they also have to provide \"seed\" for a baby). Although the Catholic church did not condone divorce, it seems the Icelanders may have bent the rules a little. In Njal's Saga, a woman named Unn divorces her husband for bad sex, and she describes the problem to her lawyer father in great detail: \"he is not able to have sexual intercourse in a way that gives me pleasure . . . his penis is so large that he can't have any satisfaction from me, and yet we've both tried every possible way to enjoy each other, but nothing works.\" In a later chapter, two young boys reenact the divorce at play, and one of them says: \"I'll be Mord and summon you to give up your wife for not screwing her.\" This event shows that sexual pleasure was crucial for a lawful marriage and for producing children, and the Vikings could and would divorce over problems in the bedroom. Remember that these people lived in close proximity; there was no privacy in a Viking village, and everyone knew everyone else' business. \n\nOn the topic of sexual enslavement: \nUnfortunately, this was a widespread practice in Viking culture, and a booming industry among the Swedish Rus in the Volga river basin in Russia. Female slaves were a hot commodity, and it has been speculated that Iceland was populated by Irish sex slaves as much as Norse immigrants. However, free women also lived as concubines, and the Norse words for \"concubine\" and \"slave woman\" are often interchangeable. The status of these women was kind of a moot point for them though; it was more of in issue for their children, as only legitimate children could inherit. The sagas are rife with cases of \"bastard\" children getting cut out of their father's estate by the children of his lawful wife. Concubines and legal wives could co-habitate, but this could breed hostility too. The Viking wife had absolute control of her home, and Laxdaela Saga includes one wife forcing her husband to send his Irish concubine to live on a different farm. The topic of concubinage and legal marriages also include questions of elopements, with the potential groom clashing with his bride's family in the absence of a proper betrothal.\n\nSex and children:\nViking girls generally married in their teens, and sometimes to much older men. In Laxdaela Saga, a fifteen-year-old girl is given in marriage to a rich man well into his thirties (she divorces him for cross-dressing after just two years). It's not clear if pagan Vikings had a taboo against premarital sex, but there are examples of it in several sagas. In Gisli Sursson's Saga, Gisli murders his older sister's lover after he damages her reputation and then refuses to marry her, so this could suggest that it wasn't a problem as long as there was a plan for the couple to marry in the near future. I haven't seen any examples of straightforward pederasty in the sagas.\n\nFor better information, check out writings by Jenny Jochens, Carol J. Clover, and Ruth Mazo Karras. Ibn Fadlan wrote an eyewitness account of the Rus trade in Slavic girls. The sagas I mentioned also have good examples of the role sex could play in life and law. Hope this is helpful to you!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4713323.stm"
],
[
"http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/",
"http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayvik.asp"
],
[]
] |
|
7mp2wz
|
how birth defects happen
|
How do these actually become decided, and why do they happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mp2wz/eli5how_birth_defects_happen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drvl0n3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There are many causes and many different situations.\n\nSome defects are chemically triggered, a perfectly normal fetus exposed to thalidomide at the wrong point in its development will turn out with a defect.\n\nSome defects are genetic, through a copying error or expression of a recessive trait a fetus will develop with a defect. \n\nThe concept of \"decide\" and \"happen\" carry the connotation of understanding and thoughtful decision making that doesn't make much sense in these biologic processes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
38byt7
|
how did humans discover the act of sexual intercourse?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38byt7/eli5how_did_humans_discover_the_act_of_sexual/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crtw849",
"crtwf0o",
"crtwxhl"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"At least with heterosexual sex, I've got a plug and you've got a socket and they are roughly in line with eachother, let's give it a shot. ",
"It's been passed down in some form through evolution ever since sexual reproduction evolved. The most prominent driving force that guides evolution is the ability to reproduce, so it's quite literally in our genes.",
"We didn't. Sex predates humans by 1.2 billion years. The immediate ancestors of our species had sex just like we did. There was nothing that needed discovering."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1rih4i
|
stack overflow and buffer overflow
|
I've come across these few terms a couple of times when I'm reading computer-related stuff. Wikipedia's explaination is too tough for me to understand so I hope someone can explain what these 2 terms mean and what are the implications of having a program having such problems
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rih4i/eli5_stack_overflow_and_buffer_overflow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdnm8mi",
"cdnmsqz",
"cdnu06e"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"**Stack overflow**\n\nWhenever you call a function, memory for that function is allocated in a place called the call stack. When the function completes its run, that memory is released. A stack overflow happens if too many functions are called, and there's not enough room in the stack (which has a hard size limit) to allocate more memory.\n\nHow can this happen? Look at the following code for example:\n\n int foo() {\n return foo();\n }\n\nWhen you execute foo() for the first time, memory for it is allocated on the stack. But then the function calls itself - so memory is allocated again. The 2nd invocation of the function calls itself a 3rd time - and so on, to infinity (and beyond). Eventually the stack will run out of memory and the program will crash.",
"**Buffer overflow**\n\nA buffer overflow when you try to write data into a buffer (an array), and the data exceeds the size of the array. For example:\n\n char buffer[8];\n scanf(\"%s\", buffer);\n\nThe function scanf reads a string from the user into the buffer, which is 8 bytes long. However, scanf doesn't limit how many characters will be read - it will read until it's done (until a whitespace character is reached). So what happens if the user enters \"helloworld\"? The first 8 bytes are written into the buffer, but the rest are written just outside the boundaries of the array.\n\nNow one of three things can happen:\n\n1. The overwritten memory can be unimportant, and nothing bad will happen (for example, the memory could have been used previously in the function but not anymore).\n2. The program is not allowed to write to this memory, so it will report an error (and probably crash).\n3. The worst case is that the memory being overwritten is important, but the program continues running. This allows the user to change parts of the memory they shouldn't normally have access to, which is a security flaw (thanks /u/BrQQQ for expanding on this!).",
"Stack overflow: When you can't push another Pez into the dispenser because there just isn't room. Not enough room to write data/addresses into memory, because the stack is full.\n\nBuffer overflow: When you write the \"To:\" address on an envelope, and you don't stop at the edge of the envelope and you keep writing on the table. Writing bytes into memory past some predetermined limit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4wrdcq
|
sleep apnea and how it can lead to death
|
With the recent news of Zach Hemmila passing in his sleep, (senior football player at Arizona) many people question sleep apnea as a cause. Can someone go in depth on this issue, and does it worsen or get better with age?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wrdcq/eli5_sleep_apnea_and_how_it_can_lead_to_death/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d69bolg",
"d69csr1",
"d69denh",
"d69devs",
"d69ei73",
"d69eq0l",
"d69ernr",
"d69hxsp",
"d69l2fk",
"d69nm8m",
"d69rc34",
"d69rzvw",
"d69tsp2",
"d69vtj6",
"d69xb9o",
"d6a378i",
"d6a388u",
"d6a3myq",
"d6a621d"
],
"score": [
7,
34,
16,
487,
4,
17,
154,
9,
8,
2,
4,
2,
2,
78,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"In essence, obstructive sleep apnea collapses the airway while a person sleeps which prevents him or her from breathing properly. This can lead to long periods of time where the person does not breathe at all which, over time, cascades into all kinds of other health issues. Live with it long enough and it can kill either abruptly via some kind of heart event or through related issues over time.",
"Sleep apnea is when there is arrest of breathing in your sleep.\nIt doesn't necessarily cause you to wake up but may cause hypoxia brain damage over the long run.\n\nHow it works: \n- > you have hypertrophied adenoid glands/you are over weight/other risk factors \n\n- > during sleep, diminished air entering during inspiration/breathing in\n\n- > Carbon dioxide levels in blood increase \n\n- > respiratory acidosis (I.e acidification of blood)\n\n- > resultant hyperventilation/(increased rate of breathing) due to stimulation of respiratory centre in brain \n\n- > increased oxygenation due to increased breathing rate \n\n- > suppression of breathing due to high blood oxygen levels \n\n\nThis is your Chyne-Stoke Breathing(spelling citation needed) \nThis is what happens throughout your sleep in a cyclic fashion.\nIt causes discomfort and incomplete sleep.\nMaybe life threatening in severe cases \n\n\nShould be treated immediately. \n\nSurgical adenectomy, turbenectomy and other surgical corrections may help\n\nLifestyle changes to decrease weight are also helpful \n\n\n\n\nI am a med student",
"It can also lead to death this way: I was driving to work and fell asleep while driving. It was such a near miss with a tractor trailer that I had to sit for about an hour on the median getting myself together. I creeped to work and called my doctor who set up a sleep study immediately. Three days later I had a cpap and I felt like I had a new life. \nI have NEVER slept without using it for the past 14 years. ",
"If you have sleep apnea, your throat closes off while you sleep. This makes your brain panic and wake you up hundreds of times a night, even if you don't realize it. Over time, it enlarges your heart which can kill you. Also, it can make you incredibly tired. \n\nI use a CPAP machine when I sleep that blows enough air to inflate my throat while I sleep. It also has the added bonus of making a lot of fart noises when the mask isn't sealed on my face. ",
"For all the previous reasons mentioned, and also lack of or deprivation of sleep can have serious long-term impacts on your overall health, like increased risks of high blood-pressure, heart attacks, heart disease, stroke, weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and a weakened immune system.\n\nIt also impacts your mental health and performance as well, putting you an an increased risk for depression, hallucinations, moodiness, issues with memory-especially long-term memory, and other cognitive dysfunctions. ",
"There are multiple types of sleep apnea. The main 2 forms of it are called obstructive and central sleep apnea.\n\nIn ELI5 form:\n\nObstructive sleep apnea is when your wind pipe closes off while you sleep. This stops the fresh air supply to the lungs and causes the blood oxygen levels to decrease. /u/AwesomeREDEMPTION has written a good explanation of this in this thread.\n\nThe second main type of sleep apnea is central sleep apnea. This is when the body doesn't recognise the blood oxygen levels correctly and 'forgets' to breathe while asleep. \n\nTo answer your question, sleep apnea is one of the many causes of cot death in infants, and can kill older people too. Generally if you survive as an infant you tend to grow out of it, however it can also onset later in life due to various reasons such as weight gain and growth of adenoids.\n\nSource: I have a very rare form of sleep apnea, and am a veterinary med student\n\n\n ",
"Just to add to the personal experiences, which might help explain.\nI have what has been described as \"severe\" sleep apnea.\nWhen at its worst (via sleep test) I would breathe 18 - 20 seconds out of every minute - which was loud snoring, fractured, and painful (upon waking up). The remaining ~40 seconds I would cycle through silence, choking type movements, and what was best described (as per my wife when sleeping at home) as violent heaving of my chest. At some point my body wakes up enough to reopen my airway with a big inhale, then exhale, then repeat. While that doesn't happen ALL night, it happens for a significant portion. Due to the relaxation of my throat, etc, when I do breathe, the snoring is loud enough that it can be heard throughout my house, from top corner to opposite bottom two floors down, doors closed.\n\n\nSo in reading the above, think of the stress that causes on the body, the muscles, the heart, lungs, throat, etc.\n\nBeyond that are the lingering effects - lack of oxygen, lack of sleep (I can't remember how much deep sleep the report said I got, but it was way, way below a healthy amount), annoyed spouse...\n\nThis means I am always tired, which makes driving a challenge. I can fall asleep almost anytime within a few minutes. So I could sleep for 14 hours, get up for an hour or two, then easily go back to sleep. Hell, I can't study or be in a meeting without having trouble staying awake. :P\n\nAnyways, there are short term (asleep while driving / doing something) and long term implications (stress on body / heart) to sleep apnea that can lead to various avenues of death. Its not a fun thing to have.\n\nYour second question: does it get better with age? From my knowledge no, the specialists I have seen have basically stated that this is not going anywhere. I will have this until I die (hopefully not because of sleep apnea).\n\nTo try and ELI5 better: Sleep Apnea means your airways close (throat) while you sleep, stopping you from breathing. This places stress on your body and heart. It also stops you from getting the various stages of deeper sleep, which are important, and leave you tired throughout the day, thus more prone to accidents (clumsiness / falling asleep while driving / trying to pay attention).\n\n\nAS A NOTE: I do have a CPAP and it does help somewhat, the above is more of a description of my experience when NOT using it. Also CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) blows a constant stream of air into the mouth and / or nose set to a degree high enough to keep your airway open (different for everyone). This in effect stops things from closing up so you can breathe normally all night.",
"I could tolerate neither a CPAP nor a Bi-PAP machine (different pressures for inhalation and exhalation), so my ENT scheduled me for a uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP or UP3) to correct my moderate sleep apnea. I had it done this past Friday (three days ago). The doctor used a special laser to detach and remove my tonsils and to remove some tissue in my pharynx. He also sutured my uvula to my soft palate, and finished by suturing the pharynx. He sent me home with prescriptions for antibiotics, anti-nausea medication (since I have to take so many antibiotics), and 100 percocet.\n\nI haven't noticed yet any difference in sleep patterns, mainly because I am still dealing with pain in my jaw from it being clamped open during surgery and irritation of the throat from the surgery and my tongue from the sutures rubbing against it.\n\nI don't think I ever realized how serious of a problem sleep apnea is until recently. I was just tired of always being tired, so I started to take it seriously which led to me getting sleep studies done, trying out CPAP, and committing to this surgery. While UPPP doesn't hacve a 100% success rate in curing sleep apnea, I believe it will be successful in my case because there have been many times while just walking around when I have noticed myself having labored breathing due to all the crap in the back of my mouth obstructing my trachea. Now that it is gone, I expect I'll be sleeping a lot more soundly.",
"A more subtle way sleep apnea can kill you is by causing arrhythmias (abnormal conduction of electricity in the heart). \n\n* Sleep apnea, through various mechanisms, decreases the amount of oxygen in your lungs. When the decreased oxygen in your lungs ultimately feeds back to your pulmonary arterioles, they vasoconstrict in the hopes of diverting blood from the right ventricle to more oxygen-rich areas of your lung. Unfortunately, the decreased oxygenation is caused by some factor in your upper airways(obstructive sleep apnea/OSA) or brain(central sleep apnea), so the pulmonary arterioles undergo a more diffuse vasoconstriction.\n \n* Now the right ventricle has to pump against much more resistance(narrower tubes) to get blood to the lungs. It can overcome that pressure by building thicker muscles, ultimately screwing up its electrical wiring and decreasing the amount of blood it can pump(by decreasing the amount of blood it can hold(preload)). Or it can accept its fate, get overloaded with fluid, and get stretched out, also ultimately screwing up its electrical wiring and decreasing the amount it can pump(muscle fibers stretched beyond their optimal efficiency point can't contract well(contractility)).\n\n* Well, right before the right ventricle is the right atrium. It is where the electrical rhythms of your heart normally originate. Its relationship with increased right ventricle pressure is similar to the right ventricle's relationship with increased lung arteriole pressures. However, it is more likely to stretch out like a balloon rather than thicken its wall muscles, compared to the right ventricle. This royally screws up its conduction pathways and can lead to problems like Afib and potentially other arrhythmias.\n\nEDIT: learning to format",
"I am not a doctor, nor have any affiliation with a company that sells the device I am about to mention. I simply have sleep apnea. For anyone having issues using a CPAP, I recently switched to a TAP device. It's an adjustable mouthpiece professionally made from the dentist that shifts my bottom jaw forward while I sleep to prevent my throat from collapsing. I no longer snore and feel just as well as when I used my CPAP. I slept with a CPAP for years and tired of lugging it on trips. Feel free to ask me any questions.",
"Just adding that if you have or suspect you have sleep apnea, treating it might be wonderfully life changing. I avoided the truth for 10+ years. When I finally went through the process (sleep test, diagnosis, another night sleeping to get the pressure right in my case) and then got used to the machine (about 2 months) - changed my life. For me, I just wasn't exhausted any more. I didn't realize how tired I was literally all the time until I realized that when people asked me how I was, I stopped saying \"great, but tired\". \n\nIt's a project to get it all done, but there's no pain, just a time investment (at least for me) and totally worth it. If anyone wants to PM me on this, feel free.\n",
"Does insurance cover any part of a sleep test? I'm just wondering how much $ is involved. I know I need a test, I've been avoiding it though because of the cost. ",
"Trying my first ELI5:\n\nThe obstructive sleep apnea causes your oxygen levels to fall to dangerously levels during sleep, while not for the whole time but very often. The missing oxygen in your blood causes cells to be damaged and also a high blood pressure (hypertension). So it puts a strain on your heart (it will become bigger) and lungs trying to cope for the missing Oxygen. It will not become better with age but most likely worsen.\n\nSource:\nI have sleep apnea and have to use a CPAP and are in my mid 30s it was diagnosed in my early 20s. I was known since high-school for my snoring. It will most likely accompany me until i die or until a treatment is found.\n\nIf you know someone who snores loudly or gasping for air during sleep, let him see a doc, you might save years of his life.",
"For anyone considering a CPAP or just getting one: \n\nIt's going to be weird and uncomfortable at first. You HAVE to be diligent, use it every night no matter what, and don't give up on it. \n\nI hated mine at first and I would take it off after 4 or 5 hours all the time. Now, I can't imagine sleeping without it. Give it at LEAST 3 months before you even consider flaking out. I promise you, it will eventually become like a security blanket and you'll love it. \n\nAlso, don't get your expectations too high about your life changing and being a \"whole new person\", etc. There's no question, you will feel BETTER for sure. Some people, depending on the severity of their apnea, will feel more envigorated than others. \n\nThe main thing is, to stick with it. If you have bad apnea, it's really not optional for you. Get your machine, use it, and feel better. \nBONUS: In the winter, you can cover your head with your blankets and still breathe nice cool air through the hose. Like a bed scuba diver.",
"I'm an Respiratory therapist... Maybe I can shed some light on this issue for you. First, let's discuss the two different kinds of sleep apnea. One form of sleep apnea is called central sleep apnea (CSA). In this form of sleep apnea your brain doesn't send a signal out to your nervous system to breath, so you'll literally stop breathing until Co2 levels get high enough that it wakes you up gasping to breath. The other form of sleep apnea is called obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). You usually see this form of sleep apnea in obese individuals or athletes with thick necks/short necks. When your body goes into R.E.M sleep your entire body relaxes and goes into a temporary state of paralysis. This causes the muscles and tissues around your airway to relax which can occlude your airway. This can lead to hypoxia/hypercapnia and loss of airway protection. This can cause restless ness, daytime headaches, and mood swings. I believe OSA is what contributed to the death of Hall Of Fame defensive end Reggie White as well. Having any form of sleep apnea and drinking can also be a deadly combo as well because alcohol is a depressant and you may not wake up when your Co2 levels get high enough. Usually the effects of sleep apnea can be mitigated by using a CPAP or BIPAP at night to sleep. If you are experiencing any of those symptoms that I listed you may want to consult with your PCP and look into having a sleep study done. But to answer your question, yes, sleep apnea in either form can KILL YOU! I won't say age isn't a factor, but considering most cases I see are OSA, usually health is the bigger factor. If you're to obese, OSA can kill you... If you're a healthy body builder/football player with a large neck circumference... OSA can kill you! \n\nEdited: words ",
"One thing I didn't see mentioned is that severe untreated sleep apnea can cause tremendous extra work on your heart which in turn leads to right heart failure (very bad) which can cause death in a short period of time. \n\nSource: anesthesiologist ",
"I suffer from extremely severe sleep apnea, my breathing stops an average of 96 times an hour. Do the math. This can kill. I literally cannot fall asleep at this point, because survival instinct, without a CPAP. Before then I was slowly choking to death every night having to sleep upwards of 16 hours a day to get anything like reasonable rest. I gained 150lbs despite healthy eating and exercise 5 nights a week. My metabolism may be permanently changed and I will never be in the shape I once was. Yes, sleep apnea can MAKE you fat, not just visa versa as many many people claim (including doctors). Mine is caused by enlarged tonsils and a deviated septum, but insurance will cover neither operation because the CPAP therapy works perfectly. The worst thing about sleep apnea, for me, isn't the fact I'm tied to a machine for life. It's not that I can't just fall asleep in the afternoon. The worst part is that people think I have it because I'm fat and that if I lost the weight I wouldn't need the machine. Good luck convincing them otherwise because outside of photographic documentation of my previous body no one believes me when I tell them it was the other way around.",
"Sleep apnoea = periods of not breathing in your sleep.\n\nCause of not breathing = base of tongue, other soft tissues becoming floppy when you sleep causing obstruction to breathy tube between mouth and lungs.\n\nResponse = body senses not breathing as carbon dioxide rises in your blood, brain freaks out and kicks of your \"fight or flight\" networks (sympathetic drive for the A* 5 year olds), to get you to wake up enough to take a better breath.\n\nResult = you don't die immediately from not breathing.\n\nLong term problem leading to greater chance of death = not fully understood. Emerging evidence suggests the repeated sympathetic stimulation multiple times a night for years on end is similar to living a stressful life, even if your daily living isn't stressful, which we know also kills you earlier.\n\nNo references because 5 year olds don't get them. But google scholar will be your friend if you wish. \n",
"While sleep apnea does result in pauses in respiration during sleep, the main danger is not actually from choking, but from the associated disorders. Sleep apnea is known to significantly increase the risk of stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension, and myocardial infarction.\n\nSource: I'm a doctor that used to work at a sleep clinic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2qcwc2
|
bleach... how does it!
|
Today I had a bucket of dirty water (brown from mopping my kitchen floor) then was cut off in my area due to a fire a few blocks down the road
I wasnt finished cleaning so I dropped about a cup of bleach into the bucket, then went to be a spectator of this christmas fire.
returned and the water was clear! and no longer brown.. How and why does this work/happen?
P.s. I did not leave the mop in the bucket
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qcwc2/eli5bleach_how_does_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn4ynjb",
"cn50el2"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Did the dirt drop out of solution and settle to the bottom of the bucket? What happens if you agitate the mixture?",
"Color in living materials is often caused by molecules where electrons are relatively mobile (_URL_0_) - bleach adds oxygen atoms to these molecules, and electrons then tend to stay near to the oxygen atoms and lose enough mobility so that the molecule is no longer colorful"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugated_system"
]
] |
|
e60l7d
|
How and why did Russia expand over the Urals into Asia?
|
If we think of the territory of the Kievan Rus as the "original" Russian territory, then how and why did they expand into Siberia and the Far East? Under the Mongol and Tatar Yokes they were still limited to Europe, if I remember correctly, so how did they move East?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/e60l7d/how_and_why_did_russia_expand_over_the_urals_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9o6cw8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Without being too obnoxiously self-referential, anyone who has seen my answers in this sub concerning the growth and contraction of Mother Rus' during various periods of time knows that I am a big fan of great maps, so please allow me to start this answer with the provision of [such a map](_URL_1_).\n\nOnce you see that green blob grow past the Urals, it's important to point out that any modern map claiming to show the 'borders of Russia' beyond the Ural Mountains (which represent among the last significant natural landmarks in Siberia until you get to at least Lake Baikal, if not the Pacific Ocean) at some historical point in time is built upon a substantial amount of estimation. These lands, even after their conquest, were mostly inhabited by steppe and nomadic peoples and so to claim that anyone-- let alone the cartographers and surveyors of the Age of Exploration-- were capable of mandating or identifying any kind of steadfast borders in an area that had (in its most inhabited regions) a population density of < 0.8 people/ km^(2) *in the early twentieth century*^(\\[)[^(1)](_URL_0_)^(\\]) (to say nothing of the sixteenth through eighteenth) would be placing an inordinate amount of faith in their abilities.\n\nThat said though, the *when* of your question is answered quite nicely by that map showing that by about 1550, the territory that Russians considered to be Russia had reached up to about modern-day Krasnoyarsk (founded 1628 at 92^(o) E). By 1700 it had reached the Kamchatka Peninsula (the modern-day capital of which, Petropavlosk-Kamchatsky, was founded in 1740 at 158^(o) E) and by about 1760 had reached the effective end of the road in modern-day Anadyr (founded in 1889 at 177^(o) E). The first of those landmarks is right in the center of modern Russia, the second is a huge peninsula in the Pacific, and the final is [just about as far northeast as one is capable of going](_URL_3_) on continental Russia. For more human-readable measurements, keep in mind that 1^(o) of latitude is equivalent to 111 km or 69 miles as the crow flies. So a little quick math here, that means the distances we're talking about here are on the order of several thousand kilometer bursts of expansion eastward at various points of time-- for comparison, the United States of America spans about 4,400 kilometers lengthwise. It took staggered groups of Russian explorers about 60 years to get from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean-- that feat in and of itself should not be discounted, on account of its sheer audacity alone.\n\nWhat you essentially had was explorers pressing eastward until they could not believe that they had found nothing but Siberian tundra for the last couple years and just calling it a day, setting up some small armed outpost, planting a flag, and claiming that the land was now nominally a part of the expanded Russian Empire.\n\nThere was certainly not-insignificant skirmishing with indigenous peoples that occurred from time to time (probably most notably on the Kamchatka Peninsula), but the sheer volume of land made such incidents far less traumatic or commonplace than, say, the more-famous Americas analog. It must have been absolutely infuriating to read about those glory hounds in Spain sailing back from the New World with literally so much silver that they deflated their own economy into ruins while you were freezing to death in -13 C^(o) eating dried fish and spoiled oatmeal. Not that that ever actually happened, but it produces a pretty funny mental image.\n\nJust a little context for the unacquainted reader there to start, but now, onto the *why*. I hate to give you an overly terse answer here, but the primary reason to keep pressing onward was economic. As I alluded to earlier, this was all occurring against the backdrop of the European Age of Exploration and the ruling classes of Russia had no intention of missing out on the plunder. What Siberia may lack in sandy beaches, habitable climate, and picturesque mountaintops, it makes up for in gold and silver ore, fur-bearing animals, timber, and natural gas (the latter of which wasn't really exploitable until the late eighteenth century of course). In fact, the near-fruitlessness of the Siberian adventurism of Yermak Timofeyevich (1500s), Vasily Poyarkov (1600s), and Vladimir Atlasov (1700s) is part of what inspired Pyotr I the Great to build his 'window on the west' Saint-Petersburg (1703), establish a reliable navy, and shift his focus westward instead of the increasingly diminishing returns provided by the far east^(\\[2\\]). That's not to say that these explorers never discovered anything of value-- quite the opposite actually. But the problem is that they didn't really have the technology (or indigenous people to enslave *à la* Hernán Cortés) to maximize their yield or:\n\n* Transport timber, iron, gold, or other resources by railroad (not commonplace in Russia proper, let alone Siberian Russia, until the middle eighteenth century).\n* Access the deep veins of metal ore buried well below the permafrost of Siberia via sub-surface mining techniques that wouldn't become popular until the twentieth century, meaning any incidental ore discovery was quickly depleted.\n* Change animal migration patterns which mandated that a trapper continue moving onward in search of his prey.\n\nThis begins to get us to the *how* of the whole thing-- by the eighteenth century, the exploration of the now-Russian Far East was increasingly done by ships^(\\[3\\]). Earlier, these land-based groups consisted of anywhere between fifteen and a few hundred men (and women, who were almost assuredly brought along in the capacity of sexual slaves-- or concubines I guess, if you prefer that terminology) marching eastward without much of an established goal other than 'find stuff to sell and establish military bases.' As unremarkable as it sounds, these expeditions were largely just groups of what amounted to pirates marching off into the Siberian tundra and coming back several years later with booty, or, you know, not coming back because they died of exposure, betrayal at the hands of their cohorts, or some form of armed combat with the locals.\n\nI mentioned encounters with indigenous Siberians earlier, and it's important to point out that although the bulk of these peoples either accepted or hopelessly resisted Russian overlordship, there were several groups of people who managed to severely disrupt these expeditions. The Kamchadal people (from whom the Kamchatka Peninsula derives its name) were notoriously rigid in the defense of their homeland but ultimately suffered the same fate as many of the other peoples between Moscow and the Pacific Ocean-- forced relocation to reservations, insurrection, brutal repression, submission, assimilation^(\\[4\\]). Why did the Kamchadal put up such a significant and capable fight? There's not really a definitive answer to that question in the historical record as the Itelmen language (which was spoken by the Kamchadal) had no written form until after Atlasov's conquest of their homeland. Furthermore, all but the aforementioned Itelmen dialect of the Kamchadal language were rendered extinct during the Christianization and associated repressions foisted upon the Kamchadal after they capitulated. Perhaps the 15,000-20,000 Kamchadal fought so vehemetly because their material circumstances were so much more dire than those living in the vast expanses of Siberia. The Kamchadal lived on a peninsula which was surrounded by water except for a \\~150 km (\\~100 mi) isthmus connecting it the continent, so they didn't exactly have many options other than to stay put and fight.\n\nModern-day Kamchadals still have some semblance of cultural heritage such as dialectic language and culture, but for the most part (as with most other indigenous peoples) they have been more or less assimilated into the so-called Russian ethnicity. Think of it like the Cossacks: among people in the know, they are certainly understood to be a distinct ethnic group, but to most non-Russian people on the street, they would be identified as Russians.\n\nSo that's really that. How did they do it? The super hard way. They just hoofed it until they ran out of steam. Why did they do it? They wanted to get paid and cash in the first time globalization reared its head upon the developing world. I don't say that to discount the tremendous human achievement of basically walking across a fifth of the globe in a matter of two generations, because it most certainly was that as well.\n\n*Sources and Further Reading*\n\n\\[3\\] Bonhomme, Brian; *Russian Exploration From Siberia to Space* (2012)\n\n\\[4\\] Murashko, Olga; [*A Demographic History of the Kamchadal/Itelmen of Kamchatka Peninsula*](_URL_2_); Arctic Anthropology (1994)\n\n\\[2\\] Sokol, A.E.; Russian Expansion and Exploration in the Pacific; The American Slavic and East European Review (1952)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.prlib.ru/en/node/417502",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Expansi%C3%B3n_territorial_de_Rusia.svg",
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/40316361",
"https://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/anadyr-from-above-russia-2.jpg"
]
] |
|
31vt2h
|
why does time seem to slow when your body is in shock?
|
I pulled out when the green light appeared and a truck wasnt paying attention and nearly t boned me. Time seemed to slow even though my foot was still on the gas. The only thing that stopped the collision was a car behind me honked their horn and the truck slammed on the brakes.
My heart was pounding even an hour after what happened, along with a headache.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31vt2h/eli5_why_does_time_seem_to_slow_when_your_body_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq5esq5",
"cq5evdd",
"cq5ucut"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think about the idea of your mind racing, When you have the feeling of shock your mind will race doing more in that short amount of time then normal give this illusion effect that time slows down ",
"When you have adrenaline running in your body, your brain remembers more events taking place rather than deleting them. This causes you to think like time is slow when in actual fact, it isn't. \n\nThink of it like a video. The more frames you have, the longer the video, and therefore, the more detail.",
"The jury's out. Both previous answers are theories. Other places say it's just an illusion of your memory, such as this article: _URL_0_\n\nI anecdotally reject that conclusion. Once I was riding on the back of a four-wheeler. We were going up a steep hill. When we got to the lip of the edge, the driver down-shifted for some reason. As soon as the front tire lifted in the air, time slowed. It wasn't an illusion. I had a series of distinct individual thoughts. \n\n > Did he just..?\n\n > Shit!\n\n > This is going to hurt...\n\nThen my back hit the ground and everything went real-time again and I felt the impact and watched the 4 wheeler flip into the air. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html"
]
] |
|
7y51b4
|
In 1971, DC introduced their first black superhero, the Green Lantern John Stewart. How did the fan reaction at the time compare to the modern fan reaction to black legacy characters?
|
[this](_URL_0_) post got me wondering, was the reaction to John Stewart similar to the way people reacted to new 52 Wally West, or Miles Morales?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7y51b4/in_1971_dc_introduced_their_first_black_superhero/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvzghri"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"First, some background comic-related context: since Green Lanterns were introduced as an organization of \"Space Cops\" and Hal Jordan was never identified as *the* Green Lantern (rather, he was identified as the current Green Lantern of Earth), John Stewart's original introduction as a temporary substitute for Hal was simply not going to generate the kind of press or negative reaction that (theoretically) permanently racebending a character previously established as white (Wally) or introducing a permanent legacy character (Miles) would. Hal was also still around, so you didn't have the disgruntled Hal fanbase disliking John on principle.\n\nAs a character, he slowly transitioned from being a one-off character to being a major recurring character to being the main headliner, so readers got used to seeing him before Hal relinquished his title as the 'Green Lantern of Earth'. \"Green Lantern\" had also already been established as a progression of legacy heroes rather than the creation of an individual, since Alan Scott was the original Green Lantern from the 1940s (DC had already reinvented the character once when they came up with Hal Jordan in the 60s) and Guy Gardner (another Green Lantern) [had already been introduced about four years before in 1968](_URL_2_); every Green Lantern had already been established as having a designated backup in case he or she is injured or incapacitated. In general, the Corps also made legacies the standard practice, as when a Lantern dies his/her ring seeks out a suitable replacement. Simply put, the introduction of *another Green Lantern* was simply \"not that big of a deal\"; it had already been done. The Green Lantern has always been more of a \"job position transfering to a new applicant\" kind of situation rather than a \"passing of the torch\" situation, which complexifies matters a bit.\n\nAdditionally, by the time John actually officially took over for Hal in 1984, DC already had an established history of legacy \"mainverse\" characters (Jason Todd was Robin at the time, Diana Prince was wandering around as a secret agent, Barry Allen was about to die and have Wally West take up his mantle as Flash II (not to mention the fact that Barry Allen was himself a legacy hero, as Jay Garrick had already been established as the \"original Flash\"), \"Black Canary\" was about to pass from mother Dinah Drake to daughter Dinah Lance, etc) and several other black heroes had been created by that point. \n\nThe one final thing needed to understand John's introduction in context is that DC had *just* published \"Snowbirds Don't Fly\", which marked a **huge** watershed moment of DC Comics (and especially in Green Lantern and Green Arrow comics) beginning to deal with socially/politically relevant topics (for more on \"Snowbirds Don't Fly\" and why it was important, please see a previous response I've done on the topic [here](_URL_0_)). So DC, in 1971 when they introduced John Stewart, had already taken the first \"big leap\" into dealing with serious politically and socially salient issues. Sidenote: several reactions to said story can actually be found in \"Letters to the Editor\" of [John's introductory issue](_URL_1_); they're quite fascinating."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/DCcomics/comments/7y2dc5/with_all_the_excitement_about_black_panther_this/"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/806p4b/comic_books_featuring_superheroes_in_the_60s70s/dvwkkf8/",
"http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Green-Lantern-1960/Issue-87?id=28308#17",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/Green_Lantern_59_Mar_1968.jpg"
]
] |
|
iua0a
|
Why can't I leg press my weight if I am able to walk on my legs all the time?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/iua0a/why_cant_i_leg_press_my_weight_if_i_am_able_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c26ofkt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Leg pressing involves lifting the weight, which involves more energy than carrying the weight. For example, pick a bowling ball off the ground an inch, then put it back down. Now lift it over your head and back down. The latter is harder. A better example may be to stand still with a bowling ball in your hand, or continually lift it over your head and back down. The latter will wear your out faster, because you use energy in order to lift the ball against gravity. When you walk, you aren't lifting your weight. You are carrying your weight. Leg presses involve going against gravity. You are using energy to stop gravity from succeeding. Standing/walking goes _with_ gravity. Your body rests atop your legs which rest atop your feet.\n\nSo, how much energy does it take to push your body's worth of weight against the force of gravity? A lot. How much energy does it take to not do anything and let gravity do all the work for you? None."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1shgi5
|
In 1911, China appeared to be headed towards a democratic form of government. Why did China not choose Democracy?
|
I understand that there were opposed views of Western ideas, but could anyone elaborate on why Democracy didn't pull through?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1shgi5/in_1911_china_appeared_to_be_headed_towards_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdy5ur7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Okay, I'm pretty new to reddit and Chinese history isn't my forte, but I am pretty sure that I can give you a pretty good answer on why China didn't become a documentary. At the end of the 19th century it was pretty well known that the Qing's modernization efforts had completely failed in almost every way possible and was carved into multiple spheres of influence. Before the fall of the Qing, a nationalist uprising called the Boxer Rising had failed to get rid of these foreign spheres of influence and establish China's independence (note, that the sphere's of influence mostly hugged the coast of China and not the whole of China itself). However the Boxer Uprising failed to boot out the Western Powers (and Japan) and in the end of the treaty China was saddled with massive reparations. In order to pay off the reparations, the Qing government attempted to nationalize railways built by native Chinese investors. This didn't go so well with the public, and it revived anti-Manchu feelings of the Han Majority (the Qing government was a Manchu dynasty, a small ethnic group in what is now North Eastern China). This caused a rebellion led by the Kuomintang, a nationalist political party led by Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese doctor who was educated in America. Although the Qing government was not popular, the KMT did not have the strength to take all of China. In order to secure themselves victory, the KMT was able to woo over Yuan Shikai, a high ranking Qing general, on their side. Yuan Shikai ended up negotiating the transition from imperial rule to a democracy, but put his terms for negotiation as being the next president of China. After internal deliberation, the KMT allowed this and put elections into place. The KMT wins the elections in 1911, but Song Jiaoren, the KMT prime minister was assassinated with the trail leading back to Yuan because the KMT wanted to give more power to the prime minister than the executive. This sparked a rebellion. Yuan, still having control of the military, then puts down the rebellion and declares himself emperor. He then dies soon after.\n\nHowever, during Shikai's rule, he had divided China up into provinces with a military general in charge of all forces in the area (sort of similar to many traditional Chinese dynasties). So when Shikai dies, the multiple generals in charge of the area go their separate ways. Remember Sun Yat Sen? Yeah, he wasn't in the middle of nowhere. He was camped in South East China, reestablished the KMT and..... still lacked a large enough military and enough funding to break out of the South East. Basically what happens is that there is a loose \"government\" headed in what is now Beijing, but it really is a collection of warlords, Sun Yat Sen dies.\n\nAfter Sun dies, a man named Chiang Kai Shek comes to power. Chiang is a little different than Sun. Chiang Kai Shek had grown up in a time where China was getting pounded by multiple foreign powers, the KMT at the time had cozied up with the Communist Party of China in a United Front and the Nationalists joined the Comintern and were in an alliance with the Soviet Union in order to increase their military strength. So Chiang's vision for China is a little different than Sun's. Chiang envisioned a China under one party rule which would, after a time of national building, become a democracy. So in 1926, Chiang pushes out of South Eastern China and begins to unify China. This goes well, but the CCP (Communist Party of China) and the KMT do not trust each other. So Chiang purges the CCP. In 1927, Nationalists troops massacre the Communists starting in Shanghai. The CCP is pushed out in the country and Chiang goes on to temporarily reunify China.\n\nBy this time, Republic of China is not a democracy. Chiang accepts some warlords if they remain loyal to him (although Chiang controls the majority of the Chinese seaboard). And the place is a one party state. A man named Mao Zedong realizes that the peasants are loyal supporters to the CCP since the CCP is much less corrupt to than the nationalists. Attempts to purge the CCP fail as they Communist Party makes a daring move North. Eventually the Japanese invade Manchuria, and then the rest of China itself. The rest of this story, you probably know.\n\nI want to say a couple comments on your question though. With all due respect, I do not think the question \"Why did China not choose democracy?\" is a very good wording of the question. Nearly every democracy is relatively wealthy. Taiwan (the country that was formed after the Nationalist loss of the Civil War) became a democracy in the 1990s- a good while after the country had fully economically modernized. South Korea? The same. Singapore? Under one party rule (albeit democratic and a bit authoritarian). India? Democratic but the Indian National Congress has basically run the show. Basically, it takes a middle class to make a democracy. So it shouldn't be such a big suprise that an impoverished country \"didn't choose\" democracy. A great deal of research in economic development agrees with this. Which I can link sometime later. Anyways got to go.\n\nsources: Mao's China and After by Maurice Meisner\nhad to Wiki some of the stuff cuz my memory is pretty bad on the Qing dynasty.\nI'm an economics major, so most of my knowledge on this area is more present focused and on the economy than in the far past but I hope this does help."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6l8qu4
|
Why did Peter the Great make St. Petersburg the capital of Russia?
|
I mean it was right on the doorstep of their main rival Sweden. The worst thing your enemy can do to you is conquering your capital city so it seemed kinda counterproductive.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6l8qu4/why_did_peter_the_great_make_st_petersburg_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djrz9bx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Russia lacked a warm(er) water port in which they could trade with other kingdoms/nations. Before Peter was able to seize Nyenskans, a fortress built by the Swedes in 1611, the only port that Russia heavily used was Arkhangelsk, which was neither attractive nor practical for international trade. Arkhangelsk was so cold, it shut down completely for long stretches of the year due to ice in the port. \n \nBy seizing a fortress on the Baltic Sea, Peter had two objectives: \n \n1. Warm water port, with access to the important cities on the Baltic such as Gdansk/Danzig, Königsberg, Lübeck, etc. \n \n2. Peter could build a \"European\" city akin to other capitals on the continent that weren't nearly as \"Slavic\" or \"Eastern\" in nature. It would look more like German, Austrian, French, or Dutch cities as opposed to Moscow, which had more of a Slavic/Eastern feel to it. It also would help usher Russia into the modern European Era and bring them to par with Prussia, Austria, France, and Britain. This was at the cost of Poland and Sweden, for better or for worse. \n \nPeter brought in famous architects from all over Europe to help build St. Petersburg into a \"European\" city, complete with Baroque, Rococo, and neoclassical styles (Shvidkovskiĭ). Peter wanted St. Petersburg to be mentioned in the same breath as Amsterdam, Paris, Vienna, and so on. \n \nBasically, these two reasons are why he made the city Russia's capital. It signalled a new, \"modern\", and \"European\" Russia, as opposed to the rather backwards, barbaric, and \"Eastern\" reputation that Russia had before his time. \n\nSources: \n \nRobert K. Massie, *Peter the Great: His Life and World* \n \nJames Cracraft, *The Revolution of Peter the Great* \n \nDmitriĭ Olegovich Shvidkovskiĭ, *St. Petersburg: Architecture of the Tsars*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
819oz1
|
what are the advantages/disadvantages of royalty vs. equity deals for start up companies on shark tank?
|
It always seems to be like the entrepreneurs on Shark Tank interpret the royalty deals as strictly worse, but I don't understand how to do the math to come to that conclusion. Example: One shark offers 100k for 5% equity, another offers 1$ royalty when selling the product at say 7$ until the 100k is recouped. Why is 1 deal strictly worse than the other, how did you do the math to figure it out?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/819oz1/eli5_what_are_the_advantagesdisadvantages_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv1khy9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Why is 1 deal strictly worse than the other, how did you do the math to figure it out?\n\nEquity is ownership in the company. If they pay $100,000 for 5% of the company they will break even at the point the company is worth $2 million. But as the company becomes more valuable their profit isn't capped at any value; conceptually they could make millions if the company is successful. They also get to vote on the composition of the board, the company owes them a legal obligation to treat their investment with due care, etc. If the CEO spends the $100,000 on hookers and blow then they can sure for recompense.\n\nOn the other hand a royalty is a simple capped loan. They can't make back much more than the $100,000 because the deal ends then, so if they still 20 million units they still only make a dollar from the first 100,000. They don't get to vote on the board members or the direction of the company, and they have no legal recourse if the management acts without regard to their financial investment. And finally if the company fails to sell units they can't turn around and sell off the assets of the company to make their money back.\n\nIt doesn't really need much in the way of calculations to see why the royalty is much worse than equity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3b0oj6
|
If mitochondrial DNA is always inherited from the mother, is the same true for chloroplast DNA? What about other organelles?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3b0oj6/if_mitochondrial_dna_is_always_inherited_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csiw8dx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes and no, some plants DO inherit the chloroplast and other plastids maternally but there are a sizable amount of plants that inherit plastids paternally . For the most parts, it's angiosperms that inherit maternally and gymnosperms that inherit paternally but there are species in each group that will do the opposite. This makes things complicated when studying male or female dispersal among plants, at least more so than animals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
34nfb0
|
A historiography question. What do historians think about sensationalist history literature, e.g., Bill O'Reilly's "Killing (historical figures name here)" books.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34nfb0/a_historiography_question_what_do_historians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqwb0wi",
"cqwzey7"
],
"score": [
56,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of professional historians don't like any popular history, although I think there is a lot of nuance within that category. What you're talking about is the dregs of pop history. The books usually function by positioning themselves as \"knowing a secret\" that the historical establishment doesn't want to know. They can throw out lots of facts that sound plausible, but the ideas are so far out there no professional historian would consider the theory. People eat up the theory because they don't have enough knowledge to debunk the claims themselves, and knowing a secret makes them feel special. \n\nThe problem with this is that legitimate historical books get ignored in favor of these conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the historical establishment also tends to discourage it's members from writing books for a popular audience, which leaves a gap that these kinds of books can take advantage of.",
"Sensationalist history literature might be useful to engage people in History who might not be interested otherwise, but that's about it. The problem is that historical \"literature\" written by people who can be described as self-publicists and who are proven liars, like Bill O'Reilly, are most unlikely to be any kind of accurate objective history, and are far more likely either to be polemics and distortions that support their particular viewpoint, or are likely to try to deliberately create a sensation. In any case, they are unlikely to be original research or works of any level of scholarship worth reading."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
173mhc
|
hey reddit, i'm an australian and i would like to know how the welfare system works in america. thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/173mhc/hey_reddit_im_an_australian_and_i_would_like_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c81wkds",
"c81ynid",
"c826ka7"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's changing quite a bit with the PPACA (obamacare). There are many different aspects of what would be traditionally considered \"welfare\". For example, food stamps, aka the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP), are given to individuals or families with low income to provide money for food. Typically these benefits are provided via a benefit card that acts kinda like a prepaid card. This benefit card only works for certain items at the store. The are tons of regulations regarding how much you receive and how long you can continue receiving benefits. \n\nAdditionally, there is a program called temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) which provides assistance in the form of cash. Like if your car breaks down you may be eligible for a one-time payment to offset those costs.\n\nNow let's move into Medicaid. Medicaid is basically insurance for low income families/individuals. To be eligible for Medicaid after obamacare your eligibility will be based on your modified adjusted gross income (magi) which is calculated after after taxes. This is somewhat problematic since many individuals who would be eligible for Medicaid don't file taxes or aren't required to file taxes. In those cases it goes to pre-obamacare rules which are based on income and assets that are typically identified through interviews. Chip is the children's health insurance program and is similar/(the same) as Medicaid only it is only for children. \n\nMedicare is for elderly people and is basically insurance for them too.\n\nWith obamacare, States will have health exchanges which will basically be the Amazon/ebay of health insurance. Depending on which state one lives in well determine how those exchanges are run.\n\nUmmm... There is definitely more I can explain (especially about Medicaid), do you have any other questions specifically? \n\nThe idea behind welfare is to try and help people out of poverty. Unfortunately, the is a big stigma to receiving welfare benefits which makes them less effective than they potentially could be. ",
"It really doesn't very well. Thanks for asking, glad to help.\n\nOkay, bitter joke over. But it is true that as nations with mostly paved roads go, we're probably worse at this than anyone.\n\nThe money comes mostly from the federal government, but is mostly managed by the states, as the result of a compromise made many years ago. The result, as you'd expect, is greater cost, complexity, bureaucracy, and confusion. More, this federal money is most commonly distributed in 'block grants,' leaving states to decide for themselves how 'best' to use it. And that means that it will vary, sometimes considerably, from state to state. In general -- and again, predictably -- it tends to be better in more liberal states than in more conservative ones. Not only in terms of the amounts covered or provided, but the qualifications, too. And the rules will commonly vary from one political and fiscal cycle to the next.\n\nIt's basically a Kafkaesque nightmare.\n",
"Why? So you can come here and mooch off us hard workin' 'Muricans like all those other foreigners? Get lost.\n\nI'm just kidding. There are already a few good answers, I don't have anything to add."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
174pjv
|
The lowest natural temperature ever recorded was -126F (in Antarctica). Would CO2 have precipitated out of the air?
|
If so, could you have seen it? What would it look like?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/174pjv/the_lowest_natural_temperature_ever_recorded_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c82cxc7"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"This was answered about a month ago. The answer is no, because the partial pressure of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is too low. The sublimation rate is faster than the condensation rate.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14oeqe/is_a_rain_snow_of_carbon_dioxide_possible_in/"
]
] |
|
ee9no6
|
if a large pill contains a small amount of medication, what is the rest of the pill for?
|
If let's say my vitamin D pill contains 50 micrograms of vitamin D, what is the rest of the pill made of and what is its function?
Because seemingly the pill is much more in weight than 50 mcg.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ee9no6/eli5_if_a_large_pill_contains_a_small_amount_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbrw584",
"fbsbx5u",
"fbsey3g"
],
"score": [
23,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most pills/tablets contain such a small amount of active ingredient that it would be impossible to handle it unless it's placed within a binding material. So it's mixed with a harmless bulking/binding ingredient and pressed into a pill form. They can also be used to mask unpleasant tastes or provide an additional ingredient to help absorption (or even slow absorption). Pills can also have alphanumeric codes, colours added or be a specific shape to help in identification. \n\nThis isn't just used for pharmaceutical drugs, illicit pills such as MDMA are mixed with binding agents to help press it into tablet form, and provide the producer with a way of marking their tablets.",
"To expand on the answers already:\n\n1. As has been said, a large part the pill will be 'filler' which is meant to be inert. This is included to make the pill a reasonable size for handling by human fingers.\n2. Pills may also contain a binding agent, which changes how the pill breaks down. Binders can slow down how quickly the pill dissolves (to make it longer acting, sustained release).\n3. Some pills will have a coating that makes them resistant to breakdown, for example, in the stomach. This is often to protect the medication from the acidic stomach environment, or alternatively to protect the stomach from the medication (e.g., if it increases risk of unceration)\n4. There are also a collection of miscellaneous other compounds added, usually grouped under the name 'excipients'. These include:\n 1. Coloring. This makes different pills more easy to identify than if they were all the same colour. Some medications have different doses identified with different colours.\n 2. Flavouring. Some medications are flavoured (e.g., there has been a liquid peppermint-flavoured version of Prozac made to be more palatable to children)\n 3. Preservatives. To increase the shelf-life of the medication.\n\nThere probably other things I've missed as well. The Consumer Medication Information lists all of the ingredients of tablets/capsules, even down to the black printing ink use to print on the side of a capsule.\n\nThere are also more complicated pills/capsules. For an example of this, take a look at the Concerta capsule, which is a longer acting version of Ritalin (methylphenidate), which has some really cool features to make the effect longer-lasting.",
"If a 20 milligram pill were dispensed in pure form.....you’d need tweezers to pick it up ."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d6bqfk
|
how the water cyle works and why are we "wasting" too much water.
|
First of all, don't take this as a "anti-ecology" thing because I'm really into sustainable ways of living, but I really don't get how the water cycle works. In elementary school I learnt that it's a cycle and what you use will turn again into drinkable water, but I know that it isn't just like that and we need to "save" water now. Please explain this like I'm 5!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d6bqfk/eli5_how_the_water_cyle_works_and_why_are_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f0rla1u",
"f0ru2ex",
"f0sf6b8",
"f0smkz7"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Our supply of potable (drinkable) water is limited, and that's because we're really, really good at polluting water supplies. We're also very good at turning potable water into waste water, either through drinking it or using it in day to day activities, like flushing the toilet or washing our hands.\n\nThe water we turn into waste does find its way back to the sea eventually (after treatment), but it then has to go through the water cycle again before it shows up as potable water once more. And because of our aforementioned ability to pollute water supplies, it has to be treated again before it can be drunk. That takes resources, time, and energy. So the best option is to save water, because that's the most efficient way to make sure we have enough potable water available.",
"We’re using more water than what we receive (from rain, river, lakes, wells,). So we need to save water by using less and make sure it doesn’t get dirty.\n\nWater gets used for lots of things besides drinking, usually a lot more than what people drink. Farming, industry (fracking, mining, etc.) commercial (car wash, manufacturing plants), etc. Combined, were using a lot more clean water than what’s provided through the natural water cycle. So we’re “running out” of water and we need to “save” water by using less.",
"In addition to what others have mentioned about water being drawn faster than replenished, the infrastructure built to supply and treat water and wastewater is extremely expensive, it's the bulk of the spendings of any municipality. They build a reservoir and then need to pay for it over like 50 years and all levels of government need to provide extra funding. If you \"waste\" water you are putting extra unnecessary demand on the system. I was operating a water plant in a rich neighborhood where people would water their huge lots all night long, and the demand for water in the summer was 300 times higher than in the winter. So the people were paying millions extra collectively over the years in infrastructure just to water their lawn. People don't realise this because their water bill is still cheap but then they complain about crazy city tax. So the reasonable thing would be to have a second pipe for untreated water but that would only shed the cost of the chemicals to treat the water, the pumps and pipes underground are the really expensive part. The most reasonable approach would be to NOT water the grass! Or water a small area for the kids to play and leave the rest to nature. That is why schools have to try and teach kids' realistic mindset on water consumption, the parents already like their green grass way too much to change.",
"The water cycle is: water is in oceans and lakes. It evaporates and goes into the air, this purifies the water as only the pure water evaporates. It moves around in the air. It falls as rain or snow to the ground. It then travels in rivers to a lake or river, or it goes into the ground water which are basically underground lakes.\n\nThe two key things here are that there is a lot of water by lakes and oceans but less water further from them, and rain is pure water for free but otherwise to get pure water we have to do work on it. \n\nThis mean that many places not by lakes and oceans have limited water at all. There is very little water in a desert, pure or not. Water there is often re-used as much as possible. For instance the fountains in Las Vega keep re-using the same water.\n\nThis also means that once water is used it costs money to make it usable for drinking again. People do not like to pay for that, so used water is usually just put down the drain. So even if you live by an ocean with a lot of water, there may be little pure water available for your use."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1934md
|
What happens when you shoot a proton into Bose-Einstein condensate?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1934md/what_happens_when_you_shoot_a_proton_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8kep4w",
"c8ker0o"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Huh?\n\nYour question implies that you think something interesting would happen, but I'm not sure why you think that. As far as I know, it wouldn't be any more exciting than shooting a golf ball into a swimming pool.",
"You would likely introduce enough energy to ensure that it is no longer a BSE."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6w7mgb
|
Can blind people tell if it's dark outside?
|
Like they'd be able to tell if it is cooler outside but what if it was winter or something like that.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6w7mgb/can_blind_people_tell_if_its_dark_outside/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dm611se",
"dm6mcmq"
],
"score": [
19,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on how blind they are. Fully blind people would need something to tell them it is dark. But being legally blind allows a spectrum of light sensitivity from vision just being blurry beyond use ( Which would allow them to tell if it is dark), to fully blind where they could not tell if it were dark without some aid or figuring it out from the time.",
"As mentioned by others, it depends on whether they are totally blind or just low vision. Vision is usually rated on the 20/20 or 6/6 scale (20/20 in feet, 6/6 in meters). At a certain point, though, it becomes too difficult to measure exactly, so they get replaced with CF (Count Fingers), HM (Hand Motion) and LP (Light Perception), with total blindness being NLP (No Light Perception). Someone with LP may still have enough vision to percieve there is light outside if it is a bright, sunny day, but maybe not if it is a cloudy day.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAdditionally, some clients can be sensitive enough they can feel the heat from the sun. I had a client before who was able to feel the heat from the sunlight as she left the shade of one skyscraper and heading to another. It wasn't the best landmark, but it was something that was sometimes useful.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity#Expression"
]
] |
|
pmqnk
|
why do so many celebrities die from drug-related deaths?
|
In the wake of Whitney Houston's death, I find that a lot of celebrities die from drug overdoses or drug-related deaths (I'm thinking Amy Winehouse, and countless others).
Is there just something about public exposure that drives celebrities to do drugs? What makes drugs so attractive for them? Is it part of a reputation that they feel they have to keep up?
Thanks in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pmqnk/eli5_why_do_so_many_celebrities_die_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3qlucb",
"c3qsfi3"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"I'll just give an opinion since I'm not a professional, but I am a grown-up and you're five.\nPeople who are celebrities (and by this, I am guessing you mean in the entertainment field, as opposed to famous scientists and so forth) are famous, in part, because they have very strong personalities and have become successful in a *very very* competitive industry. They sometimes worry a lot that they will become not-so-popular if they don't continue working very hard and looking very beautiful or handsome. They also are usually very rich and have a lot of people who take care of them all the time. Many many people like to be near celebrities because they too can get lots more money than they could working at real jobs and just being around famous people can be very exciting. Famous people also do not usually get to live \"normal\" lives. They can't go places without everyone who sees them asking for their photograph or take a picture with them. Life for them can be really hard to control. Now to the drugs. There are several reasons. Drugs can make you feel REALLY good when you are otherwise feeling really tired, or worried, or scared, or depressed or anxious. They can make it seem like all your problems go away. Sometimes drugs will make you feel like everything is fantastic when it really isn't. It's also generally true that people are willing to try drugs when others all around them are encouraging them to do that. If you have loads of money and loads of worries and loads of people with drugs around you, it's easy to give in to the pressure and continue to drugs. Celebrities don't get in trouble with the police for drugs because they are famous. They have to mess up really bad before the police get involved. That's what happens around celebrities quite often. \n\nOne of the reasons *I* don't take drugs is because I really like them, having tried a few times. I'm afraid I would let them take over my life and ruin me. And sometimes, that's exactly what happens to famous people (and *not* famous people too, you just don't see them in the headlines so much). So mostly (I think) celebrities very often have lots of difficulties and easy access to lots of money and lots of drugs and lots of people willing to sell them drugs. ",
"Lots of people die of drug overdoses without you or i ever knowing about it, but every time one famous person ODs it's in the news for weeks.\n\nIf you could somehow figure out how many 'famous people' there are on the world, then work out how many of those people OD in a given year, I suspect you'd find that the death rate wasn't *much* higher than average.\n\nThat said, HomerWells' answer below was very good. I suspect if you limit 'celebrities' to actors and singers the numbers do get higher, no pun intended."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5hw9k3
|
Why was arsenic available in pharmacies?
|
I was under the impression that arsenic has been used as a strong poison throughout history, so when I realized people could actually get arsenic from ordinary pharmacies (although the purpose of the buyer might also be inquired), I was flabbergasted. Why would arsenic even be allowed for sale in public? Is arsenic of some pharmaceutical use for people rather than just some long-standing poison?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5hw9k3/why_was_arsenic_available_in_pharmacies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db3r85c",
"db481qg",
"db4qi7c"
],
"score": [
7,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Arsenic was widely available through pharmacies as an effective rat poison (it was commonly known in France as *mort-aux-rats*), meaning it was always a highly popular product in early modern cities.\n\nA second reason why the sale of arsenic was considered acceptable was that it was invariably available from pharmacies in powdered form, which is significantly less lethal to humans than liquid arsenic. The great poisoning scandals of early modern Europe – most notably the infamous Affair of the Poisons, which caused so much trouble in the reign of Louis XIV – tended to centre around liquid arsenic poisons, which would typically be administered orally disguised as drink or even as medicine. \n\nIt was not until the 19th century that doctors learned to distinguish the main symptoms of arsenic poisoning. This was not entirely the result of incompetence and inexperience; administered in large doses, arsenic produces fever and violent dysentery that closely resembles the symptoms of cholera. A second technique, known to have been used in Paris, was to soak the bottom of a victim's shirt in a solution of arsenic. This produces painful sores around the groin which closely resembled the symptoms of syphilis.\n\nMost dangerously and lethally of all, the poison could be given to a victim in the form of an enema. Administered rectally, arsenic causes drastic shrinkage of the bowels, resulting in agonising intestinal blockage and a death-by-constipation that would rarely be recognised as murder by poison. \n\nFor an excellent study of (among several other things) the uses of arsenic in early modern Europe, see Lynn Wood Mollenauer's *Strange Revelations: Magic, Poison, and Sacrilege in Louis XIV's France*.\n",
"OK, so, as I predicted, one of the resident experts provided you with an answer. Luckily for me though, /u/mikedash did not cover some stuff I can tell you about, so you’re getting an AskHistorians double dip. Now, my knowledge-sharing gland is fully swollen, let’s get as far as we can from whatever mental image that conjures up and get to the answering.\n\nFirst of all, you’re absolutely right, people could rather easily access arsenic in pharmacies as well as being treated with it by their physicians. For ages, but very prominently in the 19th and actually way into the 20th century (and today, but let’s not jump too far ahead of ourselves). The most important thing to remember is this:\n\nIn the 1860s, in the Austrian city of Graz, a group of doctors gathered for their annual meeting and watched two men consume 400mg of white powder. They then waited a bit and let the powder consumers pee, so they could analyze the urine after. \n\nFine, it’s not the most important thing, but that event holds several keys to understanding what arsenic in the 19th century was all about. That meeting was not a way to satisfy a very peculiar group-based kink, but an attempt to prove existence of a phenomenon that made people scratch their heads all over Austria, England and other European countries. Graz is the capital of Styria, a densely forested region of Austria and a former home to famous Styrian arsenic eaters. Local lumberjacks were known (actually, they were pretty secretive about it) to consume a daily dose of arsenic for its stimulant properties. Besides making the work easier and day brighter, the arsenic also served the local women, helping them achieve the desired level of beauty. This meant looking puffy and pinkish. Nothing wrong with that, well, unless you object to the fact that the pinky to reddish complexion was the effect of vasodilation (widening of blood vessels), which caused capillaries in the skin to burst.\n\nIt is possible to develop gradual tolerance to arsenic and by the time the medical establishment got to know about these arsenic connoisseurs, some of them consumed what would be a fatal dose for most people. When news of these people spread, they were often thought of as bit of an urban legend and thus we’re getting back to that meeting in Graz, where two Styrian lumberjacks ingested 400mg of that mysterious white powder and the urine analysis later proved that it indeed was arsenic trioxide. \n\nAnd it’s important to note the exact compound, because while we use “arsenic” as a blanket term, its pure form was rarely used anywhere. The famous poisonous substance in the form of a white powder, without a strong smell or taste, is the trioxide version (As2O3). There are other arsenic-containing compounds to be found in the nature, such as [orpiment](_URL_3_) and [realgar](_URL_2_), which are minerals known for their beautiful colours and had been utilized by humans for millenia (we’ll get back to that).\n\nBut why, you should be asking by now, were people so amazed by the Styrian arsenic eaters, if they could go to the nearest pharmacy and be recommended arsenic for their own health problems? Well, the place where a lot of this medical use originated, was England and one of the very interesting aspects of 19th century pharmacy in England (as well as elsewhere) was that you often *had no idea what you were being prescribed and had no way to check*. For at least two thirds of the century, there were was no regulation of the pharmaceutical agents that people could buy and even after some regulations were implemented, they often weren’t as strictly adhered to as would be good for public’s informed use. I talk about this in this post about [patent medicines](_URL_0_), but since arsenic is special in this regard, I’ll mention that there indeed were attempts to regulate its availability. Firstly, there was the Arsenic Act of 1851, which made the purchase of it illegal for persons under 21 years of age and also tasked the sellers with keeping a registry of people who bought it. According to this law, arsenic also could not not be sold in its ready-to-poison form of white odourless powder, but had to be mixed with soot or indigo. It did not specify, however, *who* could be selling it. Partly, this was addressed in the Pharmacy Act of 1968 which basically fully established control of the pharmacists over the medical substances.\n\nWould it have mattered to an average customer if the bottle of their medicine had “ARSENIC” written on the side? I’d argue it definitely would, because as you point out, arsenic was known as a poison for centuries. Most prominently at that time though, there were rumours that Napoleon was murdered by the Brits, using this poisonous substance. Staying in France (unlike Napoleon), but going back in time, another compound called arsenolite (As4O6) was very popular amongst the nobles in the 14th century. I’ll let you deduce why the substance gained the nickname “poudre de succesion” or “inheritance powder”. \n\nOn the other hand, medical use was hardly anything new to arsenic. If you’re a substance and wanna claim your place in the history of western medicine, you are striving to get a trifecta of mentions by Hippokrates, Pliny and Paracelsus. Which is what happened with arsenic. The most common advice was to use these for skin conditions (psoriasis, for example) and fevers, both of which were treated by arsenic for a long time, as well as other conditions. Orpiment and realgar are also very prominent in the traditional Chinese medicine, even today at places, although there is not much English literature on that. \n\nIt’s not as established as the other things I mention, but we can be pretty sure that non-medical use of arsenic was not just a thing amongst lumberjacks in Austria, but that the Victorian English gentlemen and ladies used it for the matters of beauty and, hmm, masculine energy. It seemed to have been kept somewhat on the down low though. To tie this back to those lumberjacks though, there were cases of arsenic poisoning where the accused used what was called the “Styrian defence”: claiming that the slow poisoning of e.g. their spouse, was not a result of a deadly scheme, but unfortunate byproduct of the ingestion of arsenic for its stimulant properties.\n\nFrom the modern standpoint, arsenic was “medically sanctioned” by Dr. Thomas Fowler, who prepared a famous alkaline solution of arsenic, *Fowler’s solution* which entered the British pharmacopoeia in 1809 and stayed there until the first third of the 20th century. It was recommended for fevers, neurasthenia, even a loss of libido (vasodilation does help with that). Another substances like *Donovan’s solution* soon followed. And all of them were really successful! The medical and pharmaceutical profession (or rather their modern versions) were in their infancy and what worked tended to get overprescribed. Thus arsenic joined the esteemed company of 19th century panaceas (all-cures), where it comfortably sat next to, for example, opium. This was still not the biggest succes of arsenic though. For that we must go to Paul Ehrlich and the very early 20th century. Ehrlich (later a Nobel Prize laureate) found that his arsenic-containing compound - called Salvarsan, succesfully cured syphilis. This sexually transmitted disease was a complete scourge of humanity for quite some time. Salvarsan, also named *compound 606* (come on Paul, you couldn’t pretend to make 60 more compounds to make it Satanically cool or 537 less compounds to make it funny?), helped immensely in the fight against it and was only superseded by penicillin. This means that arsenic was incredibly medically useful for decades, up until the 1940s. \n\nToday, we still use pharmaceuticals with arsenic at times in some cases of malaria, but most notably in treating leukemia. And we first found out about this useful application thanks to good Dr. Fowler and his solution. \n\nIn something of a summary of my barely coherent babble:\n\nArsenic was known as both an effective poison and a cure for thousands of years - OK, another detour, but the first person we know was very much acquainted with arsenic is this [icy cool dude](_URL_1_). Because of the amount found in his hair, we presume that Ötzi did a bit of copper smelting, of which arsenic is a byproduct - in the 19th and 20th century it was used by the medical establishment, while still gaining notoriety as a fatally poisonous substance (hi, Agatha!). It HAS some legitimate medical purposes even today, but at the height of its medical popularity it was definitely overprescribed, as well as unwisely used for some non-medical purposes. \n\nA little tiny P.S. : You can go to some pharmacies today and buy Arsenicum Album, which is a homeopathic solution of As2O3. I found out about this today, but seeing as the dilution is listed as 12C and knowing what I know about homeopathy, you would have a better chance of either poisoning or curing anyone, with a gentle touch of a bird’s feather. ",
"Thank you all! I feel so lucky to have my question so fully answered :D"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4w2dga/how_common_were_early_remedies_like_childrens/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi",
"http://www.dakotamatrix.com/images/products/realgar36054a.jpg",
"http://www.dakotamatrix.com/images/products/orpiment19832a.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
d99j3o
|
why does a balloon explode when you puncture it, but does a tire slowly deflate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d99j3o/eli5_why_does_a_balloon_explode_when_you_puncture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1fj6hp",
"f1h2ipn"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Because a balloon is a thin stretched membrane where tear will spread. A tire is a lot less stretched, thicker and reinforced so it can sustain the forces on it.\n\nYou can reinforce a balloon with just a bit of tape and then puncture it trough the tape and it will not explode just leak slowly.",
"Tires are not only thicker, but also have different bands of metal (called steel belts) and sometimes fabrics like Kevlar. Because they have all of this reinforcement, when they get a hole poked in them, the rubber would like to just shred and explode like a balloon, but the woven steel belts and the fabric fibers that are all intertwined within the rubber keeps it from moving (almost at all). That is only the case as long as the tire pressure is low enough to be handled by the strength of those steel belts and fabric. If the pressure is too high, poking a hole will make a week point, pressure will start to escape and will almost instantly overwhelm the structural strength of the steel, fabric, and rubber, which is when you get a shredded/blown out tire. \n\nBalloons don't have any of that extra structure, so if you poke it, that very thin rubber just shreds apart because it doesn't have anything else holding it together but a very thin layer of low quality rubber."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
duxq03
|
What do we know about the early development of a "food service industry"--preparing food to sell or trade to others for immediate consumption?
|
I've written the question vaguely so as to encompass "restaurants" (eat on the food preparer's premises), street food (eat at the point of purchase), and "take-out" (take with you to eat on your own premises). I'm also excluding preparing lots of food for long-distance trade or travel. How far back do references to such activity go, and/or are there indications that it predates any record?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/duxq03/what_do_we_know_about_the_early_development_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7chddw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Food service (in the sense of preparing food for others to eat) probably dates back farther than recorded history. Sellers of ready-to-eat food in marketplaces are recorded as far back as Sumer.\n\nFast food becomes a giant industry in the urban areas of the Roman Empire. Most of the population lives in *insulae*, small apartments that get smaller the higher up you are. These rarely have cooking facilities more complex than a coal brazier and strict laws were in place against lighting fires indoors to prevent you from burning down the city block. The exact distinction between a *taberna*, *thermopolium,* and *popina* are sketchy and not well known, but all three were names used for a place that sold food, wine, and optionally had lodging. You could get both hot foods (stews, cooked sausages, roast and boiled meat, etc.) and \"bar snacks\" (dried chickpeas and vegetables) at different locations. Rome also had a street food scene with carts and stands selling food as well. Only the wealthy who had individual houses would have a kitchen, with its own staff (usually slaves).\n\nThis would continue in urban areas for *centuries*. It wouldn't be until around the time of the Industrial Revolution that average people could reliably cook in their apartments, with the invention of more reliable ovens and eventually stove tops. Even the White House didn't switch from a hearth to an iron stove until the Fillmore administration, which should tell you something about how everyone was doing their cooking at the time!\n\nThe same applied outside of Europe as well. Egypt under the Mamluks fed its populace with street food, most prominently the national dish of ful medames (mashed fava beans in olive oil, plus whatever else you've got handy). Giant cauldrons warmed over the coals left over from heating bathhouses would serve up the hungry citizens every day from sunrise to sunset. Meat was also sold, including non-halal food like dog or carrion passed off as halal. Song Dynasty China is most famous for inventing the \"restaurant\" in the sense of a place where you would sit down, have a waiter come to you, and order off a menu.\n\nAbout 400 years later is when you'd get the word \"restaurant.\" As you could guess from thinking about the name, French restaurants initially sold restoratives in the form of soups and broths, meant for health. They initially had conflicts with the strong cook-caterer guilds who attempted to legally restrict what kinds of food they could sell, but prevailed in the 19th century in the name becoming synonymous with food service."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5sw64m
|
What causes some rocks/minerals to naturally form with right angles and straight edges?
|
I saw a picture of naturally occurring fluorite in a chemistry textbook and wondered why is it naturally forms a near-perfect cube.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5sw64m/what_causes_some_rocksminerals_to_naturally_form/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddimbeo"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The rocks and minerals all have a certain type of crystal structure. The nature of structures is such that the atoms want to be as close to each other as possible so as to increase the stability and decrease energy, which results in a close packed structure. Crystals are such that you have a specific arrangement of atoms/ions which repeats indefinitely. \n\nFluorite itself has a cubic close packed structure which means that the arrangement the ions is in a cubic manner and that extends outwards indefinitely until you \"run out\" of fluorite, so to speak. The right angles are because of the way the calcium and fluorine are joined, which forms a cubic shape. The flat faces are the lines of weaknesses (i.e. bonds) where the structure can be cleaved.\n\nEdit: added a word"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2cf2ss
|
is there any irrefutable proof that the big bang occurred or that the universe is still expanding?
|
Are there any other credible theories that explain the creation and the subsequent movement of the universe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cf2ss/eli5_is_there_any_irrefutable_proof_that_the_big/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjetnxh"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"There's no such thing as 'irrefutable proof' outside of mathematics and formal logic. It doesn't exist, and science doesn't pretend to have it for anything. Seriously. You can't even irrefutably prove that the moon exists.\n\nWhat we do have is a [large range](_URL_0_) of different lines of evidence all of which converge on the same conclusion: that the universe seems to have at one time been a single point, and expanded outwards from there ever since. Is it possible that this conclusion is entirely wrong? Sure, it's possible. It's extremely unlikely though, and nobody has managed to come up with another model that explains the observational evidence as well as the big bang does, without also opening up a whole lot more new problems that it actually solves. That's about as close to being True as something can get in the real world.\n\nIt should also be noted that the same applies to all sorts of other fields, such as history, economics, etc: it's not possible to prove something to be correct, but if you have a bunch of different lines of evidence that all independently indicate that X seems to be the case, then X probably is the case. Conclusions are always going to be tentative, though, and new evidence can always come in. It's extremely rare though for a major scientific theory to be completely overturned by new evidence in the modern era. It's much more common to find that the old theory is actually a subset of a larger, more comprehensive theory."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence"
]
] |
|
1cwpwk
|
voice classification
|
How are voices classified (soprano, tenor, bass, etc)? Is it based on the octave a person is singing in? What are some examples? I have no vocal music experience and I've always wondered this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cwpwk/eli5_voice_classification/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9kq7q2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's to do with how high/low your range is. In most (but not all) cases, this is also directly related to whether or not you are male or female (i.e.: women typically have higher voices than men).\n\nSopranos (female) can usually get from Middle C + 2 octaves.\n\nAltos (female) can usually get from the F below Middle C + 2 octaves.\n\nTenors (male) can usually get from Middle C to 1 octave either side.\n\nBaritones can usually get from the 2nd G below Middle C + 2 octaves.\n\nOf course, this isn't set in stone. Every voice is different, and your range largely depends on your training (e.g.: \"choral\" vs \"operatic\"). So these definitions are rough guidelines at best, and individuals may be able to do much more or less.\n\nThis also leads into other distinctions, such as mezzo-soprano, contralto, etc, but the ones I've mentioned above will cover most of your everyday scenarios."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8fczk6
|
how does the "in the nose, out the mouth" trick help keep from throwing up?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fczk6/eli5_how_does_the_in_the_nose_out_the_mouth_trick/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy2gtje",
"dy2mpz1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It physically calms your body and brain and refocuses your mind away from the feeling of puking.\n\nWhen calm you're better able to control what your body is doing.",
"I don't remember where I saw this but smiling helps. I think it has something to do with your nervous system. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
czebpr
|
what can insurance agents do that we can't?
|
As in, how are they able to get better rates vs me just putting my info into a website for a quote?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/czebpr/eli5_what_can_insurance_agents_do_that_we_cant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyxza6a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It depends a lot on what you're looking for and who the agent is. On a general level, an insurance agent is very knowledgeable about insurance and can help you figure out the coverage that's right for you and navigate some of the pitfalls of selecting insurance. In short: they can help you make the right decisions, which might not always be obvious. In a lot of cases they're not going to recommend the *cheapest* option but focus on the *best value*. However, every insurance agent is going to have a certain pool of companies they sell for and they can really only recommend you options from that pool.\n\n*Captive agents* work directly for an insurance company and sell only that company's products. Typically buying from one of these agents will be the only way to purchase insurance from that company, so if you want that specific company's product you'll have to go through an agent (even if they let you sign up for insurance through the website they'll likely assign you an agent they expect you to work with). *Independent agents* contract with one or more insurance companies to sell their products but don't work for them directly. Some of those products you'll be able to bind directly yourself, but some might still require an agent (depends on the company).\n\nIn all cases agents will have access to the actual rating software for the companies they represent that allows them to provide you with an accurate payment, whereas an online quote will only give you a ballpark amount."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
26mmgk
|
Were knights on foot feared by normal men-at-arms? Were they in a sense "elite" fighters and avoided in combat?
|
I read that knights would also fight on foot in some battles, not the usual horseback-riding. Were knights especially feared by the normal foot soldiers? Knights would have the best armour and good training. I'd like to know about knights on foot, NOT on horses!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26mmgk/were_knights_on_foot_feared_by_normal_menatarms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chskjtv",
"chsmyaw",
"chsp990",
"cht0nc1"
],
"score": [
1021,
142,
47,
3
],
"text": [
"The medieval period was more than 1000 years long, and covered whole Europe, parts of M.East and Asia, and the military culture in it varied wildly, so I can only give a very general TLDR answer, unless you specify what century you are interested in.\n\nSimply put, there was a great spectrum of \"quality\" between a common foot soldier (presumably a peasant volounter or a drafted farmer/townsman) and knight. In between there would be various groups of more and less skilled soldiers: ad hoc volounteers, volounteers on short contract, hired brigands, mercenaries, swornmen, squires and knights, as well as higher nobility. \n\nUsually, the higher up the feudal chain the person was, the richer they would be, meaning they would own better armor and weapons, and have had more time to train.\n\nRealistically however, the best trained group would be elite mercenaries, and if said band of mercenaries were famous enough, they could be feared. A good example of that would be the leftovers of the *Sirotci Bratctvo* (the Orphans) an ofshot of the Hussite Army turned mercenaries. While not exactly feared, they were considered a significant force to be reconed with, especially since the Hussite Army defeated almost every force it fought against, including the most elite knights that the German Empire could muster against them. Some of the orphans were knights (or to be more precise, former-knights, outcasts), but most were commoners, and their prefered tactics included soldiers on foot, armed with polearms, crosbowmen and armored carts.\n\nPrior to that, the most prolific \"feared\" warriors in early Medieval times were viking mercenaries, hired by almost all European powers of that time (included, but not limited to, Poland, Kiev Russia, Byzantine Empire, knigdom of Wessex etc).\n\n\nTechnically, the prowess of a warrior in battle was not based on his personal skill, but how well he cooperated with others, and contrary to Holywood depictions, medieval battles were not a riot of personal duels, but combat of two or more tightly packed forces of men shielding and protecting one another, with differently armed soldiers taking different roles (example: the viking shiledmen protected the spearmen, who in turn cooperated with the axmen and all of them protected the archers, as well as provided a temprary stop for riders). \n\nIn such a formation, a good tactician or a leader could possibly stand out, but individual warriors would be of much less importance.\n\n\nThe situation would be different with riders, who often WERE famous, and \"allowed to show off\" with pre battle duels and feats of provess, and thus, would be feared for their skill. You however, asked specifically for footmen.",
"Your question is very broad since the Middle Ages is huge but the height of medieval warfare on foot was in the Later Middle Ages so I'll be addressing that. It's very difficult to get into the mind of the common medieval soldier so it is hard to know to what extent they would have feared noble warriors. I'll be avoiding using the term Knight here because in the later Middle Ages it took on some important connotations and significance so not all fighting nobility had to be a knight and not all knights necessarily fought. There is also a rather extensive scholarly debate on infantry warfare during this period so it's possible some of what I say will conflict with someone else's opinion, that happens. \n\nThe classic narrative of the rise of infantry warfare began with the Scots in the 13th century. This is the period of the first Scottish War of Independence, William Wallace era. Scottish nobility were actually well known for fighting on foot during this period primarily because Scotland was relatively poor, war horses were expensive, and Scotland was not geographically well suited to the sort of large war horse used in medieval warfare at the time. They had light cavalry but never really invested in the heavy cavalry of other kingdoms. These nobles would stand in among the rest of the men and fight on foot rather than as a separate mounted division. At Bannockburn in 1314 King Robert I actually fought on foot at the front of his army. There's a great story from the battle of a rather hot-headed young English noble charging the King's formation and Robert side stepped his lance thrust while cleaving his head open with an axe. Unfortunately this broke Robert's weapon and he had to retreat to the back of the formation to get a new weapon. \n\nThere are a couple of significant battles between Bannockburn and Crecy but I'll be skipping over them. Courtrai is an interesting battle for foot soldiers but the Flemish who won weren't nobles by any measure. At Crecy we essentially see the English emulating the tactics of the Scots with their soldiers primarily fighting on foot, including the nobility, only they had added a substantial supporting group of medieval archers which did wonders at ruining the French's formations. The traditional narrative is then that this tactic, with some variation, was employed by the English with great success from Crecy through to Agincourt in 1416. There's some truth to that and some problems with it but I'm not sure the nuances are in relation to your question so I'll leave them for now. \n\nOne of the reasons I brought up these two particular battles is they also cover an important change in how English armies were formed. Unfortunately I'm not as sure on how other Kingdoms' ran their military. At the time of Edward I, the father of Edward II who lost Bannockburn and also noted villain in *Braveheart*, English armies were primarily formed of soldiers who showed up as a result of feudal summons. Essentially the King's lords, the earls and counts and such, owed the King military service in exchange for the lands he had granted them (well...usually his ancestor had granted them to their ancestor but you get the point) but this didn't actually mean that only the Earl in question had to show up. Depending on the size of the land grant the Earl might be obliged to come along himself and to bring with him several sergeants at arms, usually cavalry, as well as a set number of foot soldiers and archers. Bigger plots of land meant more soldiers had to come. This obligation essentially passed down the chain a bit since an Earl with a large holding of land would in turn have divided it up to more lesser nobility. So the Earl would still have to bring some men with him from the lands he personally oversaw and he'd have to make sure that his vassals showed up to the King's summons. This system was understandably really impractical but it mostly worked up until the end of Edward I's reign where it all began to begin to give under it's own weight for a lot of reasons I'll spare you now. This is important for your question because during the time this was common practice (primarily from the reigns of John through to Edward I, although it was used to some extent before) the common soldier would likely have been a peasant. \n\nDuring Edward I's Scottish wars a few alternative methods of recruiting armies began to change. One thing Edward I did was instead of forcing his nobles to come along out of Feudal obligation, which often entailed Edward paying their expenses and providing food which had proven extremely costly, he began to ask his nobles to come voluntarily at their own expense and to bring soldiers with them. This might sound like a bad deal but one important difference was that while serving under Feudal obligation any treasure acquired by taking a city or ransom had to be shared with the king, while serving voluntarily you got to keep your own loot. This meant that if you were successful you could make a lot of money but if you lost in battle you were out a lot of cash. The other trend that happened here was more nobles began paying money instead of showing up for feudal obligation. There was technically a fine if you didn't show but nobles began just paying the fine up front instead of showing and kings, like Edward, could use the money to hire mercenaries. This generally meant that from the late 13th century and on you could expect a higher caliber of soldier certainly in Medieval English armies and they would likely be better equipped, experienced and less afraid of a noble warrior. \n\nThat ended up a lot longer and more rambling than I had initially intended. Answering your question is very hard because it's so broad, I can try and answer more specific questions when I get up tomorrow if you'd like! \n\nSome sources: \nMichael Prestwich *Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages*\n\nMichael Prestwich *The Three Edwards*\n\nMarc Morris *A Great and Terrible King*\n\nGeoffrey Barrow *Robert Bruce*\n\nKelly DeVries *Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century*",
"It's really important to understand that your question is framed in a way that implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how combat (at least on a large scale) has gone down in the period contemplated by the terms you use -- \"men-at-arms\" and \"knights\" suggest the Medieval periods, a huge swathe of time, to be sure...\n\nWhen you say things like: \"knights on foot,\" and \"to be avoided in combat,\" this implies a sense that people were fighting in a sort of pell-mell, choose-off-and-fight, individual way in battle. This was almost never the case in battles of any scale whatsoever. Regardless of time period or place, whether it's Vikings, Byzantines, Swiss, or Genovese, units fought in formation, using shield walls, cavalry groups, pike squares, lines of crowssbowmen, etc. The idea was that you fought as part of a unit, in cohesion with other individual soldiers, against units of other soldiers, also in cohesion. Breaking off from that unit and showing down against some dude, armor or otherwise, mano e mano, in the midst of battle, was a ticket to getting surrounded and cut down tout de freakin' suite. You see this kind of thing happen a lot in movies -- battles breaking down into a melee where one or more main characters does something heroic to someone else -- but in real life, once that happened on any sort of scale, the battle was basically over.\n\nSo, to answer your question, while it was indeed possible (and in the later Medieval period, not uncommon) for cavaliers to dismount and engage on foot using weapons specifically designed for this purpose, especially pole-arms, it was not really possible to just wade into combat and pick somebody out, Braveheart style, and go after him. Or, conversely, to \"avoid\" someone dangerous. You got into formation, and you went where your commander said to go. Sometimes that meant standing just outside of spear range of another unit for minutes on end, shouting at them, then suddenly charging for just a few seconds and pulling back. Sometimes it meant firing a volley of arrows at people so far away you could barely see the shape of their bodies. But whatever you did, you did it with comrades, barring exceptional circumstances. \n\nSo, probably not the answer you were looking for, but /u/Valkine gives a pretty good breakdown already of some of the advantages (and disadvantages) nobles had in single combat versus your average dude, so start with his comment for that angle.",
"A knight, even on foot, would have some of the best arms, armour and training at the time. A the battle of Agincourt the English knights fought on foot due to a lack of horses, it had been a long, hard campaign through France, and due to a need to concentrate their forces in anticipation of the French charge.\n\nCrusaders in the holy land would also be forced to fight on foot at times, espcially if they had lost their horses from disease or fighting. During one battle the Hospitallers lost an incredible amount of horses to Saracen raids on their rear guard, and it was only a final desparate charge led by the head of their order which saved them. (The details are mentioned in Bennetts \"Fight techniques of the medieval world\", forgive me for not having the details to hand.)\n\nWhile Heavy Cavalry were one of the most effective weapons on the medieval battlefield, a knight of foot was still an incredible effective and deadly warrior. \n\nAs to your second question, there wouldn't really be a way to \"avoid\" fighting anyone one the lines of battles met. Levi with little training and poor equipment would be butchered and swiftly seen off by Knights, and Knight would no doubt be insulted to not be faced against their opposite. \n\nMovies portray battles a seires of dynamic duels. In truth it would be a crush, a true bloody melee where one side breaks and runs, and the other side runs them down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
223osj
|
What's the smallest thing we can taste?
|
I wondered as I licked a single granule of sugar, which tasted like sugar.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/223osj/whats_the_smallest_thing_we_can_taste/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgja6gk",
"cgjdfdc"
],
"score": [
10,
9
],
"text": [
"The smallest **amount** of something you can taste I am not sure on which compound is the winner, but [Neotame](_URL_0_) is as much as 13,000 times as sweet as sugar. So if you could taste a single grain of sugar which about a 1-10 mg you could taste around 10-100 picograms of neotame. A 100 picogram particle would be imperceptible to the eye.\n\nSmallest in the sense of the actual size of a compound that has a flavor, probably beryllium ion.\n",
"Capsaicin (chili pepper heat chemical) can only barely be tasted at a very dilute 16 parts per million. But that same concentration of [denatonium](_URL_0_) would be extremely bitter. That sucker can be tasted all the way down to a dilution of 50 parts per *b*illion!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotame"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatonium"
]
] |
|
1wybzt
|
how can we tell that the super bowl had 111.5 million viewers when multiple people watched the same tv at different parties?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wybzt/eli5how_can_we_tell_that_the_super_bowl_had_1115/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf6h86z",
"cf6hbvj",
"cf6ik2r"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The polls ask both what they are watching and how many people are there.",
"It's not like those numbers are actually derived from counting the number of eyeballs watching screens at any given time. Certain people (Nielsen families) are selected by the Nielsen Media Research corporation and given special set-top boxes which report back to Nielsen when the TV is on and what's being watched. They're sometimes given diaries to record their watching habits in as well. Nielsen makes sure the sample of people given boxes is representative and uses the data from their sample to extrapolate to the population. They do basically the same things as polling firms do, but about TV shows.",
"This question concerns one of the most frequently asked topics on ELI5, so it has been removed. Try the searchbar next time please."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
15ij9k
|
An honest question from an Australian about the movie "Lincoln".
|
Just how accurate is the debate between the Republican and Democrats about slavery at this point and was this a major point of the war at all.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15ij9k/an_honest_question_from_an_australian_about_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7mr9x4",
"c7mrf4z"
],
"score": [
11,
17
],
"text": [
"The Republican Party was founded only a few years before the outbreak of the Civil War (in 1854) as an explicitly anti-slavery party. The Republican Party quickly became dominant in northern States. The Democratic Party had before this time long dominated national US politics and exercised virtual one-party rule in the South. That said, there is a saying that \"all politics is local\" -- and the spectrum of opinions on slavery cannot be explained simply by labeling certain individuals or regions Democrat or Republican. The film Lincoln actually did a great job of showing the many factions that divided Americans on the slavery issue during the Civil War. \n\nShort answer: The movie is accurate, though it cannot possibly capture all of the divisions and nuances.(There are books that are better for raw facts.) Slavery was definitely a major point in the Civil War. The South actually provoked the War in large part as an attempt to preserve the slave system, but victory in war served to galvanize the North to abolish slavery once-and-for-all. ",
"You might also be interested in the following threads:\n\n* [Just saw LINCOLN where he was portrayed as having unwavering loyalty to abolitionism and America's Grandpa... this isn't true, is it? General questions about the movie's accuracy](_URL_4_)\n\n* [Your Opinion: How accurate is it to say the Civil War was fought over slavery?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [Causes of the American Civil War?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [Civil War: Slavery or States Rights?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [I've been reading Time magazine's reissue entitled America: An Illustrated History. I have a question about slavery and the Civil War](_URL_2_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/svoo6/causes_of_the_american_civil_war/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yoyys/your_opinion_how_accurate_is_it_to_say_the_civil/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ww7wl/ive_been_reading_time_magazines_reissue_entitled/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/us25s/civil_war_slavery_or_states_rights/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/132izd/just_saw_lincoln_where_he_was_portrayed_as_having/"
]
] |
|
4it7vk
|
diffraction and interference?
|
I watched a video about it, but I still don't get how they work.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4it7vk/eli5_diffraction_and_interference/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d31cmkn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Assuming that you're talking about light here, diffraction and interference are due to the nature of light as a wave.\n\nInterference is probably the best place to start, and we'll be considering waves in a pool.\n\nIf you imagine a series of water waves going from one end of the pool to the other, there are peaks and troughs on the surface of the pool in a regular spacing. These peaks and troughs move in the direction of \"propagation\", which is the term for the motion of a wave in space.\n\nIf you take a second, equal wave and run that in the opposite direction at the same time, the peaks and troughs of each wave interfere with the peaks and troughs of the other when they meet. If a peak meets another peak, they add together to make a doubly-high peak of water. This is called constructive interference, as they construct a higher peak. \n\nConversely, If a peak and a trough meet, they add together and cancel each other out, resulting in an undisturbed surface of water - this is destructive interference as they destruct each other and cancel.\n\nLight behaves the same way - there's a piece of equipment called a Michelson interferometer that splits a beam of light in two, then runs them back together again with the waves at a slightly different position in their cycle, so that the peaks of the second half of the beam are now troughs and the troughs are peaks.\n\nThis results in the \"destructive\" interference of light, which means that the light cancels itself out.\n\nDiffraction is a bit trickier.\n\nThe most readily accessible example of diffraction is that of water - if you observe water waves entering a harbour, you'll notice that the waves appear to \"bend\" a little when they pass the harbour wall, and the wave extends some way around the corner, even if the wave had no business changing its direction.\n\nThis can be explained using a principle in Physics called Huygen's Construction. This states that every point on a wavefront be modelled like a point source of a wave.\n\nEvery point on the crest of the wave as it touches the harbour wall corner acts like a wavelet - a mini wave. Each wavelet propagates in all directions, but neighbouring wavelets interfere as we saw before with our pool example.\n\nThis means that the wavefront is preserved but the corner of the harbour is bent around because there is no neighbouring wavelet to interfere on the side of the harbour wall, resulting in a bending effect, otherwise known as \"diffraction\".\n\nWe can see light doing the same thing. While there are other things to account for, shadows of objects close to the ground are better-defined and have sharper edges than those of objects further up as the light diffracts around an object further above the ground, resulting in a blurry shadow.\n\nThat's my explanation - if I've messed up somewhere or have any further questions, please let me know!\n\nEDIT - Cleaned up grammar. \n\n\"Damn it Jim, I'm a Physicist not an author\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
v457q
|
I always hear how smokers live ~10 years shorter. Is it all due to lung cancer? If a smoker doesn't get it, does he live as long as nonsmokers?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v457q/i_always_hear_how_smokers_live_10_years_shorter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c51670m"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"It's not all due to lung cancer. There are many other types of cancers that smoking cigarettes is linked to. Smoking also causes problems with blood flow, hardening of arteries and veins, oxygen distribution, and a host of other problems.\n\nGo [here](_URL_0_) to see more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/#disparities"
]
] |
||
2y7ku6
|
Suggestions for interesting US History topics?
|
Hey Reddit! My US History teacher is allowing our class to suggest lesson topics. Any interesting events outside of the typical US History curriculum that would be worth studying?
So far, outside of the normal curriculum, we've gone over the Philippine American War and will be studying the origins of Silicone Valley. Any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2y7ku6/suggestions_for_interesting_us_history_topics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp722c7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The formation and evolution of major league baseball. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
amhyqe
|
how do dollar store nightlights and small electronics convert 110v to usable energy for a small led?
|
Sorry if this is the wrong sub but im curious to add to my personal projects but how do they do it so cheaply?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/amhyqe/eli5_how_do_dollar_store_nightlights_and_small/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efm8gii",
"efmcmdf"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of how small an iPhone charger cube is and then remember that while 120V AC is going in, it's only outputting 5 volts DC. Instead of a bulky transformer to step the voltage down, it uses various solid state discrete components and minimal ICs to get the desired voltage. Using similar technology, converting 120V AC to just a few volts DC to illuminate something as small as an LED is quite easy.\n\nTypically the first thing that happens is the 120VAC is routed through a mechanism called a [full bridge rectifier](_URL_0_) which is created by arranging 4 diodes in a particular configuration which converts the electricity into DC. There are usually a few capacitors and inductors just after the rectifier to smooth out or filter the ripples to create a smooth constant 170VDC voltage supply (the reason it's 170V and not 120V is outside the scope of this ELI5, but it's because 120VAC is not really 120VAC, it's more of an average). \n\nOnce there is a smooth DC voltage, an integrated circuit (IC, or \"smart\" chip) is used to control a MOSFET (an electrical switch) which chops up the 170VDC into very small chunks, VERY quickly. This high frequency DC is now fed through a small transformer with very thin windings (as opposed to the large wall-wart style) which outputs another AC supply, but at a smaller voltage, much closer to the desired final output voltage. This now-smaller AC supply is the rectified again, ran through more smoothing and filtering, and often other components to \"regulate\" the voltage to make sure you get a clean, reliable desired output voltage. \n\nTo illuminate an LED, the LED has what is called a \"forward voltage\" which is how much power is \"used up\" between the input and output. This is typically between 1.8 and 3.3V, depending on size and color. If supply 5V DC to an LED with a forward voltage of 3V, then you need a resistor to \"use up\" the left over voltage which is converted to heat. LEDs also have an operating current, or how many amps is required to use it, typically around 25-30mA. \n\nUsing Ohms Law (V=IR, or Voltage = Current * Resistance), you calculate the size of the resistor that you need in your circuit. You need to \"use up\" 2V at 25mA, so the formula is 2V = .025 * R where you solve for R. 2V/0.025 = 80 ohms. \n\nAdmittedly there is a bit of hand-waving going on with the circuit explanation, but this should give you a better understanding of how it can be possible. ",
"The simplest way you can do it is by just using a resistor and a led but it in inefficient. You can create a capasive dropper by adding a capacitor and in most case one of 4 regular diods. You can see it being done in practice in the a video by [\nbigclivedotcom\n](_URL_3_?)v=Q23uh7AjjXw)\n\n\nYou can see a old video of a a nightlight a _URL_1_ and there is a lot of teardown of LED lamps and other cunsumer products like that with explanation of how the work and schematics on that channel\n\n\nThe main idea with a [capasive dropper](_URL_2_) is when you put a capacitor in series with a AC voltage source. The AC power will go from 0 +V 0 -V 0 so for each half period the capacitor will get chargen and then discharge, If you connect a resistor in series the total amount of current that passes trough it for a half period is the amount that is used to charge and discharge the capacitor.\n\n\n\nThe LED is put in series with a resistor and when you know the current trough the system limited by the capacitor and the voltage you can calculate the value of the resistor so the voltage over the LED is what you like and you haver simple cheap but not that efficent power supply.\n\nFor high power LED lamps you most of the time have a lot of LED in series and a white have a voltage of ~3V and if you put a lot in seires the voltage you need 3* the number of diods. In a lamp like _URL_0_ you will see what look like 5 LED per side and 3 side and one on top but what look like a LED is a 3 LED module. So you have 5x3+1= 16 modules with a total of 16 X3=48 LEDS that need a voltage of 48x3= 144V. So on a UK power grid that have 240V nominal that has a peek of 340V only a relative small amount of voltage drop over the resistors.\n\n\nSo the components that is needed for a LED lamps is quite limited. You can have higher efficiency if you have a small transformer in the system to change the voltage but that is a relative expensive part. So a LED lamp is often not that efficient to keep the cost down. So desigs are a compromise between cost and efficiency so they are still a lot more efficient then a incandescent bulb but is more expensive.\n\n\n So most of the light bulb style LED lamps are optimized for cost not efficiency and more expensive more efficient lamps exist. At higher power levels like in floodlight you use more efficient power supply where the extra cost will not be a huge increase of the total but the power you need and heat that is needed to be radiated away ls lower."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOW6gtxfk8U"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqRlBHJ3Fnw",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_nrP6PNOtg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_power_supply",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch"
]
] |
|
14sbcn
|
What was the level of American investment in Nazi Germany?
|
How much american money was in Nazi Germany before the war.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14sbcn/what_was_the_level_of_american_investment_in_nazi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7fyxet",
"c7g178m"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"This is an ambiguous question. Do you mean US government money? Assets held by American corporations? Assets held by American citizens?",
"I can't give you any numbers, but right before the war the US was still trying to get out of the Great Depression with the New Deal. There weren't a whole lot of American investments/assets to begin with. Our government was way more involved with injecting currency and investment into our own economy, for example the government funded the [Tennessee Valley Authority](_URL_0_). \nSidenote: Interestingly, the planes built during WWII would not have been possible without TVA, as it produced the mass amounts of cheap electricity needed in aluminum plants. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority"
]
] |
|
1kesx1
|
Has there ever beena popular revolution to instate a monarchy?
|
Not to restore or usurp a royal position, but to essentially start one from scratch, moving from a tradition of non-monarchy to imposing a royal family. Any ideas?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kesx1/has_there_ever_beena_popular_revolution_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbo8o1y",
"cbo90er",
"cboaxnm",
"cbochvz",
"cbodq77",
"cbolp5n",
"cbopv3d"
],
"score": [
5,
24,
13,
3,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The first thing that comes to mind is the dictatorship of Julias Ceaser. Rome had been a Republic for several hundred years, but order in the republic was begining to wane by the time of Ceaser because of the gaining of lands that were a product of imperialism. This resulted in much power being placed in the hands of the military. Although it wasn't a true monarchy, the power stayed in the hands of Ceaser, then his adopted son Augustus, then his adopted son Tiberious. This change from republic to dictatorship was voluntary because the republic hand become too corrupt and there was some degree of order under the dictatorship. \n\n\nAnother thing that comes to mind is the 1953 coup d'etat... but again that was a transition from democracy to dictatorship, and the transition in Iran was instagated by the UK and US as opposed to public opinion. \n\nI'm sorry if I haven't really answered your question, but the question does bring to mind two ideas that were in circulation durring the time period after the American revolution. On one side there was the idea that as had been true with the Romans, democracy could not last too long, and eventually it would end and be replaced with a strong central authority because of corruption. On the other side it was said that after tasting the freedom of democracy the citizens could never consent to handing over the freedom of democracy. ",
"I can think of two examples one 19th century and one biblical. While it was probably not what the people had in mind, when the Greeks won their war of independence in the 1830s they ended up with a new monarchy. This had more to do with larger European assumptions of the appropriate form of government than any Greek aspirations. \n\nThe Biblical example would be King Saul and the Prophet Samuel. The people of Israel asked the Prophet Samuel to give them a king. Samuel thought it was a terrible idea, and told them so, but he eventually let them have one, and anointed King Saul. It may stretch things a bit to call this historical, but there you have it. ",
"The reinstatement of the Spanish monarchy after Franco's death wasn't so much a popular revolution as it was an elite political compromise that was generally popularly accepted. In many ways, the full implications of this compromise are still unfolding, and the resentment between ex-Francoists and Republicans has remained a simmering issue in Spain to the present day, coloring a lot of the recent political unrest in that country.",
"It really depends on whether you can equate dictatorships with monarchy. There is a lot of overlap, and depending on the definitions you choose to employ, most dictatorships could also be classified as monarchies. In that case, there are a ton of them in recent history throughout Africa, Asia (mostly the Middle East outside of North Korea), and South America.\n\nThere are also quite a few subnational monarchies in Africa and Asia, although almost all of them were either continuous from pre-colonial times or reinstatements of pre-colonial institutions once colonial forces had left. There are some that could be argued to be new monarchies instead of reinstatements, but all the ones I'm aware of could be argued for either side convincingly enough that I'm not going to throw my hat into that ring of vipers.",
"Here is the best that I'm aware of- King Zog and Crown Prince Leka of Albania. It's difficult for me to cite to sources beyond [wikipedia](_URL_3_) and a couple [History](_URL_4_) [Today](_URL_1_) articles at the moment, as most of the knowledge I have of them comes from having been in Tirana at the absolutely excellent National Historical Museum of Albania, and from speaking to Albanians. There are also a couple of books on the subject: [King Zog: Self-Made Monarch of Albania](_URL_0_), and [A Royal Exile: King Zog and Queen Geraldine, Including Their Wartime Exile in the Thames Valley and Chilterns](_URL_2_).\n\nAhmet Muhtar Bej Zogolli, later Zogu, later King Zog was a politician of fairly extraordinary audacity. After being a local politician and national minister, he was elected President, and did quite a bit to shore up some real corruption and disorganization within Albania. Of course, he was doing so as a dictator, with the explicit help of the Italians. In 1928 he orchastrated what was essentially a government led coup, with Italian backing, and declared a constitutional monarchy.\n\nThough he did marry a woman with royal lineage, the monarchy was always shaky, in part due to the fact that the Italians were pulling the strings for any meaningful exercise of external sovereignty. Italy invaded in 1939, days after the birth of Crown Prince Leka. The royal family went into exile, Albania went through nationalist convulsions, and was led by the fascist dictator Enver Hoxa, who is perhaps the most fascinatingly bizarre fascist dictator in the pantheon of fascinatingly bizarre fascist dictators.\n\nIn 1997, when things had reached a crisis, Crown Prince Leka returned and there was a referendum to restore the monarchy. The results were _highly_ contested, but officially it failed by a 2-1 margin. Crown Prince Leka left in exile again. (And later returned and lived in Tirana until his death.)\n\nIt's not exactly a _popular revolution_ as the referendum that created the monarchy was essentially orchestrated by Zog, and made Albania a client state of Italy. But it was a monarchy that was created completely from scratch, and was at least a marginally more effective government than what had existed before.\n\n",
"Can one of the Norse historians comment on Iceland? \n\nIn 1262, after 400 years without a monarchy, they voluntarily placed themselves under the Norwegian crown. Instating a crown was a way to end [40 years of internal disorder](_URL_0_), but I have no idea whether there was any kind of \"revolution\" where the general populus demanded it, vs. more of a diplomatic decision reached by elites.",
"The 1920 Kingdom of Hungary was formed after a counterrevolution against communism (who themselves revolted against the Republic that formed in Hungary after WWI). Supposedly the sentiments among the people was that they wanted the old Habsburg King/Emperor back but the military who had control as the Regent kept him out of the position (though, there reasons technically made sense the Allies wanted no Habsburg in power and refused to recognize when they put Archduke Joseph August originally as Regent)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0750944390",
"http://www.historytoday.com/jason-tomes/throne-zog-monarchy-albania-1928-1939",
"http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0955088313/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=royboonew-21&camp=2902&creative=19466&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0955088313&adid=1ZFJ5XXVDNWFG88J5QXF&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Froyalbooknews.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F11%2Froyal-exile-king-zog-and-queen.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zog_I,_King_of_Albania",
"http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/king-zog-i-albania"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturlung_Era"
],
[]
] |
|
5kxb19
|
why haven't we made calorie free food that's cheap and actually tastes good?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kxb19/eli5_why_havent_we_made_calorie_free_food_thats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbr9t3x",
"dbraf97"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Most of the usable calories in food come from fats and sugars. These things are also what make foods taste good, so taking them out also removes much of the pleasant taste. There are substitutes for sugar, but no proper substitutes for fat.",
"Your body does need calories. Making food that doesn't have any isn't really a solution to anything. I can see a lot of people getting very sick very quickly if that were a thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
28pxl4
|
Coughing Blood?
|
What happens inside of your lungs to cause you to cough up blood?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28pxl4/coughing_blood/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cida4kt",
"cidaprt"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The lungs have a dual blood supply. The pulmonary arteries send blood to be oxygenated in the alveoli, while the bronchial arteries make sure the lung tissue itself gets nutrition and oxygen. As a result, there's a hell of a lot of blood vessels, from pretty large to incredibly tiny. Coughing up blood means blood's getting out somewhere. The most common cause is infection, which causes inflammation; if blood vessels swell too much, they can break.\n\nIt's also possible to vomit up blood from the gastrointestinal tract; while lung blood is bright red, gut blood is much darker (\"coffee ground\" vomiting.)\n\n_URL_0_",
"If it's bright red, there is a chance that you may have irritated your upper airway or developed varices in your esophagus likely from coughing, and vomiting among other things. \n\nIf it's pink and frothy it's probably from the lungs. \n\nIf it's dark (almost black) with a coffee ground like appearance then you're looking at a bleed further down in the GI tract somewhere. \n\nAll of these will require some sort of medical evaluation to know for sure the location and severity of the bleeding."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1253.html"
],
[]
] |
|
3ubli8
|
Does the 5 mn Km difference between earth's aphelion and perihelion around the sun mean that the summers are more intense in the Southern Hemisphere?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ubli8/does_the_5_mn_km_difference_between_earths/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxdv5fr"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The Earth's tilt contributes more significantly to temperature than distance from the sun, although the southern hemisphere does get more energy from the sun during it's summer. However, the difference is more or less offset by the large southern oceans absorbing energy, so the net effect is that there is little difference between southern and northern summers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
286o16
|
If I catch the flu, what is the total mass of virus in my body by the time I start showing symptoms?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/286o16/if_i_catch_the_flu_what_is_the_total_mass_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci8516s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Let's aim for within a few orders of magnitude. Let's say the average flu virion weighs around a femtogram (10^-18 kg) -- around the same as an HIV virion. \n\nHow many virus particles in an infection? That's really tough, actually. The paper here: _URL_0_ estimates a peak titer of around 10^6. But that's TCID50, which underestimates virion particles at least 10-fold. For other reasons I believe that's at least a further 10-100-fold underestimate. So let's throw out an estimate of 10^9 virion particles at the peak of the infection. So the peak mass of the infection would be maybe 10^-9 kg, or around a nanogram. Probably not much more than 10 ng.\n\nBut that's peak titer, which isn't necessarily when you start showing symptoms. Ferrets, which are considered the gold standard animal model for human influenza, often don't show maximum symptoms until maybe day 4-5 post-infection, while peak shedding is often day 1 or 2. By day 5, virus shedding is hundreds of times lower than at peak. So when you're feeling worst, you probably have a few pg of virus in you, not much more.\n\n(That's a standard flu infection. If it's gone on to cause severe pneumonia, or systemic effects, then it's probably higher by a couple orders of magnitude.)\n\nThis is not even back of the envelope calculation, so take it for what it's worth.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563736/"
]
] |
||
1oosqt
|
Problems with writing historiography papers
|
Hello there. First off, I'm a second year student in the master's program, and I hate historiography papers. I'm currently writing an 8-10 page historiography paper, and despite having written two similar papers already in grad school, I still can't seem to grasp it. Having done numerous research papers, I felt I was prepared for grad school, yet a year into I feel woefully underprepared by undergrad.
My main problem seems to be that I cannot really seem to look at the overall argument offered by historians in their works. Facts are interesting and easy enough, but the "message" just seems to elude me at every turn. This seems to be due to my fascination with facts over themes, and it is definitely a problem in grad school.
For the paper itself, I also seem to have problems structuring it; do I structure it by theme? By book (which can also include theme depending on the variety of books examined)? I get that some topics can be sorted by decade of examination (changing attitudes on Germany post-world war II), but some of the older topics seems to be more difficult to sort out, especially with the wide variety of topics that can be brought forth. I almost feel like it would be easier to discuss the arguments of historians in general (who focus on one specific topic) rather than individual books against eachother, but that is not what I have been given, unfortunately.
I guess what I am asking is, how do I write a proper historiography? I did well enough on my previous two papers (B and then an A- in that order) but in hindsight I'm not sure I even deserve those grades. I'm just trying to learn as much as I can while in grad school, and do the best I can. I hate how underprepared I am/was for this all, but I'm trying to not let that stop me...
Thanks for reading and any advice you can offer.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1oosqt/problems_with_writing_historiography_papers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccu27is",
"ccu2c3n",
"ccuaq3d",
"ccue9yv"
],
"score": [
5,
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I've known great historians who could never get a grasp of historiography and others who thrived on it. Don't be too hard on yourself. That's not to give you a free base not to learn. Learn what you can, but don't judge yourself. You can still do history. I wish I could sit down with you to discuss this. I was one of the ones who thrived on it, but I'm not sure where to begin. Good luck.",
"It sometimes seems as though there must be only one way to write a historiography paper -- as if anyone can just describe the entire state of a field somehow -- but there are actually several ways to do this well. Also, not everyone's reading of the shape of a field or its most pressing issues will match up. Historiography papers will all be slightly different, in other words.\n\nDepending on what issue you're addressing, one of several approaches may be most appropriate. Sometimes you may want to describe the field as a puzzle that's been pieced together over time. Every text is a contribution that makes the picture clearer.\n\nSometimes, a chronological approach is best. So, for example, scholars of Reconstruction in the 1920s put forward a compelling, field-defining theory to explain Reconstruction that was also extremely racist. That framework was poked at and partially deconstructed over the following decades, but wasn't really displaced until Eric Foner's *Reconstruction* in 1988. Scholars of Reconstruction afterwards branched off into many different directions, feeling less constrained to continue arguing against the scholarship of seven decades earlier.\n\nThere may be factions that have debated a particular key issue over time, and you may way to track the shape of that debate and the way it's impacted the scholarship produced over a certain period of time.\n\nA thematic approach can work, but only if the paper remains focused. No one wants to read a historiography paper that identifies 10 themes, three of which drop out as 15 more are added -- after which 5 more drop out again.\n\nThe important thing is that your historiography paper have an argument. It's not enough simply to describe the state of a field or how it got to be the way it is. What does it mean? What are the key issues or critiques that historians need to focus on? And in what direction should future research go?\n\nThe information you need to put this sort of paper together virtually always comes in the introduction and conclusion to a historical monograph. If you're in a history graduate program, you must know this already -- but that really is the place where the big ideas of the text are laid out, and it's those big ideas that you'll set in relation to one another in your historiography paper. It's especially useful when the literature review in those monographs gives you a sense of the state of the field that author saw at the time he/she published. State of the field essays are published from time to time as well, and those can also be helpful. \n\nOh, and one more thing. These papers can be a pain, but they can help you figure out where you own work fits within the larger field -- and that's a question that everyone has to answer. Hope that helps.",
"If we are to understand historiography as the ways in which people have written about the past and how it changes (or remains the same) over time, then there is no certain template to a historiography paper. How you structure your paper hinges on your topic and the temporal parameters.\n\nIt is important to consider both \"historiographical\" and \"historical\" contexts in which studies are written. Consider, for example, the Holocaust. Few western scholars gained access to Soviet archives (and therefore much of the material about the genocidal policies of the Third Reich in the east) during the Cold War. Between 1989 and 1991, however, Soviet archives became less restricted and gradually allowed westerners in to conduct research. This methodological change afforded western historians an opportunity to compare the development of the Holocaust in both West- and East-European contexts. This \"historical\" change in the Soviet Union had profound consequences for a variety of historiographies. In 1995, David Glantz and Jonathan House wrote a book called *When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler* (University of Kansas Press, 1995), which fundamentally changed how historians understood the war in the east (not just about the Holocaust) because of increased access to sources.\n\nAnother aspect you might want to consider is language barriers in various historical fields. For instance, the existing literature on Imperial Germany and the First World War is overwhelmingly dominated by English-language who have been rapt by German literature of the 1960s. Reading work in German, however, might highlight different patterns in how people understand the development of war. In some ways, going to the bibliography of a study and looking at the archival evidence or primary source material can help you situate where the book stands, or whether it is just a synthesis of books and articles. The bibliography often indicates whether a British or American scholar of Russian history has consulted Russian-language sources. The same goes with many other topics.\n\nThematic structures can work, depending on what the topic is, but I personally prefer chronological arrangements. This allows you, and your readers, a chance to see clearly how historiography changes according to the contours of the past.\n\nI recommend taking a look at Ernst Breisach's *What is Historiography? Ancient, Medieval, and Modern* (University of Chicago Press, 2007). You mentioned post-1945 Germany, but depending on your topic Polity Press from the UK has an excellent series that addresses particular genres of history. Peter Burke wrote \"What is Cultural History?\", Sonya Rose wrote \"What is Gender History?,\" and Stephen Morillo and Michael Pavkovic wrote \"What is Military History?\"--all published by Polity Press. These works are excellent starting points to find out more about the salient debates in each field, the sources each field tends to use, and details about how the fields have developed across time and space.\n",
"IMO/E, the best way to learn how to write hist. papers is to read them. Lots of them. As an Americanist, I found *Reviews in American History* to be especially useful. \n\nA professor told me that the object of a good hist. paper in grad school is to show that you understand the strengths and weaknesses of the literature on a particular topic, and how that literature has evolved over time. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
36heb3
|
the relevance of the hillary clinton email scandal
|
So lately I am still seeing the reports on Hillary Clinton using a private email account. Now they are saying they won't release the emails until 2016. I'm still wondering why this all matters. Is she being investigated for something else? Or is this just another thing with which reporters are wasting time for ratings?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36heb3/eli5_the_relevance_of_the_hillary_clinton_email/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crdz6i5",
"cre0453"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Well, I'd say it's pretty clear she chose to use those email accounts so that she could duck freedom of information requests. So if you dislike Obama's broken promises on transparency, then get ready for more of the same with Hillary.",
"The email scandal is actually pretty basic. While working for the State Department she was required to archive all public emails corresponding to her work. She did a few things to circumvent this:\n\n* On the day she was confirmed she purchased a private domain and eventually hosted her email there.\n* She used a private email address on a private server with poor security and had her closest aides do the same.\n* When she had to legally turn over her documents to the State Department she personally decided what was personal and what was public and then claims she deleted everything off the server rather than allowing anyone else to view or verify. Nobody at Oversight knows whether they received all public documents, it can be assumed they hadn't. If her goal was to provide all public documents to Oversight she wouldn't have had a private email account.\n* She was asked about additional email addresses that were used and even specific email aliases. Her lawyers lied about the use of additional email addresses for State business that she did not previously disclose.\n\nAdditionally, there are some \"scandals\" in the State Department depending on which political fence you are on. But regardless of whether or not you are a Democrat or Republican you should be supportive of Congress's role of oversight over the Executive branch. One such scandal is in relation to Benghazi, Libya where an American compound was attacked on September 11 just prior to an American election. The State Department had memos changed and blamed the attacks on a \"spontaneous\" reaction to a YouTube video nobody saw and stuck with that bullshit story for weeks. They refused to claim it was a terror attack on Sept 11 prior to the election because they wanted to protect the ruling political class from criticism.\n\nRepublicans are now investigating the attacks and the US response. Coincidentally the Secretary of State's emails have been wiped. Additionally, we have learned that a Clinton chrony was providing Hillary with bad intel in Libya. Obama would not allow him to work for the State Department so Hillary gave him a job at the Clinton Foundation and he also did some work for Media Matters (another Clinton started group to protect themselves in the media). His emails went to an alias the Clinton legal team lied about. And this chrony, Blumenthal, has a shady past and was working to benefit financially from a regime change in Libya. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6zxki9
|
what do doctors do with unnecessary body parts like an appendix?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zxki9/eli5_what_do_doctors_do_with_unnecessary_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmysuds",
"dmytq97",
"dmyuzne",
"dmywwni",
"dmz0u4r",
"dmz2nni",
"dmz3sj5",
"dmz52bx",
"dmz66rf",
"dmz6wv8",
"dmz74h9",
"dmz7sjb"
],
"score": [
29,
27,
4,
250,
16,
18,
2,
5,
4,
22,
79,
11
],
"text": [
"It's special Medical Waste. Yes, they throw them out, like the bloody sponges, unless they need to go to the lab for a biopsy.",
"The vet hospital of the local university has a chemical vat that they dissolve remains in, should the need arise. From what I understand they only do this if there is some reason which the animal cannot be disposed of by other means. Communicable animal diseases come to mind. ",
"It varies drastically across the world, but medical waste (including removed organs, but also many other forms of medical waste ranging from bloody bandages to used needles) is usually incinerated. _URL_0_",
"Biohazard waste (removed body parts and those disposable tools that come in contact with your blood, for instance) are destroyed in a way that is designed to make sure that no living cells could remain, such as dissolving in chemicals or burning to ash in an incinerator.\n\nI would like to point out that body parts that are removed are not necessarily unnecessary- even the appendix, the archetypical useless organ, is currently thought to provide some function (providing a safe store of positive bacteria to re-populate the intestines after something like diarrhea flushes them out)",
"Had my wisdom teeth pulled and wanted them. Was told no it's biohazard waste. How did they go from my extra teeth to biohazard in 30 minutes. No one could explain. Did not get them. ",
"Your appendix would go to the pathologist and get fixed in formalin initially so it could then be examined under a microscope to assess the cause. A very small number have tumours. In general most excised organs get sent to pathology before disposal. ",
"Doctors now think that the appendix plays an important role in maintaining the normal composition of bacteria in the gut by acting as a reservoir. Just thought I’d share that your appendix may not be useless. ",
"For the record even though this doesn't really pertain to your question: your appendix is [not totally useless](_URL_0_) as once thought. It produces gut flora, which is to say bacteria in your digestive tract that help digest food. You can live without it, but it's not useless.",
"It's not the biggest body part, but I worked in a lab that collected and used foreskins (from circumcisions). Infants tissues can be harvested for stem cells and it turns out cutting off other bits of the baby is commonly considered unethical.",
"I've got a story about the old methods of disposal. For reference, I am an environmental geologist and was working near Flint, MI a few years ago. Had to do a subsurface investigation at one of the vacant hospitals because for 30+ years they dumped all biowaste into an open pit west of the hospital. They filled in the \"skin pit\" (what my coworkers and I dubbed the dump) in the late 1980s with building debris from an old on-site church, and then paved over it for extra parking. We drilled the pit and found significant contamination, including formaldehyde, in the groundwater. All of the houses down-gradient of the hospital had to connect to city water. Pretty gross considering how long they were drinking that. ",
"Pathologists' Assistant and med tech here. When you get a body part removed it will come to the anatomic pathology lab or clinical lab. The clinical lab deals with liquids (blood, urine, spinal fluid, etc.) and microbiology while the anatomic lab is exactly that: for anatomic parts! \n\nSo if you got your appendix removed it will go the anatomic pathology lab to be \"grossed\" (measured, described) and sectioned. What we do to the appendix depends on what it was taken out for. \n\nNo matter what we will snip off the entire distal tip (the end opposite the side that attaches to the cecum) as that can harbor a kind of tumor called a carcinoid tumor. We will then serially section the appendix looking for any abnormalities. What does the lumen contain? Fecal material, fecoliths, blood, pus, nothing? How does the serosa (the outside of the appendix) look? Is it dull and not shiny? Does it have purulent exudate on it or the attached fat (mesoappendix)? Is it torn or is there a perforation? Finally, we look at how thick the wall of the appendix is (they are usually about 0.2 cm thick). \n\nA normal gross dictation of your presumably normal appendix that may have been incidentally taken out will look something like this:\n\nReceived fresh labeled with the patient's name, medical record number, and additionally labeled \"appendix\" is a 6.5 cm in length by 0.5 cm in diameter appendix with 2.0 cm of attached mesoappendix. The serosa is pink-tan, smooth, and glistening. The specimen is serially sectioned to reveal a 0.2 cm lumen containing blood and a 0.2 cm thick wall. Representative sections are submitted as follows:\n1A = entire distal tip bisected longitudinally\n1B = representative cross sections including inked proximal margin\n\nEdit: So if you have appendicitis I will look for purulent exudate on the serosa, in the appendix itself, and will make sure there isn't a perforation. \n\nEdit 2: The sections I submit in cassettes are then processed and cut by histotechs. These small (think micron size sections) are then stained (usually with hematoxylin and eosin) and the pathologist will examine the slide under the scope. They perform the final diagnosis; in the case of appendicitis looking for neutrophils inside the lumen. ",
"Most doctor surgeons are not paid very well and will eat the parts they remove to give them energy for their next part removal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_waste"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7v4wdf
|
In Martin Scorsese's film, "Silence", Japanese Christian converts in the 17th century are portrayed as being excessively religious. What was the actual extent of Christian religiosity among the Japanese at that time?
|
Additional question:
Based on the movie, one might view Japanese Christians as being naive and almost deluded in their trust for the Jesuit priests. They seem to be absolutely fixated on their beliefs and devoted to the Christian life. How real was this?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7v4wdf/in_martin_scorseses_film_silence_japanese/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtqt39r"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"By the 17th century, especially the 1640s when the film is set, the only remaining practicing Christians were likely to be die-hards. Much of the behavior shown among the converts in the film and novel — reluctance on pain of death to disrespect Christian images or to express verbal contempt for the Virgin Mary, placing urgent importance on baptism and confession, the convert Monica’s belief that Heaven will be superior to their current state because it removes them from the suffering of feudalism — is pretty orthodox for a faithful 17th century Catholic, even one born and raised in Europe. The priests are their means of accessing the sacraments (besides baptism, which iirc is handled by the religious community’s layperson leader, the jiisama) and engaging with what they see as their own salvation and that of their children in an isolated and politically oppressive context that restricts their access to Christian images as well as prayer. Furthermore, they’re Catholic in the first place — worship using images and songs isn’t unique to Japanese Catholics but in the context of the film these traditional elements are guarded so fervently and jealously because they’re left over from an earlier era of comparative religious toleration.\n\n\nHowever, not all Japanese people in this era who had formally received Christianity via baptism cleaved to it to that degree — in addition to those who renounced Christianity under duress there were others who left off Christianity willingly, either for political expedience after the ebb of direct Catholic influence in Japan or out of general waning interest. (The film’s version of Inoue is in one of those latter categories.) After severing contact altogether with external European Catholic influence, remaining Japanese Christians (“hidden Christians”) ultimately developed their own customs and worship styles independent of Roman Catholicism and independent of the services of European-style priests. I’m on mobile right now so I can’t do a preliminary roundup of sources but I’d love to give any information that might help contextualize why the film’s Japanese Christians appear so fervent and why their reliance on the two European Jesuits in their midst is so intense."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
222rqi
|
how can companies like malt-o-meal make cereal exactly like general mills and other major companies and not get sued?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/222rqi/eli5_how_can_companies_like_maltomeal_make_cereal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgithad"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Not patented. Same way anyone can make a type of cheese or a cola -- baseically just can't get caught stealing their recipe or using their trademarks (name, characters or things that might cause consumers to think they were buying the real general mills product).\n\nSee the same thing in fashion - everyone copies look/style."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3oc2fe
|
why can't dogs eat onions?
|
I know it has something to do with blood cells but I don't understand it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3oc2fe/eli5_why_cant_dogs_eat_onions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvvue0g",
"cvvxi8t",
"cvw0f8n",
"cvwdrut",
"cvwh2aa"
],
"score": [
9,
356,
13,
3,
9
],
"text": [
"If I recall what a vet told me is that it breaks down their blood cells causing them to die because the oxygen can't get around their body, raisons do it too but are much deadlier. ",
"#Brief Overview\n\nOnions damage a dogs' red blood cells. Chemicals found in the onion lead to the dog developing *anaemia*, which is when it has too few red blood cells. This is because of how the onion's chemicals bond to the *hemoglobin* in our blood, which is what carries oxygen. The hemoglobin clumps up and doesn't work properly. This can lead to the dog becoming tired or weak.\n\n#Mechanism\n\nI've done some reading around how it works and have gone into more detail 'cause I think it's important.\nDrop me a line if it's out of line with the formatting or scope of ELI5, I don't do this often.\n\nThe onions cause toxicity by oxidizing hemoglobin; the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen.^2 When oxidized, hemoglobin forms clumps, called *Heinz Bodies*.^2 [Here](_URL_4_)'s a picture of what Heinz Bodies look like in a cat's blood (they're the small red clusters). Normally, in dogs with onion toxicosis a moderate number of red blood cells may contain Heinz Bodies.^2 They don't usually cause life-threatening problems themselves; the red blood cells can still carry oxygen, just not as efficiently.^2 However, the red blood cells may also burst.^3 The Heinz Bodies cause problems by decreasing the red blood cell lifespan, which makes the dog anaemic.^2 Anaemia may be present several days after ingestion of a large amount of onions or after weeks or months from sustained consumption of small amounts ^2\n\nThe chemical in question that the onions contain is a sulfur based chemical called *Thiosulfate* or specifically, a *Thiosulfate ion* ( S₂O₃^2− ). ^3 As a sidenote, this kind of chemical contributes to the taste of onions. FYI, it's an [*anion*](_URL_1_) not an *onion* but in south London, we call them the same thing /s. [This paper from 2003](_URL_3_) isolates the substance and determines that, when garlic poisons dogs, the chemical responsible is *\"Sodium 2-Propenyl Thiosulfate\"* (a thiosulfate chemical).^4\n\nStronger onions and garlic increase a dog's risk of toxicosis.^1\nAround one fourth of a cup [0.0591 dm^3 ] can poison a 20-pound [9.07 kg] though the threshold for toxicity increases with the size of the dog.^2 Another source says that the threshold for toxicity is around 15 to 30 g/kg of onion or alternatively, 0.5% of the animals body mass of onion that can cause the condition.^3 A fourth threshold value is roughly 0.6 kg to 0.8 kg.^3 It's difficult to compare these values as onions will vary significantly in density and by variety. The values aren't completely relevent since you should go to the vet if your dog's eaten onions in any case.\nSmaller animals and cats are even more sensitive due to their low body mass.^2\n\nOnions are still poisonous when cooked or processed as onion powder.^2 Garlic can cause the same problems as onions, but toxicosis is less likely as smaller amounts are used.^2\n\nI've yet to find out how humans can physiologically overcome the onion's toxicity; if anyone finds out, feel free to message me.\n\n#Diagnosis\n\nAfter about 5 days, dogs become fatigued and their urine becomes dark or reddish.^1 ^2\nOther indicators are those also found with anemia, including:\n\n* low levels of oxygen,^2\n* lethargy and decreased stamina,^2 ^3\n* weakness,^2\n* pale or bluish gums, especially with exercise,^2\n* breathlessness, ^3\n* diarrhea, ^3\n* vomiting, ^3\n\nThe specific condition in question is called *Hemolytic Anemia*.^3 *Hemo* means \"blood\" and *lyt(ic)* means \"breaking down\" so this condition is the type of anemia, where blood cells are broken up.\n\nIn diagnostic and blood-work tests, you may find small purple clumps, in the blood, that indicate onion toxicity.^2\nAlthough a number of other compounds can lead to formation of the Heinz Bodies, onion toxicosis is the first differential.^2\nThe Heinz Bodies can be seen in the red blood cells under a microscope, especially when the cells are stained with a special stain called *New Methylene Blue*.^2\n\nOnion toxicosis is not very common; the Urbana Illinois ASPCA Poison Control Center annually records up to only a dozen cases of toxicosis from onion and its relatives (genus *Allium*).^2 Due to low dose exposure, pets may not develop signs severe enough to take to a vet or at least not sick enough to perform diagnostic bloodwork for a definitive diagnosis.^2\n\n#Treatment\n\nTreatment will require veterinary attention, may involve hospitalisation for several days and, in severe cases, even a blood transfusion.^1 ^2 ^3 Most affected dogs respond well to treatment and recover.^2\n\nTake your pet to the vet if they ingest onions.^2 While onion toxicity is not a common cause of these signs, consider onion toxicosis if you see these signs.^2 The vet may induce vomiting or administer a product to help decrease the absorption of the onions.^2 A quick trip to the vet is much easier and cheaper than a hospital stay.^2\n\n#Ref. List\n\n^1 [ASPCA Website](_URL_5_)\n\n^2 [Dr Sophia Yin Blog](_URL_0_)\n\n^3 [VPI Pet Insurance Website](_URL_2_)\n\n^4 [YAMATO, O, Y SUGIYAMA et al. *Isolation and Identification of Sodium 2-Propenyl\nThiosulfate from Boiled Garlic (Allium sativum)\nThat Oxidizes Canine Erythrocytes*, 2003.](_URL_3_) \n\nIf you can't tell, I'm trying to get into the habit of writing medical essays. Feel free to give me formatting notes or tell me what I've done wrong. Cheers!",
"So what is it about human physiology that makes this work differently for us?",
"I had no idea dogs couldn't eat onions; explains why my moms old dog always got paint-peeling farts when he ate 'em...",
"Onions are like ogres. If you try to eat an ogre, it will kill you. Likewise, if a dog tries to eat an onion, the onion will kill it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://drsophiayin.com/blog/entry/onions_the_secret_killer",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion#Anions_and_cations",
"http://www.petinsurance.com/healthzone/pet-articles/pet-health-toxins/Pets-and-Onions.aspx",
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1271/bbb.67.1594",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Heinz_bodies_cat.jpg",
"https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/foods-are-hazardous-dogs"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7zy8te
|
What were the war aims of the Arab countries in the 1973 War?
|
Was their goal to overrun and annihilate Israel (which I'm sure is what the Israelis assumed), or were they simply trying to gain back the territories lost in the 1967 war? If it was the former, was this in any way feasible?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7zy8te/what_were_the_war_aims_of_the_arab_countries_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duv836p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The goals are uncertain for the long-term achievements, but we have a fair idea. Israel, of course, interpreted the goal as its destruction. From their perspective, this was a reasonable view, though we can get into the particulars of Sadat's prior overtures for a peace of sorts and how that factored in. Nevertheless, Israel did not trust Egypt or Syria and did not view either as seriously wanting any kind of peace or resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and after over 20 years of conflict, this was unsurprising at the time, particularly following the humiliation Arab states suffered in 1967. Even so, we have some inklings of what Egypt and Syria may have truly wanted, which may have contrasted with their public statements.\n\nThose public statements are interesting to examine. Sadat, on October 16, 1973, gave a speech where he called for an Arab-Israeli peace conference. This, of course, was after the tide had already turned against the invading Egyptian forces, following catastrophic losses a few days prior. Sadat, in that speech, laid out the goals as: re-occupying territories lost in 1967, and to \"restore the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people\". What this means is rather unclear in reality, as until 1967, Egypt had been occupying Gaza itself and had not granted Palestinian Arabs political autonomy. However, given Sadat promptly goes on to equate Zionism (the belief in the right of Jews to a state in modern-day Israel) to Nazism, it is no surprise that the ultimate goal appeared to remain the destruction of Israel, at least in public. He laid out five goals for a peace conference in this speech: 1) Reoccupying territory from 1967; 2) Withdrawal of Israeli forces from all territory in point 1 in exchange for a ceasefire; 3) Attend a peace conference that would resolve the conflict with respect to \"the legitimate rights of all peoples of the area\" (no statement on Israel's right to exist included here); 4) Open the Suez to international travel and trade again; and 5) Seek firm promises on 1-4.\n\nCompare this to November 1970, and you'll see an interesting difference. There, Sadat again lays out the goal of reoccupying lands Israel gained in 1967. However, there is not significant attention paid specifically to mentioning opposition to Zionism, or Palestinian rights. But in January 1971, in a separate speech, he gave a \"history\" of Zionism that claimed that its goal was ultimately to reach a \"Greater Israel\" from the \"Nile to the Euphrates\", a notion that is really not historically accurate at all. While he never calls outright for the destruction of Israel, his speech certainly seems to point that way.\n\nIn private, the story may be slightly different.\n\nWhen the war was first launched, the early successes on the Egyptian front were not necessarily mirrored on the Syrian one. On October 7, the second day of war, Assad's military began to fear an Israeli counterattack, and asked the Soviets to seek a ceasefire that would include an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines (though they did not pass this last part on to Sadat). When the Soviets approached Sadat to ask about a ceasefire, Sadat dismissed the idea, saying that Egypt intended to continue the war. The Soviets then asked Sadat what his goals were, and his response is described by Abraham Rabinovich in *The Yom Kippur War* as threefold. Strategically, to exhaust Israeli. Territorially, to gain the Gidi and Mitla Passes. Politically, the peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict (unexplained). He said the military situation was excellent and he wanted no ceasefire yet. The Soviets were not happy, and Brezhnev said, \"His position is ridiculous\", but the war continued nevertheless. Sadat's forces had reached an early point, with surprising success, which surprised both US and USSR military observers. He believed, apparently, that Iraqi forces would stabilize the Syrian line and Egypt could advance. This overconfidence proved largely fatal.\n\nRabinovich believes, with good reason I think, that Sadat's goal was to establish a firm foothold in the Sinai, get international involvement in the peace process (with undetermined goals), and eventually secure at the very least withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 armistice lines. Sadat, however, grew more confident as the war went well in the opening days. He believed, given the lack of Israeli attempts at advance following a few early maneuvers, and also given that Soviet weapons were being airlifted in, that Israeli forces were eroding and would collapse if it did not get a ceasefire. Israel itself believed the same, to some extent, which is why it accepted a ceasefire proposal that would not regain the Suez canal for it. Still, Israel had some hope that it could win in a tank battle in the Sinai, which could turn the tide. Israel hoped that this would lead to an Israeli advance and crossing that would put the pressure back on Egyptian forces.\n\nSadat's confidence led him to, it seems, change his goals from establishing an entrenched position to attempting to seriously collapse Israeli capabilities. This was a core mistake in the strategy. Had Sadat stuck to his guns and not changed his goals, he may have achieved the desired result of an international conference and reoccupying the Sinai and Gaza, and the Syrians may have reoccupied the Golan as well. This could have led to a position of strength from which to negotiate a final resolution to the conflict, one that might even have left Israel smaller than its post-1948 borders. Instead, however, Sadat's confidence led to the defeat of Syrian forces and of his own.\n\nIsrael was of two minds. Ariel Sharon, Israel's Southern Command leader and future Prime Minister, wanted to launch an attack on the Egyptian line before they attacked first. Israel's Chief of Staff, the top military commander, thought differently, and wanted to wait two days, but also said that he believed the Egyptians would attack and he preferred to wait for that attack. Intelligence suggested that was the case, and the Chief of Staff (who, in my opinion, is underappreciated in popular recounting of the war for his insight here) prepared to repel the Egyptian attack. The choice to attack appears to have been Sadat's and motivated by Syrian requests for assistance to relieve Israeli pressure against them, but there is some dispute as to the accuracy of this, given that the Egyptian source is the general who led the attack and may have wanted to defend his mistake by putting the blame on politics. Regardless, Israel saw this (rightly) as a make-or-break moment, where either the Egyptians would break, or \"we'll enter a cease-fire in the present miserable situation\", as Ariel Sharon put it. The Egyptians left 350 tanks in reserve, and would put 400 to 500 in the field against Israel's 700 in the Sinai, in six thrusts at Israeli lines. The attack, as you probably gathered, failed miserably. It was a major reversal of fortunes. The head-on thrust at Israeli forces led to losses of 150-250 tanks, with virtually no significant Israeli losses (most tanks were repaired, even). The Egyptians, in their rush to alleviate pressure on the Syrians (which would not and did not happen), and to consolidate further gains, went beyond their SAM cover and were pummeled by the Israeli air force and were forced to retreat.\n\nCould the Egyptians have pressed for ceasefire and achieved what appeared to be their early goals, along with Assad? That seems likely. Could they have even sought to exhaust Israel and gain more than the tactical goals of territorial acquisition they sought? Also likely. The Israelis knew it and the Egyptians knew it, in fact, judging by Israeli discussions about how unfavorable a ceasefire would have been before October 14. But following the turning of the tide, the situation greatly brightened for Israel, and the Israeli fear of destruction or unfavorable positions that might lead to later destruction were more or less alleviated, though the war *did* have the result (some would say intended by Sadat, though not in this form) of convincing Israeli leaders that their military could not defend them without some form of peace with their neighbors, which had become a feeling Israel had following the 1967 war, to some extent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2194d5
|
how do dating sites become successful if their success relies on a large number of members from the start?
|
Who would sign up to a dating site with only a few members? How does that site become more popular? I know that if I joined a site and I kept seeing the same person/match over and over again, I wouldn't use it anymore or recommend it to anyone.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2194d5/eli5_how_do_dating_sites_become_successful_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgaskl0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Same as any service that requires a lot of people for success: you use really good marketing to convince a few people to try it until you get a self-sustaining community. Do you think Facebook and Twitter and Ebay and Amazon had billions of users from the get-go? Of course not! The community builds over time, starting with a few experimental and faithful people and spreading from there. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1t8fxv
|
If you can cold weld metals in a vacuum because no oxides form, can you do it in 100% nitrogen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1t8fxv/if_you_can_cold_weld_metals_in_a_vacuum_because/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5o84g",
"ce5oh0i",
"ce5qr03"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
6
],
"text": [
"For a good many metals, sure. However, there are metals that can form nitrides as well as oxides. Lithium is a good example; metallic lithium will actually get hot in a nitrogen atmosphere as the exothermic formation of lithium nitride occurs.",
"You can cold weld metals in a vacuum because the gas molecules aren't adsorbed to the surface (or otherwise in the way), and in most cases, other surface contaminants as well as defects as well. \n\nIf it was only due to oxides, you could do it with noble metals under ordinary conditions.\n",
"You can even cold weld metals in atmosphere. When learning to use a lathe in a machine shop (which I've done in order to make instruments for my experiments) it's important to make sure the part you're using is lubricated to prevent cold welding.\n\nThe lathing process tends to remove surface oxides which can result in cold welding between the tool and the piece of metal you're working. The thing about cold welding is that it's called \"cold\" because it's below the melting point of the metals. It can still happen above room temperature though. If the part isn't correctly lubricated and the piece isn't spinning fast enough (which can prevent permanent joints from forming), it will heat up enough to induce cold welding."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6wng4a
|
Why does it seem that Kings were referred to as Princes in 17th century texts?
|
I'm not sure if this applies to all literature and whatnot, but I was reading the Licence to establish a colony in Virginia by King James I in 1606, and it mentions things like land "not actually occupied by Christian princes". I also see the usage of 'prince' for what seems to be a King in Hakluyt's appeal to Queen Elizabeth I. Am I just not understanding correctly? Am I wrong in thinking that they're Kings but in reality they're Princes? If so, were Princes historically given control of colonies? If they actually were referring to a King as a 'prince', how has English evolved to make Prince-- > King?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6wng4a/why_does_it_seem_that_kings_were_referred_to_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dm9qien"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"In the early modern era, the term \"Prince\" also had a more generic meaning of \"a ruler possessing some degree of sovereignty\". In that sense, the ruler a small independent dukedom like Victor Amadeus of Savoy was just as much a \"prince\" as king James of Scotland.\n\nIt's in this sense of the word prince that Machievelli entitled his most famous work *The Prince*. \n\nIt must also be said however, that standards for what was considered a sovereign polity was not terribly consistent, especially in Central Europe and the HRE with its complicated mix of overlapping jurisdictions and small highly fragmented duchies and whatnot."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1hhmal
|
Are there any historians dealing with the social and political impact of culture, especially literature, over the past century?
|
I'm looking for recommendations as to historians who have dealt with this topic on a thematic basis, answering the question which in its most reductive form would be phrased as: 'What is the historical impact of literature?'
I know a few oft-cited examples, such as the whole Upton Sinclair/FDA situation, but I'm curious to know if anyone has done anything to broadly look at these themes. In particular, I'd be interested to see anything relating to authors of newly-independent nations or who are seen as voices of national identity - for example, Wole Soyinka and Chinua Achebe in Nigeria, or perhaps the likes of Mario Vargas Llosa and Gabriel Garcia Marquez in Peru and Colombia respectively.
Any assistance very much appreciated
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hhmal/are_there_any_historians_dealing_with_the_social/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cauitf9",
"caukibj",
"caul3nv",
"caunoqo"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"If you want to look at the role of artists (writers, painters, etc...) during the Great Depression in the USA, Michael Denning's book really is the best. He looks at how intellectual labour, most prominently from the creative class, had similar ideals and functions to the rising force of the industrial working class as emblemized by the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)\n\nlink to the book's Google preview is here: _URL_0_\n",
"Yup, me.\n\nMy focus area is fin-de-siecle Austria and German pre-March romanticism.\n\nAny specific questions?",
"I wrote a post a few days ago about the role of literature in history. I'm not sure if it provides you with anything you are looking for, but you may want to check it out. \nI have found literature to be particularly useful in my area of study. Since LGBT people have only very recently been able to participate openly in academia (and we still have a ways to go) there are few works of LGBT history. However small gay presses have been around for much longer. There are many novels that explore the LGBT experience or deal with the AIDS crisis. These provide invaluable assistance to someone studying these areas. Particularly in regards to the AIDS crisis, novels provide a glimpse into a world that was not seen by the mainstream, and served as a way of challenging heterosexual indifference. \"AIDS Literature\" (for lack of better term) was used as a way of reframing AIDS in a gay or queer way, and challenging existing narratives. Additionally literature can often respond quickly to current events. Armistead Maupin's newspaper serial turned novel *Babycakes* is generally considered to be the first work of fiction to deal with the AIDS crisis, and as such provides a great insight into the time period that other works cannot. \nI don't know if any of this helps you at all, but I tried anyway. \n",
"These aren't historians, but they are well renowned English scholars. Abdul JanMohamed's article \"The Economy of Manichean Allegory\" traces out how the novel is used to represent to the home country \"other\" races and places, which partially fuels colonialism in turn, which fuels more stories about other races and places, and so forth. Also, Homi K. Bhabha's piece \"Signs Taken for Wonders\" discusses how Western literature, specifically the Bible, has been used as a colonial force, but also the people it is supposed to be colonizing also use the Bible and Western literature to subvert the West. I've linked to the articles directly and to what I think are appropriate summaries of these articles. \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.ca/books?id=QY8pUkLRM1YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://english.chass.ncsu.edu/jouvert/v1i2/GOUDIE.HTM",
"http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1343462?uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102424084621",
"http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1343466?uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102424084621",
"http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/bhabha/bhabha4.html"
]
] |
|
7yli8p
|
Do male species having lower life expectancy than female also occur in other animal species than human?
|
I know male humans have lower life expectancy because they risk more, but isn't that the case for other animals too? Might be a dumb question, but I'm a big ear.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7yli8p/do_male_species_having_lower_life_expectancy_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duhpk1f"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Life expectancy depends on a lot of different factors and whether males or females live longer depends on the species, some have males living longer, some have females, some about the same. A lot of it is down to the social or mating behavior. One example where females have a shorter life expectancy is the [Noisy Miner](_URL_1_) bird, where females have to establish their own territory, while males share their territories, so female mortality on leaving the nest is much higher leading to a skewed gender ratio. At the other extreme you have species like the marsupial [Antechinus](_URL_0_) where the males all die after the mating season, so the males live much shorter. In terms of examples where males live shorter lives because of risk taking activities, I can't think of any solid examples but I'm sure it does occur. Many species have high mortalities of males when they compete for mates, I'm not sure whether you would consider that risk-taking or not though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00378310",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_miner#Social_organisation"
]
] |
|
2rdbz1
|
why do football helmets not have a soft layer on the outside to lessen the impact of two helmets smacking together?
|
It seems logical that some kind of padding on the outside as well as the inside would reduce impact to the brain. I did a little looking into it and there are some products out there like this which seem to work. Why is this technology not implemented for safety?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rdbz1/eli5_why_do_football_helmets_not_have_a_soft/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnetmms"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"in an impact, alot of force is transfered. what feels \"soft\" to your hand means it'll compress to zero thickness without absorbing energy. that leads to the player's head impacting the really really hard shell. the foam that's inside the helmet is a hardish foam. it still compresses on impact. it just doesn't crush when you press your finger. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5zye6r
|
How do researchers track the history of agriculture?
|
Is it simply by dating certain findings of proof of agriculture? Like fields, silos and tools? How do they differentiate whether the knowledge and skills were a result of outside groups influence versus a population simply growing to become agriculturist?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5zye6r/how_do_researchers_track_the_history_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df2ji0j",
"df32ebd"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > How do they differentiate whether the knowledge and skills were a result of outside groups influence versus a population simply growing to become agriculturist?\n\nThis is something that's been determined by biologists, using DNA isolated from remains. By looking at genetic markers in the samples they collected across Europe, they were able to determine that the spread of agriculture from where in originated in present-day Turkey throughout Europe was less the result of people teaching agriculture to nearby populations, but more those who knew agriculture migrating to new areas and replacing the human populations that were already there.\n\nThere's other studies that have collected what's called \"dental calculus\" or plaque from the teeth of ancient human remains, and isolated protein residue from it. This has allowed them to determine what kinds of food they ate in various areas of the world. I remember seeing one paper that looked specifically at milk proteins and tracked the prevalence of goat milk/cheese vs. cow and others in ancient populations. Another paper looked at it more generally and included different types of grain and whether fish was part of the diet or not.\n",
"When looking at the early origin of agriculture, one telling sign of animal domestication is the sex and age ratios of the animal bones being found.\n\nWild animals (specifically sheep, goats, cattle, etc) are generally killed in approximately even sex ratios, because there are about equal numbers of males and females out there. But domestic animals follow different ratios. Males are usually killed off fairly young (because you only need one mature male for many females) while females are left alive to grow the herd and in some cases to provide milk. These kinds of patterns can show up in the bones.\n\nLikewise, signs of domestication can be sometimes seen in ancient plant matter. Grains that can't reproduce without human intervention are a clear sign."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jiz6o
|
why do you get money back from cans that you drink from but not the ones that hold food?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jiz6o/eli5_why_do_you_get_money_back_from_cans_that_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbf4gac",
"cbf4pbz",
"cbf7d15"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Usually there'll be a trash can nearby, when you cook food.\nA drink you can take with you anywhere, so people are more likely to litter.",
"Drink cans are usually aluminum, while food cans are usually steel. Aluminum is a more valuable metal.",
"Depends on where you live and what the rules are. Some places add a deposit to beverage cans and bottles with the tax, so you are not selling the can, but getting your deposit back. It's to encourage people to recycle. \n\nThere is some history, too. A long time ago, soda was sold in reusable bottles that were collected by the stores and sent back to the factory. Glass bottles had a deposit system, too. Then they switched to disposable cans with no deposit or collection program. People through them out of their car windows and made a mess of the highway. Others got mad and blamed Coke, Pepsi and others for the mess. The companies campaigned for highway cleanup to keep their image clean (_URL_0_), but people still wanted deposits and a collection program. Since then, beverage containers have gotten more attention than other item that were always disposable and don't get thrown all over highways and cities. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_America_Beautiful"
]
] |
||
10wqqj
|
why is facebook stock falling? it's not like people have stopped using facebook and they still make a profit.
|
I didn't know where else to ask...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10wqqj/eli5_why_is_facebook_stock_falling_its_not_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6hbeix",
"c6hbnf0",
"c6helqu"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"While you're partially correct, the stock is falling for two main reasons.\n\nFirstly, the shares were over priced to begin with. They were first sold for something like $38, when they should have started quite a bit lower like they planned on initially.\n\nSecondly, while people still use facebook, and it generates advertising revenue, investors can't see how the site can grow anymore. The reason Facebook is popular is because of it's simplicity. Remember the fallout when they made everyone get timeline? Changing things on social networks doesn't go down well, think MySpace. Investors can't see anyway for Facebook to grow it's profits, without losing huge chunks of users.\n\nThey can't ask for a sign-up fee, the site will lose over half it's users. They can shove more ads onto a page, but that will also receive a lot of backlash. \n\nThere is no positive way (yet) Facebook can generate profit, that benefits the user. ",
"This is a great question. People bought Facebook not because it was doing well at the time, but on the hopes that it would skyrocket in the near future like Google did in its early days. This is what we call 'speculation'.\n\nThey were doing alright, they are still doing alright, but not incredibly amazing. This is causing a lot of disappointment in the people that owned it and they are cashing out.\n\nAnother major reason is that the price that it started selling at, $38, was way too high for a company in the position it was in at the time. I mean, would you pay $500 for an Xbox 360 today? But people bought it on hype, not facts, and reality is essentially sinking in that Facebook isn't a rocket ship.",
"Let's just back up for a moment...\n\n**What is a stock price?**\n\nIt is a ownership share in a company. It is a small portion of the value of the company. If, hypothetically, a person wanted to buy all the shares in a company, that is at least the price they would have to pay, just as you wouldn't typically resell your concert tickets for less than ticket price.\n\n**How do people figure out how much it is worth?**\n\nHow do you calculate how much your house is worth? You see what the going rate for the land is in your area, you look at the state of the building, you look at what the **potential** is for the property, and many other factors.\n\nWell all these factors add up and you can get an idea how much *you* would pay for a house depending on how you deem which factors important.\n\nCompany stocks are a bit like that too. A stock price should, in a nutshell, represent the total of the company's assets, its future potential, its tax and contract liabilities and a whole bunch of other factors.\n\nNow it is the future potential that people speculate on as, unlike assets, this can be more subjective. When it was floated, a lot of people were probably expecting facebook to haul in more profits and be a more viable business model than it is. This is understandable, as sometimes you never know what is going to happen. It has declined in price because it hasn't delivered on those earlier expectations.\n\nThus, it is possible for a company to still turn giant profits and have their share price collapse because relative to what was expected of them before, they are not doing as well.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7tpd8l
|
Shouldn't the Glorious Revolution be considered a successful invasion of Britain by the Dutch?
|
Britain is often said to have last been successfully invaded in 1066 AD following the Norman Conquests. However, considering that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 consisted of William III of the House of Orange invading England with an Armada, and successfully deposing a head of state, why isn't the Glorious Revolution considered the "last successful invasion of Britain"?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7tpd8l/shouldnt_the_glorious_revolution_be_considered_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dthizzm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"William was married to Mary Stuart, the daughter of James II who was intended to succeed him by that invasion. Succeed him as co-monarch along with William, but succeed him nonetheless. William was invading on behalf of the impending *British* queen as well as his own behalf *as her husband,* not his own independent takeover. Furthermore, his and Mary's joint heir was her sister Anne, who wasn't foreign. He wasn't claiming Britain for Orange, but for the British heirs of the deposed king."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2jzj2m
|
Weight loss/Physics question?
|
When you lose weight it's because your body has burned fat, turned it to glucose and then after being used to fuel the body is turned to carbon dioxide.
carbon dioxide is then expelled from the body via, breath, urine, sweat and defecation.
is the expelled carbon dioxide the actually measurable weight that is lost?
any other insight in to this process would be greatly appreciated!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jzj2m/weight_lossphysics_question/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clgn661"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes, that is the majority of the weight that is being lost. The other waste streams you mentioned would also include some components like water, urea, electrolytes and metals but most of the organic waste will leave your body as carbon dioxide through your breath."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a98n8r
|
What kind of gifts did Romans exchange during Saturnalia?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a98n8r/what_kind_of_gifts_did_romans_exchange_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eci6yyj"
],
"score": [
41
],
"text": [
"According to Macrobius (*Saturnalia*, 1.11.49), the most common gifts were candles and figurines known as *sigilla*. The *sigilla* \\- which one of Macrobius' characters, possibly correctly, connects with an ancient religious rite - were usually human-shaped.\n\nBeyond these standards, however, the range of gifts given was vast. Martial provides a humorous list in one of his epigrams (7.53): \n\n\"You have sent me as a present for the Saturnalia, Umber, everything which you have received during the past five days; twelve note-books of three tablets each, seven tooth-picks; together with which came a sponge, a table-cloth, a wine-cup, a half-bushel of beans, a basket of Picenian olives, and a black jar of Laletanian wine. There came also some small Syrian figs, some candied plums, and a heavy pot of figs from Libya.\"\n\nThe thirteenth and fourteenth books of Martial's epigrams consist almost exclusively of \"labels\" for Saturnalia gifts. If these are indicative of gifts actually exchanged, friends might give one other food, wine, writing tablets, dice, games, toothpicks, combs, articles of clothing, weapons, lamps, dumbbells, toys, tooth powder, live birds, gold cups, books, dogs, slaves, or even pastry figurines of Priapus (a fertility god with an enormous phallus). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3cypcz
|
why is batman fighting superman?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cypcz/eli5_why_is_batman_fighting_superman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct0672j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Looked to me like someone Bruce Wayne cared about died during the destruction of Metropolis and Batman is holding a grudge against superman because of it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
125jd6
|
When was the last discovered "lost tribe?" Do you think there are any others? If so where?
|
To explain I mean the last tribe/people to be discovered by modern society.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/125jd6/when_was_the_last_discovered_lost_tribe_do_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6scdtr",
"c6scrsm",
"c6sdnfw"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know when the most recent \"first contact\" was, although it was probably fairly recently, say in the last 20 or 30 years. There remain groups that have [resisted attempts at contact](_URL_0_), such as the Sentinelese, and there are almost certainly still groups in the Amazon or New Guinea. \n\nWhile historians other than I might be able to tell wonderful stories about first contacts in the past, if you want a more precise answer you're probably better asking in /r/Anthropology.",
"The Sentinalese are known to exist, but have no contact with modern society because they attack anyone who tries to contact them. Does that count?",
"[Here's something recent.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples"
],
[],
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/in-2011-there-are-100-uncontacted-tribes-worldwide-2205746.html"
]
] |
|
mennp
|
Sometimes, in a rush, I just rinse my hands with water (no soap). Does this do anything? Or should I just not bother washing them at all?
|
Errrr, that is, I once saw it in a movie.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mennp/sometimes_in_a_rush_i_just_rinse_my_hands_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c30adww",
"c30ai61",
"c30an2p",
"c30aypu",
"c30b41h",
"c30bo9w",
"c30fhpb",
"c30adww",
"c30ai61",
"c30an2p",
"c30aypu",
"c30b41h",
"c30bo9w",
"c30fhpb"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3,
7,
2,
2,
6,
7,
6,
3,
7,
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Does it do anything? Sure. There are all kinds of compounds that can build up on your hands that can loosely be called 'dirt,' and many will wash away with water. It's better than nothing, though how much better is dependent upon what you were previously exposed to.\n\nHowever, most bacteria aren't particularly water-soluble. (Among other things, their cell walls are made up of a lipid bilayer.) Without soap, you're not as effectively removing germs from your hands.",
"The rubbing action involved in washing and drying your hands goes an awful long way towards killing bacteria, but if you have greasy crap all over your hands, you're going to need soap.",
"Water is also known as the universal solvent, it's pretty good in most cases. If you want to get oil or grease off, it's better to use soap, but the downside is some oil might actually act as a protective barrier for your skin.",
"I recall testing this in biology class in high school (about 4 or 5 years ago). We had some samples of bacteria, and tried to \"clean\" them with Mr. Clean, Lysol, Pine Sol, and hot water as a control. Turns out Pine Sol is basically good-smelling colored water, and Lysol is only a little better, although the water still removed most of the bacteria. I don't remember the exact percentage or anything, but I was convinced enough so that to this day I don't use soap if I only pee, unless I'm about to eat. This may not seem like a big deal, but back then I was a pretty big germaphobe. I still won't drink or eat after anyone else, even family. But I only use hot water to wash my hands.",
"Not a chemistry person, but I recall learning about two types of molecular structures: polar (acids, bases, water, and others) and non-polar (oil, grease, more organic compounds). Polar's dissolve in polar solutions (water), while non-polars are attracted to non-polars. I believe that the molecular structure of soap has polar 'heads' and non-polar 'tails.' So, I think that water will successfully wash off polar molecules as you dry your hands and the water runs off of them. However, using soap will clean both types off. Non-polar molecules will be attracted the soap, and the soap will be attracted to the water as it runs off of your hands. This is why soap is more effective at getting grease and oil off compared to only water. \n\nNot sure how this relates to bacteria, but maybe someone can comment on this.\n\nEDIT: Added more insight to why you need to use soap AND water",
"Your hands are oily. The oils make things stick to your skin.\n\nSoap does two things:\n\n1) It acts as an emulsifier, which helps get the oils into the water and carried off your skin.\n\n2) It changes the properties of the water, enabling it to reach more areas on the surface of your hands, and carry away the dirt.\n\nUsing just water is definitely better than nothing. It just won't get to everything.\n\n\nI am not a scientist or anything, so I apologize if providing an answer like this goes outside the scope of what is acceptable in r/askscience, but I *am* an expert soap user. :P",
"As a microbiologist, I don't always wash my hands. And yes, I am comfortable admitting that fact in real life. If I'm in public or have a bowel movement, I wash. If I've only urinated and I'm at home, I might rinse. Here are some of the things I think about, which do sway my behavior some days, in no particular order. \n-You have an immune system for a reason and it does a damn good job at fighting off many pathogens that you generally don't even realize are attempting to colonize you. \n-What's good on one end isn't always good on the other end. In other words, the bacteria you defecate out might be perfectly fine to have in your lower intestines, but that doesn't mean it will do well on your skin or in the upper part of your digestive tract. \n-Just because you are fine with what is on your body doesn't mean everyone else is. Your body might do perfectly fine with that MRSA strain living on your skin, but your immunocompromised neighbor... well it could kill them. \n-Likewise, that fecal bacteria that might not harm your friend might make you incredibly ill, especially if that cook happens to be [typhoid Mary](_URL_0_). ",
"Does it do anything? Sure. There are all kinds of compounds that can build up on your hands that can loosely be called 'dirt,' and many will wash away with water. It's better than nothing, though how much better is dependent upon what you were previously exposed to.\n\nHowever, most bacteria aren't particularly water-soluble. (Among other things, their cell walls are made up of a lipid bilayer.) Without soap, you're not as effectively removing germs from your hands.",
"The rubbing action involved in washing and drying your hands goes an awful long way towards killing bacteria, but if you have greasy crap all over your hands, you're going to need soap.",
"Water is also known as the universal solvent, it's pretty good in most cases. If you want to get oil or grease off, it's better to use soap, but the downside is some oil might actually act as a protective barrier for your skin.",
"I recall testing this in biology class in high school (about 4 or 5 years ago). We had some samples of bacteria, and tried to \"clean\" them with Mr. Clean, Lysol, Pine Sol, and hot water as a control. Turns out Pine Sol is basically good-smelling colored water, and Lysol is only a little better, although the water still removed most of the bacteria. I don't remember the exact percentage or anything, but I was convinced enough so that to this day I don't use soap if I only pee, unless I'm about to eat. This may not seem like a big deal, but back then I was a pretty big germaphobe. I still won't drink or eat after anyone else, even family. But I only use hot water to wash my hands.",
"Not a chemistry person, but I recall learning about two types of molecular structures: polar (acids, bases, water, and others) and non-polar (oil, grease, more organic compounds). Polar's dissolve in polar solutions (water), while non-polars are attracted to non-polars. I believe that the molecular structure of soap has polar 'heads' and non-polar 'tails.' So, I think that water will successfully wash off polar molecules as you dry your hands and the water runs off of them. However, using soap will clean both types off. Non-polar molecules will be attracted the soap, and the soap will be attracted to the water as it runs off of your hands. This is why soap is more effective at getting grease and oil off compared to only water. \n\nNot sure how this relates to bacteria, but maybe someone can comment on this.\n\nEDIT: Added more insight to why you need to use soap AND water",
"Your hands are oily. The oils make things stick to your skin.\n\nSoap does two things:\n\n1) It acts as an emulsifier, which helps get the oils into the water and carried off your skin.\n\n2) It changes the properties of the water, enabling it to reach more areas on the surface of your hands, and carry away the dirt.\n\nUsing just water is definitely better than nothing. It just won't get to everything.\n\n\nI am not a scientist or anything, so I apologize if providing an answer like this goes outside the scope of what is acceptable in r/askscience, but I *am* an expert soap user. :P",
"As a microbiologist, I don't always wash my hands. And yes, I am comfortable admitting that fact in real life. If I'm in public or have a bowel movement, I wash. If I've only urinated and I'm at home, I might rinse. Here are some of the things I think about, which do sway my behavior some days, in no particular order. \n-You have an immune system for a reason and it does a damn good job at fighting off many pathogens that you generally don't even realize are attempting to colonize you. \n-What's good on one end isn't always good on the other end. In other words, the bacteria you defecate out might be perfectly fine to have in your lower intestines, but that doesn't mean it will do well on your skin or in the upper part of your digestive tract. \n-Just because you are fine with what is on your body doesn't mean everyone else is. Your body might do perfectly fine with that MRSA strain living on your skin, but your immunocompromised neighbor... well it could kill them. \n-Likewise, that fecal bacteria that might not harm your friend might make you incredibly ill, especially if that cook happens to be [typhoid Mary](_URL_0_). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary"
]
] |
|
2zoiew
|
How quick does water lose oxygen?
|
The black sea is almost enitrely devoid of oxygene in its water preserving whatever lies in it and hasnt been replenished as most other water sources have. Why, if anyone has an answer.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2zoiew/how_quick_does_water_lose_oxygen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cplelmg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Water doesn't 'lose oxygen'. Instead, it is used up by marine life that need it for respiration. Consequently, the rate at which water becomes deoxygenated depends largely on the ecosystem in the surrounding environment. The reason that the Black Sea is mostly devoid of oxygen is because of the concentrations of salt there. The saltier water (brine) sinks because it is heavier, and the un-salty water floats to the top. Because the sea is now naturally separated, the sunken salty water doesn't have any interaction with the air to re-oxygenate itself, and the scarce marine life that *is* there will slowly consume the oxygen available. As a result, the very top level of the Black Sea remains oxygenated, but the rest isn't because it is dragged away from the air by its dissolved salt content."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
wedfg
|
- why do automobiles lose such a drastic amount of power by turning the ac on?
|
I've had people explain that it has something to do with the motor now being responsible for powering a compressor to run the AC which detracts from the motor's ability to function.
But seriously, we've been building cars for over a century. How the fuck has this HUGE limitation not been addressed and rectified?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wedfg/eli5_why_do_automobiles_lose_such_a_drastic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5cm1vj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The engine doesn't lose any power that it's producing at whatever gearing, temperature, and RPM it's at - what's happening is that the A/C unit needs a non-negligible amount of power (mechanical or otherwise) to run. \n\nExample: so if your car (I am pulling ALL of these numbers out of my butt) is doing steady 40mph in second gear at 2500 RPM, which means the the engine is producing 500 watts and 450 watts (90% mechanical efficiency) are going to your wheels and counteracting operating friction and air resistance. \n\nIt's hot, you turn on the A/C on full blast, it's cooling your cabin at 40 watts. Your engine is still running at 2500 RPM in second gear, and still producing 500 watts, but now 40 watts are dedicated to your A/C - it's as if your wheels see an engine running at 460 W instead of 500 W, and after loss, instead of your wheels getting (90%) * (500 W) = 450 W, your wheels now receive (90%) * (460 W) = 414 W. \n\nBecause the the way your motor was running before you flipped on the A/C, 2500 RPM in 2nd gear, was enough to stay steady going 40 mph, and now with the A/C on, 2500 RPM in 2nd gear, less power is being used to drive, you either slow down, or you have to make your engine work harder (by giving more throttle, or downshifting, or running the engine at a higher RPM). \n\nThe more you want to cool the air in your cabin, the more watts you need coming from your A/C system. Over the years we've gotten a little more efficient with our A/C units, but 40 W of cooling will always require (more than 100%)*(40 W) worth of power to provide, and that power has to come from somewhere. Since your engine is so powerful, and can provide power for vastly more time than your battery, we've engineered most A/C systems in car to use drive belts that directly attach to the engine, vs. having to charge the battery and then use battery power to run the A/C compressor. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ejhxd2
|
if skulls don't have prominent nose bones, why do noses protrude so much and feel so hard?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ejhxd2/eli5_if_skulls_dont_have_prominent_nose_bones_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcxtdyw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Nasal cartilage is what provides the structure. Cartilage is densely packed collagen which is why it feels hard.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/nasal-cartilages#1"
]
] |
||
1r1272
|
Can a low current or voltage do any long term damage to humans if applied for a long period?
|
Usually, we hear about people being electrocuted by exposure to high currents and voltages very quickly.
I was wondering if electricity at a low current or voltage could have detrimental effects if the exposure persists.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1r1272/can_a_low_current_or_voltage_do_any_long_term/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdj7oqo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Depends where in the body, and whether the heat can dissipate. There are many people now who have a brain implant that does just what you said - deliver a very low voltage of a specific point in the brain, helping with such things as Parkinson's, depression and other neurological issues. So when used correctly, it is even beneficial. \nOur entire nervous system relies on low voltages running as signals, controlling voluntary and involuntary movement of muscles. Here, a low voltage would interfere. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6cpa1z
|
How is Bronsted-Lowry acidity definition similar to Lewis acidity definition?
|
I read that "All of the Bronsted-Lowry bases are also Lewis bases. However, not all of the Bronsted-Lowry acids are Lewis acids." in my textbook. And there is no further explanation. I could not understand how these two definitions are related and why not all of the Bronsted-Lowry acids are Lewis acids? Thanks in advance!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6cpa1z/how_is_bronstedlowry_acidity_definition_similar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhwmkha"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"A Bronsted-Lowry base is a \"proton acceptor\" (a proton is a positively charged hydrogen ion). The proton is accepted because the base possesses a lone pair of electrons to make covalent bond with that proton. A lewis-base is by definition a lone pair \"giver\". Therefore all lewis bases are also Bronsted-Lowry bases.\n\nIn contrast, a lewis-acid (something that can accept a lone pair of electrons) does not necessarily contain any hydrogens to donate. A magnesium ion for example can act as a lewis-acid because it can accept a pair of electrons, but not a Bronsted-Lowry acid, because it contains no hydrogens."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ckjbt
|
What did Asians and others in the far east think about Rome, Greece, and other western nations?
|
I'd be curious to know what kind of comments the ancient easterners made about their western neighbors back around the time of the Roman Empire.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ckjbt/what_did_asians_and_others_in_the_far_east_think/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9heiki"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The Han Chinese knew about the Roman Empire, which they called Da Qin. They said that the Romans were \"tall and virtuous\" similar to themselves and, according to the themselves, the people of the west were once Chinese, but had since migrated. \n\nThe Han also recorded some interesting information about the Roman government (bolded are my own comments):\n\n > The ruler of this country is not permanent. When disasters result from unusual phenomena, they unceremoniously **(understatement of the millennium)** replace him, installing a virtuous man as king **(something no emperor would want to be known as)** to as , and release the old king, who does not dare show resentment.\n\nand about the emperor's life:\n\n > The king has five palaces at 10 li (4.2 km) intervals. He goes out at daybreak to one of the palaces and deals with matters until sunset and then spends the night there. The next day he goes to another palace and, in five days makes a complete tour. They have appointed thirty-six leaders who discuss events frequently.26 If one leader does not show up, there is no discussion. When the king goes out for a walk, he always orders a man to follow him holding a leather bag. Anyone who has something to say throws his or her petition into the bag. When he returns to the palace, he examines them and determines which are reasonable.*\n\nThe Han also claim that the Romans had always wanted to trade (directly)and connect with them, but the Parthians interfered with this, of course located directly between the Mediterranean and China.\n\nAlso noted is the possible surprise the Chinese got when noting the fact that a large number of the common people were literate in the \"western script.\" It's noted that the Romans lived in multistory tenement houses and:\n\n > fly flags, beat drums, (and travel in) small carriages with white roofs, and have a postal service with relay sheds and postal stations, like in the Middle Kingdom \n\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\n\n*It's believed that these are just a traveler's exaggeration; \"an idealistic account of an exotic foreign civilization\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/weilue/weilue.html#section11"
]
] |
|
1ptlix
|
why do some people lose weight after taking up smoking? does the same thing happen with e-cigarettes?
|
I am NOT planning on taking up smoking at all. I do have friends who smoke and are reluctant to give it up because of the weight loss they have experienced. I've also noticed that many of my coworkers who smoke are skinnier than those who don't. What exactly is happening?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ptlix/eli5_why_do_some_people_lose_weight_after_taking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd5vram",
"cd5w0ll"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Those people are replacing their snack cravings with cigarette cravings, which while being overall terrible for your health, do have the benefit of being calorie free. Not to mention they are pricy which probably cuts into the food budget for a lot of people. ",
"Nicotine works by attatching to receptors on your cells. When this happens, it changes the chemistry of the cell and has the various effects that nicotine has. \n\nOne of the receptors kinda fits on one that is used for the fight or flight response, so it sort of activates that effect. Part of this is lowering your appetite. Ignoring dosage and what other chemicals are in the e-cig, it should have the same effect. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2jk67g
|
how is isis able to sell oil on the black market to the tune of $3,000,000/day? who is buying it, where does the oil end up, and how does this network remain active?
|
I've actually Googled this, but the answers are so convoluted that I can't make real sense of it. They are apparently selling oil on the black market in Turkey, but that doesn't explain where the oil is going. Or how they can possibly make as much as $3,000,000 per day selling it. I just can't imagine that much oil simply disappearing or being dispersed fast enough that their opponents couldn't stop it.
Which leads to the next related question. With the money they make from oil, they are buying new, modern high-quality weapons. Who is selling them these weapons, including the ammunition? More importantly, where are they getting the continued support for these weapons?
It's all very confusing.
**EDIT** While I absolutely, completely, genuinely appreciate all the responses, nearly all of them are guesses or assumptions about the region or the oil industry. Can anyone ELI5 with some real-world research?
**EDIT 2** Well look at that. I go to bed a wake up to an amazing set of detailed answers. Once I get to a computer (on my phone at the moment), I'll note some of the best answers by name, so they can get their deserved recognition. Some of the best ones are still buried with just a few upvotes, and they deserve more.
**EDIT 3** As promised, here are some of the best answers. Not only are they precise and factually-based, but they are clearly explained (which is the heart of this subreddit):
/u/RigidlyDefinedArea : [Answers both questions succinctly > ](_URL_0_)
/u/allblackhoodie : [Links and extensively quotes an excellent article on the subject > ](_URL_1_)
/u/DivinityGod : [A true ELI5 of how the black market for oil actually works > ](_URL_2_)
Give the fine individuals all of your upvotes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jk67g/eli5_how_is_isis_able_to_sell_oil_on_the_black/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clchjyu",
"clcic5u",
"clcjqat",
"clcjqrq",
"clckya3",
"clcm1x0",
"clcm6k8",
"clcmxso",
"clco7be",
"clco9t7",
"clcor1b",
"clcoxhv",
"clcp20d",
"clcp2nx",
"clcpf1z",
"clcpmz9",
"clcptsk",
"clcpylq",
"clcqdj7",
"clcqmyc",
"clcqw7t",
"clcr93n",
"clcreox",
"clcrxwb",
"clcrypx",
"clcs696",
"clcs8s6",
"clcsac1",
"clcsh48",
"clcshkl",
"clcu5ck",
"clcu799",
"clcu7os",
"clcu9bf",
"clcuap6",
"clcuoi6",
"clcvme5",
"clcx3l3",
"clcxfxh",
"clcykxo",
"clcyu8e",
"clcz5g2",
"clczo87",
"cld2wrw"
],
"score": [
1709,
178,
16,
82,
2,
2,
3,
14,
2,
3,
3,
325,
2,
62,
172,
10,
451,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
6,
9,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
8,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Turkey produces and transports a significant amount of oil. Most of the effort in securing this oil is to ensure that nobody steals it or disrupts its delivery, but very little infrastructure exists to ensure that illicit oil is not being added to the system.\n\nBefore oil ever makes it into a pipeline or a ship, it has to be transported from its site of origin to a terminal. There are small ground-based wells all over the region and their production is not well regulated. A small operator can simply overreport production and then send a tanker of oil from a different, illicit well and take a sizable kickback for very little work.",
"who is selling weapons: same black market weapons dealers that are selling to anyone with cash.\n\nyou should watch the movie Lord of War :)",
"Not sure how ISIS is selling their oil but this reminds me of how Mexican cartels are stealing oil and gas... They tap into pipelines or holdup gasplants and sell petroleum on black markets that end up in the US.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Middle men probably pay a big role in this. Since ISIS is so despised, it may need to sell its oil for less than the market price. If they try to sell at 70% of the price, I'm sure that a lot of people would see that as a massively lucrative opportunity. They can buy the oil at 70 cents on the dollar, and sell it to an unsuspecting buyer for a massive profit of 30%.",
"I used to think that the US brought it. But, after looking into the Bretton Woods Agreement and the PetroDollar, I don't think it is.\n\nJust a quick description...The US has deals around the world that means that all oil has to be sold in USD. If it were sold in another currency by a lot of countries it would have major implications for the US. \n\nWith ISIS selling oil so cheap, other countries could buy from them, perhaps in their own currencies, and bypass the Bretton Woods Agreement, meaning they have no need or less need for USD? Do we know what currency ISIS are taking the payments in? Countries such Russia and China are trying to ditch the Dollar in favor of their own currencies as it is. I'm not implying this is what is happening, just something that I thought of while reading this. Is this possible? ",
"Corruption is common place in these parts of the world. Even the \"governing bodies\" that are put into place are bought and paid for from the get go. Everyone greases palms with cash and laughs all the way to the bank.",
"Part of it is the black market in Turkey which was already mentioned. Another overlooked part of ISIS's oil market is the people in the territory controlled by ISIS. Those people are in desperate need of energy so they are forced to buy oil from ISIS. ",
"south eastern turkey has been involved in oil smuggling long before isis.\ntankers drive into iraq, buy the oil from isis (or kurds, before that). fake documentation. all in order. stamp! pass. smuggled oil is sold on actual gas stations under the name \"discount! cheap diesel!\". \n\nsee *lord of war* for illegal arms dealing.",
"The TL;DR version is basically, the barrels of oil don't have giant white text on the side that reads \"ISIS OIL\"\n\nOil is very precious to people for a lot of very good reasons and a lot of them just don't care where in came from.",
"I want to bring up a point about significant figures.\n\nYour quoted rate of $3M/day has only one sig fig, so there's a lot of uncertainty. \n\nCNN's quoted rate is $2M/day so this also highlights the fact that all these figures are being pulled out of people ass. Reporters or yours, its all guesses.\n\n[Source for CNN's figure](_URL_0_)",
"Finally! Someone has asked the question I have been wondering since day one. Who is funding or where is the money coming from?!",
"The Wall St Journal had a really good article about this recently. I don't know if this answers all of your questions but it gives a good timeline of what takes place. If you have WSJ access the article is here: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIf not, here are some of the highlights:\n\n\"**The route begins with oil fields run just a few years ago by Western energy giants and now controlled, along with fuel-smuggling operations in Syria, by the Islamic State**.\n\n**The militants truck oil drawn from those fields or stolen from pipelines to rudimentary refineries**, according to Syrian human-rights activists, Western and Turkish government officials, and a Syrian businessman involved in the trade.\n\n**The refined products are sent to the Turkish frontier, where they're hauled over the border by trucks, horses or mules**, according to these accounts. **Fuel has also been floated across rivers on rafts or pumped through underground pipelines before finding its way to markets across southern Turkey.**\n\nInitially, Turkey largely turned a blind eye to the illicit fuel trade, which ramped up at the start of the Syrian uprising in 2011 **along smuggling routes that have existed for decades.**\n\nEven as the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, solidified its control of the trade, Ankara shied away from an overly aggressive stance. The militant group has been holding 49 Turkish diplomats since June 11 and has released videos depicting grisly executions of battlefield prisoners and hostages, including the beheading of two U.S. journalists and a British aid worker.\n\n**Oil fields it controls are producing an estimated 100,000 barrels a day**, or about 3.2 million gallons, according to analysts and a Western official familiar with the operations—about as much as Sudan.\n\n**Much of that is refined and smuggled out to neighboring countries. The revenue can bring in as much as about $2 million a day**, estimates Luay al-Khatteeb, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center.\n\nIn the past two weeks, the Turkish military says security forces have confiscated more than 3,540 gallons of fuel, over 2,300 meters (1.4 miles) of **pipe used for smuggling fuel, and other equipment at the Turkish-Syrian border. **\n\n**The fuel emerges from fields in eastern Syria once operated by France's Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell, which both left the country in 2011 amid spiraling violence. **\n\nIn late 2012, the Western-backed rebel group the **Free Syrian Army took control of the Deir ez-Zor fields, and then the Islamic State seized them this year.** Representatives of the foreign companies that once operated there say they have no information about the state of the fields now. But **many local employees stayed on, keeping the oil pumping as the facilities changed hands between rival factions**, according to Syrian activists in the region and recent video of the facilities.\n\n**Crude from these fields, as well as oil stolen from tapped pipelines and from other fields across the country, is processed into low-quality fuels, including diesel, in a number of makeshift refineries in Islamic State-controlled Raqqa province**, according to human-rights activists from the region and the businessman involved in the trade.\n\nThe largest of these plants is near the town of Akrish, the location of a major pumping station along a pipeline transporting oil from fields in Hasakah province.\n\nIn 2012, Syrian businessman Mohamed Dada saw an opportunity. He said he spent about $860,000 buying Turkish- and Iranian-made equipment to build four small refining plants near the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad. Earlier this year, however, Islamic State militants seized the Tal Abyad refineries, according to Mr. Dada and Ibrahim Muslem, a human-rights activist familiar with the region. Mr. Dada, who now lives in Turkey, says his equipment was moved from Tal Abyad to neighboring Tal Suluq, a town located at a major crossroad between eastern and western Syria.\n\nSeveral rebel groups, including the al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, held sway at different times in Tal Abyad, but Mr. Dada and other Turkish and Syrian businessmen ran the operation, he said. He didn't pay the rebels, but promised to buy crude from some of them. He said his drivers often had to pay for access to rebel-controlled roads—anywhere from $500 to $1,000.\n\n**Mr. Dada said his plants are still operating, but they are under the direct control of Islamic State militants**, based on conversations he's had with people still working there.\n\nMr. Dada, who estimates that he lost about $2.5 million, including the money he sunk into the plants, pipelines, depots and five tanker trucks, said about a third of his former employees work at the new location, but the rest fled to Turkey.\n\n\"Abu Luqman decides who gets the oil,\" Mr. Muslem said.\n\n**At Mr. Luqman's discretion, smugglers pay for fuel and load it into tanker trucks. Refined products from the Akrish refinery are driven more than 200 miles to Syrian villages near the Turkish border**, according to Mr. Muslem. **The fuel from Mr. Dada's operations was also being trucked to Turkey when he was in charge. Now, though, it makes its way to Islamic State-controlled parts of Iraq**, including Mosul, Mr. Dada said.\n\n**In Syrian towns along the Turkish border, trucks are unloaded and some of the fuel is repackaged into smaller containers, according to the Turkish military, local residents and drivers. Some makes its way into Turkey in small, plastic jerrycans, which mules carry over a maze of roads. in largely unpatrolled hills and olive groves**\n\nSome of the fuel is driven through legitimate border crossings, hidden on trucks or farm equipment, like tractors, that pass back and forth across the border legally. **Turkish authorities have also found underground pipelines**, some as long as 3 miles (4.8 kilometers), under the hilly border. In a Sept. 9 raid, the Turkish military said it confiscated fuel from a 300-yard-long underground pipeline.\n\n**Smugglers also load up rafts with diesel-filled jerrycans and float them across the Orontes river**, near Hacipasa. **Once across the border, it is sold by residents in the southern Turkish towns of Hatay province at local markets for discounts of as much as 30% to legitimately sourced diesel**, according to drivers and Hatay residents.\"\n\n_URL_1_",
"_URL_0_\n\nAs for who buys it, a lot of gas stations in Turkey have a big tank out back where you can buy \"cheap\" petrol if you are a familiar face. If the cops were to crack down seriously on it they would know immediately that it wasnt legit oil, since Turk refineries add an indicator chemical to mark their product. Recently turkey has made more of an effort as a result of US complaints, but even so you've got to understand that the country is largely still struggling with corruption issues. \n\nWashington post and NY times have been great about running stories concerning the smuggling issue. Do some digging there and you'll piece it together pretty quick on your own. With a complex geopolitical issue like this you can really only trust your own opinions. ",
"Wow just wanted to say excellent question. But your edit is correct, you seem to have stumped reddit. This is the most upvoted ELI5 post I've seen without an actual sourced backed response.\nEdit- we seemed to have gotten a lot better response since this comment, check out the comments on ops new edit.",
"Your two questions are related to two very lucrative areas of the black market. Your answers will have to be in broad strokes, because if details were so well known, then it wouldn't be a very effective black market.\n\nWhere is the oil going?\nThe majority of oil that ISIS sells actually gets sold within Iraq, while some does make its way around Syria, Turkey, and Iran, especially to Kurdistan areas. These areas have long had established smuggling routes for things like oil (from trying to establish a Kurdish state within Iraq etc.) The reality is that some of the \"opponents\" of ISIS are buying this oil indirectly, though likely with some knowledge of where it comes from.\n\nThey may make AS MUCH as 3 million a day, but the proper estimates are around 1-2 million. That isn't really that much in the big picture. \n\nWho sells the oil?\nISIS individuals sell the crude oil at a discounted rate (about 25% or less normal market value) to brokers. These brokers are the ones who resell this oil at about double the value they purchased it to more legitimate local sources and communities where it can be refined and used very cheaply. ISIS from these same brokers can buy refined oil/gasoline to use and resell in their territory, in addition to the hard cash they receive.\n\nWhy can't their opponents stop it?\nThat needs two answers:\n1) Stop creation of the oil - They can. That is extremely easy, but the U.S. and others do not want to do that because of the immense loss of infrastructure destroying oil wells and refineries under ISIS control would cause in the long run. Also, a lot of smaller communities and especially those under ISIS control rely on these sources of income. There would be an incredible amount of regional hardship to just destroy the oil production.\n2) The smuggling and selling - It is hard to do because there are a lot of small deals going down and it is a lot of ground to cover and monitor. It also is because, unfortunately, some of the regional players who are \"opposed\" to ISIS are not willing to crack down because if people in their country are getting oil at half the price or better for heat and what not, the reaction to losing that outright or facing drastically higher prices is not ideal.\n\nHopefully that covers your basic question. I will respond to the arms market one in an edit. That is a totally different ball game, though I have a little bit more knowledge on that front so hopefully I can help you understand. If you have any need for clarification just ask.\n\nEDIT -\nThe ISIS arms situation is not simple, nor something we have an excessive amount of information about right now. In short, they get their weapons and ammunition in two ways: 1) Captured from Iraqi and Syrian military bases and outposts, and 2) Buying it on the black market.\n\nThe first one is kind of well known as an issue, when Iraqi units several months ago were just surrendering their posts and equipment, a lot of which is from the U.S. and quite advanced. That said, ISIS is not actually USING most heavy or high-technology stuff they capture, instead just destroying it. That's for two simple reasons: They cannot operate it (not trained how, tanks are not just some car) and they cannot maintain them (parts and mechanics are lacking). \n\nWhat ISIS prefers is the standard militia group's bread and butter, small arms and light weapons. These can come from a lot of places, but we know that Syrian fighters and indeed ISIS have likely gotten support through back-channels from Gulf countries. They either export arms directly, or acquire it in Croatia or other MAJOR black market arms exporters in Eastern Europe and it lands in Turkey. Moving it across the border into Syria is then not difficult.\n\nThe private and black arms market is incredibly complicated and incredibly, well, immoral. Money talks, not your ideology. That is how they are getting continued support. Governments may be opposed to ISIS (or at least say they are), but black market business certainly is not, at least in some cases.\n\nThe combination of captured arms of Iraq, Syria, and illegal arms from Croatia (some made in the U.S.) and Saudi Arabia/Gulf States has made ISIS very heavily armed with a wide diversity of weapons which are dangerous, but they cannot use them all so to speak.",
"The Syrian (Assad) government, actually. I asked this question to my professor Joshua Landis, who is regarded as a Syrian expert.\n\nTo put it in ELI5 terms, the Syrian government has lots of money and valuable things like gold and other resources, but because of international pressures they can't buy oil, which they need to power their tanks and planes and keep fighting rebels. ISIS has plenty of oil, but because of international pressures can't really do anything with it. Except, of course, with the Assad regime. So right now Assad is buying oil from ISIS and using it to fight rebels, and ISIS is using that money to buy arms and soldiers to fight Kurds and Shiites. They're enemies, but they each have something the other one needs, and so they cooperate for the time being.\n\n**edit** it's not like an ISIS fuel truck drives up to a Syrian oil depot and just sells oil directly. They use Turkish middlemen as some people here have noted, but Assad knows that the oil is from ISIS, and ISIS knows that the buyer is Assad.",
"This will get lost, but as someone who has worked extensively in conflict minerals I know this applies. \n\nTo be hones it's done in the way that conflict minerals are brought to market. \n\nFor example, say you owned a nickel mine in South Africa. I show up and go hey /u/notBrit I got 80 truck loads of tin from the Congo, but see I can't sell it on the open market for various reasons, how about you buy it from me for 1/4 or 1/2 the market value and we say it came from your mine? You go, hey that is great, sounds good and draw up some paperwork showing how you got an extra 80 truck loads of Tin from your mine over the last quarter. You sell this tin to some smelter (which aggregates Tin from around the world) that sells it to GM, which has all this fancy paperwork showing that its Tin came from South Africa and is conflict free and has absolutely no trail to the 10 million dollars in new arms that Congo Warlords just bought with a illicit tin sale. \n\nThat actually happens in real life. \n\nSo, in this case, some guy goes to a refinery or another oil field or a sympathetic company/country/friend and goes \"Hey, we got some high grade oil that we need to sell but we can't sell it on the open market, want to buy it at 50% markoff\" \n\nThis guy does not know if it comes from ISIS, Iran or some OPEC country which needs a little extra cash on the side, some Saudi Prince who wants another villa, a country trying to buy arms that wants to do it on the down low ect (all valid sources of discounted oil) so he says sure and voila a few tankers of oil show up a day extra in the 100-1000+ tankers that show up daily to that refinery and no one has any idea. This is basically how resources that need to be sold are sold on grey markets around the world. No one asks questions because as a refinery which is already making a pretty close profit margin, a few tankers of oil @ 50% world price helps a lot. Not to mention the paperwork needed to validate these sales is laughable and is all that is required to bring it to Western Markets. ",
"Essentially they're using cheaper mobile mobile refineries to produce the lower grade type of fuels you get from oil and selling it in the area where all the regions oil goes to be sold. They're selling it at a discount to easily find buyers on the down low. When it gets to this oil hub it basically gets lost in the sea of oil transfers.\n\nIn the grand scheme of things their oil production is tiny and it's easy for it to get lost and written off inside the industry. \n\nParaphrasing here. NPR did a good segment on just this question and answered it pretty well. \n\n_URL_0_",
"No one can answer you, bc the US State Dept doesnt even have an answer. Rather than prohibit ISIS oil sales, the US is bombing Syria's oil refineries, which they wanted to do in 2013, making ISIS more an excuse rather than a cause.",
"It's quite simple really. It's oil! You might as well ask \"How are mexican drug lords able to sell cocaine on the black market\" or \"How are African warlords able to sell blood diamonds on the black market\".\n\nThe answer is because tons and tons of money. From the 3 million they buy the oil off Isis they can turn around and make ten, maybe 100 times that. And the best thing is that crude oil doesn't have any serial numbers. or any other way to identify it. Banks and other financial institutions will typically have safeguards against money laundering, But oil is just oil. You can trace a drop of oil back to it's origin. It's brilliant. I mean who wouldn't want to make an extra 27 million, they can just spend without having to do any clever bookkeeping, every day?\n",
"Ever heard of Scott Bennett? He is a former DOD Psy-Ops officer in charge of tracing terrorist funding. He argues that ISIS isn't funded by oil at all. The Swiss Bank, UBS, is facilitating rich Saudi, Qatari, and Turkish oil barons to fund them. Interview here: _URL_1_\n\nPlease support him by picking up his book Shell Game here: _URL_0_",
"At first I thought gas is gonna go up because of the unrest in the middle east but I'm baffled it's going down at this rate.There's a new player in the game and they play dirty. If oil keeps sliding down ISIS wins basically. The world economy will shatter.",
"When you go the pump, do you ask where your gas is coming from? No, nobody does. Nobody gives a shit, as long as they can still drive through the McDonalds drive thru to get there 6th meal of the day.",
"ELI5: how anyone in this thread could possibly know the answer to these questions?",
"Better question... How is America going to war with the ISIS, when it supports and trades with Saudi Arabia, whom fund the ISIS in the war against USA? ",
"Once the oil is on the market nobody fucking cares. Oil is oil. \n\nThey took over locations with facilities and delivery methods. They just continued to use them and probably sell to the same people the previous owners sold to because they just want the oil. \n\nOn top of that since ISIS' \"investment here is negligible they can afford to sell at lower prices and in fact may be selling at a cost that may not recoup their maintenance because they realize it is possible they might be overrun by a more powerful nation at some point and need to wring all the money out of this ASAP. ",
"The main goal of the USA/CIA is preserve our economy and our economy depends on the petrodollar(US dollar) being the sole currency used in the purchase and selling of oil throughout the world. America does not mind ISIS selling oil despite what you hear. The fact is America does not have anything against anyone selling oil in US Dollars.\nSo why are we fighting ISIS?... IRAN. Iran a Shiite country is threatened by ISIS a radical Sunni movement sweeping the region. America wants IRAN back on the Petrodollar so the USA fights on the side of Iran as good gesture. Iran has one of the biggest oil reserves in the world and Russia and China just made a deal to get off the petrodollar. This makes Iran's participation in the petrodollar exchange vital to US National Security.\n\nNext Stop Venezuela. \n",
"Vice has a piece on Mexican cartels stealing oil from the Mexican state owned oil company and selling it on the black market, much of it ending up in Texas.\n\nThe simple answer is they sell it dirt cheap, and companies can't resist. If it's able to corrupt US oil dealers, imagine how easy it is in that region.",
"Thanks for asking this. I am also curious as to how this happens.",
"1. ISIS is making between US$1 to US$3 MM/day. Accurate numbers are impossible to come by. Estimates are all that can be made. Even assuming the lowest number, it’s still enough to finance their operations with ease.\n\n2. Turkey is taking much of the oil ISIS “produces,” but not all of it. What goes to Turkey is mostly via tanker trucks. Very little is going by pipeline.\n\n3. There are two Sea based oil delivery platforms in the area. Both are known to be “in the shade.” They take oil from places that many others don’t want to deal with. Usually the scum in the are who have stolen the oil they are selling. They mix it in with legit oil, and act like it all came from the same place. All of this arrives by truck.\n\n4. Turkey\n * does NOT hate the Kurds\n * does NOT side with ISIS\n * wants ISIS to eradicate Iran backed Syrian leadership. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” That is why they don’t want to fight them with anything remotely close to “force.\"\n * If drawn into the fight, Turkey would be forced to fight with Kurd separatists, which they are loathe to do. Turkey sees it’s self as the “leader” in the area. (yes, it’s not lost on people that they are NOT leading, and are actively dragging their feet, to put it kindly, see next point)\n * Turkey, believing they will be the top dog in the region in future years, wants everyone else to play by their rules. This is not sitting well with other countries who are actually doing something.\n\n5. Oil Disappearing (bbl = barrel)\n * assuming they are getting US$50/bbl, they only need to sell 60,000 bbls/day to make US$3,000,000. 20,000 bbl/day to make US$1,000,000\n * Iraq produces over 3,000,000 bbls/day\n * ISIS is essentially a pickpocket.\n\nI’m not sure what you mean by “their opponents.” The money that ISIS is making only hurts those they take it from. The people who are the enemy of ISIS, are not willing to do what it takes to defeat them. That’s largely due to President Tee-Time saying “no boots on the ground.” Like a fool he telegraphed his intentions. Just as he did with leaving Iraq. Look how well that turned out.\n\n6. Weapons\n * Some of the weapons ISIS is using were left by the IRAQ military who ran from the fight. They have been seen driving HUMVEES. It’s unknown how they got them. \n * ISIS was able to get into Military bases, and steal VERY sophisticated US made systems. (yea that pull out was a master stroke)\n * ISIS is using Soviet made tanks that the Syrian rebels, the same group that John McCain wanted to arm, sold to them.\n * Saudi Arabia is believed to have sold/given weapons to ISIS.\n * Qatar is also selling them weapons, and is their banker. They also give them a place to contact other groups in safety.\n * Some of the weaponry is coming out of Afghanistan, Jordan; and was destined for, you guessed it; the Syrian Rebels.\n\nI’m sure you don’t have to guess who the Syrian rebels are fighting with.",
"I wrote about this for The Daily Star in Lebanon (middle east English language newspaper). ISIS oil revenues are already running very low, the $3m estimate was hugely overblown but a great soundbite so it's done the rounds without anyone sitting down to actually think about it. \n\nThe actual figures are closer to $250,000 per day, at their very very peak was probably a mil.\n\nThe buyers were Assad regime, illegal distributors in southern Turkey, and some Kurdish smugglers. Oil transported overland in trucks. some refineries were being operated by foreigners on behalf of ISIS (and in some cases guarded by western security firms)? But the sotloff, foley, henning and iraqi beheadings have now scared them off, plus air strikes have put a few of them out of action. So now it's a fairly small operation and not to be worried about.\n\nIn fact, all signs from within their own territory and Baghdad people point to ISIS now running low on cash. Services will soon have to be cut which will piss off those living under them. Containment by Christmas is a possibility.\n\nEDIT\n\nHERE'S THE ARTICLE _URL_0_\n",
"Ask the CIA. They're the fuck wads that know all about the black Ops and underground markets because they probably created them. There is so much that the general public does not know, which makes this ELI5 difficult to explain accurately, because it deals with stuff that hasn't been truly revealed and most people wouldn't believe anyway.",
"shame on those who do business with these murderers",
"Here is a very interesting report which touches on how illegal oil is sold in to black and grey markets in another region: Nigeria. _URL_0_\n\nits done by traders who operate on the margins of the market, who disguise shipments and sell them on. \nThere is a very large shadow business in the oil world, and the only reason why people don't know about it is that it has been working in the US's favour until now. Nobody in the US congress ever wanted to look under the rock because it was working for them. \n",
"Quite off topic but why isn't this the fundamental argument for increasing funding to becoming entirely energy self sufficient? Hell, even if you don't care about the environment, wouldn't every individual implicated in the oil trade be creating the demand which allows so many of these organizations to finance their activities? ",
"Jeff Bridges is running down his accumulated wealth to relive his role in the first Ironman movie. ",
"[Relevant](_URL_0_)\n\nOil can be siphoned off onto tanker trucks and sold at a discount to a legit place that is also pumping oil. This make it look like the legit place is pumping more than usual and more productive than it actually looks. So sort of like oil-laundering.\n Imagine being a farmer looking to sell his corn at market prices and having the opportunity to buy additional corn for a discount (which he could sell at market prices) --the market just sees a extra productive farmer - even if the extra corn is stolen!",
"You should know that in the world of high money business, little things like dealing with terrorists matters not at all.\n\n\nOil is in demand by certain groups, ISIS will sell it to them cheaper than others would. ISIS got itself a customer.\n\n\nAs for weapons, well there are countries with an interest to destabilize the middle east even further, the CIA is probably selling them weapons.\nIf not, then some private arms dealers who acquire weapons from agencies like the CIA but of other countries too.",
"From Thierry Meyssan's article:\r\rWhen states under embargo try to sell gas or oil on the international market, they do not succeed. But the Islamic Emirate does, despite resolutions 1373 (2001) and 2170 (2014) of the Security Council. Publicly notorious, it steals oil in Iraq and Syria, routing it by pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, from where it is transported to Israel by tankers of the Palmali Shipping & Agency JSC, the Turkish-Azeri company of billionaire Mubariz Gurbanoğlu. At the port of Ashkelon, Israeli authorities provide false certificates of origin from Eilat, then they are exported to the European Union, which pretends to believe they’re Israeli.\r\r_URL_0_",
"\nThe oil is sold as crude locally, to local dealers in Iraq and Syria, who themselves later exchange it for refined or further smuggle it to regional countries such as Jordan, Iran, Turkey and the Kurdistan regions of Iraq.\n\nISIS also have some small refinement setups and can use it for themselves\n\nWhile it may seem unbelievable that Kurdish tanks may be operating on refined fuel that was originally smuggled from through dealers from ISIS themselves, it's worth remembering that the whole region quite lawless in that respect. \n\nThink of ISIS like the Mafia. They run their operations much in the same way. Extortion, racketeering, ransoms, theft and the selling of natural resources. \n\nThey have accountants, planners, engineers, keep financial records - they are \"running\" the areas they control much like the Taliban ran Afghanistan in the nineties. \n\nI am not so much a fan of CNN but it's fairly well covered here\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"Its because Isis is secretly supported by the countries that pretend to be fighting it in a half assed fashion. Including air strikes that don't seem to be working. \n",
"A key thing is that oil is pretty much the definition of a \"fungible\" commodity. Oil is oil is oil, grade aside. If it makes it to market (others have spoken about the mechanical details of how might be happening) then it gets lost in the general market, where one barrel is as good as any other.\n\nNow I have an image stuck in my head of some dandified connoisseur broaching a barrel with a little silver cup, swirling it and pronouncing \"Ah yes, the 2013 Kirkuk. An amusing little blend, good earthy notes with just a hint of sarin gas in the finish. Inferior to a robust Tikriti, but perhaps passable in the right conditions...\"\n",
"Hey former HESS employ here. I used to work with the trading department at HESS, I heard some great story's about phone-calls from people trying to sell illegal oil mostly from Nigiria. Of course we had to say no because like WTF. We believe that a lot of it go's to china, and Russa were it's easy to bribe logel officials. \n\nA fundamental rule of the market is that you can't stop oil one way or another. It gets into the market, so banning oil exports to or from one country doesn't usually have much of an effect.",
"I am just glad your whole post wasn't deleted by some stupid mod because your question wasn't good enough or something.\n\nVery interesting question and great answers - best I've seen on reddit."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jk67g/eli5_how_is_isis_able_to_sell_oil_on_the_black/clcpf1z?context=3",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jk67g/eli5_how_is_isis_able_to_sell_oil_on_the_black/clcoxhv?context=3",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jk67g/eli5_how_is_isis_able_to_sell_oil_on_the_black/clcptsk?context=3"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPEfArQU7tc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-funding/"
],
[],
[
"http://online.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-funds-push-into-syria-and-iraq-with-labyrinthine-oil-smuggling-operation-1410826325",
"http://i.imgur.com/LwmVGTl.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/islamic-state-fighters-are-drawing-on-oil-assets-for-funding-and-fuel/2014/09/15/a2927d02-39bd-11e4-8601-97ba88884ffd_story.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://publicradioeast.org/post/become-oil-barons-isis-has-sold-neighbors-and-enemies"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.lulu.com/shop/2lt-scott-bennett-11th-psychological-operations-battalion/shell-game-a-military-whistleblowing-report-to-the-us-congress-exposing-the-betrayal-and-cover-up-by-the-us-government-of-the-union-bank-of-switzerland-terrorist-threat-finance-connection-to-booz-allen-hamilton-and-us-central-command/paperback/product-21851800.html",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo8Xm46s62I"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://unequalmeasures.com/2014/10/10/weak-point-isis-may-oil/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/194254"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://online.wsj.com/articles/tiny-ghana-oil-platforms-big-output-sparks-scrutiny-1408669517"
],
[],
[
"http://www.voltairenet.org/article185495.html"
],
[
"http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3nwdhh
|
Why did Arabs conquer the entirety of the Sassanian Empire, but only parts of the Eastern Roman Empire?
|
Were the Romans better prepared? We're the Arabs not interested? Were the Sassanians in a more vulnerable position?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nwdhh/why_did_arabs_conquer_the_entirety_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvrvqeg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I definitely haven't read enough about Persia, so I won't comment on that, but I can quote a few extracts from recent books about what historians think the reasons are. Hopefully someone else familiar with the literature on this topic can come and talk about their views on this.\n\nFrom Peter Sarris' *Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500-700* (2011):\n\n > In Persia, as we have seen, political circles in\n > Ctesiphon had gone into meltdown as a result of Heraclius’ victorious campaign of 628.\n > Heraclius’ daring descent into Persian territory and his ravaging of the lands to the north\n > of Ctesiphon may well have done lasting damage to the agricultural resources and\n > administration of a region that had been the economic powerhouse of the Sasanian state.\n > Political paralysis and administrative chaos may also have critically limited the ability of the\n > Persian authorities to respond to the Arab threat.\n\nFrom Parvaneh Pourshariati's *Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran* (2008):\n\n > The interregnum period of 628–632 was a time of utter confusion. As\n > troops had been dispersed in the wake of the Byzantine–Sasanian war, resulting\n > in the formation of three distinct armies of the Sasanian empire, and as the Parsıg–Pahlav\n > rivalry had intensified, the perfect power vacuum had been created\n > in Syria, in Iraq, as well as on the Iranian plateau. The Arabs naturally took\n > advantage of this chaotic situation. [...]\n > \n > The Parthians played a crucial role in the demise of the Sasanians through\n > their agreement with the Arabs, although some among them, such as the Mihrans\n > or the Karins, put up fierce resistance. In a sense, from the Arsacid through\n > the Umayyad period, the dynamics among the Pahlav dynastic families, and\n > between each of these and the central authorities, had not changed. The crucial\n > dimension of the cooperation of the Pahlav who came to terms with the Arabs—\n > as it was worked into the treatises they made with the conquerors—was the\n > understanding that they would continue to control their realm after the collapse\n > of the Sasanian empire.\n\nFrom Robert Hoyland's *In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire* (2014): \n\n > In the Persian realm, the proverbial situation had come true: the head had\n > been severed and consequently the body floundered. With Yazdgird on the\n > run and the economic powerhouse of southern Iraq in Arab hands, the Persian\n > Empire ceased to function as an integral entity. The local chiefs and nobles of\n > Iran, wearied by three decades of warfare and civil strife and unnerved by the\n > Arab successes, began to negotiate separate agreements with the conquerors\n > that would preserve as much of their authority and wealth as possible. Families\n > were often pitted against one another, sometimes victims of an Arab policy of\n > divide and rule and sometimes using the Arabs to settle old scores. For example,\n > in return for being left in power in Media (northwest Iran), Khurrazad\n > offered to help the Arabs capture Rayy, now a suburb of modern Tehran, but\n > once a proud and ancient city that served as the seat of the noble family of\n > Mihran. The incumbent head of this family had connived in the murder of\n > Khurrazad’s father. There was, therefore, bad blood between the two families,\n > and Khurrazad got his revenge by showing Arab forces a secret way into Rayy,\n > which allowed them to surprise the city’s defenders. They looted and ransacked\n > the houses of the Mihranids, who were afforded no mercy, but gave safe\n > passage to the family of Khurrazad, who was allowed a free hand to establish\n > himself and his offspring in the city. For the Arabs, as for many conquerors\n > before and after them, such pragmatic deals made good sense in lands difficult\n > to access, the subjugation of which would demand substantial resources and\n > manpower. \n\nIn short, political fragmentation, particularly in the period between 628 and 632, proved to be devastating to the military capability of the Persian empire. After a few major defeats and the loss of Iraq, it also become impossible for the Persians to muster a powerful force, just as their nobles sensed which way the wind was turning and began to make deals with the newly ascendant Arabs.\n\nAs for why the Roman empire survived, there were obviously many reasons, but I think one of the most important is political stability. Heraclius lived until 641, so the emperor was still able to draw upon the reservoir of goodwill from his victory in 628 over the Persians despite more recent failures against the Arabs. Though the 630s is often characterised as a time of military failure, there were also successes, admittedly on a much smaller scale. Egypt was for example kept safe between 636 and 639 by the payment of a tribute to the Arabs, likewise for the Mesopotamian frontier c.638. These arrangements were of course temporary, but it bought time. Heraclius would later withdraw his armies from the Levant altogether, choosing instead to focus on defending Anatolia and Egypt, pursuing a defensive strategy in regions suited to it. This was quite different to the Persian experience, as their heartland, Iraq, was right next to Arabia. For the Romans, although the Arab occupations of the Levant and later Egypt were major losses, their political centre in Constantinople was never threatened, which meant that the bureaucracy continued to function and the elite were still able to maintain a facade of normality.\n\nHeraclius' death and the ensuing power struggle did damage the empire, especially as it led to the loss of Egypt by 642. The Romans however still possessed mountainous frontiers in Anatolia and Armenia, which impeded Arab advances and indeed caused a number of upsets (which contrasts neatly with Arab victories in the east brought about by making deals with those in defensible positions, as illustrated above in the extracts I quoted). The Romans at this point also retained naval supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean, which allowed them to hold small islands like Arwad right next to Syria and to threaten Arab territories at will. This changed in 649, as an Arab fleet was finally created and indeed even won a few important victories over Roman forces, but the 650s also saw the coming of age of a new emperor, Constans II, who as I explained [here](_URL_0_) was actually a quite talented ruler damned by later sources as a cruel and useless tyrant. Vigorous campaigning and a great deal of luck defeated the great Arab offensives of the 650s, culminating in the withdrawal of the Arab army during the siege of Constantinople in 654. This was followed by Roman successes in Armenia as well. Combined with internal pressures within the caliphate and other reverses, the Arabs began to fight amongst themselves in 656, relieving the pressure on the Romans.\n\nThe 660s however saw the Arabs emerge from the civil war stronger than ever, but the Romans once again survived. Though in 667 a Roman general revolted and joined the Arabs on a march to Constantinople, indeed even besieging the capital in 668, a crisis that led to the assassination of Constans II and a revolt in Sicily, New Rome remained impervious to its besiegers. At this point the new emperor paid tribute to the caliph and spent a few years consolidating his control over his diminished empire, which might seem counter-intuitive to the Arabs' interests, but with the Arabs unable to take Constantinople, they could not realistically destroy the empire, though raids did continue in this period. Tribute had also been given by the Romans before between c.650 and 653, as well as by the Arabs to the Romans during their civil war from 658 onwards, so we should be careful about characterising this period as a time consumed only with external warfare. There were many other factors for rulers to consider, so a continuous push for Constantinople simply wasn't realistic. Instead, advantages were sought until it became possible for a decisive offensive - in the seventh century, the perfect opportunity simply never arrived for the Arabs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j7tqg/tuesday_trivia_treason_and_treachery/cun0g77"
]
] |
|
vwia7
|
Can a planet have a degree of tilt and revolve/rotate at a rate so that a pole always tilted towards the planet's star?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vwia7/can_a_planet_have_a_degree_of_tilt_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c588hnf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Uranus has a tilt of about 98 degrees. This means that one period a year, the north pole roughly points to the Sun. During another period, the south pole roughly points to the Sun. So that portion can occur. \nWhen a planet is tidally locked, it always presents same face to its star. However when this occurs, the axis of rotation must be perpendicular to the orbital plane. \nSo your scenario necessarily has conflicting orientations, therefore it would not be possible. \nedit: Melchoir has proposed a solution to allow this which I concur is possible. See below."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4e0wml
|
Why are there mountains on Mars that are much higher than the highest mountains on other planets in the solar system?
|
There is Arsia Mons (5.6 mi), Pavonis Mons (6.8 mi), Elysium Mons (7.8 mi), Ascraeus Mons (9.3 mi) and Olympus Mons (13.7 mi) that are higher than Mount Everest (5.5 mi), earth's highest mountain (measured from sea level). All of those high mountains on Mars are volcanoes as well. Is there an explanation?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4e0wml/why_are_there_mountains_on_mars_that_are_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1w3ewe",
"d1w3gl5",
"d1w4pxe",
"d1w594a",
"d1w67e7",
"d1w6wmu",
"d1w8box",
"d1w9amk",
"d1waakp",
"d1wjl9y",
"d1wot78"
],
"score": [
18,
387,
6,
1805,
42,
2,
2,
92,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it could be because, as mars has a really light atmosphere and no water cycle, erosion there is practically non existant, so a high mountain will stay high no matter what.\n\nIt also has to do that we measure heights above sea level: as mars has no sea level, height measure is weird. Take into account that the mariana's trench is around 11km deep, and the everest 8 km high, so the difference is around 19km",
"In general, a planet with a lower surface gravity can support larger mountains. Here's some neat info on the subject, \n\n* _URL_0_ \n\n* _URL_2_ \n\nAs an extreme case, the \"mountains\" on neutron stars can only be millimeters to centimeters in height. \n\n*Edit more info:* \n\nNote, geologic activity determines what kind of mountain forms and their characteristics including height. The surface gravity is simply a limiter that *if* tall mountains form, they are restricted from getting too tall due to gravity. Here's a lot more info on the geology involved including deformation of tectonic plates and glacial weathering \n\n* _URL_1_ \n",
"The size of a mountain is based on the relation between two factors, tectonic activity and erosion. Mars has much less erosion compared to Earth. The other solid planets don't have as much tectonic activity (they do have some, though research on Mercury is limited). Specifically, they have no subduction zones.\n\nThen there's the gas giants, which have no mechanism with which to build mountains.",
"I found a decent explanation for it.\n\n\"The large scale of the Tharsis shield volcanoes suggests that they formed from massive eruptions of fluid basalt over prolonged periods of time. Similar eruptions on earth are associated with flood basalt provinces and mantle hotspots. However, on earth the source region for hotspot volcanism moves laterally as lithospheric plates travel across the stationary mantle plumes beneath them. Without this mechanism of lateral movement, the Martian surface remains above the plume source so that huge volumes of lava will erupt from a single central vent over many millions of years of activity, thus generating a single shield volcano of enormous volume. With this in mind, it is interesting to note that the volume of Olympus Mons is roughly equivalent to the total volume of basalt in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain.\"\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThe other aspect is the rate of erosion is incredibly slow compared to Earth.\n\nEdit: another thing worth noting is the theory that a giant asteroid collision may have been what set off the Tharsis Shield volcanoes in the first place. So a fuller understanding of volcanism on Mars has to take the overall history of the planet into account.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Aside from lower gravity, you also need to consider that most mountains on earth are measured from sea level whereas on Mars they are measured from the base of the mountain. For example, if you were to measure Mauna Loa from its true base, it would be 56,000 feet (around 10.6 miles) high. ",
"Although the comments already here are accurate --e.g. lack of tectonic plate movement means eruptions over time are in the same place and low rate of erosion means the mountains stay high instead of being worn down -- there is another factor to consider. If you measure mountains not in terms of their absolute height but instead with the height expressed as a ratio of the planetary diameter, Olympus Mons is not the highest mountain in the solar system. It actually comes in 9th, behind three volcanoes on Mars, Ahuna Mons on Ceres, and the peaks on several of Saturn's moons, most of which were created by large impacts relative to the size of the body being hit. The list of the tallest mountains in the solar system is [here](_URL_0_)",
"Could it also be we measure everest from sea level and there are no bodies of water on Mars so it's not an accurate comparison. If you take the average depth of the ocean according to NOAA, it's 2.3 miles, add it to everest ans it would be 7.8 miles tall. ",
"Howdy, Mars scientist here. There are a few reasons.\n\nMars had active volcanism, but probably no plate tectonics. So while on Earth we end up with Island chains, that hot spot on Mars never moved, and just kept building up in the same place for millions of years. Mars also has a much thinner atmosphere and basically no liquid water for most of its history. That means erosional forces aren't nearly as efficient on Mars, so mountains aren't worn down as fast. Finally, Mars is smaller than Earth, so its gravitational pull isn't as strong. This is likely a very small effect, but it conceivably might be important. \n\nThis is all outside my area of expertise, so I may have missed some stuff.",
"The surface of the earth is moving. So we get volcanoes showing up in a line, like the pacific ring of fire. \n\nMars doesn't have a spinning molten core and so the surface doesn't move around. As a result, when you get a pressure point that pushes up lava, it just keeps building up creating monsters like mount Olympus. ",
"Earth has tectonic plates, which change the surface of the planet over the long term. Other planets usually don't, so their mountains are usually created as volcanoes. The magma constantly flows over the top and hardens into rock. Since they don't move, it just builds up over a long period of time making big mountains by the time the volcano dies.",
"The big factor is erosion by ice and frost. Anything even close to that big on Earth is attacked by glaciers and frost cracking. On a geological time scale such mountain come down quickly, very quickly. Glaciers gnaw at the slopes and base of any mountain and bring it down. If the rock is really hard like Yosemite granite it can resist for awhile, but it coming down.\n\nIf you have ever been such a mountain range, avalanches come down all the time and it time they do, they rip away rocks.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://quarksandcoffee.com/index.php/2015/10/29/why-are-some-moons-spherical-but-others-are-shaped-like-potatoes/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/42j6rf/what_is_the_theoretical_limit_to_how_tall/czbfov4",
"http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981JApA....2..165S"
],
[],
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-asteroid-collision-may-have-radically-transformed-mars/",
"http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/mars.html"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_mountains_in_the_Solar_System"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2q15g3
|
why are insurance companies and other major businesses able to get away with shady practices?
|
I'm having constant issues lately with health insurances. From what I've researched it's seemingly common practice to push around the consumer until they give up. Something is supposed to be covered by my plan, but insurance companies make it impossible to actually get it covered. Every CSR you talk to gives you a different reason as to why it's not going through, they will never seemingly flat out deny, or take blame, just tell you that there is an error made by someone else that needs to be fixed and make you run around.
Another completely unrelated shady business are car dealerships. I've heard and experienced so many horror stories. I've seen a car dealership forge my mother's signature for those bullshit 'cleaning' packages. I've heard/seen this one a few times, customer trades in car, gets new car, drives it home while contract is drawn up in a few days. Two days later or so they are told bank wouldn't approve the agreed upon financing, and offer a contract with new terms with a higher monthly payment. At this point the consumer can't get back old car and is basically forced into worse rate.
I don't think it's as a result of these corporations being so big, I saw an ama the other day about someone who worked for smaller health insurance company basically screwing people over. Why are they not reprimanded for these practices?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q15g3/eli5_why_are_insurance_companies_and_other_major/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn1vt6m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Two parts, mostly. One, it is very hard to prove that a company is doing something fraudulent. Nobody is combing through every scrap of paperwork at a giant company looking for misdeeds, it's just not practical. Instead, particularly bad offenders are singled out and the government tries to make an example of them.\n\nThe other reason is that the law is very very convoluted. Often times the vague wording of laws allows companies to get away with things that are obviously unethical, simply because they are not EXPLICITLY forbidden.\n\nThis is a complicated issue, and there are many more contributing factors, but if more people raised a stink instead of just taking the easy way out and giving up the companies wouldn't do what they do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5w389r
|
Has geographically localized human activity in aggregate been able to impact weather patterns / other things on a small time scale?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5w389r/has_geographically_localized_human_activity_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de7677v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not aware of it affecting large scale weather systems, but cities tend to absorb a lot of heat during the day, that is later released throughout the night. This causes big cities to often have a higher average night time temperature during summer than the areas immediately outside it.\n\nThe usage of asphalt also affects this, as it's generally a darker surface than most natural surfaces, and absorbs more energy from the sun.\n\nThat's just one example I can think of at the top of my head.\n\n\n-edit-\nI suppose there's also deforestation. This leads to soil erosion which can cause landslides, and a lack of shielding from wind."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.