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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3uk92g
|
how do some very healthy people have such adverse physical reactions to cigarette smoke, while unhealthy people smoke all the time and don't have the same reactions?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uk92g/eli5_how_do_some_very_healthy_people_have_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxfjtvm",
"cxfk8ld"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Perhaps it is the same reason non-celiac gluten-intolerant have adverse reactions to wheat after eating it their whole lives.",
"I have an IgA deficiency which means the linings of my mouth/lungs/stomach (\"mucus linings\") aren't as well protected from infection/allergens. I'd suggest this is why i have adverse effects to the smoke. Smokers probably build up a tolerance, but don't forget the impending emphasema which i would call a pretty adverse effect"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1d11fr
|
Will successive plastic surgeries across generations make future generations more beautiful ?
|
I saw this article today about the [Korean Beauty Pageant] (_URL_0_) and I am curious - will plastic surgery across successive generations make changes to future generations permanent? e.g. straightening the nose ?
edit: Added minor clarification to the question.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1d11fr/will_successive_plastic_surgeries_across/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9lukef",
"c9lukpp"
],
"score": [
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Evolution is, in part, the tendency to select for heritable traits that improve fitness. Let's simplify things, and suppose there is a single gene that controls whether someone is attractive or not. Someone born with the \"non-attractive\" gene develops into an unattractive person. But they get plastic surgery to correct this. They still *carry* the unattractive gene. If they have offspring, these will likely carry the gene as well.\n\nThe point is that plastic surgery doesn't affect the underlying DNA. And DNA is what is inherited by offspring.",
"Nope. These changes do not affect the persons genotype, and are not heritable. A plastic surgery patient's child will still get their ugly genes. The scenario you're asking about is called Lamarckian inheritance, and it was disproved a long time ago. For example, if your dad has a scar he got when he was young, do you have one too at that spot? Of course not. \n\nNow, we are discovering more about epigenetics which does allow for parental environmental conditions to influence offspring, but I don't think this plays a roll in your scenario. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1d0784/koreas_plastic_surgery_mayhem_is_finally/"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
18yq89
|
Why do chewing gums that have their main ingredient as sugar/corn syrup still include Aspartame in their recipe?
|
I've noticed this in a few products, but the one I have in front of me is Big League Chew...
- Sugar
- Gum Base
- Corn Syrup
- Glycerol
- Natural and artificial flavors
- Soy lethicin
- Acesulfame-Potassium
- Aspartame
- BHT
- Corn Starch, Color (Allura Red)
Wouldn't the sugar and corn syrup sweeten it enough? Is there a preservative reason, or some other chemistry issue?
Edit: I wasn't sure if this should be tagged as Biology or Chemistry. I settled on Biology since it involved taste. Hope that's ok.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18yq89/why_do_chewing_gums_that_have_their_main/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8j7moi",
"c8j962f"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Here's a quotation from Wrigley on the subject: \n\nThe Wrigley Company utilises the high intensity sweetener, Aspartame,\nin a number of its products - as the primary sweetener in some of our\nsugarfree brands and as a flavour enhancer in some of our sugar-sweetened brands. As an ingredient, Aspartame has the added benefit of\nproviding an especially long-lasting flavour.",
"In addition to what has been said below, it adds more sweetness with less calories, that is why it is typically used in many other foods. Sugars are not always added for sweetness either(starch chemistry gets very complicated, look up malliard browning if you're curious), however in this case it is. If only aspartame was used, the gum's flavor would be noticeably different; achieving an acceptable balance can be pretty tough (it takes teams of people to develop these products over good amounts of time). Additionally, there is almost always a chemistry issue, most foods are designed around chemistry issues(typically the way in which water reacts over time).\n\nEdit: I would consider it a chemistry question - Food chemistry explains this whole question, had I paid more attention I could have given a more technical answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1cfhx8
|
why does cleaning or organizing make a person feel better if they're upset?
|
I really just don't get it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cfhx8/eli5_why_does_cleaning_or_organizing_make_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9fzg32"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"It's about control. Most of what upsets us makes us feel that way because we have no control over it... or at least we *feel* like we have no control over it.\n\nSo we take control of something else instead. Some people run or workout, some people clean and organize, some people write diaries. These are all acts that make us feel more in control of ourselves, because we are accomplishing something concrete, meaningful and almost instantly rewarding.\n\nWhen extremely mentally disabled people become upset, they sometimes \"take control\" of themselves by rocking, hitting their heads continually, and other repetitive behaviors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
518f0u
|
How are precious stones like diamonds and sapphires lab grown?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/518f0u/how_are_precious_stones_like_diamonds_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7awdxb"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Saphire is typically made directly from molten Alumina, from which one can grow large crystals in a variety of ways, The saphires are given their color by adding small amounts of transition metal salts to the melt.\n\nMost synthetic diamonds are made via the High pressure, high temperature process. In this process a small diamond seed is placed in an anvil and the anvil is subsequently brought up to high pressures and temperatures. Carbon from a carbon source dissolves in the metal of the anvil and is transported to the diamond seeds, which take up the crabon and grow in size. \n\nUnfortunately, the growth of the diamond seeds is not well-controlled so if you need a specific shape or large area of diamond then the Chemical Vapour Deposition technique is used instead, in which a carbon-bearing gas (typically methane) mixed with hydrogen is heated up until it decomposes into pure carbon which is deposited on the substrate. The hydrogen etches away any non-diamond carbon species to give high-quality diamonds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
40qjt5
|
if the pigment of a plant is a color other than green, then is a different spectrum of light required for it to grow correctly?
|
For example, since most plants are green, they will ignore green light. Does it work the same way for a purple plant?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40qjt5/eli5_if_the_pigment_of_a_plant_is_a_color_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cywbzfk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Plants are green mainly because chlorophyll reflects more green light than red or blue. The plant is absorbing red and blue light and turning it into energy, whereas they're reflecting relatively more green light, which is why our eye see it as green. If a plant were another color, say purple, it would be reflecting relatively more blue and red light and absorbing the green light and turning it into energy. The plant is reflecting more of whatever color it looks to our eye, and therefore absorbing and turning into energy less of that color."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2jd3b4
|
how can car dealerships claim to sell something below cost? wouldn't that be false advertising?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jd3b4/eli5_how_can_car_dealerships_claim_to_sell/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clakfmd",
"clakjot"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Not if they're actually selling it below cost. Taking a small hit on a car which just won't sell is often better than letting it sit around and take up inventory space forever. ",
"Most dealers do sell cars for below cost if necessary. Car dealerships make their money from the brand paying them bonus money if they hit a certain number. That number changes every month, is based on the number of cars sold in the area and over the oast few years and a bunch of other metrics, but I they sell enough cars and meet that number, they can receive anywhere from $250 to $3000 per car sold based on what model it is.\n\nSo they don't sell every car below invoice, some people are better negotiators than others, but if they are two days from ending the month and only need 5 more cars sold, your more likely to buy one at a loss to them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4i4evq
|
Has the idea of a united Caribbean (as a country) existed?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4i4evq/has_the_idea_of_a_united_caribbean_as_a_country/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2vwwcy"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"(1/2)\n\nWell, the answer to this question - at least from the perspective of the context with which I'm most familiar, which is the British Caribbean - is a little complex and involves getting into a lot of regional political history, so brace yourself for a long answer! It's also a little late here, so please excuse any minor oversights in editing.\n\nIt's worth pointing out first and foremost that the Caribbean is an extremely broad and diverse region. In its broadest sense, the Caribbean incorporates the West Indies - a region that consists of more than thirty distinct entities (most of which have meaningful self-government) - as well as Belize, Suirname, the Guianas and parts of Venezuela and Mexico. The Caribbean basin region includes many more countries on the mainland. There are half a dozen major languages in the Caribbean sea region and the region as a whole is characterised by not insignificant ethnic diversity. More than half of the entities within the Caribbean islands are still possessions of nations in Europe or the United States, including several places that are popularly misconstrued to be fully independent countries - like Bermuda (a territory of Britain), Aruba (the Netherlands) and Puerto Rico (the United States). Although Caribbean island countries especially are often treated with a kind of casual dismissal by those of us from larger countries, each island in fact has a rich and complex history, and the politics of most Caribbean states are thoroughly modern, complicated and utterly fascinating. Within that context then, efforts to unify the *entire* Caribbean would certainly be incredibly complex and difficult task.\n\nWithin the British Caribbean though, there have been historic efforts to create political entities or states that include multiple modern-day Caribbean countries. In particular, the islands of the British Caribbean have a long history of federal governance. From 1671 to 1871, with the exception of the period 1816 - 1833, the islands of Antigua, Barbuda, Saint Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla, Dominica and Tortola (as well as various smaller islands) were governed as a single colony with a central government. From 1871 to 1956, several of these islands formed the Leeward Islands Federation as a colonial possession of Britain. Similar, though rather more haphazard, arrangements existed throughout the region at varying points - for a time in the 19th century for example, Grenada and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Tobago and Barbados also formed a single colony known as the Windward Islands. Centralising government within a federal structure was a British tactic for making the cooperation of the region's development more effective and, from the early 19th century onwards, enhancing the power of the Colonial Office.\n\nThese were not truly unified countries like the kind you describe, though. There was no semblance of a union of equals - Antigua had primacy within the Leewards, and Barbados within the Windwards, although Barbados' relationship as part of the Windward grouping was complex. Individual islands remained largely self-governing despite the existence of central structures; there was no federal legislative body in either island grouping, with elected legislatures being based on individual islands (though these legislatures were eventually abolished over the course of the 19th century). Central governors were aided by deputies for each colony who often administered affairs as *de facto* governors in their own right, particularly in the Windward islands, the central power structure for which was critically undermined with the withdrawal of Barbados from the union in 1885. These were also flexible structures, as noted by the disruption of the Leeward Federation briefly from 1816 - 1833 when it broke into two smaller federations, and by the movement of Dominica from the Leewards to the Windwards in 1940.\n\nBy the beginning of the 20th century, the authority of the imperial government in the British Caribbean was in decline. The centralisation of power that had occurred through the 19th century after the abolition of slavery began to be reversed, with the re-establishment of local legislative bodies and increasing autonomy for individual colonies, though access to political power was severely restricted to exclude the non-white majority in society from meaningful representation and influence. The 1930s proved to be a pivotal turning point in Caribbean history, and set most of Britain's colonies on the path to independence. The onset of the Great Depression in 1929 had exposed catastrophic economic mismanagement on the part of the colonial governments of the region: being so completely dependent upon agricultural exports to the United States and Europe, the subsequent collapse in demand for these goods facilitated by the global economic crisis triggered dramatic increases in unemployment and poverty across the islands.\n\nBeginning in late 1933, a series of violent riots and general strikes broke out across most of Britain's possessions in the region, driven chiefly by African Caribbean anger at appalling economic conditions and the inability - and unwillingness - of white governments to address them. The unrest persisted intermittently but relentlessly for four years, and initial attempts at repression only served to make matters worse. It was in the context of these riots that clear national political leaders emerged in opposition to British rule - men like Alexander Bustamante in Jamaica and Grantley Adams in Barbados. The first meaningful trade unions also began to organise successfully and on a mass scale, often around these personalities, creating organised vehicles for political change, many of which would later become political parties. It should be emphasised that this was certainly not a sudden political awakening on the part of the Caribbean working class - far from it. The history of the Caribbean shows us that throughout for centuries, black, Asian and white working class people alike were very much willing to assert demands for political and social change whenever they felt able. Rather, particularly for those descended from African slaves, the 1930s labour riots represent a significant shift in the political landscape of the Caribbean because they led to the emergence of real, sustainable vehicles of political change even after the unrest had died out. Likewise, decades of limited social mobility had produced a middle class of black and especially mixed raced men and women who were prepared and able to take up the task of organising resistance to colonial rule on a national scale.\n\nThese were not revolutionary movements emerging in this period; though the idea of independence began to be raised in the 1930s, by and large the emerging labour movement was interested in forcing the British authorities to widen access to existing political power structures and do more to tackle poverty. These were struggles for autonomy rather than independence, though independence would grow in significance as a goal consistently thereafter. The British government commissioned a report into conditions in the Caribbean that reported behind closed doors in 1939, though its conclusions were kept secret until 1945 to avoid it being used as anti-British propaganda; that report found conditions in the colonies woefully inadequate and called for dramatic improvements in service provision, but struggled to find workable solutions (one of its more retrospectively ludicrous recommendations was that women should quit their jobs to help boost male employment, and women could then fulfil the role of social service provider).\n\nAn experiment with self-government began in Jamaica with the holding of the first free, fair and universal democratic elections to a new colonial legislature in 1944. The results of that poll were a stunning blow to the local elite; despite an extremely well funded and organised campaign to elect white planters and sympathetic, affluent black merchants to the legislature to represent the interests of the establishment, all 32 seats in the new chamber were won by opposition parties, and the Jamaica Labour Party - an organisation that was essentially just a political platform for Alexander Bustamante, the mixed race lawyer who had emerged as the figurehead of the 1930s unrest - secured enough seats to govern alone. Two years later, despite the absence of the same kind of open and free processes, the Barbados Labour Party secured a similar election victory. The political structure of the islands was rapidly beginning to fall apart and fragment, with British authority and the authority of local elites alike in sharp retreat in the face of increasing non-white resistance to colonial rule."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
15pktu
|
When do horses first appear in written records?
|
And what was the context? I'm curious whether domesticated horses predate the invention of writing.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15pktu/when_do_horses_first_appear_in_written_records/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7omv0y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's close; beginning of the 4th millennium steppes for the domestication of the horse (spread over large areas during the 3rd millennium) with the invention of writing in the Near East in the later 4th millennium, with established practice over large areas of the region by the middle of the 3rd. The issue here is not so much contemporanity, but locality.\n\nThis also implies that our earliest knowledge about horse domestication is not from written sources, but the bones of the horses themselves (and pictoral evidence/representational art), as well as linguistics and genetics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5ommgc
|
Were medieval soldiers given uniforms?
|
Were they given matching soldiers like our armies today?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ommgc/were_medieval_soldiers_given_uniforms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dckgpvt",
"dcki2tq"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd also be interested to know if they were given uniforms, and what role family or place of origin played in how they dressed for the battlefield? Which was more important?",
"The concept of uniform is quite modern, you need the XVII century to have some homogenity in a unit, a concept that is fully implemented in the XVIIIth century.\nBut in medieval times, you could have a sense of homogenity, if your captain/leader had issues some livery for his troops, for exemple, like during Charles the Bold times, or when the various commander in the war of the roses had equiped theirs troops (the arms of the commander where depicted on the livery). This livery was weared over the protection. You could also have some colour patch of other sign of recognition sewed on the soldier garment, like the cross of Saint-Georges during Henry V campain of France. During the Ghent revolt, in the late XIVth century, the revolted used white hoods as a sign of identifications.\n\nSome sources: DEVRIES Kelly, Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century : Discipline, Tactics and Technology, Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 1996.\n\nJOLIVET Sophie, Pour soi vêtir honnêtement à la cour de monseigneur le duc de Bourgogne. Costume et dispositif vestimentaire à la cour de Philippe le Bon de 1430 à 1455, Thèse de doctorat en histoire, Université de Bourgogne, 2003.\n\nMICHAEL Nicholas, Armies of Medieval Burgundy. 1364-1477, Londres, Osprey Publishing, 1983."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
58hewu
|
why does the left-wing of us politics tend to still be very right-wing and conservative in comparison to european political parties (including the uk even tho it's not a part of the eu)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58hewu/eli5_why_does_the_leftwing_of_us_politics_tend_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d90fjsy",
"d90gz8p",
"d90h0tr",
"d90i7o4",
"d90igpi",
"d90ivso",
"d90jstr",
"d90mdvy",
"d90r2q6",
"d90sp81",
"d90wzsr",
"d90xhw8",
"d90yrew",
"d91bxdb"
],
"score": [
11,
50,
5,
3,
3,
219,
13,
55,
5,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no set neutral point. Each country determines its own conservative and liberal spectrum and sets its own midpoint. There are major differences between European Countries too, they just tend to be ignored when compared to the US. ",
"Slight nitpick: The UK *is* still part of the EU. They are going to leave, but have not done so yet. \n\nAs for your question, I think that's rally something that's hard to gauge. There are things that the super ultra conservative US politicians are a lot more *liberal* about than anyone in Europe. Basically what's considered conservative and liberal vary wildly between regions and as time passes. ",
"The United States has pretty much always been more conservative than Europeans. The first settlers who came here were religious puritans who brought a religious \"stuffy\" lifestyle with them, and so we started from a point of conservatism. \n\nThis culture difference shows in a lot of different ways, including more fearful/negative feelings about sex and nudity, drinking and partying, caring for the poor and sick, etc. ",
"Because of McCarthyism. During the Cold Americans were fed anti communist/ socialist propaganda which dragged everything right of center. Also because we are tight asses",
"Curious what you consider as conservative. Personally I think we have two parties that liberally spend, just in different areas, and the real differences lie in taxation and social policies. Much of this stems from Southern democrats fleeing the party during the Civil Rights era and their subsequent courting by the GOP. This resulted in the right wing having a favorable map in terms of Congress but does create problems in the electoral map as much of the population is still in the Northeast and West Coast.\n\nA second issue stems from corporate money in politics. Several recent reports have highlighted that many in Congress spend over half of their working hours raising funds for campaigns and the parties general funds. As a conservative, I do take issue with equating anti-tax and business friendly legislation as a core tenant of conservatism. Those were more recent policy stances that increased in priority for the GOP with the neoconservative movement.\n\nEDIT: Sorry not ELI5 ",
"Communism. No, seriously.\n\nRemember that Communism started in Europe. Marx and Engels were European. They wrote for a European audience. Communism took root very strongly in Europe, much more strongly than it ever did in the United States.\n\nIn Russia, it led to a revolution. In the rest of Europe, governments pulled farther to the left to appease the Communist sympathizers in their countries and (hopefully) avoid what happened to Russia.\n\nThat planted the seeds for it. Then you had World War II, the bloodiest battle in the history of the world. Germany had almost 10% of its population killed, and in Poland it was closer to 20%. Europe was devastated economically, morally, physically.\n\nIn the aftermath of WWII, the causes of which were complex but many of which had a lot to do with Right Wing nationalism, Europe pulled to the left, eager to avoid ever having a war like that again.\n\nAt the end of the day, the Europeans discovered that being that far to the left wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Europe has an older population (due to declining birth rates), and so a strong social safety net for the elderly was considered a boon. Socialized medicine is more efficient by practically every metric. They do some things wrong, but they do some things right. The United States tends to feel that if things are done differently from how the US does it, it's \"wrong\", even when that's demonstrably not the case.\n\nAnother, harder-to-quantify difference was the urban/rural/frontier split between the United States and Europe. For centuries, Europeans had relatively centralized states and were used to dealing with the government. In the United States, there were still frontiers (the Wild West, etc) and the government was often a distant entity that the average person didn't interact with as much. This fomented a distrust of government and statism in the United States among portions of the population.",
"The left wing of US politics is left wing for any nation. They just don't have any political representation because of our system of elections. The US has a majoritarian system, whereas most of Europe has a proportional system. That means that in our elections, whoever gets the most votes gets ALL of the seats. If there are three candidates representing three parties and one gets 38%, one gets 37%, and another gets 35%, the one that got 38% is elected and the other two are not. Those other two get no seats for their party. By contrast, in a proportional system, if there are three candidates who represent 3 parties and one gets 38%, one 37%, and another 35%, then party 1 gets 38% of the seats, party 2 gets 37%, and party 3 gets 35%. In Europe, 21 of 28 countries in have some form of proportional system. A majoritarian system results in two centrist parties that are slightly left or slightly right of each other, with candidates generally being in the middle (at least for large scale elections, like President or Senators). In a proportional system, because getting any percent of the vote gets you some seats, there are usually several political parties, and some of those parties might be quite extreme on the right or left. Because of the possibility of extremism, most proportional systems require a minimum percentage of votes before getting any seats. As to why US politics in general tend to be right of Europe, that is part of our history and constitution that arose from a distrust of government (with roots in the revolutionary war), a cultural norm of self determination, having tons of space and land, idolizing innovators, leftover wariness of socialism from the Cold War, and the notion of the American dream (making your own fortune/life). ",
"So i'm going to contest the idea that the Left in the US is right-wing compared to European mainstream left parties.\n\nLets look at a few things the democrats are proposing in comparison to Europe\n\n* $15 an hour minimum wage proposed by democrats is higher than any minimum wage in Europe. The highest minimum wage in a European country with more than 1 million people in it is about $11 an hour.\n\n* Healthcare - The democrats' proposal for a public option on top of an insurance mandate is essentially the same system they have in Germany, Belgium, or Austria. Depending on exactly how it's implemented it could also end up similar to the two-tier systems in France, Ireland, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Not very many European countries actually have single payer healthcare.\n\n* Corporate Taxes and Capital Gains taxes - The US already has higher corporate and capital gains taxes than most of Europe, and the democrats are proposing to raise them even further.\n\n* Income taxes - Believe it or not, the US tax system tends to be significantly more progressive than the tax system in most European countries. Top Income tax brackets in Europe and the US tend to be about the same percentage, but those brackets tend to kick in much earlier in Europe than in the US. For example in Germany you start paying a 42% marginal rate at around $60,000 a year. Democrats are proposing to raise income taxes on the rich only.\n\n* VAT taxes - European states also tend to rely on highly regressive VAT taxes to fund their governments. VAT tax in most European countries is between 20 and 25 percent. The US has no national VAT or sales tax of any kind. Yes rich people in Europe pay more in taxes. But so does everyone else as well. Adding (or switching to) a VAT tax is considered a conservative talking point in the US.\n\n* Banking regulation - Nothing like Glass-Steagall has ever existed in Europe. There has never been any kind of separation of investment and commercial banking in Europe, ever. Proposing that there should be would get you laughed out of the room in any parliament in Europe. The top 4 largest banks in the US have assets equal to 40% of US GDP. The single largest bank in the UK has assets equal to 98% of their GDP. France 97%. The single largest bank in the Netherlands has assets equal to about 130% of their GDP. No party in Europe is talking about breaking them up.\n\n* Other regulations - Food regulation tends to be stricter in the US than in Europe (thus no kinder eggs or unpasteurized milk). Car emission standards tend to be higher in the US (thus the recent volkswagen scandal). Prescription drug regulations are significantly higher (thus no cheap generics).\n\n* Social issues - Many countries in Europe have stricter abortion laws than in the US, though this varies on a state by state basis. Gay marriage is not legal in quite a few European countries including Germany and Austria. Marijuana is illegal in the overwhelming majority of European Countries, and decriminalized in a few.\n\nI could keep going, but to sum things up - European mainstream left wing parties aren't particularly further to the left than the Democrats. Europe tends to have better established healthcare systems, but the democrats in the US are proposing we switch to a similar system. Europe also tends to have higher (though not more progressive) taxation, which tends to fund a more extensive welfare state than in the US, which would likely be considered further left, though it should be noted that democrats in the US are proposing increased redistribution. In addition the US is further left than many European countries on a lot of social issues.\n\nTL;DR: Saying the US left wing is conservative in comparison to Europe is reductive, and frankly, inaccurate.",
"It is because of the 2 party system. Many European democracies are multi party systems who, when votes are counted, win a percentage of seats in their government. So far left wing candidates who would only win 2 percent of the vote in the US and get nothing, actually get 2 percent of seats in this form of government \n\nContrast that with the US where any candidate to win must get 50% +1 voters of all the people who can vote, that forces our candidates to the middle of the ideology spectrum where most of the voters are. So they have to be more conservative than their European counterparts to get enough votes to win anything at all. \n\nUS is win or lose, in many European countries with multiple parties those smaller parties still can win something ",
"Simples - fear of communism. If they were any more left-wing, they'd get the full Joseph McCarthy treatment, because the American public has been subject to 70 years of teaching that communism is beyond evil. So any talk of nationalisation, taking away guns or anything like that is dismissed as gibberish spouted by the 'Reds under the bed'. \n\nAs a European, it's quite sad to look at. ",
"Strategically speaking, they just want to be to the left of the right-leaning politicians. That way they get support from the largest possible cross-section of the population. People vote for the candidate who is closest to their own point on the left-right spectrum. In the case of the Democratic Party in the US, they will get pretty much all left-wing votes if they stand just on the left side of the republicans (votes for 3rd parties can probably be considered negligible). However, if they stand too far to the left, they would lose some middle votes to the republicans (and many strategy-conscious republicans would likely shift to the left to fill that gap, thus gaining all of those middling voters). This is one reason the Democratic Party could not accept Bernie Sanders as a candidate. The US has a lot of religious conservatives, so the political middle is further to the right than many European countries.",
"I don't know if Europe is actually as far left on some issues as people think. For example, I think many European nations have far stricter regulations regarding abortion. In Germany for instance it is first trimester only, there's mandatory counseling, and a three day waiting period. That's conservative as fuck compared to US law where we just had a presidential candidate defend 3rd trimester abortions without context on national television.",
"*Europe and the European Union are not one and the same. Moreover the EU only includes ~50% of European states. #brexitRocks",
"The UK is still part of the continent and the union. Theresa May isn't triggering article 50 until late March and even then the negotiations take two years to strike up trade deals and all that good stuff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2xokgg
|
Can an 'anti-star' exist?
|
Can a star made of the anti-matter counterparts to normal stars exist?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xokgg/can_an_antistar_exist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp1zj8z",
"cp2clw4"
],
"score": [
39,
2
],
"text": [
"Can it exist? Yes, nothing about antimatter expressly forbids it from forming into a star. However, there is no evidence that one does exist in our universe and the prevalence of matter makes it highly unlikely that it would be concentrated enough to form into a star let alone survive as one for any length of time.",
"Of course it can exist. As long as it doesn't come into contact with matter. It is possible that somewhere in the universe antimatter exist naturally, but it is thought to be much more rare than matter, if it does exist at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8ga9do
|
Do galaxies spin like a vortex?
|
(I'm tasked with artistic license on this one) but do galaxies revolve like a vortex; faster towards the center? or is it a static 'bicycle wheel' rotation?
also if it is like a wheel, how come?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8ga9do/do_galaxies_spin_like_a_vortex/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dya295d",
"dya2uyo"
],
"score": [
34,
4
],
"text": [
"Since most of the visible matter in a galaxy is concentrated in the center, we would expect it to rotate like a vortex, with the velocity decreasing with radial distance. However, observations show that the variation of velocity with radial distance is fairly flat. In [this](_URL_0_) picture representative of a typical spiral galaxy, A is our prediction of velocity based on luminous mass, and B is the observed velocity. \n\n\nIt is this observation that leads us to believe that there is a large amount of matter in the outskirts of galaxies that we cannot see - known as dark matter.",
"The rotation of a galaxy is not rigid like a wheel, but more like a vortex, although there are major differences.\n\nYou can see different rotation curves in [this image](_URL_1_).\n\nThe green curve is how the rotation of a wheel would look like. The dark grey curve is the actual observed motion of galaxies. The galaxies' core moves pretty rigid (due to viscosity), but further outwards, motion is slowing down compared to that. It's interestingly enough not slowing down enough (blue line, similar but not identical to a vortex), leading to the proposition of dark matter.\n\nYou can learn more about the rotation curve in this [article](_URL_0_)\n\nYou might also be interested in [density waves](_URL_2_) in galaxies. Twisted elliptical orbits can result in the formation of the typical arms seen in many galaxies.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/GalacticRotation2.svg"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve",
"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_eqs.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory"
]
] |
|
3hfv6i
|
how do stds spread so easily to younger generations?
|
My reasoning is a bit hard to explain, but...you can't just magically contract stuff like HIV, you get it through sexual contact with someone who had it before. But if a younger group of people is only having sex among themselves, how does it get into a community and start spreading?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hfv6i/eli5_how_do_stds_spread_so_easily_to_younger/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu6yz69",
"cu6z7ec",
"cu6z81o",
"cu6z9wp",
"cu75yry"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The disease obviously works its way in from older people, which isn't hard to imagine. Young people tend to be fairly reckless about sex, so there's plenty of it going on in the youthful populations. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine a chain of individuals copulating with people a year or two older than themselves, then passing it around people of the same age.",
"Where is your cut-off for younger people? Anyone under 20? What if one of them has sex with a 21 year old? Anyone under 30? What if one of them has sex with a 31 year old?\n\nThe problem with your question is that the population doesn't fall into nice discreet age groups. My ex-wife is 4 years older than me, and my ex-girlfriend is 8 years younger than me. My ex-wife has now married someone who is 10 years older than her. Just in this small group of 4 people, there are age gaps that span a generation or more.",
"Why assume young people only have sex with other young people? I was the 17 year old with the BF in his 30's and was not the only one I knew to date older (though not THAT much older) I may have been a certain level of stupid for my dating habits but I was at least smart enough to be protected so no passing on of STI's from the older generation to the younger via my sex habits, but it remains a viable point that people don't simply date people their age. ",
"Some STDs/STIs can also be transmitted through intravenous drug use. HIV/AIDS spread this way, since you called out HIV.",
"I actually read about this once in a scientific/psychology book (I don't remember which one). Here's the correct answer: \nYounger people tend to have groups of friends, and because of the mutual respect for each other, they won't have sex with the same people. What I mean is that (hypothetically) if one of the guys in my group dates a girl, she's \"off limits\" to the rest of the group. \n\nOlder people, if they do get around, typically stick to the same group. People in an office might only have sex with other people in the same office.\n\n\nAll this to say, std's in younger people tend to travel from \"group\" to \"group,\" where as older people tend to stick to having sex with the same \"group\"\n\nhope this helped"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3xibfp
|
Why didn't jews and others affected by ww2 escape away from Europe, before nazis even invaded their countries or before the war started?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xibfp/why_didnt_jews_and_others_affected_by_ww2_escape/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy4v9hf",
"cy4vdzd",
"cy4zsj5"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The first part of the answer is that many did. A huge proportion of the pre-Nazi German-Jewish population emigrated before the war.\n\nI assume you're asking why they didn't all, though. For the most part, they didn't have much of anywhere to go. Palestine had British-imposed immigration quotas (a huge number of German Jews did emigrate to Palestine either within the quotas or illegally), and other countries were not willing to take in large refugee populations.\n \nIt's a bit strange to ask why people elsewhere in Europe didn't leave before the Nazis invaded. Sure, the Nazis had clear territorial ambitions for some areas. But even if you do have somewhere to go, leaving everything you know on the chance that the Nazis will overrun where you live would've been a pretty risky choice. Many German Jews left Germany but ended up in other European countries where the Nazis eventually invaded. Anne Frank's family is a fairly well-known example--her family was from Frankfurt, but moved to the Netherlands to find a less hostile country, only to have it be invaded by the Nazis eventually. Most of the Jews killed lived in Eastern Europe, not in Germany or anywhere Germany had obvious territorial designs on. The Nazi threat to them was only clear once the war started, by which time it was too late.\n\nWhile in hindsight it may seem obvious that the Nazis would conquer huge swaths of Europe, it wouldn't've been so to people in, say, 1935. Emigration can involve tremendous sacrifice, so expecting to have seem mass migration years in advance over the threat of the nearby facists someday successfully invading is unrealistic. Especially when they didn't have anywhere to go.",
"Believe me, Jews tried. However, there was a meeting of most nations of Europe, North and South America, to figure out how to respond to the problem of Jews seeking to escape the Nazis. It was called the Evian Converence, held in Evian, France, in July 1938. Most nations looked to take their cue from the United States. TLDR: all the countries (except the Dominican Republic) concluded they would accept no Jewish refugees beyond any normal levels of immigrants they already were accepting. The UK accepted 10,000 Jewish children, though. The US didn't even fill the low quota it had. During the war Eleanor Roosevelt begged FDR to admit some distinguished Jewish scientists and artists, which it did. People like Anne Frank's family (which was German) tried desperately to get away. Anne Frank's father's visa applications were rejected everywhere except to the Netherlands, so the family moved there. And then of course were captured and sent to concentration camps a few years later.\n\nA more dramatic example of how no one wanted to admit Jews to their country was seen in the so-called \"Voyage of the Damned\", when a ship full of Jewish refugees from Germany tried to find a country that would admit them. It did not go well, no one wanted them. And the people on the ship were those who were wealthier, better connected, with better resources. Imagine those who didn't have those advantages?",
"In addition to the other excellent responses here, it is also important to emphasize that even though a Jew-free Germany was one of the goals of the Third Reich, the German government instituted a number of policies that were counterproductive to this antisemitic goal. One of the fundamental and consistent tenets of National Socialism was that all Jewish wealth was both ill-gotten and deserved to belong to the Aryan *Volk*. The German government declared that Jewish assets were non-transferable upon leaving Germany and there were a number of \"fees\" and limits on the amount of money Jews could carry out of Germany. This systematic fleecing of German Jews' wealth limited their options for emigration. Relatively well-off families like the Franks or those with connections to America, which had a number of preexisting charitable networks, had the ability to emigrate. For Jews without these connections or wealth, emigrating out of Germany, let alone Europe, was an incredibly expensive proposition. \n\nAdded to this problem of emigration was the context of both the global Depression and an already chilly political attitude towards immigration in a lot of Western countries. The US had already enacted restrictions on immigration in 1924 and the Depression hardened attitudes towards accepting impoverished refugees. The Fascist adventurism in Spain, Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia as well as German rearmament and added a security threat to the economic arguments against immigration.This prompted new security and border controls, which made a valid passport vital for emigration. The Third Reich's position that German Jews were not German nationals and reluctance to issue passports made it much harder for Jews to navigate this system. War jitters could cause countries to renege on preexisting passport regulations, so that some Jewish refugees could fins that their paperwork was no longer in order upon arrival. This was one of the reasons why Shanghai was one of the major destinations for Jewish refugees. The Sino-Japanese War and the collapse of KMT control over the city meant that the Shanghai was one of the areas in the world with little to no passport control. \n\nIt is actually quite telling that despite the fiscal and bureaucratic impediments the Third Reich erected to Jewish emigration, many Jews did leave the country. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5rg66f
|
How do we define what culture ancients belonged to?
|
I realize This is more of a method discussion and i certainly don't expect a definitive answer here.
I've been toying around with an essay about Commonwealth Iceland, specifically my assumptions that Icelanders around 1000 were not Norwegians.
I have a hard time though defining excactly what these terms mean and if they are in any way fair to the people that i'm trying to write about. My question therefore is how we go about defining the ethnicity of ancient populations?
I've figured that the most obvious way is to imagine if you could ask the people at the time, what their nationality was.
There's a couple of obvious flaws with this. Nationality is a modern concept, people define themselves differently in different times, an anglo-saxon might have no way of defining himself from the viking raider except that they are pagan and he is not but to us today there are more important differences.
This method is also problematic in "modern" times, there's an infamous account of people in 1910's Greece who identified themselves as Romanoi or Roman. But they spoke Greek, retained little cultural ties to Rome, had presumably no blood relation to Rome. But who are we to say they were not Roman if they identified themselves as such?
But i Digress.
Are there other methods of defining ethnicity? are we stuck in the pagan/christian worldview and can make no assumptions about a culture of immigrants to a new country who share a tongue and cultural ties to a foreign kingdom? (I'm referring here to my main thesis of whether Icelanders were Norwegians in 1000 ad.)
I'm not articulating my questions very well. Perhabs there is some literature on this very very complex question someone could introduce me to?
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5rg66f/how_do_we_define_what_culture_ancients_belonged_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd75ev4"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I'm not an ethnic historian by any means, but working with questions of identification in the ancient world I hope I can share a thing or two that might be useful, as well as try to streamline my thoughts on the matter a bit. This is a very virulent matter in my line of work, and here the problem is compounded by the fact that we have so little in the way of people themselves telling us to which ethnicity they thought to belong themselves.\n\nMethodological approaches I myself have found useful come from two important inputs from anthropology and archaeology. \n**S. Jones in *The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing the past and present* (London - New York 1997)** has defined ethnicity as the \"aspect of a person's self-conceptualization which results from identification with a broader group *in opposition to others* on the basis of perceived cultural differentiation and/or common descen\", an ethnic group being \"any group ... who set themselves apart and/or are set apart by others with whom they interact or co-exist on the basis of *their perceptions* of cultural differentiation and/or common descent.\" [p. XII] For her, the concept of ethnicity focuses on how social and cultural processes intersect in the construction of an ethnic identity. In some social sciences, there is a distinction made between 'emic' and 'etic' labels, ascriptions that come from *within* the group ('We are Icelanders') vs. from *without* the group ('Those guys over there are Icelanders'). This is a bit of an inescapable conundrum, since there is no truly objective position here when those two conflict (which they often do, as you discovered).\n\nThis dichotomy is also apparent in Jones' definition, the perspective of outsiders can be as important as the perspective of insiders - there is the bonmot that 'empires create tribes' by the way they interact with foreign societies, they label them, group them together after certain criteria such as language or material culture, cutting through the way those peoples structured there relationship with each other. But in time, they may become the internalized and accepted framework by which these people view their ethnic relationships. In the words of **C. Morgan (in: T. Derks - N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic Construcs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition (Amsterdam 2009) pp. 11-36, here p. 12**), \"ethnic identities can arise both from insider perceptions and from the views of outsiders subsequently internalized.\" Opposition to the 'Other' is one of the key mechanism of ethnic self-identification ('Those guys over there are not like us and therefore no true Icelanders').\n\nOne work I found useful and which also approaches the problam from a very wide angle would be **Anthony Smith (The Cultural Foundations of Nations. Hierarchy, Covenant and Republic (Oxford 2008)**). He distinguished between two main uses of the concept of 'ethnicity', the first focusing on ethnic descent (factual or presumed, as f.e. the Romans in relation to Troy), the other a broader one, which he classifies into three levels:\n\n- ethnic categories. Constructs, often from an outside perspective, by which people get grouped together by shared elements of common culture living in a certain area, but who may lack a name of their own, or even a sense of community from the emic perspective.\n\n- ethnic networks. Ethnic networks show certain patterns of shared cultural practices, activities and relation, which have a name of their own and a myth of descent, but rarely any political union.\n\n- ethnic communities. These he defines as \"named and self-defined human populations with myths of common origins, shared historical memories, elements of common culture and a measure of ethnic solidarity\" [Smith 2008, 30-33].\n\nThinking about ethnicity by way of these 'ethnic communities' is I think very useful. It makes us focus on these shared elements that tie a group together and define the ethnicity both among the people themselves as well as from the perspective of an outsider. Importantly, to him, ethnic community requires a clear self-definition. \n\nIt is also useful to see ethnicity as one important aspect of identity. For identification of the individual, ethnicity plays an important aspect, but it is only one of several. Furthermore, it is also a process that is contingent on a certain context. For example, an trader from the Rhine-Neckar-region in the 2nd century A.D. might identify as German when he visits his native village and offers a votive altar to a 'German' god using the native name (but, at the same time, using the *very* Roman practice of setting up a votive altar at all, using the Latin alphabet and the traditional Latin formulae!), but abroad, buying, say, amber in the baltic, he might view himself (and will probably be seen by the locals) as a Roman citizen. Identification is a process, and identity changes over time. Identity in that sense is not something a person *has*, but something she *does*.\n\nIf we want to approach the question of how people identify themselves, or get identified by others, we have to look at the different ways identity gets expressed, the most important categories here (in which I follow **Fernandez-Götz**, who does a great job of summarizing the whole problem and different schools of thought in ***Identity of Power* (Amsterdam 2014)**, pp. 13-39 and which I'd really recommend) being \n\n* Gender\n* Age\n* Ethnicity\n* Religion\n* Social Status and Power\n* Profession\n\nOf importance here is then also the concept of intersectionality, to understand how these categories intersect and influence each other. Thing about how certain ethnicities get pushed into certain professions, and in turn may associate themselves with these professions, how religion can be (lamentably still) so incredibly important in separating ethnicities and so on. [On intersectionality, see f.e. **K. Davis, Intersectionality as buzzword, Feminist Theory 9, 1, 67-86**] Men will express their ethnicity different from women, for example in dress, ornamentation, coiffure and so on.\n\nThinking of ethnicity in that way, it becomes clear that there is a variety of factors we can look at along these different axes of identity as indicators of ethnicity.\nFrom a historians perspective, some of the most useful and accessible ones are:\n\n* Language - what language do people use, where, in which context (at home, at work? What language do they speak to each other, what language do they use when communicating with a government official? What do they write?)\n* Geographic area - where do they live? \n* Laws and Customs - Another important marker of ethnicity, and sometimes laws are helpful by defining who counts as an outsider.\n* Dress and Ornamentation, as well as other aspects of material culture. Iconography, different styles and different ways to make stuff (this crosses over into archaeology a lot)\n* Cultural practices: certain music associated with a group of people, 'ethnic' dances, plays, poems and ways of doing poetry.\n* A shared place of origin - factual or imagined.\n\nSo in that sense, you *can* approach the question of 'ethnicity' as an outsider, but you have to consider a lot of factors. To get back to your example, it is probably more helpful not to try to shoehorn the people you are working on in pre-defined slots of 'Norwegian' and 'Icelandic', but to take a look at what techniques and practices these people used to identify themselves, or how they got identified by others, and how ethnicity played a role in that.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
267rtg
|
Mohammed's view on Greek philosophy
|
Hello:
Several years ago I was watching a show on Islam on the Discovery Channel/History Channel. The show quoted Mohammed as saying, something about the dangers of Greek philosophy. After considerable searching on my own, I never found any such quote. Does anyone have any insight into this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/267rtg/mohammeds_view_on_greek_philosophy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chq4gnh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Perhaps the show was referencing Muhammad Al-Ghazali? Not the 20th century scholar but the medieval theologian known more commonly by his kunya Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. \n\nThere are not quotes from the Prophet Muhammad about Greek philosophy. The controversies about Greek philosophy arose centuries after his death. Furthermore, had such a saying existed, the critics of Greek philosophical influence would have quoted it over and over again. The fact that that didn't happen is a pretty strong indication that there was no such quote. Perhaps the show confused a scholar or theologian named Muhammad (very common name) with the Prophet Muhammad."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4w8wbn
|
when we say a food makes our body more alkaline, what does that mean exactly and why is it healthy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w8wbn/eli5_when_we_say_a_food_makes_our_body_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d650inr",
"d650mby",
"d650syn",
"d6511jg",
"d651tcw"
],
"score": [
11,
36,
26,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"The idea is this. Your body has an \"acidity\" (commonly called pH) that is based on diet, stress levels, activity, etc, and the like. Different foods will effect your pH differently. Different diseases can't exist in \"low acid\" environments. \n\nThat's the pH argument in a nutshell. \n\nIt's important to note, though, that it's backed up by absolutely zero reliable science. ",
"It's pseudo-science. Your body very tightly regulates the pH of your blood in a narrow range through a variety of mechanisms. Your diet has little effect on your blood pH. Even if it did, the promoters of this fad diet make claims like lemons make your body more alkaline, despite being a very acidic fruit.",
"It's complete baloney.\n\npH represents the amount of H+ hydrogen ions dissolved in water: if there are lots, it's an acid, if there are few, it's alkaline. It's almost impossible to change your body's pH, and you wouldn't want to. Your body has a bunch of [chemical controls](_URL_1_) to keep your blood's pH between 7.35 and 7.45. If it gets out of this range, you will get sick: if it goes lower than 6.8 or higher than 7.8, you will die.\n\n_URL_2_\n_URL_0_",
"It's fantastic science that my Shaman turned me onto. It basically means that your body's Chi receptors become more organic and *only then* can you begin to actively rid your body of gluten, ultimately making your subconscious COMPLETELY non-GMO so your life can be fair-trade. ",
"There are a great many non-scientific schools of thought that have been exploited by people for money, either as fake experts or companies producing products and I'm a afraid the body's Ph cannot be altered by eating food. Unfortunately we live in a world where lies are presented to us as facts in order to get your money - food fads sell books and DVDs and useless supplements. A really good example of this is \"Detox\" dieting. There is no such thing, it is completely discredited, the body produces metabolic exhaust products that it sweeps up in the kidneys, if it didn't you would die quickly. Eating 25 lemons cannot improve this system. When a food scientist called a company selling detox-tea and asked them to explain what toxins they actually meant, they were unable to tell him because they do not exist. \nIf it's not science, then I'm afraid it's not science. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/PH+level",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis#The_extracellular_fluid_pH_homeostat",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidosis"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
6bnb07
|
[Physics] If matter can't move faster than light, how did the inflationary epoch of the big bang make the universe much bigger than one lightsecond in radius in one second?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6bnb07/physics_if_matter_cant_move_faster_than_light_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhp05rn"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Matter can't move through the coordinates of spacetime with a velocity of c, but that speed limit does not apply to the changing geometry of spacetime itself. Inflation is not the spreading of matter through space, rather it's the early expansion of spacetime itself. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
23c6pc
|
is sarcasm universal?
|
Do all known languages have some form of sarcasm, and if so do they express it in analagous ways? Is there any sort of research into the origin and evolution of sarcasm?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23c6pc/eli5_is_sarcasm_universal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgvk31b",
"cgvls48",
"cgvm64l",
"cgvm70o",
"cgvm79p",
"cgvmkiu",
"cgvml18",
"cgvmplb",
"cgvmrpo",
"cgvn1bc",
"cgvnf73",
"cgvngu3",
"cgvnpbh",
"cgvoc5k",
"cgvq97b",
"cgvr0e0",
"cgvsu0u",
"cgvsuef",
"cgvtw65",
"cgvx2m7",
"cgvxcvx",
"cgw5zjq"
],
"score": [
24,
5,
6,
14,
2,
23,
53,
18,
17,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
9,
3,
3,
2,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"As far as i know, the Amish are a type of culture that is unfamiliar with sarcasm.",
"No. East Asians don't know sarcasm and will not understand it, unless they're acquaited with western culture.",
"In south Brazil I often ran into people that did not understand sarcasm.",
"Having sarcasm should be a common capability for all languages. After all, if you are able to lie in a language, then you can definitely make sarcastic remarks.",
"I dunno....IS IT?? \n \nOn the serious side, I've travelled in asia quite a bit, and found the Chinese culture to be very devoid of sarcasm (hope that doesn't sound racist, it's just an observation). \nThat doesn't mean, however, they can't be mean or disparaging. They just do it much more directly than we do in Western culture.",
"Obviously I can only speak for the languages i'm familiar with, but English, Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi, Arabic and Spanish all have it.",
"Linguists differ on this. Some say it is universal and some say it's not. As someone who's been studying philosophy constantly for 4 years though, it's all a bunch of crap. The most discussed and referenced theories don't even delineate between sarcasm and irony. It's not that they looked at it and said, \"hey, these are functionally the same thing\". They just straight up don't try and make a distinction. It's also littered with a bunch of other issues that people just keep writing about, but that's neither here not there.\n\nSo, the real answer is, from what I know of sarcasm, any language that allows for different intonation has sarcasm. Those and Chinese. Chinese is a slightly different form of sarcasm, but it definitely is sarcasm.",
"People say that Americans aren't great at understanding sarcasm. That might just be a thing we say in the UK, though. ",
"I'm American and have been living in Thailand for 19 years. I am fairly proficient in Thai. And I will say this:\n\nThais are some of the most sarcastic people I have ever experienced. Much of their sense of humor is based on sarcasm.\n\nIn Thai, they call it \"phra-chote\" (ประชด), which means sarcastic.\n\nSo, while I can't say if sarcasm is universal, it definitely exists in the Thai language and discourse.\n\nUseful link [here](_URL_0_). Look up the word ประชด.",
"how the fuck is this an ELI5 question? ELI5 is a request to explain something which is normally complex and baffling (and long), and condense and simplify it without jargon.\n",
"In dutch, it does also exist.\n\nI don't think it has anything to do with the language in itself though, it's a pure cultural thing.",
"I think in this case it makes more sense to ask the question as to whether sarcasm is universally practiced across cultures instead of whether the mechanics of different languages make sarcasm possible.\n\nJust because there is the mechanical possibility for a certain type of communication to be carried out in a given language doesn't mean that it will be. \n\nI'm going to go with a lot of people here and bring up Chinese again. I live in China, and concur that sarcasm really is not really a thing here (at least in the way we understand it in the west.) Of course you technically can make facetious statements in Chinese, but people are generally not culturally accustomed to communicating that way. I've seen it lead to some really awkward moments from time to time.",
"the portuguese are nearly as sarcastic as the english",
"I went to Germany on an exchange program and they take everything extremely literally. I think it comes from their very serious culture. I'm used to America where sarcasm is known, so when my exchange partner said the closest german ice cream shop was an hour away, when we had school in half an hour I said \"I don't see why that matters\" his whole family started telling at me...",
"I lived/volunteered in Guatemala for a month a few years ago. We were told not to use sarcasm, because the children we were working with would not understand it. Telling a child \"he's in trouble\" just for fun/sarcasm/play would cause the child to actually worry. \n\nSince then, I've worked with a number of spanish-speaking people who DO understand sarcasm and use it. I'm not certain if it's regional (not per language, but per country/region), or if perhaps our movies have affected others' use of sarcasm....",
"I have a funny story about sarcasm transcending languages. \n\nI work at a company that's 60% deaf. My favorite deaf guy here is from India, so his first language is Hindi, then whichever form of sign language they use there (sorry I don't know), then American Sign Language, and finally English.\n\nThe poor man had no idea what sarcasm was when he got here. He was so confused that we would say something that isn't true and then laugh at it. He's trying so hard to pick it up - his new favorite thing to do is to come in in the morning and sign \"Good night\" to me instead of \"Good morning\".\n\nIt's adorable and I love him and I'm so impressed with his ability and desire to adopt the intricacies of each language he learns. ",
"I work with Russians. Absolutely not.",
"No, only you have sarcasm.",
"Children don't understand it. If something is awful and I say, oh that is lovely. They are like why bobo-le-chimp did you say that was lovely? It is not lovely! So I think it is simply something you gradually understand. So yeah maybe some languages are better at conveying sarcasm but in the end anyone can understand it with enough experience.",
"I don't know. *Is* it?",
"NOOO! NOONE KNOWS WHAT SARCASM IS!",
"From my own experience: I was enjoying a holiday in Riga, Latvia and stayed with my mom's best friend, who also had a daughter the same age as me. One night I hung out with said daughter and her friend from school, and we watched a terrible movie (something something cruise ship ocean guns - idfk). Anyways after the movie ended the two girls raved about how great of a movie it was, especially the acting (which was terrible). Then they asked me if I liked the movie. Not wanting to sound like a party pooper I said \"Well... no... not really, but I probably just didn't get it.\"\n\nAfter a moment of bewildered silence they exchanged looks and then burst out laughing. In between guffaws my hostess seriously asked, \"Do you know what sarcasm is?\"\n \ntl;dr - my inability to discern sarcasm led Latvian hostess to question whether Americans also employed sarcasm"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thai2english.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2cdndx
|
how can a website like _url_0_ still exist, when google has a virtual monopoly as a search engine?
|
I can't imagine it's cheap to maintain/advertise for a website like Ask. How are they still up and what are they trying to achieve?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cdndx/eli5how_can_a_website_like_askcom_still_exist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjehwgk",
"cjenky1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A few thoughts that came to my mind.\n\n_URL_1_ has it's \"famous\" toolbar. \nIt's their way of gaining attention. It makes _URL_0_ your default search engine and people who don't know better just keep it this way.\nWhich means that they still get thousands of search tasks.\n\nBing is owned by microsoft. At least it is the search engine on the xbox360. Don't know if its on other microsoft hardware too. But they sure get their search tasks too.\n\nYahoo is still widely used as email adresses. As far as I know they also have a toolbar.\n\nThey still have thousands of search requests daily, just less than google. \n",
"Because old people."
]
}
|
[
"Ask.com"
] |
[] |
[
[
"aks.com",
"Ask.com"
],
[]
] |
|
2b19gt
|
How does blood get to every cell?
|
Do blood vessels get small and numerous enough to directly supply cells? Or does it work like a p2p network with blood cells going between cells.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2b19gt/how_does_blood_get_to_every_cell/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj0tnpe",
"cj0ztxg",
"cj10d7n",
"cj186xf",
"cj18ye9"
],
"score": [
266,
2,
26,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes blood vessels can branch out untill they are so small that they are approximately the diameter of a single red blood cell ( so called capillary vessels). Most cells are not in direct contact with actual blood, but the \"liquid part\" of the blood with nutrients and oxygen is kind of squeezed out of the blood vessels between the cells because of the blood pressure and becomes the interstitial fluid. This is just the name we give to the fluid between the cells. The red blood cells never leave the bloodvessels. White blood cells however frequently leave the bloodvessels but for a whole other reason. They are immune cells and they enter the space between cells to combat any threats such as bacteria.\n\nSource: i'm a biologist, this is what i remember from my courses (no expert in this field however)\n\nEdit: corrected a misplaced word",
"Most blood cells aren't directly touching somatic (body) cells. There's a layer of fluid in between blood vessels and your tissues that delivers nutrients to the cells by transferring them from the blood. Wastes from metabolic processes like cellular respiration e.g. CO2 are also transferred from cells to blood via interstital fluid",
"Hi. Thanks for your question.\n\nBlood vessels branch and get increasingly small as they extend from the heart to the peripheral circulation. To get an idea of this, I'll follow the branching from the heart to the legs. Along this path, the blood flows from the left ventricle, into the aorta, which gives off many branches. The branches that supply the legs are called the iliac arteries, which further divide into the femoral artery branches, tibial and fibular artery branches, the dorsalis pedis, and then finally the plantar arch, which gives off digital arteries, which branch into unnamed arterioles and capillaries.\n\nThe mean intraluminal diameter (inside portion) of the aorta in the chest is about 30mm (just over an inch!). Iliac arteries are about half that diameter. The dorsalis pedis intraluminal diameter is about 1/17th that size. The terminal branches of this system, the capillaries, are microscopic--about 5 micrometers (~350 times smaller)--and actually smaller than the diameters of individual red blood cells. Fortunately, healthy red blood cells are flexible, so they don't get stuck under normal conditions.\n\nNevertheless, there is not necessarily an even 1:1 distribution of branches to cells. Cells in a tissue are supplied by diffusion--in the tissue, metabolic waste is at higher concentration, so it diffuses toward the blood supply and lymphatic system, and in the blood/lymph, oxygen and other nutrients are in higher concentrations, so they diffuse toward the tissue. Diffusion is also affected by pressure in the tissue, which is one reason why venous drainage is important to maintain circulation.\n\nIn tissues with high oxygen demand, like skeletal muscle, there are many capillaries. In tissues with a lower oxygen demand, capillaries are less dense. Fat, for example, has a very low density of capillaries. Here is a [histological image of skin that labels capillaries (rehosted from the University of Marburg).](_URL_0_)\n\nCapillary branching is driven in part by hypoxia. Hypoxic tissue releases signaling factors (HIF1a, VEGF, PDGF and many others) that guide vessel branching to form new capillaries to supply the tissue.\n",
"Yes to your first hypothesis--at any given moment about 5-8% of your body's blood is saturated in capillary vessels (they're wide enough to a single red blood cell). In addition to being numerous enough that their net cross-sectional area exceeds that of your other blood vessels (lowering your blood pressure), they are very permeable to gas exchange via simple diffusion.\n\nOxygenated blood will readily have O2 drift out to cells who have a relatively low concentration, in exchange for CO2 and other waste that exist in relatively high concentration outside of the blood for removal.\n\nTl;dr: Blood doesn't touch every cell, but the stuff you need in/out of circulation can pretty much drift in/out according to a concentration gradient.\n\n",
"As a side note to what's already been said, cardiac muscle tissue is a very interesting case in which each cardiac myocyte is directly neighboring a capillary. So in a sense, each cell is fed directly by a capillary. This is due to the high metabolic demands of heart muscle. So when you think about ischemia and infarction (coronary artery disease, heart attacks, etc.), you can start to imagine how damaging it is to the heart tissue and how rapidly it begins to die when its blood supply is cut off.\n\nSource: Medical student (lectures by Fred Schoen, attending in cardiac pathology at BWH)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/NO4xTfc"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
8x421t
|
why is infrared light used to keep food warm when uv light is higher energy?
|
E: I'm curious at why infrared is used in particular and not other higher energy wavelengths.. Also I guess since you're all here, why can't we go "down the scale" to keep our food warm?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8x421t/eli5_why_is_infrared_light_used_to_keep_food_warm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e20ndxm",
"e20rymz",
"e20st31"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"UV light can cause sunburns and gradual eye damage to people working with it. And infrared is already plenty powerful enough.",
"You're confusing something. UV light is higher energy *per unit* only. If you put the same amount of energy into producing ir light, you'll get the same amount of energy as with UV. There will just be 'more light' with IR, fulfilling the same purpose.\n\nAs for why IR: UV can start to get into ionizing radiation, which definitely causes cancer, and even the spectrum that isn't ionizing is associated with causing cancer.",
"Theoretically you could cook food with EM energy of any frequency of sufficient intensity, but that doesn't mean it's useful or efficient. Microwave ovens use, you guessed it, microwaves, which are lower energy than infrared. Microwaves can heat food well because they're the right energy to excite waters, fats, and oils in food. Gamma and X-rays would simply pass right through the food, ionizing it but not heating it very much, not to mention flooding the room with deadly ionizing radiation. Visible and UV light would be mostly reflected and super inefficient."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2s3n78
|
to prevent water and shock damage, why can't the electronic components within mobile phones just be encapsulated in an airtight rubber or plastic coating/mould?
|
Why are phones still manufactured using screws and glue seals when they could just be integrated into a rugged airtight mould, and just using wireless charging for charging and Bluetooth for headphones etc?
Edit: Spelling.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s3n78/eli5_to_prevent_water_and_shock_damage_why_cant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnlwsiw",
"cnlxdpd",
"cnly3b1",
"cnlz290",
"cnm338p",
"cnm6d76"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
2,
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The cost of doing so exceeds the off chance you are going to drop your phone in the toilet.\n\nAlso, since most people get a new phone every two years or so, it doesn't make that much sense to invest in durability.",
"I don't think most manufacturers care much about durability... the more durable the product the higher the initial cost, and the less they sell overall because it would last longer and wouldn't need replacing.",
"There is a company you can send your phone to that does exactly that :\n\n_URL_0_",
"Wear of the material and difficulty molding it would likely be the downsides. There would also the difficulties of battery replacement, sim card access and heat dissipation.\n\nConsidering that Sony already makes a phone certified to spend half and hour under water, the issue seems to be covered already.",
"It's called \"conformal coating\" and works fine. When it's thick it's called \"potting\". \n\nIt makes heat management more difficult. Connectors are a problem. anywhere you have a gap between \"needs a coating\" and \"can't be coated\" you have a problem. It makes repair difficult or impossible.\n\nIf you could convince people to entirely abandon card slots, buttons, and speakers (switching to piezo speakers and mics) waterproofing a phone wouldn't be that big a deal. ",
"Because users still want plugs and sockets for SD cards, data, power and audio; and, try as we might, we still can't seem to get rid of the concept of sim cards."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.liquipel.com/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4wkh6z
|
What is the basis of Suetonius being called, by many, a tabloid journalist of ancient Rome? What differentiates him as a source from other, more respectable ones?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4wkh6z/what_is_the_basis_of_suetonius_being_called_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d67x9uy"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"First of all, Suetonius isn't any worse a source than any we have for ancient Rome. Even the bit that give him this poor reputation are terribly useful.\n\nThe accusation of Suetonius being little more than a tabloid is common enough I wasn't able to track down the origin of that comment, but where it occurs it occurs with comments like Suetonius focuses on personal lives and passes along rumors.\n\nFor an ancient Roman historian (as you see, for instance, in the preface to Livy's history, and in Sallust's monographs) \"history\" is supposed to be salutary; reading the praise the great deeds of men of the past are supposed to inspire the reader to imitate those deeds and win such praise themselves, or provide a refuge from whatever political problems the reader has with the memory of ancient virtue. Suetonius hardly does this when he writes about Vespasian shitting himself on his deathbed.\n\nThe fact that Suetonius doesn't live up to the expectations of the ancient genre of History shouldn't prejudice him or his evidence though; in the first place Suetonius isn't an historian. He's a biographer. He is interested in the personal lives of his subjects. He writes thematically, not chronologically. According to the OCD, this interest in theme and in personal lives instead of politics and war is a feature of a Hellenized elite culture. So, he's doing something completely different, and people who are bothered by this are bothered because they're expecting Suetonius to be Cato the Elder, which he isn't and he doesn't want to be.\n\nSuetonius does use a lot of rumors and has information that probably couldn't be corroborated even in the ancient world. He had access to the Julio-Claudian archives, including private papers. But he tells us when he's using these things, mostly, and he tells us when he uses rumors. \n\nFor rumors, well, they're tricky if you read them carelessly, but for some things, like the accusation that Caesar and Octavian had a sexual relationship, they are really illuminating, because we see the accusation was made by Antony's partisans, and hence have an idea of what a Roman political smear campaign would look like.\n\nThe private papers give us a peek at early imperial administration. Unless you are so skeptical a reader that you think Suetonius is lying when he says he has such-and-such a letter.\n\nJust because he's not an \"historian\" in the ancient sense doesn't mean he has bad information or is somehow \"less\" than what we want. If you take him on his own terms - as a hellenized biographer - and pay attention when he tells you something is a rumor, he's fine.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
29o7xs
|
why can i still smell poop when it's totally submerged?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29o7xs/eli5_why_can_i_still_smell_poop_when_its_totally/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cimujtt",
"cimwjyk",
"cimyl5o"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can't. You smell it from your asshole, from it's trip between your asshole and the water and from the fartiness that snuck out during said poop. If you could smell stuff through water you're entire house would smell like the sewer.",
"After you drop a deuce, what you're smelling are the shit particles dispersed into the air during the shit-logs travel from your asshole to the toilet. It is a violent event, relatively speaking, for your ass and the shit involved, so more than normal amount of particles will be kicked up than if it just laid there. \n\nIn addition, some of the smell can make its way through the water, if it hasn't gone down too deep. Yes, your asshole can smell too, but hopefully it will just be momentary and easily remedied by wiping and covering it with several layers of clothing.",
"We all know you wrote and submitted this while pooping."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2thxda
|
why is every other version of windows terrible?
|
This has been a pattern for over 15 years: 98 was good, ME was garbage, XP was great, Vista sucked, 7 is good, 8 was crap, and now I'm hearing that the next version is going to be good. This pattern seems too consistent to be pure chance, is it some strange marketing strategy they have or what?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2thxda/eli5_why_is_every_other_version_of_windows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnz79tq",
"cnz7ae6",
"cnz9pvb"
],
"score": [
4,
21,
11
],
"text": [
"Microsoft's main clients are governments and big corporations. Basically they have contracts that make them release a new OS every 2 years, no matter if it makes sense or not. \n\nWith that said, I don't think your analysis is accurate.\n\nComing from a programmer:\n\n98 was good, ME was garbage, 2000 was the most stable windows ever, XP sucked until SP2, when it became stable, Vista sucked, 7 was awesome, 8 is weird, 8.1 allows you to disable metro and it's better than 7. ",
"I don't get why people say 8 is crap. Is it because of the Metro interface? It takes less than 1 min to get old start menu back. When people say \"but you shouldn't have to install something to make it like that!. They then state they use Chrome or Firefox....\n\nWindows 8 is a great OS. I used to have to reboot my Windows 7 install once a week or so due to slow down, never had to do that on Windows 8. Games seem to run far batter as well. \n\nAlso, Win 98 was crap. Win 98 SE was good.",
"They aren't. You're ignoring all the ones that don't fit in your pattern. What about 95, 2000, the whole NT line before 2000 (which XP is based on, so it makes more sense to include it than it does to include 98 and ME)?\n\nServer editions? Home theater editions?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ssqex
|
How do specific organs (eyes, wings, etc) evolve slowly over time?
|
Basically, it seems like these organs would not function properly if they were not fully formed, thus reducing that creatures chance of survival. But, to genetically mutate fully formed and functioning organs in one generation seems like a big stretch. Any answers?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ssqex/how_do_specific_organs_eyes_wings_etc_evolve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0une4",
"ce0vdeo",
"ce0vvye",
"ce0zl83"
],
"score": [
2,
27,
13,
6
],
"text": [
"If you for example look at the eye there are a lot of worms that can only sense if there is light or not, with very simple mechanisms. It's not too hard to imagine that this is the mechanisms that would one day be our eyes. You can find examples like this with all the organs and micromechanisms in the human body.",
"Eyes.\n\nStep one. Some light sensitive proteins or molecules evolve. These are coupled to other proteins or molecules and are used to help regulate your day night cycle. There's a substantial evolutionary advantage to being able to behave differently in the day to the night.\n\nStep 2. This pigment is concentrated in a specific spot. It is coupled to cilia or flagellum to allow movement.\n\n_URL_3_\n\nThe eyespot allows the cell to migrate towards or away from light, giving it a substantial evolutionary advantage. Over time they evolve impulses that give them evolutionarily advantageous reactions to light.\n\nStep 3. Similar things happen with animals using variants of these pigments randomly distributed, a patch of cells that are light sensitive, connected to cilia or neurons allowing movement.\n\n_URL_2_\n\nStep 4. A hole/ cup shape evolves, allowing the sensing of the direction of light. This allows more fine tuned reactions to light.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThis is called an eye spot.\n\nStep 5. The hole narrows, and fills with liquid, allowing better vision.\n\nStep 6. A lens/iris forms over the opening, allowing control over the amount of light you let in.\n\nEvery stage is more useful to the animal.\n\nOn wings, there are numerous competing theories, but let me offer a couple.\n\nFeathers or a membrane evolve. This allows them to run up hills, climb trees, or escape predators faster. It may serve as insulation. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nEvery step of evolution would allow them to climb steeper objects more quickly, or serve better as insulation.",
" It's important to note that it is not simply the structure of an organ that can change over time but also its function. A wing for example could have started as an arm, grown wider to help stabilize running, grown thinner to help make jumps or gliding etc.\n\n Also it should be considered that just because an organ is inefficient or even non-functional it doesn't follow that it is actively detrimental to the creatures survival. As such features that have been redundant for a species for several generations may prove useful later on in the evolutionary chain.",
"Consider this, our eyes change from person to person. Someone might have color blindness, someone might have some form of diminished color perception relative to others, and some people might have a form of tetrachromacy which means they have 4 types of cones receptive to a different color wavelength. \n\nEverything we do comes at a cost to how much energy it takes. Does it take energy to maintain these systems, does it take energy to build them in the first place? If we have a system that is unused, and a genetic aberration causes it to not get built in the first place, in a situation where energy is very limited, an individual who doesn't maintain that system is more likely to thrive. Likewise, if the change creates a system that makes individual more likely to thrive, they will pass down that gene. \n\nIt's hard to think about humans, because we really need a scarcity of resources for evolution to 'work', and that's not something we're very familiar with. A person who is genetically color blind in the distant past might have had difficulties identifying food or hunting. This could lead to death before being able to pass down the gene. Now, however, hunting is unimportant, and so the gene passes on or doesn't. \n\nIf you're talking about developing new organs, you can't think of it like a human without eyes all of a sudden getting eyes. Eyes are very old, and were originally basically photosensitive proteins exposed to a region of the organism where they can receive light. These existed in single cell organisms. As organisms grew and specialized, these proteins got locally concentrated in certain cells and became basically photosensors, but might be able to tell an organism something like which direction is towards the surface of the water (as opposed to a single cell organism which just knows whether it's bright or not).\n\nOnce these photosensors exist, and migrate to their positions, then it's just a matter of how they exist. They change shape to better focus the light, they fill with fluid to work better on land, lenses grow to focus light etc. These are all very gradual changes. Certainly a human without eyes would be blind, and it wouldn't likely end up that some weird mutation that gave us minor photoperception in a few cells would make enough difference to persist. However evolution isn't the spontaneous development of new organs, it's slow and makes minor modifications to what we already have.\n\nTake some science fiction for instance. Say there's a nuclear war, and the world becomes devastated, many places are irradiated so badly they will be deadly for millions of years. Our technology gets reset and mere survival is difficult. Over time one community of survivors develops the ability to see ionizing radiation. A new cell in their eye is able to detect it. At first is manifests itself as a weird uncomfortable aura, it's not quite a color, but it's visually perceptible. You can't tell where it's coming from, but as you get nearer to radioactive fallout it's visible and uncomfortable. You're a bit of an oddity, but kind of useful in your community. You pass this down to two of your children. It's a reasonable small community and the land is harsh, so eventually this gene is very prevalent in the community. Over many generations, little differences are noticed, some children are born with such sensitivity that they can't bear the perception sunlight, other children start to exhibit the ability to start to detect the direction of these phenomena, to the point that rather than just seeing a color when they are near, they start to see a more vivid aura in the direction of the source. Those sensitive cells have been shielded and distributed in such a way that the brain can interpret the different signals to give an idea of direction. Many many more generations and eventually these people can see this radiation just like another color, though a little less precisely, and it's quite painful when it reaches a certain intensity. \n\nThe other issue with evolution is that we underestimate the timeframes. When we think of humanity we think 2000, 4000 years maybe. We think of the people in the stone age being less evolved than we are now. But the time between the end of the stone age and now is probably about 1% of the amount of time since our last evolutionary where we became the species we are now, which is still more than a million years younger than homo erectus who was a very human like creature. \n\nThe short answer is nothing mutates fully formed and functioning in one generation. It's a lot of little stretches which all either positively contribute or don't negatively contribute. The eye senses light levels, which is better than nothing, then it senses direction, which is better than not, then it can distinguish forms, then it can function in and out of water, then it can more clearly distinguish forms, then it can distinguish colors, etc. \n\nBirds come from reptiles, and their feathers are essentially scales which had mutated to essentially not hold themselves together. Evolution is without intention though, there was no reason for this, but these new feathered scales could be used to insulate nests and would have been visually differentiating to others. If there was no negative consequence to this, and it helped protect young, then this trait would be passed down. As it was a positive trait, mates who were inclined to appreciate the expression of that gene would have more reproductive success, and the more feathers the animals had, the better, until it started to have a negative impact on them. With the feathers came other adaptations to protect the feathers, such as different joints to keep them from dragging on the ground. As treetops are safer places to survive than the ground, feathered birds could glide while jumping between treetops, limiting their need to be on dangerous ground while still letting them find food and protect their young. Jumping further turns into gliding which causes the frame to get lighter, which enables some amount of power from beating these proto wings, which eventually leads to flying. \n\nIf you consider something like anchironis it is kind of in a weird place. It's can't really fly, but it's got flight feathers enough to make it awkward on the ground. If the precursor was a ground running animal who spent a lot of time in the trees, then the fast running legs would likely still persist but longer feathers would make it better in the trees. As those feathers grew, it would make life harder on the ground, but easier in the trees. If it was preferable to stay mostly in the trees, this would be unimportant. It doesn't fly, it doesn't run. It can probably run pretty well, but not well enough for that to be it's only trick, but not a lot of other creatures are well adapted to gliding from tree to tree, so it's safe to develop those traits. The more time they can spend in the trees, the less important how fast they can run is. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0308_images.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigment_spot_ocellus",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euglena_diagram.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
ikn5b
|
What is the significance of the ability to create "artificial life" in the lab and how far away are we from lab grown organ transplants being common procedures?
|
[Artificial life created in lab.](_URL_1_)
[First fully lab-grown organ successfully transplanted.](_URL_0_)
What other implications in medicine or even other fields are there for these kinds of experiments? Is the future of this type of research even something we can reliably predict, or are there simply too many variables involved?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ikn5b/what_is_the_significance_of_the_ability_to_create/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c24ix6u"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The two articles you've linked to have no science in common with one another. I'm not knowledgeable about the organ transplant link, so I'll let someone else comment on it.\n\nThe Venter \"artificial life\" is hugely symbolic in the same sense that urea was first created from inorganic compounds, showing that the same laws of nature governs both the living and the non-living. For sure it's a large undertaking; it has, however, for all practical intents and purposes, no consequences to scientific progress. Nothing is surprising, and AFAIK what this \"total synthesis\" can achieve, there are already other molecular biology methods that can do the same function.\n\nWhat is far more interesting to me (but not to mainstream press?) is this [recent paper](_URL_0_) about using selection pressure to force bacteria to use an unnatural DNA base in place of thymine. This research is scientifically important in that it's pushing into the unknown. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/first-fully-lab-grown-organ-successfully-transplanted/39733/",
"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3dbad5ca-6431-11df-8618-00144feab49a.html#axzz1RZiqCcrD"
] |
[
[
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201100535/abstract"
]
] |
|
36cqz5
|
what is vsync?
|
How does it affect my in game performance and/or graphic card? Does it turning it on or off would improve my gaming performance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36cqz5/eli5_what_is_vsync/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crcsv0o",
"crcswnl",
"crcsyng"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It doesn't affect performance, it actually limits your framerate. See, your monitor runs at a fixed refresh rate (usually 60hz), and if the framerate goes over the refresh rate it causes the picture to have tearing errors. Vsync limits your framerate to whatever your monitors refresh rate is to stop that.\n\n\nYou should tun it on.",
"Vsync is telling your game wait for the refresh rate of your screen. So if your screen is set at 60hz your game will only render 60fps. When Vsync is off it will try to render as many as it can.\n\nThe downside with vsync is that it can lead to input lag. The downside with having it turned off is [screen tearing](_URL_0_), which is when the screen updates in the middle of rendering a a new image. (mostly visible when turning fast)",
"Vsync is the setting to synchronise your GPU with the monitor.\n\nLet's suppose your monitor refreshes the screen 50 times per second. (This is fairly typical.) But you've got a really powerful GPU that can draw 100 frames per second.\n\nWhat happens is that the GPU runs ahead of the monitor. By the time the monitor has finished refreshing, another frame has been created.\n\nThis will cause one of two things to happen:\n\n1. Half the frames the GPU draws will be thrown away, and the effort wasted.\n\n2. You'll get screen tearing: the top half of the screen will show one frame, and the bottom half will show a different frame.\n\nWhen Vsync is on the GPU waits for the monitor to refresh before sending another frame to it, instead of just constantly chucking frames at the monitor and hoping for the best.\n\nUsually you should leave Vsync on. Very occasionally it can cause some issues, though, which is why you have the option to turn it off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://mygaming.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Screen-Tearing.png"
],
[]
] |
|
1qhuj7
|
Was there a Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation similar to the French resistance of Nazi occupation in WW2? Did they make any significant headway?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qhuj7/was_there_a_chinese_resistance_to_japanese/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdcz3rm",
"cdd38iz"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"I'm sure someone will give a better answer than this, but the short answer is that Japan didn't really control much of the interior of China, and actually operated as is common up to the modernday which was controlling cities and (attempted) control of roads/railways. This is a similar policy that the US and soviets took in Afghanistan for example. If you compare that to France, particularly before the Vichy regime was toppled, the Wehrmacht was in pretty much total control of the northern and western parts of the country, and relied on collaborating forces. Chinese resistance could be called more organized because Japan simply stopped trying to control the country side, while French resistance would have been organized around smaller cells operating independently.",
"Hello! I unfortunately can't give a complete answer at the moment, as I don't have my books on me; but yes, there was indeed organized resistance against the Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese War and even earlier during the invasion of Manchuria. Given China's own political disunity and the sheer geographic scale of operations, these resistance movements came in many different shapes, sizes, and loyalties. Both the Nationalists (KMT) and the Communists (CCP) tried to coordinate these forces (sometimes coming into conflict with each other as a result), though many were really no more than smugglers and bandits. Later, when the United States entered the war, OSS agents parachuted into occupied territories to help train and arm the guerrillas. \n\nAs far as I can tell, resistance proved more effective in the countryside, where the Japanese army simply could not be everywhere at once, than in the cities, with attacks being more isolated. One Chinese veteran once explained to me how he and his companions had literally gone \"underground\"; they were operating out of a network of tunnels dug underneath a Japanese-occupied village (when the enemy wasn't watching, the villagers supplied the resistance with food and intelligence). They were fortunate to have escaped notice, as Japanese retribution could be extremely brutal. For instance, following the Doolittle Raid, and after Chinese civilians and soldiers had helped the crashed pilots reach Allied lines, the Japanese army proceeded to slaughter some 250,000 Chinese in a reprisal campaign. \n\nApparently, some of the Chinese forces serving the Japanese puppet regime under Wang Jingwei were secretly taking orders from the KMT; at any rate, many tried to protect civilians while avoiding any activity that would contribute to the Japanese war effort. If you're interested, I recently read a news article about a Chinese veteran who served under the KMT, then a local guerrilla unit, and eventually the puppet government before returning to the KMT ([link here](_URL_0_)).\n\nWhile I have no idea about their overall effectiveness, I suspect that these resistance movements did partly force the Japanese military to focus on problems of occupation rather than throwing their full might against the areas still under Chinese control; at the very least, they contributed to morale and the psychological struggle. I'm sorry I can't give a more helpful response! :( "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130707000025&cid=1101"
]
] |
||
2m305a
|
why is social security "running out" ?
|
I keep hearing that Social Security is running out and people of my generation wont see any penny of the money we are paying now. If this is true, why? And further, how come Social Security is at danger of running out but other welfare systems are not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m305a/eli5_why_is_social_security_running_out/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm0h22z",
"cm0odkg",
"cm0pe0c"
],
"score": [
18,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The social security is funded by payroll tax, for the benefit of mainly retirees. Problem is that the population of the United States (and pretty much all developed countries) is aging, and the pool of people paying the payroll tax is decreasing while that of the aging dependents are rising. ATM it is predicted that at its current rate social security will be exhausted in 2033, but it's not hard to solve that problem. Increase the taxes, upping the age at which people can start collecting benefits (logical now that people are retiring older), allow immigration so that more people will pay......... but some are only interested in cutting the benefits. ",
"How is the pool of people who are paying ss decreasing?... Isn't it mandatory? ",
"Had to respond. It is true that SS will \"run out\", but that problem is based on (caused by) CURRENT LAWS. The deal is that SS taxes are based on only the first 120 K (or thereabouts - I don't feel like doing research right now) of a persons income. There are 2 problems with this - 1) the incomes of the Rich (the so-called 1%), have become so huge compared to what they were 30 years ago, that the don't pay SS on most of there income. Think of a person making several million dollars per year, and paying SS taxes on 120 K. The second is that no SS taxes are paid on capital gains. Think of a REALLY rich bastard making tens of millions of $ per year on stock gains, who has no job (income), and paying zero in SS taxes. This leaves the middle class to pay most SS taxes. This is why SS will go broke.----------- There have been numerous articles on Reddit that analyze that, if the \"cap on earnings\" (the 120 K or so mentioned earlier) were lifted, SS would be fully funded forever, right now, with no other changes. The problem is that the middle class has been getting screwed since the Reagan tax cuts. This is why the Rich have tripled their share of ALL wealth in the nation since those cuts, and the middle class has declined."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2hojlb
|
the difference between newtonian and einsteinian physics.
|
If possible, could you summarize the difference between (the main ideas of) the two, and why they are looked at as contrasting concepts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hojlb/eli5_the_difference_between_newtonian_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckukhm3",
"ckuki12"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"First, Newton contributed enormously to science, not only by developing the three laws of motion but also developing calculus simply because math at the time *was inadequate to his needs*, that's hardcore.\n\nWe can still use Newton's equations today as they are generally good enough to provide answers in everyday life. However for more detailed solutions we need general relativity, and sometimes special relativity and quantum physics. So view Einstein not so much as a contrarian, but rather specifying Newton's laws. There are many that say Einstein would never have been able to develop his theories were it not for Newton's massive body of work.\n\nNewton saw Space and Time as two separate constant objects, Space was flat and finite to fit Euclidian geometry, and Time was a constant. Newton also developed the three laws of motion that we still have today, with Euhler and Einstein's caveats.\n\nEinstein showed relationships in space-time, and also postulated that time dilated with velocity and gravity. \nHe confirmed gravity with the theory of curved space and also was able to set lights speed as the Universal speed limit. Newton's equations break down when you look at what happens at speeds closing in on light speed and Einstein's special relativity explained these events.\n\nSo tl;dr Newton was awesome, he invented calculus, postulated gravity, believed space was flat and that time was a constant, Einstein was also awesome and showed time-space relations, that space is curved (explaining gravity), time is not a constant and Universe has a speed limit. ",
"It would be pretty difficult to go into detail without losing the LI5 part, so here's a simplified explanation. \n\nNewtonian physics was made back when Newton was alive (as you may have guessed), which is to say, late 1600-1700s. Back then, science was done with your hands and your eyes. You drop an apple on the ground and you figure, okay, something is pulling it down. What's making it? How can I test that? I'll drop more things and see if anything is different. \n\nNewtonian physics are basically laws of physics for \"ordinary\" sized stuff - things that we can directly see and understand. They work great for things the size of ants or the size of mountains, but if you get super small or super big and look at individual atoms or look at stars, these laws start to break down and stop working properly. \n\nTo be more specific, when I say they \"break down and stop working properly\" I mean the math involved in the laws will say *A* should happen, but instead, *B* happens, and it just doesn't work in the equation.\n\nThis is where Einsteinian physics come into play. Einstein lived much later, in the late 1800s-1900s. By then, we had telescopes and microscopes and all-around much more capability to understand things which are far too large or far too small for us to *directly* study. So Einstein came up with new equations and new laws which work under the ridiculously massive gravitational warping of stars and work with the unbelievably tiny quantum particles that disobey the logic of our \"ordinary\" sized world.\n\nIf you're still having trouble understanding, here's an analogy. Let's say you have a little cube and you're trying to set it down on a sheet of paper that has little marks on it telling you where to put it, and you need to be as precise as possible. You steady your arms on the table and use both hands to carefully position the box so that it's exactly on the lines where it's supposed to be. To your eyes and to the capabilities of your arms/hands, it's as accurate as possible and it looks like it's exactly in place.\n\nBut then you get a microscope and look at the edge of the box and notice that it's actually just a *tiiiiny* bit turned to one side, and the mark to line it up with which seemed so small, suddenly seems really really big. Your eyes and arms/hands are Newtonian physics, which look good to our naked eyes, but if you zoom in too much, then you see you're actually still just a little bit off. Einsteinian physics would be like using the microscope and precision tools to *really* put that box exactly in place.\n\nFor most things in our lives, Newtonian physics work just fine, but for quantum stuff and really really big stuff, you need Einsteinian physics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
65h6yf
|
why do you see white when you get hit in the eye in a dark room?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65h6yf/eli5_why_do_you_see_white_when_you_get_hit_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgaaxrd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're optic nerve is stimulated and you end up seeing a random selection of colours. Since you're in the dark everything you see appears white because it's in comparison to the blackness. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1p377z
|
why did public schools stay open during the government shutdown?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p377z/eli5_why_did_public_schools_stay_open_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccy9ovs",
"ccy9qzi"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"They are run by the state, not the federal government.",
"They stayed open because public schools funds have already been approved by congress or at least most have. That means that with a few extortions they have no need to worry about the shutdown. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
67m8rf
|
why cassini needs to crash into saturn to avoid contaminating a moon?
|
Hi everyone,
I've been following the Cassini mission since I was 16 and there's one thing that I'm confused about. I understand that because of lack of fuel and the complex motion of the Saturn system, the orbit will be harder and harder to predict. The rationale I keep hearing is we wouldn't want to contaminate one of the moons that could potentially have life (say Enceladus) with any Earth born microorganisms. However the thing I can't wrap my brain around is it seems we already contaminated a moon (Titan) when we landed the Huygens probe there. Is it more that we don't want to risk contaminating a second moon, or there something about Huygens landing on Titan I just don't understand?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67m8rf/eli5_why_cassini_needs_to_crash_into_saturn_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgriodk"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Huygens probe is clean, Cassini is not. It's pretty much as simple as that, but there's also that Titan is significantly less inhabitable than Enceladus so if something was hitchhiking it would most likely die."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1hxug4
|
Art Historians: My wife and I have a painting from 1896 that we humbly request your assistance in identifying.
|
The painting appears to be watercolor and in it's original frame. We've done some searching to try and identify the artist, but so far have come up empty handed. The signature on the painting looks like "R Agrsslin" to me, which clearly isn't correct. Any help is appreciated. Apologies if this is the wrong subreddit - it seemed the most appropriate one I could find.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hxug4/art_historians_my_wife_and_i_have_a_painting_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cayzhn0",
"caz1r3j",
"caz2y1l"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The post didn't save my imgur link to photos of the paintings, so: _URL_0_",
"You might have better luck posting at arthistory",
"You could try r/whatisthisthing or perhaps _URL_0_ (although you will have to check if they allow non-UK based paintings to be uploaded) - it's a site dedicated to identifying and making publicly available works of art so they should be helpful. - Check the process on the 'my paintings' tab. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://imgur.com/a/cQiQ2"
],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/"
]
] |
|
4cra5h
|
Why does the nucleus of an atom increase in mass when it is broken apart?
|
Why do the nucleons (protons and neutrons) of an atom weigh more when separated then when combined into a nucleus?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4cra5h/why_does_the_nucleus_of_an_atom_increase_in_mass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1lkclt",
"d1l1syf"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"E=mc^2 therefore energy and mass are the same thing. Generically, energy has only two forms: kinetic (i.e. \"movement\" energy) and potential (from interaction). Crucially, when adding up the energy of something, the kinetic energy has a positive sign and the potential energy has a negative sign (under something like an attractive force). \n\nThus, if I have two particles that are attracted to each other sitting still infinitely far away from each other they have zero energy. However, if they're not \"infinitely\" far away such that there's still the tiniest non-zero attraction then they'll be pulled to one another, the closer they get the more they pick up speed. So are they gaining energy? No they are not, their kinetic energy (which is positive) is getting larger but so is their potential energy (which is negative) and if I add them up I still get zero energy (or perhaps \"negligible\" energy since I said the starting point was a tiny bit of attraction and no movement). This is often counter-intuitive since we see something moving really fast we assume it must have a lot of total energy, but physics tells us we also need to see what its potential energy is to make a concrete statement about total energy.\n\nLet's take our two particles and this time I hold them a certain distance apart right next to each other, but still not moving like the first case. I might think the is the same case but it's not. In reality their (negative) potential energy is very high right now and now the kinetic energy is zero. I can feel it in my hands, it's effort to hold them apart. The total energy here is not zero, it's actually some negative number. If I want to return them to their zero energy situation I have to do WORK, I have to push them apart against the attraction to separate them both back to infinity. How much work do I have to do? \"the binding energy\"",
"The difference in these masses is what's known as the *binding energy*. The fact that the mass of the nucleus is smaller than the sum of the masses of its parts is precisely *why* nuclei form in the first place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4b2rzq
|
What was entertainment like in the Soviet Union?
|
Music, movies, TV shows, etc.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4b2rzq/what_was_entertainment_like_in_the_soviet_union/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d15q4l4",
"d15qezg",
"d15rdyr",
"d15t4ch",
"d15tzpu",
"d15ux07",
"d15vig4",
"d169wwc"
],
"score": [
3,
113,
385,
49,
13,
15,
63,
6
],
"text": [
"Follow up and probably a bit trivial (but related) question: \n\nMy impression of the latter half of the Soviet Union's history (Post Khrushchev) was, more than anything else, boring. \n\nThe first half obviously had to deal with a lot of war and famine and purges, etc, but then by Brezhnev's time my understanding is that this was mostly over with and the main thing people had to deal with is that life was very dull. \n\nWhatever entertainment was specifically like, there was never quite enough of it, nor enough opportunities to simply keep oneself occupied outside of work. This apparently was how the USSR developed its reputation for rampant alcoholism, since for many people there just wasn't all that much else to do but sit and drink. \n\nHow true is all this? ",
"As a follow up question: Was the US and/or it's allies often portrayed as \"the bad guys\" in movies/shows, similar to movies/shows from the US during the cold war? ",
"I'm in a soviet cinema class right now, so I at least have some experience with the film side of things. We are up to the mid 1970s, so my answer will fit in with that timeframe. Also because it's a film class primarily, I have more perspective on the artistic than the political/historic. \n\nThere are films that predate the Soviet Union and were made under the tsar. Russia and then the Soviet Union developed a style that was fairly distinct from France and the United States. Sergei Eisenstein, one of the masters of filmmaking, termed the style Soviet montage. He writes about it at length in his book \"Film Form.\" Essentially it relied on quasi related images put together much in the same way words come together to form sentences. This style is on display in the very famous \"Battleship Potemkin.\" Montage was also used more abstractly in Dziga Vertov's \"Man With a Movie Camera.\" In the early days of the Soviet Union, filmmakers like Vertov were able to produce movies with more freedom than they would be able to under Stalin. \"Man With a Movie Camera\" has a lot of images that were counter to the Soviet party line (namely nudity and homelessness), despite its underlying support for socialism. Eisenstein worked in the 30s and 40s and pressure to please Stalin was much greater. His \"Battleship Potemkin\" and \"Alexander Nevsky\" are much more plainly pro-Soviet. Still, he was quite innovative in technique and is regarded as very important director globally. \n\nThere was an obvious hiatus of artwork during the war, but afterwards came the Kruschev thaw, which allowed artists much greater freedom to produce what they wanted to, even if it wouldn't get large release domestically. The great director of this period was Andrei Tarkovsky. His first movie was a war film, Ivan's Childhood, that takes a distinctly dark look at the war and its effects on soviet citizens. His style draws heavily from eisenstein's montage, and he would go on to produce more personal and, in their own ways, subversive films like \"The Mirror\" and \"Andrei Rublev.\" Not all of his films were given long runs domestically, but he was beloved at home and abroad, finding success at many European film festivals. \n\nIf you have any more questions, let me know and I might be able to answer. Most of these movies are available on YouTube if you're interested.",
"I can come at this from my collegiate level music history courses, although perhaps an experienced music historian could get in here and correct me/give a more full explanation. It can be hard to talk about music without just saying \"go listen to this\".\n\nIn (classical) music, composers lived under the watchful eye of the party. Certain styles of music were outright banned, including Jazz and, later, rock. This seemed to be more about keeping out other cultures, as some composers wrote jazz-influenced pieces, like Shostakovich's Jazz Suites.\n\nSome of the best known Soviet composers were Dmitri Shostakovich, Aram Khachaturian, and Sergei Prokofiev. These composers wrote music sanctioned by the party, and faced the consequences if they strayed. Shostakovich, as an example, was publicly shamed in Soviet press at one point for an opera (Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk) that wasn't particularly well received.\n\nThe style of Soviet music draws upon Soviet patriotic ideas and folk music from Soviet controlled areas. Examples of this are Prokofiev's \"Scythian Suite\" (inspired by the Scythians who once inhabited the steppes) and Khachaturian's \"Sabre Dance\" (based on Armenian folk music). Shostakovich's bombastic ending to his Symphony no. 5 could be viewed as an example of highly patriotic Soviet music. However, there is some controversy about that work, as some view it as a sarcastic slam at the party, depending on how it is performed. The book \"Testimony\" by Solomon Volkov is (allegedly) the memoirs of Shostakovich and portrays him as anti-Soviet. If Volkov is to be believed, Shosty was a huge troll. His Symphony No. 10, written a year after Stalin's death, is sometimes viewed as mocking the late ruler.\n\nOne edit: nationalism to Soviet patriotism, because accuracy.",
"The Moscow Art Theatre, which was created in 1897, so about 20 years before the October revolution, had a profound influence on western theatre. There Constantin Stanislavski helped develop what would be known as The System for actors, which can be seen as a predecessor to the American Method acting.\n\n\nUnfortunately, The MAT started hitting serious obstacles with the rise of Lenin to power. The Soviets essentially saw Stanislavski's work as part of the old Russian regime, and Stanislavski had to move away from his avant-garde work which did not seem \"traditionalist\" enough. By the 1930s the theatre changed name entirely, and moved towards much more propaganda like productions which glorified revolutionary Russia due to political pressure from Stalin.\n\nRussia went from being at the forefront of theatre expression, to a static, political theatre in a matter of two decades.\n\nSource: Gorchakov, Nikolai. The Theatre in Soviet Russia. Columbia University Press, New York, 1957.",
"OK, so I don't know much about Soviet Cinema outright but I DO know a fair bit about Indian Cinema, which became hugely popular in the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Indian cinema of that time had incorporated many socialist messages, which to modern eyes look crudely drawn but fell in the favour of Soviet audiences. It was in particular Raj Kapoor, one of the classic Bollywood directors, who became a huge star, as an actor as well as director - because of his looks (he had extremely fair skin and blue eyes) and his socialist films, he was able to make the crossover to the Soviet audience. His film 'Awaara' (1951) in particular was a major hit, it portrayed the working class man as a victim of his circumstances. Raj Kapoor visited the Soviet Union for the first time in 1954 with a group of delegates from the Indian film industry, then again in 1956, both times making a tour of several Soviet republics (Georgia and Azerbaijan, among others). He returned to the Soviet Union several times after that, even making a movie called 'Mera Naam Joker' (1970) featuring Russian circus artistes and a Russian ballerina in the main role. \n\nIn fact, much earlier, an Indo-Soviet film was produced called 'Pardesi: Journey Beyond the Three Seas' (1958), based on the same work of literature, which not only had several major Indian stars but also featured as lead actor Oleg Strizhenov, a hugely popular Soviet star. And there was also 'Mother India' (1958) which was a kind of socialist parable. ",
"Hi, there have been loads of threads in here on all of these topics; I've taken a quick spin through the sub and found a few, but more searches will pull up many more, which include clips/examples/recommendations of films, songs, tv shows, cartoons, propaganda and so on in the Soviet Union specifically, as well as other Eastern Bloc countries. \n\nBallet\n\n* [How did the the Bolshevik Revolution affect the fine arts in Russian culture?](_URL_10_) - featuring /u/TenMinuteHistory\n\n* [How did ballet go from beeing an elite court dance in imperial Russa, to beeing *the* soviet art expression?](_URL_6_) - featuring /u/kieslowskifan\n\nTheatre\n\n* thread in [Tuesday Trivia | You're at a party, surrounded by strangers. They find out about your interest in history. What's one question you really hope they ask?](_URL_12_) - a casual chat with now-deleted user /u/created_sequel on the Stanislavski system\n\nFilm | General\n\n* [What were movies like in Soviet Russia during the Cold War?](_URL_5_) - featuring /u/wedgeomatic \n\n* [what was 'night life' like in the USSR during the 70's and 80's?](_URL_8_) - /u/zhirinovsky takes us on a fun trip through Soviet nightlife via contemporary film clips\n\n* if you're curious, there are some resources here [Dear AskHistorians, does anybody know an archive of early Soviet films online?](_URL_9_)\n\nFilm | Cold War portrayals (a popular topic in this sub!)\n\n* \\*\\*\\*\\* [During the Cold War, did the Soviets have their own James Bond character in the media? A hero who fought the capitalist pigs of the West for the good of Mother Russia.](_URL_3_) - fantastic write-up by /u/Bufus \n\n* [Question about art and movies during the Cold War in Russia](_URL_4_)\n\n* [Did the Soviets create any movies about the horrifying prospect of nuclear war between themselves and the USA?](_URL_14_) - featuring /u/restricteddata and /u/MarcEcko\n\n* [How did the Soviet Union react to being portrayed as the villains in so many American action films (especially the James Bond series)?](_URL_13_)\n\n* [We had a \"Red Dawn\"; was there ever an equivalent (White Dawn?) in Soviet pop culture?](_URL_0_)\n\n\nTelevision\n\n* [What was Soviet television like?](_URL_15_)\n\n* [What was television like for communist countries such as the Soviet Union or DDR during the Cold War?](_URL_7_) - featuring /u/Lithium2011\n\nAnimation\n\n* [How did animated film in the Soviet Union compare to contemporary animation in the United States and Japan?](_URL_2_) - featuring /u/centersolace\n\nMusic\n\n* [Was there a punk subculture in the Soviet Union?](_URL_11_)\n\nMiscellaneous\n\n* [Did the USSR have any kind of attempt to appeal to the youth similar to how Captain America got big in the US?](_URL_1_)",
"This is actually quite an extensive question, as you might imagine and had some differences in the different Soviet republics. As such many of which had their own national Soviet films, filmed on location, with local actors and often in the local language. \n\nMy knowledge only stems from the Latvian SSR (Further as Latvia), if that is not extensive enough, I apologize and this answer can be deleted. \n\nMovies were a big part of the entertainment life throughout the Soviet times. In Latvia the Riga Film Studio, established in 1948, was the main producer of content, as such it managed to put out up to 12 movies a year. In 1960 a large studio lot was built to accommodate the possibility for the whole production to take place there, becoming the largest one in Northern Europe. As movies themselves went, they often sparred genres that were historical (pre 19th century), a large number of comedies, detective, crime etc. As you would imagine a large number of them were censored, but even at that there were instances where Latvian flags were sneaked into the final product, mostly citing historical accuracy (\"Ceplis\", 1972). Movies that were made in the local context were very popular as the actresses and directors were notable and accessible in the local theaters, in the local language and carried mostly the local scenery [of which some movies are also popular today, even in the post-Soviet society]. But rarely these movies made their way out of the corresponding SSR.\n\nWhen it comes to Soviet wide movies, these were \"decade blockbusters\" that trickled down to each republic as an event to behold. From my knowledge, these were largely comedies and thrillers. Some even grew into franchises, such as the \"Adventures of Shurik\" which you might compare to Mr. Bean. These movies were mostly without any political context, rather just an attempt of actually excel in some artistic forms that could transcend throughout the Soviet Union (Although still made with censorship in mind). Where credit is due, there have been also some spectacular adaptions, such as the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which included some notable acting, good location scouting (Riga Old City among others) and a good screenplay, and was even noticed outside the Soviet Union. But even at this some censorship was required, as Holmes never used Cocaine and the war wasn't in Afghanistan, as in not to draw parallels withe Soviet invasion. \n\nBut altogether Soviet cinema was still an occasion as it was in the West, either it be an evening with your girlfriend, running-off after school to see the new block-buster with your friends and a glass of sugar water or watching Ирония судьбы, или С лёгким паром! (Irony of Life or as it Goes [unfortunately my translation, I only have Russian and Latvian sources]) on New Years Eve with your family. Many of which are still remembered today fondly either due to nostalgia ( as it rarely contained a large amount of propaganda) or due to the quality of film itself."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pfjyr/we_had_a_red_dawn_was_there_ever_an_equivalent/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2f6qap/did_the_ussr_have_any_kind_of_attempt_to_appeal/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jpc2z/how_did_animated_film_in_the_soviet_union_compare/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/188xka/during_the_cold_war_did_the_soviets_have_their/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1arb8p/question_about_art_and_movies_during_the_cold_war/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ccc10/what_were_movies_like_in_soviet_russia_during_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ilmlc/how_did_ballet_go_from_beeing_an_elite_court/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17cf07/what_was_television_like_for_communist_countries/c84drvw",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gmt82/what_was_night_life_like_in_the_ussr_during_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iyhjt/dear_askhistorians_does_anybody_know_an_archive/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gz8il/how_did_the_the_bolshevik_revolution_affect_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fb02b/was_there_a_punk_subculture_in_the_soviet_union/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f7bd5/tuesday_trivia_youre_at_a_party_surrounded_by/ca8uk8l?context=9",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3h5tcv/how_did_the_soviet_union_react_to_being_portrayed/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lui69/did_the_soviets_create_any_movies_about_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dgjrp/what_was_soviet_television_like/"
],
[]
] |
|
2eri73
|
Are everyone's small intestines folded up in the same way?
|
Just thought of this during a biology dissection... and I'm not sure.
Is it genetic, or just random?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2eri73/are_everyones_small_intestines_folded_up_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck2ep4i",
"ck2eukh",
"ck2gizf",
"ck2nroo",
"ck2p4it",
"ck2qgdb"
],
"score": [
1273,
52,
13,
3,
6,
11
],
"text": [
"Gastroenterologist here: Short answer - it depends where: \n\n**1)**The small intestine is made up of the duodenum (roughly 12 inches long), Jejunum and Ileum. The duodenum is covered by sheeth of tissue called retroperitoneal fascia. The means that the duodenum itself is immobile and has a fixed path. The segments of the duodenum are D1, D2, D3, and D4. After D4 there is an anatomical landmark called the ligament of trietz. Beyond this ligament is the jejunum which is not covered by fascia. This means that the jejunum and ileum are free to float around. The jejunum and ileum are loosley anchored via the mesentary. Once you reach the end of the ileum and beginning of the colon, the bowel becomes fixed again on the right side with fascia that coveres the ascending colon.\n\n**tl;dr** parts of everyones small intestine are the same (duodenum and terminal ileum). Everything in-between is a unique configuration.\n\n**Edit** Wow - I didn't anticipate this. Many people have asked excellent questions below (with some excellent answers). I will be happy reply to some of the unanswered questions below:\n\n\n**What is the medium in which they float? Is the abdominal cavity an air gap, or are we full of liquid?**\n\nThere is a small amount of liquid (intraperitoneal fluid) that lubricates the small bowel. This fluid is predominately made up of a small amount of protein (albumin), glucose and electrolytes (Na, K, Cl, HC03). Normally there is only a tiny amount of fluid, however in some cases, the volume of liquid can rise (resulting in a tense distended abdomen). We call this asicites. It looks a lot like pee.\n\n\n**Which section pokes out when a person develops an umbilical hernia?**\n\nIt is usually a part of the small intestine (jejunum or ileum). Occasionally you can have a part of the colon (the transverse and/or sigmoid colon - which are also loosely attached) poke through - this can lead to a very difficult colonoscopy.\n\n\n**How do GI surgeons keep the jejunum attached to its mesenteric (sp?) blood supply to the back when creating the stoma tract attachment to the front wall of the abdomen for a surgical J tube (not like a PEG-J)? Is it that loosely attached at the back that it can easily be sewn to the front wall of the abdomen**\n\nThe answer to this is harder to visualize, but if the PEJ is done surgically - there is no problem with avoiding the blood supply as the PEJ is put in under direct visualization. Occasionally, gastroenterologists will place a PEJ endoscopically. There are two different techniques - but the most popular technique involves inserting a gastroscope (or enteroscope for a PEJ). Once the jejunum is accessed, the gastroenterologist will inflate the jejunum with as much air as possible. The goal is to oppose the the wall of the jejunum against the abdominal wall. We will use our finger to poke the abdomen where we think the scope is - if we can see our finger creating a good buldge (we call this a good 1:1). If there is a good 1:1, we are happy that the path from the outside of the abdomen to the jejenum (where the J-Tube will be placed) is free and clear of anything else (like another loop of bowel): Likely the jejunum will punctured at the antimesenteric side (clear of vessels). There is an internal bumber (lke a rubber button) that holds the PEJ in place.\n\n\n**Is it possible for the jejunum and ileum to get tied up or tangled into a knot**\n\nYes, this is referred to as a volvulus (a twist of the bowel). We tend to see this more often in mentally retarded kids and the elderly. Occasionally, the bowel can telescope into itself - this is referred to as an intussception. \n\n**Imagine a water hose bunched up with a kink in it. Water stops flowing or flows at an extremely slow rate.\nCan something like that happen in the small intestine?**\n\nYes, this is a small bowel obstruction. Very common. \n",
"Related question I've always wondered about:\n\nAfter someone has abdominal surgery, do the surgeons have to carefully lay the intestines back in a precise way or can they just \"shove them in\". How important is positioning here? If the surgery involved removing an organ or growth that took up a lot of space (like a baseball sized cyst), can the intestines then be repositioned to \"fill up\" the space or do they have to be put back in the position they were before?\n\nI ask because on medical shows you see the surgeons just randomly shoving the intestines back in at the end of a surgery, seemingly without much regard to how they are laid out. This seems wrong to me. Also, my girlfriend had abdominal surgery to remove two cysts the size of a baseball and tennis ball (and then, some years later, she had a c-section) and I wonder if her intestines are likely to be \"re-arranged inside\" as a result.\n",
"This is a pretty simple video of the development of the GI tract. This plays a very heavy role in the positioning of the intestines. Genetics, drugs taken by Mom during the pregnancy that affect development etc all play a role in the proper formation of the gut. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe general anatomy of the small intestine is roughly the same. The Duodenum is comprised of four major segments. It is primarily fixed in location due to fascia (connective tissues). The jejunum and ileum have some attachment sites and its position is centered around it's major blood supply but has a significant amount of natural variability in positioning. ",
"Yes; \"The developing vertebrate gut tube forms a reproducible looped pattern as it grows into the body cavity.\"\n_URL_0_\n\nHere is an explanation of the paper.\n_URL_1_",
"During embryogenesis, the small intestine and a portion of the large intestine normally herniate outside the abdominal cavity into the umbilicus because they grow faster than the abdomen can accommodate. The gut then rotates (counterclockwise when observing from the front) as it moves back into the abdominal cavity during growth of the fetus (all back in by 12 weeks. Rotation can be normal, partial, or clockwise. Thus, orientation of the gut may vary between individuals. Also, there may be duplications and diverticula of the gut tube. It is amazing to me that anyone is born \"normal\".",
"Diagnostic pathologist chipping in:\n\nIn anatomical terms, the intestine isn't just floating around like a noodle though. it's connected to the back of the abdominal cavity by the mesentery- a sheet of tissue with one loooong edge (along the intestine) and a short edge (connected to the abdo wall, going from lower right to upper left). It carries the blood supply and lymphatic/lacteal vessels and stuff. So, if you like, the bowel/mesentery most distant from this attachment has quite a lot of freedom, but the root of the ileal mesentery is pretty fixed and constant.\nWhen doing retroperitoneal surgery (like an abdominal aortic aneurysm repair) the whole abdominal contents get pretty much slopped out of the abdomen. Mr Boss-Man or Ms Boss-Lady do what they have to do under the back panel, and then it all gets pushed back in and left to pretty much sort itself out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs44cXvjbMA"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21814276",
"http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/06/simple-rules-for-folding-a-gut/#citation"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
do6pii
|
why is boiling water a safe way to kill bacteria while they can build up resistances to antibiotics etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/do6pii/eli5_why_is_boiling_water_a_safe_way_to_kill/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f5k7m4z",
"f5k7qia",
"f5k7ti8",
"f5k7zdy",
"f5k8bae",
"f5k9lvy"
],
"score": [
15,
6,
4,
3,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"because they can't build resistance to being literally burned/cooked to death at \\~100 **°**C",
"For example, there is no vaccine against bullets. \n\nIt is more difficult to evolve defences against physical or chemical demolition as opposed to biological.\n\nLife is mainly based on water. Steam does support life processes.",
"In a nutshell its like kill it with fire.\n\nWhen you boil the water the hot temperature essentially boils bacteria to death.\n\nAntibiotics kill bacteria by attacking the wall or coating surrounding bacteria. interfering with bacteria reproduction. The bacteria can 'evolve' better defences against this type of attack. \n\nBoiling them to death they have no defence",
"When boiled they rupture, so to avoid that they would need to be able tougher but that would come up a lose somewhere else making a strain like that vunrable to other things like antibodies",
"Because antibiotics attack the bacteria biologically. They can evolve ways to avoid the mechanism with which an antibiotic attacks them. But boiling is killing them with a physical mechanism. Only way they can evolve out of that is to completely change into thermophiles which requires a very long time of gradual heat increase. If you for example heat up bacteria to 50 degrees, take those that survive and culture them, then heat them up to 52, take another colony, and do this with a giant number of bacteria and with very small increments, it is maybe possible you eventually get heat resistant bacteria. But they'll probably all die at some temperature and you'll need to start over and may need to actively induce mutations to accelerate the evolution. When you directly boil bacteria, you just kill them all, no way any survivors will be there for this evolution to ever begin.",
"Bacteria *can* build resistance to hot water. For example, spores (bacteria eggs) of botulinum bacteria can survive the heat of boiling water - which is why canned food must be heated to 121°C for 3 minutes in order to be completely safe. Botulinum infections of improperly canned foods can be lethal, because the bacteria produce a lethal poison (better known under the brand name Botox), and some strains don't give off any noticeable smell or taste.\n\nSimilarly, surgical instruments in hospitals are cooked at 121°C for 3 minutes to kill of any bacterial spores that might have survived the cleaning."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
162xy7
|
Did the concepts of feminism or women's equality exist in any Pre-Modern societies?
|
Were there any demonstrations or uprisings for female equality, or was the idea itself so totally alien no one would think to question anything? If so how was it dealt with? Was it women questioning the status quo, or were men speaking in their stead? Were there any ideas of women being "treated well" that we would now find totally bizarre and misogynistic?
*This question has been asked once or twice before, sort of, to little or no response. If it makes things easier, any interesting or unusual examples of how women were treated through history would be awesome!*
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/162xy7/did_the_concepts_of_feminism_or_womens_equality/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7s81k7",
"c7saxsi",
"c7sc1gu",
"c7scdr7"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Is Lysistrata a valid example, being a fictional character? The women used the only weapon they had to bring men into line and make them _URL_0_'s an interesting reflection on women's rights (or lack thereof) in ancient Greece. ",
"The concept of gender theory, and the focus of sociology beyond the gender dichotomy of male and female, is a relatively new phenomenon. Certainly there are a plethora of pre-modern societies in which women possessed social roles and organisations, but the further back in history one travels, the more scarce the evidence of social mobility for women collectively.\n\n\nOne of the earliest examples of a society that bears matriarchal qualities consists of the Minoan civilization that predominated the Mediterranean from about 1900 BCE in Crete. The excavation of Knossos by Arthur Evans in the early 20th Century illuminated feminine illustrations in [fresco](_URL_1_) and [depictions of deities](_URL_5_). It is entirely possible that Minoan polytheism centered on the worship of 'Pontia', a mother goddess. \n\nIt seems the religious institutions that governed Crete's society during the Minoan period was co-ordinated by a [feminine priesthood](_URL_4_) that conducted the rituals and festivals at ['palace' areas](_URL_0_). Modern historians, including [Sinclair Hood](_URL_3_), are certain the palatial structures in Knossos, Zakros, Mallia and Phaistos were centers for the religious elite, who possessed in their granaries control of the distribution of resources for harvest festivals and trade. Features such as [lustral basins](_URL_2_) in the palaces, used by priestesses for ritual cleansing, illustrate the multi-storey structures were entirely self-contained for the purpose of worship, amongst other functions.\n\nIn effect, ancient Minoan Crete therefore possessed a social system in which the largest cohesive institution, the priesthood, was dominated by women - a reflection on the matriarchal qualities of its belief system.",
"One of my personal heroes is Christine de Pizan. She was a Venetian woman born in the mid 14th c. who was widowed at 25. She then became Europe's first professional woman writer. She wrote extensively on the role of women in Italian society, including at Court and her feminist writings included ripostes to male figures of authority in politics and literature. \n\nShe pre-empted Mary Wollstencraft by centuries and she ought to be much more celebrated.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"Simone de Beauvoir wrote in 1949 that [her work] Épître au Dieu d'Amour (letter to the God of Love) was \"the first time we see a woman take up her pen in defence of her sex\" making Christine de Pizan perhaps the West's first feminist, or proto-feminist as some scholars prefer to say\" \n\nAnother notable woman from even further back is the Byzantine Empress Theodora of the 6th c, who instituted laws which gave Byzantine women under her reign much more equality than their counterparts in Europe and the Middle East. \n\n",
"I came here to post a very similar thread to this, but since this exists, I'll merely add my query to this one. I was going to x-post this post on /r/feminism: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"listen.It"
],
[
"http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/Images/ARTH209images/minoan/knossos_plan.jpg",
"http://www.students.sbc.edu/drahman08/images/3.%20ladies%20in%20blue.jpg",
"http://www.uk.digiserve.com/mentor/minoan/mallia036b.jpg",
"http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Minoans.html?id=Hk5oAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y",
"http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/973/flashcards/819973/png/sacred_grove_fresco1332192815654.png",
"http://www.westcler.org/GH/curlessmatt/arthistory/4/SnakeGoddess.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_de_Pizan"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1615pt/in_this_video_naomi_wolf_alludes_to_womens_rights/"
]
] |
|
385nej
|
Why are tornadoes always very distinguishable? If they are just wind currents why hasn't there ever been a nearly, if not completely, invisible tornado?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/385nej/why_are_tornadoes_always_very_distinguishable_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crusv93",
"cruswad"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"From [Wikipedia](_URL_0_): \"Tornadoes can have a wide range of colors, depending on the environment in which they form. Those that form in dry environments can be nearly invisible, marked only by swirling debris at the base of the funnel.\"\n\nThey are always very distinguishable because nobody ever bothers showing you a picture of one of the invisible ones.",
"\"....A tornado is not necessarily visible; however, the intense low pressure caused by the high wind speeds (as described by Bernoulli's principle) and rapid rotation (due to cyclostrophic balance) usually causes water vapor in the air to condense into cloud droplets due to adiabatic cooling. ...\"\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado#Appearance"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado"
]
] |
||
jet59
|
how japan recovered so quickly after ww2
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jet59/eli5_how_japan_recovered_so_quickly_after_ww2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2bifnz",
"c2bioeo",
"c2bkhqg",
"c2bnkep",
"c2bifnz",
"c2bioeo",
"c2bkhqg",
"c2bnkep"
],
"score": [
15,
109,
2,
5,
15,
109,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Much like West Germany, the United States and Allied Powers poured significant amounts of aid money into rebuilding Japan after the war was over. This included millions a day for food, and a tremendous amount of capital to kickstart the country's economy again (it did, after all, have to rebuild).",
"Japan is a very homogenous country. That means all the people are alike. Now when you have a lot of people who are alike it is easier to work together. Especially if you have a culture that values discipline, hard work, and loyalty. Now Japan was damaged by WWII but not absolutely destroyed like Germany because the main Islands were never invaded. After we dropped two balls of sunshine on them they called it quits. (Note:This is how Godzilla was born.) Now what do you get when you have a highly disciplined, educated, homogenous population+the military protection of the greatest power on Earth+millions of dollars in Aid? It equals recovery. It only took 35 years for Japan to become the third largest economy on Earth. Now to stress how important this unity can be in a well functioning society I want you to go watch some videos of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Then I want you to go watch some videos of the great earthquake/tsunami that struck Japan. What is the difference? \n\n_URL_0_\n\nTL;DR: Godzirrrrra\n\n\n\n",
"Similar question: How did Japan go from samurai to military superpower in about 100 years?",
"One of the simplest reasons for Japan's relatively quick recovery was the fact that after the war, it was occupied by the United States, and *only* the United States. Freed from the violent political fighting that resulted from splitting territory with Communist countries, Japan was able to concentrate on economic growth.",
"Much like West Germany, the United States and Allied Powers poured significant amounts of aid money into rebuilding Japan after the war was over. This included millions a day for food, and a tremendous amount of capital to kickstart the country's economy again (it did, after all, have to rebuild).",
"Japan is a very homogenous country. That means all the people are alike. Now when you have a lot of people who are alike it is easier to work together. Especially if you have a culture that values discipline, hard work, and loyalty. Now Japan was damaged by WWII but not absolutely destroyed like Germany because the main Islands were never invaded. After we dropped two balls of sunshine on them they called it quits. (Note:This is how Godzilla was born.) Now what do you get when you have a highly disciplined, educated, homogenous population+the military protection of the greatest power on Earth+millions of dollars in Aid? It equals recovery. It only took 35 years for Japan to become the third largest economy on Earth. Now to stress how important this unity can be in a well functioning society I want you to go watch some videos of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Then I want you to go watch some videos of the great earthquake/tsunami that struck Japan. What is the difference? \n\n_URL_0_\n\nTL;DR: Godzirrrrra\n\n\n\n",
"Similar question: How did Japan go from samurai to military superpower in about 100 years?",
"One of the simplest reasons for Japan's relatively quick recovery was the fact that after the war, it was occupied by the United States, and *only* the United States. Freed from the violent political fighting that resulted from splitting territory with Communist countries, Japan was able to concentrate on economic growth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RVHDlPqZWE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RVHDlPqZWE"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
8qpk24
|
how do pillows that claim to cool your head work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qpk24/eli5_how_do_pillows_that_claim_to_cool_your_head/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0l28ac",
"e0lwzph"
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text": [
"Thermal conductivity.\n\nEssentially the pillow is at room temperature, but your head is typically ~20°F warmer. Heat, much like a gas, always tries to hit equilibrium (everything at the same temp.) As such. The pillow will absorb the heat from your head. \n\nNow here's where the claim comes in. Different materials will conduct the heat at different rates. If it's very slowly, it's an insulator, like your blanket or the stuff in your walls. If it's doing so quickly, it's a conductor, like the copper heat sink in your computer or coolant in your car.\n\nSo, if the pillow manufacturer makes the pillow out of a material that is w better conductor than insulator, it will absorb the heat from your head faster, then radiate it throughout the pillow, and ultimately into the air or bed, or wherever it can go. The difference in temperature at that point is enough to make it feel \"cool\", even if it's only a few degrees different from a normal pillow.",
"Some of them work by using materials with high porosity and air flow channels that reduce the thermal insulation that is caused by the foam that most pillows are made of. That makes them do a better job of allowing your head to radiate heat and feel cooler. \n\n\nSome of them have gel layers that act as a great sink. The high thermal conductivity of the gel absorbs the heat from your head and then re-radiates that heat into the room. That effectively gives your head a larger surface area, causing it to cool more effectively. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
51bn3b
|
If elements above 83 (+43, 61) are all man made, is it strictly impossible for them to appear in nature?
|
Watching some Scishow talk about the 'end' of the periodic table and wondering if it was impossible for these supermassive atoms to exist on their own (if, perhaps, for a fraction of a second)
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/51bn3b/if_elements_above_83_43_61_are_all_man_made_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7aqr43",
"d7av0tb",
"d7bba6a"
],
"score": [
133,
16,
5
],
"text": [
"It's not that they're never created naturally, it's that they decay too fast to be found naturally on Earth. All of the material that makes up Earth is the product of stellar fusion that occurred at least 4.5 billion years ago (the age of our solar system), but most of it is much older than that. These larger elements simply decay so fast that they can't stick around long enough to be found on Earth today. What we find instead are their remains - lighter, more stable elements that were the products of their decomposition.",
" > is it strictly impossible for them to appear in nature?\n\nThis is actually itself strictly impossible! We humans are part of nature. Anything we create is, in a very loose sense, part of nature. Therefore, if natural conditions are such that some self-organizing organic compounds interact with their environment in such a way that results in nuclear fusion, those elements will appear in nature.\n\nAlso, uranium (92), for example, is not man-made. That's discovered lying around in the Earth's crust. Some of its isotopes decay via beta radiation, and they will become neptunium (93) and plutonium (94) on their own -- that is, without human intervention. Traces of these elements can indeed be found in nature, in very small amounts. Even technetium and promethium, elements 43 and 61, can be found in very, very tiny amounts as products of the radioactive decay of other elements.",
"Some interesting facts:\n\n238-U has a half-life of 4.5x10^9 yrs, roughly the same as the age of the earth. All elements between U and Pb occur naturally as part of one of the natural radioactive decay chains, and get replentished through those chains. (See _URL_0_)\n\nThe natural reactor in Oklo has all the right conditions for neutron capture to occur, although at a much lower flux than in artificial reactors. Then you get a beta decay after neutron capture, and you've gone up one element, rinse repeat. Only once the isotope you've reached becomes too short lived relative to the mean time between neutron captures, does this process stop. In man-made reactors this occurs for fermium (Z=100), and to create heavier elements one has to fuse lighter nuclei together using an accelerator. \n\nHowever, in events that have much higher neutron fluxes this process may well continue to heavier nuclei, it is left as an exercise for the reader to extract a few grams of oganesson (Z=118) from a recent supernova. But people are searching for such atoms in nature, both on earth and in meteorites. \n\nFact~~oid~~: einsteinium and fermium were extracted from airfilters strapped to fighter jets that could operate at high enough altitude to fly through a mushroom cloud following a nuclear test.\n\nIf you want to go into this in more detail, there are a few really good books: \n\n- On Beyond Uranium: Journey to the End of the Periodic Table by Sigurd Hofmann (ISBN 9780415284967)\n\n- The Transuranium People: The Inside Story\nby Albert Ghiorso, Darleane C Hoffman, Glenn T Seaborg (ISBN-13: 978-1860940873) \n\nThis should get you started, your local library will be receptive to requests for these kind of books ;)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain"
]
] |
|
15amgu
|
getting started with raspberry pi.
|
I got my hands of a couple of Raspberry Pis and I wanted to give one to my niece for Christmas. I don't really have and other experience with Linux systems so I looked up directions on a Linux Wiki.
_URL_0_
I tried with Win32DiskImager, but I think I'm missing files from other programs that they are assuming I have. I'm lost.
I tried again with the instructions for flashnul (which seemed more explicit) and it looked like I was writing something to the SD card, but when In load it into the Raspberry PI and power it up I don't get anything on the screen.
I'm getting worried because I hope to have this up and running by Christmas.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15amgu/eli5_getting_started_with_raspberry_pi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7kppqw",
"c7ksqej"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You should ask in /r/raspberry_pi, you have a better chance of an answer there. Also try the [RaspberryPi forums](_URL_0_)",
"Do not assume that because it doesn't give you a display that you messed up the imaging process. If you have a look at the contents of the SD card after you image it, you should see some files. I think a text file and a couple of others, don't quote me but that's what I vaguely remember. If you do, you most likely imaged it properly.\n\nMany power supplies that are supposed to be 5V 1A are much much less and that kills (non-permanently) the Pi. It'll be screwy or won't work at all. There are loads of fakes iPhone ones floating about, and most of the cheap ones are too shitty to properly power the pi.\n\nThe pi can be picky about HDMI cables and TVs. The TV in the front room of my parents house won't work with it at all, for no real reason. Every other display I've tried works perfectly.\n\nThe Raspberry Pi can be very picky about SD cards. Did you pick one off the compatibility list, and have you got another one you can try? My first one didn't work at all, second worked perfectly. \n\nWhen it goes smoothly, it's literally:\n\nDownload the firmware/filesystem image.\nRun Win32DiskImager and image the above image onto the card.\nPlug the card into the Pi.\nApply power to the pi and enjoy.\n\nSwap out your accessories (SD card, HDMI cable, TV and PSU) and retest at each stage. The problem should become apparent. If you want to have a better go, use the official Raspberry Pi forums, you'll get far better advice."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://elinux.org/RPi_Easy_SD_Card_Setup#Copying_the_image_to_an_SD_card_on_Windows"
] |
[
[
"http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/"
],
[]
] |
|
2wszt6
|
why do different functions of the brain always form in the same regions across humans?
|
For example Broca's areal is related to speech and is always found in roughly the same spot. Since the brain changes so much during development where is the "layout plan" stored? Is it necessary that all human brains have the same basic layout? Or is there at least some sort of advantage to this fixed layout - like a difference in brain matter optimized for different usages?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wszt6/eli5why_do_different_functions_of_the_brain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cottm5p",
"cottnu3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the same reason we all have roughly the same organ placement, skeletal structure, the same reason our teeth are all in the same order.\n\nEvolution has proven that this is the best set up that has yet to be provided via random mutation.\n\nEvolution is not intelligent.",
"For different humans/groups of humans to have different brain layouts would mean there would have to be some evolutionary benefit for us to evolve our brains in a way like that. Since evolution deems the current layout the best for survival, then it is. And the layout plan would be the DNA. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2q5f9s
|
How does an ethnic group appear? Did one ever disappear? If yes, why? If no, why not?
|
If a general pattern is hard to describe, are there any examples we can trace with confidence to use as case studies?
Like, I don't know, when and how did a bunch of people living along the Nile start calling and thinking of themselves as the same group of "Egyptian" (pardon me if this example is not accurate)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2q5f9s/how_does_an_ethnic_group_appear_did_one_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn345i5"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Wouldn't /r/askanthropology be a better place to ask this question? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ekjg05
|
Are pigeons considered isolated in their respective cities?
|
Or do populations fly between different cities and breed with each other?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ekjg05/are_pigeons_considered_isolated_in_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdc9fq7",
"fdd3xff"
],
"score": [
2238,
36
],
"text": [
"This study by [Jacob et al. 2014](_URL_1_) looks into this question for pigeons in western Europe. They found a correlation between increasing genetic distance and larger geographical distances ([see figure](_URL_0_)), meaning that nearby pigeons are more likely to be closely related to each other. However, the measures of population differentiation they used also clearly show that there is at least some ongoing gene flow and migration even between the most distant of the locations they studied. To summarize, there is enough migration going on to keep these populations connected, but not so much that all pigeon populations are genetically indistinguishable.",
"I gotta say that one of the things I would love to research, if I was still in the research half of academia and I had the funding, would be the genetic relationships of a lot of human-associated species. I'm always wondering what the population structure of the feral cats in my town is. Are they related, or from independent introductions of strays? And what about rats? Pigeons are an excellent question as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10530-014-0713-2/MediaObjects/10530_2014_713_Fig1_HTML.gif",
"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-014-0713-2"
],
[]
] |
|
ech91j
|
How did Malay become the official language of Indonesia and not Javanese?
|
The Javanese are the largest ethnicity in Indonesia, the capital is located on Java, both Sukarno and Suharto were Javanese, how did Malay become the official language and not Javanese?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ech91j/how_did_malay_become_the_official_language_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbbgpu9"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"One of the issues that comes with governing w\nIn the region is the cultural plurality, especially in language. Indonesia has hundreds of different native languages, Javanese being a major one.\nBy this point, Malay had already beed used as a unifying language, especially trade, religion, and politics. The VOC also used it for many of their administrative tasks. \nWhen decolonizing, they had a few options. They rejected Dutch as few actually used it in Indonesia (the Dutch never really attempted to force the language on the colony) and it was a colonial language. Javanese was a tempting option, as it was the most common native language. The problem was that it wasnt a language everyone spoke and a language which symbolized Javanese dominance over non-Japanese Indonesians. \nMalay, on the other hand, was the second most common language, being used as a second language among a high proportion of Indonesians. The inability for Javanese to unite a country that only half speak Javanese is pretty clear. Malay was a language that they had historically interacted with and had quite a bit of experience with. It also meant that attempts at regional unity would have greater chances, especially with Malaysia (though these attempts turned sour pretty quickly).\n\nBasically it boiled down to history, unity, and practicality. \n\nLet me know if you have questions or need clarification!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3rl1if
|
why do we need to spend nearly one-third of our life sleeping? why did evolution not bring that number down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rl1if/eli5_why_do_we_need_to_spend_nearly_onethird_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwp0mbg",
"cwp0n9t",
"cwp11kn",
"cwp13dr"
],
"score": [
2,
18,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"To fully answer that question, we would need to know exactly why we sleep. At the present time, we do not.\n\nAlso, evolution does not produce change unless the change allows the organism to reproduce more effectively.",
"For starters, you have the fundamental fallacy of evolution. It does not have direction. HAD a random mutation occurred to eliminate sleep, it might have flourished. \n\nbut then, night time is dangerous, and sleeping is a good way to conserve energy and avoid predators, so maybe wandering around at night would have been bad.",
"Because evolution is the survival of the fittest not the creation of the best or most efficient.\nYou will see sloths spending most of their life on a tree and come down occasion to defecate\nPandas eat a whole bunch of bamboo rather then eating more nutritious and caloric meat.\nLike wise human body isnt about being making the best out of its life span. It's about survival and adjusting with the surrounding.\nThese is my understanding, take it with grain of salt",
"Most creatures are either adapted for light or dark conditions.\n\nSleep is a way of conserving energy during the time you would not be able to operate efficiently. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
22e1vh
|
What makes light sources appear as crosses on film (and when you squint your eyes)?
|
EX:
_URL_0_
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22e1vh/what_makes_light_sources_appear_as_crosses_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgm3keg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > [Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens. These mechanisms differ from the intended image formation mechanism that depends on refraction of the image rays. Flare manifests itself in two ways: as visible artifacts, and as a haze across the image. The haze makes the image look \"washed out\" by reducing contrast and color saturation \\(adding light to dark image regions, and adding white to saturated regions, reducing their saturation\\). Visible artifacts, usually in the shape of the lens iris, are formed when light follows a pathway through the lens than contains one or more reflections from the lens surfaces.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://m6.i.pbase.com/o6/75/47975/1/149499886.nbat1YuQ.Streetligh_F00058.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare"
]
] |
|
88s259
|
If you cut a tree's branch and plant it in a different place, will the second tree be genetically identical to the first tree??
|
Given that the the tree can grow from the cutting.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/88s259/if_you_cut_a_trees_branch_and_plant_it_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwnl9jj",
"dwp3cuf"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"The branch will, yes. This is how a lot of fruit plants (and other crops) are kept consistent. They're not grown from seeds, which would involve changes to the genetics, but are all clones or cuttings of the same original plant, carried forward over the year (or centuries).\n\nAlso, seedless anything..",
"Yes! However, there is a caveat. Because the DNA within both the branch and the tree will undergo mutations (there around 3-6 that go unrepaired each time a human cell divides, I suspect it would be slightly higher since most trees have larger genomes than humans) any given cell from the tree branch will be slightly different than any given cell in the original tree. Note that this is also true before the branch is cut. Do these genetic changes mean that the second tree will, in any measurable way, be different from the original tree? Almost certainly not, but they will not be genetically identical in the truest sense. That said, in a practical sense, yes they will be so genetically similar that they are, for all intents and purposes, genetically identical."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1ksx6m
|
why are western countries not rioting and revolting against their governments, but middle eastern countries are?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ksx6m/eli5_why_are_western_countries_not_rioting_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbs9jmz",
"cbs9p67",
"cbs9tgj",
"cbs9xxb",
"cbs9yvj",
"cbsaafo",
"cbsaja8",
"cbsatsu",
"cbsaz65",
"cbsbhr0",
"cbsbjns",
"cbsbx84",
"cbsc797",
"cbscsib",
"cbsctdl",
"cbsctl6",
"cbsctvi",
"cbscve6",
"cbscw3l",
"cbsd2cq",
"cbsd976",
"cbsdcbp",
"cbsde6h",
"cbsdehc"
],
"score": [
6,
234,
35,
86,
3,
17,
10,
31,
7,
114,
37,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Comparatively the US and Britain don't have it that bad. While our governments may be doing unpopular things, for the most part life is relatively stable for many people and the country as a whole is doing okay. And overthrowing a large \"stable\" government like the US is very unlikely. ",
"The biggest reason is the difference in the quality of life. Sure your rights are being infringed upon, but are you actually going to do anything about it? No. Your life is too comfortable. You would probably rather watch some TV or hang out with friends than take to the streets, risking your life in a riot. It's only when the quality of life is so bad that people feel they have nothing to lose in risking their lives by revolting against their respective governments.\n",
"US corruption is nothing like Middle Eastern corruption.\n\nUS corruption is Congresspeople working for business and not citizens.\nMiddle Eastern corruption is a military dictator declaring himself President For Life.\n\nAnd despite the slow-moving US system, when we don't like the way the country is being run, we can elect new leaders and/or take the old ones to court. We tried the whole \"shoot people to change the laws\" thing back in the 1860's, and it wasn't our best moment. Since then, we've found that peaceful protest and civic action are very effective for us.",
"Western countries count on elections happening in regular cycles. In America, if you don't like the president, you just wait four years and you'll get a chance at a new one. In parliamentary democracies, you don't even need to wait that long.\n\nMiddle Eastern countries cannot count on that because they have no true democracy, or the democracy is too new to be trusted to operate fairly. In Egypt, people engaged in large demonstrations against their democratically elected leader (Mohammed Morsi) which led to coup. They used this form of \"mob recall\" because they did not trust that an election cycle would occur, or if it did, that it would be free from corruption by legal or illegal means. The large demonstrations in Egypt were a signal to the army that the people would not object if the army wanted to engage in some regime change. The counter demonstrations going on now signal that such extra-constitutional regime change is going to have some costs.\n\nLarge scale protests in America (like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street) were not a signal to the army to take direct action because the vast majority of America trusts the election cycle to occur, and the results to be free from significant corruption.",
"It's probably because in places such as those, it's much easier to see who the \"bad guys\" are. How to get rid of a military junta is easier to understand than how to get rid of the problems within western countries and these problems aren't just based around on who is or who isn't in the seat of government. The problems we have here, and in the rest of the world, are much deeper and involve how we organise society on its base level, how we produce things. So take for example the UK, it doesn't matter who is in power because whoever is will continue more or less the same reaction towards economic problems but these problems aren't entirely clear to begin with. There were riots in the UK not too long ago, starting in London, but because there was no real \"bad guy\" to topple over, they quickly dissipated.",
"I read it on some other thread here on reddit, but western civilization doesn't have as many riots because of the three basic necessities that are still being met. Food, Shelter, Entertainment.\n\nEverything else that's wrong with the world, is just a minor inconvenience for a westerner as long as the big three are met.",
"I'm well-employed, I have a benefits-package, I have a bank account, I have bills to pay, I have a home to maintain. \n\nOnce you take that away from me, then I'll consider taking to the streets.\n\nI mean.. I swung by the Occupy Camp, when that was going on, a few times and donated food and supplies. I feel for my fellow citizens and I do what I can. However, the people protesting were vastly underemployed or unemployed young people. I simply have more to risk..",
"Why are you not rioting and revolting right now?\n\n*that's your answer*",
"ELI5? Alright.\n\nYou Americans don't have any real problems. Boohoo you've all accepted and elected to live in a Police State. Elsewhere in the world, military dictatorships involve innocent civilians in power grabs, blatantly steal funds, and murder thousands of people every day for not believing in the correct religion. People fight for food, water, security, shelter, and employment simply to SURVIVE, because their government doesn't have any programs whatsoever to aid it's underprivileged. \n\nOn top of that, your government does the one thing the others don't that lead to revolts: They treat their citizens well. Every time some idiot wants to start an armed revolution, they always conveniently decide to ignore the tremendous amount of GOOD your government does for you. For instance, it's because of them that you can even buy guns to revolt with. Obamacare is slowly bringing socialized healthcare to the states, which is a GOOD thing. You all still have the freedom to pick whatever religion you choose, and most of your country accepts your personal lifestyles. \n\nNot to mention, you have the choice of not living in a police state if you so wish. Next election ( LOL elections, another freedom ), you all have the liberty to vote for the guy who's plan is to cut the NSA as his first order of business. \n\nIn short, a revolt in the states over the case of current affairs would finally prove that too many Americans watch Fox News for your country's own good. ",
"Deep down, even the grumpy assholes in western countries know they/we still have it pretty damn good in comparison.",
"It's simple. Like most Americans, I hate what's happening with the NSA among loads of other shit, and I try to keep myself informed about it. However, my life has not actually changed one bit. I can still do everything I did before, and pretty much anything I want. Although all of these scandals are outrageous, they aren't enough for me to do anything because the only way any of it has actually affected me is the extra time I've spent on the internet reading about it.",
"\"I was about to riot, but then I decided to check Reddit real quick.\" ",
"1) Because of the heat and no air con. It would make anyone go mad. \n\n2) Because they have nothing better to do. ",
"The middle east revolts are a forthcoming revolution within islam itself. The uk had henry the 8th. Islam has yet to modernise and the traditionalists are revolting infact everyone is, hence no one is really safe. Even though in the uk i believe we need a different government no labour not conservative. Someone different with new ideas something fresh and interesting that dont go through oxbridge. Then we might see real change as for now we get the same old regardless of whos in power\n",
"Because we have really tasty bread, and our circuses are **amazing**!",
"We're still living quite comfortably here.",
"Because there is nothing to really complain about worth rioting over. Middle East countries have real problems.",
"For me, it is a risk/benefit issue in the US at least. People look at what they are losing (privacy) versus what they stand to lose by rising up (injury, imprisonment, additional scrutiny from intelligent apparatus). If what they perceive they are losing isn't worse than what they STAND to lose, they will stay silent. These people are referred to as rational actors. The same situation applies to illegal immigrants to the US from other countries.",
"The simple answer; because we have jobs. (generally speaking) ",
"Because we will be put in jail for the littlest amount of rioting, and we have bills to pay... and in order to pay those bills we have to be able to get a good job... and you can't get a good job if you're in jail... and with a job market as terrible as this is, you can't afford to get in that situation.",
"Because we have it pretty good.\n\nYeah, people are unhappy about the NSA, banking scandals, corporate money in politics, and police shooting dogs. but these really are first world problems. It is not perfect, but western democracies have free and fair elections, impartial judicial systems that get it right most of the time, and low rates of corruption. The fact it is taken for granted that Obama will voluntarily leave office in 2016 shows a faith in gov't that just doesn't exist in most of the world.\n\nIn addition, and largely because of those things, westerners enjoy a high standard of living. The entire Arab Spring began because Mohamed Bouazizi lived in a Tunisian village with no work while trying to support an extended family. When corrupt officials confiscated the scales he needed to sell his produce, he saw no way to earn a living, he immolated himself in protest.\n\nIn a more economically developed country with greater employment opportunities, perhaps his desperation does not drive him to this.",
"Because my life is easy, I have good food, I have the internet and work. I'm 22 years old, finishing up college, work 3 part time jobs (2 in my field that I want to enter following school) and don't owe too much (even though my state school isn't cheap).\n\nThis is the story of my life and the majority of others around me. Why should I revolt? Nothing has changed for me over the last few Presidents. No freedoms of mine have been impacted (that I have felt. The laws could have changed but still hasn't had an impact on me to make me revolt).\n\nPeople, including me, my age like to complain a lot. But honestly, the US is a pretty damn nice place for the majority of people.",
"Because we aren't being murdered and oppressed, stoned to death, forced to think and act in very specific ways else we and our loved ones face the wrath of our overlords, most of us aren't starving, most of us are working, the government isn't stealing the aid money that comes in to us, our government, while imperfect, is democratically elected...\n\nI mean, really. Come on.",
"Bread and circus :)\nWorks like a charm. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
40yyvf
|
How much guerrilla warfare occurred after the end of the Civil War? Were there any particular militia groups that attempted to carry on the Confederacy as an official government?
|
I know that many Confederate veterans founded reactionary pro-Confederate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, but were there actually militias that took to the hills? I remember guerrilla war was threatened but most backed down after General Joseph Johnston surrendered in North Carolina, essentially accepting General Lee's surrender throughout the rest of the Confederacy.
Edit: Sorry the American-centric language, but these answers have been absolutely great. Have a new list of books to read.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40yyvf/how_much_guerrilla_warfare_occurred_after_the_end/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyyqv6n",
"cyyslod",
"cyywfei"
],
"score": [
84,
281,
43
],
"text": [
"I'm far from an expert on the subject but I know there were numerous, loosely affiliated white, anti-Republican and white supremacist movements that emerged in the Reconstruction Era. These included groups such as the White League, the Red Shirts and (like you mentioned) the Klu Klux Klan. They were made up of Civil War veterans and primarily targeted Republican officials, African Americans and, in particular, Black Voters. The White League was quite powerful for a time and had membership ranging in the thousands. They operated mainly in Louisiana's Red River Valley and even managed to rout a Union militia at the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. Like the KKK they participated mainly in massacres of emancipated slaves. \n\nThe direct successor of Quantrill's Raiders, the James-Younger gang engaged in acts of banditry throughout Missouri and surrounding states during the late 1860s and early '70s. Though more a gang of outlaws than dedicated Confederate partisans, the James-Younger Gang continued the guerrilla activities of Quantrill's Raiders and largely targeted union authorities, robbing stagecoaches and banks. Jesse and Frank James and the four Younger Brothers were all former Confederate soldiers. ",
"Rather than guerrilla warfare, you might consider the Reconstruction period one of **political terrorism.** \n\nNow, /u/Bernardito can come in here and tell me I'm wrong 10 ways from Sunday (and probably be right), but I draw the line between the two in terms of their goals. I see guerrilla warfare as seeking the overthrow of an opposing government or force, whereas terrorism is focused on the *subversion* of that force from the inside out, exerting pressure through *fear* rather than direct military action.\n\nEric Foner is the 800-pound gorilla of Reconstruction study, and if you're interested in this period, I'd encourage you to read his work. Reconstruction is generally defined as the period between 1865 and 1877 when the victorious Union attempted to institute equality under the law in the defeated South. Rather than large-scale battles featuring hundreds of armed men, the fights of the Reconstruction era were in the courtroom and legislatures, and when fighting did break out, it took place in dark alleys and dim fields, with short and bloody clashes between handfuls of men. \n\nThe goal of groups like the Red Shirts, the White League, the Knights of the White Camelia and yes, the Klan, was to instill fear and disrupt the government. These groups believed (correctly) that if they deterred black voters from organizing, that if they could disrupt the activities of the Republican Party, the Freedmen's Bureau and other government agencies seeking equality (or something close to it), then they could rally white Southern voters to win at the ballot box what they otherwise could not on the battlefield.\n\nIn Foner's classic 1982 paper *Reconstruction Revisited* (It's free to read on JSTOR, and you should read it if you get the chance), he describes [how \"traditional\" Reconstruction historiography](_URL_0_) was dominated by an interpretation that portrayed President Johnson as a hero who stood against the nasty Radical Republicans and those evil carpetbaggers. The modern interpretation shows that as absurd and false. The \"Radicals\" were right in seeking equality between black and white, and when they overrode Johnson's veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, it was a triumph, not a defeat.\n\nNevertheless, you can still see signs of that traditional, racist interpretation on signs across the south. Take the Louisiana historical marker erected in 1950 at the site of the Colfax Massacre and still standing. Foner calls that event the bloodiest single act of violence in Reconstruction. It declares that the event, \"at which three white men and 150 negroes were slain ... marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the state.\"\n\n",
"While I don't know of any groups that worked to reestablish the actual Confederacy as a political unit, the years after the civil war saw a very high level of political violence meant to return the South to the previous status quo. This includes militias/armed white groups using violence to overturn elections.\n\nOne event that is close to what you're looking for occurred in New Orleans in 1874. The Crescent City White League, led by former Confederate officers, marched thousands of whites to the state house in order to seat their chosen Democrat as governor. There plans were not a secret. On September 13th, 1874, the day before the attack the white conspirators had taken out ads in local newspapers proclaiming the time and place of the coup. The White league then set up barricades around the city and clashed with the Metropolitan Police and the Louisiana State Militia, many of whom were black. The invaders were threatening enough that the governor fled his office and holed up in the local customs house. After they gained control of the streets, they then went through police stations and armories raiding weapons and munition. The governor fled his office and, since the majority of the state's defenders had left there post, no longer existed by the next day. \n\nWhile this incident was between well-organized forces, much violence was less well planned, but no less political. I think it's important to note that while angry whites may not have formed secessionist militias, much of the organized and unorganized terrorism was to gain political control. For example, historian Douglas Egerton estimates says of all the racial violence that occurred in the tumultuous year of 1873, 1/3 happened during election weeks.\n\nSometimes the political violence took the form of riots. One of the earliest and worst incidents was on May 1st, 1866 in Memphis. The day previous, federal troops, the only force keeping violence in control, had left the city. According to Egerton:\n\n > Furious that wealthy whites preferred to hire black porters and hack drivers, working-class whites and immigrants first assaulted black veterans , and then turned their rage on these institutions those soldiers had protected: schools and churches. Activist William Wells Brown, who was then in the city, witnessed arsonists cheering for “white man’s government.” Determined to restore their lost antebellum world, other whites forced black women to cook meals for them before raping them and burning their homes to the ground. Two days of disorder followed, during which the city government did nothing to quell the violence and assisted in organizing the mobs; one policeman warned blacks that “Your old father, Abe Lincoln, is dead and damned.” By the time rioters finished their work, forty-six blacks had been murdered, another seventy wounded, with four churches, twelve schools, and ninety-one homes destroyed. “Soon we shall have no more black troops among us,” the Memphis Avalanche bragged. “Thank heaven the white race are once more rulers of Memphis.”\n\nAnd then there is the KKK. Grand Wizard Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, while spreading the Klan's unique form of LARPing, was expressly political. He linked the need for the organization to counter the local government dominated by \"Ignorant ex-slaves, organize by city councils and state legislatures, and dominated by carpetbaggers who came from the North to plunder the South\".^1\nIf the Crescent City White League looked to reverse elections, the Klan's violence was often directed at influencing the outcome. This was \n\nDavid Blight, in *Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory*, notes that 10% of black members of constitutional conventions in the post-war south were murdered. Other examples from the book are: \n\n > in October 1870 in Greene County, Alabama, where four blacks were killed and fifty-four wounded, or another in 1870 in Laurens County, South Carolina, where after Republicans won a local election, some 150 blacks were chased from their homes and thirteen murdered. In South Carolina alone, from the fall elections of 1870 to April 1871, formal testimony recorded some thirty-eight murders and hundreds of whippings. In Meridian, Mississippi, in 1871, local black orators were arrested for delivering “incendiary speeches.” At a court hearing, gunfire erupted, and the white Republican judge and two defendants were killed. In a day-long riot that followed in Meridian, some thirty blacks were slaughtered by mobs.\n\nSo while militias groups to reconstitute the confederacy were rare (or non-exsistant), organized political violence to overturn elected governments and institute white rule was not.\n___\nBlight, David W. Race and reunion: the Civil War in American memory. Belknap Press, 2001.\nEgerton, Douglas R. The Wars of Reconstruction: The Brief, Violent History of America's Most Progressive Era. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2014.\nHurst, Jack. Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography. Vintage, 2011.\nHogue, James Keith. Uncivil War: Five New Orleans Street Battles and the Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction. LSU Press, 2006.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/opinion/sunday/why-reconstruction-matters.html"
],
[]
] |
|
5pv5f3
|
what is my computer doing while i'm not telling it to do something?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pv5f3/eli5_what_is_my_computer_doing_while_im_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcu37r7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"From a purely practical standpoint it is just sitting there waiting for a command. However if you open up task manager you may see 60+ background processes running. So what gives? Most of these processes have to do with maintaining the function of the system. You'll have a process for the touchpad of your laptop, a process for your graphics processor, a process for your speakers, a process for you wireless card, a whole bunch of process keeping your OS running, etc. These processes will just quietly run in the background like the always do. You also may have updaters such as Adobe, Steam, Nvidia, Windows, etc. that check for updates when your computer is idle. Windows 10 also comes with a default setting that performs hard disk maintenance during usual downtime. When your computer goes to sleep or hibernates it is basically cutting down all those background processes to the bare minimum needed to keep the OS functioning and then waiting for a command to wake up. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8ojepb
|
The Holocaust: Death Toll and Terminology
|
Ive recently had a discussion about the number of people murdered during the holocaust, and that discussion revealed some glaring inconsistencies in peoples opinions about the number of victims.
As a german I am most familiar with a number of around 6 to 7 million, usually split between 5-6 million jewish and 1 million members of other groups. Some people in that discussion however stated a total deathcount of 11/20 million, which were new to me personally. Now I have read up on the german and english wikipedia articles which state 5,5 to 6,3 and 11 million victims respectively.
The german article only speaks about jews, while the english article includes many other groups in its count. Now Im left wondering which of the many victims of WWII are to be included in the Holocaust, and which are not, in a academic historiographic sense.
Thanks in advance for any informed answer!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8ojepb/the_holocaust_death_toll_and_terminology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e03slwo"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Hi! As this question pertains to basic, underlying facts of the Holocaust, I hope you can appreciate that it can be a fraught subject to deal with. While we want people to get the answers they are looking for, we also remain very conscious that threads of this nature can attract the very wrong kind of response. As such, this message is not intended to provide you with all of the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as Holocaust Denial, and provide a short list of introductory reading. There is always more than can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point for you.\n\n##What Was the Holocaust?\n\nThe Holocaust refers the genocidal deaths of 5-6 million European Jews carried out systematically by Nazi Germany as part of targeted policies of persecution and extermination during World War II. Some historians will also include the deaths of the Roma, Communists, Mentally Disabled, and other groups targeted by Nazi policies, which brings the total number of deaths to ~11 million. Debates about whether or not the Holocaust includes these deaths or not is a matter of definitions, but in no way a reflection on dispute that they occurred.\n\n##But This Guy Says Otherwise!\n\nUnfortunately, there is a small, but at times vocal, minority of persons who fall into the category of Holocaust Denial, attempting to minimize the deaths by orders of magnitude, impugn well proven facts, or even claim that the Holocaust is entirely a fabrication and never happened. Although they often self-style themselves as \"Revisionists\", they are not correctly described by the title. While revisionism is not inherently a dirty word, actual revision, to quote Michael Shermer, *\"entails refinement of detailed knowledge about events, rarely complete denial of the events themselves, and certainly not denial of the cumulation of events known as the Holocaust.\"*\n\nIt is absolutely true that were you to read a book written in 1950 or so, you would find information which any decent scholar today might reject, and that is the result of good revisionism. But these changes, which even can be quite large, such as the reassessment of deaths at Auschwitz from ~4 million to ~1 million, are done within the bounds of respected, academic study, and reflect decades of work that builds upon the work of previous scholars, and certainly does not willfully disregard documented evidence and recollections. There are still plenty of questions within Holocaust Studies that are debated by scholars, and there may still be more out there for us to discover, and revise, but when it comes to the basic facts, there is simply no valid argument against them.\n\n##So What Are the Basics?\n\nBeginning with their rise to power in the 1930s, the Nazi Party, headed by Adolf Hitler, implemented a series of anti-Jewish policies within Germany, marginalizing Jews within society more and more, stripping them of their wealth, livelihoods, and their dignity. With the invasion of Poland in 1939, the number of Jews under Nazi control reached into the millions, and this number would again increase with the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Shortly after the invasion of Poland, the Germans started to confine the Jewish population into squalid ghettos. After several plans on how to rid Europe of the Jews that all proved unfeasible, by the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, ideological (Antisemitism) and pragmatic (Resources) considerations lead to mass-killings becoming the only viable option in the minds of the Nazi leadership.\nFirst only practiced in the USSR, it was influential groups such as the SS and the administration of the General Government that pushed to expand the killing operations to all of Europe and sometime at the end of 1941 met with Hitler’s approval.\n\nThe early killings were carried out foremost by the *Einsatzgruppen*, paramilitary groups organized under the aegis of the SS and tasked with carrying out the mass killings of Jews, Communists, and other 'undesirable elements' in the wake of the German military's advance. In what is often termed the 'Holocaust by Bullet', the *Einsatzgruppen*, with the assistance of the Wehrmacht, the SD, the Security Police, as well as local collaborators, would kill roughly two million persons, over half of them Jews. Most killings were carried out with mass shootings, but other methods such as gas vans - intended to spare the killers the trauma of shooting so many persons day after day - were utilized too. \n\nBy early 1942, the \"Final Solution\" to the so-called \"Jewish Question\" was essentially finalized at the Wannsee Conference under the direction of Reinhard Heydrich, where the plan to eliminate the Jewish population of Europe using a series of extermination camps set up in occupied Poland was presented and met with approval.\n\nConstruction of extermination camps had already begun the previous fall, and mass extermination, mostly as part of 'Operation Reinhard', had began operation by spring of 1942. Roughly 2 million persons, nearly all Jewish men, women, and children, were immediately gassed upon arrival at Bełżec, Sobibór, and Treblinka over the next two years, when these \"Reinhard\" camps were closed and razed. More victims would meet their fate in additional extermination camps such as Chełmno, but most infamously at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where slightly over 1 million persons, mostly Jews, died. Under the plan set forth at Wannsee, exterminations were hardly limited to the Jews of Poland, but rather Jews from all over Europe were rounded up and sent east by rail like cattle to the slaughter. Although the victims of the Reinhard Camps were originally buried, they would later be exhumed and cremated, and cremation of the victims was normal procedure at later camps such as Auschwitz.\n\n##The Camps\n\nThere were two main types of camps run by Nazi Germany, which is sometimes a source of confusion. Concentration Camps were well known means of extrajudicial control implemented by the Nazis shortly after taking power, beginning with the construction of Dachau in 1933. Political opponents of all type, not just Jews, could find themselves imprisoned in these camps during the pre-war years, and while conditions were often brutal and squalid, and numerous deaths did occur from mistreatment, they were not usually a death sentence and the population fluctuated greatly. Although Concentration Camps *were* later made part of the 'Final Solution', their purpose was not as immediate extermination centers. Some were 'way stations', and others were work camps, where Germany intended to eke out every last bit of productivity from them through what was known as \"extermination through labor\". Jews and other undesirable elements, if deemed healthy enough to work, could find themselves spared for a time and \"allowed\" to toil away like slaves until their usefulness was at an end.\n\nAlthough some Concentration Camps, such as Mauthausen, did include small gas chambers, mass gassing was not the primary purpose of the camp. Many camps, becoming extremely overcrowded, nevertheless resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of inhabitants due to the outbreak of diseases such as typhus, or starvation, all of which the camp administrations did little to prevent. Bergen-Belsen, which was not a work camp but rather served as something of a way station for prisoners of the camp systems being moved about, is perhaps one of the most infamous of camps on this count, saw some 50,000 deaths caused by the conditions. Often located in the Reich, camps liberated by the Western forces were exclusively Concentration Camps, and many survivor testimonies come from these camps.\n\nThe Concentration Camps are contrasted with the Extermination Camps, which were purpose built for mass killing, with large gas chambers and later on, crematoria, but little or no facilities for inmates. Often they were disguised with false facades to lull the new arrivals into a false sense of security, even though rumors were of course rife for the fate that awaited the deportees. Almost all arrivals were killed upon arrival at these camps, and in many cases the number of survivors numbered in the single digits, such as at Bełżec, where only seven Jews, forced to assist in operation of the camp, were alive after the war.\n\nSeveral camps, however, were 'Hybrids' of both types, the most famous being Auschwitz, which was a vast complex of subcamps. The infamous 'selection' of prisoners, conducted by SS doctors upon arrival, meant life or death, with those deemed unsuited for labor immediately gassed and the more healthy and robust given at least temporary reprieve. The death count at Auschwitz numbered around 1 million, but it is also the source of many survivor testimonies.\n\n##How Do We Know?\n\nRunning through the evidence piece by piece would take more space than we have here, but suffice to say, there is a lot of evidence, and not just the (mountains of) survivor testimony. We have testimonies and writings from many who participated, as well German documentation of the programs. [This site](_URL_2_) catalogs some of the evidence we have for mass extermination as it relates to Auschwitz. I'll end this with a short list of excellent works that should help to introduce you to various aspects of Holocaust study.\n\n##Further Reading\n\n* \"[Third Reich Trilogy](_URL_4_)\" by Richard Evans\n* \"[Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution](_URL_1_)\" by Ian Kershaw\n* \"[Auschwitz: A New History](_URL_5_)\" by Laurence Rees\n* \"[Ordinary Men](_URL_3_)\" by Christopher Browning\n* \"[Denying the Holocaust](_URL_0_)\" by Deborah E. Lipstadt\n* [AskHistorians FAQ](/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_nazi_germany)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=_yLm_cHp_REC",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=Z7FiPwAACAAJ",
"http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=HFB-dkuZzSwC",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=HZmXOPGTGjIC",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=Wh9QVS3A5QIC"
]
] |
|
pm967
|
What makes the under arm areas of white clothing turn yellow? Is it the sweat, components of deodorant, or both? Can anything be done to prevent it/Is there any way to get it out?
|
I've had so many awesome white shirts ruined by the yellow stains. What makes them happen? Is there anything one can do to prevent them? Are there any chemicals that will get it out? Bleach never works for me. Also, some items can't be bleached anyways because there are other colors on them.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pm967/what_makes_the_under_arm_areas_of_white_clothing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3qlbzk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Eccrine sweat glands are found over most of the body and are the most numerous type of sweat glands. They secrete a type of sweat which is largely composed of water (approximatley 99%). In addition to water, minute amounts of salts, metabolic wastes, antibodies, lactic acid and vitamin C make up the other approximately 1% of sweat's composition. Eccrine sweat glands contribute largely to maintainance of body temperature and may be either heat activated or emotionally induced. Apocrine sweat glands are found in localized regions such as the armpits and groin. These glands secrete a more viscous, protein rich sweat that is associated with hair follicles. These glands become much more highly activated at puberty and the bacterial breakdown of this sweat contributes to body odor. Sebaceous (oil) glands secrete sebum or oil either into a hair follicle or to the surface of the skin. Sebum helps maintain skin and hair textures by slowing water loss and is bactericidal.\n\nThe yellow stains are mostly caused by sodium chloride, phosphate,\nurea, ammonia and lactic acid, all common constituents of sweat. The reaction of these and the chemicals (mainly aluminum) found in deodorants can cause the yellow stains found in the armpits and groin. However it is important to note that body chemistry differs from person to person."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3mqkv9
|
why is volkswagens false emissions test hurting the company's reputation more than other more serious recalls that have killed people?
|
I understand that it's serious but how is a false emissions test more important than something like an air bag that have killed people?
Is emissions more important than a human life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mqkv9/eli5_why_is_volkswagens_false_emissions_test/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvh8419"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It is not that emissions are more important than a human life. It is the fact that in this case, it was a very purposeful lie. And it makes people wonder if they are lying about this, what other things might they be lying about that might directly affect their safety.\n\nTo some degree, people accept that production errors can happen, but it is the way the company responds to them that makes the difference. If they cover it up, it'll have more of an effect on their reputation (again, because if they are lying about that, what else might they be lying about) than if they immediately set in order a recall once they have spotted there is a systematic failure. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1zebbz
|
why do wholesalers need distributors to get into retailers?
|
More accurately, at what scale/circumstance is a distributor necessary? For instance, a micro brewery wants regional distribution and has the product to supply it. Why would they not hire staffers to do it themselves?
Sidebar: I've worked in grocery retail and from my experience, distributors don't do much besides narrow your margins and cover up Quality Assurance problems from you. So I'm kind of trying to figure out why, I suppose.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zebbz/eli5_why_do_wholesalers_need_distributors_to_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfsw18g",
"cfsxfym"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Just because you have the knowledge to make a good beer doesn't mean you have the knowledge to run a distribution system. Drivers, warehouses, meeting exacting delivery schedules... yeah, if you have the expertise to do it, that's great, but you're probably better at making beer.",
"I used to work for a wine/liquor/micro wholesaler so here goes.. \n\nThe biggest part, especially for microbrewers and microdistillers is that by having a wholesaler sell, ship, and in some cases market their products it's a huge cost savings for them. Look at it this way, without a distributor a micro would have to hire a driver, or drivers, buy truck(s), fuel, maintain and insure those trucks, pay salespeople, etc, etc. Also, in some states, such as Massachusetts, liquor stores cannot buy direct. It needs to go through a wholesaler. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5uykoc
|
How was it that Persia was able to preserve its language and ethnic identity, while Egypt and the Levant did not?
|
During the Islamic invasions, all three fell under Arab control. Other than changing their writing system and religion, Persia to this day retains a different ethnic identity and language than the rest of the "Arab world".
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5uykoc/how_was_it_that_persia_was_able_to_preserve_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ditvbor"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > The conquering Arabs initially intended for Islam to be the religion of the military conquers, but for the conquered to retain their original religions. For this reason, people were not forced to convert even when militarily conquered. Instead, they had to pay that jizya, or poll tax and lived as dhimmīs, or a protected class. I’m going to quote below something I wrote up on the jizya before.\n\nI was searching for another post when I came across the above comment that I believe is providing some insight for your question. It's the third paragraph in his To the Levant and Beyond section of his comments\n\nThat is from /u/frogbrooks comments here;\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5mpi1g/to_what_extent_was_the_spread_of_islam_bloodless/dc5gsp7/"
]
] |
|
1waqww
|
Does a plucked string really create an infinite set of overtones?
|
I know mathematically that they do, but I'm questioning how this could be possible due to the limit of scale at the atom. It seems like at the level of the atom, the string would not be able to create a new node and would therefore put a cap on the overtones.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1waqww/does_a_plucked_string_really_create_an_infinite/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf09kpp"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"A plucked string in principle produces an infinite set of overtones.\n\nBut the power in the overtones tends to decrease with harmonic number. For example, the 8th harmonic (7th overtone) might have 1/8th or 1/64th the power of the first harmonic (funcamental tone), and so on.\n\nAs you get to higher and higher harmonics, the power will be so low that it is less than the noise in the system. For example the vibrations created by thermal movement in the string, or in the microphone or strain gauge you're using to measure the string vibration.\n\nThis will happen at much lower harmonics than you'd need to reach before you start worrying about the vibration wavelength being comparable to the atomic spacing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cy2h0e
|
On Jupiter there is a storm that never ends. Is that something that could happen on Earth?
|
I'm thinking not but global warming is a doggy's momma.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cy2h0e/on_jupiter_there_is_a_storm_that_never_ends_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyqap3w",
"eyqnw8y",
"eywmlb9"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"This is not really true. If you are speaking of the Great Red Spot it is unlikely that this is a persistent feature that lasts the lifetime of the planet. \n\nFurther if we consider Earth it is highly unlikely we would get something even remotely as persistent. This is because massive storms like hurricanes lose energy when they hit land and Earth has a lot of land for the storm to find!",
"It's not that it never ends, it's that it's been there a long time, which is very different. \n\nEarth has similar things, but they're not storms - they're ocean currents, prevailing winds, etc, caused by the rotation of the earth and seasonal temperature swings and such. \n\nJupiter is a bit different because there are no landmasses that break up the currents. When a hurricane hits land, it changes, slows down, and eventually dies off, but that doesn't happen on Jupiter. \n\nI hope that helps!",
"Thankfully not. Atmospheric composition and thermodynamics means that storms on Earth are relatively short-lived. If Earth didn't rotate quite as fast, that might change things. \n\nJupiter's \"Red Spot\" is actually shrinking, and could actually be gone within 20 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dikwvh
|
The Netherlands seemingly went from cutting edge to obsolescent and backwards to cutting edge again in our modern day. What happened there? How did the Dutch, who industrialized quite late, surpass the Belgian early adopters?
|
Today the Netherlands is generally wealthier and more developed than its Belgian cousins, yet, Belgium was the second country in Europe to industrialize and the Netherlands itself was actually relatively late to the game.
What happened here? What factors caused the Dutch to rocket so far ahead and prosper despite the initial handicap? What's the story behind Dutch success?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dikwvh/the_netherlands_seemingly_went_from_cutting_edge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3xjdpt",
"f3xje8a",
"f3yaroa"
],
"score": [
527,
31,
74
],
"text": [
"Though the Netherlands was late to the game when it came to industrializing, its economy did already have certain traits that are associated with more modern economies, such as a large service sector, and a very productive agricultural sector. In 1800 43% of Dutch people were employed in agriculture, compared to 36% in GB and 62% in Germany, 26% were involved in industry (GB 30%, Germany 21%), and 31% were working in the service sector (GB 34%, Germany 17%). (Sources: De Vries & Van der Woude, 'The first modern economy'; Van Zanden, 'Taking the measure').\n\nDuring the period between 1815 and 1830, investments in heavy industry grew. This trend was halted and reversed and until 1865 more traditional fields such as the textile industry, sugar trade and shipbuilding rose back to prominence. Only around 1870 did the Netherlands really start industrializing like the UK, Belgium, Germany and the United States had done.\n\n'Why were the Netherlands so late?'\n\nMany have argued that the Dutch were too focused on their glorious past and refused to let go of outdated technology, or that its focus on windmills and watermills to provide power had led it towards a technological dead-end. \n\nRecent historians however, point out that the Netherlands never truly fell behind its neighbours economically, but rather that its economic profile was different from its industrialized neighbours, with a larger focus on services and agriculture. \n\nGDP per capita in 1990 dollars: \n1820 - Belgium 1319, Germany 1077, Netherlands 1838, UK 1706, US 1257. \n1850 - Belgium 1847, Germany 1428, Netherlands 2371, UK 2330, US 1806. \n1870 - Belgium 2692, Germany 1839, Netherlands 2757, UK 3190, US 2445. \n1900 - Belgium 3731, Germany 2985, Netherlands 3424, UK 4492, US 4091. \n1930 - Belgium 4979, Germany 3973, Netherlands 5603, UK 5441, US 6213. \nSource: Maddison, 'Historical Statistics'.\n\nFurthermore, the Netherlands did innovate its technology further throughout the early 19th century. On one hand through further improvements in its traditional technologies (such as windmills), but on the other hand through selectively taking foreign innovations and applying them on a small scale to Dutch production methods.\n\n'Why didn't the Netherlands develop a modern industry earlier?'\n\n\\- One reason that has been given is the country's republican history. As a Republic, Dutch cities had enjoyed various liberties and privileges. This decentralized system, which had allowed for a dynamic society in which various regions within the country competed economically, proved to be disadvantegeous in an age of increased centralization and integration into one national economy supported by a good infrastructure. Local interests and power struggles inhibited a quick Dutch conversion to this new nationalized model. Increased taxes that were aimed towards building a national infrastructure further inhibited risk-taking by businesses and left the country with relatively high national debt.\n\n\\- Another reason was the country's first King, Willem I (r. 1815-1840). Often called 'Koopman-koning' (Merchant-king) by his own people, Willem I attempted to modernize his country's economy through large investments into infrastructure, industry, and trade. Like stated in the previous paragraph, these taxes had the opposite effect of what he had intented, causing Dutch business owners to shy away from investing while the country's finances were in chaos.\n\n\\- A final factor that inhibited the development of a Dutch industrial base was the liberalization of international trade in the 1840s. When a liberal party rose to power in 1842, they abolished most tariffs on imports and exports. This was good for the modernized Dutch agricultural sector, but had a large impact on Dutch craftsmen, who couldn't keep up with much more modernized foreign manufacturers. \n\nTo conclude, the Dutch economy was more heavily focused on the service sector and agriculture, rather than industry. So rather than competing with Belgium, Germany, and the UK on an industrial level, the country specialized in other fields. \n\nSource: Touwen, Jeroen 'Expansie, stagnatie en globalisering: economische ontwikkelingen' in eds. Davids, Karel & 'T Hart, Marjolein *De Wereld & Nederland. Een sociale en economische geschiedenis van de laatste duizend jaar*, Amsterdam, 2011, 185-200.",
"Follow up question: how did the Netherlands, with their naval experience and sizable colonial holdings in the Farr East, almost totally miss out on the carving up of Africa? Belgium was smaller, but had the whole of the Congo practically to itself (with predictably disastrous results for the locals). Did Belgium have a larger industry to feed with African resources, or was it more that the Dutch were too busy managing their other holdings?",
"A debt crisis spurred by four military catastrophes, followed by an eventual recovery once the debt was paid.\n\nThe great irony of the Netherlands’ slow industrialization is that the Dutch Republic had laid the institutional groundwork for industrialization in Britain. In many ways, the “industrial” revolution was a financial one - many technologies and manufacturing processes used in the early period of industrialization had already been practiced for centuries, but the capital was never there to employ them on a large scale. This was because there was no reliable way for many savers to pool their money into a single fund. Until the consolidation of the Dutch banking system in the 18th century, saving in a bank was a risky proposition, akin to playing the stock market today. Sovereign default was a regular occurrence in the early modern period: King Phillip of Spain, who presided over the Christian world’s largest state budget in his time, defaulted four times during his reign. He was far from alone, as the Netherlands’ commercial rival, England, had to resort to a policy of “forced loans” (taxes in all but name) due to the King’s poor reputation as a debtor.\n\nThe Dutch Republic borrowed extensively for most of its history, but was relatively accountable to its creditors. Since the government during most periods was influenced by the mercantile classes, default was generally not an option. This led to the world’s first stable banking system - banks could “hedge” reserves on state loans, knowing they would be repaid. This in turn made saving a routine activity, leading to significant “capital formation” for the first time.\n\nFor most of human history, GDP per capita growth was net zero, since the rate of capital growth never exceeded the rate of population growth for long periods. Pooled savings are what enabled industrialization, spurred by higher rates of investment. The Dutch Republic in the 17th and early 18th centuries saw comparatively fast economic growth which some historians call “Dutch proto-industrialization”. Manufacturing processes were employed in shipbuilding, and to a limited extent in textiles, and many infrastructures were built.\n\nIronically, it was these very institutions that enabled English industrialization. In 1688, Dutch stadtholder William of Orange usurped the English throne, and reformed the government on parliamentary lines.\nIn 1694, England created the Bank of England, in practice a regulatory organization on crown debt. This led to the English public debt becoming as secure as the Dutch, and led to the creation of a relatively stable banking system in the UK. \n\nThe Dutch economy would ultimately be ruined by the country’s foreign policy. In 1674, a conspiracy organized by Louis XIV of France united France, Spain, and England against the Dutch Republic. Conversely, Dutch Grand Pensionary de Witt, fearing the army, which supported his rivals in the House of Orange, underfunded the force. The resulting military catastrophe was known as “Rampjaar”, or disaster year. The Republic ultimately survived this crisis, but only after a multiplication of the public debt. This was only worsened by the subsequent Glorious Revolution, which magnified the personal power of William of Orange but turned the Dutch Republic into England’s “whipping boy” on the continent. The Dutch foreign policy became tied to that of England (Britain after 1707), and the two entered the War of Austrian Succession together. Since the Dutch Republic was on the continent and Britain was not, this led the Dutch to be punished for Britain’s decisions, receiving the bulk of the French army’s “attention”. By the mid 18th century, the Dutch state was already nearing bankruptcy from war expenses, and 70% of the state budget was being dedicated to debt repayment. Massive state borrowing also dried up the supply of credit, making it harder for businesses to get loans. This situation would only worsen over the following seventy years.\n\nAfter the War of Austrian Succession, the Republic adopted a brief policy of neutrality (while still being favorable to the British) for the following three decades in order to recuperate financial losses. Financial strain and neutrality led the Dutch army and fleet to atrophy. This set the Republic up for its third military catastrophe, one arguably worse than the partial French occupation and Rampjaar. In the late 1770s, the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War drove a wedge beteeen the Dutch and their erstwhile British allies. The British government, expecting routine subservience from the Dutch, demanded limited military support and a cessation of trade with France and the American rebels. The Dutch refused, partly due to idelogical sympathy with the rebels, and partially because Stadtholder William V couldn’t have agreed if he wanted to. Already accused of mismanagement, William faced a growing pro-French opposition and his government was mired with infighting.\n\nThe British declared war in 1780, after the Dutch joined Catherine the Great’s “League of Armed Neutrality”. The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War was an unmitigated disaster. The Republic was blockaded and the Dutch East India Company went insolvent, requiring an expensive bailout.\n\nThe final catastrophe came only 11 years after the war’s end in 1784. The French Revolution broke out later in the decade, and in 1795 the Revolutionary armies conquered the country, establishing the puppet Batavian Republic. The French, over the course of their almost two decades long occupation, extracted a sum from the Dutch in requisitions and indemnity approaching 90% of GDP. For the first time, the Dutch state became insolvent and could not service its debt. The British meanwhile helped themselves to numerous Dutch colonies during this period, most notably the future South Africa.\n\nBelgium and the Netherlands started to diverge almost immediately after Belgian independence in 1830. The Netherlands until the mid-1850 would still be struggling to make payments on its debt from the Republic (despite much negotiation and selective defaults), while Belgium, free of this burden, funded a vast railroad system in the first years of its independence. Belgium was, from the start, somewhat of a French project, and had ready access to French loans. Further, the Wallonia region of Belgium had rich coal reserves close to the surface which could be mined at a low cost - this gave Belgium a considerable advantage in industrialization.\n\nAfter the settlement of the debt issue, Dutch growth rebounded and eventually converged with Belgium’s. There wasn’t much of a “how” here - the Dutch were the first to have the critical ingredient in industrialization - a reliable banking system - and underwent “proto industrialization” in the 17th century that made them the richest country in the world in per capita terms. The Netherlands wasn’t “held back” by institutional barriers like many countries in the time period- instead, it had all the ingredients, but suffered a “lost century” from costly foreign policy disasters which spawned a financial crisis of titanic proportions.\n\nCritically, the Netherlands was never a “poor” country. Since independence, it has always been one of the richest in GDP per capita in the world (though the gap between rich and poor countries has expanded from industrialization and modern growth). However, its long stagnation was a result of much of the capital formed in the country in the 18th and early 19th centuries going to war, debt service, or “indemnity” to France.\n\nThis all begs the question as to why Britain didn’t go through the same crisis, and the answer lies in “extractive capital formation”. Britain, also benefiting from a stable banking system (thus, low interest rates), borrowed deeply into debt to defeat the more populous France, so much so that debt to GDP exceeded 200% at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. However, interest rates were sub-4% for most of this period, meaning that Britain’s interest payments as percent of GDP were not considerably higher than the Dutch Republic’s for most of the 18th century. More importantly, Britain also extracted vast amounts of money from colonized nations and European rivals during this period. The British Empire expanded rapidly in the 18th century, and British victories produced trade concessions abroad (such as the notorious asiento), a mountain of seized cargo, and indemnity payments. In contrast, the Dutch Empire was contracting for most of this period - its chief losses being to its British “ally” - and its most valuable colony went insolvent in the 1780s.\n\nSources: \n\nde Vries and Woude. The First Modern Economy. Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815.\n\nMoore, Bob. Colonial Empires Compared: Britain and the Netherlands, 1750–1850.\n\nBaten, Jörg. A History of the Global Economy. From 1500 to Present.\n\nMokyr, Joel. The Industrial Revolution and the Netherlands: Why did it not happen?\n\nNorth and Weingast. Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
kua2d
|
Why is it harder to drink from a can with the tab removed
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kua2d/why_is_it_harder_to_drink_from_a_can_with_the_tab/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2n9n0g",
"c2n9n0g"
],
"score": [
17,
17
],
"text": [
"The tab prevents your upper lip from forming a seal with the back of the opening, and thus air can flow in to replace the liquid flowing out.",
"The tab prevents your upper lip from forming a seal with the back of the opening, and thus air can flow in to replace the liquid flowing out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
326uj3
|
why do we have to eat and urinate throughout the day, but can make it through 8+ hours of sleep just fine?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/326uj3/eli5_why_do_we_have_to_eat_and_urinate_throughout/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq8g0cp",
"cq8g0gt",
"cq8hihn"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
5
],
"text": [
"Because during that sleep you are sleeping, and not eating or drinking normally throughout the night as us humans do during the day. And there are times when people have a strong urge to use the restroom during the morning meaning they had to go during the night.",
"During sleep, your metabolism slows. Your digestive and renal systems shift into a slow mode so they produce less waste. ",
"1. You are not drinking or eating\n2. Your metabolism slows down so your body can use that energy to repair damages you've done to your body during your time awake.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_and_metabolism"
]
] |
||
9ahh4i
|
Can wild type insects make mistakes?
|
How tied to instincts are they? Do they sometimes do things that they shouldn't do according to instict, assuming there are no abnormal parameters? If you filmed an ant for a few weeks, would it sometimes trip over its own legs? (failure in hunt excluded from this question)
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ahh4i/can_wild_type_insects_make_mistakes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4wxizm",
"e4x3kxq"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"You may find your answer in the work of french entomologist J H Fabre.\n\nHis main focus was to test the limits of adaptability/rigidity in insect behavior, and he would devise experiments to test these.\n\nFor instance, he noticed a certain wasp always dragged its paralysed prey to the nest by the antennae. So he checked what happened when he removed the antennae (the wasp was baffled and abandonned the prey). He documented several cases where rigid instinctual behavior led to maladaptive responses, such as gregarious caterpillars walking in circles around the rim of a pot until death (these walk single file and follow a silk thread left by the previous ones, in a \"follow the leader\" kind of way).",
"Its not a situation that comes up in the wild because hives tend to be widely separated but honey bees *apis mellifera* return to the wrong hive all the time in managed situations particularly when the hives all look a like and are in a long row. The hives on the ends will gather workers over time and the ones in the middle lose them. The term [we use is drift](_URL_0_). Normally its not an issue but in queen rearing its a massive problem if the queen returns from her mating flight to the wring hive because she can't distinguish it from the others. The workers at the new hive will kill her."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://beeinformed.org/2018/06/11/drift/"
]
] |
|
9p6rjw
|
why aren't state sponsored cyber attacks considered an act of war?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9p6rjw/eli5_why_arent_state_sponsored_cyber_attacks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7zi13h",
"e7zib4v",
"e7zirys",
"e7zj2gt",
"e7zkl77",
"e7zl2zo"
],
"score": [
26,
26,
8,
10,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, everyone's doing it.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf one nation suddenly decided it's tanks on the lawn time, then everyone else would have the same excuse - You can't claim the moral high ground when proof is released that you were doing the exact same thing to your enemy.",
"A cyber attack is an extremely broad term. It could be as simple as accessing a single network node and shutting it off, or remotely getting into the central data center and stealing Gigabytes of data. The latter is much more easy to detect while it's happening, whereas the former it typically a \"get in, hit the target, get out\", so it's unlikely to catch those in-the-act (they're also far less common).\n\nBecause of the nature of the Internet, even if all signs point to a certain nation-state carrying out the attack, it might not necessarily be an attack authorized, coordinated, or carried out by that nation. Many people online use a VPN/proxy service, which basically works like \"Sure, I'm physically in Paris, but I want the Internet to think I'm in Ontario\", or \"I'm in Russia, but I want anyone who might be tracing my activity back to think I'm in Chicago\". Use of a VPN/proxy isn't, by itself, illegal. Because of that, there's still too much uncertainty with regards to most cyber attacks to be 100% certain that \"yes, this attack did in fact originate from someone working for this country's government.\"\n\nIt is, however, possible to get a good idea of who carried out some cyber attacks, based on a form of digital signature, the manner in which something is done. However, it's also possible that some countries' methods have made it onto the \"Dark Web\", and rogue hackers can follow those methods to try to hide themselves by making the victim think it was someone else.\n\nSorry... this got really long...\n\nTL;DR: it's very hard to catch someone \"in-the-act\", hostile actions can have their locations masked via VPN/proxy, and rogue individual actors can hide behind known methods carried out by countries.",
"they will be, when people start dying as a result of them. the reality is that we’ve not experienced a sustained attack on any critical systems yet that have endangered or cost lives. ",
"For the same reasons that most acts of espionage are not acts of war. One, everyone is doing it. Two, because military response has to be proportional for rational actors (ie gunning someone and their whole family down because they cut you off in traffic isn't appropriate). Three, because the occasions you want to get into war are far far fewer than the opportunities to get into wars. Countries only start wars they think they can win plus benfit from, or because their hand is forced by a legitimate attack/invasion that presents existential threat, or close to one.",
"This is actually an ever-evolving discussion in politics and defense. \n\nThe first problem is determining where to draw the line. What digital attack justifies physical use of force? Would you send missiles in response to a digital bank heist? Do you wait for your adversaries to take down the entire power grid before sending the bombers? The mostly-agreeable consensus is when the attack results in physical consequences (eg. cyber-attack blew up a power plant resulting in xx injuries/deaths). \n\nThe next problem is what is a reasonable physical response to such an attack? How many people do you kill in response? How much infrastructure do you destroy?\n\nAnd that can only happen if you're dead sure you know whodunit. Some attacks are pretty easy to tell where they came from, others are impossible to determine. If you're committing soldiers and killing people, you want to be 200% sure that you're toasting the right bagel. Compounding this problem is the fact that cyber-attacks are not always committed by the nations themselves. It could be an advanced cyber-crime group or other actor. The potential for false-flag attacks in this scenario is also huge. \n\nWar is the very last thing on earth a nation wants to do (at least it should be). You have to weigh the pros and cons of the situation and determine if the benefit in going to war (destroying your enemy) outweighs the costs (lives lost, economy lost, pure financial cost), and that's if you're sure you can win. Georgia is slowly being invaded by Russia, but it's not like they can realistically do anything about it. Ukraine lost a good chunk of land, but it's not like they could have defended themselves. The UK had *nerve agent* used on its soil and kill its citizens, but they have no hope of winning against Russia on their own, so they just move on.\n\n---\n\nThe bottom line is that it boils down to two questions:\n\n- Are you absolutely sure you know whodunit?\n\n- Do you really want to go to war over *this*?",
"It's not worth going to war over, especially as it's mostly major nations who do it against each other. Remember, war tends to grow like wildfire, you can't just declare a small war, either you are at war or you are not.\n\nWar is a last resort, and you really, really want to be sure it's actually worth it. Cyberattacks seldom are, it usually better to just use your knowledge about the attack as leverage or propaganda fuel.\n\nYou should also consider that any declaration of war will be heavily scrutinized. If you are a leader, you better have pretty damn good evidence of the attack, evidence that everyone can understand. \"They overloaded a bunch of our servers for a few hours\" isn't the same thing as \"much of our fleet is burning in Pearl Harbour\" or \"Hitler just attacked our entire western border\". If you can't cough up evidence that has the right emotional load, the people won't support you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5b3rmf
|
Best Websites on surname origin and genealogy
|
Hey all,
Does anyone know any great websites that can offer at least some insight to surnames and their origins. I usually hit dead end at these horrible sites that offer to send you family crests and printed mugs...
I'm probably asking about something that exists in the perfect world, but as a South African -really trying to dig up my family tree with all the surnames and find their origin is quite frustrating.
Though with some bravery in the coming Months I will make a dreaded trip to the archives to help myself, but there has to be something online that can at least help somewhat.
Anyone know?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5b3rmf/best_websites_on_surname_origin_and_genealogy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9lkqr8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"My go-to source for names online is [Behind the Name](_URL_0_).\n\nThey also have a [website for first names](_URL_1_).\n\nNot sure if they quite cover the genealogical information you're looking for, but hopefully it's a bit helpful!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://surnames.behindthename.com/",
"http://www.behindthename.com/"
]
] |
|
28un9u
|
I read somewhere that if you put a perfect sphere on a completely flat surface, the surface area of the sphere contacting the surface is 0. How can this be true?
|
I'm most sure it was 0, but if not how small would it be say for a 1m diameter sphere?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28un9u/i_read_somewhere_that_if_you_put_a_perfect_sphere/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciep958",
"ciepe4w",
"ciesu7g"
],
"score": [
11,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Only nominally true if both the sphere and the flat surface are completely inflexible (which is never completely true).\n\nAnd, of course, as you approach zero contact area, you start dealing with single atoms and run into the problem of not knowing what you really mean by 'contact'.\n",
"This was asked previously, you might search for it.\n\nThe answer is that, just as a line can intersect a circle at a single point, a sphere sits on a plane at a single point. Points are 0-dimensional, they do not have any area.\n\nOf course a real, non-perfect sphere will have some contact area, depending on many factors of the sphere and the surface.",
"As a quick aside that's probably not what the asker intended:\n\nIn synthetic differential geometry the sphere would actually contact the plane in more than one point. This theory contains infinitesimals, and you can prove (quite easily actually) that a circle tangent to a line also shares all of the infinitesimals around the 'main' point of contact. So the answer to this question depends on how we formalize the idea of \"sphere\" and \"plane\" mathematically."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f8uiuf
|
are people born with empathy or can it be through practice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f8uiuf/eli5_are_people_born_with_empathy_or_can_it_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fiozd31",
"fip0r3o",
"fip2rp7",
"finkaa4",
"finl942",
"finll2a",
"finln59",
"finlyvx",
"finlz3t",
"finuckr",
"finx9oo",
"fio679c",
"fio6wn8",
"fio89ul",
"fiob44r",
"fiobfmo",
"fiolcpj",
"fiom2qr"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
5,
7,
2,
13,
13,
597,
44,
3,
13,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"emotional empathy is inborn, cognitive empathy can be learned\n\nemotional empathy is \"feeling what other people are feeling\", like feeling sad for someone in bad situations, feeling sad when others feels sad\n\ncognitive empathy is \"knowing what other people are feeling\"",
"To add to these comments, there are 2 forms of empathy - cognitive and emotional. Some people have cognitive empathy “I understand why someone feels that way” I.e. - being able to identify feeling states in another. Then there is emotional empathy which is more like joining the other person in a shared emotional experience. \n\nBut to answer your question I believe it just depends on the person. For some with ASPD for example, it may be better to get them to learn to make more pro-social decisions rather than building empathy (I.e- what decision will get you better results and treatment by others?).",
"My two cents is that empathy can be learned to a certain degree depending on experiences and environment. \n\nI’m a doctor. My job has altered my capacity for empathy in interesting ways. \n\nWhen I work Emergency for long stretches I start to lose empathy for people because of the environment, goals of the job, how people behave, etc. Let me expand on that. The environment is fast paced and stressful. The goal of Emergency is to rapidly determine if someone’s problem is urgent and/or limb or life threatening. If it’s not then we get them out of there, as quickly and safely as possible. Sometimes it’s not the nicest but it’s what has to be done due to time pressures, the needs of more unwell patients and resource limitations. We are particularly bad at dealing with things like miscarriage, where it’s not dangerous, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, and they don’t need to be in hospital but they are very upset and emotional. Plus in Emergency people are more prone to manipulation such as drug seeking or trying to get something out of you. It’s creates a much more cynical mindset. \n\nWhen I work family medicine I have more time to talk and listen, to get to know people and care about them. I can be there for them to cry and debrief about their miscarriage or divorce or parenting stress or mental health. It’s a very empathetic role. I’ve found that when you hear someone’s side of things their terrible decisions do make sense in the context of their lives. I’ve become a lot less judgemental and am able to find love and empathy for even the most challenging patients. I like who I am better in this job. I’m their person I’m on their side and I’m there for them. It’s nice.",
"Do you mean that someone that is born without empathy can be taught empathy?",
"There is no conclusive evidence, but some people think [mirror neurons](_URL_0_) are involved in processing empathy. It probably stands to reason that if you mindfully apply empathy that you will reinforce brain networks involved in processing empathy similarly to how other cognitive behavioural techniques work.",
"They are born with it! It's pretty amazing even babies that can't speak yet understand when someone needs help and they sympathise with helpful people more than with selfish people. _URL_0_ This is completely amazing! _URL_1_",
"If a person is naturally disinclined to empathic thinking, empathy can be 'learned' or conditioned if the person has sufficient mental capacity and is willing. \n\nExample: The hallmark trait of Autism is *Significant deficits in empathic thinking*. People with autism can often be 'conditioned' to think empathetically in order to be higher functioning. However, if that person also has diminished mental capacity as well(i.e. lower on the 'spectrum) they may not be as able to fully grasp the concept of imagining another person's point of view.",
"I think both. People with ASPD (popularly called “sociopaths” or “psychopaths”) lack empathy, but also are very good at getting what they want. They can be charismatic or charming to get what they want, and that sometimes means they learn to act empathetic. Of course, one can argue that “acting empathetic” is not REALLY being empathetic. But I believe this is somewhat debatable. If you “act empathetic” towards me and I feel like I’ve received empathy and compassion.. I will walk away from that having received exactly the same benefits that I would’ve if I had gotten “real empathy”. So if your “fake empathy” makes me feel like you indeed were empathetic, is it really fake?",
"Most people are born with the capacity for empathy and some natural inclination to be empathetic. After all, it’s evolutionarily advantageous for a community to care about one another’s survival\n\nFun fact: Some historians credit the printing press during the French Revolution with spreading empathy in a new, more visceral way\n\nFor the first time, novels could be mass printed and read by more people, offering intimate accounts from perspectives they would’ve otherwise never considered\n\nSpecifically, there was a book written from the perspective of a servant girl. Wealthy men wrote that they were reading it and sobbing and couldn’t BELIEVE the plight this servant girl went through. It was the first time they’d been able to step inside someone else’s shoes in such a vivid and visceral way",
"”Empathy” is a complex phenomenon of perception, cognition, emotional and cultural response etc. I think there is a general consensus that while children are born with capacity for complex emotional states, environment affects how/whether these are experienced, developed and expressed. Like language, social behaviours, etc, children develop full emotional capacity through interaction with their surroundings, micro and macro social systems etc, so yes, it can be developed, if you’re not suffering from some other forms of pathology...",
"There's a genetic tendency towards or away from Empathy. \n\n\nThe rest is developed or acquired via life experience.",
"Becoming empathetic is a normal stage of development, normally at around three years old. Children can be tested using a story with dolls and props to see if they can understand things from another's point of view.",
"You see my boy, you'll going through changes... with your brain like the chemical reaction of love, empathy can be non present in a person as such is for sociopaths... that's my two bits",
"I'm taking a Psychology class for my Nursing studies, and we are learning about this in the current chapter. It seems that people are born with empathy, but you have to learn how to see the way others are feeling, so you can figure out what to do, to make them feel better. The ability to feel guilt, embarrassment, and shame comes about at around 18 months of age. They are especially influenced by parents’ responses to children’s behavior. If you are not born with it, then I expect you can learn to mimic it. I am not far enough in my studies to tell you about that. I expect autism or psychopathy would change the inherent way that empathy is shown to present itself, though. If someone did not know that they had made someone feel bad, or that something had made someone feel bad, then they wouldn't know how to respond to that, or that they needed to respond to it at all.\n\nu/astronautmyproblem presents an excellent fun fact that it does not even occur to a lot of people, that other people even have a different point of view. So many people are just walking around thinking that we all see and experience things the same way.\n\nThe book is Essentials of Life-Span Development by John Santrock, and it has many resources cited, of course. \n\nEdited: added some words.",
"Most people are born with an innate sense of empathy, though there is individual variation in how empathetic people are [1](_URL_3_). There is some evidence that an individual's level of empathy can be increased, for example there is some evidence that a type of mediation called \"loving kindness meditation\" increases levels of trait empathy [2](_URL_1_), and an interesting recent study found that a video game created to increase empathy was effective in doing so in adolescents [3](_URL_0_), although further study will be needed to see how long the effects of these interventions last. Some people are born with a marked lack of empathy, such as those with a personality disorder known as psychopathy [4](_URL_2_). It is thought that psychopaths can intellectually understand other's emotions, but do not have the same visceral empathetic response that most people exhibit. While cognitive behavioral therapy may help reduce anti-social behaviors in some individuals with psychopathy [4](_URL_4_), there is little evidence that these individuals can be taught to feel empathy afaik.",
"This is an interesting question, because at certain stages in our development, even neurotypical children aren’t great at empathy. Good parenting and teaching helps develop stronger empathy earlier, and you can definitely fuck a child up by not teaching them that other people have feelings or doing it too late, but to a certain degree, *everyone* has to learn and grow into their empathy.",
"Both. Humans have a natural inclination to care about what happens to one another. But experiences and practice can bring out and refine this trait.\n\nThe most empathetic people in my life have been the one's who have been through the worst of it.",
"Most (almost all) humans are born with all the tools necessary to use Empathy.\n\nHowever, most people Choose not to use it very often, because it hinders their ability to take selfish actions"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/HBW5vdhr_PA",
"https://youtu.be/Z-eU5xZW7cU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0029-6",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6081743/",
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924174331.htm",
"https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2011.559192",
"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476179307001553"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bd7o6s
|
Black holes are alway illustrated with their accretion disks around their equators. Is this necessarily the case?
|
I know there have been a lot of black hole questions lately but now the megathreads are gone, I have another one!
Here is a typical black hole render: _URL_0_
Like most renderings we see the accretion disk in a neatish ring and the energetic jets shooting out perpendicular to it. For a rotating black hole, is the accretion disk always around the equator, and the jets always emanating from the poles?
I know that in Newtonian celestial mechanics, rings are a lower energy and more stable configuration than a spherical shell, which is why you end up with planetary rings rather than spherical shells, but in planet formation scenarios I had thought the only reason these rings (and Moons) tend to be at or near the equator of the planet is because of angular momentum preserved from the original dust cloud that formed the system (correct me if I'm wrong on this!).
Presuming that matter can approach a black hole from nearly any angle, if accretion disks are indeed generally around a rotating black hole's equator, what forces are causing this?
Is there some Newtonian answer I'm missing, or is it something related to frame dragging or some other effect in general relativity?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bd7o6s/black_holes_are_alway_illustrated_with_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekxhina"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"It's both.\n\nSo yeah, you get discs everywhere in astronomy, because that's what happens if you have (a) dissipation, and (b) angular momentum. The gas particles can bump into each other and convert kinetic energy into internal wibbles, and that wibbly energy can be spat out as light - so you can cool down, and get rid of random motions, until you settle into the lowest energy configuration. However, you can't get rid of angular momentum so easily, so you end up with the lowest energy thing that's still spinning, i.e. a disc.\n\nI think you've got one small misconception with that though. The angular momentum doesn't have to come from a single spinning object. If you have multiple inflows, they're still going to add up to having some sort of spin - it would be an incredible coincidence for all the rotation to exactly cancel out. This is why galaxies can be flat too. Galaxies are the result of lots of converging flows, and lots of mergers of other galaxies. But the gas always settles down into a disc, because it can still lose energy, and still have angular momentum. (Note that the *stars* don't settle into a disc, because stars don't lose their kinetic energy so well - same with dark matter. The reason the stars are in a disc in the Milky Way is that they formed from gas that was in a disc).\n\nSo, classically, a compact object that's got inflows from all over the place should still end up with a nice accretion disc.\n\nHowever, with black holes we do have also have a \"frame-dragging\" effect, where a rotating black hole can drag around the nearby gas. Inflows can produce a disc that *doesn't* have the same rotation axis as the black hole, and this means that the black hole and the disc are applying a torque (a rotational force) on each other - the accretion disc can change the spin of the black hole, as well as the black hole changing the spin of the disc. This can end up with the spins getting aligned, but you can also end up with a kind of resonance making them *counter-aligned* - i.e. they have the same axis of rotation, but the disc is spinning in the opposite direction to the black hole. It comes out more complex than you'd expect."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://i.imgur.com/GD9oIBw.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
57xi58
|
What did a typical battle between a Crusader army and a Muslim army look like? How did the crusader armies deal with horse archers?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57xi58/what_did_a_typical_battle_between_a_crusader_army/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8vrczg",
"d8w8eyd"
],
"score": [
6,
9
],
"text": [
"Follow up question, how did non-horse archer armies deal with horse archers in general?",
"There is not \"the typical battle\" during a series of conflicts that spanned hundreds of years. Tactics, equipment and terrain were constantly changing.\n\nHowever, there are some general principles. Crusaders would generally try to keep their guard up. Horse archers could strike any time, so crusaders would travel in formations, with armor and weapons ready. Or at least that is what successful crusaders did, e.g. Richard I during his march from Acre.\n\nAlso, even in the heat of battle the crusaders would try to keep formation (again, at least the successful crusaders did that). Horse archers excel at feigned retreats and the 1st and 2nd crusade were warned by the Byzantine Emperor not to fall for that ruse. E.g. if the knights charge and disperse, they are easy victims. If they keep their discipline and do *not* charge or if they at least charge as a big group, they have a better chance of survival.\n\nSpeaking of cavalry: Crusaders/Latins who encountered Muslims would sometimes just damn the odds and charge instantly. This might seem rash, but it worked surprisingly often, e.g. at the battle of Mont Gisard, where King Balduin and Reynald de Chatillon defeated Saladin. A possible explanation is that this allowed the Latins to take their enemies by surprise. \n\nAlso \"Combined arms\": Asbridge quotes one Muslim describing the Christian infantry during the siege of Acre: \"Like a wall behind their mantlets, shields and lances, with levelled crossbows, refusing to break formation\". Effectively, the horse archers could circle all they liked, their arrows could not penetrate the Latins' shields. Neither could they charge home against massed spears and men and the crossbowmen, standing protected by the shields, would inexorably pick them off. Similarly, at the battle of Dorylaeum during the 1st Crusade the Turkish horse archers did not prove effective against heavily armored Franks. The prerequisite of this tactic, obviously, was the Latins' discipline not to break ranks *no matter what* and this often proved difficult to achieve. Also a part of combined arms is that the Latins would just hire mercenary horse archers to fight for them, rather than against them.\n\nThat being said, most military actions would be sieges and raids, rather than pitched battles (although the latter are of course much more famous). However, during these the tactics were not *that* different. Raiders tried not to fight at all and during sieges both sides tried to starve the opponent or dig tunnels, build catapults, etc. ... A difference is that the Christians usually ruled the sea (Italians) while the Muslims sometimes could burn Latin siege engines (and soldiers) with Greek Fire. And of course, sometimes there was no war at all (except for inevitable small-scale border raids), when both sides had signed a ceasefire.\n\nSource: Mostly based on Asbridge: The Crusades."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
djm68g
|
why do your eyes get itchy when you’re sleepy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/djm68g/eli5_why_do_your_eyes_get_itchy_when_youre_sleepy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f46ysy5",
"f4888hw"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"I think it's because you forget to blink regularly, which causes them to dry up a bit and that makes them itchy",
"Tired eyes get dry, and rubbing stimulates the lacrimal glands to produce more fluid. \n\n(Stolen from Google)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
pcsmh
|
How can a person go without sleep for years?
|
I was recently reading about [Thai Ngoc](_URL_0_), a man who hasn't slept in years. Assuming this claim is true, and it would be difficult to verify I realize, how does he continue survive? Isn't sleep a necessity to human life in the same way that nutrition, for instance, is a necessity? If it isn't, why does the rest of the population keep on sleeping every night?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pcsmh/how_can_a_person_go_without_sleep_for_years/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3obvwd",
"c3ocqho",
"c3odnw2"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There have never been any scientifically proven cases of persons living for prolonged periods of time with complete sleep deprivation.\n\nTo understand how important sleep is, [a quick look over the consequences of sleep deprivation can help you understand how living long without it is an impossibility.](_URL_0_)",
"As far as proven cases go, they can't. Sleep deprivation is actually lethal if a medical condition is keeping the individual awake for long enough.",
"They can't. People who claim to survive without sleep are either lying or just not remembering that they have short periods of sleep. (Sometimes I lay in my bed, thinking I've not slept yet, but when I check the clock that seems impossible).\n\nThere is something called [Fatal Familial Insomnia](_URL_1_), a defect in the brain that causes the patient to be unable to fall asleep. Narcotics and sleeping aids don't help, as they put the patient directly in a coma. The patient dies after 6-9 months of no sleep.. ([docu](_URL_0_))."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Ngoc"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Physiological_effects"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIeTVVAEFn8",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia"
]
] |
|
40zspu
|
why don't pcs use arm
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40zspu/eli5why_dont_pcs_use_arm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyyg8ze",
"cyyhhle"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Laptops and desktops require too much processing power, which ARM processors are not designed for. ARM is primarily designed to be power savvy, so they're awesome in phones and tablets. Intel is slowly getting into the mobile market, but it's laughable at best compared to ARM.\n\nAnother reason is that ARM CPU's have modular designs which allows them to release new processors every six months; that's really fast turn around and great for smaller devices that are built for maybe a two-year lifespan, probably even less. Intel traditionally redesigned the CPU architecture from scratch and then two years later would land that same architecture on a smaller technology, hence the tic-tock release schedules they always advertise. That release schedule is better suited for more powerful machines that typically don't require full refreshes, just incremental upgrades.",
"PCs don't use ARM because PCs are designed to be compatible with the software from earlier PCs. When your CPU first starts up, it's indistinguishable from the 8088 chip used in the first IBM PC back in 1981 until it receives an instruction to enter a more modern mode of operation. The whole ecosystem is based around having hardware that's compatible with existing stuff.\n\nSwitching to ARM would require replacing all the software you use daily. Some of it could easily be rebuilt for ARM but a bunch of other stuff would need to be modified or replaced.\n\nIf all you do is browse the web & work with some documents, you *could* use an ARM system - there's a few on the market. Look at Chromebooks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
btp3gw
|
why is it impossible to change from first gear to reverse while driving, but not the other way around?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/btp3gw/eli5_why_is_it_impossible_to_change_from_first/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ep0utqh",
"ep138av"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"For starters, you shouldn't change from a forward gear to a reverse gear while moving or vice versa. This should be obvious because it causes immense stress to the the entire driveline. You should only change to a gear in the opposite direction when you are stopped.\n\nNow, with that said, I suppose the logic that could be applied to changing from reverse to first while moving is that you're very slowly while in reverse so the stress on the drivetrain isn't AS incredible as it would be if you were reversing at like 30 mph. First gear is usually used to accelerate to a higher speed, so changing direction abruptly while moving fast is going to destroy very expensive things.\n\nIf you want to mention the J-turn, this is possible because the vehicle moves in reverse and turns, at which point the driver either shifts to neutral or disengages the clutch. With the engine and transmission no longer connected, everything is safe. The driver then waits for the vehicle to swing around and start rolling in what is now the forward direction using only the momentum the vehicle had when the driveline was disengaged, which is safe as far as the drivetrain is concerned. Once the vehicle is clearly moving forward, then it's safe to engage a forward gear and proceed.",
"Forward gears have synchros, where reverse gear usually doesn't. Synchros help to synchronise the speed of the output shaft of the gearbox(connected to wheels) to the speed of the input shaft(connected to clutch plate). This helps the gears mesh without grinding when shifting between gears. The reason they are often not found on reverse is that the car is assumed to be stationary when shifting to reverse and thus the output shaft would not be spinning,and the input shaft would stop spinning shortly after you press the clutch in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
rnb3c
|
why do most smartphones not have built-in fm receivers? (when they have many other technologies like wifi, gps, 4g, etc.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rnb3c/eli5_why_do_most_smartphones_not_have_builtin_fm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c476atz",
"c476uy2",
"c478wco",
"c47a5tp"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"This is probably for a number of reasons. For one, people care less about FM radio than before. Second, device manufacturers might have a profit motive in selling audio content and other sources of media rather than FM radio.\n\nThere are some unique complications with FM, though, compared to the other radio technologies in phones. It is on a fairly low frequency, so an effective antenna needs to be relatively large. It is also an analog technology that can be a little bit more complicated to design in than digital communications standards.\n\nIt is very challenging to design many radios close to each other. Mobile phones already typically have, at the very least, a couple of bands of radio for the cellular technology; BlueTooth; and GPS. Many others add near-field communication and WiFi. As you add radios, the chances that some of the radios interfere with or hamper the performance of others increases. This is not insurmountable, but it's already very impressive the number of radios that are put into such a small footprint.",
"Interestingly, there was an [effort](_URL_1_) (Ars Technica link) by lobbying groups to convince congress to mandate inclusion of FM receivers in portable electronic devices. The effort was opposed by a [different group](_URL_0_) of lobbyists.",
"They don't? I guess I've been lucky with my smartphone then.",
"It completely depends on the market. In India and China it's an important feature so manufacturers go out of their way to include it as consumers look for it. In North America, it has so little interest that we've seen some manufacturers disable it because it's cheaper not to test/support than it is to deliver it.\n\nMy personal phone is a Samsung Captivate (Galaxy-S) on AT & T. In tear downs, it has an FM chip, but since so few folks in north america care, they've disabled it via software.\n\nAlso: most FM chips are currently bundled as a BT/FM or BT/FM/WiFi, so ofter footprint isn't that big of an issue."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/press_release_detail.asp?id=11945",
"http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/radio-riaa-mandatory-fm-radio-in-cell-phones-is-the-future.ars"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
bd4naa
|
Would the study of Caveman paintings be considered as History?
|
Or would it still be Pre-History?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bd4naa/would_the_study_of_caveman_paintings_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekvpq2r"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Although rock art represents a \"record\" of sorts, it remains undecipherable. As such, the period when that art was created remains before the written record, and it must be considered as prehistoric. Even if the rock art could be \"read\", the records are so limited that most of what was happening would remain in the shadows as far as the written record is concerned, and I believe we would still consider the period as prehistoric."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ma726
|
how can lawyers accept to defend in court some very bad people? i.e.war criminals, genocidal leaders, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers.
|
For example who would defend Hermann Goring during the Nuremberg trials? How can these lawyers stay professional? How do they live with themselves? Are they all sociopaths with a law degree?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ma726/eli5_how_can_lawyers_accept_to_defend_in_court/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc787ex",
"cc787m2",
"cc788mr",
"cc79rdn",
"cc7a4w4",
"cc7bryi",
"cc7byqa",
"cc7cjw1",
"cc7f8br"
],
"score": [
3,
28,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you have to divorce your emotions from the process. In the case of Goring he was acting in his capacity as the as the head of the air force. If what he did to London was a war crime then what about the people who bombed Dresden or Tokyo? It does no good to say \"Well, he was the bad guy\" because from his point of view the Allies were the bad guy.\n\nBut even if you want to take some civilian monsters, Jeff Dahmer, Ted Bundy for example, there is always the chance that the government got the wrong guy. Bad convictions happen all the time, even sometimes in high profile cases & every defendant deserves to be defended by someone who will best represent them. ",
"Lawyers who defend unpopular or heinous people, are actually defending that person's rights. If we deny the rights of one person, we invalidate the rights of all people. These lawyers are there to ensure the system of justice in place is upheld.\n\n\nLook at it this way, not everyone accused is guilty. Not everyone who is liked is innocent. While each individual can have an opinion (informed or otherwise) on the supposed guilt of a person on trial, it is up to the jury and judge to determine if, by law, to a reasonable mind, the person is guilty or innocent. For that determination to stick, all laws and judicial rights must be followed. Instead of hating the lawyers who defend monsters, be grateful someone did step up to the plate so that the verdict received isn't refuted because of a lack of representation.\n\n\nWith all that being said, some MF'ers are just greedy and want the press.",
"I can give the answer that anyone who worked at a Public Defender's office (defending alleged rapists, pedophiles, and serial killers) would say:\n\nThe legal system does not function if lawyers are the ones determining guilt. When a client approaches me, I am not in a position to say \"oh, he's guilty, therefore I won't represent him.\" If we allow lawyers to deny access to legal representation on the basis that the lawyer thinks the client is guilty, we're turning lawyers into judge and jury. That's not our job.\n\nWe live with ourselves because the justice system demands that both sides of any controversy are fully represented. We cannot lie, we cannot ask others to lie. All we can do is provide the best argument for our client possible, at the same time that whoever is on the other side is doing the same. And the fundamental assumption of the justice system is that when presented with the two best arguments the truth will out.",
"Because they believe in justice and rule of law.\n\nThe alternative is allowing the gov't to decide people are guilty and pass sentence without a trial. To people who support liberal democracies, that is far more distasteful than defending a monster.\n\nAnd just maybe, they aren't as guilty as you think. Consider a man like Oskar Schindler, a war profiteer who was in bed with the Nazis and who exploited Jews as a source of cheap labor, many of who mysteriously disappeared while working in his factories. It would be quite easy to rush to judgement without hearing his side of the story.",
"You list a massive and varied array of criminal minds, and you somehow question the existence of lawyers to match them?",
"because even criminals deserve a FAIR trial",
"It is not the role of a lawyer to judge that person, it is the role of a Judge. Lawyers must provide the best possible arguments from both sides in order to allow that judge to make the right decision.",
"I have a question related to this. \n\nDo the accused criminals tell their lawyer if they really did it or not? If they don't, do they have to tell lies upon lies to their lawyer as he tries to figure out the best defense? For example, the lawyer decides that he will show that his client wasn't even present at the site of the crime. Does the accused client now have to lie to his lawyer by making up where he was?\n\n",
"They are appointed to those people, and their entire job is to defend people, rather than to accuse.\n\nBut, as to how they remain professional, I haven't the foggiest. There is supposed to be lawyer-client confidentiality, but during some cases, I wonder how they don't put themselves up as a witness and say \"That guy confessed everything to me\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1e0kst
|
Old books and documents that are still classified
|
I was interested in reading up on Soviet deep battle theory only to discover that one of the most pivotal books on the topic, Fundamentals of the Deep Operation (1933) by Georgii Isserson, is still classified. This got me thinking:
1) Why is this specific book still classified despite the fact that the strategies it describes were used extensively by the Soviets in WW2 and are probably well documented and studied in the West?
2) What are some other old books and documents that are still secret/classified and why?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e0kst/old_books_and_documents_that_are_still_classified/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9vpu9w",
"c9vt7ju",
"c9vyd0i"
],
"score": [
40,
14,
6
],
"text": [
"From [The Smithsonian magazine](_URL_1_)....\n\n > 2027: The FBI spied on Martin Luther King Jr. in an unsuccessful effort to prove he had ties to Communist organizations. In 1963, Attorney General Robert Kennedy granted an FBI request to surreptitiously record King and his associates by tapping their phones and placing hidden microphones in their homes, hotel rooms and offices. A 1977 court order sealed transcripts of the surveillance tapes for 50 years.\n \n > 2037: A decade ago, Oxford University’s Bodleian Library released ten boxes of documents pertaining to the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII so that he could marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson. But one collection of “sensitive documents” (Box 24) was to be withheld for 37 years. British news media speculate the documents include embarrassing revelations about the Queen Mother’s alleged support for negotiating peace with Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II.\n\n > 2041: Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess flew from Germany to Scotland on May 10, 1941, claiming that he wanted to discuss peace terms with Britain and that their common enemy was the Soviet Union. Hess was imprisoned and interrogated. After the war, he was convicted at the Nuremberg trials and sentenced to life at Spandau Prison. A British intelligence file said to contain an interrogation transcript and Hess’ correspondence with King George VI is scheduled to be unsealed 100 years after his arrest. Historians say the papers might show whether British intelligence tricked Hess into undertaking his fateful mission.\n \n > 2045: In May 1945, the British Royal Air Force (RAF) attacked two German ships in the Baltic Sea carrying 7,000 survivors of the Neuengamme concentration camp. Only 350 survived. RAF intelligence had mistakenly believed the vessels held Nazi officials escaping to Norway or Sweden. Because the RAF ordered the records to remain classified for 100 years, scholars have been unable to offer a complete account of one of the worst “friendly-fire” incidents in history.\n \n > 2045: During World War II, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) lent Britain highly skilled radar technicians—“the Secret 5,000”—who flew on patrols over the Atlantic Ocean to detect German submarines and aircraft. The RCAF deemed its work so classified it sealed all pertinent records about the operation for a century. Even today, the Secret 5,000 are not mentioned in official RCAF histories.\n\n\nThere were also extensive [mutinies in the French Army in 1917](_URL_0_). Most information has been released but \"there are still undisclosed archives on the mutinies, which are believed to contain documents mostly of a political nature; those archives will not be opened to researchers until 100 years after the mutinies, in 2017.\"",
"1) Specific book: hard to say, for me anyway. Don't know the Russian declassification well enough to say. Might not be for any \"deliberate\" reason at all other than \"there is no easy way to say, 'please declassify this.'\" Even in the USA, where we have the Freedom of Information Act and Mandatory Declassification Reviews, lots of old stuff is still technically secret just because nobody has gotten around to it yet. Might be because they have some blanket restriction against submarine tactics. I agree that it seems unlikely, a priori, that it actually contains relevant stuff that is still secret in the sense that it is not known by anyone who cares.\n\n2) There is probably [more classified information than there is unclassified information in the world](_URL_2_). There a myriad reasons for things to be classified but usually it boils down to some kind of security determination, [usually codified in classification guides](_URL_1_). A lot of things are secret just because nobody has gotten around to seeing if they should still be secret (it takes time, it takes actual human beings sitting down and looking at the document/book in question and the guides and seeing what interpretation makes sense, sometimes it involves changing the guides which is a major bureaucratic chore), and some of the \"good reasons\" for keeping things secret are maddeningly vague (e.g. \"sources and methods\" for anything related to intelligence). So there's no way to be very systematic about this kind of thing. The amount of things classified is vaster that you probably can imagine. It is vast enough that you can [lose millions of pages of them](_URL_0_) and people will barely bat an eye.",
"For students of the Cuban Missile Crisis, one of the documents most desired is SIOP-63, the Single Integrated Operations Plan for fiscal year 1963, describing how the United States would conduct a nuclear war.\n\nThis plan was ordered by President Kennedy, who was disgusted when he came into office and found that America's nuclear war plans basically boiled down to firing everything at everyone in the Communist Bloc.\n\nAt Kennedy's insistence, SIOP-63 was the first to include \"holds\" that would eliminate specific countries or targets from American attack. It also offered plans that would attack military targets only, civilian targets only or some variation of the two.\n\nSIOP-63 came into effect on October 1, 1962, and was the war plan during the Cuban Missile Crisis. While some details have been released, much remains classified, including the precise numbers of nuclear weapons, missiles, nuclear-armed bombers and other weapons that were available during the crisis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies",
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/40th-anniversary/Nine-Historical-Archives-That-Will-Spill-New-Secrets.html"
],
[
"http://nuclearsecrecy.com/blog/2012/05/07/missing-four-million-pages-of-secrets/",
"http://nuclearsecrecy.com/blog/2013/04/12/the-problem-of-redaction/",
"http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/docs/Removing%20Knowledge.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
28s35x
|
why is it that dash lights in a car seem to last forever, and normal light bulbs "burn out" after a period of time?
|
There is a similar post about light bulbs burning out but my question is more directed towards the ones that don't such as street lights, signs above business', street lamps etc. Also...(bonus question) what happens when the tube "burns out" in giant TV's such as jumbo-trons in major sporting arena's?
edit:spelling
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28s35x/eli5_why_is_it_that_dash_lights_in_a_car_seem_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cidwgk2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Okay, well the brightness of a filament bulb depends on the size of the filament and how much voltage you shove through it. The more voltage you run through a filament, the hotter it gets, the more light it produces, and the more fragile it is and shorter the lifespan.\n\nDashboard bulbs run less voltage than normal for a particular filament size, because they don't need to be very bright. ie they are not being 'driven as hard'\n\nAs for street lights, they use a different technology such as sodium vapour (the yellow looking ones) or mercury arc (the bright white ones) which last longer but require special electronics to run them.\n\nJumbotrons are generally made up of a whole bunch of smaller panels (say a foot by a foot) so when a pixel dies (or after a few die, to make it more cost effective to replace) they pull that panel and replace it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2th3wr
|
how sound waves travel in 3d space
|
I always see the typical 2D rendering of sound waves going up and down. But how do they fill a 3D space? They are omnidirectional are they not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2th3wr/eli5_how_sound_waves_travel_in_3d_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnyzrlv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Picture, instead of the 'rings' you are thinking of from a 2D perspective, spheres instead. Sound radiates out from its source in the form of a sphere if there are no impediments/obstacles to it. Now you may be talking about the waveform, which is *not* a representation in 2D but rather a graph of the frequency and/or loudness of a noise, depending upon the measurement taken."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1hfabb
|
When, how and why did the Norse identity die out?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hfabb/when_how_and_why_did_the_norse_identity_die_out/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cats1eu",
"cattkpe"
],
"score": [
2,
66
],
"text": [
"What do you mean by Norse identity? ",
"Note: Large parts of this post is a copy-paste from when I answered a similar question 4 months ago.\n\nThe Norse identity exists as much today as it did back then - now we call it Nordic or Scandinavian, but the idea that we have more in common with out various neighbours rather than the rest of Europe and the world have never faded. It have never, not back then, not in modern time, prevented us from merrily going to war against each other.\n\nBack then people had two identities - their local and the Norse one. Now we have three - the local one, the Nordic one and the national one. The national ones started developing during the late middle ages as the Kalmar Union started cracking at the seams. It took a long time, though. For example, during the Kalmar War of 1611-1613 between Sweden and Denmark, peasants in Skåne (part of Denmark) and Småland (part of Sweden) agreed in secrecy to inform and help each other in case of a plundering and looting army came marching - from either side. Clearly, they valued their identity as peasants, Norse/Nordic and good neighbours more than they valued their identity as Danes or Swedes.\n\nThe late dark and early medieveal ages saw a multitude of petty kings, jarls, chiefs and strongmen in the various regions of Scandinavia. Jylland, Själland, Skåne, Bornholm, Halland, Sydlandet, Östlandet, Vestlandet, Tröndelag, Västergötland, Östergötland, Svealand, Dalarna, Jämtland and Gotland were all regions that spoke their own dialect (of the old Norse language), had their own traditions and own laws and mostly ruled themselves. Often they had more in common with the neighbouring region than the one that would one day be the capital of their respective nations. A language is a dialect with an army, it is said now and then, and in this case it is mostly true.\n\nNorway was unified by Harald Fairhair 872, and he was the first to call himself King of Norway as he united Sydlandet, Vestlandet, Östlandet and Tröndelag (or at least the coastal regions of them) into one nation and made the crown heraditory.\n\nDenmark was unified 965 by Harald Bluetooth. He united Jylland, Själland and Skåne into one Kingdom.\n\nSweden was unified several times and fell apart several times, but by around 1250 one can say that Västergötland, Östergötland, Svealand and Dalarna/Bergslagen, plus Gotland (nominally) had been unified into one Kingdom.\n\nHow did national identities arise? Mostly, people identified with their religion, language (here the old Norse) and region. As the religion was the same (Roman Catholicism) and language still mostly dialects of the same language (arguably, it still is), people identified with their regions. The Norwegians conquered the free peasant republic of Jämtland 1178, and the Danes crushed the independent (but nominally Swedish) peasants of Gotland 1361.\n\nThe plague did change things, as the three Kingdoms reacted very differently as a result of it, and how people identified changed with it. The Norwegian nobility was almost completely eradicated by the plague (Norway was especially hard it, with 55-60% of the population killed), as people could by the old \"allodement\" law move to vacated free-held land and live their for 60 years to make it theirs. What nobility that survived saw their land abandoned by tenants and had to revert to peasants themselves. Sweden saw an increase in regionalism and independent thought as the grip of the nobility and the nascent state (which emerged later in Sweden than in the other Kingdoms) weakened with the plague. The vast amounts of vacated free-held land simply meant that the Swedes could vote with their feet if they disliked the local rule.\n\nIn Demark, the free-held land collapsed - nobility and the church took over free-held land as it was vacated, or peasants sought to become tenants, as tenancy to the church or nobility was far lower than the taxes demanded by the crown when trying to compensate for the massive population loss. The Danish nobility actually grew stronger, and introduced a semi-serfdom in Denmark, where they could prevent peasants from leaving their estates, to ensure they had tenants.\n\nA land ownership comparison shows how the three Kingdoms suddenly started to look different.\n\nIn percent;\n\nCountry-Crown-Freeholding peasants-Nobility-Church (roughly 1400-1500).\n\nSweden-6-52-21-21.\n\nDenmark-10-15-38-37.\n\nNorway-7-37-15-41.\n\nFinland-4,5-90-3-2,5.\n\nDenmark steadily moved towards more control by the nobility and more and more land came under their ownership as time progressed, while Sweden and Norway had small changes (except for the crown siezing church land during the reformation).\n\nSince the Norwegian rulers had more or less died out, Norway became the prize in tug-of-war between Swedish and Danish elites. However, the Danish King had a unique source of direct income in fine coin in the Öresund toll, and access to the best mercenaries in the world from Lower Germany and Frisia, and eventually won out.\n\nThen came the time of the Kalmar Union, and now the Swedes started to identify with their old rights, which they wanted to retain in face of the increased Danish influence and the bad treatment from Danish and German tax collectors (used to unarmed serfs, while the Swedish peasants were free and required by law to keep and train with arms and armour). Swedish peasants were more afraid of becoming semi-serfs like their Danish brethren or the full serfs in Germany than death itself, and a Swedish nobleman wanting to rise in revolt against the Danes could often and easily raise a decent army by inciting the peasants to revolt and elect him King - as the Swedish throne was still elective, and the national thing/meet/parliament had the right to depose a King as well as elect him.\n\nSometime during the mid-15th century, people started identifying more with the Kingdom they lived in and its laws and rights than they did with the region, and would expect their leaders and neighbours to do the same. Of course, as the Kalmar War shows in my example at the start of this long rant, this was a slow and gradual process.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
13ofh0
|
Why do people dry tea leaves if their intended use is to be soaked in boiling water?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13ofh0/why_do_people_dry_tea_leaves_if_their_intended/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c75pea1",
"c75pjo1"
],
"score": [
27,
24
],
"text": [
"Dry things tend to have a longer shelf life. ",
"Tea is dried in order to cure the leaves. Curing is a process in which the flavor and aroma of the tea develops. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_processing"
]
] |
||
77bnr8
|
How was United States occupation of Japan after World War II met with such little resistance, when the Japanese were infamous for fighting to the last man?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/77bnr8/how_was_united_states_occupation_of_japan_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"doku5ti"
],
"score": [
64
],
"text": [
"The official declaration of surrender by the Japanese government went a long way toward removing such resistance. Moreover, you have to appreciate the context at the end of WWII. Japan was in dire straits. Most people don't appreciate that the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was absolutely not exceptional in terms of the level of destruction, it was exceptional merely in the degree of efficiency involved. The allied strategic bombing campaign had already reached a level of capability where they could completely wipe an entire major city off the map at a rate of once per week, and had been doing so. The conventional bombing of Tokyo took more lives and destroyed more property than either of the nuclear attacks, however it required hundreds of bombers, tens of thousands of men, and a vast supply chain stretching across the entire Pacific. Meanwhile, interdiction of Japanese shipping and disruption of Japanese industry and trade had reached a point in 1945 where Japan was literally being starved to death.\n\nEveryone in Japan was familiar with this context because they lived it. They lived through the air raids. They lived in towns that had been bombed. They had relatives or friends who had died in the war. They lived with the hunger. They experienced the full brunt of the destruction and deprivation. After the military government collapsed at the end of WWII there was a period of semi-lawlessness and desperation due to continued lack of food. The new government and allied occupation helped rectify both situations. Filling people's bellies and making the streets safer. And that kind of thing goes a hell of a long way to discourage insurrection. The vast majority of Japanese citizens in the 1940s and '50s knew exactly what war was like and were thoroughly incentivized to avoid returning to those conditions. As the Japanese economy recovered and then began to boom in the post-war years that sentiment solidified.\n\nThere's a lot more that could be said about the complexities of Japanese post-war politics, but in terms of the lack of an active insurgency, I think the above is a sufficient explanation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ucp3v
|
Is super-human strength (under stress or influence of drugs) possible?
|
There are many stories of people lifting up cars, etc weighing thousands of pounds, in order to save someone trapped underneath. Also consider the phenomenon of people under the influence of PCP, "bath salts" or other stimulants to display either super-human strength (requiring the physical force of many cops to subdue them) or super-human endurance (continuing a rampage after getting shot/tazed/pepper sprayed).
What does science have to say about how these people are able to display super-human strength and endurance?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ucp3v/is_superhuman_strength_under_stress_or_influence/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4u8yw9",
"c4udjk4"
],
"score": [
8,
26
],
"text": [
"[Adrenaline](_URL_0_) is a large part in high stress situations.\n\nMany of these feats of strength in emergencies or with drug use would lead to torn muscles, ligaments, etc, but the people don't know they are doing that at the time.",
"Junior in college Biology major here, I'll hit the major points.\n\nYour muscles are stronger than you think they are. Your brain limits the amount of force your muscles put out to prevent damage to your ligaments/tendons/skeletal system/muscles. When your sympathetic nervous system kicks in, your brain basically says \"fuck it, I'm gonna die, if damaging my shit a little will get me out of this situation then it's okay.\"\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/circus-arts/adrenaline-strength1.htm"
],
[]
] |
|
1tauay
|
how can the fdic insure a very large amount of investors their money, when something like the "target hack" occurs?
|
Upwards of 40 Million people are guaranteed their money is safe,through the FDIC. How does this immediately effect the banking system? Does this effect the economy, why or why not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tauay/eli5_how_can_the_fdic_insure_a_very_large_amount/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce639i8",
"ce649b8"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The FDIC only protects people's money (up to $100,000 per account) if the bank goes under (like they did in the great depression). If your CC info or your bank account info is compromised and someone takes your money the FDIC does not reimburse you. That is the obligation of the bank, lawyers and possibly the FBI if it's something as large as this target hack.",
"Visa, Mastercard, and the other CC companies have very sophisticated computers that know what and when you buy things. They use this to detect fraud and freeze your account (if the transaction was yours they reactivate the card and update the dataset associated with you). This means fraud is unlikely to go on for long, but if it does, it's the bank's loss not the government's. \n\nIt's always wise to call your credit card company before you travel, their software doesn't always realize your traveling from your purchases and it can be difficult to re-activate your card from the road. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
231h8y
|
why does hot oil make a sizzling sound when something is put in it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/231h8y/eli5why_does_hot_oil_make_a_sizzling_sound_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgsgqjt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's not the oil, it's the water from whatever you put into it heating rapidly and boiling off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9yn9h7
|
why are cpu speeds measured in gigahertz (ghz) and ram in megahertz (mhz) when they are usually similar?
|
For example, a CPU like the Intel Core i9 9900k has a base clock speed of 3.6GHz, or 3600MHz. A DDR4 RAM stick (for example) can have an operating speed of 3600MHz, or 3.6GHz. Why, then, do we measure CPU and RAM frequencies in different terms when they are already both similar?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9yn9h7/eli5_why_are_cpu_speeds_measured_in_gigahertz_ghz/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea2nwad",
"ea2o5ut"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Up through the 1980's and 1990's all CPU's were measured in MHz. In the late 1990's Intel and AMD were in hot competition to be the first to break the 1GHz barrier on CPU speeds. Once that was achieved, pretty much all CPU speeds were measured in GHz instead of MHz.",
"It was mostly marketing. In the days when CPUs started achieving GHz speeds, the “GHz” portion was heavily, heavily advertised as being ultra crazy fast! Look we don’t even measure it like those other puny CPUs! When GHz speeds came out, the CPU market was a fierce advertising space. \n\nRAM on the other side took far longer to achieve GHz speeds, and by then, convention of RAM speeds was pretty established to be described in MHz, such as DDR3–800, DDR3-1600 etc. RAM doesn’t get the kind of marketing that Intel and AMD throw at their CPUs and few consumers even understand (or care) what speed their RAM is. There’s actually a different way to spec RAM as well, but it’s lesser upfront/customer facing than the one above and generally not important except to some heavy enthusiasts. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3l10ml
|
how does humblebundle work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l10ml/eli5_how_does_humblebundle_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv28dvu"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"Each customer pays whatever he feels like, lets say 10 < insert currency here > . That amount is distributed among all of the game creators + some charities and and some money go to huble bundle itself. \n\nFor the most part it's a win-win-win-win situation.\n\nFirst win : you. You win by getting a butload of games for fraction of the cost.\n\nSecond win : the developers. This is sometimes not such a big win, but some bundles could generate 10's of thousands of (~65% of total sales divided by the number of developers in the current bundle) < currency goes here > for each developer for games which otherwise may not sell so well or to serve as a sort of a kickstarter to an upcoming game.\n\nThird win : the charities. Charities like \"Charity Water\", get ~15% out of every purchase .\n\nFourth win : Humble Bundle by default they seem to get ~20% of each purchase you make.\n\nN.B. Please take into consideration that all the estimates above might differ as you are able to change which party gets what amount of < currrency > \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7uk21q
|
What sparked the fascination with dinosaurs in the 90s?
|
I know it's fairly recent history (only a little more than 20 years ago), but looking back, it seems peculiar that culturally, dinosaurs seemed to be all over the place. We're Back, Land Before Time, Jurassic Park, the tv show Dinosaurs. From the POV of a child in the 90s, it seemed like Dinosaurs were the biggest thing in pop culture, and then we all just sorta forgot about it.
I know that great archeological discoveries preceded the revivals of American interest in mummies or other historic periods, did something similar occur with dinosaurs around that time?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7uk21q/what_sparked_the_fascination_with_dinosaurs_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtkzwg3",
"dtlvuzw"
],
"score": [
118,
4
],
"text": [
"Expanded [from an earlier answer of mine](_URL_1_)\n\nThe public fascination with dinosaurs has existed for pretty much as long as the first fossilized specimens were discovered and displayed. One of the attractions of the mid-Victorian Crystal Palace exhibition were [now-apparent fanciful reconstructions](_URL_16_) of *Iguanadon*s and other fantastic beasts. [Mary Anning](_URL_6_) made a living selling fossils and other discoveries to gentlemen-collectors, who subsequently wrote her out of the history of discovery even though she was an astute prospector for her era. The Carnegie-funded *Diplodocus* skeleton, affectionately nicknamed [Dippy](_URL_2_) was not only a sensation for US museum-goers, but for the British public in the 1890s. The first *T. Rex* skeleton was a [massive draw](_URL_14_) and reflected the growing competition between museums to acquire the most dramatic and fierce specimens. \n\nDinosaurs naturally became a subject for the new media of film. Museums were increasingly trying to walk the line between static display and recreation of the creatures' past, and featured paintings like [Charles R. Knight's](_URL_9_) that provided a window into the past that was scientifically-accurate. Knight's paintings tended to hew towards reptilian sluggishness, which contemporaneous science held dinosaurs to be, but fiction was not beholden to science. Adventure novels like Arthur Conan Doyle's *The Lost World* or Edgar Rice Burrough's *The Land That Time Forgot* created a world in which select groups of dinosaurs survived extinction on some lost island or hidden corner of the world. The 1925 film version of [*The Lost World*](_URL_0_) featured stop-motion dinosaur action in both the titular lost world as well as in civilization when man mistakenly brings these creatures into the city. 1933's *King Kong* also featured a [dramatic fight](_URL_13_) between a *T. Rex* and the giant ape. Although stop-motion dinosaurs did not make the initial transition to color film in the 1950s and 60s very well, dinosaurs remained a major element of popular culture. They were common components of Western childhood, and while some media drifted into ascientific monster genres (eg Godzilla- a mutated dinosaur), some of this media was didactic in purpose such as View-Master's [*The Little Yellow Dinosaur*](_URL_15_) which detailed the travails of a hatchling dinosaur in the Cretaceous. \n\n*The Little Yellow Dinosaur* may have been a minor element of American popular culture, but its descriptions of dinosaurs was part of a larger trend in paleontology changing perceptions of dinosaurs. John Ostrom's work on *Deinonychus* in the 1960s, such as this [1969 paper](_URL_11_) drew connections between the dromaeosaur and birds. This was part of a larger shift away in paleontology from seeing dinosaurs as lumbering reptiles and more dynamic. In the section \"Functional Significance of the Pes,\" Ostrom claimed:\n\n > Deinonychus must have been anything but \"reptilian\" in its behavior, responses and way of life. It must have been a fleet-footed, highly predaceous, extremely agile and very active animal, sensitive to many stimuli and quick in its responses. These in turn indicate an unusual level of activity for a reptile and suggest an unusually high metabolic rate. \n\nOstrom's student Robert Bakker would write a series of influential articles and letters in the 1970s for *Nature* such as [\"Anatomical and Ecological Evidence of Endothermy in Dinosaurs\"](_URL_12_) and [\"Dinosaur Monophyly and a New Class of Vertebrates\"](_URL_5_) that argued for endothermism and that dinosaurs were closer to birds. As Bakker put it in a 1975 *Scientific American* article [\"Dinosaur Renaissance\"](_URL_8_) which drew a clearer connection:\n\n > The evidence suggests, in fact, that the dinosaurs never died out completely. One group still lives. We call them birds. \n\nOther young Turks of paleontology were also making this connection such as John Horner who found evidence of nesting behavior and other bird-like markers in correspondence to *Nature* such as [\"Nest of juveniles provides evidence of family structure among dinosaurs\"](_URL_3_) and [\"Evidence of colonial nesting and ‘site fidelity’ among ornithischian dinosaurs\"](_URL_4_). These ideas and the paleontologists associated with them filtered out into the wider public. *Harper's Magazine*, *Esquire*, *National Geographic*, and other popular magazines and newspapers did have periodic articles in the 1980s about the new ideas that overturned dinosaurs' older image. One of the interesting ways to gauge how these notions of dinosaurs slowly made their way into the public is to look at the evolution of dinosaurs in Bill Waterson's popular syndicated comic strip [*Calvin and Hobbes*](_URL_7_). Waterson's first dinosaurs resemble the lumbering reptiles that would not look out of place in the 1930s depictions of dinosaurs, but by 1988, his dinosaurs are the agile, avian-like speedsters of Bakker et al (and can even fly F-14s!). Anthropomorphized dinosaurs had always been a thing in popular culture depictions of dinosaurs, but depicting dinosaurs as living in family groups such as in the cartoon [*The Land Before Time*](_URL_10_) now had a veneer of scientific veracity due to the work of Horner and the like (and apologies to /u/sunagainstgold and others if that last clip has resurrected some traumatic memories!). \n\nNot surprisingly, Michael Crichton amalgamated much of Bakker and Horner for his character of Grant to depict a new breed of paleontologist who was not restrained by older stereotypes of dinosaurs. So while it arguably took Spielberg's film to make the Velociraptor a household name, dinosaurs had not really went away in Western culture. Dinosaurs were a staple of fiction and a common feature in children's entertainment and educational materials. While the wider public may have been more illiterate with regards to the finer points of paleontology, the public's romance with dinosaurs has been a constant one that neither began in the 1990s nor ended with that decade.",
"Dont forget that ridiculous dance from 1993 \nsong \nwalk the dinosaur \nby \nwas (was not)\n\n\nThe epitome of the dino crazed years...if you dont remember or are infirmiliar you gotta check it, super corny in retrospect.\nRest of y'all enjoy the nostalgia.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vcKwmMzXA",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5q3nsw/would_a_paleontologist_at_a_dig_in_1993_be/",
"http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/diplodocus-this-is-your-life.html",
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v282/n5736/abs/282296a0.html",
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v297/n5868/abs/297675a0.html",
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v248/n5444/abs/248168a0.html",
"http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/anning.html",
"http://www.gocomics.com/news/laugh-tracks/3976",
"http://tuda.triumf.ca/evolution/articles/scientificamerican0475-58.pdf",
"http://research.amnh.org/paleontology/artwork/knight/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbW8GgAWKi8",
"http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/scientific-publications/ypmB30_1969.pdf",
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v238/n5359/abs/238081a0.html",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEt_aYBZoTk",
"http://www.npr.org/2011/09/14/140410442/bone-to-pick-first-t-rex-skeleton-complete-at-last",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEfz7ALPx38",
"http://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/12/the-strange-victorian-dinosaurs-of.html"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/zYKupOsaJmk"
]
] |
|
3k36w6
|
what is mustard gas and why its use by isis is news?
|
So some articles about it and was curious.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k36w6/eli5_what_is_mustard_gas_and_why_its_use_by_isis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuucxws",
"cuucz66",
"cuud6mt",
"cuudj8y"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Mustard Gas is a chemical weapon that burns upon contact. If it touches the skin it'll cause painful blisters. However, its main problem is from being breathed in where it'll damage the lungs causing a person to drown in their own fluids. If not killed by the gas the person faces lifelong problems of DNA mutation and cancer. \n\nTheir use in warfare is banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. They're a Weapon of Mass Destruction. \n\nEdit - Hitler was wounded in a mustard gas attack during WW1 causing temporary blindness. ",
"Mustard gas is sulfur mustards and was used during ww1. It is a chemical weapon and has since been banned during wartime engagements. Its way of killing is gruesome to say the least. That's why it is making news. It hasn't been used for a long while and breaks a lot of agreements about chemical weapons. ",
"A mustard agent isn't really a gas, it's a viscous liquid that is sprayed, and it has nothing in common with mustard other than the smell. The original mustard gas is a sulfur with two ethylenes with a chloride at the tip, like Cl-CC-S-CC-Cl (omitting hydrogens). The sulfur can attack the chloride end so that the chloride is lost. Then, your body can attack this thing that forms. So, if your proteins attack it, you get misfolding, damaged proteins. If your DNA attacks it, it can't uncoil properly, which kills the cell. So you get a lot of dead cell (it's \"cytotoxic\") that break down and cause blisters. Which is not good in, let's say, inside the lungs.\n\nAny other chemical with the pattern -S-CC-Cl, -N-CC-Cl or -O-CC-Cl can do the same. Usually a mixture of Cl-CC-S-CC-Cl and Cl-CC-S-CC-S-CC-Cl is used, other options exist.\n\nAssad's Syria had stockpiles of mustard gas bombs, because they feared Israel would attack them. They were supposed to be destroyed already. It's news because ISIS has been able to steal them. It's rarely fatal but does cause a lot of unnecessary pain that can't be justified even militarily. For ISIS, it is just about terrorism, or causing fear.",
"It's a breach if international laws of war. The Geneva Protocol (not to be confused with the Geneva Conventions) is a treaty signed by a majority of countries that prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in times of international armed conflict.\n\nMustard gas is a pretty serious chemical weapon as others here have described. Ever have people tell you NOT to mix cleaning chemicals? It's because you could accidentally make something similar to mustard gas."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5y4z42
|
why do atms eat cards?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5y4z42/eli5_why_do_atms_eat_cards/
|
{
"a_id": [
"den7s2f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In case you are using a stolen card, they don't give it back."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3efo2l
|
can anyone go to the moon (if they were able to) or is it like some sort of private property of a government ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3efo2l/eli5can_anyone_go_to_the_moon_if_they_were_able/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctegk6k",
"ctegk8m",
"ctegnla"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"The outer space treaty makes it essentially impossible for anyone to claim anything in outer space as their property, unless they put it there. \n\nSo yes, you could go to the moon if you wanted.",
"No one owns the moon. So you could go there is you wanted to. However I would imagine you need to permits to build a rocket that powerful.",
"You can only lay claim with enough military power to defend your claim. That his how the world works, that is how space will work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4u670v
|
why is it that ice slows down swelling but when in the cold, our skin turns red from blood flow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u670v/eli5_why_is_it_that_ice_slows_down_swelling_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5n8z41"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Cold just really slows down molecules down from their natural fast moving state to another state where things aren’t moving much at all. This works well and fine for things that don’t live and die like a pool of water that can just freeze without problems. When you cool sown a warm blooded creature like a human, the game changes. Humans require you to maintain a certain temperature for all of your processes to operate (like say make your lungs push air or allow your heart to pump blood). All of these systems become compromised when you are cold. Human skin is one of those things. Your skin doesn’t like to be cold since it tends to be damaged with cold temperatures. \n\nWhen you get cold your “core” (the boiler in your body) starts to panic - the boys operation is at risk. one of the normal reactions is to pull all of your body temperate goes to the core to keep it warm to keep your vitals operating. Your skin turning red is likely a panic response to getting your warm blood pooling together to the important parts of your body. The skin is the first thing that your body wants to preserve for temporary cold. If you stayed in the cold for longer, that redness would go away as your body starts deciding what it needs to save to make sure you don’t suffer from hypothermia. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
54lspr
|
At what point in history did the US first become politically and/or economically influential?
|
I know the US established itself as *the* superpower in the 20th century, but I'm curious as to when the rest of the world saw it as being in the same league as the European powers.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54lspr/at_what_point_in_history_did_the_us_first_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d82xjd1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I am presuming you are referring to international influence outside of the North American sphere. \n\nThe best answer for the political part would probably be the Spanish-American War. During that conflict, US forces won decisive simultaneous victories against a European (Spanish) military in two hemispheres, humiliating an \"Old World\" power and stripping it of the last of its colonial possessions. This surprised much of the world as it showed the US' ability to project decisive naval and ground power on a global scale against a \"modern\" fighting force. \n\nThe economic answer is much more nebulous but as far as the groundwork for today's world economy, which is driven in very large part by the US (although this has been changing in past couple of decades), the best answer would probably be the aftermath of WW2. In the aftermath of the conflict, the US was the only major industrialized nation not decimated by the war. This enabled the US to rebuild Western Europe through the Marshall Plan. The non-communist global economy soon became effectively realigned around the American (and, to a lesser extent, British) economy, with even European initiatives like the Coal and Steel Community (which later evolved into the EU) being deeply codependent on the US economy, not to mention Japan and later South Korea being rebuilt as bookies economies tightly linked with US markets. WW2 also had the effect of boosting the US' industrial base without suffering bombing and invasion of its cities, while millions of servicemen who returned home were able to attend college and secure employment amidst a booming US economy and rapidly expanding population that lasted for decades. \n\nEdit: spelling"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2do5h1
|
how did israel developed from rand rock desert into oecd equivalent progressive nation.
|
Israel has GDP per capita better than some messed up Eastern European nations. In terms of literacy rate, education level, human right and freedom etc they second to none in Middle East. Not to mention they had 4+ times war and constant clashes with its neighbors (which most of the time they achieved victory). They certainly are first world. How did originally workers mass over barren badlands, turned into one of the most sophisticated cutting edge progressive nation of science technology education and finance in merely 50 years; this progress is equivalent to something like Japan, South Korea and Singapore have achieved.
EDIT:
> rand rock
meant land rock
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2do5h1/eli5_how_did_israel_developed_from_rand_rock/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjrdryu",
"cjrf24b",
"cjs8jwn"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It was built by first world people, at first educated by first world institutions, until they created their own.\n\n\nAnd they get funded by first world jews all over the world. Jews have always prioritized education(as asians do).",
"Israeli culture does (and always has) place a high value on knowledge and education. This was established (at least partially) for patriotic reasons - Israel had to be smart to survive - but the bottom line is it lead to a well-educated society that prizes innovation. \n\nA lot of high-tech stuff you use on a daily basis were developed (at least in part) in Israel. Those Qualcomm chips in your cellphone. A lot of those Intel CPUs. Anti-virus software. Lots of huge multinational companies have huge R & D centers in Israel. With all that going on, drying the swamps and irrigating the desert isn't that big a deal. ",
"yolo, some factors others here probably won't consider;\n\nisrael started out on socialist ideals, so there was a lot of cooperation between citizens to centrally plan and build it's infrastructure. security and redundancy mandates from the military further spurned on key development far beyond how a country might have evolved had it been a peaceful capitalist democracy from the start.\n\nisraelis know israel is a tiny country in a huge world, and as such they are major world travelers. israeli tourists can be heard speaking hebrew all over the world. i know adult americans that don't even bother getting a passport. \n\nsuch worldwide exposure of it's average citizens broadens an israelis perception in both education and business opportunities, helping make israel a truly open and international place to learn, work and innovate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1wmh6g
|
What are some good reads to get a background on the historical basis of the bible?
|
I'm not much into religion but the stories are interesting. I've read some of the questions in the AskHistorians FAQ and they cover specific events but are there any good reads that I could pick up that would cover the bible from a historical point of view? A good starting point perhaps? Sorry if this isn't the right type of question for this subreddit, I can't find anything explicitly forbidding this type of question but sorry if it is wrong.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wmh6g/what_are_some_good_reads_to_get_a_background_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf3f6w0",
"cf3fwlb",
"cf3jhaa"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Everett Ferguson's \"Backgrounds of Early Christianity\" is a very good *background* book on the New Testament and immediately after world.\n\nAre you more interested in Old Testament or New Testament backgrounds?",
"It's pretty controversial but my personal favorite is Neil Silberman and Israel Finkelstein \"The Bible Unearthed\" (Old Testament). Another good one, also OT, is \"Who Wrote the Bible?\" The last one is a classic but may be a little outdated at this point (from the late 80s).\n\n",
"The religion section of the [AskHistorians book list](_URL_0_) might be worth looking at.\n\nI personally recommend *A brief introduction to the New Testament* by Bart D. Ehrman if you are looking for something that examines the creation of the New Testament and the historical circumstances surrounding it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/culturalhistory#wiki_religion"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.