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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
uvyin
|
How long would it take for a terraformed planet to replace a CO2 atmosphere with O2?
|
Just looking for a ballpark figure here, out of curiosity. Assuming an otherwise earth-like planet with an atmosphere of 0.8 atm N2 and 0.2 atm CO2, how long would it take 1 earth's worth of plant biomass to convert roughly all of the CO2 to O2 (assuming no change in temperature due to removing all that greenhouse gas).
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uvyin/how_long_would_it_take_for_a_terraformed_planet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4z3o6c"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Artificial trees can suck up 1 ton of carbon per day, if they are big enough. _URL_0_ This is a lot more than a real tree can absorb. Note that the co2 is caught in a filter and stored elsewhere.\n\n_URL_1_ claims that over the course of a tree's life, it absorbs about 1 ton of co2. Note that this is 100 years.\n\nWhile not directly related to your question, _URL_2_ claims we add 7 billion tons of Co2 into the atmosphere every year by burning fossil fuels.\n\nSo if your timescale is 100 years, you need 70 million natural trees to counter just what we currently add to the atmosphere every one year. \n\nNASA estimated there are 400 billion trees on Earth. That is 400 billion tons of carbon over 100 years (very roughly). Earth's atmosphere is roughly 5,500,000,000,000,000 tons.\n\nIf you found an Earth sized planet, whose atmosphere was just as heavy and was 100% co2 (not likely), and you planted 400 billion trees, it would then take 1.3 million years to convert all that co2 into o2. \n\nHopefully you get no forest fires along the way.\n\n(this is all very hand-wavey)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal",
"http://www.conservationfund.org/gozero/faqs",
"http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm"
]
] |
|
e1lbv2
|
why is it easier to keep balance (while standing on one foot f.e.), when you focus on a specific point?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e1lbv2/eli5_why_is_it_easier_to_keep_balance_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8q21uz",
"f8q7k41"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your brain collects information from multiple sources to maintain balance. One of those sources is what you see with your eyes, this is why closing your eyes makes it harder to balance. \n\nWhen you focus in a static object, your brain can more easily detect when it's tipping out of balance (because it knows that static object shouldn't move if you're balanced) and trigger you to make the necessary conditions. Try focusing on a moving object and you'll likely find it harder to balance.",
"Focusing your vision on a point allows you to detect and adjust to body movements more quickly than relying solely on your inner ear and kinesthesia."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
mn5ar
|
if i eat way more chile peppers, and build a tolerance, will i also have lower sensitivity to pepper spray?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mn5ar/eli5_if_i_eat_way_more_chile_peppers_and_build_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c328yzs",
"c329e9j",
"c328yzs",
"c329e9j"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"No. The way \"hot\" or \"spicy\" for foods specifically peppers is the scoville scale. Most peppers will be between 0-100,000 scovilles. Common ones are Banana peppers at 100, jalapeno at 5,000, tabasco pepper at 50,000. The hottest peppers are around 1,000,000 scovilles but Pepper spray is usually at or above 2,000,000 scovilles. Maybe in theory, but the pain and time it would take would be too much. Not to mention pepper spray goes right into your eyes, which is much more painful than just eating it.",
"I think you would have to practice rubbing hot peppers on your eyes for this to really take effect. People don't generally pepper spray you in the mouth. They spray you on the face/eyes.\n\nI don't think anyone should ever try and mess around with that kind of thing anyway, considering there have been cases of blindness and death from pepper spray.",
"No. The way \"hot\" or \"spicy\" for foods specifically peppers is the scoville scale. Most peppers will be between 0-100,000 scovilles. Common ones are Banana peppers at 100, jalapeno at 5,000, tabasco pepper at 50,000. The hottest peppers are around 1,000,000 scovilles but Pepper spray is usually at or above 2,000,000 scovilles. Maybe in theory, but the pain and time it would take would be too much. Not to mention pepper spray goes right into your eyes, which is much more painful than just eating it.",
"I think you would have to practice rubbing hot peppers on your eyes for this to really take effect. People don't generally pepper spray you in the mouth. They spray you on the face/eyes.\n\nI don't think anyone should ever try and mess around with that kind of thing anyway, considering there have been cases of blindness and death from pepper spray."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
373th9
|
How did historians view the US Constitution of 1878 during the creation and after up until now?
|
Wanted to know for a college paper i was assigned
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/373th9/how_did_historians_view_the_us_constitution_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crk1run"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As /u/mormengil said, your question is far too broad for us to answer. Historians have written literally thousands of lengthy books about the Constitution of 1788. You could pick myriads of subtopics to write a paper on - how contemporary historians viewed the Constitution in some decade, how modern historians view the Constitution's workings in some period of time or in some event, how historians view some individual clause of the Constitution, or many, many other things.\n\nIf you're looking for an overview of the topic, or of some subfield (e.g. \"the Constitution during the Civil War,\" which I've read multiple full-length books on), your university library would probably be a good place to start. The librarians are trained to answer questions like this. Afterwards, if you want to ask more specific questions about your paper after you choose a thesis or topic, feel free.\n\n[Here's a post from a couple weeks ago about how to phrase questions about paper topics well.](_URL_1_) For instance, *\"How was the Constitution viewed in the Civil War?\"* is probably too vague. *\"How did Lincoln view the Constitution in relation to the creation of West Virginia?\"* is a good, targeted question (and one that's sparked [at least one good law review paper](_URL_2_), and a lengthy chapter in [a book](_URL_0_)). An even better question might be *\"I've read these articles about the Constitution and the creation of West Virginia, but I'm still not sure how the Second Wheeling Convention itself viewed the Constitutional restrictions on forming new states. Can someone point me in the right direction?\"*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://archive.org/details/constitutionalpr00randa",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/35pkem/askhistorians_homework_question_policy_rehash/",
"http://www.jstor.org/stable/3481282"
]
] |
|
uydtu
|
Would it be possible to take in enough water to survive by inhaling steam?
|
I was holding my head over a cup of tea and inhaling the fumes when this popped in my head.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uydtu/would_it_be_possible_to_take_in_enough_water_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4zoh41"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I cannot answer your question, but just an aside, you are inhaling tiny droplets of liquid water, not steam. The water leaves the hot tea as steam (despite the fact that the water temperature is less than the boiling point), then quickly condenses into an aerosol. The droplets are small and light enough to be entrained in the air and carried about. If you don't breath it in, they will eventually evaporate and turn back into invisible water vapor (steam)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ozd0a
|
If nuclear power technology and waste mitigation progressed to the point that energy was essentially free, would all the heat generated contribute to a global temperature increase?
|
If power was so cheap and non-polluting that most streets in cold climates were heated instead of being plowed and salted, and homes and businesses kept heat levels high with little need for insulation, what effects would that have?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ozd0a/if_nuclear_power_technology_and_waste_mitigation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3l9ewn"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"It would have no noticeable effect except perhaps on very small scale locations.\n\n > The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[12][13] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[9] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.[14]\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy"
]
] |
|
1mksuj
|
how does fiji water justify their inflated price?
|
(And why do people buy it?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mksuj/eli5_how_does_fiji_water_justify_their_inflated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cca5buq",
"cca5cep",
"cca61up",
"cca678y",
"cca6jd7",
"cca6oa2",
"cca9y0k"
],
"score": [
4,
13,
7,
3,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The second question answers your first. And people buy it because people are dumb. My only question is why you're asking about Fiji specifically when there are more expensive brands.",
"The claim is that their water from Fiji “comes from an artesian aquifer .“ Their unstated premise is that this water is somehow more pure and better for you. Their price comes from peoples willingness to buy it despite the high price. And people's willingness to buy it comes from their unstated premise.",
"They don't need to justify it beyond what justification people need to buy it... Basic market forces at work. If people are willing to buy it in a quantity that is enough for the company to profit & survive then it is priced right. If it was too inflated they wouldn't be able to sell it and the product would fail.\n\nTons of companies do this. How can Rolex justify $10,000 watches (it tells time the same as a $5000, or $1000, or $200 watch)? How can Starbucks justify $4.50 for a cup of hot milk with some espresso in it? How can Ferrari justify a quarter of a million dollars for a car?\n\nImage= some people willing to buy it at an inflated price. They will sell less product than \"cheaper brands\" but they make more off each transation.\n\nIn short: they don't need to \"justify\" it if people are willing to purchase it for whatever reason. Quite often it is due to image, or perceived quality, or brand loyalty rather than actual quality or function.",
"Supply and demand, they wouldn't sell it for that price if people weren't buying it for that price.",
"What do you mean by justify? They can charge whatever they like.",
"Bottled water, one of the worst environmental catastrophes in recent times, has always functioned off the cache of being a premium product/better than the tap/super pure. In reality, the bottling standards for water are worse than what comes out of your tap, and you're paying for pretty pictures of a glacier on a bottle. \n\nFiji water (which I've heard is just terrible to the native people) rides on a boat a lot longer than some waters, and has a nice clear bottle to go with it. People will pay for this it turns out -- and when compared to a drink at a club, etc, it's no longer expensive. You see Voss water left on the table, or in a hotel room sitting there, often as an upsell (because Fiji is no where pricey enough). \n\nIt's genius for a bar/restaurant to get you for a $20 bottle of water when it used to be free -- just so you don't look cheap ordering tap water, etc.",
"Cool bottle, bro."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3t5e0u
|
what's the reasoning behind the "pause" and "play" symbols as we know them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t5e0u/eli5_whats_the_reasoning_behind_the_pause_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx37daz",
"cx3epm3"
],
"score": [
61,
5
],
"text": [
"Their origin is not clear but I think the \"play\" symbol was supposed to be an arrow that indicates the direction tape was moving in old reel-to-reel tapes, which would explain why the fast forward symbol is a double arrow. \n\nThe pause symbol on the other hand, is even less clear. Some say it's a variation of the \"stop\" symbol (a square), that indicates no direction of movement. By carving a chunk out of that square, you show that \"pause\" is only a temporary stop. ",
"The play symbol symbolizes time moving forward, because in the western world we read from left to right. So an arrow to the right points to the future. And fast-forward is just 2 arrows overlapping.\n\nPause on the other hand represents 2 timelines (the bars) with a pause between them (the empty space between the bars)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
c7o6gx
|
does the breakdown of carbon life forms add mass to the earth?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c7o6gx/eli5_does_the_breakdown_of_carbon_life_forms_add/
|
{
"a_id": [
"esgktyf",
"esgkvsh",
"esgv583"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, or yes. It depends on how you define the Earth.\n\nIf you are talking about everything from the atmosphere down, then no mass is added since the mass from the lifeforms is already accounted for.\n\nIf you mean just the soil and whatnot below our feet, then yes the bodies decompose and make their way into the Earth. The elements from those bodies are also used by plants and fungi and animals for growth, so it is taken out of the Earth too. The net difference between the bodies going in and being used is effectively nil, so the Earth's mass stays the same from that.\n\nThe Earth does gain mass over time though. This is done through small meteoroids that enter the atmosphere and usually burn up before they hit land. It also loses mass because lighter gases such a as hydrogen and helium leak out of the atmosphere into space. I'm not sure which is greater though to decide if it's a net gain or loss.",
"The staple law of physics is that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. \n\nHowever, that does not mean that it can’t be transformed. Carbon life forms take mass from the earth upon creation, which is why when they break down no mass is added, only returned. \n\nFor example, if you were to dig a hole at the beach, the sand that you dug out would be misplaced but it would still be there, just as when carbon life forms are created the mass is “misplaced” into us, but it’s still there.",
"The Earth is a jar full of soil air water and whatever. We live in the jar, are made from stuff in the jar and when we die we're still in the jar. The jar weights the same.\n\n \n\n\nMeteors are stones that fall in the jar from time to time they increase it's mass.\n\nThere's something called solar wind it's made of some sort of particles they add to the jar like dust in a basement.\n\n \n\n\nRadioactive stuff inside the jar is losing weight and heating the bottom of the jar.\n\n \n\n\nThe sun is heating the air in the jar and adding a lot of energy to it, that moves water and air trough the jar and makes life possible in the jar with plants using it to convert some chemicals into other chemicals no mass is lost or gained on this one but the molecules become more complex (than we've found in other empty jars full of dust and methane).\n\n \n\n\nWant to know something else, these complex molecules tend to crumple and fold into eachother, and for some reason every living thing in the jar has them twisted in the same direction (same aminoacid chirality). Weirder tho all critters in the jar from the slime on the glass to monkeys shooting rockets are made from the same recipe, using the same 4 words like they're all related."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s7nf2
|
why does america still have a farm bill?
|
ELI5:Why does America still have a Farm bill? I've had a quick look at it, and for a free market economy it seems to impose the complete opposite.
If someone can provide a more details explanation of what it is and why it continues to be that'd be great.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s7nf2/eli5why_does_america_still_have_a_farm_bill/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdusntm",
"cduy60v"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, the United States *doesn't* have a completely free economy. It's more free than many other countries, but there are still a lot of protectionist industries, with the notable ones being Steel and various Agriculture products (especially Sugar).\n\nThat said, there are three basic reasons for the Farm bill.\n\n1) Protection for farmers if a drought or storm kills the crop or cattle. This would wipe out the farmer/rancher, and prevent him from using his skilled expertise (Industrial farming can be considered skilled labor) in subsequent years to grow food as he is bankrupt/can't get a loan. That's not to say the government swoops in and completely pulls the farmer back on his feet, but the government does offer a stretched out hand. \n\n2) Provides subsidies for a farmer so he can afford to leave some land fallow (unplanted) for a period of time. This preserves and builds up nutrients in the soil, which is necessary even in this age of chemical fertilizers. Otherwise, the farmer has an incentive to maximize his profit by planting all his fields all his time, which would wear out the soil even with soil saving techniques such as crop rotatoins. \n\n3) The government essentially subsidizes many articles of food for the farmer to make it profitable for him (fertilizer/GMO crops can be expensive, etc) to grow it without selling it a high price to the consumer. Lower prices for consumers = more money spent on other products and services in the economy, especially by the lower economic classes. \n\nThere are also downsides. For example, Refined Sugar in the US is more expensive than in other parts of the world because we're very protectionist of our sugar industry. This causes higher sugar prices than if we allowed free trade. ",
"Thanks for your response. So is it worth it? Or does it make your agriculture industry lazy through the use of guarantees?\nI once worked for a plant producer, who lost his crop in a once in a 100 year flood. He had no choice but to survive on his own, without assistance.\nIn response to (2), it would make sense to look after your property if you were in it for the long term. Farming is a long term business.\n(3) Doesn't this just support the fertilizer/GMO industry with the money passed through to them?\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
hpujh
|
Why does the propane bottle (for the heater) get frosty?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hpujh/why_does_the_propane_bottle_for_the_heater_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1xcq7c",
"c1xexx5"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
" > Propane is generally stored and transported in steel cylinders as a liquid with a vapor space above the liquid. The vapor pressure in the cylinder is a function of temperature. When gaseous propane is drawn at a high rate, the latent heat of vaporisation required to create the gas will cause the bottle to cool. (This is why water often condenses on the sides of the bottle and then freezes). \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn other words, the propane in the tank (which is kept as a liquid under moderate pressure) slowly vaporizes as you use the propane vapor at the top. But, in order for this to occur, the propane must draw heat from outside the tank.",
"Gas laws, yo."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane_tank#Uses"
],
[]
] |
||
54815k
|
howcome no matter how much we brace ourselves for something startling (loud noise, etc...), we always still jump at it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54815k/eli5_howcome_no_matter_how_much_we_brace/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7znafi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"People have different reactions to startling events with some on the extreme end being people you can literally scare out of their seat with a \"BOO!\" every time, literally every time. Other people can train their reactions better, but it depends on who you are.\n\nThe reason though is pretty simple, and it's that our fight-flight instinct is powerful and can occur without conscious thought. We've evolved as a species for millions of years, and the animals who didn't have the fastest possible reactions to potentially new and dangerous stimuli didn't tend to survive and have offspring. In short, we're the product of tens of millions of years of nervous mammals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
16p2rt
|
can someone write a dumbed down version of the "23 gun laws" that obama has came up with?
|
Incase I am incorrect of what is going on, here is what I am talking about.
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16p2rt/can_someone_write_a_dumbed_down_version_of_the_23/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7y0nxl",
"c7y18mm",
"c7y1nru",
"c7y2ydc",
"c7y5j01",
"c7y6ddq",
"c7y6ke4",
"c7y6wxw",
"c7y9sib",
"c7ybdyj"
],
"score": [
237,
179,
14,
84,
41,
12,
5,
15,
3,
40
],
"text": [
"The White House Press Secretary put out an easier-to-read summary document. The Chicago Sun-Times has a copy [here](_URL_0_)\n",
"I'm really liking the one about health insurance providing for mental health.",
"It says \"Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines\"\n\nIs that for all guns, or just ARs?",
"If by \"23 gun laws\" you're referring to the 23 executive orders he's signing, it's important to distinguish these from the \"laws\" he's proposed to Congress. Notably, Obama DID NOT ban assault weapons (as defined by prior legislation), high capacity magazines, or unregulated private sale of firearms and ammunition. Nothing Obama signed into effect will have any impact on citizens' legal ownership of guns and ammo. They were mostly bureaucratic changes to more effectivtly enforce already existing gun laws, and suggestions for Congress to take further action to actually modify existing gun law. All Obama did was attempt to enforce the existing laws concerning background checks by removing bureaucratic obstacles -- no meaningful changes have yet been made.",
"With the \"research\" portion of the bill, does this mean they can finally (conclusively) put an end to the whole 'violent video games/movies = violence in real life'?\n\nI sure hope so...",
"Since these are just Executive Orders, the next President could just invalidate them all if they desire, right?",
"[_URL_1_](_URL_0_) is actually a pretty great resource for those who have never been. They make all of the President's executive orders available online.\n\n[Here's](_URL_2_) their new page on gun control.",
"Why was there a freeze of gun violence research?",
"Can anyone expand on the assault weapons ban? Is this a full on ban for all people? Or could a \"sane\" citizen still legally purchase an assault weapon in the US? I ask because the way it (what I have seen regarding the assault weapons ban) is worded, the exec order is a ban the legal sale of \"assault weapons\" to everyone.",
"The 23 executive orders basically stack up to this:\n\n* 6 are about making the background check system more effective. \n\n* 3 are about safety training and equipment. \n\n* 5 are law enforcement of existing laws. \n\n* 1 is allowing research. \n\n* 6 are about mental health. \n\n* 2 are about school resource officers and planning."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/16/list-obamas-23-executive-actions-on-gun-violence/"
] |
[
[
"http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=W480DYNQoWmjWtPssH2PiW08KPqTQGj1bVIjXWhRUINygAgzGeHJ7JG3mDPF39SK4Aw$6wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&CONTENTDISPOSITION=obama-CST-011713.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions",
"Whitehouse.gov",
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence#what-we-can-do"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6jtp6m
|
why can't the body differentiate from a real threat vs second-hand anxiety symptoms?
|
i.e when your hands get sweaty when you're watching someone else do flips on a skyscraper
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jtp6m/eli5_why_cant_the_body_differentiate_from_a_real/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djgw7kj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We are social and empathetic creatures. We may not be experiencing it for ourselves, but our brain knows that it would be a bad idea so it triggers an anxious response in most people so they won't want to do it. It doesn't work all the time, obviously, and there's no way for your primitive instincts to know about the safety measures, it just sees someone jumping off a building."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
29h64u
|
how can you see through something that's physically there, like plastic wrap or glass?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29h64u/eli5_how_can_you_see_through_something_thats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cikv58g",
"cikxdn9",
"cikyma0"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Light consists of waves(ish). When it hits an object, depending on the size of the crystals in the object and the chemical makeup, different wavelengths of light are reflected/scattered/absorbed. Plastic wrap lets through visible light, if the crystals are small enough they won't scatter the visible wavelengths significantly. If you were to look through the plastic wrap with infra-red light, you would see that it is no longer transparent!",
"The same reason you can see through air: the photons hitting it on one side are re-emitted with (nearly) the same properties on the other side.\n\nCertain materials have this behavior for certain wavelengths of light. Your home wifi makes it through the walls of your house, but the same wavelength is used in your microwave and doesn't make it through the grating on its door.",
"It's called the Engery Gap\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/Omr0JNyDBI0"
]
] |
||
2gxbax
|
Erwin Rommel
|
Can anyone here, on the Reddit, inform me as to why Rommel refused to execute his prisoners in Africa? It seems like it goes against the grain too hard to chalk it up to "he was an alright fella". Was it just because he was, in fact, an alright fella, or was there some... deeper, I guess, reason, like a different sort of upbringing or something that set him apart from other German officers? Or am I just looking at it from a nonsensical point of view and asking an idiotic question?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gxbax/erwin_rommel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cknh7yg"
],
"score": [
23
],
"text": [
"Actually, many career German officers--those who had entered the service before the Nazi party consolidated its power--had little esteem for Hitler and the party and used their personal clout to make independent decisions; Rommel wasn't unique in that regard.\n\nWikipedia: Hitler promoted Friedrich Paulus—commander of the 6th Army at Stalingrad—to the rank of field marshal on 29 January 1943, shortly before his army's inevitable surrender in order to encourage him to continue to fight until death or commit suicide. In the promotion Hitler noted that no German or Prussian field marshal at that point in history had ever been captured alive. Paulus surrendered anyway, claiming **\"I have no intention of shooting myself for this Bavarian corporal\".**\n\nThe German view in the inter-war years was that the military should be divorced from the direct control of civilian politicians (and vice versa). The Weimar constitution forbade members of the military from holding party cards or voting; this rule was not suspended, in fact, until 1944. Numerous German officers who entered the service during that time became conditioned to that way of thinking. In keeping with this attitude: \"[The Wehrmacht refused to adopt officially the Hitler salute and was able for a time to maintain its own customs](_URL_2_).\"\n\nYou should also consider the origins of the services and the pre-war makeup of the officer corps: many Wehrmacht and Kreigsmarine officers were Junkers--members of the Prussian aristocracy. They held a very dim view of the Nazis, since naziism began, after all, as a plebeian movement.\n\nAlthough Rommel was not a noble, he came from a comfortable middle-class background: his father was a university professor and former army officer. So it makes sense that his views and loyalties would be more in line those with his traditionalist, \"professional\" officer peers, as opposed to the hard-line views promulgated by the Nazi party. \n\nAs an example of the Nazis' plebianism (and Rommel's disdain for some of the party's actions): \"The Propaganda Department of the NSDAP re-wrote Rommel's life story, and in a 1941 article appearing in the Nazi newspaper Das Reich they presented him to the German people as **a master mason's son** who was an early member of the Nazi Party. Their intent was to make Rommel a \"showcase member\" of the NSDAP. Rommel was incensed over this false narrative (he was never a member of the Party), and complained to Das Reich. In response he was told: \"Wenn es auch nicht stimme, wäre es doch gut, wenn es stimmen würde,\" which can be translated to: \"Even if it is not true, it would be good if it were.\" Rommel was not mollified, and insisted on a correction. Das Reich ended up printing a retraction, placing it in a remote location.\"--wikipedia\n\nThe Kreigsmarine (excepting, perhaps, the U-boat service) was even more traditional/non-\"nazified\" in their attitudes (and conduct). The naval forces were historically liberal; It was sailors who (began the German revolution)[_URL_0_] which transitioned Germany from a monarchy to a Republic. (The Luftwaffe, on the other hand, was a much newer service--built, essentially, by the Nazis--so Luftwaffe officers were more about the \"party line.\")\n\nThat's part of the reason the Nazis created the SS and grew the group from Hitler's personal bodyguards to a full-fledged army (the Waffen-SS) in its own right. Being party members (and officers being, ipso facto, party officials), SS troops were willing (and obligated) to follow orders without question.\n\nSo essentially, Rommel was hardly alone in the German armed forces in terms of not buying into Naziism or following purely political orders (i.e. orders which would serve no military purpose).\n\nOf course, none of this is to say that the Wehrmacht was wholly without blame for war crimes and atrocities. They were certainly \"nicer\" than the SS, but plenty of enthusiastic Nazis and generally bad people put on Wehrmacht uniforms and did awful things during the war.\n\nWikipedia actually offers an interesting discussion of some of these issues: _URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_mutiny",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_the_Wehrmacht",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute#Military_use"
]
] |
|
gc0fn
|
If a motorcyclist is travelling towards me at 100mph and fires a bullet which leaves the gun at 1000mph, how fast is that bullet moving towards me?
|
What if the motorcyclist is moving away from me at 100mph in the opposite direction when the bullet is fired? Will any of this affect the velocity at which the bullet hits me?
Instead of firing a gun, what if the motorcyclist flicks on the headlights? (I know that the light from the headlights isn't going to hit me at anything other than *c*, I'm just interested in the concepts and physics underlying this)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gc0fn/if_a_motorcyclist_is_travelling_towards_me_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1mfr58",
"c1mfwoa",
"c1mfymd",
"c1mgoxb"
],
"score": [
7,
15,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"1100mph (when it exits the gun, of course).\r\n\r\n ",
"Galilean relativity works well in situations when the speeds involved are much less than the speed of light. So in this case we can use it.\n\nIf the motorcycle (and gun) is traveling with a velocity **u** with respect to you, and the bullet is fired at a muzzle velocity **v** (with respect to the gun). Then the velocity of the bullet is **v_b** = **u** + **v**.\n\nRemember, this is VECTOR addition, meaning that you must take into account the direction of travel. For the motorcycle travelling away from you, the bullet would be travelling at 900mph, for the motorcycle travelling toward you, it would be 1100mph.\n\nNow for the second part of your question, one of the [postulates of special relativity](_URL_0_) is that the speed of light is always measured to be c in every inertial reference frame. What would happen is the frequency of the light would change (a Doppler shift)",
"In your reference frame, just a tad under 1100mph, just a tad over 900mph, and *c* (well, assuming a vacuum, anyway), respectively. As mentioned elsewhere, the formula for adding colinear velocities u and v is just (u+v)/(1+u/c * v/c). So, your three questions become\n\n* u=100, v=1000: 1100/(1+tiny*tiny) ~= 1100\n* u=-100, v=1000: 900/(1+(-tiny)*tiny) ~= 900\n* u=anything, v=c: (u+c)/(1+u/c * c/c) = (u+c)/(1+u/c) = (u+c)/((c+u)/c) = c",
"While the discussion here has been great, unless I missed them I haven't actually seen the answers given. Here they are to ten decimal places.\n\nQuestion 1: Motorcyclist coming toward observer.\n\n1099.9999999998 miles per hour\n\nQuestion 2: Motorcyclist heading away from observer.\n\n900.0000000002 miles per hour"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Postulates"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
cob1vi
|
Assuming it doesn't burn out, will the North Star stay North forever?
|
Or will it slowly move away from its position over a long period of time?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cob1vi/assuming_it_doesnt_burn_out_will_the_north_star/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewkqp6j"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"So, there are two factors at play here:\n\n* [The Axial precession of the Earth](_URL_0_)\n\nThe Earth's rotational axis changes orientation in a cycle that is roughly 25,772 years. Because of this, Polaris wasn't always the North Star, nor will it always be. In fact, if you go to classical antiquity, the Greeks claimed the pole was devoid of stars. 5,000 years ago, Thuban was the pole star.\n\n* The proper motion of Polaris\n\nPolaris is a star that is orbiting the Milky Way independent of the Sun. The Earth's precession makes it so that every 25,000 years, Polaris will again be the pole star. However, since Polaris is moving independently of the Sun, each time it is the pole star again, it will be further from the celestial pole, until such a point that it is no longer a pole star ever again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession"
]
] |
|
6t8fsf
|
what happens to the water used to make concrete?
|
Can the concrete degrade, until the water escapes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6t8fsf/eli5_what_happens_to_the_water_used_to_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlioovi",
"dlip401",
"dliqls8",
"dliqplg"
],
"score": [
24,
5,
9,
6
],
"text": [
"Concrete setting is a complicated process and depends on the materials used. But part of the process is the hydration of the ingredients. The water actually becomes part of the ingredients. The water remains but is part of the chemical components. Concrete is also produced which will set under water. The Romans understood how to make concrete including underwater concrete. It is part of how they were so good at construction.",
"The concrete can degrade but the water will not escape until the concrete is heated to a pretty high temperature where a chemical process occurs that allows the water to escape, the concrete will lose it's strength and crumble during this process.",
"What happens to the water when you bake a cake from dry mix?\n\nMost of the water becomes the **hydrates** in the concrete. Some of it boils off. Making concrete is highly exothermic (the process gives off heat). \n\nOther off gasses from concrete are carbon dioxide and water vapor. Chemically, concrete is much like human digestion and it produces a good amount of the greenhouse gasses from construction. ",
"Concrete doesn’t just *dry*, it *cures*. This means that the water and cement go through a chemical change, and join together in a new form.\n\nThink about putting dry pasta in water and putting cured concrete in water. The pasta absorbs water again and becomes similar to how it was before it dried out. The concrete stays hard and solid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1kmegf
|
how do photographers get cameras in animal dens or hives?
|
You always see wide shots of the insides of bee hives or of an animal sleeping in a tiny den. How do they do that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kmegf/eli5_how_do_photographers_get_cameras_in_animal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbqfc2b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've seen cameramen literally just elbow their way into rabbit holes and such. or they can use lightweight camera's on sticks basically. or sometimes there's a lot more room in there underground already, when a small animal has made a den in an existing but abandoned bigger den. \n\nas for bees, they're easy. they live in hives, but the footage you'll see is from man-made hives, which the bees inhabit. the side of those can simply be made of perspex or glass, so you can see everything going on inside. a lot of the classic wooden hives you'll have seen, you can lift the top off, looking down onto the frames that hold the honey. you could simply put a glass sheet on top of there as well, it wouldnt bother the bees in the slightest. my dad was a beekeeper, and he had a sheet of glass in the top. if it wasnt too sunny I'd take the top off sometimes and just look at them move about. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7bd9oj
|
difference between necessary and sufficient conditions
|
Philosophy major here. I some how managed to get a distinction in informal reasoning, and yet I never managed to grasp the distinction between a necessary condition, and a sufficient condition. I'd appreciate an ELI5 on how to tell the difference between them, and a definition of each.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7bd9oj/eli5difference_between_necessary_and_sufficient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dph0zkm",
"dph5c94",
"dph8ufw"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"A is a necessary condition for B if it's always true whenever B is true. In other words, B implies A.\n\nA is a sufficient condition for B if whenever it's true, B is true. In other words, A implies B.\n\nThe meanings are actually just their regular English meanings. If A is necessary for B, then you can't have B without A, because A is necessary. If A is sufficient for B, it means that as long as you have A, that's sufficient to show that you have B as well.",
"Water is a necessary condition for making lemonade.\n\nWater is NOT a sufficient condition - water alone does not meet all of the requirements to make lemonade.",
"P is a necessary condition for Q if Q can *only* happen if P is true. You can't drive a car unless it has gas in it, so having gas is a necessary condition.\n\nP is a sufficient condition for Q if can *always* happen when P is true. You can always unlock your car door if you have the key, so having the key is a sufficient condition.\n\nA condition can be necessary but not sufficient. You might have a full tank of gas, but you aren't going anywhere if you don't have your keys.\n\nA condition can be sufficient but not necessary. You can unlock your car with a coat hanger if you have lost your keys.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3idq8e
|
was the economic stimulus act of 2008 at all effective in helping the recessed economy?
|
Did the $158 billion dollars invested in the economy end up doing what lawmakers thought it would? Did the government see any returns on this investment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3idq8e/eli5_was_the_economic_stimulus_act_of_2008_at_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cufiajz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Did the $158 billion dollars invested in the economy end up doing what lawmakers thought it would?\n\n[Yes](_URL_0_) it raised consumption and increased consumer spending.\n\n > Did the government see any returns on this investment?\n\nThe government was looking for no particular \"return\" on this investment, merely to stimulate demand as much as possible."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.voxeu.org/article/did-2008-us-tax-rebates-work"
]
] |
|
cw5d6a
|
In August and September 1941, the Soviet Union sent three armies and 1,000 tanks to invade Iran. How did they have so many resources to spare as the Germans were rapidly approaching Moscow?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cw5d6a/in_august_and_september_1941_the_soviet_union/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyafg2b"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"A note on on your last premise: \"the Germans were rapidly approaching Moscow\". It's a little misleading. In August the advance of Army Group Center (the German concentration advancing on the Moscow axis) effectively stalled after the battle of Smolensk - ostensibly an overwhelming German victory, but not only did enough Red Army forces escape the trap to reform the defensive line, they had enough reserves available to launch a rolling wave of counter-offensives which had the Germans fighting for their lives, particularly around Yel'nya and Roslavl. They weren't going anywhere at that point, Barbarossa had effectively failed its initial aims. \n\nOn 3 Aug, AGC's diary records:\n\n\"At the beginning of the 7th week of battle the army group stands with partially worn out units, limited munitions supply and without meaningful reserves, in a difficult and costly struggle to achieve the victorious end of the encirclement at Smolensk. **The enemy is in number and material greatly superior.** On the outer defensive front the bridgehead at Yel'nya is a deeply endangered flashpoint.\"\n\nI've bolded some text to make my point: in August the Red Army was very much intact, superior in number to the Wehrmacht, and fighting-back with exceptional vigour. There was no immediate threat to Moscow, and thus substantial reserves could be committed to the pressing strategic goal of forestalling any threat to the war effort by Iran flipping for the Axis (whether or not this was a realistic fear, I guess we'll never know - but I suppose they weren't willing to take any chances...). While Germany declared the battle of Smolensk over on 5 Aug, in reality, the defensive battle lasted another month, at least. I guess the rest is history, eh?\n\nI can recommend David Stahel's *Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East*, for a German perspective, and both volumes of David Glantz's *Barbarossa Derailed* for a much deeper dive into the subject (which it requires). I'm no expert of the invasion of Iran, but the imperative of securing trade-routes and oil seems rather obvious to me, as ignoble as it was in execution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
33h2pu
|
in academia, why is communism still seen as a viable option while fascism is viewed as the biggest evil of all time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33h2pu/eli5_in_academia_why_is_communism_still_seen_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqksnag",
"cqktoiu",
"cqktyfw",
"cqkyrui",
"cqkzlyf"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"No, that's not a \"No true Scotsman\", because USSR and PRC weren't in fact, communism. \n\nAlso, more importantly the parts of the USSR and PRC that were \"Evil\" aren't part of the communistic ideal",
"Communism generally presumes far greater democracy, leading to people collectively choosing equality (or vice versa). Fascism is practically the opposite. Fascism actually exists in many countries and have been demonstrated to be less effective than republics. No traditional state government has ever practiced democratic communism, and no government with state control of property has ever had free access to the global market - Cuba will be the first.",
"What class are you taking where they propose that communism is a viable option? What example could they possibly use? It's been tried and failed each and every time. ",
"USSR was as communistic as USA is a laissez-faire.",
"Nobody thinks that Leninism or Maoism are viable options. \n\nBut Scandinavian style social democracy is clearly functional. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1cq9ok
|
why do some people get sweaty hands?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cq9ok/eli5_why_do_some_people_get_sweaty_hands/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9j2iyj"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"In addition to the posts you will get about why the body produces sweat (like to cool off the body, or our body's response to fear/stress) I will tell you this bit of information. \n\nMy girlfriend has hyperhydrosis. The body normally produces sweat as a way to cool itself down. In her case, her body does this more often than needed. So it could be kinda chilly out and her palms will sweat a lot. \n\nIt's annoying to her, and effects her life to a small degree. Touch screens don't work well for her, and fingerprint readers almost never work. On top if that, it's not something other people can see, so if she's trying to dry get palms on her hands, people think she's acting odd. She's says it's very embarrassing. \n\nEvery 6 months, she goes to get botox injected into her hands, and that pretty much solves it for half a year. But it costs a few thousand dollars. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4te2zk
|
I just opened a saloon in a frontier town in the mid 1800s. How do I stock it?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4te2zk/i_just_opened_a_saloon_in_a_frontier_town_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5gp6xq",
"d5gqzk8",
"d5gre1m",
"d5grtfo"
],
"score": [
28,
110,
719,
21
],
"text": [
"A second, but related question: how would you have financed it?",
"\"Frontier Town\" could be quite a broad category, and what was available in the Dakota Territory probably differed quite a bit from what was available in, say, West Texas, but there is one interesting example from archaeology that comes to mind that can shed light on what people in one location were drinking at a specific time in the opening of the frontier (1860's). Note that this example would indicate that saloons in this area were being stocked via shipment by steamboat from points south (New Orleans) and East (major cities on the East coast). The steamboat *Bertrand*, which sank on the Missouri River north of Omaha, NE, en route to the goldfields of Montana, was covered in mud and silt and the cargo preserved as a kind of time capsule of frontier life in the 1860's. On board was an enormous selection of booze, much of it really top end stuff imported from Europe and other places around the globe. A great deal of high end pre-packaged foodstuffs were found as well, indicating that these folks were eating and drinking better than what you might expect. \n\nAs listed on page 50 of [this](_URL_0_) National Park Service archaeology report, alcohol found included: ale, bitters, \"bourbon-whiskey cocktail\", brandied cherries, brandy, \"Brandy Cocktail\", \"gin cocktail\", wine, and champagne. I'm not sure what the distinction is between say, brandy and \"Brandy Cocktail\", but it is so-listed in the manifest. The diversity of foodstuffs is pretty amazing too, including various kinds of nuts, sauces (including Worchestershire, tartar sauce and something called \"London Club Sauce\"), canned meats, various fruits... these are luxury items. Again, not representative of life on the entire frontier, which comprised a vast and shifting area over many decades, but this report provides a snapshot at consumption habits at a very specific time and place on the frontier. In summation, they were bringing stuff in from more established areas, and drinking and eating pretty well!\n\nSource linked above: \"The Steamboat *Bertrand*\", Jerome Petsche, National Park Service, Department of the Interior (Washington D.C., 1974). \n\nEdit: a couple spelling, added the source citation at the bottom. ",
"Since the West is the largest and most diverse region of North America, there could have been any number of scenarios. In addition, saloons were one of the first businesses to open in a frontier town, but they also opened and closed throughout the history of that town, so there could be a great deal of difference between that first establishment and a business that opened ten or fifteen years later.\n\nJ. Ross Browne in his \"A Peep at Washoe\" describes merchants with just enough kegs of beer and bottles of whiskey to open a saloon in 1860 arriving in the newly-established Virginia City (then of Utah Territory; after 1861, Nevada Territory). The key to these first arrivals was first of all to arrive with the goods (which sounds obvious, but it was no easy accomplishment with poor roads, etc.). They would set up a tent and a blank of wood on two barrels and start selling their wares. The life of the saloon might be no longer than the time it took to sell everything that merchant brought. Restocking might entail his returning to his place of origin (in this case Sacramento of San Francisco would be likely) to obtain more goods and then to return to set up his saloon again. Or he might make an arrangement with a packer and then later with a teamster to bring in more product, and he could, then, sustain his saloon past the point of the exhaustion of his first inventory. Both scenarios occurred.\n\nFor the opening of saloons later in the life of a frontier town, it would be possible for an entrepreneur to rely on well-traveled and established trade routes. Goods flowed into frontier towns from throughout the world, so it would be a matter of what the saloonkeeper wanted to sell as he (or she!) decided on ways to make his business different from others. One thing a saloonkeeper might do is to establish a contractual relationship with a brewery so the saloon could offer beer on tap (as opposed to bottled only). Saloons offering fresh beer in this way frequently marketed themselves as \"saloon and brewery\", which did not mean they were like modern brew pubs, but rather that they had an arrangement with a nearby brewery (which might serve any number of other unrelated saloons).\n\nBriefly, to answer the question of /u/Chernozem, financing of that first-on-the-scene saloon could take very little in up-front money. It could represent someone's own life savings that he hoped to amplify with outrageous charges being the first on the scene, or it could be a number of people throwing together the funds needed to accomplish this. In all likelihood it would not be a formal bank loan. Later, banks frequently loaned the money needed to purchase a building and set up a business. Our research in Virginia City indicates that many saloons lasted only 3 to 6 months, so it wasn't uncommon for a saloonkeeper to sell his business at least figuratively \"lock, stock, and barrel\" to the highest bidder, who might use a loan to purchase and then hope he could make more of a success of the location and stock than his predecessor had.\n\nA good source for all this is Kelly Dixon's \"Boomtown Saloons.\" Kelly excavated two of the four saloon we excavated in Virginia City. I summarize her findings and my additional research in my book [Virginia City: Secrets of a Western Past](_URL_0_). (2012) I hope this helps.",
"This answer does not answer the question of food stock, but does speak to early stocking of alcohol. The earliest saloons were basically lean-tos and stocked with locally brewed, rough whisky made with raw alcohol, burnt sugar and a little chewing tobacco. This type of locally-brewed liquor took on such names as Tanglefoot, Forty-Rod, Tarantula Juice, Taos Lightning, Red Eye, and Coffin Varnish. Also popular was Cactus Wine, made from a mix of tequila and peyote tea, and Mule Skinner, made with whiskey and blackberry liquor. The house rotgut was often 100 proof, though it was sometimes cut by the barkeep with turpentine, ammonia, gun powder or cayenne. Saloons also served up volumes of beer, but in those days the beer was never ice cold, usually served at 55 to 65 degrees. Though the beer had a head, it wasn't sudsy as it is today. Patrons had to knock back the beer in a hurry before it got too warm or flat. Unfortunately, my sources do not explain the source of the beer.\n\nEventually, some saloons were able to drag in blocks of ice from nearby lakes. Old West historian Kathy Weiser cites the Laguna Vista Saloon in Eagle Nest, New Mexico, as an early example. In general, however, until the 1880s pasteurized or refrigerated beer was essentially unavailable and patrons were accustomed to room-temperature drink.\n\nOthers may speak to the shipping of beverages after the Gold Rush and other boom-town events, which falls outside the scope of my readings and which were much different than the above imbibes, including unheard of drinks like $10 champagne with breakfast. \n\nSources: Saloons of the Old West, Richard Erdoes; Great American Bars and Saloons, Kathy Weiser.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/bertrand/bertrand.pdf"
],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Virginia-City-Historical-Archaeology-American/dp/0803238487?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc"
],
[]
] |
||
a6fiug
|
How common was it for North American Indigenous groups to maintain slaves?
|
I recently learned about an ancestor of mine was kept as a slave by the Iroquois in the late 1600’s. He was a teen from somewhere in the British Isles and was essentially rescued (“bought”) by a Frenchman who had also been in slavery with the Iroquois, but was now an ambassador to them. Made me wonder how often this was occurring?
Edit: For those who are looking for context. The Frenchman who rescued my ancestor is documented in the book “[The Story of Joncaire](_URL_0_)”
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a6fiug/how_common_was_it_for_north_american_indigenous/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebupx0q",
"ecipcbs"
],
"score": [
21,
11
],
"text": [
"As a follow up to my own question. If this was a common practice, was it introduced by colonization or did it pre-exist?",
"#Part 1\n\n##Slavery Among American Indians\n\nSlavery was a practice that occurred in different places throughout the Americas to varying degrees and often was practiced differently from the idea of slavery modern society receives by the American chattel slavery of African Americans.^1 I note this because it is important to contextualize the situation in where people would have taken as slaves and how they were treated to understand the commonality and position of said slaves among Indigenous societies of North America.\n\nChristina Snyder (2014) writes about this very topic in *Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America.*^2 She details how slavery as a practice was indeed known to American Indian Tribes before European colonization, but that \"captivity was not a static institution for Indians, but rather a practice that they adapted over time to meet changing needs and circumstances\" (p. 4). Indigenous societies were, and are, just as dynamic and complex as the societies of the Old World, meaning the rationale for taking captives and enslaving them was built around the framework of these complexities, meeting the needs of their existing cultural and societal institutions. And once Europeans arrived, this added a whole other layer to the evolving situations that forced the institutions of slavery to adapt in order to sustain the respective societies. This means that while the institutions still functioned similarly, their scope and degree could, and often did, change dramatically.^3\n\nKeying in on this, Synder (2014) further elaborates:\n\n > Binaries have long shaped our understanding of history, but such categories often obscure more than they illuminate. A diametrical opposition between slavery and freedom, for example, would have made little sense to Native people or other early Americans. Colonial-era bondage was diverse and contested; it was a far cry from the nineteenth-century plantation slavery that dominates the American imagination. Slavery existed across early America, and it was marked by \"fluidity and ambiguity.\" Captivity, which both colonizers and Native people practiced, included a broad range of forms extending from temporary bondage to hereditary slavery. Through sexual relationships, adoption, hard work, military service, or escape, captives could enhance their status or even assume new identities (p. 6)\n\nGallay (2002) concurs with some of Synder's points as well, explaining: \n\n > Contrary to the myths of America's history that portray Indian peoples as incapable of adaptation, Native Americans readily met the challenges offered by the introduction of new technologies, peoples, and ideas. Their responses varied from one group to the next. . . (p. 2).\n\n > For the most part, slavery was not a moral issue to southern peoples of the late seventeenth century. Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans all understood enslavement as a legitimate fate for particular individuals or groups. All accepted that \"others\" could or should have that status, though what that status encompassed and how slaves were treated varied greatly from group to group. In the seventeenth century, slavery as an institution had minimal economic significance for American Indians ... In Native American societies, ownership of individuals was more a matter of status for the owner and a statement of debasement and \"otherness\" for the slave than it was a means to obtain economic rewards from unfree labor (p. 8).\n\n##How Common Was It?\n\nBoth of the above works are primarily talking about the American South and Southeast where the Spanish and English developed colonial systems that tended toward the slave trade. This colonial style of slavery, which was predicated upon the idea of using slaves for economic purposes, was built upon the existing institutions of slavery already in existence among American Indians and, as previously noted, functioned in the same way as pre-contact slavery did for Indians. Taking captives from other groups allowed Tribes to trade for foreign goods that enhanced their existing lifestyles. It wasn't until years into the slave trade that we begin to notice societal level differences evolving from the influence of foreign motives for taking slaves, as Gallay later points to (pp. 9-10). Following this, we then begin seeing an increased amount of raids and taking captives for the slave trade because the Europeans attached economic value to captives. What this tells us is that prior to European contact and the establishment of their colonies, slavery among American Indians was generally common enough that the institution was present among a number of regional societies; it wasn't seen as a foreign practice introduced by Europeans; and the new slave trade did not immediately jeopardize Indigenous Cultures due to loss of population. However, we can also note that taking captives between Tribes was dependent upon warlike conditions and that it is a safe assumption to think the degree of taking captives was low enough to not cause societal collapses until *after* the slave trade had been established for a number of years, leading to increased incentive to take captives for the sake of economical value rather than integrating the slaves into other institutions meant to strength communities.\n\n##Among the Nez Perce\n\nI think it is also apt to provide an example. I previously outlined as a brief example how slavery worked among my people, the Nimíipuu, [here.](_URL_0_) The following quote is the specific excerpt from the linked post (with some updates in the text):\n\n > I am from the Nez Perce Tribe. We are a Plateau tribe and, in the past, semi-nomadic. We had a class system in place. It consisted of three levels: upper class, [middle] class, and slave class. The tribe was split into individual \"bands\" that would move around and establish villages. The upper class was mainly chiefs and their families, medicine [people], and other important figures. The [middle] class could be warriors and your average citizen of a tribe. The slave class was, obviously, the slave class. While there exist this hierarchy, the other classes were not completely disadvantaged. Those of the upper class could marry anyone from another class and the lower class would enter the upper class. Those of the lower classes were not despised, but were cared for just like any other member of the tribe, including the slaves. A person from the lower class could even become a chief through a more or less democratic process and join the upper class. It was not completely wealth based and it was more fluid than one might think. Now, someone couldn't just decide one day to switch classes, but they were not treated like the poor and impoverished of today's world.\n\nThose who filled the slave class were those either captured in war or received as part of trade. This means that slaves were part of Indigenous society in the area and existed among Tribal society. The fact that slaves could transcend their class boundaries, however, speaks to both the understanding and functionality of slavery of these times. For example, among the Nez Perce, incest was forbidden, even among distant cousins. Women of the slave class could be taken in by families of the other classes as wives by the headmen, affording them both a higher standing in the Tribe (for they were not seen as inferior) and allowing for the continuation of the Tribe without violating Protocol (Nez Perce Tribe, 1973, p. 48)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://archive.org/details/storyofjoncaireh00seve/page/n14"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57utud/were_native_north_americans_egalitarian/d8v5ulw/"
]
] |
|
2r8ev1
|
why do prices of goods so often end in a nine, rather than a multiple of ten?
|
In America, at least, the title seems to be true, and it doesn't make sense. I remember when I was young I asked my mom (I think it was mom) why prices were that way, and she told me it was for tax purposes, though in more words and possibly with an alcohol-induced slur, and that sounds like a bullcrap, be-quiet-annoying-little-child answer. Can anyone give me a good (and correct) reason? Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r8ev1/eli5_why_do_prices_of_goods_so_often_end_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cndecjd",
"cndecpg",
"cndef7e",
"cndfcdl"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"People are much more likely to buy something for $9.99 instead of $10.00.\n\nSource:\n_URL_0_",
"Often times, it's a psychological thing. Statistically, people are more likely to buy something that's $19.99 instead of $20.00\n\nIt's usually just about how the number LOOKS to the consumer. Unless you are in a store that includes the tax price on the price tag.",
"It's actually something called [psychological pricing](_URL_0_).\n\nIn a nutshell, in America, we read left to right and tend to ignore the numbers on the right. So, having a price that ends in one or more 9's lets the seller maximize the price before needing to increase the cost to the point where the buyer would really notice.\n\n > Consumers tend to perceive “odd prices” as being significantly lower than they actually are, tending to round to the next lowest monetary unit. Thus, prices such as $1.99 are associated with spending $1 rather than $2",
"Most of the times it's because of two reasons: 1. It's a psychological thing, people will buy something that is 99.99 instead of a 100 and 2. I know it sounds extremely stupid but people will often leave that 1 cent behind. Back in this place where i worked stuff went for ridiculous prices like 18.97. I know it sounds miniscule but over time that adds up, especially when there is a lot of sales happening. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing"
],
[]
] |
|
ffuwi
|
If there are infinite universes, does that mean that even all impossible things exist in some of them?
|
Like is there a universe in which all coin flips are heads no matter what, or is there a universe where my head explodes and reassembles every 5 minutes spontaneously? Does infinite universes mean that everything exists? If I read a work of fiction like fantasy or sci-fi or anything else, does a world exactly like what I'm reading exist in some other universe? Is there a universe for any single ridiculous and impossible thing you can think of because of the infinite number of them?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ffuwi/if_there_are_infinite_universes_does_that_mean/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1flxpq",
"c1fm1i1",
"c1fm2j6",
"c1fm3pr",
"c1fmglu",
"c1fmmmh"
],
"score": [
19,
6,
7,
5,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"The other day a user of this subreddit (I can't remember/find who) made this comment, which I think is a good starting point for thinking about this:\n\n > There is an infinite number of integers, but only one even prime.\n\nAnother example: There is no universe where the following statement is not a paradox\n\n > This statement is false\n\nThe idea of an infinite number of universes (if that's even a meaningful statement) doesn't imply that impossible things can happen (which is almost a tautology). ",
"Well, I don't think it's necessarily true. Infinite [of something] does not necessarily imply infinite [of anything]. For example, there are infinitely many rational numbers, but none of them are sqrt(2).",
"This question is unanswerable.",
"There's just the one universe.",
"Does infinite universes mean that all impossible things must exist somewhere in those universes?\n\nInfinite universes does not even *necessarily* mean that all possible things must exist in those universes.\n\nIt is possible that I have a best friend named \"Wally,\" but we can also imagine that there might be an infinite number of universes where I do not have such a friend. The existence of Wally does not seem like a necessary criteria to have infinite universes. So, specific things can not be assumed to exist just because there are infinite universes.\n\n[Edited for clarity]",
"There are no good reasons why infinite universes should exist."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1x7zgt
|
why is i go #2 before i shower, and wipe thoroughly, there's always a burning & itchy sensation in my my rear, which causes me to re-wipe an hour later, and i end up with tp coated with dookie?
|
Ok, I will wake up, take my morning dump and wipe my heart out(using wet and dry toilet paper), until I get a clean piece of white TP. An hour or so later, I will get a burny/itchy sensation between my cheeks and would go to the bathroom at work and wipe; lo and behold, there's crap there. I have not farted or had any type of issues since my bath, so what gives?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x7zgt/eli5_why_is_i_go_2_before_i_shower_and_wipe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf8wubh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Only wonder this once a day..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4j09vv
|
Why do things smell? Can smell be measured?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4j09vv/why_do_things_smell_can_smell_be_measured/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d32lpr2",
"d32mbwo",
"d32qcuv",
"d32qfk6",
"d32rv9e",
"d32yo09",
"d32zl1u",
"d334tt7",
"d336wp1",
"d33aamt",
"d33mprf",
"d33tq6f"
],
"score": [
18,
1707,
3,
5,
5,
34,
17,
9,
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"some materials (that is, anything you can smell) are volatile enough that little bits of it escape into the air. these molecules are sucked into your nose and contact chemoreceptors, which stimulate a signal to the brain you perceive as smell. In a lot of ways your sense of smell works like your sense of taste, being the specific response to a chemical connecting to a receptor. And in fact those two senses do have a certain amount of interconnection.\n\nAs far as I know, there is no qualitative measure of how strongly something smells. That's a pretty subjective thing for a lot of people, especially when it comes to food! Just look at the Durian-- A lot of people thing it smells intensely rancid, many people are utterly unbothered and even find the smell pleasant. \n\nThere may, of course, be qualitative measures of the sense of smell. Someone who has researched in this field could give a better answer as to that!",
"Actually, we still don't fully understand how smell works. Of course, the basic steps of olfaction are easy to sketch out: 1) volatile compounds (odorants) travel from an object to your nose, 2) in your nose these compounds interact with certain receptors and 3) the receptors kick off a long biochemical pathway that ends with your brain detecting the smell.\n\nThe first part is relatively straightforward nowadays. We have plenty of sensitive and specific tools to figure out the composition of the chemical compounds that float around \"smelly\" objects. [Mass spectrometry](_URL_0_) is arguably the most powerful technique we have here, which allows us to rapidly catalogue the presence of hundreds of compounds present in minute (ppm or less) concentrations. \n\nBut identifying compounds using analytical techniques is the easy part. Where we lag is in understanding the actual mechanism that allows us to so specifically detect certain compounds or classes of compounds by smell alone. There are two main groups of theories for how smell works qualitatively:\n\n1. The shape theory. The idea here is that the odorant and receptor fit together like a lock and key. Depending on the flavor of the theory, both the 3D shape of the molecule and/or its chemical structure play a part in this process. The shape theory is currently the most widely accepted theory and it has a lot explanatory power. For example, it also explains why chemically similar molecules often smell similar, e.g. why thiols (things with C-S-H bonds) tend to smell like rotten eggs.\n\n2. The vibration theory. Unfortunately the shape theory doesn't explain all observations. For example, in some cases just switching the isotope of an atom in a molecule can produce a different smell (e.g. [see this paper](_URL_1_)). Since the isotope usually only has a small effect on the shape or chemical reactivity, it's hard to square this effect with the shape theory. However, changing the isotope can produce a much larger change on the *vibrations* of the molecule. This idea lead a group of researchers, mostly centered around Luca Turin to pitch the vibration theory. This theory claims that it is the vibrations of the odorant that are key to producing a specific interaction with a receptor. \n\n\n\nAs of now, the shape theory still remains dominant and the vibration theory is highly controversial. However, both theories are able to explain specific experimental results that are a bit difficult to fit into the other. Of course, it could very well be that the two theories are complementary. In most cases perhaps it is the shape and chemical structure that determines what receptors will be activated, while for *some* odorants the vibration can also affect which pathways will kick in.",
"Things smell because we live in a gas environment. As such ions from liquids (due to evaporation) and solids (due to sublimation) end up being mixed into the air around us, and are kept up due to Brownian motion, even when they're heavier than the air itself. (That said, things also smell underwater).\n\nYes smell can be measured, often in parts per million. Not all smells can be defined, or rather, not all smells have yet to be defined, so measurement becomes exceedingly difficult due to the specific smell being the result of an unknown chemical, or ion, or due to it being an unknown mixture of chemicals & ions. Also, without knowing what you're looking for, the method for detecting it may also escape us.\n\nBiologically, many animals have come to inherit a refined sense of smell from hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and as such are far more advanced when it comes to smell detection and recognition than any of the scientifically created nose-robots currently on the market. The reason for their ability, and the reason why it came to increase over time is somewhat obvious, but to spell it out, those that can smell better can find food, mates, and avoid danger with greater ease, and all three of those factors are without question, major factors in survival. ",
"I don't have a good answer for why things smell, and I think it was covered better by other posters, but I know a bit about how its measured!\n\nSmell can definitely be measured, but only using actual human noses (kind of like the old \"tree falling in the forest\" parable- you need a human to experience \"odour\", other wise its just a mixture of a bunch of different stuff in the air). Testing for odour usually involves collecting an actual sample of air containing the odour you are interested in. That sample is then sent to a lab where it is introduced to a panel of accredited odour testers. \n\nThe odour testers are administered the sample at different dilutions until half of them can detect the odour. This concentration is the \"Odour Threshold,\" defined quantitatively as 1 Odour Unit (OU). More formally: 1OU is defined as \"the concentration of a mixture which is odorous to approximately half of the population.\n\nThese odour labs often test for both strength of odour (in Odour Units) and pleasantness of odour (Hedonic Tone).\n\nImportant to note that you cannot add odour measurements from different mixtures, sources, or locations. The odour unit is an absolute measurement of one particular mixture of gases, experienced at that particular time.\n\n[More information](_URL_0_)\n",
"I remember watching a documentary on the trash burning facility in Minnesota, and the worry that it would create a horrible smell for the outlying areas. They used some sort of machine to measure the level of smell, to determine whether or not it was too powerful. I can't recall what the machine was called, but I have always thought that smell could be measured since then. Hopefully someone more intelligent than me in the subject, can shed some light.",
"I don't know the biology behind odor as u/hugodeGroot does, but I know the chemistry as I'm an environmental chemist. \n\nOdor is actually quantifiable, so yes it can be measured. EPA has a standard operating procedure on how to quantify odor and how to report it. It's a secondary regulation, so it won't kill you (questionable imo) but it's there for an ease-of-life kind of thing. There are regulations for aesthetics and such that don't need to be enacted into law such as copper being under 1300ppb or else you'll get stains on your clothes when you wash them or get stains on your tubs/sinks. \n\nFurthermore, you can also do indoor quality air monitoring. You basically set up a whole bunch of tubes around a room and you have a portable instrument that sucks in the air for an extended amount of time (think a week) and then it analyzes the particles (odor) in the air on a chromatogram. So you can get a complete reading of what's in your air and what's making it smell if you wanted- my company actually specializes in that. \n\nIt's pretty neat",
"Smell can be measured! \n\nI used to do some work in monitoring \"Nuisance Odors\" which are really difficult to define and prove. Essentially, you have a machine that you smell through. I shit you not, it's called a [\"Nasal Ranger\"](_URL_0_) and you can't not look like a tool using it. It routes some air through a carbon filter that removes smells and slowly you ramp up the concentration of \"unfiltered air\". When you first identify an odor, you utilize an odor descriptor to identify if it is capable of being a nuisance. Then you wait 15 minutes, and if it's still there, the odor meets many of the state definitions of being a nuisance. \n\nOf course prior to this testing, there is a series of tests on the tester to ensure that their nose is not overly sensitive and too allow for corrections of anything they are particularly good or bad at smelling. \n\nIt's really quite complicated and ineffective but we got paid for it! ",
"A lot of good answers in this thread, but nobody seems to be able to explain the measurement of smells. \n\nUsing a device called the [smell-o-scope](_URL_0_) it is possible to to smell odors over astronomically long distances. Invented by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth, it quantifies odors on a scale called the Funkometer. The link above contains more info about the inspiration behind the smell-o-scope, and its practical applications.",
"what i've always wanted to know is, how much weight does a smelly object lose by giving off its odors? there's some physical portion of the object that floats away, right? so if you put a block of really smelly cheese (or whatever) on a super-accurate scale, at what kind of rate would the cheese become lighter? like, in terms of % mass per second, would it be like... .01%/s? .00001%/s? .0000000000001%/s?",
"[Aryballe technologies](_URL_0_) is currently developing a device that is able to identify more than a hundred different smells, there are some information on their website. It should hit the market at the end of the year.",
"There use to be a company called Cogniscent that had a small handheld gas chromatography device. There is still a company called EST-Electronic Sensor Technology [link](_URL_1_) that uses gas chromatography to analyze the air/smells. No idea the accuracy or capabilities currently, but I had an interest in building a company around them years ago. Quite a few technical papers on their device [here](_URL_0_)",
"Smell can be measured. If you own a bachelor apartment with limited ventilation, get some people over and eat some spicy chili for an hour or so, seal windows and let the gassing begin.\n\nIf you pass out before the smoke alarm goes off and wakes you up that's \"threat level midnight\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry",
"http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055780"
],
[],
[
"www.fivesenses.com/Documents/Library/33%20%20Odor%20Basics.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SDZqoLYe--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/196cjpa9zxbaapng.png"
],
[
"https://theinfosphere.org/Smell-O-Scope"
],
[],
[
"http://aryballe-technologies.com"
],
[
"http://www.estcal.com/technical_papers.html",
"http://www.estcal.com/index.html"
],
[]
] |
||
20nbfo
|
why don't creationists believe that evolution and their god could work hand in hand?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20nbfo/eli5_why_dont_creationists_believe_that_evolution/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg4wskg",
"cg4ww1d",
"cg4x54m"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many do. The Catholic Church, for instance:\n\n > in the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.\n\nFrom wikipedia.",
"There are many creationists who believe in what is called 'Biblical inerrancy', that every word in the texts of their chosen version is the divinely inspired word of God and factually true, without any exception for metaphor or allegory. Naturally, this would conflict with evolution where the book of Genesis is concerned.",
"That's the way I see it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ce8no
|
How do you optimally place two or more Hot Pockets in a Microwave?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5ce8no/how_do_you_optimally_place_two_or_more_hot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9vtdz8",
"d9vthqd",
"d9vupg5",
"d9vw7w2",
"d9vwhul",
"d9vxe4f",
"d9vxx1m",
"d9vy00d",
"d9vzkyy",
"d9w2dle",
"d9w2uw4",
"d9w4fa9",
"d9w7zxd",
"d9wcdd0",
"d9wez8i",
"d9weznl",
"d9wh0g1",
"d9wiwxt",
"d9wqyl3"
],
"score": [
114,
5361,
26,
866,
2,
79,
5,
2,
15,
7,
4,
7,
7,
2,
6,
2,
5,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The hot and cold spots of a microwave change completely from microwave to microwave but it also shouldn't matter as that's what the turning table is for. Beyond separating them it shouldn't make a difference.",
"Provided your microwave has a turntable, place food you want cooked evenly toward the outside so that it travels through more of the microwave and thus consistently passes through hot/cold areas. If you put food in the very middle it could more or less be stuck in a single... hot pocket? (or cold pocket). \n\nToward the outside of the turntable, not touching.",
"Through random testing I have found that if you lean the pockets on the edges of your plate, creating an angle somewhere around 45° that seems to help. Maybe something about better exposure to circulating air and or electromagnetic waves. This works best with the Dixie paper plates that have a pretty good lip at the edge. Essentially you want to get a little cave where the pocket only really touches the plate at it's edges.",
"Others have mentioned that optimally you place them evenly spaced around the edge of the turntable; if you'd like an interesting experiment, take the turntable out of your microwave, and replace it with a glass dish with a layer of marshmallows in it. Microwave it for 2-3 minutes on low until you see evenly spaced lines of the marshmallows melting, with un-melted lines in between them. If you measure the distance between two melted lines in cm and double it, you've found the wavelength; if you convert to meters and multiply by the frequency of your microwave (listed on the inside of the door usually), you'll get the speed of light as a result, around 2.99e8 m/s.\n\nMore relevant to your question, you'll also see that there are \"hot\" and \"cold\" bands in your microwave, rather than arbitrary spots. It also shows why you'd rather have food at the outside edge of the turntable (so that these bands fully pass over the entire food item as it rotates) rather than at the center (which, if you placed the food on a \"cold\" band, could leave a cold spot in the middle).",
"You want to increase the maximum area of coverage for the microwaves, so I would place them corner to corner in the same orientation. That ensures that the maximum surface area is being hit with the waves, consistently, at one time. End to end would keep a side constantly facing another side in the alternate pocket and not expose either surface to the radiation, resulting in uneven heating.",
"The short answer is, it depends on your microwave. [This](_URL_0_) is an awesome post about microwave oven radiation patterns that will show you exactly what I mean.",
"The key to this, like all microwaving dilemmas, lies in consistent flipping. I personally microwave 30 seconds and rotate 180 degrees, then 30 seconds and flip, and repeat this general process until your cheese is melty and you can't wait to burn the roof of your mouth any longer",
"I have found the answer to heating anything in the microwave evenly is to know how to vary the power level (which really just cycles the on/off time).\n\nIt allows whatever is in there to come up to temperature evenly and eliminates lava spots.\n\nStart with double the time, half power level and adjust accordingly to how your microwave heats things.",
"Great question, and the answer extends past just hot pockets.\n\nMicrowaves heat food evenly from the outside in - not the outside of the 3D food object, mind you, but from the outer walls of the microwave moving inwardly.\n\nFor example, if you want to heat up a plate of mashed potatoes, how should you arrange the pile on a plate (assuming no other food at the same time)? The correct answer is that you create a ring of mashed potatoes around the outside rim of the plate, and put the plate in the center of the microwave. Then when it's done, push all the mashed potatoes into a pile in one spot on the plate (because what are you, a savage that eats rings of mashed potatoes?)\n\nTo your question on hot pockets, the same method applies. You should arrange the 2 pockets towards the outside edge of the plate, opposite one another, and then set the plate in the middle. As the turntable in the microwave spins, both hot pockets will spin around to create a single \"ring\" and heat evenly. A larger plate will mean they are farther from the middle and receive more heat, so play around with using small and large plates to find the one that works perfectly.",
"Use a lower power setting and a rotating plate, and the placement won't matter much. The lower power setting isn't really lower power, it's just taking breaks. During those breaks, the internal temperature has time to equalize a little. This is also why letting it rest for a minute at the end is often recommended.",
"Vertically. Get a microwave plate stacker [like this one](_URL_0_). One hot pocket per plate, then stack the plates in the microwave. Everyone's happy.",
"Insure < > ensure \n\nTo insure against your pockets not getting cooked properly you'd want a separate oven where you'd take the low risk approach of cooking a single pocket in parallel to your ambitious muti-pocket operation. This would ensure that you have at least one good pocket if things go wrong. \n\n(Yes, I understand that I'm a terrible person.) \n",
"To find out, place a large plate sprinkled with shredded cheese in the microwave and run it for 10 seconds. This will generate an image of the standing waves in your exact microwave.\n\nIf the microwave has a turntable, you will see rings of melted cheese and rings of unmelted cheese. If it doesn't have a turntable, you will see pockets of melted and unmelted cheese. Place hot pockets in the areas where the cheese melted.\n\nWhenever you have a wave traversing a bounded cavity, you get reflections that can interfere with each other. This results in standing waves, consisting of nodes (where there is little fluctuation) and antinodes (where there is maximum fluctuation). It's the same idea as when you shake one end of a jump rope side to side while the other end is held still. You get parts of the rope that don't move and parts that move a lot. Inside the microwave you have the same thing. Spots where the electromagnetic field doesn't change at all, and parts where it fluctuates wildly. The parts that fluctuate wildly are antinodes, and that's where the energy is, because the field is moving. Anything you put there will be heated, any parts of that thing not sitting in an antinode will not be directly heated.\n\nAlong with this, turn your microwave's power setting down and run it for longer. The heat will have time to spread from antinode-heated spots to adjacent cold spots, heating more evenly. The power setting in your microwave adjusts duty cycle, not total output power. Typically it varies from 10% to 100%, so the magnetron is running anywhere from 10-100% (usually something like 6 seconds per minute, or 3 per 30 seconds) of the time, actively heating food. The rest of the time, the microwave is letting the heat spread out before kicking more in so it doesn't overheat one spot while leaving the rest frozen.\n\nAll of those protips that say to put a glass of water in with whatever you're heating accomplish a less efficient version of this. The water absorbs most of the microwave energy, decreasing the total heat input into the food, allowing it to spread put without overheating any one spot.",
"visualize your microwave inside as a 3d plane x, y, z - have one pizzapocket on a lower y axis and have one on a higher one that way they are getting hit by microwaves with the most surface area. use a cup and a plate on top of the cup to create a stand. have one pizzapocket on the microwave ground and one on the plate. enjoy.",
"1. Take hot pockets out of freezer. \n2. Unwrap hot pockets. \n3. Slide hot pockets into heat-conductive slips. \n4. Put hot pockets on a microwave safe plate. \n5. Take plate to restroom. \n6. Tip plate until hot pockets slide off and land in the toilet. \n7. Eat real food.",
"I'm going to toss out what I would do, correct me if my methodology is wrong scientists.\n\nI would place them in the middle of my microwave. One on top of the other in a plus sign format.\n\nWith additional hot pockets I would stack them this way.\n\nI would think the microwaves higher in the machine would cook elevated objects as though it was the only one in the microwave and not block waves as two on the same plane would.",
"The best practice for heating two items in a microwave is to stagger their heights by placing something underneath one Hot Pocket. Microwaves do not heat evenly in 3D space (a turntable helps correct this by changing the position of the food) but you can improve the heat transfer by making the two items fit out of plane so they each absorb microwave energy in different planes and don't compete (as much) for the same energy.",
"Honestly, the best way I've learned to cook in the microwave is at a lower power setting for a longer period of time.\n\nMost of the time, half-way through, I turn whatever I'm cooking over, or flip the center end towards the outer end.",
"Step 1: Buy the spaghetti and chicken parmesan microwave meal. Buy two pack of HP.\n\nStep 2: Open seal on one corner and nuke for 3-4 minutes. Flip, stir, then add the two HP face down then nuke an additional 3 minutes.\n\nStep 3: Try not to cry at your crippling loneliness that brought you to this point. Cry a lot.\n\nStep 4: ...\n\nStep 5: Profit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.evilmadscientist.com/2011/microwave-oven-diagnostics-with-indian-snack-food/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Microwave-Plate-Stacker-Set-2/dp/B01IM9EG5U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1478885712&sr=8-2"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a58oke
|
Why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Europe and not in places like China or India?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a58oke/why_did_the_industrial_revolution_happen_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eblov74"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"this is a pretty similar thread that can maybe answer your questionhttps://_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i0xw7/how_close_was_china_to_industrializing_before/"
]
] |
|
3v75ha
|
on moon, where does the height of mountains "begin", when there is no sea level?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v75ha/eli5_on_moon_where_does_the_height_of_mountains/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxkw2m5",
"cxkw660"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"Even on earth, the sea level isn't perfectly level. It's a little higher at the equator than it is at the poles. What is called sea level is often really above mean sea level. So in some places, the mean sea level is actually below the surface of the water, and above it in others.\n\nLikewise, there's there are valleys, and mountains on the moon. So there's a way to calculate the mean surface level. Once that's calculated, the height above the mean surface level is an easy calculation.",
"Altitude is calculated from a reference sphere with a radius of 1737km. So the sea level (or altitude 0) is defined as being 1737Km 'above' the center of mass of the moon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2yw9m9
|
how do sites like ez tv and kick ass torrents not easily get shut down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yw9m9/eli5_how_do_sites_like_ez_tv_and_kick_ass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpdiwwj",
"cpdv9t8"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It's difficult to shut down torrent hosting sites because they don't technically host any pirated content. EZTV doesn't even host any torrent files, it only links to other sites that do host torrent files, which is one more degree of separation between them and the actual piracy. \n\nOf course, in many places, aiding/encouraging piracy in this way is still against the law. This is why they're careful to only use servers and domains in countries which aren't as strict.\n\nEven then, these sites are watched very closely. EZTV had a .tv domain but that was taken away from them by the regulators in charge of .tv domains, now they've moved to a .it domain instead while they'll have until a case is raised against them with the regulators in charge of that domain. The Pirate Bay is famous for having moved servers/domains a large number of times.",
"My go to torrent site has a report copy right link. Basically send them proof of ownership, and they'll take it down, but chances are that same link is 100+ other places on their sites. \n\nAlso rules. \n\n_URL_0_ isn't hosted in the US SK US laws don't apply to them"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"Kickass.to"
]
] |
||
6u8v88
|
dropshipping
|
I know there have been few posts about dropshipping here but most of them didn't really answer what I was kinda thinking.
So i understand that the concept of it is that you dont deal with the goods yourself, but you provide your customers the goods through a distributor that you have and up the price that you bought it for to make profit.
But what I dont understand is how this can be a market? Why would the consumer go to me if they can purchase from the distributor where they wont have to pay the profit gap I make? and considering that you have to be paid by the consumer prior to making the purchase yourself for the consumer, wouldn't that also mean that now your customer will have to wait extra day(s) for the shipment to arrive in comparison to buying from distributor themselves?
Or is the idea pretty much keep your distributor unknown to the customer and then sell it? But then what I thougth is once the product arrives to your consumer, they can pretty much look up the product you sold them and eventually find the pricing that is lower than what I sold for (ie my distributor)?
So from what I've read through, it really doesn't seem like a possible market, but I've heard lots of stories on people making money from it. Is my understanding of the concept wrong?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6u8v88/eli5dropshipping/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlqtu8c",
"dlqu0sm",
"dlqx9co",
"dlqx9l7"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well dropshipping is profitable, but not as buying wholesale, since you aren't buying large quantities of the product.\nPeople don't buy from the distributor, because often they are hard to find, and even if you do manage to find it, sometimes there are minimum order prices, or even subscriptions. All of this stuff takes too much time for the consumer to do so he just doesn't bother and buy the product for a few bucks more.\nP.S. dropshipping doesn't take a longer time to deliver products. If you sell on ebay or amazon, you're not gonna get money straight away. First times you'll have to wait as long as 2 weeks. So in these cases, just use your money to buy the product and after a few days you'll get money from the customer into your paypal.\nSorry for mistakes, I'm not fluent in english ;d",
"The reason dropshipping works, is because you are doing research to find a distributor of a product at dirt cheap prices. Oftentimes this means wading through chinglish laden, undescriptive and misleading sites and product pages until you find the item. The consumer you are ideally selling to, probably doesnt want to deal with that, or just doesnt know that the product is being sold cheaper. Its easier for them to spend a little bit more for someone else to figure out what product is good, how to order it, etc. ",
"A good dropshipper provides a service to their customer. It can vary, but the most common ones are:\n1) finding products that are difficult to find by a normal consumer (poor websites, difficult companies to purchase from, that type of thing)\n2) putting together a collection of goods that are high quality and specifically the stuff that a certain customer likes, making \"finding cool things\" easier for the customer\n3) finding cool stuff that is poorly marketed, and market it better so that you as the consumer now see the value in the product\n\nThe key is that the upcharge dropshippers charge has to be small enough that a significant group of customers don't mind paying it. They have a very small window where they can be successful, and have to work hard at 1,2 and 3 to always be ahead. Because all the other dropshippers are also working on 1,2 and 3, and all three services are relatively easy to copy of each other. ",
"In the end the buyer will choose you based on the value added. You are a single point of contact who will most likely stand behind the product where your supplier is more interested in fast turn over while you are interested in return business. So the buyer feels more secure purchasing from you than from some obscure back door operation. This is what makes stop shipping successful. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
15eig3
|
In a common medieval battle, how many combatants would be wearing armor?
|
I'm sure this would vary from time and place, but in a standard well size fight, how common was the identifiable image of full plate armor? Was it more common to just have a breast/shoulder plate? Was it just too expensive for anyone but "officer" figures? Was it more common in defensive combatants than attackers?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15eig3/in_a_common_medieval_battle_how_many_combatants/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7lseek",
"c7lvxvi"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There was never a time where the majority had plate armor or anything approaching it. There have been military traditions like the Roman legions and Greek hoplite phalanx where a large number of the infantry had at least some armor. The heavy cavalry cataphracts of Persia and the Byzantine Empire were the prototypes for the later European knights and they had a lot of armor (mainly chain mail shirts and leggings). They were usually used in a limited role and could be devastatingly effective or completely useless and a liability depending on how they were used.",
"First of all, I think you need to specify a bit. Where in the world is this battle, who are fighting, when are they fighting, why are they fighting and how large are the armies?\n\nFor example, if the army of the English King mustered sometime in the late 1300s to sail to France to fight in the Hundred Years' War, the nobility, either on foot as commanders of the units of men at arms infantry, or on horseback as part of the King's personal unit of heavy cavalry, would most likely be in full chainmail armour, with a varying degree of mail replaced by iron plate depending on the wealth of the wearer.\n\nThe men at arms would be wearing thick cloth armour and maybe leather braces. Some would have chainmail shirts and leg armour. Scale armour and other various armours with iron scales or rings sewn onto cloth or leather. Iron hats and other metal helmets would be common.\n\nThe longbowmen, being commoners, would have leather bracers and perhaps a cloth or leather cuirass (too long coats would impede their archery), and a leather or cloth cap.\n\nIf the French King rode out in the late 1400s, he would probably be surrounded by a full company of his Gendarmes in full steel plate armour, muster many knights all in nearly full or full plate armour. \n\nSwiss mercenary pikemen (of the 1400s), at least the more expensive ones, usually wore half-plate armour, as did the more well-equipped German landsknecht of the 1400s.\n\nSwedish peasant militia 1350-1520 would be wearing old iron helmets, plate cuirass (or in some cases chainmail), bracers and perhaps captured plate boots. \n\nTo answer your full question - everyone tried to wear as much and as modern and effective armour as possible. Normally only nobility was rich enough to afford plate armour (and later successful and expensive mercenaries), you would most likely only see full plate armour on officers leading units and perhaps on a small number of the King's personal guard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6aby9e
|
why does microsoft care so much about people using edge?
|
I understand pushing Bing over Google due to revenue from advertisements, but what benefit does Microsoft gain from people using Edge over chrome?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6aby9e/eli5_why_does_microsoft_care_so_much_about_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhdat0c",
"dhdaten",
"dhdfi16"
],
"score": [
30,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Your user data is a valuable advertising tool, directed ads are *worth money*.\n\nYou may recall that a law was passed saying your isp gets to sell your browsing data.. **Google has been collecting that kind of data for years!** That's why you get targeted google ads. If you search for a new deep fryer on google, then you start getting ads for deep fryers nestled in your gmail and on websites with google ads. They sold you out for those valuable clicks.\n\nIf you use Edge, Microsoft gets to farm that data instead of google and Microsoft gets to target you for targeted ads instead.\n\n",
"Having control over a major web browser gives a company a lot of control over the development of web standards. There's also a lot of money to be gained by telling people which web search engine to use by default.\n\nInternet Explorer is and old & awkward codebase to maintain. If they can get people to use Edge, they keep the control without all the effort of taking care of a legacy codebase.",
"What's even better than knowing what you search for? Knowing everything you do on the sites you searched for. \n\nAlso, with significant market share in the browser market, you get a strong voice in how browsers should work in the first place. Back when only IE was big, there was no real standard on how to develop webpages, you basically made it so that IE would show it properly. The competition like Firefox had to modify their browser to work like IE (even when it was a horrible idea) cause otherwise their user base couldn't visit the majority of web pages.\n\nNow the era of a single browser dominating everything will likely never return, but having significant market share still gives a voice in the development of future web standards.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3u1iq3
|
why are ceiling fans worthless if there's no one in the room?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u1iq3/eli5_why_are_ceiling_fans_worthless_if_theres_no/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxb3hjh"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Ceiling fans mostly make you feel cool because the warmest air is pulled up and the cooler air moves below at person level. However, the temperature in the room doesn't actually get any lower--it only helps cool down someone on who the air is currently blowing. In fact, the heat generated by the fan will make it slightly warmer in the room."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
16409m
|
What is the fastest a human has ever travelled?
|
What is the fastest speed in MPH, relative to earth that a human has travelled?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16409m/what_is_the_fastest_a_human_has_ever_travelled/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7sikt6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n24,791 mph"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10"
]
] |
|
1hfm71
|
When it's really cold outside what causes your body to tense up making movement difficult?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1hfm71/when_its_really_cold_outside_what_causes_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb116gq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You're probably referring to the shivering response\n\n_URL_0_\n\nReflexive muscle shivering generates heat when your body temperature drops."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivering"
]
] |
||
krn86
|
Do cones actually amplify sound, or do they just focus it?
|
A magnifying glass focuses a spot of light to make it appear smaller, but more intense (if I understand light measurements properly, then the lumen output remains constant, but the recored lux would be higher).
Does speaking into a cone actually create "more" sound (by means of wave interference?), or does it merely focus it like a magnifying glass?
----------
edit -- I guess a better question is "Why does speaking into a cone make one sound louder?"
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/krn86/do_cones_actually_amplify_sound_or_do_they_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2mn388",
"c2mn4jb",
"c2mn998",
"c2mnyz7",
"c2mn388",
"c2mn4jb",
"c2mn998",
"c2mnyz7"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
2,
2,
4,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it would be fair to say that it works like a magnifying glass. When you think about it, that's obvious: it's not adding to the total energy. So the total energy can't increase.",
"Focusing is constructive interference, so I guess the answer to your question is \"Yes.\"\n\nRickRussellTX was correct in noting that energy can't increase, and some is obviously lost to the surroundings, but the cone would change the typical inverse square loss of intensity. This means you get the \"cardboard tube\" effect of hearing something as though you're closer.\n\nI'm not, however, sure as to whether it produces constructive interference. My intuition would say a little, while reducing clarity. Otherwise, I can't seem to find a clear affirmative or negative anywhere.",
"Both. It focuses it, thus amplifying it by making it more directional. Though, technically this isn't really amplification per se since no energy was added.",
"Most answers here are close, but not quite right.\n\nA cone does two things to help your sound project:\n\n1. Most importantly, it acts as an \"acoustic transformer\", better matching the impedance of the source (speaker, voice) with the outside air. The better matched the impedance is, the more efficient transfer of energy results. This is why tweeters, etc. have horns.\n\n2. The larger opening at the cone does focus sound a bit more. A large aperture creates something closer to a planar source, which is more focused than a point source (like your mouth). So more of your energy is concentrated in the direction you want it to go, and it's louder at that position.",
"I think it would be fair to say that it works like a magnifying glass. When you think about it, that's obvious: it's not adding to the total energy. So the total energy can't increase.",
"Focusing is constructive interference, so I guess the answer to your question is \"Yes.\"\n\nRickRussellTX was correct in noting that energy can't increase, and some is obviously lost to the surroundings, but the cone would change the typical inverse square loss of intensity. This means you get the \"cardboard tube\" effect of hearing something as though you're closer.\n\nI'm not, however, sure as to whether it produces constructive interference. My intuition would say a little, while reducing clarity. Otherwise, I can't seem to find a clear affirmative or negative anywhere.",
"Both. It focuses it, thus amplifying it by making it more directional. Though, technically this isn't really amplification per se since no energy was added.",
"Most answers here are close, but not quite right.\n\nA cone does two things to help your sound project:\n\n1. Most importantly, it acts as an \"acoustic transformer\", better matching the impedance of the source (speaker, voice) with the outside air. The better matched the impedance is, the more efficient transfer of energy results. This is why tweeters, etc. have horns.\n\n2. The larger opening at the cone does focus sound a bit more. A large aperture creates something closer to a planar source, which is more focused than a point source (like your mouth). So more of your energy is concentrated in the direction you want it to go, and it's louder at that position."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
u43jw
|
Why is it (especially with modern medicine) that domesticated animals have such short life-spans?
|
I'm referring specifically to the fact that most breeds of dogs only have life-spans of roughly 10 years, despite the fact that they can get regular medical care and safe habitats.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/u43jw/why_is_it_especially_with_modern_medicine_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4s5u0x",
"c4s5wsr",
"c4s6d0l",
"c4s6tr4",
"c4s7s2k"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't think an accurate answer can be found considering we aren't factoring in everything.\n\n1) There are different breeds of dogs which have different life spans so we can't be clear without being specific.\n\n2) Not all pet owners have vet insurance so not all of them are willing to take their pets to the vet when they get sick.\n\n3) They have been taken out of a natural life cycle so you can argue they ARE living longer because they wouldn't survive as long as they do now in the wild.\n\n4) You also have the factor in the fact that natural selection isn't gearing them for survival anymore since most dogs are bred for traits that are appealing to us and may not be for the best overall health of the species as a whole.\n\nWhat I am saying is there are a lot of factors we would have to look at in order to answer this question and I don't think we have the data to be accurate at this time.",
"Most rodents live much longer in captivity than in the wild. Wild rats and mice average a year or less lifespan. Captive one's live up to three years. The oldest rat lived 7 years and 4 months. ",
"In case you are asking why we haven't been able to extend the maximum lifespan of domesticated animals, it is because we don't fully understand senescence, and senescence works against maximum lifespan regardless of how healthy your life is lived. Though I do believe we have finally been able to get mice to live longer with methods other than calorie restriction recently, something to do with telomeres but I can't find the reference.",
"The problem is that your question is to broad. The average life span of ALL dogs has not changed much, but on individual breeds it has, in GOOD GENETIC STOCK. Through conscientious breeding and good diet and supplements the average life span of Great Danes has been increased by 2 years, in the last 20 years. So that is an average of 6-7 to 8-9, the oldest Dane I have heard about was 11.\n\nMy best friend has a Jack Russel that is 17, the dog is starting to go blind or senile, because she continues to become confused and bite us, but is to unpredictable to narrow down the cause, but the little bugger can still do back flips and will play dead anytime someone yells \"Bang\".\n\nAny cat over the age of 7 is considered a senior by the pet industry, but a new record was just set by Lucy who is 39, breaking the record of 38 and 3 days.\n\nThe occurrence of cancer in domesticated rats and mice is very high, and almost all of them will develop cancer at some point, if they live long enough, But I have one customer with a 7 year old rat.\n\nA carp can technically live almost forever, this term includes the non-native species in America, also the goldfish and the koi, while most live much under a year because of human inexperience and acceptance of the fact that \"it's just a fish.\"\n\nBruce is a 35 year old fancy gold fish that measures over 22 inches long, he lives in china, fancy gold fish are the really fat ones with the double tails, so Bruce has a body mass equivalent to a fat toddler.\n\nThe oldest koi is speculated to be over 209 years old, he is over 9 feet long and lives in a tea house garden pond in Japan, the only reason they believe he is that long is because they found an old painting of a fish with the exact same spots.\n\nOther then accidents, most domestic stock don't need that much medical care if they are taken care of properly and breed correctly. This includes the types of food they are given, supplements when they are needed, the intellectual stimulus they need, and basic care, like de-worming, shots, hoof/nail maintenance, in the case of \"show\" animals, like Yorkshire terriers and some goats and rabbits, proper grooming can mean life or death.\n\nWe bring the average down ourselves, in domestic stock that depends on us, things like horses, dogs, chickens, fish, cattle, and any animal that has evolved from its previous wild form. While a domestic cat or rat can benefit from human interaction, most breeds will do OK on there own.\n\nMost humans degrade the possible live span of domestic animals by providing unfit conditions or being unwilling to provide optimum conditions for said animal, and some of these animals must have optimum care to survive. If a shih tzu is not groomed properly, then the hair will form dense mats that will cause skin tears and serious infections, while a wild mustang may lead a happy life in the wild, if you bring it into our world and do not do proper farrier maintenance it will fonder an need to be euthanized because of the extreme pain that a split hoof or just overgrown hoof can cause.\n\nSo while you maybe thinking of an individual animal, or a preconceived notion of a group of animals, there is a lot more to it then a general lifespan. I don't study human health, so I don't know whether the same ideas translate to us or not.\n\n\n\n",
"Two things: most domestic animals do live longer than their wild counterparts, unless like some dog breeds they have been inbred and have some genetic problems. Consider that in the wild most wolves don't even make it to 10. Second, medical care doesn't typically extend maximum, genetically determined lifespan very much. In captivity, wolves live about as long as regular old mutt dogs, the lifespan increases in captivity come from reducing deaths from accident, starvation, and some disease, but like medicine for humans they can't do much about the generalized degradation of old age."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ejwa4
|
how time works?
|
I don't really understand this. How can they say the universe for example is roughly about ~14 billion years old when time is skewed based on how long it takes light to reach an object? When they observe really far away galaxies and stars it's like looking into the past since that star might already be long gone before it's light reaches Earth. Also, wouldn't a really far away planet that has advanced life be viewing our planet from the past? They might be seeing dinosaurs or even earlier.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ejwa4/eli5_how_time_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck061ul",
"ck06ju1",
"ck07ipw"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"The time dilation that occurs from gravity and speed according to relativity is fairly insignificant in most places in the universe, and \"~14 billion years old\" gives enough wiggle room to account for that.\n\nTo answer your other questions, yes when we see a star that's 1000 light years away, we're seeing that star as it was 1000 years ago. Intelligent life on another planet could be looking at us and seeing the dinosaurs, however that would imply they're looking at us from another galaxy, since our milky way is only about 100,000 light years in diameter and the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.",
"The universe may be much older than that. That number is an estimate based on a few things like star clusters and how long certain sized stars take to burn out.\n\nAccording to calculations, the Universe must be at least 11 billion years old, but could be much older. We can't see past a certain point because any light there hasn't had a long enough time to reach earth.\n\n[More info on the universe's age here] (_URL_0_)",
" > How can they say the universe for example is roughly about ~14 billion years old,\n\nWorking backwards, if you see something is 100m away from you Traveling at 50m an hour, You can know it was probably where you were 2 hours ago.\n\n > Also, wouldn't a really far away planet that has advanced life be viewing our planet from the past? They might be seeing dinosaurs or even earlier.\n\nYes! Cool Right? In fact our own galaxy is about 100000 light years wide, and we are about 27000 light years from the center of the galaxy.\nSo if there were some awesome alien civilization at the center of the galaxy looking at us they would see late stone age man walking around making stone tools and bumping in to Neanderthals that were still around then."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html"
],
[]
] |
|
13tpxd
|
Why don't satellites around the earth gather in a ring (like saturn)
|
Is it perhaps because they haven't been out there long enough?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13tpxd/why_dont_satellites_around_the_earth_gather_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7737sp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Man-made satellites go into the inclinations where people put them. The material in Saturn's rings is in rings because it general it stays in the inclination of its origins."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
c2t0n2
|
i've heard many times that honey is actually a superb home remedy for burns. how true is this, if at all? what's the science and chemistry behind it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c2t0n2/eli5_ive_heard_many_times_that_honey_is_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ermf8zn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's at most *maybe* true. There was a metastudy conducted in India on whether honey was useful for healing burns, and its findings were that honey can be effective for improving the healing of minor, surface burns; its effectiveness was not proven on deeper or more serious burns, however. Since there's only one study, and the results have not been repeated, it's difficult to say how accurate the results were.\n\nThe study did not explain why it may be effective, but honey does have mild antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties which *may* help promote healing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
12bsqr
|
Does my phone get heavier when it receives a text message?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12bsqr/does_my_phone_get_heavier_when_it_receives_a_text/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6tr4pn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most, if not all, cellphones these days use flash memory for storage.\n\n[Flash memory](_URL_0_) uses [Floating-gate transistors](_URL_1_) to store bits of information. Depending on the current cell state, the electric charge in the cell could either go up or down.\n\nHowever, weight change due to electric fields of this magnitude are very negligible."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-gate_transistor"
]
] |
||
2reffe
|
It never made sense to me how easily Christianity overcame paganism. How did they fight thousands of years of inertia to get people to voluntarily give up their ancient beliefs?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2reffe/it_never_made_sense_to_me_how_easily_christianity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnf3lgd",
"cnf4zm1",
"cnf6zha",
"cnfa5n3",
"cnfa5o7",
"cnfafhm",
"cnfcnrr",
"cnfhf5n",
"cnfrd4n"
],
"score": [
6,
1348,
10,
78,
2,
4,
7,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Followup question: I imagine some answers will highlight the way Christianity was able to appropriate and adapt pagan rituals into its own practices.\n\nCan someone explain how this was done? The way I usually see this argument pop up makes it feel as if \"Christianity\" as a unified entity with centralized leadership existed to sanction which rituals were and were not to be included into the religion.\n\nWas this the case, or was it a more bottom-up gradual process?\n\nAre there many of such pagan rituals and practices that survive are still practiced in Christianity today?\n\nThank you!",
"The quick answer is that it wasn't easy. It took three centuries for Christianity to become officially tolerated and protected by Constantine, and nearly another century and a pagan emperor before it became the state religion under Theodosius. Although the empire was seemingly largely Christian by the fifth century, in reality it most definitely was not, as in the undocumented countryside paganism must have survived. From the Syriac historian John of Ephesus we also know that there was a concerted attempt by Justinian to convert tens of thousands of pagans in Asia Minor in the sixth century - the same must be true on a greater scale in even less accessible regions. All sorts of polytheistic beliefs also flourished outside of the Christian empire, which took even longer to overcome and there were plenty of setbacks, so the Christianisation of Europe actually had a very long and troubled history.\n\nI'll mainly cover how Christianity became popular within the Roman Empire, but I'll skip over the first three centuries of Christianity as I know very little about it. It is worth noting however that many gentiles did convert to Christianity throughout this period, so much so that by the time of the Tetrarchy Christianity was the faith of 10% of the population (according to Rodney Stark), or less than 3%, to quote the figure suggested by Peter Heather in a recent research seminar. Still, it is clear that pagans converted in large numbers even without state intervention, even when Christianity was under threat from certain emperors. From a purely rational perspective, this seems illogical, but humans are not rational at the best of times, so we shouldn't see history in this way either. Perhaps the earliest converts did so out of social dissatisfaction with their ancestral religion, perhaps it was due to genuine belief, or it happened for more cynical reasons, I don't think we can ever know - the psychology of conversion is complicated, but at least it should be obvious that people's beliefs can change for all sorts of reasons, even if paganism had ancient roots. The same after all can be said for Christianity, which had its roots in Judaism, another faith with a very long history. \n\nWe also shouldn't see Greco-Roman religions as similar to the more institutionalised Christian church we are all more familiar with, simply because they were decentralised and lacked a central leadership figure. Instead, a huge variety of cults competed against each other all at the same time and innovation was the norm. The same was true for Christianity, as followers of competing doctrines fought against each other through the history of the church, so there was never something as simple as a conflict between Christianity and paganism.\n\nSo what happened in the fourth century that made Christianity more attractive for converts? I would suggest that there were two main factors: one, that there was a trend for more and more Romans, particularly emperors, to embrace some form of monotheism already, and two, that Christianity was not constantly persecuted, so many individuals knew of Christians and their faith already in a relatively safe environment. For the first point, I thoroughly recommend Paul Stephenson's *Constantine: Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor* (2011), as he wrote in a very accessible way about the increasing influence of solar monotheism under the Severan emperors and Aurelian, so from that logic, Constantine's change from solar monotheism to Christian monotheism wasn't that strange - he already believed that he was protected and favoured by one particular god, so it wasn't an inconceivable leap of logic for him to embrace Christianity, especially as he already had Christian advisors at his court. By extension, this must have applied to other adherents of similar pagan cults as well. \n\nAs for my second point, it is always worth stressing that before the Great Persecution of Diocletian Christians can be found in positions of influence. Lactantius, the Christian writer who later lionised Constantine and damned his political enemies as persecutors, was for instance first invited to teach rhetoric at the imperial court by Diocletian, whilst Constantine's mother, Helena, was most likely a Christian already and thus influenced her husband, the Caesar Constantius, to be moderate towards Christian communities in the west despite Diocletian's policy of persecution in the east. At the same seminar I noted above, Peter Heather also made the very good point that we have no positive evidence that Constantine wasn't a Christian from the start, since he may well have hidden his personal faith due to the political situation. When his victories had overturned existing norms, he can then safely out himself as a Christian (having first portrayed himself as a solar monotheist). In any case, once there was a Christian emperor, it became a wise career move for cynical-minded people to convert in order to ingratiate themselves with the new regime, and likewise for the truly devout to be more obvious about their faith in public. \n\nIt is also often said that Christianity adapted many elements from traditional pagan beliefs and that this made it more popular. To a certain degree, that is correct, since no matter how powerful the Church was it could not regulate the faith of those in the countryside, and as I said, paganism must have been a strong force outside of urban centres throughout the Late Roman Empire, even if very few Christian writers wrote about them (they were generally educated and based in the cities, so they had no interest or need to write about rural bumpkins). However, it would to be too far to say that Christianity was only popular because it appropriated pagan traditions. This is I think very misleading, simply because Romans at the time would not have seen it this way. The vast majority of our sources were written by educated men, all of whom enjoyed a classical education and embraced the idea of *paideia* (the intellectual taste and mentality of an educated aristocracy). If they were Christian, they would have no problem with depicting pagan myths in [churches](_URL_0_) or engage in traditional rituals such as Lupercalia, which annoyed a fifth-century pope but was clearly enjoyed by many. It was tradition and tried-and-tested by their ancestors, so why on earth would people abandon them or see them as contrary to their new faith? Christianity was never particularly good at getting people to live an exclusively apostolic life in any case, despite the many angry diatribes written by men such as Jerome and Pelagius - as always, people are people and they did not want to abandon their past or their habits, a very human instinct that is I think very easy to understand. As such, in the majority of the cases we shouldn't see the appropriation of certain rituals as a deliberate cynical attempt by evil Christians to make their religion more popular, but as the osmosis of cultural norms that transcended the blurry boundary between different beliefs. I'm sure there are many counter-examples, but this is I think a useful way of looking at the big picture.\n\nLastly, it is also worth pointing out that paganism was not persecuted out of existence. Emperors from Constantine onwards did issue laws that increasingly limited state support for cults and sometimes even laws that did make life hard for certain groups, so it is easy to get the impression that paganism was constantly under threat. This is however the impression Christian emperors and writers wanted to give to the reader - they desired a Christian empire, so they legislated against certain practices and denigrated the popularity of paganism. In reality, pagan elites continued to thrive throughout the fourth century, so much so that we can't even really say that there was a 'pagan' party fighting a losing battle against a Christian tide, as pagan and Christian officials worked together to deal with the empire's problems. Even when they treated each other as enemies, we have to look for personal and political reasons for conflicts as well, rather than just to focus on their religion. As for the destruction of temples that we know about, such as the famous Serapeum (which did not contain a library by the way...), they were seemingly the result of riots initiated by Christian mobs, rather than by imperial edicts. \n\nI guess what I'm trying to say here is that we should be aware that 'pagan' and 'Christian' were not definitive categories for people in late antiquity. Many people were devoted to their beliefs, but many others found it easy to cross these boundaries, whether out of genuine faith, their cultural context or for more cynical reasons. People also identified themselves by their ethnicity, their social position and their relation to others, so to get a sense of how they converted (or not), we have to look at the bigger picture, which actually makes everything a lot more complicated. \n\nThis answer got a bit too vague towards the end, so feel free to ask me more specific questions about religion in the Roman Empire :)",
"Another follow-up question, if its not too much trouble:\n\nSt. Patrick is often credited with almost single handedly converting the island of Ireland from Paganism to Christianity, can anyone give a detailed account on what exactly happened?\n\n",
"I've written about this topic in the Irish context a lot before, so unlike shlin28's excellent post about early Christianity in the Roman Empire, I'll talk about the religion's spread in temperate Europe. I think your question is phrased in a problematic way: most Europeans before the Reformation didn't really give up all of their ancient beliefs; they merely articulated them in a more Christian way. In Ireland, for example, warriors invoked Jesus or their regional saints for victory in battle instead of their old gods in a form of military magic and people would voyage to healing springs associated with a local saint which was more often than not the Christianized form of the territory's former local deity. Another common practice in England and Ireland was the theft of the Host from Mass for its magical abilities.\n\nNow, none of those beliefs I've written above are very Christian. They arose out of necessity as early missionaries realized that old beliefs could not be totally eradicated because they were part of the daily life and fundamental worldview of pre-Christian agrarians. To avoid complete alienation, the missionaries figured it was easier to just coarsely Christianize magical belief instead of rooting it out (which later reformers would try from the middle ages to the Reformation). When Christianity justified those forms of magic by attributing them to Jesus or God, there was no real barrier for an Irish pagan to become an Irish Christian - there was less of a cataclysmic break from the past than a blended transition where elements of old structures of belief survived because the clergy couldn't risk alienating the majority of the population.\n\n You have to understand that pagan peoples, expect maybe the druids, had no real philosophical attachment to their faith, but they were attached to the magical figures and places that could help them in their everyday life. When those figures became Christianized, it wasn't such a big deal for the majority of people. Their local gods became Christian saints (for example the Irish goddess Brigit was transformed into the Saint Brigid) and their healing springs and magic wells became Christian holy sites. \n\nThe role of magic in the Irish (and generally temperate European) perception of religion is also important to consider. Christianity was a new and more powerful form of magical manipulation, with a clear dogma and text which contained demonstrable examples of the new god's power. Christianity was consequentially used by new practitioners as healing magic, a form of divination and battle magic.\n\nChristianity with its clear doctrine and corpus of literature, filled with apparently magical events, could justly assert itself as a fundamentally more powerful way of attaining magical power. Drawing on Old Testament God's ability to destroy cities and flood the earth, Christianity was evidently more powerful than paganism whose gods were more localized and had more diffused power. Why would you worship a bunch of gods with different, limited powers when you could worship one supreme god who could give you all your benefits at once? With Christianity, one could harness a single god's power for prowess in battle, fertility for their crops, protection from weather or plague etc. instead of having to supplicate a whole bunch of different deities and spirits. Not only did Christianity simplify the process of gaining magical powers, but it also had a whole corpus of events in the Bible that could be used as proof of the new Gods' power, while Ireland's pre-Christian belief system had no doctrine or dogma and thus lacked Christianity's persuasive power.\n\nIn many instances, these supernatural beliefs were not even Christianized; Irish kings still abided by their *geasa*; magical taboos whose breaking could lead to death, while villagers in Ireland and across Europe would practice explicitly non-Christian magic. Some of the old gods still survived on a folkloric level as well; the Christian church attacked belief in *Fortuna* (belief in fortune may seem secular today, however *Fortuna* was the Roman goddess of luck). In parts of Scandinavia and Germany, the old Germanic gods Freya and Odin held a place in popular belief long into the medieval and early modern eras.\n\nSo to answer your question: most Europeans *did not* give up their ancient beliefs. In many instances, their magical beliefs, rituals and figures were coarsely Christianized and only expunged centuries later. Christianity was appealing because it was perceived as a powerful and new form of magic that could be used to manipulate the physical world, and was in many instances syncretized with older magical practices.",
"(edit: having finally read all the comments above, it seems that both approaches that I discuss below have been addressed quite well, at least in relation to the very early years of Christianity's spread. The following is less a contribution of my own knowledge than the suggestion of a very useful book which extends these questions into (ostensibly) solidly Christian civilizations in the early modern period)\n\n(edit 2: I have rarely read and never posted in askhistorians before, so I am unfamiliar with conventions of address. Apologies for the rather patronizing first paragraph...)\n\n\nThere are various ways for Christianity to \"overcome\" paganism--some are military, some are political, some are intellectual, etc. It is important to note that there is a difference between Christianity being adopted as the religion of the Roman state and it conquering paganism completely. Part of the question here is who we are talking about: kings and \"intellectuals\" (in their various historical guises) or commoners?\n\nThe former looks like it has been addressed thoroughly in this thread.\n\nIf you want to think about the latter well into the modern past, consider reading Carlo Ginzburg's \"The Cheese and the Worms,\" which uses the 16th century inquisitorial trial of a Friulian miller to anatomize a generally unrecorded popular mentality, one that persistently combines aspects of pagan thought with Christian ideas. He suggests that there is a remarkably long and consistent body of \"low\" or unlearned cultural ideas that we rarely encounter in the conventional historical record. Key aspects of that idea system are the persistence of polytheism, religious tolerance, and some other ideas that might even contest the very idea of one religion \"overcoming\" another.\n\nAnd the book reads like a novel. Give it a shot.\n",
"I originally sought to answer this question, but I fear that my answer is not concrete enough to warrant a proper comment, so I'll phrase it as a question instead. \n\nMarc Morris, in *The Norman Conquest: The Battle of Hastings and the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England*, talks not only a lot about the invasion itself, but the events prior to and after it. Obviously, these events are tied closely to the kingdoms of Norway and Denmark and the politics of both. His depiction of religion for expanding Scandinavians, particularly the monarchs, seems to be that religion in Scandinavian nations was not as deeply personal as it might be today or in other cultures of the time. He implies that kings converted for largely political reasons, and Scandinavians settling in Latin/Frankish lands, such as the Normans, quickly and fluidly \"Latinized\" without much regard for the beliefs and culture of their ancestors.\n\nIs this an accurate depiction of the... I don't know... theo-political atmosphere of Scandinavian nations and their satellites? I'm not even wholly comfortable using the word satellite here, but for lack of a better word...",
"Rodney Stark (referenced in /u/shlin28's comment) wrote a book on this from a sociological perspective. The Rise of Christianity (Princeton 1996) uses modern sociological modeling and primary historical sources to address this exact question. Well written for a general audience.",
"May I be permitted a clarifying question? The OP appears not to be limiting the spread of Christianity to Europe or the Near East. My original thought was whether the OP was really interested in other, more primitive cultures, perhaps such as those in New Guinea, Polynesia, Africa, or in the Americas.\n\nI imagine the \"answers\" to this context would be much different.\n\nSo, for OP, are you referring to specific \"pagans\"?\n\nAnd for others, would you have a way of answering my thoughts on the other cultures not yet mentioned? I have my own speculations on these, but nothing concrete or sufficient as a top-comment on this sub.\n\nThanks all!",
"I would suggest that your metaphorical language is misleading you. What do \"thousands of years of inertia\" and \"ancient beliefs\" mean? No individual pagan had believed anything whatsoever for a thousand years, or even a hundred. No individual's belief is any more ancient than the believer himself. At most, he might be a little more attached to his belief because he learned it from his parents or grandparents; but then, adolescent rebellion is also a thing, so that could cut both ways. \n\nIn thinking about history, we sometimes see movements, trends, Zeitgeists, and fads; but it is a mistake to speak of these as though they were things in themselves, with their own causative power. \"Inertia\" used outside of physics is a metaphor, and metaphors should be replaced with the real thing the moment they become confusing, or ideally a few minutes before. In this case you should ask something like \"How did Christianity overcome the tendency of people to believe what their parents believe\", and then the answer is clear: There is no puzzle. Sometimes people encounter a new thing and decide that their parents were wrong, that's all. There's no \"thousands of years of inertia\". \n\nIn the end it's all about a finite number of individuals making their own decisions. What their ancestors a thousand years earlier believed can, in principle, be an influence on those decisions - but I would not expect it to be an important one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2q12et/what_would_a_medieval_christian_im_thinking_11th/cn25ggq?context=3"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6aewyf
|
why do news websites insist on using terrible video players when it would be easier and more user friendly to embed youtube videos?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6aewyf/eli5_why_do_news_websites_insist_on_using/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhdz15z",
"dhe0rux",
"dhe1u7e",
"dhe3xdi",
"dhe8j42",
"dhe8sth",
"dhe910j",
"dhe9664",
"dhe973r",
"dhe9equ",
"dhe9mj9",
"dhe9y3o",
"dhea1cg",
"dheaazd",
"dheat1e",
"dheat8d",
"dhebe2z",
"dhebrpa",
"dhebuu6"
],
"score": [
597,
65,
148,
24,
18,
8,
7,
2,
13,
10,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Youtube has an infamously crappy report system that can be abused, so a breaking news story might be yanked because it offended some 14-year old in a basement somewhere. I'm also not sure about the rights situation, Youtube might stake a claim in the news station's video if they upload it there. ",
"Have you seen what's happening with YouTube and demonetization? That wouldn't affect what you're talking about, but it's a good example of why you shouldn't always just use someone else's platform if you can provide your own. Their video players might not be as good, but it means they don't have to rely on YouTube at all. ",
"When using embedded Youtube videos they are not able to easily control ads (it is possible to layer in a video prior to the video but then Youtube may also serve an ad prior to the video).\n\nAlso, by controlling the video player/ads shown, they can change the length of the adspace. This is huge because they can charge different rates for videos on the Homepage versus one on a deeper page as well as different prices for longer ads vs shorter ads.\n\nFinally, as another person already said, Youtube is not the best to be able to track analytics. So by using other video players they are usually able to better gauge the demographics of viewers (further enabling them to sell more specific advertising space to partners).",
"Even if I don't like the crappy video players, i'm glad they don't all use youtube. YouTube is not really great for analytics, videos get pulled all the time or audio muted completely randomly, it seems tedious / impossible to get delisting issues resolved with YouTube - overall the only thing Youtube does right is let you upload videos for free, and it more or less ends there.",
"Money. The news stations can choose how many and what ads to play before, during or after the clip, and don't have to share the revenue with YouTube. They also don't have to deal with the Youtube TOS which may forbid even the slightest nudity, which is usually no big deal in most European countries. ",
"Why would you want to store your valued possessions in your neighbors house when you have a half decent safe at your own?",
"You have complete control of the vid if you don't use a 3rd party. Plus the reporting system and comments can add unwanted drama.",
"Youtube has virtually no DRM. News websites want the promise of DRM baked into their video players, so they can guarantee that they are tracking exactly what people are watching, and nobody's making unauthorized copies of their content. As a result, you get badly-written players with DRM hosted on AWS, Azure, Cloudfront or the like, using some third party as the DRM middleman.\n\nThis way they control their own content, and the third party is beholden to them, not the other way around, as it would be if they were using a video locker service.",
"Also, why do these video players often not include volume control?",
"Control of ad inventory, and being able to sell ads directly. It is all ad value. YouTube not only splits the revenue of all the ads sold, the CPM is less. A dedicated gaming website might be able to sell directly to a game publishing company and guarantee the viewing audience will be people interested in buying games. YouTube is also pretty well ad-blocked and that makes each view less valuable, while proprietary websites are always trying different creative ways to get around that, or baking in ads. \n\n\nIt might seem like a small difference, but 10k views on that shitty player might be more valuable than 100k YouTube views, and revenue drives almost all decisions.",
"Reporting, editing, and producing can add up to thousands of dollars in labor costs alone, and Youtube (or similar hosting services) not only share none of that expense, but using them requires transferring the end product to a third-party, which can monetize it, give it away, or bury it without any consideration to the content producers. For the news sites, it's better to sacrifice user experience in the name of having complete control over the content.",
"The platform has to be owned by the content creators in journalism. Otherwise the content has the potential to be censored/tampered by the platform. ",
"The best solution is to instead use HTML5 and MP4 video instead of the garbage they usually use.",
"Publishing on YouTube grants YouTube ownership rights to the content. Unless you have a written agreement that says otherwise. I'm guessing those agreements don't come cheap.",
"YouTube does not allow preroll video via their terms and many news sites sell ad's locally. They need to use a custom player so they can do whatever benefits them the most with the video.",
"In order to use YouTube to embed a video on their news site, they have to upload that video to YouTube.\n\nOnce they upload that video to YouTube, it's available across _URL_0_.\n\nGoogle makes the money from ads on _URL_0_, sharing only a small part with the person who uploaded the video.\n\nThe news organization sells the ads for their own website, keeping ALL the revenue.\n\nTherefore, the news site would like their video to appear on their own site but NOT across _URL_0_\n\nOther video providers offer similar functionality as YouTube, even if you think the older is not as good, which allows the news organization to own the advertising and sometimes added features like better analytics or copy protection or regional targeting, etc. \n\nI wish YouTube would offer similar functionality and crush all these other companies, but that would be in some conflict with their primary business model, and so far they haven't chosen to go there.",
"Youtube and these websites offer you free video. Have you wondered how they pay for their employees, bandwidth, etc? \n\nYou are the product. If they use youtube, youtube gets the money earned from \"you\" being there. The way they monetize this is:\n\n1) Ads, ads are shown to you, that advertisers pay for\n\n2) \"Data\" They are able to collect information from you when you visit, then sell that data. Like, lets say you watch a lot of Trump videos, well now they know you're a good person to target anger management classes to. (This is a joke, just in case somebody doesn't get it)\n\n3). They add cookies, that further watch you after you leave, which is just more data they can sell. ",
"1. It's not hard to build a crappy video player. This is important, no one wants to write their own Windows because that's obviously harder to build on your own.\n2. News agencies are not run by developers, who would be more interested in building video player features.\n3. YouTube is a middle-man. They will take portions of all ad content. If you do it yourself, you get all the ad revenue.\n4. YouTube may change things on you, then you have to update or compensate for it. Especially if they remove some feature.\n5. YouTube has baggage, such as needing a G+ account or copyright restrictions/takedowns. Maybe the news site wants you to comment freely, or from their own accounts.\n6. YouTube is a competitor for sites like IGN or anyone else that might focus on videos. It's better business sense to not rely on a competitor if possible.\n7. You have to use their API (their code). Maybe you want to track clicks or something different.\n8. Maybe they have adult content or other content that violates terms of service. This seems to be Vimeo's niche.\n\nIf you find a company that doesn't care to profit more from video ads (I don't know why) and also doesn't have the resources to build their own (though they likely have a website as well), then I can see someone just using YouTube. For now, this is probably small companies or fan projects that want to quickly get a video up. Any mature company will want to spend resources for the reasons above.",
"Some of the answers here are pretty solid, but I haven't seen anyone mention click retention.\n\nAfter YouTube plays a video, it shows what it believes to be intelligent suggestions. Unfortunately for the site owner, those suggestions can be for other products or services, or simply a recommended video may not be of the site owners brand. At that point you're wasting your site real-estate and your users' time with content that isn't yours."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"YouTube.com"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8mf1fs
|
how do modern vehicles prevent wireless keys from being locked inside?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mf1fs/eli5_how_do_modern_vehicles_prevent_wireless_keys/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dznhzr2",
"dznpyf8",
"dzo3gdf"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They generally have key sensors both inside and outside the vehicle. If there's a key inside, they'll warn the driver and won't lock.",
"As a person that’s worked at a Car rental place. They really don’t, most cars will give you a message in the dash about keys inside but that’s about it. I’ve had to deal with locked cars that are keyless and having to unlock them with tools. Hell, you could even start your car up go back inside and leave the keys inside and you can still drive the car without the keys just don’t turn off it off. ",
"My car has keyless ignition.\n\nThere are radio antennas inside the car that allows the car to be started if the key is present inside the car.\n\nThe exact same system also refuses to lock the doors from the outside if there is a key inside the car."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2j9h1n
|
why have the planets in the solar system assumed relatively perfect circular orbits?
|
Many other objects in the solar system have eccentric orbits. Dwarf planets like Pluto and Sedna, and comets all have very eccentric orbits. Asteroids can also have odd orbits. The planets supposedly formed when asteroids smashed into each other to create a large object in the violence of the early solar system. Yet now the planets have relatively circular orbits while other objects in the solar system maintain highly elliptical orbits that sometimes aren't even on the same plane. Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j9h1n/eli5_why_have_the_planets_in_the_solar_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl9m51s",
"cl9mfzw"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The planets have elliptical orbits. They are close to circular, but they're not perfect circles. And anyway, a circle is just a specialized ellipse with the centers in the same place.",
"Both the tilt and the orbit are involved in the seasons. The relatively circular orbits are thanks to gravity. The Sun is pulling inward while everything else in the Universe is pulling out. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5eqz40
|
when did tobacco companies start adding to cigarettes all of the carcinogenic properties we know about today? were cigarettes ever safe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5eqz40/eli5_when_did_tobacco_companies_start_adding_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daeilvp",
"daevh31"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Tobacco smoke contains most of those carcinogens naturally (there are such things as cigarette additives but they're mostly flavorants and they're regulated)\n\nTurns out burning a dried leaf and inhaling the smoke is bad for you. Go figure. \"Natural\" is not the same as \"good for you.\"",
"For the most part they didn't, they were already there, that whole carcinogenic additives thing is a bit of a distortion.\n\nTurns out that burning complex organic substance creates a lot of weird molecules, and a whole lot of them are carcinogenic. This is true whether you burn cabbage or petunias or tobacco. \n\nSo while tobacco smoke does technically contain lots of carcinogens, it isn't particularly noteworthy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5ps1jn
|
why are trick plays in american football so rare?
|
They seem to work profoundly well if done correctly. I thought the whole point of football offensive strategy was to creatively devise a plan (or a play as they are called) to get the the touchdown by catching the defense off guard. Trick plays are just really creative plans. Also it would sell a lot more tickets wouldn't it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ps1jn/eli5_why_are_trick_plays_in_american_football_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dctcpdd",
"dctd3od",
"dctd5tk",
"dctdmww",
"dctea8j"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Trick plays do not have a terribly high chance of success, and usually put the team in a bad position if the play fails. So they are pretty rarely used and mostly reserved for last-ditch attempts.",
"Because trick plays only work if the defense isn't ready for them. If the defense correctly recognizes a trick play as it happens, they are easy to stop, usually for a big loss.\n\nTake the simplest trick play, a \"reverse\". The whole offense flows to the right as if the RB is running a sweep right, trying to get the defenders to commit to stopping a sweep right. Then the RB flips the ball to a WR heading back the other direction, trying to sweep around the left side. This play only works if the backside defender (usually a DE or OLB) has completely bitten on the fake sweep. If not, he's right there to stop the WR in his tracks for a 6-8 yard loss.\n\nOn a well-coached team, defenders are often coached to \"stay home\", which means to stay in their assigned area and not chase plays that are headed to the other side of the field, for this very reason. If they go chase the play elsewhere, they leave their area vulnerable to a trick play.\n\nThe reason that trick plays *sometimes* work is when the offense has established power over the defense. They keep running sweep right again and again, picking up good yardage every time. If they keep running it again and again, they'll grind their way to a victory. So the backside defender gets frustrated and impatient, and he abandons his area in an attempt to chase down the sweep before it gets any yardage. Once he starts doing that, *then* the offense hits him with the reverse for a huge gain.",
"I think a lot of trick plays have been exploited already and are known. A trick play only gets a few uses before the opponents in your league know the setup and what to expect. In a single game the opponents learn first hand what to do by being tricked once, in a season opponents learn about trick plays by watching film of previous games. Considering the time spent thinking up a play and practicing flawless execution, trick plays cannot be used enough to make them worth while. By comparison, normal plays key in on a specific player or offense's ability and exploit that. It takes more effort but will work multiple times in a game and over the season because it is based on more long term strengths than a novel idea. \n___________\n\n Certain trick plays have actually had rules made against them because they are too effective. A great example of this is the 'forward fumble' where the QB will place the ball on the ground immediately post-snap. A lineman or back picks up the ball after the play appears to have moved away from the line of scrimmage, and runs down field. In this case, the ball drop happens so early and in such a dense cluster of players it is very very hard for linebackers to read. To compensate for the success and difficulty countering this trick play (which was also uninteresting to watch), there is a rule now about the quarterback dropping the ball in front of him while in the backfield.\n____________\n\nOther trick plays, like the flea flicker (quarterback passes ball off like a reverse, back with the ball makes a throw) are common enough now that they aren't really considered trick plays. They work, but are easy to read and about as effective as a normal option. ",
"The 'trickier' the play, the lower the chances that it will actually work. Sometimes a play that doesn't work is OK, but sometimes a 'broken play' can mean a huge loss of yards or a loss of possession. \n\nIn other words, there is a lot more risk involved with trick plays. Some coaches are riskier than others and will use more trick plays. But coaches are also prone to getting fired if their team isn't successful, so not only do they risk the game, but they might be risking their job and even their career. Coaches, for the most part, don't care about selling tickets....they just want to win games. If they can win more games with no trick plays, they will do that. \n\nThis usually means that coaches will play it safe unless they have a strong reason to use a trick play. For example, if they are behind in the game and are not playing well against the other team's defense, then they might try a trick play out of desperation. \n\nAnother reason that a team might try a trick play, is if they spot a weakness on the other team. For example, if the defense is constantly stopping them from running the ball, because most or all of the defensive players are rushing to the ball carrier very quickly....then they might try a 'reverse'. A reverse is when you run the ball to one side of the field, but one of your players starts on that side and runs back toward the ball carrier. The defense follows the ball carrier, but as he runs by the reversing player, he hands it over to him, reversing the direction of the ball. This hopefully catches the defense off guard, and because they were so good at getting to the ball carrier quickly, they are likely to be out of position for the new ball carrier.\n\nBut, the risk of a reverse is that if the defense players are smart, they won't be easily caught out of position and might be able to tackle the new ball carrier for a huge loss of yards. ",
"You know what you call a trick play that works? A play.\n\nTrick plays involve taking more risk, by increased complexity and by having players do things they normally don't do. They usually only work when the other time makes a mistake, and when they fail, they often fail spectacularly.\n\nTrick plays that wind up being successful will usually make a highlight reel, which gives a false impression of how effective they are.\n\n > Also it would sell a lot more tickets wouldn't it?\n\nTrading one exciting play for nine crappy backfires? Yeah, not buying a ticket to that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ebh17l
|
The Kurds seem to be one of the most heterogeneous groups in the Middle East. Is this a modern tendency or historic?
|
Kurds can be Sunni, Shia or Alevi Muslims. They can be Christians, Jewish, Zoroastrians, Yazidi, Yarsanist, Agnostic or Atheist. In political opinion they can be considered the most radical in the Middle East. Compared to neighboring groups such as Armenians, Assyrians and Arabs, they seem a veritable cornucopia of dissent. Are the Kurds really so diverse or is it a case of “Kurd” not being a useful way to talk about these different groups?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ebh17l/the_kurds_seem_to_be_one_of_the_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fb5qdmj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not a historian and in order not to break the rules of this subreddit by replying with my opinion and not historical facts, I invite you to come over to r/Kurdistan and ask us there :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1v51wn
|
On Americans and their Tea Parties
|
Inspired by recent questions about the historical significance of tea:
Just how popular was Tea in the Thirteen Colonies/US around the time of the Boston Tea Party? More broadly, what were American drinking habits like in general and what other beverages competed with tea?
Finally, (and I hope I'm not making this topic too broad here) what have drinking trends been like throughout US history and what factors caused tea's relative decline in popularity compared to the recent dominance of soft drinks and coffee?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v51wn/on_americans_and_their_tea_parties/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cepaowl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Tea was very popular in the American Colonies, but by far the most popular drink in the colonies early national America was [Alchohol](_URL_0_). All three meals were accompanied by some kind of booze, and it was common for large bowls of spirits to be left around the house for consumption at one's leisure. Colonist's drank a staggering amount at every age, eight ounces a day on average. That's the equivalent of a half pint of pure moonshine a day. There were several reasons for this. Water was unhealthy, it gave people dysentery and other deadly diseases. People didn't know quite why this was the case, but they had noticed that if you made water into alcohol or tea, it nearly eliminated the health risks. It was also seen as a poor man's drink, and the ability to drink alcohol throughout the day was a status symbol. \n\nTea was a popular drink in the American colonies, just as it was in England, for similar cultural and health reasons. It remained a popular choice for entertaining and occasions when food was not being served. After the Seven Years' (French and Indian) War, the British imposed a series of wildly unpopular taxes on the American colonies to recoup some of the cost incurred protecting them. These taxes were difficult to manage, and could not be paid in colonial paper money but exclusively in British specie (Wood, S,G. \"The American Revolution: A History.\" Modern Library. 2002, page 24.). The taxes were also largely unavoidable, especially the Stamp Act which taxed almost all newspapers, magazines, legal documents, and pamphlets. This made legally conducting business more expensive. The Americans' boycotts of these goods caused British manufacturers to pressure for repeal, as the American colonies were a massive captive market for British manufacturers. After the repeal of the Stamp Act, the British passed and enforced the Townshend Acts intended to reel in Colonial independence, which had in their view run rampant during the period of benign neglect. Taxes were collected in order to maintain a stronger presence of government officials in the colonies, and New York was to be punished for [flouting the Quartering Act]( _URL_1_). The same mechanisms that organized resistance to the Stamp Act came together to resist to Townshend acts, and succeeded in getting many of the provisions repealed. However, the tax on tea was left in place for the express purpose of demonstrating the British government's continued right to tax the colonies. Essentially, Parliament was taxing the colonists just to show they could. This is why the tax on tea incensed the colonists, and explains the drastic reactions and demonstrations. It was not that the tax was excessive, because the Stamp Act provided a much larger and difficult to avoid tax, or due to some sacred reverence for tea. It was the fact that the tax was sent as a message, a slap in the face to Americans who insisted Parliament had no right to tax them. The boycotts that resulted, and the connotations of tea with Royalism from this point forward, precipitated the decline in popularity of tea in the colonies (Luttinger, Nina and Gregory Dicum. The coffee book: anatomy of an industry from crop to the last drop. The New Press, 2006, p. 33.) Coffee and infusions of herbs, peppermint, and other hot beverage replacements all found their popularity in this period as a replacement for tea, and while tea regained lost ground after a time, it never regained its place as the preferred hot beverage in the former British Colonies.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_summer_fall/forefathers.htm",
"http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/timeline1b.html"
]
] |
|
asxnfx
|
is it built in to the genetic code of a virus to make its host sneeze or cough in order to further spread itself and ‘grow’? or is it just the body making an effort to expel the bad stuff?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/asxnfx/eli5_is_it_built_in_to_the_genetic_code_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egxdwgt",
"egxe49m",
"egxe570",
"egxk9gl",
"egy99tw"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Some viruses and bacteria use our body functions against us, to aid in their spread. Cholera is a bacteria, it injects a toxin into the causes the body to inject more water into the intestine causing diahrea, and hopefully contaminating more food & water sources so it can spread to other people. \n\nCold viruses do the same thing with cough and runny nose. Typically they don't directly control the cells, they cause the cells to react to something, and that reaction is the symptom we see. Some fungus and parasites do it too. ",
"I suspect it’s the body simply trying to remove irritation.\n\nYour body may not know it’s going to expel anything in particular, but is probably trying to remove excess snot and other crusty stuff that is hitting on “sneeze now” nerves. Or coughing, or even nose-running and eye-watering.\n\nThe virus probably doesn’t know enough about the host to know it could sneeze, or even that sneezing might be an effective way of relocating itself.",
"Those particular behaviours - sneezing and coughing - are not built into the virus' dna.\n\nBut our body's response to fighting the virus is to cough and sneeze....so in that sense, the virus can spread itself by hijacking our bodies' natural response.",
"Flip the question around, viruses that cause sneezing, coughing, etc help it spread easier, continuing the cycle. ",
"IT is a combination. Both the virus and the body have no conscious end goal, they just do what their genes allow them, and those genes stick around because it happened to allow your ancestors to survive a cold a few hundred years ago. A virus with a mutation for a protein that accidentally makes the body sneeze will be passed on to another person and will spread further, just happening to survive. A virus without the mutation to produce a sneezing protein will stay inside a single host, kill it, and slowly die out. Its progression will be halted, and it won't be able to pass along its genes. The mutation survives. The virus makes people sneeze.\nHowever, in the case of sneezing, the human body a million years ago accidentally mutated to sneeze when its nose was poked. This mutated individual managed to sneeze away dust that irritated its nose, and survived because it didn't breathe in harmful dust. This meant they survived long enough to pass on their mutation to their kids, where non-mutated individuals might have died before having children. Slowly, the mutation spread across the whole population, and now we sneeze when our nose gets irritated. \nSomewhere, the two combined, and sneezing became a response to illness, and viruses became very good at making people sneeze and living in snot. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
63xci7
|
If a nearby star goes supernova, what are the consequences in our solar system?
|
Wikipedia said if Alpha Scorpii A does, the light could be as bright as the moon. That seems like other things would be going on as well if it's that's significant.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/63xci7/if_a_nearby_star_goes_supernova_what_are_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfyij9p",
"dfyim7k"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"A supernova [within 75-100 lightyears](_URL_0_) could shower us with enough radiation to break down most of the ozone in the ozone layer making life temporarily difficult for plants. One in the next solar system over could exceed the gravitational binding energy of the atmosphere (RIP atmosphere, you were good while you lasted).\n\nLuckily for us, there are no near-future supernova candidates nearby. Antares and Betelgeuse are hundreds of lightyears away, while IK Pegasi which will eventually become a IA supernova and a standard candle for some other civilization is 150 lightyears away. The odds of having supernova on your death certificate are basically zero.\n",
"Short answer. It depends on distance and the type of supernova. Extremely energetic or rotating supernova can produce a gamma-ray burst that focuses the energy in a more coherent beam rather than having the energy fall off by the square of the distance. That can do damage across a galaxy but you have to be in the fairly narrow path.\n\nMore traditional supernova I believe are around 100 light-years before they no longer become dangerous.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/05/18/the-closest-supernova-candidate/#.WOerSDz3bYV"
],
[]
] |
|
1y5pbo
|
When the Spanish first arrived in the Americas they transmitted several diseases to the natives which quickly killed entire communities. Why didn't the same occur when the diseases that the natives were carrying were transmitted to the Spanish?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1y5pbo/when_the_spanish_first_arrived_in_the_americas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfhkyt3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"hi! this is a popular question here - check out previous responses in this section of the FAQ*\n\n[Native Americans and (European) Diseases](_URL_0_)\n\n*see the link on the sidebar or the wiki tab "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/nativeamerican#wiki_native_americans_and_.28european.29_diseases"
]
] |
||
532d6o
|
what makes liquid "bounce" when falling?
|
Like if you were to spit off a platform and it hits a wall and then seems to bounce and go in another direction.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/532d6o/eli5what_makes_liquid_bounce_when_falling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7peo5g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Most liquids you're likely to encounter are going to be comprised heavily of water. Water is a polar molecule, which means one side of it is slightly negatively charged, and the other side is slightly positively charged. Because of this structure (one slightly negative oxygen atom, two slightly positive hydrogen atoms), water molecules fit nicely together with other water molecules. This gives them a property known as \"cohesion.\" That's why a water droplet on a surface won't flatten out infinitely, and it's why certain bugs can literally walk on water. It's also how trees are able to transport water up the length of their trunk without applying pressure.\n\nWater also is really good at bonding with other polar molecules, and ions. It's not so good at bonding with atoms with a neutral charge, or molecules in nonpolar covalent bonds. These are generally considered to be \"hydrophobic.\"\n\nSo, if you were to spit at a wall, and the spit bounced off, you could probably assume two things:\n\n1. Whatever material is on the outside of that wall is mostly hydrophobic, so the water didn't bond with it.\n2. Since the water didn't bond with anything, and it's cohesion kept it from splitting apart, it it was able to remain in a singular unit while having it's force redirected. \n\nObviously, this is working on the assumption that your spit is purely water, which is completely wrong, but things such as mucus would only add to the cohesion of your spit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
whma2
|
intel core i7 processor
|
From what I have read, the processor claims to have "virtual cores"? I can't comprehend this. Also, what is the difference between the "northbridge" "ivy bridge" and "sandy bridge" etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/whma2/eli5_intel_core_i7_processor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5def0d",
"c5dfnl1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, the \"virtual cores\" you're talking about are a feature called \"HyperThreading\". Hyperthreading can increase the performance of your computer if the following points are true:\n\n* The program you're running is limited by your CPU\n* The program you're running is heavily threaded- meaning that more performance can be gained by running more instances of itself\n* The program you're running doesn't take up all the execution resources of a core that it runs on\n\nBasically, HyperThreading allows Windows to see additional processor cores that can be used to execute programs. However, these are only useful if there are still execution resources available on those cores; if they're already being used at 100%, you won't see any increase.\n\nAs far as northbridge/Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge, you've lumped two similar things in with one dissimilar thing.\n\nThe northbridge of a motherboard is the chip that interfaces directly with the CPU- it's where signals are converted into USB, PCI, or memory interfacing. The nomenclature isn't used anymore, because northbridges as such aren't really in use any more- more interfaces have been moved directly onto the CPU, meaning that that particular chip handles fewer and fewer operations.\n\n\"Ivy Bridge\" and \"Sandy Bridge\" are codenames for different generations of Intel's CPUs. Ivy Bridge is the same architecture as Sandy Bridge, but shrunken down, for greater power efficiency and lower heat dissipation. Next year, an entirely new architecture called Haswell will be released, and a year after that, one called Broadwell will be released that's just a shrunken version of Haswell.",
"Hyperthreading is a trick, of sorts, to get more computing power from a core.\n\nIt's fairly complex how it works. The best analogy would be doing something like listening to music while brushing your teeth. Part of the brain works with your ears and lets you hear the music, another part allows you to control your hand to brush your teeth. In a normal processor, you'd need to issue a 'brush teeth' command and wait for it to finish before issuing a 'listen to music' command. In a hyperthreading CPU, you can issue both commands at the same time, and both tasks will be completed, even though there is only one person.\n\nHowever, having a single person who can do two tasks at the same time isn't as good as having two people. For instance, you can't issue a 'brush teeth' command and a 'clip your fingernails' command - the same part of the brain controls both, and it can't do two things at once. Hyperthreading just allows the part of the brain you're not using for your primary task to work on something else. In real world performance, a hyperthreaded core is about 25% faster than a non hyperthreaded core, but that's 75% slower than having two normal cores.\n\nHow useful this is depends on your task. Since we're talking about quad cores, let's say we have four people who can do two things at once. That's 8 total cores - 4 physical, 4 virtual.\n\nIf your task is \"read these four books\", there's no benefit to being able to do multiple things at the same time. You can't read multiple books at once.\n\nThe programs you run determine how the tasks are divided. For instance, many old programs cna only utilize one or two cores, because they were written before quad cores existed. So if you've got an old program that tells your processor \"read this booK\", you'll see that one of the cores goes to 100% load working on the task, but the other three just sit idle.\n\nAs haikuginger pointed out, at the moment, the best multithreaded applications are video encoding, distributed computing, and other tasks that can be split up. If you've got a movie, and you want the processor to write a description of each scene and a transcript of the dialogue, you can split it up very easily. Each of your four guys can look at a different scene, and they can watch and listen at the same time, so all eight cores are fully utilized.\n\nIf you've just got a game, though, the tasks might be \"calculate where I am going\", \"calculate where I am\", and \"calculate what the world is like around me\". In this case, the game utilizes three cores, so there's no performance difference between a three physical core cpu and your 4 physical, 4 virtual i7. Generally, for gaming, the real world data points to a 4 physical core, non hyperthreading Core i5 as being the best choice for the money. The i7 is better, but the games don't really take advantage of the hyperthreading, and you will get a bigger improvement by spending the extra money on your graphics card, which the game can take advantage of.\n\nThe overall performance depends on how many threads can be utilized, and how fast they are. For encoding a movie, for instance, eight 2GHz cores will be as fast as four 4GHz cores. The load can be spread out well. For gaming, the game doesn't really know what commands to issue to any more than 4 cores, so the eight core has half the cores sit idle, whereas the four core performs much better, since it can finish those tasks in half the time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
enzsmn
|
Why do Azerbaijan and Armenia each have enclave territories inside each other?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/enzsmn/why_do_azerbaijan_and_armenia_each_have_enclave/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fefzh41"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"If you're looking at this from a technical sense, the enclaves and enclaves technically don't exist anymore as a result of the Artsakh War in the 90s and are only there due to political reasons. Technicalities aren't fun so to understand the full history you have to look at the events of the last century or so. There are several exclaves and enclaves The larger ones, Nakhechevan (both controlled by Azerbaijan) and Nagorno-Karabakh (Controlled by Armenia and called Artsakh. The smaller ones, Arstvashen (controlled by Azerbaijan), Tigranashen, Askipara, Sofulu and Barkhudarly (all four controlled by Armenia). Here is the thing, all of these enclaves and exclaves were owned by the First Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) after it broke away from the Transcaucasian Republic (lasted 6 months) which became independent from the Russian Empire. Nakhechevan, Artsakh and the other smaller exclaves and enclaves were owned by Armenia with Artsakh having a population that was 90% Armenian and Nakhechevan was split nearly 50/50 (now with almost no Armenians as they have been deported) in terms of population between Armenians and Muslims (the Muslims living there were not necessarily Azeri). \n\nDuring the existence of the First Republic of Armenia, wars between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia ensured that border conflict would remain unsettled after the Bolsheviks took control of the area. While power in Transcaucasia was being consolidated by the Bolsheviks, these areas had originally been designated as Armenian by the Bolshevik Caucasus Bureau in 4 July 1921; however, the next day this decision was revoked by Stalin, without deliberation or a vote, in his power as the Commissar for Nationalities and they were handed to Azerbaijan throughout the next decade or so (my theory is that these lands were handed to the Azeris in a way for Stalin to appease Ataturk and try to win Turkey over as an ally as Stalin cited Article V of the Treaty of Kars (1921) which stated \"The Turkish Government and the Soviet Governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan are agreed that the region of Nakhchevan, within the limits specified by Annex III to the present Treaty, constitutes an autonomous territory under the protection of Azerbaijan\"). These lands were given to Azerbaijan (as well as some lands in North Armenia being given to Georgia) while the three republics were united as the Georgian-and-Azeri dominated Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (1922-1936) or more simply the TSFSR. So on 7 Julu 1923, the TSFSR established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast within the borders of Azerbaijan and on 9 February 1924, the Soviet Union officially established the Nakhchevan ASSR It should be noted that the transfer of Armenian territories to Azerbaijan and Georgia were made without taking into consideration the position of Armenian authorities. \n\nAs part of the USSR, the Ghazakh district of Elizavetpol province was divided between Dilijan province of Soviet Armenia and Ghazakh district of Soviet Azerbaijan, with the border issue still unresolved. The Ghazakh district covered almost the whole territory of today’s Tavush province and the territory lying to the north of Chambarak village of Gegharkunik province, as well as Artsvashen (in 1920 referred to as Bashgyugh, or Bashkend) with its surroundings. At that, together with Artsvashen, the area stretched around Tavush River’s Akhnja branch headwaters and the territories adjacent to the left bank of Asrik River upper current. (The territory stretched from Artsvashen and Ttujur pass to the eastern border of present day Tavush province, i.e the territory of about 250 square kilometers lying to the east of Chinari village). The situation in Tavush was tense, with the continuing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan not only for control over the territory but also for the use of agricultural lands and forests.\n\nThe Transcaucasian Central Executive Committee formed a commission dealing with the territorial disputes and resolving them exclusively against Armenia. The so-called exchange of territories was carried out one-sidedly at the expense of Armenia, giving part of them to Azerbaijan and some to Georgia. Thus, in January 1927, the territory of about 12 thousand hectares from Bashkend to Dilijan was ‘gifted’ to Azerbaijan’s Ghazakh district. As ‘compensation’, in February 1929, under the Central Executive Committee’s decision, Armenia got a connection with Arstvashen through a strip of land, which was however, given to Azeris in 1930s, making Artsvashen Armenia’s exclave in Azerbaijan.The wedge-shaped Lower Askipara (variant of Armenian name Voskepar) lying between Ijevan and Noyemberyan was also a part of the First Republic of Armenia. In 1920, this territory including the neighboring villages of Baghanis-Ayrum, Ghushchu-Ayrum, Mazam and Kheyrimly was transferred to Azerbaijan, which also wanted to get the area of Upper Askipara situated to the west of Armenia’s Voskepar village. The exact date of the Tigranshen enclave's creation is not known either. However, some sources as well as administrative maps show that it was cut from Armenia and transferred under control of Nakhchevan (now autonomous within the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan) in late 1940s. \n\n\nSources: \n\n[Readings on the Bureau of the Caucasus](_URL_2_) \n\n“Territorial Losses of Soviet Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in 1920-30s”, authors Karen Khachatryan, Hamo Sukiasyan, Gegham Badalyan, Institute of History at RA Academy of Sciences, Yerevan 2015.\n\nCharlotte Mathilde Louise Hille (2010). State Building and Conflict Resolution in the Caucasus. BRILL.\n\n[\"Contested Borders in the Caucasus : Chapter I \\(2/4\\)\". _URL_0_. Retrieved 14-1-2019.\n](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"Poli.vub.ac.be",
"http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/ContBorders/eng/ch0102.htm",
"https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/bse/91997/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5"
]
] |
||
1wj8pf
|
Why is my breath warmer and more humid when I "haaa" (to clean my glasses) than when I blow air through pursed lips (i.e. blowing out candles)?
|
Don't know how else to describe the difference. Anyone understand what I'm talking about?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1wj8pf/why_is_my_breath_warmer_and_more_humid_when_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf2l9ny",
"cf2o1ya"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Velocity, similar to how wind feels colder (wind chill) when it is moving faster. The rate of heat loss from the area you are blowing on depends on a) the temperature of the air, and b) the speed at the surface of heat loss. Since the former is relatively constant given it originates from an area at body temperature, the formative element is b, the air speed at the surface of heat loss. ",
"Other than the speed of the air mentioned in the other comment, the actual air flowing past your hand is also cooler and drier. \n\nA fast moving stream of air causes a phenomenon called entrainment, where surrounding air gets pulled into the jet you're blowing. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5r1bg1
|
why do .gifv files play so much better than .gif files if they have the same content?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r1bg1/eli5_why_do_gifv_files_play_so_much_better_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd3mlg5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Graphic Interchange Format, usually indicated with file extension `.gif`, supports multiple frames that can be played in sequence. This allows it to support simple animations, and is the reason that most browsers by default will loop GIF animations. However, people started using it as a format to share videos--GIF was widely supported by browsers, while real video formats did not have universal codecs or required plug-ins like Flash, so that sharing videos was difficult. The downsides are that GIF does not have important features that video formats do: GIF doesn't compress frames (which would greatly reduce the size) and only supports a few colors, so that you get slow and low-quality videos.\n\nThe `.gifv` file extension is misleading, and doesn't indicate any particular format. Websites like Imgur use it for files that were uploaded as GIFs but which were converted to a video format like MP4 or WebM. They started doing this because the great majority of popular browsers now support at least one or the other format, so the reasons people used GIFs in the first place are gone. Converting them automatically saves space and bandwidth for the host, and is easier than changing people's bad habits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
28t2lz
|
Does a beam of light accelerate before it reaches its maximum speed, or is it at lightspeed as soon as it starts traveling?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28t2lz/does_a_beam_of_light_accelerate_before_it_reaches/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cie8295",
"ciec1av",
"cied0l4",
"ciefv8f",
"cieg3a0",
"cieggv1",
"ciekjyb",
"ciel7ar",
"cielz4w",
"cieoqom"
],
"score": [
1725,
116,
3,
4,
11,
25,
5,
3,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Photons always travel at speed *c*, the speed of light, from the moment they are created. There is no acceleration. ",
"if you think of light as electromagnetic wave, then you can wrap your head around the fact that it does not need to accelerate to c. you can experimentally test this on any wave, such as waves on the surface of the water, pulse wave traveling along a rope, etc. while transferring energy to the wave, acceleration / deceleration happens along the vertical axis (in these examples) and propagation speed is consrant, and it depends on the medium. i am sure there are other people who can better elaborate on this anology. ",
"I'd like to piggyback this question. The speed of light is constant in any given frame of reference, so if I'm moving along at 93,000 miles per second (half the speed of light) I would still see a photon moving away from me at 186,000 miles per second instead of seeing it move away half as fast.\n\nIs this property of light due to interaction we have with particles that have no mass? As is evident from more recent advances in the double slit experiment, we actually have an effect on these particles by simply viewing them.",
"Depends on whether you are looking at it from the perspective of a human observing the light, or as a photon of light itself. Since time slows down for you the closer you get to the speed of light, an actual photon of light does not perceive time and will arrive at its location the instant it was created. Thus meaning from the perspective of the photon of light, acceleration is impossible because acceleration takes time, which does not exist for the photon.",
"All the other answers are correct, but I think they're failing to address the actual misunderstanding here.\n\nWhen a massive particle is created, even from a stationary source, can it have nonzero velocity? If so, does it need to accelerate to this velocity? The answers are yes, it can have a velocity, and no, acceleration is not required. It doesn't really matter that light is massless for this particular discussion - even massive particles can be created and instantaneously have nonzero speed.",
"Everything is always moving at the speed c. Photons just happen to be moving tangent to time, through space. If you took the pythagorean sum of the speed you're moving through space and the speed you're moving through time, you'd get c. Light just has a 0 speed in the direction of time, so the space-component of it's velocity vector has magnitude c.",
"i dont think anyone has really explained *why* light moves at the speed it does, so ill add my 2 cents\n\nfaradays law shows us that an oscillating electric field will generate an oscillating magnetic field , and maxwell showed us that an oscillating magnetic field will generate an oscillating electric field \n\nthis is what light is, an electromagnetic wave that *flips* between electric field and magnetic field, each field generating the other\n\nthat wave is carrying energy, and we know from the conservation of energy law that the energy of the wave cant increase or decrease\n\nand it turns out there is only 1 speed that an em wave can move at in order to keep the same energy\n\nif light moved slower, then the electric field would generate a smaller magnetic field, which would generate a smaller electric field, until there was no energy left\n\nif light moved faster, the electric field would generate a larger magnetic field, which would generate a larger electric field, until the energy of the wave was infinite \n\nonly at *c* can the fields carry the same energy, so the fields are limited to *c*, they cant go any faster or slower\n\nthis is also why every observer always see's light moving at the same speed, no matter what their reference frame\n\nbecause even if you are moving at half the speed of light, and you turn on a torch, the laws of physics work the same for you as everyone else, and the em wave coming out of the torch has only 1 speed it can move at, because if it moved slower or faster it would break the conservation of energy law",
"If a photon starts at speed \"c\". What determines the direction of travel when it \"spawns\" ? \n\nIs the direction random and some collide with the object that emitted them while some start travelling in a unimpeded direction ?\n\nOr does the process that spawns them itself determine the \"destination\" ?",
"The best analogy I've found to explain this is to think about a bathtub. Light is a wave, just like the waves we can make in a bathtub. When you splash around in a bathtub, the waves don't \"accelerate\" to their speed, they just move around at a certain speed.",
"There is a duality to light - it is sometimes a wave and other times a particle. As the particle, they've actually been able to trap it in a crystal and stop it - no speed at all. When it's a wave, though, it's not so much moving at the speed of light as it is a wave propagating at the speed of light.\n\nTry a sort of thought-experiment: Think about throwing a rock in a pond. You can record the event and accurately calculate the speed of the waves that propagate outward from the center. We know that before the rock hit, there were no waves, so speed=0. Now we film the event and see that the waves are moving at 1 m/s. Was there a time when it was 0.5 m/s? No - the moment the rock began to deform the surface of the water, the wave began to be formed and to move from the center at 1 m/s. It never accelerated - it just started and continued at that speed. And that's because the water isn't moving or accelerating - a fishing bobber can prove that - it's the wave that is propagating at 1 m/s.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1bqt5a
|
How stable was pre-colonial Africa?
|
I was reading [this](_URL_0_) thread and got to wondering: what was Africa like BEFORE colonialism? I know there were some Muslim kingdoms in Northern Africa and Zimbabwe was pretty big in the south right? How much influence did these kingdoms have? How old we're they? How extensive? Where dd they go?
Edit: wow, completely forgot the link. Sorry about the vague question, I look at it now and realize I could have just asked for a textbook on African history. I'm thinking more Sub-Saharan Africa, like the aroun the Congo river, etc. How "civilized" was it? We're there Kingdoms and such that existed before/during European conquest?
There are some great answers, despite the original vagueness, Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bqt5a/how_stable_was_precolonial_africa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9980gc",
"c999si6",
"c99f0bo",
"c99igz8",
"c99k7hf",
"c99kc59"
],
"score": [
126,
20,
6,
29,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"That's a *huge* question to ask, since the very term precolonial Africa can refer to any number of areas and centuries prior to European involvement. That being said, I'll try to tackle a few big points for you here.\n \nThere were a few precolonial kingdoms in the Sahel that were pretty significant. The Kingdom of Ghana lasted from roughly 750-1076 AD, and although ethnically the kingdom was mostly the Soninke people, to some extent its culture was influenced by the Berbers. Next up is the Kingdom of Mali, which may be the most important of the precolonial kingdoms. It lasted from roughly 1230-1600, though the height of its power was in the 14th and 15th centuries. Comprised mostly of the Mandinka people, the Malian kingdom was larger than much of Europe. It was a commanding trade presence, and cities like Djenne and Timbuktu were hubs for Muslim scholarship.\n\nThe common factor for all these kingdoms is that they linked the gold trade of West Africa to the salt trade of Arab North Africa, and each was materially prosperous to differing degrees. There's a famous story (which may or may not be apocryphal) about Mansa Musa, ruler of Mali, who went on the Hajj and brought with him so much treasure that he single-handedly caused the value of gold to drop for a few years in Mediterranean Africa. \n\nThat's far from a comprehensive answer but hopefully that gives you some places to start from. Hopefully we'll get the experts in here to give you a more thorough answer than I can.\n\nSources: took a class on French colonialism in Africa, got this information from the lecture notes on precolonial kingdoms. I'll see if I can't dig up the readings that accompanied the lecture.",
"In Nigeria there were a number of fairly stable city states, most notably Nri in the 1400s/1500s. Generally these states traded with each other (they were highly skilled in metalwork; particularly bronze, rivalling or even exceeding the skills of European nations at the time), warred, took slaves (though usually not chattel), and followed similar religions. \n\nThey were essentially run by a mixture of patriarchal dynasties and theocratic religion, with economics and political influence more important than sheer military might. They traded with some European nations (the Portuguese especially), although generally they disliked whites. \n\nThe city states (Benin being an important example) were either destroyed by the British, or fell to infighting and destroyed themselves through the slave trade. Some of them ranged from just a few decades in age to a number of centuries (the Nri Kingdom is usually dated from either 1073/1225-1600s, so a significant time period). \n\nInformation: History student currently studying the Kingdom of Benin. ",
"What does 'stable' mean?\n",
"Stability is an open question not just because of the ramifications of the word (as /u/imacarpet pointed out), but because you're defining it as \"highly centralized states.\" Most of the cases people have raised here turn on the detection and discussion of polities. In some ways that's a bias of the evidence we have--central authorities leave behind quite a mark--and some of it is the bias of the era of the nation-state in which history matured as a discipline. The reality is kind of different, and honestly I think is even more interesting.\n\nIf we consider \"stability\" as \"security and relative freedom or autonomy\" then there are a *lot* of societies that were stable for a very, very long time. Ibo society in southeastern Nigeria, for example, had no defined state structure, but was remarkably robust until the era of the Atlantic Slave Trade when they became a target. Even so, they recovered relatively well, and the British had a terrible time trying to impose some semblance of colonial rule over them (see Achebe's *Arrow of God* for a readable fictionalized account of the problems of this). African societies drew enormous power from *decentralization* and systems of obligation, responsibility, and association that were not the kind of statist formations we usually hunt for. \n\nEven states that developed did so out of these kinds of networks: Mali, for example, could coerce but if you read the *Epic of Sundjata* you see a tremendous amount of voluntarism, and once the need to work in tandem fell apart, so did the state. Gao (Songhai) promised more, and could mobilize more force; but when the gold stopped flowing, one good thwack from Morocco caused that state's tributary and client networks to scatter too. The Zimbabwe state? Cattle, man. Exchange and accumulation of cattle, driving stratification that expressed heavily via trade, built those states. When the source of wealth came under contest and the land did not produce, the state sort of dissolved, with some parts connecting to Torwa and the Mutapa state taking over the intermediary role. No wholesale population transfer happened, nor was it ever necessary. [edit: A counterpoint is Meroe, but that's because they denuded the hell out of that land and left piles of slag everywhere. But that's an environmental collapse and population transfer, which is a different case. Merchants did move to Aksum and other such sites.]\n\nThese people didn't die or \"destabilize\" in their own communities, nor did their communities become unstable necessarily. They reconfigured around new centers. In some ways, African societies were the epitome of stability, if you are willing to consider the flexibility and inventiveness that so many had as a way to manage change and challenge. John Iliffe's *Africans* talks about these matters, and the relative adaptability of African small-scale formations; it's an interesting read, to say the least. If there's anything that was destabilizing it was the massive transformation in labor and commerce that accompanied European trade and global markets, but then, an awful lot of regions (including parts of Europe) had a tough time with that entire era. \n\n[edit: I see others have been considering \"African nations\" as stable or unstable; my tl,dr here is that **adjudging the \"stability\" of African political formations in the precolonial era by the measure of the nation-state is unreasonable; instability in later eras in part may come from the grafting of the nation-state atop very different ideas of belonging and authority.**]",
"You should read *Things Fall Apart* by Chinua Achebe (Who just died too). The story follows a prominent African tribal leader in Southern Nigeriafrom before colonization to the introduction of British religion and later government in the early 1900s. Achebe wrote it in protest to British colonization in 1959, and the British gave independence to Nigeria in 1960. It was a great read, and a great insight into the tribal culture of the Ibo before colonization. ",
"May I suggest reading the biography of Equiano, it's the first written account by an African (ie; black person) about what life was like in Africa during the slave trade. The first part covers life in Africa and the rest details his experiences as a slave in America. Just paraphrasing here but I remember him going into detail about how cleanliness was stressed, how they would always wash up before meals. He also notes how appalled he was at how unclean and unsanitary the people he encountered in North America were. \n\nThe biography also notes that slaves existed in Africa however not in the same way that they did in North America at the time. I believe that slaves were treated similarly to those during ancient Greek times. He also goes into detail about the culture and other facts of life for Africans at the time. It is a really interesting piece of literature with the first half focusing more on detail (life in Africa) while the second focuses more on the Equiano himself. The biography is both informative and entertaining and it lead to the abolishment of slavery in the West Indies, check it out! "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/t8g72/why_is_africa_not_as_developed_as_the_other/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7lyyol
|
why are some acids such as hydrofluoric acid and hcl so good at dissolving solids on contact? what causes this?
|
I have basic Chem 1 knowledge behind me but I still don’t see how a solution can simply eat through something on contact. What is happening here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7lyyol/eli5_why_are_some_acids_such_as_hydrofluoric_acid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drqal2p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most of the time, the behavior of acids depends on two things: the strength of the acid and what the anion of the acid is (as an example, the anion in HCl is Cl^- because dissolving HCl will give H3O^+ ions and Cl^- ion).\n\nHydrofluoric acid is an odd one. Unlike all of the other halogenic acids (HCl, HBr, HI), HF is a weak acid; this is because the fluoride anion has a very high affinity for electrons and will hold on to any it can get a hold of. So this means that HF eats through materials because of the fluoride anion. Fluorine is the most reactive element, so as an ion, it will always find ways to be more stable; this means that it is willing to eat through glass (to form fluorine-silicon bonds), plastic (to form fluorine-carbon bonds) and even human bone (to form fluorine-calcium bonds; a small amount of HF on your skin can give you a heart attack because of this). \n\nAs for HCl, things are a little bit different. Chlorine, while electronegative (having an affinity for electrons), is not as insane as fluorine; unlike fluorine, chloride anions are able to remain stable in an acidic solution and have no desire to bond with literally anything around like them, unlike its crazy brother fluorine. This means that HCl is reactive because it is a strong acid; this means that all of the H-Cl bonds break apart in water, so you have a glass of hydronium (H3O^+ , which makes an acid acidic), water, and chloride anions. Because billions of chloride anions are available to react, they can readily attack anything which will allow the chloride to obtain a lower energy level; a common example is magnesium. All of the chloride anions will readily react with magnesium, and because there is so much chlorine, the acid will eat through the metal like it's nothing.\n\nI hope this answered your question. Please let me know otherwise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fa9fv1
|
why does it feels sometimes that by laying down on your back will help to relief a hiccup ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fa9fv1/eli5_why_does_it_feels_sometimes_that_by_laying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fiwp8s6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hiccups are the result of a irritation of the diaphragm, Its a membrane/muscle below your lungs which causes air pressure in the area around the lungs to rise and decrease by moving, causing your lungs to take in and push out air. \n\nby lying down you´re relaxing it a bit, so in some cases it can ease hiccups, but it depends on whats irritating the diaphragm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8e03s8
|
Did Christianity really hold back knowledge hundreds of years?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8e03s8/did_christianity_really_hold_back_knowledge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxrbs4q",
"dxrxckp"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Not to forestall further responses - espeically because this doesn't deal with the advancement of Japan and South Korea - but there's a good answer in our [Science and Health FAQ](_URL_0_) by /u/restricteddata: to this question: [Did the Catholic Church hold back scientific and technological progress in the Middle Ages?](_URL_1_)",
"I've answered this question before [here](_URL_0_). Well, that links to two links to previous answers anyway.\n\nFor what it's worth, advanced technological development in South Korea is largely a phenomenon that has occurred since the Korean War in the 1950s. Before and during that conflict, Korea was largely dirt-poor and intensely agrarian."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/science",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/67pwj9/did_the_catholic_church_hold_back_scientific_and/dgsfsvl/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7mrhdy/z/drw7poy"
]
] |
|
2kuu9e
|
How do computers handle extremely large numbers or irrational numbers to a large decimal place?
|
I've written a little program in C as a learning exercise to check if a number is a prime or not, and it works well for any number up to 64 bits (0 to 2^64 -1) which is a max of only 20 digits. Although this is a large number, prime numbers to the order of 17 million digits have been confirmed. Similarly, Pi has been calculated to 12 trillion digits!
I know both of these feats take a huge amount of processing power to complete in any sort of reasonable time-frame, but what is the logic & math behind splitting up this calculation into smaller chunks that a 64bit cpu can handle?
Thank you
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2kuu9e/how_do_computers_handle_extremely_large_numbers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clpng36",
"clp0r79",
"clp2v9e"
],
"score": [
2,
42,
2
],
"text": [
"Floating point numbers are used to represent large numbers efficiently, but imprecisely. This is usually what is used if you create a \"float\" or \"double\" in C: _URL_0_\n\n\n\nIf you need large numbers with arbitrary precision, then you'll need to use a library that will store the entire precision required and use integer arithmetic with defined rounding rules like Java's BigDecimal or Python's Decimal. Because they are precise, these libraries will be slower with large precision.\n\nFloating point is like a compressed mp3, while precise arithmetic is like a loseless audio format.",
"Let's add two 128-bit integers. A 128-bit integer can be uniquely written in what is essentially base 2^64 in this way:\n\n*x* = 2^(64) *x**_1_* + *x**_2_* \n*y* = 2^(64) *y**_1_* + *y**_2_*\n\nWhen you add them, you get this:\n\n*x* + *y* = 2^(64) (*x**_1_* + *y**_1_*) + (*x**_2_* + *y**_2_*)\n\nSo to add them together you add up each element, being careful to transfer the overflow from each to the next. [See here for an example](_URL_0_).\n\nMultiplication works similarly.\n\n*xy* = 2^(128) (*x**_1_* *y**_1_*) + 2^(64) (*x**_1_* *y**_2_* + *x**_2_* *y**_1_*) + (*x**_2_* *y**_2_*)\n\nSo there's really no magic going on here. You just stack together smaller integers in an array to make up your big one, and implement addition and multiplication accordingly.\n\nFor floats, numbers are stored with a mantissa and an exponent. Here, the mantissa is to be interpreted as a number between 0.5 and 1. Note that you can always add one to the exponent and divide the mantissa by two, or vice versa, without changing the value of the number, so that this condition can always be enforced (overflow notwithstanding).\n\n*x* = 2^(*x**_e_*) *x**_m_* \n*y* = 2^(*y**_e_*) *y**_m_*\n\nMultiplication is especially easy.\n\n*x* *y* = 2^(*x**_e_* + *y**_e_*) *x**_m_* *y**_m_*\n\nFor addition, you usually have to modify one of the numbers so that they both have the same exponent (this is a typical source of numerical error, since you can lose some of the least significant digits in the mantissa), so that you can do this.\n\n*x* + *y* = 2^(*x**_e_*) (*x**_m_* + *y**_m_*)\n\nThat's basically how it all works. If you're interested in trying in C I can recommend [GMP](_URL_1_). It's likely more optimized than what you can produce on your own. It's a fun exercise to try to compute a billion digits of pi, say.",
"To provide some background to how most computers handle Pi, as a number with a theoretical endless sequence of non-repeating digits, it cannot easily be compressed, but it can be stored to a decent amount of precision in the runtime's memory. The language approximates the number the same way calculators approximate numbers, by limiting the precision, and then configures the output to display less decimal numbers than what the language is capable off. This hides any rounding of calculations. To understand this concept, I'll give an example in a theoretical programming language that displays a maximum of 3 decimal points.\n\nYou calculate 1 divided by 3\n\nWhat you see is 0.333, but the program is computing round(0.3333)\n\nThen you multiply by 3\n\nWhat you see is 1.000, but the program is computing round(0.9999)\n\n\nWe can do the same with Pi\n\n1/3.1415\n\nDisplays 0.318, output round(0.3183)\n\n0.3183 * 3.1415\n\nDisplays 1.000, output round(0.9999)\n\nSo we only ever used 4 decimals for Pi, but by limiting the precision we can fool the user into assuming accuracy. The problem is over longer calculations this margin of error will creep in and what should be 1 eventually becomes 0.9994, so when rounded to 0.999 the illusion is broken. Likewise if you used Pi to calculate the area of several pieces of a circle and then summed them to see if they match the the whole area, you may find the margin of error has also crept in.\n\nProgrammers can get around the margin of error by simplying the calculations so that Pi is referenced as few times as possible, but when passing values between functions this can become infeasible. The programmer might then write a checking function to manually override the value if the sum of the parts are less than the whole."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_floating_point"
],
[
"http://stackoverflow.com/questions/741301/how-can-i-add-and-subtract-128-bit-integers-in-c-or-c",
"https://gmplib.org/"
],
[]
] |
|
1n5s0k
|
Has the human penis grown larger over time due to natural selection?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1n5s0k/has_the_human_penis_grown_larger_over_time_due_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccfpms2",
"ccfqci3",
"ccfqd17",
"ccfsqi2",
"ccfum8a",
"ccfv22b",
"ccfw5fs",
"ccfwenh",
"ccfxgfr",
"ccfxxbc",
"ccfyg6e",
"ccfz0wg",
"ccfz1vb"
],
"score": [
491,
82,
19,
46,
7,
2,
7,
5,
2,
7,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nFetal androgen ratios cause penis size differences. There could be several reasons (aside from penis size) that these androgen ratio differences occur. In other words, human larger penises (relative to other primates) could be a side effect, and not necessarily occur from female selection. ",
" > The researchers believe that the relatively long phallus of Homo sapiens, which is far larger than it needs to be to perform its essential biological role, is in fact the result of many generations of prehistoric women choosing well-endowed men.\n\n\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBut it is important to remember that humans are also extremely complex and select for various other traits. Musical taste can be a factor in mate selection \n\n_URL_1_\n\nSo yes, the penis is longer than it needs to be but evolution doesn't work in a thought out logical manner. Things happen\n\nEdited",
"One of the interesting pressures on size is that species who tend to have consensual sex tend to have smaller equipment than those who specialize in the special involuntary hug. \n\nDucks, for example, don't really do consensual sex, and their reproductive equipment is proportionately gigantic. The same is true in many places throughout the animal kingdom: the only reason for selection to apply to increased length is if it actually makes it more likely that you'll have offspring.\n\nWith humans, it doesn't usually work that way. We're generally monogamous, so there is (usually =P) no sperm competition, so size doesn't help there. We're not a rapey species, by the standards of the animal kingdom, so length doesn't help there. It may work for display (at least before the advent of clothing) but women seem to tend to be willing to settle for less than 10 inches, so that's not a big upward pressure.\n\nOn the other hand, by the standards of other primates, we have HUGE junk (gorillas tend to be in the 1-2 inch range, for example). They do still have the penile bone (which we have lost), and they actually tend to have more sexual competition than we do, so perhaps length pressure is not as important for primates as other species?",
"Here's the difficulty in figuring this out; we, as a species, don't have an os penis. That's a penis bone, found in most mammal species, but not ours because hydraulics with the corpus cavernosum is what worked for our ancestors' erections. \n\n\nSo, unlike walrus fossils, we can't look at preserved remains and say \"ah, the os penis is (bigger/smaller/the same) in this specimen vs modern humans, so there seems to be a _______ trend. \"\n\nUnfortunately, we're stuck with speculation.\n\nHonestly, there's a lot of interesting bioengineering that has gone into reproductive organs; given that the average penis is about 5\", that's really enough. \n\nNow, give me a wicked, intelligent, challenging brain? That's the dealmaker. \n\nYou can't hold a conversation with a penis. A penis won't play you music, or rub your feet, or bring you flowers. \n\nThe human male is so much more than their penis size. \nWe've been social animals for such a long time, so I'm pretty sure that our female ancestors valued the artists, musicians, hunters, and craftsmen from way back as well, regardless of the size of their penis. \n\nEdit: spelling and punctuation\n",
"The honest and most factual answer is that we'll never know. Does anyone know the average penis size 5000 years ago? How about the average size today? Sure we can speculate and estimate but we'll never know for a fact... that is without raw data. I mean, what was the last sizing survey you've been in? Most of us haven't been involved in one yet these averages still exist which I'd imagine are extremely skewed and based on a small handful of individuals. \n\nAgain, the best we have is speculation. Today we can certainly poll and measure individuals, but I'd imagine only the individuals with a larger package would show up. As for the past, the best we have is speculation (again). We can look at art, paintings, Michelangelo's David - most of which point to a smaller penis but that doesn't really give us concrete data either. Also, it was the alpha male that got the girl, the girl never really got to choose back in the day nor did she have the information/communication about size. \n\nFinally, what's interesting to note is that penis size may not only be based on genetics but environmental factors as well - diet, health, culture, pollution, radiation, etc so if anything, I'd say it is probably declining in size. \n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_",
"Penis size and shape seem to have a lot of contributing factors, however sperm size and shape have certainly been influenced by natural selection specifically within polyamorous species such as mice which have hooked heads to help gain advantage over other competing male sperm.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I recall reading a very unique (and compelling) theory about why humans developed larger penises. I apologize that I don't have a link to cite, but I bet a good google search would come up with some sources (I can't right now- I'm at work and would prefer not to have penis articles all over my monitors).\n\nIt's theorized that human sex organs originally grew large in order to help us visually identify individual humans' sex (male vs female) from a distance.\n\nEarly *homo* social dynamics may have been such that most males seeking to mate had to travel far from their home tribe/clan/peer group and essentially go \"hunting\" for mating opportunities. (say for instance if early proto-human social groups were too closely related to avoid inbreeding, or if one dominant male typically monopolized mating rights, forcing the others to seek elsewhere).\n\nUnfortunately, prowling the savanna in search of some good times would necessarily often bring you into contact with other *males*, which would probably be bad news for both parties involved because of the likely resultant conflict. Therefore it would be a benefit for both males to be able to identify each other from a considerable distance so that there would be no territorial encroachment. \n\nWithout our absurdly large, almost caricatural sex organs (penises, breasts), it would be rather difficult to differentiate between a human male and a human female from a distance, since our sizes and silhouettes are more or less identical. ",
"I wouldn't say due to natural selection. Darwin espoused two views, evolution is a function of natural selection and the lesser known sexual selection. I think you can see where this is going. Sexual selection often accounts for things that are otherwise unexplainable. Like the peacock tail and our sense of humor (as espoused in the mating mind by Geoffrey Miller, which I mostly hated but got several things right). Sexual selection can run dangerously counter to natural selection. There's some breed of prehistoric elk that ended up going extinct. Running theory is because of runaway sexual selection such that the females preferred large antlers so much that the males quickly found themselves unable to escape into the trees. \n\nFor dangerous sexual selection to really work though, the trait has to run an interesting course of being just barely too costly. The trait still has to be survivable enough to propagate through the males but right on the edge of being too difficult. That's an interesting thought! Thanks for this forum, I wouldn't have had the thought sans forum. :D I'd cite sources better but I'm lazy and all my papers are horribly disorganized at the moment. I'd love something more recent than the Mating Mind though! ",
"Penis size and elaboration is generally related to sperm competition. The size and mushroom shaped head of our penises, combined with the uniquely mammal act of thrusting, are perfect for forcing out semen that is already present in the vaginal canal. That means that in human history, it is likely that females would generally copulate with multiple males.\n\nOur penises are still far larger relative to body size than any other primate that has sperm competition. One theory explaining this additional elaboration is that the switch to bipedalism made face-to-face mating the norm, thus making the smaller penises less effective (because in missionary position the same depth as doggy-style is not reached). The larger penises then had more success.",
"OP, your question is made with the assumption that female humans choose their mate based on their penis size. Unless there is supporting data on this (there isn't because that's now how we choose who we have sex with) then your question is not well thought out.",
"Gotta dig up the source, but remember reading that there was also a hypothesized selection for *smaller* penises as in evolutionary times there was hardly an age of consent: Men in a tribe with particularly large penises had a higher risk of critically damaging the uteri of their (underage) sexual partners, leading to less overall fertility in such tribes.\n",
"Did boobs become bigger over time?",
"When they do these 'studies' of penis size do they measure when flaccid or erect? Or probably both? \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23569219"
],
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/size-really-does-matter-homo-sapiens-larger-than-necessary-penis-may-have-evolved-through-natural-selection-by-prehistoric-women-8565003.html",
"http://crx.sagepub.com/content/16/2/263.short"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280349/",
"http://discovermagazine.com/1996/sep/hormonehell865/#.UkRiMRAv5Tk"
],
[
"http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000170"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
105uf2
|
What is this expanding ring captured by doppler radar today over the Florida Everglades?
|
I saved a couple of animated gifs from the [NWS Miami-South Florida Forecast Office site](_URL_0_) that show an expanding ring around a storm over the Everglades. The 2 images are below. They include the local date and time of each frames in the upper right corner. Together they cover about 1 hour:
_URL_2_
_URL_1_
Can someone explain what this might have been?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/105uf2/what_is_this_expanding_ring_captured_by_doppler/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ansgs"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"What you are looking at is an outflow boundary from a dying thunderstorm complex. And an excellent example at that!\n\nThe first thing you need to know to understand this phenomenon is the life cycle of a typical summer thunderstorm. There are several types of thunderstorms: this variety is known as a \"Pulse Thunderstorm\" or \"Air Mass Thunderstorm\", and is the most common variety in tropical regions (such as Florida in summer). The life cycle is shown quite nicely on [this page](_URL_0_). Warm, unstable air rises, forming an updraft. This rising air cools, producing clouds and eventually rain. In the process of forming rain, the air cools even further, which makes the air much denser. Eventually this dense air counteracts the warm, unstable air rising into the storm, and falls as a downdraft, which chokes off the updraft, killing the storm.\n\nThe second thing you must know is how downdrafts evolve. When a downdraft hits the ground, it doesn't just stop. The air has built up quite a bit of momentum, so it will spread out in a thin layer along the surface in all directions. Large air masses do not mix very quickly, so this cooler, denser air will spread out almost like a puddle of water, pushing the warmer, less dense air upwards. Since the cool air is spreading outward into an area of stationary air, at the boundary there will be a large amount of *convergence*, which is a scientific way of saying winds coming together (the opposite would be *divergence, which is winds spreading apart).\n\nThe final thing you need to know is that weather radars do not just return signals from precipitation like snow and rain (although they are tuned so that they do this as well as possible); they return echos from dust, bugs, birds, planes, and even mountains. This is actually a helpful feature sometimes: when there is an area of strong *convergence*, dust and flying bugs are blown towards each other, and show up on radar as a thin band.\n\nNow that you know all this, your radar loops tell a nice story: An initial thunderstorm formed about halfway between Everglades City and Miami, and has already begun dying by the time the first loop begins. The downdraft from this dying storm is spreading out in all directions, as the rain from the initial storm dies down. \n\n**tl;dr: The expanding ring is a boundary formed by a dying storm's downdraft; it shows up on radar due to bugs.**"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mfl/",
"http://i.imgur.com/5hlEC.gif",
"http://i.imgur.com/6kdCx.gif"
] |
[
[
"http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/~wintelsw/MET1010LOL/web/notes/chapter11/airmass.html"
]
] |
|
8icuuq
|
why does classical music have such an effect on us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8icuuq/eli5_why_does_classical_music_have_such_an_effect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyqryu7",
"dyqscn9",
"dyqtbpc"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Modern day music is made to sell, classical music is made to experience. But to get realy into it youtube 432hz classic music. Believe or not thats up to you. Yes its a conspiracy, no i don't believe all of it. Yes it works. ",
"Someone told me that music activates certain areas (like mood) in the brain. You will feel the difference by listening to Rock or Hiphop. You get in different moods. So i guess listening to certain classic music lets you calm down.",
"Sometimes classical music is played in public areas to discourage young people from loitering at the location. Young people are more likely to commit crimes and be a nuisance. Less young people equals less crime."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4b7uph
|
what do websites have to gain by making their visitors annoyed (from excessive popups/poor formatting/etc) to the point that they leave and never come back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b7uph/eli5_what_do_websites_have_to_gain_by_making/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d16soix",
"d172wkc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They can't attribute the lost visits to the ads. They're not trying to make a site that produces value. They're focused on \"making money.\" \n\nI work in tech. Far too few people understand that you can't make money if you don't produce value first. Many think it's the other way around.",
"I think you may be talking about a specific type of site. They're not actually trying to provide value and they know you'll never come back. I'll simplify the numbers here but the obtrusive ads and sheer volume of them mean they get paid 2 cents in total for the page view where you saw the ads. \n\nThey paid 1 cent (directly and indirectly) to get you to view that page (leaving aside those listicles where you have to click through to a new page to see the next item in the list). They made 1 cent (revenue less cost) on your visit. \n\nThey repeat this a million times and presto, they've got $10k profit. Rinse and repeat. \n\nThey don't bother trying to keep you there by providing value because that increases their costs significantly. Once you're at the page and the ads are loaded, the content doesn't have to be useful or interesting at all. They've made their money from you and that single pageview was all they wanted. \n\nThis is basically Web spam. There's different variations of this but this is the most basic. An arbitrage of sorts. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
29uxcs
|
in animated shows, why is the object that the character is about to interact with look different than the background objects?
|
When I was younger and watched a lot more animated cartoons, I could always tell what object the character was about to interact with next, even before they were in-frame, because that particular object was normally a different (oftentimes brighter) shade of color than the background objects. This difference could even be seen in other stationary objects that were placed *around* the object in question. Does anybody have an explanation for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29uxcs/eli5_in_animated_shows_why_is_the_object_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciopxgg",
"cioupzc"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Because rather than re-animate the background for every frame, the foreground objects are animated separately and placed on the stationary background. \n\nThat's why you can always see what Bugs Bunny is about to do to Daffy Duck before it happens. ",
"It also has to do with complexity of the object.\n\nYou can 'realistically paint' a rock that Wile E Coyote is about to pass when chasing the Roadrunner because that rock is a static image. It might move as the animation occurs, but it's just sliding around without getting repainted.\n\nNow Wile E Coyote slams into the rock and it cracks into pieces over four seconds. Suddenly one painted rock is thirty or forty frames of rock that change every fraction of a second, and you have to paint it thirty or forty times. So you don't make it complex, filling it instead with a simple single colour so it doesn't look like it will \"wiggle\" all over the place while it's cracking because it's so complex and every detail isn't the same from frame to frame.\n\nSo, objects that will be interacted with are often extremely simple and monocolor for that reason."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
i8oog
|
What is better for the environment - a paperless digital world or a paper only gadget free world?
|
I had a big argument with my GF about this. Being a geek in an office I was arguing that it would be better for the environment if everyone had some kind of tablet gadget and we ditched paper. I see massive paper wastage, and the energy required to produce and truck around information on paper is huge. She, being a bit of a hippy, thinks that producing electronics involves far nastier toxic chemicals. Paper can be easily recycled whilst gadgets are usually far harder to do so. Plus the energy required to run such gadgets is far higher.
What say you Reddit?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i8oog/what_is_better_for_the_environment_a_paperless/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c21t2qk",
"c21t48q"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Both suck for the environment. \n\nLogging while much more friendly recently is still a dirty business.\nI do not recall how much of our wood comes from tree farms, but it is still most likely not the majority yet. (Significant percent though, in the tens)\n\nHowever, the production of paper, or pulp mills is often a heavily chemical intensive and energy intensive process. Pulp mills are just like any other mass industrial process and pollutes a fair amount.\n\nRecycling isn't much better as it is also a chemically intensive process which creates a lot of waste.\n\nElectronic production pollutes plenty also. First you have to mine the materials (metals) and drill for your plastic (oil). The processing involved for the mythrid of products is often extremely dirty too, again like any mass industrial process. As far as electronics go, we can't grow more lithium and it is going to hurt us, badly.\n\nWhile one being better than the other? I don't know. I haven't tried to look into it, but I'm fairly sure there lies a happy middle somewhere with both tools. I just want you to understand that both processes are extremely complex industries with tons of waste to deal with either way.\n\n*Note: I'm using pollution and waste interchangeably.",
"As AsAChemicalEngineer said - they're both very nasty to the environment, but I believe that once you manufacture an electronic device, you only need power to keep it running.\n\nAnd unlike production and recycling of paper, we can make energy production clean.\n\nSo, in the long run digital stuff > paper."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2kr92b
|
For what reasons was Christianity so appealing to many South Asian, East Asian, and Sub-Saharan African people in the 20th century?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kr92b/for_what_reasons_was_christianity_so_appealing_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clo36qb"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Just a sidenote: I made my graduation and master degree about jesuits in Japan and how the perspective of death changed for the converted christians. Readint the missivas - the jesuit letters - I found a lot, really a lot, of japanese who converted for the sake of eat meat. Yes, cow meat. Jesuits had a big impact on the japanese cousine, like Kasutera (castle, a kind of bread) and Tempura (tempero - salt and the kinds), adding meat on local dishes. \n(Sorry for any mistakes, not a native english speaker)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2qyzqi
|
How large is the largest possible moon that a planet could have?
|
Assume the planet is earth, or not earth I don't care. what's the largest possible moon the planet could have? largeness is the percentage of the planet's sky it takes up, not mass or absolute size of the moon. Is it 100%? I'm interested in single moon and multiple moon situations if that makes a difference, maybe it won't I don't know.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2qyzqi/how_large_is_the_largest_possible_moon_that_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnbee3m"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" \"largeness is the percentage of the planet's sky it takes up, not mass or absolute size of the moon.\"\n\nI think you mean what is called the angular diameter of the moon. That is determined by how far the moon is from the person looking at it and the physical size of the moon.\n\nOur own moon would appear bigger if it were closer to Earth. But not too close, if it gets too close the gravity from Earth would tear it apart. The distance this would happen at is called the Roche limit.\n\nPlugging in a few numbers quickly suggests that an angular diameter of sufficient magnitude to nearly fill the sky would exceed the Roche limit, and thus any moon would break apart in this scenario, likely forming something like rings and lots of craters on the surface of the planet. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9g7up8
|
how come newer phones only have hybrid sim (sim+sim or sim+sd card) when old phpnes were able to have 2 sim slots and a micro sd slot?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9g7up8/eli5_how_come_newer_phones_only_have_hybrid_sim/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e624ti7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Space is at an ultra premium in newer generations of phones, the less they have to deal with for stuff like this, the better they can design the phone. Adding more slots and sizes and places a user needs to interact with the external portion of a phone drastically alters their design ability. In a perfect world, we’d want NO slots or removable stuff at all for optimal designs. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7hr1f7
|
How did they make wine and beer before retail disinfectants?
|
I've been checking out home brewing and winemaking videos on youtube, and all of them stress the importance of disinfecting all of your equipment and work stations before production. All of them also use fancy non-rinse disinfectants that I assume are recent inventions.
Did winemakers disinfect their equipment before we figured out what bacteria was? And what did they do to prep their equipment?
Edit: thanks for the replies! Learned disinfecting and sanitizing are two different things, and that this sub cites some pretty sick sources!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7hr1f7/how_did_they_make_wine_and_beer_before_retail/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqtf8zf",
"dqthonl"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Brewers did not disinfect anything until at the very least the early XIX c. František Ondřej Poupě, a Czech brewmaster, was one of the first to take a scientific approach to brewing in his book Umění vařit pivo fyzicko-chemicko-hospodářsky popsané (The Art of Beer Brewing - A Physico-chemical Economic Description), published in the late XVIII c.. It mentioned the importance of sanitation, but it failed to capture the imagination of his colleagues at the time, something that greatly disappointed Poupě.\n\nBefore that, once the brewing proper was finished, brewers could only hope for the best. To prevent infections, they used a host of herbs and other ingredients, of which hops would ultimately come out as the standard. And still, infections with lactobacillus and other bugs, plus other defects caused by improper temperature control, etc. were par for the course. \n\nAnother way to prevent, or at least, minimize those problems, was brewing during cooler months. In most countries, the brewing season started somewhere by the end of September or in October and would finish in April or May. That is because many of the bugs that can fuck up your beer are inactive at cold temperatures. This is the reason why lager so popular and widespread once reliable refrigeration systems were developed in the late XIX c.\n\nIn any case, even the most terribly infected beer is safe to drink. Yeasts and other microorganisms that convert sugar are very picky with their environment, and if fermentation takes place, you can be pretty sure the end product will be safe to drink, whether it will taste good or not, that's another question, but I guess our forefathers were used to different standards.",
" > Did winemakers disinfect their equipment before we figured out what bacteria was?\n\nFirst a bit pedantic nuance: winemakers realistically aim to sanitize their equipment not fully disinfect. Disinfection (fully killing all yeast and bacteria) outside of laboratory conditions and without bleach otherwise is not really a realistic possibility. Bleach can not be used because it causes \"corked\" aromas and flavors in wine.\n\nAnyway, being clean is and was very important in winemaking. Most wine until extremely recently (and still to a large extent) was meant to be drunk soon after it was vinified so as long as you keep your winemaking equipment clean and drink the wine quickly, you stand a good chance of not having spoilage. Of course it was a possibility anyway and thats why winemakers later turned to so2 as a preservative and sanitizer but most wine would be ok with good practices.\n\nAfter vinification, an important strategy in preserving the wine from microbial spoilage was storing it in vases and wooden barrels that were lined by pitch (burnt wood resin).\n\nFor a historical example of the importance of cleanliness and preserving wine we can look to Columella (c. 70 AD) who was the most important writer on agriculture during the Roman empire. He wrote alot about winemaking and viticulture and he had commented on the importance of cleanliness. Here is a quote from *Wine and the Vine* by Tim Unwin:\n\n > The importance of cleanliness is stressed throughout Columella's writings on vinification, and he advocated the fumigation of wine cellars before the grapes were harvested (XII. xviii. 3). The must was to be pressed, and then stored in jars which had been lined with pitch. Interestingly Columella comments that in order to preserve the wine some people boiled the must, thus reducing its quantity by up to onethird or even one-half (XII. xix. 1), but ideally he recommends that the best wines should have no preservatives added to them 'for that wine is most excellent which has given pleasure by its own natural quality' (XII. xix. 2; Columella, 1955:229). Other popular methods of preserving musts and wine were through the addition of pitch (XII. xxii–xxiv), and, following the method used by most Greeks, through mixing it with salt or sea-water (XII. xxv). These practices recommended by Columella illustrate that by the first century AD Roman viticulture was highly developed, and most of the practices other than the concoction of various medicinal wines and the methods of wine preservation, that were then current may still be found in use today.\n\nEDIT: I should note that there is some evidence that so2 was also used some in the times of antiquity as well, but its unlikely its use as as ubiquitous as it is now."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2blhzo
|
stephen hawking's theory of imaginary time
|
I've read that imaginary time can be imagined as an axis perpendicular to the axis of real time, but I have no idea what that means.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2blhzo/eli5_stephen_hawkings_theory_of_imaginary_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj6hc0x",
"cj6jrf5"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"LI5: In a black hole and the Big Bang, everything is squished down to zero size. But this doesn't make sense and makes it impossible for physicists to work out what is going on in that situation. Imaginary time is a way of getting around this by treating time as having two dimensions instead of the one dimension we are used to. (There is nothing \"imaginary\" about this second dimension of time - it's just a word that physicists [and mathematicians] use to mean, at its most basic, \"in a direction at right angles to the direction we are used to\".)",
"Do you know Pythagoras's Theorem, c^2 = a^2 + b^(2)? Well, it turns out that's is just a specific application of the distance formula in 3D space. Generally, if a point has coordinates (X, Y, Z), then its distance from the origin, the point (0, 0, 0), is D^2 = X^2 + Y^2 + Z^(2).\n\nOk, now let's go to relativity. Instead of points in space, we have events in spacetime. If an event has coordinates (T, X, Y, Z), then its spacetime interval distance is S^2 = -T^2 + X^2 + Y^2 +Z^(2). Notice the negative sign for the time component. The sign difference between space and time is crucial for all the weird things that happen in relativity.\n\nBut suppose we invent a new variable t that is related to the old T by T = it, where i is the imaginary unit. Then T^2 = (i)^2 t^2 = -t^(2). So the spacetime interval becomes S^2 = t^2 + X^2 + Y^2 + Z^(2). All the signs are the same!\n\nBy using imaginary time, you convert the time dimension into a space dimension *indistinguishable* from the other spatial dimensions. So spacetime becomes a 4D space. This allow us to study spacetime as a pure geometric object.\n\nWhy is this useful? Well, for starters, it eliminates the question of \"what happened before the Big Bang?\" Let's suppose that after transforming spacetime into a geometric spatial object, you get a sphere. So the time dimension becomes just a space dimension on the sphere, say, the direction of north-south. Asking what happened before the beginning of time is thus like asking what's north of the north pole! \n\n(For simplicity, I assumed the speed of light is equal to 1 in this post.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2d0osv
|
What is the chemical(s) in the numbing anesthesia that dentists use, and how does it work?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2d0osv/what_is_the_chemicals_in_the_numbing_anesthesia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjl3tvf",
"cjl4ad5"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The most common anesthetics are Novocain and Lidocaine. Nerves send their signals by becoming positively charged and sending that current (action potential) down the nerve. These signals eventually reach the brain and we sense things like pain. Novocain and Lidocaine stop sodium ion channels that let in positively charged ions into the nerve from working. Without the positive sodium ions entering the nerve a positive charge can not be achieved and the signals are silenced. This results in the numbing one feels when these drugs are administered. ",
"The chemicals used by the dentist for numbing are local anesthestics which fall into two chemical categories bases on their structure: esters and amides. I think dentist primarily use lidocaine now, though procaine (aka novocaine) was used more in the past. Local anesthetics work by crossing into nerve cells near where they are injected and blocking the sodium channels. Blocking the sodium channels prevents the nerve from \"firing\" or sending a signal along itself and then to the next nerve cell all the way up to the brain to relay information. In this case the nerve cell doesn't fire and the brain never gets the signal that there is pain in the area that the local anesthesia was injected."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1fuc5d
|
Which economic philosophers should I know about? any books I should read?
|
I'll be taking a class titled "history of economic thought" during Fall term this year, and I was thinking about getting some reading done ahead of time/beyond the assigned texts.
I've had this professor before for intro to econ and I've already read Heilbroner's "Worldly Philosophers". I thought the book did a good job for a entry level course, but I'm curious about more potential philosophies out there. In particular, are there any Middle Eastern or Asian economic philosophers I should concern myself with, contemporary or otherwise? Any obscure European or American philosophers that get passed over in favor of Keynes/Smith/Marx?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fuc5d/which_economic_philosophers_should_i_know_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cadvejx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The /r/ask_politics sub has a [book list](_URL_0_) that features a few economic theory books. Don't just look at the Economic Theory section either--check out the other political theory sections and the Federal Budget section."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/book_list"
]
] |
|
1mzdmt
|
If we can make false 3D images in the second dimension, can we make false 4D structures in the third dimension?
|
You can draw a cube on paper, even though it's not really a cube. Could you create a kind of structure that gives the illusion of four dimensions?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mzdmt/if_we_can_make_false_3d_images_in_the_second/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccedvof",
"ccet996"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, although you won't recognize it as such. Since your brain isn't wired to see things in 4D, it will just see a 3D object. Much like how a hypothetical flatlander, when faced with your 2D drawing of a cube, will not see a cube—rather, just ~~six~~ eight points connected by lines in a specific pattern.",
"Yes and no. As thebb said, you can make it, but you can't see it as 4d. Another problem is that you can't see in 3d either. The eye creates a 2d projection of the world, so a false 4d image would end up as a 2d projection of a 3d projection of a 4d object."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
15hxxw
|
The Seven Year's War had a theater in every continent and involved all of the major powers at the time -- why don't we refer to it as World War I?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15hxxw/the_seven_years_war_had_a_theater_in_every/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7mm3q7",
"c7mm7e9",
"c7mnim0",
"c7mnk73",
"c7mo1hw",
"c7mqgrz",
"c7mrpbb",
"c7n6jnv"
],
"score": [
451,
71,
5,
26,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The difference between WWI and WWII, and the Seven Years' War is mass conscription/mobilization and mechanization. These changes created wars that led to enormous loss of life and destruction, unlike anything in the past. Hence, you can understand why people previously called WWI the Great War or the war to end all wars. The 'democratization' of war, so to speak, really begins to take hold in the 19th century, after France notably employed the [*levée en masse*](_URL_1_) (basically large scale conscription of able bodied males) in the 1790s. Prior to this, war was relatively separate and disconnected from society, and not subject to popular political pressure--thus the demands on the population were smaller--which is why many states used mercenary forces to wage war in Europe prior to the 1800s. Literally, conflicts occurred with 10,000 Swiss troops battling 10,000 Swiss troops, each fighting for a different state. This means that, on par, war was less devastating since it was limited in scope and size.\n\nThe most direct answer to your question is that WWI was only named that later, and that the name is more a reflection of unprecedented destruction brought on by a geographically large conflict, which was compounded by the fact that mechanized warfare and large-scale mobilization of society, sometimes termed 'total war' (though this is a much more complex concept) created an unprecedented wave of destruction.\n\nEDIT: For a great book on how warfare changed over the centuries, see Charles Tilly, [*Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990-1992*](_URL_0_)",
"I think a lot of the reasons people refer to the two world wars from the twentieth century as World Wars has a lot to do with the idea of total war. Was as it was fought during the eighteenth century was dramatically different than war fought during the twentieth century. And, to a certain extant, war in the nineteenth century was the transforming ground. If you think especially on the Civil War where the United States is beginning to use not only new weapons but new forms of warfare. Two very good books that touch on different aspects of this are Royster's *The Destructive War* and Faust's *This Republic of Suffering*. Both of these books detail how war changed to ravage a country, think Sherman's March to the Sea and how a country in turn dealt with the death that occurred from this new type of warfare. You have old ways of fighting with new developments of technology.\n\nThis leads into World War I. World War I is a continuation of belligerents\nusing new technology to fight a war, except now it is on an international stage. Prior to 1914 the world was largely globalized, but most of the power was centered in Europe. There are a whole series of treaties before the war that forces many European countries into conflicts that none of them want. After the war starts, colonization means that countries like Great Britain can call on there reserves of troops in a way that was not done during the Seven Years War. The stories behind the mobilization of Indian troops as well as Australian and New Zealand troops are important to know, but the detail is not necessary for your answer. Suffice to say that they had their own needs and learned similar lessons from what it meant to help their \"Mother\" country. Yet, while all this is happening, there are new alliances being formed between the United States, France, and Great Britain, but for the United States to even think about getting into any kind of the negotiating power that existed between Great Britain and France (i.e. Sykes-Picot Agreement) the US needs to be in the war. Thus, Woodrow Wilson seeking ways to gain clout through combat. It works and because of the ravaging of Western Europe, America becomes an important world power with great influence in shaping the peace after the war. MacMillan's *Paris 1919* follows the story of Wilson, Clemenceau, and Lloyd George and the peace that followed. (I apologize if I gave too much information, and not enough at the same time, on The Great War). \n\nThere is a huge difference in how countries interact before, during, and after the war. Wilson's Fourteen Points and his desire for a League of Nations is important in driving the future of international diplomacy. It creates a, largely unsuccessful, grouping of nations designed to influence one another ethically on the world stage, but many of their early attempts at sanctions failed, because the United States was not a member and because the charter had no teeth. \n\nWar would continue to change in World War II. Unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot to offer here because my expertise comes close to nil during the second World War. But, an excellent look at how war changed in the twentieth century comes from Ferguson's *The War of the World*. Check out this book if you are interested in examining this idea in greater depth.\n\n**tl,dr: The world experienced a transformation from traditional rules of engagement into a new type of total war with newer technology and more powerful weapons while leading into World War I international diplomacy changed dramatically because of colonization prior to and during the war and the United States coming of age as a world power after the war.**",
"What theaters were there in Asia? I'm a bit ignorant on this topic. ",
"All of the major powers at the time? Did it involve China? (China was in an expansion phase but didn't become involved in the conflict; the \"Seven Year War\" refers to something else in Chinese history.) As for continents, I think the transfer of Sant-Louis in Senegal was the only major activity in Africa despite Ottoman suzerainty over the north clear to Algiers. Conflict in South America itself was also relatively limited in scope, and Australia/Antarctica, well...\n\nSo it was a war that had global events and activities, among powers that had global holdings, but it did not involve anything like the mass dislocations that would accompany the First World War. You might make a case that it was a world war on the basis of its powers' ability to travel on virtually every sea on Earth, but the only powers really involved were European with the local exceptions of the Mughals in South Asia and various Native American nations in North America who had their own reasons largely unrelated to the broader geopolitics internal to Europe. For the majority of human beings, the war did not affect them in any way because they did not mobilize for it. You'd have a far harder time saying that for the 1910s.\n\nEverything else I might add, rvn-drv already has touched on (and a lot else besides).",
"Because the term World War was thought up in 1911. ",
"It's just a name, not a definition. If anything, the 30 Years War would be World War 1.",
"Sadly, I can only quote wikipedia, but the article for [World War I](_URL_0_) and the separate article [World war](_URL_1_) both attribute the names of these wars to popular magazines: \"The Great War\" was coined by Maclean's magazine, and \"World War I\" by Time magazine. \n\nAs Zedvaint has pointed out, \n > It's just a name, not a definition\n\nAll of the responses that focus on the scale of the conflict ignore the role that popular media played in determining the names of these conflicts. The act of naming something is not a purely rational reaction to its features, but a separate historical act that can very well be arbitrary. Therefore, without evidence as to who named the conflict, I can't see how a person's answer is anything but baseless speculation.",
"For historical reasons. We refer to these wars mostly by the names that people used at the time or shortly after the war ended. World War was originally named as \"The World War\" or \"The War to End All Wars\", but those had to be hastily updated when World War II happened. \n\nThe Seven Year's war happened 150 years before, so no one saw any need to update the name. World War I also followed Metternich's Concert of Europe, so people were probably more accustomed to peace and felt war more abnormal at that time than they were in the mid 1700s.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=b1FzvFLSBBUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+tilly+coercion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y8XbUIfZO4Kq8ASMmYCYDQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levée_en_masse"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war"
],
[]
] |
||
39kf5y
|
What are some examples of Roman infantry tactics being countered effectively?
|
Roman infantry tactics are often perceived to be effective against all of their enemies. What are good examples of where the tactics they employed being nullified by their enemies?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39kf5y/what_are_some_examples_of_roman_infantry_tactics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs45jpg",
"cs4pyg0"
],
"score": [
22,
160
],
"text": [
"In what regard? Infantry vs infantry? Or just generally being outdone? Hannibal was able to nullify the Roman infantry on multiple occasions with different tactics, the Parthians destroyed Crassus' force with cavalry and archers, and 3 legions were destroyed at the Battle of Teutoberg forest (an ambush). So there are quite a few examples across different time periods to choose from! ",
"Heya! The thing is, with the Romans, you hear more about their victories, their conquests, and their fall. Learning about specific battles and wars, on the other hand, is something that most people have glossed over! There are a few fantastic examples, but I want to start off with a quick discussion of the strengths of the Roman military first. \n\nTheir tactics weren't their most effective weapon. Despite them being known for crushing their enemies on the battlefield, which was certainly partially due to a strong tactical advantage, there were a large number of other factors at play at the same time. Tactics were important for sure - the Romans were known for the flexibility of their legions, and their ability to respond to developments on the battlefield. For a quick example, the [Battle of Cynoscephalae](_URL_0_), where the Romans decisively crushed the Macedonians in the Second Macedonian War...all thanks to the quick thinking of a military tribune who noticed that there was an opening to hit the rear of Macedon's pike phalangites and took the initiative to lead Rome's reserves into that gap. \n\nNaah, I'd have to say that one of Rome's greatest military strengths was her incredible system of logistics, which enabled her to not only field vast armies at opposite corners of Europe, but also to do things such as conduct short campaigns in the winter (which was honestly unbelievable at that period of time - winter was when men returned to their homes). It was the basis of the Roman road system that they're so well known for today, and it was honestly the only reason that the Romans were able to administer an empire. \n\nFinally, the militarized nature of the Roman society was certainly key as well. The Romans, no matter their various setbacks, always came back up for another round. It's why they were able to subjugate the rest of Europe as they did; the Romans just did not know how to give up. While that did occasionally cause tensions in Rome and with the allied states that had to provide men for this proverbial meatgrinder, it was certainly a solid system throughout the Republic and the early Empire. \n\nThe next couple of posts will address your question more directly :) Give me just a bit and I'll add a part 2 - I'm having to cut it off a bit early due to time constraints, but I shall return!\n\n---\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cynoscephalae"
]
] |
|
2errrn
|
Are there any materials in this world that are impenetrable by gamma rays?
|
Is there anything on earth that gamma rays cannot pass through?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2errrn/are_there_any_materials_in_this_world_that_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck2fvgg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It all depends on thickness of the material. Air can effectively stop gamma rays from outer space. The 100 km of atmosphere make a very good shield. The Earth itself stops them. But if you are looking for a thin material, I would have to say no. Gamma rays are just high energy light and subject to the same Beer's law for absorptions, so some will get though for arbitrarily thin materials."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4zfjyb
|
how could being near or farsighted help us? what is the purpose of having nearsighted or farsighted vision?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zfjyb/eli5_how_could_being_near_or_farsighted_help_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6ve1g8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's not a purpose; it's a defect. It's just a defect we've learned to artificially correct so it won't get weeded out evolutionarily. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4we9jk
|
In WW2 did Germany mistreat African American or Jewish American POWs more than white American POWs?
|
More broadly, did Germany treat POWs differently based on ethnicity and nationality? I know that Slavic civilians were horribly brutalized in eastern Europe and Russia. Did captured Slavic soldiers fare any better? How was the situation of French POWs complicated by the existence of the Vichy government? Did captured Anglo British soldiers receive different treatment than soldiers from Britain's overseas colonies? How effective was the Red Cross at monitoring and preventing unequal treatment of POWs? Was racially motivated POW abuse a matter of official policy or grassroots racism?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4we9jk/in_ww2_did_germany_mistreat_african_american_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d66k5hm",
"d675wwi"
],
"score": [
18,
5
],
"text": [
"I can answer for what happened to Jewish POWs. Most of them would of course hide they were Jewish by not having it on their dog tags or throwing them away if you though you would be captured. So if you were caught without dog tags then most would lie or hide that they were Jewish. If you were a known jew then you would be treated much worse but for the most part not killed mostly beaten. However there is one large exception the Berga Camp Incident. It was near the end of the war and a group of POWs were split into Jewish and non-Jewish groups. The Jews were sent to a coal mine that functioned as a concentration camp. Of the 350 sent there 27% were dead within 10 weeks by far the highest attrition rate of Western POWs. This incident was very obscure for a long time until around 12 years ago when the New York Times published an article as seen below. There are a few other sources that deal with this topic. One of the better ones would be Men of Honour American GIs in the Jewish Holocaust.\n_URL_0_",
"There was definitely some attempts. For example at a camp in Ziegenhain, Germany. The German commanding officer aattempted to split the Jewish American POW's from the Non Jewish American ones. This event led to Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds being recognised as 'righteous among nations' when after he was ordered to stand all Jewish POWs out side the barracks, he instead stood all his 6000 men, and stated \"we are all Jewish\". Even after the German pulled a pistol onto his head he stood his ground citing the Geneva convention. The Germans involved eventually gave up. This is just one interesting story I have come across however I am sure there are more examples about.\n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/magazine/27PRISON.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0"
],
[
"http://db.yadvashem.org/righteous/family.html?language=en&itemId=11025207"
]
] |
|
e3xeys
|
Why did old CRT TVs get some discoloration when you hold a magnet up to them?
|
And why dont modern led tvs do that.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/e3xeys/why_did_old_crt_tvs_get_some_discoloration_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f95ds47",
"f95dy58",
"f95inab",
"f95jtt4",
"f96nsdy",
"f9942v6",
"f9agizv"
],
"score": [
71,
8,
23,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The pixels of a CRT are made from a phosphorescent material that emits light when hit by electrons. To create the picture, a modulated electron beam is swept over the screen to selectively light up the pixels you want to light up. For each point, you actually have three pixels for the elementary colours. If you put a magnet up to it, you distort the electron beam, and thus it does not hit where it is intended to any more, causing colour and shape distortions. In a modern TV, the pixels are actively light emitting semiconductors which are switched on and off and do not need such an electron beam.",
"The old TVs used electron beams to light up phosphors on the glass surface. The charged and moving electrons got deflected by the magnetic field messing up the image and creating the weird colors. All the newer sets have various solid state active layers to produce light and are not affected by magnets.",
"The electron beam was definitely being pushed around as others have suggested.\n\nI interpret your question of 'discoloration' to include long-term changes to the picture (as opposed to just 'distortion'); colors being thrown off or \"color halos\".\n\nThe reason this happens is on some models of television there were also a thin metal mask between the electron gun and the phosphor inside the tube; this was used to define sharp edges and dark shadows between the 'pixels'. This metal mask could pick up some residual magnetism from the magnet you're playing with and permanently throw off the beam. TVs then had to be 'degaussed' to eliminate that residual field.\n\nSource - did this as a child. Learned not to do it again ;0)",
"[Lorentz force](_URL_0_) makes the electrons beamed from the back of the tube curve their trajectory, and hit the wrong colours.\n\nLED/LCD/Plasma TVs do not operate by shooting electrons from a distance, and thus magnets do not affect them.",
"Those old TVs do a scanning motion with a beam of electrons being aimed by magnets. When the beam hits the back part of the screen it maked a reaction that lights up that color in the pixel. When you hold a magnet to the screen, it bends that beam of electrons and makes different colors appear. You can then end up accidentally magnetizing part of the screen, leaving it discolored until the magnetism decays away.",
"By using a magnet on the front of a crt tv you're interfering with the deflection yoke.\n\nThe deflection yoke is a magnet that goes around the electron gun. The electron gun feeds an electron beam in a horizontal line pattern which then fills the screen vertically one line at a time.\n\nMagnets don't affect the image on modern tvs because the image is fed digitally to each pixel(oversimplified explanation)versus a physical action.\n\nI wouldn't suggest putting a magnet near a modern tv because there's usually a metal backing behind the panel and you risk the magnet leaving your hand and causing damage to the display.",
"There is a mask with a lot of holes on the other side of the glass you look at. Corresponding to each hole are phosphors, red, blue and green.\n\nUsing electro magnets at the neck of the tube, each of the 3 beams (red, blue and green) are deflected so that they only line up with holes that they are meant to line up with. Thus activating the correct colour phosphor. (There is also circuitry that turns the beams off and on at the right time to create what to us looks like a picture.)\n\nIf you hold a magnet close to the glass, it messes with where the beam should be. Instead of say the blue gun hitting a hole for the blue phosphors, it can be deflected to hit either a red or green phosphor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
329ojq
|
When I boil noodles, what is happening on a molecular level?
|
Title
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/329ojq/when_i_boil_noodles_what_is_happening_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq9bdqg"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Pasta is composed largely of wheat flour, which contains a lot of starch. Starch is really just a kind of carbohydrate, and is made by plants during photosynthesis and functions as an energy store for them - plants can degrade starch later using a whole bunch of enzymes and cofactors to produce energy when they cannot do photosynthesis (like when there is no sunlight). \n\nFor humans to be able to digest starch, we have to cook it. This is actually an actual biochemical process called *starch gelatinisation*, and in this process, starch and water are combined and heated and the granules of starch swell up and increase in volume. This is pretty apparent when you are making pasta, because a little bit of dried pasta can become a large quantity of cooked pasta. They also develop a chewy texture, which is where the term \"gelatinisation\" comes from. It's also noteworthy that this is an irreversible process under standard conditions, meaning you cannot go from cooked pasta back to dried pasta. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9m7jz3
|
What's the history of the outlandishly foppish American pimp?
|
So I've been watching the new David Simon fiction series "The Deuce" set in 70's New York and centering on sex work, and fair number of characters in the series are pimps of some variety.
What interests me is that the show sort of tacitly depicts two different sorts of pimps; white massage parlor guys with "connections" and the classic stereotype of outlandishly dressed African American man, complete with fancy hat, patterned suit and a studded cane.
Characters in the show are depicted decrying the death of the pimp lifestyle as pornography producers begin to poach "talent" and obviate the pimp. So I've inferred that by the 70's, this stereotype was already well entrenched.
A couple things, then:
1. Is the image of the foppish pimp an accurate portrayal of a subculture?
2. When do we start getting this depiction of the pimp in mass media, and how much did it create in the street the thing it depicted on the screen?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9m7jz3/whats_the_history_of_the_outlandishly_foppish/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7cm7qd"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Not to discourage further discussion, but this has actually come up before with [an excellent answer](_URL_0_) from u/yodatsracist."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ifibg/where_did_the_modern_caricature_of_a_pimp_come/"
]
] |
|
3a3s5n
|
What examples are there of evolutionary traits that originally helped individuals of a species, but were bad for the species as a whole?
|
I was inspired to ask by u\atomfullerene 's comment in a recent thread.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3a3s5n/what_examples_are_there_of_evolutionary_traits/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs9iwwe"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Maybe this is a bit of a cheating answer, but any \"tragedy of the commons\" scenario (_URL_0_) kind of fits. In humans, I'm not sure one could identify a single trait that drives this type of behavior, but selfishness, and the inappropriate bias toward considering short-term vs. long-term outcomes both play a role.\n\nIn other species, even the simple drive toward reproduction can do this; if individuals are all exploiting a resource-rich environment and reproducing at a rate optimal for themselves, they can overpopulate the environment and crash."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons"
]
] |
|
14x87a
|
Why do humans have such long hair on our heads (if we left it uncut) when close relatives such as chimps do not? Does it serve some purpose?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14x87a/why_do_humans_have_such_long_hair_on_our_heads_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7hcjpz",
"c7hcrz6",
"c7hd19r",
"c7hd45p",
"c7hdlii",
"c7heudo",
"c7hfgft",
"c7hfy95",
"c7hhh0c"
],
"score": [
109,
34,
297,
48,
17,
18,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In a similar vein, long hair can get pretty horrific if left unchecked. Before we formed societies and began cutting and brushing our hair, did it form the same crazy dreads and gigantic mats of hair that we see today in people who don't take care of their locks? Perhaps it had some kind of practicality then? I've got some pretty lengthy hair, so this has always intrigued me a little bit.",
"Man more people have go to read The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm by Gould and Lewongtin.\n\nSummary: not every trait has to have a evolutionary significance.\n\nTo your point: there is an assumption that hair and the patterns of it have something to do with the out of Africa evolution of the group Homo-- just read the wiki on hair if you want to know more.",
"One idea is that it's an example of runaway sexual selection with longer hair being indicative of greater health: _URL_0_\n\n",
"The general consensus is that it has something to do with sexual selection, either secondary (other traits were selected for that promoted the genetic ability to grow long hair on heads), or slightly more direct (long lustrous hair was a sign of a healthy individual.) Of course, this is often the answer used when a feature has no obvious function. \n\nOthers have argued that, like a mane, long hair can act as an insect deterrent or perhaps a sun shade. Of course, other remnant sections of thick body hair are fairly agreed upon to be useful in the decimation of pheromones and glandular secretions intended to attract mates. It is not impossible that head hair serves a similar function, although perhaps on a less-pungent spectrum. ",
"Minor point: this varies strongly by race and sex (this is one of the few occasions where it is scientifically meaningful to talk about \"race\"). Europid males grow to about 300mm, females to about 600mm. For some African groups, the hair never gets further than 2cm from the skin.\n\nThis suggests that hair length is not a strongly conserved attribute, and that possibly this length only evolved after we had started cutting hair.",
"Humans have dramatically reduced body hair even though it is important for protection against the climate and the sharp teeth and claws of other animals. Body fur can also be used to signal with color and patterns and also through piloerection, or raising the hairs to puff up and look big and aggressive.\n\nNot only are human functionally “naked” but we are sweaty too. We have more sweat glands than any other primate and are some of the sweatiest mammals as well. It follows that the probable reason for our loss of body hair was due to the need for increased sweating. There is no fossil evidence for the evolution of human body hair so genetics and adaptations of other human traits guide the hypotheses.\n\nNina Jablonski argues that the need for thermoregulation while walking around with a big hot brain in the sunny hot periods of the day (presumably while foraging, hunting, and scavenging) led to the selection for body fur loss in early members of the genus Homo about 2 Mya. The loss of body fur was accompanied by the evolution of more sweat glands for copious sweating (and hence body cooling) and the evolution of darker skin for protection from harmful ultraviolet radiation (UVR).\n\nThe combination of body fur loss, increased heat tolerance through sweating, and darker skin enabled hominins to travel further and spend longer periods of time under the hot sun. The MCIR gene associated with skin pigmentation points to a date of 1.7 Mya for the emergence of dark skin, which is consistent with the hypothesis that body fur loss and dark pigmentation evolved in concert around 2 Mya.\n\nHair is abundant on the top of the head where the sun hits the body directly and in the underarm and pubic regions, presumably for protection against chaffing and rubbing, or for storing scents that signal fertility and identity. All the hair on the body is actually only one of two types: terminal hair occurs on the head, eyebrows, and eyelashes but vellus hair is everywhere else. These types of hair differ in their lasting ability: they all grow at about a half an inch per month but they have different growing durations before they drop out of the skin. Comparative genomics will someday illuminate the genetic history behind our unique body hair distribution. To investigate the loss of body fur we can look for candidate genes in the genomes of hair-less mice, naked mole rats, hairless cats and dogs (with furry out-groups for comparison, of course) to see if humans have anything similar.\n\nOne candidate gene for long hair is known from mice (called “angora mice”) with a mutation in FGF5, a gene that in its normal state functions to stop hair growth. Perhaps humans have a genetic mechanism for ignoring this hair-growth-halting gene as well. There are also several genes for keratin, the substance that makes up hair. Many of these genes are identical in humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas but one is different in humans. It has no apparent function in humans, but it codes for proteins in the other primates. The mutation in humans occurred about 250 Kya which could be the time when human head hair took its current ever-growing form. More studies on these genes will need to be done to understand this process better.\n\nIf body hair was reduced, why was head hair increased? It could be protection for the brain from the direct rays of the sun. It could be sexually selected for because of beauty. It could be a fitness indicator for health and social standing. Human hair needs extra grooming and taking the time to groom one’s hair or to have someone else groom it could signal importance or status. The [Venus figurine from Willendorf](_URL_1_), Austria had an elaborate hairdo, showing us an early glimpse at the importance of good hair by 23 Kya.\n\n[Dunsworth, H.M. 2007. Human Origins 101](_URL_0_). pp. 122-123\n",
"African hair acts as a radiator, everyone else's keeps heat in. We grow hats out the top of our heads",
"In the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, one theory put forward is that \"long hair was an adaptation to living in the water, where the long flowing locks of females would be used as life lines for her babies and toddlers floating around her.\"\n\n > \"The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) is a hypothesis about human evolution, which posits that the ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to life in a wet environment.\"\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI think the reality is probably a combination of the above hypothesis, and sexual selection based on the advantages offered by the long hair. ",
"I recall reading an article not too long ago about Native Americans who were recruited by the army as trackers. Supposedly when they were originally forced to cut their hair for the military, they lost some of their tracking ability. The proposed idea was that the long hair acts as an extension of the nervous system and provided a kind of \"sixth sense\". "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_hair#Psychological_significance"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Human-Origins-101-Science/dp/0313336733",
"http://www.artfortune.com/images/001.venus-of-willendorf.png"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis"
],
[]
] |
||
d14zjo
|
when something has sugars and carbs is that the same thing?
|
Yogurt for example has like 1gram of carbs and 1 gram of sugars for every tablesoon.. Does that mean the 1 gram of sugar COUNTS as the 1 gram of carbs. or do they count seperately? so like 1 gram of carbs AND 1 gram of sugar.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d14zjo/eli5when_something_has_sugars_and_carbs_is_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezhb3qp",
"ezhc3hr"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"In your example, it's the same thing. Sugars are carbohydrates but not all carbohydrates are sugars.",
"on the nutrient label, carbs accounts for all carbs: starch, sugar, and fiber..and sugar alcohol if it's in there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7506dy
|
With Mars' lesser gravity would we be able to build a space elevator there with current materials?
|
I am under the impression that the weight/strength issue is what hinders this project on earth; and that carbon nano-tubes(fibers?) seem to be the only promising solution that we hope for....I'm fond of the idea of industrial spider-silk myself...
BUT
with the lesser gravity on Mars, perhaps we don't need to develop anything new?
Maybe we could build an operational Martian space elevator using the same synthetic(the name of which eludes me) that's replacing aluminum in aircraft construction?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7506dy/with_mars_lesser_gravity_would_we_be_able_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"do2pv8j",
"do2u0qo"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately not. The maximum length of a cable supporting its own weight, with most engineering materials, is about 20 km.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nMars' gravity is approximately 1/3 of that of Earth. Since length to rupture is directly proportional to gravity I can easily estimate this as 3 times longer: 60 km. But this is still very little because the areostationary orbit is as high as 17000 km. (Also have to be wary of Phobos orbiting at a lower altitude, it might hit the cable!)\n",
"According to Wikipedia (_URL_0_), the materials we have today is strong enough for a space elevator on the moon.\n\nThe moon has about half the surface gravity as Mars, so maybe we don’t need that much stronger stuff for a Mars space elevator. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator"
]
] |
|
f4r95a
|
how can bread be both "whole wheat" and "gluten-free"?
|
Cause if its gluten-free, how can the wheat still be whole?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f4r95a/eli5_how_can_bread_be_both_whole_wheat_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhsoyhw"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"researchers showed that it’s possible to render wheat technically gluten-free when it undergoes a slow lacto-fermentation with specific lacto-bacilli and fungi. The wheat started out life with a normal 75,000 ppm (parts per million) of gluten, but after the sourdough fermentation process, gluten levels were only 12 ppm. under the gluten-free labeling laws, anything under 20 ppm is considered gluten free.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nbasically they ferment the gluten out of yhe grain without destroying any of it making it a gluten free whole grain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://wholegrainscouncil.org/blog/2014/08/gluten-free-wheat-qa-details-intriguing-research"
]
] |
|
2shiqd
|
why have airships not made a return now that engineering has improved and a safer airship could be made since the hindenburg disaster?
|
You could travel in COMFORT flying for once, and how COOL would the sky look full of airships?
Why has no company offered airship flight services since the Hindenburg disaster? I am sure the public realizes there has been major advancements since those days that would ensure such an accident would not occur again.
Edit: People saying it is too slow:
trains are very slow to travel with as well yet there are still people who choose to do so, why is there no niche market with even 1 or 2 airships for people to travel on. I sure know if I had the chance to travel on an airship I would even if it is slow. Build a bar and a restaurant, with some nice rooms like a train on an airship to attract tourists. Make the journey about being on the ship its self, not about the source or destination / pretty much how trains are (at least in Canada / not europe I realize trains are actually a viable means of transportation in Europe / they however are not in Canada)
I'm not suggesting to use it as a main method of fast travel.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2shiqd/eli5_why_have_airships_not_made_a_return_now_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnpigmo",
"cnpih6m",
"cnpj615"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The aesthetics of the sky hardly compensate for the otherwise pointless activity of spending vast amounts of money to move through the air at low speeds, subjected to the whims of the winds.",
"They're still dreadfully slow and require a massive amount of space per passenger, so it wouldn't be economical to have an aerodrome for them anywhere. \n\nThe main use-case for them has already been realized: A floating billboard or observational post.\n\nAlso helium, your best candidate for a gas, is a limited resource as much - if not more so - than petroleum is.",
"Two things,\n\nFirstly, no matter how much engineering you put in something there can always be accidents. Sure you could fill it with helium so it couldn't explode the same way but that doesn't mean it couldn't have its helium escape. I'm not in any way an expert on airships so I don't know where their weak points really are but you get my point.\n\nThe first point isn't the reason why, my second point, is that airships were popular before the age of huge commercial jets. Today if you want to get from NYC to Paris you take a plane and it takes around 6 hours. In contrast an airship could take around 100 hours at the speed they went when popular.\n\nSure you could market the airship as a new type of cruise but there's apparently little demand for it. An airship couldn't mirror the accommodation that people are used to in a sea cruise ship. For buoyancy on water you just need to displace more water than the weight of the boat. When you do that, you can still use that space.\n\nFor an airship to float, you need to weight less than air. This means you need a ton (or rather a lot of negative tons) of lighter than air gases. The space you need to put those lighter than air gases can't be used for anything else. This is why a goodyear blimp is huge yet has a relatively tiny cockpit. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3x6n5c
|
how do twin cities work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x6n5c/eli5_how_do_twin_cities_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy1zuar",
"cy22d6x",
"cy22m9t"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You're mixing up *twin cities* and *sister cities*.\n\nSister cities are just a friendly way for cities to reach out to cities in another country to promote business, tourism & cultural exchanges.\n\n\"Twin cities\", at least in the US, are when you have two cities that are both the \"main\" city in a metropolitan area, rather than the usual situation where one city is the main & surrounded by a bunch of lesser suburbs.",
"In the UK we use 'twinned' in the same way you use 'sistered' in the U.S. So a town or city can be 'twinned' with one or more in another country, and its sort of like having a pen-pal/pen-friend. It's a good question though because I'd also like to know how it woks and how it starts.\n",
"Twin towns/twin cities have two meanings. In the US, it refers to two cities very close by - e.g. St Paul and Minneapolis. In Europe, it refers to two settlements normally in different countries which have agreed to be 'twinned', which is to say have a connection of some sort between them.\n\nTwin towns/cities in Europe have varying levels of connection, depending how the local council/people/organisations want to take them. The process involves decisions/resolutions by the town council of each place. The connection might be painting it on the 'welcome' sign then forgetting about it for thirty years, or it might be deeper, involving regular exchanges of schoolchildren, sports teams competing, chambers of commerce forming links & learning from each other, etc.\n\nThere was a big rush for twinning after WW2, in an effort to improve understanding & links between the peoples of Europe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5yqdux
|
how come eggs are not served with chicken and vice versa?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yqdux/eli5_how_come_eggs_are_not_served_with_chicken/
|
{
"a_id": [
"des4y2w",
"des52yi",
"des6pj7",
"descy4l",
"deshfed"
],
"score": [
7,
10,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Which one do you make first? \n\n*Which one do you eat first?*\n\nNo really, you can do this. \n\nChicken sausage is a thing. Great with eggs.\n\nWaffles are made with eggs, and go well with chicken.\n\nYou can fry or bake chicken with a batter, which can be made with eggs. \n\nTry a cobb salad sometime. Aside from greens, the two key ingredients are grilled chicken and hard boiled egg.\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n",
"There's a very popular dish in Japan called \"Parent & Child\" (Oyako) which has chicken and eggs, chicken and egg breakfast burritos, chicken and egg breakfast sandwiches at Chic-Fil-A...",
"Let's say you're a peasant farmer with a few chickens. Your chickens lay eggs, and you eat the eggs. You could kill the chickens and eat chicken, but then you wouldn't have any eggs!\n\nSo, you either ate eggs OR you ate chicken. This would explain why it's so uncommon today, people just kept up a tradition without really thinking about the reason why.",
"Eggs and chicken are served together a lot. \n\nEggs are a part of a lot of batters used to fry foods, including fried chicken. \n\nCobb salad traditionally has grilled chicken and boiled eggs on it. \n\nOyako (parent and child) is a Japanese dish that is chicken and egg. \n\nChicken is sometimes used in breakfast tacos which use eggs too. \n\nThere are many more foods too. ",
"Also, why aren't eggs served with pork, lamb, beef, and other proteins?\n\nBecause most of our dishes use a single animal based protein as the star. \n\nAs other have mentioned, eggs often play a disguised supporting role. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.