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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1wwi4h
|
how come when someone dies, a lot of people become possessive of that person?
|
Just a trend I've notiched since social media started to become really big. Whenever someone dies, it seems like lots of people come out of the woodwork to make their claim on how much of a friend they were to the recently deceased. Why does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wwi4h/eli5_how_come_when_someone_dies_a_lot_of_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf5zqfm",
"cf6053k",
"cf6150p"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I think a couple of reasons are that it's a lot easier to romanticize who someone was once they're dead and lots of people make things about themselves without even realizing that's what they're doing. Have you seen world's greatest dad, starring Robin Williams? It's a good movie and quite relevant. ",
"people like attention and as soon as one opportunity presents well the rest you know it\n",
"I don't know but when that shooting happened in the Columbia MD mall a lot of people were posting on facebook about the guy Tyler that died. I knew the guy. Wasn't friends with him but saw him at parties occasionally. But when he died people were posting things about him like they were good friends with the guy. A lot of people were tagging him in their statuses for no other reason then to show other people on their friends list they were friends with him. My good friend for example, wasn't friends with him. Saw him a few times at a party or something like I did. Yet, there he was posting on his facebook as if he lost his best friend and tagging him so everybody knew he had him as a friend on facebook so they MUST have been close. I hate it when people all of a sudden pretend they were best friends with someone just because they died."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
537qi6
|
(NSFW 18+) How far back in history do BDSM and other forms of kink go?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/537qi6/nsfw_18_how_far_back_in_history_do_bdsm_and_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7r1fs1",
"d7r9dhs",
"d7rc19e"
],
"score": [
14,
31,
31
],
"text": [
"Here are a couple of related threads:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n",
"Transgressive sexual behaviour can of course be studied in any cultural context, and to that extent, \"kink\" in the broad sense is as old as humanity. Moreover, fetishism as a psychopathology is not a culturally contingent phenomenon (or even a phenomenon unique to humans, among animal species), and so it likewise necessarily lacks any clear origin point in human cultural history. \n \n*That having said*, when the term \"BDSM\" is used nowadays, oftentimes what the speaker means to imply is an at least somewhat discrete cultural phenomenon particular to the western world of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. \n \nThe phenomenon referred to in such cases is a phenomenon which arose out of the [Gay Leather](_URL_6_) subculture of the post-WWII era, in much the same crucible as that from which the motorcycle club phenomenon was born. Indeed, [Gay Leather Motorcycle Clubs](_URL_4_) were an important component to the Leather phenomenon. \n \nBecause, as I say, sexual transgression has always been and shall ever be (in our species as well as others), we can readily point to earlier expressions of sexual preference resembling those which arose out of Leather. And indeed, for much of the late 20th century, the [Marquis de Sade](_URL_3_), [Sacher-Masoch](_URL_0_), and (much later) Bettie Page have been the iconic representations of BDSM which were implied to represent for it a history or a legacy. But there is no ongoing continuity to be found there. And popular BDSM historiography has therefore much revised its view of the past, over the last two decades, to recognise the specifically gay heritage of BDSM, where BDSM is deemed an ongoing cultural phenomenon represented by community institutions and organisations with their own traditions and conventions. The \"Leather\" label has been readopted by much of the modern BDSM community, in recognition of this. \n \nA very important early conceptualisation of straight BDSM and BDSM involving female participants during the heyday of Leather, which played an important role in defining such a thing for popular audiences is [The Story of O](_URL_7_) (French publishing, 1954, English publishing, 1965). This is important not just for its portrayal of female dominant and submissive individuals, but furthermore for its portrayal of adoption of a *slave* or *submissive* identity as a lifestyle choice (in contrast with sadomasochistic practices as a sexual activity, confined to that purpose). A name from this work is adopted by the influential early San Francisco Lesbian BDSM group [Samois](_URL_5_) (see also: [Society of Janus](_URL_1_)). But even here, we must resist the urge to assign too much influence to any one work. \n \nAnother work with demonstrable consequences as far as cultural exchange between the gay community and straight persons identifying as sexually transgressive is The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Again, this initially catches on in North America in 1976 as a gay phenomenon, in its characteristic midnight screenings. But straight participation and engagement with drag and gay community members emerges as a natural consequence of this, as a wider audience begins to join in. And the work's open endorsement of transgressive sexuality becomes a clarion call, for some. \n \nRetreating from the exercise of discovering points of interchange between what already existed in Gay Leather and what was to come in (as well, Straight and Lesbian) BDSM, Townsend's 1972 [The Leatherman's Handbook](_URL_2_) is a definitive and influential text of that era.",
"This question is somewhat tricky to answer. If by *how far back in history do BDSM and other forms of kink go?* you mean \"how far back in time does spanking or submission or BSDM/kink **actions** go,\" then the answer is probably back into prehistory and beyond, I'm not a major believer that we're really any more or less dirty or kinky than we've ever been. There is a scene of sexual whipping in an Etrucsan tomb called the Tomb of the Whipping dating to about the fifth century BC. There are references to rough/deviant sex in Roman/Greek plays poetry such Catullus or Juvenal. In medieval times Christian penitentials were overwhelmingly concerned (more than fifty percent) with sexual sins such as period sex, oral and anal sex, lewd kissing and other forms of contact disapproved of by the church. Amusingly, the surviving records of Bishop Theodulf de Orléans asks bishops to stop asking people about these forms of sex because he believes the bishops are giving people ideas about what to do sexually. (p.s. I've found a previous discussion on this topic [here](_URL_0_).) And in the earliest surviving Renaissance works of literary pornography such as Aretino or Boccacio there are references to actions that we might call BDSM or kink or nonnormative sexualities. So that would be the answer to that question.\n\n*But* if you mean \"how far back in time does *conscious or deliberate* BDSM/kink activities and culture go,\" then that gives us a much more interesting and perhaps revealing answer. I would argue, in part, that the answer lies somewhere between the mid-1600s and the late 1800's with the history of libertinism and a few famous libertines that are instrumental in creating and sustaining a culture that would later develop into conscious BDSM and kink culture. \n\nAs James Turner puts it, \n\n > \"Libertine[s] aspire to write the scriptures of a new religion: in the beginning was the flesh, and the flesh was made word. But these are not mere words. Though libertines sometimes disparage 'discourse' and dismiss virtue as 'nothing but language,' in fact, they revere the arousing power of rhetoric and the sensuous immediacy of what Montaigne called 'words of flesh and bone.'\" \n\nAs Wikipedia puts it in their entry on Libertine, and the most clear-cut definition:\n\n > A libertine is one devoid of most moral or sexual restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society. Libertinism is described as an extreme form of hedonism.\n\nEuropean culture in the late 17th century (1650-1700) was undergoing a dramatic shift in attitudes towards sex and sexual morality. Part of the reason for this is that moral laws began to be questioned and reinterpreted during the European Age of Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in England and on the Continent, along with the Catholic Counter-Reformation, had major impacts on education and philosophy, causing a shift from traditional lines of authority such as the church and Christian morality to an emphasis on reason, science, and individualism.\n\nIn regards to our topic here, both the Bible and the Old Testament began to be questioned. Specifically, the seventh commandment (\"thou shalt not commit adultery\") and various injunctions, from the Bible and Leviticus, against fornication, whoring, and sexual activity, began to be questioned and reinterpreted. Scientists and philosophers (in many cases one and the same, as science was still developing as a distinct field) began to question the reasons and purposes behind moral laws handed down by Scripture, especially as early anthropologists and explorers began to uncover (or claim they had) all sorts of different societal configurations from polyandry (one woman and multiple husbands) to brothel-houses containing men. The writer Daniel Defoe, who lived in Rochester's time, commented that \"monogamy is a mere church imposition, a piece of priestcraft, unreasonable.” A judge who ran in Rochester's and Defoe's circles, Sir John Vaughan, declared that \"No copulation of man with any woman, nor an effect of that copulation by generation [children] can be said 'unnatural.’” Even King Charles II said that he \"could not think God would make a man miserable [in hell] only for taking a little pleasure out of the way.\"\n\nThe term libertinism was lifted out of its theological context in the late seventeenth century to describe the the court of King Charles II and the circle of sexual/freethinking high-society radicals/rakes and nobles centered around members of the Hellfire Clubs in France and England which deliberately and provocatively (albeit secretly) mocked Christianity and Christian religion by appointing the Devil as the president of the society, praising pagan idols and putting on mocking reenactments of Christian rituals such as the breaking of the bread by eating \"holy ghost pie.\" But here is the key point: the libertines were very consciously opposing dominating morality and sexuality by acting, well, libertine, and defending their actions through their writings. The most famous of these, is of course, John Wilmot, Lord Rochester.\n\nDabhoiwala quotes from him at length in Origins of Sex, summing up Wilmot’s moral philosophy “in two maxims: that he should do nothing to injure himself, or to hurt another person.” He continues to explain Lord Rochester’s view that “immorality was no offence to God, for He was too great to hate His creatures, or to punish them,” and that “Religion was no more than 'the jugglings of priests'; the Bible and its miracles were but incoherent and unbelievable stories; Christian morality was only hypocrisy, obeyed by 'the rabble world' because they knew no better.” His explanation also dives in to sexuality:\n\n > It was absurd to think that humans were fallen, that 'there should be any corruption in the nature of man', or that reason was meant to restrain our physical instincts - the only true 'rules of good and ill' were those provided by our bodily senses, the only real purpose of life, to pursue happiness. It followed that the ideas of monogamy and chastity were 'unreasonable impositions on the freedom of mankind'. On the contrary, sexual pleasure 'was to be indulged as the gratification of our natural appetites. It seemed unreasonable to imagine these were put into a man only to be restrained, or curbed to such a narrowness'.\n\nIn his writing and in his poetry, Rochester and other libertines attacked rationalism, or the belief that Christianity and European culture as a whole (and its laws and norms) had reasonable or rational purposes. To libertines, the senses, not the intellect, were the greatest ability of mankind. This philosophy would be elaborated on and embraced more fully in the 18th century, especially by the Marquis de Sade. \n\nBy the time of de Sade's birth, 'libertine,' had come to mean that a person had an excessive and unfettered sex life, was frequently atheist, and attacked social and religious morals. As Phillips notes, the two men that raised Donatien were extreme libertines:\n\n > [T]he lustful Abbé enjoyed liaisons with a number of society women and even visited some of the more notorious Parisian bordellos, while the bisexual Count was on one occasion arrested for accosting a young man in the Tuileries Gardens. At the same time, both were highly cultured men. Sade's father was a close friend of Voltaire's and himself wrote verses, while Donatien's uncle in particular had a fine and extensive library which, alongside the classic authors, included all the major works of contemporary Enlightenment philosophy as well as a fair sample of erotic writings. \n\nIndeed, as a result of their education and care, de Sade would achieve the heights of both libertinism and cultural refinement, and in his *Justine, Juliette,* and *120 Days of Sodom* he would create absurd and ridiculous situations for his characters where he could deliberately attack Christian morality and embrace a morality of the flesh that remains unparalleled. But he also created (or sustained), or at the very least ended up popularizing a type of sexual activity that we today call sadism from his name--this is the S in BDSM, the M (masochism) comes from the name of Austrian author Von Sacher-Masoch who described the opposite situation in his *Venus in Furs*. \n\nSo when the late 1800's roll around and the first sexologists, Heinrich Kaan, Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis, began working and defining sexuality (such as hetero vs. homosexuality, which was not categorized/defined before) and what they considered abnormal sexualities they would go on to cite the works of de Sade and von Sacher-Masoch as examples of these disordered sexualities that figures such as Sigmund Freud would attempt to treat. BDSM culture and positive self-identification with BDSM only began to develop later on in the twentieth century from the leather subculture that /u/Yst discusses [here](_URL_1_).\n\n\n\n**Sources:**\n\n\n[My book: *Annals of Pornographie: How Porn Became Bad* \n](_URL_2_)\n\nThe Origins of Sex, Faramerz Dabhoiwala\n\nSchooling Sex: Libertine Literature and Erotic Education in Italy, France, England--James Turner\n\nSade: The Libertine Novels, John Phillips\n\n\nThe Marquis de Sade: A Very Short Introduction, John Phillips\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1y2tdu/were_sexual_fetishes_widely_known_about_or/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jwwhg/what_is_the_history_of_what_we_now_call_bdsm/"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_in_Furs",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Janus",
"http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/951178.The_Leatherman_s_Handbook",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_120_Days_of_Sodom",
"http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/art/photography/2014/05/14/photos-pioneers-leather-and-biker-scene-la",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samois",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather_subculture",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_O"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1y2tdu/were_sexual_fetishes_widely_known_about_or/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jwwhg/what_is_the_history_of_what_we_now_call_bdsm/",
"https://www.amazon.com/Annals-Pornographie-How-Porn-Became-ebook/dp/B01CMU51V8"
]
] |
||
qvkxg
|
Why do genetically inherited diseases still exist?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qvkxg/why_do_genetically_inherited_diseases_still_exist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c40sqv1",
"c40sxes"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Not all genetic diseases are fatal, or symptoms are not shown until after childbearing. Medical treatment has improved, so people who would have died go on to pass their genes. Since eugenics didn't exactly go well in history, genetic diseases are here to stay. ",
"It depends on whether the disease is recessive or dominant.\n\nDominant traits only still exist because the person lives to reproduce before the disease kills them. That's why you don't see dominant diseases that kill early in life. They go extinct before they're passed.\n\nRecessive traits are a little trickier. A person can carry a recessive gene for a disease, but never get the disease (they have a hybrid genotype). This is why certain diseases like genetically passed forms of anemia are still around. If you're healthy and unaware of your genetic shortcoming, you breed and pass it on to your children. Even if both you and your partner are hybrids, odds are only 1 in 4 of any children you have will die. Since I'm not sure where you are coming from in terms of biology education, I'll draw you some [punnett squares](_URL_0_) for reference.\n\nCase 1: 1 Hybrid and 1 Clean\n\n \\ R |R\n R|RR|RR\n r|Rr|Rr\n\nIf \"r\" represents our disease and you have to have two \"r\" genes to get the disease, this pair produces no outwardly sick children. It does, however, allow the genes for the disease to be passed along.\n\nCase 2: Two Hybrids\n\n \\ R | r\n R|RR|Rr\n r|Rr|rr\n\nHere, two outwardly healthy parents have a 1 in 4 chance of producing an outwardly ill child, a 2 in 4 chance of continuing the disease's propagation, and a 1 in 4 chance of a genetically clean child.\n\nCase 3: 1 outwardly ill individual, 1 clean individual\n\n \\ r |r\n R|Rr|Rr\n R|Rr|Rr\n\nThis pair produces no outwardly ill inidviduals, but creates 4 hybrids that enter the gene pool. Here we can see it is beneficial evolutionarily for a disease to kill after the individual has reproduced rather than before.\n\nCase 5: 2 clean - > all children clean\n\nCase 6: 2 outwardly ill - > all children outwardly ill\n\nFrom this, we can note that a recessive trait has a > 50% propagation rate. More pernicious diseases that kill earlier are closer to 50% whereas the more chronic ones are higher. As long as the population grows, the diseases persist.\n\nTL;DR: Dominant diseases - People have sex before they die. Recessive diseases - people carry the diseased gene without getting sick.\n\nNote: These examples are all based on simple dominance and recessiveness. In reality, the genetic model is more complicated than this. This also covers only diseases that are carried in a single gene. Diseases that span genes or are not entirely dominant or entirely recessive make this model much harder to figure.\n\nEdit: Formatting. It's hard to make Punnett squares out of a text editor"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punnett_square"
]
] |
||
m4g51
|
If I'm at the absolute center of the North Pole, will I always be looking South?
|
And is it even possible to look East or West? Is there an ending point for East and West?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m4g51/if_im_at_the_absolute_center_of_the_north_pole/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2y0iaw",
"c2y0s74",
"c2y0iaw",
"c2y0s74"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Always south, that's it! [North Pole](_URL_0_)",
"You can think of North being the direction which moves you to a higher latitude, south being the direction which moves you to a lower latitude, and similar for East/West- higher/lower longitude. \n\nSo, when you are right at the North Pole, any direction you move will entirely move you in a direction of decreasing latitude. Remember, this is only true right at the north pole, as soon as you move at all from the north pole you can start moving in a way that will change your longitude as well. ",
"Always south, that's it! [North Pole](_URL_0_)",
"You can think of North being the direction which moves you to a higher latitude, south being the direction which moves you to a lower latitude, and similar for East/West- higher/lower longitude. \n\nSo, when you are right at the North Pole, any direction you move will entirely move you in a direction of decreasing latitude. Remember, this is only true right at the north pole, as soon as you move at all from the north pole you can start moving in a way that will change your longitude as well. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole"
],
[]
] |
|
klf7j
|
Is there a site that gives you an overview of all the state of the art sciences?
|
And personally i would love to see this for computer science since i'm into that. I've been seeking for a while now without much luck.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/klf7j/is_there_a_site_that_gives_you_an_overview_of_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2l7tga",
"c2laie6",
"c2l7tga",
"c2laie6"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The two biggest interdisciplinary journals are Science and Nature. Lesser journals that still cover broad topics include Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and PLoS ONE.",
"I keep an eye on pubmed, but that's for biology type stuff. You can make custom RSS feeds based on searches, and have them exported to your favorite newsreader.",
"The two biggest interdisciplinary journals are Science and Nature. Lesser journals that still cover broad topics include Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and PLoS ONE.",
"I keep an eye on pubmed, but that's for biology type stuff. You can make custom RSS feeds based on searches, and have them exported to your favorite newsreader."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1j1psz
|
Who were the Blues and the Greens (and Reds and Whites) in Byzantium and what was their significance beyond sporting?
|
Colors in Byzantine dress often corresponded to sporting team/charioteer affiliation, but these factions evolved to represent deep political and social divisions. How did this develop and what were the implications for the Empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j1psz/who_were_the_blues_and_the_greens_and_reds_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cba8i96"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"See this discussion: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c8qrk/the_blues_and_the_greens/"
]
] |
|
9x2j2s
|
why can't two phones just automatically connect when they're calling each other at the same time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9x2j2s/eli5_why_cant_two_phones_just_automatically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9p1pxi"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The short ELI5 answer is because that's not how they work. When calling it looks to ring and can't be rung. If they're both calling they're both looking to ring, and can't be rung, so it doesn't work. The system *could be* different, but isn't, and the odds of a major change to the underlying infrastructure like would be necessary are low. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2sv4im
|
what happens to an uninsured patient with catastrophic injuries in the u.s.?
|
For example: I can't afford health insurance - I make too much to qualify for assistance and too little to afford to pay out of pocket - and I get in a massive accident on my way home from work. Broken back and neck, internal injuries requiring a hospital stay, multiple surgeries and months of rehab therapy. What happens to me? What kind of care do I receive and how am I expected to pay hundreds of thousands in hospital bills?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sv4im/eli5_what_happens_to_an_uninsured_patient_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnt40t6",
"cnt41v2",
"cnt4dry",
"cnt5ip6",
"cnta5ey",
"cntaus9",
"cntawwc",
"cntb578",
"cntbr08",
"cntbtuo",
"cntc08j",
"cntc1jj",
"cntc2wk",
"cntc6nh",
"cntcbyg",
"cntcnz4",
"cntco53",
"cntcp02",
"cntcrtj",
"cntct2b",
"cntee7p",
"cntef3z",
"cnteik5",
"cntfby9",
"cntfsxq",
"cntfvnz"
],
"score": [
256,
51,
208,
34,
9,
2,
18,
6,
35,
24,
2,
11,
6,
6,
2,
6,
10,
4,
6,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Everyone receives emergency care, regardless of their insurance. If you can't pay it, eventually the hospital will write it off. So ultimately the taxpayers pay for it, indirectly.\n\nOnce you're stable, don't expect stellar care, but hospitals don't typically kick people to the curb to die.",
"Federal law requires hospitals to care for you until you're stable enough to be released. Then you get $135,000 in medical bills. You declare bankruptcy, if you owned a home you don't anymore. As an added bonus US government under W made it harder for citizens, easier for corporations to file bankruptcy. ",
"Law requires that everyone gets emergency care, and additional care until they are stable enough for release. They will be billed for their care and they either have to pay it or file for bankruptcy ",
"As with any medical situation in the United States you will generally get care, people without insurance can go to free clinics or other charities or programs. The problem with the healthcare system isn't the healthcare, it is how we pay for it. \n\nYou come into any emergency room in any hospital in the United States and they will treat your life threatening injury. They will send you the bill later but even then you may not have to pay, let me give some examples \n\nLet's say uninsured Annie is 19 years old and homeless, one day she gets stabbed by bad guy Barry, victims services would help uninsured Annie pay for being the victim of a violent crime. Restitution may also be payed if bad guy Barry is caught. \n\nLet's use uninsured Annie again shall we? Uninsured Annie is walking one day in target and slips and falls in the ladies room, through a series of court decisions in the United States, because it happened on target's property, they MAY be at least partly responsible, but since lawyers cost more than settlements they may agree to pay off the medical bills. \n\nIninsured Annie is driving drunk when she crashes into a tree, her car is totaled, and uninsured Annie has a life threading wound, the paramedics arrive and drive her to the hospital where she makes a full recovery. Uninsured Annie has to pay for everything! The hospital room, the ambulance ride, the time of the doctors, the aspirin, the medication ect. There are government programs and charities that may help but Annie is gonna have to get a payment plan and pay what she owes to her debtors but that is what comes last. \n\nLet's contrast that situation to insured Isabelle, who has health insurance and is not low income. \n\nInsured Isabelle is going mountain climbing, she falls and has a life threatening injury. Insured Isabelle is taken by the paramedics to the hospital and is given a room and surgery. Insured Isabelle still has to pay deductibles but the amount she owes to her insurance will be far less than what is owed to the hospital. \n\nBoth insured Isabelle and uninsured Annie get medical care in every situation, but paying for it is different. ",
"We sacrifice them to the Republican party",
"IMO Michael Moore's Sicko explains that preety well. ",
"Basically their life is ruined by crippling debt.",
"In my uninsured experience (in NC 2009), the emergency care was good once we got to the hospital ER (the urgent care clinic would not take us without insurance) - We were at the hospital all night, but thankfully, the injury did not require anymore treatment than that. A week or so later, the hospital mailed us the bill, and I called to make payment arrangements. They were nice and very helpful. It took about 2 years to pay the bill. I think it's good that you're looking for information. I hope you can find a way to get insured. Best of luck to you and your family.\n",
"Medical bills are biggest cause for bankruptcy in U.S.\n\n[link](_URL_0_.)",
"This actually happened to my brother-in-law. He was uninsured and in a house fire. Three months in a burn unit racked up around a million in bills. We were all advised to not pay for ANYTHING medical he needed as apparently that can potentially get us tied up for the bill? We set up a fund to help out, but he didn't own it, so it wasn't part of what could be collected upon. Anyway, the state had a program that helped out a ton. It's specifically setup for this kind of thing. He's paying a portion of his income and after a certain time he's free and clear. No bankruptcy, no collections, and no substandard care. The maximum he'll end up paying will be less than a tenth of what was owed.",
"Generally each state has a publicly funded scheme to offer catastrophic insurance for exceptional situations. The parameters vary wildly state by state, so it's not uniform what will be covered, what is eligible, nor how much it will cost you. You may or, more likely, may not be covered in the scenario described, frequently they are meant for terminal patients. You're also probably not going to have access to anything more than basic care or management, so probably no out-of-town specialists, insanely costed recently developed wonder drugs, nor state-of-the-art specialty hospitals.\n\nIn that case you would end up in the emergency room, as the other posters have pointed out, and you would be admitted to the hospital and receive treatment and likely even some long term care and rehab. At the end you'd receive a bill for half a bajillion dollars, you'd likely declare bankruptcy since you have no chance of paying it or maybe the hospital would write it off in exchange for what you can pay (and charge the patients with insurance more as result, make no mistake we were already subsidizing the uninsured before Obamacare, and still do, just not via the government). ",
"This exact thing happened to me. My husband and I worked in the restaurant industry. I was in school. Neither of us were insured. I got into an accident that broke my back and paralyzed me.\n\nThey got me through emergent spine stabilization surgery, and then sent me to inpatient rehab. They just kept taking care of me knowing I couldn't pay. We just kept getting bills, upwards of 100k$ plus. They just got added to our \"bill\" coffee can with a laugh.\n\nReally long story short, after some major finagling, I got Medicaid. They back dated it to before my accident, so, all got paid for. Without this, we were talking to medical bankruptcy lawyers.\n\nedit: stupid fat finger typing...",
"How I love the Netherlands, pay 80 euros per month and everything is covered. No stupid 40k bills for staying in the hospital for one night. ",
"Republican healthcare plan:\n\n**If you are healthy don't get sick. If you get sick, die quickly.**",
"You go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt.",
"Couldn't tell you. I recently got in an accident, shattered my arm, needed surgery, and now 15k+ in debt. So yeah, I guess I kinda got off lucky because it could have been way worse for me. But still. /sigh",
"They asked this question of the Republican candidates for president in 2011. Rand Paul said that he should get a large insurance policy. But the moderator pressed him and asked, \"Should he just die?\" \n\nThe entire audience erupted in applause for the idea that the guy should just drop dead.\n\nGo Republicans!",
"Best way I have heard it describe; the US has 'sick-care' not healthcare. ",
"They go bankrupt, but they will be stabilized.\n\n'We saved your life, and now will take everything you have.'\n\nWe have the worst healthcare system in the developed world.",
"So many of these comments aren't true and just harp on how it'll lead to bankruptcy. \n\nAt the hospital I'm at, and I would argue almost all academic medical centers, the hospital writes it off and the hit. What does that mean for folks with insurance, medical professionals, and hospital staff? We pay more than our share and take hits in our pay. ",
"I love Canada",
"Bankruptcy. I did it for my medical. I also had insurance but it didn't cover it all. Had no choice but to file. I've done my homework now and got good insurance.",
"Simple answer is, you don't and everyone does.\n\nYou can not be denied critical care. Term critical depends on the hospital and doctor. After you are treated, you are billed for emergency medical fee. \n\nWhich can be as little as 10K to 40K, if it is overnight stay without major surgery or tests or upwards to 200K easy.\n\nYou default or try to explain to them that you can not pay. The billing takes away about 80% of it and you end up just paying for the material cost / some services.\n\nThe rest which is time , insurance, liability, and other resources are covered by the hospital. Which in turn is paid for by the government. Hence, the reason why US spending on Healthcare is so astronomically high compared to other country that actually gets FREE healthcare via tax (cost of service also has a price ceiling or cap, so EKG, MRI, and others can not cost more than set amount across the board.)\n\n\nAmericans are already paying for other peoples hospital fee, they are just too stupid to realize that if they overcome their fear of socialism. They'd have full healthcare coverage for all their citizen, for what they are already paying. In fact, they'd save money in long run as cost of medical care will decrease. Everyone has insurance so hospital is getting paid, they don't need to foot the bill to paying customers nor government. Price ceiling puts most services at set price, but free market will guarantee that some clinics will be cheaper than others.\n\n",
"So this actually happened to my BIL. Not well off, no insurance, motorcycle accident with traumatic brain injury. Hospital helps get Medicaid, family declares bankruptcy and gets rid of most assets. I bealive they got a divorce to protect some assets. He is now permanently in a nursing home. 3 young kids, very sad.",
"As the saying goes, if you owe the hospital $50,000, you have a problem. If you owe the hospital $500,000, they have a problem.",
"We save their life so they can wish they were dead."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148#"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
658fha
|
why is calling someone "retarded" unacceptable, but calling someone "autistic" totally fine?
|
I see and hear people call others autistic all the time (see: autistic screeching), but the moment the word retard is spoken or written, people go crazy. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/658fha/eli5_why_is_calling_someone_retarded_unacceptable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg89ak3",
"dg89h8d",
"dg89snd",
"dg89ycd",
"dg8e38m"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Both are equally offensive when used as to describe something in a negative way. I think retarded is used more frequently and that is why it seems less acceptable.",
"It isn't. People who are offended by one should also be offended by the other, and vice versa. Ask any of the people who complain.",
"Autistic is a simple description. You'll find a lot of people in the world who are quite proud of being autistic.\n\nThe r-word started off as a simple description of a person with learning difficulties, but seeing as how people immediately adopted it as an insult, now it serves purely as a reminder to learning disabled people that apparently the world thinks very little of them.",
"It's subjective. Taking offense is different for different people.\n\nSo when people get on ELI5 and ask \"Why is X bad while Y is okay?\" you have to answer the questions \"who is saying X is bad, and who is saying Y is okay?\" \n\nIf they're the same people, that's where you explore. But if they're different people, the two have no correlation.\n\nWhy does dad think hard R action films are okay for the kids, but mom thinks romantic comedies are not? Well, because they're two different people who have different lines in the sand on their own opinions about two totally different things.",
"Evolution of language. \"Retarded\" used to be an acceptable term to refer to someone with learning difficulties. As others have said it was applied as an insult both to people who really were retarded and those who were not. Someday \"autistic\" will probably also be considered offensive and the official term will be something else. \"Learning disabled\" and \"special needs\" were in there too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2kh33p
|
Could you lovely historians please recommend me a book about the history or the English monarchy?
|
Hi, I was sent here by /r/suggestabook. I've had a look at your master lists of books but they don't really suggest what i'm looking for.
I'm hoping you can recommend a good non-fiction about their history, i'm interested in learning about the power dynamics, especially the monarchy during wars. And i'm also open to a bit of trashy scandal, any royal family is full of that. Basically, I want a good book with solid facts that I can read on the the bus to and from college!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kh33p/could_you_lovely_historians_please_recommend_me_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cll847a"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Haha, this is a fun and difficult question. There are thousands to choose from. Let me ask a few follow up questions:\n\nWhat time period (medieval, modern, etc.)?\n\nWhat type of history? Do you simply want a political history that discusses how the structure of the kingdom changed form monarch to monarch, or do you want something about how the monarchy was perceived by the people, etc.?\n\nDo you want one that's fun to read, provides exacting citations and research, or both?\n\nDo you want one with comprised of primary source material or an academic monograph?\n\nDo you want a recently published book or does the publication date not matter?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ysktu
|
why do some tv shows block out manufacturer logos on cars when it's obvious the car is a volkswagen, toyota, ford, etc. same goes for drinks like budweiser or coca-cola, the name is either blocked or the logo facing away from the camera.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ysktu/eli5_why_do_some_tv_shows_block_out_manufacturer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyg78s2",
"cyg78sy",
"cyg7ana",
"cyggd63"
],
"score": [
26,
6,
16,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the networks are in the business of selling advertising. It's harder to sell ads to Pepsi if the program shows Coke cans for free.",
"If you don't pay, they won't show it. Whenever you can see actual logos, they were paid for by their respective companies. It's built in advertising",
"There are several reasons:\n\n1. The brand might not want to be associated with the show.\n\n2. It's free brand recognition advertising for the brand.\n\n3. A sponsor (brand) of the show might require it.\n\n4. Advertising tobacco products is illegal in print and television/movies.",
"Because they don't have a contract with that company to advertise the product.\n\nIt's equal parts 'you haven't paid me to' and 'we don't want to be sued'\n\n(and some shows, like mythbusters, may also avoid showing brands and logos to avoid the appearance of bias)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
htnp6
|
Could geneticists create a hybrid of a human and another mammal, such as a big cat?
|
For example, a human with a cat's ears and tail. Would our DNA technology allow us to create one in the foreseeable future?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/htnp6/could_geneticists_create_a_hybrid_of_a_human_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1y9y7n",
"c1ya0m0",
"c1ya75v"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"what you're talking about (human with cat's ears and tail) isn't really a \"hybrid\". a hybrid is, for example, a mule, which has traits somewhere in between a donkey and a horse, not some traits completely horselike and some completely donkeylike. this requires two species that are \"close enough\" to cross-breed. we have no such \"close enough\" species anymore.\n\nyou could possibly do some very basic gene splicing, for instance there was the tobacco plant that had a particular lightning bug's gene spliced in, making a glow-in-the-dark tobacco plant- it is conceivable something like that could be done with a human, but i imagine it would face some serious ethics issues, not to mention how much more complicated a human is than a tobacco plant...",
"Someone just watched [Splice](_URL_0_).\n\nIf possible at all, the technology is currently beyond us, AFAIK.",
"Those here ahead of me (Malfeasant, iorgfeflkd, whooper, and GlitterFox) have pretty much got the answer. I imagine what you're looking for is something like this: _URL_0_\n\nWould it be possible with a Chimpanzee? Eh, maybe. We have a different chromosome number than chimps, so it's unlikely that the offspring would be fertile, at least in my opinion, if it could be formed at all.\n\nOther animals, like the big cats of your example, are far to distant from us, genetically speaking, and as such a hybrid could not be formed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1017460/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee"
]
] |
|
6kd2s0
|
Why didn't America adopt a parliamentary form of government like England?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6kd2s0/why_didnt_america_adopt_a_parliamentary_form_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djm7erj"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"TL:DR the framers of the US constitution set out to correct what they saw as weaknesses in the British parliamentary system, and in doing so they created, perhaps somewhat inadvertently, a different kind of system that is now known as \"Presidential\".\n\nIt's worth unpacking what we mean when we say that the US has a \"presidential system of government\" and the UK has a \"parliamentary system\". If we compare the institutions created by the US constitution with those already existing in eighteenth-century Great Britain, we see many similarities:\n\n* **Executive power** was vested in the British monarch, and the US President\n* **Legislative power** was vested in the British parliament, and the US Congress. Once passed by the legislature, laws had to be signed by the executive\n* **Executive officers** (e.g. ministers / secretaries) were nominated by the head of the executive\n\nGiven these similarities, we might ask why a \"Parliamentary\" system did not become established in the US. Why didn't the President end up adopting a mainly ceremonial role, with most of the day-to-day running of government being done by lower officials who would rely on Congressional support to enact their agenda?\n\nThe answer lies in some of the *differences* between the US and British constitutional schemes:\n\n* The executive had the power to **dissolve the legislature** in Britain, but it did not have this power in the US\n* Executive officers were required to serve concurrently as members of the British legislature, but were, in the so-called [ineligibility clause](_URL_3_), *explicitly forbidden* from serving in the legislature by the US constitution.\n\nBoth these changes militate against the adoption of a \"Parliamentary\" style of government in the US. If the government derives its power solely from Congressional support, then there must be a way (such as dissolution) to resolve a situation where Congress and the government are irretrievably deadlocked. And members of the government who sit concurrently in the legislature create a so-called [payroll vote](_URL_2_) -- a bloc of legislators who can be relied on to support the government where necessary.\n\nSo we might ask why the framers of the Constitution made these decisions. They saw the power of dissolution as giving too much power to the executive vis-à-vis the legislature. As was stated in the [Declaration of Independence](_URL_1_):\n\n > He has **dissolved Representative Houses** repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.\n\nIf we look at the [debates on the Ineligility Clause](_URL_0_), we see the following exchange:\n\n > We have no way of judging of mankind but by experience. Look at the history of the government of Great Britain, where there is a very flimsy exclusion--Does it not ruin their government? A man takes a seat in parliament to get an office for himself or friends, or both; and this is the great source from which flows its great venality and corruption.\n\nIn other words, the framers saw the ability of legislators to serve concurrently in the executive as a potential source of corruption.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_6_2s1.html",
"http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_vote",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineligibility_Clause"
]
] |
||
ayzu3v
|
why do baby deer lose their spots as they grow older when the spots help with camoflage? why give up that advantage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ayzu3v/eli5_why_do_baby_deer_lose_their_spots_as_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei4el2a"
],
"score": [
38
],
"text": [
"A baby deer's defense mechanism is to lay low to blend with the ground. When looking down on the baby deer, the spots look like sunlight spots on the ground.\n\nWhen a deer gets older and larger, it loses its spots to help blend in with the background of dirt, bark, and tall grass when viewed from the side. an adult deer's defence mechanism is to remain still when standing, ready to bolt if needed. Floating spots would stick out too much."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3dri7e
|
Besides humans, is there any species that turned from prey to predator?
|
Are there any examples of the prey/predator relationship between two species reversing with time?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3dri7e/besides_humans_is_there_any_species_that_turned/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct8g0wi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Any lineage of carnivorous animals that has increased significantly in body size has, at some point, become larger than a previous predator. A good example is the dinosaurs, who started as fairly small reptilians being hunted by larger synapsids, then grew and came to prey on the synapsids' descendants, the mammals. Then, 180 million years later, the mammals were hunting the dinosaurs' descendents, the birds. Although, of course, some birds now hunt mammals. It's not a particularly unusual phenomenon, on a large timescale."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3fdbqn
|
what's the difference between coding for sony and coding for microsoft?
|
What would a programmer have to do to make a finished XBox 360 game into a PS3 game, assuming they had all of the tools and software available?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fdbqn/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_coding_for_sony/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctnlxhr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Now adays, not much. Xbox 360 and PS3 both run on C++, so really all you need to change is the engine you built for a different CPU and GPU.\n\nCorrect me if I'm wrong about this. I don't know much about development because I just started."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
26uqu1
|
why are some diseases more likely to happen to someone depending on their race/gender?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26uqu1/eli5_why_are_some_diseases_more_likely_to_happen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chuo3sg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The combinations of genetics that dictate your race or gender can also play a role on your immune system.\n\nNot to mention, certain diseases are only applicable to a specific sex (ovarian cancer, testicular cancer, etc).\n\nCombine that with the fact that they various combinations of genetics can result in differing amounts of each tissue type and such, and suddenly you have a lot of rates for diseases dependant on such circumstances changing, sometimes for the better or worse."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3as6yp
|
why doesn't one petrol station just make their price really low to get all the other stations' business?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3as6yp/eli5_why_doesnt_one_petrol_station_just_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csfh0n6",
"csfh3ls"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Because gasoline/petrol is sold on razor thin margins. If they dropped the price significantly, they'd *lose* money for every sale (they'd effectively be paying for you to buy their product), so they'd quickly go out of business.",
"Many gas stations don't make any money off of selling gas (unless when people pay with cash and there is no lower cash price). Many gas stations make 100% of their profit from the convenience store, and car wash if it has one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
48lz7w
|
why arent there any dark matter stars, planets or black holes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48lz7w/eli5_why_arent_there_any_dark_matter_stars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0kn8u2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There could very well be Dark Matter Stars and Black Holes, perhaps much more massive than the \"regular ones\", but we wouldn't be able to know that at this point, since we can't really observe dark matter in any meaningful way, or even be sure it really exists at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2qo98z
|
why is spam mail never realistic and always have weird fonts and spelling if they are trying to get people to click on them/do the service?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qo98z/eli5_why_is_spam_mail_never_realistic_and_always/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn7y9wa",
"cn7ybue",
"cn7yhwc",
"cn7z3ne"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
8,
6
],
"text": [
"It's to get around the spam filters that email servers have built in.",
"Spam is about volume. I can spend hours tweaking the fake to look perfect or I can spend 5 minutes on it and crank out dozens of different fake company emails.\n\nIf you are dumb enough to fall for a fake email, you are too dumb to notice flaws in the email anyway.",
"Part of it is that they intentionally make those mistakes because they WANT the people who fall for it to be the dumb ones. They aren't necessarily interested in fooling smart people...they want the marks.\n\nThink about it. If you wanted to con someone, would you aim for super smart people, or would you aim for the not so smart ones?",
"Spam filters automatically discard any mail with common spam words. So if you write \"BUY VIAGRA\" in your email it'll never get to the receipient. But if you write BYU VAG1RA 4 CHEEP!! Then perhaps there is a spam filter that doesn't have that spelling in it. Humans are much better at figuring out what you mean than a computer. Also VIAGRA written in two different fonts may not be taken as one word. Then at the end of the email they write something reasonable in very small print, also to circumvent the spam filter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
otfrz
|
Why do artificially flavored foods almost always taste worse than their natural counterparts?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/otfrz/why_do_artificially_flavored_foods_almost_always/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3jwm76",
"c3jxc8c"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"Natural flavors are staggeringly complex; anywhere from dozens to thousands of individual chemical compounds combine to make up what we sense as a 'flavor', both taste and aroma.\n\nBy contrast, artificial flavors are usually between one and five compounds, representing the major constituents of the natural flavor. It's close enough that your brain fills in the gaps and says 'Oh hey, this is pineapple!' when it's really just ethyl butyrate, and *true* pineapple flavor is ethyl butyrate and several hundred other compounds.",
"Is there and real evidence that they taste \"worse\"?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
24o0zo
|
how does shaking a liquid mix its contents, while spinning a liquid (with a machine) separates?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24o0zo/eli5_how_does_shaking_a_liquid_mix_its_contents/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch8z295",
"ch8z4b3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Shaking the liquid applies forces to its various components in an (essentially) random way, with forces acting in many directions. Spinning it applies the force in, as far as the liquid is concerned, one direction: outward. It's like subjecting it to a high gravitational field; the faster you spin it, the more force, the better the separation.",
"Shaking puts lots of random motion into the liquid, mixing the contents around.\n\nA centrifuge (the sort of spinning machine you're thinking of) spins things very fast, imparting a force in one direction (out). If you were in the tube of liquid, it would feel like gravity had gotten a LOT stronger. Normally, liquids that can separate do so slowly as more dense components fall towards gravity and less dense rise. With the large centrifugal force, the same thing happens, but much more quickly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1h13tk
|
If given the chance, would our planet spin indefinitely?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1h13tk/if_given_the_chance_would_our_planet_spin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"capskvg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Strictly speaking, no.\n\nFirst of all, let's clarify \"given the chance\": we'll imagine the Earth to be in an empty space devoid of other planets, planetoids, asteroids, stars, galaxies, interstellar dust and so on. Basically, there's nothing the planet can possibly interact with.\n\nIn this scenario, conservation of angular momentum means that the Earth must keep on spinning forever...except.\n\nExcept there's something we can't remove: the Earth's interaction with the space-time in which it exists. Taking this into account, by the theory of General Relativity, we know that a spinning body must emit gravitational waves, in a mechanism that is the gravitational analogous to a charged spinning body emitting electromagnetic waves in classical electrodynamics.\n\nThen, then gravitational waves will carry away both energy and momentum and, over time-scales much longer than the expected lifetime of the universe, they will finally bring the Earth to a stop."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2i4rpe
|
why do hotels provide little bottles of shampoo and shower gel or soap, but no toothpaste?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i4rpe/eli5why_do_hotels_provide_little_bottles_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckyt1wx",
"ckyt1x9",
"ckyux7l",
"ckyv4yb"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
28,
3
],
"text": [
"I believe it is common to take a toothbrush and toothpaste along when going for a trip, so they save money. Almost no one takes soap and shampoo with them on a trip. I have been in one hotel that had a toothbrush and toothpaste for guests.",
"Because stuff you put in your mouth is more intimate and people typically carry their own. And....you can always just ask for it and they'll give it to you.",
"I work in a hotel. We literally have an entire room full of amenities you wouldn't even think of asking for. Shaving cream, razors, toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss, mini sewing packs, hairspray, deodorant, combs, shower caps, q-tips, shoe polish, slippers, mouthwash, body wash, mini packs of aspirin, the list goes on. We don't supply rooms with all of it because it would cost way too much money. It's there if you need it, all you need to do is ask. So many times our guests luggage dont arrive and we provide them with an emergency amenity pack, which has all the toiletries and then some.",
"I'd agree with most of the other comments, and add that it's also a lot easier to bring toothpaste than shampoo etc, because your average shampoo bottle is way bigger than your average tube o' toothpaste. I know I don't usually have room in my suitcase for a bottle of shampoo and/or conditioner, I've got too many dildos to lug. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
15mdcg
|
aspergers.
|
How does it happen, and what are the effects on it. What would a person with Aspergers do differently in life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15mdcg/eli5_aspergers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7nr5hi",
"c7nt59e",
"c7nu7xt",
"c7nx4bo",
"c7o07j3",
"c7o342q"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
3,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[This video presentation](_URL_0_) should answer your first two questions.",
"It's a form of autism. A person with Aspergers would be socially awkward and would likely devote an unusually large amount of their attention to one thing. My nephew has it, he's 16 and he's like an encyclopedia for bass players from the 70's until now.",
"I work for an autism charity and we do have a few people Aspergers who use our services. It is considered, as Chester of Malley has said, a form of autism. This is controversial though and some see it as a completely separate condition.\n\nThere is no known cause for Aspergers, although like autism it does seem to be present from birth and does not seem to be caused by parenting or childhood experiences. Because people with Aspergers have no physical signs it is not usually diagnosed until the child is about 5 or 6, and sometimes even older. Sometimes people can even reach adulthood and not be diagnosed, especially if they have a milder case.\n\nPeople with Aspergers are likely to have difficulty relating to other people and understanding the emotions and wishes of others. This is also a feature of autism. However people with Aspergers tend to be a little more what we call \"high-functioning\" (in other words they do not have a major lack of intellectual ability), and most will be able to speak, read and write, do maths as well as (or even better than) you or I. This is not always a clear distinction between those with autism and aspergers though, because it is possible to be high-functioning autistic but not have Aspergers ([Temple Grandin](_URL_0_) is an example of a high-functioning autistic person).\n\nIn my experience one of the key features of Aspergers (as opposed to classical autism) is that, whereas autistic people tend to avoid lengthy contact with others, people with Aspergers are extremely talkative, but only when it comes to their area of interest. So, if one of them is interested in fighter planes they might suddenly start talking to a stranger at bus stop about fighter planes. Although they are not shy and would have a vast amount of knowledge, they would likely not be able to tell if the person they are talking to is not interested.",
"I'm 32 years old, I think, I was diagnosed with aspergers. I have co-morbid social anxiety and add. I don't like touching people or being touched except by a very small group of people. I can handle small groups of people for short periods of time, I reach a limit where meds are no longer sufficient and I start getting a pounding headache and suffer sound sensitivity. At that point I have to leave and be alone. I don't talking to people, I find they take too fucking long to get to the point. If you don't get to the point fast enough or I think you're retarded ill just walk away from you mid sentence. I have a very low bullshit tolerance. I don't understand or do small talk. This caused issues with my first marriage which ended in divorce after 9 months. I was recently re-married to a girl who also has diagnosed aspergers. AMA. ",
"Aspergers is a condition similar to autism. Autism involves extreme social anxiety/retardation, difficulty expressing emotions, repetitive actions and obsessive interests, and delays in speech and other developments (the IQ of autistic people ranges greatly, from profoundly disabled to above average intelligence). Aspergers is basically autism without the developmental delays. A person with aspergers develops normally, but basically has little to no social skills. They have to teach themselves how to develop relationships, which are skills that come naturally to a person without aspergers or autism.\n\nHow does it happen? We haven't QUITE figured it out yet, though it's most likely primarily genetic causes (with some speculation about environmental causes as well). ",
"You could repost to r/Autism, r/Aspergers, or r/Autistic; but it seems that Aspergers / ASD is an increased risk with any of 50-200 genes. There is some evidence that heavy metals or pre-natal assaults on the immune system contribute. The GI tract seems to be involved, such that the brain gets 'inflammed'. An aspie may suffer persistent anxiety and depression, be sensitive about at least some foods, or avoid socializing. There is wide variation, and it is considered hard to diagnose in adults. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropology/comments/15f7hd/i_made_this_video_presentation_ft_john_hawks_eo/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3jhcxv
|
Can animals lie?
|
I was watching a video on how and why cats purr because I wondered how they do it, I found out there is no absolute answer but only strong theories on the matter, since I would get no definite answer I kept watching and she started talking about why cats purr, cats don't only purr when they're happy, they also purr when in pain and to signal other animals they're friendly and have no malicious intentions, she put it like this " Older cats do this some times when they approach younger cats to say "Hey younger cat, I am totally friendly please don't scratch my face off!"".
This got me thinking how the younger cat would react, since he wouldn't just react only one way, there would be many courses of action the younger cat could choose to pursue, he could accept the older cats statement as true and ignore the cat, he could show aggression in an attempt to scare the cat off, or he could just attack him.
Would the younger cat even know that the older cat is trying to signal that he is peaceful?
Would he even understand his efforts at communication?
If so would he be able to deduct if the cat is lying?
I understand that all of my questions might not be answered but I would just like to ask and see if any of you can add a question for us to ponder or answer some of my questions.
Not really sure what to tag this as, for now I will tag this as psychology as I feel it to be the best fit, if there is a better fit please tell me.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3jhcxv/can_animals_lie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cup74vn",
"cup7q7i",
"cup7r4j",
"cup81ln"
],
"score": [
14,
8,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on how much you mean by \"lying.\"\n\nLots of animals use deception in communication within their own species, or with other species. My favorite example of this comes from watching Riki-Tiki-Tavi as a kid, when a mother bird pretends to be injured to lure a cobra away from her nest (presenting herself as an easy, disabled target.) It turns out some birds actually do this: _URL_2_\n\nHere's a summary of some other examples: _URL_0_. One common example of deception from one conspecific to another is some form of bluffing, for example: _URL_1_. This is essentially also what dogs or other animals are doing when they try to make themselves look bigger than they are, by changing their posture before a fight, trying to mark an object with urine as high off the ground as they can (to suggest that they are tall) etc. The adaptive significance of this behavior is to avoid a fight by scaring off a potential opponent, because in reality the animal in question might be likely to lose an open conflict.\n\nHowever, all of this certainly doesn't imply that any of these animals are aware that they are lying, the way a human is. Evolution may have shaped these behaviors without any need for conscious awareness. Likewise, if the older cat is giving a dishonest signal by indicating that it is non-aggressive, and the younger cat responds as though the signal is dishonest, the younger cat may still not \"know\" that the older cat is lying, but instead respond to some other cues the older cat is inadvertently giving that it's really getting ready to pounce.\n\nIn nature, at least, there is a strong selection pressure to cue in on \"honest\" signals--signals that can't be faked. A lot of good examples of this come from mating displays, where the features that females find attractive in males (strength, song performance in birds, symmetry, growth of elaborate coloration or plumage) are often things that are only physically possible if a male is very healthy, eg there are biological constraints on deception.\n\nEdit: Also, cool questions--I hope I at least partially answered them.",
"According to some research, one of the biggest difference between humans and the other apes is the ability to realize that others might not know things I know and vice versa.\n\nIf you don't realize or understand that someone doesn't know what you know, I don't think it's possible to lie (as the other would know that according to you).",
"I saw a video of a monkey that lied. In the video it introduced that the monkeys would use certain calls to indicate certain predators and also that monkeys of low social standing would have to pay \"taxes\" to monkeys of high social standing. So it showed that this one monkey yelled out that there was a predator and all other monkeys scurried up the tree while he went and ate some food he had stashed away.\n\nI can't speak to whether this kind of deceit is limited to primates though or if felines have the capability of this kind of deceit as well.\n\nIf you wanted to see the video it was part of the BBC's \"Clever Monkeys\" _URL_0_",
"Yes!\n\n > Koko the Gorilla, celebrated for her 1000-word sign language vocabulary, is known for her affinity toward cats. After she learned how to communicate with her caretakers at the Gorilla Foundation in Northern California, she asked for a kitten to have as a pet.\n\n > Like most people, Koko has good behaviors and bad behaviors. Like most people, she takes credit for the good behaviors and blames the bad ones on someone else.\n\n > The cat came in handy on one particularly destructive day. When no one was around, Koko managed to rip a sink out of the wall in her habitat. When the humans returned, they asked Koko who ripped out the sink.\n\n > Koko signed, \"The cat did it.\"\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_in_animals#Tactical_deception",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17830957",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWbhh2pVtzY"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6F98B69CCC755C6B"
],
[
"http://www.naturalnews.com/038743_primates_liars_gorilla.html"
]
] |
|
5jlteb
|
What is the difference between dehydration and thirst?
|
Does dehydration mean a low blood plasma, low water in the cells, or both?
Does being thirsty mean high sodium in blood, high sodium in cells, or both? Because you can be thirsty when your dehydrated, but also thirsty when you intake too much sodium in your diet.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5jlteb/what_is_the_difference_between_dehydration_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbhc3oc",
"dbiafpl"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"[Thirst is regulated by hypothalamus in response to high low plasma volume, or high plasma concentration.](_URL_0_)\n\nDehydration means water intake that doesn't match water output. Whether that means low plasma volume or low intracellular volume or both is complicated, as both of those are potentially dangerous, and your body will try to balance those two risks.",
"Dehydration is the state of plasma osmolarity (how syrupy/salty is your blood). \n\nThirst is the emotive force which causes you to drink. It is regulated by your hypothalamus and pituitary gland.\n\nThis seems like a good intro article to explain hypothalamus control of thirst. \n_URL_0_\n\n\nThis review seems more on point for an advanced reader.\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin#Regulation"
],
[
"http://www.brainfacts.org/brain-basics/neural-network-function/articles/2008/the-neural-regulation-of-thirst/",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14739394/"
]
] |
|
1v7b15
|
if dogs and cats are carnivores, why do we advertise putting vegetables in their food?
|
Or maybe they are omnivores? I've seen 'research' for both arguments but don't know what to think.
Also, I don't wanna spend tons of money on 'healthy', veggie-full diets if that's not what my dog needs.
Edit: words are hard.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v7b15/eli5_if_dogs_and_cats_are_carnivores_why_do_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cepfduf",
"cepgdmw",
"cepjhav",
"cepk3mo"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because people are morons and think that what's good for them must be good for their pets as well. Canines are carnivores that can have some vegetation in their diet, but it should be mostly meat. Felines are obligate carnivores that only eat vegetation to help with expelling indigestible matter in their GI tract.",
"While cats are primarily carnivores and dogs are often considered omnivores, both require some fiber in their diet to help food move through their digestive system. It is widely believed that cats get this in the wild by ingesting herbivores and while doing so they ingest small bits of plant matter that remains in the digestive tract of their prey. The best diets for home feeding of domestic dogs and cats tend to be the grain free high protein diets found in foods like Merrick dog and cat foods. \n\nHere's a link to their site talking about their foods: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere are other brands that are just as good, but the very best tend to have at least 70% meat or protein. ",
"Both cats and dogs can eat plants, carnivores or not, and absorb nutrients from them. While wolves generally eat almost only meat, they can eat plants. Dogs on the other hand, have evolved along side humans and have becomes much closer to being omnivorous. [A study](_URL_0_) found that dogs have additional copies of a gene to digest starches where as wolves only have one. This suggest that dogs evolved along side humans, eating our trash, which included lots of starchy plant matter. A dog can actually thrive on a 100% plant based diet with no issues. Some dogs with certain conditions actually benefit from it.\n\nBasically for dogs, they evolved to eat a similar diet to us, even though they originally evolved from primarily carnivores while we evolved from primarily herbivores. Veggies are good for both of us.\n\nCat's on the other hand are obligate carnivorous. Meat is basically an obligation for them. Cat's likely evolved along side us too, but hunted the pest and prey animals, rather than digging through our trash. Although I'm sure they did that too. But again, just because an animal is a carnivore in the wild and wouldn't touch any plants, doesn't mean that said animal can't benefit from plants. Some of it is however likely filler, zoos will often feed carnivores carrots and such, mostly just to entertain them, and it's not bad for them. They'll still gnaw them down cause they're so sedentary and bored. \n\nCat's digestive systems are more sensitive than dogs however, and require more specific diets. The reason being is because cats are originally desert animals and tend to urinate very little. This causes their digestive chemistry to be very sensitive to small changes, and feeding a cat lots of plants can potentially throw it's Ph balance off, form crystals in it's bladder, and possibly kill it. But a few plants here and there isn't going to do that to a cat. A dog on the other hand can eat pretty much whatever garbage you throw at it with only a few notable exceptions.\n\nYou can feed meat to herbivores, and they'll still digest it, you can feed plants to carnivores, and they'll still digest it, just not as efficiently. The majority of nutrients in meat can be found in plants and vice versa. There's really only a few specific things that aren't crossed over that make cat's obligate carnivores, along with the issue of their sensitive digestive system. \n\nAll that being said, I'm not an expert on cat or dog food. If you want to know which brand are worth buying or a waste of money, do some google research. Based on dogs evolutionary history with us, I would think an ideal diet for a dog would likely include at least some plants. Cat's may be a different story though.",
"dog food is sold to the owner, not the dog. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.merrickpetcare.com/our-mission/five-key-promises/"
],
[
"https://www.sciencenews.org/article/starchy-diet-may-have-transformed-wolves-dogs"
],
[]
] |
|
da02g6
|
why do some cities in the us have sherrifs department instead of police departments
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/da02g6/eli5_why_do_some_cities_in_the_us_have_sherrifs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1mba48",
"f1mbgtd",
"f1mbhfj"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Sheriffs are elected officials in charge of a county. \nPolice chief is usually appointed by the mayor. \n\nSome smaller towns may choose to rely on the sheriff's office instead of setting up a duplicate infrastructure for having their own police force - training, benefits, insurance, cars, tools, radio channel...",
"Sheriffs are usually for counties. It's a different type of jurisdiction...city cops only have jurisdiction in the city...but county cops (sheriff) have jurisdiction throughout the county, including all the cities.\n\nUsually sheriffs won't bother patrolling cities for city specific laws.\n\nOf course the above is a broad generalization",
"Large to medium cities and some large campuses have dedicated police departments. Some towns are too small to sustain a department. Also people live in unincorporated areas not directly covered by city services. \n\nSheriff's departments are maintained by a larger government structure, usually the county. Deputies will be be responsible for primary police work in the smaller areas without their own police departments for the same of efficiency. In a single county there might be several police forces working alongside deputies serving areas without them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
63rboy
|
the difference between a racecar and a sports car
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63rboy/eli5_the_difference_between_a_racecar_and_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfwe9gl",
"dfweahh",
"dfwfn1l"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"in the strictest of terms race cars are special built for a track or one type of event, their modifications make it to where they are no longer street legal, a sports car is just a sporty car. you can make a car a race car but you can't make a race car a normal car",
"Maybe a sports car is road legal? You cant actually drive most racecars legally on the roads. Due to being striped for racing ect",
"Each race car will have a list of restrictions that govern many different aspects of the car's dimensions, engine displacement, and even the shape of the outer shell. It will also have a very strict set of safety requirements regarding roll cages, fire suppression, and more.\n\nIn many hobby racing classes you are allowed to take standard production vehicles and modify them to meet safety and race requirements.\n\nIn professional racing circuits the cars are most often purpose built customs designed specifically for racing purposes - these vehicles lack the \"creature comforts\" ~~and~~ of a street car.\n\nThe requirements for street driven vehicles in limited areas of the world can be met by modifying a custom/race car to meet road car requirements (adding turn signals/ brake/head lights, emission systems and the like).\n\nIn most areas of the world, you have to be licensed as a manufacturer to be able to produce \"streetable\" cars and the economics of meeting these requirements often creates a significant \"barrier to entry\" that prevents the average joe from manufacturing their own vehicle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
66rgey
|
why do curse words/expletives change so much compared to other words?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66rgey/eli5_why_do_curse_wordsexpletives_change_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgkojnp"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Curse words are generally related closely to a time's taboos. For instance, words like \"fuck\" and \"shit\" were not taboo in the Middle Ages because among the common folk there was little to do to hide your sex and pooping (thus making it difficult to be taboo). In that time, God and Jesus' physical bodies (and later, bodies in general) were taboo, so swears would be things like \"Christ's blood\" or \"God's wounds\". Now that we all have our own places to sleep and can do our sex and poops in private, those are taboo things, increasing their vulgarity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
d1hfo2
|
why some bones in the body hurt more than the others?
|
For ex: hitting on shin bone hurt more than hurting your knuckles, why? Is it to do with number of nerve endings or the type of bone itself?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1hfo2/eli5_why_some_bones_in_the_body_hurt_more_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezlyisi",
"ezlzd59"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"If i remember correctly, it's because the shin one is very close to the surface. So when you hit against something you are hitting the actual bone. When you hit your knuckles it depends on how you hit them, it could also hurt, but there is more tissue to protect it.",
"It's a function of the internal biology of the different parts of the body. For example, hitting your \"funny bone\" is actually you hitting your ulnar nerve, which runs down your forearm. In the spot that people associate with pain, the nerve is relatively unprotected, which is why pain is more intense there\n\nThe other typical spot people associate with bone pain, the shinbone, is directly beneath the skin in pretty much everyone. Hits there hurt so much because of the periostal layer. The periost is a layer that covers every bone in your body, and is covered in pain receptors. These receptors send signals directly to the brain, and again, in the shin they're relatively unprotected by other things to soften the blow"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4n621u
|
differences between p/e ratio, eps, div/yield, and mktcap
|
I have been trying to learn finance in my spare time and I kinda understand these terms but when I start looking at actual tickers and data sheets, I can't understand what they mean or why they are important. I also need to know how they play into whether purchasing that stock or determining the "worth" of the stock, ie: whether that stock is worth the asking price or if it is worth more or less than the asking price.
Thanks in advance
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4n621u/eli5differences_between_pe_ratio_eps_divyield_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4152jk",
"d4164yh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"P/E ratio is price/earning ratio, per share. So if a stock trades at $100/sh and has earnings of $5/sh then it's P/E is 20.\n\nEPS is earnings per share, so that $5 in the above example. It is calculated by taking the total earnings and dividing by number of shares, so $5 million in earnings and 1 million shares outstanding would mean an $5 EPS.\n\nMarket Cap is the value of all the shares outstanding, to get a total value of the company. $100/sh x 1 million shares means a $100 million Market Cap.\n\nDiv/Yield is the ratio of dividends paid to shareholders relative to stock price. If a company paid out $1 a year in dividends (usually paid out quarterly, so 25 cents quarter) and the stock is $100, then the yield is 1%. If they paid out $4, then the yield would be 4%. If they paid $4 and the stock was worth $40, then the yield would be 10%.",
"EPS is earnings per share. It represents the ratio of net income (minus dividends) to the average number of outstanding shares during the reporting period. Very roughly, it can be thought of as the amount of profit each share represents. EPS is usually quoted per quarter. \n\nP/E ratio is price per share divided by earnings per share, where the earnings are counted over a year. Again, roughly, it represents the amount of profit a dollar buys. P/E might be talked about in terms of the past year or expectations of the coming year. Sometimes, people will exclude cash (or other 'non working' capital the business owns but doesn't make profit from) from the price of the business, which you would see as P/E ex cash. A high P/E represents a market that believes the company will grow a lot in the future, so while a dollar doesn't buy much profit from last year, a lot of people expect it to return more in the future. Very stable, very established industries (value stocks) aren't expected to grow or shrink, so the P/E tends to be priced for little growth. For example, utilities have low P/E, since people will need as much electricity next year as they did this year. But Tesla has a huge P/E, because there's enough belief that it can be the size of GM. \n\nDividend yield is the ratio of dividends paid out on a share versus the cost basis of the share. As in, if I buy a share for $100 and it pays $1 in dividends in a year, it has a yield of 1%. \n\nMarket cap is the price per share times the number of outstanding shares. It's the most common approximation to the 'total' value of the company. When some says public company X is a $Y company, they're usually refering to market cap. \n\n/facts\n\nOpinions:\nAs far how these affect your investing decisions, some people like to use P/E as a gauge of the market's expectation of growth for that stock. If you think you know better, you can profit from that. I'd caution that a lot of lay people who think they know better than the market end up paying bankers' salaries. Exceptions are usually industry experts who really do see something that other sophisticated researchers do not. It's not impossible, but you know if it applies to you. \n\n\nDividend yield has a couple attributes. If you're building a portfolio for growth, you should consider dividend yield as an addition to expected price growth, especially if you reinvest the dividend. Of course, yield can have less risk than growth, so that gets priced in as well. \n\nSome people like to make income portfolios instead of growth portfolios. They seek to maximize new income from their capital, and they emphasize growth less. Dividends are paid per share, not per dollar, so if the price of the stock goes down, you dont lose income unless the dividend goes down too. If you're making a dividend portfolio, you try to maximize yield within your tolerance for risk of the company being able to keep paying it (and the value of your overall investment going down ). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2a0fhr
|
It's often said a great plague decimated North America's population before Europeans arrived. What was the plague? How bad was it?
|
Do we know what illness(es) were involved? What was the population loss in numbers, if we can estimate? What approximate time period was the die-off of local humanity in?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a0fhr/its_often_said_a_great_plague_decimated_north/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciqatqj",
"ciqg9n9"
],
"score": [
35,
4
],
"text": [
"hi! the \"plague\" was several previously-unknown infectious diseases - most notoriously smallpox, but also others - carried by the Europeans and introduced into the native population. Knowing this usually raises a few follow-on questions: (1) Did a similar epidemic also occur when the Norse arrived in Greenland/Newfoundland ca 1000AD? (no) (2) Did Europeans also contract diseases from the native peoples? (yes, but to a lesser extent) and (3) Did the Europeans realize what was happening? (not initially, but later yes)\n\nThese topics are discussed in these sections of the FAQ (link on sidebar):\n\n* [Native Americans and (European) Diseases](_URL_1_)\n\n* [Did the Europeans deliberately spread disease](_URL_0_)\n\nSome other common follow-on questions include (1) did the same thing happen in in other areas colonized by Europeans (Africa, Australia, etc)? (2) Were native peoples of Latin America impacted to the same degree, that is, why is there a higher % of people of native extraction? If you run a few searches in this sub for \"native disease\" or \"smallpox\", you'll find many related posts.",
"As far as before Europeans arrived to the continent? Possibly smaller breakouts but nothing widespread. However, there are many records of sweeping and decimating epidemics that would spread in various ways to more isolated populations such as in the West Coast of North America prior to European human arrivals but after they had been introduced to the continent and began introducing biota into the newly discovered Americas. European diseases (that the indigenous Americans had never previously been exposed to) were able to spread via animal as well as other Americans. Quarantine strategies were often utilized in which the ailing and dying would be abandoned and the healthy would flee and introduce it into a new population. These diseases were extremely devastating to the populations as well as equally devastating to New Zealand and Australia in a similar fashion. \n\nSource: Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, Studies in Environment and History; Alfred W. Crosby"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/nativeamerican#wiki_did_the_europeans_deliberately_spread_disease",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/nativeamerican#wiki_native_americans_and_.28european.29_diseases"
],
[]
] |
|
fj17o
|
Chemicals that can break down marshmallows?
|
Sort of a very random question I know, but my google-fu is failing me.
I need a chemical/compound that when applied to a marshmallow, will produce some sort of reaction (though preferably will break it down / destroy it). Ideally this would only require a small amount of the chemical to do so. Inexpensive/ a common house hold item is also preferred.
I know that marshmallows consist largely of sugar/corn syrup and gelatin, however I am far from a chemist and have little idea what is capable of breaking the bonds (other than a large amount of heat hahaha).
Thank you in advance!
**EDIT:** Alright, I'm sure one of the suggested ideas will work. Thank you all. If I try your idea I will let you know of the results via comment reply sometime next week.
...At which point you'll have forgotten about this thread and wonder why someone is orange-redding you about destroying marshmallows.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fj17o/chemicals_that_can_break_down_marshmallows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1gada9",
"c1gadd3",
"c1gadvg",
"c1gaeid"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Concentrated sulfuric acid might lead to an interesting reaction.\n\nBasically any strong oxidizing agent, e.g. potassium permanganate.",
"If you want to make the reaction spectacular, you'd be hard-pushed to beat marshmallow + potassium chlorate: _URL_0_\n\nToo bad it's not exactly a common household product.",
"boiling water is probably your best bet. Dissolves sugars, dissolves gelatin. Perhaps there's some other reason you can't use it though?",
"Maybe something that breaks down the gelatin (enzyme: protease.) Uncooked kiwi/pineapple/papaya-juice? Otherwise just hot water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txkRCIPSsjM"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
25odyx
|
Are there actual chemical differences between various cooking oils other than their origins (peanuts, olives, rapeseeds)?
|
I know peanut oil has a much higher smoke point than olive oil but does that come from having different molecules in it or does that characteristic come from something else?
Or do these differences in characteristics come from differing concentrations of types of lipids?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/25odyx/are_there_actual_chemical_differences_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chjfhze"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, it's the reason they're different and have different characteristics and tastes. If chemically they were identical then they would behave the same provided they were in the same concentrations and circumstances. They're mainly made of fatty acids, examples being palmitic acid, oleic acid (mainly), linoleic acid and some stearic acid - this is olive oil. Sunflower oil on the other hand has more linoleic acid than oleic. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1wyt5p
|
Was an invasion from anyone other than Britain feared in the United States in its first few decades? If so, what powers seemed most likely to attack?
|
I've read that the replacement of the Articles of Confederation was partially to protect from invasion by European great powers. But who could have invaded, besides Britain? Spain and France?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wyt5p/was_an_invasion_from_anyone_other_than_britain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf6otie"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Other answers here are discussing the possibility of direct invasion or territorial intervention in the US by the major European powers, but there is another important dynamic here to consider.\n\nDuring the first few decades of its existence the US was not a major power in the Atlantic, and it existed in a volatile \"balance of power\" international system which stressed direct competition. The US, in other words, was a small fish in a big pond. More accurately, before the Constitution the US was several small fishes in a big pond, which is where a lot of the perceived danger surfaced.\n\nIt was feared that through political and economic pressure, the major European powers might drive wedges between the various states for their own gain. If the US could be split into two or three smaller confederacies, they could be pitted against one another in ways that benefited European powers (through trade, primarily) at the expense of the states.\n\nMany historians today like to stress that the formation of the Constitution reflected international concerns as much as domestic ones. Strengthening the national government and then funneling foreign policy and diplomatic relations through Washington was in part a way to keep side deals and backroom agreements with Europe from driving the country apart."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1xlibo
|
What would be the composition and characteristics of a black dwarf star?
|
I looked into previous posts about on the subject, but the answers were limited beyond it merely being very, very dense.
Additionally, I remember hearing that is one existed, they would be composed mostly of carbon, although I am not sure of the validity of that factoid.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1xlibo/what_would_be_the_composition_and_characteristics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfcjdzn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A black dwarf is simply a white dwarf that has cooled down from its initial very high temperature and no longer is radiating visible light. We think that none actually exist yet in our universe, because that cooling process takes much longer than the current age of the universe.\n\nSo, a black dwarf would be made out of the same things a white dwarf would. The composition of a white dwarf depends on the star it was born from. White dwarfs are the remnant cores of dead stars that ran out of lighter elements to fuse in their cores, but did not have enough mass to create high enough pressures/temperatures to start the next stage of fusion.\n\nIn most small to medium sized stars this happens after the core has fused all of its hydrogen into helium and then fused all of its helium into carbon and oxygen - it doesn't have enough mass to create enough pressure to fuse those into heavier elements, so the remnant core is made out of carbon and oxygen. Some slightly heavier stars will have been able to fuse the carbon into neon, resulting in an oxygen-neon white dwarf. Stars that are more massive still will continue fusing heavier elements and eventually explode as supernova, so they don't create white dwarfs. Very low mass stars won't even be able to fuse their helium into carbon and oxygen, so you could get a helium white dwarf, but since those stars live so long this is also expected to take longer than the current age of the universe to happen, so barring some sort of multiple-star mass transfer shenanigans there shouldn't be any of those around yet either."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
704f56
|
how can buzzfeed take pictures from instagram without asking permission?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/704f56/eli5_how_can_buzzfeed_take_pictures_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn0arr9",
"dn0arr9"
],
"score": [
57,
57
],
"text": [
"Buzzfeed largely operates on an \"ask for forgiveness, not permission\" standpoint. Basically, all you can do is demand they take it down. And then they do. But since Buzzfeed articles have a lifespan of about 2 minutes, they don't care if they have to take it down after 99% of the people who will ever read the article already has. \n\nIt should be noted that posting your image on a public social media network already has terms and rights built into it.",
"Buzzfeed largely operates on an \"ask for forgiveness, not permission\" standpoint. Basically, all you can do is demand they take it down. And then they do. But since Buzzfeed articles have a lifespan of about 2 minutes, they don't care if they have to take it down after 99% of the people who will ever read the article already has. \n\nIt should be noted that posting your image on a public social media network already has terms and rights built into it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3baqcu
|
if a gay couple marry in u.s.a what happens when they travel to places (such middle eastern states) are they not allowed to travel there and such?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3baqcu/eli5_if_a_gay_couple_marry_in_usa_what_happens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cskf8ot"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"In countries that don't recognize same-sex marriage, they will simply be treated as two unrelated people traveling together, with no special rights or privileges of a married couple.\n\nBut since they are of the same sex, they can get a shared hotel room even in a very conservative country that doesn't acknowledge homosexuality.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1qklyb
|
why do humans have such great height/weight disparities compared to other animals?
|
Just curious why you see such a difference in height and weight in humans and not really any differences in animals. Any explanation for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qklyb/eli5why_do_humans_have_such_great_heightweight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cddqdrc",
"cddrdbb"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The Cheetah goes to the savannah for it's food.\n\nI go to Trader Joes - AS MUCH AS I FUCKING WANT!!!! YEEHAW! eat to your hearts content, piggy...",
"Weight disparities have everything to do with diet. You can see such weight disparities in loads of species when changing their diet. So because weight differences are primarily due to diet in humans, let's focus on height. Height disparity has a ton to do with mating behavior. You might have to bear with me for this one.\n\n < edit > : Should clarify, that between populations, size differences have a lot to do with temperature changes, and food availability. In very hot areas you would want to have a lot of surface area when compared to body volume, so evolution would favor thin people. In cold climates you would want a large volume to surface area ratio. Another factor is the available energy. Food is out energy, and in areas with abundant food year-round, you don't need to store much food. in areas where you might go long periods without food you might need to store some up. But one of the largest reasons for the disparity in size comes from our history of mating habits < /edit > \n\nAges ago, humans lived in a different type of society. In that society, males competed with other males for mates. We call this male-male competition. Now, they didn't just compete for one mating opportunity, they competed to control a harem of females. In this type of society a larger male with larger canine teeth could do better in fights, and therefore would be more likely to secure the harem. This led to more mating opportunities, and so the genes for large males with large canines.\n\nIn situations like this, where evolution has favored large males with large canines, we refer to the difference in size between a male and female and sexual dimorphism. There is sexual dimorphism in gorillas, for example, for the attributes of canine size, body size, and skull shape.\n\nNow, sexual dimorphism for humans was prevalent for really long periods of time (compared with our modern scale of time), with males having multiple female partners. During this time males were bigger and scarier, and necessarily so. Not only did they compete with other males, they protected the females. Sometimes when a new male comes to dominate a group he will kill the infants. Females don't want that, plus they may actually like their male. So a new male is generally a hostile thing, and represents tumultuous change for the group. Soon, this would all change though.\n\nHumans were smart, and eventually built tools. These tools allow us to chop wood, break open nuts, kill animals, indeed allow us to kill each other. Suddenly, in an era where hand-to-hand (or tooth-to-tooth) fighting was prevalent, we now have tools to allow us to kill each other. Suddenly, it didn't matter as much how big you were, or how big your teeth were, it mattered how well you could make and use tools. The little guy could win in a fight against the big guy it he can successfully club him or stab him to death first. This was synchronous with a major turning point in human evolution - the point where our brains became more important than many of our other evolved traits.\n\nOK, so now we have a group of humans where it was previously good for males to be big, strong, and physically dangerous, but now intellect and other traits are more important. In the old world, evolution was selecting *for* size and strength. Size meant more mates, more offspring, etc. But at the same time, bigger males means you need more food for them, and need to devote more energy to growing that mass and maintaining it. Now, evolution has relaxed selection pressures for size. This means that although evolution isn't actually actively selecting *against* body and canine size, it's no longer selecting *for* it. So now the selection pressure for male size is much closer to that the same pressure that females have for size.\n\nWith that out of the way, DNA doesn't change overnight, nor is it limited to one sex. Although the selection pressure is off for huge males, the males are still carrying the DNA to be big - or at least currently they are .. or at least somewhat. Really what has happened is now there still are the genes for big males, but now new genes for smaller males arise and they get spread because they is very little selection against smaller males. I mean females still do slightly prefer larger males, but this isn't a huge selection pressure, and it might just be an evolutionary leftover on the female's part.\n\nSo, when you look at the humans in the world, in different societies you will see a different amount of sexual dimorphism for size and canine size between the males and the females. The groups with the largest amount of dimorphism are the ones that had the most selection for large male size and/or the shortest time since that selection was relaxed. In societies where that selection was minimal, or it's been a very long time since it was relaxed, the males and females are of roughly the same size. The fact that females vary in size along with the males is for two reasons. First, the males are carrying genes for body size, so they are transmitting those genes to their daughters as well as sons. Secondly, with each group you look at, you can understand that evolution was selecting for a particular \"base\" size for the humans anyway; females had to be large enough to birth the children, children had to be large enough to survive their environment, heat/energy reserves must meet the needs for the environment, etc.\n\nRambled a bit there. Feel free to ask me to clarify anything"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9qhy42
|
Why was Zeus worshiped in Greek society when he is portrayed as a patricidal tyrant and Prometheus was not when he was the man who gave man all their gifts and suffered for it?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9qhy42/why_was_zeus_worshiped_in_greek_society_when_he/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e89pj7u"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"/u/XenophonTheAthenian has an [excellent answer](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4y667y/how_did_the_hellenistic_greeks_view_prometheus/d6lcb4g/"
]
] |
||
3xp32b
|
Are today's Jews truly the ethnical successors of the ancient people of Judea, or are they rather the inheritors of the Jewish culture and religion, with only loose ethnical ties?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xp32b/are_todays_jews_truly_the_ethnical_successors_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy6jp1a",
"cy6lr5k",
"cy6nn4k",
"cy6ntth",
"cy6ru4a",
"cy6vfro"
],
"score": [
42,
671,
865,
58,
16,
19
],
"text": [
"Aren't there Jews in Ethiopia? ",
"Hello everyone, \n\nIn this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments, and as such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind [our rules](_URL_1_) concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed. \n\nTo be quite clear about what the problems have been so far: \n\n* Your personal opinions about Jewish people or Judaism are off topic here. Anti-Semitism is an immediate, permanent ban. \n\n* Wikipedia articles are not valid sources here in this sub. Answers that reference them as sources, or say \"just look on Wiki,\" will be removed. \n\n* Allegations that there's a vast moderator conspiracy to conceal THE TRUTH here will be removed. There is no vast moderator conspiracy. Ain't no one got time for that. \n\nAdditionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to [modmail](_URL_2_), or a [META thread](_URL_0_[META]). Thank you!",
"First, we have to look at who today's Jews *are*.\n\nSome will be converts. Conversion has happened historically, even in Nazi occupied countries^1 (!) and some descendants with Jewish heritage may therefore have one or multiple convert ancestors. The majority of these historic converts probably ended up marrying a non convert Jew, so they would still have some Jewish ancestors generations before the conversion. Converts and the descendants of converts are of course Jewish, but are not ethnic successors in that they are unlikely to share the same or similar genetic links a Jew descended from a non convert would with ancient Judeans, although I would say they were cultural successors.\n\nWithin that group of converts and descendants of converts are some very old and large ethnic groups. For example, Beta Israel, and also the Falash Muras (converted Christian Beta Israel^3 ) are of Ethiopian origin. There is controversy over their origins, with some having claimed they are descended from the tribe of Dan, from King Solomon^4 and so on. Various studies have been done to decipher their genetic origins, and mostly they are shown to be of Cushitic descent^5 and distinct from other Jewish ethnic groups^6 .There may be similarities with Yemeni Jews^7 , but the sample size for the study showing a possible link was too small to say anything conclusively, and even this link was weak. Most likely, some Jewish travellers from outside Ethiopia came to the area, converted some of the local population and married into local families, and that was what led to the creation of Beta Israel. So they are probably not the ethnic descendants of ancient Judeans, but again, with religious and cultural ties, they are instead inheritors of Jewish culture, as you put it.\n\nAshkenazi Jewish genetics has been dealt with elsewhere, so I'll do Sephardim. Sephardic Jews are shown to have a genetic link with the Fertile Crescent, and also a genetic link to Ashkenazi Jews. North African Jews are shown to be a distinct group from local populations which aren't Jewish, but often have traces of Berber blood as well, due to intermixing, intermarriage etc^8 .\n\nThe historic Jews of northern Portugal also show a close link with the Middle East. About 70% of their paternal lineages are shown to be more common and typical in the Middle East than Portugal, although there is still a significant European ancestry in the majority, however it must also be understood that frankly to have that 70% is amazing in itself, as it shows that even though intermarriage (between Jews of different ethnic backgrounds) must've occurred, it probably occurred very little, over a millennia. \n\nIn fact, for the majority of Jewish ethnic groups, there are genetic ties, and close ones at that, between Mountain Jews, Georgian Jews (descendants of Persian and Iraqi Jews), Yemenite Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Romaniote Jews, Italian Jews and the many ethnic groups making up the Mizrahi Jews^9. But that isn't to say there isn't any mixing, for although the majority of the Jewish population not descended from recent converts are likely to have Judean ancestors, they are also likely to have had a few more local ancestors, which is why Ashkenazi Jews tend to be paler than the average Arab person, for example. \n\nSo, to sum it up, it depends. There are many ethnic groups that Jews belong to, some will have few genetic links to ancient Judea due to being descendants of converts (however many generations ago), and the majority will have a minority of non-Jewish ancestors due to mixing, intermarriage and so on. But yes, there is an ethnic link between most Jews and ancient Judeans.\n\n* ^1 Conversion to Christianity and Conversion to Judaism During the Era of Nazi Rule, Professor Dan Mechman\n* ^2 The Theory and Practice of Welcoming Converts to Judaism, Lawrence Epstein\n* ^3 The Beta Israel in Ethiopia and Israel: Studies on the Ethiopian Jews, Emanuela Trevisan Semi\n* ^4 The Beta Israel: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, Steven Kaplan\n* ^5 Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y-Chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence Variation, P. Shen et al\n* ^6 [Beta Israel are on a distinct distal branch outside of the shared Jewish population cluster identified by PCA](_URL_5_), pg9.\n* ^7 [Mitochondrial DNA reveals distinct evolutionary histories for Jewish populations in Yemen and Ethiopia](_URL_2_)\n* ^8 [The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula](_URL_3_)\n* ^9 _URL_5_\n\nFurther reading: \n* [Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora](_URL_0_) \n* [Founding Mothers of Jewish Communities: Geographically Separated Jewish Groups Were Independently Founded by Very Few Female Ancestors](_URL_4_) \n* [North African Jewish and non-Jewish populations form distinctive, orthogonal clusters](_URL_1_)",
"Perhaps I should mention that I'm asking out of fascination for the possibility of a people being so spread out, yet remaining largely the same ethnic group. Yet it seems so unlikely that there wouldn't be more of a mix-up between Jews and surrounding peoples over the 2000 odd years since the diaspora, even accounting for anti-Semitism throughout the ages. ",
"Do you have a useful definition of \"ethnic\" or do you actually mean \"genetic\"?",
"What about Jews who converted to Christianity or Islam? How many of the descendants of Judea do we call Palestinian or Arab today?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/submit?selftext=true&title=",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules",
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Question%20Regarding%20Rules"
],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323359/",
"http://www.pnas.org/content/109/34/13865.abstract",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20623605",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC379128/",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543766/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1rd737
|
what prevents people from making an exact copy of their game disc ?
|
if we are able to read whats on the disc why can't data be written to a DVD or BLUray like the way the manufacturers do it . At a Microscopic level isn't it all pits and vacant spaces on the disc that is being read by the laser in the optical drive and converted into bits. So why can't a disc with the same pattern be recreated ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rd737/eli5_what_prevents_people_from_making_an_exact/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdm12vj",
"cdm6cp5"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Game system makers come up with clever schemes that appear to be errors on the disc, which copiers either ignore, \"fix\", or fail when they read them.\n\nThe game system looks for these \"errors\" to authenticate the disc.",
"Commercial games are pressed for one, not burnt. Blank discs are pressed also, with a mostly empty groove.\n\nEither have IDs which tell what they are, and what/where they came from.\n\nPresed discs say they are an audio CD, console game (and for what console), and may include security keys/signatures.\n\nAlso, game discs may be made with a different checksum calculation. \n\nConsumer disc writers cannot write the ID area (it already has data stamped into it), plus use a consumer checksum algorithm.\n\nTL;DR, consumer drives cannot write what a console looks for in an original disc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
b2a30l
|
why does our brain paralyze the body when we fall asleep? aren’t we already relaxed when we’re snoozing?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2a30l/eli5_why_does_our_brain_paralyze_the_body_when_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiraoi0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Your brains are going crazy while you sleep, so if your body wasnt paralyzed your body would be going crazy too"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bsym9u
|
how does a banana get more sugary after it over-ripens, even after it is cut off of its tree?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsym9u/eli5_how_does_a_banana_get_more_sugary_after_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eorvk8p",
"eorxk8h"
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text": [
"All the sugar is already in the banana but it is woven in long threads that don't taste sweet in mouth. When it ripens the threads break down and we can taste the sugar again.",
"It can ripen after being cut off if a fruit first grows to size with starch, and then starch gets broken down into sugar as it ripens. It already contains all the carbohydrates, it's just more like a potato than a sweet fruit.\n\nNot all fruit work this way though, pomegranates and citruses won't get any sweeter after they're picked."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
183jum
|
In what ways, if any, did life in the ancient Near East change after Alexander's conquests?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/183jum/in_what_ways_if_any_did_life_in_the_ancient_near/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8bdhu1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It changed enormously. \n\nThe era called the Hellenistic Period began with Alexander, and lasted for about three hundred years (I'm counting the conquest of the Lagids as the end of the era - you could arguably count until the fall of the last Indo-Greek kingdoms). It transformed the culture of a huge area in almost every way you can think of. It's too large and too complex a subject to do justice here - I urge you to read the Wikipedia article as an introduction.\n\nThe Hellenistic was hugely influential to then Roman Empire, which was hugely influential to first European and then world history. You could even argue that we, in many ways, still live in the Hellenistic Era if we use the term loosely - it's no wonder that Greece is often referred to as \"the cradle of civilization\". \n\nIn short, without Alexander, our world would have been so different that I cannot really imagine what it would have been like. We most likely wouldn't have had a scientific or industrial revolution yet, for instance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
af20qi
|
why does cracking lake ice make that ghostly sound?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/af20qi/eli5_why_does_cracking_lake_ice_make_that_ghostly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edusp6n",
"eduua0r"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"I think I know exactly what sound you mean. At a high level it's a weak crystalline material that is vibrating when those cracks appear. It's like a big drum head and makes the sound.",
"Water expands as it crystallizes. Since water is also incompressible as a liquid, this means the crystal ice needs to shear as it forms to make room for new ice, which causes that cracking sound."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1u2oee
|
other than show everyone my internet history what is the worst the nsa could do to me?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u2oee/eli5_other_than_show_everyone_my_internet_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cedwt5g",
"cedwzxx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm making an assumption about your age, but give this (_URL_0_ podcast)[http://www._URL_0_/podcast/why-people-born-after-1995-cant-understand-book-1984/] an hour of your time. I like it and its fair to the younger people they are talking about. \n\nBasically, If you are a redditor older than early twenties, the answer is easy: They can violate your privacy, an idea once valued. If you're younger, its harder to explain. The NSA is a government organization that could write a more honest and accurate college entrance essay about you than you could, because they, unlike you, have data on everything you've ever typed or spoken near a phone. That ability is not inherently bad, but it requires you to place an enormous amount of trust in your government agencies. ",
"The NSA has stored, since about 2006, virtually every phone call, text message, or email that goes through the United States. Any sensitive information, whether it be illegal or simply private, is now accessible to a blank government agency for use indefinitely in the future. \n\nWe enjoy those freedoms now but its important to remember that history is not set in stone. Those rights *can* be taken away in the future. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"cracked.com",
"http://www.cracked.com/podcast/why-people-born-after-1995-cant-understand-book-1984/"
],
[]
] |
||
ck9fpk
|
why don’t muscles show up on x-rays, but do on mris?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ck9fpk/eli5_why_dont_muscles_show_up_on_xrays_but_do_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evkqdt0",
"evkx2vy"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"X-rays are effected by dense substances like bone so they are clearly defined on X-rays. MRI or Magnetic Resonance Imagers work by vibrating molecules under a powerful magnetic force show entirely different views of the body - _URL_0_",
"For the most part x-ray photons pass easily through the muscle whereas passing through the bone is much harder so that the areas that show up white or transparent on an x-ray are those that werent showered with photons alot.\nAn MRI on the other hand measures the relaxation of an excited spin of hydrogen atoms and depending on how much water there is in a certain tissue we can determine its type. Seeing that muscles are largely comprised of water they will show up with MRI."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/hlFGbiZRR5I"
],
[]
] |
||
1plvts
|
voyager's fuel?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1plvts/voyagers_fuel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd3s9b9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For electrical power, it's \"fueled\" by plutonium-238. See _URL_0_\n\nFor maneuvering fuel, it's hydrazine. This is the only fuel the Voyagers have for both changing the spacecrafts' attitude and trajectory."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator"
]
] |
||
1k57b5
|
Have historians officially switched to the BCE/CE notation for years?
|
I still predominantly see BC/AD for years across my Internet browsing and such. I know there's the new notation of BCE and CE (when did those come about, by the way?), so I was wondering how official those are now. Would one get in trouble for not using them in, say, a college paper?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k57b5/have_historians_officially_switched_to_the_bcece/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbli2k7",
"cblieza",
"cblkk4n",
"cblmz0r",
"cblo84f"
],
"score": [
73,
11,
40,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"This is a highly particular question to where you were taught, and what environment your academic experience has been in.\n\nThere are likely some professors and indeed departments who would much rather their students utilised BCE/CE. On the other hand, many continue to use BC/AD. My department was totally ambivalent about it, and I can tell from the continued use of BC/AD in many recent papers that many other departments don't really mind either.\n\nHistorians as a whole have not 'officially' adopted BCE/CE, but then again History doesn't tend to officially adopt anything; there are no unitary bodies that dictate this sort of thing, it's always a matter of ideas being proposed and others choosing to agree or disagree. It's a very piecemeal discipline in that regard.\n\nOn the other hand, I know that there are others within history who have assumed everyone is using BCE/CE now. Some specific disciplines within history have adopted this more uniformly than others.\n\nPersonally, my point of view is this; if you find that the professor or department dislike the use of one system or the other, they'll tell you in their feedback and it's easy to adjust. It's like the preference for footnotes vs endnotes and for particular citation systems; it's entirely unpredictable what a given department will favour, and the only way to find out is to get it wrong (or to accidentally get it right). Likewise, if you yourself actually prefer BCE/CE then you should use it anyway, there's no harm in doing so.\n\nThere have been arguments, including on this subreddit, on this matter that illustrate how disunited attitudes are to BCE/CE. I personally tend to think of it this way; if you dislike the active reference to Christianity that BC/AD uses then you're totally entitled to use BCE/CE, it's the same dates as the BC/AD system and it doesn't cause any problems. On the other hand, if you feel that there's no real difference I don't really see a problem using BC/AD if you want to; BC/AD is still recognised on sight more often, and ultimately BCE/CE still uses the *traditional* estimated year of Jesus' birth as the fulcrum of the calendar so it's still not that far removed. Either way, as long as you consistently use one system within a particular body of text it's really not worth people making a fuss either way.\n\nTo summarise; it depends on the department as to whether they like BCE/CE or not, BCE/CE is the safer bet in that scenario but many won't care either way. Neither choice will ever please everybody, but that's kind of a given in history.",
"1) Historians have not officially switched to BCE/CE. \n\n2) You will not get in trouble for using BC/AD. \n\nI used BC/AD throughout the entirety of my undergrad education as a history major at UC Berkeley. All of the professors I had used BC/AD, with only one using BCE/CE and he was a lecturer who just received his PhD the year before. I used BC/AD for everything I wrote in his class. I also recall that on the first day of lecture for a class on Rome that professor actually took a minute to address the controversy and in a good natured way basically said it's nonsense and a non-issue (which I 100% agree with) and will be using BC/AD. \n\nLastly, my sister who teaches 6th grade in California (instruction in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome) says a few words about why their text uses BCE/CE and she says every year the kids are pretty vocal in thinking the change is stupid. She continues to use BC/AD. \n\nIMO traditional people will think you're being politically correct if you use BCE while I'm not sure what BCE users will think if you use BC. ",
"I'm a historian. I won't switch unless publishers make me. I find them silly and intellectually dishonest since we still denote time from Christ's birth. There's nothing \"Common\" about Ancient Rome or Late Antiquity. There's nothing \"Christian\" about it either until the 300's...maybe.\n\nI'll stick to BC/AD.",
"Even if you're okay with BC/AD as a religious reference, it's not good because\nthe estimate (made in the middle ages) for the date of the birth of Jesus is highly\nunlikely to be correct. So it's the \"commonly accepted method of dating, based\non a guess about the date,\" i.e. BCE/CE.\n",
"As someone in religious studies I'll go ahead and chime in. BCE/CE is almost exclusively used in non-confessional publications in my field, though I've noticed BC/AD used commonly in classical publications.\n\nSome have asked what the meaningful difference is between something like Before Christ/Year of Our Lord and Before the Common Era/The Common Era since they both use the fulcrum of the birth of Jesus. One response would be the other BCE/CE acronym: Before the Christian Era/The Christian Era. This is generally the sense in which I use it. This both acknowledges the secular primacy as it were, of Christianity in the Western World until now, without demanding all, including non-Christians, to bow the knee to \"our Lord.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3qhmfr
|
How did the Luftwaffe aces rack up such astonishing scores?
|
Some of the figures I've seen look absolutely incredible. What factors contributed to this?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qhmfr/how_did_the_luftwaffe_aces_rack_up_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwfai7q",
"cwfeh53",
"cwfof9c",
"cwfx0dm"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the Allies and the Luftwaffe/Japanese had different systems for their pilots. When an US ace serves up his tour of duty, he is rotated back stateside to train new pilots and test new airplanes being designed and such. German aces on the other hand are kept on the front lines until they die, so what you have are some very exceptional German aces who are kept on the front lines and rake up the kills while American aces who had the same potential are sent back to improve the quality of the air force as a whole.",
"A variety of reasons.\n\nWhen World War 2 broke out the German Luftwaffe was one most technological advanced and best trained air forces. In contrast to air forces of other nations, Germany was able to get valuable experience during the Spanish civil war, a time when many pre war theories were put to the test and redefined. Then again German pilots were able to gain experience over Poland with far superior machines. This combination of starting factors allowed for an advantagous position when it came to fighting the Armée de l'air, RAF and Red Airforce.\n\nFrom here on several factors allowed for those tallies. Most of the claims were made on the Eastern Front. Several advantages on the side of the Luftwaffe amplified the already significant experience gap. At this point many German pilots had flown many combat missions and were also highly motivated due to the past successes of the Wehrmacht. When Germany struck the Soviet Union the Red Airforce was as unprepared as the ground troops which led to disastrous outcomes of the early air battles. German pilots started reporting many claims. Like said before this obviously again increased the experience and skill of the German pilots while in the same time decreasing the average skill of the Russian pilots who now were often rookies pressed into service. While the foundation for those \"experten\" was layed pre war and in the early stages the full effect was seen when German pilots kept gaining experience against unprepared pilots who flew inferior machines led by inferior officers.\n\nAt this point another important factor comes into play. Most pilots would not be rotated to other functions and kept flying until they died or were unable to fly. Some were pulled out of the units and got other positions but the overall percentage is small. At first pilots who rose to notable fame were often prohibited to keep flying because it was feared their deaths would be serious blows to the moral.\n\nPilots who kept flying against inferior foes and plenty of targets. This simply created some vastly superior pilots.\n\nTheir is a general focus on the Eastern Front when this topic gets discussed. While most of the fighter to fighter combat was happening on the Eastern Front there are several German pilots who had comparable success against Western Allies with Hans-Joachim Marseille being the most prominent.\n\nJagdgeschwader 27, the unit which fought in North Africa against the Desert Airforce shows that while the above mentioned factors were important there was also a noticable skill difference between German squadrons and Western Allies fighter units, at least in early to mid war. Jagdgeschwader 27 was heavily \"outscoring\" the British fighter units. Hans-Joachmin Marseille claimed about 150. The unit had only short combat in eastern europe.\n\nThe North Afirca theather is unique since fighter to fighter combat was very common. Especially in late war over Germany the missions for both side were very asymtrical. Here the German unit, while being outnumbered, showed a very significant superiority over the British unit when it came to the ability to destroy enemy fighters. The JG27 claimed 1,166 aircraft ( some go up to 1300) in the campaign while only losing a fraction of that. Important is to mention that most of these claims were indeed fighter aircraft. Those claims like all claims are higher than the actual number but those are hard to establish. Thorough research on Hans-Joachim Marseille showed that about 65-70 percent of his claims were cross referenced with available data. It should be noted that cross referencing German claims with British records is hard since British unit logs are hard to come by and are sometimes missing. There isn't even a definitiv number on aircraft losses for North Africa. Several claims of German pilots were disputed for decades until the proper unit log was found. Taking 68% of the before mentioned number we get 792 aircrafts. The Jagdgeschwader lost about 200 machines in aerial combat according to Girbig.\n\nLike said before the mission profile for both air forces was comparable and this discrepancy in lost aircraft indicates either a tactical gap a skill gap or a mix of both. Either way an important part of getting such high tallies was simply being better at shooting down aircraft than the enemy.\n\nThis all boils down to German pilots getting a headstart and being trained on very good aircraft with state of the art tactics. Those pilots were then able to gain more and more experience against a weaker opponent who also had a lot of aircraft and provided many targets. Those extremely skilled pilots would now keep flying until they die or the war ends. The word extremely is used on purpose its hard to understand the impact of pilot skill in World War 2. The chance of an average pilot to down one of the best pilots is low. I think it goes without saying but i better say it anways, these pilots were not the majority of the Luftwaffe. Skill level of newer pilots declined due to fuel restrictions which forced the Luftwaffe to cut training hours until trainees got less than 50% of the time their Western Allied counterparts had.\n\nI will try to give an example which shows that for those few pilots it hardly mattered what enemy they faced. Of the 10 pilots with highest claims who also transferred from a different theater to \"Defense of the Reich\" in late war 2 died, one rammed an enemy aircraft on purpose the other had likely an engine failure. So one of those 10 was possibly killed by enemy fire. Two suffered serious injuries preventing them from flying again during the war. Those ten pilots claimed 123 enemy aircraft amongst them. These are only the claims they made in late war after they transferred towards the Defense of the Reich and only against Western Allies. The skill gap between the average pilot and those pilots was extrem. In those +100 engagements between Allied pilots and those ten ace pilots, US/RAF pilots managed to down two aircraft maybe three. This has to be seen in the context of late war situation where German pilots would hunt bombers and try to ignore fighters. The tally of 123 includes many bombers. By just hunting for enemy fighters this tally would certainly be far higher.\n\n*Christer Bergstrom: \"Barbarossa: The Air Battle July-December 1941\"*\n\n*Werner Girbig: \"Jagdgeschwader27\"*\n\n*John Weal: \"Jagdgeschwader 27 'Afrika'\"*\n\nEdit: I should mention that several topics here are ignored because they have no relevance for the question op asked. This post doesn't discuss what the implication of the above mentioned factors are on the overall performance of the Luftwaffe. OP asked why some pilots had such high claim tallies and i explained why. Overall strategic consideration are also not discussed. Furthermore the debate about claims will always arise, while there is no doub thatt the tallies are higher than the actual number but this is common for every airforce. Some \"historians\" like Dimitri Khazanov tried to discredit those records with \"soviet archives\" but got already callout and and debunked.",
"I would like to point you to [this](_URL_0_), where a bunch of flaired users discussed it.",
"I wanted to talk a bit more in general about the inaccuracy at large of all nations kill claiming in WW2. Others have touched on it, but in general if your squadron thought the evidence was strong enough to award a kill then you got the kill, be it from a witness in the air or ground, or maybe gun cam footage. \n\nGermany as I also understand it also did not award \"partial\" kills, so where a US pilot might get 1/3 of a kill with two other pilots, only one German pilot would be given the full kill, you can see how while not large initially that could add up over time to double down on the other factors expanded on below. \n\nNow on to how exaggerated kill counts could get. I will illustrate one example from the Battle of Midway. Now during the attack on the Japanese Carrier task force one of the US fighter squadrons was led by LCDR Jimmy Thatch who was going to test out the new tactic he had developed to allow the Wildcat to protect itself against the Zero, and tested it out with his 2 wingmen that were able to stay with him. \n\nEventually termed the \"Thatch Weave\" it basically boiled down to having two elements turn towards each other whenever one had an enemy on their tail. \n\nDuring this running series of weaves a total of almost 20 Zeros made passes at the trio, claiming 5 Wildcat kills, when in actuality just 1 was shot down. the US pilots for their effort did claim 3 kills which Japanese sources mostly corroborate though obviously the magnitude of the defeat makes accounting who was lost when tough.\n\nHopefully that makes it easy to see how it is to slowly inflate kills, when you see an enemy plane dive away trailing smoke and another saw it, then it becomes easier to claim the kill, then if that plane survives and rejoins the fight you aren't going to really be able to tell it is the same one so all of a sudden it might get credited as a different kill 2, 3 , 4 times and might not ever have been shot down. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kuplp/how_accurate_were_the_claims_for_german_airtoair/"
],
[]
] |
|
8mx2zn
|
In the Middle Ages when horses were so important to the warrior identity, what was the relationship between knight/lord and horse?
|
Were they just a possession? What factors were at play in the way horses were used and viewed?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8mx2zn/in_the_middle_ages_when_horses_were_so_important/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzrbbi9"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"This is a lovingly broad question, and the sources for how knights felt about their horses varied not only between periods and geographic regions, but also within classes and even from person to person. A knight in Chinon might see his horses as nothing but a tool, while his neighbour might view them as his companions in arms.\n\nHowever, I will refer to the Anglo-Norman knight and use as a case study to display what I think might well have been a common attitude towards horses in the English, Norman, French, and Breton military culture of the time.\n\nI will use William Marshal as a good example of a popular figure we think very well might have seen his horses as not only key pieces of equipment, but companions and friends. \n\nBut first, I'll clear up your last question; the different types of horses. A palfrey is generally a light, durable riding horse. Not too big, not too expensive, but a good mount you could comfortably ride at a gallop if unarmoured. These are the ones you would ride for long distances, and tended to not be very big or warlike. A destrier is a horse-type that has attracted a great deal of debate; I can only put forward my own views on the subject. Likely, a destrier was a very stocky, very powerful horse between 12 and 15 hands high, trained to kick and bite other horses and foes. It could carry an armoured knight, weighing perhaps as much as 250 lbs, at a gallop. I come down on the view that medieval warhorses were trained to make contact, so this informs my view.\n\nAnyway, William Marshal was known for often acquiring the horses of other knights and lords in tournament. From the Histoire de Guillaume de Marechal, we have the quote:\n\n > 'He swiftly stretched out his hand towards a horse from Lombardy, and its rider was not sufficiently bold as to dare to defend it.'\n\nIt is a useful note to say that Lombard horses were particularly valued. Another quote showing William's predilection for acquiring horses is shown in the same source, after seeing a noble dismounted, William apparently;\n\n > 'quickly took his horse's bridle and rode off towards the men on his side.\n\nClearly, Marshal valued the mounts highly, willing to strike at an opportunity for such a mount when presented. However, did he see them as anything more than a valuable possession? We have no real way of knowing. The iconography pointed out in **'The Medieval Warhorse'** by Ann Hyland indicates that the warhorse was a fundamental part of a warrior's identity in the High Middle Ages. The nobility were dominant upon the battlefield because they often trained for huge stretches of time mastering mounted combat. Knights would spend hundreds of hours training and working with their preferred mounts. It is reasonable to state that a knight without his horse was seen as less noble, less prestigious, less dangerous, and likely less holy than one in the saddle. \n\nWilliam Marshal certainly valued his destriers highly. Upon coming across his wounded destrier, he seemed to have been pleased by the superficial nature of its injuries;\n\n > 'The Marshal came to look and together they found seven wounds on the horse's body, made by the steel-tipped lances. There were wounds to the shoulders, neck and chest, but the Marshal was in no way concerned by this for he saw the horse would make a good recovery.'\n\nCan we thereby infer a relationship similar to that shared by many riders and their mounts today? Maybe. While the evidence is hard to find, we must also look to modern tribesmen and those who depend upon horses for their livelihood; almost all of whom find great affection for certain individual horses and less so for others. We know William Marshal was a very talented horseman, and we know he likely rode almost daily for the entirety of his adult life. \n\nThere are occasional sources for affection towards mounts by lords, monarchs, and knights, but from these I hesitate to make sweeping generalisation about any entire social class. However, I would strongly suggest that a large proportion of medieval knights valued their prized warhorses (or coursers, or chargers, or destriers) extremely highly, while viewing less expensive mounts as not quite so vital. In turn, I would suggest based on the iconography featuring horses, the writing of authors like Geoffrey Chaucer and Anna Komnene that punctuate the high value knights placed upon their horses, and the observations to be found in the modern world of similar relationships, that many knights had great affection for individual mounts, seeing them not only as pets, but as friends and trustworthy companions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5mh8le
|
in a country where suicide is illegal, how is the lawbreaker punished?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mh8le/eli5_in_a_country_where_suicide_is_illegal_how_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc3kss1",
"dc3u1ym"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"They aren't. A successful suicide isn't something where the offender can be punished.\n\nAttempted suicide is a crime in some places, though.",
"Laws against suicide are increasingly rare, and when they do exist, they are rarely enforced. Often they are a legal maneuver to give law enforcement the power to intervene in a suicide attempts.\n\nWhen it is enforced, it is usually for religious reasons. In countries that mix secular and religious law, this will often impact the disposition of their body...what rituals can be performed on it, where it can be buried, etc.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
34qdq9
|
why does boxing have judges and points? why dont they just fight until a ko or until someone gives up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34qdq9/eli5_why_does_boxing_have_judges_and_points_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqx27j4",
"cqx297r",
"cqx2kaa",
"cqx2ni9",
"cqx7hgk"
],
"score": [
2,
15,
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"So like a fight to the death?",
"So the fight is focussed on skill and technique as opposed to a pair of guys beating eachother to death.",
"Boxing is already a brutal sport and horrible for your long term health. Fights used to be 16 rounds (modern boxing) and the effects were devastating. Muhammad Ali is the most famous example, Jerry Quarry is another. Your gray matter is not meant to be sloshed around hitting the inside of your skull for 12 rounds, unlimited rounds would be suicide.",
"The longevity of the boxer's career would decrease. And in order to earn a great sum, they have to build up their careers. They can't do that if they fought in the way you are suggesting",
"In addition to some of the safety related things that people have mentioned, there's also the fact that boxing is entertainment, not just a competition. Having a limited number of rounds effectively places a maximum limit on the duration of a bout. That makes it a lot easier to schedule it for TV, for example. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9joice
|
Why was Sulla so set on finding a legal basis for his dictatorship?
|
In "The Storm Before The Storm" by Michael Duncan the author details Sulla sitting outside of Rome searching for a legal basis to enter as a ruler, eventually settling on being elected dictator.
What was his reasoning for this, considering there was no question he was already militarily in control of Rome?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9joice/why_was_sulla_so_set_on_finding_a_legal_basis_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6tecg9"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I haven't read Duncan, so I don't quite know what he's talking about. It sounds like something got jumbled somewhere.\n\nSulla didn't sit outside the city; he entered the city after the Battle of the Colline Gate, herded his prisoners into the Circus, and while they were being executed he addressed the senate in the temple of Bellona. He continued his occupation for some weeks as a proconsul only. Only later did he arrange for the dictatorship.\n\nAppian explains the legal maneuvers. Normally consuls oversaw consular elections, but after the Battle of the Colline Gate, the consul Carbo was still alive. He was not about to hold elections for Sulla's convenience, and was on the run to boot. Eventually Pompey caught and killed him in Sicily.\n\nIn that circumstance, the normal procedure according to Appian was that the senate appoint an interrex for five days to hold the elections. Sulla suggested they do this, and when they did he left the city. The interrex Valerius Flaccus, following instructions from Sulla, instead of holding elections for consul, nominated Sulla as dictator and held the election for that.\n\nThis was innovative in a couple ways. The interrex had never been used to nominate a dictator before. In the past, consuls nominated dictators after a senatus consultum called for a dictator. Also, it was not a dictatorship with a six month term; it was without term but with a specific brief: legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae causa, that is for making laws and establishing the state. You might sometimes see someone claiming this is dictatorship for life; it's not. It has a specific purpose, and presumably when that purpose is accomplished the office expires. In the event, Sulla resigned the dictatorship in less than a year, and possibly around the six month mark.\n\nSulla certainly didn't wait to enter the city until he got elected dictator, and I don't see any reason to think he paused his activity while searching for an office to give his actions legitimacy. Appian says directly he didn't.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
11laev
|
i'm taking calculus class on college, and having some problems with limits, can someone eli5?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11laev/eli5im_taking_calculus_class_on_college_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ngxbq",
"c6ni6tn",
"c6nksmd",
"c6nps68"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Lucky for you I am taking it as well and feel I have a good grasp on it. All a limit is is trying to figure out what a graph tends to do when we approach a point.\n\nIf we have the graph f(x) = x/x we get a graph that is a straight line with a missing point in the middle at x=0 (since x =/= 0 otherwise it is undefined). But if we were to figure this out manually by picking very small numbers close to 0 (like 0.0000001/0.0000001) we notice that it tends towards 1. So we can safely say that f(x) at 0 should be 1. This is essentially a limit figuring out what a value of f(x) should be if we ignore the undefined error will will get.",
"I'm going to answer the question about limits for functions; if you're talking about sequences, let me know.\n\nA limit for a function, `f` is asking what value `f` is tending towards as it approaches a particular point. So `lim x- > a f(x)` is asking what value is `f(x)` near when `x` is near `a`?\n\nOne way to answer that would be \"a value, `y`, is near `f(x)` when `x` is near `a` if for any neighborhood of `y` we can think of, there's a neighborhood of `a` where all the `x`s in that neighborhood have an `f(x)` value in that neighborhood of `y`\".\n\nYour immediate response should be, \"Well, that's great and all, but what's a neighborhood?\" That's a complicated question that gets in to topics related to topology, but the answer to the real numbers is that a neighborhood is an open interval around the point.\n\nSo, in specific for the real numbers: `lim x- > a f(x) = y` means that for any open interval around `y`, there's an open interval around `a`, such that for all `x` in the interval around `a`, `f(x)` is in the interval around `y`.\n\nThis is normally phrased in terms of epsilons and deltas and the absolute value of the difference between `y` and `f(x)` being less than one, when the absolute value of the difference between `a` and `x` is less than the other.",
"So the graph of a function looks kinda like [this](_URL_0_), right? Straight line, goes on for infinity in one direction and infinity in the other. Pretty normal.\n\nBut wait, what about a function that looks like [this](_URL_1_)? It's curved, and the curve gets *really* close to 0, but never touches it. So no matter how far along the X axis you get -- no matter how big X gets, the curve will never touch y=0. You could go along the X axis *forever* - for infinity - and y will never equal zero.\n\ny will get smaller and smaller -- 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, 0.01, 0.008, 0.004, 0.001, 0.0005...and so on. \n\nThis means that the limit of this function *f(x)* as x goes to infinity (since *f(x)* = y) is 0.",
"Let's play a game. You have a function f, let's say the function defined by f(x)=sin(x)/x for now. Now I'm going to pick a number really close to 1. Now your job is to pick some number x close to 0 such that f(x) is *even closer* to 1 than the number that I chose. Let's try a few rounds\n\n I pick | my distance from 1 | You pick x | f(x) | x distance from 1\n 2 1 1 0.84.. 0.16...\n 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.95.. 0.05...\n 1.05 0.05 0.5 0.99.. 0.01...\n\nNow, it's actually possible to prove that it doesn't matter how close my number is to 1, you can *always* find some x which will make f(x) *even closer* to 1, and the way that you find that x is by making it close enough to 0. You can always choose an x close enough to 0 to make it so that f(x) is as close to 1 as you want: even if I pick 1.00000000000000000001, you can find some incredibly tiny x so that f(x) is even closer to 1.\n\nThis is pretty close to the formal definition of what a limit is. In this case, when you can *always* win by taking an x's closer and closer to 0, we say that the limit as x approaches 0 of f(x) is equal to 1."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.eduplace.com/math/mw/background/5/04b/graphics/ts_5_4b_wi-2.gif",
"http://www.freemathhelp.com/images/lessons/asymp4.png"
],
[]
] |
||
7e9g0h
|
Did Attila the Hun really die of a bloody nose?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7e9g0h/did_attila_the_hun_really_die_of_a_bloody_nose/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq4p9dx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"User u/atmdk7 asked this before. Here is a link to the discussion.\n _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cikj5/did_attila_the_hun_die_from_a_bloody_nose/"
]
] |
||
4qpfqq
|
Is it possible to induce Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep in humans using drugs, electricity, ranscranial magnetic stimulation, etc?
|
Has this ever been attempted before?
Edit: Transcranial not ranscranial
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4qpfqq/is_it_possible_to_induce_unihemispheric_slowwave/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4wnqkt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well one way that *sort of* counts is the Wada test, aka the Intracarotid amobarbital procedure.\n\nIn preparation for brain surgery to remove one of the temporal lobes, the ability of a patient to rely on the language and memory functions of the other temporal lobe is tested.\n\nThe patient is brought into an angiography suite and under local anesthesia is catheterized through the femoral artery. The angiographer threads the catheter up to the internal carotid artery on the \"bad\" side (ie, the side to be operated on) and, after verifying the vessels are normal under fluoroscopy, injects sodium amobarbital, a short-acting barbiturate. This causes the majority of the cerebral hemisphere on the \"bad\" side to exhibit delta waves as measured on a concurrent EEG; it also causes contralateral paralysis in the patient. Another team member conducts memory and language testing before and after the effect wears off.\n\nThe procedure is then repeated on the \"good\" side to compare results.\n\nMy team just performed one of these procedures two weeks ago on a patient."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1g4hew
|
Were there special armored units between the knight and the tank?
|
In the late medieval period we had [heavily armored knights](_URL_2_) and in World War I they started using [tanks](_URL_3_) and [body](_URL_0_) [armor](_URL_1_).
But most infantry from roughly the [17th century](_URL_4_) to the [19th century](_URL_5_) seem to be unarmored, except for the occasional cuirass. Were there any special units that used more extensive armor? Was there something similar to tanks, maybe like the [things](_URL_6_) Leonardo da Vinci designed?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g4hew/were_there_special_armored_units_between_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cagngi6",
"cagpbtg",
"cagy3te",
"cagyclv",
"cah8ed0"
],
"score": [
8,
275,
12,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Clarification - are you looking for strictly land-based units? The idea of heavy armor to combat gunpowder-based weaponry began changing the design approach to naval vessels. Ironclad warships of the 19th century are one such example, and the Korean Turtle Ship - Geobukseon (거북선) is another example, though the armor, while effective against musket balls and fire arrows, was primarily concerned with deterring boarding of the vessel. The turtle ship saw significant combat in the late 16th century. \n \nSo if your question isn't strictly about overland units, these might be good starting points for discussion.",
"Assuming you're talking about vehicles, not really. The tank was a melding of two already existing concepts-- the armored car and the caterpillar tractor. Early armored cars, such as the [Austro-Daimler Armored Car](_URL_0_) could effectively shrug off small-arms fire but had extremely poor cross-country mobility because the high ground pressure stemming from the relatively small wheels meant that they would sink into soft ground and get stuck often. Furthermore, militaries saw them as little more than a curiosity and refused to fund their development-- most AFVs developed pre-WW1 were done so entirely with private funds and without any sort of clear military requirements, because the military didn't want them. The British and French militaries purchased a few armored cars, but never in large quantities. The other concept-- the caterpillar tractor, was a lot more popular. They had excellent cross-country mobility thanks to their tracks, but were for the most part used for towing artillery and other equipment cross country. The [holt tractor](_URL_1_) was one very popular model, to give you an idea what I'm talking about. \n\nThese two concepts were combined in WW1 as a technological means to break the stalemate on the European front. The [first](_URL_3_) [tanks](_URL_4_) were hulking monstrosities designed to see infantry across no-mans land and support them once they got there. The most \"modern\" tank in WW1 was the [Renault FT](_URL_2_), a small 2-man tank that was designed to sprint across no-mans land, hit emplacements such as MG nests or field guns, and then return to their own lines. \n\nDuring WW1 it was sort of assumed that these \"terror weapons\" were a fluke and that after the war Cavalry would once again be the primary mobile force on the battlefield. Tank forces were not aggressively grown by most nations in the wars immediately after WW1, and the idea that tanks were primarily for infantry support was common and reflected in tank design. Interwar tank design can be broadly broken down between heavy/infantry tanks which were large, slow, armored behemoths designed to advance at walking pace and neutralize enemy fortifications, and cruiser/cavalry tanks, designed to operate independently of the infantry and execute lighting raids on enemy positions. It wasn't until the Germans pioneered advanced combined arms tactics (\"Blitzkrieg\") that what I would call truly modern tanks emerged. \n\nSo yeah that turned out to be a lot longer than I thought it would be. But I really love tanks. \n\nSources/Reccomended reading: \"Tank Men\", \"Cavalry From Hoof to Track\", various armored vehicle encyclopedias I have sitting around. ",
"Although they were contemporary with heavily armored knights, the war-wagon deserves mention. The [Hussite](_URL_0_) armies invented them around 1420. The Hussites, followers of the martyred reformer Jan Hus, were primarily an infantry army, but a very disciplined one. They used their large baggage wagons to form improvised lagers,and soon started improving them. Their wagons were called *tabor* or *hradba vozova*, war wagon.\n\nThe body of the tabor was a rectangle of stout planking some 3-4 feet high from the floor. Fixed to the top of these sides with hinges were additional boards. These could be raised and fixed in place forming a tall shed like structure (usually roofless but not always). The sides of these boards were pierced to allow archers, handgunners and crossbowmen to fire on the enemy with maximum protection. Some of the later tabors were further modified with doors or a ramp on one side to allow the crews to disembark on the inner side of the laager. The tabors also had a large container filled with stones, either attached to the rear of the tabor or held within it. This was to increase stability and to provide additional missiles for the crew. Slung below the body of the tabor was another hinged large plank, pierced with firing slits. This plank could be lowered to close off the space under the tabor, helping to prevent enemy infantry gaining access to the tabor laager and allowing defending infantry to fire from comparative safety.\n\nThe tabors also carried large mantlets that could be attached between them to provide additional protection for defenders. These were generally used when a 'quick' or extended defensive formation was required. \n\nThe wheels of the tabor were large and usually iron rimmed. The front pair projected out slightly from the body. This was to allow one front wheel to be locked into place with the rear wheel of another tabor and chained together. This method of securing the tabors together was for two reasons. The first was enhanced stability. In this locked position it was almost impossible for enemy infantry to overturn the tabor. The second was for tactical advantage. The interlocking tabors formed a series of enfilading fire zones. This method eventually became the norm for a defensive tabor formation but as it required greater effort and time to construct meant the tabors could form an in line defense using the mantlets and chains to cover the larger gaps. The chains were also used to secure the front and rear wheels together (at their closest point) this help to prevent the tabor being man handled out of the defensive line. \n\nThe war wagons were used both defensively (as a secure camp and moveable fortress) and offensively. A column of wagons would approach an enemy force and deploy into several supporting small camps that could fire artillery at the enemy and lure him into the crossfire between the camps. Slow pincer movements were also possible.\n\nThey were a powerful weapons that enabled the Hussites to hold out against several crusades, but their use was dependent on a disciplined force that was well-trained in their use. The first attempts of the crusaders to use war-wagons against the Hussites ended in disaster.\n\nAfter the Hussite wars, Bohemian mercenaries trained in war-wagon tactics were in high demand and war wagons were used by the Poles, Hungarians, Germans and Ottomans. They required open plains to be effective, so they were used in Eastern Europe only. The development of more powerful field artillery ended their usefulness.\n\nMore information [here](_URL_2_) and [here](_URL_1_).",
"If you're talking about armored heavy cavalry, then it existed long after knighthood. Polish Hussars were wearing steel armor through to the 17th century at least. Cuirassiers continued to wear armor into the 18th century, though I'm not sure about the 19th century when it comes to armored cavalry.",
"Not an area of expertise, but I can think of a couple.\n\n* Horse barding. Horses were armored, and I can find references to 17th century and on: [*The Armored Horse in Europe, 1480-1620*](_URL_0_) would be one example, and there appear to be [even later examples](_URL_5_):\n\n > Among the few notable exceptions are leather coverings used in North America to protect horses against Indian arrows, or the similar heavy leather panels still used today in the bullfighting arenas of Spain and Mexico. Last but not least, mention should be made of the great Sudanic African empires, where quilted horse armor remained in active use until the last century; and in parts of Niger and Sudan, these armored horses continue to take part in traditional ceremonies to the present day.\n\n* [Armored trains](_URL_2_): \"They were mostly used during the late 19th and early 20th century, when they offered an innovative way to quickly move large amounts of firepower.\" Wikipedia lists uses ranging from 1861 to 2005.\n\n* Wikipedia references [armored road trains](_URL_7_) in British military use starting in 1898.\n\n* [Helmets](_URL_3_), as far as I know, stayed in use to at least some degree; World War II certainly still saw use of metal helmets.\n\n* There's some gizmo used in siege warfare at least in the medieval era that basically looked like a big shield on a stand that soldiers could move up as they advanced for cover against arrows...let me see if I can find that; not sure how late it was used...yeah, found it, and looks good. A [mantlet](_URL_4_), and according to Wikipedia, it was used from medieval times into World War I.\n\nOther possibilities:\n\n* I don't know what the dates on use of [Siege towers](_URL_6_) were, but I would imagine that they may have been used in that era if someone had to get over a wall and could avoid cannon.\n\n* Let me take a look at a few books...there's also a concept of a quickly-built tower used to help assault an existing fortification, and I believe that this was is at least somewhat prefabricated, though it may not really count as mobile armor...can't remember the name, though.\n\n EDIT: no, the term I was thinking of was \"counter-castle\" (\"siege castle\" being a synonym) and while the buildings were often temporary, AFAIK they weren't really moved.\n\nSome of the terms that I pulled up (counter-castles and mantlets) were from [*The Medieval Fortress: Castles, Forts, and Walled Cities of The Middle Ages*](_URL_1_), if you're interested."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.thezooom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/First-World-War-Body-Armor.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/German_helmet_and_frontal_armoured_plate_for_trench_warfare_1916.jpg",
"http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7749961758_ca85a06a26_o.jpg",
"http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Regiments/images/WW1Tank.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Soldier_of_29th_regiment_1742.jpg/220px-Soldier_of_29th_regiment_1742.jpg",
"http://puntito131.puntopressllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/British_old_infantry_uniforms.jpg",
"http://scifi-real.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Leonardo_da_vinci_tank_drawing.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Austro-daimler-AFV.jpg",
"http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/unarmored-halftracks/uspm-Holt15-andre.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FT-17.jpg",
"http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-Mother.jpg",
"http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/sturmpanzerwagen-a7v.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite",
"http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Warwagons.htm#The%20Tabor%20battle%20wagons%20of%20the%20Hussites",
"http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=hussite_wars"
],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Armored-Europe-1480-1620-Metropolitan-Museum/dp/0300107641",
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Medieval-Fortress-Castles-Walled/dp/0306813580/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_train",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantlet",
"http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hors/hd_hors.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_tower",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train"
]
] |
|
13f6ri
|
If the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution was never passed, could any presidents have pulled off a third term?
|
Could any two-term presidents have managed this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13f6ri/if_the_22nd_amendment_to_the_us_constitution_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c73ew8u",
"c73fq7o",
"c73fyqe",
"c73hwwx",
"c73j5jw"
],
"score": [
21,
16,
17,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"There is a historical \"what if\" subreddit that might be better for this.",
"I think Reagan could have gotten the votes, but his health would have started to be a concern.\n\nHealth didn't really stop FDR, though.",
"Clinton was still very popular at the end of his second term, despite the Republicans impeaching him for being evasive about getting a bj. ",
"I agree with the Clinton comments, but I think one thing that isn't being considered is that he easily could have taken a term off and run again in 2004. I think there was a sense of needing a change in 2000 and it was so close to the Lewinsky controversy, but after 4 years of George Bush, I think Clinton would've won in a landslide in 2004 (or even 2008).",
"A more interesting question to me is related, but less grounded in hypotheticals. Even before the 22nd Amendment, were there any presidents who considered a third term, but simply opted not to try, or tried and failed so miserably we don't hear about it? As a non-Americanist, I only know about Theodore Roosevelt's well-known attempt, but were there other cases of flirtation with third terms that we don't hear about, but which Americanists know well?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2z97k0
|
theoretically, could a human baby be trained basic manners & bathroom skills as quickly as a puppy can be, if trained in the same manner? if not, how come?
|
Its always fascinated me how a puppy can be reasonably house trained & taught basic commands by 4 months, but a human baby is still completely useless at that age, even though were vastly more intelligent. Why can't human babies be trained the same as puppies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z97k0/eli5_theoretically_could_a_human_baby_be_trained/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpgrt7w",
"cpgry34"
],
"score": [
6,
14
],
"text": [
"Not really because our brains develop much more slowly (or else child birth would have been even harder). At these ages chimpanzee babies are smarter than human babies. ",
"I'd assume not. Babies are born with very underdeveloped brains - notice how most animals can stand within minutes and it takes us a year or so. This is because humans have huge heads compared with their bodies and so the brain needs to be underdeveloped to fit out of the mother's pelvis. Because of this underdevelopment, it takes longer for humans to learn many basic functions than most animals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4k8v0u
|
Were there any opponents to Hitler during his rise to power and by and large what happened to those that spoke out after the Nazi party was in full power?
|
Interested in knowing if we have any historical evidence of German people protesting or attempting to stop Hitler's rise to power and what became of them after he took complete control?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4k8v0u/were_there_any_opponents_to_hitler_during_his/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3dchtj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There was a variety of opposition to Hitler and the Nazi Party during their rise. I assume you know of the Nazi's Sturmabteilung, or SA, a paramilitary organization that worked as the militant wing of the party. The Nazis were not alone in having such forceful wings. Many other paramilitary groups existed in the Weimar years, which openly opposed and, at times, fought directly with the SA in street battles. One such group was the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) aligned *Roter Frontkämpferbund* (RFB) or *Red Front Fighters Alliance*. Parties would also provoke confrontations by having rallies or marches in neighborhoods known to be under control of the Communists or Nazis or what have you, with the intent that the opposing side wouldn't let such rallies go unopposed. Thus, these would often result in brawls.\n\nLike the Freikorps and other right-wing paramilitary groups in Weirmar Germany, the RFB and other left-wing groups had many veterans of WWI. So some members were experienced soldiers. Their purpose included defending party events or meetings, defending and policing communist-controlled neighborhoods, and also open confrontations with the rival parties' militants (including the SA).\n\nThere are, of course, the voting records. The Nazis never achieved an outright majority in any of the votes prior to their coming to power. The KPD, SPD, Centre Party, and others received significant support. While not the direct opposition you may be looking for here, it is worth including the electoral opposition to the Nazis. Of course, voting is not always the most effective means of stopping political opponents, hence the militant groups.\n\nAs for what happened to these opponents of Hitler and party, most were either imprisoned, killed, or fled. The RFB and other groups were banned, either in the final years of the Weimar Republic, as well as by the Nazis. As such, some were executed or imprisoned. In fact, the first concentration camp, Dachau, was built specifically to imprison political opponents (especially communists). While we remember the camps because of the crimes against humanity committed against the Jews, Roma, prisoners of war, homosexuals, and disabled, other victims included political opponents. Konrad Adenauer, who later became West Germany's first chancellor and a founder of the Christian Democratic Union party, opposed the Nazis and was imprisoned several times during the Nazi reign. So not everyone who opposed the Nazis was killed.\n\nAs for fleeing, many left-wing and centrist Germans fled Germany in the 30s to avoid fates such as these I have described. Many German communists who fled would later return to what became East Germany. Walter Ulbricht, who later became General Secretary of East Germany, was one such communist who lived in exile in France, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union.\n\nI think that's where I'll end this. If I haven't answered your question to your satisfaction, or if you have additional questions, please feel free to say so and I can try to answer!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9l1qxl
|
If defibrillators have a very specific purpose, why do most buildings have one?
|
I read it on reddit that defibrilators are NOT used to restart a heart, but to normalize the person's heartbeat.
If that's the case why can I find one in many buildings around the city? If paramedics are coming, they're going to have one anyway.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9l1qxl/if_defibrillators_have_a_very_specific_purpose/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e73ehtp",
"e73ffif",
"e73fm46",
"e73hg29",
"e73hp7z",
"e73i3z9",
"e73i6cx",
"e73iwic",
"e73j2h7",
"e73j7ks",
"e73k0fs",
"e73k7rb",
"e73kbdk",
"e73kedu",
"e73kpq4",
"e73l19t",
"e73ljc7",
"e73maqs",
"e73n2it",
"e73no39",
"e73nupq",
"e73p5vl",
"e73p6z5",
"e73pwn2",
"e73q40l",
"e73qi1z",
"e73x4cl",
"e7420n8",
"e745dfu",
"e7464rt",
"e7485nz",
"e74af15",
"e74axqw",
"e74bghw",
"e74bibc",
"e74c42b",
"e74cgc9",
"e74fjva",
"e74gxe0",
"e74ht0w",
"e74jzau",
"e74ke6j",
"e74kr57",
"e74o75k",
"e74on5n",
"e74pwgh",
"e74qe85",
"e74ruim",
"e74s875",
"e74ssy8",
"e74w42t",
"e74wjmv",
"e74wmtq",
"e74x2ob",
"e74xh7t",
"e74zfyu",
"e74zqcz",
"e74zr72",
"e751ngx",
"e752ft3",
"e7546d1",
"e754bcj",
"e754ofa",
"e754owr",
"e75ap33",
"e75axqj",
"e75c2x2",
"e75clkx",
"e75di1e",
"e75e7vy",
"e75p12s",
"e75rb9o"
],
"score": [
6829,
338,
22,
13,
264,
42,
2292,
4,
47,
3,
34,
3,
2052,
2,
2,
4,
10,
2,
2,
2,
173,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
9,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
7,
3,
7,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Long story short, the sooner the response time to a cardiac event, the better. If a person has a cardiac event and another person around is able to administer the AED then the treatment begins and the paramedics take over upon arrival. ",
"How soon are the paramedics coming?\n\nDefibrillation is recommended within 2 minutes.\n\n34% of patients given defibrillation *in hospital* make it to hospital discharge in the US (Frederick A. Masoudi, Journal Watch. 2008;7(1))\n\nAverage time for paramedics to get there in the US is 7 minutes (Mell, H., Mumma, S., Hiestand, B., Carr, B., Holland, T., Stopyra, J. (2017, July 19). Emergency medical response times in rural, suburban and urban areas \\[Editorial\\]. *JAMA Surgery* DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg. 2017. 2230)",
"When your heart stops beating (or starts beating erratically), your body is being starved of oxygen due to the lack of proper blood circulation. With each minute that passes, your chance of survival drops significantly.\n\nThe 5-10 minutes it takes for paramedics to arrive could very much be the difference between life and death, which is why it is essential to start CPR and attempt to use an AED as soon as possible.\n\nAEDs can detect if a person's heart is in arrhythmia or if it's completely stopped. If it's not beating at all, it won't deliver any shocks.\n\nThe most effective way to restart a stopped heart is internal cardiac massage (opening the chest cavity and massaging the heart by hand), so unless the stoppage of the heart occurs in a hospital, there's not much that can be done when it happens.",
"This is like asking, \"If medics are going to start CPR upon arrival, why should people present start CPR anyway?\"\n\nBecause it's a tool to help someone survive a medical emergency, in the same way administering CPR or the Heimlich maneuver can, well before paramedics arrive.",
"It's true that AED cannot restart a heart- however, when used on a victim without a shock-able pulse, it will tell bystanders to administer CPR. So it at least helps uninformed bystanders diagnose a problem if it isn't able to detect fibrillation.",
"Your odds of survival once your heart stops go down by 10% per minute. Brain damage starts at 4, permanent brain damage at 8, and death is basically guaranteed by 10. Depending on where you live, ambulance response times can be 6-8 minutes (good) to upwards of 20 (rural). So even if you’re standing there when they drop and call 911 immediately, even in a best case scenario there’s likely to be brain damage by the time the truck rolls up. This is why it’s so important for everyone to know CPR. If you start immediately, you buy them time for the medics to arrive. If there’s an AED handy, it will literally walk you through the steps to use it and if they have a shockable rhythm, that will be what saves their life.",
"Replace \"defibrilators\" and \"paramedics\" in everything you just said with \"Fire extinguisher\" and \"Fire Department\" and see if you would still ask the same question.\n\nTime matters, getting someone on an AED device as soon as possible could save their life.",
"I'm not sure I understand your question. Most cardiac arrests are due to going in ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, which result in the heart not outputting any meaningful amount of blood anymore. It is a cardiac arrest. You might be mixing up cardiac arrest (no more blood flow) and asystole (complete lack of electrical activity in the heart aka flatline on the EKG). Asystole causes a cardiac arrest and cannot be shocked back into a normal rhythm, but cardiac arrests are not necessarily asystole.\n\nThe first organ to suffer from this lack of blood flow is the brain. It starts being damaged quickly, and the damage is mostly irreversible.\n\nA defibrillator attempts to get the heart back to a normal, or at least \"functional\" rhythm, allowing blood to flow again, stopping the damage to the brain. The goal of CPR also is to try and maintain some level of blood flow to the brain.\n\nEvery minute matters.",
"Paramedic and EMT instructor here.\n\nAn AED can analyze the heart rhythm of someone on its own. When someone suffers cardiac arrest different rhythms could be responsible for the heart’s inability to pump. Resulting in their unconsciousness and imminent death.\n\nOne way to think about the usefulness of an AED is to consider: CPR doesn’t really save anyone directly. It prolongs the amount of time they can be revived with an AED. (I generalize here but you get it). Without CPR you become dead dead much sooner. Ultimately you need an electric shock to resynchornize the heart into what is hopefully a life sustaining beating rhythm. As opposed to random “heart-seizure” shaking or others.\n\nAn AED can be used by anyone really. It tells directions at you and is ultimately very simple to operate given its function. The sooner you can get an electrical shock to a heart, to more likely it is to return the heart beat to normal, thus saving their life. \n\nLiterally every second makes a difference so getting a shock 2 minutes sooner could be the determining factor if someone survives the episode. As others have said: “it’s like using a fire extinguisher instead of waiting for the fire department.”\n\nEarly recognition, early quality CPR, and early shock. That’s the most reliable way to restore a heart rhythm to normal. ",
"The specific purpose you're referring to is the specific cardiac rhythms it can attempt to convert. If it detects one of those rhythms then it will advise shock. If not, it will tell you to continue CPR. \n\nThe reason they're available in public is because early activation of EMS, quality CPR, and early AED application are the factors most likely to lead to successful resuscitation. \n\nP.S. most of the CPR comments I read are obviously made by people not in the medical field. Be careful. ",
"Just a clarification, AEDs are NOT used to shock a flatlined (asystolic) heart back to functioning. They are used to fix shockable arrhythmia (Ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation) that can be pulseless, meaning that no blood is getting pumped and causing someone to pass out/have a cardiac event. The flatline that you see on EKG is because no electrical stimulation is in the heart for a variety of reasons, which requires CPR to maintain blood flow.",
"The purpose is twofold. If a person has a cardiac event, the heart will be in a handful of rhythms, only a couple are shockable with that device. \nBut even if there isn’t a “shockable rhythm”, the device will read the rhythm, analyze it, determine if it’s shockable, and usually only let you shock if it is. Now if it isn’t, the machine will still instruct you to do CPR, which is invaluable to the patient and paramedics. ",
" > I read it on reddit that defibrilators are NOT used to restart a heart, but to normalize the person's heartbeat.\n\nMost cardiac arrests don't actually have the heart stop. Instead, the heart goes into a chaotic and ineffective pumping pattern due to wild electric signals firing the muscles out of sync. Defibrillator \"resets\" these electric signal generators, and allows for the heart to resume its normal operation.",
"The AED is also made to assess the current status of the patient and analyze whether or not a shock is required. While some situations require paramedic response the reaction time of most of these utilities is not quick enough if oxygen flow is cut off to the brain.",
"You want to be prepared in any event. You're right, its not needed every time, but you want it there when it is. \n\nAnd even better, the machines know when to administer a shock, all you do it stick the patches to the person and turn it on.",
"When people go into cardiac arrest, a lot if the time it's due to a condition called ventricular fibrillation, which is a type of arrhythmia that arises when electrical signals to the heart malfunction for some reason. The heart doesn't always stop outright as you might think. In the case of ventricular fibrillation, where the heart is basically \"quivering\" and not really pumping any blood, sometimes normal cardiac rhythm can be restored by administering a shock to the system via AED, and because time is absolutely critical when someone is experiencing cardiac arrest, this can be life-saving and greatly increases a person's chance of survival along with CPR.",
"To put a different spin on the answers think of it this way. As the owner of, for instance, a theatre; I have members of the public in my building on a regular basis in fairly large numbers. If someone has a cardiac episode in the theatre the headlines in the local paper will read \"person dies from cardiac arrest at local theatre\" and business will drop due to the behaviour of the general public. If I spend £1000 on an AED and it sits in an office and gets used oncev in 5 years 1: someone's life has been saved 2: I won't have the drop in business, 3: my staff will be made out to be heroes due to their quick reactions and ability to save this person's life. The AED had paid for itself 10 times over.",
"From what I was taught when attending first aid classes:\n\n‘Every minute you go without a defibrillator in scenarios where you’d need one, your chance of survival drops by 10%’\n\nThe more building have one, the more likely you are to be able to use one on a patient and improve their chances of surviving.",
"....the propose is to save lives by shocking in the most common shockable rhythms early to give the person a better chance of survival. Most building have them because they are cheap, ridiculously easy, and gives the patient a much better chance of survival. What were you expecting them to do? ",
"When your heart stops you have ~3 minutes before irreversible brain damage begins, and ~6 minutes before brain death. Paramedic response times in many cities are around the ten minute marks, give-or-take.\n\nWhat isn't well-known about CPR and defibrillation is that even if we revive someone, they often live with brain damage the rest of their life. Having defibrillators everywhere in the form of AEDs mean that not only do we save more lives, but we improve the quality of life for those we do save.\n\nAs for why AEDs specifically and not other stuff, they can be very easy to use and often-times they are the only tool needed to save someone's life. They don't expire like medications, they don't require highly specialized training, and so they have the potential to really make a big difference.",
"Never thought I'd see this day but I CAN ANSWER!\n\n & #x200B;\n\nShort Background: I sell all FDA approved AEDs for a living. \n\nLonger Background: I do more than just sell them. I help regional and national companies with large AED deployments, nationwide CPR training programs, and, most importantly, ensure their programs are compliant with State and Federal regulations. I started off as an AHA instructor and I'm very passionate about Cardiac Emergency Preparedness which led me to the consultation side of the industry.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nHere's some stats/facts to consider that may help answer your question:\n\n & #x200B;\n\n* Sudden Cardiac Arrest is a leading cause of death in America. An estimated 326,000 Americans suffer Out of Hospital SCA per year. (Some studies claim more than 400k.)\n* Chance of survival for victims who receive CPR but receive no shock until EMS arrive is about 10%\n* The survival rate increases to over 30% for the victims that received early defibrillation before EMS arrives.\n\nTherefore, the chance of survival TRIPLES with quality CPR, early defibrillation and EMS combined. But why is that the case? (MORE FACTS!)\n\n* When someone suffers SCA, the chance of survival is decreasing at a rate of 7-10% per minute.\n* CPR certainly helps by circulating the oxygen in their blood to their brain and CPR only has revived victims but usually a shock is needed to bring the heart rhythm back to normal. \n* National average EMS response time is 7-14 minutes. The average is lower for urban areas, as you can imagine. \n\nSo let's do some math, lets say we're in a suburban area and the EMS will arrive in about 10 minutes. What are the chances of that person surviving if the EMTs are the first to deliver a shock?\n\n & #x200B;\n\nTLDR: Early defibrillation can triple the chance of survival versus the victims who needed to wait for EMS to deliver the first shock.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI told myself to keep it short but I couldn't help it. I could keep going but I'm sure nobody cares! hope that helps.",
"because otherwise the paramedics won't ever be there in time. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n Essentially ... once the heart stops it deteriorates very quickly. There is a really short window of time in which it's possible to 'restart' it. the defibrillator has to be used very quickly after the heart attack, and it has to be continuously used for it to have a chance of working.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;",
"Usually hearts don't go from beating to not beating. They usually freak the eff out trying to continue beating but can't. During this \"freak the eff out\" phase, you can shock. It could be 10 minutes or 10 days of freaking out depending on the reserve.",
"Automatic defibrillators work by sensing for specific wave forms produced by your heart. These wave forms are produced by many cardiac cells firing independently from each other with no coordination, due to a lack of adequate oxygen for the current demands. This causes a chaotic, disorganized \"rhythm\" to be sensed by the defibrillator. \n \nThis changes the pumping action from a generally bottom-up to top-down squeezing motion, into a chaotic quivering that does not eject a sufficient quantity of blood. The longer the heart \"quivers\" the more damage done to the cardiac cells and the less energetic the quiver becomes. This eventually becomes the \"flatline\" we are all familiar with.\n \nThe defibrillator acts as a \"reset\" button. The massive electrical discharge of a defibrillator overrides the individual cells' automaticity and allow the hearts natural pacemaker to regain control of the quivering muscle. \n\nIf your heart is \"flat lined\", there is no spontaneous activity to reset. Dumping massive amounts of electricity into the heart will cause the muscle to contract, but wont restart the cardiac cells' natural electrical impulse generation. \n \nIn an emergency setting, \"time is tissue\". The longer the cells are starved of oxygen, the more damage that occurs. Most cardiac arrests don't have positive results despite what TV and movies tell you. Those that do have positive results, all have certain events in common. CPR was begun within seconds, defib occured in the 1st 2 to 3 minutes, and drugs were administered in the first 10 minutes. If you miss any of these benchmarks your odds of survival drop immensely. The best ambulance crew in the world is going to be hard pressed to: activate, respond, arrive, assess, and treat within 3 minutes of the persons' cardiac arrest.\n \nThe goal of PAD (public access defibrillators) is to have a defibrillator within a 2 minute walk/run from anywhere that large groups of people congregate. This allow minimally and untrained individuals to get that all important defibrillation to the heart before asystole (flatline) occurs.",
"Those few minutes make all the difference. Just took first aid, and apparently with the proliferation of AEDs death from the things they can fix have plummeted by a ridiculous amount. Some of them can also help you time chest compressions!",
"The rhythms that defibrillators shock usually do not produce a pulse (ventricular tachycardia can still produce pulse up to a certain rate) and thus you are in cardiac arrest and are no longer getting blood to any organs. \n\nSo to repeat what everyone is saying, the quicker you get the Edison medicine, the better. ",
"Defibrillators are actually used to stop a person's heart from beating in the hope that this allows the heart to \"reset\" back to a sinus rhythm (normal).\n\nIn an emergency situation this is only useful if the person's heart rhythm is ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia. External cardiac compressions will not fix this problem so a shock will need to be delivered.\n\nIf the patient is in asystole (no cardiac activity) or PEA/EMD (pulseless electrical activity/electromechanical dysfunction...depending on where you come from) defibrillation is of no use.\n\nWith the advent of AED's (automatic electrical defibrillators) a layperson can deliver a shock based upon the machine's interpretation of the person's cardiac rhythm. \n\nTherefore, a layperson with the right equipment can stop a cardiac arrest in 2 out of 4 cardiac arrest scenarios, improving survivability until emergency services arrive. I'm guessing that this is the reason that many organisations have thought it appropriate to have them onsite.\n\nSource: ED nurse for the last 13 years.",
"Basically if cpr's not started within 2 minutes and the first shock given within five your chances of surviving a cardiac event that defibrillators are made to correct go down exponentially. How many places do you know of that paramedics can get there within 2 minutes of the event? And most places it'll take 2 minutes just for the 911 call to get all its information then another 2 minutes to alert an ambulance.",
"It's mainly because that under full-blown cardiac arrest where your heart isn't pumping anywhere close to effectively, your brain cells have 5 minutes before any damage starts to really happen. Performing chest compressions does circulate blood but not as well as the heart in any sense. A defib unit could shock the heart back to normal within minutes of setting it up (only takes 30 seconds to set it up). Some areas like Surrey British Columbia have ambulance response times of over 30 minutes. Can personally vouch for that sickening time delay.\n\nAm first aid attendant.",
"Even as healthcare professionals, it is emphasized that your training in CPR (I think CPR-PRO became BLS in some places) is not going to make as much of a difference as an AED. They will meant to cease ventricular fibrillation. Also, using an AED raises chance of survival until EMS arrives to take over. I'm not sure if this is the same everywhere but the AEDs I use have vocal instructions you listen to and follow.\n\nCool fact in case you didn't know: Taking community cpr/aed/first aid classes means you can learn all about how/when to use an AED and perform CPR if one is not available. I'd encourage it strongly, it could save a life.",
"Emergency medical dispatcher here.\n\nAs many have said, the sooner the AED can be used the higher the chance of a positive outcome.\nThere is a short pause between beats of a heart and in younger people that need a defib the most common reason is the heart gets out of synch and those pauses get longer and longer with each beat and can appear that their heart has stopped, hence the misconception that a defib restarts the heart. That shock normalizes the rhythm again.",
"An AED can be easily programed to give the appropriate shock to reset the heart's rhythm without medical professionals there. In the time it takes paramedics to get there, the heart could stop and the TIME IS PRECIOUS. an AED, properly used, could be the difference between healthy recovery from a cardiac episode, or being dead as a result of a cardiac episode.",
"Aside from the fact that those things give the heart a little shock to keep going, the are easy to use without any knowledge. Also they tell you what to do and instruct you how you should do the emergency... Ehhhhh.. procedure? Dunno what it's called in English. You know, the pressure massage...\n\nIf there is one,use it. If it raises the chance that this person has a 1% increase to survive, it's worth it.",
"When you have a heart attack, the heart muscle sometimes quivers (it's not able to squeeze at the right time in the right way).\n\nThe defibrillators shock resets everything, and primes the muscles to receive a timed electrical impulse. \n\nEvery minute that someone without a pulse is in that cardiac arrest state, their chance at surviving goes down about 10 percent. \n\nThe defibrillator cannot restart an unmoving heart. On monitors we see that as asystole, just a straight line. The muscle has to have the ability to squeeze which a fully stopped heart does not have anymore.\n\nBut, this is why CPR is important. Your body has about 8 minutes of oxygen in the blood/circulatory system. Giving someone CPR until they can be shocked improves their chance at survival by extending the time they can be treated. ",
"Automatic external defibrillators (AED’s) are what you find in public buildings. A cause for cardiac arrest is patients going into ventricular fibrillation (the heart not pumping in proper beats to deliver blood around the body). The AED detects that rhythm and delivers a shock if appropriate and this can return the heart to sinus rhythm, where the cardiac cells beat in unison to deliver blood to the body \n",
"Fire extinguishers have a very specific purpose too but is required in every building. Why? Because the faster you get to the fire, the better the chances that the fire won't burn the whole building down. With defibrillators its the same idea. The faster you can help someone, the better chances they won't die.",
"Simply: because in the case of a heart attack, the heart doesn't stop.\n\nIn most heart attacks, the thing that happens around regular office buildings, the heart hasn't stopped, it's just not beating properly. Defib machines are exactly what you want in that situation.",
"There seems to be confusion over what an AED does and over the fact that a “shock” is not always helpful. \n\nWhen someone goes into cardiac arrest from a heart attack their heart is not beating in a meaningful way, it may be twitching/still “beating” but it is not effectively moving blood. Even this twitching produces electrical activity that shows up on an EKG. This pattern of electrical activity is called the rhythm. \n\nIn cardiac arrest the heart can be in a rhythm such as ventricular fibrillation (heart is spasming ineffectively) or a rhythm such as asystole (“flatline” or zero electrical activity and no movement) or pulseless electrical activity (PEA, no pulses can be felt but an ekg will show very weak electrical activity in the heart muscle that sometimes looks pretty much like a heart beat). \n\nVentricular fibrillation is a shockable rhythm; an electric current can fix the problem by resetting the hearts electrical system. PEA and asystole are NOT helped by electric shocks, only harmed. \n\nThe AED is smart enough to analyze the electrical activity going on in the heart and determine if a shock is warranted. That’s why it’s called an automatic external *DEFIBRILLATOR* it only fixes ventricular FIBRILLATION. (And pulseless ventricular tachycardia but let’s not muddy the issue). \n\n > 50% of the time the rhythm is shockable. For some reason, arrests that happen in public vs at home are even more likely to be shockable so public AEDs are ridiculously important. A trained monkey could use one, they yell at you and tell you exactly what to do. \n\nKeep in mind if you ever see someone have a heart attack in public literally every single second you are not doing CPR on that person and slapping that AED on their chest, their organs are dying a lot faster. As every cardiologist will tell you, TIME IS HEART MUSCLE and as every neurologist will tell you, TIME IS BRAIN TISSUE so tick tock motherfuckers. \n\n/emergency physician ",
"If a person's heart is stopped, they are dead. Game over. Miracles happen, but not very often. \n\nDefribillators and CPR are used to normalize a heartbeat if a person goes into cardiac arrest (heart is failing but hasn't stopped). My first aid instructor told us CPR has a 2% chance to increase a person's survival. AEDs have like a 40% chance. I can't verify these numbers though. ",
"The device you are talking about is not an old-fashioned defibrillator, but an AED. An Automatic External Defibrillator. Unlike a normal defibrillator, which requires an expert to know when to properly use it, an AED can scan the patient and determine when their heart is undergoing atrial defibrillation. Therefore, it knows when it can and cannot shock the patient.\n\nModern CPR teaches how to perform while the patient is attached to an AED. This includes knowing when to cease contact with the patient for scanning and shocking purposes. CPR can occasionally push a person back into some form of heart activity, most often some form of atrial fibrillation. CPR combined with an AED can potentially ensure a patient be resuscitated, even before paramedics arrive in lucky circumstances.\n\nThe point of all CPR, is to maintain the blood and airflow of the patient artificially until the body starts back up on its own. When blood and airflow ceases, the body starts to die. Starting artificial flow as soon as possible increases the likelihood of survival significantly. The AED is there in case chest compressions and breaths successfully allow the patient to get back an irregular heartrate, so that it can try to reset it to a regular heartrate.",
"AED's are automated. Once you attach the pads, the AED will tell you whether a shock is advised or not. So you're right about not being able to shock asystole or PEA but the AED will be able to tell you if the person has a shockable rhythm.",
"Nurse here. AEDs are designed to “reset” to electrical activity in the heart. I could go WAY in depth but pretty much the reason most buildings have them is so that some can differentiate between an arrest, or atrial fibrillation, or other conditions affecting the rhythm of the heart.\n\nThe reason they aren’t used for arrest is because it simply isn’t made to do that. A person can easily do compressions until professionals arrive to take over if the AED does not advise a shock.",
"People who's hearts have stopped entirely are only going to be resuscitated chemically, and even then odds are low. When somebody has a \"heart attack\" what has actually happened is the heart is an abnormal rhythm. Usually vfib or a vtach with no pulse. The AED forces all the cells to polarize at once with the hope of the heart returning to it's natural rhythm. Early AED of a shock able rhythm with good CPR is a person's best chance at recovering with minimal deficits. Have AED in most public buildings allows for early intervention and increases survival. I'f they do not receive treatment early their hearts will be rapidly fall to PEA or Asystole, aka no heartbeat.",
"The chances of surviving a life threatening cardiac event outside of a hospital is slim. If your heart is in a shockable rhythm and there is a defibrillator near by, your chances of survival increase significantly if the heart is shocked in adequate time. Basically, if you are in ventricular fibrilation (a life threatening heart rhythm) and you are in the woods, you are likely going to die in the woods. If you are anywhere with an AED, you have a better chance of living. This is why people survive these events in a hospital than in the field. ",
"The faster the better! If you ever find someone unresponsive and there’s and AED by- get it, open it up and read the instructions. They are pretty much a picture book and will tell you what to do when turned on and where to place the sticky pads. It will analyze the persons heartbeat and won’t even let you shock them unless they need it. After that start chest compressions (AED will literally tell you when to start compressions). Remember to administer about 80- 100 compressions/minute (keep on beat with the song “staying alive” it is fast enough to average about 100 compressions/minute). Significant cardiac events happen a lot but people don’t know what to do. This is the medical fields way of bringing first response to the public’s hands. Unfortunately most people see them but don’t know what they are. ",
"The AED normalizes rhythm and is much better at allowing survivors to live normal lives following a cardiac event. IIRC, 73% of people revived with AEDs go on to live normal (no/limited brain damaged) lives VS 3% when the person is resuscitated using traditional CPR methods. You really want them to be everywhere.",
"Defibrillators actually stop the heart, and CPR is required to get it going again. All AEDs will guide you through CPR. As other have said, the heart's rhythm is sporadic and ineffective in a cardiac event, so shocking it stops all activity and chest compressions are required to get the rhythm going again. Part of why many medical tv shows are inaccurate. :)\n\nAnother fun fact: defibs won't shock the heart if it has either a normal rhythm, or no rhythm. You don't mess with normal, and shocking an inactive heart is redundant. ",
"You're right, a defibrillator will not \"restart\" a heart that has stopped beating. If there is no electrical activity in the heart (asystole), management is CPR and medication to stimulate the heart such as epinephrine. Shocking a heart that has no electrical activity doesn't do anything.\n\nA defibrillator will deliver a shock that actually stops your heart, with the intention of resetting it to a normal electrical rhythm. If there is normal electrical activity in the heart (sinus rhythm) then shock is not advised. The only two shockable rhythms are pulseless ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. VT and Vfib are both deadly rhythms that can result in death if emergency intervention is delayed. The MOST important factor in saving someone's life when their heart is in one of these two rhythms is early defibrillation. CPR alone won't save them, they need to be shocked out of the irregular rhythm as soon as possible. Delivering a shock in a timely manner can really be the difference between the person coming back completely, becoming brain dead, or dying. \n\nYes defibrillators have a very specific purpose, but they can save a life in those emergency situations where early defibrillation is crucial. ",
"Bottom line: they are an inexpensive, easy to use tool that has massive life-saving potential with minimal risk. Also, when you see the doc yell “clear” and shock the patient, they are using a defibrillator. It doesn’t restart or “charge up” the heart like most people think but stop the heart completely with the thought that the brain will be able to restart it similar to rebooting a computer that has frozen. ",
"This is going to be hugely simplified but may help your understanding. \n\nFirst, no you cannot shock asystole aka \"a flatline\". Asystole is the lack of electrical activity and requires cpr/meds, and has a very poor prognosis at the best of times. BUT asystole isn't something a bystander without a cardiac monitor can diagnose, so ALWAYS ALWAYS do CPR. And have someone run to get that AED and call 911.\n\nThere is a few different types of arrhythmias, some \"shockable\", some not. The shockable arrythemias also happen to be more survivable given that the treatment (electricity) is given fast.\n\nThere are two important arrythmias that cause cardiac arrest, ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF). These rhythms are found in a significant portion of people found in cardiac arrest and are treated intially with cpr and electricity. The longer a person stays in these rhythms, the higher the chances of them dying from the arrhythmia. That is because the arrythmia can change over time from VT (which is fairly survivable) to VF (sometimes survivable) to asystole (which is rarely survivable and no longer shockable).\n\nThe longer you go without the treatment (electricity), the higher the chances of the rhythm changing into a less survivable rhythm. The timeframe for the rhythms to change can be very short, seconds to minutes, much fast then EMS can arrive oftentimes. That is why there has been a huge push to get AEDs in as many public places as possible. \n\nAEDs are very simple and you can literally save someones life with them so don't be afraid to use it if you have to! Same for CPR, don't be afraid to do it, bad cpr is better then no cpr. ",
"They ARE used in emergency heart care. The point being made is not that they're not useful, it's just that they don't work like you see on TV. They don't resurrect dead hearts.\n\nThey help struggling hearts, which is a common enough emergency to justify their wide distribution. ",
"When your heart actually stops, defibrillation is not recommended anyways. There are heart rhythms that can be defibrillated, but are not perfusing rhythms, meaning will not adequately supply oxygen to your body. In these cases, an AED can be used as a life saving measure. The reason AEDs have such a specific purpose is because the average person will be able to follow the prompts and utilize it. The defibrillator medical professionals have is dependent on being able to recognize a cardiac rhythm, and treat appropriately. It can do a couple more things than the AED. ",
"The AED or also know as the Automated External Defibrillator is important machine to have in a building as you never know when someone is going to get a stroke/heart attack and their heat stops beating. The AED basically delivers the shock to the body. \n\nSteps:\n1. Check the scene\n2. Then ask the person if their are OK usually tap on their chest.\n3. Feel the heart beat.\n4. Tell someone to call 911 and get an AED.\n5. Give 30 compression to 2 breaths.\n6. If the person does not respond after the 30 compression to 2 breaths use the AED to deliver the shock to the body.\n7. Keep doing it until the ambulance arrives.\n8. If you afraid that you might kill someone do not worry the Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated. ",
"Student Paramedic here, basically the sooner defibrillation occurs (and CPR) the greater the chances are that the patient will survive. Its a regular occurrence that we get to an arrest and bystanders/family haven't done anything to help for whatever reasons. Familiarise yourself with defibs/AED's and it could help save a life! Also CPR is good to know too :) ",
"During a sudden cardiac arrest, hearts normally don’t just stop (flatline). They typically go into a rhythm that looks like a seizure and isn’t the normal 1,2,1,2 motion needed to pump blood. \n\nThe heart is essentially an electric pump. When it starts doing funky stuff, the electrical signals that run he pump are off beat. A defib will actually stop the heart briefly in the hopes that the heart will act normal again. After all, the brain is typically running normally and sending the correct signals, something else failed to cause the heart attack. \n\nThe reason defibs are everywhere is because that shock (and CPR) need to be delivered ASAP. Every minute that goes by without treatment reduces a patient’s chance of survival by 10-20%. \n\nAn AED is designed to be as simple as possible for any bystander to use. You used to have to be AED certified and trained to know how to use one, but modern units have diagrams and will actually talk you through it. Some will even talk you through CPR and give you corrections. \n\nNearly all AEDs these days have the ability to sense whether a shock is needed or not. They will walk you through every step of treatment needed until EMS arrives. \n\nIn any case where a person passes out for an extended period of time, stops breathing, or goes into heart failure, they need to see a doctor to find out what’s wrong. Just because they woke up and look ok doesn’t mean it won’t happen again. This is why the first step when using an AED is always to (have someone else) call for an ambulance. ",
"Fire protection student here. Most of the defibrillators you see are AED's. They do all the work for you other than applying the patch and giving the shock. When theyre applied, the AED knows if the patches have been put in the right places, if not - no shockies. If their heart is still beating - no shockies. It actually verbally walks you through every step, easy peasy. \n\nAnd youre a little off on what they do. What a defib does is send a shock through the chest that arcs between the pads and through the heart. First we should break down what fibrillation is though. Literally defined, fibrillation is when your hearts rhythm is irregular or interrupted. This can be a wide variety of things. Functionally a defib is a reset button for your heart. It stops and then restarts your heart with the hope that when it starts again it will resume beating normally. It can potentially work on hearts that have stopped beating as well. They're actually pretty widely useful and cheap, so there isn't much of a reason not to have them.",
"EMT here. A huge part of it is just delivering the shock as soon as possible to a shockable rhythm (v-tach and v-fib, where the ventricles are pumping too fast, or when the ventricles are essentially having a seizure, respectfully). With cardiac arrest cases, the likelyhood of survival plummet after 5 minutes of them going down. Most ambulances won't get to the location within 10 if they're close, given the information goes from caller to 911 dispatcher, and then tones go off at the station, and then everyone hops on the truck and drives to the location, then they have to park and locate the patient. The AED can provide a shorter time between going down and delivering the first shock and keeps survivability up. Plus the longer the down time the more joules needed to kickstart the heart. Most AEDs will shock about 120 but with the defibrillators that most ambulance companies carry, we can control exactly how many joules are needed, up to 200 for acls for advanced emts and then, depending on certifications more for paramedics. One thing that I've personally seen done is a precordial thump, where a doctor watched the man go down, checked his breathing and pulse, and in a hail marry attempt, praying that he was in v-tach or v-fib, hammer fisted the guys chest and he came right back. This works because the action of hitting the chest in the right spot with enough force is equivalent to an 80 joule shock to the heart. \n\nOne of our instructors was very adamant we understood how all of this worked because he thought it was cool.",
"As someone who was born with a heart defect and have a multitude of heart-related issues, seeing AEDs in public places is extremely reassuring and makes me personally feel safe. It is so amazing to see the public take more notice of heart related issues and implement AEDs into buildings to make them just as common as fire extinguishers. they can save a life. period. nothing beats that. ",
"I would rather save someone in 2 minutes rather than 5-10, simple as that. I had to perform CPR on a man at a Barnes and Noble who had passed out and had a weak irregular heart beat. EMTs showed up in 7 minutes and got him back with one shock. I could have done it much sooner and the man would have had less time where his brain was not getting oxygen.",
"They are useful in case of something called ventricular fibrillation, or V-Fib, which is a irregularly fast and weak heartbeat. This is what your heart goes through during cardiac arrest. Defibrillation is only used to fix your heart rate, not start it up again (that’s one way medical TV shows lie to us). If you are interested in learning how to use an AED or even how the heart works during cardiac events I recommend getting CPR certified! It does not take long and it is cheap, it looks great on a résumé and could save a life. While it is easy to operate an AED, please leave it to someone who is CPR certified! If something happens to go wrong you could get injured or sued.",
"Defibrillators do restart hearts. Take it from someone who's had their heart restarted on four separate occasions by one. I wouldn't be alive without them. \nAs for why most buildings have one, if someone has a sudden cardiac arrest (heart stops unexpectedly), they have very little time. Minutes at most. Because cardiac arrests don't discriminate (I'm 21 year old healthy girl), it's better to be safe than sorry. There's almost no warning with them. So if someone goes into an arrest, there should be a defib close by to save their life. ",
"EMT speaking. \n\nWhen someone is in cardiac arrest, they dont have a lot of time. Defibs/AEDs are for and should be used by anyone around that can get to it in case an emergency like that should arise. EMT's and Parmedics will get there but it still takes time. Time that could be used saving the person's life asap. \n\nThey have voice over instructions that make it easy to understand. So you don't have to learn CPR/AED to know how to use it.",
"Cardiac RN here.\n\nThere are only two abnormal heart rhythms that a defibrillator can fix, ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. These two arrythmias are considered cardiac arrest because the chambers of the heart that pump blood to the rest of the body are essentially quivering, which doesnt do much as far as pumping blood around. \n\nWhen you shock someone, the goal is to override the electrical signals in the hear that are causing the pump failure, and reset things back to base line, kind of like flipping the circuit breaker. However, to continue the same analogy, flipping the circuit breaker wont fix anything if you have no power coming into the house. Likewise, if you shock a heart that no longer has any electrical activity, aka flatlined, there is nothing to reset. And once that electrical signal is gone you cant put it back. \n\nHopefully this helps clear up any confusion, good questi9n.",
"As a Paramedic in Australia we can arrive to scenes where bystander CPR and defibrillation has occurred here’s some quick info;\n\n1. Most common (here in Aus) AED’s talk through each step in a clear repetitive tone until it is completed ie, “Apply first pad to bare upper chest as shown on screen” “Apply second pad to lower chest as shown on screen” “Commence CPR” etc.\n\n2. The analysis and shock portion of the incident will be directed and you will be prompted for each step eg. “Stop CPR, do not touch patient, analysing rhythm, Shock advised, stand clear and press the shock button”\n\n3. The only two rhythms that are “shockable” for AEDs are Ventricular Fibrillation and Ventricular Tachycardia with a rate over 150 beats per minute. Any other rhythm is not shocked. These rhythms are resolved with defibrillation, other require more advanced intervention.\n\n4. Flat line is called asystole and means that there is no electrical activity in the heart, that electrical activity is created by a chemical process in each cell and if the cell is dead it can not produce or respond to a electrical impulse. A defibrillator works by ‘resetting’ the heart, not ‘restarting’.\n\n5. AED’s save lives, but only when used! The biggest obstacle that we face is getting bystanders to commence CPR. Despite fears, CPR will not kill a person who is alive if performed correctly, an easy way to tell if CPR is no longer needed is when the patient pushes you away.\n\nBottom line, if a person is unresponsive and they are not breathing normally then CPR is recommended. Some patient will make strange gasping breathing effort, this is rare but can occur.\n\nIf you are afraid of the more litigious members of the community trying to sue you then I would encourage you to look at your local ‘Good Samaritan’ laws but I can not more highly recommend CPR and early AED use to give someone a fighting chance.\n\nStay safe",
"Paramedic here. \n\nFirst off, AED stands for automated external defibrillator. Meaning it both analyzes a heart rhythm and tells bystanders what to do. Paramedics have a manual defibrillator (generally) which can be used for more situations and more precisely. \n\nIf someone goes into cardiac arrest, their heart can be in a few basic rhythms. If we look at the advanced cardiac life support algorithm, there are two categories: shockable and non-shockable. The most common shockable rhythm and the one that a defibrillator will treat is essentially a completely disorganized heart. No cardiac cell is working with any other, they're all out for themselves. This doesn't work at all as the heart functions as a whole unit. So what the defibrillator does is depolarizes every cell in the heart in the hopes that the cells that are supposed to run the show will start leading again. If the heart isn't circulating blood then those cells aren't getting nutrients or oxygen and they have a decreased chance of restarting correctly, and the longer they go without circulation the worse the chances of recovery. Hence the emphasis on early CPR. But seeing as CPR only circulates at something like 30% efficiency compared to normal circulation, the earlier you defibrillate the better the outcomes. \n\nThe advent of widespread availability of AEDs has drastically improved out of hospital cardiac arrest outcomes. So AEDs are *kind of* used to restart a heart but it's closer to actually stopping the heart in an organized manner to get the heart to restart itself. And as they say, time is muscle and the 5-10m it takes for medical assistance to arrive is huge when it comes to lifesaving interventions. \n\nOn a side note, TAKE A CPR CLASS. You cannot underestimate how much that will help in an emergency. If you can't take one, watch the video I'll link below. And if you don't crack ribs when you're doing chest compressions you're not going deep enough. \n\n_URL_0_",
"The reason buildings have AEDs is a combination of 4 factors:\n\n\\- The specific type of heart rhythm problems they are intended to fix happen quite often. (Ventricular Fibrillation and Ventricular Tachycardia)\n\n\\- Those heart rhythm problems tend to respond well to the AED.\n\n\\- Early use of the AED is vital, and a couple of minutes can make the difference between life and death.\n\n\\- AEDs are very easy to use with minimal training.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBasically, they are an easy to use device that has a high success rate in resolving common heart problems in patients that might have died waiting for an EMT to arrive with their own defibrillator.\n\n & #x200B;",
"I can answer this as an EMS worker. The reason they are so readily available is because early defibrillation has proven to increase the chances of the patients survival. So if the patients heart is shocked back into sinus rhythm before the medics arrive then the medics can perform other tasks and the patient has a higher chance of survival. ",
"I bought one for the gym I own. We are on a busy intersection. I ended up using it last January on a man that had a heart attack at a red light and drove through the intersection. I think they should be everywhere. In Canada I paid out of pocket to put one in my fitness centre though. Probably 1500-2000$~",
"Paramedic here. The purpose of defibrillation is to trigger all the pacemaker cells of the heart at once. This would cause them all to reactivate back in their original sequence and order. The only rhythms a defibrillator can shock are V-Tach (ventricles tiring far too fast) and V-fib (the ventricles randomly contracting, looks like the heart is quivering). Nearly 80%+ of sudden cardiac arrests are one of those 2 rhythms. When they happen, a persons percentage of being converted out of that rhythm goes down 10% a minute. The widespread availability of an AED makes the survival chance much higher in the general public. Rather than waiting for the arrival of first responders and lose precious time, the lay public can follow the simple instructions and save a life. Hope that helps.",
"Hey paramedic here! When most people think cardiac arrest they think of asystole or a flatline which is an absence of electrical activity in the heart, and an AED will read this and not deliver a shock as there is no electrical activity to correct, but in some cases of cardiac arrest a patient can actually be in a none profusing rhythm (VFIB or VTACH) witch means the heart is \"twitching\" but not beating effectively enough to circulate blood. In this case defibrillation and effective CPR can shock the patient in to a profusing rhythm and reverses cardiac arrest.\n\nEffective CPR and early defibrillation by an AED has been shown to increase survivability of patients in cardiac arrest by up to 80% which is why AEDs have been installed in most public buildings, the sooner a shock can be delivered the better the chance of survival.\n\nEdit: Spelling ",
"It does actually restart the heart - the confusion comes from the fact that during fibrillation the heart is actually still “trying to beat” but it’s “out of sync” so to speak. It’s not just sitting there flatlined.\n\nThe AED supplies a large DC voltage that shoots current through the heart - stopping it immediately. This stops fibrillation. \nThen the heart “receives” the beat signal from a rest position and hopefully “restarts” itself properly. \nBut this will only work if the heart is in fibrillation- not flat lined. Hence (De)fibrillator.",
"I worked with a guy who was \"dead\" for 14 minutes. He was driving home from work when he had a massive heart attack which more or less killed him instantly. The only reason he's around now is because through some absolutely astronomical odds the guy driving behind him had a defibrillator in his car. He hooked him up and the defibrillator artificially pumped his heart enough to stave off full brain death until the paramedics arrived. Buddy suffered pretty significant brain damage but he survived. They may not be designed to \"fix\" the problem but they will keep you alive until professionals arrive who can. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/n5hP4DIBCEE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9w0j1y
|
In stem cell therapies, how do doctors get stem cells to the tissue or organ they are attempting to repair? Are stems cells too large to be delivered through an injection?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9w0j1y/in_stem_cell_therapies_how_do_doctors_get_stem/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9gogu4",
"e9gr5a8"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure if technology has progressed to where we are actually growing new organs for people but it's extremely close. This is almost like a 3D printer but the blueprint is stem cells. \n\nIf you're getting a stem cell transplant (also bone marrow transplant) for cancer basically first they kill your existing bone marrow. Then you'll get your new stem cells IV kind of like a blood transfusion. Then it takes a few months for your body to become \"engrafted\" where it accepts the new stem cells and begins to make new blood without cancer. \n\nYour blood type can change with this process fyi.",
"Stem cells can be delivered via injection; however, that does not guarantee they’ll stay where you put them. For example, a relatively recently study in horses showed that the majority of stem cells they injected intra-articularly (into joints) ended up migrating to the lungs. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4jfbv2
|
how does cold stuff pull heat away from warmer stuff
|
I have an icy cold beer in front of me. If I put my palm a couple inches away from it, I feel the icy cold beer pulling heat from my hand.
Is this just the cold air or what?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jfbv2/eli5how_does_cold_stuff_pull_heat_away_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3659o4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Heat is just how \"jiggly\" or excited atoms within a system are (ie your hand)\n\nCold is an absence of that energy\n\nWhen you touch the cold glass you're transferring that energy to the glass."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
198yfi
|
what do trigonometry graphs show us?
|
So, as I sit here doing my pre-calculus homework, our unit is graphing trigonometric functions such a y=csc(x-(pi/2)) and y=sec(2(x-(pi/2)))+1 and I get how to graph them but, what is their actual use and is it applicable to a scenario outside of math class?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/198yfi/eli5_what_do_trigonometry_graphs_show_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8lv9gj",
"c8lwrd9"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It's probably not useful to graph that specific function outside of math class. But being able to graph *similar* complicated functions is useful, because a lot of very complicated functions show up in engineering and science, and drawing graphs is sometimes the quickest way to solve a problem.\n\n(Of course, you'll rarely need to graph the functions by hand. But it's useful to know how you would graph them by hand, because it will let you know that something's up if the graph of y=csc(x-(pi/2)) does not pass through y=-1, x=0.)",
"I am not exactly clear on what you are asking – I see several possibilities:\n\n**When are you going to use the concepts in trigonometry in general?**\n\nIt is useful on its own and helps build the scaffolding you need to continue your mathematics education. For example, the properties of triangle are immensely useful for tasks such as navigation or measurement. Trigonometric functions are pretty fundamental to dealing with periodic functions and phenomenon (think waves, earth going around the sun, etc.) which are pretty much everywhere in nature.\n\n\n**Trig is wonderful, but why graph functions?**\n\nIt is just another tool in your math arsenal. Certain tasks are easier if you can visualize what’s going on. Certain people do better with the same problem if they can create the visual graph where others, like me, would dive into the algebra.\n\n\n**Trig is great, graphs are great, but why do them by hand?**\n\nAll the computation (you can include drawing graphs here) you will learn through high school and even into your undergraduate education can now be done on calculators/computers and can be done much much faster with a lower chance of errors. With the ubiquity of mobile devices, even if you end up in a profession where these concepts are useful (pretty much anything interesting) you will almost never do them by hand yourself. So then why learn it at all?\n\nThis is a complicated question and more on education of rather than mathematics itself. I will preface the following with this disclaimer: I am not a professional educator (only experience as a teaching assistant for a few classes) and I don’t have numbers backing my opinions up – they are opinions based on my personal experience and that of my friends and colleagues. \n\nThere are some that would argue to drastically reduce the amount of computation done by students when learning mathematics. [Here is Conrand Wolfram (the Mathematica software) arguing that]( _URL_0_). While I do agree in principle which much of what he says, I don’t agree with the degree of reduction: The amount of a student’s homework and exams that is purely computation should be reduced, but not to a trivial amount (or zero). I think computation by hand is important for both the understanding and remembering the concepts.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.computerbasedmath.org/resources/reforming-math-curriculum-with-computers.html"
]
] |
|
32hwik
|
What are the hypothetical limitations of 'transcranial magnetic stimulation?' Is the whole thing bunk?
|
This [study](_URL_0_) talks about - as far as I can decipher through the Greek - some kind of electric pulse directed through a part of the human brain that creates 'positive responses' in patients with Parkinson's disease, but to a lesser extent with those taking dopamine.
Is this hard science? What separates it from the bogus pseudoscientific 'magnet-therapy' that Penn derides in this episode of [B*******](_URL_1_)?
What are its hypothetical limitations? Can it only 'temporarily reawaken damaged circuits' in the somatosensory cortex?
Speaking as a layman, I'd appreciate your educated input.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/32hwik/what_are_the_hypothetical_limitations_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqbl3f3",
"cqbmftn",
"cqbmta6"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[Transcranial magnetic stimulation](_URL_2_) or TMS is a fairly common tool used in psychology research (searching for transcranial magnetic stimulation on google scholar returns 100,000+ articles). Here is a short description of TMS:\n\n\"TMS is based on the principle of electromagnetic induction. Michael Faraday showed that when an electrical current is passed through a wire, it generates a time-varying magnetic field. If a second wire is placed nearby, the magnetic field induces electrical current flow in that second wire. In TMS, the ‘first wire’ is the stimulating coil and the ‘second wire’ is a targeted region of the brain.\n\nThe most common coil in use in TMS is a figure-of-eight shape in which electrical current flows in opposite directions around each of the windings, converging at the centre-point where the currents summate. This allows one to target focal regions of cortical tissue. The coil is placed on the scalp, and the resulting magnetic field passes through the skull and induces an electrical field in the underlying cortex. The effect is to stimulate neuronal activity and change the excitation and organisation of neuronal firing in the stimulated region.\" ([O'Shea & Walsh, 2007](_URL_7_)) < - this is a general primer on TMS.\n\nTMS can be used to stimulate a quite precise area of cortex (~1mm). Placing the coil over motor cortex will induce muscle twitches in the corresponding area (leg, finger, arm, etc.). Stimulation of primary visual cortex can induce [phosphenes](_URL_4_) (flashes of light). \n\nOddly, TMS can have different effects depending on tasks and what area it is used on. For example, TMS can disrupt some functions (e.g. [Grossman, Battelli, & Pascual-Leone, 2005](_URL_1_) < - disruption of biological motion perception; [Meister et al. 2007](_URL_0_) < - disruption of speech perception). However, TMS can also improve some functions like motion perception ([Antal et al., 2004](_URL_5_)).\n\nIt shouldn't be surprising that a really strong electrical impulse can affect cortical activity: after all, neuronal communication is done via electrical and chemical signals. \n\nI don't know anything about magnetic therapy. You need a really strong, induced current close to the head to have any effect on neuronal excitation or inhibition. \n\nNote that TMS is different from [deep brain stimulation](_URL_6_) which has been shown to alleviate some Parkinson's symptoms ([Deuschl et al. (2006)](_URL_3_)) ",
"TMS is not bunk, in that it does work, albeit in a rather limited way. The idea with TMS is that you use an electrical coil to create a very brief but very powerful magnetic field. When this coil is placed over the skull, the magnetic field can easily penetrate the bone and alter the firing pattern of the neural tissue below the skull. What this does is to change the neurons (brain cells) within this area to be either more *or* less likely to fire, depending on the specific sequence used.\n\nThe easiest way to see TMS in action is to place the coil over the part of the motor strip controlling the hand. With a well-positioned coil, you can activate the motor strip, causing the muscles in the thumb to contract. This is what that abstract is referring to when it mentions \"resting motor threshold\". If you think about it, this is pretty amazing, we can use TMS to change the way a healthy brain works without having to go through the skull, and with only minimal discomfort!\n\nYou asked specifically about limitations, and there are quite a few. Firstly, TMS is incredibly specific in what you're going to be targeting. The patch of brain that you can influence is going to be pretty small, and because the coil and the head exist in 3D space, it will change as the coil moves on the surface of the head, and as it orients around in space (you could have the coil on the same part of the head but turn your wrist and the coil will be pointing to another ever-so-different part of the brain). There is equipment to help with this which allows for a person's MRI to be paired with the TMS coil to try and improve accuracy and reproducibility, but this isn't perfect (and from my experience, incredibly finicky).\n\nTMS only works on the outer layer of the brain, the cortex, and even there it is limited to the parts of the skull that are (roughly) covered by hair. When placed on the top of your head, say, a TMS pulse feels a bit like someone flicking you on the head. When placed too close to muscle, such as those in your shoulders or on your face, this can quickly go from a flick to feeling painful. This makes it impractical to target certain parts of the cortex. All of the brain regions located below the cortex (cingulate cortex, subcortical structures, cerebellum, brain stem) are completely out of the picture. TMS just does not penetrate deep enough to influence these.\n\nRemember how I mentioned that TMS is confined to small parts of cortex? Well, even this is not that simple. The brain is incredibly complex and one region will be connected to dozens of others. So, influencing one part of the brain may have knockon effects on other regions. Similarly, while it is incredibly powerful to be able to directly manipulate function in a brain region, this may not be enough for us to know if a change in behaviour is the result of our TMS. This is because we can't know if we have found the brain regions that causes this behaviour, or if we're merely knocking out the relay station between some two other vital regions (though there are ways to test this).\n\nTMS is a useful research tool, but at the moment it is really just that. It's another tool we can use to probe what the brain does and how, with useful applications still a little way off.\n\n----\n\nThe video you link to is a lot of people sticking small, weak magnets to different parts of their body to cure pretty much everything they want. Unlike TMS, there is mechanism that is understood to be at play, and there is no attempt to demonstrate that the magnets do anything. TMS studies often rely on observable behaviour such as the motor threshold, instead of vague self-report like the magnet anecdotes.\n\nI guess the biggest difference is that we have ideas about how TMS works and why it should work in the context we're using it in, and we have observable impartial behaviour that we can monitor, and this is missing from the magic magnets.\n\n----\n\nIf you want to know more about TMS, the [Wikipedia article is good](_URL_1_), and have a look through the [previous AskScience questions on TMS](_URL_0_).",
"when the study says \"positive response\", it simply means that the subject was able to sense and respond to some stimulation given to their thumb. the researchers here were only using TMS to determine whether there is a defect in the way somatosensory cortex is working in parkinson's patients vs. healthy patients. it wasn't intended as a therapy, or something that could actually be used to alleviate symptoms of the disease.\n\nyour question \"Can it only 'temporarily reawaken damaged circuits' in the somatosensory cortex?\", is probably most relevant, and in a roundabout way, it would seem that yes. I believe that what is happening here is the TMS is temporarily increasing excitability of cells in somatosensory cortex; in parkinson's patients, this briefly allows for the sensation and response to somatosensory stimuli that they otherwise wouldn't feel... a decrease in activation threshold if you will. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21638325",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9-o1QETGDM"
] |
[
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207019690",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698905002555",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation",
"http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa060281",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene",
"http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/089892904323057263#.VSx_UPnF-Vo",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_brain_stimulation",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207008688"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=TMS&restrict_sr=on",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation"
],
[]
] |
|
3d775p
|
what exactly is the kaaba and what is its importance in islam?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d775p/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_kaaba_and_what_is_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct2ff91",
"ct2g97r",
"ct2gbzt",
"ct2ia7t"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the direction where we pray to and It's the place to do the spiritual pilgrimage that is Hajj. It also serves as the hub for muslims to meet from around the world. ",
"The big building you always see in photos is the Kaaba, and it houses the holy relic known as The Kaaba Stone. \n\nAccording to Islam, the stone was found by Abraham and Ishmael. This means it predates Islam itself by thousands of years. \n\nScholars theorise that the stone is a meteorite, and point out there was a history of stone and meteorite worship in that region long before Islam arose. \n\nSome Muslims ascribe supernatural powers to the stone, while some believe it is symbolic. ",
"The Kaaba is the first Mosque that was built by Abraham and Ishmael. It contains the Black Stone, which was supposed to be a gift from the archangel Gabriel to Abraham\n\nIts supposedly the only piece of the existing structure that was placed by Abraham himself.",
"The Kaaba is the black, cube-shaped structure that sits in the middle of Mecca's Grand Mosque. It is the holiest site in Islam, identified as the first Mosque; prayers are said while facing the Kaaba and able-bodied Muslims are expected to go on a pilgrimage there (the *Hajj*) atleast once in their lifetime.\n\nThe Kaaba itself is made out of granite, and its [interior](_URL_1_) is a 10m by 12m room, made of marble and limestone.\n\nMuslims believe that the Kaaba was built by Abraham and Ishmael (although it has been rebuilt over the centuries, most recently in 1629). Historically, it was a site of worship and pilgrimage for pre-Islamic Arabs in the region for centuries prior to the birth of Muhammad.\n\nIn the eastern corner of the Kaaba is the [Black Stone](_URL_0_). This is an object that has been venerated at the Kaaba since pre-Islamic times, but in Islamic tradition it was sent from Heaven to guide Adam and Eve to build an alter and set into the Kaaba by Muhammad.\n\nIn pre-Islamic times, similar stones were venerated at the Arabic cities of Ghariman and Abalet (Red and White respectively). \n\nIt has traditionally been theorized that the Black Stone is a meteorite, but there is also evidence suggesting that it may be volcanic glass of terrestrial origin."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone#/media/File:The_Blackstone.jpg",
"https://youtu.be/I-MimunZijM?t=98"
]
] |
||
7wg1vs
|
how do we simulate zero gravity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wg1vs/eli5_how_do_we_simulate_zero_gravity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"du01izn",
"du01jl7",
"du01llr",
"du01mzw"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
8,
11
],
"text": [
"First of all, \"zero gravity\" does not exist. The range of gravity is infinite.\n\nAs for simulating *zero-g*, you can do it with an airplane by placing the plane in a steep climb and then lowering the nose so you follow a parabolic trajectory and the plane falls out from under you at exactly the right rate (accelerating downwards at 9.81 m/s^(2)).",
"This is easy to answer: counter the acceleration due to gravity with acceleration due to momentum. When the two cancel out, the object of study will be \"weightless\". It will still be subject to mass and friction, but gravitational aceleration force is perfectly countered by the object's own acceleration matching that force.",
"One of two ways:\n\n- Swimming pools. NASA has a _massive_ pool it uses to simulate spacewalks for astronaut training. It isn't exactly like zero-g, but with properly designed tools, it is close enough to let the astronauts get a feel for how thing move and react.\n\n- Freefall. NASA had a special plane nicknamed \"The Vomit Comet\" that would climb to a specific altitude then basically freefall for about a minute (they outsource this now). This freefall simulated zero-g _very_ accurately, but for only a very short period of time. It is less useful for actually training on specific activities (hence the pool) but does give the astronauts a better feeling of what zero-g is actually like on the body.",
"What we commonly call zero gravity is actually, generally speaking, \"Free fall.\" \n\nYou can picture being in a box, that is dropped out of a plane. Both you and the box accelerate downwards due to gravity. Why don't you slam into the roof of the box? Well you're accelerating downwards as fast as it is, so you are falling in front of it. Why don't you slam into the floor of the box? Same deal, it's accelerating downwards as fast as you are. You're falling behind it. What does this look like, to you, inside the box? You're floating in the box. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8psgcx
|
how do graffitis sprayed on the street tend to come out very sharp and detailed when the spray can itself sprays a random dot pattern?
|
Like how do these artists manage to control these random dot pattern in their favor to create straight lines or preventing from overlapping different spray colors.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8psgcx/eli5_how_do_graffitis_sprayed_on_the_street_tend/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0dnzbi",
"e0dqr5x",
"e0e0v8f"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Stencils. Underground graffiti artists tend to premake their art using stencils, to avoid capture by the police. These can be made from any foldable, lightweight material, and cardboard is a common choice. These stencils act like painter's tape, and create sharp lines.\n\nFor the artists that do legal work, they don't use stencils as much, because time is not an issue, but they will still use cardboard or other material to create sharp lines with the otherwise random spray paint.",
"They have different nozzles they put on the cans to create different effects. The paint cans professionals buy are quite different (and more expensive) than the stuff you get at a hard ware store. It's meant to stay vibrant on stone, and resist weathering. You can check out [this site] (_URL_0_) to see the kind of stuff artists use opposed to idiots that just vandalize walla with shitty tags. ",
"Imagine a spray can is like a shotgun. The closer you are to your target (your canvass), the less your projectiles (paint) spread.\n\nThey make different nozzles for spray cans, too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.sprayplanet.com"
],
[]
] |
|
46l5kf
|
obtaining a separate identity legally and without getting diagnosed with dissociative personality disorder.
|
In Country A, say I cover all bills, limit expenses, pays tax AND I have all the moral reasons with me. Can I just travel to say, Denmark and claim that I don't have an Identity( Dont know who I am, lost passport etc.) And then get a new passport with completely separate identity?.. Isnt this part o the refugee crisis in EU btw. ..sorry if its too specific for eli5 its only an example. And yes I searched the sub.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46l5kf/eli5_obtaining_a_separate_identity_legally_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d05xfhf",
"d05xtvj"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"No, you aren't allowed to claim you have no identity and get a new one. The country you would be moving to would want to be able to conduct a background check on you or know more about you before admitting you and the country you're leaving would want to be able to find you again if they need to in case it turns out you did something before you left. There's a lot of risks to the state if they let people change identities and almost no benefit.\n\nBeing a refugee gives you a good chance to lie about a new identity since most documents establishing your former identity will have understandably been lost or destroyed, but it's not something you're allowed to do.\n\n > AND I have all the moral reasons with me.\n\nI don't really know what that means. Do you mean you have a specific reason for needing to change your identity like witness protection? In that case, the countries still know your real identity and they just help you hide it.",
"To lie about who you are would be fraudulent. Even if you did obtain citizenship elsewhere, if it was based on false pretenses it can usually be revoked.\n\nBut you can openly change things about yourself according to the law of the country you are in. For example, in most U.S. states you don't need to do anything special to change your name--adopting a new name for daily use is legally sufficient. It's perfectly legal to come to the U.S. and adopt a new name, though sometimes you will be required to disclose all names you've ever used.\n\nOther countries, especially in Continental Europe, are more restrictive with such things, but it's usually still possible to do things like change your name. Certainly in a social context, you don't have to tell people where you're from or that you are not (or did not use to be) a citizen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1x0ocy
|
the new farm bill that the u.s. recently approved
|
Specifically, can someone explain crop insurance to me? How is it different from the "direct payment" farmers have been receiving? How will it impact land values? Why would a farmer even bother watering his crops if he knows the government will pay with crop insurance? Is there something that I am missing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x0ocy/eli5_the_new_farm_bill_that_the_us_recently/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf74aqp",
"cf7ayjg"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Congress has given billions in welfare payments to massive agribusiness (and themselves) while cutting welfare to children and the elderly. ",
"Born and raised on crop farm, still work there during summer.\nFarmers buy crop insurance to make sure at the bare minimum they can make very basic payments. To receive crop insurance you have to lose a large portion of your crops, so much that no sane farmer would just buy insurance to use it. It would be like breaking a bone on purpose to get some benefit out of your Aflac insurance. Farmers receive much more money if they produce as much as possible. \nLand. Values will not change because of the farm bill, most of the lands value is based on if it is able to be farmed, forested, rocky, wet, hilly. Those are some of the things farmers look at when buying land. \nOverall the farm bill has little to do with farms, 80% of the money that the bill has goes to food stamps. Around 20% goes to farm subsidies, people do not realize how big agriculture is in the US. It is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry, and one of the few things that we have a positive export rate and unquestionably lead the world in terms of innovation and yields. \nThis new bill plans on making it more difficult for farmers to receive subsidies in order to get more money to food stamp programs. \n\nAlso the president is coming to my University on Friday MSU so that's kinda cool. My majors are Ag business management and food industry management. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ifn7l
|
Is there a maximum/minimum cloud cover for the planet at any given moment?
|
Looking at the related Wikipedia article, I understand that the term cloud cover usually (always?) refers to the fraction of the sky obscured by clouds from a single location.
But, I was wondering. On a planetary scale, is there a particular mechanism that doesn't allow the entirety of the planet's surface to be covered (or not covered) by clouds, even for a single day? The water cycle, maybe? And while we're at it, are there any such extremes that have been recorded?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ifn7l/is_there_a_maximumminimum_cloud_cover_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl25059"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"First we need to look at how and why clouds form. Air cools as it rises (adiabatic lapse rate). The dew point also drops as a function of altitude. When the dew point and the air temperature are equal, then clouds form. This is called the lifted condensation level.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nNow to get more clouds you need to increase the amount of water in the atmosphere, which means heating up the surface. If you form a cloud, that blocks the incoming sunlight and the surface can cool. This is a feedback mechanism. Less clouds mean warmer surface, but this makes more water which can make clouds and cool off the surface. \n\nI do need to point out the type of cloud is very important. High thin clouds don't cool the surface because sunlight can get through, but they do reflect the Earth's heat back toward the surface. Thick low clouds do cool the surface since the sun can't get through, but at night they keep things warm since they reflect the heat back.\n\nAs a side note, does this mean clouds will keep global warming in check? They don't have 100% certainty yet. It's a balance of how many high thin vs low thick clouds are formed and the resolution of the models have a hard time determining this. But it doesn't look good for holding back global warming.\n\nNow how many clouds\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe plots seem to range between 60-70% global cover. These are monthly averages. There is a definite seasonality. Note the Earth is not symmetric about the equator, there is more land in the Northern hemisphere vs the South which explains the oscillation.\n\nReally the Earth couldn't be covered in 100% clouds (as of right now) since we do have very cold and very warm air masses which hold different amounts of water. When these mix, the dew point lowers and can suppress cloud formation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifted_condensation_level"
]
] |
|
3my48t
|
We often hear about the great battles the Allies won during WW2, and how victory in Europe was in some part because of Hitler's poor decision making. But what were some of the largest tactical fuck ups the Allies made during WW2?
|
I'm particularly interested in the European Theatre, because I imagine the unfamiliar terrain and unconventional tactics of the Japanese would have led to common ambushes and mistakes being made left right and centre.
EDIT: I neglected to remember that there is a difference between tactical and strategic. So yes, most all of you gave me answers I was looking for. Thank you.
EDIT 2: Thanks for the front page and top posts of all time here on r/AskHistorians!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3my48t/we_often_hear_about_the_great_battles_the_allies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvj5l7h",
"cvj6eev",
"cvj8k74",
"cvj8lfg",
"cvjad4g",
"cvjd7lm",
"cvjht2o",
"cvjivz7",
"cvjn3vk",
"cvjowr9",
"cvjpuab",
"cvjvbxv"
],
"score": [
453,
1158,
67,
72,
225,
863,
46,
135,
3,
6,
2,
36
],
"text": [
"The Dieppe raid was pretty disastrous. Of the 6000 men, mostly Canadians, who landed that day over half became casualties or POW's. There were multiple goals to the raid. The primary goal was to capture a port on the French coast and hold it for sufficient time to put it out of action. This would allow the allies to test their weapons, tactics and intelligence in preparation for the future invasion of France. It would also serve the purpose of boosting British morale and show the Russians that their allies were serious about opening up a second front.\n\nThe landings themselves were a clusterfuck. Intelligence on the landing site was poor, with many Germans positions having been overlooked and the beach terrain improperly researched for tank suitability. There was no preliminary bombardment from the air and the naval bombardment was minimal. An insufficient number of tanks landed late and promptly became bogged down. This forced the infantry to attack machine gun emplacements unsupported, leading to heavy losses. The RAF kept the Luftwaffe at bay in the beginning of the day but losses began to amount as British fighters were operating at the limit of their effective range. At this point in the war also RAF ground support tactics were very underdeveloped. The raiders were forced to call a retreat after just 5 hours.\n\nAfterwards the heavy losses, which were particularly devastating for the Canadians, were called a necessary evil. They were justified by claiming the intelligence and experience gained on the beaches led directly to successful landings in North Africa and D-Day. Personally I think that was a convenient sop to the allied commanders conscience after a disastrous raid which was undertaken without sufficient preparation or consideration for its dangers. ",
"The Battle of the Hürtgen Forest was a serious prolonged fuck up (the extent of the true scale of the disaster remained classified until the 1950's and it is still poorly understood today) on the part of the Americans during WWII. It lasted six months from September 1944 until February 1945 and cost about 33,000 American casualties. It potentially delayed the end of World War II in Europe by months, as the Americans were unable to break through the Westwall by the time winter hit and were forced to dig in and wait until the spring thaw (March 1945) to launch any sort of offensive into the heart of Germany.\nThe Americans attacked blindly into the forest dozens of times without their usual advantages of armor and air support, and paid dearly for it. (the 28th Infantry Division affirmed its grim nickname (the \"Bloody Bucket\") by taking over 6,000 casualties in the span of a week; the 112th Infantry Regiment suffered 2,316 casualties out of an authorized strength of 3,207) The 9th Infantry Division suffered 4,500 casualties while advancing less than two miles. All or parts of eleven divisions and a Ranger battalion were thrown into the forest, chewed up, and spat out by a combination of poor weather and terrain, halfhearted planning, and a vicious, well-executed German defense; \n\n* 1st Infantry Division \n* 2nd Ranger Battalion \n* 3rd Armored Division \n* 4th Infantry Division \n* 5th Armored Division \n* 8th Infantry Division \n* 9th Infantry Division\n* 28th Infantry Division \n* 78th Infantry Division\n* 82nd Airborne Division\n* 83rd Infantry Division\n* 104th Infantry Division \n\nGeneral Courtney Hodges told in an interview in 1983 that he\n\n > \"would never pick it (the forest) as the place to be. it was assigned as part of my corps sector, and reluctantly we had to fight in it...\"\n\nThe tanks and tank destroyers that tried to fight in the Hürtgen Forest encountered severe difficulties when attempting to support the infantry, having to fight in areas where tanks are not very effective and tank destroyers are next to useless; airbursts in trees often killed the turret crews of the vulnerable tank destroyers. German Panther and Panzer IV tanks of the 116. Panzer-Division, Jagdpanthers of the 519. Schwere Panzerjägerabteilung, and Sturmgeschütze from attached brigades also took their toll. (Miller)\n\nThe terrain was often so bad, as in the Kall Valley and its namesake trail, that tanks could hardly pass at all\n\n > \"Before daylight the next morning (4 November), the tankers of Captain Hostrup's Company A, 707th Tank Battalion, warmed up their motors for another try at traversing the precipitous trail across the river. The 1st Platoon, commanded by 1st Lt. Raymond E. Fleig in the forward tank, was to lead. Lieutenant Fleig's tank had only just entered the woods and begun to advance...an explosion. It had struck a mine...the mine disabled a track, and the tank partially blocked the trail. The platoon sergeant, S.Sgt. Anthony R. Spooner, suggested winching the other tanks around Lieutenant Fleig's immobilized tank. Using the tow cable from Fleig's tank and the tank itself as a pivot, Spooner winched his own second tank around and back onto the narrow trail. Fleig boarded what now became the lead tank and continued down the trail, directing Sergeant Spooner to repeat the process to get the remaining three tanks of the platoon around the obstacle. As Lieutenant Fleig continued to inch his tank down the dark trail, sharp curves...necessitated much stopping and backing. The lieutenant noticed that his tank was tearing away part of the thin left shoulder of the trail....he made his way toward the river, crossed the bridge, and proceeded up the opposite slope. There the route presented little difficulty except for three switchbacks where Fleig had to dismount and direct his driver. It was just beginning to grow light when his tank churned alone into Kommerscheidt. Back at the start of the wooded portion of the trail, Sergeant Spooner succeeded in winching the three remaining tanks of the platoon around the disabled tank. Sgt. Jack L. Barton's tank in the lead came to a sharp bend made even more precarious by a large outcropping of rock from the right bank. Despite all efforts at caution, Barton's tank partially threw a track and was stopped. Captain Hostrup came forward to determine the difficulty and directed the next tank in line under Sergeant Spooner to tow Sergeant Barton's lead tank back onto the trail. The expedient worked, and the track was righted. Using Spooner's tank as an anchor, Barton successfully rounded the curve. When he in turn anchored the rear tank, it too passed the obstacle and both tanks continued.\"\n\nThe 707th Tank Battalion supporting the 28th Division lost 31 of 50 M4 Shermans and the 893rd Tank Destroyer Battalion lost 16 of 24 M10s. (Miller)\n\nThis video shows how bad the terrain was. This was filmed on 11 October 1944 near Zweifall, on the northwest fringes of the Forest. The tanks are of the 746th Battalion, supporting the 9th Infantry Division: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe fall of 1944 was notoriously wet and gloomy. The P-47s of the 365th and 404th Fighter Groups (the main P-47 groups tasked to handle the Hürtgen area) could only bomb German positions when the clouds cleared. When the weather was good, (which was unfortunately not very much, only 10 days in the whole month of October if I remember correctly) their support to the infantry was excellent.\n\nThe implied objective within the forest, the important series of Roer River dams, was not even defined as one until late in November 1944 when General Courtney Hodges pushed for air attacks (which never happened) on the dams to prevent their usage as a weapon by the Germans to delay the allied advance.\nIf the Americans had not attacked into the heart of the forest, but had instead swung south, around it, and attacked the dams from the side and behind, the battle could have been won by late October or early November, offering American ground units a firm foothold in Germany and a chance to dig in before winter arrived.\n\nSources:\n\nThe Battle of the Hürtgen Forest - Scorpio's Website _URL_1_\n\nMiller, Edward G. A Dark and Bloody Ground: The Hürtgen Forest and the Roer River Dams, 1944-1945. N.p.: Texas A & M UP, 1995. Print.\n\nUnited States Army in World War II, European Theater of Operations: The Siegfried Line Campaign \n(Charles B. MacDonald)\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_3_",
"Hello everyone, \n\nIn this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments, and as such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind [our rules](_URL_1_) concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Please don't leave a response that is only a few sentences long, vague generalities, or simply a link to a source (or simply incorrect!). Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed, and given the volume of the thread, most will be without comment.\n\nAdditionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to [modmail](_URL_0_), or a [META thread](_URL_2_[META]). Thank you!",
"This might be strategic rather than tactical, but is Market Garden still viewed as a failure, whether of intelligence or command?",
"Oh, to mention WW2 without mentioning the sheer scale of Soviet mistakes in the war is to ignore the main military lessons of that war\n\n**1) Do NOT ignore [military intelligence](_URL_3_).**\n\nIn the West, you'd be forgiven for thinking the Japanese alone were capable of preemptive assault. Depictions and memories of Pearl Harbor don't die easy: they are iconic in showing a relatively peaceful nation being forced into a deadly war. \n\nI'm surprised the Soviet Union didn't make any tragic war movies about their defeats in 1940-42. The story is terrifying. Actually, i'm not too surprised. They were a dictatorship that never wanted to admit defeat. But in the first year of the war, the massive disparity in casualties between fascist and soviet troops created the perception of an incompetent Red Army that gave its soldiers vodka before sending them out in human waves with only a desperate Hurrah! The truth is obviously different. There is a reason the Red Army had to fight under the constraints of 1940. \n\nDue to communist-ideological distrust and a solid fear of being drawn into a large war, Stalin ignored accurate intelligent reports from British SIS & Churchill. British sources were ironically accurate, but hindsight is harsh: the reports definitely seemed self-serving coming from an island nation desperately in need of an ally. Yet Stalin also ignored his own international agents, deserters from the gathering Wehrmacht forces, as well as common-sense observations from the front. His own preconceived notion of how Hitler would behave led Stalin to a stupid decision: ignore reports and shoot scouts. Simply put, Stalin was a lucid pragmatist with an irrational dislike of hearing contravening opinions; he couldn't dream of a gambler like Hitler throwing his weight against a nation twice as large as Germany, and wouldn't let outside sources change his view. \n\nThe result: the first week of Operation Barbarrosa was Pearl Harbor times a thousand. A fairly sophisticated Red Army Air Fleet was massacred on the ground. Thousands of airplanes were destroyed, giving the Wehrmacht a healthy technology edge they retained into 1943. If modern history shows anything, air power coupled with a strong army creates a very powerful offense. The Germans were able to easily take advantage of other Soviet mistakes throughout the war. They were aided and abetted by simple Soviet incompetence. The Red military was led by political appointees and sycophants, not effective soldiers. The best had been killed by their own Soviet secret police.\n\n**2) Do not murder your [best officers](_URL_6_)**\n\nThis really should go without saying, but Stalin was more afraid of his own people than military invasion from abroad. Russian weapons were closer to his person after all, and he was the beneficiary of a coup against Russia's previous Democratic-Socialist government. The high reputation gained by the officer corps during the civil wars, its ties to foreign socialists and its preference of scientific objectivity over political subjectivity all combined to lead Stalin to massacre. Even Marshals of the army, such as the combined-arms theorist Marshal Tukhachevsky who developed blitzkrieg techniques with Wehrmacht officers [Great Purge](_URL_4_).\n\nThe result of course of butchering capable officers was to discourage innovation and create an ossified system unable to tactically adapt to the complexities of war. Good officers like [Rokossovsky](_URL_2_) who later conquered Prussia in 1945, were imprisoned and tortured in the gulag for ethnic or politically obscure reasons. Antony Beever's books on Stalingrad and the fall of Berlin make for excellent readings, but they also identify a major reason for Red Army gains after 1942: their generals regained confidence and were allowed under desperate circumstances by Stalin to occasionally disagree with him over tactics (in closed door sessions of course). \n\n**3) Do not subordinate military strategy to politics without just cause**\n\nAnother major tragedy for the Soviets in the Eastern Front was the combative nature of Stalin. His courage and determined, aggressive personality of course encouraged the nation during its darkest hours, but his determination to always counterattack led to millions of unnecessary combat casualties. After all its immense losses in trained officers and aircraft crews, the Red Army simply wasn't equipped to win. Their early victories were grudging and costly, even with the help of General Winter during the [winter of 1941](_URL_5_). They were victories nonetheless. \n\nThe desire to impress the Soviet people with vigorous leadership had its price. 1942 is overshadowed by Stalingrad, but there were [defeats borne from overconfidence](_URL_7_ throughout the summer prior. Stalin ordered his still untrained armies into destructive counterattacks or holding actions which might have weakened the morale of the Wehrmacht but also nearly shattered the Soviets a second time. The Soviets were severely defeated by the Germans two summers in a row, primarily due to Luftwaffe superiority and Wehrmacht efficiency. The desperate winter resistance required by Zhukov's men at Stalingrad never would have been necessary if Stalin hadn't thrown men away during the summer. To simplify a description of tactics during that period: even well-armed soldiers and T-34 tanks without radios cannot defeat a combined-arms military with effective dive bombing and deep operations. \n\n**4) Comparative Western Mistakes: a different political tradition**\n\nThe Soviet Union was a nation with official élan and confidence. They were the [Homo Sovieticus](_URL_0_), a morally superior type of man untainted by bourgeois sentimentality, Christian imperialism or capitalistic greed. WWI was a psychologically devastating event for France and England. For the Soviets however, the costs had gained something incredibly valuable for the Russian people: self-determination under socialist principles. \n\nWe cannot underestimate the pessimism and defeatism running through the French, and to a lesser extent, the English armies of 1939. Militarism was tempered by bleak postwar views of the war. Bravery was countered by a civilian desire to return home after the war. \n\nThe costs-benefits are hard to determine. The Soviets' confidence led them into incredibly wasteful tactics of attack. The Western self-critical spirit however nearly lost the war in 1939 by failing to match German aggression. While Hitler invaded Poland, where do we think his people came from? The strength of the Polish campaign was a direct consequence of severely weakening formations on the Western Front, and were a calculation by Hitler on the political attitudes of the French and English. The West never took advantage of German weakness during the winter of 1939 during the [Phoney War](_URL_1_). They let Germany focus on Poland when an early attack might have ended the war sooner. \n\nYet there was also a methodical, professional element to the Western armies that did not value flashy aggression for its own sake. This cost them against the swift German armies in the Low Countries in 1940. It also cost the Soviets a priceless second front for three years, but it saved countless Anglo-American lives. The Western Allies never launched premature invasions over the Channel. They had the benefit of time and patience. When their attack came, it was overwhelming and victorious. After D-Day in France, Eisenhower advanced along a broad front, potentially lengthening the war in exchange for keeping his flanks well protected. Despite our perception of an aggressive Patton, such a general was an anomoly amongst the Western Allies. He created risks that his colleagues did not appreciate. The West nearly lost the war in 1940 but they also never suffered shattering defeats after 1943. Their cautious attitude during the war was a duel-edged sword.\n\n**Conclusion**: the Western allies and Soviet tactically and strategically made different types of mistakes due to the underlying psychological nature of the conflict. While the Soviet mistakes cost more in blood, the West's mistakes would have been more costly had it not been for the Channel. ",
"This wasn't a huge tactical error, and the body count wasn't high, but it was an embarrassing fuck-up regardless. **Operation Cottage**, part of the Aleutian Islands campaign. The two day fight left 32 dead, 50 wounded, and further men injured from various accidents when a combined US and Canadian effort landed on the island of Kiska.\n\nThe landings were unopposed. The Japanese forces had secretly evacuated the island a full two weeks earlier under heavy fog. The loss of Attu Island made their position on Kiska dangerous, and indefensible. In the subsequent two days the Allied forces blundered around a thick fog, running into each other, and getting into firefights. 28 Americans and 4 Canadians were confirmed killed in friendly fire, and another 50 wounded. Booby traps left by the Japanese killed some troops, and a Japanese sea mine was struck by a ship, killing another 71 soldiers. A further 191 troops just went straight up *missing* over the two days, likely dying from friendly fire incidents and booby traps.\n\nDue to poor intelligence, the Allies attacked an unoccupied island, and shot at each other. In days prior to the landing, Allied planes received no anti-aircraft fire from the island which should've been a clue the Japanese had left.",
"Antony Beevor argues in *Crete: The Battle and the Resistance* that the Commonwealth and Greek forces under Bernard Freyberg should have been able to defeat the German invaders.\n\nThe Germans lacked the means to contest the Royal Navy and stage an amphibious landing, so they decided to launch an airborne assault instead, led by Kurt Student. This was to be the first (and last) major airborne German assault of the War.\n\nFirstly, the Allies failed to improve the infrastructure and communications on Crete until the invasion was practically imminent. This made the shifting of supplies and issuing of orders difficult.\n\nHowever, Beevor argues the biggest single failing was a misreading of intelligence. Freyberg had been convinced from the beginning that the main thrust of the invasion would be by sea, and that any airborne drops would merely be in support. However, it was exactly the other way around. He was given exclusive access to ULTRA transcripts that pointed towards a large airborne assault on the island, but misinterpreted it as supporting his own view. As a result, he kept back many of his reserves to guard against beach landings (geographical factors meant they knew where any potential landing would have to come).\n\nWhen the eventual airborne assault came, it's main objective was Maleme, the island's airfield. The German paratroopers were bloodied extremely badly during the drop, due to poor German intelligence, stout Allied resistance and a very hostile civilian population (who would often kill any isolated Germans out of hand). But the Germans eventually managed to gain a very tenuous hold on the airfield. \n\nBut due to his misreading of German intentions and hindered by bad communications, Freyberg did not commit to a major counterattack until it was too late. By then, sufficient German forces had landed to make the ultimate conclusion of the battle certain. Many of the Allied forces' best formations were extremely demoralised to learn that despite their own decisive local victories elsewhere on the island, that they would have to evacuate regardless.\n\nThe defeat gave the Germans an important Mediterranean base and airfield and meant many Allies who couldn't be evacuated were taken prisoner.",
"The first Arakan campaign (1942-43) had all the elements of both strategical and tactical failure. It was planned by a man who underestimated his enemy, by a general who was too stubborn to see that what he was doing was simply not working and by soldiers who did not have the training for the task at hand.\n\nIn late 1942, the British forces in India were at a loss. After a disastrous retreat from Burma, they were only now recovering from such a set-back and actual experience amongst higher staff was low. Few had faced the Japanese and those who had were treated with contempt and blamed for the disaster. The soldiers who had endured the long retreat were too treated with ill contempt by both men and staff as they arrived in India after a long, arduous and fearful trek from Burma. William Slim, now solely a corps commander, was the highest ranking commander in India with actual experience fighting the Japanese and during the campaign that was going to proceed, he was marginalized by General Noel Irwin (commander of the Eastern Army) who would be in command during the campaign. Slim's advice was constantly ignored by a man who irrationally disliked him.\n\nWhy the Arakan peninsula? First of all, it belonged to Burma. It was a strategic peninsula that at its tip had the island of Akyab which was strategically important: It had an airfield and a port which could later be used for operations into Burma as well as a base for Allied bombers to hit targets in Burma. There was also a feel of urgency to take the war back to the Japanese after the retreat.\n\nAs the Eastern Army entered the Arakan peninsula in Burma in late 1942, it didn't seem like a complete disaster. They entered the Arakan just as the monsoon period was passing and the difficulties that brought with it. While there were logistical issues, other factors were certainly working in the favour of Maj. Gen. W. L. Lloyd who was the commander on the ground during the campaign; he had both air and numerical superiority over his foes and as his forces moved down the Arakan peninsula to news that the Japanese was retreating from nearby positions, they had all the reasons to be optimistic while fighting weak rearguard actions that the Japanese were throwing at them. Yet I suppose that anyone reading this can assume what happens next: Lloyd walks straight into a trap. General Takeshi Koga, commander of the Japanese forces on Arakan, had built defensive bunkers at Donbaik, a narrow point of the peninsula and very close to its most southern point. It was perhaps a perfect position to build concealed bunkers, with natural anti-tank positions in the form of a chaung and the fortifications themselves were built to take whatever the British could throw their way. These fortifications did have a weakness though: They were surrounded by jungle and if only an imaginative commander with a trained force could flank the positions using the jungle, the bunkers would have been an easy task.\n\nUnfortunately, such a commander and such troops were not available. The main issue was not Lloyd since one could make the argument that he was barely in command of his own troops. Irwin had an overbearing tendency to micromanage Lloyd's troops down to battalion level and always appeared to trust no one but himself and his own abilities. The individual initiative which was vital in jungle warfare was thrown aside under Irwin's watch and he had no intentions in changing a plan he had already decided upon. For Lloyd and his men, this meant frontal attacks on heavily defended bunkers. Since these men were tasked to attack on a very narrow front, the casualties were heavy as expected. While tanks were used, they were used in smaller numbers than necessary and by the time March came around, the battle seemed all but lost. It was at this time that Irwin decided to send Slim into the campaign, essentially trying to \"coopt the dested Slim to share some of the blame\" in the words of Frank McLynn. \n\nHowever, Slim was not in operational control and was only there to assess the situation. Trying to reason with Lloyd to stop with the frontal attacks led nowhere, since Lloyd argued that this couldn't be done and Slim did not have the operational power to overrule him. Even Wavell entered the discussions and urged on for yet another attack which predictably ended in more casualties for no gain. by the end of march, the decision was made to retreat but not before General Koga himself decided upon a counter-offensive which ended in a disaster for the British. The initial set-back led to Lloyd being sacked. General Samuel Lomax and Slim were now put into command and while their cooperation was good, it was difficult enough to make sense \"out of the nonsense\" that Irwin seemed to bring to the table. They tried to trap that Japanese in a tactical maneuver that would be successful during the second Arakan campaign, but the soldiers were simply too demoralized and without proper training to pull it off, the trap failed and Slim and Lomax found themselves in May in safe positions. While they managed to skillfully extract the soldiers from more danger and avoided making more mistakes like Lloyd, it had still been a disaster.\n\nThe reasons for that disaster was many, yet this was a valuable time for the British Army in the Pacific to learn. This campaign revealed many shortcomings which would later be fixed and the dismal performance of the British during this campaign made the Japanese underestimate them even further, something that would cost them dearly in the next Arakan campaign. In the end, however, it was not the soldiers themselves who lost the battle but rather the generals involved. Wavell's absence and lack of knowledge of what was happening on the ground made him commit to orders which were already too late to have any effect. Noel Irwin's micromanagement and personality made him incredibly difficult to work with and despite having men like Slim around him, urging him to change his tactics, he stubbornly held onto the irrational resentment he felt towards Slim and continued throwing soldiers into fortified positions that couldn't be breached with frontal assaults.\n\nIn late May, Bill Slim received two telegrams. One was from Noel Irwin, criticizing him for his efforts during the campaign and guaranteeing that Slim would get relieved from his command. The other was an order telling him to report to Barrackpore. It was an ominous telegram. The latter telegram had to be to tell him that he was going to get sacked. It was at that time that Brigadier Tony Scott delivered the good news: Noel Irwin had been relieved of his command. \n\nNigel Bruce who delivered the telegrams remembered years later that upon doing so, Bill had said to him that \"he thought he'd write a book titled 'From Corporal to General and Back Again.' Wouldn't it be fun if Irwin was sacked too, and we found ourselves in the Home Guard together?\". It was this sort of humour and relaxed response that would one day turn Slim into a field marshal. Until then, the Eastern Army was going to be divided into two separate armies, one of which received the designation the 14th Army. The man set to command this army was William Slim. His first victory would take him to his latest defeat: The Arakan campaign in 1944 was a resounding success.",
"(Edit: Improved massively as it was a bit half-arsed to begin with. Enjoy!)\n\nNot sure if you mean particularly the western allies but the initial actions of most of the allied nations are a comedy of errors. I'd refer you to someone more knowledgeable RE: The failed defence of Belgium and France, the TL;DR there seems to be complete strategic incompetence on the part of allied generals. Inflexibility in defence, an over reliance on static fortifications and inexperience with machanised infantry tactics. Case in point: [The counter attack at Arras](_URL_0_. British Matilda tanks were actually superior to the German Panzers of the time, mostly due to having vastly superior armour. They were able to break through German lines by the virtue of being impervious to German anti-tank weapons but were completely unsupported and eventually destroyed by the clever re-purposing of anti-aircraft weapons.\n\nNow for something I can cover in a bit more detail, the Winter War. The Soviet union, having signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact felt that they were entitled to carve up eastern Europe between themselves and the Nazis. Part of this would be the establishment of bases in Finland similar to the Baltic states. They are also worried about a potential invasion towards Leningrad from Finnish territory, which is less than 20 miles away. On October 5th the Soviets demand wide areas of land near Leningrad, which happens to included all of the major boarder fortifications, that these defenses are destroyed and that Finland would cede other tactically valuable territory and allow the Soviets to establish military bases for the next 30 years. The Soviet union would give up an area of land twice as large but much less valuable both tactically and economically in return. Finland makes a counter offer, where they are prepared to offer approximately half the territory that the Soviet union is asking for, but not allow them to establish bases on Finnish soil. Here ends the negotiations.\n\nOn November 26th 1939 the Soviet Union reports that some of it's boarder guards have been shelled by Finnish forces, leaving 4 dead and more injured. The Soviets demand that the Finn withdraw 20 Km from their boarder and apologise. Finland refuses and request a join investigation into the incident. On November 28th the Soviet Union scrapped their non-aggression pact with Finland and severs diplomatic relations. On the 30th they invade Finland with almost half a million men and bombs Helsinki. It was later shown in join Finnish-Russian investigations that the NVKD was responsible for the Shelling to provide an excuse for the war. At this point the Soviet union outnumbers Finland at least 3 to 1 in men, 100 to 1 in tanks and 40 to 1 in aircraft. The Soviet soldiers were better trained and armed, with most of the Finnish force being reservists, and their tanks and aircraft significantly more advanced.\n\nTl;DR: The Finns were able to hold out all Winter until, eventually, their main defensive line was overwhelmed in March 1940. By the end of the Winter War the Finns had suffered almost 26,000 casualties, with almost 50,000 wounded or captured. They lost a further 30 tanks and 60 aircraft. On the other hand the Soviets suffered over 150,000 casualties with a further 190,000 wounded or captured as well as 3,500 tanks and approximately 500 aircraft.\n\nThere were several reasons for this. The biggest being the poor leadership in the Red Army at that time, including the confusing chain of command caused by political commissars and serious oversights in the terrain and climate of Finland.\n\nI'm now going to split this into two parts. First I'll talk about the major Finnish defensive line, the Mannerheim line, and then about actions in the rest of Finland. Lumping everything else into \"the rest of Finland\" isn't perfect, but I'm not a historian so you'll have to live with that.\n\nThe Mannerheim line.\nThe Mannerheim line was the largest set of static fortifications defending Finland from the Soviet Union. IT was over 100 Km long and contained 157 machine gun positions as well as 8 artillery positions. Even the strongest aprts of the line had only one reinforced concrete bunker per Km. Unlike the French Maginot Line and other contemporary fortifications made with huge bunkers and lines of dragon's teeth, the Mannerheim Line was mostly built utilizing the natural terrain. Many objects like fallen trees and boulders were incorporated into defensive positions. The Soviet intelligence of this line was extremely complete but was widely ignored by officers.\n\nIn November 1939 across the entire region, known as the Karelian Isthmus, the Red Army outnumbered the Finnish defenders 2:1, with 250,000 Soviets facing 120,000 Finns. In combat, the biggest cause of confusion among Finnish soldiers were Soviet tanks. The Finns had few anti-tank weapons and insufficient training in modern anti-tank tactics. However, Soviet tank doctrine was woefully inadequate, favouring a frontal charge which could easily be exploited when the tanks became isolate from their infantry. When this happens the Finns, showing remarkable resourcefulness, would jam crowbars or logs into the tank's tracks to immobilise it for later destruction or capture. Later the Finns developed the Molotov cocktail, a glass bottle filled with flammable liquids with a simple hand-lit fuse. Molotov cocktails were eventually mass-produced by the Finnish Alko corporation and bundled with matches to light them. Eighty Soviet tanks were destroyed in the border-zone fighting.\n\nTypical Soviet assaults on the eastern section of the line in December were in the style of first world war engagements, artillery would open fire on Finnish positions, where soldiers protected by concrete bunkers would be unaffected. Followed by human wave infantry charges which were sometimes supported by tanks. These would be easily repelled by Finnish machine gunners and impromptu anti-tank methods. One typical Soviet attack during these battles lasted an hour and left 1,000 dead and 27 tanks strewn on the ice.\n\nThe area most strategically logical to attack was around Summa. Knowing this, Finns had built 41 reinforced concrete bunkers, making this section of the line in this area much stronger than the rest. However due to planning errors the Munasuo swamp nearby contained a 1 km wide gap in the line. During the first battle of Summa approximately 20 Soviet tanks broke through in this area. However, the Soviets could not exploit this situation because of insufficient cooperation between branches of the Red Army. The Finns successfully repelled the Soviet infantry assault leaving the tanks stranded behind enemy lines. These tanks then attacked strongpoints at random until they were eventually destroyed.\n\nThe Soviets were held up at the Mannerheim line until February, suffering from low morale and poor supplies, with many soldiers refused to participate in the more suicidal infantry charges.\n\nBy January Soviet high command was pissed. They updated their tactics and deployed 600,000 men on the front as well as 3,000 tanks, more than 3,000 artillery pieces and 1,300 aircraft, concentrated on a small area of the line near the Munasuo swamp. A massive artillery bombardment, which commenced on February 1st with over 300,00 shells, would weaken the defences before an armoured spearhead would achieve breakthrough followed by tanks supported by infantry. In spite of outnumbering the Finns more than 4:1 in men and by insane amount of tanks, aircraft and artillery the Soviets still suffered heavy casualties by advancing infantry in tight formations across open ground. On February 15th the Finns ordered a general retreat and were unable to effective prevent the soviet advance in Karellia from then on.\n\nTBC",
"Before I get to my actual comment, I'd suggest reading the sources I thought back to here, as both are fantastic works:\n\n- *The Second World War* by Keegan\n- *With the Old Breed* by Sledge\n\nWhile not the ETO, the Peleliu campaign is often criticized as being unnecessary, as the airfield it possessed was quickly rendered obsolete by the Allied advance. I personally don't know that that's an entirely fair criticism though, as quite a bit was learned from the campaign-- Not the least of which was the first real understanding of the ways in which Japanese defensive tactics would continue to evolve over the campaigns to come. Overall though, the cost and conditions were so much higher than the planners had predicted (they had anticipated a 3 day campaign) that, with hindsight being what it is, I am sure it would have been preferable to avoid the island if possible. For many, the terrible cost and fighting conditions are what set Peleliu down as a tactical mistake in the PTO. Further, history itself has born this out in many ways, as the campaigns surrounding it garner much more publicity and study than Peleliu itself. It's this last fact that has changed more than anything over the time that I have studied/been fascinated by the 2nd World War-- Sledge's book's rise to prominence in particular has brought the battle much more into the casual historian's eye than it was previously.\n\nHere, I wouldn't necessarily qualify the Peleliu campaign as a poor campaign from a tactical perspective though, just from a strategical perspective (or at least primarily from that perspective, given the opinions of veterans/historians I mention above). Once on the island, there was not much room for variant tactical approaches to taking objectives, as is unfortunately the case with a well entrenched and well defended opponent. To the Navy/Marine Corps credit, they did what they could to dislodge defensive positions with pre-invasion bombardment, but these seem to have been largely ineffective in all of the campaigns that they were used (For instance, on Iwo, where the garrison stayed bunkered into Suribachi and was largely undamaged-- or at least not depleted enough to warrant the expenditure of ordnance).\n\nI have a few other personal opinions that have been developed by reading works by some historians mentioned in this thread (I would highly suggest Anthony Beevor), but that starts to cross more into opinion as opposed to commonly held belief (for instance on subjects like Market Garden). I would encourage you to do some reading on particular allied failures that may not be so easily categorized, and then ask a question eliciting discussion of *why* a specific operation/battle failed, as opposed to coming at it from the other direction-- might provide something interesting that the scope of this thread, and the very active (this is a compliment) mods prevent from coming out.",
"Not OP, but I have a specific question in line with OP's:\n\nI am surprised not to find Kasserine Pass as one of the Allied mistakes (it's technically Africa, though). I once heard it was a major underestimation of the Axis forces by the U.S.\n\nCould someone elaborate why it would or wouldn't compare to the excellent examples already provided?\n(Mods, please feel free to remove this if necessary, I didn't catch a specific rule about follow up questions by people other than OP)",
"Arnhem, otherwise known as Operation Market-Garden. \n\nDwight D. Eisenhower wrote to George Catleet Marshall that large scale airborne offensives took up too many resources and had too little effect for their human cost. Arnhem, arguably the biggest Allied airborne disaster of the Second World War, lived up to that. \n\nIn September 1944, the 1st British Airborne, and the American 82nd and 101st Divisions were to establish a narrow corridor in Holland. This would jumpstart the stalled Allied advance, open an avenue for provisions, and put the Allies in an excellent position to take the resource-rich Ruhr region and enter Germany. Indeed, the benefits of a successful operation in Holland would mean the prospect of the war ending in 1944, and would have resulted in several post-war advantages as well: “the Russians would not have had the favourable bargaining conditions which they wielded at the Yalta Conference in February 1945.” These positives combined with sheer frustration with the frequently cancelled operations (due to weather and the advancement of ground forces) pushed the continuation of the assault of Market-Garden.\n\nThe overall objective of the operation was to secure a route for the British XXX Corps through to Arnhem, and so achieve the advantages listed above. This was to be done by the seizure of major bridges along the route. The American 101st Airborne Division would land at Eindhoven, just north of the XXX Corps’ position; the US 82nd Airborne would land and capture the bridges at Grave and Nijmegen, farther north; and finally, the British 1st Airborne, with the 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade, were to secure the route through Oosterbeek and Arnhem. While a bold and innovative plan, this operation was doomed to failure from the very beginning. J. F. C. Fuller explains, “the snag in the operation was that the resources in transport aircraft demanded four separate lifts. This, in view of the uncertainty of the weather, was a tremendous handicap.” \n\nMarket-Garden seemed to be successful on the first day, as the 101st Airborne successfully achieved their objectives, and the 82nd Airborne had captured the Grave bridge and were working on their Nijmegen targets. A small group had reached the Arnhem bridge, but only held one end. But by the second lift, surprise had been lost, the weather worsened, and troops were tied up defending landing zones instead of achieving objectives. This situation was worsened as the Germans organized and counter-attacked. The British were supposed to hold their positions for less than forty-eight hours; instead they held it for three days and four nights with less than a battalion. This was because the 82nd Airborne failed to capture the bridge over River Waal, north of Nijmegen, and so the XXX Corps was delayed. Finally on 20 September, that bridge was taken and the XXX Corps advanced. However, the British 1st Airborne’s situation was so dire that they were withdrawn on 25 September, after losing around 7000 men in killed, wounded, and missing. The operation had failed.\n\nThere are countless books describing the events at Arnhem and attempting to explain why the operation failed. Brian Nolan asserted that it was distance that doomed the operation: the airborne forces were too far from their objectives, as well as too distant from supporting infantry and artillery. Douglas E. Delaney asserted that surprise was lost because the airborne drops occurred over several days; the 1st Airborne was dropped too far away from its objective; the route XXX Corps was to take was too narrow and vulnerable; and the Germans were much stronger and more organized than anticipated. Furthermore, he stated that the fact the ground forces managed to advance ninety-five kilometers in nine days despite obstacles such as blown bridges and German opposition was “no small accomplishment.” Martin Middlebrook had a long list of reasons for the failure at Arnhem. These included the operational planners’ over- optimism, the failure to appreciate the strength of the Germans, the decision to bring the airborne headquarters (particularly since they arrived on the first day, occupied valuable glider-space, and contributed nothing), the refusal to consider a night drop, the decision to drop the troops too far from their objectives (due to worries over anti-aircraft defenses and proper landing zones), and the inability to deliver all of the troops on the same day, the failure to utilize the Dutch Resistance and general population more fully, the lack of support from bomber aircraft, the lack of priority given to the 82nd Airborne’s objective of the Nijmegen bridge, the failure of the commanders to convince the British soldiers of the necessity of speed in order to capture the Arnhem bridge, the failure to accept the Polish commander Sosabowski’s advice which led to the sacrifice of the 4th Dorsets, and the lack of push by the XXX Corps.\n\nThis last piece of criticism was echoed many times over. The commander of the XXX Corps, Brian Horrocks, replied to this saying, “my Corps has been accused of being slow. I can assure you that there was more desperate urgency about our operations in this battle than in any I have ever fought.” To hold the advancing infantry responsible for the failure of Operation Market-Garden was unjust. This was equally true of blaming the weather, as Montgomery did after the battle. It was not a single factor that resulted in the disaster of Market-Garden, but a multitude of them.\n\nThis operation was inarguably a failure overall. The British had delivered approximately 9000 troops near Arnhem, and less than 2500 returned. One soldier recalled his experiences at Arnhem, “each man was weary to his bones, and miserable, and most were wounded. Yet they were filled with such great spirit that they could never be defeated.” It was this kind of spirit combined with the fighting prowess of the airborne forces that allowed them to accomplish what they did in Market-Garden. Though Arnhem was abandoned, “the corridor was held against repeated attacks, and this in itself was a considerable achievement, because it included the important bridges over the Maas and Waal, as well as adding considerably to the security of Antwerp.” This operation under-estimated the enemy opposition; over-estimated the Allied ability to deliver, supply, and link up with the airborne forces; overreached the capabilities of the airborne forces; and everything that could go wrong, seemed to do so.\n\nSources:\n\nBradley, Omar. A Soldier’s Story. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1951.\n\nDelaney, Douglas E. Corps Commanders: Five British and Canadian Generals at War, 1939-45. Vancouver:\nUBC Press, 2011.\n\nEisenhower, Dwight D. ‘To George Catlett Marshall, Secret, February 19, 1944,’ in The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower: The War Years, by Alfred D. Chandler, ed. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1970.\n\nFuller, J. F. C. The Second World War 1939-45: A Strategical and Tactical History. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1948.\n\nMiddlebrook, Martin. Arnhem 1944: The Airborne Battle 17-26 September. London: Viking, 1994.\n\nNolan, Brian. Airborne: The Heroic Story of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion in the Second World War. Toronto: Lester Publishing Limited, 1995.\n\nNorton, G.G. The Red Devils: The Story of the British Airborne Forces. London: Leo Cooper Ltd., 1971.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyZ-TrqPRuQ",
"http://home.scarlet.be/~sh446368/home.html",
"http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Siegfried/index.html",
"http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/Schmidt2/SchmidtCh3.htm"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Question%20Regarding%20Rules",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/submit?selftext=true&title="
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Rokossovsky",
"http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13862135",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Campaign_of_1941–42",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Voronezh_(1942)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
695fh4
|
why do apples make water "taste dry" in your mouth after you eat them?
|
I'm curious to know if it's tannins like grapes or if something else causes this to happen
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/695fh4/eli5why_do_apples_make_water_taste_dry_in_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh3ytve"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's partly tannins and partly it's astringent, or known to make the tongue pucker a little which leads to that feeling of dryness you're talking about. It's also what causes red wine to have a similar sensation as the grape must sits much longer allowing the tannins to leak out. \n\nNot all apples have the same tannin levels so some are sweeter and taste more juicy, and others are more tart and pucker inducing. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
55hflv
|
where does the strength from a hydraulic press come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55hflv/eli5_where_does_the_strength_from_a_hydraulic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8alldm",
"d8am2nn",
"d8aqczo",
"d8aqrh3",
"d8at0hp"
],
"score": [
52,
225,
103,
3,
62
],
"text": [
"Mechanical advantage is what allows hydraulic presses to exert the high forces. Similar to gears, when you have a small diameter cylinder connected to a larger diameter cylinder the force exhibited on a smaller cylinder is multiplied in the larger. The larger cylinder fills slower, thus the actuation speed is reduced. In the case of a bottle jack, hydraulic fluid is pumped into a larger chamber from a smaller one, requiring little force, but many pumps, resulting in a high force, but low speed response. This being said im a little drunk, and may not be explaining this exactly right.",
"Explaining like you're 5:\n\nIt's basically the fluid version of a lever or gears. You exchange speed for force.\n\nAn example: You turn on your kitchen sink faucet, and stick a glass under it. In a second or two, your glass is full of water, but it's not very heavy. However, if you stuck a bucket under the faucet and left it for a few minutes, you'd have a really heavy bucket of water because the bucket is wider and deeper. Now imagine this with the water flowing much faster, and in a closed system so there's a ton of water pressure instead of weight.",
"Fluid under pressure exerts the same pressure per square inch throughout the system. The basis of a hydrolic press is to take a small piston to pressurize the liquid and attach it with tubes to a larger piston that will do the work of crushing stuff. If you have a small piston with an area of 1 square inch, and you apply 30 pounds of force to that piston then the fluid will apply 30 pounds per square inch throughout the system. Therefore if the large piston has an area of 6 square inchslee it will carry 6 x 30 = 180 pounds of force. \n\nJust like gears, levers or pulleys the strength comes from going a longer distance. The small piston will pump at a high speed, hundreds or even thousands of times just to move the large piston by a few inches.",
"The strength of a hydraulic press comes from the hydraulic power unit. A hydraulic power unit or HPU consists of a prime mover (likely an electric motor), a hydraulic pump, and a reservoir (holds the oil needed to fill the actuator or in other words cylinder). Often times there are more components on the HPU but for simplicity these are the necessities to form a system.\n\nTo explain to a 5 year old: the pump moves fluid from the reservoir to the cylinder which presses or forms the material on the production line. \n\nSource: I am a Certified Hydraulic Specialist. ",
"To create a pressure of 1500 psi to an area of one square inch, you need to apply 1500 pounds of force. That's why it's called psi - pounds per square inch.\n\nNow, to apply the same amount of pressure to a much smaller area - say, 1/25th of a square inch, you only need to apply 1/25th of the force - 60 pounds. This can be done by hand, especially if you add a lever.\n\nLiquids - like water and hydraulic oil - are (mostly) incompressible. That means that they don't get \"smaller\" when you squeeze them, like air would. That also means that if you pressurize such a liquid (e.g. by applying 60 pounds of force to a small, 1/25th square inch cylinder filled with it), all of the liquid will have that pressure and apply it to *all* the surfaces it touches. This is also why if you have a dented plastic water bottle, gently squeezing it will usually un-dent it - the water pushes the dent out.\n\nNow you connect the small cylinder (that you push) to a big cylinder (piston) where the liquid pushes against an area of 10 square inches. Remember, you pressurized it to 1500 psi - that means that the liquid now applies 1500 pounds of pressure to each of the 10 inches of surface, pushing the piston forward with a force of *15 thousand pounds*.\n\nNow, of course, the force doesn't come from nowhere. Once whatever is in front of the large piston gets crushed by even a little bit, a lot of liquid will move, and in order to keep applying the pressure, you'd have to push that small piston very, very, very far.\n\nSo what you do instead: Once the small piston has reached the end, you close a valve between the small and large piston (keeping the pressure in the large one), open a different valve to connect the small piston to a large tank of unpressurized hydraulic fluid, pull the piston back up, switch the valves back, and pump some more fluid into the system by applying 60 lbs of force. Each time you move the small piston, the big piston (which has a 250 times bigger cross-section) moves only 1/250th of the distance, but it does so with 250 times the force. So you pump the small piston 10 inches, the big piston moves only 1/25th of an inch. But even if you just push with 60 lbs, the big one pushes with 15000 lbs, and if you push the small piston 25 times, you have squished whatever got in the way of the big piston by 1 inch.\n\nOf course, if you don't want to do this by hand, you can take a small pump instead of a piston. It doesn't have to create a lot of pressure if the big piston is big enough.\n\nNow, to the front of the piston, you can attach either a small or a big tool. The force the piston is putting behind it will be spread across the entire surface where the tool is touching the object that you're trying to destroy, so a smaller tool will bring much more force to a small area than a big tool that will spread the force across the entire object."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6gdu2s
|
Why isn't Ethiopia considered part of the "known world" given how much contact they had with Europe/Middle East?
|
They traded a lot of times. Especially when you see
maps like this
_URL_0_
Ethiopia is like right in the middle of everything in that map. I always hear the "Alexandra conquered the known world" but how true is this statement when you see maps like this? why isn't Ethiopia often considered part of the known world?
thanks
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6gdu2s/why_isnt_ethiopia_considered_part_of_the_known/
|
{
"a_id": [
"diqsclm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The campaigns of Alexander happened about 400 years before the Periplus was written. So, that map depicts the known world circa the year 50 AD, but doesn't necessarily depict what trade was going on or Greek/Macedonian knowledge of the world in 330 BC.\n\nIn the Horn of Africa, there is an ongoing debate among archaeologists about what was happening in the later 1st millenium bc (i.e. 5th century-1st century bc). The debate is over what form exactly the \"proto-Aksumite\" period took, and when the transition from the proto-Akumite to the Aksumite period occurred. The most recent research supports the idea that the Aksumite period starts by 50 BC, where prior estimates put the transition at 150BC.^1\n\nAll of this is to say, the so-called Proto-Aksumite phase that includes the period of Alexander's conquests is poorly understood. Rodolfo Fattovich has suggested that this period saw the decline of the \"Ethio-Sabean state\" of Da'amat (or D'MT) in the 4th-3rd century, and resulted in a fragmentation in the Ethiopia-Eritrea highlands into petty kingdoms, out of which Aksum arose in the 1st century BC.^2 Of course, others would likely dispute Fattovich's explanation.\n\nDavid Phillipson doesn't delve too deeply into speculation of what the political and diplomatic situation was. Instead he focuses on describing finds at the site of Beta Giyorgis. From the finds, he argues that foreign connections were predominately with the Nile Valley rather than with Southern Arabia.^3\n\nTL:DR- the situation in the Ethiopian-Eritrean highlands in the 4th century BC is as clear as mud to historians. There don't seem to be the same trade contacts across the Red sea as in prior centuries. It's plausible that Alexander, or Aristotle, might not have had knowledge of an organized state in that part of the Red Sea coast.\n\n----\n1 *Foundations of and African Civilization: Aksum and the Northern Horn 3000 BC- AD 1270* by David W Phillipson. pp 69\n\n2 \"The Proto-Aksumite Period: An Overview\" by rodolfo Fattovich and Kathryn A Bard in *Annales d'Ethiopie\" 2001, vol XVII pp 3-4\n\n3 Phillipson pp 42-44\n\nEdit-\n*\"Ethio-Sabaean\" is used as short-hand for the notion that the temple architecture, sculpture, and script of the Da'amat kingdom is quite similar to Sabea in what is now Yemen. It is commonly accepted that such similarities reflect Sabean cultural influence on Da'amat. Fattovich is also using to contrast Da'amat culture and social organization from \"Aksumite\" form of social organization."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://i.imgur.com/Z1fv6xR.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1r6ohf
|
it's snowing here finally, so i'm wondering...how does anti-lock braking actually work? how does the car know when it's "slipping?"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r6ohf/eli5its_snowing_here_finally_so_im_wonderinghow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdk4ozs",
"cdk4scx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a speed sensor on every wheel connected to a simple computer. when you apply the brakes the computer compares the different wheel speeds. If it senses one or two wheels suddenly slowing, it activates a solenoid that pulses the pressure in the break lines. Allowing the wheel(s) to begin rolling for a split second and regain traction, before apply pressure again. Anti lock systems are more about maintaining control than they are about decreasing stopping distance. Super modern systems work with accelerometers and the traction control to pulse individual break lines in order to improve traction, and decrease the chances of skidding weather the brakes are applied or not. ",
"Sensors on each wheel monitor how fast the wheels are turning. When you lock up your brakes, they don't go from turning to locked instantaneously. Typically the front wheels (that do most of the braking) lock up first, and then the rear (if you're braking hard enough or on a very slippery surface). \n\nThe senors are tied to a computer that monitors the speed of each wheel. If it senses that (a) you are hitting the brakes and (b) one wheel is turning at a different speed than the others it will engage the ABS and pulse the brakes for you. It can make this measurement very quickly, so even if you panic stop and attempt to lock all 4 wheels up immediately, there's still enough time to tell that you've locked up. \n\nChanging tire diameter (by putting on different size rims), especially in cars with different size tires on the front and back, can mess up ABS systems because the whole system is based on making sure the tires are spinning at the same speed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
frpw8w
|
how will an increased lifespan lead to a fitter life overall
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/frpw8w/eli5_how_will_an_increased_lifespan_lead_to_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flx0css"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"We will not live until we are 150 unless we invent a new medicine that prolongs life. Some new medicine that prolongs life is being tested on rats. Some older rats that take this medicine also become healthier and stronger and can run for long distances. If we can make this medicines work on us too, then maybe we will also become stronger and healthier too even if we are old."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
zwwt0
|
how are banks different and what makes them better than others?
|
What sets banks apart? Differences between Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Bank of (Insert State Name Here), etc. ?
What's the best? Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zwwt0/eli5_how_are_banks_different_and_what_makes_them/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c68ff5h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Without going into specifics, different banks offer different benefits. Some banks will give you more interest on your deposited money. The higher the interest rate, the more money you get back. Some banks charge less interest for loans and mortgages. This is important if you want money to start a business or if you want to buy a house. Furthermore, banks will have other benefits: no ATM charges, international access, free checks, reliability, etc.\n\nThe best bank depends on what your are looking for. If you solely want a place to keep your money, a bank with higher interest rates is better. If you want to use your bank to take out loans and mortgages, you want lower interest rates. If you work internationally, an international bank would be preferred."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1h0m50
|
MLK and the Black Panther Party
|
During the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King and the Black Panthers both fought to better their ethnicity and end the oppression that had gone on in America since the beginning of slavery, however, they both used very different tactics. We are all aware of Dr. Kings practices and preaching of peace and non-violence, as well as the Black Panthers more physical response with violence to what they rightfully saw as violence against African Americans. While I am sure in some way MLK and his follwers had a mutual respect for each other, how did they feel about the two different methods of peaceful vs action based change to influence America?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1h0m50/mlk_and_the_black_panther_party/
|
{
"a_id": [
"capvseu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The debate between how the fight against discrimination of African Americans has existed far before the days of MLK and the Black Panthers. The earliest example I can recall of this division would probably be Booker T. Washington, a moderate, and W.E.B. Dubois, a more radical pan-Africanist, back in the latter years of the 19th century. \n\nThe Black Panthers did not consider themselves as a \"militant\" group but rather a \"self-defense\" group. They saw it as their duty to protect the black community from those who would oppress them. They were (and still are) commonly depicted as violent radicals due to the fact that in photos they were armed and dressed head to toe in black. In fact, one of their greatest achievements was a free breakfast program for black children, an entirely peaceful activity that was shut down by the FBI for \"indoctrinating\" children.\n\nHowever, MLK and Huey Newton (founder of the Panthers), much like Washington and Dubois, saw each others method of achieving equality as ineffective. Like Washington, King took a more conciliatory approach towards discrimination, and his SCLC never responded to police brutality and white hostility with violence. He wanted to expose the stark reality of African-American life in the south to not only the rest of America but to the world as well, in hope of support from the more progressive members of white American society. To say MLK did not use action-based change would be incorrect, he merely took action in a nonviolent form. \n\nNewton and the Panthers, on the other hand, had little to no faith in \"white oppressors\". Unlike MLK and his diverse middle-class supporters, the Panthers were mostly comprised of lower class urban youth, whose opposition to discrimination came from not only philosophical but socioeconomic causes. To them, the time for enduring the pain inflicted by the police had passed, and action was the only possible course of action. They had both Afro-centric and Maoist views, believing their plight to be both a class and racial struggle. White progressives were surprisingly supportive of the party, considering their penchant for violent crime and armed skirmishes with the police.\n\nMLK and his SCLC and the Black Panthers represented the continuation of an argument from a century prior. The two groups did not interact very much (the majority of Panther activity occurred after King's death in '68) but they presented two alternatives. Race relations would not be where they are today had it not been for the efforts of both groups, King for the legal side of reform and the Panthers for the action side of it.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
aagqpm
|
why does chinese food not seem to keep you full whereas other food does?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aagqpm/eli5_why_does_chinese_food_not_seem_to_keep_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecrylor",
"ecs1xod"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Sorry moderator. Carbs are an essential part of asian cuisine. Because they're basically sugar as processed by your metabolism you feel less satiated by them. Fats make you stay full longer, proteins make you full but eventually break down to sugars and carbs, at their base, are simple sugars that spike your glucose then leave you wanting for more. ",
"The bulk of the food volume is normally rice or noodles, which are starches. Starches are Carbs that are broken down fairly quickly in the digestive system and so the food does not keep you full as long as things that have more protein or fats which take longer to digest. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1b8tzh
|
Yoga: Are the benefits of yoga scientifically proven? If yes, how did the inventors of yoga make up the asanas and know their benefits?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1b8tzh/yoga_are_the_benefits_of_yoga_scientifically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c94o9zy",
"c94odt9",
"c94ojdd",
"c94or4u",
"c94pj1i",
"c94pjts",
"c94ps8e"
],
"score": [
212,
83,
19,
62,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullshit on yoga. They claim that all of what is modernly known today as 'yoga' in America was invented very recently (I think the 60's) and just artificially tied to ancient stuff to give it credence.\n\nIs stretching, strength training using your own body weight, and regular exercise good for you? You bet! Body and mind are known to improve from these conditions.\n\n#Is yoga magical and healing? No reason to believe that.\n\n\nEdit - claims require evidence. I don't have to prove yoga isn't magic.\n\nYoga advocates (including instructors of yoga classes I personally attended) do not merely argue yoga is a good exercise/meditation practice. They claim the asanas and other positions are somehow an enhanced way of doing things. That the breathing and 'finding your center' within these stretches opens up your mind beyond normal self- or guided-meditation and exercise.\n\nIf you want to argue that yoga *specifically* is more than just an analogous exercise routine, that requires evidence.",
"There's plenty of science related to the health and psychological benefits of exercise in general. Ignoring the meditational aspects of some varieties, yoga is a form of exercise, and as such is going to have benefits. \n\nA google search for \"[yoga scientific research](_URL_2_)\" turns up plenty of specifics about post-hoc research that has been done on the benefits of yoga. [The NIH page](_URL_1_) summarizes some of that research. That page points out that yoga is comparable to \"other forms of regular exercise\" and \"conventional stretching exercises\", which can have similar benefits to yoga.\n\nThe development of yoga was not done in any rigorous scientific way, so the claimed benefits of specific asanas should not be taken too seriously if they don't have a sensible rationale - and even then, beware of [just so stories](_URL_0_) until you've seen at least one scientific study confirming the claimed benefit.\n\n",
"Asana is only 1 of the 8 limbs of yoga. The idea was to train ones body to meditate for extended periods of time. Stretching and body weight exercises would seem to help with this, but I don't know enough about classical yoga to say how these do or don't relate to what is taught in modern day yoga classes.\n\nIt's worth noting that yoga makes a poor weight loss exercise as it's not exactly going to get your heart rate soaring. Stretching is beneficial, and while this is a big part of yoga, most people learn in a class environment where there may be little to no attention given to proper form. Yoga instructor certification is a relatively short process, and [isn't even required to work as a teacher or open your own studio.](_URL_0_)\n\nMy question to you is which benefits do you mean? Weight loss? Stretching? Spiritual enlightenment?",
"I'm responding to this both as a lover of yoga AND a pre-medical student, so keep those characteristics in mind.\n\nAs others have said, yoga is a form of exercise/stretching/whatever you want to call it, and movement, in most forms, IS good for human bodies. In my experience, different forms and practitioners vary widely in how vigorous their practice is; it might be gentle stretching, or much more vigorous strength training. Either way, I don't think anyone can argue that that's bad for you. The benefits of exercise in general have been proven. Here is a link to a 2008 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services about general physical activity guidelines for adults: _URL_3_\n\nIn terms of the emotional/meditative benefits of yoga, these have definitely been studied as well. In my mind, it's like any other form of meditation/relaxation. It isn't magic, it's simply a way of clearing one's head. Modern humans don't clear their heads enough. For some people, yoga is one way of accomplishing that. It is not a cure-all, but absolutely can be beneficial when approached with an open mind and practiced regularly. \n\nScientific research has indicated yoga is a valuable tool for a variety of populations, including cancer survivors (_URL_0_), individuals recovering from addiction (at least in the short term) (_URL_1_), and depressed individuals (_URL_2_).\n\nKeep in mind that most of these studies (as well as others I looked up with a simple google scholar search) are cautious in their presentation: no one is claiming yoga is a panacea for everything, ever, just that it may be one tool in a toolkit for keeping various populations physically and emotionally healthy.\n\nAll of this dovetails with my personal experiences with yoga as well, although those are obvious anecdotal and therefore not appropriate for Ask Science.",
"My mother did her PhD dissertation on the benefits of yoga on pain management. \nHer scientific findings suggest that yoga is beneficial in combatting chronic pain, and that western methods of pain measuring pain are not really adequate for testing methods other than western/medication-based pain management practices. \n\nThere is growing scientific research on the effects of yoga, but again, in medicine, testing and measurement methods favor western practices. More comprehensive testing methods would improve scientific results in testing the benefits of yoga. ",
"I'll answer the two parts separately (source: My mom received a PhD in Yoga and is part of the transitioning of knowledge from the second half (what the \"inventors\" did) to the first half (today's scientifically accepted facts )). \n\nAlso, this is an Indian perspective. It seems similar to what I see in the US, but I don't know if my cultureFilter glasses are effective.\n\nThe \"original\" Yogasanas were only loosely scientific. They were based more on the \"sages\" experimenting with their bodies. When I move this part, I feel something in that part, so if I stretch this way, it must be beneficial. Also, that animal seems to look cool in that pose. It seems like that will help me, let me try that. \n\nI know that's vague, but the point is that they did not do experiments in a repeatable, verifiable manner. There were no guidelines for people with problems to not do certain asanas. So no, they were not scientific.\n\nHowever, personal anecdotes and development led to a very strong belief in Yoga. Especially since it was so intimately tied to the Hindu religion. \n\nForward to today: There are yoga quacks who teach yogasanas. I know of a case where a teacher made his students do a complex breathing exercise (Bastri + Kapalabhati). He DID NOT tell them (probably did not know either) that the exercise involves extensive use of the lower back. And people came to my mom with damaged lower backs... and they just wanted to do more Yoga to help!! (Well, yoga is excellent for lower back problems, but I'mn sure you see the point I'm making).\n\nThe only way out of this is to scientifically examine the effects and benefits of Yoga, and that's what a LOT of researchers are doing these days.\n\nThe problem is that the scientific method looks at Yogasanas in a very atomic way instead of a holistic way since well, the \"holistic\" way is not scientific. It's a fair compromise, I think.\n\nI digressed a lot there. but: \n\n*tl;dr*: Inventors of Yoga made up asanas based on trial and error and logic. They did not go ahead to scientifically test the benefits and effects of their asanas because they believed in self-experimentation. So, scientific examination is being done today.\n\n\n",
"Others have addressed the question of weather the benefits of yoga have been studied scientifically. The second question gets into issues of \"sociocultural evolution.\" Many modern anthropologists believe that traditions and culture undergo a process like biological evolution where by beneficial traditions propagate and harmfull ones die out.\n\nIt is hard to address this issue with the rigor of a \"hard\" science and I am unaware if yoga (traditional or Americanized) has been studied in this framework. \n\nThe benefits of a tradition may be non obvious. One of the seminal works in this area is anthropologist Marvin Harris's piece \"India's Sacred Cow\" which hypothesizes that the seemingly \"backwards\" taboo against eating Cow's in Indian society allows better recovery of farms from periods of drought common in India. It has also been proposed that the large \"priest class\" in some societies may function to keep farms at an efficiently large size by preventing them from being split between multiple children through inheritance...a surprisingly material benefit of spiritual practice (I don't have a citation for this but recall it being mentioned in a lecture by an anthropologist on Tibetan society, sorry).\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story",
"http://nccam.nih.gov/health/yoga/introduction.htm#hed5",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=yoga+scientific+research"
],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/nyregion/11yoga.html?_r=0"
],
[
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pon.1021/abstract",
"http://www.jad-journal.com/article/S0165-0327(06)00211-4/abstract",
"http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/1610/",
"http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/summary.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1p7z6g
|
Why does the Asian portion of the Ring of Fire seem to get more earthquakes than the North American part?
|
I live in British Columbia, Canada and I hear all the time that we are "due for the next big one", yet it seems like they get a lot more earthquakes in Asia (especially Japan) than we get over here. How come? Or are we getting earthquakes that I'm not awake of?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1p7z6g/why_does_the_asian_portion_of_the_ring_of_fire/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cczv33j",
"cd15nso"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Relative speed of the asian plate with respect to the pacific plate must be higher than the relative speed of the north american plate with respect to the pacific plate. I haven't decoded the plate names in this paper yet, but the data is probably here. \n\n_URL_1_\n\nYou can see from the Hawaiian Island chain that the pacific plate is moving pretty rapidly NW over a hot spot. The smaller islands are the older ones. That's good evidence of it moving more rapidly toward the Asian plate than the North American plate (driven by the spreading in the Atlantic rift) is catching up with the pacific plate. \n\n_URL_0_",
"It a question of magnitude, since you won't often hear about small earthquakes in the news.\n\nThe western side of the Ring of Fire is dominated by subduction zones, which produce strong earthquakes (and tsunamis). Subduction zone earthquakes are generally the largest earthquakes (magnitude 7+).\n\nThe eastern side along North America is bounded largely by the San Andreas fault, which is a strike-slip fault and will typically have earthquake magnitudes in the ~5-6 range. \n\nCentral America and South America are bounded by subduction zones and these can have large earthquakes in the 7+ magnitude ranges. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/platepuzz/platepuzz_files/image014.jpg",
"http://gps.caltech.edu/~jstock/Morvel.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
2l5s4d
|
the end of the world according to the book of revelations
|
Not trying to start a theological debate, it's just I want to understand the events stated on the book (I always get lost in the allegories)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l5s4d/eli5the_end_of_the_world_according_to_the_book_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clrpe9r",
"clruaem",
"cls291r",
"cls4kqn"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Anti-christ rules a while, everybody must wear the mark of the beast or they can't buy, sell, or trade, christians ascend into heaven either before or after, then christ returns and has a final battle that banishes evil forever. Then the earth is a paradise again.",
"John of Patmos (who may or may not be the same as John the Apostle) is shown a vision by God where there is a throne room of heaven, and a scroll sealed with seven seals.\n\nJesus is there in the form of a lamb with seven horns and is proclaimed to be the one with the power to open the seals. (And does so)\n\n[The Four Horsemen]\n\n- After the first seal is broken, Conquest rides out to conquer the people.\n- After the second seal is broken, War rises to take peace from the earth and make people kill each other.\n- After the third seal is broken, Famine causes destruction that follows the aftermath of war.\n- Fourth seal = fourth horseman of Death\n\nThe fifth seal reveals the souls of those who had been killed for maintaining belief in God (martyrs)\n\nSixth seal breaking causes a great earthquake - sun turns black, moon turns red, stars fall from the sky towards earth.\n\nSeventh seal = silence. Period of calm before the 7 Trumpets (yes, the number 7 is repeatedly used throughout) cause even more destruction.\n\n[Four angels at four corners of the globe prevent wind from striking the land or sea until a seal is placed on the foreheads of the servants of God (144,000 people), to protect them]\n\n[Angel Trumpet Time!]\n\n- First trumpet = fire rains upon earth, destroys 1/3 of trees + grass\n- Second trumpet = blazing mountain thrown into the sea. Destroys 1/3 of sea creatures and 1/3 of ships\n- Third trumpet = Star named Wormwood falls from the sky and turns 1/3 of waters undrinkable\n- Fourth trumpet = sun and moon go dark, leaving 1/3 of earth without light.\n- Fifth trumpet = plague of demon-like locusts, told not to harm those with seals from God. Torture their victims for months - they will wish for death, but will not be granted it.\n- Sixth trumpet = 1/3 of mankind killed\n- Seventh trumpet = heaven opens. calm? Before the SEVEN BOWLS OF JUDGEMENT. Yes. there is more.\n\n[SEVEN BOWLS OF JUDGEMENT]\n\nEach angel pours a bowl of destruction onto the earth and each one has the same effect as its corresponding trumpet (ie. land, sea, rivers, sun, earthquake...), but whereas trumpets were 1/3, bowls are 100%.\n\nAs the final bowl is poured, total devastation occurs. \n\n\nSource: studying medieval apocalyptic history.\n",
"As it was written, it wasn't intended to be a prophecy of the end of the world. It was an allegory for the difficult political situation that Christians at the time were facing, particularly John who was in exile (jury is out as to whether this was the same John as the Apostle, but probably not). John uses imagery from the Old Testament as well as things borrowed from Roman and Persian mythology. Rob Bell goes through the historicity of Revelation in really mind-blowing detail. \n\n_URL_0_",
"It's actually about the oppression of the Jews by the Romans of the time, 100 CE. 666 refers to Nero Caesar. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuAImzD1ivI"
],
[]
] |
|
bkevaw
|
how do we stop ourselves from just peeing whenever we have to go?
|
Currently in traffic and have to pee like a race horse. I know that I have to go really badly and that if I wasn’t holding it I’d be peeing all over my car right now. So what actually stops me from pissing myself?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bkevaw/eli5_how_do_we_stop_ourselves_from_just_peeing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"emg5iqt"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"There is a muscle which holds closed the output of the bladder, and you can consciously make it stay closed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2n5vbk
|
what makes sex such a strong motivator / tool?
|
Am I also incorrect in assuming that males are motivated more by sex than their counterparts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n5vbk/eli5_what_makes_sex_such_a_strong_motivator_tool/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmalahg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Pretty sure it's our basic need to survive and pass on our genes. If sex wasn't a strong urge, why would anyone do it? We'd all die off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4bamgb
|
why is the homosexual lisp a thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bamgb/eli5_why_is_the_homosexual_lisp_a_thing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d17g9e2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's a way to immediately identify other homosexuals via self imposed body ticks that eliminate the confusion caused by the guessing of ones sexual orientation.\n\nIt's also simply an accent from various places around the world, like from Barcelona. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1w40fd
|
is there an actual difference between various brands of cigarettes?
|
This is coming from a non-smoker.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w40fd/eli5_is_there_an_actual_difference_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceyheiv"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Yes. Tobacco has varieties just like any other crop, and different manufacturers use different blends, methods of preparation, additives, and flavorings."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2wbfc7
|
how are these "people trees" grown?
|
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wbfc7/eli5_how_are_these_people_trees_grown/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cop9s6k"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's called Tree Shaping. Wikipedia has a huge article on it, but it boils down to a few things:\n\n1) You can put it in some sort of a \"cast\" and keep it that way until it retains its shape naturally (you can't do this with thick trees)\n\n2) You can suspend the tree (roots and all) above the ground and spray it with a nutrient-rich water. Because the roots are a lot more flexible, this allows the tree shaper to make just about any design they want. As the roots grow, the upper parts become part of the trunk. When the shape is completed, the tree is planted\n\n3) Gradual tree shaping. This is done in the same way as #1, except you can do it with larger trees. Instead of just putting it in a cast, you slowly push branches in the desired shape (over the course of weeks, months, and years) until they hold that shape naturally.\n\n4) Not covered in the wiki article, but still important is using light. Certain plants like Lucky Bamboo are often shaped using light. Since a plant will always grow towards a light source and away from gravity, you just tilt the plant at an angle until it starts to grow in that direction. Then you change the angle later."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/hFHvvk5.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
4hktbs
|
What are the "remnants" of Halley's Comet?
|
I read [this](_URL_0_) article and it stated that two meteor showers, the Eta Aquarids and the Orionids both give us a chance to view the remnants of Halley's Comet. What does this mean, that Halley's Comet destroyed a bunch on space stuff that was in its trajectory and this is debris or that Halley's Comet was struck and is broken up/breaking down and the Comet's pieces are falling toward Earth creating the shower?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hktbs/what_are_the_remnants_of_halleys_comet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2qiezb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"To start off with, I'll briefly touch on what you're actually seeing when you see a meteor. During a meteor shower, the average particle size that causes the bright streak you see in the sky is only around the size of a grain of sand.\n\nNow, as for comets, when we see those, what makes them look so impressive are their [tails](_URL_1_). These tails are material that the comet is losing, and in the image I show there, you'll actually see that there's two taiis. One tail is the tail made up of the gases coming off the comet, what we call the ion tail (the bluish one). The other is the dust tail, and that's generally the easier one to see. These dust particles are coming off the comet, but they're still orbiting the sun in approximately the same orbit as the comet is, so you can think of the comet's orbit not as just being the single object that's the comet itself, but also a stream of smaller particles that have come off the comet.\n\nIn the case of Halley's comet, it's orbit actually crosses the earth's orbit (in fact, in 1910, the earth actually passed into the tail of the comet). When the earth passes through this intersection with the orbit of Halley's comet, we're passing into this stream of dust particles that have come off of Halley's comet and are still orbiting around the sun. In fact, quite a few of the meteor showers that happen throughout the year have known associated parent objects which are where these smaller particles come from. You can see a list [here](_URL_0_), and Halley's comet, as well as several other comets and asteroids, have been linked to various meteor showers that occur throughout the year."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/science/if-you-blink-you-might-miss-the-eta-aquarids-meteor-shower.html"
] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_meteor_showers",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Lspn_comet_halley.jpg"
]
] |
|
1prt4o
|
what would happen to the earth, and humans, if our sun went supernova?
|
If a supernova occurred in our solar system what would happen to us? What would be the thing to kill us? Would we realise it was happening before it happened? If so what would be the time-line of events in our bio-sphere?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1prt4o/eli5_what_would_happen_to_the_earth_and_humans_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd5bw03",
"cd5bwzt",
"cd5c15k",
"cd5dci5",
"cd5de34",
"cd5dgzp",
"cd5so74"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It would destroy the earth utterly. However, that can't ever happen. The sun is too small to ever go supernova. ",
"This video does a really good job of explaining in detailed steps what would happen in exactly this situation. It's done in a fun, musical style - the best part is a guest appearance midway through by Neil deGrasse Tyson who does a funny rap bit:\n_URL_0_",
"Well all of the particles from all things within our solar system would be separated back in to its most basic radiological form. We would drift into the vast void of the known and unknown universe. Yes we would know that the sun went supernova before it happened by approximately eight minutes. However the likelihood that our planet would still be around by then is minimal. Our sun will most likely have expanded before prior to recondensing inorder to go nova. At which point, if our planet hasn't already spiraled into the sun as a result of it's gravitational pull, we would be engulfed. ",
"Supernovae don't just \"happen\" there's a pretty extensive lead up (the entire lifetime of the star), and so its pretty obvious when its about to blow within a hundred thousand years or so. In addition, the build up to the supernova would probably be enough to destroy the Earth (the Sun would probably have already stripped away the atmosphere and oceans, and gobbled up the rocky remains).\n\nAssuming the Sun did go supernova, we'd be gone. The shockwave and intense radiation would probably vaporize Earth in a few moments.\n\nAs far as realizing it, we'd have to wait 8 minutes for the supernova to appear to us (due to the distance between the Earth and the Sun). The intense light from it would flash boil the oceans instantaneously, and strip away the atmosphere, and kill you of course. A few moments later, the shockwave would hit, and what was left of Earth would be vaporized (if not atomized or converted to plasma).\n\nOf course our sun can't go supernova, because it lacks the necessary mass at its core to fuse anything higher than helium to carbon (I believe). Our sun will probably die and form a planetary nebula with a central white dwarf (which is much more gentle than a supernova on a cosmic scale).",
"A supernova within a few dozen light years, or even thousands if it created a Gamma Ray Burst directed at us, would kill us. ",
"I would think the thing to actually kill US would be the insane amounts of gamma radiation emanating from it. Not to mention the fact that the sun itself would expand beyond our orbit.",
"you never specified where the supernova would occur, so i'll theorize for it occurring anywhere in our solar system instead of just the sun.\n\nwe would be killed by radiation and eventually vaporized along w/ earth. \n\nin all likelihood, gamma radiation.\n\nno. the radiation would be traveling at the speed of light and would kill us instantly upon striking earth.\n\nradiation would strip the earth's atmosphere, kill us and then earth would be destroyed by the subsequent blast. the timeline, depending on proximity of the blast, would be within roughly 7hrs. (distance from earth to the Kuiper Cliff @ the speed of light)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3C7DECI0jU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
sriux
|
- why do we just not globally exterminate mosquitoes? since this insect is a major cause of disease-spread and has no solo-purpose that can't be replaced by another existing insect?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sriux/eli5_why_do_we_just_not_globally_exterminate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4gd03z",
"c4gd2ez",
"c4gd5ee",
"c4gdfjj",
"c4gdzga",
"c4gewm5",
"c4gewsl",
"c4gfwyh",
"c4gg996",
"c4ggbxp",
"c4gh0k0",
"c4ghdid",
"c4ghln2",
"c4ghx74",
"c4gkt90"
],
"score": [
166,
2,
88,
19,
10,
6,
3,
2,
2,
2,
9,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Two main reasons off the top of my head:\n\n1. We don't know how to extermine only mosquitoes.\n2. At best we can guesstimate what will happen to other animals due to mosquitoes dying off, but not much more. Historically, surgical attempts to mess with ecosystems haven't gone too well.\n\nPesticides kill lots of pests, they get concentrated in bigger animals who eat those smaller pests. Remember DDT? It's rarely used now because it messed with the way large birds (bald eagle being the most recognizable) breed.\n\nMosquitoes make up the a huge part of the biomass that feeds water animals (fish, insects and amphibians), both at the full grown stage and as larvae. I'm sure some insect would come to take its place, but in the meanwhile the ripple effect on the ecosystem would be enormous... introducing rabbits to Australia enormous.",
"It's all about the eco-system. If for some reason a type of fish carried diseases then killing off that species would have massive impacts on the rest of the species in the ocean.",
"Exterminating them is the wrong idea: breeding them to somehow carry the *cure* for malaria instead would be a kind of solution. \n",
"We are actually doing something to get rid of them, its pretty much like this. \n\nMosquitoes only mate with one male, so the scientists are putting males in microwaves (Kinda) and making them infertile. Then releasing them into the wild and then they are having sex ..... nothing happens, both pairs die without producing more. \n\nTHIS IS HAPPENING NOW!!!\n\nELI5: Your dad gets his dick cut off so you and your mom cant make more kids \n",
"What about the frogs? Think of the poor frogs.",
"I would also like to point out that mosquitoes are pollinators. Only females drink blood, and they only do so in order to get nourishment for their eggs; mosquitoes actually survive on nectar.",
"[This is what would happen.](_URL_0_) In other words, the impact of genociding mosquitoes is minimal, and may be something to consider actually doing. And yes, other insects will fill the niche.\n\nJust for insurance, I'd say collect a bunch of larva of all the species around the world, and put them away. Kill off the mosquitoes, and see what happens. If shit starts turning south, reintroduce the population.\n\nNo, how to go about killing off the whole world population... That's something we probably need to work on.",
"This doesn't do anything to answer your question, but I think it's kind of cool.\n\n[Mosquito Laser](_URL_0_)",
"Because bats, frogs and lizards and birds would die.",
"I once asked my dad this when I was a child, and he just got a sad look on his face and asked me why on earth I would want the majority of dragonflies to die of starvation.\n\nThat's how I learned about food chains.",
"Mosquitoes are part of the food chain. They may be a small part, but if you eradicate them, you have no idea what kind of impact that'd have on the chain. No one really knows for sure, but pretty much anything that depends on mosquitoes and other small insects for their diet would starve, or be forced to shift their diet to a different insect and in turn eradicate that species.",
"Mosquitoes are also an important source of food for spiders.",
"Because we don't know how. All attempts to previously exterminate mosquitoes (locally) failed miserably and increased the spread of disease.",
"Because we have more humans than we need already\n\n:tinfoilhat:",
"The hubris of humanity: wipe out a species that has existed for over a hundred million years and think that it won't have any lasting effects on the ecosystems of the Earth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
eewxw8
|
Why was Singapore so poorly defended in 1942?
|
[Singapore was important to the British](_URL_0_):
> The Singapore strategy was the cornerstone of British Imperial defence policy in the Far East during the 1920s and 1930s.
But when the Imperial Japanese Army attacked it in February 1942 (with a force less than half as numerous as the defenders), the British seemed to mess up in almost every conceivable way.
* They erroneously thought the Japanese wouldn't be able to get through the jungle. (What is this, the [Ardennes in 1940](_URL_1_))?
* They only put serious defenses on the northeast side of the island, while the Japanese actually attacked from the northwest. British command persisted in this false expectation of an NE attack throughout the Japanese bombardment of the northwest and even after the landings began.
* They quickly yielded air superiority, being equipped with obsolete [Buffalo](_URL_5_) fighters.
* Their huge coastal guns had mostly armor-piercing rounds--good against ships, bad against personnel.
There were other failures of tactics, command, and communication as well. Having taken the city, the IJA took 80,000 troops as prisoners, massacred ethnic Chinese, and "[were highly successful in recruiting captured Indian soldiers](_URL_3_)" to foment revolution in colonial India.
Some choices are understandable given resource constraints, but that just raises the question of why resources were so scarce in such a strategically important position. In fact, [the sorry state of Singapore's defenses was already known to the British at least a year prior to the attack](_URL_4_):
> The Japanese had broken the British Army's codes and in January 1941, the Second Department (the intelligence-gathering arm) of the Imperial Army had interpreted and read a message from Singapore to London complaining in much detail about the weak state of "Fortress Singapore", a message that was so frank in its admission of weakness that the Japanese at first suspected it was a British plant, believing that no officer would be so open in admitting weaknesses to his superiors, and only believed it was genuine after cross-checking the message with the *Automedon* papers.
In short, the British defense of Singapore was poorly equipped, poorly motivated, poorly prepared, and all-around unready to defend the "cornerstone" of the British Far East. No wonder Churchill was so ashamed of the loss!
***So what happened?*** How did the British leadership let Singapore's defenses lapse so badly?
P.S. I searched this sub and found adjacent questions ([here](_URL_6_) and [here](_URL_2_) with answers by /u/danwincen and /u/slumberjackbear), but they seem to be describing British failures after the battle began--I'm hoping to learn how things got so bad that Singapore was even a realistic target in the first place.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eewxw8/why_was_singapore_so_poorly_defended_in_1942/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbxcmev",
"fbxmmcu"
],
"score": [
36,
30
],
"text": [
"Hi, I answered a similar question to this quite a while back [here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_0_). I can go into greater detail if you have specific follow up questions.\n\nThe crux of the matter was that Britain had neither the economic strength nor political will to defend their possessions in the event of a simultaneous attack in multiple theatres. Yet they were also unwilling to give them up. This led to the Singapore Strategy being effectively smoke and mirrors, especially so once the war in Europe had broken out.",
"Hi! Thanks for posting this question on here. Might I suggest that you read the following article written by yours truly: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nAs a brief summary, The “Singapore Strategy” for British imperial defence in the Far East can be explained in a long-term context of waning British naval dominance after WWI. The Committee of Imperial Defense (CID) had previously noted in a strategic meeting that the “basis of British Imperial defence against attacks from overseas, whether upon the United Kingdom, Australasia or elsewhere, must be, as it always has been, the maintenance of our sea power”. The genesis of Singapore acquiring her pivotal position in the imperial defence strategy named after her can be seen in the Admiralty’s official definition of their One-Power Standard as not just the parity of her fleet “equal to any other nation, wherever situated” but also that “arrangements are made from time to time in different parts of the world, to enable local forces to maintain the situation against vital and irreparable damage pending arrival of the Main Fleet, and to give the Main Feet on arrival sufficient mobility.”\n\nAs early as 1919, Singapore had been earmarked out as a potential naval bastion for the Royal Navy when Viscount Jellicoe was invited by the Australian government to draw up a report on imperial defence in the Pacific. Immediately recognising Imperial Japan as a clear and present challenge to British and dominion interests in the Pacific, Viscount Jellicoe, a former Sea Lord in the Admiralty declared in his report of a need for a fleet of “eight battleships and eight battlecruisers with a full complement of smaller vessels” to be located in the Pacific, under the command of an Admiral ashore at Singapore, which in his words was described as “the naval key to the Far East”. Without Singapore developed as a vital naval base to be a pivotal role in imperial defense the British Fleet was effectively prevented from operating over half the seas of the world; there was not a single dry dock East of Malta large enough to accommodate Royal Navy battleships.\n\nSingapore was seen as an ideal site for a naval base to be built on the northern shore of the island due to its commanding position over the British military route to the Far East through the Straits of Malacca, whilst being safe from any potential seaborne invasion from the south or east by keeping as far from the open sea as possible; before 1941 a landward invasion of Malaya and Singapore from the north had been inconceivable, particularly so in the 1920s when the decision was made to build the naval base. With Japan seen as the main potential aggressor to defend against in the Pacific, yet with their nearest base in Formosa (now Taiwan) 1500 miles away, no aviation technology able to cover the equivalent distance from landward, and Great Britain having no serious naval rivals in Europe, the idea of mustering a fleet to relieve any potential naval siege of Singapore “within 70 days” was a viable, if not slightly calculated risky strategy for the Admiralty.\n\nSingapore’s viability as an imperial bastion in the Pacific rested on several assumptions: the supremacy of the Royal Navy and British command of the sea, the willingness of British colonies and Dominions in the Pacific to contribute in financial and materiel terms to the garrison force and fleet based in Singapore, as well as final cooperation of Imperial forces in the event of a war to fight for a common cause. Almost all these conditions and assumptions were not met: the Royal Navy was forced to keep the majority of the fleet in home waters to counter Nazi Germany, only being able to dispatch two naval units as Force Z in October 1941 instead of the promised battle fleet the Pacific Dominions expected to turn up in times of crisis; there were no suitable Dominion naval units available for deployment due to interservice bickering, particularly in Australia; and most damning of all, by 1940 there were only 164 obsolete aircraft based in Malaya and Singapore out of a required 542 planes needed for adequate coverage of both Burma and the Malayan Peninsula, only 31 poorly trained and equipped infantry battalions instead of the required 48, and no tanks at all. Even during 1941 when the threat of war in the Pacific loomed inexorably Britain had sent 676 aircraft and 446 tanks to the Soviet Union instead of using them to boost Singapore’s defence position in the Far East. Without the bare minimum of defence manpower and materiel Singapore was reduced to being a “bulky, expensive, fixed military tool”.\n\nIn a global political sense Singapore acquired her pivotal position in British imperial defence due to uncomfortable political, financial and military realities that Great Britain had to confront after four years of war in 1918. Great Britain was cash-strapped after WWI and the population had no stomach for further triggers to conflict. Surrendering a Two-Power Standard that had maintained British naval supremacy on the global seas to avert a potentially ruinous naval race between her, the United States and Japan was seen as a small price to pay for peace.\n\nGreat Britain then allowed herself to be held hostage to her imperial pride and future fortune by refusing to acknowledge the realities of her imperial overstretch by virtue of her Treaty-shrunk navy; the Dominions in the Pacific could not be allowed to see Great Britain admit any lack of conviction or uncertainty “about its ability, under all circumstances, to come to the aid of its own colonies and Dominions, particularly when these were the very same territories that had unstintingly provided men and materiel at considerable cost during the Great War.” Such a perceived weakness was feared by the British as potential playing into the hands of the Americans who were themselves building up a Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour. It is thus under the false bravado of Great Britain to be seen to “have a plan” and be accountable by her Australian and New Zealand dominions that Singapore became the equivalent of an imperial prestige project and less of a pivotal defence bastion in the Far East for the 20 years leading to the outbreak of the Pacific War."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_strategy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardennes#World_War_II",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8fsgff/how_did_the_british_lose_the_battle_of_singapore/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_singapore#Aftermath",
"https://en.wipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore#Outbreak_of_war",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/51q3eq/how_did_the_british_defend_singapore_during_world/"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9ajvo2/the_fall_of_singapore_during_ww2_was_considered/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/77zpku/what_was_the_reasons_for_the_disastrous_from_the/"
],
[
"https://www.warroompartners.com/post/how-the-gibraltar-of-the-east-fell-a-historical-analysis-of-the-singapore-strategy-up-to-wwii"
]
] |
|
1rtofk
|
how does street numbering work?
|
I've done some pizza delivery in the past and noticed on our maps that the numbering was divided into blocks, and that you could tell the approximate location of an address just by the number.
As far as I understood it, the numbers on north-to-south streets corresponded to the appropriate street (like 4790 N Main would be on Main street, close to N 48th St.), and the east-to-west streets corresponded to how far the address was from the center of the reset point (for example, 7443 W Broadway is about 7.5 miles west from 0 Broadway, where continuing would then be addressed like 3250 E Broadway).
What I don't know is why this is, who decides it, and furthermore, why streets are designated differently (street, avenue, parkway, terrace, etc.).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rtofk/eli5_how_does_street_numbering_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdqrxtv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It works different in every city. Literally, down to the difference of \"street vs. avenue vs. boulevard etc.\". Different cities have totally different layouts and different rules for the naming conventions. It generally is all decided by the city government, with a little influence from county and state.\n\nIn Chicago, for example, there are 800 street addresses per mile, and roughly 100 per standard block, meaning 8 blocks per mile. In New York, it's roughly 20 blocks per mile. Boston is a giant clusterfuck that I won't begin to speak on. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4h83kq
|
why is it that discrimination against a majority race isn't considered discrimination?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h83kq/eli5_why_is_it_that_discrimination_against_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2o74fq",
"d2o77km"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Legally it is. Race-based discrimination is still illegal, regardless of your race. \n\nWhat you've been told refers to a sociological definition of institutional racism that defines it as prejudice combined with institutional power. Under that definition, because our society is predominantly white, institutional racism can really only be directed against minority groups. However, the common definition of racism applies to any group. ",
"There's a difference between the act and the effect. Racism and discrimination can exist against white people. What doesn't happen, at least not in the US, is any adverse effect from that. White people *as a group* are not adversely affected by discrimination because to a large extent we still control the levers of power and privilege. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6qrcys
|
why was russia's ban on adoptions to us such an important response to the magnitsky act?
|
I was reading through the Bill Browder testimony transcript ([found here](_URL_0_)) and was interested to know the context on the following line:
> In November 2012 the Magnitsky Act passed the House of Representatives by 364 to 43 votes and later the Senate 92 to 4 votes. On December 14, 2012, President Obama signed the Sergei Magnitsky Act into law.
> Putin was furious. Looking for ways to retaliate against American interests, he settled on the most sadistic and evil option of all: banning the adoption of Russian orphans by American families.
How is this the most "Sadistic and Evil Option"? Why would this influence the US to revert the Magnitsky Act?
I am not trying to devalue adoptions in any way, shape, or form, but simply want to understand the reason for it having such political weight.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qrcys/eli5_why_was_russias_ban_on_adoptions_to_us_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkzfxag",
"dkzg8tk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think the Russians are seeing \"evil\" and \"influence US public opinion\" as mutually exclusive. The SMA hurts a couple dozen people most Americans have never heard of. Many people know someone who has wanted to adopt, I even know someone who adopted a Russian orphan. They are hoping to impact (==hurt) more people, so that public opinion will swing in favor of SMA repeal. It's rather evil, but evil works a good percentage of the time where US public opinion is concerned.",
" > How is this the most \"Sadistic and Evil Option\"?\n\nIt destroys the future of children as a method of applying political pressure.\n\n > Why would this influence the US to revert the Magnitsky Act?\n\nIt wouldn't, but it shows Putin is willing to retaliate for harm against him. \"Hurt me and I will hurt children.\"\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6qolqi/bill_browders_testimony_to_the_senate_judiciary/"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1rtivo
|
why is "fuck" a bad word?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rtivo/eli5_why_is_fuck_a_bad_word/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdqqe6g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Vsauce actually did a great video on the subject of swear words and why they're taboo just a couple of days ago. You can watch it **[here](_URL_0_)**."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7dQh8u4Hc"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.