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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
608qzt
|
why do high volt chargers fry a circuit but high amps one doesn't seem to affect it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/608qzt/eli5_why_do_high_volt_chargers_fry_a_circuit_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df4e0q5",
"df4enbw"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"You can think about voltage and current like water in pipes. The voltage represents the water pressure pushing it forward and the current represents, well, the water's current or flow rate. Now, you can have water moving as fast as you want through those pipes, but when too much pressure builds up the pipe will burst.\n\n\n(This is why we can't run transmission line's at infinitely high voltages. They will arc and give off corona discharge, ionizing the air around them, or they will ionize and fry the insulation.)",
"The voltage rating of the charger is the amount that the charger will put out, regardless of what you attach to it.\n\nHowever current (amps) is drawn by the device. So the current rating on the charger is the max amount that it *can* provide. The device only takes as much as it wants. So if a charger says 5 Volts and 2 Amps, then it will put out 5 volts and the device can draw anywhere from 0 to 2 amps. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ersrrr
|
because fish oil is so good for you, why don’t we use it for cooking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ersrrr/eli5_because_fish_oil_is_so_good_for_you_why_dont/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ff5oews",
"ff5oir2",
"ff5p1na",
"ff5pfxv",
"ff65l9q",
"ff68hdt",
"ff6dxf4",
"ff72bhf"
],
"score": [
66,
4,
231,
27,
3,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Fish oil contains high levels of omega 3 fatty acids, which your body cannot make. Cooking is a high heat process that breaks down the oils into different compounds. \n\nAlso, the amount of omega 3 your body needs is really small relative the total amount of fat you eat daily, way more than the amounts used in cooking.",
"Okay so let's take the most commonly used oil in fish oil pills which is cod liver oil. It goes rancid Superfast for one it's not exactly cheap to harvest compared to other oils and you don't need that much fish oil to have an effect on your diet",
"One very good reason in addition to the more scientific ones : it tastes like fish. Most people do not want all their food to taste like fish.",
"It tastes like rancid fish. It makes burps taste like rancid fish. It could only be used in applications similar to [real] olive oil. \n\nI don't know about you but I really wouldn't want to eat my salad if I had to dump rancid fish vinaigrette on it.",
"Fish oil is \"good\" for you because it contains relatively high amounts of omega 3 fatty acids.\n\nHowever...\n\nIt is not the only source of omega 3 fatty acids. Other oils also contain omega 3 of similar structure, like canola oil. Same with other vegetables.\n\nLastly, it is not entirely clear how beneficial and in what amounts omega 3 are.",
"PSA: if your fish oil tastes or smells rancid, it probably is. Something is wrong with the product and/or storage, and you are probably not getting the desired nutritional value. Buy a better brand or from a better vendor and remember to keep it refrigerated.",
"As others have stated, the omega 3 will break down in heat, thus removing most of the health benefits of fish oil. But also : \n\nAn important factor in cooking with oil, is where the smoke point is. This matters for both taste, and health (cancer risk!). You want to cook with oils lower than the temperature that they smoke at.\n\nThats why you don't (or shouldn't) fry in olive oil, etc, but instead use peanut oil or other oils with a high smoke point. \n\n_URL_0_",
"A good cooking oil will have a relatively high smoke point. Fish oil does not. It would smell like burning fish when you use it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.cancerschmancer.org/articles/healthiest-cooking-oil-comparison-chart-smoke-points-and-omega-3-fatty-acid-ratios"
],
[]
] |
||
2kruzp
|
why does israel insist on building settlements on lands not considered theirs and at great political cost? what internal politics drive this when the "costs" seem to be enormous?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kruzp/eli5_why_does_israel_insist_on_building/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clo4qrg",
"clo53tb",
"clo5dh6",
"clo63fi",
"clocqls",
"cloebjv"
],
"score": [
27,
6,
7,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Short answer, they do consider the lands theirs.",
"Short answer. It doesn't cost them much politically. They do so with almost impunity",
"Our relationship with Israel is like China's relationship with North Korea. Big brother backs me so I have permission to be an asshole, because no one is going to risk the wrath of big brother.",
"The Jews as a people know very intimately that all they have is each other at the end of the day. The default position is that everyone is against them unless otherwise stated. Being criticized or dealing with the consequences of their decisions does not phase them much psychologically.",
"They are trying to create defensible borders for the eventual two state solution. If you look at the location of the settlements, many of them are strategically placed, especially surrounding Jerusalem, so that in final negotiations, they can swap some other land for the settlements, which will create a greater buffer between the Palestinian state and major Israeli population centers. Whatever the current costs politically, Israel always has its eye on longterm survival.",
"Depends on the settlements.\n\nSome are sanctioned for some of the reasons others have mentioned.\n\nOthers are started by far right groups who consider all the land there to belong to Israel, without the backing of the government. These generally build the most controversial settlements and the ones most likely to be rolled up by the Israeli military.\n\n\nDon't think of Israel as being politically monolithic, it is no more monolithic than any other country in the world. They *look* monolithic when the chips are down because that is the best way to survive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2frtxv
|
why can apex predators feel fear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2frtxv/eli5_why_can_apex_predators_feel_fear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckc55a6",
"ckc5gj2",
"ckc5jgy"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Because apex predators can still be killed or injured.",
"Even a lion needs to fear an elephant. And an elephant needs to fear a lion. ",
"Getting wounded in a fight, even one that you win, will reduce your ability to hunt and compete with uninjured same-species competitors.\n\nAdditionally, being an apex predator doesn't mean that you can kill everything or are even safe from everything, it just means that no other predator can hunt you. A lion has every reason in the world to be terrified of a pissed off elephant, hippo, or rhino.\n\nNo one likes getting bitten by a snake either. Even if you step on it's head afterwards, it'll suck later."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
61hgsd
|
Why was Stettin/Szczecin given to Poland after WW2?
|
Considering Stettin is west of the Oder and Stettin had a german government under soviet control first after the end of the war.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/61hgsd/why_was_stettinszczecin_given_to_poland_after_ww2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfei2ra"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"From [an earlier answer of mine](_URL_0_)\n\nThe reason why Stettin became Szczecin in 1945 is apparent when looking at the map. The core of the city, including its port facilities, was on the Western half of the Oder. Bisecting control over the mouth of the Oder would have been a clumsy arrangement and also give the Germans control over the river's flow to the Baltic, and by extension, the rest of the world.\n\nA number of officials within the Polish provisional government, dominated by *Polska Partia Robotnicza* (the Polish Workers' Party/PPR- the main Polish communist party) stalwarts. Although the PPR was loyal to Moscow, its leadership also recognized that the immediate postwar period was a delicate time. Although the larger grand narrative of 1944-45 is of Allied leaders rearranging borders with a cavalier certainty, things were much less clear on the ground in 1945. The PPR leadership knew from their connections to the Soviets that Stalin had decided to absorb a considerable chunk of Eastern Poland, but they were unsure exactly as to which parts. This made a number of PPR leaders anxious to push whatever advantage they could find in the Western border. PPR leader Władysław Gomułka in particular was anxious to acquire urban centers and their associated industries such as Breslau as well as Stettin in order to make up for the loss of the resources in Eastern Poland. The provisional Polish government thus became quite proactive in staking their turf inside these areas in what the PPR soon called the \"recovered territories.\" The PPR set up *de facto* municipal administrations in these administrative centers and acted as if the territorial concessions were an established fact throughout early 1945. \n\nYet the territorial division was not as settled as the PPR claimed and the Soviets remained a vital bellwether for the details of the final border. The Soviet military government twice dismissed the PPR's government in Stettin on 16 May and 12 June 1945 and had appointed a German KPD mayor, Erich Wiesner. The Polish and German municipal administrations co-existed in an uneasy partnership by mid-June, with the Soviet military government having the ultimate authority to decide the matter. \n\nThe decision in favor of Polish ownership of the city came in 5 July 1945 when Stalin at the Potsdam Conference stated unequivocally that Stettin was a Polish city. Why Stalin elected to favor the PPR's position is still a matter of conjecture. It may have been that having the region be Poland would have ensured that control of the Oder basin was in the hands of a loyal vassal and not an as yet indeterminate future German state. It is also plausible that Stalin sensed that both the British and Americans were willing to finally accept the Soviet's ability to decide the Polish border and he elected to push for a maximum advantage. Another theory is that Stalin gave the Poles the port of Stettin to smooth over PPR feelings over the Soviet takeover of Königsberg. Unfortunately, as with much of Stalin's German policy from this period, the relevant archives are closed and even if opened, they might not reveal much as Stalin tended to make major decisions like these somewhat informally. The important thing is that while Stalin may have made up his mind on the Stettin question before Potsdam, this was unclear to many principles involved. Both Wiesner and the PPR pleaded their case for national retention of Stettin, and these pleas often framed how their respective claims over Stettin dovetailed with wider Soviet and communist interests. \n\nThe Stettin issue did not die after it became Szczecin at Potsdam, but lingered on as a cloud between the relations between Poland and the GDR for the first postwar decade. Although both the PPR and the SED castigated FRG attacks on the Oder-Neisse Line as fascist revanchism, the SED did make overtures to have Stettin and other areas returned to German control. Walter Ulbricht requested in 1950 that the GDR receive trade and economic concessions in Szczecin and a number of SED local leaders stressed that a patient foreign policy with their socialist Polish brothers would allow border revision in Germany's favor. But such overtures were a dead letter for the PPR. Not only did memories of German invasion and exploitation run long, the PPR staked much on using the \"recovered territories\"' infrastructure for the postwar Polish economy (here too, older ingrained national chauvinism transected communist ideology as internal SED correspondence often bemoaned Poles' inability to make these areas fruitful as they were under German administration). Ulbricht renewed his overtures for Szczecin again in 1956 when Gomułka returned to power after a brief period in internal political exile, but again this was a dead letter. By this time, the region had been sufficiently Polonized through settlement and the expulsion of Germans that to hand the city back to Germany would have entailed a similar pattern of resettlement. Gomułka was too politically vulnerable to stomach such and offer, nor was he personally inclined to countenance it. \n\n*Sources*\n\nBessel, Richard. *Germany 1945: From War to Peace*. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009.\n\nHeitmann, Clemens. \"Die Stettin-Frage: Die KPD, die Sowjetunion und die deutsch-polnische Grenze 1945.\" *Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung* 51, no. 1 (2002): 25-63.\n\nMacDonogh, Giles. *After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation*. New York: Basic Books, 2007. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5oze9q/how_did_szczecin_stettin_end_up_on_the_polish/"
]
] |
|
f15zf8
|
why do fish and sharks swim together at the aquarium won't the sharks just eat them all?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f15zf8/eli5_why_do_fish_and_sharks_swim_together_at_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fh26g6z",
"fh4tps5"
],
"score": [
22,
3
],
"text": [
"They only kill to eat. And, killing is a lot of work. If the aquarium staff feeds them, they aren’t hungry, don’t need to kill to eat, and don’t kill.\n\nThis is true in the wild, too, but you just don’t see it.",
"Not completely certain on this one but I do know that some small fish are actually helpful to sharks by eating parasites off of them. They need each other so it's a partnership."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1z7iuy
|
what is happening atomically during a nuclear explosion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z7iuy/eli5_what_is_happening_atomically_during_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfr7smg",
"cfr7xh8"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Fission bomb? You smash two pieces of uranium together. The uranium splits, and suddenly you have a bunch of smaller atoms which have less total energy than the original uranium had. The excess energy is converted into heat, and some of the particles split other uranium atoms to continue the chain reaction. The egregious amount of heat causes a blast wave which is the main point of the bomb.\n\nThe fusion bombs (aka hydrogen bombs) we use are hybrids. First a regular a-bomb is detonated which causes enough heat for two hydrogen atoms to fuse together. Again, the helium atom which is produced has less energy than the two hydrogen atoms which it was made of, and the excess energy is converted into heat.",
"Fission - fuel is unstable, adding a neutron to the nucleus makes it even more unstable and it breaks apart almost instantly. This breaking apart releases energy and *more neutrons* which collide with other nuclei and cause *them* to split, releasing yet more neutrons. You get the idea. Eventually (and we're talking billionths of seconds here) either all the fuel has been used up or it's been sufficiently forced apart by the explosion that the neutrons are no longer able to find the remaining fuel atoms.\n\nFusion (aka hydrogen bomb) - use the above method to create temperatures and pressures sufficient to fuse hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei like the sun does. This creates an even larger energy output than fission alone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8123da
|
What was the popcorn and hot dogs of the Roman coliseum? What did Romans have for snack foods while watching the events?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8123da/what_was_the_popcorn_and_hot_dogs_of_the_roman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv00ye7",
"dv01hpy"
],
"score": [
842,
146
],
"text": [
"Not to discourage any future answers but we have actually had a few interesting thread on Roman street food:\n\n[I'm sitting here eating chips. Did the people of the Roman empire have an equivalent of such snack foods?](_URL_0_) by /u/samadhii\n\n[What kinds of street food would of been available in Ancient Rome?](_URL_1_) by /u/JDHoare",
"Hi, hopefully others can contribute more info here, but meanwhile, you can get started on this very old thread, featuring /u/tiako \n\n* [I'm an average Roman going to see an event at the Colosseum. What kind of snacks or beverages are available to me and what would they cost?](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4q6mgp/im_sitting_here_eating_chips_did_the_people_of/d4quh29/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskHistorians",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3m6cyu/what_kinds_of_street_food_would_of_been_available/cvchxyv/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskHistorians"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1eo5tt/im_an_average_roman_going_to_see_an_event_at_the/"
]
] |
||
332cfy
|
Benzodiazepines and dementia: correlation or causation?
|
A recent [study](_URL_0_) identified a strong link between benzodiazepine use and dementia. I'm a psychiatric nurse practitioner trying to decide whether to advise my patients to get off benzodiazepines based on this study and others. Due to the risk of dependence/addiction, I rarely start someone on these drugs but many patients come to me already on them.
Here are my thoughts:
I find this link somewhat perplexing. Benzodiazepines, if anything, should be neuroprotective. Like other anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines prevent glutamate excitotoxicity. One theory about how benzodiazepines could be neurotoxic is based on kindling theory. Long-term suppression of glutamate by sedative hypnotics causes adaptive changes that result in rebound excitotoxicity once the drug is removed. However, this does not seem to provide a satisfactory explanation. The study shows that long-acting benzodiazepines are more likely to cause dementia than short-acting ones. This would not be consistent with kindling theory. Furthermore, those using a benzodiazepine every day should maintain more steady drug levels than those who use them sporadically, thus avoiding rebound excitotoxicity. Yet the study demonstrated that the risk was proportional to frequency of use. Finally, abrupt withdrawal of any anticonvulsant should theoretically cause rebound excitotoxicity, but a dementia link has only been identified for those with sedative hypnotic properties. Moderate daily consumption of alcohol, another sedative hypnotic, may actually reduce the risk of dementia. Some critics have argued that this link is better explained by the fact that the prodromal stage of dementia often includes anxiety, irritability, and insomnia. Therefore, these patients may be more likely to be prescribed sedative hypnotics. The study did control for this, however.
Can anyone provide some clarity on this issue?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/332cfy/benzodiazepines_and_dementia_correlation_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqih4ah"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The studies have controlled for the possibility of confounding by dementia prodrome through statistical methods but I don't think anyone is convinced that that has really been ruled out. The unfortunate facts as I see them are that we don't really have a good sense of either the full neuropsychiatric effect of chronic benzodiazepine use nor the etiology of the dementias. Trying to tease out causality is probably ethically impossible as randomizing an older adult to a contraindicated treatment is not proper research. So my approach is to make sure the patients know about the possibility of risk and get them off the benzo if they can tolerate it."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g5205"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
i3uyb
|
Can pharmaceuticals be removed from a water supply?
|
Water treatment methods can remove all kinds of things from both wastewater and drinking water, but is there a way to remove pharmaceuticals from our water supplies? I'm mainly thinking of all the pills and stuff that gets flushed down toilets
Edit: I understand these are present only in extremely low concentrations and I'm not paranoid about the effect on my own health. I was more thinking of fish and frogs and the possibility of concentrations increasing in the future
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i3uyb/can_pharmaceuticals_be_removed_from_a_water_supply/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c20osck"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Does it matter if its there? Concentration is very important. For the most part pharmacueticals only exist in our water supply in basically nonexistent quantities. That being said if you're feeling really really anal there are plenty of ways to purify water, such as reverse osmosis.\n\nhere's a link to a commercial system.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.water.siemens.com%2FSiteCollectionDocuments%2FInstitutional%2FLab_Water%2FBrochures%2Faureon_high_purity_water.pdf&rct=j&q=ultra%20high%20purity%20water&ei=dI3-TZupEsPngQfehrnwCg&usg=AFQjCNFyBia8U3XWBuesLJ58dc_cOkYDVg&sig2=lqJQGvg6ZCjHLukr7wydSA&cad=rja"
]
] |
|
2rrcjq
|
why do all bollywood movies have songs in them?
|
My roommate is trying to get me into them, but even the serious ones, like ones with a murderer and that... all of them have songs..
I don't get it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rrcjq/eli5_why_do_all_bollywood_movies_have_songs_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cniiofr",
"cniixg8",
"cnijiu3",
"cniko2d"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Indian music has a built in pecking-order, not only based on the seniority or ability of musicians but also by drawing a clear distinction between vocal and instrumental music. Vocal music is considered the highest form of music in India because the voice is God-given whereas instruments are man-made, albeit with the explicitly stated aim of trying to sound as close to the human voice as possible.\n\nAs Indian music has its roots in devotional rituals, and melody is thought to have grown out of specific religious chanting whereby individual syllables and words of sacred verses had to be recited in a strictly prescribed pitch or tone, the human voice was always revered as something that contained immense mystical properties given the ability to evoke a sense of awe in listeners and performers alike.\n\nMore crucially, although music by itself is said to carry the power to transform human hearts and help listeners connect to larger reality, vocal music has the added advantage of being able to verbalise a given emotion whether as direct praise of God or other deities or saints or as an expression of a specific human sentiment or emotion. Many good vocal compositions carefully match the given poetic sentiment to the actual emotional aspect of the raag in which that poetry is composed. Some compositions have such strong lyrical connotations that even when they’re played as purely instrumental versions, the original lyrics, although un-sung, appear to be at the forefront of the performance.\n\nIt’s worth noting that while vocals are considered superior to all other instruments, (for the reasons given above), there is no particular hierarchy within the array of instruments and all whether string, (vina, sarod, sitar) wind (flute, shehnai, etc.) or struck-string (santoor), are considered equal with the further distinction that instruments which can produce melody are, on the whole, considered superior to percussion instruments. Percussion solos are a very recent phenomenon in Indian music and percussion’s traditional role has always been to play “second fiddle” to a vocalist or instrumental soloist.\n\nBut where newcomers to Indian music are concerned, the exact reverse order seems to apply in terms of relating to a new and strange musical tradition. They are, generally, first attracted by rhythm (always easier to understand), secondly by melody in its instrumental variety and only very gradually do they admit to being drawn into vocal music – language always proving something of a barrier. Even so, one of the most phenomenally successful vocalists of our time, the late Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, (performer of qawwali – the music of South Asian Sufis or Islamic mystics which is heavily text-led) sang with such a dynamic and charismatic confidence that a very large number of those who packed the concert halls for his performances around the world were unperturbed by not knowing the language(s) of his songs – a clear case of music being able to transcend language",
"This is like asking why anime is all cartoony looking, or why heavy metal music uses electric guitars.",
"Hollywood movies all used to have songs in them too. If you have Netflix you should watch some old movies. I'd suggest Beach Blanket Bingo, any of the Dean Martin, Bing Crosby or Elvis Presley movies. (Not because they are particularly outstanding, but because they give you an introduction to some history of the movie industry. That being said, there are a lot of old movies that I love...)\n\nThe genre has some expectations. I seem to recall at least one movie without music in it, and I don't remember enjoying it much.",
"Indian here. Bollywood movie basically have songs in them because the movie makers want the people to come watch the movie. Some people only go for the songs in the movie rather than the story. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3xk825
|
how to use a combination of tor and a vpn to download torrents safely/anonymously
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xk825/eli5_how_to_use_a_combination_of_tor_and_a_vpn_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy5cusj",
"cy5d8tt",
"cy5d94k",
"cy5de2p"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Any decent VPN will be good enough for torrenting. You only need both if you're doing stuff that'll get the government's attention, which torrents will not accomplish. ",
"I know this is off topic but, these two hosts are die hard log clearers and fast as hell compared to other VPN host. They also protect you downloading:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"Tor is _not_ good for torrenting. You can do it, but without getting into the technical details, the way torrents work means that Tor does not give you any anonymity, because it uses a kind of web traffic that Tor does not know how to make anonymous. Also, even if you do hack it to work, it slows the network down something fierce, so don't be that guy.",
"[You don't use tor for torrents](_URL_0_). It's not designed for that purpose. All you need is a VPN service that does not record traffic data."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/",
"https://www.tunnelbear.com/"
],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/2u3j6m/why_exactly_is_torrenting_over_tor_bad_and_how/co4wcvo"
]
] |
||
1rjuuh
|
How was Marxist thought treated by American academia prior to the Cold War? Prior to the Russian Revolution?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rjuuh/how_was_marxist_thought_treated_by_american/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdos9x5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Prior to the probably around the late 19th century, the US and Russians were fairly close allies. They shared common enemies, France and Britain, expanded similarly, Siberia and the American west, viewed the abolishment of serfdom and slavery similarly, and were christian. In the late 1800's Americans really began to dislike the Tsars in Russia. This was most likely due to competition in Manchuria, American discovery of the Pogroms, and journalist George Kennan (Uncle of George F. Kennan) giving academic lectures on the abuses by the Tsar. Kennan, and most of America for that matter, were convinced that the Soviet people were educated, enlightened, Christians and were going to replace the Tsar with a new government modeled after the American way that was the \"shinning society\" to so many Americans.\n\nAround this time, the American increase of American populist and socialist parties and fear of alien ideologies via immigration was on the rise. Look at [This](_URL_6_) political cartoon depicting communism at the Grim Reaper about to destroy family values. [This](_URL_2_) cartoon from the 1870's depicts communism killing the Goose that lays the Golden egg and then look at [This](_URL_5_) one from the 1920's showing essentially the same thing. From these cartoons it really easy to see how Americans were worried about the dangers of communism. American fear of socialism and communism stems from the workplace riots and strikes (i.e.Haymarket square) that were anarchy-ridden. It was American to be a good worker and not engage in anarchy like a Communist would.\n\nWhen word of the revolution of 1905 hit the United States, Americans were initially excited for the [Russians](_URL_0_). This feeling was changed by the fear of a socialist influenced revolution [though](_URL_3_). In 1917 though, many Americans had hopes for a [democratic](_URL_1_) Russia to prevail but to no avail as these cartoons also depict the American fear of [Communism](_URL_4_) following the Bolshevik rise to power in 1917.\n\nAmericans were convinced the Russians were going to become a democratic nation following their Revolution. The United States became democratic after their revolution and Americans, thanks in part to people like George Kennan, were convinced the Russians would follow suit. By the Russians adopting Communism, the policy that was so similar to the ones causing riots in late 1800's America it created the \"because we don't communism we don't like Bolshevism and because of that, we don't like the new Russian government\".\n\nTL;DR- Americans didn't like Communism before the Russians adopted it and when the Russians did adopt it we didn't like them.\n\nSorry this is somewhat sloppily put together, a tad incoherent, only partly answers your question, and chock full of grammatical errors but I wrote it fairly quickly and I'm super tired."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/gn9ZO4j.png",
"http://i.imgur.com/ccNvr1D.png",
"http://i.imgur.com/lNxGOS9",
"http://i.imgur.com/mD8uyQ4",
"http://imgur.com/a/ZDEHV",
"http://i.imgur.com/tJWYUqZ",
"http://i.imgur.com/89O1Kmz.png"
]
] |
||
28f4sf
|
Do all acids taste sour?
|
It is hard to believe, but at one time chemists characterized compounds by tasting them.
Early chemists called any compound that tasted sour an acid.
Is this true for all acids?
Were there any that were misclassified at one point?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28f4sf/do_all_acids_taste_sour/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciam3gh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding of how acids and taste works is that the sour taste happens because H+ ions enter the cell and cause a membrane potential change which causes release of neurotransmitter which the brain recognizes as sour. Each of the 5 tastes (sweet, sour, bitter, salty and umami) have a different way of releasing neurotransmitter, and they all release a different neurotransmitter to the brain. As acids are characterized by H+ ions, it is safe to assume that all acids are sour.\r\rTLDR; yes all acids are sour"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
sycoe
|
What happend when someone dies?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sycoe/what_happend_when_someone_dies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4i0270"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There is no scientific support for the idea of a \"spirit\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1176ax
|
If someone were to ejaculate much more frequently than normal, would their body produce sperm quicker, effectively having larger 'loads'?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1176ax/if_someone_were_to_ejaculate_much_more_frequently/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6jyqy2",
"c6jznsf"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"i think you need to rephrase the question.\n\n > If someone were to ejaculate much more frequently than normal, would their body produce **seminal fluid** quicker, effectively having larger 'loads'?",
"Hmm, a google search didn't reveal too much. [Here is a link](_URL_0_) to the Mayo clinic that discusses how to raise sperm counts. And the wiki on [spermatogenesis](_URL_1_).\n\nAnecdotally, a few years ago my buddy and his wife were trying to get pregnant. After months of trying they went to their doctor. After the appointment he told me that the doctor said that the problem was they were having *too much* sex. They were having sex at least once a day. The doctor told them to try having sex every other day. Soon after: she was preggers :) \n\nAnyone else have better facts?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fertility/MC00023",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis"
]
] |
||
1vk9c1
|
Why does the natural logarithm appear so much in the world?
|
We have all seen the natural logarithm appear in our math, chemistry, and physics classes. Is there a simple explanation to why so much of our world obeys in some way according to the natural logarithm? For example, a hanging rope obeys e^x. It is also found in Boltzmann's equation (S=k ln W), Nernst equation, etc.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vk9c1/why_does_the_natural_logarithm_appear_so_much_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cet6lnj",
"cet6qpb",
"ceta8qw",
"cetgjwk"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"All logarithms are basically equivalent; log_a(x) and log_b(x) differ only by a [factor of a constant](_URL_0_).\n\nSo we could, if we wanted, write all those formulas using base 10 logarithms (or base 2, or base 731, or whatever) by either changing our units or adding a constant to each formula. Using the natural logarithm is a choice.\n\nWe choose the natural logarithm because it makes the math easy.\n\nAs for why all those equations have logarithms at all, that's just a result of the fact that you get logarithms any time you integrate a fraction with variables in the denominator. (Specifically, you get natural logarithms, but that's just an artifact of the math.)",
"when you solve many differential equation, the natural logarithm comes up oh too often. \n\nA huge number of equations in a variety of fields conform to this form:\n\ndx/dt = k*x\n\nthis basically means that the rate of change of x depends on the quantity of x. This makes sense -- if we say x represents temperature, it really does make sense to say that the rate at which temperature drops or increases depends on the difference your object and the ambient is.\n\nWhen you solve that equation, you get:\n\nln(x) = kt + C\n\n",
"I'll give this a shot. Criticism very, very welcome.\n\nThe derivative of an equation is a way to express the slope of the line of that equation in a graph.\n\nThere are 2 cases where you can draw a line such that the \"height\" of the line is equal to its own slope. That would be really convenient for calculus if the equation and its derivative were the same.\n\n1. A flat line, zero slope. y=0 and dy/dx = 0, too. But that's boring.\n\n2. Try to draw a line so that at x=1, the slope is dy/dx=1 and the height is y=1, and at 2 the slope is 2 and the height is 2, and at 3 the slope is 3 and the height is 3, etc. Too bad it doesn't work. The line gets too steep too fast. Can't make a smooth curve. But you get the feeling that if the heights y got higher quicker, there probably is a curve that has the same slope as its height. Some kind of exponential equation would be a good way to make that curve grow. Something to the x power. Try 10 to the x power. Doesn't work. Curve gets too tall. Try 2 to the x power, doesn't work. Curve is too short. But, if you can find \"always too big\" and \"always too small\" there a good chance somewhere in the middle is \"just right\".\n\nTry 2.718281... to the x power. Just right. Had to be some number. And voila! you have the curve that equals its own derivative. \n\nMany processes' rate of change depends on how big it is at the time. It's slope equals its value. If you can use constants and multipliers to jam those kinds of physical process into that y=e^x curve, the math gets really pretty. So lots of people did. ",
"It's worth noting, in addition to some of the great responses below that logarithms are just models of nature. Nothing more. We have seen that good agreement between logarithmic models and nature exist, so we use them. Also, logarithmic manipulation is very useful for making a non-linear trend linear. Linear regressions are the best way to analyze data because higher orders of regression analysis have inherently more error associated with them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_identities#Changing_the_base"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1f7o6v
|
How often WERE peasant revolts in the Middle Ages? Feel free to segregate early middle ages from high middle ages.
|
Because it seems a standard trope in many movies/series to incorporate some sort of popular uprising into the plot which seems to take on more overtones of proletariat revolution influenced by assumptions derived from marxist philosophy than what an actual medieval peasant revolt would look like.
But from my limited knowledge, it seems they were few and far in between.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f7o6v/how_often_were_peasant_revolts_in_the_middle_ages/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca7mxmt",
"ca7n77l",
"ca7nuxm"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"In Sweden, they were quite common during the era of the Kalmar Union.\n\n1434-36. The peasants rise against feudalistic policies in the Engelbrekt rising. The King is forced to agree to all their demands.\n\n1453: A peasant army rising against King Kristian I's campaign to claim the Swedish throne defeats the Danish army, and King Kristian I is forced to agree to a 2-year cease fire.\n\n1463: The peasants rise against King Kristian I (who by now has secured the Swedish throne) and his extra taxes to finance his purchase of Schleswig and Holstein. The peasant army is defeated in the Battle of Helgeandsholmen.\n\n1464: A new revolt. The King's cavalry is defeated by a peasant army in the Battle of Haraker's Church. The peasants lay siege to Stockholm and forces the King to flee and delcare him deposed.\n\n1469: Axvall castle falls to a peasant army in a new rising and is razed to the ground.\n\n1471: The peasant army defeats the Danish army in the Battle of Brunkeberg. King Kristian is again declared deposed.\n\n1480s: Peasants in Västergötland refuses to pay tax and rise to chase the tax collectors out.\n\n1497: A peasant rising in support of Sten Sture, under siege from King Hans of Denmark in Stockholm, is defeated at the Battle of Rotebro.\n\n1501: The peasants rise against Danish-appointed tax collectors and violations of the Kalmar recess agreement. The Danes are forced out of all major castles and cities except Kalmar.\n\n1517: A force consisting mostly of peasants defeat the Danes at the Battle of Vädla.\n\n1518: A force consisting mostly of peasants defeat the Danes in the Battle of Brännkyrka.\n\n1520: A force consisting mostly of peasants are defeated by the Danes in the Battle on the Ice of Lake Åsunden.\n\n1520: A peasant rising is defeated by the Danes in the Good Friday Battle of Uppsala.\n\n1521: Most of Sweden rise against King Kristian II after Stockholm's bloodbath. The Danes are defeated in all battles.\n\nThere were also numerous uprisings againt Gustav Wasa, and I really should describe the peasant militia in most of these fights, but that will be for the next post.",
"I cannot speak to the frequency of revolts, and there are probably many different answers depending on the country of interest. In regards to England, one of the most famous revolts was led, in part, by Wat Tyler. \nI hate to link to a wiki article, but it's the easiest and quickest, so here it is. _URL_0_\n\nWhat is missing from the article is a little of the back story. Following the Black Death in England (1347/48-1350/51), there was a vast decline in the English population. Using some Marxist analysis and some economic analysis, this created a high demand and a shortage of labor. The wiki article mentioned a poll tax, but the nobles and elites wished to basically freeze wages at a pre-plague rate. This did not make the English peasants happy. With their labor and crafts now in high demand, they argued that they should be able to demand (or request...however you view it) higher wages in return for their work. \nI don't think it would be fair to simply say that Wat Tyler's rebellion was a clear example of an early union (the Italian guilds are a probably a much better example of proto-unions), but it was a movement of laborers revolting for higher wages. \n\nEnglish workers and peasants revolted, and as it says in the wiki article, Wat Tyler's rebellion marched to London. Following some drama, Tyler was eventually beheaded. \n\nThe wiki article, I believe, romanticizes the rebellion as being an early example of civil rights and freedom. My understanding is that the workers, who were in high demand, simply wanted to freedom to choose their own employers and have a say in the compensation.\n\nAgain, this doesn't speak to frequency, but it is one of the more famous examples from high medieval/early modern history. \n",
"Large scale peasant revolts were uncommon until the late middle ages. As often, their beginning is tied to the outbreak of the plague. The plague had a deep impact on the mindset of the common people. During the epidemics, social structures failed and people became more self-aware. The literature changed, writers started to describe their feelings, spirituality saw a focus on individual piety, particular in the \"devotio moderna\".\n\nPeasant revolt started during the 100-years war in the second half of the 14th century. They became most prevalent during the early 16th century, at least in the Holy Roman Empire. The likely reasons for single revolts are manifold, sources rare, esp. for the early revolts. \n\nIn the Holy Roman Empire, two revolts which included peasants were successful in the long term. The \"Eidgenossenschaft\" formed after their successful revolt against the Habsburg rulers, leading to the founding of nowadays Switzerland. The peasants of Dithmarschen formed a peasants' republic and were able to defend their independence for around 100 years. (late 15th, early 16th century).\n\nSources: \n\n* Joseph P. Byrne, The Black Death, London 2004. \n* N. Bulst, Revolte, in: Lexikon des Mittelalters."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Tyler"
],
[]
] |
|
3sag5f
|
why are chicken eggs usually sold in 6s and 12s?
|
I've always wondered why eggs were sold in pack of 6 and 12, but not 4, 5, 3, or 10? It just seems like an oddly large number of eggs to sell at once.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sag5f/eli5_why_are_chicken_eggs_usually_sold_in_6s_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwvg3kr",
"cwvj2m7",
"cwvmyf3"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Dozens are a very common number of items for a great variety of trades due to their ability to be evenly divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6.\n\nI'm not sure what you are using eggs for, but it is very easy for many people to plow through a dozen eggs in a few days. I can't remember the last time I had eggs go bad. For people who use them less frequently, it is not uncommon to be able to buy six or four eggs at a time. Buying less than that seems like it would be uneconomical for stores to attempt.",
"Eggs need to be packed carefully because they are relatively fragile. So you can't have a heaping pile of eggs and choose the ones you want to put in a bag, like with apples or cherries. A dozen used to be a typical unit of account for all sorts of different objects... you would typically buy eggs in dozens, rolls of bread in dozens, etc. A dozen was such a common unit that people who wanted to buy a *huge* amount of something would often buy a dozen dozens, or 144... and the English word which originally meant \"a large number\", gross, now is used to mean twelve dozen. The \"dozen\" was useful, as others say, because if after buying a dozen of something from a vendor you want to split it up into equal portions, it is easily divided into halves, thirds, quarters, or sixths. To people who didn't necessarily write a lot or do written arithmetic, this was vastly more useful than buying things in 10s, 100s, or 1000s... which is how we tend to do things today.\n\nAlso, you can go through 12 eggs very quickly if you cook or bake a lot, even for just one or two people -- but if you do use the eggs slowly, they'll actually keep for a very long time.",
"As a chickenfarmer we usually stack them in layers of 30 (5*Rows of 6) (You stack those layers by rotating them 90° and putting them on top of each other) Those layers of 30 can then easily be divided in packs of 6/10/12"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2tsvg1
|
i understand trading stocks, but what is trading bonds? how can there be a market based on loans (bonds)? what are you investing in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tsvg1/eli5_i_understand_trading_stocks_but_what_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co21074",
"co21vd9",
"co22tie",
"co23smc"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I am the King of Rasfertia, and I say to the financial world, \"If you pay me a dollar, I'll repay it at 3% interest for 5 years -- I'm only selling 300 dollars with this promise.\n\nIf you think Rasfertia will be around in 5 years time, and still be taking in tax revenue, speeding tickets, things like that, you say, \"Hmm. Rasfertia's promising 3%, and I can only get 1% from my savings account. I think I'll un-fund my savings account by 100 dollars, and buy me some of those Rasfertia bonds!\"\n\nThat help?\n",
"The language used to create the bonds is specifically designed to make them \"transferable\" to a new owner.\n\nGiven that, there can be a market in them by just doing it. The same way pretty much everything else happens. You want you trade me your marble for my marble? Well, then do it.\n\nWhat you are investing in is their obligation to pay you money in the future.",
"Bonds trade because the remaining value of the bond payments goes down over time, and because fluctuations in interest rates and likelihood of payback change over time.\n\nLet's say you buy a corporate bond issued by XYZ Co. for $1000 that pays 20% interest in a year, or $1200 total in 12 monthly $100 payments. But the company's big new product is a flop and there are rumors they may go bankrupt. So the likelihood of getting the full payout is reduced. Six months in, you may be willing to sell your bond for $400 to recoup what you can rather than risk them going bust and stopping their payments short of paying out the full $600 still owed. Somebody else is willing to take the bet that they can/will pay.\n\nAlso, as interest rates fluctuate, the value somebody's willing to pay will fluctuate. If a bond has a 5% interest rate and the going rate for interest is only 1% somebody might be willing to pay more than the face value left, getting an effective 3% interest rate.",
"Suppose I have a company and I need some money. So I get out a pen and a piece of paper and write on it, \"I will pay the holder of this piece of paper $100 on January 26, 2016. -- /u/white_nerdy, President of Vice\" This is called a \"bond\", it's basically an IOU.\n\nThen I sell that piece of paper to Alice for $90. I get money in my pocket today, but I have to pay back more money later.\n\nNow suppose Alice needs some money in six months. She might try asking me for an early payment, but I would be perfectly within my rights to tell her to go away and leave me alone, since the paper says I don't have to pay until January. But if Alice wants the money now, she can sell the paper to someone. For example, you might offer to buy it for $95; you'll get $100 from me in six more months, so this is a good deal for both of you -- Alice gets some money right away, and you get to make $5.\n\nYou (or Alice) is ultimately betting in my ability to make good on my $100 promise. If my business plan is solid and things go well, you get your $100 on schedule. If business is bad, I may be unable to pay and you get less than you were promised, or nothing at all. You can take my company to court and force it to pay -- in the worst case, you can get a court order to liquidate the company's bank accounts, land, buildings, furniture, equipment, etc. -- but if the total proceeds of the sale are less than the total of what I owe to everybody I owe, somebody's going to end up SOL, and it might be you (depending on the fine print in the various deals and whatever the court decides).\n\nA \"bond market\" is simply a place where lots of people can go to easily buy and sell IOU's from different companies.\n\nHow much the bond sells for in the market represents the market's collective judgment of how much they trust me to make good on my promise. This could be based partly on my reputation, but it should also be based on an analysis of my financial health and how I plan to make enough money to fulfill my promise.\n\nIf companies in my industry have a 5% chance of going bankrupt in a year [1], and you buy bonds from 20 companies like me, on average you'll make at least $1900 from those 20 bonds, even if the 20th guy goes bust. So if you pay $90 each -- $1800 total -- you will (on average) make a $100 profit.\n\n[1] Risk modeling is roughly coming up with both the 5% number and *correlation coefficient*. This is a fancy of saying, it's tempting to treat this experiment as paying $90 for a chance to win $100 if a fair 20-sided die (dice) rolls a number other than 1 -- a simple, elegant model which is fairly easy to solve. On average in 20 rolls, you'll see 1 a single time, occasionally 0, 2, or 3 times by luck, but rolling 10 or more ones is quite extreme.\n\nOf course, in the real world, you can have recession, terrorism, war, hurricanes, etc. which make a lot of companies or people financially unstable all at the same time. And when they're unable to pay, anyone who holds their bonds will also be in trouble, especially if they made their investments based on the simple mathematical model that underestimates the risk of this kind of extreme event in the real world.\n\nThis kind of modeling problem was one of the causes of the global financial crisis at the end of the last decade.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
mf56j
|
How big would the moon have looked 4 billion years ago?
|
Since the moon is moving away from the earth at ~4cm a year, how much larger would it have looked 4 billion years ago when it was first formed?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mf56j/how_big_would_the_moon_have_looked_4_billion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c30ekcd",
"c30ekcd"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The moon is receding at about 4 cm a yr right now, but the overall average for the last 2.5 billion years is less than 2 cm a yr. before that I have not seen any data.\n\ncurrently the moon ranges between 355,000 and 405,000 km from the Earth every month, with a mean of about 385,000. Using 2 cm a year for 2.5 billion years is 50,000 km closer. \n\n[the moon is receding because of friction from the rotation of the Earth under the high tide attracted by the moon, the shift continental plates has altered the distribution of shallow tides over time]\n\nEdit:",
"The moon is receding at about 4 cm a yr right now, but the overall average for the last 2.5 billion years is less than 2 cm a yr. before that I have not seen any data.\n\ncurrently the moon ranges between 355,000 and 405,000 km from the Earth every month, with a mean of about 385,000. Using 2 cm a year for 2.5 billion years is 50,000 km closer. \n\n[the moon is receding because of friction from the rotation of the Earth under the high tide attracted by the moon, the shift continental plates has altered the distribution of shallow tides over time]\n\nEdit:"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3vez78
|
why do people want to live forever?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vez78/eli5_why_do_people_want_to_live_forever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxmwene",
"cxmwg2r",
"cxmwhea",
"cxmwmmu",
"cxmwsuq"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because we can't ever imagine a situation where we would want to die. Life is great and awesome and preferable to the nothingness that awaits us. Why would I want it to end?",
"It is less about eternity, and more about being the one who gets to choose when the ride ends.",
"Most people can not imagine the tedious reality of immortality. Therefore it is preferably to the fear of death after an inconsequential existence. ",
"I don't so much have a fear of the nothingness associated with death, but I'm excited about the future of technology. I want to see where we will be at 100, 200, 500, etc... Years from now. ",
"Why wouldn't you? Dying is the absence of ego, you don't exist anymore. Why would anyone want cease?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
21ps45
|
How do they differentiate foreshocks and aftershocks from the actual earthquake?
|
Is the main earthquake just the largest shock? Would it be re-classified if there was a larger shock shortly following what was previously defined as an earthquake?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21ps45/how_do_they_differentiate_foreshocks_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgfmj9a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In short, the answer is yes for both of your questions. In terms of what we actually measure using a seismometer, there is nothing that differentiates a foreshock, mainshock, or aftershock from each other. These are terms we apply in relation to a series of EQ events and the designations are based on the relative magnitudes of the events, the time span between the different events, the extent to which all of the EQs in a fore- main- and aftershock sequence occur on the same fault-system, and if they fit into the empirical relationships developed for such groups of earthquakes. There are three general empirical relationships that have been proposed, Omori, Bath, and the Gutenberg-Richter laws. Omori's law describes the expected variations in rates and probabilities of aftershocks with time. Bath's law is a general relation for the difference in magnitude of the main and after/foreshocks. The Gutenberg-Richter is a description of the total distribution of earthquakes, relating magnitude and total number of events and is the expected relationship for any sample of earthquake events (so a global catalog or a group of fore- main- and aftershocks). For more info on these relationships, you have your choice of [wikipedia](_URL_2_) or a [journal article (behind a paywall, sorry)](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: Here's an additional body of [info](_URL_1_). It's a slightly odd (wizard of oz?) but informative powerpoint on aftershocks from a USGS scientist who studies aftershocks. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL019808/abstract",
"http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/kfelzer/SeisLabTalk.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftershock#Aftershock_size_and_frequency_with_time"
]
] |
|
5ik7fn
|
Why didn't more African Americans flee from the South that enslaved them to the North that had waged war to free them?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ik7fn/why_didnt_more_african_americans_flee_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db9gbbr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Enslaved people tell us again and again that slavery is horrific in just about every possible way. The violence, including sexual violence, the overwork, torture, scanty provisions (sometimes literally starvation rations and/or stuff too nasty for whites to eat) and conditions all factor in. But what they found most personally traumatic was the destruction of their families. At any moment, your spouse, children, parents, anybody you loved could be sold away from you. Unless they're moved somewhere quite near to you, you may never see those people again. They're as good as dead, as are you to them.\n\nConsidering that family is just about all an enslaved person really can hope to have, the loss of those loved ones packed an extra punch on top of ordinary bereavement. That's a hard thing to turn away from. As a result, most successful self-stealing slaves seem to have been relatively young and unattached men. You do see some married couples, women, and small groups, but it's harder for many people to get away at once than just a few right up until the times when US armies are near. During major disruptions of the system all that changes, most famously when the US armies did show up in the 1860s, but also with the British Royal Marines raided the US coast during the War of 1812. They were happy to take on enslaved scouts, promising them freedom for service, but those scouts developed the habit of scouting their new buddies right back home to liberate their families. Their officers weren't thrilled with the extra people to take care of, but found ways to make it work.\n\nAnd what if you fail? Running is extremely dangerous. If caught, slaves can expect harsh punishment. A beating is probably the start of it, but \"troublesome\" slaves could be sold as punishment. Then you get the bereavement, plus a whole boatload of unknown dangers at the far end of the sale, without any freedom. If anything, an enslaved person would be sold to somewhere where escape is harder still. Failing that, they might be badly hurt or killed in the course of recapture. Slavery's unimaginably awful, but as long as you stay put you might at least have your family until the enslaver changes his or her mind. It's a dangerous gamble.\n\nThen factor in the distance. It's a lot easier to flee near to a free jurisdiction than from the heart of the Cotton Kingdom. People do get out from the Lower South, but they're so rare that it's not really a political issue for the white establishment the way it is further north. (Even there the scale isn't massive, though it is enough to make it a political issue.) They stow away on trains and steamboats where possible, but a lot of running away is going to be on foot, at night, and through increasingly unfamiliar territory with limited provisions and over land that whites patrol (sometimes formally, sometimes just by keeping an eye out as they go about their business). All of those whites have the legal right to stop and question a black person and to use force to ensure compliance if refused. \n\nAs a result, a lot of those enslaved people who do bolt probably don't expect to get freedom so much as a few days of relief. It generally went much easier on slaves who would take their time, maybe visit someone a ways off who was important to them, and then return on their own. Punishment is still very likely, but an enslaved person could reasonably hope for less severity.\n\nBut say the enslaved person gets across the right state line and hooks up with free black and white antislavery communities. That's good so far as it goes, but the US constitution grants enslavers the right to recover their fled property. Being in a free state doesn't necessarily make you free (it can, but not for runaways) and your ability to remain is dependent on the community's willingness and ability to protect you. That's another gamble. Many slaves who make it that far end up fine, but some do not. At any time the mood might shift against fugitive slaves and someone could come calling for you, your children, etc. True safety and security are possible, especially with a large antislavery community about, but to get a guarantee you'd have to go all the way to Canada. That's doubly true after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 becomes law.\n\nIt's easy for us to say that they should have fled but escape is a dangerous choice with massive consequences. How many of us want to kill everyone we care about, or kill ourselves and leave them with the grief? Running away is functionally the same, unless an enslaved person gets very lucky. And that if it succeeds. Failure risks all of that plus a strong chance for some extra torture. It's an impossible situation.\n\n**Sources**\n\n*The Slaveholding Republic* by Don Fehrenbacher\n\n*River of Dark Dreams* and *Soul by Soul* by Walter Johnson\n\n*The Internal Enemy* by Alan Taylor"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
zuo7n
|
How much energy would it take to accelerate the mass of Earth to 99.999% light speed?
|
Like a super sized Hadron Collider.
So if we sent astronauts to other stars at near the speed of light, earth could keep with time delineation, so original humans who sent the astronauts could experience the event... at a safe distance.
If possible, could a reference for the amount of energy it would take be used?
IE: A thousand years of 100% energy the sun could produce, to accelerate the Earth to 99.999% c.
If the whole premise is ridiculous/impossible, and not just because of technological limitations, tell me that too!
Cheers!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zuo7n/how_much_energy_would_it_take_to_accelerate_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c67v4y5",
"c67y8yv"
],
"score": [
17,
4
],
"text": [
"Relativistic kinetic energy is gamma-1 times mc^2 where gamma is the Lorentz factor, which is 223 in this case. 222 times mass of earth (6x10^24 kg) times c^2 is 1.2 x 10^44 Joules, or the total output of the sun over 8 billion years.",
"Relative to what? It already is that speed relative to some things. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2g27zi
|
How come some medication comes in gel capsules while others are large, solid pills?
|
Is there a reason for this? I had a conversation today and this came up. Why are some over the counter medications/vitamins so large while others are small? Is there a reason only some are gel capsules instead of all?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2g27zi/how_come_some_medication_comes_in_gel_capsules/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckfbppx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The most common reason is diffusion kinetics of the drug of interest. Liquids are processed by the body more quickly and the effect of the drug would then be noticed more quickly. If you want a fast acting drug, something like Nyquil, for example, then it's better to have it in gel form. For drugs that operate over a longer time period, it's better to have it as a solid tablet because it will take long to dissolve in the digestive system and will be absorbed gradually by the body. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a4u4mw
|
Why there are no blue people, green people, etc., when there are blue birds, green birds, etc.?
|
Mammals and even monkeys have a range of different colors and patterns. But the great apes are "monochrome". Why is that?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a4u4mw/why_there_are_no_blue_people_green_people_etc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebhsy3c",
"ebo4f81"
],
"score": [
139,
3
],
"text": [
" > Mammals and even monkeys have a range of different colors and patterns. \n\nYou say that, but in truth, mammals only produce two types of pigment; eumelanin (black-brown pigment) and pheomelanin (reddish-yellow) - which is why, with little exception, almost all mammals have a sort of 'earthy' colouration. There are no green mammals__*__, no purple mammals, and almost no blue mammals - the latter only appearing [blue in parts](_URL_8_), not due to any pigment, but by a physical phenomenon known such as the [Tyndall effect](_URL_3_) or coherent scattering, where light is scattered in the skin by very fine collagen fibers n' cellular structure. \n\nAs it happens, all tetrapod animals (everything with four limbs) rely only on these two coloured brown-ish n' yellow-red-ish pigments, and the symphony of colouration you see in, say, amphibians and birds is likewise due to taking advantage of some physical light scattering phenomenon. Green frogs, for example, combine the Tyndall effect, to produce blue, with yellow pigmentation (from pheomelanin) in their skin, to look green. Many birds, alternatively, use [microstructures](_URL_7_) within their feathers to scatter light in particular ways to produce green or blue colour and [iridescence](_URL_6_).\n\nSo why don't mammals take advantage of these scattering phenomenon more often to become as colourful and resplendant as their [bird](_URL_4_) n' [cold-blooded](_URL_5_) contemporaries?\n\nWell, turns out mammals were nocturnal for an incredibly long period of their evolutionary history - going right back beyond the dawn of the dinosaurs. For this reason, mammals lost two of the four genes that encode for colour vision in tetrapods, leaving them with very poor colour vision - which most mammal groups still retain to this day. Unable to see colour as, say, we do, there's little selective pressure on most mammal groups to therefore don the rainbow and strut about in style. Instead of colour, mammals therefore rely on shading and patterning as a means to both camouflage (tiger stripes, leopard spots) or display (skunk stripes).\n\nColour vision has however reemerged in a few mammalian groups - which leads us back to primates. If you're primarily feeding on fruit and leaves, it's important to be able to distinguish when a particular foodstuff is ripe and ready to eat and no longer bitter and poisonous, and the best way to do that is often via colour. Hence why monkeys and other primates see and utilise colour.\n\nAs for why we and the other great apes don't have [fabulously blue butts à la the mandrill](_URL_9_), well, rather unsatisfyingly, there simply was never any selective pressure for us to start considering that sort of thing as attractive. Like most mammals, including most primates, we stuck to the usual brown-yellow-red-ish eumelanin-derived hues.\n\nPerhaps though, if we started preferentially banging people who look maybe slightly a bit blue, we might just manage to populate the Earth with blue men in a million years or so. It *is* possible! Da bu dee da bu da... \n\n___\n\n^(**Sources & Further Reading:**)\n\n[^(Jacobs, G.H. (2009)^) ^(Evolution of Colour Vision in Mammals. *Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci*. 364 (**1531**)^), ^2957-2967](_URL_1_)\n\n[^(Prum, R.O & Torres, R.H. (2004)^) ^(Structural colouration of mammalian skin: convergent evolution of coherently scattering dermal collagen arrays. *J Exp Biol*. 207 (**12**)^), ^2157-2172](_URL_10_)\n\n[^(\"Evolution of Color Vision in Primates. *Wikipedia* article)](_URL_0_)\n\n____\n\n^__*__ ^(With possible exception to a couple of sloth species, which may *appear* to have a green-ish tinge owing to the blue-green *cyanophyta* algae that sometimes clings to their fur. See )[^here](_URL_2_) ^(for more sloth fuzz facts!)",
"Interesting you mentioned that as I recently learned why those colors exist in bird feathers. The reason as to why our skin and hair color are the way they are is due to the presence of meledin in our cells. Now the Blues, purples, and most greens you see in bird feathers are actually not caused by any sort of pigmentations at all but instead by the structure of the feathers themselves this is also why birds seem to look like they are a different coloration when at certain angles as this coloration requires light to be reflected back at our eyes which could prove to be difficult at different angles. As for the warmer colors (reds,oranges, yellows, pinks, some greens, and UV colorations), these are brought on by a different type of pigment compound called carotenoids which unlike meledin, is completely enriched by the types of food the eat. The big reason as why humans can’t have these is that meledin functions as the way to naturally protect against UV radiation from the sun as a way to compensate for our lack of skin covering."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_color_vision_in_primates",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781854/pdf/rstb20090039.pdf",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a4u4mw/why_there_are_no_blue_people_green_people_etc/ebhxy84/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndall_effect",
"http://en.bcdn.biz/images/emails_source/3a890069-edfb-4ceb-ab29-9a1b6fb206cf.jpg",
"https://stmed.net/sites/default/files/poison-dart-frog-wallpapers-25582-9775318.jpg",
"https://blazepress.com/.image/t_share/MTQyNDg1MjQxMDA3NzExMzM1/hummingbird-colourful-feathers-1jpg.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration",
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BcPtzsaKq9M/maxresdefault.jpg",
"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/67/ea/4d67ead2d50e944aa4f0261622027335.jpg",
"http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15143148"
],
[]
] |
|
63h02n
|
why would you choose a trebuchet over a catapult?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63h02n/eli5_why_would_you_choose_a_trebuchet_over_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfu0mip",
"dfu0qcv",
"dfu0sht",
"dfu1pky",
"dfu96ps",
"dfubc7h"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
13,
48,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A trebuchet is a better kind of catapult, it can throw the object farther. Why would you choose a less optimal catapult?",
"A trebuchet is capable of hurling heavier weights a longer distance as it doesn't rely upon the elasticity of materials but rather weight and gravity. However they are often considered to be larger and to be harder to move and quickly reload.",
"Speaking from personal experience, back when I was in high school, we had to design and build a catapult for physics class. My classmate and I built a trebuchet(which is still technically a catapult). We went for the trebuchet mostly because it was easy to build(just a pole on a pivot with a weight on the end) vs a catapult(which would have required finding a material that would be strong enough and finding a way to mount it). So yeah, I chose a trebuchet because it was easier to build than a catapult.",
"By \"catapult\", I assume you mean a device where a wooden length is bent back to gather force to hurl a stone. \n\nThe upper limit of the force you can gather for this device (which thus sets your upper bounds for range and weight of projectile) is a function of the tensile strength of your \"bending arm\". With a fixed maximum force, that means you have a set maximum range. \n\nYou're also stressing your \"bending arm\" in the ordinary process of use, which means each use carries the risk of partial to catastrophic failure with the arm breaking at some point. \n\nThe trebuchet gathers force through gravity and a lever-arm. The weigh-bearing basket is the limiting factor on how much gravitational energy can be stored, with the lever-arm determining the final energy released. Thus, it's possible to generate a **lot** more energy, for greater range, heavier projectiles, or both. \n\nThe trebuchet has its own risk of failure, but it's most likely to fail after the shot is released. It also has a longer \"reload\" time, as it's necessary to unload the basket, reset the arm, and then reload the basket. ",
"ELI5: why do people care so much about this question?",
"But is it in relation to Civ?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1sr79h
|
why is it we can we send a robot outside of our solar system, and exploring the surface of an entirely different planet, but the deepest oceans are unknown to us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sr79h/eli5_why_is_it_we_can_we_send_a_robot_outside_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0dx7i",
"ce0dz7a",
"ce0e6y6",
"ce0edfz"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Space is empty. You're dealing with vaccum. \n\nThe ocean is full of water. Water crushes shit. ",
"The problem with the ocean depths is pressure - for the same reason we can't explore completely the depths of Jupiter, our technology at this point isn't able to withstand the substantial pressure of the ocean depths",
"No one has ever sent a probe to a planet outside of our Solar System. They've only been looked at through telescopes. \n\nProbes have been sent to planets in our solar system.\n\nThings don't have to be that strong to withstand 1 less atmospheric pressure. They do have to be strong to withstand the absolute crushing pressure of the bottom of the ocean.",
"The pressure difference between the vacuum of space the surface of the earth is about 1000 millibars, also known as 1 standard atmophere. The pressure difference between the surface of the Earth and the deepest part of the ocean is about a thousand times greater than that.\n\nIt's literally a thousand times easier to build something that'll survive being in space that it is to build something that'll survive being on the bottom of the ocean."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1i30hs
|
Microhistory - what is it?
|
Hey everyone,
I had a question about "microhistory." I keep hearing this word everywhere, and I'm not sure I fully understand what it means. In particular, I've heard the term said a lot of Alain Corbin (who I really like). Well, what makes him a micro-historian? Is it just because he writes about not-well-known individuals and locales, rather than writing national history?
Also, what would you call a study that only looks at a short period of time? Let's say a monograph that only focuses on a three-month period (a revolution, for example). Is that also a micro-history?
I hope this is clear... It's hard to get good information about the history of historical methods, so I was hoping you could lead me in the right direction!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i30hs/microhistory_what_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb0hi4s",
"cb0ijlq",
"cb0jl6a",
"cb0l3mc"
],
"score": [
21,
30,
8,
7
],
"text": [
"I'd say it is difficult to provide an exact definition. Books such as Corbin's The Village of Cannibals, Carlo Ginzburg's The Cheese and the Worm, Natalie Zemon Davis's The Return of Martin Guerre are all usually considered Microhistory and they all have slightly different ways of going about it. For example Ginzburg primarily studies one largely unknown person, Menocchio, and the Inquisition records created around him. Corbin and Davis's books study small, local events in French towns. \n\nThe basic idea is that microhistory covers one small thing, an event, a person, etc and examines that thing as closely as the available records will allow. \n\nI'd say Microhistory, like social history but in different ways, has been good at examining the lives of people who previously were left out of the writing of history.",
"I doubt you'll find a perfect definition of microhistory. I introduce the topic to students by telling them that a microhistory generally makes no overt attempt to link the story told to a larger narrative. Certainly the author implies at least a bit of this, but s/he is most often cognizant of the fact that they are telling a very small story. \n\nFor example, if I were to write the history of a small meat packing company in Chicago, say 1900-1910, that would probably be a microhistory. (Depends on how in-depth I go with the various possible aspects of the story, but in general, these sorts of small company \"bios\" are micro in nature.) If however, I used the story of that small company to try to tell the story of the meatpacking industry in Chicago, I would likely have veered away from the micro- genre. \n\nIn terms of a microhistory's usefulness, consider Laurel Ulrich's book *A Midwife's Tale.* This book, based heavily (nearly exclusively) on the diary of early-republic midwife Martha Ballard, is a masterpiece of using microhistory to tell a larger story. Ballard's diary tells of the quotidian stuff that makes up her day -- went here, worked there, waited for so-and-so, the weather was X, etc. Very micro, no? What Ulrich does is tease out those mundane details and use them to paint a larger picture of life for women in the period. She tells a story of medicine, of public health, of social relations, of gender roles, work relationships, economic considerations, etc., etc., all by properly situating one very microhistory in the larger context. \n\nGood information on historical methods can be found by reading books on historiography. There are many, but among the most useful is Iggers' *Historiography in the 20th Century.* If you peruse the JAH of the AHR, you'll often come across think pieces that discuss method and methodology. It's a heavily-pondered subject.",
"Other posters have summarised very well what sort of things quality as microhistory, so I'm just going to add to what they've said. Microhistory is one of those things that you more or less know when you see it. It's defined often in contrast to 'normal' history, where the aim is often to draw larger themes from the evidence, and when assessing a person, event, or locale, to focus on the evidence that is deemed to be particularly relevant.^1\n\nMicrohistory is less about the subject per se, then how the subject is treated. The approach is to really get into the nitty-gritty of the subject, and to not only take from the area what is relevant to the point. The realities of how long a book can be (and how long readers would tolerate reading it!) mandates that the subject be small, local, or limited in time, but this is less what *makes* something microhistory than something that must follow from what microhistories are about. \n\nContrast this approach with that of the [Annales school](_URL_0_). On that page there's a quote from Georges Duby on how the Annales school:\n\n > \"relegated the sensational to the sidelines and was reluctant to give a simple accounting of events, but strived on the contrary to pose and solve problems and, neglecting surface disturbances, to observe the long and medium-term evolution of economy, society and civilisation.\"\n\nThis of course would require a very *long* period of time to be studied typically, in order to provide the *histoire totale* desired. Microhistory at its worst can be 'sensational', but the time in which it came about shows what it was for: an attempt to provide a different perspective from big histories like that of the Annales schools, or the Marxists, who tended to undermine the small or see it as the servant of larger structural factors, be they geography, biology, economics, etc.\n\n^1 Of course, no good history simple ignores evidence because it's inconvenient, but inevitably some things have to be not included, and deciding what does and doesn't is a big part of being a good historian.",
"Like the others have said, I'm not sure you'll get historians to agree on a set definition of \"microhistory,\" but for me a microhistory is a specific and in-depth case study that can (ideally) illuminate historical concepts at the macro level. Some historians have built their careers writing and theorizing microhistory.\n\nThat microhistorical approach, though, can take many forms. Perhaps you decide to work mostly from a single source, such as [a diary](_URL_2_) to tell the life of a single individual. Maybe you employ sources from a larger archive, like records from the Inquisition, but you only focus on [one specific case](_URL_0_). Maybe you're looking at only one person but employing a large number of their works, such as [paintings](_URL_3_), to demonstrate a larger point about history. Maybe you intentionally know [absolutely nothing](_URL_1_) about your subject, but you attempt to reconstruct what his or her world might have been like.\n\nAll of these are microhistorical approaches, but despite their differences they tell us something about the larger historical picture. I think that's the key difference between a microhistory and a local history or a biography: the suggested connection between the micro and the macro."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annales_School"
],
[
"http://books.google.fr/books?id=4IUREWq_o3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+cheese+and+the+worms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UPHeUYTxLoeo0AXV4IDQAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20cheese%20and%20the%20worms&f=false",
"http://books.google.fr/books?id=mQu_vjnVgpEC&dq=life+of+an+unknown&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IvLeUYTnNKOJ0AXe54GgBg&redir_esc=y",
"http://books.google.fr/books?id=kUPBWo-n4loC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+merchant%27s+tale+ransel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9vDeUfqXCO6V0QXD04GQDQ&redir_esc=y",
"http://books.google.fr/books?id=kVQaN9b7Jz4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+collier+code+wahrman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tPHeUb66F8qi0QWCwYGQBg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"
]
] |
|
bfotoz
|
why are people now so much taller than they were hundreds of years ago?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bfotoz/eli5_why_are_people_now_so_much_taller_than_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elf6bol",
"elf6d8b",
"elf6hhq",
"elf6tg5",
"elf6udb",
"elf8ai6",
"elf8npe",
"elf8qan",
"elfbwj0",
"elff05b",
"elffn2a",
"elfg39k",
"elfhm02",
"elfmg5z",
"elfougd",
"elfrz4z",
"elfuask",
"elfwek6",
"elfx7r4",
"elg1f3n",
"elg3b2r",
"elg3xxw",
"elg7hgp"
],
"score": [
6613,
797,
117,
89,
7,
157,
3,
77,
37,
4,
13,
11,
10,
3,
17,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking, it's access to better nutrition and healthcare. \n\n\nThe human body needs to have a good supply of nutrients at certain key points in life (ex. puberty) to grow properly. Children in poverty-stricken areas without the same access exhibit stunted growth. As we can assume, people hundreds of years ago didn't have the same food choices we have today in the same way as the poor kids.",
"The main factor is nutrition lets us grow to our full potential, in the past people rarely got enough to eat, today it's the opposite, people eat too much. Hygiene and health is another, the body can focus on growing instead of fighting off disease.\n\nFinally hormones and pseudo hormones in our environment and food might help boost growth.",
"Better nutrition. Better understanding of pregnancy and providing enough for unborn babies. Also I believe that babies can develop differently based on if the mother is in duress during pregnancy, and there’s less to stress about today. For example, worrying about not having enough food isn’t a thought for a lot of Americans, or dying of cold weather. \n\nAll around better conditions that simply don’t inhibit the growth of children.",
"Human height has stayed roughly the same for most of our history, and the increase is relatively recent. It's mostly due to better nutrition and better standards of living.\n\nEven today we can see that poorer people without access to healthy food are on average shorter than their more well-off peers. \n\nThere is a genetic limit on how tall we can grow, so we won't keep growing forever. In fact we have probably already hit this ceiling today.\n\nIn short, there's a range of height that the average human can reach and thanks to good food, today we have very nearly maximized that range.",
"Mostly diet. People have access to much better quality and calorie dense foods then they used to.",
"The key word is famine. \nIf you experience malnutrition as a child you will be shorter than you would otherwise be. From a biological standpoint it's a sane choice. You'll use less energy during the period of starvation, and you'll also develop less bodymass in an environment where starvation is a strong possibility. \n\n\nAs such human average height has always varied depending on climate and how well the population was able to feed itself. During the height of the middle-ages and the medieval warm period people were not much shorter than we are today. A few centimenters, but that's expected in a society where food is such a central issue that 90% of the population has to be involved in food production. No refrigeration or advanced techniques for preserving foodstuffs also meant that during the winters the food was frequently of lower quality than it is today. \nThe shortest people have been in known history was during the \"Little ice age\" a period during the 17th and 18th century where the summers were short, the winters were harsh and Europe was frequently ravaged by war and famine. It's in this period that humans are 10-15cm shorter than the modern man, giving rise to the myth of \"how much taller we are than our ancestors\", when in reality for most of history the different is just 3-5cm compared to the modern average.",
"You can still see this today, if you look at a picture of a North Korean and a South Koran person they are related in many cases. The person from South Korea is much taller because of the better quality of nutrition and health care.",
"Better nutrition. My family were peasants in the Ukraine. My great grandfather was 5'2 (his name was Benyumin der Kleiner, or Benjamin the Short). My grandfather was 5'6, my father was 5'10. I'm first generation American and I'm 6'2. That's 4 inches a generation.\n\nIf course, there is still family variability. My uncle was 5'8 and his sons are all over 6 feet, but yeah... better nutrition.",
"One aspect of it (in addition to nutrition) is selective breeding.\n\nWomen tend to prefer taller men over very short men. So the genetics continue on.",
"People used to be much larger in the hunter gatherer days. After they started farming size decreased due to fewer nutrients on diets. Now we are returning to our former larger selves as access to nutrients have increased.",
"It depends on where you’re from. If you’re European or Scandinavian you generally would have a lot more protein as they relied on usually seal flesh or fish. If you were south Asian or East Asian you would have generally had a diet of rice.\nCarbohydrates give energy but not much else for growth etc. Now we have a large range of nutrients in our food so we can grow a lot bigger and taller",
"Because we have better food and healthcare. This makes sure our body can put all the energy needed into growth, because we have all the building blocks (food) and no distracting events (illnesses) that cost extra energy.\n\nSource: am archaeologist specialised in human bone and did my thesis on the growth trends in the Netherlands from medieval times until now.",
"Short answer : food and quality of life.\nLong answer... You'll actually notice that people weren't as short as we imagine during most of history. There was a higher range of heights because of more disparity in nutrient access (regionally and over centuries, trends of famine or times of plenty), but average size wasn't *thaaaaat* much lower in the middle ages and Renaissance than it is today - *however*, the Industrial Revolution era saw a noticeable shortening of a large portion of the population, which lost access to a lot of food (they stopped being peasants, basically, which is actually worse), worked in worse conditions... Generally much lower quality of life and health, resulting in short height.\n\nThis paper is not the one I was thinking of, but it illustrates what I'm talking about : _URL_0_",
"The easiest current example for this is comparing North and South Korea. Both are internally homogeneous populations which were separated by an arbitrary line. The only notable difference between them is that one of them is now wealthy and lives on a nutrient rich diet, while the other population lives like they're in the 1800s on a sustenance diet.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAs a result, North Koreans are estimated to be 3-8 inches shorter than South Koreans on average. [source](_URL_0_)\n\nSo yes, nutrition plays a big role.",
"ELI5: Nutrition is part of the reason people grow taller now, but pooping in the toilet is another part. When people don't bury their poop, children get sick from bacteria and parasites which makes them grow less tall.\n\n\n\nELIPHD: Nutrition is the largest factor in height difference over the last hundred years, but open defecation is another very important factor which I haven't seen mentioned here. The human immune system adapts in childhood depending on environment. In areas where open defecation is common (e.g. rural India) children's immune systems take so much energy fighting off infection that it stunts their grow significantly. The difference in open defecation practices and population density explain the height difference between parts of rural rural India and rural Africa where nutrition is similarly poor.1\n\nInterestingly, the practice of open defecation was only stopped in the southern United States fairly recently due to a Rockefeller study on the difference between the southern and northern state's productivity.2 It was found that the cause of the productivity difference was anemia due to hookworm infections which are spread by open defecation. Hookworm is a significant cause of stunted growth in humans, and again has to do with the immune system, but is complicated by the active relationship between the hookworm parasite and the human immune system. Hookworm can travel up to six feet from feces, and hookworm infections stopped when people started burying their feces six feet deep.\n\nOn a further tangent, the relationship between the hookworm parasite and the human immune system is a complex one that goes way back in human evolution. It turns out to be the case that hookworms actively regulate the human immune system. Stopping the practice of open defecation in the developed world has lead to the rise of allergies, asthma and immune disorders at much higher rates than in places where the practice of open defecation is still common. In some extreme cases of immune disorders some studies starting to infect patients with hookworm as a treatment.3\n\n1. _URL_0_\n2. _URL_2_\n3. _URL_1_",
"Short answer: \n\nbetter nutrition, better understanding of nutrition and better access to food\n\nLong answer: \n\nthe main factors are better nutrition, better understanding of nutrition and better access to food. Some other factors such as epigentices (i.e. The expression rate of certain genes), changes in genes in the population etc, but the main factors are better answers.\n\nSo let's start with the better nutrition point. What do we mean by better nutrition and why? Well one of the primary factors that determines height in adult life is wether you have a good diet in your childhood. By good diet and good nutrition I mean adequate amounts of protein, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals; I will refer to these as nutrients. Let's first define what these nutrients are: carbohydrates include starch, sugar, lactose these are your body's main fuel source and indirectly the major factor which tells our body to grow or not. Protein is well protein it's meat and plant protein like soy it's the major building block of our body and used to facilitate nearly all chemical reactions in our body. Fats are self explanatory what they but these are important for many different structural, biochemical functions in our body but mainly a good energy source. \n\nTo aid with our understanding of this further we must understand how growth occurs. The way our body controls growth (ignoring gene expression and age) is if we have an excess (or an appropriate amount) of nutrients our body will signal to grow and repair instead of breaking down our body down using it for energy which our body will do when our body has inadequate nutrients (specifically inadequate carbohydrates). So to grow our body needs an excess of energy and an excess of protein. \n\nSo why is this relevant well let's get into the point of better access to food. Across the 1900s the cost and scarcity of food in the western world has decreased for many reasons. The most important drop in food cost and scarcity is protein. Prior to the 1940s protein specifically meat was very expensive so people tended to not eat alot of it or if they did it was cheap cuts of meat. Due to many factors such as factory farms the quantity of meat produced increased dramatically which decreased the cost of meat and made meat affordable for even the working class to buy and consume frequently. This is just one possible explanation for why meat became cheaper but the point is it became cheaper and people now ate more of it. As previously mentioned adequate amounts of protein are required to grow so now that children at more protein they were able to grow more. Furthermore this made disease states such as PEM (essentially protein malnutrition) which stunts growth during childhood much less common therefore people grew taller. \nNow days most people in Western countries over consume protein and thus get more than enough protein in their diet (specifically in my country, Australia where at around ~73% of people [no I don't have US stats on the top of my head]) thus making protein nutrition during childhood quite rare, and therefore making disease states which stunt growth less common; this is also why in poorer countries people tend to be shorter. \n\nSo now for the final point a better understanding of nutrition. This is rather slef explanatory but I'll explain anyway. Alot of population and group studies have been done on nutrition and what we are supposed to have in our diet to be healthy as thus for child to grow across the 1950s till today. We have a good understanding of how much nutrients are enough to meet the needs of people's bodies. These studies are how values of nutrients which are deemed appropriate for a specific age and population are created (E.g. RDIs and AIs). So thanks to these studies the public health and medical system can better manage and influence our dietary health (E.g. The food pyramid [yes I am aware of its controversy but this is good example of a memorable public health promotion]). Furthermore we also have a better understanding of what is toxic to our bodies. Some of these toxins stunt growth in children so the fact we know more about them and have way less exposure to them will also have an impact on why we are taller. \n\nTL;DR: So we have cheaper and easier to get food and eat alot of it, we also know what we need to be healthy and thus grow so people grew taller. \n\nThese are just the major factors as mentioned before there are others such as epigentics but they are still being understood today and probably have a minor impact on the height of people today.\n\nSource: I am a Biomedical Science student who's done nutrition and public health units\n\nEDIT: sorry in advance for the essay",
"A) wealthier people have better access to food and nutrients that ensure that people gain the best possible body development\nB) it has become more economically feasible for the majority of the population to acquire nutritious food\nC) tallness is an autosomally dominant trait. (Not acute tallness, but gradual tallness over generations )\nD) human population has grown quite a bit over the past few decades. It's mostly people from decent financial backgrounds who actually make it into adulthood (and receive proper nourishment)\n\nWhen you combine all the four points, you end up with the answer to your question",
"Fun fact: some people were so small because of lack of proper diets while others were very tall even by today's standard. That's where the myths of Giants from Nordic folk tales comes from",
"What about natural selection, or is it artificial if it's done by humans?, anyways, if taller individuals are favoured and mate more, have more offspring and all that wouldn't that have a bigger impact on height than diet that hasn't got any better in the last 20 or 30 years in the developed world and yet people is taller than before?\n\nI mean, you can feed all you want a chihuahua but it isn't getting to Grteat Dane size, just because they have been selected for their size for generations, you can starve the Great Dane and it will still outgrow the well fed chihuahua.",
"I imagine 6’0 got you a right swipe in ancient times too. 2000 years of swiping right in Chad has given us more chads and fewer promethiuses",
"Evolution. Ever seen \"6'0 and over only\" on Tinder?",
"The real reason people are taller, if you have read the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is because there are more people now so he is not able to hold us all down as much so people are getting taller.",
"FSMS'm explains this perfectly. \"God\" a.k.a. The flying spaghetti monster was able to keep it's noodly appendages on all people in the past, which prevented them from growing taller. But as population grew, it wasn't able to maintain constant contact with everyone so people were able to grow taller the less noodly appendages touched them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-04-18-highs-and-lows-englishman’s-average-height-over-2000-years-0#"
],
[
"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41228181"
],
[
"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818300439",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2814083/",
"https://rockfound.rockarch.org/eradicating-hookworm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1qlkzh
|
why is hairloss so hard to cure?
|
Many of my friends are at that age (late 20s) when thinning hairlines are really starting to manifest. It seems odd that with everything we know about biochemistry and genetics, a real treatment still eludes us.
First world problem jokes aside, is it a matter of economics? Or is the basic science just so complicated that it eludes us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qlkzh/why_is_hairloss_so_hard_to_cure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cde327o",
"cde3z25",
"cde4hm2"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"check this out. treating hair loss and tendon damage with stem cells\n_URL_0_",
"I'm really struggling with losing my hair. I'm 31 and getting really thin on top and around my crown. It's getting to the point where I am going to need to shave it to avoid looking a little silly. \n\nSome blokes start to lose there hair and think, meh never mind, for others it can be very damaging psychologically. I dare say I am the latter. Its hard to explain, but anyone else who feels anxious about it like me will know, some days it genuinely makes me very depressed indeed. Its that feeling of losing your youth, looks and potential pulling power.... \n\nI went to my doctor here in the UK for help, he is an older man and thin, not bald on top. His response was less than helpful, he basically said 'that's life, get over it' \n\nI'm not built to be bald, I am tall, skinny and pale. With a bald head I'll look ridiculous. If I looked like Jason Statham/Vin Diesel I wouldn't care so much.\n\nI keep wishing they will find a cure, but even if they do, it doesn't sound like it would be for regrowth, just prevention. \n\n\nEDIT: I'm new to Reddit and I just realised I posted without answering the question which I think is a taboo.. Sorry\n",
"Because baldness is not a disease but a DNA programmed pattern. Almost a normal behavior.\n\nMuch much harder to correct."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.replicel.com"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
48yv5h
|
how did mp4 technology improve?
|
I remember when mp4s started becoming commonplace rather than real media files and whatnot lets say 5 years or so ago (at least in China).
I remember for the longest time that the dialogue was incredibly quiet and one had to turn up the volume almost to max. Then suddenly an action sequence would come up and end up waking the neighbours.
Why such a huge difference in the audio and when/how did audio encoding go to the normal I am use to now?
Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48yv5h/eli5_how_did_mp4_technology_improve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0npdbm",
"d0npixt",
"d0nzkfu"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > I remember for the longest time that the dialogue was incredibly quiet and one had to turn up the volume almost to max. Then suddenly an action sequence would come up and end up waking the neighbours.\n\nThis is more of a function of how the thing was made, audio-wise. People expect to be hit over the head with sound on action sequences for some reason. I guess too, it shows off the THX, positional sound, whatever too - they feel they have to hit people over the head with it.\n\nBut overall, this has nothing whatsoever to do with MP4.",
"I don't think this is related to mp4. What you're describing I can do by dynamic range compression, which is unrelated to any media format or codec and has been done since the 1990s.",
"MP4 is actually a container format. _URL_0_\n\nELI5: MP4 is a coffee can. It can have good coffee or bad coffee stored inside of it.\n\nAs time has gone on, the quality of the formats put inside the container have gotten better."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14"
]
] |
|
eou8s3
|
The convoy system worked great against U-boats in WWI. Why did it have to be "relearned" in WWII?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eou8s3/the_convoy_system_worked_great_against_uboats_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"feflkp7"
],
"score": [
125
],
"text": [
"The question describes the traditional picture of British anti-submarine efforts in the interwar period. It is ultimately derived from Stephen Roskill's *Naval Policy Between the Wars*, and to a lesser extent from Arthur Marder's monograph *The Influence of History on Sea Power*. These two authors were hugely influential on the historiography of the Royal Navy - Roskill wrote the Royal Navy's official history of the Second World War, while Marder wrote one of the most detailed works on its actions in the First. Roskill alleges that the RN believed that the development of ASDIC (sonar, in American parlance) made the submarine useless. He claims that 'not one\nexercise in the protection of a slow mercantile convoy against submarine or\nair attack took place between 1919 and 1939’, with the RN choosing instead to focus all its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) efforts on hunting submarines. Marder, meanwhile, argues that the interwar RN failed to adequately study the lessons of WWI. In Marder's picture of the topic, the Navy chose to focus its efforts more on the more spectacular areas, especially its failure to defeat the German fleet at Jutland, over ASW. He describes a navy that, in its 1934 Staff College course, spent three days on Jutland, and just one hour on anti-submarine precautions. Most later authors have repeated the assertions of these two authors, furthering the picture of the RN as rejecting the convoy system and other lessons of WWI. However, more recent scholarship has reassessed this picture. In particular, George Franklin's work has painted a completely new picture of the RN's thinking on ASW in the interwar period. This answer will reflect the newer scholarship. \n\nIn the 1920s, the main strategic threat to Britain was not Germany, which had been neutralised by the Versailles Treaty and had a nominally friendly government. Instead, the key threat was from Japan. While Britain and Japan had been allies, differences in foreign policy, especially over the 1923 Washington Treaty, forced a wedge between them. As a result, the Admiralty's planning for a war in the 1920s focused primarily on Japan. While British trade routes would be hugely vulnerable in the event of such a war, the Admiralty appears to have correctly assessed Japanese doctrine. The Imperial Japanese Navy put little emphasis on the submarine for hunting merchants, choosing instead to focus on raiding cruisers. The IJN's submarine force would, instead, hunt for the enemy's battlefleet. As a result, British planning for commerce defence in the 1920s focused mainly on the surface threat, moving away from convoy to some extent. From 1932-3, though, it became clear that Germany might not be as quiescent as was earlier thought. It soon became clear that Germany intended to build up a submarine force, a fact made abundantly clear by the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement. A major review of ASW efforts was carried out by the RN in 1932, with Germany seen as the main threat, despite them not having any submarines available at the time. In 1936, the tri-service Joint Planning Committee estimated that, by 1939, the German Navy would have between 56-66 submarines in operation (the real number, for September 1939, was 56). To this end, the RN began to refocus its efforts on protecting commerce against submarine attack. Convoy was generally understood to be part of this protection, especially if Germany resumed its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.\n\nThe RN's main anti-submarine establishment was the Anti-Submarine School at HMS *Osprey*, Portland. *Osprey* had several main roles; as well as training officers, ASDIC operators and ships' crews, it was also intended to develop new tactics and equipment for hunting submarines. *Osprey* trained specialist ASW officers for the staffs of fleets and destroyer flotillas. It also hosted a 15-day course for officers on ships without one of these specialist officers. Every ASDIC operator in the fleet was trained there, and all destroyers and escorts spent time at *Osprey* when they were working up, to gain experience in ASW. At the School, training would include time spent in shore-based simulators, and exercises at sea. Many of these exercises would involve the ship protecting merchant ships, as they would in a convoy situation. While single ships were often used, these were generally understood to represent a full convoy, as providing such would be too expensive. Between 1927 and 1938, records describe nine large-scale convoy exercises, involving between four and 18 destroyers as escorts, and up to at least ten submarines in the attacking force. Five of these, in contradiction of Roskill's statement, were slow, with speeds of below 9 knots. These large-scale exercises appear to have been accompanied by additional, smaller-scale exercises, of which details have not survived. This meant that there was a general understanding of good convoy tactics. However, this was accompanied by a belief that convoy had to be accompanied by hunting as a way to kill submarines. While this would prove to be somewhat true, the convoys had to be adequately protected first. Due to a lack of submarines, there were few opportunities to test 'wolf-pack' tactics, with multiple submarines attacking. Similarly, policies restricted the ability of submarines to act on the surface at night. While there was some understanding of the threat these tactics posed, the true effectiveness was unclear, meaning that the protection initially given to convoys would prove insufficient.\n\nThe first RN guide to convoy tactics and formation in the interwar period held the ungainly title of *Mercantile\nConvoys: General Instructions for Port Convoy Officers, Ocean and Destroyer Escorts\nand Commodores of Convoy*. Issued in 1919, it was intended to condense down every lesson learned during WWI. In 1934, it would be updated and streamlined into the *Mercantile Convoy Instructions*. The year after this was published, Paymaster Rear-Admiral G.H.W.Eldon Manisty was appointed to the Naval Staff. His role was to set up a Naval Control of Shipping organisation (NCS). The NCS would provide officers to guide and form convoys in the event of wartime. Manisty toured the world, appointing reservists for this organisation in likely assembly points. Two years later, Admiral W. James formed the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee, with Manisty as his vice-chairman. This brought together naval officers, ship owners, Ministerial representatives and other technical experts to hash out methods of commerce defence. Convoy was emphasised here, with James stating that 'the convoy system is considered by the Admiralty to be the most effective form of protection against surface, submarine or air attack'. This was not an isolated opinion. Captain T.S.V. Phillips, the RN's Director of Plans, would write in a 1938 memo that \n\n > … it is open to doubt whether the delays due to convoy will be any greater\nthan those caused by evasive routeing and shipping being afraid to sail on\naccount of real or imagined dangers. … Moreover, if, as seems probable,\nlosses in convoy are considerably less than losses in independent sailings,\nthen the number of ships available to carry cargoes will remain greater under\na convoy system.\n\nPhillips' memo sought to shorten the wait between the start of any conflict and the implementation of the convoy system, through methods like the NCS and increased mobilisation of the Reserve Fleet. His arguments, and those produced by the reports of the SDAC, were taken up by the highest levels of the Admiralty. The result was a new 1939 edition of the *Manual of Anti-Submarine Warfare*, which emphasised the utility of convoy in protecting merchant shipping. However, British planning was also flawed. Subs travelling from German bases would have to make a long journey around Scotland to reach the Atlantic convoy routes; they would likely not have the endurance to range deep into the Atlantic after such a journey. Given this, it was assumed that the submarine threat would be greatest in waters relatively near to the UK, especially in the heavily trafficked waters of the East Coast and Western Approaches. As such, British building programs focused on coastal escorts, like the 'Hunt' class destroyer escorts, *Kingfisher* class sloops and 'Flower' class corvettes. These ships would prove to be insufficient after the fall of Norway and France gave Germany bases closer to the mid-Atlantic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9vnnwk
|
what is it that makes some glues able to stick with plastik where others won't?
|
At work we have different types of glue for different tasks.
We mostly use a mixture of wallpaper adhesive and some kind of dispersion (I don't know the right word in english, but in german it's '*Kunstharzdispersion*') which works great with any form of paper, however we have one glue especially for plastic and foil and it says it's **also** this kind of dispersion. I tried finding an explanation for why it works with plastic then, but got nothing. I need your help, because my vocational school teacher asked me if I could present it in class and I really want to but am not able to find the reason why it does what it does.
I really hope this is the right places to ask such things.
If needed the name of the adhesive in question is "1977 S" from Eukalin.
Our mixture is mostly "Elasta N" also from Eukalin.
But I would be glad for any simple and general explanation!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vnnwk/eli5_what_is_it_that_makes_some_glues_able_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9fxcw8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As far as I know, the glue sort of melds the plastic, so that the two peaces that have been glued together form a very strong bond! \n\nSource: Been doing a lot of model building with plastic glue! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4u29vu
|
why is it easier for non-native english speakers to sing, than to speak, with good pronunciation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u29vu/eli5_why_is_it_easier_for_nonnative_english/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5mavrf",
"d5mgwvs",
"d5mh0a8",
"d5mhvwn"
],
"score": [
47,
3,
28,
2
],
"text": [
"That's because we repeat the sounds we hear, instead of processing the sound from scratch. \n\nImagine speaking like drawing a horse, isn't it easier to copy one from your drawing book than drawing one from a blank piece of paper?\n\n",
"When you sing, you are forced to conform to the proper rhyme and the proper accent patterns because they are part of the song's DNA. Additionally it is easier for your brain to remember the sounds that you hear when it can relate them to another experience like pitch.",
"Hi! I'm by no means an expert, but I did a lot of choir and a capella in high school, and this is what I've gathered.\n\nWhen we sing, we use 5 main vowel sounds: ee, eh, ah oh, and oo. There are various reasons we use these, the biggest reason being that they simply sound the prettiest. However, in regular speaking English, we actually use much more (14-20 depending on dialect). These various vowel sounds are largely where you hear an accent (depending on their native language or region). By simplifying our vowels to 5, it makes it much easier to sing/understand. Infact, a common chior drill is to actually speak the words the way you intend to sing them, which is surprisingly different.\n\nGetting back to the question, these 5 vowels are largely used across many different languages. This means it is much easier to teach someone how to sing a sound they are already familiar with.\n\nYou'll start to notice pronunciation issues from a singer when their native language doesn't have a specific vowel or consonants needed. For example, the Chinese language doesn't have an 'L' sound, so a Chinese speaker who has not been trained to make the 'L' sound will mispronounced it, regardless of whether they are speaking or singing.\n\nThis phenomenon can also be observed when listening to a singer who speaks with a heavy accent, but sings without one. Some artists might try to preserve their accents through their singing, and a trained ear can pick one out, but your average Joe wouldn't notice. For example, One Direction is a British band, but sounds like any other boy band from America, Australia, or any other region. ",
"I have also found that typically it is music that the singer loves to listen to. So they know the words VERY well. Think about (at least for me, from Texas) when you are singing songs that are in Spanish (or another language you are not fluent in). You probably pronounce the words in the song very well, compared to how you would sound normally.\n\nI have a cousin who lives in the Netherlands, and she has a very thick Dutch accent when speaking English, but they (the Dutch) love American pop music, so when she sings I hear no accent and I get to hear her voice like I would hear her speaking English fluently. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6d92p1
|
How historically accurate is Ken Burns' Civil War?
|
I just started watching it with my dad not too long ago, and it got me thinking: just how historically accurate is it? I enjoy it very much, but I still want to know, nonetheless.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6d92p1/how_historically_accurate_is_ken_burns_civil_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di0tctp"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"u/Georgy_K_Zhukov has written a lengthy [response](_URL_0_) in [other](_URL_1_) similar [threads](_URL_2_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54zv3w/ken_burns_civil_war_series_i_love_it_and_have/d86qc8w/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3x29x6/the_1990_series_the_civil_war_is_one_of_the_most/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54zv3w/ken_burns_civil_war_series_i_love_it_and_have/"
]
] |
|
49gx68
|
why does having general anesthesia feel like you blink and you're in the recovery room when normal sleep feels like time passed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49gx68/eli5_why_does_having_general_anesthesia_feel_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0rqora",
"d0rrqai",
"d0rslj7",
"d0rt3t2",
"d0rt6t6",
"d0rtwf5",
"d0ru6yr",
"d0rueg3",
"d0rvabr",
"d0rvz71",
"d0rwxn1",
"d0rxb6b",
"d0rxk64",
"d0ry1m5",
"d0ry44i",
"d0ry4f5",
"d0rz19z",
"d0rzhnv",
"d0rzu8e",
"d0s06mp",
"d0s14j2",
"d0s16uv",
"d0s4gqo",
"d0s5b58",
"d0s93f9",
"d0s9zdx",
"d0sb8sv",
"d0scbv8",
"d0se104",
"d0sfbku",
"d0sg5t7",
"d0shm4n",
"d0sjb46",
"d0sjidv",
"d0sknbe",
"d0sof9t",
"d0sp0wh",
"d0spxd2",
"d0sqa1z",
"d0t10yv"
],
"score": [
1791,
188,
108,
20,
31,
15,
8,
5,
19,
7,
64,
8,
2,
4,
91,
25,
5,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"No one really knows. Seriously we do not understand how it works. An anaesthetised unconscious state is not like sleep at all but more like a coma, though the exact details of what happens remain a mystery so far. Obviously the parts of the brain that are responsible for creating a sense of time having passed when we sleep are also prevented from working or prevented from recording it for a while. ",
"/u/Detective-Mittens- is right, we don't know for sure. If you'd like to hear more about what we do understand and learn about the ways we try to discover more, I highly recommend listening to this podcast: _URL_0_",
"I remember the story of a lady that was put under, but felt the entire surgery. She couldn't move, but felt and heard everything that was going on. She had no way to show she was awake and in agoney as the operation took place. On the bright side for the medical team, they could work without the patient yelling or flailing about. On the dark side, the patient laid there enduring every painful slice, every movement of her internal organs, and each suture without being able to scream out to the team that she was not completely under. \n\nShe felt THAT time pass...",
"I was put under once, and I had dreams and felt like time passed. Is this common?",
"That'd be cool to torture someone by every time they blink another limb is missing until they give you the info you need. ",
"I always found that \"blink\" effect kinda weird though and it always ends up sucking. Every single time I wake up from it I feel like I need to barf and I'm so thirsty I'd drink the water out of the bottom of a dumpster that's been festering in the hot sun. \n\nThough I did make a game out of how far back from 100 I could count with the surgeon before \"click\"...I made it to 93 once... :) \n\nEDIT: Fixed a type-o.",
"how we humans experience time is subjective. i have experienced the general anesthesia \"blink\", but i've also had sleep that goes so fast i feel like i missed it. \n\nhere's a thought experiment to help explain the subjectivity: after months of wishing about it, you find out someone you like also likes you. you go on your first date and over the next week you are on an emotional high (love does that). the same week you are going through this high energy love experience your best friend is going through a break up.\n\ntwo different people, with two opposite experiences, living the same 7 day stretch. for one of you time will fly by. for the other, every minute in heartbreak is a timeless agony. but based on the movement of the sun across the sky, time itself is exactly the same for both of you.\n\nit's no different with sleep..and i would challenge the premise that \"normal sleep\" doesn't sometimes seem like it's over \"in a blink\". i have had plenty of nights where my head hit the pillow and the next thing i know the alarm is going off. i dont remember dreaming, or even moving positions. other times, i will glance at my phone and realize i've got 4 more hours to sleep but i already feel rested (yippee 4 extra hours of sleep!)\n\none other example...daylight savings time. in fall, for those of us who \"fall back\" one hour...that first day when you gain an extra hour can really mess with your perception of time. it doesn't take long to correct this...but that first day you may think it's 2pm, for example, and find it's only noon!",
"the combination of drugs used to prep you for induction cause an amnesia-like effect by creating an altered mental status, which causes you to forget (most) anything that happened up to the point of injection. afterwards, when your body has metabolized the drugs and is in the process of expelling them, you finally come out of your altered status and into normal mental status, which is where you begin to remember things again.\n\nwhereas, sleep is a normal function of the body that doesnt use chemicals or drugs to happen, so you still maintain a normal mental status\n\n(and as a surgical tech, i can tell you that you are 'awake' more than you remember. usually, we give you the cocktail in pre-op, and you stay awake all the way into the OR, and you are awake a few times in post-op before you finally 'come to')",
"When I got my tonsils removed this blew my mind. I remember my eyes feeling heavy after they injected the anaesthetic and just instantly waking up with a sore throat in a different room in a different bed. Really weird experience.",
"This doesn't match my experience with a general. The Anaesthetist attached the drug to my cannula. I got a slight rush from the tiny amount of drug that managed to get in before she injected it. Then when she injected it was like over a few seconds I got the biggest high and then asleep. When I woke I felt tired af and it took ages for me to properly \"wake up\". ",
"Even if this gets buried: Modern anesthesia is often comprised of multiple components with three main goals: Numbing the pain, putting you in a sleep like state and supressing your ability to form memories. Especially the last part is responsible for that experience of \"blinking\" and not realising time has passed.\nUsually we can form memories while sleeping (even though WE tend to forget our dreams), but special chemicals can suppress that.\nInsufficient supression of memory forming is also the Basis of most \"I woke up during surgery\" or \"I say myself, while floating above the operation\" stories. The patients don't actually wake up, but can form memories of sensory input while being under.",
"depends on the person, for instance my father and I both have a bad habit of waking up during operations. For me it feels like I shouldnt be asleep, and I know I am asleep. the beeping of the hospital equipment feels like my alarm clocks so I am always struggling to wake up every time I am under. (happened twice for me, four times for my father)",
"Possibly because during normal sleep, your consciousness keeps switching between deep sleep, REM sleep (dreaming) and shallow sleep where you can be waken up easily. During anaesthesia however you are under a permanent deep sleep (or even deeper as you do not experience any pain), so your sense of time is not existent.",
"normal sleep also seems like a blink to me. it takes a while for me to fall asleep though, but often it deels like going from turning and hoping I'll finally fall asleep right into waking up. I rarely dream(or remember it), I dreamt maybe once in the last year, or maybe it was longer ago. and sometimes when I have more trouble falling asleep I only know I eventually did fall asleep because I wake up, and waking up means I had to be asleep before that, but the only thing I experience is waking up.\n\ncan't really compare it to anesthesia though, since the only time I had that was a long time ago.",
"Umm, hi. Is something wrong with me? Sleep feels like I blink, and I wake up with no passage of time.",
"Something happened to me during my first c-section. They had a hard time with the spinal. I started throwing up, then shivering violently. The anesthesiologist couldn't give me anything to stop the shivering because he said it would affect the baby. He also said I should stay awake, that it was better for the baby. It was rough, but I hung in there till they showed me the baby. Then I asked, \"so she's out? \" just to be clear, and they said yes. I remember thinking \"that's it, I'm outta here. \" And then passing out . \n\nApparently I was awake in the recovery room, and talking normally to the doctors, but I have no memory of it. Weeks later the doctor made reference to a conversation we'd had in the recovery room and I was like, I have no memory of that whatsoever. The first thing I remember is being in my room. I do not know, but I suspect something was wrong with the anesthesia. My husband says I was as pale as the sheets, and that the anesthesiologist looked in on me several times and that he looked worried. ",
"The drugs given for anesthesia are to change your conscious state, but they are also dissociative. They put you out and don't allow your sensory perception to match your cognitive perception. Additionally they totally block short term memory while under their influence. The other thing they do is totally paralyze you. \n\nYou aren't awake, you don't know what's going on, you can't remember anything, and you can't move.",
"Anaesthesia and sleep are totally different - they just look like each other, and as doctors we encourage people to think they're the same as it helps avoid people being pannicked by the idea!\nAlthough we don't really understand sleep (or anaesthesia, come to it!) - it's definitely not just 'brain off' - it's quite active, particularly during the REM (Rapid Eye Movement) stage. Anaesthesia is much closer to an off-switch - which is why it often stops you breathing etc, at least when the anaesthetic levels are high.",
"My first time under anesthesia was strange. I had to get my wisdom teeth pulled. The nurse told me I'd fall asleep in a few minutes, next thing I know I wake up and trying to figure out when the operation is going to start. I was so confused when they told me it was already done. I felt like I could walk but they warned me to stay in the wheel chair. \n\nI wish my work days went by that fast. ",
"I don't think anyone here mentioned the anterograde amnesia that's induced with the medications given at the same time as the anesthetic. That's why you don't remember anything after you are put out.",
"Based on the comments I might be alone here, but I feel like a normal nights sleep is just a blink and then I'm in the shower getting ready for work. ",
"There was this one time I laid down in bed and passed out for like 9 hours.. But really it felt like I just blinked. Weirdest feeling ever, just went through my whole day thinking it can't be real. ",
"Because anesthesia stops interferes with the mechanisms in your brain responsible for storing memories, so you dont feel the time because you have no recollection of time even passing.",
"My guess is that it has something to do with environmental cues. Sleep at home typically has passage of time expectations that are often confirmed by light conditions (e.g. most people sleep when it is dark outside and wake up to daylight). Hospital environments tend to be light neutral and the process of having an operation makes the patient less time conscious (in the sense of having to check their watch or phone). ",
"While under for my knee surgery last year I remember dreaming and when I woke up I thought I had just dozed off. Very strange experience.",
"Because you wake up several times during \"normal\" sleep. When you're a kid, it is the \"blink\" kind of sleep, as you get older this changes, in particular for men. It is speculated it's a psychological trait acquired by evolution long ago, when the men needed to protect the group. (or something like that)",
"I went under general anesthesia for a surgery in the past few years and this was not my experience. After they administered the drip, I had a warm pleasant (mildly euphoric) feeling everywhere, and I started feeling sleepy. They rolled me into the operating room. I remember looking around and wondering if I would remember the operating room when I woke up (obviously I did). I also remember feeling very tired and making a decision to go ahead and fall asleep. When I woke up in the recovery room, my mouth was extremely (painfully) dry but other than that I felt just like I had just had a long, luxurious sleep in a bed made of silk and unicorn fur.\n\nI'm sure that if I had tried to stay awake, I would have conked out anyway, but I don't think it would have felt like blinking and being in the recovery room.\n\nMaybe it just depends on the kind of anesthesia they give you. I think some kinds of anesthesia (not the kind they gave me) mainly inhibit your ability to form memories. Maybe without the ability to form memories, you remember the episode as blinking and suddenly being in the recovery room.",
"I remember when I was a kid and was falling asleep, I couldn't feel the time passed after I woke up - the felt instantaneously just like the anaesthesia. Later in time I started to feel the time I was sleeping.",
"Wait, do most people feel that time has passed after they sleep? I have never felt this way, unless I had a restless night and woke up multiple times in the night",
"My dad's family has history of allergy to anesthesia... so I've had to have an appendectomy with an epidural instead of general anesthetic. Felt a bit weird being awake the whole time and them digging around inside me.",
"I think general anesthesia is the closest we can safely get to death. When I was out for my tonsillectomy, coming back to consciousness was the strangest thing. My brain had forgot to breath on its own. Autonomic bodily functions cease to continue. I remember grasping for air and screaming that I can't breath. Apparently it's not uncommon for patients to come out of anesthesia in fits of rage, anxiety, sadness, terror, etc. ",
"I'm kind of surprised that no one has put forth the obvious answer that being anesthetized is not a normal part of the sleep cycle.\n\nThe normal sleep cycle has 4 sections that culminate to your body squirting a chemical called DMT into your brain and you experience vivid hallucinations in which you may work through problems, emotions, or simply play. Dreams are what give you a sense of time during your sleep, even if you don't remember them, you still experience the time (even though it the sense of time can be warped - a 10 minute dream seeming like 30 years) and you keep that experience of time even though you lose the memory of the dream.\n\nWhen you are anesthetized you skip the first two parts of the sleep cycle and are just unconscious for some time. If you do dream, it is likely because you come out of anesthesia and your restful state induces the 4th stage of dreaming.\n\nMy response may not be 100% scientific as sleep and many processes in the brain are still not fully understood, but I feel like this is a better explanation than anything else in the thread.",
"Another question if anyone is still around: Do people who wake up from years-long comas feel like they were out for a short time?",
"So after reading this thread its pretty apparent I experience sleep a bit differently than most? To me its the same thing. I lay down and poof, its the next morning. When I had surgery it was the same experience. I'm thinking I'll mention this if I ever need surgery again.",
"When I was a kid sleeping was pretty much like blinking to me compared to now where it takes a while to fall asleep.",
"Went through major surgery, guy says this is just to relax you, he pushed it, I say hey the fucken burned ZZZzzzz, lights out, 5 hours later they wake me, it was like someone just threw a switch and lights were off, no passage of time felt at all, to be honest I felt unsettled after with such a loss of any sensory, my only answer would be it shuts off your brains function to its senses.",
"my question is if I'm having neck surgery why do I need to be naked? ",
"One of the medications used actively wipes and prevents the production of new short term memories. One of the interesting issues is whether or not a person actually is suffering greatly throughout the procedure, but is both paralyzed so we don't see, and their memory of it destroyed so they don't know.\n\nI'm surprised this was not mentioned sooner.",
"Anesthesiologist here, when you sleep naturally, your mind goes thru several different stages of sleep marked by different brain waves, specifically delta waves for deep sleep, or in REM / active dreaming, brain waves actually look like you are awake. These phases cycle over 90 minutes to 2 hours. In the anesthetic plane, brain waves are kept, purposely, in a low frequency state for as long as necessary, sometimes in burst suppression (periods of flat line). This means the brain is minimally active, which is nice since it also means the brain isn't as metabolically active and can tolerate lower blood flows without stroking. So basically, when you are sleeping your brain is still working and can tell how long time as passed, when we put you under anesthesia we turn all that stuff off. The same is basically true with blacking out from booze or sleep meds. ",
"So totally unrelated, but it's a funny story none the less. Pretty sure this is from Adam Savage on some sort of podcast. He was getting put under for some sort of dental thing, as I recall, and the anesthesia nurse was like \"want to see the best trick ever?\" and then started counting back. They apparently had gotten so good at reading people coming out of it that they were able to pick up the count right where they left off, so it seemed like \"10, 9, 8, 7, 6\" eyes close, eyes open on an entirely new room \"5, 4, 3, 2, 1, tada!\" "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/anesthesia/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
30yha6
|
Could much elements heavier that those on the periodic exist in black holes or other super massive celestial bodies?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/30yha6/could_much_elements_heavier_that_those_on_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpwzuyn",
"cpx02g0"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"First of all, gravity is negligible on the scale of atoms, E & M would be the force that takes over for the strong force as an atom gets too large. Second, inside a black hole is a singularity, which means no elements can exist there. Finally, all elements except hydrogen are produced by stars, which can fuse elements up to iron (and only iron for very large stars). So all the elements past iron are created by supernovae. In an exceptionally high energy supernova you would likely see some pretty rare elements, but the periodic table pretty much covers what is possible with respect to the nuclear forces. There is a theorized \"g-block\" for the periodic table which would be an 8th block but none of these theorized elements have yet been synthesized or observed.\n\nHere is the wiki page on the theorized [g-block](_URL_0_) block of the periodic table.",
"Inside a neutron star there is something akin to a giant fluid mass of neutrons held together by gravity...but it is not known exactly what it is like."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_table"
],
[]
] |
||
kxf83
|
torrents and pirate bay and their dangers
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kxf83/eli5_torrents_and_pirate_bay_and_their_dangers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2o0g7w",
"c2o10ix",
"c2o0g7w",
"c2o10ix"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"torrents: You can download stuff on the internet using a special program.\n\nPirate bay: A website where you can find a list of files that can be downloaded with a special program.\n\nDangers: None of the files that you download should be copyright because that is illegal, and they will put you in jail, and you will never see mummy and daddy again.",
"The safety of downloading torrents is entirely on the user, it's like a darwin award scenario. Don't download things that look shady, use adblockers on websites, don't download cracks without scanning them first. Since the Pirate Bay is public, this is riskier, but torrents in general have a built in fail safe because of the communal nature of them: download torrents with lots of seeders, and lots of comments, and from trusted uploaders, because many people support this download the less likely it's got malware attached to it. Private trackers are even better for this. Always seed if you have a good quality file.\n\nAlways scan things just in case if you can't discern between them.",
"torrents: You can download stuff on the internet using a special program.\n\nPirate bay: A website where you can find a list of files that can be downloaded with a special program.\n\nDangers: None of the files that you download should be copyright because that is illegal, and they will put you in jail, and you will never see mummy and daddy again.",
"The safety of downloading torrents is entirely on the user, it's like a darwin award scenario. Don't download things that look shady, use adblockers on websites, don't download cracks without scanning them first. Since the Pirate Bay is public, this is riskier, but torrents in general have a built in fail safe because of the communal nature of them: download torrents with lots of seeders, and lots of comments, and from trusted uploaders, because many people support this download the less likely it's got malware attached to it. Private trackers are even better for this. Always seed if you have a good quality file.\n\nAlways scan things just in case if you can't discern between them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
pvqfs
|
Does driving a pickup truck with the tailgate lowered improve fuel efficiency?
|
Question is fairly simple, is there a reduction in drag significant enough to save you money on gas over an extended period?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pvqfs/does_driving_a_pickup_truck_with_the_tailgate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3ss1en"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"[Mythbusters](_URL_0_) demonstrated there was more drag with an open tail gate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3aqHbD-O9E"
]
] |
|
ch33u9
|
where did the original vinegar "mother" come from, if you need vinegar to make a "mother"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ch33u9/eli5_where_did_the_original_vinegar_mother_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"euog1zq",
"euogxmc",
"euoj8xa"
],
"score": [
11,
8,
9
],
"text": [
"Vinegar is Latin for “sour wine.” All you have to do is let wine go bad under certain conditions and you’ll get a mother eventually.",
"There's nothing magical about the mother, it's just the biofilm byproduct created by acetic acid bacteria fermenting alcohol in the presence of oxygen. Acetic acid bacteria are *absolutely everywhere.* Leave some wine out for long enough in the right conditions and you'll have your own vinegar, complete with a brand new mother, because acetic acid bacteria will get in and start fermenting. Using an existing mother is just a faster way to get the process going.",
"Vinegar is wine that has spoiled and gone sour in a somewhat controlled way that leaves a product that is still safe to consume. You do not need a \"mother liquid\" to make it. Using a mother liquid simply makes the production of safe vinegar easier and you get toxic batches less often."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
106h1j
|
Why were there so few night battles during the Civil War?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/106h1j/why_were_there_so_few_night_battles_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ass0g",
"c6axg27",
"c6b5dgp"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Night battles could not be controlled, and navigation was extremely difficult. Large masses of armed men moving at night have little way to distinguish friend from foe without prompt communication that didn't happen until the widespread adoption of radio.\n\nThose night battles that did take place were typically against fortifications, where the line between attacker and defender was clear-cut, or a cavalry force attempting to attack supply lines or a larger force. In that latter case, the mobility advantage countered time getting lost, and any attacks against a larger force need some supporting factor to be successful.",
"Also, it was fairly easy the opposing force to slip away. The Battle of Franklin went on into the night with the Union forces slipping out as the battle waned and retreated back to Nashville. When the Confederates readied to reengage the next morning, the Union forces were gone. \n\nJohn",
"It wasn't just the Civil War - night battles were not common at all before modern warfare. They were hard to control, maneuvers were difficult, but *sometimes* they were pulled off and when they were, the result was enormous: Scipio Africanus essentially won the entire second Punic War in one night raid on the Carthaginian camp. The ensuing confusion amongst Carthaginian soldiers in their tents and camps made them absolute easy pickings, but attacks like that are extremely rare."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4uckzx
|
After the swift defeat of the majority of British forces in the Pacific, did Japan believe that Australian and New Zealand forces maybe a considerable threat in halting Japanese advance, particularly in New Guinea, New Caledonia and Fiji?
|
Or did the quick collapse of British forces in Malaya substantiate a belief that the Australians and New Zealanders would be easily defeated and later isolated? Would the abundance of resources, agricultural and growing manufacturing power that Australia and New Zealand possessed at the time as well as Japan over expanding into a frontline that was incredibly faraway compared to the defenders as well as rapidly depleting resources such as oil create any doubt that these smaller though developed nations could put up troubling resistance against the Empire of Japan?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4uckzx/after_the_swift_defeat_of_the_majority_of_british/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5pnxa4"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"After the collapse of Singapore, Australia and New Zealand were effectively isolated and while their manufacturing capabilities were developing, they were not capable of supporting offensive actions in the pacific. (in fact after the supposed threat of invasion had passed, Australia had drastically reduce their military buildup because they were unable to sustain it economically). The Japanese did attempt to isolate Australia and New Zealand further by capturing Port Moresby, Fiji and a number of other pacific islands. This would have cut both countries off from the United States, preventing the US from using Australia as a base from which to launch its offensives against the Japanese. The Japanese plan failed due to their defeat at the Battle of the Coral Sea and the successful defence of Port Moresby by Australian forces during the Kokoda campaign. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
18t0dk
|
Was the United States close to joining the Central Powers in World War I?
|
I'm currently taking a post-1945 United States history course, and my professor digressed a bit and mentioned that the United States was not destined to join the Triple Alliance in World War I.
I'm wondering how accurate that statement is, and if it is accurate how close did the United States actually come to fighting with Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc.? What would have made them join the Central Powers, if anything?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18t0dk/was_the_united_states_close_to_joining_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8hqkv5"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Well, the United States never joined the Triple Entente/Allies period (the Triple Alliance in the context of WWI usually refers to the [German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian Alliance of 1882](_URL_0_), which was actually in force until 1914 when Italy pulled out); Wilson kept the U.S. as an \"Associated Power\" to the Allies in order to keep out of as many entanglements as possible. \n\nThat said, I think that what your professor might have meant is not that the U.S. could have joined the Central Powers, but rather that it took conscious action to bring the U.S. into the war on the Allied side. I do not think for a moment that Woodrow Wilson would ever have considered joining the Central Powers. He was even wary of being associated with Czarist Russia, let alone the Kaiser. It was, however, absolutely his choice to ask Congress for a declaration of war in April 1917. He was not forced into war by public opinion the same way William McKinley was. He truly believed what he said in his War Message to Congress: \n\n > We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security of the democratic governments of the world. We are now about to accept a gauge of battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power.\n\n > We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Alliance_(1882\\)"
]
] |
|
6xyjta
|
why does customer service always say "high number of calls/emails" no matter what. how am i supposed to know when they actually are having a high number and not just saying it for seemingly no reason?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6xyjta/eli5_why_does_customer_service_always_say_high/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmjelr1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's pre-emptive. They say it to prepare you for the worst, and hopefully they can get to you reasonably fast and you say, \"Oh, that wasn't actually that long.\"\n\nAs opposed to saying \"we'll get to you as soon as possible\", and if that takes a long time, you get angry.\n\nSaying high calls/e-mails means they set the bar low, which means it is easy to meet it or exceed it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ppbon
|
How was agriculture invented? Given the low amount of usable food from pre-domestication plants and the long time it takes between planting seeds and harvest, why did the first agricultural society take it up in the first place?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ppbon/how_was_agriculture_invented_given_the_low_amount/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmyvive"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"This is a question for /r/AskAnthropology since it predates the historical record by many millenia.\n\nJust to touch upon a few points briefly:\n\n* Humans were aware of the basics of agriculture (i.e., bury a seed, eventually it becomes a plant and produces seeds of its own; or the connection between rainy/dry seasons and productivity of vegetation; or the competition between useful plants and weeds, etc.) for thousands of years before agriculture started. These are things that people learn very quickly by observation even in non-agricultural societies, spending pretty much all their lives outdoors.\n\n* People were foragers long before they became farmers, relying on edible plants for large portions of their daily calories. It wasn't uncommon among foraging societies to encourage the growth of useful plants, for example, by distributing inedible seeds in places where they had a chance to grow. It was a worthwhile gamble -- even if you had no role in ensuring those seeds sprouted and matured, there was a chance you could come back next season and find some surviving plants to pay you back for your small effort of the previous year. This kind of \"opportunistic\" agriculture predates traditional agriculture by several millenia, as we can tell from the genetics of many domesticated plants, because people were actually selecting higher yielding plants even this far back.\n\n* Real agriculture, involving care of the crop from planting through harvest, probably happened in places where people camped for long periods. If you consider the original domestication sites for some of our major crops, they were located in places that were extraordinarily rich in resources at the time. For example, wheat domestication began in the hills around Sanilurfa in southern Turkey. At the time (10,000 - 12,000) years ago, this region was very very rich in resources, and supported a large hunter/gatherer population year round (large enough to leave the remains at Göbekli Tepe or at Nevali Çori). This makes agriculture a lot easier and less costly - if you're staying put at one spot for the next 6 months anyway, then the marginal cost of planting some seeds and keeping animals at bay while they mature is not very high. You could set a few kids or old people to scaring off birds and foraging herbivores, or the adults could take turns. It's much cheaper than being *forced* to stay in one place because you have to mind the crops. Again, this was possible because these places were very resource rich to begin with, and could support some significant human populations without the need to keep moving to find new resources.\n\n* The earliest agriculture was a supplement, not a replacement for hunting/foraging/fishing. It wasn't productive enough to support large populations, but it could have been useful as an extra source of calories on top. Many of the activities we associate with agriculture today - weeding, irrigation, fertilizing the soil - did not exist; they were developed later. So primitive agriculture was not very time consuming, and could well have been carried on as a side activity for the bonus to calories.\n\n* As agricultural output increased, agriculture became more important. The biggest early improvements would have come simply from selective breeding - using seeds only from those plants which had the highest yields. Indeed, there is evidence of artificial selection in plants going back to **before** the advent of agriculture, showing that people were deliberately selecting plants even in the early days of opportunistic agriculture. Eventually, other developments improved yields further.\n\nSo agriculture began opportunistically in places where the extra effort of basic agriculture was not very costly, and was worth the investment in terms of calories added. It was a supplement to a hunting/foraging lifestyle, not a replacement. Over time as agricultural yields increased, it became more and more important. Conversely, even locations that are extra-rich in natural food resources will get depleted over time, driving more people towards agriculture to support the large populations that have resulted from the times of plenty."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4puk3t
|
Which kings of Rome are likely to have been real?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4puk3t/which_kings_of_rome_are_likely_to_have_been_real/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4o719l"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"Most historians believe that the first king, Romulus, is entirely legendary. His name simply means Roman. The next six kings - Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus - probably existed in some form, but after this disagreements begin.\n\nOn one side we have historians who are more forgiving with the literary tradition like Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. They tend to think these kings actually existed and actually did some of the things they are attributed with.\n\nOn the other side we have more critical historians. They generally believe that these names might have been real kings, but that the texts describing them are entirely legendary. Some of the most radical think the entire regal period is legendary, and even that Rome was never a kingdom at all.\n\nT.J. Cornell writes:\n\n > Traditionally there were seven kings, some of whom are probably historical, at least in the sense that men named Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, and so on, may indeed have ruled at Rome. But that doesn’t take us very far (and is not certain in any case).\n\nGary Forsythe claims:\n\n > The names of the other six kings [i.e., after Romulus] are likely to be authentic recollections of real people, but it also seems probable that few reliable details were known about their reigns.\n\nEarly kings are normally interpreted as mythical or semi-mythical. You can notice certain literary tropes, like how a king with one characteristic is succeeded by a king with the opposite characteristic, which suggests they are not real. These are stock characters, not realistic, well-rounded individuals.\n\nLater kings seem to be more human, more realistic, and may be more historically accurate. Some of the institutions or public buildings attributed to them can be confirmed by independent evidence. However, this does not necessarily prove that they existed as they are portrayed in the texts.\n\nHere is a post I made some time ago answering the question [What do we know about the kingdom of Rome?](_URL_0_) which you might also find interesting.\n\nSources: T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome; and Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hu98e/what_do_we_know_about_the_kingdom_of_rome/cuaqad4"
]
] |
||
1q8y5q
|
If clouds are formed by evaporation, then does global warming increase cloud formation and subsequent storm formation?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1q8y5q/if_clouds_are_formed_by_evaporation_then_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdbzud2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Clouds are not responsible for storms, clouds are caused by storms. The storms result from differences in temperature and pressure from place to place.\n\nThe impact that warming has on global evaporation rates, humidities and cloud cover is the subject of a great deal of ongoing research so I can't really give you definitive answers. Generally though, it is thought that humidity over the oceans remains constant with changing temperature; that would demand an increase in evaporation in a warmer world. With more water vapor in the atmosphere you would immediately expect more cloudiness and more precipitation, but it is not necessarily the case.\n\nEven if we assume precipitation increases, we could still have the same number of storms. Most theories and simulations actually do expect increased storminess in a warmer world, but these are varied and complicated. However, since humidity is commonly thought to remain constant in a warmer world, changes in evaporation are not directly responsible for expected changes in storm frequency."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3qt7ni
|
if the earth rotates at an angle, why are summers at the poles not boiling hot?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qt7ni/eli5_if_the_earth_rotates_at_an_angle_why_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwi52y3",
"cwi53ro",
"cwi5kdc"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The amount of energy from the Sun's rays that make it to the Earth depends heavily on the amount of atmosphere that the rays travel through. The more atmosphere the rays travel through, the more energy is reflected back into space. Despite the axial tilt of 23.4 degrees, the Sun's rays are only perpendicular to the Earth between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, neither are anywhere near the poles.\n\nSo each pole can have longer days, but because the Sun's rays travel through more of the atmosphere, they don't get much warmer during the summer at the North Pole, or the winter at the South Pole.",
"Because the angle isn't that extreme. The poles are still very far away from the areas closest to the sun during the rotation.",
"Because the poles are illuminated at an angle.\n\nImagine you have a ball. During the day, it's going to be illuminated the same at all times. Now consider the shadow. If the sun is directly above, it's a circular shadow that's the same size as the ball. But the lower the sun is in the sky, the bigger the shadow. The shadow is the area the light would have fallen on. A longer shadow means that the same amount of light falls on a larger area. This means less light in general, so it will be less warm.\n\nOn the poles, the sun never gets that far above the horizon. Even though it stays up 24/7 during the summer, there's still less sunlight hitting the ground than there is on the equator, which is only illuminated half the time. So the equator is warm and the poles are cold."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5h9fxg
|
how do lines of code and text make up a game, or anything graphical overall?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h9fxg/eli5_how_do_lines_of_code_and_text_make_up_a_game/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dayf58y",
"dayfpn5"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"As far as i know even photos taken with cameras are just a line of code going deep enough, how does it work?",
"Like all programming, there's layers of complexity. At the highest level, you have a line of code that tells the computer to display a certain picture at a specific time. Drilling down, the part of the code that references the picture is actually a code pointing to a location in memory in which a series of binary (ones and zeroes) is stored. \n\nIf you think of a digital image as a matrix of dots, it's easy enough to imagine how a computer encodes that. The dots are physically represented by pixels in your screen, and the ones and zeroes tell the computer whether to turn that pixel on or off. In simple black and white, that's all you need. To render color, there's a set of colored nodes that you turn on and off in each pixel that combine to create a huge array of colors. So there's just an agreed upon pattern for what the ones and zeroes tell the computer to do. Each pixel might be represented by a finite set of ones and zeroes, a handful indicating the number of the pixel, and the last three telling it whether to turn on the red, yellow and blue nodes, respectively. \n\nThere's a million ways to do this in practice, but that's the general concept."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
47pa94
|
why do some people blink a ton?
|
I have met a handful of people who blink a ton when they are talking. Truly rapid blinking, I can't even try to flutter my eyelids the way they do, but they don't seem to notice it at all. I am very confused what it means/what causes it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47pa94/eli5_why_do_some_people_blink_a_ton/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0emibd",
"d0enkxl",
"d0eqpv5",
"d0eqzof",
"d0eu45w",
"d0f39t1",
"d0f8ed5",
"d0fh90b"
],
"score": [
13,
107,
3,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For me, it's just a habit/tick. I get very dry eyes as well which is another reason why I do it. It happens to a lot of people who were contact lenses.",
"For other people who can't blame contact lenses for their dry eyes, it can often be a mild form of Tourette's Syndrome (TS), where the person is compelled to move the eye or blink. \n\nMost of the times, the blinking is done without thinking about it. Other times, it's like when a fly sits on your arm. You can't just ignore it. You simply have to reach out to make it disappear. \n\nBlinking your eye is only one of the many 'weird' moves. Throwing your hair back, lifting your shoulder or other small movements are normal. People normally think of people screaming \"CUNT\" totally out of context when they hear about TS, but it actually has a lot of facets.\n\nSource: My self. If you have any of these conditions, know that it is quite common and that there is no reason to be alarmed. It is caused by a chemical unbalance in the brain. I am uncertain about any medication, but you can get an evaluation by a neurologist.",
"Have this itch in my eye like I have to tense my eyeball like you would stretch your legs or snap your fingers to release the pressure. Blink hard puts pressure on said eyeball and releases pressure~.",
"Correctly if im wrong, but It cant it also be environmental? I subconsciously blink an extreme amount around my mom or when in nervious. But not in normal situations. ",
"Honestly i read this and looked to see if people around me Blink an awful ton and i encountered this kid that must have been really fucking high with eyes as dry as the desert blinkin furiously ... made my day. thanks dude.",
"I have mild-to-moderate Tourette's Syndrome and I can confirm that the eye blinking is a thing that is both conscious and unconscious. We're aware that we're doing it, but it's very difficult sometimes to keep it under control. TS is a complicated disease and is often linked to other neurological conditions that often have similar or odd symptoms such as rapid blinking, eye movements, squinting, going cross-eyed, holding your eyes completely shut for a second or two, and many other things only concerning the eyes. \nThere are many things that can cause rapid eye blinking, and they may not even have any condition that causes them to blink rapidly, that's just the way they are, but most people are aware they are doing it, making the person the best source to ask, but only if your curiosity is really that strong, and only politely, as it can be very embarassing to some people.",
"People subconsciously blink and look away/keep eyes closed when they don't want to maintain eye contact or look at something they don't like. ",
"A lot of the current thought about blinking says that we do this as a way of processing information. One of the reasons supporting this is from watching audiences watch movies. Most of the audience will blink in unison following important parts of a movie. \n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\nSo, my best guess is these people are just doing more processing of information. Or, they get a lot eye lashes in their eyes. Either or."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17526-synchronised-blinking-stops-viewers-missing-the-action/"
]
] |
|
24e4jb
|
do alpha particles form any compounds?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24e4jb/do_alpha_particles_form_any_compounds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch68ttf",
"ch6dzw6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Helium forms some unstable compounds, like [hydrohelium](_URL_0_), which is basically an alpha particle bound to a proton.",
"Alpha particles are just Helium nuclei, when alpha particles are emitted in enclosed spaces they just form Helium. This is where most of our Helium supply comes from, alpha emissions from slow radioactive decay of isotopes in minerals deep underground releases Helium which can get trapped in airtight pockets. Because oil and natural gas are also found in such pockets Helium can often be extracted from natural gas fields."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_hydride_ion"
],
[]
] |
||
161vdt
|
How did the United States of America get the Declaration of Independence back?
|
From what I understand this document was made as a letter to the king of the time basically telling the king that we are no longer a part of Britain and we are our own nation. What i'm wondering is if it was a letter how did the USA get it back, if I was the king I would be rather upset and probably discarded of such a letter, so how did we get it pack?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/161vdt/how_did_the_united_states_of_america_get_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7rxqc0",
"c7ry066",
"c7s0jus"
],
"score": [
16,
74,
2
],
"text": [
"It wasn't just made as a letter. It was publicly distributed around towns and printed to be hung on public bulletin boards. In layman's terms, it was a letter for the people of the new colonies, mainly. \n\nMany many MANY copies of the document existed in 1776. ",
"The signed copy was kept by the United States, it is currently residing in the National Archives. Copies were made of it and were sent out to other countries, including Britain, and were made available for the American public to see also.",
"Slightly related, don't forget the story about an [original copy that turned up in a picture frame...](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/03/arts/declaration-of-independence-found-in-a-4-picture-frame.html"
]
] |
|
2uk4hu
|
Did particles obey the same laws before the Big Bang?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2uk4hu/did_particles_obey_the_same_laws_before_the_big/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co9bhqa",
"co9caos"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"There wasn't a \"before the Big Bang\", time as we know it was created during the Big Bang. ",
"No. In science, you can only study the universe. Anything outside of the universe is outside the realm of science. There is no reason to believe that current natural laws existed before the universe existed. If you go deeper, there is no reason to believe that math even existed. Of course this gets philosophical quickly. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
23yasr
|
After 1066, what did the Anglo-Saxons think of their new Norman rulers and vice-versa?
|
I'm curious as to if there are any historical texts which describes the relationship between the Anglo-Saxons and their new masters. Were they resented? Were they accepted? Similarly, did the Normans regard the Anglo-Saxons as inferior and barbaric?
And ultimately, when did the line between "Anglo-Saxon" and "Norman" disappear to make way for an "English" identity?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23yasr/after_1066_what_did_the_anglosaxons_think_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch1rgzo",
"ch1xvq8"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"It’s important to understand that until at least the reign of John I, the title “King of England”, was merely an appendage to the title of leader of the [Angevin Empire](_URL_0_). William the Conqueror himself spent little time in Britain, and his descendants spent even less, with only 6 months of Richard I’s 10 year reign spent in England. There were only around 8000 Norman settlers initially; most of which were of a relatively noble social ranking, and thus the two cultures did not mix a tremendous amount at first. The lords eventually began to identify themselves with their new island home, but until the Capetian Conquest of the Angevin empire that the monarchy were consistently residents in England, rather than on the mainland. \n\nThe rulers that the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic population dealt with first hand were the barons, who were indeed resented enormously. But the reality was that the situation of the peasant was not massively altered by becoming part of this Norman empire. Times were hard, and the people uneducated, so they had little interest or awareness of the political forces that controlled them. Their quality of life was affected very little by the switch of rulers. There were of course rebellions, but these tended to come from the usurped nobles rather than commoners. \n",
"There were a great number of very discontent Anglo-Saxons. The most famous example was Hereward the Wake, who waged a lengthy guerrilla war against the new Norman lords of the Fens. However, there were also a great number of Anglo-Saxons who imposed exile on themselves, leaving to serve in the courts of foreign nobles. by 1125, the famous Varangian Guard was majority Englishmen.\n\nWill expand more in a few hours, studying for an exam this evening. \n\nSources: Tale of Hereward the Wake\n\n\"The English and Byzantium: A study of their role in the Byzantine army in the later eleventh century, Jonathan Shepard, 1973 (It's a bit old, I know, but it's still solid)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_II,_Plantagenet_Empire.png"
],
[]
] |
|
65a9vt
|
Do objects constantly lose a tiny bit of mass due to emitting infrared radiation because of e=mc^2?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/65a9vt/do_objects_constantly_lose_a_tiny_bit_of_mass_due/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg8zg3j"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Well at equilibrium, they are absorbing just as much radiation on average as they are emitting. But yes, radiating away internal energy does decrease the mass of the object slightly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
f31ki5
|
when doctors say that an antibiotic or some other medicine attacks certain types of cells, how can you make a drug target certain cells? would creating medicine to target cancer cells work to treat cancer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f31ki5/eli5_when_doctors_say_that_an_antibiotic_or_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhg17cu",
"fhg1ew5",
"fhg1gbc",
"fhg1j89",
"fhg1qjo",
"fhglhyl"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"In order for a normal body to function cells grow and divide to create new cells. When those cells grow old in the normal cell cycle, they die off and get replaced by new healthier versions. \n\nIn a body with cancer, those old cells don’t die off and new cells just grow with no reason. Those cells grow and divide uncontrollably thus creating things like tumors. \n\nSince there are many different cells in which cancer can inhabit it is difficult to target said type of cell because it varies (I.e. bone, liver, muscle, heart, prostate, breast, etc). \n\nIt isn’t the mere fact of targeting cancer cells it is understanding what causes these cells to not die properly or understanding why they grow uncontrollably. Thus the difficulty behind why there is no cure for cancer.",
"This is the basis of modern pharmacology in general, not just with respect to infectious diseases. Penicillin, for example, targets the cell wall, literally breaking microbes apart. The problem is that some cells may be resistant to this mechanism. Some can neutralize the mechanism of the drug itself, while others may simply have no cell wall to begin with. \n\nOther antibiotics target transcription and translation (the processes that read the DNA and turn it's stored information into useable proteins for cell function). Mechanisms exist to thwart these methods of cell destruction as well. \n\nEvery drug is administered to accomplish a task, whether it is to kill foreign invading microbes, or to influence physiological functions. One could explore the mechanism of action of blood pressure medications to learn about all the different pathways available to influence blood pressure (strength of cardiac contraction, \"tightness\" of blood vessels, fluid modulation, kidney hormone influence, etc.)\n\nUnderstanding the natural processes and inner working of both the body and the infectious organism present is critical to be able to safely treat any infection",
"In order to target specific cells you have to figure out what makes them different.\n\nAntibiotics target aspects of bacteria that are fundamentally different from the cells in your body. Penicillin prevents bacteria from properly forming cell walls which hold them together so they end up popping and dying when they try to multiply. Your cells don't have cell walls so they're unaffected by this which is good!\n\nSometimes medication will be made to target cells which use certain chemicals, this can be useful for targeting the liver or pancreas.\n\nThe problem with targeting cancer cells is that they've very similar to your cells. Liver cancer cells are still mostly liver cells with most of their markers, they just now multiply significantly faster and don't stop like they're supposed to. So maybe you target fast dividing cells? Bad news, your hair and stomach lining are also fast dividing cells so whatever you do to kill off the fast dividing cancer cells (like chemo and radiation therapy) will also kill off the lining of your stomach and your hair causing you to be quite nauseous and lose your hair, plus it'll kill a percentage of all your other cells which happened to be dividing at the same time. This isn't ideal but its workable.\n\nThe further something is from a standard human cell the easier it is to target it, but the closer it is to a normal functioning cell the more difficult it becomes to target just it without taking out lots of normal cells in the process",
"Antibiotics are very effective at attacking and destroying bacteria only. Cancer cells, however, are not bacteria, they're eukaryotic cells that are nearly identic to our somatic cells in almost every aspect. Therefore, antibiotics can't be used to treat any form of cancer.",
"I work in a cancer hospital. Immunotherapy is the new thing which does target cancer cells directly. The way a doctor presenting info on it explained to me is the immunotherapy locks cancer cells in a handshake so they cant keep growing.\n\nNormal chemotherapy drugs attack all cells, prohibiting a lot of cell growth and killing other cells (which is why people get so sick during chemo). A non-medical analogy way a doctor explained chemo to me is it's running the blood through a sieve (sieve being the chemo drug).",
"Since this is ELI5 and not ELI25, let me simplify what’s already been written on this thread.\n\nMedications that kill bad cells, like bacteria, use chemical reactions to disrupt a small part of that cell that’s necessary for it to live. This can be lots of things, like poking a hole in its outer skin or preventing it from reproducing. The trick is, these medications have to attack things that exist only in the bad cells and not attack any of your own body cells. This is one of the main points of drug development.\n\nNow this is much easier with things like bacteria because they’re completely different from our own body cells. For example, the process of reproducing is completely different, so if we stop the bacteria from reproducing then there’s no chance of stopping our own cells from reproducing. What makes killing cancer cells so difficult is that cancer cells are still *your* cells. What kills these cancer cells will also kill your own good cells. Therefore, it’s much harder to make a drug select only the cancer because cancer cells and body cells are too similar for the drug to perfectly select only the bad ones. This is why people get so sick on chemo; you kill lots of your cells and hope the bad ones die first.\n\nThe answer to curing cancer is to figure out how we can select for only the cancer cells. But, these cancer cells come in so many different varieties that it’s incredibly difficult to make something that can kill all of them, while not killing every other cell in your body."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
s4l6a
|
Significance of the Phaistos Disk
|
Hey History Buffs!
I was wondering what the significance of the Phaistos Disk was. From what I understand, it poses a challenge to historians because it shows that inventions are unpredictable, dooming efforts to generalize about the history of technology. But why is this?
Any help would be appreciated!
Cheers
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s4l6a/significance_of_the_phaistos_disk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4b1sxb",
"c4b3jzg",
"c4b85zp"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"The greatest significance of the Phaistos Disc, is that it undecipherable. People have tried and tried but nothing works out right and seems forced. We can't understand it's purpose without understanding what is on the damn thing.\n\nNow the Antikythera Mechanism...that is where the truly humbling work of art lay.",
"Nine out of ten the Phaistos Disc is a temple supply list. 10 modi of corn to x, five modi if corn to y, seven modi of corn to z, etc.",
"The Phaistos disc has very little historical significance. It does demonstrate:\n\n1. the existence of an otherwise unattested script (perhaps a syllabary, but I suspect rather a hybrid syllabic-logographic script, like most contemporary scripts); \n2. this script belonged or was connected to some segment of the Minoan cultural sphere, and contains some signs that are related to Minoan ones; \n3. its uniqueness indicates that the script was short-lived and never achieved widespread use; \n4. the disc's circular shape seems impractical for a bureaucratic record, so some other function seems indicated.\n\nBut that's pretty much it. Historically speaking, it exists in a vacuum, so it's just a curiosity.\n\nAs eternalkerri implies, it's only really important in the context of modern speculative historiography and conspiracy theories.\n\nI'm not sure what you mean about the history of technology. It's made of fired clay, inscribed with a pointy object. You could make it in your backyard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
c55s8v
|
Can flow that has exited the throat of a converging-only nozzle exceed Mach 1?
|
Or can this condition only occur if it is contained/guided within a diverging cone?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/c55s8v/can_flow_that_has_exited_the_throat_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erzyqnl",
"es07ggf"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"A converging nozzle can only hit Mach 1. A converging diverging nozzle is required to get supersonic flow. The diverging portion causes the density of the fluid to drop. My compressible flow is a little weak so I'm not sure exactly why this is needed.",
"A divergent section is required to accelerate the flow to supersonic speeds. \n\nA convergent nozzle is not capable of supersonic flow. If the nozzle pressure ratio for a convergent nozzle is high enough, there will be a normal shock at the exit/throat so the exhaust will be subsonic downstream of the exit. Here, the exhaust will mix with the surrounding air and density will trend towards the freestream value."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33i01r
|
how does lung capacity increase?
|
Does the volume of your lungs become bigger and thus expand outward creating a bigger chest or do the cluster thingies on the inside become more efficient?
How does this work? im trying to increase my stamina and i couldn't find a solid answer
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33i01r/eli5how_does_lung_capacity_increase/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cql3ji7",
"cql6zga",
"cql85zg",
"cqlc8qs",
"cqlcut7",
"cqldmq9",
"cqletll",
"cqlmzlk",
"cqm4xne"
],
"score": [
3,
19,
7,
4,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think there is also an effect where people learn to breathe more efficiently via aerobic exercise. ",
"As others have said, the lungs themselves don't change. It's mainly the cardiovascular system becoming more efficient. However, increasing the strength of your respiratory muscles (certain muscles in your abdomen and neck) also plays a big part. These muscles help you expand/contract your chest wall, indirectly expanding/contracting your lungs.",
"I have a question regarding this too... how come when working out or singing, they say fill your belly with air not your chest? air just goes into lungs right? what is going on?",
"The maximum volume of air held in side your lung cannot change (I.e., total lung capacity). The key adaptation that improves your stamina is found within the cardiovascular system, namely the heart. This makes sense as studies have shown your cardiac output is the limiting factor in determining a healthy individual cardiovascular performance (stamina). Your cardiac out put is determined by your heart rate (beats per minute) x stroke volume (amount of blood ejected per beat). This gives you a cardiac output value in L/min. Since max heart rate is determined largely by your age, the only thing your body can do to increase cardiac output, and therefore stamina, is to increase your stroke volume. So with repeated training your heart muscle gets stronger (like any muscle) and you are able to pump more blood per beat, have a higher output of blood per minute, and thus more stamina as more blood can be sent to and oxygenated by the lungs. \n\nTo add, there would be no benefit in increasing lung volume to take in more oxygen in a healthy individual. Your blood does not extract 100% of the oxygen taken into the lungs and the residual oxygen is exhaled (this is why CPR works).",
"The way my band director explained it is that your lungs don't necessarily get bigger, but you learn to control your air more ",
"Lung capacity can not be increased. Instead, the reason stamina (or aerobic capacity) increases is due to a number of factors. The most important factor is the heart being able to pump an increased amount of blood to the working muscles with each heart beat. Another factor important for aerobic capacity is the activity of certain enzymes which increase the working muscle's ability to use oxygen. Movement efficiency is also an important adaptation. What this means is, basically, that your body needs less energy to run at a given speed.\n\nAll of these adaptations will come naturally when you train but running at higher intensities will yield better results. You could try to run for 4 minutes at as a high a speed as you can maintain for that time and then rest for 2 minutes. Repeat this 3 more times and do this for 3 times a week and you should see nice improvements soon. Shorter intervals at a higher pace can be used to!\n\nThere are many websites to be found with running programs, so if you're really interested I suggest you find some inspiration for a running program that you feel you can stick with. Good luck :)",
"Brass musician here. It is less about actually making your lungs bigger, and more about working to actually achieve the full volume and capacity you are capable of. Yes, your stomach, ribs, chest, and back will expand to get out of the way so the lungs can do their thing. Wind musicians do a lot of exercises to get to full capacity as often as possible, and with the least restriction for enhanced breath control. At your normal resting rate, your lungs would not need to expand to the level required for athletics, wind instruments, etc. to absorb the necessary oxygen.",
"I just finished these two skills in GTA V. I just kept my character underwater until the last second, and his lung capacity rose over time. As for stamina, just sprint a lot and eventually it will be maxed out.",
"Contrary to popular belief, training in most sports doesn't actually increase your lung capacity. This is because your lungs have a huge surface area, and isn't the limiting factor to getting oxygen into your blood (your circulatory system is). So your cardio gets better (your heart gets stronger and blood gets better at carrying oxygen), and you breathe faster when you need more air.\n\nThe exception to this is swimming, where your breathing needs to be controlled (to match your stroke), and your body is submerged in water. Because your chest is submerged in water, the muscles that pull air into your lungs have to work a little bit harder to expand your chest all the way in order to breathe. Thus, the muscles get stronger and can pull harder, increasing your actual lung capacity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5jg2op
|
if you stick food in a vacuum sealed chamber will it decay?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jg2op/eli5_if_you_stick_food_in_a_vacuum_sealed_chamber/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbfz3hx",
"dbfz8bs",
"dbfzdgl"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It will still decay, just slower. The aerobic bacteria that are present in the food will die after a while, as there is no oxygen for them to grow. Some anaerobic bacteria present in the food, which don't need oxygen, will simply go about their business as usual provided that other compounds required for growth are still present.\n\nApart from bacteria spoiling the food, eventually any organic material will degrade [chemically](_URL_0_), under the influence of UV radiation for example.\n\nFood will decay eventually, no matter what the environment.",
"If you have water in a vacuum, it'll start evaporating. This is actually used to evaporate water if you don't want to heat the liquid up, for example when making juice concentrate, removing alcohol from beer, or freeze drying fruit. \n\nBut if you have a fruit that has a protective shell, for example a watermelon, it would not dry out, and could therefore start rotting from the inside. ",
"Would something like milk or yogurt (that has culture in it) still be edible? Would is spoil quicker or last longer?\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_decomposition"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1gu54z
|
why are torrents more popular than regular downloads when it comes to illegal material?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gu54z/eli5_why_are_torrents_more_popular_than_regular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cantxrm",
"canvogi",
"canzgej",
"cao3utu"
],
"score": [
88,
24,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because a \"regular download\" has to be hosted by a server that somebody owns. If the copyright holder complains, it takes like five minutes to find out who owns it and go knock on their door. \n\nWith a torrent, there's no central distributor to go after. There's like a thousand or more people offering up little pieces all over the planet. Who do you go after?",
"Many reasons: \n\n- You can't shut down a website that hosts it, only a website that provides ways to getting to it. If the website is shutdown, the files are still available. \n\n- It's much faster, because you can download multiples parts at once\n\n- There's no \"premium\" or \"pro\" thing where you can pay for increased speeds, higher download capacity, etc...\n\n- Speeds aren't throttled/monitored",
"Can I ask a dumb question here? What do I need to be doing to make myself as reasonably safe as I can be while torrenting?",
"Lots of people have gone over why illegal content is transferred by bittorrent, but no one has mentioned that transferring files with bittorrent is a lot more efficient. \nThe person distributing the data doesn't need to scale up their internet connection to correspond to demand. Imagine thousands of people trying to download files over a 100mbit connection. You would get really crappy speeds. The bittorrent protocol spreads this over many connections. \n\nThis applies to legal data too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bkryze
|
does bursting audio too loud ruin a speaker?
|
also, does the speaker gets damaged by a specific type of sound?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bkryze/eli5_does_bursting_audio_too_loud_ruin_a_speaker/
|
{
"a_id": [
"emj9wbd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, in any \"Speaker\" there are two components, the driver(s) and the amp. The driver(s) are the cones that actually move back and forth at specific frequencies to produce sound (sometimes there are multiple that allow the speaker to replicate more frequencies more accurately). The amp converts the relatively low signaling voltage into something strong enough to move the cones. When you send too much gain (volume) down the line to the amp, a few things could happen. You could make the amp work too hard to send that voltage out to the driver, this could cause it to overheat, draw too much power from the wall, or a number of other things. This can cause it to either fail outright, or go into protect, a mode that forces the gain down in order to protect itself. The second point of failure is the driver. It's effectively a coil, which is an electromagnet that pulls the cone back and forth. If you are sending too much voltage from the amp to a driver, you can cause the cone to physically move past both of it's limit, and depending on its frequency, you can do that very quickly, effectively destroying the mount that's holding the cone in place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
12t6ms
|
Faraday Cages: Is there a minimum width to wavelength ratio to be able to block it?
|
Does a faraday cage need to be thick enough to block certain spectrums of wavelengths? Is it dependant on the width or the density or conductivity of the material?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12t6ms/faraday_cages_is_there_a_minimum_width_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6xwgmz",
"c6y5ree"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The cage material can be as thin or thick as your material will allow; it will work fine independent of the thickness. You can also have holes in it, \na general rule is that the holes need to be no larger than 1/10 of the wavelength of the signal.",
"The effectiveness of a Faraday cage made of real material does depend on the thickness and conductivity of the walls' material, and also the magnetic permeability.\n\nThere is a thickness called the \"skin depth\" that depends on those things, and for an effective Faraday cage you'll want walls that are several skin depths thick or more. If you don't have that, there can be appreciable current flow even on the insides of the walls and those will couple electromagnetic energy into the inside.\n\nThe required wall thickness of metal for a given shielding effectiveness gets thinner and thinner as frequency is increased. \n\nspthirtythree's comment is very reasonable for typical radio frequencies and light waves. Something like heavy-duty aluminum foil will be a couple of skin-depths thick at the low end of the U.S. AM broadcast band, down around 540 kilohertz. So aluminum foil will attenuate even such low frequency radio waves quite a bit. For a cellphone or WiFi at hundreds of MHz or GHz, the same aluminum foil will be hundreds of skin depths thick. At optical frequencies, it will be tens of thousands of skin depths thick.\n\nIf aluminum foil is sufficient, then almost any metal you can construct a\nbox out of will exclude a wide range of the spectrum from getting into your cage. It won't shield everything, though. Very low frequency electromagnetic waves and constant magnetic fields will very easily make it through a thin foil. When you're trying to shield against low frequency magnetic fluctuations, like 50Hz or 60Hz power line interference, it's useful to build your cage out of a magnetic material like iron or steel.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1kdb16
|
Why is Vimeo's HD video streaming so much better than Youtube's?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1kdb16/why_is_vimeos_hd_video_streaming_so_much_better/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbnreap"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nA lot of Youtube's problems come from peering issues. Certain IP ranges can be blocked that help."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://bgr.com/2013/07/29/isp-video-streaming-disputes/"
]
] |
||
1wtnb9
|
why when i weigh myself before and after i go number 2, i weigh more afterwards. (serious)
|
This has always bothered me and I'm really curious to know the answer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wtnb9/eli5_why_when_i_weigh_myself_before_and_after_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf58wp6",
"cf5bfhq"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Sounds like your scale isn't giving consistent results. Measure your self three times in a row stepping off and on, do you get the exact same result each time? Is your floor smooth?",
"Is your scale electronic? They often do something that can give weird results. \n \nEarly electronic scales in bathrooms got a lot of customer complaints, because they did not give repeatable results. You could weigh yourself several times, and get a different reading each time. So the manufacturers put in a \"fix\". They had the scale remember its last couple of readings, and if a new one came along that was close to one in memory, it just displayed the one in memory (instead of the new reading). Problem solved! \n \nOf course, this is a cheat. It didn't really solve the repeatability problem, it just hid it. \n \nMy guess is that this could be causing your issue. You step on the scale, and the reading isn't quite close enough to a previous one, so it displays the new reading. The problem is that the old reading was bogus. \n \nOr, as other people have mentioned, if the scale is not on a level surface it can give varying results. And the intrinsic accuracy of a bathroom scale is usually on the order of a pound or so, unless it is a balance beam type. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ztcf5
|
what causes the "blaster" sound on frozen lakes and what is it called?
|
The best example I have is that of a cable under tension, sound [here](_URL_0_).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ztcf5/eli5_what_causes_the_blaster_sound_on_frozen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyowc5o"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's the sound of ice cracking. The entire lake acts like a compressed spring, and when it cracks, the entire lake surface acts like a giant loudspeaker.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRWA9EUItC4"
] |
[
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_6ptf6qFSdg"
]
] |
|
671qpe
|
donating to eradicate starvation in africa... will it ever work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/671qpe/eli5_donating_to_eradicate_starvation_in_africa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgn09g9",
"dgn0g0j"
],
"score": [
8,
7
],
"text": [
"It's more because charities have to implement small localised solutions to problems that need massive infrastructure investments. Also, because these adverts often talk about 'Africa' rather than talking about specific countries it seems like there is only one problem in one place that needs solving, when Africa is a massive continent with 54 different countries that all have different problems at different times - some areas are prone to droughts, some areas are prone to civil wars and poorly functioning governments so even if a charity has eradicated poverty in one area it might just take a bad year and a crop failure to return everything to square one (and of course, many of Africa's countries are modern economies that don't actually have millions of starving children). Donating to (some) charities definitely helps people, but the advertisements that say \"for the price of a cup of coffee we can solve hunger in Africa\" are selling people a false promise to try and get donations. \n\nThere is also the massive issue that the developed nations that donate with one hand are often causing or contributing to the problem with the other: _URL_0_",
"Donating is a bad idea that makes things worse. I had a professor from Africa who really dislikes it because he says that it doesn't work and only screws over local people. Here's why: \n\n1) It's impossible to micromanage the donations to get to everyone's house. So instead you give it to the government and they decide who to distribute it to. This tends to end up with rival political parties not being fed because if they don't support the president why should the president support them? Because the president's party is not starving and the other people are, his party gets stronger and he stays in power for longer.\n\n2) It ruins farmers' income. They're just one person so they can't produce as much food as the surplus food from the entire United States, so all of a sudden food aid comes in and now they can't sell their crops because people aren't stupid and will go for the cheaper food. Most African farmers, much like North American ones, aren't rich and don't have money saved up for when this happens.\n\nThere were others but I don't remember that lecture very well. Professor did mention that investing in businesses for developing countries is better because it treats the problem rather than the symptoms by letting them develop."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/jul/22/africa-rescue-aid-stealing-resources"
],
[]
] |
||
3v3c8e
|
why does pollution from china and other polluted states not drift with the westerlies to the us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v3c8e/eli5_why_does_pollution_from_china_and_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxjzmrt",
"cxk1ybi",
"cxk3u9d"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It does. I think I read once that something like 1/4 of San Fransisco's poor air quality comes from China. Oregon and Washington get hit, too.",
"It totally does. The pollution may be dangerous in those Chinese cities but as it blows out into the Pacific it gets dispersed into the much larger volume of air over the ocean. Your city may look big to you but each one is a small dot on the planet. The pollution is relatively small compared to the overall volume of the atmosphere. Think of the pollution as a dot of red food coloring. The atmosphere around Beijing is cubic centimeter. You drop the single red drop into the cubic centimeter container, and it will be very red because it is very concentrated. Now take that single drop of red and drop it into a cubic meter of water. The water won't even change color, the red just disappears due to being dispersed into a much larger volume.\n\nPlus, between China and North America the pollution, which is primarily particulate, is being dragged through humid ocean air. The particulates act as nucleation points for moisture, and drops of rain form on the particulates as air masses reach the dew point. Some percentage of the pollution gets scrubbed from the atmosphere as rain that falls into the ocean, taking a lot of pollutants down with the rain before it can even get here. I recall a few summers back there were terrible forest fires in Siberia and it made sunsets in the US more colorful. Volcanos do the same thing. ",
"The solution to pollution is dilution. I learned this in high school chemistry class. :)\n\nSo, as others have pointed out, some of it does reach the US, but the concentration drops so much that we don't notice it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3uadvs
|
why does an ipad cost $500, an ipod touch cost $200, but an iphone costs $700 (without an upgrade)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uadvs/eli5_why_does_an_ipad_cost_500_an_ipod_touch_cost/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxd8tqe"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > An iPod touch is the same thing as an iPhone except it doesn't make calls. \n \nIt used to be, not anymore. The current iPod Touch has a 4\" 640p screen with a 800:1 contrast rario, the 6s has a 4.7\" 750p screen with a 1400:1 contrast ratio, full sRGB color gamut, and dual-domain pixels. The 6s undoubtably has a better CPU and GPU, the current iPod touch has an A8 and a seperated M8 chip while the 6s has an A9 chip with an embedded M9 chip. The current iPod touch has an 8MP rear facing camera vs the 12MP on the 6s, which also has a 5MP front-facing camera instead of 1.2MP, can do Live Photos, has phase-detection autofocus, an aperture of f2.2 vs f2.4, 4K UHD video, 1080p @ 120fps and 720fps @ 240fps, better camera software. The 6s has TouchID and Apple Pay, the iPod touch doesn't. The 6s has Bluetooth 4.2 vs 4.1 on the iPod Touch. The 6s also has a barometer. \n \nAlso, the iPod touch of course doesn't have the cellular radio, which costs money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
32zikn
|
how does superman exercise and build muscle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32zikn/eli5_how_does_superman_exercise_and_build_muscle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqg38h1",
"cqg3b5x"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Saw something the other day how he has a weightroom with kryptonite in it so it weakens him and allows him to actually work out.. Im sure someone has a better answer",
"It depends on the universe that you are talking about. \n\nBecause of the way Kryton was, their gravitational pull was stronger and it was a harsher planet to live in, their super strength became their normal strength. Also their sun was not as strong as Earth's, so they got alot less radiation.\n\nWhen superman came to earth, firstly, our planet's gravity is lighter, which makes his Kryton strength more stronger here, and with Our sun producing more radiation, its like he is injecting ALOT of Steriods.\n\nIn Another Universe, In his castle/base, he has a red sun generation, which is his weakness. It allows the red to strain him of his super strength, so he can work out normally."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1ssqj8
|
Where does all the salt eventually go that we put on roads in the winter?
|
Every year I see plows and salt trucks putting massive amounts of salt on the roads to melt the ice. I also see people and businesses liberally applying it to their sidewalks and driveways. Where does it all go? If it goes into our water supply, why hasn't it been tainted after so many years of doing it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ssqj8/where_does_all_the_salt_eventually_go_that_we_put/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0vb2y",
"ce0vgq0",
"ce0voy2",
"ce0w2mz",
"ce0wypy",
"ce0xkve",
"ce0zrx8",
"ce0zxk0",
"ce12zx8",
"ce14sfn",
"ce15gpp",
"ce15oq0",
"ce16jj0",
"ce18wuo",
"ce1aobz",
"ce1ayft"
],
"score": [
14,
341,
1240,
27,
142,
3,
3,
21,
2,
2,
3,
6,
3,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It can be a big problem that cities and states are starting to deal with, especially northern states with lots of road salt:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Basically all of my info is from here:\n_URL_0_\n\nFirst thign that happens is that it drains to the side of the road, where (depending on how much salt is used) creates \"an extra period of drought conditions\", and roadside trees often look quite a bit more brown. This may be due to the chloride portion of the salt used. The browning may also be due to herbicides though to keep vegetation down, however.\n\nThe sodium portion of the salt damages soil, reducing its ability to retain water. Just a piece of irrata - that's one way to royally screw over someone's farm - putting salt in the soil, and is one of those ancient curse type situations. Don't do that.\n\nSome of the salt is lifted up onto cars and buildings and such, corroding concrete and metal.\n\nAnd some of it becomes runoff to ponds and small lakes nearby, which \"can form a dense layer over the bottom that restricts oxygen transport from overlying water in contact with the air.\" TLDR is that it makes it harder for fish and water plants to breath.\n\nThat being said, \"We don't know of any area-wide studies specifically addressing road salt imacts on our lakes and ponds but it is likely that the effects are generally small compared to the other pollutants that wash into them.\" The Salnity of the various lakes in the article have increased, but very slowly and not of any significant concern.",
"It's washed into the water system via runnoff and is a significant source of [nonpoint source polution](_URL_0_). And it does have an effect on the ecosystem, salination of streams and rivers can be a major problem to local ecosystems (it's pretty obvious that freshwater organisms don't take too well to saltwater environments) and if it ends up residing in the soil can kill vegetation. ",
"Areas in Wisconsin are experimenting with using the [brine](_URL_0_) left over from making cheese instead of road salt. This saves on the cost of salt and also saves the cheese-makers money on disposal fees. Not sure it will be better for the environment, however. ",
"Hydrogeologist here. Yes, chloride/road salt contamination of drinking water aquifers is a huge threat to drinking water supplies, and it's something that I try to model in a number of projects.\n\nA few things to keep in mind. Hydrogeologic time, while not as slow as geologic time, is much longer than you think. It's very very common for a well capable of supplying a municipality - like 2000 m3/d or more (screened in overburden even) to have an average time of capture of 50+years, meaning that a hypothetical raindrop that doesn't runoff, evaporate, or get transpired by plants, will take on average more than 50+ years. Often it's more like a hundred+ years. This means that unless we've been salting consistently like crazy since the 1950s we haven't hit the peak concentration at our wells yet. Add to this the fact that cities have expanded and more and more salt gets dumped on the roads every year means that it's highly unlikely it's peaked yet in most municipalities. While this isn't good, it helps to explain why \"it hasn't been tainted after so many years of doing it.\"\n\nAlso consider that usually the capture area/zone of a well is often enormous, and areas loaded up with salt like roads and parking lots often but not always, comprise a tiny fraction of that capture area. It's an enormous volume of water being recharged into the gw system, and often the solution to pollution is dilution.\n\nAlso, like a few others have mentioned, runoff is big too. When snow with salt on/in it melts, you get a peak chloride release from the snowpack within the first 10% of snowmelt volume, which means a shit-ton of it is gonna run off into streams and creeks, and eventually rivers, lakes and the ocean. As a local line sources, roads can cause crazy high chloride spikes in streams and it's a huge problem for fish and aquatic life in general. I've even heard of marine crabs/crustaceans illegally/accidentally unloaded from ship ballast water at freshwater ports finding their way upstream to enjoy a more \"natural habitat.\"",
"Has anyone done any studies comparing places that use more grit instead of salt?\n\nIn my city, grit (sand, gravel, etc.) is usually used on the side streets and on the roads that pretty much always have snow cover of some sort. They only use salt on the highway and a couple other main roads.\n\nI just feel like it would be an interesting study to do. See if reducing salt amount used actually changes anything.",
"This was actually something that one of my former professors researched. The link to his paper can be found [here (Warning: paywall)](_URL_0_). \n\n\"Abstract: We investigated the spatial and temporal distribution of chloride and conductivity in a long hydroperiod retention pond and two short hydroperiod detention ponds. In both cases we observed greatly elevated conductivities in surface and ground waters with peak conductivities exceeding 45 mS cm−1 in the retention pond and 25 mS cm−1 in one detention pond. Pond ground water conductivity remained highly elevated into the summer months and never declined to local stream conductivity levels. Conductivity and chloride concentrations were also elevated in floodplains adjacent to all ponds throughout the year. First order streams draining the detention pond floodplain were consistently elevated in conductivity and were a year-round net source of ions to the second order stream into which they flowed. These results indicate that both short and long hydroperiod stormwater ponds have the potential to serve as long-term, year round sources of chloride to adjacent surface and ground waters.\"\n\nTL:DR, essentially, if I remember correctly from his presentation, ions that are used for road salts will disassociate in retention ponds, roadside streams, ditches, rivers, etc, forming complex systems of ions which can create poor living conditions for aquatic animals, plants and even tertiary plants in the surrounding areas. The ion levels are pretty consistent throughout the year, spiking in the winter months then lowering during the warmer months. ",
"Wow, I just got on Reddit to procrastinate while writing a lit review on this very topic.\n\nAnyway, weezer3989 gave a good overview, but I'll try to add a few details for those interested. In terms of effects on vegetation, high levels of road salts washing into nearby soil can cause plants up to 40 meters from the road to exhibit symptoms similar to extreme drought. Basswood, Red Maple, and White Pine are particularly vulnerable to excess salt levels (as are, apparently, apple trees. Some orchard owners in Ontario have sought compensation from government highway agencies for crop damage due to road salt). Salt tolerant species include a variety of oak, birch, and aspen species, as well as grasses. \n\nSpring melt water from road-side snow banks can also provide a pulse of sodium- and chloride-laden water to streams and lakes. Since this briny mixture is more dense than the surrounding freshwater resources, it tends to sit at the bottom of the lakes it ends up in. If enough of this water builds up over time, it can even inhibit the spring turnover (regular process of mixing due to temperature differences between the upper and lower layers of lake water), which can have pretty adverse effects on a lake's biota. \n\nFor further reading: _URL_0_",
"It also has adverse effects on soil. Sodium accumulation raises the pH of soils, leading to a loss of organic matter, deflocculation of clays, degradation of soil structure and a decrease in hydraulic conductivity. It can also lead to metal mobilization from soils (due to binding site competition) which leads to metals leaching into ground and surface water. This could raise concern especially since ferrocyanide is used as a decaking agent.",
"A lot of it can leach into local water sources. Most people in this thread are discussing the effects of salt getting into drinking water, but it has a much bigger impact on local flora and fauna. I'm fairly certain that salting can have a similar effect as other pollutants regarding [hypoxia](_URL_0_. Basically, if enough gets into local water sources, it can lower the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. And as you can imagine, has the potential to kill off all wildlife living in the water source (fish need dissolved oxygen), and cause other wildlife to abandon that area as it's not suitable habitat. These anaerobic environments are usually linked to fertilizers and similar pollutants leaching into the ground water, but I'm fairly certain I've read in articles that salting can cause it as well.",
"This might be obvious but it seems like a lot of people are forgetting that salting and sanding roads and sidewalks prevents a lot of accidents, injuries, and deaths.\n\nAlso relevant: freezing point depression is a colligative property, meaning it only matters how much \"stuff\" is dissolved in the solution (the water, in this case), NOT what the actual solute is (NaCl vs CaCl2, beetroot juice, cheese brine, etc)",
"I hope I'm not too late to ask in a separate comment or if I should piggyback this question onto a high voted comment string but is propylene glycol a viable alternative to salt as a de-icer? I personally use it for other purposes but I've heard that it's used at airports for de-icing though not from authentic sources and I never followed up those claims. Does anyone here know if it's worthwhile to use propylene glycol instead of salt? Ir should I post this question differently?\n\n*Editing to add that I found the answer to my question if anyone actually sees this. Propylene Glycol, while non toxic and much safer than its cousin diethylene or ethylene glycol (the sweet flavored anti-freeze that is toxic to mammals), Propylene Glycol is safe for consumption and generally safe for the environment. However, while it is biodegradable, it has the unfortunate effect of leeching oxygen from water when it biodegrades in water sources, potentially suffocating oxygen hungry aquatic life. So while it's perfectly safe for exposure to mammals and has a minimal immediate environmental impact, it can become harmful over the long term when allowed to accumulate in runoff water so when used in large quantities it should be reclaimed before it can impact \"standing water\" (not rivers and streams but yes lakes and ponds, it can become dangerous to \"standing water\" over time. This makes it at least as expensive and troublesome for de-icing roads as more traditional salt based compounds and I guess more expensive since \"rock salt and sand\" are significantly cheaper to buy. Oh and it turns out to be especially useful for aircraft de-icing for a variety of complex reasons peculiar to aircraft. It would probably be awesome for use on your vehicle, especially if you can use it in a way that allows you to reclaim the used product so it doesn't wash into the nearest drain but it's not practical for large scale use on roadways because it can't be reclaimed in a cost effective manner.\n\nI was going to just delete my question but I'll just leave it here and if the moderators decide someone else said all this better or it doesn't belong here they can delete it.",
"Civil engineer here. De-icing salts also can cause corrosion of the rebar in reinforced concrete bridges which can both drastically reduce their lifespan and require costly maintenance to mitigate the effects. Designers today try to use mixes of concrete that are less porous and ensure adequate cover depth (distance to the rebar from the surface) to protect the rebar but both of these merely delay the process.\n\nAll in all, it would be highly beneficial to society from both an environmental and a financial perspective to develop a less corrosive, more environmentally friendly, and cost effective alternative to de-icing salts, but so far none have gained widespread acceptance.",
"My partner actually owns a small indoor/outdoor gardening shop that mostly specializes in hydroponics. One of the growing mediums you can use are Leca clay pellets, which are commercially made small, marble-sized balls of whipped/frothed up kiln-fired clay. They are light in weight and density, clean and very easy to work with.\n\nApparently in some parts of Europe they grind/break these up & use them in place of road salt. Neat.",
"This is always a big issue in the creek by my old High School. All the salt would run into the stream and there's pretty much nothing living in it now. Salmon aren't running up the stream because there hasn't been a successful hatch, there are no salmon to lay eggs.\n\nThe high levels of salt in the stream bed has also killed off vegetation near the stream. The Salmon Berry bushes, which are normally very hardy, have no leaves in the spring. The elder berries don't flower there anymore. It's fairly toxic without people even realizing.",
"This depends on where you are, what type of soil you have and how your community deals with storm drain wash and overflow. If the soil is clay or till there are usually settling ponds. These accumulate the salt before it reaches streams. The ponds divert the flow into long slow meanders that settle the salt and allow it an opportunity to be captured in plant and silt.\n\nIf your soil is permeable the salt quickly joins the subterranean flow. The water in a stream or a river is only a portion of the complete flow, often 90% or more is flowing through the substratum in the rocks and sand. Heavy things like salty water tend to get sucked into that flow. The salt eventually reaches the sea, but it flows more or less encapsulated by the fresh water flow above. Not just the river bed but a level of fresh water below the river bed flows along while deep along the impermeable rocks salty flows exist. \n\nI realize my 2nd para sort suggests that pollution doesn't matter, but in practice this is often true, maybe as often as the opposite. Many things simply disappear once they're in the water flow. They can't be found or analyzed with any equipment on earth. They're gone. The opposite happens too. Some things tend to stay around and available for human consumption and poisoning. Oils and gasoline float. Not so much salt. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/minnesotas-impaired-waters-and-tmdls/tmdl-projects/special-projects/metro-area-chloride-project/road-salt-and-water-quality.html"
],
[
"http://www.lakesuperiorstreams.org/understanding/impact_salt_2.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpoint_source_pollution"
],
[
"http://news.wpr.org/post/milwaukee-reduce-winter-road-salt-cheese-brine"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1573062X.2012.716070#.UqtT_9JDuy4"
],
[
"onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr235/069-082.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(environmental)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1b2so2
|
Does a neutron, weighing more than a proton, have to be larger in size because it has more mass?
|
I'm wondering at the quantum level. The way I picture a nucleus is a very large core with protons and neutrons (the neutrons being slightly larger than the protons) with very tiny electrons orbitting it. Does it necessarily have to be this way or could the size of the atom not be set by its mass.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1b2so2/does_a_neutron_weighing_more_than_a_proton_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c932elx",
"c932ou2",
"c93a45t"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Fundamental particles have a very poorly defined \"size\". Also, there is no reason for a more massive particle to be \"larger\".",
"[The \"size\" of an atom is set by its electron configuration, not its mass.](_URL_0_) As moltencheese said though, sizes are very poorly defined at the quantum level. \n\nAccording to the standard model, protons and neutrons are made of up and down quarks. The neutron consists of 2 down quarks and 1 up, and a proton has 2 ups and 1 down. The down quark weighs slightly more than the up quark. That's the main reason neutrons are heavier. ",
"Let's blow your mind.\n\nYou may of heard that fundamental particles have no size; and some physicists will actually state that fundamental particles are zero-dimensional objects. That may be true, but you may of also heard that the top quark being MUCH MUCH MUCH heavier then the electron, is much smaller then the electron. Both are fundamental and have no size... So you'd think they conflict.\n\nWell that is mainly models mucking things up really, we don't really know what a particle is really, but I can give you an idea of what \"size\" means to a fundamental massive particle, such as an electron, quark but I can only loosely add for what size may mean for neutrons and protons.\n\nNow massless particles are believed to be fundmental, and of 0-size. You may of also heard that without the higgs field, the field that gives mass to particles, all fundamental particles would be massless and travel at the speed of light. So essentially it breaks down to \"How does the higgs field and mechanism give both mass and size to a particle fundamental particle\".\n\nSo we need to step back for a moment. Let's look at the electron. The electron is actually two particles, yet it is a single particle. It depends how you view it. People often give analogies of how the higgs mechanism works, but let's explain it a little better. Let's define a particle named the Electron A which is mass less, this particle travels at the speed of light but couples with the higgs mechanism which causes it to decay into a particle we will name Electron B, which also travels at the speed of light and due to the higgs mechanism decays into Electron A.\n\nSo Electron A decays into Electron B and vice versa. This takes time and distance to occur, and all particles interact with the higgs mechanism in different time periods and distances and ways. That being said, we call the collective entity the electron, a rapidly decaying particle decaying back and forth rapidly. Yet we still don't have a size yet... But we have a decent understand of how the higgs mechanism interacts with particles now.\n\nGoing forward I want you to imagine the Electron A shoot > then decaying and shooting < then decaying and shoot > . In reality it would be decaying in all directions but in general it stays in a localized region. This localized region would be the \"size\" of the electron, and would also be the electron itself.\n\nSo... I hope you now have at least a basic understanding of \"size\" and why size is really hard to define. I am defining it one way, others would define it another. Some define fundamental particles as 0-size regardless.\n\nThat being said, the Top Quark, Top Quark A - Top Quark B decays MUCH MUCH MUCH faster then the Electron A - Electron B decay rate. Mass is energy, it's a form of energy. So the Top Quark binds and interacts with the higgs field and mechanism much stronger, so it has more mass. However here is where the mind blowing comes from. Because it decays faster, the Top Quark A travels much less of a distance before decaying in relation to the Electron A. This means the entity we call the Top Quark ends up being much much much smaller, yet more massive.\n\nSo... We got fundamental particles out of the way, and this is where we stop... Because protons and neutrons are a combination of particles, do not not get their mass from the higgs mechanism, but rather the binding energies of the quarks in the nucleus. \n\nTo make matters a little worse, wait till you find out particles are not single objects. A individual proton does not exist, a proton is an excitation of the proton field which permeates the entire universe which is a manifestation of the respective quark fields and other fields. Particles are never isolated, they are not really \"balls\". Think of a rubber sheet, a particle is essentially a stable ripping moving across it. Virtual particles are unstable ripples.\n\nTL:DR Sizes are extremely hard to define at the quantum level, did not address neutrons or protons really, mostly fundamental particles and some interpretations of size you could come to. \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_ < 2 dimensional view of orbitals, or the electron excitations in the respective fields and how it manifests.\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_2_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://crystalmaker.com/support/tutorials/crystalmaker/atomicradii/resources/VFI_Atomic_Radii_sm.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Qualitative_understanding_of_shapes",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics",
"http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/",
"http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/1-the-basic-idea/",
"http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-standard-model-higgs/"
]
] |
|
31it33
|
why do i feel physically exhausted after an argument, even if i argued calmly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31it33/eli5_why_do_i_feel_physically_exhausted_after_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq1yunl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because any sort of conflict triggers the 'fight or flight' response.\n\n[Wikipedia] Fight-or-flight response - _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response"
]
] |
||
3mpn94
|
why do we need to wash our fruit and vegetables before eating them? what exactly are we washing off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mpn94/eli5why_do_we_need_to_wash_our_fruit_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvgyzn2",
"cvgzalp",
"cvgzcd4",
"cvgzhrs",
"cvgzlsf",
"cvgztgi",
"cvh07pz"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
5,
2,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Possibly salmonella. The exterior of fruits and vegetables are handled often and are normally quite dirty. Unlike a candy bar there is no wrapper and so the exterior should be cleaned well before consuming.",
"Well in america we are washing off the wax that makes it shine in the grocery store and the pesticides that keep it fresh from insects. The wax is edible but it tastes bad and the pesticides are very minimal so I just give my fruites and veggies a quick rinse",
"It also helps remove any lingering chemicals used in the growing process such as pesticides",
"It comes off with really hot water :) plus I dont entirely mind eating it sometimes. I rinse to get rid of the pesticides for the most part, and those come off easy",
"Dirt and all the stuff you can find in dirt, like bugs, germs, pesticide, and animal poop. ",
"You know how you grab fruit to check it before you buy it? And then you frequently put it back? So does everyone else. You don't know whose handled that before you bought it, and where they've been.",
"In addition to dirt (gritty salad is the worst!) washing produce can help remove some pesticide residue and bugs like salmonella and listeria. We had a listeria outbreak in Colorado a few years ago that killed more than 30 people because the operators of a cantaloupe farm didn't thoroughly wash the produce before distro."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1smlqd
|
why do materials in the earths crust group together in vains?
|
I know that the earth has a metallic core because the heavier elements sunk down when the earth was still a giant molten ball of fire. But wouldn't the same heat and fluidity have allowed for the diffusion and fairly even spread of elements.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1smlqd/eli5_why_do_materials_in_the_earths_crust_group/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdz905l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In any given volume of molten rock in the core of the earth there is a mixture of different elements, roughly equally distributed like sugar stirred into a cup of coffee.\n\nSometimes that molten rock is cooled - usually by being injected into a volcanic system that brings it to or close to the surface.\n\nAs the rock cools, various things can happen which change it's consistency from a \"smooth blend\" to something more complex.\n\nSome materials crystallize as they cool. They clump together forming various shapes, with the clumps separating into distinct inclusions within the cooling rock.\n\nSometimes materials precipitate from the molten rock. As the temperature decreases, different materials may transition from a liquid state to a solid or gaseous state and flow to different parts of the rock mixture by gravity (the heavier things sink, the lighter things rise).\n\nThese changes can be affected by pressure, by motion, by chemical-molecular bonds and interactions, and by the expansion or contraction of the melted rock over time. Some materials transform differently under different conditions, or differently as changes in the surrounding molten rock take shorter or longer time periods to transition between various states.\n\nThese kinds of complexity is why we get so many kinds of rocks, mineral concentrations, chemical compounds, veins of metal, crystals, and other kinds of formation from a relatively simple, relatively homogenous molten rock core."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1si6cg
|
what is the basic idea behind the concept of a "rainbow universe" and what does it mean for us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1si6cg/eli5_what_is_the_basic_idea_behind_the_concept_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdxtqyv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The basic idea is that different frequencies of light would be affected slightly differently by gravity. The rainbow comes from just that -- looking at the color of the light as well as the effect that gravity has on it.\n\nIt would be very difficult to observe or test, though, since the effect would probably be very small. However, scientists think they could use very energetic events, like gamma ray bursts.\n\nWhat it could mean for us... we have two theories to describe the universe. At one end is Einstein's relativity, which describes very big things (planets, stars, galaxies, the universe); at the other is quantum mechanics, which describes very small things (atoms, electrons, photons, etc.) \n\nThe problem is that the two theories cannot be made to work with each other. Relativity does not apply to very small things and quantum effects disappear in very big things.\n\nThe rainbow universe hypothesis is one attempt to try to get relativity and quantum theories to connect to each other. Additionally, if this hypothesis were true, it would mean that we didn't need a \"big bang\" to create the universe, and that the universe may have always existed.\n\nAt the moment, it is only an hypothesis, and one which a lot of physicists dismiss out of hand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
b71tbv
|
why would an overweight person not be able to eat as much as a skinny fit person? (read below)
|
Sorry the question is worded weridly. This subreddit is kinda bad about removing posts.
But, I (18 and overweight) can barely eat one normal sized meal before feeling super super full and my girlfriend (18 and super skinny/fit) can eat a larger meal and still be hungry. Why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b71tbv/eli5_why_would_an_overweight_person_not_be_able/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejpsl0n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"How much you can eat in one sitting is based on stomach size, not body size. The fact that you have a lot more fat stored around your body has nothing to do with how big your stomach is. In fact, it probably makes it harder for you to eat massive amounts at a time because your subcutaneous fat would limit your internal organ space."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bf63v6
|
why is it that i sometimes lose my complete sense of time and day after taking a nap?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bf63v6/eli5_why_is_it_that_i_sometimes_lose_my_complete/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elbbnzv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you sleep you go through different stages dictated by what are called alpha and theta waves. Being in certain stages of sleep will result in different levels of awareness upon waking up. I don’t remember what stages dictate what, but some involve not even being aware that you were asleep at all, and others involve not knowing where you are, what time it is, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3jpuin
|
why do we prefer more width over more height on screens (movies, tv's, monitors, etc.)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jpuin/eli5_why_do_we_prefer_more_width_over_more_height/
|
{
"a_id": [
"curbjro",
"curbth7"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Our eyes naturally see in a wide screen aspect ratio so wider screens fill our vision more than square ones.",
"That's how our world is arranged: The sky and ground right beneath us are both mostly featureless, so we focus on the strip in between, where most important activity happens."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8apnhp
|
humans and their ancestors didn't always have civilization to make caring for one another so easy. when/why did human babys get so useless?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8apnhp/eli5humans_and_their_ancestors_didnt_always_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx0htgu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They have been in tribes and small communities for hundreds of thousands of years. Depends how you define civilization but we have pretty much always had a group of other people to help out (at least as long as we were still considered people)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2k12ie
|
If CO2 dissolved in water is basically the same as carbonic acid, could you carbonate water by dissolving carbonic acid in it instead of using a CO2 tank?
|
I assume you'd need a high partial pressure for CO2 over the water, but would this otherwise work?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2k12ie/if_co2_dissolved_in_water_is_basically_the_same/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clh9zae",
"clhdqqz"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Yep, the only problem is that solid carbonic acid often comes as a sodium salt. This means that while you add fizz, you also add saltiness. This is why baking soda is not so pleasant when overused (baking soda is sodium bicarbonate). \n\nTL;DR High pressure carbon dioxide is just a cleaner way to dissolve carbon dioxide in water. ",
"Pure carbonic acid was thought to be impossible to make for a longest time. It was only in 1991 that they finally figured out how to do it. It is only stable when completely water-free, so it wouldn't be very practical.\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482932/"
]
] |
|
4o6smr
|
History of military strategies
|
Hello askhistorians
I'm 23 years old and currently trying to become a history teacher.
I have always been interested in the history of war and I've been reading a lot about it. I have read a lot about the political and economic side of war. But I don't know anything about the tactics and strategies that where used. I'm looking to start learning about it but I have really no idea where to start.
Do you guys have any books you can recommend me. I'm mainly looking for books about the Romans and the first En second world war era as those are my favorite subjects but books about other ages are appreciated as well.
Many thankd in advancr and pardon my English as it isn't my first languages
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4o6smr/history_of_military_strategies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4a3793",
"d4a4f2l",
"d4a9pmn",
"d4abzkv",
"d4ammb8",
"d4anv3e",
"d4bkog5"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5,
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The historian Adrian Goldsworthy has made quite a successful career out of writing (normally very good) books about Rome and her military- depending on which era, I'm sure you can find something in his published works that could suit. Personally I'm very fond of [In The Name of Rome: The Men Who Won The Roman Empire](_URL_0_), which examines the changing nature of Roman warmaking using specific personalities (starting with Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus in the Second Punic War, he works his way through to Belisarius and the Battle of Dara). ",
"I can't go into much detail because I'm on my phone, but you may want to check out *The Sling and The Stone: On War in the 21st Century* by Thomas X. Hammes. In it, he divides warfare into four distinct 'generations'. \nThe first involved old-fashioned line battles, and lasted up to around the late nineteenth century.\n\nThe second generation lasted through World War I and was characterized by the use of new weapons such as improved artillery, poison gas, and machine guns, along with nations ability to mobilize mass numbers of young men and arm them through the industrialization of warfare.\n\nThe third generation began with the Second World War, and saw the introduction of large-scale maneuver warfare involving armored vehicles and increasingly mobile infantry forces. This style of warfare remained dominant through most of the twentieth century, and it's the style for which most modern military forces are trained and equipped.\n\nThe fourth generation can be described as a type of war where victory is achieved by slowly eroding the enemy's political will to fight, popularly referred to as an 'insurgency'. We've seen this type of warfare since at least the middle of the twentieth century--it's the type that the Chinese Communist Party used to defeat the Kuomintang--but it's become increasingly popular, especially among non-state actors, in more recent decades as it gives smaller, weaker forces the ability to defeat large, well-trained, and well-funded armies. \n\n*The Sling and the Stone* is mostly about fourth generation warfare, but in the book, Hammes makes an interesting observation about all four: With each successive generation of warfare, the primary objective of the military forces has moved further back from the front line. In the first generation, each army sought simply to defeat the other side's forces. In the second, the primary target of newly-developed artillery weapons became the enemy's support and communication units. In the third, forces attempted to maneuver even deeper behind enemy lines, later even attacking strategic targets in cities in the hopes of destroying the enemy's war industry to secure an easier victory. With the fourth generation, the objective moves back even further, into the hearts and minds of the citizens of the enemy nation. ",
"You should take a look at Carl von Clausewitz's *Vom Kriege* (*On War*) and Antoine-Henri Jomini's *The Art of War*. Both are early 19th century texts, but both were also popular teaching tools and had a lasting impact (it is probably safe to assume, for example, that every member of the German High Command in the First World War had read Clausewitz). Hew Strachan has also written a slim volume examining the history and impact of *On War*, called *Clausewitz's On War: A Biography*\n\nFor the early period, I would start with the classics - Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, Caesar's *Commentarii de Bello Gallico* (*Commentaries on the Gallic War*). The Romans are not my specialty, however, so I apologize for not being able to suggest more.",
"There's a lecture by Hew Strachan on the \"canonization\" of strategic thinking that you might be interested in: _URL_0_\n\nHe discusses the development of such a canon over time (from specific thinkers to sort of amorphous strategic doctrines) and its uses, mentioning quite a lot of books and thinkers along the way.",
"I would recommend having a look at Peter Paret (ed). *Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986) and Russell F. Weigley's *The American Way of Warfare: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy* (New York: Macmillan, 1973). The first is a collection of essays that explores military thoughts across time and space. The second focuses on American military thought from the Revolution to the 1960s. \n\nFor tactics, in particular the use of artillery, see Shelford Bidwell and Dominick Graham's *Fire-Power: British Army Weapons and Theories of War, 1904-1945* (London: Allen and Unwin, 1982) and John A. English and Bruce I. Gudmundsson. On Artillery. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993).\n\nFor military thought and philosophy, as u/lureynol points out, Clausewitz and Jomini are important figures. However, instead of reading what can be fairly antiquated prose, I suggest reading Hugh Smith's *On Clausewitz: a Study on Military and Political Ideas* (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), which offers a great introduction and analysis of the context in which Clausewitz lived/wrote. You might also be interested in Elisabeth Krimmer and Patricia Anne Simpson, *Enlightened War: German Theories and Cultures of War from Frederick the Great to Clauswitz* (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2011).\n\nSome of these are dated, but are classic \"war and society\" texts. If you need any further suggestions, do not hesitate to ask. I hope this helps.",
"No one yet has mentioned the Byzantine *Strategikon* as well as the De Re Militari by Vegetius, which ended up having a large impact on warfare of the Middle Ages. \n\nEdit: Does anyone have recommendations on books on military logistics?",
"Stephen Biddle's Military power takes a good look at all the strategic and operational systems that make up modern tacticsz He argues that since 1917 all armies that have succeeded in war share the same emphasis on concealment, cover and maneuver called the Modern System and that Firepower isn't as powerful as assumed by many.\n\nPaddy Griffith also. Forward into battle is a good example of a book focused on small scale unit tactics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Name-Rome-Roman-Empire-Phoenix/dp/0753817896"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FHWyffZn5-c"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cra0fi
|
; why do pills generally need to be kept at a certain temperature?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cra0fi/eli5_why_do_pills_generally_need_to_be_kept_at_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ex31dv7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Heat typically accelerates the rate at which things degrade or break down, so keeping pills at a certain temperature reduces the likelihood and/or speed at which the active ingredient in your medicine breaks down and no longer does it's job.\n\nThe stability/shelf life of medicines is tested at *very* specific temperatures and humidity levels to demonstrate that they still work after a given length of time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
kjxez
|
- what would happen to the ocean (and the earth) if all sea life was removed from the ocean.
|
Talking more about the effects on the oceans level and the subsequent effects on the Earth, rather than the effects on humans themselves. (but explaining that would be cool too)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kjxez/eli5_what_would_happen_to_the_ocean_and_the_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2kuum0",
"c2kuum0"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Plankton in the ocean are responsible for producing most of the oxygen that is created by biological processes. Without them, there will be lots more CO2 in the atmosphere. This will probably also accelerate global warming and acidify the seas a bit.\n\nAdditionally, a large part of the human population depends on sea life for protein. Without it, a lot of people would die.",
"Plankton in the ocean are responsible for producing most of the oxygen that is created by biological processes. Without them, there will be lots more CO2 in the atmosphere. This will probably also accelerate global warming and acidify the seas a bit.\n\nAdditionally, a large part of the human population depends on sea life for protein. Without it, a lot of people would die."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9ky533
|
why is the majority of education based simply upon regurgitating facts and memorizing details/formulas when nothing is gained simply from memorizing them, but rather using them in a meaningful way?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ky533/eli5_why_is_the_majority_of_education_based/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e72okxi",
"e72olw6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm just a burnt-out college senior sitting here late at night cramming for yet another midterm and pissed that I still have to take tests, but I'm fed up with education, at least as my experience with it has been. All I'm ever asked to do in my exam-based classes is cull down everything that's been taught to a small list of points to regurgitate on demand from memory, memorize a bunch of formulas which have little value in the real world and certainly do not need to be, and *should not* (to ensure accuracy when using the complex ones that matter) be memorized to be useful. After this is said and done, nothing is lost from permanently forgetting the majority of it when it is no longer relevant to survival in the given class. So why is this the norm? I'm excluding essay-based classes. But the rest of it seems like a pointless and pathetic charade which forces us to demonstrate a very specific skill, and contributes nothing to our broader knowledge.",
"It's about building a foundation of knowledge as rote. For example, learning your times tables is not as functionally helpful as learning how to multiply in your head. But foundationally is more helpful so that you can learn other things easier.\n\nAlgebra needs to be learnt by using it, but you can't unless you understand multiplication and division which you can't understand without addition or subtraction. Which you can't understand without numeracy which you need to learn by rote.\n\nAlso many governments in the world use a standardised testing system as a way of ensuring all people get the same \"level\" of intelligence. Unfortunately these tests are on your ability to recall facts as apposed to your practical skills. And so for the schools to do well. They need you to learn things by rote."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
magvc
|
Why does my french bread go hard as a rock after 3 days?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/magvc/why_does_my_french_bread_go_hard_as_a_rock_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2zd7ev",
"c2zd7tm",
"c2zd7ev",
"c2zd7tm"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"lack of preservatives, or rather less than store bought white bread....",
"It just dries out. Fresh bread has lots of moisture in it, but over time that moisture evaporates and the bread dries out. The fibres in the bread are soft and flexible when wet but hard and stiff when dry, so when the bread dries out it gets hard and brittle.\n\nIt also gets lighter over time, for the same reason.",
"lack of preservatives, or rather less than store bought white bread....",
"It just dries out. Fresh bread has lots of moisture in it, but over time that moisture evaporates and the bread dries out. The fibres in the bread are soft and flexible when wet but hard and stiff when dry, so when the bread dries out it gets hard and brittle.\n\nIt also gets lighter over time, for the same reason."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a2g6b0
|
This post will self destruct... (what is the history behind the idea of the self destruct button?)
|
The "self-destruct" button is a pretty common trope in scifi, military, and spy media and is just taken as a normal precaution. Have there actually ever been (or I guess are there) places where self destruct buttons are routinely used? Do we have any historical examples of "self destruction"? When did this idea first develop? Are there pre-industrial cases?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a2g6b0/this_post_will_self_destruct_what_is_the_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eayfekj"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"Military equipment has long had some sort of process for self-destruction in order to prevent capture by the enemy. If they obtain functioning examples, not only might they press it into service with their own military, but more importantly, they can conduct exploitation. Thus, you'll find a \"Zero\" button on any modern radio system. Press it correctly, and the system goes blank. Do this just before capture (or if you have time in an aircraft, before ejecting) It's the modern equivalent of burning the codebook. Before electronic programming, the similar solution was an explosive charge on the radios, which goes back at least as far as WWII. Case in point, this is the self-destruct off a US Navy A-4 Skyhawk. [_URL_0_](_URL_1_) Push both buttons at the same time, the explosive is detonated, and the radio (and IFF) blow.\n\nIn the event of something bigger having to be destroyed, oftentimes it's not a button but a process. For a tank, you'd use thermite grenades. Example, one on the breech block, one on the engine block. The thermite basically melts through the metal of the object, rendering it useless. It is important, when sabotaging equipment, that the same pieces be destroyed on all vehicles being destroyed, in order to prevent the opposition from being able to create a functioning vehicle by cobbling undestroyed components from multiple vehicles.\n\nFitting a vehicle with enough explosives or thermite to destroy itself at the push of a button is impractical for two reasons. One is that you would need a lot of it. The other is that battlefields are violent places, and you don't want a hard knock or some such to accidentally trigger the self-destruct feature of an otherwise operable vehicle. Hence the use of self-destruct only on specific components as the above-mentioned radio, and by use of manual charges. For the same reason, fitting equipment with an anti-tamper device such as a vial of acid which melts the electronics of a radio if poorly opened is not really practicable in combat systems, but could be used in less extreme situations like an office.\n\nThe one exception is a ship which comes with in-built destruction options. Scuttling the ship is a long-standing tradition, and could be done by fire or making holes. You can open sea-cocks to let water in, or just put a big explosive somewhere. When the armored ship Graf Spee was scuttled in WW2, they hung armed 11\" shells above the main magazines by rope, poured fuel over the whole shebang, just to make sure that after she flooded, she wouldn't be raised. Open the seacocks, light the fire, and then get the hell away from the ship before the rope burned and the shell dropped into the magazine.\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1343/9895/products/DSCN6870\\_1024x1024.JPG?v=1474667377",
"https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1343/9895/products/DSCN6870_1024x1024.JPG?v=1474667377"
]
] |
|
1g32nc
|
Questions about Norse North America
|
As I understand it, there are a lot of theories about pre-columbian visitors to the Americas, and the only one that is wildly accepted as hard fact with hard evidence is Vikings in North America. I have a few questions about it.
What was the state of the settlements at their height? If I were an average person in one of the settlements at that time, then what would my average day look like? Do the native peoples that the Vikings encountered in North America show up later in the historical record or still exist? If so, then are there any legends that the Native Americans told about the Vikings and what are they? What were the Viking reactions to and attitudes towards these natives? How were these natives able to dislodge some of the most brutal warriors that Europe has ever seen from North America?
I thank you for taking the time to read and maybe even answer this cruelly large laundry list of questions.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g32nc/questions_about_norse_north_america/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cagbmlg"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Yipes.. these are a lot of questions! Here are a bunch of previous posts on the Norse settlement in North America that address at least some of your questions. I don't see that any touch on your first questions about the state of the settlements & daily life, so hopefully an archaeologist can jump in here. \n\nThe TL;DR is that not much is known, since the Norse left scanty written records, aboriginal oral records are even more scarce, and there are few archeological finds.\n\n[Is it generally accepted that the Vikings beat Columbus to North America?](_URL_4_)\n\n[Pre-Columbia contact](_URL_3_)\n\n[How much do we know about the Scandinavian settlers in North America, and of their interactions with the indigenous population?](_URL_2_)\n\n[Non-Saga sources describing interaction between Norse and Skraelings?](_URL_0_)\n\n[How far into North America were the Vikings able to travel? Could they have made it to the Yucatan and had contact with the Maya?](_URL_6_)\n\n[Why didn't the vikings settle in North America?](_URL_1_)\n\n[Did the Native Americans receive any diseases when they encountered the Vikings?](_URL_5_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wecun/nonsaga_sources_describing_interaction_between/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yyut4/why_didnt_the_vikings_settle_in_north_america/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f7efh/how_much_do_we_know_about_the_scandinavian/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13neec/precolumbia_contact/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/y099o/is_it_generally_accepted_that_the_vikings_beat/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18vlom/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwlu/how_far_into_north_america_were_the_vikings_able/"
]
] |
|
6wxhqg
|
why are there no protections against a a rich person suing a poor person? why can a company sue a person and trap him for years, making him bankrupt?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wxhqg/eli5_why_are_there_no_protections_against_a_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmbi7q8",
"dmbie31"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Think about it: what is the purpose of suing someone? Typically, you either want to stop them from doing something that's illegal (get an injunction), or get compensation for an illegal act (a tort) they committed against you. It wouldn't be just if a person rich person wasn't be able to do these things--their property can still be damaged, their person can be injured, their reputation can be slandered.\n\nInstead of restricting the rich plaintiff, it's the poor defendant who needs protection, and here the law does provide some remedies. For instance, if the law is clearly on one side, the court can summarily dismiss the case instead of going through a full trial. A poor defendant may not have to pay any court costs. If the law suit is frivolous (not based on any reasonable legal claim), a court can award the defendant his legal and attorney's fees. In special cases, the defendant may even be entitled to additional compensation as a punishment for the misbehavior of the plaintiff. Additionally, it is considered a professional responsibility of attorneys to participate in or to support *pro bono* programs, that provide legal assistance for free or at reduced cost to poor defendants.\n\nCertainly this system is not perfect. Not every defendant who needs *pro bono* assistance can get it in practice. But it's a preferable approach to simply taking away people's access to the courts because they're wealthy.",
"It is up to the voters in the US to decide this. They vote for the people who makes the laws that create the system. If you look at other countries this is a thing that ends up being less common. First of all there is a lot less cases you can sue over and more cases that is put through the criminal justice system instead. In the US if you hurt someone you may have to face a lawsuit from them to pay compensation, however in other countries you may face a criminal trial for your actions and may though the criminal trial be forced to pay compensation in addition to fines or jail time. And in a criminal trial you get presented with a lawyer. There is also stricter laws for insurance agencies so it is common for the insurance agency to have to pay the lawyer if you are sued. Even if you lose the case you may not have to pay the entire lawyer fee."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
29dlzi
|
how does a wooden sailing ship work in terms of the wheel steering it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29dlzi/eli5_how_does_a_wooden_sailing_ship_work_in_terms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cijw1h2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The wheel controls a rudder located underneath the ship. The rudder then displaces water allowing the ship to move freely within its surroundings."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ltdpa
|
what is the invisible hand idea?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ltdpa/eli5_what_is_the_invisible_hand_idea/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc2jbxz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In the 1700s, people were still trying to figure out how production and consumption worked and what governments should do about it. One set of ideas, now associated with a man called Adam Smith, came up with some theories which essentially said that if there was an increase in demand for a product that they would compete and push prices up, which would send a signal to producers to make more of that thing, which would drive prices back down. The 'invisible hand' was simply a personification to explain what was happening.\n\nWe take a lot of this for granted today and Adam Smith's writings have been warped and politicised quite a bit, but for the day, this was groundbreaking stuff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1jh7f9
|
the hubble telescope
|
Can someone explain in simple terms how astrophysicists and astronomers can determine the distance and existence of planets/stars billions of miles away? I know the Hubble telescope takes in light which has been emitted by glowing stars but with all that power and "accuracy" how come we have a hard time determining what the surface or Pluto looks like?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jh7f9/eli5_the_hubble_telescope/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbemxgp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The farther a star is, the dimmer it appears. A star's color spectrum is a good proxy for its actual brightness, so given that and it's apparent brightness (how bright it appears), we can estimate its distance. We can also see if it's moving away or towards us by examining its Doppler shift - a shift towards the \"red\" part of the spectrum indicates movement away, or an increase in wavelength. Finally, \"billions of miles\" is not very far in stellar terms :) Billions of light-years (a measure of distance) is more accurate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2wxbxi
|
Did any medieval European countries have a proper standing army, or did they all rely upon the feudal system of raising levy forces?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wxbxi/did_any_medieval_european_countries_have_a_proper/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cov5g3q"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Yes. The Byzantines had what you could consider a \"standing army\" in their Imperial *tagmata*, elite regiments of full-time professional soldiers used for a variety of operations, including the garrisoning of strategic sites and offensive campaigning. Sometimes seen as supplements for the *thematic* troops (part-time provincial soldiery), the *tagmata* were introduced by Constantine V in the 8th Century as personal forces that established the authority of the Imperial throne over the *strategoi* of the themes, who sometimes acted in their own interests and caused dangerous revolts.\n\nEach *tagmatic* unit bore a special name (sometimes ethnically based) designated by the Emperor himself, that acted as a source of pride both within the unit and within the Empire as a whole, for example, with the famous *Varangian Guard* or the *Kataphraktoi*. The *tagmatic* system reached its height under the Late Macedonians in the 10th and 11th Centuries, but declined in the years between the death of Basil II in AD 1025 and the rise of Alexios I Komnenos in AD 1081. With the establishment of the Komnenian system (emphasizing the unchallenged rule of the Komnenos family) and the disappearance of the theme system, the original distinction of the *tagma* was lost, but the name endured."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
o9q9a
|
If we can make diet soda with zero calories, why can't we make lite beer (or any other alcohol) with zero calories?
|
I assume it has something to do with the unique properties of ethanol as far as producing the effects of intoxication, but it seems like we could come up with a chemical that mimics the effect just as we've come up with non-caloric chemicals that mimic the effect of sweetness.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o9q9a/if_we_can_make_diet_soda_with_zero_calories_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3fif09",
"c3fimu6"
],
"score": [
20,
2
],
"text": [
"Because alcohol in and of itself *has* calories. Ethanol goes to acetaldehyde, which then goes to acetic acid and then acetyl CoA, which can enter the citric acid cycle. There are other chemicals which can mimic some of the effects of drunkenness, but then you'd basically be mixing up new recreational drugs, which the government might look upon unfondly.",
"Diet sodas are made using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar, these sweeteners contain little to no calories.\nAlcohol contains calories all by itself, so even if you recreate the flavour of beer without carbohydrates, you'd still have the alcohol. Not only that, but alcohol affects fat metabolism (I'm not sure if this is clinically significant though).\n\nYou could make a non-alcoholic zero calorie beer though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2i34io
|
Without observing the sky, is it possible to prove that the earth is rotating/orbiting?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2i34io/without_observing_the_sky_is_it_possible_to_prove/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckycxaf",
"ckyg0a6",
"ckyhn6l",
"ckyits7",
"ckyiv80",
"ckyj61h",
"ckyl1cj",
"ckysugg",
"ckz970k"
],
"score": [
472,
21,
33,
10,
14,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In the case of the Earth's rotation, yes, for instance, a relatively straightforward demonstration of the rotation of the Earth can be obtained with a [Foucault pendulum](_URL_0_).",
"Due to the rotation you weigh more at the poles (9.83 m/s²) than at the equator (9.78 m/s²).\n\nIn fact this is caused by two effects, the rotation, and therefore difference in centripetal forces, directly, as well as due to a larger \"mass\" of earth around the equator, again caused by it's rotation.",
"You could measure the Earth's rotation using the coriolis effect. Taking the Earth as a stationary frame of reference, moving objects experience a small force due to the earth's rotation. The faster the object is moving, the larger the force. \n\nFor example, moving due east causes an object to experience a small upward force, i.e. making it lighter; similarly, an object moving due west will experience a downward force, making it slightly heavier. You might be able to measure the change in weight of an object with a very precise scale in a fast train on tracks aligned with the equator.\n\nAnother example: an object moving due north will experience a slight eastward force. If you had a sniper rifle with a very accurate scope, you could shoot it due north and see the bullet hit the target to the right (east) of where it should have.\n\nLong range snipers actually do have to account for the coriolis effect when shooting! Pretty cool.\n\nEdit: fixed mistake pointed out by Jeffy_Weffy",
"Gyroscopic instruments like [heading indicators](_URL_0_) in small aircraft experience drift due to earth rotation. You could observe that this drift is maximum at the poles and very small close to the equator.",
"Totally possible, in multiple ways. The simplest way is to use a Foucault pendulum (aka, a really long penulum). _URL_0_ look at the gif there\n\nBasically, as the earth rotates, the path the pendulum traces out will rotate (or precess).",
"This is basically the problem [Biruni](_URL_0_) was faced with, although the question was a bit differently framed. I'd be forced to say no in the end, because proof requires the burden of full comprehension, and this was something he struggled with his entire life. These days it's easy for someone in our shoes to say go check out a pendulum or the curve of the earth from a high point, but we have a much sturdier foundation to work from.",
"With high powered artillery, one must adjust the aim to account for the Earth's rotation. There are formulas for this. ",
"You could shoot a very accurate gun a long distance and notice the effects on where the bullets hit. Aiming west, the bullets strike the target slightly low because the earth rotates up and toward you. Shoot east and they hit slightly high, as the earth is rotating away and down from the shooter. \n\nSame with shooting North/South an noticing the bullets miss to the left/right. ",
"i think the best proof of Earth's rotation is [Focault pendulum](_URL_1_), or visible Coriolis effect evidences (like difference of spinning direction of [low pressure areas](_URL_0_) on southern and northern hemispheres)\n\nfor orbiting i think the enough proof would be seasons cycle (that would also be a proof of Earth's rotation axis tilt), of course provided that observer is aware of seasons difference around the globe, mainly southern and northern hemispheres"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heading_indicator"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab%C5%AB_Ray%E1%B8%A5%C4%81n_al-B%C4%ABr%C5%ABn%C4%AB"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pressure_area",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum"
]
] |
||
8h8rxh
|
Once the fate of the Mexican-American War was all but clear, was there any serious discussion amongst the Americans to annex ALL of Mexico?
|
I’ve heard some ridiculous statements from people saying, usually sarcastically, that we should’ve annexed all of Mexico. Well, once it was clear, with the successful capture of Mexico City in 1847, that the Mexico had lost the war, was there any serious discussion in the US government or media to actually annex all of Mexico, and not just its northern territories like California and the Southwest? If so, what were the primary discussion points that were pro-all-annexation and pro-anti-all-annexation?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8h8rxh/once_the_fate_of_the_mexicanamerican_war_was_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyiatm8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There may be more to say, but you might like to start with a discussion from the FAQ section [\"American Expansion\"](_URL_1_) (in the app: about 25% of the way down the page). [\"During Manifest Destiny why did the US not try to annex all of Mexico and the rest of Central and South America?\"](_URL_0_) , replies by /u/AlotOfReading .\n\nBut this is not to discourage discussion -- more questions, data, and debate are welcome.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2f6an0/during_manifest_destiny_why_did_the_us_not_try_to/ck6bid4/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/us_history#wiki_american_expansion"
]
] |
|
m5uea
|
What is the closest another habitable planet could be near earth?
|
If there was a new planet, similar to earth that was habitable, what is the closest path they could be to earth to be viable and still capable of holding life?
Would they share an orbit with us? Be close by that we can travel back/forth with a ship? Would they have to be as far as Mars? Or would they die out because of Mars' distance? could it share our orbit and be on the exact opposite of the sun? if so, would we ever learn about it?
Edit: Mars is not meant to be the primary example. If another planet magically appeared in orbit, where would it need to be in relation to earth to be habitable?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m5uea/what_is_the_closest_another_habitable_planet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2ycxyn",
"c2ydjvw",
"c2ygj7j",
"c2ycxyn",
"c2ydjvw",
"c2ygj7j"
],
"score": [
5,
7,
3,
5,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The closest star is [Proxima Centauri](_URL_1_) which is 4.2 light years away. That's [about 170,000 times farther than Mars](_URL_3_). A lot of effort has gone into looking for planets in the habitable zone of this star, but nothing has been found. Still, it can't be conclusively ruled out.\n\nThe fastest interstellar probe we've ever built was [Voyager 1](_URL_2_) at about 62,000 km/h. At that rate it would take [about 73,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri](_URL_0_).\n\nThe chances of there being an as-yet undetected planet in the inner solar system are virtually nil.\n\nIn short, don't get your hopes up.",
"I understand; you are asking about a star's [habitable zone](_URL_0_)! I learned about this in astrobiology.\n\nWe define a habitable zone as the doughnut-shaped area around a star that provides the right amount of energy to maintain liquid water. Too close, and the planet dries up like Venus. Too far and it freezes, like Mars.\n\n(There are some exceptions; a planet could be outside of a habitable zone but still have liquid water due to greenhouse, volcanic, or tidal effects. Europa is an example.)\n\nOur solar system's habitable zone ranges from .7 to 1.3 AU, where 1 AU is the mean distance between the sun and the earth. Mars sits just outside at around 1.5 AU. \n\nA habitable zone differs depending on the type of star. Larger and hotter stars have habitable zones that are comparatively farther away.",
"What I think you're asking: if we magically added another planet to our solar system how close could its orbit be to Earth's without the planets' orbits becoming unstable.\n\nIn a *highly* idealized (i.e. practically impossible) case you could put another planet in the same orbit as Earth. If the other planet is small enough you could put it at one of the Lagrange points, or if the planet was the same mass as Earth you could put it exactly on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth. However, there are problems. In the small planet case it would have to be small enough that it would have serious trouble holding on to an atmosphere. Also, the closest Lagrange points (L1 and L2) are unstable. In the Earth-mass case that arrangement is also unstable (see [Can two planets of equal mass orbit around a fixed body within their opposite's L3 Lagrangian point?](_URL_0_)).\n\nSo, what about another planet that does not share Earth's orbit: In a two planet system, if the planets are on initially circular orbits they will be \"Hill stable\" (stable against close approaches for all time) if they're at least 2.4a1(m1/M+m2/M)^1/3 apart (a1 is the semi-major axis of the inner planet, m1 is the mass of the inner planet, m2 is the mass of the outer planet, and M is the mass of the star, from Gladman 1993). So, if both planets are Earth massed and Earth is the inner of the two planets you could put the other planet at 1.05 AU. HOWEVER, that is only true for two planet systems. If more planets are involved it gets vastly more complicated: the co-efficiant might be more like 9 instead of 2.4 (Smith & Lissauer 2009). So you might have to put it at more like 1.2 AU, which from my quick calculations looks like it would be ok (far enough away from Mars and Jupiter). Note: this is all back of the envelope calculation and furthermore it ignores the effects of resonances. To know more definitively one would have to run numerical integrations.",
"The closest star is [Proxima Centauri](_URL_1_) which is 4.2 light years away. That's [about 170,000 times farther than Mars](_URL_3_). A lot of effort has gone into looking for planets in the habitable zone of this star, but nothing has been found. Still, it can't be conclusively ruled out.\n\nThe fastest interstellar probe we've ever built was [Voyager 1](_URL_2_) at about 62,000 km/h. At that rate it would take [about 73,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri](_URL_0_).\n\nThe chances of there being an as-yet undetected planet in the inner solar system are virtually nil.\n\nIn short, don't get your hopes up.",
"I understand; you are asking about a star's [habitable zone](_URL_0_)! I learned about this in astrobiology.\n\nWe define a habitable zone as the doughnut-shaped area around a star that provides the right amount of energy to maintain liquid water. Too close, and the planet dries up like Venus. Too far and it freezes, like Mars.\n\n(There are some exceptions; a planet could be outside of a habitable zone but still have liquid water due to greenhouse, volcanic, or tidal effects. Europa is an example.)\n\nOur solar system's habitable zone ranges from .7 to 1.3 AU, where 1 AU is the mean distance between the sun and the earth. Mars sits just outside at around 1.5 AU. \n\nA habitable zone differs depending on the type of star. Larger and hotter stars have habitable zones that are comparatively farther away.",
"What I think you're asking: if we magically added another planet to our solar system how close could its orbit be to Earth's without the planets' orbits becoming unstable.\n\nIn a *highly* idealized (i.e. practically impossible) case you could put another planet in the same orbit as Earth. If the other planet is small enough you could put it at one of the Lagrange points, or if the planet was the same mass as Earth you could put it exactly on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth. However, there are problems. In the small planet case it would have to be small enough that it would have serious trouble holding on to an atmosphere. Also, the closest Lagrange points (L1 and L2) are unstable. In the Earth-mass case that arrangement is also unstable (see [Can two planets of equal mass orbit around a fixed body within their opposite's L3 Lagrangian point?](_URL_0_)).\n\nSo, what about another planet that does not share Earth's orbit: In a two planet system, if the planets are on initially circular orbits they will be \"Hill stable\" (stable against close approaches for all time) if they're at least 2.4a1(m1/M+m2/M)^1/3 apart (a1 is the semi-major axis of the inner planet, m1 is the mass of the inner planet, m2 is the mass of the outer planet, and M is the mass of the star, from Gladman 1993). So, if both planets are Earth massed and Earth is the inner of the two planets you could put the other planet at 1.05 AU. HOWEVER, that is only true for two planet systems. If more planets are involved it gets vastly more complicated: the co-efficiant might be more like 9 instead of 2.4 (Smith & Lissauer 2009). So you might have to put it at more like 1.2 AU, which from my quick calculations looks like it would be ok (far enough away from Mars and Jupiter). Note: this is all back of the envelope calculation and furthermore it ignores the effects of resonances. To know more definitively one would have to run numerical integrations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.2%20light%20years%20%2F%2062000%20km%2Fh",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri",
"http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0260.shtml",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+to+proxima+centauri+%2F+distance+to+mars"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hd78s/can_two_planets_of_equal_mass_orbit_around_a/"
],
[
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.2%20light%20years%20%2F%2062000%20km%2Fh",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri",
"http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0260.shtml",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+to+proxima+centauri+%2F+distance+to+mars"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hd78s/can_two_planets_of_equal_mass_orbit_around_a/"
]
] |
|
2oajaj
|
Theoretically, if a brain were to be continuously transplanted into different host bodies, would it be able to survive forever?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2oajaj/theoretically_if_a_brain_were_to_be_continuously/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmldszm",
"cmlrlve"
],
"score": [
27,
6
],
"text": [
"There are at least three issues:\n\n1. We've never transplanted a brain, so it's hard to answer this question even hypothetically (not theoretically, hypothetically).\n\n2. Mature brains don't produce new neurons, so you better hope you don't lose too many over time.\n\n3. Age-related brain disorders such as [Alzheimer's](_URL_0_) are already a massive problem for single lifetimes, hard to say what would happen for multiple.",
"Interesting question. The brain and body are exquisitely and irreparably connected. Think of it, we've never studied a human brain in the absence of a body! So considering how a brain would survive when transplanted into another body is not just a question of IF it could be done, but what would the consequences be? I would imagine that the consequences (if it were to be transplanted successfully) wouldn't be life threatening, but the new immune system, new gut bacteria, new cardiovascular system, new endocrine system (all known to have profound effects on the brain) would have quite the influence on how the brain would behave. \n\nFurthermore, the brain ages. Sure, a lot of this aging has to do with the body aging. For example, mini strokes. If you look at an MRI scan of an old brain you will usually see quite a bit of small black areas within the gray matter - dead clusters of neurons from a lack of oxygenated blood to the brain. This can't be repaired. Sure the brain does make new neurons (in some areas of the temporal lobe and the olfactory bulb) but it's not enough to counteract neuronal damage from age. \n\nIf you were to continually transplant the brain into young bodies, less than 30 years old, it would suffer less from lack of oxygenated blood etc. BUT it would still suffer oxidative stress from simply being biologically alive. \n\nIt's actually been suggested that if we all lived long enough, we'd all get Alzheimer's. It's just a consequence of the brain aging, and some brains age faster than others.\n\nSo to summarize (and I know I'm bouncing around a lot) I think successful brain transplants into young bodies could counteract some of the damage done to the brain and prolong its life, but ultimately if the brain is active and receiving oxygenated blood, and turning over proteins, its going to age, and there's no way to stop it from aging. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.