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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
moc1l
|
Does time dilate inside materials with different indices of refraction?
|
Since light propagates at different speeds inside materials with different indices of refraction, does this mean that somehow time also changes inside these materials? And if so, how does it change? Just curious.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/moc1l/does_time_dilate_inside_materials_with_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c32iiad",
"c32iihw",
"c32iiad",
"c32iihw"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Light does not actually slow down in a material, most of a material is empty space anyway, it just seems that way because it is constantly being absorbed and re-immitted by atoms. So the physics of relativity doesn't change.\n\nThis link explains it quite nicely _URL_0_",
"No, time dilation and other such phenomena don't change in different materials. The Speed of Light™, the quantity which appears in special relativity to translate between space and time dimensions and the speed at which all massless particles (including photons!) always travel, *always*, is a constant of nature, and doesn't care whether or not you're cotton. Light beams as a whole travel more slowly through these materials not because the speed of light itself changes, or because the photons in the light are slowing down, but rather because the photons keep hitting molecules and getting re-emitted, a process which takes up time.",
"Light does not actually slow down in a material, most of a material is empty space anyway, it just seems that way because it is constantly being absorbed and re-immitted by atoms. So the physics of relativity doesn't change.\n\nThis link explains it quite nicely _URL_0_",
"No, time dilation and other such phenomena don't change in different materials. The Speed of Light™, the quantity which appears in special relativity to translate between space and time dimensions and the speed at which all massless particles (including photons!) always travel, *always*, is a constant of nature, and doesn't care whether or not you're cotton. Light beams as a whole travel more slowly through these materials not because the speed of light itself changes, or because the photons in the light are slowing down, but rather because the photons keep hitting molecules and getting re-emitted, a process which takes up time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l1d.cfm"
],
[],
[
"http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l1d.cfm"
],
[]
] |
|
1ywa20
|
Differences in cores with hyper-threading?
|
So i've been reading alot on wiki and google about hyper-threading and stuff and i am still confused on how it works based on its architecture.
Wiki describes hyper-threading as when a core has 2 threads, it is able to schedule 2 separate tasks or processes at once, but how does this improve anything or im just confused on how it works because a core only have 1 ALU so can only perform a single operation at a time.
Unless of course a core has multiple ALU's, but then wouldnt that just be the same thing as multiple cores?
Thank you.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ywa20/differences_in_cores_with_hyperthreading/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfockpx",
"cfodn3f"
],
"score": [
3,
12
],
"text": [
"Cores typically (nowadays) have more than one ALU, and more than one floating point unit. And multiples of some other subsystems. \n \nHyper-threading pre-dates having multiple cores on one microprocessor. The processor could be given independent tasks (threads) and do some of their execution in parallel, increasing performance. But some of the tasks that had to be accomplished (instruction/data I/O, memory management, etc.) were still shared, and so could not be performed in parallel. \n \nWith the advent of multi-core devices, it is *almost* like having multiple independent microprocessors on one die, and each of those cores may also be capable of executing multiple threads in parallel. There are still some shared resources, particularly the I/O (since the cores are in the same package). \n \nSo where previously you might have one processor (one core) that could process two threads almost in parallel, now you might have four cores that each can process two threads almost in parallel, for a total of eight semi-autonomous threads. ",
"\"Hyper-threading\" is marketing-speak for [simultaneous multithreading (SMT)](_URL_2_). This is a technique to maximize the utilization of processor resources.\n\nModern processors are designed to issue multiple instructions per cycle. This is possible because modern processors do [out-of-order execution (OOO)](_URL_3_), where they dynamically re-shuffle instructions to execute whatever instruction is ready to go. It's complicated to do this because you need to preserve the semantics expected by the programmer and compiler -- namely that instructions will _appear_ to execute in-order. Instructions are \"ready to go\" when all of their inputs are ready (the registers they read, the memory they load, etc.).\n\nAnother obvious consequence of OOO is that you have to have the compute resources (aka datapath) available on chip to execute multiple instructions at once. In particular, you must have multiple ALUs (although not necessarily multiple ALUs of the same type). \n\nOOO processors ran into problems with certain kinds of programs, though. On programs that have lots of dependencies, which you might see referred to as low [instruction-level parallelism (ILP)](_URL_1_), those extra ALUs are wasted. These kinds of programs are fairly common in practice, so architects wanted some way to increase the utilization of the datapath.\n\nThey do so by letting the processor execute multiple threads at once. The processor can now execute instructions from independent control flow, which are _guaranteed_ to not depend on each other. This increases the complexity of arbitration and control, but it can greatly increase the utilization of the datapath so its usually worth it. Although the hardware threads share compute resources, they are independent control paths so they are exposed to the operating system as separate cores.\n\nThere are other hardware designs that take a similar, but simpler, approach. On the [Sun Niagara](_URL_4_) processor, each core supported four hardware threads. This was done by simple interleaving of instructions from different hardware threads, which mitigated [pipeline hazards](_URL_0_) and improved throughput, but increased latency. Each hardware core on the Niagara was exposed as four separate cores to software."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_\\(computer_architecture\\)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_level_parallelism",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_multithreading",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_execution",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Niagara"
]
] |
|
i2rzk
|
I'f I filll my ear canals with Helium, Will I be able to hear frequencies below 20Hz? or will nothing change?
|
In my vocal cords it causes the lower Hz sounds to become higher Hz due to some sciency stuff if I'm not mistaken. Would this sciency stuff translate to sounds on the input in a similar manner to sounds on the output?
NOTE: I'f = If. I don't know what is wrong with me, maybe that will be my next question.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i2rzk/if_i_filll_my_ear_canals_with_helium_will_i_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c20f5ds",
"c20fbbv",
"c20fpdg",
"c20fuzz",
"c20fzxq"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
19,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cool question.\n\nFirst off, there's a common misconception about why Helium changes the sound of your voice. It's not the wavelength shift that occurs when the sound goes from light Helium to heavy air. I think it has to do with different modes in your vocal ~~cords~~ tract. Here's some good reading, I think: _URL_0_\n\nSo I'm guessing that even if helium would extend your range of hearing, it would be very small. (Because the reasons that apply to your voice mostly don't apply to your ear.)",
"No, the frequencies which you can hear do not have to do with the medium through which they get to your ear, but rather with how the sensors in your ear pick up the vibrations. There are essentially a bunch of different receptors in your ear to pick up specific frequencies and 20 hz is around where they die off. \n\nHelium does not change the frequency of sound waves.",
"Good question, but sadly the answer is no, the property of a sound wave that that you \"hear\" is the *frequency*, and while having Helium in your ears will change the wave's *speed* and *wavelength*, it does so in a way to leave the frequency unchanged. \n\nActually thankfully it works this way. The speed of sound through air (no need for helium or other gases) can vary by a few percent depending on temperature/pressure/humidity etc... imagine if for example on hot summer days all the music you tried to listen to on your speakers was shifted by a half step or something... THAT would be annoying. ",
"You are actually able to hear sounds below 20hz, but the \"loudness curve\" dictates exponentially higher energy sound sources as you move downwards in frequency. Normal cone speakers have a very poor impedance match (like trying to paddle a canoe with a fork) at low frequncies. If you use a special driver that clears 120 dB or so low down, those frequencies are perfectly audible. I actuall spend all day making these systems, and you can find them at _URL_0_ . Fun experiment: go on the highway and open one window; that sound is 5-11 Hz around 120-130 dB!",
"Sound in a gas is a series of compressions and rarefactions. Let's think of a 100Hz signal as 100 compressions occurring every second.\n\nIf there are 20 compressions occurring at the air/helium barrier every second, then 20 compressions will occur at your ear-drum every second. The helium can't add 40 extra compressions so that you hear a 60Hz signal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://phys.unsw.edu.au/phys_about/PHYSICS!/SPEECH_HELIUM/speech.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"www.rotarywoofer.com"
],
[]
] |
|
fvm5ht
|
snake charming
|
I've seen lots of videos of people playing music, or moving in certain ways to "charm" snakes - usually cobras.
What is actually happening? Is it like hypnotism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fvm5ht/eli5_snake_charming/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmji3z4"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The snake isn't actually being hypnotised, they remove the venom and teeth making the snake submissive and then manipulate their natural striking movements in order for them to appear as if they are in a trance like state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
13qh9j
|
if we can grow diamonds that are indistinguishable from real ones, why can't we do the same with gold?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13qh9j/if_we_can_grow_diamonds_that_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c767xoe",
"c7680lu",
"c7693h5",
"c76andj"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Diamond is made of carbon atoms, which are extremely common. Gold is made of gold atoms, which are not. \n\nMaking a specific kind of atom is technically possible, but *extremely* difficult and expensive. You'd never be able to get enough to make even a small block.",
"Diamonds are a specific arrangement of carbon atoms. Gold is a pure element. Pure elements are not really synthesizable.",
"Diamonds are just carbon. Atoms used in your pencil are the same atoms that are in diamonds. The way they form structures is what gives them their unique properties. Diamonds are created by taking graphite (carbon that is in pencil), heating it to very high temperatures and keeping it under very high pressure. \n\nGold is an atom composed of neutrons, protons and electrons. We can make it by smashing two smaller atoms, or using high doses of radiation. However, the cost involved far exceed the gains. ",
"Diamond is compressed carbon atoms, Gold is gold atoms. While you could theoretically add electrons, neutrons and protons to carbon atoms to make them gold atoms, it would be extremely. expensive. Furthermore, gold has no real value as an element, and artificial gold would be very silly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
47eo32
|
why was there a huge dotcom crash when so much business is done via the internet now? i'd like to understand the reason behind the financial impacts it had as i know it was enormous
|
I have never understood, or honestly tried to understand why so many dotcoms went out of business seemingly overnight and why it had such a big impact on the economy. Where there trillions of dollars invested and did that money all just disappear? Were these companies not actually selling products? I'd like to better understand what happened and if/why it could or couldn't happen again.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47eo32/eli5_why_was_there_a_huge_dotcom_crash_when_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0cdcdl"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"At the beginning of the new millennium, online sales were (correctly) seen as the way of the future. A website like _URL_0_ dominated the online sales at the time, and people concluded that in 10 years retail stores would be a thing of the past. Many people extrapolated this to believe that basically all current sales -- the entire pet store industry nationwide, or even globally -- would transition to the current online behemoth who had the large market share.\n\nThis was a trend in every industry. Automotive, household, electronics, gaming, clothing, you name it. The logic was that if there were billions of sales in that industry across thousands of competitors in brick and mortar store, that the transition to online commerce would land all of those sales nicely into the balance sheets of the well-established top domain names.\n\nPrices were bid upward, upward, upward. Forecasting hugely overvalued future revenues and sales. Mutual funds, personal investors, the overall market structured their portfolios heavily around these stable performers.\n\nThe reason is exploded so rapidly is a culmination of many factors. For one, after a couple years, it was clear these forecasted revenues just weren't there. Many companies -- _URL_0_ in particular -- used their rapidly accumulated wealth poorly, such as spending several million in SuperBowl ads that were barely even remembered in focus groups. \n\nThe idea that the first-to-market online marketplaces would dominate was soon discovered to be unfounded. Competition in online sales was just as prevalent as in retail sales. No clear company would form the monopoly.\n\nLike dominoes, several of these companies went out of business and investors lost billions of dollars. The rumor that we were in a bubble was very strong, and finally had firm ground to stand on. More rapidly, the share price of other online stores were seen as bunk, and the losses went sky high.\n\nIt was the .com bubble, and it burst. A lot of money that was invested in these companies just vanished."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"pets.com"
]
] |
|
1leavt
|
Why do Amphoras have round bottoms?
|
Wouldn't it have been easier to make amphoras (amphorae?) with flat bottoms so they could stand on their own rather than requiring tripods to hold them? As liquids like olive oil were often stored in them, I would think a flat bottom would be a better design. Why the round bottom? Why the tripod requirement?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1leavt/why_do_amphoras_have_round_bottoms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbydl5j",
"cbyjkvn"
],
"score": [
24,
7
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nWhats best for stacking on stable land may not work so well on a rocking boat.",
"I saw a documentary on this a couple of years ago ( I'm so sorry I can't remember the specific name of it) but some archeological divers were testing a theory that Amphora are so shaped because they can be stacked into a stable matrix in the rocking hold of a trade ship. The archeologists had replicas created from their dive finds and discovered that by stacking them in a certain way, they not only held together more efficiently under rocking conditions but also they could fit many more in the same amount of space because of the overlap. I wish I could recall the name of the doc... It was on Netflix instant, I recall that much."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amphorae_stacking.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
224zh7
|
why is it a dog can recognize a person over skype but a cat can't?
|
I've seen dogs go crazy when they see their 'dad' on Skype because they're in the army, or on a business trip or something. Cats...not so much. Do cats simply not give a damn but recognize the person or can they actually not recognize them? I'm in a LDR and when he goes home back to Skyping me my dog will recognize his voice when he says "Eddie!" and gets excited but my cat acts like he doesn't even exist. I know cats have a silly reputation of not caring and 'feed me human' but my cat genuinely loves my boyfriend. My cat is really nice, cuddly and meows to talk to you all the time. He follows me around everywhere and when my boyfriend is here he follows him around everywhere and my boyfriend becomes my cat's new favorite person. When he comes back to visit my cat gets super excited to see him again so I don't see why he doesn't recognize/care on Skype!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/224zh7/eli5_why_is_it_a_dog_can_recognize_a_person_over/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgjeoqp",
"cgjfbvk"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"They know its you. They just don't care",
"Cats don't give a shit, that's why."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
jalj5
|
How long did the singularity exist for?
|
If my understanding of the Big Bang Theory is correct the singularity, a point of infinite density and zero volume, expanded to form the universe we know today. My question is, do scientist know how long the singularity existed before it expanded? Forgive me if my knowledge of the theory is a bit off.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jalj5/how_long_did_the_singularity_exist_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2aj8pt",
"c2aju3o",
"c2aj8pt",
"c2aju3o"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Both length and time were meaningless.",
"You can't talk about how space or time work as separate from matter, so neither of the first two can really be applied to a situation in which the last one just breaks down. Physical singularities are what happens when the words space, time, and matter cease to describe anything. You don't have any way to consistently relate them, because the \"density of matter\" is undefined.",
"Both length and time were meaningless.",
"You can't talk about how space or time work as separate from matter, so neither of the first two can really be applied to a situation in which the last one just breaks down. Physical singularities are what happens when the words space, time, and matter cease to describe anything. You don't have any way to consistently relate them, because the \"density of matter\" is undefined."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
28sag4
|
why can youtube show an accurate number of upvotes/downvotes, but reddit can't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28sag4/eli5_why_can_youtube_show_an_accurate_number_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cidym2r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing they probably don't, you just think they do.\n\nYouTube ratings are not as important (or, perhaps I should so to the end user, they're not that important) and hence aren't followed as closely.\n\nAlso Google."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
eyb4i2
|
it’s tax season in the us, why do us citizens have to keep track of and file their own taxes? doesn’t this mean the system is not only ripe for abuse and tax evasion, but puts an unnecessary burden on citizens? eli5 why doesn’t the us government take taxes at source?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyb4i2/eli5_its_tax_season_in_the_us_why_do_us_citizens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgg3wto",
"fgg4ljn",
"fgg59a7"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Tax returns are for you to prove that you don’t owe as much in tax as the government says you do. \n\nThe government doesn’t get notified every time you do every little thing. Taxes are the time for you to tell them I paid interest on my mortgage. I pay sales tax, I pay tax at the dmv (all of these are tax deductible).",
"Taxes are automatically collected from your paycheck, but there is no way for the government to actually know what exemptions and credits you earn through the year in advance, they can only guess. What filing taxes does is compare the estimate that they make on what you will owe (and thus what they have taken) with what you actually owe. If they estimated too low you pay additional taxes, if they estimated too high or you did not earn above the minimum threshold you get money back.",
"US Citizens are very, very dubious of tax collectors. This beef goes back to times before the Revolution. People don't like giving the government money, and they particularly don't like the government deciding that it needs more money and taking some more.\n\nThere isn't as much abuse as you'd think, because computers keep track of most ajor money flows and there are regulations that require companies to report transactions to the government. This allows the government's computers to check the numbers that people turn in and find the largest errors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5ddc0g
|
Do astronauts identify the constellations we can see from Earth?
|
For example, can the Big Dipper or Orion's Belt be recognized?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5ddc0g/do_astronauts_identify_the_constellations_we_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da3zn5a"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Yes, astronautes are only about 400 km (250 miles) above earth. You wouldn't expect to see any difference in the constellations after driving 400 km.\n\nIn fact stars are so far away that the constellations look the same to the naked eye from anywhere in the solar system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
24n7d7
|
why are there so few engineers and scientists in politics?
|
According to this [link](_URL_0_), the vast majority of senators in the US seem to have either business or law positions. What is the explanation for the lack of people with science and math backgrounds in politics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24n7d7/eli5_why_are_there_so_few_engineers_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch8qvm7",
"ch8rhyg",
"ch8rmof",
"ch8rq42",
"ch8sgtp",
"ch8sk2k",
"ch8sor8",
"ch8svc7",
"ch8sz4g",
"ch8tshk",
"ch8tuy8",
"ch8u1lg",
"ch8v3b3",
"ch8vbk3",
"ch8vero",
"ch8vnud",
"ch8vo0y",
"ch8vtsi",
"ch8w9yx",
"ch8wc1g",
"ch8whp2",
"ch8wka1",
"ch8wnt7",
"ch8wpou",
"ch8x2a2",
"ch8xey7",
"ch8xgl2",
"ch8xh0c",
"ch8xisr",
"ch8xrma",
"ch8xx4i",
"ch8yduw",
"ch8yode",
"ch8z8dj",
"ch8zhg3",
"ch91c87",
"ch91d0n",
"ch91ylx",
"ch92dmf",
"ch92xkk",
"ch930nk",
"ch930zh",
"ch94b1j",
"ch96v09",
"ch97jri",
"ch993zv",
"ch99g9u",
"ch99k0b",
"ch9jga1"
],
"score": [
19,
62,
55,
3,
382,
6,
2,
7,
8,
9,
5,
3,
10,
7,
4,
2,
3,
32,
2,
2,
2,
14,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
6,
48,
2,
4,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because business and law people have a positive revenue stream (their business or firm) that allows them to run for office without having a job.\n\nAlso, my opinion is, the same type of people who go for business and law degrees are the same type of people who have no qualms with making laws that benefit a small number of people, like business owners and lawyers.",
"for the most part, the work i do is a whole hell of a lot more interesting. ",
"Engineers and scientists prefer to deal in logic. ",
"We should vote for more practically skilled individuals into our politics.\nThe more we skew our policies and agendas towards science and math related endeavours the greater our society becomes. We are all connected and every change affects the whole and so the general direction we choose as a whole changes every individuals' perception of the world they live in.",
"Because the skillsets required of the two jobs are different. Whenever this question comes up, it naively assumes politics works how we think it should work in a normative fashion. That everyone should sit down, present their facts, and the most rational decision is made based on the evidence. That's not politics. Mainly because we like to mask that in \"because they're all inherently corrupt bastards!\" which may have some truth to it, but because the decisions they're making do not have definitive answers. Politics like law involves persuasion and charisma because the answers aren't always distinct and some kind of \"compromise\" has to be made between all of the proposed solutions and ideologies. \n\nImmense amounts of scientific study and economic analysis goes into legislation. The difference is these think tanks and legislative studies are often motivated by their own political ideals and because the answers are not \"easy\", many of the projective analysis can be skewed to satisfy the agenda. But honestly the question you're asking is relatively uninformed because it assumes science isn't involved. Scientists, economists and financial experts are all *very* involved. The question is are the *best and unbiased*^^[1] scientists, economists and engineers involved. But to pretend that the fields are completely absent from the process is not only naive but also rejecting the fact that people that possess skills like charisma and the ability to compromise and negotiate are very necessary to the entire process. It's a damn shame we don't seem to have a lot of willing compromisers and negotiators anymore though. \n\n[1] This response is picking up some traction so it's necessary to clarify this. When people complain \"the insurance companies wrote ACA!\", it's not like the CEO's of UnitedHealth and Wellpoint and the politicians literally sat down to write the bill themselves while shunning scientists, financial advisers and economists. Very qualified financial experts, scientists and economists help write the bills with legal experts. The question people have is related to their motives and representation and whether these people are truly considering the proper factors in their research and writing of the bills not just related to their representative interests. The sciences are all *very* involved in the collaboration process, but it's a matter of is the field attracting the kind of experts that society agrees are most qualified and willing to take into account all interests and affected parties when crafting a bill. \n\nFinally, in the spirit of politics, there is no definitively \"correct\" answer here, but it's much more complex than \"they're too good for the job!\" and it's also just incorrect to claim science is completely uninvolved in the political process. ",
"I reckon there's a few reasons:\n\n- Politicians tend to be extroverts and people-pleasers. Scientists tend to be introverts and they don't really care much about 'pleasing people'.\n\n- Politics and politicians have given themselves such a bad reputation that no self-respecting scientist wants to be associated with them.\n\n- Governing people is always going to be an uphill battle - you literally cannot please everyone and no matter who is in charge, there will always be an opposition to the current party in power. Since it seems that there is no 'right solution', scientists tend to not have the patience for such bullshit.\n\n- Being an entrepreneur can make you way more money than being a politician. Elon Musk, for example, makes about $4 million dollars (from stock-based pay) whereas Obama's annual salary is $400,000.",
"The job of a politician is to manage an area and to work with other politicians. This is very similar to running a business, and is not very similar to research or applied science. People who study law also go into politics because you have to know and work with the law.",
"Engineers are trained to highlight important problems, used information and analysis to formulate a solution, and execute. They are not trained to ignore all facts and make decisions based on what makes people happy (constituents, financial supporters). Also, bending the truth (aka. lying) is encouraged in the fields of business and law, making them great politicians.\n\nIn all seriousness, an engineer's skill set is well suited for running a city...but not being elected to run a city.",
"[Go to China.](_URL_0_)",
"That's like asking why are there no doctors driving taxis. ",
"Consensus is not authoritative in science. Truth is.\n\nDifferent domains. Different skills.",
"Engineering and science are founded on making things work and aligning inputs to predicted outputs. Politics is about convincing people that certain inputs will result in certain outputs. \n\nReality is not entirely ignored by politicians. One useful tool among many in a politician's arsenal is to tell the truth, that is, sometimes they are fortunate enough to be arguing for a true thing, and when that happens they may be expected to tell the truth. But more common is the telling of small parts of the truth amid untruths. This is because almost every policy choice has advantages and disadvantages, and politicians a) portray their favored policies as having no disadvantages, and b) portray their opponent's policies as having only disadvantages and no advantages.\n\nYou can see this in any social group governed by interpretable and changeable rules, even outside public politics. On reddit itself you can see debates about, say whether or not to ban downvotes in a subreddit go by onesided pairs of arguments. A person who favors banning downvotes will simply say that \"downvotes are abused as a disagree button to censor unpopular opposing opinions.\" And a person who opposes banning downvotes will say \"downvotes combat spam and reposts and limit the prominence of trolls and flaming.\" Neither will conduct a full policy analysis in which the advantages and disadvantages of each policy are honestly weighed. *This is because they have already determined which policy they want, and are manipulating arguments and evidence to convince the undecided.* They don't need you to support their policy for the best reasons, they merely need you to support their policy, so they dishonestly downplay the negatives and accentuate the positives.\n\nMore sophisticated political arguments pretend to analyze the downsides of their policies and the upsides of opposing policies, but they do so unfairly.\n\nOut desire to have policy based on what is actually best rather than what merely can be made to seem best underlies the sentiment behind the OP, but it is not actually attainable. As soon as someone has an interest in enacting a policy, the difference between reality as it is and people's perception of reality will bring back old fashioned politics.\n\nThis fully explains why so many politicians are lawyers.\n\nSee this: _URL_0_\n\n > The idea that “failure is not an option” is a fantasy version of how non-engineers should motivate engineers ... Failure is always an option. Engineers work as hard as they do because they understand the risk of failure. And for anything it might have meant in its screenplay version, here that sentiment means the opposite; the unnamed executives were saying “Addressing the possibility of failure is not an option.”\n\n > ...\n\n > An effective test is an exercise in humility; it’s only useful in a culture where desirability is not confused with likelihood. For a test to change things, everyone has to understand that their opinion, and their boss’s opinion, matters less than what actually works and what doesn’t. \n\nPoliticians do not test, because they already \"know.\"",
"As an engineer, I would rather work on engineering problems than be embroiled in the drama of politics. I think that, in general, people who put in the time to become experts in STEM areas are more interested in doing STEM-related work than in government. People who major in, say, political science probably want to be in politics.",
"I'm a former engineer-politician. From my first hand experience, there are very few engineers and scientists in politics because of their disdain for and lack of patience regarding the *election process*, and not for a lack of aptitude for governing. Once elected, its much easier to stay in office based on name recognition alone, regardless of what one accomplishes while in office. Ergo: even if a engineer/scientist candidate and in turn politician is social introverted or has weak or non-existent negotiation and compromising skills, they will more than likely be re-elected and, in turn, have *some* influence on the political process.\n\nAs an engineer, I always strive to address the root cause of any problem. In this particular case, the *real* problem is gerrymandering. If redistricting at all levels were determined by algorithm (to even the playing the field and make districts more homogenized and, in turn, more likely to vote for moderates), we *might* see an uptick in engineer and scientist candidates, as they would see the election process as being more scientific and less partisan.",
"Because, and I feel a speak for a lot of my class here- we don't give a shit, science is interesting as hell and we wanna be doing that. Hell, my thesis is growing mouse limbs in vitro, just to see if it works, I'd much prefer to be doing that than enter politics. ",
"Most engineers and scientists are just too honest to do this. When they can show that something will definitely not work, they expect to be taken seriously and for others to move on (though with some hesitance, of course). \n\nPoliticians think that they can make reality happen to some degree by getting other people to go along with their ideas. \n\nThese two world-views of how people behave and how physical systems behave clash violently. And since most engineers aren't power-hungry ego-maniacs, they bail the scene. \n\n\nSource: I'm an engineer who worked for a manager who was really much more of a politician than anything else. I almost had to kill him with my hands. Twice. ",
"Because its rigged?\n\nEvery politician is basically a lawyer, lawyers being masters of the law, the law being multiple set rules that our society follows.\n\nIf you realize for a moment, these laws aren't real, they are made up. Scientists and engineers follow natural occurring laws of the lands to do what they do. \n\nIf you replace all those blood sucking leeches on capitol hill with doctors, scientists, and engineers(you know, people who actually do good for the earth) you will see MASSIVE improvements in our society. ",
"Simply put, the job of politicians in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is to \n\nenforce **laws**, \n\nwrite **laws**, and \n\ninterpret **laws**. \n\nSo by definition, lawyers and those in law are more naturally suited for a career in politics. \n\nBusiness requires intimate knowledge of law; taxes, property, finance, etc. It's the engine for economics, which is obviously a huge political issue. Those in business have experience leading and managing others, a crucial skill in politics. And last but not least, business can make you a lot of $$$, which is sadly a virtual requirement to participate in politics today. ",
"I'm qualified as an engineer and a computer scientist so I'll give my two cents. I don't want to enter politics because I would be pay paid very little, have next to no power and would become the subject of public interest.",
"Probably because they know half of it is bullshit and don't want to bother with the inane political crap.",
"Because engineers and scientist make decisions based on facts. Politics is based on feelings. ",
"Politics takes money. \n\nScientists and engineers don't make enough money to run successful campaigns.\n\nPolitics is mostly bullshit.\n\nMen of science don't like bullshit.",
"Because engineers and scientists seek the truth and politicians market in lies.",
"Scientists and engineers are actually productive members of society that provide knowledge and services to the benefit of all. \n\nSince they are useful members of society that earn their keep they are ineligible to participate in politics.",
"Because engineers and scientists go to school to become engineers and scientists.",
"(Note: I'm a scientist getting a public policy degree, and so this is mainly personal experience).\n\nThe lack is largely due to people's expectations. Scientists - contrary to some of the comments here - would make great politicians. While they aren't trained in law per se, the concepts/skills are identical. Scientists have lots of experience with analytical thinking (i.e., how to define a problem and develop a solution), and this sort of thinking forms the backbone to policy. Granted, a scientist has to learn legalese to succeed in policy, but so did the business person. Scientists are trained to try to address problems, try a solution, implement a solution, evaluate said solution, and improve upon it. And that's the same thing as politicians do.\n\nThe interesting thing is that this logic seems to be more accepted in other countries. In Asia and much of Europe, many government officials have science, engineering or related backgrounds (I can't find a link to stats at the moment, but will edit if I can). It's sort of normal there.\n\nTake the US on the other hand. I get A LOT of weird looks and questions when I say I'm a scientist who's working on policy issues. People are confused, and to be honest, it's discouraging. It reinforces stereotypes that scientists stay in their labs and are only fascinated by their own field - they don't give a damn about the world. On the contrary, many of us do, but we aren't given the chance to prove it. \n\nTo be fair, I get a similar number of weird looks and reactions fro scientists, too. They don't get what I'm doing and feel like I'm hurting the field by not putting my talents towards science. The stereotypes/expectations are endorsed by scientists as much as politicians, which is seriously unfortunate. When I explain to scientists that I want to help the field out and make policies better, I wish I wasn't facing such an uphill battle. \n\nIn short - it's a matter of expectations. The skills are pretty much the same, and so it's a pity that in the US it isn't \"understandable\" for a scientist to become a politician.",
"Because engineers and scientists give it to you how it is and do not bullshit around the questions and issues.",
"politics is a place for large egos, not large minds",
"Should be retitled: 'Why are there so few musicians in Agriculture?' or 'Why are there so few rocket mechanics in screenwriting?\"\n\nThe two are completely different fields of study and interest. ",
"Scientists and engineers like to tackle concrete problems in the most direct way possible. Does that sound like politics? ",
"I am a politician and I graduated with a BS in Physics. I used to design software and mixed signal chips for telecom purposes. I am now in business.\n\nMost politicians start at the local/state level and those positions are typically unpaid. If unpaid then, unfortunately, a typical 9-5 job with commute doesn't provide enough time to perform the service. Attorneys, business owners, retired individuals, or doctors can schedule their time around meetings and events more easily.",
"There are a lot of long winded answers in this thread, some good and some bad--cynical for the sake of cynicism. Since this is /r/explainlikeimfive:\n\nPoliticians deal in writing/interpreting/enforcing law. That's right in a lawyer's wheelhouse. Simple as that.\n\nThis is like asking why most people who write cookbooks are chefs. It's because they're chefs.",
"They have better things to do than to accomplish nothing in a 2, 4, or 6 year term.\n\nThey can create a far better world in their current positions.",
"Presidents that were engineers: Hu Jintao (and many other Chinese leaders), Jimmy Carter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Herbert Hoover, Sebastian Pinera, Abdullah Gul, Viktor Yanukovich",
"I work in politics, my two best friends are mechanical engineers.\n\nMy friends are both extremely intelligent, but their type of intelligence doesn't translate well into things that aren't black and white. The know that the table needs to hold x amount of weight, so they know that the legs should be y strength. \n\nPolitics deals largely in philosophical ideas. A number of the things we might want have never been implemented before, or that way. I work specifically in campaigns, so I deal a lot with emotional appeals. See the [Willie Horton Ad](_URL_0_), or [LBJ's 'Daisy' Ad](_URL_0_). Much of my job requires charisma and charm. I have to sweet talk people with big egos and media types. Yeah, there is science to it, but it's not cut and dry.\n\n\nWhen I talk politics with them, they get frustrated because something seems so obvious to them and they don't get why everyone else doesn't just do it.\n",
"Few people realize what the day to day life of a politician is like. A prominent law professor who recently gave an AMA on reddit was once offered a chance to run for Senate in California. He decided against it after a friend advised him that if he enters politics, he would spend at least 2 hours on the phone everyday talking to supporters and asking for contributions until the day he retires from politics. \n\nEstablishing yourself in politics is a full-time job. From establishing your roots and finding your bearings in the local political scene to running for more prominent positions, it requires time.\n\nMany scientists, engineers, doctors, etc... spend a significant amount of time on their education (not to mention the financial investment as well). Years of experiences (work, research fellowships, advanced degrees) can directly relate to future income and career advancement potential. So spending 2 years running for a little office in town detracts significantly from the long term training of someone in a STEM field. \n\nWhat we end up seeing is a lot of people in STEM related fields lending their expertise via consulting jobs, research, etc... to policy initiatives later in their careers when they have more flexibility. \n\n",
"Because those are real jobs.",
"Because engineers and scientists are men and women of reason and logic. There is no place for people like that in politics.",
"I am on mobile but Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave what I think is the best answer I have seen to this question. _URL_0_",
"People who write laws have law degrees and are called lawyers..... Fucking mind blowing",
"I'm an engineer. I've considered running for office before. My education included a little business law, and I was surprised I enjoyed it. It's actually very systematic, and being a systems engineer, that appealed to me. However, what drives me INSANE is that while the law clearly has a systematic basis, ALMOST NO POLITICIANS (or lawyers for that matter) treat it that way. They essentially treat it like an ad hoc construction, where EVERYTHING is up for negotiation, and that really bothers me (also from a systems perspective -- you don't screw around with lower orders or higher orders of abstraction just to win some temporary advantage, unless you are intent on destroying your system).\n\nWhat keeps me from running is basically time and money. I work 40+ hours a week, nearly 365 days a year, and my job doesn't give me the freedom to run for mayor or state representative. Those jobs don't pay enough to come close to my salary either.",
"'Cause we're smart enough to stay the fuck outta politics",
"In science and engineering, the ultimate judge of your merit will be your boss, academic supervisor or client. They are very likely to also be experts in the field and will recognise technical excellence. They will thoroughly evaluate your work to make their decision.\n\nIn politics, Joe Bloggs the voter is the ultimate judge. He likely has little to no understanding of the issues (nor does he want to understand them) and his main criteria will be what you look like and how you talk. He'll likely make a snap judgement at the voting booth.\n\nYou can probably now see why scientists, doctors and engineers detest politics. The only government they can thrive in is a meritocratic, technocratic one (which also requires a degree of autocracy).",
"Engineers and scientists usually have a standard of ethics. ",
"One factor I think may hold back Scientists is the American Academy of Sciences is 72% atheist and 20.8% agnostic. So there is high incidence of atheism in the field. This does not play well in getting elected. Churches yield lots of power in local level elections (the entry level of elections). In Prince George's MD, one of the most liberal counties in one of the most liberal states, you will have a hard time being elected without the organization and support of churches.",
"Because they lack the bullshitting capabilities",
"Near as I can tell, based on what my engineer friends tell me, it's because they want to create a good, functional thing. Not to resort to an old joke, but politics isn't really that sort of position. In fact, the same people who are attracted to politics also tend to be the middle- to upper-management positions that engineers loathe. They bottom-line everything to get a product out on a schedule and within budget so they can make a profit. Engineers, on the other hand, would rather be a year behind schedule so they don't release a broken product.",
"Because they have real jobs.",
"Many people who have careers that require specific knowledge see politics as a circus ruled by charisma and connections with wealthy and influential people. They aren't willing to play a game with such high uncertainty and a culture that typically distorts facts (on which science and mathematics strictly operate).\n\nThis is a fine fit for people with a business background because the only discipline that applies to them is \"winning\" at any cost. Facts are only relevant to them when it can assist them, not when it works against a narrative that stands to reward their interests.\n\nThe term used to describe a government run by experts in relevant technical fields is a 'technocracy'. It isn't a guarantee of a good government, but it is a promising approach if implemented into democracies carefully."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.siliconafrica.com/90-of-top-chinese-government-officials-are-scientists-engineers/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2013/11/healthcare-gov-and-the-gulf-between-planning-and-reality/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2011/08/21/if-i-were-president"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
723ldg
|
How did the United Kingdom go about recruiting so many Native American allies during the War of 1812?
|
Looking at the rather long [list](_URL_0_) of Native American tribes that allied themselves with the U.K. (the Shawnee, Kickapoo, Ojibwe, etc.), I cant help but wonder exactly how the U.K. managed to organize a recruitment so large in enemy territory, with so many scattered tribes. I get that many of these tribes were already at war with the United States so getting them to join sides with the U.K. would not be difficult, but I'm curious on how they could get enough British diplomats to travel throughout American territory and rally support. Thanks in advance.
Edit: spelling
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/723ldg/how_did_the_united_kingdom_go_about_recruiting_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dng9ias"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"I've got a good handle on how this developed in the southeastern U.S. with some of the tribes in that arena:\nThe demand for British goods (particularly British-made arms) above all others was quite high among many native tribes, and this demand stretched far back into the previous century when Great Britain was nurturing the colonies on the mainland. Many recorded instances (see below) exist where chiefs specifically requested British weapons, citing their superior quality as compared to those produced elsewhere. In fact, the largest Indian trading company in existence at the time was a British firm called Forbes & Co. (formerly Panton, Leslie, & Co. until 1804) which operated out of Spanish Florida under permission of the Spanish Crown. All of its founding members were staunch Loyalists during the Revolution, and an extremely large number of traders with whom they closely worked had actually become intermarried with native women during their tenure on the Indian frontier. This is a key factor in the recruitment during the War of 1812, I would argue.\n\nAmong southeastern tribes, being matrilineal, marrying a native woman and producing children with her gave those children quite a unique new identity. They were still of full status within their mother's clan, but also had the benefit of being able to learn English (and many did) through their father, giving them an extreme advantage in terms of political mobility. The ability to negotiate in English provides avenues to those trade goods I mentioned earlier, and controlling the flow of trade goods/weapons had always been a powerful position in tribal communities.\nWhen individuals such as George Woodbine and Edward Nicholls of the British royal navy landed on the gulf coast to recruit Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw allies, they were welcomed into many communities who already had remnant British ties, and, further, had been ill-treated by the young American government thus far. Specific to the southeast, families like the McGillivrays, McIntoshs, Colberts, Perrymans, and a host of others had very strong ties to Great Britain already, both economic and familial. Their original Loyalist-progenitor fathers had married women in high-ranking clans with many influential families who then gave birth to mestizo children already of high status who then also were able to create further trade relationships through their command of English. So I would say, at least in the southeast, that it was far less traveling British diplomats that did the trick, but banking on the long-standing ties to British trade goods that had developed among high-ranking, influential native families.\n\nSources:\nKathryn Holland-Braund - Deerskins and Duffels\n\nWilliam Coker and Thomas D. Watson - Indian Traders of the Southeastern Spanish Borderlands\n\nJohn Alden - John Stuart and the Southern Colonial Frontier\n\nJohn Caughey - McGillivray of the Creeks\n\nLots and lots of primary sources (letters of the trade company members, Nicholls and Woodbine correspondence, Spanish Florida governors' correspondence, etc) from University of Florida, University of West Florida, and British Public Record Office.\n\nEdit: Here's a copy of a proclamation that was delivered to many towns in the Creek and Seminole nations in 1814, using Indian messengers to deliver paper correspondence: [Imgur](_URL_0_) Note the specific mentions of Great Britain's willingness to clothe and arm anyone willing to join the British cause. Arms, ammunition, and cloth/clothing were consistently some of the highest-volume, highest-demand items for native customers.\n\nEdit2: I should also mention that most of the messages delivered to these communities, such as the one above, promised to return Indian lands ceded to the United States back to the native people. Whether that would have actually been carried out I am not sure, but the ownership and free use of their land was *extremely* important to native communities."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812"
] |
[
[
"https://i.imgur.com/6QZwQAC.jpg?1"
]
] |
|
226zk0
|
how exactly do vector graphics work?
|
Here's what I know. Unlike bitmap images, vector images don't pixellate when you zoom in on them. I guess that's because they aren't made of pixels. A friend of mine tried to explain it to me, but it went right over my head.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/226zk0/eli5_how_exactly_do_vector_graphics_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgjxgsc",
"cgk2c4t",
"cgk4jbm",
"cgkbmwx",
"cgkbzi7"
],
"score": [
23,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, a vector drawing files a list of instructions - draw a line from point a to point b, draw a line from point b to point c. Fill the enclosed area with a color, and so on.\n\nThen, when you 'zoom in', the computer - effectively - makes the line sharper to take advantage of the higher resolution.",
"In a nutshell, instead of breaking an image up into a grid of pixels and then saving the color of each pixel (which is a bitmap) a vector graph save an image or diagram through math. In other words it stores a list of geometrically defined lines and points that recreate the image. This means you can zoom arbitrarily because the computer has the exact mathematical equation for the line you're looking at so it just interpolates. With a bitmap when you zoom in you can't do anything about that fact that you only have so many pixels worth of information.",
"A _drawing_ of a circle has a fixed resolution, but a _circle_ is the same everywhere.",
"As well as the explanations about drawing vector shapes on a pixel screen as given above, in the olden days as well as display screens that work like they do now, another type was true vector crt screens. \n\nInstead of drawing a frame at a time by scanning a beam side to side then up and down like most crt screens do (called raster scanning) , vector displays drew the lines directly from point to point. The original asteroids arcade machine worked like that. It gave a faster and higher resolution display with much less processing power than rasterising would have needed, at a time when processing power was very expensive. They were often only one colour though. ",
"I'm gonna quibble with /u/Rufus_Reddit's answer a bit. It's not wrong, exactly (probably), but I don't think explains it as clearly as it might.\n\nPixel-graphics are like doing paint-by-numbers on graph paper: you fill in the little squares with whatever color you're supposed to, where the list of colors for each pixel is stored in a file. Except, on modern monitors the squares are really tiny so you can barely see them, so for the most part shapes look smooth.\n\nWhen you zoom in, all you're doing is saying \"Hey computer. Make all your little squares bigger.\" Except of course that can't really happen, because your screen's hardware is fixed with respect to how many pixels it has and how big they are, so instead the software just *draws* each pixel's worth of image data onto *multiple* screen pixels. So instead of filling up one pixel with red, or whatever, it might fill up a 2x2 or 3x3 or 50x50 block of pixels, depending on how much you're zooming in.\n\nZoom in enough, of course, and those blocks of pixels get big enough to be really easy to see. That's pixelation.\n\nVector graphics still have to be displayed on screens that are made of pixels, though. The thing is, a vector graphic file is *not* a list of colors that go onto individual pixels, like a pixel-graphic file is. It is instead a list of *abstract geometric shapes* (lines, circles, color gradients, et cetera) that are defined by mathematical coordinate and can be as precise as you want. (Well, within some limits we won't bother with).\n\nA vector graphic file is not, as it were, a picture. Instead, it is a list of instructions for *drawing* a picture. Whatever software gets the job of displaying the file has to process the list of instructions and *figure out*, depending on how big of a window it's drawing into on your screen, what the zoom level is, et cetera, which pixels are supposed to be what color. It has to take a \"draw a line from point A to point B\" command, and determine for itself which pixels on your screen right now are the ones between A and B, then color them in. Ditto for circles and gradients and every other command in the vector graphics file.\n\nWhen you change the zoom, it re-calculates everything. It throws away the entire set of pixels it colored in last time, adjusts the mapping between the mathematical coordinates of all the commands in the file and the pixel coordinates on your screen, and goes through the whole job of re-calculating what color to make everything.\n\nIt's much more complex, and much more work. But the benefit is that it can keep that line perfectly sharp (well, as sharp as the individual pixels on your screen, anyway) no matter how much you zoom in.\n\nThere are drawbacks, too, though. Complexity and rendering time are higher, of course. But also, while vector graphics are great for icons, cartoons, and anything else that has that kind of visual quality to it, they kind of suck for images of stuff in the real world. The real world is complicated and messy enough that mathematical abstractions like lines and circles and perfectly shaded color gradients don't capture it very well. Also, even the problem of figuring out what colors and circles and gradients to use, when trying to take a picture of a real scene, is a pretty hard problem. (Which, by the way, is why digital cameras take pixel-based images. That's way, way, way easier).\n\nVector graphics are the realm of the graphic designer. Pixel-graphics are the realm of photography.\n\nSide-note: I should add that *today's* computer screens are pixel-based. But that was not always the case.\n\nIn the early days of computing, when even the idea of having a screen was not taken for granted, there was a screen technology that didn't have pixels, and yes, they were called \"vector displays.\" They were physically just like TV screens or old CRT monitors, in that they used a moveable electron beam to paint a picture on a glowing phosphor surface. In a TV screen, the beam scans back and forth in horizontal lines, painting one line after another down the screen, to form the picture. It does this really fast, so your eye doesn't notice, but it's essentially pixel technology. In a vector display, instead of the beam scanning back and forth in this fixed pattern, the computer can control how it moves around. So if the computer wants to draw a line, it literally moves the electron beam along that line, in a way that's conceptually identical to how modern vector graphics software draws the instructions in a vector graphics file. Except, rather than rendering the instructions by calculating which pixels to color in, vector displays could actually draw the thing directly.\n\nYou have, almost certainly, seen one of these things yourself. The original stand-up Asteroids arcade game used true vector display technology. There was a brief window, there in the very late 1970s and early '80s, when vector technology and pixel technology battled it out. I even remember a home gaming console--I believe it was called Vectrex or Vectrix or something like that--that used it.\n\nBut, largely because pixels are easier, pixels do a better job on pictures of real things, and pixel-technology was simple to adapt for use on the zillions of actual televisions out there, it trounced those old vector displays into the dust."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9b3w2f
|
the draft/conscription in the united states
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9b3w2f/eli5_the_draftconscription_in_the_united_states/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e506pce",
"e50753a",
"e507bpc",
"e507jld"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The draft was performed as a supposedly random lottery. Based on birthdate, numbers would be drawn 1-366, for days of the year, and the order of drawing determined in what order you would be called to service, if you were a man in the right age range. The process was televised and results announced by other means as well.\n\nOne problem with the most recent drawing during the Vietnam War is that they didn't mix the balls properly, so people born in December were much less likely to be drafted.\n\nDraft dodging refers to any way to try to get out of having to serve. Most common was probably trying to get a medical excuse, like Mr. Trump's \"bone spurs\". ",
"All males 18-40ish have to register under the selective service act and if a war breaks out, men are picked mostly at random (though younger men are generally picked first.) Draft dodging is doing something to make yourself inelligible for the draft. For example, self-mutilation ",
"There is no draft currently. \n\nCurrently every male upon reaching the age of 18 they are legally required to register for the draft. That registration puts their name on a list. Should the draft be activated they will start going through that list in a set order and call up people. When you are called up you will go through a medical, psychological, and mental aptitude test. If you fail any of these you are exempted from the draft. If you score exceptionally well in the mental aptitude test you can qualify for Officer training, but most of the time draftees are non-commissioned personnel. You can also get officers ranks if you are drafted and have a college degree already, or if your skill set is such that your role would require you having a higher rank to function. (seen with drafted doctors, or nuclear technicians). \n\nDraft Dodgers are those who physically hid, often by fleeing the country to avoid being drafted. ",
"So of note; the draft is not *currently* in place. Instead, we have the Selective Service System, which continues to function such that, if we ever need to bring conscription back, we can.\n\nCurrently, every man (citizen or no) in the United States under 25 years of age is required to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday, even if they're not normally eligible for service. Not doing so is technically punishable by a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison, but that hasn't really been enforced recently for various reasons. However, not registering can cause all sorts of complications, particularly if you want to work in State or Federal government, or want to receive State or Federal Benefits (including student loans).\n\nThere's also a separate system for healthcare personnel, and Congress has considered other special-skillset Selective Service systems to ensure they can draw up trained personnel in certain high-skill areas.\n\nNow, if the draft gets brought back there would be a set of rules concerning what age groups get drafted when. Assuming we stick to the Vietnam-era rules, Congress first approves a mobilization scheme including a draft. After that we have the Draft Lottery; if your birthday is called, you might have to serve.\n\nThe specific order of service is by age groups; the military takes those who turn 20 in the year of induction first, then ages 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 19, and 18, in that order. Sometimes they'll get everyone they need, other times they'll come up short and have to issue a new lottery to pick up more manpower. Of note, your potential for service doesn't quite end at 25; Federal Law allows for conscription of all men from 17 to 45, particularly with a militia (so, in the modern day, the various wings of the National Guard).\n\nYou then show up and either take the oath and start service, or you make a case for conscientious objection to the Local Board that runs conscription in your area (basically, if you're called up to serve you *have* to show up, even if you're in one of the groups of people that legitimately don't have to serve for various reason), *or* you try to fail the medical exam and get out of serving.\n\n > Similarly, what exactly is “draft-dodging”? How does one obtain an exemption from the draft?\n\nDraft dodging is a catch-all for those who got out of the draft by unscrupulous means, either by having the money needed to hire good lawyers or figure out a medical excuse (e.g. Trump's \"Bone Spurs\"), or by simply fleeing the country (stereotypically to Canada). At the time of Vietnam it was seen as a reasonable thing to do, but in retrospect most people generally *really* don't like the draft dodgers.\n\nNote that Conscientious Objectors aren't quite put in the same boat, as a lot of them have (for either religious or steadfast beliefs) decent reasons not to serve directly, and many are still willing to do *some* non-combat and non-military work instead.\n\nOther exemptions could be granted for given classes of citizens. For example, Kennedy exempted married men from service.\n\n > And if one were to be drafted, is it an option to first attend Officer Candidate School before deployment?\n\nStudents in college were typically exempted *so long as they remained in college*. Once you left college, if you were still eligible to serve, you'd be called up, but sent to OCS or put in a specialist role if officers weren't needed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
uqnn1
|
What would be the best direction to jump in, if jumping out of a train?
|
The train is travelling at 20 m/s in one direction. Would it be best to jump in the same direction that the train is going, or in the opposite direction to where the train is going. (for the purpose of this question, say a person jumps at 5 m/s in a given direction) The ground is one metre below the floor of the train and the person weighs 60kg. The stopping distance is 20 metres. The ground is perfectly level and discount air resistance.
Which is the best direction to jump in to increase survivability?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uqnn1/what_would_be_the_best_direction_to_jump_in_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4xoafn"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Jump in the direction opposite the train's motion. You're already moving 20 m/s forward, if you just \"fall\" out instead of jumping, you hit the ground doing 20 m/s. If you jump toward the rear of the train, then you only hit the ground doing 15 m/s. Be sure to jump straight back though, and not up as well, lest you waste some of your 5 m/s on vertical motion, lessening the effect of the backward jump and increasing the severity of the impact due to gravity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1jxjrs
|
What are the general feelings among the science community about transcendental meditation?
|
Is it considered to be fringe and pseudo-science, or are there scientific roots here?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jxjrs/what_are_the_general_feelings_among_the_science/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbjd7vp",
"cbje4hz"
],
"score": [
5,
9
],
"text": [
"I assume it would be rather difficult to prove something as esoteric as your topic \"doesn't exist\". However, as far as researchers trying to prove that there IS something spiritual or supernatural to meditation, I have seen many \"scientists\" touting claims that it's true, usually on websites full of crystal healers and people who can see your aura. I won't claim to know that it is bullcrap, but Michio Kaku said that \"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\" So far I have seen nothing that proves it to me.",
"Quite a few scientists have investigated the phenomena, and some have been advised by the Dalai Lama. Like this first example.\n \n_URL_0_\n \n\nI gave a talk just before Posner at a symposium last year. His work on nicotine addiction and meditation is pretty interesting. \n_URL_1_\n \nThere are likely other examples, but that's what comes to mind. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.investigatinghealthyminds.org/pdfs/davidsonBuddhaIEEE.pdf",
"http://www.sciencecodex.com/mindfulness_meditation_ibmt_trims_craving_for_tobacco-116998"
]
] |
|
2y16q4
|
how does this plasma-cutter work?
|
Hello, I have seen this video by The Slow Mo Guys on youtube: _URL_0_
He connects four 9v batteries together and one crocodile clip on each side. On one of the clips he puts on a pencil-lead and the other one he connects to a sheet of aluminium foil. Then when he touches the aluminium with the pencil-lead it (burns?) a hole in it.
How does this work? Does the aluminium melt? If so, why? What is the chemistry and physics behind this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y16q4/eli5_how_does_this_plasmacutter_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp59pbi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, yes the electricity from the arc is melting the metal but in a very localized area. Pencil lead is a very good conductor of electricity but when you are drawing an arc or maintaining one both materials are consumed in the process\n\nSource , went to Welding school"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcp7IY7qj8"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
czd9w3
|
Role of corporations as seen and understood by the US founding fathers
|
What was the prevailing view of corporations, their charter and limit on their power at the time of founding of the United States? I am asking in context of the recent Citizen United ruling by the SCOTUS.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/czd9w3/role_of_corporations_as_seen_and_understood_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyxrd2w"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Corporations in this time resembled little what they are today.\n\nFor the most part, corporations were entirely creatures of the state that incorporated them. They were created for a specific purpose pursued by that state. Now, sometimes that purpose involved private benefit either as a means (the large joint stock colonial corporations like the VOC or Hudson Bay company) or an ends (religious or educational corporations), but they were ultimately chartered to accomplish some state purpose. Think: The US Post Office.\n\nThis was true, also, of more purely state corporations, such as municipal corporations.\n\nThere were no general incorporation laws, where the process of incorporation was done as a bureaucratic function, all charters were granted directly by a legislative authority, singly, to a specific individual or group.\n\nThis had actually began changing in their lifetimes, but only for religious corporations, the first general incorporation laws for religious institutions date to the late 18th century in the US. However, general incorporation laws for business activities were a few generations in the future, in the early 19th century, so they did not have opinions on what we view as corporations today because they -- more or less -- didn't exist in the same form.\n\nBecause of this set of facts, their views on corporations were very different from ours. They were often viewed with deep suspicion because they were often used by monarchs and European states to grant commercial monopolies to favored individuals or groups. A corporate charter with some guaranteed business and monopoly privileges is what William III offered the original shareholders of the Bank of England in return for lending him money.\n\nLooking back on this history, the Founders would have often viewed corporations chartered for some commercial purpose as best kept on a short leash. They did often use them, especially for projects like canals or other major infrastructure, but they didn't have a concept of them as just more companies operating in a market structure: They were specifically created for some state purpose.\n\nThis started changing slowly as the 19th century dawned. Dartmouth v Woodward completely set this conception of corporations as exclusively creatures of the state on its head, turning corporate charters into a kind of contract between the legislature and some private group, which the Contracts Clause of the Constitution forbade interference with.\n\nAround the same time, burgeoning commercial states along the Atlantic seaboard started creating the first general incorporation laws aimed at manufacturing operations, rather than religious or educational ones. This was when something more resembling the modern corporate environment started to develop. The first real, general, commercial business incorporation law came from New England in the 1830's. However, by this time, many of the Founders were either dead or retired from national politics, so we don't really get a great window into their thoughts as this new situation developed. By the time the business corporation was firmly entrenched in the American economy by the end of the 19th century, the world the Founders lived in had largely disappeared, so we can only guess what they may have thought of it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
29j838
|
what's the difference between a university and an institute (of technology)?
|
I want to do a computer science program after high school and I'm having trouble deciding between Simon Fraser University and the British Colombia Institute of Technology.
What do I graduate with? How long does it take to complete?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29j838/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_university/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cilgqtj",
"cilh294",
"cilhah0",
"cili64e",
"ciliid7"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For all practical purposes, your getting basically the same education.\n\nA bachelor's degree is a bachelor's degree. The difference between a bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts, OTOH, is significant. The different degree requirements of the schools will differ but that's nothing to do with the name.\n\nThe university is probably going g to be larger and have a wider variety of subjects to study while the engineering school will be more focused.\n\nThis means you'll have a better chance of meeting girls at the larger school.",
"Generally in the tech schools students will focus on getting a narrow but deep understanding of certain concepts. Say Computer Science, pretty much every class you take will be directly related to your major. Because of this degrees will take anywhere from 12 months to just a few years. \n\nUniversities will try to give students both a broad understanding over many subjects (or universal) and finish with a deep understanding in one or a few subjects. If you go this route and pick Computer Science you will also need to take some humanity classes, a history class here or there, a dash of English and on and on. Because of this, degrees will be either 2,4,6 or more years.",
"It's not a hard and fast rule, but typically, universities offer a broad range of educational topics and majors, while Techs tend to focus purely on science and engineering. Their non-science departments exist almost entirely so undergrads can take required non-major courses.\n\nThe degrees they offer tend to be all in science and engineering majors.\n\n",
"If you're talking actual definition; a university offers both graduate and undergraduate programs, whereas a college or a technical institute offers only undergraduate degrees and/or diplomas.\n\nIn practical terms, this means the instructors at universities tend to have more of a theoretical basis and mindset, because they are hired as researchers first and instructors second. If you are planning on going forward and doing graduate work and research, a university will be the best bet because they are the ones that will focus on research methods, how to do design work, and will hugely push the theory behind the ideas. Instructors are usually well informed on the newest and best information in their field, because as researchers that is a vital part of their job. On the negative side, very few university instructors have worked anywhere but in an academic setting, and don't put a lot of emphasis towards preparing students for day to day reality of industry jobs.\n\nIn contrast, technical institutes tend to hire people by who will be a better instructor. It's usually people who have industry experience, and who are better equipped to get you a job straight out of school, because they have more experience working in non-academic settings. The focus tends to be on technical and professional skills that are measurable and marketable. Instructing is your instructors primary job, not research. This can work out well for student, but it can also be a con - there isn't the same threat on their jobs if they fall behind the industry, so instructors may end up falling behind the times and teaching what was relevant when they worked 10 years ago (a HUGE problem in a field that changes as rapidly as Computer Science). Also, if you do decide you want to move on to higher level schooling, attending a technical institute means you've missed out on academic networking provided at a university. This is not an insurmountable challenge, but it is a challenge nonetheless.\n\nAll in all, though - other posters are correct, and a bachelors degree is a bachelors degree. Unless you're in an Ivy League school or attending university of Pheonix online, people don't really care where your bachelors degree comes from. So make the choice that works the best for you, and don't worry about the details.",
"If you want more information about the schools there's specific subreddits for them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8wtj90
|
why can't we consume the daily required nutrients we need in pill or drip form rather than having to eat a variety of foods and having to and expel it out of our bodies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8wtj90/eli5_why_cant_we_consume_the_daily_required/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1y8qxb"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You can, but it's boring. People in a coma live on nutrient paste and IV drip.\n\nYou need to expel some waste because damaged cells and useless metabolic products need to go somewhere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2sdgll
|
[Meta (sort of)] Booklist request! I want to know more about Gnosticism and Mystery Cults
|
The generally excellent /r/askhistorians booklist doesn't have anything on two subjects I find myself fascinated in, so I figured I'd create a thread, and see if anyone here could point me in the right direction.
The first subject is Gnosticism. I'm looking for relatively modern books (i.e., at least are informed by the Nag Hammadi scriptures) that can talk about Gnosticism in some depth, ideally describing differences between various branches, e.g., Valentinism, etc.
Secondly, I'm interested in any sort of scholarly work on the mystery cults, mostly (but not limited to) Orphism, Dionysian cults, etc. I understand that this subject has much less data to go on, and is more speculative, but anything is more than I know right now.
Bonus: Anything discussing charismatic religion in early Christianity (Montanism, etc.) would be super cool as well.
Thank you all, and I hope you bury me!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2sdgll/meta_sort_of_booklist_request_i_want_to_know_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnok7d9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I've recently begun to find more books on religion as a whole, and then delved deeper into what I found interesting\n\nOf the ones I've seen regarding Gnosticism:\n\n*The Gnostic Gospels* by Elain Pagels - A great book that reflects the depth of the religion itself. It's great in that it highlights *and answers* common questions on other Christianities, referencing fairly recently discovered gospels. It's also interesting in that the implications it provides conflict with the texts found in more mainstream records of Christ - while I'm not Christian, it was still an interesting read.\n \n*The Nag Hammadi Library* by James M. Robinson - less for the translations and more for the analyses and introductions of each text.\n\n*Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism* by Kurt Rudolph - explores the relationship and development of Gnosticism from early Christianity while not beating you to a pulp from a torrent of information would be the best way I'd describe it. Comprehensive, although since it's a translation I found it rather hard to read at times.\n\nAlso, I've heard praise for * Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic* by Edward Conze, although I haven't found it or read it.\n\nMysticism:\n\nThis is more from my large(r) encyclopaedia of religions - specifically, *Britannica Encyclopaedia of World Religions* - I haven't read much on mysticism, so a lot of this is from references to books or from the bibliography itself. I do hope you find something though, and I'll annotate what I have read/browsed.\n\n*Ancient Mystery Cults* by Walter Burkert - explores more of how Christianity flourished while older religions (e.g. Greek or Roman) dispersed. It looked less historical and more comprehensively written into an overview or summarisation of observations.\n\n*The Roman Cult of Mithras* by Manfred Clauss\n\n*An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Mysticism and the Mystery Religions* by John Ferguson - illustrated encyclopaedias tend to be good places to start, but that's for me, where I like to have a brief knowledge of most things before diving deeper.\n\n*Dionysos - Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life* by Carl Kerenyi\n\n*Orpheus and Greek Religion* by W. K. C. Guthrie\n\n*Mysticism and the Mystical Experience - East and West* edited by Donald H. Bishop"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
267fyb
|
why does the sun seem to burn hotter in the morning (ca. 10:00) than in the afternoon (ca. 17:00)?
|
I mean, it's still the same sun that shines. Why do I get a sunburn in the morning and not in the afternoon, even after 2 hours of unprotected exposure?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/267fyb/eli5_why_does_the_sun_seem_to_burn_hotter_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chocu2j",
"chocxs5",
"chod03v"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"You become accustomed to the radiant heat.\n\nAt 10:00, when you first walk outside, the feeling of heat is new.\n\nAt 17:00, when you walk out side for the Nth time, you're used to the radiant heat.",
"It has to do with the height of the sun in the at 10:00 and 17:00.\n\nIn the morning at 10:00am the sun is almost at its highest position in the sky. Because of this the sun radiates more energy towards us and the Earth. \n\nIf the sun is not so high like at 17:00, there is less surface area for the sun's energy to radiate off of and thus it is cooler in the evening. ",
"1000 is only 2 hours off of noon. 1700 is 5 hours off if noon. The morning equivalent of 1700 would be 0700. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
en7bg4
|
how do hydrogen-powered cars work, and are they a considerable competitor to electric vehicles?
|
Are hydrogen-powered cars even a thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/en7bg4/eli5_how_do_hydrogenpowered_cars_work_and_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdvmnpz",
"fdvnf3l",
"fdvqlmk"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
11
],
"text": [
"Your car runs on compressed hydrogen gas, either by burning it or reacting it with oxygen in a fuel cell.\n\nThe tricky bit is making and transporting the hydrogen gas. It takes a lot of energy to make, is often made in very “dirty” ways and is hard to get to the end-user.\n\nRight now, there is not a lot of adoption of this type of vehicle. So, they are not much of a competitor to either fossil fuel or electric powered vehicles.",
"Mix petrol droplets with air and light the mix on fire. It goes BOOM. This is what powers gas-powered cars, they just take the force of thousands such explosions every second and use it to move the car.\n\nMix hydrogen with air and light the mix on fire. Mix goes BOOM... You get the idea.\n\nThere's also hydrogen fuel cells. When hydrogen reacts with oxygen, some electrons move from the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen attoms. You can use this moving of electrons to make electric current, which drives an electric motor, which moves the car.",
"Hydrogen can be used as fuel for combustion engines that are very similar to the fossil-fuelled ones. But another, less mechanically complex solution is to use hydrogen as fuel for a *fuel cell* which creates electricity that powers the car. So in that case, the car is just a normal EV where the large battery pack is replaced with a hydrogen tank and a fuel cell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
96u6pq
|
How accepted is the theory that all modern humans descended/evolved from Africa? What is the most compelling evidence for this?
|
So, I know that many evolutionary scientists and anthropologists now subscribe to the idea that modern humans descended from Africa. I would like to know, how mainstream and accepted is this theory? And what is the most compelling evidence to support this idea? Thank you!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/96u6pq/how_accepted_is_the_theory_that_all_modern_humans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e45fjpo",
"e46z5av"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"It's 100% accepted that Homo sapiens' ancestors came from Africa. There's a continuous series of fossils in Africa that are clearly close human relatives and that are much older than any other locations; there's no way to explain that other than human ancestors started there.\n\nThere's a general consensus that modern Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out into Europe and the Middle East, meeting Neanderthals and Denisovans along the way. It's also possible (a minority opinion, but a respectable one) that H. sapiens arose in multiple locations, not just Africa (see [Why we are not all multiregionalists now](_URL_0_)). ",
"I'm not sure what alternative to this you have in mind - 5 million years ago we were apes living in a small region of the African jungle, and the only question is how we evolved and spread since then.\n\nOur understanding of the process is summarized in two Wikipedia articles, [how around a million years ago hominids spread out of Africa to become Neanderthals and related species](_URL_0_), and then later, [around 70,000 years ago, modern humans left Africa in a second wave and took over from our earlier hominid relatives](_URL_1_). Using modern DNA techniques, we have learned that there was actually non-negligible interbreeding between modern humans and the earlier hominids in Europe and Asia, so that many of us have around 5% Neanderthal DNA (with, I believe, Asians typically having the most Neanderthal DNA and Africans the least).\n\nDNA gives us rather nuanced evidence for this account - all of humanity has a common ancestor around 200,000 years ago, and anyone can pay $99 to get their DNA sequenced and find out how much Neanderthal DNA they have. The trajectory of migrations has fossil evidence, and we have been getting better at sequencing DNA dug up from several hundred thousand years ago, so we can confirm that the remains of early hominids found outside of Africa are all from Neanderthal or Denisovan species that were ultimately supplanted by the wave of modern humans that came out of Africa 70,000 years ago."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534714000470"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_expansions_of_hominins_out_of_Africa",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans"
]
] |
|
19by72
|
Wednesday AMA: Jewish History Panel
|
Welcome to this Wednesday AMA which today features six panelists willing and eager to answer all your questions about Jewish History starting from the Bronze Age Middle East to modern-day Israel.
**We will, however, not be talking about the Holocaust today.** Lately and in the popular imagination, Jewish History has tended to become synonymous with Holocaust studies. In this AMA we will focus on the thousands of years of Jewish history that do *not* involve Nazis. For the sorely disappointed: there will be a Holocaust AMA in the near future.
Anyone interested in delving further into the topic of Jewish History may want to peruse the massive list of threads on the subject compiled by /u/thefuc which [can be found in our wiki](_URL_0_).
Our panelists introduce themselves to you:
* **otakuman** Biblical & Ancient Near East Archaeology
I've studied the Bible for a few years from a Catholic perspective. Lately I've taken a deep interest in Ancient Israel from an archaeological viewpoint, from its beginnings to the Babylonian exile.
My main interest is about the origins of the Old Testament : who wrote it, when, and why; how the biblical narrative compares with archaeological data; and the parallels between judaism and the texts of neighboring cultures.
* **the3manhimself** ANE Philology | New Kingdom Egypt | Hebrew Bible
I studied Hebrew Bible under well-known biblical translator Everett Fox. I focus on philology, archaeology, textual origins and the origins of the monarchy. I wrote my thesis on David as a mythical progenitor of a dynastic line to legitimize the monarchy. I also wrote research papers on Egyptian cultural influence on the Hebrew Bible and the Exodus. I'm competent in Biblical Hebrew and Middle Egyptian and I've spent time digging at the Israelite/Egyptian site of Megiddo. My focus is on the Late Bronze, Early Iron Age and I'm basically useless after the Babylonian Exile.
* **yodatsracist** Comparative Religion
I did a variety of studying when I thought, as an undergraduate, I wanted to be a (liberal) rabbi, mostly focusing on the history and historicity of the Hebrew Bible. I'm now in a sociology PhD program, and though it's not my thesis project, I am doing a small study of a specific Haredi ("Ultra-Orthodox") group and try to keep up on that end of the literature, as well.
* **gingerkid1234** Judaism and Jewish History
I studied Jewish texts fairly intensely from literary, historical, and religious perspectives at various Jewish schools. As a consequence, my knowledge starts around the Second Temple era and extends from there, and is most thorough in the area of historical religious practice, but Jewish history in other areas is critical to understanding that. My knowledge of texts extends from Hebrew bible to the early Rabbinic period to later on. It's pretty thorough, but my knowledge of texts from the middle ages tends to be restricted to the more prominent authors. I also have a fairly thorough education (some self-taught, some through school) of Jewish history outside of religious text and practices, focusing on the late Middle Ages to the present.
I'm proficient in all varieties of Hebrew (classical, late ancient, Rabbinic, and modern), and can figure out ancient Jewish Aramaic. Because of an interest in linguistics, I have some knowledge about the historical development of Jewish languages, including the above, as well as Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Romance languages, and Yiddish.
* **CaidaVidus** US-Israel Relations
I have worked on the political and social ties that bind the U.S. and Israel (and, to a lesser extent, the U.S. and the Jewish people). I specialize in the Mandate Period (pre-state of Israel, ca.1920-1948), particularly the armed Zionist resistance to British rule in Palestine. I also focus on the transition within the U.S. regarding political and public support of Israel, specifically the changing zeitgeist between 1967 and 1980.
* **haimoofauxerre** Early Middle Ages | Crusades
I work on religion and violence in the early and central European Middle Ages (ca. 700-1300 CE). Mostly I focus on the intellectual and cultural roots of Christian animosity towards Muslims, Jews, and "heretical" Christians but I'm also at the beginning of a long-term research project about the idea of "Judeo-Christianity" as a political and intellectual category from antiquity to the present day USA.
Let's have your questions!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19by72/wednesday_ama_jewish_history_panel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8mmo12",
"c8mmx9y",
"c8mmxtz",
"c8mmyrt",
"c8mn22u",
"c8mn87x",
"c8mn96u",
"c8mn9zp",
"c8mncy9",
"c8mnm86",
"c8mnmhy",
"c8mnuni",
"c8mnuth",
"c8mnuvo",
"c8mnwq8",
"c8mny0v",
"c8mo246",
"c8mo3uh",
"c8mo91e",
"c8mob45",
"c8mog3o",
"c8mogav",
"c8mol56",
"c8moli3",
"c8monpu",
"c8monzo",
"c8motyw",
"c8moup3",
"c8movh1",
"c8mowp2",
"c8mp68a",
"c8mp986",
"c8mpkci",
"c8mpkut",
"c8mpo8p",
"c8mpodd",
"c8mppi2",
"c8mprh5",
"c8mpxku",
"c8mpyqr",
"c8mq7k3",
"c8mqd1f",
"c8mqg08",
"c8mqj1b",
"c8mqpow",
"c8mqw43",
"c8mqxo4",
"c8mr0p4",
"c8mrcwy",
"c8mrg9a",
"c8ms32r",
"c8ms393",
"c8ms8lu",
"c8msaze",
"c8mtsrd",
"c8mtw7f",
"c8mtxq1",
"c8muwz6",
"c8mvpg5",
"c8mwxr2",
"c8mxeex",
"c8mxlm6",
"c8n9nmq",
"c8py88r"
],
"score": [
32,
31,
19,
19,
25,
34,
122,
9,
28,
4,
3,
2,
9,
2,
4,
5,
5,
9,
4,
7,
5,
2,
2,
9,
13,
3,
6,
4,
15,
7,
2,
5,
3,
7,
2,
6,
5,
9,
2,
4,
2,
6,
8,
2,
9,
2,
5,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
6,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I have read where many people believe that as late as the 6th or 7th Century B.C., that the Jews were still polytheistic. It was the siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. by the Assyrians in which Hezekiah basically renewed the faith of Jerusalem in Yahweh. What can you guys tell me about this?",
"Thanks for doing this guys! I love these panels :)\n\nNow for my questions:\n\n1. Could you expand on the Zoroastrian influences on Judaism after the Persian conquest of the Levant? My impression has been that many concepts from Zoroastrianism (Messianism, Hell, a dualistic conception of \"good vs evil\") were transported into the Jewish religion. How accurate is this assumption from the available scriptural and archaeological records?\n\n2. Moving forward in time, are there any indications how Jewish populations in Palestine and Syria were treated by the Crusader States? Much is written about the massacres of Jews in the Rhineland, and the massacre of Jeresulam. But I'm curious what were Jewish-Crusader relations like during the existence of the Crusader States.\n\n3. Moving onwards, what were the rationales given for the establishment of the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by the Israelis? Were there arguments other than those that justified the occupation on defensive grounds?\n\nThanks again!",
"Question that I expect is most appropriate for gingerkid1234:\n\nI read that Jewish conscripts / mercenaries were particularly popular and successful in the Palestine region during the period after Alexander, with units serving far afield in the large empires of the time. \n\nWhy didn't this make a larger impact on the religious make up of the areas where they served? Or did it, and it just isn't widely known?\n\nAnd to whoever is best going to answer: was there a big break that caused Christians to go from being a type of jew to considering themselves standing apart, and if so what was that break?",
"Ok cool! So 2 separate questions which I think are largely independent\n\n1) How much of the Torah, especially Geneses, was borrowed from the earlier cultural and religious mythology of non-Abraham cultures and tribes? How much was borrowed from social norms and codified law?\n\n2) How did the Cabala interpretation develop during the medieval period? Was it derived from oral tradition? Was it influenced by non-Hebrew traditions? Was it the result of looking at the Torah from a new and original perspectives\n\nThanks for doing this!",
"Most of what I know about Jewish history is focused on Europe and the United States, and it's usually in the 18th-20th centuries. \n\nWhat do we know about how Jews lived in southeast Asia, ancient or modern? Do we see patterns of isolated communities like we do in Europe, and did there emerge a similar racialized understanding of Jews in the 19th/20th centuries? Were Jews granted a special status in, say, China? Do Jewish traditions and philosophies ever overlap/conflict with things like Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.? ",
"This might be a bit beyond the specialities of this panel, but it is a question I have had since my first comp. I was curious if y'all could describe anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic attitudes in antebellum period? Nativist reactions against Catholics and Mormons receive considerable attention. However, nativist treatment of Jewish peoples is rarely mentioned in the literature. This is a bit surprising, considering the lynching of Leo Frank and Frank's unfortunate role in the emergence of the second Ku Klux Klan, which has traditional been treated as a nativist group.",
"I came prepared. Although I am addressing each question to a specific user, anyone is welcome to join in.\n\notakuman: \n\n* This is a super cliched question, but how do you stand on the Solomonic Kingdom issue? Do you think Jerusalem was a small city state or the head of a comparatively powerful empire? \n\n* To slip in another question, where do you stand on the entire concept of \"Biblical archaeology\" as a distinct branch?\n\n* Is there a detectable change in the patterns of ritual from before the Exile and after?\n\nthe3manhimself: \n\n* Same question about the Solomonic Empire as I asked otakuman. \n\n* Your interest description intrigues me, and now I am quite curious about Egyptian influences on LBA and early Iron Age Judea, so, you know, go on...\n\nyodatsracist: \n\n* A long time ago I asked a question here about the origins of Jewish monotheism, because I noticed that the, how to say, mode of addressing divinity in many Mesopotamian texts was already quasi-monotheistic--that is, the Assyrians would address Assur much like the Judeans would address Yahweh. The response I got is that it was a unifying gambit after the Exile. What is your take on this as a comparative religion scholar?\n\n* To what extent was the development of ultra-Orthodoxy fueled by Protestantism? I feel that they share many similarities.\n\ngingerkid:\n\n* I am curious about regionalism in Judaism. How was, say, Iraqi Judaism different from contemporary German Judaism?\n\nCaidaVidus:\n\n* This is slightly outside your interest, but why was the Israeli action in southern Lebanon so cack handed during the 1982 Lebanon War? My understanding is that when they came in, Shiite communities welcomed them as someone who would protect them from the PLO, but by the end the building blocks of Hezbollah had been set down.\n\nhaimoofauxerre:\n\n* It seems like around, say, 1200 or so there is a noticeable change towards the treatment of Jews. Although there were the massacres during the Crusade those were, historically speaking, somewhat isolated. Around 1200 or so there is a rising wave of state repression and expulsion, and this is the period from which many of the demonic legends about Jews arose. So, why? And why were they comparatively rarer in Slavic and Magyar regions?",
"I have been to Israel twice, once for the summer in High School, and another as a volunteer for 2 weeks on an IDF base on the border with Lebanon. I also have a History degree so I would like to ask the panel or specifically CaidaVidus/gingerkid if they could explain what the impact of Soviet aid to Egypt from the period of 1967-73 had on the buildup of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. A common misconception is that Israel had the technological edge over its enemies. ",
"I've read about the Khazars, but not in any depth. How deep was the level of conversion among the Khazar nobility? Was the motivation to maintain credibility with both Christian and Muslim nations? Is Koestler full of it? ",
"In your opinion, what is your favorite Jewish Folk Tale and Why?",
"What is the history of the development of the Kabbalah and how much impact (if any) did Jewish mysticism as a whole have on the diaspora and the return and establishment of Israel as a nation? How seriously are concepts such as the golem and the Tzadikim Nistarim/Lamed Vavniks taken throughout history?",
"I've read that the Jews appeared in Europe several hundred years after the Roman Empire fell. Where were they in the mean time? Did they enter through Siciliy, or are they largely descended from Khazars?",
"Wow, this is great.\n\nI don't know if you guys would be able to help me with this (I'm hoping perhaps CaidaVidus would) but could you point me towards historiography on the '67 war? \n\nSorta like how John Keegan is the (at least initial) go to guy for WWII and how Gaddis is for the Cold War, is there an analogous text for the 1967 war?",
"What happened to the Jews of Babylon during the age of the Rabbis?",
"Why wasn't there any idea of a Jewish nation before the 1800s? Was a Jewish nation born out of heated nationalism in Europe?\n\nEdit: Grammar.",
"How has the religion dealt with the dearth of archeological support for some of their founding stories? I know the Talmud has long had a metaphorical approach to a lot of these, eg Genesis, but were there any surprises for rabbinical scholars or lay-Jews?",
"How do you do research on Jewish family history in western imperial Russia? What kinds of records are preserved, etc., after the various unpleasantnesses of the 19th and 20th centuries? Does this vary by region--Ukraine, Lithuania, Russia proper? Presumably, a great deal would be in Russian or Yiddish--but is there much left?",
"What are your opinions about the reasons for the fairly common expulsions of Jewish people from countries across Europe in the medieval period? By all accounts the Jews tended to be extremely useful to their expulsors in countries like England (even more so because they could not inherit, enabling the monarch to take their belongings) - yet by the 14th century they were expelled from England and France, then later from Castille and so on - was it merely because of religious intolerance, or were there more diverse reasons - did people directly profit from repossessing their lands, for example?\n\nOn a slightly different tangent, how far did Jewish culture contribute to cultural growth in the medieval period? I'd be fascinated to hear if/how Judaic texts had an impact on, say, aspects of the twelfth century renaissance.",
"This is a question about the Jews of late antiquity following the fall of the Second Temple, a period I'm researching right now.\n\nHow much influence did non-Jewish cultures and religions have on the Jews of late antiquity following the fall of the Second Temple and the three failed revolts? \n\nThe synagogue at Dura Europos and the expansion of ideas about the afterlife in Jewish literature of the time seem to suggest more acceptance or integration of neighboring ideas than during the Second Temple period.",
"We've all heard about the terrifying anti-semitic violence Jews experienced in most of medieval Europe. But what was life like for Jews living in territory controlled by the Byzantine Empire? Was there even a significant enough population for them to have been mentioned in contemporary Byzantine sources? ",
"Thanks for taking the time to do this!\n\n1. Is there any way to know how Hebrew would have been pronounced back in the time the Torah was originally written? How do we know that the modern pronunciation is \"correct\"?\n\n2. Around the time that Judaism was first being practiced, how similar or different was it to other religions in the area?\n\n3. What do we know about the origin of Judaism itself? \n\n4. Is there any theory as to why Judaism has survived this long when so many other religions have died out?\n\n",
"This is great, thanks! I have two questions\n\n1. I once wrote a short paper on the expulsion of the Jews from Mainz in 1012 which was fun because there is only one source reporting it happened and only in one sentence (\"[The] Jews were expelled from Moguntia by the king\"). In the introduction I said that this was the first known expulsion in central europe and a prequel for the following ones. The teacher who read the paper said this was wrong but couldn't specify any expulsions before that date. Can you help me out?\n\nActually, this has a follow-up question: 2. What's the source situation for mass expulsions like? I had a lot of trouble working through jewish religious laments because they always mixed the things they witnessed with traditional stories and some expulsions/pogroms seemed to have been started by the general crowd which certainly was illiterate\n\n3. To CaidaVidus: Can you comment on the name \"Palestinians\"? I just read a year ago that it's a relatively new term for Arabs living in/coming from Palestine and that before the term meant only the Jews living in Palestine.",
"I have y-dna haplogroup G2b, which appears to have entered Europe via Sicily after 1492. Where would my family, Jewish of course, have gone to Sicily from?",
"What evidence is there for a Babylonian exile, and how many people seem to have been exiled?",
"This is a bit of a risky and loaded question, but this is probably the best place to attempt it...\n\nFor a large part of history, probably during the European Jewish expulsions and certainly during WWII and up to the present day, there's been sentiment that Jews and Jewish organizations hold an inordinate amount of power and influence 'behind the veil' in various countries and societies. Some see it as a mark of individual exceptionalism among otherwise unconnected Jewish individuals, while others view it as some kind of nefarious far-reaching scheme.\n\nFrom a historical point-of-view, are there any times where it could be argued that Jews wielded 'power behind the throne' for their own benefit in societies where they otherwise were demographically underrepresented?\n\nThanks.",
"1. Has there ever been a time and place in history where Jewish people were accepted largely by European society instead of being persecuted (and, amongst other things, being blamed for the black death etc.)?\n\n2. Was there an active movement in the middle ages or the early modern period to stop the systematic discrimination against Jews, and how successful was it?\n\n",
"Have any of you studied the Beta Israel/Falasha (better known as Ethiopian Jews)? \n\nFrom where/when do you believe they originated? \n\nAs far as I know, there has never been any dedicated academic study of the diaspora to Ethiopia, so all we have are a couple of sacred histories that tend to reflect the interests of whichever group is telling the story. \n\nE.g. The Beta Israel originally claimed to have originated from the union of Solomon and Sheba, who gave birth to Menilek I, who became the king of Ethiopia - thus giving the Beta Israel a direct line of succession from a Jewish king, as well as associating them with Ethiopia's socio-political elite.\n\nWhen the Beta Israel were trying to establish themselves as Jewish enough to make aliyah to the Holy Land, this narrative was met with resistance by the mainstream rabbinate, so they changed their history and claimed to belong to the Lost Tribe of Dan. This brought them more in line with a traditional Jewish sacred history.\n\nHas any more research been conducted into the actual origin of this group? ",
"What are your opinions of Shlomo Sand's _The Invention of the Jewish People_ and _The Invention of the Land of Israel_? Admittedly I'm a layman, but in the introduction to the latter book he writes that his intention has been to deconstruct/critique Israeli historiography... do you think he's been successful in doing so?",
"This question came up in a poli sci class once, when talking about terrorist groups and their relationships with Israel. Why have so many cultures, throughout history, found themselves in conflict with the Jews? The Jews never aggressively expanded, they do not actively seek to convert others to their religion, and for the most part, they have been a fragmented people for centuries, yet many cultures view Jews quiet negatively, and have for centuries. Why do you think this is so?",
"I was hoping you could answer questions based on anti-Semitism, especially throughout history. \n\nWhen did anti-Semitism really begin to take hold? Are there formal, institutional based anti-Semitic movements before the Middle Ages?\n\nDo you believe anti-Semitism to be culturally inherent in Christian societies, and can \"manifest\" itself in cases, such as 19th and 20th century Germany?\n\nWhat were the crucial moments and key changes in the change from religious-based persecution to racially motivated persecution in anti-Semitism?",
"This question could be for everyone on the panel.\n\nWhat is the most important defining moment for the Jewish people within your area of study and what was the result? Some event, decision, or action where everything changed after that. I would prefer if the panel could focus on events prior to the 20th century.",
"There are already so many great questions that I hesitate to add another for fear of burdening you guys too much. That said:\n\nCan any of you expand on Leviathan? While studying Job it occurred to me that Yahweh's recount of his struggles with Leviathan may be hearkening back to some older, lost creation myth. This is just speculation, but it always fascinated me that Yahweh may be \"remembering\" a battle that other sources had long since forgotten.",
"I was always really interested in the lost tribes. According to Jewish canon, all of the tribes with the exception of Judah, Benjamin, and parts of Levi were expelled from Judea and scattered. It seems as though people are very quick to label any out of place people in Africa or Asia as one of these lost tribes. How likely is it that they are actually transplanted Jews from that era? I guess it's easier to accept this story for the Ethiopians who retained a lot of traditions, but what about peoples such as the Pashtuns who I remember reading were descended from \"Bani Israel\". \n\nThe idea of these crypto-Jews seems like a cool idea to me, I'm just not sure how much validity it has.",
"For otakuman\n\na) Is the general assumption by scholars that most of the items in the bible existed in oral form and then were faithfully (well, as faithfully as possible) written down at some point or did the authors create the text based on more general knowledge/history, with the particular textual form left to the authors?\n\nb) On a related note, while I know that cantillation marks only show up much later than the first biblical writings, is it possible that these were invented to preserve an oral tradition preceding the texts?\n\nThanks!\n",
"The dead sea scrolls were meant to change our whole understanding of history. Did they make any difference at all to beliefs?",
"How much of the Maccabees' success would you attribute to Judas Maccabeus as a tactician? ",
"I have a couple\n\nWhat type of beliefs would would the Jewish religion in it's earliest stages have had? \n\nWhat exactly is the historical relation the Jews have to the Samaritans?",
"Right, so you already have a lot on your hands... thanks for doing this!\n\nMy questions are related to the Philistines.\n\n1. What is known of their origins? I here they might have been Mycenaean?\n\n2. What, if any, was their influence on Jewish culture?",
"Do modern Israeli's look to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 the same way that Americans look to the Revolutionary War? If they don't, then where do they get their founding myths from? (Assuming that there are founding myths of course.)\n\nThis might be one for /u/CaidaVidus. Can you highlight the process that made the US such a strong backer of Israel? During the UN votes on statehood I know that there was some strong opposition within the US government to voting yes. During WWII US diplomats could kill their careers by issuing visas to Jewish refugees.\n\nThere's a [great story](_URL_0_) about Hiram Bingham IV who was a US diplomat serving in France. In the space of 10 months he was responsible for issuing and expediting 2500 visas despite orders from Washington. \n\nFinally, can someone give a rundown of how Hebrew came to be the standard language for Israel, and how words for new concepts (such as computer) are introduced into a formerly dead language?",
"What are your thoughts on Shlomo Sand's work? Specifically the idea that Zionism was largely a 19th and 20th century construct, and that the idea of the \"Jewish People\" is a fabrication in reaction to burgeoning German nationalism in the 19th century? \n\nWhat are the roots of Zionism? How far back does the concept reach? Would it be unfair to call Zionism an \"entitlement concept\" not unlike Manifest Destiny? \n\nI hope these questions don't sound too negative or derogatory.",
"Thanks for doing this! I have two questions, both about classical antiquity:\n\n* I've often read about major cities in the Roman Empire having significant Jewish communities (e.g. Alexandria). Was it common for ethnic exclaves like this to exist, or were Jews a \"wandering\" people even before their exile from Judea? If so, why?\n* Related to the above, did monotheism make Jewish identity more distinct and well-defined than that of other ethnic groups in the ancient Mediterranean? (In other words, did they stand out?)",
"To anyone that wants to answer:\n\n* Popular perception of Jews, particularly when it comes to the more Orthodox and Conservative communities, is, as far as I can tell, mostly Ashkenazi, most obviously the Hasidim. Were there any similar branches that have their origins in Sephardic Judaism, and if so what are their stories?\n\n* Was there any opposition to the creation of a Jewish state from among Jews. If so, how did they reconcile themselves with Israel once it was established?",
"Throughout the course of history, many different peoples have been displaced from their \"place of origin\". Most of them were then assimilated into other peoples, and subsequently lost their language, identity, and culture. \n\nWhat are the top reasons that didn't happen to the Jewish people during the 2000 years they were scattered over Europe and the middle east?\n\nI find it pretty amazing how swiftly the plans for a Jewish state came into place when the Ottoman empire lost control of Palestine.\n",
"I really want to answer some questions because im Jewish, been to Israel, have a history degree, and studied Jewish history somewhat. Is it ok as a non-panelist to answer some questions?",
"the3manhimself:\n\nSorry if this is cliché, and PLEASE don't disregard due to my source... but I've seen/read from a few different points of view that \n\n* Jewish populations spoken of in the old testament living in Egypt were not slaves, but settled populations or the north eastern border. They were not only tolerated but renowned for their combat skills, and employed as mercenaries to defend said border region the \"habiru\" I believe they were called\n\n* Were never enslaved to work for Egypt\n\n* As one theory goes, were only chased by the Pharaoh after they started raiding Egypt on the way out (this last point is taken up in this *sigh* history channel thought experiment, that as a historian will probably make you cringe but does have a FEW interesting ideas and real PhDs involved)\n\nAny chance you could comment on a few of these? And if you are at all familiar with the history channel \"[documentary](_URL_0_)\" (you can watch the whole thing if you want, it's entertaining anyway, but the real stuff starts at about 5:30), comment on any obvious falsehoods or quality ideas that are represented?",
"Were the Israelites responsible for any particular achievements or inventions? \n\nI'm a junior intern in a 6th grade world history class, and the students recently finished going over the history of Israel from about 1290 B.C.E. - A.D. 132. As part of a \"common threads\" worksheet, the students compared various categories of development across civilizations that they'd previously studied. For the \"Achievements\" column, the teacher could not come up with anything for Israel. The closest thing that I could think of was the dreidel (which was more of a tongue-in-cheek answer) and the tabernacle. ",
"What can any of you tell us about the end of Messianism and the story of Shabbatai Svi? ",
"Were the lost tribes of Israel ever real? After the conquest of Israel by Assyria, is there any evidence that any actual demographic change occurred in the people that settled that land?",
"Purim was a few days ago. What's the *real* story of Purim?",
"I guess this is likely for haimoofauxerre, but I'm not picky.\n\nMy understanding might not be right on, but I recall that in the Middle Ages in Europe, Muslim Midrasas were the best places to go for academic pursuits. Jews and Muslims were good friends back then because both were kind of ghetto-sized by Christians and both shared academic pursuits that Christians didn't. I think one of my professors said that a majority of people attending a Midrasa would be Jewish?\n\nIs it true that Jews were big into Madrasas in the Middle Ages? Can we see any influence of Jewish culture on Muslim culture or vice versa from the time due to their shared love of academia? Were later Christian universities trying to copy what the Muslims and Jews did?",
"What was the first documented Jewish community in Post-Roman Western Europe? In general, how were the Jews in Early Medieval Western Europe treated by the Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, etc.?",
"On my phone, so I hope this hasn't been asked, but could someone point me to a good book on the Essenes? I've been reading about a lot of early Christian history, and they keep popping up as a parallel. I don't have any specific questions, I'm just interested in learning more about them.",
"To CaidaVidus:\n\nExactly how much do you feel Israeli lobby groups in Washington influence our current stance towards the Israeli-Palestinian situation (eg blanket support of Israel in the UN). I always hear about how much influence the Israeli lobby has from random everyday sources, I'd be interested in a view from someone who claims to have expertise in the matter. \n\nWhat in your opinion is the real reason we have such close ties to Israel? Whether it be the aforementioned lobby, or if there is actually a strategic importance to being allied to Israel. ",
"Why do you think of all the early tribes of human beings the Jews first chose a monotheistic omnipotent god unlike all the anthropomorphic deities around them?\n\nTalked about it in a class last year though I may be wrong they were the first.",
"GingerKid1234 - languages! What are the main differences between various types of Hebrew? What are the most significant changes between modern and ancient Hebrew? what are the oldest dialects of Hebrew we have texts from/evidence from?",
"Can any of you elaborate on the development of American (New York) Jewish culture?",
"What percent of modern Jews can trace matrilineal descent to, say, the second temple?",
"This is probably more of a sociological question than a history one, but it is ask *historians* after all.\n\nI noticed in the introductions that the majority of you started on this topic because of religious/mythological interest. Did the studying this subject (or your specialisation) affect you as a person? (Influencing your faith/morals, encountered a profound wisdom, etc.)\n\nThanks for doing this AMA!",
"the3manhimself, what is your understanding on why the Talmud was compiled, and what it means to the Jewish people?",
"I don't mean for this question to sound in any way offensive, but I have heard that there is little to no evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved in ancient Egypt, as claimed in the Bible. Is there any truth to this? I know very little about history, and would really appreciate an expert opinion. Thanks!\n\n(I'm at work, so I don't have time to read all the comments and see if this has already been asked. if it has, just tell me.)",
"I've heard this here and there among Poles (as well as some Germans and Russians), but was there a significant faction in the Zionist movement consider trying to establish a Jewish state or state-within-a-state (like a province with more autonomy, such as Quebec) in inter-war Poland?",
"Sorry I'm late guys! I saw the Who perform Quadrophenia Live last night and have been recovering academically and physically since then. I'll be totally present for the rest of the AMA and go through to check everything I missed!",
"I'm Hungarian and half-Jewish. In our imagination Jews are associated with generally being upper-middle-class, bourgeois: doctors, bankers, lawyers. Also there is a certain stereotype of being a bookwormish person who is cowardly and nonviolent and peaceful. Sort of both a positive and negative stereotype, the kind of smart weak person who will outsmart the stupid strong goy bully. This stereotype is often maintained by Jews themselves i.e. cossack jokes.\n\nHowever, many words that came from Jiddish to Budapest slang suggest a rather underclassy existence, either because they mean something criminal, or because they are used in Hungarian by lower-classy circles. \n\nBut the most astonishing part is that some of it suggests actually violent or physical crime. I mean for our stereotypes the Jewish burglar is hard to imagine (strength job, not smarts job), a fraudster would be easier.\n\nSuch words:\n\nhaver - buddy\n\nbalek - dumb person to defraud\n\nbalhé - trouble\n\nhapsi - dude\n\nbrahi - joke, but also crime\n\ncóresz - poverty\n\ndafke - doing something just to spite others\n\nhirig - brawl\n\njampec - hooligan\n\nlébec - living easily, without work\n\nmeló - work, also, crime\n\nmajré - scared\n\nmószer - rat, in the sense of ratting someone out to the police\n\nsrác - boy\n\nstika - in secret\n\nszajré - stolen property\n\ntélak - escape\n\nsmasszer - prison guard\n\nCan someone explain it? I find it very hard to imagine like 100 ago a tough, brawling, not educated, sometimes burglaring, sole Roma-like Jewish underclass in Budapest. Or Vienna - as I suspect many words were borrewed first in Vienna from Jiddish into German then came to Hungarian. Vienna German uses words like haver / chaver too.\n\nI mean I can imagine individuals but not a large subculture that would lend so many words.\n",
"I hope I'm not too late to ask a question about Hanukkah.\n\nIt seems like the Hanukkah story is in some sense about a group of religious fanatics waging guerrilla war against an occupation. To what extent were the Macabees supported by the population of Judea or were they extremists? "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/jewishthreads"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Binghams-List.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds2CwyJSSHM"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
18fx9h
|
Before Nixon started the infamous "War on Drugs" in the early 1970's, did the average American parent have any idea what Marijuana or drugs in general were?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18fx9h/before_nixon_started_the_infamous_war_on_drugs_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8egay1",
"c8ein0h"
],
"score": [
7,
16
],
"text": [
"In the 1960s,most Americans were aware of the \"hippy\" culture and it's association with Marijuana. The Summer of Love was in 1967 and the Woodstock music festival was 1969 - both were symbols of the 1960s culture of drugs. There were also many Vietnam War protests that were associated with hippies. These events and others were publicized in the newspapers and television news.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nMarijuana use was probably not common among middle-aged parents, but everyone knew who hippies were, and what they did.\n\nEDIT: Typo on date\n",
"First of all I have to say I am not happy finding a question in askhistorians for which I am a primary source.\n\nIn 1969 on the schoolbus we sang this song to the tune of Frere Jacques:\n\nMarijuana, Marijuana,\n\nLSD, LSD,\n\nHumphrey made it, Nixon ate it.\n\nSo do we, so do we.\n\nI didn't know what it meant but my completely straight arrow, small town, parents did and I got a long lecture after singing it at home. #TraumaticKindergartenMemories"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Love"
],
[]
] |
||
hip2x
|
Why are antibodies ineffective against certain illnesses, or is that even the case?
|
With infections like HIV and Lyme antibodies seem to exist but don't necessary completely defeat the illness. I'm sure there are others as well.
If antibodies are ineffective, why is that? Through medical research could we make 'steroids' for antibodies to make them stronger/faster/whatever to perhaps make them effective?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hip2x/why_are_antibodies_ineffective_against_certain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1vp8dn",
"c1vpd40",
"c1vpzwr",
"c1vqtow"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Antibodies are one part of our immune system, and rely upon the other components (white blood cells, complement system etc) to combat infections. Some pathogens have the ability to disrupt the immune response and can thus remain 'undefeated' so to speak, or simply reproduce too quickly to be subdued by an immune response.",
"Alot of diseases have methods to avoid antibodies. Antibodies float in the blood and if an infection is in a cell or surrounded by a coat that protects them from antibodies then they have no effect. There are currently no methods of improving antibodies function. With HIV the virus lives within cells for the majority if the time and it effects the cells ability to say that it is infected (this has something to do with the major histocompatibility factor i think) so it can stay in the body for a long time without being attached by antibodies.",
"Some rare people develop antibodies that control HIV. One of the problem with antibodies is that pathogens can mutate themselves so that where the antibody would bind has changed, making the antibody ineffective. This is the major problem in HIV, because HIV has an extremely high mutation rate. Through natural selection, the viruses that are able to avoid the immune response become the dominant strains infecting someone. \n\nBut as I said before, some people develop antibodies to an essential part of HIV that can't be mutated without losing its function. People are now working on making a vaccine that can induce these same effective antibodies in everyone. ",
"As other commenters have noted, there are many ways that pathogens can avoid detection by antibodies or resist or suppress the body's antibody-mediated reactions. I could go on for chapters describing all the known ways these evasions happen but I'll let what others have said suffice.\n\nSince the methods of evasion are so diverse the means by which to make antibody \"steriods\" are equally diverse. The best antibodies are the ones that are already there from vaccines. Vaccination strategies are continually improving such that they leave you with much stronger/faster/whatever antibody defenses. Genomic medicine will eventually be applied to medical immunology as well - people with known variants of immune detection/signalling molecules will be given vaccines that are most appropriate for them, rather than the way it is done today where everyone gets the same thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3tggfr
|
how do people automatically know which direction north, and consequently, south, east and west are?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tggfr/eli5how_do_people_automatically_know_which/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx5wcgx",
"cx5wjiw",
"cx5wnzz",
"cx5y9qm"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Nobody automatically knows which direction north is. You have to have learned it at some point by making observations, and you might have an excellent sense of direction and be able to figure out while moving, but you're not going to automatically know where north is without actually checking. ",
"If anyone does it like I do, I find the easiest way is to use geographical knowledge of the area I am in and go based off of that. For example back in my hometown we had a lake to the north of us, so I used that as my reference point when I when I needed to give directions or to know what way when I was given directions.",
"Growing up in California, it was always easy to know which way the ocean was, so I knew West instinctively. The rest sort themselves out.",
"The easiest way ive found is to use the sun. Based on its position in the sky and what time of day it is, you can get a general idea of which way north is. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bdxfj0
|
Does our moon change/affect our orbit?
|
So I read somewhere the Charon (Pluto’s moon) is relatively massive for Pluto’s mass that it actually changes it’s orbit just a tad. And they’re in a tidal lock. They’re also sometimes referred to as a binary system cause of the way they behave.
So by any chance since the moon is actually around 1/4 of Earth’s size (I know this isn’t mass, but it’s actually pretty big that it’s mass might have more of an impact?), does it affect our orbit by anyway?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bdxfj0/does_our_moon_changeaffect_our_orbit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"el3r6cm",
"el3r9a7",
"el3tq6j"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The [barycenter](_URL_0_) of the Earth-moon system is about 75% of the Earth's radius away from the center of the Earth, so it's inside the earth but it's still fairly significant. It's this point that orbits the barycenter of the Earth-moon-sun system, which is very close to the center of the sun because the sun is so much more massive. This means that the Earth is a little bit closer to the sun when the moon is further from the sun (full moon) and a little bit further when the moon is closer to the sun (new moon). However, this difference of a thousand kilometers or so is very small compared to the difference between aphelion and perihelion, which is about 5 million kilometers.",
"Pluto-Charon is a binary system because center of mass of this system is \"outside\" both of these bodies. As a result, both of them rotate (tidally locked) around this common center of mass and center of mass itself rotates around the Sun and forms Pluto-Charon orbit.\n\nIn case of Earth-Moon system center of mass is still well \"inside\" the Earth even if Moon's mass shifts it significantly from Earth' own c.o.m., so effect is much smaller than for Pluto-Charon. It mostly affects Sun gravitational force in amount of +- 450 mkgf in a period of 29.5 days (1 Moon synodic month).\n\nP.S.: On a much bigger scale Moon affects Earth tidal forces and also moves Earth' axis of rotation around due to Lunisolar precession and Moon nutation effects.",
"Probably the most accurate answer is : kind of, but it's minimal and dwarfed by other effects.\n\nA simplistic two-body system, such as Pluto-Charon and Earth-Moon, rotates around it's *barycenter*. Which is the center of mass of the two bodies. Where the barycenter is depends on the ratio of the two masses and the distance between them. Pluto and Charon are close enough in mass that their barycenter is outside either of them. Making the two bodies appear like a spinning dumbbell.\n\nFor the Earth-Moon system the barycenter is still inside Earth, so the Earth does not swing as wildly as Pluto does. But the center of the Earth does rotate around the barycenter once every 28 days. \n\nThe barycenter is about 5,000 km from the center of the Earth and it is the barycenter which is going around the Sun. So the distance of the Earth's center from the center of the Sun varies by ~10,000km over 14 days from min to max.\n\nHowever the Earth is around 150M km from the Sun, so 10,000km is already pretty negligible. Secondly the Earth's orbit is not circular, it's an ellipse with a difference between closest and furthest distance of 5M km. So the distance can vary by almost 1M km over a month (6 months from aphelion to perihelion) just from the Earth's orbit. Against that variation 10,000 km is not really noticeable.\n\nNote : Not included in any of that is the effects of the other planets (esp Jupiter) or orbital precession etc\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter"
]
] |
|
6ovl57
|
why can humans start sprinting at full speed almost right away, but needs to slow to a stop over time?
|
From a standing start, we can sprint at full speed almost from the start, but you see people needing to slow down for a while before they come to a complete stop, why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ovl57/eli5_why_can_humans_start_sprinting_at_full_speed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkkiv5t",
"dkklkws",
"dkkmvbn",
"dkkspo5",
"dkl5xd9"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your feet are designed for this. They stick out in front so you can lean forward and maintain balance, necessary if you want to combat the forces pushing you back during forward acceleration. On the other hand leaning backward offers on your heels you little to no balance, and if you wanted to stop the way to begin a Sprint you would probably need to lean backwards.",
"My comment might not be sufficient for ELI5, but in my experience people can in fact start and stop quickly. It's just a matter of putting effort into it.",
"You can stop faster than you can start.\n\nIt is more convenient to slow down in a more relaxed way, so unless you have a reason to slow down as fast as possible you don't do it.\n\nIt is also more convenient to start slowly, but if you do that in a 100 meter race for example you lose.",
"[It takes sprinters 60 meters or more to reach their top speed in the 100m.](_URL_0_) I do not know of any studies of human ability to decelerate from a sprint, but just looking at youtube videos of 100m races, the athletes seem to stop (or nearly stop) pretty easily within 60 meters.",
"Humans can't go full speed straight from stand still , and infact reach peak speed after distances of 50-70 meters. \n\nThe reason we need to slow down is because we weren't built for sprinting, we are actually adapted for endurance running.\n\nImagine the lower body as a spring, we have very elastic muscles which enable us to reuse energy that would've gone to waste while running long distances. While sprinting the lower body still behaves like this so you are reusing energy as you slow down which makes us take longer to slow down.\n\nEdit: wording"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.freelapusa.com/usain-bolt-mph/"
],
[]
] |
|
1jmzh9
|
where does the common conception of aliens (green, big bald head, big black eyes) come from?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jmzh9/where_does_the_common_conception_of_aliens_green/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbgh4dj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I always kinda thought from the book Communion, but this Wikipedia cites some earlier influences.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAnd there was a good article in Fortean Times that I can't seem to locate that described the differing 'types' of aliens that were claimed to have been seen including a tall 'nordic type' that was popular for a while.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien"
]
] |
||
96jou8
|
Were all early stars the same size?
|
I'm assuming that all of the earliest stars were comprised of Hydrogen only. Wouldn't all stars made of hydrogen only begin fusion at the same mass level, and thus be the same size?
Also, are stars different sizes today because they are made up of various percentages of heavier elements, like helium and above, and that accounts for them being much larger before fusion can begin?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/96jou8/were_all_early_stars_the_same_size/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e41mmua"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Fusion begins long after the initial collapse of the gas cloud, and not all gas clouds start with the same mass. That is still true today. The amount of heavy elements in the original gas cloud has an influence on what can collapse to a star, but it doesn't fix the mass."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4v8k1p
|
Are any historians frustrated by how 'fantasy' media emphasises the stereotypes about your period of history? Or does the fact that people might become interested outweigh this?
|
I'm coming at this from a Game of Thrones perspective (halfway through series 5 now so no spoilers please!)
It's actually incredibly frustrating to me when people excuse content by saying 'well it's based on Europe in the middle ages so showing rape of young teenagers is accurate'. No? Very few children were forced into marriages, particularly those that were consummated that early. Or when people excuse the portrayal of ethnic minorities (I feel that the Dothraki are portrayed as dark skinned sex and fighting obsessed clanspeople who are also slavers in a pretty racist way) by saying 'well that kind of reflects where world civilizations in similar geographies were 600 years ago' but don't point out that muslim armies (the 'eastern' civilisations that I assume the dothraki etc. are based on) apparently rarely raped women because Islam forbade it.
Perhaps this is a bit of a rant.
But I also see the point that GoT does portray violence (as opposed to glorious deaths) well, and might interest people to research more (lots of questions here)...
I don't know. On balance, how do people feel about the stereotypes being emphasised as much as small details of accuracy being corrected?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4v8k1p/are_any_historians_frustrated_by_how_fantasy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5wcsro"
],
"score": [
23
],
"text": [
"If you're asking for my own personal opinion, as a medieval historian, the portrayal of peoples in GOT doesn't really bother me. It is true that Westeros is based off of Europe. However, George Martin is creating his own universe. This includes creating ethnicities and cultures. So his portrayal of the Dothraki doesn't bother me as a fantasy culture. It's perfectly feasable for a nomadic, slaving culture to exist. You can say they're based off the Mongols and Huns, but they're unique in their own way. \n\nWhat does bother me is the lack of historical accuracy in movies like Braveheart, Kingdom of Heaven, etcetera. But as far as keeping with GOT as the subject, it's a fantasy show meant to entertain, not educate, so as a Historian I'm not 'too' bothered by it. \n\nWould like to see more shields, though. Honestly"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
wuesz
|
what happens after a failed suicide attempt?
|
What happens when someone is hospitalized after a failed suicide attempt? I've heard of "suicide watch". What exactly is it, and what goes on during it? How long does it usually last, say if someone tried to OD on pills? What happens afterwards? Outpatient care? Inpatient? How long is someone typically in the hospital after a suicide attempt, such as an overdose? Would it be different for a more violent/severe attempt?
edit: I mean in the United States, if that makes a difference.
Note: This is not a cry for help or any need to be concerned, it is curiosity. Also, I'm sorry if this is the wrong subreddit. I wasn't sure where to put this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wuesz/what_happens_after_a_failed_suicide_attempt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5gjfsi",
"c5gkmak",
"c5glfuc",
"c5gobg0",
"c5gpshh"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"You're placed on a mandatory 72 hour suicide watch if you are in Texas, I'm not sure about anywhere else.",
"Most states have laws that allow a police officer, a doctor, or a specially trained social worker or nurse to sign a form that allows someone to be held against their will for 72 hours, so that the person can be evaluated to see if they are sane enough to take care of themselves.\n\nHow it usually works in practice is this: The person commits the act, and someone calls 911. The police and paramedics show up, and take the person to the hospital. Someone along the way will sign the mental health evaluation form. If the person is really sick (from a serious OD, for example), and requires an extended hospital stay, they will be treated for the condition in the hospital as usual, they just won't be allowed to leave and they will get psychiatric care while there. If the person isn't that sick, they will be evaluated in the emergency room and transferred to a locked psychiatric facility for evaluation. If you live in a large urban area, there is also a possibility that you will be held in the ER for those 72 hours simply because there isn't anyplace else that will take you, as psychiatric wards are not money makers, so there aren't enough to meet the needs of the communities.\n\nIn theory, a psychiatrist is supposed to evaluate the person's mental health within that first 72 hours, and determine if they are a threat to themselves or others. If they are, they can hold the person until they are no longer immediately dangerous; if they are not, they release you. \n\nMost people, even those who are seriously depressed, are so fucking sick of getting the hospital runaround by this point, that they are well past the idea that killing themselves is a good idea, so they get released once they are evaluated.",
"It is illegal to attempt suicide, this is a catch all law that allows the police to more or less force you somewhere where you can be helped. It only applies for so long however, after a period of time you would have to remain there of your own free will. ",
"I'm too lazy to look up stats but im pretty sure the % of people who fail and try again is extremely high\n(I had a Neigjbor growing up who tried with pills at least 8 times. She'd get taken to hospital,therapy,claim to be alright,then try again)",
"From personal experience here is how it went for me:\n\nThe first time I tried to kill myself I overdosed on Xanax. I was taken to the hospital and put under observation. Once I was medically stable I was given the option of going to a 72 hour psychiatric facility for voluntary treatment or to the mental health hospital for involuntary treatment. I chose the 72 hour facility. I was transported there, met with a nurse practitioner who prescribed medication. I spent the whole time either sleeping, eating, or watching TV. There was no treatment other than the 10 minutes with the nurse practitioner. After 72 hours I was released.\n\nThe second time I tried to kill myself was by cutting my wrist. I was also drunk at the time so when I was admitted to the hospital, bandaged up, and they monitored my blood alcohol level until I was stable. As this was my second attempt I was told my rights had been taken away and I was going to be transported to the mental health hospital for an indeterminate stay. I was transported by ambulance and admitted. I met with a doctor and five other staff members the following day to review my case. The doctor decided to release me immediately.\n\nI was told that the next time I end up in that situation I will be taken into police custody, transported to the mental health hospital and will not be able to be released until a court says so.\n\nThis is in Tennessee by the way. Also with each attempt I was admitted to the hospital under my own free will, no police or ambulance involvement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
czn10r
|
why does everyone seem to hate vaping all of a sudden?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/czn10r/eli5_why_does_everyone_seem_to_hate_vaping_all_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyzbui5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Evidence is beginning to be found that vaping is not nearly as harmless as once assumed. Also, as it becomes more popular, rather than just assuming people won't vape were it is not appreciated it is becoming more necessary to actually post/publish rules against vaping"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
55wi6r
|
How were castles sieged? It seems like a pretty hopeless battle if your enemy is up in a high, massively strong fortress made of stone. How could you possible win?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/55wi6r/how_were_castles_sieged_it_seems_like_a_pretty/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8ejhzc",
"d8evrdt"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically, there are/were two main ways to win a siege.\n\n1) Assault the fortress/fortification in an attempt to overpower whatever defenders are present and force a surrender or take control of the city/castle. Depending on era and location the besiegers could utilize anything from siege ladders and towers to battering rams to heavy cannons to surmount or otherwise destroy defensive positions and strong points. Such an assault nominally favoured the defenders who would be able to concentrate forces on strong points and rain down missile fire and other defensive weapons on essentially hapless enemies while they attempted to reach the battlements/inside.\n\nOr 2) The much more common method of starving the defenders out until they accepted terms or surrendered. Any enclosed fortification would run out of food and/or water eventually, although this could take years or decades even. This situation could also easily turn on the besiegers. If they were no longer able to forage or maintain a supply line they could easily be the ones to starve first. There was also always the risk of a relief army coming to lift the siege in which case the besiegers would be force to withdraw or fight it out, which would leave them hammer and anvil'd between the relief forces and the defenders. ",
" > How could you possible win?\n\nto follow up /r/Edmure post, for the most part you didn't. Castles were hugely important in that era because a handful of men could hold off an army almost indefinitely, assuming they had proper stores. this made the cost of sieges massively disproportionate and almost impossible in most cases. \n\nIn the war of Scottish independence Edward I spent three months completing his famous trebuche Warwolf, just think how vulnerable he army would have been to surprise attack during that time, and how huge his forces were to dissuade such an attack; even then he wasn't going to make an attempt on the castle without the scariest siege weapon ever built."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1wkp7b
|
if eating a calorie deficiency, even while lifting weights and doing cardio, causes you to lose weight (some in muscle), then why isn't your heart affected by this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wkp7b/eli5_if_eating_a_calorie_deficiency_even_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf2vetb",
"cf2zp7v"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Because your body knows that your heart is a really, **really** important organ. So it will avoid burning your heart muscles as long as it can, so that you can stay alive.",
"Well for one cardiac muscle is different from the skeletal muscles. In a state of deficit your body get its energy from your diet first, the deficit will be made up from stored fat as it releases the greatest energy. Skeletal muscle that is broken down is next because it is expensive to maintain from a caloric sense. Skeletal muscle is not entirely vital to life whereas cardiac muscle is so for these reasons it is spared. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
a1rylh
|
why do investments go up in value?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1rylh/eli5_why_do_investments_go_up_in_value/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eas6uvs",
"eas72o9"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't always, sometimes they go down, but they change in price because people think they're worth more or less, and thus are willing to pay or more less for them than they used to. There are lots of reasons for that: companies release new products, release earnings statements, have a scandal that's in the news, have a competitor do one of those things, and so forth, all of which can affect how much someone is willing to pay for something.",
"A share is a piece of a company. Imagine a company is worth $1000 (determined by many things but key issues that count are property, profit, cash). The company decides to sell 1000 shares, so they are worth $1 each (this is the initial listing price). Investors research the company looking for information that might indicate the value of a company is going to go up or down. Maybe because they won a big contract or that they report an expected increase in profit. This means your shares are worth more. The goal of every investor is to buy shares low and sell them high. The actual increase or decrease in the value of the share is determined by how many are available for sale, how much demand there is from buyers, how much the seller wants for his share and how much the buyer is willing to offer. Few shares for sale with many buyers looking to buy because of good news will drive up the price. Many shares for sale with few buyers combined with bad news will make the price go down. So it is driven by supply and demand.\n\nEdit - Few additional words now I have a big boy keyboard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1tlfr9
|
Why has Christmas Eve evolved to be the 'biggest' day of Christmas in german speaking countries?
|
Some of you may not know about this, but December 24th is actually, apart from the religious context, the most important day of christmas for most families in Germany and Austria. Stores are only open until noon, after that the family usually gathers and exchanges presents.
My question is how this developed, and why.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tlfr9/why_has_christmas_eve_evolved_to_be_the_biggest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce94ttl",
"ce97lcq"
],
"score": [
16,
8
],
"text": [
"I'd just like to add that this is by no means a German speaking countries thing. In fact celebrating Christmas on December 24 is the custom in the vast majority of European countries (with the exception of those that have roots in eastern Christianity, that is, and Britain – in fact, I struggle to come up with a country which would celebrate Christmas on the 25th and doesn't fall into these categories).",
"Traditionally, Christmas began at sundown. And since it was believed that Jesus was born on Christmas night (in the dead of the night), his birth would have occurred, according to modern calibration of the clock and calendar, sometimes between sundown on December 24 and well before dawn on the 25th. \n\nThis is an excerpt of a draft, \"Introduction to Folklore\" that I am putting together; it may help:\n\nBefore industrialization, most languages did not have the concept of a twenty-four hour day, which includes both day and night. Words referred either to the time of daylight or night. In modern English, the word “day” is in fact used to include the time of darkness, to which it makes no literal reference. The German word Volltag literally means “full day,” but it is a recent term that suits the need to describe the entire period of time.\n\nFor most pre-industrial people, day and night are separate, distinct terms. Time is typically counted in either “days” or “nights” or in “suns” or “sleeps.” Homeric literature counts time with eos, the word for dawn. The English term “fortnight” refers to fourteen nights. Arabic uses a term meaning “three night” and Sanskrit has a “ten night.”\n\nReferring to a day as the time of daylight made each day longer or shorter according to the time of the year. Each successive forenoon and afternoon, consequently, were different from the previous ones. Traditionally, Europeans regarded the night before the day as being linked to it. Holidays and other days of importance consequently began the ceremony of ritual on the evening before the day. The Jewish Sabbath and holidays begin at sunset for this reason. Similarly Halloween (the evening before Al Hallows Day), Christmas Eve (the evening before Christmas), and New Year’s Eve (the evening before the first day of the year) were originally tied to the day of celebration just as they are today. To the mind of the modern industrial world these evenings anticipate the day of celebration, but they were originally the beginning of the holiday.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8k3ctw
|
what stops an astronaut from constantly accelerating in space?
|
If an object is moving at constant speed, the forces acting on it are balanced and if an object is accelerating forces are unbalanced.
I know this is how it works on Earth, which is why a falling ball originally has unbalanced forces but then when air resistance increases the forces balance and the ball reaches terminal velocity.
However, in a vacuum (say space), what force resists the acceleration of an object? For example, if an astronaut in space started accelerating because they've been hit by something, what force stops them from accelerating and what force slows them down?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8k3ctw/eli5what_stops_an_astronaut_from_constantly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz4h3ov",
"dz4hocs",
"dz4hqja",
"dz4jkaa",
"dz4os5k",
"dz4peqo",
"dz4vrq0"
],
"score": [
22,
8,
2,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"F = ma\n\nAcceleration requires a force. Making something move faster requires energy. If you're not applying force to it, it will just keep moving the same way. A single impact is a single transfer of energy.",
" > For example, if an astronaut in space started accelerating because they've been hit by something, what force stops them from accelerating and what force slows them down?\n\nIn most cases, astronauts are inside a spacecraft that's filled with air, so the answer is \"air resistance\", same as on Earth.\n\nIf the astronaut is on a spacewalk, there's nothing to stop them from accelerating. However, being hit by an object does not cause constant acceleration. When you're hit by an object, you accelerate during the collision, but once the collision is over, there's no more force acting on you, and you stop accelerating.\n\nSo in the case of an astronaut in a vacuum, being hit by something will change their velocity, so they will start drifting in some direction, but since there's no acceleration outside of the moment of collision, they don't keep accelerating. So they'll just keep drifting at that same velocity, and require either a tether or maneuvering thrusters to get them back to where they were, since there's no air resistance to slow them down.",
"In the vacuum you are talking about there is nothing to stop an object from accelerating, as long as you are supplying further kinetic energy to accelerate it. Its no different from on earth. The only difference is it wont slow down. It will maintain the speed it was accelerated to.\n",
"taking your example, say an astronaut is floating around and a piece of their spacecraft hit them, some amount of momentum would be gained by the astronaut, and some would be lost by the spaceship. There are two possible outcomes, either the astronauts suit is spongy enough to 'catch' the object and the the speeds of the two objects will balance, or the suit is springy, and the two will separate. In either instance, the transfer of force stops, and therefore acceleration stops. ",
"You don't need a force to resist acceleration, you need a net force to accelerate. You will only accelerate when a forced is applied when there is no net force there is no acceleration. \n\nIt you had hit by something there will be a force between you and the object during the time of the collision. But is is only a short moment when it bounces away, you get stuck together or is passes trough you.\n\nSo there is a force applied to you when you collide so they you accelerate. But the collision is only for a short moment and the there is no net force on you.\n\nA ball fall toward the earth because the gravity is a constant force that is applied all the time but a collision is just a force during the collision.\n\n\nA astronaut i orbit around the earth is in fact in constant acceleration. The gravity is 90% of the surface level so they are accelerated by 8,8m/s^2.\n\nBut the move so fast around the earth so the miss in and is in orbit. It is like how if you tie a object to a string you can rotate it around you. You will feel a force in the string so there are a opposite direction on the object so it is accelerated towards you but move sideways so it move around you.\n\nThe same way are we in constant acceleration around the sun and around the milky way.",
"Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is speed + direction. \n\nSo an astronaut in orbit (or satellite, shuttle, etc) is constantly accelerating, because the direction of their orbit is constantly changing. And if they are in a non circular orbit, their speed changes too, becoming faster the closer they get to the center of the orbit, and slower as they move further away.",
"In order to accelerate constantly you would need a constant force acting on you. In a perfect vacuum if a force pushed you, you would have a constant velocity. You would NOT be accelerating though, just moving in one speed and direction forever."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
inl35
|
What are some possible theories as to why the internet is predominately populated by males?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/inl35/what_are_some_possible_theories_as_to_why_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c256do7",
"c256j16"
],
"score": [
13,
7
],
"text": [
"What makes you think that it is? Some studies seem to indicate internet use is fairly even among sexes.\n\n[Link](_URL_0_)\n\n[More discussions](_URL_1_)\n\nI'll keep looking, but hopefully those will be interesting/relevant.",
"Reddit != internet.\n\nFor this post I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a guy because that's what everyone else does ;) \n\nFirst thing that needs to be said is that I think you're just assuming that the people you're interacting with are mostly male, which is not necessarily the case. \n\nThere is also some evidence that different genders use the internet differently, so you may not be running into as many women as men depending on where you go.\n\n[This recent study](_URL_2_) suggested there was no gap in participation stats, but that women spend less time on the interwebs. [This paper](_URL_0_) looks at the things different genders are doing - roughly women use it more for communication, men for downloading/purchasing.\n\n[This report](_URL_1_), admittedly a bit old (2005), already found that the numbers were about equal, though women are using the internet in perhaps a less visible way (private communication/email etc).\n\n**TL,DR**: So there you go - the internet is not predominantly populated by males really. It seems that way because men spend generally more time on the internet, and that the women may not be using it in the same way so you don't notice them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://swopec.hhs.se/hastef/papers/hastef0495.pdf",
"http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:AzDlZcMSInYJ:scholar.google.com/+gender+and+the+internet&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&as_vis=1"
],
[
"http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=863707&show=abstract",
"http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-Women-and-Men-Use-the-Internet.aspx",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6237.t01-1-8401007/full"
]
] |
||
a1u950
|
in archaeology, everything from small objects to large building complexes can be found under dirt. where does all this dirt come from and how long does it take to build up? when will different things from our time end up buried? why do some buildings (ex: some castles) seem to avoid this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1u950/eli5_in_archaeology_everything_from_small_objects/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eastu1i",
"easuzfo",
"eat1qis",
"eat4gob",
"eat4q65",
"eat5xyk",
"eatbpaw"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
2,
74,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Things fall down and then get covered in dirt because they are low to ground.\n\nIf the thing didn't get covered in dirt then it would have washed away, scavenged to moved somewhere and a future archeologists would have never had a chance to find those one. \n\nCastles are made of stone and are designed to not fall.",
"Ancient civilizations often used older existing structures as foundations to the structures they were building. Fast forward a couple thousand years of this and the oldest structures have been repeatedly collapsed, filled in, and used as foundations for the next generation of building. This was a way to save time, resources, and labor when you had smaller populations with fewer resources which made carving stones, baking bricks, digging new foundations, etc much harder\n\nIn post modern times we tend to remove and recycle/destroy older structures instead of filling them in and building on top of. This is partly due to our society culture/standards, but also the modern materials we use and the needs for deeper and more sturdy foundations due to increased height, size, and weight of our structures",
"A lot of natural burial is just dust and dirt from the wind (water can bring dirt too, if there is surface runoff). Add some vegetation and you get more debris that keeps adding to the surface. Rubble from collapsed buildings or walls (like vegetation) are natural windbreaks so cause a lot of the suspended particles being carried in the wind to drop and bury whatever is on the ground (the ground \"tries\" to reach a smooth condition). Low areas fill in, and high areas erode down.\n\nNot everywhere gets buried, lots of places actually get eroded away, but of course that means that they no longer exist to be found. We only find places that got buried.\n\nHuge structures like castles haven't gotten buried or eroded yet. Too big for that. Eventually it would or will happen. Just like the mountains end up as plains, eventually. Just a question of how much time is needed. Big, strong structures need a lot of time to get broken down and buried.\n\nThere are some places that exist as prominent mounds or small hills. Those often are piles of rubble that dirt filled in and around, and eventually on top of.",
"I agree that it's weird but I saw a diagram in a Roman Ruins type museum that explained it.\n\nIf a Roman villa is abandoned because the owner died or the whole region was murdered in a war or whatever, eventually wind and rain would break the roof. Or if the villa was abandoned *because* the roof broke. That fills up the inside of the house with wooden beams and leaves and twigs and stuff. And the outside of the house gets mud and leaves blown up against it. Eventually these leaves rot into mud, the wind blows in seeds and plants start to grow, from this point it's self sustaining because now there's plants growing right on top of the house, in the kitchen and in the bedrooms etc. So more leaves and more mud.\n\nEventually it's too much mud to see the building anymore and someone plants a field of crops on top. Remember, Roman Ruins are generally only a couple of feet down not hundreds of feet so it doesn't need to be a lot of mud.\n\nWhat I don't understand, however, is how a well made Roman villa gets abandoned in the first place. Unless every for miles is dead or already living somewhere substantially nicer wouldn't some squatters move in and fix the leaky roof and repaint it etc. But thats a problem I have will all history from that era. Imagine being a 7th Century farmer in Florence or Rome, you lead your cart of turnips down a perfectly smooth roman stone road and sit in the shadow of the massive Colosseum with absolutely 0 idea how they were built and quite content that no one for a thousand miles around can fix the aquaduct if it breaks. How does a society just lose all that knowledge and go from flushing toilets to pooping in a bucket and throwing it out the window? Maybe there were entertaining mushrooms growing everywhere and the people were just dumb? ",
"There are some accounts of native people in central and South America completely burying their cities before abandoning them and moving on its pretty damn interesting. One of said builds was discovered just a year or two ago. ",
"One more extreme method that has buried buildings of the past and present is volcanic activity. A volcanic mudslide (lahar), an avalanche of hot ash (pyroclastic flow), or just ash falling out of the sky can bury buildings. Pompeii is a famous victim of a pyroclastic flow and it's neighbor Herculaneum fell victim to a lahar. There are cities that have been buried by volcanic activity in the past 100 years and are the most likely examples of modern architecture to survive for archeologists of the future to find. Modern society has a habit of tearing down buildings that are abandoned or no longer useful. \n\nOther possible buildings to survive are those in remote and cold places like Antarctic and those intentionally built to last a long time like bunkers and nuclear waste disposal areas. All things considered, we're going to leave an eclectic selection of buildings behind.",
"This is a pedantic nitpick, but the proper term here is \"soil.\" \n\nDirt is displaced soil. Dirt can be found under your fingernails or tracked into your house. But if it's outside, it's still soil. \n\nOk, answers: \n\n > Where does all this dirt come from and how long does it take to build up? \n\nSoil comes from all around us. It's made of rocks, minerals, living stuff, and dead stuff. It stacks up over time. It will stack up faster depending on the nature around it. Many times it's by water because humans like water and tend to live around water. Soil moved and deposited is called \"sediment.\" A lot of lost buildings and objects are due to water moving soil around. It's kinda natural because once the building has been flooded with soil, people tend to either move away or build on top of the flooded spot. It's easier than digging the old building out. \n\n > When will different things from our time end up buried? \n\nThis can be answered by the next question. But short answer is if we stop upkeep on our buildings or let nature take course, anything that's not a stone or plastic structure will likely degrade and fade away into history. Even metal structures will rust away.\n\n > Why do some buildings (ex: some castles) seem to avoid this?\n\nPeople. It's because of people. Castles tend to have some upkeep. These castles are constantly inhabited and the people there will try to keep the dirt and soil out of their home. Most castles are built somewhere high and away from elements that allow soil and sediment to accumulate. This is a defensive measure as it's harder to attack a fortress on a hill.\n\nWhat about the ones buried? Back to the elements. If they were built too high or near a mountain, the mountain can have debris flow and cover the castle. \n\nWhat about underwater? Well, then some sort of ecological change has happened. Either the nearby body of water has decided to flow and submerge the building, or that the rising ocean has reclaimed the structure. This happens due to poor surveying and general builder's arrogance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
53g03l
|
how devices detect faces in photos
|
Just going through the People album on my iPhone and wondering how devices detect faces in photos
There are so many different things that devices have to take into account such as skin colour, people having different placements of eyes, nose etc, spots and such things. How do devices detect faces in photos?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53g03l/eli5_how_devices_detect_faces_in_photos/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7svesp",
"d7svj3m"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a few techniques but here are three of the most common. I am talking about detecting the presence of a face or faces anywhere in the photo. This is a much easier problem than identifying who the person in the photo is!\n\n# The simple way\n\nImagine simplifying a face to an arrangement of coarse dark and light rectangles. Like if you had to make a face picture out of Lego. So the eyes might be two dark rectangles (because of the shadow of the brow). This is your proto-face. ([example](_URL_4_))\n\nThen, you are running this program on a mobile which means it's got to run quickly. Ideally you need to find the face as fast as images are coming from the camera, so you can put a rectangle round the face and display to the user in real time. This means you have about 1/20 of a second to find it.\n\nSo you can't go left to right, top to bottom over all pixels multiple times looking for this arrangement of dark/light rectangles in every possible position.\n\nThere is a clever short cut to doing it faster: you look at every pixel in the image in order, left to right, top to bottom. For each pixel you look at, you add its total brightness to a counter (let's say a number 0-100 where 100 is white and 0 is black) and save this counter. So now you have a new image where the top left pixel has a low value, and the bottom right pixel is the sum of all pixels in the original image.\n\nThe new image made out of sums of pixel values is called an [integral image](_URL_1_).\n\nNow the integral image gives you a cool trick: you can quickly calculate the average pixel value for any rectangle by taking its bottom right integral pixel value and subtracting the top left integral pixel value, the dividing by the number of pixels.\n\nYou do this over lots of candidate locations for the face in the image. So to test if a given area is dark or light you need only to subtract two pixels which is very fast. When you find a match for all the rectangles that form the face in the right position, you decide it's a face and mark it on the original photo.\n\nThis method is called a [cascade classifier](_URL_5_).\n\n# The slightly more complex approach\n\nYou can define a list of pixel arrangements that look like eyes, chin corners, etc. So if you looked at a given sub-section of your image in isolation you would know that this or that part is probably an eyebrow. [Check the screen shots here](_URL_8_).\n\nYou write a program to quickly run over the whole image and check for these patterns. If it finds a facial feature you save it.\n\nWhen you've found enough facial features you check their relative locations in the image. Obviously if they are wrongly arranged then you haven't found a face but if they slot together correctly then you can be sure there's a face present.\n\nThis method is called *facial feature detection*.\n\n# The state of the art\n\nInstead of looking for dark and light rectangles imagine walking a template or stencil of size 7 pixels by 7 pixels (for example) all over the image, left to right, top to bottom.\n\nThis stencil has numbers which you have calculated beforehand inside each of its 49 squares. For every position of the stencil you multiply each number in the stencil by the number it's covering in the photo. You put these values in a new image.\n\nYou would actually apply lots of these stencils to an image and produce lots and lots of new images as the output from the stencils. Each new image has a slightly lower resolution than the original image, and contains information about which pixel patterns were found. They could be vertical lines, corners, etc.\n\nYou apply this process of walking stencils to the new output images again and again. Maybe 20 times.\n\nAfter applying this lots of times the stencils are still detecting lines, curves and corners in the output from the previous stencil, however these patterns correspond ultimately to an entire face in the original image. \n\nThis approach is called [convolutional neural networks](_URL_2_).\n\n# How the phone does this\n\nModern phones actually don't usually have any of these algorithms written in as a normal program. Rather a special circuit board has been printed which is designed to detect faces as fast as possible. This is called [system on chip](_URL_3_). They mostly use a [combination of the first and second methods](_URL_0_) which I mentioned but [are moving towards the neural network approach](_URL_7_).\n\n[Here](_URL_6_) is a description for example for how to use the on-chip face detection on Android devices if you're developing an app. So all Android phones currently provide this functionality and it's normally on chip although not necessarily.",
"It's quite a complex process. Step 1 is to look for areas of skin colour. You can handle different races here by looking at hue and ignoring brightness. These are the same no matter your skin colour.\n\nAfter that you find shapes that are roughly ellipses. These are possible locations of heads. \n\nIn these ellipses you will find areas of contrast in the right places. These correspond to eyes nose and mouth. Based on closeness to expected positions and contrast, you can come up with a score of how likely it is to be a face. Anything that scores above a threshold is considered a face.\n\nThese days the algorithms try and identify people. This is usually done by the position and size of these features. Tends not to be too good at the moment. People are working on it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://visagetechnologies.com/face-detection-tracking-chips/",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summed_area_table",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolutional_neural_network",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_on_a_chip",
"http://opencv-python-tutroals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_images/haar.png",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_classifier",
"https://developer.android.com/reference/android/media/FaceDetector.Face.html",
"http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/farabet-iscas-10.pdf",
"http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Components-Libraries/Luxand-FaceSDK.shtml"
],
[]
] |
|
b6rybu
|
Why aren’t diseases equally communicable across different species?
|
On a basic level, I know that exposure to certain microbes can damage cells and lead to infection and illness.
Now let’s say that I contract the flu, and I have a pet cat. Why does this strain of the flu bind to my cells, as opposed to my cat’s, assuming my cat is also now exposed to it?
I realize that there are such things as zoonoses and zooanthroponoses, but what factors impact/inhibit the communication of disease across different species?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b6rybu/why_arent_diseases_equally_communicable_across/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejocjq9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As far as microbes go, our bodies are environments, and certain microbes can only live in certain environments. A fun example is rabies: most mammals can contract rabies because it's adapted to mammalian bodies quite well. However the opposum has a body temperature just high enough to make it difficult for the virus to thrive, so opposums are resistant to rabies!\n\nIt's kind of like animals. Different species have different requirements and things they can or can't handle. Camels have evolved to live without water for long periods of time; the bacteria helicobacter has evolved to survive in the acidic environment of stomachs. If you put a penguin in a desert it wouldn't last long because it likes colder temperatures; if a microbe has evolved to only tolerate human body temperature, it's not going to like dogs and cats which run hotter.\n\nAlso, every species has evolved independently over millions of years, so even though parts of us our very similar, there are things that can change just enough to prevent disease transmission. If a virus needs a specific cell receptor to get in the cell and that receptor has a slight difference between species, that virus can't jump species. There are situations where a microbe mutates just enough to do so and creates a new strain (like the idea that HIV came from the chimpanzee SIV) but that's more likely to happen when there are more similarities between the species. \n\nIt's pretty complicated because there's so much going on in our bodies and a lot of microbe genetics involved, and then there's the ability of some viruses to merge. A flu that normally infects birds and a flu that normally infects humans might both be able to infect a pig. The two can then recombine in the pig and mix DNA to create a NEW flu that can infect and jump between all 3. It's entirely dependent on the exact needs of the microbe and what it can tolerate vs which parts of species are the same or different."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ehm1vy
|
why does cilantro taste bitter like soap to me?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehm1vy/eli5_why_does_cilantro_taste_bitter_like_soap_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fck0dr7",
"fck0v3z",
"fck40im",
"fckbb6h",
"fckblsu",
"fckjrmj",
"fckkjft"
],
"score": [
15,
228,
5,
2,
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There is some sort of genetic defect or trait that literally makes cilantro tastes like soap to some people",
"Expanding on the other guy, yes. It is genetic.\n\nCilantro and other members of that family including carrots, celery or parsley have a specific chemical that acts as a deterrent to wild predators eating it. Basically, it tastes bad to animals so they leave it alone.\n\nHumans have generally evolved OUT of being able to taste or detect that flavour, but once in a while someone will be born with that genetic code (The OR6A2 gene) that allows them to taste the bad chemical.\n\nThat is you and also me and nearly everyone in my family.\n\nLikely, if you hate the taste of cilantro, you will also find celery and carrot tops (just the tops) very bitter as well.",
"You ever heard of X-Men? You're a mutant. Something inside of you 8s different from other people and that's ok.",
"Yep, it’s genetic. My mother-in-law is like you. Same thing for bitterness in beer for example. Predominantly in people of Asian and Native American descent.",
"I thought you might want to see this story from NPR . \n\n Love To Hate Cilantro? It's In Your Genes And Maybe, In Your Head : The Salt \n\n _URL_1_ \n\n Sent from NPR One. Download now: _URL_0_",
"When people say they hate cilantro, they often attribute this food feeling to a soapy aftertaste. Thanks to a new video from SciShow, we finally know whycilantro tastes like soap for some 4-14 percent of the population.\n\n\"How cilantro tastes to you has a lot to do with your genes,\" says SciShow's Hank Green. He explains that after conducting a few separate studies, scientists were able to pin down most cilantro haters as people with a shared group of olfactory-receptor genes, called OR6A2, that pick up on the smell of aldehyde chemicals. Aldehyde chemicals are found in both cilantro and soap. Uh, yummy?",
"There is a genetic pre-disposition to pick out the aldehydes (soap flavor) but I think if you eat it over time, you gradually lose it and can enjoy the flavor. \n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://read.nprone.app/download",
"https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/09/14/161057954/love-to-hate-cilantro-its-in-your-genes-and-maybe-in-your-head"
],
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/dining/14curious.html"
]
] |
||
1np5et
|
what is "drug face"? why does excess use of drugs and/or alcohol for a prolonged amount of time cause people to share similar facial features?
|
You know when you see someone and you can just TELL they've had a rough life and it always comes out that they have/had a substance abuse problem? I'm not talking about the way a drug like meth can mess up a face, I'm talking about certian discreet facial features, mostly around the mouth area.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1np5et/eli5_what_is_drug_face_why_does_excess_use_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cckot4c",
"ccksmdk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Good question. I'm just commenting because I want to come back for a good answer.",
"I think its because they loose most if not all their teeth, causing a similar pursing of the lips."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6yjvy1
|
[Chemistry] Are frozen vegetables any less healthy than fresh ones? Does anything happen at a molecular level when you freeze vegetables that makes them process differently in our bodies?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6yjvy1/chemistry_are_frozen_vegetables_any_less_healthy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmo9f2o"
],
"score": [
39
],
"text": [
"Well, much like cooking, freezing weakens and ruptures cell walls. Making the vegetable softer and easier to chew and to digest. Also most commercially sold frozen vegetables are briefly cooked before freezing, this improves the thawed texture. So that will also affect the nutrition and digestibility of vegetables.\n\nOn the other hand, most frozen vegetables were processed *very* quickly after harvest, and most 'fresh' vegetables in the store have been sitting in storage and shipping for a while. Lettuce make take a month to reach a store shelf, depending on the time of year and how far it had to be shipped. So all in all the most healthy choice between fresh and frozen, would depend on the time of year and how far that kind of vegetable had to be shipped. If the only fresh corn has to be grown over 1000 miles away and took weeks to get to you, frozen corn would probably be more nutritious. If the fresh corn came from a field ten miles down the road,and was picked yesterday then fresh corn will be the most nutritious."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
33gqnn
|
how does an object with mass increase its gravity when its density increases?
|
I'm always asking this question in my head whenever I watch some videos about black holes(I'm a visual learner), neutron stars, etc. Any object with a physical radius smaller than its Schwarzschild radius will be a black hole, which means more gravity the more denser.
Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33gqnn/eli5_how_does_an_object_with_mass_increase_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqkpjyh",
"cqkpmwd",
"cqkptck",
"cqkq1j9"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Gravitational attraction is a function of mass and proximity to the mass. \n\nIf it is denser you can get closer to more of the mass and so feel more attraction.\n\nImagine a wave machine. At the centre the waves are really big and as they get further away they die down because the energy is spread out. The water park has lots of wave machines but you can't feel the far away ones very well. If you brought them all together you'd be able to feel a massive wave.",
"The gravitational force an object exerts on unit mass is GM/r^2 where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the body and r is the radius (considering its a spherical object). If mass remains constant and density increases, volume will have to decrease. When volume decreases, the radius of the object will also decrease, increasing the gravitational force.",
"It doesn't. It allows you to get closer to it, and it's that distance reduction that increases the force of gravitic attraction.\n\nThe basic gravitic (attractive) force between two objects can be calculated by a mathematical formula that multiplies their masses and another number, and then divides by half the distance between their centres of gravity twice. So the greater the distance, the weaker the gravitic attraction.\n\nTo increase gravitic attraction, you can either add mass or decrease distance. And increasing density of an object by compressing it allows you to get the two objects closer together, decreasing that distance. \n\nTo visualize this, compare standing on our sun with standing on a neutron star of the same mass. Our sun has a radius of about 700000km. So if you're on the surface of it, the \"radius\" in the above equation which you divide by twice as part of the force calculation, is a really big number. But the radius of a neutron star that would have the same mass as the sun would only be 11 kilometers or so! So if you're at the surface of one versus at the surface of the other, instead of dividing the force due to gravity by 700000km TWICE, you're dividing by only 121km (eleven times eleven), and as a result you have a much much larger force due to gravity at the much denser neutron star's surface. (My math says four quadrillion times stronger, but I don't trust it.)\n\nEven if you fly somehow to the centre of the sun, the gravity actually becomes less, because all the mass of the sun behind you is attracting you as much as the mass in front of you, so it all cancels out.\n\n**TL;DR - Gravity increases as distance decreases. Dense objects allow you to get a lot closer to their centre of gravity, so their gravity attraction is stronger.**",
"There are three different ways to measure matter:\n\n * Mass - how much material (atom for atom) is actually in the object\n * Density - how tightly packed that material is (i.e. how close the atoms are to each other)\n * Volume - how much space the object takes up.\n\nGravity is really a function of mass. It just appears that gravity increases as a function of density because the closer you get to the mass, the stronger the gravity, and you're closer to more of the mass when you're next to a dense object than you are when you're next to an object of identical mass, but of less density and greater volume.\n\nThink of it this way - we'll take two bodies - the earth, and then a copy of the earth that's been compressed down to the size of a basketball.\n\nWhen standing on the normal earth at the north pole, the gravity being exerted by the chunk of mass around the south pole isn't affecting you as much as the gravity being exerted by the ground under your feet at the north pole. \n\nBut take all of the earth's mass and condense it down to the size of basketball, then stand on it, and all that gravitational force is right under your feet, meaning you'd feel much more gravity, and you'd be crushed. \n\nA less dense object spread over a large volume spreads the gravity around a lot more. A much denser object of the same mass but a much smaller volume will concentrate all that gravity to a point. In other words with the basketball sized earth, you're standing closer to more mass, and are therefore being acted on by more gravity. \n\nSo it just seems like it's exerting more gravity, but it's not, it's just more concentrated. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fxzpk5
|
why can't the sperm of other species fertilize human eggs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fxzpk5/eli5_why_cant_the_sperm_of_other_species/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmxixz9"
],
"score": [
76
],
"text": [
"Imagine you are a factory that makes cars. In order to improve the company and make better cars, each time you open a new factory you take half of the blueprints for cars from two other factories and combine them. Each factory takes their instruction book, takes random pages until they have half a book, and sends them to the new factory. There, they are put back together with all of the pages in order to make a new instruction book. The instructions are always very similar, but sometimes they say things like use a 3/4\" bolt here instead of a 5/8\" bolt; or, increase the thickness of this part of the frame by 1/16\". And, sure, sometimes it doesn't work quite as well, and those cars don't sell very well so that factory gets shut down and you don't use any of the instructions from that factory when you build a new one. But just as often you end up with a better product.\n\nPlus, you can't predict what conditions the cars will have to face. So maybe there's a particularly rough winter and they put down a lot of salt on the roads, so by adding that 1/16\" to the frame the car lasts longer!\n\nThis is what sexual reproduction is all about. The sperm and the egg each have half of the instructions, and by mixing them that way you are hopefully getting the best traits from both the mother and the father. To make it a little more complicated, in reality each \"half\" is actually has all the instructions for a \"car\" and when you put them together, you're doubling up. But that works out, because maybe one page of the instructions is totally unreadable. That's fine, you've got a second copy of that page to work from!\n\nBut in order for this to work, the instructions have to be pretty close. You can't combine instructions for how to make a 4-door sedan with a [Ferd Fteenthousand](_URL_0_). Sure, they are *almost* the same - they both have four wheels, two front doors, an engine of some kind... But you'd be following along in the book on how to install the rear doors of the sedan when suddenly on the next page the instructions are telling you to install a truck bed. Your factory - being mindless machines that follow instructions exactly as they are given - will try to do both and you'll get something that doesn't work as either a sedan or a truck. And then it tries to install a truck engine in the front and it doesn't fit and it doesn't connect to the drive shaft at all, so it can't even run. It completely falls apart as soon as it's put together and never even drives off the lot.\n\nOr maybe you try to mix similar-looking 4-door sedans! But they come from different manufacturers. They both need rear doors, but in one version of the instructions they put them on page 20 but in another they put them on page 30, and instead they put the instructions for building the engine on page 20. So even though they both have almost the same parts, how to build those parts is not done in the same order so when you mix them it just doesn't work.\n\nSimilarly, when you try to combine sperm and eggs from different species of animals, the instructions built into the DNA don't match up and the cellular machinery gets very confused and tries to do completely different, incompatible things. In fact, most cells have some built-in parts of the instructions that protect against even *trying* to combine them. If the genes don't match up, the newly fertilized egg destroys itself rather than waste resources trying to build an animal that can't be built.\n\nNow, if the instructions are close *enough* then sometimes you can still combine them. Say you want to mix two different models of 4-door sedans from the same manufacturer so they are similar, but they're still different models and have some totally different features. But they mix well *enough* to give you a fully functional, if strange car. In fact, maybe it even works *better*! However, there's a big problem when you try to build the next factory using half of that factory's set of instructions. See, one model you used came with 46 pages of instructions, but the other came with 44. You divided them in half each and put them together, so 23 and 22. Your new hybrid model has 45 pages. That's a problem, because 45 is an odd number and you can't divide it into an even number of pages, so you can't send *half* to the new factory. You can try, sure, but the instructions you come up with won't have matching page numbers anymore. So even if they're similar, one page will be instructions on how to install the door and the next will be instructions on how to install a wheel. Even though you need both of those things, they are in the wrong place so your machines try to install wheels inside of the doors.\n\nThat's what happens when you get hybrid animals like ligers (lion+tiger) or mules (horse+donkey). Their genes are similar *enough* for them to work, but they don't have the same number of chromosomes. When those hybrids try to have babies of their own, their chromosomes don't divide evenly so the babies get built a little wrong and can't survive.\n\nHumans are the only species in our genus. Even our closest cousins, chimps and bonobos, are [probably] too different from us so mixing our instruction books just won't work. Probably. It *might* work with chimps, but the scientific community very reasonably responds to the suggestion of trying to create human/chimp hybrids with a resounding \"Ewwwwwwwwww!\" so it has *probably* never been tried. There are claims that it was tried in Soviet Russia at one point, but those claims are impossible to verify and no one is trying very hard to verify it because, again, ew."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8P5vGcf-NU"
]
] |
||
43na23
|
how does google make money on apps such as google classroom, which they advertise as free and say they don't use advertisements.
|
It appears to me that Google offers many "free" services, such as Google Classroom and Google Scholar. These don't appear to be heavily populated with advertisements, so how is Google able to monetize this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43na23/eli5_how_does_google_make_money_on_apps_such_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czjgqyo",
"czjgs0z",
"czjgzi6"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe they are making there money other places;like their new wireless company, New Google fiber Internet, and nexus devices that but given the apps and other gifts is to build brand loyalty. ",
"YOU are the product. When using any Google service, be it search, maps, etc, they are constantly mining your web surfing habits. This allows then to tailor fit advertisements based on what's going on in your life at the moment and who you are. Advertisers are always willing to pay more if they know their ads are effective and personal ads are the most effective of all. ",
"Some of the services a company like google offers are truly free. It's possible they aren't making much or any money on it. Why they do this is to give their brand more recognition. If you make google programs available everywhere then people get more comfortable with google's programs and platform. Then when people have to pay for a program later on and have a choice they are already comfortable and know of googles programs, along with the fact that if they pay for the Google program compared to say, Apple's program all the free google stuff they have will integrate with the paid program, making people more likely to get the google option. \n\nI don't know the specifics of these free programs, but companies that offer 'free' products with no advertising often also collect a ton of information about the users and then sell that info. It's extremely valuable to have that kind of info on a large number of people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2hqs7x
|
Much like cable companies are taking hits because of the how popular netflix and other streaming sites have become popular, what kind of hit did radio stations take as television became more popular?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hqs7x/much_like_cable_companies_are_taking_hits_because/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckvbvo5"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Radio stations that played music had very little change after Television was invented. However, radio plays, dramas and soap operas became nearly extinct. Several popular radio programs, like \"Gun Smoke\" moved to prime time television and many soap operas moved to day time television. For radio stations, that did not play music, they transitioned to talk radio formats. Some went all news, all the time, some concentrated on sports talk, and Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio by making political talk shows popular. Sports continued to be played on the radio, although the number of listeners to live sporting events take a sharp decline, if those sports are also shown on TV. \nRichard Sarnoff, the president of the Radio Corporation of America, thought FM radio would be the salvation of the radio industry. However, it was not until the early 1970s when album oriented rock and roll stations came up with a format that made FM station commercially viable. Also, after 1970, FM radios became standard features on new cars. That made drive time radio financially lucrative to radio stations. Yet, lets not get carried away here. Television advertisements were always more expensive than radio ads, so radio stations did take a massive hit in their revenue streams. \nSource: \"Empires of the Air: The men who made Radio\" a PBS documentary and companion book, by Ken Burns (1991)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4fwvp1
|
why does britain still honor the queen/royal family?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fwvp1/eli5why_does_britain_still_honor_the_queenroyal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2cotyx",
"d2cpas7",
"d2cqac9",
"d2crznk",
"d2cstd3",
"d2ctbzn",
"d2cv0cj",
"d2cv6ew",
"d2cw4rn",
"d2cwysr",
"d2cwzmh",
"d2cxwsf"
],
"score": [
7,
41,
21,
4,
3,
42,
3,
7,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Perhaps less than some might find worthy, these things being a sliding scale to say the least. But in this case, there's the Queen (then Princess) driving ambulances in WWII. Every member has served with distinction in the nation's militaries (and not sidelined either- Prince Harry was made a helicopter pilot because a helicopter is as much a target as a Prince in Afghanistan).\n\nSo the simple fact that they aren't exactly a \"do nothing\" bunch, combined with good ol' tradition means they're honoured by at least some of the realm.",
"1. Officially, the power of Britain's government is granted by the English Crown. Abolishing the crown would also technically means abolishing the power behind Parliament.\n\n2. They tried getting rid of the monarchy once. [It didn't work out so well](_URL_0_).\n\n3. The British royalty (particularly the queen) is well loved, acts as great PR for the country, and brings in massive amounts of tourism.\n\n4. There isn't any particular desire or rush to abolish the crown in Britain. The family that has the crown (with some interruptions) has been ruling England for a *thousand* years. To get rid of the crown would be to get rid of a core part of Britain's national identity.",
"- Cost's 40 million pounds to maintain, directly brings in 200 million pounds not including tourism. \n\n- Land",
"Whatever their faults they are a better figure head for Britain than a president. Without Her Maj on the throne these past 20 years we would probably have seen a President Thatcher & a President Blair. \nDoesn't bear thinking about. ",
"In modern times, it's more of a there's not enough of a call to end the monarchy, so they've kept going. In fact there's been much talk of should HM Elizabeth II be the *last* monarch in Britain? More to end the debate of why does a monarch still exist more than anything. \n\nAs people have mentioned they do cost to maintain, but they also bring in money in one way or another. Tourism, royal properties, royal events ect ect. They also do an incredible amount of charity work, both directly helping and raising money. A short google search didnt yield the exact amount I was looking for, but I heard on national radio yesterday that Prince Harry alone raised around £100 million in 2015. You could argue that this would continue if they became only celebrities rather than official royalty though. \n\nAnother final positive point I can think of is that most if not all of the prime ministers that have served Liz in her senior years have given her incredible praise in terms of her helping them begin their governing, so she helps in that respect too. \n\nPersonally as a brit myself, I'm ambivalent towards the whole thing. I'd quite like to see the crown pass to Wills and Kate, but my only fathomable reason is just to see it carry on and it's quite unique, and they dont really effect anything anyway. But I could quite easily see it undone again for no reason other than there's not much point to them and it's an incredibly old fashion. \n\nTL;DR There's pros and cons, they do a lot but you could argue they could whether they were royalty or not. It may very well end soon after Liz pops her dear old cogs",
"It can be better to have a \"politically neutral\" Head of State, like the Queen. The Royal Family are meant to be neutral when it comes to British Party Politics. If it is politically unwise for the Prime Minister to meet someone, the Queen or another Royal can step in. \nFor instance, the snubbing of Obama by the Saudis on his recent visit has been seen in Europe as politically uncomfortable or damaging to him. If the UK is having political difficulties with another country, we can send a Royal first to pave the way. \nSimilarly, the UK can choose to snub visiting dignitaries by either only letting them meet the Queen: \"Thanks for the visit, great to see you, we're not interested in talking about what's important to you; have a nice cup of tea and a slice of cake instead.\" or by only letting them meet the Prime Minister: \"Thanks for the visit, great to see you, you're not getting any tea and cake until you sort this out.\" \n\nThere are many negatives, however.",
"They're not a big deal, they're just there. I mean sure there are some people who really like them but the majority don't really care. We just get a day off when one of them gets married. But it was the Queen's 90th birthday yesterday so there was some stuff on tv about it but that's about it really.\n",
"What do you mean when you say that Britain \"honours\" them?\n\nDo you mean:\n\n*\"Why does Britain permit this family of otherwise ordinary people to own huge estates of land, and why does it vest that one person (the Queen) with the power to veto laws?\"*\n\n* Their Constitution permits it.\n* It might help if I explain the interplay between the **theory** and the **practically reality** of the British (and Australian, Canadian etc.) constitutional monarchy system. \n* **Theoretically**, under the British Constitution the Queen makes the laws \"on the advice of Parliament\". She makes a law *a law* by giving it her \"assent\" -- the \"magic touch\" by which it becomes a binding law of the land. So yes, in theory, she could withhold her assent (and thereby exercise, in effect, a veto power) against the advice of Parliament by just \"ignoring\" the advice. \n* So what happens in practice that is different from the theory?**Practically**, the Queen **has never and will never** go against Parliament's advice when it comes to making laws. Her assent is essentially a rubber stamp. (Note, in this context Parliament expresses its \"advice\" by voting in favour of a proposed law.) \n* This unspoken arrangement between the Queen and Parliament -- where the Queen *could* veto laws but doesn't -- is called a **convention**. Constitutional conventions such as this are never broken, and if the Queen ever did it would almost certainly cause Britain to remove the monarchy entirely. \n\n*\"But why do we need the Queen's assent at all? Why doesn't the UK just make a system where once a law is passed by Parliament it becomes *the law*? Why is her assent necessary?\"*\n\nWell thanks to the convention, they kind of do have that system anyway. As I said, the Queen's assent is basically a rubber stamp. \n\nBut I take your point, why continue with this charade that the Queen has any power? This is where I get a bit hazy myself (I'm a Republican Australian, so I have sympathy for this argument). Due to the rubber stamp nature of the Queen's assent power (ie the convention), you can't really argue that it's a \"check\" on Parliament's powers.\n\nI think it comes down to the fact that human societies respect a rule as *a law* if it is seen to come from some \"higher power\" which infuses it with a form of \"divine authority\".\n\nHence why British society elevates the Queen above the status of an ordinary person. Respect for the Queen and the monarchy creates an environment in which \"her\" laws are more likely to be respected and obeyed. This in turn leads to a society with a strong respect for the rule of law (which is good, right?).\n\nYou could contrast the Queen's theoretical veto power against the American President's very real veto power. The Americans created a system with a greater focus on checks and balances. Just because Congress (America's \"Parliament\") passes a law doesn't make it \"law\". The President -- both in theory and in practice -- still needs to say \"okay, that's a law\" before it will become one. People have been arguing over which is a better system for centuries, but different strokes I guess.\n\nGetting a bit off topic here, but the \"aura\" of the Presidency is intended to have the same effect as the \"aura\" of the monarch in Britain. It's just that, rightly or wrongly (rightly in my opinion), the President's aura is derived (almost) directly from the people.\n\n*\"But what about the land and wealth the royals own?\"*\n\nThey are paid an allowance by the government for reasons connected to what I just said about creating an aura around them in order to enforce their authority. Also, they as a family literally own much of the land. \n\nHowever, \"out of the goodness of their hearts\" (not really -- the English Civil War and other developments over the centuries forced them to), they have ceded control of much of that land to government. Government calls the land owned by the Royal Family \"Crown Land\".\n\n*\"But why do the British people accept this elevation and special treatment of one family?\"*\n\nIt's cultural. That's how their society has come to work over many centuries. There isn't the public will to change it because (despite what some think) it works. By respecting the royals' authority, the British have eked out a system which has created relative political stability, peace and respect for the rule of law while also having democratic oversight in the form of Parliament's controls on what the royals can do. Why change that?\n\nIf it ain't broke, don't fix it. ",
"Symbolism and Money\n\nThere is no good reason to give up thhis institution, so Britain doesn't\n\nWatch [this](_URL_0_) video of CGP Grey. I feel like it explains really welll the practical reason to keep the monarchy. ",
"While it's true on paper that Parliament's power derives from the royal family, this is not really the reason... in a democracy, power derives from perceived legitimacy by the masses, and everyone agrees that Parliament is now the true legitimate source of political authority in Britain.\n\nBut even though they could get rid of the royal family, why would they? They're a powerful unifying force for patriotism and civic pride in Britain. I think that every democracy needs some sort of symbol like that that reminds everyone on both sides of the political spectrum that they're a united people... for the US it's the Constitution, for Britain it's the royal family.",
"I wouldn't say we 'honour' them. They serve a useful purpose and the advantages of keeping them outweigh the negatives in most people's eyes. The Queen herself is well-liked and the soap opera aspect of things entertains the tabloid readers, but I don't think many people feel strongly about the monarchy as an institution one way or the other. \n\n'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' could be a national motto for the UK. ",
"Day to day we don't really. They are a combination of a celebrity and a tradition. Imagine if one of those \"personalities\" like paris hilton was also a veteran and had political value.\n\n\nThe royals are as present in the mind of the avarage englishman as the kardashians are the mind of the avarage american, only with moderately less shame. \n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
10hm91
|
Are there more unique chess board positions than atoms in the universe?
|
I have heard that there are more possible moves in a chess game then there are atoms in the entire universe (some people specify *visible* universe). This seems outlandish to me, but I was looking into it and some people have tried to do the math proving it correct, although their math has been less then convincing, often using large generalizations and estimations.
If it is indeed true, what is a simple way to convey this idea so that everyone can understand it. I think part of the problem with believing it lies in the difficulty of our brains comprehending numbers that large.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10hm91/are_there_more_unique_chess_board_positions_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6djtc9"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"No, there are not. The number of possible chess positions is no more than around 10^(47), a provable upper bound. The number of protons in the universe is suspected to be AROUND 10^(80). \n\nHowever, that's merely positions. The number of chess GAMES, ie, sequences of positions which arise from previous positions via legal moves, is around 10^(120), I believe.\n\nI haven't done the particular mathematics of it, but I can explain why these numbers are so large. \n\nConsider the letters A through J, and ten boxes to put them in, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. For the first box, I can choose from all ten of the letters A through J; for the second, I can choose any letter except the one I already used. So just to place the first two letters, there are 90 possibilities. By the time I've place all the letters, there are 10×9×8×7×6×5×4×3×2×1 ≈ 3.6 million ways to place the letters.\n\nNow let's look at a chess game. For the first move, there are 20 possible moves; advancing any of the eight pawns either one or two squares, or moving either of two knights to one of four squares. For the blacks first move, there are also 20 possible moves. For white second move, there are at LEAST 17 possible moves (if first move was pawn, then all the original opening moves except the two that move that pawn and possibly a knight move no longer possible - it's possible black prevented an already moved pawn from moving again), and possibly more if no knight was blocked or a bishop or queen was opened up. Similarly\n\nSo after one move, there are 20 possible games; after two, 400 possible games, and after only three moves, there are at LEAST 6,800 possibilities. And in fact more, because many of the first two moves leave white more options than just a piddling 17.\n\nThis, I think may give a feeling for how quickly these numbers grow.\n\nCuriously, while chess certainly has the reputation of being a complex game, Stratego is more complex by almost any metric you care to name, as is 19×19 Go."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
36rklf
|
today, china's richest man lost $15 billion since his stocks crashed. where'd that money go?
|
Where dat penny?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36rklf/eli5_today_chinas_richest_man_lost_15_billion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crgfigk",
"crgfkqa",
"crgfkt8",
"crgflbm",
"crgflur",
"crh69t8",
"crh7mtb"
],
"score": [
12,
113,
2,
5,
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"He never had the money; he just had stocks. We talk about having money when we have stocks, but we leave out the part where we'd need to sell them to get the real money. So he didn't lose $15 billion; he lost the *opportunity* to get $15 billion because he had a thing (stocks) that people would once have paid $15 billion for but now won't.",
"It doesn't have to *go* anywhere.\n\nImagine if you had a painting that you purchased for $13 billion—it's a very nice painting. Other people agree that your painting is very very nice. In fact, many people think that you got a good deal by buying it for \"only\" $13 billion and they make offers to buy it for $15 billion, but you're happy where you are—you want to keep the painting.\n\nAt this point you have $15 billion worth of painting. There aren't $15 billion sitting around with your name on it, but the value of your assets includes that painting which most people agree is worth a lot.\n\nThen one day people have a shift of opinion and decide that paintings aren't worth that much. Suddenly nobody wants to give you anywhere close to $15 billion for the painting. Perhaps the best offer is now $1 million—1/15,000 what it had been worth. You still have the same assets, but now your assets aren't worth as much.\n\nStocks work essentially the same way. You decide that you'd rather own stocks than money, but you still get to count the stocks as part of your net worth because you own them and they're worth money. Then one day people decide that they don't want those stocks very much and the value of the stocks crash without you ever losing any asset and without any money changing hands. The value of the stocks is just gone. ",
"Say you bought a Beanie Baby for $4. You expect that they will be worth $10. And for a while they are. People offer to buy that Beanie Baby from you for $10, but you hang on to it for a while longer thinking it might go up in price. But you wait too long. Now nobody wants it for $10. The best offer you have for it is $1 now. \n\nWhere did that money go? No where. ",
"It didn't really go anywhere. He never really had it, he had stocks, not money.\n\nWhen we talk about how much someone has in stock we talk about how much it would be worth if they sold the stock today. The thing is the value of stocks rise and fall. So he didn't lose anything. The stuff he has is just less valuable now than it was yesterday. No one necessarily ended up with that $15 billion.\n\nIt's like if you spent $1 million on a plane. If someone asked what you were worth you'd probably include that plane in how much you're worth. But if that plane crashed tomorrow, where did the money you had go? It didn't really go anywhere, it's just the things you owned that had value yesterday don't have as much value today.",
"Nowhere. Because a stock isn't money. It only turns in to money if you sell it.\n\nThink of it like this if you have a car worth $10000 and I smash it, and now it's only worth $100 dollar in scrap metal. Where id the did $9900 go? The didn't go anywhere, because you didn't actually have $10000, you had a car. And the car is only actually worth $10000 if you sell when someone is willing to pay that much for it.",
"Investing in a stock is like loaning someone money.\n\nLet's pretend you like the nice old man who runs the corner store. His store is struggling so you loan him $10,000 to get back on his feet.\n\nHe uses that money to buy new groceries to restock his shelves, put on a fresh coat of paint, and pay his employees.\n\nThe clean look, restocked shelves and extra help impresses the community. More people shop there.\n\nHe makes enough money to pay you back, and then some. Let's say it's $15,000. Now. You could have taken your $10,000 back as soon as he earned the money back. But you want to help him more.\n\nThe extra money goes into a sort of shared savings account. You could take your $10,000 out which is now worth $15,000 if fair is fair. But he can dip into it too.\n\nThe $15,000 grows into $20,000 then even $50,000\n\nBecause of your investment you're now \"worth\" a certain share of the $50,000 ... your original $10,000 plus a certain percentage of the remaining $40, 000\n\n***\nBut then one day there's a fire and he forgot to insure the store.\n\nLet's say he borrowed money to put groceries on the shelf. Or he owes someone money for advertisements that he put up.\n\nHe has to use all of the $50,000 to pay his debts.\n\nSo your original $10,000 plus the extra you earned, is all gone because you kept it in the shared piggy bank.\n\n***\nThis is what happened today, but on a much bigger scale.",
"That money never existed in physical form. It disappeared because his companies became less valuable. \n\nIt's like how the value of your car goes down as it gets older. The money doesn't go anywhere, because it didn't exist in the first place."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4hvm73
|
why can't doctors 3d print a bone out of the original plastic stuff rather than have to find a way to do it with cartilage?
|
Sparked by [this article](_URL_0_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hvm73/eli5_why_cant_doctors_3d_print_a_bone_out_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2sov8l"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Your body is a very, very complex machine. A picky machine. If you get a transfusion with the wrong blood, your body will reject it, violently. If an organ transplant is mismatched or incompatible, your body may reject it, violently. It could potentially kill you.\n\nYour body hates having foreign material inside of it. Plates and rods have to be made so as to not be reactive to the body, and don't inhibit the function of the bone.\n\nA bone has marrow in it. This marrow is responsible for your blood, and plays a part in the immune system. Your bones interact with your circulatory system, and with your muscular system. If the material is foreign and dissimilar and gets rejected, the response from your body can be violent, even lethal. A bone printed from cartilage is natural, it can be matched to your body, and the body is much more likely to accept it. Muscle will be happier to interact with it, and it can function at least partially.\n\nThis said, I'm an engineering brat, not a surgeon."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a19443/3d-printer-bone-cartilidge-and-muscle/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
285k72
|
when you're hungover, why does standing up amplify the nausea/headache?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/285k72/eli5_when_youre_hungover_why_does_standing_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci7w0u8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Standing up decreases the blood pressure in your head. That activates a reflex that dilates the blood vessels in your head and neck. The purpose of the reflex is to maintain an adequate flow of blood and oxygen to your brain so you don't black out. The vascular dilation is accomplished by neurons (nerve cells) releasing adenosine, a neurotransmitter (signaling) chemical that dilates blood vessels.\n\nAdenosine can also cause pain. A tiny drop of adenosine placed on the back of the hand causes localized pain and a red spot. Excessive adenosine causes headache pain. Adenosine is the endogenous (originating within the body) cause of hangover symptoms. So the adenosine released by the reflex to dilate blood vessels in your head and neck so you don't black out when standing up is added to the excessive adenosine already causing hangover headache and nausea, aggravating those symptoms. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9q2sv5
|
How much gun violence was there really in the old west (US, late 1800s)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9q2sv5/how_much_gun_violence_was_there_really_in_the_old/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e97ke8j",
"e8765rk"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Almost none, outside of the very few sporatic instances of lawmen v outlaws, and most of these were not as hollywood shows them. Guns were everywhere in the west - but not on a cowboy's hip. Many towns had laws against openly carrying guns in public, however many people still kept pocket pistols [mostly cap and ball revolvers until the 1880s, and break top revolvers thereafter] in there coats. \n\nGun violence as depicted in hollywood normally has a good guy, a bad guy, a duel, and the understanding that he who draws first clears the other guy ina case of self defence. That's historical bull poop. First, there were no good guys in the few gun fights that happened. For example, Wyatt Earp was a violent pimp/ horse theif, Will Bill Hickok was a gambling addict/roughneck, and the Robin Hood figure of Jesse James was a cold blooded murdering pyscho who didn't give anyone anything. Gun fighters tended to be mentally ill lawmen or outlaws, who had stories built around them by dime novels. These dime novels took there short lives and made mountains out of mole hills.\n\nGun fights were not duels, they were violent murders, with the goal of putting as many bullets through the other person as possible, so that they would bleed to death quicker. Most happened with guns already out, normally both parties were drunk, and sometimes it took days for one or both to die. Gunfights were the on-foot drive bys of today. Wild Bill Hickok shot Dave Tutt in self defence, but he wasn't a cop at the time, and still was almost put behind bars. Not so romantic in real life.\n\nGun violence was rare, partly because towns tended to arrest or evict the homeless, and the unemployed [who are more likely to commit crimes, which is an unfair reality of life], people could pull up stakes and move away from their problems easier than today, where there are no safety valves for society in general. Less things were illegal in general, and the gang crimes and mass shooting we see today never had a rooting ground in the old west.",
"This is a pretty common question.\n\nYou can check the faq while you wait for new answers:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historically_accurate#wiki_..._are_.22wild_west.22_tropes.3F"
]
] |
||
3rwu0h
|
When two particles are attracted toward each other and eventually collide, energy is produced. Where does that energy come from?
|
Reading [this thread](_URL_0_) about two tiny particles in an otherwise-empty universe, I realized I don't know where the energy comes from to produce light/heat in their ultimate collision.
Momentum (?) is converted to energy, but isn't that just saying that energy is converted to energy? What is confusing me is that the setup for the problem sounds almost like descriptions of the heat death of the universe; there's no spare energy lying around. In this case, there is energy-as-mass in the particles, but then it seems like energy magically comes from nowhere to make them start moving toward each other. That kinetic energy then gets converted to heat when they collide.
I guess my real question is, does gravitation *add* energy to the system in the form of gravitational acceleration? Is it energy *ex nihilo*? Is it from some Planck thing or quantum foam or other thing I don't understand? The only thing I can think is that maybe, if the particles are far apart, there must have been a beginning of the universe where they weren't, and some very tiny big bang knocked them apart, thus trapping (?) potential energy in them, which is released when they later smash back together... but I don't even know if this makes sense.
I'm sure this is something I should have learned during that one semester of college physics I took, but I didn't learn it.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3rwu0h/when_two_particles_are_attracted_toward_each/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cws03n2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are different forms of energy, some less \"visible\" than others. In this case potential energy is a form of energy that is stored in the gravitational field between the particles. Regarding different forms of energy and energy conservation, I suggest reading [section 4-1](_URL_0_) of Feynman's fantastic Lectures on Physics. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/3rum1p/request_if_two_particles_of_dust_are_placed_in_an/"
] |
[
[
"http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html"
]
] |
|
f345ip
|
why when you get a cut does blood show up because the way i picture it, blood is just passing through in veins. i don’t understand if there’s just a layer of blood or if the veins release blood.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f345ip/eli5_why_when_you_get_a_cut_does_blood_show_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhghkkf",
"fhghye4",
"fhgi9c3"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Blood doesn't just travel through veins. To get to the final stage, blood travels through capillaries. These are tiny blood vessels that allow blood to get all the way to all the cells that need it. It's kinda like if arteries and veins are the highways, capillaries are the little side streets in town that let you get to your friend's house.",
"Blood flows from the heart in arteries and back to the heart in veins. But throughout the body there are tiny capillaries that connect arteries to veins. They are kind of like a web of small tubes. This is where the oxygen leaves the blood to go to the cells of your body and is exchanged for carbon dioxide. Because every living cell in your body needs oxygen from the blood, and osmosis (the way blood delivers oxygen to the cells) is inefficient over long distances, there are LOTS of capillaries in every inch of tissue. These tiny blood vessels are usually the ones that get severed when you get a cut.",
"Your whole body is filled with a micro-network of tubes meant to bring blood to places. \n\nThe primary version we tend to think of is known as veins. These are “large” tubes that bring blood to all the places it needs to go. Each place it brings it to, though, has smaller distribution networks. They’re not really veins, just distributions centers to put that active stuff into places. \n\nThink of your body like a delivery system for mail. There are absolutely highways, like veins. There are slightly smaller veins that are more like roads. There are larger structures, like, arteries, that are like giant highway confluences. \n\nLet’s pretend that all traffic needs to hit every road somewhat equally, for the sake of convenience. This means that while the big trucks on the freeway or the overpasses probably aren’t going to the small roads, there are cars going there. So the result is that if you snip off part of a road, even a very small road, even a backwater road, the cars start to pile up and create problems and pollution. \n\nYou might ask what about the forests, where there are no roads. That’s a good question, but those forests are supplied with resources from the roads. They have no water if not for water from the roads. They have no food if not food from the roads. The end result is that even slicing up the forest results in resources being dumped. The roads supply resources, then the smaller roads supple resources, then maybe the local infrastructure moves it around. If there’s a hole in the system it’s just falling out of it; the system can’t stop the flow directly it can only send a “plug” signal that prevents the workers from pouring. \n\n#TL;DR\n\nImagine it as a system in which there’s no direct knowledge of what’s happening at any point until a problem occurs. The only response to that problem is to send blockades. \n\nImagine a sandcastle with automated plumbing. On the majority level the water is going where the pipe says. Except that some of it leeks into the neighboring sand just because. Some of *that* leeks into even further neighboring sand. This is fine because the system keeps things moving. \n\nIf you cut the castle, though, it might bleed randomly because it has no solid way to fix that except to dry up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
jgv9m
|
Question about proteins and enzymes
|
When they say enzymes bind to different things (DNA, RNA, etc) what is giving them the energy to move around in the cell? How does the enzyme know where to move to?
Do they just move around non stop and bind upon random chance when their bond sites are close together?
Also..my bio textbook talks about proteins and enzymes and dna replication, transcription all the time, but everything is in diagrams. They only really have pictures of cells at the meiosis/mitosis size stage.
How do they know what the general structure of how these enzymes move about/work? For example, how do they know helicase unzips the DNA strand...and transcribes by pairing up base by base like that? Or how do they know there exists Okazaki fragments that are stitched together in that fashion? Or that to signify termination, they have these loops (rho independent)? Or that when introns are cut, they make a loop?
I'm guessing there's discoveries that have been made that suggest that kind of structure, but I'm just wondering how they know the exact (geometric) structure of how these molecules work?
EDIT: Thanks all for replying!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jgv9m/question_about_proteins_and_enzymes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2bzo40",
"c2bzqg1",
"c2bzrmq",
"c2bzugf",
"c2c2diq",
"c2c2uix",
"c2bzo40",
"c2bzqg1",
"c2bzrmq",
"c2bzugf",
"c2c2diq",
"c2c2uix"
],
"score": [
19,
4,
3,
3,
2,
3,
19,
4,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, you basically want a degree in molecular biology and biophysics.\n\nI'll try to be as concise as possible:\n > what is giving them the energy to move around in the cell? \n\nThermal energy tosses them around randomly in the cell. Specific processes requiring energy are fueled generally by [ATP](_URL_2_).\n\n > Do they just move around non stop and bind upon random chance when their bond sites are close together?\n\nEssentially, yes, that's what happens. A few proteins can be actively carried by motor proteins along the cytoskeleton.\n\n > How do they know what the general structure of how these enzymes move about/work?\n\n3D structure of biomolecules usually comes out from two fundamental techniques:\n\n* [X-ray crystallography](_URL_1_)\n* [Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy](_URL_3_)\n\nThe latter can provide also useful information on the dynamics. More information can be guessed, with various degrees of confidence, from [molecular dynamics simulations](_URL_0_).\n\nA lot of dynamical information is also inferred from a huge load of clever experiments and putting together evidence. Now I do not remember unfortunately about the experiments that demonstrated intron looping or Okazaki fragments, but you should be able to find them on the Internet.",
"There has been TONS of research that has contributed to our knowledge of cell function. If you want to know the specific experiments that have led to specific facts, you'll just have to read your whole textbook or do some research on pubmed.\n\nIn regards to enzyme/DNA binding, it is a completely random process. Think about a vibrating dish full of glass marbles with two round magnets, representing an enzyme and its ligand. There may be a lot in the way, but eventually they will find each other and bind.\n\nWhen I was an undergrad I was also frustrated with the oversimplified diagrams in textbooks, but in reality it's incredibly difficult to determine 3D structure and much easier to determine molecular association.\n\nIf you haven't seen this video, I think you'll like it:\n_URL_0_\nIt is molecularly accurate based upon our complete current knowledge and shows processes in real time.",
"Proteins move randomly around cells. Direction and concentration can be created by making such movement unidirectional via one-way pumps or channels, i.e. protons can't cross the mitochondrial membrane except through pumps that run in one direction only, creating a gradient of high concentration on one side.\n\nA great deal is known about structure. The most accurate method of determining structure is [X-ray crystallography](_URL_2_). Highly purified proteins sometimes can be crystallized and the X-ray diffraction patterns can be used to determine the structure of the protein down to a resolution of a few angstroms ([PDB](_URL_4_)). Similar structural determinations can be done using [NMR](_URL_9_) ([2002 Chemistry Nobel](_URL_5_)).\n\nWith much less resolution, but enough to look at the general shape of large proteins or protein complexes, [Small Angle X-ray Scattering](_URL_0_) or cryo-electron microscopy ([single-particle analysis can be used to determine the shape of a protein complex and the position of subunits](_URL_3_)).\n\nFor something like helicase movement, single-molecule biophysics is very useful. Basically, you can trap a single DNA or RNA molecule using lasers and follow how the physical properties of that molecule change when you add a single helicase molecule ([optical tweezers](_URL_8_)). Or you can use sensitive microscopy techniques to visualize single fluorescently tagged proteins being recruited to an unwinding DNA or RNA molecule ([pdf of a paper](_URL_1_)).\n\nDetecting intron loops can be done physically by EM ([figure from a paper](_URL_6_/F4.large.jpg)) or by analyzing the RNA that is created during *in vitro* translation ([link to the above-mentioned paper](_URL_6_)).",
" > When they say enzymes bind to different things (DNA, RNA, etc) what is giving them the energy to move around in the cell? How does the enzyme know where to move to?\n\nSometimes it's as simple as diffusion, sometimes the proteins are stuck into vesicles and drug around by motor proteins. If the right proteins bump into each other, they bind, if they're the wrong proteins they don't. The local concentration of a protein can be much higher due to localization, too, to increase changes of the correct binding.\n\n > Do they just move around non stop and bind upon random chance when their bond sites are close together?\n\nPretty much. There can be chaperon proteins, too, but most of the time it's just enzymes banging around in a cell. \n\n > Also..my bio textbook talks about proteins and enzymes and dna replication, transcription all the time, but everything is in diagrams. They only really have pictures of cells at the meiosis/mitosis size stage.\n\n > How do they know what the general structure of how these enzymes move about/work? For example, how do they know helicase unzips the DNA strand...and transcribes by pairing up base by base like that? Or how do they know there exists Okazaki fragments that are stitched together in that fashion?\n\nYou can start with X-ray crystal structures for rough shapes, but at that scale the shape doesn't really matter. It's pretty dynamic, too, so thinking of things as rigid spheres and cones and blocks isn't the totally correct picture. It makes it easier to visualize, though, for teaching purposes. \n\nWith UV-vis you can monitor DNA unfolding. If you put DNA helicase in vitro with double-stranded DNA, you can see that the DNA will melt (unzip) at a lower temp than without the DNA helicase. \n\nYou can do similar in vitro experiments to determine the rest. Isolate the important pieces outside of a cell, let it run for a while, then see what the resulting pieces are. Let's say you put in dNTP's, some double-stranded DNA (here nothing but poly-C paired with poly-G), primers, and some DNA polymerase in a vial together. There might be a piece missing, but it's been a while since I've done PCR. Whatever. Everything you need to run a transcription. If the leading strand is poly-C, you'll observe the G as nothing but monomeric G and poly-G in long fragments if you stop the transcription in the middle. The lagging strand will be poly-G, so we'll see C's in short fragments (Okazaki fragments) as well as monomers and the original strand. \n\n > Or that to signify termination, they have these loops (rho independent)? Or that when introns are cut, they make a loop?\n\nWe can see through sequence analysis where the loops could be made. If you mutate the strand so the loop can't be made and the protein is different (doesn't get made because the termination site is gone, or has junk hanging off the end in a bad termination; the mutated intron gets coded if it's not an intron anymore) then you had a clue that looping was important.\n\n > I'm guessing there's discoveries that have been made that suggest that kind of structure, but I'm just wondering how they know the exact (geometric) structure of how these molecules work?\n\nYep. Just 50+ years of intensive research by millions of very smart people. \n\n",
"The speed of a typical protein is a few meters per second in solution. And its mean free path is about its own diameter. So it will bounce around a lot and visit a lot of the available space in a small volume of liquid before finding its lowest energy state, that of a bound complex. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"Some enzymes move around using random diffusion fueled by the energy of the system. Other enzymes are powered by ATP hydrolysis. \n\nEnzymes \"know\" where to go because they often contain signals within their amino acid sequences that cause them to be localized within a certain cellular compartment (like the nucleus, or the mitochondria). This brings them closer to their substrates/ligands/binding partners. Proteins often also have higher affinities for binding to other particular proteins, which can help them find their ligands or help to anchor them on the right structure or in the right conformation to bind their ligands. Think about the ribosomes that are attached to the rough endoplasmic reticulum; they are positioned exactly in the place they need to function to transcribe mRNA into protein and to send the product into the ER for processing. This is less of a random process and more of a beautifully regulated, orchestrated process. \n\nAs for knowing the general structure of how the enzymes move and work, many initial studies were done in bacteria and yeast and involved genetic studies like deletion and mutation studies that helped to elucidate which parts of which proteins were necessary for which functions. Many proteins have since been purified and crystallized and had their crystal structures figured out at the atomic level, and combined with previous and new genetic experiments, the result is the cartoon-depicted version in your textbook that hopefully takes into account all the current credible evidence. Often, the pathways depicted in your book are the result of many previous genetic and biochemical studies, and these include the elucidation of protein-protein interactions and synthetic genetic interactions which determine which proteins function in which order in which pathway. (I can discuss this more if you want.) \n\nAs I mentioned, we often have 3-dimensional atomic-level predictions of protein structure once a protein as been identified, purified, and crystallized. Along the same lines, we often take the protein and do this same experiment in the presence or absence of different ligands, and with and without certain mutations, and the resultant structures tell us even more about the function and shape of the protein. \n\nAs for how a helicase unzips a DNA strand, we can purify a helicase protein and stick it in a tube with some double-stranded DNA and ATP, run the reaction contents on a gel, and see that the DNA is now singe-stranded. (I've done this, and it still amazes me!)\n\nResearch is a lot of fun, and since you're asking these questions, you might have the right mindset for it! Ask away... ;)\n\nAlso, what textbook are you using? Sounds like there may be better options, and I'd like to know for teaching purposes. ",
"Well, you basically want a degree in molecular biology and biophysics.\n\nI'll try to be as concise as possible:\n > what is giving them the energy to move around in the cell? \n\nThermal energy tosses them around randomly in the cell. Specific processes requiring energy are fueled generally by [ATP](_URL_2_).\n\n > Do they just move around non stop and bind upon random chance when their bond sites are close together?\n\nEssentially, yes, that's what happens. A few proteins can be actively carried by motor proteins along the cytoskeleton.\n\n > How do they know what the general structure of how these enzymes move about/work?\n\n3D structure of biomolecules usually comes out from two fundamental techniques:\n\n* [X-ray crystallography](_URL_1_)\n* [Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy](_URL_3_)\n\nThe latter can provide also useful information on the dynamics. More information can be guessed, with various degrees of confidence, from [molecular dynamics simulations](_URL_0_).\n\nA lot of dynamical information is also inferred from a huge load of clever experiments and putting together evidence. Now I do not remember unfortunately about the experiments that demonstrated intron looping or Okazaki fragments, but you should be able to find them on the Internet.",
"There has been TONS of research that has contributed to our knowledge of cell function. If you want to know the specific experiments that have led to specific facts, you'll just have to read your whole textbook or do some research on pubmed.\n\nIn regards to enzyme/DNA binding, it is a completely random process. Think about a vibrating dish full of glass marbles with two round magnets, representing an enzyme and its ligand. There may be a lot in the way, but eventually they will find each other and bind.\n\nWhen I was an undergrad I was also frustrated with the oversimplified diagrams in textbooks, but in reality it's incredibly difficult to determine 3D structure and much easier to determine molecular association.\n\nIf you haven't seen this video, I think you'll like it:\n_URL_0_\nIt is molecularly accurate based upon our complete current knowledge and shows processes in real time.",
"Proteins move randomly around cells. Direction and concentration can be created by making such movement unidirectional via one-way pumps or channels, i.e. protons can't cross the mitochondrial membrane except through pumps that run in one direction only, creating a gradient of high concentration on one side.\n\nA great deal is known about structure. The most accurate method of determining structure is [X-ray crystallography](_URL_2_). Highly purified proteins sometimes can be crystallized and the X-ray diffraction patterns can be used to determine the structure of the protein down to a resolution of a few angstroms ([PDB](_URL_4_)). Similar structural determinations can be done using [NMR](_URL_9_) ([2002 Chemistry Nobel](_URL_5_)).\n\nWith much less resolution, but enough to look at the general shape of large proteins or protein complexes, [Small Angle X-ray Scattering](_URL_0_) or cryo-electron microscopy ([single-particle analysis can be used to determine the shape of a protein complex and the position of subunits](_URL_3_)).\n\nFor something like helicase movement, single-molecule biophysics is very useful. Basically, you can trap a single DNA or RNA molecule using lasers and follow how the physical properties of that molecule change when you add a single helicase molecule ([optical tweezers](_URL_8_)). Or you can use sensitive microscopy techniques to visualize single fluorescently tagged proteins being recruited to an unwinding DNA or RNA molecule ([pdf of a paper](_URL_1_)).\n\nDetecting intron loops can be done physically by EM ([figure from a paper](_URL_6_/F4.large.jpg)) or by analyzing the RNA that is created during *in vitro* translation ([link to the above-mentioned paper](_URL_6_)).",
" > When they say enzymes bind to different things (DNA, RNA, etc) what is giving them the energy to move around in the cell? How does the enzyme know where to move to?\n\nSometimes it's as simple as diffusion, sometimes the proteins are stuck into vesicles and drug around by motor proteins. If the right proteins bump into each other, they bind, if they're the wrong proteins they don't. The local concentration of a protein can be much higher due to localization, too, to increase changes of the correct binding.\n\n > Do they just move around non stop and bind upon random chance when their bond sites are close together?\n\nPretty much. There can be chaperon proteins, too, but most of the time it's just enzymes banging around in a cell. \n\n > Also..my bio textbook talks about proteins and enzymes and dna replication, transcription all the time, but everything is in diagrams. They only really have pictures of cells at the meiosis/mitosis size stage.\n\n > How do they know what the general structure of how these enzymes move about/work? For example, how do they know helicase unzips the DNA strand...and transcribes by pairing up base by base like that? Or how do they know there exists Okazaki fragments that are stitched together in that fashion?\n\nYou can start with X-ray crystal structures for rough shapes, but at that scale the shape doesn't really matter. It's pretty dynamic, too, so thinking of things as rigid spheres and cones and blocks isn't the totally correct picture. It makes it easier to visualize, though, for teaching purposes. \n\nWith UV-vis you can monitor DNA unfolding. If you put DNA helicase in vitro with double-stranded DNA, you can see that the DNA will melt (unzip) at a lower temp than without the DNA helicase. \n\nYou can do similar in vitro experiments to determine the rest. Isolate the important pieces outside of a cell, let it run for a while, then see what the resulting pieces are. Let's say you put in dNTP's, some double-stranded DNA (here nothing but poly-C paired with poly-G), primers, and some DNA polymerase in a vial together. There might be a piece missing, but it's been a while since I've done PCR. Whatever. Everything you need to run a transcription. If the leading strand is poly-C, you'll observe the G as nothing but monomeric G and poly-G in long fragments if you stop the transcription in the middle. The lagging strand will be poly-G, so we'll see C's in short fragments (Okazaki fragments) as well as monomers and the original strand. \n\n > Or that to signify termination, they have these loops (rho independent)? Or that when introns are cut, they make a loop?\n\nWe can see through sequence analysis where the loops could be made. If you mutate the strand so the loop can't be made and the protein is different (doesn't get made because the termination site is gone, or has junk hanging off the end in a bad termination; the mutated intron gets coded if it's not an intron anymore) then you had a clue that looping was important.\n\n > I'm guessing there's discoveries that have been made that suggest that kind of structure, but I'm just wondering how they know the exact (geometric) structure of how these molecules work?\n\nYep. Just 50+ years of intensive research by millions of very smart people. \n\n",
"The speed of a typical protein is a few meters per second in solution. And its mean free path is about its own diameter. So it will bounce around a lot and visit a lot of the available space in a small volume of liquid before finding its lowest energy state, that of a bound complex. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"Some enzymes move around using random diffusion fueled by the energy of the system. Other enzymes are powered by ATP hydrolysis. \n\nEnzymes \"know\" where to go because they often contain signals within their amino acid sequences that cause them to be localized within a certain cellular compartment (like the nucleus, or the mitochondria). This brings them closer to their substrates/ligands/binding partners. Proteins often also have higher affinities for binding to other particular proteins, which can help them find their ligands or help to anchor them on the right structure or in the right conformation to bind their ligands. Think about the ribosomes that are attached to the rough endoplasmic reticulum; they are positioned exactly in the place they need to function to transcribe mRNA into protein and to send the product into the ER for processing. This is less of a random process and more of a beautifully regulated, orchestrated process. \n\nAs for knowing the general structure of how the enzymes move and work, many initial studies were done in bacteria and yeast and involved genetic studies like deletion and mutation studies that helped to elucidate which parts of which proteins were necessary for which functions. Many proteins have since been purified and crystallized and had their crystal structures figured out at the atomic level, and combined with previous and new genetic experiments, the result is the cartoon-depicted version in your textbook that hopefully takes into account all the current credible evidence. Often, the pathways depicted in your book are the result of many previous genetic and biochemical studies, and these include the elucidation of protein-protein interactions and synthetic genetic interactions which determine which proteins function in which order in which pathway. (I can discuss this more if you want.) \n\nAs I mentioned, we often have 3-dimensional atomic-level predictions of protein structure once a protein as been identified, purified, and crystallized. Along the same lines, we often take the protein and do this same experiment in the presence or absence of different ligands, and with and without certain mutations, and the resultant structures tell us even more about the function and shape of the protein. \n\nAs for how a helicase unzips a DNA strand, we can purify a helicase protein and stick it in a tube with some double-stranded DNA and ATP, run the reaction contents on a gel, and see that the DNA is now singe-stranded. (I've done this, and it still amazes me!)\n\nResearch is a lot of fun, and since you're asking these questions, you might have the right mindset for it! Ask away... ;)\n\nAlso, what textbook are you using? Sounds like there may be better options, and I'd like to know for teaching purposes. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_crystallography",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMR_spectroscopy"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8"
],
[
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Biological_small-angle_X-ray_scattering",
"http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/13/4448.full.pdf",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/X-ray_crystallography#Biological_macromolecular_crystallography",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Single_particle_analysis",
"http://www.pdb.org/pdb/home/home.do",
"http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2002/wuthrich.html",
"http://www.jbc.org/content/271/42/26320",
"http://www.jbc.org/content/271/42/26320/F4.large.jpg",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Optical_tweezers",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance_spectroscopy_of_proteins"
],
[],
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion-controlled_reaction#cite_ref-Alberty_1-0"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_crystallography",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMR_spectroscopy"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8"
],
[
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Biological_small-angle_X-ray_scattering",
"http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/13/4448.full.pdf",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/X-ray_crystallography#Biological_macromolecular_crystallography",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Single_particle_analysis",
"http://www.pdb.org/pdb/home/home.do",
"http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2002/wuthrich.html",
"http://www.jbc.org/content/271/42/26320",
"http://www.jbc.org/content/271/42/26320/F4.large.jpg",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Optical_tweezers",
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance_spectroscopy_of_proteins"
],
[],
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion-controlled_reaction#cite_ref-Alberty_1-0"
],
[]
] |
|
1u2m72
|
If the cultures and languages of France are generally much more diverse than those of Germany, why was it a unified, centralized nation so much earlier?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1u2m72/if_the_cultures_and_languages_of_france_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cee28zq",
"cee2ukw"
],
"score": [
6,
19
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure about your premises but something to consider, pointed out by Emmanuel Todd. \n\nVery quickly: both countries started as one under Charlemagne. He had three heirs, his kingdom was split in three vertically. Lothaire (Lotharingia → Lorraine) in the middle quickly got shafted by his brothers, and his kingdom later become the stuff of many wars. Eventually, the Western kingdom mostly became France, the Eastern kingdom mostly became Germany. \n\nFor various historical reasons, early on France chose primogeniture, i.e. the first-born male heir inherits everything, not just for kings but for the lowest nobility as well. This means that domains never get smaller. Occasionally, when there is no male heir, the domain is inherited by the liege immediately above, and eventually by the king of France. See for example _Dauphiné_, in the South-East of France. \n\nWhat would become Germany however did not have such a rule, so domains tended to stay somewhat fragmented. Even if a vassal had no heir, his liege probably had non-first born heirs he could settle in his stead. To this days this is evidenced by the federal nature of the German state. \n\nThe end result was that Louis XIV held large amounts of land directly, not through vassals, so he could easily strongarm his court into moving to Versailles, weakening them further. ",
"First, it's not necessarily the case that Germany is more culturally homogenous, certainly not in the historical periods that we're talking about. Holland and Denmark are places that MIGHT, if history had happened differently, been part of a greater Germany and we'd now think of them as speaking odd dialects of German. The distinctions between Swiss German, Austrian Germany, and the accent / dialect variations within Germany's German are pretty substantial. That's to say nothing of Slavs who've lived in Germany: Poles, and the lesser known Wends and Sorbs. SO--Germany's pretty diverse too.\n\nSecond, Germany and France followed different long-term trajectories in the medieval and early modern period. After Charlemagne, centralized authority in France disintegrated to the point that the King of France, though nominally having some authority over all of France, only actually controlled the small area right around Paris--the Ile-de-France. Philip II really got the expansion of royal authority going from 1180 to 1223. SO--France's track is disintegration until about 1200 then reintegration.\n\nIn Germany, by contrast, the German emperor had real authority for a long time, until a series of long-term struggles with the papacy drained the emperor's authority and political power in Germany fragmented. The German story is a little more complicated, but Germany follows more or less the opposite path to France: consolidation until 1150 or 1200, and then disintegration. \n\nThat means that by the time we get to Louis XIV, France has been consolidating for 400-500 years, and Germany's been disintegrating for 400-500 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
626t0v
|
why do talk radio shows typically start at 7 minutes past the hour?
|
Possibly relevant: I live in the central time zone, USA. I notice this with AM and FM talk radio shows. It sure seems less confusing to start a show at 6AM not 6:07AM. As another example top of the hour breaks typically run from around 10:58 to 11:07 (or 11:58 to 12:07, etc), at which point a given talk show will re-commence. What's going on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/626t0v/eli5_why_do_talk_radio_shows_typically_start_at_7/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfk5ur8",
"dfk6b1u"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Radio stations have to run X amount of ads in a programming hour. So instead of doing one ad every ten minutes they do 3 ads at the bottom and top of each hour , then they have less interruptions during discussions and can keep on topic better. In non talk radio they are able to play more back to back songs. Why top and bottom of hours? Because that's when people are more likely to take breaks and arrive at places so they are most likely to miss programing, but could still hear a 30 sec commercial, also provides the radio host time to fill out their logs and transition personalities.",
"* 10:58 to 10:59 = Commericials\n* 11:00 to 11:06 = News\n* 11:06 to 11:07 = Commercials\n\nThere are fixed breaks at the top of the hour so all the stations can run news/weather/traffic as they see fit. \n\nIn between that, some shows have floating breaks and some have fixed breaks, for instance at 20 past the hour. \n\nSome stations have a live person triggering the commercials to play and some stations are fully automated and a (non audible) tone will play which triggers the commercials to play at the local station. If this isn't aligned properly that is why you sometimes hear one commercial overlap another. \n\nThe available commercial time is split between local and national commercials. \n\nEven if it's a totally local show they usually stick to the same time format so as not to confuse any of the employees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1y9kyb
|
when you've been pulled over by an officer, why must they take so much time to do whatever they have to?
|
I know they have to call it in, run your plates and ID and all that, but surely they can do it much faster than they normally do. Is it just added punishment? Or is it simply "you've wasted my time by making me pull you over, now I'll waste yours."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y9kyb/when_youve_been_pulled_over_by_an_officer_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfiioh4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They are looking up your vehicle tags. Once they have your license they are also looking *you* up.\n\nIdea is that criminals tend to commit crimes. So perhaps you are speeding because the car is stolen. Handy info for the officer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
10poas
|
What would happen if you grabbed a miniature black hole?
|
Say you took something like a mall or a mountain range and crushed it into a black hole. It would obviously be incredibly small, but what would happen if you picked it up in your hand. Would that even be possible?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10poas/what_would_happen_if_you_grabbed_a_miniature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6fjma5"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You couldn't hold it because mountains weigh millions of tons. If you got within a few centimeters of it, its gravity would be much stronger than Earth's (not to mention the tidal effects). This means it would start tearing apart whatever it was near, creating a big mound of rubble."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2x5rdc
|
if time is the next dimension, and if time can be accessed in the fourth dimension, what is next in the fifth dimension? the sixth? the seventh? etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x5rdc/eli5_if_time_is_the_next_dimension_and_if_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cox5ara",
"cox5c9d"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Time is treated as a 4th dimension sometimes in relativity because of the concept of spacetime, where three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time are intertwined. In this context, there are only four dimensions.\n\nString theory has more dimensions (it varies depending on the exact version of string theory) but in that interpretation, time isn't the fourth dimension. All the multiple dimensions are dimensions of space.",
"Most mathematicians and physicists would rather say, \"time is (like) *a* fourth dimension\", not \"time is *the* fourth dimension\". Nobody claims that it's exactly like the familiar three space dimensions; it obviously is not.\n\nThere's nothing preventing us from studying geometry with four, five, or more *spatial* dimensions, which is what mathematicians typically do. Sometimes time is treated formally as a fourth spatial dimension, but it is still treated differently from the others, in what's called a Minkowski space."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4jh4ng
|
how accurate or reliable is 'psychological profiling' in real life? and what does that entail?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jh4ng/eli5_how_accurate_or_reliable_is_psychological/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d36lv9g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In general, it can be useful but should never be considered 100% accurate, simply because of how humans can vary. The idea behind profiling is patterns. Generally speaking, human behavior tends to follow certain patterns. In a criminal sense, for instance, over years and years people started to notice that certain things tended to correlate with certain crimes (I.e. Rapists tending to stay within their own race, overkill [think over 100 stab wounds on a murder victim] generally points to extraordinary rage), and eventually it was possible to make an educated deduction of what the possible motivation was behind a crime, their race, intelligence, etc. Same concept that's taught in many fields; factors a, b, and c can in many cases indicate source d. \n\nIs it 100% accurate? No. Anyone with human behavior/psychology training will tell you that there is no specific formula of human behavior. Just because a rape victim is white doesn't mean the perpetrator is white, an individual who was molested doesn't mean they will become a sex offender, etc. It can be considered a useful tool, not a handbook. \n\nOf course like anything there can be huge limitations. Sometimes a profile is built off limited information and results in such a broad profile that it may not be of help. Obviously, a profile could be incorrect because of the \"doesn't always follow the pattern\" factor, and can cause blinders to possible suspects. Probably a major limitation is interpretation of profiles. A person may not understand that a profile is meant to be a helpful suggestion and may completely limit their scope to what's in the profile. There may be incorrect assumptions. Certain parts may be picked out to support someone's assumption of someone they believe is guilty and ignore others. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
27l4t0
|
Did US Marines participate in the D-Day invasion? Did US Marines ever fight in Europe during WW2? Why or why not?
|
I was looking at some pictures of D-Day on the huffington post and noticed a picture of several men hauling an artillery piece out of a landing craft. The picture is labeled "US Marines landing at Normandy in amphibious landing craft on D-Day, June 6, 1944. (A. E. French/Archive Photos/Getty Images)" and can be found at the following link (see picture 5):
_URL_0_
I was always under the impression that US landing forces at D-Day were Army- is this picture wrong? Or were there small numbers of US Marines involved?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27l4t0/did_us_marines_participate_in_the_dday_invasion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci1uu3q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"While I do believe the photograph is probably incorrectly captioned, there were US Marines serving in the ETO during the war.\n\nAmerican battleships and cruisers in the ETO commonly had a detachment of Marines serving onboard. Sometimes, they were called in to do some action but this was in very rare cases. One extraordinary case of USMC involvement in France was during Operation *Dragoon* in which Marines from the USS *Philadelphia* and *Augusta* received the surrender of a German naval artillery battalion on the islands of Ratonneau and Chateau d'If.\n\nMarines also served in the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) and I've written a much more elaborate post on one of those men - [Peter J. Ortiz.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/70th-anniversary-dday-photos_n_5445367.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular"
] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v6yk2/tuesday_trivia_historys_greatest_nobodies_ii/cepcwkt"
]
] |
|
1ebgjh
|
Were there any air-to-air dogfights between Soviet and American pilots like shown in Top Gun?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ebgjh/were_there_any_airtoair_dogfights_between_soviet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9ym4ce",
"c9ynkis",
"c9z1qaw"
],
"score": [
48,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There were a number of lethal dogfights between American and Soviet pilots during the Korean War. Soviet involvement was a poorly kept secret, but the U.S. government never made an issue of the Soviet presence for fear of igniting a larger war. \n\nThroughout the Cold War, a number of American recon aircraft crossed into Soviet airspace; many of these aircraft were shot down. Over 100 U.S. airmen died in this secret aspect of the war. The Soviets only responded once, with a short flight over Alaska. \n\nThere were regular incidents where hotdogging pilots would intercept each other in an unarmed but unmistakably aggressive fashion. This was heavily discouraged, because there was always the risk of something like the 2001 [Hainan Island incident](_URL_0_).\n\n",
"Soviet and US pilots faced each other during the Korean war, apart from that there may have been some action between pilots of the two countries during Vietnam, But I do not know for sure.\n\nOutside of war, a Top Gun-esque situation would be impossible without ending in war between the two countries.\n\nHowever, there are plenty of examples of NATO and USSR aircraft flying alongside each other during the Cold War. These were just standard intercepts, although each one would have been treated as intercepting a possible hostile aircraft. [Here is a thread with a lot of pictures of intercepts, mainly from NATO aircraft.](_URL_0_)\n\nThese intercepts were mostly used for information gathering, most of it being what new stuff had been added to Soviet aircraft as well as what frequencies they were using on their equipment. I know Lightning pilots used 35mm camera's to get pictures of Russian bombers that threatened to enter UK airspace. The camera's the Soviet crews were using were larger and bulkier, so it became almost a game of cat and mouse for RAF pilots to get the pictures they needed while keeping the Soviet crews from taking theirs. I can't find the book right now, but I believe this is all from Ian Black's book, *Last of the Lightnings*, if not, it is from another book on the Lightning.",
"I thought the aggressors in Top Gun were Iranians."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident"
],
[
"http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?93152-Interception-Pics-from-the-cold-war"
],
[]
] |
||
2bcnj8
|
why the earth is oriented as it is in maps and globes and how we know which way is up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bcnj8/eli5_why_the_earth_is_oriented_as_it_is_in_maps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj3zj5e",
"cj3zjj5",
"cj3zkt6",
"cj3zode"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't \"know\" which way is up, because there is no such thing. We just decided as a culture which way we wanted up to be, and so that's what it is. We could flip it all upside down and everything would function just the same.",
"Europe is at the top because Europeans didn't want to be on the bottom, that's all there is to it.\n\nSince the Earth's rotational axis is tilted relative to the sun the North and South poles don't line up with anything from a cosmic perspective anyway.",
"Up is towards the sky. Everything else is just arbitrarily agreed upon.",
"The earth's tilt was calculated relative to the sun, or so to say, we noticed the irregular path that we rotated on and \"Tilted\" the planet to simplify the rotation. The question \"How do we know which way is up\" is something we also did for simplicity. Technically ANY way is up, but the Earth's NORTH magnetic pole was defined as having been in one area while it's south was on the opposite end of the earth. So, one way is up and the other is down. Though like I said, this is done for simplicity; it helps in geography and navigation.\n\nAnd for those who are about to skewer me for saying anyway is up, let me point out that in space, there are no defined planes of geometry like up or down, it's any way you want it. We just pretend that there are planes there to simplify things (and it works)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2pqzf8
|
Is the force of gravity proportional throughout an object?
|
Does an objects gravitational force vary depending on the place on an object, or is the force of gravity equal throughout an object?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2pqzf8/is_the_force_of_gravity_proportional_throughout/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmzdrlt",
"cmzdyrn",
"cmzmfud"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The gravitational force at different points on an object can be different. Such variations are called *tidal effects*, and in fact are the reason we see tides here on Earth (the strength of the gravitational force of the Moon on the Earth is greater on the side nearer the Moon and weaker on the side farther away, and similarly for the gravitational force of the Sun on the Earth, and these variations produce the tides).\n",
"If you look at the formula for the force of gravity, you'll see that:\n\n1) Gravity is proportional to the product of the two masses\n2) Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects. \n\nSo from 2), the force of gravity will vary throughout an object because each point on an object will be a different distance away. On earth, we say it's roughly 32.2 ft/s^2. However, it truly varies.\n\n",
"Fun practical application: the fact that different parts of a body can feel different accelerations due to gravity is useful for keeping spacecraft in a particular attitude.\n\nIf you have a spacecraft that is dumbbell shaped (or whose mass profile is similar to that of a dumbbell), the end closer to the Earth will feel slightly more force due to gravity (since gravity falls off at 1/r^2). As the spacecraft orbits Earth, that end of the dumbbell will tend to be pulldown downward (towards the nadir), keeping the dumbbell oriented along the radial vector. This is referred to as \"gravity gradient stabilization\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3mucs6
|
can children who need organs get them transplanted from adults?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mucs6/eli5_can_children_who_need_organs_get_them/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvi5fm4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer is yes, longer answer is \"it depends on the organ and the specific patients\". \n\nThere is nothing inherent about organs from adults that makes them fundamentally incompatible with children. The liver very easily could be transplanted to a child, since you don't have to take the whole thing; you can just cut a small section and implant that. Kidneys as well are fairly flexible, allowing for different sized kidneys to not be a big deal. Something like the heart, however, may cause problems due to size mismatch, both in terms of physically fitting it into the chest cavity and messing with blood pressure and flow rate. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2codm7
|
how come the acid in my stomach doesn't kill me?
|
Acid + skin = bad.
So surely acid + internal organs = very bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2codm7/eli5_how_come_the_acid_in_my_stomach_doesnt_kill/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjhf5xo",
"cjhf7du"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Your stomach has special cells that produce mucus to block the acid from destroying your cells. If something goes wrong with that process you get an ulcer.",
"Yes. However, the lining of gut is not only specially suited for highly corrosive contents -- special *epithelial* cells in the lining produce bicarbonate, which is basic (the opposite of acidic) which helps \"neutralize\", or counteract, the hydrochloric acid produced during digestion. Further, the lining also repairs itself extremely quickly. The average Epithelial cell only lasts 5 days, while the average lifespan of all the cells in your body (and there's a lot of variance between them) is closer to 15 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1owqnk
|
How did early US presidents handle the "Natural Born Citizenship" requirement?
|
Obviously the first several presidents couldn't have been born in the new country, so at what point did that become a requirement? Were there any instances of a young politician running on the platform of "I was born in America, whereas my opponent was born in Britain"?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1owqnk/how_did_early_us_presidents_handle_the_natural/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccwe0i1",
"ccwo39m"
],
"score": [
22,
4
],
"text": [
"I think you might be mixing up your timeline here. Each of the earliest U.S. Presidents was born in what would become the United States. \n\nHowever, the Constitution did make a provision for the circumstance of Presidents who had been born outside of the U.S. In Article II, the Constitution states: \"No Person except a natural born Citizen, *or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,* shall be eligible to the Office of President...\" There were, after all, political leaders who were not born in the U.S. Alexander Hamilton would have been the most obvious example. He was born in Nevis, a Caribbean island. So the \"Natural Born\" clause only affected people born outside of the U.S. after the Constitution took effect, and people who were not U.S. citizens after the Constitution took effect. ",
"The two most prominent politicians of the Early Republic who were born outside of the United States were Alexander Hamilton and Albert Gallatin, Hamilton from the West Indies and Gallatin from Switzerland. Their foreign credentials certainly hurt both men throughout their political career as well as hurting each other. Publications throughout their political careers refer to their foreign born status as making them untrustworthy to hold public office, Josiah Quincy argued during the tumultuous first decade of the 19th century that\n\n\n\"it was a curious fact that for these twelve years past the whole affairs of this country have been managed, and its fortunes reversed, under the influence of a cabinet little less than despotic, composed to all efficient purposes, of two Virginians and a foreigner ( Gallatin) and now the President intended to make a Virginian his successor\"-AC,12C2S,562.\n\nFederalists used the questionable time of Gallatin's citizenship to block his election as a Republican senator preventing him from national office for a number of years. By the later 1790's he entered the house becoming the Republican leader after Madison's resignation and the most recognizable national Republican after the Virginian triumvirate. Republicans and Federalists grew to see Hamilton as the Federalist foreigner and Gallatin as the Republican foreigner. Republican press would note that Gallatin was born in the \"free\" air of Switzerland while Hamilton was born in the slave West Indies. While Gallatin ultimately had a highly successful career as Jefferson and Madison's secretary of treasury his foreign born credentials repeatedly hindered any movements towards his assuming of a higher office. Outside of historians today Gallatin is sadly forgotten despite being one of the most if not the most successful Secretary of the Treasury in American history.\n\nFun Fact: Gallatin has the strongest claim to being a prominent founding father who was actually photographed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
12hjio
|
I've heard of antiparticles (positrons, antineutrino, etc) and antimatter but i'm still not sure if we have confirmed it's existence. Do they exist? If so, what is the process we went through to discover them?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12hjio/ive_heard_of_antiparticles_positrons_antineutrino/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6v3qfb",
"c6v4zkp"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, antiparticles have been confirmed to exist. They are observed in a wide variety of particle physics measurements, usually as a by-product or intermediate step in a physical process being studied. One extremely common antiparticle is the [positron](_URL_0_), if you want more detailed information reading the wiki page should give you a good overview.",
"We rammed protons really really really really hard into one another and observed the decay products. We saw particles consistent with the prediction theory has for muons(quark/antiquark pairs).\n\nJust because we don't understand unitary matrices and all that vector calculus gobeldygook doesn't mean that everyone doesn't "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron"
],
[]
] |
||
4xbmkv
|
is it worth it to buy the premium/higher octane gasoline option from a gas station, or is it a scam?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xbmkv/eli5_is_it_worth_it_to_buy_the_premiumhigher/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6e3jwe",
"d6e3z7a",
"d6e405z",
"d6e5i38",
"d6efkbh"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There's a really good explanation from a few years ago here\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"It's not a scam...if you have a vehicle designed to use high-octane fuel. Usually high-end sportscar-type things. 'Ordinary' cars don't need it though.",
"Look at the owners manual of your vehicle to see what gasoline it needs. If it says 87 Octane buy 87 Octane, if it says 91, buy 91. Putting 91 Octane in a engine meant for 87 is a waste of money.",
"It's not a scam. But most cars don't need higher octane. The only cars that need it are sports cars (due to their higher engine compression ratio) and old cars that have a heavy engine knock. (The gas is igniting in the piston chamber prematurely.)",
"Cars with higher compression ratio engines (mostly performance cars) need higher octane rating fuel to operate properly.\n\nI have seen ads by fuel companies that verge on the edge of fraud by claiming cleaner, smoother, longer engine life etc claims - which in general is false.\n\nIf your car specifics higher octane gas, you should use it. Obviously this needs to be considered before you buy the car. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/161inc/eli5_the_different_types_of_gasolineunleaded/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
69990x
|
the counter-argument to the nuremberg defense-" an order is an order".
|
How did they attack this argument? And does it still make sense?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69990x/eli5_the_counterargument_to_the_nuremberg_defense/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh4rp9u"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"How did they attack it? They rendered it null and void from the start:\n\n > \"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.\"\n\nThe defense was used unsuccessfully during the Nuremberg trials.\n\nAttacks against this defense have been applied inconsistently, and the general concept has been modified (most often to include requirements that the given order was unlawful and the soldier knew it was unlawful)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2360nw
|
Because neutron stars are so tightly compacted that their electrons are not free to jump around and gain or lose energy, how are they detectable if not paired with another star?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2360nw/because_neutron_stars_are_so_tightly_compacted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgtz5zw",
"cguaso5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they're still hot. And they're still made out of particles that are electrically charged. The bulk of the star is quarks and gluons, either bound into neutrons, or in a possible quark-gluon plasma at the core. The surface of the star is more conventional matter (doesn't have the same extreme pressures driving it). So all the heat of the star transmits through vibrations of strong force through quarks and gluons and those can, in turn, shake the remaining electrons and protons at the surface, which can release the energy as light. But even if it was *all* nuclear matter, no electrons, then the vibrations of the charged quarks are still available to release energy as light.",
"Shavera already mentioned the thermal component of neutron star emission, but there is also the non-thermal component.\n\nSince neutron stars have very high magnetic fields when electrons travel along the field lines they can pair-produce to create emission. (At least, that is the current best theory.) This is how we see radio pulsars, which are a type of neutron star. We also see X-ray emission from material trapped in the outermost portions of the magnetic fields, but that is not as common as X-ray emission due to the thermal component already discussed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2dlpva
|
If the dust in my house is at least partly from outer space, how much weight does the earth gain every year?
|
If all of these space dust particles are being collected by the earth, enough that I have to dust them away, how much is this adding to the earth's mass? Is the earth slowing down in rotation as a result?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2dlpva/if_the_dust_in_my_house_is_at_least_partly_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjqunni",
"cjszhuh"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There is absolutely nowhere even remotely close to enough dust from space for you to have to 'dust it away'. Not even accumulated over thousands of years (assuming it spreads evenly across the globe, including into the inside of your house).\n\nGlobally, dust from space may total several tens of thousands of tons of input per day (to answer your question, although we don't know for sure), but that is a fantastically small amount when spread over the entire planet. The vast majority of household dust (in most places you might live) isn't dust in the normal sense at all, but flakes of skin, pollen, insect parts, and fragments of various household items. Even among \"dirt\" dust, natural dust from erosion on Earth will outnumber dust from space by astronomical amounts.\n\nEDIT: also, Earth is constantly losing weight from the loss of atmosphere into space - mostly hydrogen. Not as much as it's gaining from dust from space though (only on the order of a few hundred tons per day)",
"Earth gains about 50,000 tons per year from space dust, meteorites, etc. But it also loses 100,000 tons per year, mostly hydrogen and helium escaping the atmosphere, for a net loss of about 50,000 tons per year."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3g4jb5
|
how does the small amounts of cyanide seen in shows stop cellular respiration in enough cells to kill someone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g4jb5/eli5_how_does_the_small_amounts_of_cyanide_seen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctv1ljg"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Hydrogen cyanide attaches to the hemoglobin in blood, but doesn't let go, unlike CO2 oreven carbon monoxide. So, unless you get a shitload of oxygen AND a transfusion, you're dead!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
685egf
|
what is the determining factor of identical vs fraternal twins?
|
Some fraternal or sororal twins like nearly identical.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/685egf/eli5_what_is_the_determining_factor_of_identical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgvtbav",
"dgvtbt0"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Identical twins are one fertilized egg that splits in two. They are (initially) genetically identical.\n\nOtherwise there are two or more fertilized eggs that are genetically the same as a brother and sister.\n\nBasically with identical twins there's one egg/sperm payload - a single genetic combination - that splits after fertilization to create one or more humans.\n\nIt's also possible for a woman to have more than one egg in her uterus when fertilization takes place meaning more than one sperm can find an egg. In terms of genetics, this is the same thing as brother and sister (who share only around 50% of their DNA).",
"Identical twins are born when a single egg is fertilized and splits after dividing, and non-identical twins are born when two separate eggs are fertilized at the same time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ayh2zk
|
What was comedy like in the USSR?
|
I was watching a comedy show made before the Second World War and I started wondering about what was comedy like behind the iron curtain.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ayh2zk/what_was_comedy_like_in_the_ussr/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei0vv6l"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"A brief reminder that the Soviet period covers 1917-1991, so to review Soviet comedy means covering 80 years in multiple mediums. But here is a survey of some of the highlights:\n\n Probably the longest running and most notable source of printed comedy was the satirical magazine *Krokodil*, which was founded in 1922 and ran until financial difficulties with the end of the Soviet era, before being completely discontinued in 2008. The magazine always stayed within \"acceptable\" bounds as laid out by the Soviet regime (so making fun of capitalists was fair game), but could often have very sharp social commentary especially on the hypocrisy and venality of certain segments of Soviet society, such as bureaucrats.\n\n Comedy in the Soviet cinema has an extremely long history, and there are a number of incredibly popular cinematic works. A notable entry in the silent film era is Sergei Komarov's 1927 *A Kiss From Mary Pickford*, about a Soviet man who meets Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks (who have cameos), and is then constantly chased by locals because of his brush with international celebrity. In the 1930s, increasing restrictions on imported films meant were accompanied by further attempts to build up Soviet cinema, now in sound. In the Stalinist era, the director Gregori Aleksandrov was one of the most favored comedic directors, and his most notable films from the period were *Jolly Fellows*, *Circus*, and - Stalin's personal favorite- *Volga-Volga* (you can watch the latter in it's entirety through the film's wikipedia [article](_URL_1_)). All three starred Aleksandrov's wife, Lyubov Orlova, who became one of the most popular Soviet actresses in the period, and there is a big focus on musical comedy, slapstick, and comedy-of-errors. Again, all were clearly acceptable in terms of official government policy (Stalin was heavily involved in reviewing movies), but none of those three are overtly political or propagandistic, excepting *Circus*, the plot of which details on a white American circus performer (Orlova) giving birth to a black child and fleeing US racism for safety in the Soviet Union. \n\nThe late Stalin era (from the Second World War through to his death in 1953), saw much social and economic dislocation because of the war, and increasing postwar censorship. The \"thaw\" under Khrushchev (1956 to 1964) saw a rise of a new generation of Soviet comedic directors and actors/actresses.\n\nFor the post-Stalin period, some of the major pieces of Soviet comedic cinema come from director Leonid Gaidai, and his three most notable and popular films would probably be *The Diamond Arm*, *Kidnapping, Caucasian Style* and *The Twelve Chairs*, all of which starred Yuri Nikulin. These are from the late 1960s-early 1970s. *The Diamond Arm*, in particular, was risque for Soviet censors for the time (there are hints of sex!), and also pushed the envelope in its social commentary, a gulag joke, and even mocking a busybody Communist Party block captain babushka. Nikulin plays a somewhat dim-witted everyman (a Soviet Homer Simpson if you will), who gets caught up in a police sting to take down a criminal ring. Andrei Mironov plays the villain, a contrabandist smuggling diamonds into the USSR (and a practicing Christian to boot!), but Mironov easily chews up his scenes with physical comedy and with songs (both Nikulin and Mironov sing in the film - [here](_URL_0_) is Nikulin singing \"Song of the Hares\").\n\nRomantic comedy films were also a genre in this era, and the most popular of these is probably 1976's *Irony of Fate*, directed by Eldar Ryazanov and starring Andrei Myagkov and Barbara Brylska. This television film is a New Year's-themed romantic comedy of errors - a man gets drunk and winds up in Leningrad when he should be in Moscow. He goes to what should be his home address, unlocks the door, and passes out in an engaged Nadya's (Brylska) apartment, and a budding romance ensues. This movie is something of a New Year's tradition even today in Russia, equivalent to Americans watching *It's a Wonderful Life* or *Christmas Story* on Christmas. \n\nThis is also transitioning us a bit into television, and a number of comedic Soviet films were produced and broadcast on tv in this era - for example a four-part serial adaptation of *The Twelve Chairs*, starring Andrei Mironov, was directed by Mark Zakharov. Television sketch comedy was and remains popular, and so any discussion of tv comedy will need to mention KVN (which stands for \"Club of the Funny and Inventive\"), which features student teams competing live in sketch comedy routines. The show has been on tv from 1961 to 1972, and from 1986 to the present (during 1972 to 1986 it was considered too risky to have live comedy sketches), and is a weekly staple of Russian television. It has its own Youtube channel [here](_URL_2_).\n\nChildren's programming is a whole other topic, so I will just limit mention to Ну, погоди! (Well, Just You Wait!), which is an animated series starring \"Wolf\", who endlessly is chasing \"Hare\" in a Tom and Jerry style hunt (but with a vast amount of popular culture references packed in). Episodes of this have been made on and off again since 1969 and continued into the early naughts (it's unclear at present if more will be made). A more modern post-Soviet example of children's comedic animation is \"Masha and the Bear\", which has been dubbed into English and can be watched on Netflix.\n\nA final note should probably be made for \"unofficial\" comedy, as there are whole genres of informal popular comedy that could poke fun at issues in daily life. One of the most notable of these is the *chastuchki*, which are short, high beat folk songs that often take popular melodies to satirize a particular subject (these could be pro-regime or anti-regime). Edit: and jokes by and large were a very common way to express subversion or dissatisfaction (a famous one that many non-Soviet folks know is \"we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us\"), and that is a *whole* other topic that could run for pages and pages.\n\nThis is by nature a *very* selective and high-level sketch of the history of Soviet comedy, and apologies to anything and anyone I have left out (and also please note that this is a very Russian-centric survey). Especially for the later items mentioned, I really can't stress how important the songs and catch phrases from these films and shows were and remain in Russian and post-Soviet culture. Even if you know the language, if you are unfamiliar with these pop cultural references you literally will not get the joke.\n\n**Sources**\n\nSheila Fitzpatrick draws heavily on *Krokodil*, *chastuchki*, and general overheard jokes and complaints in her *Everyday Stalinism*\n\nStephen Kotkin's Stalin biography (notably the second volume, *Waiting for Hitler*) talks about Stalin's relationship with Soviet cinema in the 1930s at some length. I also recommend any of Kotkin's lectures because he knows plenty of Stalin-related Soviet jokes.\n\nThe most up-to-date and comprehensive history of Russian cinema that I can find is Birgit Beumers' *A History of Russian Cinema*. A lot of Western attention and consequently books focuses on drama and cinematic work that came into conflict with Soviet censors, so one tends to hear more about Sergei Eisenstein than Aleksandrov in the Stalinist era, and more about Tarkovsky than Gaidai in the 1960s and 1970s."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDQ8YOQAVA",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga-Volga",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSZ69a-0I1RRdNssyttBFcA"
]
] |
|
bnu3ub
|
how does jeff bezos make money without selling his amazon stock? i know that his net worth is huge because of the stock value but he can't realize any of that without selling, which would mean he would eventually lose his controlling interest. i've heard he only takes a $89k salary per year.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bnu3ub/eli5_how_does_jeff_bezos_make_money_without/
|
{
"a_id": [
"en982hr",
"en9aj64",
"en9bqd7"
],
"score": [
13,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"He sells his amazon stock.\n\nHe has a shitload of amazon stock, nearly 79 millions shares, which he is slowly selling off so he has money for other ventures\n\nJeff Bezos hasn't had a controlling interest in a long time. He only holds about 16% of Amazon shares(~12% post divorce) so there isn't any risk to losing a controlling interest that he doesn't have.",
"First off: Bezos doesn't have a controlling share. I couldn't find anything more concrete, but [only 16% of AMZN stock is held by insiders](_URL_1_).\n\nThat out of the way, salary is only one component. Companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc give fairly large (in terms of dollar value) amounts of stock as part of their compensation package to engineers and executives. This is unlikely to be enough stock to make a big difference in his strategic position, and he could just sell those off. Also, this sort of company will always have a large performance-dependent bonus as part of compensation. It's unclear what sort of comp Bezos got, but his 2018 wasn't exactly small, [at $1.7M](_URL_0_).",
"He gets paid partially in stock. He then sells equal portions off quarterly after holding it for a year so that he pays capital gains tax instead of income tax."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Amazon-Com-Inc.html",
"https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders/"
],
[]
] |
||
32xf6i
|
What happens in the 'background' of the computer or the circuits during a 'random generator' event?
|
What actually occurs inside the program and how do we know the results are definitely random?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/32xf6i/what_happens_in_the_background_of_the_computer_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqghrw3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Assuming you're simply referring to when a program generates a random number, most of the time it's just some math.\n\nBy far the most common way to generate random numbers is with a [Linear Congruential Generator](_URL_3_). When the program starts, a seed value is set, which is usually based on some combination of the current date and time. When a random number is requested, the seed is used in a fairly simple algebraic expression to generate a number, which is returned as the result, and is used as the new seed. In most programming languages if you use the language's built-in random number generator, you're using a LCG.\n\nIf you need a better RNG, then it's common to go to the [Mersenne Twister](_URL_1_). It's slower and much more complex to compute, hence why so many languages don't use it by default.\n\nBoth of the above are definitely not random, they are pseudorandom. For any given seed value, the algorithm will *always* produce the exact same sequence of numbers. Hence why they are typically seeded with a value that is hopefully unique.\n\nFor true randomness, the main sources the I know of are [/dev/random and /dev/urandom](_URL_0_) on Linux systems. They use things like device driver events, which occur regularly but unpredictably in your operating system, to fill an entropy pool that is used for number generation. The [Linux source code](_URL_2_) has detailed documentation (look particularly at the theory of operation section) that is fairly thorough and very readable.\n\nThere also exist dedicated [Hardware RNGs](_URL_4_), but I can't really tell you anything more about them than you'll find on the wiki page."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man4/random.4.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister",
"http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/char/random.c",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruential_generator",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator"
]
] |
|
1px2b8
|
How did the gunpowder plot of 1605 become commemorated as an annual holiday (Guy Fawkes Day) in Britain?
|
I am fascinated by 17th century British history and have always been curious about the gunpowder plot and Guy Fawkes Day and how it became a national holiday. I'd also like to know more about the "remember remember the fifth of November" saying / poem.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1px2b8/how_did_the_gunpowder_plot_of_1605_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd7zeh6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[Partial answer here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pyzz1/how_did_the_anniversary_of_the_execution_of_guy/"
]
] |
|
126glw
|
Have any animals or creatures ever made it through the Panama Canal and damaged the other side's ecosystem?
|
I don't know if they have nets or anything preventing this kind of thing.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/126glw/have_any_animals_or_creatures_ever_made_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6sljot",
"c6sp0lz"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of the Panama Canal is [fresh water](_URL_0_). This probably prevents most salt water species from freely moving from the Caribbean to the Pacific. However, the major damage is always the ships carrying ballast filled with invasive species. \n\nI couldn't find anything in the numerous environmental impact studies about the Panama Canal. There was a story about a poisonous sea snake that there was some worry that it would go from the Pacific to the Caribbean, but it hasn't so far.",
"From a google search, it looks like the Smithsonian is dedicating resources to this topic. Reference: _URL_1_\n\nIt appears that an easy example of an invasive that used this vector would be the White Spotted Jellyfish: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal#Water_issues"
],
[
"http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/spottedjellyfish.shtml#.UIx8TMXA98E",
"http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/researching-invasive-species-near-panama-canal"
]
] |
|
3d594m
|
What is the history of the stereotypical "evil laugh"?
|
Earlier today while listening to some video game music the question crossed my mind about where the stereotypical 'evil laugh' that comes up so often in music, games, movies, books, and so on comes from. Think [this sort of thing](_URL_0_), the ol 'muahahahaha'. Where did it first appear? Are there instances of old literature that describe such a laugh, or is it the product of more modern times when audio recording became more prevalent? These days it's practically everywhere in all forms of popular culture and it's hard to imagine what iconic thing denoted that a certain individual was the 'bad guy' before the evil laugh. That being said, as a follow up question of sorts, what was used commonly to denote the 'bad guy' before the occurrence of the evil laugh we know today?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d594m/what_is_the_history_of_the_stereotypical_evil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct25tdq",
"ct29mkf"
],
"score": [
14,
9
],
"text": [
"Cool question BTW. There are quite a few instances of it being used in older literature. The best firm \"proof\" goes back to the 1800s when a few different journals had some short stories with the use of this laugh. Most notably, The Living Age. There are references to maniacal and sardonic laughter before that in some old letters that we have.\n\nThe actual noise and sound clips you are referencing became a hit during the early 20th century with the rise of radio drama. Radio programs like \"The Shadow\" started using it to set the mood. Hope that helps.",
"Before television/film there was theatre, and there are several instances of something like \"the evil laugh\" showing up in plays/operas. [TVtropes](_URL_0_) has a good list of examples. \n\nIn general the \"Evil Laugh\" is effective because it shows two things about the antagonist - that they are overconfident (thus making the hero seem like the bigger underdog) and that they are sadistic (they enjoy violence as opposed to seeing it as a necessary means to an end). And it is easy to come up with ways antagonists in stories can display both of these things without a laugh - (adding insult to injury , mocking the hero for example). Other common ways of \"creating a bad guy\" would be to show them doing something bad for no apparent gain (like [kicking a dog](_URL_1_)). And of course anything that makes them seem more foreign, physically or culturally, from the audience would make them less relatable and less likable so an author could play those up to make them seem untrustworthy"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRamB30E9mU"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilLaugh",
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog"
]
] |
|
11rsxu
|
Are there any life forms that use nitrogen like we use oxygen? Or is it to stable to be of much use in that way?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11rsxu/are_there_any_life_forms_that_use_nitrogen_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6p10hz",
"c6p2v2q"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The closest I know of are these guys: _URL_0_",
"Not sure why this was downvoted. It's an interesting question.\n\nDo you mean N2 or does any form of nitrogen count? As Gargatua said, there are many bacteria that breath nitrogen species into N2 (NO3 - > NO2 - > NO - > N2O - > N2).\n\nThere are no known organisms that breath molecular nitrogen. Along with the fact that N2 reactions have a very high activation energy, there is another thermodynamic problem as well. Oxygen has a high reduction potential: +806 mV at standard biological conditions. Anything with a lower reduction potential -- essentially everything -- can donate electrons to molecular oxygen and yield energy.\n\nThe problem with nitrogen is that next step in the chain, N2 - > NH3, has a standard reduction potential of about 0 mV. The electron donor in cellular respiration, NADH, has an oxidation potential of 320 mV. To a first approximation, this means breathing oxygen yields about 1100 mV of usable energy, while breathing nitrogen yields only about 1/4 of that.\n\nPractically speaking, evolution solved the N2 - > NH3 problem by investing lots of ATP into the reaction, and so it seems proteins are simply incapable of catalyzing this reaction in an energetically productive way (a fancy way of saying the activation barrier is too high).\n\nThere are, however, lots of microbes that breath crazy things like various minerals and CO2."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denitrifying_bacteria"
],
[]
] |
||
41v02m
|
why do things like mersenne primes matter to anyone but mathematicians?
|
Disclaimer: I was an English major in college. I've always hated "performing" math but am still somewhat fascinated by mathematical developments like what I linked below if only for their own sake.
So [on Slashdot](_URL_0_) there was an article about the discovery of the largest Mersenne prime found to date - five million digits longer than the previous record-holder.
My question is this: Why do things like Mersenne primes and other exotic developments in mathematics matter to anyone who isn't studying math? Is there a practical application for a number like this? Just about all I can think of would be an exercise in computational muscle - "OUR new supercomputer can calculate such-and-such Mersenne prime in 10.78 seconds!"
To be clear, I'm not bashing such developments. I'm 100% alright with knowledge for knowledge's sake - God knows how long I've spent on /r/todayIlearned.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41v02m/eli5_why_do_things_like_mersenne_primes_matter_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz5b0ee",
"cz5dvo2"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There are lots of applications for primes in encryption. But as to Mersenne primes in particular I don't know. It's quite possibly pure mathematics, done for the insights it gives into the nature of numbers.",
"It is mostly knowledge for knowledge sake and bragging rights.\n\nIt has led to some advancements in number theory that could have practical applications. It has also served as a proof of concept for some distributed computing ideas, which are being applied to more practical areas, like protein folding."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/01/20/0137259/new-mersenne-prime-discovered-largest-known-prime-number-274207281---1"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jdoap
|
what is a syndicated show?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jdoap/eli5_what_is_a_syndicated_show/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbdn2au",
"cbdo117"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Syndication is basically reruns. It's when a station buys the rights to an already broadcast show. Often this happens for long running shows after they have gone off the air, but more recently it sometimes will happen with the earlier seasons of a still running show (if it goes long enough). Prior to DVD sales syndication was how TV shows made their real money (because they sold the show at break even prices the first time, to get it on the air). During that time, you needed to make it 5 seasons (roughly 100 episodes) to be picked up for syndication because they generally wanted the show to play each week day.",
"A studio (Warner Bros., for example) pays to produce a tv show and then licenses the right to air each episode exactly 2 times on a tv network (NBC, for example). After the show airs twice on NBC, Warner Bros. can sell the right to air each episode to any local TV station they want. You generally need at least 100 episodes or else they'll repeat too often. The studio and producers make the money in syndication (not the original tv network that aired each episode twice).\n\nThat's how Family Guy is on 4 times a day, in addition to the new episodes on the TV network Fox. They syndicated the episodes in each city, and the studio gets paid every time they air a repeat episode in syndication. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1j3zl7
|
Why don't egg yolks break even when an egg is shaken vigorously?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1j3zl7/why_dont_egg_yolks_break_even_when_an_egg_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbavqc1",
"cbavs3v"
],
"score": [
3,
14
],
"text": [
"This question is actually related to physics principles. Surfaces are generally ruptured by pressure - not force. Pressure is force divided by area.\n\nTake, for example, snow. If you walk on deep snow, your boot will sink in. But if you wear snowshoes, you spread that same amount of force over a larger area.\n\nThere are multitudes of examples of this, from bubbles to cells.\n\nWhen you shake an egg vigorously, the force that it experiences is spread out over a large area (and the yolk will deform to enhance this effect), and so the membrane around it doesn't break.",
"Because [you aren't shaking it the right way.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aazP6zvJmiQ"
]
] |
||
gc2x5
|
Does leg bouncing/twitching really burn hundreds of calories a day?
|
From reading around it's seems there's a consensus that you do burn a notable amount of calories if you're a leg bouncer, but the range of calories cited seems really wide. How many calories a day or hour do I really burn from my annoying habit?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gc2x5/does_leg_bouncingtwitching_really_burn_hundreds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1mgd2c",
"c1mh1ve"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know, but I have a feeling it's not that much.\n\nWhat I do want to say, however, is that you should make sure both you and the sources you've read know the distinction between calories and Calories. 1 Calorie = 1000 calories, and the Calorie version is what is quoted on food packages and FDA diet recommendations.",
"I used to be a leg-bouncer as well. It is a way for you body to burn off a very small bit of extra energy. But I mean very small. It does not appreciably raise your heart rate or your body temperature. Walking at a leisurely pace (1 mph) burns about 130 Calories per hour. Just twitching your calf muscle on one leg is going to be well below that, I would guess less than 20 Calories per hour (this number is just a rough estimate based on the relative size of the calves to the quadriceps at the exertion level of a mild activity such as leisurely walking.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ivzax
|
Stirring Water
|
On a molecular level,what is it about stirring water that makes it dissolve substances faster than if you just let it sit? For instance if you dump a spoonful of salt in a glass of water, the salt will settle at the bottom and could take quite a long time to completely dissolve. However, if you stir the water, the salt will dissolve in a matter of seconds.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ivzax/stirring_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c272bdy"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"The rate at which the salt dissolves depends on the local concentration of the ions it dissolves into. When you just drop the salt in and let it settle at the bottom the ions created as it dissolves are only transported away from the source by diffusion. When you stir the water you introduce convection which transports ions away from the surface of the salt faster than when only diffusion is occurring. This leads to the salt dissolving faster since the local ion concentration is lower."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9rilu6
|
the reason for the recent drop in us stocks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rilu6/eli5_the_reason_for_the_recent_drop_in_us_stocks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8h6vf0",
"e8h8emw",
"e8hh042"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The stock market does not like uncertainty. We're approaching an election where the Democrats may take control of the House of Representatives. Generally Democrats tend to be anti-business and favoring more regulation and taxation. Businesses and investors do not like this, so they may be pulling money out of the market in anticipation of a drop after November 6.\n\nAlso in play is Trump's tariffs. The recent stock market surge could have been businesses and investors involved in transactions before the tariffs hit. Now that they're in place, sales and business has slowed down and businesses are not hitting their goals they forecasted in the last few quarters.\n\nAnd the market was due for a correction as well. We've seen record highs all year this year. Many people cashing out their earnings to secure them, rather than risk keeping them in the market where the value may drop.\n\nOf course there are millions of other reasons the markets are down, but those are the big ones that come to mind right away.",
"Interest rates are increasing which reduces the present value of future cashflows (stock prices).\n\nAlso, the effect of tariffs is inflationary which is addressed by central banks (i.e. Fed) raising short-term interest rates.\n\nInflation is the enemy of bonds. Investors who anticipate increasing inflation are paying less for bonds which increases long-term intetest rates.\n\nInterest rate increases across all maturities (short and long) will reduce the value of stocks because they represent the present value of future earnings (cashflow).",
"To list a small set of geopoltical reasons, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is also driving volatility on top of a badly designed tariff war between the US and China, and Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest source of oil bascially being caught redhanded in a murder plot, meaning oil prices may be at stake."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9fo2sw
|
why do captcha's always ask me to identify cars, crosswalks, and store fronts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9fo2sw/eli5_why_do_captchas_always_ask_me_to_identify/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5xy4td",
"e5xy88c"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe I read somewhere it's somehow helping machines learn how to identify those objects, but what the fuck do I know.",
"It serves two purposes.\n\n1.) To provide a task that can not be reliably completed by an automated program. \n\n2.) To train automated programs how to answer such problems wiyh human input.\n\nFor RecpatchaV2 check boxes, a site owner might demand the secondary verification (the question prompt) from all users, or a single user looks suspicious for whatever reason."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
27xa95
|
Was the English claim to the French throne during the Hundred Years War objectively legitimate or not?
|
Basically what would a completely objective observer say if they looked at the line of succession? Would they deem the French kings legitimate or the English?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27xa95/was_the_english_claim_to_the_french_throne_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci5ba6u"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I'm afraid it depends on what standard this objective observer uses.\n\n[Here's a brief genealogy from Wikipedia](_URL_0_). You can see that, if women are allowed to inherit claims to the throne, then Edward III of England is clearly the legitimate heir to his uncle Charles IV of France. But, the French argued that Isabella was completely disqualified by being a woman, and the succession must pass on as if she had never been born. If their claim was correct, then Philip VI was just as clearly the legitimate heir. The issue had never come up before, as far as I know, so either claim could be treated as legitimate at the time.\n\nOf course, there are other standards that could be used aside from hereditary right. I'm not sure what result a plebiscite would have given, for instance - not that the idea of holding one entered into anyone's head at the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_claims_to_the_French_throne#mediaviewer/File:Hundred_Years_War_family_tree.svg"
]
] |
|
rnbgb
|
How do girls develop "girl hand writing" and boys develop "boy hand writing"?
|
I know this is not the case for every girl and every boy.
I am assuming this is a totally cultural-relative thing. But still, how do they initially form their distinctive hand writings? Do they copy others, is it the way they are taught, etc.?
By "girl and boy hand writings" I mean the stereotypical hand writing girls have; curved, "bubbly" letters, while boys usually have fast, messy hand writing.
Thanks!
Oh and I am saying "girl" and "boy" instead of "woman" and "man" because this question revolves around when people are young and that is when they (usually) start to write in this society, therefore "girl and boy" is more relative than "woman and man."
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rnbgb/how_do_girls_develop_girl_hand_writing_and_boys/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c477ijc",
"c477sa4",
"c478dcq",
"c478obt",
"c478uk9",
"c478w81",
"c479lac",
"c47cb5u"
],
"score": [
39,
13,
864,
23,
10,
211,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I suggest [this](_URL_0_) if you can access it via a university or something. If not, it basically discusses the differences in male and female brains. I find this paragraph helpful:\n\nThough the idea of brain lateralisation is\ncontroversial, evidence is strong that\ngender differences do exist, with girls\nexhibiting superiority in language and\nearlier left-brain development. Boys,\nbecause of greater exposure to testosterone\nin utero, experience slower growth of the\nleft hemisphere but more synaptic\nconnection and development of the right\nhemisphere (Garmon, 1985). This is seen\nin their general ability to perform better\nthan girls in tasks requiring mechanical and\ngeometric skill and visual-spatial imagery.\nThe delayed growth in the left hemisphere\nmay somehow be linked to the young\nmale's greater risk for developmental\ndisorders of language and speech, stuttering\nand allergies. The corpus callosum, which\nallows communication between the\nhemispheres is 23 percent wider in females\nthan in males (Gorman, 1992).\n\nAlso this paragraph: Females generally\nspeak earlier than boys, learn foreign\nlanguages more easily, and outperform\nmales in tests of verbal fluency. They also\noutperform males from an early age on\ntasks requiring rapid sequential movements\nand exhibit better penmanship than boys of\nthe same age.\n\nThe differences in gender brain development at a younger age may explain these differences in handwriting. The left side of the brain develops earlier in females than males and the right side of the brain develops earlier in males than females (according to this author's article). The left side is responsible for linguistic consciousness, sequential language, verbal thoughts and memory, reading, and writing. The right side is responsible for visual, spatial, environmental awareness, emotional speech, and social. Thus, it could be hypothesized that since early female brains are better at processing language and writing, they may be more able to produce similarly the letter structures they are taught from overwhelmingly female teachers. However there are always exceptions and outside environmental factors. But this is something you could start with, looking at the differences in female/male brain development.",
"This might be [related](_URL_0_)\n\nFrom a Japanese study on how the \"cute writing\" was developed by girls in the 1970's (mostly used as common handwriting now in adverts and such)",
"Here's the result of my research through some journals.\n\n**Does handwriting actually reflect gender?**\n\nYes, accurate determination between 63% and 86% of the time (i.e. significantly better than random) and not limited to Latin script Europeans either. (sources:\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_)\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nHowever…\n\nThe causes are certainly not clear. There have been a few studies that have attempted to find biological explanations but they are not totally compelling.\n\n**Is it related to hormones and brain development in-utero?**\n\nConceivably. Although this study itself seems to lack robustness and is based on \"digit ratios\" (which I would have thought would be a confounding factor to something you do with your hands). _URL_2_\n\n**Are the differences due to handwriting pressure (i.e. strength/grip)?**\n\nA correlation with handwriting untidiness but not necessarily other gender differences. This study is from 1959 but is still more compelling than the hormone study. _URL_5_\n\nAnnoyingly, I could not find a study which analyzed whether boys and girls simply had different social pressures to make their handwriting look certain ways. I would like to see this because I think it's a relevant potential cause to investigate. There are lots of studies on whether handwriting, including perceived gender in handwriting, influences examiners (it does) but much less on the causes of the gender differences.\n\nAs a follow up though… the field of graphology (attempting to determine traits of personality from handwriting) is scientifically regarded as worthless:\n\n_URL_4_\n\nIf you're simply web searching for gender differences in handwriting you need to be very careful because many of the results are graphology derived and therefore not considered scientifically accurate.",
"Sociology/Psych major here with a course or two in cognitive linguistics (so not really layman speculation, more relatively-knowledgeable-but not-expert speculation). \n\nIt appears to be a learned behavior through social pressures, similar to any dichotomy between genders, really, such as the way girls/boys dress, use inflections, or decorate their rooms. It so happens that boys are not encouraged to pursue 'cute' handwriting as much as girls are, whether through their peers or just through general social pressures. I highly doubt there is any differential brain chem/structure that leads to this, as with many socially learned actions. ",
"I'm certainly no expert, but I think it would be a social or psychological thing, rather than a biological one. \n\nI'm really baffled by this subject because my younger sister has typical \"girly\" writing but mine (also female here) is certainly \"male looking\". \n\nI'm having trouble finding really relevant articles in the searches I did, but I did find this:\n\nSappington, J., & Money, M. (2003). Sex, Gender Role, Attribution of Pathology, and Handwriting Tidiness. Perceptual And Motor Skills, 97(2), 671-674.\n -States that men generally have less tidy writing than women: \n\n\"Masculine Gender Role predicted sloppy penmanship and Feminine Gender Role predicted tidy writing, independent of the writers' biological sex.\"\n \nPerhaps mine looks that way because I'm generally disorganized whereas my sister is the opposite? Alternately, she was quite popular in school as kids and I definitely wasn't. \n\nI'm curious what an expert would say is the more likely culprit to my chicken-scratch.\n",
"**Hypothesis 1:** Women develop fine motor skills earlier than men, meaning that they learn to write letters more neatly than their male counterparts (since penmanship is taught at a young age, prior to men catching up developmentally). Even once men develop, they have already learned to write in ways that are not neat and the practice has been engrained.\n\n**Evidence:** I did some brief research, and found evidence that even adult women may have better fine motor skills than adult men. There is evidence to suggest that they are better at assembling objects from small parts while being timed. This would seem to translate to the question of penmanship. I believe there is also evidence of women developing this ability earlier than men, but was not able to find where I read it in my search.\n\n**Hypothesis 2:** Women write more neatly because they are conforming to gender norms.\n\n**Evidence:** This hypothesis seems farfetched until you read [this study](_URL_0_) (also the source for the earlier evidence) where a \"substantial\" correlation is found between how neat the penmanship is and how much women act out stereotypical feminine gender roles. Similarly, the neatness of males' handwriting deteriorated in proportion to how strongly they adhered to the performance of masculine gender roles. To me, that seems like good evidence that there is a strong social element playing a role in differences in handwriting between the sexes.\n\nNote that these hypotheses are not contradictory but, rather, complement each other and could go a long way towards explaining sex differences in penmanship.",
"One thing to consider too it how much our penmanship can vary from a single person. I write differently in different circumstances and when I am writing to do certain things. And even still when I write in the same \"register\" there is further variability, such as in a notebook from one of my classes, which could be written at the same time of day in the same situation with the same pen and situated in the same space, and yet no two days of notes have a consistent stylization. There are perhaps general continuities, but the nuanced variation is also immediately clear. ",
"From my Developmental Psychology textbook:\n\n\"Sex differences in motor skills extend into middle childhood\nand, in some instances, become more pronounced. **Girls have\nan edge in fine-motor skills of handwriting and drawing** and in\ngross-motor capacities that depend on balance and agility, such\nas hopping and skipping. But boys outperform girls on all other\ngross-motor skills and, in throwing and kicking, the gender gap\nis large (Cratty, 1986; Haywood & Getchell, 2005).\"\n\nI know it's not real in depth as to the why girls have better fine motor skills but yeah....It does go on to say that boys advantage at gross motor skills is not all that attributable to their increased muscle mass but has more to do with the fact that boys are pushed to be more successful in athletics. While it doesn't say this I could imagine that girls are probably encouraged to be neater and things like writing and drawing are probably enforced more as acceptable girl activities and so they would get better at them and develop nicer handwriting. My 2 cents.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.springerlink.com/content/vglw26pq238knu34/"
],
[
"http://www.kinsellaresearch.com/new/Cuties%20in%20Japan.pdf"
],
[
"http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/18/5/705/",
"http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ439950&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ439950",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905000528",
"http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.2003.97.2.671",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1996.tb00062.x/abstract",
"http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20154148"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.2003.97.2.671"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jnfs2
|
How did they color comics/animations before computers?
|
How were comics like Tintin colourized and mass produced before things like photoshop? And how where disney animations made and colorized?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jnfs2/how_did_they_color_comicsanimations_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbgpm3e"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"\"By hand\", a snarky person would say. On a serious note though, I can probably give some insight on the process for animated films - I do digital animation and 3D modeling semi-professionally and have a keen interest in how that came to be.\n\nThe most basic idea behind that kind of animation is that you have a series of (transparent) plates on which you draw the single frames of a character walking, effects or the likes. You literally had glass you painted on (though it was relatively quickly replaced by plastic sheets). Each painting looks similar to the previous and next, with only miniscule change to create the illusion of motion - the same idea behind the flick book (or 'thumb cinema', if you would translate the german word of *Daumenkino* literally).\n\nOnce you had finished drawing and painting on the plates, you'd compose them together on top of a background plate (usually non-transparent), e.g. layering the plates on top of each other, and then expose actual film to the composed image. Then you removed the plates, put on the next frame, et cetera until you had finished photographing your entire movie, frame by frame. From then on, it is basically the same as with live action film when it comes to duplication and distribution, as it's the same material.\n\nThe thing to know about animated films in the pre-digital era is that they were incredibly labour-intensive to make. Each frame, basically, had to be drawn by hand. For a 90 minute animated feature at the currently-common 24 frames per second that would mean a staggering 129600 single frames to be drawn and coloured! Nowadays we have computer algorithms to interpolate between keyframes, so it has gotten incredibly much easier to animate. Back then, the lead guys would paint the keyframes, and then essentially pass on two frames to another guy who would 'fill the gap' between two states. \n\nOne way to reduce the workload right then and there was to reduce the framerate of the final product: Instead of the 24fps common with regular film they'd animate at 12fps to 16fps, essentially halving the amount of frames needed to be drawn. This is evident in the 'choppiness' you witness in a lot of older animated features and cartoons.\n\nYou'll also note that the coloring of any truly animated stuff (characters) and the backgrounds would often vary wildly; Backgrounds could be incredibly detailed and rich as they usually didn't move all that much between frames (and usually if they did, the background plate was significantly larger than the area photographed, and was moved physically). Characters on the other hand were rarely shaded - they often had 'flat' colours, especially as it was (and is) hard to keep a consistent shading overall. It was easier and less labour-intensive to simply fill the outlines with a flat color.\n\nThey also recycled a whole lot of animation between films -[ Snow White, Robin Hood, The Jungle Book are three examples.](_URL_0_) \n\nAnother trick to reduce the workload, especially important for the cartoons of the 50s and 60s, was the 'necktie' (not an actual name, mind you). Check out cartoons from back then - Flintstones, Yogi Bear, The Jetsons. What do they all have in common? A lot of the times, especially when characters are talking, they stand perfectly still, and just the head moves slightly. And in a lot of those designs you have also elaborate neckpieces - all in an effort to conceal the neck and not having to animate that. That's the reason Yogi Bear wears a tie.\n\nHope this gives you some insight. I'd be happy if people would add to my explanation or correct any possible mistakes I might've made - it's admittedly been a while since I had to dust off that knowledge. :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWKo5veKjVU"
]
] |
|
aglpp0
|
Is the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum still hold true in the face of expansion of the Universe?
|
For example, angular momentum for the Earth-Sun system is L = r\*m\*v (assuming Sun's centre as reference). Universe's expansion will cause r to change year over year. So how does angular momentum L remain conserved?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/aglpp0/is_the_law_of_conservation_of_angular_momentum/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee71zy8"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Conservation of angular momentum would only be violated if our cosmological models were anisotropic (i.e. had a special \"angle\" baked into them). This is the result of a more general and deep connection in physics between symmetries and conserved quantities (angular momentum conservation comes from \"no special angles\", linear momentum conservation comes from \"no special places\" and energy conservation comes from \"no special times\", which is actually violated in cosmological models, with the Big Bang be a special \"baked in\" time).\n\nAs far as we know, the universe is indeed isotropic (no special angles) and thus angular momentum is conserved.\n\nEDIT: Also, sorry, just another point:\n\n > Universe's expansion will cause r to change year over year.\n\nThis is not true. (Sufficiently) bound systems are not pulled apart by expansion. The Sun isn't going anywhere."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.