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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2iqbiq
|
How is one pepper/chilli variant spicier than another?
|
What makes a habanero different from ghost peppers? Do they have variant capsaicin that binds to a different sort of receptor that generates more "heat" sensation? Or do they just have excessive capsaicin that binds to as many complementary receptors as possible? If the latter is true then would the heat of chillis have a limit?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2iqbiq/how_is_one_pepperchilli_variant_spicier_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl4mo1z"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The concentration of capsaicin determines how spicy something is. There are also capsaicin analogs in nature that can activate the TRPV1 receptors (that are responsible for capsaicin binding) more strongly than capsaicin does. However, for the differences between peppers, the answer is capsaicin concentration.\n\nYou can refer to this wikipedia article for more information on what I mentioned: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoville_scale"
]
] |
|
1n2o0b
|
If we used Hydrogen, extracted from water, as an alternative fuel source, would we eventually run out of water?
|
(If this is the wrong subreddit, please let me know.)
So as far as I understand, water is a non-replenishable resource. The reason we don't run out, is because most water is eventually recycled into nature. I also know that there are engines which extract the Hydrogen from water and use it as a fuel. I believe people run up to as much as 80% water, 20% gas. So, if that is the case, then the hydrogen is burned and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere. Well, say you use 8 gallons or water, isn't that 8 gallons gone for good? Would we eventually run out of water?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1n2o0b/if_we_used_hydrogen_extracted_from_water_as_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccezvdf",
"ccgn4om"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Using hydrogen as a fuel source means that it must undergo a combustion reaction in order to release that energy. Hydrogen is not energy in itself but rather is an \"energy carrier.\" The hydrogen H2 must react with oxygen O2 in order to release energy to be used. The product of said reaction is water.\n\n2H2 + O2 -- > 2H2O\n\nSo, all the hydrogen we extract from water and then use for combustion reactions would form water again.",
" > I also know that there are engines which extract the Hydrogen from water and use it as a fuel.\n\nDo you have any references for this?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3gsnk4
|
why didn't the us seize cuba during the cuban missile crisis?
|
Considering what they did with Vietnam I don't doubt their ability to mobilize large numbers of troops, and if they simply blockaded the island during their assault it would seem like Russia wouldn't have found until the US wanted them to, or at least for a while.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gsnk4/eli5_why_didnt_the_us_seize_cuba_during_the_cuban/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu13jhq",
"cu13mwe"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"That would've almost certainly caused an all out war between the US and the USSR, which would be very very bad due to the whole nuclear threat. Cuba was an ally of the USSR and the invasion would have been an act of war. By making the blockade, there was still a risk but that risk was lowered, as we can see since ultimately the USSR withdrew.",
"I think people underestimate just how close we came to a World War III there. Both sides had itchy trigger fingers. There was really only one way for the world to get out of it alive and that's what they did. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4isjo8
|
Was there a substantive difference between what the Anglo-Saxon gentry ate and what the subsequent Norman gentry ate? If I showed a Norman feast in AD1103 and Anglo-Saxon feast in AD994, could you tell the difference from the food?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4isjo8/was_there_a_substantive_difference_between_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d317r5l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Here's the thing--and I'm not trying to be glib here. We really don't know.\n\nCookbooks really weren't a thing with either culture. We can look at midden heaps to find the remains (and seeds) of various food animals and plants, but that doesn't tell us much on how they were prepared or what they tasted like.\n\nNow, that said, the main foodstuffs seem to be largely the same--locally-grown vegetables with the occasional pork and lots of bread and porridge--but the actual preparation of such could be very, very different.\n\nTo use a wholly modern example, let's look at American chili. That can be anything from minced sirloin cooked in a chili-based sauce to a pile of beans and meat heaped on rice or noodles to a green stew of pork and potatoes.\n\nWe know what grew there, we know what they ate. We don't know exactly how they prepared it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a8tpdb
|
Can an arthropod's exoskeleton repair itself the same (or in a similar) way as a human's endoskeleton?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a8tpdb/can_an_arthropods_exoskeleton_repair_itself_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecep7bv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes, *if* it's over living tissue. But it's not like human skin where it quickly patches itself, any significant damage to an exoskeleton basically means Mr. Bug is going to bleed to death. That's basically half of how lice combs work - They strip the eggs from hair shafts, and it just takes a minor injury to the adults for them to bleed out and die.\n\nKeep in mind that arthropods are largely r-strategists... If an individual dies, it's no big loss to the species."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8er4i4
|
Does a moving Charge get affected by its electric and magnetic field?
|
Usually when solving these types of questions, I will see any number of particles in a system with a point P as a reference point. This P point is used for the direction of a magnetic field (r-hat). The same applies for the electric field.
What about when your point P is a moving charge next to another moving charge? If P is the charge itself, then the electric field formula kq/r^2 will net an infinitely large value as the distance r is 0. The magnetic field won't have an r-hat value for its own magnetic field either because the point P is the charge itself.
This leads me to believe that a moving charge is not affected by its electric and magnetic fields. is this correct for an undergraduate college physics class?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8er4i4/does_a_moving_charge_get_affected_by_its_electric/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxxn5k5"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
" > This leads me to believe that a moving charge is not affected by its electric and magnetic fields. is this correct for an undergraduate college physics class?\n\nYes, to this level of accuracy the charge is not affected by its own fields.\n\nIf you go on to study quantum field theory, you have to renormalize the electron mass (taking electrons as an example) due to “self-interactions”, which you can loosely interpret as the electron interacting with its own electromagnetic field."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2z3xau
|
When were the first crowns with pointed sides worn?
|
I was browsing wikipedia and came across this picture:
_URL_0_
The Sassanid king appears to be wearing a recognizable sort of crown with pointed-sides, similar to generic crowns I commonly see in video games. When did crowns of that sort first come into use?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2z3xau/when_were_the_first_crowns_with_pointed_sides_worn/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpfjo6n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think this image shows a proto-typical crown. The bulb shape you see above and behind is most likely part of the headdress, since other images of Royal Iranian headdresses from this era clearly incorporate it. \n\n[Example](_URL_0_) \n\nTo me the [diadems](_URL_1_) found in Mycenae Greek Royal tombs (circa 16th c. BC) look like proto-typical crowns, but I can't locate a good authenticated contemporary image of one being worn to confirm whether they would have been used as found, or whether other elements would be added. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars#/media/File:Bas_relief_nagsh-e-rostam_al.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/65.126",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/MycenaeDiadems.jpg"
]
] |
|
i2hew
|
How long can a glass of water be sitting out and still be safe to drink?
|
Sometimes I accidentally leave a random glass of water or two around the house (by the bed, near the couch, etc.) If it's been out for less than 24 hours I tend to guzzle it down without a second thought -- but if it's been out much longer than that I tend to throw it away like it's deadly, deadly poison.
I'm curious about unseen bacteria, dust, bugs, etc. that fall into the glass -- undetected during these hours of neglect that might cause a health hazard. Where should one cross the line? Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i2hew/how_long_can_a_glass_of_water_be_sitting_out_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c20cn0s",
"c20cnd2",
"c20ctc2",
"c20cv1c",
"c20d80w",
"c20dd4m",
"c20drz5",
"c20ej6a",
"c20f8cg",
"c20g581",
"c20g8ei",
"c20hfes",
"c20hun4"
],
"score": [
4,
31,
7,
20,
37,
121,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have wondered this, too. I learned in college that black tea, sans sweeteners or milk, can get moldy and quite gross, so now I always wonder about the pot of tea I made earlier in the day... if it's been sitting the counter for a few hours, no problem, pour a cup and microwave it. It it was yesterday... I get skeptical and tend to pour it out even if it looks just fine.\n\nA side note: if you have any house plants, give them that leftover water so it's not just going down the drain!",
"Ooo, and another add-on question: what about if it's in a bottle? I'll sometimes leave a refillable water bottle in my car by mistake, get thirsty days later, and drink it. Is this actually as okay as I'm assuming it is?",
"Not an expert here, but would like to make a point, if it is indeed just normal water sitting in the glass I'd imagine that it will collect small trace amounts of bacteria, skin flakes, mold whatever that is in the air. However because there isn't anything for these things to eat they do not grow in the glass. Thus I'd imagine it's not dangerous at all as long as you have a functioning immune system. \n\nNow if it's cola or juice or milk I'd imagine that the additional food stuffs inside the drink allow other organisms an easy time to grow and expand which is why these drinks quickly become inedible. \n\nSo in my opinion water isn't poison if left out for a day or so but i'd shy away if left out longer than that, however it becomes undrinkable for other reasons, bug dies in it, or dust gets in it or something like that. ",
".... Well, coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I'll put a 32oz Gatorade bottle next to my bed, fill it with water, and drink from it until it's empty. Sometimes weeks later (waking up thirsty). Over time it gets a slight odor to it, but simply rinsing out the bottle and refilling it (no washing, no scalding water) eliminates it.\n\nYou did not grow up in a sterile environment, your body can and will fight off most germs you'll encounter.\n\n--never gets sick, no allergies, nada",
"All of those things will enter your glass, but your level of concern is more based on your own squeamishness than an actual health hazard. I don't have any hard evidence on the level of contamination of the water over time, but its not likely to be a problem. Look at the water, check for floaters, and if you don't see anything, you're safe.",
"In the overwhelmingly majority of cases no threat I would say. Microorganisms require nutrients and trace minerals (which depending on the water source can be in the water) and in appreciable quantities in order to reach a dosage number that could be pathogenic. \n\nFurther it would need to be restricted to oral/respiratory colonizers or acid-resistant enterics or one of the vibrios.\n\nIf you live in a \"western\" country with a hygenic water supply and people aren't sick around you I would say almost no chance. Not many human pathogens are just floating around in the air. If they are they are on a respiratory droplet so would have to come from an infected/carrier person around it. \n\nSome mold could probably do mildly well but I wouldn't think many human pathogens.",
"How much of a factor is exposure to sunlight? I have a terrible habit of going to bed with a bottle of water and leaving them on the windowsill or on the floor next to the bed. The ones that get sun turn green fast and the shaded ones don't. ",
"From what I know from others and my own work with HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography), is that when you are working with water, you need to change out the bottles about once a week to prevent microbes and bacteria from affecting your results. And this is working with some of the purest water you can find on the market. So yes water grows an amazing amount of crap in it, but its no guarantee that it would make you sick. and also for your info almost any contaminants from growth in water are likely to be visible from the instruments results, to a trained chromatographer.",
"Can we get a moderator in here to clean up all these crap posts please?",
"I have this same question, but with bong water. Sometimes I leave the water in for a couple of weeks, and I wonder if I'm inhaling mold spores.",
"what you should worry about is dust settling in the water. which is gross, and you can do some experiments to see exactly when it becomes noticeable. (i usually see it in water a week old or so, can stir the water up and see chunks of muddy dust spin around from what WAS clean water)",
"My room is really dusty so water let out becomes horrible after about 3 or 4 days",
"That depends on how many diseased birds you have flying around your house and shitting everywhere.\n\nYour water is fine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
q9pjm
|
credit card interest calculations
|
I can never find good explanations for how it works. Basically, I'm just going to use an example as it seems easiest to explain my question.
I have a balance of $250 on my credit card on February 26. On February 27, I pay this off. Now my credit card is back to 0 balance. I then put a $500 charge on it on February 28.
Does this $500 start collecting interest right away if I don't pay it off before March 1st? Should you wait until the start of a month to make a big purchase if you don't expect to pay it off right away (30 days before interest)? Or is the interest held off for 30 days from the date of purchase of each specific item?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q9pjm/eli5_credit_card_interest_calculations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3vuomk",
"c3vvwm0"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on your billing cycle.\n\nThere are a couple things to keep in mind: each bill you receive will contain charges you made between two dates, usually a month apart. This is your billing cycle. If a charge is between those two dates, payment is due on it. If it's a day later, it'll be in your next billing cycle and payment isn't due yet.\n\nYour payment due date is usually a couple weeks later than the end of your billing cycle. This is sometimes called your \"grace period\" and gives you time to submit payment, and the CC company time to process and verify it. Even though you may have made charges between the end of your billing cycle and your payment due date, those new charges won't be due until your next bill.\n\nInterest should not accrue on credit card purchases until after the first payment is due. Therefore, it really shouldn't matter when in your billing cycle you make the purchase if you plan to pay it off in full when you receive the bill. If you pay less than the full outstanding balance (ie the 'minimum payment') on your account, you will accrue interest on the unpaid amount only. Whether this accrues from the date the purchase was made may depend on the terms of your specific credit card.\n\nUsing your example, if the end of your billing cycle was the 27th or earlier, the $500 would not appear on your bill, would not be due for about another month and would not accrue interest until that time.\n",
"Credit cards have a grace period...in the US, it must be at least 21 days, but is often 25 or 30 days.\n\nThis is the amount of time between the close of your billing cycle and when your payment is due. So let's say your billing cycle ends on the 15^th of every month. If you bought something on the March 16^th, the billing cycle would end April 15^th, and you would have until May 6^th or so to pay before interest is accrued.\n\n**But be careful!** If you wait until May 7^th, instead of just paying 1 day's interest, you will retroactively pay interest *every* day back to March 16^th ...nearly two months worth!\n\nSo waiting until the day after your billing cycle will buy you some time to pay off as much as the purchase as you can, but you will still pay interest from the whole period for the parts you didn't pay off.\n\nEDIT: added emphasis"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1s76br
|
if the temperature is 37 degrees fahrenheit but the weather channel states "feels like 26 degrees" will water freeze?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s76br/eli5_if_the_temperature_is_37_degrees_fahrenheit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdukigx",
"cdulzdk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"uh i'm celcius but water freezes at 32 F i think? No it wont. The wind blowing makes it feel colder, it actually isnt any colder tho. \n\nTry this: lick a small part or your arm and then blow on it. the faster you blow on it, the colder it feels. same sorta thing outside",
"The \"feels like\" is directly related to the wind (aka Wind Chill), when they state this \"feels like\" temperature. The wind blowing on the moist skin-bag that is you, will cool you off faster (in hot or cold temps). You just notice it in a more painful way when the temps are cold.\n\nThe wind-chill has no effect on water (and in fact, wind can cause things like lakes to take longer to freeze if they're churning up the water and making waves, even at freezing temps). As an example, the lake I live on had nearly a week of below freezing temps, but lots of wind. It stayed open - as soon as the wind died down, it froze over. That all has to do with the motion of the water, preventing the freeze-over."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5vawkm
|
why is it easier to follow a line when cutting something?
|
Let's use a piece of wood as an example. Cutting as straight as possible will be jagged and uneven. But if you draw a line with a ruler, and cut along the line it's perfect. Another thing that I was wondering about that's basically the same idea is why is it so hard to draw a perfect circle?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vawkm/eli5_why_is_it_easier_to_follow_a_line_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de0krzv",
"de0kunu",
"de0mgva"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I assume it's to do with the fact that you're almost actually inside the material instead of on top of it, meaning there's sort of a guideline, not sure of the physics of it though, even then I can't cut a straight line to save my live but that's just me",
"A drawn line is just a visual reference. It makes it easy to check if your line is still straight without using complex visualisation. It's easier to draw a line once and simply compare rather than continually imagine a line whilst trying to cut something.\n\nDrawing perfect circles is difficult because the human body doesn't really have many joints naturally arranged to allow our hands to move in a perfect circle. If our wrist was a ball and socket, maybe it'd be easier - but it's not. Further, our muscles aren't arranged to move optimally for circles - they're arranged for things like picking stuff up and using tools and stabbing deer. If you had to design an instrument to draw a circle, it wouldn't look a lot like the human body.",
"For cutting in a straight line, I'd say the reason why a line helps is because you've made the line with something that actually is straight. The line is a guide or reference for your eye to follow. If there is no reference, however, your eye probably starts to pick out grain patterns to help as references to try and keep the line straight. As you know, this doesn't work. Also, I'd suggest that because of the way your arm covers up what has been cut, it is difficult to use the rest of your cutting as reference. Even then, what appears “straight” can quite often not be straight due to geometric illusions and so on.\n\nBasically, without a ruled line, we begin trying to fill in the gaps to provide enough information to judge a straight line, none of which actually help because this information just isn't there or available in a useful way. Also, the tools you use will affect the straightness.\n\nAs for drawing a circle, this is completely different. A perfect circle is very well defined: Every point on the perimeter must be exactly the same distance from the centre of the circle (otherwise you have an ellipse or other unsightly round shape). Unfortunately for us, the physiological workings of hand movement make it impossible to actually construct a circle without the assistance of tools. (There is a legendary case of some artist actually producing a circle, free hand, but that's with a fairly thick brush. I'd challenge anyone to do so with a pen or pencil with a circle at least as big as your fist. No, I didn't think so.)\n\nJust place your finger on a table and pay close attention to what happens in your forearm and shoulder as you trace a circle. The number of muscles involved, all playing pass-the-parcel with your hand's movement is incredible. The fact that we can produce rough ellipses without help is testament enough to our dexterity but it doesn't go much further. Tremors, shakes and delays (in muscle firing, nervous impulses, etc.) will all add lumps to the circle and these generally can't be removed. That's just the way squishy biological systems work…\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3tuapp
|
why is leather still such a popular luxury item for things like upholstery?
|
Hasn't science created better fabrics by now? Is it really luxurious considering it isn't rare with hundreds of thousands of cows being slaughtered daily?
I was watching some show where the guy was showing a $20 million Leer jet and he kept going on about the leather. You have this amazing piece of technology that has only been available for 50 years and you're excited about the pieces of dead cow skin that has been used for thousands of years.
I eat meat and using up the leftover skin makes economical sense, but I don't get why it's the premier fabric of luxury.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tuapp/eli5_why_is_leather_still_such_a_popular_luxury/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx98fzn",
"cx99nak",
"cx9b8gu",
"cx9n5fh",
"cx9o5tn",
"cx9phj7",
"cx9qrhd",
"cx9ubfn"
],
"score": [
44,
11,
12,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Leather is extremely durable, and a lot of people find the look, feel, and smell of it pleasant. It's been in continual use for thousands of years because it's just a great material. And the synthetic materials you mentioned are all petroleum derivatives.",
"Just to add to the other answers, leather becomes softer with age. So unlike having a cloth couch, a leather couch will become more enjoyable to sit on as time goes by.",
"Its expensive not because its rare but because its simply more difficult to process when compared to fabric. Science hasn't created anything yet that trumps the feel and durability of it. ",
"The chemical makeup and structure of leather is an incredibly complicated organic thing, and it has all kinds of good qualities as a result: porosity, waterproofing, softness, heat transfer, stain resistance etc etc. It got that way through millions of years of evolution. If you could make a plastic which had all those qualities (cheaply) you'd be a billionaire. Currently we take advantage of those millions of years of evolution by growing animals and then using their skins because it's way cheaper than trying to synthesize it.",
"A bit tangential, but I can't fucking stand leather. Very cold to sit on in the winter, very sticky and gross in the summer. Don't see the appeal. When I bought my car, pretty much my only condition was that the seats weren't leather... ",
"You can't beat leather when it's used for boots/shoes. They last forever if you take care of them. ",
"Leather looks good, feels good, smells good. It's the absolute best \"fabric\" for pet owners. Good quality leather can last for decades. No, it's not rare, but nothing beats quality leather for durability and timeless appeal.",
"A lot of work and expertise goes in to tanning and working with leather, which is a major factor in its price and \"luxuriousness\" of it. There's really nothing man-made that beats it for weather resistance, warmth, durability, and looks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2fd2cm
|
how it can be economical for there to be two starbucks within 0.1 miles of each other
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fd2cm/eli5_how_it_can_be_economical_for_there_to_be_two/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck820lh",
"ck82207",
"ck8249t",
"ck82920",
"ck82d5k",
"ck82rg1",
"ck831ip",
"ck87mrf"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
6,
2,
2,
30,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The corporation believes the market (area) can handle that many stores, so they allow another to be built.",
"Capacity. A starbucks can only service so many people. Many will walk past if the line is too long. With two nearby each other the demand is split somehow between the two and more people are serviced.",
"It is sometimes cheaper to rent a second location than to expand the first, especially when the business has a cookie-cutter model.",
"One store in the location. 100 people want coffee, so they wait in line. The store can only serve 50, so 50 of them leave. They only get half the money people want to give them. They decide to open a second store a few stores over. Now, 100 people want coffee, each store gets 50 people. All the money is now Starbucks.",
"Perhaps one of them was a competitor who went out of business. Good Guy Starbucks fills it with one of their own stores to prevent another coffee shop from opening and going out of business there.",
" 2 Starbucks > 1 Starbucks + 1 competitor.",
"1. stores have a finite capacity. At some length of line people will go somewhere else. If you're starbucks you want that somewhere else to still be you. It's often easier to create a new store than the increase the capacity of an existing store.\n\n2. You fend of competition. If you're another coffee company the traffic to starbucks validates the market and you can then decide that you can create a superior product. Even if it's not superior it's going to capture some of the dollars that starbucks would otherwise be getting. A second store can be a defensive (or even offensive) competitive strategy.",
"Well in NYC people want to pickup coffee on their way to/from work, they don't want to go out of their way a few blocks and then backtrack for a cup of coffee. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3i9oey
|
What are the oldest institutions (besides governments or churches) that are still active today?
|
It's pretty amazing that Oxford University has been around since c. 1096 CE and is still fully operational. What other institutions/establishments (that aren't governments or churches) have been up and running for hundreds and hundreds of years?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3i9oey/what_are_the_oldest_institutions_besides/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuekogu",
"cuemmy2",
"cueo1r9",
"cuf4on3"
],
"score": [
23,
14,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The Order of the Knights of St. John, (also known as “The Knights of St. John”, “The Knights Hospitallers”, “The Knights of Rhodes”, “The Knights of Malta”, “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta”) were founded in 1099 as a religious and military order in Jerusalem, which also operated a hospital. They defended the Holy Land during the Crusader era, and then defended Cyprus, Rhodes, and Malta (successively) against the Ottomans.\n\nThey still exist as an institution today, headquartered in Rome. They are widely recognized as a Sovereign power, and mainly run hospitals around the world.\n\nThe University of Karueein was founded in 859 in Fez, Morocco, and is the oldest university still in existence in the world.\n\nThe University of Bologna in Italy, founded in 1088 is the oldest university in Europe.\n\nKongo Gumi Co. Ltd., a construction company in Japan, was founded in 578, and has been in business ever since, building the Shitennoji Temple and Osaka Castle, among many other buildings.\n",
"I can think of a few alcoholic brands and companies that have been going for centuries. \n\nIn Italy, the oldest winery is Barone Ricasoli's, which dates back to the 12th century. Then, the Frescobaldi family used to be a big name in banking in the middle ages, they started a winery in 1308 called Frescobaldi too, which is still running today. Then, of course, there's the legendary Antinori, one of Italy's finest wines, which dates back to 1385 and is still making outstanding wine today.\n\nIn Belgium, a lot of breweries are very old. Affligem is the oldest, I think, founded in 1074 (it's also a Benedictine monastery, some of Belgium's finest beers are made in monasteries). Grimbergen brewery, also a monastery beer, dates back to 1128. But it's not just some obscure brands that are very old: Stella Artois brewery dates back to 1366. They are based in Leuven, not far from the university which is equally old (founded in 1425), proving that beer and students are inseparable throughout the ages.\n\nIn France, Chateau de Goulaine dates back to the year 1000, which is the oldest winery in France. The oldest cognac is Frapin, which dates back to 1270. The oldest champagne is Gosset, which dates back to the 16th century. \n\nIn Germany, I know the Furstenberg brewery dates back to 1283. That's the only one I know, but many other breweries would certainly date back to the middle ages.\n\nedit: fixed Leuven's founding year...",
"The Keiunkan in Japan is the oldest hotel in continuous operation, having been founded in 705 AD ",
"Obviously this won't hold a candle to any of the institutions in Europe and Asia that have been operating much, much, longer, but the Hudson's Bay Company has been around since 1670. It started as a fur-trading company but now owns and operates several retail brands, including Lord & Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue.\n\nAlso their blankets are cool."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jnvn2
|
I watched a video recently of a gun being fired underwater and there was what seemed like a tunnel of air behind the bullet and I was wondering if anyone could explain to me what was going on?
|
_URL_0_
I thought that maybe it was a vacuum?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jnvn2/i_watched_a_video_recently_of_a_gun_being_fired/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbgiw7l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is called Supercavitation and you can read about it [here](_URL_0_). The linked article is probably more thorough than what I could write here."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=502KryEguA0"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation"
]
] |
|
69qpla
|
Why do marble busks of roman emperors have blank eyes?
|
I've noticed that the eyes on statues of roman emperors are often completely blank with no detail. It doesn't seem like this is because it would be too difficult to add detail as the statues are otherwise amazingly detailed so what's the reason?
Some examples:
[Images](_URL_0_)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/69qpla/why_do_marble_busks_of_roman_emperors_have_blank/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh8v4le"
],
"score": [
43
],
"text": [
"The vast majority of ancient statuary looks incomplete because it is. The missing details used to be painted on. Given a millennia or two and the paints have largely been stripped away, sometimes intentionally by well meaning curators and the like who thought the remaining patina was simply weathering. \n\nWe tend to think of Greek and Roman statuary as being blank white marble like [this bust of Caligula](_URL_0_) instead when it was first completed it would have looked something more like [this reconstruction](_URL_3_). \n\nWe know that the ancients painted their statues because they talked about it such as this line from Euripides, *Helen of Troy*, \"My life and fortunes are a monstrosity, partly because of Hera, partly because of my beauty. If only I could shed my beauty and assume an uglier aspect the way you would wipe color off a statue.\" Or this comment from Pliny , “When asked which of his works in marble he liked the most, Praxiteles used to say: ‘Those to which Nikias has set his hand’—so highly did he esteem his coloring of the surface.”\n\nWe can also make some guesses at what the paint might have looked like due to UV, IR, and x-Ray spectrography. This UV photo of a [helmeted statue](_URL_2_) shows what these statues look like in alternative wavelengths. A lot of the paints left traces that aren't visible to our eyes, suggesting what the painted pieces might have looked like, and mostly they were apparently very garish to our modern sensibilities. Like this [greek statue of a Persian archer](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=roman+emperors+busk&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1tYivzd3TAhWMLsAKHfYiBroQ_AUICSgB&biw=320&bih=460"
] |
[
[
"http://archive.archaeology.org/image.php?page=0801/trenches/jpegs/caligula2.jpg",
"https://jaxinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gods-in-color-archer.jpg",
"https://jaxinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gods-in-color-helmet.jpg",
"http://archive.archaeology.org/image.php?page=0801/trenches/jpegs/caligula1.jpg"
]
] |
|
2ar3pf
|
Is it possible to build an underwater speaker that compensates for the sound disortion due to the water?
|
Summertime and all, I was floating in a pool and thought summer thoughts.
So I know that sound gets distorted underwater and stuff. But would it be possible to build a speaker that compensates for said distortion so that you could float about in a pool (with your ears below the surface) while listening to sweet loca music?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ar3pf/is_it_possible_to_build_an_underwater_speaker/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciy2sly",
"ciy8o3h",
"ciyciwv"
],
"score": [
74,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"As mentioned before, underwater speakers already exist. They mainly deal with the issue of water dulling our ability to perceive audible vibrations. \n\nThe frequency of a sound wave only depends on the original wave and since frequency determines the note we hear, underwater speakers don't have to adjust the frequency. Of course the timbre - this is the quality or characteristic of a sound wave, or what allows you to distinguish between a trumpet and a violin - will be distorted. And you may lose stereophonic sound, or the ability to hear in stereo, under water. \n\nAlso the sound will be incredibly dull since the bones in our inner ear that we normally use to hear with are not vibrated as effectively. The way we hear underwater is primarily through vibrations of the skull. Source: _URL_0_ It is not possible for underwater speakers to change the way we perceive sound underwater. But they can produce louder waves to compensate for the vibrational loss. ",
" > sound gets distorted underwater\n\nThe reason sound gets distorted is when sound waves transfer from one medium to another. If you are underwater and hear speakers from above water, they sound distorted because you are hearing sound waves moving through water that have been caused by sound waves in the air interacting with the surface of the water, where a lot of the clarity and amplitude of the wave will be lost.\n\nBut if you made a speaker that created these sounds waves in the water medium, it should have no problem working just fine. Obviously, there are many complications, such as having the electronic components underwater and I'm sure the signal would need to be modified slightly, as well as having a speaker that actually creates the sound waves. If you meant having an above-water speaker that compensates for distortion, most likely not. From reading other comments, it seems that these underwater speakers do in fact exist and work well.\n\nHope that helped your understanding! Let me know if that's unclear in any way",
"Yes, it is possible. \n\nBut I'm surprised nobody's mentioned one of the main engineering considerations yet: that is, the dimensions and characteristics of the speaker.\n\nIn air, loudspeakers are designed to have a neutral sound. This is done by balancing the resonance and damping characteristics of the air, the loudspeaker driver, the cabinet, and (to a lesser extent) the amplifier. All these have particular frequencies they love vibrating at (resonant), and others they're more reluctant to vibrate at (damping). This is often vividly seen as an impedance / frequency graph: [This is one](_URL_0_) of a typical loudspeaker driver. Note the spike at one particular frequency. Loudspeakers are carefully constructed to negate the effect of the resonant peaks of their drivers. \n\nA standard loudspeaker has to move air, which is a far looser, lighter medium than water, which is heavier and doesn't easily compress. This will mean the drivers in an underwater loudspeaker will have a different resonance and damping frequencies - the graph above would be very different for the driver in air.\n\nThis should seem logical if you try this: move your arm one metre back and forth as quickly as possible above the water. Now try and do move your arm one metre back and forth underwater, using the same amount of effort - note how the speed is different?\n\nThis is similar to the differences a speaker will encounter. \n\nSo you would need to adapt your calculations to take into account the mass/acoustic impedance of the water, rather than air. Similarly, the speed of sound differences mean that the sound will bounce around differently inside the loudspeaker cabinet, so its dimensions will need to be recalculated, to make sure it balances the loudspeaker driver.\n\n[Incidentally, a similar difference happens when going from water to your ear. Your ear is designed to efficiently be vibrated by signals from the air, not from water. This could, to an extent, be compensated for by means of pre-processing the signal before it is sent to the speakers.] "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sound.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/images/appnotes/3879/3879Fig06.gif"
]
] |
|
20g6xm
|
why doesn't trader joes have sales?
|
They're the only grocery store I've ever seen that does not have sales.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20g6xm/eli5_why_doesnt_trader_joes_have_sales/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg2x39j",
"cg2y7ra",
"cg346uo"
],
"score": [
8,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't need them, people don't go there because it's cheap.",
"You do sales for two primary reasons: get people into the store, or get rid of excess inventory.\n\nTrader Joe's has a nearly cult-like following...they don't need sales to get people in the store (they barely advertise anyway so having a sale wouldn't help much). \n\nThey also have only about 1/10th the number of unique items for a typical grocery store and have a much lower stock of perishable inventory. This combination means they're much less likely to be overstocked on anything, so they don't need sales to get rid of excess. ",
"They always have sales on produce at my local trader joes"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4t38gj
|
what is the difference between a mood and an emotion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4t38gj/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_mood_and_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5e9tkd",
"d5e9ysv"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Well we know what emotions are right? Happy, sad, angry, playful, etc. \n\n\nA mood is basically a state of being predisposed towards a certain emotion. In a \"bad mood\" would mean temporarily predisposed towards feeling emotions generally considered bad, such as angry or sad. \n\n\nWhat causes the predisposition is a combination of factors that have affected the individual's state of mind. These can be a wide variety of things such as how much sleep they got, are they hungry, what has recently happened to them, what things has their mind been focused on, what other stressors are affecting them and how much/little stress relief have they had, and so on.",
"Mood is a theme; emotion is a scene.\n\nMoods tend to have a longer arc in which context is more important, whereas emotions can be spontaneous and not necessarily having a precedent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3v3kxj
|
why a man's height is a measure of his attractiveness to women?
|
Dating apps have lead me to believe height is the most important thing when women decide whether a man is attractive or not, even over facial features, weight, profession etc. Why is that? As a straight male, I don't think a woman's height normally crosses my mind unless she is a giant or a midget.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v3kxj/eli5_why_a_mans_height_is_a_measure_of_his/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxk2193",
"cxk2z8v"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"That's online dating for you -- the things that are visible and quantifiable are disproportionately important on there. It's the tyranny of \"what can be measured\", and height is a lot easier to measure and filter based on than \"sense of humor\" or \"kindness to animals\". \n\nBut look at the not-tall male hotties out there. Tom Cruise, RDJ, and Josh Hutcherson are all 5'7\". Daniel Radcliffe is 5'5\". Height isn't everything.",
"It’s beauty standards imposed by society. The real question is, how did this come about? It’s probably biological, if in evolution a taller man offered benefits to the survival of a woman and their children. \n\nFun fact: if you want to sell sperm, you have to meet height requirements because nobody’s buyin’ from shorties! Not a market for it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2uqz9l
|
An element more ferromagnetic than iron?
|
I understand that ferromagnetism at the atomic scale comes from unpaired electrons that can spontaneously align in the same direction.
By our current understanding, is it possible, even for a nanosecond, to create an element more ferromagnetic than iron?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2uqz9l/an_element_more_ferromagnetic_than_iron/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cobih2s"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Ferromagnetism in pure elemental metals is actually pretty uncommon. As far as I'm aware, the only pure elements which are ferromagnetic are iron, nickel, cobalt, gadolinium and dysprosium. (There may be more that are not ferromagnetic at room temperature but I can't think of them right now.)\n\nIn order for a pure metal to be ferromagnetic it must have unpaired electrons (in d or f orbitals) and its extended electronic structure must satisfy the [Stoner Criterion](_URL_0_).\n\n\nIt isn't strictly impossible for an undiscovered element to have a higher magnetization at room temperature but this is a very difficult thing to predict. As you increase the size of elements prediction of their electronic structures becomes more and more difficult and in addition to that predicting the properties of materials with unpaired electrons is hard alone.\n\nIf you aren't as concerned about the material being a pure element, sure! We have lots of magnets with a higher magnetization than iron, most of which are rare-earth magnets."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_criterion"
]
] |
|
smiu5
|
how does hyper-threading work and how is it better?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/smiu5/how_does_hyperthreading_work_and_how_is_it_better/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4f783c",
"c4f97g6",
"c4fa23y",
"c4ff0fy",
"c4ffl97",
"c4ffu2j",
"c4fidsr"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
5,
8,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A processor can have multiple physical cores. Each core can process 1 instruction at a time. The core receives the instruction, schedules it, and then executes it. \n\nHyperthreading allows the scheduling to be a bit more efficient. The core can now receive two instructions at once. It will still execute only one at a time, but the other instruction is 'ready' faster.\n\nThe analogy given is an assembly line worker who is working filling up the bag of chips. But now you give the worker two assembly lines. \n\nSo to the operating system, my i7 2600K processor looks like it has 8 cores. But actually, it has 8 logical cores because there are 4 physical cores and each core can take two instructions at once. The OS may send instructions to Core3 and Core4, but they can both end up at PhysicalCore2. ",
"Hyper-threading is basically some number of threads (usually two, although researchers have played with other numbers) sharing a single physical processor. I can't come up with any good ELI5 analogies so this will get a little dense, but I'll try to keep it high level. \n\nThe important bits of the processor can be thought of as an input, a bunch of little calculators, and an output. The stuff that comes in through the input doesn't always have to be done in order, as long as it comes out in the right order, so sometimes we can give the calculators extra work by finding something that we already have all the data for, and then at the output we reorder it to make every come out right. This is called out-of-order execution. But sometimes, we just can't find anything to give the calculators, like if lots of stuff is trying to access memory. So we add a second input pipe and a second output pipe that otherwise basically share all the calculators in the middle, and hopefully if one pipe/thread is busy waiting to feed the calculators, the second pipe/thread can make progress.\n\nSo how it's better is that it keeps your processor busy and lets your programs make more progress, without requiring all of the circuitry for a second set of calculators. The downside is that we usually try to pull some instructions off of both threads, so they can block each other. Each of the calculators in the middle do something special -- some add integers, some multiply integers, some work on floating point numbers, etc. -- and so if the two threads want to use the same calculator, one has to wait on the other to be done with it.",
"If you'd like an exemplary explanation, you can never go wrong with the good folks at [Arstechnica](_URL_0_)\n\nThis article is 9 years old, but is a great read. ",
"Let's say I run a kitchen with two chefs, this is much like having a dual core processor.\n\nEach chef can do one thing at a time, but I have two of them so things get done faster.\n\nWhat hyper threading does is allows the chefs to multitask. For example, chef one can scramble the eggs AND boil water at the same time. This is because when he's boiling water, he's not using all his body parts. His hands are free and he can use them to scramble eggs. Same thing for chef two, he can take orders while he's making toast.\n\nA CPU has a lot of different parts to it that can do different things. If a CPU gets a list of instructions that it has to execute, it's possible for the processor to hand off those instructions to different parts of the processor. That's why the chef can scramble eggs and boil water.\n\nThe thing is, the chef can't scramble eggs and make toast at the same time. That's because his hands are tied up scrambling the eggs. That's why a dual core processor with hyper threading isnt the same as a quad core processor. \n\nThis makes sense in my head, so sorry for not being too clear about it :P\n",
"I didn't really like the other explanations, so here's my ELI5 shot at it.\n\nComputers have multiple cores, but let's focus on just one at a time. We don't have to worry about the others. Also ignore the word \"threading\" here; forget what you know about threads, this isn't about threads.\n\nOK: Let's picture a \"core\" on a computer as an assembly line. If I'm Google Chrome and I have to do a task like displaying a webpage, I bring my raw materials to the head of the assembly line and dump them in, and out come my results. This all happens very quickly in small increments. So I may have 1,000,000,000 little tasks every second that I bring up to the front of the assembly line, and each one gets executed very quickly.\n\nNow, there are other processes running on my core (like maybe OpenOffice or Starcraft) that also need to get things done. We have to take turns, because there's only one assembly line in this core.\n\nSo normally, we would take turns by saying something like, \"you get the assembly line for the next 0.0001 seconds, then I get it, then he does, then back to you, ....\"\n\nBut this is **inefficient**. The reason is that, sometimes, I don't have all the raw materials with me. I have to run out to get them. They might be stored on RAM, for instance. So it's my turn to use the assembly line, but I have to stop in the middle of my turn and run out to get the stuff I need. But since it's my turn, nobody else gets to use the assembly line while I'm gone. It's really quick, but it's still some wasted time. Another example of when this might happen is if I start filling the assembly line with one type of material (program instructions), then find out I don't actually need them. There's no need to send that material through the line, since I won't use the answers, but it ties up the machine cause I'm not ready yet with the correct stuff.\n\n\"Hyperthreading\" lets one other guy take advantage of these little gaps by jumping in whenever there's empty space and running their own stuff on the assembly line. To support that, you need to have storage spots there so both of us can store our raw materials. While I'm running the assembly line, you're running out to fetch materials; then as soon as I need to go get my stuff together, you jump in and start executing.",
"[Here is a solid explanation](_URL_0_)",
"Hyperthreading is basically a second set of registers. If there is a cache miss and the CPU has to go out to main memory, it switches execution to the other register set and continues working.\n\nBasically it is hardware support for a second thread. (Normally, swapping threads would force you to copy the register state out and back for every context swap.)\n\nFun fact, I took a superscalar architecture class with Shen, who later went on to run micro architecture at Intel for a bit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2002/10/hyperthreading.ars"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/performance-insights-to-intel-hyper-threading-technology/"
],
[]
] |
||
6bvb47
|
How is the evolution of animals such as bees and ants influenced by the low percentage of induviduals who can reproduce?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6bvb47/how_is_the_evolution_of_animals_such_as_bees_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhqvcsk",
"dhr0qiq",
"dhra8le"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"When you're talking about the evolution of bees and ants you're essentially thinking of every colony as a \"superorganism\", with all the inhabitants operating as a single entity and reproduction occurring via queens and drones. The fact that ants can sometimes select a new queen complicates the model somewhat. But the total number of colonies is still fairly large and the lifetime of a queen not particularly long, so it's not like they're falling behind evolutionarily compared to other animals.",
"_URL_0_ -- check out this article",
"Pretty much the same way that evolution of multi cellular organisms are influenced by the low percentage of cells that reproduce.\n\nGerm-line cells such as those that make sperm and eggs are the only cells in our body that make it to another generation. The Somatic cells, which contain the exact same genetic sequence, helps the overall fitness of the organism such that the genes are passed on.\n\nIn colonial organisms, you can think of the entire colony as a single organism. The mother (queen) makes a lot of children that serve her and the colony as a whole. Some of these offspring are able to reproduce, but the health of the colony is important for them to do so.\n\nThe genes that are active in the workers are not always identical to those in the young queens, but they are closely related. So genes which \"altruistically\" help the new queens survive to courtship often survive into the next generation anyway."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781879/"
],
[]
] |
||
4g9iqs
|
can you jump off something in mid-air and gain height? or will you just push the thing you're on down faster?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4g9iqs/eli5_can_you_jump_off_something_in_midair_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2fngdy",
"d2fnghi",
"d2fnkj1"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"newtons third law says both you push it down faster and it pushes you up, but probably not enough to go up just to fall more slowly. ",
"In free fall if you push against something, both bodies will move away from each other with equal momemtum.\n\n Momentum = mass x velocity.\n\nSo, if the other body is the same mass as you, you will move with the same speed away from each other. If the other body is way more massive, you'd move away faster. Note though this is from *your point of view*. Let's say you can manage to push enough to move 5m/s 'up'. From the ground's point of view you would subtract 5 m/s from your downward speed. Since you are probably moving downwards way faster than you can possibly push upwards, your overall speed would still be towards the ground.\n\n",
"Both.\n\nIf you're on free fall, you're probably falling anything between 200 and 400km/h. Your jump would, for about 1s or so, lower that speed down to something between 390km/h and 190km/h. Then you would accelerate back to something between 400km/h and 200km/h within a second or so.\n\nAverage man can probably achieve upward speed of about 10km/h relative to the surface they jump from. This is a bit handwavey. Humans terminal velocity is anything upwards of 200km/h. Lowest speed you can achieve is when you're wearing baggy clothing and spread out as much as possible, which seems to limit your speed to about 200km/h before air resistance stops further acceleration. Jumping up would reduce your downward speed by that 10km/h, but after jumping, you would then quickly go back to terminal velocity"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6twpse
|
why do we misspell words when we write/type but not when we speak?
|
How is it that we can totally misspell words that we're familiar with when we're writing/typing, but the same isn't true when we speak them?
Or maybe it *is* happening when I speak and I've just never noticed before?
I searched several subs and couldn't find the topic, hopefully this hasn't been answered to death already.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6twpse/eli5_why_do_we_misspell_words_when_we_writetype/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlo3b0e",
"dlo58s5",
"dlo6utp"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, the idea of misspelling words when you speak is kind of nonsensical on its face, isn't it. But that doesn't rule out other kinds of linguistic errors.\n\n > Or maybe it is happening when I speak and I've just never noticed before?\n\nBasically, I think you're misunderestimating the number of mistakes people make in their speech.",
"It actually happens that you 'misspeak' words. Try saying a tongue twister quickly:\n\nPeter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.\n\nFor the explanation - there are quite a few causes for misspelling. Someone might not know how exactly is the word written. Or they might have read it recently misspelled somewhere and it sticks to their short term memory. ",
"It's not precisely the same thing but I think the closest that you can equate misspelling to verbally would be when a person always says a word with the wrong pronunciation. An example would be people saying \"sherbert\" when the spelling is \"sherbet.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3hu553
|
why does it take 5 seconds for credit card/debit card companies to take money out of my account but 5 days for them to refund it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hu553/eli5_why_does_it_take_5_seconds_for_credit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuajjpo",
"cuak6tu",
"cuake6z",
"cuaktoe",
"cuakvi2",
"cuamg2y",
"cuamhf4",
"cuamqix",
"cuamvs9",
"cuamyj6",
"cuan2qh",
"cuan34d",
"cuan48j",
"cuandrn",
"cuanu2z",
"cuao0ym",
"cuao2h7",
"cuao50y",
"cuao601",
"cuaoo8g",
"cuaotqp",
"cuaqi10",
"cuarg2r",
"cuariqr",
"cuark0g",
"cuasc5m",
"cuashqm",
"cuate0o",
"cuatpqq",
"cuau4bc",
"cuaumcq",
"cuav2ho",
"cuax6cd",
"cuay9mu",
"cuayhbm",
"cuaze9r",
"cub0dfn",
"cub0z1w",
"cub10yz",
"cub12uo",
"cub1eg2",
"cub1mle",
"cub28z1",
"cub683i",
"cub6x63",
"cub6yk2",
"cub71u7",
"cub7b3d",
"cub7bqq",
"cuba5yg",
"cubb031",
"cubbcyo",
"cubbs06",
"cubdkrn",
"cubh9qg",
"cubhm4k",
"cubkfpq",
"cubl8n7"
],
"score": [
1963,
79,
281,
6,
9,
4,
2,
6,
5,
188,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
14,
3,
2,
4,
4,
4,
3,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
2,
30,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
7,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Different systems... First you have to realize there is a difference between authorizations and postings. \n\nA charge is only \"real\" against your account when it's posted. It's posted when the merchant does their batch close (typically) except for debit. When you do a credit transaction there is an authorization against your account but you don't \"owe\" the money until it posts. \n\nRefunds to debit if done at a POS terminal should be automatic (just like charges).\n\nRefunds to credit take time because they go through the same path as charges. If it took 3 days for your charge to post you can be assured it will take 3 days for the refund to post.\n\nNow why don't they just authorize refunds? I suspect because when you auth a charge no money has changed hands yet. The bank [or credit company] still has the money they were lending you. It only goes to the merchant when they do a batch close and post the transaction. So if they did an auth refund there would be two copies of the same money. You'd have your refund and the merchant wouldn't have had to cough up the money yet.\n\nNow why do they take so long to do batch closes? Probably because each close costs money (+ transaction fees and percentages). So they do them every few days to save money.",
"There's a theory that it's in their favour for them to hold the money in their accounts thanks to the interest they would gain for 4 days of your money versus an instant reversal of the payment.\n\nIt makes for a good conspiracy but I'm not sure if it's true or simply a nice side effect for them.",
"It always takes days. See, when you buy something, it takes a few days for the merchant to get their money. You don't notice or care about it because the money is gone out of your account and you have your stuff. \n\nIn the event of a refund, though, you are suddenly painfully aware of how long it takes money to move through the credit card processing system. ",
"Oh, it's worse than that. If you pay with a debit card, it can go up to 30 days to get the money put back on the card, depending on the processor and the bank. The only way I was ever able to get it to come back faster was to delete the transaction out of the system so it wouldn't \"settle\" at the end of the day...Even that will leave a hold on your account for 4-7 days.\n\nThe short version is, banks aren't liable for fraudulent charges, so those process quickly. They are liable for fraudulent credits, so those process slowly. Also, there is an economy of scale: there are 10's of thousands of charges for each refund. And finally, remember that there is a payment card processor between the bank and the P.O.S terminal you swiped your card through, and they have their own overhead.\n\nAnd finally, just because they're dicks. There are very few top level payment processors, you the consumer know absolutely nothing about them (except in the case of Paypal who everyone LOATHES), and they don't give a fuck about your customer satisfaction.",
"Because the credit card system could be thought of as a hack on top of ACH transfers (which take several days).\n\nBasically, when ever you run your card, the cc machine dials out and contacts your bank to see if you have funds available. When your bank confirms they do, they put a hold on those funds, expecting the business to eventually collect on them.\n\nWhen the business does a settlement at the end of the night, that is what actually starts the process of transfering the funds out of your account. 2-3 days later, they actually receive the funds.\n\nIf the business doesn't do a settlement, the bank eventually realize \"hey, it's not very likely that the business will be collecting on this authorization, lets put it back in the customers account\".\n\nOtherwise, if they do a refund, it is basically a 'push' ACH transaction which if you have ever done one, take a few days for the funds to show up.",
"The debit and credit process take the same amount of time. The difference we see is because when we pay for an item the card company fronts the money to the merchant while they wait to get the money from your bank. So you buy something for $10, Visa pays the $10 for you and just waits to get the $10 from your bank. \n\nWhen there is a refund nothing is done to make the process look faster. During a refund all of the parties wait for the money to actually complete the ACH transfer process before the balance shows anywhere in your balance.\n\nSource: I work for a payment processing company\n\nEdit:typos",
"It's about approvals and controls. \n\nThe number of people approving a total of $100 charges to your card is 1, so it can take you 5 minutes to verify that you really need what you are buying, and then you follow a regular process. If you get it wrong you lose, or misspend $100. \n\nFor a refund, a credit card company has to have a process to control hundreds of millions, so needs many approvals and controls to ensure many millions don't get erroneously paid out. Add to that that refunds are exceptions, not regular processes, so they require even more controls than a regular \"you pay us we pay them\". ",
"The simple answer is that banks are too cheap to move their infrastructure into the 21st century. ",
"Because then they can charge you five days' worth of interest, and also get five days' worth of interest on the money from where they invested it.\n\nWith banks, it's heads we win, tails you lose. It's like, why do they process a withdrawal before a deposit? Because of the $35 overdraft fee.\n\nSo you go one cent into the red by mistake, realize oh crap, transfer $20 to cover it - come back the next day and they're like you went into the red, that's $35 in fees, thanks for your $20 payment towards that fee, where's our $15.\n",
"Okay. I used to work for a credit card processor. Here's how it works. \n\nPurchase:\n\n1. The customer buys something. The merchant's bank checks with the customer's bank to make sure the customer has funds in their account, and the customer's bank puts a hold on the account in the amount- this hold is called the authorization. **This is what makes it appear as if the charge hits your card right away**\n2. The merchant's bank has to settle the transaction. This costs money, so it's usually done in batches by the payment processor. They settle at least once a day. \n3. The settlement takes up to 72 hours to process. Once the funds are sent from the customer's bank to the merchant's bank, the settlement appears on the customer's account, the funds are withdrawn, and the authorization is cancelled.\n4. The merchant's bank updates the merchant's account to show that the funds have been received. This can take up to 24 hours. \n4. It's been 1-5 days, and everyone has their money now. The transaction is complete. \n\nFor a refund, the process is the same, but done in reverse:\n\n1. The customer requests a refund. The merchant's bank requests a refund transaction from the bank. The bank checks with the merchant's bank to make sure they have the funds, and puts a hold on the amount. \n2. The customer's bank has to settle the transaction. This costs money, so it's usually done in batches by the payment processor. They settle at least once a day. \n3. The settlement takes up to 72 hours to process. Once the funds are sent from the merchant's bank to the customer's bank, the settlement appears on the merchant's bank's account, the funds are withdrawn, and the authorization is cancelled.\n4. The customer's bank updates the customer's account to show that the funds have been received. This can take up to 24 hours. \n4. It's been 1-5 days, and everyone has their money now. The refund is complete. \n\nThis is the way the credit system is designed. Charges are \"instant\" because of authorizations. The authorization is a courtesy to show you how much you owe in pending transactions and help prevent you from overdrawing the account. It always takes time for the receiver of the payment to get the money - the Merchant gives you the stuff when they get the authorization, but don't get the money for several days. When you get a refund, the flow is reversed. \n\nIt's not a conspiracy to squeeze extra interest out of your payment, it basically just has to be this way so the credit system works inside the existing regulations and systems in place for bank-to-bank account transfers. \n\nDoes that make sense? ",
"It prevents you from scamming them. The time lapse allows for the dust to settle. The quicker taking of the money is a much less likely thing fraud wise and often they can get money out of the accounts they put it in.",
"How about the fact that it's 2015 and no bank transactions will be processed on Saturday or Sunday. How is it acceptable that banking institutions (the ones that handle and move our most important asset) don't have to operate for two days every week?",
"Kind of related. I used to sometimes take a while to pay my council tax, a week or two late at most and I'd have letters with PAYMENT OVERDUE in massive red text. Currently I've been waiting on a refund from them for 3 months and I can't do anything. ",
"I am a merchant, I get the payment the next day, on refunds they take the money the next day. Also, you are not having your money taken in 5 seconds, you are getting an authorization for the amount in 5 seconds, and a hold placed on that amount, it doesn't actually come out until the transaction is batch processed.\n\nYou have made a purchase, a promise to make the payment and the bank must \"hold\" that amount until it's cleared in one way or another to prevent you from going to 100 stores and going over your limits.\n\nYOU are initiating the transaction, so you are \"charged\" instantly. \n\nIt depends on the bank on when the customer gets the money back, it is usually (from experience of customers calling me) 2 days, but sometimes up to 7 and in some cases it's been virtually the same time frame as mine. If you are waiting longer than that your bank is withholding your money (your local bank) purposefully.\n\nBottom line on the disparate time frames: The banks are using the money for interest (my opinion).\n\nThere is a lot of guesses and misinformation in this thread.\n\n**Myth:** Merchants batch over days.\n\n***Reality:*** Merchant either do transaction by transaction (if volume is high and transaction fees are low) or batch at the end of the day. NO merchant waits more than 24 hours as authorizations \"expire\".\n\n**Myth:** Merchants are keeping the money\n\n***Reality:*** Merchants have no say in the matter, it's entirely the processor and bank.\n\n**Myth:** Different systems\n\n***Reality:*** While there are of curse different system, the system is not built this way, authorizations are made to the issuing bank instantly. Once authorized, the batch process is what moves the money electronically, it is instant and has nothing to do with the disparate systems, to belong to the system you need to be available to the system. You can not use a bank card or credit card that cannot be charged in the system. If you are a merchant and you are waiting more than 24 hours for a deposit of payment, you are in a high risk business and have agreed to that particular length of time. \n\n**Myth:** What banks are liable for and that being part of the delays\n\n***Reality:*** Banks (from your local credit union to the big CITI/VISA) are not liable for anything. The merchant is liable for every penny. All fraud (every single penny) is taken from the merchant. There is NO risk at all for Citibank, or any ban or card issuer.\n\n**Myth:** They are jerks, greedy or some other insult\n\n***Reality:*** Business rules are set by the government, no one is being a \"jerk\" they (Banks and credit issuers) are simply following the shitty rules for consumers and merchants alike.",
"When a card is run through a point of sale system or POS it is not actually taking the funds from your account. It is verifying that the funds are available or that the card company will clear the transaction. When an item is memo posted to your account it is a temporary hold from the people that charged the card. This hold can remain on the account for days depending on the information submitted by the people who ran the card.\n\nWhen a transaction posts to your account the transaction information has been uploaded by the people who ran the transaction. This is why we cannot file a fraud claim until the transaction actually posts. When a credit hits your account by way of debit card or an electronic transaction called an ACH it is hard posted immediately. Those funds are sent with the information. When a company refunds something on your card the same \"memo posting\" information applies. The transaction does not hard post your account until their information file is uploaded. \n\nThe reason this process takes multiple days is because of all the systems these transactions actually run through before it is complete. When you swipe your card their system does a quick check. I would compare this to looking in the fridge to check how much milk you have. You look really quick and make a quick yes or no decision. This is why if their system isn't communicating correctly or if your cards verification system is down it declines. It doesn't mean that you don't have the funds necessarily, there are a lot of different reasons. Then after you leave with your purchase they hold your information until they send their transactions to their card processor. Then the card processor sends the information through the major credit card company, like Visa and MasterCard. Then the card company send the information to the bank. \n\nTL;DR The information has to pass through a lot of systems and credits do not memo post to accounts like debits do.",
"Its because of FRB Regulation E. It governs ACH and debit card transactions. They put money back in an account after 5 days because the regulation says they must. If they could wait 30 days they would. ",
"Just a guess, but the answer is probably 'interest'. Remember, as long as they have your money, it's in a bank. When it's a bank, they make interest on it. Source: I have worked for six years in a large HR company, which basically paid salaries for millions of workers in the country I live in. The majority of their income was interest on the money employers paid them, which they kept for a day or two.",
"On this front, there has been a lot of pressure recently from consumer groups and the government to speed up the ACH (automated clearing house) system. This is the system that debits your bank account if you use your debit card. Essentially, these groups argue that there is no legitimate reason why these transactions should, in our modern age, take up to 3-5 days to post to your account. Same goes for credit, though not through ACH. Essentially they're saying if we're all using computers, there's absolutely no need to have a charge exist in limbo for several days. ",
"Interest. They make interest on that money so they take it as fast as possible and keep it as long as possible",
"You will hear lots of nonsense in this thread but the simple reason is this - the banks make it as easy as possible for them to get money but as difficult as possible for anyone else to get it.\n\nThere is no technological reason why everything can't be instantaneous.",
"When you buy something, the money doesn't come out right away. It sits there on hold, pending for a few days generally. But you can't access it so it looks like the money instantly came out of your account.\n\nRefunds are doing the same but in reverse. A lot of times you can actually see the incoming refund pending at banks, but it can't be accessed until the hold is removed. ",
"There are a few things at play:\n\n1. When you buy something with a debit card, the merchant's computer will ask your bank \"is there enough money in the account to cover this?\" The bank's computer will respond, \"why, yes! Let me set this portion of money aside for your transaction.\" This is an authorization. They've removed the money from your account, and set it aside for later. \n\n2. Within a day or so, your bank will collect all the money that it has set aside from all the transactions for the period (usually the work day) and process (i.e. pay) at that time. The money is still in your bank's hands, you just don't have access to it, because the bank reserved that money for your merchant.\n\n3. The same works in reverse. If you pay from your bank to your credit card, your bank sets aside the money for the payment, and then actually makes the transfer later. It does this so it can \"batch\" (make a bunch of transfers at one time.)\n\nThis is ancient technology, as batches aren't really necessary any more. There are a few reasons that they still do this:\n\n1. It's embraced inefficiency. It's always been this way. There was a major overhaul about ten years ago concerning checks (which is why you can photodeposit now), and that was such a PITA. \n\n2. It can assist in detecting fraud, criminal activity and mistakes, as the money isn't technically transferred in real time. (This is more for transactions in the USA.)\n\n3. Banks can make money on the \"float\". During the temporary period where the money is in the bank's possession, but not credited against your credit card, the bank can still earn interest for the day or two delay. Multiply this times thousands of transactions per hour, and you have some significant reasons not to speed things up. Paypal actually has this built into the second business model.\n\n4. Banks have one of the most powerful lobbies in the USA, and politicians will do what they can to ensure that nothing harms the trade. Banks literally make the economic world go around. If the status quo keeps things operating smoothly, and keep things profitable, and don't fund terror, the politicians will keep them that way. ",
"Man thank Jesus for interac. Money is gone instantly. Refunds appear instantly. \n\nCanada was waaay ahead of the game with interac, and apparently still is. ",
"They are investing and making money off your money for 5 days. then they return your money.",
"In my experience this is just another way banks make money. \n\nThey do this on a grand scale so while 1-3 days equals only a fraction of a percent in interest, its on a scale that you can't imagine. \n\nFor those 1-3 days they don't need to pay you any interest on money that is pending yours, while technically theirs. \n\nIts the same reason why if I write a check it's take out of my account almost instantly the date it was deposited, but isn't cleared in the depositors account for several.",
"The real reason is that credit card companies are making money when they have your money. If they can have your money for an extra three days, they can invest it and keep making money on that. Even if they only make an extra $1, times that by the number of refunds, it adds up quickly.",
"It's called the float.\n\nBack in the days when people used checks more regularly to buy stuff, and when it took a few days to process the check and see if it clears or bounces, some people took to the art of floating checks, also known as kiting checks. They'd write a check, knowing that they didn't have the bank balance to cover it at the moment, but counted on the processing delay to give them time to get some money deposited.\n\nIndividuals float checks. Banks float your deposits.\n\nThey do it because it makes money. If they can hold on to your money for a few days, for \"processing\", they can lend that money, and make profit on it.\n\nAnd they make billions doing this on millions of people's deposits.\n\nThey can do this because they're financial institutions with economic and political power, and you're not.\n",
"Hopefully this thread can stay at the top for a while. As somebody who managed social media for a retail company, it's ridiculous how often this kind of topic comes up, with people accusing businesses of trying to keep their money, as if it matters to the merchant whether your refund processes immediately or a few days from now.",
"I'm dealing with the tax office. Took out 1300 for property tax in error. They admitted it. 4 months later they are still processing my refund.",
"Money devalues over time, but having money means you can earn interest. If I can hold on to your $100 for 5 days, I might earn a few pennies with it which will hedge against inflation, which means by the time you get your $100 it's worth has gone down by a few pennies. It's most likely not even a few pennies, probably much less than that.\n\nYou might think this isn't going to earn much money, but if you imagine a company guided by this thought process, you can see how across the board, they are better off financially. \n\nEveryone can talk about how it's different systems and it doesn't work the same and we just don't understand - yeah - that's bull. This could easily be a same day refund as many companies I have dealt with have done same day refunds, it's not some magic technology that's on the cutting edge of what humanity has created thus far. \n\nThere are all kinds of companies though that will do this kind of stuff. Target, for example, won't post a refund to your credit card for three days. Why? Well if they aren't going to make money off of you for that initial purchase, they'll need to make money in the slightest way to help pay for the operational cost of doing that refund. \n\nThis reason alone is why setting up your deductions so you get the smallest tax refund possible but the biggest paychecks possible is the best route to take. You're allowing government to hold on to that money and in turn make more money off of it, but by the time you get it back, it's worth slightly less than it would have been had you gotten it in your paychecks.",
"It's called \"The Float.\" The banks are gaining interest on your money while It's in their possession. And they will try to hold onto it for as long as possible.",
"My favorite is \"the refund should show up within 2 billing cycles\" That's like 60 days. Fuck you!",
"So what I'm seeing here is that we should create a company that offers instant refunds and then waits for the real funds from the bank to get to them? ",
"In many EU countries this also used to be the case, the reasoning behind it was because in pre electronic days the banks had 5 days to complete their bookkeeping and paperwork. Now in the EU, you get your money the same day you are refunded or get a transfer. The reason that in your country (I assume USA) this is not the case, is your federal government politicians or one of the larger states (e.g. California, Texas, New York which would cause a domino effect) have not changed those out dated rules.",
"In summary; the system was designed for money to flow one way so it is very good at going that way. It was not designed so much for money to go the other way, so it takes longer as many of the processes are not automated.",
"At Target, my young brother-in-law asked my wife to buy something. She said no, we're not spending money on that. He said, \"Why cant we just use quimby's card?\"\n\nHe was 12... and didn't know that credit cards are things you have to pay back.",
"The same reason the government is horrendously slow and inefficient at every single thing it does EXCEPT....collecting money from you.",
"Because the large banks are a too big to fail oligopoly and they couldn't give less of a shit about their customers anymore.",
"It's called playing the float.They slow out flow or payments because they make money on the interest of the money. It's in their benefit to keep your money longer.",
"I'm working at a company which develops software for EMV (chip n pin, also contactless, but that's a bit in the future) terminals.\n\nHere at least, this is what happens when you pay/get a refund on the unit:\n\n1. If offline, the transaction is verified locally, most visa/mastercard cards support this, it's then stored on the terminal in the SnF-list (Store and forward)\n\n2. If online, the transaction is sent to an organization (idk the name in english) which collects all of the transactions. This is propagated to your bank, which locks the funds until the process is complete.\n\n3. When the merchant chooses (usually after finishing for the day) the merchant closes the batch, and sends a batch close to the same organization. This is a total sum of all the money, as well as the amount of transactions (split over acquirers such as visa/mastercard, amex etc) The acquirer responds with it's own summary, and if matching, it's OK'd. If it's not matching, the merchant gets a warning about the missmatch.\n\n4. At 02:00-03:00 each night, the batch close is processed at the organization, which handles 1..n bank's money, and sends it out to the banks for processing.\n\n5. The money is then transferred the next day.\n\nWhen you are getting refunds due to payment processing errors, you usually complain to the merchant, which noticed the missmatch in the clsoe batch receipt, then calls the terminal manufacturer/processing organization, (it's the processing organization which can help, but the terminal manufacturer often act as a middle man/support). One the news reaches the processing organization, they verify that there's a missmatch, then sends a counter processing order to the bank.\n\nWhat you are comparing is the initial freeze of the funds (as your transaction is authorized/leaves the offline storage ) with a 3 party process which involves busy merchants/organizations, 3 parties which go through the batch closes to find missmatch info and compare it to the transaction list in order to get a grip on what has occured.\n\nIf the return is due to a non-processing error, ie the merchant is refunding you directly, the funds travel to your bank account exactly the same way as it goes from yours to the merchant, and therefore arrives in (usually) 1-2 days after the merchant actually get its hands out of its ass and issues the refund.",
"Da \"float\". They are making money off of your money on the difference in time.\n\nThis is, for example, why Dell became large on mostly accounting tricks like this: they try to take orders with CC which pays them immediately but they pay their vendors 60-90 days (back when they started doing this, the standard was 30 days). Of course now the \"jig is up\" on most B2B AP/AR tricks like this because everyone is now doing B2B with 60-90 day terms to their buyers. Only the consumer at the end of the supply chain still has to pay \"net zero\" (instantly) with their CCs.",
"All Issuing Banks can legally hold the money from refunds for up to 30 days. This allows them time to verify the money for the refund is securely in their control and ensure your account is in good standing. It also gives them time to detect fraud against the bank or credit system.\n\nTypically refunds take 3 to 5 business days, but if you are a high risk account, they will gladly keep your money on lockdown.\n\nFYI, it's quite common for banks to lie to their customer and try to pass the buck to the merchant or processor. The merchant issuing the refund can always call their processor to see the exact time and date that the refund was sent to the issuing bank.\n\nAlso, authorizations are protected by the same rules.",
"Friend bought pizza from a place and it was like $47.50. The guy actually charged him for $475.00 and apologized for it. It took 4 days before the money was put back into his bank account and the worst part about it was they made him also pay for the pizza.\n\nNow, I know you're saying almost $50 is a lot for pizza and they shouldn't have to take a loss because of this but how many people have $525 in their account to where they can not have it for a few days? \n\nIt really put him in a bind on paying a couple of his bills and that was the last time he bought pizza for his family.",
"Another great question is why does ACH charges take forever to show up on your statement. Also, it's always \"conveniently\" in order from greatest charges to least so that way if you overdraft for some reason you do it in the worst possible way (you get a bunch of small negative charges) on your account.",
"Lol top answer make the most sense but reality is in those 5 days the bank has made 10 times the money from your money and everyone else s money they pool together in quick turn around investments. this is why banks should not be allowed to be financial services imo.\n",
"Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahaha...........\n\nThe reason is simple.\n\nInterest....\n\nThey make interest on your money, so hold onto it longer",
"The ultimate reason is that the banks can use your money for a few days and make a profit. If it was profitable to give you your money back fast, they would do so; they have the technology. The authorization, etc. is all bullshit. You actually think they check stuff?",
"Because it's true that possession is nine tenths of the law, and as long as the money is in their possession, they'll confirm 10 ways until Sunday that it's someone else's before releasing it. You, however, only approve the move once, typically at the point of sale.",
"I'm English which has similar instant debit / 5 days to credit time periods to the US system. I now live in Australia and my company are credit card merchants. A card payment received by the merchant on any day, including Sundays or holidays, is credited to the merchant on the very same day and the merchant can draw against with no 'hold', or clearing period. \nSo it can be done differently. ",
"you mean you wonder why it takes banks a week or more to transmit roughly 40 bytes of data when we can download gigabytes of data in minutes? because fuck you, that's why. also, they can't fuck you out of weebly wobbly money you may have in your account/may have overspent if they do it immediately.",
"You will read a lot of bullshit about different processes, but the reason is that some people are bad people and bad people do bad things.",
"While the top comment paints a pretty picture of systematic differences, this has been refuted by European redditors who state that they receive refunds same day. So simple reality proves that this is not the case.\n\nThe real reason is banks are out to fuck you out of your money each and every way they can, and by keeping your money from you, they can make more.",
"They need to be really, really sure when they give you money and only a little bit sure when they take your money.",
"Google manages to refund authorized amounts quickly.. I don't know how.\n\n1) Buy app on Google Play\n2) Auth placed\n3) Refund\n4) Auth removed\n\nI haven't seen any other merchant do that.",
"You can choose to listen to all of this rhetoric for procedure, or you can realize you're little bank account is not priority. The more money you let them control the better the service. ",
"This \"delay\" is called \"float\". Interest is earned on \"floated\" money which is loaned out during your refund delay. The company/bank will wait until the last possible date, hour and second before the law requires you get paid.\n\nSo.. just like when people wrote paper checks.. everyone along the way was using your money for free. \n\nYeah, more than you wanted to know. ",
"Probably the same reason that if you're a day late making a payment they'll slam you with fines and penalties, but if they owe you money they'll drag their feet for weeks getting it to you",
"It's called usury rates and it's one of the main reasons muslims hate the bankers and corporations so much."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
e3djcm
|
what is the downside to dams?
|
From my simplistic view, dams seem like the best source of renewable energy. Water flows naturally down a river, we dam it, water then spins generators and power is produced. Seems like a win-win. Obviously there is a reason we haven't damed every river, can someone explain it to me, like I'm 5?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e3djcm/eli5_what_is_the_downside_to_dams/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f92ejuy",
"f92g468",
"f92gjwx",
"f92lwzx",
"f92rmbm"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They can cause huge ecological damage by flooding the habitats of other animals when reservoirs are formed. They can also cause the downriver portion to silt up because the volume of water below the dam is lower so it doesn't wash away the silt as effectively.",
"You need the right geograpy, ideally a deep narrow valley in a rather hilly area. Without a height of water you don't generate much power.\n\nTry putting a dam across river running in fairly flat land and you need a very wide barrier to span the distance between ground rising higher than the water level you want to get. In turn, it will flood a huge area behind it to a depth of only a few tens of feet. The knock-on effects will be unacceptable. Roads, railways and other communications tend to run along that sort of area precisely because the gradients are gentle. It will also be good farmland from the silt and nutrients deposited by the river and therefore expensive to buy up simply to flood.",
"Besides the ecological impact of flooding a large area and interrupting migration paths for aquatic animals, geography limits the points where you can reasonably build a dam: You need mountains, or at least large hills to enclose the area you will be flooding and create a choke point where your dam will be because the longer your dam the more failure points there are, let alone the enormous cost; and you also need some height difference to actually get a lot of power, otherwise you need a large river with very high flow and there you would limit the navigability of a major waterway to a degree making expensive locks a necessity.\n\nOr you could just produce electricity with cheap fuels with less hassle.",
"As other people have said, ecology, land buying and occasionally evicting people for the land behind the dam you flood. \n\nAnd yes there are much less destructive ways of creating electricity these days. Lots of dams were originally built to control the flow of water, not for electricity. \n\nLots of land used to have floods and droughts, which is not good for agriculture. Building a dam to store the water and release more gradually provides a steadier supply if water making land downstream more habitable. In some cases damming and river management can reduce or prevent flash flooding as well. Electricity is a relatively modern use of dams that with the other options available really shouldn't be the main reason people are building a dam.",
"Dams prevent natural water flow, which carries sediment down from the hills and mountains to the valleys and estuaries, which results in a lack of new soil replacing that eroded in the coasts. This also means that fish can't swim upriver to spawn, the lack of fast flowing water also alters the rivers course."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2id2vu
|
Why didn't the US want to allow its western allies to keep their colonial domains?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2id2vu/why_didnt_the_us_want_to_allow_its_western_allies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl13z2l",
"cl1bxpg"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"By the US, you mean Rooservelt, because the US actually did help a few of its western allies (i.e France) try to keep their colonial domains after 1945. Especially with the start of the cold war. But also helped the colonized/ex-colonized (i.e Suez, Indonesia) after the war.\n\nBut Roosevelt's basic view was that European imperialism was much responsible for creating WWI and WWII in the first place, plus, he, at least by some of his comments, genuinely seem to think that colonialism was wrong and sympathized with colonized people's nationalist aspirations. \n\nsource: Warlords: An Extraordinary Re-creation of World War II through the Eyes and Minds of Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin",
"The U.S supported and or left France and the UK to deal with their colonies as they pleased. The French in a time where they felt they needed to reestablish their military mark in the world tried to reclaim their territories. France succeeded in keeping some small territories, but lost both Indochina and Algeria due to massive independence wars that had a large part in the collapse of the Fourth Republic. As the Cold War ramped up, following Roosevelt's or Wilsonian ideals took second place behind fighting Communism. And so the U.S supported France's failed efforts in Vietnam. As for Algeria and the Dutch in Indonesia I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on any U.S intervention.\n\nAs for the U.K, the empire was financially crippled and cutting their losses and the potential for vast resistance movements was far more important than any U.S concerns."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
an4ohp
|
Koko the gorilla knew 1000 ASL words. If she had a child could she/would she have taught her offspring the same communication?
|
If you taught X gorillas sign language and then had them interbreed could you great a population of gorillas that maintains sign language as a skill indefinitely though the generations? Could they make new words?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/an4ohp/koko_the_gorilla_knew_1000_asl_words_if_she_had_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efr6jmc",
"efr8flg"
],
"score": [
7,
22
],
"text": [
"Washoe's son Loulis learned some signs, but in general nonhuman apes don't seem very interested in language and don't use it or make efforts to acquire it in the way that humans do. \n\n_URL_1_ \n\n_URL_0_",
"Keep in mind that most of the stories of Koko's huge vocabulary came via Penny Patterson, the woman who devoted her life to the project. Other experts threw shade at her claims, saying that Patterson read a lot into Koko's gestures, far more than was justified. Her fame and funding depended on the breathless reports of Koko's accomplishments.\n\nIt is still a very interesting experiment, but most of what you read is not independently verified.\n\n[_URL_3_](_URL_3_)\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\n[_URL_2_](_URL_4_)\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loulis_(chimpanzee)",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)"
],
[
"https://slate.com/technology/2014/08/koko-kanzi-and-ape-language-research-criticism-of-working-conditions-and-animal-care.html",
"https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-koko-the-gorilla-review-20160731-snap-story.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko\\_(gorilla)",
"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44576449",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)"
]
] |
|
9tjrkk
|
how does apple ‘optimize’ their computers better then their competitors?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9tjrkk/eli5_how_does_apple_optimize_their_computers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8wqgl2",
"e8wzoad"
],
"score": [
17,
4
],
"text": [
"The fundamental difference is that Apple controls both hardware and software. So much like a game console that performs better than a vanilla PC with the same specifications because their developers can get every last bit of optimization out of the known hardware set. \n\nOn a PC, Microsoft/Linux developers etc must be able to run on a virtually unlimited set of hardware possibilities, which means a) they have to spend more time on compatibility and less on optimization, and b) they can’t optimize as much because they have to allow for the possibility of features that are or aren’t supported in any given scenario based on hardware. \n\nHope this helps! ",
"Apple knows all the hardware the software will need to run on and can develop to best match those specs, while OSes like Android and Windows need to run on countless different manufacturers' hardware and thus needs to accommodate a much wider array of variables in terms of hardware. Also, those OSes allow manufacturers to customize their distribtions, adding additional software in return for paid placement, introducing other opportunities for bugs or other performance hampering issues. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4sl3gw
|
why do nerves take so long to heal? especially after an injury?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sl3gw/eli5why_do_nerves_take_so_long_to_heal_especially/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5a6jzu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They just were never designed to grow. Nature does not replace your nerve cells. Those are basically yours for life.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"Most cells in our bodies’ organs and tissues, such as the liver, guts, or skin are continuously renewed. In contrast, the majority of the approximately 100 billion nerve cells in our brain and spinal cord are born — through a process known as neurogenesis — before birth and will last a lifetime. However, a few brain structures add new nerve cells during infancy and a single region adds new cells throughout the lifespan.\"\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.brainfacts.org/about-neuroscience/ask-an-expert/articles/2012/are-you-born-with-all-your-brain-cells-or-do-you-grow-new-ones"
]
] |
|
1cxoad
|
Approximately, How important was the medias role in the Vietnam War?
|
Im developing ideas for a possible research paper. I dont want to commit to a topic that i know very little about. With that note, if you have any interesting information about the war or just media in general i would love to hear it. Thanks reddit!:)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cxoad/approximately_how_important_was_the_medias_role/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9kxojw",
"c9l1ejg",
"c9l2o4n"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It was in important in the aspect of bringing the war home to the average American where they could contrast what they saw on the news against what was said by the government.\n\nThe following is something I wrote for [a similar question](_URL_0_) a month ago: \n\nThe role of media during the Vietnam War has been something that has been highly mythologized and debated since its end. Even today there are plenty of people who would say that the main reason America lost Vietnam was because of the hostile media. This is not entirely true.\n\nFirst of all, the media was very supportive of the involvement at the outset of the war. But one has to realize that at the very beginnings of the war, with the increase amount of advisors in South Vietnam, very few newspapers or other media outlets covered these events. The media would also get increasingly divided, just as much as the US officers who could not all agree on whether the war was progressing towards a victory or defeat. The low number increased when the actual Vietnam War began in earnest. By 1965, there were around 400 reporters in Vietnam (in comparison to around 40 reports in 1964) and they were all accommodated well in Vietnam. They were well met, had plenty of room to move in and few restrictions on that (except airbases) and they were allowed to listen to briefings. The actual tone of the reports were mostly neutral to positive for the first two years (even though there are two great examples in 1965 of critical reporting on the Vietnam War: Harrison Salisbury in the New York Times and Morley Safer).\n\nBetween 1967 until the end of the war, the tone began to shift. One might say that the reporting of the Vietnam War began to follow that of the ordinary combat soldier: How long would this war last? Could the Johnson administration really do anything about it? The lack of belief amongst war reporters regarding the administration was created in this year and it culminated in the Tét offensive. One might say that the tone became more raw and factual, even though there was never anything negative about the ordinary combat soldier or even the cause for which they were fighting for. The war and the fighting however was beginning to seem more and more hopeless however, and inconclusive.\n\nNow, it wasn't fought differently because of the anti-war sentiments at home. If anything, it remained the same throughout and despite the shift from Westmoreland to Abrams, we don't see a large shift in strategy thinking - mainly because the US leadership was aiming at peace \"with honor\" after 1968. If anything, the shock that the Tét offensive brought with it and the public outcry managed to make the current strategic thinking remain. \n\nIf you've got any other questions, then just ask.",
"If you're looking for books try *Under Fire* by Sharkey.",
"[Walter Cronkite](_URL_0_) is a journalist you should take a look at. \n\nThough it never confirmed - was was said that after his editoral after the Tet Offensive - President Lyndon Johnson is claimed to have said, \"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1923bg/what_effect_did_the_media_have_on_the_vietnam_war/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite"
]
] |
|
1brpqf
|
Was there ever a Thieves Guild?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1brpqf/was_there_ever_a_thieves_guild/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c99i55p",
"c99kd0e"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Organized theft has existed for a long time, but it has never been exceptionally popular. A few examples of references to such things:\n\n* In 1613 Cervantes published the book *Rinconete y Cortadillo* , a work of fiction which, among other things, detailed stories about a \"Thieves' Guild\". \n\n* Especially during the reign of King Louis XIV, there have been accounts of organized theft rings in the slums of Paris.\n\n* The Romani ethnic group (commonly known as Gypsies) was traditionally (stereotypically) known to engage in acts of theft. While this stereotype is obviously not characteristic of even a plurality of the Romani, this behavior surely did exist and can be considered organized theft.\n\nIn modern times, this practice is often known as \"organized retail crime\" and does occur with some frequency. _URL_0_",
"Criminal organization are \"thieves guilds\" of their kind. For example he Japanese Yakuza with its long history."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/april/retail040607"
],
[]
] |
||
43lzxp
|
what is a 'whip' in us congress and what do they do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43lzxp/eli5_what_is_a_whip_in_us_congress_and_what_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czj6oju",
"czjfffq",
"czjg6c1"
],
"score": [
24,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The whip is a very senior role who ensures that the party leadership has the votes to pass their bills. The job is mostly informal (the whip doesn't have a ceremonial role) with lots of behind the scenes negotiations over favors, election support money, and logrolling and other perks to ensure that the majority leader has the support of their party for their goals. He also serves as a strategy advisor for the party with lots of information about what's legislatively possible and what isn't. \n\nThe first seasons of House of Cards (both the UK and US versions lead character serves as the whip for their party). ",
"They mostly act as a go-between for their party. They 'whip' the votes by wheeling and dealing and in general telling people how the party wants them to vote and why they should.",
"And, just to add, the whip is like number 2 or 3 in the leadership hierarchy of each party. It depends on which party is in the majority. Majority party gets three leadership slots (speaker, majority leader, majority whip) while the minority party gets only two leadership slots (minority leader, minority whip). \n\nSo, among House Democrats, since 2003 Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyner have been no. 1 and no. 2 leaders, respectively. At first, since Democrats were in the minority, Pelosi was Minority Leader and Hoyner was Minority Whip. When Democrats gained the majority in 2007, Pelosi became Speaker, Hoyner moved up to Majority Leader (sort of replacing Pelosi as party leader, but Pelosi was still the boss as Speaker), and James Clyburn was elected Majority Whip to succeed Hoyner. When Democrats lost the majority in 2007 - and thus the speakership - everyone had to move back down one, which led to a little confusion. Pelosi returned to being Minority Leader, but Clyburn and Hoyner both wanted to claim the office of Minority Whip. Pelosi settled the dispute by creating a new third-ranking leadership position for Clyburn called \"Assistant Leader.\" Hoyner returned to his old job as Minority Whip.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
d77v0i
|
why are car designs nearly the same in all countries?
|
Many countries produce cars, yet the basic deisngn is the same. Why?
On the Surface: belts, gears, clutch etc
Below: CV joint, tie rod ends, transmission...
I know certain things are common sense, eg 4 tires, belts, steering... But why is there a consensus on others?
Thanks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d77v0i/eli5_why_are_car_designs_nearly_the_same_in_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f0xyisq",
"f0xzj5v",
"f0y9b7e"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they all function pretty much the same and certain designs are used because they’re the most optimal.",
"I think it’s more of a modern thing where cars are extremely similar in design. Back to let’s say 90’s and even further back cars could be very different. Independent rear suspension vs solid axel. Abs vs non abs. Steering box vs rack and pinion. Drum vs disc brakes. There’s a long list. \n\n\nTo apply it to modern days, you might say certain countries have steering wheel on opposite side. And in certain markets they offer much more diesel options then they do here in the USA. We can’t buy them here. Doesn’t get too different, you’re on point. I can’t explain that. But it wasn’t always that way.",
"Car companies are big multinationals. New designs are long-term expensive investments, so designs will be used across the world (with tweaks for local rules). They'll also be licensed out to local companies.\n\nThe base design for this sort of thing is called a \"world car\" and there's a nice wiki article on it [here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_car"
]
] |
|
6tgg95
|
Did dinosaurs urinate like mammals or poo uric acid like birds?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6tgg95/did_dinosaurs_urinate_like_mammals_or_poo_uric/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlkjqca",
"dlkq8cj",
"dll7ssw",
"dll8jbm",
"dllabvr",
"dllc1nu"
],
"score": [
1440,
201,
77,
6,
15,
595
],
"text": [
"I believe they urinated as if you look at [coprolite](_URL_0_) (fossilised feces) of dinosaurs it looks like solid lumps which would suggest it's feces was solid and wasn't uric acid like birds. ",
"Birds are modern-day dinosaurs, phylogenetically. Their closest modern-day relatives are crocodiles.\n\nBirds are uricotelic (excreting nitrogen via uric acid), while crocodiles are ammono-uricotelic (excreting nitrogen via uric acid and ammonia). Most likely, dinosaurs would be in that same range, relying primarily on uric acid.\n\nIt's entirely possible there were variations in this between species. Just like it's been postulated that some birds can partially switch to ammonotely in situations where that's more efficient (making uric acid costs energy, so if you're calorie-restricted but ingesting lots of nitrogen and water, excreting ammonia would be preferable).",
"\"Dinosaurs\" is a huge amount of animals spanning 232 million years filling every conceivable ecological niche. \n \nBirds are dinosaurs. So their close relatives, the Theropods would have very similar digestive systems. \n\nKeep going back and you end up with crocodiles and their relatives that branched out to be mammals and their other relatives that became dinosaurs. \n\nEvolution is just a few gene tweaks that can cause a Great Dane or a Chihuahua. But the basic things that make every vertebrate function don't really change much across the millenia. \nModern birds still have the tiny urinary bladder (originally evolved in fish) that doesn't really do a whole lot. They need to lose weight to run fast and fly and carrying a bag of waste water is just slowing you down. ",
"Birds are optimized for being very light for their size and strength. Pterodactyls most likely had similar optimization. Heavier dinosaurs might not be optimized differently. This could affect their digestive system and how they got rid of waste.",
"It's called mute, not poo :-) and it's not all uric acid.\n\nTaken from the modern apprentice:\nThere are three parts to a mute:\n\nFecal - the semi-solid mass, frequently this is colored\n\nUrate - white, chalky material - the crystalline uric acid that is the result of protein metabolism\n\nUrine - clear water that flushes the waste from the system",
"Most animals with shelled eggs produce uric acid. The developing embryo produces nitrogen waste; if it excretes as urea the egg will contain increasingly large concentrations, whereas uric acid can precipitate and sit at the bottom of the shell harmlessly.\n\nBased on that, I would conjecture that most dinosaurs excreted uric acid. But given the wide variability amongst modern reptiles, there were probably also some species that excreted urea... And possibly even some species that could do both."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolite"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
40qlgb
|
Why do so many things follow Normal Distribution?
|
Many things in nature and economics seem to follow a Normal/Gaussian distribution. Is there a reason for this?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/40qlgb/why_do_so_many_things_follow_normal_distribution/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cywjctc",
"cywn2ny",
"cywp4lu",
"cyx1nx4"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"This is a good question so I would be interested to hear how other people answer.\n\nAs I understand it, one of the reasons it is so common is because of the central limit theorem, this tells us that any set of measurements of independent, identical distribution will converge to a normal distribution if you have a large enough sample. What we mean by independent and identical is that each measurement does not depend on any other and that each measurement is taken from the same probability distribution.\n\nThere are a lot of things that meat these criteria, dice rolls, coin flips, roulette spins but not all. That is why normal distributions aren't always there. You specifically mention economics where things like log-normal distributions are common too.\n\nOnce you know that a large sample will converge to a normal then you can exploit this by assuming a single measurement is plucked from the unseen normal distribution and this allows things like least squares fitting to become common tools.\n\nOne example of distributions following a Gaussian is the velocities of atoms in a gas. The interesting thing is that this distribution minimizes entropy, a fact that will be the case anytime there is a quadratic conserved quantity (energy is proportional to v^2). So you would expect them to frequently spring up in nature.\n\nThat said, there are also reasons why they are used as approximations even where the data does not necessarily fit one exactly.",
" - An important reason for the presence of gaussians in nature is the [Central Limit Theorem](_URL_0_): it means that, for *independent* repeats of an experience, the total sum of measures (or its average) will look like a gaussian (with the expected mean, and variance, from the sum of all individual experiments). (The central limit theorem is the probability analogue of a second-order approximation of a smooth function, and can actually be proved in this way). Since independent (in practice) repeats happen often, and CLT gives a normal distribution for all distribution on individual events, we often observe gaussians.\n\n - But I also want to point out that there are also a lot of variables that do *not* follow a gaussian in any way. For example, variables that count number of things are integer and always positive by definition, both restrictions being incompatible with a normal distribution; a “number of things” variable will often follow a [Poisson distribution](_URL_1_) instead.",
"As u/Robo-Connery mentioned, the primary answer is the central limit theorem. To expand on that a bit: When your result comes from a single random variable, it can have all sorts of probability distributions: a die has a flat distribution for any integer between 1 and 6, a single pixel on your camera has a poisson probability of sending N bits over a small time window, or a radioactive isotope has a binomial probability of decaying over a certain time window. For each of these processes, we can assign a mean µ and standard deviation sigma. \n\nNow let's consider a variable that is the sum of N independent variables. It is pretty easy to see that the mean of the sum is just the sum of the means:\n\nµ*_tot_* = ∑ (µ*_n_*)\n\nPerhaps less obviously, it is also true that the total variance (i.e. sigma^(2)) sums in the same way:\n\nsigma*_tot_*^2 = ∑ (sigma*_n_*^(2))\n\nThis is true for the first three [central moments about the mean](_URL_1_). \n\nIf all the values of µ*_n_* and sigma*_n_* are identical, this means that:\n\nµ*_tot_* = µ*_n_*\\*N\n\nAnd the standard deviation normalized by the mean scales as:\n\nsigma*_tot_*/µ*_tot_* = N^(-0.5) * sigma*_n_* / µ*_n_*\n\nSince the normalized standard deviation scales as N^(-0.5), this demonstrates the [law of large numbers](_URL_4_): as N increases the standard deviation shrinks relative to the mean. Therefore the simplest approximation to the distribution as N becomes large would be a delta function centered at µ*_tot_*. \n\nWe can do better than the delta function though. You can define a series of [standardized moments](_URL_0_) that are normalized by the variance, such as skewness or kurtosis. ~~Since the central moments all scale with N, the the kth standardized moment will scale as N^(1-k/2). Therefore, as N increases, all the standardized moments larger than k=2 go to zero.~~ Because the third central moment is additive, we can show that the skewness (i.e. the third standardized moment), will scale as:\n\nN/N^(3/2) = N^(-1/2)\n\nTherefore it tends to zero as N becomes large. More generally, the odd standardized moments will tend to zero while the kth even standardized moments, µ*_k_*, will approach the values:\n\nµ*_k_*=(k-1)!!\n\nHere the !! symbol is the double factorial. The formula comes from [eq. (10) of this paper](_URL_2_). The only continuous distribution that has the appropriate higher order standardized moments is the [normal distribution](_URL_3_). (Note that as N gets really large, the normal distribution starts to look like a delta function, so this is consistent with our first approximation). **edit: My original post did not have the right formula for the additive properties of the higher moments**. \n\nYou can see where the central limit theorem breaks down as well. If N isn't big enough, it will not hold. If the skewness of individual distributions is very large, then you need a larger N before the sum converges. And if the individual distributions are not very uniform, it won't converge. For instance, if you rolled a normal die labelled 1-6 50 times in a row, then added that summed total to a roll of a die with 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 on each face, the total sum won't look very Gaussian.",
"By the Central Limit Theorem, every variable that can be thought of as a sum of many small independent effects will be approximately normally distributed, and every variable that can be thought of as a product of many small independent positive effects will be approximately log-normally distributed. (A variable is log-normal if its logarithm is normally distributed.)\n\nMany variables that are often assumed to be normally distributed, such as the height and weight of humans, are actually log-normally distributed. This is because your height for instance is a result of many small and independent multiplicative effects: many genes each add or subtract a certain small percentage to your height, many influences in your childhood added or subtracted certain small percentages to your height, etc. Percentage changes are combined by multiplying them, not by adding them. \n\nIn practice, often you can't tell the difference between a normal and a log-normal variable, because log(1+x) is approximately equal to x for small x."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardized_moment",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_moment",
"http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.6283.pdf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#Moments",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers"
],
[]
] |
|
1w3daf
|
On an episode of Sleepy Hollow, Det. Mills asks time-traveling Revolutionary War soldier Ichabod what the heck the Fathers were thinking with the Second Amendment, and he says that several of his compatriots had misgivings about it. Was there any actual historical pushback on the Second Amendment?
|
(I enjoy Sleepy Hollow but it's an incredibly stupid show; to its credit, it is littered with all sorts of interesting historical trivia, but I don't know about this one.)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1w3daf/on_an_episode_of_sleepy_hollow_det_mills_asks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceyk4xt"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"There was a fair amount of discussion about the 2nd amendment but it really doesn't matter in a historical context. You can see [this](_URL_0_) for the total scope of the conversation, however to understand the 2nd amendment properly you need to understand the Supreme Court.\n\nStarting with *Marbury v. Madison* the role of the court started to take shape and the concept known as \"judicial activism\" began making an appearance more and more in the beginning of the 20th century. \n\nA very important concept in American law is known as *nulla poene sine lege* which means that something cannot be punishable unless it is specifically illegal. In *US v. Cruikshank* the court found that the right to own a firearm is not derived from the 2nd amendment, or the constitution, which sounds like you don't have the right to own a gun, however in *US v. Heller* the court affirmed that you do in fact have a personal right to own a gun on the basis that the constitution does not restrict it and therefore it must be legal to do.\n\nThe 2nd amendment itself, according to the court in *Heller*, was a widely accepted right that has roots in the English Bill of Rights in 1689:\n\n > > This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we (the United States Supreme Court) said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ..”. Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle).\n\nSo you see... even if the 2nd amendment didn't exist, we would likely still have the right to own a firearm assuming that all things stayed equal in terms of how SCOTUS evolved since *Marbury*. In fact, the 2nd amendment itself only refers to Congress and has nothing to do with your personal right to own a firearm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm"
]
] |
|
6qwta9
|
which is better, a 2.4 ghz single core processor or 1.6 ghz dual core processor?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qwta9/eli5_which_is_better_a_24_ghz_single_core/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl0jnlr",
"dl0jymk",
"dl0kn85",
"dl0mqy7",
"dl0p7jg",
"dl0px6k",
"dl0rk8u",
"dl0s9nb"
],
"score": [
43,
123,
6,
51,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Better\" for what? If you want to open the case and make cufflinks out of the die, the dual core one will have an interesting repeat in the pattern.\n\nThe faster one does math faster. That will make some programs run faster.\n\nThe dual core one can sometimes do two things at once, which is good for programs specially constructed to utilize multiple cores and not good for other programs like MSWord.\n\nMemory, graphics, storage speed, and other things impact how fast a computer is, and it can almost never be simplified to the extent you desire.",
"Impossible to answer. Clock speed itself doesn't determine how \"fast\" a processor is. A 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 isn't the same as say, a 2.4Ghz i3 even if we pretended the Pentium 4 had two cores like the i3 would.\n\nDual core processors are better at multitasking and multithreaded applications. If the processors are otherwise identical, you'll always get better performance on the dual core processor as some CPU time is always being used on OS-level tasks.\n\nEdit: If you really want to know what processor has better performance, you're going to have to [rely on benchmarks](_URL_0_) and even then it won't tell you the whole story.",
"It's hard to say.\n\nThe GHz number is its \"clock speed,\" which measures the number of cycles per second the CPU can run. So a 2.4GHz CPU can run 50% more cycles per second than a 1.6 GHz CPU.\n\nBut that's not as helpful a benchmark as it seems. And that's because different processors can get more *done* per clock cycle. If your 1.6GHz CPU can do twice as many things per clock cycle as the 2.4GHz one can do, then the 1.6GHz is actually 33% faster than the 2.4!\n\nAlso, every cycle uses power and generates heat that must be dissipated. If it gets too hot, the CPU won't run as fast. So a CPU getting more work done with fewer cycles can also run closer to full speed.\n\nSo we'd need to know more than the clock speed of these two processors. We'd need to know how efficient they are.\n\nWe'd also need to know what the processors will be working with. How much memory is available to them? How slow is the hard drive/SSD? It's all well and good having an engine capable of a thousand miles an hour if the wheels can't go more than 60.\n\nFor about a decade now, clock speeds have leveled off. But efficiencies have improved dramatically. In other words, unless you're comparing some really old computers, the GHz isn't the number you should be looking at any more.",
"Imagine you have a large group of sheep and a task to count them all.\n\nIf you have one man who can count 2.4 sheep per second (not more, not less), the only option you have is to simply count all sheep normally. They might optimize one way or another, but they are doing all the work themselves at the predefined speed.\n\nNow what if you have two humans, younger ones who can count only 1.6 sheep per second each. You can simply divide the sheep into two groups and each man counts their own group, and then the results are simply added together.\n\nYou can guess that the group of two will do the work faster as they can do it in parallel. The same happens when a computer program can do parallel computations. However, it is not as simple as it sounds to write software capable of doing so, and very often tasks cannot be parallelized. In those cases the second guy would stand by idle doing nothing, and the overall performance of a single 2.4GHz guy is faster than 2x1.6GHz.",
"The cache / application and Os will play their parts too, 9 ladies can't have 1 baby in one month, but ten guys can drink 10 beers in 10 minutes ! ",
"Assuming both processors have a task that can be divided into two equally hard tasks both processors would perform equal.\n\nIf the task is not dividable perfectly the single core would be faster, as the seconds core would be waiting after it’s task is finnished.\n\nPower comsumption wise the dual core is better as driving 2.4 GHz needs a higher voltage than 1.6 GHz.\n\nA home computer or smartphone with a single core processor is bad because it does a lot of stuff in the background, so uncompressing a downloaded update can make the whole system unresponsive.",
"If you're running Windows 10 then the answer is definitely the dual-core CPU. The OS is no longer designed for a single-core environment; if you try to run it in one then you'll experience constant contention between all of Windows' background processes and whatever applications you're trying to use. You can verify this for yourself by going into your BIOS and turning off any additional cores: the OS will become so slow and stuttery as to be basically unusable.",
"So measuring a processor by its raw brute strength (its frequency) is no longer relevant as we broke Moore's law some time ago. Basically, we hit 3 Ghz, and slammed into a wall. For well over a decade, frequency increases have been about 4-500 Mhz, whereas before that it was doubling every couple of years. \n\nInstead of raw brute strength, we now size up a processor by the features it uses to make its workload easier. Work smart, not hard. Some examples include larger cache sizes (storing more information on your desk so you don't need to waste time by constantly going to a filing cabinet). Another might be branch prediction (remembering the instructions you need to take when a commonly-encountered condition is met, so that you don't need to waste time by reviewing the instructions from a manual). Still yet is adding new instructions, such as MMX, SSE and AVX (bundling multiple things into single \"steps\" so you can do more things). \n\nAnswering your question about multi core specifically, it's almost always more efficient to run code on one core than try to run it across several. Why is this? \n\nSimple. You can't get 9 women pregnant to get 1 baby in 1 month, it just doesn't work. Similarly, its like assigning a task to two people. Imagine trying to knit a sweater with two people in opposite rooms with the instructions kept in a third room. Sure, you could have them knit separate bits apart, but eventually only one of them could sew it together. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.cpubenchmark.net/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5vf3x3
|
why is it difficult to produce fake checks with some of the security features such as gradually fading ink and watermarks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vf3x3/eli5_why_is_it_difficult_to_produce_fake_checks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de1l20l",
"de1l8s2",
"de1o7ns"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Good security features require expensive equipment to reproduce. In order to copy gradually fading ink, the forger would have to scan the fade perfectly and reproduce it perfectly. Watermarks require the paper to be treated in a specific way, and can't be reproduced with a printer. \n\nBig companies that print checks (or big governments that print money) have access to the equipment that CAN do these things. And they print enough of them that the cost of the equipment is offset by the prevention of loss due to forgery. The average forger, however, doesn't have access to the equipment they'd need to perfectly reproduce the security features.\n\nIt's difficult to make fakes because the security features are specifically designed to be difficult to make. And they're operating on the assumption that people are less likely to try forgery if the cost of forgery is too high.",
"A common way to falsify checks is to photocopy them.\n\nWhen photocopied watermarks and fading inks stand out in an obvious way so that any bank employee can see that it's fake.\n\nIt takes an expensive printer to make high security checks so that eliminates most idiots.",
"The equipment needed is expensive, but it's really not that difficult to make a passable fake. Problem is you also need a good fake ID if you want to cash them, which is even more difficult and people that deal with cashing checks are much more likely to notice an imperfect fake ID than an imperfect check simply because checks can differ quite a bit but ID's are all exactly the same (within each state anyway).\n\nYou're also almost always on camera and in today's age of technology and databases you might get lucky and pass a few off without getting caught but as soon as you forge a bunch and start raking in the dough they pull out all the stops to figure out who you are."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
39fy8l
|
how do wall street firms (like the one mitt romney ran) make money acquiring businesses and shutting down the entire operation?
|
I don't understand how financial firms purchase businesses for the sole purpose of shutting them down for profit... How are they making money off this? Isn't this unethical?
(edit: I know Romney's firm was likely not literally on wall street but the concentration of where it's happening is on wall street and it's always financial/private equity firms)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39fy8l/eli5_how_do_wall_street_firms_like_the_one_mitt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs2ztfn",
"cs300y0",
"cs306mp",
"cs33l94",
"cs34s9b",
"cs37gbk",
"cs37v0f",
"cs381rc",
"cs39smm",
"cs3bd0u",
"cs3cioh",
"cs3khjg"
],
"score": [
106,
11,
253,
2,
13,
26,
2,
12,
6,
20,
21,
2
],
"text": [
"Because sometimes a company is worth more cut into pieces and sold as scrap than it is as a functioning unit.\n\nOther times a company has one really profitable unit that could (in theory at least) be worth more than the original company... if it wasn't shackled to the corpse of the larger company.\n\nPrivate Equity is a very interesting and complex business.",
"Usually they keep the business running and shut down some parts like an expensive factory. Then they find a cheaper replacement. The other big thing is massively boosting the amount of debt financing because it's cheaper than equity financing.",
"Think of it like a car. Maybe you have a car that's only worth $1,000USD. You sell the engine for $500USD sell the transmission for $300USD sell the wheels for $50USD each, you've already made back your money and now anything else you sell is money in your pocket. ",
"Stock market isn't perfect. Sometimes companies are undervalued, they partner with a bank to mop up all the shares, take it private, break it into pieces and sell the parts, then pay back the loan and keep the rest. ",
"All this talk about cutting a company up because it's worth more as assets is nonsense. \n\nBain Capital acquired healthy companies; then, they paid themselves huge dividends.\n\nCompanies are allowed to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, not just their hard assets in determining how much money is available to pay dividends. Taking advantage of this, Bain Capital actually used the company’s assets as collateral to borrow more money to pay dividends to themselves, saddling the acquired companies with debt, starving them of cash.\nFew companies can survive this kind of managerial abuse.\n",
"In the early 2000's a PE firm called Wasserstein & Co bought an Oregon-based company called Bear Creek Corp which operates a mail order fruit & food company called Harry & David. They used borrowed money to buy the company, paid themselves a fee for advising themselves to buy the company, paid themselves a huge distribution out of the company including part of the pension fund which they determined was overfunded. The company was badly mismanaged and went into bankruptcy and they left the creditors and employees owed pensions holding the bag while they skipped out of town keeping the money they'd looted out of the company.\nThat my friends is how private equity works. Since the Federal Pension Guarantee Board made up most of the pension losses it was a classic case of privatize your gains and socialize your losses.\nNo one went to jail.",
"They make money because they're providing a valuable service. Whenever someone can make something more efficient, there are extra resources - extra money - and they then get a cut for there services.\n\n\nSo the salient question is: \"What do companies like Bain Capital do, and why is it valuable?\"\n\nA company is a money making machine. It takes inputs - those being electricity, raw materials, the time of their workers, etc, and generates outputs (goods and services) for more than the input cost. To do this, a company often has capital - factories, machines, and more abstract things like a well-organized logistics system.\n\nWhen a company is failing, it is no longer making more money than its inputs. meaning it is taking in a bunch of stuff, and making it less valuable. It has become a wealth-destroying machine.\n\nBain comes in then, and figures out *why* the company is no longer producing wealth. It could be that their labor contracts have them paying too far above market, and labor is a significant expense. It could be the logistics division is terribly inefficient and loses them customers. It could be their raw-material suppliers are costing too much. It could be that all of their external deals are good, and the management is just inept and the internals of the company need reorganization.\n\nOr it could be that because of a changing outside world, the goods and services the company supplies are no longer in demand at a price where it is profitable. Put another way, society's preferences have shifted from wanting this particular good or service, towards *other* goods or services made from the same material.\n\nWhen this has occurred, there is no turning the company around. The company is not doing its job poorly - it's job no longer exists. At that point, it is important to shut it down.\n\nIf a company continued to run into bankruptcy, all the workers would be out of a job anyway. And all that would be accomplished in exhausting the assets of a company. Assets, incidentally, that are often funding pensions of previous workers.\n\nStopping the company early saves money. You can structure the shut-down. And all your capital - the factories and machines - can be sold off to other companies for *them* to use. Because they have a way of using the same machines to generate wealth, rather than destroy it. Plus, going through a self-directed liquidation will often get you more value than going through bankruptsy proceedings.\n\n\n\n**TL;DR** Some companies are being mis-managed and can be turned around. Other companies are no longer viable, and are now wealth-destroying machines that will go bankrupt anyway without intervention. It is healthier for the company, and for retirees of the company, to go through a structured liquidation rather than one dictated by bankruptcy courts.\n\nBain capital both shut down companies, and turned companies around - and were very good at it. When they do either of these services, wealth is preserved. They in turn receive a slice of the wealth preserved, in the case of liquidation, or they receive money or dividends from stock in the case of turning a company around.",
"Bain capital made a lot of there money by reforming bloated companies. They buy them slash of un profitable sections, do massive cost saving (layoffs), change the corporate strategy , And restructure their finances to have higher debt(which is cheaper than stock for companies). They take questionable companies, do a bunch of risky reforms and strategic pivots and try to make it profitable. After 7 years or so (when the fund used to purchase is set to return money to thier investors) they sell the company off or issue a new stock offering. Sometimes they make money sometimes the company dies. ",
"Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that these companies run like house flippers? Maybe not Bain Capital in particular. My understanding is that these firms buy up under performing firms, clean it up (usually cutting things or *streamlining*), make it more attractive which raises its value, then sells it for profit.",
"Okay, here we go!\n\nLet's say there is a soda company for sale for $10M. A Private Equity firm (PE) will put up $1M (the money came from investors - high net worth individuals, pension funds, etc.). They will then go to the bank and ask for the other $9M as a loan. For a variety of reasons, they will get the loan at a relatively low interest rate. Plus, getting a loan means there are tax implications which lead them to saving more money. But that aside, they now have the $10M to buy the company. \n\nNow, the PE firm owns the company. They can do a variety of things. \n\n1) raise revenues. sell more soda. how to do this? go to new markets, better advertising, new product lines, etc. they can also try to change the law. Let's say, soda is banned in NYC. PE firm might try to use their influence to make a loophole for their soda by claiming it's a sports drink (like Gatorade). \n\n2) reduce costs —usually this means improve efficiencies. eliminate unpopular products, improve equipment, improve distribution/storage, get rid of some employees, etc. \n\n3) divesture - sell off, or exit business units. Example, sell their grape drink product line to Kool-Aid for $6M, sell off their warehouses to Red Bull for $7M. To the right buyer, the parts are worth more to them than they are to you because of Synergies. \n\n4)Create synergies - We have this soda company and we have all the infrastructures for beverages in place. So let’s buy another company that is similar and will use the same resources. For example, let’s buy a flavored water company. This appeals to new health-conscious market -so more customers but we can use our existing infrastructure (trucks, relationships with grocery chains, etc). Hence we can eliminate duplicate infrastructure (i.e. get rid of duplicate employees, warehouses, equipment, etc.). This saves money and creates synergies. \n\n(I think that’s everything unless I forgot stuff). \n\nNow PE firm may do one or all of those things. Depends on the situation. Then, they return to the market and put Soda Company for sale but now they feel they have added value (usually b/c profitability or revenue or return on assets or some metric that they choose has increased). So they sell it for $20M. \n\nThey pay back the bank for $10M (let’s $9M principal and say $1M interest for this case). Now they are left with $10M in profit on an original investment of $1M. They returned 10X, which is very good. \n\nThat’s basically how they make their money. \n\nAlso worth noting, most private equity companies will have many of these deals going on at any particular time. ",
"None of the answers I have seen thus far have come close to accurately depicting the strategy of companies like Bain Capital.\n\nFirst, the idea that companies have a strategy to acquire a business with the intention of essentially running it into the ground, via either selling off assets or paying themselves with leveraged debt, is absolutely ludicrous. If that was a viable strategy, the original owners of the company could make more money doing that themselves rather than selling. Plan A is always to create a successful/growing company because that will always create more value for stakeholders in comparison to the before mention strategy. \n\nThe general strategy of Bain Capital was to acquire companies(often ones that were struggling or on the verge of shutting down) where they believed they could add a significant amount of value to it by implementing their business management, processes, and strategy(similar to Warren Buffets' Berkshire Hathaway). If they can't add value to the company, they (by definition) lose money on the acquisition. Some of the common misconceptions arise from the fact that they often minimize their risk by using a leveraged buyout(a combo of buying equity and borrowing debt using the company's assets or cash-flow as collateral). Bain Capital and similar firms know that not every acquisition will be successful, but the firm still makes money as long as their profits from successful ventures is greater than losses from unsuccessful ones. The firms success is an aggregate result of all their ventures.\n\nSo it's easy for political enemies to state that Bain Capital made money while shutting down a business they owned, which is misleading but technically true. ",
"I worked for a financial services company. They are evil, but I digress. Take a look at Sears as an example. Many Sears stores owned the land they were built on. The vulture capitalist that purchased Sears sold the land, then *rented* it back to the Sears stores. The vulture capitalist made a killing on the land sales, but did not reinvest it into Sears. They pocketed the cash. So Sears now has to pay rent to the new land owners. Any profits are \"harvested\" (Mitt's term) and not put back into the company, the company is pretty much sucked dry of any equity it had. Finally the vulture capitalist cuts the company loose and these companies usually go bankrupt, like Radio Shack and KayBee Toy Stores, and eventually Sears will be sucked dry and allowed to go bankrupt; capitalism at work. \n\nIt may be unethical (I think it is), but ethics and legality do not have to go hand-in-hand. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
337fvl
|
Do tectonic plates ever break? What about fusing? What would happen if this ever did occur?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/337fvl/do_tectonic_plates_ever_break_what_about_fusing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqio0zm",
"cqjh915"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They can do both.\n\nPlates breaking apart is known as rifting, and is thought to be caused by rising plumes of hot mantle material. Rifting in progress can be seen in the East African Rift. There is a line of active volcanism and crustal extension extending from the southern end of the Red Sea to the northern end of Mozambique. If the rifting continues, eventually the land along the rift will subside below sea level and a slice of East Africa will become a separate landmass. New oceanic crust will form in between.\n\nPlates can fuse when two pieces of continental crust collide, as is currently happening in the Himalayas. India used to be an isolated subcontinent surrounded by ocean, until the subduction zone on the southern coast of Asia pulled it into a collision. Oceanic crust slides underneath continental crust when the two meet, as oceanic crust is thinner and denser, but when two pieces of continental crust meet they crumple together and fuse forming what's known as a suture zone. This can leave an area of weakness in the crust, making it more likely to become an area of rifting if the tectonic forces change from collision to extension.",
"I'll add to Sev's answer a bit and talk about the tectonic phenomena known as the Wilson Cycle. It is a proposed geological series that explains the formation and destruction of both 'fusing' and 'breaking' zones you mention.\n\n'Fusing' is known in geology as 'accretion' or 'orogeny' based on the context. If a thin plate is pushed under a thicker plate, just the top of the plate can be sheared off, and added to the larger plate, this is called accretion. If both plates are thick enough, one of the plates will not be able to drop under the other, and instead they will push together and eventually fuse.\n\nA modern-day example of accretion is Alaska. Most of the Alaskan panhandle is formed from stuck-together paleo-islands from billions of years ago.\n\nA modern-day example of Orogeny is India. The Indian continental plate and the Eurasian plate are currently being pushed together. Because this pushing causes great force, and neither can slip under the other as they are too thick, the pressure causes heat, and the plates basically 'melt' together. \n\n[Here is a great video of the progressive joining of the Indian and Eurasian plates:](_URL_1_)\n\n---\n\n'Breaking' or what geologists call rifting can be even more interesting. \n\nThe other commenter was right on when he said that rifting was caused by mantle upwelling. Mantle upwelling refers to what happens when the hot viscous rock in the mantle is pushed up into the crustal rock based on convectional forces. As I'm sure you can imagine, this pushing causes significant force, and the rock above it that is being 'pushed' can be forced to break apart, even if it is 10s of kilometers thick like continental plate is. If the plate 'breaks apart' enough, it can even fully separate and become 2 new plates.\n\nA really interesting consequence of this is the principle of aulacogeneration. Remember that this 'break' isn't two-dimensional, it's a point pushing up onto a two-dimensional plane... Picture it like putting your finger under a piece of paper and pushing up. The result of this is a 3-directional split known as a triple junction for obvious reasons. Geography is full of triple junctions as they happen every time a plate rifts. \n\nSome great paleo examples of triple junctions are either the [mid-african ridge](_URL_0_) or the St. Lawrence river in Canada."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/EAfrica.png",
"https://youtu.be/loFxYSHxTf0"
]
] |
||
3h1l35
|
what happens to the roof of your mouth when you eat hot food?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3h1l35/eli5_what_happens_to_the_roof_of_your_mouth_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu3f6a6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The tissue lining the roof of your mouth is not skin, it's more sensitive tissue. \nWhat might be equivalent to putting a hot iron on your arm, could be compared with hot melted cheese on the soft tissue in your mouth. \nIt isn't as tough as skin...thus, causing it to blister like skin would. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
19yhi3
|
In general, what role did the Catholic Church play in the Spanish Civil War?
|
My teacher and I are in a disagreement over the role of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil War. She maintains that for the most part the church remained neutral to avoid persecution of Catholics (I'm having a hard time believing her because she is Catholic and I think there is some bias), but I believe that most Catholic clergy were supportive of the Facist side. Any links to help?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19yhi3/in_general_what_role_did_the_catholic_church_play/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8si9y5"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"After the outbreak of war many churches were burnt and atrocities were committed against clergy members. Conservatives and fascist sympathizers around the world seized upon this as propaganda to prove that Franco's opponents were a bunch of Godless Commies and anarchists. In fact there was some truth to this claim. In the early days of the fighting, while the government itself was wavered in the face of the fascist coup d'etat, groups like the anarcho-syndicalist labor union CNT and the FAI (Anarchist Federation of Iberia) were key in organizing the resistance and formed militias to hold the line while the central government struggled to form a regular army. Marxist groups like the UGT and the POUM also played a role. If you know anything about Marxism and anarchism you probably know that they are quite hostile to organized religion, viewing it a pillar of the old order. The anarchist leader Buenaventura Durruti famously said \"the only church that illuminates is a burning church.\"\n \nThat being said the reasons for attacking the church weren't purely ideological. Everyone knew what side the church was on. The church in Spain was remarkably conservative, even by catholic standards. When I say conservative I don't mean \"I think the income tax should be lowered 5%\" conservative. I mean \"I think representative democracy and universal suffrage is a bad\" conservative. The higher ups in the catholic clergy in Spain were drawn from the same elite parts of society that the officer corps which organized the attempted coup were drawn from. They viewed the end of the monarchy and the establishment of the republic with distrust and as a threat to their ancient and privileged place in Spanish society. This was especially true when the center left Popular Front government was elected. So when the coup came, and the fascists claimed they wanted to restore \"Old Spain\" (i.e. the monarchy, the position of the military, church, aristocracy, etc) few had any doubt where the church stood. I'm not sure if the church ever formally took sides (it wouldn't surprise me either way) but it would have been a pretty open secret if they didn't. When anarchists and Marxists attacked churches they felt (probably rightly) that they were striking against fascists and fascist sympathizers. This doesn't excuse atrocities though. \n\nBetween Two Fires By David Clay Large gives a pretty good account of the war, its build up and overall social situation in Spain, though it seems to overlook the important role that radical groups like the anarchists and the left Marxists played in the war. Homage to Catalonia gives a pretty good account of the politics within the popular front coalition. Chomsky on Anarchism gives the standard anarchist view of the war and talks about the church in relation to that. Not sure if that's exactly what you wanted but hope that helped! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1y3yty
|
We all know that shadows move, but cannot consciously perceive their movement. What is the minimum velocity at which the average human can consciously perceive movement?
|
[EDIT] And is this velocity different for various animal species? Any notable cases?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1y3yty/we_all_know_that_shadows_move_but_cannot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfhhh8x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As near as I could find, under optimum conditions the slowest movement you can see is 1-3 arc minutes per second. For reference, the moon is about 30 arc minutes and moves across the sky at about .25 arc minutes per second. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
136wa2
|
If I had one magnet push another magnet by repelling it, do I have to provide more force to push the second magnet?
|
I have some random magnets and was messing about with them. If I was to get a magnet and push another magnet is it the equivalent of me pushing both magnets?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/136wa2/if_i_had_one_magnet_push_another_magnet_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c71ch41"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes. The second magnet provides a repulsive force in the opposite direction to the motion you're trying to effect. Presuming the magnetic field strength is large enough that the magnets will 'push' each other apart enough that they won't touch, then you'll feel that repulsion force as opposing your applied force.\n\nThere'll be some fairly-simply but I'm too lazy/tipsy to perform calculus to work out the total force that you'd require to push with against time, starting from zero force - but essentially, Newton's Laws mean that in this universe, in an inertial reference frame, *you don't get something for free, especially displacement.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2icaq9
|
Is it possible for a spacecraft to enter an atmosphere 'slowly'? What forces would need to be at play to avoid violent atmospheric entry?
|
This started as an 'ask sci-fi' question in my head when I saw a picture of a Star Destroyer within a planet's atmosphere, but got me wondering if, realistically, it would be possible for a craft to make a 'smooth' entry.
Given a theoretical craft, could one use enough thrust against the planet's gravity to enter without generating the tremendous energy from friction we see with normal controlled, and especially uncontrolled entry?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2icaq9/is_it_possible_for_a_spacecraft_to_enter_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl14kd7",
"cl15wle"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, it's technically possible, but it's ludicrously difficult. It's not as simple as overcoming gravity with thrust. \n\nWhen you're in low earth orbit, you're not stationary above the surface, you're moving at something like 8 kilometres per second (26 times the speed of sound), so if you want to avoid dramatic friction heating on re-entry, you have to slow down a lot. (What's more, you have to do it pretty quickly, because if you take too long you'll accidentally hit the atmosphere before you're slow enough, and burn up.) \n\nNow, what does a rocket that is capable of changing the velocity of something like the space-shuttle by 8 kilometres per second look like? Almost exactly [like this](_URL_0_): The multi-stage system that we use (or used to use) to launch the space-shuttle has roughly this capacity, which is no coincidence because those 8km/s is exactly what the space-shuttle has to accelerate by to reach orbital velocity! (and a bit more to get into space to start with)\n\nSo, in other words, if you had a space-shuttle with full external fuel tank and booster rockets in space, you could probably descend gently. However, it's hard enough to get the space-shuttle itself into space, and a fully fuelled space-shuttle with external fuel tank and booster rockets weighs something like 25 times as much as the space-shuttle by itself! So you'd need to strap 25 times as many solid fuel boosters, and 25 times as many external fuel tanks, and 25 more rocket engines to it to get it into orbit to begin with.\n\nSo in other words, the friction of the atmosphere is really, really good for the manned space programme.",
"Werner Von Braun speculated in a book he wrote in the 1950s about what kind of rig it would take to parachute from orbit. When space travel becomes common and cheap I expect some of the extreme sports people will do it. Basically, you'd need some kind of enourmous wing area that can be decreased as the atmosphere gets thicker. Maybe some kind of inflatable wing craft with self furling capability built into a more conventional glider shape."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
1en8kz
|
How did 19th (and earlier) century sailing ships provision themselves well enough that men could live on them for years?
|
I am currently reading The Terror, by Dan Simmons, which is about Captain John Franklin's ill-fated 1845 expedition to find the Northwest Passage. I was astounded to find that they had become frozen in antarctic ice for over two years, and yet had enough food to feed the entire crew (consisting of over a hundred men). How could two wooden sailing ships carry enough provisions to feed that many men for so long a time? What sort of food was it? How did they store it? How did they keep the men from getting scurvy?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1en8kz/how_did_19th_and_earlier_century_sailing_ships/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca1zvd8",
"ca203ir"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"I'm not an expert so I'm sure someone will come along and provide much better information but I would highly recommend the documentary Nova produced on the Franklin Expedition called [Arctic Passage](_URL_0_). From what I gathered that sort of extreme provisioning was *not* normal. It relied heavily on tinned foods which was a new technology and likely led to the crew suffering from lead poisoning. Professor Russel Potter talked a bit about the subject as part of the special [interactive materials](_URL_2_):\n\n > [O]ne of the curious things is that the guns and ammunition sent with the expedition were shotguns. These were really for shooting birds; they weren't good for shooting big game or mammals. It was for sport. And you think, \"Well, they must have been out hunting for birds.\", But that's no way to feed 129 very hungry people.\n\n > People really had faith just in the tinned food as a kind of an accomplishment. It was a high-technology item. It was like space food sticks, you know, \"the food of the astronauts, the food of the explorers‚\" So that, \"If we send them tinned food, they'll be fine.\" Unfortunately, they didn't really have good quality control.\n\n > All of the tin food is, at least to some degree, suspect, in terms of the lead solder being a possible source of poison. We find a lot of these cans that have not been opened, and there is some speculation: Does this mean that they realized the food was poisoning them? And they, even though they were starving, they wouldn't eat it? And that's possible.\n\nPBS also has a list of the [provisioned items](_URL_0_provisions.html) and it's quite fascinating.",
"There are a couple of factors in play here that could vary depending on the situations. I interned on the US brig Niagara for 3 weeks, sailing her along the Great Lakes so I feel like I have some helpful input. The classification of the ship would determine how big her crew was. Ships are classified by how many masts they have, the shape of their sails, and the amount of guns they carry. I was on a brig which is 2 mast, square rigged, and 20-guns. The crew of the brig in wartime was roughly 120 - 140. Not surprisingly, the bigger ships will have more masts to manage, more guns to be manned, so the more crew she would require. \n\nShips had a storage room for food and supply's, most commonly located in the berthdeck (often 1 deck lower than the top deck, sometimes further down). Generally it is near the galley (kitchen) so the cooks have access to them. These storage rooms varied depending on the class of the ship. A 120-gun Ship of the Line would have animal pens with livestock, grain stores, fruit, and hardtack. The problem was that there was no refrigeration so food went bad. This is where the scurvy issue comes into play because the fruit would rot so in the later part of the voyage, men began to develop the condition. Those items the cooks would try to distribute first so it doesn't go wasted. the types of meals were a lot of stews and soups, consisting of the previous days leftovers dumped into the stew. You would often find potato's and fish in your tomato soup. \n\nShips would try to resupply every time they would reach port, and the food was often bought by contractors. In the book, *1812: The Navy's War*, George C. Daughan explains the problems that arose with the transactions made between the RN and food contractors. \n\n \"Bad food was universal and made worse by contractors who had been cheating the Royal Navy. Furthermore, the quantity of food aboard ship was always reduced by the custom of allowing the purser to keep some of it for his own profit. Food was measured aboard in pounds [lbs.], but the purser's pound amounted to fourteen ounces, rather than sixteen. He took the extra two ounces for himself and shorted the men in their meals,\" (Daughan:2011, 18). \n\nEssentially to answer your question regarding the needed provisions for the men, it was simply that the ships were always short on food (at least in the Royal Navy). The Admiralty often impressed sailors because there was an enormous rate of sailors deserting in ports. The officers were usually higher class and the average sailor was typically in the lower classes. People were always dying from disease, punishment by the Cat-o-nine, or even over consumption of alcohol. RN sailors were rationed alcohol daily, but in small amounts. So they saved it up and usually got very drunk later with the stores they collected. \n\nIt would also depend on the type of mission. If a ship were transporting passengers, there would of be a higher demand for food. A ship going to battle would carry more stores of ammunition and gun powder because the sail would not be in open sea as long as if it were on a transportation mission to say Asia. Also, ships would generally travel in convoys (though with the nature of many missions, they couldn't always be in a convoy, but it was certainly ideal). These convoys would have supply ships with the sole purpose of resupplying the ships accompanied in the convoy. \n\nSo to answer your question, because 2 years is an exceptionally long amount of time to go without resupplying, I would say it is due to proper rationing, and filling the stores with dry foods that do not spoil. If the crew size was around 100, I would say its a smaller ship, maybe a brig or a schooner that could last longer than say a 300-manned crew on a Frigate. Hope this provides a little insight and I hope I didn't ramble off topic too much\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arctic/",
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arctic/provisions.html",
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/franklin-expedition.html"
],
[]
] |
|
2goh62
|
when someone chokes on the liquid there drinking, what causes it?
|
When I was a kid my mom said it went down the wrong throat. What causes the reaction when something like that happens?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2goh62/eli5_when_someone_chokes_on_the_liquid_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckl0ynm",
"ckl16y8"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The liquid get's into the lungs where it prevents air from reaching a large section of the lung's surface.",
"\\*they're. They are.\n\nYou have a few openings coming out of the back of your mouth and going various places. The two which matter to this question are the one to your stomach, which is the esophagus and the one to your lungs, the trachea. There is a valve called the epiglottis that is supposed to cover your trachea when you swallow to prevent anything going into it. If you cough, or breathe, or otherwise override the functioning of the epiglottis, liquids and solids can go into the esophagus, causing you to choke. Lungs are very delicate and sensitive to pollutants - they can be very easily badly damaged by a foreign object - and so the trachea is very sensitive to anything entering it that isn't supposed to. Even a tiny tiny object, or the particles in smoke, can cause it to react, and the way it reacts is by trying to get the object out as quickly as possible - the violent spasming and coughing you do when choking.\n\nEDIT: I'd love to know what the reasoning of the person who downvoted this was, since it is actually the correct answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
tu7dl
|
Is there any difference on looking directly at the sun depending on the time of the day, in regards to the damage sone to the eye?
|
A friend told me that she often observes the sun on the last minutes of the sunset because she read that it was safe. I haven't checked lately, but I recall the 12:00 pm sunlight being more uncomfortable to the eyes than the sunset one. The question is simple then, is it less harmful for the human eye to look directly into the sun as its position on the firmament approaches the horizon?
Edit: sorry for the typo in the title. It bugs me to no end.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tu7dl/is_there_any_difference_on_looking_directly_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4prlvg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The earlier or later in the day it is, the safer it is on your eyes. More atmosphere for the sunlight to travel through, means the less intense the light is going to be. I'm not sure the numeric intensity and exactly how much light is still moving through the atmosphere as I am not at a place I can calculate it, but I wouldn't recommend doing it on a regular basis because it should still be damaging to the eyes, and I don't want to be responsible for someone's blindness. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
68t3mf
|
Realistically most ships between the 1600s and 1700s carried cargo mostly not gold, so what did pirates do with all those random assortments of wheat, cotton, tea, and stamps?
|
Edit 1: Thanks for the responses everyone wasn't expecting such great and in-depth answers, really glad I posted here.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/68t3mf/realistically_most_ships_between_the_1600s_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh1aial",
"dh1b63m",
"dh1c2y4",
"dh1cyy3"
],
"score": [
69,
1831,
35,
1492
],
"text": [
"Hello everyone, \n\nIf you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with **in-depth and comprehensive responses**, and our [rules](_URL_0_) are intended to facilitate that purpose. *We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy*. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the [rules](_URL_0_), as we don't want to have to warn you further.\n\nOf course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or /r/all and see only *[removed]*, but we ask for your patience and understanding. Great content is produced on this subreddit every day though, and we hope that while you wait, you will check out places they are featured, including [Twitter](_URL_4_), the [Sunday Digest](_URL_1_), the [Monthly \"Best Of\"](_URL_8_) feature, and now, [Facebook](_URL_3_). It is very rare that a decent answer doesn't result in due time, so please do come check back on this thread in a few hours. If you think you might forget, send a [Private Message](_URL_6_!) to the [Remind-Me bot](_URL_7_), and it will ensure you don't!\n\nFinally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to [modmail](_URL_2_), or a [META thread](_URL_5_[META]). Thank you!",
"There were black market merchants, smugglers, counterfeiters, and launderers of goods that they could sell it to. Smuggling probably being the largest one. Not every port was secured or had a harbormaster who cared (bribed) enough against pirates sailing in to sell their goods. If it was, pirates could offload their goods ship to ship or at a beach site, to a more legitimate seeming ship or a smuggler. For goods that did not have any system in place to verify their source, they could simply be sold to any seedy merchant. For goods and ports that were controlled, a more sophisticated system would be needed. The process being sort of similar to modern day money laundering or cigarette smuggling. Pirates takes possession of the goods, then they must get it in condition it can enter the legal market or find a black market buyer. This was usually done by a 3rd party counterfeiter, forger, or merchant. The goal being either to a final consumer who was willing to accept it as black market, or to make it appear legitimate for a consumer who only wants a legitimate good. Piracy was only a small part of the capture/transportation of illegal goods. Many illegal goods began legitimate or were stolen, and became illegal simply because they were smuggled to avoid taxes and duties (or in some cases, only a select few had the rights/privileges of trade).\n\nThe respective nations were not incompetent and enacted a plethora of measures to combat both piracy and the trade of illicit/pirated goods. Even in days before electronic monitoring, UPC codes, etc, a lot of goods required stamps, marks, and certification from both goods and merchant. Some measures were somewhat counterproductive, like Spain's mercantilism policies which meant the colonies could only trade with Madrid. This created a black market demand for other European goods. \n\nFor some periods there were some less than lawful ports like Nassau and Tortuga which served as pirate havens and markets for illegal goods. More ports fell into a more grey area, where most was legitimate, but some illegal goods were traded. Many more towns and ports were known for smuggling than outright piracy. Cawsand, England was one of them. As time went on and the bureaucracy expanded and the nations and companies had more resources and funds at their disposal they were able to chase pirates out through force and inventory controls. \n\nThe actual process of smuggling, mercantilism, and the combating illegal goods would be a large response to questions on their own.\n\nSources:\n\nTransportation Act 1717\n\nPiracy Act 1698\n\nThe History of Pirates Dr. Angus Konstam\n\nUnder the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life among the Pirates David Cordingly\n\nSmuggling: Contraband and Corruption in World History Alan Carras\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"\nThe answer, basically, is that they resold it. \nThe more complicated answer is - it depends on when they were operating.\n\nThe Golden Age of Piracy (the periodization most historians use for the Jack Sparrow-y, largely Caribbean explosion in piracy) was split into two phases by events in Europe. By the mid 17th Century, France, Spain, and Great Britain were all expanding colonially and competing for space in the Caribbean. In these countries were often embroiled in costly wars against each other in Europe which largely monopolized their navies. The result was that the profitable shipping coming out of new colonies in the Americas was relatively unguarded. All three countries, but especially the British, took advantage of this by hiring *privateers*. These were essentially pirates hired out by one of these governments to attack the shipping of their geopolitical enemy. They would be paid a commission for ships captured and were also allowed to fence seized goods in the colonial holdings of their patron power.\n\nNow in the 1720s, this series of European wars finally ended, and for the first time in a while, there was peace. Peace allowed the transatlantic trade to really boom, but it also eliminated the need for the colonial powers to hire out thugs to attack each other. By this time thousands of privateers were operating in the Caribbean. The pickings were just getting really rich, they weren't all going to disappear just because some wig wearing colonial governor told them to. Some pirates did try to go straight, but they often found that life as an honest sailor could be demanding. The mortality rate for merchant seamen on the now flourishing triangular transatlantic trade route was often higher than the slaves they would sometimes be transporting. The result was that even though piracy wasn't as profitable as it used to be, it still remained immensely popular. Many of these pirates set up their own \"pirate ports\" or \"pirate republics\" (like Tortuga in the Pirates of the Caribbean). The largest of these was at Nassau. There pirates could re-provision, re-arm, sell their goods illegally, and rest between plundering. \n\nSources: Peter Earle, *The Pirate Wars*. Gabriel Kuhn, *Women Pirates and the Politics of the Jolly Roger*.\n",
"Pirates were pretty well known for being hot-blooded (mostly) young men who hit the streets of Port Royal with their mates and spent a whole lot more than a few shillings \"giving themselves up to all sorts of debauchery with strumpets and wine.\" So it might be kind of a surprise that pirates' views of both what constituted loot and what to do with that loot were quite practical.\n\nFirst, there was always the possibility that the captured ship itself was a prize. When John Duglas captured the nine-man ship *Blue Dove* in 1664, it wasn't nearly good or big enough for his own crew, and the pirates simply locked the other sailors belowdecks and ported away the cargo. But saltwater was hard on the hulls of even good ships, and trading up in terms of size, weaponry, and condition was always tempting. Humphrey Thurston abandoned a ship still worth 300 pounds *as an unsalvageable wreck* (in the Caribbean, where vessels sold for *much* lower rates than in England) when he captured a Spanish man-of-war in 1670.\n\nAlthough spending by privateers doubled the amount of alcohol sold in Jamaica in the 1660s, pirates were keen to cut out the middleman and use captured cargo as their source of food and liquor. The governor of Jamaica in the late 1660s even complained that privateers never bought actual food from his merchants and farmers! Modyford was grumpy about this, but land-based owners of semi- or not-actually-at-all legit privateer fleets were rather happier that they only had to supply breadstuffs--if that! Pirates intending on a long period at sea would butcher live animal cargo and salt the meat to preserve it for months of use. Sadly, they also killed, salted, and ate the dogs who kept sailors company and helped with pest control on ships.\n\nBut the most common fate for captured loot by far, of course, was basic economics: you have product, you sell it. In the heydeys of Caribbean piracy, the sale of booty in pirate-heavy towns was one of the most important factors shaping local day-to-day economy (not just sweeping sugar trade-driven trends). A single, lucrative haul of log-wood in 1667 crashed the price of the commodity in Port Royal for four months. More typical were steady low prices, locally, of things like cocoa and indigo that were sold dog cheap (or rather, \"dogge cheape,\" because early modern English loves you and wants you to be happy). \n\nThis was a boon for local traders, of course, who went right on to sell those commodities elsewhere for a significant markup and profit. I have to mention that this was unfortunately true especially for captured slaves. For some reason, local plantation owners had no extra troubles when they treated captured *pirates* who had angered them as slave labor, but slaves seized off ships were called mischief-makers and sold off-island. I've seen it suggested that pirate crews may also have retained specialized slaves for their own use and profit--pearl diving was a specific and valuable skill, and slave-divers were sometimes seized off attacked ships.\n\nPirates dumped their merchandise-loot into local economies, driving the development of major towns (and also smaller ones, to evade local governments' attempts to stick a hand in their profits). The cash flow back out, even with the dirt cheap prices, should have been enormous. But pirates were the live fast die young sort (a study of 12 privateer captains identified in sources from 1662-63 and again in 1670-73 found that after just a decade, 7 were dead, 1 was in jail, and 4 were petty laborers). And so all that money they received from selling their loot went right back into the pockets of the locals who had exchanged it in the first place.\n\n...Only to, you know, complain bitterly to anyone who would listen how frequently they were the target of raids from pirates whose way of life, after all, was stealing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all",
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Question%20Regarding%20Rules",
"https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/",
"http://twitter.com/askhistorians",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/submit?selftext=true&title=",
"https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLINK%20INSIDE%20SQUARE%20BRACKETS%20else%20default%20to%20FAQs%5D%0A%0ANOTE:%20Don%27t%20forget%20to%20add%20the%20time%20options%20after%20the%20command.%0A%0ARemindMe",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/bestof"
],
[
"http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199730414/obo-9780199730414-0197.xml",
"http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199730414/obo-9780199730414-0077.xml",
"http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-263"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3yk1zb
|
is there any evidence to suggest that current animals have evolved to overcome specific environmental challenges due to human intervention? i.e. roads, buildings, pollution?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yk1zb/eli5_is_there_any_evidence_to_suggest_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cye2n6h",
"cye2uri"
],
"score": [
15,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes, definitely. A very early and popular example are/were moths in Manchester in England. Basically, the moths tended to be the color of tree bark for camouflage, but in the 19th century soot from factories in Manchester caused the trees to be darker in color. Moths with darker bodies and wings skyrocketed in population while that of the tree bark colored moths declined. \n\nHumans have impacted just about every environment on Earth and subjected the organisms within it to at least *some* kind of evolutionary pressure.",
"I read about a bird that has developed a shorter wingspan than its cousins to better dodge moving vehicles._URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2901431"
]
] |
||
2uag0c
|
why can’t the usa government build a good website?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uag0c/eli5why_cant_the_usa_government_build_a_good/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co6midl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They don't need to.\n\nCompanies build good websites because they want to draw in new customers and keep the existing ones.\n\nThe government knows you don't have a choice.\n\nThey also have a different set of priorities. They're concerned foremost with having the information & services you need, accessibility requirements (eg - it has to work well with screen-reader software for the blind) & security. Making things pretty & easy are secondary concerns & often the first thing to get cut when they're looking at a budget."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1t9yt5
|
how does communism function in modern societies (e.g. russia and china) and how does it differ from communist regimes 80 years ago?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t9yt5/eli5_how_does_communism_function_in_modern/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5u6i7",
"ce5v3bx"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Russia is not communist any longer (the USSR fell in the late 80's). China isn't the Maoist communist nation it once was BUT, since officially, the Chinese government still controls everything (for the betterment of the Chinese people, of course) the industry that has risen up is largely unregulated and dangerous for the Chinese people. The Communist Party of China can't justify both acting as it has in the past, AND willfully setting a regulation structure to support healthy capitalism... SO... there are really 2 China(s)... The unfettered free-market capitalism that has a great number of advantages for the economy and people of China (even though it can be dangerous and abusive to lower-class/uneducated people) AND... the state-run, inefficient, overlord who's sort of ignoring the growing economy to some degree...\n\nBack in the day, Communist regimes were over-lording governments, adhered to Marxism and valued the state higher than the individual... Of course, this created an atmosphere for \"abuse\" of the individual citizen\n\nEDIT: for clarity",
"The former societies called communist by Westerners did not see themselves as communist, but at a stage closer to communism than the Western societies they'd call capitalist societies. Usually they would use the term socialism to describe their current regime.\n\nSocialism, because the major industries, banks and other financial institutions, natural ressources and most of the agricultural sector had been socialized, or run by the state. This way, factories, mines, insurance companies etc were no \"goods\" that could be traded like you can buy a share of IBM or Facebook. Also, no-one could have bought complete control over a company, like some companies in Western societies are controlled by a single family, like BMW is in the hands of the Quandt family owning about half of the shares.\n\nRussia and China are market-orientated, or capitalist societies, although the state-run part is still larger than in countries that never went socialist."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
38su28
|
How can you get a tan through glass if it blocks all UV rays?
|
Reading "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" he mentions sitting in a truck watching the atom bomb test through the window because UV light cannot pass through glass - he also says bright light can never hurt your eyes, the real danger is UV. But, it seems like I have had my arm get slightly sunburned while driving long distance on bright days with the sun directly on the driver's side. So am I hallucinating or can one get burnt through glass and does thickness matter at all? How would a UV light let any UV out if its tube is made of thin glass?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/38su28/how_can_you_get_a_tan_through_glass_if_it_blocks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crxk809",
"crxky9d",
"crxqp0p",
"crxs9ca",
"crxstlt",
"cry0pro",
"cry21xu",
"cry29bs",
"cryazw4"
],
"score": [
1392,
225,
12,
25,
26,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"**Short answer:** Glass doesn't block all UV rays. UV radiation comes in two types, UVA and UVB. UVB is responsible for the most intense burning, and is blocked by untreated glass. UVA penetrates deeper into your skin and is responsible for tanning, and also penetrates untreated glass.\n\n**Long answer:** As a general rule, don't take medical advice from Feynman. He did crazy things, like *look at the first nuclear detonation on earth without safety equipment.* \n\nNow that that's out of the way, I should inform you that we subdivided the UV part of the spectrum into UVA and UVB, with respective wavelengths of 400-320 nm and 320-290 nm.\n\nAt the earth's surface we receive vastly different amounts of UVA and UVB rays; UVA accounts for about 95% of them and are present all year because they penetrate the ozone layer. UVB rays, which are slightly more energetic, are partially shielded by the ozone layer, so they are more abundant in the summer. \n\nFurthermore, UVA penetrates most glass, and penetrates deeper into your skin, and is responsible for tanning (and also a lot of aging as well). While UVB does do most of the burning it is generally blocked by glass. \n\nSo, while a hypothetical person might prevent the nastiest of the sunburn by hiding under glass, they'll still be soaking up a lot of UV rays. I don't want to inadvertently give medical advice here, but I don't think anyone will fault me for saying, \"Full spectrum sun screen (UVA+UVB) provides greater skin protection from sunlight than glass.\"\n\nAnd I'd like to offer a [source](_URL_0_) and a friendly reminder to commenters that [askscience has strong rules regarding medical advice.](_URL_1_)",
" > he also says bright light can never hurt your eyes, the real danger is UV.\n\n**Feynman was wrong wrong wrong wrong about this!** Lasers are narrow band, bright sources and there are [laser safety](_URL_1_) precautions for visible lasers. [Here](_URL_0_) is a list of damage mechanisms based on the wavelength of light: \n\n > 180–315 nm (UV-B, UV-C): \tphotokeratitis (inflammation of the cornea, equivalent to sunburn)\n\n > 315–400 nm (UV-A): \tphotochemical cataract (clouding of the eye lens)\n\n > **400–780 nm (visible): \tphotochemical damage to the retina, retinal burn**\n\n > 780–1400 nm (near-IR): \tcataract, retinal burn\n\n > 1.4–3.0μm (IR): \taqueous flare (protein in the aqueous humour), cataract, corneal burn\n\n > 3.0 μm–1 mm: \tcorneal burn\n\nIronically, he was *so* wrong, that I would rather have my eye damaged by UV light than by visible light since we have medical procedures that can fix cataracts and photokeratitis. Can't fix a damaged retina though.",
" > But, it seems like I have had my arm get slightly sunburned why driving long distance on bright days with the sun directly on the driver's side.\n\nThere are different types of glasses. UV lamps would obviously use glass that is UV transmissive, and yes, thickness plays a role, too.\n\nCommon window glass usually *does* attenuate UVA, but it does not block it completely. And in case you haven't seen it yet: [face of a trucker after 28 years on the road](_URL_0_).",
"Piggybacking... I know that any amount of tanning = sun damage, but are you able to tan *more healthily* while using sun screen than without? That is to say, does using sun screen at an SPF that still allows for melanin production reduce the risk for melanoma?",
" > it seems like I have had my arm get slightly sunburned while driving long distance on bright days with the sun directly on the driver's side.\n\nAccording to the manufacturer in [this article](_URL_0_) the windows in many vehicle doors only offer protection equivalent to SPF 16. The windshield protection is around SPF 50.",
"You've got some pretty good answers here but I'd like to add that the transmission of window glass in the UV is pretty poor. You are probably getting about [90% of the 350 to 400 nm](_URL_0_) portion of the spectrum and virtually none of the rest. So glass is a pretty good at protecting you from the majority of the nastiest wavelengths. \n\n[I also found this interesting](_URL_1_)",
"Thin glass as used in black lights doesn't block much UV light. Quality fluorescent lamps have enough phosphers to convert UV to visible, cheap fluorescent lamps allow a lot of UV emissions. Uncoated ends of tubes emit UV that is why they should be covered. If your working close to lighting use good lamps, protect your eyes and skin. Switch to LEDs as they have better light, save energy, last longer and reduce risk of exposure to UV radiation or toxic chemicals.",
"Automobile windshield glass is very thick and has a layer of plastic insude, should block lots of UV. Side windows are thick some blocking. Most window glass is relatively thin and will allow enough to fade pigments so that tinted or even clear plastic film is used to add UV protectiob. Blacklight tubes are made with very thin glass to allow useful (as germicide) or harmful ( dna damage) levels of UV to pass through.",
"The same reason you can't look at the sun just because you're wearing sunglasses - they aren't designed to *block uv rays completely*, they are designed to reduce it. Same goes for car windows. If you wanted complete protection, your windscreen would look like a welders mask visor in its darkness and usability. You'll notice at the corner of all windows on a car a UV rating.. this is how much it's blocking. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/uva-radiation-a-danger-outdoors-and-indoors",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s4chc/meta_medical_advice_on_askscience_the_guidelines/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Damage_mechanisms",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety"
],
[
"http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage-on-left-side-of-his-face-after-28-years-on-the-road/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.medicaldaily.com/glass-car-windows-doesnt-fully-protect-suns-uv-rays-could-explain-left-side-skin-255398"
],
[
"http://www.shimadzu.com/an/industry/ceramicsmetalsmining/chem0501005.htm",
"https://www.guardian.com/cs/groups/climaguard/documents/native/gi_004941.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
88gq81
|
why are ar-15’s so controversial while many other semi-automatic rifles and handguns with lower round capacities have almost identical lethality capabilities if multiple magazines are utilized that only take a second or so to swap out?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88gq81/eli5_why_are_ar15s_so_controversial_while_many/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwkhrr1",
"dwkhryu"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"Because that model is being repeated over and over like a mantra by the media currently since it has been used most frequently in mass shootings. The public generally does not investigate events such as these deeper than the information disseminated by the news coverage or facebook posts. When one model becomes prevalent it is the poster child (if you will) for the entire market. Legislation, if ever passed, would pertain to the class of weapon and not be weapon specific most likely. ",
"It's not so much that the other guns are considered ok, but AR-15's are just well known, so they're kind of the poster boy.\n\nLike, if you asked someone what a semi-automatic was, the first thing that pops into their head is an AR-15. It's an extremely popular gun, both in sales and pop culture. \n\nIt's also been used in a lot of the recent mass shootings (7 out of 10, according to [source](_URL_0_) ).\n\nIt's basically become a symbol. The same way when you say \"soda\", odds are the first thing most people think of is Coca Cola. Some regions in the US literally refer to sodas/pop as \"coke\" regardless of what kind of soda it actually is. Tissue = Kleenex, Teflon, Oreo's, Nike's, Dorito's, those are all examples where a specific brand became synonymous with the actual product. (and hell, stuff like AK47's/Kalishnikov's as well)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/latest-mass-shootings-all-have-ar-15-in-common/"
]
] |
||
3g3u92
|
technology.
|
Okay, we started with a planet, where all that existed was dirt, rocks, water, air, and plants. And aminals, I guess.
How did we come from only these sources, to suddenly having iPhones and wi-fi? Where do circuits come from?! Machines? I mean, machines are built from other machines, so what was the first machine that started it all and where did it come from?! Yes, these are serious questions. Sorry, it's midnight and these are the thoughts troubling my head.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g3u92/eli5_technology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctul9r6",
"ctulbld",
"ctulbxt"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Language.\n\nHumans have a capacity for language that allows us to pass on complex abstract ideas from one generation to the next. Many other animals can communicate via language, but not to the same degree.\n\nEarly technology included making stone tools (like knives) and boats to cross rivers and lakes. It took thousands of years to develop these ideas, but once mastered, each generation could teach the next generation.\n\nThe next major development was agriculture - being able to plant seeds in the ground to feed yourself rather than relying on foraging for wild plants to eat. Again, it took thousands of years to figure out, but then each generation could teach the next.\n\nLater technology included the ability to mold things out of bronze and iron, then things like the wheel and the arch, and written language.\n\nWritten language was huge - it meant that you didn't need people to teach you everything, someone could write it down and you could read it. That preserved knowledge better and increased the rate of technological development dramatically.\n\nSimple machines like the water wheel led to more complicated machines like the windmill and later a clock.\n\nNobody could have invented a circuit and wi-fi from scratch. As hard as it may be to understand, each of these was invented as a small refinement to an earlier technology that someone invented ten or twenty years earlier.\n\nThe rate of technological progress has increased exponentially because each generation gets to learn nearly all of the ideas of the previous generation, and invent new things from there.\n",
"A wall is made of bricks. Each brick adds up and makes the wall.\nTechnology is the piling on of new ideas and methods for making something based on previous methods or relying on other methods.\n\nWe can make an iphone because we learned thousands of years ago to make glass for the screen, to refine gold for the conductors. _URL_0_\n\nWe can make an iphone because hundreds of years ago we learned about mathematics, calculus and programming cloth making machines _URL_1_\n\nWe can make an iphone because just a few decades ago we learned how to make transistors, and integrated circuits. _URL_2_\n\nEach brick both builds on, and is based on the knowledge that came before it.",
"It probably started with some very early human that figured out that if he tied a rock to a stick, he could smash things that needed smashing. Someone else improved on it by using a sharp rock and now he could stab things that needed stabbing.\n\n > How did we come from only these sources, to suddenly having iPhones and wi-fi?\n\nSuddenly? There was nothing sudden about it, technology have evolved over thousands of years. And you are asking for an explanation of the entire history of technology? I think it would be easier for you to google around a bit for more specific things you want to know about. Maybe things like how the first radio was made, first computer, first transistor or whatever you are looking for.\n\nFor example, if you take the history of the computer (which would lead up to your iPhone and wifi) you could go all the way back to [mechanical Jacquard looms](_URL_2_) (that weave fabric) invented in the early 1800s. Now what does a loom have to do with a computer you might ask. Well you see Joseph Marie Jacquard invented a loom that could weave fabric with [patterns](_URL_1_) and you could \"program\" it make different patterns by using [cards with holes in to control loom.](_URL_0_) So it was the first machine that you could program to do different tasks, now of course that alone does not a computer make. But it was one of the thousands of inventions that contributed to the computers we have today."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_production",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor"
],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Hand-driven-jacquard-loom.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Morris_Dove_and_Rose_Detail.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom"
]
] |
|
52afkk
|
why do you hear so many new sounds when you listen to a song with headphones?
|
When I listen out of a speaker or just out of my phone I hear what I believe is the entire song but, when I listen through headphones, I hear so many more of the minute details. Are speakers unable to produce certain sounds that headphones can? Even if the speaker is extremely loud and he headphones are insanely quiet I still feel as if I hear more of the "details". It seems to be true even if there isn't "outside noise" from other people, environment, etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52afkk/eli5_why_do_you_hear_so_many_new_sounds_when_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7jbocz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For full-sized speakers, like computer speakers or a fully-fledged audio system; and headphones/earphones/In-ear monitors, it's either the quality (how well it can reproduce sound), or the response (what frequencies it can reproduce). \n\nWhen you say you can hear \"many new sounds\", you are probably referring to the mid to high frequency sounds that are overpowered by the pop-your-eyeballs-out-of-their-sockets, tsunami-generating bass (low-frequency) that audio equipment manufacturers oh so love to advertise. Some people love lots of bass, and what constitutes a \"good\" speaker is ultimately up to personal preference. But an \"accurate\" speaker will replay the sound exactly as it was recorded, without modifying how certain parts of it sound.\n\nAs for your phone speakers, tiny speakers like those are tuned to play certain frequencies louder than others. Specifically, they put emphasis on the range of human voices (300-4000 Hz), because those are the most important components to hear. This is why sounds with high frequencies, like cymbals, sound like you're listening to them underwater."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2il1dm
|
the names you americans have for students in certain years and what they mean (like sophomore, freshman, etc.).
|
Or are those the only two?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2il1dm/eli5_the_names_you_americans_have_for_students_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl31qsd",
"cl3655z"
],
"score": [
29,
2
],
"text": [
"Freshman: First year student in high school (secondary school) or college (university)\n\nSophmore: Second year\n\nJunior: Third year\n\nSenior: Fourth Year (final year)",
"A lot of military schools have special names too.\n\nFreshman = Rats- lowest form of life in the barracks, Knobs- shaved heads, Fish- Texas A & M not sure why. West Point (United States Military Academy) if I remember calls sophomores Cows, since they used to spend their first 18 months at school with no break, so when they left it was a rush like the cows coming home.\n\nSome schools then like the University of Virginia still use, first year, second year, etc..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
en3m0d
|
how do we know how fast and in what direction the stars/galaxies are moving relative to us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/en3m0d/eli5_how_do_we_know_how_fast_and_in_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdu0th4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you have objects moving at relativistic velocities (that is, at significant fractions of the speed of light), you get color-shift of the light coming off that object. \n\nIf it's moving away from you, the light is shifted red. If it's coming closer, it's shifted blue. This is an example of an effect known as Doppler shift. \n\nIf we assume the object we're tracking is a star, we can use various techniques such as atmospheric spectroscopy, where we measure the light frequency to see what the star is made of, to determine what its \"real\" color is- what you'd see if you had 0 relative velocity to it. \n\nWe then compare the \"real\" color to the color we actually see to determine the degree of Doppler shift, which tells us the speed.\n\nSome degree of oversimplification here... you usually can't \"see\" Doppler shift in starlight, you have to detect it with machine analysis. But as far as I know, mostly correct otherwise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4ud8lr
|
what are some of the direct effects of the coral reef collapse?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ud8lr/eli5_what_are_some_of_the_direct_effects_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5or2ti",
"d5or6fs",
"d5ord7j",
"d5oseur",
"d5oss0g"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
55,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"For the towns where the coral reefs are located, their tourism industry will take a nosedive.",
"The biggest thing is probably the fact that there will no longer be coral reefs. I don't say this as a comforting thought, the loss of coral reefs would be an almost unfathomable loss of biodiversity.\n\nThere's also that reefs protect coastlines from erosion and are important to a few species who don't live in them exclusively, but by far the biggest impact would be the death of an irreplaceable type of ecosystem. As others have mentioned, the people that will feel it the most are places that rely on them for tourism.\n\nCoral reef destruction is often brought up with climate change because they are extremely sensitive environments (to temperature, sea level, storms and PH), and have already suffered great losses just from the changes experienced so far. So that's probably why you hear a lot about them, not because of their ecological importance. They are basically a sign of what could be coming to other environments in the future that are slightly more resistant.",
"A large percentage of the world's protein is extracted from the ocean. Places like the barrier reef in Australia are important for providing spawning grounds and nurseries as well as breeding habitat for many species. Fisheries will suffer from this kind of habitat loss. The physical reduction of the reef structure will also mean greater storm surge damage to the east coast of Australia. Dead zones, or areas that lack of oxygen in the water column, due to excess nutrient presence from land run off leave large fish die offs in their wake. The excess nutrients from fertilizer and dust from land or mining operations allow phytoplankton to temporarily bloom in excess and consume any available oxygen, leaving none for fish or other wildlife. The greatest risk to humans is the reduction of available food sources that rely on these endangered areas in one form or another. ",
"Coral reefs provide some protection of shorelines against the ocean. Without the reefs many beaches will be in danger of being eroded by strong waves which were previously had been dissipated by coral.\n\nAnother problem is acidification will become more drastic. It is the main problem causing the collapse of coral reefs, but as they disappear, the ocean loses much its buffer ability and will thereafter become more acidic at a much greater rate. Aside from the known effects of ocean acidification on marine life, this also causes the atmosphere to retain a higher proportion of carbon dioxide (in a positive feedback loop). This is slightly off the \"direct effects\" topic, but is still one of the less discussed effects of the loss of coral, yet a significant one. ",
"It's important to note ocean life is very different from life on land. In the ocean, life cycles and migrations can exist over massive scales, over hundreds or even thousands of kilometres, with a great deal of empty space in between. It's alot harder to find food or mates to have babies with in most of the ocean.\n\nAn exception to this rule are coral reefs. They are a lot like rainforests, and a larger variety of different animals live there in greater numbers. Think of them like a lagoon of safety with plentiful food in a giant desert.\n\nThe Great Barrier Reef collapsing like this is a big deal. It's sort of like watching the Amazon rainforest dying and all of the animals normally found there just disappearing, except because it's in the ocean it's harder to know where they have gone, all because of the various human activities that contribute to global warming and acidification (as well as other locally caused degradation - pollution, runoff, fishing etc). It's completely irreplaceable. Its taken thousands of years (the reef is about 40,000 years old) for the reef to grow, and animals from all over the ocean have moved in there permanently or have learned to use it to reproduce or stop off during migrations. So the collapse not only completely removes one of the largest and most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth, but also has implications for those around it, for potentially entire oceans.\n\nAs someone else pointed out, a lot of commercially important fish will be directly affected. Migrating whales, sharks and turtles will have less food during their huge migrations. Coastal animals like seabirds and sea mammals will also have their habitat affected. The implications of this are huge. The Anthropocene Extinction is happening before our very eyes - this is a geologically significant event and it doesn't just apply to the GBR. The same is happening to reefs throughout the Coral Triangle, and to places throughout the rest of the ocean.\n\nTL;DR: this is huge. We can't predict all of the consequences of it, but losing the Great Barrier Reef has implications for the rest of the ocean and commercial fishing. Many species are likely to go extinct or severely decline as a result. This is a geologically significant event, a notable contributor to the current mass extinction crisis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3y9oq0
|
what makes a director so important in film and why do they get paid so much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y9oq0/eli5_what_makes_a_director_so_important_in_film/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cybogwf",
"cybolbv",
"cybolc1"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"they direct the movie. They are the leading person who says how things are structured, how the actors move and behave, the lighting and the camera position..pretty much all of the most important aspects of a movie, along with all of the things that separate a good movie from a great one. ",
"Wikipedia gives a good summary:\n\n\"Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects, and visualizes the script while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision. The director has a key role in choosing the cast members, production design, and the creative aspects of filmmaking. Under European Union law, the director is viewed as the author of the film.\"\n\nI'd analogize a director to the head coach/manager of a professional sports team.",
"Ill just say that there are a lot of elements/positions that go into the making of a movie and the director is the one to get all the elements to agree with each other. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3zz3wb
|
what do diplomats do?
|
i've recently became interested in diplomatic jobs so what do diplomats do on a daily basis
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zz3wb/eli5what_do_diplomats_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyq6bqa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They represent the government of the country they are from.\n\nThey attend meetings, work out agreements, and attend cultural events. Basically, if a foreign government needs to talk to the government of the other country, they can do it through the ambassador. Ambassadors can also conduct business on behalf of their governments, sign agreements, and enter into official negotiations in the place of the government."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1m5roo
|
Can you force Psychopathy?
|
If a certain very traumatic or life changing event happens, can it force Psychopathy(turn your amygdala off) or can it speed up the rate for developing Psychopathy?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1m5roo/can_you_force_psychopathy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc6f8cm"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > If a certain very traumatic or life changing event happens,\n\npsychopathology after traumatic stress - > cf. post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)\n\n > can it force Psychopathy(turn your amygdala off)\n\nthere's a lot more to it than reduced amygdala activity in certain conditions\n\n > can it speed up the rate for developing Psychopathy?\n\nprimary/idiopathic psychopaths are famously immune to stress and fear\n\nexample from *Without Conscience*:\n\n > Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty that limits the range and depth of their feelings. At times they appear to be cold and unemotional while nevertheless being prone to dramatic, shallow, and short-lived displays of feeling. Careful observers are left with the impression they are playacting and little is going on below the surface.\n\n > A psychopath in our research said that he didn't really understand what others meant by fear. \"When I rob a bank,\" he said, \"I notice that the teller shakes. One barfed all over the money. She must have been pretty messed up inside, but I don't know why. If someone pointed a gun at me I guess I'd be afraid, but I wouldn't throw up.\" When asked if he ever felt his heart pound or his stomach churn, he replied, \"Of course! I'm not a robot. I really get pumped up when I have sex or when I get into a fight.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ifxhl
|
what is the problem with 4chan users?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ifxhl/eli5_what_is_the_problem_with_4chan_users/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cug2a1j",
"cug2avi",
"cug2g5h",
"cug3e6j",
"cug5g0f"
],
"score": [
13,
5,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Replace \"4chan users\" with \"humans\" and you'll see that one group is not too different from the other",
"Because its all anonymous.\n\nThere are millions of users of 4chan. Obviously a certain percentage of users anywhere will be bad eggs, but on 4chan they can cause more damage because of complete anonymity.",
"Scroll down to the bottom of any askreddit thread. Find the comments that are hidden by low vote.\n\nThose are the kinds of things that come from 4chan.",
"4chan's anonymity, coupled with its wide user base, creates an excellent example of the GIFT - the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Peoples' social inhibitions are reduced since there are no consequences for what they say. Because of this, they end up behaving in ways that they never would in real life.",
"It is really easy when your main demographic is younger men and you have the anonymity of a mob."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
39nurz
|
why it's ok that every time i write a check i give someone my bank account number
|
It's written right on the check! Why is it OK to give that out to just anyone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39nurz/eli5_why_its_ok_that_every_time_i_write_a_check_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs4x237"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's definitely a risk. A celebrity in computer science used to reward people who found his errors, but had to stop using real checks because posted images (for the incredible bragging rights) were probably leading to bank fraud.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe US banking and payments system is incredibly backward. Don't keep a life-altering amount of money in a single checking account."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check"
]
] |
|
alzrkr
|
The annexations by Poland in 1938
|
Why did Poles attack Czechoslovakia and annexed the Czechoslovak territory in 1938, one year before the WW2?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/alzrkr/the_annexations_by_poland_in_1938/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efisiqs"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Casus belli: Territorial claims, based on supposed Polish ethnic majority in those regions.\n\n--\n\nTo understand the roots of this conflict we need to realize that various parts of Silesia changed hands several times throughout many centuries. The kingdom of Poland, the kingdom of Bohemia, the kingdom of Hungary and the kingdom of Prussia. There is little point in arguing over which 20th century state had stronger historical claims to Silesia because neither Czechoslovakia nor Poland based their claim on historical rights as their sole main argument.\n\n--\n\nDuring WWI (1914-1918), Polish, Czech and Slovak pro-independence politicians were already busy preparing the birth of their respective independent states and in order to succeed they needed approval from victorious superpowers.\n\nThe Czechoslovak party claimed that historical borders of the lands of the Bohemian crown haven't changed much up until the 18th century (the loss of Silesia in favour of Prussia) and that those borders matched natural mountainous borders.\nWhat did the Czechoslovak party stress out, though, was the economic/industrial integrity of these lands. There were rich coal resources in the area and also the only railway connecting Bohemia with Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia through mountains went through there.\n\nThe Polish party based their claim on ethnic and national self-determination principles.\n\nWe need to clarify here that although the Czechoslovak claim might seem as \"outrageous\" from a present point of view (claiming some land simply \"because we need it\"), back then it was a fair and reasonable claim for newly born countries that couldn't effectively run their economy without such key resources and infrastructure/industry elements.\nAt the same time, a self-determination right of nations was also a fair and reasonable claim to create an indepentent Polish state, although not a right specific about regions.\nSo there we were in the year of 1918 with both newlyborn countries having a valid claim to the disputed territory.\n\n--\n\nBoth parties initially agreed that in Cieszyn Silesia specifically, Czechoslovaks won't demand historical Bohemian borders but their minimum infrastructural/industrial needs will be addressed.\n\nIt was a provisional regional agreement and a subject to a future border demarcation by experts from both parties. Before proper steps could be finished though, matters spiraled out of control following the dissolution of Austria-Hungary; Czech and Polish national bodies in the region had to act to maintain order and proclaimed the region to belong under Czechoslovakia or Poland respectively.\n\nAgain, to maintain order, both Czech and Polish local national bodies signed a temporary agreement on 5th Nov 1918. How the agreement should be interpreted is a source of disagreement even to this day.\nThe Czechoslovak party claimed that the agreement didn't feature ethnic division and only adressed responsibility areas of both local national bodies (not giving the territory to either state yet). Also strictly stating that border demarcation will be resolved on governmental level of both states.\n\nThe Polish government confirmed this agreement, while the Czechoslovak government did not and considered it binding only on regional level, not state level. In practice though, the Czechoslovak government tolerated Polish actions in the region. Such approach couldn't prevent problems because the agreement was only provisional, lacked eg. court subordination arrangement between cities Opava, Brno and Krakow.\n\nThe Polish party started to administer the region as if it belonged to Poland, most importantly when the Polish government announced Polish elections to the Sejm on 26th Jan 1919, including Cieszyn Silesia in the elections. Thus going the \"fait accompli\" way about the dispute.\n\nFollowing diplomatic talks between Polish and Czechoslovak governments weren't fruitful. The situation was even more complicated because while both states were already independent, they still needed international approval of their territorial actions.\n\nThe Czechoslovak government needed to secure the railway and asked for either French and Italian army to occupy the disputed region or to give approval to the Czechoslovak army, an acknowledged ally of WWI victorious allies, to take action.\n\nWith Polish Sejm elections coming and no reply from Paris, the Czechoslovak government took armed action in order to prevent Sejm elections in Cieszyn Silesia. In the following so-called Seven-day war (23th Jan - 30th Jan 1919) the Czechoslovak army secured the railway, stopped further advance and the dispute was brought to a peace conference in Paris. The Polish and the Czechoslovak government finally agreed to solve the dispute through international arbitration.\n\n--\n\nSo if there was a solution reached through mutual agreement, why did then Poland renew those demands 20 years later?\n\nThere were several factors involved which probably contributed to the Polish party feeling injustly treated.\n\n1) First, the Czechoslovak provisional exile government was already officially acknowledged during WWI and had a very good standing with WWI victorious allies. A stable trustworthy diplomatic partner, with reasonable existential needs. That probably gave Czechoslovakia a better diplomatic leverage.\n\nPoland, on contrary, wasn't really stable in its first independence months. Allies didn't trust Józef Piłsudski much due to his first 3 years in WWI spent on the side of Central powers and didn't initially acknowledge the Polish government appointed by him in Warsaw. They did initially acknowledge the Polish National Committee formed in Lausanne (1917-1919).\n\n2) Poland had more serious existential issues to solve unlike Czechoslovakia, mainly the Polish-Soviet War (14 Feb 1919 – 18 Mar 1921). The Polish government likely agreed to the arbitration with Czechoslovakia in exchange for a promise of help from Allies against Soviets.\n\n3) No major ethnic exchange of inhabitants was done between both states. Regional Poles were involuntarily made into a less than 1% ethnic minority in Czechoslovakia.\n\n--\n\nThe Polish government took advantage of this ethnic sentiment during the interwar period and made sure to keep fuelling it. When the opportunity presented itself in 1938, they acted on the same casus belli like 20 years ago. The Czechoslovakian government, already crippled by the result of the Munich Agreement, accepted the Polish ultimatum without fight."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
o3phd
|
how an anarcho-capitalist society would work on the level of an industrialised nation.
|
I've read about the small-scale societies, running with anarcho-capitalist principles but I haven't been able to find information on real life/theoretical anarcho-capitalist societies at the level of a western nation.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o3phd/eli5_how_an_anarchocapitalist_society_would_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3e503x",
"c3e79w3",
"c3e7s0c",
"c3e82j2",
"c3e842h",
"c3e8mt7",
"c3e9blm",
"c3ea9x1",
"c3ece4t",
"c3esy0d"
],
"score": [
2,
21,
7,
13,
7,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Personally I don't see how it would, but I'm interested in a real answer.",
"**Private Security and Dispute Resolution in a Free Society**\n-----\n\n---\n\n**Preface & Concepts:**\n\n* **Burden:** It is unfair to place the burden on Voluntarists to solve all of the world's problems. Only liars, thieves, con artists, and politicians (I repeat myself) make that nonsense claim, make the situation worse, give the run around, and request more resources.\n* **Perfection:** Voluntarism advocacy does not claim pure perfection, however no government solutions can make claim to perfection either. Holding Voluntarism to a mythical standard of perfection is unfair given frequent and catastrophic government failures and waste.\n* **Not Central Planning:** Voluntarism is not central planning. Voluntarism does not require that one become a road engineer, security expert, economist, and solver of all of life's deepest questions. Generally Voluntarists prefer to leave that up to specialists and entrepreneurs in each field to come up with creative and unexpected solutions, and in exchange for the value they give, receive value in return.\n* **Alternatives:** Alternatives proposed by Voluntarists are just alternatives; many of them are expected to be replaced as better technologies and ideas come along, and replaced again, and again, and again. If I told you 5 methods for building roads today, given freedom to innovate, 100 years from now most of those solutions will be obsolete.\n\n--------\n\nAlternative Security and Dispute Resolution\n-----\n\n* **Personal security:** By taking personal responsibility and security into their own hands, certain low-cost measures can be taken including better locks and doors, adequate lighting, alarm systems, self-defense weapons, avoiding danger, tracking and disabling devices, and a wide variety of other means yet to be imagined.\n* **Credit and Reviews:** Credit and review agencies, websites, and systems are commonly used today in online transactions that take place hundreds of miles away, or even across national borders where there are no practical means of enforcement. Other means, including product reviews, credit agencies, blacklists, reputation and escrow agencies, and public records are a means of avoiding risky relationships, resolving disputes, avoiding risk, and establishing trust and reputation with potential business partners. A few examples include Google-Maps reviews, Etsy, eBay, Amazon, and even the aging Better business Bureau.\n* **Arbitration:** a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the \"arbitrators\", \"arbiters\" or \"arbitral tribunal\"), by whose decision (the \"award\") they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides.\n* **Collective efforts:** such as a neighborhood watch or pooling resources for a neighborhood security guard, and social structures that encourage [defending strangers from violence](_URL_1_) are also practical non-governmental means.\n* **A Private Defense Agency (PDA)**: is a conceptualized agency that provides personal protection and military defense services voluntarily through the free market. A PDA is not a private contractor of the state and is not subsidized in any way through taxation or immunities, nor does it rely on conscription and other involuntary methods. Instead, such agencies would be financed primarily through insurance companies, which are penalized for losses and damages, and have an incentive through competition to minimize waste and maximize quality of service.\n* **A Dispute Resolution Organization, or DRO**: is a conceptualized organization providing services such as mediation and arbitration through the private sector.\n* **Polycentric law (or private law):** is a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction.\n* **Avoiding danger and risk:** and using prudence in risky situations is another means of security that nearly everyone employs today. As I said \"When in downtown Detroit, it is wise to caring one or more knives, remain aware, don't bring valuables, and don't hesitate to tell people to fuck off. Lastly, if you don't like those rules, don't #$%ing go downtown.\"\n\n**Lastly...**\nNo common criminal or band of criminals who lack the pretense of legitimacy and capacity to horizontally enforce their will would be able to commit the acts of treason (against humanity), violence, war, theft (~40% annually), suppression of freedoms, and acts of violence against humanity on a scope anywhere near comparable to that of the monopolized State. War is expensive, small organizations cannot sustain it.\n\n-------\n\nHistory & Examples\n----\n\n* **[Admiralty law](_URL_3_) (also referred to as maritime law)**: is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.\n\n* **[Lex mercatoria](_URL_2_) (from the Latin for \"merchant law\")**: is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It functioned as the international law of commerce. It emphasised contractual freedom, alienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases ex aequo et bono. A distinct feature was the reliance by merchants on a legal system developed and administered by them. States or local authorities seldom interfered, and did not interfere a lot in internal domestic trade. Under lex mercatoria, trade flourished and states took in large amounts of taxation.\n\n* **[Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government](_URL_0_) (Free Market Perspective)**: \"The history of Viking Age Iceland has lessons to teach. One is the importance of a decentralized enforcement power. Iceland's decentralized legal system managed to keep its leaders on a short leash for much of its history. Chieftains only had power if they could convince people to follow them, without the use of coercion. This minimized the principal-agent problem. Who wants to voluntarily follow an incompetent or evil leader? And even if an evil leader did sucker a few free farmers into following him, in the long run he would lose credibility.\"\n\n-------\n*...credit to the notorious voluntaryist redditor JamesCarlin*",
"I don't think this one can be ELI5'd in detail, but here's a TL;DR: It would work almost the same way our modern society works now _except_ that everything the government does would instead be done by private businesses and individuals. Nobody would consider any initiation of the use of force legitimate.\n\nedit: initiate - > initiation",
"The first thing about free society is that nobody knows for sure how they would work in a modern setting, because it has not been tried on a large scale.\n\nA free society would probably function in much the same way as our own. We all face very limited interactions with our governments on a regular basis. Most people aren't violent. Most people respect property rights. To say that people are only this way because of fear of the state is to take a very dim view of humanity. \n\nA mostly deregulated environment already exists with minimal government interference. You are using it. The internet might be taken as analogous to a free society, with both its good and bad. Commerce flourishes, and while there are problems and issues of trust they can for the most part be resolved by private organisations, especially for profit companies. Paypal, user reviews and credibility built up over time all counteract these problems. \n\nExamining all of government's 'functions' and how they might be better provided by the voluntary association of individuals is quite an extensive process. If you would like more detail perhaps you could be more specific and state what aspect of larger societies you are trying to come to an understanding about. Anarcho-capitalist literature can be found at _URL_0_ Murray Rothbard is one of the most articulate proponents of free society.",
"It could look exactly like society today, but I very much doubt it. Markets award efficiency, low cost, and above all else, CHOICE! \n\nWhat is good for one person would not be good for all. Would you like a society that has a high \"tax\" rate, but provides healthcare, police, fire protection, a giant safety net, unemployment insurance, etc? Then sign a contract that has that in an all inclusive package.\n\nWould you like the very basics in a \"government?\" Just police, fire, no healthcare, but cheaper? Then sign a contract for that package.\n\nDo you want to hand pick all the services yourself that today's government offers? You can handpick your fire service, security service, healthcare service, etc individually to get a customized experience based on what you value.\n\nAs far as things that are currently public, such as roads, well, there wouldn't be such a thing as public property really, so roads would be owned by private persons and they would be run like a business. If you build a road, the safer, smoother, and faster you make it, the more people will pay to use it, as far as freeways go. Roads in town will more than likely be free to use and handled by businesses, as they want people to come to their businesses. Neighborhood roads would probably be handled by a neighborhood association of some sort that splits the cost of maintaining the roads among the people that want them, or would be hanndled like they are today, with whoever develops the land for a neighborhood paying for the initial construction and then maintenance handled by them or ownership transferred to the people of the neighborhood.\n\nI'm just talking out of my ass here though. The thing about the market is that it offers solutions unimagined by us today. Who says that roads are the most efficient way to travel, for instance?",
"A stateless society would work like today except everything would be provided like computers are now, by creative people that succeed only if their products or service does good and makes their customers happy. No longer would anyone tolerate stealing, oppression, or exploitation, even if the people doing it claim it's ok because they're the \"government\". All people would have the power and freedom to organize and cooperate to solve problems and build things.",
"If you ask Stefan Molyneux, [it doesn't matter](_URL_0_) how it would work; all that matters is that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, and wrong.\n\nThis is a general FAQ about a truly free society, and doesn't go into depth. It's still quite advanced for a 5 year old, but a 7-8 year old would probably understand it.",
" > at the level of a western nation\n\nDoes this refer to size, technology, capacity, access to resources, etc? What does 'level' mean?",
"A stateless society would work like today except everything would be provided like computers are now, by creative people that succeed only if their products or service does good and makes their customers happy. No longer would anyone tolerate stealing, oppression, or exploitation, even if the people doing it claim it's ok because they're the \"government\". All people would have the power and freedom to organize and cooperate to solve problems and build things.",
"You already learned this in kindergarten. The initiation of force is immoral. Period. Everything else is up to entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://mises.org/daily/1121",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/kvki9/prepping_for_the_egyptian_revolution_as_well_as/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law"
],
[],
[
"mises.org"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDVNL0VyaEI"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2w6tx1
|
what is wrong with big data?
|
Title
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w6tx1/eli5what_is_wrong_with_big_data/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coo3flq",
"coo42ia",
"coo6whs"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The ability to track and connect people that don't want to be tracked and connected. Lots of people do things that they don't want tied to other aspects of their lives that are in no way illegal but can cause them harm because of things like discrimination. For example, while being gay has become more socially acceptable than it was in the past take a gay person working for a Conservative Christian Church. The person goes out of their way to separate their work and personal lives but has a Facebook account where they post only personal life information. They never check Facebook at work on any work device. Facebook gets the IP address the persons personal phone uses to connect to it while the person is at work (via the publicly available wifi, not their work desktop, or even the private wifi) and then uses that data to suggest to the Pastor, who also connects from that IP address to Facebook, that they two of them should be friends. Probably a correct assumption but since the person is trying to keep their work and personal life separate a bad thing. The Pastor immediately sees the persons personal life and their job is at risk because Big Data tied together two pieces of information.\n\nThere was also [this case](_URL_0_) where Target used Big Data to determine a teenage girl still in high school was pregnant and sent baby related mailers to her home address, basically telling her father she was pregnant before she did.",
"There is nothing wrong with it.\n\nIt does make some people feel very uncomfortable knowing that a company knows so many things about them.",
"Big Data isn't \"wrong\" per se. People or companies can use it in ways that can violate privacy, which can be unethical or illegal.\n\nSource: I work for Big Data and I have to take yearly courses on privacy issues, confidentiality, and appropriate use. I am also restricted from \"sensitive\" data I don't work on.\n\nFor example, let's say I work on a product that contains DMV records, which we sell to law enforcement (authorized) customers (I don't work on sensitive data, but we do have products like that). I can't sell or give access to that product to anyone but the qualified customers. I can't use that information to look up anyone's address, license number, etc. *for anything other than a legitimate business reason*, or I could get fired."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3rzljw
|
why are doctors, lawyers, etc allowed to share stories online anyonomously? aren't all of these stories confidential?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rzljw/eli5_why_are_doctors_lawyers_etc_allowed_to_share/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwspxs8",
"cwspzd7",
"cwsq04k"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
11
],
"text": [
"Well we're not really. But let me tell you about this time my client got caught with an LSD tab under his foreskin...",
"Professionals share stories online anonymously to be able to share, educate and discuss knowledge of cases without breaking confidentiality agreements. By omitting any personal information about their client, there isn't any way to connect the story with the person, thus keeping the confidentiality intact. \n",
"If something is revealed to you in confidence then in practice, you are not suppose to reveal any identifying information about the person.\n\nSo it is one thing for me to mention I am a youth counselor and I have seen all kinds of suicide attempts with multiple hangings off of shower heads in the bathroom, but it would be another for me to tell everyone about the time /u/Mufasa_sucasa attempted to cut their wrist in November, 2015, but barely did any real damage because they are an attention seeking pussy.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8m1gul
|
when showering the temperature has to be above 37°c (98°f) because below bodytemperature feels cold, but when it is 28°c (82°f) outside it feels warm, how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8m1gul/eli5_when_showering_the_temperature_has_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzk077f",
"dzk0a83",
"dzk0jq3"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Temperature is absolute but heat capacity and conductivity are not.\n\nAir is diffuse and can't wick away heat very well.\n\nWater is dense and can draw heat off very rapidly.\n\n85 degree air can't draw body heat away as fast as you can produce it, 85 degree water can.",
"Ought to be due to thermal capacity of water, which is way bigger than air's.\nWater \"takes away\" more heat than air does, so it \"feels colder\"",
"The ambient temperature doesn't directly affect your sense of temperature. It's more closely related to the amount of heat in your body. \nWater more readily transfers heat energy compared to air, so temperature differences between your body's surface and water in contact with it lead to more heat leaving or entering your body when compared to your body and air at the same temperature. \nBecause heat travels faster, your body's temperature changes faster, and you FEEL colder/hotter from the same temperature difference. \nIn the end, air and water feel different because of differences in thermodynamic properties!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bqvife
|
Why were crosses used for crucifixions?
|
For one cross it would require two wooden beams (nailed or tied together with a rope). And there is a bigger possibility it collapse, because of the junction.
Why wouldn't a single wooden beam be enough?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bqvife/why_were_crosses_used_for_crucifixions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eo9b6t0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"[Here is an earlier discussion of the shape of the crucifixion device](_URL_0_) that covers a lot of this. Although I'm sure there is more that can be said.\n\nTL;DR - A simple stake often *was* good enough. \"Cross\" is an English word that came much, much later, so we should be careful about projecting English meanings back too far. The Latin \"crux\" did not have the same implications, and the Greek *stauros* is more stake-like in its connotations. There were a lot of shapes that could serve the purpose."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4pzut3/if_the_romans_used_x_shaped_crosses_for/"
]
] |
|
8yx3ns
|
why does work appear to go by faster when making an effort to never look at the clock?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8yx3ns/eli5_why_does_work_appear_to_go_by_faster_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2ed8ll",
"e2egqra"
],
"score": [
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Because your mind treats it as one chunk of time, rather than several (albeit smaller) chunks.",
"It has to do with where your focus is and the fact that your brain doesn't count time like a clock does. It works in memories. \n\nIf you focus on the clock, you're making memories of time. So when you think back you remember each time you checked the clock and some feeling associated with that knowledge (usually dispair). This makes things seem like they are going slowly because of your frequent checks on the time. \n\nBut when you think back to the task you were doing, you have no real reference for how long each action was taking you. So you don't get the same sense of time passing when you think back (unless you were timing yourself intentionally). So the time *seems* to whizz by but it's just a trick of memory and perception. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4hk2z7
|
how do mod chips in game consoles work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hk2z7/eli5_how_do_mod_chips_in_game_consoles_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2qcwnu",
"d2qfqpx"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"When you turn on a game console, a program runs that looks for a valid license \"key\" on the disc. This key is provided by the company that made the console to the people who made the game. In order for the game to play, the console validates this key. Thanks to private-public key encryption, this key is kept secret by each game in a completely different way.\n\nA mod chip interrupts the circuit for this program, and instead gives the license key checking program/circuit a valid key. This tricks the console into allowing the disc to be played.\n\nThe black and white is from running a game made for a different TV standard. PAL (europe) and NTSC (USA and several other countries) both have different methods of outputting to a TV, and have different license keys that need to be checked by the console. \n\nSince you would need a different mod chip to play PAL games on an NTSC PSX, it would make sense that those games would appear black and white, your TV didn't know how to read the color signals coming from the console.",
"There's a lock on the door of the arcade.\n\n*(Every console has encryption built into the hardware)*\n\nOnly some people have the key to go in and turn the lights on.\n\n*(Only licensed game developers have the signing key that allows games to run)*\n\nYou can get around this by building another door that doesn't have a lock.\n\n*(Mod chips are all different, but they all provide some method of bypassing this encryption hardware)*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
24f3us
|
What prompted our Hunter Gatherer ancestors to begin the "Agricultural Revolution?"
|
I have seen many different theories on why people went from roaming to staying put and farming. I was wondering if this is a highly debated topic or if there is a widely accepted answer I am unable to find. Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24f3us/what_prompted_our_hunter_gatherer_ancestors_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch6pnxv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This will probably be best asked at /r/anthropology\n\nStill the theory i learned was a simple carrying capacity one. A hunter gatherer needs 6400 acres per person, a farmer needs 8000 square feet. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://stealthsurvival.blogspot.ca/2011/01/backyard-food-production-how-much-land.html?m=1"
]
] |
|
2exevf
|
What should Hitler have done (differently) to win in the WWII; and what the Allies could have done to end the war earlier?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2exevf/what_should_hitler_have_done_differently_to_win/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck3vzc8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well this is a very broad question, naturally, and involves a lot of hypotheticals (and therefore a lot of debate), but lets seize on the 'big' arguments that have been made.\n\nNaturally, first and foremost, Hitler's invasion of Russia is usually deemed a foolish move, however, this is speaking with hindsight. It is more intelligent, I feel, to explore mistakes made after the launch of Barbarossa. \n\n1) The encirclement and destruction of Russian forces at Kiev is largely considered the greatest single tactical victory of WWII and the worst Strategic blunder. It was wasted effort and bought the Stavka (Soviet high command) time to form a cohesive defense around Moscow and form strategic reserves to ensure the defensive lines integrity. The time, manpower and supplies wasted in the effort to destroy the forces in Kiev - at Hitler's behest - could've been used much more efficiently to go for the throat of the Soviet Regime's military and political power, at a time when the RKKA was still very much off balance.\n\n2) Changing Stalingrad's significance from a blocking position to a full-blown occupation mission. Case Blue's initial goal was only to seize the oil fields of the Caucasus region; the initial drive to do so was well on its way to accomplishing that. Stalingrad, a key crossing point for potential counter-offensives, was only to be invested by fire and a cordon to cover the drive further south...but something changed in Hitler's psyche - and this in and of itself is a matter of debate. Books on this are numerous and beyond count, but if you want a fairly recent publication that is highly accessible, then look for Antony Beevor's 'Stalingrad.'\n\n3) Denying Manstein more time to continue his defensive operations and ordering a counter-offensive at Kursk.\n\nAt the time leading up to the offensive at Kursk, the German military was already and categorically incapable of attacking on a broad front. This lead Hitler to demand a concentrated thrust; the build up to Kursk required stripping other areas of the broad Russian front of their precious armored and mobile formations to accomplish this. Kursk proved to be a disaster despite the heavy losses inflicted on the Russians, and robbed Manstein (Southern Army Group) and his colleagues in the Center and Northern Army Groups from continuing their successful strategy of 'elastic' defending. That is, giving up tracts of land when necessary to buy time for a mobile counterattack to be delivered, destroying large numbers of the enemy with a well coordinated, operational counteroffensive. The argument made here is that Hitler simply attacked too early, and should've let the year of 1943 go by in a purely defensive state while the strained German war machine licked its wounds. \n\nArguments for what the Allies could've done better are even more numerous, so I'll leave off with one of the more contentious debates that I am familiar with:\n\nFollowing the breakthrough from the Normandy sector and the subsequent broad pursuit across France against shattered 7th, 15th and 5th Panzer Army remnants, Eisenhower was forced to call for restraint and limit advances due to crushing fuel shortages and the ever-lengthening supply-line. Fuel was made on a priority basis and as we know he gave priority to the Northern shoulder of the advance to conduct operations in the Scheldt (in an attempt to capture Antwerp intact) and, more infamously, in occupied Holland. The argument generally splits into two schools of thought, first; that the operations in Holland were overambitious, and should've been more realistically planned, and second; that these operations should never have been launched, instead, supply priority should've been given to the Southern shoulder to help expedite an invasion of the German homeland.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
nx4ks
|
What speed would an airplane have to travel at to stay in perfect perpetual darkness at the equator?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nx4ks/what_speed_would_an_airplane_have_to_travel_at_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3cmiql",
"c3cmiql"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Well the distance between each degree of longitude is about 70 miles. 15 degrees of longitude equals an hour difference in the time zone. So for a plane to stay in darkness it would have to be travelling at 1050mph.\n\nedit: The 70 miles is the distance at the equator.",
"Well the distance between each degree of longitude is about 70 miles. 15 degrees of longitude equals an hour difference in the time zone. So for a plane to stay in darkness it would have to be travelling at 1050mph.\n\nedit: The 70 miles is the distance at the equator."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
zg6jr
|
how can i use the pronunciation things on wikipedia?
|
They look like absolute gibberish (why does the pronunciation for "Jobs" begin with a "d"-ish thing?), but they seem really helpful!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zg6jr/how_can_i_use_the_pronunciation_things_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c64a8wc",
"c64bb7c",
"c64c09p",
"c64ce02",
"c64cikv",
"c64etld"
],
"score": [
14,
66,
5,
20,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They're using the [International Phonetic Alphabet](_URL_0_). \n\n/dʒ/ (IPA is usually put between //s to show it's a phonetic transcription) is the IPA symbol combination for the English sound \"j\" like \"jam.\" The \"j\" sound is actually a combination of the \"d\" sound, and the \"zh\" sound (like the S in \"treasure\").",
"The reason we use those symbols is because we need a way to explain how something is pronounced no matter what language it's spoken in.\n\nThere are hundreds of languages in the world, and hundreds of possible sounds that are used in languages. That doesn't mean they're completely different - there are lots of sounds that are used in almost all languages, but there are other sounds like the English \"th\" sound that are more rare, only a few languages use them.\n\nAlso, pronunciations change over time, even when spelling stays the same. Notice how nursery rhymes have the word \"again\" rhyming with \"rain\"? That's because many years ago, \"again\" was pronounced differently, and it did rhyme with \"rain\". So it's important to have a way to talk about sounds in a way that doesn't change over time.\n\nPeople who study language are linguists. In order to talk about all of the possible sounds, they came up with a set of symbols called the International Phonetic Alphabet. Every symbol in this alphabet corresponds to an exact sound. It never changes over time and it never changes depending on what word it's in - each of these sounds is exact.\n\nThere are hundreds of symbols in IPA, but it's not as hard as it sounds to learn. Many of the symbols were chosen to look like English letters, and there aren't that many symbols you need to learn in order to read the pronunciation of any English word. There are lots of symbols you'll never encounter unless you study African languages, South Asian languages, etc.\n\nOne last thing - how do linguists define an IPA symbol, given that pronunciation changes over time? They do it by describing precisely how the sound is made in the human body. They describe where the tongue is, what shape the lips are in, and what is done with airflow. If someday in the distant future people stumbled across a reference book on IPA, they'd be able to figure out hor to pronounce any word, even if they had no voice recordings from this century.\n",
"It is the International Phonetic Alphabet, as explained by others here. \nSome articles do have a comparison for each symbol if you hover over them. _URL_0_",
"Is it just me, or does wikipedia need to implement a speech engine to pronounce the words whenever there is an IPA definition? I'd rather hear it than looking at the alphabet soup and spending 5 minutes piecing it together from the tables.",
"I'm surprised no one has said this yet! Just roll your mouse over each character and the tooltip will tell you how to pronounce it.\n\nEDIT: Whoops, beaten by electroncaptcha after all.",
"I believe you're referring to International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). [Here is a very useful page from Paul Meier that has flash versions of him vocalising the sounds you see from the IPA](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key"
],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/R3EpC.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/charts.html"
]
] |
|
2r2hvb
|
What happens when you heat metal past it's melting point?
|
Let's say I have a bar that is 50% zinc and 50% copper. I want to melt it and extract pure copper.
Copper has a much higher melting point than zinc. So if I throw this bar in my crucible set at the temperature of melting copper, what will happen to the zinc?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2r2hvb/what_happens_when_you_heat_metal_past_its_melting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnc5b01"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"To answer this question you need to look at the phase diagram of the alloy in question. For the Zinc Copper system it's very messy\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAll the Greek letters are different crystal structures. So you might have a solid which is CuZn, Cu2Zn or CuZn2... They are mixed and happy being with each other. Now how you read this is start at you composition on the x-axis and increase the temperature by heading straight up and see what phases you go though. What you'll notice is that the solid doesn't melt out of the zinc leaving the copper behind. They melt all at once.\n\nYou'll notice right before the liquid there is the Greek letter + L (liquid). At those points you would get some solid and a liquid copper/zinc mixture. You could theoretically separate out the solid to get enhance the concentration of one of the metals, but it's not trivial.\n\nThere is some stuff I left out on reading phase diagrams, with tie lines and everything, so I refer you to this\n\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.copper.org/publications/newsletters/innovations/2006/03/images/cuzn_phase.jpg",
"http://vector.umd.edu/links_files/H3%20-%20phase%20diagrams%20tutorial.pdf"
]
] |
|
6fn8lu
|
Why is it so much more difficult to develop cooling products as opposed to heating ones?
|
Summer time has hit like a sack of bricks so I've been trying to find ways to help beat the heat without having to run my expensive A/C day and night. When I search online I can find some gel pads that cool for a short amount of time before acclimating to your body heat, and I have found a very limited supply of pretty expensive machines ($300+) that you connect to your bed for air circulation. Beyond those limited, and usually private start-up, companies I can never find the same amount of solutions as I can for heating.
How is it we have advanced so far in technology, but haven't found a practical and inexpensive cooling solution to pair with all of the various heating options. Fan circulation just doesn't do much when all of the surrounding air is hot!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6fn8lu/why_is_it_so_much_more_difficult_to_develop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dikdu90"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Ultimately it's because of the [second law of thermodynamics](_URL_0_). The production of thermal energy \"waste heat\" is a classic example of the second law in action. All you have to do to build a heater is to, basically, waste all your energy as heat. A simple resistor, common in electric blankets and similar heating peripherals, can convert electrical energy to heat with 100% efficiency for example, and depending on how much current you want to draw might cost a couple dollars.\n\nCooling an object below the ambient temperature is a comparatively complex process. It can be done, but you can't just \"produce cold\" the way you can produce thermal energy. What you can do is take the thermal energy in one place and move it somewhere else - this is what your air conditioner does (moves heat from inside to outside) and what your refrigerator does (moves heat from inside the fridge to outside the fridge). This movement is usually accomplished by a relatively complex mechanism involving compressing and decompressing some working fluid, and is why cooling is so expensive comparatively."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Introduction"
]
] |
|
2iihgs
|
what is it about toothpaste that makes everything taste so bad after using it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iihgs/eli5_what_is_it_about_toothpaste_that_makes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl2gk8o"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"One of the ingredients, temporary disables the part of your tastebuds that detect sweetness."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2layf3
|
What caused Japan to develop such a martial tradition with such an emphasis on honor? (and honorable suicide) Also, was the Emperor ever a powerful figure prior to the Sengoku Jidai?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2layf3/what_caused_japan_to_develop_such_a_martial/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clubtf6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sorry don't have the sources in front of me. If someone can write a more detailed answer with sources feel free to delete this one.\n\nThe emperor *wasn't* powerful during or after the Sengoku Jidai. Even after the Meiji Restoration he wasn't powerful either. \nThe last time the emperor had any actual power was probably the Heian Jidai, ending in 1185 with the Genpei War. However even during Heian and before it, most of the time power was in the hand of the *empress'* family ruling through regency.\n\nI wouldn't say Bushido was more martial or honor-bound than Chivalry. They were local variations of the same thing: a code for the military ruling class to keep their rule over peasants. \n\nAs for seppuku, no one can say for sure. It seem to start out simply as a way to prevent being taken alive and be beheaded like a criminal, but somehow somewhere got turned into the prefered way of suicide, and got used a lot in the Sengoku by the daimyos to weed out people they don't want and at the same time prevent rebellion (kinda). I don't think it was thought of as \"honorable\" until the Edo, where influx of Confucianism plus government needing something to control samurais who have no wars to fight created the ideology of this honorable suicide. \nAnd of course there's Meiji militarism playing up the idea."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
52mrsq
|
When the Earth was at its earliest state, was the night sky almost completely black, due to how light from the stars hadn't traveled as far?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/52mrsq/when_the_earth_was_at_its_earliest_state_was_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8nzpha"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"According to [this column](_URL_0_) which answers a similar question, the sun likely formed in a cluster containing many other stars. So for a few tens of millions of years, the night sky would have had more and brighter stars on display to the naked eye than are visible today (unaided)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-110-what-did-the-sky-look-like-when-earth-first-formed-23e4c30082a3"
]
] |
||
fnnhfm
|
Can the placebo effect activate the immune system?
|
If a doctor tells someone that they’re sick when they’re not, can that person’s immune system be triggered despite the fact they’re not sick?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fnnhfm/can_the_placebo_effect_activate_the_immune_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flc7dx5"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Yes, probably, but there are a lot of unknowns. Studies have shown that placebo's can effect certain immune responses, but not every immune response seems to be effected in the same way. Even imagination exercises can produce changes in immune response like white blood cell count or immunoglobulin levels in a certain area of the body.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn the case you are talking about, there are a lot of variables. Is the patient under stress? What is the nature of the placebo illness? What medical conditions are already present? What wording did the doctor use? Did the doctor prescribe a course of activity? How does the patient normally respond to perceived illness? \n\n\nEven just that last one is complex. Placebos have been shown to create change even when you know that it's a placebo, as long as you treat it as real. For somebody who mostly ignores their illnesses, I would expect to see less of a response, or non at all. But that's just a guess. The science of the intersection of the mind and body is vast, and largely unexplored."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5n6gxe
|
how 3d movies went from using blue/red cellophane glasses to just "sunglasses"?
|
Growing up in the 90's, I remember seeing 3D movies at museums and public attractions with that square, one blue, one red cellophane glasses with all the colors being bit funky. Now we use glasses without any coloration. How did this change happen? Did we discover new way to make 3D films?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n6gxe/eli5_how_3d_movies_went_from_using_bluered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc904a5",
"dc90rgr",
"dc9cwwl"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Polarized light is the secret. To your eye, polarized light looks like normal light.\n\nNormal light has waves, right? Normally, these waves kinda bounce every which way. But with a filter, you can ensure the waves only go one way, for example vertical. So what the 3D projector does is show two images, one composed of vertically poliarized light, one of horizontally polarized light, on top of each other.\n\nOne glasses lens filters the one polarization, and the other filters the other polarization. So each eye now sees a different image. [Here's a handy lil diagram](_URL_0_). For the other lens, the opposite would be true, the horizontal light would get past the filter but the vertical would not.",
"The key idea of any 3d is to project 2 images on to the screen, and have each eye register only one of them.\n\nWith red/blue, you would show one image in only blue color, and another image in only red color, using different shades of red. If you looked at the entirely-red-shades image through lens that was color red, you would see just, well, red. But if you saw it through blue lens, you would see all the different shades. Likewise for blue. Thus, you get(with wonky colors) 2 different images, one for each eye, which then could be used to do 3d.\n\nModern tech however uses polarization, that is, the direction light is sorta \"waving\" at. Light is a wave, and it has direction, orthogonal to the direction it's going, where it's \"waving\" at. Typically white light does this waving thing in all sorts of directions, and it's a mess, but there are filters which can block all but certain orientation of this waving. Having one image transmitted only using light that's of certain orientation, and then have lenses of your glasses selectively block these orientations allows again you to transmit only one of the two images to both eyes.\n\nI don't know how expensive this new polarization technique is, but I can tell you that you can do pretty good job with this red/blue lens thing with very cheap materials, video device you use to show your red/blue 3d film has absolutely no special requirements, and it's pretty cheap to make appropriate glasses, so that probably explains why people historically did use this red/blue 3d thing despite color problems.",
"There are a few comments already dealing with passive 3D technology (light polarization), but a lot of at-home 3D uses an active shutter process to create the 3D effect.\n\nInstead of trying to show you 2 images *at the same time*. 3D TVs will quickly alternate between 2 different images (one for each eye) at a higher rate than the original video. The TV then sends out a signal to a pair of battery powered glasses that alternate blocking the light to each eye. The goal is that each eye will only see the image on the TV that it is meant to see. This happens so fast that your brain doesn't register the flickering."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/images/polarization/polarizedglasses.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
9cz1yk
|
Does anyone know if the number of blades on a fan has any correlation with airflow or noise?
|
& #x200B;
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9cz1yk/does_anyone_know_if_the_number_of_blades_on_a_fan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5eeso1"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"It definitely has to do with noise; the sound produced is due to the frequency of blades passing a given point. The more blades, the higher the frequency, both of passing the point and of the sound. But since less speed is needed the more blades there are, the less energy goes into the sound, which means it will be quieter.\n\nAs for airflow, if you have too few blades, you aren't pushing enough air unless you increase the speed. If you have too many blades, there isn't enough room for proper airflow. So you have to find the optimal number when the rotation speed, air gap and frequency all work together to minimize noise (which is wasted energy) and maximize airflow (or water flow for that matter)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
61f0lf
|
What exactly was the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
|
Someone told me years ago it was pretty much the Americans torpedoing their own ship and blaming it on the north Vietnamese so they would have a reason to get involved in the Vietnam was, how accurate is this simple explanation and what actually happened if the explanation above is wrong?
First post, thanks in advance
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/61f0lf/what_exactly_was_the_gulf_of_tonkin_incident/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfe37ci"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"A crucial fact that is fundamentally important that is of the 2 separate incidents the first on August 2 is not disputed by either side as occuring.\n\nThe main controversy for that then is if the Maddox firing warning shots was provocation and what was the legal status of North Vietnam's territorial waters claims. Maddox was near to the line claimed by the North but unrecognized by the US. While she fired 3 rounds when the North's boats got within 10k yards of her that had been shadowing her for several days. This was then followed by their attack but not reported on by the White House in releasing information to the public.\n\nThe later 4 August incident is the one everyone thinks about as it has been no acknowledged as nothing but jumpy sailors and limited sensors. In bad weather and high seas they fired at radar ghosts mistaken for another attack. The doubt as to the nature of the incident was forwarded to the White House even at the time but ignored more or less."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
38x3vb
|
Was it common for Allied soldiers to execute Nazi guards when they liberated concentration camps out of revenge or anger?
|
Some movies portray executions of Nazi guards out of anger after seeing what they had done during the liberation of concentration camps. Is this historically accurate or did the Allied soldiers allow them to have proper trials?
I have also seen it portrayed where liberated Jews kill the guards and Allied soldiers allow them to. Did this ever happen?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38x3vb/was_it_common_for_allied_soldiers_to_execute_nazi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crymscp"
],
"score": [
134
],
"text": [
"Yes, Allied soldiers did summarily execute concentration camp guards or allow prisoners to do it themselves.\n\nA famous example took place in the hours after the liberation of Dachau by elements of the 42nd and 45th Infantry Divisions. The remaining German guards (some SS but mostly *Volkssturm* militia made up of old men and Hitler Youth) had put up some resistance in the form of a short firefight, but they were quickly subdued and rounded up. However, when the Americans found several rail cars full of dead bodies, they began shooting the captured guards, by some accounts over 120 in total. Other guards were turned over to the prisoners, who made short work of them. The official 7th Army report of the liberation makes no mention of the executions, but many eyewitness accounts exist. \n\nMauthausen concentration camp in Austria was liberated by the US 11th Armored Division. The camp commandant surrendered the camp to the Americans, but many of the SS guards tried to flee and were shot by US soldiers. Other guards were killed by prisoners while in custody in locked cells awaiting processing as prisoners of war or war criminals. One American GI was standing around when a prisoner shuffled up to him and through gesturing asked for the GI's carbine. The GI complied, and the prisoner went off, shot several *kapos* (prisoners who acted as lower-level guards, often acting as the most brutal of all the guards), and then returned the carbine. \n\nAt Bergen-Belsen, the British captured about 50 Hungarian SS guards when the camp commandant handed the camp over to them (the German SS slipped out before the handover). Belsen was in the middle of a massive typhus epidemic that would eventually claim the lives of tens of thousands of prisoners. The British were incensed by what they found and forced the Hungarian SS to bury the dead in full uniform (under the hot sun) and without protective gloves to guard against the lice that transmit typhus, fully intending to work them to death. 20 of the 50 Hungarian SS died before higher British authorities intervened and had the Hungarians removed from the camp. \n\nAt Buchenwald, American soldiers watched (and in some cases aided by providing firearms) as the prisoners killed around 80 former guards who were trying to hide in prisoners' garb or in the surrounding forests. \n\nSources: \n\nAbzug, Robert H. *Inside the Vicious Heart: Americans and the Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps*. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. \n\nBridgman, Jon. *The End of the Holocaust: The Liberation of the Camps*. Ed. Richard H. Jones. Portland, Oregon: Areopagitica, 1990. \n\nFlanagan, Ben, and Donald Bloxham, eds. *Remembering Belsen: Eyewitnesses Record the Liberation*. Portland, Oregon: Vallentine Mitchell, 2005. \n\nHirsh, Michael. *The Liberators: America's Witnesses to the Holocaust*. New York: Random House, 2010. \n\nPerry, Michael W., ed. *Dachau Liberated: The Official Report by the U.S. Seventh Army*. Seattle, Washington: Inkling Books, 2000.\n\nSacco, Jack. *Where the Birds Never Sing: The True Story of the 92nd Signal Battalion and the Liberation of Dachau*. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. \n\nShephard, Ben. *After Daybreak: The Liberation of Bergen-Belsen, 1945*. New York: Shocken, 2005. \n\nSmith, Marcus J. *The Harrowing of Hell: Dachau*. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1995. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5co6fm
|
is sound physical or chemical?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5co6fm/eli5_is_sound_physical_or_chemical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9y0rkg",
"d9y0u1q"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Sound is energy converted into vibration through air. Technically the physical stimulation of air hitting your eardrum. Therefore, it's a physical thing. All chemicals are physical, but not all physical things are chemical. \nBut here's my question(s):\n1. Why would *sound* of all things be chemical?\n2. In what world are chemicals not physical?\n\nTL;DR - Sounds are energy.",
"While it's traveling through the air between the source and your ear, it's physical. Once the bones in your ear translate it to nervous impulses for your brain to read, it's chemical.\n\nExample: Someone drops a fork in the kitchen, so energy is released as sound. Waves are pushed through the air in all directions and the ones that hit your ear wobble your eardrum. That moves the bones in your ear which is read by your aural nerve. \n\nThe message in your aural nerve is passed from cell to cell as a series of chemical reactions all the way to the part of your brain that interprets sound. That part of your brain communicates with other parts of your brain for memory and pattern matching (using chemicals) to identify the sound of a fork hitting tiles. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
66x6b4
|
I've heard several claims of groups claiming to have quantum computers, but others not being sure if they're working or not. Why is it hard to tell if it is doing the quantum stuff?
|
It would seem like there should be a question or computation that could be posed to a quantum computer, and if it is operating as a quantum computer it would give one answer, and if it is operating as a not-quite-quantum computer, it would give a different answer. Or it would take different amounts of time to complete the computation.
I assume that one of the above statements is true, and that if neither are true, then there's no difference between a quantum computer and a not-quite-quantum computer.
Am I ignorant about how hard it is to read out the result from the quantum computer, or about something else?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/66x6b4/ive_heard_several_claims_of_groups_claiming_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgmsfe5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"We don't know yet what kind of machine D-Wave has actually built. It remains to be proven that it solves _anything_ faster than a classical computer. Scott Aaronson is summing the current (give or take a few months, I haven't spotted any relevant publications in that interval) state [here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3192"
]
] |
|
b5rnsb
|
What did the Ottomans call their firearms?
|
Was their a name for a soldier who trained in firearms specifically? What kind of guns existed in the Ottoman Empire during Suleiman’s reign?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b5rnsb/what_did_the_ottomans_call_their_firearms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eji3pjb"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > What kind of guns existed in the Ottoman Empire during Suleiman’s reign? \n\n I'll try to answer your question, sorry if it doesn't satisfy you, though the period i cover ranged from the 16th to the early 18th century.\n\n**- Large/Siege Guns**\n\nThis is what the Ottomans were famous for. From the 15th century they had manufactured large siege guns, but those manufactured in the 16th and 17th century were much smaller than the monster bombards of 15th century. 16th century Ottoman military specialists considered 8 to 22 okka calibre (1 okka=1.28 kg) guns firing projectiles of 10-27 kg to be suitable for campaigns and sieges\n\n***Kale-kob***\n\nCannons of 14 to 16-okka calibre that fired 17 to 20 kg of projectiles are specifically referred to as *kale-kob* (fort-smasher). Later on in the 17th Century, there were also smaller 12-okka calibre guns that fired 15 kg projectiles. These cannons can be compared to European culverins and siege cannons\n\n***Şayka***\n\nAccording to Evliya Çelebi, *şayka* are guns that are too large to be carried by humans. In campaigns, they had to be slid through sleds. The name *şayka* derives from the Slavic *chaika* \"seagull\" boats that were used to defend rivermouths. The Ottomans differentiated between large, medium, and small *şayka* guns often without specifying their calibre. The shortest pieces were 176, 198, and 264 cm long, the medium one 380, 332, and 352 cm long, while the large ones 396, 440, and 462 cm long. While the 176 cm long 5-okka *şayka* guns can be considered small, the 264 cm long 44-okka piece even though relatively short is one of the largest *şayka* so their size and calibre is greatly varied. \n\n***Balyemez***\n\n*Balyemez* were large siege guns similar to *şayka*, though most of the time they resembled small and medium *şayka*. Evliya Çelebi mentioned *balyemez* guns of 25, 30, 40, 50, and 60-okka calibre. He also noted that were only 4 largest 60-okka *balyemez* in the entire empire, and those were fortress guns. These cannons correspond to the largest European bombards and were mostly relics of the 15th century, mostly used as siege and fortress guns. Those produced in later era were much smaller. In 1686 for example, the foundry only casted two *balyemez* guns of 11 and 14-okka\n\n***Bacaloşka***\n\nPerhaps the most popular and widely used siege guns, equivalent of European basilisks. Small *bacaloşka* ran from 1 to 11-okka firing projectiles of 1 to 14 kg while larger ones ran from 14 to 23-okka firing shots of 17 to 28 kg. Short pieces were 198 to 220 cm long, while larger ones were usually 396 to 440 cm long. The largest piece in the 1520s weighed more than 11 tons. However, these were the rarity because the average weight of *bacaloşka* between 1522 to 1526 were around 4.1 tons. As mentioned, these were the main siege guns of the Ottoman army. For example there were at least seventeen *bacaloşka*, mainly 14 and 16-okka deployed deployed during Süleyman's siege of Szigetvar on 1593. It appears that most *bacaloşka* on campaign were medium or small, ranging from 11 to 22-okka while larger siege guns were often *şayka* or *balyemez*\n\n**- Medium Field Guns**\n\n***Kolunburna***\n\nThese were light field guns, the equivalent of culverin of Europe. Like culverins, these varied in size. 16th century inventory mentioned *kolunburna* with 1.5 to 7-okka calibre firing 2 to 9 kg projectiles. 17th century inventory recorded pieces from 2 to 10-okka calibre, and occasionally 11, 14, and 16-okka calibre firing 2 to 20 kg shots. \n\n***Darbzen***\n\nThese were the most popular and widely used medium guns in the campaign. Even though the meaning is \"battering gun\" and large number of them did indeed used in sieges, these were also deployed in battles. There were three types of *darbzen*, small (*küçük*), medium (*miyâne*) and large (*şahı*). In a 16th century source, small *darbzen* fired balls of 920 g, medium ones 1.23 kg, and large ones 2.5 kg. Generally, *darbzen* used in campaigns were really light, for example 625 *darbzen* weighing on average 162 kg were cast in Istanbul. Of course there are larger ones, forty-six large *darbzen* cast in 1604 weighed around 540 kg. Many guns of this type were used by the Ottomans in campaigns because of they're relatively easy to transport. A significant number of *darbzen* were deployed in the battle of Mohacs, 280 large *darbzen* were used in the siege of Szigetvar, and 300 *darbzen* were cast for the 1596 Hungarian campaign.\n\n***Şahı***\n\nOttoman sources usually refer to *şahı* for a larger version of a gun, however they also use the term for a long, but small gun. Inventories from the 17th century listed 242 to 300 cm long *şahı* gun. The majority of them were small guns firing shots from 150 grams to 1.8 kg in weight. The weight of this guns varied. A 0.5-okka *şahı* gun weighed around 169 kg, while a 1-okka gun weighed around 325 kg. Occasionally we can find larger *şahı* guns with 4 to 6-okka calibre. \n\n**- Small Pieces**\n\nThese were very small pieces, often used as naval or castle guns. *saçma* is one of the smallest Ottoman guns, and as the name suggests fired grapeshots. The average weight of the *saçma* was around 36.5 kg. These were used as naval guns, for example 85% of guns used by the ships of the Ottoman Black Sea Fleet in Özi on 1698 were iron-cast *saçma* guns. *Eynek* is an even smaller gun. Sixty-two *eynek* cast in 1695 weighed only 22.7 kg on average, while those cast in 1697 weighed just 11.5 kg. They were mainly used above river ships like the ships of Danube Fleet. Another small gun, *Prangi* usually fired shots of 150 g. They can be easily cast in local foundries and are mainly used as castle guns. Lastly, *Şakaloz* is a very small gun used in castles. These are the equivalent of Hungarian hook-guns (*szakallas*). These fired projectiles as small as 31 to 37 grams. For comparison, some Spanish and Ottoman musket bullets weighed more than 50 grams. Because of this, they were mostly used as close-range anti-personnel weapons against besiegers. They were ubiquitous in castles, for example in 1536 there were 900 *şakaloz* in the castle of Semendire\n\n**- Muskets**\n\nGenerally, the Ottomans used the matchlock musket (*fitilli tüfek*) From the late sixteenth century onward, Ottoman troops also started to use flintlock muskets (*çakmaklı tüfek*), though matchlocks remained to be favourite for quite some time because of the unreliability of the early flintlocks. The length of these guns varied, The guns used in the Iraq campaign in 1553, for example, fired projectiles of 15 grams and were 88 cm to 110 cm long. The 2,498 guns that were manufactured in the imperial workshops and sent to the armory in 1555 were registered as being 88 cm long and firing projectiles of 12 grams. Muskets in the Topkapi are 115 to 140 cm long, weigh 3 to 4.5 kilograms, and bore diameters of 11, 13, 14, or 16 mm. Additionally there were also large and heavy trench guns called *metris tüfeği* to be used in sieges. It had a 130-160 cm long barrel and bore diameters of 20 to 29 mm, though there are larger ones that bore diameters of 35 and 45 mm. \n\n**Sources:**\n\n*Guns For The Sultan* and *Firearms and Military Adaptation* by Gábor Ágoston "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
95o8lc
|
are humans supposed to eat meat?
|
This might be a dumb question but is eating meat 'natural' for humans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/95o8lc/eli5_are_humans_supposed_to_eat_meat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3u5fcx",
"e3u5fss",
"e3u6d1q",
"e3u6i5r",
"e3ua4r1",
"e3ucs6c",
"e3ueioz",
"e3vbmux"
],
"score": [
30,
15,
4,
7,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, we are omnivores, we can and do eat meat.\n\nWe very very recently have developed a sufficient logistical food transportation system to allow us to not eat meat. But we needed to eat meat to survive * up until globalization.\n\n* Not be severely malnutrition-ed ",
"Humans are omnivores, and we have both molars for crushing plant matter as well as canines and incisors for tearing and cutting flesh. \n\nIn short, yes.",
"Our digestive tract, teeth, and capabilities for breaking down nutrition all suggest an omnivore diet, meat as part of the diet. Our closest living non-human relatives are also omnivores. Teeth are a major sign in that they have a variety unusual to strict herbivores or carnivores. \nSo, we evolved eating meat and plants, not either/or. ",
"Yes, humans are omnivores and meat is part of our natural diet. Our canine teeth are there to tear animal flesh, for example. All great apes eat meat to some extent: It's much harder to get all the vitamins and proteins we need through plants, either you're lucky and live in an area with the right mix of plants or you supplement your diet with meat.\n\nBut, we evolved eating a lot less meat than we do today (at least in non-poor societies.) So there are health impacts from eating too much meat. And, with the right mix of fruits and vegetables, we can be perfectly healthy without eating any meat. Though you need to be Very careful with small children to make sure they get all the nutrients they need because any deficiencies can hinder their development and have major impacts through the rest of their life.",
"Yes. Our ancestors ate meat since before humans were a distinct species. It is actually thought to be what allowed our ancestors to evolve to have such large brains. Our teeth, intestinal tract structure, and gut bacteria are all the kinds that omnivores have. \n\nIt should also be noted all the other apes are semi-omnivorous occasionally hunting and eating meat (often monkeys) as well as eating insects. We however are fully omnivorous. ",
"I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, but I will argue that complete proteins are a myth. A boring story short, the origins are from a misquote of a sociologist who was trying to address world hunger.\n\nYou can indeed get all essential proteins and dietary requirements from plants.\n\nThe hard part is getting your diet right. That's the trick. It's trivially easy for a vegan to be nutritionally deficient, and vegans who breast feed have a track record of killing their babies.\n\nThere are few foods that are calorie dense as meat and fat. Vegans end up eating a shit ton of food to satiate hunger, and vegetarians cheat by throwing cheese on top of every god damn thing. These diets don't satiate you for long.\n\nStick to a well balanced diet.",
"Australopithecus, our ape ancestors, had primitive butchering tools. Homo, the branch that eventually produced us, developed more sophisticated butchering tools. We are descended from millions of years of meat eaters. From a strict evolutionary/biological viewpoint, it is \"natural\" for homo sapiens to kill animals and dine on their corpses. \nI take no position on that as a moral/ethical/philosophical question. There's too much \"why\" and not enough \"is\" in the premises.",
"* human beings obviously *can* eat meat\n* historically, many human beings *did* eat meat\n* there's plenty of evidence that we evolved specifically to have this ability\n* but there's also plenty of evidence that we don't need to use this ability to have healthy, happy lives\n* there's at least some evidence that low- or no-meat diets are associated with longevity and other measures of health\n* there's some evidence that vegan diets risk under nutrition in some areas (without supplementation)\n* there's plenty of evidence that our evolutionary preferences about food can get us in trouble (e.g. sugar and refined carbohydrates, arguably salt and some fats, and overeating generally)\n* philosophically, there's no good reason in general to conclude from that our ancestors did something, we should do it too"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5rf0v2
|
what's the benefit of displaying a menu price without tax included? plenty of countries include the tax in the final price but the u.s adds it separately.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rf0v2/eli5_whats_the_benefit_of_displaying_a_menu_price/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd6p6kw",
"dd6p8vb",
"dd6ppa9",
"dd6r2jt",
"dd6yefv"
],
"score": [
21,
73,
7,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Gets people to spend more. \n\nSame reason why most prices are not rounded. \n\n$4.99\n\n14,995\n\n\nStrangely enough studies have shown that menu prices in restaurants that just show a whole dollar figure make the diner feel like the restaurant is more luxurious. I.e. 12- vs $11.95. ",
"If your competition doesn't show the price tax-included, it makes their products seem less expensive (even if they're the exact same price or a little higher).\n\nIn addition, it allows advertising to be done for prices across boundaries where the tax rates might be different (such as across state borders - or sometimes even within a given state).\n\nIt also means any changes to the taxes in an area doesn't mean you suddenly have to reprice everything manually.\n\nIt also lets you easily see exactly how much tax is being paid by looking at your receipt, instead of just assuming that the company is paying the sales taxes properly.",
"Tax can vary by region, and occasionally day. \n\nFor countries like that, it's easier to put the initial price. ",
"Just taking McDonlads as an example. There are over 14,000 restaurants in the nation. Printing menu signs for each and every one is going to cost a significant amount of time and money. Standardizing the signs across the board allows them to save a lot of money and give a consistent experience. Taxes and laws are different everywhere in the USA, even just across the street. It is to the benefit if the companies to not have to include sales tax so they do not have to individualize each menu. Taxes also change, remember NYs soda tax? Should every restaurant be forced to alter their menu while the law is tested in courts? \n\nIt would be nice to know the exact dollar amount you are going to pay but if you live in the USA no matter where it is your responsibility to know the local taxes. As an alternative, consider shopping more local as many local places at least around me just do flat fees for food and such, they just worked out the price and tax to equal an even number or close to it. ",
"Not including tax allows you to conceal the real price from consumers and thus trick them into paying a little bit more than they think they are going to pay. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
80dvtb
|
Is a body's Roche limit affected by its size?
|
I know the size of an orbiting object determines how close it can get to a planet/star before being torn apart by tidal forces, but does the size of the primary matter at all?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/80dvtb/is_a_bodys_roche_limit_affected_by_its_size/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duvr5u8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It does, the critical distance is 1.26 times the primary radius time the cube root of the density ratio. Up the primary radius and the distance increases.\n\nKeep in mind the distance is from the center of the primary not it's surface."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
23grnz
|
plato's form of the good
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23grnz/eli5_platos_form_of_the_good/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgwubzy"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You can get a better answer by asking for a more specific explanation. Here is a summary in a few sentences. \n\nPlato observed that some things are better than other things of the same kind. There are good tables and bad tables. He guessed that the difference between a good version of something and a bad version is that the good version is more similar to the perfect form. The describes the perfect form, the form of the good as something like a perfect definition for the idea/object/action. The best table you could have is one that is identical to the perfect form of the table. \n\nInterestingly modern psychology has discovered that no such thing exists. We do not store ideas in our brains that way. Using the example of a table again: There is no such thing as a perfect definition that includes everything we think of as table but not other things that aren't tables. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1dgzks
|
how did we get the images of our universe?
|
How is it we have pictures of the universe? Did we send satellites to take them? I wouldn't think our technology is that advanced...yet. *knock on wood* I mean we have a lot of those outer space pictures so how did we figure out that's how space looks like?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dgzks/eli5_how_did_we_get_the_images_of_our_universe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9q7eem",
"c9q7l3u"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Do you mean 'our galaxy'? ",
"For universe? We just point cameras in every direction and snap a picture.\n\nFor our galaxy however it's a bit trickier. Because we are roughly on the outside, we can estimate size of our galaxy, density of stars and whatnot. Then we compare it to pictures of other galaxies. When you see a picture of the milky way with its spirals outstretched, it's usually picture of different galaxy with similar characteristics. \n\nRight now (and in a distant future), it would be impossible to send satellites to take a photo of our galaxy. The furthest we've send a satellite are voyager probes and these are barely leaving our solar system after 30 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5txsy3
|
why are emergency/survival matches still a thing when you can have two or three cheap bic lighters do a way better job for a way longer time while taking up less space and weight? is their any real benefit to having emergency matches over emergency lighters???
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5txsy3/eli5_why_are_emergencysurvival_matches_still_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddpuk0q",
"ddpvuto",
"ddq0ts2",
"ddq5lp6"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well it depends allot on what type of emergency matches you have, but one issue I've had when camping is in a flood my lighter got water in it and was dead, but my survival matches were fine once dry. \n\nMatches have fewer points of failure aswell, you just need the match and heat, often just an abrasive surface. Lighters have parts that can rust or fail witg age, can break out leak becoming useless and are not typically water proof, which most emergency kits need.",
"It's more about redundancy than anything else. Even specialty matches are hard to light in damp winter/rainy conditions. Even if they light, the beginnings of the fire suck moisture from snow or rain up from the ground and extinguishes the fire within seconds. In good weather either will do but if it has rained prior to you trying to start a fire your matches might be ruined but if your lighter is out of fluid maybe the matches are OK. I always have a knife and magnesium rod for striking and creating sparks, which can light tinder just in case as a third source as well.\n\nSource: years of hiking camping and being stuck out camping in the snow wth no fire and no hot dinner :-(\n\nHope that answers your question.",
"You're right that in many cases a lighter is more useful than matches. a few specific notes:\n\nGenerally the piezoelectric lighters are more reliable than the \"flint\" ones.\n\nIt's sometimes possible to pack a lighter so that it accidentally releases all the gas. A second lighter can work as a backup, but so can matches.\n\nMost lighters don't work when it's very cold. It's easy enough to warm the lighter, but matches work even when cold. Neither one is easy to work with when wearing gloves, but I find matches easier.\n\nSometimes it's easier to light a stove or fire with a match than a lighter, where your thumb is right next to the flame. It's sometimes possible to light a stick to transfer the flame safely, but again it's another slight complication.\n\nWith TSA rules lighters can only be brought on a plane in a DOT approved case. Safety matches can be carry-on (although the greatly superior strike anywhere matches are prohibited).\n\nIn general I think it's best to have two different ways to make fire, since they will have different strengths and weaknesses. \n\nPersonally I prefer a lighter as the primary and a fire steel as the second since it works wet, cold, or stepped on, and will last for years (as long as you don't store it wet).",
"Lighters are not waterproof. Matches can be. Lighters require you hold a finger on a button but matches do not. Inserting a match into a pile to make a fire works but inserting a lighter in to do this does not work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3o6h3f
|
when we launch space missions, what's stopping other nations from believing that's a targeted bomb or nuke and how is it different from an actual attack?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o6h3f/eli5_when_we_launch_space_missions_whats_stopping/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvugz1g",
"cvugzt6"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text": [
"First of all, its not like a space agency fires up this massive and amazingly complex rocket with complete secrecey, and goes \"surprise! Its STS-134. You know, delivering supplies to the ISS. Yeah, usually we plan these things but we had a spare shuttle stack lying around and a few astronauts were looking for something to do this weekend, so we thought we'd go up and take Hadfield a Pizza.\"\n\nThe mission parameters are publicized in the news a long time ahead. Not only that but its professional courtesy in the space biz to keep everyone else in the biz up to speed with what you're launching. For exactly that reason. Noone wants to set off some ICMB detection system.\n\nMilitary launches on the other hand, I'd say no - the air force isn't going to communicate to the Chinese that they're launching SuperKeySat-11 to photograph the chairman's bedroom. But the launchpads are fairly open, and the people who make and launch the military/spy stuff at least put out a vague non specific press release about a \"New communication satellite. For the Air Force.\" - and everyone reads between the lines on what it is.",
"Massive differences in the way they are launched. Space launches direct the craft upwards until the gravity turn which applies the force necessary to attain orbit. ICBM's, however, would never waste the fuel in doing such a maneuver as it would severely reduce the payload of the rocket. Even if a nation were to try and fool everybody with a space-launch-looking ICBM, there is still the problem of the fact that it's really easy to differentiate a sub-orbital flight from an orbital flight. Orbital launches are defined by exerting massive forces at the desired altitude to get into orbit. Not applying that force would be highly irregular.\n\nEven if a nation managed to fool another nation with a space-looking launch, it would be one, small, payload. It doesn't give you first strike capability, thus making the attack no more useful then a 'conventional' missile bombardment. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1w5p64
|
why is death by firing squad so bad?
|
I hear people say it's a really bad way to die, but why? It seems quick and there's no torture.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w5p64/eli5why_is_death_by_firing_squad_so_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceywrz2",
"ceywsbz",
"ceywyz1"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Where to begin? With the dying itself or with the long, slow build-up, including the fact that you have to wait while they perform the \"reaaaaady! Take aaaaaaim..\"\n\nI would imagine it's nerve-wracking and painful, and there are probably quicker ways to go, but still not something that I'd want to go through.",
"[This](_URL_0_) says it can take about three, I imagine fairly painful, minutes to die. I can't vouch for the particular timing, but given how variable the damage from a gunshot wound can be, it seems reasonable that at least some share of firing squad deaths would be slow and torturous. \n\nThat said, I am not sure if the same applies to the secret police-style shot to the back of the head. ",
"I would think any experts would be unavailable for comment. Coming up with a best way to die is like debating what kind of dog crap tastes best.\nI think the anticipation would be the worst. A shot to the heart would cause shock (feel no pain) and unconsciousness within seconds. Death would happen within minutes. If no bullet knocked your heart out, bleeding out could take awhile.\nChemical injection executions usually report burning sensations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Firing-squad-a-slow-way-to-die/2005/04/22/1114028522517.html"
],
[]
] |
|
1sszur
|
Hi! I'm looking for some video/audio files of famous speeches from World War II.
|
I'll try to keep it short. First, I want to say that this is a crazily well-organized subreddit—you guys are awesome. Second, I would like to state that I did look through all of the sidebar before I came here, and couldn't find what I needed (I didn't want to bother you unless I had to). Thirdly, I apologize if this isn't the place for this. I looked at other subreddits that might be a better match, but I thought that this might at least catch someone's eye who could redirect me. If you're that person, thank you very much in advance!
Onto my plea: I am looking to find audio files for speeches given during World War II, or before World War II. My reason is that I am writing a musical composition dealing with the Allied Bombing of Berlin, and I am looking for speeches to add an electronic component to my ensemble. I've found a good recording of "Our Finest Hour", but I'm having trouble finding a speech by Adolf Hitler on YouTube that isn't padded by generic war music in the background. I would really like to use his speech that is his response the the British Bombings, but I don't have the knowledge or resources to even begin looking that up. All it would take is a link or a lead to get me going!
If you've read this far, you're a trooper. Thank you for caring this much. If you have any other ideas for speeches or sounds I could use, I would like nothing more than to hear it from the best! Thank you guys again.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sszur/hi_im_looking_for_some_videoaudio_files_of_famous/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0xcrm",
"ce14lrm"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"For some basic WWII audio/video archives you can peruse starting from this link:\n_URL_0_\n\nFor Hitler and Axis files, which I believe is what you are trying to locate, this site has quite the library:\n_URL_1_\n\nHope this is a good starting point for you adventures and studies!",
"You can watch the entirity of Triumph of the Will by Lenni Reifenshtal on YouTube."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/speeches#eisenhower-broadcasts-d-day-invasion-order",
"https://archive.org/details/Hitler_Speeches"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.