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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9g3x9l
|
Book recommendation please: WWII / post war liberation
|
Hi,
Apologies if this is not the right sub to ask. I’ve read plenty of WWII history books that end with the end of the war, and I’ve also read some books about the Cold War. I’m really interested in reading a history that concentrates on life in the liberated parts of Europe, and in Allied occupied Axis nations, as the war drew to a close and immediately afterwards.
What drew me to this was reading The Third Man. Clearly life was chaotic. How were things run? What was life like? How did the Allies and the people themselves cope with the devastation and the need to feed people let alone rebuild economies and nations? How were governments form? How was order kept?
Book recommendations appreciated! Thank you :-)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9g3x9l/book_recommendation_please_wwii_post_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e61c95x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Fiction or non? There is a great non-fic book called Savage Continent that talks about the immediate aftermath. Then there is another non-fic book called Postwar by Tony Judt. Savage Continent is incredible. Havent read Postwar but Tony Judt is well regarded. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2dcwq2
|
how were international treaties enforced before the establishment of international organisations such as the UN, EU and the international court of justice?
|
war (or threat of war) would be an obvious answer but given the financial and social costs it seems like a tool of last resort. what could a smaller state do if a more powerful state disregards the terms of a treaty? if nothing, why would anyone enter into a treaty?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2dcwq2/how_were_international_treaties_enforced_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjoe9pz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well, the simple answer is of course that *in general* they weren't 'enforced', at least not in the sense of being subject to some sort of supranational legal procedure. It's a bit more complicated than that, though.\n\nTo a large extent this is more of an IR question than a history question, since you're basically asking the abstract question of how equitable inter-state relations can emerge given the power asymmetries inherent to any real-life international system. It strikes at the heart of one of the key issues that has historically divided the competing schools of IR theorists. Because of this you might be better off asking someplace like /r/asksocialscience. \n\n(As an aside I don't think the existence of the ICJ and the UN necessarily changes that much in any case -- neither of them have state-like powers of enforcement.) \n\nI can provide a more strictly historical answer, though, from what's often called an ['English School' perspective](_URL_0_). \n\nEssentially, from this perspective, the answer lies in the fact that **no two states exist in a vacuum**. Relations between states are inherently articulated through a cultural prism that goes beyond a single specific exchange.\n\n**A variety of localised international systems have prevailed throughout history.** These have ranged from the ritualised rotating hegemony of the Sumerian city-states to the Confucian tributary system that revolved around imperial China and the often confused and contradictory idea of Christendom and the Empire in medieval Europe. \n\nIn each of these various cases, we find that instead of being an indeterminate state of nature where anything goes in relations between states, international relations are structured by important underlying conventions and cultural ideas. These ideas are what make something like the very concept of a 'treaty' feasible and comprehensible. This becomes obvious in interactions *between* different international systems, which are often difficult and confused: the unsuccessful British missions to China in the 18th and early 19th century are a case in point.\n\n**The upshot of this is that states have historically tended to define and behave according to certain conventions that regulate their relations with each other.** All states share some stake in maintaining their overarching system of relations because they each directly benefit from the mutual trust and political certainty that derives from it, not to mention the personal moral obligations that state leaders will feel.\n\nIn Europe, for example, there's the idea of a ***jus gentium***, a 'law of nations' which articulates the conventions that all peoples can be expected to abide by regardless of their individual state laws. This idea is a tradition that goes back to ancient Rome. (Nowadays we also distinguish a *jus inter gentes* or 'law between nations' that applies to things like treaties, but that's largely an 18th-century invention.)\n\nFrom ancient Roman thought through to medieval canon law, anyone stepping outside the bounds of *jus gentium* -- such as by violating a treaty -- was by definition violating natural law at a very profound level, and could thus expect to provoke moral outrage and distrust.\n\nThe Romans themselves, as Cicero's *De officiis* suggests, saw the upholding of promises as one of the most fundamental aspects of a moral society. Cicero gives one instructive example:\n\n > Again, if under stress of circumstances individuals have made any promise to the enemy, they are bound to keep their word even then. For instance, in the First Punic War, when Regulus was taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, he was sent to Rome on parole to negotiate an exchange of prisoners; he came and, in the first place, it was he that made the motion in the Senate that the prisoners should not be restored; and in the second place, when his relatives and friends would have kept him back, he chose to return to a death by torture rather than prove false to his promise, though given to an enemy.\n\nAs far as Cicero was concerned, this was clearly the right thing for Regulus to have done: Rome's reputation was at stake! (Bear in mind, too, that *De officiis* was for a long time the second most widely read book in Europe right after the Bible, and remained widely read by statesmen at least up until the 19th century.) \n\nSo at the end of the day, yes, where an international system breaks down in some way or conventions are ignored, what matters is who's stronger. But treaties have historically emerged in the context of overall systems of moral and political norms which determine how the governors of various states view each other, and how they can expect each other to act.\n\nLike I said though, this is only a rather superficial answer to something that's a very far-reaching theoretical question. For more on this particular analysis, and a more general history of international systems, you might be interested in Hedley Bull's book *The Anarchical Society*.\n\n**edit:** I realised I answered the second part of your question ('why did people make treaties if they couldn't be legally enforced') but not the first: what, short of war, did people do about rulers who overstepped the limits of convention? This is unfortunately much more complicated to answer -- the answer obviously depends on what place and time you're looking at. As a quick example though: In medieval Europe, for instance, failure to comply with a treaty was typically treated as swearing an oath under false pretenses -- i.e. perjury -- and thus a matter of ecclesiastical law. So, other than simple war, the full suite of ecclesiastical sanctions could apply to a ruler who broke a treaty -- sanctions which would be exacted by the papacy. (I'm not aware of any cases where a whole *kingdom* or town was put under interdict for violating a treaty, though; a medievalist might be able to clear that up.) This is the sort of 'moral approbation' you might expect from my explanation above."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_school_of_international_relations_theory"
]
] |
|
75d9sl
|
Similar to how Christmas has pagan roots, Are there any traditions in Islam or Buddhism that pull from various regional traditions or customs?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/75d9sl/similar_to_how_christmas_has_pagan_roots_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"do7i4pu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"While I can't speak for Islam in broad terms, I can speak a little bit about Buddhism. Even then though, I had to think about it at first, because the idea paganism exists in far more fluid terms in the places where Buddhism is prominent vs Christian and Muslim places. Buddhism is in many was a cultural and religious sponge, being more compatible and requiring less \"conversion\" than your Abrahamic religion. For Buddhists, the key is not in a belief in gods or a creator, but rather in the Buddha and the teachings he left behind. Buddhist cosmology, while denying the existence of an absolute creator deity, accepts the existence of powerful beings, gods and spirits, and specifically mentions *Mara*, *Yama*, and *Brahma* in the Pali canon, Hindu deities that predate Buddhism by some 500-1000 years. From the very beginning Buddhist texts incorporate some Indian deities into their religion. Mahayana gives us even more examples, with saints and gods becoming *Bodhisattva*. As Buddhism spread, it soaked up regional gods and practices.\n\nHere I'm going to zoom in on two separate traditions, Japanese Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. While both are descended in part from the Mahayana school (although the Tibetan school is often separated into Vajrayana or Esoteric Buddhism due to its practices being rather different from traditional Mahayana. In fact Japan has ties to the Esoteric form of Buddhism too, though it took on a very different role.) they could not be more different due to the ways in which the culture they were part of influenced them both.\n\nBefore we continue, I need to make an important distinction. You see, Shinto as we know it has only truly existed for 250 or so years. While not wholly a modern invention, it codified the Japanese religious tradition and fused it with a rigid worship of the Emperor as a living god and chief of the pantheon and stripped non-Japanese elements away in an attempt to create a purely \"Japanese\" tradition. That said, many primary practices, legends, symbols, and *Kami* date back to pre-Buddhist and even prehistoric (The first mentions of Japan are found in the first century CE and it isn't really until the late-third century where we have detailed information) times. When I'm talking about Shinto or *Kami* tradition here, I am refering to the general folk beliefs of Japan which differs in some ways, but is very similar in others, to the modern idea of Shinto.\n\nLet's start with Japanese Buddhism for no other reason than it comes first alphabetically. Buddhism entered Japan *officially* in 552 CE but likely was there before that, probably a few decades earlier, but certainly no more than a century before. At this time the Japanese already had a flourishing *Kami* tradition which would later become known as Shinto. This presented a problem for the elite and ruling class who began to favor the Buddhism that was brought from Korea and China as the worship of Kami and the rituals associate with them would not simply end and were in many places antithetical to Buddhist doctrine. Regardless of the contradictions apparent in the two traditions, they were practiced side by side for the most part. With the introduction of Tendai, the role of *Kami* in Japanese Buddhism changed and many Japanese Buddhists followed the new idea that the *Kami* were spirits that helped bring enlightenment, allowing worship of both simultaneously without contradiction. While this was happening Buddhist *Bodhisattva* deities became identified as *kami* as well. Indeed Buddhism began to take a very important cultural role in society, dealing with death.\n\nDeath before Buddhism was a very different affair. The Japanese viewed it as unclean or impure so they often ritually cleaned themselves. In those days there were no or few formal priests for Shinto spiritual chiefs often led the community. Rather, Shamans were the link and communities performed the burial rites. Upon the arrival of Buddhism in Japan, communities became increasingly interested in how death could be avoided or at least stalled, the process of human souls becoming *kami* came into being and the early Buddhist exorcism rites began to come about. As the years went on, Buddhism became increasingly associated with death and funerary rites while Shinto became the celebration of life and death. Because of this, Buddhism became increasingly death-centered in Japan with the Esoteric forms becoming associated with the warrior monks, the extreme ascetics who mummified themselves alive, and the suicidal monks while the Mahayana forms gave us *Amida Pure Land*, *Nichiren*, and *Jizo* cults. The Esoteric forms largely died out but the Mahayana cults became an important part of Japanese culture with *Jizo* becoming a popular figure who was associated children and saving people from hell to take them to his *Pure Land*. Jizo is seen all over Japan even today, sitting on roadsides surrounded by dolls and offerings. \n\nIt was largely for this reason that Buddhism was able to survive repression in the days of Nobunaga and Hideyoshi (who favored Japanese Neo-Confuscim) and the Meiji Restoration (where State Shinto became the Nationalistic imperative). Now serving an important function, as much as the Meiji Government tried to split Buddhism from Shinto, the two were linked and nearly everyone practiced both to some degree. To this day, most Japanese practice both Buddhism and Shinto together with little distinction in between the practices. Those that are \"Buddhist\" often have Shinto influences and \"Shinto\" are tied deeply to Buddhist tradition. It actually makes it difficult to assess how many Buddhists there are in Japan because people will identify as both or either interchangeably though new movements like the Soka Gakkai are more Buddhist and less Shinto.\n\n---\n\nOnto Tibet. So Buddhism in the Land of Snows is kind of a big deal, so much so that perhaps 30% of the population were monks or worked in monasteries prior to the Chinese invasion and nearly the entire population was Buddhist. Tibetan Buddhism had spread as far as Europe and was the primary religion of Mongolia. It's a big deal. It was also far more esoteric than nearly all other forms of Buddhism, with mantras, yogic practice, and complex rituals alongside the traditional Buddhist meditation and study. Gods and demons stare out from walls and buildings and the very land itself seems to have a spirit. *Tulkus*, reincarnated teachers and incarnate Bodhisattvas, lead the monasteries and carry on the teachings of their past lives as incarnate Lamas. The rich and unique culture of Tibetan Buddhism takes many influences from the traditional religion of Tibet, *Bon*, so much so that they are incredibly hard to tell the difference between them.\n\nWell, that isn't entirely true. *Bon* only really came about in the 14th century out of the folk traditions that were absorbed into Tibetan Buddhism and is in part a reconstruction of the animism and folk beliefs of pre-Buddhist Tibet. It can be hard to find the authentic bits of pre-Buddhist beliefs and the post-Buddhist beliefs in modern Bon, but lets look at some things that almost certainly are tied into the pre-Buddhist traditions.\n\nThe Tibetan creation myth details Chenrezig, the Buddhas disciple, begged him not to die his final death as the Tibetan land would have people and they would not reach enlightenment, but the Buddha made it Chenrezig's job to bring them to enlightenment. Chenrezig then gave a monkey, whose name I will not even try to pronouce or write down but it means something along the lines of \"the Enlightened Old Monkey Father\", enlightenment. One day, while Old Monkey Father was meditating a female demon seduced him and thus the Tibetan people were born. This origin myth likely predates Buddhism and was incorporated into the tradition later on with the addition of Bodhisattvas (I seem to recall hearing a version where the demon was an incarnation of Tara). \n\nThere are other practices too, many of the demons and Bodhisattvas unique to Tibet are adaptations of traditional deities from the pre-Buddhist times and creatures like the Gyalpo are the realm of Buddhist monks and Lamas to dispel. Indeed the role of Lamas as astrologers, mystics, and seers is a role that dates back to the pre-Buddhist priests (who were actually called Bon) and their mystical powers come from ancient Tibetan beliefs indicated by the early descriptions in ancient Chinese sources. \n\nIt is a little harder to find information on the pre-Buddhist myths of Tibet since they didn't write anything down prior to Buddhism, in fact Buddhism was the impetus for a Tibetan writing system, one developed entirely separate from Chinese script to have an exact translation for each Sanskrit word. Peeling back the edges of Tibetan Buddhism, however, gives us an interesting look at how deeply the Buddhists of Tibet fused their own myths, and those of the tantric Hindus, into the religion.\n\n* Laird, Thomas *The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama*\n* Achard, Jean-Luc *The Six Lamps*\n* HH Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama *My Land, My People*\n* Tsering, Diki, *Dalai Lama, My Son*\n* David-Neel, Alexandra, *The Superhuman Life of Gesar of Ling*\n* Picken, Reverend Stuart [\"Death in the Japanese Tradition\"](_URL_0_)\n* Deal, William E, *A Cultural History of Japanese Buddhism*\n* Japanese Buddhist Federation, *A Guide to Japanese Buddhism*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://think.iafor.org/japans-modern-ritualized-death-system/"
]
] |
||
8d45ve
|
why is it possible for certain animals, particularly typical pets, to die from extreme stress?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8d45ve/eli5_why_is_it_possible_for_certain_animals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxk6tv4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"stress has an inpact on the body functions and chemicals up to a point that it gets dangerous to the body functions.\n\nit is possible for almost all animals including humans to die from stress.\n\nthe amount of stress needed might be different. in most cases it is a heart attack in humans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
36gdaw
|
Are there Lagrangian points between the black hole in the middle of our galaxy and the sun/earth?
|
So Langrangian points are points where gravitational forces of two things cancel themselves out, right? If so, Are there Lagrangian points between the black hole in the middle of our galaxy and the sun/earth? And can we be trapped in such a point somehow on our journey through the galaxy? What would change for us (even if it's not likely/possible)? Is this possible for any other black hole?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/36gdaw/are_there_lagrangian_points_between_the_black/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crdrqrs",
"crdw9ru"
],
"score": [
25,
2
],
"text": [
" > So Langrangian points are points where gravitational forces of two things cancel themselves out, right?\n\nNo, not right. They are points where the combined gravitational force of two things is just right so that a third thing can co-revolve with them. The total force isn't zero, it's equal to the centripetal force needed to orbit at that distance with the same period as the two primaries.\n\n > Are there Lagrangian points between the black hole in the middle of our galaxy and the sun/earth?\n\nYes, in theory, but the gravitational forces of both bodies would be so weak there as to be pretty much negligible. Any nearby bodies would completely swamp them.\n\n > And can we be trapped in such a point somehow on our journey through the galaxy?\n\nNo, even stable Lagrange points don't prevent objects from leaving them with propulsion, or even just being carried through by their own momentum. Getting things to *stay* at a Lagrange point is the hard part, not getting away from one. And, any way, the forces would be tiny in this case, as mentioned.\n\n > What would change for us (even if it's not likely/possible)?\n\nNothing. There would be no impact on a trajectory through the galaxy.\n\n > Is this possible for any other black hole?\n\nIs what possible? There's nothing special about black holes as far as distant objects are concerned. Their gravitational field is no different (more or less) from a hypothetical non-black hole object of the same mass.",
"Lagrangian points are certain types of solutions to a restricted three-body problem. Three-body means that there are three bodies, for example, the Sun, the Earth and the third body which you intend to place in one of the points. And the restrictions are that the two massive bodies are in a circular orbit around each other, and that the third body is much less massive than the other two.\n\nObviously there are more bodies than just three in the Solar System. But the Sun dominates so much and the planets are fairly far apart that it's a good approximation to only consider the Sun, one of the planets and then your third body. Or the Earth and the Moon are sufficiently far from the Sun and other planets that we can just consider those two.\n\nThis doesn't apply in a galaxy. First the central black hole is minuscule compared to the mass of the rest of the galaxy. You could just remove the black hole completely and hardly anything would change with the galaxy. And then most of the rest is fairly evenly and uniformly filled with stars. Pretending that the galaxy is just the central black hole and the Sun and then some third body is so far removed from reality that any Lagrangian points you get as a result will have no practical significance whatsoever.\n\nSo in short, the Lagrangian points you ask about don't exist because the assumptions of how you get the Lagrangian points don't hold at all.\n\nHowever, other points which have similar properties for different reasons might exist. For example, anything at the same radius from the centre as the Sun will have a similar orbit as the Sun, you don't need to be what would be the equivalent of the L4/L5 points for this, just anywhere in the orbit will work. Galactic orbits are quite different to solar system orbits because of the completely different mass distribution. For example, Kepler's law's don't hold."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33sot1
|
differences in pain? (example: stab, sharp pain vs. punch pain?)
|
Getting pinched or getting punched can hurt equally as much, but they feel...different. When you get pinched, have a shot, or get stung by a bee, it feels kind of sharp. When you get punched, hit your knee on wood/metal, or stubbing your toe feels different than that sharp feeling I described. Do these two things have names, and has anyone else thought about this before?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33sot1/eli5_differences_in_pain_example_stab_sharp_pain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqo27si"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Part of it is the degree of pressure. A pinch stimulates nerves more accurately than a punch. A sting or stab is more centralized than a punch. If you were pinched at the same pressure as a punch, it would hurt more than a punch. Punches also aren't felt as deep. Think of scratching your skin. That doest hurt. If you scratched an open wound, OWW. Stabbing pains like pinching stimulate the inside nerves more directly. \nP.S. Pinching is pushing 2 places inside of you together ( like 2 spots in your arm) "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1j10c7
|
why do i stop being able to see properly for a brief period if i exercise vigorously?
|
Sometimes after running vigorously or doing stair climbing training, I become very sensitive to light right after and things become almost blurry, but more so, I can't see properly.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j10c7/eli5why_do_i_stop_being_able_to_see_properly_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb9zlal",
"cb9znc2"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I'd say this is more a question for your doctor rather than reddit. ",
"There's doctors on reddit... I think OP question is quite a common thing after working out. It happens to me too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
63dih8
|
Is there any evidence of Roman gladiators from the same stable (or known to each other) making fight 'arrangements' in order to survive?
|
For example, putting on a great but ultimately non fatal show.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/63dih8/is_there_any_evidence_of_roman_gladiators_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dftxhio"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Follow-up (or addonial) question: Would it be actually common for gladiator fights to result in death of gladiator(s)? I'm aware that games could include basicaly execution (throwing prisoners sentenced to death to animals etc.), but I assume that properly trained gladiator would be rather expensive and, ethics aside, using them for only single performance seems pointlessly wasteful. And obviously they could become better... \"entertainers\" with more experience, if given chance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2xo4zx
|
Without hindsight was Stalin's reasoning for believing Hitler wouldn't invade reasonable?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2xo4zx/without_hindsight_was_stalins_reasoning_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp1xg6w",
"cp2125e",
"cp2bfb7",
"cp2e9uy"
],
"score": [
134,
50,
3,
10
],
"text": [
"In the books I've read I've never seen any opinion that Stalin's belief was in any way the result of a rational examination of the available evidence. From Mein Kampf, Stalin knew that Hitler intended to attack the Soviet Union. He also knew that Hitler had abrogated peace treaties in the past, indeed had helped Hitler invade Poland. Stalin, and the Soviet High command, ignored numerous warnings including :\n\n- Warnings from Churchill, the USA and Soviet embassies in Romania and Sweden,\n- Warning from the Soviet spy Richard Sorge in Japan\n- Known buildup of German troops on the Soviet Border, including the entry of German troops in Rumania and Bulgaria in violation of the Nazi-Soviet pact.\n- Daily incursions into Soviet airspace by reconnaissance aircraft.\n- Numerous German deserters crossed the border in the days before the attack warning of the impending assault.\n\nStalin appears to have acknowledged that war with Germany was likely, but became fixated on two beliefs. Firstly that the Germans would not attack only two years after signing a non-aggression pact with the USSR. Secondly that the British wanted to provoke the USSR into declaring war on Germany.\n\nThis second belief basically allowed him to ignore any evidence that contradicted the first belief. It's possible that the flight of Rudolph Hess to Britain in early May 1941 reinforced the belief that Churchill was actually colluding with Hitler. Even then that doesn't explain the lack of warning to the Soviet border forces.\n\nSources:\n\nThe Second World War; John Keegan.\nThe Second World War; Martin Gilbert.\nBarbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45; Alan Clark.\nWhen Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies); David M. Glantz.\nThe Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; William Schirer.",
"Your question is heavily dependent on what time frame we are talking about. Years before the conflict began? Months? Weeks? \n\nIn the long term, Stalin certainly believed that a war with Germany isn't just likely, it was almost inevitable, given the ideological split between the two nations. Stalin has done a lot to prepare for this war - everything from militarization of the Soviet industry, reforms in the Red Army, attempts to move the border westward, and so on. For a time, Stalin tried to make an alliance with Western powers against Germany, but was unsuccessful. The non-aggression pact with Germany was a response to that. Stalin wanted to make sure that if the war was inevitable, the USSR wouldn't be the first in the fight. He wanted to buy time for when the Red Army would be ready for the conflict.\n\nIn the medium term, as Hitler was conquering France, Scandinavia, the Balkans, etc, Stalin thought the war was unlikely. There were two main reasons for that. One, there weren't any significant diplomatic disputes between Germany and the Soviet Union. Yes ideological differences exist, but they were not enough to start a war. Usually there is a period of tension. For example, WWI began with the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand, and the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia. But wars don't just happen in a vacuum. Secondly, the was still a war going on. Great Britain was still in the fight. Stalin did not believe that Hitler would attack the USSR before finishing off Britain, as that would be a very reckless thing to do. In fact, some intelligence that he received did suggest that Hitler was planning to invade Britain. \n\nIn the very short term - we are talking a few days to a couple of weeks before the German attack on the Soviet Union - Stalin did begin to appreciate the likelihood of an imminent invasion. Some preliminary steps were taken to prepare the Red Army for war. However Stalin simply lacked good options at this point. There was little he could do short of ordering a full scale mobilization, which would have made him look like the aggressor. This difficult situation resulted from the fact that Wehrmacht was already mobilized, and the Red Army was not. And the RA needed a lead time of over a month to mobilize. An order to mobilize would have been a very clear provocation (as was the case in WWI) and a signal to Germany to \"attack now\". In any case, at that point it was too late to do much about the situation. \n\nRegarding intelligence, things were not as clear as they are sometimes made to be. Stalin received a lot of reports, some suggesting that war was imminent, others showing the opposite. Soviet intelligence analytics were quite poor at the time. Knowing which sources were reliable and trustworthy, and being able to connect the dots was difficult in a sea of often contradictory information. For the most part, Stalin tended to rely on reports of German troop concentrations which, until very late in the period we are talking about, were ambiguous. For a while it appeared that Germany was simply putting in place an infantry screen to guard against a possible Soviet invasion. Germany armor units were still in the Balkans after the Greek and Yugoslavian campaigns. The infantry screen appeared to indicate a defensive posture and that Germany might attempt an invasion of Britain. \n\nSources:\nИсаев А. В. От Дубно до Ростова\n\nSoviet Storm, documentary series.",
"As a follow-up question, I watched a video in my history class that claims that one of the main reasons Hitler decided to invade Poland was so that he could have a shared border with the USSR. Can anyone confirm or deny this?",
"I don't think that much of what people do can be considered 'reasonable'. Perhaps 'understandable' would be a better term. Stalin was absolutely desperate to avoid war, and had managed to convince himself that Hitler wouldn't invade, even while preparing his army for an offensive war at the same time. As the evidence of war loomed, he obsessed over the history of the German-French war of 1870. He put himself into the mind of Hitler, and being a 'Bismarkian Great Power Statesman' type himself, he convinced himself that Hitler was as well. He and Zhdanov quoted to each other Bismarck's famous dictum that Germany should never fight a war on two fronts, and took this as the gospel Hitler would live by, ignoring the fact that Hitler was an idealogue, not a player of the Great Game. \n\nBut Stalin, like those who prospered under him, had the power to believe different things to be absolute truth at the same time. While being certain that Hitler wouldn't invade while England was undefeated, he was also aware of the looming invasion as a reality, and hoping that Molotov would delay it. On 5th May he announced at dinner that \"if VM Molotov can delay the start of war by 2-3 months, this will be our good fortune\". This was partly an attempt to bolster the officers present for ideological reasons, but the fact that Stalin could even say this in public meant that he wasn't as completely blind to reality as many have portrayed him. \n\nStalin knew that Russia wasn't ready for war in 1941, he hoped to delay it until 1942 at least, saying that Russia wouldn't be truly ready to meet the Germans on an equal footing until 1943. Because of this, it was absolutely necessary for Russia that Hitler not invade in 1941, so because of the absolute necessity of this, Stalin acted as though merely by willing it to be true, it could become so. He knew the storm clouds were closing in, but fighting against it, both with his indomitable will, and any action he could take, however slight. He was terrified of doing anything that might provoke Hitler, refusing to let famous literary author Ehrenburg mention the word 'fascist' in their book, and considering cancelling the May Day parade in case the Germans found it provocative. This shows that Stalin was on some level aware of the reality of the situation, and that he hoped that by such insignificant gestures he might avoid invasion for as long as possible. \n\nFinally, as May drew on, he began to mobilise the army and prepare it, but slowly and cautiously, fearing that the slightest wrong step might antagonise the Germans. On 12th of May he allowed his generals to call up 500,000 reserves. But after German reconnaissance flights, on the 24th he refused to allow any further measures. Struck with paralysis, perhaps he feared that anything he did might precipitate the catastrophe he was so desperate to postpone. \n\nSource: *Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar*, by Simon Sebag Montefiore"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1s23ob
|
why is it that some paintings are popular and others are not?
|
It seems like the quality of the art doesn't change much from a person selling their art on the street to a big time artist selling their paintings in a museum or a high class art show. Is it just the name of the artist that sells the paintings? If so, how does anyone actually become famous in the first place?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s23ob/eli5_why_is_it_that_some_paintings_are_popular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdtetti"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As far as technique is concerned you're somewhat correct as there is an overabundance of artists with the appropriate training/ability to paint/draw/sculpt a masterpiece. The difference between an artist on the street and a big name artist in modern times is less about skill and more about creativity/subject matter. Granted, once an artist gains a name for her/himself, she/he will likely be able to pass off less inspired works but the initial emergence of an artist is due to their creativity. I'd consider this analogous to the music industry where there are an infinite number of talented vocalists and musicians but the ones who are most famous are the ones who create the most interesting music/write the most interesting lyrics (pop music notwithstanding)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2xo2do
|
What was the English view of Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 and did they know he wanted full independence from England?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2xo2do/what_was_the_english_view_of_bacons_rebellion_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp2gsno"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Nathaniel Bacon never intended to declare independence from England. Despite attacking royal governor William Berkeley, Bacon and his group fully imagined themselves as Englishmen who just happened to live in Virginia. They knew that Virginia would fall prey to other colonial powers, the Dutch, the French, and the Spanish, had they not been under England's protection. They also knew their livelihoods depended on English markets. \n\n\n\nSo why did Bacon's group erupt in rebellion? It was mostly due to large planter versus frontier frustrations. The catalyst to the rebellion was the governor's refusal to let them kill Indians during a war between Virginian settlers and the Susquehannock Indians. In hit-and-run raids the Indians had killed some families on the frontier and the frontiersmen wanted permission to retaliate against all Indians, even those who were peaceful. The governor refused as all out war would hurt the deer trade that was profitable to him and his friends. Also, as Professor Alan Taylor says, \"Berkeley also understood that a controlled, gradual frontier expansion better served the interests of the wealthiest planters, who wanted to retain common men as laborers and tenants rather than permit their dispersion to an open frontier as settlers.\"^1 So, the inability to expand, resentment that the governor monopolized the Indian trade, coupled with ever-decreasing tobacco prices and a belief that the eastern planters did not represent their interests led to the rebellion where Bacon and his men ended up burning down Jamestown. Although Bacon used servants and the ilk in his small army, he did not intend to completely overthrow the social order. He was not an egalitarian. He just thought his group should be at the top. He ended up dying of dysentery. After which, Berkeley returned, hanged the remaining 23 rebel leaders, and put down the rebellion. \n\n\n\nAs for those in London, they viewed that Berkeley was at fault for overreaching his hand. King Charles II quickly dispatched an army to restore order. He wanted keep tobacco revenue flowing. In the end, \"the monarch agreed with Nathaniel Bacon on one thing: the newly rich Virginia elite was unworthy of its power. Determined to maximize the crown's share in the profits of Tobacco, the king disapproved of the competing exactions by the planter elite.\"^2\n\n\n\n\n^1 Alan Taylor, *American Colonies: The Settling of North American* (New York: Penguin Books, 2001), 148. \n\n^2 Taylor, 150. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7o98ks
|
why did south korea and japan become so successful after world war 2, but the philippines didn’t?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7o98ks/eli5_why_did_south_korea_and_japan_become_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ds7rgz8",
"ds7tlnv",
"ds7tuj4",
"ds7uqpu",
"ds7uxuk",
"ds7uzwd",
"ds7wr04",
"ds7x43j"
],
"score": [
40,
334,
172,
36,
6,
26,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"For 20 years after WWII, the country was plagued by Communist rebels and by corruption. Then a corrupt dictatorship took over. \n\nThis long period of terrible leadership hurt the country a lot.\n\nBy contrast, the US Army took over Japan and imposed order quite firmly. This was made easier by the country's centuries-long record of stable government.",
"The US poured most of its restoration efforts into Japan and SK to prevent them being under Communist Russia and to have a foothold in the East. The Philippines barely got any funding from the US relative to Japan and SK. \n\nAlso, Filipinos don't know shit about nation building and are selfish as fuck. \n\nSource: I'm form the Philippines.",
"Japan was an industrial powerhouse before and during World War 2. The defeat at the end of the war was a setback, yes, but not a permanent one. You can draw parallels with Germany which has also done very well. \n\nSouth Korea is different. It didn’t become highly industrialised until well after the war. It has always had a very good education system and people say that is why it has been successful. \n\nThe Phillipines had neither of those things so it is not surprising that it hasn’t done as well. \n\nAlso, it is rare for tropical countries to become highly developed, though there are certainly some examples. Though the ones that do succeed tend to have a unique advantage. e.g. Singapore is very well placed to control trade in the Straits of Malacca, and there is a lot of it. ",
"Kind of hard to build a country when Marcos stole all the money. Isn't 5 billion still missing?",
"One of the factors not mentioned so far is the fact that many Japanese and Korean (and Taiwanese, and more recently Chinese) immigrants to the West graduated college and ended up going back to their respective countries to use their newfound knowledge to build it up and to take advantage of opportunities rarely afforded to them in the West. I don't think Filipinos do this, maybe because their opportunities in the West are broader since they speak English more fluently (and also probably other cultural reasons). Filipinos are the most economically successful Asian demographic in the United States.\n\nKorea wasn't even successful after WWII per se. Even up until the 80's Korea was poorer than the Philippines.\n\nEDIT: [Source](_URL_0_) for dis-aggregated Asian-American earnings data. \n\n[Bonus source](_URL_1_) that shows Asian-Americans are the poorest demographic in New York.\n\nDisaggregation of data concerning Asian-Americans is an issue.",
"Japan was pretty much a modernized country before WWII and because of US aid they prospered after WWII. On top of that, the Govt. spent heavily on education, science, tech, and infrastructure which is why the country boasts a thriving tech and auto industry. \n\nS. Korea received a lot of reparations as well. In the 1980s, the Govt. replicated what the Japanese Govt. did and created ministries for technology and science. That’s why Korea has a thriving tech and auto industry as well.\n\nPhilippines is very different. Firstly, it has a colonized history- which Japan and Korea do not have. (Though Korea was colonized by Japan). Colonization is a big thing because the Philippines was basically a puppet for the Spanish and Americans- meaning everything from the islands was exploited and prevented industries to thrive. Plus, the Philippines is a heterogeneous society so race really affects social class. It’s a more stratified country and they way money is distributed is honestly why the Philippines is failing.\n\nLastly, education revolved around labor needs (such as nursing and health education) as opposed to science education that would have been responsible for innovations and an industry. \n\n\nBut believe it or not, the Philippines experienced it’s prime until the late 70s. The quality of life was high, literacy rate was high, and it was considered to be the 2nd richest country after Japan. ",
"America rebuilt them because being next to China and Russia they were strategically important.\n\nFor Japan, the US had a defense obligation too. Japan had its military disbanded and replaced with a very limited self defense force coupled with American presence in Okinawa. This left a lot of free resources and money for Japan to pour into the civilian sector.",
"SK and Japan invested in broad-based primary education, had relatively low inequality compared to other developing countries, and both also focused on developing a domestic industrial base instead of export agriculture and raw materials production. Both had strong, educated/specialized government bureaucracies that pursued both outwardly efficient trade policy but also heavily subsidized higher-tech domestic industries. The Park dictatorship in SK was corrupt, but in a less economically harmful manner than the Marcos regime in the Philippines. And the US both helped with aid because of Cold War concerns, and also largely ignored currency manipulation and industrial policy from both countries that made their exports more competitive abroad. And, both were careful to balance budgets and not overborrow, avoiding debt trap problems. Taiwan is a similar story.\n\nSource: I have a PhD in political economy and an MA in economic development. \n\nIf you want good reading, I recommend *MITI and the Japanese Miracle* by Chalmers Johnson; *Governing the Market* by Robert Wade; *Pathways from the Periphery* by Stephan Haggard; and *Embedded Autonomy* by Peter Evans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://aapidata.com/blog/countmein-income-disparities/",
"https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/asian-american-poverty-nyc_us_58ff7f40e4b0c46f0782a5b6"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9jxszz
|
why does using a pillow feel comfortable when it makes your head tilted?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9jxszz/eli5_why_does_using_a_pillow_feel_comfortable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6uw8zh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's about supporting the neck more than the angle of your head. Ideally, you want to keep the spine aligned while maintaining that neck support so that your muscles are not straining to try to provide that alignment. So you're basically letting the muscles in your neck and shoulders relax by using the pillow. That is why it feels good."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8m7qea
|
What makes paper fresh from the copier hot? Why don't inkjet printers produce the same amount of heat as copiers do?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8m7qea/what_makes_paper_fresh_from_the_copier_hot_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzlixt7",
"dzliy5p",
"dzliy8h",
"dzlizsz",
"dzlxl4n"
],
"score": [
190,
25,
9,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Laser printers and photocopiers don't work under the same principle as an inkjet printer. When you make a photocopy, the first step is to give an electrostatic charge to a special cylinder. That cylinder is coated with a material that becomes conductive when exposed to light. When the document is being scanned, a strong source of light shines on the paper and reflects on the rotating cylinder. The parts being hit by light (i.e. what is aligned with white on the original document) become conductive and allows the electrostatic charge to be grounded and discharge. What you are left with at the end of this process is a cylinder with an electrostatic charge only on areas that correspond to the dark areas on the document. The charge then picks up toner and rolls on a blank piece of paper with a heating element, which essentially melts the toner and makes it adhere to the paper. The paper then comes out of the photocopier with an approximate copy of the original document.\n\nOf course, modern photocopiers and laser printers will digitize the original document and then use that digitized copy as the master to apply the charge on the cylinder and make a better copy with a single scan instead of having to pass on the original for each copy, but the core principle remains the same.\n\nLong story short, the paper coming out is warm because a heating element is required to make the toner stick to the paper.",
"Photocopiers and laser printers work by applying a layer of dry toner to the page which is held in place by a static charge. The toner is then cooked onto the page using a heated roller (around 220c from memory). This is why the page is hot.\n\nInkjet printers just spray wet ink onto the page which dries naturally. No heat required.",
"Copiers and laser printers both use the same technology to print. Both use toner which is basically powdered plastic that is melted onto the page. Whereas, inkjet printers use liquid ink that is sprayed onto the page... no melting required.",
"Basically, a laser printer or copier is heat-setting the ink on to the page. It's literally baking the sheet before it spits it out.\n\nThe laser part of laser printing isn't actually the source of the heat, though. The laser is used to electrostatically charge the areas to be printed, then finely powdered ink (toner) is attracted to those areas. It's the next step - the finisher - where the sheet is put under intense heat to fuse the toner permanently to the paper.\n\nInkjet printers are pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. Extremely tiny droplets of ink are sprayed out of the print head, on to the sheet. Think the world's smallest, most precise spray paint.\n\nSome types of inkjets do use tiny heaters as part of the process, but they're only there to spray the ink and aren't nearly powerful enough to heat things up like a laser printer.",
"Laser printers use “dry” Xerographic process originally invented by Chester Carlson in the 1930’s. Haloid/Xerox commercialized it in the early 60’s but it used light and analog optics. Gary Starkweather of Xerox developed the laser printer in late 60’s. \n\nAll I know about ink jets is how to change the cartridges."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6cxv8x
|
why do you continue to sweat from running (particularly in hot weather) after taking a cold shower?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cxv8x/eli5_why_do_you_continue_to_sweat_from_running/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhy7lsr",
"dhy7pjm",
"dhzaqqs"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Your body doesn't stop sweating into your internal organs cool down. A cold shower is only cooling off the outside.",
"A quick, cold shower will help cool the outside of your body, but you may still have an elevated internal body temperature. Once the internal temperature stabilizes back to a normal temperature, then you will stop sweating.",
"Your muscles and metabolism are still working pretty hard. Your muscles need to rebuild since they are fatigued now (lactic acid, etc.) and your metabolism is still supplying energy at a higher rate since it hasn't had a chance to slow down yet. Additionally core temperature is still high. Your body is mostly water so it has a lot of energy density. It would take a LONG shower for you to cool your body down enough that you would no longer be sweating.\n\nI don't 100% know if this is true but the cold may kick in some metabolic function where your body is trying to generate heat so you don't freeze to death so the cold shower could also counteract itself.\n\nNote: I'm saying all of this as a runner with no formal athletic training / biology schooling so my exact terminology could be wrong but I generally understand how your body works when running after running on a school team for the last 10 years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20qq8d
|
Why is is that some atoms with a higher atomic mass are less dense than those with less atomic mass?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20qq8d/why_is_is_that_some_atoms_with_a_higher_atomic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg63a0u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The atoms themselves are not more dense, but the crystalline structures they naturally form may not be. Let's compare silicon and aluminum at room temperature. Silicon is the heavier atom, but aluminum forms a denser material at room temperature.\n\nFor the purpose of crystal structure, you can think of the atoms as being hard spheres packed together. Aluminum forms what's called a Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) structure, which is in fact the densest way of packing hard spheres. Silicon forms a different structure, called the Diamond Cubic structure, which has a lot more space around each sphere. These atoms form different crystal structures for a lot of reasons, which I'd be happy to talk about if you'd like. Also, if this is not clear, please let me know, and I'll be happy to continue."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2rn0mr
|
what are islamic extremists actually trying to accomplish by violent attacks, like the one today in paris? don't these attacks just embolden the majority against the viewpoints of the attackers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rn0mr/eli5_what_are_islamic_extremists_actually_trying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnhciga"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"We can only speculate on their motives. They may simply want to lash out with violence due to anger or hurt regardless of its effectiveness. They may want to provoke an 'emboldened response' since such would likely embolden people on their own side, since a harsh response can create something of a recruitment drive for extremist organizations. They may be disturbed and have no rationale whatsoever, and religion is simply the guise their actions have taken on. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
40sz1d
|
Why is the word 'Bosnian' left out of the 'Serbo-Croatian language' and the country 'Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes'?
|
Also can someone explain the status or even nationality of Bosnian Muslims that now call themselves 'Bosniaks'. In every name for things in the former Yugoslavia it looks like every ethnicity was included except Bosnians (e.g. Serbo-Croatian language, and then the name of their country, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes).
Recently they came up with the term ‘Bosniak’ to refer to Muslim South Slavs that speak Serbo-Croatian, but before this from what I understand their ethnicity was literally ‘Muslim’, even though in the rest of the world Muslim is just a religion. I’ve read several times that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are the same people but created different national identities due to religious differences. Is this true, or is this just nationalistic talk with no foundation in reality? If it’s true, why isn’t there just one ethnicity where they follow different religions? The neighbouring Albanians have no problems being one ethnic group where people follow different religions (Islam, Catholism, Orthodox Christianity, etc). What ethnicity or nationality were Bosniaks prior to becoming Muslim and identifying as 'ethnic Muslims'?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40sz1d/why_is_the_word_bosnian_left_out_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyxd2fy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Croatia and Serbia (also Croats and Serbs) existed since early middle ages, before becoming Christian and long before east-west schism. Bosniaks weren't considered separate ethnicity, like Macedonians, by others and weren't allowed to declare as separate people until after WW2. Bosniaks did exist in medieval Bosnia, but it is disputed whether modern Bosniaks are direct descendants of that population. Montenegrins are still not considered as separate ethnicity not just by many Serbs, but by many Montenegrins themselves. Ethnicities aren't something that existed always, they evolve, develop, unite and split apart. The meaning of ethnic identity also changed over time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bwr0yy
|
can bees sense any ''human-made'' signals such as bluetooth or wi-fi?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bwr0yy/eli5_can_bees_sense_any_humanmade_signals_such_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epzou23",
"epzsbc6",
"epzsciv"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
20
],
"text": [
"I don’t know what type of waves they can detect, but is it possible he was just responding to the vibrations of your head phones? Or perhaps his hearing is better than ours, so he could hear the music?",
"Do you wear hairspray? From my personal experience they seem to really like that stuff.",
"There does seem to be some suggestion that bees can detect (or at least are mildly affected by) radio waves. [This website](_URL_0_) compiles a large number of studies that have looked into effects of electromagnetic fields, and includes several studies on bees if you scroll down a bit. Some of these studies seem much more useful than others though, and I'd recommend actually looking at the primary material rather than just trusting the synopses on that page, which may be biased."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fields-environment/"
]
] |
||
ycswv
|
How much do we actually know about gravity? Where are some holes in our knowledge?
|
An article posted in r/politics said we know more about evolution than gravity, what does that mean?
“There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised.” [ [1] ]( _URL_0_)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ycswv/how_much_do_we_actually_know_about_gravity_where/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5ueync"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well first off, evolution and gravitation are both observations. Evolution the observation of changes in a population over time, and gravitation is the force of attraction objects with mass have. \n\nThe theories are explanations for the observations. \"Theory of evolution\" is probably a shortened form of Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection. There is, of course, much more to evolution, including gene flow, mutation, drift, competitive exclusion, etc.\n\nIn the case of gravity, physicists are actually searching for a better theory, as there are issues with current theories. For instance, dark matter and dark energy are both names for the discrepancies between calculated and observed effects of the universe. There is also talk about moving beyond Einstein's relativity into string theory, M-theory, 11 dimensions folded onto each other, membranes, gravitons, and here is where you realize that I'm not a physicist. \n\nThere's really not anything comparable to that in biology, even if you include intelligent design/creationism. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://wonkette.com/481214/kentucky-gop-outraged-colleges-want-students-to-know-things"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
76eu2g
|
Is it true that the VOC (Dutch East Indian Company) was the most valuable company ever?
|
I regularly read this assumption on the internet, and that the company worth 10 times the one of Apple after inflation is adjusted (worth around 7.4 trillion dollars).
I am quite skeptical about this, Europa had only 180 millions inhabitants at the height of the VOC, most of whom could probably not afford to buy luxury product from East Asia or stock market's share. Nowadays the market is just immensely wider and the average population is incommensurately wealthier. Even in term of employee, at it peak it has only 5~10% of Wall Mart's employees, current world largest company in term of employees.
I have read the wikipedia page so I understand that the company exerted very various activities, had thousand of ships and its' own army etc... My question is rather **how can the society have such a value that even our modern company are far from reaching this value?** Is this because of the adjusted inflation which is done badly?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/76eu2g/is_it_true_that_the_voc_dutch_east_indian_company/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dodeous"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Follow up question:\n\nThe same but for the French Mississippi Company, worth 6 trillion dollars, which is even more ridiculous as Louisiana was empty at this time, it would be as if each French has on average 300 000$ of share of this company... Is it just an artificial value due to speculative bubble ?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8jfx3y
|
How can scientists detect binary systems of planets with no star?
|
I just saw [this article](_URL_1_) about a system of binary planets which was discovered recently. Skimming the [methods of detecting exoplanets](_URL_0_) wikipedia page, it isn't clear to me how they could have been observed because there doesn't seem to be any source of light in the system.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8jfx3y/how_can_scientists_detect_binary_systems_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz0ekku"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The planets are about 3 times the mass of Jupiter each, and have a temperature around 1000 Kelvin. This makes them big enough, bright enough, and close enough that they can be detected with a state-of-the-art infrared telescope."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets#Radial_velocity",
"http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/07/rogue-binary-planets"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1rb77o
|
If the terminal velocity of an object is about 120mph, what would it be if the object was falling in an airless environment?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1rb77o/if_the_terminal_velocity_of_an_object_is_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdlfu8p"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There is no such thing as terminal velocity in an airless environment. It doesn't matter what the terminal velocity of an object in air is, if there is no air for the object to interact with through friction, the object will keep accelerating as it falls until it hits a solid surface."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1xq3ar
|
why don't we say "an user" instead of "a user"?
|
Or "an utensil". "An umbrella" sounds normal. Why don't we say "an user" even though it starts with a vowel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xq3ar/eli5_why_dont_we_say_an_user_instead_of_a_user/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfdkule",
"cfdkum9",
"cfdkwfp",
"cfdkxj6",
"cfdkyj9",
"cfdl2bo",
"cfe3fg7"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We determine whether a word should be associated with \"a\" or \"an\" by its sound, not by its spelling. For example, \"hour\" starts with h but it's silent, so the word actually starts with a vowel sound.\n\nUtensil and user both start with consonant Y when pronounced\n\nedit: But, of course, lots of people say things like \"an historic event\" because English is batshit crazy.",
"utensil and user start with a different sound than umbrella. one is an ''y' sound (also unicorn, uniform), the other is an uh' sound (also umpire, underweight)",
"Because the sound of the vowel actually doesn't start with a vowel so it sounds unusual. \n\nYou-ser.\nYou-ten-sil\nYou-knee-corn\n\nUm-brel-la. \nUn-want-ed",
"It starts with a vowel, but the actual sound you make for user and utensil is \"yuh\". The prescriptive, or artificial, rule is that you don't want to end a word with a vowel and start a new word with another vowel. The descriptive, or realistic, rule is that you don't want to end a word with a vowel **sound** and start a new word with another vowel **sound**. It's the same reason some people say \"an historian\", since making the \"h\" relatively silent is an acceptable pronunciation.",
"We use 'a' when the following word starts with a consonant sound, and 'an' when the following word starts with a vowel sound. \"User\" starts with a Y sound.",
"It's the phonemic sound that determines whether you use 'a' or 'an', not the letter which represents the vowel sound.\n\nThe 'u' sound in umbrella is clearly different to the 'u' sound in user.\nWhen you have a vowel sound like 'uh' (e.g. in umbrella), you use 'an'. When you have a sound like 'yoo' (e.g. in user), you use 'a'.\n\nThis idea is further illustrated in words like herb and historic.\n\nIn some regions of the world, you say herbs and historic with a noticeable 'h' sound, so you it would be written like 'lets add a herb to the dish' or 'what a historic event!'. In other regions, however, the 'h' sound in these words is silent. In this case it would be written like 'lets add an herb to the dish' or 'what an historic event!'.",
"Sounds like the influence from French? That language has \"un\" (which means the same as \"a\" and \"an\") and whether they pronounce the \"n\" as an \"n\" or a nasal sound depends on whether the sound of the next word begins with a vowel or consonant, as opposed to the first letter of the word."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4262bd
|
why does radiation destroy human dna and make human life impossible but yet trees can survive and flourish?
|
For instance in Pripyat, there are many trees growing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4262bd/eli5_why_does_radiation_destroy_human_dna_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz7u8la",
"cz7z8gk",
"cz7z8u8",
"cz86ck0",
"cz88l0f",
"cz8alzy",
"cz8ba7s",
"cz8c2sa",
"cz8prb1"
],
"score": [
88,
600,
18,
2,
2,
4,
4,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Human life isn't impossible in Pripyat. It's just not necessarily advisable, since you would experience a potentially increased risk of radiation-linked ailments like certain cancers. The overall background radiation in the region is not 'immediately human destroyingly' high.\n\nEdit: To more directly answer your question: In the same vein, heat can destroy human dna and make human life impossible. But what matters is *how much heat.* Not just any amount of heat or radiation is immediately destructive. You are *always* exposed to radiation, every day. But your body can generally handle low amounts. ",
"The destruction of tree DNA isn't nearly as devastating to a tree as it is a human. The main danger of radiation is cancer. Don't get me wrong, trees do get cancer, but because they are much slower growing cancer doesn't affect them in nearly the same way. Trees also don't have a blood stream so cancer in a tree isn't able to metastasize and move to other parts of the tree. (If you have ever seen those knobs on trees that look like bulges, that's tree cancer). \n\n**TL;DR:** because of the way cancer works and kills, it doesn't harm trees in the same ways it does humans, meaning it has little impact on them. ",
"Radiation is energy traveling in the form of waves or particles. All life is constantly exposed to radiation. These waves and particles are very small (smaller than atoms) and have the potential to strip electrons from other atoms (called ionization). This ionization of atoms is what ultimately can cause damage to biological systems.\n\nRadiation dose is measured in a unit called the \"rem\" which measures risk. 1/1000 of a rem is a milli-rem or mrem. People are exposed to about 1 mrem of radiation every day from background sources which include radiation from sources in and on the earth and radiation from sources from space. There are two types of risks from being exposed to radiation. Deterministic (if you receive a radiation dose on your skin of 200 rem you **will** get a burn) and Statistical (if you receive a radiation dose of 1 rem you increase your chances of contracting cancer in your lifetime by 0.08%).\n\nin order for radiation to cause damage to biological systems a **huge** number of ionization's must occur to the atoms in a cell and that damage must be damage that is unable to be repaired by the cells natural repair process. \n\nThe potential for damage is also dependent on the type of biological system being exposed. Rapidly dividing cells are more sensitive to radiation exposure. So a developing fetus is much more likely to suffer from radiation exposure than an adult. Your reproductive cells are more likely to be damaged by a radiation dose than your nerve or brain cells are. Trees, flora in general, are not rapidly dividing and are not complicated systems. You can physically cut a chunk out of a tree and it will repair and survive. You could shoot a bullet through a tree and it will repair and survive. \n\nI looked up some of the exposure numbers at Pripyat and, in 2009, the exposure rate, at the highest level, was about 1 mrem per hour. So spending 5 hours at this level would be about the same as the excess radiation dose you would receive by flying from New York to Tokyo. And people do that all the time without worry.\n\nAnother factor is that the statistical increase in your odds of contracting cancer increases as you grow older. Animals in the wild may have an increased chance of contracting cancer as they grow older, but they have a much lower life span, in effect making the cancer odds irrelevant. \n\nEverything I've said is with the assumption that the radiation exposure is external to your body. Ingesting, or breathing, something radioactive deposits the radioactive material into your body where the radiation can irradiate the cells around the deposition for a long period of time. The risk involved from an intake of radioactive material is much greater than the risk from being exposed to the radiation outside your body. That is why researchers who enter these areas will take precautions to prevent intake while simultaneously being much less concerned about the radiation dose from external radioactive material.",
"Pripyat is a bad example. Human life isn't impossible there, but they were forced to leave. Some people did stay. Also, animals survived there just fine.",
"It might be relevant to point out that a swath of trees did die from the radiation at Chernobyl. \n\n[Red Forest](_URL_0_)\n",
"Not impossible - humans could live in Pripyat. What would happen is that they would have much higher rates of cancer, and more birth defects. But if people lived there, had kids and whatnot and just ignored all the additional cancer and birth defects, the population would increase - because even if you have a ton of people dying from cancer from age 35 and up, there is still plenty of time to breed. ",
"As someone that works in a nuclear field (uranium enrichment) I haven't seen the specific reason why trees aren't hurt as much by radiation. /u/drewal79 has a good answer about why cancer doesn't affect trees as drastically. My answer explains why tree cancer is unlikely in the first place.\n\nIt all boils down to how quickly the cells divide (plants have a relatively slow growth rate/metabolism compared to animals). The slower the division, the more resistant to chronic exposure's effects. All cells can suffer from a large, immediate exposure to radiation. What is happening in these contaminated zones is low level chronic exposure.\n\nThere are three basic results from any exposure:\n\n-Immediate cell death\n\n-Cell sterilization\n\n-Cell damage that can be translated during division (cancer)\n\nThe likelihood of these results depends on the type of radiation (ionizing is the worst) and the energy level of the radiation (higher is worse)\n\nSolar radiation causes cancer using these same principles. Severe sunburns are similar to severe radiation exposure (except high energy exposure will penetrate deeper).",
"The radiation break down DNA, so it effects cells that rapidly divide the most, aka ones replicating that DNA. Tree cells do not rapidly divide. ",
"Most of these answers are incomplete. You, and many of the people answering your question, are confusing *radiation* (which generally comes in 3 flavors, alpha, beta, and gamma) with *radioactive material* (which generates the 3 kinds of radiation).\n\nWhen Chernobyl exploded it dumped massive amounts of radioactive material, or fallout, into the surrounding environment. That radioactive material is composed of unstable atoms which gives off alpha (high energy helium nuclei), beta (positrons), or gamma (high energy photons) radiation. That initial burst of fallout was so radioactive (that is it emits a large amount of radiation) that anything, be that animal, plant, or human, coming into contact with it was likely to get radiation burns and die in a short period of time. But that fallout was spread very unevenly via wind. It has also become less radioactive with time (ie: it puts out fewer high energy particles per unit of time) as the atoms degrade into more stable, but still radioactive, isotopes. Since that material was spread unevenly, there are a lot of places in Pripyat where the amount of exposed radioactive material is very low, and thus the levels of radiation are very low. It's safe enough in those areas for plants, animals, and people to live pretty much normal lives. There are other locations with high concentrations of fallout. In these locations, nothing can grow.\n\nThe true danger with visiting Pripyat isn't that there's a lot of radiation being emitted by the fallout there. The danger is in breathing in or ingesting that fallout. If you get radioactive material into your lungs or intestines, it's like placing a tiny atomic blowtorch there. Larger pieces (say the size of a grain of sand) can actually burn through your tissue. Smaller pieces (a fleck of dust, down to just a few plutonium atoms) will stick in your body and deal damage consistently over time as the atoms degrade over and over again. These smaller pieces of fallout will cause cancers.\n\nAnd that last piece is why radioactive fallout is more dangerous to you than it is to a tree. You have lungs. You have intestines. A tree doesn't. A tree doesn't have large cavities inside itself where lots of air, or food has the chance to deposit some bit of highly radioactive material. Trees also don't move, so if they weren't exposed to fallout in the initial explosion, or by the early contaminated winds, they're unlikely to have been exposed later. That means that in locations with low concentrations of fallout, plants have been able to grow quite well in the past several decades.\n\nNote that trees *do* take in significant amounts of water, and that water can have fallout suspended in it. That fallout can then be deposited into the bodies of the plants. This will kill some plants, while others are relatively unharmed. This was actually a vector for the irradiation of humans. Many people drank milk contaminated with fallout (radioactive iodine in this case) which was milked from cows which had eaten grass downwind of the Chernobyl disaster. That resulted in an increased incidence of thyroid disease in that population."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2tnpnh
|
why does nasa launch its rockets in florida which is prone to a lot of rain? why not launch in arizona where rain is rare and the skies are very clear
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tnpnh/eli5_why_does_nasa_launch_its_rockets_in_florida/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co0mxtf",
"co0n4yp"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Crashing in the ocean > crashing in populated areas. ",
"A couple reasons:\n- It takes less fuel to reach orbit the closer you are to the equator\n- The launch site is away from populated areas so debris doesn't hit people\n- Back when they built it, there wasn't anything else around it\n\nThere are a few other reasons, but there are drawbacks to launching from there as well. Also, that is not they only place they launch from, just the most publicized.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
94veki
|
why can the sound volume of commercials on internet tv be double the actual show's volume?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/94veki/eli5_why_can_the_sound_volume_of_commercials_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3o3vf5",
"e3o4ezj",
"e3o4p2q",
"e3oewlu"
],
"score": [
5,
22,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It is illegal in the USA for broadcasters, cable, and satellite providers to have louder commercials. The [CALM Act](_URL_1_) lays out procedures which must be followed. One problem is that some programs are 30 minute infomercials while the CALM Act applies only to commercials. You should register complaints at:\n\n_URL_0_",
"The commercials are allowed to be as loud as the shows. That means if the show has a gunshot, or an explosion, or a big dramatic music swell, then the commercial is allowed to be as loud as that. Thing is, the loudest sound in the show lasts for a few seconds at most, whereas the volume in the commercial is as high as that for the whole 30 seconds.",
"They compress the sound, making everything sound as loud as the maximum volume in a clip. \n\nUsually there are dynamics in a song or any audio clip. Some parts are played lower than others. Compression makes everything equally loud, removing dynamics but increasing the overall loudness. ",
"This was also the case on regular TV until the late '90s. Congress passed a law banning the practice. AFAIK the internet is under no such restrictions.\n\nWrite your Congressmonster and ask them to put forward a bill including internet content be included in the original bill. Not that it's a top-tier item at the moment, but it would be a relatively simple bill even in this period of rather epic inanity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=33794",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Advertisement_Loudness_Mitigation_Act"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1327mq
|
How did Europe go from a backwater land in the medieval era(Compared to Asia) to one of the most thriving lands in the world by the end of the Renaissance and Industrial Era
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1327mq/how_did_europe_go_from_a_backwater_land_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7061ha",
"c706ruy",
"c7070ao",
"c707a4i"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"And exactly what are we comparing?",
"I think OP refers to the general difference between the academical, technological, philosophical and economical delay of Europe in the dark ages compared to the Muslim world, and the fact that it's thriving in the subsequent eras. He wants, in a couple of sentences, that we resume hundreds of years of the whole world in a comprehensive and throughout manner... \n\n\nI give up. ",
"Quite an ambiguous question but shortly I can explain it as so:\nItalian city states had gained territorial posessions and monopolised trade in the eastern Mediterreanean by 1400. They secured this trade by building large navies to protect their commerce and enclaves. This was the first time trade could be done with relative security since the Byzantines lost control of Africa and the Levant. Increased commerce with the muslims brought wealth to the Italians and also caused ideas and knowledge to spread between seperated cultures. This resulted in a 'rediscovery' of classical thoughts and arts. The relative wealth in Italy allowed more people to pursue the arts and knowledge quite different from other contemporary Europeans. The Renaissance basically describes as a whole what happened with the rebirth of classical ideas which had gone mostly extinct in Europe, but had survived in muslim realms. Not only the Middle East and Egypt, but Spain was also being reconquered at this time with the Spaniards inheriting much of the culture of Al-Andalus.",
"I'd suggest that you start with Kenneth Pomeranz's *The Great Divergence*. It's a little old now, and the debate has moved on slightly, but it's seminal and an essential grounding for understanding where the debate is located.\n\nEssentially, he argues that the difference to which you are referring to is only visible after 1800, and largely relies on 1) the colonisation of the new world and 2) readily-accessible coal in the North-East of England.\n\nThe colonisation of the new world is important as it provided \"ghost acres\". Previously, if the UK wanted more lumber then you would have to convert farmland into forest. But with the Empire, you could import lumber from Canada and keep your farmland - you get more resources without sacrificing agriculture at home.\n\nSurface coal is another critical factor. The North-East of England has several natural ports and the coal could be easily mined without advanced technology. In contrast, the coal mines of China (which Pomeranz compares Europe to) were geographically isolated and under-capitalised. Coal is a very efficient form of energy storage and it could be shipped from the North-East of England around the UK or to the continent easily and cheaply, allowing the industrial revolution access to cheap fuel.\n\nBut of course the debate is a lot more complex - James Belich might be a sensible step after Pomeranz, and then you can just pick from bibliographies or read reviews."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
823ken
|
what is derealization?
|
I tend to suffer from this a lot. Quite confused as to why and how it happens?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/823ken/eli5_what_is_derealization/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv78b0m",
"dv79mcq",
"dv7f1vg",
"dv85abe"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is usually termed depersonalization/derealization and in essence, it is the vague feeling that everything is just a dream, or that life has no substance. Its really difficult to remember how I felt, but withdrawing off valium and ativan, back in 2016 made me feel this way. Like nothing is real...",
"Derealization as a psychological phenomenon, independent of substances or medical issues, is usually a severe reaction to stress. It tends to be thought of as on the continuum of dissociation, with total post-trauma amnesia on the more severe end and “spacing out” on the the less severe end. It’s basically a mind’s way of disconnecting from distress in order to help us survive.\n\nIt can come about in relation to different types of stress. It’s a common symptom of panic attacks, which are severe episodes of fear activation. It’s common in PTSD and chronic, stressor-related distress like the effects of childhood abuse. I’ve heard of it happening to people with phobias. In and of itself, derealization is not harmful, but is pretty darn uncomfortable for most people and is a sign that something needs to change: either seeking out some support or mental health treatment, or getting the heck out of whatever situation is causing it (for example, if you are in ongoing traumatic situations).\n\nAs to how it happens, I don’t think it’s fully understood but it does have a lot to do with attention. Thinking about “zoning out” for a second, we can see our mind is wandering elsewhere from where we are now. The more extreme versions of dissociation likely are more fragmented or severe versions of attention being diverted away from the sources of distress. Much like we can withdraw from the source of physical pain, our minds can withdraw from the source of emotional pain by diverting attention away from it.",
"It's a psychological phenomenon. It can happen to people who suffer from mental diseases like schizophrenia, or people who have been through a big psychological trauma. Presumably it can also happen to healthy people, although I have not personally heard of this.\n\nIt means that the person has an experience where the surroundings and the external reality is unreal. Things around you suddenly do not seem real, and the person/patient may seem detached or zoned out to outside observers.\n\nDerealization is an example of the more broad subject of *dissociation*, which is a term used for general detachment from either the outside world or from one's own mind.",
"I can give a personal testimony. It feels like my mind goes into overdrive and I can't collect my thoughts properly. Things feel far away, foggy almost. It almost feels like playing a video game sitting very far away from the screen. It's scary as fuck 3/10 wouldn't depersonalize again. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
urmam
|
how are teeth made and why can't your body make additional ones?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/urmam/eli5_how_are_teeth_made_and_why_cant_your_body/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4xweh6",
"c4xz5bf",
"c4y0wuy",
"c4y1gin",
"c4y206e",
"c4y2357",
"c4y7ipy"
],
"score": [
14,
42,
2,
2,
34,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"I also would like to know this, especially since I have seen pics of cysts and tumors on reddit, that had teeth inside them.",
"Simply put, we don't have the biological process developed for this to take place. This would be an extremely complicated process, even compared to everything else already in your body. Your body would have to be able to recognize when its missing actual macro-parts of itself and build it and grow it like it does from when you were created. It's just something we simply don't have and never developed.\n\n*Edit: I'd like to emphasize that it's not the building from scratched part that is the problem, as stated in a comment that is seen in tumors. What is the issue is the epicontrol of it all. Detecting when you don't have a tooth, when to build one, making sure you don't build one when you already have one (probably biggest problem, think cancer).",
"now all i can think of is \"newt chick\" from Heros (cheerleader), and how cool that shit would be...",
"Human bodies **can** make extra teeth. Tumors do it all the time.",
"This is how our teeth look when we are children. _URL_0_",
"Putting this in five year old terms is going to be tough, but here it goes...\n\nTeeth are formed from the stuff in your mouth above the jaw bone. They grow inwards and form under the surface by crystalizing minerals that make the hard surface of the teeth. At the same time, they form the roots that connect to the bone and anchor the teeth in place, much like a tree. Once they're ready, they are pushed out above the surface and you can see the top white part (called the crown) while the roots that anchor it in place remain below.\n\nSome parts of the part underneath are kept able to make another tooth, and when the time is right they begin to grow and bud off from the old tooth and can form a second one in the same way as the first. That's your adult teeth.\n\nSomehow, we're not really sure how, people lose that ability after the adult teeth form. These other parts that are held in place to make more teeth might be shut down or put to sleep so that they can't make more teeth, or they migth not be held back when you make your adult teeth. They might also not get something else in the body telling them to make more teeth after a certain time, but could make more teeth if they were told to. We know that if mice are changed in a certain way with genetics they can keep making teeth even when they should have stopped, so it might also be like that for people. [Here's a paper that shows this](_URL_0_) if you want to see pictures (from a lab I work in).\n\nWe also know that teeth, even though they look like hard not-alive things, actually have a lot of cells, and some of them (\"dental stem cells\") can help repair teeth over time, and some people are trying to use these to help your body make new teeth. No one's figured out how to do this yet though.",
"some very old people get a third set sometime in their 70s or 80s. its called Hyperdontia. : )\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/ojTq1.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19429790"
],
[]
] |
||
6wl5it
|
how the heck do keurig's actually work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wl5it/eli5_how_the_heck_do_keurigs_actually_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dm8tkjv",
"dm8trid"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They punch holes in the top and bottom of the capsule, and run hot water through it.\n\nAhoy, matey! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [How Does a Keurig Work? | The Coffee Whisperer ](_URL_0_)\n1. [Inside the Keurig Vue V700, a Single-Serve Coffee Maker - Graphic - _URL_3_ ](_URL_4_)\n1. [JUST HOW DO THOSE K-CUP THINGY'S WORK? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [animated version](_URL_2_)\n",
"They work the same as a normal coffee filter - you have a container full of ground up coffee, you run water through it, the water absorbs all of the flavorings and oils and drips out the bottom into your cup.\n\nThe only difference with the Keurig machines is that the coffee is really finely ground, so that the water only has to stay in contact with it for a couple of seconds to absorb its flavors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://coffee.germar.net/?p=74",
"http://blog.crosscountrycafe.com/blog/bid/374738/Just-How-Do-Those-K-cup-Thingys-Work",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctkiIOjoBzQ",
"NYTimes.com",
"http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/14/business/how-a-keurig-vue-works.html"
],
[]
] |
||
6gsf03
|
why does the surface of a stirred liquid calm before the rest of it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gsf03/eli5_why_does_the_surface_of_a_stirred_liquid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"diso09h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, water is sticky stuff. However its 'stickiness' is a factor of surface tension. Water wets glass, which means that it sticks to glass more than it sticks to itself.\n\nWhere the glass meets the water at the bottom of the glass, there's no surface, and one particle of water is as likely to press up against the glass as another particle is to slip away. At the surface however, where there's surface tension, there's a skin that clings to the cup. You can see it if you look closely - the water climbs the side of the glass a little bit. This is why the liquid in a straw is always a bit higher than the liquid in a glass. (Capillary action.) \n\nI'm not certain that I'm correct that the surface tension is what's adding more friction, but I think that's the case. \n\nEDIT: To add detail, there are things that water will bead on, and things that water will 'wet', and glass is one of those things that water will wet. This basically means that water doesn't maintain it's surface tension against the glass, which is why it leaves streaks as it falls down a pane of glass - surface tension is broken at the bottom, and the droplet loses water at that point."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4jxkk5
|
if i donate blood while high off marijuana, will the same chemicals that are making me high (thc,cbn,cbc,cbd) make the recipient high when they receive the blood?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jxkk5/eli5if_i_donate_blood_while_high_off_marijuana/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3ajrw5",
"d3akj5x"
],
"score": [
6,
8
],
"text": [
"No. That made me think of a new question though. What is the difference between being high off Marijuana, and high ON Marijuana?",
"I give blood high all the time and I asked to make sure it's okay and the nurse said it was fine and that whoever would be receiving my blood would just feel a little happier haha."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3nyyed
|
Scope and use of different tactics in the First World War
|
I know many casualties in WWI were not in the trenches, which were confined to specific fronts during the war, but what exactly were the tactics used in areas where fighting was more mobile? How much did it resemble WWII? How did these tactics vary between different fronts? Also, with regards to trench warfare, how much of the fighting actually occurred in areas where trench warfare was dominant? When did use of trenches begin and end? I'm trying to get a more well rounded view of how the war was actually fought.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nyyed/scope_and_use_of_different_tactics_in_the_first/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvskm0f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > what exactly were the tactics used in areas where fighting was more mobile?\n\nOn the Eastern Front, infantry tactics in the beginning were based off pre-war training and ideas; the German infantry utilized fire rushes, while Russian infantry were trained to entrench and use cover wherever they dug-in. By 1916-17, the Russians and the Germans had moved towards a system based on *Stosstruppen* or 'shock troops', as demonstrated by the Brusilov Offensive, the German counter-offensives against the Kerensky Offensive, and the Battle of Riga.\n\n > How much did it resemble WWII?\n\nWith the exception of radios and submachine guns, WWI infantry tactics by at least 1916 were like those of WWII.\n\n > How did these tactics vary between different fronts?\n\nThe Austrians utilized *Stosstruppen*, and the Italians in many ways copied this with their *Companies of Death* and *Arditi*.\n\n > Also, with regards to trench warfare, how much of the fighting actually occurred in areas where trench warfare was dominant?\n\nFighting very much occurred on the Western Front from 1915-16, and on the Italian Front (though trench warfare is much too flattering for the fighting there). However, these were major offensives, especially in the West, which lasted weeks if not months, and often remained in the same sector of they front. Outside them, due to demands for guns, divisions, and shells, things would be relatively quiet. \n\n > When did use of trenches begin and end?\n\nSlit trenches were used by soldiers on all sides from the beginning, essentially as fox holes. On the Western Front, it's generally dated to September, 1914, at the Battle of the Aisne, but I'd date it before that, just before the Marne when German and French forces in the south had already begun to dig in in the Vosges and the Argonne. As to when it ended, I've answered that [here] (_URL_0_). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dxlav/what_were_the_conditions_during_ww1_in_the/ct9udmc"
]
] |
|
3om8n8
|
what causes the fishy smell in clean dishes?
|
It's happened pretty much everywhere I've lived. Pull a clean glass, fill it with water, and within five minutes it smells like you have a trout swimming around down there.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3om8n8/eli5_what_causes_the_fishy_smell_in_clean_dishes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvyf3wj",
"cvyf8fe"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Uhmm...have you ever cleaned them properly using piping hot water? That only ever happens if you don't clean dishes and such like properly as bacteria can fester in the water.\n\nEither that, or your water supply in the area is severely contaminated.",
"This is caused by gunk built up in your dishwasher that's contaminating the rinse water and/or blocking the flow of sufficient rinse water. It can be solved by cleaning the filters and, more importantly, removing mineral build-up in the machine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
jy0rf
|
the poincare conjecture.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jy0rf/eli5_the_poincare_conjecture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2g27o7",
"c2g2lne",
"c2g27o7",
"c2g2lne"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure it's possible to explain one of the Millenium Prize Problems to a five-year-old. The [Simple English Wikipedia entry](_URL_0_) on the topic may provide the insight you're looking for, though.",
"I’ll give this a try, but I’m not an expert, there might be inaccuracies:\n\n\nThe Poincare conjecture is about topology. That is, the study of properties which remain true when you deform an object.\n\n\nImagine a flat map of a country. The earth has a curvature, which has been flattened. So there’s a deformation in the map. This means some distances on the map can be bigger or smaller than the distances on earth. However, some basic properties remain unchanged: for instance, if you travel in a loop that brings you back to your starting point, you still have a loop on the map. If the country is in several separate pieces (like the U.S. with Alaska), you’ll have the same separate pieces on the map.\n\n\nNow, that’s just a mild deformation. It can be much more dramatic and still preserve topological properties. Two little circles drawn on a paper are a valid deformation of the U.S. map with Alaska.\n\n\nImagine now the surface of a ball. That’s a 2D sphere. Yes, you’re imagining a 3D object, but the *surface* is 2D. You can identify a point on it by two coordinates (for instance latitude and longitude). Many objects can be deformed to a sphere. For instance: the surface of a cube (flatten the corners and make the sides curved); or a bowl (move the surface of the inside upwards while the bottom surface stays in place).\n\n\nThe surface of a donut (a torus), on the other hand, can’t be deformed into a sphere, because there’s a *hole* in it. Basically, you’re not allowed to create or fill holes. A cup with one handle can be deformed into a donut; even the human body, considering the digestive system from your mouth to your anus, can be deformed into a donut. (Yes, I said “anus”, that’s funny to a five year old, but please stay focused).\n\n\nThe Poincare conjecture is about the 3D sphere. You think you can imagine a 3D sphere? Well, sorry but no, you can’t. The 2D sphere can be seen as the surface of a 3D ball (although the introduction of the 3rd dimension is not necessary mathematically, it allows us to visualize it). The 1D sphere is a circle, it can be seen as the border of a 2D ball. So the 3D sphere would be the border of a 4D ball. Wait, 4D? How can there be four dimensions? It turns out that mathematically we can use as many dimensions as we want. Each new dimension is just an extra coordinate. Unfortunately, our limited brain shuts down when it comes to visualizing more than 3 dimensions; probably because it is itself in 3D.\n\n\nI stated earlier that the 3rd dimension is unnecessary to define a 2D sphere, so can’t we consider a 3D sphere without referring to the 4th dimension? Well, the problem is that it has a non-Euclidian geometry. In other words it is “curved”. And our brain needs that extra dimension to imagine a non-Euclidian object in a “bigger”, Euclidian, space. You can, however, imagine what it is to be inside a 3D sphere: in whatever direction you travel, you’ll end up at your starting point! Imagine someone living on a 2D sphere: he lives in a 2 dimensional world. When he moves in a straight line he goes “all around” and ends up at his starting point. In a 3D sphere, it’s the same: if you move left, right, forward, backward, up, or down, you’ll end up where you started. Or, if you look through a telescope, in any direction, you’ll see... your back!\n\n\nSo what did Poincare conjectured? That a set of 3D objects, sharing some specific properties, can all be deformed into a 3D sphere. That’s it, now you can go and watch sponge Bob. What? You ask about the shared properties? Go ask your mother. Ok, ok, don’t scream, I’ll tell you.\n\n\nFirst, it has to be simply connected. Connected means it is in one piece (unlike the map of U.S.); and “simply” means it has no hole in it. Yeah, Poincare didn’t like donuts, he preferred muffins. I mean, what’s the point of paying for some food that has a hole in it? You can’t eat the hole, what a rip-off.\n\n\nNext, it has to be compact, which in this case means finite in size.\n\n\nAnd last, it has to be without boundary. This means you can move freely in you 3D object, you won’t encounter a wall with a sign saying “End of the object, no trespassing, return to where you came from”.\n\n\nAnd that’s about it! Now go and play outside.\n\n",
"I'm not sure it's possible to explain one of the Millenium Prize Problems to a five-year-old. The [Simple English Wikipedia entry](_URL_0_) on the topic may provide the insight you're looking for, though.",
"I’ll give this a try, but I’m not an expert, there might be inaccuracies:\n\n\nThe Poincare conjecture is about topology. That is, the study of properties which remain true when you deform an object.\n\n\nImagine a flat map of a country. The earth has a curvature, which has been flattened. So there’s a deformation in the map. This means some distances on the map can be bigger or smaller than the distances on earth. However, some basic properties remain unchanged: for instance, if you travel in a loop that brings you back to your starting point, you still have a loop on the map. If the country is in several separate pieces (like the U.S. with Alaska), you’ll have the same separate pieces on the map.\n\n\nNow, that’s just a mild deformation. It can be much more dramatic and still preserve topological properties. Two little circles drawn on a paper are a valid deformation of the U.S. map with Alaska.\n\n\nImagine now the surface of a ball. That’s a 2D sphere. Yes, you’re imagining a 3D object, but the *surface* is 2D. You can identify a point on it by two coordinates (for instance latitude and longitude). Many objects can be deformed to a sphere. For instance: the surface of a cube (flatten the corners and make the sides curved); or a bowl (move the surface of the inside upwards while the bottom surface stays in place).\n\n\nThe surface of a donut (a torus), on the other hand, can’t be deformed into a sphere, because there’s a *hole* in it. Basically, you’re not allowed to create or fill holes. A cup with one handle can be deformed into a donut; even the human body, considering the digestive system from your mouth to your anus, can be deformed into a donut. (Yes, I said “anus”, that’s funny to a five year old, but please stay focused).\n\n\nThe Poincare conjecture is about the 3D sphere. You think you can imagine a 3D sphere? Well, sorry but no, you can’t. The 2D sphere can be seen as the surface of a 3D ball (although the introduction of the 3rd dimension is not necessary mathematically, it allows us to visualize it). The 1D sphere is a circle, it can be seen as the border of a 2D ball. So the 3D sphere would be the border of a 4D ball. Wait, 4D? How can there be four dimensions? It turns out that mathematically we can use as many dimensions as we want. Each new dimension is just an extra coordinate. Unfortunately, our limited brain shuts down when it comes to visualizing more than 3 dimensions; probably because it is itself in 3D.\n\n\nI stated earlier that the 3rd dimension is unnecessary to define a 2D sphere, so can’t we consider a 3D sphere without referring to the 4th dimension? Well, the problem is that it has a non-Euclidian geometry. In other words it is “curved”. And our brain needs that extra dimension to imagine a non-Euclidian object in a “bigger”, Euclidian, space. You can, however, imagine what it is to be inside a 3D sphere: in whatever direction you travel, you’ll end up at your starting point! Imagine someone living on a 2D sphere: he lives in a 2 dimensional world. When he moves in a straight line he goes “all around” and ends up at his starting point. In a 3D sphere, it’s the same: if you move left, right, forward, backward, up, or down, you’ll end up where you started. Or, if you look through a telescope, in any direction, you’ll see... your back!\n\n\nSo what did Poincare conjectured? That a set of 3D objects, sharing some specific properties, can all be deformed into a 3D sphere. That’s it, now you can go and watch sponge Bob. What? You ask about the shared properties? Go ask your mother. Ok, ok, don’t scream, I’ll tell you.\n\n\nFirst, it has to be simply connected. Connected means it is in one piece (unlike the map of U.S.); and “simply” means it has no hole in it. Yeah, Poincare didn’t like donuts, he preferred muffins. I mean, what’s the point of paying for some food that has a hole in it? You can’t eat the hole, what a rip-off.\n\n\nNext, it has to be compact, which in this case means finite in size.\n\n\nAnd last, it has to be without boundary. This means you can move freely in you 3D object, you won’t encounter a wall with a sign saying “End of the object, no trespassing, return to where you came from”.\n\n\nAnd that’s about it! Now go and play outside.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_Conjecture"
],
[],
[
"http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_Conjecture"
],
[]
] |
||
748odd
|
What regulations were there for firearms in the early United States?
|
I'm interested in what laws governed firearms in the early United States including the late Colonial period (leading up to the Revolution), the Articles of Confederation era, and the period from the adoption of the Constitution through about 1820. Were firearms regulated? What did ordinary people think about firearm safety and laws? Would people be surprised about our modern regulations?
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/748odd/what_regulations_were_there_for_firearms_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnwnbpi",
"dny0ma4"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"So I am going to share a link to past questions I answered on this subject because that'll make the most sense, [which you can find here](_URL_0_). Essentially, there wasn't any widespread laws to govern firearms or firearm safety during this period in early American history (1776 - 1803). At the time, the gentry was more concerned with armed uprisings happening in rural America and needed provisions in federal and state constitutions to protect their ability to summon militias since the US lacked a standing army. A more detailed answer can be found in the link above.\n\n > Would people be surprised about our modern regulations?\n\nIt's impossible to answer such a question. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but it is literally impossible. Our lives, morals, and experiences are so vastly different from them that it's impossible to answer. \n\nPlease let me know if you have follow up questions\n\n",
"/u/uncovered-history has pointed to the very early period, so I would just briefly touch on the latter end of the 'Early Republic' and Antebellum period with a book recommendation. Clayton Cramer wrote a book covering this period and, if the title \"Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic\" isn't something of a give away, as demonstrated there, the early laws concerning the regulation of firearms on the United States were often banning the practice of concealing a weapon on your person (as opposed to carrying it openly). These laws were passed in a number of states in the span between 1813 and 1839, and Cramer analyses the social and cultural situations in which they were passed, and the legislative debates surrounding them. To be sure, he is coming at it from a somewhat partisan angle (he leans 'pro-gun'), but he separates his own positions from his historical inquiries as best as you can hope for, so whichever position you take, it is still one of the few books I know of which looks at this specific aspect of early firearms law in the country, so if you're interested in the topic, I would recommend it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ossb5/the_united_states_second_amendment_starts_with_a/d4fe4zp/"
],
[]
] |
|
23p4po
|
Is it true that there was an unspoken rule amongst WWII pilots that said you shouldn't shoot at soldiers in parachutes while in the air?
|
_URL_0_[1] .
In this video, an american WW2 vet claims he shot down an enemy soldier in a parachute as "retaliation" for the enemy pilots breach of an unspoken rule that said you didn't shoot at parachuters in the air, on the account of them being easy targets.
I am wondering if there is any truth to this, and if so, did this unspoken rule also apply to parachute-soldiers annd not just pilots jumping out of a plane
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23p4po/is_it_true_that_there_was_an_unspoken_rule/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgz6ka4",
"cgz7vmr"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on when and where in the war you're talking about. Generally, there was some sort of unspoken rule, although it was definitely broken at times. Many airmen talked about letting themselves fall as far down as possible before deploying a parachute for fear of being shot while drifting down. The Polish squadrons in the Battle of Britain had the reputation in the British squadrons for \"taking no prisoners\" and shooting airmen in their parachutes; I can't remember exactly where I read it, might have been in \"Fighter Boys\" by Patrick Bishop. I don't know how well earned that reputation was. Of course, the pacific conflict was a much more racial and brutal than that in Western Europe, and several American airmen were reportedly shot by the Japanese and vice versa in the South Pacific. All that said, there are also interviews where pilots said that they would never shoot at somebody who had bailed out, so it goes both ways. Unfortunately, I don't know of any formal study of the prevalence or numbers of this happening, so much of the evidence is anecdotal.",
"It is worth noting that Article 20 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923) explicitly prohibits the shooting bailing pilots. It was never adopted, but the fact that this was considered a possible explicit \"law of war\" is relevant."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://thechive.com/2014/04/21/wwii-vet-talks-about-serving-karma-to-an-enemy-pilot-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=chivetrafficfacebook#"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
37heyj
|
why is whatsapp so popular?
|
I can use Google Hangouts or GroupMe from me PC but not WhatsApp (I think recently there is an extension that allows this but it uses your phone as a server). Personally, I find other messaging apps to be a lot more reliable and have many more features. So why is WhatsApp so popular?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37heyj/eli5_why_is_whatsapp_so_popular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crmqgfj",
"crmqs8i",
"crmryfa",
"crmsv0n",
"crmvpj9",
"crneomb"
],
"score": [
61,
3,
13,
91,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Very easy setup. No account needed. Takes over from your phone number. It's literally like texting over wifi",
"Easier, account not needed. I don't know much about WhatsApp but there is a similar case.\n\nIn Asia there is LINE, which comes loaded with a heckaton of fun games and features. Heavy marketing by phone companies (LINE traffic does not count against data quota, for example) and use by corporate PR (similar to FB pages) make it all the more popular.",
"I can tell you why it's popular in my country:\n\nAll phone companies here charge SMS messages individually, but offer a flat rate for data consumption. Whatsapp means free text messages.",
"What others have said here are accurate but also WhatsApp is quite popular for two other reasons, particularly in developing countries:\n\nIt's available on every smart device out there, even on older Nokia and Blackberry smartphones. If you have a smartphone, no matter the year it was made, chances are WhatsApp can be installed on it. It also has a small footprint on one's smart phone, compared to say Facebook Messenger where it's much more resource intensive.\n\nAlso it uses very little data if you just text people and in many developing countries it's cheaper to have a limited data plan than to use SMS, and especially MMS (picture and video texts). Just looking at my WhatsApp data usage in the 11 months I've had it installed on my reformatted phone it's only used ~19 MB and that includes many pictures, videos and even calling via WhatsApp (just texts alone used ~5.5 MB, and that's for 10,000 messages). Ten thousand text messages, as well as numerous pictures, videos and voice chat using so little data is quite impressive and is much cheaper than SMS/MMS. \n\nOne key thing also is that international use is big as well, for instance I use WhatsApp for messaging friends and family in Belgium, Nigeria, the UK and many more places. \n\nMost people think of WhatsApp and smartphone use from a developed world perspective, most people have computers and tablets, however in the developing world it's a much, much different story. To buy a computer, as well as having an Internet plan for your home can be quite expensive, that is to say even if it's available in your area. Cell phone coverage however is a much different story, where coverage is almost everywhere in populated areas of a country, and smartphone data plans are much more affordable, for example while working in India I had unlimited 2G data for less than $10 a month, which WhatsApp is *surprisingly efficient* with.\n\nSo these are the many reasons why WhatsApp was popular, ironically when Facebook bought it (which was a very defensive purchase and an easy way to enter the developing world demographic but that's another topic) popularity for it surged, especially in developed countries where the major messaging platforms were Facebook Messenger and iMessage.\n\nSource: Started a nonprofit organization in Nepal/India tackling the issue of Internet availability in developing countries, did research in regards to it.",
"Apart from what has already been said: outside the U.S. you either have to pay for SMS individually (around €0.15-€0.30 in Europe) or have to pay for an expensive all-inclusive plan, which means you end up paying for things you don't get to use, like 5000 minutes of calls per month and whatnot. \n\nThe second factor that made it successful is that, unlike other companies, they focused on making a Java SE app which worked on shitty phones in places like Asia where people couldn't afford smartphones. Once people and all of their friends started using it then, even after smartphones became widespread, they were hooked.\n\nLastly, unlike SMSes, it lets you send group messages and it's a boon when it comes to getting people to agree on something (get-togethers, work shifts, etc.)",
"Because if you have their number you have them on Whatsapp. Instant win. The app itself is fast and minimalistic and without all the junk that for example Viper has.\n\n(In comparison, in my case like 2 people I know have Hangouts.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
quoup
|
when being drunk, is there a psychological factor involved?
|
I was getting drunk with my friends the other night and I drank at least six shots, enough to feel SOMETHING, and then we played DnD, but I never got that drunk, I only felt somewhat tired, my vision was still perfectly fine and could think without a problem. On the other hand, one of my brother's friends went to a party and had fewer shots than I did, but was acting more willy nilly than when I did with my bros.
What environmental factors and psychological factors are there that affect how 'drunk' a person is?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/quoup/when_being_drunk_is_there_a_psychological_factor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c40l4ny",
"c40l7br",
"c40mbl2"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"people have different tolerances, one person can get hammered on an amount of alcohol which would give someone else a pleasant buzz. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nAlso the results of a prank where someone had a party with alcohol free beer might be relevant: \n\n_URL_1_\n",
"'Expectancy' of intoxication can affect how you behave when drinking alcohol. People's behaviour may change after the very first sip of a drink, long before it has actually started to have a physiological effect, and 'placebo alcohol' (where someone thinks that they're drinking but isn't) can produce up to [a third of the intoxication experienced by drinking actual alcohol](_URL_0_).",
"As I understand it, the amount of food that you've eaten also affects the rate that your body can absorb the alcohol at. If you eat a lot of food prior to drinking, you do not get drunk as quickly. If you do not eat a lot of food, the alcohol hits you more quickly.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020814065654.htm",
"http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a0ef3fd8c8/nonalcoholic-keg-prank-of-2002-princeton-from-nickconfalone"
],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0741832984900144"
],
[
"http://www.intox.com/t-Physiology.aspx"
]
] |
|
41wn1q
|
Berbers ancient to Ireland?
|
I recently read something saying that ancient Berbers travelled to Ireland.
It reminded me of the 'Black Irish' legend of Spanish sailors washed ashore who survived against all odds.
I know it's a broad question but if any of the experts here know of records of early north-African peoples visiting/settling in Ireland I would be very interested to ask follow up questions.
Thanks so much.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/41wn1q/berbers_ancient_to_ireland/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz6bzeg",
"cz6i92k"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"18th century antiquarians like Charles Vallancey speculated that Irish civilization was founded by Phoenician seafarers, and attempted to prove this using what we would call today linguistic arguments. While largely discredited, it is possible that Carthaginian explorers based in present-day Morocco sailed north on voyages of trade and exploration. Pliny describes an expedition led by Himilco from Gibraltar to the islands north of mainland Europe. Details are sparse, unfortunately. I am not aware of any archeological evidence of continuous direct trade between Ireland or even Britain and the Mediterranean world. The commodity of the area most valued, tin, appears to have likely been transported across present day France via a series of Celtic middle-men. ",
"The Fragmentary Annals of Ireland contain a passage describing the adventures of a band of vikings who sailed south to Iberia and then crossed into Africa:\n\n > Then their arrogance and their youthfulness incited them to voyage across the Cantabrian Ocean (i.e. the sea that is between Ireland and Spain) and they reached Spain, and they did many evil things in Spain, both destroying and plundering. After that they proceeded across the Gaditanean Straits (i.e. the place where the Irish Sea sic goes into the surrounding ocean), so that they reached Africa, and they waged war against the Mauritanians, and made a great slaughter of the Mauritanians. However, as they were going to this battle, one of the sons said to the other, ‘Brother,’ he said, ‘we are very foolish and mad to be killing ourselves going from country to country throughout the world, and not to be defending our own patrimony, and doing the will of our father, for he is alone now, sad and discouraged in a land not his own, since the other son whom we left along with him has been slain, as has been revealed to me.’ It would seem that that was revealed to him in a dream vision; and his Ragnall's other son was slain in battle; and moreover, the father himself barely escaped from that battle—which dream proved to be true.\n\n > While he was saying that, they saw the Mauritanian forces coming towards them, and when the son who spoke the above words saw that, he leaped suddenly into the battle, and attacked the king of the Mauritanians, and gave bim a blow with a great sword and cut off his hand. There was hard fighting on both sides in this battle, and neither of them won the victory from the other in that battle. But all returned to camp, after many among them had been slain. However, they challenged each other to come to battle the next day.\n\n > The king of the Mauritanians escaped from the camp and fled in the night after his hand had been cut off. When the morning came, the Norwegians seized their weapons and readied themselves firmly and bravely for the battle. The Mauritanians, however, when they noticed that their king had departed, fled after they had been terribly slain. Thereupon the Norwegians swept across the country, and they devastated and burned the whole land. **Then they brought a great host of them captive with them to Ireland, i.e. those are the black men. For Mauri is the same as nigri; 'Mauritania' is the same as nigritudo. Hardly one in three of the Norwegians escaped, between those who were slain, and those who drowned in the Gaditanian Straits. Now those black men remained in Ireland for a long time.** Mauritania is located across from the Balearic Islands.\n\nBut I doubt that this had any significant impact on Irish genetics. The 'black Irish' have probably existed in Ireland since the Neolithic, since there haven't been any substantial changes to the Irish genetic makeup since that period. Geneticist Brian Sykes has suggested that the Neolithic colonists of both Britain and Ireland originated in Iberia on the basis of his analysis of Irish and British mitochondrial DNA, so it's safe to say that dark hair and relatively swarthy complexions are indigenous to Ireland and not the result of shipwrecked sailors or African slaves intermarrying with the island's inhabitants.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3mqz75
|
places like norway and iceland seem to have few to no trees, yet i've seen old dwellings and other ancient structures built out of wood. we're there forests at one time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mqz75/eli5_places_like_norway_and_iceland_seem_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvhc01c",
"cvhcapc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Correct. \n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\n*At the time of human settlement about 1140 years ago, birch forest and woodland covered 25-40% of Iceland's land area. The relatively tall (to 15 m) birch forests of sheltered valleys graded to birch and willow scrub toward the coast, on exposed sites and in wetland areas and to willow tundra at high elevations.*\n\nAlso, don't forget that trees can be moved from one place to another particularly by water.",
"Norway, and indeed much of Scandinavia, is covered with trees - timber is exported. Which is how it gets to Iceland. Many forested areas near the coast were cleared as the trees were used up, in both countries."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.skogur.is/english/forestry-in-a-treeless-land/"
],
[]
] |
||
kk0wq
|
- utilitarianism
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kk0wq/eli5_utilitarianism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2kvoqw",
"c2kytgu",
"c2kyu5j",
"c2kvoqw",
"c2kytgu",
"c2kyu5j"
],
"score": [
18,
2,
11,
18,
2,
11
],
"text": [
"Utilitarianism is basically the principle that the best course of action in any given situation is the one which maximizes the overall well being or good of the most people. There are other types but pretty much its just the greatest good for the most people is rational",
"Utilitarianism is a moral theory based on a couple beliefs: \n \n1 Being good is a desirable thing to be. \n2 Actions/states of being are good because they bring more pleasure into the world. \n3 All humans are equal. \n4 We all make choices that effect the happiness of different people as well as ourselves. \n \nNow these premises can be argued for or against but they are the main tenants of Utilitarianism. \n \n1 is kind of just a decision you have to make by yourself. There are arguments out there on both sides but both tend to rely on the idea of human nature so they can get kinda sticky. \n \n2 is probably where the most interesting debates happen. I think it is best proved by example. Take health. The only reason it is beneficial to be healthy is because it makes you (or your family/loved ones happy). Money is only good when it brings happiness. Telling a lie can sometimes be a good thing when it increases the total amount of happiness in the world. Anything you think about being good can be reduced to happiness/pleasure. \n \n3 is rather self explanatory but very important to utilitarianism. Most often it is applied to one's self. Your interests should not be more important than anyone else. But at the same time, you should not sacrifice your happiness to other people unless they will be happier than you would have been. The total amount of happiness is what is important. \n \n4 is important because it leads to one of the differences between utilitarianism and other moral theories. All most every action we take effects others. Thus all most every action is a moral choice to utilitarians. \n \ntl;dr Utilitarianism is a moral theory guiding us to do things that lead to the greatest total happiness of the world. \n\n",
"Let's say you have a cake. If you eat the cake all by yourself, you will be very happy, but everyone else will be sad. But if you share the cake with everyone, and have some yourself, you will be happy and everyone else will be happy, too. Maybe you won't be as happy because you don't get the whole cake to yourself, but it's better to make everyone a little bit happy than to make one person really happy and everyone else sad.",
"Utilitarianism is basically the principle that the best course of action in any given situation is the one which maximizes the overall well being or good of the most people. There are other types but pretty much its just the greatest good for the most people is rational",
"Utilitarianism is a moral theory based on a couple beliefs: \n \n1 Being good is a desirable thing to be. \n2 Actions/states of being are good because they bring more pleasure into the world. \n3 All humans are equal. \n4 We all make choices that effect the happiness of different people as well as ourselves. \n \nNow these premises can be argued for or against but they are the main tenants of Utilitarianism. \n \n1 is kind of just a decision you have to make by yourself. There are arguments out there on both sides but both tend to rely on the idea of human nature so they can get kinda sticky. \n \n2 is probably where the most interesting debates happen. I think it is best proved by example. Take health. The only reason it is beneficial to be healthy is because it makes you (or your family/loved ones happy). Money is only good when it brings happiness. Telling a lie can sometimes be a good thing when it increases the total amount of happiness in the world. Anything you think about being good can be reduced to happiness/pleasure. \n \n3 is rather self explanatory but very important to utilitarianism. Most often it is applied to one's self. Your interests should not be more important than anyone else. But at the same time, you should not sacrifice your happiness to other people unless they will be happier than you would have been. The total amount of happiness is what is important. \n \n4 is important because it leads to one of the differences between utilitarianism and other moral theories. All most every action we take effects others. Thus all most every action is a moral choice to utilitarians. \n \ntl;dr Utilitarianism is a moral theory guiding us to do things that lead to the greatest total happiness of the world. \n\n",
"Let's say you have a cake. If you eat the cake all by yourself, you will be very happy, but everyone else will be sad. But if you share the cake with everyone, and have some yourself, you will be happy and everyone else will be happy, too. Maybe you won't be as happy because you don't get the whole cake to yourself, but it's better to make everyone a little bit happy than to make one person really happy and everyone else sad."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6hxk9b
|
why do police helicopters circle instead of hover?
|
Yea, there's sirens and a circling helicopter a few blocks away. I wondered.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hxk9b/eli5_why_do_police_helicopters_circle_instead_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj1wavo",
"dj1y25a",
"dj1ziu6",
"dj23gju",
"dj7n4rt"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it gives them a constant overview. If they hover they only have one vantage point. If the cops wanted a stationary observer they could just send a man onto a building. ",
"Probably because they are looking for something. \n\nStaying in the same position is going to limit their field of view.",
"Circling means you're moving forward which is much more stable and easier than to constantly hover. Also, the vantage point thing.",
"Cop here:\n\nThey don't want to be stationary for safety reasons (they're a harder target to shoot at) and when they're circling it usually means they're looking for something. Moving around gives them a better view.\n\nHowever it can also be pilot preference.\n\nWhen I was working during riots, our city helicopter would swap out with the State Troopers'. \n\nYou could always tell which one it was because ours would circle, while theirs would sit completely still.",
"Helicopter pilot here. One thing that's being missed in the comments here is aircraft performance. It takes more power to hover outside of ground effect (meaning higher than 50') than it does to fly around in circles. It's not a question of fuel (although hovering is less fuel efficient) but rather on a given day with a given altitude, outside air temperature, and weight condition, do I even have the power required to hover? In many cases (for example in the military) we fly loaded up to our max gross weight with full fuel and have to fly around burning off fuel till we become light enough to have the power available to pull into a hover. In those cases we takeoff by doing a \"running takeoff\" just to get off the ground similar to the way planes do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bq2hp1
|
how did old hand-drawn animation achieve such consistent color?
|
Mainly wondering how they avoided discoloration or the presence of brushstrokes. Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bq2hp1/eli5_how_did_old_handdrawn_animation_achieve_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eo0ksl0",
"eo0pas6",
"eo1d9w6",
"eo1dcfh",
"eo1h8wv",
"eo1j3or",
"eo1ngsq",
"eo1yes8",
"eo248ns",
"eo2m66r",
"eo2tq5e",
"eo3bjdv"
],
"score": [
6197,
373,
23,
13,
516,
92,
9,
25,
12,
3,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"Speed and skill. Each pencil drawing by an animator was traced in ink on to a transparent sheet. Once the ink dried it was sent to painting where the paint was applied to the BACK of the transparent film. Each section of color had to be completed quickly while the paint was still very wet so it would show no brushstrokes or the cel was ruined, but going outside the lines would also ruin a cel, as even though it would not obscure the line, it would still show the color in the next section over.\n\nIn the golden age of Disney the ink and paint department was a fleet women who's only job was to trace or paint. The inking girls were considered to be a higher caliber than the painting girls, as their work required a more steady hand, but the painting girls were amazing in their own right. One of the greatest accomplishments of that department was maintaining consistency in color and positioning on Snow White's blushed cheeks, which were done with *actual blush.* The effect was so time consuming it was never used again. They stuck to solid colors from then on out.\n\nEdit: I have been corrected below. The use of actual blush is an urban legend. The effect was achieved no less amazingly with a dye applied to each cel by a very talented woman from inking named Helen Ogger. See the post correcting me below for more detail.",
"There were whole departments dedicated to mixing the paints, doing nothing but ensuring every batch of colour matched every other. Cosgrove Hall had a pot of paint simply called \"DM's Nose\", used also for Duckula's tongue.",
"The paint is paint- as long as you have it thick enough to be opaque, it looks the same if you apply extra anywhere. This was also necessary because it was layered over a background. Anything not opaque would be partially transparent when laid over the background. So it had to be opaque\n\nKeeping the paint look *identical* was a big thing.\n\nThe backgrounds were often watercolor. It was not possible to anything other than scroll it around, it must be static. Because you can't repaint animation cells in watercolor with any consistency.\n\nThus the Scooby Doo \"secret door\" or \"something hiding behind a bush\" being so obvious. If it opened or the bush shakes, that's animation so it has to be painted cells laid on a static watercolor background.",
"Unrelated to actual painting per se, but not every color on the cel was redrawn. They'd use layers much like Photoshop and sometimes just change the head that moved slightly while using the rest of the drawing/painting from the previous cel. It's also why lots of cartoon characters wore ties.",
"Finally something I can answer! I have studied under a traditional animation cel-painter that worked on Disney and Bluth films, I can give some background. When studios wanted to get colors to always match up, there were whole groups of people that spend all day being color scientists. They do lots of research and science to make sure that the paint and colors are always the same by mixing chemicals and making sure to keep the recipe exact every time. When you are painting an animation cel, the technique is to let the blobs of wet paint skim across the plastic. Technically, the brush should never sweep across the surface of the cel to make a brushstroke, the brush is there mainly to push the blobs paint around. Think of it like you are pushing a drop of water softly across a tabletop, you run your brush against the surface of the drop to spread it gently until you finish filling the section you need. I'm not sure how to explain it more, it's a lot easier to do a demo but hopefully that helps!",
"My godfather actually worked as a color specialist in a small animation studio in Lithuania during 80s. He told me the stories how he spent countless days mixing paint so it would be consistent. Writing down the exact numbers of how much of every color he used to create one or another shade of required color. Also he did mess up couple of times, just by adding couple drops more than needed. He said that in hand drawn animation it's VERY easy to notice even the slightest change in the shade of the colour when watching the final result",
"I can’t speak for the golden age of hand drawn animation, but by the time I arrived in Los Angeles there was a shop called ‘Cartoon Color’ that sold animation supplies, including a spectrum of premixed colors that were renowned for their consistency.\n\nI believe the store—now closed—was in Culver City. There appears to be a moribund website associated with them as well.",
"If I'm not mistaken, Adam Savage (Mythbusters, [_URL_0_](https://_URL_0_), former ILM) has discussed this before and recalled the days where he would have to paint the different layers on the cell and work out what colour it would be based on where it is on the stack. The further down, the more the colour changed, so they'd need to know how many layers the image was and then adjust each layer to colour correct for it.",
"Excellent question, OP. Anecdotally, years ago (I'm in my 50's), I took a basic animation class taught by a guy who worked on Sleeping Beauty. He was the biggest ass I've ever met, and I don't think he actually did anything but tell (with obvious nostalgia) stories of the male Disney animators getting into friendly fistfights after work, playing pranks on each other, or making fun of any woman dumb enough to want to do what they did. In hindsight, I'm betting he had a very minor role and never got to see the inside of the studio again, which would explain why he never actually taught us anything.",
"Also the paint colors were available in slightly different variations to accommodate the layering of animation cels.\n\nIf a character had a blue jacket for instance the blue would be Blue 0. And if you were going to animate just the characters arm. You would separate and animate the arm movements on a cel above the previous cel but if you used Jacket Blue 0 the top layered cel would shift the color of the blue layer beneath it when photographed. So you would paint the arm with a slightly different blue, a specially formulated Jacket Blue 1 to accommodate the slight color shift and in the final result the two Jacket Blue pigments would appear identical.",
"RE the presence of brush strokes, they use a specific kind of acrylic paint that goes on very consistently. When I was really getting into sculpting I read about Cel-Vinyl paints that Kat Sapene (amazing sculpture painter) uses. Here's what she has to say about it:\n\n\"KS: I like to use animation cel-vinyl to paint my projects. It’s very similar to acrylic paints. But because it was meant to be used to paint animation cels (the individual frames that make up cartoons), the paint is very opaque. This means fewer layers of paint that need to be applied and therefore I don’t have to worry about paint buildup distorting the original sculpt. Aside from being opaque, cel-vinyl dries quickly, keeps its color over time, and is slightly flexible. The flexibility allows for handling without much chipping. And the paint is very versatile. It can be used for a wash, a dry brush, or even through an airbrush. I love it!\"\n(_URL_0_)\n\nSo I went to the manufacturer and got those paints! Sure enough they are extremely even and bold, and because they supplied the painting professionals their colors were always consistent.\n\nEdit: a words",
"Cel vinyl paint. It was all premixed and put into tubes, ready to be used by the colorists. so there was no need to mix colors when it was time to paint. that's where you would run into inconsistencies with paint color. \n\nThere were no brush strokes in the color because for one, it was painted on the back of the cels so the camera, and you the viewer was really just seeing the underside of painting behind some thin plastic. Also cel vinyl had a thick, almost glue-like consistency so it flattened out quickly and evenly when painting. Artists didn't need the built up layers that oils or even acrylic needs to get rich, even color. \n\n\nI painted a lot of artwork with cel vinyl, just because of those qualities. It was the best! Sadly the only company that produced cel vinyl paint, Cartoon Colour Company just quietly went out of business a couple years ago."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Tested.com",
"https://Tested.com"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.darkhorse.com/Interviews/1629/Technically-Colored-Interview-with-Kat-Sapene-10-09-08"
],
[]
] |
|
1ywpcz
|
if stars we see now could actually by "burnt out" due to the traveling of light, will the major constellations (i.e. the big dipper) ever disappear?
|
If so, how long would that take?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ywpcz/eli5_if_stars_we_see_now_could_actually_by_burnt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfof0gt",
"cfof3qr",
"cfojgzp"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. Millions or Billions of years for most stars.",
"All stars have a life cycle, so eventually they will all die, but likely not for millions or billions of years. When the stars of the Big Dipper do \"burn out,\" we'll start to know about it 58 years later for the nearest one and 124 years later for the farthest.",
"Most stars we see by our naked eye are a few hundred light years away at most (with a few at a few thousand ly), so by the time we see them, they have only aged a couple hundred years. Since a typical main sequence star lives for at least 100 million years (our sun will live around 10 billion years), it is extremely unlikely that a star will be \"dead\" by the time we see it. For any given star to burn out, we will have to wait millions or billions of years, so if you estimate the number of stars in all the major constellations to be around 100 stars, we would expect to wait something like 1-100 million years before even 1 of them burns out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8dacox
|
how do transistors in a cpu work together?
|
Just wondering how transistors work when there isn't just one single one :)
Thanks guys
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dacox/eli5how_do_transistors_in_a_cpu_work_together/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxljhz6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"First we'll need a reference image. [This is how transistors are arranged in a NAND gate](_URL_1_)\n\nThe top two transistors are ON normally and turn OFF when A or B goes high. The bottom two transistors are OFF normally and turn ON when A or B goes high. If both are low then Out is connected to Vdd and Out is high. If both are high then the top two are both off and both bottom ones are on pulling Out low to Vss. If only one is on then Out is high. This forms a NAND gate which only has a high output when the two inputs aren't equal, its the Not AND gate. An AND gate has a high output only when the two inputs *are* equal.\n\nSo where to A and B come from? They're the outputs of other gates! We can strap the 6 basic logic gates(AND, OR, NAND, NOR, NOT, XOR) together to form complicated things like [an adder](_URL_0_) which you can see takes 2 4-bit inputs and feeds it into NAND and NOR gates which feed more gates which feed more gates which eventually output the result of addition. All of this is done with transistors"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.interfacebus.com/ic-4-bit-adder.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/CMOS_NAND.svg/368px-CMOS_NAND.svg.png"
]
] |
|
1owm3y
|
How did Soviet military power at its height compare to the U.S. during the same period? Where they relatively equal, or was there some advantage to one side, militarily speaking?
|
Just curious if the Soviet Union was able to have the same military power as the US or did they surpass it.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1owm3y/how_did_soviet_military_power_at_its_height/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccwehvw"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I think this breaks down into two questions:\na) when was the soviet military at it's height\nb) how did it compare with the US at the same time, or at the time of greatest soviet advantage. \n[This thread](_URL_1_) summarizes the discussion ;\n\nEssentially you may have to split military power according to conventional forces and nuclear forces.\nUnquestionably, having many nuclear warheads & delivery systems means that the later military (I vote for the late 70s like one of the posters there) had greater absolute power. And I'm not sure if the difference in power is meaningful anymore at those scales. (i.e. Questions of the form: Would Soviet forces being able to destroy life on earth say 30 times over vs 10 times over ten years later or vs US being able to destroy it 45 times over ? be more powerful)\n\nAnd yet, in absolute numbers, probably the late 40s in WWII would be the peak strength of the soviet union. \nThis doesn't take into account difference in quality, training and precision of later weapons and armies (on both sides) as well as force multipliers such as improved communications, air support and the like.\n\nAt that time, the US unquestionably had an advantage in strategic reach (which would diminish in later years) over the soviet union, with long range bombers, the atom bomb, aircraft carriers, ability to support amphibious warfare, expeditionary logistics etc. However, the soviet army was substantial and had just gotten through chewing through the german forces, and had mastered the 'operational' art of land warfare. (in contiguous locations such as europe, or manchuria), (even if it did it on lend-leased equipment as well), using their combined arms concept to leverage their huge numbers of artillery, tanks, men and close air support. There's a reason why it was the soviets and not Ike who took berlin.\n\nDavid Glantz is a good reference for WWII soviet military themes.\n\nIronically, as the soviet union played catch up in some of these areas in the 50s and 60s, the US beleived in a bomber gap and missile gap, that was non-existent (at least until the late 70s). Also, over time, the various wars proved the shortcomings of both soviet army (hungary, aghanistan) and the US army (vietnam)\n\nEdit: \nIn summary, military advantages such as where the fight was (continental europe, asia, americas), your allies, and what your objectives were made much more difference than (conventional) military strength.\n\nThe Soviet Union would never have been superior to the US in USA in conventional forces (though massive WMD mounted on missiles, subs and bombers made it moot). It had enough to make an US invasion of eastern europe or similar full strength on strength face-offs entirely unappealing (though US overflights of soviet airspace continued till at least the late 60s with increasing risks - eg U2 incident). Conversely, a Soviet invasion of Germany in the cold war would have leveraged their overall [superior quantities] (_URL_0_) of men, tanks and artillery, versus the US/NATO lead in in missiles and perhaps in responsiveness/preparednesss and co-ordination., but again, ultimately NATO had enough to make it unappealing. Assessment of the various qualitative soft factors/force multipliers and assumptions in such hypothetical encounters were necessarily complex and varied quite substantially from optimistic to pessimistic.\n\nIn fringe territories such as Afghanistan, this meant a proxy war, with complete strengths, doctrines etc not applied.\n\nAnd eventually, WMD quantities and delivery weapons made the question moot on both sides.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vscMZRBdETEC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=soviet+cold+war+germany+allies+conventional&source=bl&ots=8YDP9ZnyOV&sig=IvkWx2gHd3CLye1IeNak_KllXHc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OtJlUvmEFaeYiAeLyYC4DA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet%20cold%20war%20germany%20allies%20conventional&f=false",
"http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=636192"
]
] |
|
338lqr
|
what does "cogito ergo sum" mean? and what is the importance of this statement?
|
The statement seems remains a possibility: Am I a brain in a vat? How philosophers answer it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/338lqr/eli5_what_does_cogito_ergo_sum_mean_and_what_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqiiwvn",
"cqij1wo",
"cqij375",
"cqikphd",
"cqit98u"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think therefore I am.\n\nThe importance of it is that, while all other knowledge can be doubted, because we are inherently limited by our senses, being able to doubt yourself seems to prove that you exist by the very act of doing it. \n\nFor instance, I cannot absolutely prove that you exist. You could be a figment of my imagination, a hallucination of my senses, but I do not seem able to doubt that I myself exist in the same fashion, because my imagination, or my senses, are required for such figments/hallucinations to exist in the first place. \n\nIn short, it gives you a 'known fact' to start from and approach all other philosophy. ",
"Cogito Ergo Sum means, roughly, \"I think, therefore I am.\" It's an idea proposed by the philosopher Descartes. It's an important philosophical concept that influenced a lot of the philosophy that followed it. It's hard to simplify, but in essence, it's an important foundational statement that states that our ability to think about our own existence is proof of our existence.",
"It means \"I think, therefore I am.\" The whole quote is actually \"I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am.\"\n\nWhat this means is that if I doubt that I exist, I am thinking about whether I exist or not. If I am thinking, then I must exist in order for the thinking to occur. Basically, I have to exist otherwise there would be no thinking.",
"It means \"I think, therefore I am\". It comes from Rene Descartes he was a philosopher in the early 17th century.\n\nWhat he did was he came up with this thought experiment he imagined an evil demon, and this demon is on a mission to trick him about absolutely everything, even his own existence. The modern version would the \"The Matrix\". How do you know you are not living in a computer simulated dream world?\n\nIf follow it to its logical conclusion you find that the answer is you don't. You don't know, you cannot know. If you are in a computer simulation, or being under the spell of an evil demon, you can never prove otherwise. Any sufficiently high fidelity simulation is, pretty much by definition, distinguishable from the real thing and so you can never prove its not real.\n\nThe \"I think, therefore I am\" bit comes in because that's the one thing you cannot be tricked on. Even if the entire world and everyone in it, even your own body, is nothing more than a simulation you cannot be tricked into thinking you exist when you do not. The very fact that you are thinking at all is a state of existing.",
"I think therefore I am, meaning that you know you exist because you have the ability to constantly reaffirm your existence by knowing that you have a continuing thought process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
23870f
|
How did North Africa and the Middle East become so thoroughly Arabized.
|
Wikipedia states that there are approximately 420 million arabs in the world _URL_0_.
How did so many places become so thoroughly arabized? The middle east was dominated for large periods of time by Romans/Greeks, Persians, and Ottoman Turks. Yet it doesn't seem like (and maybe I'm wrong), the people were ever so thoroughly romanized/hellenized or persianized or turkified as they were arabized.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23870f/how_did_north_africa_and_the_middle_east_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgvt5th"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This question is made difficult by the lack of consistency in what \"Arab\" has signified throughout history. The same can be said for \"Turk\", as during most of the Ottoman empire \"Turk\" referred to an Anatolian farmer. But as the article say, Arab identity relies heavily on lingustics. Turkish was never really imposed on those who did not speak it. Ottoman schools in the Levant for example taught in Arabic, and as you may know the Arabic alphabet was the one used. But even among those who speak Arabic, it has not been obvious to identify as \"Arab\". As recent as one hundred years ago, Arab meant a desert bedouin, someone living outside of \"civilized society\" (at least in Egyptian context where still today many people identify as Egyptians rather than Arabs)\n\nFurthemore, the Middle East, especially the Levant, most definitely got Hellenized. Just look at the fact that the Hebrew bible had to be translated to Greek by the Jewish diaspora in Alexandria because they no longer spoke Hebrew.\n\n**Sources:**\n\nDignas, B. & Winter, E., ”Arabia between the great powers”. In *Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity. Neighbours and Rivals*, 152-172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008.\n\nFreeman, Charles, ”The Hellenistic World”. In *Egypt, Greece and Rome. Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean*, 333-354. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004.\n\nPappé, Ilan. *The History of Modern Palestine*. Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 2006.\n\n**EDIT:**\n\nSee also:\n\nHaim, Sylvia (ed.). *Arab Nationalism.* Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962.\n\nThis anthology includes many discussions on the meaning of \"Arab\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_people"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
8kh1pe
|
why there are rainforests along australia's east coast but not the west?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8kh1pe/eli5_why_there_are_rainforests_along_australias/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz7lrhl",
"dz7n0xf"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The mountain range running the length of the east coast (the Great Dividing Range) causes moist air that's coming off the ocean to rise (called orographic uplift), when it rises it cools, condenses, and comes down as rain, allowing forests to exist. At least to the seaward side of that range. The west of the range, even tho it's still in the east of Australia, is in a rain shadow, and get very little rain also. \n\nThe west coast has no such mountain range, the air coming in from the ocean to the west doesn't have that lift so misses out on the rain.\n\nThere's also associated temperature, geology and soil differences that prevent forests from occuring in the west, but that's it in a nutshell. ",
"Essentially, because there is a mountain range (well...\"mountain\" by Australian standards) running along the entire length of the east coast. This causes rain to fall on the coastal side of the mountain range, and this provides enough to support a forest-type environment in places. \n\nIn the west, there's virtually no mountain range. There IS the Darling Scarp that promotes rainfall in the south-western 'corner' of Australia, which is where the city of Perth and the vast majority of Western Australia's population lives. There are in fact some small areas of forest in this small south-western corner that are well-watered.\n\nParts of western and north-western Australia DO get some heavy rainfall, but it's the seasonal monsoon. So it's extremely heavy rain for a couple of months and then parched dry for the rest of the year, not really conducive to the sustainable growth of forests."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
45sv3o
|
Searching for a historical figure
|
I'm attempting to remember a historical figure who I read about a while ago. He was a mill or factory owner in the early 1800s in England, it may have been in the north. He was one if the first owners to implement rights for his workers, revolutionary at the time. For example they were fairly paid, not allowed to work more than a set number of hours a day, their children were sent to school, they were allowed time off if they were sick etc. The man's fellow mill or factory owners were astounded when he turned a profit.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45sv3o/searching_for_a_historical_figure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d004igb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Could it be Robert Owen? He was manager and part-owner of the New Lanark mill in Scotland, and among other things he paid employees in currency instead of tokens (as was customary), pressed for ten and later eight hour workdays, etc. He's a pretty seminal figure in pre-Marxist socialism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9byxbf
|
How exactly were armour and weapons (that we associate with being) used by samurai suited to their way of waging warfare? What would make European plate armour less useful in Japan than in Europe?
|
Euroepan plate armour offered tremendous protection, even if it wasn't full plate. Meanwhile Japanese armour was mostly lamellar, without shields with parts that looked a bit like skirts (lammelar parts protecting thihgs). What exactly made this armour good at their warfare? Why haven't there been an arms race like in Europe, where armours were improved to be better at protection, while weapons were constantly improved to counter that?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9byxbf/how_exactly_were_armour_and_weapons_that_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e577383",
"e57co7r"
],
"score": [
10,
6
],
"text": [
"First, a summary and timeline of Japanese arms and armour, and warfare:\n\n1. **Ancient period (until approximately AD900):** Armies depended on infantry, often armoured, equipped with polearms (primarily spears) or sword (short, often double-edged, straight) and shield. Soldiers could be full-time professionals, or peasants providing short-term compulsory military service.\n\n2. **Medieval period (approx 900-1400):** The key component of armies were samurai, who fought as armoured cavalry, primarily as mounted archers, with sabres (the *tachi*) as sidearms.\n\n3. **Early Modern period (approx 1400 onwards):** Armies became larger, necessitating dependence on infantry, most of whom were equipped with spear or other polearms, or bows (up to the mid-16th century) or muskets (after the mid-16th century). Samurai often continued to fight as armoured cavalry, still fighting as mounted archers at times, but often using a lance as their primary weapon. Infantry often wore lighter armour than mounted samurai. Samurai often fought as infantry (resulting in the adoption of the *katana* as their main sidearm, rather than the cavalry-oriented *tachi*).\n\n > What exactly made this armour good at their warfare?\n\nIt stopped spears and arrows. In particular, it could stop arrows from high draw weight bows - we know this both from literary sources which describe arrows being stopped by armour (and exceptional arrows piercing armour), and from the thickness of the armour. Japanese lamellar armour used lamellae of rawhide (3mm thick or greater, up to about 6mm thick) or iron/steel (typically 0.8-1mm thick; iron/steel lamellae could be of composite iron and steel construction, with a hard steel face and a tough iron backing), and depending on the type of construction, at least 2 or 3 thicknesses were presented to arrows due to the side-to-side overlap, and that would be doubled again where there was up-down overlap. The disadvantage is the weight. Note that these heavy samurai armours were intended for cavalry use, which would make the weight more tolerable. Arm and leg armour was thinner (as in Europe), keeping the overall weight tolerable, at the cost of arm and leg armour no longer being reliably arrow-proof.\n\nThese armours provide excellent arrow protection, with the shoulder and thigh pieces providing excellent arrow protection for upper arms and legs.\n\nThe lack of shields is due to Medieval samurai fighting as mounted archers, and Early Modern Japanese soldiers fighting as spearmen/pikemen or archers/musketeers. Shields, in the form of pavises or mantlets, were still used, but with almost all soldiers using two-handed weapons as their primary weapon, the hand-held shield was of little use. The use of pavises was discussed by /u/PapaJacky in _URL_0_ a couple of years ago.\n\n > Why haven't there been an arms race like in Europe, where armours were improved to be better at protection, while weapons were constantly improved to counter that?\n\nThere was an arms race to improve armour and weapons. The first part of this - the adoption of high-draw-weight bows (comparable in anti-armour performance to the English longbow) and the development of body armour and helmets that could stop arrows from such bows - happened quite early (early in period 2 above). The second part, the adoption of guns and the development of bullet-proof armours (body armour and helmets, but not arm and leg armour), was in the 16th century. This included plate cuirasses. Between those, the performance of bows was limited by human strength, and the arms race had already reached its peak. Missing compared to Europe were mechanically-spanned crossbows, which might have pushed armour to improve in the time between these two arms races.\n\nFor a good description of the construction of Japanese body armours, see Trevor Absolon, *Samurai Armour: Volume I: The Japanese Cuirass*, Bloomsbury, 2017.\n\nFor an Edo Period Japanese source (in English translation), see Sakakibara Kozan, *The manufacture of armour and helmets in sixteenth century Japan*, Holland Press, 1963 (originally published in Japanese c. 1800)\n\n > What would make European plate armour less useful in Japan than in Europe?\n\nIt would have been just as useful in Japan as in Europe. Notably, with the adoption of guns, the improved protection from bullets available with thick plate cuirasses was useful, but this feature was adopted in Japanese armours anyway.",
"I see /u/wotan_weevil has pretty much answered the question while I was busy answering another question.\n\nI just want to add that Europe did not always use plate armour. Single-piece shaped metal were hard to make, expensive, and did not become common until the late medieval. For many (most?), the armour was mail (rings), which Japan had, coats of plates or brigandine (small plates attached to fabric), which is not that unlike lamellar armour, or gambeson, which was just very thick clothes.\n\nWhen guns were imported to Japan, the Japanese not only imported European cuirass designs but sometimes the cuirasses themselves, so they very much recognized the protective qualities of the plate cuirass."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3mxlon/why_did_japanese_armies_never_use_shields/"
],
[]
] |
|
2otd11
|
why do restaurants need to do 2 trips with my check? why can't they just give me the check with the tip line in the first place?
|
**Edit**: I just commented this but will leave it here for newcomers to see:
> Wouldn't it be much more efficient to give me the check with the tip line originally so my server knows exactly how much money to charge to my credit card? I just don't understand why I can't sign, tip, and give them my card in one smooth action? Why do I need to get my check, give them my card, have it returned, then sign, then tip?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2otd11/eli5_why_do_restaurants_need_to_do_2_trips_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmqbjpj",
"cmqc296",
"cmqcj6i",
"cmqfnns",
"cmqko19"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
15,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Letting you add a tip when you put your card in would not reduce the number of trips. They still have to bring you the bill, take it to the computer to process, bring it back to you, and pick it up at the end.",
"It's more fun to just pay cash. That way you can just drop it and book it out of there. You will then witness your waiter moving like you expected and ensuring that all is well. ",
"LPT: If you hand the server your credit card as you ask for the check, then there will only need to be one trip.",
"What do you mean by two trips? \n\nThe check is delivered to the table: this must happen either way.\n\nThe card is taken to the computer for processing: happens either way.\n\nCheck brought back to table: happens either way.",
"Because we don't know how you're paying. We bring you the check for you to look it over. Often parties will split it on a bunch of cards, etc. or pay cash! If you're paying by credit card, the computer will run the card and (given that the card goes through) will produce a receipt where the customer can write in a tip.\n\nClearly OP has never worked in a restaurant. Or paid in cash."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
751ph7
|
what's the subconscious drive that gets you motivated to do something your conscious brain doesn't want to do?
|
Like when you're about to start the last rep or you need to get up and do laundry and you consciously think to yourself "I don't want to do this, I'm tired" but then your body autopilot starts doing the task like starting that final set and you think "oh screw it" and bang it out.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/751ph7/eli5_whats_the_subconscious_drive_that_gets_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"do2rqx5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Humans have an instinct side, this decisions are made without our \"permissions\" and it represents what our reptilian side of the brain does.\n\nThe reptilian side of our brain represents our primary survival function. Your heart, lungs and other parts of the body survive thanks to this. This is the primitive side of the brain; it is involuntary, impulsive, and compulsive and it responds like any animal on danger: \n1) fight response, 2) flight response, or the 3) freeze response.\n\nSince the main goal of this part of the brain is survival, sometimes your body reacts over certain actions. From a natural perspective, if you see a Tiger in front of you ready to attack you, pretty sure your brain will trigger in automatically and run(flight response). This was a very basic example, but in First World Problems, you can generate these with other dangers such as \"If I don't do my laundry now, I won't have a dress shirt and I am going to get fired from work and I won't have money and I will starve\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
e7dshx
|
how does the shape of an airplane's wings generate lift? and how does the retractable wing flaps affect that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e7dshx/eli5_how_does_the_shape_of_an_airplanes_wings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9y3hii",
"f9y49wk",
"f9y4jki"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The shape of the wing when viewed from the side is called an aerofoil.\n\nAs the aerofoil moves, the wind / air splits into 2 streams.\n\nThe air passing above the aerofoil generates higher velocity (speed in simpler terms). Whereas the air velocity below the wing is low.\n\nWithout going into the intricate details of fluid dynamics, higher velocity creates a low pressure and vice versa.\n\nSince the pressure below the wing is higher (due to the lower air velocity) it generates lift, hence enabling the aircraft to be airborne.\n\nA similar concept is applied to the rear spoiler of a car (the opposite) to create downforce.",
"Because of the curvature of the wing, the air around it will have a different pressure under and above the wing. This is due to the fact that the air is deviated from it's trajectory. \nThe air on top of the wing will have a lower pressure than the air above the wing.\nThe pressure is basically the force that a fluid is applying on a surface. As the pressure is lower on top of the wing, the air will push the wing up, and the plane will fly.\n\nThe pressure difference is proportional to something called the lift coefficients. Wich means the higher the lift coefficient is the greater the pressure difference. Also, to determine the total lift of the plane, you need to consider the speed. For a plane, the lift coefficient is fixed (it depends of the geometry of the wing), but the lift will increase if the plane goes faster. \n\nConcerning the retractable flaps, they are just here for the lift off and to land. They are just here to increase the lift coefficient at low speed by making the air to be more deflected by the wing. They do that because during these phases, the plane goes slower than it goes during the cruise. So increasing the lift coefficient will increase the lift.",
"A wing makes lift in two ways, from the shape of the wing and the angle of the wing. Both of these push the air that the plane is going through down toward the ground. Pushing the air down pushes the wing up.\n\nSo let's look at those two ways. The shape of a wing is like a frown, lower at the ends and higher in the middle. As the air passes over and under the wing it sticks to the wing just a little, making it go the same direction as the part of the wing it is passing. Since the back of the wing is pointing down, when the air leaves the back of the wing it is pointing down too.\n\nThe flaps at the back of the wing point the back of the wing downward even further, giving more lift. So why don't planes fly with their flaps down all the time? Because that extra lift also gives more drag. So it takes more fuel to push the plane through the air, and costs more money. So the flaps are only used at takeoff and landing, when the extra lift is needed to make flying safer.\n\nGoing back to the other way our wing makes lift, the angle of the wing. This angle is called \"angle of attack\". The more you lift the front of the wing, the further the back of the wing points down. But if you point the front of the wing up too far, it will make a lot of drag. If you point it up even farther, the air won't be able to stick to the wing and the wing will lose a lot of lift. This is called \"stall\". So pilots limit the angle of attack to avoid these problems."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7hfahk
|
Christmas tree candles??
|
Can someone explain how the whole Christmas lighting happened before string lights? They used candles? That's such a fire hazard, how did that work? Would love to hear that history of Christmas tree lighting
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7hfahk/christmas_tree_candles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqrd7n1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A few considerations:\nThe candles probably weren’t left lit all the time, since candles were expensive.\n\nThe tree was probably very fresh, and cut locally rather than being shipped in. Also, Christmas Day was the beginning of the season, not the culmination (as it is now, where the beginning of the season is Black Friday), and so people wouldn’t have a tree up for weeks ahead of time.\n\nPeople were used to handling fire and would probably have placed candles in such a way as to avoid lighting needles.\n\nLast, houses without central heating were probably much cooler and more humid, and would dry out a tree more slowly than a contemporary home with forced air heat.\n\nThese aren’t definitive, but they are some thoughts. Now, I’m in no hurry to put candles on a tree in my house, but it must have looked pretty cool in the day.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
93m3ml
|
Can people die from a highly oxygenated environment?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/93m3ml/can_people_die_from_a_highly_oxygenated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3ecaql",
"e3ehyaw"
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text": [
"Let me first give you the stupid answer: yes you can die because if your environment is really « oxygenated enough », you are stuck in a high pressure block of solid oxygen and cannot move or breathe, and you’re also probably crushed.\n\nI have the feeling this is not what your question meant, and if we stick to conditions humans have actually experienced in real life, There is a medical issue called [hyperoxia ](_URL_2_), which is exactly what you are asking about. Humans can breath a pure oxygen atmosphere at a reduced pressure apparently without harm, such as during [Apollo](_URL_0_) missions. However at normal pressures, this causes damage to the lungs after some time, and as pressure increases, the allowable oxygen fraction diminishes and other issues appear such as damage to the nervous system. This is an issue [divers](_URL_1_) must be acutely aware of.",
"Yes. It depends on the partial pressure of oxygen and the length of the exposure, but general, anything over 0.5 bar (normal atmospheric partial pressure at sea level is 0.196 bar) is capable of causing damage, although this would take a very long time. The symptoms can be minor and reversible for low pressure/short duration exposure, but for higher pressure and longer exposure, can be severe and irreversible, and even fatal. You can read about the symptoms and dose/duration responses [here](_URL_0_). As a SCUBA diver this is one of the first things I learned, and it's especially important on deep dives and technical dives where different gas mixtures are used."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4-4.html",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_operating_depth",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperoxia"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity"
]
] |
||
32ojl1
|
is it possible to see the iss from earth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32ojl1/eli5_is_it_possible_to_see_the_iss_from_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqd33gx",
"cqd33yw"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, often without binoculars. On a clear evening, far from the city, with a cheap pair of binoculars you can make out the solar panels on the side.\n\n[NASA webpage providing estimated viewing times](_URL_0_)",
"Yes. At night, given the right time and place, it's pretty easy. It'll look like a star that's moving relatively quickly in a straight line across the sky.\n\nHere's where you can find out when and where to look:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/#.VS5lmsmc_Kc"
],
[
"http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/"
]
] |
||
av9j88
|
emps
|
How do they work? And are the electronics that get affected by them permanently broken?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/av9j88/eli5_emps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehdl27e",
"ehdl3b7",
"ehdna1r",
"ehdslox"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"EMP stands for electromagnetic pulse. It is a sudden massive burst of energy, which can be created through multiple natural and artificial processes.\n\nThe main way EMPs cause damage is a huge current flowing through electronics, which will destroy capacitors, resistors, diodes, wiring and circuit boards. The magnetic field created might also break inductors or other magnetically sensitive components.\n\nA lightning strike creates multiple EMP pulses when the current enters the ground. The electromagnetic energy spreads through the ground and is luckily stopped by circuit breakers before it enters your house.\n\nThe rapid release of high energy photons and charged particles during a nuclear explosion can also generate EMP pulses. There are even plans to use the earth’s magnetic field to focus and direct the EMP pulse, which allows an army to disable electronics on the other side of the earth.",
"Current in electronic components is designed to flow in very specific ways within certain tolerances. A strong electromagnetic wave can create current in wires and components, causing it to flow in unpredictable and sometimes damaging ways as well as affect the way some digital devices store memory. As a result, the devices may be left in an unknown state and thus unable to function until they are restored to a known state again. If too much current went into sensitive electronics, it could potentially damage them or even break them to the point where they have to be replaced.",
"Electricity and magnetism is related, so magnetic fields going across a conductor will cause electricity to be induce in conductor, and electricity running through a wire will cause magnetic fields to be generated. This is how and why things like electric motors and loudspeakers can exist. \n\nPulses of electromagnetism can be caused by solar flares and other solar activity. They can also be caused by setting off nuclear explosions at the right altitudes. It's also possible to make smaller, portable devices that emit short range pulses of a few dozen feet.\n\nThe exact effect of an EMP can vary. If the EMP is weak, and the wires subjected to it are short, the surge of electricity might be stopped by protective components at for example a transformer station, and if the wires from that transformer station into a household are much shorter, the electricity induced over this distance might not be enough to knock out electronics in that house. \n\nIf the EMP is stronger, the transformer station might be get damaged, but leave the things behind it safe. If it's even stronger, it might be able to induce a destructive amount of electricity into even the shorter power lines going into houses, possibly causing lots of material damage. \n\nEquipment that isn't protected against power surges may very well be permanently destroyed. ",
"The ELI5 here is listen to AM radio during a lightning storm. The radio will have static and popping from lighting happening around you.\n\nRadios work on the principle that moving electrons around results in changing magnetic fields, and changing magnetic fields result in moving electrons around. The radio towers vibrate electrons in an antenna, a EM field radiates out, and eventually vibrates electrons around in your radio antenna. The moving electrons in the radio are detected as a current which can be amplified and used to move electrons in a speaker coil. The moving electrons in the speaker coil create an EM field that pushes against a fixed speaker magnet, resulting in the speaker diaphragm moving around making music.\n\nWhen lightning strikes, that's a massive amount of electrons racing between the ground and clouds which produces a large expanding EM field (just like a radio antenna). That field hits your radio, and in the exact same way the radio waves induce a current in the radio to provide music, the lightning's EM field induces current in the radio which results in a sharp pop. If the lightning is close enough (basically ontop of your house), that induced current *could* be large enough to damage the radio components. There's also the fact that an antenna is just a big wire. There's plenty of smaller wires, circuit-board traces, and electrical chips and components inside the radio that behave exactly like the antenna wire, and also get current induced in them from the lightning. (and technically from the radio waves as well).\n\nWhen people talk about \"EMP\" they're usually just talking about bombs designed to create similar large pulses of EM radiation with the explicit purpose of having a large enough flux to induce damaging currents in the target electronics.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
424833
|
since there is a nautical mile, is there also a nautical feet, inch, etc?
|
There must be, right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/424833/eli5_since_there_is_a_nautical_mile_is_there_also/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz7hrbl",
"cz7iu08"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm sorry to say, but there isn't. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThat is a good reference, but I'll try to sum it up.\n\nA nautical mile is defined as 1,852 meters. So, from that alone you can see that it wouldn't have an immediate basis in feet or inches or any other imperial/US Customary unit. \n\nHowever, it historically originated from one minute of an arc on the meridian.\n\n",
"There are no nautical feet, yards, etc. A nautical mile is one minute (1/60 of a degree) of latitude. Using nautical miles makes it easier to find distances on charts that use the latitude/longitude grid. That being said, sailors will use a unit for navigation called a *cable*, which is 1/10 of a nautical mile. For smaller measurements, such as ship dimensions, depths, etc., sailors use metric or imperial units, depending on their preference.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile"
],
[]
] |
|
7m7nyj
|
Why were the innovations on the HMS Dreadnought not thought of earlier?
|
I can understand manufacturing not being able to make the steam turbines earlier, but the all big gun design doesn't have any technological limitations (after all, they were already making big guns before). Why did people not favour all big guns until HMS Dreadnought?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7m7nyj/why_were_the_innovations_on_the_hms_dreadnought/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drsn0nq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They were thought of earlier, or arguably, at almost exactly the same time:\n\n- The Japanese began construction of the *Satsuma* in May 1905, several months before HMS Dreadnought. She was a \"semi-dreadnought\", incorporating and all big-gun armament of mixed 12in and 10in guns (although originally designed with an all-12in gun design, which was adapted due to cost limitations) but still powered by triple-expansion steam engines rather than turbines.\n\n- Italian naval designer Vittorio Cuniberti had already espoused the \"all big gun\" concept in 1903 in his ideal battleship design, 2 years before the battle of Tsushima took place, and approached the Italian government with such a design which was rejected on cost grounds.\n\n- The US Navy had been tendering \"all big gun\" designs from around 1903 onward, which would eventually emerge as the USN's first dreadnought class, the South Carolina. Although they were once again powered by expansion engines rather than turbines, they arguably possessed a far more advanced gun layout (\"superfiring\"), which would in time become the standard layout for dreadnoughts the world over, although the characteristic beam turret layout championed by HMS Dreadnought would prove hard to shift for other navies.\n\nSo dreadnought arguably didn't really do anything that was totally unheard of: All big gun armament was being mulled as the next step some years before, and steam turbine technology was cemented as a viable future propulsion system since the end of the 19th century, although originally for small high speed vessels such as torpedo boats and destroyers. What the Dreadnought design did do was take all those ideas, combine them into a working warship, and get that design into service in blisteringly fast time. HMS Dreadnought was constructed at an astonishing pace, leaving the slipway in 5 months and fitting out in another 10, which pulled the rug out from under the navies of other countries who had either semi-dreadnoughts sitting on slipways half finished, or full dreadnoughts existing only in the minds of designers. \n\nOther nations did not feel the same impetus for economic reasons, such as the Italians, technological reasons, such as as the struggle the embryonic Japanese gun and shipbuilding industries would and did have meeting such demands, or simply because the slipways were already filled with the current battleships being finished, and new designs would only be considered when the current round of building concluded, as building a battleship was not something that can be taken lightly, unless of course you are the worlds premier naval power and have the shipbuilding capacity and sheer balls to render all your pre-dreadnoughts useless, because you know it also renders your rival navies obsolete and leaves them playing catch-up. Dreadnought reflects this point well as she possessed plenty of odd and awkward design choices and flaws, such as the position of her spotting top behind the first funnel and her generally weird turret layout, flaws that would not be immediately corrected as the following dreadnought classes of the Royal Navy would remain outwardly similar (although with improvements), up until the Orion class superdreadnoughts, which finally dispensed fully with beam turrets. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1q9xi2
|
How many of those living in the Roman Empire/ Rome itself, were actually citizens.
|
Or what criteria did someone have to meet to become one? I know that Hellenic States had relatively few compared to slaves etc.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q9xi2/how_many_of_those_living_in_the_roman_empire_rome/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdao59j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Interesting question! And the answer is that 1) we can never really know and 2) it changes drastically over time. \n\nThe definition of citizen changed multiple times over the course of both the republic and imperial Rome. The point of greatest change came in 212 with the Constitutio Antoniniana in which Caracalla decreed that all free men in the empire should be made citizens and that all free women should be given the same rights as female citizens. \n\nIn comparison during the early republic citizenship was very restricted and was not generally granted outside of those born to existing Roman citizens within Rome. \n\nAdding even more complexity to the question is the notion of a two-tiered citizenship where captured foreigners (during the empire) were granted a lesser form of citizenship which wouldn't allow them the right to vote.\n\nI realise this hasn't answered your question but hopefully explained in part how difficult it is to reach an answer!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
sqpdo
|
What is happening during a 'sleep high'? Why is everything so funny?
|
I'm sure you've all experienced this: you are so tired that you feel high. Everything is automatically comedy gold.
I got one of these the other night while folding laundry and went into a laughing fit that lasted almost 5 minutes. Afterward I calmed down, I started wondering what exactly was happening up in my brain that caused these brief moments of euphoria?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sqpdo/what_is_happening_during_a_sleep_high_why_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4g8sdt"
],
"score": [
75
],
"text": [
"[Relevant study.](_URL_0_)\n\nApparently a lack of sleep stimulates pleasure centers of the brain after a while. (NB: being \"sleepy\" isn't exactly like being sleep deprived, but I'm on mobile and can't look for better sources at the moment.)\n\nEDIT: looks like mine is the only relevant comment in the thread several hours later, and I'm really not comfortable with the level of research I put into it -- where are the brain experts? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.healthzone.ca/health/mindmood/mentalhealth/article/965648--sleep-deprivation-can-cause-temporary-high"
]
] |
|
9ezhw5
|
How deep into the ocean will the impacts of a hurricane be felt?
|
I was watching the forecast of Florence and though about how deep a submarine would need to be to not be effected.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ezhw5/how_deep_into_the_ocean_will_the_impacts_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5t7oiv"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Three times the effective wave height.\n\nThe magnitude of water movement underneath a wave tails of quite rapidly with depth. Once you are about three times the wave height (trough to crest) below the surface, the movement is barely noticeable.\n\n\"Effective wave height\" is the average height of the biggest third of all waves. Once you're three times deeper than that, the effects are negligible.\n\nTypical maximum wave heights in a hurricane are rarely exceed 15m, so once you're 50m deep, you're not going to get much effect.\n\nThis also means that hurricanes cause remarkably little damage in the ocean. It's only when they get into waters less than about 15m deep that the devastation happens.\n\nAs another puzzle, we have no idea how air-breathing marine life weathers a hurricane. How to dolphins survive? We simply din't know."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
47vaqj
|
how hindu religon / gods works
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47vaqj/eli5_how_hindu_religon_gods_works/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0fthvs"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Do [these previous discussions](_URL_0_) help?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?sort=relevance&t=all&q=subreddit:explainlikeimfive%20hindu%20gods"
]
] |
|
b61m2p
|
How does blending fruit/veg change nutrient content and uptake by the body?
|
I have read that blending can change the speed with which your body absorbs sugars, making blood sugar spike rather than slowly releasing sugar (when you eat the food). But does blending change the vitamin or micronutrient contents of the food? E.g. a smoothie of spinach, blueberries, strawberries, apple juice.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b61m2p/how_does_blending_fruitveg_change_nutrient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejimyej"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, solid food remain in the stomac for a while before the pyloric sphincter release, and it does when the solid material have dissovled / liquified enough. Then the stomac content can escape through the duodenum and the small intestine where the majority of the glucose is absorbed (a small fraction is absorbed in the mouth).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nYou absorb mostly the same quantity of glucose, but because it is in a liquid form, it reaches the intestines faster and it requires less mecanical and chemical processing to absorb. The glucose ends up in your intestine capillaries (blood vessels) and escape to the hepatic veins. From here it eventually reaches the heart throught the inferior vena cava, and spreads through your blood.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nOf course, the pancreas secretes insulin so you eventually absorb everything into glycogen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3hj83c
|
if it takes lawyers 3 years to learn the law, how can we trust a cop to learn it in 6 months?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hj83c/eli5_if_it_takes_lawyers_3_years_to_learn_the_law/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu7ug4q",
"cu7ujnf",
"cu7ur7b",
"cu7va7i",
"cu7w5wq",
"cu7w9hn",
"cu7wwa4",
"cu7xk4e",
"cu80yeu",
"cu81515",
"cu821hd",
"cu823ee",
"cu82jrr",
"cu82q88",
"cu832nq",
"cu83lpg",
"cu83xmf",
"cu83yml",
"cu84823",
"cu84ekp",
"cu84mfm",
"cu84s8g",
"cu850er",
"cu854zf",
"cu859nv",
"cu85eq8",
"cu85f1u",
"cu85k2i",
"cu85la4",
"cu85pi5",
"cu85u5c",
"cu85w0k",
"cu8613d",
"cu863xr",
"cu867j1",
"cu86eu6",
"cu86hmf",
"cu86hp2"
],
"score": [
1196,
109,
64,
6,
9,
40,
18,
3,
2,
4,
7,
3,
57,
6,
2,
2,
2,
14,
3,
4,
2,
5,
2,
4,
3,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
5,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Cops don't need to know the bankruptcy code, or contract law, or probate law, etc. The part of the law they're generally concerned with is much smaller. And they don't need to be experts - anything they do is generally useless in the long term if the DA (a \"real\" lawyer) isn't willing to prosecute you.\n\nThere is a process (in Texas at least when I was a HS student, I'm sure there are similar setups elsewhere) called \"DA Intake\" where when a cop arrests someone, as part of the booking/charge process they would meet with some lowly assistant DA who was on call to determine what exactly to charge you with. Remember that once you're under arrest they have a certain amount of time to charge you (in front of a judge) or let you go.\n\nThe problem with cops is that **some** are assholes who abuse their power, not that they have a imperfect understanding of the law.",
"In overly simplified terms, a cop needs to know the enforcement of the law. What and how are you breaking law? And what's the appropriate action? Do you get a ticket or do you get arrested? They don't interpret the law as a judge or a lawyer would do. These others get lots more training in interpretation and other details of law. \n\n\nAm not a lawyer. Am not a cop. ",
"I think that the most direct answer to your question is that there is a lot more that goes into a law degree than the laws that a cop will ever need to enforce. If the widgets that I sell encroach on Apple's patents, I don't expect a police officer to draft official documents related to the lawsuit or come by to advise me on the court proceedings. I wouldn't hire a cop to head the legal division of my company, help manage my deceased father's estate, or draft and file patents for me, because none of these things are even remotely relevant to what a police officer goes through for their training.\n\n\nLawyers don't just spend 3 years memorizing laws in school.",
"I went to law school, and you learn all you need to know in the first year. The other 2 years are to make money for the university. I had my first job practicing at the end of my first year. There is a reason all the required classes are all in the first year. Law school is one year of required classes and 2 years of electives. It's all bullshit.",
"Police only learn basic criminal laws, Like traffic, theft, domestic dispute and assault laws, not civil laws. Basically just right and wrong. More like first responders to sort out who did what. Prosecutors and detectives and judges on the other hand....\n",
"Lawyers don't learn the law in three years. We learn it in three months studying for the bar exam and then we proceed to forget it as quickly as possible to avoid the terrible flashbacks.",
"Lawyers are expected to be experts in a wide body of general laws, and unlike other professionals do not take specialized boards (outside of post-licensing State Bar specialized certificates). A typical law school curriculum consists of 30, 3 semester-hour courses. The first year is a core curriculum usually consisting of Contracts, Civil Procedure (the procedure of civil suits), Torts (the substance of the laws civil suits are based on), Evidence, Property, Constitutional Law and Legal Writing. An average police officer needs to know 2 courses that are taught in law schools, Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law. These are simple subjects comparatively and constitute less than half of a semester's worth of law school material. Criminal Law and Procedure in many schools are not even in the first year curriculum. \n\nAlso, law schools don't necessarily teach the law. Law schools teach using the Socratic Method, which focuses on teaching students to apply the law to individual scenarios and emphasizes critical thinking skills over bare knowledge. A Socratic Method based style of teaching is based on questioning, and doesn't really \"teach\" anything. In a typical Socratic course, a Professor poses hypothetical questions and students are called on at random to answer based on their own individual research and sometimes are not even told whether their answer is right or wrong. Using more \"modern\" teaching methods, ie: power points and flash cards, the material can be covered much quicker. Under a more straightforward instructional style, the basic substance of almost any law school class can be laid out in a matter of hours. \n\nFurthermore, police are not expected to be experts in the law. For example, this is the general idea behind probable cause. PC isn't a rigid legal standard requiring an expert trained in the law to know with certainty a law was violated. Rather, it's a \"practical, non-technical\" standard that calls upon the \"factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men act\". Further evidence of the lower \"bar\" for police officers are exceptions to warrant requirements where police and support staff are allowed to act more or less outside of the law as long as they do so \"reasonably\" or in \"good faith reliance\" on court staff.\n\nTL DR; Lawyers are expected to be technical legal experts. Police are not.",
"Police are Law Enforcement Officers, not lawyers. All they need to know is what is/isn't allowed and to be given a general set of principles (e.g. Maintain the flow of traffic, ensure this location is safe, prevent people from harming other people, etc.) and the tools at their disposal to enforce the law (tickets, arrest, shooty shooty bang bang, etc.)\n\nThe problem we've seen recently is a culture of many municipal police forces where LEO's feel emboldened/immune and so have no/little hesitation on how to enforce the law.",
"No idea. Our cops need two years to learn all law enforcement basics and even then they're not allowed to work on their own, but in huge teams. Just after that they're allowed to work as real cops.",
"You can't trust them. My civil litigation professor made it a point to inform us that the last person you should ask about the law is a police officer. He has not been to law school and any law that he purports to \"know\" will be colored by other non-lawyers. His advice was to never speak to an officer because nothing you say will help you if they already think you're guilty; ask for a lawyer immediately.\n\nAs for personal experience, there have been a few times where an officer has done something inappropriate (unethical) or illegal and I would have to call him on it and cite the legal authority (for example, an officer who threatened me with false arrest or an officer who didn't know that prank calling the police is a misdemeanor). I once had to file a complaint with internal affairs which ended up with the officer having to take retraining classes.\n\nIf you ever suspect misconduct by an officer, immediately request that he involve his supervisor. \n\nThat being said, I've generally had pleasant experiences with police officers and I appreciate the service that they provide and I acknowledge the incredible stress associated with the job.\n\nSource: Paralegal. ",
"It takes lawyers 3 years to learn how to *research* and *discuss* the law. It takes them a lifetime to actually try to understand it. And even the foremost experts of all time still disagree with each other on a regular basis on important questions. The bottom line is that the supply of people with the skill and money to be educated as a lawyer would never be nearly enough to also supply the entire pool of demand for law enforcement officers. Unless of course you want to raise cop salaries to exceed that of lawyers which is probably impossible due to budget limitations. The system is intended from the ground up to work even when some officers have a flawed understanding of the law. That is one reason why we have extensive appeals systems.\n",
"They are only taught laws that apply to their own work (i.e. search and seizure, etc.) and even that is in a perfect world. Since it is up to the courts to determine a person's innocence or guilt, the officer need only understand when they can and cannot cite someone, arrest someone, etc. Beyond that the courts decide if a crime was actually committed based on the evidence. That is why it is extremely important to bring every citation you are written to court. Even if you are guilty, often the court will reduce the charge just for showing up and offer you a lesser charge to get you in and out of there quickly. If you simply pay the fine then you are admitting guilt, which can cause major problems for you down the line. Don't let a police officer be your judge and jury; take your tickets to court. Even if you never see a judge you'll be happy to did. I reduced a traffic ticket to a non-moving violation with no points on my license and a lesser fine simply by showing up and pleading guilty to the lesser charge. Since it was a non-moving violation, they were basically offering to give me a slap on the wrist rather than drag the process out for a slightly larger fine and a moving violation on my record.",
"You don't need to have learned the law to know you're not allowed to drive 100 on the highway. \nYou don't need to have learned the law to know you're not allowed to take an item from a store without paying for it. \nYou don't need to have learned the law to know you're not allowed to beat your neighbor with a golf club for no reason. \n & nbsp; \nPolice officers don't need to know the intricacies of the law. Police officers just observe. If you disagree with any of their observations or judgments, you can take it to court, where you'll find the people who did learn the law. That's why police officers have the authority to investigate what they believe might be a violation of the law, but not the authority to actually sentence you.",
"**Lawyers** \n\n* Interprete the law\n* Defend the law\n* Create the law\n\n* Amend the law \n \n**Police**\n\n* Enforces the law",
"I am a law student, a big difference as far as I can tell is that we have to learn to read and understand the laws as written by the lawmakers. We have to learn to interpret the law in the (often complicated and convoluted) way it was written. We also have to study jurisprudence (court cases that further defined the law).\n\nMy best guess is that cops only have to know what the law says, and even then only in their relevant field. They don't actually have to be able to understand a written law book.",
"Why would you assume that a cop understands the law? If you get rid of that notion you can start to protect yourself in your interactions with the police. I'm not saying all cops are bad, just that enough of them are that you should assume you're going to be fucked EVEN WHEN you've done nothing wrong. If you're being questioned shut your damn mouth and ask for a lawyer.",
"Lawyers and police officers are a part of two separate branches of the law. Lawyers belong to the judicial system while police belong to Executive system. Again, those are two completely separate branches of the legal system. Legislative branch writes up the laws, Executive branch enforces those laws, and Judicial branch decides the punishment if there is to be one.\n\nTo enforce the law, you don't need to know every intricate detail of the law like you would if you are to decide someone's fate. Laws can be incredible complicated, especially when taking other factors into account. A cop can't sit and go through all of this stuff all the while potentially letting the suspect run amok. They take a suspect in based on what they see, hear, smell, ect. and let the next branch handle the intricate details.\n\nAs u/warlocktx stated: \"The problem with cops is that **some** are assholes who abuse their power, not that they have a imperfect understanding of the law.\" The question you've asked came from a post of a picture taken of a sign that was written in haste ignorance with no thought put into it. It was written in anger and served only one purpose; to get everyone who read it to ask this question and to discredit all police. Thankfully you asked others and got solid, thoughtful answers instead of letting it fester in your mind like so many others have done and are doing.",
"LEO of nearly 10 years. Thought I'd throw in my two cents. \n\nA lot of great answers here. I just wanted to add that for the prosecution of cases, we are usually assisted by DA or some similar type entity that went to law school and knows more than we do. I don't stand a chance against a defense attorney with even a year of experience after law school compared to my 10 years of LEO court room experience. That's not MY expertise. I don't expect that same defense attorney to be well-versed in disarming techniques or emergency vehicle operations. Could he do OK at some of it? Sure, but it's not his area of expertise. \n\nAlso, we just need probable cause for an arrest. Which is FAR below the level needed(proof beyond a reasonable doubt) to obtain a conviction in court. That's what the DA and defense attorney get to argue and bicker about while I sit there and watch. \n\nAt this point in my career, there are STILL things that I am learning regarding criminal law and the enforcement of the same. I've taken it upon myself to actually delve into the world of case law and learn from the mistakes/successes of others. If a well established case law says I can't (or probably won't stand a chance of getting a conviction) do something, then two things are important to me... First, there's no sense in violating any civil rights or eschewing any constitutional amendments for the citizen just to make an arrest. It's simply not worth it. Secondly, it's MY career and reputation on the line. All the stupid cases you read about in case law where the officer acted inappropriately or made dumb decisions? You'll never see State V ClitorasaurusRecks in the annals of case law. Work smarter. \n\nIf any young rookie cops are reading this, do yourself a favor. Slow down with trying to put everyone in jail you can. You have a whole career ahead of you and trust me, you'll make plenty of arrests. Putting drunk Billy in jail for the 5th time in a week just for being drunk is a dick move. And as a side note, you're screwing your beat partners by constantly being tied up booking him into jail. Anyways, you also need to LEARN the laws you are charged with enforcing. READ the statute. There's NO excuse for this. You know how mad you get when the cook at McDonald's messes up your burger? Well... You have the authority to take someone's freedom and if necessary, their LIFE. DONT fuck that up. \n\nEnd of rant. ",
"According to a lawyer friend, you spend 3 years in law school to learn to \"think\" like a lawyer, not learn laws.\n\nThis jives with my experience as I have known freshly minted lawyers who know fuck all about the law. ",
"Was pre law major, now I'm a cop. \n\nAs others have stated, as a cop I need to know the enforcement side of things. Because of my bachelors I do understand some civil sides of things, but for the most part I don't use the degree much. \n\nI don't know every statute. I don't know ever traffic law. I don't (for the most part) memorize statute numbers. \n\nI had a very good training officer who taught it to me this way: know what you can and can't do when it comes to detainment, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause. Always have a firm ground to stand on, don't catch yourself in a situation where you have difficulty explaining why you detained/arrested someone. \n\nIf you can make snap decision when it comes to reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and detainment you can be a good cop. After you have one of those \"foundations\" to stand upon, things can slow down, you can look up the statute, and ask yourself does the circumstance meet this? Do I have probable cause for arrest? Do I think there with be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial? \n\nWe are not required to ask the 3rd questions but I do. I \"write to convict\" and believe my reputation with the state attorney's office and career are worth more than taking someone \"because I had PC\". \n\nJust my opinion. Sorry if using the words \"reasonable suspicion and probable\" cause stir up slot of b.s., but some cops use them as intended",
"Cops are like EMTs. They don't need to know how to perform open heart surgery, just how to bring you to the guy who does. ",
"Police officers are supposed to maintain public order. They are also there to help arrest people when laws have been broken and find evidence for lawyers. Cops know the law surrounding these actions (keeping the peace, collecting evidence). Lawyers at the district attorney's office then prosecute based on the evidence the cops have found. They know the law surrounding the criminal justice system.\n\nPolice officers with only 6 months of training are often assigned to the keeping the peace role, rather than collecting evidence.\n\nSometimes, it helps to quote a long running tv show: \"In the Criminal Justice System the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders.\"\n\nLastly, the 3 years in law school only teaches the lawyer the basics of each type of law. A lawyer could graduate law school never having taken a criminal law course, although many of the other courses they are required to take will apply (like evidence). Most lawyers then spend obscene amounts of time learning which cases apply to which situations to ensure their client's interests are served. Similarly, police officers spend years on the force gaining experience in investigation and evidence collection.",
"Law students don't learn the law. They learn how to think like a lawyer and interpret/read the law.",
"Law student here:\n\nWe often say you don't learn the law in law school – it's just way too diverse to gain a full understanding. And a Mergers and Acquisitions guy doesn't need to know anything about divorce law. \n\nInstead, we learn how to think like lawyers. Then you begin to specialize. ",
"3 years? It's 5 1/2 years where i'm from.. A further 6 months of 'supervised learning' and then another 75 days of 'work experience' before you even get admitted. After that you are STILL restricted from certain things for 2 years.. \n\n3 years would be cool, but i don't see how anyone could get a grasp on the Law in that amount of time.. I kind of like the arduous nature of getting a Law degree from where i'm from.. It separates the good from the bad, and the wannabes from the people who actually want to work in the legal profession as contrasted from the people who watch 'suits' and think it's all big money and courtroom theatrics. ",
"Cops aren't lawyers. Cops arrest people, lawyers and judges fight out whether or not that person should be held longer. All cops need to know is the basics what people can and can't be arrested for and what requires immediate action. Lawyers need to know the intricacies.\n\nCops for instance know that you aren't allowed to attack anyone with a knife. They might have an inkling what the average punishment is but they would have no clue on what the legally extenuating circumstances are, how that person should be judged based on their past, and how to argue in favour of or against that person using legal arguments. All they know is; you want to stab someone - > go to jail - > legal system takes it from there.",
"It doesn't take Lawyers three years to learn the law. The first year in law school teaches you to think like a lawyer. Second and third years are spent applying that to soecific fields of law. It takes a few months of extensive study to learn how to pass the bar. And the rest of a lawyers career is devoted to learning the law so as to not sound like an asshole to clients or the courts.",
"I think it's hard to compare the two. That being said, it should worry all US citizens that their police officers are not receiving the same length of education as others in the western world. Despotically considering recent events with some officers acting unethical and sometimes breaking the law. UK, Germany, Denmark and Norway (to name a few) all require you to train/study between 2-3 years before becoming an officer.\n",
"How about you and other people stop rigging fucking questions with your manipulative titles. They don't need to learn everything about law as it is a wide field. They just need information that pertains to their duties ",
"Where I live, law school takes 5 years + 2 years in court before you can act as an independent lawyer. ",
"Neither lawyers nor cops \"learn the law\".\n\nLawyers learn how to work within the complexities of the legal system. They specialize in a certain type of law then learn the resources available to them to work within that legal space to increase the likelihood of the outcome they then market.\n\nCops learn to perform a job that includes public safety, processing individuals who commit crimes, and enforcement of certain laws in certain areas. Since a cops don't have to deal with many facets of the law, and since they don't have to be involved with the execution of the law, just the initial arrest, they don't need to be as educated in all the laws and nuances that those who will be involved in possibly months of years of litigation do.\n\nI think what you're really implying with this question is the popular social dynamic that we live in a police state or that police are a force for evil. Given the public outcry and media attention, your question is understandable but uneducated as it relies heavily on the outliers and not all the good folks who get paid jack to risk their lives every day.",
"Here in Germany it take 3 years to become a cop and it is connected to a bachelors degree in most states. ",
"Yeah! Like when that officer pulled me over for copyright infringement! \n\nThis is a really stupid question for ELI5. ",
"This is a fair question. I want to point out that your really don't \"learn the law\" in law school, if you mean people memorize or even learn specific laws. You learn more \"how to lawyer\" which is different.",
"Same as it takes doctors and nurses different amounts of time to learn medicine, or engineers and technicians different amounts of time to learn technology. Different roles, different requirements. \nThe question is of course hinting unsubtly at another question, to which I would add that some jobs have greater accountability than others. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to consider the various types of accountability, and which of the six mentioned jobs (lawyers, police, doctors, nurses, engineers, and technicians) faces what kinds of accountability.",
"Probably due to the fact that lawyers look at specifics, how a law was created, why it was, which cases helped it, the purpose of it etc...\n\nPolice only need to know how to enforce it and what it applies to.",
" > Don't post just to express an opinion or argue a point of view.\n\nBased on your title, text, and follow up comments it seems clear you posted in order to argue a point of view and so this has been removed.\n\nIt's also a subjective question. Asking \"how can we trust cops\" is asking for opinions.",
"They know the traffic code and a few other bits and the common sense stuff. It's not hard. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8ux9s2
|
how does the koenigsegg gearless transmission work?
|
I understand how automatic, manual, CVT and dual clutch transmissions work, but I've been trying to understand how the Koenigsegg transmission works with little avail.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ux9s2/eli5_how_does_the_koenigsegg_gearless/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1iw3m4",
"e1iw8t9"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically its not a transmission at all... the engine is linked directly to the wheels through a differential type unit. Meaning that the ratio of engine speed to wheel speed never changes. Normally this won't work with gas motors because they make such little torque at low rpms that the either cant accelerate or cant reach decent speeds. That's where koenigseggs electric motor comes in providing the torque necessary to get the car moving.",
"This explains it quite well: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\nBasically it’s not gearless, it’s a single gear automatic transmission, plus a hydraulic clutch, plus electric motors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/glf_k4qGBAA"
]
] |
|
2vrbe6
|
Can custom proteins be manufactured?
|
Is it possible that we could splice together various triplets to make our own synthetic, never before seen, protein?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2vrbe6/can_custom_proteins_be_manufactured/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cok890d",
"cokbbaf",
"cokbs3q",
"cokd3mr",
"coke6ee",
"cokfvxf",
"cokg0an",
"cokgllp",
"cokgovn",
"cokmz0v"
],
"score": [
172,
15,
11,
7,
5,
4,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The technique we use to make novel proteins has been around for decades. See [site-directed mutagenesis](_URL_1_), a common technique in deciphering enzyme mechanisms. Basically, you introduce a desired mutation to the DNA sequence that codes for the protein - say, changing a serine into an alanine - and have your bacteria express this novel protein. Then you can do tests on the resultant protein, such as examining shape, binding characteristics, reactivity, etc., and compare it against the wild-type protein. This way we can understand the role of that particular amino acid (in this case serine) in how the protein operates.\n\nExpanding this into completely new sequences (_de novo_ synthesis) is [also possible](_URL_0_), though the new protein's physical characteristics is harder to predict. With modern day computational methods, though, it is becoming easier to design your own synthetic proteins with a purpose in mind.",
"Other people have given much more detailed answers than I can, to the effect that we have multiple techniques for making custom polypeptides. The only thing I want to add is that when you're making a brand-new protein (not just modifying an old one), the hard part is getting the tertiary and quaternary structure right. A chain of amino acids doesn't do you any good unless it folds and coils in just the right way. This is the part that takes a lot of computing power to figure out.",
"In addition to the biosynthetic methods described by /u/rupert1920, there's also a fully synthetic method: the [Merrifield synthesis](_URL_0_). If you know the exact sequence of peptides needed for your protein, you can build the protein one amino acid at a time. It's a very tedious, expensive process and is often used for small oligopeptide drugs rather than full sized proteins",
"For a good example of this, look at [green fluorescent protein](_URL_0_). The naturally occurring protein absorbs light at a specific color (wavelength) and emits at a different color (see [Stokes shift](_URL_1_) for more details). For the natural GFP, it absorbs blue and emits green. Through mutation of specific amino acids, the color of light absorbed and emitted can be altered. Look at the colorful picture of bacteria expressing different proteins on the wiki.\n\nWhat is also very interesting is that we can modify amino acids to change how the protein works. In the case of [roGFP](_URL_2_) the fluorescence properties of the protein are determined by the environment the protein is in. In the case of roGFP, it detects changes in the redox state of the environment, whether that environment be a test tube, or inside the cells somewhere.\n\nIf you let people know how familiar you are with biology and biochemistry, we can go into further detail as to how these proteins may be created. ",
"Maybe not exactly what your question is getting at, but I'm suprised no one has mentioned [fusion proteins](_URL_0_), created by two DNA sequences being spliced together that, when expressed in a cell create a protein that now has a continuous amino acid sequence of both proteins. For example, my lab does a fair amount of ChIP sequencing, a way to look at the epigenome of cell populations. When looking at where certain proteins are binding to DNA sequences, we often express our protein of interest fused to a [FLAG-tag](_URL_1_), which provides a site for high affinity antibodies to bind, making the process a whole lot easier than trying to validate the binding of a new antibody.",
"I'm just a computer guy stumbling through and don't really understand biology outside of the basics I need for the gym, but what purpose would these custom proteins serve? Could they be targeted to certain cells or something of that nature for rehabilitation? ",
"As you can see from the other answers you have received. Yes. \n\nWe have reached a point where you or I could write out an amino acid (the building blocks of proteins encoded by the DNA triplets) sequence then find a lab and have it synthesized. \n\nIt isn't quite trivial, depending on exactly what you want, if you wanted non-natural amino acids or interesting modifications or something very large (or a combination) then it could take someone a few months to make it. \n\nThe problem is: what does it do?\n \nA randomly selected sequence will almost certainly have no activity and you will be very lucky if it folds to a stable protein rather than forming an amorphous aggregate of it all just sticking together because it doesn't fold. \n\nIf you set the problem of I want a protein that does x, make one. That is basically an unsolvable problem with our current level of knowledge. We are talking about 50 years of research with a few lucky breaks along the way for us to be able to design a useable protein from scratch. \n\nEven if I were to take recognisable motifs from known proteins and say this is the binding site for a certain molecule, this catalyses this reaction and just stuck them together you would be unlikely to produce anything that was useful. \n\nWhat we would realistically do is look to find a natural protein that did something a bit like x. Then modify it. We could try some \"rational design\" where we look at the structure and say: OK, this protein does the reaction you want but on the wrong molecule, how can we change the binding site so it will accommodate your molecule. This has some chance of success depending on what we are trying to achieve, but we aren't yet at a stage where we can reliably alter function like that. \n\nAnother approach would be \"directed evolution\" where you take a protein that does nearly what you want and make one or 2 random changes to it, then look at that new protein and see if it is better at what you want it to do. Then repeat this thousands of times until you start seeing the changes you want. \n\nTL;DR\n\nMaking synthetic proteins is easy. Making synthetic proteins that have a function we desire is hard. ",
"Absolutely. We are starting to build up a library of working protein parts. And curiously these parts seem to work across species fairly well. Nature herself would make new proteins by mixing and matching the parts of functional proteins already in existence. These parts have various functions ranging from the ability to bind various materials, to interact with light in interesting ways, to being enzymatically active, to being biologically significant.\n\nThere are a number of ways to re-purpose these various minimally functioning domains There are DNA-repair enzymes that we re-purpose as ways to covalently link proteins to small molecules ([SNAP tag](_URL_1_)). Or repurposing the machinery plants use to sense daylight to make nearly any biological process light-sensitive ([See here](_URL_0_)).\n\n\nPutting all of this together, one can start to do some really interesting synthetic biology. For instance, you can design a neuronal receptor that uses a plant's protein that senses light to make the neuron light-sensitive: [see this mouse](_URL_2_). You can build proteins that sense and respond to other proteins and act in novel ways just by relinking and repurposing the various parts of proteins already out there.\n\nInventing new proteins from scratch however, without utilizing the templates nature has already provided, is a significantly more difficult challenge that we can (almost) do in only the most particular of circumstances.",
"No one has said this, but synthesis of the DNA necessary to make a completely novel protein is actually quite easy and cheap these days (at least < 2 kb). IDT's gBlocks immediately come to mind. Other companies have other products as well. As others have said, however, predicting the exact folding and function of the new protein is the hard part.",
"Also I want to add that we can entirely bypass having to manipulate at the genetic level, and directly synthesize peptides on a machine, though the length is very limiting (becomes very difficult for a peptide longer than 40-50 amino acids long). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://kinemage.biochem.duke.edu/downloads/PDFs/1990_Hecht_Felix_Science.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site-directed_mutagenesis"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_synthesis#Solid-phase_synthesis"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_shift",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoGFP"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_protein",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAG-tag"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989900/",
"https://www.neb.com/tools-and-resources/feature-articles/snap-tag-technologies-novel-tools-to-study-protein-function",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypsEBxGTxE"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
a1dgd3
|
Can race be determined by bones alone?
|
I'm doing research on a prison scandal from my home state for school. In a police report from 1968, there is a description of found remains that says "The bones are demineralized and partially decayed... Several of the bones of the femur, sacrum, pelvis, ribs, scapulae are severely eroded. This is the remains of a male, probably Caucasian..."
Several lines down there is an entry for another set of bones. "This is the skeletonized remains of a male, probably Negro.... \[sorry for the language, it was the 60s\] the advanced state of demineralization and decay of the bones would indicate death occurred many years ago."
How could someone determine race from bones, especially ones that were decaying? The state throughout this case was trying to protect itself after an inmate claimed they saw two black inmates murdered by guards. So I was a bit skeptical reading that the state was able to determine the race of the bones. But maybe it's possible?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a1dgd3/can_race_be_determined_by_bones_alone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"earo4oj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The anatomy of the skull can be used to determine race with a decent degree of accuracy, certainly enough to make the claim that a set of remains \"probably\" belongs to a member of one race or another. It's a major part of the field of forensic anthropology, along with determinations of things like age and sex."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2z140t
|
when did people start listening to music/radio in their cars.
|
when did the general public of car owners start listening to radio in their cars, and when did it first become available?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2z140t/when_did_people_start_listening_to_musicradio_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpeuffm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not so much a question of being available, but being practical. The earlier radios were big, required a lot of electricity, and were not loud enough to be able to be heard while driving. There was also a problem with radios picking up the ignition noise. [Here](_URL_1_) is an example of why radios didn't work so well at first, taking up lots of room. First practical one was the Crosley Roamio in 1931, and car radios become pretty common in the 1940's. [Here's]( _URL_0_) a site that will tell you perhaps more than you ever needed to know. The text is in French, but if you can't read French you will still find lots of ads, schematics etc. in English."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://antique-autoradio-madness.org/first_radio_usa/first-radio-us-fr-choisir-annees.htm",
"http://antique-autoradio-madness.org/first_radio_usa/first-radio-us-1928-fr_01.htm"
]
] |
|
5a3dr6
|
Can the human eye detect a Gamma Ray Burst from a near distance? Or are Gamma Rays frequency too high?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5a3dr6/can_the_human_eye_detect_a_gamma_ray_burst_from_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9ewfzf",
"d9f7oc6",
"d9fenkz"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Human eye can only see things between ultra violet and infra red. That's why they are called such things. The lowest frequency we can see is red, and the highest we can see is violet. Anything beyond those are not in our visible range. Gamma Rays have frequencies much higher than violet visible light. ",
"The human eye can see some radiations indirectly. There are more than one process that can cause this. One is fluorescence of the aqueous humor. Another, for charged particles, is Cerenkov light in the aqueous humor. Another is the radiation releasing ions in the retinal nerves directly. In fact astronauts report seeing flashes of light. Even with their eyes closed in the dark. Their not sure of the exact mechanism, but they showed they are caused by heavy ion cosmic rays hitting the eye.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"The human eye can't see gamma rays, although at some point, the gamma rays may damage the eye enough so that you'd be able to know that something is happening.\n\nThat said, while much of the energy from gamma ray bursts is released as gamma rays, not all of it is. They are usually bright in the visual spectrum as well, so you'd be able to see *that*. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena",
"http://whyfiles.org/194spa_travel/3.html"
],
[]
] |
||
c03t9e
|
when astronauts play with liquids in space aren't they worried about water damage to parts from all the floating liquid?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c03t9e/eli5_when_astronauts_play_with_liquids_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"er0p1mf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They have machines that filter the moisture from the air which then gets filtered and recycled for reuse."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
kq7s0
|
software patents and why they are "evil"
|
I'm not quite sure what a software patent is, and Wikipedia doesn't have the greatest information.
Is it like the creation of a file type that others cannot use (.rar where only winRAR can make but others can unarchive)?
Or is it like a process (the way VLC opens a video file)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kq7s0/eli5_software_patents_and_why_they_are_evil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2mast9",
"c2mb67i",
"c2mcuc1",
"c2me7ix",
"c2meh22",
"c2mf7q8",
"c2mast9",
"c2mb67i",
"c2mcuc1",
"c2me7ix",
"c2meh22",
"c2mf7q8"
],
"score": [
20,
22,
4,
2,
2,
2,
20,
22,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The term \"software patent\" isn't official. Informally, it's a category of patents that are applicable to software in some way. All patents, software patents included, are granted based off of a 18th century definition of the term: a \"device [with] no prior art\".\n\nAn *algorithm* is just a series of steps. Do this, then this, then this, and the result should damn well be this.\n\nSo are mathematical algorithms \"devices\"? If so, should mathematics be patentable? If not, how are software algorithms not mathematical algorithms?\n\nI won't go any further, because [Patent Absurdity](_URL_0_) does a great job of explaining software patents and explaining the problem in 30 minutes.",
"A computer program is a series of instructions, like a recipe.\n\nSuppose you're making dinner, and decide to mix certain spices together in a bowl then toast them in a pan.\n\nIt turns out well, so you publish it as part of a recipe. \n\nThen someone comes along and sues you, saying they invented the idea of mixing those spices together and toasting them. You protest that you didn't copy them, it was your own idea. That doesn't matter. The other guy thought of it first, and now he owns that technique for the next nineteen years. He can charge you whatever royalties he likes, or prevent you from using that technique at all.\n\nSoftware patents are like that. Patents are awarded for the sort of ideas that programmers come up with all the time, as part of their everyday work. \n\nGetting a software patent is a lot more expensive than coming up with the \"invention\" in the first place, so only large corporations can afford to do it much.",
"This is a podcast I like to listen to a lot (Planet Money), there's an awesome show just on software patents. \n\n_URL_0_",
"The patent system worked well for the past few decades, now companies such as Microsoft and Apple are using their vaguely worded patents to stifle innovation and guarantee that other companies can't produce competing devices due to a small similarity. \n\nCheck out this [link](_URL_0_): Apple more or less patented a rectangle with a button on it and has stopped samsung from selling devices in Germany, temporarily.",
"[Here's a transcript](_URL_0_) of a speech on how software patents are bad.",
"**Simple example of an evil software patent:**\n\nWhen a game loads, on a PC or a console, wouldn't it be nice to play some mini-game - like Tetris, or Pac Man - to pass the time? Well, game developers can't do that, because the idea of playing little games while big games load is patented by someone.\n\n**Another example:**\n\nEver played Crazy Taxi? You drive in a big open city, and you're guided to your target by a big arrow on top of the screen. Well, that arrow is patented by Sega and no other game developer can use it.",
"The term \"software patent\" isn't official. Informally, it's a category of patents that are applicable to software in some way. All patents, software patents included, are granted based off of a 18th century definition of the term: a \"device [with] no prior art\".\n\nAn *algorithm* is just a series of steps. Do this, then this, then this, and the result should damn well be this.\n\nSo are mathematical algorithms \"devices\"? If so, should mathematics be patentable? If not, how are software algorithms not mathematical algorithms?\n\nI won't go any further, because [Patent Absurdity](_URL_0_) does a great job of explaining software patents and explaining the problem in 30 minutes.",
"A computer program is a series of instructions, like a recipe.\n\nSuppose you're making dinner, and decide to mix certain spices together in a bowl then toast them in a pan.\n\nIt turns out well, so you publish it as part of a recipe. \n\nThen someone comes along and sues you, saying they invented the idea of mixing those spices together and toasting them. You protest that you didn't copy them, it was your own idea. That doesn't matter. The other guy thought of it first, and now he owns that technique for the next nineteen years. He can charge you whatever royalties he likes, or prevent you from using that technique at all.\n\nSoftware patents are like that. Patents are awarded for the sort of ideas that programmers come up with all the time, as part of their everyday work. \n\nGetting a software patent is a lot more expensive than coming up with the \"invention\" in the first place, so only large corporations can afford to do it much.",
"This is a podcast I like to listen to a lot (Planet Money), there's an awesome show just on software patents. \n\n_URL_0_",
"The patent system worked well for the past few decades, now companies such as Microsoft and Apple are using their vaguely worded patents to stifle innovation and guarantee that other companies can't produce competing devices due to a small similarity. \n\nCheck out this [link](_URL_0_): Apple more or less patented a rectangle with a button on it and has stopped samsung from selling devices in Germany, temporarily.",
"[Here's a transcript](_URL_0_) of a speech on how software patents are bad.",
"**Simple example of an evil software patent:**\n\nWhen a game loads, on a PC or a console, wouldn't it be nice to play some mini-game - like Tetris, or Pac Man - to pass the time? Well, game developers can't do that, because the idea of playing little games while big games load is patented by someone.\n\n**Another example:**\n\nEver played Crazy Taxi? You drive in a big open city, and you're guided to your target by a big arrow on top of the screen. Well, that arrow is patented by Sega and no other game developer can use it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack"
],
[
"http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Crushes+Samsung+in+German+Court+Galaxy+Tab+101+Ban+is+Complete/article22682.htm"
],
[
"http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html"
],
[],
[
"http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack"
],
[
"http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Crushes+Samsung+in+German+Court+Galaxy+Tab+101+Ban+is+Complete/article22682.htm"
],
[
"http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html"
],
[]
] |
|
1lyzwn
|
Why do we see citizens who support the Confederacy in the US even today, and why are they not considered traitors?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lyzwn/why_do_we_see_citizens_who_support_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc457z3",
"cc45v79",
"cc46er9"
],
"score": [
18,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"I think it goes more along the lines of freedom of speech. neo nazis in america are allowed to hold parades and such things in america because they are protected by the constitution. as long as they are not violent, they are left alone. Same thing applies for confederate supporters.",
"Because you have to remember that the Civil War in the US had a myriad of causes, many of which remain relevant today. The largest cause was the idea of state's rights as defined by the ability to own slaves among other things. Today in the United States the issue of states' rights and federalism continues to be relevant from gun control laws to laws regarding marijuana. Although the Civil War largely cemented the federal government as the supreme governing body in the US, there are a lot of good reasons to think that it shouldn't be.\n\nAnother reason is that the southern United States does have a more distinct culture than the northern United States. Brimingham Alabama and New York City are much further apart culturally than Seattle or even Los Angeles is from New York.\n\nAlthough perhaps the largest reason for this is that much like Neo Nazis and other fringe groups, Confederate sympathies come with a certain mystique and history that you don't get as a member of a majority ethnic group in a country. Many whites don't feel a particularly strong affinity towards any \"culture\" or identity-politics forming subgroup, and as such when they encounter one of these fringe groups that provide them a ready-built identity full of history and a certain moral compass, the appeal is clear. Many people who feel Confederate sympathies think of themselves as outsiders or under assault by other sections of the culture as a whole. This makes them more likely to join up with groups that help give them direction and purpose.\n\nDISCLAIMER: I have no special knowledge of these topics other than having lived all around the US growing up and taking a strong interest in it from a young age. I'm like a patent clerk tinkering around with physics in his basement, not like a researcher at CERN.",
"Your question is an interesting one and definitely one that deserves a proper answer. However, this sub is not the place for it. I would recommend the experts over at /r/AskSocialScience who can speak of modern day society and would be able to answer this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3kvdm9
|
what are the most likely effects of this super powerful el nino season?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kvdm9/eli5_what_are_the_most_likely_effects_of_this/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv0vxm6",
"cv0wivr",
"cv0xrja",
"cv0yvo6",
"cv12hhq",
"cv19une"
],
"score": [
20,
2,
12,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I remember in the 90's being in California and having a powerful El Niño taking us from a 10 year drought to \"normal\" in a month (it was referred to as March Miracle). \n\nThere's a lot that could happen or could not happen.While we know it will generate more precipitation, where that lands is going to vary. Also in states like California that are so parched, a large amount of rain will cause a lot of mudslides (less vegetation on the ground to hold things together).\n\nAs to if it will make a dent in the drought, that's also unknown. This is where the \"where\" matters. For example, rain falling in Southern California isn't as important as rain/snow in northern california as far as Los Angeles and the agricultural central valley is concerned (they get a lot of their water from Northern California). \n\nLake Mead in Nevada is 60 feet below normal, but rain in Las Vegas isn't really important compared to rain and snow in western Colorado (i.e. upriver) as far as Lake Mead is concerned.",
"Here in So Cal, the effects will be big, wet winter storms. The kind that we USED to get before the drought. Days of torrential downpours from mid-december to about mid february. This will mean an end to the drought. The snowpack in the sierras will finally return, meaning good water supply through the summer. There will also be more fog in spring. \n\nIn the Northeast, winters will be milder and drier. ",
"In Seattle, we're in a drought as well because we've only had a handful of rainy days this entire summer. Our glaciers in the Cascades and Olympics are nearly gone, and the snowpack from the previous winter left us in rough shape for the coming year. This coming winter doesn't look like it'll be any better, as the current estimates for this El Nino have it ending around springtime. That means that the Cascade winter-sports resorts won't be able to open (or have severely limited operations) and next year will be hairy as far as water availability goes as well. For a place that is used to a near constant drizzle except for July/August, this has the Puget Sound region on edge quite a bit.",
"Not looking forward to El Nino in south eastern Australia. Generally it means a really hot dry summer for us. Much depends on our spring, if we have good to great spring rain and a hot summer then it will be mayhem. \n\nBushfires, bushfires, bushfires as far as a the eye can see. ",
"Yo soy \"El Niño\". For those of you who don't \"habla español\" El Niño is Spanish for...the niño. ",
"As someone who lives in the desert of West Texas, seeing California's rainfall average look like our rainfall average is a bit surprising."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ixbnr
|
Is it true that our solar system moves at speed of 70,000km/h?
|
I watched a video on youtube that was talking about how our solar system is constantly moving, and at a speed of 70,000km/p.
I'm not even convinced of it moving, let alone at a speed that high
Is this true? or is it just a theory that can't be proven?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ixbnr/is_it_true_that_our_solar_system_moves_at_speed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cukizot",
"cukjq7q",
"cukpwv7",
"cukuoti"
],
"score": [
13,
9,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Move relative to what? An important part of physics, classical or modern, is that there is no absolute rest frame. That is you can't say an object is moving at X kilometres per hour because it isn't obvious what we mean by that. On earth it sort of is, we mean it relative to the earth. And that is a good reference because friction and air drag are big obstacles when you want to keep moving, but if you were a bad ass action hero trying to jump off the wing of a plane onto a car speeding down the tarmac before the plane takes off, how would you want to measure the car's speed when trying to sync up. Would you judge it relative to the ground? Or the much more useful relative to the plane? In space, well in general, when we talk about speeds we talk about speeds relative to an object. These can get pretty extreme because as long as the speed between two objects is less than the speed of light, almost anything goes. Acceleration is hard, so changing your speed relative to an object is certainly non trivial, but there's very little restriction to what the speeds can be. Now you're surprised that the speed of the solar system (probably relative to the galactic core) is 70,000 km/h... That's actually wrong, it's more than 10 times that speed at over 800,000 km/h, 70,000 km/h is only about 2.5 times faster than the orbital speed of the international space station which orbit the earth at about 27,600 km/h. And no, this isn't just some theoretical idea, you can measure the ISS speed based on the height of the orbit and the period, or it can be figured out, both speeds, using celestial mechanics; which is a very established and thoroughly tested theory.\n\nTl;dr: not, it isn't 70,000km/h, it's 800,000 km/h. \n\nEdit: Mercury's average speed around the sun is about 170,000 km/h. ",
"That's how fast it moves compared to nearby stars in the galaxy. It's moving 800,000 km/h compared to the center of the galaxy, and 1,300,000 km/h compared to the cosmic microwave background, which is about the closest thing there is to a rest frame. This is all pretty easy to establish by looking at the Doppler shift on other stars.",
"It is true that our solar system is stationary. It is true that our solar system is moving at 295,000 km/s. It just depends with respect to what.",
"When we speak of things moving against the background universe its usually the comoving frame that is being referenced. During the first few 10^-32+ seconds of the universe's existence it inflated. That separating components and saw the universe grow from pea to potato sized. That background inflation is imprinted on the relationship of speeds between large groups of galaxies. While the universe accelerated in expansion since then most of the Hubble constant is from that initial inflation.\n\nLarge groups of galaxies form whorls and great structures rotating about themselves, but overall they're within this comoving frame. We too are mostly moving with the comoving frame, but not quite. There is movement due to our spinning on the earth, rotating round the sun, interactions with local stars, interactions with the galactic arm we're in and with dark matter, then with the galaxy and overall with the other galaxies in our local group. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ey4of4
|
how can babies scream for a long time and not hurt their vocal cords but adults can easily hurt themselves when they cream for a few minutes?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ey4of4/eli5_how_can_babies_scream_for_a_long_time_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgf3phk",
"fgf41c0",
"fgf45gu"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"When adults do what now?",
"Because most of the time, babies aren't screaming they're just vocalising. \n\nOpen your mouth, push air out by tensing your belly - that's what a baby does, it isn't actually engaging much in terms of it's tiny muscles. \n\nNow, if a baby is actually screaming (and you can tell the difference!) over sustained periods, like if they're poorly enough to be in pain/discomfort, it can damage their voices and they can develop all the normal stuff an adult would like Laryngitis.",
"First, babies may very well hurt their vocal cords, and that may contribute to more screaming - the natural \"this hurts, so stop doing this\" feedback loop takes time to develop.\n\nSecond, crying is different from screaming - adults can \"loud cry\" for a looooong time without irritation to vocal cords that might result from actual screaming for the same amount of time.\n\nThird, babies are designed by evolution to demand attention - they have no way to express pain or hunger or anything else other than through crying and other noises. \n Loudness confers an evolutionary advantage - a quiet baby doesn't demand attention the same way a loud baby does, and attention (food, tending to irritants and potentially dangerous conditions) enhances survival. Survival increases reproductive success. Reproductive success tends to propagate genes that foster that reproductive success. Infants \"hardwired\" to make loud noises when needing attention who are more likely to live to reproduce will pass on more of their genetic code FOR making loud noises in infancy than babies who aren't hardwired to make loud noises and therefore get less attention and therefore (on evolutionary timescales) tend to survive into adulthood less frequently and therefore tend to have fewer offspring, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5jtd4h
|
why is it so satisfying to peel something?
|
For example, plastic off a new screen.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jtd4h/eli5_why_is_it_so_satisfying_to_peel_something/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbizb3h",
"dbj3usz"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm assuming it's because when we were in nature and evolving and stuff, we would get some sort of dangerous stuff on us. The ones who would peel it off would live, so peeling stuff is satisfying",
"I'd assume that it triggers a smaller version of the dopamine rush we get when we get something new."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4xarod
|
What's the oldest historical event that we have mythology about?
|
In fiction, especially fantasy, it's common for there to be legends of events that happened thousands of years ago. In ASOIAF, by George R.R. Martin, there are myths about a mini ice age like event called the long night, which happened something like 6,000 years before the series. This makes me wonder, is there anything analogous to this in our world?
In short, among myths that we can link to a real event, what's the oldest corresponding event?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4xarod/whats_the_oldest_historical_event_that_we_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6e8aem"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hi there. While you are waiting for a more comprehensive answer, you might want to take a look at [this discussion](_URL_0_) about this very topic from a few years ago. \n\nThe consensus seems to be (and this agrees with what I know), that Australian Aboriginal oral histories likely record major climatic and geological events that occurred more or less near the end of the Pleistocene, somewhere about 10-15 thousand years ago. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1n008z/how_far_back_into_prehistory_does_oral_history/"
]
] |
|
gbl7o
|
What's the most distant possible orbital path for something orbiting Earth?
|
I am doubtful that it is infinite, as the orbit will be perturbed by other objects. Is this question answerable?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gbl7o/whats_the_most_distant_possible_orbital_path_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1mcffp"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Not my area, but I think you're asking about the size of the Earth's [Hill sphere](_URL_1_). The Earth's is about [1.5 million km](_URL_0_) in radius -- or around 4 times larger than the Moon's orbit.\n\nedit: \"it appears that stable satellite orbits exist only inside 1/2 to 1/3 of the Hill radius\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Orbit",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere"
]
] |
|
afrqne
|
Is there a factual, un-ideological and un-biased primary source covering the history of all (or mostly all) communist governments?
|
Something similar in style to that of William L. Sherir’s book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” or that of Mike Duncan’s podcast “The History of Rome,” both of which covered their topics in a very methodical, accurate and all encompassing manner. To find something that is almost unanimously considered a go to source on the history of communism, like the previous two sources I mentioned are for their topics, is proving difficult.
To be more specific, it isn’t the ideology itself I’m looking to learn about but rather a chronological description of communist governments, how they came to be, the core beliefs they latched onto and utilized (or didn’t), their defining moments (good or bad), their key players and any other historically important factors to their existence. This means that suggestions for the Communist Manifesto or biographies on Karl Marx won’t do. I also really want to steer clear of anything that’s meant to drive you towards one side or the other (like becoming a comrade or commie hater).
So if you know anything that is a trustworthy and primary historical source in this regard, please let me know. I keep hearing that communist governments are a failed experiment and finally want to read up on it myself.
Thank you.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/afrqne/is_there_a_factual_unideological_and_unbiased/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee22uh3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This isn't exactly the answer you are looking for, but unfortunately, I do not think such a text exists, nor could it exist. Communism is an inherently political subject, and there is no way to have an \"unbiased\" history of it. Moreover, even books like the *Rise and Fall of the Third Reich* have biases; it would be more accurate to say that they have adopted a language of objectivity that masques the presence of the author. But the author's perspectives and limits, ideas and interpretations of the facts (and even interpretations of what count as \"facts\") are still there. There is no neutral ground of pure \"facts\" discussed by some group of people who are neither communists nor anti communists, or at least influenced by those perspectives. If you learn about communism, you will have to get into the dirt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1q8mzh
|
why do theists often deny evolution? what religious beliefs does evolution disprove?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q8mzh/eli5_why_do_theists_often_deny_evolution_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdaan0g",
"cdac3jo",
"cdackbl",
"cdacru1",
"cdaiv17"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
3,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It pretty much ruins the whole \"Made in God's own image\" thing that most of them have going on...Nobody wants a god which therefore looks like an amoeba.",
"Any religion starts from the point of view that mankind is somehow special. Science practically starts from the opposing view. Or at least it doesn't assume anything about the role of humankind in the universe.\n\nIn any case, every discovery that science has made has turned out to reduce the importance of mankind. For instance Earth is not the center of the solar system, we're just a rock orbiting around the Sun. The Sun is not even the center of the universe. We are made up of the same atoms as non-living matter. \n\nEvolution does the same thing, it tells us that we are after all just another species of animal. And this doesn't sit well with religion. ",
"Huh, must depend where you are from. From where I am, there aren't many creationists.\n\nI'm from Canada btw.",
"Evolution throws some serious doubt to the Adam and Eve story. Specifically the compelling DNA evidence that mitochondrial eve and the last common male ancestor did not live at the same time. \n\nWithout a literal Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. Without original sin, no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself, which is the entire basis of Christianity. \n\nSome Christians get around this by creative interpretation. ",
"The Catholic Church does not deny evolution and claim that is is compatible with Christianity and this view has been popular for a very long time.\n\n > Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had \"never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish\" and forms of life had been transformed \"slowly over time\". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html"
]
] |
||
2prnaa
|
A spaceship travels from earth at near speed of light and is transmitting a short message back to earth every 10 minutes. After one year of travel the signal has to travel a year to get to earth but will it still arrive every 10 minutes? My head aches thinking about this.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2prnaa/a_spaceship_travels_from_earth_at_near_speed_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmzie1j",
"cmzimay"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It will be subject to a [relativistic Doppler effect](_URL_0_), so its frequency will be lower than 1/10 min. You also have to specify whether you mean 10 min in the ship's frame or the earth's frame. If the ship is traveling with a constant relative velocity, the frequency will be constant. The distance to earth at the time of sending is not relevant, only the distance to the last point a signal was sent is relevant.",
"But, if i travel for on year, near speed of light, sending one message every 10 minutes and then stop, one light year away circa, the last message needs to travel for one year to get back? This seams not logical if earth got its first message 10 mins after takeoff and the last message needs one year to get back. If the stream of messages stop 10 mins after i transmit the last message then that would be faster than light? Or am I outhinking my self?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect"
],
[]
] |
||
1l1866
|
Do proteins dissolve in water?
|
I'm getting conflicting info on Google.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1l1866/do_proteins_dissolve_in_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbuqqbl",
"cbutwru"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It is not true that all proteins are soluble in water. Proteins are typical macro-molecules having a large range of solvents in which they dissolve including water. The property of solubility of different proteins is governed by their three-dimensional folded structures. Many proteins have exposed polar groups with little to high dipole moments. Water is a solvent with high dipole moment.",
"As noted in the earlier comment, proteins vary in their composition and physical properties. Some proteins are poorly soluble in water, while others do perfectly well in them. One example are membrane proteins - one often needs to add a detergent in order to keep them from crashing out of solution. Other times, proteins might be \"ill-behaved\" in pure water - for example, I work with a protein that requires modest buffer and salt conditions, otherwise it will adopt a molten globule form in solution.\n\nIf you actually had something along the lines of whether or not amide bond hydrolysis occurs in water (that is, proteins falling apart to their constituent amino acids), my recollection is that it is very slow under neutral pH and \"room temperature\" (298 K) on the order of years. The references I tend to recall on this topic are the papers by Kahne and Wolfenden (and there were other groups in on the dialogue), but I'd have to go lit searching for anything further than this memory."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ab7gxo
|
Why is there still such a sizeble italian minority in the US despite ww2?
|
During ww1 a strong anti-German sentiment grew in the US forcing the germans to assimilate. During ww2 Japanese Americans were forced into camps. How come none of this happened to the Italians?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ab7gxo/why_is_there_still_such_a_sizeble_italian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eeat1xx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It did. Assimilation occurred on a wide scale, and it continues today, often though gentrification. \n\nAnd Italians were placed in internment camps, as were Germans. Neither were on as large a scale though, as the US’s main adversary and concern was the Empire of Japan."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1y58hf
|
Why did the Labour Party achieve a landslide victory in the 1945 UK General Election?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1y58hf/why_did_the_labour_party_achieve_a_landslide/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfhkar4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There is much debate over this topic and unfortunately I am away from my computer to get all my references for this issue.\r\rHistorians have suggested that during WWII there was a move towards a more left leaning UK, hidden by the fact that by elections in the UK were not properly fought due to a gentleman's agreement between the main parties. Labour had grown in importance during the wartime coalition and began to be seen as a respectable and viable party of government.\r\rTheir election manifesto was popular, promising rapid, affordable rebuilding - especially of housing in the urbanized areas that tended to support more left leaning ideas. Promises to nationalize key industry were probably not driving most voters, despite some left wing historians believing that there was a mass turn to the left. Economic growth and development were popular notions at the time.\r\rWe must also acknowledge the failing popularity of the Conservative government, especially given some of the comments made by Churchill on the eve of the election. For some, Churchill was part of the old guard and a figure of the past. Comments about a Labour victory being comparable to the Gestapo winning the election probably did little to help his cause.\r\r(For more information and references give me some time to access my records :) )"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
53jcye
|
What is the age difference of Earth's pole vs equator (theory of relativity)?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/53jcye/what_is_the_age_difference_of_earths_pole_vs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7tl1mq"
],
"score": [
57
],
"text": [
"They are actually the same age, for not-obvious reasons. Basically, the difference in the passage of time due to the relative motion from the rotation is perfectly offset by the difference in the gravitational field due to Earth's shape. An explanation can be found [here](_URL_2_) or [here](_URL_1_).\n\nHowever, if you were to compare the age of the surface and the center, [the core is over two years younger.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05507",
"https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/all-about-earths-gravity/",
"http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0501034v2.pdf"
]
] |
||
lu6eq
|
If you are in a car going the speed of a bullet and shot a gun backwards out the window what would the bullet do?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lu6eq/if_you_are_in_a_car_going_the_speed_of_a_bullet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2vmu9k",
"c2vmv65",
"c2vmv6s",
"c2vobjz",
"c2vmu9k",
"c2vmv65",
"c2vmv6s",
"c2vobjz"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3,
3,
8,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"fall while spinning",
"Mythbusters did this with a soccer ball. It fell straight down.\n\n[youtube link](_URL_0_)",
"Mythbusters did an experiment on this. It would drop strait down if the speeds were matched precisely.\n\n_URL_0_",
"And the car would speed up a tiny, tiny bit.",
"fall while spinning",
"Mythbusters did this with a soccer ball. It fell straight down.\n\n[youtube link](_URL_0_)",
"Mythbusters did an experiment on this. It would drop strait down if the speeds were matched precisely.\n\n_URL_0_",
"And the car would speed up a tiny, tiny bit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc"
],
[]
] |
||
fnz9hq
|
why does depression sometimes cause cognitive dysfunction issues, such as reduced attention span, memory, concentration, information processing capability and executive functioning, that sometimes persist after a depressive episode is over?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fnz9hq/eli5_why_does_depression_sometimes_cause/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flccv27",
"flcgiv2",
"flcls7e",
"flcn9gg",
"flcnmny",
"flcooxf",
"flcopfl",
"flcosli",
"flcpesp",
"flcpibn",
"flcpt5j",
"flcpx3m",
"flcqr6h",
"flcsjbv",
"flcssa1",
"fld6wdr"
],
"score": [
1323,
100,
17,
282,
141,
14,
11,
20,
3,
38,
5,
3,
9,
5,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Depression still exists in a depressed person's brain even after an \"episode\". Depression is more than just in your mind, it is like a mental disorder that actually causes physical changes in your brain's structure and neural network, and it is those changes that can cause the other symptoms you mentioned.",
"There are a bunch of reasons from a TBI (traumatic brain injury) that causes the depression in the first place with damaged dopamine receptors to “salience attribution”, a state of the brains rewiring due to the depression and the environmental stimulus (say if the conditions causing the depression cause the brain to “maladapt”), or “state transference” where the depressed patient cannot properly reframe/refocus due to projection of the episode onto future events akin to PTSD.",
"Unipolar or clinical depression is a mental illness and in itself causes your brain to function differently from other brains. Psychiatric medication and therapy will usually help. As far as I know depression cannot be cured.",
"Wish I knew. I'm taking SSRIs for my clinical depression and I feel a whole lot better but I'm afraid the cognitive damage has been done. That disease stripped my mind from a lot of ability. Fuck depression.",
"According to NiMH, depression is caused by many factors like genetic, biological, environmental, and psychological. Genetic would be your mother or father would have it, biological would be related to life so in this case it would be something about your life, environmental would be like if you grew up in an abusive household, and psychological would refer to your brain and how it works.\n\nThe last three I know of well because I grew up in households where people abused me physically and psychologically first hand. Mostly it was drunk step dads not being nice. The one threw a beer can at me and my mom. In my brain what happened was kid me at the time, went into panic mode when we got to our motel for the night because I was scared my stepdad would break the door down and beat us up. Things died down to 100% up until about a month ago, when I was fat shamed for eating 5 eggs because the eggs were small for an omelette, and when the guy's wife found out about it, I had stay at a motel for the night because he was so mad yelling profanities and such. As soon as I layed down on the bed, I was shaking a little because it was like I was reliving that traumatizing experience all over again. On top of that, the area around the motel gets real sketchy after dark. There were vehicles pulling in and out around 10pm. \n\nAlso during the time I had stepdads, I was bullied at school for being slow constantly so this resulted in a deeper depression for me even at one point I was close to committing suicide. The teachers knew about the bullies but did nothing to stop it much so it kept going. \n\n\nHarvard says that there are three parts of the brain that appear to play a role in what they call MDD (Major depressive disorder): the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex.\n\nMDD is also called clinical depression.\n\nThe body releases a hormone called cortisol which is released during times of physical and mental stress, including during times of depression. Problems can occur when excessive amounts of cortisol are sent to the brain due to a stressful event or a chemical imbalance in the body.\n\nIn a healthy brain, brain cells (neurons) are produced throughout a person’s adult life in a part of the hippocampus called the dentate gyrus.\n\nIn people with MDD, however, the long-term exposure to increased cortisol levels can slow the production of new neurons and cause the neurons in the hippocampus to shrink. This can lead to memory problems.\n\nThe prefrontal cortex is located in the very front of the brain. It is responsible for regulating emotions, making decisions, and forming memories. When the body produces an excess amount of cortisol, the prefrontal cortex also appears to shrink.\n\nThe amygdala is the part of the brain that facilitates emotional responses, such as pleasure and fear. In people with MDD, the amygdala becomes enlarged and more active as a result of constant exposure to high levels of cortisol.\n\nAn enlarged and hyperactive amygdala, along with abnormal activity in other parts of the brain, can result in disturbances in sleep and activity patterns. It can also cause the body to release irregular amounts of hormones and other chemicals in the body, leading to further complications.\n\nMany researchers believe high cortisol levels play the biggest role in changing the physical structure and chemical activities of the brain, triggering the onset of MDD. Normally, cortisol levels are highest in the morning and decrease at night. In people with MDD, however, cortisol levels are always elevated, even at night.\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"As a Veteran who medically retired due Depression and PTSD related to Traumatic Brain Injury, my personal sentiments have been that: \n\n1) In my case, brain structure and neurons were damaged because of multiple concussions, reducing overall cognitive faculties. \n\n2) The Depression has lead to lingering thoughts of wanting to end things (I’m using a euphemism here), and these dark thoughts can interrupt my everyday train of thought.",
"Mental illnesses are very very hard to really \"cure\". in reality most patients just learn to live with it and not fall into the old patterns that are etched into their body. they learn to avoid certain things and thoughts that trigger those old patterns. that takes some cognitive skill which then can't be spend elsewhere. another part of it is that we don't really know what depression is on an small scale, as in individual cells. we only know the symptoms on an whole body scale and some small scale parts of the process. people often say its caused by an serotonin shortage for example, thats false and is not the leading theory. it hasn't been for a long time. we know it plays an role in the expression of symptoms or causation. but what role? we don't have the vaguest idea. you could compare this illness to an major illness that needs to be operated on. you're going to have scar tissue and bodily functions will probably never fully return to normal. you'll feel like your body betrays you because things don't work like they used to anymore. things you used to be able to do suddenly cause things they didn't before. its really important to note that mental illness IS physical illness. there is no part of it that isn't an physical process inside your body as far as we know.",
"Could be ADHD. It's pretty common to be feel depressed and inadequate because of how ADHD fucks with your brain/life and makes everything feel much harder than it really is. Especially if you are undiagnosed and just think you're crap - basically what happened to me! Feeling this way causes you to feel depressed and unhappy, which is what you'll tell your doctor, and which can commonly lead to a diagnosis of the depressive symptoms rather than diagnosis of cause.\n\nI was diagnosed with depression when I was a child, and ADHD only a year ago; I was told it was really common for people with ADHD to be misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety etc, and now I am dealing with my ADHD and learning how to manage the things that come with it, I actually feel a lot *less* depressed because I feel like I finally have an answer. \n\nAll I know for sure is everything you describe in your question are things people with ADHD will struggle with - attention span, memory, executive function, concentration... \n\nMight be worth considering, especially if you have struggled with these things for a long time!",
"We don't exactly know why or even that it's depression *causing* those problems, necessarily.\n\nMental health symptoms are caused by a lot of different things, and we still don't fully understand all of them. Each individual needs to work with their own health provider to figure out what works to address the problems they're having.\n\nAs one example, you could have an underlying condition causing you to not absorb nutrients as well as you should. The resulting vitamin deficiencies can cause depression as well as causing cognitive difficulties. As a second example, you could have ADHD along with depression (it's very common to have ADHD struggles lead to depression), so once the depression is treated, the cognitive difficulties remain.\n\nBoth of the above examples are problems I personally have, so you can even have multiple factors at play. It took a few years working with good medical professionals to get it sorted out.\n\nThere are a lot of different possibilities, unfortunately, and I don't think we even know all of them yet.",
"I did a systematic review on the subject for my masters, all of the mechanisms are not fully known yet. What we found however was that there is a correlation between higher levels of neuroinflammatory markers and cognitive deficits in people diagnosed with depression. So basically, neuroinflammation is associated with cognitive deficits in depressed people. \n\nHigher levels of Interleukin-6 has predicted poorer performance in psychomotor speed in 2/3 studies investigated. \n\nHigher levels of C-Reactive protein have been associated with lower cognitive performance, however there is more research needed to investigate if there is actually a significant association between C-Reactive protein and depression. There were a number of other markers investigated but none were found to be significant-but that may be because the sample studies were not large enough to tell.\n\nBasically, more research is needed but neuroinflammation has been associated with cognitive deficits, and is a reaction to depression. Depression promotes and maintains neuroinflammation by diminishing the sensitivity of the immune system to the glucocorticoid hormones responsible for ceasing the inflammatory response. But also production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (ie: interleukin-6) has been thought to increase in response to negative emotions and exposure to stressful experiences.",
"A lot of people here are saying depression cannot be cured. Is that really true? Once you're clinically depressed, you'll continue to be for the rest of your life? That's... really serious.",
"As I learned in my Psychology class, Depression causes physical changes in your brain, causing the frontal lobe to shrink. The physical changes can lead to worsening of the depression itself, as well as causing issues to persist even after the episode is over.",
"Hi, I am a person who has major depressive disorder (I have very intense depressive episodes), persistent depressive disorder (I have had depressive episodes nearly constantly and have had them for about 2 years), season affective disorder (winter boosts my episodes, making them more intense), and panic disorder (I have intense anxiety episodes that usually end in a panic attack). This is my experience with it and how it effects me, but everyone is different. Mine comes from genetics and was passed down to me by my mother, and a traumatic experience (I would rather not talk about it). \n\nSometimes the answer to your question is my brain is simply too focused on making me feel like shit. It's hard for me to remember to take a shower when I'm trying to convince myself why suicide is not a good idea. \n\nThere are a lot of physical differences between someone with a normal functioning brain and a depressed one too. There are millions of chemicals that control what is going on at any given moment in the brain, so pinpointing the exact causes of any given mental illness is incredibly difficult. Psychiatrists have found that dopamine, serotonin, and cortisol most likely play a decent sized role in how depression effects the brain.\n\n The main parts of the brain you want to look at are the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the frontal lobe. The amygdala controls emotions, and tends to be overactive when shown negative stimuli, and underactive with positive ones in depressed brains. The hippocampus controls memory, and will actually shrink with people who have depression. The frontal lobe controls personality and even attention and some emotional responses. This shrinks too. This is what causes the problems you are wondering about. Once this shrinking has occured, there isn't a way to reverse it. \n\nSometimes depression isn't even caused by the brain. Some people with hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid) experience symptoms identical with depression. Other underlying health issues can cause minor depressive disorders as well, so that makes it even harder to find the source of someone's depression.\n\nDepressive disorders don't have a cure, only ways of relieving symptoms. For instance, I take escitalopram, an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor). This doesn't cure my depression, but is a mood booster, making the symptoms a bit easier to handle. And these symptoms persist even outside of episodes. I lose things and misplace things constantly, I often feel very fatigued, and I have trouble focusing a lot of the time. \n\nI will have these illnesses for the rest of my life. I am lucky to have a very strong support group to help me through the tough times. All I want to do is spread awareness for a real illness that people often ignore.",
"Stress and anxiety has an impact on hippocampus and amygdala regions, when overwhelmed dopamine (responsible for motivation) can also be reduced. On the severe end this can impact executive function in the long term.\n\nThese have a role in perception , emotional regulation and processing external stimuli or input.Depression can be a symptom of these, it can be a condition or a disorder and the latter is often co-morbid with dysfunction in these regions. This can be expressed as lack of enjoyment or desire among other symptoms i.e mood, flattened affect (expression), impaired emotional cognition & cognition, sometimes this can be presented as lack of empathy, and this can relate to symptoms coldness, bluntness and a sense of being withdrawn.\n\nWith hippocampus is related to perception. When stressed this can cause memory impairment and on the severe end can cause cognitive disturbances.\n\nThis part of the brain is often related to schizophrenia. When there are abnormalities in all these regions this can cause not only difficulties with relating to others, it can impair speech, memory, perception and/or attention.\n\nSerotonin and dopamine can play a part in reducing the cognitive impairment, lack of enjoyment increase synaptic transmission (a neurotransmitter(without neurotransmitter the information between neurons (information) is reduced). This will impact mood and pleasure, the latter can increase focus and reduce cognitive impairment by temporarily stimulating dopamine production through neurotransmitters.\n\nAn anti-psychotic can reduce severe perceptual and emotional disturbances for those who experience distress from major depressive symptoms and schizo- disorders. Second generation or atypical anti-psychotics can alleviate or sedate low to mild experiences in perceptual and emotional disturbances. This can also cause other symptoms to appear but the goal is reducing or alleviating the condition where it can become severe.\n\nThe reason why these can persist after treatments is the impact of stress can cause abnormalities or lesions in the areas responsible for processing emotion, memory and attention.\n\nPeople with PTSD or complex PTSD may experience all of these, people with ASD may experience stress with overstimulation - to much information, but will tend to have high tolerance to perceived pain and reduced fear due to reduced gray matter volume - responsible for sensory and muscle control and likely to have low tolerance to sensory stimulation that can result in being overwhelmed. People with ADHD may experience being overwhelmed and is often co-morbid with ASD (paired) with emotions and will experience lack of executive function related to the frontal lobe (front of our brains) or other regions that may cause sensory issues. A typical ADHD person will have reduced executive function, responsible for managing all of these symptoms, the non-typical person may acquire such symptoms and be treated likewise.",
"I know this is ELI5. However, for anyone wanting to read a review of this area, [*The impact of anxiety upon cognition*](_URL_0_) is a great overview of the topic.",
"Eli5 how fusion works would probably make more sense then this. Sorry but some things simply cannot be explained like one is five years old, and when they do they could make more 'damage' then a simple I don't know. It would probably be something like 'drugs rewire one's brain, so one gets addicted', and this answer about addiction would be ridiculous if it wasn't tragic. \n\nDepression is a symptom. There are theories or rather hypothesis about things causing them. For example there is a theory it could have something to do with immune system response. IIRC there's some research showing depressed people have a better chance of surviving an infection.\n\nAnyhow we still don't know a lot, or we actually know very little about neurotransmitters, our physiology, and long term consequences of a long term imbalance of particular neurotransmitters.\n\nAny eli5 answer you might get here is probably going to be an oversimplification of a very complicated guess, or a guess based on a very limited knowledge."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/effects-brain#3",
"https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtml"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00203/full"
],
[]
] |
||
rs6jp
|
Would an all out nuclear war result in these conditions?
|
I was reading the Fallout wikia and was just curious about how realistic the described effects of the Great War were. These effects include:
- New mountain ranges being created
- Oceans turned into expanses of radioactive waste
- Jet black antarctic ice cap
And would conditions persist as long as they do in the fallout universe, for 200+ years?
Fallout obviously isn't a realistic game in many ways but I was just wondering if these specific things would actually be possible.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rs6jp/would_an_all_out_nuclear_war_result_in_these/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c488q1p",
"c488rbm",
"c488zpc"
],
"score": [
4,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"No, no, and no. Our weapons just aren't that powerful.",
"This sounds like sci-fi fantasy. \n\nNew mountain ranges can be ruled out - orogenic events (a fancy way of saying mountain building) are known to almost exclusively come from buckling of the Earth's crust with the movement of tectonic plates (the exception being hot-spot volcanism, like Hawaii). Plates are moved by the circulating rocks and magma beneath the entirety of the Earth's crust, and represent an amount of force almost impossible for humans to imagine - basically, outside of making a bunch of craters which I guess could look like mountains, there is no stockpile of nuclear weapons which would damage the 50-70km thick continental crust enough to cause any significant uplifting. \n\nI am also fairly certain that oceans filled with radioactive waste is a bit overblown. The fallout from weapons grade nuclear explosions is actually quite short (in a matter of days radiation levels fall to non-dangerous levels - the reason places like Chernobyl remain radioactive to this day are actually because of the leftover fission products produced from plutonium fission, which are not produced in significant quantity in nuclear weapons). \n\nThe real danger of permanent environmental damage comes from nuclear winter - which is when dust and other aerosols are scattered high in the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight from the surface and causing the Earth to cool dramatically - it is believed that the major killer of the dinosaurs was not just the impact of a giant meteor, but nuclear-winter-like aftermath which followed from all of the dust stirred up by the collision. \n\nI have no idea what the jet black antarctic ice cap would refer to, except maybe to soot/particulate matter accumulation on the surface of the ice. Such a scenario is hypothetically possible, considering the general circulation patterns of the Earth (see: Hadley cells) causes the atmosphere to circulate from the equator to the poles (and back), despositing lingering water vapor (and presumably other particulate matter) on the surface of the ice. Perhaps in a nuclear winter we would see the dust from the upper atmosphere settle in the poles, but that is pretty abstract speculation, and I think it wouldn't be a significant enough input to blanket an entire continent (or outpace new ice accumulation). \n\n",
"Nuclear winter, radiation poisoning and subsequent ailments, and EMPs are realistic effects of a nuclear war.\n\nThose seem to be beyond the scale of our weapons"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4354qz
|
How did Hitler improve Germany's economy to the extent it was before World War two broke out in the space of six years when prior to 1933 inflation and unemployment were at all time high under the leadership of the Weimar Republic.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4354qz/how_did_hitler_improve_germanys_economy_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czfngp6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"So Hjalmar Schacht successfully begins to bring Germany back from the great depression, at the same time the the world was recovering from the Great Depression. The plan he implements to get people on their feet involves large social programs. – policies which had been instituted in Germany by von Schleicher's government in late 1932. He also introduced the \"New Plan\", Germany's attempt to achieve economic \"autarky\" (Autarky was the idea of being a self-sustainable nation) \nSchacht also secured trade deals for raw materials in Latin America that they would pay with the Reichmark preventing the rise of inflation within Germany. \nHowever Hitler want's to push for rearming Germany to prepare them for war, however Hitler from his experience realized that for a country to receive full support for a war the general population needs to continue their high standard of living before the war. Schacht then makes Hitler decide between \"Guns or Butter\" saying he cannot have both. As a result he is kicked out of the Nazi Party and Goring says he can make Germany economically stable in four years. (Keep in mind he has no economic experience) \n\t- Goring becomes in charge of the Four-Year Plan in 1936 to be ready for war by 1940. Also with the global recession being lifted Hitler took advantage of economic plans established in the Weimar Republic, so the economic situation improved around 1932\nIt also helped that they absorbed several nations around them in that period. On top of other things Hitler also abolished the unions in Germany allowing for lower wages, to increase manufacturing in Germany. \nHowever it is important to note that a lot of the policies created during the Weimar Republic allowed for the economic growth of Germany which Hitler took credit for. Some policies such as the Reich Hereditary Farm Law h"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
16wktx
|
Was there a consistent democratic "country/state/area" between 1000-1400 AD?
|
Just popped into my brain and a few google searches didn't supply me any clear answers.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16wktx/was_there_a_consistent_democratic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c800xvn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Iceland had a democratic body, the althing, and can be considered a democracy until 1262. The althing came together once a year for two weeks. Every household owner (i.e. a farm of a certain minimal size) had a seat. All feud ceased during that time and disputes were brought before the body. Before 1262 the Althing was the only governing institution on the island. After 1262 Iceland became part of Norway and the power of the Althing was greatly reduced.\n\nAnother \"country\" with a democratic structures was Switzerland. The towns were self-governed and formed a loose federation, the \"Eidgenossenschaft\". The free cities of the holy roman empire had democratic bodies as well.\n\nEven the monastic states can be considered as democracies to a small extent: The members of the monasteries voted for their abbots and also had a say in the general proceedings and politics. Admittedly, this meant nothing for the general population, who were ruled by a small minority.\n\nBut this is true for every medieval democracy: Only landowners, household owners, wealthy had a say. If you were a servant, a woman, a beggar, one from the \"wandering folk\", you had nothing to say."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a6ua46
|
why law enforcement uses polygraphs but they are not admissible in court
|
If polygraphs are not reliable enough to be admissible in court then why do law enforcement use them to help eliminate suspects or possibly confirm their suspicions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6ua46/eli5_why_law_enforcement_uses_polygraphs_but_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eby14mj",
"eby9jsr",
"ebykza1"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Because even though it might not be admissible In court, it'll flag people who are worth investigating further... and when you investigate those people further, you WILL find evidence that IS admissible in court.\n\nEg: \nCop: \"Did you kill her?\" \nMurderer: \"Naw!\" \nPolygraph: \"He's lying.\" \nCop: \"So, if I check inside your house, I won't find a murder weapon?\" \nMurderer: \"Hale naw!\" \nPolygraph: \"He's telling the truth.\" \nCop: \"And if I check your car?\" \nMurderer: \"Aw hell naw, bacon! There ain't nuffink in my motor! What is this?\" \nPolygraph: \"He's lying.\" \nCop: \"I'm totally checking your car.\" \n\nShort version - information gained by polygraph may not be admissible in court, but it can definitely still be useful when conducting an investigation. In this example, the cop might have wired up forty people, and asked them all if they killed the victim... and then only pressed further when the machine said that the person was lying about it.\n\nThat's the ELI5.",
"It is a useful tool for finding pressure points.\n\nThere are two types of modern police interrogations - reid method and interrogative. Interrogative - That is basically questioning people until you catch them in lies. Knowing which questions to ask is very helpful. Reid method is basically accusing them of doing something in a manner that follows a storyline.\n\nObviously, a trained liar has a better chance of passing a polygraph with discipline. Thing is that most criminals aren't highly trained or as sociopathic/anhedonic as is required to maintain the cool required to pass a polygraph in a simple criminal investigation. \n\nWhile the polygraph can be very revealing, it isn't considered admissible because of the technical arguments for guilt are easily refuted with arguments by the defense for \"innocent behavior\".",
"Mind games. \nPolygraphs make people nervous. It's harder to lie or keep a story straight when you're nervous. This means you're more likely to say something the cops find suspicious or incriminating - even if you're innocent. You might even get so nervous to confess to something you didn't do or some other bad thing you did do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4cb3bq
|
is it possible for there to be a solar system in a solar system?
|
If there was a solar system with a large central star could it have a smaller star orbiting it that in turn had planets orbiting the smaller star like moons? (I now it is possible for there to be multiple states in a solar system) I'm curious because I want to know if the solar system in Firefly is possible.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cb3bq/eli5_is_it_possible_for_there_to_be_a_solar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1gkjhn",
"d1gylp4",
"d1hmieu"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Stars that orbit one another are fairly common. However, it's unlikely that any planets would remain in stable orbits. The tug from the other star would keep pulling them around. The stars don't even need to get all that close to cause problems. especially if there are any gas giants that can be knocked around, affecting the orbits of other bodies, exacerbating the effects.\n\nYou have to understand that, in our solar system, planetary orbits are elliptical, but only just barely. They're very close to circles. Another star, even if small, might pull a similar system's planets into highly elliptical orbits, making life unlikely to thrive because of the vast differences in temperature and tidal forces at different parts of the orbit. \n\nAnother potential consequence is that the planet's orbital speed is affected. A slow planet may spiral inward, potentially close enough that the original star's gravity tears it apart. A faster planet might be thrown from the solar system entirely.\n\nThese sorts of systems are just too chaotic to be good candidates for life, much less permanent civilizations. Given that Firefly also includes organisms adapted to life on earth, with our relatively-circular, stable orbit, it's unlikely that man would ever settle in such a system, except in the very short term.\n\nEDIT: spelling",
"I think /u/kouhoutek has it right. \nOur own solar system has planets, which have moons that are not generally ripped off by other planets. Jupiter is nearly but not quite large enough to do fusion in its core. Meanwhile, the whole Galaxy basically works like a much much larger version of the Verse illustration. The sun is slowly orbiting the core of the milky way, and here we sit on a planet that is very stable, not perturbed by the nearest star because it is too far away. These observations suggest that it is possible to set up a system of interlocking circles or ellipses that is at least stable on the scale of a human civilization -- ten thousand years is not very long when we are talking about stars. \nThere's not a reason I am aware of that would absolutely prevent a massive, sufficiently spread out binary or trinary system from having planets that orbit stars the way moons orbit planets in our system. There are a lot of reasons for it to be unlikely, though. One difficulty would be that you would need a LOT of material to make that much stuff, all close together, and you would need it to be initially distributed in clumps at the exact right intervals (or capture a passing star later). \nThe central star would have to be really massive, and distances would have to be just right. Stars other than the handful orbiting each other in \"The Verse\" would have to be hugely more distant from the Verse than the Verse is from itself. The odds of finding a patch of the universe that is both dense enough to form so many stars together and diffuse enough to orbit only each other... start to stretch credulity. \nI would put this in the category of possible but extremely unlikely. \nRecommend OP popping over to /r/askscience/ for a more rigorous answer. And keep asking folks there if they can distinguish their argument about why it would not work from an argument about why Mars can't have multiple moons (which it does).",
"It's fairly rare and uncommon, but it is indeed possible. The key factor here is the distance and mass (and therefore gravity) of the two stars. \n\nAn example system would be the Alpha Centauri System with it's 2 (3) stars. Although no planets have been confirmed yet, the distance between the two main stars would make it absolutely possible for planets to orbit around one star.\n\nThis doesn't only count for binary systems like Alpha Centauri. In binary systems, 2 stars are orbiting a common barycentre. Planets would also be possible in a system where a huge star is the main mass and a much smaller star is orbiting that star at a great distance with planets orbiting the smaller star."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a2k7gp
|
how are sine, triangle, square, and saw waves used to produce sound?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2k7gp/eli5_how_are_sine_triangle_square_and_saw_waves/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eaz56qz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Those waves are a representation of the sound. Let's take a square wave because that'll be a simple example, at 1000hz. So 1000 times a second there will be a high and a low on the wave. So 1000 times in one second, the speaker playing the sound will move to where however much the high side gives in terms of voltage through the amp, and the low side will go to it's spot.\n\nIf you had a scope that shows the sound waves, the noise coming out of the speaker (assuming a 100% correct playing of the sound) would show up as a square wave.\n\nSo pretty much the wave just shows how the speaker is going to move and by how much. And if you had something like a lie detector where it has those needles scribbling lines on paper, and the other end of the needle was connected to the speaker, it would draw that wave that you put into it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3t9wp5
|
how are fetishes learned but sexual orientation is inborn?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t9wp5/eli5_how_are_fetishes_learned_but_sexual/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx4ek8c",
"cx4i4s1",
"cx4iier",
"cx4j33f",
"cx4jbrc",
"cx4jz52",
"cx4kgm0"
],
"score": [
144,
15,
3,
7,
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Your question suggests that we already know this is the case, but that's not really the truth. Depending on who you ask in psychology. You'll get different answers. A radical behaviourist might (but most won't) argue that all behaviour is learned, including sexual behaviour. A psychologist focuses on biological psychology might (but again, most won't) argue that all behaviour stems from genetics. \n\nMy personal opinion (and the generally accepted consensus in academic psychology), is that it's a bit if both. Some behaviour is inherited, some is acquired. It's not always easy to tell them apart, and I think this is such a case. You could argue that hormone levels and such would influence your sexual attraction and behaviour, and you could argue that you learn it from societal norms and exposure to various situations. \n\nWhat I'm trying to say is that there isn't really a definite answer right now. ",
"I think you ought to take this question to r/askscience . Most of these answers amount to mumbo-jumbo.",
"I think that despite what TV and movies may have us believe, fetishes often are inborn.\n\nMaxxters made a great [comment](_URL_0_) on this a few years ago:\n > Most true fetishes that men have actually are crystallized with them by the time they hit puberty. Much of the research points to it actually being something they're born with... that most men do not have fetishes due to events that occurred in their lives, although some do. Women, on the other hand, are much less likely to have true fetishes, but for those who do, it may not be with them for life, as it tends to be for men. There's a lot of evidence that women's sexuality is significantly more fluid than men's and they're much more likely to be affected by events in their lives that would cause them to have a fetish (but again, some may be born with it). You might be interested in reading my article on erotic plasticity.\n > \n > Edit: I just want to add that the article might be a bit infuriating for some people (that was my reaction to the research article I was summarizing when I first read it). But you simply can't ignore such a huge amount of research that is all showing the same conclusion. I believe Baumeister examined 108 studies for the article. Yes, there are holes in his theory, but there's a huge amount of evidence supporting it as well.",
"I am no psychologist, biologist, or scientist. But from personal observation of all other aspects of life. Neither sexual orientation nor fetiches stem purely from genetic or acquired sources. I think the answer (like most things) is that sexual orientation is determined by genetic variances that make you only prone to the phenomenon, which must be encouraged by a set of social and environmental factors that contribute to the end result. \nLike success, talent, and wealth it is not always about being born this way, but it also has a lot to do with being in the right place, at the right time. ",
"I have a fetish for late 80s- early 90s sitcom actresses. Elaine, aunt Becky, topanga, Fran Fine, you name it. I honestly think Fran Fine is the reason I like Jewish girls because I watched that show everyday at 3am. This has to be learned ",
"If you find the answer to either part of your question (fetish or orientation), please let the entire scientific and philosophical community know. They have been working on nature vs. nurture for centuries.",
"It's a combination.\n\nSexual orientation is influenced by environment. Some societies have cultures more accepting of a wide variety of sexual orientations, or different baselines, and so act differently. For example: the Romans had an active-passive society, and so penetration (getting a bj or buttfucking a dude) wasn't considered their equivalent of \"gay\" largely because they didn't recognize homosexuality as a thing. They recognized that you were a cock-sucking bottom.\n\nSome people were strongly pre-disposed to women, some to men, and some right in the middle or just indifferent. It's the same here in America, except that most men who aren't particularly attracted to men adopt a cultural behavior of social rejection of homosexuality, while most women who aren't particularly attracted to women are under the cultural behavior of encouragement of homosexuality and will experiment in moderately facilitating situations. Being attracted to the same sex or specifically repulsed by the idea of homosexual activity produces other results, but of course that's covered up if you're male and find gay sex disturbing--that's the same position you take if you simply don't find it particularly *interesting*.\n\nFor the most part, people seek social intimacy and sexual outlet. Strip away the cultural influence and you find a large number of men who just want to get one off, and will get some head easy enough, if you don't particularly disturb them--perhaps a nice, skinny, androgynous boy, not an old, fat, bearded man; or perhaps they don't care, and it's all the same if you lean back and shut your eyes while they suck. Not the favored fare, but it'll drain your balls.\n\nOf course, that whole social intimacy thing means you have to internalize the norms: if gays are the enemy of society and you're not particularly interested in gay sex, then you find gay sex gross and your friends aren't afraid to sling an arm around you and clink beer bottles.\n\nPeople want simple explanations. They want skin color to be a protein sequence on a gene somewhere, and if you swap out the negro for the mongoloid you get a Japanese girl. They don't like hundreds of combinations of genes, diet, exposure to sun, temperature, and the like causing the formation of thicker skin, longer legs, and denser muscles; but that's the size of it. They also want you to either be born gay or make a conscious choice, because then they can decide if it's social justice to back you or if they can hate you for being what you are."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1blqou/redditors_who_are_into_sexual_fetishes_which_are/c97thqr"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ae8kf0
|
how can people with dark skin say they're, "half-white" and white people can say they're, "half-black"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ae8kf0/eli5_how_can_people_with_dark_skin_say_theyre/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edn74g9",
"edn8mtg",
"edn97i3"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, race is a complicated and mostly made up categorization. It includes culture and characteristics beyond phenotypes including historical affiliation.\n\nIts not a good categorization, but its more complicated than just skin tone.",
"Differences are more noticeable than similarities within a group.\n\nWithin a population of white people, someone with mixed blood are not going to be called \"half-white.\" They are classified by how they are different: \"half-black,\" \"half-Asian,\" etc.\n\nThe same thing happens in fantasy worlds. We have mixed blood \"races\" described as half-elf and half-orc because the descriptions are human-centric. But for a bunch of elves, a half-elf would be considered half-human.",
"If you take race to be ancestry then it’s really about who your parents are. For example, Nazi doctrine defined everyone with at least 1/4 Jewish ancestors as racially Jewish regardless of religion or characteristics.\n\nIf you think of race as a generic heritage, then this has to do with assuming a mix between parents even though each offspring inherits a different subset of genes from their parents so multiple siblings could have different skin tones"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2d00xv
|
why are nike shoes $150 or more and how do they enhance performance in sports?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d00xv/eli5_why_are_nike_shoes_150_or_more_and_how_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjkpvhw",
"cjku3rk"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a fashion statement mostly.\n\nDon't get me wrong - there's some technology and research there, but not nearly enough to really affect, well, anything that much. You may jump a few millimeters higher through some new bouncy sole and lighter material. And there is some stability enhancements that will slightly reduce the risk of a rolled ankle. And some fabric may allow the foot to \"breathe\" a hair better.\n\nBut in the end, it's clever marketing. \n",
"It's all just marketing. They can charge whatever the market will bear. As for performance; the best thing you can do is find pair of shoes that's comfortable at a price you can afford."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.