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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5slzdq
|
why by do we use exchange rates to represent value of currency (eg: strong vs weak dollar)?
|
For example, if 1 USD = 1.32 CAD, who cares? What's more important is what $1 can buy, right? If a candy bar costs $1 in the US and $1.32 in Canada, then the is no difference. How do we measure value of currency based on what goods we can buy after we exchange it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5slzdq/eli5_why_by_do_we_use_exchange_rates_to_represent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddg1kk7",
"ddg2804",
"ddggqad",
"ddgmybn",
"ddgq4cl"
],
"score": [
4,
16,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because when you look past the price your paying at the register, the product your buying has its own inputs. \n\nLet's say (making up numbers), a jar of peanut butter costs you 1 USD, while the peanuts in your peanut butter can be purchased for 1 XYZ, and further, 1 USD can buy 5 XYZ's.\n\n\n\nFurther, let's say all the other inputs to the cost of that jar of peanut butter cost 60 cents. So, it basically costs 80 cents to get that jar of peanut butter to the shelf in front of you\n\nNow, things get funky and XYZ currency \"strengthens\" relative to the US dollar and doubles in value. A USD can now only buy 2.5 XYZ's. however, since peanuts are still made in that other country and still cost 1 XYZ. This means that the cost to make that peanut butter has risen by 20 cents. Your grocery store can no longer sell it for 1 USD because there's no margin left in it for them. \n\nLooking at exchange rates at a single point in time doesn't really mean much, but over longer periods of time, while they don't affect you directly, they can influence the final price you pay at the register. \n\nNot sure if this was 5 year old speak, but I tried! :)",
"If you never leave your own country, and never buy anything not 100% made in your country, then it matters not at all. However, this is pretty much impossible, as pieces and parts are sourced from all over the globe, usually based on where the cheapest to get resources are.\n\nExample of how it matters:\n\nImagine I own a Canadian business. I make some chairs, and I buy some chairs, and then sell them to Canadians.\n\nI make my chairs using Canadian materials, which I pay $100 CAD for, and then pay another $100 CAD to my workers to build it. I sell these chairs for $400 CAD to the Canadian public.\n\nI also buy some chairs form the USA. These chairs cost $100 USD for materials, and $100 USD for labor. I can buy them for $200 USD, and then I can sell them in Canada. However, I can't just sell them for $400 CAD. I have to pay for them in USD. But all my sales of these chairs are in CAD! I have to then go to my bank, and say, \"Please take the CADs, and pay this US company $200 in USD.\" The banks then need to figure out how much $200 USD is in CADs so they can pay the US company properly AND so I can price appropriately. \n\nIf the exchange rate is $1.50CAD to $1.00 USD, then I will need to have my bank take out $300 CAD to pay the US company. To keep my margins equal, I will need to charge $600 CAD for that US chair.\n\nIf the exchange rate is $0.50 CAD to $1.00 USD, then my bank only needs to pay the US company $100 CAD to cover the cost of the chair, and I can sell the US chairs for $200 CAD.\n\nIf you were a Canadian person shopping at my store, which would you buy? The $200 US chair, or the $400 Canadian chair? Alternatively, would you buy the $400 Canadian chair, or the $600 US chair? ",
"There are other measurement values such as the 'Big Mac Index' which tracks Big Mac prices across the world. \nIt's a little tongue-in-cheek, but its a nice reference for the average person. \n\nMin wage in the UK is £7.40. A Big Mac at £3.73 is about half an hours work. \nIn the US a Big Mac is $5.06. \nExchange rate is £1 = US$1.25, so that's a UK value of £4.04 \n\nIn Switzerland a Big Mac is 6.50 Francs ($6.35) which has a UK value of £5.07 \n\nSo looking at that, You can see that my pound is quite weak - I'd have to work 40ish mins on minimum wage to afford a Swiss burger. \n\nNow look at the Mexicans. Their Min wage is 80.04 Pesos, which is about $3.90. That's nearly an hours work to get a US big Mac, and maybe hour and a half for a Swiss one. \nThe Mexican Big Mac on the other hand is closer to 45.25 Peso which is about $2.20 and . About Half an hours work locally. \nOn my UK wage £1.76 - Thats closer to 10 mins work for me. \n\nSo If I earn my money in the UK and go to Switzerland I wont be able to buy as much as I'd be able to is I was to go to Mexico instead. \n\nThe amounts above are relatively low, but if you x them by 100 (Say hotel rooms or something), you are looking at significant differences in spending power. \n\nNow, the problem we have is - Who sets the prices for the Big Mac? McDonalds in the designated country do. They base the price on their own economy and tailor it to their own costs and the amount of money that regular people will have in their pockets. \n\nSo, It's important to know what the exchange rate is to see what your spending power is. Years ago the pound was worth $1.7 USD - Which meant i could buy a lot more with my pounds in america (That big mac would have cost me £2.96). Nowadays, not so much. \n\nIf you need further examples, have a look at holiday things in the Philippines (I was looking at Boracay) - the activities there are amazingly cheap for our currencies, but they may represent a fair chunk of the locals earning potential. \nI'm also excited that I'm going to Boracay. Throwing that in there :p \n",
"You are correct that how much a currency is worth is much more complicated than the exchange rate. You would be interested in the metric of [purchasing power parity](_URL_0_). \n\nHowever the exchange rate is a very simple number, and is highly relevant to anyone doing international trade. How many candy bars you can buy with $1.31 in Canada doesn't matter to someone in the US who is trading to Canada. He only cares how many candy bars you can get for $1 USD, and the exchange rate is what matters for that.",
"Ever heard of the \"big Mac index\"? \nCurrency exchange rates are internationally important for exports and imports but actually your (real) purchase power (how much do you have to pay for a certain basket of goods in relation to the currency exchange rate) determines the strength of your economy. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity"
],
[]
] |
|
1ner0u
|
Why does my bathroom mirror fog up but my phone screen doesn't?
|
Even though my phone is right next to my mirror, it doesn't fog up while I'm taking a shower, while my mirror does.
I have seen it fog up when going from the cooler (~30F) into the backroom (~100F + humidity) at my work (grocery store in DFW).
edit: also I wasn't sure what flair to set, so I did Engineering simply due to the phone factor.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ner0u/why_does_my_bathroom_mirror_fog_up_but_my_phone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cchwzg2",
"cci03qk",
"cci1ap3"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The H2O in the air will condense on your mirror forming a fog, so it is passing from the gaseous to the liquid state, so it need to cool down. This is possible because your mirror is relatively cool and the H2O can form the fog, whereas due to the circuit and light in and on your phone screen, the phone is not cool enough to form a fog. ",
"Water vapor will condense out on the coldest surface. Since the electronics in your phone keep it warmer than your bathroom mirror, the water vapor condenses on your mirror, but leaves your phone fog free.",
"The answer relates to the thermal conductivities of the surface.\n\nGlass has a reasonably high conductivity (compared to most ceramics or plastics). As water condenses onto the mirror surface, it moves the released latent heat away from the surface. This allows the glass mirror's surface to absorb more water as condensation.\n\nYour phone will have a less conductive surface than the mirror (though I can't find a specific number for Gorilla Glass or similar). It will fog a little, but the heat released by condensation will not be carried away from the surface and this will discourage further condensation. You may notice when picking it up it strill has a fine sheen of wetness over it, but substantially less than the mirror.\n\nAlso worth noting is that humid environmets are terrible for electronics. You should leave your phone outside the bathroom to improve it's useful life.\n\nAs far in your work's coolroom. It fogs noticeably because your taking it from an extremely dry environment (the cold coils of the cooling unit will remove almost all of the humidity) to a more humid environment. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
273lcc
|
Why does water gather together?
|
When I spill water, why does it create a puddle instead of evenly dispersing? And when it starts to flow, why does it move in a little line or stream instead of just spreading in all directions?
Same goes for water droplets and when water comes out of a hose.
Thanks for your help!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/273lcc/why_does_water_gather_together/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chx2vb5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yay finally a question I can answer!\n\nWater molecules want to bond together and form hydrogen bonds between each other. This causes them to exhibit surface tension. The water molecules at the surface of the liquid don't have as many other molecules to bind to. Therefore, the surface molecules create stronger bonds with each other. This is called surface tension. That is why water droplets are created - the surface molecules have a strong bond. Water molecules actually have the second highest surface tension, mercury has the highest. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2yizt0
|
why do dogs suck at hide-and-seek when they have a super sensitive olfactory sense?
|
[When dogs play hide-and-seek](_URL_0_) it looks like they're only using their eyes. Why aren't they relying on their noses? Wouldn't a dog's sense of smell be able tell them exactly where someone is hiding?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yizt0/eli5_why_do_dogs_suck_at_hideandseek_when_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp9zlr2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Remember that their noses are so sensitive that to them, the whole house is saturated with the smell of everything. Imagine trying to find one hidden bottle of perfume in the perfume department at macy's - it's just too much sensory input to be accurate in all those \"smells\" - (not saying you stink or anything . . . but to the dog, you probaby do . . . just kiddin')"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQJt-Jk4WDU"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
w14do
|
Why does the force of gravity appear to have contradictory effects in the solar system?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w14do/why_does_the_force_of_gravity_appear_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c59bhn8",
"c59bk73",
"c59c1fz",
"c59c3lj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"For the same reason you don't fall towards the sun, but instead fall towards the Earth: Earth's gravity is stronger than the Sun's at this distance.\n\nAs far as the tides go, the slight gravitational effect of the moon pulls the oceans slightly towards it. I'm not sure why you think this means it exerts a higher force than the sun.",
"The force of gravity equals the product of the two masses( earth and you/the moon/etc.), times a constant, divided by the distance squared, so the further away you get from something the less it's gravity will affect you ",
"So the force of gravity is G * M1 * M2 / r^2 where G is the gravitational constant (a constant of nature, it doesn't change), M1 and M2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between them. If you plug in numbers you'll get following forces between the two objects:\n\nSun-Earth: 3.5 * 10^22 N\n\nEarth-Moon: 2.0 * 10^20 N\n\nSun-Moon: 4.4 * 10^20 N\n\nSo yes indeed, the Sun does pull the Moon more than Earth does. But you need to remember that the Sun pulls the Earth too. The acceleration caused by the gravity comes from F=Ma, just divide by M to get a=F/M. If you replace F with the force of gravity then the M cancels with the mass in the force of gravity equation and the acceleration only depends on the mass of the other object (that is the Sun) and the distance, not the mass of Earth or Moon. Since both the Moon and Earth are more or less same distance from the Sun, they will both be pulled towards the Sun at the same acceleration and they stay together. \n\nWhy then are the tides mostly caused by Moon even though its gravity is less than one hundredth of the Sun. First you need to understand what exactly causes tides. The cause is that the force of gravity is different at different sides of Earth due to the distance being different by the diameter of the Earth. So the Moon pulls the water at the far side less than Earth itself which is less than the water at the near side. Ignoring everything else about the formula for force of gravity and just seeing how it behaves with regards to distance, you get a graph [like this](_URL_0_). Note how a small difference in distance (the x axis) makes a big difference in force (the y axis) when the distance is small (x is small). But when distance is big (x is big) even a big change in distance makes only a small change in force.\n\nYou can also make the exact calculations. Leave out the mass of Earth from the formula for gravity to get force per unit mass (which happens to be same as acceleration). Calculate it with the distance varying by the diameter of Earth and subtracting one from the other. a = G*M/ r^2 - G*M/ (r+d)^2 . The M is now either the mass of the Sun or the Moon and r the corresponding distance and d the diameter of the earth. Then you get the difference in acceleration the water experiences at different sides of Earth. Putting in the values we get\n\nMoon: 2.1*10^-6 m/s^2\n\nSun: 1.0*10^-6 m/s^2\n\nSo Moon has roughly twice as big an effect as the Sun.",
"Nobody has yet pointed out...the moon *does* orbit the sun. In fact, it has almost exactly the same orbit as Earth. However, it (and Earth) go in and out a bit due to their relative interaction.\n\nLooking at the moon's orbit as a whole, in what sense could you say that it does not revolve around it directly, or that it is not captured?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://graph.tk/#1/x^2"
],
[]
] |
||
4i6rsu
|
i understand the first level (employer-employee) of direct deposits but how does it work between my bank and my employer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4i6rsu/eli5_i_understand_the_first_level/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2vjyee",
"d2vljl7",
"d2vro89"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain it is just a simple banking transfer.\n\nYour company runs a \"payroll application\" most likely bought from a vendor like ADP. That application runs through all the information for each employee, pulls out the correct amounts of tax (as specified by your W-2 and the state you are in), then notifies the bank to transfer the funds from their account to yours.",
"Your employer got your account number from you which includes the routing number, everything required to put money into your account. \n\nThen its payroll program used HR and payroll data to determine how much to pay you. \nThen it told the bank to transfer that much cash from your employer's account to your account. It cannot work the other way unless top officials in your bank authorize that.",
"Can you please explain your understanding of what you mean by \"first level of direct deposits?\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c20pkp
|
how does washing detergent work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c20pkp/eli5_how_does_washing_detergent_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ergtf4d",
"ergtmqd"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"All soaps are surfactants. A surfactant is a molecule of which one end is attract to water (hydrophilic) and the other end doesn't like water (hydrophobic) but likes oils and dirt. Oils and dirt stick to the hydrophobic end and are washed away by water which attached to the hydrophobic end.",
"Detergent contains a surfactant, short for surface active agent that creates surface tension so dirt and grease stay in solution and don't redeposit back to the item being washed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4lx22u
|
how come the middle-eastern and asian civilizations got surpassed even though their knowledge and techniques were far superior to those of the western world?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lx22u/eli5_how_come_the_middleeastern_and_asian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3r3f9y",
"d3r3hp1",
"d3r3huh",
"d3r3l3b",
"d3r3m3p",
"d3r3ze2",
"d3r40yq",
"d3r46qy",
"d3r47us",
"d3r4r13",
"d3r5cni",
"d3r5fyb",
"d3r5yjn",
"d3r62fh",
"d3r6qm7",
"d3r6r4x",
"d3r74a1",
"d3r7dp9",
"d3r7hf6",
"d3r7kom",
"d3r7ma5",
"d3r7yic",
"d3r7yjo",
"d3r8c5u",
"d3r8jru",
"d3r8uui",
"d3r8xrw",
"d3rpuvp",
"d3s2aed",
"d3qtzjt",
"d3qu96s",
"d3qujwv",
"d3qukjl",
"d3qxb6j",
"d3qxyeq",
"d3qy0ij",
"d3qy4xt",
"d3qy92w",
"d3qyt5v",
"d3qyukr",
"d3qzhlh",
"d3qzl16",
"d3qzs99",
"d3r005r",
"d3r0avf",
"d3r0e5g",
"d3r0f87",
"d3r0ph4",
"d3r17v6",
"d3r1bui",
"d3r1vev",
"d3r1ykv",
"d3r286k",
"d3r2kc9",
"d3r2vav",
"d3r2x1u"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2,
5,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
1964,
56,
90,
6,
8,
238,
21,
16,
7,
14,
3,
3,
4,
5,
57,
3,
2,
10,
79,
2,
2,
2,
8,
6,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"A surprisingly short time has actually taken place in which Asian civilizations weren't the top dogs. \n\nIn the grand scheme of things, it'll correct and balance out again.",
"Civilizations rise and fall. By the time the West as we know it was getting on it's feet; the middle-east and east Asia had already had their great civilizations. Because it was mostly safe from invaders and other threats, Europe was allowed to grow and prosper and benefit from ideas and innovations that came from west and east Asia. The opposite is happening now, Western powers like America and the UK are declining massively, and China and India are becoming more and more dominant.",
"This will get buried in the comment, but a good book on this topic is \"Civilization: The West and the Rest\" by Niall Ferguson",
"Greece. We owe everything to the Ancient Greeks - and one Greek in particular.\n\nScientific enquiry is what pushed the Western World ahead (and continues to drive their success). The ability to ask a legitimate question without getting your head chopped off is fundamental to knowledge; and ultimately also to a good government. Furthermore this entire way of thinking can be traced directly back to Socrates. In the entire canon of human history never has one man had so much influence as Socrates did.\n\nEppur si muove (not Socrates, but a fitting quote anyway).\n\n",
"There is a great book by Paul Kennedy called \"The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers\". It is excellently sourced and includes all kinds of cultural, political and economic data. Its first chapters deal with this idea. Basically up until the early 1500's Europe was culturally and technologically behind the Middle East and East Asia. The book lays out a good argument that the changes that occured from 1500 on were due in large part to politics and centralized control...Whereas the Ottomans or the Chinese centrally controlled large empires with quite a bit of cultural and ethnic homogeny, in Europe the nature of the dying feudal system and the plurality of small nation states lead to an environment that acted like an incubator of technology and governance. \n\nIn China, if the Emperor outlawed the crossbow you were basically boned...But if you lived in Baden and the mayor of Baden outlawed the crossbow, you could pick up and leave to another town, city, barony, principality, republic etc, and keep making crossbows. That is a gross oversimplification of what happened but I think there is a lot to the idea that in Europe there was a lot of \"trial by fire\", and the adversity those small city states and kingdoms faced help drive innovation militarily speaking. I'm sure the Catholic church and its desire to spread and win the souls of pagans plays a big part too - But the technology is what eventually allowed that to happen. This is a pretty deep rabbit hole and can include things like the geography of Europe and how its terrain allowed for less easily centralized control by governments, how Europe lucked out when it came to invasion by the Mongols, etc etc etc.",
"Most of the time we blame the Mongols for the decline. the Middle-east were in their Golden Age of technology and culture and China was on the rise as the most technologically advanced civilizations on the planet.\n\nAll of that changed when the mongols attacked.\n\nBecause the Chinese were such an isolated culture, they never shared or formed alliegences with other great natons.",
"itt a bunch of asian born americans who think they know about asian history because of something there parents told them",
"Because of the key word \"Were\". Coming from a middle eastern point of view, we built the foundations of mathematics and people simply expanded on them. We as people are always trying to find new ways to make things better.",
"Wow, I'm late to the game, but I'll give it a go.\n\nThe big part of the reason the western world surpasses other areas is because the west is the first region to achieve *self-sustaining growth.* There is an economist called Thomas Malthus who formulated the principle that populations grew when there was extra food and then they were limited by their inability to produce more food: ie starvation and population crashes. For the most part, Malthus' analysis is correct for the preceding centuries. Again and again we see empires go through cycles: the population grows and then crashes and empires rise and fall with these cycles. When the population grows and there is excess food, the empire is able to tax more individuals and harness produce more from the land. However, at some point the population becomes so high that land holdings shrink--you have to divide your land among your kids--and so your plots of land get smaller and smaller until its not enough to sustain you. When that happens, the population straves, taxes become harder to collect, riots happen, no one is happy. \n\nNow, turn to England. Across Europe in the 1500's onwards, peasants increasingly revolt, rebel, and gain more and more rights. In continental Europe, this often meant they got land, but in England the elites were a bit more organized so peasants were freed from the bonds of feudalism *but they were not given land, the land remained in the hands of the elite.* This had two key consequences. On the one hand, the elites were able to consolidate their land holdings into larger and larger holdings, allowing them to produce crops more efficiently and employ technologies, so agricultural productivity goes up. On the other hand, many of the former peasants move to the cities, feeding rudimentary factories and acting as an industrial basis. However, this is all happening during a bout of the Plague, so England is a high wage economy when this happens. Hence we have innovation in technologyin order to increase your bang for your buck (you pay a person 7 dollars an hour regardless, but with tech advances they're now making 20 shirts and hour as opposed to just 1). And from then we get the rest of the Western world following England. \n\nHere is the crucial thing: across the world there is a divide between peasant and lord, between worker and landlord. Peasants act in self interest. They just want to live and have enough to get by. In times of excess, population increases, and while there is still excess this is great for ruling elite because it means they get more taxes, but once population outstrips the land's capacity to support it (and remember, areas caught in these cycles are those that can't implement efficient tech as they could in England) you get revolts in the base. England, by a fluke, is thrown out of this cycle",
"I haven't seen this yet, so here goes. The Plague helped to jump start the Rennaisance. The Plague decimated European populations, and forced cities and large towns to adopt some sanitary measures (though London still kept its shit in basements until '93). It also forced people to take a good hard look at the complete domination of religion over everyday life. No one has been spared, rich or poor, pious or perverted, God hadn't lifted a finger. Rationality and reason started to creep into the Equation. Also, the fall of the Bizantine Empire in the East had merchants looking for different routes to India and its wealth of spices. The age of the Adventurer took hold. Newfound interest in reason, coupled with a desire to expand power on a crowded continent sent many smaller fiefdoms into conflict. The various European powers coellesced into Nation States. From there they expanded their power out at a time when most of the rest of the world was in decline. \n \nThere are many factors, but chief among them is timing. Empires rise and fall, European Powers rose at a time when world technological development was right on the edge of ushering in an age without decline. Because none of these powers ever properly conquered and coellesced power in Europe, there was never a cease in military advancement, there was always a drive to have a bigger bang than the next guy. While the other world powers became corrupt and stagnated from within, the various European Principalities competed against each other in all things, driving innovation and discovery. Europe'e third rise came right at the right time, and the Western world has held poll position ever since.",
"(honest question) ELI5: In what ways were Asian \"knowledge and techniques far superior to those of the western world?\"",
"The largest contributor to why the western world overtook the east was technology.\n\nIt has nothing to do with the west getting lucky or the east being backwards \n\nBasically China had a highly commercialized economy during the 1600 and 1700's along with a highly centralized state and an ever expanding population providing nearly endless labor. Meanwhile Europe was divided plagued with war and always needed a way to make more of the labor pool they had. This led to western nations adopting firearms as soon as they figured out how to make it efficient. And later on led to things like the steam pump a very underrated invention. It was invented out of necessity to make mining (especially of coal which fueled the industrial revolution) much more efficient. Whereas in China it didn't matter you want to get water out of a mine? Why invent a pump when you can just send thousands down there with buckets. It was a system that worked for them for centuries (pre-dates European coal mining) and never needed to be improved upon because the labor was always present\n\n\nHope this cleared things up I realize I may have started to ramble in there",
"As far as the Chinese go, the biggest factor was the emperor's decree that no one in the kingdom was allowed to build ships larger than short distance-sized units at sown point in time in their history. This virtually eliminated all colonization and intercontinental expansion. After long periods of Chinese exploration, the emperor was very concerned about other cultures degrading pure Chinese culture via inter-mixing, so his decree made the Chinese very isolationist. When the Europeans caught up to ship building technology, they had no such restriction and proceeded to colonize the world, and bring death, by disease, mind you. When Europeans were in mud huts, there are tales of Chinese sea going fleets hat were so vast that they would cover the horizon. They would land and trade, but were forbidden to conquer. It was after these explorations that the restriction was set forth. ",
"I have yet to see any top comments given good answers. Your question is very similar to Needham’s Grand Question, which is the question of how a far advanced Chinese Civilization fell behind.\n\nShort answer: They were never \"far superior to those of the Western world\".\n\nLong answer:\n\n1. People hear something impressive about another civilization then have the wrong image of it. For example Forbidden City of China is impressive, right? But did you know it was first constructed between 1406 to 1420, then was renovated, rebuilt, and had new palaces constructed between 1644-1658, then 1683-1695, and again in 1735 to 1795? Now you compare it with the Louvre (began construction in 1190, had a few major projects over the centuries then finished before 1870), while it doesn't make you feel the Forbidden City any less impressive, you probably won't see the two and think the Chinese were far ahead of the West.\n\n2. People have wrong ideas about the old days in general. In this case, people don't realize how primitive the ancient times were. Water chlorination wasn't a thing till no earlier than 1893. That means drinking water, essential to survival, was a very risky thing till almost yesterday. Think about it, the difference between farmers in 1800 AD and 1800 BC wasn't that big: Better tools, but generally the same methods were being used for thousands of years. It's not until very recent we human race as a whole started acceleration, and that's when other civilizations rally fell behind. It's like you grew up with Mike Tyson. When you were little kids you might've beaten up Tyson a few times, but once he hits puberty there's no match.\nTo give you a better picture, and since many mentioned the Mongols, let's look at the most formidable force in history. They couldn't make almost any of the tools they needed at the time. When they conquered China they didn't even know how to farm so they just used rice and wheat fields as cattle ranches. So called far superior knowledge and techniques were not superior enough to make a difference.\n\n3. The U.S. is only 239 almost 240 years old. Anglo-Saxons didn't come to history stage till 5 AD. The Dark Ages were not the best time of the West. But if you look at the root of Westerner Civilization (many see today's America as the representative), you'll see more than that. Ancient Greece inherited many things from Ancient Egypt, then there's Rome, even during the Dark Ages there were Byzantine Empire. Indeed the fall of Constantinople directly triggered the Renaissance. So the West were doing fine from day one. Yes they might not be the most advanced here and there, and some places had a downfall or two over the time, but as a whole, I wouldn't say the East was really ahead of the West, even less so the Middle East (assuming it's the Islamic Civilization we are talking about here).\n\n4. Many people mistake technology with science. In ancient times when we, the human race, were still very primitive, you could come up some inventions just because you were really smart or lucky. However without scientific method you can't systematically develop whatever you have, as a result in a long run having a few lucky inventions (which you would say it's \"far superior\") don't help you that much. Best example is gun power. While the Chinese invented gun power hundreds of years before Europeans first saw it, they never had the best recipe. As a result, even China started using firearms 600 years before Europe did, thermal weapons didn't really become something meaningful till Europeans mastered them.\n\n**TL; DR**: West was never really left behind. While other civilizations had a few advanced things here and there, or were leading for some time, nothing was meaningful. What meaningful is scientific method, the reason we have modern science and technology, the reason we are here wasting time on reddit. The scientific method that makes us waste time here on reddit is the direct descent of Aristotelian method. Of all early civilizations, only Greek Civilization developed systematic logic and scientific method. And here's my bold statement: If the Western Civilization somehow went extinct and had nothing left, human on earth would still be living in no better than glorified medieval lifestyle.",
"I think what you are asking is why were European countries more successful at imperialism in the past millennium. Check out the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. According to the book, Asian civilizations had so much land they did not need to colonize. China even outlawed ship building at one point to encourage investment at home. The book gives a ton more arguments and is pretty interesting.",
"Western cultures used their inventions for science and advancing progress. Eastern, more specifically, Islamic cultures tended to use technology for religious purposes.",
"A single person in China could stifle innovation. A good idea in Europe could be shopped around until adopted. \n\nEx. Colonialism; Gunpowder; Democracy \n\nIf the good idea was not adopted in China, that was fashion. \n\nIf the good idea was not adopted in Europe, that was an invitation to regime change.",
"Religion holds people, countries, regions, etc from progressing. I'm sure there are other factors, but thats my biggest take away from it.",
"Were they surpassed? Can you equate having a greater grasp on technology to achieve a higher level of human actualization. I understand it's just a matter of semantics but semantics matter when it reinforces the notion that the west holds some sort of monopoly on attaining life fulfillment.",
"Important factor for the Arabic world is a rise of several supposed \"scholars\" who claimed that mathematics was work of the devil and that you can only get knowledge from hole texts etc etc\n\nThis idea very quickly stopped the scientific advancements in that part of the world :(\n\nhere is a clip of Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about this which I think explains it well _URL_0_\n",
"I'm going to say that in the case of the Middle-East, it never recovered from the Mongol invasion.",
"Francis Fukuyama wrote about this in the second of his latest two-volume works. He cites the geographic differences between the open fields that allowed quick transportation and control of vast empires without as strong a state apparatus and the mountain ranges and rivers that divided Europe and required strong states to control effectively.\nI think the plague had a significant impact as well, allowing Europe to restructure, rebuild, and centralize almost from scratch.",
" > were far superior to those of the western world\n\nBecause they weren't far superior. Contrary to popular belief, the dark ages weren't a decline for Europe but the transformation from the clan period to monarchy, with the formation of the modern countries originating in the dark ages. They are just treated as a 'decline' because they aren't as well known as classical history or the age of exploration. Saying the Middle East was far superior to Europe doesn't even make sense considering the Middle East was ruled by Greeks, Romans, then Romanized Greeks for a large portion of its history.\n\nAs to why Europe took off? Before industrialization, wealth was created on plantation based agriculture, which does best in warm fertile regions. This is why the fertile crescent, nile river delta, and yellow river valley did well during the classical era. This is also why Southern Europe was wealthier than Northern Europe during the classical era. Trade was dominated by the silk road, which connected China, the Arab World and Southern Europe. With the Age of Exploration that began to change, with transatlantic trade becoming a great source of wealth for Western and Northern Europe. Southern Europe, the Middle East, and China, which were well connected to trade during the Silk Road era but were not connected to the new transatlantic trade routes. Industrialization created another source of wealth, this time far greater than what agriculture alone could provide and sprang up first in Northern Europe. Industrialization did best in regions where labor wasn't already consumed by plantation based agriculture. This shifted the wealthiest regions of the world from warm fertile regions to colder less fertile regions. The Arab World and China were very late to industrialization, which is why they were left behind.",
"In one sentence: the east lacked pragmatism and advanced at a slower rate since the 15th century until around the 20th.",
"Hmm, how to explain this...\n\nOkay, Islam, like Christianity in Europe had a reform movement that was mercilessly crushed by traditionalists and fundamentalists followers which also had the misfortune of chasing away the surviving Arabic and Persian intellectuals who took their knowledge to different countries where they wouldn't be defenestrated.\n\nIn regards to the Eastern world China put more emphasis on trade and wealth building than they did on technological gains in terms of industrialization and militarization. In short, they were more about wealth via trade than they were about technological gains.\n\n ",
"I'll preface by saying this has no ELI5 answer. It's immensely complex and no single internet post can answer it. You could spend decades on a doctorate thesis on this topic and never completely answer it (it's too broad a topic for a thesis besides).\n\n[I'll also refer you to this AskHistorians post, which is their go-to link in their FAQ](_URL_5_)\n\nPeople bring up *Guns, Germs, and Steel* to answer this question a lot. While GGS brings up several very interesting ideas, it is crippled by some serious flaws, primarily Eurocentrism. While a geographical approach to the question is a very plausible one, it is not the sole factor in why the West became preeminent. Europe was not the only region where there were many domesticable animals, fertile lands for agriculture, and densely-populated cities ripe for disease existed - China, India, and the Fertile Crescent fit these factors as well, among others. Cultural factors played a heavy role as well.\n\nOthers in this thread have brought up constant instability and war as a reason for the rest of the world \"slowing down.\" While China and India were certainly no strangers to civil war, Europe was wracked by near-constant wars between their diverse states and dynasties throughout its history. In fact, the frequency and centrality of war in European culture was a major factor in its rise to global dominance.\n\nAnd finally, others in this thread have brought up the Mongols as a means of \"slowing down\" the rest of the world. While the Mongols played a major role in the history of East Asia and the Middle East and Western Europe was spared, an invasion by a steppe horde - no matter how destructive - will permanently halt the development of a civilization. Europe didn't stop dead after various migrant tribes radically altered the Roman Empire. China didn't stop dead under the Yuan Dynasty. India didn't stop dead under the Mughals. And the Muslim world didn't stop dead after the Mongols visited (*cough* Ottomans *cough*).\n\nFinally, science and technology aren't a semi-linear tree like in the *Civilization* series. Especially back in the days before the Industrial Revolution, you don't research something with the intent of producing an extremely specific result. Most technological innovations come entirely by accident, a side-effect of trying to produce something else entirely.\n\nPerhaps the closest thing to an ELI5 answer to this question is that **Europe was a perfect storm of socio-cultural and economic circumstances at the perfect time**.\n\n* For most European proto-states, social status and social structure revolved *heavily* around the ownership of private property. Owners of land held all the power of most European societies, and as the Middle Ages progressed into the Early Modern Era more emphasis was placed on the refining of inheritance laws and consolidation of more land. For example, in England the [enclosure system](_URL_1_) became important during the Early Modern Era, as wealthy landowners pushed off poor tenant farmers and consolidated their lands for their direct use and control.\n* Additionally, during this time economic and social forces began pushing peasants and serfs into cities for better opportunities. The [Black Death](_URL_2_) (itself carried to Europe by a combination of the Mongols and trade with the Far East) caused a continent-wide shortage of labor, which led to landowners lowering rent prices to attract peasants to work their land, which allowed lower-class families to actually keep more of their harvested crops, sell the surplus in the cities, and pocket the profit. This led to massive social upheaval to the old feudal order in many kingdoms, for example the [Peasant's Revolt of 1381](_URL_0_) in England. This was a key development in the rise of a middle class in Europe.\n* The intertwining of property ownership with social status bred a landowners-as-martial-caste society, and heavily encouraged warfare between landowners as a means of gaining more wealth and power. For example, the [Estates system of France](_URL_4_) - Those Who Fight, Those Who Pray, and Those Who Work.\n* Catholic Christianity dominated Europe, a religion that placed incredible importance upon the conversion and baptism of non-believers to literally save their souls from damnation in the afterlife. This leads to an emphasis on believers to bring their religion to foreign places.\n* Europe was a global backwater when it came to resources and global trade before the colonial era. Even after the European colonial empires formed, a great deal of European trade involved pouring currency into foreign markets for luxury goods. For example, the [Opium Wars](_URL_3_) of the 19th century were triggered by Chinese hoarding market share of silver traded to them by the European powers in exchange for luxuries such as tea or porcelain; the British sought to break this drain on the silver market by introducing opium to China; opium addiction became an immensely destructive epidemic in China and the Chinese authorities attempted to ban its import and use; Britain retaliated militarily.\n\nCombine all the above factors and you get a culture that:\n\n* Pushed individuals to obtain as much new land as possible to attain greater social status and power\n* Had an emerging middle class that sought social mobility\n* Trained its landowning upper class in warfare for purposes of obtaining land\n* Encouraged the followers of the local religion to convert non-believing foreigners\n* Had a thirst for resources to fuel constant local war efforts and acquire luxury goods from other regions\n\nA perfect storm for the formation of colonial empires.\n\nAnd this by no means comes close to fully answering this question. I haven't even touched the Protestant Reformation (arguably the most important event in European history).",
"If you are referring to modern government that most of it derives from the conflict between church and state that existed from about the 7th or 8th century onward. \n\nThere was a long fought battle, sometimes bloody, over who had the direct line of authority from god, Popes or Kings? It is in the guise of this debate that much writing and much deliberation that would become the foundations of modern government would arise. \n\nSomewhat ironically the answer to the secular rulers' question on how to explain the basis of their authority without turning to god, with whom the Papacy surely had a superior claim, came from a time long before Europe rose to any prominence. Aristotle's Politics was 'rediscovered'. This was a bit of a problem, he being a pagan and all, but a theologian by the name of Thomas Aquinas translated the works and reconciled them with western culture. \n\nPolitics argues that the origin of authority comes from a social pact between ruler and ruled. His observations note that government was independent from religion and a natural invention of man to serve his needs. From these ideas government separated from the church but kings also signed their doom for they had given rise to the idea that a king is but a corporate body representing an entire kingdom. In the centuries to come people would extrapolate from Aristotle's ideas and reinvent democracy as representative bodies became more and more powerful and more and more, in theory, egalitarian. \n\nI argue that this is what differentiates the west from the rest of the world. Neither Asia, Africa, nor the Middle East have had the centuries of personal development with all of the legal concepts that we consider an essential part of freedom and human rights. ",
"The state of science and technology in Europe during the Medieval period tends to be very played down, the notion of primitive Europeans and an amazingly advanced East just seems to be a narrative people find fun. People seem to demand little intelectual rigore when suporting this narative for example all evidence for the antiquity of Chinese gunpowder [turns out to be rather shaky]( _URL_0_)",
"Short answer is that Islam took care of the advances made in the Middle East (Al-Ghazali and his 'intellectual' descendants). And China not only turned inward, but never had the scientific and mathematical advances/culture that had existed in Greece and in Iraq/Iran.",
"Copied from googling.\n\n\nChina was centrally controlled by a leadership that made a deliberate choice to focus inward and turn it's back on the world and technology. So just as the Renaissance was waking up Europe, China was going to sleep. The Arabs were very advanced through much of what was in Europe the dark ages, but they were devastated by the Mongols and never truly recovered. The Turks were corrupt to a point where they were stagnant. \n\nIndia was too divided. There were no true long-lasting nation-states. Most of the Empires had little to no coastal territory, and were primarily concerned with land expansion. The states that needed new territory, didn't have the resources. The states that did have the resources, had no interest. \n\nThe west on the other hand had a lot of both commercial and military competition, and an explosion of intellectual inquiry. There was no power suppressing progress. It has the right kind of society/culture that encourages its growth, so it is the way people think that makes them more advance. \n\nEurope's (and the Iberian nations in particular) unique situation fed the Voyages of Discovery, and those voyages led to new economic prosperity, surpassing that gained during the crusades. At the same time, the Byzantine Empire had fallen, and many of its intellectuals and artists fled to Western Europe, in particular Italy. This led directly to the Renaissance. Basically, Europe got lucky.\n\n",
"Most of history is a story of one group or another leapfrogging the others to get ahead for a period of time. Like the hare in the fable, people who get ahead often get complacent until someone else gets ahead of them.",
"It's not clear what you're referring to with 'knowledge and techniques'. The biggest reason why Europe thrived over the last several hundred years versus the East was the [Mongol invasions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.](_URL_1_) The West may have succumbed to the same fate (Mongols made it as far as [Kiev, Poland](_URL_0_)) but due to the death of the Mongol ruler, the horde was recalled to the East before they could lay waste further in Western Europe.",
"QI (tv prog) mentioned one time about China drinking out of ceramic cups... while western world were drnking out of glass... glass is used so much in technology that we advanced on.\n\nThis is a shit summary but Im tired",
"Innovation/knowledge creation tends to be a function of the number of people and how easy it is for them to communicate. The Western World tended to be rather open with communicating with each other and sharing knowledge. A lot of Eastern Civilizations did the opposite. They viewed the outside world as dangerous and became insular*. This stemmed their ability to innovate and in turn made them fall behind.",
"The steppe tribes did it. \n\nThere were lets say 5 major areas of power.\n\nEurope. India. Asia. Middle-East. Byzatine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire centered in Greece/Anatolia.)\n\nThe Middle-East was ravaged first by the Seljuk Turks (who were fanatically religious steppe tribes.) The Seljuk Turks closed off access to Jerusalem to Christians which angered the Christians (causing the Crusades) and the other Muslims (as it went against Islamic law.) During the crusades the Seljuks fought the Byzantines, the Fatimids (Egyptian Muslims), and the Crusaders. This led to a huge stagnation in development. They were then COMPLETELY ravaged by the Mongols (first under Genghis, later under Timur.) Between all of this the Middle-East has never quite recovered.\n\nIndia was ravaged by the Muslim conquests, and then later on by Timur. They were then ALSO ravaged by the Mughal conquests, and then were torn between the British and the Mughals. India never really had a chance to develop and was constantly being traded between conquering powers.\n\nAsia (well, China) turned inwards. 1400's technology was in many ways inferior to 1200's technology due to the Mongol conquests. Then later on the Manchu conquests (another steppe tribe) that formed the Qing dynasty. Then the Qing (who were not Chinese, they were Manchu ruling over the Chinese) decided to sort of just sit on China and rule it until they were overthrown in the early 1900's.\n\nThe Byzantine Empire suffered huge loses to the Seljuk Turks and many Turks settled in Anatolia (modern day Turkey) during this time. Although they managed to reclaim this land it was mostly razed to make room for the horses of the Turks. Later on the Latins (mostly Genoa and Venice) of Italy backstabbed the Byzantines during the Fourth Crusade and sacked Constantinople (the Capital of the Byzantines and arguable the most important city in the world at the time due to it's control of trade, center of learning, and other important factors.) After the collapse of the Byzantines the Ottoman Turks emerged as the dominant Turk power in Anatolia, and the Ottoman Turks then took over the former Byzantine lands. This is a large reason why the Ottomans were so dominant over Europe until the 1600's. But then the Ottomans too became stagnant and corrupt and content with their position thinking \"we're the strongest, we'll never not be the strongest!\" until their stagnation led to them not being the strongest and being conquered by European powers (largely Austria and Russia.) \n\nIN EUROPE... none of this happened. The Mongols pushed in to Hungary and the Hungarians managed to hold them off there (due to a large number of factors all helping the Hungarians out.) The Hungary region was mostly depopulated in the Mongol wars, but it wasn't even 10% of the population lost in the Middle-East. Europe basically became last man standing from the steppe tribes invasions. Europe was also INCREDIBLY warlike at the time, more so than anybody else. Their love of war caused them to take whatever new technology came to them and refine it. War causes technological progress. A big difference between steppe tribe wars and European wars is that the Europeans weren't slaughtering everyone in their path. The steppe tribes were notable for wiping out entire cities and areas of population in their conquest. People can't advance without people. \n\nTo put this all in to perspective: It's said that Genghis wiped out 10% of the world's population. Timur wiped out 5% of the world's population. The Seljuk Turks didn't really wipe out population but their fanatical zealousness for Islam caused technological stagnation. None of these massive loses of population really effected Europe. ",
"History major here.\n\nThe way my professor explained it was a concept called the great schism. Up to the 1700s and 1800s, China produced the goods others wanted, and didn't have a need for new technology because they had a civilization that was almost 5000 years old at the time. But, the western nations knew that they needed bargaining chips with Chinese trade, which was in no way stable, and they went through many means, which, due to the fractured nature of Europe, required maximizing manpower. This lead to mass production. However, at the same time there was a desire for new trade routes to cutout the ottoman middle man. This led to the discovery of America (they knew the world was round, Columbus just miscalculated and got lucky) and the most important part of that discovery was silver. The Chinese wanted silver bad, and their control of mines in South America led to increasing western influence. So as the west was getting new technologies and the Ming were focusing on traditional values, the Spanish and later the British were destablizing trade. There are other reasons, such as the many internal power struggles and fights, but the biggest reason is that for a long time the Chinese didn't need heavy industry and didn't need European goods, and when they needed European goods they continued to believe their methods of production were fine and they weren't.\n\nHowever, I may be missing some things here from a combination of starting my sophomore year in college in the fall and being on mobile, so if there are any questions feel free to ask.",
"What you're talking about is sometimes referred to as the \"European miracle\" The term is a little cringy but, I promise it's not related to loony white supremacy fantasies. The spread of enlightenment ideals led directly to the industrial revolution, which started in England. The reason it started in England, and not anywhere else is a mixture of luck and government. Steam power had been discovered previously in a lot of places, Egypt and China for example but, because slaves existed, it was just a curiosity. England was \"lucky\" because it had a lot of coal that was easier to get to because of where it's prehistoric forests were. Coal as a source of energy is much much denser than wood. So, England has more energy, for less effort than its competitors. France has similar coal deposits but because of the way their government worked at the time, it wasn't as easy for people to get financial backing to build a machine. To give it a modern spin, imagine if the political environment of say India, made it possible for some new, super dense type of energy to be produced, Fusion or whatever. While the rest of the world scrambles to catch up with Indias innovation, they shoot \"ahead\" because they've got more energy than everyone else. Today of course, it wouldn't happen like it did back then, but, you get the picture. ",
"I would like to add to this question. How did quality of life compare between e.g. Western Europe and Asia in the past? For example, was it better to be your average Industrial Age workshop slave, or a Indian worker? Was it better to be a British peasant or a Chinese peasant?\n\nClearly there were often times (the black death, the Irish famine, etc) when, given the choice, you would almost certainly opt for Chinese peasant over Irish peasant.",
"I also read an explanation in Jared Diamond's \"Guns, Germs and Steel\" about this.\n\nBasically, China had 3 major rivers that extended West-to-East. The Huang, the Yangtze, and the Canton rivers. \n\nThese 3 major rivers was ultimately the driving force that allowed China to become unified. China covers an area larger than Europe, but yet it's language, writing, and traditions covered and spread through the entire country, unified for the most part by an Emperor.\n\nEurope, however, remained fractured. Cities formed and developed their own languages and customs, which also lead to constant warfare between them. Europe actually prospered as a result of this constant warfare, because it makes them think of new ways to win wars and invent things to get an advantage over their neighbor.\n\nThe 3 major Chinese rivers are the reason why China became a unified empire. Language, customs and the Emperor's mandate was able to spread peacefully as people carried it through the vast Chinese country side. Once China remained a realtively-stable unity under an Emperor, it became suspicious of outsiders who did not see the world as they did, and they closed themselves off from the rest of the world.",
"This isn't an explanation, because I have no idea how true it is, wondering if anyone can confirm what I thought the answer was as most of the answers here seem to say it was the Mongols. I vaguely remember reading/hearing somewhere that Eastern civilizations early development of porcelain, pottery and paper hampered their technological advancement. \n\nThe western world instead produced glass to solve the same problems that Asia solved with pottery and wood. The difference was that the need for containers for food and liquid that drove these discoveries led to nothing but those things for Asia, while for Europe the discovery of glass led to lenses, telescopes, glasses, test tubes (because glass was inert while pottery was not); which in turn paved the way to advancements in chemistry, physics, navigation, mathematics, etc.\n\nIs there any truth to this?",
"There's a very good and interesting theory that is that the Chinese drank tea. Because they drank it in clay cups or 'china' they never got around to inventing glass, they used paper for windows... Invention of glass in Europe led to microscope, telescope and chemistry since glass does not react to most chemicals. Also glasses could be made to make sure that wise people and academics could use their knowledge and skill of reading and writing a few more years. ",
"* The Mongols conquering Baghdad. They destroyed all the books in the House of Wisdom. \n\n* The Crusaders destroying the libraries in Jerusalem, Gaza, Tripoli.\n\n* The Spanish Inquisition burned one million books in Grenada *in one damn day!*\n\n* Destruction of the Royal Library of Alexandria.",
"Because the west ( europe ) discovered the americas. Simple as that. \n\n\nThe central theme of all civilizations are resource acquisition ( land, fuel, people, etc ) and resource exploitation. Europe was able to steal a few continents, exterminate the natives and seize all their wealth along with stealing the labor of millions of black slaves. This led to an incredible wealth increase in europe which was parlayed into technology ( industrial revolution, exploitation of oil, etc ).\n\n\nIf the americas never existed and columbus was able to sail directly to china/india/etc, then the world would be a much different place. \n\n\nHuman beings are like bacteria. Bacteria's ability to grow, spread and form more complex networks is entirely depended on resources ( energy source ) that are available. If the resource gets taken away or disappears, the bacteria population and it's \"civilization/network/etc\" crumbles.\n\n\nAlso, all civilizations wane and wax. No area remains dominant forever. ",
"You should check AskHistorians' FAQ, this is a very common question. There's also been a lot of books debating the reasons. Let's just say it's not as clear cut as many of the answers here make it sound like. ",
"i don't think the Middle-East and Asia were so much superior to Europe as many seem to think. \n\nI mean there was the Roman Empire in Europe and it was one of the most advanced countries for a very long time. With modern cities/infrastructure/military/administration. You could say the Romans were already superior to said regions at that point.\nthe Arabians had the good fortune of being located so that they border Europe India and were close to China, so technology knowledge reached them quick. They also took advantage of the declining Roman Empire and conquered everything between Persia and Spain (back then advanced regions) gaining lots of knowledge by that. Like most Middle-Eastern Empires they collapsed rather fast after their conquests stopped and got caught up in infighting.\nChina had the misfortune of being conquered first by the Mongols and then by the Manchus. They eventually set the country on a course towards isolation.\nIndia simply collapsed into small states after the Mughals and Marathas. They were unable to properly defend themselves against the British (though there still was some tough fighting).\n",
"Here is the snippet of the explanation made by others on QI by Stephen Fry. [Link](_URL_0_) He mentions that the Chinese fell behind because they didn't manufacture glass which was used in technological inventions such as telescopes, flasks (for inert chemical reactions) and spectacles, which would have allowed those with poor eyesight to continue studying.",
"One thing people often overlook is that Europe also came up with financial and legal innovations that other geographies lacked- the invention of the limited liability corporation, a modern banking and financial system, and capitalism. That last one is probably the most important, as it allowed anybody to become rich and greatly incentivised people, not to go to a royal court and get money from the King, but to use their own talents and sell that. \n\nTo pick a country I know better, while China had incredibly advanced technologies way, way before Europeans ever even thought about things like gunpowder, paper, printing etc, China had no social framework for commercialising this. \n\nOf course I don't mean to overlook tons of other factors, like the Industrial Revolution, historical reasons like wars and China's political system, but an appreciation of a modern legal system that protects your inventions and ensures a limited liability corporation, this gets overlooked a lot when these questions come up on Reddit. ",
"These answers are all horrible. If I were you, I'd ask this in /r/AskHistorians, you're going to get a much better answer.",
"1. Ideal geography\n2. the new world\n3. during the 1400s-1500s, much of the world was in recovery mode, internal strife, or isolation except europe\n4. colonization snowball effect\n5. industrialization snowball effect",
"(1) Industrialization : Use of steam and coal as energy sources and starting factory system. This lead to a sudden advance in farming techniques, mining techniques, transportation and modern weapons manufacturing.\n\n(2) Colonization : Exploration, colonization and claiming lands, and then trading resources between these parts (ie, getting resources from far-away regions and joining them to make products). Also naval expansion, as opposed to just land expansion.\n\n(3) Luck : Many instances in battle and trade treaties which favored Europeans, because at the specific point in time, the local political system in Asian countries was weak and fractured.",
"I highly recommend watching [Niall Ferguson's Miniseries on the subject.](_URL_0_)\n\nEssentially he says it boils down to 6 issues:\n\n- Competition (While China did extremely well early on, it didn't translate into much competition amoungst their local rivals, whereas in the West was so tightly packed that countries had to explore and colonize to succeed)\n- Science (See Competition: Better compasses, better tech were all because of competition)\n- Property (Allowing people to become landowners)\n- Medicine (exploration lead to new diseases, which led to better medicine)\n- Consumerism (See Competition again: People want the best goods, so they 'fight' over them, businesses want to get the most customers so they try and make the best product)\n- Work (Work Ethic to be precise, mainly driven by Protestantism)\n\nHe uses all of these reasons to show how the West overcame the East, but while also explaining how the West has currently stagnated allowing the East (mainly China) to quickly pull itself even due to Westernization",
"Because the idea that Middle-Eastern and Asian civilizations were far in advance of the Western World is revisionist history with no basis in reality.\n\nIn reality, Europe was an extremely advanced region, as were the Middle East and China. This is especially true when you look at the whole region around the Mediterranean Sea, which traded amongst itself and were part of many contiguous empires. The Egyptians were very early and very advanced, and helped spur the development of other regional civilizations. The Persians kept pushing into Asia Minor, and the Greeks and Romans were both very advanced civilizations. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire remained a major civilization. By the time the Eastern Roman Empire was in decline, the Carolingian Empire was rising up, and there were a number of major advancements in technology - better armor, metallurgy, weaponry, stirrups, ect. - which resulted in Europe continuing to develop during the Dark Ages. Knights were covered with mail by the 11th century, which was pretty advanced armor, and by the 15th century that had developed into full plate, which was by far the best armor of the era.\n\nThe Chinese and Middle East were not primitive by any means, but the idea that they were vastly more advanced than Europe is historical revisionism; at best, they got slightly ahead at times, but often were on par or slightly behind. By the 15th century the Europeans had better weapons, armor, ships, printing presses... really, better *everything*.\n\nThey then proceeded to build massive oceanic trade routes and colonize most of the world.\n\nThe idea that the Europeans were behind is historical revisionism with little basis in reality; the Europeans were very technologically advanced. Remember, the Mongols managed to sweep across most of Asia and the Middle East, but when they invaded Europe, they lost battles like the [Battle of Samara Bend](_URL_0_) (and also lost the Battle of Ain Jalut, another Mediterranean world battle). The resistance of the Hungarians continued until the point where the Mongols, after the death of Ögedei Khan, eventually gave up and stopped pushing further. The Mongols failed to occupy Hungary and Croatia in the long term, and combined with their losses in the Southwest, that marked the end of their expansion.\n\nIt is hard to know if the Hungarian and Croatian resistance to their expansion caused this, or if they gave up because of the death of Ögedei Khan, or if their supply lines were just stretched too thin and Europe was a poor place to invade in any case, but in the end, the Mongols never did take Europe.\n\nIt is hard to say that the Asians and Middle-Easterners were significantly more advanced than the West. The West also had the advantage of having a massively superior alphabet; the Chinese invented the printing press, but the Western one was not only better, but it also had vastly fewer glyphs to contend with, making it easier to print books and manuscripts and newspapers and suchlike.\n\nTL; DR; The reason that the Middle-Eastern and Asian civilizations were surpassed is because they were never very superior to Europe, and may never have been superior at all.",
"At the same time as europe started to free itself from the religion the middle easter countries started to become more and more islamistic. While europe moved from dark age to age of reason the middle east moved from being the leaders in technology to book burning.\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n_URL_3_\n_URL_2_",
"When Genghis Khan invaded the middle east, he destroyed more or less everything of educational value. Including killing intellectuals, burning temples libraries, and destroying every book he could inside the libraries. Historians have estimated that this set the middle east back around 2000 years.",
"many of those countries practiced isolationism and had very distinct gaps between rich and poor. They also participated in very few wars compared to the west. This conglomerate of factors led to little need or want to innovate leaving these countries far behind there western counterparts. \n\nplease someone correct me if I'm wrong but those were the main factors stressed in AP world",
"my favorite show about technology and innovations how they moved and developed (often with the help of multiple cultures over time) was a BBC show from the late 70's called \"Connections.\" Check it out, it's fucking awesome. _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pzf28/why_did_european_powers_in_particular_start/cd7n7j1?context=3"
],
[],
[
"http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/history.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_and_conquests"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Ff0D-dWew"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization:_Is_the_West_History%3F"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Samara_Bend"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Classical_science_in_the_Muslim_world",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Decline"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGMNVluHs4&list=PL-teo99ENSypJDyeXmEpLOxWMB9UVPbOS"
]
] |
||
1nqxbe
|
Do internally ingested radionuclides tend to accumulate in certain tissues as opposed to others?
|
It seems well established that iodine-131 accumulates in the thyroid, cesium-137 in muscle tissue, and strontium-90 in bone.
However, the accepted ICRP internal exposure models assume uniform distribution of radionuclides throughout the body. Isn't this a fairly egregious oversight by the ICRP? I'm further assuming that the uniform distribution assumption allows for higher safe internal doses than if one assumes, say, that Cs137 accumulates greater concentrations in the heart muscle.
Am I missing something? Is this a difference maker in safe internal exposure levels or is the uniform distribution an acceptable approximation when estimating safe levels?
How much would accounting for internal concentration change safe internal exposure limits?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1nqxbe/do_internally_ingested_radionuclides_tend_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccl72a0"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Yes, some radionuclides accumulate in certain tissue (based on their chemical properties), and the internal dose models account for this.\n\nThe ICRP internal exposure model is a compartment model, and they assume uniform distribution of a nuclide throughout a *compartment* (not the whole body). \n\nThe model calculates the transfer of a given nuclide between different compartments (e.g. upper respiratory system, deep lungs, blood, bone, GI, etc). This takes into account the tendencies of some nuclides to gather in certain parts of the body, as you mentioned. Then the dose is calculated by computing the contribution of a decay within a certain compartment to the rest of the body.\n\nI'm not sure exactly which ICRP report this is contained in - I'm going off of Turner's *Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection*, which cites ICRP Pubs. 23, 30, 60, 61, and 116."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
719ycu
|
Who are Slovenians and what's their history?
|
Are they some Italian or Austrian who got slavicized?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/719ycu/who_are_slovenians_and_whats_their_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn9kyqy"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"Not exactly.\n\nThe Slovenes are a Slavic-speaking ethnic group living primarily on the eastern region of the Dolomite Alps, historically known as the 'Julian Alps'.\n\nSlavic-speakers probably began entering the region in the 7th century, but for almost 100 years did not likely impact the local culture. By the 9th century, however, the Julian Alpine people had become thoroughly Slavic.\n\nThe identity of these early Alpine Slavs is largely unknown, but by the 11th century had become culturally reoriented from western-Slavic linguistically and culturally, towards south-Slavic. By the 13th century these areas had become part of the Holy Roman Empire.\n\nAfter being Germanized to a great degree, by the end of the 30 years' war, Slovene culture had fully reemerged as a distinct south-Slavic Alpine culture and language."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
w9tpk
|
Why does semen begin thicker immediately after ejaculation and then later "dissolve" into a much thinner liquid?
|
I can find detailed descriptions of exactly what's in semen (i.e. 5% sperm etc) but **not of why it looks and acts the way it does**. After ejaculation, my semen (and the other boys I've been with- this isn't just me) starts out in two fluids, a thicker whiter fluid, sometimes almost clumpy, and a thinner more translucent one. After a while, the thicker fluid disappears into the thinner fluid. Why? What's going on?
Does air exposure cause a reaction? (I would hope it's not that volatile.) Are proteins denaturing? (I don't think so since sperm remains active long time after ejaculation, and denaturation shouldn't be that quick.)
I have a feeling that the answer to this is really simple, but I've never been able to find it.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w9tpk/why_does_semen_begin_thicker_immediately_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5bj4tb"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Thankfully, Wikipedia has a crystal clear answer for this:\n\n\"During the process of ejaculation, sperm passes through the ejaculatory ducts and mixes with fluids from the seminal vesicles, the prostate, and the bulbourethral glands to form the semen. The seminal vesicles produce a yellowish viscous fluid rich in fructose and other substances that makes up about 70% of human semen. The prostatic secretion, influenced by dihydrotestosterone, is a whitish (sometimes clear), thin fluid containing proteolytic enzymes, citric acid, acid phosphatase and lipids. The bulbourethral glands secrete a clear secretion into the lumen of the urethra to lubricate it.\"\n\nThat should answer your consistency question.\n\nWith regard to the liquefaction:\n\n\"After ejaculation, the latter part of the ejaculated semen coagulates immediately, forming globules, while the earlier part of the ejaculate typically does not. After a period typically ranging from 15 – 30 minutes, Prostate-specific antigen present in the semen causes the decoagulation of the seminal coagulum. It is postulated that the initial clotting helps keep the semen in the vagina, while liquefaction frees the sperm to make their journey to the ova.\"\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen#Appearance_and_consistency_of_human_semen"
]
] |
|
djmbmz
|
what is the point in separating the armed forces into army, navy and air force when they all have their own foot soldiers, planes and ships?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/djmbmz/eli5_what_is_the_point_in_separating_the_armed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f45z97v",
"f45zb0h"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the US it's largely tradition, other countries may have other reasons like intentionally weakening their military to prevent coups.\n\nThere's also an argument that can be made that having separate branches with specializations allows them to be better at their jobs by focusing on a narrower set of missions rather than trying to do everything.",
"While each branch does have land- naval- and air units, they are each specialized in their own branch.\n\nThis means their forces also receive specialized training, and will be used mostly for mission relating specifically to their element.\n\nFor example, navy jet pilots are trained to take off and land on aircraft carriers, which is foreign to air force pilots. In return, air force pilots are much more trained in air-to-air dogfighting combat.\n\nThe army and air force may have foot soldiers and ships as well so that they can respond to various scenarios, but when a mission takes place on water, the navy will be called in first due to their specialized naval training."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2ior69
|
How were ancient generals educated in the art of war?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ior69/how_were_ancient_generals_educated_in_the_art_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl4auiq",
"cl4b9zy"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know enough to give you an informed answer however I would recommend you narrow down your question to a specific country (or at least region) and include some sort of time period you're interested in.\n\nYou have a really interesting question, I just feel you should be a bit more specific.",
"Sorry, we don't allow [throughout history questions](_URL_0_). These tend to produce threads which are collections of trivia, not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for. If you have a specific question about a historical event or period or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22in_your_era.22_or_.22throughout_history.22_questions"
]
] |
||
1djawn
|
Is it realistic to say that nothing in the universe exists that is at a completely stopped state?
|
Since the planets are all moving, and galaxies are all moving away from each other, that would mean that everything is in some sort of motion at all time?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1djawn/is_it_realistic_to_say_that_nothing_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9qv0zz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Since the planets are all moving, and galaxies are all moving away from each other, that would mean that everything is in some sort of motion at all time?\n\nDepends on your reference frame. All motion is relative."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6zum2y
|
i understand 4th dimensional space. but what exactly is 5th dimensional space? does it exist outside time and space?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zum2y/eli5_i_understand_4th_dimensional_space_but_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmy6gyy",
"dmy7qo9",
"dmyd7jq",
"dmykkpn"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The universe, as far as we can tell, has 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. If there were 4 dimensions of space instead, everything would be the same except there would be another independent direction to move in besides up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. That's all dimensions are: directions to move around in. There's no difference in principle between having 3 spatial dimensions and having 473 spatial dimensions.",
"A way to envision dimensions, I take this from Flatland.\n\nImagine a dimension that is your desk. Objects can move freely across the desk, but cannot come up off it, nor down below it. They are stuck.\n\nIf you, as a 3d being, were to push any one of those objects in any direction up or down from the desk, they would suddenly find themselves in a brand new infinitely large existence, but without anything they had before, because all that is just a tick in a dimension that the object cannot interact with. So for it, the entire existence it was part of is now gone. And it cannot move back into it.\n\nIt would be as if we move in a direction, a direction which we cannot conceive of because everything, our thoughts, language, existence, ALL experience, is in 3 dimensions. Having a 4th is unimaginable. To us it would be as if suddenly the universe disappeared and something else took its place.\n\nThere are hypothesis that we do see interaction when light from the 4th dimension intersects with light in our dimension causing a collision & release of energy which we can detect.\n\nEdit: typos.",
" > ELI5: I understand 4th dimensional space. \n\nHow can you understand 4d, but not 5d? Here is my suspicion: If you mean \"time\" as fourth dimension there is a problem, as that is *not* 4 dimensional space. It is three dimensions and time, and \"time\" isn't actually a proper dimension, just the result of things happening in 3d-space.\n\nHere is my take on \"time\", and what \"time\" and \"space\" actually mean. It also ties into entropy a lot, and sorry for the wall of text but I think we need to dive a bit deeper into this:\n\n---\n\nLet me start with the Big Thing, please stay with me: Time does not exist as actual dimension. Time is an illusion of \"stuff happening in the physical world\". \n\nImagine yourself to be in a room where no outer stimulus comes in. No light from a window, no sound from the other side of the door. Now, there is also nothing in the room itself that changes, no water tap with dripping drops, no breeze from a ventilator, no dust settling, no nothing. How could you tell that \"time\" passes? \n\nYou feel your own heartbeat, you feel your breathing. If you wait long enough you feel the need to eat, to drink, to sleep, to go to the toilet. If you wait long enough your nails and hair grow. But let us assume for some reason you do not have to, you just sit there and... sit there. How could you tell \"time\" passes?\n\nYou cannot - unless you move your hand. Unless you get up. Unless you take an object and let it drop so it falls down. \n\nNow you suddenly can tell *something happend*. A moment ago you were sitting on the chair, now you stand. The physical space has changed and there are two states, one before you got up and one after. If you let something drop you create a whole lot of differing physical states in space: you have a thing in the hand, it drops, it drops further, it drops faster and faster and faster... and it hits the ground and rolls under the bed.\n\nBy observing what happens in the physical space you can tell a passage of what we now call \"time\". You can also tell that \"the time it took you to move your hand was shorter than the time it took you to walk through the room\", this means you somehow start to quantize a new observable beyond mere \"where is an object in the space I am in\" in the universe: time. \n\nOur observation of time is very unprecise. Everyone knows that \"time flies if you have fun\" and stretches and strechtes if you are bored - on the other hand in our memory the day where we had lots of fun and did a lot of thing was much longer than the one we just waited out. To remedy this we build machines that repeat the same movement in space as precise as we can. \n\nA pendulum swings. A water drop dripping down from a defined opening (i.e. a water clock). A spring is wound up and makes some axis turn which moves a digit. We then count the repetitions and say \"Ok, 60 of those is a minute, and 60 of those is an hour\" or similar. The most simple clock is the sun, we say \"If it is right above and then again, we call it a *day*\". If a season repeats because earth fully turned around the sun we call it a *year*. \n\nSo far so simple. We get the impression time exists because \"stuff\" happens around in the universe - and that includes our cells that grow and die and finally we grow and die as that is just chemical (fundamentally physical) proceedings in space. \n\nNow for entropy: \n\n---\n\nIn the most simple approach entropy is a measurement of \"Order in the Universe\". In very broad strokes: The higher the entropy the less ordered is the universe, meaning there are more states. A piece of wood has a lower entropy than the burned piece of wood. Now, in physical space things only happen *on their own* where the entropy is increased. So a ball falling down happens on its own because it increases the entropy. You have \"ordered\" energy in the form a ball lying on a table. If it falls down it loses that energy by disturbing all the air molecules it falls through, it hits the floor and makes all those molecules in it vibrate, the ordered energy from the ball on the table is now very, very unordered all over the room and this means: the entropy in the room has increased from state 1 (ball on table) to the new state (ball has fallen down). \n\nWe call this \"Energy is scattered all over the place and thus entropy increases\" as \"time moves forward\". Because, on their own, balls do not fall up back on the table, cells do not \"undie\", a set of fallen deck of cards does not order itself again. Because that would require the entropy in the room to decrease again and the room taking a \"more ordered state\" (meaning the cards are not lying all over the place but are nicely on a stack, possibly in a specific order, i.e. all colors together etc). \n\nI wrote that entropy does not decrease on its own but you very much could go around and pick up the ball or the cards again, you might even order them again and put them back on the table. So you cheated entropy? You restored the highly ordered state of energy again? Yes, indeed, you did. But by that you increased the entropy in the room due to moving around, calling energy from your muscles and turning them into heat that now is in the room. You ordered the system of \"ball and table\", but the *total* entropy in the room (universe) went up - and as such you can tell that \"time has passed forward between state 1 (deck of scards scattered) and state 2 (deck of cards neatly on the table)\". \n\nNow one thing missing from your question: Muller writes about \"improbable\". Imagine the room has a billion billion billion possible states where the ball is on the floor, the air molecules it shoved aside are scattered, the molecules in the floor have swung and all the ball's energy has dissipated as heat and increased the entropy. Of course (yes, of course!) there is the hypthetical case where all the molecules are just randomly happen to just move in the reversed direction, all the air goes back where it was, all energy, by pure chance, transfers back in the ball and it comes to lie back on the table. That totally can happen and in that case you would observe the ball... uhhh... falling (?) back onto the table. \n\nIn that case the entropy in the room (universe) would indeed have decreased on its own, you now had a - from an energetic point of view - more ordered state. Time would have moved \"forward\" but the entropy would have decreased. Yes, that is possible. It is just that the chance for that is 1 to a billion billion billion so we simply do not observe that in the macroscopic world. And that means \"it does not happen\" but if you are mathmatically correct, as a physics book should be, you say \"it is highly improbable\". \n\n---\n\nNow what with the actual \"4 dimensional space\". Imagine 1d to be a line. I can tell you where you are by giving you a coordinate, for example you stand at \"56 meters from zero\" or \"-2 meters from zero\". This position is called \"x\".\n\nNow, 2d adds another line, in a right angle from the first. You can now stand on a plane and I can tell you where you are by giving two coordinates, one on one line and the other on the other. Let us call them \"x\" and \"y\". I could tell you are \"56 meters on the x-line from zero and 3 meters from zero on the y line\" and you would know where you are standing in that 2d-plane. \n\nIf you add a third line that needs to be in a right angle to BOTH of the other lines, you get a height. This is our 3d-space, and you know where you are if you know your position relative to zero and you can conveniantly tell that by knowing you are x, y and z along the lines. Maybe at 56 from x, 3 from y and like 10 meters above the ground. You know where you are in space and we can start to calculate positions of all kinds of physical objects, for example ones that fall, and derive the laws of physics from them, e.g. the law of gravity. \n\nNow, what happens if you add a fourth (and fifth and... tenth) dimension? Well, in our 3ds-space, where do we add the next coordinate? When we simplified to 1d and 2d, we could easily do it. We just used less dimensions than we have. But where to put a 4th and 6th spacial line? We cannot, as we only think in 3d, our brains are only made for 3d, our lives only happen in 3d. \n\nWe very fundamentally cannot imagine 4d-space, but we can make an analogy: Imagine you are a person living in flatland, in the 2d-plane and suddenly someone comes along and tries to tell you about a \"mystical third dimension that goes... *up*\". What is this \"up\" he talks about? You have no way to tell what this \"up\" is and it gets even more confusing: imagine there is a ball that bounces on the plane of flatland. You could observe a dot that gets bigger and bigger as the ball contracts, and then smaller and vanishes when it goes up again. For us that is trivial to understand, but for a flatlander that is a big mystery. Not only does he not understand where the ball comes from (from higher dimension!) but he might not even know what a \"ball\" is and why it would do what it does. \n\nTo imagine a 4th spacial dimension imagine a safe with money in it. And someone grabs in through the 4th dimension and takes it. Imagine a flat-earther and his box, which would be a square drawn on the ground and that would be a solid barrier for him, he cannot get in. But you can take whatever is in there through the 3rd dimension without issues.\n\nIt might be our world has more than three dimensions. We would be flatlanders trying to understand the bouncy ball that creates some very strange phenomenon in our world. \n\n---\n\nOur brains are not made to understand higher spaces, but luckily, math allows us reach it with other means. In math there is nothing that stops us and opening more dimensions by just adding coordinates, for example \"x, y, z, w, v\" for \"five dimensional space\" and we can try to find calculations that explain what happens in our 3d-world. ",
"Time is not a dimension in the same way the other 3 are. \n\nI had trouble imagining a 4th spatial dimension until recently, and then I saw the following example:\n\nImagine you are looking at a box (square) drawn on a piece of paper. That square and anything else drawn on the paper is in two dimensions. If you draw a ball inside of the square (a circle), it is completely enclosed and cannot be taken out of the square in those two dimensions without intersection with one of the sides of the square.\n\nHowever, if you lift that 2D ball in the third dimension (the one you see as the observer in the experiment), you can make it \"fly\" above the square walls and put it on the other sides without intersecting the square sides. For you, the ball went above the square walls, but from the 2D point of view of the square and the ball, the ball seemingly phased through the walls because there is no such thing as height.\n\nNow imagine the same thing with a box in 3D and an actual ball. If you put the ball in the box and close the lid, the ball cannot escape the box. However, in the fourth dimension (not time, the actual 4th spatial dimension), you could move the ball out of the box by pulling it in this new dimension and for us 3D observers it would seem like the ball phased through the box walls."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2no0tl
|
Ancient Egypt
|
Hey there, I've been trying to find some readings on Egypt but i dont know where a good start would be for me, I'd like to expand my knowledge on ancient Egypt, and not so much the later dynasties, I've learned about the collapse of Egypt, I'd like read about things prior to 4000 years, i want to discover the mysterious side of Egypt,
I've heard a few times now that the Egyptian Government over the last 50 years or so has been "covering up" or defacing artifacts that don't necessarily fit into the time line we have of Egypt, is this true?
Thanks
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2no0tl/ancient_egypt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmfbo48"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not to discourage further comments, but take a look at the [Ancient Egypt section of the AskHistorians book list](_URL_0_). Some of those ought to provide good information for you.\n\nI'll leave the question of \"covering up\" things to someone with more knowledge of the topic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/middleeast#wiki_ancient_egypt"
]
] |
|
24o92d
|
How did a Holy Roman Emperor differ from the kings of England or France?
|
Were the vassals of the HR emperor more independent?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24o92d/how_did_a_holy_roman_emperor_differ_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch96akn"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"The organization and hierarchy of the Empire were complicated to say the least. It wasn't a Kingdom in the true meaning of the word, like France or England for example. It had some republican characteristics, but it wasn't a republic either. \n\nIn the Empire, there were thousands of settlements: villages, towns, convents, monasteries and hundreds of additional places of worship. All these communities were linked by the imperial constitution, which bound them in a series of hierarchies, often with overlapping jurisdictions. \n\nBasically, the Emperor was the superior lord over lesser authorities, bound by the chains of vassalage. Those lords who were immediately under the Emperor's jurisdiction (Reichsunmittelbar) ruler over fiefs (Reichslehen) given to them by the Emperor. The Reichslehen were generally composed of lesser holdings, like villages and towns. And on the other hand, the ecclesiastical lords, who had a very close relationship with the Emperor, considered themselves a separate collective within the Empire - the 'imperial church', or Reichskirche. However, a person holding one type of authority wasn't barred from owning another, so a lord of an imperial fief could also hold other land that would bind him in vassalage to one of his peers. In its entirety, the Empire was made up of around 310 fiefs and the rights to rule over them were most often acquired by inheritance and were held by the 50-60.000 noble families in the Empire. Most of these territorial nobles (Landadel), which possessed lesser rights and were subjects of the imperial lords. \n\nBy 1521, all the political subjects within the Empire were organized into three groups. The most senior were the electors - seven lord who held the exclusive right to vote in Imperial elections. Three electors (the Archbishoprics of Mainz, Trier and Cologne) were ecclesiastical, while the other four (Bohemia, Brandenburg, Saxony, and the Palatinate) were secular holdings.\n\nThe other fiefs fell into one of two types. 50 spiritual fiefs, and 33 lay fiefs. The lords who ruled over them were called princes, even though their actual titles could range from Landgrave to Duke. The lay fiefs could be transferred through inheritance or purchase, but both required the Emperor's approval. The rulers of ecclesiastical fiefs, on the other hand, were picked by commissions established by the Reichskirche, and were subjected to Papal approval. \nThe second group of fiefs, numbering around 220, were smaller still - they consisted of only a few thousand subjects ruled over by a count or prelate, who lacked a princely status. The Reichsritter - Barons and landed knights, were even smaller, and held 1.500 other fiefs.\n\nThere were also cities - communities who fell outside of lordly jurisdiction. There were 80 'free and imperial cities' within the Empire, with tens of thousands of citizens. Their size gave them considerable influence and ensured the mayors of the imperial cities a very close relationship with the Emperor, which guaranteed their sovereignty and preserved them from being incorporated into the neighboring principalities. \n\nThe Imperial Constitution dictated that the Emperor was overlord and sovereign, holding considerable power that he derived from his title rather than his fiefs. His prerogatives were left vague on purpose, so as not to limit the Emperor's 'holy, universal' pretensions. However, the need to deal with pressing problems forced the definition of the relationship between the Empire and his vassals. \n\nThe lords of note secured representation in the Reichstag, or imperial diet, and were recognized as imperial Estates, which gave them precedence over those who weren't. The Reichstag was basically a proto-Parliament, which embodied the principle of representation through the Emperor's obligation to consult with his noteworthy subjects on matters of state. But this is the Holy Roman Empire we're talking about, it *has* to be more complicated. \n\nThe consultations with the Reichstag took place in three separate colleges - the Elector's college, the cities' college and the princely college. Each college took a decision by a majority vote, but beforehand, every representative spoke in turn according to a strict order of precedence. After all three colleges had separately reached a decision, they consulted each other in pairs. Electors talking to princes and mayors, and so on. After this entire process was finished, the decision was presented to the Emperor as a recommendation, which he could accept or reject. Even though the Emperor didn't have to consult the Reichstag, it was a useful tool for testing public opinion and further proving imperial legitimacy. Though cumbersome, Emperors called the Reichstag into session fairly often, especially when it came to matters about the entirety of the Empire. \n\n**TL;DR:** The Emperor was sovereign which delegated control to lesser lords who ruled overhundreds of holdings with separate and overlapping authorities, which sometimes banded in a type of proto-Parliament to decide on matters of state.\n\nSource: Peter H. Wilson: The Thirty Years' War - Europe's Tragedy\n\nPS: Even though my source is a book about the Thirty Years' War, it includes a huge preface about the political organization in the Empire.\n\nEdit: Oh, and if this doesn't answer your question and you want a more precise answer, feel free to ask a follow-up question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
24f7tr
|
why does my phone's battery drain so much faster when it's hot?
|
Maybe I just have a defective phone...but it seems like my phone loses battery much more quickly in the heat. Is this based on anything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24f7tr/eli5_why_does_my_phones_battery_drain_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch6jm9a"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Lithium-ion batteries perform well at elevated temperatures; however, prolonged exposure to heat reduces longevity. You've probably shortened your battery's life permanently through excessive exposure to heat. Time to get a new one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
159hbu
|
Road Salt and road longevity
|
I've heard a number of different people say that road salt has an adverse effect on roads. I had always figured that roads that were cracked and full of potholes were the result of plows and water/ice expanding in holes in the ground.
Is there any chemical and/or physical effect the salt would have on roads that would make them deteriorate faster?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/159hbu/road_salt_and_road_longevity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7kgcnv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Road salt increases the number of freeze/thaw cycles that you mentioned, which in turn causes faster deterioration. I would also think that the chloride ion in salt could cause corrosion in bridges reinforced with steel.\n\nEdit: [Gotta have sources](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121105081505.htm"
]
] |
|
6mf9ro
|
why are governments often referred to by their country's capital in news articles?
|
For example, a news article might read "Moscow today announced..." or "Berlin says that...".
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mf9ro/eli5_why_are_governments_often_referred_to_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk13ard",
"dk13jmh"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because there are not enough government names. \"The Prime Minister said ...\" could be any of dozens of people. Using their given name sounds like they are just an opinionated person, it doesn't carry the prestige of their office. Name plus title takes too many letters for headlines or intro taglines.\n\nIt's a little easier in the US, because \"The White House\" is pretty unique, as is \"Downing Street\" or \"the Kremlin\" . But that doesn't generalize to everywhere.",
"It is referring to the more specific area of the country where the decisions or actions come from. \n\nDecisions on a state matter come from the state capital."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
k5dgd
|
Why does reading often trigger yawning?
|
Whenever I read I often am met by a flurry of consecutive yawns. Is there any potential biological reason for this, or are my books that bad?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/k5dgd/why_does_reading_often_trigger_yawning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2hmz6j",
"c2hndrd",
"c2hmz6j",
"c2hndrd"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Are you lying in bed?",
"In a similar vein I was wondering if reading causes you to become tired. I'm fine until I start reading , then I am usually progressively getting more tired.",
"Are you lying in bed?",
"In a similar vein I was wondering if reading causes you to become tired. I'm fine until I start reading , then I am usually progressively getting more tired."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6p1xja
|
Why is there so little French influence except for names of places in the American Midwest unlike in Quebec?
|
France colonized a large area in North America known as the "New France." The Midwest, Louisiana, and Quebec were all once parts of New France. Montreal, being the capital of New France, and the rest of Quebec seem to still be affected heavily today, exemplified by the large French-speaking population in Quebec. But why does there appear to be so little French significance in the American Midwest except for names of places? Illinois, Des Moines, Detroit obviously are names that came from French. Other than that, do you think there is any more evidence that shows the existence of New France in the Midwest?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6p1xja/why_is_there_so_little_french_influence_except/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkmludg",
"dkmq6sv"
],
"score": [
11,
7
],
"text": [
"France didn't establish many major trading posts or cities in the Midwest, so cultural influences didn't stay strongly tied to the land. Look at this map:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere aren't any significant French settlements in the Midwest, but in the Louisiana area we see New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Mobile, and in the Quebec area we see Quebec City and Montreal. These population centers that were not only a place to expand French influence but also a place for French people to live (especially Huguenots) have maintained some amount of French influence and culture to this day. However, when forts were taken in the Midwest, the garrison was just replaced. That typically is not what happens when a city or town is taken; rather, the population becomes subjects or citizens of the new governing entity.\n\nAlso, I wouldn't say that place names are an insignificant influence. Those are some of the longest surviving testaments to a past culture or history, and I think they are wonderful in the way that they turn our attention to the history of the area.\n\nBonus fun fact: Grand Tetons means \"big boobs,\" so that's a fun influence that remains to this day.",
"From the time before the formal existence of Quebec into the modern day there has been friction with the English speaking parts of Canada. This friction has lead to a fierce attempt to preserve french heritage. More so than in other french speaking regions of N.America. Some examples of this include:\n\nThe Quebec Act:\n\nThe British Parliament passed the Quebec Act which preserved French civil law for private law while keeping and reserving English common law for public law including criminal prosecution. This was certainly a compromise. This would give rise to the Civil Code of Lower Canada in 1866 and later the Civil Code of Quebec in 1994. As a comparison the rest of Canada uses British Common Law as a basis for their justice systems.\n\nBill 101:\n\nThe Charter of the French Language is a 1977 law that states that French is the official language of the province. However it also created a defacto language police that even today fines people and companies that do not comply with some of the Charter's finer print. \n\nVotes for independence: \n\nSince confederation there have been votes for independence in 1980 and 1995. Obviously neither vote was successful but the 1995 vote was a very close vote at 50.58% opposed to independence."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/graphics/newfrance1750.png"
],
[]
] |
|
4kkygu
|
why haven't avocados been bred to have tiny pits?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kkygu/eli5_why_havent_avocados_been_bred_to_have_tiny/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3foy22",
"d3fuieb",
"d3fydik"
],
"score": [
45,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You can't just \"breed\" things arbitrarily to have whatver quality you want. You have to find one that naturally mutated that feature, then breed that plant. For example, no one bred seeds out of grapes. They found a grape vine that mutated to grow no seeds, then they grafted that vine over and over until seedless grapes were widespread.\n\nTo get avocados with tiny pits, you'd have to find a plant that grows tiny pits, then breed that plant. Until we find that plant, we can't breed avocados with tiny pits.",
"They have. When giant sloths were still the main consumer of avocados the pit was almost twice as big as they are now.",
"You are all thinking of this backwards! The avocados most of us see in grocery stores are just one kind. There are much bigger ones, but The Man is keeping them out of mainstream grocers. Here is a TIL for you _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/30/avozilla-world-largest-avocado-sale"
]
] |
||
z3ffe
|
is it better to put your computer on standby, hibernate or turn it off after every session?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z3ffe/eli5_is_it_better_to_put_your_computer_on_standby/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c613y3f",
"c614556",
"c616dmk",
"c616dqw",
"c61720u",
"c617iy5",
"c6197cv",
"c619kof",
"c61bww7",
"c61dqy6",
"c61e9wx",
"c61fgb7"
],
"score": [
27,
161,
6,
7,
3,
186,
5,
2,
10,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on your criteria for \"better.\" \n\nLess power used would mean hibernate or powered down. Faster startup would mean standby.\n\nGenerally most modern operating systems don't require frequent rebooting, but if yours is older it may make sense to power down as this would combine rebooting with something you do at the end of the day anyways. ",
"I was always under the impression that if you frequently use an electronic object, it's best to always leave it on standby/hibernation. This is because of the heat generated as you're using the computer, which causes the metal in it to expand and later, contract while cooling/off. If you are turning your computer on/off multiple times a day, these multiple expansions and contractions can cause physical stress which degrades the lifetime of the computer. \n\nI might be wrong though. Would love to have this confirmed/rejected!",
"I've heard not to hibernate if you use a solid-state drive. ",
"I moved last week, and now every time my computer hibernates, it shuts off my mouse and keyboard and won't turn back on, unless I turn the power off in the back, and turn it on. This is irrelevant to this, but maybe someone reads this and can help me fix it :s",
"definitely put it on standby/hibernate, however at the end of the day/night when you're done using it make sure to turn it off until morning when you need to use it again. there's no sense in leaving it on and wasting power for that long",
"It comes down to your preferences, that's why there's so all the different options. Your computer components will most likely never fail due to heat cycling or starting and stopping and save a hardware defect will be obsolete before their mechanical life expires.\n\nEach successive step you asked just uses less power and takes longer to complete. Hibernation is great for laptops if you leave work open but it does make a lot of writes so keep frequent backups if you have a solid state drive because consumer-wise their longevity is the most untested of all computer hardware. I use sleep on all my systems since it's almost instant-on.\n\nDepending on the age of your system and it's specs, here are some rough comparisons with a rough yearly electrical bill expense (@ 8.7c per Kilowatt Hour)\n\n\n* On/idle 24 hours a day (screen off - don't use screen savers unless you like pretty pictures): 60-250 watts | $45-$190\n\n* Sleep 24 hours a day (monitor off): 5 watts | $1.91-$3.81\n\n* Hibernate: 1ish | less than a dollar a year",
"This doesn't really belong in eli5...",
"Wait... You mean to tell me that you actually get OFF of your computer???",
"Depends.\n\nLeaving it on uses the most power, but allows you to keep running things in the background. (Downloads, defrag, virus scan, whatever it is you're doing.)\n\nStandby uses less power, but still some. It allows a much quicker resume, because everything is still in RAM.\n\nHibernate is equivalent in power to turning it off, but none of your programs will know the difference. This is especially useful if, say, you need to unplug a desktop temporarily, or as a last resort when a laptop is out of power or a UPS alarm goes off.\n\nHibernate takes time to resume, sometimes as long or longer than just booting up fresh, but also sometimes much faster.\n\nShutting down means all your programs have to close, which is probably a good thing to do fairly often. Some programs get buggier and use more memory over time. If you're like me, you *also* do this -- I always end up with too many tabs open, so an easy solution is a completely blank slate every now and then, and a reboot is as good a time as any.\n\nProbably the most important reason is that every now and then, you'll get an update or software install that requires you to reboot in order to stay secure. If you've always hibernated, even, let alone sleep or standby, you might have a ton of stuff open, and it'll be a hassle to get everything back the way it was, so you put it off, and start one of those stupid Reddit threads about Windows asking you to reboot to install updates. On the other hand, if you shut down often, you'll develop habits that make re-opening everything easy enough, and even if you're incredibly lazy or impatient, you can still have those updates install when you shut down for the night. (Shutting down for the night, and then starting up the next day, counts as a \"reboot\" for Windows.)\n\nIt also depends what a session is. I'm in school, so I have my laptop on standby going between classes. But when I'm done for the day, or sometimes just between classes and home (where I'll plug in a monitor and start fresh), I shut it down. I used to use hibernation to switch OSes (I dual-boot), but that was more trouble than it's worth -- with SSDs, rebooting is fast enough anyway, and most programs are getting smarter about being able to save a session. (If I really cared about my last Chrome session, I'd click \"Recently Closed\" on the new tab screen, and then click the \"50 billion tabs\" at the top.)",
"If you use Full Disk Encryption (FileVault, TrueCrypt, BitLocker) then it's best to shut down because the encryption isn't worth anything if the computer is on.",
"**Sleep**: You want your computer to come back on quickly and you don't mind a minor hit to your electricity bill (~$5 / mo).\n\n**Hibernate**: You want to turn your computer off, but you don't want to close all applications / folder windows.\n\n**Turn off**: You want a clean reboot, or otherwise don't care to hibernate. May be faster than hibernate, too.\n\nDon't use sleep if there is a good chance the computer will be unplugged. It's not particularly dangerous but the result is that your computer will turn completely off.",
"Standby uses the most power but comes up quickest. Leave a laptop unplugged in standby long enough and the battery will die. This reduces battery life if you let it happen a lot, hyber is better. There is no reason to cold boot unless you have stability issues. (Once a week would be prudent)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
f0qp4x
|
why do some playstation one game discs have a blue coloring while others are black?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f0qp4x/eli5_why_do_some_playstation_one_game_discs_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgx14ex",
"fgxc44q",
"fgxg9br",
"fgxge29"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"They just look cooler and made it easier to identify counterfeits. I very much doubt the PS2 can identify disc color.",
"I don't remember those being blue, but some ps2 ones were. IIRC it was the earlier discs [before they were proper DVDs that were blue](_URL_0_)? Like some release games - only one I remember for definite was Tekken Tag Tournament",
"ITT: Everyone talking about the PS2 instead of the PS1 (or PSX). This issue was discussed in a previous ELI5 that I will link below.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\n\n*Real answer:\nSony thought that coating the discs in a black film would make piracy more difficult. There was a twofold (one of which an erroneous assumption) reason for this: One, that coating discs after burning them in a black transparent film was very difficult to nearly impossible to do outside of a manufacturer/factory and this would let a buyer know immediately if a disc was counterfeit or not. Black; made in the factory, silver; a burned disc.\nThe geniuses at Sony also thought that it would make CD ripping more difficult and that the black coating would somehow interfere with the ripping process... Which was stupidly never the case and obviously did not prevent ripping of any kind. I've read online that back in the day some CD drives had issues ripping a PS1 disc, but nothing I can verify or say with surety.\n[/r/retrogaming](_URL_0_) may be of more help and give more accurate information, but I know I'm pretty on with the reasoning. Long time gamer and PS1 collector and this was pretty common knowledge upon the original Playstation's release. The explanation for the black coating was covered by gaming magazines of the time.\n*",
"Former Sony employee here. I worked in the Replication factories where PS1, PS2 and PS3 games were made.\n\nPS1 games are constructed like CD's. One thick Polycarbonate wafer is injection molded with data on the label side. That side is metalized then a protective coating is spun over the metalization. Then the label applied.\n\nPS2 games are constructed like DVD's. Two thinner wafers are injection molded with data on one side, then metalized and adhered to each other, data sides in. The label is applied on the \"B\" side wafer.\n\nPS3 games are constructed like Blu-ray discs. One thin wafer is injection molded with data on one side then metalized. Additional layers are spun-coat then stamped and metalized on top, and a final protective layer is spun on the data side and the label is applied on that side as well. A protective hard coating is then applied to the read side.\n\nThe polycarbonate used in PS1 discs is just dyed a very, very dark blue that looks black. Since the wavelength of the laser diode in a CDROM drive is 780nm (near infrared), the signal isn't attenuated by the dye. It serves no purpose other than to look different from other discs. In fact, Sony piloted a program for music CD's that used the same resin and a novel printing method on the label side to simulate the appearance of a vinyl album. They played in normal CD players with no issues.\n\nThe polycarbonate used in PS2 discs was again just dyed blue, slightly less dark than the PS1. It again serves no purpose other than to differentiate the discs from PS1 and other discs. The wavelength of a DVD-ROM drive is 650nm (red) so again no signal interference occurs.\n\nThe copy protection method used in PS1 and PS2 discs do not rely on the dye; rumors to the contrary are false.\n\nSince the PS3 uses Blu-ray technology, with a 405nm wavelength (violet) Sony couldn't dye the polycarbonate and instead left it clear.\n\nThank you for coming to my Ted talk."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.gamespot.com/forums/playstation-2-314159270/why-are-some-ps2-game-discs-blue-25534846/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/retrogaming",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/409s05/eli5_why_are_playstation_1_discs_black_while/"
],
[]
] |
||
2qoa3h
|
what did de blasio say to piss of the cops that they turned their back on him?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qoa3h/eli5_what_did_de_blasio_say_to_piss_of_the_cops/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn85sej"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"He said something mildly critical after the cops tackled and choked an unarmed fat black man to death for selling black market cigarettes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4h91wi
|
If I were to analyse the DNA of a newborn baby, and then wait 80 years before analysing that person's DNA once more, how genetically dissimilar might I expect the two samples to be?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4h91wi/if_i_were_to_analyse_the_dna_of_a_newborn_baby/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2oobaa",
"d2opf47",
"d2opfal",
"d2ovmhf",
"d2p1ovl",
"d2p5scm"
],
"score": [
19,
5,
99,
8,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Not an expert, but I remember an interesting fact about cells from a fetus becoming integrated into the body of the mother. If I remember correctly even neurons were identified throughout the body that were genetically identical to the mother and not the child. This makes a woman increasingly chimeric the more she conceives. And telomeres. Don't forget the shortening of telomeres over time. And viruses, they insert their DNA into our chromosomes like aliens insert their babies into our bellies and hang is up on the wall for Sigourney Weaver to find. Somebody that knows more about genetics help me out with the rest.",
"It would depend entirely on the method of analysis. If you're simply sequencing the genome twice, you would expect them to basically be identical. \n\nIf you were to analyze DNA methylation or the gene expression profile, those would be much more different. ",
"Several things would be different:\n- At the end of your DNA, there is a a series of repeated nucleotides called 'telomeres'. Telomeres basically just serve to protect the DNA that is actually important, since a little bit of the ends of your DNA are lost each time during replication. As you age, you have a smaller and smaller amount of telomeres.\n- Epigenetics are also a factor. Not all of your DNA is in the 'On' position all the time. Several processes, like wrapping DNA around a histone proteins, or adding methyl groups to turn parts of DNA off. As you age and your body encounters different environments, your epigenome will change. This is why twins are a lot alike early in life, but begin to diverge as they grow older.\n- Viral DNA can also get inserted into your DNA, become mutated and ineffective, and stay a part of your genome. I don't know how often this happens, but I know it does.\n\n\n",
"I see many have mentioned the degrading of telemeres, but let's not forget the possibility that mutations can develop throughout the 80 years as a result of mistakes in DNA replication. This depends largely on the individual's daily life however and the genetic dissimilarity is likely arbitrary with respect to the circumstances if mutations occured.",
"From a population genetic perspective, mutations are measured in mutations site^-1 generation^-1 or in mutations site^-1 myr^-1. \n\nSTRs usually mutate with a frequency of 1.0 x 10^-4 to 1.0 x 10^-2 mutations site^-1 generation^-1 and SNPs around 10^-8. \n\nFrom an evolutionary perspective, the genetic differences (pi, S, etc) between your two samples would be extremely low. \n\nHowever, there may be differences due to up/down regulations in the genome, epistatic differences, etc. It's important to note that these differences didn't arise from evolutionary processes like gene flow or selection. \n\nSo there are two ways to answer this question. To the population geneticist, the differences are basically nil. To the molecular geneticist/evo devo perspective, the differences are the product of many stochastic processes. We may be able to answer this question in a case-by-case, descriptive manner, but answering it using a predictive model seems intractable at the moment. ",
"You would find several changes, the main ones I can think of are changes in the DNA sequence (mutations), decreased telomere length, and altered epigenetics.\n\n**Mutations**\n\nMutations can be caused by external (eg. radiation, chemicals) or internal (eg. errors during DNA replication) factors, so the more exposure to certain environments and the older a person is the more mutations you'd expect to find. The most obvious example of this is cancer. Since mutations accumulate over time, the risk of getting cancer increases as you get older. But not all mutations cause cancer and you'll find mutations in people without cancer, it's thought that the accumulation of mutations in general contributes to of aging as increased mutations gradually decrease the functionality of a cell. The kind and amount of mutations are different in different tissues so you'll get different results depending on where you get the DNA from.\n\n[Somatic mutations, genome mosaicism, cancer and aging. *Curr Opin Genet Dev*. 2014 Jun](_URL_3_)\n\n**Decreased telomere length**\n\nTelomeres are bits of DNA located at the ends of chromosome. One of their functions is to provide extra material for DNA replication because cells can't replicate DNA right up to the very end so a bit is lost each time. Therefore, barring some method of lengthening telomeres (which exists but is only present in some cells like stem cells) they will get shorter with each cell division and therefore get shorter with age. The actual interaction and causative links between telomere length, aging, and disease is complicated and not fully understood, but the association between telomere length and age is generally consistent.\n\n[Human telomere biology: A contributory and interactive factor in aging, disease risks, and protection. *Science*. 2015](_URL_0_)\n\nInterestingly but a bit unrelated to the original question, mice have much longer telomeres than humans yet they only live a few years. So telomeres aren't the be-all and end-all of aging.\n\n**Altered epigenetics**\n\nEpigenetic changes are chemical modifications made to DNA that doesn't involved changing the actual DNA sequence. These changes regulate when and where (what tissue/cell type) a gene is expressed. There are dozens of possible epigenetic changes and epigenetics is different in every cell type so you'll get different results depending on what exactly you're studying. The most well studied epigenetic mark is DNA methylation, in general, DNA methylation decreases across the genome with age but also increases at some specific areas. Histone modifications also change (increase or decreased) and you could do a search for many modifications and \"aging\" and find something about it, if you're interested in specifics the first 2 links below give a bunch of examples.\n\n[Epigenetics of aging. *Adv Exp Med Biol*. 2015](_URL_4_)\n\n[The epigenetic tracks of aging. *Biol Chem*. 2014.](_URL_2_)\n\n[DNA methylation and healthy human aging. *Aging Cell*. 2015](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26785477",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25913071",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205717",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25282114",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25916592"
]
] |
||
2sl34f
|
how, when, and why did it seem everyone decided white was the go to color for toilets?
|
I know you can buy toilets in a vast range of colors, but why are white colored toilets, and to a lesser extent bathtubs and sinks always come stock in plain white?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sl34f/eli5_how_when_and_why_did_it_seem_everyone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnqhe4h",
"cnqic6y",
"cnqqna9"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Toilets are generally ceramic, and ceramic is white unless it's dyed some other. Dyeing ceramic is expensive, so a non-white toilet will be more expensive and is therefore more likely to be found in homes than public bathrooms.",
"Most waste is easy to spot against white. If your toilet was some odd color it'd be slightly more difficult to tell if it was dirty. It's probably the reason they aren't ever patterned too.",
"There is actually a podcast about this topic:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/112/ladies-and-germs"
]
] |
|
230gft
|
what would happen if i soaked my body in a tub of vodka?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/230gft/eli5_what_would_happen_if_i_soaked_my_body_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgs5tv6",
"cgs68s3",
"cgs6xuj",
"cgs7468",
"cgs77ht",
"cgs77wf",
"cgs79po",
"cgs7mm2",
"cgs7oz0",
"cgs7vt1",
"cgs85lw",
"cgs8hoq",
"cgs8yzu",
"cgs97gd",
"cgs9m22",
"cgs9xzd",
"cgs9zsu",
"cgsa0zw",
"cgsa7wn",
"cgsaeqp",
"cgsatwc",
"cgsb477",
"cgsb9q5",
"cgsbaxo",
"cgsbbuh",
"cgsblhs",
"cgsbojb"
],
"score": [
187,
11,
54,
26,
4,
4,
14,
26,
5,
20,
2,
2,
4,
5,
32,
9,
7,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You would likely absorb enough to kill yourself. But before that happened, you would get drunk and sparkly clean.",
"And if you want to get right fucked, open your eyes under~~water~~vodka",
"You can absorb alcohol through your anus, and it is very efficient, since it goes straight into circulation before it hits the liver.\n\nI would imagine that you would absorb enough to kill you fairly quickly.\n\nEDIT: Everybody asking about this - it is extremely dangerous. Alcohol is a lot more volatile and less viscous than water, so it could very easily be introduced into your arsehole if you were sat in a tub of it.\n\nAlso, never try this at home - normally when you drink alcohol, it gets to the liver on it's first pass round the bloodstream, and a lot is eliminated. When administered rectally, it circulates round a lot more of your body before reaching the liver, so it becomes A LOT stronger. Also, you lose the ability to vomit out the alcohol if you've had too much, so it cannot be eliminated from the body.\n\nA lot of people have died trying it.",
"You would get turnt up, but seriously alcohol poisoning ",
"You'd probably pass out from the fumes first, then drown.",
"Ya I could see you getting alcohol poisoning, but how quickly? I remember when I was younger I was at this shady place all baked out and some guy had me stick my thumb in moonshine.... dont recall it working though, not sure if relevant. ",
"You'd become next level Russian. ",
"You'd most likely die, but on an upside, there's a Darwin award in it for you.",
"Every single little cut will start burning vigorously because of desinfectation. Because it is Vodka it won't be so efficient, but you'll fucking feel it.\n\nAnd people already mentioned anus chugging so...",
"It would burn your pee hole. A lot.",
"My peehole hurts thinking about it.",
"You should start experimenting with mice, then begin clinical trials",
"[Probably nothing.](_URL_0_) Although you may become nauseous due to breathing alcohol fumes.",
"Any serious explanations on the working of this? I get it, you would die but how? I see skin absorbs, the anal regions and so on. What about length of time it takes. Do you need to soak for 30 minutes or will it be too late after 1 minute?",
"Times are really that hard in Russia right now, OP?",
"You would immediately become Russian.",
"YOU WOULD TRANSCEND THIS MORTAL PLANE INTO SOMETHING GLORIOUS ",
"I think the first step would be saving up enough money to buy enough alcohol to fill a bathtub, which, is exactly the kind of thing a savings account was invented for",
"Holy shit at first I thought it said 'covered my body in vinegar'\n\nI was wondering why on earth you would get drunk and die off vinegar.",
"You'd get alcoholed",
"nothing you'll be fine.... now jump on in there!",
"You would spontaniously appear in a Lil-Wayne music video on Mtv.",
"You would kill all the natural flora on your skin. And as a result you may get some weird opportunist topical infection. Also it would dry out your skin, and prolly make it unhappy in general like a rash, irritability. It would be fine after a few days though I think. \n\nAll the people saying you would get drunk from absorption through the anus, there is this thing called sphincter that keeps stuff like that from happening. Unless he injects the alcohol into his anus this wouldn't happen.",
"Russia would give you honorary citizenship",
"Given that I dunk animals in ethanol to preserve them, I'm going to say you'd get pickled. Alcohol dehydrates skin. You'd have a bad time.",
"Your anus and genitalia would burn like the hinges of hell's gate. ",
"Someone would actually drink your bath water. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6812"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9ayc01
|
what makes us emotionaly numb when we are depressed?
|
And how does it come back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ayc01/eli5_what_makes_us_emotionaly_numb_when_we_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4z3clk"
],
"score": [
39
],
"text": [
"Emotional numbness is one of the key markers in the first step of diagnosing things like major depression, but also PTSD and depersonalization disorders and they sometimes have different causes. \nWith depression, it's often heavily influenced by the imbalance of chemicals in your body and brain like serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, and oxytocin to name a few. These levels become so low that you lose the pleasure and excitement reactions to things that usually make you happy and instead, you don't feel anything. That's why you're usually asked the 'have you lost interest in things that you usually enjoy doing' when being seen for mental health. There are a ton of ways to help yourself and get professional help to work through depression and treat it until you're symptom free, so don't give up.\n\nIn cases of PTSD and the like, it's more commonly a coping mechanism. The feelings from the associated trauma and its triggers are so intense that your brain decides that it's in its best interest to not address that feeling in order to survive. This isn't a bad thing! Often at the time the initial trauma occured, if your brain has triggered this kind of dissociation, it was a necessary coping mechanism to protect you and your mental health. If you are still experiencing symptoms of PTSD once the trauma is over, therapy is important to help teach your brain that it's okay to use other, more appropriate ways to deal with day to day emotions. \n\n\n\nAs for your question about how it comes back, that depends on the cause. You can certainly do some things yourself to try to jump start your happy chemicals, like doing light cardio every day for a few weeks, getting enough sunlight, taking a multivitamin- all things that are essential to helping you maintain a healthy cycle of production for these chemicals. \nIf you are still struggling after a few weeks of this OR experiencing worsening symptoms like panic attacks, severe lethargy, hostility, having suicidal thoughts, get in to see your doctor. Our brain and our genetic make up is entirely unique, so sometimes we will have trouble balancing our chemicals. To expound, because of that uniqueness, it will likely take a few or even more than a few different tries to find the right medication for you. Not only do they all act a little different, but there are many different classifications of these medications that specialize in specific chemicals and receptors in your brain, so an SSRI which mainly deals with serotonin reuptake will not perform the same function as an SNRI which mainly deals with norepinephrine reuptake, to only mention a few catergories. The most effective treatment in most cases is therapy and medication when needed. \n\n\nHope this helped. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4glu9z
|
What is the best place to find primary documents about New France?
|
Travelling to the Archives in Quebec City or Montreal is not really the most convenient method, so is there a way to access primary documents for the place and period that are accessible through a database of some kind? I'd love to be able to access letters, censuses and the like.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4glu9z/what_is_the_best_place_to_find_primary_documents/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2iwymj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure what kind of sources you're looking for, but you can start with books on whatever topic you're interested in and check their footnotes. One particularly good book I've read is Bonds of Alliance, by Brett Rushforth"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
wfe9z
|
why pug's tails curl.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wfe9z/eli5_why_pugs_tails_curl/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5cuh7n",
"c5cvgw3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Some say humans bred them that way because we liked it and it has no other purpose.\n\nOthers say it's because pugs are short so we bred them to have curly tails so that it wont drag on the ground. This makes sense because animals tails are a part of their spine so you'd want to keep that out of danger.\n\nExtra fact: When a pug is excited it's tail curls up tighter than usual and when it's relaxed or sleeping the tail uncurls. If your pug is awake and it's tail is uncurled then there's something wrong with it.",
"I misread this as \"why pig's tails curl\"\n\nWhile I'll be happy to find out about pugs' tails, now I'm going to wonder about why pig tails curl..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
46pxv7
|
why is it that the larger dominoes fall slower?
|
Is it because the momentum given to the larger domino is lesser? But isn't the momentum compensated by the fact that the smaller domino has a greater velocity?
& nbsp;
[Domino Effect](_URL_0_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46pxv7/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_larger_dominoes_fall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d06zm5p",
"d070uw8"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The bigger something is, the more inertia it has. That is to say, the harder it is to get it to stop doing one thing and start doing another.\n\nIn this case it would be stopping it from just sitting there and making it fall over.",
"The bigger something is the more intertia it is. \n\nAlso the bigger it is, the wider its center of gravity is, the more stable it is, "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/ExZxmNA.gifv"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
29ayra
|
why does some cheese cost so much more than others when they all seem be made of milk & bacteria and are made the same way?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ayra/eli5_why_does_some_cheese_cost_so_much_more_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cij5gq5",
"cij5m77"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many time and resource consuming factors can go into making a cheese, and ultimately the price of a cheese. For example, some cheeses are aged, meaning they must be stored and preserved and therefore cannot be produced as quickly, meaning a more expensive cheese in the supermarket. Some cheaper cheeses aren't even 100% cheese, and have filler added.",
"Cheeses are not all made the same way, or from the same milk. Some need milk with higher or lower fat content; some need to be aged for as much as several years (sometimes in rare, naturally-occurring caves). Some need to be made with sheep or goat milk. Some can only be made in a tiny district in France, because that's part of the definition of Roquefort. Some need to be smuggled into the United States illegally (and at exorbitant cost), because they're a revolting Corsican cheese that contains live maggots."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7btsyf
|
To what extent could the Cold War be attributed to the transition from Roosevelt to Truman?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7btsyf/to_what_extent_could_the_cold_war_be_attributed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpkrrqu"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"This is one of those questions that has consumed historians pretty much since the Cold War began. This is a fierce historiographical debate on top of a complicated factual question, but I'll try and lay out the various positions.\n\nRoosevelt is pretty famous for having been extremely controlling in his conduct of foreign policy; his own stated preference in overseeing the state department was to make sure that the left hand never knew what the right one was doing so that he would always be in supreme control. By 1944, many of his closest advisers such as Sumner Welles had been pushed out, which increasingly left him running the show even more. He's also frustratingly evasive even in the written record; FDR's response to memos might simply consist of a checkmark, from which we have to try and discern what he really wanted or how he stood on a given policy.\n\nAs you might know, Truman was a compromise pick for VP, and Roosevelt only met with him a handful of times before he died. Truman wants to try and sustain the foreign policy wishes of FDR, but doing so proves to be frustratingly difficult because he didn't actually have a concrete sense of what they were The people who were in ascendance around Roosevelt at that time such as Averell Harriman had been pushing for a hard-line against the Soviet Union, but Harriman had always ambivalent-at-best about the USSR.\n\nHere's where it gets complicated, because to say how whether Truman bears responsibility for the Cold War, especially in this transition, rests on an extraordinarily sticky historiographical question that diplomatic historians are still debating to this day. The so-called \"orthodox\" historians who lay most of the blame on the Soviet Union for the Cold War naturally downplay this transition as a factor, and many suggest that Roosevelt was already pivoting away from the Soviet Union by 1944. John Lewis Gaddis (who is mostly on the orthodox side of this debate, especially later in life) in The Origins of the Cold War asserts that Roosevelt, who depended on Polish-Americans and Eastern European immigrants in his New Deal coalition was concerned about Soviet encroachment in Eastern Europe. Given that even the most generous interpretation of Stalin's behavior suggests he would only ever tolerate friendly, ideologically-aligned governments on his borders (if not Marxist puppet governments), Roosevelt would have grown more uncomfortable with Stalin given his behavior there and the domestic ramifications. Other historians make hay out of Roosevelt's increasingly infirm condition by 1945, pushing that his aides did too much of the negotiation at Yalta, leading to giveaways of territory that were unacceptable to many people, including Truman.\n\nThen there are others like Frank Costigliola, whose book Roosevelt's Lost Alliances makes the case that the transition was at least a significant factor in the beginning of the Cold War. Costigliola argues that Roosevelt had brokered an accommodation with Stalin that simply assumed that the postwar world order would be formed out of spheres-of-influence, and that Stalin would frankly need an Eastern European zone after the twin traumas of the two world wars. He alleges that Roosevelt's advisers like Harriman failed to appreciate this, and to put it simplistically, had a number of hangups that led them to interpret Soviet behaviors in the worst possible way. Similarly, Truman's behavior was aggressive and direct in a way that Roosevelt's careful diplomacy never had been. So within just a few days of becoming president, Truman's berating the Soviet foreign minister about their failure to hold democratic elections in Poland. Truman openly says before Potsdam to an adviser that Stalin seems like the party bosses he knew in Missouri like Tom Pendergast, and that the best option was to be tough and direct with them. With somebody as hyperattuned to insult as Stalin, that was a poor combination.\n\nMelvyn Leffler's A Preponderance of Power (or as we like to call it, A Preponderance of Pages) is a brilliant look at how U.S. foreign policy was informed in the postwar period by needing to match the Soviet Union, and he makes it pretty clear that Truman and others tended to see Soviet behavior in the worst possible light at any given moment. Some of that is this constant analogizing back to the Munich Compromise and the sense that that had been the opportunity to stop Hitler without all of the ensuing bloodshed, and so compromise or accommodation with Stalin now could lead to similar disaster. \n\nSo, this is in many ways an unsatisfying answer, but that's because we're still arguing about this in mostly congenial ways. Where do I stand personally as an academic? I'm more in the camp of Costigliola and Leffler, seeing American actors provoking Stalin at a moment when he was genuinely more interested in accommodation, however narrowly constructed it was (and it was, to be sure). Costigliola is particularly good at pointing out that we've always treated Soviet actors like they were irrational, and to be sure, they were. Stalin being irrational however doesn't make Truman, Churchill, or Harriman rational either, and you do see these repeated references in people's papers to Munich and connected lessons to appeasement and compromise. Those Munich analogies never really go away (I vividly remember them being made about the Second Iraq War), but they're very strong in this period because they emotionally resonate with people. Unfortunately, they're also very problematic because Hitler and Stalin were strikingly different people, down to ambitions and how to carry them out. Costigliola makes the case that yes, Stalin saw competition as inevitable with the capitalist bloc, but not necessarily violent or immediate. Stalin was cautious and fearful of his own weakness, while Hitler was all aggression and risk. That doesn't absolve Stalin of anything, but a narrative that holds him as solely responsible doesn't capture the full complexity of this, and some of that complexity should come back to Truman.\n\nBut those are other questions, and I don't want to bog you down in other issues. Hopefully some of this was enlightening."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4si9xa
|
how do the algorithms work that convert audio to a faster speed without changing pitch?
|
I know there are many explanations available online, but I have not found one that is truly ELI5 worthy.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4si9xa/eli5how_do_the_algorithms_work_that_convert_audio/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d59l1f6"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Imagine you have a tape of someone playing a song on a piano. If you play the tape fast, the pitches are all higher, which you don't want.\n\nBut since you're a really excellent musician yourself, instead, you listen to the notes and write sheet music for the song, then you play it yourself on a piano at the faster speed, and the pitches are correct.\n\nThe way audio speed compression works is sort of a general purpose version of that. Any fragment of audio can be decomposed into a sum of many sine waves at different frequencies; you just have to do that, then produce a shorter fragment that has the same frequency composition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
787n5t
|
why do you see a normal picture after looking at a negative picture and then at a white background?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/787n5t/eli5why_do_you_see_a_normal_picture_after_looking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"doro2ud"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your retina has light sensitive pigments. When light strikes them it causes a chemical reaction. The pigment is saying \"I have been struck by a beam of light to which I am sensitive. I am bent out of shape.\" Its nerve sends the signal to the brain. I takes a while for the pigment to bend back into shape. During that time the retinal is less sensitive because the pigment is bent out of shape. But not all of the sensitive cells react to the same light. The image is sort of burnt into your retina for a brief moment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jn7qg
|
the casimir effect
|
I tried reading the Wikipedia article, but it loses me pretty quickly.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jn7qg/eli5_the_casimir_effect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2dhrff",
"c2di2ui",
"c2ee3y5",
"c2dhrff",
"c2di2ui",
"c2ee3y5"
],
"score": [
101,
67,
2,
101,
67,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm a grad student working with the Casimir force right now. I'll admit, my theoretical knowledge isn't complete, but I'll give the best explanation I can. \n\nSo at a really, really small level, light is popping into existence and then going right back into nothing. It's doing this all around you right now.\n\nIf you take two flat things, and move them very close together (like 1/10 of a human hair), only certain color light can come into existence between the flat objects. Other colors won't fit. \n\nOn the other side of the flat plates, the light can exist in a lot more colors. The difference in the colors possible make a different amount of energy between the plates as compared to outside the plates. This difference in energy shows up as the casimir effect.\n\nTo get a visual idea of what's happening, take two sheets of paper, hold them in front of your face, and blow in between them. The blowing makes the air pressure lower on the inside of the paper, and the paper should move towards each other.",
"Imagine you and a friend are standing still, but you are 20 feet apart. There is a swarm of people stomping around randomly. The crowd is so thick people are nearly touching all of the time, like at a concert. You get pushed around, back and forth randomly, but you and your friend stay roughly the same distance apart. Now, lets say you get close enough to your friend that it's harder and harder for someone to get in between you, eventually the crowd will push you together, because there is nothing between you to push you apart, and the only force on your is from the outside.\n\nNow imagine that you and your buddy are the plates and that different frequencies of energy are the people.\n",
"Great explanation. I also thought it was very well illustrated in the book The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke.",
"I'm a grad student working with the Casimir force right now. I'll admit, my theoretical knowledge isn't complete, but I'll give the best explanation I can. \n\nSo at a really, really small level, light is popping into existence and then going right back into nothing. It's doing this all around you right now.\n\nIf you take two flat things, and move them very close together (like 1/10 of a human hair), only certain color light can come into existence between the flat objects. Other colors won't fit. \n\nOn the other side of the flat plates, the light can exist in a lot more colors. The difference in the colors possible make a different amount of energy between the plates as compared to outside the plates. This difference in energy shows up as the casimir effect.\n\nTo get a visual idea of what's happening, take two sheets of paper, hold them in front of your face, and blow in between them. The blowing makes the air pressure lower on the inside of the paper, and the paper should move towards each other.",
"Imagine you and a friend are standing still, but you are 20 feet apart. There is a swarm of people stomping around randomly. The crowd is so thick people are nearly touching all of the time, like at a concert. You get pushed around, back and forth randomly, but you and your friend stay roughly the same distance apart. Now, lets say you get close enough to your friend that it's harder and harder for someone to get in between you, eventually the crowd will push you together, because there is nothing between you to push you apart, and the only force on your is from the outside.\n\nNow imagine that you and your buddy are the plates and that different frequencies of energy are the people.\n",
"Great explanation. I also thought it was very well illustrated in the book The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fruovo
|
Why was cannabis, a drug used for thousands of years in the Middle East, banned by Western nations in the 1800s even though they found little to no harmful effects? Was there an element of xenophobia?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fruovo/why_was_cannabis_a_drug_used_for_thousands_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flyk8iu"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There's always more to say on the subject, but [here's a previous thread](_URL_0_) with an answer from u/Roggenroll that may be helpful. Basically, it was almost entirely due to xenophobia, with very little consideration given to the drug's actual (non-exaggerated) effects."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30ddn9/why_was_cannabis_prohibited_in_the_usa/"
]
] |
||
106dmv
|
Is there any physical limit to the Periodic Table? Or could we theoretically just keep fusing elements together to make heavier ones?
|
My basic understanding is that heavier elements are typically made when 2+ lighter elements are fused together (e.g. inside of stars, or synthetically in a lab). If there were no technological restrictions, is there any limit to how high the periodic table could go?
I found an article on [Period 8 elements](_URL_0_) that might contain some sort of answer, but I didn't really follow it.
Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/106dmv/is_there_any_physical_limit_to_the_periodic_table/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6atgbw",
"c6augcz",
"c6avht3",
"c6awhme"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's 3:00am here and I have no idea why I'm still up, but here is something that might help answer your question. I'm too tired to try to explain it though... _URL_0_",
" > \"My basic understanding is that heavier elements are typically made when 2+ lighter elements are fused together\"\n\nAbsolutely right.\n\n > \"could we theoretically just keep fusing elements together to make heavier ones?\"\n\nNo, not indefinitely.\n\nWhat causes a nucleus to continue existing is its stability. There are certain shapes such as the 4 nucleons of Helium that are particularly stable, and a C12 nucleus can be thought of as being similar to three He nuclei fused together.\n\nWith very large atoms such as U 238, their nucleus tends to be unstable. As you get to larger and larger artificial elements that you see being added to the bottom right of the periodic table, then you will find that they are very unstable and some half a half life of seconds or less. \n\nMaking heavier and heavier atoms increases instability in an analogous way that piling building blocks to make a taller and taller tower would also increase instability.",
"The physical limit would be at the proton drip line, when it is just impossible to bind another proton.",
"There is a limitation caused by the diminishing effect of [the residual strong force/nuclear force](_URL_0_) as nuclei gets bigger. Any atom larger than lead is unstable as far as we know.\n\n > At distances larger than 0.7 fm the force becomes attractive between spin-aligned nucleons, becoming maximal at a center–center distance of about 0.9 fm. Beyond this distance the force drops essentially exponentially, until beyond about 2.0 fm separation, the force drops to negligibly small values.\n\n > At short distances (less than 1.7 fm or so), the nuclear force is stronger than the Coulomb force between protons; it thus overcomes the repulsion of protons inside the nucleus. However, the Coulomb force between protons has a much larger range due to its decay as the inverse square of charge separation, and Coulomb repulsion thus becomes the only significant force between protons when their separation exceeds about 2 to 2.5 fm.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_8_element"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Future_and_end_of_the_periodic_table"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force"
]
] |
|
3rrpe3
|
AskHistorians Podcast 049 - Shaft Tombs of West Mexico
|
[**Episode 49 is up!**](_URL_7_)
[The AskHistorians Podcast](_URL_4_) is a project that highlights the users and answers that have helped make /r/AskHistorians one of the largest history discussion forum on the internet. You can subscribe to us via [iTunes](_URL_1_), [Stitcher](_URL_0_), or [RSS](_URL_5_), and now on [YouTube](_URL_3_). You can also catch the latest episodes on [SoundCloud](_URL_6_). If there is another index you'd like the cast listed on, let me know!
**This Episode:**
/u/Mictlantecuhtli gives an archaeological perspective on the burial practices and monumental architecture of West Mexico, focusing particularly on shaft tombs and later on guachimontones. The discussion also digs into the current archaeological knowledge of West Mexico and gives insight into the processes of performing archaeology, including the problem of looting. (54mins)
**Questions? Comments?**
If you want more specific recommendations for sources or have any follow-up questions, feel free to ask them here! Also feel free to leave any feedback on the format and so on.
If you like the podcast, please rate and review us on [iTunes](_URL_1_).
Thanks all!
**Coming up next fortnight:** /u/profrhodes gives us the first of two episodes examining the history of Zimbabwe, from pre-colonial to post-independence.
[Previous Episodes and Discussion](_URL_2_)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3rrpe3/askhistorians_podcast_049_shaft_tombs_of_west/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz1zdz5",
"cwqosbs",
"cwqozqu",
"cwr31i3",
"cwrpzzp",
"cwrzfd8",
"cxhifd3"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
10,
2,
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"FYI, some follow-up discussion in this thread\n\n* [What Age were the Native Americans in?](_URL_0_)",
"/u/mictlantecuhtli, listening back, the voladores goal of 13 rotations made me think of the 13 level *topan* of Nahua cosmology. Any chance there could be some influence there? Do we have any notion about what the structure of the heavens might have been when we first start seeing archaeological evidence of the volador ceremony in W. Mexico?",
"Because I am a very visual person and talking about some of these shaft tomb figures or the architecture isn't the same as actually seeing it, I've collected a bunch of links to different figure styles, photos of guachimontones and shaft tombs, as well as linking to what I think are important papers about the region and culture.\n\nBeekman's AMA from last year - _URL_19_\n\nColima Dog vessel - _URL_17_\n\nColima dog vessel - _URL_25_\n\nJoined couple - _URL_28_\n\nPeter Furst's \"shaman\" - _URL_9_\n\nStanding Warrior with pointy hat - _URL_29_\n\nIxtlan del Reio style - _URL_23_\n\nFigure showing scarification - _URL_24_\n\nFemale figure with scarification - _URL_4_\n\nWarrior figure - _URL_11_\n\nBallcourt model - _URL_6_, _URL_27_\n\nHouse model - _URL_5_\n\nFigure Seated in Palanquin - _URL_2_\n\nPossible blood letting ritual - _URL_3_\n\nFigure showing disease - _URL_12_\n\nOlmec hacha (axe) found in Etzatlan, Jalisco - _URL_10_\n\nAerial view of Los Guachimontones - _URL_14_\n\nLos Guachimontones before restoration - _URL_32_\n\nPictures I've taken of the Los Guachimontones site - _URL_7_\n\nSimplified guachimonton model - _URL_34_\n\nUnusual three house structure guachimonton model - _URL_31_\n\nModel in a museum showing Circle 1 at Los Guachimontones - _URL_21_\n\nA ground view of the site Mesa Alta and what it looks like on Google Earth - _URL_35_\n\nEl Arenal shaft tomb - _URL_8_\n\nBajareque/daub used to cover structures like how plaster was used in other parts of Mesoamerica - _URL_36_, _URL_13_, _URL_30_\n\nCapacha distillation paper - _URL_15_\n\nMascota (Middle Formative) excavation report - _URL_33_\n\nCapacha stirrup vessel - _URL_20_\n\nChichimec migration papers - _URL_16_, _URL_1_\n\nPole ceremony paper - _URL_18_\n\nCorporate power system in Jalisco - _URL_22_\n\nRise of a statelike society chapter - _URL_26_\n\nRecent Research in Western Mexican Archaeology paper - _URL_0_",
"Has anyone try to make the argument that a Guachimonton might have been an Axis Mundi that connected the known universe, and because of this, the different corporate lineages (or groups) come together to pay respect to the socio-religious contract that dynamically maintains the universe as it is. Would it be a reason as to why they are entombing people in this shaft-tombs, to place their ancestors on the Axis Mundi that gives the world its shape? great Podcast!!!\n ",
"Looking forward to listening to this for the very first time today. I previewed it a bit, and was wondering if you'd guys would take a more narrative approach sort of like Dan Carlin's hardcore history?",
"Thanks for sharing your research :) Enjoyed the episode",
"You briefly discuss issues of continuity and change in the local material culture. While obviously there are not extant text from this period, has anyone done ethnographic or folkloric fieldwork on the oral traditonal of the local people? \n\nAlso, you mention that the local farmers are sometimes hostile to goals and desires of archaeologists. Why is this?\n\nFinally, has anyone attempted to use thin-section microscopy of the clay mineralogy of the ceramics to understand trade routes and material sourcing patterns, or to detect fakes?"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/tas-stacey/the-askhistorians-podcast",
"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-askhistorians-podcast/id812302476?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo%3D8",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22askhistorians+podcast%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=alll",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJudPwztZyg2BQjhetw_bww",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/podcast",
"http://askhistorians.libsyn.com/rss",
"https://soundcloud.com/user679855208",
"http://askhistorians.libsyn.com/askhistorians-podcast-049-shaft-tombs-of-west-mexico"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/41f35d/what_age_were_the_native_americans_in/cz1u3as?context=10000"
],
[],
[
"https://www.academia.edu/400453/Recent_Research_In_Western_Mexican_Archaeology",
"https://www.academia.edu/400445/Controlling_for_Doubt_and_Uncertainty_Through_Multiple_Lines_of_Evidence_A_New_Look_at_the_Mesoamerican_Nahua_Migrations",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253685",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253524",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253625",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/182499",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253572",
"http://imgur.com/a/kt0HJ",
"http://imgur.com/a/mMrco",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253656",
"http://i.imgur.com/Au8H8PU.jpg",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/182630",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253566",
"http://i.imgur.com/VhkaM7K.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/d69q8K8.jpg",
"https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9zzmmdav574o3b/West%20Mexico%20distillation.pdf?dl=0",
"https://www.academia.edu/1485416/Power_Agency_and_Identity_Migration_and_Aftermath_in_the_Mezquital_Area_of_North-Central_Mexico",
"http://art.thewalters.org/detail/80333/dog-effigy-vessel-4/",
"https://www.academia.edu/400449/Agricultural_Pole_Rituals_and_Rulership_In_Late_Formative_Central_Jalisco",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2g82cl/i_am_dr_christopher_beekman_ama_about_formative/",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Vasija_capacha.jpg",
"http://andrewanddave.com/davesblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/GuachimontonesModel1.jpg",
"https://www.academia.edu/400451/Corporate_Power_Strategies_In_the_Late_Formative_to_Early_Classic_Tequila_Valleys_of_Central_Jalisco",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253548",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/180770",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/248091",
"https://www.academia.edu/400448/The_Teuchitlan_Tradition_Rise_of_a_Statelike_Society",
"http://www.worcesterart.org/collection/Precolumbian/1947.25.html",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253664",
"http://collections.lacma.org/node/253587",
"http://i.imgur.com/ySycFto.jpg",
"http://www.famsi.org/research/williams/images/Fig30.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/nBdWYgm.jpg",
"http://www.famsi.org/reports/03009/03009Mountjoy01.pdf",
"http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/images/standard/WebLarge/WebImg_000270/205690_3221635.jpg",
"http://imgur.com/SjLHHLK",
"http://i.imgur.com/PMmMVPm.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jf7ri
|
why is there the colours in vertical stripes on when you put in an old vcr tape?
|
Im curious if it serves a purpose or if its just a colour test or glitch?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jf7ri/eli5_why_is_there_the_colours_in_vertical_stripes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbe1tvc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is a color test that the consumer can use to adjust the color saturation on their television. It was produced by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers and is refereed to as the SMPTE color bars"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ddnvd
|
How Did British People of the Early 18th Century View Americans?
|
Were they stereotyped as hicks? Religious nuts (for having Puritans, Quakers, and Catholics)? Slavers? Or were there more positive stereotypes? Or were they just ignored?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ddnvd/how_did_british_people_of_the_early_18th_century/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9pfua0",
"c9pg9bt",
"c9pgnwe",
"c9pij1e"
],
"score": [
10,
80,
107,
30
],
"text": [
"The Parliamentary Records page has some archives if you don't mind digging a bit. I know I've seen some linked here on speeches specifically about the nascent American government given on the floor of Parliament during and after the American Revolutionary War but I am having problems searching on my phone. \n\n_URL_0_",
"I don't have time to do a full write up tonight, but I can give you some awesome sources as a place holder since there are no other top level comments at this time. I personally am familiar only with the religious aspect, but I've got some other stuff to look at. \n\n[Thomas Bray, A memorial representing the present state of religion, on the continent of North America] (_URL_0_) 1700\n\nJames Oglethorpe, [Founding vision of Georgia](_URL_3_), 1733\n\nGabriel Johnson's [request to repeal](_URL_2_) the [biennal act.](_URL_1_)\n\nI won't be back until at least 6 p.m. EST tomorrow, so if anyone wants to answer the question, please do! \n\n",
"Although Franklin wasn't a typical American, the way the Brits treated him in London is certainly worthy of mention. He went to London a few times, and while he loved the City life, there were always things that drew him back to America.\n\nWhile he's most famous for getting excoriated in Parliament right before the Revolution, a quote from Lord Granville in 1757 is pretty telling as to what the Brits thought of Americans at that time, namely that they were already much less inclined to tow the line as far as royal commands go, even back then: \n \n**\"“You Americans,” Granville had declared to him, “have wrong Ideas of the Nature of your Constitution; you contend that the King’s Instructions to his Governors are not Laws, and think yourselves at Liberty to regard or disregard them at your own Discretion. But those Instructions are not like the Pocket Instructions given’ to a Minister going abroad, for regulating his Conduct in some trifling Point of Ceremony. They are first drawn up by Judges learned in the Laws; they are then considered, debated and perhaps ammended in Council, after which they are signed by the King. They are then so far as relates to you, the Law of the Land ; for THE KING IS THE LEGISLATOR OF THE COLONIES.\"** -[Source](_URL_0_) (which is an article well worth reading)",
"This might be a little afield, but my specialty is literature, so here goes anyway:\n\nThe 18th century actually was a huge time for American literature, but at the beginning people in Britain didn't take it seriously. Both before and after the Revolutionary War a lot of British readers thought Americans, colonists or otherwise, just weren't sophisticated enough to really write great literature, poetry or fiction.\n\nThe two writers who changed that were Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper (most famous for Sleepy Hollow and Last of the Mohicans, respectively). Cooper's woodsy romances with adventure and savage natives fascinated European readers, while Irving's strange, layered narratives were undeniably great -- even though a lot of the time he was cribbing from Walter Scott. So there was a kind of sea change of opinion in the 18th century, at least in the literary field. However, it wasn't good enough for many -- Emerson and his compatriots were still calling, in the early 19th century, for American literature to take its place in the world... which led mostly to him and his friends panning British books in their reviews whether they were good or not, just to blow up American books instead. \n\n**Edit: ** Elliotravenwood reminded me that I am completely full of shit sometimes, even in my specialty field. Cooper and Irving are really 19th century writers; they were *born* in the late 18th century. I will leave this to remind everyone, especially me, to double-check things first... : p \n\nThey *were* the writers who changed Britain's view of American literature, but that didn't happen until the early 19th century. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/"
],
[
"http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/spg.html",
"http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/the-north-carolina-biennal-act-1715.php",
"http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/governor-gabriel-johnstons-request-to-repeal-the-biennal-act-18-october-1736.php",
"http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/oglethorpe.html"
],
[
"http://www.americanheritage.com/content/benjamin-franklin%E2%80%99s-years-london?page=show"
],
[]
] |
|
92iz58
|
How can receipt paper be able to leave a "pencil like mark" when you score it with your nail?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/92iz58/how_can_receipt_paper_be_able_to_leave_a_pencil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e364p13"
],
"score": [
58
],
"text": [
"A lot of receipt printers use thermal paper, which show marks with heat. The heat from friction between your nail and the paper could be doing it. Try putting a lighter near the receipt sometime—if it’s using thermal paper, it will leave a mark from the heat. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
18nb5t
|
the movie primer (spoilers)
|
I just finished this movie and here's what I got.
1. They created a time machine.
2. They wanted to use it to make money from March Madness.
3. Aaron wanted to use it for his own selfish needs and to save someone from getting murdered with a shotgun?
4. Aaron fucks everything up.
That's what I concluded from the story and I don't think it's right. Someone please explain this movie like I'm 5.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18nb5t/eli5_the_movie_primer_spoilers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8gcfih"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"Everything after your #1 is pretty far off the mark.\n\nThey didn't make money from sports betting. They made money from the stock market. Every afternoon they checked the closing prices of different stocks and looked for one that gained a lot of value over the day, but that traded in very large volume. Then they waited in the box until it was that morning again, bought as many shares of that stock as they could get away with at the low opening price, then waited until the end of the day when the price was much higher to put in sell orders and take their profits.\n\nThey did this a few times — the movie doesn't say exactly how many times — and it got to the point where both Abe and Aaron had enough money that they could imagine never having to work again in their lives. Which got them thinking about what to do next. There's no point in continuing to work thirty-six-hour days to make money in the market, since they've got more money than they need already. So … what? What do they do now?\n\nAaron had the idea to use the boxes *just once* to pull off what basically amounted to a petty prank. See, Aaron had been in business with a guy who'd treated him badly, and he really wanted to just punch that guy in the mouth, just once. But he knew that would be a bad idea … but what if he could both do it *and not do it?* What if he could go find the guy and punch him, then use the box to relive that day and *not* punch him? Does time even *work* that way?\n\nThat's the central theme of the movie, incidentally. *Neither Abe nor Aaron have any idea how time works.* They built the box by *accident,* not on purpose. They didn't actually know what they were doing. They know the basics: Get in the box and you oscillate back and forth between two points in time, and you can choose which one to get out at. But they don't know *anything* else. The movie illustrates this with the mobile-phone thing. One day Aaron mistakenly keeps his mobile phone with him when they do their second trip through the day … meaning there are now *two* phones out there. When Aaron's wife calls his mobile, which phone rings? Both of them? Just the first one? Is what they're observing the second time through their day just a different perspective on what happened their first time through, or is it fundamentally different? *They don't know.* That's the point. They have no idea what they're doing.\n\nBut one night, Abe thinks of a clever way to test it out. He's awakened in the middle of the night by some kids setting off car alarms. He figures that they can do an experiment: Go do something, doesn't matter what really, just something they can check up on later. Then use the boxes to go back to before those kids set off the car alarm that woke Abe up in the first place, and prevent them from doing it. No car alarm means Abe doesn't wake up, which means they don't do the thing, which means they don't use the boxes, which means they don't prevent the kids from setting off the alarms, which means … what? *They don't know.* That's the point. The characters do not know what would happen. But they're smart and curious, so they decide to try it and see.\n\nOnly they never get to do their experiment, because they're interrupted by the sudden appearance of a guy named Granger who has *apparently* used a box himself. What box did he use? When did he use it? *Why* did he use it? The characters don't know, and neither do we.\n\nBut this situation freaks Abe out so much he decides to use his failsafe box. After he understood what the boxes could do but before he told Aaron about them, he built and started a secret box that only he knew about. He did this so he could, if he needed to, use that box at any time in the future, go back to before *any* of this stuff started, and … something. Change the events, maybe. Or maybe not, *he doesn't know,* but he figures it's worth at least having the option, just in case time works the way it does in sci-fi movies.\n\nSo when Granger shows up and Abe realizes that the boxes are no longer a secret, he decides to use the failsafe in an *attempt* — which he can't know will succeed, but hopes anyway because by this point he's scared and desperate — to go back and fix things.\n\nExcept when he gets back to the beginning, he finds Aaron's already there, waiting for him. Aaron found Abe's failsafe box much earlier, and used it himself. So Abe finds that not only does he not have everything under control, he doesn't even have the *option* of getting things under control any more. The genie's out of the bottle; Abe can't undo what he's done.\n\nThis legitimately freaks him the hell out. The shock of learning that Aaron had been at least a step ahead of him the whole time, combined with simple exhaustion — remember, these guys haven't exactly been sleeping regularly since they started messing with the boxes — basically knocks him on his butt for a while. The whole situation's become so complex, so incomprehensible, that he decides to just bail on it. That's when he and Aaron have their conversation (fight, almost) at the airport. Abe's terrified of time now, not because he understands it, but because he understands that *he doesn't understand it.* He doesn't know if anybody can understand it; the human mind wasn't meant to deal with concepts like that. So he just wants out. He wants it all to stop.\n\nAaron, on the other hand? Aaron's the arrogant one. He thinks he does understand time. Which is why he's the one who ends up, at the end of the film (which is not the end of the story, but rather the beginning of the story) off somewhere out in the world building a bigger box. A much bigger box.\n\nBecause Aaron's got *plans.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ed1o4
|
What was the first, real city?
|
What or where was the first major, organized city throughout history? And why was it the first?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ed1o4/what_was_the_first_real_city/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjyh58a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because we are always unearthing new ancient findings, this answer changes over time. Currently, however, the city of Jiroft, uncovered in 2001 in modern day Iran, is currently considered by many the oldest city and the first civilization. It was a radical shift and the beginning of civilization. Prior to this, we believed the first cities to be in the Indus valley in India or in the Fertile Crescent in Iraq. \nWhat was found in Jiroft is the earliest evidence we have of an organized society. Unfortunately, however, because it took archaeologists so long to unearth Jiroft, it suffered great damage at the hands of looters, which has left us in the dark as to how the city functioned and its culture. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8f5g4y
|
is there a good reason why we need to wear socks with shoes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8f5g4y/eli5_is_there_a_good_reason_why_we_need_to_wear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy0oopg",
"dy0tksf"
],
"score": [
17,
7
],
"text": [
"Reduce friction. Absorb sweat. Keep insides of shoes cleaner, fresher. Adjust fit of loose shoes.\n\nI've searched tha seven seas fer an answer. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: why do we wear socks with closed shoes? ](_URL_0_) ^(_5 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: Why does putting socks, which cover around 5% of my body, make me feel significantly warmer? ](_URL_1_) ^(_ > 100 comments_)\n1. [Why do we wear socks? ](_URL_2_) ^(_8 comments_)\n",
"Ever wear sneakers or other closed shoes without socks?\n\nYour feet will sweat, and there's nowhere for that sweat to go. If you're wearing sandals it can evaporate, but in a closed shoe it puddles and becomes a breeding ground for bacteria. This makes your feet stink.\n\nThen all that pooled sweat and bacteria, which still can't evaporate, has nowhere to go except soaking into your shoes. So now your shoes stink. And shoes are hard to get clean. Some can go through the wash, but if they're leather it's going to be a lot harder.\n\nPlus, sweaty feet generate a lot of friction. With nothing between your sweaty feet and the show, that leads to blisters.\n\nSocks fix all the above problems. They soak up the sweat and are easy to clean, and give a barrier to reduce friction between your foot and the shoe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/178bta/eli5_why_do_we_wear_socks_with_closed_shoes/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57ti97/eli5_why_does_putting_socks_which_cover_around_5/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/6m0fpa/why_do_we_wear_socks/"
],
[]
] |
||
bnomux
|
Was the moon landing ever (implicitly or explicitly) set as a "win condition" for the space race?
|
I've seen a lot of images based on the fact that the Soviets were the first to a lot of space-related achievements and the US mostly only "won" by virtue of landing on the moon first. So, is this a case of American propaganda making us believe they won? Or had the moon landing been set as a "victory condition" before the Americans had managed to achieve it?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bnomux/was_the_moon_landing_ever_implicitly_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"en7sv19"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"Modified from an [earlier answer of mine](_URL_0_)\n\nAs popular as the narrative of the \"race to the moon\" is in popular culture and discourse, both the Soviet and US leadership balked at the escalating costs and dubious rewards from manned spaceflight.\n\nThe Eisenhower administration was cool towards space exploration and behind closed doors, JFK was more skeptical than his public rhetoric suggested. JFK's space policy alternated between bellicosity over the Apollo program and a more measured response offering cooperation with the Soviets for a joint lunar mission. NASA had already received a report in 1963 from British astrophysicist Sir Bernard Lovell that the Soviets had no immediate plan for a lunar landing and although JFK brushed the Lovell report aside, his later [1963 UN speech](_URL_1_) floated the idea of an international lunar mission. \n\nFor their part, the Soviet leadership was initially nonplussed by Korolev's satellite program. Korolev's team had gotten approval from Malenkov for development of an artificial satellite in 1954, but the regime's leadership was hardly enthusiastic about the possibilities offered by space exploration. When Korolev and others involved broached the topic to Khrushchev when the latter toured the R-7 rocket facilities in February 1956, the Soviet premier was not terribly impressed by the potential of using the R-7 ICBM for peaceful purposes. In short, the Soviet leadership primarily saw rockets as military weapons first to the exclusion of other possibilities. Korolev and other scientists involved in the development of Sputnik had to constantly lobby their superiors by emphasizing the role satellites could play in defense and that the development of satellites would not hinder the development of missiles for the strategic rocket forces. \n\nThe US's soft commitment to launching a satellite and the successful launch of a Jupiter-C rocket in September 1956 convinced Korolev that the Soviet's satellite program was behind the US. The result was that the Soviets scaled back their ambitious satellite, Object D, into something much more simpler and lighter, the PS-1. As before, the design team had to sell the program to the Soviet leadership emphasizing the American threat. Korolev's letter to the Special Committee noted \n\n > In September 1956, the U.S.A. attempted to launch a three-stage missile with a satellite from Patrick Base in the state of Florida which was kept secret, The Americans failed to launch the satellite ... and the payload flew about 3,000 miles or approximately 4,800 kilometers. This flight was then publicized in the press as a national record. They emphasized that U.S. rockets can fly higher and farther than all the rockets in the world, including Soviet rockets. From separate printed reports, it is known that the U.S. A. is preparing in the nearest months a new attempt to launch an artificial Earth satellite and is willing to pay any price to achieve this priority.\n\nIn reality, the US satellite program was pretty moribund and Korolev mistakenly believed the Jupiter-C launch was an attempt to launch a satellite. But the appeal that a successful US launch would publicly undercut the proclamations of Soviet military superiority and the simplified nature of the new satellite designs meant that Korolev's appeal for an accelerated satellite program was successful and the USSR Council of Ministers signed a decree in 15 February 1957 to launch a Soviet satellite. \n\nThe initial Soviet press reports on Sputnik's successful orbit were very low-key. The Soviet's news agency TASS's press release on PS-1 emphasized the boilerplate tropes that this development heralded the triumph of Soviet science without divulging much on the satellite's technical details. The article on the PS-1 in *Pravda* was not even the top headline for that day's news. \n\nWhat changed this lukewarm Soviet attitude towards spaceflight was the US's public panic over Sputnik and the global reaction to this advance in Soviet science. Western press reports quickly filtered back to the Soviet leadership and they finally realized the immense propaganda value that space exploration held for the wider Cold War. The Soviet press suddenly started a massive publicity campaign further explaining this triumph and Khrushchev invited Korolev into a personal meeting to discuss the future of the Soviet space program. Eight days after Sputnik's launch, Korolev received authorization to launch a satellite coinciding with the fortieth anniversary of the October Revolution the following month. Sputnik-2, containing a biological element, the ill-fated pooch Laika, launched on 2 November 1957. The rushed nature of the design contributed to the failure of the capsule to protect Laika and the nature of her death was a state secret until 1999. Yet, the propaganda coup reaped by space exploration could not be denied, and portraits of the [Soviet space dogs](_URL_3_) became ubiquitous within the [Soviet Union and Eastern bloc](_URL_2_). Sending a man into orbit became the next logical step. \n\nThe manned Soviet program was in many respects an extension of their earlier satellite and space dog programs. The state would trumpet Soviet space triumphs after their completion and other aspects of the program were kept in relative secrecy. Dual-use or easily adapted technology remained the norm. The Vostok space capsule emerged out of the OD-2 program for a spy satellite and Soviet design teams often stressed the interchangeability of \"biological\" payloads like humans for those of a more military nature. Electronics components such as guidance and control devices for the space program had to pass through military procurement channels which had a layer of state security to them making innovation difficult. The first batch of Cosmonauts had a carefully groomed media profile and were to be the whole public face of the Soviet space program while the the rest of the effort was kept in relative secrecy. This allowed for sudden public relations coups, but also contributed to grumbling both among the engineers and Cosmonauts that they were pawns in a larger games both against the Americans and the entrenched bureaucracies of the Soviet system. But for all these problems, the Soviet space program's combination of pragmatic mixture of using proven technology and taking calculated risks ( the safety protocols for Cosmonauts were quite bad even by the frontier standards of the time) managed to accrue a steady stream of successes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3b9rxy/why_was_the_ussr_so_interested_in_space_flight/",
"http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9416",
"http://io9.com/vintage-memorabilia-celebrates-the-soviet-unions-cosmon-1638971938",
"http://io9.com/5548624/the-adorable-kitsch-of-the-ussrs-dog-astronauts/"
]
] |
|
bs5yv1
|
What's up with the Hubble constant disparity and changing universe age (as 12.5b years)?
|
[Mystery of the Universe’s Expansion Rate Widens With New Hubble Data - _URL_3_](https://www._URL_3_/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data/)
[Latest Hubble Measurements Suggest Disparity in Hubble Constant Calculations is not a Fluke - _URL_1_](https://www._URL_1_/news/heic1908/)
The disparity mentioned in the articles has to do with how precise their measurement of it is, not that it's changed in the last few years. However, I'm not clear on how much it *has* changed over time. Slowed down/speeded up/etc. Is there a correlation to size?
And also:
[The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why. - NBCNews](_URL_5_)
[New study says universe expanding faster and is younger than we thought - Associated Press](_URL_0_)
[This sums it up.](_URL_4_)
> Based on numbers from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, Riess thinks the expansion rate is 74 kilometers per second—about 9 percent faster than the old rate. If he’s correct, the universe would only be between 12.5 and 13 billion years old.
Apparently they calculated a much faster expansion rate. Is this for now, an average of all time, a constant from all time, or some other explanation?
And why is no one concerned about shaving a billion years off a number we thought we knew to within 21 million years? It's Nobel laureate Adam Riess, not just anybody.
I feel like I missed some something somewhere.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bs5yv1/whats_up_with_the_hubble_constant_disparity_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eok4pai"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This is a really important question, but we don't really know what the reason is yet. The most we can say about it is that the disparity is between measurements of the Hubble constant in the *early* universe (from Planck measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background) and the relatively late universe (from supernovae) appears to be **real**, and not a statistical fluke. Further, the discrepancy is large enough now, that there's not an easy way to explain it while still staying within constraints from other kinds of data. A few years ago, [it looked like maybe some tweaks could get the job done](_URL_1_). After further refinements, [it looks like that's no longer the case](_URL_0_). (I recently went to a talk by Adam Riess where he showed an updated version of that first graphic and how none of the arrows from different changes now reached the confidence interval for the Hubble constant as derived by supernovae, but I can't seem to find a more recent version of that graphic online.) It's a bone fide puzzle. Something is clearly awry, and it's not yet clear exactly what it is."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://whyy.org/articles/new-study-says-universe-expanding-faster-and-is-younger-than-we-thought/",
"spacetelescope.org",
"https://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1908/",
"nasa.gov",
"https://world.wng.org/content/unsettled_science",
"https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-may-be-billion-years-younger-we-thought-scientists-are-ncna1005541",
"https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data/"
] |
[
[
"http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2019-25",
"https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2019%2F02%2Fearly-vs-late.jpg"
]
] |
|
60pa6z
|
what scientifically stops us from creating life?
|
We know what we are made of but what stops life from starting when we put the necessary ingredients together?
Edit: I'm not talking about creating another human. But just a small single celled form of life.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60pa6z/eli5_what_scientifically_stops_us_from_creating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df86ezg",
"df88924",
"df8an3h",
"df8b00r",
"df8c9h6",
"df8gk8z",
"df8gsk5"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
3,
7,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"We can't put them together from scratch yet. Close, but not quite. \n\nAlso, life is a dangerous thing...there's the \"wipe out all other life on Earth\" possibility to deal with.",
"We've replaced the genetic material in simple cells with a synthetic genome and fired them back up.\n\nAll that's really limiting us from building complete cells from scratch is the fabrication of complex cell components. Biological systems are capable of extremely fine chemical assembly that we can't replicate in a lab mechanically.\n\nWe can use other cells to build the parts we want, but that's not quite the same.\n\nFor more complex life you have to deal with more sophisticated genetic code and layers of gene regulation that we don't fully understand yet.",
"We are trying, but it is *fucking hard*. It's not like we can precisely manipulate individual atoms and molecules as if they were Lego bricks.",
"Because we simply cannot craft matter at the molecular level as we please.\n\nThe basic molecules needed for life are astronomically complex. And nature itself did not create them overnight. They slowly evolved from simpler structures over time. Life did not just spark into existence, it was conceived by a long sequence of very lucky developments.\n\nThe DNA itself is composed of proteins, which are themselves composed of amino acids, which are still quite complex and varied. And we can't just link atoms together like Lego blocks.\n\nIf that was that easy, our planet would have had more than one life outburst. Instead, all known life on planet can be traced back to a single event.\n",
"\"Creating life\" in this context would refer to a very simple life-form. One of the most important steps for this is creating a lipid bi-layer of some sort, which is what most likely happened when the first lifeforms on earth came to be. Luckily this happens relatively easy, when molecules that have a hydrophobic and hydrophilic part clump together, as this creates a semi-permeable membrane that is able to selectively let through certain molecules (think food and oxygen), and creates a stable environment for the cell-to-be. This is the same thing that happens as when soap bubbles form.\n\nThe next important step is taking in amino acids, which are the molecules that form DNA. It has already been proven that these amino acids can form in something we call \"primordial soup\" when electricity is applied (thunder for example). With a bit of luck, a very simple functional strand of DNA is formed, and with even more luck, the formed DNA is functional enough to have it start simple metabolism and reproduction. \n\nThe difficulty in creating this ourselves (and the answer to your question) is the sheer number of times this has to happen before we get lucky enough that something functional forms. Life being created is incredibly improbable, but given enough time (hundreds of millions of years), the process happens so often, life might actually form.\n\nI need to add that i left out a lot of stuff and loads of it is slightly incorrect for the sake of simplicity, but the general idea is correct. ",
"By some definitions, we already have. We can create 100% artificial DNA, use it to replace the DNA in a single celled organism, and get a new, novel lifeform that uses that synthetic DNA.\n\nWhat we can't do is create everything from scratch, we still need a natural organism to kick start it. The question is when does that become creating life? If I use one lifeform to create something completely new and difference, does that count?",
"Mostly because a lot of the critical parts are so incredibly small and delicate. We don't have tools to build something like that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9gl8uc
|
how did people subsist on mostly grains in the past? iow, why did a failed wheat harvest cause a famine?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gl8uc/eli5_how_did_people_subsist_on_mostly_grains_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e64y51h",
"e64z1vr",
"e64z9xj",
"e652ep4"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Grain-based foods like bread or rice are pretty much the most efficient calorie delivery mechanism available. Today we think about watching what we eat and trying not to get fat, but in those days the main concern was not starving to death. Bread was cheap, really cheap, and since the vast majority of the population lived in grinding poverty while doing lots of calorie-burning manual labor all day long it was the best thing for them to eat. Depending on where you lived you might be able to supplement your diet with vegetables or fish, but bread would be the main thing that filled your belly.\n\nThe word famine comes to us from the Latin *fames*, which means hunger. Anything from a flood to a drought to a disruption in transportation of grain could cause a famine, and it would mean that all the poor people who could barely afford to eat bread would have nothing.",
"Well first of all we still subsist mostly on grains. We can divide our diet into four main source of calories. 1) Carbohydrates : that mostly come from grains, but also from sugar, which wasn't that available in the past. (At least not like today), 2) Fat, 3) Plant Protein and 4) Animal Protein.\n\nOn average in the US almost 50% of the daily calories come from carbohydrates. (I wasn't able to find how much of that come from sugar vs gains). So even today, grains represent a large portion of our diet and if wheat or other grains harvest would fail on a large scale, we would have famine.\n\nSource : _URL_0_\n\nAs you can see in the graphic, in the last 50 years we slighting increase our carbohydrates consumption (My guess is more sugar), but not by much. It's mostly fat that increased a lot since 1960. So in the past we were more dependant on grains, because sugar wasn't as available as it is today and fat usually come from more expensive source of food. It cost more to get beef on the table than some bread.\n\nSo in the past, an even large portion of our diet was dependent on grains, simply because it was an efficient way to produce food and food was more scare bad then.\n\nTransportation was also less developed in the past, so if there was a problem with an harvest in a region, it was harder to transport food from somewhere else to feed people.\n\nAnd finally, government was less powerful, so they didn't have that much control over what was happening in some region. They simply didn't have the resources or the obligation to do something about a region having a bad harvest. Today, there is organisation in place to respond to crisis to prevent famine in most developed countries and if people in government failed to respond, they might be taken to court for that inactivity. Something that wouldn't happen in the past.\n\n",
"Grains get you the most calories per acre and were responsible for a huge population boom (with the occasional famine) when humans started cultivating them about 10,000 years ago. That calorie surplus let people do things other than search for enough food to eat all day, things like crafting or trading or soldiering, things that lead to a more developed society.\n\nFamine did lead to widespread hunger and death, but those were people who wouldn't have existed in the first place without a grain-based food economy.",
"For most of human history we lived a life of subsistence. The net total of all of the food that we grew, hunted, raised, and gathered in a year were at or just slightly above the amount we needed to not starve. Any disruption of the crops, bad run of hunting etc would cause famine. Note this is not just grains, it is all food sources. Have a early frost that killed the crops and people starved, have a bad hunt too often and people starved, have a blight or disease come through the crops or livestock and people starved. We did not have stable surpluses in food supply until the early 1800s when agricultural methods improved enough to have major surpluses from year to year. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ca742
|
With the use of lightning rods, would it be possible to store/utilize the power of lightning?
|
Kind of like Frankenstein used it to create his monster, but in a more conservative and useful way...maybe like filling massive batteries or placing it all into a type of reservoir.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ca742/with_the_use_of_lightning_rods_would_it_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cstpo1j",
"csu3kp0",
"cswtwko"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"It could be possible, but it's not practical. The problem would be that all that electricity comes in at such a high power over such a short amount of time, and the respective technology that would receive this (the conductors and the battery itself) is just not ready for this. Another problem would be having a metal that can resist that kind of heat without melting away. It's a cool concept though :)",
"Another issue is that lightning does not contain a ton of energy relative to how much energy we consume. The entire planet generated 22.6 TWh (8.2e19 J) of electricity in 2012. The average lightning bolt releases about 500 MJ of electricity, and there are roughly 1.4 billion lightning \"events\" per year. If we perfectly harnessed every single bolt, it would constitute less than 1% of our annual electricity consumption (~7e17 J). Now add in the huge engineering problems to be overcome, and you can see why it's not an avenue that many people are actively pursuing.",
"Designing electric systems to handle millions of volts and tens of thousands of amps is far beyond our current capability. Pun intended. \nThey would have to be put all over the place, and then we would still have to wait for a thunderstorm. Solar and wind power are much more efficient. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8e513b
|
why does one get paranoid at times? in other words, are there receptors for paranoia in the body?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8e513b/eli5_why_does_one_get_paranoid_at_times_in_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxsfris"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The endocrine system regulates your flight or fight response, releasing various chemicals that attach to your receptors and make you feel scared.\n\nParanoia is a reaction to fear, such as is anger.\nIf there is no immediate threat, your brain is going to rationalize your fear.\n\nIt's why we get pissed when someone pulls out in front of us, or laugh when we get a jumpscare. It's our brain rationalizing fear into something we can process consciously.\n\nBoo!\n\nYou could have anxiety or something, but cannabis will also cause random paranoia even when you haven't smoked it in a while.\n\nGood luck."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2qmze2
|
Why was Romania the only Communist Country not to cut ties with Israel?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qmze2/why_was_romania_the_only_communist_country_not_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn7x3f6"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"It seems hard to believe now, especially after Ceausescu clung by his fingernails to power while the rest of Eastern Europe turned away from Communism, but during the seventies and eighties he had a reputation as something of a pro-Western (or at least not stridently anti-Western) \"reformer\" who worked hard to cultivate ties with the United States, Britain and other non-Communist powers.\n\nHis own propaganda films made sure to show he and Elena hobnobbing with the likes of Richard Nixon and Pierre Trudeau, and riding in Queen Elizabeth's carriage. Meanwhile, Romania entered into seemingly lucrative business deals with Western nations, like building French Citroen automobiles under license and buying aircraft from Britain (and then trying to pay for them with strawberries). They even sent a team to the 1984 summer Olympics, defying the Soviet-led boycott.\n\nI'm not so sure about his country's ties with Israel, buy they would appear to fit this pattern."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6kbhfu
|
how is netflix cheaper than cable without ads while cable has them? shouldn't it be the other way around ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6kbhfu/eli5_how_is_netflix_cheaper_than_cable_without/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djkrds8",
"djkvk3h",
"djl5xce",
"djl8co1"
],
"score": [
36,
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Netflix is about the same price per month as a premium cable station like HBO or Showtime. So, I am not sure why you think it's substantially cheaper.\n\nIf you are comparing Netflix to cable service as a whole, remember that the cable bill includes getting the content to your house. Netflix doesn't cover that.",
"When cable TV was first introduced, the main selling point (wait...PAY?? For TV??!!) was that it didn't have commercials. Guess how long that lasted. Give Netflix another decade or so.",
"Because Netflix uses the internet to deliver content, and you pay for internet service separately. All together the price isn't all that different",
"While it is true that you pay for delivery as part of your cable bill...\n\nCable has (to some extent) a \"monopoly\" on certain types of content, especially live sports and news. They charge more because some people are willing to pay, partly because of lack of options (for that type of content). \n\nCable companies are also constantly criticized and sometimes sued for unfair or unclear fee structures, including stuff like equipment rental fees being overcharged or billed incorrectly. \n\nYes, there are concrete reasons why cable may be more expensive to deliver to you. But a lot of it comes down to business practices. Netflix wants to continue getting your money because you're happy with their product and the value it offers. Cable companies want to get as much money as possible from you per-month and they're willing to have people leave their service if it means they can continue price-gouging their loyal customers. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
f97aop
|
why can't engineers remove the violent left/right movement and shakes of trains better?
|
If you ever try to stand and pee on a train, it is very noticeable how it shakes left and right between the rails. This seems like an inefficient waste of energy and a burden on the train's suspension and structure. It is also uncomfortable.
The train in question is a relatively new Stadler Flirt, but the same issue is valid for all non-highspeed trains. The rails are, in part, quite old. But I figure their inaccuracies should still be possible to smooth out?
So, question, why aren't train engineers improving the ride way more than they already do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f97aop/eli5_why_cant_engineers_remove_the_violent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fipthap",
"fipz5wz"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"The technology exists, but it's too expensive so most manufacturers don't bother because rail companies won't buy it.",
"The simple fix is to stagger the rails instead of them being like ========= they should be like \"-\"- (where the quotes are offset rails) it makes trains far quieter and far less \"rocky\" from side to side, however, the increase in cost for laying track like that is higher than you would expect. The GO Train in Toronto is an example of how quiet and less \"rocky\" but I haven't seen it replicated anywhere else in north America (not that I've been on trains in every part of NA)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1q5pa4
|
What percentage of our urine is water? Why do we not hold/process more water and then simply pee thicker urine?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1q5pa4/what_percentage_of_our_urine_is_water_why_do_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd9km3f",
"cd9kv4k"
],
"score": [
3,
11
],
"text": [
"Your body only absorbs the water it needs, and then uses the rest to get rid of certain waste products (the stuff that makes urine yellow).\n\nIf you drink a lot of water, a lot will come out in urine, and you will have clear urine. If you don't drink enough water, your urine will get thicker.\n\nWhy your body doesn't hold or process more water is because it only needs a certain amount of water and only holds a certain excess amount, and then it gets rid of anything on top of that.",
"There's a few factors which come into play. Firstly, urine isn't simply useful as a means of getting rid of urea, you also get rid of a lot of other metabolic wastes through urine. Secondly, unless you've drunk a lot of water recently, your urine is already really quite concentrated (typical osmolality of 800mOsm/l and up to 1400mOsm/l, as opposed to the osmolarity of your blood ~300mOsm/l (Osmolality is basically how much non-water is in a solution, a higher numbers means more particles)). \n\nIn a simplistic view, when blood passes through the kidneys most small particles, and a lot of water, ends up in what are called nephrons (there are millions of these in each kidney). Along the nephron is what is termed the \"loop of Henle\", which is basically a hairpin shaped part of the nephron that goes in to the centre of the kidneys, and this is where a lot of the movement of salt and water occurs. (there's also a fair bit of ion movement in the proximal convoluted tubule but this isn't actively controlled as part of homeostasis, so we'll ignore it).\n\nWhat happens in the loop of Henle is that on the descending limb as it goes towards the centre of the kidneys, water passes out of the tubule through aquaporin channels into surrounding cells, but Na+ is left behind in the solute. What this means is that the solute (urine) left in the tubule is getting more concentrated. Meanwhile on the ascending limb, water is unable to move out, but our bodies actively pump Na+ out of the tubule into the space between nephrons. What this means is that there is once again a concentration gradient so water can come out of the descending limb. \n\nThe net result of this pumping is that there is a potentially large concentration gradient for water, and we can produce urine with osmolalilties between 100 and 1400mOsm/l. The problem is that it takes a lot of energy to keep pumping sodium ions and it takes more and more energy as the gradient gets steeper, evolutionarily it just doesn't make sense for humans to produce more concentrated urine (as it is we reabsorb 99% of water). Animals like beavers have much shorter loops of Henle and hence produce more dilute urine, while desert rodents can produce much more concentrated urine, but it means devoting energy to filtration which they can't \"spend\" elsewhere.\n\nTL:DR: Our urine is almost entirely water, and we don't reabsorb more water because it takes a lot of energy, and it doesn't make sense to do so (although we do reabsorb a fair bit more than a lot of other animals)\n\nEdit: I should add, vasopressin/ADH is a hormone which is released if blood pressure falls too low (ie, not enough fluid), which triggers the release of more aquaporin channels, and hence more water is taken up - this is how concentration is controlled."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ats1fd
|
Why is bleach so effective both at removing stains and at sanitizing? Is it the same chemical property that is responsible for both functions?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ats1fd/why_is_bleach_so_effective_both_at_removing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eh55i2l"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Yes.\n\nBleach is an oxidizing agent. When it reacts with coloured material in your clothes, it oxidizes it into a colourless form. When it reacts with molecules on the outer surface of bacterial and viral cells, it oxidizes them into non-functional and / or degraded forms, which kills the cells."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
16nk8u
|
frost at above-freezing temperatures
|
Often, in California, the low drops to around 35 F on some winter nights. Despite the freezing point never having been reached, my car often accumulates a thick layer of frost. Why does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16nk8u/eli5_frost_at_abovefreezing_temperatures/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7xmktw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You (or the weatherman) are measuring the temperature of the air. You should try taking the temperature of the car. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
axhzsk
|
I’m trying to better understand Marcus Crassus’ portfolio. What does it mean to be an ancient billionaire? How did he spend his money, and where did his wealth go when he died?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axhzsk/im_trying_to_better_understand_marcus_crassus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehufgja",
"ehulv02"
],
"score": [
160,
12
],
"text": [
"Two authors estimate Crassus' wealth. According to Plutarch, he assessed his own property at 7,200 talents of gold. Pliny the Elder tells us that he possessed the equivalent of 200,000,000 sesterces. Attempts to calculate the modern equivalents of these amounts are [usually based on bullion value](_URL_0_), and so fail to take account of the greater purchasing power of money in antiquity. But it is clear that Crassus was the equivalent of a modern billionaire, and the wealthiest private citizen in the Late Republic. \n\nThe basis of Crassus' wealth was real estate. During Sulla's proscriptions, he snapped up the auctioned estates of executed men at artificially low prices - he was even rumored to have proscribed in Sulla's name a man whose estate he coveted (Plutarch, *Life of Crassus* 6.7). Later, he added to his holdings by buying tenements damaged or threatened by one of Rome's frequent fires. When notified of a fire, he or his agents would rush to the scene, and offer to buy the burning building and its neighbors at knock-down prices. When the distressed owner(s) agreed, he would send in his brigade of fire-fighting slaves, who would extinguish the blaze, and immediately begin reconstructing the building for fresh rentals. \n\nCrassus' portfolio, however, was fairly diverse. According to Plutarch, besides owning \"the greater part of Rome,\" Crassus possessed \"numberless silver mines, and highly valuable tracts of land with the laborers upon them\" (2.5). He also owned thousands of slaves, who (besides extinguishing fires and reconstructing buildings) served on his various properties as \"readers, amanuenses, silversmiths, stewards, and table-servants,\" and so generated income by managing his estates and producing items for sale. \n\nCrassus lent our money to friends and allies, albeit at extortionate interest rates. But like most elite Romans, he spent the bulk of his wealth on public display. Though noted for his personal frugality - unlike many of his wealthy contemporaries, he never built a lavish townhouse - he accumulated political capital by throwing public banquets. While consul, likewise, he distributed money, giving every Roman citizen enough to live on for three months (Plutarch, *Crassus* 2.2). He was also known for saying that \"no man was rich, who could not maintain a legion upon his yearly income\" (Pliny, *HN* 33.47) - and put his money where his mouth was during the expedition against Spartacus. \n\nUpon his death in Parthia, the bulk of Crassus' property was presumably inherited by his son Marcus. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;",
"I am interested in the second question in terms of inter-generational wealth and mobility, considering that some families can perpetuate their wealth over hundreds of years. \n_URL_0_\n\nAs one poster pointed out, Crassus’s wealth probably passed to his son. Do we know anything beyond this? How long after his death were descendants of Crassus still living off the nest egg he accumulated? Or was it all blown after a couple profligate generations? How long did the real estate stay in the family?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://coinweek.com/education/worth-purchasing-power-ancient-coins/"
],
[
"https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence"
]
] |
||
36ulru
|
If solar cells were 100% efficient how much land mass would it take to support the world's current power production? How about the projected power production of 2050?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/36ulru/if_solar_cells_were_100_efficient_how_much_land/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crhkolf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"According to [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) the solar intensity on the Earth's surface is about 1400 W/m^2. According to [Wikipedia](_URL_1_) the amount of energy generated in 2012 was 22,668 TWh. Assuming that half of the world is getting 1400 W/m^2 of intensity and the other half is getting 0 you would need 177318.86 Km^2 of 100% efficient solar panels evenly distributed around the Earth. If you could make the solar panels move across the Earth and constantly stay in the sun you would only need half, although this would increase the energy consumption as they would consume energy as they moved. Someone else can do the one for 2050."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#World_energy_consumption_and_electricity_supply"
]
] |
||
facwht
|
Are quantum mechanics interpretations falsifiable?
|
I'm thinking specifically of Copenhagen, Many-Worlds and de Broglie–Bohm theory. Do these interpretations always make the same predictions, or is it possible to devise a test that could rule out one or more of them?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/facwht/are_quantum_mechanics_interpretations_falsifiable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fizl6ab",
"fizomhx",
"fj0jurt"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Overall they give the same predictions for the same obsevables. However, they arrive at the answer in slightly different ways. There are tests of locality and “hidden variables” that could hypothetically predict these, but by tests of Bell’s inequality, we know that if hidden variables exist, they must be nonlocal (ie have action at a distance larger than light could reach in the given time interval).",
"Many-Worlds is not falsifiable, but it's our best guess if the others are falsified and it's already the simplest model with the least amount of hidden variables or other stuff packed on top of the Schrödinger-Equation.",
"The interpretations don't make predictions that are generally testable because the interpretations are intended to be consistent with known observations and so an interpretation that was falsified would be a failed hypothesis. However, experiments that show the consequences of quantum theory show that some of these interpretations lead to strange and sometimes unsatisfying conclusions. For example, Bell's inequality and the Aspect and subsequent experiments, the quantum Zeno effect, weak quantum measurements, and the quantum coherence of large systems such as Bose-Einstein condensates challenge ideas of what a measurement is, whether partial measurement, when it occurs, can measurements occur gradually or are they all-or-nothing, whether it involves seemingly superluminal communication, and the microscopic-to-macroscopic divide between the quantum and classical worlds. While the mathematics of quantum theory appears to survive challenges and tests, our understanding of what the mathematics describes continues to evolve. For example, the density matrix formalism and quantum decoherence description of measurement seems to describe aspects of measurement and wavefunction collapse but does not completely connect the mathematics of quantum mechanics to measurement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1j5w25
|
how close are we to build engines capable of travelling at roughly the speed of light?
|
I often hear about how we some day will be able to travel at the speed of light. But how close are we exactly and what would have to happen in order to build this kind of engines/spaceships?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j5w25/eli5_how_close_are_we_to_build_engines_capable_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbbeppv",
"cbberje",
"cbbes7x"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
" > How close are we to build engines capable of travelling at roughly the speed of light?\n\nNot even remotely close.\n\n > I often hear about how we some day will be able to travel at the speed of light.\n\nIf our current understanding of physics is correct we will never be able to travel at or faster than the speed of light. We may eventually be able to \"trick\" the universe into letting us pass between places faster than light, but we will never be able to traverse the distance between them at or above the speed of light. \n > But how close are we exactly and what would have to happen in order to build this kind of engines/spaceships?\n\nRight now our current technology doesn't make this a viable option. Right now we don't have a ship capable of reaching another planet, or even the moon.\n\nThe biggest problem with using our current technology to attempt relativistic speeds (this is below the speed of light, but still really fast), which is how fast we would need to travel if we want to travel between stars, is that you need to use fuel to accelerate, and keep using fuel the entire time. This means that as you need to carry **massive** amounts of fuel in order to go very fast, because that first fuel you use has to accelerate all the extra fuel you're carrying. As you use fuel this becomes more efficient - but I'm about to throw another wrench in the works - but you still need to carry enough fuel to *stop* you when you get to your destination.\n\nBasically, by the time you're finished figuring out how much fuel you need, the amount of fuel you would need becomes unrealistically huge with our current technology. ",
"On a scale from 1 to 10? A low 1.",
"The fastest we've ever gotten a spacecraft is around 37,000 mph (depending on how you measure it, I guess), and that number is misleading because the probe used gravity to get up to that speed. The speed of light is around 650,000,000 mph.\n\nThat means we've gotten to around .005% of the speed of light, and we cheated a lot to get there. Not even *remotely* close."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bi00fk
|
why does tapping wood and tapping metal produce different sounds?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bi00fk/eli5_why_does_tapping_wood_and_tapping_metal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elx060f",
"elx5cc2",
"elxa2oo",
"elxzllg"
],
"score": [
75,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"you know when you put a ruler on the edge of a table and push it down and let it go and it makes that woioioioinggggg sound? And if you vary the length of it off the table, the sound changes and the speed at which the end of the ruler goes up and back down changes? This is the natural frequency of the ruler when it is that length of the table and thus produces a certain sound. \n\nNow certain materials also will have a natural frequency such as wooden or metal tables and that's why they make different sounds. They make different frequencies because they also will only take in set amounts of energies.",
"Sound is basically caused by our eardrums reacting to different frequency vibrations, and our brain interpreting the vibrations as sounds. Different frequencies will cause different sounds, because the vibrations are different.\n\nDeeper sounds are caused by lower/shorter frequencies/vibrations, while higher sounds are caused by higher/longer frequencies/vibrations.\n\nThe reason those objects make different sounds will be due to a lot of things, but mostly due to being made of different elements, and having different densities. Both objects cause different types of vibrations, so you hear different sounds.",
"Hey, one that I can answer. Nice. \n\nWood and metal are very different materials. Compared to metal, wood is very soft and has loads of super tiny cracks and holes, all of which affect the sound that is made on contact. \n\nMetal tends to \"ring\" when struck. This is because metal objects (especially those meant for beating noises out of) have a very rigid structure, and are very hard. This means that hitting the metal object causes the strike to spread theough the entire object in the form of vibrations, in a far different way than with wood. \n\nI feel like I was rambling a bit. May come revise this later.",
"The short answer is because metals are much springier and thus will vibrate for longer. This has two effects: The sound lasts for longer, so you get ringing, rather than the \"clop\" of wood. Metals also allow for production of higher pitched/ higher frequency sounds, so the specific frequencies that make up the sound produced when striking metal will have a lot more high frequency waves in it. \n\n\nWhy metal supports high frequency sound generation when wood doesn't comes down to differences in molecular structure. The same metallic bonds that give wood its properties of ductility (can be stretched into a wire) and malleability (can be flattened into a sheet) give it it's acoustic, or sound properties. \n\n\nWhy objects produce the characteristic sound they do is a really deep well to plumb, that involves some math, physics, and chemistry. If this sounds interesting to you, start reading up on metallic bonding vs. polymers, normal modes and natural frequencies, frequency spectrum and Fourier transforms, resonance, and phonons."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
21k4xl
|
How did Gregorian chant develop? What musical traditions does it descend from?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21k4xl/how_did_gregorian_chant_develop_what_musical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgdz2wy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is a very difficult question to answer. \n\nAsking about music before the so called Gregorian chant gets you to deal with oral traditions from many centuries ago (the earliest notations we have would be from the 9-10th century). Gregorian chant had to be REVIVED in the 20th century, after about 500 years of decay, and the earliest notations are already problematic enough. You are getting into pre-historical music, so to speak...\n\n* Jewish liturgy\n\nIt might have not influenced musical elements directly (it used to be considered that there was a direct musical link, but I understand these days experts don't agree on this being the case). However, we can see influence in things like the setting of the Canonical hours (fixed prayers at regular periods), Amens, Alleluias...There are common characteristics that might link this liturgy, but don't really confirm it as a direct musical influence: lack of regular meter, responsorial and antiphonal performance, usage of conjunct motion, recitations, melismas, etc. \n\n* Ancient Greek musical\n\nThe music theory of the Ancient Greeks passed to the Romans, and continued being influential. There was not much left of Ancient Greek music in terms of actual examples, and the ones we have are different from Gregorian Chant, so the influence was theoretical more than anything else.\n\n* Byzantine chant\n\nByzantine chant could have been an influence. The theory they developed was probably to some extent an influence for Western music (but maybe after the establishment of the Gregorian repertoire). \n\n* Other European chants\n\nGallican chant (the music of the rite from the Frankish lands) could have been an influence. To some extent the music from the Celtic and Mozarabic rites, too. Beneventan, Ambrosian and the Old Roman chants coexisted with the \"Gregorian\" one. I can't tell you to what extent they were influential. \n\nCan't help you with anything more than that. This is dense, hardcore, problematic stuff... You really need a specialist for this. Try /r/musicology and /r/earlymusicalnotation, but I don't really know if anybody over there could help you with details.\n\nSome books:\n\n* [T. F. Kelly - Chant and its Origins](_URL_1_)\n\n* [W. Apel - Gregorian chant](_URL_3_)\n\n* [P. Wagner - Introduction to the Gregorian melodies](_URL_2_)\n\nPlease note that the last two are quite dated. Apel was (back in the 1950s) trying to get rid of lots of accumulated speculation (that Wagner is from the 1900s)... [The first one (from 2009) would be the best alternative](_URL_0_), I linked the other two because those are easy to find online.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/9598/09.12.19.html?sequence=1",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/chant-and-its-origins/oclc/243821437&referer=brief_results",
"https://archive.org/details/introductiontogr00wagn",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/gregorian-chant/oclc/608792&referer=brief_results"
]
] |
||
13we85
|
why does my hair stand up every which way when i wake up?
|
What makes my hair stay all funky when I wake up in the morning? And why can't I get it to go back down without completely dousing it with water in the shower?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13we85/eli5_why_does_my_hair_stand_up_every_which_way/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c77z3nd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I can best explain this by having you pretend you've parted your hair. When you part your hair, you're training it to prefer to stay in one way or another. When you have short hair, or cowlicks as some people call them, you've slept on your hair so that it sticks up at an angle and you've trained it to stay that way. This is usually the result of sliding down your pillow throughout the night because pillows are terribly designed necessities. Water has a lot of wonderful abilities, including strong hydrogen bonds which make it love to stay with other water molecules and its ability to stick to anything that isn't engineered to have it slide off of. It likes to stay with itself, so when it sticks to your hair, it's also sticking to itself and the strength of the water's bonds with other molecules of itself is stronger than your hair's attempts to stay sticking up in a goofy way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5cuxt4
|
why does all mainstream virus protection software mcafee kasperky norton etc all take 1 hour+ yet malware bytes take 5 mins and actually find the problem?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cuxt4/eli5why_does_all_mainstream_virus_protection/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9zp1q6"
],
"score": [
46
],
"text": [
"This is because they have wildly different use cases.\n\nFirst off, don't be fooled by terminology. Just because a software is called \"Antivirus\", it doesn't mean it will only protect you from viruses, which is only a subset of threats out there. This is just a traditional term for anti-malware solutions. \n\nTraditional Antivirus software (like Symantec Endpoint Protection, Kaspersky Endpoint Security, McAfee Antivirus etc.) is used in trying to *protect* your system from malware infections. It will transparently scan everything that goes in and out of your computer for patterns that are known to come from malware. When doing a scan on your hard drive (not the realtime protection most solutions have), it will scan files for certain characteristics, which forces it to take a very thorough look at each individual file. This takes time. They also can prevent execution of malicious files that the user clicked on. Most solutions also have a so-called \"heuristics\" system that can analyze executable files at runtime, and make a decision based on things the program wants to do to the system. This helps protecting the system from unknown malware.\n\nSolutions like Malwarebytes (or MBAM for short) work in a completely different way. They are *not designed to protect your system*. Rather, they help cleaning up infections that already hit you by comparing all your files against files that are known to be malicious, which is a very fast thing to do. They will not prevent the user starting a malware program nor will they do *anything* to program execution at runtime, even if the program is definitely malware. It will *only* help you if you are already infected, and will not stop you from infecting your machine again.\n\n\ntl;dr/Real ELI5: Traditional Virus Protection software works more like a vaccine that can optionally try to find viruses that slipped through. Malwarebytes is like Antibiotics (except that only works for bacteria and fungi, but the analogy works fine), it treats stuff that already infected you but will not prevent further infections. \n\n//edit: Source: Am an IT professional with specialization in information security, work for a partner of multiple antivirus software vendors.\n\n//edit2: MBAM seems to have similar features to commercial AV products when using their Business products. This post is about the free edition everybody means when mentioning MBAM."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3mo4wc
|
the newest change in facebook privacy settings. do they actually use my info/pictures/messages? can they actually make my account public?
|
Many Facebook friends are writing "legally binding" posts about Facebook not having permission to their account information.
A) Does that even work?
B) What does their new privacy updates mean for the everyday Facebooker?
Thanks in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mo4wc/eli5_the_newest_change_in_facebook_privacy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvgnmzz",
"cvgqqyw"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This might be what you're talking about, and may help you. I'm not sure without more detail though. _URL_0_",
"No those stupid posts about \"facebook cannot use my information blah blah blah\" do. not. work.\n\nThey fail to realise that when they signed up they accepted the terms and conditions of the site, which also covers any changes or variations to those terms and conditions. Their posts are unenforceable as \"legally binding\".\n\nI cannot answer what the changes will mean. But i doubt it will mean anything at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.hoax-slayer.com/bogus-facebook-privacy-notice.shtml"
],
[]
] |
|
1q9u38
|
So you are a red blood cell of an average human. How long does it take to visit every part of the human body?
|
Also, do you even get a chance to see every part of the human body or do you die way to early. If so how much of the body would you have travelled?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1q9u38/so_you_are_a_red_blood_cell_of_an_average_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdanpde",
"cday1by",
"cdaz5nv"
],
"score": [
57,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It'd depend on what you define as \"every part\". Your entire blood supply passes through the heart roughly once a minute, although where each cell goes is pure chance.\n\n They \"live\" for about 120 days, which is more than enough time to reach every major organ and all the major vessels. But, every organ has different parts and sections, so every RBC gets to see the lungs, but there's no guarantee they get to see every lobe of the lungs (statistically they will), or get to every branch of the pulmonary arteries (it's possible), or every single alveoli (now you're pushing it).\n\nSource- Tortora & Derrickson's \"Principles of Anatomy & Physiology\"",
"_URL_0_\n\nThere's about 3 *10^10 capillaries in the human body, according to this link.\n\nThe lifelength, from other posts, of a redblood cell is 120 days, and they go through the body once every minute. That means that they go through your body about 172 800 times, not enough to visit every capillary.\n\nThere's around 100 organs, so they'll likely see all of those. There's around a 1000 muscles, so you'll probably see most of those.",
"While we're on the topic of Red Blood Cells, interesting fact: Bone Marrow produces nearly 2-3 million new RBCs per second. This accounts for the fact that our bodies are constantly destroying RBC through macrophages about every 3-4 months as other posts have mentioned. \n\nIt's an incredible number to think about. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02460125#page-1"
],
[]
] |
|
4bezza
|
Can genes be partially-methylated?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4bezza/can_genes_be_partiallymethylated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d18oud1"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes genes can be partially methylated, it's a sliding scale from 0-100% methylation and can be calculated several ways depending on what you're interested in. A single gene in a single cell will have many cytosines. While an individual cytosine is either methylated or not (ignoring for now that most genes have 2 copies), it's not required that *all* or *non* of the cytosines are methylated, 90% or 50% of the individual cytosines can be methylated. On the other hand, maybe you're only interested in a specific cytosine. In any given cell that cytosine is either methylated or not, but usually you're interested in more than a single cell and again, it's not required that *all* or *non* of the cells in a given tissue have the same methylation state at a given cytosine, so 90% of the cells could have that particular cytosine methylated or 50% could. Usually what you're really interested in is both of the above: the methylation of a bunch of cytosines (eg. all the cytosines in a particular gene's promoter) within a bunch of cells, and you can calculate an overall average percent methylation.\n\n[This image shows the output from an experiment measuring DNA methylation using a technique called bisulfite sequencing](_URL_4_). Each row of circles is basically one cell, each column is a particular cytosine, if it's white it's unmethylated, if it's black it's methylated. You can clearly see that it's not an all or non phenomenon.\n\nThe relationship between DNA methylation (in a gene's promoter) and gene expression is generally that the more methylation the lower the expression, and vice versa. DNA methylation within the gene body usually doesn't affect gene expression (and may in fact be associated with higher expression, so the opposite of promoter methylation).\n\nRegarding the androgen receptor gene specifically, [here's a paper that looked at *AR* promoter methylation in development](_URL_1_). In their supplemental figure 2 it shows percent methylation of several cytosines in the promoter and they range from about 20-55% methylated. Keep in mind that methylation is often cell-type specific so the measurements here only apply to the cell type they used.\n\nIf you're interested in looking at DNA methylation of the *AR* (or other) genes in more detail you can go to the [UCSC Genome Browser](_URL_3_) and in the human hg19 genome load the tracks \"DNA Methylation by Reduced Representation Bisulfite Seq from ENCODE/HudsonAlpha\" and \"CpG Methylation by Methyl 450K Bead Arrays from ENCODE/HAIB\", or you can try the [EpiGenome Browser](_URL_2_) which I've never really used but it looks like it has DNA methylation data, or if you really want to get into analysis you can go download some DNA methylation genome sequencing data from [ENCODE](_URL_0_) and analyze it.\n\n*edited to add the bisulfite sequencing image*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.encodeproject.org/search/?type=Experiment&assay_slims=DNA+methylation",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160614005223",
"http://epigenomegateway.wustl.edu/browser/",
"http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgGateway",
"http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2006/01/10/0510171102.DC1/10171Fig5.jpg"
]
] |
|
5iw5bq
|
How did the mycaneans (and their ancestors) know about lions?
|
Maybe this is a totally dumb question. I am visiting Greece and was in the national archeological museum today and saw many references to lions...but from what I know about the lions habitat, even the civilizations they had contact with were hundreds or maybe thousands of miles from the nearest lions.
Even if this was migratory, oral history it seems to me it would have been thousands of years separated! What am I missing?
Edit: just googled it and indeed my ignorant ass misspelled mycenaean.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5iw5bq/how_did_the_mycaneans_and_their_ancestors_know/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbbesj7"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Lions were fairly common in southeastern Europe as of the time of Herodotus. We are told that Xerxes encountered a few during his attempted invasion of Greece. They were driven extinct around 100 BC. It's believed that European lions were similar to the Asiatic lions present in the Middle East."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7wfkk5
|
why does heartburn at night cause nightmares and a racing heart?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wfkk5/eli5why_does_heartburn_at_night_cause_nightmares/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtzxf36"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm no Dr but I am a chronic sufferer of acid reflux, especially at night. I have never experienced this. It may be psychosomatic. I used to experience muscle spasms and stinging feelings in my back as a child and they were always accompanied by dreams of bee stings. I've experienced these feelings while awake and always assumed the dreams were my brain \"making sense\" of the information it was receiving. The brain likes to fill in blanks, even if it's wrong."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3ld6ki
|
Why is the the Fibonacci sequence shown in bubble chambers all the time?
|
i always see these pictures of bubble chambers and i noticed the Fibonacci sequence shown, what is this?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ld6ki/why_is_the_the_fibonacci_sequence_shown_in_bubble/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv5ofxi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If by bubble chambers you mean the [Fibonacci spiral](_URL_0_) then it's just an interesting mathematical play on the sequence. If you start with one square whose side we consider to be equal to 1 (the unit of measurement is irrelevant) and then proceed to attach sqares to the side of the shape in a Fibonacci sequence, by connecting the opposite corners of those squares you get a spiral which keeps stretching outwards proportional to the rate at which the Fibonacci sequence \"spirals\" out of proportion (pun intended). \n\nThe rule of thumb here is to create the new squares by lining up on a previously created side so that the sum of whatever sides makes up that side equals the next term in the Fibonacci sequence. However, do keep in mind that this is just a neat visual representation and not an actual strict thing which goes by that rule. For instance, there is no explicit reason as to why the size 5 square should go on top of it, other than the need to preserve the look of the spiral. Mathematically speaking, it could be argued that the size 5 square should be placed on the bottom as the term itself is created by the sum of the sequence's previous two members (2+3) and not due to the sum of 1+1+3 as the image might suggest.\n\n[Here](_URL_1_), I've sketched out an idea about what it would truly mean to stick to that rule and to the Fibonacci sequence's principle. All in all - it's just a neat aesthetic thing, nothing too mathematical about it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://thespiritscience.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/fibonacci_spiral.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/uOonv9f.jpg"
]
] |
|
1rldgl
|
how do doctors/paramedics know what's wrong with a person if they're unconscious?
|
For example, if a person is knocked unconscious by an accident, and is injured, how do doctors or paramedics diagnose the patient?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rldgl/eli5_how_do_doctorsparamedics_know_whats_wrong/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdodxqj",
"cdoek60",
"cdon5o6"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"By examining the patient for the more common causes of being unconscious. Typically when in an accident it's not going to be totally unexpected that they took a bump to the head if they're unconscious and in most cases unconsciousness doesn't last very long. ",
"Paramedics would usually assess the patient first with a tip to toe survey,this would find anything like lumps bumps and cuts. They also will have basic test equipment for things like blood pressure and sugar. So assuming there are no witnesses they could still reach a reasonable conclusion until they got to the hospital where the doctors have more sensitive test equipment. ",
"C - CATASTROPHIC hemorrhage\n\nA - Airway (is their airway clear? have they chocked on something. is there vomit in the airway?)\n\nB - Breathing ( the air can get in but it can't get in due to the pt not breathing \n\nC - Circulation ( Blood going round and round?)\n\nObservations - HR, Respiratory rate, SP02 (oxygen %), Blood pressure, Blood glucose, Pupil size + reactivity, 12 lead ECG.\n\n\nWith some one in cardiac arrest. you've got the 5 H's and 4 T's \n\n\nH's\n\nHypoxia: low oxygen levels in the blood\n\nHypovolemia: low amount of circulating blood\n\nHyperkalemia or hypokalemia: disturbances in the level of potassium in the blood, and related disturbances of calcium or magnesium levels\n\nHypothermia/Hyperthermia: body temperature not maintained ( no-one is dead until they are warm and dead)\n\nHypoglycemia: Low blood glucose levels - once went to a pt in a GP surgery with ?CVA (stroke) so GP called for an Amb to pick them up. Patient was unconscious on a bed in the surgery. A quick check of this persons blood glucose showed a level of 1.2 (normally 4-7). after getting some IV glucose in they were up and about and back to normal. \n\n\n\nT's\n\nTension pneumothorax: increased pressure in the thoracic cavity, leading to decreased venous return to the heart\n\nTamponade: fluid or blood in the pericardium\n\nToxic and/or therapeutic: chemicals, whether medication or poisoning\n\nThromboembolism - A blockage in the blood vessel. Like those that happen in the coronary arteries which causes heart tissue to die from lack of oxygen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1o5i6y
|
what is tommy john surgery, and why do so many baseball players have it?
|
I'm a huge cardinals fan and could not be more excited after last nights victory over the pirates. After reviewing out teams injuries many people
(Furcal, Motte, etc.) have season ending Tommy John surgery. Why have the surgery if it will end your season/career? What is wrong with them? Why do so many ballplayers have the surgery?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o5i6y/eli5_what_is_tommy_john_surgery_and_why_do_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccoymq2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Tommy John Surgery, known in medical practice as ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction, is a surgical graft procedure in which the ulnar collateral ligament in the medial elbow is replaced with a tendon from elsewhere in the body.\n\nThe patient's arm is opened up around the elbow. Holes to accommodate a new tendon are drilled in the ulna and humerus bones of the elbow. A harvested tendon (often the palmaris tendon)—from the forearm of the same or opposite elbow, below the knee (known as the patellar tendon), or from a cadaver—is then woven in a figure-eight pattern through the holes and anchored. The ulnar nerve is usually moved to prevent pain as scar tissue that forms can apply pressure to the nerve.\n\nThe UCL can become stretched, frayed, or torn through the repetitive stress of the throwing motion. The risk of injury to the throwing athlete's ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint is thought to be extremely high as the amount of stress through this structure approaches its ultimate tensile strength during a hard throw. R.A. Dickey, however, became a very successful Major League Baseball pitcher despite having no UCL in his pitching arm. According to experts he should not be able to throw at all, let alone at a professional level.\n\nWhile many authorities suggest that an individual's style of throwing or the type of pitches they throw are the most important determinant of their likelihood to sustain an injury, the results of a 2002 study suggest that the total number of pitches thrown is the greatest determinant. A 2002 study examined the throwing volume, pitch type, and throwing mechanics of 426 pitchers aged 9 to 14 for one year. Compared to pitchers who threw 200 or fewer pitches in a season, those who threw 201–400, 401–600, 601–800, and 800+ pitches faced an increased risk of 63%, 181%, 234%, and 161% respectively. The types of pitches thrown showed a smaller effect; throwing a slider was associated with an 86% increased chance of elbow injury, while throwing a curveball was associated with an increase in pain. There was only a weak correlation between throwing mechanics perceived as bad and injury-prone. Thus, although there is a large body of other evidence that suggests mistakes in throwing mechanics increase the likelihood of injury it seems that the greater risk lies in the volume of throwing in total. Research into the area of throwing injuries in young athletes has led to age-based recommendations for pitch limits for young athletes.\nIn younger athletes, for whom the growth plate (the medial epicondylar epiphysis) is still open, the force on the inside of the elbow during throwing is more likely to cause the elbow to fail at this point than at the ulnar collateral ligament. This injury is often termed \"Little League elbow\" and can be serious but does not require reconstructing the UCL.\n\nIn some cases baseball pitchers throw harder after the procedure than they did beforehand. As a result, orthopedic surgeons have reported that increasing numbers of parents are coming to them and asking them to perform the procedure on their un-injured sons in the hope that this will increase their performance. However, many people—including Dr. Frank Jobe, the doctor who invented the procedure—believe most post-surgical increases in performance are generally due to two factors. The first is pitchers' increased attention to conditioning. The second is that in many cases it can take several years for the UCL to deteriorate. Over these years the pitcher's velocity will gradually decrease. As a result, it is likely that the procedure simply allows the pitcher to throw at the velocity he could before his UCL started to degrade.\n\n---source: Wikipedia"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4f2sep
|
How strong a gravity could humans adapt to?
|
For a sustainable society everything else being equal what is the strongest gravity a human world can have? And what would a visit to Earth be like for the inhabitants of this hypothetical world?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4f2sep/how_strong_a_gravity_could_humans_adapt_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d25josu",
"d25lvaw",
"d26600r"
],
"score": [
12,
52,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't know. We have no to limited data on the effects of long term exposure to different gravity than g.",
"[Rats in a centrifuge](_URL_1_) develop denser bones and stronger muscles and are mostly fine at 2-3 g. They have [some difficulties getting pregnant](_URL_0_) though.\n\nHumans are not rats though, and the differences might be very important. We are strangely built bipeds with our brains above our hearts and our weight balanced on fragile knee cartilage. Nobody has ever done long-term experiments on centrifuging human beings but they're going to come out either much stronger, dead, or afflicted by crippling knee and back problems.",
"That's a good question, and any answer is going to be sheer speculation. There are lots of things about the human body that are no stronger than they have to be. For instance, the scrotum would offer some problems in a sustained heavy gravity. The same with breasts. Also, a pregnant woman's cervix has to hold up quite a few pounds when she's standing, as do her distorted abdominal muscles. Heck, our hearts are optimized to pump the blood in our feet back up to our heart in one gravity. The more gravity it has to pump against, the quicker is going to wear out. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11538243/",
"http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00297483"
],
[]
] |
|
65idxr
|
Protestant teaching under Luther's Two Kingdoms suggests that church and state should be separated. So why did the English monarch become the head of the Church of England?
|
Martin Luther's Two Kingdoms indicates that the church should not exercise government. So, why, under a Protestant conversion, did the monarch of England become the head of the church? Even if that role is only symbolic now, it is unusual to me.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/65idxr/protestant_teaching_under_luthers_two_kingdoms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgaj8m7"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Hey there! While I'm in no way an expert in this area, I was researching it recently and hope to provide even just a little insight!\n\nFrom what I understand, a key element of the English Reformation is just that - it was an English Reformation, relatively separate from the German debates occurring contemporaneously. It's important to note that the reformation in England was kicked off primarily due to Henry VIII's decision to sunder the Church of England from the Catholic Church.\n\nFor the record, there were numerous debates, arguments and differences between the English Church and Rome for quite some time before this, but none led to a complete separation in the way that Henry's political concerns did.\n\nOnce Henry had separated from Rome, he essentially had under his control a small section of the Catholic Church. Since his intentions had been largely non-theological (as opposed to Luther) the Church of England retained much of its Catholic appearance, and still does to a large extent. Go to a high Anglican service, or even an Episcopalian church in the states and you will immediately see a lot of the similarities. \n\nHowever one of the primary differences between the two was that Henry wanted control over his English Church. By pushing for the King's control over the Church, Henry and the various clerics who helped over the next couple centuries to mold this new Religious Body were following in the footsteps of even earlier theologians and scholars like John Wycliffe (known for helping create the Heretical sect the Lollards) and others. Wycliffes arguments were primarily based on the idea that the Church should hand over temporal control to political figures like the King - due in no small part to their overwhelming wealth in land and other capital. Wycliffe was disgusted by the widespread opulence and corruption of the Church that he saw at the time - much as Luther was concurrently. While Lutherans evolved away from the idea of Political control of the Church, they certainly pushed for the same ideas of combatting corruption and benefices.\n\nIn England, Thomas Cranmer and many others used these ideas, with heavy influence from the King, to craft a Church that sort of paved a third way - the famous 'via media' between staunch Catholics and rebellious Protestants. To this day the Church of England represents a middle ground between the various Protestant denominations and mainstream Catholicism. Their political background did lead to the King's control of the Church, like you mentioned. In the present day this control has been loosened however, and over time the Archbishop of Canterbury has assumed more of a leadership role.\n\nSOURCES:\n\nDickens, A. G. (1989). *The English Reformation* (2nd ed.). London.\n\nHeal, Felicity (2005). *Reformation in Britain and Ireland* Oxford University Press\n\nLeiden, Brill (2006) *A Companion to John Wyclif. Late Medieval Theologian*\n\nPicton, Hervé. (2015) *A Short History of the Church of England: From the Reformation to the Present Day.* Cambridge Scholars Publishing\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
mei7e
|
why do us universities favor professors who are better at research than teaching?
|
Seriously, it seems like the people who are experts in their fields show up, read off slides, then allow TAs to do the hard work because they are too busy with their research to teach.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mei7e/eli5_why_do_us_universities_favor_professors_who/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3094d7",
"c3095af",
"c3095g7",
"c309gn1",
"c309ke0",
"c30abrw",
"c30apgs",
"c30bmz0",
"c30ciyu",
"c30csya",
"c3094d7",
"c3095af",
"c3095g7",
"c309gn1",
"c309ke0",
"c30abrw",
"c30apgs",
"c30bmz0",
"c30ciyu",
"c30csya"
],
"score": [
46,
17,
9,
6,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8,
46,
17,
9,
6,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Guess which one makes them more money, and gains better publicity, which brings more students.... and more money.",
"I'd just like to point out this phenomenon isn't US specific. It happens here in Finland even though we're said to have some of the best (mathematics) teachers in the world. (This is according to PISA studies.)\n\nWhat I've learned to do is look up all the things I'm expected to learn at [Khan Academy.](_URL_0_) They don't have anything on local diffeomorphisms, but everything up to that point I've found a clear explanation to!",
"Research both rakes in big $$$ for universities as well as builds the institution's esteem. Anyone with a Ph.D. (or even a Master's) can teach a class - you have to be super intelligent to conduct original, groundbreaking research.",
"Universities aren't about teaching, they're about *learning.* If you can look at it like that, it might help your frustration, if only a little.",
"When a faculty member at a research institution receives a $1million grant, typically about half that money goes directly to the University for \"services\", meaning the use of the facility, networks, computers, staff, etc. Now, the University was going to have to have all that stuff anyway, so this money is basically pure profit.\n\nFaculty who are really good teachers are generally so because they have worked hard to become so, often at the expense of generating a robust research/grant program.\n\nGiven this choice, major universities prefer the notorious researcher who brings in big money over the great teacher who brings in nothing.",
"Grants have a lot to do with it, but they're not the whole story. I used to work for the IT office at my university, and I had to sit in once when my boss gave a visiting professor a talk about how any research she did while at the university was partially owned by the university and they would be entitled to a portion of any future profits. It's not a big deal with someone like her (she was just publishing a book, which I think is a raw deal, since she had done most of the research before getting there), but it can get the university huge sums of money from STEM professors. \n\nOne of the professors in the engineering school won a patent infringement suit my sophomore year, and the university made something like $100 million since he filed the patent while working there. If he'd spent his time teaching instead of researching and filing patents, then he wouldn't have been worth anywhere near as much to the university than he was.",
"research makes crap loads more money",
"Research makes money and gets recognition. ",
"While this doesn't directly address your question, there are some benefits of having universities focus a significant amount of resources on research. For a specific example from a medical science perspective, pharmaceutical companies may develop vaccines in later stages, but much of the initial research is usually done by universities. It's simply not profitable for companies to do initial vaccine research, while universities have the resources and manpower to do this basic work. Of course this doesn't apply to all universities equally, but for the larger ones this is a benefit provided by university research as opposed to primarily teaching.",
"I'm currently faculty in a non-research university. I'm working on a Ph.D at a research university. And I just finished a prior responsibility of advising students at a 2 year college into our university. Hopefully I can give you some insights.\n\n* Non-research universities do focus on teaching. Sometimes quite heavily. Our faculty makes communication and the ability to teach the most weighted criteria in evaluating new hires. Can't speak comprehendible English? We won't consider them. Spent all their time writing research papers instead of applying knowledge? We also won't consider them. Also, every class of ours has evaluations, and we take them very seriously. Getting tenure and promotions after tenure require high scores in evals. \n* We focus on practical applications of knowledge. As a result, I can say without any reservation I'd hire our students over research university students for most jobs.\n* We're a public university, and so we don't make that much money. Most of us are here because we love teaching. The benefits are also awesome. We get to stay home 6-20 weeks a year, but our salaries are far below market wage. We struggle to get high quality new faculty because of this bind, but we do manage.\n* Research institutions focus everything on publishing, research, and developing new knowledge. These are the bleeding edge theorists. No focus on business applications or the workplace. Students are trained from beginning to end on how to conduct research and write research papers. There's also big money involved here. It's assumed at such institutions that the ability to teach doesn't matter. Students need to teach themselves. TAs free the faculty from having to teach students, so they can spend more time writing papers and applying for grants. Many of them also make twice in salary what we make, and they only need to teach one course a semester.\n* Some research institutions have research only professors. They don't teach a thing. They're busy applying for more grants and publishing even more papers. It seems the only reason research universities even have their professors teach is to recruit help in writing more papers. \n* Two year colleges focus heavily on quick and dirty business skills for all walks of life. The pay also is terrible. Instructors frequently take on 8 courses a semester to try to make ends meet, and each course suffers as a result. Most reasonable people find better ways to make money than teach there. So you often get some pretty poor instructors here.",
"Guess which one makes them more money, and gains better publicity, which brings more students.... and more money.",
"I'd just like to point out this phenomenon isn't US specific. It happens here in Finland even though we're said to have some of the best (mathematics) teachers in the world. (This is according to PISA studies.)\n\nWhat I've learned to do is look up all the things I'm expected to learn at [Khan Academy.](_URL_0_) They don't have anything on local diffeomorphisms, but everything up to that point I've found a clear explanation to!",
"Research both rakes in big $$$ for universities as well as builds the institution's esteem. Anyone with a Ph.D. (or even a Master's) can teach a class - you have to be super intelligent to conduct original, groundbreaking research.",
"Universities aren't about teaching, they're about *learning.* If you can look at it like that, it might help your frustration, if only a little.",
"When a faculty member at a research institution receives a $1million grant, typically about half that money goes directly to the University for \"services\", meaning the use of the facility, networks, computers, staff, etc. Now, the University was going to have to have all that stuff anyway, so this money is basically pure profit.\n\nFaculty who are really good teachers are generally so because they have worked hard to become so, often at the expense of generating a robust research/grant program.\n\nGiven this choice, major universities prefer the notorious researcher who brings in big money over the great teacher who brings in nothing.",
"Grants have a lot to do with it, but they're not the whole story. I used to work for the IT office at my university, and I had to sit in once when my boss gave a visiting professor a talk about how any research she did while at the university was partially owned by the university and they would be entitled to a portion of any future profits. It's not a big deal with someone like her (she was just publishing a book, which I think is a raw deal, since she had done most of the research before getting there), but it can get the university huge sums of money from STEM professors. \n\nOne of the professors in the engineering school won a patent infringement suit my sophomore year, and the university made something like $100 million since he filed the patent while working there. If he'd spent his time teaching instead of researching and filing patents, then he wouldn't have been worth anywhere near as much to the university than he was.",
"research makes crap loads more money",
"Research makes money and gets recognition. ",
"While this doesn't directly address your question, there are some benefits of having universities focus a significant amount of resources on research. For a specific example from a medical science perspective, pharmaceutical companies may develop vaccines in later stages, but much of the initial research is usually done by universities. It's simply not profitable for companies to do initial vaccine research, while universities have the resources and manpower to do this basic work. Of course this doesn't apply to all universities equally, but for the larger ones this is a benefit provided by university research as opposed to primarily teaching.",
"I'm currently faculty in a non-research university. I'm working on a Ph.D at a research university. And I just finished a prior responsibility of advising students at a 2 year college into our university. Hopefully I can give you some insights.\n\n* Non-research universities do focus on teaching. Sometimes quite heavily. Our faculty makes communication and the ability to teach the most weighted criteria in evaluating new hires. Can't speak comprehendible English? We won't consider them. Spent all their time writing research papers instead of applying knowledge? We also won't consider them. Also, every class of ours has evaluations, and we take them very seriously. Getting tenure and promotions after tenure require high scores in evals. \n* We focus on practical applications of knowledge. As a result, I can say without any reservation I'd hire our students over research university students for most jobs.\n* We're a public university, and so we don't make that much money. Most of us are here because we love teaching. The benefits are also awesome. We get to stay home 6-20 weeks a year, but our salaries are far below market wage. We struggle to get high quality new faculty because of this bind, but we do manage.\n* Research institutions focus everything on publishing, research, and developing new knowledge. These are the bleeding edge theorists. No focus on business applications or the workplace. Students are trained from beginning to end on how to conduct research and write research papers. There's also big money involved here. It's assumed at such institutions that the ability to teach doesn't matter. Students need to teach themselves. TAs free the faculty from having to teach students, so they can spend more time writing papers and applying for grants. Many of them also make twice in salary what we make, and they only need to teach one course a semester.\n* Some research institutions have research only professors. They don't teach a thing. They're busy applying for more grants and publishing even more papers. It seems the only reason research universities even have their professors teach is to recruit help in writing more papers. \n* Two year colleges focus heavily on quick and dirty business skills for all walks of life. The pay also is terrible. Instructors frequently take on 8 courses a semester to try to make ends meet, and each course suffers as a result. Most reasonable people find better ways to make money than teach there. So you often get some pretty poor instructors here."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.khanacademy.org/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.khanacademy.org/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
462xjo
|
how can ed sheeran's song "thinking out loud" win song of the year at the grammys when it wasn't released in 2015?
|
"Thinking out Loud" was released in May of 2014. How does it still qualify to be the song of the year at the 2016 Grammys?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/462xjo/eli5_how_can_ed_sheerans_song_thinking_out_loud/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d01yr0m",
"d01zgri"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"\"Uptown Funk\" was also released in 2014. Grammy nominations do not run the calendar year. For a song/artist/album, etc. to qualify for a Grammy for 2015, presented in 2016, it must be released between Oct. 1, 2014 and Sept. 30, 2015.",
"[This thread](_URL_0_?) gives an explanation.\n\nHint: Searches often help."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vuttn/eli5_why_thinking_out_loud_is_on_grammys_2016/"
]
] |
|
2499zu
|
why do auctioneers still use "auction chants"?
|
I love television shows like "Storage Wars" "Loud N' Fast" and the likes. While the shows are typically tacky, some of the knowledge gained from the shows and the rare items are pretty neat. One thing that really drives me crazy are the auctioneers. I don't understand why they still use "auction chants". I understand that it is to create hype and a sense of urgency, but it's 2014. Wouldn't a screen with a timer, or flashy animation create more hype and urgency ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2499zu/eli5_why_do_auctioneers_still_use_auction_chants/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch5huab"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"3 reasons:\n\n1. because most auctions are small events that are fairly bare bone affairs. an auction company comes in, sells a bunch of stuff, gets a commission, and leaves. usually there isn't any extra room or time to deal with flashy items.\n\n2. if the auctioneer has a ringman (or ringmen at larger auctions) its a way for the auctioneer to communicate the ringman about how far away a bidder is from the reserve price or other instructions. the auctioneer and ringman share alot of back and forth information in plain sight.\n\n3. for a flashy sign to be effective, you have to be looking at it. you can usually hear the auctioneer chant for long distances. that way you are constantly hearing the rhythm no matter what you're doing or where your looking. keeping a constant, driving rhythm helps make people want to keep the action going, no one wants to be the guy that ruins all the excitement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3tjybt
|
if the middle east is seemingly so rich with oil, why is there so much poverty and civil unrest?
|
Or there is no significant amount of oil to be found in Syria et. al?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tjybt/eli5_if_the_middle_east_is_seemingly_so_rich_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx6s43h",
"cx6s8dl",
"cx6smuy"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the governments of most Middle Eastern states are totalitarian and embezzle all that money away into Swiss bank accounts long before it ever reaches the people. In the case of Saudi Arabia and Iran they then use the money in those accounts to fund and export their particular flavor of insane fundamentalist religion and foment civil unrest in their neighbors.",
"Money from natural ressources are rarely split evenly across everybody (Norway for example, is doing something for their people with their oil money) and when the country or region is (made) unstable there is a fair chance of some people exploiting the riches of the country to hold on to this money for themself. You can also see that in many african countries, a single source of wealth that isn't in need of a functioning infrastructure, just somebody who digs up the oil and sells it is always a bad omen for poor people in the area.",
"This is not really specific to the middle east as there are quite a few variables at play, but generally speaking large natural resources tend to turn out badly for the country in question. This might seem like it goes against common sense, but there are legitimate reasons for this.\n\nIn many cases the countries that find large natural resources are developing countries with lacking institutions. In other words they don't have a proper mechanism to transfer the wealth to the general public or proper means to protect the assets. Combine this with general incompetence and you have the ingredients for a real shitstorm. The new money then starts attracting vultures both domestic and foreign, and suddenly all types of splinter groups start getting funds. The interests of the rich and powerful are usually more succesful than the interests of the general populace, so the people who ultimately end up in charge are mostly concerned with getting filthy rich themselves rather than building schools. \n\nIn more ways than one natural resources are like winning the lottery. It seems great but in most cases it ends in tears. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8x2eln
|
why does putting a band-aid on a minor wound cause it to hurt slightly less, even if it’s not open and bleeding?
|
Is it cushioning? Is it protection from drafts? Placebo effect?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8x2eln/eli5_why_does_putting_a_bandaid_on_a_minor_wound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e20a026"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"It stops the skin stretching die to the numerous microtears in the skin created the resulting wound. You may not be able to see it but the skin becomes more stretchy and delicate as a result of this. By having a bandaid you keep the wound in place and stop friction and movement which are things which cause pain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4asbu8
|
Was the Carolingian Empire related to the Holy Roman Empire?
|
Previously, I thought that the Carolingian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were completely 2 different empires but as I did some research, I discovered that Charlemagne was both a Frankish (Carolingian) king and was also crowned by the pope as the emperor of the Romans. So besides Charlemagne, how are the two Empires related?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4asbu8/was_the_carolingian_empire_related_to_the_holy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d13dnqd"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The Carolingian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are directly related.\n\nThe Carolingian Empire was started by Charlemagne, who descendants then split his territories into several smaller kingdoms but predominantly West and East Francia. West Francia is the forerunner of what we call France, while East Francia was situated predominantly in what we now call Germany.\n\nOver time, East Francia diverged from its supposed 'Francian' identity and its rulers became known as 'King of the Germans'. King Otto of Germany made an alliance with the Pope against King Berengar of Italy, who was hostile to Otto and the Papal States. In return for Otto's support, the Pope agreed to crown Otto as Emperor of the Romans to emphasize Otto's position as defender of Christendom and legitimize his desire to absorb Berengar's domains. This also drew a line to Charlemagne, who himself was crowned 'Emperor of the Romans', as a way of showing Papal support to Charlemagne while renouncing Byzantine influence in the region.\n\nI believe Otto is generally considered to be the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, in terms of establishing the actual state (as much as you could call it a single state) and how it functioned. But as Otto was a successor to Charlemagne you could consider Charlemagne the 'spiritual' founder of the Holy Roman Empire.\n\nSo even though there is a distinction between the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires, the latter is a direct evolution of (the Eastern part) of the former."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1j2gkn
|
Any interesting or remarkable tales of WWII Italian fighting skill or courage?
|
The popular conception of Italy's WWII efforts is that the Italian military was unmotivated to fight or incompetent, but at any rate sub-par. Italian setbacks in Greece and North Africa no doubt contribute to this.
Are there any interesting episodes of particularly effective or courageous fighting by Italian military units, or particular soldiers/sailors/airmen?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j2gkn/any_interesting_or_remarkable_tales_of_wwii/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbagv4q"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"There were many instances of not only stubbornly fought military actions, but also successful engagements by Italian forces in WW2. I should first establish the strong military tradition that surrounds the young Italian nation. When she was formed, there are several elite branches that serve different purposes, and Italy's geography is the key in explaining this otherwise overlooked phenomenon. The Italian Alpini are specially trained soldiers for mountain warfare. Comparable to German Gebirgsjaeger or the US 10th Mountain Division, they have a very unique history of traditionally defending Italy's northern border which is protected by the Swiss Alps. Italy is also a Peninsula, so the Mediterranean sea is the border and to secure it, a strong navy is needed. The years between WWI and WWII, Italy built up her navy at a very rapid rate and in the 1930's, she had gained the status of 4th largest navy in the world. To sum up Italy's achievements in WWII, I think a fair assessment would be, \"performing well in desperation.\" Though they may not have always been the victors, the hard fought battles of many Italian forces deserve to be recognized.\n\nExamining Italy's Navy (*La Regia Marina*) alone proves the bravery and sacrifice of many Italians during the war. Early in the war, the Italian navy faced a series of set backs. The British surprise [raid on Taranto harbor](_URL_0_) putting 3 battleships out of action, followed by the staggering defeat at the [Battle of Cape Matapan](_URL_1_) essentially gave the British naval superiority overnight. At such a disadvantage so early on, Italy began to experiment with less conventional methods of warfare. The *Xa Flotiglia MAS* was a special forces division of the Italian army. the expeditions of the submarine *Scire* and Junio Valerio Borghese conducted Frogmen raids on various British ports throughout the Mediterranean. The most successful raids were at Gibralter and Alexandria, in which these soldiers piloted torpedoes, completely submerged, and attached them to ships hulls with a timed fuse. The most notable damage they did was sink the *HMS York* and *Queen Elizabeth*, but they also destroyed hundreds of thousand tons of British shipping this way. The Frogmen of *Xa MAS* were the direct inspiration for the US navy seals. Also, the disadvantage at sea faced by the Italians obviously had detrimental affects on Italy's ability to ship supplies to the soldiers in Africa. Many accounts claim sailors surviving brutal attacks, and finding themselves facing more attacks on the very next mission. the Royal navy's naval superiority made it nearly impossible to protect Italian supply ships, even still, ~79% of Italian shipping was delivered which is a testament to the valiant effort put forth by Italian sailors. the book, *Italian Navy in World War II* by James Sadkovich provides exact figures:\n\n\"WAR MATERIAL TRANSPORTED FROM ITALY TO LIBYA SINCE JUNE 1940 TO JANUARY 1943 (expressed in tons):\n\nCombustible oil: left:599,337 arrived:476,703 (80%)\n\nVehicles & spare parts: left: 275,310 arrived:243,633 (88%)\n\nFire-arms & munitions: left: 170,060 arrived: 149,462 (88%)\n\nOther cargoes: left:1,200,673 arrived:1,060,157 (86%)\n\nTOTAL left: 2,245,380 arrived: 1,929,955 (85.9%)\n\nITALIAN-GERMAN PEOPLE TRANSPORTED FROM ITALY TO LIBYA SINCE JUNE 1940 TO JANUARY 1943:\n\nleft: 206,402 arrived: 189,162 (91.6%)\n\nWAR MATERIAL TRANSPORTED FROM ITALY TO TUNISIA SINCE NOVEMBER 1942 TO MAY 1943 (in tons):\n\nCombustible oil: left: 132,522 arrived: 94,472 (71%)\n\nVehicles & spare parts: left: 73,870 arrived: 59,440 (80%)\n\nFire-arms & munitions: left: 92,149 arrived: 62,806 (68%)\n\nOther cargoes: left: 127,628 arrived: 89,814 (70%)\n\nTOTAL: left: 433,160 arrived: 306,532 (71%)\n\nITALIAN-GERMAN PEOPLE TRANSPORTED FROM ITALY TO TUNISIA SINCE NOVEMBER 1942 TO MAY 1943:\n\nleft: 77,741 arrived: 72,246 (93%),\" (Sadkovich: 1994)\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.comandosupremo.com/the-first-pearl-harbor.html",
"http://www.comandosupremo.com/battle-of-cape-matapan.html"
]
] |
|
1ur5jd
|
does stretching after a workout really do anything regarding muscle soreness the next day?
|
The other day I read something here about stretching at it was said that stretching is entirely a neurological process, basically what you're doing is just flexing the muscles. I had thought this before, because working out, you're creating micro tears in the tissue of your muscle, once the workout is over, "the damage is done", you can't undo it by stretching. Is it suggested to stretch after a workout because your muscles are thoroughly warmed up, and thus prevent future injuries possibly caused by lack of flexibility?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ur5jd/eli5_does_stretching_after_a_workout_really_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cekw36c",
"cekx9nz",
"cekxmlv",
"cekzm7y"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"It also elongates the muscle.\n\n\n\"A long muscle is a strong muscle\"- Arnold szwahshdjHahshdjshshsjhaahhancjaager",
"Oh and since you were talking about DOMS, no, stretching doesn't help that. ",
"Absolutely. It releases lactic acid that builds up in your muscles during a workout, which in turn allows you to have a greater range of motion and be less sore.\n\nWhen you exercise (and especially when you lift weights), you are tearing the fibers in your muscles and they are regrowing to be stronger. That is what strengthening your muscles *is*. Stretching is important for that.\n\nAnd take it from someone (me, or anyone else) who runs 35 miles a week and lifts weights-- stretching makes you feel better the next day. This is a fact. If you don't stretch, you will be sore the next day. Anybody here who is sitting in their chair and citing an article they found on google that suggests otherwise and believes it does not exercise.",
"The two views. \n\nYes : believed by most people and fitness professionals, also has some research to back it up. \n\nNo : fairly a new view, new researches have found out stretching did nothing, and may even bring harm. Static stretches is the main culprits in this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5f6ady
|
Why'd it take so long to beat the Confederacy?
|
I don't understand why it took over 4 years to bring the Confederacy to surrender. Beyond fighting a mostly defensive war and better generals, they'd got virtually every imaginable disadvantage. Inferior numbers, a smaller industrial base, a blockade, no international recognition, a large slave population whose sympathies were obviously not reliable.
So, what was it? Weather? Terrain?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5f6ady/whyd_it_take_so_long_to_beat_the_confederacy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dazqa1s"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This is a bit late, but it was sitting in my upvote folder, and now i have free time!\n\nA lot of reasons, on the operational, strategic, and grand strategic levels. In the broadest sense, the rate of Union advance was limited by the size of the area they had to occupy, and it took time for the Union's greater industrial capacity to really tell. Furthermore, operational pauses were common in the winter months, and armies require extensive preparation for campaigning, so they weren't going to spend every day driving into the heart of the Confederacy.\n\nReconquering the Confederacy immediately in 1861 was probably not going to happen, because it was an area the size of continental Europe and the U.S. Regular Army was a laughably puny 16,000 men. Volunteers called up for the first battles had little in the way of training and nothing in the way of experience; as soon as 90 day volunteers could pull their weight in battle, their enlistments would expire. \n\nAs a result, both sides spent most of 1861 mobilizing and training their armies to meet the immense challenges they faced. Herein lies one of the reasons the war lasted past 1862; early in the year, the Union ran out of weapons to equip its men, and thus closed recruiting offices. At the same time, the Confederacy instituted the first conscription act in American history, giving them a temporary parity of numbers for the spring and summer of 1862. \n\nStrategically, Lincoln made a serious mistake in relieving McClellan as general-in-chief in spring of 1862. McClellan's key virtue was not his dynamism as a stand-up, knock-down brawler, but his strategic planning and organizational ability. The U.S. had three main field armies for the 1862 spring offensive, and they had to work in tandem to get the most out of them. McClellan's plan for the spring offensive was quite good, but left as one of multiple army commanders, he was unable to see the whole thing through to execution. When Lincoln relieved McClellan as general-in-chief, he did not replace him with another general for months (and his choice then was sorely lacking), and tried to run the war himself. Removing one of your generals from his position of his greatest strength, and leaving him in one that spotlights his biggest weakness, and attempting to run a massive war effort with no military experience was a recipe for disaster. \n\nBringing things down to the operational level, 1862 saw Union mistakes and Confederate successes on the campaign trail that saved the Confederacy from immediate collapse. Thanks to Abraham Lincoln's micromanagement of McClellan's army and his paranoia over the security of Washington, Lee had an opening to mount a counteroffensive against the exposed right wing of McClellan's army. In the Seven Days Battles, Lee forced McClellan from the gates of Richmond, buying the Confederates breathing room; at the same time, Lincoln rejected McClellan's proposal to shift the campaign towards Petersburg. While McClellan remained on the York-James peninsula, most of his army was detached from his control and attached to John Pope's army. It was then smashed and chased into the fortifications of Washington itself, and Lee followed up with an invasion of Maryland. At the same time, Braxton Bragg relieved Union pressure in central Tennessee by attacking the U.S. Army of the Ohio's supply line up to Louisville Kentucky.\n\nBy the end of 1862, between Lee's great victories and the threat of emancipation, Southern will had solidified; they were going to fight this out until midnight. As the war unfolded, about 94% of Virginians fought, and they weren't even the most highly mobilized state in the Confederacy. The war did not end until all three of the main Confederate armies were soundly defeated. Pemberton's Army of Mississippi surrendered in 1863, Hood's Army of Tennessee was smashed outside of Nashville in December 1864, and Lee's army was surrounded during his retreat from Richmond in April of 1865. \n\nReally, you have to look at the operational history of the major armies to understand why the Confederacy was not rapidly smashed; battles are near run things, and in no other sphere of human activity is so much room reserved for chance and circumstance. \n\nFeel free to hit me with any follow up questions!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
76n7at
|
On the declining popularity of "virtue"
|
Why exactly has the concept of virtue lost so much popularity in Western society? I'm referring to the pagan, Aristotelian virtues adopted by many Christian thinkers (e.g. the cardinal virtues) as well as the general concept of "respectable sensibilities" that were especially prevalent in the 18th and 19th centuries (at least as I perceive them to have been as a lay person). Was this really just a matter of declining religiosity? If so, would it be because these virtues were viewed to be part-and-parcel with religion?
I'm genuinely curious because I personally think the concept of aretaic virtue, at least, is a pretty helpful one, but my question isn't meant to have a normative implication that views this (self-perceived) historical shift as necessarily bad.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/76n7at/on_the_declining_popularity_of_virtue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dofqzag"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"Alasdair MacIntyre's 'After Virtue' tackles exactly this question. I'm not sure to what extent he admissible in the sub as a source, seeing that he's a philosopher, and the book is one of philosophy, but he does employ a specifically historico-philosophical method. He outlines this point in the book, saying that his perspective is one both alien to analytic philosophy, due to it's reliance on a historical perspective to elucidate philosophical issues, and to a history proper, because he deploys normative philosophical arguments to which a traditional historian is probably allergic (I sau probably because I do not know the extent to which normative neutrality is the standard at the moment for historians, but I'm guessing you guys don't have large digressions on meta-ethics on your papers on 13th c. Saracen piratery for example!). \n\nAnyways, MacIntyre sees the decline in virtue ethics as linked to the replacement of the Aristotelian natural framework, which had dominated European (and Islamic and Jewish) thought for the best part of 2,000 years. This is tied to Christianity as well because Aristotle was incorporated in the tradition through thinkers such as Aquinas. \n\nJust to go back a bit, for MacIntyre virtue ethics is given it's first explicit formulation by Aristotle, who basically systematically expounds what virtue means in the context of 4th century Athens. The language of virtues had existed previously, and incorporated in, for example, Greek Epic poetry, but a theory of virtue not been explicitly formulated.\n\nThe tradition of the virtues, which undergoes some modifications in the context of Christianity, but still retains its force as a living tradition, starts to disappear with the arrival of modernity: that is to say the frameworks inaugurated by Newton, Descartes, Bacon and the like. \n\nThis doesn't happen all at once, but gradually as Aristotelianism is dismantled the virtue tradition is de-natured. There is still talk of virtues, but for MacIntyre by the 18th and 19th centuries you cannot speak of a living tradition of virtue ethics. This has to do with some philosophical matters that I won't go into in too much depth here, but will briefly summarise: for MacIntyre virtues must be embeded within certain practices (he gives some examples such as chess, of medicine), in which you can achieve excellence. They must form part of a tradition. And they must take place in the context of a life that is lived narritavely. By 19th century none of these conditions hold. And in practice we see the emergence of Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, Humean skepticism, and so on. Curiously, for MacIntyre Jane Austen is an exception of someone still advancing the tradition of genuine virtue ethics when it had largely been abandoned.\n\nThis is an incredibly brief sketch of a long and complicated argument that I have certainly not done justice to. You are best of just reading the book (you can find pdfs online). But if you have any questions, and if this does not get removed, I'm happy to try and answer them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1cwgx7
|
Why did the javelin, once prevalent in the ancient world, disappeared from the battlefield during the medieval era ?
|
It appeared to me that the javelin or any type of throwing spear was quite popular in the ancient world. Numidian cavalry, illyrians, thracians, roman legionnaires and Greek peltasts, pretty much everyone used it.
Yet during the dark ages it seemed to vanish and almost completely disappear by medieval times. Is there any particular reason as of why it became obsolete ?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cwgx7/why_did_the_javelin_once_prevalent_in_the_ancient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9ko3ml",
"c9kpdcp"
],
"score": [
26,
11
],
"text": [
"First off- the javelin was actually used up into the 1800's by tribes in Africa. The Zulu were probably some of the best known warriors who used spears (including javelins) up until they were finally crushed by the British. \n\nI THINK I see your point though - you're speaking of the Javelin losing popularity in Europe....unfortunately, it really didn't. There are records of skirmishers with javelins being used up until the invention of gunpowder, and even beyond, depending on how picky you are. One reason that the javelin actually remained as prevalent as it DID was because it was far easier to train a man to chuck a spear than it was to train him to shoot a bow with accuracy and/or *en masse.* Secondly, the spear was *by far the most popular weapon in ancient warfar.* It's easy to learn, pick up and use. Throwing spears? No problem. They can be used as a melee weapon if worst comes to worst, they can be used to shatter a shield wall, and they can be used REALLY well from cavalry (far easier than the bow) to chuck at enemies, whether the enemies were on horses or on foot. Some examples of this would be the [Almogavars](_URL_1_) as light infantry who kept a couple of throwing spears, the [Jinete](_URL_2_), which were light cavalry who used throwing spears, the [Vikings](_URL_0_) were well known for using spears to sow their initial chaos (They actually used spears more than axes or swords!), etc. \n\nHowever, the reason that you don't see as MUCH of the idea of throwing spears (even though they were there the whole time), is because bowmen were there too, and the technology in bows had gotten really really good. Bows could shoot farther, you could carry a LOT more ammo, and it was a lot easier (Especially in the English eyes!) to train your peasants from birth so that you always had an archery corps. A personal theory of mine (Conjecture, but I have to put it in!) is that thousands of trained spearmen were also a lot more dangerous to the establishment than thousands of trained bowman ;)\n\n**TL;DR:** It didn't. :) If you have any questions on it, I would be more than glad to answer!!",
"The javelin actually still persisted in the medieval ages in some cultures, but in general they were phased out by other ranged weaponry.\n\nJavelins were successful as they were very simplistic and cheap weapons, essentially a stake with a slightly modified arrowhead fixed to the end. However, their use shifted - the increasing prevalence and significance of horses once the stirrup was invented and brought to europe around the 5th Century meant that javelins were better as a spear - it became more useful to hold onto it to form a barrier against cavalry charges instead of throwing it at the enemy. So instead of being used as thrown projectiles, they were better as melee weapons.\n\nThey were still used for hunting by various cultures, such as the Norse, but in terms of actual warfare they were outclassed on the battlefield by bows. Archers had longer range, greater accuracy and killing power.\n\nNote that these are generalisations, there were of course cultures such as the Spanish who still used javelins, such as the light infantry [Almogavars](_URL_0_) and cavalry [Jinete](_URL_1_). Not to mention that it remained popular for quite some time in the Muslim cultural sphere.\n\nEDIT: I just want to add that the Javelin was still favoured by the soldiers/nations that subscribed to a skirmish/mobility based doctrine. It remained popular with guerilla fighters throughout the Middle Ages, such as the Welsh and various Baltic tribes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=MmwK9pIh0AQC&lpg=PA152&dq=vikings%20throwing%20spears&pg=PA152#v=onepage&q=vikings%20throwing%20spears&f=false",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almogavars",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinetes"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almogavars",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinetes"
]
] |
|
deijxk
|
Old unidentified Japanese object
|
Hi Reddit!
For some years I have been looking for an answer to what this object is. It is not a hanko (stamp), both sides are the same and flat, with an indentation (the photos make this clear). Both sides have a painted lotus, it looks like the old family crest of the Ikeda family. On the long side there are slight indentations from what might have been a small rope (you can zoom in on the first picture to see this). Does anyone have any more information on what this could be?
[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/deijxk/old_unidentified_japanese_object/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f2vpd04"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It’s nothing I or my (Japanese) family have seen before. It’s most likely to be part of something, eg a netsuke.\n\nThe Ikeda crest isn’t a big deal, I’m afraid, because that symbol is used just as a pretty symbol on clothes and accessories.\n\nIs it wood with no space inside, right?"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://imgur.com/a/amaezTs"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
c0xwge
|
do insects have the same sort of internal organs as us?
|
Do they have brains and digestive systems etc? I can’t imagine them having a tiny little stomach or heart or anything, so how does it work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c0xwge/eli5_do_insects_have_the_same_sort_of_internal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"er8r6i4"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"No, they do not. They have analogous systems, but they can vary wildly in function. For example, the respiratory system of most insects is trachea, not lungs; they do not have a pump that hauls air to and fro, they absorb oxygen by diffusion.\n\nOnly vertebrates have truly the same organs as us, because they evolved from the same ancestors as us. Frogs, snakes, birds, cats and dogs and humans all come from the same primitive ancient lungfish which already had familiar internal organs. The arthropods split much earlier, at the worm stage that had barely any organs at all, and evolved independently."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5z738o
|
how does flint, mi still not have clean water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5z738o/eli5_how_does_flint_mi_still_not_have_clean_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"devryvc",
"devrzrc",
"devs9yj",
"devsbhe",
"devxk52",
"dew1c01",
"dew3cb9",
"dew4j8m",
"dew5gnw",
"dew81zp",
"dew9h28"
],
"score": [
14,
9,
70,
757,
9,
126,
2,
13,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's slowly improving. Water sources aren't exactly easy to clean up once they're contaminated, and replacing the lead pipes takes time (they've officially got another 2 years to complete the project).",
"For the same reason it got lead in it in the first place. The system is old, a replacement or significant update will cost a lot of money, and Flint doesn't have enough money.",
"You can't fix a city's entire water supply infrastructure over night. The system is underground, so even the parts that can be dug up are under streets and people's yards. Then there's the parts that run under buildings and such....\n\nNot to mention, it's been winter up there. The ground is frozen in winter, which adds that much more labor to the whole process.",
"The mistake that led to Flint's toxic water was a water purification error that corrupted the actual *pipes* the water flows through. So the water itself can be perfectly clean, and on the way to your house, the pipes will leech toxic amounts of lead into it.\n\nIn order for Flint to repair its water problem, it has to replace all of the pipes in the city. This is really expensive and Flint doesn't have the money to do it. Most cities wouldn't have the money to do it, as they only budget for a certain percentage of pipes to be replaced and serviced every year.\n\nThe replacement cost has been estimated to be $60M and the project, to be fully completed, to take 15 years. There are about 29,000 pipes that need to be completed. They are focusing on the most at-risk homes first and several hundred have been completed.\n\n",
"They have yet to replace every single pipe in the entire city. All of them have to be dug up and removed from the streets and houses and replaced. That is extremely expensive. ",
"Not necessarily an answer to this question but I wanted to chime in.\n\nI was born and raised in Flint Town. Mom worked downtown at UM Flint and I went there for a few years.\n\nAs far back as the 90s she would say that everyone in her office, at Water Street Pavillon, knew they were pulling water from the river. They stopped drinking it and making coffee with it. Several of the restaurants in the pavilion did too. The ones who didn't you could tell. Their pop/soda tasted like shit.\n\nWhenever I would drink from a fountain on campus (we're talking back in like 01-03) it tasted absolutely god awful and had a yellow tint to it. Kind of tasted like dry wall.\n\nI said all of that to say this - this wasn't a new problem.\n\nIt fit into a media cycle because the story was so bombastic and the state government made the choice to switch the city as a whole to that water only a few years ago. However, several places in Flint have been on that water since I was a kid.\n\nWe have always known that river was disgusting. No one ever wanted to get in it. We didn't really have any river-related activities in Flint that many people participated in. No one fished in it. No one swam in it.\n\nAs a matter of face, I remember when I was a kid and they drained a 1/4 mile portion of it. They pulled out several old cars, guns, knives, safe's, and other contraband. I think they even found human remains if I'm not mistaken.\n\nPoint being it's not like everything was fine in Flint and then BOOM all of the sudden the water is toxic. The river has always been shit and more and more businesses and municipalities have been getting their water from it to save money for years.\n\nThere should have been a clean up effort for the river LONG before this happened, and I mean 30-40 years ago. This river has been toxic and a danger since the first factory started draining their sludge into it a hundred years ago.",
"How did the entire infrastructure break down at the same time ? Did all the pipes corrode at the exact same time or what ? It feel as if simply overnight they went from usable water to water you cant drink. Im sure i am missing something here though.",
"Life long MI resident here.\n\nFlint knew this would be a problem way back in the '70's. They were supposed to replace the pipes back then. All that money got embezzadled. ",
"[This Old House has talked about this a time or two.](_URL_0_) It's the same as the top comments here. But with visuals.",
"uhm eli5, Why isn't the clean-up federally funded?",
"I live in Flint, I've had my water tested, it's fine but, we don't drink it or cook with it. I would love to just move but houses near me go for like 5 grand and I can't afford to sell my house for that. So many other cities across the Nation are finding out their water contains heavy metals and other contaminants. Until infrastructure is addressed on a massive national scale more and more community's will suffer the same fate as Flint. Once it happens to a more affluent, less urban area maybe then, we'll see a plan on how it can be fixed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/IJbVK5UBRT8"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
fn2lst
|
how does gene diversity develop if we all came from common ancestors?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fn2lst/eli5_how_does_gene_diversity_develop_if_we_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fl77jtg",
"fl87t4f"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Mutations. Genes change. Your genes aren't exactly duplicated from your parents. The differences are slight, but given many generations they really do build up.",
"Just to add onto the other answers, a slight mutation rate is actually built into us. It's *possible* to make proteins (DNA polymerases) that are more accurate at replicating our DNA, but we don't actually have them because some amount of diversity is good.\n\nFor a real-life example, the influenza virus has a relatively inaccurate polymerase, which causes lots more mutations, which is why it's hard to make a perfect flu vaccine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2yk4m7
|
how does " save game " and "load / continue " work?
|
I know maybe stupid question but, i'm wondering ages about how it's works. Saving games with F5 and Load with F9 ( Usually same combination for most games.) What's happening in the background? And why doesn't work for other games like GTA or CoD.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yk4m7/eli5_how_does_save_game_and_load_continue_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpa8u8a",
"cpa8v7f"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Short Explanation: The game runs a chunk of code which pulls a bunch of data currently stored in the computers RAM, (it's storage space for the memory it's currently dealing with) and records it to a hard drive for permanent storage.\n\nDetails: The reason it doesn't always act the same is that it doesn't always make sense to store ALL of the data the program is storing temporarily. For a huge game like GTA or CoD there are a TON of things being stored temporarily, the current amount of dust floating in the air, the trajectory of every bullet, the location, duration and volume of the currently playing sound effects, the size, amount and angle of all the bullet holes in every surface, the location of every dead body, the position of every dead body, the footprints in the sand, (and for GTA) the location, driver, condition, direction and angle of every vehicle everywhere, the current animation, position, and speech for every single pedestrian.\n\nThat's a TON of data, and that's why these games might be using multiple Gigabytes of your ram as you're playing them. So when you go to save the game picks a subset of that data and stores it. In GTA it'll save your progression, your weapons/ammo your health and your location, probably also the day/time and the stock market info. It'll also save cars parked in specific locations. That's a TINY amount of data in comparison, and so it's easy to save.\n\nThe problem is you can't easily save and re-load from anywhere because all of that extra data isn't stored. If you could quick-save in a car and quick-load back, the game would have to store gigabytes of storage and pull it back out fast if you wanted to be able to revert to just before that big jump or just after you swerved past that police car.\n\nIf you have a simple game there is much less data involved and so it's easy for the game to save everything and retrieve everything immediately, allowing you to revert back to a specific instant. This is also how emulators do save-states. The save state stores every bit of data in temporary memory, and then shoves it all back in when you load, continuing where you left off.",
"To save a game, the game simply notes the exact position, health, speed, equipment, etc of everything in the game that can move or change. It saves all this in a file. Then, when you load the game, it reads all this information from that file and puts all the characters, cars, computer characters or whatever back where they were.\n\nAs for why it doesn't work in some games - that's entirely up to the games designer to decide."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ea45ts
|
if you were to breathe in extremely humid air, for long periods of time, would you eventually ‘drown’?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ea45ts/eli5_if_you_were_to_breathe_in_extremely_humid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fanmixi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You could potentially, if your lungs were colder than the ambient temperature, which would allow the water vapor to condense down back into a liquid form rapidly enough to prevent the lungs from expelling them through normal processes. It could also occur under different atmospheric pressures than are generally found on Earth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
168w2k
|
Considering how long humans have been in control of fire (somewhere between 120k and 400k years ago) do we have different/better burn response/recovery than other animals?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/168w2k/considering_how_long_humans_have_been_in_control/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7twd4l",
"c7twm6i",
"c7tx776",
"c7u1ekt"
],
"score": [
5,
38,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"You're assuming that a person would be more \"fit\" from being more physically resistant to fire-related injuries. I don't see such a trait being extremely useful since it's not as if fire was literally raining from the sky at any point (at least any of our own making). One would think that even a primitive man's limited exposure and knowledge of fire would have meant simply burning his hand from time to time.",
"100kya is an eye-blink for people who take 20 years to make a new generation. I think most of the problem was handled with software changes. ",
"Side question: do we have any defenses against the effects of woodsmoke which other primates lack?",
"Subquestion: What about specifically dealing with the mouth? It seems like animals would have no reason to be able to drink hot tea or eat really hot pizza."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4bdnrx
|
why do millionaires only have a small percentage of their wealth in cash or liquid assets?
|
A multimillionaire may be worth several million dollars but I looked at some examples of celebrity net worth online and found that a person worth $40 million only has $50,000 in spendable cash.
I used to be under the impression that millionaires have literally at least a million in cash to spend.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bdnrx/eli5_why_do_millionaires_only_have_a_small/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d185zwa",
"d186d7v",
"d1870h5",
"d189cfj"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Cash and liquid assets don't make you any money. If you invest your wealth, it can make you more money, but it's not in a form that you can immediately spend.\n\nI wouldn't have a million in cash on hand unless I had an immediate need to spend a million dollars on something.",
"You're net-worth is a combination of all your assets. If you own a business, or your fame is an asset, then it has value . However, converting this to cash can be difficult and results in saying things like \"a millionaire on paper\". If I were to loan you $1M of my $1.01M in cash, my net-worth would still include the $1.01M because I have an asset which is my loan to you. But...needless to say, you have that $1M and so I can't go out and spend that $1M.",
"A millionaire is someone who has a million dollars in net assets, house, retirement, businesses, etc. There are a lot of middle class millionaires out there.\n\nWealthy people don't need a lot of liquid assets, because they have easy access to credit. If they want to buy a $200K car, they take out a loan, and because they have good credit, they don't pay much interest.\n\nThat way they can keep their money in investments and businesses where it will keep working for them.",
"When people think of millionaires they tend to have the wrong image. Many upper middle class people are millionaires, and probably make up the largest percentage of millionaires. These people tend to have 1 mill to 3 mill in assets, and slowly grew their wealth through mostly equity in their home and 401k and other small properties they've invested in. Even these types of people dont have tons of cash on to spend"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bnnfig
|
When did Medical Gloves become a common practice for all Pre-Hospital/Hospital workers?
|
I have just recently watch The Knick about a Hospital in 1900/1901 and in it all Doctors, Nurses, and EMT’s (more like actual ambulance drivers in this time rather than medical personnel but they were handling some pretty nasty things) and no one had gloves, mask, or any other PPE (personal protective equipment) other than Hand Washing. Just a EMT student who is curious and loves both history and medical knowledge.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bnnfig/when_did_medical_gloves_become_a_common_practice/
|
{
"a_id": [
"en9qlha"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"No one quite knows who first introduced rubber gloves into surgery. Galvanized rubber and subsequently gloves were developed in the middle of the 19th century. In surgery, this was the time of Lister, Koch, and Pasteur (that is, the acceptable of sterilization, then germ theory). As such, by the 1870s in Europe (and by the 1890s in the US, where the surgical culture lagged in accepting sterilization and germ theory) it had become standard to spray carbolic acid throughout the operating theater. Carbolic acid sterilization was discovered actually even before germ theory was widely accepted, and it was sprayed everywhere -- including over the patient and into surgical wounds. This naturally was very toxic to surgeons' and assistants' hands, which is why rubber gloves started to be used. Again, it's unclear who was the first to do it. Rutgow in Archives of Surgery suggests it was a Dr. Thomas of NYC in 1878. While he may be the first American, certainly there were French and German surgeons using these gloves earlier in the 1870s to protect themselves and their staff from carbolic acid.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBut this is not how they became widespread (in the US). The story is quite famous. William Halsted of Hopkins (one of the most famous surgeons in US history, and notoriously a cocaine-then-morphine addict) introduced them pretty much accidentally. He used mercuric chloride rather than carbolic acid for sterilization. His scrub nurse developed a horrific dermatitis to the substance, and he devised a new type of rubber glove for her (he would later go on to marry her). However, he noticed that cases she was on had a lower infection rate, and subsequently had his entire team use rubber gloves. This was part of the so-called \"Halsted technique\" -- the use of rubber gloves (and also very long surgeries where he was able to do increasingly complex procedures), and it was a major piece of surgical culture that was exported from Hopkins to the rest of North America. At the same time, in Germany, Kronig had run experiments at the same time on animals showing the superiority of rubber gloves to washing hands.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBy roughly 1900, a vanguard of surgeons in the US and Canada were using rubber gloves in the OR; I honestly don't know as much about surgical literature in general, let alone what was happening in Europe. In any event, surgeons are generally quite resistant to change, and it wasn't until the 1920s that rubber (and then latex) gloves had become standard in the OR.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nHope that answers your question! Here is a nice article about the Halsted's and has a photo of a preserved glove [_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAlso, if you like medical history, I host a monthly podcast with the American College of Physician's called Bedside Rounds. You might like it! [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) or _URL_2_\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI'm also currently reading Bliss' biography of Osler -- fascinating look at Hopkins during this amazingly formative time in American medicine!\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEDIT: don't write reddit posts on phones"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bedside-rounds/id919579524?mt=2",
"https://whyy.org/segments/how-a-romantic-gesture-helped-bring-surgical-gloves-to-american-operating-rooms/",
"www.bedside-rounds.org"
]
] |
|
2mpa9g
|
why are retainers needed after braces?
|
I was wondering how come after we get our braces off, our teeth don't just stay in position and we need to have retainers for the rest of our lives to keep them straight.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mpa9g/eli5why_are_retainers_needed_after_braces/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm6bj41"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's because your gums are no longer as resilient as they were before. You move all your teeth by pushing and pulling them where you want them, the gums lose their strength slightly.\nImagine pouring concrete, you need a frame to pour it into, until it hardens, so it'll maintain shape on it's own."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ljfgh
|
dreaming for people who were born blind.
|
How does someone who has never experienced visual stimuli their entire lives dream? Is it in sounds, feelings, textures, the shapes of things they've experienced through touch?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ljfgh/eli5_dreaming_for_people_who_were_born_blind/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clvd27q",
"clvejve",
"clvgqu2"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"I have always wondered about not only dreaming, but visualizations in general for those who are born blind. Can anyone shed some light on this(omg terrible play on words but I'm keeping it)? When they picture an object can they spatially picture it in their head through experience through touch? \n\nCan they visualize in color but simply can't correlate their colors to what we call red and blue?",
"I work for a state school forr the Blind. All of the students that have been blind from birth say that they just dream in sound. Same goes for the deaf community. They just dream in pictures and no sound. ",
"Based on what I've read in this post and on several blogs:\nPeople's dreams are all based on past experiences, none of which are entirely original.\nWhich brings up an interesting point, how torturous must it be to regain sight only when your eyes are closed.\nThat's some poetry shit right there ^"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47tsib
|
why is satanism commonly connected to occultism?
|
They seem to be portrayed as almost synonymous. I've also read the 11 Laws, with one of them mentioning magic. Is magic and Occultism prevalent in the religion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47tsib/eli5_why_is_satanism_commonly_connected_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0fljj2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Theres a huge difference between the different types of satanism. \n\nThere's LeVeyan satanism which is the stuff you hear about a lot. The 11 rules are a part of that. [here](_URL_0_) is a lot more about them, they less literally worship satan and more base around the golden rule philosophy. LeVeyan satanism actually denies that a being like satan or god could exist. \n\nThe other type of satanism is literally worshipping satan, which is very closely linked to the occult and only really practiced by crazy people. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism#The_Eleven_Satanic_Rules_of_the_Earth"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.