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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9al734
|
how does an electric current produce a magnetic field?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9al734/eli5_how_does_an_electric_current_produce_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4w9m0a",
"e4wb6o9",
"e4wgtvg",
"e4wkdr0"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The short super unsatisfactory answer is that it just does.\n\nThe longer answer is that what we define as a charge is actually a disturbance in the electric field, which is part of the electromagnetic field. A moving charge creates a disturbance in both the electric and magnetic field. The two phenomenons are intertwined. So its less that a current creates a magnetic field and more that a current and a disturbance in the magnetic field are part of the same thing. Its like asking why the crest of a sin wave creates a trough. They are intertwined to the point of one not being able to exist without the other. ",
"It's one of the fundamental laws of the universe. An electric current is the movement of charged particles. A charged particle creates an electric field. A changing electric field creates a magnetic field. So the moving charges are causing the electric field to change, and therefore a magnetic field is created.\n\nThe reverse is also true. A changing magnetic field causes a change in the electric field, which causes the charged particle to move - inducing current.",
"You are asking a very involved question. Moreover, it can be answered in several different but equivalent ways. All of the answers I see below are referencing Maxwell's Equations, which is a reasonable approach. However, they don't explain *why* the magnetic field is created - they only provide the method for calculating its direction and strength.\n\nWithout going into the details (because as I said it's very involved), I would direct you to study the relativistic phenomenon of length contraction. Length contraction is the direct physical cause of magnetic fields, and without it they would not exist.\n\nTo put it very bluntly, magnetic fields are actually electric fields under the influence of relativistic length contraction. That's why only moving charges produce magnetic fields.\n\nHope that helps.",
"You ever see a question and just KNOW the answer will make your brain hurt? This is one of those. \n\nAlso, anything about quantum mechanics or orbital physics. Get too far away from human sized, and stuff just acts WEIRD. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9o50u7
|
how exactly does carbon-14 dating work? would it work on diamonds (which were once organic matter, i think), or are they just too old?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9o50u7/eli5_how_exactly_does_carbon14_dating_work_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7rez5r",
"e7rfeld"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Carbon-14 dating is primarily for dating formerly living things. Carbon 14 is made in the atmosphere so its absorbed by living things through respiration. It maintains its levels while the thing is alive. When it dies the respiration stops replenishing the carbon so it starts to decay away since carbon 14 is radioactive. So you know the level in the environment and the level in the formerly living thing and the decay rate of carbon 14. So this tells you how old it is.\n\nBut the half life of c14 is 5000 years so it cant date anything older than 50000 years because theres no c14 left and it cant date anything less than 200 years old because we ruined the c14 levels in the atmosphere with the industrial revolution.",
"Chemistry is governed primarily by electrons, which are in turn largely affected by the number of protons in an atom's nucleus. What this means is that if you have an atom with 6 protons and 8 neutrons it'll have almost exactly the same chemical properties as an atom with 6 protons and 6 neutrons. That's why we identify elements in terms of their proton count; both of these atoms would be called Carbon.\n\nNot all proton and neutron counts are created equal. If you get too many or too few neutrons then the nucleus winds up unstable. Sometimes this instability is only slight and an atom can exist for thousands or even millions of years on average before it breaks down. Sometimes it's so severe that the atom will decay in a matter of nanoseconds.\n\nIn the upper atmosphere on Earth the rays from the sun cause a number of interesting nuclear reactions to occur. One of these creates C-14 (6 protons, 8 neutrons). C-14 decays in a few thousand years on average. Earth is billions of years old and the atmosphere and sun don't change that much or that fast, so the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere remains fairly constant.\n\nAs living things go about their lives they acquire carbon. First plants pull it from the air for use in photosynthesis, then that carbon is transferred to herbivores, then to carnivores, to decomposers, and so on. When plants pull carbon from the atmosphere they do so based on carbon's *chemical* properties, not its *nuclear* properties, so this carbon will have the same ratio of C-14 to C-12 as is in the air.\n\nWhen a living thing dies it stops carrying out its life processes that would chemically select carbon. However, the decay of carbon over thousands of years still caries on. When a scientist analyzes the long-dead lifeform they can start by making the assumption that the life form's carbon ratio was equal to the atmosphere's C-12 to C-14 ratio, then compare that to the ratio that the life form has today. They do some math and determine how long ago the chemical processes must have come to an end (i.e. how long ago the life form died).\n\nThis process with Carbon is only usable for things about 50,000 years old and younger. Diamonds are far older than this, so we just don't have tools precise enough to accurately determine the diamond's age. There are similar methods that use other chemical elements that have longer lifespans which may be used to date older items. This wouldn't be useful for diamonds as they are pure carbon. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ezocfs
|
why do appliance's volumes (eg. tv, radio) use an arbitrary 1 to x value instead of basing the value on decibels?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ezocfs/eli5_why_do_appliances_volumes_eg_tv_radio_use_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgoja0y",
"fgok6nw",
"fgomjlq",
"fgp8t5a"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"High-end stereos for audiophiles, or studio monitors, typically do use decibels.\n\nThe problem with decibels is that either you'd have relative loudness - where 0 is the maximum and anything softer is a negative number - or you'd have absolute loudness, in which case headphones would only go up to some small number and your stereo would go up to some other number. It'd be confusing for most people either way.",
"If you run your signal through different amplifiers and speakers, the db markings become meaningless. The arbitrary numbers make more sense. \n\nPlus db isn't a linear thing relative to how you hear and experience loudness and the controls themselves are non linear. So to accurately mark off db levels might result in unevenly spaced markings.",
"Because dB measure relative loudness and work on a logarithmic scale. Try getting your average consumer to understand what that is and how it works. It's time consuming and completely unnecessary for setting a desired volume on a TV or radio. It's much simpler and easier to use for consumers to just have linear number going from 0 or 1 to whatever.",
"Because if they used dB, the vast majority of consumers don't really know what decibels are and would be confused by 0 being maximum volume. Typical users only care about \"louder\" and \"quieter\" and are perfectly happy with arbitrary volume scales."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
43hrlg
|
what is all this controversy with thefinebros about?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43hrlg/eli5_what_is_all_this_controversy_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czib1y7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Search before submitting "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7p8o6z
|
Geographers Diener and Hagen claim that Pacific Northwest tribes had a concept of property similar to modern Americans' - contrasting common claims that Native Americans had no concept of ownership. Where did the idea that Native Americans had no concept of property emerge?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7p8o6z/geographers_diener_and_hagen_claim_that_pacific/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsfth6s"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Can you please expand on what Diener and Hagen said?\n\nSpeaking for groups in Washington State (Coast Salish, Quileute, Sahaptin, Chinookan), I'm finding a little hard to see property concepts being that similar to Modern American ones (there's some overlap but the differences are pretty significant). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
338naj
|
are wi-fi and/or bluetooth, signals harmful to our health?
|
I'm sure this can be researched online, but I've often wondered how much information is actually true.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/338naj/eli5_are_wifi_andor_bluetooth_signals_harmful_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqijbnt",
"cqijdum",
"cqijf3p"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"No, it's not true at all. They're completely harmless. ",
"There has been numerous studies, and the concensus is that radio signals in the WiFi and BT bands are not harmful at the levels output by communication devices. ",
"The radiation our WiFi hotspots and cell phones emit isn't strong enough to damage cells, so in theory it should be safe. But also, billions of people have been subjected to those signals daily for decades and no increases in any diseases have occurred.\n\nIt's pretty impossible to prove that they can't be harmful in any way, but it's pretty clear that if it was something really harmful or life-threatening, we would have already seen it.\n\nI wouldn't worry."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3afaxk
|
Questions about the sinking of the USS Indianapolis
|
I used to live next to one of the survivors from the USS Indianapolis. I was too young to really appreciate the significance of it and to ask him what I should have. Hopefully some of you can help me better understand what happened:
1) There is controversy over the subsequent court martial and the orders of the ship. Is there any consensus on who was to blame and whether the captain should have been disciplined?
2) How did the navy actually lose track of a ship for so long? Was it just terrible luck? Incompetence?
3) Was this a well known event after the war?
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3afaxk/questions_about_the_sinking_of_the_uss/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cscevms"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"1) No consensus whatsoever. The Navy's orders to Capt. McVay were to \"zigzag *at (his) discretion*, weather permitting.\" These orders are equivocal, and when the *Indianapolis* was sunk, he was not zigzagging. The prosecution said that McVay should have been zigzagging. However, the commander of the Japanese submarine that fired the torpedoes testified at the court martial that zigzagging would have made no difference. That Admiral Nimitz immediately remitted McVay's sentence and he served until 1949 tells you what the commander of the Navy in the Pacific thought of the outcome. McVay was also the only commander to lose his ship in combat during WWII and be court-martialed for it. He was completely and legally exonerated by the Navy in 2001.\n\nAs far as who was to blame, that pretty much falls squarely on the shoulders of Commander Mochitsura Hashimoto, the captain of the submarine that sunk the *Indianapolis*.\n\n2) A mix of bad luck and incompetence. When the *Indianapolis* was sunk, she maanged to get off distress messages which were received by three stations. One station commander was reportedly drunk. A second had given orders not to disturb him while he was asleep. The third, suspecting a Japanese trap, took no action.\n\n\"But the ship was due to arrive at Leyte on a certain date,\" you may say, \"why wasn't anything done when she didn't arrive?\" Well, that's where things get a little confusing. Ships' movement were kept track on at a number of different locations: in *Indy*'s case, the base at Leyte; the base of Commander, Marianas; and Commander Philippines. As movements for larger ships was assumed to be \"on time\", the latter two stations took her off the movement board at the scheduled time of arrival since they had heard nothing to the contrary The man in charge of the movement board at Leyte, however, knew immediately that the *Indy* was late... and did nothing about it. After all, it was hardly uncommon for ships to be delayed for any number of reasons. The *correct* response would have been to have reported the lateness up the line. The first the Navy officially knew she was missing was when survivors were discovered in the water three days later.\n\n3) It actually was fairly well-known, particularly when Cmdr Hashimoto was called to testify against Capt McVay; this was the first time an enemy had appeared in court against a US office, and was considered quite controversial. Of course, the US press had a field day with it, even to the point of objecting to the cost of bringing Hashimoto to the US and putting him in a hotel (about $1800).\n\nSources: \n\n*Abandon Ship!* - Richard Newcomb\n\n*In Harm's Way* - Doug Stanton\n\n*Sunk: The Story of the Japanese Submarine Fleet, 1941–1945* - Mochitsura Hashimoto (yes, the same)\n\n*Left For Dead* - Pete Nelson & Hunter Scott\n\n[USS _URL_0_](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"Indianapolis.org",
"http://www.ussindianapolis.org/"
]
] |
|
6q24xd
|
seeing all of these harambe & deez nuts votes in the presidental elections, what would happen if one of them actually got the majority of the votes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6q24xd/eli5_seeing_all_of_these_harambe_deez_nuts_votes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dktz2cn",
"dku0e6e"
],
"score": [
8,
11
],
"text": [
"Harambe is not human, and is deceased so does not qualify. All votes to him are void. \n\nDeez Nuts is not the real name of the child, and they are under 35 and so not eligible. All votes to him are also void. \n\nSo the electors for that State would give their vote to the eligible candidate with the most votes. ",
"If the person behind the name *was* eligible, then he or she could get the job. In the last election in the UK, Lord Buckethead stood against Prime Minister Theresa May in her constituency: if he had one, she would have lost the PM job (since the PM has to be a MP), and he would have become an MP. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2b1gcb
|
why do i find baby animals super cute, but human babies ugly?
|
A lot of people are like me and just love puppies, kittens, baby elephants, baby groundhogs, baby anything. But, there's a big consensus that babies don't look very nice. Is there a scientifical explanation behind this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b1gcb/eli5_why_do_i_find_baby_animals_super_cute_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj0uhdd",
"cj0umb6",
"cj0uro6",
"cj0vciw"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Because baby animals are cute and human babies are ugly.",
"A lot of what makes things cute is the ratio of eye size to facial real estate. Many young animals have a better ratio than humans in this regard. In other words, the animals literally have \"puppy dog eyes\".",
"You're looking at them at different times of development. Eight month old babies can be adorable, as can 6 week old puppies. But newborns and 1 week old puppies look like worms with legs. ",
"haha, I wanted to do the same question recently, im pretty sure that is because the fur every animal is not that cute without it"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ro4uz
|
how is it that mars has lost it's atmosphere to solar winds, but earth hasn't
|
Like it says in the title, how are they losing their atmosphere to solar winds, but earth isn't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ro4uz/eli5_how_is_it_that_mars_has_lost_its_atmosphere/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwprs4c",
"cwprse5",
"cwprvzx",
"cwpxvop"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The churning of earth's core creates our magnetosphere which protects us from the solar winds, it's like a shield protecting us from the sun's \"bullets\" (charged particles). The stronger the core churns, the stronger the magnetic field or shield. Mars' core is dead or dying, so it no longer has a strong magnetosphere to protect its atmosphere from the solar winds (\"bullets\"). So every blast just kept chipping away at it until it was gone.",
"We have a magnetic field produced by a dynamo action in the interior of the Earth. Mars is though to have lost this. The magnetic field helps deflect the charged particles from the solar wind that would otherwise strip the atmosphere away. ",
"Earth's magnetic field [protects](_URL_0_) its atmosphere by deflecting the charged particles of the solar wind.\n\nMars doesn't have such a magnetic field.",
"The answers so far a true as far as they go (and deserve upvotes). Mars has little to no magnetic field to repel the Sun's charged particles so its atmosphere is \"blown\" away. Mars has less gravity than Earth so it holds all things, including atmosphere, less tightly.\n\nIn addition, since Mars is so much smaller, it outgassed less than Earth. It also captured less of the gases that were floating around the early solar system. As such, its atmosphere was probably never anywhere near as dense as Earth's even in its heyday.\n\nFinally, because Mars is so much smaller than Earth, it cooled much faster. Mars cooled to the point where an atmosphere could form as many as a billion (with a B) years before Earth, so Mars has had a lot longer to lose its atmosphere than Earth has."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Magnetospheres"
],
[]
] |
|
1eo4vj
|
What Is The Difference Between Basic Medicines?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1eo4vj/what_is_the_difference_between_basic_medicines/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca23xkv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"don't look at the brand but the ingredients\n\ntylenol is acetominophen an antipyretic and analgesit (decreases pain and fever) \nacetominophen the brand name is irrelevant and many companies including big chains can market their own brand under whatever name they want.\nhow it works is pretty complex but [here](_URL_0_) if you care.\n\n\nIbuprophen is an non-steroidal anti-inflamatory. also, lots of brand names\nworks for fevers, pain, inflamation. \n\nyou really need only 1 or 2 OTC meds in your cabinet for regular aches and pains tylenol or ibuprophen will usually do it if you don't have chronic pain or chronic inflamatory syndromes\n\nyou definetly don't need more than 1 brand of any med in your home.\n\n\nfollow label instructions and if you find you use any Over hte counter med more than 3 to 4 days a week chronically you may want to talk to a doctor about it. \n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol"
]
] |
||
1pdfon
|
Why does even a laser beam spread out after a long distance? Can't we prevent that via lenses? How does this relate to focusing light that came to us over billions of light years?
|
I imagine that if we put a lens a few meters away from the laser, we can force the incoming photons to continue their "flight" in a perfectly parallel fashion (which would allow to project a millimeter-small speck on the Moon), just as we can arbitrarily modulate incoming photons that have traveled for billions of light years.
What's the catch?
full disclosure: I read these two very informative sources, but I still don't get it:
_URL_0_ (June 2011)
_URL_1_ (10 months ago)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1pdfon/why_does_even_a_laser_beam_spread_out_after_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd1bu5g",
"cd1byti",
"cd1h16g",
"cd1il2f"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Perhaps the easiest explanation as to why we can not make or have divergence-less light comes from the uncertainty relations. Uncertainty in the momentum of light means that we can not make it travel in perfectly straight lines. If a group of rays travel perfectly parallel to each other, this would mean that the light's momentum is known beyond the physical limits imposed by the uncertainty relations.",
"The catch is that real laser beams experience diffraction and don't simply travel as rays. This means you have to take into account physical optics (the intrinsic wave-like nature of light) as opposed to geometric optics (treating the light like a bundle of rays).\n\nBecause of these physical optics effects, a beam with a finite radius w_0 will inevitably spread out so that it has twice the cross sectional area after a distance z_R, the [Rayleigh length](_URL_0_), where z_R = pi w_0^2 / lambda and where lambda is the wavelength of the light. Beyond the Rayleigh length, the beam diverges with an cone angle Theta = 2 lambda / (pi w_0). The only way to get a zero cone angle would be to go to the limit where lambda / w_0 is zero; this means either infinite frequency or infinite beam diameter after your lens, neither of which is possible. \n\nEdit: added link",
"Light does not actually travel as a bundle of straight rays. This is an approximate model that does reasonably well if the wavelength of light involved is much smaller than any significant feature of the rest of the system. Light travels as a self-interfering, self-propagating, oscillating electromagnetic field. Every light beam with non-infinite beam width will diverge because of the way the field interferes with itself, even if is was at one point somewhat collimated. Some people call this diffraction and other call it interference. Many books make it sound like diffraction is caused by a light beam interacting with an obstacle (such as a screen with a slit), but in reality the diffraction is caused by the beam itself after being given a certain shape by an obstacle. \n\nThe operation of simple lenses relies entirely on the ray model, which is only an approximation. As a result, the predictions of lens equations (e.g. the right lens can collimate a beam) are inaccurate. Because of diffraction, no finite beam can be focused to a single point. The focus may look like a point, but if you zoom in far enough, you will see a spot of light at the focus with a non-zero width. Similarly, diffraction also means that every microscope using simple lenses has a fundamental limit to how much it can magnify (the diffraction limit).",
"There are physical limitations that prevent us from having a beam of photons that continue in a perfectly parallel fashion. The closest we can get is a beam we call collimated--that is, not focusing or diverging, but staying roughly the same diameter as it travels--that's what we think of as a laser beam. But even collimated beams spread apart with some small divergence angle. The deep reality of this is the uncertainty principle. We know the laser's position to a certain accuracy because the photons had to originate within the laser material. So, since we know the position (perpendicular to the beam's direction of travel) of every photon to some accuracy, we know there is some spread in the momentum in that same direction. If we know with less certainty the position (that is, a larger laser material or larger beam), we know with more certainty the momentum. Momentum is just another name for speed, so it follows that if we know a certain photon started in a finite-size laser crystal, we don't know its speed perpendicular to the beam exactly. Thus we can't correct for it. We can use a lens to trade between position and momentum uncertainty--we can make the beam bigger so it doesn't diverge as much, or vice versa--but we can never make divergence zero without making an infinitely-wide beam.\n\nIf you want a 1 mm speck on the moon, it's certainly possible to use a lens to focus the laser--essentially making it non-collimated, so we increase the spread in angle to decrease the spread in position. The governing quantity for how small you can focus the beam with a lens is the f-number: the distance between the lens and the focus divided by the diameter of the laser beam when it enters the lens. So, you could place a small lens close to the moon so the beam is focused rapidly to the 1 mm spot, or you could place a huge lens on earth so it converges over its entire journey to the moon.\n\nFocusing light from stars is a slightly different problem. Stars are so far away that the light we see from them doesn't look like it's spreading out much. A telescope can catch some of that light and focus it to a small point, just like we did with the lens on the moon focusing the laser beam from earth. The only difference is that the star emits everywhere, so we're only catching a small portion of its light. We build bigger telescopes to catch more of it and thus be able to focus the light to a smaller point. You'd be doing the exact same thing if the lens on the moon were smaller than the laser beam was when it got there."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-the-inverse-square-law-as-distance-grows-similar-to-other-light-sources",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/152bf2/is_there_a_such_thing_as_a_perfect_laser_do_all/"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_range"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
70unlm
|
How did Vikings and Lapps deal with gnats and mosquitos?
|
In Sweden, especially the northern parts and just even slightly away from the coastal parts (and even theree sometimes), there's so many mosquitos and gnats that is impossible to be outside unless it's wintertime! So how did people deal with that? They worked and fought, hunted, even worked the land later on, so they were outdoors people, and you have to do most of those things in the day.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/70unlm/how_did_vikings_and_lapps_deal_with_gnats_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn6chzm",
"dn6q5ma"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"This doesn't address Scandinavia specifically, but you might be interested in [this earlier answer](_URL_0_) about the *ubiquity* of little itchy things in medieval Europe and how people just had to deal.",
"Answer from the opposite hemisphere: solutions included clothing, fires, smudges, and getting used to it. I've worked summers in the north of Canada, and you can become immune to the itching and swelling, if not to the blood loss. Walking through swamps I have clothing that can't be bitten through, and one hand pretty much constantly and absent mindedly brushing the bugs off. When it gets to two hands then it's bad.\n\nDuring the worst times I know people might just go under a blanket during the worst part of the day, but that doesn't last all day, just a little while. Reading stories about people travelling in the summer in the past without bug dope, they did actually go inside their sleeping robes at times, and they also spent a lot of time on the water, in canoes, in kayaks, on islands in the middle of lakes, and so on. A lot of hunting took place in and around water so this really was a normal way to manage bugs as well.\n\nThe long and the short of it is that it actually isn't impossible to work, it's just a pain, and people did it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4wewo5/given_the_prevalence_of_lice_fleas_and_bedbugs/d66kqtp/"
],
[]
] |
|
eqm5bf
|
why do lemons sometimes become all green and moldy, while other times they become rock-hard when you forget to eat/use them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eqm5bf/eli5_why_do_lemons_sometimes_become_all_green_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"feuez88",
"feusfc1"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Depends on the environment. It's the same as why some bread will just go hard and stale while other will grow moldy.\n\nA good experiment is getting a new pack of sliced bread and taking the first slice with some gloves on and putting it into a new bag. Then take another slice with bare hands and touch it all over before putting it into a bag. After a couple days to a week, you'll find the one you took out with gloves on to be mostly fine if stale. While the one you didn't use gloves for, will likely have mold all over.",
"If the fruit/food/meat dries out faster than bacteria/mold/fungus can replicate, then you just end up with a dried up husk or jerky. No matter the food, once the moisture content is low enough nothing will grow on it.\n\nSo that usually means items in areas of high airflow will end up in the hard state, whereas those in enclosed spaces or humid areas will end up in the spoiled/rotted state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2jfcwd
|
Why did the descendants of Proto-Indo-European come to dominate so much of the world?
|
[I understand that the Americas, Australia and many other parts of the world are due to recent colonisation, so I'll ignore them from the equation]
PIE descendants are spoken in most of Europe, India and Iran. When PIE first started developing, there would have been many other languages throughout these areas, so why did PIE spread across them, as opposed to another language. Alternatively, why does one language root dominate so much of the world; why isn't there lots of language families in these areas?
As a follow up question, would English, Chinese and Nahuatl all be related, distantly? Are all human languages descended from one common ancestor, or did language emerge independently in multiple locations?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jfcwd/why_did_the_descendants_of_protoindoeuropean_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clb6kmz",
"clbn20y",
"clbqhzi"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"While welcome here, this might reach more informed audiences at r/askanthropology and r/linguistics",
"You can speak an ancient people's language without being their descendant",
" > PIE descendants are spoken in most of Europe, India and Iran. When PIE first started developing, there would have been many other languages throughout these areas, so why did PIE spread across them, as opposed to another language. \n\nThis thread relates two of the leading theories on Indo-European dominance in Europe:\n\n_URL_0_\n\ntl;dr: The Indo-Europeans either brought farming to Europe (and possibly to South Asia) or they brought pastorial nomadism based on horses. Movement is easier (especially on horseback) through the steppes where the PIE speakers are usually said to originate, so they moved around the world very quickly. Pre-Indo-European groups wanted access to their reliable way of providing food for themselves and the easiest way to do that is to assimilate the language and culture.\n\n > Alternatively, why does one language root dominate so much of the world; why isn't there lots of language families in these areas?\n\nAs /u/grapp pointed out, you don't have to be genetically linked to a group in order to speak their language or take on their culture.\n\nNow once Indo-European culture had taken root in the places we know today, we have to move on to other reasons for their dominance today. The only source I can cite is *Guns, Germs, and Steel,* which most historians (at least on this sub) consider pretty good pop history but riddled with too much conjecture and not as rigorous as they would like.\n\nBut I think that book is a good introduction to some basic hypotheses as to how Europeans came to dominate the world. I'll summarize a few points the book makes.\n\nFood crops can move laterally relatively easy because of the way the sun hits the Earth. Temperature stays relatively the same laterally, which allows the crops from the classical river valley civilizations, the Mesopotamians and Egyptians, to move to Mediterranean Europe or to South Asia. So we can establish that Indo-Europeans managed to get a great spot for the future development of agriculture. This particularly helps explain the population boom on the Indian subcontinent and while they may not have exported their culture and dominated two whole continents like the Europeans did, they still constitute 1.2 billion people who have an Indo-European culture and close to 1 billion of them speak a IE language (I subtracted the 200 million Dravidian speakers from India's population).\n\nThey were also more exposed to ideas from other cultures, with Persian and Indians banking on trade along the Indian Ocean, while the Europeans had the Mediterranean. Compare this to China, who were in relative geographical isolation with the Gobi Desert to the East, Himalayas to the South, and frigid steppes to the north. They also lacked trade partners directly east in the Pacific Ocean with Japan, Korea, and maybe a few Malayo-Polynesians being the only major ones. The Chinese had a \"head start\" on agriculture thanks to rice and soy, two high yield and nutritious crops, but due to their geographical isolation they developed a cultural attitude of isolation.\n\nWhen your culture is exposed to more and more cultures, you tend to want to create links with them. Europeans could get what they could not grow or create in their own part of the world through trade. Europeans as a whole developed a cultural attitude inclined towards exploration and finding those trade links (and eventually conquering those trade links). Combine this with favorable ocean currents that can take them from the Old World to the New World more easily than anybody on the West African coast and the rest is disease and colonial expansion.\n\n > As a follow up question, would English, Chinese and Nahuatl all be related, distantly? Are all human languages descended from one common ancestor, or did language emerge independently in multiple locations?\n\nSadly we will never know the answer to this. Humans have been migrating out of Africa as early as 130,000 BC, and written language was first developed roughly 3200 BC."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s25dp/would_the_inhabitants_of_europe_before_the/"
]
] |
|
2wwywy
|
How do historians distinguish between the Medieval and Renaissance periods in Europe? What are the major signs?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wwywy/how_do_historians_distinguish_between_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"couvqyf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Similar question from 2 weeks ago:\n\n[What ended the Middle Ages?](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2vg58q/what_ended_the_middle_ages/"
]
] |
||
66ioib
|
If I steep a tea bag in hot water, will it eventually reach equilibrium and stop diffusing flavor and caffeine?
|
How long would that take?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/66ioib/if_i_steep_a_tea_bag_in_hot_water_will_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgj9ygs"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Depends on how much flavoring and caffeine are in the teabag and the solubility of both in the water at your given temperature. \n\nIf the amount of flavoring and caffeine in the teabag is less than the maximum solubility of them in water, all of it will be dissolved into the water. \n\nIf you had numerous tea bags steeped in one cup of water then you may reach a point where the solution is fully saturated and can no longer take in any more solute (flavoring and caffeine). \n\nAlthough I imagine it would take a large amount of teabags for one cup to reach a fully saturated solution. \n\nYou can also increase the solubility of a solution by increasing the temperature."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
r61k2
|
Is the universe making us smaller?
|
Okay, so we take as a given here that the universe is expanding. And that doesn't just mean matter is spreading further but the universe itself is growing- in other words second-to-second there's more...'reality' for lack of a better term (if I'm already wrong go ahead and stop me here.)
Now, mass/energy is constant, of course. But the 'size' of that mass and energy, it seems to me, isn't. Here I'm talking about as a function of volume relative to the the rest of the universe. As the universe gets bigger, everything in it is getting smaller relative to the space(here, literally, space) they're in.
Basically I started thinking about this and realized that it gave me the horrible perspective that not only are we insignificantly small- we are technically getting smaller all the time. Am I completely wrong?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/r61k2/is_the_universe_making_us_smaller/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c436jav"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The metric expansion of space only happens on the very large scale. On a more local scale, the scale of galaxies and such, gravitational attraction overrides the expansion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
c7re9o
|
why aren't tv shows that follow criminals, like drug smugglers, forced to hand over footage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c7re9o/eli5_why_arent_tv_shows_that_follow_criminals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"esh6t00",
"esh862w",
"esha4ep"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Aren't they \"handing it over\" by publicizing it?",
"It really depends on the ethics of the filmmaker / journalist. I know in the States we have the Freedom of the Press. This allows Filmmakers and journalists to report on certain topics without persecution. Now this doesn't mean that they cannot be charged with obstruction of Justice for withholding evidence. At that point it's a matter of how much money you have, how good your lawyer is and how strong your ethics are. As a journalist if your source wants to remain nameless it is your duty to keep your source confidential. Prosecutors can get a court order saying you have to give up your source if it is a matter of national security (Thank you Patriot Act) but again what are your ethics. There are multiple journalist who have been charged especially under Nixon, and Trump. What normally happens is if they can't charge you with anything the IRS tends to Audit you, and everyone around you. The government will make your life hell until you play ball. This is all if the show isn't staged, but having worked on a few they mostly are....",
"Forcing journalists to reveal their sources, you mean? \nThat's not a path many civilised countries are willing to go down just to bust a small-time drug dealer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cr9xcq
|
Italian army during WW2 - what were conscription practices and how possible was it to avoid military service entirely? (Researching for a work of fiction)
|
Hello historians,
(repost of an earlier now-deleted post, reformulated the title in the form of a question)
I've got a piece of fiction slowly developing in my head, concerning the slow death of a friendship between two men in postwar Italy in the early 1950s. (Well, in the then Free State of Trieste, to be specific.) As I'm picturing them right now one is older, fortyish to the younger's late-twenties-to-thirtyish.
Thing is, neither of these characters saw combat during the war (which I find significant to their backgrounds and development as characters, considering the society-wide trauma the war inflicted.) My placeholder rationale is that the older one managed to weasel into some clerical paper-pushing job for his military service and the younger one's number just never came up before Italy surrendered. I've been doing research on the setting, the culture of the era, the political issues at play all around them, but one thing I'm stuck finding out is the crux of my question:
**How realistic is it that both of them would have managed to avoid active duty, either in general or in the scenario I've imagined as my "placeholder"?** I've never been much for specifically military history so I'm sort of blundering around in the dark here. How did conscription work - was it like in the US, waiting for your number to come up in the draft? Would a man in his thirties have been considered too old for active duty? Was it possible to do bureaucratic stuff instead of combat/field stuff upon conscription and if so, under what circumstances?
Location-specific caveat: Trieste WAS part of Italy during the war and only became a separate territory after Italy's surrender, but there may have been some arcane differences in administration I'm not yet aware of. If so, I welcome correction.
This is mostly just a fear-based procrastination method to avoid ACTUALLY writing this novel, but dammit, I want all the details perfectly researched before I consign the unwritten manuscript to the depths of my brain.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cr9xcq/italian_army_during_ww2_what_were_conscription/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ex3mhy4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"How much \"entirely\"? Give him a \"war-priority\" job, or make him a very lucky career officer.\n\n\nIf you can read Italian, then you should probably check [Virgilio Ilari's *Storia del servizio militare in Italia*](_URL_0_).\n\n\nAs a general word of caution though, the idea of avoiding military service entirely (as in, sitting out the great world conflict and having therefore a different set of personal experiences) is a problematic one - especially if you want them to be living in Trieste from 1940 to the early 1950s.\n\nAs for age limitations, the main core of conscription army was formed by the junior classes (1910-18) and senior classes (1901-09) - to which one should add the newly mobilized (1919-23) and, last and luckiest, the first third of 1924, and a few veterans from 1900 and likely some of the late XIX Century called back for the \"territorial\" army during 1942-43. \n\nThe total of the main 23 classes accounted for 9,729,786 men, which translated into 5,100,000 enlisted men at the time of mobilization. Conversely the number of exempt was of 960,000 - also at mobilization. Giving you a broad ratio for people who actively served in the army and those who possibly avoided service entirely (it's reasonable to assume that many of those originally exempt were later called to replace casualties, since the new classes could only cover some).\n\nMost exempted from active service were nonetheless destined to the production efforts (5.2 millions belonging to the industrial mobilization, of which 1.2 were women though, and others may have been unsuitable for active service) - which was the main way to avoid service for someone who fell within the conscription classes, and was not necessarily a permanent insurance.\n\nPaper-pushing jobs certainly existed within the army - but it was not really something that an enlisted man could have much control on. I suppose you can conjure some convenient circumstances to have them avoid combat anyways, since them being non commissioned officers fortuitously (or commissioned officers intentionally - not really the most sympathetic trait) assigned to a coastal fort seems to defy your purpose.\n\n\nIt's nonetheless worth noting that Trieste fell within the German Operationszone Adriatisches Küstenland after the armistice of September 8^th 1943 and administered from the Gau of Carinthia. Trieste and the neighboring region was also a strategic node for the transportation of goods and men from and to Italy, the Balkans and the territories under German occupation, as well as an increasingly relevant position in the partisan conflict across the border with Yugoslavia. It was likely the worst place in (former) Italy to conduct a safe existence during 1944-45, and to an extent continued to be so after that. \n\nI am not an expert on the occupation regime, nor on the subsequent years; and I would advise you to ask further information as a separate question. But the events which occurred there, from the Holocaust properly speaking, to the ethnic cleansing of local populaces, to a prolonged civil war, are some of the aspects you may want to research before setting your story there.\n\n\nAs for our present subject, it certainly wasn't the best place to weather the storm. Italian residents previously mobilized would have been under strong pressure to join the German labor forces - or alternatively transferred to Germany or Poland with another 650,000 Italian Military Internees, provided that they had been in some fashion enlisted at the time of the armisitce, otherwise they would have likely been recruited for labor, but under a different denomination.\n\nGeneral estimates of Italians subject to conscription who managed to remain unaccounted for after 1943 exceed 2 millions - so that it was possible to stay out of both the RSI and the German labor forces. Another possibility, also going against your general intention, was joining the partisan squads (again, not the safest position around Trieste) or volunteering for the Social Republic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://issuu.com/rivista.militare1/docs/05_-_storia_del_servizio_militare_i"
]
] |
|
c9u29t
|
inspired by an earlier post on Germany, wondering how the formation of Germany’s states gave rise to the failed democracy in the Weimar Republic?
|
Was it purely a political failure after Bismarck’s death and lack of leadership or was it affected by nationalism and identity of Germany that then gave rise to Nazism?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/c9u29t/inspired_by_an_earlier_post_on_germany_wondering/
|
{
"a_id": [
"et7550y"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The fate of democracy in the Weimar Republic is the source of no small amount of debate within modern German historiography. Certain factors, however, can be generally agreed upon as contributing to the less than robust state of Weimar democracy in the run up to Hitler’s rise to power. Among these, the ones that seem most relevant to your questions as asked are the role of democratic/republican institutions in the German states prior to the creation of the Weimar Republic as well as the relationship between those institutions and the German people.\n\nAs is so often the case, it may be useful to begin with Napoleon, or rather, the aftermath of Napoleon’s conquest in Germany. While a Louis may have returned to the throne in France, neither there nor across Central Europe could the French Revolution and the reign of Napoleon be fully undone. The ideas and ideals championed by revolutionaries had spread to cities across the continent, and while the borders drawn at Vienna left France largely as it was before the war, the map of Germany was forever changed. These and other factors (especially economic factors) contributed to the revolutions that engulfed Europe in 1848. Students, liberals, workers, farmers, and others came together in states across the continent, unified more by their opposition to the status quo than any common vision for the future. In the German states this led to the National Assembly in Frankfurt, where much was debated and little accomplished. Unable to agree on much, and unable to convince the Prussian king to accept what he called a crown from the gutter, the representatives at Frankfurt ultimately disbanded after counter revolutionary forces restored control across the German states.\n\nThe assembly had been unable to accomplish much, and as it debated it had certainly not had any significant impact on the day to day lives of Germans. In its wake, many German states, including Prussia, created representative bodies to give their governments the appearance of democratic input without truly altering the nature of politics. Prussia carried this over into the new, unified German state created in 1871.\n\nThe “representative” government of this new Germany was nothing of the sort. For one thing, not every vote was created equal — rather, land ownership and other factors weighted things towards those the wealthy elite. More importantly, the Reichstag only truly had power over the purse. In addition, new elections could be called whenever the government wanted. This led to a situation in which the parties in opposition had no real experience in governing, nor in compromise — there was no power to exercise, and thus no reason to sacrifice principles for pragmatism. To do so would only alienate the constituents who supported you. As such, parties were relatively extreme in their rhetoric and inflexible. They appealed to their constituents, and drew them into a party-centric world of social events and camaraderie.\n\nWhen the new German Republic was created at the end of World War I, a great deal changed. But not everything. The same political parties remained, for instance, and leading them the same politicians. And although the new constitution granted this Reichstag real power, it did nothing to change the fact that these politicians had leaned how to operate in a very different political reality.\n\nThe constitution itself created structural weaknesses, or at least the potential for them. While a nation with strong democratic traditions may have navigated them, the new Weimar Republic struggled with them — a proportional system the allowed a proliferation of tiny parties, for instance. With little in the way of compromise, coalition governments failed. And failed in a postwar context where many people needed the government to function more than ever. Indeed, the period after World War I saw new demands on government, not just in terms of whose interests they represented but what kinds of services they provided.\n\nIt didn’t help that there was distrust. What had democracy and representative government ever really accomplished beyond debate and rabble rousing? Germans had practiced democracy, sure, but to what end? The democratic culture that emerged in Germany and produced parties and all the trappings, but had little to show in terms of results. Indeed, Bismarck had wisely coopted the most important social programs of the left, providing a safety net for workers and retirees. These were things the government had provided, while stories claimed liberals and Democrats had only provided for Germany’s defeat in World War I, the so-called stab in the back. When, in this context, the new Reichstag seemed unable to accomplish anything, and kept holding new elections when coalitions failed, it would be easy to lose any faith one might have had in democracy. Especially in light of economic conditions — things were bad enough immediately after the war, with chaos in the streets, but when hyperinflation arrived in 1923, they got much worse. People still had jobs, but what they didn’t have was enough money to buy bread. Especially hard hit were widows and other pensioners, anybody on a fixed income.\n\nIn that context, the promise of a government that worked at all was highly appealing, and support drained away from the coalition of parties that tried to work within the constraints of the new Weimar constitution and to those on the left and the right that sought to replace it with something new.\n\n-Margaret Anderson, Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany\n-Jeffery Herf, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
k4ag1
|
How does hydrogen peroxide make hair a lighter color?
|
And why, on some people, does it make hair turn an orangey color, whereas with others it makes it blonder? Does it have to do with what the "base" color of the hair is?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/k4ag1/how_does_hydrogen_peroxide_make_hair_a_lighter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2he9s2",
"c2hfx7n",
"c2he9s2",
"c2hfx7n"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
8,
6
],
"text": [
"Hydrogen peroxide is unstable, particularly in light, and emits oxygen free radicals. These oxygen free radicals combine with whatever materials they touch - in this case, hair. When they bind to a pigment, they damage the pigment molecule, which tends to produce a lighter color. Melanin is one common human pigment molecule that becomes lighter, but it is certainly not the only pigment. So yes, it depends on the base color of hair - in particular, on the proportions of the pigments contained in the hair being exposed to peroxide.",
"Hydrogen peroxide is a strong *oxidant*: that is, it reacts with other chemicals that are *reductants*. I think that going into detail here is not of interest to your question.\n\nAll organic/living matter can be oxidized (since it contains carbon atoms in a low *oxidation state*): in this case, hydrogen peroxide reacts with pigments and other molecules in your hair, discoloring them. But there are a lot of other examples: ozone, another strong oxidant, is used to destroy bacteria and other microrganisms in tap water; hypochlorite (bleach) reacts with stubborn stains; the oxygen you breathe oxidizes the food you eat (through labyrinthine reactions and intermediates) producing the carbon dioxide you breathe out.",
"Hydrogen peroxide is unstable, particularly in light, and emits oxygen free radicals. These oxygen free radicals combine with whatever materials they touch - in this case, hair. When they bind to a pigment, they damage the pigment molecule, which tends to produce a lighter color. Melanin is one common human pigment molecule that becomes lighter, but it is certainly not the only pigment. So yes, it depends on the base color of hair - in particular, on the proportions of the pigments contained in the hair being exposed to peroxide.",
"Hydrogen peroxide is a strong *oxidant*: that is, it reacts with other chemicals that are *reductants*. I think that going into detail here is not of interest to your question.\n\nAll organic/living matter can be oxidized (since it contains carbon atoms in a low *oxidation state*): in this case, hydrogen peroxide reacts with pigments and other molecules in your hair, discoloring them. But there are a lot of other examples: ozone, another strong oxidant, is used to destroy bacteria and other microrganisms in tap water; hypochlorite (bleach) reacts with stubborn stains; the oxygen you breathe oxidizes the food you eat (through labyrinthine reactions and intermediates) producing the carbon dioxide you breathe out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ohuqa
|
Does the human body utilize the nitrogen in air?
|
I know that air is comprised primarily of nitrogen (78%) my question is does the human body actually use any of it for any metabolic function or is it simply discarded? Why is it that we didn't evolve to breathe nitrogen when it is by far the most abundant gas in the atmosphere?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ohuqa/does_the_human_body_utilize_the_nitrogen_in_air/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3hdl5h",
"c3hdtew",
"c3hdvo2",
"c3he45p"
],
"score": [
35,
19,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[Molecular nitrogen](_URL_1_) is too inert to be used in any biochemical processes, and doesn't play a role in human metabolism. \n\nHumans do use nitrogen (in the form of [ammonium](_URL_3_)) in various biosynthetic processes, but that nitrogen is derived from [amino acids](_URL_2_) obtained by breakdown of proteins (whether dietary or our own, eg. muscles during prolonged starvation). The excess ammonia is excreted via urine in the form of urea, produced in the [urea cycle](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: fixed spelling",
"Not directly! The nitrogen-nitrogen bond is very strong. Currently there are only a handful of creatures which break it: [cyanobacteria](_URL_1_) and [rhizobia](_URL_2_). Two classes of bacteria which use enzymes and metal catalysts to turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia. Methanotrophic [archaea](_URL_5_) also can do this via a distinct but similar process.\n\nSome plants have learned how to exploit these creatures and form [symbiotic associations with these prokaryotic organisms](_URL_4_), providing nodules in their roots which are ideal living conditions for these organisms. Sometimes they form [tripartate associations between plant, fungus, and bacteria](_URL_6_): a neat solution to both nitrogen fixation and increased nutrient absorption for the plant.\n\nThe final critter that sequesters nitrogen from the air is homo sapiens. \n\nNow we don't do it naturally: this only began about 100 years ago. A man name [frizt haber,](_URL_0_) a jewish german who was also the father of chemical warfare found that if you stick nitrogen and methane in a high pressure vessel and heat it hot enough you can get liquid ammonia. Sequestered nitrogen is one of the 3 big components of plant food, and the most difficult to acquire. \n\nThis might seem like a cheat (or not what you meant by utilize nitrogen, since it isn't natural), but it is an important one. in the early 1900s much of the world was facing starvation. People literally went to war over caves full of bat guano. The haber-bosch process has been the reason we have successfully expanded our population to seven billion, and it has been SO successful that it is estimated that *almost half of all the nitrogen found in the collective bodies of the entire human race* has come from this process. \n\nWe might be the most successful diazotrophic species that has ever lived, and [our success is leading to dramatic changes in the environment.](_URL_3_)",
"A major reason why we can't breathe nitrogen is that it can't be used as the terminal electron acceptor in oxidative phosphorylation (like oxygen). The reason for this is that the redox potential of N2 is -3.09 while the redox potential of NADH (primary electron donor) is only +0.32.\n\nHowever, nitrogen-fixing bacteria can reduce nitrates and nitrites to N2 in nitrogen-fixing processes.",
"Not really what you asked but nitrogen can cause problems when diving, as it makes you have decompression sickness if you dive to deep for too long. And it happens with nitrogen exactly because it is such an inert gas, so it just stays there and forms bubbles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea_cycle",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen#Applications_of_nitrogen_compounds",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_ion"
],
[
"http://www.uh.edu/engines/fritzhaber.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizobia",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication",
"http://permaculturetokyo.blogspot.com/2009/02/rhizobium-symbiosis-with-woody-plants.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
16hyy6
|
What were some of the long term effects of the 1953 Iranian Coup?
|
Also if anyone could recommend any good books on this event that would be great.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16hyy6/what_were_some_of_the_long_term_effects_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7wcfir",
"c7wdftj"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"These things are slippery of course. But there seems to be a pretty good argument for two major long term effects: \n\n1. Short term: restoration of the shah as the center of power in Iran. At the time of the coup he was essentially in hiding, not from any major threat to his life, but from his responsibilities in general. He was perfectly happy to let the governing of the state alone. CIA and MI6 operatives had a hell of a time trying to convince him to take power back. But once it was his again, he wielded the power with a kind of destructive ambivalence. This was not great for Iran in any capacity. His secret police, Savak terrorized the people for 22 years, targeting all opposition groups. This meant that in the long term: \nOpposition was unified against his government in the late 70's. However, the only opposition group left that could muster enough support and organization to offer an alternative to the government was the clergy led islamists. Savak's gutting of the more moderate opposition groups, and their variety, left the islamic revolution an open road to theocracy. \n\n2. Template for regime change. The CIA and MI6 operatives very nearly failed in their attempts to oust Mossadegh. Some very strange circumstances tilted the balance, but it was far from a foregone conclusion and went one way and the other. Many of the operatives were shocked to discover the plan finally worked. The success of the plan gave the CIA a template for regime change that included misinformation, propaganda, and later, the training of police forces to stamp out opposition. They used these techniques to great effect in operations over the following 20-30 years. Operation Ajax was a massive success for the CIA, and it is not clear they would have pursued such methods in the future if it had failed.",
"lukeweiss gave a great answer, as far as a resource, [\"All the Shah's Men\"](_URL_0_) by Stephen Kinzer has great coverage of the coup, what led to it, and a little of the aftermath. though it doesn't talk too much about the long term effects, it is really a great and important read."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/047018549X"
]
] |
|
flt6z
|
is time standing still at the speed of light?
|
what i gathered from the (awesome) answer by RobotRollCall on the topic "Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of light?" time is moving slower the faster you go. and at the absolute speed of light, is time then standing still?
_URL_0_
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/flt6z/is_time_standing_still_at_the_speed_of_light/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1gvat1"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"this is kind of breaking my brain. so a photon at the speed of light (and time standing still) can travel EVERYWHERE and back again in the universe in no time at all? \n\nuniverse\ny u no easy to understand"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/c1gh4x7"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
4sjztk
|
how long does a fly have to spend on your food before it has done anything that may pose any sort of health risk?
|
By "done anything" I mean, for example, the vomiting that the fly must do as part of its eating process.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sjztk/eli5_how_long_does_a_fly_have_to_spend_on_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d59vvf2",
"d5a4fc6"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The length of time he's on food has little to do with it. What matters is what is on the fly, and if it gets on the food. There really is no way to predict it. A fly walks around on shit a lot and can potentially carry things like salmonella and e-coli. In general, the risk of a single fly landing on your food is very, very low.",
"The analogy I always use to debunk any kind of \"five second rule\" type of thinking is a person with fingerpaint on their hands. If they touch something, a bulk amount of the sticky substance transfers to the surface the very instant that they make contact. There isn't a minimum amount of time that the paint-covered fingers have to remain in contact with that surface. If something gets touched, it's getting some non-zero amount of paint on it.\n\nThat's how cross-contamination works, too. Don't think of it in terms of the fly vomiting or breathing, or any kind of migration of bacteria somehow taking time to \"walk\" across from the contaminating object onto the clean surface, or any kind of other slow process like diffusion. The transfer is actually done when a small (could be microscopic) but still *bulk* amount of material breaks away from the contaminating object and adheres to the clean surface. If undesirable bacteria (or other dangerous substances) are present within the adhered material, then contamination has happened. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
13jwkz
|
How fast does something have to spin before it looks like a blur?
|
Kinda hard to word but for example: say I'm spinning my pen around my hand like normal. I want to know how fast I would have to spin it so it would look like a solid blur, they way wheels and tires stop looking like they're spinning and just look like a blur if they're spinning fast enough.
If it seems like a stupid question it's because I was sitting in class, then the thought came to me, and then I couldn't stop thinking about it. And if it's not possible then damnit I'm gonna try.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13jwkz/how_fast_does_something_have_to_spin_before_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c74mrzh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your eyes can't detect any changes that happen under 10 milliseconds. Did you know the digits on your alarm clock aren't on all at the same time? They rotate every few milliseconds to save on power consumption / prolong life."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
54kfr1
|
My teacher says that the 1800 election was the first time in world history that power was peacefully transferred between parties. It seems too general to be true. Is he right?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54kfr1/my_teacher_says_that_the_1800_election_was_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d82ovsf",
"d82qc0k",
"d838hyl"
],
"score": [
131,
51,
21
],
"text": [
"This seems to me like the kind of claim that can only be supported with a ton of goalpost moving on the terms of \"peace,\" \"transfer,\" and \"party\" against counter-examples. \n\nEG 1 In 1714 the Throne of England was transferred from the House of Stuart to the House of Hanover. I would call this a peaceful transfer, but a) is this \"between parties\"? and b) does the Jacobite uprising of 1715 (a branch of the House of Stuart who had in 1688/89 been violently deposed led an armed rebellion) disqualify it as \"Peaceful\"? Similar questions could be asked of the transition from Tudor to Stuart England.\n\nEG 2 [The Restoration of Charles II](_URL_2_) was hailed as largely peaceful, with the general tone of the [Declaration of Breda](_URL_0_) being of forgiveness and peace. Does the exclusion of the regicides from that forgiveness, with their subsequent prosecution and execution disqualify that from being \"peaceful\"? Does this qualify as a \"transfer between parties\"? Again, I think this meets your teacher's definition, but the goal posts could again simply be moved.\n\nE3 Queen Anne's Tory ministry (1711-14) led by [Robert Harley](_URL_1_) both entered and exited power without violence, but his rise and fall wasn't tied to any election, rather simply shifts in Royal favour (and the rise of the house of Hanover). But this is definitely a *party* affair. Does it count as a *transfer*? And what about the rise and eventual fall of the Walpole Whig Ministry which followed him?",
"What your teacher is saying feels misleading. Maybe its the cynic in me but it seems to me that he/she is trying to paint a picture whereby the first US election is the first and world leading democratic process that didn't involve war/revolution/hereditary monarchy and so on but that's simply not true.\n\nIn Britain, peaceful elections had occurred at least 100 years before that. Problem, is how you define parties. Power transitioned between the Whigs and the Tories throughout 18th century Britain peacefully at general elections. Problem is, the parties then weren't really properly formed organisations in the modern mould. More a loosely associated group of people with similar ideas and goals. But it is still power transferring peacefully from one party to the other. Universal suffrage wasn't in place at this time of course (but that can be said of the USA as well) and there was corruption aplenty so you can discuss and question the democratic credentials of these elections.\n\nI don't know anything about 17th century English elections but perhaps someone else can fill in the blanks there if relevant. British elections began after the Act of Union in 1707 (Union of England and Scotland) and there were numerous different prime ministers across the rest of that century.\n\nThere were of course very many peaceful transitions of power in the Roman Republic (after the Kings, before the empire) as power transferred peacefully every year from one pair of consuls to another after general elections, but again, there is a lack of political parties here.\n\nI guess the point I'm making is that if your teacher's point is about unified political parties then he/she may have a point but I certainly don't have the world knowledge to comment - various experts in different fields would have to come here and answer for their own geographical areas of expertise.\n\nBut if your teacher's point is about the USA pioneering peaceful transition of power, they are most definitely wrong by at least a couple of thousand years, perhaps more. There is both recent and ancient history (as per my above examples) to demonstrate this.",
"Do you happen to live in Virginia? I'm a history teacher in Virginia and that very phrase is part of our standards. Even though most of us know it's misleading, it'll inevitably be on the SOL every year. This is what happens when politicians are in charge of the standards!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Breda",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Harley,_1st_Earl_of_Oxford_and_Earl_Mortimer",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England)"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1hhamx
|
Can you use embryonic stem cells to change someone's sex?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1hhamx/can_you_use_embryonic_stem_cells_to_change/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caug452",
"caugnzg",
"caujrvh"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"In terms of a female to male transgender your looking to create a penis and testes. This probably shouldn't be *too* hard as you would need to generate a proto-phallus and target it with the correct hormonal sequence to trigger its development. That should fill out the requisite blood vessel and nerve endings as per normal fetal development. The downside is that you would probably have to remove the female defined flesh since it had already developed in one direction, causing a reversion on an organ level isn't probably possible or desirable (cancer).\n\nMale to female is probably a little more complex, as it relies on biochemical signaling for non-existent genetic material. So upon grafting in a proto-womb it might require more than simply sending the right hormonal signals for full development. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nEmbryonic stem cells are fiddly and hard to use, but there may well be ways to make artificial ovaries.\n\nIt's a lot harder to make completely functional organs with stem cells though, and I don't know if we'll ever have full mastery over it. Tissues are easy to make, organs are harder.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nPeople have made some artificial bones, but it's a lot harder to make organs. You can use scaffolds, which can help.\n\nThat is the limit of what is easily possible- making something that can produce female hormones and making more realistic genders. Other changes would be harder. Men and women have different sex hormone sensitivities, which means adding more hormone won't necessarily produce a full change- the cells are differently differentiated.",
"You can probably take some of your own cells, add some Yamanaka factors (which cause differentiated cells to revert back to stem cells) and grow those into sex organs to be transplanted. But if you are asking whether or not stem cells can permanently change a biologically male/female to the opposite sex I think the answer is not any time soon with our current technology."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829115.600-artificial-ovary-mimics-real-hormone-levels.html",
"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/health/research/28novelties.html?_r=0",
"http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/02/growing-new-hearts-without-using-embryonic-stem-cells/"
],
[]
] |
||
2yn2o5
|
If photons travel along waves with varying frequencies, but these waves all traverse distance at the same speed (c), then are the photons in higher frequency waves, which would be longer, traveling faster?
|
I feel like there must be something I'm not understanding about wave/particle duality that would explain this. I've included a [diagram] (_URL_0_) I drew to further illustrate the question. Thanks in advance!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2yn2o5/if_photons_travel_along_waves_with_varying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpb3i8k",
"cpbaj9z",
"cpbb47k"
],
"score": [
61,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Both photons travel in straight lines.\n\nThe wave is not the path that the photon takes. The wave is a representation of the electromagnetic field associated with that photon.\n",
"Photons of higher energy do have bigger momentum but for photons it doesn't affect their speed.\n\nNot sure about this part but you could think that every photon has the same frequency but the higher energy ones are just lorentz contracted into a more compact space.",
"Impressed you went to the trouble of doing a diagram and trying to answer your own question before posting. \n \nBut I think the problem here is the \"wave\" diagram is just an analogy, a convenient way of drawing it. So it's not something we can work backwards from to reach conclusions. \n \nTo visualise a real electro-magnetic wave you need 3 dimensions. Someone [here](_URL_0_) did a good job of explaining this."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://m.imgur.com/lRewDJD"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/3410"
]
] |
|
fyjint
|
where did the idea of bears being cuddly and lovable and the idea of teddy bears in pop culture come from l, and why did we pick a animal that's a killing machine to give this image to?
|
I was also asking where the idea of the actual animal being friendly and cartoony came from
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fyjint/eli5_where_did_the_idea_of_bears_being_cuddly_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fn09jz7",
"fn09mi9",
"fn0i6qy",
"fn1wy63"
],
"score": [
7,
67,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The \"Teddy Bear\" was created after Teddy Roosevelt went on a bear hunt that went nowhere. Trappers brought him a caged bear as a trophy instead, but Ted said that was too unsportsmanlike (although the injured bear was put down anyway).\n\nThe story spread and novelty stuffed bears became popular toys during his administration.",
"President Theodore Roosevelt once became the subject of controversy for refusing to shoot a tied up bear during a hunting expedition considering it unsportsmanlike.\n\nTeddy was his nickname, although he loathed being referred to as such.\n\nThis story resulted in the creation of various political cartoons depicting the stoic picture of the President and \"Teddy's bear\". Although the actual bear was an adult the cartoons portrayed the bear as a cute cub.\n\nA number of companies began producing cute Teddy Bear toys as a result. Roosevelt loved the idea and adopted the stuffed bears as his mascot, and they've since become extremely popular children's toys.",
"Well, I have three of nature’s most ultra efficient killing-machines asleep in various parts of my house right now.\n\nThey are called cats.\n\nBut I agree with your point.\n\nStill, doesn’t popular culture eventually make every type of animal into a cutesy version of itself?",
"Cartoons plus the human tendency to anthropomorphize everything? \n\nThe US Forest Service changed the image of Smokey The Bear in the 1970s or 1980s to make it seem meaner and scarier, in an effort to keep people from trying to play with wild bears they encountered in the national parks. Actually that had already been done in the 1950s, maybe for the same reason."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
lyz5w
|
When an animal dies, what causes the individual cells to die out?
|
Is it lack of oxygen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lyz5w/when_an_animal_dies_what_causes_the_individual/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2wq044",
"c2wq044"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"The cells in a multi cellular organism are kind of like people living in a community. Different people (cells) have specialised roles, like a farmer, who's role is to produce food, or a doctor who keeps people healthy.\n\nWith out all the roles being performed, people in the community would start to all die out. similarly, the cells in an organism require the work of all the cells to keep alive. Muscle cells for example have no way of getting any nutrients from the world the world around them, they depend on blood cells to deliver it to them.\n\nI hope this is what you are after...",
"The cells in a multi cellular organism are kind of like people living in a community. Different people (cells) have specialised roles, like a farmer, who's role is to produce food, or a doctor who keeps people healthy.\n\nWith out all the roles being performed, people in the community would start to all die out. similarly, the cells in an organism require the work of all the cells to keep alive. Muscle cells for example have no way of getting any nutrients from the world the world around them, they depend on blood cells to deliver it to them.\n\nI hope this is what you are after..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
13ag0f
|
Are there any more effective methods than helmets to reduce the risk of brain injuries?
|
Talking just a typical bicycle helmet.
Sometimes I get hung up on just how incredibly fragile the human brain is - one quick jerk and you've got microfractures and broken synapses left and right. Are there any better protective measures to be taken?
Hypothetically related: what are some potential mechanisms to design (even improving skull design itself) that might improve the ability to absorb incoming forces?
And tangentially related: how much abuse can the brain recover from, exactly? I've heard varying statistics throughout my life, but most of them said that brain cells don't reproduce or regenerate.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13ag0f/are_there_any_more_effective_methods_than_helmets/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c727ocp",
"c727xzl"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a major problem in NFL football these days, but as long as there is contact to the head there is a risk of injury. There is an idea floating around that removing helmets altogether would increase safety via a lack of security (knowing you'll be at risk) but I don't think anyone will go for that. \n\nSorry, not answering your question but I think this is relevant and I felt like typing something. ",
"I don't think this is a science question. Protection being used in different applications is more of a problem of cost and convenience. Taking the bicycle example, using a full face motorcycle helmet instead would be a huge safety improvement, but who would like to wear that?\n\nTalking about technological limits, there are a number of wearable airbag systems available on the market and actively developed, example (not for the head): _URL_0_. These will only work though if your head accelerates towards something (the accelerometers are mounted on your body) not the other way around."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.dainese.com/us_en/d-air/d-air-street"
]
] |
|
5bag4q
|
how come when a neutron star spins incredibly fast, it creates radio jets and becomes a pulsar?
|
On the same note, are there neutron stars that spin rapidly just like a pulsar but just don't have their radio jets? If that's the case, then how does a pulsar obtain it's radio jets?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5bag4q/eli5_how_come_when_a_neutron_star_spins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9myt51"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Every neutron star spins rapidly and produces radio jets. This is because as the star gets compacted down it has to maintain its angular momentum, the same way a dancer brings their arms in to spin faster. The radio jets come from the fact that you have a lot of mass spinning very very fast, which produces very strong magnetic fields.\n\n However, not all neutron stars will have their jets pass over the earth as it spins/wobbles. The ones that do are what we call pulsars(blazers if they're pointed directly at us)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6to388
|
why do other countries (outside of the us) have little or no commercial breaks on tv?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6to388/eli5_why_do_other_countries_outside_of_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlm4oa3",
"dlm649f",
"dlm9nv7"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"You may want to be more specific as many countries have just as many commercials on TV as the US does.",
"Turkey has 2 hour long shows with 1 hour advertisement. They usually take 7 to 10 minute breaks every 15 minutes. ",
"As an example, I believe England has their stations technically run by the government, kind of like PBS here\n\nThe US on the other hand leases out different bands to companies (nbc, cbs, etc) so they have to pay for their costs"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4zarur
|
why does mold grow slower in colder temperatures?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zarur/eli5_why_does_mold_grow_slower_in_colder/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6ubeyk"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Life is just chemical reactions. Chemical reactions either produce heat, or take heat from their surroundings.\n\nThe act of reproduction is lots and lots of chemical reactions, some of which need heat from the surrounding environment. If there's less heat in the environment (it's colder), those reactions go slower. The entire chain of reactions is thus slowed down, and so the growth is slowed down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
34z70t
|
what functions do d3 and 2 have in automatic cars and what situations should i be using them?
|
Also, is there any fuel efficiency or hazardous weather uses for them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34z70t/eli5_what_functions_do_d3_and_2_have_in_automatic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqzfjpg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Those are your \"low gears\". They're good for climbing steep grades, towing, and you can also use them as an \"engine brake\" when you're going down a steep hill so you don't have to hit your brakes as much and wear them out. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1127is
|
Is a "runner's high" a minor form of Hypoxia?
|
I recently started running again and coincidently, learned of the causes and symptoms of Hypoxia around the same time. Is it possible, or does anybody know if a "runner's high" is a minor form of Hypoxia?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1127is/is_a_runners_high_a_minor_form_of_hypoxia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ios1a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Runner's high is caused by the release of endorphins caused by the strain of using your muscles for a prolonged time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
b2meuh
|
how cold does it have to be for food not to spoil?
|
so i've read that it takes three months for food to spoil in the freezer which is usually at -20*c, however what happens if we turn it down to say -270*c?
it's not absolute 0, but it's not far from it either
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b2meuh/how_cold_does_it_have_to_be_for_food_not_to_spoil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiv93a7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All living organisms have a certain temperature range in which they function best. The reason why we refrigerate out foods is because all the most common contaminates have this range around 20-40C. So while the lowered temperature does not completely prevent growth, it greatly reduces it.\n\nWhen you freeze food well below waters freezing point, you additionally rob the contaminants of liquid water which most common contaminants require for growth. The reason why we still set an expiration date on frozen food, is in case some rare and much more hardy contaminants should be present. And the fact that your freezer could malfunction or temporarily peak at higher temperatures.\n\nIf we were to lower the temperature by a lot, then MUCH fewer organism would be able to function and grow. Near 0K interactions causing chemical reactions would be so retarded that no organism could function. But it is extremely difficult and expensive to cool something down this much. We usually struggle by just cooling a handful of atoms to this level, you can forget about doing it with a couple kilo roast."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cus1xe
|
Philippines during Latin American Wars of Independence
|
Basically the title, what was the general mood of the populace in the Philippines during the Latin American Wars of Independence and in extension the Napoleonic Wars and why it did not join. Not even Wikipedia has entry on Philippines during that time, only "The two exceptions to independence were the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico, which with the Philippines, remained Spanish colonies until the 1898 Spanish-America War."
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cus1xe/philippines_during_latin_american_wars_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"exzz8cc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I think this is a good opportunity to point out a major issue with historiography of the Philippines. That is, when people talk about Philippine independence they are doing so through the lens of mainly the Tagalog people, and to a lesser extent some other groups such as Bisayans. This naarative is of course quite dominant today probably in no small part because the most powerful groups in the Philippines are lowlanders in Luzon, which is where the Filipino Revolution took place. Many of the other parts of the Philippines are just ignored in historical narratives. The Filipino war of independence in 1896 is thought of as a defining moment for Filipinos because of these narratives, but in this post I am going to push back at that idea a bit. \n\nThat successful war of independence was simply one in a long line of rebellions and wars fought in the Philippines against the Spanish. That war was also a Tagalog war. What I mean by that is that the Katipunan was a group of elites from various Filipino backgrounds, but they were centered in Maynila. The movement was not exactly a national independence war (though upon defeating the Spanish, a Filipino republic was declared, the first republic in Asia, with Emilio Aguinaldo as president). This is important to keep in mind once I point out another part of the critique: not all of the Philippines was under Spanish control, or at least much of it was contested. Mindanao was very contested land, and Sulu was actually never incorporated into the \"country\" until the American colonial period. The highlands of Luzon were also not incorporated until the American period. These areas fought more or less constant conflicts against the Spanish from the 1500s up through that independence war in 1896. So, in fact, the Philippines already had a long tradition of revolt against the Spanish, and about half of the territory was either unconquered or fairly contested. Of the other half, much of it was relatively loosely administered and didn't actually have many Spaniards in it. In fact, for example, it wasn't until 1849 that official surnames were even adopted by Filipinos. This is mainly where the Spanish surnames in the Philippines originated; Jose Rizal himself did not have the same surname as his parents.\n\nOn the topic of influential revolts, it was a Cavite (another Taglog region) revolt in 1872 that helped inspire Jose Rizal. He dedicated Noli me tangere to the three Filipino secular priests that were executed in the wake of that revolt. The historian Cesar Adib Majul also discussed in fairly great detail what he called the Moro Wars against colonialists, which he broke up into six stages. Historiography has often ignored the \"other half\" of the Spanish Philippines, that is the areas that remained Muslim throughout the period. The sort of deification of actors such as Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, Luna, etc. is a willful ignorance of the fact that not only had there been other successful Filipino commanders against the Spanish, but that the celebrated war was a fairly regional thing. Basically, what I am trying to get across is that the Philippines was not an idle place, accepting the colonization. There had been active revolts and wars throughout the colonial period, and they clearly inspired each other.\n\nReferences:\n\n*The Promise of the Foreign: Nationalism and the Technics of Translation in the Spanish Philippines* by Vicente L. Rafael\n\n*Muslims in the Philippines* by Cesar Adib Majul"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
36bqcf
|
- how were roads built and paved before large machines were invented?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36bqcf/eli5_how_were_roads_built_and_paved_before_large/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crcleti"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Mostly by hand. They'd have [lots of people](_URL_1_) involved, though. Sometimes crews of hundreds or even thousands. \n\nEven today, with all the large machines, there are inaccessible places or places where there's no financial incentive or other means to pay for it where they have to do it by hand. (In one such place, a man [spent 22 years](_URL_0_) cutting a road through a mountain by himself with a hammer and chisel, because the hospital was in another town and going around took too long, and his wife died.) You just line the guys up and set to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/24/this-man-cut-a-road-throu_n_6939898.html",
"http://i.imgur.com/oeX1c5p.jpg"
]
] |
||
1bzg4d
|
How accountable was the average member of Nazi German groups such as the Einsanzgruppen and the Reserve Police Battalion for the Holocaust?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bzg4d/how_accountable_was_the_average_member_of_nazi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9bjn3m",
"c9bjn8a"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In an academic sense, there are three categories to place those responsible for the Holocaust: perpetrators, collaborators and bystanders. (_URL_0_ - just one academic example, but Google searches for \"Perpetrators collaborators bystanders\" will bring Holocaust studies to the top; 'rescuers' are also included in these four categories.)\n\nThe average member would fall into one of these three categories, with the rare exception of those who became a 'rescuer.'\n\nCan we include this in the historical debate of \"How responsible is a soldier at war?\" Should we shift all of the blame to Goebbels and Hitler for motivating a nation to hate? Probably not, considering that some \"broke free\" and participated in efforts to free captive Jews, homosexuals and Romany.\n\nWhat about the militias who aided the Einsatzgruppen, who \"were paid from the money and valuables stolen from the victims.\"? _URL_1_ Can we argue that anyone is more or less responsible because they were not a member of the German nation, and not susceptible to the propaganda of the Third Reich?\n\n",
"To what extent someone is \"accountable\" for something is really a moral question, not a historical one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ijs/ijs-events-publication/simon-wiesenthal-memorial-lecture",
"http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/"
],
[]
] |
||
6nvn4u
|
does celibacy contribute to increased proficiency and productivity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nvn4u/eli5_does_celibacy_contribute_to_increased/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkclc75"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"ELI5 rules dictate that I can't just reply with \"no\" but if I could, I would. Yes, there were some notoriously brilliant people who were celibate, but there are millions of people out there in the world right now who are celibate (either by choice, or because nobody will have sex with them) with absolutely no great abilities or advantages, and there have been thousand of noted brilliant people who led very normal sex lives.\n\nConsider: Certain mental disorders cause a person to be very very brilliant at a specific subject, and very very remedial in other areas of their lives. It's much more statistically likely that Tesla and Newton had mental abnormalities that made them fantastic at math and science, but caused them to have very poor social skills, or no interest in sexual activity. \n\nThere are studies that suggest that for a man, going a few days without an orgasm can have a minor impact on some hormones in your system, notably testosterone, but there aren't any studies or stats suggesting that this has any meaningful impact on your mental clarity or abilities, and after a short while (7-10 days) things go back to normal as your body adjusts. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
su2l1
|
How does an advance in telescope technology allow us to look "further back in time" when the speed of light obviously hasn't changed?
|
Are the advances in telescope technology allowing us to see more distant features of the universe (further away in time) because they are more sensitive to light? Or, put another way, are we able to see the universe at earlier and earlier stages of existence because the telescopes we have are better at gathering the light that's become more and more diffuse as it travels? I've never felt this is explained well enough.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/su2l1/how_does_an_advance_in_telescope_technology_allow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4gyurx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Very distant objects (such as the most distant galaxies observed to date, at about 12.7 billion light years away) - are extremely dim (because they are so far away).\n\nThe telescope where I work uses a 27 ft primary mirror (the worlds largest single piece mirror). TMT telescope, which is being constructed, will have a 90 ft (segmented) mirror.\n\nA larger mirror means more photons which means you can see dimmer objects with more detail.\n\nExposure times for most instruments range from minutes to hours. More photons means quicker exposures... or more detail with longer exposures.\n\nWe can not see past about 380,000 years after the big bang. Light did not persist prior to that. The earliest light which can be seen is the CMB which has shifted into the microwave spectrum."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
81dxx9
|
the tariff war in 2002 and how the proposed 25% tariff for steel imports from canada will hurt the us economy
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/81dxx9/eli5_the_tariff_war_in_2002_and_how_the_proposed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv2hofk",
"dv2kffk"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"This is argued every day with many viewpoints. This is ELI5. \n\nIf the leaders of a country want their industries to grow they impose tariffs, taxes on imported goods. That helps local companies produce these goods which means locals have jobs. Seems good.\n\nNow imagine taking this further. You want your town to have industry and locals to have jobs. Suppose the town could actually impose tariffs on all goods brought in. Tax the milk, the bread, everything. Now supposedly local people have jobs. But there is no dairy in town so you are just paying higher taxes. The local bakery owner is a drunk and does not bake good bread. But he is protected by the tariff and can continue drinking and baking bad bread.\n\nFurther the other towns, or countries, reacted to these tariffs by imposing and raising their own. Suddenly your producers have no market.\n\nFree traders say we do best with no tariffs. If something can be made very cheaply elsewhere, then imported, then we pay low prices. We specialize. They specialize. Prices for everyone are as low as possible.",
"In an open market whoever can spend the least amount of money per unit of goods produced has the competitive edge and can sell their goods at a lower price than someone else. The consumer gets the lowest price possible.\n\nNow if you introduce tariffs you are increasing the cost per unit of international goods which causes your domestic goods to be more favourable. Now the domestic goods are cheaper than the international ones. Problem is the overall cost of the goods to the consumers rise as well. \n\nSo sure you can make a few new jobs domestically but at a higher cost to everyone who consumes the goods.\n\nNow of course since it’s ELI5 that’s the simplistic case looking at only one commodity, in the real world the response to tariffs is usually more tariffs and embargos. That is, if the USA threatens to put tariffs on Canadian steel then Canadians can in return put tariffs on American products and buy less of them (or stop altogether). \n\nSo by trying to help the steel industry and create a few jobs the overall result hurts the steel consumers (essentially everyone) and overflows into potentially many other industries which rely on reciprocal trade agreements to sell their products."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
317z2z
|
how does someone live without a gallbladder? does it change how they eat? if so, how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/317z2z/eli5_how_does_someone_live_without_a_gallbladder/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpz6i1z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I live just fine without a gall bladder. I have not changed my diet in the slightest.\n\nA gall bladder allows me to store bile, so that in theory, if I suddenly ate (say) an entire bucket of lard, I would have enough bile ready to digest it.\n\nInstead, I am now relegated to eating that lard in small spoonfuls evenly throughout the day, to ensure the availability of the bile I can no longer store."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9x3i4b
|
I was brought up in Texas in the mid-late 90's and during middle school Civil War history we were taught that Robert E. Lee was a well organized masterful tactician, while Grant was a drunk who won more so due to resources and fortunate circumstances. How true is this?
|
Also we were taught that the Grant administration was the most corrupt in American history. Now that I'm a bit older I'm wondering how much of this was true and how much this was southern textbook manufacturers attempting to rewrite history in their favor.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9x3i4b/i_was_brought_up_in_texas_in_the_midlate_90s_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9pn61g",
"e9q6l6m"
],
"score": [
80,
18
],
"text": [
"It's hard to overstate just how off-base and factually incorrect this analysis is, at least from the Grant side of things. No offense meant to OP, who seems to have been the victim of what was, for a time, a standard Lost Cause interpretation of Lee and Grant, but this view is patently false. \n\nVery quickly on Lee, there's been plenty written on this sub on Lee's abilities as a general and tactician, but to TD;LR things, yes: Lee was a fantastic military commander who demonstrated superb strategic and political acumen. Though far from perfect, and with more than a few tactical mistakes made during the American Civil War (his performance at Gettysburg, his refusal to go west in 1863 to deal with the crisis in that theater, his sometimes vague orders to subordinates), it is hard to imagine anyone doing better with the resources available. So in this regard, OP's history teacher was more or less correct in simplifying Lee as a \"well organized masterful technician.\"\n\nOkay, fair enough on that front - but let's get to Grant. First, the drunkenness. There is no verifiable record of Grant getting reprimanded or otherwise called out on the carpet for being drunk during the Civil War. Despite what Shelby Foote relates in Ken Burns' Civil War doc, there's no actual evidence of Grant going on a bender during the Vicksburg campaign, and while it is POSSIBLE that this happened, let's look at the facts. Rumors of alcoholism dogged Grant throughout much of his Civil War career, stemming from a very real concern about his drinking habits as a young officer in California. Again, no official records attest to this, but it is generally agreed upon by historians that Grant did have a drinking problem, one that became an issue for him when stationed away from his family in the 1850s. \n\nFast forward to the Civil War. As a West Point graduate and veteran of the army through the Mexican American War and service afterwards, Grant was a known commodity in military circles. He knew other regular army generals, and they knew him. In these circles, promotions and assignments were very competitive, and many of these officers (and their allies/benefactors) actively spread rumors, false or otherwise, to tarnish the reputation of others so as to make themselves look better. What's more, newspapers loved this kind of drama, so a small rumor or some back-stabbing gossip got around fast, and in this way, Grant's drinking became a popular topic when his star was on the rise. \n\nIndeed, think of this like movie awards season: if you run a studio and you have a film in the running for best picture, you might spread rumors about a rival production to make it look bad, thereby increasing your own film's standing. It was no different during the Civil War, and throughout it all, Grant never faltered. Reading correspondence from politicians, fellow soldiers, friends, and family, you're not going to find one instance of a person attesting to having seen Grant drunk during the Civil War. Sure, there was plenty of \"I know a guy who knows a guy who said he saw Grant drunk,\" but that was it. \n\nSo yeah, the drunken butcher myth just doesn't hold any water. Was he an alcoholic? Maybe? Grant seemed to purposefully abstain from alcohol in social situations, and there's enough evidence out there to suggest that he was very conscious of the \"drunkard\" rumors, but for such a famous drunk, there's very little in the way of public, verifiable accounts of him being drunk during the war. \n\nNow, as a commander and tactician, we do have lots of evidence: none of it good for people like OP's Texas history teacher. Bruce Catton wrote extensively on Grant's abilities as an organizer, trainer, and leader during the early days of the war, when he commanded the 21st Illinois Volunteer Regiment (check out Catton's 'Grant Moves South' & 'Grant Takes Command' for more on this). He turned a rag-tag group of civilian recruits into a professional unit, no easy task, and continued to demonstrate his superb leadership abilities in a string of small victories that culminated in his hard-fought victory at Shiloh. I did an in-depth breakdown of his masterful generalship during the Vicksburg campaign here (_URL_0_), which laid out a blueprint for our modern understanding of \"Total War.\" Lincoln, always known to be unsympathetic and quick to cut bait on generals that didn't grasp the full scope of the political as well as military necessities of winning the war, stood by Grant when the losses of the Wilderness Campaign piled up. I bring this up because it demonstrates that even then, smart minds understood that Grant wasn't just throwing bodies into the meat-grinder, but rather he was executing a series of flanking marches that kept pushing Lee further and further back to a point from which no more offensive campaigns could be launched. Grant's army pool was not bottomless, and those who point to his numerical advantage over Lee at this point disregard the very real public opinion factor that might have just as easily have turned the tide against Grant (in other words, if the Union's losses were as high as they were without quantifiable gains, Grant would have been sacked). Grant knew this, as did Lincoln, and the campaign proved to be a masterful example in generalship that forced Lee into a stalemate from which he never really recovered. \n\nLastly, Grant knew how to manage an army, and was damn good at promoting subordinates who knew how to get the job done (i.e., Sherman and Sheridan). Sure, Grant had missteps (the last attack at Cold Harbor, the Battle of the Crater), but if you study his campaigns, you'll see a deliberate, thoughtful, calculating commander at work every step of the way. \n\n[Sources: Bruce Catton, 'Grant Moves South' & 'Grant Takes Command'; Jay Winik, 'April, 1865'; James McPherson, 'Battle Cry of Freedom']",
"I would add to petite-acorn: Grant's administration was one of the most corrupt, but Grant himself was not. Grant made a poor transition from military to the civil service. In the military, he was used to asking his subordinates to be completely loyal- even put their lives at risk in carrying out his orders- and in return he was loyal to them. He thus did not comprehend how much his friends, family, cabinet officials would be tempted to use their connections to him for personal gain. His personal secretary, his brother-in-law, his Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano, his Secretary of War Belknap all failed him in this way. He did have some lucky choices- Hamilton Fish as Secretary of the Treasury was quite capable, and Grant's second administration was much cleaner than the first. But Grant chose the wrong guys in his first term, and stood by them until the facts of their corruption were unavoidable.\n\nPerhaps a bigger complaint against Grant was that he started with great intentions and good prospects but didn't fulfill them. He began his Presidency as the most popular person in the US, with no Democratic opposition, and stating some truly progressive ambitions: establishing civil rights for freed slaves and creating good and honest relations with the western Indian tribes and with Mexico. After four years of being betrayed by some of his cabinet, and facing opposition from within the Republican party and Southern mobs , he became something of a nondescript bureaucrat, unwilling to get out and campaign for his ideals, instead simply giving up on rights for freed slaves in the face of unified Southern opposition, abandoning honest treatment of the Indian tribes in the face of US citizens' greed for their land... shuffling and stamping papers and making modest speeches. When he came back from his world tour in 1880 and put his hat in for another term as President, he couldn't actually point to anything remarkable that he wanted to do...he just wanted his old job back.\n\nGrant is one of the more fascinating figures in US history. He does not really fit into either category of hero or villain, but biographers have tried to shove him towards one side or the other.. Ron Chernow's biography has recently tried to cast Grant in a more positive light, maximizing his war service and first years as President, minimizing how much power he had over his party and his cabinet. William McFeeley's earlier biography grades him more harshly, as a decent man who was promoted beyond his abilities. I tend to agree with McFeeley: there was no President in a stronger position than Grant was in 1869 for achieving his stated goals, so he should get some blame for not achieving them. And he likely knew this: a telling thing I think is Grant's Memoirs. They pretty much end with his war service, and have only some valedictory remarks on his Presidency, more wishful thinking than policy ( like his notion that it would be better to export the freed slaves to what's now the Dominican Republic than give them rights as full citizens in the US ). It's like he was just tossing around some opinions, knowing they were now irrelevant.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9kom99/william_tecumseh_sherman_became_famous_and/"
],
[]
] |
|
202w65
|
Is it possible for an embryo to continue growing without developing into a fetus?
|
As some time passes the embryo develops into a fetus, but is it possible for the embryo to continue to grow as a clump of cells without the cells ever specializing into what they should?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/202w65/is_it_possible_for_an_embryo_to_continue_growing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfzc0vu",
"cfzgcp5"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Theoretically, the cells that form the inner cell mass of the blastocyst could progress through division without initiating the process of differentiation, however, that would result in the spontaneous abortion of the embryo. Basically, even if it did just continue to divide, the embryo would be deemed unviable by the body, rejected, and subsequently flushed.",
"This isn't exactly the same, but there is a condition called [hyaditiform mole](_URL_0_) where the tissue that should become the placenta grows abnormally and becomes, essentially, a benign tumor. Some hyaditiform moles support a fetus, but others have no fetus attached."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000909.htm"
]
] |
|
su5dr
|
[For everyone] I'm looking for examples of riots that were started for reasons we now find ridiculous...
|
I find riots fascinating generally, but I've always been especially interested in the ones that seem to spring up over things that appear to be absolutely nuts. Some particularly great examples:
- [The St. Scholastica Day Riot of 1355](_URL_2_); Oxford students outraged by the poor quality of the beer they had been served doused a taverner in his own wares and kicked off a three-day running battle between scholars and townsfolk that left nearly a hundred people dead.
- [The Straw Hat Riot of 1922](_URL_1_); young New Yorkers ran around the city stealing straw hats from people who were wearing them unfashionably late in the year - events swiftly escalated.
- [The Astor Place Riot of 1849](_URL_0_); angry crowds making competing claims for the supremacy of their favoured Shakespearean actors started a riot that saw the involvement of 10,000 people and led to some 30 deaths.
Are there any events in your own period that I could add to this list? I'd love to hear about them, if so.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/su5dr/for_everyone_im_looking_for_examples_of_riots/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4gzpwf",
"c4gzq3k",
"c4h06n8",
"c4h0fhe",
"c4h0l5u",
"c4h1fp3",
"c4h1ouu",
"c4h1v16",
"c4h1yub",
"c4h23vi",
"c4h3od1",
"c4h5f1q",
"c4h5p9t",
"c4h6928",
"c4h6rkg",
"c4h6tph",
"c4h6xt6",
"c4hauz3"
],
"score": [
57,
48,
6,
10,
73,
3,
16,
4,
20,
11,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Be wary. There are likely a multitude of reasons for why an uprising occurs, and a ostensibly trivial matter can be the spark that unleashes a lot of stored outrage.",
"The riot that took place during premier of [The Rite of Spring](_URL_1_). I think any of the [classical music riots](_URL_0_) are kind of difficult to understand the motivation for.",
"[Old Price Riots](_URL_0_)\n\nI think you could place most riots over sporting events in this category as well. But it's worth keeping in mind the deeper social circumstances behind riots. Riots, whatever the reason, tend to be the purview of the young, and of the poor. Homeowners don't riot.",
"[Zoot Suit Riot](_URL_0_) is more than just a song.",
"I'd like to think that a hundred years from now we'll find any and all sports-related riots like the [Vancouver Stanley Cup riots](_URL_0_) completely ridiculous, but I'm not sure I have that much faith in people.",
"I was going to say the [Calendar riots](_URL_0_)(\"give us back our 11 days!\") but it turns out to be myth.\n\n",
"[Zip to Zap](_URL_0_): Thousands of students come to celebrate spring break in a small North Dakotan town, drink up the town's supply of alcohol, start rioting as a result.\n\n[Malaysian fans riot at delayed opening of Indian film](_URL_1_): Technical difficulties halt the screening of *Sivaji*. The audience won't take the refund of ticket money for an answer, opt to wreck the theater instead.",
"The [Top Hat Riot](_URL_0_)",
"[The Nika Riots](_URL_0_) of Constantinople were a lot like extremely exaggerated sports riots, with a far more deadly outcome.",
" > Oxford students outraged by the poor quality of the beer they had been served doused a taverner in his own wares and kicked off a three-day running battle between scholars and townsfolk that left nearly a hundred people dead.\n\n & #3232;\\_ & #3232;\n\nPeople should start realizing that beer is serious business. \n\nLike the internet.",
"Also I remember reading about riots between two different police factions in 19th century New York City. [New York City police riots](_URL_0_).",
"I live in London, ON and on St. Patty's Day this year over 1000 students from a local college and area(some were underage too) got drunk and started to riot for no reason. \n\nThey flipped and set on fire a news truck, damaged about 17 police cars and had the police in riot gear and the fire department back away.\n\nThe police have arrested approximately 37 people from the riots because they were dumb enough to post stuff on social media websites and taking pictures of it too.",
"At the moment, in a video game called EVE Online, there's a mob destroying virtual property to such a degree that it's real world value has already surpassed the value of a new Honda Civic burned by rioters. They're doing it because they're bored. I find this somewhat hilarious.",
"Football coach quits at Tennessee riot\n_URL_0_",
"The Boston Tea Party?\n\n\"You're lowering taxes and undercutting our blackmarket tea cartels!\"",
"The [Beer riots in Munich](_URL_0_): \n\n\"The beer riots in Bavaria happened between 1 May and 5 May 1844 began after King Ludwig I of Bavaria decreed a tax on beer. Crowds of urban workers beat up police while the Bavarian army showed reluctance to get involved. Civil order was restored only after the King decreed a ten percent reduction in the price of beer.\"\n\nEven Friedrich Engels [wrote about them](_URL_1_).",
"Don't know if this applies or not, but the practically planned yearly trampling of a few people with Black Friday I always found interesting. ",
"Astor Place Theater riot. Essentially a riot over acting styles. Working class audiences preferred the melodrama of Edwin Forrest. Middle class audiences preferred the natural acting of English actor William Charles Mcready. Jill Lepore's \"the Name of War: King Philips war and the origins of American identity\" provides a lot of background as to why this took place. Issues of masculinity, race (native Americans) and American identity. A fantastic read and a great analysis of American relations with native Americans and the creation of a masculine cultural identity. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astor_Place_Riot",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Hat_Riot",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Scholastica_Day_riot"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music_riot",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring#Premi.C3.A8re"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Price_Riots,_1809"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Vancouver_Stanley_Cup_riot"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_\\(New_Style\\)_Act_1750"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_to_Zap",
"http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Malaysian_fans_riot_at_delayed_opening_of_Indian_film"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hetherington"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Riot"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.rockytoptalk.com/2010/1/13/1248744/scenes-from-the-university-of"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_riots_in_Bavaria",
"http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/otherdox/beerriot.htm"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
6z95ku
|
why do we have an easier time sorting things by strings of numbers vs by strings of letters? (ex: t#124567 vs t# asedtz)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z95ku/eli5_why_do_we_have_an_easier_time_sorting_things/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmtfekp"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The order of numbers is meaningful, 2 comes before 7 for a reason. We are also used to counting up and counting down, which reinforces this order in our minds.\n\nThe order of letters is arbitrary, we could rearrange the alphabet and it wouldn't make much of a difference. There is nothing innate about K that makes it come before P, so it requires more mental effort to figure out their proper order."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4mz05r
|
How can people predict when the next eclipse ,years from now, will happen, but can't predict the weather more than a few days from now?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4mz05r/how_can_people_predict_when_the_next_eclipse/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4b7szh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Orbits and whether are both chaotic, so a tiny inaccuracy will grow exponentially until our model is useless. But with orbits, that's a *really* tiny exponent. With weather, things interact quickly. Small errors build up fast. With planets, you can model it almost perfectly as the planetary systems all orbiting the solar system's center of mass and the moons all orbiting the planetary systems' centers of mass, which isn't a chaotic system. The effects of the planets on each other is tiny, and it takes a long time for the tiny effects of those tiny effects to build up. As a result, we can predict weather on the order of a few days, but but we can predict the solar system for millions of years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
83u38z
|
if dna contains informations about our whole body, why can we not regenerate certain body parts if they gets removed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83u38z/eli5_if_dna_contains_informations_about_our_whole/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvkj9qw",
"dvkjae0",
"dvkk8fx",
"dvklz58",
"dvknxwh",
"dvks4s4",
"dvkswxb",
"dvkucvf",
"dvkusds",
"dvkv9nr"
],
"score": [
531,
26,
31,
6,
16,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"IKEA instructions do not equal a finished IKEA cabinet :) similarly, if you build the cabinet you no longer have the materials to build another one, even though you still have the instructions. You need more materials (which, for humans, basically boils down to stem cells). \n\nThis isn’t perfectly 1 to 1, though. Most of the genetic information that our bodies utilize is for the internal processes on the cellular level to ensure that things run smoothly and you stay alive. The most marked development that we make, which is in the womb, is only possible because of the highly malleable nature of stem cells. Those stem cells change into different cells once we’re born and are spread all over our respective internal systems, thus limiting their uses. \n\nWhat I can’t answer, though, is why humans are unable to regenerate while other animals can. It’s definitely something that researchers are investigating, but there is no real concrete answer yet. The Darwinian explanation is that over the millions of years that those animals developed, evolution by natural selection ‘selected’ for traits that are most beneficial for that species’ survival. Evidently, humans did not need significant regeneration to survive! ",
"Big question under debate. There's evidence, though, that we do have the capability (ish). [Couple](_URL_1_) of [refs](_URL_0_), but there are lots out there with some googling.\n\n The genetic switches are just turned off, or we're missing a couple genes. Probably because at some point during a time of limited resources if there was a serious injury to the individual it made more sense (in terms of natural selection) to let the individual die rather than waste a bunch of resources on something as expensive as regrowing a limb. Better for the population to save local resources for individuals not missing a leg.\n\nIf we don't go as extreme as dying and instead assume that the regeneration is for smaller body parts, it would still be incredibly taxing and energetically expensive (need lots of food, minerals, etc.) to regrow that body part. If it was something non-essential like a finger, again at a time of limited resources, then it might be an advantage to dedicate what little food you have on more essential body functions then regeneration of a ring finger.\n\nThe 'why' is of course just speculation.",
"The DNA contains instructions as to how to create a baby from a single cell, by telling what cells to specialise in. However those instructions don't work once the assembly has been completed. To reassemble a whole limb say it would take a lot of energy and time as it would have to be slowly assembled from the remaining stump. During this time the limb would not help you survive and due to the drain on resources would actually reduced your survival chances. Therefore in an evolutionary sense it isn't worth it, if you survived the injury that caused it you can survive without it.",
"Building the human body like an automated car production line. We just haven’t worked out how to force our DNA blue print to “repeat that one part” again. \nEven though every cell carries the blue print for our whole body we haven’t worked out how to activate certain strings of information to generate specific proteins or body parts. \n\n",
"Simple answer: DNA knows how to *build* a body and does not know how to *repair* a body. Building consists of complicated steps involved in making organs/limbs etc. Most likely, if you need to repair an arm, you need to grow it and attach it. But it will not have the same biometric Identifications like fingerprints or vein locations (_URL_0_).",
"at each time during development the body is at an unique configuration it won't ever see again. the DNA instruction produces the configuration and depends on it to progress. there are no instructions to recreate these configurations once the development is completed. ",
"The body knows how to build a body because when the zygote is formed it is known to be a totipotency cell (has the potential of becoming different things (liver cells, muscle cells, forming the baby)) \nThis is what are known as stem cells, they are various kinds of them (totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent, oligopotent, multipotent) \nThey have the potential of differentiate into other cells to build what is needed in the place is needed. There is a lot of research to investigating stem cells and how to undifferentiate already defined cells and to bring them to a state of stem cell and redirecting them to a damaged area of the body. \nThe famous dolly sheep (cloning experiment) actually was not only to prove you can clone something (technically is not even a clone) but it showed that one single cell has all the genetic material necessary to form a complete organisms when conditions given. \nThis genetic material is turned on/off depending on to where the cell has differentiate. \nIf you have a cut in your finger, your body does fix it, but it doesnt form a liver or a kidney it rebuilds skin cells, due to the environment around it. \nIt really is a very long topic, with a lot of information and can discuss a lot of it but basically because it might take a whole deal of energy to do so and the body doesn’t have the resources to do so. ",
"The simple answer is, we can, but a wound would have to be left open for months to let this happen, and thus we would die of infection.\n\nLong ago, our wounds evolved to close quickly to avoid blood loss and infection.\n\nIf you are being eaten by a tiger, it's better to close a wound and run away than sit with the tiger for three months and wait for your fingers to regrow.\n\nDoctors are currently working with a substance (our bodies produce naturally) called extracellular matrix which acts as a scaffold for exactly this type of regeneration. Currently, the technology is used to help racehorses and prize animals regenerate severely damaged ligaments. Fingertips in humans have been regenerated, but the technology is just newly discovered. I will post more...",
"DNA contains all the instructions, and every cell has the full set of these instructions. However, only small sections of this large instruction book are \"expressed\" in each cell type - and turned into proteins and cellular machinery - the rest of it is inactive. This is part of the reason why certain cell types cannot just turn into other cell types. \n\nNow, this isn't the only reason why we can't regenerate body parts - much of that we are still trying to figure out. Some animals can, and by studying them we hope to learn more about how that happens. \n\nSource: Scientist",
"Edit: my answer is more advanced than ELI5, but is necessary due to the complexity of the topic!\n\nI think I can chime in here. \n\nThe short answer: We don't know.\nThe long answer (ELI10): Ongoing research has studied the effects of the immune system on the ability to regenerate limbs. Interestingly enough, there is an inverse relationship between degree of complexity of the immune system and the ability to regenerate. Lizards, for example, have primitive immune systems and are able to regrow tails. Ours are quite advanced which results in the formation of scar tissue instead.\n\nTo answer in a more academic way, the immune system constitutes something called macrophages, which help with many many aspects of immunity. As they relate to this topic, M1 (macrophage type 1) are initially present in wounds and help cause the typical inflammation and pain associated with an injury. As the healing continues, there is a shift called 'macrophage polarization' that causes M2 (macrophage type 2) to be present. These release anti-inflammatory cytokines like IL-10 and help promote wound healing and repair. \n\nUltimately, research has been shown that the macrophage polarization step has been hugely important in understanding the ability to regenerate. Neonatal mice are able to regenerate heart tissue, whereas adult mice produce scar tissue. There is a period of time where growing mice undergo significant changes in their immune system and researchers believe this transition is what causes the loss of regeneration. Current research is trying to figure out if we, humans, can regenerate if we can figure out a way to take advantage of the benefits of M1 and M2 phases without suffering from the loss of regenerative abilities.\n\nGraduate student in the biological sciences."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://newatlas.com/human-body-regeneration-worm-genes/46670/",
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3729455/Could-humans-regrow-limbs-Genetic-switches-regenerating-tissue-traced-420-million-years.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5559295/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5m6fmy
|
The Alaska Purchase in 1867 is often called Seward's Folly, dubbed so by detractors. Did many Russians oppose selling the land? If so, on what grounds?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5m6fmy/the_alaska_purchase_in_1867_is_often_called/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc1cauo",
"dc1ij23"
],
"score": [
14,
98
],
"text": [
"Followup: How many Russians (or others) actually lived in Alaska at the time of purchase?",
"Great question. **The principal Russian reaction against the sale was driven by people who had financial interests in the Russian American Company and those who saw it as a retreat from empire.**\n\nFirst, let's talk about why the sale took place. The Crimean War of the 1850s had exposed a significant problem with Russia's possessions bordering the Pacific Ocean: namely, Russia couldn't adequately defend them. Grainger's *The First Pacific War: Britain and Russia, 1854-1856* is a good book on this topic. During the war, the Hudson's Bay Company successfully pressured the British government into making Alaska a neutral country during the war, but Russian-American Company shipping was not subject to that neutrality, and Russian mainland ports (used by the RAC) were attacked (with mixed success) by the French and British.\n\nThe Crimean War devastated RAC assets and left the company financially weakened (though it still paid dividends to owners). It also devastated the finances of the Imperial government, which needed liquidity to pay the costs of the war. At the same time, a booming United States appeared destined to control all of North America. Russia, which had been the friendliest European power to the United States for almost a century, had no desire to endanger that relationship.\n\nDuring the Crimean War, the RAC (before the *modus vivendi* with the British government was reached) had even contemplated a fake sale of assets to Americans in order to shield the RAC from British depredations. This led to persistent rumors through the late 1850s that Russia was preparing (or had already) sold Alaska to the United States. It seems likely that only the American Civil War prevented an earlier sale.\n\nIn 1858, Admiral-General and Grand Duke Konstantin, Tsar Alexander's brother, ordered an inspection team to be sent to Russian America to examine how well the RAC was handling the territory. Konstantin, as head of the Russian Navy, was perhaps the leading proponent of a sale. He comprehensively knew its vulnerability in the event of war, and he also knew what the Crimean War had cost. That inspection team, which included a representative of the finance ministry, and one from the Navy, was organized in 1859 and left for Alaska in 1860. They completed their report in 1862.\n\nMuch to their surprise (they had come in with a negative viewpoint), Pavel Golovin and Sergei Kostlivtsov \"had to report in clear conscience and justice that they found everything in proper order.\"\n\nThey actually recommended *against* liquidating the colony, but they did recognize the military vulnerability and urged reforms and limitations of the company's privileges in the territory. A commission met to consider the two men's inspection reports and make recommendations. Of note, they recommended the ban on liquor importation be lifted, and liquor licenses be put into place. Even though the committee's final report noted, \"all the financial resources of the country could hardly be sufficient to repay the expense of its defense or even simple administration,\" it nevertheless concluded, \"In spite of the small value to us of the American Possessions as far as industries and trade are concerned, there are political reasons which make their preservation by us an absolute necessity. Only by strengthening our foothold in North America can we call ourselves masters of the Northern precincts of the Pacific Ocean, the control of which for many reasons is a desirable object for a powerful Empire.\"\n\nDespite this olive branch, the committee's recommendation included reform proposals, some hotly opposed by the directors of the RAC. The RAC enjoyed its monopoly and did not want to pay more to the imperial government to maintain it. In the end, the RAC's board of directors rejected a new 20-year charter under the proposed conditions, based on the notion that they were too severe.\n\nAt the end of 1866, the issue of Alaska came before foreign minister Gorchakov, who was busy dealing with the consequences of the Austrian-Prussian war. He nevertheless sided with Konstantin in favor of the sale. Finance minister Reutern also chimed in with agreement, and so did von Stoeckl, the ambassador to the United States. In December 1866, the emperor agreed that negotiations should be opened with the United States for a sale.\n\nThere were still opponents, mostly RAC directors (especially Ferdinand von Wrangel), and some lower-level bureaucrats, but the leading figures of Russia had lined up behind a sale. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Count P.A. Valuev, was against the sale, but he was presented with it only after the fact and never spoke of it publicly. He wrote in his diary, dated March 22:\n\n > \"News was received of cession by us of our American possessions to the United American States for 7 million dollars. None of us knew about this except Prince Gorchakov, the Minister of Finance, and Krabbe. Strange phenomenon and a depressing feeling. . . . We sell part of our territory on the quiet and do a bad turn to England, whose Canadian possessions now still more exclusively contradict the Monroe Doctrine.\"\n\nWhen the sale took place, Russian newspapers were \"unprepared for the unexpected news, and for awhile a certain confusion was felt,\" Nikolai Bolkhovitinov writes in *Russian-American Relations and the Sale of Alaska*.\n\nThe newspaper *Birzhevye vedomosti* (Exchange Gazette), which Bolkhovitinov calls \"the organ of Russian business circles,\" stated in its first commentary that, \"True, Russia does not get much benefit from its American possessions, and for political reasons she does not have great need to retain them, but in any case there is hardly anyone who would think of offering our government such an insignificant sum as 7,000,000 dollars for Russian America.\"\n\nThe newspaper *Golos* wrote strongly against the sale: \"We do not know where such rumors originate and for what goals they are disseminated, but one thing is certain, that notwithstanding their evident impossibility, they deeply anger all true Russians,\" it wrote on March 23, 1867. \n\nThe paper said on March 25 that the RAC had \"conquered territory and established colonies on it with great sacrifice of labor, capital, and even the blood of Russians, with which they sealed the right of Russia to possess this region.\"\n\nThis was a rare bit of public dissent from a Russian newspaper, which was forced to call such things \"rumors\" in order to evade Imperial censorship, which would come down hard on any newspaper speaking against an action of the government.\n\nOn March 29, the *St. Petersburgskie vedomosti* referred to \"the sincere and insincere howls of robust patriotism that resounded from various corners of our journalism\" following the sale. That's undoubtedly referring to the fact ─ obliquely, because of censorship ─ that not everyone was happy with the sale.\n\n*Moskovskie vedomosti* didn't doubt the reasons for the sale, but it wrote on May 14 that \"Our American colonies now ceded to the United States were discovered, brought under Russian sovereignty, and built up solely by private enterprise, at a cost of no little labor and expense. In the course of over eighty years, they supplied Russia with profits of no less than 100 million rubles silver in the form of various types of furs. Recalling this, we cannot be indifferent either to the interests of the colonies, nor to the interests of the company.\"\n\nRussian newspapers also dodged censors by publishing foreign accounts hostile to the sale. Nevertheless, the furor died down as the months passed. \n\nBy September 1868, *Birzhevye vedomosti* wrote in its September 1868 issue that \"rapprochement between Russia and North America, these two colossi on either side of the ocean, was not only possible but also in both their best interests.\"\n\nIt furthermore called the Alaska Purchase a \"goodwill concession\" to the United States and as a result took the \"first step toward a Russian-American alliance,\" a step which \"eliminated every cause for future conflict which might have arisen between Russia and the United States.\"\n\nA bit of wishful thinking, perhaps, but reasonable given the previous century of relations.\n\nCassius Clay, the American ambassador to Russia, wrote in a letter to William Seward on May 10 that the Russian attitude could be summed up in a single sentence: \"All right, we sold to you too cheaply, but it all remains in the family.\"\n\n***\n\nA note on \"Seward's Folly\" as well. That term was used only by a handful of Radical Republican newspapers and politicians, who were engaged in a bitter political conflict with the more centrist and conservative Republicans, including President Andrew Johnson. In 1958, Richard Welch published a paper in *American Slavic and East European Review* that surveyed contemporary newspapers and found the vast majority in favor of the Alaska Purchase. He concludes that \"Seward's Folly\" was an amusing slogan but had little popular opinion behind it. Most Americans believed in the expansion of empire and thought that over the following century, Alaska would be a valuable source of minerals, possibly even becoming a great breadbasket for agricultural development, given enough attention.\n\n***\n\nAs for reading, I'd suggest Ronald Jensen's *The Alaska Purchase and Russian-American Relations*, pretty much anything by Bolkhovitinov (pretty much the god of Russian-American relations studies), and Lydia Black's *Russians in Alaska* is a wonderful introductory text to the whole period. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3u0p3w
|
What is the historical consensus on Reagan's presidency
|
I've come across a particularly scathing review of the Reagan administration. It starts out with, "Reagan was hands down, the worst president in our history," and continues on to make several more accusations, including waging economic war and increasing inflation. This seems a bit biased to me, and I would like to know a more historical view of Reagan's presidency.
Here is a link to the full text:
_URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3u0p3w/what_is_the_historical_consensus_on_reagans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxaymlb"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The consensus is still forming. However, Reagan is neither the icon he is portrayed as on the right or the demon of the left. The historical consensus on Reagan's presidency is still developing and is an exceptionally contentious topic, though I think it will ultimately settle on the notion that Reagan was a strong president overall (particularly with regards to the Cold War) who had significant flaws/blind spots (the developing world and economically underdeveloped communities in the U.S.) \n\nThe initial historiography painted Reagan as a disinterested, uninvolved leader; the \"amiable dunce\" that Clark Clifford described him as in 1981. Biographers Lou Cannon and Edmund Morris both subscribe to this to varying degrees and point to the scathing memoirs of advisers like David Stockman and Donald Regan as evidence. Stockman is particularly brutal, arguing that Reagan had no understanding of economics and would frequently launch into tangents that had little to do with the substance of meetings but everything to do with Reagan's talking points. Critics also point to Reagan's lack of attention in the Iran-Contra crisis and the general failure of his domestic policy to improve the plight of African-Americans and blue collar workers as further evidence of his failures as president. This school also tends to argue that Reagan had little to do with the end of the Cold War, ascribing greater agency to Gorbachev in ending it.\n\n\n\nRecent years have seen a movement to rehabilitate Reagan, and portray a much more dynamic leader; particularly in the field of Soviet-U.S. relations. They show Reagan as deeply involved in the development of his foreign policy and as someone willing to go against his party, as seen in H.W. Brands newest biography of him. The memoirs of Caspar Weinberger (SecDef) and George Schultz (SecState) both support this, as do most of the documents from his administration. The new school ascribes significant agency to Reagan in ending the Cold War, highlighting his deft handling of the Soviet Union (in particular his ability to demand change, but not crow about it when it occurred, which provided Gorbachev some protection from domestic critics). \n\nMy research largely conforms to the latter school. Internal administration documents show Reagan as the driving force behind US-Soviet policy and demonstrate that he often proceeded with his initiatives (like SDI, nuclear abolition, and others) over the violent objections of his staffers. A major reason why the initial historiography is so negative is that Reagan's political opponents painted him as anti-intellectual and as a dunce. This began in his first campaign for governor when his opponent argued that he was just an actor, and the firing of Clark Kerr as the leader of the California university system (though in reality the Board of Regents who Reagan did not appoint bear the blame for this). These allegations continued throughout his political career, as Reagan tended to play up his common man image, despite the fact that he was a lifelong voracious reader who consumed the most important academic and popular works of his time. Another part of the issue is that Reagan's objectives of \"crusade for freedom\" and \"peace through strength\" seem at odds with each other. The first implies frequent conflict and the second peace, albeit with an aggressive posture. Reagan didn't see it this way, believing that the Soviets would only respect a strong U.S. military and that the \"crusade for freedom\" did not necessarily mean war with the USSR, but rather a dogged adherence to U.S. values from a position of strength. \n\nUltimately, Reagan is an exceptionally complex political figure as he tended to compartmentalize his life and avoid conflict. This, along with his universally acknowledged charisma, led many people to believe they knew the \"true\" Reagan, as he often left people feeling good about themselves and believing they had convinced of their position.\n\nTLDR: There is no historical consensus yet. However, Reagan is certainly not \"the worst president in our history,\" and once the historiography balances out will likely reside within the top 30% of U.S. president, largely due to his role in peacefully ending the Cold War.\n\nEdit: Changed my percentage from 10% to 30% since I realize that Reagan isn't going to be top 5. I'm a historian not a mathematician."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://pastebin.com/uXsL1jFM"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
6ns7j7
|
how do ancestry reports work?
|
23andme says I'm 100% European. How is that if all human life can be traced back to Africa?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ns7j7/eli5_how_do_ancestry_reports_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkc17er"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Scientists have collected DNA from different ethnic groups all over the world. There are certain markers on DNA or RNA, they can calculate what mutations have occurred and how fast they happen. \n\nMitochondria (the powerhouse of the cell) are only inherited from your mother and have their own separate DNA, so you can compare all groups until you find a common ancestor (Mitochondrial Eve). There's a similar test for men, Y-chomosomal Adam.\n\nAfricans have the most genetic diversity, since those groups that left would have had a bottleneck and less variation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1vx5kr
|
I'm aware of why so many Irish left their homes in the 19th C, but what about Scandinavians, Germans and Chinese? What made them come to North America in large numbers?
|
I'm mostly Irish by heritage, and most of those Irish ancestors arrived in Canada and the US between 1840-70.
I also have a fair fraction of Swedish and Finnish, and I'm curious why so many Nordics left their homes at this time. I'm aware Minnesota in the States is very ethnically and historically Scandinavian, as are certain parts here in Canada.
I know German has always been a large group in the US, since it's beginning and beforehand - what made people from today's Germany emigrate in such large numbers?
The Chinese also came in huge numbers to the West Coasts of Canada and the US, mostly the US. I always hear they were indentured to build rail roads, but I think this is possibly a misconception. What caused their leave?
Also, how long did these voyages tend to take?
**Edit**: thank you for all of your great answers!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vx5kr/im_aware_of_why_so_many_irish_left_their_homes_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewpmsj",
"cewqbte",
"cewqed8",
"cewr7s8",
"cewrlp3",
"ceww7e1",
"cewy3zs"
],
"score": [
20,
16,
31,
7,
12,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The Chinese came but not as immigrants but more temporary workers. Much like in Singapore the Chinese came to earn enough money to send home to support their families before moving back. In the case of America the Gold Rush and the Railways provided jobs which were attractive to immigrants and so the Chinese came. \n\nIm not sure about the indentured part of the Chinese but they did participate in the building of the railroads. \n\nThe Chinese however faced alot of discrimination which can be seen in the Punch Magazine's portrayal of the Chinese during this time. A reason for that besides the way they looked \"different\" i.e. slanted eyes was because of what they were willing to accept in terms of wages. Since many of these men (i say men since most Chinese immigrants were males since females were banned from entry) didnt have families to support and they lived in shared quarters, their living costs were significantly lower than the perceived white man and his family.\n\nSo in saying this the Chinese didn't come to America to live, but rather to earn money and then leave for home, making them very different from the other more European immigrants.\n\nIll upload a powerpoint created by the lecturer since its very informative, however its from an Australian standpoint so you will see things like the WAP mentioned. \n\n_URL_0_ (unhyperlinked so you can see its not a virus file)\n\nEDIT: Is it ok for me to post the powerpoint or does that count as plagiarism?",
"Answering the German migratory part here.\nAfter the modern Germany's unification in 1871, German culture hit a real high note. This included religious expression and repression, and, Germany being a Protestant nation, resulted in the persecution of German Catholics. (As an aside, the Russian pogroms were occurring in roughly the same time - 1880s-1900 - partly the reason so many Russian or Slavic Jews emigrated at the end of the 19th C.) To get back on track, this persecution of Catholics was known as *Kulturkampf* and sadly, can be seen as somewhat factoral (in terms of established social norms and behaviours) to later Jewish persecution. Unfortunately I don't currently have access to any amazing books etc. to back this up and am working off my memory from history lectures. Anybody that can add/correct to this and find some sources, I would be very happy!\n\n After a quick read through this; _URL_0_ however, I'd like to add about the internal problems Germany faced during the latter half of the 19th C. With nationalism coming into its own, Europe became focussed on a 'German solution' in response to calls for a formal German state. Prussia and Austria were the main competitors here, advocating a *kleines Deutschland*, and a *groβes Deutschland* respectively. This debate was causal to both the Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian wars, which settled the question in favour of the *kleines Deutschland* solution, as described here _URL_1_. A lot of fighting to get there though, and more reason to emigrate.\n\n Germany post 1888 was also quite at sixes and sevens with itself, due to Kaiser Wilhelm II's brusque personality creating numerous embarrassments his government and diplomatic corps were left to resolve. Being fiercely \"Prussian\" he was in favour of conservative rule and law, as opposed to his successive governments, whom under Bismark, and later von Bülow, created one of the most socialistic nations in the world up to that point.\n\n Finally, Germans had long been moving to America, for example the Amish, and Hessian soldiers that stayed on after the Revolutionary wars. This would make it a more logical choice than say, Australia and New Zealand, which were far more the choice of the English, what with our still being colonies at that time (New Zealander here.) \n\nTo round off, Germany's varying internal problems, from the question of unification to a seemingly national characteristic of fractious groups causing tensions such as was seen through religious persecution and the conflict of the powers that were, compounded by a previous familiarity with an American lifestyle all point in a way as to why German emigration to America was at a peak in the second half of the 19th C.\nFinal sources: University of Otago + NCEA history, and experience from having lived (too short a time!) in Germany.",
"From Sweden, mainly \n\n* an increase in population \n* failed crops 1867–1869. \n* no religious freedom\n* the pull factor of emigrants writing back/helping others to emigrate\n\nObviously the causes changed over time. The small village where I'm from, many left in the mid 1800's due to religious reasons, later it was more economical.\n\nThis is in Swedish [Emigrantinstitutet](_URL_2_) and [here](_URL_2_kunskapsbanken-13048.asp)\n\nA very fascinating story is the book called [Emigrants (4 books actually) by Wilhelm Moberg](_URL_0_). It is very closly based on the diaries by emigrant [Andrew Peterson](_URL_1_)\n",
"Many tens of thousands of british and scandinavians left their homeland to travel to Utah, due to the mormon conversions in their home country, the *literal* LDS belief in the \"gathering of Zion\", and the assistance of programs such as the Perpetual Immigrant Fund. \n\n_URL_2_ \n\n_URL_1_\n > Initiated in 1849 primarily to help Mormon refugees from Nauvoo, Illinois, migrate to Utah, the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company (PEF) also became a major instrument for gathering Latter-day Saint converts to Utah from abroad. It assisted some 26,000 immigrants--about 36 percent of the approximately 73,000 Latter-day Saints who emigrated from Europe to the United States between 1852 and 1887. \nIn principle, funds the company expended on immigration were considered loans to those immigrants who benefited from the aid. The repayment of those loans was to provide a perpetual source of assistance for others. In practice, however, only about one-third of the PEF's beneficiaries repaid their loans in full, sometimes with interest; about one-third made partial repayment; the rest repaid nothing.\n\nMany of these European mormons, found disillusionment on the road to \"Zion\" and many left their handcart companies and wagon trains to remain where they broke company, or to return to other cities. \n\n_URL_0_ \n > Some disaffected among the Scandinavians back trailed to the Midwest from Zion itself, notably the family of woodcarver James Borglum from Jutland, whereby Utah lost a pair of famous future sculptors in sons Gutzon and Solon Hannibal, who one day would carve Mount Rushmore.",
"/u/bagge has responded for Sweden already, but I will expand a bit on it.\n\nIn Sweden, a large part of the peasants were self-owning farmers. These were the middle class of Sweden, had representation at the estates parliament and (compared to serfs of continental Europe) an impressive set of rights. Traditionally, the King had allied with these peasants to curtail the power of the nobility, and at the parliament they were adressed as \"Herrar Dannemän\" - it is hard to translate, but 'Herr' was originally a title for a knight, like 'Sir', but had become more like 'Master' or 'Mister'. 'Danneman' was a title for an honourable and reliable self-woning farmer, akin to 'Gentleman'. 'Masters Gentlemen' could perhaps be a good translation.\n\nDuring the 1850s and 1860s, Sweden performed a shift of land, called *laga skiftet* (legal shift). Before this, land could be split upon inheritance, leading people to own 1/16, 1/32, 1/64 or even 1/128 of a field. Farming was thus cone communaly, which was not very effective. Peasants could not invest in their farming and bad (read alcholic) peasants were kept under the arms of the reliable ones, since they would get their share even if they did not put in their effort.\n\nThe shift in land meant that the villages were broken up and land concentrated around the farmstead.\n\nSee for example a village (concentrated in the right of the image) and the land ownership [before](_URL_1_) and [after](_URL_0_) *laga skiftet*.\n\nThis created a large number of crofters, dispossesed peasants and unemployed agricultural workers no longer needed on the countryside as agriculture became far more effective. As Swedish industry had not taken of completely around this time, and combined with the cold, wet and dry years during the 1860s causing near-famine and regular famine in parts of the country.\n\nThe homestead act of 1862 offered free land. For a Swedish agricultural worker or crofter, this promised an instant promotion from lower class to middle class and to become a self-owning, respectable farmer. Land in Sweden had been divided up since centuries, and the prospect of making enough money to purchase it was bleak indeed.\n\nCombined with severe exhaggerations on how easy and free life was in America, this compelled a massive eimgration of roughly 1,2 million people from 1840 to 1920.",
"Perhaps one of the factors that could have pushed the Southern Chinese to leave would be the Taiping rebellion. I don't have the exact figures but upwards of 30 million (someone who is more confident please correct me) died due to war and famine. ",
"I can answer this one for Denmark - I had a class yesterday that focused entirely on this, funny enough!\n\nFor Denmark, at least, it was in part because of the new found freedom Danish farmers had received in the past years. Denmark's biggest problem was what is historically called the 'Flourishing Period' in Denmark, especially Copenhagen, and the following downfall from this period.\n\nIt all started with the French/Indian war where Denmark, due to previous wars, had stayed entirely neutral. In the wake of this war, and the following wars, Denmark had been slowly creeping in on trade routes that weren't being maintained by other countries in periods of conflict, and on top of this they even sailed warring countries' war supplies under the Danish flag, something that was actually prohibited by the International Convention. \n\nThe 7 year war was short-lived, however the economical boom that came in the wake of that conflict doubled Denmark's population and this led to significant reforms of all groups - poor and rich alike. The aforementioned sailing of war supplies under a Danish flag led to England being quite steamed with Denmark. After the war with America had failed tremendously and at the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars, England feared we might join France and help 'bridge the gap' in the the French navy with our rather large fleet. Due to this (completely irrational) fear, England thought it best to try and force Denmark to surrender their fleet, as such they landed at Zealand in 1807 and begun a bombardment of Copenhagen and destroyed large parts of the city. They also destroyed any ships they couldn't capture, including transport vessels, and sailed off with the remainder of the Danish fleet, leading to the abrupt end of this period of economic boom. \n\n7 years before this, the Serfdom (Stavnsbåndet) in Denmark had been disbanded completely, a process that had begun in 1788, and finished in 1800. The Danish Serfdom was essentially binding each man from age 14 to 36 to the farm on which he had been born (Although you could buy yourself out of this agreement, but these passes weren't free!). When this was disbanded, farmers were able to move around as they pleased! The prospect of new land in America was a very promising one indeed. After Denmark's economy crashed, Denmark itself went bankrupt, and the new, exciting prospects held even more promise. The bankruptcy led to Denmark losing the dominance that they had attained, and a lot of people migrating. Over 400,000 Danes emigrated from 1807 to 1907, almost topping Ireland in migrations. \n\nAs for the travel time, it depended on which kind of vessel you'd choose. A normal sailing ship would take around four to five weeks, while smaller sloops would take around the same time as Ships of the Line. It all depended on the weather and the amount of sails used in the crossing. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.dropbox.com/s/kg2aawo8d1t2heu/Global%20immigration_pdf.pdf"
],
[
"http://library.thinkquest.org/20619/German.html",
"http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871/section4.rhtml"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Emigrants-Emigrant-Novels-Vilhelm-Moberg/dp/0873513193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390470275&sr=8-1&keywords=wilhelm+moberg",
"http://www.andrewpeterson.se/",
"http://www.utvandrarnashus.se/",
"http://www.utvandrarnashus.se/kunskapsbanken-13048.asp"
],
[
"http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/ethnic_cultures/the_peoples_of_utah/scandinaviansaga.html",
"http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/perpetualemigratingfundcompany.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Emigration_Fund"
],
[
"http://www.historiesajten.se/bilder/lagaskifte2.jpg",
"http://www.historiesajten.se/bilder/lagaskifte1.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
14ff2b
|
Spanish / Latino Historians: How long did it take for countries (Mexico for example) to comprehensively adopt Español as their national language?
|
disculpamé, I am asking about Conquistador states of Latino America and the Philippines.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14ff2b/spanish_latino_historians_how_long_did_it_take/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7cltu7"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"You might want to clarify your use of \"comprehensive.\" You can still find villages in Mexico where every single person speaks Tzotzil or Tzeltal or something, and only one or two speak Spanish."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5jvge0
|
how did kings know how much was in their coffers and avoid having it picked at by treasurers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jvge0/eli5_how_did_kings_know_how_much_was_in_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbjauol",
"dbji32e"
],
"score": [
33,
20
],
"text": [
"This is still a problem in the present day. The answer is: you have another, independent person (an auditor) come in and make a separate count. And you warn the treasurer that this is going to happen, again and again, so they'd better not cheat because they'll get caught.\n\nFor a while the Chinese Emperor forgot to do this, and when he finally announced that auditor were coming, his staff burned down the treasure storehouse because, presumably, they knew their thefts would be found out.",
"This is actually one of the reasons writing was invented. You go back to some of the earliest records written in the most archaic systems from the most primitive cultures, and what do you find? A bunch of inventories, ledgers, lists of assets!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6zulb9
|
how did the united states first distribute and get people to use the dollar?
|
Something that really confuses me is the beginning of US currency. I understand that it was at some point distributed but how? Who did they decide to give the first dollars to? And more importantly, how did they get people to start using this currency rather than to continue trading goods for services or using coins?
I guess my main confusion/need for clarification is the transition from no dollar - > to where we are today.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zulb9/eli5how_did_the_united_states_first_distribute/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmy44eg",
"dmy6t8u",
"dmz4gio"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Early dollars were silver coins. Minting coins was just creating a standardized amount of silver to simplify using it as a commodity.\n\nMore generally, governments promote the use of their currency by requiring that tax and court-ordered debts be paid in it. If you have to pay your taxes in dollars and you don't have enough, you find a way to buy dollars in exchange for whatever it is that you currently have and the government will be ready to sell those to you should it come to that.",
"States were issuing their own currencies and some were still using British money until the Articles of Confederation, establishing an official currency, went into effect in March 1781. The US government asked for help establishing a financial system but noone came through. Richard Price (Wales) was too busy with his sheep, and Americans representing the new country in Europe were asked to scout for finance people to help; nothing came of their efforts.\n\nRobert Morris, Jr. was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the financiers of the Army of the Revolution. Morris was also the first (and only) Superintendent of Finance of the United States - precursor to the Sec'y of the Treasury. Insisting that the Federal Government give him broad powers to act on his own, he used his own money and borrowed from friends (and finally France) to make his own \"bank\". That was the beginning of the US Government's bank. We call them \"cents\" because Morris instituted the use of the decimal system for the Dollar. The Department of the Treasury is spawn of that original undertaking, after Morris refused a position (he wanted to be the first Senator from Pennsylvania) and told Washington to make Alexander Hamilton the Secretary of the new Department.",
"I don't know about the early times but when Nixon took the us off the gold standard they began the era of the petrondollar, Kissinger I think made a deal with the Saudis that they would only take the US dollar to buy oil. That made the US dollar the reserve currency of the world and the reason their sanctions against other countries so effective. In the last few weeks though the Chinese have announced they are going to introduce the gold based yuan that they want to use to purchase oil, which may threaten the US dollar as the reserve currency. I think this could be a huge deal and may cause gold prices to skyrocket, or more likely the US dollar to plunge. It's actually pretty interesting, I've been reading a lot about it lately on some alt websites like zero hedge, silver doctors, wolf street , SARS rocks, daily reckoning. Trying to figure it out for myself to make sure I am in a position to profit from it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
u0pv0
|
Saturn V Launched From The Moon; How Fast Would It Go?
|
All this talk of moon colonization today got me wondering what kind of launch speeds we could achieve from the moon using similar tech we've built here on Earth.
Saturn V was, I believe, the fastest vehicle ever made and reached a speed of 45,000 mph in the later stages.
How fast could it have gone without the annoyances of the Earth's atmosphere and gravitational well?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/u0pv0/saturn_v_launched_from_the_moon_how_fast_would_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4rdbv7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"By my rough calculations, the three stages of a Saturn V with no payload unencumbered by gravity or air resistance would be able to achieve the following speed relative to their initial velocity: \n5.7 km/s + 5.6 km/s + 10.3 km/s = 21.6 km/s which is 48,000 mph."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
35sbsg
|
when and why did universities start inflating their tuition rates so much?
|
Just want to understand why I'm so poor
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35sbsg/eli5_when_and_why_did_universities_start/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr7cjyo",
"cr7ck1q"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"In the U.S. a large part of the rising tuition over the past few decades is universities trying to offer a better \"campus life\" than others. Instead of just offering better academics, schools started competing over who had the best dorms, dining halls, on-campus events like concerts, comedians, etc. This became an important factor in students choosing which school to attend, so schools had to keep up, but all of that is expensive. Tuition was raised to pay for it.",
"because maximum profit can't be made if you don't raise prices when customers are able to get a free loan and pay"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jzqja
|
the differences between 501c4, 501c3 and llc, and 527.
|
So my little group of folks are considering filing for nonprofit.
Here are the options:
1. Have the national organization file as a 501c4.
2. Have the national organization file as a 501c3 and LLC.
3. Have the national organization file as a 527.
(And then some combinations between local and national filing together)
Can someone explain to me the differences between them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jzqja/eli5_the_differences_between_501c4_501c3_and_llc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbjvrsw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The ones that start with numbers are tax-exempt organizations under the IRS tax code.\n\n501c4 is for social welfare organizations and employee assosiations.\n\n501c3 is pretty broad and includes religious institutions, charities, educational institutions, amateur sports institutions, animal cruelty prevention, etc. etc. etc.\n\n527 is for groups that campaign for political candidates.\n\nAn LLC is a limited liability company and is a way to organize a business so that the owners are not personally liable for the liabilities of the business, but it is taxed like a sole proprietorship. It is not an inherently tax exempt status.\n\nWhat kind of tax exempt status you file for, and how your organize your group legally, completely depends on what the purpose of your group is. Section 501c lists something like 29 different categories of tax exempt organizations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
10167y
|
what is the common ancestor of birds?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10167y/what_is_the_common_ancestor_of_birds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c69hgin"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A dromaeosaur theropod definitely seems to be the best fit. Archaopteryx seems to be fairly basal (close to the ancestor of all birds). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
29w78d
|
is there a way to get over phobias?
|
I hate bugs so much. They make my heart skip some times.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29w78d/eli5_is_there_a_way_to_get_over_phobias/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cip2hnx",
"cip2i2c",
"cip2rpj",
"cip5g39",
"cipefvf"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. Usually Exposure therapy. Your body has an irrational fear response. Exposure therapy teaches you how to calm down during that fear response.",
"Progressive exposure. Get a kid to catch a pillbug in a jar and sit across the room from it. When you're used to it, move up to a bigger bug. Sit closer after a while. Sit outside next to a jar with a grasshopper in it, then open the jar, and watch it escape. ",
"Different things work for different people. Some people get help from hypnosis, some have a really gradual desensitization/exposure therapy. [This is a link](_URL_0_) to a self desensitization therapy. My advice would be to skip past the nonsense pre-reading to \"step 1.\" Essentially the most common way to get over a phobia is to practice relaxation techniques enough that you get really good at them. Then, you spend a few minutes every day on a \"hierarchy of exposure\" where you use those relaxation techniques. For you, as an example, the hierarchy might be for the first few weeks, to think about a bug far away from you, then a few weeks after that might be to think about a bug outside your house, then inside your house, then inside the room, then actually seeing a bug, then actually touching the bug. After each thing (like thinking about the bug far away), you'd practice relaxing yourself every day until it became second nature to be relaxed in that situation... then you'd move on to the next thing.",
"Realize that your reaction is a feedback loop.\n\nYou see/hear/experience/sense something. You think about it anxiously. Your body has an anxiety (fight or flight) reaction. You think about it more anxiously. Your body has a stronger anxiety reaction. Your body feeds your mental anxiety, and that mental anxiety feeds your body's fight or flight response. And so on, and so on, as it snowballs...\n\nThe key is to short circuit the snowballing feedback loop. \n\nThe easiest way to do this is to continually expose yourself to the anxiety provoking thing/situation, until you get used to it, and you're able to to be exposed to it without having that \"anxiety < -- > fight or flight\" reaction. ",
"As others have said, exposure can be a way. It certainly worked with my extreme fear of E.T. (Yes, the cute alien)\n\nEDIT: I still get a small adrenaline rush whenever I see E.T. for the first time in a while, so I guess I'm not completely over it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.guidetopsychology.com/sysden.htm"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3mkn43
|
why do we grab our chest when we are startled?
|
"Oh my God you scared me"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mkn43/eli5_why_do_we_grab_our_chest_when_we_are_startled/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvfqfca",
"cvfrb28"
],
"score": [
10,
17
],
"text": [
"My guess would be it has something to do with a natural reaction to protect the heart area of your chest. Sort of like an instictive fear response. ",
"I just did a quick google a managed to find a little info that may help\n\nThe responses of people to a startling incident vary widely between the fight, fly, or freeze options. When startled, people may wildly flail their arms, or suddenly raise their limbs in protective poses, or duck to avoid an object. The shocked and surprised often back pedal, jump back, or run away from a frontal stimulus. They may clutch a rail, or furniture to prevent from falling. Their knees may buckle, causing them to fall down. They may drop the things they are holding.\n\nThey may freeze, or instantly follow orders. They may clutch their chests, faint or even suffer a temporary heart attack The aggressive ones may curse or throw things at the object, which startled them, or strike out at them.\n\nSo it sounds like it clutching your just is a response you hafe in order to protect your torso."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
80f2dq
|
what is a sanctuary city in the usa and what is typical daily life like for illegal immigrants who live there?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80f2dq/eli5_what_is_a_sanctuary_city_in_the_usa_and_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duv2svm",
"duv2x5s",
"duv389n"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A sanctuary cities is one whose local government refuses to help the Federal government in checking to make sure an immigrant is here legally, or retaining someone who is here illegally till the Federal government can take them into custody. The Federal government can still send agents after you, they just do not get help from the local government which makes it easier for you to avoid capture and easier for you to keep from being found to begin with. ",
"Trying to keep this as neutral as possible for a highly politically charged topic.\n\nSan Francisco's description is pretty clear, and might be worth looking through.\n_URL_1_\n\n\"Sanctuary city\" isn't a specific legal term, and different places that call themselves sanctuary cities go about it different ways. In the broadest sense, it means that the city is not going to spend any money or resources enforcing federal immigration law. For example, often local police in sanctuary cities are banned by city or local laws from asking people about their immigration status. So if you're in the country without a legal immigrant status and you're pulled over by a cop, they can't ask you if you're \"legal\" and then detain you and hand you over to ICE to be potentially deported. [This does happen in non-sanctuary areas.](_URL_0_)\n\nPeople without legal immigration status can also sign their kids up for school and access other city services without having to answer questions about immigration status.\n\nDaily life for you as someone who was overstaying their student visa would be hard to say much about except for that you would probably be less worried in your daily life that a small slipup (like getting pulled over while driving) could lead to your deportation.\n\nPeople who are for this policy say that it's the city's duty to support their residents, and that threatening to report people to immigration authorities makes them less likely to put their kids in school, be able to support themselves and their families, etc, and to keep people from getting basic services and keep them in constant fear of deportation based on their immigration status is immoral.\n\nPeople who are against it say that these people broke the law to come here, and by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities city officials encouraging more people to come here illegally and depriving citizens and legal immigrants of resources that could be helping them. They also say it's illegal for a city to try and supercede federal law, and that it allows people who are criminals and should be deported to escape detection.\n\nI'm not trying to advocate for either side (I have my opinions, but I'm not going to say them here). ",
"immigration offenses are the purview or the federal government, specifically ICE. so technically any state or local authorities don’t *have* to get involved when someone is in the country illegally.\n\na sanctuary city is a city that has some sort of policy or statute to specifically *NOT* collaborate with immigration authorities. \n\nthe most common example you’ll hear is if someone gets arrested or detained for an unrelated offense and is in the country illegally, the city won’t hold on to them for immigration officials to collect later. \n\nso, if you were a UK citizen who overstayed their visa and was here illegally, and you got pulled over for speeding, the cops wouldn’t then put you in jail after giving you a ticket for being here illegally. a city without a sanctuary city policy may or may not do so.\n\nso, essentially, an illegal immigrant is more easily able to participate in public life. they can operate vehicles without nearly as much risk. and interactions with law enforcement don’t carry the risk of deportation, so they can rely on and cooperate with officials more.\n\nthat’s not very ELI5, i guess, but yeah. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-mom-set-deportation-traffic-violation/story?id=48961152",
"http://sfgov.org/oceia/sanctuary-city-ordinance-0"
],
[]
] |
||
66eash
|
how do lotteries that reward $1000 a day work?
|
I've seen commercials for lotteries where if you win, you get $1000 a day for life. How does this work, how can they keep supporting all the winners?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66eash/eli5how_do_lotteries_that_reward_1000_a_day_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dght0ri",
"dghwf7j"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That really is not that much money in lottery terms. That is $365,000 a year. Over 10 years that is only $3.65 Million, and $14.6 Million over 40 years.\n\n$14.6 million is not that much money in lottery terms. ",
"Basically they just calculate the money required to pay that for life and throw that into an investment account for each winner. $1k/day estimated for 45 years (probably a reasonable life expectancy for the winner) gets you $6.5mil required to actually pay out for 45 years, assuming it's invested at 5%. If a ticket is $1, and half goes to the state, a quarter to small prized, and a quarter to the jackpot, then they need to sell ~26 million tickets per jackpot, so odds of 1:26 million would make the numbers work easily.\n\nFor record, the odds of the cash4life jackpot is 1:21million, indicating they use about 30% of the ticket price for the jackpot."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
yggnh
|
I just watched Armageddon and it got me thinking, if an apocalyptic-sized asteroid were on a collision course with Earth, does Nasa have any plans in place to destroy it before contact? Or would we actually all be screwed?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yggnh/i_just_watched_armageddon_and_it_got_me_thinking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5vbqf8",
"c5vd5xi",
"c5vfy7j",
"c5vgja9"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You wouldn't want to destroy it, you'd just end up with a big ball of sand coming at you (if it didn't reform), which would impart just as much energy onto earth, just in a different way, and still have catastrophic results. \n\nWhat you want is a [gravity tractor](_URL_0_), which will slowly deflect it. \n\nDo we have one built right now? No. Do we have finalized plans on how to build one? No.\n\nWould we, If we saw one coming, have something out together quickly? I certainly hope so. Our odds at survival would be directly proportional to how much earning we had. ",
"There was actually a study on this exact topic not too long ago. Not only does NASA not have a plan, we as a species don't even have the capability to destroy an asteroid of that magnitude.\n\nStudy: _URL_0_\n\nSkeptic' Guide to the Universe podcast discussing the study: _URL_1_",
"I don't know about NASA however the ESA has a plan for it.\n\n_URL_2_\n\nI know China does too, but I don't know what it is.\n\nEDIT: Apparently the ESA mission is due to test launch in 2015.\n\nFound details of the actual craft here: _URL_0_\n\nEDIT: And their official site for the project: _URL_1_",
"Apparently NASA use the film 'Armageddon' as a training tool, to get people to spot as many errors as possible in the film.\n\nHowever the main mistake of the film, apparently, is that it gives the impression that NASA can actually do something about a massive asteroid. :P"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor"
],
[
"http://phys.org/news/2012-08-armageddon-looming-bruce-willis-bother.html",
"http://theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=369"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_%28spacecraft%29",
"http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEML9B8X9DE_index_0.html",
"http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/199028/20110817/esa-plans-mission-to-blow-up-asteroid-headed-for-earth.htm"
],
[]
] |
||
2iaqnh
|
Did lancers really use their lances as javelins?
|
From [this video](_URL_0_), we see that a few times (e.g. at 10:15 and following) a horseman opts to throw their lance at the enemy as opposed to actually lancing them.
Did this really happen or is this just movie make belief?
It seems counter intuitive to me considering how heavy a lance would appear to be.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2iaqnh/did_lancers_really_use_their_lances_as_javelins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl0t872"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"From the video link you seem to suggest that you are talking about \"lances\" in the sense of the Crimean War period. Could you please clarify this is what you mean?\n\nActual kontos and thrusting spears (such as those used by cataphracti) were fully 3 to 4 meters long and would *wholly* unsuitable for throwing. They would not have been discarded by the wielder until they splintered or were otherwise ruined.\n\nI'm inclined to call this video storytelling fabrication but I'd like to pin down your timeline before being sure."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyqcZMsBOU4"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
9d2wku
|
How much more advanced and safer is a nuclear power plant built today compared to one built in 1986?
|
I was recently thinking about how much better computers have gotten in the past few decades, and wondered if nuclear power plants had improved along the same rate of improvement. I chose 1986 because of the Chernobyl incident, but I'm kind of talking about all types of nuclear power not just the Chernobyl type of reactor. (Also I'm surprised there isn't a Nuclear flair)
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9d2wku/how_much_more_advanced_and_safer_is_a_nuclear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5fg3av",
"e5fjmeu",
"e5flg2y",
"e5flpb6",
"e5fp40j",
"e5fqx6b",
"e5frgrb",
"e5g39t4"
],
"score": [
41,
4,
7,
6,
7,
5,
7,
10
],
"text": [
"Engineering?\n\nChernobyl was based on a stupid reactor type that is not built any more. In addition the operators were actively overriding multiple safety rules and mechanisms - something that won't happen any more because we have an example how that can end. Another accident like Fukushima is not completely impossible if something really bad happens (like one of the most violent earthquakes and tsunamis in recorded history). Chernobyl will stay a unique event.\n\nIt is very difficult and problematic to assign numbers to big accidents. They are so rare that there is not enough data to determine it experimentally.",
"The type of reactor in Chernobyl was an RBMK reactor, which are generally no longer commissioned (although there are some still in use until around 2030) and certainly in the UK new reactors favour the AGR (advanced gas cooled reactor) which are generally a big improvement in terms of safety. The RBMK reactors have a positive void coefficient which is inherently less safe in the event of operating outside anything other than normal operation than the negative void coefficient used in most other reactor types, including the AGR. \n\nIn terms of how much more advanced, the AGR type reactors operate at much higher temperatures, making use of material science innovations to allow them to do this, giving them a much greater thermal efficiency. They can therefore achieve much higher burn ups, and also need refuelling less frequently, in addition to being designed to be refuelled without being shutdown first, which eliminates the risks taken when shutting down to refuel. ",
"Try an engineering flair. Chemistry had almost no impact on Chernobyl.\n\nNuclear plant designs have greatly improved in 32 years. As have operating principles, guidelines, training, and information sharing policies. Did you know three mile island accident almost happened a few months prior in Ohio? They caught it there, but there was no requirement to pass on Lessons Learned. Had there been one extra secretary, they might've gotten it typed up and sent out soon enough to help out 3MI.\n\nThere are significantly improved designs. Both foythe core, and the various safety systems. The safety systems are added in on older design plants during scheduled outages, but the improved plant designs are not. We can't really retrofit a pwr into an msr.\n\nLastly is fuel loading. Reactor cores are not homogeneous. If they were they'd have really high flux levels and temperature in the center, and low on the edges. That's extremely limiting in terms of the power output and capabilities of the materials like cladding. As modeling techniques have improved, we can get a flatter flux profile. Means we can get the same power with lower peak temperatures in the core. This is an incremental change, but it's an important one.",
"Worth noting the Chernobyl plant was built in the 1970s using technology from the 1950s. The same applies for the Fukushima Daiichi plant, although it was built a few years earlier and used a more sensible gen II reactor design (far from perfect, but much better than RBMK).",
"With Chernobyl you had multiple soviet managers who feared losing their jobs, and potentially being executed for screwing up and having the plant go down. So they bypassed a lot of safety measures that would have limited the disaster's size and scope, if not prevented it completely.\n\nThis is something that is really cool about Molten Salt Reactors. The \"brochures\" about them say that they are walk-away safe, meaning that if the entire workforce just got up and walked away from the plant, it would safely shut down. This undersells the safety features. These things are soviet manager safe. If an incompetent engineer who literally flipped every safety switch in the entire plant into the 'off' position came in, he still could not prevent the safe shutdown process built into the design of most MSR's. He'd actually have to get in under the can and weld things shut to cause a disaster. Short of physically modifying a difficult to access part of the reactor system, there is no way to mismanage things so badly as to have a problem.",
"A possible direction for nuclear is [Thorium reactors](_URL_0_). While the idea has been around for awhile it wasn't pursued since it can't make weapons grade material for weapons. Now with more civilian focus, the reactors are being developed.",
"The main safety concern with the [RBMK](_URL_4_) type reactor at Chernobyl was the positive void coëfficiënt of the reactor coolant.\n\nIn a normal reactor with thermal neutrons (which all power reactors operating today are except for one) the neutrons that result from fission are slowed down in order to increase the odds of causing fission in the next uranium 235 or plutonium 239 atoms. This is done using a so called moderator, which basicly just a light material where neutrons can bounce off without being absorbed in order to slow down.\n\nIn the vast majority (80%) of power reactors this material is light water ([pressurized](_URL_1_) and [boiling](_URL_3_) water reactors), the problem with light water is that it does absorb some neutrons which doesn't leave enough neutrons to make a chain reaction happen with natural uranium. The solution is to slightly enrich the uranium from 0,7% to 3-5% U235. An expensive process which some reactor designs solve by using a material that absorbs less neutrons like heavy water. These are called [pressurized heavy water reactors](_URL_5_) with the most notable design being the Canadian CANDU design. The problem here is that heavy water is very expensive.\n\nThere is however a material thats both cheap and absorbs little neutrons which is called graphite. A material so simple all the early research reactors used it. You could make simple bricks out of it put natural uranium in it and you've got yourself a reactor. This was also the preferred technology in the UK to generate power which used CO2 to transfer the heat from the reactor to the steam boilers. These reactors are called [Magnox](_URL_2_) reactors and the later design [advanced gas cooled reactors](_URL_0_). The major downside of this design is that the carbon atoms in the graphite are relatively heavy compared to the hydrogen atoms in water. Which means neutrons travel a long distance before being slowed down enough which results in a very large reactor. And you need a gas cooled loop to transfer the energy from the reactor to steam boilers in order to turn a turbine.\n\nThe Soviets wanted the best of both worlds and used the cheap graphite to boil water directly instead of using the intermediate gas loop, the [RBMK](_URL_4_). The problem now however is that you've seperated your moderator and coolant. Which means that if for some reason you get an sudden power increase in the reactor (a power excursion event) more water in the reactor boils, causing more steam bubbles, which means less neutrons are getting absorbed in the water and thus more neutrons are left over to cause fission. Which means the power output of your reactor will increase even further. This is the positive void coefficient. In normal light water reactors where both the moderator and the coolant are the very same water, more bubbles in the coolant also means less moderator which means fission becomes less likely. So an inherently stable design.\n\nNow this positive void coefficient isn't unmanagable. Its for example possible to counter this effect with other physical effects like doppler broadening etc to make the overal reactivity coëfficient negative. Or if the void coefficient is rather small you can counter this effect with active systems like control rods which is what the CANDU design does which also has a seperate coolant (light water) and moderator (heavy water).\n\nNow in the Chernobyl RBMK type reactor this coëfficient was also manageable but only under certain conditions (power level, coolant flow, control positions). So as long as you stay within this envelope the problem is manageable. Unfortunately for the test in 1986 they left this envelope resulting in the disaster.\n\nThere are many contributing factors to the reason why they ended up there like a power modulation causing a xenon transient the day before, the test disabling various systems, operators not being aware of these flaws, an operator error dropping the reactor power too much, a lack of instrumentation, the very big reactor core not being homogenous, supervisors not following the test procedure, control rod design flaws introducing even more reactivity when inserted rather than stopping the reaction etc.\n\nThere are also many factors making the disasters worse like the design only being able to handle one pressure tube rupture, no reactor containment building, the graphite moderator being flammable, not realising the scale of the accident in the following hours, not being able to restore the fuel to a coolable shape, the use of heavy metals to try to cool the reactor etc.\n\nSo we in the west never really built designs like Chernobyl and the main safety improvements come from operating experience, operating procedures, maintenance procedures, inspections, part replacements, new safety systems, severe accident management guidelines, the usage of passive safety etc.\n\nNew generation IV designs introduce fundamental design improvments like unpressurized reactors, fuel that can handle higher temperatures or even liquid fuel, the usage of fast neutrons etc. But those are still in development and only one such reactor is in commercial power operation at Beloyarsk.\n\nThere's a lot to it, feel free to ask more questions if you're interested.",
"I operate a nuclear plant that came online around then. \n\nHere’s the main difference. My unit requires active power to sustain critical safety functions, and we have events that require human action within 2-10 minutes. The plant has a slew of automatic safety systems, but they are dumb systems that trigger on specific signals and have no ability to monitor the overall health of the plant and make intelligent decisions, they are only there to deal with immediate plant stabilization until us operators can take control. \n\nMeanwhile, new plants are walkaway safe for days or weeks, and in certain cases, indefinitely. They require little or no electrical power to perform critical safety functions, and can be made safe using pre built external fire truck hookups. \n\nPlease feel free to ask questions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html"
],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/AGR_reactor_schematic.svg",
"https://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/student-pwr.gif",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Magnox_reactor_schematic.png",
"https://www.nrc.gov/admin/img/art-students-reactors-2.gif",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/RBMK_reactor_schematic.svg",
"https://nuclearstreet.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-wikis-components-files/00-00-00-00-01/0434.PHWR.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
1vr3lg
|
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, how come the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate? Where does the energy for this expansion come from?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vr3lg/if_energy_cannot_be_created_or_destroyed_how_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cev0gnp",
"cev15ho",
"cev227g",
"cevd8bg",
"cevgfi8",
"cevh13i"
],
"score": [
37,
1724,
33,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The energy that is causing the accelerated expansion is [Dark Energy](_URL_2_). There is an [AskScience thread](_URL_0_) with a related question and good answers about it.\n\nWhat I find fascinating (and don't really understand) is that there is a form of energy assigned to space, called [Vacuum Energy](_URL_1_). It is there simply because there is 'space', so as space expands, vacuum energy grows as well. This is one theory of how dark energy works.",
"\"Energy is conserved\" is a \"lie to children\". What I mean is that it is a statement that is close to true that we are told to keep things simply. Like all lies to children it is not complete. The full statement is \"Energy is conserved in flat, unchanging spacetime\". From a mathematical point of view, energy is conserved only in systems with time-translational invariance. This just means that if the structure of your universe (as opposed to the things in it) doesn't change in time then the total energy won't either.\n\nUnfortunately, our universe does change in time. When you have changing space metric it is very difficult to even talk about \"Total Energy\". The normal approach is to have some measurement of energy density at each point and then integrate over the volume to get the total. So you have a box with stuff in it and you can add it up to get a total. \n\n**What happens when the box changes?**\n\nWell the most obvious contribution to energy is the easiest; mass. If we have our box with some mass in it, when we double the size of the box then the mass density halves but the total mass stays the same. So mass is conserved.\n\nThe next most obvious form of energy is light. Light is our first problem, if we have a box with photons in it then we increase the size of the box the photons become stretched out, redshifted. Their energy decreases. So the total energy afterwards is lower. This is particularly fascinating to me, in the early time after the big bang, the universe was massively radiation dominated and was also expanding far FAR FAR faster than it does now. This means that the total energy of the universe was decreasing rapidly during this time. Would have reduced by many many many orders of magnitude.\n\nGravitational potential energy is even more tricky. If we have two stars in our box and we increase the distance between them by stretching the box then they are further apart but have retained their kinetic energy. So we have more energy this time. (This one is more tricky as the expansion of space itself is affected by gravity).\n\nAll of this is just with an expanding universe! Accelerating expansion is even worse. /u/pundaren already mentions Vacuum energy. What we think Dark energy is is a constant negative pressure in all space. What is important about it is that it doesn't get diluted meaning it's density is constant. This means when we double the volume of our box and keep the density constant we get double the amount (of negative pressure).\n\n*Since our universe is currently dominated by dark energy this term also dominates, that means that over time the total energy in our universe is increasing.*\n\n\nSo we have various forms of energy and all of their densities respond differently when we expand our universe, some of these change the integrated energy. This isn't a problem because we know that Energy is only conserved when a system is invariant with a translation in time and our universe is not, so we don't need to be surprised when our law doesn't hold for an evolving universe.\n\n**edit:** since a few people have commented about it. By box I mean the spacetime metric, not an actual box. When I say the box expands I mean the coordinate system expands. This means that the volume elements you are integrating over evolve in time which means time translational invariance no longer holds as at different times your metric is different. This means that there is no longer any energy conservation. This is the reason why I frame my explanation in terms of an integration of a density over a volume.\n\n**edit 2:** I'd also like to reiterate that most my post is giving concrete examples of how energy is not conserved in our universe. The reason why they are not conserved is still very simply because the condition (time-translational invariance, ie that your metric does not change in time) that gives rise to the energy conservation law is not valid in the FLRW metric that describes our universe. In fact, as /u/hikaruzero points out \"the thing that is conserved in a time-translational invariant system\" is our best working definition of energy in the first place.\n\n**edit 3**: last edit probably [I responded to a question about the zero energy hypothesis here](_URL_0_). I feel it is important to address so that is my thoughts on it.",
"Adding on to u/robo-connery and his excellent explanation: \n\nThe question you are asking about the universe expanding is currently a field of active research into an unsolved problem in physics. Others here talk about dark energy, which is the energy figure tabulated to account for the expansion of space. If someone were to figure out the mechanisms and explanations for dark energy it would be the physics story of the year if not the decade or generation. Only in the past century did we even discover the universe was expanding, and that itself was considered a huge revelation. \n\n_URL_0_",
"There is actually an hypothesis that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate as driven by dark energy. Hypothetically, dark energy would be intrinsically tied to space, the more space there is, the more dark energy there is. Evidence for this is drawn from tests that have shown that the universe was expanding at a decreasing rate from it's inception to a specific point, at which time it started expanding at an increasing rate.\n\nThe decrease in rate would be attributed to gravity acting in antithesis to expansion and therefore slowing it down. However, if dark energy is tied to the amount of space somehow, and dark energy acted such that it would result in the universe expanding faster, eventually the force of expansion resultant from dark energy would be greater than the force of deceleration resultant from gravity. At this point the rate of expansion would increase.\n\nTL;DR universal expansion was slowing down because gravity. There is a theoretical energy called dark energy tied to amount of space that acted against gravity. Universe continued to expand at a slower rate until force from dark energy outweighed force from gravity. At this point universal expansion accelerated.",
"A TLD;DR response: when the universe expands, there is less energy in each additional portion of area - rather than new energy taking up the new space. Imagine, for instance, a jug of milk on a table: suddenly, the plastic jug disappears, but the milk remains. As it spreads out and expands over the table, there isn't more milk - it's just taking up more area, with less milk per square inch. Entropy works this way - there's a ton of energy in a condensed space, and as it spreads, there's less energy in more space. ",
"The law of thermodynamics is related, though not all inclusive as the first law does not apply to gravitational bodies. It would be an oversimplification to say the universe is simply cooling as it expands, equally distributing a finite amount of energy as it does. But in a layman's way as my high school professor put it, that's an easy way to put it. Entropy, distribution and an eventual equilibrium is a theory that would explain that the universe is a closed system and that there's a definite amount of energy intrinsically and what observable consequences should occur, such as an eventual equilibrium. Again gravitational bodies can increase their energy while at the same time becoming cooler, so this law doesn't explain everything. Rarely does any one law do that.\n\nPersonally, I'm not certain I fully agree with the closed system or at least the implications suggested by that. Nor am I happy with this oversimplified view of things. I wasn't happy with it in high school and no one has answered questions I had in high school since regarding some of my observations and doubts. Stepping back and looking at all the laws together, there are questions raised. My high school professor couldn't answer them and so, he went to one of his college professor's who was equally stumped. I'm still stumped also. That's another topic though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1bve0l/why_does_our_universe_continue_to_expand_if_there/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vr3lg/if_energy_cannot_be_created_or_destroyed_how_come/cevvw3s?context=3"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Cosmology.2C_and_general_relativity"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2m06wa
|
why does gillette advertise against their own product?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m06wa/eli5_why_does_gillette_advertise_against_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clzqt0a"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Gillette is by far the leader in the razor market. The Fusion blades are more expensive than the Mach 3 blades, so they get the most bang for their buck by convincing Mach 3 users to upgrade rather than getting others to switch from competitors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
68o54e
|
why isnt the number 11 pronounced onety-one?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68o54e/eli5why_isnt_the_number_11_pronounced_onetyone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgzxnly",
"dgzxq4c"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"English is a Germanic-derived language, and Germanic cultures counted by twelves sometimes instead of tens. This is why the concept of a \"dozen\" exists.\n\nThe words *eleven* and *twelve* come from *einliff* and *twaliff*, Germanic words meaning \"one left\" and \"two left\", i.e. you have one/two left after taking ten away.",
"Or one-teen, to be consistent with the others until 19. \n\nAnyway, we count in base 10. But it's not the only one. Base 12 is also present (12, 24, 60) and used. Many languages have specific words until 12 and then start the \"regular\" ones."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5k2z4v
|
I found this piece of paper behind a photo of a German WW2 soldier can someone help me identify it?
|
_URL_0_
It was cut in half and I don't have rest.
Thanks
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5k2z4v/i_found_this_piece_of_paper_behind_a_photo_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbkw0tc",
"dbkx0j0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Hiya,\n\nFrom my limited German, it appears to be an issue of orders to an [occupation force? Literally \"something-land-service.\"]. I'll leave it up to any number of actually-fluent German speakers to provide more information. More importantly, I'm chiming in to note that under our [Privacy rule](_URL_0_), any personally-identifying information for individuals outside the public-eye in the last 100 years is off limits on /r/AskHistorians. I don't see anything that could be considered such on your document, so I've gone ahead and approved this thread, but I ask all respondents to please keep that rule in mind and notify the mod team if there's any such information that I've missed.\n\nThanks for your understanding. \n\n",
"Geländedienst means trainig in the field. So this is just a order for combat training for a whole day. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/nQn9uwh.jpg"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_privacy"
],
[]
] |
|
3bqcna
|
Did Roman propaganda have any basis in fact?
|
I ask this as someone with a great interest in ancient classical history. I admittedly have made a conscious effort over the years to avoid siding with or using the ancient roman perspective when learning about or evaluating ancient cultures and the world in which they lived. With this in mind I want to try and break down my bias on the subject with the help of experts here. Mainly I want to focus on four sort of sub-problems that will help me sort out the larger issue of the question in the title.
Please forgive the lack of source on these questions as I admittedly am regurgitating them from memory. So if they were either things Roman writers/citizens didn't believe or they came from something else entirely I apologize.
1. Did Carthaginians ever practice human sacrifice, particularly babies or children?
2. Were Greeks/Parthians viewed as weak or effeminate, particularly due to their supposed acceptance of homosexuality? (I realize this seems inflammatory but that is in no way my intent, this was simply the context I recall hearing when I first heard this.)
3. Did the Celtic or Germanic tribes ever practice cannibalism?
4. Did Rome view Christians and Jews as a threat to be hunted/eliminated/persecuted ?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bqcna/did_roman_propaganda_have_any_basis_in_fact/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csozmnx",
"cspn5r8"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"I can speak a bit about the Parthians. In essence, it was a mixed bag, because in some cases, there was respect, in others not so much.\nHere is a quote from Justin epitomizing Trogus:\n\n\"Each man has several wives, for the sake of gratifying desire with different objects. They punish no clime more severely than adultery, and accordingly they not only exclude their women from entertainments, but forbid them the very sight of men. They eat no flesh but that which they take in hunting. They ride on horseback on all occasions; on horses they go to war, and to feasts; on horses they discharge public and private duties; on horses they go abroad, meet together, traffic, and converse. Indeed the difference between slaves and freemen is, that slaves go on foot, but freemen only on horseback. Their general mode of sepulture is dilaniation by birds or dogs, the bare bones they at last bury in the ground.[6] In their superstitions and worship of the gods, the principal veneration is paid to rivers, The disposition of the people is proud, quarrelsome, faithless, and insolent; for a certain roughness of behaviour they think becoming to men, and gentleness only to women. They are always restless, and ready for any commotion, at home or abroad; taciturn by nature; more ready to act than speak, and consequently shrouding both their successes and miscarriages in silence. They obey their princes, not from humility, but from fear. They are libidinous, but frugal in diet. To their word or promise they have no regard, except as far as suits their interest.\"\n--Justin 41.3\n\nAs you can see, some of these ideas seem a little ridiculous: only eating meat that has been hunted? Or doing everything on horseback? And here is the thing, I can't prove to you that Justin was right or wrong, and as much as I want to believe that he is wrong, as before I can't prove it. However, what I can say is that we should look at the sources critically, and realize that owing to the geopolitical hostility between Rome and Parthia, it makes sense that Trogus would stereotype. And since stereotypes have some basis in fact, we can argue that a few elements from the account have some basis in truth. I also am not sure where the supposed homo-erotic attitudes towards the Parthians are expressed, I have not heard of it in the sources. If you could provide that, I would be very thankful. \n\nOk, now that I think I have answered your question, I am going to hijack it to make a point: sometimes modern historians (particularly, military historians) look down on the Parthians. They are viewed as weak, and not really a challenge to the Romans and had Trajan only been younger, the Romans would have pushed into India. I hate this idea--I really do--because it sort of washes away the accomplishments and capability of the Parthians. This was a power that was an minor, unimportant border kingdom in the 240s BC, and arose to prominence in the 170s BC to go toe-to-toe with arguably the most powerful empire at the time (the Seleukids) and basically reduce them to Syria and its environs. Or how about the fact that the Romans had been running a train through the Mediterranean in the Second and First centuries BC, conquering powers left and right, and yet outside Carrhae, with a mere army of 10,000 men against 40,000 Romans, Surena defeated them in battle. But no guys, that was a fluke, because Crassus was basically an idiot, and had a true Roman general been there like Caesar and Pompey, the Parthians would have been wrecked. You see that happens? The battle becomes a Roman defeat, not a Parthian victory.\nAnd I bring all these points (not directed at you OP, you have been quite respectful and naturally critical of Roman-centricness--a good quality in an ancient historian) because too often in my experiences, people will belittle the Parthians in contrast to the Romans and we can see it a bit in some popular historians--most particularity Dan Carlin (he did an AMA a few years ago here, and basically dismissed the Parthians and their army). In fact, I would rather trust ancient authors about their perceptions of the Parthians--\n\nJustin again:\n\"Being assailed by the Romans, also, in three wars, under the conduct of the greatest generals, and at the most flourishing period of the republic, **they alone, of all nations, were not only a match for them, but came off victorious**; though it may have been a greater glory to them, indeed, to have been able to rise amidst the Assyrian, Median, and Persian empires, so celebrated of o]d, and the most powerful dominion of Bactria, peopled with a thousand cities, than to have been victorious in war against a people that came from a distance; especially when they were continually harassed by severe wars with the Scythians and other neighboring nations, and pressed with various other formidable contests.\"\n\nYou can see not only that the Parthians defeated the Romans, but also had to contend with neighboring powers and yet despite the terrible geopolitical situation, they fell finally to an internal revolt. \n\n",
"Hello there! Many thanks to /u/XenophonTheAthenian for summoning me here; since s/he (?) and /u/tobymoby616 have already made excellent remarks about the nature and value of ancient historiography, I won't comment further on that issue. I can answer your question about Carthaginian child sacrifice, however.\n\nFirst and foremost, archaeologists have uncovered tens of thousands of urns containing the cremated remains of infants at Carthage and other Phoenician-Punic sites throughout the Western Mediterranean. The most recent analyses confirm that the majority of the victims died between the ages of one and one-and-a-half months, whereas infant deaths by natural causes typically occur within the first week after birth.\n\nSecond, Punic votive inscriptions often mention *mlk b‘l*, \"the sacrifice/offering of a citizen/person,\" or *mlk ‘dm*, \"the sacrifice/offering of a human being\"; these are distinguished from *mlk ‘mr*, \"the sacrifice/offering of a lamb/sheep.\" The texts sometimes add the phrase *bš(‘)rm b(n)tm*, which apparently means \"as his own flesh,\" thus underscoring the very personal nature of the sacrifice. The victims were offered to Baal Hammon together with his consort Tanit. \n\nThird, as you already observed, the rite of child sacrifice is mentioned not only in the Hebrew Bible (and there's nothing wrong with using it as a historical source!) but also in Greco-Roman literature. The notion that these references all reflect \"propaganda\" is rather unconvincing. In the case of the classical sources, you'll find that the few authors who comment on the practice (i.e., Clitarchus, Ennius, Diodorus, Plutarch) do not specifically condemn the Carthaginians despite treating it as an oddity. The Romans themselves, moreover, occasionally made human (though not child) sacrifices in times of crisis.\n\nIn sum, the archaeological, epigraphic, and literary evidence all indicate that the Carthaginians performed ritual infanticide. As abhorrent as we may find it to be, remember that many Carthaginians must have considered it an important aspect of their religion and identity. \n\nI hope you find this helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions! :)\n\nSelect sources and further reading:\nPatricia Smith et al., \"Aging cremated infants: the problem of sacrifice at the Tophet of Carthage,\" *Antiquity* 85 (2011): 859-74; idem., \"Age estimations attest to infant sacrifice at the Carthage Tophet,\" *Antiquity* 87 (2013): 1191-9; Paolo Xella et al., \"Phoenician bones of contention,\" *Antiquity* 87 (2013): 1199-207; Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo and José Ángel Zamora López, \"The Epigraphy of the Tophet,\" *Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico* 30 (2013): 159-92. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ppbn4
|
why are kids taught to use "x" to mean multiplication until the age of ~11, when they switch to "·"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ppbn4/eli5_why_are_kids_taught_to_use_x_to_mean/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw899yr"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It is very important that they learn what a punctuation mark or decimal point is. It may be difficult for young kids to discern the difference between . and · especially when handwritten.\n\nx as a multiplication symbol only works until you need to learn algebra. Then x becomes a variable. It is then necessary to use a different distinct multiplication symbol."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
q95wq
|
Are there any theories/speculation which attempt to explain the logic behind quantum information decomposing following observation?
|
Like in the Double Slit experiment the interference pattern of light/electrons changes from wave to particle just because of observation? Is probability itself a dimension of the universe? What are the mechanics behind observation's effect on the location of the basic building blocks of matter?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/q95wq/are_there_any_theoriesspeculation_which_attempt/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3vt04e"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The electrons don't actually change from a wave to a particle, that's just a convenient (but now severely outdated) approximation. The particles actually follow the same rules all the time. [Here](_URL_0_) is a very good introduction that uses the many worlds interpretation (which is poorly named, it just means using the same quantum rules for every system, including observers)\n\nThe quick answer for the double-slit experiment is that if you don't check which slit it went through, it doesn't matter which way it goes, and all paths are allowed to interfere (wavelike behavior). Identical world states are the only ones that can interfere, and there's no difference between \"electron went left\" and \"electron went right\" because it ends up in the same place. \n\nWhen you do check the slits you prevent the electron from interfering with itself because now there's a difference between left and right. Because you measured the particle, your state now depends on the electron's state, and the electron appears to choose one of the possible states at random. \n\n(disclaimer: not everyone agrees with the next part.) The reason the electron now appears in only one state is because *you* split into a bunch of different states, and each of you sees one of the possible states of the electron. People get freaked out by this idea, but it happens *all the time* with smaller systems of particles and we are made of those particles. \n\n\nThe most common interpretation doesn't work like what I said. In that system, any interaction with a particle makes it randomly assume one of its possible states. These models are both equally good at predicting what we see, but one of them treats observers differently and one of them has more uncomfortable implications about reality. There are others which I won't describe but which also work for calculation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://lesswrong.com/lw/r6/an_intuitive_explanation_of_quantum_mechanics/"
]
] |
|
2lrhgk
|
where do we find the room to bury the dead?
|
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems that the amount of people who die after each consecutive generation far outweighs the land set aside to bury the bodies (graveyards, burial grounds etc).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lrhgk/eli5_where_do_we_find_the_room_to_bury_the_dead/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clxghz3",
"clxgjng",
"clxi6jq",
"clxiah3",
"clxitvk",
"clxnrzl",
"clxpla0",
"cly3g75"
],
"score": [
51,
7,
11,
8,
2,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Individual graveyard burial generally doesn't last forever. Eventually the soft parts of a body will decompose and the remains are dug up and stored more efficiently in something like an [ossuary](_URL_0_). \n\nAlso not everyone practices burial in this way. Cremation (burning the body and collecting the ashes) remains popular in many countries and is very efficient with its land use. Some people prefer to have their ashes scattered, and even if they're stored in an urn it's usually small enough that the family can take it home, or they can be efficiently stored elsewhere. \nThen there's more unusual practices like sky burial where all of the body is deliberately fed to birds and other scavengers. Like cremation and scattering, this doesn't require any land for remains or a permanent marker.",
"Remember, there's also cremation. And there's the buildings were bodies are places in a wall above and below other people.\n\nThis is probably going to become a real big issue within the 50 years. Where do we bury billions of people? There's a lot of unoccupied places in the world to build cemeteries, but they might become more remote in location as the premium cemeteries will be closer to the living population.\n\nOr cemetery cities might pop up like Colma, CA",
"In France it's common to \"rent\" a plot. I don't know the length of the leases, but the put you in the ground for a while, the people you knew can come and weep, then eventually they dig you back up like Lobsang said, they do something else with your bones. It's been a long time since I studied French culture, so I can't remember the exacts, but ossuary may be the ticket. I think big cultural personalities are pretty much left alone. I went to Pere Lachaise in Paris and there were some pretty cool figures from history there. ",
"It's already an issue. I know a family that's moving a beloved grandfather's grave from their ancestral home overseas to here in the US, mostly so he will be buried next to his wife and so that they can visit his grave regularly. They are selling his plot in a densely packed overseas city for the equivalent of about $200k, so grandpa's investment in a plot in the 50's is going to put a tidy sum in the college funds of his 10 or so great grand kids. \n\nThe demand for good grave sites in their home city has climbed to the point where an individual plot in an older, centrally located cemetery can fetch that much or more. Here in the states where we have less geographical pressure I'm sure we will do what we always do, which is fuck around and continue to waste our resources until the last minute, then do down thing drastic. ",
"Every once in a while, you hear a news story about outrage over a cemetery digging up graves to reuse the land, or burying bodies on top of each other, etc. An individual cemetery has a limited amount of land, but they want to stay in business, so there you go. Most people are forgotten within a few decades of their death, and the people who run burial grounds take advantage of this.",
"To add to what others have said: have you ever walked past a graveyard, and noticed that the ground level of the graveyard is far higher than the land around it? This is because the ground gets reused, and it isn't uncommon for fresh graves to be dug above older graves, raising the height of the graveyard respective to the rest of the land. This is discussed in Bill Bryson's book *At Home*, and he points out that in a small English village with a tiny population, the graveyard will have had tens of thousands of burials in its time. Basically, your final resting place isn't that final - eventually someone else is going to use it!\n\nTL;DR: Graveyards are deeeeeeeeeep.",
"In Sweden, everybody has a right to graveyard spot free of charge for 25 years. After that, when you're relatives stop paying, the grave is reused. ",
"There is a graveyard in Edinburgh near the castle that is about 25 feet above street level. The original graveyard was at street level, but when they ran out of room, a new layer of dirt was added and more layers over time (several hundred years, according to our guide). We were warned to stay on the path because tips of headstones from the previous layer were sticking up through the grass, and therefore a tripping hazard.\n\nAt least, that's ONE way to deal with it....:P\n\nEDIT: that graveyard is not new, obviously. I doubt they are still using it for new burials. But prior to the renting idea, this probably happened a lot."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossuary"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d8u3jr
|
how much water is on the international space station?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d8u3jr/eli5_how_much_water_is_on_the_international_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1cpgh6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yep, recycling is critical, since there's really no feasible way to constantly be sending new water tanks into space to refill drinking water supplies. \n\n\nFrom what I've read, the ISS is able to keep a reserve of 530 gallons of drinking water in case of emergencies. Since the ISS is made up of various modules that were sent into space at different times, I'm not entirely sure which module was launched with the reserve water. \n\n\nThe ISS is actually split into two sections: The American side, and the Russian side, and each side has a different recycling system. The American part has equipment that collects condensation in the air, shower water, and urine, and turns it back into drinkable water, and that equipment produces somewhere around 3.6 gallons of drinkable water per day. On the Russian side they produce about the same amount of water, or a little less, but they only collect condensation and shower water. In fact the U.S. astronauts sometimes borrow the Russians' pee when they want to make a bit more drinking water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4kg34a
|
The Nazis refered to themselves as socialists, but also spoke of their struggle against marxism. How did they distinguish their beliefs from the Soviets? Was it just thinly veiled xenophobia?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4kg34a/the_nazis_refered_to_themselves_as_socialists_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3er2n5",
"d3expxo"
],
"score": [
48,
26
],
"text": [
"At first, the National Socialist Party did have a leftist component, and the party even put out a plan that called for the redistribution of capital. Hitler, however, only promoted socialism in order to garner as much support as possible--he supported rightist policies that appealed to the upper class at the same time. The dissonance between the left and right wings of the Nazi Party served Hitler as he rose to power (i.e., when he only needed to garner support from as many people as possible without worrying about implementing policy), but once in power Hitler had to address this dissonance. He did so during the so-called \"Night of the Long Knives\" when he arranged the murder of several prominent socialists in the Nazi Party (most notably Ernst Röhm, co-founder of the Nazi Party, who declared upon Hitler's rise to power that the Nazi Party had achieved the \"national\" component of National Socialism and now needed to pursue the \"socialist\" component). Thereafter, \"socialism\" existed within the National Socialist Party in name alone. \n\n/u/depanneur [answers this question in the FAQ section of the subreddit](_URL_1_). /u/panzerkampfwagen [provides a similar answer in the FAQ](_URL_0_).\n\n",
"Modified from an [earlier answer](_URL_0_) \n\n**Part I**\n\nOne of the real problems with evaluating the ideological tenets of National Socialism is that they were often very ill-defined and fluctuating to meet the needs of circumstances. This is compounded by the fact that although many within the NSDAP construed themselves as self-made intellectuals, the movement as a whole eschewed formal intellectualism. The result is that National Socialist political philosophy was often incoherent and coming up with clear definitions and parameters is often akin to nailing jelly on the wall. This is doubly true of the \"socialist\" component of the political movement. Although it is true Hitler did not choose the name of the party, it is also evident he did not seek to rebrand the movement either, and the phrase \"National Socialist\" or its abbreviation NS became ubiquitous in the Third Reich's official discourse and neither Hitler nor the NSDAP disassociated themselves from the word. For the NSDAP, they had their own definition of \"socialism,\" one that was inextricably linked to their construction of a racially-based *Volksgemeinschaft* and mediated by the party-controlled state. \n\nIn his \"Why We Are Antisemites\" speech delivered in 1920 and later much publicized after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Hitler was already differentiating his own brand of socialism from its Marxist-influenced contemporaries:\n\n > Thus we can see the two great differences between races: Aryanism means ethical perception of work and that which we today so often hear – socialism, community spirit, common good before own good. Jewry means egoistic attitude to work and thereby mammonism and materialism, the opposite of socialism. ... Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism. \n\nBeneath the appalling antisemitism, Hitler was already outlining what he envisioned as his own new definition of socialism: one in which socialism is a sober racial community in which class differences between Aryans have been erased without any recourse to class warfare. This ideal remained a powerful animating force within the NSDAP, even after the purging of its left-wing components like the Strasser brothers and Ernst Rohm. Erich Koch, who would eventually become the Gauleiter of East Prussia, maintained in an a 1931 article \"Sind wir Faschisten?\" that the key difference between Mussolini's Fascist party and the NSDAP was that the former was capitalistic, while the later was socialist. \n\nYet the definition of \"socialism\" within a National Socialist context was still quite contentious. Hans Reupke, a member of the SA with connections with German industry, wrote in his 1931 book *Der Nationalsozialismus und die Wirtschaft* that the NSDAP would have to disavow any socialist attacks on private property and the needs of the *Volk* were dependent upon preserving private property. Yet Reupke did not argue for keeping the capitalist status quo, but instead positioned both the NSDAP and National Socialism as a fundamentally transformative catalyst for a new economic order. In the place of Weimar and the *Kaiserreich*'s divisive labor relations, the National Socialist shopfloor would be governed by a coordination of both manager and laborer by the party in which everyone experienced the \"*Freude des Schaffens*\" (Joy of Creation). Not everyone within the party was enthusiastic about Reupke's book. Goebbels in his diary considered it a \"downright betrayal of socialism,\" and the NSDAP's left-wing felt that by abandoning nationalization, they were eliminating the NSDAP's revolutionary potential. \n\nFor his part, Hitler tended to keep apart from these debates on the true nature of the NSDAP's socialism and its wider economic policy. This made a good deal of electoral sense as one of the NSDAP's key strategies was to promise a hazy utopia under their leadership while clearly defining how Germany's racial enemies were in diametric opposition to such a utopia. The promise of \"real socialism\" to the German worker was one of the key electoral planks in the NSDAP's rise to power and the SPD was rather alarmed that this promise had curried some of the worker's votes. \n\nAlthough Reupke found himself locked out of political power, a number of his ideas percolated into the Third Reich's approach to labor relations and its own contradictory relationship with capitalism. In light of the Depression, the NSDAP took as its own and expanded the concept of a national labor force, and added considerable regimentation and ideological components to it. The *Reichsarbeitsdienst* (RAD) was not only a state-sponsored jobs program, but one in which honest work for the *Volk* would inculcate a healthy National Socialist perspective among German youth. The *Deutsches Arbeitsfront* (DAF) headed by Robert Ley incorporated a number of Reupke's ideas on National Socialist labor relations with the DAF positioning itself as the replacement for worker-led unions and as an honest broker between manager and worker. Although the DAF's record in this regard was decidedly mixed and the DAF leadership was incredibly corrupt, it did managed to ensconce itself as a power bloc within the polycratic Reich and Ley was something of a true believer in National Socialism. The DAF implemented various state-funded improvement programs such as state-subsidized housing, factory recreational facilities, and small-business loans for managers that belonged to the DAF. As was normal in the Third Reich, state support was often quite fickle and had to deal with a whole layer of NSDAP corruption to reach the German worker. Industrial concerns closely related to the ideology of the state tended to benefit greatly from DAF and state-support. For example, the Third Reich's leadership saw a healthy German aviation industry as both a propaganda coup and important for rearmament, so concerns like Messerschmitt and Dornier had lavish state support for worker facilities. Other industrial concerns were less fortunate and although entities like the DAF positioned themselves as neutral arbiters between labor and management, they almost invariably sided with management in labor disputes. For example, some of the hard labor of RAD duty when building the *Westwall* was reserved for shopfloor malcontents and other \"troublemakers\" as a war to punish and dissuade labor activism. \n\nOne of the most publicly heralded initiatives of the DAF was the *Kraft durch Freude* (KdF) which promised a state-subsidized leisure and enjoyment for the German worker. Whether through vacations, automobiles, or other material goods, the state promised Germans that it, not the free-market, would allow them to enjoy the \"good life\" of modern consumerism. The Third Reich put an intense effort in publicizing how it was going to provide German consumers modern luxury goods at state-subsidized rates. In addition to cars, there were other *Volksprodukte* that the Third Reich trumpeted would herald the advent of the good life for Germany. There were publicity campaigns for people's refrigerators, cameras, televisions. Of these products, only the *Volksempfänger*, or People's Radio, made its way into German homes in any appreciable numbers. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s5es4/if_hitler_hated_communism_why_did_he_use/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sipie/to_what_extent_was_the_national_socialist_german/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vdkls/why_did_the_nazis_first_label_themselves_as_the/"
]
] |
||
4xqmkp
|
different types of radiation
|
Why do different particles emit different types of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, etc)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xqmkp/eli5_different_types_of_radiation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6hmove",
"d6huosx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Think of radiation as a wave. The energy of a particle determines what wave it is. Kind of like light from stars. The higher the energy the whiter it is. On the lower energy scale you get red. Now as an atom starts to decay certain particles are released due to the weakness of the atoms containment energy. Depending on which type or types of particle escape you get different forms of levels or waves radiation.",
"Others here have explained what the three types of radiation are, but you asked *why* different particles emit different types of radiation. By \"different particles\", I'm going to assume you mean \"different atomic nuclei\", because that's where radiation typically comes from.\n\nThe nucleus of an atom is made of protons and neutrons, held together and stabilized by the \"strong\" nuclear force. Nuclei are most stable when there are about equal numbers of protons and neutrons -- tending toward a slight excess of neutrons for very big nuclei.\n\nThe various isotopes can be plotted on a protons-vs-neutrons graph like this: _URL_1_#/media/File:Half_Life_Valley_of_Stability.jpg\n\nThe colors indicate whether a particular isotope is stable or radioactive. The black line near the center is the [\"valley of stability\"](_URL_1_): nuclei will radioactively decay in ways that move them closer to the valley of stability. In terms of their nuclear energy, it's like they're \"rolling downhill\" into the valley.\n\nIf a nucleus has too many neutrons, the \"weak\" nuclear force will cause one of them to transform into a proton. Since a proton has a positive charge, a negatively charged electron is also created so the total charge is unchanged. This electron flies away as a beta particle. The nucleus now has one less neutron and one more proton than before, moving it closer to the valley of stability.\n\nOn the other hand, if a nucleus has too many protons, it will do the opposite. There are two different processes, but either way, a proton is transformed into a neutron, bringing the nucleus closer to the valley of stability.\n\nFinally, very big nuclei can get rid of two protons and two neutrons together -- this is an alpha particle. This moves the nucleus diagonally down and to the left on the stability diagram. This might not seem like it helps, but since the valley of stability is curved, going down and to the left does make the nucleus more stable.\n\n[This figure](_URL_0_) shows the different patterns of decay for each isotope. You can see that the nuclei almost always decay in ways that make them more stable.\n\n... but one last thing, I haven't explained gamma rays yet. Whenever a particle shoots away from the nucleus, it starts to quiver like a blob of jello. This extra kinetic energy is lost through the emission of an electromagnetic wave -- that is, a gamma ray. Almost every radioactive decay also emits a gamma ray, to get rid of the excess nuclear \"vibration\".\n\nSo to sum up: if an atomic nucleus has the wrong ratio of neutrons to protons, it will radioactively decay in a way that changes that ratio and makes the nucleus more stable. Alpha, beta, and gamma decay solve the problem of too many protons, too many neutrons, or too much kinetic energy, respectively."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_stability#/media/File:Decay_Mode_Valley_of_Stability.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_stability",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_stability#/media/File:Half_Life_Valley_of_Stability.jpg"
]
] |
|
5jng4d
|
how humans didn't get eaten by predators who heard babies screaming when humans lived in the wild.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jng4d/eli5how_humans_didnt_get_eaten_by_predators_who/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbhica2",
"dbhis4u",
"dbhj8s4",
"dbhjw84",
"dbhl37s",
"dbhliz3",
"dbhnlpb",
"dbhsd7g"
],
"score": [
5,
87,
18,
4,
3,
52,
34,
2
],
"text": [
"Humans built fortifications, often in caves. Lived in fairly sized family bands that offered constant protection of the group. And had weapons with which to defend themselves. So we did not have pressure to evolve \"silently hide\" instincts while infants. ",
"Predators (at least modern ones anyway) look for easy meals. It's not worth risking injury.\n\nIf you find a human child *by itself*? Snacktime.\n\nIf you hear a crying child, go to the noise, and find several adult humans with pointy sticks and fire? Not worth the risk. ",
"If a predator is close enough to hear a crying child, it's close enough to smell a group of people. So there is no great survival advantage to being quiet. A bear can smell a human from 2-3 km away.",
"Humans, and their cousin species stay in groups. They have been armed with fire and stone weapons for houdress of thousands of years, and have been capable of barricading themselves to some degree for hundreds of thousands of years. In short, a species that made it a habit of attacking humans would be in danger of going extinct.",
"Predators are usually highly risk averse. Why take the chance of a risky meal when you can wait for an easy kill.",
"If you were hungry in the woods and stumbled upon a crying baby bear surrounded by adult bears with crazy bear-tech weapons living in scary bear-tech structures lit up with bear-magic would you try to make steak?",
"Babies didn't cry as much when humans lived more \"in the wild.\" Crying is generally a sign that the baby is hungry or needs to be held.\n\nDo you ever watch primates with their babies? The babies practically live on their backs and stomachs for the first year(s) of life, being constantly held and nursed. Early humans likely held babies the same way.\n\nIf you know parents of young kids, see how much they cry and when they do. Mom's who co-sleep allow the babies to wake up and feed at will, so they don't do much crying during the night. Babies in a crib will scream constantly until they are held.",
"Also, don't forget rocks. Humans and our various primate relatives, throw rocks and stuff. Even women and children can contribute on that front, and have continued to do so when nothing else was around to protect themselves to this very day. This tends to be very painful and discouraging to many predators. They show up, there are lots of people, including big people with spears, and most or all of them are probably throwing stuff and yelling.\n\nA lot of the time, they just leave. It's not worth it and it hurts.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2yodiu
|
What was Kurdish society like before the Arab invasion? What do we know about Pre-Arab Kurdistan?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2yodiu/what_was_kurdish_society_like_before_the_arab/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpc3rxv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"One thing that I remember that really stuck out to me when I read the Anabasis, by Xenophon was when they were traveling through the Kurdish mountains of what modern northern Iraq/turkey. \n\nIn the book, a unit of Greek mercenary hoplites gets stuck deep in Persian territory, after their Persian rebel commander is killed. They then have to fight their way back to Greek territory. As a unit of heavy infantry they don't have too much trouble surviving and moving north until they encounter the Kurds.\n\nXenophon describes them as a barbaric people \"ADDICTED TO WAR\" and they end up fighting pretty much a running battle the entire time they are moving through the Kurdish area.\n\nHopefully a real historian will chime in, with more to say."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
52a1yj
|
when would a doctor use stitches, and when would he use staples?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52a1yj/eli5_when_would_a_doctor_use_stitches_and_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7ijktd",
"d7iwemd",
"d7j5252"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They are interchangeable. Sort of.\n\nA stapled wound and one closed with a non-absorbable suture are similar. Both require medical aid to remove, and for this reason day surgery and short stay surgery usually use absorbable sutures. These dissapear over a few weeks as the body breaks them down.\n\nCertain procedures are normally stapled though. For example if there is a risk of bleeding, especially if it will quickly affect the patient, eg carotid surgery where a haematoma might obstruct an airway.\n\nThere's also surgeons preference, and speed issues, so.... Either in many situations!\n\nEDIT: There is potentially a greater risk of [infection with staples](_URL_0_) however.\n\nSource- 20 years OR experience ",
"Part of her consideration is also wound healing and cosmetic appearance. Well placed stitches have a better cosmetic result as compared to staples or glue. No one wants their face stapled, but staples on the scalp are common where hair growth will hide scar tissue. ",
"Not a doctor but I've had both because of a dangerous hobby (RC helicopters) \n\nStaples tend to be weaker and more temporary than stitches. I keep a surgical staple gun in my kit when I fly so if I had to I could patch myself up enough to make it to a hospital. The staples can and do pop off because they only pinch themselves on much like the hook like pinch between a thumb and index finger. If the wound is stretched or disturbed one could pop off opening it up. \n\nStitches are harder to do especially to yourself, but they are more robust and can handle more physical activity without breaking. \n\nIn some cases a doctor may also use surgical glue for certain wounds. I had a multi rotor fly into my chest and the 4 blades opened me up like a knife and 2 of them had to be glued closed. \n\nOnly the very tip of the staple stabs into your skin. It doesn't close on the back end the way a staple in a piece of paper does. This makes them very easy to remove with a surgical staple remover which simply bends them in the very middle, causing them to form a M shape and the legs retract and slide out. They are very easy to install though without any training so in an emergency they can temporarily close a wound while you seek treatment. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1199"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1yb8fj
|
If our sun didn't give off UV rays could we stare at it without damaging our eyes?
|
If yes, are there any stars we know of that would qualify?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1yb8fj/if_our_sun_didnt_give_off_uv_rays_could_we_stare/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfj7ycr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"no. It's not just UV rays that are the problem. (otherwise, with glasses on, with a UV coating, you would be able to. **you should not try this**). It's the fact that your eye's lens focuses light. Like a magnifying lens on an ant. It's simply depositing too much energy into your retina and can damage the tissue.\n\nI would wonder, though, if you could look at the sun directly from, say, Mars. The intensity is diminished, so perhaps it'd be safer (really it's probably an intensity integrated over time problem, where staring at the sun for extended periods of time become problematic)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
30bnpn
|
how is it that populations of people all across the planet in different countries all developed at relatively the same rate, when there was no means of communication between them?
|
Why didn't some countries develop thousands of years before others before cross-continental travel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30bnpn/eli5_how_is_it_that_populations_of_people_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpqwwhy",
"cpqwxp5",
"cpqwz1x",
"cpqxn3e"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Some did. Compare the Europeans of Columbus' time to the Native Americans. They were much further advanced by hundreds of years.",
"They didn't develop at the same rate, it's just that the weaker ones were destroyed/absorbed by more powerful and technologically advanced ones. There's just little record of them left.\n\nWe know about Native Americans being decimated by the colonists from Europe with far superior tools and tech. There are still tiny tribes in the world today that are pretty much in the stone age compared to other societies.",
"A lot of the world communicated across the silk roads others had similar problems and made similar solutions everything was a matter of taste. ",
"We definitely aren't all developing at the same rate, these guys can't even make fire yet _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://mentalfloss.com/article/23973/stone-age-people-north-sentinel-island"
]
] |
|
8n58ii
|
How does the size of an atom change as you move through the periodic table?
|
I know that the mass of an atom is due primarily to the nucleus and the make up of its nucleus determines the atomic number. Since mass and density goes up as we go along the periodic table, I would assume that the overall volume of the atom itself must not increase in a linear way. i.e. an atom with 10 times the mass of hydrogen is not 10 times the volume. My question is this, if a hydrogen atom were the size of a baseball, how big would some of the other atoms be? (C, Au, U, etc.)
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8n58ii/how_does_the_size_of_an_atom_change_as_you_move/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzu8f7g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Atoms rarely exist in isolation; they're bonded with other atoms, and that tends to change their sizes. For example, Oxygen picks up two extra electrons and this bloats it enormously. Beryllium gives up two electrons, and that shrinks it enormously. Here's a [table that shows both the isolated and the ionized sizes](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://chem.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/27878/d94e877d1d04a26ba570df5bf8dec412.jpg"
]
] |
|
114ckz
|
Since Temperature is a measurement of how fast molecules vibrate, would it be possible to heat molecules to a point where their vibration approaches the speed of light?
|
This may be a stupid question or passed on a lot of false assumptions. But if the high the temperature of of an object the higher the rate of molecular vibration, could theoretically something be heated to a point where its molecules vibrate at a rate approaching C? Would this have implications with time dilation?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/114ckz/since_temperature_is_a_measurement_of_how_fast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6j89cy",
"c6j8a7k",
"c6jb5om",
"c6jbzu0",
"c6jd70x"
],
"score": [
9,
15,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Temperature is not a measure of how fast molecules vibrate. It is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules (sum of translational, vibrational, and rotational).\n\nVibration is quantized into energy levels. As the quantum number v (vibrational energy state) increases the bond distance is actually increasing. Eventually it reaches the dissociation point where the bond breaks and the atoms separate. The dissocation energies are going to be on the order of a chemical bond or 400kJ/mol (organic). The \"rate\" of vibration is going to be proportional to the energy of the vibrational state and the force constant of the normal mode.\n\nThese states can be populated thermally however. At higher temperatures higher energy states will be populated at a rate proportional to E=K*T where K is the Boltzmann constant.\n\nIn the end molecules cant vibrate at c and the temperature is not a measure of vibrational rate.\n\nEDIT: for note a vibration happens on the timescale of picoseconds (10^-12 s) (universally) and distances of less than an angstrom (10^-10 m). Even if you assume an incredibly long vibrational distance of 1 angstrom that gives an average linear velocity of 100m/s (insert some one complaining about harmonic motion here), not even the speed of sound in air.",
"Well it's not just the vibration, it's the rotational and translational kinetic energy, and in fact _all_ forms of energy in a solid contribute to their temperature, but it doesn't really matter to the question.\n\nAnyway, while there's nothing stopping you from adding more energy, and more vibrational energy does mean faster vibrational motion (and that motion certainly obeys special relativity), there's a limit to how much vibrational energy a pair of atoms can have, namely the energy of their chemical bond. If they vibrate with more energy than that, they'll simply fly apart. \n\nAfter that point, they don't have vibrational energy any more, as there are no bound atoms to vibrate, just a gas of atoms. But they still have kinetic energy. So if you keep heating them, they'll move faster translationally. \n\nI don't know what kind of implications with time dilation (or relativity) that you were thinking of, though.",
"Your question finds a home in the study of neutron stars. Under the iron crust of these is thought to exist neutron liquid, which below a billion degrees or so, possesses [superfluidity](_URL_0_). This allows the particles of the fluid to approach the speed of light without normally associated effects of temperature. The relativistic effects of this must be included in [models of the core.](_URL_1_)",
"The kinetic energy to accelerate an atom within a molecule to near light speed would be more than the bond strength; the molecule would break apart.\n\nHowever, electrons bound in the inner shells of atoms with large atomic numbers do have kinetic energies that correspond to near-light speed velocities. (Since the electron mass is small, this is much less energy than it would be for a proton or whole atom.). In these cases, to calculate the energy levels correctly requires accounting for relativistic effects while solving the quantum mechanical wave equations. \n\n[relativistic quantum chemistry](_URL_0_)\n\nThis is important even at low temperatures.",
"Here's a starting point for what you're talking about: _URL_1_\n\nKeep in mind that this temperature is just theoretical, of course. If you want to try to get your brain around how hot these things are, [read this](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/mar/02/neutron-star-has-superfluid-core",
"http://www.astro.ulb.ac.be/~chamel/docs/chamel08.pdf"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28temperature%29",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot"
]
] |
|
5oqclk
|
can defense attorneys 'throw' a case if they know their clients are guilty?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5oqclk/eli5_can_defense_attorneys_throw_a_case_if_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcl7b6t",
"dcl7dey"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"That would be unethical. In our society, even the guilty are given competent representation. What they can do is seriously suggest that the person take a plea deal. Part of the process requires a good defense or the conviction can be overturned on appeal.",
"Yes, they could 'throw' a case.\n\nHowever, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment).\n\nIf it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily \"prove\" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1a54y6
|
How did the Romans farm? Did the way they do it change throughout the ages?
|
I've always been interested in agriculture, and I've read a lot about medieval farming, but for some reason Roman farming seems to be harder to get in to. Perhaps it's because of the reliance on archeology.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a54y6/how_did_the_romans_farm_did_the_way_they_do_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8uh5db"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The really quick answer: The Roman *ideal* was that of the yeoman, or small landholder, who self-sufficiently farmed his own little plot with the help of his family and a handful of slaves. In reality, however, this ideal was already decaying by the time we start to have good data on Roman life; by the middle Republican period, land was already being consolidated in the hands of a wealthy elite, and it was more common for small farms (where they existed) to be worked by tenant farmers, who rented their farms rather than owning them.\n\n(The pattern is pretty common in the ancient world, by the way, in places where private ownership of land and a monetary economy exist - Rome and Greece, for instance. A small farmer who has one bad year often has to stake his land as collateral for a loan to get by. Two or three bad years in a row, he loses his land to the wealthy man who offered him a loan. Much of the class turmoil of the Republic - the rise and fall of the Gracchi, for instance - had to do with the demands of the plebs for redistribution of land out of the hands of the senatorial oligarchy, and promises of land to soldiers and veterans were common - Octavian, for instance, fought a minor civil war in Perusia because the people of the region objected to his confiscating *their* small farms to give small farms to his soldiers. But that's beside the point.)\n\nAnyway, senators were grabbing huge tracts of land wherever they could, for both practical economic reasons and on the basis of the Roman moral assumption that agriculture was the only respectable form of profit-making for a Senator to engage in. It helped that senators, unlike the other classes, didn't pay land taxes. It also helped that Rome's foreign conquests were supplying her with massive numbers of slaves to *work* such enormous fields. By the late Republic, Roman agriculture was transitioning to *latifundia* - huge monoculture estates worked by large gangs of slaves, similar to the cotton plantations of the Old South - and by the High Empire such *latifundia* had almost completely replaced both small farm ownership and tenant farming, the countryside was full of slaves and wealthy pleasure villas, and poor free citizens, without recourse in the country, were fleeing to the grain doles of urban Rome and swelling its population to unprecedented heights.\n\nAs to *what* they grew: the standard Mediterranean triad, grapes, olives, and wheat, were predominant crops, though by the Imperial period trade links were stable enough that entire provinces could specialize in one of those crops (monoculture is not a modern invention by any means). The area around Rome itself became a garden of sorts, producing luxury foods for upper-class urban tables - not just a wide selection of fruits and vegetables and meats, but more exotic livestock like snails, dormice, and songbirds. \n\nAgriculture was important to the Roman elite (see 'only moral profit' above) and quite a few people wrote handbooks and guides. Here are three good primary sources on Roman farming: [Cato's *de agri cultura*](_URL_2_) - 2nd century BC, writing about at the time when the small family farm was transitioning to the large for-profit farm - [Varro's *de re rustica*](_URL_0_) - 1st century BC - and [Columella's *de re rustica* and *de arboribus*](_URL_1_) - 1st century AD, at a time when (as he laments) farming was considered the business of slaves and overseers and actual farm *work* was seen as unworthy of free men. Pliny the Elder's Natural History discusses agriculture in some detail; Vergil's Georgics is useless in terms of *how* to farm, but is interesting in its *moral* stance, its valorization of a small-farm lifestyle that was already on its last legs. For modern sources, K. D. White's *Roman Farming* is a good basic discussion, drawing, in large part, from the sources I just mentioned."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Varro/de_Re_Rustica/home.html",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Columella/home.html",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agricultura/home.html"
]
] |
|
3x0b7o
|
How much would a Roman Denarius be in USD today?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3x0b7o/how_much_would_a_roman_denarius_be_in_usd_today/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy0erwz",
"cy0qgdd"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"This is not a simple question to answer, unfortunately. Different goods had drastically different price ranges back then due to differences in supply and technology. Since the prices of goods are the only real metric by which we can compare currencies, this means you could get a wide range of values.\n\n[Doug Smith](_URL_0_) claims that, specific to the price of bread, a denarius would be worth perhaps $20 USD. Comparing clothing, on the other hand, would result in a much higher value. Put simply, prices for everything were different back then, so there's no objective way to compare the currencies.",
"The others have covered the difficulties of converting Roman coinage. I would add one key question to your post - what time? The value of the denarius varied over time. Under Augustus the coin was comprised of 3.85g of silver but would begin to be debased starting with Nero (having to pay for the rebuilding of Rome after the Great Fire in 64 CE). By the 4th CE it had been so heavily devalued that inflation was rampant. Eventually Diocletian and Constantine just abandoned the silver coin and issued a new gold coin. So a denarius issued under Augustus has more value (based on amount of silver) than one under Aurelian which may only have a fraction of silver inside.\n\n\nGenerally classical economists abandon any attempts to work out a value equivalency but instead work out amounts using a \"wheat equivalent\" since we can often work out the how much a modius of wheat cost. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://web.archive.org/web/20130210071801/http://dougsmith.ancients.info/worth.html"
],
[]
] |
||
9193ct
|
why isn't time read literally as numbers but instead the letter o is said to represent zero?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9193ct/eli5_why_isnt_time_read_literally_as_numbers_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2w9h2z",
"e2w9wld"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"In English (at least American English) unless you have a bunch of zeros in a row you almost always say \"O\" for every single number, not just time. ",
"\"Oh\" is one syllable and \"Zero\" is two. People are lazy.\n\nWe changed the word \"Colour\" to \"Color\" or \"Honour\" to \"Honor\" because the U is silent and people were too lazy to write it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2i3xw7
|
standard error in measurement. i have no idea. what is it's relation to standard deviation? (rhyme not intended)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i3xw7/eli5_standard_error_in_measurement_i_have_no_idea/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckylxvo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Standard Deviation refers to variability in general. If you're learning this in a class, it probably is implicitly meant as the standard deviation of the sample in most cases.\n\nStandard Error is the standard deviation of whatever measure you're trying to estimate. Since in statistics you're typically looking for the mean, Standard Error given no other context generally refers to the Standard Error of the sample mean. In other words, it's the standard deviation of the means of various samples (Technically, they have to be the same size samples, and indepentedly, randomly drawn from the population). \n\nFor exmaple, say we care about the average height of people in New York. You hire 300 people to take independent random samples of 100 people throughout the city. This will give you 300 samples of size 100 each. \n\nYou then take the mean of each of these 300 samples to come up with 300 sample means. The standard deviation of these 300 sample means should be roughly equal to the standard error estimate from any one sample. \n\nHope this helps"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1jbtv2
|
how do reality shows record reactions in monologues like they are happening for the first time?
|
How do they make reactions feel recent?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jbtv2/eli5_how_do_reality_shows_record_reactions_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbd5hls",
"cbdwa8j"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The people giving the interviews are asked to reenact their initial reactions. Its all just good (or in most cases, bad) acting. ",
"They are called \"OTF\"s or \"On the Fly\" interviews. The producers record an interview with the person after the fact (ideally, as soon as possible after the moment they want to reenact). They try and remind the person what was happening and help them feel the same feelings again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
uwef4
|
How can gravity possibly be accounted for by quantum theory?
|
If what we perceive as gravity is a 3d representation of a 4d distortion of spacetime and not a force between two particles, then what is quantum theory looking for?
Is it trying to explain the interaction between mass and spacetime? Is this what we're trying to represent with gravitons?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uwef4/how_can_gravity_possibly_be_accounted_for_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4z5hml",
"c4z88gv"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"What we don't know is how to solve for the curvature of a particle that doesn't have reasonably precise position and momentum (quantum particles). So far no approach we've thought of has really worked out right...",
" > ... then what is quantum theory looking for? \n\nA more accurate description for the high-energy, short-wavelength gravitational physics. Relativity falls short and does not have a terribly accurate description of, for example, the border of a black hole. Consequently it cannot naturally explain observed phenomena like Hawking radiation.\n\nQuantum mechanics started out as everyday normal classical mechanics, but eventually certain realizations allowed us to construct quantum theories that make more accurate predictions and can explain certain features of the fields in a more natural and less ad-hoc way. It even allowed for two of those theories (electrodynamics and electroweak theory) to be combined and derived from a more fundamental theory.\n\nThe great successes of quantum theories (like quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics) have led scientists to expect that a theory of quantum gravity would be similarly more accurate than its classical counterpart (general relativity). However, the problem of exactly how to accomplish constructing a valid theory of quantum gravity remains unsolved.\n\n > Is it trying to explain the interaction between mass and spacetime?\n\nNot necessarily, though the explaination of that might be consequential. The goal of quantum theory is to produce a model of reality that is more accurate than current models (just as this is the goal of all theories). If a classical theory is more accurate than a quantum theory, then we have to roll with it (and currently, general relativity *is* most accurate, of all theories of gravity).\n\nAnd if either a classical or quantum theory just happens to explain the interaction between mass and spacetime (which general relativity already seems to do), then so be it! :)\n\n > Is this what we're trying to represent with gravitons?\n\nNot quite. Gravitons are just a quantization of a gravitational wave. Gravitational waves still exist in general relativity, but in a quantized theory of gravity, the continuous gravitatonal wave is replaced by many small discrete gravitational particles (\"gravitons\"). Just like how in classical electromagnetics, light waves are replaced with photons."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ovn62
|
how does viagra actually work..?
|
Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ovn62/eli5_how_does_viagra_actually_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw0upa3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Without getting really technical, Viagra is a type of drug called a Vasodilator. Vasodilators relax the muscles and arteries so more blood can flow through them. Think of a Vasodilator as a hose. If you have a hose that has a 1 Inch Diameter, only so much water can flow through it at full blast. A Vasodilator would turn that 1 Inch Diameter hose into a 2 Inch Diameter hose so now significantly more water can flow through the hose at full blast. This is often why Vasodilators are often prescribed to people who have low blood pressure. For your own information, the opposite of a Vasodilator is a Vasoconstrictor. It does the exact opposite of a Vasodilator; instead of increasing the amount of water that can flow through a hose, it restricts the amount of water that can flow through the hose by decreasing the hose's diameter. \n\nViagra, in particular, works because the it targets specific mechanisms in the Penis that are directly tied to vasodilation. Without getting too deep in the interactions, Viagra prevents an Amino Acid that happens ot be found in the muscle tissue and arterial linings in the penis from \"degrading\"... eh... Being used up. Viagra basically \"blocks\" the body's mechanisms from removing this Amino Acid while the Viagra is in your system. Eventually it gets used up, but Viagra slows the process down significantly. As there is more of this Amino Acid, more blood will rush through the arteries in your Penis and result in longer lasting erections. \n\nThat help? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
23hrb5
|
bedsores
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23hrb5/eli5_bedsores/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgx4qf8"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"When you press down on your skin it prevents your blood from moving naturally. This lack of blood to the area causes the tissue to break down over time, if left over a prolonged period of time it can cause pretty severe damage and infection.\n\nSafe rule of thumb for prevention and healing of minor injuries, change position every 2 hrs. If its more than reddened skin (stage 1) it needs to be seen by a health care provider."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
q2171
|
how do leases work?
|
I'm talking about leasing a car, by the way. I am aware for the most part that you have to pay a certain amount of money due at signing and then monthly payments, but are there other payments that they charge you? How does it overall work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q2171/eli5_how_do_leases_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3u283h",
"c3u2efh",
"c3uitvl"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's like renting, but long term. Also, usually harder to get out of.",
"Be careful if you drive a lot, there are sometimes fees for excessive mileage.\n\nAlso, most people consider Leasing, financially, the worst possible choice in terms of \"owning\" a vehicle. So I would recommend you be absolutely 100% sure that having a brand new vehicle means that much to you before going forward.",
"These are the things that should be covered in public high schools, instead of all the bullshit they do throw at you"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
c8g1ms
|
since the hypothalamus is located near the brain and it regulates the body's temperature, how would the human body react if the head is at one extreme temperature and the rest of the body is at an opposing extreme temperature?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c8g1ms/eli5_since_the_hypothalamus_is_located_near_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"esmqn10"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The hypothalamus doesn't sense its own temperature in order to regulate the body. It gathers the data from nerves all over the body and uses that. If most of your body is hot but your head is cold, the hypothalamus will \"know\" that and will tell the body to cool itself down. \n\nAlso, your body is usually pretty good at evening out the temperature throughout, because of the blood flowing around. So even if your head is in a much colder *environment*, that doesn't mean that the head *itself* is much colder (except a few extremities like ears and nose). What's more important is the total or average heat exchange between your body and the environment around you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6tkfuj
|
how do actors appear dead in movies and films so that their chest isn't moving from breathing and their heart beating
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6tkfuj/eli5_how_do_actors_appear_dead_in_movies_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlldtux",
"dlle0eg",
"dllfhkd",
"dllhf5w",
"dlljkbp"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
2,
48,
5
],
"text": [
"Sometimes they don't. I love catching someone breathing during a tv show. Law and Order and Criminal Minds is a gold mind. Spotting moving corpses while watching is a running competition I have with my husband. \n\nI think the camera crew tries not to linger on them too long to reduce the amount of breathing on film..... anyone in the film industry willing to weigh in? I'm not positive. ",
"It varies depending on what shots are needed. Mostly actors hold their breath or practise shallow breathing if the shot is long. For autopsy scenes they have dummies. I think if its a problem they can have a frame over their chest so they can breath under it. Mostly they just cut away before its a problem. ",
"One thing you can try at home to illustrate how easy it is... \n\njust lay down on your couch for 5 minutes and rest if you aren't physically active you can slow your breathing down by quite a bit, and even hold your breath for quite a bit longer than normal. \n\nKeeping in mind that many of the entire scenes you see with a \"dead person\" laying there is actually a composition of many separate shots. If you only have to hold your breath for 30 to 45 seconds for the director to get the shot, it's not a huge deal for most actors/actresses. ",
"The simplest method is for the actor to hold their breath during the take. The heartbeat isn't a problem, because that's not noticeable.\n\nA scene involving a dead body may last quite a long time, but like most scenes will typically be composed of a number of different shots, each shot lasting just a few seconds -- so an actor only needs to hold their breath for a very short while each time.\n\nSometimes they do breathe, and if you're sharp-eyed, you'll notice it. Of course, an actor playing a corpse can ruin a shot by coughing, sneezing or even laughing, but that's not a problem either: reset everything, and reshoot the scene.\n\nOn stage, it's more of a problem, obviously. In fact, \"dead\" actors involuntarily laughing is such a big problem, that in British theatre it is known as \"corpsing\". This has become generalized to any situation where an actor laughs inappropriately; any time you see a reference to an actor \"corpsing\", it means they ruined the shot by laughing.\n\nOf course, these days it's possible to use CGI to make an actor's chest stop moving, if the movie's budget will allow. Another technique is to use a dummy in shots where viewers won't be able to see the difference: in the movie *Swiss Army Man*, for example, Daniel Radcliffe plays a corpse washed up on a beach. For some shots, they used [a creepily lifelike -- if that's the right word to use for a dead body -- dummy](_URL_0_).",
"Yeah usually it's a matter of just trying to edit your shots around any breaths the actor takes- dummy models and frames over bodies etc will only be used as a last resort if the shot really needs to hold for a long period of time, in short film and tv these are the first kids of things to get scrapped for budgetary reasons. Complicated models will likewise only be used if budget is allocated to specifically require them for narrative reasons (autopsy or the like). \n\nHowever sometimes breathing might not be noticeable during the take and necessitates removal in Post Production. Usually it's a matter of taking a still frame of the actors chest, applying matching animated video/film noise or grain back over the image so it matches the surrounding frame and doesn't look too still and 'stuck on', and tracking it back into the image to match any camera movement, 'painting out' the original breathing chest. This is easy with static shots; the more camera movement or shifts in depth of field, the harder it is to do with just a 2D still. \n\nI was editing my short, and trying to cut around actors breathing and blinking became a nightmare, so I had to add it to the infinitely growing list of After Effects jobs and fix it digitally. Got lucky with one shot, just an overhead still angle. The other was painful, the shot was dollying backwards to reveal the body, so 3D space, shifting focus and foreground movement. Ugh. Nightmare "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/16/39/768x524/gallery-1475248774-daniel-radcliffe-norton-2.jpg"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.