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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4w1mxx
|
Contemporary criticism of the Maginot line?
|
Given the Maginot line's reputation as some impenetrable defense, it seems strange that it protected all of France's eastern border except the part that Germany already invaded through in the previous war. I understand that Belgium was avowedly neutral, but was there any sense at the time that it was inadequate for the job? Or was it a calculated weakness intended to lure Germany into invading through neutral Belgium in order to ensure British assistance in any hypothetical war?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4w1mxx/contemporary_criticism_of_the_maginot_line/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d638r2a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Follow up, how impenetrable was it, really? What sort of attack was it designed to repel?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2zv971
|
why do sharks expose their top fins above the surface?
|
I was watching a documentary on sea lions, and they would see the shark fins and be alerted of there location, what are these fins purpose?
Thnaks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zv971/eli5_why_do_sharks_expose_their_top_fins_above/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpmliq4",
"cpmlt96",
"cpmuqk8"
],
"score": [
57,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Sharks -- most species, anyway -- are true predators. Many of those predators hunt air-breathing species... seals, sea-lions, turtles, etc.\n\nThe shark would prefer to be far below the surface, as it is a true fish. However, the air-breathers that they prey upon, quite naturally spend a lot of their time at or near the surface. A shark's \"topmost\" posture in the water exposes its dorsal fin and part of its back to the air above the surface.\n\nSharks don't expose their dorsal fins on purpose, it's just a natural function of the shark operating as high in the water as it can.",
"And when hunting underwater what do the fins help with?\n\nim having a discussion with a friend and we cant seem to figure out why they are there.",
"Interestingly enough sharks can't rotate their pectoral fins like most other fish so it's impossible for a shark to swim backward."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5oe8lw
|
what are the benefits and drawbacks of having an overvalued or undervalued currency?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5oe8lw/eli5_what_are_the_benefits_and_drawbacks_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcin7yh",
"dciqpf3"
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text": [
"Overvalued- It's easier to buy imported stuff cos they're cheaper than your domestic stuff. Even though your currency is worth more, theirs is worth the same, so their prices will decrease from your perspective. On the downside, your domestic market suffers, and so do your country's exports, because they are costly relative to the world market. \n\nUndervalued- Pretty much the opposite. Imports become costlier, and your domestic market thrives. Your exports also thrive because they become cheaper to other countries. On the downside, other countries don't take kindly to you dumping your cheap exports (like China does) and you could face embargos and stuff. \n\nObviously this isn't a comprehensive overview, but it goes through the essentials. ",
"Overvalued currency can also lead to trade deficits where we import more then export. At the same time, there maybe capital inflow. Some economists see this as demand stimulus for the foreign country. \n\nUndervalued can lead to trade surpluses where we export more and import less. China uses this model because it tends to create jobs. Some criticize this policy because it distorts domestic prices and investment decisions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
d2kovo
|
Was it correct to call the decline of Aboriginals in Australia, a 'genocide'?
|
Most sources I can find, state that the Aboriginals experienced intentional killings during the white colonisation of Australia. Yet, I have come across a publication called 'The Fabrication of Aboriginal History' by Keith Windshuttle which states that the massacres of the aboriginals were either fake or grossly misinterpreted. So is there any evidence that the Aboriginals had experienced a genocide, or was it an exaggeration?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d2kovo/was_it_correct_to_call_the_decline_of_aboriginals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezvwrde",
"ezvxl75",
"ezw8un2"
],
"score": [
25,
6,
28
],
"text": [
"Keith Windschuttle is an amateur historian (at best), who took issue with the term genocide in the Australian context. He did raise some valid points about other historians being sloppy with their footnotes, which Henry Reynolds, a respected historian of Aboriginal history, did acknowledge after the publication of Windschuttle's book. However, his own work has been widely, and quite thoroughly, examined and refuted by a plethora of Australian (academic) historians and public intellectuals such as Stuart MacIntyre, Bain Attwood, and an anthology edited by Professor Robert Manne, called 'Whitewash', was specifically written to address and critique Windschuttle's claims. \n\nThe arguments that Windschuttle was making were part of a broader movement in Australia to discredit the histories and lived experiences of Aboriginal people, in favour of upholding a national mythology that Australia had been peacefully settled - it was not. \n\nTo sum up, and more directly answer your question about evidence of genocide, I would suggest you turn to some of the historians/academics I listed above. This has been an ongoing debate in Australia, and it is important to note that many Aboriginal people - whether historians, public intellectuals, politicians or otherwise - have argued that genocide is an appropriate descriptor. It is important to remember that violent massacres are not the only markers of genocide, which include cultural destruction (such as language), and child removal - both of which have been experienced by Aboriginal people, largely as direct result of certain government policies in the twentieth century.",
"Hi,\n\nwhile waiting for more answers you may be interested in this earlier answer refuting Windschuttle's claims, by /u/AbandoningAll:\n\n- _URL_1_\n\nAnd this one, with arguments for why we can clearly talk of a genocide here, including further references and links to the FAQ by /u/djiti-djiti:\n\n- _URL_0_\n\nHope this helps",
"u/ispeaknoamericano wrote a great answer, and I'm especially happy that they addressed non-violent forms of genocide as well - a community can't survive if you take away most of its children and ban what makes it different. We focus far too much on the invasion, and far too little on the persecution that continued until at least the 1970s. We could also add starvation, diseases, arrests and tribal wars to the genocide - these are not direct murders, but the settlers *knew* that they had caused them by taking the land, and did nothing to prevent it from continuing or spreading to new areas.\n\nIn Australia, part of the problem with the argument around genocide and invasion is that the non-Indigenous public's concept of these events is essentially the Holocaust and WWII. The idea that police and farmers can commit genocide and invade territory seems an alien concept, as does the idea that foster families and education can be evil. Many believe that modern Aboriginal Australians make these narratives up to try and cheat the Australian public - our historians try to convince us that, yes, colonial Australians did all of this, and beyond that, even admitted to it in their diaries and newspapers, and told us why.\n\nThe best book I've read on the subject, *The Whispering in Our Hearts* by Henry Reynolds (one of the historians slandered by Windschuttle), explores the history of white Australians who spoke out against the violence of colonialism. This is such a great read because it explores almost every side of the events - the Aboriginal victims, the white perpetrators, the white colonials who objected, and the colonial authorities who either condoned or condemned it all. It goes from 1788 and the First Fleet to the last massacre in the 1930s, covering each massacre in detail, and ends on the issues around politics and the History Wars (including Windschuttle) today, talking about why Australia began and continues to deny its dark past, how it was hidden, and how it affects Australians today. Reynolds is one of Australia's best historians, and has spent his whole career writing about these topics.\n\nA great example of how genocide was hidden or justified is the Battle of Pinjarra, now recognised as a massacre. Governor of the Swan River Colony (Perth) James Stirling led a revenge raid on a tribe called the Pinjareb near modern Pinjarra, as punishment for these starving people raiding food from (what is now) the Old Mill in South Perth - he wanted to scare all of the Aboriginals of Western Australia by setting a dreadful example, which is the main reason why most of Australia's massacres occurred. Another reason was that his friend, Thomas Peel, wanted to own more Pinjareb land, and they were scaring away workers and colonists. In newspapers and monuments of the time, it was reported that Stirling and his men faced down the tribe's warriors in glorious battle and won. What really happened, as described in their own journals, is that they ambushed the entire tribe at the Murray River - the Pinjareb men tried to buy time for their families to escape across the river before also retreating, when another group of colonials rode up behind them. Together, both groups of Stirling's men shot and killed at least 30 Pinjareb men, women and children who could not fight or flee as they struggled in the river. This tribe was practically destroyed, and the survivors were attacked by its neighbours or forced to beg from white settlers for food and safety. There are still many who say this was a battle for modern political reasons, despite the obvious truth admitted in the perpetrator's diaries.\n\nLyndall Ryan, another historian attacked by Windschuttle, [has spent the last several years mapping Australia's massacres](_URL_0_) \\- she is researching in WA this year (I got to meet her). Every dot on the map is full of detail, including all the evidence for the massacres, all the people involved, the reasons why, etc., etc. [On the same website](_URL_1_) she also discusses the debate around massacre in Australia, and what she has learned from massacre and genocide scholarship from elsewhere in the world.\n\nI haven't read Windschuttle, so I'd mostly be repeating what Ispeaknoamericano wrote (which is essentially what other historians think of it), but u/AbandoningAll's post on Windschuttle, linked by u/drylaw, is a really great deconstruction of the issues with Windschuttle's work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ckqjs7/do_historians_have_a_duty_to_inform_the_public_of/ewa7hbb/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9cqyhb/has_a_consensus_formed_today_on_keith/e5cri1o/"
],
[
"https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php",
"https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/introduction.php"
]
] |
|
r5382
|
What does the Holy Roman Empire have to do with Ancient Rome, if anything?
|
Chalk this up to me missing something significant I guess, but is there any connection between the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Republic/ Empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/r5382/what_does_the_holy_roman_empire_have_to_do_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c42yk6i",
"c42z765",
"c434v03"
],
"score": [
38,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"\"The Holy Roman Empire,\" quipped Voltaire, was \"neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire\"!\n\nThe name was more an invention to legitimate the emperors as emperors, like the old caesars were in the Roman Empire. \n\n",
"While Voltaire's oft-quoted line about the HRE seems to persist to this day, it is at best misleading about what the Empire was and how it came to be named that way.\n\nIt is true that the title was an invention, just as \"tsar\" in Russia is an invention to establish legitimacy and a line of succession with Rome, it was indeed Holy (according to the Pope, whose own legitimacy often relied on support from France and the HRE), and an Empire, as in it was a disparate collection of different states and cultures under one ruler, who had varying degrees of influence over its vassals.\n\nAs to whether it was \"Roman\", the argument can be made that the Frankish Merovingians and Carolingians owe their wealth and power to the Western Roman Empire, and were the successor states to Roman Gaul and Germania. Nearly all the powerful families of late Antiquity and the Middle Ages had roots in the Roman empire or as servants of Rome. Whether that allows them to declare that the Empire that they belonged to was Roman is up for debate... but considering the weakness of the Eastern Empire as the 1st milennium came to a close, and the growing power of western and northern Europe was beginning to be felt, I don't see how anyone could have stopped them from calling their empire whatever they wanted.",
"I think you might find this Hardcore History episode of interest:\n\nShow 41 - Thor's Angels\n_URL_0_/Show-41---Thor*s-Angels/Dark%20ages-medieval-antiquity\n\n > What started as a standard podcast episode morphed into an audio book on what used to be called \"The Dark Ages\" in Europe. Dan gets into many areas he should probably avoid...Gods, Germans, bikers, Jesus...\n\nIf you're not familiar with Hardcore History, it is an entertaining podcast about a variety of historical topics. There's a series of podcasts on the downfall of the Roman Republic and an amazing series on the Eastern front in WWII. Highly recommended.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive",
"http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-41---Thor*s-Angels/Dark%20ages-medieval-antiquity"
]
] |
|
22frer
|
How can we know the energy of the universe* is constant? (also Quantum Physics)
|
Q1:
So I watched this video by Sixty Symbols (_URL_0_) where they explained the Casimir effect and how it implies that black holes should be losing mass.
What caught my attention though is how he says that energy is "created" at the event horizon of the black hole but due to the conservation of energy the energy it *must* draw from the mass of the black hole. The question I'm asking is; How can we assume that the energy really *must* be conserved, and if we can, how how can we be sure the black hole really is losing mass and that the energy really isn't coming from something completely different?
Q2:
~~This one is a bit simpler. From what I've gathered by reading about and watching videos about physics, quantum physics allows for assuming everything *potentially* exists (in some funky field where waves are what "materialize *arbitrary events*") but that some events are just more likely than others due to waves interfering. Is this somewhat in the right direction or am I interpreting this wrong?~~
From my response to /u/pnjun:
*"1: About the other part, I've been thinking about it and have realized that if we just consider everything to be waves as opposed to particles there would't be any drastic difference. For example the wave, just like a particle, would have to propagate to wherever it is going to exist (this however makes quantum entanglement problematic). And why can things collide when waves just pass through each other?*
*Oh man this is getting advanced.*
*Also, have we ruled out that energy actually is conserved but appears in the form of the Casimir effect?"*
Thanks in advance for the answers!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22frer/how_can_we_know_the_energy_of_the_universe_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgmdnyw",
"cgmdptb",
"cgmduw1"
],
"score": [
5,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"1. Energy is not conserved on a cosmic scale. Energy conservation is only a valid assumption for a time-invariant universe. Since our universe is expanding, energy is not conserved.\n\n2. I must say I don't really understand your question. What do you mean by \"quantum physics allows for assuming everything potentially exists (in some funky field where waves are what \"materialize arbitrary events\")\"?",
"Okay so we have this really famous theorem from Emmy Noether: For any symmetry of physics, there must be an associated conserved quantity.\n\nSo we have some neat mathematical ways of expressing physics, two of which are the \"Lagrangian\" or the \"Hamiltonian.\" And suppose I take those mathematical expressions and add some direction to the coordinates in the X direction. I then redo the math... and if the end result is the same (the terms due to the shift cancel out, say) then we say it is \"space-translation invariant.\" The physical system described doesn't change (invariant) to lateral shifts in space (space translation). Turns out the associated quantity is linear momentum in the same direction as the shift. \n\nIf I rotate the axes of the system or its description, and nothing changes, we say it's \"space rotation\" invariant, and the associated quantity is angular momentum.\n\nAnd if I shift the time coordinates, it is time-translation invariant, and the conserved quantity is energy. So whenever we can note that a system doesn't change depending on when I start the clock, we know that system conserves energy.",
"Q2: You are in the right direction... but be careful. I'm not sure about what you mean by exists, you could say that a particle exists, not sure about what you mean by \"everything potentially exists\". It's not that every event is permitted, some events are actually impossible (i.e. their probability is zero) and some are certain. Ask again if you want more =).\n\nQ1: I don't know black hole physics / cosmology very well (i'm just a master's student, not a researcher), but what i can say is that the conservation of energy follows from the time invariance of physics. If you believe the laws of physics do not change in time, then the total energy of a closed system is conserved; on small time scales (mind you, small means up to millions of years) this is a very good approximation, but the expansion of the universe makes things not time translation invariant, hence energy is not conserved in the long run."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRcmqZkGOK4"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ilvzp
|
why do european countries have to accept refugees from the middle east and elsewhere?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ilvzp/eli5_why_do_european_countries_have_to_accept/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuhjaz8",
"cuhjpb4",
"cuhlup4"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Because they have signed (at the very least) the [UN treaty related to status of refugees] (_URL_0_) ([full text] (_URL_1_)). That is, the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. All members of the European Union have signed] both. ",
"They, like most countries of the world, have agreed to the [United Nations treaties on refugee law](_URL_0_). Like many laws of this type, it was originally motivated by the large-scale movement of people fleeing oppression in WWII, and an attempt to avoid repeating the mistakes of that era. There's a [UN agency in charge of the overall process](_URL_1_), sort of, but a lot of the details are still up to national laws.\n\nIn any case, it's not supposed to be all Germany's (or whoever's) problem, and all the participating countries are supposed to work together to take in their \"fair share\" of refugees. But that gets complicated in the details. Right now the largest source of refugees is the war in Syria, and most people fleeing that are actually being supported by Turkey. Altogether 80% of the world's refugees are living in non-industrialized countries.\n\nIn the broader philosophical sense, they're being let in because of a sense of \"today you, tomorrow me\" rational self-interest in human rights. If there was ever a reason for large numbers of people to flee Germany for some reason (cough), they'd want their citizens to be protected.\n\n",
"It is worth note that the West is responsible for destabilizing many of these ME countries."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees",
"http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html"
],
[
"http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_High_Commissioner_for_Refugees"
],
[]
] |
||
3sn46b
|
why do mushrooms taste like meat?
|
I was feeling adventurous the other day and got mushrooms on my pizza instead of the plain cheese I usually get, and I remarked to my husband that they tasted very meaty. Does anyone know what causes this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sn46b/eli5_why_do_mushrooms_taste_like_meat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwypuu2",
"cwyq4re"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"They don't. \n\nMushrooms have a very earthy flavor, which is something that some meats also share, but they in no way actually taste like meat on their own. If you do not often eat meat on pizza that similarity may be what you are picking up on and you assume it is meaty flavor. ",
"Mushrooms sort of are meat. \n\nThey use similar chemical processes to animals, and they consume food rather than photosynthesis. On a chemical level, a mushroom is closer to an animal than a plant (though distinct from either). Because of this, they can replace meat nutritionally and often have a sort-of meatlike flavor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
lfrme
|
blood types. what are all the different types, what's the rarest, who can donate to who, and why can only some donate to others and others can't.
|
I've always been curious about it!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lfrme/eli5_blood_types_what_are_all_the_different_types/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2sbrtj",
"c2sbtna",
"c2sbrtj",
"c2sbtna"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"OK - I'll give it a go - it's been a few years since I looked at this - you all lemme know how I did....\n\nThe types are: A, B, O and AB. There's also an Rh Positive and Rh negative. We'll skip the Rh stuff till later.\n\nYou can think of the A and B types as being kinds of \"spikes\" or \"sticks\" on the surface of a red blood cell (RBC). 'A' sticks and 'B' sticks. Folks have one or the other, both or none. That's how you get the A, B, O and AB types. O type has no sticks. AB has both.\n\nThose 'sticks' are kind of like an ID flag. If you're a type A, your RBCs have type A sticks on them. Your body is 'used' to your red cells having those 'A' sticks on them and your immune system recognizes red cells with an 'A' stick as being yours, part of \"Us\".\n\nThe problem comes when you're, say, an A or O Type and you somehow get B blood in you (or some other kind of mis-match). Your body recognizes that B stick as \"Not ours\" and attacks it. Even if those red cells would do no harm and may actually help you. Because they're recognized as \"Not Us\", this causes your immune system to destroy those B type cells. That can cause a bunch of other problems.\n\nNow if you're an AB type - you can receive A, B, O and AB blood - because your body recognizes both A and B 'sticks' as being \"Us\". And O, having no sticks, doesn't cause a reaction either.\n\nAn O type person can only receive O blood as their immune system will recognize any stick as \"Not us\" and something to be attacked.\n\nO type blood is called \"The Universal Donar\" as their blood can be given to most anyone.\n\nAB type people are known as \"Universal Recipients\" as they can accept any donor's blood.\n\nAfter that - there's still the Rh factor to consider - those have to match as well. But that's a bit different. Suffice to say, so long as they match - you avoid problems.\n\nIn reality, there are many, many other 'factors' that can come into play. A, B, O, AB and Rh Pos and Rh Neg are just the more well known ones. There are many tests done on donor blood BEFORE it's given to a patient to make sure it's safe.\n\nMake sense?",
"Blood types have to do with the blood's antibodies and antigens.\n\nThe most common blood antibodies for transfusion are Anti-B and Anti-A.\nPeople with Anti-B antibodies can not receive blood unless it has Anti-B in it and people with Anti-A can not receive blood unless it has Anti-A in it. If you have Anti-B antibodies you have the blood type A (Not a typo) and if you have Anti-A antibodies you have the blood type B (Not a typo). If you have both Anti-A and Anti-B your bloody type is consider O and as such can donate to both Type A and Type B. If a person has nether he would be considered AB and as such could only give blood to a person who also has AB but receive blood from everyone.\n\nAs such among the general population AB is rarest blood type but also the least useful for donation as they can receive blood from people with the O type.\n\nThere are over 50 major Antigens in human blood. The most significant is D as if you receive blood that has the D Antigen and you don't normally have it you will probably have a reaction. If D is present the short hand would be + and if it's not present it would be -.\n\nSo the rarest **major** blood type is AB- with 0.9% of people in the USA. The most useful is O- cause you can give that to almost everyone one and that 6.6% in the USA. The most common is 0+ which 37.4%. \n\nBut as I mentioned there are over 50 Antigens and some of those Antigens are exceeding rare. For example people with hh antigen or bombay blood group can only receive blood from other with the hh antigen (O- does not work on them) That blood type is present in 0.0004% of people in the world.",
"OK - I'll give it a go - it's been a few years since I looked at this - you all lemme know how I did....\n\nThe types are: A, B, O and AB. There's also an Rh Positive and Rh negative. We'll skip the Rh stuff till later.\n\nYou can think of the A and B types as being kinds of \"spikes\" or \"sticks\" on the surface of a red blood cell (RBC). 'A' sticks and 'B' sticks. Folks have one or the other, both or none. That's how you get the A, B, O and AB types. O type has no sticks. AB has both.\n\nThose 'sticks' are kind of like an ID flag. If you're a type A, your RBCs have type A sticks on them. Your body is 'used' to your red cells having those 'A' sticks on them and your immune system recognizes red cells with an 'A' stick as being yours, part of \"Us\".\n\nThe problem comes when you're, say, an A or O Type and you somehow get B blood in you (or some other kind of mis-match). Your body recognizes that B stick as \"Not ours\" and attacks it. Even if those red cells would do no harm and may actually help you. Because they're recognized as \"Not Us\", this causes your immune system to destroy those B type cells. That can cause a bunch of other problems.\n\nNow if you're an AB type - you can receive A, B, O and AB blood - because your body recognizes both A and B 'sticks' as being \"Us\". And O, having no sticks, doesn't cause a reaction either.\n\nAn O type person can only receive O blood as their immune system will recognize any stick as \"Not us\" and something to be attacked.\n\nO type blood is called \"The Universal Donar\" as their blood can be given to most anyone.\n\nAB type people are known as \"Universal Recipients\" as they can accept any donor's blood.\n\nAfter that - there's still the Rh factor to consider - those have to match as well. But that's a bit different. Suffice to say, so long as they match - you avoid problems.\n\nIn reality, there are many, many other 'factors' that can come into play. A, B, O, AB and Rh Pos and Rh Neg are just the more well known ones. There are many tests done on donor blood BEFORE it's given to a patient to make sure it's safe.\n\nMake sense?",
"Blood types have to do with the blood's antibodies and antigens.\n\nThe most common blood antibodies for transfusion are Anti-B and Anti-A.\nPeople with Anti-B antibodies can not receive blood unless it has Anti-B in it and people with Anti-A can not receive blood unless it has Anti-A in it. If you have Anti-B antibodies you have the blood type A (Not a typo) and if you have Anti-A antibodies you have the blood type B (Not a typo). If you have both Anti-A and Anti-B your bloody type is consider O and as such can donate to both Type A and Type B. If a person has nether he would be considered AB and as such could only give blood to a person who also has AB but receive blood from everyone.\n\nAs such among the general population AB is rarest blood type but also the least useful for donation as they can receive blood from people with the O type.\n\nThere are over 50 major Antigens in human blood. The most significant is D as if you receive blood that has the D Antigen and you don't normally have it you will probably have a reaction. If D is present the short hand would be + and if it's not present it would be -.\n\nSo the rarest **major** blood type is AB- with 0.9% of people in the USA. The most useful is O- cause you can give that to almost everyone one and that 6.6% in the USA. The most common is 0+ which 37.4%. \n\nBut as I mentioned there are over 50 Antigens and some of those Antigens are exceeding rare. For example people with hh antigen or bombay blood group can only receive blood from other with the hh antigen (O- does not work on them) That blood type is present in 0.0004% of people in the world."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ccz2kj
|
Why wouldn't the armies of the 1700s and 1800s use something like armor to stop gunshots?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ccz2kj/why_wouldnt_the_armies_of_the_1700s_and_1800s_use/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ets612z"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There's always more to be said; while we wait for that, u/WARitter has dealt with this subject previously. [This thread asks](_URL_2_) basically the same question from another direction, and [in this answer](_URL_1_) he expounds further on the difficulties armour had to face to be effective in a world of increasingly effective gunpowder.\n\nAnd as it happens, the armies of the 1700s and 1800s did use armour - some heavy cavalry units called cuirassiers kept their armour throughout these periods. u/AncientHistory provides an overview of the effectiveness of cuirassier armour [in this answer.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5u85fp/how_effective_were_napoleonic_cuirass_at/",
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5udybq/how_effective_was_plate_armor_against_musketballs/",
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4y2d1k/how_and_why_did_armies_move_from_using_iron_armor/"
]
] |
||
2rn1ua
|
why does the periodic table allow us to predict the properties of other atoms
|
I realize it probably has something to do with the outer valence shell... Is it shaped the same way?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rn1ua/eli5_why_does_the_periodic_table_allow_us_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnhdh8c"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It first started off the other way. That is, scientists noticed that the then-known elements could be arranged in a grid that grouped common behaviors together.\n\nThe table had gaps then, which were predicted to be undiscovered elements. This later turned out to be true as new elements were discovered.\n\nTLDR, ELI5: The table was created from observing patterns, and the observed pattern from the table allows us to predict stuff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8jq5iy
|
why are foreign language classes and language immersion programs not taught from the most basic perspective (like elementary school)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8jq5iy/eli5_why_are_foreign_language_classes_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz1l9wi",
"dz1lbg0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the students know how to read and write in their own language.\n\nIn many languages the letter are identical. If you know one alphabet system learning to read another is easier then learning to read the first one.\n\nWhen you learn to write your own language you are learning to write a language you already can speak. Kids don't learn to speak their own language in kindergarten the know it from home.\n\nWhen you learn another language you learn to spell and to speak the words at the same time. \n\nThe brain and ability to learn change over time so the way that is good for a child is not necessary good for a adult.",
"The mind of a 5 year old works significantly differently than the mind of a 16 year old or a 25+ year old. 5 year old's brains are still forming, and so can intuitively pick up things like language in a way someone over 25 can't do. Someone who is 16 can still do this to a degree, but it's significantly harder than when they were 5.\n\nBut aside from that, older people are taught things assuming they already know the basic logic and just need to apply it differently.\n\nSince I wasn't taught much formal English grammar in elementary school, but was taught French in elementary school, I explain all my tenses and structures with their French names by default, even when I'm describing the English version."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
34p91a
|
Is there a magnetic field created by the quarks in a neutral particle, like the neutron? And if not, why?
|
since quarks have charge and they constantly move I'd expect them to produce a magnetic field.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/34p91a/is_there_a_magnetic_field_created_by_the_quarks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqwwseg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The neutron does have a magnetic dipole moment, as explained [here](_URL_0_) in some detail. The magnetic properties of the neutron are often exploited in neutron scattering to study the structure & dynamics of various materials, perhaps most clearly in the [neutron spin echo method](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_spin_echo"
]
] |
|
f1eb7a
|
Could you actually fall into a black hole ?
|
As I understand it, time goes faster and faster (in your reference frame) as you approach the speed of light (in the black hole's reference frame) when falling into a black hole, until it eventually gets infinitely fast.
But thanks to Hawkins radiation black holes have finite lifespans, so woudn't the black hole die before you reach its event horizon ?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f1eb7a/could_you_actually_fall_into_a_black_hole/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fh4vajg",
"fh5er8j"
],
"score": [
38,
6
],
"text": [
"If you jump into a black hole, you will pass the event horizon and reach the singularity within a finite amount of time. For most stellar sized black holes, this takes a small fraction of a second from your point of view though as you're shredded by tidal forces so you won't be alive for it. For super-massive black holes the time spend inside might be on the order of hours. (Corrected from seconds)\n\nYou also won't witness the lifespan of the universe or anything on your doomed journey. There will be some final light signal which reaches you before you reach the singularity. In other words if you were watching a distant clock, there would be a final time you would read if tidal forces hadn't yet killed you.\n\nMass loss due to Hawking radiation is an incredibly slow process. And you as an in-falling observer won't notice anything strange falling in, like excessive temperatures. The black hole will only appear \"hot\" if you accelerate away from it, like with a rocket.\n\nNow... here's an interesting question, what if you jumped into a tiny black hole who is massively radiating energy? Presumably the singularity might wink-out or vanish before you reach it. I don't quite know the details of this question, but I suspect that infalling observers will always be able to reach the singularity before the black hole vanishes to avoid weird pesky non-physical paradoxes. The radiation pressure would also be significant preventing real matter from entering.",
"It appears you have the idea of the singularity and the event horizon slightly muddled. \n\nTime from your reference frame essentially always goes at the same speed. But in order for you to witness the universe ending etc., you would have to reach the singularity.\n\nThe singularity is far inside the event horizon of course.\n\nThe event horizon is often mistaken as the point in which gravity over comes light BECAUSE it’s faster/stronger than light. But that isn’t fully accurate. Anything beyond the event horizon still moves at speeds and time explainable by physics but all future points of that things position is not able to travel outside of the event horizon or interact with observers outside the horizon. \n\nE.G. seeing objects requires light to hit the object then bounce back into our eyes. But if that light never makes it back into our eyes then we see nothing. \n\nThis is why black holes appear black.\n\nSpace itself beyond the event horizon would appear to be somewhat normal even as an observer transitions into the event horizon. However the further inside one falls the more light from other angles can travel from a point to the observer. \n\nThis happens because gravity bends the light around and back To the observer. This stretches the observers field of view to the point at which the observer will eventually be able to see themselves. Even the back of their own head."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1gmqeg
|
how do all planets become to be near perfect spheres?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gmqeg/eli5_how_do_all_planets_become_to_be_near_perfect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"calqr03"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As Carl Sagan once explained in Cosmos: (paraphrasing)\n\nTake a ball of clay (not spherical, just a rough shape) of clay, then put your hand on top and push down, then turn it over and do it to that side, then keep turning it over in different angles and pushing down on top. Eventually, you will end up with a spherical ball. \n\nThis is pretty much what gravity is doing to everything all the time, hence why many objects in the universe are spheres. The larger the object, the larger the mass, and hence the more effect gravity has on objects on the surface. Compare that to an asteroid that could be shaped like a potato, the mass is not nearly as large, and hence gravity does not push down as hard, which allows it to keep its shape of a potato."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
n3w6o
|
why don't gas giants solidify?
|
So, I can only come up with two potential energy sources that can keep them gassy:
- centrifugal force
- internal heating (similar to a sun)
both of those don't really make sense to me, since 1. as far as I know they are (at least some of them) very cold, and while they rotate quicker than earth relative to their size, they don't even nearly rotate quick enough to keep all their matter in the form of a gas.
So how come they don't collapse ?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n3w6o/why_dont_gas_giants_solidify/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c362628",
"c362628"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"At the temperature they're at, they're gasses.\n\nThere's not a lot of ways to loose heat, besides radiating in space. If you're orbiting a sun there's an influx of heat. These usually balance each other. So temperature should remain constant.",
"At the temperature they're at, they're gasses.\n\nThere's not a lot of ways to loose heat, besides radiating in space. If you're orbiting a sun there's an influx of heat. These usually balance each other. So temperature should remain constant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
51hryl
|
Are invasive species (such as lion fish in the Gulf of Mexico) just natural selection, accelerated by humans introducing species into new environments?
|
I feel as if humans lowered the barrier for the dominant species to get from point A (where it originally was) to point B (where it's considered an invasive species) but that it might have happened naturally, in the long run.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/51hryl/are_invasive_species_such_as_lion_fish_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7cwsqf",
"d7eamaa"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's doubtful. Lion Fish are a small and very slow moving fish that survive in warm waters down to 300 ft.\n\nIt's very unlikely that one could survive a trip across the Atlantic Ocean from the Indian Ocean through the Suez canal (their closest natural habitat to the east coast of the US) There's nothing for them to eat in the middle of the ocean. \n\nThey definitely wouldn't survive the cold waters of the South sea (going around the bottom of South America) or, a trip through the fresh water of the Panama canal. \n\nIt would take the lion fish evolving into different species or, a massive geological change in the oceans to make it possible. ",
"Transoceanic introductions do occur, but generally very infrequently and with varying levels of success. It's how islands such as Hawaii can have birds and plants present. \n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is an article about a dock from Japan made the trip all the way to Oregon following the tsunami in 2012. Granted, the structure was man-made, but it gives a good example for how plants and animals can make such a long trip. The big difference between natural introductions and anthropogenic introductions is frequency. We can move materials thousands of miles a day, every day, so the chances for an unintended introduction to occur are much greater. Some natural introductions are extremely unlikely, like the example of Lion fish in /u/Jutnob's example."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/06/japanese_tsunami_dock_came_bea.html"
]
] |
|
2cbwmc
|
why are we investing billions in fighter jets? shouldn't they be replaced by drones?
|
NATO, mostly the United States, is investing billions in projects like the F-35 and the F-22, but why? Can't drones in the near future do exactly what fighter jets do now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cbwmc/eli5_why_are_we_investing_billions_in_fighter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjdwgm5",
"cjdwh97",
"cjeddy0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > near future do exactly what fighter jets do now?\n\nmagical word: near future. they can't do that now. and probably for quite some time they will not be as good as humans.\n\nand second thing, drones can be jammed, with planes it's much, much harder.",
"Drones are only effective when the enemy does not possess any significant anti-air assets, such as fighting insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. Otherwise even shoulder-launched missiles or anti-aircraft guns can post a significant threat to them.\n\nIt is questionable if the US needs \"5th-generation\" aircraft like the F-22 or the F-35 when it's unlikely that they're going to fight an enemy with a modern air force anytime soon, but that does not mean that drones will necessarily be a replacement. At least not yet with current technology.",
"Current drones have 1 fatal flaw: the link to the operator. \n\nStill having to control the drones from (hundreds ?) kilometers away introduces several problems, such as: \n\n* Being susceptible to ECM, e.g. Jamming of the frequencies. And if the enemy has the capabilities to engage 5th gen strike/fighters, they would probably also have the capabilities to try to jam 5th-gen strike/fighter drones.\n * At worst this may also mean hacking (through social engineering ?), but this is pretty unlikely.\n\n* Being very rubust to any maneuvers the plane does. Currently thats not a problem, as drones always have the same orientation and dont fly or turn very fast. But if want to make a fighter into a drone, you need a stable connection even when the plane is flying upside down at mach 1.2 making a 7G maneuver. \n\n* Input Latency. If your drones has an input lag of a second because your signal needs to travel over half the world involving slow-ish satelite connections you are at a significant disadvantage against any enemy you encounter. \n\nAll this could be eventually solved through solid AI, but its still a long way off, and even if you have the technology (which also needs to be shielded against EMPs) you still have ethic, legal and political problems at hand. Noone likes an AI going around killing people. \n\nYou also need to consider that developing manned 5th gen planes gives you a lot of technology usefull in the future. E.g. all the advantages in Radar, sensor fusion, stealth and so on that went into the F-35 and F-22 will also be available once you decide you want to builds strike/fighter drones.\n\nOn the other hand, the next bomber of the US will very likely have optional unmanned capacities. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
52trfy
|
before modern day lawn mowers existed, how were golf courses like st. andrews able to cut & maintain that much land dating back to the late 1700's?
|
Obviously terrain comes into play as it was a links style course. I've always wondered how they were able to cover, cut and prepare something so massive in area with few tools.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52trfy/eli5_before_modern_day_lawn_mowers_existed_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7n7zyd",
"d7n8rxn",
"d7n9sqh",
"d7ncogb"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Modern mowers were invented in the 1830s.\n\nBefore that, they'd either have peasants go out there and scythe the grass down, or they'd have flocks of sheep graze it down.",
"Mainly it was just labor intensive work of using a scythe. Having a large manicured lawn was all a part of ostentatiously showing off your wealth.",
"Mostly peasant labor to maintain the grass with various hand tools like a scythe and even scissors to maintain the lawn. Sometimes livestock like sheep and goats for the larger fairways.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nBack in the early 80s, I visited some wealthy extended family in Africa. They had an army of villagers who would come every few days and do this for all the wealthy families in the compound, then collect all the clippings to take back to feed their livestock.\n\nBack then labor was so cheap, motorized equipment wasn't worth it. I think now they have a few motorized stuff mostly for security reasons, fewer villagers need to be let into the compound.",
"I know others have already mentioned the scythe, but I wanted to leave this here:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nReally cool."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythe",
"http://www2.fiskars.com/Products/Gardening-and-Yard-Care/Grass-Shears"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/7NfYUEr996A?t=7m9s"
]
] |
|
5t68vm
|
why does rigor mortis make bodies stiff?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t68vm/eli5_why_does_rigor_mortis_make_bodies_stiff/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddkir7v"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the way your muscles work. The muscles have fibers that extend and contract using the energy of ATP molecules. Those fibers are mainly made up of actin and myosin. They slide along each other to make the movement. But the way it actually works is that ATP breaks the connections between those fibers to allow them to move in the first place. It's a third molecule, that I can't remember the name of, that actually does the pushing and pulling. With no ATP, after death, the actin and myosin fibers are locked together."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
gbce6
|
Scholars of Reddit, I'm a junior in college taking BS
Biology. I want to get into stem cell research but I
need to know how to get into the right track.
|
[](_URL_0_)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gbce6/scholars_of_reddit_im_a_junior_in_college_taking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1mah7p",
"c1mahn6"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Going to graduate school is pretty much a prerequisite to having a career in biology/medical research. But there are a lot of other things you can do now or before then:\n\nAre you at a research university? If so, there probably will be a lab researching stem cells of some kind. You should definitely look into it, and if there are labs, you should email the professor and talk to them about their research and ask if you would be willing to take you on as an assistant. Right now would be the best time to start getting into research; you might not have your own project and might be doing simple work for a while, but it'll give you experience and training and you'll better be able to figure out if you want to do research for a living. \n\nAnother thing that many people do is take a year or two after graduation to do full time work in a lab before graduate school as a lab assistant as well. There are some programs with the NIH and such that offer such training and positions, but most likely getting a job like this would be with specific labs, although now it won't be restricted to your university. Hopefully someone else can help with how exactly you would find positions like this if you don't already know someone.\n\nIf you are having trouble, then consider looking into working in other fields that isn't specifically stem cells. It might surprise you what you really become interested in with experience and you might find a new calling (I used to be really into molecular biology and genetics, but since have found neurobiology to be fascinating), but even if not any research experience you get in biology will be helpful for future work in stem cells.\n\nBut yeah, in the end you definitely will want to apply and go to graduate school. I would definitely advise you to get some research experience first though, not only because having some research experience is valued for graduate school but also because you have to know if you can see yourself working in a lab for the next fifty years more than a hospital.",
"I actually just met with my advisor about this yesterday! We decided the best course of action would be to change my major from a BS of Biology to a BS of Molecular Biology. I'm interested in the answers you get, as they apply to me as well!\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://reddit.com"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4kdwis
|
why would an asteroid collision wipe out life on earth?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kdwis/eli5_why_would_an_asteroid_collision_wipe_out/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3e5jdz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > but would it stay there for so long that we would all freeze to death?\n\nYour bigger worry is starving because all the plants have died out due to lack of sunlight. But yes it would stay up there for months AT LEAST.\n\nAssuming you weren't caught in the blast or any of the earthquakes or megatsunamis such an impact would cause of course."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
az0izr
|
how come when one really needs to go pee, they're completely okay when in any other room, but as soon as they reach the bathroom to relieve themselves, they almost pee their pants?
|
This never made sense to me, and whenever I try to come up with some definitive scientific answer, I never can!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/az0izr/eli5_how_come_when_one_really_needs_to_go_pee/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei4ikiy",
"ei4n4h8"
],
"score": [
17,
4
],
"text": [
"Classical Conditioning. If you ring a bell and then give a dog treat, and continously repeat this process until its engrained in the dog’s brain, then the next time you ring the bell, the dog will automatically salivate. Same with us and bathrooms. We see a bathroom, and then our brains automatically prepare for us to pee through years of conditioning.",
"Habituation can explain part of it, but the brain has a very complex interaction with our urinary system, and there are multiple, highly complex and not-well-understood inputs into the area which decides when our bladder empties.\n\nFirst, some anatomy. Our bladder leads to a tube called the urethra, which is where pee exits. The urethra has two sphincters (like valves, that block flow), which are called internal and external. The external sphincter we can control voluntarily, just by willing it. That's how you hold on when you're rushing to the bathroom. The internal sphincter is under involuntary control, it relaxes when our brain says \"time to wee\", no matter what we want. Finally, there's another muscle involved, which squeezes the bladder. We'll call it the bladder muscle (more proper name is detrusor).\n\nSo, when the brain decides to urinate, it squeezes the bladder muscle and relaxes the internal sphincter. If you agree with the decision, you relax your external sphincter and pee comes out.\n\nThe 'brain's' decision to pee is based on a number of things, including sex (remember, most mammals pee to indicate fertility / mating status!), and very importantly danger / threat. That's why you can't pee when somebody's watching you, because as an animal you wouldn't ever do that -- it's a great way to get eaten!\n\nYour bathroom is safe, it's familiar, and your brain has become accustomed to noticing that and the automatic part of peeing (bladder squeeze and internal release) both happen automatically. You're still doing the external squeeze, so you can hold it until the toilet and then ... external release and pee!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
z6mvm
|
What happened to the alleged cold fusion that Italian Andrea Rossi was working on?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/z6mvm/what_happened_to_the_alleged_cold_fusion_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c61wpjd",
"c61wws8"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Rossi was, I believe, convicted of fraud. [Take this claim with an entire mine of salt.](_URL_0_)\n\n[edit] the conviction was later reversed. It's still almost certainly a scam.",
"What happened is that Rossi is still doing whatever he thinks he's doing. He hasn't allowed anyone to look at his thing, or perform their own measurements. (and quite a lot of problems have been pointed out with how Rossi measured things)\n\nIt's a media story really, not a scientific one. The burden of proof is on Rossi, and he hasn't shown any.\n\nSee also: [Other threads](_URL_0_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46342612/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/fraud-claims-over-e-cat-cold-fusion-machine-heating/"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=rossi&restrict_sr=on"
]
] |
||
8yuykk
|
What would a day in the life of Marie Antoinette look like?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8yuykk/what_would_a_day_in_the_life_of_marie_antoinette/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2hvvfm"
],
"score": [
323
],
"text": [
"Marie Antoinette's days began with her own semi-public rising ceremony that paralleled the king's *lever*.\n\nUpon waking up around eight, she would be handed a dressing gown, and then take breakfast (little but coffee or hot chocolate) either in bed or at a small table nearby. Some mornings, a tub would be rolled into the room for her to bathe in while wearing a flannel gown; after getting out, she would be dried off and dressed in another shift and dressing gown. Either way, she would get back in bed to read or embroider for a while; at this point more people were admitted to the room, like her doctor and surgeon, the king's doctors and surgeons, her private secretary. Eventually, the first *femme de chambre* would bring in a book full of swatches of fabric matching all of the gowns in the wardrobe, and the queen would stick a pin into the ones that she intended to wear during the day: one [court gown](_URL_1_) for the pre-midday-meal ceremonies, one [casual outfit](_URL_2_) for the afternoon, and one [formal gown](_URL_0_) for the evening. Servants would bring these out wrapped in silk taffeta, as well as a taffeta-covered basket containing a couple of chemises and neck handkerchiefs for the day. Earlier in her reign, the male viewers would leave and individual pieces of clothing would be handed by a servant to the highest-ranking lady present to give to the queen or help the queen into - this could lead to farcical situations if everyone didn't get to the room on time; her waiting-woman Henriette Campan later wrote a memoir that documented one instance where the queen's shift had to be passed from one woman to the next as new ladies and princesses walked in, while Marie Antoinette stood naked in the middle of the floor. However, once Rose Bertin became an important part of the queen's dressing routine, she would retreat to the closet to dress after the toilette described in a bit: the ladies were not enthusiastic about giving the tradeswoman a place of prominence that implied she outranked them. Around noon, the maids who had been with her were replaced by new ones in full court dress, and more people would come into the room (such as the Princes of the blood, captains of the guard, and other officers). The queen would make her full hair-and-makeup toilette at a table brought into the middle of the room, all of her ladies would join her, and then she would set out of her chambers to meet people who were to be presented to her.\n\nAt this point, she would meet up with the king for mass, normally a small ceremony. The two would then dine in the \"cabinet of the nobility\", a room attached to her chambers, with titled nobles holding specific serving appointments and anyone who could make it to Versailles watching, and then split apart again so that Marie Antoinette could change out of her hoops and train and into something more comfortable. \n\nAfter the early-afternoon dinner (sometimes followed by another dinner with the Duchesse de Polignac, her BFF; perhaps it was necessary, given that the queen was known to have barely touched her food at the public meals), her time was more her own. This was when she might socialize with her ladies, read or be read to, receive more people, embroider, walk around the gardens, etc. Then she would head back to her rooms for yet another change of clothes, into the formal \"*robe parée*\" that was appropriate for the supper and card parties which, like dinner, were fairly public. She might then go on to a more private party with close friends, or go out to the opera.\n\nWhen she was ready for bed, the queen would be undressed in much the same way she'd been dressed in the morning. A basket with her nightclothes (a lace-trimmed shift, loose corsets, and a nightcap) would be brought out, and her clothing taken back to the wardrobe to be meticulously mended, cleaned, and stored. If the king were going to spend the night with her, she would be put to bed first; then he would come in through the door that connected their rooms after his own *coucher* ceremony that put him into his nightclothes. In the morning, before the full *lever*, one of the queen's servants would open the door to put him back into the hands of his male staff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.mimicofmodes.com/2012/09/galerie-des-modes-8e-cahier-1e-figure.html",
"https://www.mfa.org/collections/object/gallerie-des-modes-et-costumes-fran%C3%A7ais-14e-cahier-des-costumes-fran%C3%A7ais-8e-suite-dhabillemens-%C3%A0-la-mode-en-1778-o80-habit-de-cour-de-satin-cerise-312629",
"https://www.mfa.org/collections/object/gallerie-des-modes-et-costumes-fran%C3%A7ais-31e-cahier-de-costumes-fran%C3%A7ais-24e-suite-dhabillemens-%C3%A0-la-mode-en-1780-gg181-robe-%C3%A0-la-polonoise-349541"
]
] |
||
40busm
|
what causes abnormally high jackpots? is is just chance and replication? or are there other mechanisms involved?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40busm/eli5_what_causes_abnormally_high_jackpots_is_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cysyb22",
"cysyc2b"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"As the jackpot rises and it becomes more publicized, more people play, which adds more money to the jackpot. If this continues through several cycles with no winner, they can grow rather dramatically, as we've seen recently with the $400 Million bump. ",
"For the powerball, if nobody wins one week, the money roll over to the next and continues to add in new tickets. Plus when it gets high, a lot more people but tickets so it compounds a bit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2k3i17
|
why is breakfast the only meal where it's socially acceptable to only eat a dessert? (doughnuts, pancakes, cinnamon rolls, muffins, etc.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k3i17/eli5_why_is_breakfast_the_only_meal_where_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clhjhqe",
"clhjkua",
"clhjsih",
"clhjtgf",
"clhjunh",
"clhjyom",
"clhkc1z",
"clhke6l",
"clhkmyw",
"clhl79x",
"clhldxj",
"clhlove",
"clhlusv",
"clhlw37",
"clhlx99",
"clhm3yn",
"clhm9ij",
"clhmui4",
"clhmxku",
"clhnil7",
"clhnkdy",
"clhnp9u",
"clho70q",
"clhohwc",
"clholrq",
"clholvs",
"clhotjx",
"clhp74i",
"clhppa0",
"clhpqnm",
"clhpwee",
"clhq4ov",
"clhq7td",
"clhqcyl",
"clhqcyo",
"clhqers",
"clhqgm9",
"clhqh74",
"clhqi4c",
"clhqil4",
"clhqmpp",
"clhqpb1",
"clhqryg",
"clhqsij",
"clhqy1j",
"clhqz6x",
"clhqzh4",
"clhqzxz",
"clhr0f8",
"clhr0o7",
"clhr3p7",
"clhr550",
"clhr5y7",
"clhra9v",
"clhrdmk",
"clhrew8",
"clhrgkq",
"clhrivu",
"clhrmf9",
"clhrw30",
"clhryes",
"clhryhz",
"clhrzk4",
"clhs2le",
"clhs3fw",
"clhs7yz",
"clhsauz",
"clhsdni",
"clhsldq",
"clhsmpo",
"clhsojp",
"clhsvtp",
"clhswaq",
"clhswcd",
"clhsxdk",
"clht1wf",
"clht2ub",
"clht57q",
"clht6jw",
"clht91x",
"clhtdgs",
"clhte09",
"clhtk9c",
"clhtktk",
"clhtozo",
"clhtt08",
"clhu67x",
"clhubi3",
"clhuhmc",
"clhujjh",
"clhujmd",
"clhupdg",
"clhv2za",
"clhvi6b",
"clhvkd2",
"clhvolm",
"clhw4dt",
"clhw5nq",
"clhw6le",
"clhwb01",
"clhwf4w",
"clhwph2",
"clhx00b",
"clhx1qb",
"clhx2qb",
"clhxer5",
"clhxitq",
"clhxpuy",
"clhy0vb",
"clhyb6k",
"clhz0fg",
"clhz2ex",
"clhz90k",
"clhzfrz",
"clhziff",
"clhzj0i",
"clhzphv",
"clhzwe7",
"cli0dyj",
"cli0ine",
"cli0ixz",
"cli0ku9",
"cli0ldq",
"cli0t58",
"cli0vd7",
"cli1eho",
"cli1hlg",
"cli1j7c",
"cli1xg9",
"cli1xtp",
"cli2ehm",
"cli2fu5",
"cli2m23",
"cli2uz8",
"cli3jbc",
"cli3mqw",
"cli3uib",
"cli46xv",
"cli47gr",
"cli4eon",
"cli4foo",
"cli4kxl",
"cli4qck",
"cli4qz2",
"cli4twf",
"cli54wk",
"cli5iys",
"cli5j0n",
"cli7mzp",
"cli7o89",
"cli81ed",
"cli8q8k",
"cli93tn",
"cli949p",
"cli9eh1",
"cli9o55",
"cli9olt",
"cli9y3h",
"clib1vh",
"clib4u7",
"clic2bv",
"clic40r",
"clicqyr",
"clicrkb",
"clicsx4",
"clicsy6",
"clicxyz",
"clid8z7",
"cliea55",
"clieakz",
"cliei26",
"clieidf",
"clif2ew",
"clifapn",
"cligchb",
"cligsln",
"clikjri",
"cliq9fq"
],
"score": [
153,
11,
71,
4,
17,
1940,
35,
67,
603,
199,
2,
303,
468,
3,
3,
23,
2,
7,
8,
4,
2,
22,
2,
73,
64,
2,
5,
3,
12,
53,
19,
3,
10,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2776,
2,
2,
2,
138,
2,
17,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
189,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"*You*, OP, need to start counting dessert as a meal.",
"I honestly don't know the answer, but it's a great question. Whenever we have sweets in the morning, a friend of mine comments that we're basically eating 'candy for breakfast', given that doughnuts, pop-tarts, etc have as much, if not more, sugar than a candy bar. This observation is usually followed by \"CANDY FOR BREAKFAST!!\" in excited little kid voice.",
"I don't know about the social aspect of it, but I've always felt that there must be some physiological reason why we ended up having such sugary foods be typical breakfast fare. My theory has always been that our bodies need the quick energy to get going in the morning, and so we crave sugary foods early in the morning more than we'd crave them during the rest of the day (in general). Same idea as a cup of coffee to get you going. \n\n*If someone with a better understanding of the human body wants to verify or discredit my theory, that'd be helpful. I'm only theorizing, I don't know for certain.*",
"I've always looked at eating things like doughnuts in the morning as a matter of convenience. Breakfast is often more rushed than other meals, so anything you can eat on the go is going to be popular. That doesn't really explain why you couldn't just grab a piece of fruit though. Low blood sugar might be a factor in the craving for early morning sweets. Also, at least in the US, breakfast isn't really viewed as an essential meal. We've all know it's good to eat a healthy meal to start the day, but it's kind of a pain, so we just grab something quick to hold us until lunch.",
"A good question and one I don't have an immediate hypothesis to explain. I wonder if some of it has to do with convenience food in the last few decades. Originally 50 or 60 years ago flapjacks or griddle cakes would have been served as part of a huge farm breakfast replete with eggs, bacon, ham, coffee, so you had a huge caloric base to start your chores at 5 AM. Densely caloric and balanced with some protein, I think it has been transformed.\n The sugary treats you mention are very easy to eat, in some cases chewing is almost redundant, doughnuts, crullers, pie etc. almost melts in your mouth. It can be bolted down with little preparation or effort. Some java and you are ready to start your work day. Just the rawest of caloric fuel so you can labor. Plus it is the easiest of foods to pick up and eat during commutes, standing or walking. So convenience most certainly plays a large part. ",
"In Australia none of the things you have mentioned are breakfast foods. \n\nThough we do have sugary cereal so I guess there's that. ",
"I always thought it was because sweet things pair well with coffee, and most people have coffee with their breakfast.",
"[Relevant pictures](_URL_0_)\n\nIt seems to vary ALOT across the globe.",
"It isn't...in many cultures, breakfast is a soup, noodles, etc. ",
"It's not really socially acceptable in England.. well not to people I know. I guess pancakes is okay but I don't think you'd eat it regularly.. and I suppose people do eat Starbucks & muffins etc but most people I know would think that's like a once a week/one off sort of treat because it's just so unhealthy.\nBut we do eat a butt load of sugary cereals instead!!\n",
"Could be because people are typically stressed for time and cooking a good meal takes time. Whether it's McDonald's bacon, egg, cheese biscuit or a donut, it's sure to quickly deliver a rush of energy in the morning.",
"Goddamnit, I feel American for saying this...\n\n\nWhen the fuck did pancakes become dessert?",
"Edit: why is breakfast the only meal in AMERICA where it's socially acceptable to only eat dessert? ",
"Probably because junk food is quick, easy, and cheap. ",
"Pancakes sure, muffins maybe, but doughnuts and cinnamon rolls? Really?\n\nI like sweet foods, but eating a doughnut / cinnamon roll after just waking up sounds horrible.",
"I guess we puertorricans are the opposite. We would never eat a doughnut and consider it a breakfast. Hell, the last thing I want early in the morning is something as sweet as a muffin or a doughnut. I would rather have some toast, bacon, or scrambled eggs. My point is, not everyone wants sweets in the morning",
"I always figured it was because those things have a lot of sugar and a bunch of sugar would give you a quick energy boost early in the day. ",
"Personally, I would like non-sugary foods for breakfast; eggs, bacon, sausage, toast, etc. But since I am in a rush in the morning I just grab a black coffee and then whatever. Usually the whatever that pairs well with black coffee is a pastry. ",
"It's a cultural thing I guess. Mexican breakfasts aren't desserts, we prefer savory, spicy, delicious goodness. ",
"It's something about the distribution of wealth in United States I think, that relates a lot to people who can only afford sugary, unhealthy breakfast items. Something about it has changed over time from people with money being able to do it, to poor people having to do it. You don't really see rich white men eating Cinnamon Toast Crunch and doughnut holes for breakfast. But then again what the fuck do I know. \n",
"Very good question. I remember telling people I would eat left over dinner as breakfast and people would lose their minds! Really? How is my left over spagetti worst then your donut?",
"Who the fuck eats doughnuts for breakfast? :/ \n\nOatmeal and milk. That will last you a long time, its super easy to make and its delicious and super healthy for you.",
"I see absolutely nothing at all wrong with eggs and pancakes for supper.",
"I'm not sure where you're from but in many places the foods you mentioned would not be considered regular breakfast foods. Here in the UK we would perhaps eat those sorts of things on a Sunday brunch or similar but even then it usually wouldn't be by itself.\n\nOne possible reason I can think of though is that desserts are high energy foods and therefore might be somewhat appropriate for providing a kickstart to an active day. Because it is eaten first thing in the morning, breakfast is the meal after which you are the most likely to properly burn off any calories gained, in comparison to your evening meal after which most people go to bed and are unlikely to work off any of the energy gained from a large, calorific meal.",
"I think that is an American thing. My parents are immigrants, and that stuff was certainly not a feature of my breakfast menu. \n\nConvenience probably plays a big part. Sugary stuff doesn't get stale as fast as plain bread (the sugar helps retain moisture), so it doesn't have to be fresh-baked to taste good. And there are plenty of people to tell you what a bad choice that is, with the energy running out by mid morning at best.",
"It's all about those omelettes with bacon and sasuage. Leave that sugary stuff to thw children. ",
"When you awaken your body is in a catabolic state (not building anything but burning). Your body doesn't want this so the first thing you grab is something that is quickly turned to energy. Simple carbohydrates like glucose are the easiest thus you eat sugary foods to reverse that catabolic state.",
"Eat a chocolate chip pancake for breakfast, nobody bats and eye. Eat a chocolate chip cookie for breakfast and everyone loses their mind. I dont know why this is. Tradition at this point",
"In the US, we have IHOP. So..... you can have that stuff for any meal. I have breakfast for dinner all the time. Nothing beats chocolate chip pancakes at 7pm on a Tuesday. :D",
"Im no expert, but when I switch to a low carbohydrate high fat diet I did copious amounts of research beforehand. Here are some points as to why we eat a carbohydrate rich breakfast/diet. (This will all be focused on American Culture, as opposed to other world views)\n\n1. During our nightly fast our body uses store energy to maintain itself (at a reduced rate). We replenish these reserves in the morning by breaking fast, traditionally with fruits and grains. Which have readily available source of sugars and carbs.\n2. Americans have been told for a long time that Carbohydrates are good and Fats are bad. Starting the day with carbohydrates is a great way to start the day. Sugar tends to find a weird kind of back seat to the argument in some.\n3. Our agrarian roots also contribute to this. For a farmer who needs to start early in the day, making a complicated breakfast of meats and fruit (which tend to not be available all year round) would take too long. Left over pastries, or a quick fry up of last nights biscuit batter creates a very nourishing meal with so salted meats. \n4. Convenience. Its a lot easier to eat bread and pastries than a greasy piece of meat or sticky/juicy piece of fruit on the run.\n5. Finally, breakfast is seen as the most important meal of the day to some. Its thought to provide the energy you need to function throughout the day. Eating dessert type things in the morning means that those calories and nutrients will last you until the evening meal.\n\nWe have socially accepted the idea of eating dessert for breakfast out of the concept of shear efficiency. Dessert is fast, simple, and loaded with easy energy so that you can work until your arms fall off.\n\nEdit: [Here is a interesting site looking at breakfast around the world](_URL_0_)",
"God damn you, now my pregnant fat ass needs a Cinnabon. ",
"I don't know where it came from... But nutrition wise this is the worst meal to eat sugary foods for. I mean, it's never good on your pancreas, but going from an 8 hour fast instantly to a high 70-80 GI (glycemic index) is a great way to ensure that you get type 2 diabetes. Eat some bran for breakfast, or nuts or something",
"Because you are American?",
"You're an adult. Fuck what everything else thinks, eat what you want.\n\nThat's the advantage of being an adult.",
"I dont think it is common to eat those things you listed for breakfast at all outside the US.\nIn the nordic countries we eat oatmeal cereal, or bread or some other type of cereal. We dont eat doughnuts or pancakes or cinnamon rolls or muffins for breakfast at all.",
"I'm not sure when all the sugary treats became so popular. However, I have heard that historically, breakfast was always the largest meal of the day. This was because in earlier periods of history, most people had manual occupations in which they would be working long hours, such as farming, industrial labor or strenuous manual work. A huge breakfast was needed to sustain the day. ",
"My best guess is that those foods were initially adopted in the US as desserts specifically to pair with/follow healthier breakfast foods -- bacon, eggs, toast, etc. Over time, as the industrial work schedule took prominence, people had less time to prepare a real breakfast, so the simplest and most calorie efficient foods -- donuts, muffins, cinnamon rolls, etc. -- became the go-to food for a quick breakfast. \n\nIn the case of pancakes, they're still primarily a dessert to go with breakfast. Most people serve it with eggs and meat or something like it.",
"Go away Leslie, stop talking about breakfast foods.",
"Those aren't breakfast foods, those are foods that accompany coffee/tea. As our lifestyle has evolved to where we no longer eat a full breakfast, but rather we caffeinate and maybe eat something to go with it, pastries have evolved into de facto \"breakfast\" foods.",
"It was once explained to me that you can eat what you want for breakfast because you have the rest of the day to burn those calories off.",
"Breakfast is, as the name states, breaking your fast. This means for the regular person, you should be consuming carbs. Consuming sugar allows for a burst of energy early in his he day, which is supported by the influx of other carbs (though generally non-complex) that will keep you going until around lunchtime. The idea is that you don't burn fat and muscle stores, i.e. when people don't eat breakfast.",
"This is prevalent in America. It stems from the days of farming from sun up to sun down when a high caloric meal was required to get you through a physically demanding day until dinner was served.",
"Furthermore, why is breakfast the only meal where it's socially acceptable to eat the same thing every day?\n\nEat the same thing for breakfast every day, and nobody bats an eyelid.\n\nEat the same thing for dinner two nights in a row, and EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MIND!",
"Breakfast is the first meal of the day, and we often want to load up on energy first thing to give us a good run throughout the day. While what you're mentioning should be part of your breakfast and not the complete meal, and are generally things that give you a good shot of early energy before you go out to greet the day. If you are on the farm, where most of our American diet comes from, these quick and sugary energy filled sides make a great kick starter before a long day and can help keep your energy up with smaller lunches and diners (where you may not have as much time to prepare or to eat) \n\nWhen you load your fat and carbs early in the day then you have more time to burn them off compared to later in the day or at night when you are going to bed. If you have all day to keep that doughnut from turning into fat it is better to eat it at breakfast and not after dinner.",
"Could this be an American thing? As a swede I would never eat a doughnut or a muffin for breakfast. Can't imagine any of my friends would either. I eat 2 sandwiches every morning. ",
"UK here, pancakes and cinnamon rolls are rare occasions ( birthdays and such ) but no one eats doughnuts or muffins unless there having a crazy moment.",
"I have had curry for breakfast, i would recommend it, it really tastes amazing and sets your mouth ready for the day ",
"After having slept for the night your blood sugar tends to be low. The best way to get your blood sugar up is to eat sugary foods. That's why breakfasts tend to have simple sugars like juice, fruit, cereal, and all of the dessert like foods you mentioned.",
"In most cultures, the #1 thing that's important in breakfast is that it's fast/easy to make. When you're running out the door, you don't have the time to make a full dinner. In America where desserts are popular for breakfast, we have a strong agricultural history. Back in the day, you needed tons of calories to get you started in the morning, so it would make sense to eat high calorie foods for breakfast. Pair that with how yummy pancakes are, it makes sense",
"Okay, so as far as I can see, nobody is answering your question. \n\nBut, as most have already said, breakfasts in other parts of the world are completely different than here in America. \n\nThe reason people in America eat a high sugar/carb breakfast, is because back when most people were still farming, they'd work all day without getting a lunch or a small one at least. Their breakfast needed to give them enough calories to get through the day. Carbohydrates are the most caloric dense of the macronutrients (fat, protein, carbs) and this would give them enough energy to get the hard work they needed to do done. \n\nNow, it's not necessary to eat a sugary, high calorie breakfast as most people simply don't need it. But it's just carried over with our society as being \"normal\". ",
"Fuck social acceptance, eat whatever you want,whenever, unless you're a cannibal, if so, stop that.",
"All those you listed are carbs. Carbs fuel you for the day!\n\nOh yeah, and I'm lazy.",
"I can't believe no one has said this yet but the fat scares and things like the food pyramid (heavily influenced by the grain industry) caused a big shift away from 'steak eggs and buttered bacon' type breakfasts. Most cultures have more substancial foods for breakfast, the US is a bit of an exception due to this backlash and great marketing. ",
"It's gonna sound like a cliché but in my country I have seen people eating everyday tacos, gorditas and tamales for breakfast, guess which country :) ",
"Ah, America. Land of the busy and home of the productive. \n\nFun fact: Doughnuts have been around for a long time, but their popularity became bigger in WWI as a simple sweet dough fried in pork fat. \n\nI digress, as many of you wonderful world travelers have mentioned - breakfast varies around the world. \n\nAmerica has a penchant for high carbohydrate foods with little nutritional value, not just in the morning but through out the day, but we like to add that sugar early because it gives us a sugar high. We want items that are easy to take with us as we scramble off to work: doughnuts, muffins, bagels, etc. And why? Because we need a burst of energy to get our day started. Sugar does this, just like caffeine (the most popular breakfast item in North America).\n\nPancakes, a cousin of the crepe and probably the earliest and most widespread cereal food eaten in prehistoric societies (I know, right!), is paired with syrup but doesn't necessarily have to be. It can come with meats, legumes, soups, etc.\n\nNinja Edit: Wikipedia and the Internet get all the credit.",
"One time my ex brought home cookies from work the night before and as I was leaving the next morning I grabbed one and ate it and she was offended. \"You can't eat a cookie for breakfast!\" and I was like \"why not? how is it different from a donut or pancake with syrup?... breakfast cookie\" for some reason the idea of a breakfast cookie really irritated her. \"THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BREAKFAST COOKIE!\" she yelled. The next week I was at the supermarket and right there in the cookie isle in a package with big bold letters... pepridge farm or something.. \"Breakfast Cookies\" I sent her a picture and immediately got a text back \"THERE'S NO SUCH THING!\" \n",
"We live in a society that is clueless about health and nutrition. Society would think that carbs = energy. Therefore doughnuts, pancakes, etc are carbs which equal energy. However, they do not understand the difference between complex and simple sugars and the effects it has on your body. Back in the day, you eat a donut first thing in the am, you get a sugar rush, you're energized. Later in the day, you crash but think it's just life making you tired.\n",
"Things like cinnamon rolls and pancakes and such are very cheap, and as such make great staples. Same with cereal, which is mostly oats and sugar, two of the cheapest things money can buy. Plus, the huge amount of carbohydrates in that doughnut/pancake/cinnamon bun helps give you plenty of energy for that after sleep/during work grog",
"I like to eat rice and eggs (runny or poached) for breakfast. Pancakes or French Toast would be a special occasion thing.",
"In the U.S., donuts, muffins, and hand-held pastries for breakfast come from a variety of immigrant backgrounds, but they all share a similar advantage: they were a deep fried or baked item that could be easily packed or stuffed in a pocket for a person to eat on their way out to the fields, on their way to work, etc. and could be eaten either warm or cold. \n\nDonuts, in particular, were more of a rare occasion breakfast food until World War I, where female volunteers would bring the soldiers a taste of home by bringing warm donuts to the soldiers in France. Some volunteers even brought them to the trenches. After the war donut machines became more common and they spread in popularity.\n\nPancakes are a bit different in that they are definitely a sit-down breakfast food. A flour-based flat cake cooked on a griddle is one of those foods that you can find in practically every culture. Pancakes used to be a crepe-like item served at dinner during pre-Revolutionary times. U.S. cooks began adding a chemical leavener which made the pancake a more substantial and hardy item, and one that was perfect for making in the morning to use to scoop up last night's cold stew (the typical breakfast of the era). Using a chemical leavener meant not having to wait for the dough to rise, so it was perfect for the breakfast meal, and was quite useful even out on the frontier when cooking hoe cakes, etc.\n\nHence it's turn from an evening food to a morning food.\n\n",
"Oatmeal with almond milk, and either strawberries or blueberries is my go to breakfast.\n\nWe will do eggs, bacon, various veggies, tortillas and salsa on occasion because Texas.\n\nI know doughnuts are a thing here in the States, but I do not know anyone personally who eats \"sweet\" stuff for breakfast. If someone I know has a doughnut or a muffin, it's usually around 10 or 11 over coffee and a chat.",
"I am a proud American and I eat leftover pie for breakfast!",
"American here. I usually eat slow cooked steel-cut oats with raisins. Or three bowls of Cocoa Pebbles to get me through the next two hours.\n\nSometimes we make strata, which is pieces of leftover bread, with cream cheese, brown sugar, and butter layered like a lasagna with syrup over it.",
"In Spain it's definitely not m8. Dessert every meal all the way.",
"Because breakfast is supposed to..get this...break down quickly in your stomach to give you the energy to start your day. Sugary foods are great for this. You typically eat non sugary foods for breakfast when you have the time to prepare an actually healthy meal, such as bacon and eggs (or what have you.)",
"because it's 8 am, i'm tired, and i don't give a shit",
"Come to Germany. Here we have Kaiserschmarrn.\nOh and Apfelstrudel.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBoth account for a full meal. But can be eaten as a dessert as well.",
"Because you don't get dessert at breakfast. Better get it if you want it somehow.",
"Because they give you energy and you have the whole day to burn all the calories",
"For me personally, sweeter foods go better with coffee/tea. If I eat a big breakfast with eggs and bacon, I'll feel more inclined to hold off on the coffee for a little bit while my food digests. If I'm eating donuts, well I can do that and drink coffee simultaneously.\n\nBut that's just me.\n\nEDIT: Also, all the foods you mentioned are easy to carry around and eat on the go. I can't take a plate of eggs with me in the car.",
"Brit living in Belgium. They are obsessed with sweet stuff for breakfast. Can very occasionally have a 'pain au chocolat' bit it always feels wrong. ",
"Wait, pancakes are a dessert? That's a staple breakfast food in the United States.\n\nPancakes with eggs, bacon and toast. That's a nice breakfast. Cereal can get boring.",
"TIL: I eat dessert for breakfast. \n\nAnd I thought these were normal to eat for breakfast, and I don't even consider them sweet. ",
"I think it's because some breakfast foods (or foods that accompanied breakfast) are pastries, and so there was a delicious, slippery-slope.\n\nI also suspect that so many people growing up with super-sugary breakfast cereal got them into the habit of something very sweet at breakfast.",
"Anthropologist here. Short story... American breakfast used to be hearty and full of all food groups. The invention of cereal led to breakfast becoming the small, quick, convenient carb heavy meal that we know today.\n\nIt is also a product of cultural norms. As an asian, breakfast is usually leftovers that can be rice, soup, meat, etc. ",
"But it's the most important meal of the day, what's the big idea world?",
"I feel like it may be due to the mindset that you have all day to burn off the extra calories versus having desert after dinner when you are close to bedtime.",
"I'm not sure, but eating simple carbs in the morning gives you energy quicker than eating oatmeal or salad",
"It's the \"most important meal of the day,\" and dessert is the most important part of a meal. Ergo...",
"In Bavaria and Austria its perfectly acceptable to have a sweet dish like Kaiserschmarrn or Dampnudeln. Usually you have a soup beforehands but the main course is basically a big desert.\n\nThis was especially popular when people were more catholic and couldnt eat meat on fridays, so it was either fish or a Mehlspeisn (flour-food).",
"That's more of a cultural thing, I'd say. In many cultures it's in fact not socially acceptable to eat sweets. Be that as it may - I'd love to know how the \"classic\" American breakfast came to be. If anyone knows or has a source, that would be awesome.",
"I'm from Poland, I moved to Canada about 20 years ago. In Poland we'll eat sandwiches for breakfast, or sausage, or eggs and bacon, or whatever.\n\nSo when I moved here and was introduced to muffins, bagels, and continental breakfasts.. .. .. Well, I looked at the situation and tried to adapt. Like I said that was 20 years ago. I'm still not used to it. Bagels and muffins CAN be good, but they weigh me down in the morning and slow me down.. I try to stay away from carbs so early in the morning, it seems like a stupid idea.",
"For me, my sugar is incredibly low when I wake up. Donuts are a quick grab that make me feel less like puking and fainting. I need to see a dr. ",
"As i understand cakes and deserts were used as a pre-breakfast when working on a farm. The sugars would give you a burst of energy early in the morning as the women would make a real breakfast to be eaten a couple hours later.",
"I'm American and i would prefer something spicy in the morning. I'll make a bowl of chili or chicken with hot sauce. If I tell my friends they think I am insane for doing such a thing. It tastes better than a liquid sugar and butter drenched flat piece of sweet bread.",
"Most of those are not socially acceptable breakfast foods in a lot of countries.",
"Am i the only human on earth who just eats some rye bread and yoghurt for breakfast?!",
"Not my protein pancakes from Costco.....until I smother them in butter and syrup.",
"Being from the UK, I couldn't imagine eating any of that for breakfast. Bring me Weetabix and a cup of tea. If I have time, a bacon and egg sarnie. Yum!",
"Ever put ice cream on a pancake?",
"Because people 'have' to eat something for breakfast. I can't eat an english breakfast so I just eat a waffle.",
"Young (23), in shape diabetic here. The only time my blood sugar gets real low is over the course of a night. Nothing better than a coffee and a couple donuts to get it back up and get my ass into gear. It's also good for the quick boost of energy to get you by until lunch. ",
"Why is dinner the only meal at which it's socially acceptable to eat spaghetti?",
"Since when are pancakes a dessert?",
"Because I'm already on edge being up this early and if you try to tell me I can't have this dessert I swear to god I'll stab you with this butter knife covered in cinnamon roll goo.",
"You just dealt with the horrible act of waking up, you kinda deserve it.",
"Actually, I think we have it backwards. We should be eating dinner-style meals in the morning and breakfast-style meals at night. That way we would spend the day burning off the bigger meal. I do this on the weekends (kind of) and I can absolutely tell the difference. ",
"When you wake up, your metabolism needs to get going, and sugar is a good way to begin processes in the body. These kinds of foods are not hard for your body to break down.",
"Why is it acceptable to eat breakfast for dinner and not dinner for breakfast?",
"But... you can't go lift at the gym if your breakfast is doughnuts...",
"It provides a sugar rush to get you going early in the morning. ",
"Often times desserts are easier to eat, so people who have morning nausea can get them down easier. I personally have difficulty eating many foods in the morning (by that, i mean I feel like I'll throw up if i try.), so I settle for things like yogurt.",
"I hope someone already mentioned this. Our sense of smell doesn't wake up till later. So, foods that are sweet and salty are our go to foods in the morning. Our tongues can interpret the info even though our noses are still waking up.\n\nEDIT: Spelling. ",
"Desserts all day erry day screw anyone who says otherwise\n\n...in moderation of course",
"Cereal grains industry duped the market into thinking eggs were bad for you and birdseed and sugar is healthy.",
"Doughnuts for breakfast? Jesus christ. Oh well, at least your country probably doesnt have an obesity and diabetes problem.",
"I love it how we, in my country eat oatmeal and pieces of wood that some might call bread. And then there's The US. Doughnuts and bagels",
"Fun fact: Asian cultures care much less about differentiating breakfast food and dinner food. They just eat whatever.\nI don't know if this is true in Africa and the Middle East, but I assume so.",
"I dont think I could eat sugar that early. I'd Clog my arteries with bacon instead",
"Wait.. pancakes are a dessert?? Well.. the way they are served at IHOP, I suppose.",
"I don't think Americans consider them regular breakfast foods for everyday consumption. It's more a rare breakfast treat like in other countries",
"The best part of waking up is ALL OF THE CARBS",
"I eat pancakes for dinner. Hell, my mom even makes them.",
"It's not socially acceptable to eat any of those things for breakfast. You people are just fat.",
"Eating your sweets at the begining of the day is a sign of hedonism. That's why most of the world subconsciously eats bacon and sausages in the morning. This shows that you did some work for your _URL_0_",
"All of those are terrible things to eat for breakfast.. Seriously you eat pastries the first thing you do in the morning? Goddamn. ",
" > socially acceptable\n\nThere you go. If there even is an explanation, it's arbitrary and stupid as hell.",
"the reason why it's okay to eat something sugary in the morning is because you have the entire day to work it off. the later you eat sugary foods the worse it is on your body, it gets stored. ",
"It's **very** cheap to make sweat dessert style stuff. Very cheap. Like, unbelievably cheap. Especially when compared to healthy options. The affects of that fact have slowly eroded the American breakfast diet.",
"it may have \"happened organically\" due to western societies high paced demands. i had the guy quoted in this \"life hack\" for a professor a while ago. he has also wrote books on food for the brain, and has a ted talk which goes into much more detail\n\n_URL_0_\n\nbut basically, your brain runs on glucose, which is easily gotten from sugar.\ndonuts and such also provide the choline part of the important neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is heavily involved in attention and executive function",
"It's NOT an acceptable breakfast OP.\n\n\n\nYou eat bad and you should feel bad.",
"It isn't acceptable...that's why Americans are fat. ",
"Serious answer: I believe it has to do with the protein and carb overload usually brought on by things often eaten for breakfast, bagels, waffles, bacon, sausage, and of course donuts. They provide you the energy to wake up and start your day and in theory you are going to work them off during the day.\n\nI believe it was Men's Health which said that every breakfast can be a cheat meal, so long as you are physically active and eat healthy the other two (or three or four) meals.",
"Slowly happened over time! As it turns out, sugary foods are one of the worst ways to start the day. You will crave sugar the whole day. The best solution to this problem is always having candy bars or doughnuts on hand to assure that the cravings subside!",
"Simply put, it's because the sugar in those pastries replenishes your blood glucose after sleep and gives you an extra boost of energy to start the day.",
"The sugary foods you mentioned are said to have what's called a \"high glycemic index\", meaning they have a lot of sugar in them. This can be said for fruits and breads too, as carbs that are unused will basically be processed as sugar. Sugar isn't necessarily bad for, in fact your body needs sugar, the problem is when you eat sugar and are sedentary or eat entirely too much sugar.\n\nHigh glycemic foods are best eaten earlier in the day because then you have the entire day to burn them off. Sugar can be used as energy if used immediately, otherwise it is stored as fat.\n\nThis is basically why breakfast should be your largest meal of the day - you're giving your body time to burn off the calories you just consumed. It's also why you shouldn't eat any high glycemic foods before bed, because the sugar won't be able to be used and will be stored.\n\nProteins on the other hand are usable just about all of the time, the trouble is they're often coupled with fats. That's why people trying to build muscle and lose weight will eat nothing but chicken breasts, because they're low fat and high protein.\n\nTL:DR - Foods that will be processed as sugars or have a high content of sugar in them are best eaten earlier so the sugar can be spent as energy rather than stored as fat. Of course, eating too much sugar is always a bad thing.",
"I don't know the answer but whatever we have left over cupcakes I tell my husband I will stop eating cupcakes for breakfast when someone can give me a solid answer on why a donut is an acceptable breakfast but people act like cupcakes aren't. ",
"A lot of people seem to be missing the point. No they're not a healthy daily option, but the question is why the western breakfast has so many sweets that are considered solely breakfast foods.\nThey're a cheap and effective source of calories, so they were probably more acceptable back when the majority of people were farmers or laborers.",
"I seriously dislike sugary foods for breakfast. Give me some eggs and sausage with hashbrowns and I'm good to roll. I actually feel slightly ill if I eat only sugary things for breakfast.\n\nI'm American btw ",
"I hate breakfast 'food etiquette'. I eat what I want, when I want.",
"And French Fries! .... We just change the name to \"Hash Browns\" and everybody is okay with that. ",
"I had ice cream and sprinkles for dinner yesterday; was that not socially acceptable?",
"I don't understand how sugar entered the breakfast world to begin with. All that stuff makes me feel horrible and generally gives me the shits.\n\n\nEggs, some kind of meat, toast and some milk or coffee (or both) is the only breakfast I'll eat. Cereal is for when you're stoned at 2 in the morning and don't actually want to make food.\n",
"Correct me if I'm wrong but from my understanding, it evolved from the continental breakfast, a type of light breakfast that distinguishes itself from an English breakfast. Per Wikipedia (2014), continental breakfast consists of slices of cheese, cold meat, fruits, and cereals. The drinks can be tea, coffee, or fruit juice. I think in America, we are more casual with how we approach our daily meals and since we are used to having pastries with our coffee, this carried over during breakfast.",
"Waking up is bad enough don't take away muffins man",
"You've been fasting for the past eight or so hours, your body needs fuel. If you'll notice, ever item you mentioned is very high in carbohydrates.",
"In Sweden you would never think of any of the mentioned choices of food as breakfast, maybe pancakes for lunch or dinner on a Thursday but breakfast? Nobody got time for that anyway. ",
"The traditional american breakfast for most young people I know is nothing, because oh shit I'm late!",
"Someone else will probably add more information, but if I remember correctly, anthropologically and evolutionarily speaking, we break down fats and such easier in the morning after we break our overnight fast. Our bodies crave nourishment after sleep and we seek out fattier and more succulent meals. Over time, our social norms are developed around these unconscious practices. \n\nIf you look at the breakfasts of different cultures, the main thing they have in common is large amounts of starch, fat, and sugar. ",
"Edward Bernays , father of modern public relations (propaganda) \n\nThe concept of breakfast food more or less comes from him. Most other cultures eat the same foods as any other meal. Quite often left overs from the day before. \n \nedit: father not bather\n",
"Dutch here. We eat bread (not toast, brown bread) with some slices of meat for breakfast. Nobody eats pancakes, douhgnuts, cinnamon rolls, muffins or other sweet things.",
"Because this is a vestige of the previously typical American breakfast. Previously it was more common to eat some porridge or fruit with your coffee for breakfast. But in the 1920s a sneaky rascal called Edward Bernays managed to convince the American public that a heavier breakfast was good for them. Now that heavier foods have fallen out of favour, typical coffee treats that easy to eat on the go have taken over. ",
"Hey, ass-talker here. One possible reason may be that your body had more time to burn these sugars as the day goes on, as opposed to eating it before bed, and all of it being converted to fat during the night. ",
"I've always wondered if separate breakfast food is even a thing in non-western cultures. There's no reason it would be. What about bacon and pancakes says \"8am\"?\n",
"Because have you tried waking up in the morning? It's a terrible experience, and a dessert makes it that much more bearable. \n",
"\"Socially acceptable\"?... Why the fuck do you care what others would think because you eat a different breakfast? Worst than idiot teens who are sweating their ass off trying to think of what to say next so their friends would think they're cool. Pathetic. Eat whatever the hell you want...",
"As an avid pancake eater and trying-to-reform fat guy, I'm all about making crepes. They are basically just eggy pancakes. You just adjust the ratios for more egg, milk and less pancake mix until you get something more runny. You can add vanilla, cinnamon or nutmeg to the batter if you want to get fancy. One key lesson I've learned is to use nonstick spray and put a small amount of the batter in the middle of the pan. You pick up the pan and move it around to get a very thin layer. You can make them savory and healthy with spinach, ham and a bit of flavorful cheese like sharp cheddar or asiago. If I make sweet crepes, the sweetness comes from berries mixed with Greek yogurt to make a sauce topping. I'd take my homemade variety over any restaurant unless it was exceptionally good. **TL:DR CREPES > PANCAKES for being more protein, less carbs and more versatile.**",
"Nobody even mentioned bloody marys and beer... Come on Aussies I know you have some alcohol in the morning before you start flushing the toilet in the wrong direction.",
"I feel like a good add on question to this is: Why is breakfast the only meal where it is not only acceptable but expected to eat the same thing every day?",
"When I was on a tour in Italy, our guide said, \"Here, breakfast is espresso and a cookie.\" By contrast, muffins and even pancakes aren't that bad. Either that, or I just refuse to admit that Italy, a country with arguably the best food in the world, has somehow managed to completely fuck up breakfast.",
"Speak for yourself man. \n\nDessert only is acceptable for any meal. \n\nLast night for dinner, I had like a 1/2 gal milk and like 5 lbs of homemade orange sweet rolls. ",
"Sugary cereal is our reward for winning world war II, so fuck you commie. ",
"because you might die at any point after that. might as well go out sugar loaded and happy.",
"Traditionally when most people worked on farms or other hard labor it was necessary to consume a ton of calories so you had enough energy to work. That's why everything you listed has a high calorie density.",
"Our bodies handle carbohydrates best in the morning. It gives us the most time to burn them off. You eat ice cream for dinner and that'll go straight to your hips, Johnny.",
"It's a cultural issue. In Middle East countries they eat desert BEFORE the meal.\n\nYet in Turkey we eat deserts, AFTER noon and dinner. ",
"Carbs and sugar to start your day off right...and to crash about 2 hours later",
"As a Swede: YOU CAN EAT DESSERT FOR BREAKFAST!!??",
"I don't think I've ever eaten any of those for breakfast. Do you happen to be american?",
"Wtf are you muricans (I assume) doing to your bodies. I'm English. I've never seen anyone have that kind of breakfsst excluding pancakes on pancake day and the occasional croissants. ",
"Because of Edward Barnays! The father of marketing, the reason that women smoke and the reason Americans eat bacon and eggs in the first place.\n_URL_0_ \n",
"That's only in America. Britain does see it as disgustingly unhealthy and weird.",
"That's because we had to wake up and now feel all miserable for suddenly having to leave our comfortable regeneration position. Just as when we're sick, we're allowing ourselves to pity and just eat dessert. It's even scientifically proven to be good, since we need problems to evolve/growth. Therefor we have created the problem getting out of bed too early, to enable growth. If we would only wait for real problems to start occurring, we might not have sufficient of them to truly grow! And it is not a dessert. In fact, after your hot meal it only seems socially acceptable to eat breakfast!",
"Thats maybe breakfast in America.. Pancakes if we're yolo-sunday in Denmark, else its just oatmeal or Danish rye bread! ",
"Seems to be a north american thing. In the UK breakfast is either a bowl of cereal or toast. If you're a fat bastard its sausage, bacon, beans, tomato, fried toast, mushrooms and egg.",
"Socially acceptable in america.* Apart from on Shrove Tuesday ive never heard of someone eating any of these things for breakfast. ",
"Where do you live that pancakes are a dessert food? I'm in the US and having lived in both the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest, I've never seen this done, and I'm curious.\n\nLiterally a stack of pancakes and maple syrup with butter for dessert?",
"Socially acceptable maybe... But screw socially acceptable! I eat whatever I want, whenever I want.\n\nAlso people eat donuts, and muffins for lunch too. (And more)",
"Brit here. None ... none of those things are breakfast foods. Not one. They are *treats*. \n\nMy God, you people eat that stuff at *breakfast*? ",
"Must be an American thing, in English we either eat cereal, toast or a Full English.",
"Social programming by the wheat and corn industry. Nobody used to eat cereal for breakfast 120 years ago. Maybe some bread with eggs and whatever else but not the scale with which we eat grain based products now. A lot of it started with Wheaties trying to successfully market their product.",
"I eat eggs, sausage, hash browns, bacon (sometimes), toast(sometimes) every morning before I go to work, and I'm in the US. Some of us still don't consider these things by themselves a breakfast. If I eat pancakes there will be something else with it. I hate eating sugary foods in the morning, because I'm hungry just a couple hours later.",
"What the shit, people eat that for breakfast?",
"Your question is the answer to ELI5: why is America fat?\n\n/s 😜",
"Yet everyone gave me weird looks when I ordered waffles and icecream for breakfast. I guess not all desserts are acceptable...",
"Some cultures have breakfast for every meal. Like the creatures of Redwall Abbey. That's the only one I know of, though...",
"In Punjabi Pakistan, breakfast foods are usually very greasy/fatty. Parantha, which is a (clarified) butter drenched flat bread is a staple. You eat that with your eggs, braised beef/lamb shanks/feet, or yogurt. Chana puri is also a deep fried flat bread with a chickpea curry. All in all its high fat foods in the morning with high calories. Punjabi people are traditionally farmers that eat 2ce daily so meals like this were required to give them energy throughout the day. ",
"The \"rules\" make *absolutely* no sense at all. If I sit down in the Cafeteria at work at 8:30 in the morning with a chocolate muffin, a doughnut, a sugar coated scone, a cinnamon roll, 2 frosted pop tarts or a bowl of cereal featuring *marshmallows*, nobody bats an eye.\n\nIf I were to have a seat with a slice of cake or pie or a scoop of ice cream, I'd get weird looks from everybody that walked by and crap from my co-workers.\n\nBill Cosby had a whole bit about his wife freaking out after getting caught letting his kids eat chocolate cake for breakfast before school one morning. It's hilarious, but it makes no sense, it's acceptable to give the kids sugar-coated cereal but not cake?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.viralnova.com/breakfast-around-the-world/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.viralnova.com/breakfast-around-the-world/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.chefkoch.de/rezepte/1550611262213964/Alt-Wiener-Apfelstrudel.html",
"http://www.chefkoch.de/rezepte/1900361309694639/Altbaerlis-Kaiserschmarrn.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"food.by"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://lifehacker.com/5660544/a-morning-donut-could-improve-your-memory-and-ability-to-concentrate"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3lvx02
|
why is the "k" silent? as seen in: knack or knock
|
the 1st silent "K"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lvx02/elif_why_is_the_k_silent_as_seen_in_knack_or_knock/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv9rzps"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In the 1600s, the K was pronounced. Pilgrims in America said \"kuh-nife\" and \"kuh-nee\" for knife and knee. It died out around then, but spelling had become set,\nSo we kept that. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6xpun7
|
Is it hard to be a history professor or a historians?
|
Hi guys I'm a history major with a minor in Japanese at the cal state San Bernardino. I really love the subject of history I decided to be a history teacher for high school since I was in middle school but since I've been studying more I've fallen in love with history and language more and more. So I said why don't I make it a goal of mine to get my phd and be a history professor or a historians. I know history doesn't pay much but its all i really like. I just want any advice I can be given thanks.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6xpun7/is_it_hard_to_be_a_history_professor_or_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmif28q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a question that gets asked with a fair amount of frequency, both here and at /r/askacademia. \n\n[this is a recent thread](_URL_2_) where /u/restricteddata and /u/dire88 explore some of the aspects of the academic job market for history.\n\n[this thread](_URL_1_) also discusses grad school, academic employment, and \"plan b\" (or plan c, d, and e) careers.\n\nThere is also [this thread about applying to grad school](_URL_0_). I think the comment by /u/DerProfessor is a very important one to consider. Specifically, what exactly is your research interest? If you are writing on your statements of purpose that you want to attend a doctoral program because \"i've always loved history\", that is very vague and unfocused. If you are able to identify a specific topic or event in history that isn't adequately explained, and you *need* to get to the bottom of, that lets admissions committees and potential advisers judge if if you are a good fit for a specific program. Also, you will be competing against candidates who are bringing their research topics to the table.\n\nWhat specific history are you interested in? What region? What era? The answer to that question can have a strong bearing on the academic job market for your specialty. In general, there are more PhDs for US and European history produced than there are faculty jobs for. Africa and Middle East history PhDs are more in-line with the number of faculty jobs (though, that is not a guarantee). I don't know how Latin America or Asia compare.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/608aek/where_should_i_go_to_graduate_school/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/52ejix/monday_methods_youre_gonna_need_a_bigger_boat/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6267u7/will_i_be_able_to_find_a_job_as_a_historian/"
]
] |
|
f6ssby
|
How does this work?
|
If magma is lava that is under ground, does a volcano spew out magma or lava? When does magma become lava?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f6ssby/how_does_this_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fi6uztc"
],
"score": [
39
],
"text": [
"By definition, melted rock beneath the surface is called magma. Once it erupts, it is called lava. The distinction is largely semantic and done for convenience (i.e. by describing it correctly as either magma or lava, you are conveying extra information in terms of its location), though there are some true differences. For example, magma will have varying amounts of dissolved gases (water, CO2, etc), many of these gases escape in the eruption process (as pressure decreases) so lava tends to have less volatile content than magma. Similarly, by virtue of it being at the surface, lava is cooling rapidly compared to magma and will contain progressively more (small) crystals as it cools. You could also view the distinction as an extension of the way we classify igneous rocks, specifically the division between extrusive and intrusive. Chemically, a [basalt](_URL_0_) and a [gabbro](_URL_1_) are nearly equivalent, but we classify and name them differently because one is extrusive and one is intrusive (respectively) and as a result, the size of the crystals within the rocks are very different. To return to the lava/magma distinction, basalt crystallizes from a [mafic](_URL_2_) lava, gabbro crystallizes from a mafic magma."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabbro",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafic"
]
] |
|
m92yt
|
This might be startlingly ignorant, but: why are sunny days in the winter still cold?
|
I know the answer is probably absurdly simple, but it's been bugging me. From what I understand of grade school science, it gets cold in the winter due to the Earth tilting away from the sun.
But, whenever someone posts the odious "If the earth was 1 mile closer or farther away from the sun we'd die! Yay God!" there's some science man who says that there's an area of hundreds of thousands of miles away from the sun the Earth could be. So why can the distance of just a *tilt* affect the weather so much?
Mostly, though, as the title suggests, why the hell can there be days in winter when the sun shines bright as hell in a cloudless sky and it's still so cold? Is it because the days are shorter? It takes longer to heat the ambient air? Why did the ambient air get so cold with the sun shining on it, etc...
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m92yt/this_might_be_startlingly_ignorant_but_why_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2z2fiw",
"c2z2h7w",
"c2z2fiw",
"c2z2h7w"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I'm no expert, im not even good at science, but if no one else posts ill give you something to think about:\nI think it might be to do with... ok let me explain.\n\nif you had a flat surface and shined a torch on it and the beam was one square metre, when you tilt the surface, the light has to hit a larger surface area so less energy is hitting the surface because the beam is still one square metre but the beam you see on the surface is larger because it is tilted so has to be spread out over a larger area.. sorry im not very good at explaining but try and visualise it and hopefully you will understand my rubbish explanation. Oh and another thing, the effect of my theory is probably much more noticeable with infra-red radiation from the sun as it is absorbed when it hits objects.",
"The reason that the tilt makes it more cold in winter is not distance. Yes, the sun is less bright the further out you travel from it, due to the spreading of the light. The reason that the winter is colder is because when you have the surface at an angle to the incident light, you're taking a lot less of the angle of the radiation.\n\nConsider holding a piece of paper under a ceiling lamp. If you hold the paper very close to the floor, and move it up an inch, you can see the shadow of the paper get a little bigger- the paper is absorbing more energy from the lamp. This is the sort of change which occurs due to a change in distance from the sun. Now hold the paper at a 45 degree angle to the ground. See how much smaller the shadow is? The paper is not being exposed to nearly as much energy total, and so each square inch of the paper is getting less radiation, too. This is the mechanism which causes the amount of heat received from the sun to vary so drastically during the seasons.",
"I'm no expert, im not even good at science, but if no one else posts ill give you something to think about:\nI think it might be to do with... ok let me explain.\n\nif you had a flat surface and shined a torch on it and the beam was one square metre, when you tilt the surface, the light has to hit a larger surface area so less energy is hitting the surface because the beam is still one square metre but the beam you see on the surface is larger because it is tilted so has to be spread out over a larger area.. sorry im not very good at explaining but try and visualise it and hopefully you will understand my rubbish explanation. Oh and another thing, the effect of my theory is probably much more noticeable with infra-red radiation from the sun as it is absorbed when it hits objects.",
"The reason that the tilt makes it more cold in winter is not distance. Yes, the sun is less bright the further out you travel from it, due to the spreading of the light. The reason that the winter is colder is because when you have the surface at an angle to the incident light, you're taking a lot less of the angle of the radiation.\n\nConsider holding a piece of paper under a ceiling lamp. If you hold the paper very close to the floor, and move it up an inch, you can see the shadow of the paper get a little bigger- the paper is absorbing more energy from the lamp. This is the sort of change which occurs due to a change in distance from the sun. Now hold the paper at a 45 degree angle to the ground. See how much smaller the shadow is? The paper is not being exposed to nearly as much energy total, and so each square inch of the paper is getting less radiation, too. This is the mechanism which causes the amount of heat received from the sun to vary so drastically during the seasons."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
15jq25
|
A question about US colonization
|
As far as I have learned, New England was colonized by Puritans and other devout religious groups and the south was colonized by more secular businessmen looking for gold and building plantations. So why is it that New England is now more liberal, secular, and progressive while the south is very conservative and religious? What caused the switch?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15jq25/a_question_about_us_colonization/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7n22zd",
"c7n4nfv",
"c7n4pui",
"c7n58s0"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You might want to check out David Hackett Fischer's *Albions Seed* which addresses how the different British Isles groups who settled in British North America determined how the different American regions developed. It is an easily readable book even for those with only a casual interest in history.",
"You're looking at a 500 year period here. I would be surprised if it was possible to determine exactly where/when this switch happened.",
"The [puritans](_URL_0_) that founded new england were mostly on the far left, not the far right. they were anti-monarchist, anti-mercantilist, often proto-socialist (the pilgrims, for example, spent the first few years in the new world with community ownership of land). And they and their descendants have remained on the left, becoming, in turn, patriots, abolitionists/unionists, christian socialists, and finally progressives, which they remain to this day. you can best see these transitions in transitional figures, be they [Ben Franklin's grandson](_URL_1_ or woodrow wilson(christian socialist/progressive). In fact, I would go as far to say that the story of America is largely the story of the puritans, and those they have triumphed over. the specific doctrines of the religion they adhere to has changed, but their fervor for it never has.",
"You may be interested in [these previous questions regarding this topic](_URL_0_) in our FAQ (which is linked at the top of every page in this subreddit)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenters",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_Bache_(journalist%29)(patriot/abolitionist)"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/us_history#toc_5"
]
] |
|
191s2j
|
When did tourism become a large part of countries incomes?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/191s2j/when_did_tourism_become_a_large_part_of_countries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8k0l40",
"c8k22du"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"That depends a lot on the country. And where there. \n\nFor example - Austria (where i live) had areas with a vibrant touristic economy starting in the 19th century. Especially areas like semmering (the closest mountains to Vienna) became available for day trips with the construction of the train line there. Same is true for the salzkammergut which catered more to nobility and the rich bourgeoise. \n\nSo those two areas had a very strong touristic industry much sooner then for example tyrolia which today is much more connected with tourism then it was back then. \n\nThis is due to the rise of winter tourism - and there are just the better mountains there then in other locations. \n\nIf you ask for the start if real modern mass tourism in Austria that would be after WWI - sometimes in the 20ies before the stock market crash. \n\nIt really took off though in the 50ies with the mass availability of cars for everybody. It just got a lot easier to do a trip from Munich to Innsbruck or Vienna when You have your own car. \n\nThe same is true for the distant and exotic travel locations. Thailand as as travel destination for mass touris for Europeans became an option in the 70ies and 80ies with the rise of long range jet travel. \n\nSo basically - as soon as mass transit became available You can assume that tourism started and the industry took off. When this was exactly depends on the development of the transport infrastructure then anything else. ",
"[Tourism became a major sector of Venetian industry in the 18th century](_URL_0_), when it was a major center for the Grand Tour, with its beautiful cityscape, uniqueness, and rich musical and artistic cultural heritage.The Carnival, artificially protracted from October until February, gave an air of spurious gaiety to the dying “Most Serene Republic.” "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.aguideinvenice.com/en/venice-itineraries-11-18th-Century-Venice.html"
]
] |
||
24k55f
|
Would it be possible to make a radio which uses a different type of electromagnetic radiation?
|
Could I make a "radio" which uses visible light for example?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24k55f/would_it_be_possible_to_make_a_radio_which_uses_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch8h4df"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You can certainly transmit data using visible light - that's what an optical fibre does, after all. However, radio has the advantage that it generally passes through most objects (e.g. walls), and so you don't need line-of-sight to the transmitter. With visible light, you would need to be able to see the sender, which limits its effectiveness.\n\nI seem to recall that there are some military communication systems that do use precisely aimed lasers to transmit data to another location within line of sight, without optical fibres. The advantage there is that it's very hard to intercept any signals being sent, but you don't need to lay down several miles of cable"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8vxgcu
|
In regards to "nitrogen narcosis", how does the gas we inhale while diving suddenly become narcotic to us at great depths?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8vxgcu/in_regards_to_nitrogen_narcosis_how_does_the_gas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1shjaq",
"e1sj9un"
],
"score": [
5,
14
],
"text": [
"Most gasses are lipid-soluble, meaning that they can diffuse into fats, which includes cell membranes. At standard pressure, the amount that dissolves into tissue is negligible, but at higher partial pressures that amount increases and eventually it's enough to interfere with the chemical signaling of nerve cells.",
"You need to understand a little about how SCUBA works. You can snorkel at the surface, right? What if you had a 12 foot snorkel, would it work? No, but why? Because the weight of 12 feet of water is squeezing you body. You don't feel it because hey we are made out of water. However, it's more weight than your lung muscles can push against. You would not be able to suck in any air. \n\nWith SCUBA an aluminium tank can be filled with 2000 to 3500 psi. That's more than the pressure of the water down to a couple hundred feet. The pressure is controlled by the regulator. Every time you suck in air the regulator gives it to you at a pressure *equal* to the pressure of the water around you. It's almost too easy to breath when you are on SCUBA, its fun. Sport divers, the ones who do it for fun, use normal, filtered air.\n\nAt the surface when you breath in you get about a half a liter of air and your lungs can hold about 4 liters total. At ten meters deep the pressure is twice as much, so you will actually suck in twice as much air! At that pressure you could have 8 liters of air squeezed into your lungs! At 20 meters it would be 12. So, as you go deeper you suck in a lot more air. At about 100 feet, or 30 meters the pressure is 4 times normal.\n\nSo, if you drink one cup of coffee at the surface that would be like drinking 4 cups of coffee under pressure. 4 cups of coffee is a lot more caffeine that 1 cup. So with normal air at 100 feet you would get 4 times the nitrogen, 4 times the oxygen and 4 times whatever else is in the air. If you had pure oxygen by the time you reached 60 feet the amount of pure oxygen would burn out you lungs! I had some friends get some bad air once, a small amount of exhaust from the pump motor got in the tanks. That was Carbon Monoxide. At the surface you wouldn't notice it, but when they reached 100 feet down it would be four times as much CO enough to kill you in minutes. They noticed the probable at about 30 feet down and surfaced, but in the three minutes it took them to dive down and come back up they had enough carbon monoxide that they had turned blue.\n\nThere are lots of things in air that can cause you to get drunk-like symptoms, including nitrogen. Dive deep enough and you get stronger concentrations of those gasses. So they can make you intoxicated. I have never experienced, nor has anyone in any group that I was with. That includes dives to 200 feet, so I think it's pretty rare.\n\nNo 5 year old could sit through my long winded explanations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1qlzhd
|
if the speed limit isn't actually a hard upper bound, why don't we just post a target speed instead?
|
Everyone treats it that way anyway... why doesn't the law account for it as such? They could just make it illegal to go more than 10 mph over or under a posted "target speed" and we'd have basically the same system we have now, but it'd be more honest.
Edit: okay, so I understand that it's *technically* a hard upper bound, but that it's up to the police officer to decide when to enforce it. Fine. But I still don't get why we post limits and not ranges, since obviously going too slow is hazardous too, plus it would take some of the guesswork out of it. Can anyone explain to me why we don't post a range?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qlzhd/eli5_if_the_speed_limit_isnt_actually_a_hard/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cde4azp",
"cde83tr",
"cde8tw9"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I've been pulled over for 26 in a 25. It's up to the cops discretion, and some cops are dicks. The speed limit is a hard upper boundary, but it is up to the individual officer whether to enforce that strictly or not. ",
"They should just call it a speed average\n",
"It's very simple : Everyone goes 5 miles over, so when officers need to meet their ticket quotas, they start pulling people over in the 'safe' range.\n\nThere's no incentive for the departments to change this, because then they'd have a harder time bringing in traffic ticket money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3l6j48
|
What were the role and effectiveness of archers and crossbowmen during the hundred year war?
|
I could not find any threads who directly asks this question, so then I just ask it myself. I would ask about archery in the world, but that might be a bit broad. I have also read some interesting texts which casts doubt about the english archer myth, but while not supersoldiers, Edward must have had a reason to take them with him on his campaigns in france.
The crossbowmen are included in the question because they are also missile troops in the hundred year war, so their role should be similar. Or so I do belive.
The interesting texts in question are _URL_1_ and _URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l6j48/what_were_the_role_and_effectiveness_of_archers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv3ncv7"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"That blog post was written by someone who views themselves as very educated on a topic they don't seem to have read much about. He starts off relatively alright- myth of longbow archers as super soldiers, pointing out the relatively similar composition of French and English armies- then becomes so determined to tear down old mythology that he created entirely new mythologies. That book he's complaining about seems to be pretty shit, but one shitty pop history book isn't representative of the scholarship available on the longbow. \n\nI'm going to focus primarily on his description of Agincourt, because that's where he's most egregiously wrong. He claims that \"Once the cavalry van was defeated there is no indication that longbow fire contributed at all in defeating the enemy.\" This is a pretty absurd point and one that not a single primary or secondary source would bear out. I think one of the problems here is that the author seems to think that the purpose of archery was to cause direct casualties and stop an advance outright. This isn't the case at all. His claim that \"the longbow’s failure was in meeting the threat of the dismounted attack\" only makes sense if you suppose that the purpose of the archers was to stop the dismounted attack. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The purpose of massed archery fire was to disrupt and slow down the dismounted attack, so that the disordered French could be picked apart by the English men-at-arms. That's what combined arms is all about. Saying that the archers were useless because they didn't \"stop the dismounted attack\" is like saying modern infantry is useless because artillery and air support cause more casualties. It's sort of a true statement if you squint, but it's comparing apples to oranges. Different units have different roles, and ideally work together to support each other. This is exactly what happened at Agincourt. \n\nHis point about the archers running out of arrows is confusing and strange. Running out of arrows \"would have been a clear indication that the archery fire was unable to influence the course of the foot battle?\" How does that follow, exactly? The archers joined in the hand-to-hand fighting because 1) a bow is kind of useless when a Frenchman is swinging an axe directly at you and 2) that was their job. The archers frequently dropped their bows to support the men-at-arms in the melee. How does joining in the melee prove that archery is useless on the battlefield? Are bullets useless because soldiers sometimes also use bayonets? If archers were so useless, why were so many of them hired for the HYW? Why did kings get so involved with maintaining archery supplies, working with bowyer's and fletchers guilds to set prices, and haul thousands of these troops to France over and over again if they were as useless as this author says? That book he's complaining about sounds pretty awful. But the solution to that would be to read actual academic work on the HYW, rather than scan through a few primary sources and write a blog post showing that he really doesn't have the first clue about the subject. \n\nMinor historiographical note: I find it amusing that he attributes the longbow mythology to \"Marxists\" rather than English nationalist myth-making. Again, it shows that the author is entirely unfamiliar with even the most basic scholarship on the subject. \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1n9piw/did_english_longbowmen_have_significant/",
"https://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/myth-of-the-longbow/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2hlg62
|
what would happen if a queen was carrying a king's son, but the king died.
|
Would the throne go to the current first-in-line? Or would it go to the unborn son? Would there be a time cut off? How would this vary in different countries?
Edit; Conscious it would vary a lot from one country to another, but any thoughts on what would happen in some prominent monarchies? The UK? Norway? Spain? Thailand?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hlg62/eli5_what_would_happen_if_a_queen_was_carrying_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cktr0gc",
"cktr7w7",
"ckts5eg"
],
"score": [
13,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It would depend on the time and country. Different countries all had different rules of royal succession, and those rules changed over the course of history. \n\nThere is no actual single answer to this question. It would be like asking, \"What color is everything?\"",
"_URL_1_\n\nSo this video is on the topic of the British monarchy, I can't speak to the systems for other monarchies. But basically, people in line to the throne aren't actually in line until they're born (y'know, when they become people.) So the King dies while his wife is pregnant with his son. The crown then goes to the next person in line which would probably be the King's closest-aged sibling if he has any. Now, if this new King (let's say he's brother of the original king) dies before he has any children, then the crown goes to the baby, son of the original king. However, any kids the newer king has will automatically be higher up in line than kids of the old king. So if the new king (brother of the original king) has kids, those kids will be first in line, before the child of the original king. It's important to realize that the list of people in line to the throne is literally thousands of names long, and there's other people besides siblings who also get rights to be in line. It's very complicated. There's an enormous, ever-changing list on wikipedia of the entire line of succession to the British throne that lists over a thousand people. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nEDIT: So the last time I looked at that wikipedia article, it looked much different, and listed thousands of names. Now it only shows the top 50 people. But those are really the only important ones, no one else has even a remote chance of ever being king or queen. \n\nSECOND EDIT: For British monarchs, if the child is conceived out of wedlock or has ever been a Catholic, they are permanently excluded from the line of succession. So a child the king has with a mistress cannot be king or queen. ",
"This is known as posthumous birth.\n\nAnd as of yet in the majority of monarchies, the Blood Heir beats out a sibling. Meaning that the sibling cannot take the throne, or may take the throne and reign until the child is old enough to take the throne themself, at which point the child would become Monarch.\n\nSo, let's fast forward 30 years, time and toil have taken their toll on the Royal Family, Elizabeth, Margaret, Charles, William and Harry are all dead, leaving King George on the throne and his brother Edward. King George is married to Queen Amanda and are expecting their first child. 6 months into the pregnancy, King George is killed in a car accident, but Queen Amanda hasn't given birth. This leaves Edward in a position where he can take the throne, but when the child is old enough to take the throne (most likely at 18, or perhaps slightly later depending on if he too joins the military) he would have to abdicate the throne and allow his nephew, young Prince Andrew to take the throne. \n\nOf course, Edward could keep the throne and possibly spark a civil war, or kill Amanda and the unborn Andrew, but those tactics haven't been seen in years.\n\nEDIT - This is based off of an agnatic primogeniture. With male primogeniture, it would be the same, but if Amanda gave birth to a princess, then Edward would keep the throne. With absolute primogeniture, Edward could not claim the throne as King, but could claim it as steward.\n\nFor fun, Thailand is male primogeniture, Spain is absolute neutral primogeniture, UK is currently male-preference absolute, but it is in the works for that to be changed, and Norway is absolute as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUY6HGqYweQ"
],
[]
] |
|
1kdjs4
|
why do contestants on "jeopardy" pick the lowest amount of money questions first?
|
I have been watching a lot of Jeopardy lately and I can seem to come to a reasonable conclusion to this question please help!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kdjs4/eli5_why_do_contestants_on_jeopardy_pick_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbnu2uj",
"cbnu2z2",
"cbnvhy1",
"cbnvlg0",
"cbny9l5"
],
"score": [
7,
15,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"because \"Potent Potables\" is not an immediately obvious topic. If you take a few easy questions first, then you can gauge the rest of the questions in that category. So by the time you take 500, you have a better understanding of what's about to be asked of you and are more likely to answer first. ",
"Daily doubles are often hidden in the larger amounts, they are not useful when you only have $500 to bet on. Also some categories want answers that aren't quite straight forward (like \"before and after\"), so contestants want to get the hang of it before forfeiting larger amount questions.",
"With only the title they usually can't understand what the category actually is so if they choose the most expensive first then they wouldn't know what they were getting themselves into. However, recently the strategy is sometimes choose from the middle first then go down to the expensive ones.\n",
"Usually the easier questions are under the lower amounts and the questions increase in difficulty as you move towards the higher amounts. Taking the lower amounts also lets you see the type of questioons without risking a lot.",
"What everyone else said about increasing difficulty is correct, but the contestants are also encouraged to choose the clues in order, if possible. The producers will tolerate some skipping around, but they don't like it very much. (source: I was a Jeopardy contestant)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
zibqo
|
How many vehicles are there on Earth right now that are capable of spaceflight?
|
As part of a project, I've been looking at moving a large crew of people up to an orbiting space station. I want to look at how long it would take to move them if you used every spaceflight capable vehicle on Earth, but I can't find much information regarding the number of said vehicles, hence my question. It doesn't matter what they are, shuttles or rockets, commercial or government, just anything that could get into an Earth orbit.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zibqo/how_many_vehicles_are_there_on_earth_right_now/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c64u2av",
"c64y46a"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you don't care about them being human rated, the answer is probably a lot. Russia (and people that contract them for launches) frequently use old ICBMs (e.g. _URL_0_) to launch satellites.",
"When you say \"every spaceflight-capable vehicle on Earth\" that can carry humans, you're probably looking at whatever Soyuz inventory the Russians have and any human-rated but not-yet-launched Shenzhou capsules the Chinese may have produced.\n\nThe shuttles have been mothballed, the Virgin Galactic spacecraft will not reach orbit, and most other space vehicles are produced, used once, and discarded. So the answer to your question is \"damned few.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr-1"
],
[]
] |
|
im6yl
|
Can UV light kill fleas?
|
Can UV light wands like [this](_URL_0_) one really kill fleas or their eggs?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/im6yl/can_uv_light_kill_fleas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c24whzb",
"c24y1at",
"c24y28h"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"UV light can kill pretty much anything, if you leave it under the UV long enough. It's used pretty commonly as a disinfectant in labs and hospitals already, though sterilisation cycles are generally minutes to hours long depending on what you're trying to kill (bacteria, fungus virus, bacterial spores). \n\nThis thing in particular? I'm pretty sceptical. It would depend on the strength of the UV light. It says it works in 10 seconds. I reckon that would make it absolutely deadly to be waving around in the air without any safety equipment. UV light is not a toy, and is especially damaging to eyes and other fun things. So chances are it's a bit bullshit, as they would have to reduce the power enough to make it 'safe', which would also make it useless. \n\nIt is also an absolutely unnecessary device for personal use.",
"It might be able to kill their eggs.\n\nUV is ionizing radiation, like gamma-rays, x-rays and such stuff, but it's at the very weakest end of the scale. So weak that we can laugh at it with impunity, because it can't even penetrate skin. There are only two areas on the whole body that is susceptible to UV-light (assuming you have no open sores), and that's the eyes.\n\nUV light isn't just dangerous to your eyes because the retinas doesn't contract (because the eyes can't sense how much light is coming in), but it's actually radiation of the ionizing kind.\n\nGerms and such have no skin - they have a pitiful membrane that's totally not up to the task of blocking UV-rays, and as such, ten seconds of UV-light fucks up their DNA and gives them instant-death-cancer (to put it in a way that's not technically true), and the same *might* be true for the eggs of fleas and bedbugs.\n\nI'm pretty certain, though, that it's wholly ineffective against adult fleas - they have a chitinious armour and everything.\n\n\nOne last thing - ten seconds is not very much, so the device would have to be pretty powerful. A lot of the information on the page is overblown and bordering on untrue. See here, for example:\n\n*Dust mites and their droppings can be 50% of the mattress weight.*\n\nThat would mean they're inside the mattress.\n\n*Treating those surfaces with the Nano-UV™ will quickly lower the population of dust mites*\n\nYou can't light *inside* the mattress.\n\nApart from that, they also sell detox aids and holistic health.\n\nI'd say \"UV-light can kill flea eggs. Their UV wand probably can't\".",
"It might be able to kill their eggs.\n\nUV is ionizing radiation, like gamma-rays, x-rays and such stuff, but it's at the very weakest end of the scale. So weak that we can laugh at it with impunity, because it can't even penetrate skin. There are only two areas on the whole body that is susceptible to UV-light (assuming you have no open sores), and that's the eyes.\n\nUV light isn't just dangerous to your eyes because the retinas doesn't contract (because the eyes can't sense how much light is coming in), but it's actually radiation of the ionizing kind.\n\nGerms and such have no skin - they have a pitiful membrane that's totally not up to the task of blocking UV-rays, and as such, ten seconds of UV-light fucks up their DNA and gives them instant-death-cancer (to put it in a way that's not technically true), and the same *might* be true for the eggs of fleas and bedbugs.\n\nI'm pretty certain, though, that it's wholly ineffective against adult fleas - they have a chitinious armour and everything.\n\n\nOne last thing - ten seconds is not very much, so the device would have to be pretty powerful. A lot of the information on the page is overblown and bordering on untrue. See here, for example:\n\n*Dust mites and their droppings can be 50% of the mattress weight.*\n\nThat would mean they're inside the mattress.\n\n*Treating those surfaces with the Nano-UV™ will quickly lower the population of dust mites*\n\nYou can't light *inside* the mattress.\n\nApart from that, they also sell detox aids and holistic health.\n\nI'd say \"UV-light can kill flea eggs. Their UV wand probably can't\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.safesolutionsinc.com/UV_Disinfection_Light.htm"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2oq3ul
|
A finding of life based on what at first appeared to be metabolic activity?
|
I came across that line in [this](_URL_0_)
"Curiosity does not carry life-detection instruments, in large part because there is no consensus on what such an instrument might be. A finding of life based on what at first appeared to be metabolic activity, detected during the Viking missions of 1977, was so controversial that NASA ultimately rejected it."
What was that all about?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2oq3ul/a_finding_of_life_based_on_what_at_first_appeared/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmpuxg2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Here's a good article from Wikipedia:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe experiment that caused all the controversy was the \"Labeled Release\" one. This incubated Martian soil with a dilute solution of nutrients, each of which had carbon-14 incorporated into it. The headspace gases were analyzed to see if any of the 14C had ended up being converted to a gas (like carbon dioxide) through biological activity. The first round of samples did appear to show this effect, but none of the other experiments indicated the presence of life. Later discovery of oxidizing agents in Martian soil have raised the possibility of the LR results being due to straight inorganic chemistry, rather than biochemistry, but opinions vary on this, too.\n\nOverall, the Viking results are, I believe, still considered inconclusive and difficult to interpret, at least until we do other direct tests for life again."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/science/-stronger-signs-of-life-on-mars.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experiments"
]
] |
|
6nwehr
|
Are there any sources for the trial and execution of Socrates that were not written by his students?
|
Both Plato and Xenophon wrote about the trial of Socrates, but do we have any other sources from outside of his inner-circle? I'm asking because the charges, impiety and corrupting the youth, sound like they could have quite a few interpretations or implications that might not have been communicated by those who most respected him...
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6nwehr/are_there_any_sources_for_the_trial_and_execution/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkcwlrj"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"No, but there is one other primary source on Socrates which focuses on his early life: the playwright Aristophanes.\n\nIt is generally accepted that the three mostly intact sources for the life of Socrates are found by the following authors: Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes, the latter of whom was less than flattering but who produced what is technically the oldest surviving source. Socrates was apparently well aware of his semi-fictional depiction in *The Clouds* (and then later in *The Birds* and *The Frogs*). In Plato's *Apology*, Socrates complains at his trial that \"that is what you have seen yourselves in the comedy of Aristophanes; who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and saying that he can walk in the air, and talking a deal of nonsense.\" And the Socrates who appears in the plays of Aristophanes is remarkably different from the Socrates of Plato or Xenophon: this caricature is very interested in learning things like how far a flea can jump, and runs a \"Thinkery\" of similar-minded natural philosophers who pay him to instill his knowledge in their heads. This in sharp contrast to the Socrates who made much of knowing nothing except that he knows nothing, and who insisted on living in poverty.\n\nThere are no other primary sources on the life of Socrates (though some fragments from his other students and contemporaries exist), and none which describe the trial. The Athenian polity did not leave a surviving written record of his conviction and execution.\n\nFor an in-depth analysis of the three major primary sources on the life of Socrates (more detailed than the [entry at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](_URL_0_)) and what each one contributes to our current understanding of who Socrates was, I recommend the following source:\n\nNavia, Luis E. *The Socratic Presence: A Study of the Sources*. New York: Garland Pub, 1993."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/"
]
] |
|
8us02r
|
How effective was the boomerang as a weapon?
|
Not sure if this is the right sub for this question, but I was curious about one of histories oldest ranged weapons, the boomerang.
I have seen it can be thrown impressive lengths (160 meters), but have no real idea of the damage it is capable of. The only video I could find of a boomerang actually hitting something was by someone who clearly knows nothing about proper form, and threw from maybe ten feet or so away.
Can anyone tell me just how deadly the boomerang was when used by a skilled individual? What kind of damage it could inflict when used properly?
Thank you.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8us02r/how_effective_was_the_boomerang_as_a_weapon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1hw8rm"
],
"score": [
659
],
"text": [
"400-500g is a not unusual weight for a boomerang (straight-flying hunting boomerang, rather than a returning boomerang). An experienced thrower can throw such a boomerang at speeds in excess of 20m/s, for kinetic energy of over 100J (translational kinetic energy, not counting the rotational kinetic energy).\n\nThis is approximately the energy that can be delivered with a blow by a club of similar weight (Alan R. Williams, *The Knight and the Blast Furnace*, Brill, 2003 gives 60-130J as typical energy for sword and axe blows). While this isn't as dangerous as a strike by an edged weapon, it is still a dangerous blunt weapon. R. W. French and G. R. Callender, \"Ballistic Characteristics of Wounding Agents\", ch 2 in J. C. Beyer (ed), *Wound Ballistics*, Medical Department, United States Army, 1962, report 58 ft-lbs (approx 80J) as an energy where \"on the average it is probable that this amount of energy will insure a casualty\". The boomerang also strikes with a narrow (but not sharp like a blade) edge, which makes it more damaging than an impact weapon with a broad striking surface.\n\nThe rotational kinetic energy can also contribute to damage when the boomerang hits.\n\nPayne-Gallwey (of *Crossbow* fame) reported that\n\n > This weapon will travel, skimming low over the ground, to a range of from 150 to 180 yards, and the blow it gives a tree-trunk at 80 yards, is as if the latter were struck by a heavy blunt sword. As an instrument of savage warfare it would have a terrible effect on a scantily clad opponent.\n\n(Arthur G. Credland, \"Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey Bt. and the Study of Medieval and Ancient Projectile Weapons\", *Arms & Armour*, Vol. 8 No. 1, 2011, 46-88)\n\nSuch boomerangs were used to hunt large game such as emus and kangaroos, and were capable of bringing down such animals at ranges in excess of 60m (at which distance, the boomerang, through its straight and level trajectory, can provide significant advantage in accuracy over spears).\n\nAs for the possible effect on humans, Michael Westaway et al., \"The death of Kaakutja: a case of peri-mortem weapon trauma in an Aboriginal man from north-western New South Wales, Australia\", *Antiquity*, 90, 1318-1333 (2016) report skeletal evidence that boomerangs or similar narrow-edged wooden weapons (like sword clubs (e.g., the lil-lil club), which will deliver similar energies) can kill."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a7it01
|
i know why animals/humans store fat, but how and why do plants that grow fatty fruits collect and store fat (avocado, coconut, olives, etc)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7it01/eli5_i_know_why_animalshumans_store_fat_but_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ec3b7q9"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I believe sometimes a fruits/seeds will contain nutrients for making new plants/trees. The growing plant will find it easier to find sustenance\n\nI also believe that sometimes it is to trick animals into eating the seeds and pooping them out far from the original tree.\nBut I am not a scientist"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4ux4zr
|
if we were able to remove the brains ability to release dopamine and serotonin, would we be able to feel happiness?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ux4zr/eli5_if_we_were_able_to_remove_the_brains_ability/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5tkru3"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Nope, because we'd be dead. While those neurotransmitters do affect mood, they also have other very important functions. For instance, Parkinson's Disease is caused by a loss of dopamine. And serotonin deficiencies often cause babies to just suddenly die."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
62g508
|
why are some features of humans, like hands and skulls, so innately hard to draw?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62g508/eli5_why_are_some_features_of_humans_like_hands/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfmbdbj",
"dfmbga3",
"dfme6io"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
9
],
"text": [
"Due to the depth and variety of each finger, and the complex curves and angles, hands are relatively difficult to master. It's tricky ensuring everything is totally proportionate. Similarly, heads/faces require attention to detail and proportion, as I'm sure no one wants their drawings' faces to look like a cow with down syndrome. ",
"Our brains see faces and bodies all the time and can easily recognize where features like eyes, nose, mouth, arms, legs, etc. belong but we don't commit skull or hand details to memory as well. The spatial depth and proportion of them make it difficult to sketch.",
"Aside from their intrinsically complex shapes etc that others already mentioned, we are also more adept at detecting aberrations from the norm regarding human anatomy. If someone draws a weirdly warped car or chair for example it might not look as strange as a bizarrely drawn face or appendage, because our brains are fine-tuned to extract a lot of information from the former."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1o5i4m
|
why are logos and layouts getting simpler?
|
It seems to me that logos and graphics generally are getting simpler and less colored. It seems that they are throwing away the shadows and losing depth. Why is that?
Examples:
* [Google Logo Evolution](_URL_2_
)
* [Pepsi logo evolution](_URL_0_)
* [Android evolution](_URL_1_)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o5i4m/eli5_why_are_logos_and_layouts_getting_simpler/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccoxysd",
"ccoydr7"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"It's just the current popular style. Flat simple forms are the current \"in \" look, so that's what companies are adopting to seem more relevant. In 5-10 years, odds are good some other basic design trait will be the new fad.\n\n",
"Graphic designer here, reporting.\n\nIn general, the more clean and simple something can be made [without being unoriginal] the more recognizable and timeless it will be. Compare the [original Apple logo](_URL_1_) with [the glyph they use now.](_URL_0_) Which one's easier to recognize? That's the sort of thinking that went into the changing Pepsi logo–they're distilling their brand into something cleaner and more recognizable. So there's that, but there's also...sigh...\n\nIn the past year or two, there's been a trend towards \"flat design\" by all three leading tech companies [Apple, Google, Microsoft] in their mobile interfaces, as part of an effort to fix their interfaces. When you've had a massive product ecosystem being developed over a decade, a lot of inconsistency crops up. \n\nSo Google redesigned all their web services to have a unified color scheme and style. And Microsoft redesigned Windows and Windows Phone [and even their logo] to be more consistent. Apple's always been the least cluttered, visually, of the rest, but they've still got a lot to fix. With Jony Ive now responsible for leading the visual design of iOS7, there was a massive push inside Apple to redesign iOS to have a consistent color scheme, grid, typography, etcetera.\n\nA lot of graphic designers, in an effort to be trendy and hip, are copying what these companies are doing. \"Flat design\" is much easier to ape than a lot of other trends have been, so a lot of developers and smaller companies are happy to comply."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://cdn.instantshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bcle-14.jpg",
"https://lh3.ggpht.com/-uCxYm4rjpFM/UYkMRpWtYMI/AAAAAAAAel8/XXxkm1rkqMM/s1600/AndroidEvolution-phones.png",
"https://lawlytics.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/uploads/GoogleLogo.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Apple_gray_logo.png",
"http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/original_apple_logo.gif"
]
] |
|
4e7gnz
|
How does a flamethrower prevent the back flow of combustion as it shoots a stream of ignited fuel?
|
In a flamethrower like [this]( _URL_0_) as the fuel gets shot out of the barrel, it gets ignited creating stream of fire.
I'm assuming the fuel gets ignited after it exits the barrel, cause in the gif, theres no visible flame at the tip of the barrel. But how does the flamethrower prevent the flame from spreading into the barrel and ignite the fuel that's being constantly spewed out? Or if not that, how is combustion of the fumes prevented?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4e7gnz/how_does_a_flamethrower_prevent_the_back_flow_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1xptjs",
"d1xpykh"
],
"score": [
49,
31
],
"text": [
"This device has no barrel - it's a torch with a two handed grip, plain and simple. Fuel and air mix outside of the fuel hose, which allows combustion. Inside the fuel hose, there is nothing but fuel, so combustion cannot occur.",
"Things need the fire triangle to burn. These are heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent (for simplicity oxygen - O2). These 3 items all have minimum values they need to support their function. Example a little heat might not cause combustion but add a little more to the fuel/O2 and you get fire. The liquid fuel in the pipe is missing both the heat and the Oxygen. \nIn addition when you dig a little deeper you will find that almost all fuels must convert to vapor to burn so seeing as the fuel in the pipe is still liquid this also reduces the possibility of combustion. If you look closely you can see that the flames don't actually appear until the liquid fuel is a few inches from the tip at the point where enough of the fuel has vaporized to support the combustion.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/mY0TgUA.gifv"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2dpiu9
|
Are there any bugs (like moths) who have evolved an 'immunity' to being confused by or drawn to light sources like porch lights? How about predators that started living near lights because of the abundance of food?
|
I understand such lights have only been around for a relatively short time, but it seems like it'd be such a perfect spot for predation that it'd have some effect on some species' behaviors.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2dpiu9/are_there_any_bugs_like_moths_who_have_evolved_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjry33l"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"[Mediterranean Geckos](_URL_0_) , which now live almost exclusively on buildings, have been incredibly successful in spreading around the world. Man made structures offer vertical surfaces and hiding places. But they also often have lights and windows that attract insects. Although I have never seen a scientific study on how lights affect them, it is likely that the Mediterranean Geckos benefit from insects attracted to lights."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_house_gecko"
]
] |
|
1513sj
|
If you were somewhere in space where the nearest star was thousands (or millions) of light years away would it be practically pitch black? Could you see your hand in front of your face?
|
Like the title says could their be locations in space where it is so far from any light source that it is pitch black and you could only see distant stars or galaxies?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1513sj/if_you_were_somewhere_in_space_where_the_nearest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7iavmp",
"c7iawy5",
"c7ibcbz"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, there are places where it's that dark. In fact, most of the universe is that dark. If you were to suddenly appear somewhere else at a random place in the universe the odds are you would be in a place so dark you could not see any stars or galaxies. You could see galaxies if you had a telescope but with the naked eye there would be nothing to see, not even a dim glow, because the space between galaxies is so great. It makes you realize how big the universe really is.",
"If you were located in the voids outside galaxy filaments, you would not see anything with you eyes. Not stars, not galaxies, not hand in front of your face. \n",
"While the other two comments (so far) are scientifically accurate, I couldn't help but be reminded of \"The night sky over the planet Krikkit is the least interesting sight in the entire Universe.\" _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/tag/douglas-adams/"
]
] |
|
8zptj7
|
Why is there no mention of Alexander the Great in the bible?
|
I find it hard to understand how a man who conquered almost all of the lands in the bible is never mentioned in it.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8zptj7/why_is_there_no_mention_of_alexander_the_great_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2l70kk",
"e3d2f3d"
],
"score": [
895,
3
],
"text": [
"As far as I know we simply will not have any particular reason to give to that.\n\nNow, [hillsonghoods](_URL_0_) mentions two good points in his post when an answer was removed: (a) there's not one canon (b) the process by which we end up with certain texts needs to be discussed. And he helpfully points out a passage in which a Biblical text does mention Alexander the Great. I will largely focus on the second point I mention, but not in a definitive way. Rather, that point got me thinking about the difficulties that seem to come with the question (especially as I tried to find research I had access to that might offer more helpful answers and I continually came up with nothing)\n\nI'll preface my quick response with a quick note: I suggest crossposting this [/r/AskBibleScholars](_URL_1_) since there are some people who will know a lot about this topic. But I will also quickly add that the text we have already had mentioned is from 1 Maccabees, a text which does not appear in the Protestant Bible but does appear in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles. The process by which the canon had some alterations (namely, Protestants viewed some texts as less-inspired or not-inspired and removed them from their canon and, overtime, largely stopped reading them) is, I think, what hillsonghoods was getting at.\n\nAnother thing to consider is that 1 Macacabees is one might call an intertestamental book -- meaning it was composed sometime between the Old Testament and the New Testament (though it would be considered part of the Old Testament in some traditions). This is relevant because 1 Maccabees is a later text (written about the time after Alexander the Great had died, in particular). I suspect OP's question is concerned with why contemporary texts in the Bible don't mention him. A quick look at the common dating of books suggests that the texts which were written around Alexander's reign are Chronicles (dealing with the history of the North and South kingdoms), a smattering of wisdoms texts (Job, Ecclesiastes), and sections of Psalms. And perhaps Ezra and Nehemiah were starting to take shape. If you were to ask me what texts I would expect to speak about such a figure, I would say \"history or prophetic texts\" but the texts that are commonly thought to originate from that time all pretty insular in focus (history of the people and a record of the restoration of the people in the land). If common dating of texts is correct, the question is really why weren't more prophetic texts being composed or preserved during this time?\n\nBradley Gregory, in \"Historical Candidates for the fallen King in Sirach 10,10\" (from *Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft* 126, no. 4 (2014): 589-591) believes that Sirach 10:10 (\"A long illness baffles the physician; the king of today will die tomorrow,\" New Revised Standard Version) is a reference to Alexander the Great and writes:\n\n > The significance of Alexander’s fatal illness for Jews living much later is confirmed by the brief account of Alexander the Great in 1 Maccabees in which the author’s main point about Alexander is that his illness, described as »falling on his bed«, was a reversal of his arrogance, described as having a heart that was »exalted and lifted up« (p. 591)\n\nGregory's article is sadly short (he's mostly just suggesting a possible figure to consider), but he believes that in the original languages there's also commonality between the Sirach passage and 1 Maccabees. Yet I believe Gregory's potential solution to a minor quandary (does 10:10 refer to a specific monarch?) raised another question: if Alexander's perceived arrogance was so well-known that this would have been seen as a clear reference to him, why do we not have more Jewish literature concerning him? To which there is no clear answer. I tried to do a search to see if there are non-biblical, religious texts from the Jewish people that mention him but that's outside of my realm of expertise.\n\nAnd I'm not sure there will be answers on this question that do not go into speculation. Because the question can easily because why do the Jewish holy texts not mention this figure? And my speculative answer is simply that the scope of Tanakh was, for some unknown reason, codified so that Alexander the Great seems outside of the scope. The histories we have and the prophetic texts which we have are largely dealing with pre-exilic realities and the final books concern the restoration of the people to the land and the rebuilding of the Temple. One could hypothesize that these were deliberate choices made by the priestly class, but we do not know if this is the case. One could assume there is a narrative unity that ultimately runs thought the Old Testament, but this would also be speculation. And would open the question as to why the canon was codified in such a way, why did their canon close when it did?\n\nAnd part of this issue is simple: the process by which some texts are codified and others are not is not a clear process. Brennan W. Breed, in *Nomadic Texts: A Theory of Biblical Reception History*, discusses the fluidity of text in the Second Temple period: even if certain texts were agreed to be holy which version of that same text was considered authoritative was not agreed upon (in a modern analogy it'd be like if I decided to read from The Message in my church, where Scripture reading is explicitly done from either the New International Version or the New Revised Standard Version; The Message is not seen as an adequate representation of the word of God, but in other churches it might be). Yet Breed's argument makes this conversation even more difficult. Because he also is pretty firm on the idea that the idea of a canon is an anachronistic category to impose upon ancient Judaism (p. 48-9) and highlights the variety of textual traditions and differences in which \"the earliest version \\[of a text\\] was both copied and altered by... successive communities, each with their own distinction theological perspective\" (p. 21). Which only highlights: why do we not know of Judaic traditions who were engaging in this process with their religious texts to decry or praise Alexander the Great? Why is it not until after his death that Judaism seems to find him particularly noteworthy?\n\nWhich also highlights why this issue becomes even more bizarre: there is not a monolithic Judaism that we can look to the past and say \"there, that's THE Judaism.\" We know there was a plurality of Judaisms with people that were writing. We find manuscripts or references to texts that we do not have, we have competing views of what counts as the Old Testament (is 1 Maccabees a holy text or not?), yet we do not find more references. Did Alexander the Great not strike the Jewish people as noteworthy? Was his reign simply in an era where the Jewish people were, by and large, not writing too many works? Were works referencing him largely lost? Are there perhaps coded references to him in texts (akin to how Rome might be referenced through allusions and metaphor in later apocalyptic texts)? \n\n\n(Added: to that last question, some do believe that Daniel contains obscure references to Alexander the Great:\n\n > ALEXANDER THE GREAT -- the king of Macedonia, the great conqueror; probably represented in Daniel by the “belly of brass” (Dan. 2:32), and the leopard and the he-goat (7:6; 11:3)\n\nfrom M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893); it's an assertion I've come across elsewhere).\n\nThis is all a long way to say that I'm simply not sure if there's an answer we can get to. I think any answer will raise more potential question. It's a difficult answer to give, especially when Alexander the Great seemed to have made an impact with their neighbours.",
"Alexander is not mentioned directly in the Bible. However, he is mentioned multiple times. u/Jordandeanbaker has enlightened us in the book of Ezekiel. A prophecy about Tyre being destroyed which was fulfilled by Alexander. However, this does not qualify as a \"mention.\" Along these same lines, Zechariah ch. 9 tells of a prophecy involving Tyre, Sidon, and Damascus. Specifically to Tyre is Ze. 9:4 \"Behold, the Lord will cast her out, and he will smite her power in the sea; and she shall be devoured with fire\" (KJV). In fact, most of that chapter is a prophecy in which Alexander arguably fulfilled. Still, this does not qualify as a \"mention.\"\n\nIn Daniel, we see Alexander through interpreting dreams. In fact, a great many powerful empires are described via strange animalesque creatures. Alexander is described a few times. Keep in mind, these are subjective to interpretation. In Daniel 2, Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Daniel 2:31-35 describe the statue of gold, silver, iron, bronze, and clay.\n\n\" Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.\" (Dan. 2:31-35, KJV). \"Broken to pieces\" and \"carried away,\" but the image \"filled the whole earth.\" Alexander's empire filled the earth and was made of many parts, but eventually was broken to pieces and withered away.\n\nDaniel chapter 7 reveals Alexander again, in the form of a leopard: \" After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it\" (Dan. 7:6, KJV). In the beginning of this chapter, four beasts are mentioned which are, in fact, empires. We interpret this to be Alexander because of the order in which it is mentioned and the number four. As you will see, Daniel uses this number often when describing Alexander.\n\nNext, in Daniel chapter 8, Daniel talks about the ram and the goat. Daniel 8:2-8 describes a conflict between a ram with 2 horns (one higher than the other) and \"an he goat\" with one \"notable horn.\" \"And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.\"(Dan. 2:5, KJV). Alexander did come from the West and he did take the whole world. Daniel explains the creatures in 8:20-21: \"The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.\" Thus, we are to interpret the he goat as Alexander. At the end of the dream description, or at least the part that involves Alexander, the goat's horn was broken into four pieces, Dan. 8:8 (AGAIN). Dan. 8:22 explains that those four horns are the four kingdoms that rose up from the king of Grecia's empire. One thing to note here, Daniel interprets the goat as the King of Greece (Alexander III) and the horn as \"the first king\" (Phillip II).\n\nFinally, Daniel chapter 11 mentions Alexander once more. Dan. 11:2-4 talks about three kings in Perisa and one mighty king in Grecia. But, Daniel, as he has always done, concludes with the empire being broken into four kingdoms. \" And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those. (Dan. 11:4, KJV).\n\nI know this answer comes a bit late, but I wanted to add to the answers. Someone put up a great post about Maccabees, so I left that out. I hope this helps."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/user/hillsonghoods",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars"
],
[]
] |
|
1gi5ki
|
Why did the Visigothic and Ostrogothic cultures disappear? Why are there no more ethnic Goths in Europe?
|
I know that Crimean Gothic was spoken until the 18th Century in parts of the Ukraine, but that still doesn't explain *where they all went*. Genocide? Intermarriage? Cultural assimilation?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gi5ki/why_did_the_visigothic_and_ostrogothic_cultures/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cakhov9",
"cakmrrn"
],
"score": [
32,
19
],
"text": [
"Some of the Visigoths ended up ruling northern spain and parts pf southern france in the Visigothic Kingdom from the fifth through the eighth centuries (AD). They were able to secure this land partly via conquest and partly at the behest of the Romans. Their dominance was ended by the invasion of Spain by Islamic forces in 711. Their influence was subsequently confined to the Pyrenees region until the reconquista began.\n\nAs flor being culturally asimmilated, they did convert to Catholicism. Also, a professor of mine referred to their actions in Spain as being \"more Roman than the Romans,\" as they adopted many practices of the Romans including legal ideas, entertainment, and architectural and engineering practices. \n\nAs an aside, during my semester abroad, the school organized a trip to Rome. One of our professors spoke Gothic, and claimed to be one of a very small number who still spoke the language. I have no idea if his statement was accurate or not, but I have no real reason to question his claim as it was an impressive performance. ",
"The Ostrogoths pretty much disappear from the record after their conquest by the Eastern Roman armies in the 535-554 Gothic War, followed by the soon-to-follow Lombard conquest of Italy in 568.\n\nThe Ostrogoths, like all barbarian tribes, were never \"that\" large a percentage of the population. We're talking something around 3% of the population, all at the top. There were altering degrees of assimilation, in that they simultaneously became quite Romanized, but also were very keen on maintaining separation because of their status as elites of society. This is why there was all that hubbub after the death of Theodoric over who should be his successor, because his appointed one, Athalaric, was viewed with alarm by other Goths as being too influenced by the Roman customs of culture than the Gothic ones of war. However, the bulk of their administration was entirely Roman, so the culture was predominantly one of the elite classes to each other. This is why once they were defeated as an elite class, they disappeared so quickly, melting back into the Roman.\n\nThough obviously Goths continued to exist, most likely as middle landowners, they no longer appear as a political grouping, and apparently their archaeological culture vanishes without a trace after the Gothic war. When the Franks come around to conquer Italy, the administrative structure they take over is Lombard and Byzantine, not Ostrogothic.\n\n/u/domini_canes covers Visigothic Spain's overview quite well. Just to fill in some details. Visigothic Spain was very similar to Italy in that they merged quite well with the existing Roman culture (Spain maintained and expanded on Roman law to a degree larger than the other former western provinces, although with questionable enforcement), so that when they themselves were conquered by the Arabs, the removal of their status as elite classes also destroyed much of their culture. Obviously Asturias is a kingdom in the northwest of Spain with surviving Visigothic descent (which would later break up into kingdoms like Castille and Aragon which would go on to make up later medieval Spain), but apparently that area was already marginal to Visigothic Spain at the time, which was centered around Merida, and the Mediterranean coast. Because of Asturias being far away from the \"main action\", they developed their own culture quite independently from the Visigothic overlay of the Roman foundations of the more occupied Southern part of Spain, despite the Visigothic noble descent of their founders.\n\nI do not have more information on the Crimean Goths unfortunately.\n\ntl;dr - the Goths were never that large a percentage of post-Roman society, and tended to occupy the leadership caste. When their leadership was removed, they melded into the Roman subclass under the new overlords."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
amghw3
|
why do devices such as phones take such little time to get to around 80%, and then take ages for the last 20%?
|
I'm gonna assume this is a result of the rate of charge of the capacitors of the device, as they're an exponential curve.. but I don't know for sure.. because that's a capacitor and they're using batteries.. right?
As a side note, if you only charged it to 80% would it last as long as if you were to charge it to 100%, run it down to 80% and time from there? Or is it less, because it didn't reach the full charge or something.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/amghw3/eli5_why_do_devices_such_as_phones_take_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efm639o"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The charge stored in a battery when supplied by a constant voltage is exponential, depending on the type. \n\nELI5: you’re at a public pool on a 105° degree day that only lets people in 1 at a time. They are gonna fill that pool up until they’re shoulder to shoulder, but each person goes to a random open spot in the pool. When the pool has no one in it, people enter from wherever and they can find their spot quickly. The more full the pool gets, the more time it takes for each person to find their designated spot. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cwwawq
|
How popular was classical music versus other songs in their mutual contemporary period? Was it based on class?
|
In the 1700/1800s how popular was classical music? How did this compare to the songs you might hear at a pub/bar at night or other folk/local music vs Mozart or Chopin?
Who listened to classical music and how did it spread in popularity?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cwwawq/how_popular_was_classical_music_versus_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyp8c4f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"TL;DR:\n\nClassical music is music from the past, but it should not be assumed to be THE music of the past. It was mostly the music of the rich and powerful, and it was composed in specific styles and for specific contexts. Most people never wore fancy expensive formal clothes with elaborate jewelry, ate expensive exotic meals, or listened to fancy classical music. Classical music was not pub music.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFirst, what is classical music?\n\nIn the general sense, it usually refers to music that is connected to a tradition that comes from practices that started to be codified and institutionalized around the 9th-10th century in Europe: the usage of a form to write music down and theory of how to create music. It started in the Catholic Church, with literate people who wanted to standardize the music in the liturgy and its practice in all the regions in which it was performed. Those practices managed to get to secular music, mostly to the musicians employed by the rich and powerful.\n\nToday most people think of classical music as a collection of pieces by some specific composers. Those composers belong to the previously mentioned tradition, because their music survived by being written with musical notation and their music uses the techniques codified in the music theory that was developed from the system that started to be codified many centuries ago. Those musicians had an education: they learned what music was meant to be and how it was meant to be performed. They mostly worked for the rich (first the Church and the nobility, then the wealthy). They were mostly trained craftsmen (today we would say professionals and artists, but for a long time that was not how they were seen) who were hired because of their skill and knowledge. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nHow did this compare to other kinds music? Let's get to the specific centuries of your question with some examples.\n\nFrançois Couperin was a French musician, from a long line of distinguished musicians, working around 1700 at the court of Louis XIV. He and other very well respected musicians composed and played music for many events of the aristocracy: religious ceremonies, social events, state events. Keep in mind Louis XIV [had this place built](_URL_0_), and employed hundreds of musicians for all his musical needs. The king wanted the fanciest palace to show his wealth and power, establishing what refined taste and the highest expression of the arts were. All the artists he employed were working to give the king what he wanted, and the aristocracy were to follow whatever he came up with. Surgery for an anal fistula became a [fashionable thing](_URL_2_) because he had it done. \n\nSo, Couperin and others composed for the richest and most powerful, in quirky styles that matched the dances those people liked (the king danced). At that time there was a lot of emphasis even in things like how should a high born person move, how to make fancy gestures and make ceremonies out of many things (they had ceremonies for when the king was waking up and going to bed, for examples). A highly stylized way of life in many regards.\n\n[You can listen to some music by Couperin here.](_URL_3_)\n\nWould poor people find any use for this peculiar music that was composed for fancy dancing or to entertain noble folks in choreographed social/state events? Would such music be suitable for pubs or public festivities? Not really, no. Would this music be easy to get? Well, some of this music was printed and sold. You would need to pay for it and pay properly trained musicians with proper instruments. Not doable for most people.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nJohann Sebastian Bach was a German musician who died in 1750. He was a very religious protestant, who worked for churches and princes. Would regular people be able to listen to this music? Well, in many cases they would. People attending the [St. Nicholas Church in Leipzig](_URL_1_) in 1724 would have listened to [Bach's new Passio, composed for Good Friday](_URL_4_). They even tried to notify people of a change of venue!\n\nThis was religious music, hours of it. Not easy to listen cheerful tunes by ANY standard. In this case, and many others, Bach's music is dense. He was a mature composer with above average compositional technique, quite a taste for dense and complex (out of fashion) music, and quite a heavy hand when it came to write down notes. This music is challenging for the trained professional musicians of today (who have usually spent many, many years studying music). You don't just casually say let's play one of the Passions next Friday. \n\nWas his other music well known among the general public? Not terribly much, I am afraid. He composed dense, difficult music that was popular among music freaks (other professional musicians, and rich people with extensive musical training). He was a well respected specialist, hired to compose proper music for very proper religious ceremonies, and for people with a particular taste. He is way more famous today than he was in his time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Chateau_Versailles_Galerie_des_Glaces.jpg/300px-Chateau_Versailles_Galerie_des_Glaces.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Leipzig_Nikolaikirche_BW_2012-09-10_18-11-46.jpg",
"https://blogs.letemps.ch/garry-littman/2019/06/07/how-king-louis-xivs-bottom-propelled-surgery-into-the-modern-age/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_hizk4hqwQ",
"https://youtu.be/zMf9XDQBAaI?t=89"
]
] |
|
51f6b5
|
why does adrenaline in certain circumstances give people super human strength? (being able to lift extremely heavy things off of people, etc.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51f6b5/eli5_why_does_adrenaline_in_certain_circumstances/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7bgiw3",
"d7bh2le",
"d7biiqi",
"d7bijof",
"d7bj7np",
"d7bkpvk",
"d7bl9ng",
"d7bm8lz",
"d7bmiln",
"d7bnolu",
"d7bnt94",
"d7bo9jh",
"d7bovei",
"d7bph0t",
"d7bqcox",
"d7bqqm8",
"d7br5v6",
"d7brgbx",
"d7bs49e",
"d7btngf",
"d7btws9",
"d7bu3sx",
"d7bu9uy",
"d7buot1",
"d7bvccp",
"d7bvotf",
"d7bwcwk",
"d7bx08g",
"d7bxdxv",
"d7bxj47",
"d7bxkvp",
"d7byl7q",
"d7bypp1",
"d7bytqe",
"d7byxs0",
"d7bz1pd",
"d7bzqly",
"d7c10h4",
"d7c1c8d",
"d7c2ixb",
"d7c36qc",
"d7c3zwr",
"d7c4n9z",
"d7c5hoo",
"d7c5qb7",
"d7c5zt2",
"d7c6d6c",
"d7c7zqm",
"d7cbhvz",
"d7cbup7",
"d7chzan",
"d7cjktg",
"d7cjvic",
"d7ckuz4",
"d7clgg0",
"d7clnsg",
"d7dejzb"
],
"score": [
366,
12,
2,
5151,
3,
82,
60,
28,
64,
2,
3,
53,
4,
9,
4,
227,
3,
5,
16,
3,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8,
7,
5,
4,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Adrenaline tends to come with the dulling of pain for obvious reasons; you don't want to worry about wounds when fighting for your life.\n\nThe application of your strength is also limited by pain so you don't hurt yourself in your exertions. Someone who is fit is able to tear their muscles apart or even break ligaments if they contract to their fullest but the body avoids this by governing it with pain.\n\nBy dulling pain the muscles can be used beyond safe bounds at the cost of potential damage. So it doesn't actually make the person stronger just more able to use what they have. ",
"When your body gets a jolt of the good stuff, it opens up the blood flow & increases your heart rate; which in turn provides more blood & oxygen to your muscles. This is also why it can help save people's lives who are having an allergic reaction & getting major swelling.\n\nOverall it stimulates the whole body, almost like downing a half-dozen cups of coffee in 1 second.\n\nFun fact: The word \"Adrenalin\" was originally a trademarked brand name for a synthetic version of what the body actually produces; epinephrine.\n\nFun fact 2: Your Adrenal glands are actually located on your kidney's, not in your brain like some people think.\n\nIf you'd like to read more about this topic, [click here](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: Fix spelling; I didn't get my Adrenalin this morning.",
"From my understanding its part of the bodies stress reaction to dealing with a situation. You walk into your house and there's a trap door spider the size of a chicken in your living room. Adrenaline is the part of you that see that and automatically disconnects the fire alarm and hands you the flamethrower.\n\nIt has roughly always been an option for you to take those actions but the inherent dangers of self-damage in taking those actions makes the brain limit them. It gives you the best it can think of for the situation at hand (see above) and decides it will deal with the consequences later. But right now, you have a problem and its pulling out all the stops (almost literally) to give you solutions.\n\nSome people handle this better than others.",
"First its important to note that so called feats of \"hysterical strength\" are not scientifically recognized, although they are well documented. They clearly happen, but science has a hard time testing them, because its obviously very hard to reproduce in a lab. \n\n\n\nHowever, they have given small tests, like testing grip strength, and then electrically stimulated the muscles and tested again, and found that people exhibit about 25% more strength under electroshock, which definitely verifies people are in general stronger than they're normally able to access. Additionally, you may have heard of people being flung across an entire room after being electrocuted. This isn't because of the electricity - electricity doesn't move things like that - its because the shock caused massive muscle contraction, and the people flung *themselves* across the room, jumping far further than they would have believed possible under normal circumstances.\n\n\n\nSo, because they can't test hysterical strength, we can only hypothesize why adrenaline causes it. More than likely it is because your muscles are under several inhibitory systems, including pain as well as the neurological restriction of simply having not enough signaling at any given time to activate all the muscle fibers in a group. Strength isn't just about raw strength, its about *timing*; you need one perfectly timed electrical burst to signal all fibers to work in concert when exerting force. The more fibers activated simultaneously, the more strength you'll have. \n\n\n\nAdrenaline most likely acts to remove several different limiter systems. Your pain sensation is dulled or removed entirely, your blood vessels are dialated and your muscles are more heavily oxygenated, and your neural activity increases; more brain activity = increased signaling, which means you're better able to activate more muscle fibers at once. \n\n\n\nThe reason we can't do this all the time is fairly obvious - it puts much more strain on the body and consumes far more energy. Since our bodies evolved in times of scarcity, our bodies evolved a logical mechanism for limiting the bodies ability to use its full strength and energy; only when the brain sensed certain stimuli (a tiger, a child in trouble), would it release its natural chemicals that overrode its own internal limiters, allowing for a brief state of higher muscle performance. \n\n\n\nEDIT: Thought I'd throw this out there just 'cause: what people normally call \"adrenaline\" is actually called \"epinephrine\". The name \"adrenaline\" comes from a company that tried to patent a synthetic epinephrine compound, and then name stuck. There's another hormone called \"norepinephrine\", which some scientists theorize may actually be responsible for \"hysterical strength\". It operates much faster than epinephrine, and acts as a primer, which engages the body and officially switches it to \"fight or flight\" mode. It can also cause the muscles to start dumping their glucose stores (your muscles store glucose for quick, instant feats of anaerobic strength, because aerobic energy doesn't engage instantly). The fact that norepinephrine greatly increases brain activity, and causes a massive release of muscular energy, may be the contributing factor to huge bursts of extra-natural strength. \n\n\n\nEDIT EDIT: Some people have (correctly) indicated that \"adrenalin(e)\" and \"epinephrine\" are called different things in different countries. True! I mostly included the edit to point out that the common reactions of the body to adrenaline / epinephrine in the case of hysterical strength can actually be attributed to several molecules, and refer to \"epinephrine\" so that it can be seen in relation to \"norepinephrine.\" I would just add that the \"proper\" name for the molecule is still under debate, and this site does an excellent job summarizing the conflicting nomenclatures and debating for a unified name: \n\n_URL_0_ \n\n\n\n\nEDIT THE THIRD: Wow, surprised and thankful for so many upvotes! In honor, I thought I'd go a little deeper into an ELI-a-very-bright-fifteen-year-old explanation of the topic, for those who are interested, and talk about some of the things many people have brought up in the comments. \n\n\n\nThe brain controls muscles by sending impulses to \"motor units\", which is a motor neuron and the various actual muscle fibers that are activated by that neuron. This is called recruitment. If you want to curl a 20lb dumbell, your brain has to \"recruit\" all the proper motor units in your arm, hand, and shoulder necessary to lift it, by sending the \"contract\" signal to them. Humans have many, many motor units, which allows us for very intricate, refined movements. You can play guitar, dextrously use tools, and figure skate! \n\n\n\nBut it also means your brain has to work a lot harder, and disperse signals a lot farther and wider, to fully activate a muscle. Comparatively, chimps have much fewer motor units, but the motor units they *do* have control many more fibers. So a single \"contract\" signal now applies to a MUCH wider group of muscles, which makes them *appear* stronger. \n\n\n\nNo one is precisely sure, but on a given basis, for a given task for a large muscle like your bicep, you may only use as little as 25% of the *total muscle fibers*. Even though it seems like you're trying your hardest, your brain simply isn't signalling all of the fibers inside that muscle. \n\n\n\nBut lets take a scenario of hysterical strength. Adrenalin and norepinephrine activate your sympathetic nervous system, dialate your eyes, increase brain activity, and more importantly, *consolidate your focus*. If you think about lifting a dumbell in a gym, your concentration is branching out in many directions. You're thinking about your day, your surroundings, your hunger, aches and pains. All of these detract from your brains ability to send recruitment signals to motor units. But now, in a state of supremely focused motivation - rescue a loved one - *all* your focus is dedicated to a single task. NOW when your brain sends a recruitment signal, its sending it to MANY more motor units - 80, 90, maybe even 100% of the total muscle fibers in a given muscle, across many muscles. \n\n\n\nIn the moment, this may seem like superhuman strength, but in actuality, its only because we so rarely experience the full extent of our strength. Athletes get to where they are by practicing specific and timed recruitment of specific motor units. This study: \n\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\nShows that in athletes, the physical volume of their cerebellum (the part of the brain responsible for sending the coordination & motor recruitment signals) is larger than non-athletes; i.e, they can recruit *more* motor units, faster, while in a \"normal\" state than the average person. By contrast, in a high-stress adrenal state, your brain has to divert processing power to recruiting motor neurons in order to achieve your greater state of strength, compromising things like external focus, logic, etc. Athletes, because of a greater volume in their cerebellum, can achieve physically profound feats *without* compromising these functions, and don't need to rely on a sudden huge influx of Adrenalin to do so - they can summon it at will.",
"There is no real 'strength', when any person's muscle cell gets hard it's the same rigidity. Adrenaline lets people ignore many different mental and physical attributes (fat, short, light, bare minimum muscle mass, and no practice in muscle use), that would normally prevent them from using 100% of the muscles we ALL have connecting our bones. Bones are insanely hard, so 99.9% tightening of all muscle cells from adrenaline and the right leverage positioning can allow most able-bodied people to spontaneously do serious feats of strength/endurance/jumping/holding breathe etc.\n\nAccidental Injury and/or self injury are almost always a consequence of the complete mobilization of an unprepared human, however.",
"You don't care if you are ripping your muscles apart on adrenaline.\n\nThink of a race car being run all the way around the track in the RED...sure it's faster but it's going to seize the engine.",
"I'll explain this very simply as I understand it. Basically humans are capable of lifting far more than they actually do, but their body inhibits their ability to do so as to avoid tearing their muscles. This is also the case in flexibility- your body is much more flexible than allowed but your brain stops your muscles from stretching what it thinks is too far as to avoid injury. Adrenaline can overrule the brain essentially in these cases, allowing you to access full capability of your muscles basically. ",
"In the academy we were taught one thing I found and still find hard to believe. Any relatively strong man who really wants to has the strength to break out of handcuffs. The only thing stopping him - pain. This is why super-coked up perps are the scariest. Narcotics dull the pain which enables a motivated person to break handcuffs, because he simply doesn't feel his own bones breaking in the process.",
"Let's say you have a balance scale. On one end, you have your body's regular need to protect itself. When this side is weighed down, your body is in \"Safe Mode\". Your body almost ALWAYS prefers Safe Mode so that you can live a long time and take care of/produce offspring, etc. On the other end of the scale is your need for the extra strength provided by \"Awesome Mode\" in extreme situations. This side weighs almost nothing unless your body perceives danger. The bigger the threat, the heavier the weight.\n\nNow say you're trying to lift a really big rock to impress your friends, but it's a little too big. Your body weighs down the \"Safe Mode\" side of the scale by making you feel pain in your muscles, as well as limiting the total number of muscle cells you can activate at once. If your body didn't do this, you might be able to lift the rock, but you'd likely be injured as a result, and need a while to recover. But what if you're trying to lift the rock because your leg is stuck and there's a big hungry animal on its way and you smell like breakfast. Sensing the immediate danger, your body quickly loads weight onto the other end of the scale. This is adrenaline sending your body into Awesome Mode. It lets go of all the safety locks on your muscles and turns the pain dial way down. Suddenly it is easier to move this rock and get out of this life-threatening situation. This time, the need for that extra strength far outweighs the need to prevent injury caused by muscle strain. Basically, your body would WAY rather have injured arms for a month than see what happens when that big hungry animal shows up.",
"Epinephrine and nor-epinephrine, also called adrenaline and nor-adrenaline, are released into the bloodstream during times of stress where the body's fight-or-flight response is triggered. This response enables you to either face the threat and deal with it head on or to run away from it fast. Which one you decide is usually determined by your mental conditioning and can be learned. Simply put, this response helps you and your loved ones survive.",
"Humans exchanged strength for fine motor control once we started building tools. This is why a chimpanzee of similar muscle build to a human could easily rip the arms off of that human, but we would be unable to do the same in reverse.\n\nThankfully, we never did loose that ability to ‘hulk out’ -- it’s just biochemically restrained. When we end up in extreme stress situations, we can overcome that biochemical restraint and employ our full strength.",
"power lifter checking in (international level, multiple all-time records at the state level); almost everyone is MUCH stronger than they know, the weights that I can move while properly \"psyched\" are ~10-15% higher then what I am capable of while calm, even though it is a highly focused calm.\n\nIMO the difference between Ok lifters and really good lifters is the ability to access that anger/rage zone in a pragmatic way.",
"Your body usually limits itself, without you even realizing it, because if you over do it you can cause damage (tearing muscles, ripping cartilage and tendons, breaking bones, etc). Sometimes with a surge of adrenaline, your blocks on using your strength is somewhat hampered. For a short period of time until your body adjusts to the adrenaline, you get access to more strength than usual and the risk of hurting yourself if you use it.",
"The other explanations are fantastic, but here's a TL;DR: EL-you're-actually-5\n\nIn order for a muscle to activate (contract), it must receive a signal from the brain. How strong the signal is determines how forceful the muscle contraction. Normally, there are a bunch of safety mechanisms (inhibitions) that prevent the brain from sending signals as strong as possible to the muscles, because maximum-force muscle contractions can cause injury. Adrenaline is a hormone that is released when you sense danger, and it (among other hormones) in effect turns off the safety switches, thus allowing near-maximum force muscle contractions.",
"Like everyone else is saying:\n\nWhen your brain detects a true life-or-death oh shit situation your endocrine system (the brain-endocrine bridge is the pituitary gland, it's responsible for encoding brain decisions as hormones) dumps enough norepinepherine and epinephrine to shut down your entire inhibitory system. Basically when you really really need it the body shuts down the safeties.\n\nIt does a few other things as well, cuts down blood to nonvital systems like the liver, kidneys and most of the GI tract. Your whole digestive system freezes while in fight mode.",
"There was a post or comment not long ago where a redditor was on a muscle relaxant, when the drug kicked in, he realised he could do so many things he never knew he could! He could touch his toes, do yoga positions he never could think of trying! Edit: The point of this part was to say that he woke up the next day and he had severely damaged his muscles, so just because you CAN do it, your body knows not to for painful reasons.\n\nThis is a similar thing that happens, when anything takes the \"don't hurt yourself\" out of the situation, your body can do amazing things, you could bite through your tongue or finger through relative ease, but your brain KNOWS it would hurt you, so it keeps It's self in check. Your body knows that if you successfully lifted a car, your muscles would rip and you would be in a LOT of pain, but the adrenaline would damper the instinct to protect yourself from this minimum in the long run pain, in order to do whatever you need to do in the moment.\n\nI hope that made sense.",
"I'm too late to the thread, but nobody has mentioned this. In extreme circumstances, your body will use all of its muscle groups for strength. This isn't done in normal circumstances because there's a huge chance of damaging the muscle. But if you need to lift a boulder off of yourself, you can risk a little muscle damage.",
"It's also worth noting that it's not actually superhuman strength. It's almost always well within the bounds of human strength, just not within that particular individual's definition of 'normal'. An olympic class powerlifter can line up a few cars and just roll them over at will.",
"I witnessed one of these, err...\"events\" some years ago. Car was parked and brake wasn't set. Driver had left car in gear but it rolled anyway. Rolled down a hill, into yard and over a short-ish retaining wall. Kid was playing below, car landed on him and pinned him. Mom immediately ran over and \"lifted\" the car off of him as everyone was running over to the scene. Kid was legitimately pinned, but okay. The car was resting most weight on the wall as it had rolled down at a good angle. Everyone around immediately started in with the \"Oh my gosh, superhuman!\" talk. I'll grant you, mom lifted a shit-ton of weight that, in any other circumstances, she wouldn't have attempted and likely would have failed to do. In reality though, she only lifted a tiny fraction of the cars weight, the full brunt of which would have certainly torn joints asunder and snapped nones. I'd suspect that many of these sorts of stories are similar. In an excited state, an outside observer to the situation could certainly walk away with an embellished tale of supernatural events when in reality, physics readily explains things. Also, even if muscles could do some sort of magic, bones break and joints come apart. No magic hormones to avoid that.",
"Most the explanation are good on here however I'm surprised noone has mentioned the primary neurological aspect of strength. \n\nWhen you lift weights, there are 2 ways to get stronger. 1 is your muscles literally get bigger and the 2nd is your body recruits more muscle strands at a time (numerologically stronger). I don't have the exact numbers but as an example, on any single max strength lift you are only actually using like 50% of your muscle at a time. This adrenal spike could theoretically remove this restriction and all of a sudden just from that variable alone you are twice as strong. \n\nThis is why new lifters gain the most strength when they just start, versus veteran lifters. The initial gains are mostly CNS (neurological) gains. Your body going from recruiting 40% of fibers to 60% (sample #s, I don't remember the exact ones). Then as your CNS gains are mostly maximized (for safety reasons) your strength gains start to normalize as slow and steady as your muscle grows. ",
"Simple words(you prolly got answer already): \nIf you feel like something is too heavy for you or is hurting your muscles/body you will stop even if you could lift it a little more or do it. When you are under adrenaline stops dont work anymore. You will end up damaging your muscles but you will get job done and realize effects after it fades away",
"This series dId a good job explaining it.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It doesn't. It just makes you forget you are pretending to be weak. Your body pretends to be weak so your brain doesn't try dumb shit all the time. ",
"Sorry to piggy back on OP question, but I think it's relevant...\n\nI was researching this once and read about an interesting phenomenon. Basically, when people get struck by lighting they are sometimes \"thrown\" 10-20 feet in a random direction. Like a 55 year old fat guy will get struck and he's alive, layin go the ground 15 feet away. Well, what is weird about this is that the electricity can't move you directly. It can only cause a muscle to contract (as in a compound motor unit action potential.) \n\nTherefore, it appears that with the proper stimuli, the human body is capable of INCREDIBLE shit. Like little old ladies jumping 12 feet when they prob have a 6\" broad jump if they actually tried, or fat guys doing the same shit.\n\nSource: I read this years ago and only post b/c I'd love to know if anyone can confirm that or has more info.",
"basically you are far stronger than you think because your brain puts a limit on your muscles. \n\nAs you train and make those muscles stronger, the limit gets moved because your muscle can now handle the extra strength. \n\nAdrenaline allows the muscle to remove the limits for a period of time to varying degrees in order for you to complete a task such as lifting a car or fighting off a lion. \n\nWithout those limits your body and muscles would tear itself a part because they are simply not capable of using 100% of your strength 100% of the time, it's reserved for emergencies only.",
"Anecdotal evidence here: I would posit that the vast majority of people are stronger (*much* stronger) than they think they are. And when put in that situation, they forget how strong they \"think\" they are, get a slight boost from the adrenaline, and then hit their max potential.\n\nYou see this all the time in people who don't lift weights and start hitting the gym. They will build initial strength at an astronomical rate. I would argue that they aren't really building strength at that point, they are just learning to use what they already have. Lot of people aren't used to lifting heavy things. Doesn't mean they can't, just means they give up before they actually need to.\n\nThere's also the pain factor to consider. When adrenaline hits and your heart is pumping hard, you aren't going to feel the same pain response you would otherwise. There's nothing telling you to stop. I'd be willing to bet a lot of the people experiencing these crazy feats of strength pay for it the next day.\n\nA LOT of strength is psychological. A LOT of it. It's almost sick how much better the human body can function than most people are aware of. It's ridiculous.",
"It's because your body protects doesn't let you use 100% of its power to prevent yourself from overworking and injuring your muscles.\n\nIt's similar to how the redline and governor works on a car. You don't want to be running in the red all the time or something will break.\n\nAn adrenal response basically shuts off that system. so your body can go into the red zone and your muscles will work at their maximum possible efficiency.\n\nAfter the experiences people often suffer from serious muscle fatigue and can be in pain for weeks well the tears in their muscles heal.",
"For an /r/askscience level answer see /u/ninemiletree \n\nFor ELI5:\n\nHumans are a lot stronger than we think. We are also stronger than we normally use. In cases of extreme stress we forget about these things and are pushed beyond our \"limits\".\n\nHumans are lazy, we don't want to expend any more energy than we need. We have a built in blocker that adrenaline is able to override.\n\nIt's like your bathroom faucet. You can turn the water on as high as you can, but that's not as high as it *could* be if you broke the faucet off.",
"You are much much stronger than you think. Your brain just doesn't allow you to use your full potential most of the time because then you're out of juice completely. In the wild this would have been death to our ancestors if we were able to choose when to go all out. But if you really really need it and the adrenaline (and other hormones) is flowing is when we get glimpses of our full power because you aren't feeling the pain and your brain isn't saying stop.\n\nSame with our jaws. Humans have fairly strong jaws, strong enough to crush all your own teeth if you bite hard enough, but again your brain just won't let you.",
"The answer is \"it doesn't\". At least not to the degree people talk about. You get a slight increase in strength from increased recruitment of muscle fibers, but nothing like lifting cars and bench pressing boulders and shit. The hysterical strength phenomenon is a myth that's propped up by stories that misrepresent the more tame events that actually transpired.\n\nIf the adrenaline rush worked as people claim, we would have videos of Russian powerlifters using epi and deadlifting 1,500 lbs or more. But we don't, because it's not real (in the sense that people typically think of).",
"What about those people that cant feel pain?\nWould they be able to break through this? Seeing as their bodies lack these natural inhibitors (Pain etc)",
"Makes me wonder if athletes like say the shot putter or long jumper have trained their bodies to access these hormones? Seems they would be good test candidates.",
"I'd venture to guess that a lot of the time, what looks like \"super human strength\" just isn't. Cars can be at angles and gravity can help tip them off of someone. Doors can look crushed, yet not much is preventing them from being opened, etc. These may look like great feats of strength to a casual observer and really be quite average.\n\nI'm a power lifter and one time a friend was having a hard time taking a motorcycle shock apart. He tried and tried and could not get it to budge. He asked me to give it a try and I easily removed the two parts. He thinks I'm a bad ass, but honestly? He did the hard work. I just easily pulled it apart at the end and got all the credit. Lol. (Of course I growled like a bear and strutted off as he dropped to his knees unworthy.). Hahahaa ",
"Just like the ruby slippers, the power to get you where you want to be has been with you all along.",
"Everyone is talking about how adrenaline removes your limiters am im wondering, can people remove their limiters mentally? Like be in such control of their body that they can choose when to remove the \"limiters\"?",
"I have a feeling virtual reality will enable science to better document and measure these counts of hysterical strength.",
"Simple explanation: our muscles may be strong enough to lift a car, but our body can't handle that much weight. We'd risk breaking bones, tearing muscles, and other damage if we tried to do that. The brain automatically limits our strength to prevent that, unless it's a life or death situation.",
"To keep it short people are much stronger than we think we are but our brain keep as \"safety lock\" on it to keep us from accidentally hurting ourselves, the adrenaline essentially turns off this switch. Although this does open the risk of self injury.",
"My question is, how does all of this work in people who have anxiety disorders or suffer from chronic stress?",
"Most of the explanations on here are super long. Here's a short one:\n\nIt's not that you get \"stronger\" with adrenaline, it's that it helps you ignore all the pain receptors which usually scream \"THAT'S TOO HEAVY, DROP IT!\"",
"This reminds me of that guy in new York who looked like he shouldn't be able to knock out 3 separate goons one after the other for hitting his wife\n\n1 Guy Knocks Out 3 Guys For Hitting His Wife In T…: _URL_0_",
"It doesn't give you super human strength. It can certainly help but stories about mom's stopping cars or doing all sorts of amazing things because of adrenaline are just fake stories. ",
"I remember being 13 and i was playing at the park with my friends. I was a little bit of a mean person back then and i flipped this kids hat off of his head. He then hit me in the head with his skate board. At that point i realized i was in my first fight and everything went into slow motion and i hit him in his face a few times and he ran. I'll never forget the slow-mo. Adrenaline is crazy.",
"For OP, as I posted it in another thread, here some videos.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"I knew a girl who's twin sister was in a car accident when they were sixteen. The girls sister and her boyfriend were driving and were t-boned by an elderly woman going well above the speed limit. They were in a Jeep Wrangler, the type with an open roof, and the girl was ejected from the car and hit a telephone pole and died instantly. The boyfriend was pinned beneath the car, and was so full of adrenaline that he was able to lift the vehicle off of himself and spent twenty minutes searching for his girlfriend. As soon as he found her he collapsed and died. It's absolutely insane what the human body is capable under such stress. \nP.s., please don't ever forget your seat belts. ",
" Our bodies are built to conserve energy for survival but is capable of quite a lot when it's in \"survival mode\".\n\nFor example, when I was around 16 or 17 I out-ran a cousin of mine who ended up being recruited for and playing collegiate football as a WR by about 5 yards when we thought we were spotted by police while TPing someone's house. In normal circumstances he would leave me in his dust. I couldn't explain it at the time. I had never run that fast in my life, nor have I since.",
"Don't know if this is of any relevance or not. When I was about 20 years old I had a motorcycle. After a month or two of ownership I got into my first and last motorcycle accident. I was on a 4 lane road in the #2 lane. A car attempting to turn left pulled out in front of me and stopped. I was doing approx. 50 mph and had less than 100 feet to react. I had a car to the right of me and 2 lanes of traffic coming head on on the other lanes. I hit the guy directly in the center of the drivers door. \n\nHere is the good stuff: When I hit the car i went over the top of the roof and supermanned down the road and landed headfirst and rolled out of the crash. My sneakers were still by the bike. I literally flew out of my shoes. When I got to the hospital the inside of both of my thighs were black and blue. I tried to hold on with my legs on the gas tank. A few days later I made my way to the wrecking yard that had towed the bike. The Gas tank was pinched in half where my thighs would have been. I'm not talking dents in the side of the tank, but both walls of the tank touching together. I don't know how to explain that other than super human strength is possible when placed in a grave type situation. \n\nBTW: Bike was an early 80's Yamaha XV 750",
"the reason I recall hearing about has to do with the evolution of fine-tuned motor skills in humans.\n\nthe first thing to note is that the raw power a given muscle in your body, if it contracted all its muscle cells in synchrony, is much greater than what you can ordinarily exert if you try to flex it as hard as you can. this has been demonstrated in lab settings. the human brain, and/or its complex neural network for coordinated muscle movement, actually inhibits the 100% coordinated contraction of all muscle fibres at one time. This is because there are so many processing and sub-processing junctions, kind of like an army base with many levels of decision-making commanders and sub-commanders. or better yet, like asking a federal government full of bureaucrats to fix a problem fast. the neural routes may be fine-tuned, but they won't all act in synchrony and the end result will not be enacted in a perfectly synchronized manner (on the cellular level). many staggered contractions rather than a single *contraction*, and this evening out on the large scale to a more tempered, even movement. this was a good thing, generally.\n\nThese neural processing junctions/feedback loops are highly useful for delicate, fine-tuned body motions, many of which we have needed through time, from deft delicate touches and manipulation to threading needles, making fine tools and using them, making fine weapons and using them, or anything that involves intricate thought and motion, etc. But they have the draw-back of interrupting the path of a single, coordinated muscle impulse. most of the time, that was fine. we humans got by without needing our full strength, trading it for a calculated delicate touch. and that has been instrumental in our development of powerful technologies from the Stone Age forward.\n\n*however*, even though we developed these fine-tuned movement abilities, our species retained the ability to call on brute strength when it was deathly necessary. obviously, there's a huge adaptive advantage to that. the fight-or-flight response is a special adrenaline-fuelled state when the body forgoes complexity and normal rules. it's not about due process or red tape, it's about sudden, unequivocal action to prevent death or tragedy. the spike of adrenaline overrides the complexity processing for our muscles' neural network, and allows burst signals to fire through, telling muscles to *contract* in a coordinated fashion, albeit with less finesse, giving power and speed in a burst. the power to rip the door off a car to save your baby, or stuff like that.\n\ngiven that it's an emergency system only, our bodies are no longer adapted to handle the stress, and there can be injuries associated with the extreme forces. but that beat dying, so it was passed on. \n\nas an interesting side-note, I also recall hearing that other ape species have better access to their full muscle power, which is why they are terrifyingly strong even though they seem similar in size to us. but the trade-off is they never developed the same level of delicate muscle control we did. who won that round? probably the species reading this via their smartphones and computers that we built with fine-tuned muscle control.\n\nTL;DR adrenaline cuts through the red tape of our useful but complicated neural network and makes our muscles coordinate abnormally better to escape death with power and speed\n\n (forgive me, I can't recall the source I heard this from, which makes this sound really unscientific. I believe I was watching a documentary)",
"The physical limits of human strength are unknown. Most victims of lightning strikes will be found a distance away with multiple broken bones as a result of muscle contraction alone. ",
"Here's my go; your body has limits on what it can do without hurting yourself, but adrenaline allows your body to surpass those limits in order save your life, because survival is valued higher than your back muscles or biceps in certain circumstances.",
"Here's my amateur biochemical explanation. The other responses talk a lot more about transmission of epinephrine than the actual function of epinephrine. \n\nThere's what's called the epinephrine pathway. Epinephrine is more or less the \"key\" that unlocks long(er)-term cellular energy storage - glycogen. Along with an investment of ATP, epinephrine sets off the chain reaction within a cell that cleaves glucose off of glycogen. The glucose is then used to generate more ATP, which more or less enables more action at the cellular level on up. \n\nSource: did projects ad nauseum on this in Biochemistry",
"My favorite example is to have people research the 'WEP' (war emergency power) systems in WW2 fighter aircraft.\nIn the earliest ones, the engines were designed to run at 100% and when you throttled forward this is what you achieved, however in the event of an emergency (getting shot at), you could push the throttle forward hard and snap a physical limiter cable that held the throttle to that 100% safe limit and could now achieve 105-107%.\n\nThe reason this was not the norm is different depending on the engine, from heat to internal stress from the speed, etc. Basically, 100% was what the engine could operate at safely long term, whereas activating WEP would push the engine to the maximum it could actually output, not caring if it failed later or needed a major service.\n\n\nThe human body works exactly the same way. Your normal strength is what your body believes it can constantly output without serious damage or wear, however when you hear the 'click clack' of a shotgun, your body suddenly has bigger concerns than what damage it sustains, 'snaps the cable' and removes all the limiters, allowing you to use the actual full power of your body.",
"Imagine that the human body is like a computer.\n\nNormally the processor/brain limits things to (for instance) 1ghz. Everything runs fine day in day out. Won't break a sweat.\n\nHowever - the processor can be overclocked to 1.5ghz. Maybe 2ghz... \n\nPush it to 1.5ghz and you will probably be ok in the short term.. So some geeks (athletes) push their computer/body to that limit..\n\nPush it to 2ghz and you may be ok for 30 seconds to a couple of minutes.. Beyond that something will go pop. Either the processor or a blood vessel/bone... Chances are you could have caused damage in those 30 seconds..\n\nSo that 2ghz mode is twice what your body/computer normally does - and will get away with it for short bursts but that's why it's set up to run at half that... And that's why your body will only allow you to enter this mode in extreme danger...\n\nThat's how I see it....",
"Actually I have a theory that it's not due to muscles.\nNot directly anyhow. More it's that the fascial aspect surrounding the muscles can also be influenced by increased adrenaline to act as a hydraulic amplifier.\n\nIn much the same way the medial collateral ligament is not just a ligament and has adjustive qualities to it depending on the influence to some surrounding muscles and as well as some fascial having both a contractile aspect (yes small) or at the very least muscles that are more intimately related to it and can have a direct action on it. As example trapezius has a direct cranial nerve input meaning it can respond rapidly increasing tone through the fascia.\n\nHydraulic effect.\nThink of the fascia like the inner tube of a bicycle tyre glued along the inside of the gutting in a skeletons spine. By inflating the tubing you would hydraulically erect the skeleton as well as increase its stability.\n\nBy Certain muscles with direct cranial nerve attachment and response in a sense pre-pumping the inner tube or putting tension in the fascia it allows normal muscles to have an increased power by this amplifying effect.\n\nAlthough the cost will be Damage or compartment type issues.\n\nAnyhow only a quizzical theory I have while sitting in a taxi. \n\nSee how you think.\n\n ",
"Ok, so potentially stupid question. But could you introduce small dosages of epinephrine/norepinephrine to an individual over a long period of time to retrain a brain and make it more apt to accessing that strength? Even if it took a few generations? ",
"Looking at these explanations, adrenaline is like overclocking! Removing your limits at the risk of damaging your body/cpu",
"The human body is capable of more than we think it is because it naturally limits itself to avoid injury. You can't bite through your own tongue, even though you're fully capable of it, because your brain stops you. However, if you have a seizure, those systems suffer temporary shut down, and people can cause themselves serious injury without meaning to. Adrenaline does the same thing; your brains safeguards against injuring itself are overridden to deal with the matter at hand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127537/#__sec7title",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22351379"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FbvRIvk2iwY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/o_XFgLB-Bq0"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbvRIvk2iwY",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH-AMPUnR38"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ezdc2
|
high gravity beer
|
What does it mean when a beer is high gravity? Also what does it mean when beginning/ending gravity?
Here is an example of what I'm talking about: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ezdc2/eli5_high_gravity_beer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca59sig"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Did you look at the wikipedia article? \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt sums it up pretty consicely. \n\nAnyway, gravity refers to the specific gravity (density relative to water). Beers are considered high gravity when the density of the wort (beer before fermentation) is high. The density is of the wort is higher when there are more things dissolved in it (sugars). All these sugars are metabolized by the yeast (this process is called fermentation). The yeast turn the sugars into alcohol. Starting gravity refers to the density of the wort before fermentation, ending refers to the gravity after. Several things effect the difference in starting and ending gravity (this difference is called attenuation), including mash temperature, fermentation temperature, yeast alcohol tolerance, yeast health, addition of sugars during fermentation, etc. \n\nThe term 'high gravity' itself is kind of arbitrary, and would probably vary depending on who you ask. Typical gravity readings for beers range from 1.035-1.1 before fermentation, and 1.0-1.03 after fermentation. There are cases where the readings would fall outside of this range depending on the style of beer, but it probably encompasses 95% of beers. I could go on and on about beer. Let me know if you have any other questions.\n\nedit: I just looked at your link, and realized they give the gravity in plato. Plato is simply a different scale to measure gravity, like Celsius vs Fahrenheit."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.sierranevada.com/beer/high-altitude/hoptimum-imperial-ipa"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_%28alcoholic_beverage%29"
]
] |
|
21zhuq
|
Does the creation of the electricity used to fuel Tesla cars create just as much pollution as if they were gas powered?
|
My mom asked me this question and I didn't much have a exact answer for her. Thanks.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21zhuq/does_the_creation_of_the_electricity_used_to_fuel/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cghye3r",
"cghyhx1"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"Like many things, the answer is [it depends](_URL_0_).\n\nThe conclusion of that report is that an electric car has the carbon emissions of a 30 mpg car, *if all the electricity is produced by coal*.\n\nThis is still better than most cars but significantly inferior to most hybrids (50-60 mpg depending on your skill as a driver).\n\nIf you charge it with California's electricity grid then it is equivalent to a 78 mpg car.",
"You've asked about the electricity generation so I'll address that first. Then we can talk batteries and other aspects of EVs if you're interested.\n\nIn the US power generation breaks down like this;\n\n- Coal 37%\n- Natural Gas 30%\n- Nuclear 19%\n- Hydropower 7%\n-- Other Renewable 5%\n-- Biomass 1.42%\n-- Geothermal 0.41%\n-- Solar 0.11%\n-- Wind 3.46%\n- Petroleum 1%\n- Other Gases < 1%\n\nSo on average 13% of power in the US is coming from renewable sources, 19% from nuclear which is very clean, and a huge amount from natural gas (which has it's problems but still arguably better than coal). So between coal and petroleum you're only looking at 40% of the power coming from dirty sources. But of course that depends on [where you live](_URL_0_). If you live in Idaho or Washington then over 70% of your power is coming from a renewable sources.\n\nSo renewables are growing and coal use shrinking. Meaning your electric car is automatically getting cleaner over time without you doing anything.\n\nLets compare this to petrol. You need to find it (often in dangerous places), drill it, ship it (diesel boats), refine it (using power), ship it again (diesel ships), transport locally. And then once it reaches an engine it only gets 25% efficiency with most of the energy going into heat/noise/vibration and every time you break you lose all your momentum by converting it to heat in your friction brakes. An electric engine is over 90% efficient and much of your grid power is renewable and when you brake some of your momentum is converted back into energy. There is simply no comparison in terms of energy usage or efficiency here, EVs win hands down.\n\nWhere it gets a bit more complicated is when we include the manufacturing process of the car itself.\n\nIt can be argued that EVs with their big heavy expensive batteries require more energy in their initial construction and we are comparing technology that has been subject to economies of scale over 100 years vs brand new technology that's still maturing. Still [this 2012](_URL_2_) report says \"Electric vehicles charged on the power grid have lower global warming emissions than the average gasoline-based vehicle sold today.\"\n\nEven without the already clear advantages batteries are improving all the time and are largely recyclable. Tesla's [closed loop battery recycling program](_URL_1_) can, depending on where you live, reuse 10-70% of the battery.\n\nSo in short when you consider everything EVs are much better overall than gas cars, and they will improve, and the grid will continue to improve."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources#States_by_2013_renewable_electricity_production",
"http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program",
"http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf"
]
] |
|
e8f6th
|
why did all the mice die in the mouse utopia experiment, as opposed to reaching a stable population
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e8f6th/eli5_why_did_all_the_mice_die_in_the_mouse_utopia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fabg5o4",
"fabnn06",
"fabp5sh"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
10
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nIgnore my previous comment if anyone read it, I was very incorrect.\n\nBasically the tl;Dr for OP's question is that overpopulation conditions in animals (such as rats and mice) with social order of some kind results in disorientation in individuals there in, and causes pathological behavior changes ranging from mild deviations from what would be called normal such as self-isolation and failure of maternal instinxts, to severe and extreme deviations such as cannibalism and unprovoked aggression.",
"Because of the social and psychology effects that was engraved into the rats. Even those who survived exhibited the same traits.\n\nThe death of the rats is caused by several factors, but all of them lead to the declining future generations. Inability to raised the youngs, fewer births, social behavior, and unsimilar traits to the original rats ultimately sealed their fate.",
"His whole experiment had a poor study design, so it can't really be considered science, and we can't draw any conclusions from it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4thnjf
|
what happens when home owner dies and there is a mortgage left?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4thnjf/eli5what_happens_when_home_owner_dies_and_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5hdkao",
"d5hdly6"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"There are two options.\n\nOne option is to get the mortgage life insured, which means that you pay a certain fee every month, that, in the event of your death, pays off your mortgage for you.\n\nThe alternative is that the mortgage stays with your estate. At that point, it's up to whoever inherits your estate what they do. Chances are that your estate will sell the house, pay off the mortgage, and distribute the proceeds according to your will.\n\nFor what it's worth, a lot of couples separately life insure the house, meaning that if one spouse dies, the entire mortgage gets paid off. The idea being that you don't need to worry about paying for your house in addition to having had your spouse die..",
"When a person dies, their property makes up the *estate*. Creditors can make a claim against the estate, and what is left after the debts are paid is distributed according the last will of the *decedent*. If the estate does not have enough assets to pay all of the debts, the creditors are out of luck regarding the remainder (and the heirs get nothing). That is one of the risks of lending money.\n\nHowever, a mortgage is secured by the house. If the estate does not have enough money to pay the mortgage, the bank gets the house (and with priority over other creditors), just as if the decedent was unable to pay while alive. That is one reason that mortgages have lower interest rates than unsecured loans. If the heirs really want the house, or any other part of the estate for that matter, they can agree to pay off the creditors with their own money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
k8sfa
|
eli17: what's so great about "the great gatsby"?
|
I can understand a deep idea in literature because I've seen many, I just can't see one in "The Great Gatsby"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k8sfa/eli17_whats_so_great_about_the_great_gatsby/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2idmxz",
"c2ie09l",
"c2idmxz",
"c2ie09l"
],
"score": [
21,
6,
21,
6
],
"text": [
"The reason its great is because of Jay Gatsby. All the people around him are shallow and materialistic. Jay is the last American dreamer. Fitzgerald sees the 20's as a time when morals were decaying. The people who attend Jay's parties are social climbers. They have an insatiable desire for wealth and pleasure; they're corrupting the American dream. Jay dreams of a time and place where social status didn't prevent him from being with Daisy. He romanticizes Daisy until his idea of her is no longer reality. When Jay realizes that he will never get his time with Daisy back, his dream is corrupted (much like the American dream...see the symbolism?), and all that's left for Gatsby is death.\n\ntl;dr Jay's dream of Daisy = American dream. Both are corrupted, and die.",
"Heykittums sums up pretty well.\n\nThe main negative thing I often hear when talking of this book is \"the characters are shallow\". \n\nYes, that is partly true. We can say that Daisy is bland (although this is not, in my opinion, completely true). Gatsby (and Nick) are far away from this idea. Gatsby: love, fascination for the rich and elegant; Nick probably a liar, polite, nonjudgmental.\n\nAnd the writing is fantastic (someone even says that is the best book ever written).",
"The reason its great is because of Jay Gatsby. All the people around him are shallow and materialistic. Jay is the last American dreamer. Fitzgerald sees the 20's as a time when morals were decaying. The people who attend Jay's parties are social climbers. They have an insatiable desire for wealth and pleasure; they're corrupting the American dream. Jay dreams of a time and place where social status didn't prevent him from being with Daisy. He romanticizes Daisy until his idea of her is no longer reality. When Jay realizes that he will never get his time with Daisy back, his dream is corrupted (much like the American dream...see the symbolism?), and all that's left for Gatsby is death.\n\ntl;dr Jay's dream of Daisy = American dream. Both are corrupted, and die.",
"Heykittums sums up pretty well.\n\nThe main negative thing I often hear when talking of this book is \"the characters are shallow\". \n\nYes, that is partly true. We can say that Daisy is bland (although this is not, in my opinion, completely true). Gatsby (and Nick) are far away from this idea. Gatsby: love, fascination for the rich and elegant; Nick probably a liar, polite, nonjudgmental.\n\nAnd the writing is fantastic (someone even says that is the best book ever written)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s37mg
|
What were stationary/notebooks/writing materials like in colonial America?
|
I'm working on an art/design project based on colonial America, specifically the late 18th century (1750-1800ish). It's essentially a collection of writing materials: notebooks, pens, etc.
I'd like to make the materials as authentic as possible. What would a typical journal or notebook look like during this time? Would it be similar to say, a Moleskine notebook today, or would it be more hand-bound and rougher at the edges?
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s37mg/what_were_stationarynotebookswriting_materials/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdthiym"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You might find looking at the [digitized Jefferson papers](_URL_0_) useful. [The Farm Book](_URL_1_) should give you a good idea of what a casual \"journal\" type volume would have looked like. Not much like the Moleskine brand!\n\nWriting implement would have been a quill pen, which you can still buy very easily, and iron gall ink, which you can also still get, or just get a bottle of modern fountain pen ink from any decent office supply store. If you want to go full-tilt you can still get historically authentic paper [which I wrote about yesterday, how odd!](_URL_2_) but it will cost you a bit. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/index.php",
"http://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/cfm/doc.cfm?id=farm_c1&archive=&hi=&mode=lg&noimages=&numrecs=&query=&queryid=&rec=&start=1&tag=&user=",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rzzyd/fahrenheit_451_is_famously_the_temperature_at/cdt59wp"
]
] |
|
1v62xy
|
how does pintrest make money?
|
How does a site like this sustain itself with no ads or subscription fees?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v62xy/eli5_how_does_pintrest_make_money/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cep2j2j"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Investors is a channel where they get to keep the company running. With platforms like these, the norm is to create a solid user(fan) base and improve their services to a point where subscribers have invested enough content and won't mind seeing relevant ads. \n\n\n\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2sxgxl
|
if i was to travel away from the earth at sub-light speed then travel faster than light for a time, stop and look back at the earth, could i see myself leaving?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sxgxl/eli5_if_i_was_to_travel_away_from_the_earth_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cntraqz",
"cnts0mo",
"cntswh4",
"cntszpr"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you had a ship the size of a big city you probably could yes. If it was something the size of our current spacecrafts then no. \nFor the same reason not even all the telescopes in the world put together could ever see something like the lunar rover we left on the moon.",
"I'm not sure if this is against the subreddit's rules, but if you don't mind, I'll leave [here](_URL_0_) an ELI5 (or, maybe, ELI9) video of why the answer is \"no, unless you kill yourself\".",
"Technicaly if you traveled away from earth with regular speed and accelerated to a higher speed than light speed yes you could stop and look back at you since the light from back then hasn't reached your new possition",
"Plus if your going faster than light you would look back and see yourself going backwards. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVKFBaaL4uM"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
7fymd0
|
how do online rewards sites know you’ve downloaded the app they are offering.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fymd0/eli5how_do_online_rewards_sites_know_youve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqfdd1d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I am not sure about that exact use case (user level tracking), but in general there are a few ways that advertisers use to check which marketing campaign generates more app installs.\n\nOne of the approaches is that the apps have a Tracking SDKs (like google analytics tags, but for apps) that can post back (send the url that generate the download) to the advertiser. If you click on the url to download the app, you will probably notice a lot of parameters. Those parameters can uniquely identify your click, so when you open the app, it posts back that same click ID."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
e8euo4
|
can phones read your mind? on more than one occasion an ad or something on my phone has aligned with a previous thoughts i’ve had. explain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e8euo4/eli5_can_phones_read_your_mind_on_more_than_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fabbmj3",
"fabc601",
"fabfmwd"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"It's called [Confirmation Bias](_URL_0_). You don't even think about the thousands and thousands of times that you've seen stuff on your phone that had nothing to do with anything you've been thinking about. But when there's a random match-up, you're amazed. \n \nPlus there are targeted ads. Stuff that you've been browsing on your phone or similar to stuff you've been browsing is going to show up. Because they are spying on you, for real.",
"Online companies track *everything*. Even if you didn't explicitly search for something, AI can learn that an ad is a good fit for someone with certain behaviors. Target famously sent a girl coupons for baby products before she herself knew she was pregnant just based on her recent purchases.",
"My wife is a data analyst in advertising. This is literally her job and profession.\n\nFirst, your life is is awash in spyware. It's literally hopeless, you can't interact with technology and not get tracked. Your phone is reporting your location to your service provider and a host of other participants. They know where you are at all times. Even if you have tracking turned off (because that setting only applies to certain 3rd party apps). They know if you're near a McDonalds and start showing you ads because it's either on your route, if you're using directions, or on your deduced route, because you drive around here frequently enough. They know if you go inside or through the drive-through.\n\nSo the thing is you've done something that keys off the advertisers data model. And their data model, about you, is so well trained that it can accurately predict what you're thinking and when. And you trained it, unknowingly, with every interaction with technology you do.\n\nEver wonder how you can sit down at a brand new computer, one you've never touched before, one you haven't logged into any of your sites or email before, and in a few minutes, you start seeing the same old advertising you always do? That's because advertisers are tracking upwards of 150 data points on any given computer. They need only 15 to differentiate you from anyone else. Incognito mode? Doesn't matter.\n\nYou would be terrified to know how much they can CORRECTLY deduce about you from astonishingly little information, never mind if they do a data scrape for you. They can determine age, race, gender, habits, health, political alignment, etc. I'm not exaggerating, this isn't fake, this stuff really happens. You can imagine how paranoid my wife is.\n\nTo give an example, Target correctly deduced a teenage girl was pregnant, after she found out, before she ever told anyone, based on her tracked behavior. They began sending her ads for baby products. The father was furious with Target until she admitted her pregnancy. That's how the family found out. It's a famous case.\n\nSo there it is, Bob's your uncle. Either you did something to key off an advertiser, or you trained the advertisers data model about you so well it accurately predicts what you're thinking. Now honestly, this isn't mind reading power, it doesn't know what you're thinking before you do, but the thing you're seeing advertising for is something you not only think about, but act on. Either you're in the market for a washing machine, or you looked up how to fix your washing machine, or you just bought a house, and now you're seeing ads for washing machines. For example."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
10zvge
|
How did Israel justify it's six-day war?
|
In 1967 Israel launched a surprise attack on Egypt, Syria and Jordan and took the west bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan heights.
How was this justified to the UN and the world.
Was this considered "legal" or was it condemned?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10zvge/how_did_israel_justify_its_sixday_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6i25l0"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Following things build up before the attack:\n\n* Jordan and Egypt started a defense treaty, in late May \n* Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran for Israel ships (Israel politicians stated before several times that this was a Casus Belli)\n* Egypt also forced the UNEF to retreat and\n* draw roughly 1000 tanks and 100.000 men to the border between Israel and Egypt \n\nYour question should be asked more neutral/mature.\n\nEdit: Just to make it perfectly - I'm not taking any sides. That's not what this subreddit is about. But I don't like how your question already implies that there were no good reasons for Israel to attack."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7349lt
|
Was Neil Armstrong not the first man on the moon?
|
Hello historians!
Today in class I mentioned that the first man on the Moon was Neil Armstrong. To my surprise, I was quickly corrected by about half of my classmates (about 10) and the professor, who told me that I was, in fact, wrong; the USSR had actually sent a man to the moon a year before the US. Being a space nerd, I was shocked by my apparent basic misunderstanding of history, so after class I asked about it. One of the students told me that in reality, the Soviets had sent a man to the surface of the moon in a capsule, but that he never actually did any EVA- and the US government hid it from us to keep us patriotic and happy. I've looked around but I can't find any information on a Soviet manned lunar mission predating ours. This seemed odd to me, as one would think that if the government were hiding these things from us, they'd also hide the Venera missions, when the Soviets sent something to another planet for the first time. Am I a complete idiot or is this some conspiracy theory?
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7349lt/was_neil_armstrong_not_the_first_man_on_the_moon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnnpblu"
],
"score": [
135
],
"text": [
"Any successful mission to the Moon by the Soviets--even without an EVA--would have been enormous news that Moscow would have trumpeted around the globe. The idea that such a mission could have been kept secret is preposterous: missile launch detection satellites had been in orbit since the mid-1960s in the form of the [MIDAS program](_URL_1_), and any rocket large enough to get to the moon would certainly have been noticed. Various ground-based radars would also have noticed a sizable new object in orbit, and radio traffic coming from the moon (or a trajectory consistent with lunar orbit injection) would have been noticed.\n\nThe Soviet lunar program was a bit of a mess, with at least two major programs and sever minor programs running simultaneously and competing for men, materials, and money. Sergei Korolev is the name most widely known in the West, but Vladimir Chelomei ran the other major program, and got political points (and budget) for bringing on Sergei Khrushchev, son of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Fights between rocket and engine designers meant that Korolev lost out on the preferred engines and had to go with inferior engines provided by a design bureau with essentially no rocket experience, leading to the need for 30 engines, a horribly complicated mess to handle even now, and automation was in its infancy at the time. However, after Nikita Khrushchev was replaced by Brezhnev, Chelomei fell from favor, and his (possibly better) project was canceled, and Korolev got the sole work to go forward.\n\nHowever, Korolev died in January 1966 while in surgery. He was replaced by Vasili Mishin, Korolev's work partner for some 20 years. The Soviets managed to get some successful lunar firsts: Luna 9 managed a soft landing on the moon, and Luna 10 successfully orbited the Moon. Both occurred before the US could do the same thing. But note that we're running short on time: the Apollo 11 landing happened in June 1969.\n\nThe push to stay ahead of the Americans started to result in massive quality problems that resulted in the death of cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov, who was killed in April 1967 when his Soyuz, having experienced numerous malfunctions during the flight, had one final malfunction when the descent parachutes failed to deploy. Manned flights were cancelled until designers and engineers could fix the problems. No cosmonaut would fly again for two years, essentially killing the Soviet chance to be first to the moon.\n\nOngoing problems with the L1 launch system further slowed development. The first somewhat successful launch ended up in the wrong orbit and had to be terminated, but it was definitely noticed by the West. In 1968, the only successful test mission occurred when Zond-5 was able to get to lunar orbit and back. The shock of a human voice coming from the capsule was allayed somewhat when it was learned to be a recording, but it certainly shook up the US space program. At the end of that year, Apollo 8 became the first manned mission to orbit the moon, and the Soviets realized they couldn't win the race. While the L1's successor, the N1, continued to receive some funding, continued failures, including one that destroyed the entire N1 primary launch pad, doomed the program.\n\nThere have been numerous hoaxes and urban legends about Soviet moon landings over the years. Some have claimed that there was an attempted landing but that the capsule crashed, or that the landing was successful but the astronauts never returned for various reasons. They're among many myths about the Soviet program where cosmonauts were killed and then erased from history, relying on the Soviet tendency to erase politically undesirable people from history but ignoring that Komarov's death was mentioned publicly and he received a hero's funeral despite an essentially needless death brought about by quality control issues (that part was probably not mentioned in Pravda). Most of the claims appear in tabloids that don't try very hard to poke holes in the stories. Russia has admitted to numerous embarrassing episodes since the fall of the Soviet Union, including the numerous failures of the proposed launch systems. Even a partial success like what your classmates suggested would have energized the Soviet space program and rocked the world.\n\nSource: [The Soviet Manned Lunar Program](_URL_0_), edited and compiled by Marcus Lindroos"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://fas.org/spp/eprint/lindroos_moon1.htm",
"http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB235/index.htm"
]
] |
|
4dltbm
|
how do binary explosives work, and how do they not explode if they are dropped?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dltbm/eli5_how_do_binary_explosives_work_and_how_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1s3l8f",
"d1s3rbc",
"d1s5yp0"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They are explosives that come in two parts. Only combined do they become explosive.\n\nOn their own they are inert.",
"You are probably thinking about tannerite specifically. It just happens to be a very shock resistant explosive and also a binary explosive. \n\nThere are shock resistant explosives that are not binary, and binary explosives that are not shock resistant.",
"They're two separate, non-explosive chemicals.\n\nWhen mixed, they make an explosive.\n\nIt's actually more complex than that. For an explosive to go boom, there has to be chemical potential energy somewhere. That energy isn't added by the mixing process; it has to be in one or both of the original ingredients.\n\nNormally, one half has a lot of chemical energy but isn't triggered by a shock wave. That means that it won't add to the force of an explosive primer. The other half is a \"sensitizer\" which makes it possible to set of all at once."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a08lbz
|
What is the Arminian Genocide?
|
What events led up to it?
Why is it a controversial topic internationally?
Who did what?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a08lbz/what_is_the_arminian_genocide/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eafj1rb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hi there! Part of your question is, essentially, ‘why didn’t I learn about this’. We’re happy to let the question stand, but there are a variety of reasons why you may find it hard to get a good answer to this question on /r/AskHistorians.\n\nFirstly, school curricula and how they are taught vary strongly between different countries and even even different states. Additionally, how they are taught is often influenced by teachers having to compromise on how much time they can spend on any given topic. More information on your location and level of education might be helpful to answer this question.\n\nSecondly, we have noticed that these questions are often phrased to be about people's individual experience but what they are really about is why a certain event is more prominent in popular narratives of history than others.\n\nInstead of asking \"Why haven't I learned about the Armenian Genocide\", considering asking \"What importance do scholars assign to this event in the context of Turkish/Armenian/World War I history?\" - the latter question is often closer to what to what people actually want to know and is more likely to get a good answer from an expert. \n\nThank you!\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
423y1c
|
Why can 2D objects rotate in just 1 axis but 3D objects can rotate in 3?
|
Rotate in 1 axis as in clockwise and counter-clockwise.
2 - > 1
3 - > 3
???
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/423y1c/why_can_2d_objects_rotate_in_just_1_axis_but_3d/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz7ko85"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"The number of rotation generators in D dimensions is D*(D-1)/2. So D=2 gives 1, D=3 gives 3, D=4 gives 6 and so on.\n\nThe rationale is as such: rotations in general shouldn't be though as happening *around* an axis, but *in* a 2D plane. That with axes is a picture which is only meaningful in 3D, where a plane is also identified by his perpedincular axis.\n\nHowever, already in 2d you see that there's really no axis to speak of. The same extends to D > = 4.\n\nSo to find all possible \"fundamental\" rotations we need to find all possible 2d planes we can build with our coordinates.\n\nIn D=2, it's easy: the only plane is xy. Also yx is valid, but it's the same rotation just in the other direction, and so we don't count it. There's only one generator of rotations.\n\nIn D=3 you have xy, yz, zx (a.k.a rotating around the z, x, y axes respectively) so 3.\n\nIn D=4 the 6 planes are xy, yz, zw, wx, xz, yw.\n\nWhat is the general rule? Well, to find a plane you first need to choose one coordinate, there's D of them. Then you also need to choose another different one, there's D-1 remaining. So D*(D-1) pairs possible. However, we need to correct for double counting pairs which are reversal of eachother (e.g. xw and wx) and so we divide by two. We obtain the formula I quoted in the beginning."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
82bl24
|
From the 1970s on, many cults are associated with religiously-motivated mass suicide. Why did this develop during the 70s--or was it in fact continuing an older tradition?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/82bl24/from_the_1970s_on_many_cults_are_associated_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv9fwa9"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
" > From the 1970s on, many cults are associated with religiously-motivated mass suicide. Why did this develop during the 70s--or was it in fact continuing an older tradition?\n\nYour question is really two different, but related, questions. The first one is \"how did cults become associated with mass suicide?\" The second one is \"did religiously-motivated mass suicides occur prior to the 1970s?\" I can definitely answer the first, but I don't know the full answer to the second, though I'll try to point you to articles I've read that try to touch on it.\n\nNote: in your original question, you referred to them as \"cults.\" \"Cults\" isn't necessarily wrong, but it also has negative connotations in common context. This isn't necessarily ideal in the academic context, since having an inherent negative bias towards these groups would hamper proper examination of these groups. As such, this leads to debate as to what these groups ought to be called, whether any proposed new names are adequate enough, or whether they should be renamed at all. Alternatives to the word \"cult\" have been proposed in the literature, including \"new religious group\", \"sect\", \"charismatic movement\", and \"marginalized movement.\" If you want to read more about this, I suggest checking out \"'Cults': What They Are\" in _The Rhetoric of Religious Cults: Terms of Use and Abuse_ (Mooney, 2005). \n\nDue to this debate, you might see these terms used in quotes from the literature. I'll personally be referring to them as marginalized religious groups in my answer, but note that if you see \"NRM\" or \"sect\" or \"cult\" in a quote or in an article/book I cite, it refers to the same thing.\n\n > How did marginalized religious groups become associated with mass suicide? \n\nBasically, Jonestown happened.\n\nThe anti-cult movements (which I'll abbreviate as ACMs) of the 60s and 70s often warned about marginalized religious groups. These warnings generally claim that said marginalized religious groups are:\n\n* brainwashing members into joining the group;\n* causing members to do things seen as \"abnormal\" by wider society (e.g. communal living, giving up old hobbies to devote all their energy to the group, moving to another place to join the group);\n* physically, emotionally, and sexually abusing members of the group;\n* financially exploiting and/or extorting members of the group;\n* censoring dissent among members of the group;\n* barring members from freely leaving the group; and\n* forcing members to cut off contact with loved ones who might otherwise try to pull them out of the group.\n\nYou can see many of these claims leveled against groups such as the Children of God, the Unification Church, Hare Krishna, the Church of Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and (of course) Peoples Temple (henceforth PT).\n\nA summary of PT is needed to understand how Jonestown became a darling -- if you could call it that -- of ACMs. As the group existed for over 20 years, this summary will be a bit long, so I apologize. A breakdown can be found in _Raven: The Untold Story of the Rev. Jim Jones and His People_ (Reiterman, 1982), _Understanding Jonestown and Peoples Temple_ (Moore, 2009), _A Thousand Lives_ (Scheeres, 2011), and the well received documentary _Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple_ (2008). First-hand accounts also exist; see _Stories from Jonestown_ (Fondakowski, 2013) and [this list (presented without comment)](_URL_3_) for examples.\n\nPT was a marginalized religious group, led by Jim Jones, that operated between 1956 to 1978. The group originated in Indianapolis as an interracial Christian church, and ran social service programs such as church-run nursing homes and a soup kitchen. They later became affiliated with the Disciples of Christ. \n\nIn 1965, after Jones warned of a nuclear holocaust that would devastate the midwest, the church moved to California, settling in Ukiah. They continued to do social service work in Ukiah and in San Francisco. Jones later expands the church, recruiting black people (often from other churches; many were poor, elderly, and/or otherwise felt dissatisfied with existing black religious groups such as the Black Church, Black Muslims, and the Nation of Islam) and white people (who were often middle-class and college educated), in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Jones preached anti-racism, advocated for \"apostolic socialism\" in his sermons, criticized the King James Version of the Bible for enabling racism and imperialism, and used healing sessions to great effect, causing them to gain members. PT also encourages members to live communally in PT-owned apartments, asking them to give up what they had with the promise of a stable allowance, housing, and food. The group also suffers from higher-ranking members choosing to leave the group around this time, most famously the \"Eight Revolutionaries\"/\"Gang of Eight\" in 1973, and Elmer and Deanna Mertle (later Al and Jeannie Mills) in 1975. Stories, accusations, and rumors of abuse, financial exploitation, and dodgy theology begin to circle the group, although for the most part they don't gain much traction in the media (outside an eight part series published in 1972, which ended prematurely after only four parts saw print). In 1973, PT begins work on an agricultural mission located in Guyana, in what is later known as Jonestown.\n\nIn 1975, after the election of George Moscone, Jones and PT begin to gain political influence. PT participates in political activism during this time, participating in letter writing campaigns and supporting the \"Fresno Four\" and the fight for the International Hotel (among others). In 1976, Jones becomes appointed to the San Francisco Housing Authority. Soon, Marshall Kilduff and Phil Tracy take interest in the group and Jim Jones in particular, and begin interviewing defectors, including new apostate Grace Stoen, who was now in a legal battle with her estranged husband, Tim Stoen, and PT, seeking custody for her son. Kilduff and Tracy publish [their article](_URL_4_) in _New West_'s August 1977 edition, leading to a mass exodus of PT members to Jonestown. \n\nA dedicated ACM group, known as the \"Concerned Relatives,\" begin to mobilize against PT. Concerned Relatives consisted of PT apostates (the \"Gang of Eight\", the Mills, Grace Stoen, Tim Stoen -- Grace's estranged husband, who now teams up with her in their custody battle -- in 1977, and Deborah Layton Blakey in 1978) and relatives of PT members. They lobbied government agencies, congresspeople, and the media to do something about Jonestown, who they claimed were holding their loved ones against their will in a \"concentration camp.\" (See: Concerned Relatives flyer [\"This Nightmare is Taking Place Right Now\"](_URL_2_), [\"Accusation of Human Rights Violations by Rev James Warren Jones Against Our Children and Relatives at the Peoples Temple Jungle Encampment in Guyana, South America\"](_URL_1_), and the [Affidavit of Deborah Layton Blakey](_URL_0_)\\).\n\nAfter the exodus, tension begins to mount in Jonestown. The custody battle escalates in September 1977 when the Stoens' lawyer gets a court order from the Guyanese government requesting that Jones appear with their son, leading to an event known as the \"Six Day Siege,\" where PT members armed themselves with machetes and guns and patrolled the grounds for six days. The battle stalls after PT has a talk with the Guyanese government, but the damage has been done. Jones's paranoia increases, and with a US Postal Service memo asking workers to return Social Security checks going to Guyana, a US Customs INTERPOL report revealing that Customs investigated shipments to Jonestown, and FCC investigations regarding amateur license violations for their HAM radios, members begin to believe that the US government, in tandem with Concerned Relatives, is set out to destroy their group as part of the Cold War fight against communism. They hire Mark Lane (a conspiracy theorist who believed such a conspiracy existed against PT) for legal counsel, begin practice suicide drills, and increasingly discuss suicide or violence against PT critics as part of educational exercises.\n\nUltimately, the Concerned Relatives got the attention of Congressman Leo Ryan, who decides to go on an expedition to investigate these claims. PT tries to prevent Ryan from going to Jonestown, but they ultimately relent on 17 November 1978, and allow him, his congressional group, members of the media, and members of Concerned Relatives to enter Jonestown. \n\nTragedy ensues on 18 November 1978. Sixteen people decide to defect from the group on that day, which upsets Jones. While the congressional group, the media, PT critics, and the defectors begin to board planes back to Georgetown, a PT group arrives and begins to shoot, ultimately killing five. PT members later gather in a central pavilion, where, after a prolonged discussion in which people express their fears of fascists coming in to kill their seniors and children and taking them back by force to the US, the group decides to self-destruct, primarily via poisoned Flavor-aid. One woman tries to argue against what was to happen during that discussion, but she fails to convince the group, and the self-destruction goes ahead. 909 PT members died that day, thus ending PT as a marginalized religious group."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/04-24-BlakeyAffidavit.pdf",
"https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/04-21-Accusation.pdf",
"https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ConRelflyer.pdf",
"https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=18194",
"http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/newWestart.pdf"
]
] |
||
29b794
|
How common was it in Medieval times for people to name their swords?
|
I've been watching a lot of Game of Thrones, and I thought it was really funny in the scene where Arya says "lots of people name their swords", to which The Hound replied, "lots of cunts".
It got me thinking about exactly how common it was back in the day for people to name their swords. The most I could imagine would be for a nobleman with a fancy, expensive sword, or maybe a knight who survived a great battle and would name their sword in celebration of their victory.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29b794/how_common_was_it_in_medieval_times_for_people_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cij9y1z",
"cijgxl1"
],
"score": [
75,
19
],
"text": [
"I recently read \"La Chanson de Roland\" and \"Le Couronnement de Louis/Charroi de Nîmes\" in my medieval french lit. class. In both of those chansons de geste, both dating from the ~10th and ~11th century there are many named swords that are featured in the works. \n\nFor instance, there are a number of passages about Roland's sword, Durendal. Also Charlemagne's sword Joyeuse, and the villian in \"Roland\" has a sword names Précieux.\n\nBecause I'm more familiar with the medieval literature I cannot speak specifically to actual real life documented examples of people naming swords. \n\nHowever, due to it's inclusion in the aforementioned chansons de geste (and in other works of that genre) it was likely an important aspect of medieval society. One can make this conclusion because of the fact that throughout works of that genre you saw the authors emulating their society, or at least an ideal of there society. Of which naming swords were important. \n\nAlso, just to add on. Perhaps someone here can give an estimate in modern money, but swords were extremely expensive possessions in the Middle Ages. They were extremely important to the owner because of the sheer cost of owning one. This perhaps influenced why names were given to swords. ",
"Warriors not only named their swords, but they also had them blessed in formal religious rituals, and inscribed them with prayers (“Jesus and Mary,” “Hail, Mary full of grace,” “God is the conqueror of all. Amen”). One late 13th-century has the inscription “Amor vincit omnia” on it: Love conquers all. \nSource: all of these examples are from William Chester Jordan’s 2009 lecture “Crusader Prologues: Preparing for War in the Gothic Age.”\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
49jqp9
|
How much power, if any, did the Senate still possess in the Byzantine Empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49jqp9/how_much_power_if_any_did_the_senate_still/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0sn7w5"
],
"score": [
34
],
"text": [
"It's hard to say \"during the Empire,\" because of how long the Empire was around. Generally, it just constantly lost power, sort of eventually forming more of a body of dignitaries and advisors than an actual legislative body.\n\nAt least during the post-Justinian Byzantine times, it's rule was one of slowly losing power, although it was still prestigious. Justinian's Corpus, for example, gave the Senate the right to debate all laws before they were instituted by the Emperor (although this ended up not happening), and judicial trials were often held by a prefect and 5 senators drawn by lot. High treason trials were often done in front of the Senate as well, meaning it had sway in legal matters like that.1 It's real power, more than anything though, came from the people who made up the Senate moreso than the prestige of the body itself. Senator was a title that was, like many Byzantine courtly titles, given out like candy at times to members of the government, so the Senate often acted like the conglomeration of the government.2 As such, it's few moments of relevancy in the Byzantine times was during times of succession. For example, the Senate was the body that decided that the gates would be open to Heraclius during his war with Phokas. Likewise, at the death of Heraclius, the intervention of the Senate is what forced Empress Martina to accept the rule of Constantine III and later Constans II over her own son Heroklonas.3 You see it pop up from time to time after this, such as when Theodora (Empress of Theophilos) went to the Senate to appeal to their virtue in hopes that they would allow her to peacefully rule as regent for her young son Michael III without fear of intervention/scheming against her. Following this, however, the Basilika law code that was introduced under Basil I and Leo the Wise stripped it of almost all of its remaining power. After this, you could simply buy the title of Senator, so any real power and or function of the \"senate\" was really just the collective power of those who owned the title, not even the body itself anymore. \n\nHope this answers your question :)\n\n[1] The Civil Law, Justinian _URL_0_\n\n[2] Alexiad, Anna Komnenos, along with The Byzantine Aristocracy: IX to XIII Centuries by Michael Angold (I've only read excerpts from this, but this seems like a good book for you to get your answer from in terms of later Byzantine history)\n\n[3] History of the Byzantine State, George Ostrogorsky (This isn't a great text since it's outdated, but it serves its purpose as a survey piece)\n\n[4] A Synopsis of Byzantine History, John Skylitzes with translation by John Wortley"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"et.al"
]
] |
||
4q287v
|
how does it come that helicopters are so widely used in military even though they seem so vulnerable?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4q287v/eli5_how_does_it_come_that_helicopters_are_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4pm0ov",
"d4pm2wm",
"d4pm4ud",
"d4pm5io",
"d4pn3ok",
"d4pnid9",
"d4pok9s",
"d4pollx",
"d4pork6",
"d4ppi3m",
"d4ppouq",
"d4ppq9c",
"d4pq28m",
"d4pqtix"
],
"score": [
97,
26,
18,
909,
8,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Their ability to maneuver and to drop into and out of areas. This provides quick drop off of troops to strategic areas, the delivery of needed supplies, and the ability to pull out trapped or wounded soldiers.\n\nYea they are loud, but you cannot always hear them coming until they are almost on top of you. Hitting a moving target in the air with small arms is very difficult unless the target is hovering. In addition, most helicopters have a means of shaking off targeting from AA systems. I'd suggest they're most vulnerable when landing and there's really no way around that although they hardly land in an unsecured area and smack in front of the enemy . Taking down a helicopter though is not the easy task that video games make it out to be. \n\nIn addition, they can move in, fire on a directed point with more time to pick individual targets, and move out where as planes have a pass over and short window for targeting with indiscriminate targeting (usually)",
"they have a lot of tactics. they're much harder to hit than you think, and you'd be amazed at how quickly a cobra or apache can sneak up on you. one minute you hear no helo, next minute all you hear is helo and it's definitely within range to mess your day up. also, they rely on fixed wing aircraft to keep the skies clear as well as ground forces and indirect fire to keep the area relatively safe from enemies from rockets. a lot of pilots can evade RPGs (which aren't all that accurate to begin with) if they get enough time to react, and there are defense mechanisms built in such as IR flares for more high-tech stuff. there is still some risk that they could be show down, though. this risk is just outweighed by the valuable support that a helicopter provides to ground forces. it's a very versatile platform which can fulfill many different roles. ",
"Vertical take off and landing is very useful for troop transport, medical/casualty evacuation, and anti armor.\n\nEven early helicopters in the Korean War were utilized effectively by Marines and the Army.\n\nLater in Vietnam the Army used helicopters on a tremendous scale to move large number of troops quickly.\n\nAs to their vulnerability, they can easily stay out of range of small arms and even 12.7 mm/50 caliber weapons. They are somewhat at risk while landing but US troop transports have 7.62 mm machine guns, and I believe larger ones may have 50 caliber. \n\nPlus, Apache gunships do a lot to secure a landing zone. \n\nPersonally as a crewchief who has been to Iraq on unarmed UH-60s for a few deployments 2005-2007 I rarely saw situations where our helicopter was in great risk. Flying at roof top at high speed makes it difficult to get detected by someone with an AK-47. By the time there aircraft was heard it is too late to get ready to shoot at it, then it's gone.\n\nAlso helicopters have various countermeasures for heat seeking missiles.\n\nRocket propelled grenades are another story though. \n\nSource: UH-60 repairer and crewchief for 7 years",
"By the time you can see or hear an aircraft, it's already close enough to fire its weapons. It's more important to catch them with radar systems long before they get into firing range. That's where a helicopter has an advantage: It can fly very low to the ground, so low that objects on the ground and the earth's curvature can hide it from radar.\n\nIn addition to that, helicopters can start and land everywhere, while combat jets require a proper runway. That's why they are often used for transporting and evacuating soldiers.",
"The Helicopter is today's version of cavalry. Helicopters can immediately outflank any position on a battlefield. And while we're accurately taught that air superiority is how you win wars; you can't actually win a war without boots on the ground. \n\nFurthermore attack helicopters can bring the same destructive value as some jet aircraft with increased precision. If you want to move a large amount of troops or ordinance to a specific point in the front? A flight of transport helicopters is perfect for that.",
" > it cant br that hard to hit them with something.\n\nCombat helicopters are decently armored against small arms and are quite rugged, so they generally must be hit with something fairly powerful to take them down.\n\nAnd they can do quite well against jet fighters:\n\n_URL_0_\n",
" The ability to unload or load troops, equipment and supplies almost anywhere.\n\n Conventional fixed wing aircraft are mostly restricted to airfields. The alternatives, used up to WW2/Suez/Korea are parachutes and/or gliders. Both of these are usually more vulnerable. \n\nParachutes need trained troops & they get dispersed over a wide area. Gliders (Airspeed Horsa, Hamilcar, etc) still need a flat field and are single use: you could probably do the same with some modern short take off aircraft. Both work only in the unload mode.",
"Vertical envelopment. Probably the most significant advancement in military technology to come out of the Korean War.",
"Some varieties of helicopter utilize radar domes mounted above the rotor system to effectively spot targets over the horizon, like a tank in WW2 shooting from a hull-down position. This gives them an advantage when targeting radar stations for AAA, and allows for missile strikes on other ground targets without exposure to ground fire. \nAlso, helicopters can lift a lot of weight. So they can be designed with a lot more armor than a jet. Plus their increased maneuverability also means better control and accuracy with strafing fire from chainguns. Plus, whereas a jet has to attack and overshoot and fly off, a helicopter can hover and keep firing as long as necessary in a single sweep. \nThat said, you can't put an ejection seat in a helicopter unless you're Russian. So pilot safety is different.",
"Don't imagine it like the movies with the gunships flying directly over the enemy.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) is all the target can see of an Apache Longbow using terrain as cover, it's only a [tiny part of the helicopter](_URL_1_) and can identify targets for the Hellfire missiles it carries. These missiles can hit targets 5 miles away, putting the helicopter well out of range of small arms fire.\n\n",
"The capability of VTOL/STOL utility vehicles cannot be overstated. They can move troops and materiel to just about anywhere. \n\nFor offense, they act as stable weapons platforms with a high view of the battlefield (see more, less obstruction etc.), which can also become highly mobile in order to flank, strafe or pursue an enemy. They have a wide range of armaments which means their purpose can change from anti-infantry to anti-tank to anti-helicopter, scouting, submarine warfare or mine clearing, launching ASM's at ships etc. \nHelicopters are indeed vulnerable, though they can take cover they don't have the speed or agility of jets to outrun AA systems. This means they need to be deployed in an intelligent fashion, as with all battlefield systems. You wouldn't deploy tanks on a plain when the enemy has ATGM's, you wouldn't deploy a company across a minefield, so you don't operate helicopters in a monitored airspace. You mention the noise, but you only have short warning between hearing them and being vapourised. Instead, the concern is in being targeted by SPAAG or IR AA systems, which are built to take out helicopters at these sorts of close ranges. ",
"Let me give you another perspective: I served as an officer in a STINGER air defense battery (not US), and from a tactical perspective as well as from simulator experience let me tell you: helicopters are the worst!\n\nFirst of all, in the beginning you think how fighting jets is so hard as the fly so fast. And it's true, in the beginning when you first step into the simulator, the required reaction time and the weight of the weapon do make it hard! Getting the weapon of 16kg ready fast enough while the jet flies over your head is challenging. But thats pretty much it. And you can train strength and speed. After a few months of training (we had like over a 1000 simulation runs each) you have ingrained all the movements to such a degree you could do it in your sleep. \n\nAs the jet flies fast it needs to fly high not to hit any obstacles, meaning usually you will have no problems seeing it. Time window to shoot is small (depending how good the position is), but you've trained for this abd it's usually not a problem (unless you have to do it with a gas mask on).\n\nNow a helicopter doesn't fly fast, but it flies low and a good pilot will always try to abuse the terrain to stay as camouflaged as possible. If there are trees and small pieces of forrest, the pilot will fly behind them to get cover. While you might hear it, it is really hard to tell where exactly it is. Even if you see it, your weapon will have difficulties getting a clear lock-on. It relies on infra red and ultra violet target recognition and something flying between trees will get it to constantly drop the lock. You have about 60 seconds to get a lock before you have to change the battery unit - hardly enough against a skilled pilot abusing the terrain. And once he sees you, he just has to come out of hiding for 2 seconds to take you out.\n\nSo just from an air defense and infantry perspective, I'd fight a jet over a helicopter any day, as they are ridiculously effective against most air defense tactics.\n\nThis of course applies only if the helicopter pilot is aware of enemy presence, terrorists shooting down helicopters from hiding is a different story.\n\n",
"I like to call these threads...\n\n\n\nArma player or ex army ranger? \n\nThe choice is yours! \n\nAre they qualified to have an opinion? \nDo they even understand the bernoulli principle? Find out next time on ELI5!!",
"Vulnerable?! Dude, do you even [Airwolf](_URL_0_)?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/g5XvgK1.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Westland_apache_wah-64d_longbow_zj206_arp.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/yr4Xag9-wJE"
]
] |
||
6e3nbh
|
if dying of old age is not an actual cause of death then could one live indefinitely(not immortal) provided they have enough money and a constant supply of vital body parts to replace with?
|
I am going to preface this by defining an indefinite life span as being able to avoid all complications that come with age that typically lead to death but one remains vulnerable to physical injury,disease deliberate acts of murder therefore not immortal but at least in theory can live eternally provided they avoid causing all physical harm that can lead to death.
Now hypothetically speaking If one was a billionaire for example I can't see why they could not afford to have a doctor on retainer living on the premises,nurses,hospital grade equipment in house,etc in order to meet all their medical needs on a daily basis,monitor changes and respond immediately to minimize health problems and risk of death.
The only thing I see that might be a challenge is replacing failed/diseased body parts like kidneys,other organs,and what not since there is a global shortage of organs and other vital parts. To my knowledge these parts are also mostly donated to hospitals for use at their own discretion with long waiting list and not for commercial sale which creates another obstacle in attaining an indefinite life span.
However if one could somehow obtain a constant supply of hearts,kidneys,etc(maybe from relatively healthy suicide victims or perhaps artificially grown parts from stem cells) as ghoulish as it sounds could said individual possibly live indefinitely? Is there any purely medical reason why death would be inevitable at some point assuming all variables remain constant and all procedures go according to plan?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e3nbh/eli5_if_dying_of_old_age_is_not_an_actual_cause/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di7d5eh",
"di7iyyz",
"di7urr8"
],
"score": [
31,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, you couldn't, and the reason is your DNA. Your DNA has bits of blank information on the end of it that are called telomeres. They act as a buffer to prevent damage to your DNA, because every time your cells reproduce, there is a risk of losing a very small amount of data from the resulting DNA. Think of them like aglets on your shoelaces. The telomeres are there to absorb the damage, leaving the important data in the strands of DNA intact. This can't happen indefinitely, however, because eventually the telomeres will wear away. This is what causes aging. Once the telomeres wear away, any damage that happens to the DNA strands happens to actual, vital data, causing the body to slowly function less and less efficiently, until eventually it simply cannot operate well enough to function anymore. ",
"Not 100 percent sure how AMA rules work but I'd lie to throw something in her--\n\nI like you're question, in high school we talked about something similar to this, at what point do we not become who we are. If we replace every organ one by one as they fail, at what number do we become not human? Is it the brain? Or is everything but the brain still considered \"a living human\"\n\n",
"You don't die of old age because your body parts need replacing, you die of old age because your body stops replacing them. Keeping your body in shape with transplants isn't a viable method as many tissues have to be replaced quite regularly. The only way you could live indefinitely is if you could figure out why your body stops repairing itself and fix the problem."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2v4du2
|
crime explosion 1958 to present.
|
just out of curiosity I recently was looking over crime rates in the U.S. and there seems to be a huge burst of crime beginning in the late 1950's and climbing until the early 1990's. What caused such a dramatic up swing?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2v4du2/crime_explosion_1958_to_present/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coeeypm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I have a degree in Criminal Justice, and criminology is a very vast field with many reasons within that could explain this answer. What type of crime rose specifically? Did some crime rise and some crime fall? Typically, around the holiday seasons, robbery will increase because citizens are looking to provide gifts for their loved ones. Also, if the economy is bad robbery will also rise. \n\nFor example, in this UCR from the FBI _URL_1_\n\nit lists that \"robbery was the lowest since 1989.\" A distinction should be made that robbery is defined legally as \"the taking of goods from another\" _URL_0_ and is not the same as burglary, which is defined as \"breaking and entering a building\" _URL_2_\n\nThe UCR listed above shows that in December in every month of every year robbery goes up.\n \n1991 - up to 9.2 from 8.7 in November\n\n1992 - up to 9.0 from 8.3 in November\n\n1993 - up to 9.4 from 8.5 in November\n\n1994 - up to 8.4 from 8.2 in November\n\n1995 - up to 8.9 from 8.7 in November\n\n(this is all from page 23 in the UCR).\n\nWhich should be enough empirical evidence to support my \"robbery rises\" claim.\n\nFor other claims I would have to know which type of crime in particular you are talking about.\n\nedit: formatting"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/robbery",
"http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec2.pdf",
"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burglary"
]
] |
|
1nzkdi
|
Hello, Historians! My history class is doing a writing assignment about pre-Depression era (1928) America and we need a little help.
|
Our history professor gave us an assignment to create a newspaper from 1928. We're currently doing research but I was wondering if you all had any cool sources or input that could help us out.
Some topics we are required to cover are:
* Ku Klux Klan/anti-modernity movement
* Harlem Rennaissance
* Consumerism
* Stock Market
* Prohibition
* Politics
* Organized Crime
* Political Scandals
* Fashion
What we have decided so far: We are a paper out of Philadelphia, PA called The Modern Patriot.
Information we are researching: Attitudes of mainly northern readers toward these issues, the tones of northern newspapers.
If there are any events that you think we should include, please let us know!
We are trying to make this paper pretty authentic in its content and design, so any help would be greatly appreciated! :)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nzkdi/hello_historians_my_history_class_is_doing_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccnlik6"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The Library of Congress has a collection entitled [\"Prosperity and Thrift: The Coolidge Era and the Consumer Economy, 1921-1929\"](_URL_0_), which contains (among other things) several advertisements of products for sale in the '20s. That will certainly help you for the \"Consumerism\" part, but it is a useful resource in general."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/coolhtml/coolhome.html"
]
] |
|
5r2vv7
|
how is malpractice handled in countries with universal healthcare?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r2vv7/eli5_how_is_malpractice_handled_in_countries_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd40dqk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's actually pretty similar to how it's handle in the US. I'm from Canada so I'll talk about our system.\n\nMedical professional have a professional order which regulate their practice. They are the one that choose which professional can or can't do, they also are the one investigating any case of malpractice or things like that. If they find you guilty they can make decision like excluding you from the order and you can't practice if you are not a member. In Canada, healthcare is mostly a provincial competence so each province have their own College of Physician (name vary province to province).\n\nThen there is criminal charges if the case is serious. And of course nobody is stopping people or their family to bring charge in the civil court. That depend which province because we actually have two different legal system. One come from the French and the other come from the British and one of the main differences is the Civil Code. But that's a whole other discussion.\n\nThe responsibility of the physician and hospital are pretty much the same compare to the US to be honest. The consequences for the physician is also pretty similar. The difference is for the Hostpital.\n\nBecause the hospitals are own by the Governement, they are never really in trouble, it's the board of direction that might lose their job if they did some wrong doing for example by employing bad doctors. The other differences is that there isn't any financial discussion for the patient. Basically, the patient will be schedule for whatever they need to fix the situation if possible.\n\nHere is the website for the College of Physician and Surgeons of Ontario, as well as an insurance company for malpractice. Give you some idea of the coverage and the legal protections if you want.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.markelinternational.com/regions/canada/products-and-expertise/specialist-sectors/professional-liability/medical-malpractice/",
"http://www.cpso.on.ca/"
]
] |
||
3qyb0i
|
what kind of things does mi6 and the secret service actually do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qyb0i/eli5_what_kind_of_things_does_mi6_and_the_secret/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwjc8fc",
"cwjcn9u",
"cwjcodx",
"cwjcvz6",
"cwjd6kx"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3,
32,
8
],
"text": [
"The Secret Service investigates and prosecutes counterfeiters, and protects the president and vice president.",
"MI6 is nothing like the Secret Service. You're asking like they're the same and it's like asking what garbage men and pool cleaners actually do.",
"MI6 is British foreign intelligence. A lot of what they do involves planting agents in British embassies around the world, who make contacts in local governments to find out their secrets.",
"The Secret Service is in charge of investigating counterfeiters, and provide protection services for the President, Vice President, Senators, Congressmen, and various other Dignitaries and their families in the US. \n\nMI6 is the British Foreign intelligence Service. They spy on other countries, and attempt to counter spies in Britain though that is the primary purpose of MI5. The US counterpart to MI6 would be the CIA, and the counterpart to MI5 would be both the FBI and NSA. ",
"In the UK, Mi6 handles our overseas secret intelligence. This officially means keeping tabs on other world powers to make sure the British government has an early warning of any potential threats to it's well being. Unofficially this probably means spying on other countries by inserting agents into their main industries and government agencies.\n\nThe Secret Intelligence Service is the group that MI6 belong to. So remember that MI6 handle the overseas stuff - MI5 handle all of the internal stuff in the UK. GCHQ is another agency that handles secret communications and monitors things like phone lines and the internet. \n\nNow remember the main role of these three services is to gather the intelligence. Above and outside of the Secret Intelligence Service is the Defence Intelligence. These are the analysts that carefully look over the intelligence that has been gathered. Think of them like detectives looking over a case for any clues.\n\nBringing all of these services together and making sure they all work as a cohesive unit is the Joint Intelligence Committee. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3j7fma
|
when dogs have so much better ears than us, why isnt their barking hurt them? isnt it extremly loudly for them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j7fma/eli5when_dogs_have_so_much_better_ears_than_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cumwd5f",
"cumwxx1"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Dogs have better ears means they can pick up sounds too quiet for us to hear or frequencies, it doesn't mean that all sounds they hear are amplified. A dog will hear sounds just as loud as us, but they will also pick up sounds we can't hear, that's what them having better hearing means.",
"For the same reasons that our own shouting doesn't deafen us.\n\nThe small bones that link the eardrum to the inner ear have muscles attached to them, and when you (or the dog) is expecting or experiencing loud sounds, those muscles tighten and prevent the severe vibrations from reaching the inner ear."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1472cv
|
Transition from prehistory to history: emergence of large-scale well organised societies before the invention of writing?
|
The start of history is usually associated with the emergence of writing, as it greatly increases our understanding about specific events. But it also makes sense to link history to the emergence of well organised societies (e.g. those necessary to manage a large river valley irrigation system), as it is the ambition of history to be able to describe such societies. Of course, the two are correlated, as writing is an important enabler of societal organisation, however, that does not mean the emergence of the two necessarily coincides. Do we have archeological evidence for the big change in societal organisation (onset of large-scale river-valley irrigation etc.) well before the first written records? How much time could have passed before the invention of writing (and other landmarks, like a generally accepted legitim ruler etc) became inevitable?
(It would also be nice to see not just the static beginning and end, but a dynamic description, an actual story line of how this transition happened. What were the stages and the timescales between them, the reversals, the bottlenecks etc. I don't know if archeology can provide us with that.)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1472cv/transition_from_prehistory_to_history_emergence/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7af9xt",
"c7afuey",
"c7aljrq"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Someone specializing in pre-history will give you a more general answer. I can tell you from what I know of Chinese pre-history that we often can tell that some of the big things you mention come about well before the first written records that we have. Tombs from Yangzi valley neolithic cultures, for example, suggest highly stratified social structures and imply a certain level of agricultural production per person (although what their agricultural practices looked like specifically, who knows). Jade is a hard material work with, it can't be cut or carved like other things, it has to be worked solely with abrasives. Making jade ritual objects in neolithic times required a lot of man hours, and the presence of lots of jade objects in Yangzi valley tombs implies two significant things: first, that some people were so much wealthier or powerful than others to be able to afford or force people to make that much jade and second, that the society's agricultural output must have been high enough to support a number of artisans over the long period of time required to make the jade artifacts, which may very well imply advances in agricultural technology. This is all thousand + years before first actual surviving pieces of writing. That having been said, it is hard to say with any specificity when exactly these things first come about or what society was really like back then, sometimes we're working with pretty limited sources.",
"I have a more specific reply to your question below, but first I'd like to talk about the question itself a little bit.\n\n**Musings**\n\nYou have brought up several big issues here, many of which are extremely contested. The first big one is this; does 'history' truly require written records? As archaeology has grown more sure of itself and we've become able to extract more information from remains that question has become more and more up for grabs. I identify myself as primarily an ancient historian, but many of the periods I am familiar with are on the whole evidenced by archaeological materiel and *not* historical records or indeed literature. Ever since I chose to venture into periods outside of Classical Greece and Rome, this is a line I have consciously felt like I'm straddling.\n\nIn addition, what you appear to have reached semi independently is another major battle ground; the emergence of 'civilizations' vs processional change. Civilization is not the term that you used, but where you used the term 'well organised societies' many would use the word civilization. If you look at many uses of the term, it seems to describe a binary state, but as you have pointed out surely a transition between the two would seem to be in order. Except at what point in the transition do you chose to determine that a particular group has become a civilization? One day they were just a humble tribe, the next day they were a civilization?\n\nMost relevantly to your question, for many the definition of a civilization *requires* the emergence of writing. So in essence, to be a well organised society that society also has to be historical. This is not neccessarily something people agree on. Indeed, the exact definition of what a civilization is will probably never be agreed on. This is a debate that I have mostly encountered among academics working in prehistoric fields. I personally feel that most of the traditional conceptions of 'civilization' are not actually about the societies in question but about the historian or academic in question and that makes it deeply suspect.\n\n**Specific Answer**\n\nThe main place I'm familiar with that fits your parameters pretty much perfectly is the BMAC (Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex), also more pithily known as the Oxus civilization. To give you a brief introduction, the Oxus river is the ancient Greek name for the modern Amu Darya river. It is navigable and also able to be channeled for intense agriculture. The Oxus civilization is currently dated to 2300-1700 BC. The area is known to have been inhabited in the Central Asian neolithic at least from around 6000 BC onwards. The BMAC is generally understood to have occupied the length of the Oxus river starting from its upper reaches at Pamir down to Margiana.\n\nIt had been suspected for some time that Central Asia had more to offer than just its first historical appearance in the 6th century BC as a series of Persian provinces. Archaeologists in the 1960s onwards found that irrigation canals had not just been in operation from the Achaemenid era onwards (i.e the Persian Empire), but in fact from the Bronze Age. More evidence has emerged since then, and since around 2007 it is considered a relatively safe bet that the BMAC was a complex society. The only element missing from the traditional cocktail required for a 'civilization' is writing. Our first evidence of writing in Bactria is not for another 1200 years after the end of the BMAC period, and the writing is in Aramaic which originates far to the west of Bactria/Margiana.\n\nBut nonetheless, here we are. This is an area in which there is enough complexity to build and maintain large scale canal irrigation, pretty much exactly the kind of society that you were asking about. In fact, your answer was predicated on the fact that such a culture would eventually develop writing; unless we find some rather drastic new evidence, we can only conclude that the region *never developed its own writing system* and writing was only introduced much much later. \n\nWe understand almost none of the history of the region between this period and the Achaemenid Persian era. We do not know if the Bactrians of the 2200s BC were directly related to the Bactrians of the 500s BC, we do not know if any states emerged in Central Asia before the Persians, we do not know if the BMAC was an Indo-European speaking culture. There are many many arguments about all of these issues and few of them have been resolved yet. \n\nIf writing truly was only introduced by the Persians, then it would seem that writing only became neccessary to meet the demands of running an Empire and integrating this territory into it, and not from any internal pressures in Central Asia itself.\n\nThere is source material that I can recommend on this subject if you'd like, I've only left that out because many of the works I'm familiar with need their *own* introduction before reading them.\n\n**Glossary**\n\nBactria- A region that is now mostly within modern Afghanistan, based around the upper reaches of the Oxus/Amu Darya river. Rich in agriculture, but also in jewels and gold. Originally known as *Baxtrish* in Old Persian (that's transliterated).\n\nMargiana- A region to the west of Bactria, traditionally considered to be based around the city of Merv and at the very eastern edges of the Iranian plateau. Much of it is now in either Afghanistan or Turkmenistan. Originally known as *Margu* to the Persians.",
"Peru here. And I really focus on the origins of the state as a system of organization. To answer your questions in short, yes. Although we can never know the specific model of organization without writing, we've found that anywhere where states developed, they did so before true writing. They needed some sort of administrative record keeping, and writing typically evolved out of this, but there were highly-organized societies with no writing or only proto-writing. \n\nBut most of those places did eventually develop writing. The Andes did not. Sure, the Inca had quipu which is a highly-complex \"language\" (we think they served as mnemonic devices, but they may have been a sort of proto-writing), but the Andes never developed a true writing system, and the Inca were extremely well-organized, enough to take over the land from northern Chile and Argentina to the Ecuador-Colombia border in about 80 years. But we know a great deal about how they were organized because of Spanish records and oral histories.\n\nAnd much older societies existed in the Andes without quipu and they certainly built very complex irrigation networks, probably had ascribed leadership (i.e. inherited), managed extensive trade networks, etc. I'm not really familiar with open-access sources on this area, but [this guy](_URL_0_) writes some pretty good stuff on the Andes, and you should read up on the Moche for one example of highly-complex societies that built massive irrigation networks, waged war, developed highly skilled art, had large cities, and never had any writing whatsoever (nor quipu). And this is just an example. \n\nYou don't even need a state to build large irrigation networks, permanent trusted leaders, etc. (these things are also hallmarks of chiefdoms), but generally states had more power, the ability to delegate power, more trust in the leader, etc. and there is plenty of archaeological evidence for this. The best, in my opinion, is the development of a multi-tiered hierarchical settlement pattern, whereby there is clearly a capital city, provincial/administrative capitals, local towns, villages, and hamlets, forming a chain of command. [Charles Spencer's](_URL_1_) work on this issue is some of the clearest I've seen, but again I'm not sure about open-access sources for it.\n\nSo, to sum up: yes, we know that these things developed in multiple places before the advent of writing, and in some places where writinf never developed. Without writing archaeology cannot get at the specific circumstances of social evolution and we can really only see what happened on, at best, a generational timescale, but we can get a pretty good idea of how and when social organization developed, and we can often make some pretty good inferences as to why.\n\nEdit: fixed a link."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.jqjacobs.net/andes/andes_prehistory.html",
"http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/anthro/bio.php?scientist=spencer"
]
] |
|
1ckza1
|
Was the Reconquista considered more secular or religious at the time?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ckza1/was_the_reconquista_considered_more_secular_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9hoi4h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I am surprised no one has tackled this yet. This is not my exact area of expertise but I will give it a crack.\n\nFirst we have to ask when was it considered more secular or religious?\n\n > \"There is a corresponding change in the notion of reconquest. At the start the ideal is to restore a united Spain under the kings of the Visigoths. This is a territorial ambition, and in these early centuries the two religions (or three, with the many Jews living in Spain) prosper regardless of whether the ruler of the region is Muslim or Christian. In the 11th century religious fervour enters both camps. A new Muslim dynasty, that of the Almoravids, is more dogmatic than the Umayyads. A more aggressive Christianity, characteristic of the whole of Europe at this time, affects the northern kingdoms. On the wider stage this is the time of the crusades, and the Christians of Spain have their own local Muslims to confront.\"\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\nI think this source some it up pretty well. The religious fervor of the era of the Crusades added an element that isn't necessarily visible before the 11th century. It was mainly a work of returning Iberia to the Visigoths, but by the end it had transformed into the major conflict between Christians and Muslims outside of the Near East.\n\nThere is also some good work out there about how Spanish identity was in large part formed by this transition from battle of territory to fight between religions: [Source 2](_URL_2_). This focuses mostly on El Cid and the role he played uniting the political and religious spheres, but you can take it as you like.\n\nSecondly we have to ask to whom was it considered more secular or religious at the time? I think there is certainly ample evidence that to some this was nothing more than a power grab and they simply were interested in gaining power, wealth, and land.\n\nThis is a pretty good paper discussing why religion may have been more of a facade: [Source 3](_URL_1_)\n\nOn the other hand I would argue that had there been no real religious zeal, we would not have had the establishment of the Inquisition in 1481. I think to many in the Church and perhaps Isabella I and Ferdinand II the Inquisition was either the culmination of Reconquista or at least its logical conclusion.\n\nSo to sum up the answer, it depends on when and who you are talking about. I think this is one of those that needs to be taken on a case by case basis rather than as a whole seeing as the Reconquista was neither a mono-causal, nor an un-evolving inorganic event by itself, let alone the thousands upon thousands of individual actors and agents involved. Events really need to be seen as organisms which change and adapt over time depending on a variety of different circumstances, but I think this is going a little beyond your question now and more into the nuances of how history should be represented.\n\nI know that may not be wholly satisfactory, but if you have a more specific question regarding a particular person or time period I could dig a little deeper."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?gtrack=pthc&ParagraphID=ecf#ecf",
"http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06112004-153006/unrestricted/TWRMastersthesis.pdf",
"http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Gibbs.html"
]
] |
||
3fnor8
|
why do the southern states have the highest rates of obesity in america?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fnor8/eli5_why_do_the_southern_states_have_the_highest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctq9bva",
"ctqbcq8"
],
"score": [
9,
12
],
"text": [
"Lots of research has found a negative correlation between obesity rates and wealth in the US (as wealth goes up, obesity rates come down). \n\nLooking [here](_URL_0_) you can see that household income (which I know isn't wealth but this is the data I could easily find) tends to be lowest in the Southern states.\n\nIf I had to guess the relative poverty of the South is mostly the reason.",
"There are several reasons.\n\n1. Poverty. As others mentioned, states like Mississippi and Alabama have very high poverty rates. Obesity and poverty are correlated strongly in the U.S.\n\n2. Cuisine. Southern food isn't known for being terribly healthy. While Southerners don't eat fried chicken for every meal, the sort of restaurants that are ubiquitous in the South--McDonald's and the other national fast food giants, but also more regional chains like Chick-Fil-A, Waffle House, Bojangles, Popeye's--are especially ubiquitous in poorer areas.\n\n3. Lifestyle. Even the South's big cities--Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Jacksonville, etc.--are very car-centric and sprawling. Most people drive everywhere, so walking is rare. \n\n4. Climate. I doubt this is really a strong factor influencing it, but [the South's climate](_URL_0_) may go further in discouraging physical activity. I've lived in Georgia and outside of the South (Colorado, mid-Atlantic region). What most of the country calls \"summer\" starts in April in states like SC, GA, MS, AL and continues on into early October--sweltering heat, high humidity. It's very unpleasant to be outside. While winter is fairly mild in the South too, it's still not that pleasant to be outside in. \n\n5. Reaching a bit further, I would also expect that the legacy of segregation plays a role as well with creating big areas of poverty in black communities. Those areas are more likely to lack transit infrastructure, decent grocery stores, and so on, resulting in food deserts and similar barriers to health. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/20/article-0-151E5D93000005DC-911_634x467.jpg"
],
[
"http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1909406,00.html"
]
] |
||
6j3isn
|
what classifies something as a plastic and how can the same type of plastic (e.g polyester) be used from slick, waterproof shirts to fluffy blankets?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6j3isn/eli5_what_classifies_something_as_a_plastic_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djb8uvt"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Plastics are synthetic or partly synthetic polymeric materials. (Basically materials made from enormously big molecules, compared to other materials.) \n\nAs to why is there a wide range of plastics. Simply because we spent the last century with trying to make new kinds of plastics that could be applied in different situations. Our technology has evolved so much, that we can now make plastics how we want them. \n\nTheir properties are mainly controlled by the actually plastic, so PET (PETP) will act completely differently than Teflon. (PTFE) This is caused by them being made from different macromollecules. You can then adjust the properties of plastics by additives, you could make them more heat resistant, you could change their density, you could make them more durable, you could make them conduct electricity better... Pretty much anything. \n\nI'm not sure how well did I explain it as English isn't my native language and this is hard to explain to someone who doesn't work or study in the the field even in my native language. But fell free to ask more questions. \n\nAlso polyesters are category of plastics that PET falls into. They don't have that wide use as you stated, but they can still get pretty useful, not only to make bottles. \n\nBut the wide range of uses is possible thanks to the additives I wrote about above. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3j9bug
|
Has an invasive or agriculturally-destructive species ever been intentionally introduced to a rival country, with the intention of causing harm?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j9bug/has_an_invasive_or_agriculturallydestructive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cunk4qx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This does not quite fit the bill of \"rival country\" but in 1989, a self described \"ecoterrorist group\" known only as \"The Breeders\" took credit for the recent infestation of California by medflies, which began destroying crops. Opinion is divided today as to whether it was a real attack, an out of control prank, or if it was a hoax of people claiming credit for what was a natural occurrence. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
12x8bp
|
is the "fiscal cliff" actually bad for our economic recovery?
|
I understand that more money will be taken out for taxes, but isn't more funding for the government a good thing (won't it help reduce the debt)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12x8bp/is_the_fiscal_cliff_actually_bad_for_our_economic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6yxszz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Probably really bad for the economy. \n\nIt does a lot of things all at once. 1- End Bush Era Cuts, 2- Cuts in Defense Spending, 3- End of the payroll tax holiday, 4- Cut in Unemployment Benefits, 5- Cut in Medicare payments to doctors. \n\nA lot of people will lose their jobs because of point 2. (Military contractors and some government employees).\n\nIt is also a bitter pill for both sides of Congress to take. \n\nIn regards to reducing debt, it will probably reduce the debt but its taking money from the entitlement section of the budget to do so. \n\nELI5 - Probably bad. Maybe some good. But more than likely bad. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2i299t
|
what makes a coach watch or something designer worth so much money?
|
is it literally people just want to say "this is a designer clothing item".. what even makes something "Designer".. is there any like actual value or like better fabric or something in these designer clothing to make them better?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i299t/eli5_what_makes_a_coach_watch_or_something/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cky5fzw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They do tend to be very high quality. That is how they make a name for themselves and then on top of that they have become status symbols and the fact that they are expensive makes them more valuable to some people \n\n\n\"I want people to know/think I'm rich so I buy things people know are expensive\"\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ori40
|
Scientists plan on taking the first picture of a black hole. But how?
|
The field of gravity around a black hole is so immense that it swallows everything in its reach; not even light can escape its grip. For that reason, black holes are just that — they emit no light whatsoever, their “nothingness” blends into the black void of the universe.
So how does one take a picture of something that by definition is impossible to see?
I understand how they plan on capturing the glow of matter swirling around the black hole before it goes over the edge and plunges into the abyss of space and time. But what about the black hole itself and the event horizon?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ori40/scientists_plan_on_taking_the_first_picture_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3jg9eh",
"c3jgef9",
"c3jgonv",
"c3jhnu0"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"You're correct that black holes emit nothing visible to our cameras. All they mean is that they will take a picture of where the black hole is, not that they will image photons emitted from it.\n\n > So how does one take a picture of something that by definition is impossible to see?\n\nAt this point we can start nitpicking the words a bit. How does one take a picture of a shadow, when a shadow is by definition something that is not possible to see?",
"They're probably going to photograph the accretion disk as you suggested. While black holes probably give off Hawking radiation, a black hole with one solar mass would radiate at 10^-29 watts, which we obviously cannnot observe.",
"The plan is to image the accretion disk around the black hole. From what I understand the resolution is going to be high enough that you would see the \"shadow\" cast at the event horizon.",
"Keep in mind that from the point of view of an external observer, time at the event horizon slows to an effective stop, so a detailed enough image of an event horizon, unobscured by a surrounding accretion disk, ought to provide all sorts of interesting data. \n\nHowever, from Earth all we're likely to see is the accretion disk."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
89odjf
|
how a ufc fighter can drop 26lbs in 6 days to make weight, then manage to fight the next day?
|
_URL_0_
Max Holloway is fighting this weekend but he has to drop 26lbs to do make the weight category and he has 6 days to do it. Is it even possible to drop that much weight in 6 days (when you're already pretty lean?).
Even if he does make weight, how could he be in good fighting condition considering the extremes his body would have gone through this week?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89odjf/eli5_how_a_ufc_fighter_can_drop_26lbs_in_6_days/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwsc6y2",
"dwse7p5"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Your body is mostly water... so if you dehydrate yourself you could lose a lot of weight very rapidly. ",
"Dropping that much weight in such a short time takes an enormous physical toll. An average person would be physically spent, however, these fighters are in phenomenal physical shape to begin with. Think of the most fit person you know and multiply it by ten. Yes, it affects his strength and physical abilities, but since he is dropping weight to fight lighter, it is likely he is already significantly stronger than his opponent and can afford to lose some strength. \n\nAs others have said, he will be dropping mostly water weight by dehydrating himself. 26lbs is on the higher side of what I have heard for a weight cut in such a short amount of time. I believe the weigh-in happens the night before the fight, so he has almost a day to recover. I wouldn't be surprised if he gains 10-15 lbs back from the time of weigh-in to the start of the fight.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2018/4/2/17190272/george-lockhart-max-holloway-weight-cut-biggest-ever-featherweight-lightweight-khabib-ufc-223-mma"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3c3w37
|
how does a musical score in a film help elicit such specific emotional response in viewers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c3w37/eli5_how_does_a_musical_score_in_a_film_help/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csrzx5f"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It's partially something you learn, partially innate, but it's also the result of a long experience in eliciting emotions through music.\n\nWrt. learning, let's look at Western movies. We were not born with the association of a certain rhythm with riding a horse. But composers have been using it for a long time, and by now, movie goers will associate the two.\n\nBut we do get born with certain associations, or acquire these associations very young and fast. E.g. we know the sound of a wail isn't a happy sound. A dancing rhythm on the other hand is probably happy. Perhaps because of this, we associate slow, descending melody lines quicker with sadness, and dance music with happiness and fun. Low, distant sounds are easily associated with threats.\n\nFinally, underscoring movies has been going on for a long time, so each generation just builds on the experience from the previous one, but also on the expectations set up by the previous generation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4g15z5
|
How do we know ice core samples get older as we go deeper?
|
Obviously it gets older as you get deeper. But how do we know its a linear relationship between age and depth? Couldn't there be events that cause the depth to chance greatly and the age of air trapped in them to be relatively the same age?
Just want to know how they model that?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4g15z5/how_do_we_know_ice_core_samples_get_older_as_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2e5ccf",
"d2euz23"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The most obvious answer is the older stuff had to freeze to allow the newer stuff to freeze on top of it. \n\nWe can further show this by: Oxygen for example normally exists with 8 protons and neutrons giving O16. It can however exist in an isotope with 8 protons and 10 neutrons giving O18. In the same why Hydrogen can exist with 1 neutron or 2 (2 neutrons gives something called deuterium). \n\nLong story short the more of the high weight Isotopes (O18 and deuterium, these are harder to evaporate into the atmosphere so will be present in the H2O in greater quantities during cold spells) the colder the climate at that time.\n\nNow fortunately every year is split into 2 periods, a cold period and a hot period, hence you can map back the summer and winter year after year as you go down the ice cores.\n\n",
"Dating ice cores (or any proxy record) is one of the most challenging yet most important issues in paleoclimatology. Short answer is that it's not linear and gets pretty complicated.\n\nThere are two ages of concern: the age of the gas bubbles at a certain depth x, and the age of the ice surrounding those bubbles at the same depth. The gas is always younger than adjacent ice, because air doesn't become completely isolated from the atmosphere until a certain depth. Knowing this \"lock-in depth\" is key, and has usually been calculated through [firn densification models](_URL_0_). Firn is snowy-ice that eventually becomes compacted into the ice of ice cores. These models are based upon accumulation rates and temperature changes. [Here's an old paper](_URL_1_) that goes into some nitty-gritty with the numbers and how to use accumulation and such to calculate firn densification and use that, just as an example.\n\nThis is problematic when you go to an area with low accumulation rates. Recently, this has been appraoched by using nitrogen isotopes (from N2 trapped in air bubbles), which ARE linearly linked to the firn diffusive zone. Using nitrogen isotopes, in conjunction with ice and gas stratigraphic markers (for ex, a volcanic ash layer), can give a better estimate of that \"lock-in depth.\" You can also refine an ice core age model by \"tuning\" it to a radiometrically dated stalagmite if there's enough evidence that they're climatically linked and coeval.\n\nI'm not an expert in ice cores but perhaps others could chime in with anything I missed. Hope this answers your Q!\n\nEdit: if you want to know even more, [here's a PDF describing the efforts of AICC2012](_URL_2_), the Antarctic Ice Core Chronology. The goal of AICC2012 is to \"synch\" all ice cores so that they're all on the same x axis; due to uncertainties in each individual age model, you can't just stack them and call it a day, so they create a chronology so that you can stack them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/flowofice/densification/",
"http://www.climate.unibe.ch/main/courses/archive/glaciology_fs15/herron_langway80jog.pdf",
"http://clim-past.net/9/1733/2013/cp-9-1733-2013.pdf"
]
] |
|
18rxc3
|
Physics: How are special relativity, general relativity, and e=mc^2 related to one another?
|
I have a layman's understanding of all three, but I've never understood how or why they're all related to one anoter.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18rxc3/physics_how_are_special_relativity_general/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8hfk33",
"c8hfujf"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"E=mc^(2) is a result found from special relativity that tells us that mass is a form of energy.\n\nSpecial relativity: The consequence of light having the same speed relative to any observer. Explains how to translate what one non-accelerating observer measures to what another non-accelerating observer measures.\n\nGeneral relativity: What you get when you add gravity to special relativity. The Principle of Equivalence says being in a gravitational field is equivalent to being in an accelerating frame of reference (which special relativity does not address).\n\nOR\n\nGeneral relativity is a theory of gravity in which light always travels at the same speed relative to any observer at all, leading to spacetime not only being warped, but that warping to be a dynamical variable -- something that changes over time according to equations of motion. Special relativity arises when we get rid of this dynamical warping, and simply consider spacetime to be fixed to be flat.",
"Dynamics through a spacetime with arbitrary geometry are given by a metric, which tells you the pythagorean theorem for that particular spacetime. General relativity tells you how the metric relates to the distribution of energy and pressure, while Lagrangian dynamics tell you how things move according to that metric. Special relativity describes the dynamics when the metric is that of Minkowski space."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3mrae3
|
Synapses are the gaps between the axon terminal of one neuron and the dendrites of another neuron, correct? So, effectively, synapses are gaps between neurons? In that case, what conducts the travel of neurotransmitters through the synapses, and how is the nervous system held together?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3mrae3/synapses_are_the_gaps_between_the_axon_terminal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvia2ee"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There are broadly two types of synapses. \n\nThe type you are thinking about are strictly called \"chemical synapses\". Yes, at the simplest level they are very small gaps between two very specialized parts of two neurons. Not just any gap will do, there are specialized structures on both cells both in the synapse and surrounding it (including structural proteins holding the whole thing together), and often support cells surrounding the synapse that do things like sucking up used neurotransmitters. The neurotransmitters aren't conducted, they simply travel through the fluid by the same unguided rules as all other small molecules. You would think this would make thing slow, but the gap is so tiny that they actually travel extremely fast. Our intuition about how this sort of thing should work doesn't help much on such small scales.\n\nThe other type are called \"electrical synapses\". These are made up of something called \"gap junctions\", which are specialized protein pores connecting two cells (one on each cell). These allow electrical changes to travel directly between cells without needing neurotransmitters. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1rwllc
|
how hiv is transmitted from a woman to a man
|
I get that semen and pre-cum enter a woman's body, transferring the virus. But how, exactly, does the virus travel from a woman to a man during sex?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rwllc/eli5_how_hiv_is_transmitted_from_a_woman_to_a_man/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdrnfzo",
"cdronvu"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Blood. Micro cuts in her vagina and micro cuts on your penis.",
"Mucous membranes are permiable. For example, some medications can be absorbed via the muscous membrane under your toungue, some medications (or toxins) can be absorbed through your skin. The HIV virus can fit through mucous membranes in the anus and vagina. Also, if there are any cuts or lesions, the chances increase. Think of cappilaries as underground mole tunnels. Ones deep under the surface don't receive as much rain but ones on the surface do. Like these tunnels, cappilaries are close to the surface in mucous membranes and can be easily penetrated by viruses, infections, bacteria...etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3uh99l
|
From where did Roman legionnaires get their equipment?
|
God damnit: *Legionnaries
I can find plenty of info about the equipment that Roman legionnaries used throughout the republic and empire but what I've always wondered is how much like a modern military in terms of supply, was the Roman military?
One of the many aspects I and doubtless others find fascinating about the Roman military is its incredible feeling of similarity to our own, modern, institutions. And its dissimilarity to the forces that came after in Europe, maybe all the way until the 18th or 19th century!
Since you needn't have necessarily been of high class to join the Roman army, I assume all equipment was provided? I just wonder whether there were, as I imagine, factories churning our gladii, shields, helmets, mail/lorica for the Roman army that would be warehoused and when a soldier reported for duty, he'd be given standard kit and weapons?
I don't doubt that richer soldiers/noblepeople could purchase better equipment privately but I'd just be interested to hear from anyone who knew how a citizen, reporting for duty on day 1, would be supplied, with what, and how supply was managed, at any particular point during the Roman Empire.
(As an aside, was legionary training ever documented in detail? Detail to the point of what methods/how much physical exercise, how much weapon training, how much tactical training etc. Would this most likely be at the discretion of the general or was there an "official" way to train soldiers?)
Thanks.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3uh99l/from_where_did_roman_legionnaires_get_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxewt9l"
],
"score": [
60
],
"text": [
"The Romans, at least in the late Republic and Empire, had very sophisticated logistics. They had to, they were supporting a large army spread out throughout Europe and North Africa and into Asia. Jonathan Roth's *The Logistics of the Roman Army at War* covers this in detail. Roman military campaigns generally pre-planned supplies. An example would be where Drusus marched west from the Lippe River valley, and met supply ships coming down the Weser river. A Roman supply depot on the Weser was discovered, which might be part of that campaign. The Romans also seemed to have differentiated what we call the 'combat train' (*sarcina*, or the gear immediately needed by the army, like tents and a few days food) and the 'army train' (*impedimenta*, the longer trains with the campaign food, building materials, etc.). They could operate for a short while without the army train (*expediti*) when the army needed to move fast, and sometimes without the combat train (Caesar left behind his *sarcina* during the amphibious landing on Britannia).\n\nThe early Roman army was levied from the land-owning classes, who provided their own armor and weapons. After the Marian reforms, when non-land owners were allowed to join, armor was provided by the state, issued by the *custodes armorum*. However, the cost was probably deducted from the soldier's pay. During the late Republic and Principate, arms and armor (along with other goods) would have been sourced locally or from nearby major population centers, produced by contractors (*publicani*), or sometimes produced by the soldiers themselves. By the third century, state-owned *fabricae* were responsible for production. See Bishop & Coulston, *Roman Military Equipment* for a good discussion of that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3937n9
|
How much more powerful were the battleships Yamato and Musashi in comparison to other WW2 era battleships?
|
I know the Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi were the largest of the war, and I've heard them referred to as super battleships, but I'd like to know how they compared to the battleships of the U.S. fleet.
In other words, what exactly made them super battleships?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3937n9/how_much_more_powerful_were_the_battleships/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crzzhr0"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Going off of numbers alone, *Yamato* and her sister *Musashi* are very impressive ships. Their nine [46 cm (18 inch) guns](_URL_3_) were the largest guns to ever be fitted to any class of battleship. In comparison, the Iowa-class battleships, commissioned after *Yamato* and *Musashi*, stuck with [16 inch guns.](_URL_1_) Looking at armour, *Yamato* has thicker armour than the *Iowa*-class (the best battleships built by the US) just about everywhere - the belt (16.1\" vs 12.2\"), deck (9.1\" to 6\"), turret faces (25.6\" to 19.7\"), et cetera. It's no surprise that *Yamato*'s displacement was so high - 71,659 tons fully loaded, compared to *Iowa*'s 57,000 tons.\n\nThat is what makes them \"super battleships.\"\n\nHowever, numbers don't tell everything. *Yamato* is very impressive on paper, but many suspect that an *Iowa*-class battleship would get the better of her in an actual combat situation. Japanese steel was of mixed quality at best - no where near as good as that found in US ships - so whilst *Yamato* had thicker armour than *Iowa*, it wasn't necessarily as much better as it might seem at first. The 18 inch guns on *Yamato* could outrange the 16 inch guns of *Iowa* - around 45,000 yards vs 42,000 yards, but in reality, they would be unlikely to hit anything. American Radar-based fire control was much more accurate than anything that the Japanese were capable of, meaning that *Iowa* would be more likely to land hits on *Yamato* at range. Given that *Iowa* was also a few knots faster than *Yamato*, in a hypothetical engagement, she'd have the ability to break off of combat at will.\n\n*Yamato* and *Musashi* were not terrible ships, though in hindsight one can easily say that they were a waste of resources (of course, this is all hindsight - in the 30s, naval leaders really did think that battleships would still play a vital role in fleet combat in the future). They weren't as refined or capable as the *Iowa*-class battleships, however.\n\n_URL_2_ has a [very good battleship comparison page](_URL_0_), which runs down through various categories. It's worth a read."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm",
"http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm",
"Combinedfleet.com",
"http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm"
]
] |
|
43bi62
|
what's the advantage of a really long lease (1000s of years) as opposed to actually buying a property?
|
I ask this because I was reading [this](_URL_0_) article about a library that took out a 10,000 year lease at $1 per annum. That reminded me of the lease Arthur Guinness took on his brewery: 9000 years at £45 per year.
So what would be the benefits of such an arrangement?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43bi62/eli5_whats_the_advantage_of_a_really_long_lease/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czh0gkb",
"czh0ofm",
"czh1bfd"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"It's not the buyer's choice. If the property you want is only available leasehold, then you'll have to have it leasehold. It's the seller that decides.",
"A lot of land owned by the government isn't legally allowed to be sold since it is for the use of the government/people of the land. However they can lease the land out to private parties. Normally the lease is for a very normal amount of time but sometimes and industry grows (like Guinness) and the cost to re-locate would be high. So they work out a deal to \"lease\" the land forever rather than go about trying to get a special law passed.",
"It's not there as a benefit to the seller but to the owner of the property. If they sell it, they lose it forever & have no control over it. If they lease it, they can impose conditions on it.\n\nLike, let's say you want somebody to make beer in your town. You give them a great piece of land. After 5 years, they decide to sell it to somebody who wants to built a WalMart. If you've sold them the land, you have no power to stop this. If you leased the land, you can terminate the lease and/or find somebody else who will run a brewery on that spot."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://qz.com/592459/the-secret-world-of-membership-libraries/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
25r11r
|
France has detonated over 210 nuclear devices to Britain's 45. Why did France pursue a much more aggressive nuclear testing regime than Britain?
|
I'm aware that this is borderline breaking the 20 years rule as some of those French nuclear detonations have been in the past 20 years, but the bulk of those detonations were prior to that.
The thread on [American/Soviet nuclear weapons](_URL_0_) yielded this [YouTube video](_URL_1_) (10 min long) breaking down nuclear weapon detonations between 1945 and 1998. It shows a MUCH greater rate of French nuclear detonations than British (over 4 times as many nuclear weapons detonated, despite attaining nuclear arms AFTER Britain). What is the rationale for this? Is it simply that the US and Britain maintained closer military ties/technology sharing and so many tests were unnecessary for Britain?
/u/restricteddata and /u/teslasmash, I'm particularly interested in your answers (although really EVERYONE in this subreddit is wildly more qualified to speak on such matters than me).
Edit: Mods if the 20 years rule is being broken here, I will modify the question specifically to the year 1994.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25r11r/france_has_detonated_over_210_nuclear_devices_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chjy7tw",
"chjz2dm",
"chk27ga",
"chk5c08",
"chk6p8y",
"chka9zy",
"chkc3qn"
],
"score": [
217,
56,
95,
4,
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"A number of reasons really. They didn't sign on to the [Partial Test Ban Treaty](_URL_0_) in 1963, so they weren't under any international treaty regulation. France has 75% nuclear energy, so they had fissile material in abundance. Being so heavily invested in nuclear energy is (or was) a huge source of pride for France. Also, Nuclear Weapons Scientist *want* to test bombs. They don't want to figure out ways to dispose of them or do mock tests. That's not what they trained for and that's not what they dreamed of while studying. It's an interesting case study because there were massive protests against the tests, and it hurt France's reputation internationally, yet they persisted.\n\nI'd have to dig up my syllabus for a class I took on Nuclear Proliferation to get all the sources but you can read more in: The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II G Hecht, M Callon, 2009 _URL_1_",
"Just read about the reasons that France withdrew from NATO. De Gaulle didn't like playing second fiddle to the Anglo-American alliance, so sought his own defense establishment to enable him to come to independent terms with the Eastern Bloc in the event of WWIII. Obviously the creation of a third Cold War political faction would require a strong nuclear program. \n\nOne could suppose that underlying the French position was the Anglo-American stance on the leadership of the Free French during WWII (they were certainly not fond of De Gaulle). From the French leadership's position, they were fighting not only the Germans in WWII, but also the Vichy French, so France deserved to be treated as an equal power on par with the pre-war status quo.",
"One thing worth noting: The modern submarine-based British ballistic missile force, the [Vanguard class](_URL_1_), uses US-designed [Trident missiles](_URL_4_). Their predecessors, the [Resolution class](_URL_3_), used US-designed [Polaris missiles](_URL_5_). This helps to remove the burden of testing, since the British and Americans could share research during the design and testing of these warheads.\n\nYou can read more about the missile-sharing agreement[ here] (_URL_0_) and the short-version of the UK's nuclear weapons program [here].\n(_URL_2_).\n\nBasically, you could say that you were correct to surmise that the UK required less nuclear testing due to the relationship they have with the United States, whereas France has a very independent nuclear weapons program.",
"In 1958 the U.S. and the U.K. signed a [Mutual Defense Agreement](_URL_0_) with provisions to share nuclear test data and likely even elements of the nuclear weapons design. Many of the U.S. tests can be seen as a joined US/UK tests.",
"I know this is also off topic, but I'm currently holidaying in Bora Bora and I'd be very interested to find out more about the longer effects of their 30 years of testing in the region. Have there been any implications of fallout for the locals (bad, unintentional pun)? Is there a map somewhere online of where the tests took place and their radiation areas? Completely fascinating given how gorgeous FP is. ",
"Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., France has been invaded and occupied, and both suffered at the hands of the nazis and had to mightily fight at the political level against a planned Germany-like occupation by the U.S. \n\nRoosevelt had a deep-seated hatred of the French (De Gaulle recalled one of his first meetings with Roosevelt, which happenned under heavy guard of soldiers armed with machine-guns, which gave De Gaulle the impression that Roosevelt looked like a gangster or at least a bully), and wanted to level France's heavy-industry, so it would be dependent on U.S. made goods, prevent it from having an army, and put it essentially under a military occupation régime.\n\nIt was only when De Gaulle finally convinced Roosevelt that the Résistance would turn against the U.S. that he finally relented and \"allowed\" France it's rightful place amongst the victors. Following Roosevelt's death, as nearly no one in the US held his contempt of France, it was a no brainer that France was no longer under threat of occupation.\n\nThis is the main reason why many French have no trust whatsoever towards the USA, and the Mers Èl Kébir \"incident\" also did not help towards the British.\n\nAs it saw the world polarize into two superpower camps, the obvious conclusion that the sole guarantor of a country's sovereignty was the nuclear weapon, hence the French insistance of pursuing it's own nuclear military programme, and it made no secrets that it's strike force was to be \"tous azimuths\", that is, it was not solely aimed at the Soviet Union.",
"In addition to what has already been posted here, there were political reasons for engaging in so many nuclear tests. At least initially, the French government engaged in nuclear research with no intention of producing a bomb. However, the Mendes-France government in 1954 used the development of a nuclear bomb as political leverage. [An essay](_URL_0_) by Leopoldo Nuti in the _Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History_ (Chapter 16) about postwar nuclear arms in Europe puts it thusly:\n\n > That the decision [to develop the bomb] was made shortly after the conclusion of the negotiations for the formation of the WEU [Western European Union] and the rearmament of West Germany clearly shows the implicit rationale behind the French government’s thinking. A French nuclear bomb was meant above all to keep France a step ahead of Germany in the political and military realm, in order to perpetually freeze the balance of power between the two countries. At the same time, at least during the mid-1950s, a French bomb was also conceived as the main tool to participate in the decision-making process of NATO strategy. It was, in other words, still an Atlantic bomb, particularly if the US was willing to share its nuclear secrets with its allies.\n\nHowever, when France withdrew from NATO in 1966, the development of nuclear weapons took on a different imperative, one that involved de Gaulle's idea of a kind of third way in the Cold War:\n\n > With the passing of time, however, this possible multilateralization of the French nuclear programme became increasingly difficult to reconcile with “the imperatives of national sovereignty.” Eventually it was abandoned with the return to power of de Gaulle, who conceived a French bomb as the ultimate guarantee of the country’s more independent attitude in international relations. The _force de frappe_ quickly became the cornerstone of de Gaulle’s project for the transformation of his country’s foreign policy, and in the following years it acquired a symbolic status which went beyond the military and strategic value attributed to it by French nuclear strategists.\n\nThere was, in short, a certain status given to nuclear powers in the postwar world that was a strong motivating factor for the development of a nuclear weapons program in France, particularly with the increased pushback from the French to Americanization (derogatorily referred to as \"Coca-colization\"). Gabrielle Hecht and Michel Callon link the nuclear program and its importance directly to French national identity in [_The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II_](_URL_1_), and while most of the book is about the use of nuclear power, it definitely touches on nuclear weapons. Since the two are linked, I would check it out for further info (especially Chapter 7: \"Atomic Vintage\")."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25pitx/so_what_was_the_difference_between_usa_and_russia/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lquok4Pdk"
] |
[
[
"http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/frances-nuclear-testing-programme/",
"books.google.com"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ssp.navy.mil/fb101/ukssp.shtml",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine",
"https://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/sdr06/FactSheet5.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_class_submarine",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_\\(missile\\)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US-UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=-YEbj56s_OYC&pg=RA1-PT331&dq=post+war+france+nuclear&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cXx3U4qlDc6hqAaS3oHIAw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=nuti&f=false",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=8yl2BbxqFY0C&pg=PA12&dq=post+war+france+nuclear&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cXx3U4qlDc6hqAaS3oHIAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=post%20war%20france%20nuclear&f=false"
]
] |
|
51bt0b
|
How does gene therapy/crispr affect every single cell in the body?
|
Whether its by a viral vector or crispr, I understand how they alter DNA but I don't know how they manage to get delivered to every cell. If one cell is altered, does the genome of every cell change? What exactly happens?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/51bt0b/how_does_gene_therapycrispr_affect_every_single/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7b0hry"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"They don't. Getting CRISPR to the right tissue is a completely separate problem, and it's not solved right now. Until it is, CRISPR has research value but not therapeutic value. \n\nDelivering CRISPR to a single cell changes that cell and cells created from that cell by cell division. This means that delivering CRISPR to a reproductive cell (sperm or egg) will affect the entire organism created from it (this is called germline editing and is extremely ethically problematic), and delivering it to a stem cell will affect all cells derived from it. For other cells, how far the effect spreads depends on how much that type of cell divides. \n\nBut in no circumstance does CRISPR jump from cell to cell. Yet — there is no theoretical reason why you couldn't do that if you insert the right genes into the target cell, but that's way more complicated than anything we can do today with genetic engineering. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.